Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVI

[Brother Oni]

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.

The problem with your calculations is the assumption that the human body is uniform - in reality, you can jump feet first, break your legs and pelvis but still survive. On the other hand, if you fell head first instead, it's likely to go splat like a ripe melon from a much shorter height.

I looked this up a while ago (link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?283538-Falling-damage-across-systems)) and the median falling distance that results in a 50% mortality rate is 1 floor head first, 5 floors feet first.
This is not the same as having a 50% survival rate - what it means is that if you threw 100 people off that height in that orientation, 50 of them would die (it's the same misconception that people have about the LD50).

With regard to armour, it depends on the surface you're impacting and how hard. As mentioned earlier, a lot of the time it's the padding that saves your hide more, but that's not to say armour is useless - I've seen superbike crashes where the rider ends up surfing across the tarmac at 50+ miles an hour on his back and walks away with minimal injuries whereas if he wasn't wearing any protective gear, he would be a bloody mess of meat from road rash (true it's not an actual fall, but rolling/skidding across the ground is a potential result if your angle of impact is high enough).
Bear in mind that armour adds to your weight so strapping all that padding on may be detrimental to your landing as it increases the force of impact.

Stuntmen do wear padding where possible and a lot of their high falls are into cardboard boxes to extend their deceleration time as rs2excelsior said.

[Kiero]

The problem with your calculations is the assumption that the human body is uniform - in reality, you can jump feet first, break your legs and pelvis but still survive. On the other hand, if you fell head first instead, it's likely to go splat like a ripe melon from a much shorter height.


Hard impact against the surface/skeleton isn't the only cause of harm. The force of impact is also transmitted into the internal tissues, causing rupturing internal injuries as well. More than a certain amount of force can rupture your aorta, for example, which not only bleeds you out very fast, but can't be repaired in most circumstances either.

[Brother Oni]

Hard impact against the surface/skeleton isn't the only cause of harm. The force of impact is also transmitted into the internal tissues, causing rupturing internal injuries as well. More than a certain amount of force can rupture your aorta, for example, which not only bleeds you out very fast, but can't be repaired in most circumstances either.

The two examples I gave were not intended to be exhaustive. There's been a fair chunk of work on modelling falls (link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9618909)) and the potential injury/fatality rate and the only scale I know of for determining overall injuries of a patient, the Injury Severity Score (http://www.trauma.org/archive/scores/iss.html) wasn't found to be a particularly good guide for predicting survival(link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15307311)).

[Yora]

I looked this up a while ago (link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?283538-Falling-damage-across-systems)) and the median falling distance that results in a 50% mortality rate is 1 floor head first, 5 floors feet first.
This is not the same as having a 50% survival rate - what it means is that if you threw 100 people off that height in that orientation, 50 of them would die (it's the same misconception that people have about the LD50).
You mean that it depends a lot on the health, size, body shape, and so on of the specific individual in question?
If we had a person suffering such a fall, and we don't know anything other than it being a human, our prediction for survival would be 50%. If I and my frail grandmother take the fall, we would both have very different survivial chances, though. Me probably a lot over 50%, she significantly lover than that.

[Kiero]

I've been doing some more reading into Pankration, the ancient Greek martial art (which is essentially like modern MMA with additional training in armour), and found a useful summary of what's important here (http://what-when-how.com/martial-arts/pankration-martial-arts/):

Pankration (Greek; all powers), a Greek martial art utilizing both striking and grappling, was created almost 3,000 years ago. It was practiced primarily as a sport, but found applications in combat, both on the battlefield and for self-defense. Pankration was designed to be the ultimate test of a person’s physical, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities. Pankration is one of the oldest confirmed martial arts practiced by human beings. The art had an extensive influence on Western martial arts, and possibly on Asian arts as well.

Pankration was an all-out form of fighting. The competitors were allowed to do anything except biting and eye-gouging. The Spartans, however, allowed even these techniques in their local athletic festivals. Punches and open-hand strikes with the hands, kicks, all types of throws and takedowns, joint locks and choke holds—all of these techniques were legal in a pankration bout. The goal of the pankration match was to get the opponent to signal defeat. Failing this, it was expected that one opponent would be knocked out or choked to unconsciousness.

The origin of pankration is the subject of speculation. The Egyptians developed high-level fighting arts, as evidenced by pictures of these fighting techniques displayed in the tombs of Beni-Hassan (Middle Kingdom period). One theory suggests that Egyptian traders brought these techniques to the Greeks, who eventually adopted them for their own use. Another theory speculates that pankration developed out of primitive, instinctual fighting for survival and eventually was systematized as a martial art. The Greeks themselves believed that the hero Theseus, who used pankration to defeat the Minotaur in the labyrinth, had created the art. The historical record, however, begins after approximately 1000 b.c. when the Greek city-states established athletic festivals whose events included pankration.

In 648 b.c., at the Thirty-third Olympic Games, pankration was accepted as an official sport. It quickly became one of the most popular events, so much so that pankration was later added to the boys’ Olympic Games. Practitioners of the art (pankrationists) received the highest honors and accolades from adoring crowds. Winners of the pankration became instant celebrities and were assured of income for the rest of their lives. Those few who won repeatedly at the games achieved legendary fame in the sports-obsessed Greek world and were sometimes even worshipped as semidivine beings.

Pankration enjoyed continued popularity throughout the Greek city-states. Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all enjoyed the art. Plato, in fact, was a practitioner, but warned that this style of fighting did not teach its practitioners to “keep to their feet,” possibly a reference to the fact that most pankration matches were decided by grappling on the ground. Alexander the Great, a Hellenized Macedonian, was also a pankration expert. Alexander took many pankrationists with him when he set out to conquer the globe, including Dioxipus of Rhodes, one of the most formidable pankrationists in history. In addition, many of his troops were trained in the art. It has been argued that, during Alexander’s Indian campaign, pankration techniques were disseminated to the population of southern Asia. If this is the case, then these techniques might have influenced Asian martial arts. This theory remains a source of debate among scholars of fighting arts.

Pankration matches began with the two competitors stepping into the arena or onto a platform. There were no rings or barriers. Falling off the platform meant that the match would resume again; running away from the combat area was a sign of cowardice, which resulted in a loss. A referee armed with a switch supervised the match. If he observed an illegal maneuver, he employed the switch to break the competitors apart. In addition, it is speculated that the referee would employ the switch if the action between competitors lagged.

There were no weight classes in the art; it is not surprising, therefore, that pankration became the domain of heavyweight contenders who could use their superior size to their advantage. Competitors fought naked without any body or hand protection. Pankration matches had no time limit. The only way to end a match was to signal surrender by raising a hand or by being rendered unconscious through a choke hold or blow. The matches sometimes ended in death. With joint locks also allowed in competition, disfigurement and loss of limbs were also dangers.

Pankration had two basic forms: kato (literally, down) pankration and ano (up) pankration. Ano pankration was a less severe form of the art, in which the pankrationists had to remain standing. Ano pankration was essentially a form of kickboxing, in which blows from both the hands and feet were permitted. All types of hand strikes were permitted, not just those with the closed fist, and a pankrationist was allowed to hold his opponent and hit him with the other hand. Strikes to the groin and elbow and knee strikes were also permitted. When one competitor fell to the ground, the match ended. Ano pankration was usually restricted to training or to preliminary bouts before a kato pankration match.

Kato pankration was the all-out form of fighting that has come to be associated with pankration. Practitioners began the match standing, but as the fight progressed, falling to the ground and grappling techniques were used. The fight was not over until surrender, knockout, or death. It has been suggested that the great majority of kato pankration matches ended up being decided on the ground through grappling techniques. All the techniques from ano pankration were legal in kato pankration.

Pankration techniques were numerous and varied. Techniques were divided into four basic categories: arm techniques, leg techniques, throws and takedowns, and grappling. Arm techniques included all types of punches with the hands and elbows. Boxing techniques, the jab, cross, up-percut, and hook, were most likely the primary weapons. Elbow strikes were also used, which meant that hook punches were probably a secondary weapon when the elbow could not be employed. Open-hand strikes were also permitted; there is artwork on surviving Greek vases dating from 500 b.c. that clearly demonstrates chopping blows.

Leg techniques were kicks and knee strikes. At close range, a pankra-tionist grabbed his opponent and attempted to apply knee strikes in rapid succession in much the same way as a modern Thai boxer. It is unlikely that high kicks were used; most of the artwork demonstrates pankrationists employing rising kicks to the stomach, striking with the ball of the foot. Pankrationists also likely employed powerful kicks against the legs of opponents in attempts to either sweep the feet or strike the upper portion of the leg with enough force to cause the limb to collapse. Once again, a modern application of this technique is found in Thai boxing. When an opponent was doubled over or on the floor, pankrationists would then likely attempt kicks to the head. Because of pankration’s extensive use of kicks, pankration is one of the first documented complete fighting systems used by humans.

Throws and takedowns were numerous and varied. Pankrationists were free to employ the takedowns that are commonly seen in modern wrestling systems, in which practitioners attempt to seize one or both of the opponent’s legs and unbalance the opponent. However, pankrationists also employed throws that are seen in modern judo or jujutsu, in which the practitioner attempts to either throw the opponent over the shoulder or hip to the ground or sweep the leg out from under the opponent by use of the feet.

Holds used in pankration were those designed to force an opponent to submit. For this reason, the most popular holds employed were choke holds and joint locks. Choke holds are attempts to cut off either the blood supply or the air supply, or both, from the torso to the head. This is achieved usually by blocking the windpipe or the carotid artery and vagus nerve.

Joint locks attempt to hyperextend a joint of the body beyond its normal range of motion. Thus, a successfully applied joint lock can break an arm, leg, wrist, or ankle. The elbow lock was probably the most popular. Interestingly, leg holds were also used, which gives an indication of the many techniques that were available to the pankrationists. Leg holds have traditionally not been popular in most wrestling systems around the world, but because of the very nature of pankration combat, this skill was an essential one for pankrationists to master. This gives an indication of the versatility and demands of this art.

One of the unique aspects of the art was the fact that pankrationists were able to employ unusual holds against the fingers or toes of opponents, even breaking them when necessary. There were even standing grappling holds that were employed by pankrationists, in which one practitioner would literally climb on top of another, while the opponent was still standing, and attempt to get the opponent into a choke hold or use body mass to force him to the ground. These unusual techniques are rarely found in other combat systems.

The Greeks were very familiar with human anatomy. Surviving statues and artwork clearly demonstrate the attention to detail of the artists and the realism of the figures. It is likely that this knowledge was applied to pankration. Knowledge of human anatomy, especially the weak points of the body, was essential for pankrationists of any level to survive in competition.

It is likely that there were different schools, or academies, of pankration located throughout the Greek world. These schools are believed to have specialized in certain techniques. Although pankrationists were expected to master all four aspects of pankration fighting, certain schools emphasized one aspect of fighting over others. The instructors for these academies were likely to be former pankration champions who retired into teaching. Those instructors who were former Olympians were highly sought out and were well paid for their instruction.

Training in pankration was accomplished through innovative techniques, some of which were not replicated for thousands of years. Pankrationists trained in special gymnasiums known as korykeions. Students learned striking techniques by hitting bags stuffed with sand suspended from the ceiling. Kicking techniques were practiced by striking heavier bags suspended about 2 feet off the floor. These were intended to make the student hit correctly, as striking improperly would be painful. These striking bags were known as korykos.

Students were taught wrestling techniques in sequence, that is, to master each move in a progressive order. Ultimately, students could learn the combinations of different techniques. Wrestling techniques were divided into separate categories. Thus, a pankrationist might first learn how to throw and take down the opponent in such a way that a hold could be applied. Later, ground-fighting techniques as a separate category would be introduced. Finally, all aspects of wrestling were practiced in conjunction.

When these basics were learned, the students combined both striking and wrestling in kato pankration matches. Schools held competitions to determine which students would have the honor of being sent to the games. Once again, with the enormous pressures for victory, only the best would have an opportunity to compete.

The Greek pankration schools employed masseuses to help the athletes recover from matches. It is likely that doctors also were employed, as well as dietitians and different types of coaches. In a way, the pankration schools would have been much like the gladiator schools of the Roman Empire, where a mini-industry of professions shared their experiences and expertise to help students learn how to win in their chosen art.

Competition among the city-states during the Olympic and other games was fierce. Competitors represented not only themselves, but also their particular city during a festival, and winning brought glory not only to the individual, but also to the city. Likewise, a losing competitor reflected poorly on his city. For these reasons, among others, athletes in these competitions were highly motivated to win, sometimes at all costs. Pankra-tionists often risked death or mutilation rather than acknowledge defeat, in order to avoid shaming their city by a poor performance. This helped to make pankration an event in which fatalities could be expected.

Pankration was thought useful by the ancient Greeks for two main reasons. First, it taught the practitioners about the art of war. Warfare was a constant threat in the Greek world (ca. 700 to 146 b.c.), and males were expected to be able to fight against external threats. Second, and more important, pankration helped its practitioners to develop arete (excellence). Greek males were expected to display this quality in all areas of their lives, and especially in combat. The possibility of dying in combat to protect a person’s city or friends was very real. A person who displayed arete would have no hesitation in making a personal sacrifice to protect his friends or city.

Although pankration was expected to develop arete in its practitioners, the Greek world’s obsession with sports led to much cheating and game fixing in various events. It is almost certain that this kind of behavior affected pankration as well. Although practitioners were expected to swear to compete fairly and honestly, the enormous pressure for victory would have led to instances of cheating. Authors from the period, such as Xeno-phanes, regularly decried the loss of pure athletic competition and the evils of professionalism in the local and Olympic games, indicating the magnitude of the problem.

It is unknown if pankration was taught exclusively as a sport or also taught as a means of self-defense in and of itself. Pankration experts obviously were sought out as bodyguards and instructors, just as was the case with retired gladiators during the Roman Empire. Evidence suggests that the emphasis would most likely have been on sport development. Roman sources sometimes did mention, however, the effectiveness of “Greek boxing” as a method of self-defense; whether they were talking about pankra-tion or Greek boxing proper is unknown. However, by the time of the Greek incorporation into the Roman Empire, the emphasis would have been on learning proper striking techniques so that the lethal cestus (a spiked metal glove) could be employed. This alone might indicate a loss of interest in grappling techniques for self-defense, suggesting that boxing proper was probably employed.

The Romans conquered much of Greece in 146 b.c. The athletic skill and combat spirit displayed by pankrationists were less appreciated by the Romans than the slaughter of the gladiatorial games in the Colosseum. Pankration was relegated to secondary status. Therefore, pankration gradually began to disappear from the mainstream of Greek and Roman life. With the fall of the Western Roman Empire, pankration continued to be practiced within the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, but never achieved the same level of popularity as it had among the ancient Greeks.

The Olympic Games were banned in the fourth century a.d. as pagan rituals, and pankration was relegated to local athletic festivals. Soon, the chaotic circumstances following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the constant struggle for survival by the Byzantine Empire against external threats, and the prohibition by the Church of any form of paganism discouraged the practice and transmission of the art. By the tenth century, pankration had, for all practical purposes, died out under the impact of social events of the times. Medieval Christianity suppressed events associated with the pagan world as well as prohibiting the study of the human body, critical for unarmed fighting systems. In addition, the nature of warfare in the Middle Ages, specifically the development of vastly superior armor and the counterdevelopment of innovative weapon systems to counteract the defensive abilities of armor, placed a much greater emphasis on weapons training. With the decline and eventual extinction of pankration, the Western world lost its preeminent unarmed martial art. Historical conditions in Europe did not allow for a revival.

With the explosion of popularity of martial arts in the 1960s and 1970s in America and Europe, pankration began a rebirth. Modern systems of pankration have been developed and are gaining popularity. In addition, the development and spectacular popularity of no-holds-barred fighting, also known as “ultimate fighting,” has created a demand for fighters remarkably similar to the pankrationists of antiquity. Ultimate fighters are allowed to punch, kick, and grapple, and many contests are decided through a choke hold or joint lock. The vast number of techniques and the innovative manner in which they are used resemble in many ways Greek pankration. Modern differences, such as the use of protective equipment and uniforms (notably judo or jujutsu uniforms), are often the only distinctions between ultimate fighting and ancient pankration.

Although pankration can be considered a “lost” martial art, it survives into the present day through re-creation. Just how much modern no-holds-barred events resemble the ancient art can never be established, but the spirit of total fighting with minimal rules certainly brings the ideals of pankration into the contemporary world.

Pankration is one of the pivotal events in the history of combat systems. It was developed to teach males the art of war and to develop an individual’s virtue and bravery. It led to the development of innovative and creative fighting methods that profoundly influenced the ancient world. Indeed, that individuals such as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates were familiar with the art is a signal of the importance of this combat system in the Greek world. The contributions of the ancient Greeks to human society were incalculably important. Pankration is yet another example of the outstanding gifts the Greeks bestowed on the world. Although lost to history, ancient pankration was one of the critical steps in martial arts development and stands as an important milestone in the history of combat systems.

Of particular interest to those looking at medieval history is that it persisted, albeit on a very small scale, til about 10th century AD. So if you are running medieval or medieval-inspired games, it isn't outlandish to have pankration-trained characters, if they come from the right background.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

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?
Unless it's about eight and a half feet of bubble wrap, it would probably make it easier for people to scoop up your remains. Not much else. :smalltongue:

Vesna Vulović survived her fall because the remains of the aircraft she came down with collapsed around her on impact, absorbing the forces, and because she was found and attended to very quickly by a former German army medic. She still had incredibly serious injuries.

[Spiryt]

Very interesting text, Kiero!

I wonder what it's based on, mostly.

Are there any distinct literal sources about Pankration, or is it more about painstakingly gathering the bits of information from everywhere?

Judging from vases etc. is obviously of very limited use.

Few points:


In addition, the development and spectacular popularity of no-holds-barred fighting, also known as “ultimate fighting,” has created a demand for fighters remarkably similar to the pankrationists of antiquity. Ultimate fighters are allowed to punch, kick, and grapple, and many contests are decided through a choke hold or joint lock.

It is not known as 'ultimate fighting'.

UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) is simply world's biggest and most popular MMA promotion, and thus in some cases it becomes synonymous with the sport.

Leading up to the old joke/meme 'I trane UFC, bro", which saying has about as much sense as saying 'I train NBA'.


It is unknown if pankration was taught exclusively as a sport or also taught as a means of self-defense in and of itself.

With that limited ruleset, there's really not much difference at all.

Of course, in hypothetical, rare 'really real' situation, , mentality plays crucial role, and lack of possibility to give up safely can easily break people.

But such atavistic ferocity allowing to refuse to submit to more scary mammal is not really something
that can be easily trained on it's own, anyway.

[Kiero]

Very interesting text, Kiero!

I wonder what it's based on, mostly.

Are there any distinct literal sources about Pankration, or is it more about painstakingly gathering the bits of information from everywhere?

Judging from vases etc. is obviously of very limited use.

My understanding is that it comes from texts as well as vases and pictorial evidence. There's the recurrent problem of fragmentary sources, and also the usual issue of the ancient writers assuming you came from the same social class as them and were familiar with the underlying assumptions they made in their writing. I just stumbled upon an online project to collect evidence (http://www.historical-pankration.com/home/articles/study-training-methodology) and there are books written on the topic drawing on ancient sources. For example Galen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen)'s writings on training (http://www.historical-pankration.com/home/articles/study-training-methodology), based on his time as a doctor to gladiators

Pankration was part of the gymnasium training open to all free Greek males of the hoplite class and upwards, something an ephebe was expected to learn alongside training in armour and in formation. It was a complement to the armed segment of their training. There's a story of a famous pankratiatist serving as a mercenary in Alexander the Great's army who fell foul of royal politics after beating one of the king's friends in a match.


Few points:

It is not known as 'ultimate fighting'.

UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) is simply world's biggest and most popular MMA promotion, and thus in some cases it becomes synonymous with the sport.

Leading up to the old joke/meme 'I trane UFC, bro", which saying has about as much sense as saying 'I train NBA'.

I left the attempts to draw a line to modern MMA in there only for completeness, there's certainly a movement to try to link ancient Pankration with the modern practise of it and wider MMA. Feel free to ignore that stuff. The reality is that pankration died out as far as we know, people stopped practising it altogether until it was revived in the 20th century.


With that limited ruleset, there's really not much difference at all.

Of course, in hypothetical, rare 'really real' situation, , mentality plays crucial role, and lack of possibility to give up safely can easily break people.

But such atavistic ferocity allowing to refuse to submit to more scary mammal is not really something
that can be easily trained on it's own, anyway.

Quite, the techniques are the techniques; most RPGs don't address the underlying psychology of the fighter; or the difference between someone who's only practised in the gymnasium and one who's applied it on the battlefield.

[Galloglaich]

Good overview on Pankration Kiero...

I know some people who do practice pankration, as well as Roman pugilism and some other Classical martial arts, and they have to gather data together from fragments in myriad sources, there are a lot of fragments (including the art on the vases and mosaics etc., but also records, comments by various figures and letters and so on) but piecing together the actual art is challenging to say the least.



Of particular interest to those looking at medieval history is that it persisted, albeit on a very small scale, til about 10th century AD. So if you are running medieval or medieval-inspired games, it isn't outlandish to have pankration-trained characters, if they come from the right background.

There were various other forms of combat grappling very similar to pankration which did persist right through the medieval period and show up in fencing manuals and 'fightbooks' from the 14th Century onward, two notable regional variations being the Central European 'Ringen' and the Italian 'Abrazare' or grips, but there are also regional variations in Spain, England, Scandinavia and the Slavic regions of Europe.

Both Ringen and Abrazare can be very lethal, and include both unarmed grappling (and strikes etc.) as well as grappling with weapons.

Some images.

Ringen, from Talhoffer, unarmed

http://www.schlachtschule.org/pictures/wrestling.jpg

http://secondgenhema.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/ms-thott-290-2c2ba_052r.jpg


Ringen, from Talhoffer and Durer, with weapons

http://www.truefork.org/DragonPreservationSociety/Talhoffer_files/talhoffer20.jpg

http://www.hema.freehomepage.com/D6.jpg


Ringen, from Talhoffer , on horseback

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_259.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_012.jpg


Abrazare, unarmed, from Fiore

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RNBT-lQguis/U8xT85NVm3I/AAAAAAAAAHQ/5jV5HR9voRk/s1600/Fiore_Armbreak.jpg

http://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/4/42/Pisani-Dossi_MS_4v-f.jpg/300px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_4v-f.jpg

http://www.the-exiles.org/essay/ab_pl5.jpg

Abrazare with weapons (disarms etc.)

http://www.armizare.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/grappling.png

http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Fiorespada1.jpg

http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/fioredaga.jpg



Quite, the techniques are the techniques; most RPGs don't address the underlying psychology of the fighter; or the difference between someone who's only practised in the gymnasium and one who's applied it on the battlefield.

That is a whole nother ball of wax, very influential tactical wargames like Squad Leader addressed this very well, I've always wanted to introduce it to RPG's but players seem very resistant.

G

[Spiryt]

Wrestling of some kind is one martial art known in pretty much any language under some native word, and indeed likely practiced continuously trough the centuries.

All other elements of theoretical unarmed combat seem mostly intuitive and 'natural' in most societies.



Quite, the techniques are the techniques; most RPGs don't address the underlying psychology of the fighter; or the difference between someone who's only practised in the gymnasium and one who's applied it on the battlefield.

Generally one can form some 'hierarchy' of level of stress and ferocity I guess. From training, sanctioned fights, unsanctioned ones to actual 'battlefield'.

Real world will blur the borders very much though, training and sparing sessions of boxing/wrestling/whatever in some high level gyms particularly in 'less developed' places like Cuba can be famously terrifying things, and true rite of passage.

While many actual battles and duels were ending with bit of roughing up, one guy falling down all, 'OK no more' and that was all.

So it's obviously very complex thing.

[Galloglaich]

I agree that wrestling systems seem to be everywhere (and there are several traditional forms which have survived from medieval or even pre-Christian era to continue as popular sports to this day, including Jujitsu in Japan, Glima in Iceland, Gouren in Brittany and Schwingen in Switzerland - as well as Kazakh horse wrestling and many others all over the world) but to me the techniques are actually quite counter-intuitive especially for all the arm-locks and disarms and so on, and really require training to learn. I certainly would have never figured out any of the small repertoire of Ringen and Abrazare techniques I know now without being trained.


I guess maybe they are intuitive over several generations, just like fencing techniques, they have certain similarities all over the world. But they aren't necessarily something you figure out on your own over the course of one lifetime. That is what makes martial arts so interesting.

G

[Carl]

@Oni: I did point out that A) my math doesn't take account of energy loss through stuff breaking. B) it's using an example distance.

In a head first fall your skull can only flex millimeter's before damage is incurred whilst a feet first fall can have half a meter or more of legs to provide deceleration, (though there's a limit to how much force they can apply).

For example with a mere 5mm of allowed movement the survivable height drops to just 0.5 meters/1.7Ft, (of course neck movement can allow for more, exact impact angle will play a part).

[hymer]

Can you guys give me some names of manoeuvres that involve shoving (in preference to bashing/punching) the opponent with your shield? A bit of description of the context of the maneouvres would be lovely too (like who used it, the intended purpose, what might be circumstances you'd use them in, e.g.).
Thanks in advance.

[Galloglaich]

Can you guys give me some names of manoeuvres that involve shoving (in preference to bashing/punching) the opponent with your shield? A bit of description of the context of the maneouvres would be lovely too (like who used it, the intended purpose, what might be circumstances you'd use them in, e.g.).
Thanks in advance.

It's a broad subject.

Depending on what you mean exactly there are a wide variety of such techniques in a dozen or so fight-books which from the earliest (the I-33) to some of the latest 17th century ones.

One example is the Schiltslac from the I33, this is a technique in which you push aside the opponents shield* or his sword with your shield (or buckler while you strike them.

You can see an example here, the student on the left has pushed down his opponents weapon and buckler while striking with the false-edge

http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/i33/freywild/custodie_files/schiltslac.jpg

you can see a variant of this technique, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qNSIA791ij4#t=41

this is the precursor of the same technique in Talhoffer, using something a lot like the halbschilt guard you see in I.33 (with the buckler protecting the sword hand)

http://www.thearma.org/essays/SandB/1467T7.jpg

you also see more aggressive techniques where they actually strike with the shield like this one in Talhoffer but I don't know the name of it (if there is one)

http://fechtwaffen.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Schwert-Buckler.jpg

G

[Mike_G]

One possible advantage of armor in a fall is to protect specific body parts from direct impact. Like wearing a helmet for cyclists/skateboarders/motorcyclists. This will help protect your head from impact. It does prevent skull fractures in a certain percentage of accidents. The same goes for knee and elbow guards.

Not much is going to help if you fall off a rooftop, but protecting your head and joints from incidental impact is a good use of "armor," and is common practice even today if we include things like bicycle helmets.

If you fell say, off a horse in full plate harness, it might help you to avoid a cracked skull or shattered kneecap from hitting something hard on the ground, but not a broken neck if your head hit and twisted at a bad angle.

[warty goblin]

If you fell say, off a horse in full plate harness, it might help you to avoid a cracked skull or shattered kneecap from hitting something hard on the ground, but not a broken neck if your head hit and twisted at a bad angle.

I suspect in the case of some jousting helmets it actually would, since they kept the neck pretty rigid.

[Galloglaich]

Maybe this stuff helps with a fall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR4eRpekjnY&feature=share

G

[spineyrequiem]

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.


A blade wouldn't work, but the idea of purpose-designed aerial rammers has been tried repeatedly, although they rarely get off the drawing board. A typical example would be the Northrop XP-79B, which had a very sturdy, magnesium-based frame. This would, theoretically, have allowed it to smash straight into enemy bombers and survive. Read about it here (http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Northrop-XP79.html). Unfortunately, it seems to have had various issues, not least of which was that magnesium armour is very good for setting on fire.

Various other nations also considered it, most prominently the Japanese, but they didn't expect plane or pilot to survive. The Japanese ended up abandoning the idea because they realised that hitting a plane requires far more training than hitting a ship, completely defeating the point of kamikazes.

One thing you could try is having retractable blades hanging from the belly, like unusually pointy landing gear. You'd still have to get terrifyingly close, but at least you'd be trying to cut up the enemy plane with a non-vital part of your own.

[Galloglaich]

A blade wouldn't work, but the idea of purpose-designed aerial rammers has been tried repeatedly, although they rarely get off the drawing board. A typical example would be the Northrop XP-79B, which had a very sturdy, magnesium-based frame. This would, theoretically, have allowed it to smash straight into enemy bombers and survive. Read about it here (http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Northrop-XP79.html). Unfortunately, it seems to have had various issues, not least of which was that magnesium armour is very good for setting on fire.

Various other nations also considered it, most prominently the Japanese, but they didn't expect plane or pilot to survive. The Japanese ended up abandoning the idea because they realised that hitting a plane requires far more training than hitting a ship, completely defeating the point of kamikazes.

One thing you could try is having retractable blades hanging from the belly, like unusually pointy landing gear. You'd still have to get terrifyingly close, but at least you'd be trying to cut up the enemy plane with a non-vital part of your own.

The German one I linked to was designed specifically to ram with the wings, and apparently did reach the advanced prototype stage, with 9 examples being made.

G

[Mr. Mask]

Plane Melee: Thanks for the sources, G, Spiney, everyone; these are really interesting! A scifi World War with the appropriate materials might have seen more plane ramming.

I was actually thinking the same thing with the spikey landing gear. Possibly even retractable wing tips, though it may risk your flying mechanics too badly.


Fight Books/Martial Art Techniques: Anyone know the value of these to a military/country? It's a popular trope that stealing the secret ninjutsu scrolls will allow your side to win, but any country or army that keeps fighting seems to build up a pretty reasonable martial art of their own.


Without Sidearms: While pondering the value of the sword, I considered how common a sidearm it was. This made me wonder how an army would fair without sidearms, how bad it'd be. I have some ideas on this, but I was curious what others thought, and if there were cases of armies that lacked sidearms.

[Brother Oni]

You mean that it depends a lot on the health, size, body shape, and so on of the specific individual in question?
If we had a person suffering such a fall, and we don't know anything other than it being a human, our prediction for survival would be 50%. If I and my frail grandmother take the fall, we would both have very different survivial chances, though. Me probably a lot over 50%, she significantly lover than that.

So if both you and your grandmother took a fall and she died while you survived, that gives us a 50% survival rate. :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, the LD50 and mortality rate are population assessments, not individual, so it takes into account both frail and healthy people.



I guess maybe they are intuitive over several generations, just like fencing techniques, they have certain similarities all over the world. But they aren't necessarily something you figure out on your own over the course of one lifetime. That is what makes martial arts so interesting.

Presumably because of the similarity of the human form all over the Earth. There's only so many ways a plantigrade biped with two arms and a single head can bend (or rather not bend), similarly there's only a certain number of effective ways you can stick 3ft of sharp metal into somebody.

It does lead into some interesting fantasy comparisons though - a race of digitigrade, long muzzled gnolls would have subtly different martial arts to humans while something completely alien like a 6-limbed insectoid Thri-kreen would have radically different fighting styles.

[Kiero]

Without Sidearms: While pondering the value of the sword, I considered how common a sidearm it was. This made me wonder how an army would fair without sidearms, how bad it'd be. I have some ideas on this, but I was curious what others thought, and if there were cases of armies that lacked sidearms.

The later Hellenistic powers, towards the time of Rome's advent as a Mediterranean power, stopped arming their phalangites with swords. It was a combination of cost and the belief that the only thing they needed was their primary weapon, the pike. In one of the battle reports between the Macedonians and Romans (I think Pydna) it was noted that when the Romans got into the flanks of the phalanx, the phalangites had no weapon to respond with.

[Yora]

An interesting picture I just found:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2293028/thumbs/o-INDIA-570.jpg?2
It's from India yesterday. It looks very much like rioters equipped with captured police bamboo shields.
And why not? In a situation like that, you would mostly expect to defend against thrown objects and clubs, maybe knives if things go really bad. Bamboo would be perfectly suitable against that.

[Thiel]

Personally I'd prefer a more traditional riot shield. It offers better visibility and some real protection against Molotov cocktails and the like

[Galloglaich]

Plane Melee: Thanks for the sources, G, Spiney, everyone; these are really interesting! A scifi World War with the appropriate materials might have seen more plane ramming.

I was actually thinking the same thing with the spikey landing gear. Possibly even retractable wing tips, though it may risk your flying mechanics too badly.

I think the biggest problem was the engines, the purpose-built German rammer was a (briefly) rocket powered glider. This made it much less vulnerable than a propeller plane. The other issue is that guns work really well - so long as you still have ammunition. But fighters never carry more than 20 or 30 seconds worth of ammunition, in most cases. So they run out, which is what led to ramming attempts. Ramming say a bomber which still had active defensive gunners would be unbelievably risky (not impossible, since we know it was done on a couple of occasions, but very very risky) if you try one of the more realistic flight sims like Il2 it's dicey, against an actively defended bomber it's very dangerous just to line up your guns for a 2 or 3 second shooting pass from 200 meters away... actually ramming... wow! You have to be a very good pilot and / or lucky as hell. So a very fast plane might have a better chance (a plane much faster than it's target) but you still have to line up your speed so that they are relatively close at convergence or your are both going to die.



Fight Books/Martial Art Techniques: Anyone know the value of these to a military/country? It's a popular trope that stealing the secret ninjutsu scrolls will allow your side to win, but any country or army that keeps fighting seems to build up a pretty reasonable martial art of their own.

It's a very good question. What kind of 'strategic' role did the fencing manuals play. I think there may have been some, though it's tricky to define and I think it depends a lot on the manual in question and the owner. We know that having a fencing culture was something that authorities valued, since they did sponsor fechtschuler with prizes and participated in the judging and so on. But jousts and shooting contests (developing skill with the primary weapon) were more prominent and got more money. We do know that powerful, warlike princes such as Emperor Maximilian I the Duke Albrecht III of Bavaria commissioned and collected fight-books at least by the 15th Century, as did some of the more powerful and warlike cities such as Gdansk and Nuremberg, and that they were popular with the high nobility and patricians- even though many of their authors appear to be mid-level burghers (artisans) or members of the lower nobility or even the Church. A few were even Jewish*. We also know (thanks to a fascinating article (http://actaperiodica.org/pdf/4.pdf) published last year in the Acta Periodica Duelletorum (http://actaperiodica.org/issues.html) by Swiss fencer and researcher Daniel Jacquet) that some very warlike cities like Bern, Zurich and Lucerne hired fencing masters and kept them on the payroll.

But most of the fight-books we have found so far deal primarily with individual personal combat, not so much open warfare. Some straddled the two types and a few (notably in Spain and Portugal) veered more into warlike skills but most were really about various forms of personal combat. But that kind of leads to your next question...



Without Sidearms: While pondering the value of the sword, I considered how common a sidearm it was. This made me wonder how an army would fair without sidearms, how bad it'd be. I have some ideas on this, but I was curious what others thought, and if there were cases of armies that lacked sidearms.

The sword seems to have become cheap and almost universal by the high Medieval period, corresponding closely to when iron had become so ubiquitous and cheap compared to earlier eras due to changes in technology and social organization (water-wheel powered machines and craft guilds, basically). By contrast swords were still pretty rare and prestige items in the Migration Era and back into the Iron Age. One of the advantages of the Roman Legions was how well equipped they were with iron armor and weapons. But even back then swords were used in large numbers by the heavy infantry and cavalry almost everywhere in Eurasia, and other sidearms like axes, maces, and hammers filled the gaps except among the poorest barbarians. Some Roman generals famously mocked certain Germanic tribes for being so iron poor that they had to resort to using wooden clubs but that may have been propaganda.

The later medieval battlefield was extremely saturated with sidearms of all types and swords (as well as similar messers and other large fighting knives) in particular. The type of sword also mattered. A short messer or baselard was relatively simple to use, whereas a longsword really requires some training to use effectively. The best high to late medieval infantry from places like the Swiss Confederacy and many of the richer towns throughout Europe were known for carrying longswords, as were most of the cavalry especially the heavy cavalry. This correlates with the fencing culture that also existed in these areas. So maybe the personal skill with the longsword, even though it was mostly trained as one-on-one fighting (both in the fechtschuler and in the fight-books themselves) translated to extra lethality for armies on the battlefield.

Later on in the 16th and 17th Centuries many people started carrying sideswords and rapiers, which are arguably even harder to learn to use properly than longswords. I think the consensus is that many did not actually have training with these weapons but carried them anyway for prestige purposes. On the flip-side, the saber and backsword became very popular in the same period, and these were much easier to use. Military leaders considered them important enough particularly for cavalry that they created new simplified fighting systems for their use which were still being trained into the 20th Century.

We also know that in some of the manuals themselves, there were prohibitions against teaching 'the wrong people' such as peasants. We have hints of rivalries between masters. There are records of duels fought between one master and another over who had proper credentials. The fencing master Fiore dei Liberi noted that he was challenged 5 times while traveling in foreign lands to learn the art of fencing:


"Out of envy, some Masters challenged me to combat with sharp swords in a gambeson and without any other defensive weapon besides a pair of chamois gloves. The reason was that I had refused to associate with them or to reveal to them any parts of my art. This happened no less than five times, and all five times I was compelled by honor to fight in strange places, far away from relatives or friends and without anything to rely upon besides God, the Art, myself, Fiore, and my sword. By the grace of God, I came through each time with my honor intact and without any physical injuries."

Fiore himself famously trained some nobles to fight in duels which they won. So it does sound a little like a Kung Fu Movie sometimes.

G

* some of the most important Ringen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringen) masters were Jewish, such as Ott Jud, while other fencing masters listed in the Society of Liechtenauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Liechtenauer#Society_of_Liechtenauer) were apparently Jewish.

[Kiero]

I seem to remember there were a lot of singlestick techniques which were adapted from/intended for the backsword and taught into the early 20th century, in Britain at least.

[Galloglaich]

I seem to remember there were a lot of singlestick techniques which were adapted from/intended for the backsword and taught into the early 20th century, in Britain at least.

Yes as part of prize fighting. This was done with swords too at least until the late 19th Century.

There was also a martial art in France called 'la canne'.

I'm going to fight in a single-stick tournament in Galveston on Dec 7 (http://bestevents.us/galveston-texas-assault-2014-singlestick-tournament-at/70484), so it's still done today...

G

[hymer]

@ Galloglaich: Thanks! The name does translate basically to 'shield strike', which is rather more bland than I'd hoped. Still, much interesting stuff there.

[Galloglaich]

Regarding the earlier conversation a while back about the Stryker, looks like the US Marines may be getting this Finnish vehicle which seems to be a lot better (at least based on what I've read) and costs about 25% as much.

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

I can't find the precise unit cost of the closest Russian equivalent, the BTR-80 and more modern BTR-90, but I've seen estimates as low as $70,000 for the former. Another site suggested the cost of the BTR-90 might be as high as $1.7 million, which is about half the cost of the Stryker, but it seems to be a lot better armed (that includes a high velocity 30mm cannon, a coax mg, and a 30mm auto-grenade launcher, plus AT-5 ATGM)

G

[Incanur]

Various 16th-century military writers noted the importance of sidearms, specifically swords and daggers. Pikers armed with only the pike would be at a significant disadvantage against pikers conventionally armed with swords and daggers in a hard-fought battle. I've never come across any reference to pikers who lacked sidearms. One late-16th-century Spanish military manual notes how some arquebusiers went without swords for greater mobility - arquebusiers often shot from cover, and a sword could get in the way. This manual, however, considers the Spanish practice of arquebusiers with helmets and swords - and rather long swords at that - superior. It instructs arquebusiers to launch a few volleys and the draw blades, using the arquebus in the left hand as a makeshift shield. So arquebusiers without swords (and possibly without even daggers, as Sir John Smythe wrote that arquebusiers generally didn't carry daggers) did exist, but they obviously had trouble when rushed by arquebusiers with swords.

You have the following from Smythe in praise of sidearms:


And as they doo mistake the conuenient arming of horsemen and footmen, so they also mistake the weaponing of them: for whereas Swords of conuenient length, forme and substance, haue been in all ages esteemed by all warlike Nations, of al other sorts of weapons the last weapon of refuge both for horsemen, and footmen, by reason that when al their other weapons in fight haue failed them, either by breaking, losse, or otherwise, they then haue presentlie betaken themselues to their short arming Swords and Daggers, as to the last weapons, of great effect & execution for all Martiall actions.

Late on, in the Napoleonic era, one French cavalryman highlighted how the Russian horse-archers fielded against him only had their bows and arrows, no sabers or anything equivalent. This was one of their many deficiencies in the French officer's mind. He considered them the worst sort of troops, laughable and nearly useless.

[Talakeal]

What is the downside to firing from an arrow slit? How much does it impair with the user's ability to aim? Why ever build battlements as opposed to arrow slits (I assume the answer has something to do with people storming the castle by means of ladders put up between them?)

[Mr. Mask]

G, Plane Melee: That serves as a good point. Though planes had a weird habit of colliding in air battles, it rarely seemed to have much to do with the intentions of either party.


G, Manuals: That seems a good summary of their value. While the enemy capturing the enemy's fighting techniques won't let you rule the world, circulating good martial formulas among your men is a good way to succeed.


G, Incanur, Sidearms: Thanks for that, Incanur, G. Riveting examples as always (it's hard to use, "riveting," without sounding unintentionally sarcastic).

On the subject of sidearms, can you think of accounts valuing the training of men in unarmed combat? The rundown of pankration went a bit into how the art was seen to have some value to the military.

[Galloglaich]

G, Plane Melee: That serves as a good point. Though planes had a weird habit of colliding in air battles, it rarely seemed to have much to do with the intentions of either party.


G, Manuals: That seems a good summary of their value. While the enemy capturing the enemy's fighting techniques won't let you rule the world, circulating good martial formulas among your men is a good way to succeed.

The fight-books do seem to have been collected by some of the more aggressive military oriented princes of the late medieval and Early - Modern era, at least until the 17th Century.



G, Incanur, Sidearms: Thanks for that, Incanur, G. Riveting examples as always (it's hard to use, "riveting," without sounding unintentionally sarcastic).

On the subject of sidearms, can you think of accounts valuing the training of men in unarmed combat? The rundown of pankration went a bit into how the art was seen to have some value to the military.

Ringen and grappling techniques were part of what was taught in the fechtschuler and you can see depictions of men grappling in them. For example in this image from the Von Wolfegg houseboo, depicting SOL who represents all things righteously martial, you can see the two fencers on the top of the plate have dropped their swords and are practicing wrestling.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_14r_Sol.jpg

Grappling is actually more important in the armored fighting than in the unarmored, in fact most of the armored fighting techniques involve some kind of grappling or arm locks and so on. Wrestling was trained by the Ottomans, particularly among their soldiers.

Grappling of course was also considered a martial art among the peasants all over Europe who routinely held wrestling contests, as well as further East out on the Steppe where horse wrestling such as I've posted a while back upthread continues to be a sport to this day. (This horse wrestling is nearly identical to what you see in Talhoffer)

Powerful European princes hired ringen experts to be members of their court. I think I remember an anecdote about one of them breaking the back of a noble who pushed his luck and being protected by his patron, a Duke, from retribution (because it was seen by all present to be an act of self defense).

I think they considered grappling and the various forms of unarmed combat to be an essential part of fencing*, and also a martial art unto itself. I believe it was one of the activities knights routinely practiced as well.

G

*I think medieval soldiers or nobles would be baffled by the rules of collegiate / Olympic style sport fencing today

[Brother Oni]

What is the downside to firing from an arrow slit? How much does it impair with the user's ability to aim? Why ever build battlements as opposed to arrow slits (I assume the answer has something to do with people storming the castle by means of ladders put up between them?)

Loss of vision without significantly exposing yourself to incoming fire and fixed fire arcs are the main downsides, plus it imposes a limitation on the volume of fire (you can't fit that many archers around a single arrow slit. Arrow slits are also a structural weakness in a wall, which is something you want to minimise if the enemy have siege weapons.
There's also the obvious fact that it's a hole in the wall thus things like fire, burning oil and other less solid projectiles (eg rotting corpses) can go both ways.

Battlements are good for patrolling and keeping an eye out for trouble, which is something you can't really do with just arrow slits. The freedom of fire arcs is useful as with a properly designed castle, you can rain down enfilade fire on people attempting to scale the wall (you can also place arrow slits to allow enfilade fire as well).
Building a dead end roof to a defensive wall instead of battlements would be borderline detrimental as once on top, the enemy have secured a breach point and can either break through the roof or just put ladders down on the other side to get into the castle.

Night time can also be an issue, as the patrolling guards inside the walls will have torches and peering out from an arrow slit won't let them see much as their night vision is screwed and also nicely silhouette the guard so the enemy knows where they are or can take a potshot at them.

[Zizka]

In that image of Sol there are some chaps throwing rocks, presumably as a form of weight training. It reminds me of something Tobias Capwell said, about how early medieval European warriors ran around in armour or picked up heavy rocks as forms of physical training. Does anyone have any more information on medieval physical training? Is there a sort of medieval weightlifting?

[Yora]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_14r_Sol.jpg
I notice the other guys sparing are not using quarterstaff grips on their staffs. I had kind of assumed it to be the standard style in Europe.

[Galloglaich]

Loss of vision without significantly exposing yourself to incoming fire and fixed fire arcs are the main downsides, plus it imposes a limitation on the volume of fire (you can't fit that many archers around a single arrow slit. Arrow slits are also a structural weakness in a wall, which is something you want to minimise if the enemy have siege weapons.
There's also the obvious fact that it's a hole in the wall thus things like fire, burning oil and other less solid projectiles (eg rotting corpses) can go both ways.

Battlements are good for patrolling and keeping an eye out for trouble, which is something you can't really do with just arrow slits. The freedom of fire arcs is useful as with a properly designed castle, you can rain down enfilade fire on people attempting to scale the wall (you can also place arrow slits to allow enfilade fire as well).
Building a dead end roof to a defensive wall instead of battlements would be borderline detrimental as once on top, the enemy have secured a breach point and can either break through the roof or just put ladders down on the other side to get into the castle.

Night time can also be an issue, as the patrolling guards inside the walls will have torches and peering out from an arrow slit won't let them see much as their night vision is screwed and also nicely silhouette the guard so the enemy knows where they are or can take a potshot at them.

People should also keep at mind that crenelations we see today were typically covered by a wooden roof and other structures in period, like this Czech castle Karlštejn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl%C5%A1tejn#mediaviewer/File:Karlstejn.jpg

Or the Teutonic Knights old fortress of Malbork / Marienburg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbork_Castle#mediaviewer/File:Panorama_of_Malbork_Castle,_part_4.jpg

Ziska, (nice avatar btw. pravda vítězí!) as for medieval exercise and strength training, it wasn't all that different from today. You do often see the use of large stones as weights, but that's not because they didn't have anything else it was just sort of a trend, derived from Classical sources which recommended the practice (Teddy Roosavelt did this as well during a late Victorian revival of personal fitness). You also routinely see heavy iron bars, something like indian clubs (which come from Persia), over-weighted swords and so on. But the main emphasis on exercise meant to strengthen the body was on various forms of gymnastics and things like pull-ups and so on. You can see all of the above here:

http://middleagestoday.com/assets/styles/large/public/files/properties/reenactment%20news%20medieval%20training.jpg

There are some famous lists of knightly exercises which were recommended, somebody can probably find those.



I was thinking a little more about how fight-books could be used as strategic assets last night, and something else occurred to me which I'd forgotten to mention. The book alone of course is not quite enough to be a strategic asset, you have to create a fencing culture for it to be useful, and a fight-book could be a valuable part of doing that. But then I realized there was actually an example of this. At some point in the 14th Century there started to appear clubs or associations of fencers. These seem to have been at least partly an urban phenomenon, some of them were closely associated with certain craft guilds, notably furriers and cutlers, among a few others.

For example, from the Housebook of the 12 Brothers in Nuremberg, this depiction of the cutler (messerschmid) Niklaus Pruckner, shows the Winged Lion of St. Mark behind him, and if that is too ambiguous the Lion is carrying two longswords in his paws

http://www.nuernberger-hausbuecher.de/75-Amb-2-279-14-r

A bit later there seems to be a close association with journeymen's benevolent societies. One of the activities the journeymen were known to organize in certain towns was the sword dance. The Central European version of this was a bit different from the type known to us from the British Isles. One feature of which was to raise two fencing masters to the top of a platform woven of swords, from which they would fight one another. This was done on Carnival and on certain Saints days.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/52/9152-004-F05624E2.jpg

Along with St. Michael and St. George, one of the saints closely associated with fencers was St. Mark. St. Mark was the patron saint of Venice but was also associated with furriers. In the late 15th Century (I think 1470's) the Emperor recognized the guild or sodality of the Brotherhood of St. Mark in Frankfurt am Main (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_St._Mark), which quickly spread to several dozen other towns in German and Slavic Europe, where they had probably already existed for at least a generation or two, but were now officially recognized. This was essentially a fencing guild, of direct lineage to the older Liechtenauer society, and apparently included several known fencing masters and fight-book authors. Talhoffer for example includes the Lion of St. Mark on his coat of arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer#mediaviewer/File:Ms.Thott.290.2%C2%BA_102r.jpg

Where this ties to armies and strategic power, is that during the second half of the 15th Century the Holy Roman (more or less German at that point) Emperors were also trying to reorganize their infantry to emulate the Swiss, and were systematically restructuring Landsknecht companies, using Swiss militia officers as trainers. Maximillian I, a major collector of fight-books, was one of the chief instigators of this and arguably perfected the process around the very end of the 15th Century IIRC. The Landsknecht company was made up largely of Swabian peasants, organized with a great deal of autonomy very closely on the model of a Swiss militia, with their own courts and so on as well as special dispensations for example allowing them to dress however they liked and ignore sumptuary laws (hence the wildly extravagant clothing they are known for). Here is the fight book tie in though:

The Holy Roman Emperors had given the Marxbruder (the Brotherhood of St. Mark) the right and the monopoly to certify Landsknechten as fencing masters, which in turn allowed them to be paid double in the status of 'dopplesoldner'.

So there is a direct link to the strategic use of the fencing system in the manuals, if not of the manuals themselves all by themselves.


G

[Galloglaich]

I notice the other guys sparing are not using quarterstaff grips on their staffs. I had kind of assumed it to be the standard style in Europe.

That depends on the range .. both half-staff and quarterstaff grips are used, the former initially, the latter close-in.

G

[Yora]

Makes sense.

I want to write about a character who fights with an axe, but really don't know anything about these weapons. I know the blades where generally thin as they were meant to cut and not to split, and they were never double-bitted, but that's where it ends.
I would assume it has an even harder time against mail than swords, as you can't stab with them. You also can't cause impaling wounds. Does that mean you're limited to strikes at the limbs and head to cause quickly lethal injuries? Can anyone help me about the basic differences between handling an axe and a sword?

Also, for a lone wandering warrior, would it make sense to use a spear two-handed without a shield? Most of the 1 on 1 demonstrations I've seen with people using spears have been without a shield and make great use of the control you get with two hands on a pole, but require a lot of room. It seems like spear and shield would be almost mandatory in a battle situation, but in a 1 on 1 or 1 on 2, losing the protection of the shield and relying entirely on reach and speed seems like it might be a worthy trade.

[Spiryt]

Makes sense.


I would assume it has an even harder time against mail than swords, as you can't stab with them. You also can't cause impaling wounds. Does that mean you're limited to strikes at the limbs and head to cause quickly lethal injuries? Can anyone help me about the basic differences between handling an axe and a sword?

You can absolutely stab with an axe.

Some would be better suited to this than the other, of course.

Differences from a sword are quite vast obviously.

Smallish piece of iron on a stick instead of kind of a stick itself made from iron the sword is.

Generally, for given length one can deal slower, or at least more telegraphed strikes than with sword, or have much less reach.

[warty goblin]

Makes sense.

I want to write about a character who fights with an axe, but really don't know anything about these weapons. I know the blades where generally thin as they were meant to cut and not to split, and they were never double-bitted, but that's where it ends.
I would assume it has an even harder time against mail than swords, as you can't stab with them. You also can't cause impaling wounds. Does that mean you're limited to strikes at the limbs and head to cause quickly lethal injuries? Can anyone help me about the basic differences between handling an axe and a sword?

I'm no expert on axes, but there were in fact double-bitted fighting axes, mostly I believe in India and Pakistan. I don't think they were ever really a European thing.

[Kiero]

I'm no expert on axes, but there were in fact double-bitted fighting axes, mostly I believe in India and Pakistan. I don't think they were ever really a European thing.

The Carian labrys was double-bitted, as were some variants on saddle axes like the tabarzin and sagaris.

For western European, the Vikings and Saxons were big proponents of the axe.

[Brother Oni]

I want to write about a character who fights with an axe, but really don't know anything about these weapons. I know the blades where generally thin as they were meant to cut and not to split, and they were never double-bitted, but that's where it ends.
I would assume it has an even harder time against mail than swords, as you can't stab with them. You also can't cause impaling wounds. Does that mean you're limited to strikes at the limbs and head to cause quickly lethal injuries? Can anyone help me about the basic differences between handling an axe and a sword?


Depends on the length and style of the axe as Spiryt said - a two handed axe is used very differently to a one handed one and even one handed axe techniques vary from the normal western European ones to the shorter tomahawks used by the North American peoples.
Some axes have a spike on the end to help stabbing, but it's not necessary as you can just drive the tip past and slice with the blade.

Here's a good video demonstrating both one handed and two handed axe use (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgu6L6HHHvw)). The hooking techniques are a particular feature of the axe (you'd have to use mordschlag techniques to get the same effect with the sword) and can be used against shields, weapons, limbs, etc.
The vikings had a number of tricks with axes, in particular the concealment of the one handed variants behind shields or under cloaks: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9UHFjvpsXw&hd=1).

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/axe_hidden_under_shield.jpg The Fóstbræðra saga records Þorgeirr in chapter 12 using this trick to kill an opponent.
Full contact stuff is a lot more scrappy, but you can still see elements of it here, the second bout especially (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQzAfA41bY)).

Tomahawks can be used much like a knife (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTAdg82xhH0)) but given the angle of the blade, they can chop much more effectively (most of the videos I've seen for modern tomahawk use involve disabling the attacker first with attacks to the wrist/arm/elbow before finishing them off).
For reference, here's how a tomahawk and knife fares against a small sword:link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtLoGBmu5mg).

On the downside of an axe compared to a sword, you've got a much reduced range and it's generally not as suited for slipping between gaps in your opponent's armour/guard. As they were also much cheaper and easier to make, they weren't seen as a prestige weapon that a sword is.

[Galloglaich]

Depends on the length and style of the axe as Spiryt said - a two handed axe is used very differently to a one handed one and even one handed axe techniques vary from the normal western European ones to the shorter tomahawks used by the North American peoples.
Some axes have a spike on the end to help stabbing, but it's not necessary as you can just drive the tip past and slice with the blade.

Here's a good video demonstrating both one handed and two handed axe use (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgu6L6HHHvw)). The hooking techniques are a particular feature of the axe (you'd have to use mordschlag techniques to get the same effect with the sword) and can be used against shields, weapons, limbs, etc.
The vikings had a number of tricks with axes, in particular the concealment of the one handed variants behind shields or under cloaks: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9UHFjvpsXw&hd=1).

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/axe_hidden_under_shield.jpg The Fóstbræðra saga records Þorgeirr in chapter 12 using this trick to kill an opponent.
Full contact stuff is a lot more scrappy, but you can still see elements of it here, the second bout especially (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQzAfA41bY)).

Tomahawks can be used much like a knife (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTAdg82xhH0)) but given the angle of the blade, they can chop much more effectively (most of the videos I've seen for modern tomahawk use involve disabling the attacker first with attacks to the wrist/arm/elbow before finishing them off).
For reference, here's how a tomahawk and knife fares against a small sword:link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtLoGBmu5mg).

On the downside of an axe compared to a sword, you've got a much reduced range and it's generally not as suited for slipping between gaps in your opponent's armour/guard. As they were also much cheaper and easier to make, they weren't seen as a prestige weapon that a sword is.

Great stuff Brother Oni, can't add too much to that. I'd emphasize the value of the hooking possibilities, it's something that RPG's tend to ignore but hafted weapons of many types were often used to 'grapple from a distance'

As Spyrit noted most war-axes of the high medieval period onward had some kind of way to thrust with them. Many also had an armor-piercing back spike as well.

I think axes were also particularly good at cutting through or splitting wooden shields and also probably particularly good at quickly killing and maiming horses. Single handed battle axes seem to have been especially popular in Central and South Asia. But of course they were also used all over Europe. Infantry often used the larger two-handed axes and their polearm derivatives.

The only axe in a fight book that I know of is the pollaxe in Jeu de la Hache, but by now there could be others which include axes, there are so many now they seem to find a couple every year. There is also that Mamluke manual which might have some axe stuff in it.

G

[Milodiah]

A bit of advice I picked up on small axe fighting is to always keep it moving; it isn't like a sword where you can hold it semi-still in front of you and wait for your opening. Also, as a fencer myself, I can't imagine an axe having as much defensive capabilities as my good old saber, so a shield would be pretty important for less-armored fighting. Obviously this is less of an issue when the pollaxe comes out, since by then you're covered in shields...

Honestly I carry a tactical tomahawk with me in my truck, and also a smaller one in my backpack when permitted by local law mind you, and from the time I've spent handling it I'd say it's really not a chopping weapon. I mean, a medieval axe has more heft to it than this aluminum and polymer stuff, but anything smaller than a wood-splitting axe isn't really going to cut off limbs. However, there's a remarkable amount of control and precision possible with these smaller tomahawks, you really can go for jugular/carotids, throats, spines, etc. Also, many of them have a wonderful spike on the back, which is a nearly assured death sentence when driven through the skull. Plus it's excellent for breaking car windows in the event of a crash, and therefore good for answering "why do you have that" questions...

[Brother Oni]

I think axes were also particularly good at cutting through or splitting wooden shields and also probably particularly good at quickly killing and maiming horses. Single handed battle axes seem to have been especially popular in Central and South Asia. But of course they were also used all over Europe.

Interestingly enough, there's hardly any recorded axe usage I can find in Chinese or Japanese martial tradition. The Japanese Ono (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ono_(weapon)) was very rarely used in a military setting and was mostly associated with the sohei and other warrior monks, implying they were a converted agricultural weapon as is common in Japan.

The Chinese Fu likewise, wasn't common past the Shang and Zhou Dynasties (~16th to 3th Century BC), being supplanted by the Ge (dagger axe) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_axe) which is more a pole axe.


I mean, a medieval axe has more heft to it than this aluminum and polymer stuff, but anything smaller than a wood-splitting axe isn't really going to cut off limbs.

You don't have to have Monty Python-esque amputations* to take a limb out of action, a good hit to the joint/tendons/muscle will do the job equally. The tomahawk/knife versus short sword video has a good demonstration near the start, where the tomahawk is brought down heavily on the back of the wrist - if that was to an unarmoured opponent, I'd be very surprised if he remained in the fight for long after that.

*Resists urge to link to Black Knight clip

[Storm Bringer]

Makes sense.

I want to write about a character who fights with an axe, but really don't know anything about these weapons. I know the blades where generally thin as they were meant to cut and not to split, and they were never double-bitted, but that's where it ends.
I would assume it has an even harder time against mail than swords, as you can't stab with them. You also can't cause impaling wounds. Does that mean you're limited to strikes at the limbs and head to cause quickly lethal injuries? Can anyone help me about the basic differences between handling an axe and a sword?

Also, for a lone wandering warrior, would it make sense to use a spear two-handed without a shield? Most of the 1 on 1 demonstrations I've seen with people using spears have been without a shield and make great use of the control you get with two hands on a pole, but require a lot of room. It seems like spear and shield would be almost mandatory in a battle situation, but in a 1 on 1 or 1 on 2, losing the protection of the shield and relying entirely on reach and speed seems like it might be a worthy trade.

Form my understanding, a axe or sword could get though mail with a very powerful blow, but getting such a blow against a actively defending opponent wasn't really possible, so you would need to first disable him with a blow elsewhere less armoured, like the legs or arms.

for the spear, if you've not got a shield, then two handed makes perfect sense. you get better reach, and you don't really need more space than a swordsman would. Any space cramped enough to constrict your use of the spear would also constrict the use of a sword somewhat, at any rate.

[Zizka]

Ziska, (nice avatar btw. pravda vítězí!) as for medieval exercise and strength training, it wasn't all that different from today.

Na množství nehleďte! Thanks for the information, it's very interesting.

[Galloglaich]

Form my understanding, a axe or sword could get though mail with a very powerful blow,

As far as we can tell currently, this is not the case. Virtually impossible to cut through mail. The whole thing about protecting against glancing blows is an old cliché which has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Armor worked. You have to go around it.



for the spear, if you've not got a shield, then two handed makes perfect sense. you get better reach, and you don't really need more space than a swordsman would. Any space cramped enough to constrict your use of the spear would also constrict the use of a sword somewhat, at any rate.

Yeah I agree, using a spear works better two handed, the shield is very valuable in an actual war situation because it helps enormously when dealing with missiles or multiple opponents (especially if you aren't wearing armor yourself). But in a one on one fight, the spear is much more effective and versatile in two hands. Anyway, all the techniques from the manuals that I know of which involve spears or the equivalent use two hands, more like a staff.

G

[JustSomeGuy]

Given a sufficiently powerful blow, wouldn't the mail just bend/flex/yield however and transmit the impact as if it were blunt force, spread across however many individual links were in contact with the axe face? I imagine that could still be a pretty disabling, or to lesser extent (weaker strike/more glancing/etc) at least temporarily distracting in the style of a dead leg/arm/head?

Also, I'm not sure how 'legit' they are in the world of spear fighting, but I read recently that the zulus fought with much shorter spears than their neighbouring tribes, but with much more emphasis on (and a much larger) shield

[Kiero]

Yeah I agree, using a spear works better two handed, the shield is very valuable in an actual war situation because it helps enormously when dealing with missiles or multiple opponents (especially if you aren't wearing armor yourself). But in a one on one fight, the spear is much more effective and versatile in two hands. Anyway, all the techniques from the manuals that I know of which involve spears or the equivalent use two hands, more like a staff.

G

Can you really use a spear like a staff? The shafts tend to be quite a bit lighter and thinner (and thus less robust) than a stave.

I mean I'm sure there are some applicable techniques that work fine, but I can't imagine striking with the shaft of a spear going well.


Also, I'm not sure how 'legit' they are in the world of spear fighting, but I read recently that the zulus fought with much shorter spears than their neighbouring tribes, but with much more emphasis on (and a much larger) shield

The assegai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assegai)is a very short spear indeed. The shaft is only about two feet, making it a close-in weapon rather than a long reach for formation fighting.

[Spiryt]

Any space cramped enough to constrict your use of the spear would also constrict the use of a sword somewhat, at any rate.

Depends on a sword, I guess, but generally it seems to me that any sword, especially short or/and stabbing oriented one will be pretty easy to use even in very cramped space.

There is an interesting passage in Tacitus Annals


plains only which are good for the fighting of Roman soldiers, but woods and forest passes, if science be used. For the huge shields and unwieldly lances of the barbarians cannot, amid trunks of trees and brushwood that springs from the ground, be so well managed as our javelins and swords and closefitting armour.

Generally, he main problem with shield in this whole 'wandering warrior' thing may be that one wouldn't want to burden himself with shield with wandering. Spear alone would probably be cumbersome enough.

And for actually hunting something on the trail, bow may be more suitable.

But generally, if that wanderer has no armor at all, shield would probably be highly desirable, if he wants to actually fight someone.

[Yora]

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/slung_shield.jpg

This doesn't look like much of an additional burden. Shields like that are quite thin and light and it would still be effective if you use a slightly smaller diameter.

[Spiryt]

Depends on definition of 'much' I guess, but at least several pounds of weight, hanging and bumping onto things certainly wouldn't help.

Would be like average rucksack at least as far as tiring and bruising shoulders if carried that way.

Especially considering that theoretical wanderer would need to take many way more important things than shield.

[Storm Bringer]

Depends on definition of 'much' I guess, but at least several pounds of weight, hanging and bumping onto things certainly wouldn't help.

Would be like average rucksack at least as far as tiring and bruising shoulders if carried that way.

Especially considering that theoretical wanderer would need to take many way more important things than shield.

which is like saying a modern soldier has way more important things to take than his body armour. the shield is a important part of his gear, and pretty critical to his primary, money earning role. For many ancient warriors who could not to afford armour, it was the only defence they had. Those celts who went into battle totally naked still carried a shield, because it was as much a symbol of being a warrior as a sword or shield was.

[Spiryt]

which is like saying a modern soldier has way more important things to take than his body armour. the shield is a important part of his gear, and pretty critical to his primary, money earning role. For many ancient warriors who could not to afford armour, it was the only defence they had. Those celts who went into battle totally naked still carried a shield, because it was as much a symbol of being a warrior as a sword or shield was.

Well, again, the key here is that 'wandering' phrase.

Modern soldiers generally have way superior, comfortable logistics behind them.

And most common soldiers in the world doesn't have any armor anyway.

If someone's going to war, then sure they will carry shield, but we're wondering about something else, if I understand correctly.

Some lone pilgrim, not an army.

[Kiero]

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/slung_shield.jpg

This doesn't look like much of an additional burden. Shields like that are quite thin and light and it would still be effective if you use a slightly smaller diameter.

The Roman scutum and Greek aspis were anything but light and easy to move around. There's a good reason many a gentleman-hoplite had a slave or younger relative who's job was titled "shieldbearer" (though was more generally a squire who would look after all his equipment, not just his shield).

[Milodiah]

The Roman scutum and Greek aspis were anything but light and easy to move around. There's a good reason many a gentleman-hoplite had a slave or younger relative who's job was titled "shieldbearer" (though was more generally a squire who would look after all his equipment, not just his shield).

Scutum was almost always 24kg, thanks to Roman borderline-obsessive standardization patterns. One of the (many) reasons I want to yell at the mo-cap actors for Ryse: Son of Rome.

Also, this is perhaps one of the most nit-picky questions to have ever come up on this thread, but now that the thought's occurred to me I can't shake it off...

What did people say instead of "Fire!" before firearms? Since the etymology of the word comes from said firearms, there had to be something else for the act of operating crossbows or bows before the 1500s...

[Spiryt]

Scutum was almost always 24kg, thanks to Roman borderline-obsessive standardization patterns. One of the (many) reasons I want to yell at the mo-cap actors for Ryse: Son of Rome.
.

?
Source please?

Never heard about scutum weighing that much, nor about Roman's having any standardization patterns over basic shape of the shield...

[Milodiah]

?
Source please?

Never heard about scutum weighing that much, nor about Roman's having any standardization patterns over basic shape of the shield...

Okay,

A) pounds and not kilograms, my hazy half-memory failed me.
B) It was a university study I recall reading concerning completely-period-accurate construction, and more importantly, geographically appropriate materials. After all, you'll get totally different weights with oak, maple, willow, cedar, etc. etc. Sadly I can't find it online anywhere, I'll put money on it being locked away somewhere behind a paywall.

[Mathis]

What did people say instead of "Fire!" before firearms? Since the etymology of the word comes from said firearms, there had to be something else for the act of operating crossbows or bows before the 1500s...

If I was to hazard a wild guess I would go with whatever version your language has of the verb "to shoot".

[Kiero]

What did people say instead of "Fire!" before firearms? Since the etymology of the word comes from said firearms, there had to be something else for the act of operating crossbows or bows before the 1500s...

"Loose" I would guess.

[Spiryt]

Okay,

A) pounds and not kilograms, my hazy half-memory failed me.
B) It was a university study I recall reading concerning completely-period-accurate construction, and more importantly, geographically appropriate materials. After all, you'll get totally different weights with oak, maple, willow, cedar, etc. etc. Sadly I can't find it online anywhere, I'll put money on it being locked away somewhere behind a paywall.

Yeah, ~10.5 kg makes more sense. 24 sounds like hell of an elbow breaker. :smalleek:

What shield was this reconstruction BTW? Sadly there aren't many preserved.




As far as 'bow commands' go it's hard to speculate much, starting with existence of such.


For what it's worth, the name of perhaps the oldest polish noble clan (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nałęcz_coat-of-arms) might have came from cry meaning basically "bend/span bow".

nałękti /nałęczyć

na - converbium,

łęczyć - bend, bow, curve

Leading to modern "łuk" - "bow, arch".

[No brains]

I was looking around at pictures of sica when I came across this oddity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia

This seems weird to me. It's described as something between a sword and a spear that would be something around a meter and a half long with blade and handle. It is particularly odd to me as it seems like an old forerunner of the longer-hilted greatswords. What can anyone tell me about the rhomphaia?

[Brother Oni]

"Loose" I would guess.

Loose is indeed the correct command word for commanding archers to shoot at the enemy. The whole cycle would be:

"Ready your bows!"
"Nock!"
"Mark!"
"Draw!"
"Loose!"

Note that you take aim ('Mark' being short for 'Mark your target') before you do the heavy work of drawing.

I'm not so sure on the crossbow equivalent of 'Loose', but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same.

[Vitruviansquid]

Can someone list for me some issues that modern day historians might consider the mysteries of classical or medieval warfare? Like, quirks about weapons, armor, or fighting in general that might have been understood by many people of the era, but that for one reason or another is controversial to modern historians.

For example, I remembering seeing a documentary that claimed we don't really know how Vikings even held their swords, because their swords had tiny hilts. I'm not sure if there's a verdict in on this topic, but I'm looking for controversies like that.

[Milodiah]

I may be wrong in the general sense, but we haven't ever really worked out the specific details of how the ancients swung Greek fire and Damascus steel. We've got some conflicting theories on the former, and there's stuff people called Damascus steel appearing in gun barrels in the latter half of the 19th century, but exactly what it is has more or less been lost to history.

[Kaeso]

What is the real world difference between full plate and half plate? And why are they both considered heavy armor in 3.5e, but is half plate considered medium armor in 5e?
I can't really find anything about half plate on wikipedia, only full plate.

[Milodiah]

What is the real world difference between full plate and half plate? And why are they both considered heavy armor in 3.5e, but is half plate considered medium armor in 5e?
I can't really find anything about half plate on wikipedia, only full plate.

The way I interpret half-plate in D&D is as this kind of thing (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Demi-armure_MG_0793.JPG/640px-Demi-armure_MG_0793.JPG), munition armor designed to be cost-effective, lighter, and not tailor-fitted like full plate is. Honestly I wish they still had the wider range of armor types like in 2e, with the field plate and the full plate and the battle plate and all that.

[rs2excelsior]

Can someone list for me some issues that modern day historians might consider the mysteries of classical or medieval warfare? Like, quirks about weapons, armor, or fighting in general that might have been understood by many people of the era, but that for one reason or another is controversial to modern historians.

For example, I remembering seeing a documentary that claimed we don't really know how Vikings even held their swords, because their swords had tiny hilts. I'm not sure if there's a verdict in on this topic, but I'm looking for controversies like that.

A lot of the details about Roman fighting have been lost. For example, it's clear from accounts of ancient battles that the second and third lines of a Roman Legion could move forward and provide meaningful support to the first line, and that that support could even turn the tide of the battle in a critical sector of the line. We don't know exactly how this was accomplished.

This site (http://www.garyb.0catch.com/site_map.html) has some good analysis of what we know about Roman fighting, what we don't know, and speculations about how the latter could have been accomplished.

[Milodiah]

I was under the impression it was just done with openings in the lines, as diagrammed here. (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Rom-mnpl-2.png)

[deuxhero]

Is there a specific faction the stereotypical guy with claymore in kilt "highlander' of fiction is actually based on beyond "Scottish"?

[Gnoman]

Is there a specific faction the stereotypical guy with claymore in kilt "highlander' of fiction is actually based on beyond "Scottish"?

Apart from the kilt (which wasn't in use in the region at the same time as the claymore), it is based on the Scottish Highlander nobles from the era of the Wars of Scottish Independence.

[snowblizz]

Apart from the kilt (which wasn't in use in the region at the same time as the claymore), it is based on the Scottish Highlander nobles from the era of the Wars of Scottish Independence.

Since apparently "claymore" as a term dates from the 1700s it would be a stereotypical highlander in kilt (noble, presumably as poorer folks would not afford such kit).
The classical two-handed version is listed as being used a little later than the Scottish wars of independence, ca. 1400-1700. In essence it wouldn't be too wrong to attribute it to a Jacobite highlander of the late 1600s - early 1700s with a slightly out of fashion sword. So yes I'd say we could claim this image has a specific faction it depicts.

All form Wikipedia so if anyone has better info...

[rs2excelsior]

I was under the impression it was just done with openings in the lines, as diagrammed here. (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Rom-mnpl-2.png)

That's one of the theories, yes. The problem is that maneuver would take several minutes to complete, and as the site I linked to points out, would involve the units on the front turning around and marching backward away from the enemy--which as a reenactor, I don't think is that big of a deal, as the front rank or two can stay facing forward while moving backward. But even so, it works if your enemy is polite enough to give you 15-20 minutes to maneuver freely; but if you're attacked midway through you've got a serious problem.

[Brother Oni]

A lot of the details about Roman fighting have been lost. For example, it's clear from accounts of ancient battles that the second and third lines of a Roman Legion could move forward and provide meaningful support to the first line, and that that support could even turn the tide of the battle in a critical sector of the line. We don't know exactly how this was accomplished.

There's this clip from Rome that shows a changing of lines (~0.45 in (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxLqx8xF9Pw)) that's quite plausible to me - you keep hold of the guy in front then when the command to change is given, everybody knows what they're doing and disengage/engage as required.

The SK Riot police use this principle (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGYwleDrdA)) for their drills. If nothing else, the second and third lines provide extra mass so that the enemy can't push through, or reinforcements to step up when the guy in front is incapacitated.

[Galloglaich]

There's this clip from Rome that shows a changing of lines (~0.45 in (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxLqx8xF9Pw)) that's quite plausible to me - you keep hold of the guy in front then when the command to change is given, everybody knows what they're doing and disengage/engage as required.

The SK Riot police use this principle (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGYwleDrdA)) for their drills. If nothing else, the second and third lines provide extra mass so that the enemy can't push through, or reinforcements to step up when the guy in front is incapacitated.

I loved that show Rome, loved it, but not for the military stuff... the war scenes were generally very disappointing to me. Where were the pilum? I never see Roman armies throwing pila in any show or movie I can remember. The Gauls don't seem to have any missiles either of course. They also make the Gauls into the typical "medieval caveman" you usually get. Overall pretty dismal.

The scene where Pullo charges out among the enemy and has to get rescued by his rival though is from Caesars war diaries - that incident is where they got the names of the two guys for the series.

Frankly I think that when it comes to most warfare before the 17th Century they have very little idea how it worked or really went down. Historians still debate the numbers of fighters in many famous battles by orders of magnitude, as in, was it 2000 guys or 200,000. I could add another specific technology to the list though, which is the war-wagon, I think they still aren't sure how those worked precisely. Same for early firearms, many forms of early naval combat. How Cortez really beat the Aztecs (smallpox doesn't quite completely cover it). They only have little patches here and there.

Generally I think certain groups of re-enactors (the very best of them) know more about pre-Industrial warfare (of their own specific area of interest) from various eras than historians do. Most re-enactors don't know much either though, only the most hardcore fanatical ones really even care about the history at all.

Overall our understanding of the world before Napoleon is bad, and gets worse the further back you go, with certain better documented eras like the late Roman Republic and early Empire standing out as exceptions to some degree.

The SK riot police stuff is cool though, SK riots in general are often really cool.

Bonus: Police testuodo from the Ukraine riots

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/ukraine012214/u08_RTX17PNK.jpg

G

[rs2excelsior]

Most re-enactors don't know much either though, only the most hardcore fanatical ones really even care about the history at all.

Umm... I don't know if you're specifically talking about Classical-era reenactors, which admittedly I have no experience with, but I would say the majority of reenactors care about the history. I mean, yes, there are variations--those who bring coolers and cots to put in the tents, for example, up to those who are period-correct down to their food and bedding--but I would say very few don't care "at all." Even among the former group, we make it outwardly as correct as possible.

[Galloglaich]

Umm... I don't know if you're specifically talking about Classical-era reenactors, which admittedly I have no experience with, but I would say the majority of reenactors care about the history. I mean, yes, there are variations--those who bring coolers and cots to put in the tents, for example, up to those who are period-correct down to their food and bedding--but I would say very few don't care "at all." Even among the former group, we make it outwardly as correct as possible.

I'm sorry you are right I kind of overstated that probably. Maybe it's just around here we have some particularly silly ones who aren't really that into the accuracy of it... but it does seem to fluctuate a lot from place to place.

My main point is that I think the best of the re-enactors have more figured out than the historians do in many cases, from what I've seen. I think social media and forums and so on has also helped with this through a kind of 'crowd-sourcing' dynamic. The re-enactors tend to aggregate the research of the specialists in many fields, whereas historians these days tend to be specialists and don't often put it all together very well.

G

[Spiryt]

Is there a specific faction the stereotypical guy with claymore in kilt "highlander' of fiction is actually based on beyond "Scottish"?

I don't think so.

The stereotypical guy in kilt with claymore is generally amalgamation of all things very, very Shcotish, and as such, it obviously wasn't seen all that much in history.

There would of course be plenty of such characters, and as far as 'faction' goes I would call them... Dunno - "patriots", "Clansmen", "nostalgics"?

True flourish of kilt and 'typical' traditional weapons - claymores, basket hilts, targes, dirks etc. - was very visible after those weapons were largely anachronistic, and after Scotland had lost independence.

So their function as symbol of individuality, distinctness, heritage, own culture and so on.

It's rather common thing in history, people tend to cling to things that make them 'different' when they know/feel that their identity is endangered or oppressed.



Apart from the kilt (which wasn't in use in the region at the same time as the claymore), it is based on the Scottish Highlander nobles from the era of the Wars of Scottish Independence.

Swords than can be called 'claymores' almost certainly postdate WoSI very significantly. Generally they start to appear around late 15th century at most.

[Zizka]

But even so, it works if your enemy is polite enough to give you 15-20 minutes to maneuver freely; but if you're attacked midway through you've got a serious problem.

Phil Sabin's book "Lost Battles" comes to mind here.

He tried to work out how ancient battles functioned (so that he could wargame them better...).

One of his main arguments was that many battle narratives don't make sense if we imagine the combat as near-continuous, as is depicted in many films and video-games. We have descriptions of battles lasting for hours and sometimes for days. We know from physical tests that fighting for long periods is extremely hard. Furthermore, we know that casualties were generally quite low (less than 10%) until one side or the other broke. If armies really did engage in hours (or days) of combat they ought to have been utterly exhausted and to have suffered much higher casualties than they appear to have done.

Therefore he theorises that most battles probably involved long periods of waiting as both sides maneuvered, dressed their ranks and psyched up their soldiers. In this theory the Romans could simply change their ranks during these periods of waiting.

(I feel that I should point out that I haven't read the book in a couple of years though so I might be misrepresenting the good Professor Sabin here).

[Spiryt]

That does sound pretty obvious, I think.

Obviously there would be difference between 'organized' disengaging, falling back, attacking again etc. and very chaotic one.

There Roman legions would likely indeed have advantage over most of their Barbarian enemies.

Later Medieval chronicles have quite a lot of descriptions pretty evidently and clearly indicating breaks, rests, regroups, retreating to recover cohesion and morale etc.

Many, mostly popular/popular science authors sadly interpreted those as sign that knightly warfare was particularly silly and inefficient. Which is still kinda haunting the general opinion.

[Carl]

Furthermore, we know that casualties were generally quite low (less than 10%) until one side or the other broke.

This is interesting, do you have any sources on this? I'd always assumed it took a fair it more than that at least on an individual formation level. Or is that army wide, in which case i would imagine there would potentially be many formations that never actually got into a proper fight before most of the rest of the army ran, at which point they'd be outnumbered rather badly and thus also likely to do a runner. Equally some types of units, like missile units, presumably saw far fewer opportunities to suffer losses until the battle had been going on a while since i doubt they just conveniently chose firing locations in ideal shooting range of each other normally.

[Gnoman]

I don't think so.
Swords than can be called 'claymores' almost certainly postdate WoSI very significantly. Generally they start to appear around late 15th century at most.

"Claymore" (derived from claidheamh-mòr, which means "great sword" in Scots Gaelic) is commonly used to refer to both the Jacobian basket-hilted broadsword of the 18th century (the sword used at Culloden's Moor) AND the sort of two-handed sword carried by William Wallace and others in the First War of Scottish Independence. According to Wikipedia, the latter sword has been dated to the early 1400s, although the earliest ones were smaller and less ornate than those carried by their last usage at Killiecrankie during the first Jacobite rebellion. While the former is likely to be a more correct translation from the Gaelic, the latter is by far the more commonly associated term due to the romanticization of the Highlander, to the point where I can't even find an image of the broadsword on GIS.

[Mike_G]

That's one of the theories, yes. The problem is that maneuver would take several minutes to complete, and as the site I linked to points out, would involve the units on the front turning around and marching backward away from the enemy--which as a reenactor, I don't think is that big of a deal, as the front rank or two can stay facing forward while moving backward. But even so, it works if your enemy is polite enough to give you 15-20 minutes to maneuver freely; but if you're attacked midway through you've got a serious problem.

It is notoriously difficult to maneuver units that are in contact with the enemy, as men are actively fighting and turning away or moving might cause them to be vulnerable.

Reorganizing between clashes makes a lot of sense, if we look at battles as a series of short exchanges with pauses and breaks. It's not an easy thing to actively fight in melee for very long, so this makes sense, that troops could be loosely engaged for a long time, but make short rushes to fight, then fall back.

It is possible to change places in line with the man in front of you if he is engaged, but it is tough, and a little risky. But, letting him fight until he slows down from exhaustion and gets killed isn't a good idea either. If the man in the front is relieved, it's much easier for him to then move back into reserve. So I can see a formation where the second rank relieves the first as needed, steps into gaps made by casualties, and then the first rank re-forms behind the second or third (or more) ranks and waits to move in again.

I can't see an entire rank changing formation while actively trying to kill the enemy and avoid being killed.

[deuxhero]

Thanks for the information.

What kind of arms/armor were used by scottish troops in the first war of Scottish independence?

[Spiryt]

"Claymore" (derived from claidheamh-mòr, which means "great sword" in Scots Gaelic) is commonly used to refer to both the Jacobian basket-hilted broadsword of the 18th century (the sword used at Culloden's Moor) AND the sort of two-handed sword carried by William Wallace and others in the First War of Scottish Independence. According to Wikipedia, the latter sword has been dated to the early 1400s, although the earliest ones were smaller and less ornate than those carried by their last usage at Killiecrankie during the first Jacobite rebellion. While the former is likely to be a more correct translation from the Gaelic, the latter is by far the more commonly associated term due to the romanticization of the Highlander, to the point where I can't even find an image of the broadsword on GIS.

Well, yeah, etymologically, one could use 13th century long-sword/great-sword and call it 'claymore', the point was about what's commonly called 'claymore'.

And that's specific style of Scottish two handed sword, usually with somehow greater dimensions than most medieval longswords, and characteristic style of hilt furniture.

Sloped crossguard, with quarter-foils a the ends, in particular. Such claymore appears in the 16th century, generally.



What kind of arms/armor were used by scottish troops in the first war of Scottish independence?

The same as in the rest of Europe mostly, though with some signs of peripheral situation.

Scottish knights would be armed like English ones, depending on wealth.

So long, or straight out head to toe mail, padded armors under/over it, some early coat of plates, plates elements. Obviously more and more of such as middle of 14th century approaches.

Lances, spears, swords, axes, probably crossbows.

Common infantry would mostly be completely unarmored, which was famously huge problem while facing English archers.

They obviously earned fame as being one of first (recorded) common-folk to efficiently use mass of long spears in coordinated groups - schiltrons.

So probably somehow long, twohanded spear, and a knife, axe, or some other simple sidearm would be widely used by them. Some sources also mention shield, though, to make it more interesting.

[Vitruviansquid]

@Milodiah, rs2excelsior, Galloglaich: Those are perfect examples. More like that, please :smallsmile:

What's the controversy over war wagons? I thought it was relatively straightforward, as someone who's never studied them. You can use them to build a wall with enough openings that the enemy isn't left to their own devices on the other side, and it gives your soldiers some height advantage and cover for crossbowmen or gunmen.

[Zizka]

This is interesting, do you have any sources on this? I'd always assumed it took a fair it more than that at least on an individual formation level.

The 10% casualties figure comes from a talk given by Professor Sabin but I think it is included in his book too. I haven't got the book but I do have his article "The Roman Face of Battle" which has an extended discussion on casualty rates which gives rather more detail and depth than I have but generally agrees that around 5% is normal for the victor, with the casualties suffered by the defeated depending on their situation. He also mentions an article by P. Krentz called "Casualties in Hoplite Battles" which puts the figures at 5% for the victors and 14% for the defeated.

[Lilapop]

Therefore he theorises that most battles probably involved long periods of waiting as both sides maneuvered, dressed their ranks and psyched up their soldiers. In this theory the Romans could simply change their ranks during these periods of waiting.
HNNNNNNNG... one more reason I'm bitter about SomeTenRandom turning off recording on our recent AoE2 match. It had a short sequence (I guess about 20 seconds) where we did nothing but move back and forth within firing range of each other. That might have been a nice demonstration for this kind of maneuvering.

If I remember correctly, he actually was trying to move his army some to an entirely different front, but didn't want to do so while taking ridiculous amounts of arrowfire from a nearby hill. So he moved a few steps towards that hill (he started out closer to it), hoping him "taking" it would scare me away, and then ran down again and in the direction of his actual objective.
Meanwhile, I retreated slightly out of range* when he went up and moved towards the hill myself when he went down. We repeated that strange dance a few times, until I managed to put my mounted archers on the hill and finally committed to the fight.

This could actually be an example of "tactical" compared to "strategic" victory (if only I knew which is which): If I had gotten cold feet and completely turned my back to the fight, he could have supported his siege equipment somewhere else and take down one of my castles or something. No matter how many casualties I took in the engagement, denying that was an achieved objective in and of itself.



*He had a few ranks of infantry in front of his foot archers, while my mounted archers were supported by melee cavalry on the flanks, trying to get around into his archers. Turned out to give me a noticable advantage in range because I had no dead weight (in that regard) on the front.

[Aedilred]

This could actually be an example of "tactical" compared to "strategic" victory (if only I knew which is which): If I had gotten cold feet and completely turned my back to the fight, he could have supported his siege equipment somewhere else and take down one of my castles or something. No matter how many casualties I took in the engagement, denying that was an achieved objective in and of itself.

A tactical victory is one which is a win on the field but doesn't necessarily have any wider implication for the conflict as a whole and may even have a negative impact for the winning side. Pyrrhic victories are tactical victories, because one side has won the battle but in the process of doing so it's damaged its ability to fight on. Winning in one unimportant theatre while simultaneusly losing in other more important ones would also be a tactical victory. In fact, pretty much all won battles are tactical victories no matter what the outcome, but specifying it as a "tactical" victory tends to mean it didn't signify anything more.

A strategic victory, on the other hand, is one which is ultimately beneficial for your side no matter the actual result on the day and works in favour of your overall strategy for the war. A castle which falls but has bought enough time would be a strategic victory even if all the troops are killed. One where your troops are defeated but you kill enough of the enemy that they have to abandon the war could also be a strategic victory.

Many victories are of course both tactical and strategic in nature, but the terms tend to come into play when the surrounding circumstances make it appropriate. Quite common are battles which are tactically inconclusive, but a strategic victory for one side because the enemy has been denied a key objective.

Examples: Hannibal won several tactical victories against the Romans, because although he defeated every army they sent against him decisively, the Fabian strategy meant he was unable to make any significant progress in the war as a whole.

The Battle of Turnham Green was tactically inconclusive, but a strategic victory for Parliament, since although there was no more combat than skirmishing, the Royalists were unable to press on and capture London.

The Battle of Lutzen was a tactical victory for the Swedes, as they defeated the Catholic League on the field, but their king was killed (and the heir a minor) which deprived the Protestants of their overall effective leader and best general, and left their cause in some disarray.

Popular history (and the film 300) suggests that Thermopylae was a tactical defeat for the Spartans, but a strategic defeat for the Persians, since it bought time for Greece to marshal her forces. However, this is (classical) mythology and Spartan propaganda; the battle was a victory for the Persians in both senses and the later victory was largely in spite of Thermopylae and its accompanying naval rout rather than because of it.

[Brother Oni]

Where were the pilum? I never see Roman armies throwing pila in any show or movie I can remember.

There's this clip from the 2011 film The Eagle (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMdDeWfS3O0)) that has a pilum thrown, but like you I can't remember any organised pila throwing depicted in any movie or TV show.



Bonus: Police testuodo from the Ukraine riots

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/ukraine012214/u08_RTX17PNK.jpg


Couple of interesting little points about that picture - everybody is wearing lower leg (and foot) armour, which is typically not seen on earlier infantry due to fatigue issues. There's also the pair of police officers in the middle right background, who appear to be using the buddy system (the guy in front worries about defence, the guy holding onto him from behind gets them into position).

During the UK riots a couple of years ago, the rioters developed the tactic of throwing missiles high, making the police raise their shields as defence, then threw missiles low to injure the police officers' now undefended legs and feet. I wouldn't be surprised if knowledge of this tactic was shared around to various police forces around the world, resulting in the introduction of counter tactics like the testudo and lower leg armour.



Popular history (and the film 300) suggests that Thermopylae was a tactical defeat for the Spartans, but a strategic defeat for the Persians, since it bought time for Greece to marshal her forces. However, this is (classical) mythology and Spartan propaganda; the battle was a victory for the Persians in both senses and the later victory was largely in spite of Thermopylae and its accompanying naval rout rather than because of it.

Is this also not including the morale and propaganda effects of the Battle of Thermopylae? Many a famous last stand has often been used as a rallying cry for the remaining side, for example 'Remember the Alamo!'.

[Gnoman]

Well, yeah, etymologically, one could use 13th century long-sword/great-sword and call it 'claymore', the point was about what's commonly called 'claymore'.

And that's specific style of Scottish two handed sword, usually with somehow greater dimensions than most medieval longswords, and characteristic style of hilt furniture.

Sloped crossguard, with quarter-foils a the ends, in particular. Such claymore appears in the 16th century, generally.



By all accounts, William Wallace used a claymore (old style). He died in the first war of Scottish Independence. Wikipedia puts the invention of the sword as ca. 1400, and the only difference between the Wallace sword on display in a museum and the "classical" claymore design is the hilt guard and pommel, which are KNOWN to have been replaced in the 16th century.

[Spiryt]

By all accounts, William Wallace used a claymore (old style). He died in the first war of Scottish Independence. Wikipedia puts the invention of the sword as ca. 1400, and the only difference between the Wallace sword on display in a museum and the "classical" claymore design is the hilt guard and pommel, which are KNOWN to have been replaced in the 16th century.

'Wallace sword' on display is most probably rather terrible put-together piece from some completely different period, and Wallace likely never held this in his hand.

Even Wikipedia agrees on it.

It doesn't look like any medieval sword, or really any post medieval too. Neither blade, nor hilt.

Few words on claymores origin by Peter Jonhsson (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-scottish-chieftain-xiia.htm)



So from the lack of other evidence, Wallace used any twohanded sword it was longsword similar to the ones used around whole Europe.

Some individual local style particularly of hilt, we see in later 15th century could have theoretically appeared already, but in either way there's no ground for calling it 'claymore'.

As both the term and swords it described is much, much later. As in at least 250 years later.

[rs2excelsior]

One of his main arguments was that many battle narratives don't make sense if we imagine the combat as near-continuous, as is depicted in many films and video-games. We have descriptions of battles lasting for hours and sometimes for days. We know from physical tests that fighting for long periods is extremely hard. Furthermore, we know that casualties were generally quite low (less than 10%) until one side or the other broke. If armies really did engage in hours (or days) of combat they ought to have been utterly exhausted and to have suffered much higher casualties than they appear to have done.

Therefore he theorises that most battles probably involved long periods of waiting as both sides maneuvered, dressed their ranks and psyched up their soldiers. In this theory the Romans could simply change their ranks during these periods of waiting.

(I feel that I should point out that I haven't read the book in a couple of years though so I might be misrepresenting the good Professor Sabin here).

The site I linked to actually uses that book as a source, and considers the impact of lulls in the battle. The problem is, you don't want to be too far from the enemy (or too close), and it's likely that a long and complicated maneuver like this would still give the enemy an opportunity to attack before the lines could recover their order.


This is interesting, do you have any sources on this? I'd always assumed it took a fair it more than that at least on an individual formation level. Or is that army wide, in which case i would imagine there would potentially be many formations that never actually got into a proper fight before most of the rest of the army ran, at which point they'd be outnumbered rather badly and thus also likely to do a runner. Equally some types of units, like missile units, presumably saw far fewer opportunities to suffer losses until the battle had been going on a while since i doubt they just conveniently chose firing locations in ideal shooting range of each other normally.

Many classical accounts report rather low casualties for the defeated army, and in many cases almost negligible casualties for the victor. There's considerably evidence that the vast majority of casualties suffered took place after one army had broken, and the victor entered general pursuit. One possible reason, still observed in modern militaries, is that a relatively low percentage of even a highly-motivated fighting unit will fight to kill the enemy as opposed to fighting to stay alive. That means that a large portion of the line after the initial clash would see half-hearted fighting with neither side making an active effort to press the enemy. And in points, a couple of the more aggressive personalities may rally some of their comrades to push the enemy more actively.

Casualties are surprisingly low even into the Industrial era. For example, casualty figures for units that were considered to have taken a heavy beating in the American Civil War are still usually in the ballpark of 10-15% (and that's a fairly large ballpark; there were cases of units losing much, much more--the Iron Brigade lost 60% of its strength at Gettysburg, and a Confederate regiment at the same battle went in with more than 800 and came out with just over 200 men still active). The aspect a lot of people underestimate is unit cohesion, I think. The methods of commanding the men, moving them, and delivering effective fire absolutely depended on maintaining an ordered formation (to some extent); when that formation began taking casualties it quickly became paralyzed and unmanageable. Better morale, discipline, training, etc. obviously meant a unit could take more punishment and still be in fighting shape.


It is possible to change places in line with the man in front of you if he is engaged, but it is tough, and a little risky. But, letting him fight until he slows down from exhaustion and gets killed isn't a good idea either. If the man in the front is relieved, it's much easier for him to then move back into reserve. So I can see a formation where the second rank relieves the first as needed, steps into gaps made by casualties, and then the first rank re-forms behind the second or third (or more) ranks and waits to move in again.

I can't see an entire rank changing formation while actively trying to kill the enemy and avoid being killed.

It's worse than an entire rank: the terms "first line," "second line," and "third line" refer not to ranks when talking about a Roman Legion, but lines of cohorts. So each "line" was actually eight ranks deep (there's some uncertainty about that, too, but 8 seems to be the generally accepted number). But one of the theories is that during the lulls the first rank or two would cycle back to the rear of the formation, and eventually another cohort from the second line could be worked into the rotation and make its way to the front.

[Brother Oni]

Casualties are surprisingly low even into the Industrial era. For example, casualty figures for units that were considered to have taken a heavy beating in the American Civil War are still usually in the ballpark of 10-15% (and that's a fairly large ballpark; there were cases of units losing much, much more--the Iron Brigade lost 60% of its strength at Gettysburg, and a Confederate regiment at the same battle went in with more than 800 and came out with just over 200 men still active). The aspect a lot of people underestimate is unit cohesion, I think. The methods of commanding the men, moving them, and delivering effective fire absolutely depended on maintaining an ordered formation (to some extent); when that formation began taking casualties it quickly became paralyzed and unmanageable. Better morale, discipline, training, etc. obviously meant a unit could take more punishment and still be in fighting shape.

This trend seems to get worse by WW1 though - casualty rates were typically around 30% and often much higher.

The 2nd Battalion, King's Own Regiment was ~1100 strong at Frezenberg at the beginning of 8th May 1915; by the end of the day they could only muster 67. Once all those who had been separated in the fighting managed to eventually rejoin the regiment, the final casualty list was 15 officers and 893 other ranks, for a total of 83%.

This isn't the only case: a report by LT. COL Oddie of the 1st/5th West Yorkshire Regiment on the 26th April 1918 records "On 26th we remained as part of the garrison in reserve trenches until 9.00pm when our party of 3 officers and 21 other ranks (out of 22 officers and 580 other ranks in the trenches on the morning of 25th April), marched into camp at Ouderdom" (96%!).

I can't find a solid reference for it, but the 1st/5th of the South Lancashire Regiment were cut off, surrounded and wiped out during the German counter offensive on the 30th November (21 officers and 540 other ranks).

[Kiero]

Many classical accounts report rather low casualties for the defeated army, and in many cases almost negligible casualties for the victor. There's considerably evidence that the vast majority of casualties suffered took place after one army had broken, and the victor entered general pursuit. One possible reason, still observed in modern militaries, is that a relatively low percentage of even a highly-motivated fighting unit will fight to kill the enemy as opposed to fighting to stay alive. That means that a large portion of the line after the initial clash would see half-hearted fighting with neither side making an active effort to press the enemy. And in points, a couple of the more aggressive personalities may rally some of their comrades to push the enemy more actively.

Indeed, many of the battles of the Peloponnesian War had casualties in the tens on the victorious side, even though thousands were taking part. Given most fighters were heavily armoured, it was actually pretty difficult to kill an opposing infantryman.

However, they may also have completely ignored losses amongst the psiloi (skirmishers). They were, after all, poor men of the lower classes.

[Matthew]

A) pounds and not kilograms, my hazy half-memory failed me.
B) It was a university study I recall reading concerning completely-period-accurate construction, and more importantly, geographically appropriate materials. After all, you'll get totally different weights with oak, maple, willow, cedar, etc. etc. Sadly I can't find it online anywhere, I'll put money on it being locked away somewhere behind a paywall.

Even 24 lbs is at the high end of estimates. A lot depends on which Roman shield you are looking at reconstructing, and as actual archaeological finds of examples are fairly rare there is a fairly narrow band of evidence. Off the top of my head, the 24 lb shield is based on a very large shield that turned up in a temple or fort excavation in Egypt. A quick fact check ... the Dura Europas Scutum:


http://www.romancoins.info/DuraEuroposScutum.JPG




Historical Evidence

Polybius' description, mid-2nd century BC: Curved, layered wood, covered with leather and linen. Top and bottom rimmed with metal, iron boss. Four feet tall, 2-1/2 feet wide (in the early oval shape).

Fayum shield, 1st cent. BC: Curved oval, 52"x25". Three layers of birch strips, totalling c. 1/2" thick at the middle, c. 3/8" at the edges. Wooden "spine" boss, horizontal handgrip. Front and back covered with felt which is folded over the edges and stitched through the wood. Weight, 22 pounds.

Dura Europas Scutum, c. 250 AD: Curved rectangle c. 41"x33", quite deep, with square corners. Three layers of wood strips totalling 1/4" thick overall. Wood back bracing, "half-round", middle horizontal brace thickened to form grip. Front and back covered with thin leather, and front has additional layer of fabric between leather and wood. Leather or hide rim stitched on. Whole shield painted red, and front heavily decorated with intricate painted designs and figures. Boss missing, but had rectangular base. Total weight c. 12 pounds.

A second scutum from Dura Europas, less well-preserved, is 37"x25".

Doncaster shield, 1st century AD: Apparently flat rectangle with slightly convex top and bottom edges, roughly 2'x4'. Three layers of oak and elder, covered with hide. Bronze boss with round flange, iron handle wrapped with leather, possibly vertical rather than horizontal. Weight 20+ pounds. For a drawing of the metallic remains, http://www.vicus.org.uk/images/bits%20from%20the%20doncaster%20shield.gif. A reconstruction which might be somewhat imaginative, http://www.vicus.org.uk/images/doncaster%20reconstruction.gif.

Tyne Boss, 1st cent. AD: Brass; hemispherical dome on rectangular base 10"x10-1/2", curved to radius of c. 18". Decorated with punched and engraved designs. Iron bosses of same shape also known.

Brass rim pieces, found on numerous 1st cent. sites: thin metal (less than 1/32"), so purpose was cosmetic rather than defensive. Dimensions show that the scutum edge was c. 1/4" thick.

Oval shield covers from Valkenburg indicate shield sizes of about 42"x23", plus fragments showing widths of 23" and 16"! The Caerleon shield cover (second century AD) was for an oval shield as large as 45"x26". It is not known if these shields were flat or curved.

Other finds: Thin metal stars, moons, lightning bolts; thin cast bronze motifs with flat backs and rivet holes; fragments of leather from shield facings or covers with stitch holes in decorative patterns.

There are numerous depictions of the scutum from the 1st century, but some details are still unclear. It is most often rectangular, but sometimes has curved sides. Sometimes corner "L"s are visible: those and other features could have been applied or painted. From the few colored illustrations that survive, it seems that shields were often red.

[Incanur]

Ancient, medieval, and Renaissance casualties figures vary dramatically depending on the battle. All such numbers are suspect, but judging by the available sources victors often lost 5-10+% killed in a hard-fought battle. For larger battles means thousands of soldiers dying in fierce combat before either side broke. The classic example of this is Pyrrhic victory, which comes from battles like Heraclea 280 BCE. In that battle, by most accounts, the vanquished Romans killed 4,000 of Pyrrhus's roughly 30,000 soldiers. Hannibal supposedly lost 5,700 men killed at Cannae 216 BCE. I don't consider such losses remarkably light. As Yuval Harai (http://books.google.com/books?id=RtkePoWkij8C&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=yuval+harari+%2B+florange&source=bl&ots=cOQauY0btU&sig=PCyYgqSBAg7FQFQLFjxIEVsmqt4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y_txVOL4BsiqggTN8YDIDA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=yuval%20harari%20%2B%20florange&f=false) writes, Robert II de La Marck (Florange) at Novara 1513 saw more comrades die in a matter of minutes than most any U.S. soldier saw in the whole Vietnam War. According to Florange, only six men survived out of 300-400 in the front rank of the Landsknecht unit he commanded after it clashed with an opposing Swiss pike formation, and the Swiss suffered similar casualties. Florange himself only lived because his father led a squadron of men-at-arms into the infantry melee and pulled him from the dead with forty serious wounds. Based on Florange's description, it's likely that nearly all those in the front rank on both the Landsknecht and Swiss side perished during the fighting.

So sure, sometimes historical battles resembled intense tournaments or modern riots, with few perishing. Other times they were savage melees in which both sides amply demonstrated the willingness to kill and be killed. I think the main reason folks ran was because of how dangerous it was to stand and fight a determined opponent. Being in the front rank attacking quality units like many Roman, Swiss, or Landsknecht formations entailed an high probability of death even if your side won.

[rs2excelsior]

RE casualties, WWI is pretty much the point where high casualties became the norm. I think it was a combination of higher independence of smaller units--so strict unit cohesion was less of a concern--combined with a significant increase in infantry firepower. And not just the machine guns, either. The much higher accuracy and rate of fire of bolt-action rifles as compared to muzzle-loading, black powder rifles of the Civil War, plus the rise of grenades and other weapons all drastically increased the ability of an infantryman to kill his opponent.

For example, the Iron Brigade (60% casualties at Gettysburg) was one of the first Union infantry brigades on the field on the first day, and in the thick of the fighting for much of the three-day battle. The Iron Brigade had a well-deserved reputation for being a tough unit that would stand under heavy fire and despite casualties. The Confederate regiment (a North Carolina regiment, I can't remember the number--also the largest infantry regiment in the Army of Northern Virginia before the battle) was a part of Pettigrew's Brigade in Heth's Division, which was also the first Confederate formation on the field. That means both of those casualty figures are for multiple individual engagements over three days.

I remember one British attack in the early days of WWI (can't remember the exact units involved) where the artillery cleared the majority of the German forward trenches and the general attack was rather successful--except in the area of one particular battalion. There, the artillery failed to silence two machine guns of a Jaeger company. The British found that battalion mowed down in rows. I don't have a hard percentage for casualties, but it was probably in the 90% range. It became standard practice in the British army to keep battalion and company second-in-commands, as well as about 10% of the battalion's strength, in the trenches when an attack went forward, so that there would be a cadre around which to re-form the battalion if it was destroyed. Although even then, it seems like most units took relatively reasonable casualties if an assault was successful (generally if the artillery sufficiently cleared off the defenders), and incredibly high casualties if it was not.

[Kiero]

Ancient, medieval, and Renaissance casualties figures vary dramatically depending on the battle. All such numbers are suspect, but judging by the available sources victors often lost 5-10+% killed in a hard-fought battle. For larger battles means thousands of soldiers dying in fierce combat before either side broke. The classic example of this is Pyrrhic victory, which comes from battles like Heraclea 280 BCE. In that battle, by most accounts, the vanquished Romans killed 4,000 of Pyrrhus's roughly 30,000 soldiers.

Battle of Amphipolis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amphipolis), the victorious Spartans lost 8 from 2,500.

[Roxxy]

In Peaky Blinders, members of an English street gang are known for having razor blades sewn into the brims of their flat caps. Granted, I haven't gotten far enough in the series to see how they use them, but it seems like a really poor weapon. Has this sort of thing ever been documented from an actual street gang? Is it as useless in a fight as it looks?

[No brains]

A razor hat would make a pretty poor tool for effectively killing a person, but there is a leeway in weapon efficacy when the weapon is used to intimidate and not to kill as many people as quickly as possible. A razor hat could be a scary idea as it's unexpected, and that could mean that there are fewer people who need to actually be killed with it. In an actual brawl, a table leg or kitchen knife would probably put more people down faster, but for ambushing or shaking down a small group, a a weirder weapon is an advantage as it can display how little one relies on superior weapons to get the job done.

[Fortinbras]

This is a somewhat specific question, but does anyone know anything about sverresborg castle in Norway? I was looking at this artist's reconstruction, and I can't really make sense of it. Is the large building that houses the drawbridge a gatehouse or a keep? And if it's both, then why in the world would somebody amalgamate the two? Was it to save materials, perhaps? I'd just be interested in people's theories as to what each building is, or someone who can direct me to people who know.

https://thornews.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/king-sverres-castle-sverresborg.jpg

[Brother Oni]

In Peaky Blinders, members of an English street gang are known for having razor blades sewn into the brims of their flat caps. Granted, I haven't gotten far enough in the series to see how they use them, but it seems like a really poor weapon. Has this sort of thing ever been documented from an actual street gang? Is it as useless in a fight as it looks?

The only other comment I have to add is that the UK has fairly different laws on weapons to the US, thus concealing razor blades in a hat would be a typical trick.

In terms of a standup fight, it's poor compared to other weapons as No brains said, but any advantage over your opponent is better than no advantage.


This is a somewhat specific question, but does anyone know anything about sverresborg castle in Norway? I was looking at this artist's reconstruction, and I can't really make sense of it. Is the large building that houses the drawbridge a gatehouse or a keep? And if it's both, then why in the world would somebody amalgamate the two? Was it to save materials, perhaps? I'd just be interested in people's theories as to what each building is, or someone who can direct me to people who know.

https://thornews.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/king-sverres-castle-sverresborg.jpg

Looking at the picture, I'm a bit dubious about the ground floor windows (I'd set them maybe another 2 ft up), but the combined keep/gatehouse makes sense to me.

Incoming travellers go through the gateway, which is a tunnel straight through the building, with no other side doors. A portullis on the front and back, with murder holes in the gateroom above, so that if the drawbridge and front gate are breached, they still have to breach another gate, except they'll have attacks from the front via archers/crossbowmen and from above (boiling oil or lead).
The gatehouse is the main vulnerability in a castle's outer defences, thus it is always heavily defended. Usually once that falls, taking the rest of the castle is merely a matter of time, so you might as well combine both important parts of the castle together, particularly if cost, time or lack of building materials are concerns.

As for what the other buildings are, the front wing closest to the viewer is obviously very important (it has the biggest window) and combined with the crude chimney on top, it would suggest that was the main hall. The toilet (the little bit that sticks out) nearby suggests that important quarters are nearby (probably the lord of the castle).
The white building with red tiles in the middle background is also important and since it's integrated with the curtain wall, it would suggest a guard post or maybe a fall back defensive position if the main keep falls.

[GraaEminense]

There are several Sverresborgs (civil war will do that), but this looks like the one in Trondheim? It was partially dismantled as early as 1263 and I can´t find any period depictions of it. A certain amount of artistic speculation should be expected, in other words.

I have spent a bit of time looking for Norwegian online sources, but there are few.

The castle was built in 1182-1183, and indeed seems to combine gatehouse and keep. One source points out that the keep with the wings are stronger fortifications than the wall, and so are placed at the weakest point (the only viable approach and where the cliff face is lowest). Fortifying the whole clifftop to a similar degree would be prohibitively expensive.

The two wings are probably multi-purpose buildings, they both had three rooms at ground level but everything else is speculation. They should hold the Royal chambers and a meeting hall, at least. The other buildings in the illustration are speculative, based on Danish and German fortresses from the same period.

If you compare Sverresborg to later castles it is pretty primitive, this is actually the earliest stone-built fortress in Norway, but it seems consistent with Northern European fortresses of the time -all limited by financial constraints as much as the level of architectural development. In addition, siege warfare in Norway seems to have been rather basic even by the standards of the time and as long as the castle could stand up to a direct assault it would be sufficient for the task.

That´s all I could dig up by basic Google-fu. Since the castle has been without military significance for 750 years details are a bit sketchy (and the Sverresborg in Bergen steals all the glory on Google).

Edit: @Brother Oni: Interestingly, the ruins identify another room on the ground level of the gatehouse, seemingly connected to the tunnel. If there were no stairs and plenty murder holes that would be less of a weakness than it seems, but still a strange oversight.

[Milodiah]

In Peaky Blinders, members of an English street gang are known for having razor blades sewn into the brims of their flat caps. Granted, I haven't gotten far enough in the series to see how they use them, but it seems like a really poor weapon. Has this sort of thing ever been documented from an actual street gang? Is it as useless in a fight as it looks?

Several gangs in Glasgow in the '20s and '30s were known for their usage of straight razors as weapons, to the point of being called 'razor gangs'. Since law enforcement focus was disproportionately on firearms at the time, knives and razors were employed in several gang fights...these razors were also used for disfigurement of enemies' faces, typically the Glasgow Grin (i.e. what the Joker has).

So, intimidation definitely. Just don't know about the hats part...

[Mr. Mask]

Anyone know a good source of Japanese period art? Interested in art from the 15th to the 18th centuries, broadly speaking.

[Mathis]

Great post from GraaEminense there, this is indeed the Sverresborg in Trondheim. Today the castle itself is gone and if you're driving past there you'll see nothing but the hilltop it was built on. It's a placename as much as a name of the castle today and it has been turned into a beautiful outdoors museum. You'll get in for free if your name is Sverre by the way so head on over if you're lucky enough to share the king's name.

Recently they continued some excavations in an old well at this location that were started before WW2 and they confirmed a story from the royal sagas that said that when the Bagler's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagler) attacked and sacked this castle they threw a dead man into the well. Here is a Norwegian source that I am sure google-translate can fix for you, http://www.riksantikvaren.no/Aktuelt/Nyheter/Fant-skjelettet-i-broennen-paa-Sverresborg

[Brother Oni]

Edit: @Brother Oni: Interestingly, the ruins identify another room on the ground level of the gatehouse, seemingly connected to the tunnel. If there were no stairs and plenty murder holes that would be less of a weakness than it seems, but still a strange oversight.

If it were an isolated room, then I'd think it would be a guard room, a place for the current shift of gate guards to rest and eat, plus it's very close by if the two guards on the gate need backup quickly.
If that room was connected to the rest of the castle, then I'd agree that it would be a very strange oversight.


Anyone know a good source of Japanese period art? Interested in art from the 15th to the 18th centuries, broadly speaking.

I know of some sites - I'll list them when I get home tonight, unless Matthew beats me to it. :smallbiggrin:

[GraaEminense]

If it were an isolated room, then I'd think it would be a guard room, a place for the current shift of gate guards to rest and eat, plus it's very close by if the two guards on the gate need backup quickly.
If that room was connected to the rest of the castle, then I'd agree that it would be a very strange oversight.
It would make more sense to have the entrance to the guardroom on the inside -a few more strides, sure, but less cover for invaders and no worries about locking your own people out if you shut the inner gate. That said, it´s hard to be sure either way from the pictures I´ve found.

@Mathis: Thanks! (I´m easily flattered) Do you by any chance know if there is evidence of a doorway between the tunnel and the adjacant room(s)? I´m asking because you seem to be better acquainted with the place than I am (never been to Trøndelag myself).

[Mathis]

I'm not unfortunately. I thought I'd check it out once I get home tonight. I do live in Trondheim and pass by this site almost every day, I've just never had an excuse to go check it out in person. Perhaps if my name was Sverre...

[Fortinbras]

Thanks for the info guys. That is indeed a drawing of the castle in Trondheim, I had no idea there was a Sverresborg at Bergen as well. I've always been interested in Medieval Scandinavia, but studying anything other than viking raids is tricky for an American with no Nordic language proficiency (and my impression is that its a bit tricky for Scandinavian medievalists as well, due to a lack of good sources).

Do people have good sense of what kind of royal household and garrison such a castle would support in terms of size and composition? Would a castle that small mainly serve as a military garrison with administrative centers in the town, or would there be a large administrative and domestic staff to go along with the garrison?

[Mr. Mask]

I know of some sites - I'll list them when I get home tonight, unless Matthew beats me to it. :smallbiggrin: Thanks Oni, that would be a big help.

[GraaEminense]

Thanks for the info guys. That is indeed a drawing of the castle in Trondheim, I had no idea there was a Sverresborg at Bergen as well. I've always been interested in Medieval Scandinavia, but studying anything other than viking raids is tricky for an American with no Nordic language proficiency (and my impression is that its a bit tricky for Scandinavian medievalists as well, due to a lack of good sources).

Do people have good sense of what kind of royal household and garrison such a castle would support in terms of size and composition? Would a castle that small mainly serve as a military garrison with administrative centers in the town, or would there be a large administrative and domestic staff to go along with the garrison?
I don´t have time to go digging again right now, but I´ll recap what I remember from this morning´s Googling:
The place had a garrison of about 80. There should be room for plenty more, including the Royal household and guard. If I recall correctly, king Sverre ruled from Trondheim for at least part of his rule. This kind of castle was used as administrative centres in other European cities, so while we have no sources about the administrative use of Sverresborg it is probable given its location in one of Norway´s few major centres.
The central administration of high medieval Norway probably wasn´t all that huge.

On a side note, you are right: we have somewhat limited source material hereabouts, but it gets worse if you don´t read Native. Best of luck!

[Galloglaich]

@Milodiah, rs2excelsior, Galloglaich: Those are perfect examples. More like that, please :smallsmile:

What's the controversy over war wagons? I thought it was relatively straightforward, as someone who's never studied them. You can use them to build a wall with enough openings that the enemy isn't left to their own devices on the other side, and it gives your soldiers some height advantage and cover for crossbowmen or gunmen.

There are many: how big were they really - records show a 'crew' of 20 people, but you can't fit even half that many in what we think was one of those wagons.

Were they used outside of Bohemia and if so for how long? Most modern experts pretty much relegate them to the Hussite Wars (roughly 1420-1430) but they appear in the records all over Central and Northern Europe and even in Spain from the 14th Century through the 17th.

But there appear to be many distinct types, some of them regional types, the Russian Gulyay-gorod for example or the German cannon- mantlet types for example.

Did they use scythes on the wheels - repeatedly mentioned in the records and accounts all over Europe mention scythes on the wheels. If they did, how were these used? What did they really look like?

Were any of them ever truly armored (with other than wood)

Most important, did they use them moving or just in static tabor or wagonburgs? Again, modern theory and the records clash here. The records describe them being deployed in moving columns on the battlefield, even attacking enemy armies in the rear (once by the Czechs in the Hussite wars, twice by Czech mercenaries against the Turks in Hungary in the mid-15th Century, once by the Russians against the Turks in the 16th)

G

[Brother Oni]

It would make more sense to have the entrance to the guardroom on the inside -a few more strides, sure, but less cover for invaders and no worries about locking your own people out if you shut the inner gate. That said, it´s hard to be sure either way from the pictures I´ve found.

It would depend on how quickly you'd help to be on hand. While it may indeed be only a few strides, it's going to be to be hard to hear shouts for help around the corner, especially in a building that long with walls that thick. While I do see the point in not locking your own people out, by the time that becomes an issue, it does mean that the enemy have bypassed the draw bridge and outer portcullis.

Without further information on how everything works, like where the release/raising mechanism for the drawbridge and portcullis are, I'm loathe to be drawn into deeper speculation.


Thanks Oni, that would be a big help.

The most common Japanese artwork of the later period of your range is the ukiyo-e, of which Wikipedia has some quite famous examples of (The Great Wave off Kanagawa for example): link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukiyo-e).
The ukiyo-e Ota Memorial Museum has some great examples - if you click on the exhibit in their schedule, it'll take you to thumbnails of the prints: link (http://www.ukiyoe-ota-muse.jp/H20schedule-E.html).

A word of warning if you go digging for ukiyo-e; due to the different cultural values, nudity and sex aren't as taboo in Japan as in the West, so there are some very graphic ukiyo-e out there.

During the early Edo, artwork had less distinctive style, some I would practically call Chinese. The Metropolitan Museum of art has a nice range of these earlier paintings and illustrations: link (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=08&region=eaj#/Works-of-Art). Sumi-e or inkwash paintings were also popular: link (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sumi-e+painting&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&biw=1920&bih=936&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HHZzVJJFtYuxBOiMgvgM&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ).

Calligraphy art or shodo was a very big part and has hardly changed over the years: link (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=japanese+calligraphy+art+shodo&client=firefox-a&hs=qaK&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&biw=1920&bih=936&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DXRzVIrAA6HbsATjjoEY&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&q=shodo).

All that said, I believe paintings were among the least common forms of artwork. Pottery, weapons, armour, combs, etc tended to be very ornate - I can examples of these if you like (your request was a bit vague).
I apologise for the quality of links dropping, but my wife got called away and wasn't able to help me dig through the Japanese sites.

[Yora]

There are many: how big were they really - records show a 'crew' of 20 people, but you can't fit even half that many in what we think was one of those wagons.
If you have the wagons in a closed formation, you could also have support staff assisting the actual men who are firing from the wagons. People who care for the oxens and horses, to carry powder and perhaps load guns to hand to the gunners, and surgeons for the wounded, and things like that. If you count all of them as part of the team asigned to each wagon, it might to some extend explain the seemingly inflated numbers.

Most important, did they use them moving or just in static tabor or wagonburgs? Again, modern theory and the records clash here. The records describe them being deployed in moving columns on the battlefield, even attacking enemy armies in the rear (once by the Czechs in the Hussite wars, twice by Czech mercenaries against the Turks in Hungary in the mid-15th Century, once by the Russians against the Turks in the 16th)
My, admitedly poorly, educated guess would be something like "rapid deployment". In late medieval/early modern battles, the ability to set up a mobile fortification during battle in perhaps 5 to 10 minutes could still have a significant impact. A role similar to modern combat engineers, who can modify the battlefield even after the fighting has started. Something like covering fire while they get the wagons into position also seems quite plausible, but I highly doubt they were used to charge at enemy troops. The draft animals would surely be much too vulnerable for that. Hiting a single running man with a gun at that time might have been close to impossible, but a slow moving ox draging a heavy cart over uneaven ground would be a lot easier to hit.

[Galloglaich]

If you have the wagons in a closed formation, you could also have support staff assisting the actual men who are firing from the wagons. People who care for the oxens and horses, to carry powder and perhaps load guns to hand to the gunners, and surgeons for the wounded, and things like that. If you count all of them as part of the team asigned to each wagon, it might to some extend explain the seemingly inflated numbers.

My, admitedly poorly, educated guess would be something like "rapid deployment". In late medieval/early modern battles, the ability to set up a mobile fortification during battle in perhaps 5 to 10 minutes could still have a significant impact. A role similar to modern combat engineers, who can modify the battlefield even after the fighting has started. Something like covering fire while they get the wagons into position also seems quite plausible, but I highly doubt they were used to charge at enemy troops. The draft animals would surely be much too vulnerable for that. Hiting a single running man with a gun at that time might have been close to impossible, but a slow moving ox draging a heavy cart over uneaven ground would be a lot easier to hit.

All reasonable speculation, but the truth is we don't know. The battles I mentioned where they said the wagons were moving were described as the wagons moving in formations and attacking the enemy forces in the rear of the columns. How they protected the animals during that process is one of the big questions - people could apparently also push the wagons along and that may be another reason for the large crews.

There are also some modern depictions (based on what I don't know) where the draft animals are protected by wooden panels. But I've never seen a period reference to that or seen it depicted in period artwork.

This is an example of what I'm referring to (one of many configurations)

http://www.oldgloryminiatures.com/prodimages/ERA/ERA-15.gif

There is one in the Wolfegg housebook where the horses are behind the wagon pushing it. But that could be just an idea, we don't know if they ever made any that way.

The bottom line is we just don't know - can't, really unless we have a time machine.

G

[Milodiah]

I mean, I highly doubt they were used as pre-modern tanks, considering the things brought up above, and also the speeds we're talking here. At the end of the day it's a wagon, and however much armor and weaponry you stick on one it seems like they would be objectively worse than heavy cavalry just because the shock value rather wears off when they're trundling towards you at a moderate jogging pace.

Mobile fortification is probably the most likely...also, I don't have any reason to suggest this other than "it seems like a good idea", but perhaps they were used somewhat like American gun-trucks during the Vietnam War? Intersperse them with your baggage train and now they're helping to protect against raids on it in addition to moving towards the battlefield, which they would be doing anyway.

[Gnoman]

Had a though while designing a fort for a game. Were murder-holes really all that common, and if so what did they use them for? Wikipedia suggests that boiling oil or tar was among the attacks used through them, but I see numerous problems with this (which wouldn't apply to using them as a wall defense).

[Mr. Mask]

The most common Japanese artwork of the later period of your range is the ukiyo-e, of which Wikipedia has some quite famous examples of (The Great Wave off Kanagawa for example): link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukiyo-e).
The ukiyo-e Ota Memorial Museum has some great examples - if you click on the exhibit in their schedule, it'll take you to thumbnails of the prints: link (http://www.ukiyoe-ota-muse.jp/H20schedule-E.html).

A word of warning if you go digging for ukiyo-e; due to the different cultural values, nudity and sex aren't as taboo in Japan as in the West, so there are some very graphic ukiyo-e out there.

During the early Edo, artwork had less distinctive style, some I would practically call Chinese. The Metropolitan Museum of art has a nice range of these earlier paintings and illustrations: link (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=08&region=eaj#/Works-of-Art). Sumi-e or inkwash paintings were also popular: link (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sumi-e+painting&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&biw=1920&bih=936&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HHZzVJJFtYuxBOiMgvgM&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ).

Calligraphy art or shodo was a very big part and has hardly changed over the years: link (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=japanese+calligraphy+art+shodo&client=firefox-a&hs=qaK&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&biw=1920&bih=936&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DXRzVIrAA6HbsATjjoEY&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&q=shodo).

All that said, I believe paintings were among the least common forms of artwork. Pottery, weapons, armour, combs, etc tended to be very ornate - I can examples of these if you like (your request was a bit vague).
I apologise for the quality of links dropping, but my wife got called away and wasn't able to help me dig through the Japanese sites. My request was pretty vague. More specifically, I'm working on a game pitch set during the Edo period, and want a large selection of period art I can look through so I can find suitable pieces. I was thinking occasional use of earlier period art might be good, for certain cases.

[Fortinbras]

Was there any real discernible difference in the way medieval armies behaved when retaking "friendly" territory that had previously been captured by an enemy force as opposed to freshly conquered "enemy" territory.

I feel like I read someplace that the French sack of Soissons during the Hundred Years War was especially horrifying because Soissons was a "French" town, but was that at all out of the ordinary in medieval warfare? Is the concept of "friendly" territory even appropriate when considering medieval armies?

Do people know of any instances of a town or city being taken by storm in the medieval period without being sacked afterwards?

[Galloglaich]

Was there any real discernible difference in the way medieval armies behaved when retaking "friendly" territory that had previously been captured by an enemy force as opposed to freshly conquered "enemy" territory.

Yes. And armies didn't always sack cities they captured, that actually seems to have become more common after the medieval period than during. The two worst examples I know of, Rome in 1527 and Magdeburg in 1631 were post - medieval, though there were also many bad ones during the middle ages as well.



I feel like I read someplace that the French sack of Soissons during the Hundred Years War was especially horrifying because Soissons was a "French" town, but was that at all out of the ordinary in medieval warfare? Is the concept of "friendly" territory even appropriate when considering medieval armies?

Yes of course there was. But armies, particularly mercenary armies, could pretty easily get out of control especially if they had been in the field for a long time. The mix of mercenary and royal forces who made up the French army during the 100 years war, particularly toward the end of it, had an especially bad reputation for committing all kinds of atrocities. But this also happened in World War II for example and the Korean war.

During religious wars such as the Albigensian Crusade, also in France, armies were also particularly cruel.



Do people know of any instances of a town or city being taken by storm in the medieval period without being sacked afterwards?

Yes, many times, though in the heat of battle it was most likely that troops and commanders would go crazy. Often after a period of fighting if it looked like the town could not hold out there would be a negotiated settlement and the garrison would either march away or surrender.

G

[Galloglaich]

One specific example among many, after the Battle of Grunwald in 1410, the Polish King captured 14000 troops, almost all of whom were released unharmed (a few who were wealthy or members of the Teutonic Order were held for ransom , he then captured more than a dozen predominantly German towns, and the citizens were left unharmed for the most part. Subsequently many of these same towns were pressured by the Teutonic Order to go back over to their side, though 50 years later they rebelled and went back to Poland on their own initiative, partly due to the fact that the Polish King had proven to be more reasonable.

G

[Zizka]

The site I linked to actually uses that book as a source, and considers the impact of lulls in the battle. The problem is, you don't want to be too far from the enemy (or too close), and it's likely that a long and complicated maneuver like this would still give the enemy an opportunity to attack before the lines could recover their order.

Well, it rather depends on the distances involved and the skill of the troops in maneuvering.


This trend seems to get worse by WW1 though - casualty rates were typically around 30% and often much higher. The 2nd Battalion, King's Own Regiment was ~1100 strong at Frezenberg at the beginning of 8th May 1915; by the end of the day they could only muster 67. Once all those who had been separated in the fighting managed to eventually rejoin the regiment, the final casualty list was 15 officers and 893 other ranks, for a total of 83%.

It bears noting that you're comparing the casualties suffered by a WWI unit against those suffered by a classical/medieval army. As others have noted, the lead units in medieval/ancient combat could also suffer horrendous casualties -- even if the rest of the army didn't.

[Brother Oni]

Had a though while designing a fort for a game. Were murder-holes really all that common, and if so what did they use them for? Wikipedia suggests that boiling oil or tar was among the attacks used through them, but I see numerous problems with this (which wouldn't apply to using them as a wall defense).

Everything I've read indicates that murder holes were ubiquitous and pretty much every castle had them to some degree.

Exactly what issues did you have with boiling oil/tar being put through the holes? Cooling material clogging up the holes?


It bears noting that you're comparing the casualties suffered by a WWI unit against those suffered by a classical/medieval army. As others have noted, the lead units in medieval/ancient combat could also suffer horrendous casualties -- even if the rest of the army didn't.

True, but WW1 casualty numbers also tend to be horrendous for armies.

The first day of the Somme Offensive, the British went in with 13 divisions (between 130,000 to 390,000 men) and suffered 57,470 casualties, so between 44% to 15%. By the end of the Offensive a few months later, they had suffered 420,000 casualties in total.

[Zizka]

The first day of the Somme Offensive, the British went in with 13 divisions (between 130,000 to 390,000 men) and suffered 57,470 casualties, so between 44% to 15%. By the end of the Offensive a few months later, they had suffered 420,000 casualties in total.

Sure, but the first day of the Somme is an anomaly -- it's like trying to use Cannae to calculate casualty rates in ancient-warfare. As a counter-example, the French also took part in the first day of the Somme with six divisions (around 84,000 men) and took 7,000 casualties, or about 8-9% (whilst achieving most of their objectives). Undoubtedly casualties were enormous but then industrial warfare was also enormous.

[Storm Bringer]

Was there any real discernible difference in the way medieval armies behaved when retaking "friendly" territory that had previously been captured by an enemy force as opposed to freshly conquered "enemy" territory.

I feel like I read someplace that the French sack of Soissons during the Hundred Years War was especially horrifying because Soissons was a "French" town, but was that at all out of the ordinary in medieval warfare? Is the concept of "friendly" territory even appropriate when considering medieval armies?

Do people know of any instances of a town or city being taken by storm in the medieval period without being sacked afterwards?

Not medieval, but the roman tradition was that a besieged town could surrender under fairly reasonable terms Until a roman ram had touched the walls (i.e. the romans had built a siege ramp or otherwise negated the outer perimeter and were ready to breach the main wall. This was some way into the process and represented a considerable amount of time and effort by the romans).

however, once the rams were in place, the romans would only accept total surrender. The idea was to encourage the defenders to surrender before too much time, money and lives were spent on the siege, or at least to get enough loot to recoup those losses if they had to storm the town.

Vae Victis.

[Galloglaich]

Not medieval, but the roman tradition was that a besieged town could surrender under fairly reasonable terms Until a roman ram had touched the walls (i.e. the romans had built a siege ramp or otherwise negated the outer perimeter and were ready to breach the main wall. This was some way into the process and represented a considerable amount of time and effort by the romans).

however, once the rams were in place, the romans would only accept total surrender. The idea was to encourage the defenders to surrender before too much time, money and lives were spent on the siege, or at least to get enough loot to recoup those losses if they had to storm the town.

Vae Victis.

The Romans were much harsher than the Barbarians generally were (as in the case where that Vae Victis quote became the most famous) and much more so than most entities in the Medieval period. With notable exceptions such as the Mongols.

G

[weckar]

Two Questions, if I may

1. What weapons and fighting styles were dominant in the first decades of Japan's Edo period, and how was this affected by social class?

2. In what combat style did the Kabuki style of stage fighting developed at the time originate?

[Mr. Mask]

Here's a clip that shows some nice test cuts of longaxes and Norse swords on pigs: http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peopleandplaces/viking-berserkers/vp-BBbXq85

The swords give a pretty good showing.

[Brother Oni]

Two Questions, if I may

1. What weapons and fighting styles were dominant in the first decades of Japan's Edo period, and how was this affected by social class?

2. In what combat style did the Kabuki style of stage fighting developed at the time originate?

In answer to one, given the early decades of the Edo was just post Sengoku, most of the styles would be pretty much 'whatever's practical on the battlefield'. It's not until later on in the Edo period that the number of schools start proliferating (I think 500 was the peak).
Wikipedia has a good list of the surviving and best known martial arts schools from this period (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Navbox_koryu)). I've only linked to kenjutsu (swordsmanship) as there's plenty of other different weapon styles at the time.

As for how it was affected by social class, only samurai were permitted to have weapons due to the Taiko Sword Hunt of 1588 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt), mainly as a way to reduce the number of weapons available to potential rebels (ronin, peasants, sohei, etc). In 1591, the Separation Edict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_Edict) pretty much cemented this control by stopping all social mobility - ashigaru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashigaru) were promoted up to (lowly ranked) samurai, the ji-samurai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji-samurai) caste (samurai who went back to being farmers when not fighting) were abolished and peasants were solely to till the land.
This is pretty much where the image of the Japanese strict caste system comes from.

Going back to the original question, since only samurai had weapons, they would have carried the dai-sho (katana and wakizashi) as standard and the yumi (bow), although this was being phased out in favour of tanegashima (muskets). The yari would also have been popular, being the premier battlefield weapon.
As the Edo progressed, pretty much only the dai-sho would be worn commonly as a mark of status rather than being prepared for a fight, as both the yumi and yari aren't the easiest things to carry about town and/or in polite company.
This isn't to say that the other castes didn't have their own weapons - this is where many concealed and converted farm work weapons (kama, nunchaku, etc) were developed.


With regard to the second question, tachimawari (kabuki fight scenes) choreography probably depended on the group and the practioner at the time, much like how stage fencing developed from various fenching schools. I can't find a definitive statement of "tachimawari were fought using a derivative of style X".

Given the comparative lateness of male only kabuki troupes (1650s onwards), I'd wouldn't think the actors would know proper battlefield fighting arts and in any case, much like stage fighting, it would probably deviate far from a proper fighting art very quickly, since effective and lethal techniques often do not look good to onlookers, either being too subtle or quick.

[weckar]

Thank you very much. That was very useful and informative, and will really help me to shape my game.

[Brother Oni]

Thank you very much. That was very useful and informative, and will really help me to shape my game.

Glad to be of help.

If you're after additional information, Bhu had a thread regarding the Edo period that may be of use: link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?359855-Japan).

[Gnoman]

Everything I've read indicates that murder holes were ubiquitous and pretty much every castle had them to some degree.

Exactly what issues did you have with boiling oil/tar being put through the holes? Cooling material clogging up the holes?



With oil and tar specifically, it seemed like using them in a corridor or gatehouse would result in pretty noxious fumes (more so with tar, of course) coming back at you and presenting almost as much hazard to the attackers as the defenders, and after the battle your corridor would be filled with a nasty, very difficult to remove, mess. These wouldn't be problems in exterior use of the same weapons because the fumes would simply disperse and the residue wouldn't be in the way.

Similarly, I would expect the use of incendiaries like Greek Fire (historically pumped out of projectors in the walls of Constantinople) or modern/fantasy equivalents to either asphyxiate or roast the defenders unless the ceilings were much higher than the fifteen feet or so I'm envisioning.

[Mr Beer]

With oil and tar specifically, it seemed like using them in a corridor or gatehouse would result in pretty noxious fumes (more so with tar, of course) coming back at you and presenting almost as much hazard to the attackers as the defenders, and after the battle your corridor would be filled with a nasty, very difficult to remove, mess. These wouldn't be problems in exterior use of the same weapons because the fumes would simply disperse and the residue wouldn't be in the way.

Similarly, I would expect the use of incendiaries like Greek Fire (historically pumped out of projectors in the walls of Constantinople) or modern/fantasy equivalents to either asphyxiate or roast the defenders unless the ceilings were much higher than the fifteen feet or so I'm envisioning.

The heat and fumes concerns make sense, though I think most oils should be OK unless ignited and it's an interesting concern that I've not considered before. But I think that tricky post battle clean-ups are a trivial price to pay to baste the guys currently storming your bastion with boiling tar.

[Thiel]

Re: Murderholes I seem to recall reading that boiling water and plain rocks were a popular choice as well.

[Brother Oni]

I'm inclined to agree that indoor use would be an issue, but given that murder holes could be placed pretty much everywhere, I'd think the defenders would use the non-fuming invariants in an enclosed space (or at least, they'd only use it once).

Apparently quicklime powder was also a popular choice to pour over incoming attackers, which is pretty nasty once it gets into the mucous membranes (eyes, nose, lungs, etc).

[Galloglaich]

I'm inclined to agree that indoor use would be an issue, but given that murder holes could be placed pretty much everywhere, I'd think the defenders would use the non-fuming invariants in an enclosed space (or at least, they'd only use it once).

Apparently quicklime powder was also a popular choice to pour over incoming attackers, which is pretty nasty once it gets into the mucous membranes (eyes, nose, lungs, etc).

In the Kings Mirror they mention several times using molten glass which is pretty extreme brutality by any measure... but I don't know about using it in murder holes.

Murder holes though are pretty much in every significant medieval fortress I've ever been to in Europe, and even in some of the old town gates. I used to make a point of looking for them, they kind of give you the creeps as you are entering.

G

[Thiel]

That does seem a bit excessive. On the other hand since it's basically molten sand it should be cheaper than Leader.

[Vitruviansquid]

As nice as it would be to pour molten or boiling substances on people, wouldn't big rocks kill/wound them just as much but without the caveat of you having to heat the substance before use?

[Gnoman]

Big rocks hit, and possibly roll a bit, damaging a very, very small area with a rather easy to spot and avoid attack. Liquid flows, covering a larger area far more throrougly, not to mention that burning substances deny the area quite effectively until they stop burning, and possess a devastating moral effect because the deaths are so very gruesome (carrying a flamethrower was the second-least popular job in the US military during WWII because the odds of dying a most painful death were so very high). It's also vastly easier to transport fifty pounds of oil, pot, and fuel than it is to move a few hundred pounds of rock (which you need if you want it to do real damage with nothing but gravitational acceleration), and you can pour it out of a tiny opening instead of needing a hole as big as the rock you're dropping.

[Knaight]

With that said, there was a great deal of throwing rocks at people in the context of siege defense - and in a lot of other contexts, for that matter. Generally I'd put some degree of clarifying statement for when and where the siege defense featured rocks, but it was a pretty universal technology that's been employed for a good long time.

[Thiel]

Well, a rock is only going to hurt the guy it hits and murder holes doesn't really allow you to aim.
Liquids on the other hand will splash around and since they were either very hot or corrosive, or both, it wouldn't take much to incapasitate someone.
I also think they had a much greater psycological impact.

[Mr Beer]

Apparently quicklime powder was also a popular choice to pour over incoming attackers, which is pretty nasty once it gets into the mucous membranes (eyes, nose, lungs, etc).

I'm now imagining the murder hole operatives blowing kazoos, shouting that the attackers' relatives smell of elderberries etc. in order to have them look upwards and receive a face full of quicklime.

[Brother Oni]

As nice as it would be to pour molten or boiling substances on people, wouldn't big rocks kill/wound them just as much but without the caveat of you having to heat the substance before use?

Bear in mind that armour at least affords some protection against falling rocks, whereas it provides none against a sufficient volume liquid.



Liquids on the other hand will splash around and since they were either very hot or corrosive, or both, it wouldn't take much to incapasitate someone.
I also think they had a much greater psycological impact.

Indeed. I remember a movie where they poured flaming tar over a parapet and it came out like a sheet of fire over the attackers trying to climb the siege ladders. Bear in mind that in sieges, the attackers are often all clustered up so even a small area effect weapon is likely to hit a disproptionate number of targets.

There's not much more intimidating than listening to man screaming as he burns to death inside his own armour.

[Kiero]

Better than boiling liquid in a siege situation: heated sand. Not only is it abrasive as well as scalding, but it sticks. Much easier to handle than a liquid, as well.

[Gnoman]

Better than boiling liquid in a siege situation: heated sand. Not only is it abrasive as well as scalding, but it sticks. Much easier to handle than a liquid, as well.

There's no way that heated sand is stickier than hot tar.

[Brother Oni]

I'm now imagining the murder hole operatives blowing kazoos, shouting that the attackers' relatives smell of elderberries etc. in order to have them look upwards and receive a face full of quicklime.

Sufficiently aerosolised, they wouldn't have to look up to suffer the effects of the quicklime. On the other hand, anything remotely resembling a gentle breeze would rapidly disperse it.


There's no way that heated sand is stickier than hot tar.

I'm inclined to agree, but it would most likely depend on the temperatures involved.

Doing some digging, the tar used in medieval times would likely have been wood tar creosote, a by product from making charcoal, which has a boiling point between 200-220 C and a flash point of between 60-150C, so by the time it's boiling, it's often on fire already.
A boiling liquid is generally at its most mobile and least viscous - I find values of ~530 Pa/s without a temperature reference, so assuming that's at room temperature, worst case it's ~600 times thicker than water. For reference honey ranges from 2,000 to 10,000 Pa/s and olive oil is about 80 Pa/s.

Sand melts at ~1,600 C and although they're unlikely to achieve that in a siege situation, a 200C fine powder is bound to do nasty things to attackers. It's less that the sand is sticky and more that something that hot melts/burns things together - linen, leather, flesh, etc.

[Galloglaich]

There are references though to their using hot sand and also to heating rocks before throwing them. Somebody post the passage on siege warfare from Kings Mirror I think they get into all that.

G

[Fortinbras]

I'll just post the whole siege defense section of the King's Mirror (from 13th century Norway):

"Those who have to defend a castle may also make use of these weapons which I have now enumerated and many more: trebuchets both large and small, hand slings and staff slings. They will find crossbows and other bows, too, very effective, as well as every other type of shooting weapons, such as spears and javelins both light and heavy. But to resist the trebuchets, the cat, and the engine called the ram, it is well to strengthen the entire stone wall on the inside with large oaken timbers, though if earth and clay are plentiful, these materials had better be used. Those who have to defend castles are also in the habit of making curtains of large oak boughs, three or even five deep, to cover the entire wall; and the curtain should be thoroughly plastered with good sticky clay. To defeat the attacks of the ram, men have sometimes filled large bags with hay or straw and lowered them with light iron chains in front of the ram where it sought to pierce the wall. It sometimes happens that the shots fall so rapidly upon a fortress that the defenders are unable to remain on the battlements; it is then advisable to hang out brattices made of light planks and built high enough to reach two ells above the openings in the parapet and three ells below them. They should be wide enough to enable the men to fight with any sort of weapons between the parapet and the brattice wall, and they should be hung from slender beams in such a way that they may be readily drawn in and hung out again later, as one may wish.

The hedgehog will be found an effective device in defending a castle. It is made of large, heavy beams armed along the ridge with a brush of pointed oak nails; it is hung outside the parapet to be dropped on anyone who comes too near the wall. Turnpikes made of large heavy logs armed with sharp teeth of hard oak may be raised on end near the battlements and kept ready to be dropped upon those who approach the castle. Another good device is the briar, which is made of good iron and curved thorns as hard as steel with a barb on every thorn; and the chain, from which it hangs, as high up as a man can reach must be made of spiked links, so that it can neither be held nor hewn; higher up any kind of rope that seems suitable may be used, only, it must be firm and strong. This briar is thrown down among the enemy in the hope of catching one or more of them and then it is pulled up again. A running wheel is also a good weapon for those who defend castles: it is made of two millstones with an axle of tough oak joining them. Planks sloping downward are laid through the openings in the wall; the wheel is rolled out upon these and then down upon the enemy.

A shot wagon is also a good device. This is made like any other wagon with two or four wheels as one likes and is intended to carry a load of stones, hot or cold, as one may prefer. It must also be provided with two firm and strong chains, one on each side, which can be depended on to check the wagon even where it has a long track to run upon. It is meant to run on planks set with a downward slope, but one must be careful to keep the wheels from skidding off the planks. When the chain checks the speed, the wagon shoots its load out upon the men below. The more uneven the stones are, some large and some small, the more effective the load will be. Canny men, who are set to defend a wall and wish to throw rocks down upon the attacking line or upon the penthouse, make these rocks of clay with pebbles, slingstones, and other hard stones placed inside. The clay is burned hard enough on the outside to endure the flight while the load is being thrown; but as soon as the rocks fall they break into fragments and consequently cannot be hurled back again. To break down stone walls, however, large, hard rocks are required. Similarly, when one hurls missiles from a stone fortress against an opposing wooden tower or upon the axletrees which support siege engines, towers, scaling ladders, cats, or any other engine on wheels, the larger and harder the rocks that are used, the more effective they will be.

Boiling water, molten glass, and molten lead are also useful in defending walls. But if a cat or any other covered engine which cannot be damaged by hot water is being pushed toward a castle, it is a good plan, if the engine is lower than the walls, to provide beams carefully shod with iron underneath and in addition armed with large, sharp, red-hot plowshares. These are to be thrown down upon the wooden engine in which the plowshares are likely to stick fast, while the beams may be hoisted up again. This attack should be followed up with pitch, sulphur, or boiling tar.

Mines dug in the neighborhood of a castle are also an excellent protection; the deeper and narrower they are, the better it is; and where men are showing mounted engines toward the walls, it were well if there were many mines. All mines should have a number of small openings, which must be covered so as not to be visible on the surface. They should be filled with fuel of the most inflammable sort, peat or anything else that burns readily. When a castle is attacked at night either from wooden towers or scaling ladders or any other engine on wheels, the defenders should steal out and fire the mines.

Now if it should happen that the enemy’s stones come over the battlements with such violence that the men cannot remain in the open to defend the wall, it is a good plan to set up strong posts cut from thick oak and to lay large and tough cross beams upon these, then to roof the whole over with firm oak timbers, and finally cover the roofing with a layer of earth not less than three or four ells in depth, upon which the rocks may be allowed to drop. In like manner the attack of a wooden tower that is moving toward a castle may be foiled by setting up strong, firm posts rising considerably higher than the attacking tower. But a more effective contrivance than all the engines that I have now described is a stooping shield-giant which breathes forth flame and fire. And now we shall close our account of the engines that are useful in defending castle walls with the reminder that every sort of weapon with which one can shoot, hurl, hew, or thrust, and every kind that can be used in attack or defense may be brought into service."

[Galloglaich]

Oh yeah, red-hot plowshares... followed up by pitch, sulphur, or boiling tar. Forgot about that one.

If we could aim a magic telescope into the past and really see what was going on I think we'd find it is far and away more hard core than any tv show, video game, or move today

G

[Yora]

This all really sounds a lot like a 90s videogame level. :smallbiggrin:

http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/c/9/d/gfs_44148_2_61.jpg

[Brother Oni]

If we could aim a magic telescope into the past and really see what was going on I think we'd find it is far and away more hard core than any tv show, video game, or move today.

I wouldn't be surprised given that there are limits as to what can be depicted in those media without breaking various laws.

[Milodiah]

I still maintain that there wasn't much worse than the First World War, but medieval warfare probably comes close.

One of my favorite quotes is from a book with the usual "Hell-invades-modern-Earth" plot, with the unique theme that "Earth totally kicks ass at war".

One of the characters bumps into a French soldier in Hell who says "This is nothing compared to the Somme."

[Galloglaich]

I wouldn't be surprised given that there are limits as to what can be depicted in those media without breaking various laws.

That's not precisely what I mean, though for sure the Mongols (or even the Romans) were a lot meaner than any fantasy genre Orc ever was and make the Lannisters look like humanitarians.

I really just mean how far out and amazing, not just how violent...

G

[Galloglaich]

This all really sounds a lot like a 90s videogame level. :smallbiggrin:

http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/c/9/d/gfs_44148_2_61.jpg

hahahahahahah touche!

G

[No brains]

I know the Mongols told stories about making mountains of children's skulls and doing other terrible things, but what archaeological evidence do we have to prove that they did it?

[Galloglaich]

I know the Mongols told stories about making mountains of children's skulls and doing other terrible things, but what archaeological evidence do we have to prove that they did it?

It was way, way, way beyond piling up a few skulls, and we have plenty of evidence of all kinds. Not stories, but detailed records of dozens of nations, not just the Mongols themselves, but the Persians, the Russians, the Armenians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, the Vietnamese, the Byzantines. Letters, chronicles, archives, lists, diplomatic reports, first hand accounts... once mighty cities and even entire kingdoms which are simply wiped out of existence (many of which have subsequently been excavated). The effects even left a startling reminder in our DNA today:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/

That isn't just a result of his screwing a lot, it's representative of all the competitive males who were ... neutralized. This is a first-hand account of Kiev by an ambassador sent by the Pope 20 years after the Mongols had (mostly) conquered the Rus:

"They [the Mongols] attacked Rus, where they made great havoc, destroying cities and fortresses and slaughtering men; and they laid siege to Kiev, the capital of Rus; after they had besieged the city for a long time, they took it and put the inhabitants to death. When we were journeying through that land we came across countless skulls and bones of dead men lying about on the ground. Kiev had been a very large and thickly populated town, but now it has been reduced almost to nothing, for there are at the present time scarce two hundred houses there and the inhabitants are kept in complete slavery."

Tamarlane (Timur the Lame) being from a later period, was even better documented and if anything, more ruthless and bloodthirsty than Genghis Khan. I'll just quote from the Wiki:

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


"Timur's armies were feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe,[7] sizable parts of which were laid waste by his campaigns.[8] Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population.[9][10]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur#mediaviewer/File:Timur_reconstruction01.jpg

That dude was the real life 'Ming the Merciless', and some of his battles could indeed rival and surpass the Somme in both scale and horror. No orc named "eye biter" or any smooth talking Vampire from any comic book, tv show. video game or Netflix series ever came even remotely close to the systematic cruelty of that one actual real-life guy, and he was only one (particularly brutal, granted) leader among dozens of mighty, mean, Mongol rulers during the centuries long reign of the various Mongol Hordes.

But like I said, they had plenty of competition. The Assyrians, various Chinese dynasties, the Ottomans, even the Romans, organized systematic carnage and cruelty on a similar scale and at a level that your average middle-class, easy-living internet user of today really can't even get their head around. It's rarely if ever dealt with in an honest manner in our media.

G

[Mr. Mask]

Can't think of anything modern that compares to the worse stuff in a history books. You do get some fiction about endless torture, though it's a bit less convincing when written by someone who doesn't know that Chinese Water torture is enough to drive most people into a drivelling mess.

[Zizka]

Speaking of gruesome historical realities...here's a description I ran across of an astonishingly cruel Japanese torture called the ana-tsurushi which was used by the Takenaka Uneme, the Governor of Nagasaki, in his 17th century persecution of the Jesuits:


The victim was hung from the cross beam of a gallows, head downward, into a pit five or six feet deep. The body was tightly bound in order to slow down the circulation of the blood. The holes were sealed off with planks about the victim’s loins. The pits were often partly filled with offal. There in those black holes many hung for as long as a week, exuding blood from mouth and nostrils, maddened by the fearful pressure on the brain, until death released them from almost unsupportable anguish. In order to prevent a speedy death… by congestion, to prolong the torture and give more chance to recant – Takenaka wanted apostates rather than martyrs – often the victim’s temples were pierced. Some who had recanted under this torture later declared that neither the pain caused by burning with fire nor that of any other torture, deserved to be compared with the agony produced in this way.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/02/denying-the-faith/

[Brother Oni]

That's not precisely what I mean, though for sure the Mongols (or even the Romans) were a lot meaner than any fantasy genre Orc ever was and make the Lannisters look like humanitarians.

I really just mean how far out and amazing, not just how violent...


Oh I know what you mean, just that it's a bit unfair comparing it to a medium that's already legally limited.


But like I said, they had plenty of competition. The Assyrians, various Chinese dynasties, the Ottomans, even the Romans, organized systematic carnage and cruelty on a similar scale and at a level that your average middle-class, easy-living internet user of today really can't even get their head around. It's rarely if ever dealt with in an honest manner in our media.

The Qin Dynasty was reputed to be extremely harsh (the more I read about Legalism, the worse it gets), but not much tops the Mongols.


Can't think of anything modern that compares to the worse stuff in a history books. You do get some fiction about endless torture, though it's a bit less convincing when written by someone who doesn't know that Chinese Water torture is enough to drive most people into a drivelling mess.

There's plenty of modern examples - Stalin's rule, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Japanese occupation of Nanking, etc. Judging from the stories coming from escapees from North Korea, the re-education camps there are getting up there in terms of brutality.

[Corenair]

It was way, way, way beyond piling up a few skulls, and we have plenty of evidence of all kinds. Not stories, but detailed records of dozens of nations, not just the Mongols themselves, but the Persians, the Russians, the Armenians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, the Vietnamese, the Byzantines. Letters, chronicles, archives, lists, diplomatic reports, first hand accounts... once mighty cities and even entire kingdoms which are simply wiped out of existence (many of which have subsequently been excavated). The effects even left a startling reminder in our DNA today:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/

That isn't just a result of his screwing a lot, it's representative of all the competitive males who were ... neutralized. This is a first-hand account of Kiev by an ambassador sent by the Pope 20 years after the Mongols had (mostly) conquered the Rus:

"They [the Mongols] attacked Rus, where they made great havoc, destroying cities and fortresses and slaughtering men; and they laid siege to Kiev, the capital of Rus; after they had besieged the city for a long time, they took it and put the inhabitants to death. When we were journeying through that land we came across countless skulls and bones of dead men lying about on the ground. Kiev had been a very large and thickly populated town, but now it has been reduced almost to nothing, for there are at the present time scarce two hundred houses there and the inhabitants are kept in complete slavery."

Tamarlane (Timur the Lame) being from a later period, was even better documented and if anything, more ruthless and bloodthirsty than Genghis Khan. I'll just quote from the Wiki:

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


"Timur's armies were feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe,[7] sizable parts of which were laid waste by his campaigns.[8] Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population.[9][10]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur#mediaviewer/File:Timur_reconstruction01.jpg

That dude was the real life 'Ming the Merciless', and some of his battles could indeed rival and surpass the Somme in both scale and horror. No orc named "eye biter" or any smooth talking Vampire from any comic book, tv show. video game or Netflix series ever came even remotely close to the systematic cruelty of that one actual real-life guy, and he was only one (particularly brutal, granted) leader among dozens of mighty, mean, Mongol rulers during the centuries long reign of the various Mongol Hordes.

But like I said, they had plenty of competition. The Assyrians, various Chinese dynasties, the Ottomans, even the Romans, organized systematic carnage and cruelty on a similar scale and at a level that your average middle-class, easy-living internet user of today really can't even get their head around. It's rarely if ever dealt with in an honest manner in our media.

G

I'd like to know more about that aspect of Roman conquests. (I have this friend of mine that insists that most Gauls were very much happy to be rules by Romans, with which they were already familiar thanks to commerce. I think he overestimates the density of Gaul's population at the time of its conquest.)

[Spiryt]

I'd like to know more about that aspect of Roman conquests. (I have this friend of mine that insists that most Gauls were very much happy to be rules by Romans, with which they were already familiar thanks to commerce. I think he overestimates the density of Gaul's population at the time of its conquest.)

Those things don't have to be contradictory at all, especially since we're talking about different 'Gauls' and span of hundreds of years.

Tribes completely eradicated by legions obviously wouldn't be 'happy', while those getting prosperous due to commerce/alliance would.

In time, indeed it does seem that majority of Gauls were perfectly 'happy' to be ruled by Romans. Language and culture was spreading fast. Certain 'Celt-iciness' had survived longer only in isolated places, like in Brittany, and largely due to influence from other still Celtic places.

Not to mention that Roman brutality wouldn't be exactly alien to Gauls themselves, life in general was violent then.

[Yora]

After Armenius crushed any possible Roman plans for expansion into Germania, the German leaders pretty soon realized that they just shot themselves in the foot and had gained almost nothing while cutting themselves off from Roman commerce and infrastructure. This seems to be the accepted reason why Armenius eventually ended up being murdered by his own men.
Not saying the Romans were all about charity and peaceful development along the border to Germania, but it most probably wasn't worse than what the Germanic tribed where regularly doing to each other.

[Galloglaich]

Those things don't have to be contradictory at all, especially since we're talking about different 'Gauls' and span of hundreds of years.

Tribes completely eradicated by legions obviously wouldn't be 'happy', while those getting prosperous due to commerce/alliance would.

In time, indeed it does seem that majority of Gauls were perfectly 'happy' to be ruled by Romans. Language and culture was spreading fast. Certain 'Celt-iciness' had survived longer only in isolated places, like in Brittany, and largely due to influence from other still Celtic places.

Not to mention that Roman brutality wouldn't be exactly alien to Gauls themselves, life in general was violent then.

They estimate that the Romans killed 1/4 of the "Gallic" tribes in the regions of what is now mostly France (with some overlap into Belgium and Germany) during the lifetime of Caesar. As Tacitus put it, they brought about peace, but it was the peace of the graveyard. Those who were left were made into a new system, the old tribal councils were abolished, nobles were promoted into kings. Culturally many of the Gauls were already half way converted to a Roman lifestyle by the time Caesar conquered them, in the view of Tacitus and many others this was the reason why they were conquered. Within a few generations Gallia had become a Gaelic / Roman hybrid. Those left behind were, as Spiryt noted, assimilated, accustomed to Roman luxuries and lifestyle, and generally fit into the Roman system. At least those who were at the higher ends of the social order. But they remained sufficient numbers who were unhappy to instigate uprisings. I know there was a major one in which the Gauls declared their own (short lived republic) but I don't have time to google it, maybe someone else can find it.

But there is no doubt Rome had a harsh system. When you consider that crucifiction was a fairly routine punishment in Rome - especially for "rebels", it gives you some idea just how mean they were. The mass crucifictions of the Spartacus rebellion and the Hebrew rebellion are just two examples, but they also occurred on a large scale during fratricidal conflicts between Roman factions. If you are interested in the harshness of the Roman conquest of Gaul I recommend reading Julius Caesar in his own words, his commentaries on the wars are very readable and accessible and often, quite (darkly) amusing as well as interesting. And he doesn't stint much at describing atrocities.

The biggest form of cruelty that both Rome and the Mongols (and the Ottomans and many others) had in common, other than mass-murder, was organized slavery. Slaves, of course could live quite well, in Rome and the Ottoman Empire slaves (and / or freedmen, people who had been slaves but had nominally given freedom) were routinely working as high level government functionaries. But this was not the case for most slaves, slaves were also the basis of how you mined salt, or lead for example, in those days. And working in a Roman salt mine was a pretty short life. It was also the means of sexual gratification for the non-slaves, in every way imaginable many if not most of which would be extremely unpleasant for the slaves, including children of course, and we know that Romans, Ottomans, Mongols and so on, made sport of their slaves which included death (and I'm not just referring to pampered gladiators either).

Though the average Roman slave was not working in a salt mine, from what we have seen in excavations at Pompeii and many other places, the slaves and low-ranked (mostly immigrant) population in Rome lived rough lives, they were malnourished, showed the effects of brutally hard work on their bodies, suffered from many preventable diseases. By comparison the excavated bodies of Germanic, Celtic, proto-Slavic, Illyrian etc. barbarians were much taller (and this is not entirely due to genetics, we know from DNA that they ate a lot more protein) had better teeth, showed less evidence of disease and so on. It wasn't always this way in Rome either, Romans seem to have grown shorter as the Republic ended and the Empire began.

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2011/05/romans-during-empire-lost-1-inch-in.html

I wonder if the same will happen to us when our Republic continues to congeal into an Empire...

As for Arminius, my understanding is that his own tribe killed him because he was trying to make himself into a King after his victory. I don't think commerce ended for long between the Romans and the Germanic tribes north of the Alps, as they were hiring them in greater and greater numbers as mercenaries and auxiliaries right up to the dissolution of the Empire.

G

[Yora]

I would also never underestimate how people can hate their direct neighbours much more than a distant foreign power. If you want to conquer a region of decentralized power instead of defeating a single state, make offers to some of the locals to destroy their old enemies in exchange for joining your empire. That's how the African slave hunts worked and how things are working in Afghanistan, and it was the same in ancient times. And wasn't in Ceasar who famously said "divide and conquer"?

I have a question about classic battles of antiquity: For a story I am thinking of a scenario in which the armies Blue 1 and Blue 2 work together to lay a trap to destroy army Red. In secret, the general of Blue 1 wants to see army Blue 2 destroyed as well. So he sets a trap for army Red with army Blue 2 as the bait, and then he is supposed to arrive with his army Blue 1 and together they will destroy Red. But instead he waits and Blue 2 is taking massive losses before Blue 1 actually arrives to take care of what is still left standing.
Are there any classic battles that could be somewhat comparable to this? It doesn't need to be active betrayal, just a case where a really good trap turned into disaster because some troops didn't play their role as they were supposed to.

[PersonMan]

That's how the African slave hunts worked

Actually, in most cases the Europeans just showed up as clients in a system already set up. Things ramped up when people realized that these foreigners had a seemingly endless appetite for slaves and were willing to keep paying for them. The Europeans only provided the incentive for the slavers to increase the scale of their slave hunts (beforehand slaves were mostly prisoners of war); they didn't need to do anything else.

[Yora]

I know, not exactly the best example to compare to that specific situation. But I think a good one to underline that a lot, if not most, attrocities in war happen between neighbours from the same culture. While some empires racked up massive body counts that make them stand out in history, I don't think they were the number one threat most people were afraid of. Massive invasions are the exception. Inter-tribal warfare often part of everyday life.

[Gnoman]

Note that at least some of the African slave-sellers are on the record as believing that the European buyers were eating the slaves they bought (due to the quantity, which was ludicrous by any familiar standard). And sold them anyway.

[Galloglaich]

I know, not exactly the best example to compare to that specific situation. But I think a good one to underline that a lot, if not most, attrocities in war happen between neighbours from the same culture. While some empires racked up massive body counts that make them stand out in history, I don't think they were the number one threat most people were afraid of. Massive invasions are the exception. Inter-tribal warfare often part of everyday life.

The Romans definitely did use that divide and conquer technique quite consciously. As did the British Empire (for example The East India company playing the Muslims against the Hindu's in India). This was also the main technique used in the Northern Crusades, the Crusaders exploited existing tensions between the Prussians, Livs, Letts, Curonians, and Lithuanians... the locals realized what was happening but too late for most of them (only the Lithuanians formed a successful coalition and let some of the other tribes, their former bitter enemies and victims, settle among them).

Generally the counter to such attempts was to form heterogeneous federations or confederations of some kind, which is what most of the later Barbarian 'tribes' actually were (like the Franks, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Allemani, the Cimbri and Teutones etc. etc.)

G

[rs2excelsior]

I have a question about classic battles of antiquity: For a story I am thinking of a scenario in which the armies Blue 1 and Blue 2 work together to lay a trap to destroy army Red. In secret, the general of Blue 1 wants to see army Blue 2 destroyed as well. So he sets a trap for army Red with army Blue 2 as the bait, and then he is supposed to arrive with his army Blue 1 and together they will destroy Red. But instead he waits and Blue 2 is taking massive losses before Blue 1 actually arrives to take care of what is still left standing.
Are there any classic battles that could be somewhat comparable to this? It doesn't need to be active betrayal, just a case where a really good trap turned into disaster because some troops didn't play their role as they were supposed to.

The closest real-life example I could find was the Battle of Bosworth Field during the War of the Roses. Twice, actually. The Earl of Northumberland, in command of a portion of King Richard III's army, refused to enter the battle when ordered to do so. Richard then took his personal cavalry and attacked Henry Tudor, leader of the enemy forces, and his personal cavalry. Sir William Stanley, who was allied with Richard, brought his own forces into the battle--on Henry's side. Richard was killed and Henry was crowned king.

[Mr. Mask]

Oni: Was further discussing modern fiction and popular media. There are still plenty of horrible things you could depict in fiction which are happening today.

[Incanur]

While I suspect Timur's army indeed killed multitudes, the 17 million figure isn't well-sourced on the Wikipedia page. It comes from the Chicago Tribute article - mentioned only in passing - while the linked page of the Saunders book only says "millions." The 17 million figure appears a lot, but a quick search doesn't reveal a real basis for it. I'm sure one is out there somewhere, but I'm skeptical of any such any estimated historical statistics. Death figures remain profoundly difficult and controversial today. The problems compound when you go back hundreds of years with fragmentary data.

[Yora]

The closest real-life example I could find was the Battle of Bosworth Field during the War of the Roses. Twice, actually. The Earl of Northumberland, in command of a portion of King Richard III's army, refused to enter the battle when ordered to do so. Richard then took his personal cavalry and attacked Henry Tudor, leader of the enemy forces, and his personal cavalry. Sir William Stanley, who was allied with Richard, brought his own forces into the battle--on Henry's side. Richard was killed and Henry was crowned king.

Reminds me of a major Japanese battle. I think that would have been Sekigahara, which interestingly also decided who gets the ultimate power in the country.

[Kiero]

Actually, in most cases the Europeans just showed up as clients in a system already set up. Things ramped up when people realized that these foreigners had a seemingly endless appetite for slaves and were willing to keep paying for them. The Europeans only provided the incentive for the slavers to increase the scale of their slave hunts (beforehand slaves were mostly prisoners of war); they didn't need to do anything else.

Indeed, Europeans were well down the chain of actors involved in the African slave trade. They didn't go into Africa and catch the slaves for themselves; they weren't even the intermediaries who brought captives to the markets.


Note that at least some of the African slave-sellers are on the record as believing that the European buyers were eating the slaves they bought (due to the quantity, which was ludicrous by any familiar standard). And sold them anyway.

Given African slaves tended to be from other tribes, prisoners of war and the politically inconvenient, I don't think the sellers much cared.

[snowblizz]

Reminds me of a major Japanese battle. I think that would have been Sekigahara, which interestingly also decided who gets the ultimate power in the country.

There was certainly an element of that there. The (eventually) victorious Tokugawa had been courting various daimyo of the "Western" armies and managed to get some to change sides during the battle which also convinced others to switch allegiances during the battle as the tide turned.

[Yora]

I think for my purpose, something like the very simple Battle of Trebia would be sufficient: Get the enemy to move towards you and once they have engaged have cavalry sneak up at the left flank from behind.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eGc3Tu6i3Ys/TB3MeHdgX0I/AAAAAAAAAAk/DKIgJzhqVCA/s1600/793px-Battle_Trebia-numbers.svg.png

The big advantage is that it is very simple, which minimizes the odds of something going wrong. Worst case, someone spots the hidden cavalry and the enemy refuses to engage. The amount of trust in the cavalry comander doesn't need to be very high, all he has to do is show up.
After the main army is destroyed, you might even convince the cavalry troops that the battle started much earlier than anticpiated and the signal to the hidden cavalry never got delivered When you mop up the remains of the enemy army, you could even try to sell it as avenging the destroyed army and make yourself look like a hero instead of a traitor.

[Storm Bringer]

while not quite what your thinking, bear in mind that armies often marched in several semi-separate columns that travelled along parallel routes to ease foraging and reduce bottlenecks, and quite a few battles happened where a attacker is able to catch and maul one part of an army before the rest can come to it's aid. It happens often enough the they coined the term "meeting engagement" for it.

you could have the Blue 1 commander "arrange" that his army was, unfortunately, some distance apart by happenstance ("the bridge at Gosford was destroyed! we had to march an extra 20 miles to get here."), and cannot help the Blue 2 army until it's taken a very severe beating, then ride to the rescue.

[Galloglaich]

Regarding the Mongols and their atrocities, "Hardcore History" is pretty fun to listen to if you have a little time (or can listen while at work)

http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-44-wrath-of-the-khans-ii/

G

[Mathis]

I can't recommend Hardcore History enough, most of his stuff is available for free on his site. The episodes are long and inexpensive if you want to buy them also.

I have a question too though. Recently I've watched a lot of westerns and civil war era American movies and I see a lot of octagonal barrels in their rifles. Why have we moved away from making octagonal rifles? Is there any benefit to having an octagonal barrel? I see that Marlin still offers some lever actions with octagonal barrels so they can't really bring the quality of the rifle down can they?

[Galloglaich]

I can't recommend Hardcore History enough, most of his stuff is available for free on his site. The episodes are long and inexpensive if you want to buy them also.

I have a question too though. Recently I've watched a lot of westerns and civil war era American movies and I see a lot of octagonal barrels in their rifles. Why have we moved away from making octagonal rifles? Is there any benefit to having an octagonal barrel? I see that Marlin still offers some lever actions with octagonal barrels so they can't really bring the quality of the rifle down can they?

Seem to be some good answers here:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?156942-Why-did-they-use-octagon-barrels-so-much

Now I want a lever-action rifle, dammit!

G

[snowblizz]

I have a question too though. Recently I've watched a lot of westerns and civil war era American movies and I see a lot of octagonal barrels in their rifles. Why have we moved away from making octagonal rifles? Is there any benefit to having an octagonal barrel? I see that Marlin still offers some lever actions with octagonal barrels so they can't really bring the quality of the rifle down can they?
An octagonal shape has more mass to it. It would make the barrel more resistant to bursting I'd imagine. Not sure how the manufacturing of such a barrel would be. I imagined they'd be drilling out a piece of metal. But apparently for round barrels they'd often wind a lot of metal strips into a tube which is then welded together.
But all things being equal* the cylinder is the most efficient in use of metal and weight you can get. *Ie there's no need to reinforce the barrel.
And it might look cooler. That's not an entirely unreasonable reason either. Makes for an easier surface to do pretty etchings on eg.

[Gnoman]

It had to do with the manufacturing processes in the old days. Early gun barrels were often forged from bar iron and then drilled out. The gunmaker would then file off the corners to reduce weight, resulting in an octagon. Later, when rifling became more common, it was easier to rifle an octagonal barrel because the flat edges made clamping easier.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

[snowblizz]

It had to do with the manufacturing processes in the old days. Early gun barrels were often forged from bar iron and then drilled out. The gunmaker would then file off the corners to reduce weight, resulting in an octagon. Later, when rifling became more common, it was easier to rifle an octagonal barrel because the flat edges made clamping easier.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

I was going to suggest exactly that. But I did a quick search first and from the stuff that popped up they specifically avoided the drilling just because it was so hard to do, and made barrels out of strips wound around a core which was heated up and then welded itself into a solid item.

[Gnoman]

I've read of both in pre-19th century accounts. I can't vouch for accuracy (nor cite soures, as I don't remember what the books were), I'm afraid.

[Carl]

Here's a question for everyone. What if anything is known about the damage dealing potential, both vs flech and vs armour of Javelins? And what was their realistic maximum range?

My physics knowledge suggests javelins should be pretty nasty as their high mass lends itself to high momentum at low KE values, however they lack the over time storage capabilities of most other common ranged weapons and outside of the Roman Pilum i can't even think of an example of their use in warfare, even though i'm sure they where used elsewhere. The lack of serious well known use however does seem to argue against them being super effective.

[Aedilred]

Here's a question for everyone. What if anything is known about the damage dealing potential, both vs flech and vs armour of Javelins? And what was their realistic maximum range?

My physics knowledge suggests javelins should be pretty nasty as their high mass lends itself to high momentum at low KE values, however they lack the over time storage capabilities of most other common ranged weapons and outside of the Roman Pilum i can't even think of an example of their use in warfare, even though i'm sure they where used elsewhere. The lack of serious well known use however does seem to argue against them being super effective.

Javelins were quite widely used in Spain during the Middle Ages: look for stuff about Moorish Jinetes, or the Almogavars of the Crown of Aragon. They also saw extensive use in Africa, most famously by the Zulu. I'm not sure about their armour-piercing capabilities, but at least part of the point in them seems to have been encumbrance of the enemy, especially regarding shields. While I don't know a huge amount about it, my hunch would be based on my limited knowledge that they fell out of use as body armour became more effective and shields stopped being carried.

It does seem that other than Roman legionaries javelins were most often used by light infantry and cavalry, though.

[Brother Oni]

Here's a question for everyone. What if anything is known about the damage dealing potential, both vs flech and vs armour of Javelins? And what was their realistic maximum range?


I believe the typical effective range for a Roman pilum was about 20 feet - they were thrown just before engaging an enemy to break up their ranks and disrupt their cohesion.

It's the similar principle for throwing axes, which was utilised by the Franks circa 3rd Century (the francisca) and by various Native American peoples (the tomahawk).

The other things to remember about the pilum was that it had a soft iron head which deformed on impact, so the enemy couldn't just throw them back. This would imply that its armour penetration capabilities is limited.

[Gnoman]

The other things to remember about the pilum was that it had a soft iron head which deformed on impact, so the enemy couldn't just throw them back. This would imply that its armour penetration capabilities is limited.

That quite accurate. The primary function of pilia was not to kill (which, of course, it was able to do under the right circumstances), but to deprive the enemy of the use of the shield. Shields of the period could easily defeat any handheld missile weapon of the era (even shots that penetrated the shield would spend too much energy doing so to keep going and penetrate the body armor), but a deformed pilum would unbalance and weigh down the shield, not only rendering it useless for defense but causing the shield to become a serious hindrance in the close-in swordfights that the Romans made heavy use of. Extrapolating from that to determine the properties of a killing javelin is not a particularly effective idea.

That said, the fact that javelins were historically used either by quite primitive cultures as a major weapon or by more advanced ones for skirmishing and harassment (rather than in the main battl e line) strongly suggests that both the javelin and the atl-atl (a sort of stick worn on the forearm to throw a javelin with much greater range, power, and accuracy than by hand) were signficantly inferior to the bow or crossbow as a combat weapon.

[Milodiah]

Honestly, the biggest problem I see with javelins is...well...good luck trying to carry more than half a dozen or so without it getting clumsy. A good quiver can hold maybe thirty arrows or so at only about the same weight as perhaps three javelins, not to mention the above issues.

Although I happen to be fond of atl-atls...they're just so much fun to use. Managed to attain a rather embarrassing nickname for myself by sticking a javelin dead-center in the hindquarters of a paper-target bear while half-blind due to having dropped my glasses in a lake earlier that day. Took me halfway down the range to figure out what everyone was laughing about...

[Kiero]

Here's a question for everyone. What if anything is known about the damage dealing potential, both vs flech and vs armour of Javelins? And what was their realistic maximum range?

My physics knowledge suggests javelins should be pretty nasty as their high mass lends itself to high momentum at low KE values, however they lack the over time storage capabilities of most other common ranged weapons and outside of the Roman Pilum i can't even think of an example of their use in warfare, even though i'm sure they where used elsewhere. The lack of serious well known use however does seem to argue against them being super effective.

In the Hellenistic era, which immediately preceded/overlapped the Roman era, everyone used javelins. It was possibly the Celts who popularised them as something heavy infantry, not just skirmisher chaff could use. As with almost all of the rest of their equipment (they got their mail, and likely the shape of their shields from the Celts too), the Romans weren't the originators, just successful adopters.

Effective range, with a run-up, was probably around 40-55 metres. Bear in mind modern sport javelins, designed for flight and lighter than war javelins, can be thrown up to 90 metres.

The pilum is a bad example to use if you're looking at war javelins, it was overly heavy and, the later Republican ones onwards were designed to ruin shields, primarily. Important because for most of antiquity the shield was not only the most important defensive property a warrior had, but might often be the only one.

[Yora]

I believe the typical effective range for a Roman pilum was about 20 feet - they were thrown just before engaging an enemy to break up their ranks and disrupt their cohesion.
You just want enough time to draw your sword and get your shield wall up before you come into contact with the enemy, but not give the enemy enough time to pull a pilum out of a shield. It probably could be done in under 10 seconds and then you would have a shield with just a small hole that otherwise works perfectly fine. So the Romans would have to make sure their enemies have a lot less time than that before contact.

[Kiero]

That said, the fact that javelins were historically used either by quite primitive cultures as a major weapon or by more advanced ones for skirmishing and harassment (rather than in the main battl e line) strongly suggests that both the javelin and the atl-atl (a sort of stick worn on the forearm to throw a javelin with much greater range, power, and accuracy than by hand) were signficantly inferior to the bow or crossbow as a combat weapon.

Uh, not really, again main infantry in the Hellenistic era (when they weren't pikemen) often carried a couple of javelins to round out their panoply. Javelineers weren't only the preserve "primitives" or the poor. Also worth noting Philip's original army were dual-trained as both pikemen and javelineers (the latter for patrol, garrison and assault duties), which doesn't suggest an inferior weapon.

The javelin has several advantages over the bow for someone who isn't primarily a skirmisher/missile combatant. You can use it with one hand, meaning you can keep your shield in your off hand. Furthermore, if the shield straps to your arm, you can carry a couple of javelins in that hand.

If the opponents you are facing off against are well-armoured and shielded, arrows are a lot less useful, especially when fired from a self bow. That was often the case in antiquity, where composite bows came from further east, and the longbow didn't exist. They had the crossbow (the gastraphetes) but it was deemed only useful in sieges. A heavier projectile is more likely to do harm to someone well-armoured. Not only that, heavier javelins like the Greek longche and the pilum can double as (light, comparatively short) spears.

It's also not an either/or question necessarily. The traditional loadout of a Scythian horsearcher was their bow, a couple of javelins and an akinakes (shortsword) or two. Nobles might add a lance to that. When mounted, carrying capacity is less of an issue than when on foot, after all.


Honestly, the biggest problem I see with javelins is...well...good luck trying to carry more than half a dozen or so without it getting clumsy. A good quiver can hold maybe thirty arrows or so at only about the same weight as perhaps three javelins, not to mention the above issues.

The good thing about javelins, unlike arrows, is that they tend to survive being used. Thus you just have to go and pick them up. Besides which, when everyone is throwing them around, you can count on being able to pick up replacements as you go. On the downside (and the reason for the later pilum's soft head) your opponent can throw them back.

[Brother Oni]

You just want enough time to draw your sword and get your shield wall up before you come into contact with the enemy, but not give the enemy enough time to pull a pilum out of a shield. It probably could be done in under 10 seconds and then you would have a shield with just a small hole that otherwise works perfectly fine. So the Romans would have to make sure their enemies have a lot less time than that before contact.

I think you're overestimating how far 20 feet (~6m) is - a gentle walking pace of 2.5miles an hour covers ~4ft/second. If one side is charging, then you're looking at 1-2 seconds before they crash into each other.

I'd also not want to have my sword in its sheath if things were that close - I'd likely carry it in my shield hand much like the vikings hid their short axes.

[Kiero]

I think you're overestimating how far 20 feet (~6m) is - a gentle walking pace of 2.5miles an hour covers ~4ft/second. If one side is charging, then you're looking at 1-2 seconds before they crash into each other.

You also want space for a run-up before you throw, which reduces the effective distance still further.

[Spiryt]

I think it's worth noting that the whole 'anti-shield' thing about pilum was and is always heavily contested.

In any case 2 pounds+ javelin with such nasty penetrator as ~2 feet long iron spike is always going to kill people easily.


and the longbow didn't exist.

I don't think we can say this with any certainty.

If anything, personally I would be very surprised if average selfbow was much shorter if at all, than in any other place or time, from Otzi to Mary Rose.

But there are no finds etc. to tell much, save from very the very end of period, and away the Mediterranean (like in Nydam).

[Galloglaich]

I agree with Spiryt, I think the pilum was meant to kill, the shield-disabling trait was secondary if it was even real. I think it's basically an armor-piercing weapon.

I also think the javelin, in various forms, was around from antiquity through the early modern era. The pilum for example continued in use after the Roman Empire fell, as the angon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angon), one of the key weapons of the Franks. You still see them in art in the 16th Century. As a weapon, it had a particular niche though it doesn't get a lot of press compared to weapons like the longbow.

Basically pop-culture history summaries tend to emphasize this or that weapon in a particular period, but the reality is that there were a vast variety of weapons in continuous use.

Medieval mercenary companies such as the Catalan Grand Company were built around the weapon. Darts (like the plumbata or the Swiss Arrow) were also around through the medieval period.


G

[Knaight]

I agree with Spiryt, I think the pilum was meant to kill, the shield-disabling trait was secondary if it was even real. I think it's basically an armor-piercing weapon.

It was also a shield piercing weapon, as are many javelins. One of the big advantages of javelins over arrows (and earlier crossbows) is that they tended to get much further through a shield that blocked them, and could potentially kill or seriously injure the person on the other side. Arrows were much less likely to do this, and the crossbows that could tended to be much more prevalent in later eras, and on the slower to fire end besides.

[Galloglaich]

It was also a shield piercing weapon, as are many javelins. One of the big advantages of javelins over arrows (and earlier crossbows) is that they tended to get much further through a shield that blocked them, and could potentially kill or seriously injure the person on the other side. Arrows were much less likely to do this, and the crossbows that could tended to be much more prevalent in later eras, and on the slower to fire end besides.

Yeah I agree, especially some of the solid iron ones which we don't fully understand the use of, I suspect they were very good armor and shield-piercing weapons, for short range.

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

G

[Brother Oni]

Extrapolating from that to determine the properties of a killing javelin is not a particularly effective idea.

While true, I never said anything about a javelin's armour penetration capabilities, just the pilum's (I'm not familiar with war javelins, I just know a bit about the pilum). If both you and Kiero believe that a pilum's a poor example of a war javelin, I'll take both of your words for it.


You also want space for a run-up before you throw, which reduces the effective distance still further.

I reckon most fit adults can effectively throw a pilum from a standing position with enough force to kill a person (~2 inches penetration of ballistic gel), at least with a bit of training. However given what I know of physics, wouldn't a standing throw coupled with the opposite force of the incoming charging infantry, give a pilum more penetration than just the thrower could generate?

I know ideally you want a run up for greater range and force, but sometimes you have neither the time or space available for that and throwing something sharp and pointy at the enemy is better than nothing.

[No brains]

I'm not sure if it's germaine to the point, but one itty bitty thing I heard about javelins that is sort of in common with pilum is that they were made so that the head would come undone upon hitting a target. That way on a hit, the target would have a spear head buried in them and only a stick to throw back.

[Mr. Mask]

Anyone have thoughts on the BigDog the military is working on? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

Someone I know said it would cost a million dollars, and be less effective than a treaded robot. And that for the cost of it, you could just feed a thousand real mules which could climb better.

Know if BigDog is a good idea or not? Everywhere I look, people say legs suck and treads are the way to go.

[Kiero]

While true, I never said anything about a javelin's armour penetration capabilities, just the pilum's (I'm not familiar with war javelins, I just know a bit about the pilum). If both you and Kiero believe that a pilum's a poor example of a war javelin, I'll take both of your words for it.

It's a poor representation because it's both heavier than most war javelins, and has a very specific design feature that makes them costlier and harder to manufacture. As well as less useful after a throw (which is the whole point).

The Greek akontio is a very light javelin compared to the pilum, it's the sort of thing a skirmisher might carry a half-dozen of, and little else. The longche is a heavier javelin (though still lighter than the pilum) of the sort a heavy infantryman might throw a pair of before charging home, or even keep one back to use as a spear.

Galloglaich mentioned the Iberian soliferum, which was all-metal and even heavier still than the pilum.


I reckon most fit adults can effectively throw a pilum from a standing position with enough force to kill a person (~2 inches penetration of ballistic gel), at least with a bit of training. However given what I know of physics, wouldn't a standing throw coupled with the opposite force of the incoming charging infantry, give a pilum more penetration than just the thrower could generate?

I know ideally you want a run up for greater range and force, but sometimes you have neither the time or space available for that and throwing something sharp and pointy at the enemy is better than nothing.

Perhaps, but a man can only charge so far effectively in armour (Battle of Marathon notwithstanding), and if they're disciplined enough to want to stay in formation, they won't be running at you until they're already too close to loose at. Thus you're going to be throwing them further, and want the run-up. Furthermore, the ideal was to loose then counter-charge, so taking a run-up isn't a negative as it begins your run.


I'm not sure if it's germaine to the point, but one itty bitty thing I heard about javelins that is sort of in common with pilum is that they were made so that the head would come undone upon hitting a target. That way on a hit, the target would have a spear head buried in them and only a stick to throw back.

No, that's just Roman pilii that are designed that way. It's the sort of thing a wealthy, technologically-sophisticated state which is mass-producing weapons can afford. Most warriors, however, prize the ability to re-use their javelins without having to get them re-forged after they hit something.

[Lilapop]

No, that's just Roman pilii that are designed that way. It's the sort of thing a wealthy, technologically-sophisticated state which is mass-producing weapons can afford. Most warriors, however, prize the ability to re-use their javelins without having to get them re-forged after they hit something.
"Undone" is a pretty general term and doesn't have to mean actual destruction. I've heard it mentioned here and there (and famously featured in the Ragnar Lodbrok saga) that you can just remove the rivet/pin securing your spearhead to the wooden shaft before throwing or thrusting the weapon. Thats probably what No Brains was referring to.

[Brother Oni]

Anyone have thoughts on the BigDog the military is working on? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

Someone I know said it would cost a million dollars, and be less effective than a treaded robot. And that for the cost of it, you could just feed a thousand real mules which could climb better.

Know if BigDog is a good idea or not? Everywhere I look, people say legs suck and treads are the way to go.

I know they've taken it on proper field tests and it's not as bad as it initially sounds: apologies for the Daily Mail link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2692328/Here-Cujo-Marines-let-Google-owned-Big-Dog-robot-live-military-trial.html).

Being able to hump 400lbs worth of gear would endear it to any infantryman, plus you don't have to worry about animal rights people getting on your case, unlike a real mule.

I'm personally undecided until I hear more information about its capabilities - bear in mind that it's still in a fairly early stage of development. If we were comparing it other military technologies like tanks or aircraft, we would still be at the Little Willie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Willie) or the Wright Flyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer) stage.

[comicshorse]

Are wooden bullets possible or would they simply disintegrate ? Is there any way to any them work even if this would make them much less use than ordinary rounds ?

[warty goblin]

Are wooden bullets possible or would they simply disintegrate ? Is there any way to any them work even if this would make them much less use than ordinary rounds ?

I believe the British used wooden cored bullets pretty extensively for Lee-Enfield rifle after the Hague conventions outlawed expanding ammunition. I don't think a pure wood round would work very well though, since I doubt they'd survive being fired.

[Storm Bringer]

Are wooden bullets possible or would they simply disintegrate ? Is there any way to any them work even if this would make them much less use than ordinary rounds ?



Apparently, they work, to some extent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_bullet)

[comicshorse]

Apparently, they work, to some extent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_bullet)

That really doesn't seem right. I've NEVER heard of british troops using wooden bullets, I wonder if they mean rubber bullets which were used

Edit :

Apologies it seems I'm utterly wrong

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2009006,00.html

[Carl]

Being able to hump 400lbs worth of gear would endear it to any infantryman, plus you don't have to worry about animal rights people getting on your case, unlike a real mule.

I'm personally undecided until I hear more information about its capabilities - bear in mind that it's still in a fairly early stage of development. If we were comparing it other military technologies like tanks or aircraft, we would still be at the Little Willie or the Wright Flyer stage.

The problem is that unless it's shown an ability to successfully and reliably navigate terrain that tracks can't handle tacking the legs off and replacing them with a pair of tracks would always be far and away better in every possible way than this. Legs are useful at very large scale, (or rather very high vehicle weight to vehicle footprint ratios), for the ground pressure, and at all scales for the terrain pass-ability improvements over tracks. But in all other respects they are flat out inferior. And so far nothing I've yet heard indicates that these various walking mule robots various people are working on offer anything like those kind of benefits.

[No brains]

"Undone" is a pretty general term and doesn't have to mean actual destruction. I've heard it mentioned here and there (and famously featured in the Ragnar Lodbrok saga) that you can just remove the rivet/pin securing your spearhead to the wooden shaft before throwing or thrusting the weapon. Thats probably what No Brains was referring to.

That is what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear. It wasn't so much that the weapon would be broken, just disassembled enough that the enemy wouldn't have the time to put it back together during a fight. It could probably be put back together easily enough in the cleanup after the fight.

[Kiero]

That is what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear. It wasn't so much that the weapon would be broken, just disassembled enough that the enemy wouldn't have the time to put it back together during a fight. It could probably be put back together easily enough in the cleanup after the fight.

If the javelin isn't rigid and stable, it'll fail in its primary purpose of flying true when cast. I can't see any "solution" that would render it less useful after a throw that wouldn't make it worse to throw in the first place.

[Carl]

Depends n the construction i should think, i can certainly think of a few idea's that would work, but i have no idea how they'd compare to real designs.

[Brother Oni]

If the javelin isn't rigid and stable, it'll fail in its primary purpose of flying true when cast. I can't see any "solution" that would render it less useful after a throw that wouldn't make it worse to throw in the first place.

You could take a leaf out of the Aztec's book and use obsidian for the javelin tip, or some similar material/design which fragmented on impact (like hollowpoint rounds).

How about barbs on the head, much like broadhead arrowheads? Would they be overly detrimental to the penetration, or would the increased lethality/difficulty from removing them after a good hit more than compensate for it?

[Zizka]

I've been reading an academic journal article on clerical violence and thought some of you might appreciate some of the anecdotes. There's a wealth of information which provides further detail and context in the journal but I won't reproduce it all because JSTOR don't tend to like that!

The full article is:
"Plowshares and Swords: Clerical Involvement in Acts of Violence and Peacemaking in Late Medieval England, c. 1400-1536" by Daniel E. Thiery in 'Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies', Vol. 36, No. 2 (Summer, 2004).

"In the Yorkshire diocese, Richard Kirkeby and William Wyvell, respectively a deacon and a chaplain of York Minster, were charged with walking around the streets of York at night with poleaxes and helmets."
"[I]n 1484, John Bull and Thomas Cartwright were charged with secretly wearing daggers under their cloaks."
"In the Bishop of Lincoln's visitation of 1518, the vicar of Hartford was presented for marching around town with a sword and shield and even going into church armed."
"In 1512, Robert Bylterring, the chaplain of Bawdeswell, Norfolk, successfully intervened in a confrontation along a road in his parish."
"While the bishop of Norwich flouted all canonical codes of conduct by leading an army into Flanders in 1383, the bishop of Lincoln, John Buckingham, called the clerics of his diocese to arms in 1369, 1377, and 1386. In this period, parades of militarized clergy were held in Lincoln, Bedford, and Rutland."
"On Ascension Day in 1512, John Baker, the rector of Bowers Gifford, Essex, chased away a menacing William Hare by putting his hand on his sword (gestrum) and unsheathing it almost to its point."
"When...Geoffrey Elys found himself unarmed before the impending attack of John Stanshaw and his servants, he grabbed a crucifix-topped staff and shook it furiously at his foes."
"In 1515, the bishop of Hereford absolved John More, a priest of the parish of Whitborn, from the charge of murder after More had defended himself with a bill against the relentless onslaught of an unnamed layman. More was allowed to return to his privileges after he had endured a brief suspension of his duties."
"...by the mid fourteenth century, the bishop of Lincoln had created a standard set of requirements for his clergy. All healthy clerics between the ages of sixteen and sixty were to come armed to Lincoln or other county centers to train and parade. The weapons and armament were to be as follows:

Any clerk having a benefice worth between £40 and 100 marks [£66 13s. 4d.] a year was to be armed...with plates to protect both breast and back, a helmet with visor, protective armor for the stomach, arms, thighs, knees and lower legs, and with gloves of mail; but as a substitute for this expensive plate-armor he could wear a leather tunic and an over-shirt of chain mail. He was also to provide a lance, shield, sword, knife and three horses. A clerk with an annual income of 100 marks but less than £100 was to be accompanied by an armed man whose equipment was little different from his master's....Clerks whose income was between £20 and £40 were to be armed like their richer colleagues, or to send a similarly equipped man in their place, but they were not expected to provide a horse. Benefices worth less than £20 a year would provide the equipment for an archer only, so the poorer clergy were ordered to prepare themselves for archery service, or to find a deputy. All chaplains skilled in the art of archery were to be ready to give the same service....
"The vicar of Thatcham firmly believed that armed servants were a permissible and effective manifestation of his power among parishioners. In a fierce conflict between the vicar and John Stanshaw, both parties employed their armed servants for intimidation and physical violence. One deponent alleged that the vicar had sent his servants to attack Stanshaw in the church while the vicar himself charged that Stanshaw, already angered by a public citation recently made against him, had come with his servants to the church at evensong and wildly charged into the chancel. Another deponent asserted that when the constable had tried to pacifv the situation. Stanshaw told him to tell the vicar that his servants would do well not to go about the parish armed, trying to pick a fight. When the constable delivered this threat, the vicar replied that his servants would wear their swords and bucklers like anyone else, but if Stanshaw and "his companie" were in one alehouse then he and his servants would be in another."
"Yojimbo" anyone?

"In Yorkshire, 1524, Sir Robert Constable and a gang of armed men came into the homestead of Ralph Rokeby in order to kidnap Anne, Ralph's wife. As they spread through the house with their weapons drawn, they came upon Thomas Morley, "prest and chapelyn" to Rokeby and caretaker of the manor. Armed and willing to intervene, Morley slammed a door shut on Anne's would-be abductors and then, according to Rokeby, he defended himself against the attackers with "his swerd." As his servants struck at the priest, Constable yelled, "Prest thou art a foole to resist me, for I assure the I have an hundreth persones abowt this house, and therfore it is best to yeld the, and make no more besynes." With the help of his servants, Constable smashed open the door, beat up the chaplain and made off with Anne. In his defense, Constable charged that he was well aware that Morley was a priest but he was also aware that Morley had drawn his weapon. Therefore, he "commanded [his servant] to suffer Morley only to enter, and not to strike him, because he was a priest." When Morley lunged at his servant, Constable commanded him to fight back with "flatlings," blows with the flat side of the sword, "by reason whereof Morley had little or no harm."

[Yora]

"On Ascension Day in 1512, John Baker, the rector of Bowers Gifford, Essex, chased away a menacing William Hare by putting his hand on his sword (gestrum) and unsheathing it almost to its point."
Interesting that relevance seems to be given to the fact that he "almost" drew his sword. This seems to be an indication that drawing a sword was a major statement of intent.

[Milodiah]

As silly as it may sound, it would be roughly the equivalent of a modern-day gangster pulling up the shirt to show the pistol tucked in the waistband. "Stop what you're doing, leave me alone, or this will happen."


If the javelin isn't rigid and stable, it'll fail in its primary purpose of flying true when cast. I can't see any "solution" that would render it less useful after a throw that wouldn't make it worse to throw in the first place.

Also, the way it was done was with two connection pins between the head of the pilum and its shaft. The second was made of soft wood, which would crack and break on a hard impact (the ground, a shield, a dude, etc.). If someone tried to throw it back after that, the head would be too wobbly to maintain a good ballistic arc, and probably wouldn't do too well in hand-to-hand either.

[Galloglaich]

Nice anecdotes Ziska, some amusing stuff there. I think if you look into the careers of clergy in Central Europe in the same period you'll find the higher clergy were a lot more violent than in England. Most of the prince-bishops were actually warlords pretty openly with little pretense at non-violence. To cite just one example among many, Adolph II of Nassau

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

As for England, Oxford had one of the highest murder rates in the Kingdom and it was due to the university - the religious university that is, and the constant violent squabbling of the students.

http://www.medievalists.net/2013/05/09/student-violence-at-the-university-of-oxford/


Interesting that relevance seems to be given to the fact that he "almost" drew his sword. This seems to be an indication that drawing a sword was a major statement of intent.

Drawing a sword was considered an illegal provocation. In her "Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany" Professor Tlusty notes that in Augsburg drawing a sword was one of several provocations which led to a standard fine of three gulden. We found a regulation in Krakow dating back to 1387 with a similar prohibition and a 1 mark fine. There are references to the same things in dozens of towns in Continental Europe in the late medieval to Early Modern period.

The other typical provocations included:

throwing back your coat to reveal your sword (Clint Eastwood style)
putting your sword on the table
scraping a bare blade on cobblestones or walls to make sparks
putting your hand on your hilt



Placing 3 guilders on the table was also considered a threat.

G

[Spiryt]

Wooden staff used in monasteries to play some kind of balls game was apparently frequently listed in Polish legal acts since 15th century. Obviously due to it's secondary use to hit the heads of some unfortunate travelers.

Clergy of all kinds enjoyed their violence as much as any other guys. :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

Let us not also forget the "fighting bishop" of Strasbourg, Walter von Geroldseck

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41gvkSBerdL.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Ignite-Walter-Geroldseck-Bishop-Strasbourg/dp/B002KYLSGE

G

[Milodiah]

Placing 3 guilders on the table was also considered a threat.

G

...guilders are coins, right? You'll have to explain this, I'm curious now.

[Galloglaich]

...guilders are coins, right? You'll have to explain this, I'm curious now.

yeah, it meant you were willing to pay the fine...

G

[Zizka]

Edit: superflous question.

Another amusing anecdote on public violence:

During this carnival the Venetian government again used entertainments as diplomatic tools. The "Archdukes of Austria and other German princes" were visiting. The Ten allowed "una guerra de bastoni," (a fight on a bridge with wooden clubs) which the visitors had asked to see...
From "The Short, Lascivious Lives of Two Venetian Theaters, 1580-85" by Eugene J. Johnson in 'Renaissance Quarterly', Vol. 55, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002)

[Zizka]

Another anecdote, this time about the influence of the supernatural in combat.

This particular section was supposedly written by the son of the King of Morocco's Jewish ambassador, published in Rotterdam in 1614 and later re-published in an English news-sheet. It describes part of a war between the King of Morocco and a religious fanatic who raised an army in rebellion against him, accusing him of not being Muslim enough:

In this account Abu Mahallı was a ‘‘sorcerer [Toovenaer] and deceiver named Bumchii,’’ a false holy man who learned from a Saharan necromancer how to use a set of tiny drums to call up a demon and make a pact with him in exchange for military success; the prophetically recovered drum has now become a Satanic percussion instrument. After honing his new sorcery skills, Bumchii began preaching to the gullible Moors, cementing his authority by ‘‘many false signs and miracles.’’ Muley Zaydan [the King of Morocco] is the story’s hero, whose flight to Sus was not cowardice but prudence, and after rebuilding his forces, ‘‘as a good and valiant soldier,’’ he again confronted the sorcerer, finally winning the day after a vicious battle during which the sorcerer king was slain, and on whose corpse were allegedly found letters of sorcery and pacts with the devil.

Interestingly, much as with some modern African armies, the fanatic promised his soldiers that his supernatural powers would protect them from modern weapons:

...once the prophet Abu Mahallı had gathered his forces on the outskirts of Marrakesh, he emboldened his troops with assurances that they would be fighting Christians, whose artillery and musket balls would not hurt them.

Incidentally, they did win that particular battle. However, the European mercenaries had the last laugh:

...during the next battle outside Marrakesh on 30 November 1613, the saint-king was killed by a musket ball. Zaydan’s Portuguese troops rushed Abu Mahallı’s camp and his troops fled.

Source: "Reimagining Religious Identity: The Moor in Dutch and English Pamphlets, 1550–1620" by Gary K. Waite in 'Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Winter 2013)'.

Does anyone have any more information about European (non-renegade) troops fighting in North Africa around that time as mercenaries? It sounds fascinating.

[Yora]

Placing 3 guilders on the table was also considered a threat.
But a really clever one. :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

But a really clever one. :smallbiggrin:

personally, I like the striking of the stones to make sparks a bit more, it's visually evocative.

By the way, if you are interested in this era, I can't recommend this book highly enough

http://www.amazon.com/Bacchus-Civic-Order-Culture-Germany/dp/0813920450/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418073775&sr=8-1&keywords=tlusty+bacchus

this is professor Tlusty's first book, it doesn't get into as much detail as her "Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany", but it's based on the same data that she translated, mostly records from Augsburg in the 16th Century and more importantly, whereas Martial Ethic is $100, this one is only $1. Plus it's got a special focus on that ever typical RPG standard trope of the tavern, everything you need to know about them and quite a bit that would surprise you.

G

[SiuiS]

yeah, it meant you were willing to pay the fine...

G

Oh! Haha. I've done modern versions of that. :smallbiggrin:

[oudeis]

Now I'm intrigued...

[Galloglaich]

Another anecdote, this time about the influence of the supernatural in combat.



Adding a bit more to this magic and combat theme, several of the German and Italian fencing manuals recommend searching a potential opponent in a duel for hidden amulets or talismans before fencing. This was also mentioned in surviving judicial combat laws. It was common practice I know particularly in Italy all the way into the 17th Century in some cases.

The famous North Sea pirate Stortebecker, along with one of his fellow leaders, had adorned himself with special holy relics (I forget from which saint) that they had captured in Spain, the two of them believed it warded them against weapons in general and bullets specifically rather like the Native American "ghost dance" of the 19th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_St%C3%B6rtebeker

In the end Stortebecker never was shot or stabbed, he was captured in a grapple (after defeating his opponent, who was either Simon von Utrecht or a Hamburg city councilor depending on which version of the story you believe) and pinioned by several of his enemies. Later on he was beheaded but by then they had removed the talisman...

I also posted back upthread (can't remember if it was this or a previous incarnation of the thread) the well documented Mongol use of so-called "Rain stones" as a tool in major battles which is fascinating. They seem to have conducted a lot of dirty tricks under the rubric of 'black magic' if the likes of Jan Dlugosz can be believed, most of which sound like various pyrotechnic chemicals and chemical and biological poisons.

G

[fusilier]

Edit: superflous question.

Another amusing anecdote on public violence:

From "The Short, Lascivious Lives of Two Venetian Theaters, 1580-85" by Eugene J. Johnson in 'Renaissance Quarterly', Vol. 55, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002)

Those were pretty common in Italian cities at the time, usually different sections of the city would fight against each other in these large mock battles.

[Brother Oni]

Those were pretty common in Italian cities at the time, usually different sections of the city would fight against each other in these large mock battles.

Huh, interesting that the 'Bloc-wars' of the Judge Dredd universe (incidents where two rival habitation blocks of up to 50,000 people end up fighting each other over resources, ideology or they just don't like each other) have a foundation in real life.

-----

Adding more to the supernatural theme, I've mentioned before that the Yellow Turban rebellion in 3rd entury China was recorded to have shamanic magic practioners among the rebels. The various strategists of that era, Zhuge Liang particularly, were known to make use of astrology and various spells and ritual magic (most famously at the Battle of Chi Bi, where a strong wind began to blow, spreading a fire attack to decimate Cao Cao's navy).

This leads to instances where the various strategists ended up playing mind games against each other. The most famous one I know of from Romance of the Three Kingdoms, was Zhuge Liang of Shu versus Sima Yi of Wei - Sima Yi had predicted that a certain star was tied in with Zhuge Liang's life; when it stopped shining, Zhuge Liang was dead.
Zhuge Liang knew this and arranged that upon his death, his body would be preserved, placed into a carriage with banners proclaiming "Zhuge Liang is here!".
When the star died, Sima Yi launched a massive invasion of Shu but at the Battle of Wuzhang Plains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wuzhang_Plains), a Shu army appeared with Zhuge Liang's carriage at it head, which caused Sima Yi to panic and he retreated with his army (Zhuge Liang had spent most of his career being a very sneaky bastard cunning strategist and Sima Yi thought he had fallen into another trap).


In more modern times, the late 19th/early 20th century Boxer Rebellion had the various members believing that channeling various Taoist/Buddist spirits and deities (spirit possession is probably the closest western term) made them invulnerable to cannon, musket and blades, resulting in a self perpetuating myth - those that died to such injuries obviously weren't true believers.

[No brains]

Ho boy, this talk of superstitious tactics reminds me of the Battle of Pelusium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pelusium_(525_BC)), where cats were supposedly used as shields against the Egyptians who regarded them as gods. It didn't take the full 2500 years for that tragedy to become comedy!
Poor kitties.

[Milodiah]

On the topic of weird supernatural/religious stuff in warfare...

Square bullets for the heathens. (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3445104)

[Yora]

In the end Stortebecker never was shot or stabbed, he was captured in a grapple (after defeating his opponent, who was either Simon von Utrecht or a Hamburg city councilor depending on which version of the story you believe) and pinioned by several of his enemies. Later on he was beheaded but by then they had removed the talisman...
Yes, but even then he still kept running around, refusing to die. :smallamused:

The man is kind of a folk hero around here.

[Gnoman]

On the topic of weird supernatural/religious stuff in warfare...

Square bullets for the heathens. (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3445104)

There's little evidence that square bullets were ever actually used in combat (the weapon discussed in that link was almost certainly a target gun), to the best of my knowledge. Every source on them I've ever seen dates back only to the 1890s or so, long after any period where such a thing would make sense, particularly compared to the reversed round, which wouldn't require a specially made gun to fire.

[Milodiah]

There's little evidence that square bullets were ever actually used in combat (the weapon discussed in that link was almost certainly a target gun), to the best of my knowledge. Every source on them I've ever seen dates back only to the 1890s or so, long after any period where such a thing would make sense, particularly compared to the reversed round, which wouldn't require a specially made gun to fire.

I know, but there was quite a bit of indication that they were advocated, as well as created, which is still hilarious to me.

[fusilier]

There's little evidence that square bullets were ever actually used in combat (the weapon discussed in that link was almost certainly a target gun), to the best of my knowledge. Every source on them I've ever seen dates back only to the 1890s or so, long after any period where such a thing would make sense, particularly compared to the reversed round, which wouldn't require a specially made gun to fire.

I would just note, that in the 19th century hexagonal bores were used on some guns like the Whitworth rifle, which usually used a hexagonal bullet (although they could also use round ammo). Not really a comparison, but perhaps, as they were vogue in the 19th century, polygonal ammo was in the consciousness of historians.

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

[Mr Beer]

The other typical provocations included:

throwing back your coat to reveal your sword (Clint Eastwood style)
putting your sword on the table
scraping a bare blade on cobblestones or walls to make sparks
putting your hand on your hilt


Placing 3 guilders on the table was also considered a threat.
G

I like the " I'm Paying the fine now to save time, just sayin' " threat.

This topic reminds me of Romeo and Juliet. IIRC when young bravos from the rival familiies are taunting each other while still trying to remain within the law, one of them "bit his thumb" at the others. When challenged "do you bite your thumb at me sir?" he had to check sotto-voce with his companions where he stood legally if he confirmed that he had "bit his thumb" at the rivals and after equivocating, reluctantly stated that he had not "bit his thumb" at them.

I assume it was a visual gesture equivalent to calling someone a ********** (EDIT, this got asterisked, I used a modern term for an oral sex enthusiast), don't know if it was an authentic contemporary Italian insult though or a Shakespearian anachronism.

[Hytheter]

So I was on Wikipedia (yeah, yeah...) and according to it, a true Zweihander can be as long as 180cm, which is about as long as what it claims for the Halberd.

So then do the latter really have a reach advantage over the former? DnD for example has the Halberd being able to hit a Greatsword without fear of immediate retaliation, but that's not what these lengths would suggest. Does that sound accurate to you?

[fusilier]

I like the " I'm Paying the fine now to save time, just sayin' " threat.

This topic reminds me of Romeo and Juliet. IIRC when young bravos from the rival familiies are taunting each other while still trying to remain within the law, one of them "bit his thumb" at the others. When challenged "do you bite your thumb at me sir?" he had to check sotto-voce with his companions where he stood legally if he confirmed that he had "bit his thumb" at the rivals and after equivocating, reluctantly stated that he had not "bit his thumb" at them.

I assume it was a visual gesture equivalent to calling someone a ********** (EDIT, this got asterisked, I used a modern term for an oral sex enthusiast), don't know if it was an authentic contemporary Italian insult though or a Shakespearian anachronism.

As far as I know it's still an insult in Italy, but not that strong of one. It's more akin to sticking your thumb to your nose, wiggling the fingers, and sticking your tongue out, than it is to giving the middle finger.

[Gnoman]

So I was on Wikipedia (yeah, yeah...) and according to it, a true Zweihander can be as long as 180cm, which is about as long as what it claims for the Halberd.

So then do the latter really have a reach advantage over the former? DnD for example has the Halberd being able to hit a Greatsword without fear of immediate retaliation, but that's not what these lengths would suggest. Does that sound accurate to you?

The balance and shape of the weapons means that a two-handed sword is much more effective closer in (because most of the energy is in the middle of the blade, and you can use as much of the cutting surface as your target can hold.) A halberd is much more end-balanced, and is thus much more effective at full extension.

[Brother Oni]

The balance and shape of the weapons means that a two-handed sword is much more effective closer in (because most of the energy is in the middle of the blade, and you can use as much of the cutting surface as your target can hold.) A halberd is much more end-balanced, and is thus much more effective at full extension.

Bear in mind that with short swording/hafting techniques, both can be made much more effective at close range.

That said, at full extension, I would give the defensive advantage to the zweihander as it's intended to be held at one end, compared to a halberd which is intended to be held in the middle or lower third.

[GraaEminense]

Halberds can be longer than 180 cm (just look at the pictures in the Wikipedia article), and I´m guessing the rules attempt to portray those halberds.

[Zizka]

I've just finished reading "The Swabian League and Peasant Disobedience before the German Peasants' War of 1525" by Thomas F. Sea in 'The Sixteenth Century Journal', Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring, 1999) which has some interesting detail on peasant-lord relationships.

To summarise: when peasants were upset by taxes or military levies that they considered unfair, they would band together and swear communal oaths, refusing to pay them. Rather than crush them, the authorities would usually negotiate. In most of the cases discussed the peasants ritually surrendered, whilst gaining most of the demands they had made. This compromise satisfied most.

On armed peasantry:

One reason for the strong words of Hans von Frundsberg at the first meeting with the Kempten peasants [in 1492] may well have been that the peasants appeared armed and defiant, confident in the oaths they had taken to one another, and determined that they would stay together until their complaints had been heard.

An interesting detail of counter-peasant actions:

Late in 1492, troops of the Swabian League overran the Kempten peasantry without encountering resistance. Ransoms were extorted from the peasants to rescue their houses and property from destruction, and the most prominent among the peasant leaders fled to other jurisdictions.

[Brother Oni]

Halberds can be longer than 180 cm (just look at the pictures in the Wikipedia article), and I´m guessing the rules attempt to portray those halberds.

I think we're running into issues of trying to put discrete divisions on a continuous scale. The variety of halberds or polearms that look pretty much like a halberd (the Wikipedia page has a good list of them) is vast, and a large number of them are used in the same way (there's only so many ways you can fight with a sharp bit of metal on the end of a 2m pole), that differentiation is pretty much arbitrary.

Looking at the SRD20 though (link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponCategories)), halberds aren't Reach weapons, but the similarly sized glaive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaive) is (link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#glaive)), so in my opinion, the weapons are whatever the designer (or the DM) wants to make them to be.



To summarise: when peasants were upset by taxes or military levies that they considered unfair, they would band together and swear communal oaths, refusing to pay them. Rather than crush them, the authorities would usually negotiate. In most of the cases discussed the peasants ritually surrendered, whilst gaining most of the demands they had made. This compromise satisfied most.


This sounds very much like the original Itto Ikki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikk%C5%8D-ikki) in Japan.

However later, during the Edo, peasant uprisings were feared and typically after the rebellion was crushed, there was brutal retaliation by the government. Most of the other peasant uprisings I know of (eg the Peasant's Revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt), the Yellow Turban Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Turban_Rebellion)) ended in pretty much the same way.

[Mr. Mask]

Anyone know a good source for old tales of violence, adventure, intrigue and the like from Japan? Historical cases and popular stories from the past are both fine. I'm doing research for a game which will have a lot of different kinds of adventures, so I want to brush up on the subject and look for ideas and inspiration. There are a few books I have in mind, but I'll have to find where I've left them.

On that note, thanks for the images you linked to, Oni. They're good inspiration.

[Spiryt]

So I was on Wikipedia (yeah, yeah...) and according to it, a true Zweihander can be as long as 180cm, which is about as long as what it claims for the Halberd.

So then do the latter really have a reach advantage over the former? DnD for example has the Halberd being able to hit a Greatsword without fear of immediate retaliation, but that's not what these lengths would suggest. Does that sound accurate to you?

Well :

- halberd is NOT a reach weapon in D&D, as mentioned above.

- halberds were usually at least bit longer than 6 feet, at least going by later (mostly Renaissance or even younger) examples of preserved hafts.

- 'true Zweihanders' weren't at the end of a day, particularly popular or widespread swords, even in their heyday.

But yes, if you have 6 feet sword and 6 feet halberd, they're going to have similar range.

Sword will actually be often somehow rangier, because with weapon balanced like sword one can try to indeed grab very near to the pommel and still swing/stab in somehow controlled manner.


At the end of the day, 'reach' in D&D editions, along with other properties, isn't really exact science.

[snowblizz]

Anyone know a good source for old tales of violence, adventure, intrigue and the like from Japan? Historical cases and popular stories from the past are both fine. I'm doing research for a game which will have a lot of different kinds of adventures, so I want to brush up on the subject and look for ideas and inspiration. There are a few books I have in mind, but I'll have to find where I've left them.

On that note, thanks for the images you linked to, Oni. They're good inspiration.

An absolute classic:
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/The-Revenge-of-the-47-Ronin-%E2%80%93-Edo-1703_9781849084277
I hear they made a movie out of it too.
Of course Kurosawa's productions have a bunch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creative_works_by_Akira_Kurosawa