Index Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVI [Archive] - Page 3

Galloglaich

2014-10-20, 06:33 PM

Thanks. I had the chance to chat about - although unfortunately not to witness - Indian martial arts when I was there a few years ago. It's a very interesting subject.

Even more so in that, among the Sikhs, the girls fight too...

Thanks, that's extremely interesting.

Thanks. That's a good point...although I was thinking (and should have said) a little more medieval.

There were apparently some martial arts manuals of the Mamluks, the slave soldiers of Egypt and beyond who had the impressive pedigree of defeating both the European Crusaders and the Mongol horde, albeit at great cost.

Some links:
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/64501-mamluk-manual-military-practice-horsemanship-egypt-syria-1470-a.html

http://the-mamluk-faris.blogspot.ca/2005/06/training-of-mamluk-faris.html

You have to kind of separate three things, living traditions of martial arts, and martial arts manuals, and manuals of warfare with elements of personal combat in them.

All have important roles in disseminating martial arts, but they are all different. In the case of the Mamluks they had both, the Sikhs have a strong living tradition of martial arts (of which Gatka is just one of the surviving sport elements) but as far as I know no manual yet.

But! One of the really neat things about the HEMA revival is that it has sparked interest I martial arts traditions, and specifically in martial arts manuals, in many places. East Asia has perhaps the worlds most famous martial arts traditions, but aside from Musashi's famous book of the five rings, little was known about any manuals of fencing from the region. But in the last several years there has been a "re-emergence" (or perhaps, repopularization) of some other Japanese and Korean manuals which had been kind of 'hiding in plain sight' like the European ones had.

Arguably the most common form of martial art, and some ways the most effective, is wrestling or grappling, and almost every region has their own version of that.

Ottoman wrestling traditions are celebrated in an annual tournament which has been going on since 1346

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%B1rkp%C4%B1nar

There are wrestling traditions in North Africa, Persia, and throughout the Arab world.

Sub-Saharan Africa has surviving fencing, wrestling, spear and stick fighting traditions. Nelson Mandella (http://www.southafrica.net/za/en/articles/entry/article-southafrica.net-xhosa-stick-fighting) was an accomplished stick-fighter from the region where he grew up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguni_stick-fighting

This is remarkably similar in certain respects to Irish stick fighting which is also taught in some living traditions, I've had the honor of meeting one of the few surviving instructors of one version of that, Maxime Choinard of Canada.

They have several distinct stick-fighting traditions in other regions of Africa.

Zulu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBvSOA5Kck

Ethiopian - this is with larger sticks and in some ways is similar to Portuguese Jogo do Pao.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_bT47aoruw

Some people argue incidentally that jogo do pao is linked to Filipino martial arts like Kali / Arnis / Eskrima.

There is a guy in Austin, Tx named Da'Mon Stith who does African martial arts including fencing, and he came in third in Messer in one of the big HEMA tournaments earlier this year in Houston (purpleheart armoury open).

One of my favorite surviving martial arts is Kazakh horse wrestling. It gives you some insight into what a close cavalry fight might be like, it's interesting how much the horses get into it (adding a good bit of danger I'd bet)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C86d-vGEIDg

G

Knaight

2014-10-20, 07:15 PM

rs2excelsior

2014-10-20, 08:15 PM

2: Before we invented modern grenade launchers was there ever a period of time when soldiers used something like an Atlatl to assist with tossing grenades over long distances?

Thanks!

There have been some edge cases involving using slings, but as far as I know there's never been real military use of anything of the sort.

Not like an Atlatl per se. The earliest grenades were simply gunpowder-filled, fused, clay (?) pots used by Grenadiers. They never really saw widespread use (the Grenadiers outlived the weapons they were named for, although some Grenadier units I believe did keep some grenades for assaulting fortifications and the like). There was no throwing implement that I'm aware of, but two things were used in the World Wars to throw small explosives. Light mortars served well in this role--they were relatively mobile and could rapidly lob shells at an enemy, even one who'd taken cover behind a wall or in a trench.

I don't think that's what you're after, though. Rifle grenades are probably closer. They're either grenades specifically designed to be attached to the end of a rifle barrel (many times with fins), or attachments to the end of the rifle to hold a grenade. Many used a blank cartridge to fire it, some a standard cartridge. They're still in use today, although generally grenade launchers have replaced them.

For a bit of further reading, if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade

Talakeal

2014-10-20, 08:36 PM

Actually I was thinking of something like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Chuckit-Classic-Launcher-Colors-Vary/dp/B00006IX59/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413855318&sr=8-1&keywords=ball+thrower

It makes it so much easier to throw a ball that I was surprised there wasn't something like it for grenades.

rs2excelsior

2014-10-20, 08:39 PM

So far as I know there isn't, although as I said, rifle grenades fill about the same niche (with a much longer range).

Galloglaich

2014-10-20, 08:46 PM

So far as I know there isn't, although as I said, rifle grenades fill about the same niche (with a much longer range).

The staff-sling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)#Staff_sling

Also grenade launchers go back a lot further than you probably think...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Hand_mortar_in_the_british_museum.JPG

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

G

Thiel

2014-10-20, 09:02 PM

While not what you're looking for, the French did use these fantastically weird crossbows/slingshots to toss grenades
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/larbalete-la-sauterelle-type-a-dimphy/
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/larbalete.jpg

Zizka

2014-10-21, 04:21 AM

It was practised right through the Byzantine Empire, until it was outlawed in 393AD by Emperor Theodosios I. While that's late antiquity rather than early medieval, it must surely have persisted in places, with enthusiasts a while longer. It's easier to justify something ancient surviving a lot longer than we know, than appearing earlier than we have any evidence for.

Fair enough.

There were apparently some martial arts manuals of the Mamluks, the slave soldiers of Egypt and beyond who had the impressive pedigree of defeating both the European Crusaders and the Mongol horde, albeit at great cost.

Some links:
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/64501-mamluk-manual-military-practice-horsemanship-egypt-syria-1470-a.html
http://the-mamluk-faris.blogspot.ca/2005/06/training-of-mamluk-faris.html

Thanks, those are really very cool.

There was an interesting episode of "In Our Time" (a British radio programme in which academics talk about a particular subject) in which one of the academics claimed that some Europeans joined the Mamluks in order to benefit from the (rough) meritocracy, even continuing to worship as Christians in secret.

Galloglaich

2014-10-21, 08:16 AM

Fair enough.

Thanks, those are really very cool.

There was an interesting episode of "In Our Time" (a British radio programme in which academics talk about a particular subject) in which one of the academics claimed that some Europeans joined the Mamluks in order to benefit from the (rough) meritocracy, even continuing to worship as Christians in secret.

I wouldn't be surprised, though you couldn't fake the circumcision (ouch!)

There were some very famous European (I think Dutch and Spanish? and maybe Italian too?) pirates who were at least closely allied with both the Ottomans and the Mamluks at various points. Some of their most important Corsairs. They were considered to be apostates though and some of them were extraordinarily cruel to Christian captives.

G

Mr. Mask

2014-10-21, 08:36 AM

Storm Bringer

2014-10-21, 09:55 AM

Carl

2014-10-21, 10:01 AM

I think he was asking could someone chose to use a lesser title they're entitled to when they become the more powerful part of the equation.

e.g. a hypothetical English civil war. a whole bunch of nobles fight it out and in the end the Dukes get defeated by a lesser titled individual who managed to outplay them politically. He could theoretically rule under his lesser title with the Duke's subservient to him even though dukes would normally outrank him.

Storm Bringer

2014-10-21, 10:13 AM

e.g. a hypothetical English civil war. a whole bunch of nobles fight it out and in the end the Dukes get defeated by a lesser titled individual who managed to outplay them politically. He could theoretically rule under his lesser title with the Duke's subservient to him even though dukes would normally outrank him.

as far as I know, that's never happened. My understanding is that the normal course of action would be to acquire the title of one of the high ranking nobles as part of the treaty, and then use that (use the duke of Lancaster above, take the Duchy and let him keep the earldoms, but make all those earldoms explicit vassals of the Duchy, if they were not already).

That's not to say a competent lord with only a minor title could not be an important mover and shaker if he played his cards right. Just that he'd normally acquire a higher title fairly quickly, if his importance warranted it.

Brother Oni

2014-10-21, 11:30 AM

The closest I can think of is Oliver Cromwell who took the title of Lord Protector rather than King, although he did act and was treated like a king in all but name.

The only other possibility is in the case of people who prefer being kingmakers and other regimes with figurehead puppet leaders, for example the Japanese state of Manchuko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo#Head_of_State), where it was ostensibly ruled by an Emperor, but the Japanese military leader was the one pulling the strings.

Mr. Mask

2014-10-21, 12:03 PM

Thanks guys. I thought there mightn't be a case, but you came up with good examples despite that. Puppet kings are probably the closest thing.

Sorry for the subject change, but I was curious about the subject of steampunk and pneumatic weapons. Supposing you had a world where gunpowder and electricity weren't discovered, I wonder what sort of weapons you might create through boilers and pneumatic rigs.

Someone came up with the idea of a military steam-powered water gun. Shoot hot steam and water on your enemies. Might work well as a defensive weapon in a fortress. Not sure if you could get it mobile enough to use in the field or other situations (maybe have some kind of military steam-tractors that carry the gun).

Flamethrowers also come to mind, when discussing pneumatic weapons. Steampunk might become firepunk, if other effective uses aren't found for the technology.

Incanur

2014-10-21, 02:05 PM

Leonardo da Vinci produced designs for a steam cannon that boated impressive performance. MIT (http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/steamCannon/ArchimedesSteamCannon.html) managed to make a smaller model work, so da Vinci's steam cannon may have actually existed. A fantasy world without effective gunpowder weapons might use steam cannons. The gun da Vinci described supposedly shot a one-talent ball (51-71lb) out to six stadia (1,200 yards). Based on those numbers and the MIT test, steam cannons in theory could perhaps match 15th-century European artillery. And later pneumatic dynamites guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite_gun) were more powerful still.

The 1860 Winans Steam Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winans_Steam_Gun) was a steam-powered machine gun, though it's unclear whether it could actually deliver enough force to kill. A Mythbusters test said no. There are period claims that an earlier steam-powered machine gun, the Perkins (http://lateralscience.blogspot.com/2012/07/mr-perkins-extraordinary-steam-gun-of.html) model, could penetrate eleven wood plank and a quarter inch of steel, but that may have just been marketing hype.

Brother Oni

2014-10-22, 03:04 AM

There was the Girandoni Air Rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle), which was mentioned in a previous thread.

Going onto flamethrowers, some accounts of Greek fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire) used by the Byzantines mention they used a water hose like projector.

Taking even back further, there was Archimedes' Burning Mirrors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_glass), which used curved mirrors to focus sunlight on incoming Roman warships to set them on fire, in an Antiquity version of a heat ray.
Several tests have proven this to be possible, with sufficient sunlight, mirrors and people adjusting those mirrors: link 1 (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mirrors.htm), link 2 (http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResult.html).

Note that the Burning Mirrors require plenty of strong, uninterrupted sunlight, so perfect for use in the Mediterranean, not so much in Northern Europe.

Incanur

2014-10-22, 08:36 AM

The interesting thing about Girandoni-style air rifles is that, based on recent reconstructions as well as the performance of modern air rifles, they wouldn't be able to do anything to circa-1500 European armor. We're talking 300 joules from the muzzle at best. (16th-century pistols, the least of the guns, managed 900+ J at the muzzle.) So you could have accurate handheld air guns that could be shot faster than most bows but had if anything less ability to kill through armor. I'm even skeptical a Girandoni ball could get through an all-fabric jack at close range.

Storm_Of_Snow

2014-10-22, 08:39 AM

The closest I can think of is Oliver Cromwell who took the title of Lord Protector rather than King, although he did act and was treated like a king in all but name.

And turned out to be even worse than the kings he deposed. :smalleek:

I think there's been a few people with higher honours or who're part of the nobility, who either use or have used lower honours or none at all, although I can't think of any particular examples off the top of my head.

Supposing you had a world where gunpowder and electricity weren't discovered, I wonder what sort of weapons you might create through boilers and pneumatic rigs.

Someone came up with the idea of a military steam-powered water gun. Shoot hot steam and water on your enemies. Might work well as a defensive weapon in a fortress. Not sure if you could get it mobile enough to use in the field or other situations (maybe have some kind of military steam-tractors that carry the gun).

Problem then becomes getting the water up to temperature and pressure to be useable, or holding it at that temperature and pressure until the enemy get to you, and making sure that the boiler and pipes don't get damaged - steam pressure cylinders are basically bombs waiting to go off, and a few feinted attacks might mean you run out of fuel for your boilers fairly quickly.

Things like boiling oil, boiling sand, and especially quicklime are probably a lot easier to keep ready.

A steam-gun tank/tractor would either reduce it's own mobility for a long time when it fires, or be very large and cumbersome because it's got two boilers, water and fuel supplies and so on), although even if you've not got gunpowder, you've got petrochemicals and a high chance of the internal combustion engine.

Flamethrowers also come to mind, when discussing pneumatic weapons. Steampunk might become firepunk, if other effective uses aren't found for the technology.
There were sapped flame projectors in WW1 IIRC, and you could certainly have things like a Churchill Crocodile, plus various sizes of firebombs. Maybe even Fuel-Air Explosives.

Taking even back further, there was Archimedes' Burning Mirrors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_glass), which used curved mirrors to focus sunlight on incoming Roman warships to set them on fire, in an Antiquity version of a heat ray.
Several tests have proven this to be possible, with sufficient sunlight, mirrors and people adjusting those mirrors: link 1 (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mirrors.htm), link 2 (http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResult.html).

Note that the Burning Mirrors require plenty of strong, uninterrupted sunlight, so perfect for use in the Mediterranean, not so much in Northern Europe.
That'll be the one that the Mythbusters have had three attempts at comfirming, without any kind of success whatsoever.

The MIT link, for instance, has modern silvered mirrors, a perfectly dry target sitting immobile at a very short distance, with the sun at it's zenith and in the optimal position. Try it with ancient greek bronze mirrors, at a boat that's not only in the water (and thus a bit damp), but has probably been in there for years, and is not only approching you, but moving up and down and rocking from side to side on the waves - one person probably couldn't keep one mirror on the same spot long enough for ignition to occur, let alone a large team of people trying to target a massive array of mirrors.

Possible, maybe. Reliable enough to base the defence of your nation and it's population on? No.

Carl

2014-10-22, 09:20 AM

That'll be the one that the Mythbusters have had three attempts at comfirming, without any kind of success whatsoever.

The MIT link, for instance, has modern silvered mirrors, a perfectly dry target sitting immobile at a very short distance, with the sun at it's zenith and in the optimal position. Try it with ancient greek bronze mirrors, at a boat that's not only in the water (and thus a bit damp), but has probably been in there for years, and is not only approching you, but moving up and down and rocking from side to side on the waves - one person probably couldn't keep one mirror on the same spot long enough for ignition to occur, let alone a large team of people trying to target a massive array of mirrors.

Possible, maybe. Reliable enough to base the defence of your nation and it's population on? No.

To be fair the mythbusters attempts are some of their least scientific works.

Instead of taking a simple broad output lamp and figuring how much energy intake they need to get enough energy output to start the burn, and then figuring out how much that equates to in mirror surface area required they just jumped straight in. Also as strange as it may sound, because of the ignition difficulty factors you mentioned ship motion would likely be a limited issue except at very close range as the target would barely seem to move.

That said i agree it would be tough, just not impossible. And given that Arcemidies invented some kind of boat sinking claw thingy that no one's been able to come up with a reasonable operating method for that actually worked i wouldn't rule the guy out if it's even theoretically possible to do.

Kiero

2014-10-22, 09:41 AM

at a boat that's not only in the water (and thus a bit damp), but has probably been in there for years,

Everything else you were saying notwithstanding, this is completely incorrect; ancient galleys were not left in the water "for years" or indeed any longer than necessary. Ideally they were dry-docked when not in use, and beached (as in dragged out of the water and left on their keel) above the waterline to dry out at night when in use. They were not moored and left floating in the water in harbour. They needed to be wet in order to become water-tight (because the planks would absorb water and swell up), but the longer they were in the water and the more water they absorbed, the worse they'd perform (because they'd get heavier and sit lower in the water). A navy with dried out hulls had an advantage over an opposing force which had been at sea for any extended period of time.

Gnoman

2014-10-22, 12:03 PM

Kiero

2014-10-22, 12:26 PM

They'd be left in the water for years when they were part of a fleet that had been laying siege for years. The siege of Syracuse lasted from 214-212 BC, and when you add in travel time, that's quite a lengthy amount of time in the water just for that trip.

No they wouldn't. The Romans were atrocious sailors, but even they wouldn't be stupid enough to leave their ships in the water for that length of time. Not only would they maneuver like hogs, they'd be prone to rot. Furthermore, you couldn't keep your oarsmen at their benches for more than a couple of nights before they'd want to rest and eat a proper meal on dry land. If you were expecting them to catch ships trying to break the blockade, you wouldn't unnecessarily tire and annoy them by doing that. There's no way the large complements of marines that the Romans favoured could have lived aboard a ship at sea for days on end, either.

A naval blockade in this period wasn't like the Age of Sail, where a ship could stay on station indefinitely, as long as it was supplied. They had to beach at night, on some suitable stretch of coast nearby the site of the siege. Every morning they'd muster and get their ships off the beach, and put them back into shore again at night.

Roxxy

2014-10-22, 12:51 PM

Speaking of Romans, how effective was the plumbata in combat?

Mr. Mask

2014-10-22, 04:04 PM

Incanur, Oni: Thanks for the great examples! Good to see a decent replica of a steam cannon working. The air rifle also seems very interesting. Going to look into it.

Incanur's mention of the lack of penetration on air rifles could be an interesting aspect to a setting without powder. Unless there's some figuration you can build specifically for heavy armour, then heavy crossbows and flamethrowers would be what you use for heavy armour (and of course artillery). Bows might even stick around for a middle-ground of penetration and rate of fire.

Snow: Boilers are temperamental technology. In a world without black powder, you might see some boilers purpose-built to blow up (finding ways to apply such weapons would be tricky).

Petroleum vehicles are definitely a step up. Part of the reason I suggested a steam rig was that you could have one engine (boiler) supplying the pressure for the vehicle and for the water gun.

Fire based explosives would certainly be the way to go without black powder, and it'd be interesting to see the technology emphasize the elements you mention where you have the steam-powered dynamite-throwers throwing fuel-air explosives.

Archimedes' Mirror: Mythbusters took a crack at this one, and I must say I was surprised of their methods. I wouldn't say they had three tries at it, as the third was nothing more than a publicity stunt. They got a better results with nearly half the mirrors in smaller size. The strangest thing is that they got such good results from the limited time they put into the project, but assume no one could do it better given more time and skill (they didn't even realize a parabolic mirror could burn stuff).

The mirror requires enough light to be used, that does limit the time you can use it and the geography you can use it in. The mirror's existence, however, means you effectively prevent enemies from starting battles early or mid-day. The enemy is forced to face the mirror, or prepare for a night battle (since if the battle drags on, it'll turn into one).

Weather is a concern for the mirror, powder weapons, and the soldiers of both sides. If the enemy has to attack in driving rain, or just waste time waiting around for a dim, cloudy day to fight on, the mirror may do more damage than if they faced its beam and lost a few ships.

There were a few other complaints the Mythbusters made, ranging from picky to baseless. I remember them, but will only spend time on them if asked.

Kiero: I love those little details of how war changes and evolves in history. The strategy changes when you need to make sure your ships have bay area to dry out on periodically. Choices can arise, of whether you press on with your fleet to hopefully gain advantage, or stop to dry them out lest they become unwieldy.

Kiero

2014-10-22, 04:16 PM

The mirror requires enough light to be used, that does limit the time you can use it and the geography you can use it in. The mirror's existence, however, means you effectively prevent enemies from starting battles early or mid-day. The enemy is forced to face the mirror, or prepare for a night battle (since if the battle drags on, it'll turn into one).

They didn't find on land at night in antiquity, never mind at sea. Night time was rest time for ships, not fighting time. Trying to maneuver a fleet in the dark is asking for a lot of wrecks. One of the ways the Greeks won the big sea battle at Artemisium was by starting late and dragging the battle out til it was too dark for the Persians to make their greater numbers count.

I love those little details of how war changes and evolves in history. The strategy changes when you need to make sure your ships have bay area to dry out on periodically. Choices can arise, of whether you press on with your fleet to hopefully gain advantage, or stop to dry them out lest they become unwieldy.

The ability to feed and rest your oarsmen is actually a much more serious constraint; I doubt you could persuade a crew of rowers to stay at their benches more than a few days without causing a mutiny. An oarsman doesn't have a terribly pleasant time doing their job (but contrary to myths perpetuated by Ben Hur, the vast majority were professionals working for pay, not slaves), it's hot, sweaty, stinky, hard work. They look forward to getting fresh air and the chance to stretch out on the beach at night. By contrast, you could probably go several weeks without properly drying out the hull before it would become completely unsuitable for combat.

But yes, those sorts of details really are cool and can enhance a campaign a great deal if you're aware of them. A fleet is most vulnerable while beached. Not only because the crews are dispersed on the sands where they can be attacked/captured/driven off, but also because you can grab the ships themselves, only having to overpower whomever is supposed to be watching them. Or burn them.

These sorts of galleys were popular in the Mediterranean because they're fast and manoeuvrable, though not massively seaworthy. Fortunately, the Med is a relatively gentle, inland sea (winter storms aside), so they're seaworthy enough not to be too dangerous. Look at the trouble Julius Caesar had trying to take Mediterranean-style galleys to Britain (he had to build new boats in the Gallic style able to take the English Channel/Atlantic). Plus the coastlines are rich with sandy beaches, which is all you really need as far as docking arrangements go.

warty goblin

2014-10-22, 04:24 PM

They didn't find on land at night in antiquity, never mind at sea. Night time was rest time for ships, not fighting time. Trying to maneuver a fleet in the dark is asking for a lot of wrecks. One of the ways the Greeks won the big sea battle at Artemisium was by starting late and dragging the battle out til it was too dark for the Persians to make their greater numbers count.

Or at least night battles were very unusual. I recall at least one in Herodotus though, involving the attackers literally dressing up as ghosts.

snowblizz

2014-10-22, 04:26 PM

Can anyone think of a case where someone of a lesser title ruled over someone of a grander title? Like if Lord Ladeez had his vassal Arch Duke Charlebum, or King Richness and his vassal Eternal Emperor Steve. Generally, when someone becomes important, you expect them to take a high title to match... but that expectation doesn't necessarily hold true. Any examples come to mind?

The only even remotely applicable I can think of would be the Shogun. Everyone (who mattered) kinda knew he kept the Emperor under his thumb, but they all worked under the assumption the Shogun was the vassal. So really again puppet-King relation.

Not sure how to consider certain modern dictators eg who could come from lower military rank but lord over higher ones since they'd top the civilian (political positions) ladder which "outranks" the military I guess.

short answer, no. the only cases I can think of is the Duke of Normandy (a title held by the King of England after 1066) being, theoretically a vassal of the King of France, but I can't find any reference to the Norman kings of England paying homage to the kings of France.
That would not be a good example in that the French king would not be a weaker part (socially? speaking, not necessarily practically speaking). That kinda thing did happen. A big reason for the 100YW was this "subservience" from the English king to the French king. Apparently Edward I did render homage to the new French king to preserve the peace. I think some others before and/or after also did.

the only other example I can think of is that one of Queen Victoria's many offspring was due to marry the Austrian emperor, and they created the title "empress of India" to ensure that Vic was not outrank by her own child.
While the symbolism of the matter is hard to discount, nothing says an Emperor "ranks" higher than a king really. Or any other title of a sovereign. The King or Queen of the United Kingdom was for a long time more powerful than most Emperors.

As far as I can tell, feudal loyalty was ultimately based on the ability of the higher nobles to enforce their will on their vassals. if a title and it's land was inherited by a noble who outranked them or was more powerful, then tough, you've just lost that title.More or less. Or the tacit acceptance of the situation at least. I feel like I've seen situations where a higher lord was vassal of a lower one, but usually then only for some minor part of their larger holdings. And I suspect some kind of arrangement would eventually be made, some exchange perhaps.

Mr Beer

2014-10-22, 04:59 PM

Archimedes' Mirror: Mythbusters took a crack at this one, and I must say I was surprised of their methods. I wouldn't say they had three tries at it, as the third was nothing more than a publicity stunt. They got a better results with nearly half the mirrors in smaller size. The strangest thing is that they got such good results from the limited time they put into the project, but assume no one could do it better given more time and skill (they didn't even realize a parabolic mirror could burn stuff).

MB is a fun show but I try not to mistake it for rigorous scientific experimentation. I'm mostly in it for the pretty explosions and I sometimes think they are too.

EDIT

I have definitely learnt stuff from it though, I think I was somewhat aware of the lack of knock-back from bullets and the science behind it but the show when they hung up pig carcasses and blasted them with different guns was still somewhat startling. IIRC the bodies weren't knocked back even a little bit until they cracked out the 12 gauge solid slugs. Standard issue rifles, pistols etc. just put holes in them.

Mr. Mask

2014-10-22, 04:59 PM

They didn't find on land at night in antiquity, never mind at sea. Night time was rest time for ships, not fighting time. Trying to maneuver a fleet in the dark is asking for a lot of wrecks. Precisely my point. Though, perhaps I underestimated the difficulty of managing a night attack at sea.
Or at least night battles were very unusual. I recall at least one in Herodotus though, involving the attackers literally dressing up as ghosts. That was awesome! I love it when things like that happen in war/history.

The ability to feed and rest your oarsmen is actually a much more serious constraint; I doubt you could persuade a crew of rowers to stay at their benches more than a few days without causing a mutiny. An oarsman doesn't have a terribly pleasant time doing their job (but contrary to myths perpetuated by Ben Hur, the vast majority were professionals working for pay, not slaves), it's hot, sweaty, stinky, hard work. They look forward to getting fresh air and the chance to stretch out on the beach at night.

But yes, those sorts of details really are cool and can enhance a campaign a great deal if you're aware of them. A fleet is most vulnerable while beached. Not only because the crews are dispersed on the sands where they can be attacked/captured/driven off, but also because you can grab the ships themselves, only having to overpower whomever is supposed to be watching them. Or burn them.

These sorts of galleys were popular in the Mediterranean because they're fast and manoeuvrable, though not massively seaworthy. Fortunately, the Med is a relatively gentle, inland sea (winter storms aside), so they're seaworthy enough not to be too dangerous. Look at the trouble Julius Caesar had trying to take Mediterranean-style galleys to Britain (he had to build new boats in the Gallic style able to take the English Channel/Atlantic). Plus the coastlines are rich with sandy beaches, which is all you really need as far as docking arrangements go. True that your movement is dictated by the morale of your rowers. Well, morale normally limits that with infantry and sailors, but it ought to be more pronounced in rowers. I think there were some interesting accounts where disagreeable rowers lead to problems.

I keep hearing it both ways with the slave rowers. One thing I heard was that professional rowers were used for military ships, and other ships had the choice between cheaper slaves, or more trustworthy and skilled professional oarsmen. Would this be inaccurate?

Those are the sort of details I love to see in a game, and the sort of setting I like to write/design around.

Blizz: Thanks for the example with the Shogun. Interestingly, at times even the Shogun could be a puppet.

Since you mention, I guess I'll say that Extra History is going to look at the Sengoku Jidai next, now that they've finished the start of WW1.

MB is a fun show but I try not to mistake it for rigorous scientific experimentation. I'm mostly in it for the pretty explosions and I sometimes think they are too.

EDIT

I have definitely learnt stuff from it though, I think I was somewhat aware of the lack of knock-back from bullets and the science behind it but the show when they hung up pig carcasses and blasted them with different guns was still somewhat startling. IIRC the bodies weren't knocked back even a little bit until they cracked out the 12 gauge solid slugs. Standard issue rifles, pistols etc. just put holes in them. That sums it up well. I think they are in it for the pretty explosions, and entertainment value. The odd thing is, they seem to take their conclusions very seriously (or at least very rigidly).

I do have to say that regardless of their strange conclusions, the experiments you get to witness can be very interesting and even educational. The deathray episode, while I found their conclusion bizarre and frustrating, I learnt a lot about how effective the deathray and got to see some interesting tests done with the concept. I appreciate that aspect of the show (but would appreciate it more if they weren't so arrogant of their conclusions). So I am also in agreement with you on that.

Kiero

2014-10-22, 05:35 PM

Precisely my point. Though, perhaps I underestimated the difficulty of managing a night attack at sea. That was awesome! I love it when things like that happen in war/history.

True that your movement is dictated by the morale of your rowers. Well, morale normally limits that with infantry and sailors, but it ought to be more pronounced in rowers. I think there were some interesting accounts where disagreeable rowers lead to problems.

I keep hearing it both ways with the slave rowers. One thing I heard was that professional rowers were used for military ships, and other ships had the choice between cheaper slaves, or more trustworthy and skilled professional oarsmen. Would this be inaccurate?

Those are the sort of details I love to see in a game, and the sort of setting I like to write/design around.

Most of the sources suggest slave oarsmen were a minority. While I don't disagree that it was an option, I think it's one most sensible mariners would avoid unless they were desperate. Which makes sense with a little unpacking. Let's take a trireme/trieres, which has a rower complement of 180, around 15 officers/sailors and up to another 15 marines (archers and hoplites). Your marines are outnumbered more than 10:1 by the oarsmen (you could probably double your marine complement, though things would get tight for space and threaten stability even further).

If these rowers are all slaves chained to their benches at sea, then they also have to be kept in a pen or some other sort of enclosure on the beach at night (which you need to build and take down again every night). They also need to be guarded. You have nearly two hundred strong, fit men who are being tired out in the daytime, but likely consumed with thoughts of how they're going to escape, or at least turn on their captors during the night. If your ship is boarded during a sea-fight (or indeed attacked on the beach) and you haven't treated your oarsmen well, there's always the risk they try to rise in the hopes your enemy will free them. If things go badly at sea, such as being hit by a bad storm, it's even more likely than normal you might have to face a mutiny.

Mixing slaves and professionals is probably a bad idea too. Being reminded that you could be a slave, were you captured or through some other mishap, is not a nice thing to have in your face. The corollary, that you could be free but for a quirk of fate is equally uncomfortable. You're all doing the same job, which makes it difficult to erect any sort of boundaries to show why one group is better off than the other. And you've probably got a permanent nucleus for revolt with the slaves.

I do think Athens was in a minority of one in using their lower classes as oarsmen. There it was a compact between citizen and state - get political power in return for serving the state in war. Similar to how a man with the wealth to afford a panoply could do the same as a soldier. But most city-states were aristocratic oligarchies where the elites didn't want to share any power with the lower orders, even less so Hellenistic kings. Thus hiring professionals prevented you from having to make concessions to the common people.

I agree with your last point entirely. I find the more I read about history, the less compelling fantasy becomes. Because history is so much richer than some made up stuff.

Raum

2014-10-22, 06:04 PM

Incanur

2014-10-22, 06:53 PM

Incanur, Oni:Incanur's mention of the lack of penetration on air rifles could be an interesting aspect to a setting without powder. Unless there's some figuration you can build specifically for heavy armour, then heavy crossbows and flamethrowers would be what you use for heavy armour (and of course artillery). Bows might even stick around for a middle-ground of penetration and rate of fire.

Even the most powerful 21st-century air guns probably couldn't penetrate 16th-century European tempered-steel plate armor right out of the muzzle. For example, the Barnes 87 Dragon man manages around 1,150 J with 0.87in slug. I doubt it could pierce more than 2mm mild steel. An air gun the size of 16th-century musket might, if operating with modern high-pressure air, prove sufficient to threaten somebody in quality harness, but it'd need a huge reservoir to get more than a shot or two per fill. That's what most current big-bore air guns get. And with Girandoni-era technology, performance would be worse still because of lower pressures. (Though the Girandoni replicas perform rather well given the low pressure used, and the originals may have been somewhat better.)

As far as modern tech goes, the Airrow Stealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airrow_A-8S_Stealth) compressed-air dart shooter seems like the best choice against armor. With high-pressure air it manages over 350 J with light darts. It also gets a dozen shots per fill and weighs only 4-5lbs. A sturdy dart delivering 350 J would pierce a lot of 16th-century European armor a close range. Presumably a larger version could hit harder still. But again, that's with modern technology.

In one of my own fantasy settings, Girandoni-style air rifles coexist with both steel and composite crossbows as well as composite and self bows. They're well-suited for skirmishing, especially from cover. Skilled gunners can aim for the face and other unarmed spots. They're useful but not superior to other handheld missile weapons. And they're essentially weapons for the better sort of common soldiers, not the weapons of heroes. Legendary warriors bend gryphon-bone bows and so on, while air guns don't scale up in the same fashion.

Storm Bringer

2014-10-23, 12:27 AM

The only even remotely applicable I can think of would be the Shogun. Everyone (who mattered) kinda knew he kept the Emperor under his thumb, but they all worked under the assumption the Shogun was the vassal. So really again puppet-King relation.

Not sure how to consider certain modern dictators eg who could come from lower military rank but lord over higher ones since they'd top the civilian (political positions) ladder which "outranks" the military I guess.

That would not be a good example in that the French king would not be a weaker part (socially? speaking, not necessarily practically speaking). That kinda thing did happen. A big reason for the 100YW was this "subservience" from the English king to the French king. Apparently Edward I did render homage to the new French king to preserve the peace. I think some others before and/or after also did.

well, it not "weaker", then at least of equivalent social rank, and still meaning the king of England was in theory under his control, despite being as powerful or more powerful.

While the symbolism of the matter is hard to discount, nothing says an Emperor "ranks" higher than a king really. Or any other title of a sovereign. The King or Queen of the United Kingdom was for a long time more powerful than most Emperors.

actually, emperor was considered a higher rank, and several emperors had kings as vassals.

... Emperors are generally recognized to be of a higher honor and rank than kings.

Within the European context, emperor and empress are considered the higher monarchical titles. However monarchs heading empires have not always used the title—the British sovereign did not assume the title until the incorporation of India into the British Empire, and even then used it only in a limited context. Emperors were once given precedence over kings, but under the pope, in international diplomatic relations; currently, precedence is decided by the length a head of state is continuously in office.

Yora

2014-10-23, 01:43 AM

Brother Oni

2014-10-23, 03:03 AM

The only even remotely applicable I can think of would be the Shogun. Everyone (who mattered) kinda knew he kept the Emperor under his thumb, but they all worked under the assumption the Shogun was the vassal. So really again puppet-King relation.

While Emperor was indeed subserviant to the Shogun at times, due to the nature of the culture, a Shogun becoming Emperor was unthinkable. I don't think even Oda Nobunaga considered it and he was regarded as one of the most ambitious and ruthless daimyo of all time (that didn't stop him from effectively pensioning off the Emperor as a figurehead ruler though - he wasn't stupid).

That would not be a good example in that the French king would not be a weaker part (socially? speaking, not necessarily practically speaking). That kinda thing did happen. A big reason for the 100YW was this "subservience" from the English king to the French king. Apparently Edward I did render homage to the new French king to preserve the peace. I think some others before and/or after also did.

To reinforce this point - during the Plantagenets, the King of England controlled more of France than the French King did:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/France_1154_Eng.jpg

I would think a lot of this paying homage would have been lip service, barring the treaties enforced after humilating defeats.

snowblizz

2014-10-23, 04:18 AM

Just saw a picture of Senegalese soldiers fighting on the western front in World War 1, and that had me wondering: What role played locally recruited colonial troops in the independence movements mid 20th century? Where those soldiers loyal to their colonial masters, or was there significant disertion to rebel armies?
Generalizing of course, as it was probably be different in different countries, but I really don't know anything about the subject. Any information on some specific cases would help.

I saw a documentary on how "international" the Great War was and it certainly made that claim. Sort of. More in the line of "we fought the same as your citizens but you don't consider us your equals". Many colonial powers expected things after WW1 to go back to normal, which clashed with expectations and sometimes promises made to many colonials. The 30-40 years or so between WW1 and post-WW2 probably ensured most actual soldiers weren't part-taking. The impetuous does seem to have come more from the next generation.

Just for funsies, the US officially complained to France that they should stop treating US black soldiers like equals so they wouldn't get any funny ideas. Or was that ww2, I forget. On the other hand I seem to recall a comparison drawn that their own Africans were considered barbaric, whereas the American-Africans were treated as Americans.

Kiero

2014-10-23, 04:25 AM

Just for funsies, the US officially complained to France that they should stop treating US black soldiers like equals so they wouldn't get any funny ideas. Or was that ww2, I forget. On the other hand I seem to recall a comparison drawn that their own Africans were considered barbaric, whereas the American-Africans were treated as Americans.

The US authorities made the same complaint in WW2 about black GIs stationed in Britain being treated as equals by the native population.

Jon_Dahl

2014-10-23, 05:11 AM

Storm Bringer

2014-10-23, 05:56 AM

Using M183 demo charge against Tiger II, what are the chances of the tank withstanding the attack (with the crew still living)?
I'm creating a time-hopping adventure, but I'm not finding any information about the kill zone or other similar stats about M183.

where on the tank? front glacis, turret, on the engine deck? a satchel charge could be very effective in the right location, or t could fail and do nothing.

best places to go for would be the running wheels (to detrack and immobilise the tank), and the engine deck to damage the engine.

the crew would likey survive the explosion, though they may be stunned by it, suffer bruising and the odd broken bone form being thrown around the inside, but generally to hurt the crew you need to defeat the armour, which HE satchel charge wasn't very good at. That said, thiers a good chance they might bail after the attack, If they thought their was a follow up or if critical systems were damaged.

PS: a quick look on wiki tells me that the M183 was a veitnam era demolition. the WW2 era satchel charge was the M37. since its time hopping you may already know this, but thought I'd point it out.

Jon_Dahl

2014-10-23, 06:00 AM

where on the tank? front glacis, turret, on the engine deck? a satchel charge could be very effective in the right location, or t could fail and do nothing.

best places to go for would be the running wheels (to detrack and immobilise the tank), and the engine deck to damage the engine.

the crew would likey survive the explosion, though they may be stunned by it, suffer bruising and the odd broken bone form being thrown around the inside, but generally to hurt the crew you need to defeat the armour, which HE satchel charge wasn't very good at. That said, thiers a good chance they might bail after the attack, If they thought their was a follow up or if critical systems were damaged.

PS: a quick look on wiki tells me that the M183 was a veitnam era demolition. the WW2 era satchel charge was the M37. since its time hopping you may already know this, but thought I'd point it out.

This response is more than sufficient, thank you :)

snowblizz

2014-10-23, 06:26 AM

well, it not "weaker", then at least of equivalent social rank, and still meaning the king of England was in theory under his control, despite being as powerful or more powerful. Actually not in theory at all. The king of England was not under his control at all. The Duke of Normandie, however, was, theoretically. They happened to be the same person. The kinds of issues it could lead to was exactly what happened. As mentioned on the homage wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_%28feudal%29). The French king wanted the English kings as duke to provide troops to fight in Spain, which the English king's Gascon subjects weren't keen on and probably appealed to their king that as a king he didn't need to heed the summons. Slow communications made the need for a decision moot however as a truce came.

Brother Oni

2014-10-23, 06:28 AM

This response is more than sufficient, thank you :)

I found this WW2 era image earlier of where to aim on a Tiger and with what munitions, that you might find useful:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub1/Cecina-Tig-vuln.gif

Jon_Dahl

2014-10-23, 06:41 AM

I found this WW2 era image earlier of where to aim on a Tiger and with what munitions, that you might find useful:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub1/Cecina-Tig-vuln.gif

Thanks Brother Oni, that's very informative!

A little background to the question:
I'm running a one-shot where the PCs time-travel from the modern age to the distant past. Even though M138 is quite old, it's still in use and considered modern enough. One of the PC has that and might use it against a Tiger II. If the player wants to roll a knowledge check to find a sweet spot for the demolition charge, I will use the image you provided, BO.

Storm Bringer

2014-10-23, 09:10 AM

Thanks Brother Oni, that's very informative!

A little background to the question:
I'm running a one-shot where the PCs time-travel from the modern age to the distant past. Even though M138 is quite old, it's still in use and considered modern enough. One of the PC has that and might use it against a Tiger II. If the player wants to roll a knowledge check to find a sweet spot for the demolition charge, I will use the image you provided, BO.

bear in mind these are roughly the same on most tanks (vison slots, the engine deck, the powered or drive wheel, etc). though their locations differ slightly form tank to tank.

also, it is common for tanks in combat to leave their hatches unlocked, because the crew might want to get out in a hurry. hell, it was a standard practice in most armies for a tank commander to stick his head out (http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/546369-4/4g4483k) so he can see what's going on better, as when "buttoned up", he has a much more limited field of view. It was for this reason that it was common to spray a tank with MG fire as you attempted to manoeuvre your AT team into place, as it meant the commander could not stick his head out and see what your doing, and it focused his attention on the MG team, not the AT team.

so, yhea, while on player is making the run to get that charge into place, someone is going to be trying to draw the tanks fire.......

rs2excelsior

2014-10-23, 09:16 AM

Thanks Brother Oni, that's very informative!

A little background to the question:
I'm running a one-shot where the PCs time-travel from the modern age to the distant past. Even though M138 is quite old, it's still in use and considered modern enough. One of the PC has that and might use it against a Tiger II. If the player wants to roll a knowledge check to find a sweet spot for the demolition charge, I will use the image you provided, BO.

Keep in mind though that the image is for a Tiger I, not a Tiger II. If you've got history-savvy players who are likely to notice the difference, you might want to make the tank in the game a Tiger I instead. Depends on how critical it is that the tank be a Tiger II.

Although the biggest difference armor-wise was the Tiger II's sloped armor (might have been a bit thicker too, I don't remember), which since a demolition charge would probably be used against the engine deck or the wheels, shouldn't make much of a difference.

Gnoman

2014-10-24, 12:39 AM

Best place for a 20 pound charge of C4 is directly under the tank. NO tank has heavy armor there, and the Tiger II only had 40 mm. Antitank mines from that era used only ~8 pounds of TNT, so it is very unlikely that a charge three times as powerful would fail to kill the tank.

Mr. Mask

2014-10-24, 03:14 AM

Anyone know of a written weapon timeline? Something like these: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17423-timeline-weapons-technology.html#.VEn11hbaXOs http://www.historyworld.net/timesearch/default.asp?conid=timeline&getyear=-10000000&keywords=%20%20%20Weapons%20timeline

I was hoping to find something detailed that I could use for reference.

Most of the sources suggest slave oarsmen were a minority. While I don't disagree that it was an option, I think it's one most sensible mariners would avoid unless they were desperate. Which makes sense with a little unpacking. Let's take a trireme/trieres, which has a rower complement of 180, around 15 officers/sailors and up to another 15 marines (archers and hoplites). Your marines are outnumbered more than 10:1 by the oarsmen (you could probably double your marine complement, though things would get tight for space and threaten stability even further).

If these rowers are all slaves chained to their benches at sea, then they also have to be kept in a pen or some other sort of enclosure on the beach at night (which you need to build and take down again every night). They also need to be guarded. You have nearly two hundred strong, fit men who are being tired out in the daytime, but likely consumed with thoughts of how they're going to escape, or at least turn on their captors during the night. If your ship is boarded during a sea-fight (or indeed attacked on the beach) and you haven't treated your oarsmen well, there's always the risk they try to rise in the hopes your enemy will free them. If things go badly at sea, such as being hit by a bad storm, it's even more likely than normal you might have to face a mutiny.

Mixing slaves and professionals is probably a bad idea too. Being reminded that you could be a slave, were you captured or through some other mishap, is not a nice thing to have in your face. The corollary, that you could be free but for a quirk of fate is equally uncomfortable. You're all doing the same job, which makes it difficult to erect any sort of boundaries to show why one group is better off than the other. And you've probably got a permanent nucleus for revolt with the slaves.

I do think Athens was in a minority of one in using their lower classes as oarsmen. There it was a compact between citizen and state - get political power in return for serving the state in war. Similar to how a man with the wealth to afford a panoply could do the same as a soldier. But most city-states were aristocratic oligarchies where the elites didn't want to share any power with the lower orders, even less so Hellenistic kings. Thus hiring professionals prevented you from having to make concessions to the common people.

I agree with your last point entirely. I find the more I read about history, the less compelling fantasy becomes. Because history is so much richer than some made up stuff.

I can't really see a military ship making use of slave rowers, for the reason you mention. Another problem I see with mixing slave with professional rowers, is that the professionals will have a faster pace. There's probably some way around that problem. Still, it's an extra complication.

I like my fantasy written to a degree that, in the bookstore, you could shelve it amongst the historical fiction without notice.

Even the most powerful 21st-century air guns probably couldn't penetrate 16th-century European tempered-steel plate armor right out of the muzzle. For example, the Barnes 87 Dragon man manages around 1,150 J with 0.87in slug. I doubt it could pierce more than 2mm mild steel. An air gun the size of 16th-century musket might, if operating with modern high-pressure air, prove sufficient to threaten somebody in quality harness, but it'd need a huge reservoir to get more than a shot or two per fill. That's what most current big-bore air guns get. And with Girandoni-era technology, performance would be worse still because of lower pressures. (Though the Girandoni replicas perform rather well given the low pressure used, and the originals may have been somewhat better.)

As far as modern tech goes, the Airrow Stealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airrow_A-8S_Stealth) compressed-air dart shooter seems like the best choice against armor. With high-pressure air it manages over 350 J with light darts. It also gets a dozen shots per fill and weighs only 4-5lbs. A sturdy dart delivering 350 J would pierce a lot of 16th-century European armor a close range. Presumably a larger version could hit harder still. But again, that's with modern technology.

In one of my own fantasy settings, Girandoni-style air rifles coexist with both steel and composite crossbows as well as composite and self bows. They're well-suited for skirmishing, especially from cover. Skilled gunners can aim for the face and other unarmed spots. They're useful but not superior to other handheld missile weapons. And they're essentially weapons for the better sort of common soldiers, not the weapons of heroes. Legendary warriors bend gryphon-bone bows and so on, while air guns don't scale up in the same fashion.

Yeah, even taking into account early advancements in the tech, I don't see it hurting good heavy armour (except in artillery sizes). I like the sound of your setting. Makes me curious about the gryphon bone bows.

Guns started out firing arrows, and finally are circling back to using them again (in the specific case of stealth dart air rifles, but still).

Thiel

2014-10-24, 06:36 AM

Pneumatic guns did see occasional use such as on the USS Vesuvius. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vesuvius_%281888%29) Of course its three 380mm dynamite guns where an abysmal failure but still.

Galloglaich

2014-10-24, 08:51 AM

Pneumatic guns did see occasional use such as on the USS Vesuvius. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vesuvius_%281888%29) Of course its three 380mm dynamite guns where an abysmal failure but still.

Wow! What a radically strange naval experiement, that was some wikipedia gold right there. 200 lb shells from a pneumatic cannon! Loco!

G

fusilier

2014-10-24, 03:35 PM

Pneumatic guns did see occasional use such as on the USS Vesuvius. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vesuvius_%281888%29) Of course its three 380mm dynamite guns where an abysmal failure but still.

Yeah, dynamite guns were somewhat in vogue around the time of the Spanish American War. The problem with a dynamite filled shell is that if fired using normal propellant it would explode in the barrel. So the "solution" was to use a long barrel with relatively low pressure to more slowly accelerate the shell.

There were even field guns made along these lines:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Sims-Dudley_4_Inch_Dynamite_Gun_on_Field_Mount.jpg

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

The development of more stable high-explosives basically ended the research into such designs.

fusilier

2014-10-24, 04:20 PM

I can't really see a military ship making use of slave rowers, for the reason you mention. Another problem I see with mixing slave with professional rowers, is that the professionals will have a faster pace. There's probably some way around that problem. Still, it's an extra complication.

In the 16th century slave rowers on galleys became common -- although it varied by location and place. The mixing of professional and slave on the same ship occurred as well:

A little bit of background is necessary to understand the dynamics at play. At the beginning of the period a standard galley would be rowed with three men on each bench, each with their own oar. This was a kind of tricky arrangement as the outboard oarsmen would have their motions constrained by the motions of the inboard oarsmen. However, it worked and was reasonably efficient. This method is referred to as the alla sensile method rowing.

The second method was known as the alla scaloccio method. In this style all the oarsmen on the same bench pulled one oar together. This was typical on the smaller galliots and fustas that typically had two men to each bench, and therefore two per oar. In this method the inboard oarsman was the leader and responsible for setting the pace and feathering the oar.

When slaves/prisoners were introduced the alla sensile method required too much training, and they typically switched to the alla scaloccio style. Ideally, however, the inboard oarsman would still be a professional, to set the pace. The new method wasn't as efficient as the old method, but it did have one advantage -- it was easy to increase power by adding more men to each oar. So a galley rowed with four men per bench alla scaloccio could match the performance of one rowed alla sensile with only three men per bench.

However there was another problem with using slaves: more slaves on the ship required more soldiers to guard them, and they weighed down the ship requiring more oarsmen to maintain dash speed. The result was a kind of evolutionary feedback loop, which, over time, resulted in the galley becoming larger and larger, but with a shorter range (because the cargo space for victuals for the larger crews couldn't increase proportionally). This effect would be seen clearly in the 17th century.

In the Mediterranean the Spanish were pretty quick in going over to slaves (completed around the middle of the 16th century), the Venetians resisted as long as possible, and the Ottomans used mixed systems of ships with slave crews, ships with professionals, and ships with conscripts.

Returning to the question of mixing professionals with slaves, as stated earlier it was probably ideal to have professionals working on the inboard oars, but whether or not this ideal was reached is unknown to me. The only data I've seen is for a relatively large Spanish galley operating in the Caribbean at the end of the 16th century. Professional oarsmen are listed but there is less than one per bank. Perhaps they were used more as instructors?

The North African pirates preferred smaller galleys like galliots and fustas for raiding purposes. While they certainly employed slaves as oarsmen for other purposes, when raiding with these vessels the oarsmen were all freemen, and probably fighters. These small vessels couldn't have carried enough soldiers for fighting and guarding slaves (EDIT-- i.e. guarding the oarsmen, as often the raids were for capturing slaves).

References:
Gunpowder and Galleys, by John F. Guilmartin
Galleons and Galleys, by John F. Guilmartin
Those two works are excellent but can be hard to find, the Osprey book: Renaissance War Galley 1470–1590 contains good information but is so compressed, that it might be difficult to get a good understanding.

The Age of the Galley - Mediterranean Oared Vessels since Pre-classical Times (various authors), has a chapter that gets into the minute details of the different rowing methods.

Mr. Mask

2014-10-24, 05:05 PM

fusilier

2014-10-24, 06:06 PM

Good post Fusilier! Thank you for explaining it to me. Surprised they managed to have slave rowers on military vessels (I guess the larger galleys could hold more crew to compensate). Any idea if they might have done this in the Roman and Hellenistic periods?

Thank you for the references as well.

Basically, economy of scale meant that the larger categories of galleys could be rowed by slaves, and still be efficient at warfare.

Terminology can be confusing, because "galley" can refer to a broad range of oared vessels from the tiny bergantines and fustas to large lanternas and "great" galleys. The term "galley" can also refer specifically to the standard galley warship (sometimes referred to as a galley sottil). That "standard galley" was probably the smallest that could use slaves in naval combat directly. Although a large galliot (the next size smaller) might be able to get away with it. Smaller vessels were often used in a support capacity, ferrying troops from one galley to another. In which case, it may also have been ok to get by with slave oarsmen, but I don't know, and those smaller classes of galleys aren't studied as much.

As for Roman and Hellenistic eras, I haven't done much study myself. What I remember from my college courses is that in Rome slaves were used only in an emergency and they were usually granted their freedom. I seem to recall seeing an article that disputed that, but still maintained that slaves were rarely used.

Kiero

2014-10-24, 06:22 PM

Galloglaich

2014-10-25, 10:51 AM

Worth noting the very different oaring arrangements, construction of vessels, primary weapons, and size of crews in the Renaissance.

For references in the Hellenistic era, besides Christian Cameron's well-researched Tyrant series, Lionel Casson seems to be the main authority on Hellenistic shipping. It's actually a very thin area of research in an period that historians don't seem terribly interested in.

Fusilier and I disagree on this - and I'm not going to argue with him about it.

But here is a slightly different perspective: from what I understand, the use of convicts and slaves was routine and basically the norm both in the Classical era and in the medieval and Early Modern, in some places all the way up to the 18th Century. The most notable exceptions were Athens and Venice respectively, both of whom derived major advantages from using professional sailors, but it was more expensive to do so. There were also a few others in different periods who also used professionals.

For a reference on the Classical era I recommend John Gibson Wary's Warfare in the Classical World (http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Classical-World-Gibson-Warry/dp/076071696X), it's an accessible but pretty accurate overview of war in the early Greek, Hellenistic and Roman world. It's a very useful summary. For a more detailed primary source account read Thucydides and Julius Caesar.

Speaking of whom, as two examples, Julius Caesar himself was briefly captured by Cilician pirates during his youth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilician_pirates#Julius_Caesar) and according to some sources, was humiliated by being forced to work as a galley slave until he was ransomed (he later exacted a terrible revenge on these same pirates, capturing and crucifying them all), and in the Early Modern period, the famous author Miguel de Cervantes who wrote Don Quixote was captured for a good while by Barbary Corsairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Cervantes#Military_service_and_captivity ) and had to work on and off as a galley slave for five years.

In his autobiography the famous artist Buenvenutto Cellini notes several times being threatened by political enemies in Rome with being condemned to row a galley as a slave in the navy of the Pope.

Galley slaves and condemned prisoners (basically the same thing except the latter sometimes had fixed sentences) were treated horribly, subject to terrible abuse and usually had short lives. The only way galley slaves usually got their freedom was hostage exchanges or paid ransoms.

It was a military disadvantage to use slave-rowers in combat (something the Athenians and Venetians wrote about quite a bit as they used professional rowers for a long time) but there were also major economic advantages of using slaves, as galleys were extremely expensive to operate.

G

Kiero

2014-10-25, 12:32 PM

I think it's worth distinguishing three different types of oarsmen. Professionals are basically mercenaries, free men who work for whomever pays. Militia are free citizens serving their city-state, as was the case of Athens. Then there's the slave oarsmen, who had a brutal and usually quite short existence.

Ninjadeadbeard

2014-10-28, 01:27 AM

Been a few thread iterations since I last posted here, but I need some information once more!

I know that steel can be tempered into different colors depending on how long and how hot you keep it at the latter end of forging. What I'd like to know is how difficult would it be to get these other colors without modern technology? As in, how hard is it for a Medieval Blacksmith to make gold or black-blue steel?

Brother Oni

2014-10-28, 02:54 AM

I know that steel can be tempered into different colors depending on how long and how hot you keep it at the latter end of forging. What I'd like to know is how difficult would it be to get these other colors without modern technology? As in, how hard is it for a Medieval Blacksmith to make gold or black-blue steel?

I've heard of plate harness being made out of almost blue steel, so it is possible with medieval technology and a quick check on bluing on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_(steel)) doesn't raise anything particularly requiring modern technology, but is there any reason why they couldn't just paint the armour instead?

Between paints and lacquer, you can pretty much get any colour you want (I've heard of green and red mail, so anything less fiddly than tens of thousands of links would be a doddle).

Edward the Black Prince was reputed to have gained that nickname from his black armour and shield.

Mr. Mask

2014-10-28, 04:23 AM

Going back to scifi, what are your thoughts on the idea of cybernetic or genetic enhancements?

Theoretically, we could already put some kevlar in the fat layer of a person's skin, to make them resistant to small firearms, but that would have issues of cancer and being a very lengthy operation.
We've discovered that muscles made out of carbon nanotubes are highly strong, making for an argument of cybernetic limbs if we ever work out how to stick them on/in.
There are already experiments claiming success in enhancing mental functions through microchips, so that could be interesting if it pans out.
Robot legs have some uses in jogging/sprinting, but many of them are currently having trouble with stairs and more agile footwork. With stronger leg motors, or the development of carbon nanotube muscles, we might seem them outpace human legs.
There are a bunch of speculative cybernetics as well. Anything from metal skeletons, to weapons hidden in or attached to the body, to eyes capable of several spectra, to bio-engineered muscles that simply work better somehow.

Do you have any thoughts on whether cyber enhancements will see use or even become big in the near or distant future? Any particular favourites of yours when it comes to cyberpunk? Also, if cyberization becomes a more convenient and powerful option in warfare and the like, what reasons would you suggest would prevent soldiers from becoming tin-man robocops?

Yora

2014-10-28, 06:04 AM

Current developments seem to favor devices that are worn on the body instead of being permanently build into it. Which I expect to remain the standard for quite a long time to come. The body does repair minor and medium damages by itself, and healing can be improved with medicine and physiotherapy without the need to cut it open. Repairing and replacing machines inside the body is much more troublesome. In most cases, there would be little need to have the increased protection and strength all the time. Putting it on with the rest of your equipment for dangerous situations would usually be good enough.

Storm_Of_Snow

2014-10-28, 06:37 AM

Going back to scifi, what are your thoughts on the idea of cybernetic or genetic enhancements?

Theoretically, we could already put some kevlar in the fat layer of a person's skin, to make them resistant to small firearms, but that would have issues of cancer and being a very lengthy operation.

Probably a bigger issue is that it would act as thermal insulation, preventing heat from radiating out from the body core, especially during phsyical activity, and increasing the risk of hyperthermia/heatstroke and death.

Also, if cyberization becomes a more convenient and powerful option in warfare and the like, what reasons would you suggest would prevent soldiers from becoming tin-man robocops?
Power source is one - it's handwaved in virtually all fiction, but unless you can somehow use carbohydrates in the persons food to generate electricity to power the implant, you need batteries.

What happens to the augmented soldier when he retires? Can he never retire? Do you rip all the cybernetics off of him and leave him in a hospital somewhere, or replace them with civilian models? If it's biological enhancement, do you infect them with viri that remove those enhancements? Are there any side effects that would affect them in civilian life?

Would soldiers really sign up for that in enough numbers to justify the cost of development?

My personal feeling is that the next set of weapons developments will be around EMP - we've already got aircraft that rely on their computers to stay airborne (Typhoon, B-2), drones really need their comms links back to their pilots, and there's a limit to the amount of EM-hardening that can be done.

EMP weapons vs cybernetically enhanced soldiers could be messy.

Another possible attack is via cyber-weapons, given a high likelihood that the soldiers and their cybernetics will be connected up.

Brother Oni

2014-10-28, 08:35 AM

I found something that might be of interest to people on this thread: the BBC in collaboration with the Open University have started a number of free online only courses about various aspects of the First World War, from the effects of trauma (shellshock as it was known back then) to the birth of aviation, to the political effects post WW1.

Courses start soon (beginning of November) and more details can be found here: link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/28293511).

Going back to scifi, what are your thoughts on the idea of cybernetic or genetic enhancements?

Theoretically, we could already put some kevlar in the fat layer of a person's skin, to make them resistant to small firearms, but that would have issues of cancer and being a very lengthy operation.

As Storm of Snow mentioned, the additional insulation affecting thermoregulation would be an issue, plus how would you anchor the kevlar sheet in place?

Shadowrun had a number of cybernetic and bioware enhancements, from myelinisation of nerves to improve signal transmission thus speeding up reflexes, to weaving gortex into muscle fibres to increase their strength and teflon coating the cartilage/replacing the synovial fluid in joints to reduce friction. You've already covered mineral implants/uptake into bones to strengthen them.
Other additions were to modify the functioning of various glands and organs to place them under direct conscious control, for example the adrenal gland would enhance physical performance, or upping the general basal metabolism by raising thyroid activity. Implantation of an organ that could synthesise drugs and release them either on command or to a schedule was also possible (being able to synthesise ampthetamine or PCP for example).

On the less meat side, stereotypical cyberpunk artificial limbs, brain computers, eye replacement/augmentation etc, with the various gubbins normally seen for the genre.

Back in the real world, DARPA was looking into various improvement projects as part of the Future Combat System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems) project (this is where the interest in military exoskeletons falls).
Human Enhancement projects unfortunately hit a media backlash about 'Frankenstein soldiers', so the large majority of them got suspended or became really low key (link (http://scienceprogress.org/2011/01/the-rise-and-decline-of-military-human-enhancement/)).
I remember a paper from a couple of years ago which listed all the top level information regarding DARPA HE programmes, including potential ethical issues (mostly to do with mental and psychological augmentation).

Since then, I think the buzzword programs they were looking into were 'Human Optimisation' programmes, for example improving the output of mitochondria, but I haven't heard anything recently, especially since a large chunk of the funding got diverted to drones and anti-IED vehicle improvements.

Matthew

2014-10-28, 08:43 AM

I've had a look but I can't find anything aside from what you've already mentioned already sorry.

JSTOR and contacting the Vatican directly may be your best options.

Thanks for looking. I will probably pick up Heng's book (I always used a library copy in the past) and check her source, trawling JSTOR as a last resort!

A professor friend just sent me another good website with a lot of data on medieval prices and wages

http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/wwwfiles/archives/munro5/ResearchData.html

That looks potentially interesting, especially as most of it seems to be concerned with prices after the sterling became debased.

Storm_Of_Snow

2014-10-28, 11:48 AM

As Storm of Snow mentioned, the additional insulation affecting thermoregulation would be an issue, plus how would you anchor the kevlar sheet in place?

Marines in 40k have something similar (the Black Carapace), which holds the ports for the spinal links and life support systems in their power armour and is attached at the vertebrae.

But 40k runs primarily on nonsense, bad science and so many handwaves your wrist will shatter under the strain. :smallwink:

Mr Beer

2014-10-28, 06:19 PM

Ninjadeadbeard

2014-10-28, 10:45 PM

I've heard of plate harness being made out of almost blue steel, so it is possible with medieval technology and a quick check on bluing on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_(steel)) doesn't raise anything particularly requiring modern technology, but is there any reason why they couldn't just paint the armour instead?

Between paints and lacquer, you can pretty much get any colour you want (I've heard of green and red mail, so anything less fiddly than tens of thousands of links would be a doddle).

Edward the Black Prince was reputed to have gained that nickname from his black armour and shield.

Hm. Not that difficult? I was hoping otherwise, if only because I am looking for ways to more subtly state how much more unfathomably advanced the Elven Blacksmiths are in a story I am writing. Paint and such would be the Human equivalent, but I suppose unless I make them cavemen by comparison that wouldn't make as much sense.

rs2excelsior

2014-10-28, 10:47 PM

Marines in 40k have something similar (the Black Carapace), which holds the ports for the spinal links and life support systems in their power armour and is attached at the vertebrae.

But 40k runs primarily on nonsense, bad science and so many handwaves your wrist will shatter under the strain. :smallwink:

How unrealistic is this, given enough time for the background research and technological development? I mean, theoretically if we can figure out which nerves tell your legs to start running, you could install a device that picked up that signal and when it was supposed to reroute it elsewhere--say to a powered armor suit, which then runs like a human. I know it's FAR beyond modern technology, but is there a reason it couldn't work?

I study physics, not biology or neuroscience, so I don't know how feasible this idea is.

Gnoman

2014-10-29, 01:44 AM

Carl

2014-10-29, 02:16 AM

How unrealistic is this, given enough time for the background research and technological development? I mean, theoretically if we can figure out which nerves tell your legs to start running, you could install a device that picked up that signal and when it was supposed to reroute it elsewhere--say to a powered armor suit, which then runs like a human. I know it's FAR beyond modern technology, but is there a reason it couldn't work?

I study physics, not biology or neuroscience, so I don't know how feasible this idea is.

40k tends to invoke handwavium on devil in the detail stuff rather than broad concepts. The basic concepts outlined in much of a SM's equipment and modifications make a medicorm of sense in that they represent good idea's. However there's a lot of details that leave a lot to be desired.

The 3 most obvious of these are: Armour design, Rib-cage, and their Bolter's.

To address them slightly out of order:

1. Rib-cage: One of the effects of the genetic engineering is that it causes the rib-cage bones to grow and then fuse together turning their rib-cage into a solid layer of ceramic infused bone. They effectively develop an inch thick layer of self healing ceramic armor. Sounds awesome right? Except movement of the rib-cage in human's is vital to breathing. If you can't move your rib-cage you'd suffocate. 40K just handwaves it away.

2. Armour Design: The way the armour is always depicted the distance between the shoulder and the sides of the rib cage is much too large, a normal human would have to dislocate their shoulders to get into it. Quite how therefore a space marine can wear his armor without significant modifications to that portion of his anatomy, (never mind all the normal human's who do wear the stuff too), is never explained.

3. Bolters. The SM's standard firearm the bolter is a 20mm weapon firing explosive shells with a rocket assist motor on them, it's supposedly so recoil heavy that a normal human can't fire one without breaking bones. Sounds fine right? Except that when you actually stop and use your brain it's actually a 10 gauge rifled shotgun firing an advanced form of slug ammo. Suddenly that difficulty firing looks far less sensible. And when you move down to the pistol form which is more like 12 gauge caliber and is not capable of automatic fire it looks even more patently ridiculous. Again 40K just handwaves how bolters get such massive recoil away.

Gnoman

2014-10-29, 02:25 AM

3. Bolters. The SM's standard firearm the bolter is a 20mm weapon firing explosive shells with a rocket assist motor on them, it's supposedly so recoil heavy that a normal human can't fire one without breaking bones. Sounds fine right? Except that when you actually stop and use your brain it's actually a 10 gauge rifled shotgun firing an advanced form of slug ammo. Suddenly that difficulty firing looks far less sensible. And when you move down to the pistol form which is more like 12 gauge caliber and is not capable of automatic fire it looks even more patently ridiculous. Again 40K just handwaves how bolters get such massive recoil away.

Bore diameter is the least important factor in recoil. Bolters are more like cut-down versions of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNyILOTCkLM), firing fully automatic like a rifle. If the guy in that video had managed to hold on to it, he'd have been lucky if he merely broke his arms.

Carl

2014-10-29, 03:04 AM

Gnoman: Recoil can be summed up as conservation of momentum in really simple terms, though the mass of the weapon also plays a part in the experienced recoil by the shooter. The problem is a bolter has a really short barrel and the shell charge is explicitly stated only to give it initial velocity out of the barrel. It's not going to leave the barrel any faster than a 10 gauge and it's not going to be significantly heavier so the momentum is going to be similar and that in a weapon as heavy as a man portable 10 gauge is handlable by a normal human. Given bolters are actually unreasonably heavy for what they are they'd be even more handlable.

The ammo being demonstrated in that video has a bullet mass of 130g's. A typical 12 Gauge slug, ( can't find 10 gauge info atm but i have seen it before and it's not wildly different), masses 40-50g's. Likewise there's a significant velocity difference's, with shotgun slugs generally topping out around 500m/s whilst from a proper length barrel, (hard to tell in that video, hipsano cannon's aren't exactly long barreled monsters), it would reach 870m/s. Not accounting for how the change in propellant mass effects things that round had as much as four and a half times as much recoil momentum of a shotgun slug. I'd expect the bolter slug to be a little heavier yes. But your still easily looking at 30% or less the recoil force. And that assumes the bolter kicks the round out at the top end shotgun slug speed. Given it's explicitly a booster charge and not a full velocity charge it probably doesn't.

basically a bolter is NOT a 20mm cannon, not even close, it doesn't have the barrel length for one and it's operation is explicitly not high velocity from the case charge for another.

Kiero

2014-10-29, 04:36 AM

To put it simply, we don't know yet. The work on man-machine interfaces is so crude now that the permutations and limitations simply can't be predicted yet. For one thing, IIRC we don't even know for sure how much individual variation in nerve impulses exists.

I think the most fundamental issue with a lot of man-machine interfaces is how you securely attach the things. This is most pertinent in things like replacement limbs; they have to be anchored onto the skeleton somehow, but that very interface is going to be a weak point. No use having a bionic arm that can lift a car, for example, if the very act of attempting it will result in you tearing the arm out of your shoulder socket.

LOTRfan

2014-10-29, 07:33 AM

Okay, I hope this isn't too graphic, but;

For a story, I'm thinking of having a society who believes that the soul rests in the brain. For a soul to go on to the afterlife, the brain must be destroyed. Some warriors like to degrade their most hated enemies by not destroying the brain, instead just keeping the heads until they rot away (an ultimate final insult, if you will).

My question is this; You know how some groups throughout history have placed human heads of spikes as a very visual warning to others? How deep into the head does the spike go, and would such an action significantly damage the brain?

Brother Oni

2014-10-29, 07:47 AM

Hm. Not that difficult? I was hoping otherwise, if only because I am looking for ways to more subtly state how much more unfathomably advanced the Elven Blacksmiths are in a story I am writing. Paint and such would be the Human equivalent, but I suppose unless I make them cavemen by comparison that wouldn't make as much sense.

The simplest way would be to give elven weapons and armour a lightness and durability superior to anything else and as a byproduct of their metallurgy, it gives their weapons a unique hue (say tinged purple). Alternately let the elves be the only ones who have discovered the secret of pattern welding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_welding) or powder metallurgy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_metallurgy).

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/mmaxen/serpent-blade-detail_zpsd7c80bd5.jpg

In this case, the difference would be emphasised more, as only elvish armour would be unpainted to show off the decoration. While human paint and engraving can equal it in elaborateness, it never looks as good, nor is it as strong and durable.

1. Rib-cage: One of the effects of the genetic engineering is that it causes the rib-cage bones to grow and then fuse together turning their rib-cage into a solid layer of ceramic infused bone. They effectively develop an inch thick layer of self healing ceramic armor. Sounds awesome right? Except movement of the rib-cage in human's is vital to breathing. If you can't move your rib-cage you'd suffocate. 40K just handwaves it away.

It's possible to breathe without using your ribcage: diaphragmatic breathing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragmatic_breathing).

2. Armour Design: The way the armour is always depicted the distance between the shoulder and the sides of the rib cage is much too large, a normal human would have to dislocate their shoulders to get into it. Quite how therefore a space marine can wear his armor without significant modifications to that portion of his anatomy, (never mind all the normal human's who do wear the stuff too), is never explained.

Could you expand on this point please as I'm not sure what you mean. You are aware that space marines don't have human body proportions due to their modifications and that normal humans who are permitted to wear power armour, have their suits customised for them, much like plate harness.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38216&d=1209191809

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2013/4/25/488766_md-Armor%20Suit%2C%20Army%2C%20Astartes%2C%20Battlesu it%2C%20Bone%2C%20Carapace%2C%20Future%2C%20Future %20Man.jpg

Gnoman: Recoil can be summed up as conservation of momentum in really simple terms, though the mass of the weapon also plays a part in the experienced recoil by the shooter. The problem is a bolter has a really short barrel and the shell charge is explicitly stated only to give it initial velocity out of the barrel. It's not going to leave the barrel any faster than a 10 gauge and it's not going to be significantly heavier so the momentum is going to be similar and that in a weapon as heavy as a man portable 10 gauge is handlable by a normal human. Given bolters are actually unreasonably heavy for what they are they'd be even more handlable.

I'd have to ask in the 40K fluff thread as various people there have the RPG stats of bolters and their ammunition, including their weight.

However bolters don't have a stock, so there's that method of recoil absorption gone.
I agree with you that as written, the conventional charge shouldn't accelerate the round to that of a 20mm cannon, but that said, there's nothing stopping the fix to be simply to up the conventional charge to a 20mm cannon with an additional gyrojet assistance kicking in after it leaves the barrel for additional acceleration.

Saying that the bolter is one of the most obvious issues of 40K unrealism is missing the much larger setting flaws though.

Storm_Of_Snow

2014-10-29, 08:15 AM

It's possible to breathe without using your ribcage: diaphragmatic breathing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragmatic_breathing).

Given the amount of wetware inside them and their accelerated metabolisms, would that be able to supply enough oxygen to allow them to do anything even remotely physical? And even if it does, surely having the ribs able to move as well would increase both the flow and volume.

I personally throw out the solid rib cage idea and replace it with the ribs growing over each other like banded mail, which also means the intercostal muscles are still there to absorb impact forces and reduce the potential effects of spalling.

Could you expand on this point please as I'm not sure what you mean. You are aware that space marines don't have human body proportions due to their modifications and that normal humans who are permitted to wear power armour, have their suits customised for them, much like plate harness.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38216&d=1209191809

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2013/4/25/488766_md-Armor%20Suit%2C%20Army%2C%20Astartes%2C%20Battlesu it%2C%20Bone%2C%20Carapace%2C%20Future%2C%20Future %20Man.jpg

They start as human, and even with hand-waved superscience, you can't make them that different without killing them.

I didn't follow the links, but if one of them's pointing at Phillip Sibbering's stuff, he's very inventive, but a) completely unofficial and b) possibly even worse than GW for handwaves and bad science.

For starters, bolters don't have a stock, so there's that method of recoil absorption gone.
Actually depends on the writer, some people have them as two-stage rounds, with a small launch charge to get it clear of the weapon, and then a rocket charge that ignites and accelerates the round to maximum speed.

IMO, that makes a massive amount more sense than a simple "frickin' massive propellant charge", given that they may have to fight in low or zero-g a lot more often than other forces do, and high recoil weapons that would throw you backwards or spin you around your centre of mass, rendering you non-combatant and vulnerable, would be a really, really bad idea :smallwink: .

Edit: My post got in ahead of your edit. :smallsmile:

Brother Oni

2014-10-29, 08:32 AM

Given the amount of wetware inside them and their accelerated metabolisms, would that be able to supply enough oxygen to allow them to do anything even remotely physical? And even if it does, surely having the ribs able to move as well would increase both the flow and volume.

I personally throw out the solid rib cage idea and replace it with the ribs growing over each other like banded mail, which also means the intercostal muscles are still there to absorb impact forces and reduce the potential effects of spalling.

From personal anecdotal experience, yes, it's sufficient to supply the demands of quite physical activity. I agree that having the ribs able to move would improve the throughput, but who's to say they haven't developed around the limitations of an immovable rib cage.

Spalling is reduced via the Black Carapace, which is a nebulous artifical membrane which makes the marine resistant to small arms fire. The banded mail idea might have some issues with friction (I'd have to think about it some more), but there's enough variation between SM chapters to allow that idea to happen.

They start as human, and even with hand-waved superscience, you can't make them that different without killing them.

Which is why the augmentation process starts prior to puberty and the implants modify their development or add additional capability solely to do with that implant. The writers have done some research as the order of implantation makes sense, with bone modification and hormonal treatments starting first in combination with dietary changes and other training.
The augmentation process does indeed kill some applicants - it wouldn't be 40k without (a lot of) death. :smallbiggrin:

I didn't follow the links, but if one of them's pointing at Phillip Sibbering's stuff, he's very inventive, but a) completely unofficial and b) possibly even worse than GW for handwaves and bad science.

It is Phillip Sibbering, but I'm solely using the images to indicate the proportions of a space marine and how he would fit in his armour.

This is rapidly heading into 40k fluff territory, so I suggest taking further discussion into that thread.

Ninjadeadbeard

2014-10-29, 09:15 PM

The simplest way would be to give elven weapons and armour a lightness and durability superior to anything else and as a byproduct of their metallurgy, it gives their weapons a unique hue (say tinged purple). Alternately let the elves be the only ones who have discovered the secret of pattern welding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_welding) or powder metallurgy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_metallurgy).

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/mmaxen/serpent-blade-detail_zpsd7c80bd5.jpg

In this case, the difference would be emphasised more, as only elvish armour would be unpainted to show off the decoration. While human paint and engraving can equal it in elaborateness, it never looks as good, nor is it as strong and durable.

Well. That sounds bully! Thank you my good Oni.

Mr. Mask

2014-10-29, 10:37 PM

Cyborgs: Best I can think of for why someone would cyber up (aside from being mangled) is if they wanted something more covert than a exoskeleton. Of course, it can't be too covert, as most spies, terrorists and smugglers prefer low-tech solutions that don't mark them for their trade. You'd also need enough money in the trade to finance and give incentive for being cut up and put back together again. The Shadowrunners were probably a good choice for this position, though even in their case I can't imagine too many people wanting to get the augmentations.

Battle Cars: Seen the Mythbusters episodes about spy cars? They made me curious about the subject of weaponized cars, which aren't proper tanks.

First you'd need a situation where people would fight with weaponized cars, similarly to Madmax or the like. The common situation is a dangerous sport, and/or a broken down area that has to make do and couldn't produce full on tanks (often post-apocalyptic). It's usually situated in a desert area, as that gives the greatest emphasis to vehicles.

After that, there's the question of what they fight with and why. A scarcity of MGs or plenty of armour on the cars could discourage MGs being the only weapon.

snowblizz

2014-10-30, 02:43 AM

Battle Cars: Seen the Mythbusters episodes about spy cars? They made me curious about the subject of weaponized cars, which aren't proper tanks.

First you'd need a situation where people would fight with weaponized cars, similarly to Madmax or the like. The common situation is a dangerous sport, and/or a broken down area that has to make do and couldn't produce full on tanks (often post-apocalyptic). It's usually situated in a desert area, as that gives the greatest emphasis to vehicles.

After that, there's the question of what they fight with and why. A scarcity of MGs or plenty of armour on the cars could discourage MGs being the only weapon.

That's essentially what "technicals" are though right. And that's not Madmax exactly (although not too far removed in many senses), although a lot of it *is* in deserts. Some of the most insane ones I've seen on tv was the one with a multiple rocket launcher from a helicopter or fighter jet.

Brother Oni

2014-10-30, 03:23 AM

For a story, I'm thinking of having a society who believes that the soul rests in the brain. For a soul to go on to the afterlife, the brain must be destroyed. Some warriors like to degrade their most hated enemies by not destroying the brain, instead just keeping the heads until they rot away (an ultimate final insult, if you will).

My question is this; You know how some groups throughout history have placed human heads of spikes as a very visual warning to others? How deep into the head does the spike go, and would such an action significantly damage the brain?

It depends a bit on the width of the spike, but it would have to go fairly deeply, especially as the head starts rotting. I suppose you could start being more inventive with spike placement to avoid the brain - diagonally through the base of the neck through the front of the face or sideways through the cheek bones for example, but they tend to obscure or destroy the face, which is the primary reason for displaying the head in the first place as a very visual warning.

You could have a chain net or something similarly basket shaped to hold the head, but I would think a simple shelf or board that the heads would be placed upon would be sufficient. There's several pictures available of this that I know of, but I can't link to them due to board rules.

An image search for "Nanking decapitated heads" or "brazilian bandit Lampião" should show what I mean.

Cyborgs: Best I can think of for why someone would cyber up (aside from being mangled) is if they wanted something more covert than a exoskeleton. Of course, it can't be too covert, as most spies, terrorists and smugglers prefer low-tech solutions that don't mark them for their trade. You'd also need enough money in the trade to finance and give incentive for being cut up and put back together again. The Shadowrunners were probably a good choice for this position, though even in their case I can't imagine too many people wanting to get the augmentations.

Taking it a bit further, you have the settings of Deus Ex and Ghost in the Shell, where extensive cyberisation is very common (the protagonist in GitS is a full body cyborg, with her only her brain being normal). In return for their significantly superhuman abilities, they're tied into a life of constant (and very expensive) maintenance and diagnostics which only government agencies can provide.

Yora

2014-10-30, 05:34 AM

I also believe apart from neural interfaces to directly access computers and machines, all military cyborgs are injured veterans.

Talakeal

2014-10-30, 10:38 AM

Honest Tiefling

2014-10-30, 02:41 PM

Okay, I hope this isn't too graphic, but;

For a story, I'm thinking of having a society who believes that the soul rests in the brain. For a soul to go on to the afterlife, the brain must be destroyed. Some warriors like to degrade their most hated enemies by not destroying the brain, instead just keeping the heads until they rot away (an ultimate final insult, if you will).

No ideas about pikes, but if there is a cultural difference between hair styles, might they use the enemy's own hair to hang the head somewhere? If not, what about using strips of leather, particularly from the defeated enemy's own armor or gear, uh, skin from the head itself, or rope? Pikes might be too tempting to find a way to shove the head further down it if one is determined enough. This might work if criminals, who are also disgraced, are hung with a noose evoking the same symbolism.

Gnoman

2014-10-30, 04:56 PM

Anyone know when "pillboxes" came into use?

Pillbox meaning a short concrete fortification with narrow slits to fire out of.

A quick internet search shows that the term was coined in 1917, but it does not say how long they had been in use before receiving the name.
Well, concrete wasn't in use between the twilight of the Roman Empire and the mid 1700s, and most fortification from the 1700s until around WWI was logs or packed earth. That strongly suggests that the name and the fortification showed up around the same time.

Battle Cars: Seen the Mythbusters episodes about spy cars? They made me curious about the subject of weaponized cars, which aren't proper tanks.

First you'd need a situation where people would fight with weaponized cars, similarly to Madmax or the like. The common situation is a dangerous sport, and/or a broken down area that has to make do and couldn't produce full on tanks (often post-apocalyptic). It's usually situated in a desert area, as that gives the greatest emphasis to vehicles.

After that, there's the question of what they fight with and why. A scarcity of MGs or plenty of armour on the cars could discourage MGs being the only weapon.

There's little advantage to armed cars, which is probably why, outside of the popular "technicals" used by irregular forces (constructed because the base vehicle is easy to get, the weapons are easy to get, and it's only about an hour's work to put the two together), the concept hasn't been introduced in the real world. It's a somewhat popular idea in spy fiction (where it provides heavy firepower in a very innocent package) and post-apocalyptic (or post-semi-apocalyptic in the case of Car Wars), in which they're used for the same reasons that "technicals" exist. It's an marriage of commonly-available vehicles with weaponry that isn't particularly easy to get. Meanwhile, in settings where society's largely intact, but is breaking down around the edges (causing bandit activity between cities and such), equipping a vehicle with a certain amount of defensive weaponry is simple prudence (much in the way most merchant shipping in WWII carried light weaponry, and cannon were common on Age Of Sail-era merchants), while the bandits in question would (again, much like irregular forces in the real world) find the easy combination of speed and firepower such a vehicle provides to be a major asset.

As for how such vehicles would be armed, there's two major sets of distinctions that need to be made. First is how the weapons were added to the vehicle (at the factory, or as an aftermarket modification.) Factory-standard weapons (there are plausible reasons why such a thing might exist in some scenarios) could be a fair bit heavier due to the car being stressed to handle them, the car being designed with the weight in mind, less aerodynamic impact on the vehicle,and provision made for any special problems (such as rocket backblast) a given weapon might have. With aftermarket weaponry, you have to either jury-rig a mount or completely restructure the vehicle to support it. The main advantage to aftermarket changes would be that it would be fairly easy to move weapons from one damaged vehicle to another by clever design of the mount.

Let's look at a few examples. Using a basic family sedan as a base, we'll try to equip the vehicle with a general-purpose machine gun. A manufacturer could simply use an aircraft-model weapon and build a place for it on the passenger side of the engine, with ammunition supplied through a hatch in the front of the passenger seat, with an ejection port for spent casings either into the passenger compartment or (more likely) out of the side of the vehicle. Little internal volume would be lost, and a slight boost in engine power would compensate for the added weight. The only visual difference between the armed model and an unarmed one would be a small hole in the front, and a small flap on the side for casings. Equipping the same car with basically the same weapon after-market would still be fairly easy, but would not be nearly as painless. The easiest way would be to mount the weapon in the trunk firing rearward, using the common ability of the rear seats to fold down to provide room. This would cost a considerable amount of cargo space, and at least one passenger seat. It would also have the combat disadvantage of firing only at rear targets, although some of that could be minimized by an actual gunner that could traverse the weapon instead of relying entirely on orienting the vehicle. Alternatively, you could replace the passenger seat with the weapon, firing forward. This would be an ideal solution, but it does cost passenger capacity, probably costs you a windshield, and would be very distracting for the driver whenever it was fired. Finally, you could use an external mount of some kind, with a rigged remote trigger. This would probably require reinforcing the roof or removing and replacing the doors on one side of the vehicle, and would significantly change the balance and handling.

Now, let's say you want something heavier, like a minigun or light cannon. A factory version of the mount could simply go with a rear-mounted engine and use the entire front space for weaponry. This would eliminate most of the cargo capacity, and the requisite frame reinforcement would hurt performance somewhat, but it would be fairly straightforward. Of course, the barrel sticking out the front would be kind of obvious. An aftermarket conversion might not even be possible with this vehicle. A bolt-on external mount probably wouldn't work due to recoil concerns, and the weapon would be large enough (especially as you would probably be using the crew-served version of whatever weapon instead of an aircraft model) to pose a significant difficulty in placing it in the vehicle. Heavier weapons would require you to move up to light trucks or SUVs. Naturally, a factory-armed pickup or SUV would have the same advantages as was the case with the sedan, with considerably greater space and weight to work with, so they'd consequently still be able to carry more gear.

The other major issue, touched on already, is visibility. If you've got a missile launcher strapped to your roof or a minigun sticking out of the hood, people are proabably going to notice. In an espionage context (such as the famous James Bond spy cars), or in civilized areas that don't often have bandit issues, that's a problem. Heavy weapons, or aftermarket bolt-ons, are not going to allow you to keep a low profile, while light factory-installed ones would not be too obvious.

warty goblin

2014-10-30, 05:53 PM

Mr. Mask

2014-10-31, 02:40 AM

Gnoman: Good post. That sums up the subject well.

Part of what I'm thinking is that weapons like the tire grinders are fun, and it'd be good if the scenario made those logical. The military uses stuff like caltrops (despite those being "busted") and smoke screens, so those work out. While the blades on tires were shown to work by the Mythbusters, it's questionable as to their combat applications.

There's probably some other fun ideas for car weapons that are similarly or more questionable. I think one involves a grappling gun being used on other cars (which theoretically might have a few uses, but it's doubtful that it's effective enough).

Brother Oni

2014-10-31, 03:05 AM

For this, you'll need a very large jar, and rather a lot of vinegar. Pickled heads never go out of fashion, and that brain's not going anywhere in a hurry.

The Celts were reputed to take the brains of their defeated foes and mix them with lime to harden and preserve them. These brain balls were then either displayed as trophies or used as weapons, primarily as sling stones.
There's at least one myth describing their use: link (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/conchobar3.html).

Galloglaich

2014-10-31, 10:37 AM

I think the wide, wide popularity of 'technicals' in wars from the Western most end of Africa to Central and East Asia actually proves that there is a great deal of value in the 'armed car' technology. It's use actually goes back at least to WW II in the Desert War, and it has remained in more or less continual use since then.

In combat one of the advantages of 'technicals' over more conventional military vehicles is that being so much more agile and fast, they could run rings around their enemies, (for example driving in circles around a traversing tank turret of a T-55) while they could carry weapons which can in fact destroy most light armored vehicles and can even cause problems for heavier ones. These weapons are of course mostly heavy machine guns but also, recoilless rifles, ATGMs, and as mentioned upthread, sometimes multiple rocket launchers meant for helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft all of which can kill tanks.

The most common armament are heavy machineguns, ranging from 12.7mm (.50 cal) to heavier 13-15mm machineguns and 20-23mm machine-cannons. With enough hits these guns can destroy or disable probably 80% of the armored vehicles on the battlefield, and as we learned the hard way in Iraq, they can also seriously damage, disable, and even destroy the most modern attack helicopters. Compared to attack helicopters they are also very cheap and easy to maintain. Even the rocket launchers and recoilless rifles and so on are dirt cheap compared to larger armored vehicles let alone any kind of aircraft.

Typically they use pickup trucks rather than cars because pickup trucks already have the room, are usually 4WD, and probably more importantly, have the heavy suspension (meant to carry a work load in the truck bed) which can support the weight of the heavy machine gun (or rockets etc.) plus ammunition and a gunner.

I think you could make an argument (http://warontherocks.com/2014/02/the-pickup-truck-era-of-warfare/#_) that the 'technical' is emerging as one of the most important military vehicles of our time. The strategy of the 'technical' is to emphasize firepower and mobility over protection, kind of like the M-18 Hellcat in WW II. The vehicle survives through a combination of suppressive fire, and (when properly mounted which they are not always) much greater effective range than small arms and rocket grenade equipped infantry they are usually faced with, as well as much greater mobility and easier maintenance / lower costs than purpose made military armored vehicles which translates to more effective vehicles on the battlefield. The technical is close to a sweet spot between armor, mobility and firepower by eliminating the armor part, and this 'works' because right now firepower 'outweighs' armor a little bit.

ISIS is apparently especially skilled in the use of 'technicals' and this is one of the reasons why they did so well in some recent battles in the Middle East.

The flipside is when you add armor to the mix. Unarmored vehicles are much more vulnerable to any kind of fire than even lightly armored vehicles. Unlike in US action movies, people inside a car that gets shot up with even small arms usually die, and people inside a car shot up with heavy machineguns usually get pulverized. So 'technicals' are highly vulnerable. They only 'work' as weapons when they are used wisely, i.e. you don't use technicals to attack massed armor formations (they will get wiped out as they did for example in the first and second Gulf Wars). You use them like cavalry, attacking where the enemy is vulnerable, creating local disparities of force in your favor. In their mobility they are well suited for this.

Armor
Adding armor to a vehicle is very tricky. Armor ads a lot of value to a vehicle, but there is a strong law of diminishing returns. There is an exponential increase in costs associated with armored as opposed to unarmored vehicles. Weight goes up at a dramatic rate which corresponds with a decrease in performance and (due to more difficult maintenance) lower reliability, higher crew-training requirements and higher fuel costs. Also lower mobility especially in rough terrain. The other problem is that there are several stages of armor protection.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5xZySAxE8Jk/UYwfugHarUI/AAAAAAAAGSA/suSstdaMz34/s1600/T13scoutHaugh+(4).jpg

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/2/20471/2148557-up_armored_humvee.jpg

The first stage protects against small arms and 'hardens' a vehicle sufficiently that even if it is destroyed by say a heavy machinegun, it is less likely to kill the crew and (maybe more important) can more easily be repaired and put back into the field after being destroyed. You can do this on a wheeled vehicle fairly easily if you have a skilled industry to do it with (or just some really good welders). But they cost much more to make than a pickup truck and use more fuel.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/europe/france/wheeled_armoured/bastion_vlra_2/pictures/Bastion_HD_4x4_high_protected_wheeled_armoured_veh icle_infantry_personnel_carrier_Acmat_013.jpg

http://www.military-today.com/apc/brdm3.jpg

The second stage, protection against heavy machineguns and light (20-23mm) cannon, is much harder. You need much heavier suspension, bigger wheels, bigger engine, you start to approach weights that require tracks, and tracked vehicles introduce a whole range of new problems. Only larger countries make these though irregular forces do capture and use them fairly often. The other advantage of these though is that they are much more resistant to light mortars and artillery which can very easily disable unarmored or 'stage 1' armored vehicles. But they are still very vulnerable to rocket grenades and of course, ATGM.

http://defense-update.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/puma_gcv.jpg

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/bmp-3_9.jpg
The third level after that, protection sufficient to stop medium to larger cannon (30mm - 105mm) requires a tracked vehicle, and now you are really basically dealing with an actual light tank or IFV, something which requires a lot of maintenance and skilled crew, and a pretty sophisticated industry to make. Most militaries around the world don't use vehicles this well armored any more, other than tanks.

And level 4 is the main battle tank. Older tanks are highly vulnerable to RPGs and various rockets, particularly the newer tandem warhead and pop-up rockets, so tanks from that generation (M48, M60, Leopard I, AMX-13, T-55/62/72 etc.) have to be used very carefully. Basically they can still be destroyed pretty easily by even irregular infantry, so they actually use them mostly as kind of mobile artillery platforms. The newer generation tanks (M1A1, Leopard II, Leclerc, Merkava IV, T-80 etc.) are much more protected but are VASTLY more expensive to acquire, maintain and operate. These vehicles are really the only type that can truly resist rockets and survive heavy artillery. No Third World force can make these but they can capture and use them (ISIS apparently captured some US made M1A1 which scared the crap out of everybody).

But if you can make or steal them, the armored light vehicle does seem to have genuine value. It has been noted that in the Iraq fighting, the armored HMMWV is considered by all sides to have an advantage over the unarmored 'technicals'. Maybe this is another 'sweet spot' though right now they are not being manufactured in a way that is really cost-effective arguably.

The new active defense systems like the Israeli 'Trophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)=)' system may also change the entire ratio of the armor / firepower balance once again because they can apparently defeat RPG's and even some ATGM's. This could make much lighter armored vehicles much more cost-effective and dangerous on the battlefield.

As to fitting out a car I think the old Steve Jackson game car wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Wars) actually breaks down a lot of this pretty well. Things like heavier suspension, self-sealing fuel tanks, big guns and so on all add weight and cost, but also value. You try to find the sweet spot.

G

Gnoman

2014-10-31, 02:20 PM

Brother Oni

2014-10-31, 02:52 PM

Comparing them to something like a Hellcat is pretty ludicrous. An M18 carried the most powerful anti-tank gun in US service at the time it was introduced, and was armored well enough to ward off essentially any infantry weapon short of an anti-tank gun (a .50 caliber equivalent could penetrate the armor at close range, but Germany didn't use any such weapon, sticking with 7.92mm Mauser).

Or anything that simply went into the open top of the M18, like a light mortar or a grenade.

Galloglaich

2014-10-31, 03:14 PM

Technicals are pretty effective when the enemy has no armed vehicles at all, as they give heavier weapons such as machine guns or RCLs a huge amount of mobility, but they're worse than useless against actual combat vehicles. They physically cannot carry a weapon powerful enough to knock out a modern MBT (an M1, Leopard, or T-80+ is essentially invulnerable to the size of HEAT .

Actually 'Technicals' most definitely can destroy most armor that is actually in the field today, for example in 1987 the army of Chad used several hundred 'Technicals' to capture a major air-base in Libya which was heavily fortified and defended by tanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/23/world/chad-is-said-to-capture-strategic-libyan-air-base.html

see also (for more details)

http://warontherocks.com/2014/02/the-pickup-truck-era-of-warfare/#_

The reason is that 'Technicals' can carry ATGM's (like the Kornet rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet)) as well as recoilless rifles and so on which can knock out most tanks in the field. These days even RPG's (the right RPG's) can knock out even the best-armored late generation tanks like the Merkava IV*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4794829.stm

http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2006/08/rpg29_the_great.html

... but more importantly, the really good tanks like Merkava IV's (and M1A1 and Leopard II's and etc.), are also really rare. Germany for example has only 300 Leopard II's. Russia by comparison has over 10,000 T-72s. The vast majority of the tanks being used out in the world are mid to late 20th Century vintage T-55's, Centurians, T-72's, M-60's and so on. All of which are easy to knock out with any kind of HEAT weapon.

Meanwhile, any hit (even a burst of AK-47 or M-16 fire) will either completely destroy them or immobilize them so that a second hit

Yes but the effective range of a heavy machine gun is several times that of an assault rifle. A group of say, 5 technicals can devastate an infantry company from almost a mile away pretty easily.

Comparing them to something like a Hellcat is pretty ludicrous. An M18 carried the most powerful anti-tank gun in US service at the time it was introduced,

Actually that isn't true since the 90mm gun mounted on the M-36 Jackson (and later, the Pershing) was much more powerful.

and was armored well enough to ward off essentially any infantry weapon short of an anti-tank gun (a .50 caliber equivalent could penetrate the armor at close range, but Germany didn't use any such weapon, sticking with 7.92mm Mauser). A technical is, at best, equivalent in firepower to a second-line APC and is completely unarmored.

You are missing the point of the analogy. A modern battlefield isn't saturated with medium tanks and tank destroyers like in WW II with 3 and 4 inches of steel plate armor. Today most armored vehicles have less than 1/2" of armor which cannot withstand a heavy machine gun and definitely can't withstand 23mm machine cannons which are routinely placed on Technicals, let alone recoilless rifles or 3 inch rockets.

So the analogy goes like this: Hellcat is to Pz IV in 1945 what Libyan 'technical' is to BRDM or Stryker in 2014.

G

* although as I mentioned before, the Trophy countermeasure system seems to be able to trump this.

Gnoman

2014-10-31, 04:17 PM

Actually 'Technicals' most definitely can destroy most armor that is actually in the field today, for example in 1987 the army of Chad used several hundred 'Technicals' to capture a major air-base in Libya which was heavily fortified and defended by tanks.

In '87 Lybia was using antique T-55s as their main striking force, while Chad was supplied with state-of-the art weapons from most of the NATO powers. That's not a virtue of the platform on which those weapons were mounted so much as it is that the weapons themselves were thirty years more advanced than what they were being shot at.

The reason is that 'Technicals' can carry ATGM's (like the Kornet rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet)) as well as recoilless rifles and so on which can knock out most tanks in the field. These days even RPG's (the right RPG's) can knock out even the best-armored late generation tanks like the Merkava IV*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4794829.stm

http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2006/08/rpg29_the_great.html

The RPG-29 has been used against first-line armor (the Merkava's a decent tank, but it's more like an upgraded M-60 than a front-line vehicle such as an M-1) multiple times. It is confirmed that 1 Challenger and 3 M1s have been struck by the weapon, with a total casualty rate of 2 dead and 5-7 wounded. All four vehicles were repaired and returned to service. It is alleged to have been pretty effective against Israeli tanks, but none of the reports I've seen give much detail, so we don't know if they're hits on the front armor, shots to the side, or even from above. That's a big factor in how you rate the relative quality of a weapon.

Recoilles rifles are common on the international arms market because they're technological antiques that the first-line militaries are practically throwing away. They have less firepower than an RPG or the disposable one-shot rocket launchers NATO fields, and are far more cumbersome. The sole exception is the Carl Gustav, which is being reintroduced as a long-range antipersonnell weapon with secondary anti-vehicle capacity, and because it is particularly good at taking out technicals.

As for ATGMS, those are actually quite rare, and even the Kornet you mentioned couldn't destroy an Abrams or even a Bradley when used against those vehicles in 2003 (1 Bradley and 2 M1s were claimed to damaged by the weapon, I can't find confirmation). Even the Merkava (which, as mentioned, is closer to a modernized second-line vehicle) has proved very difficult to knock out with one, with only four claimed as destroyed, and at least one confirmed hit on the side did nothing but put a hole in the outer armor, causing no injuries and leaving the tank fully intact.

... but more importantly, the really good tanks like Merkava IV's (and M1A1 and Leopard II's and etc.), are also really rare. Germany for example has only 300 Leopard II's. Russia by comparison has over 10,000 T-72s. The vast majority of the tanks being used out in the world are mid to late 20th Century vintage T-55's, Centurians, T-72's, M-60's and so on. All of which are easy to knock out with any kind of HEAT weapon.

This is actually a decent point, but even a monkey-model T-72 is actually pretty hard to knock out with an RCL, leaving only the short-ranged RPGs or the hard-to-get ATGMs (which are getting even harder to get as the nations that can actually build the later ones are cracking down on exports) as a viable method of attack.

Yes but the effective range of a heavy machine gun is several times that of an assault rifle. A group of say, 5 technicals can devastate an infantry company from almost a mile away pretty easily.

If the infantry only had rifles, that would be true. Except that light, medium and heavy machine guns are pretty heavily represented in any infantry company, and a technical is far easier to hit and, if anything, less sturdy against such fire (due to infantry's greater ability to take cover), to say nothing about ready access to even heavier weapons such as automatic grenade launchers, mortars, or ATGMs. If the enemy gets a chance to fight back, technicals are screwed. Which is why they're used in slashing attacks, long range harrassment, or behind-the-lines raiding.

Actually that isn't true since the 90mm gun mounted on the M-36 Jackson (and later, the Pershing) was much more powerful.

The Hellcat was equipped with the best tank guns available when it was introduced. In the mid-30s, this was a 37mm cannon, then a British 57mm, and finally the 76mm gun, which was the most powerful gun they had. The 90mm wasn't introduced until 4 years after the early models of Hellcat saw service in North Africa.

You are missing the point of the analogy. A modern battlefield isn't saturated with medium tanks and tank destroyers like in WW II with 3 and 4 inches of steel plate armor. Today most armored vehicles have less than 1/2" of armor which cannot withstand a heavy machine gun and definitely can't withstand 23mm machine cannons which are routinely placed on Technicals, let alone recoilless rifles or 3 inch rockets.

So the analogy goes like this: Hellcat is to Pz IV in 1945 what Libyan 'technical' is to BRDM or Stryker in 2014.

The Stryker is a Light Assault Vehicle, which is basically a purpose-built vehicle designed for the same tactical role that's filled by technicals. Or, more accurately, a Technical is essentially a homemade version of a Stryker. It's faster than any technical (capable of 100 km/h over most terrain), as well armed than a technical (carrying either a .50 HMG or a 40mm automatic grenade launcher), and better armored than one (able to withstand 14mm machine gun fire, where a technical would be hard-pressed to stop a .22). While a particularly well armed technical (a machine gun wouldn't do any good, an RCL or RPG isn't very accurate against fast moving targets, so you'd need an autocannon or ATGM (most of which are not Fire And Forget, so the vehicle has to stop to fire them) might be able to take out a Stryker one-on-one with a great deal of luck, any Stryker can quite easily turn any technical into a wreck unless it is very unlucky or walks into an ambush. A more accurate analogy is that a Technical is to a Stryker in 2014 what a bazooka-armed Jeep was to a Pz III in 1943.

As for a BRDM, it's another case where top of the line weapons are being used to destroy very old vehicles. Again, just because you strap very good weapons on a bad platform and use it to good effect against vehicles several generations older than what those weapons were meant to be used against doesn't make the platform good, any more than you can strap Mavericks or Hellfires onto a Piper Cub and claim it's a good ground attack plane because you were able to shoot up some supply trucks easily.

Galloglaich

2014-10-31, 05:21 PM

In '87 Lybia was using antique T-55s as their main striking force, while Chad was supplied with state-of-the art weapons from most of the NATO powers. That's not a virtue of the platform on which those weapons were mounted so much as it is that the weapons themselves were thirty years more advanced than what they were being shot at.

No, most tanks of the 20th Century are vulnerable to 20th Century rockets of roughly the same era, t-55, t-72, Centurian, M-60 etc., they don't have to be 30 years advanced.

The RPG-29 has been used against first-line armor (the Merkava's a decent tank, but it's more like an upgraded M-60 than a front-line vehicle such as an M-1) multiple times. It is confirmed that 1 Challenger and 3 M1s have been struck by the weapon, with a total casualty rate of 2 dead and 5-7 wounded. All four vehicles were repaired and returned to service. It is alleged to have been pretty effective against Israeli tanks, but none of the reports I've seen give much detail, so we don't know if they're hits on the front armor, shots to the side, or even from above. That's a big factor in how you rate the relative quality of a weapon.

Ok, you really think that is such a good ratio? Now think about the cost of an RPG round vs. the cost of an M1A1 or a Challenger.

As for ATGMS, those are actually quite rare, and even the Kornet you mentioned couldn't destroy an Abrams or even a Bradley when used against those vehicles in 2003 (1 Bradley and 2 M1s were claimed to damaged by the weapon, I can't find confirmation). Even the Merkava (which, as mentioned, is closer to a modernized second-line vehicle) has proved very difficult to knock out with one, with only four claimed as destroyed, and at least one confirmed hit on the side did nothing but put a hole in the outer armor, causing no injuries and leaving the tank fully intact.

They are not rare, because huge stockpiles of them have been captured by irregular forces in Libya, Syria, Chad, Tunisia, and most recently, Iraq where ISIS took over numerous stockpiles of US made weapons including capturing some M1A1 tanks and acquiring Stingers and TOW missiles which are a lot better than most of the Chinese and Soviet made stuff they already had (including the Chinese HJ-8 which is a cheap knock-off of the US made TOW).

This is actually a decent point, but even a monkey-model T-72 is actually pretty hard to knock out with an RCL, leaving only the short-ranged RPGs or the hard-to-get ATGMs (which are getting even harder to get as the nations that can actually build the later ones are cracking down on exports) as a viable method of attack.

If they are so hard to knock out how come so many have been knocked out by irregular forces in Libya and Syria among other places?

If the infantry only had rifles, that would be true. Except that light, medium and heavy machine guns are pretty heavily represented in

infantry don't move around with heavy machine guns or automatic grenade launchers, ever tried carrying a .50 cal?

The Hellcat was equipped with the best tank guns available when it was introduced. In the mid-30s, this was a 37mm cannon, then a British 57mm, and finally the 76mm gun, which was the most powerful gun they had. The 90mm wasn't introduced until 4 years after the early models of Hellcat saw service in North Africa.

I think you are confusing the Hellcat with one of it's predecessors, the much slower and less agile (though better armored) M-10. Anyway the M-18 was never used in North Africa.

The Stryker is a Light Assault Vehicle, which is basically a purpose-built vehicle designed for the same tactical role that's filled by technicals. Or, more accurately, (snip) any more than you can strap Mavericks or Hellfires onto a Piper Cub and claim it's a good ground attack plane because you were able to shoot up some supply trucks easily.

But compare the cost of a Stryker to that of patching up a 30 year old Toyota with a .50 cal. 4.9 million per unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#Cost). How many 'Technicals' does it take to knock out a Stryker? Personally I don't think a Stryker has a huge advantage over even one technical, but lets say it does. If we assume the cost in Iraq or Syria or Chad for an old pickup truck is $10,000, and the cost for an old heavy machinegun is $5,000, for an average price of $15,000 per technical (I think this is probably much higher than the actual cost is, but lets just say this for argument) that is enough for 326 'Technicals' per Stryker. Lets say that my estimate is too low for the cost of a technical. Lets triple it. That is still 108 technicals per Stryker. Or we could use the best possible unit cost of a Stryker at 1.4 million, that would still be more than 20 'Technicals' per Stryker, and I would bet you a months pay that a Stryker cannot defeat 20 "Technicals" - even one opening fire within range would probably spell doom for it.

This is kind of beside the point though anyway since I'm not really talking about US first - line army vs. a mob of 'Technicals', I'm talking about the relevance of 'Technicals' in 21st Century warfare, which is clearly huge and not all of which involves US or European forces. Most of the fighting is between 2nd or 3rd world governments and various groups of insurgents. But I suspect you could make a case that 'Technicals' have a role even in the most high tech armies, at least in certain environments. After all, the US Special Forces use them:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2154/2182619581_e3efa48bd9.jpg

Also, the French who have been successful in fighting in Chad and other places recently, have been using light armored vehicles similar to Hellcats and to Technicals, with success.

As for hellfires on a piper cub, what do you think a Predator is? Or for that matter, the Iraqi airforce is literally doing exactly that:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bird-dogs-for-the-iraqi-air-force-03578/

G

Carl

2014-10-31, 05:22 PM

As for ATGMS, those are actually quite rare, and even the Kornet you mentioned couldn't destroy an Abrams or even a Bradley when used against those vehicles in 2003 (1 Bradley and 2 M1s were claimed to damaged by the weapon, I can't find confirmation). Even the Merkava (which, as mentioned, is closer to a modernized second-line vehicle) has proved very difficult to knock out with one, with only four claimed as destroyed, and at least one confirmed hit on the side did nothing but put a hole in the outer armor, causing no injuries and leaving the tank fully intact.

I just want to take exception to this, the stated armour value's i could find of a bradley are nowhere near enough to reliably defeat a Kornet. That's not to say a variety of factor's couldn't and wouldn't allow a bradley to survive hit's, (i'd be especially interested to know if they had ERA fitted as whilst a tandem charge takes less of a hit from that stuff performance wise than a single charge design, it still suffers and it would multiply the effectiveness of the spacing in the armor), but i wouldn't expect that to hold up in an en mass employment of the weapons.

Also i'm not sure the point about the badness of the targets is entirely fair, many technicals are fitted with era authentic weaponry scavenged from the same people they're fighting, it's just that, (to my admittedly limited knowledge), most of the non-MBT stuff of that era wasn't designed to stand upto that stuff in the first place.

Thats said you otherwise make many, many very good points.

EDIT: @Gallioach: the problem is manpower is the biggest limiter in any army, you might be able to afford a hundred technicals per stryker, (assuming there are actually that many vehicles available to convert), but you'd never be able to man that many or deploy them effectively in a concentrated mass. Also bear in mind much of the cost of something like the strykr is down to it's western manufacture and limited production run. B2's don't cost 2 Billion because they cost that much to make, they cost that much because that cost includes the development cost and tool production cost spread amongst just 20 aircraft. The Strykr is very similar, it's a limited run design which means it gets a sharp markup from tooling and development costs on top of higher western manufacturing costs. A good pickup in the west costs a hell of a lot.

p.s.

infantry don't move around with heavy machine guns or automatic grenade launchers, ever tried carrying a .50 cal?

You did see the post way back where i was surprised to discover that a sub 100 man light infantry division has 15 50 cals and 14 40mm GMG's to just 500 and some actual pairs of boots, weapons crew included.

Mabn

2014-10-31, 06:56 PM

Roxxy

2014-10-31, 07:21 PM

Gnoman

2014-11-01, 04:23 AM

What would be the feasibility of arming and armoring a tracked vehicle such as a bulldozer at the factory as a way to make a bargain basement armored vehicle?
Edit : or a larger wheeled vehicle such as a garbage truck. Basically anything produced for non military purpose with a high load tolerance.

Bulldozers and other heavy tracked vehicles are generally designed with a lot of weight in mind, and tracks give them tolerable terrain performance, so it could do alright. The biggest problem is that they typically have exposed cabs that would be difficult to armor, and don't have the passenger space needed for a crew, but you're talking about a factory job, so that could be dealt with. THere's no getting around the slow speed, which would be a serious limitation at both tactical and strategic levels, however.

As for garbage trucks or buses, they'd be pretty unsuitable due to extremely poor off-road capability. They'd have the weight capacity, and rigging them as mobile launchers or transports for artillery rockets, mortars, or missiles could be possible (real tube artillery would be out of the question except in a purely transport role, as the recoil from firing a howitzer would probably destroy the vehicle), but for direct assaults they just wouldn't work, being huge, easy targets that wouldn't be able to move fast without rolling over, and wouldn't have an easy time gaining traction in the first place (unless you made extensive modifications to the chassis, at which point it would probably be easier to just start from scratch.)

Yora

2014-11-01, 07:03 AM

Depends on what you want to get. Armoring a vehicle to be protected against pistols, rifles, and even machine guns isn't that particularly difficult if you can get enough really big steel pannels and know how to distribute the weight over the vehicle. It's been done before.
Making something that can withstand modern anti-tank weapons or engage actual tanks in battle is probably out of the question.

My medieval/renaissance magitech civilization has access to natural rubber. So, let's say some guardsman fires a wooden shaft with a rubber head from a longbow or crossbow, or a rubber ball from an arquebus, striking an unarmored person. Assuming that this was during a riot, and shots were fired from within 30 feet, how likely are such implements to cause heavy bruising or knock somebody down? Break limbs? Kill?
Depends entirely on how strong the crossbow is and how much powder you load into the arquebus. A small crossbow that you can load by pulling back the string with one hand while holding it in the other would be unlikely to casue serious injury, unless you hit the eye or throat. If you have a heavy crossbow that is loaded with a windlass and both hands, I would expect even a rubber projctile to possibly fully penetrate an unarmored body.

If the guards want to minimize injury and have special ammunition for that, they would also have crossbows of the right strength and know how much poweder to load into their guns.

Spiryt

2014-11-01, 07:30 AM

My medieval/renaissance magitech civilization has access to natural rubber. So, let's say some guardsman fires a wooden shaft with a rubber head from a longbow or crossbow, or a rubber ball from an arquebus, striking an unarmored person. Assuming that this was during a riot, and shots were fired from within 30 feet, how likely are such implements to cause heavy bruising or knock somebody down? Break limbs? Kill?

You can likely google injuries caused by those quite easily.

Police uses them often against hooligans, and other people who enjoy good riots, and often poor bystanders, of course.

They usually use smooth-bore shotgun to fire those, AFAIU, at least over here.

Injuries are often gruesome, but not overly dangerous, at least for adult, healthy humans.

I would expect even a rubber projctile to possibly fully penetrate an unarmored body.

If only the head is rubber, then indeed, it would mitigate the impact somehow, while wooden shaft could still cause nasty damage.

Fully rubber projectile likely won't penetrate anything, at all, it's just to soft and giving.

Galloglaich

2014-11-01, 09:30 AM

EDIT: @Gallioach: the problem is manpower is the biggest limiter in any army, you might be able to afford a hundred technicals per stryker, (assuming there are actually that many vehicles available to convert), but you'd never be able to man that many or deploy them effectively in a concentrated mass.

The availability of manpower in poorer areas vs. richer (since this seems to have turned into a Stryker vs. Technical debate for some reason) is another area in which the third world, insurgent, and irregular forces have a distinct advantage. First, you have a huge population to begin with. Second, the now millions of widows and orphans created in wars from West Africa to Afghanistan make for large numbers of extremely motivated volunteers in the form of young men eager for revenge and hopeless enough to be willing to risk their lives and their commanders don't mind using them up. By comparison, "1st World" nations are extremely reluctant to commit troops to combat as we are seeing today precisely because we don't like them to become casualties and we don't have enough people when involved in war (hence 'stop loss' etc. during the height of the Iraq war).

Manpower is really not a problem for irregular forces in the areas where Technicals are being used so I don't think that is a valid argument.

Furthermore, training is hugely easier for the crew of a Technical than it is for a Stryker let alone a Bradley or a Puma. All you really need to know how to do is drive. Shooting the big guns does take some training, but the US Army taught me how to shoot and maintain an M2 .50 cal in 5 days. It can be tricky (because if you screw up you can hurt yourself) but it's not rocket science.

As for the cost of the gear, as we know unfortunately many of these groups have vast amounts of money and smuggling in a Toyota truck is a lot easier than some other purpose-built military hardware. The guns and etc. are often scavenged from their enemies depots but these too are not controlled the way more high tech arms are.

Also bear in mind much of the cost of something like the strykr is down to it's western manufacture and limited production run. B2's don't cost 2 Billion because they cost that much to make, they cost that much because that cost includes the development cost and tool production cost spread amongst just 20 aircraft. The Strykr is very similar, it's a limited run design which means it gets a sharp markup from tooling and development costs on top of higher western manufacturing costs. A good pickup in the west costs a hell of a lot.

That is a completely different argument, i.e. why Western and in particular, US defense spending is so extremely inflated and so often weapons programs go into massive cost overruns and are often never even finished because they get so screwed up, the SGT York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York), the B-70 Valkyrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie) type weapons.

This has been a major problem for the US military since at least WW II, when major projects the Mk 14 torpedo failed to perform so miserably at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives and the US military could not put sufficient pressure on industry to get them fixed for years. You also see it even in other ultimately successful projects like the P-38 fighter which had major teething problems that killed many of our pilots as well as huge cost overruns.

Dissecting why this works this way in the US gets into politics and is beyond the scope I don't think this is due to a limited production run. They built 2,000 Strykers, and it's also based on a very old design which has been around since the 70's. There is no reason a Stryker should cost a million dollars let alone 4 million.

You did see the post way back where i was surprised to discover that a sub 100 man light infantry division has 15 50 cals and 14 40mm GMG's to just 500 and some actual pairs of boots, weapons crew included.

Have you ever been in the military? Have you tried to pick up a .50 cal? These can be assigned to a unit but unless they have vehicles to carry them they are not going to be moving them around in the field. If they have vehicles and those weapons are mounted on them then they are either light armor or effectively, Technicals.

G

Mathis

2014-11-01, 09:48 AM

Roxxy

2014-11-01, 04:39 PM

If only the head is rubber, then indeed, it would mitigate the impact somehow, while wooden shaft could still cause nasty damage.

Fully rubber projectile likely won't penetrate anything, at all, it's just to soft and giving. If the crossbow is at the upper edge of what can be spanned without mechanical help, how much does having a wooden shaft increase the amount of damage that can be done to rioters?

If the guards want to minimize injury and have special ammunition for that, they would also have crossbows of the right strength and know how much poweder to load into their guns.How much power if the guards are fine breaking bones and skin and causing massive bruises (teach them ruffians a lesson), but don't want to actually kill anyone?

spineyrequiem

2014-11-01, 05:57 PM

What would be the feasibility of arming and armoring a tracked vehicle such as a bulldozer at the factory as a way to make a bargain basement armored vehicle?
Edit : or a larger wheeled vehicle such as a garbage truck. Basically anything produced for non military purpose with a high load tolerance.

Fairly feasible. You might find this guy pretty interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer as he managed to knock up a vehicle impregnable to small arms and basic explosives. With proper military weapons it would have been toast, but it'd certainly be scary and it looks like it wasn't too hard to make.

Similarly, the Home Guard tried knocking up a few armoured vehicles back in WW2. The Bison, basically a mobile pillbox, is a good example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_concrete_armoured_lorry , as is the Armadillo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_armoured_fighting_vehicle , which used gravel armour to make it sort-of-bulletproof. Perhaps the best vehicle they made was the Beaverette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Beaverette , as it continued to be used after we'd managed to make proper armoured vehicles.

So yes, feasibility is not a problem. However, most sources agree that the majority were deathtraps, and the crews would probably have been better off just fighting as infantry. And certainly making a decent tank would be nigh-impossible.

That said, I might well knock a model up for a Genestealer Cult, on the principle it'd look awesome.

Yora

2014-11-01, 06:01 PM

There you are getting into a principal problem with firearms. The way the human body is build, there just is no way to reliably cause severe discomfort without risk of permanent damage or death. Areas like eyes, throat, groin, wrists, and ankles are highly vulnerable, while in other places it takes considerable impact to damage bones under muscles and fat. Age of the specific person and individual state of health also can make a big difference. A person who falls can always hit the head on the ground and sustain fatal injuries, and when you're trying to disperse a crowd violently, there is always a chance of someone getting stepped on.

I think the term "nonleathal" is no longer commonly used. Instead it's called "less than lethal", because fatalities are always a risk.

If you're using force against a crowd of people, there will be injuries almost certainly. And it also has the effect of making the people quite angry at the guards and the people who gave the orders, which can make things a lot worse. If you start shoting, even with rubber, things will get ugly. If you want to dispers a crowd without anyone getting hurt, the only option is deescalation, as is the standard police procedure in the modern western world. Well, at least almost all of the western world.

Gnoman

2014-11-01, 11:03 PM

I think the term "nonleathal" is no longer commonly used. Instead it's called "less than lethal", because fatalities are always a risk.

Not only that, but there's been a lot of data to suggest that limited lethality weapons are more likely to kill someone than a lethal weapon (adjusted for rate of carriage), since they have a much lower engagement threshold, and are thus more likely to be used.

Milodiah

2014-11-02, 03:33 AM

Not only that, but there's been a lot of data to suggest that limited lethality weapons are more likely to kill someone than a lethal weapon (adjusted for rate of carriage), since they have a much lower engagement threshold, and are thus more likely to be used.

To be fair, there have been only ~19 reported deaths in Northern Ireland after...half a million or so rubber bullets were fired since the 1970s, I believe? I think that's not right, but it's definitely in the hundreds of thousands.

Also, some of the first recorded "less-lethal" ammunition was actually bits of broomhandle fired from a small-bore cannon. So...yeah. It all depends on how much less lethal you really want it to be.

Jeivar

2014-11-02, 04:54 AM

Yora

2014-11-02, 05:13 AM

I am not aware of any case in which pauldrons have been worn without a cuirass. Could be done of course, but would look weird to anyone slightly familiar with armor. Plates intigrated into a mail hauberk were used, but as far as I know only on the torso.

From what I understand, mail is basically impenetrable to cuts, but can be penetrated by thrusts. Since a thrust to the shoulder is unlikely to come from above and most likely at an angle from below, a sword or spear would almost certainly glance off even from mail. There would be little protective value from putting pauldrons over a mail hauberk. Same thing goes for arm protection. Those would make the most sense if the mail only reaches to the elbows.

Oh yes: And the very most important piece of armor there is: A shield!
Unless the character is fighting with a large two-handed sword, he should have a shield. Even if he is fighting primarily with a spear or bow, there will be situations where he will have to fight with a sword or axe as a backup weapon, and then he will really want to have a shield with that, even if it's a relatively small one that does not add much of a burden when carried on the back. Wood and hide shields are surprisingly thin and light, not at all like a heavy slab of thick boards. A 40cm diameter shield worn on the back should not be too cumbersome, but the added protection of having one when you fight one-handed is invaluable.

Spiryt

2014-11-02, 06:34 AM

I've put her in a mail hauberk down to her knees, arm guards, leg guards, a helmet, and I want to add pauldrons. Did people wear pauldrons over mail, as a separate piece? Can they be strapped on or would they be a part of the shirt?

Pauldrons were with no doubt worn over mail.

Though the problem is that they were generally rather sophisticated piece of plate, worn to fit with the rest of suit - thus pauldrons existing while plate 'doesn't' yet seems kinda off.

Simpler spauldrons or general plates of iron over shoulder and/or inner and outer arm, would probably be better.

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/3193/3138/

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/624/825/

Jeivar

2014-11-02, 07:28 AM

Oh yes: And the very most important piece of armor there is: A shield!

I know, but the character primarily fights monsters that can tear through a shield easily enough, so she wields a two-hander and relies on dodging.

Pauldrons were with no doubt worn over mail.

Though the problem is that they were generally rather sophisticated piece of plate, worn to fit with the rest of suit - thus pauldrons existing while plate 'doesn't' yet seems kinda off.

Simpler spauldrons or general plates of iron over shoulder and/or inner and outer arm, would probably be better.

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/3193/3138/

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/624/825/

Hmm, okay. I can't quite tell from those pictures: Are the shoulder plates clipped to the chest armour or are they attached to the mail?

Spiryt

2014-11-02, 07:36 AM

First were of course pretty much the part of the chest coat of plates.

Second are indeed harder to guess, but as I understand, modern reconstructions usually are connected to chest, strapped at the wrist and shoulder region, and all pieces are connected to each other, so it all lays on arm pretty safely as a result.

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/books/daubernon_arm-harness.gif

Brother Oni

2014-11-02, 03:03 PM

I know, but the character primarily fights monsters that can tear through a shield easily enough, so she wields a two-hander and relies on dodging.

Beowulf had the same issue and commissioned an all metal shield to deal with it.

One question, if she is reliant on dodging to evade monster attacks, why is she up-armouring in the first place as the increased weight will affect endurance and potentially agility? A more agile fighting style is perfectly possible with a smaller shield like a targe and with a two hander, you'd be using the reach advantage to stay away rather than being an agility based fighter out of a wuxia film (unless that's what you had envisioned).

Spiryt

2014-11-02, 04:41 PM

One question, if she is reliant on dodging to evade monster attacks, why is she up-armouring in the first place as the increased weight will affect endurance and potentially agility? A more agile fighting style is perfectly possible with a smaller shield like a targe and with a two hander, you'd be using the reach advantage to stay away rather than being an agility based fighter out of a wuxia film (unless that's what you had envisioned).

Everyone relies on dodging in a way, but it doesn't matter one won't armor oneself.

If one has any access to armor, that's it.

Going against monsters with claws and horns to tear trough wood, being solidly armored seems like obvious choice.

Leaves way, way more rooms for error while 'dodging'. From rendering dodging straight out necessary, to making it way easier.

Mr. Mask

2014-11-02, 04:53 PM

It depends on the forces at work. If you're up against this (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ValusTemplate_2486.jpg), no armour will help. That was the main impetus for the abandonment of armour, that artillery and primary weapons were becoming too effective against it. I agree that even if your plan is to be evasive, armour can still be very helpful. That way, your enemy needs to do more than clip you to put you out of commission.

Now, the specifics of what gear the monster slayer wants depends on the monster (though often it'd be logical to be less fun, laying traps for them or the like).

Milodiah

2014-11-02, 05:30 PM

Jeivar

2014-11-02, 05:40 PM

Milodiah

2014-11-02, 08:18 PM

Apparently the various types of Roman mail like the lorica hamata and lorica squamata had what sounds like an extra layer of mail that would be draped over each shoulder and then hooked into the rings of the main hauberk, just two strips of double-thick mail.
Like this. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Lorica_Hamata.jpg)

Do note that on a real uniform the mail would extend a few more inches downward and over the upper arms, rather a common cost-cutting phenomenon in re-enacting.

Of course, the importance of the forward-facing plate pauldron is that a square hit to the flat of the shoulder, right beside the collarbone area, can absolutely wreck your entire arm. A well-shaped plate will deflect that sort of blow.

warty goblin

2014-11-02, 11:19 PM

Of course, the importance of the forward-facing plate pauldron is that a square hit to the flat of the shoulder, right beside the collarbone area, can absolutely wreck your entire arm. A well-shaped plate will deflect that sort of blow.

It doesn't even take a particularly hard sort of impact. I managed to snap my collarbone tripping over a dog of all things. I didn't even land on it particularly hard, but the angle was wrong and the thing went pop. My left shoulder's never been as strong since.

rs2excelsior

2014-11-02, 11:31 PM

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how the elaborate sets of plate armor seen in the later parts of the medieval era were actually transported when on campaign? I know they weren't worn on the march at all times, which would be rather absurd, but I also doubt the components were simply thrown into a sack and slung over the back of a pack animal.

Also, how exactly would it be handled in a D&D-sized party? It's already a bit of a strain to accept that the fighter in solid full-plate is operating without a squire or other assistant, but I have a hard time accepting the explanation of how their armor is being carried as "in their backpacks".

Now, take this with the caveat that my preferred field of military history is not the Medieval period, but I believe virtually all of the people who'd be wearing that kind of armor would be knights of some description--people of high enough class socially and economically to afford such expensive armor. Virtually all of them, as I understand it, would have had at least a squire. Many of the more powerful nobles/very upper class knights could have huge retinues, including their own wagons and the like. How the lesser knights would have transported it, I'm not sure.

Also, anyone with more knowledge about the period, please feel free to correct me...

GraaEminense

2014-11-03, 03:36 AM

Kiero

2014-11-03, 04:16 AM

Unsourced speculation: From everything I read about old-timey warfare, armies were often outnumbered by their camp-followers (just as today, the logistics arms of modern militaries are huge). It seems very likely that any soldier with the pay scale to own heavy armour would have if not a squire, then at least a servant-cook-mule driver-possibly prostitute-henchperson. Or a small band could pool their resources to hire the same, complete with pack animals.

These hordes of camp-followers are easy to overlook since they often don't feature prominently in History (capital H intended), but as they lived off soldiers' pay they would have provided the necessary services -including squiring.

No reason why some of these wouldn't attach themselves to a band of murder-hobos. The alternative is really that the elf and the wizard help the fighter and dwarf get dressed.

This is true. Looking at antiquity, the Greek gentleman-hoplite would have a slave or younger relative as his shieldbearer, and the gentleman cavalryman the same to manage his horses (no cavalryman has a single mount, he has at least two, preferably four horses). Republican Roman legionaries before Marius would have slaves (and at least one mule) attached to their mess. It was unusual to travel without support, indeed that was the sort of thing that might happen temporarily during a forced march if the fighting component of the army needed to get somewhere fast, but they'd never be able to survive without all the camp followers.

The classic band of murder-hobos with no attendants isn't very realistic at all, and doesn't make much sense outside of fantasy. In history, any group of armed men needed followers.

Mr. Mask

2014-11-03, 06:20 AM

Depending what you mean by armed groups, they don't all need followers.

spineyrequiem

2014-11-03, 06:42 AM

Say, I'm writing a fantasy novel and I need some help with armour. Plate doesn't exist in the setting yet, but I want my hero well armoured for the climactic battle.

I've put her in a mail hauberk down to her knees, arm guards, leg guards, a helmet, and I want to add pauldrons. Did people wear pauldrons over mail, as a separate piece? Can they be strapped on or would they be a part of the shirt?

Why not just stick some lamellar over the top? It's the right tech level, and a few of my reenactment group have worn the two together so the weight isn't too much of an issue (if anything, they said it made it easier as it cinched in the mail and made it easier to support)

Like pauldrons, it'd provide extra protection against arrows, spears and similar pointy things, and it incorporates shoulder guards fairly often (Crusade's leader has some which look rather like Samurai Sode, which I presume are authentic-ish given how neurotic the leadership are about authenticity)

Also, lamellar looks pretty, always a concern in fantasy.

Kiero

2014-11-03, 07:59 AM

Depending what you mean by armed groups, they don't all need followers.

If they have horses, they need followers. Each man needs at least two horses if he's going to remain mounted over anything more than a couple of days, they need a lot of care to keep in decent condition, which means a groom. Especially if any members of that group don't know how to look after a horse themselves.

If they are people on foot, who hunt and forage along the way, and bring only what they can carry on their backs, then perhaps they don't need followers. Unless they want people they encounter to take them seriously as more than a band of vagabonds. People who matter have retinues; being able to support attendants demonstrates your wealth, status and prowess.

Galloglaich

2014-11-03, 08:16 AM

Now, take this with the caveat that my preferred field of military history is not the Medieval period, but I believe virtually all of the people who'd be wearing that kind of armor would be knights of some description--people of high enough class socially and economically to afford such expensive armor. ...

You understand wrong. Lots of people, probably 80% of society, including peasants and burghers (townsfolk) in most parts of Europe in the high to late medieval period (the period when plate armor existed) could afford armor. Those among them who fought usually wore armor.

Heavy cavalry often had attendants but that, as previously mentioned, had more to do with the horses. armies carried extra gear in carts or on pack-animals. Carts seemed to be very popular and common.

Armies often had specialists who went with them, people who put together the camps, carried the food, fixed the weapons etc., but the soldiers could also do this themselves. Often the extra people were kind of a luxury.

In short, armored men doesn't not necessary equal attendants, and knights were by far NOT the only people who had armor.

G

Mike_G

2014-11-03, 08:32 AM

This is true. Looking at antiquity, the Greek gentleman-hoplite would have a slave or younger relative as his shieldbearer, and the gentleman cavalryman the same to manage his horses (no cavalryman has a single mount, he has at least two, preferably four horses). Republican Roman legionaries before Marius would have slaves (and at least one mule) attached to their mess. It was unusual to travel without support, indeed that was the sort of thing that might happen temporarily during a forced march if the fighting component of the army needed to get somewhere fast, but they'd never be able to survive without all the camp followers.

The classic band of murder-hobos with no attendants isn't very realistic at all, and doesn't make much sense outside of fantasy. In history, any group of armed men needed followers.

But a small group of elite specialized butt kickers which is what an adventuring party is, not a company of infantry, commonly do operate alone.

SEAL teams, Recon squads, special forces teams, all these types of units don't travel with cook stoves, medical tents, and trucks full of communications guys. They carry what they need, and are pretty self sufficient for short periods. They have a mission, they go do the mission, then they come back.

This is very much like the Wizard/Thief/Fighter/Cleric team going to scout out rumors of monsters threatening the village (recon) or rescuing hostages (SF stuff) or raiding the BBEG's hideout.

They have resources that normal troops don't (more magic, powerful allies instead of helicopter or submarine insertion and radio contact for air support) but they aren't going to march for a month and occupy and defend an area, which is what regular troops do.

Don't look at Henry V's army at Agincourt for an example of an adventuring party. Look at SEAL Team Six.

Kiero

2014-11-03, 08:58 AM

But a small group of elite specialized butt kickers which is what an adventuring party is, not a company of infantry, commonly do operate alone.

SEAL teams, Recon squads, special forces teams, all these types of units don't travel with cook stoves, medical tents, and trucks full of communications guys. They carry what they need, and are pretty self sufficient for short periods. They have a mission, they go do the mission, then they come back.

This is very much like the Wizard/Thief/Fighter/Cleric team going to scout out rumors of monsters threatening the village (recon) or rescuing hostages (SF stuff) or raiding the BBEG's hideout.

They have resources that normal troops don't (more magic, powerful allies instead of helicopter or submarine insertion and radio contact for air support) but they aren't going to march for a month and occupy and defend an area, which is what regular troops do.

Don't look at Henry V's army at Agincourt for an example of an adventuring party. Look at SEAL Team Six.

SEAL Team Six, just like every modern military unit, are just the very tip of a spear. They can't operate without an absolutely massive support team, who outnumber the operators many times over. That support team doesn't come on the missions with them, but they are just behind them every step of the way.

The classic dungeon team operates without any support infrastructure whatsoever, which is ridiculous.

GraaEminense

2014-11-03, 09:30 AM

Milodiah

2014-11-03, 10:08 AM

Jeivar

2014-11-03, 10:14 AM

Okay, it seems I've misused the word "pauldrons". I didn't realize it referred specifically to late medieval plate shoulder guards. (I'm not writing in English)

Why not just stick some lamellar over the top? It's the right tech level, and a few of my reenactment group have worn the two together so the weight isn't too much of an issue (if anything, they said it made it easier as it cinched in the mail and made it easier to support)

When you say over the top, do you mean on the shoulders or over the entire hauberk? Would it make sense for lamellar-like shoulder guards to be attached to a mail hauberk?

Yora

2014-11-03, 10:21 AM

So, question: what kind of equipment do such troops carry? Is it the equivalent of full plate armour and a warhorse, tattered cloak and staff, or something in between?

I would probably go with mail shirts and helmets, that seems to be a reasonable amount of protection while still considering moving through the wilds. A medium sized sword and shield, a bow, hatchet, and some knives.
If you expect to mostly travel along roads and paths and not crawl through forests, a spear for one- or two-handed use would also be really good, because in 1-on-1 fights, the reach offered by spears is just a huge advantage.

Galloglaich

2014-11-03, 10:26 AM

I agree that neither the army at Agincourt nor Seal Team Six are good analogues for an independent adventuring party. A better real-life equivalent would be special forces expected to operate without extensive logistical support, behind enemy lines and the like. I'm thinking spec ops rather than insurgents/rebels/freedom fighters because our orc-hunting murder-hobos tend to be extremely well equipped.

So, question: what kind of equipment do such troops carry? Is it the equivalent of full plate armour and a warhorse, tattered cloak and staff, or something in between?

There are actually studies on medieval 'special operations' units, which did exist more or less as such albeit in a somewhat different context. This book for example covers the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Special-Operations-Chivalry-1100-1550-Warfare/dp/1843834529

But I think people as usual tend to misunderstand the period in very important ways. One of the biggest differences between then and now is that whereas in say, 1970 or 2014, a fighter, a bodyguard, an armed escort or a special operations 'operative' are almost certain to be specialist professionals, in 1100 - 1550, these jobs would be done (and done very well) by people who had two or three other day jobs. Artists, weavers, priests, merchants, farmers, ranchers, college professors, furriers...

Think of the Vikings. Most Vikings were really fishermen, traders, or farmers who went raiding (or more realistically and more often, trading) during their slow season. This continued to be the common pattern right up to the age of the Landsknechts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht). We know from regulations that both rural peasants and burghers, as well as knights and even certain clerical estates were required to provide large numbers of armored men for musters during wartime.

Furthermore, just traveling from place to place in the medieval period was quite perilous and was often done with armor (as someone mentioned upthread, typically armor that was convenient to walk in, which usually meant no lower leg protection). The sea voyage which did not risk encounters with pirates or privateers, and the land voyage with no hint of bandits or robber knights was a rarity. Travelers knew they needed to be able to protect themselves in journeys and planned and equipped themselves accordingly.

As a general rule, the smaller the group the less likely they were to have large numbers of servants or a baggage train. A rich man or woman in a small group might have some, but that didn't necessarily reflect on military necessity. Roman Legionnaire's carried harvesting tools with them as part of their personal kit, so they could take grain from the fields, and also brought small elements (spikes etc.) and tools with them to set up fortifications every night when they stopped the march.

If you look at military musters in the medieval period, for small unit actions (which far outnumbered larger ones) in the ballpark or 20-100 men, the combatants outnumbered the non-combatants, and the latter were often mostly musicians. These musters include the names and pay rate for everyone sent out, so we know who went. For some reason musicians seem to have been very important, as well as a few washer-women, horse grooms, carters, cooks and couriers.

On the other hand having a lot of specialists capable of making and fixing weapons, as well as engineers and architects, physicians, cannon experts, alchemists, and so on, were of immense value to military units. As armies reached the size of over 100 men, the ratio of specialists and servants increased. A lot of towns would send groups of guys like this to augment armies raised in the rural areas and they would often make the difference especially during sieges. Baggage trains could be quite immense and it was also true that the supply train did sometimes outnumber the fighters.

We have detailed records of the muster of a small army from Regensburg on campaign in 1431, answering a general muster to help go fight the Hussites of Bohemia. The force which consisted of 73 horsemen, 71 crossbowmen, 16 handgunners, and a mixed group of smiths, leatherworkers, a chaplain, pike-makers, tailors, cooks, and butchers, for 248 men in total. They brought 6 cannon, 300 lbs of cannonballs and 200 lbs of lead shot. Forty one wagons carried powder and lead, 6,000 crossbow bolts, 300 fire-bolts, 19 handguns, cowhides, tents, and horse fodder for six weeks. Supplies for the 248 men included ninety head of oxen, 900 lbs of cooked meat, 900 lbs of lard, 1200 pieces of cheese, 80 stock-fish, 56 lbs of uncut candles, vinegar, olive oil, pepper, saffron, ginger, 2 tuns and 73 “kilderkins” of Austrian wine, and 138 “kilderkins” of beer. The total cost of this campaign was 838 guilders. So that is a ratio of 160 fighters to 88 support people (including both skilled specialists and servants) which is 64% fighting men, not unusual for an urban force trying to emphasize their main assets (money, gear and skilled expertise).

This unit however merged with a force of 1200 infantry raised from rural levies, for which it was essentially the supply / support / siegecraft element. So that in effect it's 93% fighting men for the overall force.

Source for this is this book (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/German-Medieval-Armies-1300%E2%80%931500_9780850456141), page 10, though I believe their original source is Hans Delbruck.

When it comes to RPG adventures, in the early days of DnD it was normal to have large numbers of 'henchmen' and 'hirelings', I think that did make sense - when going on particularly dangerous expeditions in which you did not necessarily have to move fast getting into and out of the area (like going down into an abandoned underground complex of some sort) you would want to bring a lot of extra people to fight the potential enemies and carry all the food and so on. DnD got rid of this by more or less institutionalizing the expectation that player characters are invulnerable / unkillable and heavily de-emphasizing logistics of all types. DnD is basically a comic book superhero game set in an alternate reality more related to a Renaissance Faire than any actual history or mythology from the real world.

G

Knaight

2014-11-03, 10:41 AM

Think of the Vikings. Most Vikings were really fishermen, traders, or farmers who went raiding (or more realistically and more often, trading) during their slow season. This continued to be the common pattern right up to the age of the Landsknechts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht). We know from regulations that both rural peasants and burghers, as well as knights and even certain clerical estates were required to provide large numbers of armored men for musters during wartime.

More often yes, more realistically no. To use a mnemonic, there tended to be a few methods of action for societies on the fringes of larger, more organized civilizations*. Most of the time, they'd trade. If the more organized civilization was in a bad situation and things were breaking down, they'd raid. Once things really got bad, they'd invade.

Trade, raid, or invade is a bit of a simplification, but as a general rule it does hold fairly well. The Vikings in particular did all three at different times, against different civilizations.

*What the organized civilizations generally would consider barbarians in the more modern sense.

Kiero

2014-11-03, 10:43 AM

So, question: what kind of equipment do such troops carry? Is it the equivalent of full plate armour and a warhorse, tattered cloak and staff, or something in between?

You cannot use a warhorse as your sole mount, this is something fantasy novels and RPGs often get wrong. In very short order, you'll have a dead horse; warhorses cannot take the punishment of being ridden for hours at a time, day in, day out. Pretty much the only time you should be riding a warhorse is when you expect to be in a fight very soon.

Every knight and other professional cavalryman with a warhorse (or if wealthier, two warhorses) had at least one riding horse as well (better yet two or three). Because if you're travelling long distances, you need remounts (and that means multiple mounts for every person in your group). Both as insurance against any one horse getting some sort of issue, horses are pretty fragile beasts, but also so that you can regularly rest them by not being ridden as you travel. Note you could travel much faster than the overland rates shown if you have enough remounts to change every couple of hours. Rather than the 10 miles a day a good army containing infantry might cover, an all-mounted force with three mounts per person might cover 30 miles in a day.

As a general rule, the smaller the group the less likely they were to have large numbers of servants or a baggage train. A rich man or woman in a small group might have some, but that didn't necessarily reflect on military necessity. Roman Legionnaire's carried harvesting tools with them as part of their personal kit, so they could take grain from the fields, and also brought small elements (spikes etc.) and tools with them to set up fortifications every night when they stopped the march.

Roman legionaries still had slaves attached to their tent group, and extensive unofficial entourages of camp followers who attached themselves to an army on campaign. Even "Marius Mules" and those who followed, who didn't have as many as up to a slave each as earlier legionaries might, and who carried all of their own wargear (and acted as mobile baggage, as you suggested), still had a baggage train. They could travel without them for short periods, but it would be a call to mutiny to banish them altogether.

When it comes to RPG adventures, in the early days of DnD it was normal to have large numbers of 'henchmen' and 'hirelings', I think that did make sense - when going on particularly dangerous expeditions in which you did not necessarily have to move fast getting into and out of the area (like going down into an abandoned underground complex of some sort) you would want to bring a lot of extra people to fight the potential enemies and carry all the food and so on. DnD got rid of this by more or less institutionalizing the expectation that player characters are invulnerable / unkillable and heavily de-emphasizing logistics of all types. DnD is basically a comic book superhero game set in an alternate reality more related to a Renaissance Faire than any actual history or mythology from the real world.

G

Indeed, having an entourage was a new concept to me when I played ACKS recently, in our old (A)D&D days, it had never occurred to us that there'd be followers, except those you got at name level. To be honest, having done that I find it hard to go back to the notion of the team of superheroes who are invulnerable to logistics.

Spiryt

2014-11-03, 10:46 AM

in 1100 - 1550, these jobs would be done (and done very well) by people who had two or three other day jobs. Artists, weavers, priests, merchants, farmers, ranchers, college professors, furriers...

In some cases, certainly.

But 'professional' ones would exist widely as well.

Whole land owner class, as well as different kinds of lesser profile ministerials, guards, boyars etc. would form a category of people who would live completely or partially on resources produced by others, and in turn spend their time on various martial occupations instead.

Peasant or burger combatants would after all tend to be voigts, counselors, officials etc. so people who likely had certain 'base' for other activities.

without extensive logistical support, behind enemy lines and the like

But murder hobos pretty universally operate with extensive logistical support.

Teleport back to town whenever they're running out of something, dimensional pockets, some suicidal dudes selling potions in convenient places etc.

Spiryt

2014-11-03, 10:58 AM

When you say over the top, do you mean on the shoulders or over the entire hauberk? Would it make sense for lamellar-like shoulder guards to be attached to a mail hauberk?

It would likely 'make sense', though I don't recall such things from actual sources.

Okay, so I should just describe a version of that and incorporate the arm guards into it?

Though the key is probably what you understand as 'arm guards' and what you specifically want additionally protected and why.

Generally you can just look for historical solutions yourself:

http://effigiesandbrasses.com

In such engine, or just Google, or whatever, looking for sculptures, miniatures etc. in 14 century one can see plenty of mail, plate, scale etc. patents.

Milodiah

2014-11-03, 11:06 AM

I think the real reason D&D dropped those henchmen fellows is because the average DM doesn't want to constantly be four to ten dudes who hang out with the three to five PCs, each with personalities, opinions, stats, etc. etc. When this does happen they tend to be weird apparitions who fade out of existence when they aren't being interacted with, like random street NPCs. At best they'll usually end up being stoic professionals who speak only when spoken to and hold their own in a fight the PCs still tend to carry.

I've yet to see a DM who tries to use the weird Leadership rules 3.5 has for cohorts and stuff, as far as I care this isn't a video game where plot-essential characters join your party for complex storyline reasons and can only get picked up when the plot says so. My rules simplify to "if you can pay their wages, treat them with basic decency, and don't use them for trap trigger detail, you could lead in a whole mercenary company as far as I care."

Brother Oni

2014-11-03, 11:14 AM

Armies often had specialists who went with them, people who put together the camps, carried the food, fixed the weapons etc., but the soldiers could also do this themselves. Often the extra people were kind of a luxury.

To support this point, this ratio of front line combat troops (tooth) to support and logisitical troops in modern nomenclature is known as the 'tooth to tail ratio' or T3R.

Modern militaries range from a 1:5 (1 combat for every 5 support) to 1:10 T3R. The IDF has a 1:5 ratio but they don't 'play away' so to speak while most NATO militaries are about a 1:8, with the US military averaging a 1:10 (for aircraft wings, this can be as high as 1:20), which is reflected in its ability to wage war far from home.

Medieval armies float around a 1:1 T3R, depending on the exact campaign and period in question.

Roman legions are recorded to have a 8:2 T3R, that is 8 legionnaries being supported by 2 slaves.

GraaEminense

2014-11-03, 11:53 AM

Milodiah

2014-11-03, 11:56 AM

To support this point, this ratio of front line combat troops (tooth) to support and logisitical troops in modern nomenclature is known as the 'tooth to tail ratio' or T3R.

Modern militaries range from a 1:5 (1 combat for every 5 support) to 1:10 T3R. The IDF has a 1:5 ratio but they don't 'play away' so to speak while most NATO militaries are about a 1:8, with the US military averaging a 1:10 (for aircraft wings, this can be as high as 1:20), which is reflected in its ability to wage war far from home.

Medieval armies float around a 1:1 T3R, depending on the exact campaign and period in question.

Roman legions are recorded to have a 8:2 T3R, that is 8 legionnaries being supported by 2 slaves.

To be fair, every single legionnaire was support. The soldiers built their camps (every single day, mind you), the soldiers hauled their food, the soldiers blazed trails.

Galloglaich

2014-11-03, 12:13 PM

In some cases, certainly.

But 'professional' ones would exist widely as well.

There were some, but I don't think very many. We know from Landsknecht and Reislauffer rosters and so on that most mercenaries had other jobs for example and many did it only for a season or two (if they lived through a few campaigns they could make so much money it was possible to move up in social status). Farmers and farm-hands would be pressed or join armies during 'campaigning seasons' and return home in time for harvests.

Whole land owner class,

This may be a matter of six of one half-dozen of the other, but I personally think it's inaccurate to call the medieval landowning class professional warriors or soldiers. Some in some areas and at certain times (of great danger and constant war) were effectively that, but many were at best part time fighters and didn't do much at all. For every hard bitten battlescarred killer knight there were probably three knights who were basically eccentric gardeners, religious mystics, or vintners who very much preferred to spend most of their time on their own estates. Most nobles were what we would call in the 18th-early 20th Century planters or ranchers, such as you can still see in much of Latin America, the patron who as a member of the ruling family controls the hacienda. These people can and do fight, as do their henchmen and supporters ...

as well as different kinds of lesser profile ministerials, guards, boyars etc. would form a category of people who would live completely or partially on resources produced by others, and in turn spend their time on various martial occupations instead. ... but they really spend most of their time as foremen and managers and agents of various types dealing with the complex duties involved in running an estate. When there is trouble they then become part of the landowners retinue. Sometimes in certain areas there is trouble almost constantly for generations, but in other places and other times within the medieval period, there are long stretches of peace and these people fall out of the habit of war, this was actually one of the fundamental problems with the Feudal levy particularly in Poland where you are as I'm sure you are well aware.

Peasant or burger combatants would after all tend to be voigts, counselors, officials etc. so people who likely had certain 'base' for other activities.

This isn't actually true. Voigts, councilors and so on often acted as the military leaders of burgher and peasant armies, but the rank and file were typically ordinary artisans or farmers respectively. I've posted a lot before on the burghers role in the armies, for the rural side we can look at that same record of the deployment in Regensburg in 1431.

This was toward the end of the first wave of the Hussite Wars and the Catholics had suffered numerous defeats, so it was an extraordinary period of stress. At the start of the war Duke Albrecht V did a census of all the able-bodied men in his country between ages 16-70. In the 1431 levy, every ten people had to arm and equip one man.

This is far far less than the ratio of Voigt to peasant, which might be one Voigt to several hundred or even thousand peasants (lead by a few dozen Starosta)

Each man, the vast majority of whom were ordinary peasants, had to be equipped with an iron helmet, body armor (cuirass or war-coat), gauntlets, and a sidearm (either a sword or a messer / baurnwehr) in addition to their primary weapon. Each 20 men had one wagon. Of the 20 men, the primary weapons broke down as follows: 3 hand-guns (hand culverins, probably), 8 crossbows, four spears, and four flails (these would be two-handed flails of the Czech type, something like this (http://kultofathena.com/images%5CUZ0503_l.jpg))

So that gives you a pretty good snapshot of how ordinary people were armed in 1430. you can read about it all here (http://books.google.com/books?id=hdh4Elj-3WEC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=The+force+which+consisted+of+73+horsemen,+71+cr ossbowmen&source=bl&ots=kDj5y8Y-rR&sig=-UqLI7-1oA1g0gbUoNQC_jPLjgY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kpxXVMa9JsGhgwSkmYO4Bg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20force%20which%20consisted%20of%2073%20hors emen%2C%2071%20crossbowmen&f=false)

G

Spiryt

2014-11-03, 12:29 PM

Storm_Of_Snow

2014-11-03, 12:31 PM

The classic dungeon team operates without any support infrastructure whatsoever, which is ridiculous.

That's what the shop keeper and tavern barman in the nearby village, the priest in the temple the other side of the hill, the bloke that's hired them to go and do whatever are - the parties support network. They're their quartermaster, cook, medic and commander.

I think looking at them as a formal military unit (even a special forces unit) is the wrong way to look at them, they're more likely somewhere between individual mercenaries and a victorian lady/gentleman adventurer who travels somewhere in order to do something, and buys/ hires anything and anyone they need when they get there, rather than shipping tonnes of stuff and teams of people with them.

For GraaEminense's modern "adventurer" types, weapons would depend on where they are in the world, simply to give them best access to ammunition, spare parts and the like. After that, are they working for a PMC, are they an established group with people that owe them favours, or are they individuals being sent or travelling in hope of employment to somewhere? In the former, equipment will be pretty much what they want to take with them, minus things the destination country really don't want them bringing in (and in certain countries, even that may only need palms being greased appropriately), in the latter, they might have some old and battered civilian-use items that they can carry on commercial carriers and through customs/immigration, but no weapons or armour and they'll have to get the rest in place, with the middle giving them something in between (eg, sidearms carried as hold luggage but nothing heavier).

Kiero

2014-11-03, 12:47 PM

To be fair, every single legionnaire was support. The soldiers built their camps (every single day, mind you), the soldiers hauled their food, the soldiers blazed trails.

Not really. Marius' Mules (ie those from early 1st century BC onwards) certainly did more of the camp activities themselves (being drawn from the urban poor and unlikely to be able to afford their own slaves), but there was still an extensive support network of camp followers necessary for a legion to be able to function on campaign. The soldiers certainly participated in building the marching camp, but they weren't the only labour involved. They certainly carried their personal and mess supplies, but they didn't drive the oxen, manage the bulk grain supplies and so on. Auxiliaries blazed trails and scouted ahead, not legionaries; the distinction is important because they were often local soldiers, not Italians who had a collective political sway over their general.

Spiryt

2014-11-03, 01:01 PM

Yeah, AFAIR, there are plenty of very interesting sources describing on how legions at height of their power tended to be followed by colorful bands of various people, from minor artisans supplying everyday goods to prostitutes.

Will try to dig something later.

Galloglaich

2014-11-03, 01:40 PM

Well, of course that many knights wouldn't be much of a fighters, and actual 'pro' ones would be also mostly agrarians, 'businessmen', or whatever.

But the point is that they, obviously wouldn't actually need to do that much of work.

Even low rang 13th century knight from Poland, Hungary or some other rural place, on just single (if large) farmhold - would have some number of dependent people, peasants, women or even actual slaves.

So he wouldn't have to do much, and could devote a lot of time and resources to making war, not love.

Poland was also in the unusual if not unique situation (along with Lithunaia and some other places) that nearly 15-20% of their population qualified as knights, technically, so many of these guys were definitely not professional killers - which is precisely why they later on created the professional army in the 16th Century that served them so well.

In other words, yes without doubt plenty of common people would be fighting and performing similar activities well and often, but it's worth specifying that there would be significant and important 'fighting caste' that wouldn't be doing much of anything else.

I just question that - anyway from the Urban perspective, the leaders of their armies, who appeared to be quite successful in many cases, were really not full time soldiers and didn't see themselves that way, they were merchants and civic leaders first and foremost, and often did many other things as well. To me this is one of the things that makes the medieval period so interesting, often only understood today as the ideal of the "Renaissance Man" but back then, people (both men and women) did pass through many different walks of life that seem to be much more separated and segregated today.

From lawful and proper forces to ecourcheurs and other murderous bands.

One category obviously could and would turn into other rather quick and easily in many cases.

Sadly very true.

Yeah, AFAIR, there are plenty of very interesting sources describing on how legions at height of their power tended to be followed by colorful bands of various people, from minor artisans supplying everyday goods to prostitutes.

Will try to dig something later.

The Landsknechts had a special officer to deal with the prostitutes, called the 'whores sergeant'

You can read a bit about them here (http://books.google.com/books?id=duH_z7zQjKAC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=landsknecht+whores+sergeant&source=bl&ots=T9HfUFu9dB&sig=CYiWG6mqQKmiX8DsUv2si0MbQck&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4stXVMH_DaresASKkoCwDQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=landsknecht%20whores%20sergeant&f=false)

why that doesn't exist in RPG games eludes me. Who is gonna make the Landsknecht mod in Mount and Blade anyway?

G

Mike_G

2014-11-03, 02:29 PM

SEAL Team Six, just like every modern military unit, are just the very tip of a spear. They can't operate without an absolutely massive support team, who outnumber the operators many times over. That support team doesn't come on the missions with them, but they are just behind them every step of the way.

The classic dungeon team operates without any support infrastructure whatsoever, which is ridiculous.

But a lot of that support is replaced by magic.

Teleport replaced helo insertion. Scrying replaces satellite imaging.

The support guys who don't go on the mission aren't party members, they are, as was said above, the employer and his or her retainers, who do the Rear Echelon support stuff.

SEAL teams would be high level PCs, going after a BBEG in his lair. Scry and Die missions. The "party" would be just the operators, the logistics guys (those who couldn't be replicated by spells) would be the Baron's minions back at base.

Low level parties would be more like a squad or fire team sent to recon an area or perform a quick mission. They aren't going to spend months in the field, but they have a a small group, with no attached support. The Cleric is the medic (in fact, we named our cleric Kormun) the point man/scout is the rogue, the main firepower comes from the fighter and the specialized stuff if the wizard. A four man team doing a specific task isn't unknown in the military. That's what a lot of patrols are.

The guys back at base are not a fun part of the game, but most adventures acknowledge they exist. And the FRPG ubiquitous magic make a lot of real world support stuff unnecessary.

Gnoman

2014-11-03, 03:42 PM

GraaEminense

2014-11-03, 04:36 PM

Quite frankly, they don't exist. Even groups such as the USFIP (United States Forces In Philippines) that were completely cut off from friendly forces for months or years at a time still had the same "tooth-to-tail" ratio, with the only real difference being that their procurement officers used rifles and submachine guns for requisitioning supplies from the Imperial Japanese Army instead of using paperwork to get them from a supply dump.
Aaw, Hollywood lies again.
But then, USFIP as you describe them would work as an analogue for murder-hobos to some degree -fighting men in hostile territory, living off what they can loot from Gnolls and Goblins (or the IJA). There is a difference between living off the land (and its inhabitants) and relying on support.
However, it falls through because USFIP were not exactly equipped for the task and made do with Orc bows and Bugbear swords (yeah I'll drop the joke now) -unlike fantasy adventurers who tend to have the best kit money can buy.
That's what I'm looking for a modern version of: Small well-equipped units operating independently for more than a few days at a time. I'd think something along those lines would fall into spec ops territory, but I really don't know.

But a small group of elite specialized butt kickers which is what an adventuring party is, not a company of infantry, commonly do operate alone.
SEAL teams, Recon squads, special forces teams, all these types of units don't travel with cook stoves, medical tents, and trucks full of communications guys. They carry what they need, and are pretty self sufficient for short periods. They have a mission, they go do the mission, then they come back.
Anyone in the know -SEAL teams and the like, how long is their max time deployed for a mission (barring unforeseen circumstances)?

Yora

2014-11-03, 05:10 PM

It probably depends on what goal they are meant to accomplish. Assassinate leaders? Disrupt supply routes? Sabotage infrastructure? Scout enemy movements?
The purpose of the opperation very much dictates the composition of the unit and their equipment.

Galloglaich

2014-11-03, 05:39 PM

This is quite informative reading, but I think I'll need to rephrase my question:

What would the modern version of "adventurers" (presumably spec ops operating without support) have in the way of equipment?

How would their lack of support affect their equipment choices? They probably won't have henchmen along, so they're facing somewhat similar limitations.

I think to get any idea what this is like in the real world, read some travel accounts from the period. These often involved small groups of people, with or without a few servants or attendants. They are always armed, usually armored too, and typically experienced many adventures, met interesting people, got into fights, encounters with bandits and dangerous animals, fled for their lives, discovered treasures and so on. Travel was seldom routine in the medieval period.

This was to such an extent that it generated a literary tradition, the travel story. There are many collections of stories from the middle ages which were basically lists of dirty jokes or funny stories on a variety of subjects, linked together by an over-arching story. The 1001 nights / Arabian nights are a typical example of the genre. So are the Canterbury Tales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canterbury_Tales), and Boccachio's Decameron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decameron), and many others.

You can also read the personal accounts of medieval and Early Modern travelers like Fra Di Plano Carpini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_da_Pian_del_Carpine), Sylvio Piccolomini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_II), Bartholomew Sastrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholom%C3%A4us_Sastrow), and Buenevenuto Cellini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benvenuto_Cellini).

Sources like those can give you a lot of great ideas for games.

G

spineyrequiem

2014-11-03, 05:55 PM

When you say over the top, do you mean on the shoulders or over the entire hauberk? Would it make sense for lamellar-like shoulder guards to be attached to a mail hauberk?

I meant wearing it like a breastplate, sadly I can't find a decent picture. Lamellar tends to only go to the waist, as otherwise you wouldn't be able to bend at all (at least, none of the group have longer), but it goes over the hauberk so most of the weight rests on your hips. You could have lamellar shoulder guards attached straight to your hauberk, but those shoulders I've seen were attached to a lamellar breastplate instead - that way, your whole torso gets protected from stabby things, rather than just your shoulders. Also, attaching it to the hauberk runs the risk of it slipping out of place, since mail is so flexible, while lamellar is fairly rigid so your shoulder guards should stay on your shoulders.

Sadly, I can't find any decent pictures to show you what I mean. If I somehow manage to acquire both sets of armour in the next few days, I'll be sure to post a photo!

Galloglaich

2014-11-03, 08:20 PM

Incanur

2014-11-04, 05:41 PM

Milodiah

2014-11-04, 08:20 PM

dramatic flare

2014-11-04, 09:34 PM

Anyone in the know -SEAL teams and the like, how long is their max time deployed for a mission (barring unforeseen circumstances)?

I don't know their max time, but I do know that Vietnam War Era SEALS usually spent a week or two afield if on patrol and not on a specific mission. I would look into their operations for further input in what special forces will be like as a stand-alone adventuring party with returing to base being returning to town for adventurer resupply.

I can't for the life of me remember the book where I got this information, just that it was a partial "daily life of" story and partial autobiography of a Vietnam War era SEAL. Had a lot to do with their training as well (Spoilers: It's friggin' insane.)

Mr Beer

2014-11-04, 09:52 PM

I don't know their max time, but I do know that Vietnam War Era SEALS usually spent a week or two afield if on patrol and not on a specific mission. I would look into their operations for further imput in what special forces will be like as a stand-alone adventuring party with returing to base being returning to town for adventurer resupply.

I can't for the life of me remember the book where I got this information, just that it was a partial "daily life of" story and partial autobiography of a Vietnam War era SEAL. Had a lot to do with their training as well (Spoilers: It's friggin' insane.)

Yeah, I read some book by a guy who was a SEAL back in the day who observed modern SEALs going through their training, it sounded ridiculously hard. Was interesting when the ones that passed were quizzing the author about his Hell Week, it wasn't the same but it seemed about on par.

Galloglaich

2014-11-04, 09:55 PM

As far as professionalism and experience go, a 13th-century Norwegian text (http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/kingsmirror.htm) instructs the [elite] reader to practice swordplay in heavy kit at least once a day and twice a day to master the art.

Yes but just because the King's Mirror advocates training once or twice a day doesn't mean they actually did that. Nobles were advised in some other manuscripts of the same period to spend more time than that on falconry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_arte_venandi_***_avibus). We actually know very little about what kind of training anyone did other than the tournaments and fechtschuler (which were more of an urban phenomenon), some general advisory comments in some of the fechtbucher and a few throwaway lines from the lines of Boucicaut. Plenty of advice, of course, but very little about when and how people trained, especially on the individual level.

part-time soldiers weren't necessarily any less effective on the battlefield. The rhythms of agricultural and other forms of labor apparently often left sufficient time for martial arts drill.

I think that is closer to the reality, and I agree with that.

G

EDIT: Whoever tried to email me, I made some room in my inbox.

Milodiah

2014-11-04, 10:15 PM

Probably a decent analogy would be the Vietnam-era Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols. Sure, they had one of the greatest logistics networks in the world behind them, but it certainly was behind them when they were out on patrol. There'd be three, four, six guys going out, ten at the most. They customized their weapons in crazy ways, did whatever they wanted to their uniforms, pretty much ignored each other's ranks, and pretty much were adventurers. LRRPs could go out for up to three weeks in the jungle, just looking for Charlie, and even fight him too. Real badasses.

Kiero

2014-11-05, 03:31 AM

Furthermore, part-time soldiers weren't necessarily any less effective on the battlefield. The rhythms of agricultural and other forms of labor apparently often left sufficient time for martial arts drill.

This is particularly the case when the part-time soldier in question is affluent enough not to have to do all the labouring themselves. Thus they have the free time to train and wealth to afford their own equipment.

Probably a decent analogy would be the Vietnam-era Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols. Sure, they had one of the greatest logistics networks in the world behind them, but it certainly was behind them when they were out on patrol. There'd be three, four, six guys going out, ten at the most. They customized their weapons in crazy ways, did whatever they wanted to their uniforms, pretty much ignored each other's ranks, and pretty much were adventurers. LRRPs could go out for up to three weeks in the jungle, just looking for Charlie, and even fight him too. Real badasses.

Unfortunately, some of those teams also mimicked the "murder-hobo" element of the classic adventurer dynamic. Irregular warfare is never far from turning into outright butchery.

dramatic flare

2014-11-05, 04:39 AM

EDIT: Whoever tried to email me, I made some room in my inbox.

That was me. I was going to ask for more detail on the book on asymetric medieval warfare you suggested. When your box was full I just googled it.
Thanks though.

Storm_Of_Snow

2014-11-05, 05:33 AM

Groups like resistance cells might not be bad examples either. Their support network is either running the risk of being put up against the wall and shot next to the fighters, or on the far end of a parachute supply drop.

GraaEminense

2014-11-05, 05:35 AM

I'd love to answer the question for modern special forces equipment, but I cringe at doing so because I know I'd try to answer it in far too much depth and end up writing you an essay about it instead of the term paper I probably should be writing. Do you have any specific questions I could answer without rewriting the hundreds of works on the subject?
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject to ask specific questions :p LRRP sounds like interesting material though, might give those a look even if they are Vietnam era and a few decades off.

The problem with resistance cells and the like is that they tend not to have access to the most desirable equipment. Cold War era stuff still works, but it's hardly cutting-edge.

Yora

2014-11-05, 06:55 AM

I meant wearing it like a breastplate, sadly I can't find a decent picture. Lamellar tends to only go to the waist, as otherwise you wouldn't be able to bend at all (at least, none of the group have longer), but it goes over the hauberk so most of the weight rests on your hips. You could have lamellar shoulder guards attached straight to your hauberk, but those shoulders I've seen were attached to a lamellar breastplate instead - that way, your whole torso gets protected from stabby things, rather than just your shoulders. Also, attaching it to the hauberk runs the risk of it slipping out of place, since mail is so flexible, while lamellar is fairly rigid so your shoulder guards should stay on your shoulders.

Sadly, I can't find any decent pictures to show you what I mean. If I somehow manage to acquire both sets of armour in the next few days, I'll be sure to post a photo!
You could do it, but as far as everyone here seems to be able to tell, nobody ever did it. We don't know why they didn't, but they almost certainly had very good reasons for it.
My personal guess would be, that it actually adds little actual benefit and is only included on full body covering plate armor to not leave a gap that would be a prime target for attacks.

If you're doing fantasy, just go for it. If you want to keep it realist, then don't.

Matthew

2014-11-05, 07:53 AM

You cannot use a warhorse as your sole mount, this is something fantasy novels and RPGs often get wrong. In very short order, you'll have a dead horse; warhorses cannot take the punishment of being ridden for hours at a time, day in, day out. Pretty much the only time you should be riding a warhorse is when you expect to be in a fight very soon.

Interestingly, though, that is also the exact situation promoted by medieval fantasy, such as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Galloglaich

2014-11-06, 10:59 AM

This is particularly the case when the part-time soldier in question is affluent enough not to have to do all the labouring themselves. Thus they have the free time to train and wealth to afford their own equipment.

This is one of the persistent old Victorian cliché's about the medieval world which I think needs to be dispelled. The idea that most people were toiling masses working every waking moment just to achieve subsistence, with the only people who had a moment to think, write, or ride a noble steed to a jousting tournament, were a tiny rentier elite who did nothing but go to the opera and attend balls and so on, is more a reflection of some political ideals of 19th Century England than it is of the reality of the medieval world.

There were 'men of leisure' in medieval Europe of course, people (actually men and women both) who were waited on hand and foot by servants and didn't know the concept of toil, but these were not ordinary knights, but rather princes and prelates: Dukes, Kings, Emperors; Archbishops and Cardinals and Popes, the very very elite of the nobility and the Church. Like the Billionaires of today. There were also slaves and true serfs, villeins, and so on, but these too were a small minority of the population.

But the vast majority of those under arms did not have that much wealth. They may have had servants and vassals but they typically also had day jobs. As I noted, these were planters, ranchers, administrators, merchants, ship captains and so on, more of them on the humbler side of the spectrum than the very elite. Most of the people riding warhorses on the battlefields of Europe in 1250-1500, in the heyday of the armored knight, were in what you would call the middle to upper-middle classes. The rest of the armies of the era were made of the middle and working classes: artisans, peasants. Contrary to the old cliché, these people did have leisure time and also money, since they were obligated to equip themselves with arms, armor, and often horses and followers. Generally speaking they actually had a lot more free time and personal wealth than the working classes in England in Victorian times.

In short, there was a middle class in Europe during the period of knights in armor, and it was that middle class which was also the warrior class. Most people had some leisure, and also had to work some of the time. The wealthier of the nobility, the Church and the patrciate (urban mercantile class) had the most leisure and had the least obligations to work, and the poorest of the rural peasantry had the least leisure and the most obligation to work, but there were very few absolutes. Just as today (at least in the 'first world'), most people did not have purely leisurely lives or purely toiling lives. It was not restricted to a 'leisure class' which had time to train for war. Everybody who wasn't a slave or a serf trained for war and kept arms in medieval Europe, in most cases they were obligated to do so. We have surveys of households which were done to make sure everyone was armed, and we can look at exact percentages of households which had arms in them. For example in the area around Augsburg in Germany in the 15th Century 97% of households had arms. Those were the people who did the most fighting on the battlefields and also in the seigniorial courts, the tournaments, the taverns and the streets of the cities and villages.

Even peasants had servants, incidentally.

G

Galloglaich

2014-11-06, 11:14 AM

To kind of emphasize the point: you could actually be fined in medieval Germany for not owning a sword.

G

Yora

2014-11-06, 12:03 PM

Though that statement covers 1000 years and several hundred of autonomous principalities.

Galloglaich

2014-11-06, 12:10 PM

Though that statement covers 1000 years and several hundred of autonomous principalities.

I'm referring to the rather narrower date range I indicated in the first of the two recent posts.

And I'm not saying it was a universal rule, though I do assert that it was pretty common. At any rate, you can find many examples.

Geographically I'd actually expand it beyond what is today Germany since similar laws existed in what is now Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia parts of what are now Eastern France and Northern Italy, and Belgium, among other places, due to the influence back then of German town law in those places, both in the urban centers and the countryside.

G

Kiero

2014-11-06, 12:32 PM

This is one of the persistent old Victorian cliché's about the medieval world which I think needs to be dispelled.

Your point stands, but I was actually talking about antiquity, rather than the medieval era. Men of the hoplite class tended to be yeoman farmers, more affluent sorts who had enough slaves that they themselves weren't a necessary component of the agricultural workforce on their own land. In most of the Mediterranean, these men were greatly outnumbered by rural and urban poor, some of whom couldn't afford even one slave, which was the mark of genuine poverty.

Spiryt

2014-11-06, 12:55 PM

This is one of the persistent old Victorian cliché's about the medieval world which I think needs to be dispelled. The idea that most people were toiling masses working every waking moment just to achieve subsistence, with the only people who had a moment to think, write, or ride a noble steed to a jousting tournament, were a tiny rentier elite who did nothing but go to the opera and attend balls and so on, is more a reflection of some political ideals of 19th Century England than it is of the reality of the medieval world.

There were 'men of leisure' in medieval Europe of course, people (actually men and women both) who were waited on hand and foot by servants and didn't know the concept of toil, but these were not ordinary knights, but rather princes and prelates: Dukes, Kings, Emperors; Archbishops and Cardinals and Popes, the very very elite of the nobility and the Church. Like the Billionaires of today. There were also slaves and true serfs, villeins, and so on, but these too were a small minority of the population.

Chliches are bad, but I don't think there's a point in going to the other extreme side.

There were plenty of people who were indeed living very humble and busy life, and going to war was pure abstraction to them.

The fact that they were carrying knife or falchion at the belt didn't change that.

Everybody who wasn't a slave or a serf trained for war and kept arms in medieval Europe, in most cases they were obligated to do so.

Well, but slave or serfs still were forming solid portion of population.

Even peasants had servants, incidentally.

Servants of the peasants were indeed serfs or straight out slaves, without land or significant property to make them very independent.

And because peasants themselves were generally at very least 60% of population, there was significant amount of serf population.

Similarly in towns apprentices sleeping somewhere around the corners at master's houses, masses seasonal laborers wouldn't have much time and energy to actually train anything, drinking beer with friends would be much better leisure.

And those would be vast majority of towns citizens, while in many cities people who were living and working in the cities, but without actual citizenship, would be majority of population.

There were also laws in many places that were straight out regulating and forbidding owning arms - like post Norman conquest England.

All in all, Medieval society all around the continent in ~ 1000- 1500 was without doubt much more militarized and fluent with weapons, compared to what we are accustomed too.

But still vast majority of population were no soldiers/fighters at all.

Most accurate statement would be that people of almost any upbringing were becoming actual formidable combatants.

Even in theoretically purely nobleman formation as polish hussars, peasants were happening sometimes.

Most were still wealthy noblemen who could waste a lot of time riding horse and crushing lances in their youth.

Galloglaich

2014-11-06, 02:01 PM

Chliches are bad, but I don't think there's a point in going to the other extreme side.

There were plenty of people who were indeed living very humble and busy life, and going to war was pure abstraction to them.

The fact that they were carrying knife or falchion at the belt didn't change that.

I'm not trying to argue that everyone was living on the fat of the land, just that it was not as lopsided as people tend to assume.

Yes many, in fact most people lived very humble and busy lives. But the fact that they were fairly routinely called up to military service for which they were obligated to appear with armor and weapons does, arguably say that even the humbler people had sufficient leisure time to train for war, as well as to hunt, fence, shoot and practice other activities which spilled over into war training. And they were not as destitute or as blocked from upward mobility as many working class people were in the 19th Century when most of these medieval myths were crafted. I think our biggest problem with understanding the medieval period in fact is that we tend to look at the 19th Century and project backward from there.

Well, but slave or serfs still were forming solid portion of population.

...

Servants of the peasants were indeed serfs or straight out slaves, without land or significant property to make them very independent.

And because peasants themselves were generally at very least 60% of population, there was significant amount of serf population.

Well, obviously the exact ratio of princes to gentry / burghers to peasants to serfs / slaves is key to this discussion. And of course, it varies enormously from place to place and region to region, as well as across the centuries.

In your country for example, by the era roughly 1300-1500, a huge number proportionally could be of the noble class, up to 20% according to some estimates I've read. In France, by contrast, less than 1% of the population were aristocrats.

But I don't know of anywhere in Europe in that time period where 60% of the population were serfs or slaves. Huge difference between serfs and peasants as I'm sure you are aware, but in the US and more generally in English - language contexts serf and peasant are used more or less interchangeably. From what I've read about much if not all of Central Europe, the vast majority of the peasant class, were in the middle of four tiers. These tiers being the 1) boor / bauer / bur / gbur / yeoman, a wealthy peasant who owned a considerable amount of his own land, (usually 1-2 allotments or hides / lan, very roughly equivalent to 40 acres per hide though this varied depending on the quality of the land) and usually had his own tenants, 2) the yokels (kmiecie / kmieć in Slavic areas) who typically owned 1/2 an allotment, in most areas more than sufficient to feed a family, and below them 3) crofters (Zagrodnicy) who owned some land but not enough to thrive on, requiring them to supplement their work and then 4) sharecroppers who owned no land of their own, but usually had their own cottage, and had to make a living working for boors or for nobles or for the church (like a local abbey). Actual serfs and slaves, as well as outlaws who made their living as poachers and charcoal burners and so on, were below the sharecroppers.

Everything I've read indicates that during the period I mentioned, the majority of the population was in the middle, the "yokel" class.

By the 16th Century very large farms (Folwark / Latifundia) had begun to spread in certain areas like Spain and Poland / Lithuania, and serfdom was gradually re-introduced in those zones, at first principally among people in 'outside' ethnic groups (morisco's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morisco) in Spain, Ruthenians in Poland, Wlach in Hungary and so on) so this got worse in the Early Modern era in some areas even as it got better in others (say, Holland). But that is post-medieval.

Similarly in towns apprentices sleeping somewhere around the corners at master's houses, masses seasonal laborers wouldn't have much time and energy to actually train anything, drinking beer with friends would be much better leisure.

And those would be vast majority of towns citizens, while in many cities people who were living and working in the cities, but without actual citizenship, would be majority of population.

Yes but most apprentices, after rarely more than 1 or 2 years (up to 7 in some professions and areas) became journeymen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman_years), and once they became journeymen they were both allowed and required to bear arms. We have data showing that journeymen made up a disproportionately large percentage of urban militias. Journeymen had partial citizenship and had some leisure time mandated by town-law, in most towns at least one and a half days per week, in some two and a half (Sundays, Mondays, and half-day Saturday when people usually went to the bath house) plus something like 140 -170 days a year of unpaid holy days and saints days / feast days which the peasants also enjoyed.

There were also laws in many places that were straight out regulating and forbidding owning arms - like post Norman conquest England.

Even in England, by the 1300-1500 period, they had systematic training of peasants in many areas with the longbow and other weapons.

All in all, Medieval society all around the continent in ~ 1000- 1500 was without doubt much more militarized and fluent with weapons, compared to what we are accustomed too.

But still vast majority of population were no soldiers/fighters at all.

Most accurate statement would be that people of almost any upbringing were becoming actual formidable combatants.

Even in theoretically purely nobleman formation as polish hussars, peasants were happening sometimes.

Most were still wealthy noblemen who could waste a lot of time riding horse and crushing lances in their youth.

My point is that, whereas in most peoples mind the medieval period was 99% serfs and 1% nobles who could spend that time playing with lances on horseback, in actuality it was not so polarized. We can debate how many nobles there were (as we know, maybe as many as 15-20% in your country) how many peasants, and how many burghers (this varied a lot by region obviously) and how much economic and political power there was, but I doubt there are many regions of Europe 1300-1500 where you can show more than 50% serfs in the population or even more than 20%. I think in most of Europe it was less than 5% and in many places it was outlawed. For example in the 13th Century the city of Bologna bought the contracts of all the serfs and slaves in their district and freed them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Paradisus) under the so called Liber Paradisus or 'paradise law'. There were no more serfs in that zone after that.

Also, on the upper end of the scale, the side of the nobles, the church and the wealthier burghers, they all made use of men among the poorest means in their armies sometimes at high levels of command and responsibility; the nobles with their serf-knights or ministerials and their state financed men at arms, the burghers with poor journeymen*, and the Church with their ritterburuden who were often from the ministerial class and armies of peasants from the abbey estates.

So there is, I'm trying to suggest, much more of a bell-curve in the population of at least high-to-late medieval Europe, very broadly and very generally speaking, than is typically assumed by most gamers and others familiar with the genre depictions in the popular culture. We should also keep in mind there were poor knights and rich peasants, and while there were many very rich Princes, the richest people of all were often the merchants and members of the Church.

*and apprentices too, in at least some cases; Jan Dlugosz complained in his Annales that his house nearly burned down once during a fire in Krakow because all the apprentices were outside 'shooting the popinjay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popinjay_(sport))', a very interesting form of military training practiced across Europe and Asia from the medieval into Early Modern times, such as you can see in this image from the Balthasar Behem Codex (also from Krakow 25 years after Dlugosz died)

http://www.arbaletriers-vise.be/photos/big-phototir.jpg

G

Galloglaich

2014-11-06, 02:09 PM

I should also add, speaking of the popinjay, one of the principal means of training for war in medieval world was through sport and contests. In addition to the well known chivalric tournaments and jousts, these also included wildly popular target-shooting contests in the towns and in some rural areas, in which contestants would pay a fee to vie for very nice prizes (in the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars in todays money in some cases). On the continent these were originally done with crossbows, mostly, in England with longbows... later this was gradually replaced by guns but guns and crossbows overlapped for more than two centuries. There were also fencing contests (fechtschuler) in the cities and wrestling matches in the rural areas on a routine basis, also done for money, and different kinds of prize fighting with and without weapons. Special kinds of organized hunts, horse and foot races, types of football, organized stick fights between neighborhoods such as you see in Venice, contests with animals like bull fighting, and there were many other, often dangerous, forms of martial games, typically incentivized by valuable prizes.

As one example, a very violent form of football played by nobles around the Florence area in Italy, which has undergone a recent revival, sort of a mix of MMA and football

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

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

G

Yora

2014-11-07, 02:37 PM

This question is very far on the logistics side of things, but given that it's something that kings would have had to deal with to maintain their armed forces, you might be able to tell me a bit or two about it:

In situations where a strong country employed considerable numbers of elite foreign mercenaries or auxilaries on a long-term to permanent basis, how was the integration of these warriors into the higher layers of their hosts society? In the case of great powers, any such foreigners would automatically have been "barbarians", as the only other "civilized" people would have been other enemy empires. Would the local aristocrats (both higher and lower) have considered these foreign warriors as completely beneath their station, or would it have been acceptible to arrange marriages with them to increase their own prestige?
I know that foreign mercenaries could often become quite popular and even powerful, but is there anything known if that ever lead to marriage ties, or would their local wives always have been commoners (or slaves)?

Gnoman

2014-11-07, 03:43 PM

In the case of great powers, any such foreigners would automatically have been "barbarians", as the only other "civilized" people would have been other enemy empires.

Not sure about the rest, but this is absolutely untrue. For most of the time periods where mercenary use was common, they were never used to fill out the bulk of your forces, or as front line "cannon fodder". That's what the feudal levy, slave force, or citizen-soldiers were for. Mercenaries were brought in at enormous expense because they had some military skill that it was very difficult to provide natively, be it Welsh longbowmen (neither bow or archer could be easily found outside of the British Isles), Geonese Crossbows (while crossbowmen weren't particularly hard to train, the extremely fine crossbows and armor of Genoa were regarded as almost magical), Swiss Halberdiers (halberds were easy enough to get, but the Swiss tradition of "we die. We do not retreat" was quite literally priceless to any commander, even if it wasn't quite a reflection of reality), or more exotic specialties such as gunpowder-makers (the secret of gunpowder was very closely held for a long time, and the early dry mixture was often mixed directly on the battlefield, which allowed the people who knew how to make it to demand massive amounts of money. There's even some evidence to suggest that the secret of corned powder (exact same ingredients and proportions as the dry mix, but was mixed wet and ground after being allowed to dry, preventing separation), which was included in the papers in which gunpowder was introduced to Europe was deliberately suppressed to increase their fees).

High quality mercenaries were held in such renown that there are tales of armies vanishing in the night after hearing that their enemy had hired a particularly dangerous band (and they were sometimes hired for that exact purpose), and hiring a group simply to take them off the table before beginning a war was common. Later, the more reliable bands became trusted bodyguards (the Pope is still officially guarded by Swiss mercenaries, for example). If anything, mercenaries were the medieval or Renaissance military version of rock stars.

Yora

2014-11-07, 04:16 PM

dramatic flare

2014-11-07, 06:39 PM

Those examples seem to be mostly mid to late Middle Ages, where Europe was a patchwork of feuding principalities with constantly shifting allegiances. I was thinking more about the empires of Antiquity and perhaps the medieval Middle East (though I neglected to mention that, not considering it might be important).

Even then the tradition was to hold the center of your line with reliable troops and keep the local militias or mercenaries to the flanks, the logic being that those "lesser" units didn't have the same training as your own troops and were more likely to break at the first sign of trouble. In fact, the defeat of part of Hannibal's army in BC 209 took advantage of this. The Roman commander set up in the format I described above and was matched by The cathegenian troops. neither side wanted to commit to a battle, so for several days they just formed up and stood there. Finally the Roman switched his troops to keep the levies and mecernaries in the middle and the legions on the flanks during the night and charged forward. Left with no time to prepared, Hannibal's army had to order his troops into the strong central line as they had been. While the Roman's own mercenaries and levies were pushed back, the legion did the same to Hannibal's flanks. It was too late for the Carthengians by the time they figured out they had just been surrounded on three sides.

snowblizz

2014-11-07, 06:56 PM

But the vast majority of those under arms did not have that much wealth. They may have had servants and vassals but they typically also had day jobs. As I noted, these were planters, ranchers, administrators, merchants, ship captains and so on, more of them on the humbler side of the spectrum than the very elite.

I have the feeling I've seen it said that one major reason jousts were introduced were to make sure those who were supposed to be up to scratch with the military arts didn't get too sidetracked in other pursuits.

Mr. Mask

2014-11-08, 05:04 AM

Kiero

2014-11-08, 06:15 AM

Even then the tradition was to hold the center of your line with reliable troops and keep the local militias or mercenaries to the flanks, the logic being that those "lesser" units didn't have the same training as your own troops and were more likely to break at the first sign of trouble. In fact, the defeat of part of Hannibal's army in BC 209 took advantage of this. The Roman commander set up in the format I described above and was matched by The cathegenian troops. neither side wanted to commit to a battle, so for several days they just formed up and stood there. Finally the Roman switched his troops to keep the levies and mecernaries in the middle and the legions on the flanks during the night and charged forward. Left with no time to prepared, Hannibal's army had to order his troops into the strong central line as they had been. While the Roman's own mercenaries and levies were pushed back, the legion did the same to Hannibal's flanks. It was too late for the Carthengians by the time they figured out they had just been surrounded on three sides.

No, sorry, this is a Romano-centric viewpoint that doesn't hold true for most of the kingdoms/states in this era.

In the Hellenistic age, your "local" troops were often intrinsically unreliable, or else arming them would simply lead to insurrection and revolt against your rule. Given the nobility was often a transplanted Macedonian/Greek elite sitting on top of an essentially captive populace. The Ptolemaic Egyptians and Seleukids in particular held vast territories of people foreign to them, and used Macedonian and Greek settlers and mercenaries for the bulk of their armies. The Ptolemies especially were leery of arming the natives, the Seleukids tended to use only native cavalry, relying on settlers and mercenaries for their phalanx. That phalanx could change sides repeatedly over the course of a campaign, the victor being more interested in having trained heavy infantry than wiping out the defeated.

Furthermore, the Carthaginians you allude to always used mercenaries for the vast majority of their armies, their native Phoenicians weren't interested in fighting. Their system involved moving them far enough from their homeland that the mercenaries would think twice about revolt, not having a sympathetic local population base to rely upon. So mercenaries from Iberia and Gallia would be transported to Africa to serve, Libyans and other Africans would go to Sicily and Iberia and so on.

Lastly, when it came to navies, most oarsmen used in the Hellenistic age were professionals, thus essentially mercenaries. Most states did not want to repeat the Athenian example of using the lower classes, and thus giving them ideas about sharing political power with the elites.

Yora

2014-11-08, 08:03 AM

Finally the Roman switched his troops to keep the levies and mecernaries in the middle and the legions on the flanks during the night and charged forward. Left with no time to prepared, Hannibal's army had to order his troops into the strong central line as they had been. While the Roman's own mercenaries and levies were pushed back, the legion did the same to Hannibal's flanks. It was too late for the Carthengians by the time they figured out they had just been surrounded on three sides.
Wait, isn't that exactly the same trick Hannibal had used to destroy the Roman army at Cannae?

Brother Oni

2014-11-08, 09:39 AM

Wait, isn't that exactly the same trick Hannibal had used to destroy the Roman army at Cannae?

I wouldn't be surprised. The Romans pick up on tricks very quickly.

Milodiah

2014-11-08, 10:25 AM

I was wondering about the very early development of gunpowder weapons, and if there was a way I could find out about them in detail. For example, I can't recall any use of firespears in Europe, and wondered when exactly they fell out of use and why. I also have limited understanding of the use of early military rockets, and how their use evolved alongside early guns (or why they fell out of use with the rise of guns). I'm also unsure of what the first bombs were like, my main thought being of the grenadiers.

Could someone please help me to understand?

I'll admit I hadn't actually heard of firespears before now, but one issue I can already see is that after you fire it you're dealing with an awkward, clumsy weight on the end of your spear. Plus the fact that you've got a not very directional and not very reliable explosive going off in your own ranks, which you can pretty much only hope will mostly go towards the enemy.

As for falling out of use...they (http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/Flaming_Bayo2.JPG) were (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/audiemurphy73/media/tumblr_mma04158Yi1so3vfyo1_1280_zps60414be8.jpg.ht ml) tried (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgCoaYYIETA). It's always amazed me how technologically schizophrenic the First World War was. Tank crewmen tried to deflect shrapnel with chain mail, dudes in gas masks went on trench raids and hit each other with actual maces and flails, and at one point a British tugboat rammed a U-boat and proceeded to board it and kill the crew with cutlasses.

As for rockets...
If I recall correctly, the first practical military rockets were used by the Mysoreans in India, and of course popularized by the Brits with their Congreve rockets.

Obviously the main advantage of those is that they have explosives in them, unlike artillery rounds up until the later years of the (American) Civil War. Main disadvantage is that you don't so much aim them as point them towards the bad guys. Sure, they're scary, and if you do get lucky you'll kill a lot more of your enemy then with just a single solid cannon ball. On the whole, though, militaries aren't inclined to use a weapon that involves any more than a sliver of 'hoping it hits the enemy'.

But again, somehow this insane stuff still lives on. You know how Congreve rockets are fired, right? From a bipod-like X frame with the rocket laid across at a 45 degree angle?

During the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s that was how the mujahideen fired captured BM-21 Grad rockets. They had an accuracy radius of Two. Freaking. Miles.

Yora

2014-11-08, 11:09 AM

If the target is big enough and you shot at something to which you don't have direct line of sight anyway, you don't need to be able to aim at a specific point. Especially when you have lots of them.

http://www.war44.com/misc/images/3/BM_13-16_rocket_launchers.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ToGvFNRjZE

Milodiah

2014-11-08, 11:16 AM

Those are modern rocket artillery pieces (modern as in "post-Industrial Revolution) which can actually be aimed to an extent further than "that way"...of course the ol' Katyushas and even modern rocket artillery systems aren't as pinpoint, scary, stick-a-hammer-on-the-end-of-this-155-round-and-our-gun-crew-will-drive-a-nail-through-that-2x4-then-blow-it-up-because-it's-a-155-round accurate, but it's still a major advance since things like the Congreve.

Don't get me wrong, though, I think MLRS systems are some of the coolest things we've made, and used to consider going into artillery rather than intel until I remembered that artillery = math + partial hearing loss.

snowblizz

2014-11-08, 11:30 AM

dramatic flare

2014-11-08, 07:53 PM

No, sorry, this is a Romano-centric viewpoint that doesn't hold true for most of the kingdoms/states in this era.

Fair enough. I hadn't studied the make-up of even earlier armies as much as the Romans.

Galloglaich

2014-11-09, 09:08 AM

Depending what you mean by a fire-spear I think they were used in Europe and lasted quite a while.

The fire-spear or fire-lance usually means the same kind of weapon as the hand-culverin.

This boils down to a sort of zip gun or pistol-length gunbarrel mounted on the end of a long stick. In power they were roughly equivalent to a single shot, 10-12 gauge shotgun

Here is a good video which covers the early technology pretty well

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

Depending on what kind of powder pyrotechnic mix was used, these weapons could shoot mostly fire, fire plus small projectiles (like birdshot or buckshot) fire plus one larger projectile (like a shotgun slug), or just the large slug.

The slug ultimately proved to be most generally useful and popular, but the fire has certain advantages too especially in sieges. You can see them shooting that hand-culverin with a more pyro mix in the video at about 5:16. You can set ladders, mantlets, siege engines and people (beyond the person you put a hole in with the bullet) on fire, and cause lesser wounds to several people as well as creating a morale effect. The gunner could choose what mix of powders, resins and oils to put into his gun and what type of projectiles, which could all be different for each shot.

The simple hand-culverin types were the first types of hand-gun in Europe, starting in the 13th Century. They remained in use through the 14th Century, only slightly modernized by adding touch holes to the sides (so you didn't have to fire it by putting a fuse down the barrel) and later, the addition of a serpentine. These continued to be used alongside much more modern firearms (proto-arquebus and proto-musket) right up to the 16th Century and probably later. Anyway they show up in European artwork alongside the arquebus type weapons in both the Swiss chronicles from the 1470's-1480's and in the castle Wolfegg Hausbook from the 1490's to cite two examples. They of course remained in use in castle and town armories in China through the 16th Century.

Fire spear can also mean the same weapon with some stabby bits on the end. There are also some examples of combination weapons like this in Europe as well as in China.

G

rs2excelsior

2014-11-10, 12:03 AM

Warning: Wall o' Text Alert!

In situations where a strong country employed considerable numbers of elite foreign mercenaries or auxilaries on a long-term to permanent basis, how was the integration of these warriors into the higher layers of their hosts society? In the case of great powers, any such foreigners would automatically have been "barbarians", as the only other "civilized" people would have been other enemy empires.

Actually, this isn't necessarily the case (even in the Roman period). During the Republic, armies consisted of pairs of legions (it's not really too clear whether it's two or four pairs per Consular army--two pairs, if I remember correctly, is the generally accepted number, with one Consular army per Consul). One would have been raised from proper Romans (citizens from in and around the city itself), and the other of socii (generally translated as "allies")-- other Italian states subject to Rome. When these Consular armies were deployed, whether one or both together, the "Roman" legions would be in the center with the socii on the flanks, because the latter were believed to have lesser morale (not an unfounded belief), and the center was seen as being more critical than the flanks, unless you came up against a really tricky commander (like Hannibal).

Later in the Republic and into the Empire, most of the legions were actually raised outside of Italy, and some of them had excellent reputations. Caesar's Legio X, for example, was Caesar's best and arguably the best Roman legion on the field at the time. It consisted of Spaniards. The Tenth took on Pompey's crack First Legion, considered his best and raised in Rome, if I'm not mistaken, and beat them.

Also, some of the idea that Roman auxiliaries were of lower quality than the legions was more a matter of role. The auxiliaries were lighter infantry than the legions, so they weren't meant to stand as well. Although I believe the recruiting restrictions for the auxiliaries were more open to "barbarians" and the like.

In the Hellenistic age, your "local" troops were often intrinsically unreliable, or else arming them would simply lead to insurrection and revolt against your rule. Given the nobility was often a transplanted Macedonian/Greek elite sitting on top of an essentially captive populace. The Ptolemaic Egyptians and Seleukids in particular held vast territories of people foreign to them, and used Macedonian and Greek settlers and mercenaries for the bulk of their armies. The Ptolemies especially were leery of arming the natives, the Seleukids tended to use only native cavalry, relying on settlers and mercenaries for their phalanx. That phalanx could change sides repeatedly over the course of a campaign, the victor being more interested in having trained heavy infantry than wiping out the defeated.

Furthermore, the Carthaginians you allude to always used mercenaries for the vast majority of their armies, their native Phoenicians weren't interested in fighting. Their system involved moving them far enough from their homeland that the mercenaries would think twice about revolt, not having a sympathetic local population base to rely upon. So mercenaries from Iberia and Gallia would be transported to Africa to serve, Libyans and other Africans would go to Sicily and Iberia and so on.

That is true. I remember that Alexander found Greek Hoplites in the employ of Darius as he invaded Persia, and one of the Persian civil wars that culminated at Cunaxa saw one side (the pretender to the throne) consisting of mostly Greek mercenaries--who were still undefeated at the end of the day, despite the death of their employer.

The Carthaginians did heavily employ "foreign" troops from within the empire, in a manner similar to Rome. Hannibal's army in particular was almost more of a private army (Spain was basically a private empire of the Barca family)--the Carthaginian government had little control over Hannibal. So it consisted heavily of Spanish and later Gallic troops, although Hannibal still regarded his Libyan soldiers (basically as close to home-grown Carthaginians as you were going to get) as his best troops.

Wait, isn't that exactly the same trick Hannibal had used to destroy the Roman army at Cannae?

Yes, it is. Except Hannibal ordered his center to fall back and feign retreat, then turn on the Romans once they were in the trap.

He actually did it twice, once before Cannae at the Battle of the Trebia. His Gauls and Spaniards at that time were not of high enough quality at that time to pull the whole "feign retreat" bit, so they were simply ordered to hold while the Libyans broke the Roman flanks. About two of the legions in the center of the Roman line (some of the "Roman" troops, rather than the socii) actually broke through the Gauls in the center and made it to safety.

It's always amazed me how technologically schizophrenic the First World War was. Tank crewmen tried to deflect shrapnel with chain mail, dudes in gas masks went on trench raids and hit each other with actual maces and flails, and at one point a British tugboat rammed a U-boat and proceeded to board it and kill the crew with cutlasses.

It doesn't matter how you kill him, if your enemy is dead, he's dead...

The medieval period saw the culmination of several millennia of perfecting sharp and/or blunt objects whose purpose was to beat someone to death, all up close and personal like. And once you actually got into an enemy trench (or he got into yours), the fights were often up close, short, and brutal. They needed a weapon for that kind of environment, and like the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Obviously the main advantage of those is that they have explosives in them, unlike artillery rounds up until the later years of the (American) Civil War.

I'd quibble with this a bit. Shell was actually coming out in the latter part of the Napoleonic Wars, although it never really caught on. Designs were invented before the war, and I am almost certain shell was available and in widespread use during the early part of the American Civil War.

...of course the ol' Katyushas and even modern rocket artillery systems aren't as pinpoint, scary, stick-a-hammer-on-the-end-of-this-155-round-and-our-gun-crew-will-drive-a-nail-through-that-2x4-then-blow-it-up-because-it's-a-155-round accurate...

This is great. Mind if I sig this?

Incanur

2014-11-10, 12:19 AM

Geonese Crossbows (while crossbowmen weren't particularly hard to train, the extremely fine crossbows and armor of Genoa were regarded as almost magical)

I again recommend caution around this narrative of crossbowers as easy to train. Through the 14th century and continuing into the 15th century, many military crossbows required considerable strength to draw. In the 15th-century text El Victorial, Pero Niño displays his prodigious might by spanning crossbows nobody else can.

High quality mercenaries were held in such renown that there are tales of armies vanishing in the night after hearing that their enemy had hired a particularly dangerous band (and they were sometimes hired for that exact purpose), and hiring a group simply to take them off the table before beginning a war was common. Later, the more reliable bands became trusted bodyguards (the Pope is still officially guarded by Swiss mercenaries, for example). If anything, mercenaries were the medieval or Renaissance military version of rock stars.

Yes, at least for the era of the Italian Wars, but we should also note how unruly and unreliable mercenary forces could be. For example, the Swiss and Landsknecht mercenaries of the Italian Wars excelled on the battlefield and they knew it. They used their power to push for their own interests, which often conflicted with those of their employers and commanders. Such mercenaries might insist on battle of lust for booty and a desire to conclude a campaign. They might mutiny, switch sides, and/or simply ransack the nearest wealthy city if not paid or not treated to their liking. (See the Sack of Rome 1527 (http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Guicciardini.htm).) They might refuse to perform military tasks outside of their preferred role. Etc. Writers like Machiavelli and Fourquevaux may well have exaggerated the failings of mercenary armies, but these exaggerations came out of real concerns. Commanders wanted soldiers who did what they were told and didn't push back. That was part of the drive to produce the sort of national militaries that eventually flourished in Europe.

Both in 16th-century and later texts you see a powerful desire for soldiers to function as instruments of the commander's will, taking their place in the field exactly according to military science and immediately obeying all orders. That's what Machiavelli and others imagined was the ancient Roman and Greek military system, and that's what they desperately wanted.

The old tale of medieval armies as wild mobs is of course a caricature, but I think it's fair to identify a gradually changing approach to military command in 16th century and on. The dream of perfectly obedient puppet soldiers has yet to become reality even here in the 21st century - I'm sure DARPA's working on it as I type this - but I'd say modern militaries come notably closer.

Gnoman

2014-11-10, 12:32 AM

I'd quibble with this a bit. Shell was actually coming out in the latter part of the Napoleonic Wars, although it never really caught on. Designs were invented before the war, and I am almost certain shell was available and in widespread use during the early part of the American Civil War.

Explosive shells are as old as cannon themselves, and may even predate solid metal cannonballs (early shot was usually made of stone). The early versions were incredibly dangerous due to having to light the fuse in the shell seperately, and use of exploding shells faded away fairly quickly, much like the breechloader and rifled barrel (both of which were experimented with at the time of the arquebus), until the mid-18th century except for siege mortars (because of the mortar's short barrel, the shell could be loaded with the fuse facing up, allowing precise timing of lighting it and easy extinguishing if the gun failed to fire). Mortars firing bombs were used quite a bit during the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, and their use in the War of 1812 has been immortalized in the American national anthem, along with Britain's crude rockets (the "bombs bursting in air" referred to mortar fire from the British fleet). The use of shell in direct-fire weapons was revived when a reliable means of igniting the shell's fuse with the blast from the propellant charge was discovered in the late 1760s, and proper guns firing shell were in use by 1779. The shrapnel shell (a bomb loaded with bullets) was invented in 1784 by a British officer named Henry Shrapnel, and the British Army deployed it en masse in 1804. After improvements in design in 1854 and the 1880s, this was the standard artillery round at the outbreak of the First World War.

Impact fuses that detonated via percussion (as opposed to a time delay) were first experimented with in the 1600s, but the chemistry of the day was not up to the task, and it was not perfected until 1846. By the time of the American Civil War, this was the primary ammunition for warships, which is what proved to be the death-knell of wooden warships (the steam engine made sailing warships obsolete, but wooden steam-powered battleships could be, and were, built) due to the immense destructive power of these shells against wood. Indeed, the primary reason the duel between CSS Virgina and USS Monitor ended in an inconclusive draw (which the Monitor claimed a victory because the Virginia was forced to retreat) was because both ships carried only shell, when the old-fashioned solid shot would have been able to inflict real damage.

In short, you're not entirely correct. Shell was actually used quite heavily in the Napoleonic period (although the greater accuracy of solid shot led it to be used even more heavily, and the British had a near-monopoly on effective shells). Of course, you're quite right that it was very common in the American Civil War.

EDIT:

I again recommend caution around this narrative of crossbowers as easy to train. Through the 14th century and continuing into the 15th century, many military crossbows required considerable strength to draw. In the 15th-century text El Victorial, Pero Niño displays his prodigious might by spanning crossbows nobody else can.

I said that crossbowmen were "not particularly difficult to train", not that they were "easy". By which I mean that it wasn't any more difficult than teaching the proper use of a pike or warhammer, not that you could just hand any peasant a crossbow and expect him to be using it tolerably well after a few days. Your point is well taken, and at least part of the fame of Genoa's crossbowmen was the quality of their men. Still nothing compared to what a longbow required

Yes, at least for the era of the Italian Wars, but we should also note how unruly and unreliable mercenary forces could be. For example, the Swiss and Landsknecht mercenaries of the Italian Wars excelled on the battlefield and they knew it. They used their power to push for their own interests, which often conflicted with those of their employers and commanders. Such mercenaries might insist on battle of lust for booty and a desire to conclude a campaign. They might mutiny, switch sides, and/or simply ransack the nearest wealthy city if not paid or not treated to their liking. (See the Sack of Rome 1527 (http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Guicciardini.htm).) They might refuse to perform military tasks outside of their preferred role. Etc. Writers like Machiavelli and Fourquevaux may well have exaggerated the failings of mercenary armies, but these exaggerations came out of real concerns. Commanders wanted soldiers who did what they were told and didn't push back. That was part of the drive to produce the sort of national militaries that eventually flourished in Europe.

Both in 16th-century and later texts you see a powerful desire for soldiers to function as instruments of the commander's will, taking their place in the field exactly according to military science and immediately obeying all orders. That's what Machiavelli and others imagined was the ancient Roman and Greek military system, and that's what they desperately wanted.

The old tale of medieval armies as wild mobs is of course a caricature, but I think it's fair to identify a gradually changing approach to military command in 16th century and on. The dream of perfectly obedient puppet soldiers has yet to become reality even here in the 21st century - I'm sure DARPA's working on it as I type this - but I'd say modern militaries come notably closer.
This is correct. My point wasn't that mercenaries were perfect soldiers (and I did mention that the more prestigious unit's reputations were not exactly accurate), but that they were not the despised gutter sweepings and gaol-birds that mercenaries are often presented as in fiction or in the writing of contemporary military officers with an agenda.

Milodiah

2014-11-10, 01:57 AM

I double-checked, and yeah, I did have it wrong on the date...I was thinking Henry Shrapnel was around the time of the Civil War, but he was drawing up plans even before Trafalgar.

And sure, sig away! Is my main objective, you know.

Brother Oni

2014-11-10, 03:41 AM

I'll admit I hadn't actually heard of firespears before now, but one issue I can already see is that after you fire it you're dealing with an awkward, clumsy weight on the end of your spear. Plus the fact that you've got a not very directional and not very reliable explosive going off in your own ranks, which you can pretty much only hope will mostly go towards the enemy.

Which is pretty much what they were used for, to break up enemy formations before charging into hand to hand, much like the Roman pilum.

As for rockets...
If I recall correctly, the first practical military rockets were used by the Mysoreans in India, and of course popularized by the Brits with their Congreve rockets.

Actually the first practical military rockets was invented by the Koreans back in the 14th Century. The hwacha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwacha) proved its worth in the 16th Century Imjin wars against the invading Japanese, which is an image straight out of a fantasy game - samurai charging while under rocket bombardment.

Kiero

2014-11-10, 04:31 AM

That is true. I remember that Alexander found Greek Hoplites in the employ of Darius as he invaded Persia, and one of the Persian civil wars that culminated at Cunaxa saw one side (the pretender to the throne) consisting of mostly Greek mercenaries--who were still undefeated at the end of the day, despite the death of their employer.

The Carthaginians did heavily employ "foreign" troops from within the empire, in a manner similar to Rome. Hannibal's army in particular was almost more of a private army (Spain was basically a private empire of the Barca family)--the Carthaginian government had little control over Hannibal. So it consisted heavily of Spanish and later Gallic troops, although Hannibal still regarded his Libyan soldiers (basically as close to home-grown Carthaginians as you were going to get) as his best troops.

Mercenaries were one of the Greek world's most lucrative exports, long before they got into conflict with the Achaemenid Persian empire. It was a pretty clichéd occurrence that someone exiled from their city, if they didn't go and found a colony somewhere, might become a mercenary for a foreign power. Even in Egypt before it was conquered by the Persians, they were encouraging Ionian Greeks to settle and serve as mercenaries. There were often Greek mercenaries on both sides of any major conflict in/near the Mediterranean from the Archaic period through to the end of the Hellenistic age.

The Carthaginians didn't just use foreign troops, they also hired a lot of mercenaries. While there were auxiliary-like arrangements for those coming from their estates, the bulk of their forces were mercenary. They were extremely wealthy in gold and silver, but poor in native manpower and desire to serve militarily.

Storm Bringer

2014-11-10, 07:10 AM

Warning: Wall o' Text Alert!

Actually, this isn't necessarily the case (even in the Roman period). During the Republic, armies consisted of pairs of legions (it's not really too clear whether it's two or four pairs per Consular army--two pairs, if I remember correctly, is the generally accepted number, with one Consular army per Consul). One would have been raised from proper Romans (citizens from in and around the city itself), and the other of socii (generally translated as "allies")-- other Italian states subject to Rome. When these Consular armies were deployed, whether one or both together, the "Roman" legions would be in the center with the socii on the flanks, because the latter were believed to have lesser morale (not an unfounded belief), and the center was seen as being more critical than the flanks, unless you came up against a really tricky commander (like Hannibal).

Later in the Republic and into the Empire, most of the legions were actually raised outside of Italy, and some of them had excellent reputations. Caesar's Legio X, for example, was Caesar's best and arguably the best Roman legion on the field at the time. It consisted of Spaniards. The Tenth took on Pompey's crack First Legion, considered his best and raised in Rome, if I'm not mistaken, and beat them.

Also, some of the idea that Roman auxiliaries were of lower quality than the legions was more a matter of role. The auxiliaries were lighter infantry than the legions, so they weren't meant to stand as well. Although I believe the recruiting restrictions for the auxiliaries were more open to "barbarians" and the like.

As i understand it, a consular army was two roman legions, plus two Ala ( lit. "wings") drawn form the romans allies, which were roughly legion sized, but with a much larger cavalry element (the roman legion only had a few hundred for scouting and messager work). Thus, thier were two consular armies, and each consul had a army with a paper strenght of about 20,000, with a total of 4 roman legions and 4 ala, or 8 legion sized units. If i remember correctly, it was normal to post all the socail cavarly on one flank and all the roman cavalry on the other, which was exploited by Hannibal in one battle (can't remeber which one).

in the later Republic and empire eras, the legions were only open to full citzens of Roman (only 10% or so of the population in the 1st century AD), but the auxillia were open to the peregrini, non ciziten subjects of Rome, with full citizenship for them and thier children being the discharge reward. Bear in mind that quite a few roman "auxiliary" units consited of the local tribes warriors fighting under their chief, as either as part of a treaty or just hired by the romans as Mercenaries. I believe that the Galic cavarly that Ceasar found so useful was mostly of this type.

That is true. I remember that Alexander found Greek Hoplites in the employ of Darius as he invaded Persia, and one of the Persian civil wars that culminated at Cunaxa saw one side (the pretender to the throne) consisting of mostly Greek mercenaries--who were still undefeated at the end of the day, despite the death of their employer.

Persia controlled what is now turkey, and the greeks had colonised the Ionian Aegean cost of turkey, which became persian subjects. So at least some of the hoplites in the persian armies were feudal levies and not Mercenaries per se. I seem to remember reading that one of the reasons the persians invaded greece proper was because the mainland greek city states had sent aid to a revolt in Turkey agianst the persians.

Kiero

2014-11-10, 09:05 AM

As i understand it, a consular army was two roman legions, plus two Ala ( lit. "wings") drawn form the romans allies, which were roughly legion sized, but with a much larger cavalry element (the roman legion only had a few hundred for scouting and messager work). Thus, thier were two consular armies, and each consul had a army with a paper strenght of about 20,000, with a total of 4 roman legions and 4 ala, or 8 legion sized units. If i remember correctly, it was normal to post all the socail cavarly on one flank and all the roman cavalry on the other, which was exploited by Hannibal in one battle (can't remeber which one).

in the later Republic and empire eras, the legions were only open to full citzens of Roman (only 10% or so of the population in the 1st century AD), but the auxillia were open to the peregrini, non ciziten subjects of Rome, with full citizenship for them and thier children being the discharge reward. Bear in mind that quite a few roman "auxiliary" units consited of the local tribes warriors fighting under their chief, as either as part of a treaty or just hired by the romans as Mercenaries. I believe that the Galic cavarly that Ceasar found so useful was mostly of this type.

A consular army was two legions and two alae, each of which was 5,000 men on paper (so 20,000 men in total). A praetorian army was half that - one legion and one ala. In times of real crisis, the armies of both consuls might be brought together.

The legions were always only open to Roman citizens - but after the Social War citizenship was extended to all the people of Italy.

Auxiliaries and mercenaries were different things. Auxiliaries fought not just for pay, but the promise of Roman citizenship on retirement after their full term of service. Mercenaries were just paid soldiers.

Persia controlled what is now turkey, and the greeks had colonised the Ionian cost of turkey, which became persian subjects. So at least some of the hoplites in the persian armies were feudal levies and not Mercenaries per se. I seem to remember reading that one of the reasons the persians invaded greece proper was because the mainland greek city states had sent aid to a revolt in Turkey agianst the persians.

Ionian Greeks weren't the only ones serving the Persians and others, Greeks from mainland Hellas, Sicily/Megale Hellas and elsewhere were .

But it wouldn't be accurate to call the mercenary hoplites "feudal levies", the Persians didn't tithe soldiers from the Greek cities under their control, just taxes.

Storm Bringer

2014-11-10, 09:37 AM

A consular army was two legions and two alae, each of which was 5,000 men on paper (so 20,000 men in total). A praetorian army was half that - one legion and one ala. In times of real crisis, the armies of both consuls might be brought together.

The legions were always only open to Roman citizens - but after the Social War citizenship was extended to all the people of Italy.

Auxiliaries and mercenaries were different things. Auxiliaries fought not just for pay, but the promise of Roman citizenship on retirement after their full term of service. Mercenaries were just paid soldiers.

I did mention the carrot of citizenship, but my point was that warriors fighting as auxiliary troops in the roman army may not be formal auxilia of paid professionals fighting for citizenship, but allied tribesmen, under thier own leaders fighting for thier own ends, and booty.

Ionian Greeks weren't the only ones serving the Persians and others, Greeks from mainland Hellas, Sicily/Megale Hellas and elsewhere were .

But it wouldn't be accurate to call the mercenary hoplites "feudal levies", the Persians didn't tithe soldiers from the Greek cities under their control, just taxes.

i was under the impression that the Persians would order thier subject peoples to provide a set number of troops when they needed an army, and i feel the term "feudal levy" would be suitable for such troops. I do not deny, and even acknowledge in a roundabout fashion, the presence of greek mercenaries in the persian army, i was merely saying that the Ionian Aegean greeks would have provided at least some of the hoplites.

edit: whoops. my mistake. the Ionian Sea is the one between greece and italy, and the Ionian greek colonies were in southern italy and sicily. the Aegean is the sea and area i ment.

Incanur

2014-11-10, 11:02 AM

I said that crossbowmen were "not particularly difficult to train", not that they were "easy". By which I mean that it wasn't any more difficult than teaching the proper use of a pike or warhammer, not that you could just hand any peasant a crossbow and expect him to be using it tolerably well after a few days. Your point is well taken, and at least part of the fame of Genoa's crossbowmen was the quality of their men. Still nothing compared to what a longbow required.

I'm not convinced that the longbow (the yew self-bow) required more strength or skill than circa 1400 military crossbows. I really doubt that the best archers surpassed the best crossbowers in either category. While I can think of a couple of 16th-century sources that claim superiority for the English bow (and the English body in one), I suspect this more reflects English chauvinism than any reality.

I'll again point to El Victorial (http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/gamez_evans.pdf). This time I've linked to an English translation. It recounts various battles in which Spanish and French crossbowers held their own or better against English archers as well as the aforementioned example of the strength required to spanned powerful military crossbows. I see no reason to assume English archers trained harder or had stronger bodies than the better sort of crossbowers.

As Galloglaich has noted, Europeans on the Continent trained with crossbows all the time. When it comes to experts, I suspect you saw equal commitment, skill, and strength from archers and crossbowers. Assuming it was easier for crossbowers to become effective with their weapons, I doubt that meant folks like Pero Niño said to themselves, "Okay, I've achieved passable performance so I'm going to scale back the practice and drink a few extra beers instead." Dedicated warriors constantly sought the ability to one-up their peers.

Now, I doubt that majority of the crossbowers fielded in the 15th and 16th centuries qualified as experts and think that some - perhaps many - of them did only operate around (or below) basic competence.

Knaight

2014-11-10, 11:22 AM

I'm not convinced that the longbow (the yew self-bow) required more strength or skill than circa 1400 military crossbows. I really doubt that the best archers surpassed the best crossbowers in either category. While I can think of a couple of 16th-century sources that claim superiority for the English bow (and the English body in one), I suspect this more reflects English chauvinism than any reality.

I'll again point to El Victorial (http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/gamez_evans.pdf). This time I've linked to an English translation. It recounts various battles in which Spanish and French crossbowers held their own or better against English archers as well as the aforementioned example of the strength required to spanned powerful military crossbows. I see no reason to assume English archers trained harder or had stronger bodies than the better sort of crossbowers.

I suspect a lot of this comes from what gets focused on. There's still a lot more attention paid to field battles than sieges in less informed circles, and plenty of the military crossbows were siege weapons first and foremost, with a lot of the more impressive uses showing up there.

Carl

2014-11-10, 01:21 PM

Now, I doubt that majority of the crossbowers fielded in the 15th and 16th centuries qualified as experts and think that some - perhaps many - of them did only operate around (or below) basic competence.

This is kind of the point. English longbows don;t really get their fame from the weapon alone, they get them from their users who as noted previously where required by law to train 1 day a week from a relatively early age. There's a huge difference in the amount of training, (and to some degree training effectiveness is always improved by time spent on it), required to deform someone's physiology and merely that required to be very very good.

That said i suspect also that the qualitative difference probably wasn't as large as you'd think, their has to be and i'm sure was a point at which increased training starts to yield diminishing returns and English longbowmen where almost certainly far past that point. So in reality the qualitative advantage was probably small enough that it was offset relatively easily by factors such as terrain, weather, differences in equipment, (particularly armor of the targets), general army morale, and so on and so forth.

Spiryt

2014-11-10, 02:22 PM

Now, I doubt that majority of the crossbowers fielded in the 15th and 16th centuries qualified as experts and think that some - perhaps many - of them did only operate around (or below) basic competence.

Many longbow users likely weren't overly competent either, assuming basic level of competence is much more realistic. As in - draw heavish bow somehow and release in general target direction.

, they get them from their users who as noted previously where required by law to train 1 day a week from a relatively early age.

Training one day a week isn't really enough to gain anyone much competence in physical activity, be it jiu jitsu or bow. Actual skilled archers obviously had to train and actually use bows way more frequently.

required to deform someone's physiology and merely that required to be very very good.

Any serious physical skill will 'deform physiology' somehow. Human muscles, tendons etc are great at adapting like that.

There's no reason to assume that crossbow expert's bodies weren't strongly shaped by their craft.

Although we can guess that crossbow could actually be bit healthier here, because the strain on body isn't quite as asymmetric.

Kiero

2014-11-10, 03:31 PM

I did mention the carrot of citizenship, but my point was that warriors fighting as auxiliary troops in the roman army may not be formal auxilia of paid professionals fighting for citizenship, but allied tribesmen, under thier own leaders fighting for thier own ends, and booty.

I'd say that group are definitionally mercenaries.

i was under the impression that the Persians would order thier subject peoples to provide a set number of troops when they needed an army, and i feel the term "feudal levy" would be suitable for such troops. I do not deny, and even acknowledge in a roundabout fashion, the presence of greek mercenaries in the persian army, i was merely saying that the Ionian Aegean greeks would have provided at least some of the hoplites.

It's the word feudal more than anything else, that system didn't exist in antiquity. There was the king (or King of Kings in the case of Persia), some nobles, from whom satraps or regional governors and generals would be chosen, and everyone else. No direct hierarchy of ranks or transactional arrangement of loyalty for land.

edit: whoops. my mistake. the Ionian Sea is the one between greece and italy, and the Ionian greek colonies were in southern italy and sicily. the Aegean is the sea and area i ment.

You corrected what wasn't an error. Anatolian Greeks were traditionally called "Ionian" because of the region of Ionia in western Anatolia, which features ancient Troias/Troy.

Yes, local Greeks were more likely to feature heavily as the Greek component of a Persian army, but that didn't stop Greeks from wider afield serving too. There were Greek mercenaries in the armies of the last Pharoahs of Egypt before they were conquered by the Persians (who then no doubt continued to use those same Greeks).

Incanur

2014-11-10, 05:14 PM

Many longbow users likely weren't overly competent either, assuming basic level of competence is much more realistic. As in - draw heavish bow somehow and release in general target direction.

We have direct evidence for this sort of performance from Sir Roger Williams and Humphrey Barwick at the end of the 16th century. Both Williams and Barwick complained about archers drawing poorly, being unable to make strong shots, and so on.

Yora

2014-11-10, 05:16 PM

Galloglaich

2014-11-10, 05:25 PM

Three comments regarding crossbows:

1) In addition to the possible need for strength, quite a bit of training and skill is needed to operate the spanning devices for the most powerful crossbows could be considerable: winches, cranequins and other similar tools, could be tricky to use and maintain in and of themselves. We are mostly used to a simple 150 lbs draw weapon like we see on Walking Dead (though I can attest, that isn't necessarily as easy to deal with as it looks) but medieval military crossbows tended to start around 500 lbs draw and go up to 1,500 lbs. Many of the heavier ones, contrary to myth, were not just for siege warfare either - in fact some of the moderately to extremely powerful ones were actually cavalry weapons (more on that in point 2). Just spanning one of these is tricky, if you make a mistake with a prod (bow) that powerful land for example, let it slip, you can get maimed or even killed. Prods can also snap in some conditions potentially leading to injury - this was enough of a threat that in some of the medieval shooting contests they required safety devices to be put on the prods to protect bystanders.

2) Marksmen were expected to do more than just shoot. Many of them were used as scouts, light infantry and skirmishers. They would be expected to fight with their sidearms in many cases. Crossbowmen were often paid much more than other infantry, close to that of lancers. In fact quite a few crossbowmen were mounted by the late medieval era. These were often (though of course, not always) expert killers and were paid accordingly.

3) The reason "we" in the Anglophone world think crossbowmen weren't as good as longbowmen in open-field battles is because we in the US and UK get our history from English sources, and we all know vastly more about 3 English victories, and one in particular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt), which hinged on English longbows. But those may have turned out the way they did much more due to foolish deployment of heavy cavalry on the part of the French, because they also lost similar battles to the Flemish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs), Turks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis), and to the Arabs, and in Spain and Italy and many other occasions, where their opponents didn't have any longbows. It was just the 'blind spot' in French cavalry warfare, though of course for every major defeat they also had several victories.

The French contempt for their Genoese mercenaries during Agincourt (which contributed to their undoing) has also left us with the impression that they were A) the only known crossbow mercenaries, and B) not as good as English longbowmen (by a long shot - pun intended). Neither of these are true. There were major pitched- battles just as important as Agincourt almost every 2 or 3 years somewhere in Europe, and in many of those the crossbow in fact proved to be decisive. For example against the Turks on several occasions.

G

Kiero

2014-11-10, 05:26 PM

A question about empire building: Does anyone have any information on how the founders of empires dealt with the issues of having newly subjugated people accept the legal system of the empire and stop applying their own legal traditions to dealing with crime? That seems like a problem that would probably arise with every tribal group integrated into a state.

All too often: co-opt what's already there, at least in the beginning. Militarily conquering and subjugating a people is hard enough without also trying to effect a cultural conversion at the same time. Many of the more successful empire-builders simply killed off the old rulers/elites and replaced them with their own, picking up whatever reins of power had already been in place.

For example, the Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire)who we've been discussing, took over an existing empire and installed their own satraps/governors over the top of what was there. They collected taxes and layered on their bureaucracy, but otherwise as long as you paid up you were left to carry on as you were.

At some point in 550 BC, Cyrus the Great rose in rebellion against the Median Empire (most likely due to the Medes' mismanagement of Persis), eventually conquering the Medes and creating the first Persian empire. Cyrus the Great utilized his tactical genius, as well as his understanding of the socio-political conditions governing his territories, to eventually incorporate into the Persian Empire the neighbouring Lydian and Neo-Babylonian empires, also leading the way for his successor, Cambyses II, to venture into Egypt and defeat the Egyptian Kingdom.

Cyrus the Great's political acumen was reflected in his management of his newly formed empire, as the Persian Empire became the first to attempt to govern many different ethnic groups on the principle of equal responsibilities and rights for all people, so long as subjects paid their taxes and kept the peace. Additionally, the king agreed not to interfere with the local customs, religions, and trades of its subject states, a unique quality that eventually won Cyrus the support of the Babylonians. This system of management ultimately became an issue for the Persians, as with a larger empire came the need for order and control, leading to expenditure of resources and mobilization of troops to quell local rebellions, and weakening the central power of the king. By the time of Darius III, this disorganization had almost led to a disunited realm.

The Persians from whom Cyrus hailed were originally nomadic pastoral people in the western Iranian plateau and by 850 BC were calling themselves the Parsa and their constantly shifting territory Parsua, for the most part localized around Persis (Pars). As Persians gained power, they developed the infrastructure to support their growing influence, including creation of a capital named Pasargadae and an opulent city named Persepolis.

Galloglaich

2014-11-10, 05:27 PM

Galloglaich

2014-11-10, 07:01 PM

Sorry Kiero I replied before I saw that you had covered that better than I did...

G

Knaight

2014-11-10, 07:15 PM

All too often: co-opt what's already there, at least in the beginning. Militarily conquering and subjugating a people is hard enough without also trying to effect a cultural conversion at the same time. Many of the more successful empire-builders simply killed off the old rulers/elites and replaced them with their own, picking up whatever reins of power had already been in place.

For example, the Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire)who we've been discussing, took over an existing empire and installed their own satraps/governors over the top of what was there. They collected taxes and layered on their bureaucracy, but otherwise as long as you paid up you were left to carry on as you were.

It also helped that a lot of the time the existing empire was a ruling elite and conquered people. The conquered people just saw the new group as different conquerors without the cultural conversion, which makes life easier. It's even better if the new system has lighter taxes and bureaucracy than the previous one. That's a large part of why the Ummayad Caliphate was able to conquer so much territory. Holding it was easy, as they actually often ruled with a lighter hand. It was in the bureaucratic classes that they often had more issues, at least until it was clear that the Ummayad dynasty was going to be there for a while and Arabic was well enough established in enough regions for the bureaucracy to at least be monolingual.

Galloglaich

2014-11-10, 10:28 PM

It also helped that a lot of the time the existing empire was a ruling elite and conquered people. The conquered people just saw the new group as different conquerors without the cultural conversion, which makes life easier. It's even better if the new system has lighter taxes and bureaucracy than the previous one. That's a large part of why the Ummayad Caliphate was able to conquer so much territory. Holding it was easy, as they actually often ruled with a lighter hand. It was in the bureaucratic classes that they often had more issues, at least until it was clear that the Ummayad dynasty was going to be there for a while and Arabic was well enough established in enough regions for the bureaucracy to at least be monolingual.

You could actually say this is largely what is happening with ISIS / DAESH right now in Syria and Iraq. The Shiite governments had a heavier hand for the Suni population. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

G

Mr. Mask

2014-11-11, 03:50 AM

dramatic flare

2014-11-11, 04:20 AM

Kiero

2014-11-11, 06:24 AM

It also helped that a lot of the time the existing empire was a ruling elite and conquered people. The conquered people just saw the new group as different conquerors without the cultural conversion, which makes life easier. It's even better if the new system has lighter taxes and bureaucracy than the previous one. That's a large part of why the Ummayad Caliphate was able to conquer so much territory. Holding it was easy, as they actually often ruled with a lighter hand. It was in the bureaucratic classes that they often had more issues, at least until it was clear that the Ummayad dynasty was going to be there for a while and Arabic was well enough established in enough regions for the bureaucracy to at least be monolingual.

Indeed, and contrary to the rather egregious propaganda of the time and afterwards, there's evidence that the Persian "yoke" was pretty light. The Ionian Revolt was nothing whatsoever to do with Greeks wanting "freedom", mostly it was Greek tyrants wanting freedom to oppress their fellow Greeks and make war with a free hand.

Galloglaich

2014-11-11, 10:56 AM

G: You've mentioned a few times the town populations who would serve as mercenaries during the summer then would return to their civilian jobs. I was wondering if there is much known about the effects of trauma and PTSD on the town and these part-time mercs, whether it had a noticeable or significant effect on the town.

It's a good question - I can only give a few partial answers and hints. I'd like to learn more about it.

There is a g Urs Graf, a 16th Century artist, who was himself one of these people who led two lives as (in his case) a goldsmith and an artist as well as an active mercenary, covers the exact issue you asked about.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Urs_Graf_Werbung.jpg
On the left setting on the bench in the foreground, you can see a German Landsknecht, in the middle, with his back to us, a Swiss Reislauffer, and to his right, a French military recruiter. Standing to the left of all of them is Death, making some statement (not sure if anyone can read or translate that) but clearly representing the peril of mercenary service - both morally and in terms of mortality.

The moral peril is portrayed even more bluntly here

http://www.american-buddha.com/hieronymus.3b.gif

Mercenary work, which was purely for monetary gain, was considered morally more dubious (and for good reason) than other forms of military activity (more on that in a minute) and it seemed to be more closely associated with vice and battlefield atrocities, such as the ghastly sack of Rome in 1527 which Incannur mentioned.

Urs Graf also gives us an idea of the things that a soldier would see, that could give them problems later:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Urs_Graf_Schrecken_des_Kriegs_1521.jpg

This issue of PTSD specifically is something which does show up in period literature going back to the ancient Greeks, in the Illiad for example, and some people think that some of Socrates strange behavior was partly due to PTSD for example.

Complex morale issues associated with warfare show up a lot, in a range from subtle to extreme.

Mercenary work was only one of many risks faced by burghers in the medieval and Early Modern world. All able-bodied men were in the militia and the militia saw action on a routine basis. Trade was under constant threat from pirates, robber knights, and roaming armies activated by local wars. Small local conflicts flared up almost every year. Towns had to fight to conduct trade, protect their territory (a town might control hundreds of villages and dozens of churches and castles) and assert their rights against the interests of regional warlords and prelates.

In addition town militias participated directly on an official basis in larger regional conflicts every few years, sometimes with coalitions of other towns, or with rural clans, sometimes as part of larger alliances with Princes, Kings and / or powerful Prelates. All this activity definitely had an effect. The shooting and fencing societies seem to have had a dual role as support groups for veterans. The craft guilds all had their own chapels which were the centers of rituals that helped them cope with the effects of war and social conflict within the towns (which could also be quite violent on occasion). Wealthier merchants also had their elite guild halls and these were divided up into banken or benches, which in many cases were based on participation in certain wars. For example in the late 15th Century in Danzig veterans of the Hussite Wars and the 13 Years War against the Teutonic Knights had their own benches.

Medieval towns and villages also had a lot more ways to blow off steam than most people to today. The biggest one was Carnival, which often would have satirical themes to parties and processions which would address issues associated with wars and battles fought by the towns. If you live somewhere that they still have Carnival you can understand the cathartic effect it does have - I'm from New Orleans so we have it here. But if you don't think of something like New Years eve but a lot more intense and socially integrated. Carnival was only one of dozens of holy days, many of which were huge parties, that went on throughout the year.

Military defeats could be particularly devastating for a town or a rural clan. These sometimes caused major morale problems, the best way to cure it was with a subsequent victory. Town militias put heavy, heavy pressure on their citizens not to break ranks or run from battle, and the consequences of doing so could lead to social catastrophe (not to mention, in many cases, execution). They often swore oaths right before battles that they would not break ranks, as breaking ranks put the whole group in serious peril.

G

Knaight

2014-11-11, 12:51 PM

Indeed, and contrary to the rather egregious propaganda of the time and afterwards, there's evidence that the Persian "yoke" was pretty light. The Ionian Revolt was nothing whatsoever to do with Greeks wanting "freedom", mostly it was Greek tyrants wanting freedom to oppress their fellow Greeks and make war with a free hand.

It depends on which Persians, really - "Persian" can cover everything from modern day Iran to several thousand B.C.E. Plus, even within a single dynasty this sort of thing can vary from ruler to ruler.

Kiero

2014-11-11, 01:02 PM

It depends on which Persians, really - "Persian" can cover everything from modern day Iran to several thousand B.C.E. Plus, even within a single dynasty this sort of thing can vary from ruler to ruler.

I'm talking about the Achaemenid Persians, those vilified by the ancient Greeks from the time of the Greco-Persian Wars up to Alexander's conquest and a little beyond.

Lilapop

2014-11-11, 07:51 PM

On the left setting on the bench in the foreground, you can see a German Landsknecht, in the middle, with his back to us, a Swiss Reislauffer, and to his right, a French military recruiter. Standing to the left of all of them is Death, making some statement (not sure if anyone can read or translate that) but clearly representing the peril of mercenary service - both morally and in terms of mortality.

According to the file's wikimedia page:

Im Schriftband steht "Jch wet uch gern/ein wil zu lossen/was ir rettend vunder disser rosen" - "ich will euch gerne eine Weile zuhören, was ihr redet unter dieser Rose". Die Rose meint einerseits die geschnitzte Rose an der Decke, aber auch in Anspielung auf die Redewendung "unter Rosen reden" das Heraufbeschwören eines Unglücks durch unsinniges Geschwätz.

The banner literally says "I will listen to what you are discussing under this rose for a while". Superficially, this does refer to the ornament on the ceiling. Apparently though, there is a saying "to talk under roses" that describes "causing disaster by pointless chatter". I never heard that personally, but Switzerland is pretty much on the other end of the German-influenced area from where I grew up. The wikimedia description also points out that Death isn't just standing next to the Landsknecht, but is also pushing his knee into his back.

Galloglaich

2014-11-11, 11:48 PM

According to the file's wikimedia page:

The banner literally says "I will listen to what you are discussing under this rose for a while". Superficially, this does refer to the ornament on the ceiling. Apparently though, there is a saying "to talk under roses" that describes "causing disaster by pointless chatter". I never heard that personally, but Switzerland is pretty much on the other end of the German-influenced area from where I grew up. The wikimedia description also points out that Death isn't just standing next to the Landsknecht, but is also pushing his knee into his back.

Thanks man that is great. I like that it's so indirect, makes it more sinister.

"The Rose" as a symbol had a lot of numerological and lexographic significance in the medieval world, particularly to artists who were very into numerology and mathematics. The rose also shows up in the fencing manuals a lot.

G

Roxxy

2014-11-12, 12:09 AM

Watching Congolese park rangers on video. These guys go on patrol with RPGs. What the Hell are the poachers like over there that the park rangers need that kind of ordinance?

Milodiah

2014-11-12, 12:13 AM

Watching Congolese park rangers on video. These guys go on patrol with RPGs. What the Hell are the poachers like over there that the park rangers need that kind of ordinance?

RPGs are one of the most prevalent weapons in the world, partly because the launchers themselves are, amazingly, cheaper to make on a per-unit basis than a Kalashnikov. A unit equipped to proper Soviet TO&E setups would see nearly 12% of its troops toting RPGs.

Also, the Congo is in Africa, and Africa is not a nice place to wander around in the jungles. These dudes probably bump into rebels as much as they do poachers, so it stands to reason they'd be equipped to deal with both.

Roxxy

2014-11-12, 12:19 AM

RPGs are one of the most prevalent weapons in the world, partly because the launchers themselves are, amazingly, cheaper to make on a per-unit basis than a Kalashnikov. A unit equipped to proper Soviet TO&E setups would see nearly 12% of its troops toting RPGs.

Also, the Congo is in Africa, and Africa is not a nice place to wander around in the jungles. These dudes probably bump into rebels as much as they do poachers, so it stands to reason they'd be equipped to deal with both.Upon a second look, it looks like one ranger has a loaded launcher and a Kalashnikov, and the guy behind him has another grenade and a Kalashnikov.

dramatic flare

2014-11-12, 01:36 AM

Upon a second look, it looks like one ranger has a loaded launcher and a Kalashnikov, and the guy behind him has another grenade and a Kalashnikov.

Here's a pop-culture website's interview with a park ranger from Africa i read a while back.

basically, poaching is stupidly profitable and so poachers have doubled down on their source of cash.

Cracked, "5 Ways Saving Wildlife has Turned into All Out Warfare." (http://www.cracked.com/article_21217_5-harrowing-realities-fighting-poachers-in-africa.html)

Brother Oni

2014-11-12, 07:32 AM

The moral peril is portrayed even more bluntly here

Presumably the anatomical correctness of this image implies that the mercenary is also being lead into moral bankrupcy by other desires? I can't see what else that bulge around his groin is supposed to represent.

The banner literally says "I will listen to what you are discussing under this rose for a while". Superficially, this does refer to the ornament on the ceiling. Apparently though, there is a saying "to talk under roses" that describes "causing disaster by pointless chatter". I never heard that personally, but Switzerland is pretty much on the other end of the German-influenced area from where I grew up. The wikimedia description also points out that Death isn't just standing next to the Landsknecht, but is also pushing his knee into his back.

We could ask Eldan as he's our resident Swiss.

Thanks for both of you for the imagery and the translation.

GraaEminense

2014-11-12, 08:19 AM

Presumably the anatomical correctness of this image implies that the mercenary is also being lead into moral bankrupcy by other desires? I can't see what else that bulge around his groin is supposed to represent.
That would probably be his codpiece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece). Showing off your goods was all the rage in the 1500s after all, and a man needs what help he can (even if this guy needed it more than most).

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/meyers/Wm12126a.jpg?w=400&h=614&vid=1638915784

Galloglaich

2014-11-12, 10:34 AM

That would probably be his codpiece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece). Showing off your goods was all the rage in the 1500s after all, and a man needs what help he can (even if this guy needed it more than most).

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/meyers/Wm12126a.jpg?w=400&h=614&vid=1638915784

The anatomical correctness of the demon or devil was also a common feature in how they were depicted in late medieval art, both to emphasize their vulgarity and also as a kind of joke.

You have to keep in mind though that people in this period were used to being around all kinds of animals and also were accustomed to physical nudity since they took communal baths.

G

Spiryt

2014-11-12, 12:52 PM

As far as 'mercenaries' go, here is little article about Trelleborg finds:

https://www.academia.edu/622731/Who_was_in_Harold_Bluetooth_s_army_Strontium_isoto pe_investigation_of_the

Basically most important fact is that significant portion of those people buried there were at very least born and raised far, far away from Trelleborg.

+ Some written sources to go with conclusions.

No brains

2014-11-12, 01:26 PM

I'm not sure if what I'm seeing has any special significance, but that demon has a weird left femur. It either curls in an odd way or is strangely long. I guess this is intentional, as a gestalt tangling of the mercenary's legs and demon's legs makes it less clear who is leading who. It really doesn't help that out of four feet, there is only one shoe.

Brother Oni

2014-11-12, 01:29 PM

That would probably be his codpiece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece). Showing off your goods was all the rage in the 1500s after all, and a man needs what help he can (even if this guy needed it more than most).

I'm aware of what a codpiece is, I just didn't realise they protruded like that outside of Blackadder sketches (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5A55eWbiBI). :smalltongue:

Mr. Mask

2014-11-12, 06:44 PM

Thanks for all the help with my question. This was some really great and interesting information.

On an unhappier subject, anyone heard the latest on the Ukraine?: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/russian-tanks-move-across-ukraine-border-nato-chief-breedlove-n246921

Galloglaich

2014-11-13, 10:16 AM

I'm aware of what a codpiece is, I just didn't realise they protruded like that outside of Blackadder sketches (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5A55eWbiBI). :smalltongue:

Some more Devils or Demons, these by Urs Graf

http://www.zum.de/Faecher/G/BW/Landeskunde/rhein/geschichte/spaetma/epoche/frau/dasboeseweib.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JJrqrEEvutQ/UDfut7z-GGI/AAAAAAAAEVM/yrIT54WAUWw/s1600/Hermit+and+Devil+by+Urs+Graf+c+1512+from+Damned+by +Robert+Muchembled.jpg

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lueex44DPT1qggdq1.jpg

You may notice a particular obscene detail about this devil - that is also very common in medieval depictions. Again, partly humorous, partly ideological (I think largely the former though as medieval artists were always putting jokes in their art)

Hans Memling (Flemish, 15th Century) was a case in point.

http://lmaclean.ca/LisaMacLean/nfblog//__HOMEDIR__/www/LisaMacLean/nfblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/memling%20devil.jpg

In this famous 'last judgement' tryptich (stolen by Danzig city councilman and pirate Paul Benacke and now sitting in a Church near Gdansk) Memling, the artist - who was also something of a drunk, put numerous priests and Dominican monks he had beefs with into his depiction of hell (notice all the tonsures) along with a few of his friends, he also put other friends and the patron of the tryptich, Medici agent Thomas Portinari with his wife, as being judged 'good' by St. Peter in his scale and headed for paradise. The painting also includes jocular details about peoples physiology known to Memling from the baths. All the faces (and many of the bodies) of the people being judged saved or damned in the painting were people known personally to Memling from Bruges.

http://sarahpeverley.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/memling-last-judgment.jpg

Most people assume when they see medieval art like that that the painters believed these scenes literally, due to their intense religious beliefs at the time. In some cases this was true, (for example Bosch, who did some of the strangest most psychedelic paintings of the period, was the member of a religious society and may have been highly religious) but for the most part, the artists were not highly religious and saw these scenes in a way not hugely different from how we might see them today, and often somewhat tongue in cheek. They were a socially acceptable form of public art in which other things could be shown - for example a good painting of the naked body, or a political joke. Later Classical (Greek and Roman) scenes became an acceptable venue for such things.

G

Mr. Mask

2014-11-16, 02:33 AM

Thiel

2014-11-16, 03:13 AM

Mr. Mask

2014-11-16, 04:00 AM

Come to think of it, maybe a drop-away blade would be a better idea. It's designed to detach from the plane when a certain amount of pressure is put on it, but will still have enough inertia to mess up the flight pattern of enemy planes it hits. Of course, you can't have drop-away wings, so it gets to the question of where you'd put it without messing up your flight, assuming it's worth the weight and effort. You could deploy it at the last second, if your reactions were good enough and the result was worthwhile.

Belkarseviltwin

2014-11-16, 05:33 AM

Here's a very odd idea that popped up for me once. With early planes WWI and II, would it have been at all possible to make their wings into metal blades, with the plan of hitting the enemy planes with them? I can think of a lot of things that could go wrong, even if you could effectively use them.

The one thing this does remind me of is "tipping" V-1s. The V-1 flying bomb was mechanically very simple, so machine-gun fire had limited effect in bringing it down, and shooting it down with 20mm cannon had a significant risk that you would be caught in the explosion of the warhead.

The solution was this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Spitfire_Tipping_V-1_Flying_Bomb.jpg

Pilots would fly very close to the V-1, bringing their wingtip within 6 inches of its wingtip or sometimes actually into contact. The interfering wingtip vortices would cause the V1 to roll until its gyroscopic guidance systems stopped working and it went into an uncontrollable dive and crashed. While the aircraft in the image (on the right, V-1 is on the left) is a Spitfire Mk. XIV, the most successful fighter at destroying V-1s was the Tempest, as they needed a very high low-level top speed to catch them.

Incidentally, the V-1(and some allied aircraft) did have bladed cable cutters on their wings as a defence against barrage balloons, but these were specialised for cutting cable- the balloon cable would be guided into a groove on the leading edge of the wing where it would trigger an explosive-driven blade that cut it.

Thiel

2014-11-16, 06:33 AM

snowblizz

2014-11-16, 06:47 AM

Zizka

2014-11-17, 06:02 AM

Watching Congolese park rangers on video. These guys go on patrol with RPGs. What the Hell are the poachers like over there that the park rangers need that kind of ordinance?

Virunga? Well, the Congo is a warzone and many of the armed groups like M23 are just as involved in local crime and business as warfare. Also, an RPG strikes me as a good way to deal with poachers with vehicles. Finally, having been on patrol with Indian Park Rangers, those guys will generally carry as much firepower as they can.

Storm_Of_Snow

2014-11-17, 12:23 PM

Nope, here's a why not yet mentioned. The wing of an aircraft is very purposefully shaped to give it lift. A "cutting-wedge" wing would not have the required shape (what with being a cutting wedge) to create the low-pressure zone over the wing (and corresponding high-pressure under) which is what gets the plane into the air.
With the caveat that there might be *some* combination of wing shape and speed that does both. But not in WW2 and let's not even get started on WW1 where planes were largely made from wood and canvas...

Thanks for the link though, I was thinking about that just the other day.
You've also go to aim your plane directly at your enemy and steer into him, plus the forces involved in using your wing to slice through an aircraft would almost certainly critically damage your own aircraft - either that or it's so heavily reinforced that it would be too heavy and never be able to catch up to an enemy (if it's even able to take off in the first place).

About the closest example I can think of would be the attempted use of Kamikaze's against B-29s, although wikipedia has this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_ramming.

Wing tipping of V1's was marginally less dangerous than shooting them down was - given that they were small targets, so the intercepting aircraft had to be very close to stand a chance of hitting them, which meant they were likely in the blast radius if the fuel tanks or warhead detonated.

Galloglaich

2014-11-17, 05:05 PM

It was a thing, historically, but always a pretty low-percentage technique with a pretty low survival rate. Some aircraft were more suitable than others, but the basic design of aircraft makes it extremely dangerous.

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

G

Galloglaich

2014-11-17, 05:15 PM

Apparently this was an aircraft designed for deliberate ramming attacks though 16 prototypes were produced they never saw combat. Pretty interesting read though.

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

G

Talakeal

2014-11-17, 05:53 PM

Does anyone know if armor would protect you from falling?

Might it actually make it worse, as you are landing on a harder surface and lack the flexibility to land properly?

Carl

2014-11-17, 06:07 PM

it's not the fall that kills you, it's the extreme deceleration experienced on hitting the ground. Armour can only help if it's able to absorb some of that energy. And as mythbusters shows, even fairly soft packing material with a lot of spring needs feet of it to make even a few tens of feet survivable.

rs2excelsior

2014-11-17, 11:06 PM

Does anyone know if armor would protect you from falling?

Might it actually make it worse, as you are landing on a harder surface and lack the flexibility to land properly?

Yep, what Carl said. Hitting a hard surface at high velocity means you take an extremely high acceleration over an extremely short time. The threshold for survivability for a human is 100gs of acceleration (which will still result in severe injury). That's a change in velocity of 981 m/s per second. Which sounds like a lot, but most impacts act over tiny fractions of a second, depending on the surface you hit.

So armor changes nothing, really, and might make it worse if you're already landing in something soft. Practically, though, the amount of material required on a person to make them fall-proof is really impractical.

Think of it another way--wearing armor doesn't help a falling person for the same reasons that stunt men don't use steel slabs for where they're going to impact. They use soft materials that will give and extend their deceleration time instead.

Carl

2014-11-18, 12:25 AM

That's a change in velocity of 981 m/s per second. Which sounds like a lot, but most impacts act over tiny fractions of a second, depending on the surface you hit.

To try and put this into perspective there's a little engineering formula that can help put this into real term's for you. S= UT + 1/2AT^2.

That formula in an impact situation doesn't account for energy, (and thus velocity), lost by damage to either the impactie or the surface being impacted and it needs transposition for proper use.

S= Distance Traveled
U= Initial Velocity, (oddly to some of you for the purposes of our example we can treat the initial velocity as zero and the deceleration as an acceleration instead)
T=Time of Deceleration (Technically deceleration is just negative acceleration, and is expressed as a negative number, but you can reverse it to a positive as pointed out allready)
A= Acceleration.

To transpose to something we can use.

First drop the UT section, since where inverting by treating it as an acceleration from zero to a positive number by working the whole thing backwards the result will always be zero eliminating it from consideration.

The divide by 1/2, (same a s multiply by 2), the divide by A. That leaves us:

T^2=2S/A

So if we assume a deceleration distance of 0.1m, (a real stretch for a human but a good best case scenario), and simplify the 100G's to 1KPS^2 acelleration we get T^2 = 0.0002.

Square root it and we get a deceleration time of 0.01414 seconds. If we know the time taken to cover a given distance we can calculate the start or end velocity, (but not both) if we know the other. This is because the simple distance/time formula gives the average velocity, in a uniform deceleration with a final velocity of zero that means it will be exactly one half the actual impact velocity. That means the impact velocity for this scenario is 14.14 M/s. That's 33.7MPH.

In practice even that will probably be fatal in a body to ground impact. And by using a different formula allready given several pages back and earths gravity, (at these velocity's air resistance should be minimal without a major updraft), we can calculate the height needed to produce that. Works out at 10.1M or about 35 Ft. Again that's fairly excessive, far less will generally do the trick.