Index Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVI [Archive] - Page 5

Brother Oni

2014-12-11, 05:47 PM

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
Further to snowblizz's suggestions, I'd like to recommend Kagemusha, Rashomon and Yojimbo from Kurosawa's films, specifically for the intrigue. Ran is good for massive battle scenes and you could use The Hidden Fortress, if only to make your players wonder "hang on, isn't this Star Wars?". :smalltongue:
The Seven Samurai is also great for a one shot adventure, if only to see if the players can do any better defending the village.

The 47 Ronin has had a number of chambara dramas made from it, some of which are even subtitled. The US film is all right if you know what you're expecting (Japanese themed fantasy movie loosely based on the 47 Ronin), but if you were expecting something more traditional, it's pretty dire.
Chambara dramas in general are good if you're looking for samurai dramas, although if your Japanese isn't up to scratch, finding subtitled versions may be difficult.

The Tales of Genji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Genji) is about courtly intrigue, but I found it fairly hard going.

There's a number of decent anime and manga that fits the bill:
(The) Hakkenden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hakkenden): Classic tale of eight samurai, linked by special beads representing the Confucian eight cardinal virtues. The anime gets a bit weird in the middle as it tries out different animation styles, but well worth a watch. Based off a novel, Nanso Satomi Hakkenden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nans%C5%8D_Satomi_Hakkenden), but the anime may be quicker to get through than all 106 volumes.
Lone Wolf and Cub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub): Another classic, with a large variety of adventures, from character studies, social commentary, (lots of) revenge stories to straight up blood baths. Fairly long series but each individual chapter is short.
Mononoke Hime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Mononoke): Fantasy adventure, with an excellent view of how animism integrates (or rather doesn't) with Japanese culture.
Ninja Scroll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja_Scroll): sex, violence, supernatural elements, revenge, adventure, political intrigue - this one's pretty much has it all.
Rurouni Kenshin: specifically the Trust and Betrayal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurouni_Kenshin:_Trust_%26_Betrayal) OAV with the main protagonist steeped in the shadowy world of espionage during the Bakumatsu Civil War.
Honourable mention to Blade of the Immortal, but it's a bit outside the requested parameters.

There are also a number of games which have decent stories (you can probably find Let's Plays somewhere):
Onimusha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onimusha): Horror games series based on what if the myth that Oda Nobunaga had demonic support was true (probably best to stay with the first and second games only).
Samurai Warriors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai_Warriors): Third person slash-em-up, but gives a whistle stop tour of the Sengoku era, plus has some nice ideas of how to build an adventure out of a battle.
Muramasa: The Demon Blade: 2D platform adventure game, which allows you to carve your way through pretty much every creature in Japanese mythology, so may give you ideas of how to use various critters. Plus it's really really, pretty.

Annoyingly right now I cannot remember the other two big epic adventures stories. They are always mentioned in the books about Japanese warfare of the various periods. One is from the Genpei wars and the other IIRC from the later Sengukou Jidai period. One had a exiled "prince" running around with a really tall warrior monk. And some woman. I may be mixing them together, though I think they were all in it and it was during the Gempei wars.

I think you're talking about the Tale of the Heike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_the_Heike), specifically Minamoto no Yo****sune (who wasn't a prince, but a general) and his companion/man at arms, the sohei Benkei, who were active during the Gempei wars.
I'm not sure which story of the Sengoku Jidai you're on about though (there are lots!).

Zizka

2014-12-11, 06:57 PM

I don't know of any great summaries about the Tyrol peasants or medieval Tyrol more generally in English, (I do know of a good one about the Dithmarshen but it's out of print and hard to find). but you run across the Tyrol and their boisterous peasants a lot in overviews of the period such as in Hans Delbruck for example and also in more modern general history books about Central Europe or Germany.

What's the name of the Dithmarshen book? I've got a British Library pass so I might well be able to find it. Thanks.

Hytheter

2014-12-11, 09:08 PM

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.

Oh, I was going by the 5th Edition Halberd, which is a reach weapon.

fusilier

2014-12-11, 09:41 PM

that said, pretty much all the famous bolt action rifles (Lee enfield, Mosin–Nagant 1891, Mauser K98, Lebel 1886, Springfield 03, etc) were all designed in this era, and just simply stayed in service (their are tribesmen in Afgan who are still carrying Lee Enfields, as they prefer the longer range and accuracy over the AK 47). civvies were rather unlikely to own these rifles, as they were still cutting edge, but I can't say what sort they would have used. most likely some sort of breach loader.

During the recent Libyan Civil War, some fighters were using Carcano rifles (apparently they referred to them as "grandfather's gun"), and they were often preferred to the AK-47. Some dated to at least WW1 or earlier! The rifles designed around then were usually built to last.

Civilians could have had the previous generation of rifles (like the Martini Henry), or civilian made weapons.

DragonBones --
GURPS is pretty good with all the information you need (loading times, etc.) I have the old 3rd edition High-Tech book, and I find it's still useful.

The period you describe is one of transition for the militaries, going from the older large caliber blackpowder rounds, to smaller smokeless powder rounds. It was not uncommon for strange adaptations and conversions to take place. For Great Britain:

Martini-Henry Rifle .577/450 (it's .45 caliber).

Magazine Lee-Metford (MLM), it was in the new .303 caliber, but was unusually still blackpowder and had a hexagonal bore.

Magazine Lee-Enfield (MLE), with smokeless powder

Short Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE)

Service Revolvers were usually the early Webley revolver, although converted Adams revolvers could probably still be found.

Civilian weapons are almost too numerous to mention.

Swords would not have been a common hand-to-hand weapon in Europe, although cavalry and officers were still issued sabers, and sport-fencing was common. Knives, daggers, saps, etc. And of course bayonets.

A specific date would be useful. Let me know if you want the weapons of other nations too.

Milodiah

2014-12-12, 01:10 AM

Oh, I was going by the 5th Edition Halberd, which is a reach weapon.

Aah, yes, one of the quintessential arguments of D&D...is the halberd a goddamn reach weapon or not?

Anyway, as for late Victorian era weaponry, combination guns were quite popular for hunting. Things like the German drilling gun, which was typically a break-action side-by-side double-barrel shotgun with a rifle barrel above or below the shotgun barrels. When hunting for food was a more common thing, the value of such weapons was that you could go out with one gun and just hunt. You didn't have to worry about your birdshot-loaded shotgun not taking down a deer, or your .30 rifle either not hitting or vaporizing a pheasant. You had them both in one gun.

Also, fencing was incredibly popular in Germany and Austria during this time period; almost every university student had dueling scars, and they were considered badges of honor. Some people even went so far as to irritate and inflame their wounds with horse-hair in order to leave a more visible scar when it healed.

Don't forget the old Lebel rifle. It was the most innovative infantry rifle of its time in its time, as one of the first magazine-fed rifles. It got outdated rather fast when the Mauser-style rifles feeding from stripper clips came out, being a tube-magazine rifle and all, but it was still a popular rifle. Plus the fact that it was used by the French Foreign Legion could put it practically anywhere in the world, be it from thieves, scavengers, or veterans.

DragonBones

2014-12-12, 02:31 AM

Thanks for all the information, you've given me a lot to research, but you've also helped to narrow down the area I needed to search. You've probably given me enough information for now, but I might come back for more sooner or later.

Milodiah

2014-12-12, 03:14 AM

Also, derringers were very popular in that time period, to the point where some people put as much thought into slipping one into their pocket as we do our car keys.

snowblizz

2014-12-12, 04:04 AM

I think you're talking about the Tale of the Heike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_the_Heike), specifically Minamoto no Yo****sune (who wasn't a prince, but a general) and his companion/man at arms, the sohei Benkei, who were active during the Gempei wars.
I'm not sure which story of the Sengoku Jidai you're on about though (there are lots!).
Yes that was exactly what I was thinking about. I said "prince" because he was a Minamoto and "mere general" I felt didn't cover it. Also I couldn't quite remember what he was, just that he was pretty darn important.
Did that story feature a female retainer among his companions?

I'm sure there are a bunch from the Sengakou Jidai, of course now I can't more precisely nail it down because there are too many fragments whirling around.

I was thinking about a story where birds take flight in a wood and the "hero" notices the ambush. The problem of course is now I don't recall if it was the same story, and actual account or another story inspired by actual accounts.

Eldan

2014-12-12, 04:23 AM

Ziska, you should read up on some of the areas where the peasants were unusually tough, like in the northern (lower) Saxony and Frisia, or in the Tyrol, as well as of course in Switzerland, Sweden and Bohemia. Quite often the peasants were actually bullying the nobles and even the towns and the princes rather than the other way around.

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

G

A good example that I'm trying to find an example on: the Swiss Saubannerzug (Pig Banner... movement? Cavalcade? Army? "Zug" is difficult to translate) in 1477. Peasant mercenaries weren't paid the agreed sum for fighting for the (then Burgundian, not Swiss) city of Geneva, so some 1700 of them organized themselves and moved through the country, demanding their money. On the way, they menaced and attacked pretty much everyone they came across, including the cities of Zurich and Bern. Geneva owed them 24000 Gulden, in the end, they agreed on being paid 8000 immediately to the company, 2 more paid to every man personally and as much alcohol as they could drink in one evening. And hostages from among the city's leadership for the rest of the money.

The name, of course, is mostly a contemptuous term from their enemies, since they had a wild boar on their banner (the banner, by the way, is still in a museum). I can not even attempt to translate their self-given name, "Gesellschaft des Torechten Lebens", "Society of something something living", since I really have no idea what "Torecht" means.

Okay, not just peasants, but mercenaries. But at that time, going out as a mercenary was just about the main trade of Swiss peasants.

What should also be considered: I know some cheese makers. They drag around 100kg+ cheeses all day. It tends to leave people looking like this:
http://www.sportguide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sempach-Schwingen-RTX133PH-kl.jpg

Lilapop

2014-12-12, 08:06 AM

On the topic of D&D halberds: The 3e/3.5e picture has the one-piece construction and inward-curved blade typical for halberds, but the general proportions of a pollaxe. For a piece like that, not having reach is appropriate.

Milodiah: It took me a minute to realize the "drilling gun" you referred to is a German term - was wondering why they would use a shotgun for military drills. Anyway, the word basically means triplet (as in, having two siblings).

Eldan: In modern military lingo, "Zug" is comparable to "platoon". Back then, it might have been used rather like "column". "Torecht" however is a bit more difficult. The English wikipedia article wants it to be "töricht = foolish", which can also include the agressive, loot-and-pillage attitude. The Allemanic article on the other hand attributes the connection with "töricht" to a member of the Bern council and mentions it together with the derogative sow banner name. It also doesn't really match the rather serious demeanor of baptizing something a "Society of a certain Way of Life".

My guess? "Torecht" could be cognate with "zurecht". It can mean adjusting something ("etwas zurecht schneiden" = "cutting something into [proper] shape"), usually without any over-the-top demands (so the full term would be "Society of alright Living Quality"); if you take the word apart it becomes "zu Recht", which is used in phrases like "we have the right to do/have/recieve something". Now that does live up to their actual objective: enforcing the payment of mercenary fees.

Ugh, the constant switching between mentioning/using terms and explaining them rips those sentence structures apart. Hope its comprehensible. Oh, and links: Saubannerzug in English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saubannerzug), Saubannerzug in Alemannic (http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saubannerzug), English article on the Alemannic dialect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German). Its definitely not MY dialect, but if I treat it as incorrect spelling and keep the bavarians I encountered in mind, I can comfortably read it. Damn mountain dwellers.

Brother Oni

2014-12-12, 08:06 AM

Yes that was exactly what I was thinking about. I said "prince" because he was a Minamoto and "mere general" I felt didn't cover it. Also I couldn't quite remember what he was, just that he was pretty darn important.
Did that story feature a female retainer among his companions?

I think so, but I'll have to check. I've only skimmed the Tales of Heike in passing - about all I remember was that Benkei holding a bridge and extracting tolls from anybody who tried to use it (much like some western knights used to do) until To****usne came along and shin kicked Benkei into submission.

I was thinking about a story where birds take flight in a wood and the "hero" notices the ambush. The problem of course is now I don't recall if it was the same story, and actual account or another story inspired by actual accounts.

Again, that fragment sounds familiar, but I can't place it.

A thought has crossed my mind with regard to adventure ideas - various Japanese themed RPGs (eg Legend of the Five Rings) will have plenty of pre-made adventures that would be suitable with only minor modification for their differing lore.

Its definitely not MY dialect, but if I treat it as incorrect spelling and keep the bavarians I encountered in mind, I can comfortably read it. Damn mountain dwellers.

I've been meaning to ask - I know Germany is a lot more provencial with its accents and styles of speech than the UK, but are the dialets as differentiated as say, Chinese?

Eldan

2014-12-12, 08:46 AM

Ugh, the constant switching between mentioning/using terms and explaining them rips those sentence structures apart. Hope its comprehensible. Oh, and links: Saubannerzug in English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saubannerzug), Saubannerzug in Alemannic (http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saubannerzug), English article on the Alemannic dialect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German). Its definitely not MY dialect, but if I treat it as incorrect spelling and keep the bavarians I encountered in mind, I can comfortably read it. Damn mountain dwellers.

Hah. Didn't even think of checking Alemannic Wiki, only German Wiki. Must be one of those three articles that are longer in Alemannic. (Also, I speak Alemannic as a native, but reading it still hurts my brain. THe language is not meant to be written.) Also, different articles on the Alemannic wiki are written in different Alemannic dialects, different phonetic spellings of those dialects, sometimes different dialects within the same article or non-existent hybrid dialects. It does not make the matter any easier.

Edit: I don't know how different Chinese dialects are, but my Swiss Alemannic Dialect is one of those that's still closer to Standard German and a lot of Germans still can't understand a word I say. Then there's the really strange mountain dialects not even I can understand. Not even when written phonetically. On the other side, Plattdeutsch as spoken in the very North of Germany is absolutely unintelligible to me.

PPS: Let's play a fun game! Here's two Highest Alemannic example sentences from Wikipedia, as spoken in the Valais. Can any German speakers here guess what they mean?

«Dr Güegu a ner Welbi mottut schi.»
«Än Tschiffretta Päglette di Tschugglette ambri treellu.»

Galloglaich

2014-12-12, 10:22 AM

What's the name of the Dithmarshen book? I've got a British Library pass so I might well be able to find it. Thanks.

The guy who wrote it, William Urban, is a prominent historian, he is considered one of the main experts on the Teutonic Order, he did this as kind of a one-off side project because he personally knew a woman from the Dithmarschen and got interested in it's history. It's a fascinating read.

http://www.amazon.com/Dithmarschen-Medieval-Peasant-Republic-Mediaeval/dp/0773497838

G

Galloglaich

2014-12-12, 10:48 AM

A good example that I'm trying to find an example on: the Swiss Saubannerzug (Pig Banner... movement? Cavalcade? Army? "Zug" is difficult to translate) in 1477. Peasant mercenaries weren't paid the agreed sum for fighting for the (then Burgundian, not Swiss) city of Geneva, so some 1700 of them organized themselves and moved through the country, demanding their money. On the way, they menaced and attacked pretty much everyone they came across, including the cities of Zurich and Bern. Geneva owed them 24000 Gulden, in the end, they agreed on being paid 8000 immediately to the company, 2 more paid to every man personally and as much alcohol as they could drink in one evening. And hostages from among the city's leadership for the rest of the money.

The name, of course, is mostly a contemptuous term from their enemies, since they had a wild boar on their banner (the banner, by the way, is still in a museum). I can not even attempt to translate their self-given name, "Gesellschaft des Torechten Lebens", "Society of something something living", since I really have no idea what "Torecht" means.

Okay, not just peasants, but mercenaries. But at that time, going out as a mercenary was just about the main trade of Swiss peasants.

What should also be considered: I know some cheese makers. They drag around 100kg+ cheeses all day. It tends to leave people looking like this:
http://www.sportguide.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sempach-Schwingen-RTX133PH-kl.jpg

yeah that is a fascinating episode, that specific incident you are talking about (including a photo of their actual pig banner) is mentioned for a page or two in the Osprey book "The Swiss at War". I think their source was Hans Delbruck who I believed talks about the incident a bit in his History of the Art of War.

There were several incidents like that around the same period in and around Switzerland though (including during the Appenzel wars which I posted a link to upthread a bit) and in the Dithmarschen / Frisian zone in Northern Germany, and also in the Baltic, the Ukraine and northern Hungary with Czech mercenaries.

I read a fascinating paper about the Czech mercenaries in Northern Hungary, and their leader a certain Moravian condottiere Jan Jiskra of Brandies (not to be confused with the more famous earlier Czech heretic warlord Jan Ziska) in the mid to late 15th Century. Jiskra had been a captain in the armies of the Venetians fighting in Dalmatia and elsewhere, but he fell in with the Czech heretics even though he himself was a Catholic, and they respected him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jiskra_of_Brand%C3%BDs

Bands of Czech heretics had been hired in huge numbers at that time by Hapsburg and Hungarian warlords in Hungary who were fighting each other and the Turks (for example in the famous Fekete sereg - Black Army- of Corvinus). The wars had petered out within Bohemia and some of the Czech radicals were annoyed that the moderates had won out, and they were adapted to war, so they formed these bands (which had a specific name, though I can't remember it precisely). The Czechs were particularly valued for their consistent ability to effectively fight the Ottomans, which few people could do at that time. But of course they were hated by Hapsburg warlords and Hungarian princes like John Hunyadi due to their lack of respect for the nobility, heretical views and tendencies to loot and rob Catholic monasteries and Churches, which they considered idolatrous. Of course, as with the Zug saurbanner, these guys were mostly peasants and burghers.

So there was a scheme to get John Jiskra removed from Hungary and lure him into the conflict between the alliance of Poland with the Prussian cities vs the Teutonic Order up in the Baltic (that is how I found out about him because I was researching my book set in the 13 Years War) and the hope was, they could liquidate the troublesome mercenaries while he was gone. They did this but the Czech warbands elected new leaders, and they promptly took over several castles and fortified abbeys in what is now Slovakia, and defeated every attempt to drive them out. They started forming their own country in Slovakia around a powerful league of Germano-Slavic mining towns called the Pentapolitana

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

This was a catastrophe, so they brought Jiskra back down from the Baltic in the hope that he could reign in the Czech mercenaries. Some of them proved to still be loyal to him, to a limited extent, but others rebuffed him and continued their independent and bandit-like ways, even protecting the wife of John Hunyadi for a dangerous interregnum period after his sudden and unexpected death after the siege of Belgrade in 1456, giving her time to raise her son Matthias Corvinus who was to take up his fathers banner so successfully. Eventually the most extreme and wild of the outlaws were suppressed but the area continued to be dominated by the Czech and Slovak mercenaries and Jan Jiskra became sort of the George Washington of Slovakia.

In the 16th Century most of the Hungarian nobility ended up having to retreat into the mountainous zone of what is now Slovakia as the Ottomans gradually conquered almost all of the rest of their nation. It remained a bastion of (more or less) Christian culture in the increasingly Muslim dominated Balkans.

G

Brother Oni

2014-12-12, 11:03 AM

Edit: I don't know how different Chinese dialects are, but my Swiss Alemannic Dialect is one of those that's still closer to Standard German and a lot of Germans still can't understand a word I say.

That's pretty much the same with Chinese.

China's a very big place, so there's 7 main branches of languages that can be regarded as 'Chinese': link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_varieties_of_Chinese).

Some more more intelligible to each other than others - Standard Mandarin (Guan branch) is not intelligible with Hong Kong Cantonese (Yue branch). If the numbers I'm reading are correct, the two have only a 19% lexical similarity - English has more in common with Russian (24%) than Putonghua and HK Cantonese.

Personally, I can pick up the odd Mandarin word if I know the context and I listen multiple times (I know Cantonese and Hakka), but when the phrase for 'thank you' (谢谢) is 'xie xie' in Mandarin but changes to either 'do1 ze6' (多謝) for a gift or 'm4 goi1' (唔該) for a service in Cantonese (this is aside from the tonal differences!), it's a bit of an uphill struggle.
I think the fact that Standard Cantonese has its own romanisation system (jyutping instead of pinyin) is also a big giveaway of the differences.

Galloglaich

2014-12-12, 11:07 AM

Further to snowblizz's suggestions, I'd like to recommend Kagemusha, Rashomon and Yojimbo from Kurosawa's films, specifically for the intrigue. Ran is good for massive battle scenes and you could use The Hidden Fortress, if only to make your players wonder "hang on, isn't this Star Wars?". :smalltongue:

I want to make a second recommendation on the Kirosawa films, especially Yojimbo, Sanjuro, the Seven Samurai, and Hidden Fortress. The latter did not really remind me of Star Wars as much as they say it should (I think there are scenes in other Kirosawa films, for example in Yojimbo the famous one where he cuts the bandits arm off, which were lifted right out of it and put into Star Wars as one of the best scenes in the cantina in Mos Isley), but it does have some amazing fight scenes, such as the epic escape from the prison.

Generally Kirosawas Samurai films also have a level accurate fencing that you don't see in later Samurai movies or in any kind of movies, and generally a verisimilitude as well as the cowboy movie drama which he was borrowing from John Ford.

Sergio Leone of course famously borrowed back from Kirosawa for some of his Spaghetti Westerns, like the Clint Eastwood movie Fistfull of dollars which is a copy of Yojimbo.

G

Milodiah

2014-12-12, 12:21 PM

On the topic of D&D halberds: The 3e/3.5e picture has the one-piece construction and inward-curved blade typical for halberds, but the general proportions of a pollaxe. For a piece like that, not having reach is appropriate.

On that note, when I DM I am in fact that guy. Halberds and pollaxes both exist and are differentiated from one another, "longswords" are arming swords, "bastard swords" are longswords, "longspears" are pikes, the "falchion" is...a falchion instead of a turbo-scimitar, etc. etc. Never quite came up with a good name for what D&D calls a falchion, I've just been going with "war scimitar" because I've been unable to uncover any historical precedent for a two-handed large scimitar.

...oh, hey, that'd be a great thing to ask the Thread. Anyone aware of the thing I just said?

Lilapop

2014-12-12, 12:33 PM

Hah. Didn't even think of checking Alemannic Wiki, only German Wiki. Must be one of those three articles that are longer in Alemannic.
Its not exactly longer. The English, German and Alemannic articles all include and exclude different subtopics and bits of info.

I'm pretty sure I would have had issues understanding an oral version of the Alemannic article, and I definitely wouldn't have seen the details surrounding the word "torecht". Platt however is uh... more like an extreme form of how I'm speaking when I don't care about anyone understanding me. Which does kind of hint at an answer to Oni's question: No matter how far apart our "home dialects" are, we have a common ground in proper High German; and many people speak a mixture of High German and their dialect, with ratios varying even from conversation to conversation for a single person.
Well, and then you get those bloody bavarians insisting that "Schwammerl" (literally "spongies") is the proper word for mushroom.

PPS: Let's play a fun game! Here's two Highest Alemannic example sentences from Wikipedia, as spoken in the Valais. Can any German speakers here guess what they mean?

«Dr Güegu a ner Welbi mottut schi.»
«Än Tschiffretta Päglette di Tschugglette ambri treellu.»
Haha, thats how my Russian works. I can read it and find anglicisms, and latin/greek based words. "Eine Chiffrette" is a communication device, probably just a telephone, right?
Oh, and don't solve it until Yora had a shot at it.

...oh, hey, that'd be a great thing to ask the Thread. Anyone aware of the thing I just said?
Large japanese swords might apply, as would those czech/hungarian longsword/messer/saber crossovers (http://www.lutel-handicraft.com/?p=productsMore&iProduct=45&sName=Hand-and-a-half-sabre-15023). But actual arab/persian style (http://i.imgur.com/G6hzlw9.jpg) twohanded swords? Never heard of those.

Galloglaich

2014-12-12, 02:59 PM

Large japanese swords might apply, as would those czech/hungarian longsword/messer/saber crossovers (http://www.lutel-handicraft.com/?p=productsMore&iProduct=45&sName=Hand-and-a-half-sabre-15023). But actual arab/persian style (http://i.imgur.com/G6hzlw9.jpg) twohanded swords? Never heard of those.

I agree weapons in the kiregsmesser family are probably the closest (the one you linked there is usually referred to as a Swiss type), you do also have the Niuweidao and the Da Dao

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/16/002516/ph-0.jpg

http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/images/s214.jpg

Most near-eastern sabers are single-handed though.

G

Brother Oni

2014-12-12, 09:35 PM

Well, and then you get those bloody bavarians insisting that "Schwammerl" (literally "spongies") is the proper word for mushroom.

It's no worse than 'handy' meaning a mobile phone. :smalltongue:

I agree weapons in the kiregsmesser family are probably the closest (the one you linked there is usually referred to as a Swiss type), you do also have the Niuweidao and the Da Dao

I think there's a couple more that might fit the bill as well. Here's a selection of the more common dao from the later Ming and Qing Dynasties.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c33/Guan_/variousdaos7bq-1.jpg

'Dao' (刀) is a generic word meaning 'knife' or 'blade', so the category runs the gamut from single edged one handed sabres, all the way up to polearms and zweihander equivalents.

Milodiah

2014-12-13, 03:10 AM

I know about messers and the variety of Chinese and Japanese weapons that would fit...I mean specifically Near/Middle Eastern weapons that would historically be used alongside scimitars.

EDIT: Apparently there's now such a thing as "grande messers", because the language center of my brain decided to take a coffee break just now.

Brother Oni

2014-12-13, 05:11 AM

I know about messers and the variety of Chinese and Japanese weapons that would fit...I mean specifically Near/Middle Eastern weapons that would historically be used alongside scimitars.

There's the talwar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talwar) and khanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanda_%28sword%29), but that's a little too far east. I've also found some very odd handled Indian swords and the Naga two handed sword from Burma, but we're still heading in the wrong direction.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27454&d=1093413434
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27389&d=1093299419

Closer to the west, there's the shamshir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshir) which is very closely related to the scimitar or saif.

Are you still looking for a two handed variant of the scimitar, or have you expanded into any weapon that would be used alongside the scimitar?

Spiryt

2014-12-13, 06:41 AM

While trying to 'reorganize' names of D&D weapons, logical solution would be to just call it 'Great Scimitar/sabre/falchion' just like Greatsword and Greataxe.

Milodiah

2014-12-13, 01:20 PM

While trying to 'reorganize' names of D&D weapons, logical solution would be to just call it 'Great Scimitar/sabre/falchion' just like Greatsword and Greataxe.

I started off with that, but I think "war scimitar" has a better ring to it than "greatscimitar".

Roxxy

2014-12-14, 01:23 AM

I was just reading about how German and Japanese soldiers in WW2 had smokeless ammunition and American soldiers didn't, which provided one of the very few tactical disadvantages that the M1 Garand had, in that the weapon was much more likely to give away the shooter's position. Why would the US military not issue smokeless ammunition?

Gnoman

2014-12-14, 01:29 AM

Either you misunderstood what you were reading, or the author was full of ****. The only difference between US .30-06 ammo, Japanese 6.5mm, and German 7.92mm was the dimensions (same with .45 ACP and 9mm). Indeed, the 1906 Springfield (no longer standard issue, but still common due to a lack of Garands) used a licence-built copy of the mechanism from the Mauser Kar98k (The standard German rifle for the first half of the 20th century.)

Roxxy

2014-12-14, 02:16 AM

Gnoman

2014-12-14, 02:27 AM

That would only make sense if he were referring to cannon and such, asserting that German flash-hiders were better. Do you have a link to this, or is it in a book?

Milodiah

2014-12-14, 03:25 AM

...that's utter nonsense. I've fired both weapons, they have the same amount of (nearly negligible) smoke. Besides, such things are almost exclusively derived from ammunition, not weapon. I've put some brown-bag special 7.62x54R downrange that's smelled like cat piss, but that's not the gun at all.

rs2excelsior

2014-12-14, 05:55 PM

fusilier

2014-12-14, 07:19 PM

Yeah, smokeless powder came into widespread use around the same time as self-contained metallic cartridges. It existed in the 1860s, and had basically completely replaced black powder by the 1880s-1890s. So by WWII, no small arms should have appreciable smoke from firing.

1886 is the traditional date for the introduction of smokeless powder, with the 8mm French Lebel rifle. Prior to that (and for a little while after), most metallic cartridge weapons used blackpowder.

A quick look at wikipedia shows that there were experiments with smokeless powder in the 1860s (earlier attempts to use gun cotton were failures), but not until the development of Poudre B in 1884 does there seem to have been a practical result --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder

Milodiah

2014-12-14, 07:21 PM

Still doesn't change the fact that the US issued .30 M2 ball ammunition, using smokeless powder, in WWII.

fusilier

2014-12-14, 07:49 PM

Still doesn't change the fact that the US issued .30 M2 ball ammunition, using smokeless powder, in WWII.

I wonder if the original poster may have received a mixed up version of the events. While I expect a German 8mm Mauser round would create as much flash as a 30-06, a 6.5mm round may have been more subtle. I remember reading an anecdote about 6.5mm Carcanos making less noise which was something the American troops found distinctive.

Roxxy

2014-12-15, 01:03 AM

I dunno. The author quoted one US paratrooper talking about Garands billowing smoke in combat, but every video I have watched of Garands being fired doesn't feature billowing smoke (When people started questioning it here, I went searching on Youtube to see if videos of actual Garands on the range could lend any insight). I think maybe that paratrooper was just really old and not remembering correctly, and the author is putting too much credence in his words.

Mr. Mask

2014-12-15, 03:56 AM

Perhaps it was meant poetically?

Thiel

2014-12-15, 04:03 AM

Gnoman

2014-12-15, 05:50 AM

I've been looking into it, and have found absolutely zero evidence to suggest that WWII 30.06 ammunition was particularly smoky. Notably, there are no warnings of having to perform extra cleaning on rifles firing WWII surplus ammo instead of newer rounds in the same caliber (as would be absolutely critical if the old rounds produced extra smoke), and the modern rounds are not all that smoky.

In addition, I came across a vintage (June 1944) article that is the only evidence of any claims of ammunition visibility I could find. Notably, it is in the Pacific Theatre rather than the European one, largly concerning the Japanese .25 Ariska.

Apparently there is an erroneous impression to the effect that Japanese smokeless powder is superior to the standard U.S. types. This situation needs to be clarified by considering all the factors involved and not simply the powder itself.

It is true that Japanese weapons*, particularly small-arms, give less muzzle flash than our weapons of similar bore. The cause can be found by examining the relative ballistic properties of guns and ammunition of the two countries. In general, the power (velocity and weight of projectile) of the Japanese weapons are very much less than our own. At the same time these weapons have appreciably longer barrels which makes them heavier. Both conditions, low power and long gun barrels, tend to make the control of muzzle flash comparatively easy. It may, therefore, be said that Japanese small-arms are actually less effective than U.S. weapons, except for the single item of flash.

For example, the Japanese .25 caliber (6.5-mm) rifle fires a 138-grain bullet at a velocity of only approximately 2,400 f/s and has a barrel length of 31.4 inches. The U.S. standard M1 rifle fires a 174-grain bullet at a velocity of 2,647 f/s and has a barrel length of 24 inches.

At present we prefer and actually employ superior effective fire power with greater range and velocity, even though these superior qualities are obtained at a cost of somewhat more flash.

A weapon and ammunition such as the Japanese have may be fairly satisfactory for weapons more or less designed for jungle warfare solely in close range combat, where operation is largely confined to cover and concealment. It is believed that any apparent superior results, such as complete flashlessness, from the use of smokeless powder by the Japanese is due to the quite low power of the ammunition and extra barrel length of the weapons rather than to the characteristics of the powder.

As for the paratrooper account of "garands streaming smoke", remember that paratroopers went into some the heaviest combat of the war, as they were always sent in behind enemy lines well ahead of any allied forces. Any weapon will produce large amounts of smoke under continuous fire, and considering that the standard German rifle was still a bolt-action repeater that fired extremely slowly by comparison, a German rifleman would produce far less smoke.

Storm Bringer

2014-12-15, 06:43 AM

One other option is that the paratroopers, knowing they were going into heavy combat, might have put extra weapon oil on their weapons (for lubrication. it also makes it slightly easier to clean), which then got burnt off once the fighting started.

I know I've seen plenty of modern British rifles smoke on the range after the user doused the thing in half a bottle of oil. then again, the A1 version of our rifle had serious problems with jamming due to grit, so half a bottle of oil was needed to keep it working. We were able to fix in in the end, but only by throwing the gun at H and K and saying "make it work!". :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:.

Works fine now, though.

Yora

2014-12-15, 07:36 AM

Storm Bringer

2014-12-15, 08:11 AM

Does anyone know how the Browning Automatic Rifle was actually used in practice? A 20 round magazine seems way too small for a light machine gun, and for a semi-automatic rifle it appears to be much too big and heavy to be practical.

well, the English used the Lewis Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_gun) in WW1 and Bren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun)WW2, the Russians used the DP Machine Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degtyaryov_machine_gun), the japs have the Type 96 LMG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96_light_machine_gun) and the germans the FG42 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG_42) all of which had magazines of 30-50 rounds, So the BAR was not unique in being a small mag full auto weapon.

these weapons, to my knowledge, were intended to be used in a burst fire method, with three to five round bursts supressing a target. Bear in mind that almost all these weapons were designed to support infantry armed with bolt action rifles, so even with frequent stops to change mags, these weapons would generate a large percentage of the a squads rate of fire, while being lighter and more portable than contemporary belt fed machine guns (compare the 9Klio BAR to the 14 Kilo browning .30 cal, then add the extra weight of the ammo to that....)

It is notable that the US marines have recently (2011) adopted the URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle"]M27 IAR[/URL], which is also a 30 round magazine weapon, to replace the M249 SAW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun) at the squad level, so apparently someone feels that the idea still has merit.

Gnoman

2014-12-15, 09:11 AM

Even full-sized machine guns are usually only fired continuously by novices or untrained operators. Coninual fire loses most of the weapon's accuracy and ruins the barrel, taking the weapon out of service fairly quickly. Any fully-automatic weapon -be it a Tommy-gun, a BAR, or a MG42- is best operated by a very light touch, spitting death in three to five round groups downrange. This is why most modern SMGs and assault rifles are designed with a burst setting, because full-auto is usually a waste of ammo. There are exceptions as every veteran seems to have a story about some madman that could hold a tommy-gun on target through brute strength while emptying the magazine, and full auto is suitable for point-blank fire where there's no way not to hit the enemy, but the general rule is that the gun should be going burrp burrp burrp instead of buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp.

Raum

2014-12-15, 09:56 AM

It's worth remembering that all smokeless powder isn't created equal. I've never been able to substantiate it, but I've heard several anecdotes that claim that US smokeless powder was more smoky than other nations.
To test it you'd need to get hold of a batch of WWII surplus since modern cartridges uses better, less corrosive powders.I don't know about the US WWII formulation but modern smokeless powders do differ substantially. Remember the problems caused with the M16 at least partially by powder? More immediately, different powders used in reloading will change speed and cleanliness of the burn significantly...and the dirtier powders are significantly smokier.

Galloglaich

2014-12-15, 10:26 AM

I started off with that, but I think "war scimitar" has a better ring to it than "greatscimitar".

I read that as Great Schhhhhimetar! in Sean Connery accent. Which is probably more appropriate for DnD.

Yeah I figured he was referring specifically to two-handed weapons so the falchion, messer family and a few of those larger Dao are about it. Talwar, shamshir, saif, killij etc. are typically single-handed weapons. Then there is a whole 'nother family of katana-like swords ranging from the South Asian Dha to the Miao Dao and various others. But that is a different kettle of fish.

Getting back to the halberd dilemma... the problem with DnD is that it's really at too high of a level of abstraction. It's a complex system but most of that complexity is in the magic and super-hero like powers, as well as some cartoonish weapon effects (such as severing multiple heads at the same time - only you just do limited hit point damage so no guarantee that you sever anything- or cartwheeling through melee Matrix style)

The 'pixels' in DnD (at least in the SRD version, I'm not very up on 4 or 5th edition) are five foot squares. So the reach value of a weapon simply allows it to attack a target two pixels away (10') instead of one. Nevermind that in real life you could pretty easily attack someone with most medium or longer sized hand-weapons at that distance, or that a truly long range weapon like a pike or lance can attack people 15' - 20' away.

A halberd has a distinct reach advantage over most swords, axes, maces etc., but it's not a true long distance weapon like a pike. In fact we know from letters of remission and coroners rolls and so on, that halberds (just like swords etc.) were quite often used at very close range.

One way you can give a weapon a reach advantage in DnD without adding too much complexity is just give each weapon a reach rating, and give the weapon with the longer reach a bonus on the first attack only. For example, if a guy has a halberd which is 7 feet long and his opponent has a mace which is 3 feet long, give the halberd a +4 To Hit on it's first attack only. Of course in DnD you have to also factor in the size of the people or creatures, so you may have to give a reach number (a hobbit with a mace has a shorter reach than a human) but you can standardize that according to the standard S, M, L sizes (or whatever).

Another nice thing to do is to give weapons some defensive value, though that is another kettle of fish.

G

warty goblin

2014-12-15, 12:24 PM

The (extremely) German Das Shwarze Auge RPG solves the weapon reach issue by assigning each weapon a distance class, which are basically short (daggers etc), melee (one handed swords, maces etc) and polearm (guess). Whenever you're in combat with somebody, you are fighting at one of those distance classes. If the distance class matches that of the weapon you use it as normal. If it's one step shorter or longer you suffer a penalty, and if it's two steps, you can't use it to attack regularly at all. You can use your attack to try to close the distance one step.

Thus a guy with a dagger cannot attack a guy with a spear unless he can close the distance to melee. Then both can fight at a disadvantage, or the guy with the spear can attempt to throw the dagger-dude back into the polearm distance. Next round if they're still at melee distance, dagger-dude can either attack, or spend his attack closing the distance to close, at which point the spear-dude cannot attack at all.

Mind, since this is DSA, you'll need a lot of number-crunching to handle all this.

Eldan

2014-12-15, 12:49 PM

Galloglaich

2014-12-15, 01:38 PM

I think I read about an RPG once, I think it was a Conan RPG, that gave every weapon a reach rating and in addition to that, combatants were a certain distance away from each other. Advantages were handed out depending on distance and weapon reach: the guy with the longer weapon had a massive advantage at longer ranges, but the guy with the shorter weapon could get into the longer weapon's range, where the advantage would be his. There was also, I think, a kind of AoO like mechanic, which made it dangerous to try and get closer.

Yeah this is basically what Codex Martialis does. Every weapon has reach, speed and defense rating, as well as size. The first attack is always at 'onset' range which uses the reach bonus. Subsequent attacks happen at melee or grapple range so the speed bonus is used - unless you take steps to maintain the distance.

We noticed from HEMA fencing that people tend to get closer to each other as a fight goes on unless they are trained to watch their distance. One of the first (and hardest) skills to learn when fighting with a longer weapon is to maintain the range, which requires a bit of self discipline and ability to cope with your opponents actions. So for the codex we made an option to maintain the range.

In the Codex you get a pool of 4 dice to play with every round. These can be used in combinations for attacks, in a "roll many / keep one" manner, or for multiple attacks, or for 'Active' defense*, or for movement. If you have a spear say, and your opponent has a dagger, you definitely want to maintain distance. So you spend one of your pool in between attacks to keep the distance at 'onset'.

Conversely if you are the guy with the dagger you definitely want to get as close as possible. In the Codex rules a dagger is a really dangerous weapon unlike in regular DnD. You ideally want to rush though if they still have pool you risk an AoO. If you make it to grapple range you get your speed bonus but the enemy with a longer weapon might not get any. And their defensive value no longer applies (unless they have certain specific feats, like for using the weapon at half-sword / half-staff). There are also defensive feats which allow you to react to someone closing in on you by moving back or to the side... just like in real fencing.

The pool allows you to handle most of this by just assigning dice, rather than relying on a lot of math - I was never good at math and I didn't want to slow combat down. So it works pretty fluid. It's designed to be quick.

G

* you can either rely on Active defense, meaning you use one of your pool to roll a die and add your weapon defense bonus and BaB, or you can use passive defense (which is also what you get if you've run out of pool) which is more like AC. Armor itself acts as damage reduction though you have the option to go around it.

rs2excelsior

2014-12-15, 05:11 PM

Galloglaich

2014-12-15, 06:07 PM

So I'd like to know if anyone here knows in detail how armies in the Medieval period of Europe were formed. I've got an idea, but to be honest I'm a bit fuzzy on a lot of things from that era.

Here's my impression of how it all worked:

Most of that is all wrong...

The King (or some other noble) needs an army, so he calls up the other nobles who are his vassals as a part of the whole feudal agreement thing--I give you land, and in exchange you pay taxes and fight for me. The nobles (or at least the senior ones) call up their vassals and knights, and everyone gets together to have themselves a war.

Depending on the time period and the specific country, this part is correct, but it's only part of the picture. First of all, many medieval countries didn't even have a king. Second, even those that did quite often would form alliances with other powerful nobles, who are typically referred to as 'Princes' by historians (and also by people back then, in their own literature, letters, records and so on). So for example rather than a King it might be a Duke or a Bishop or a Count, who would try to make an alliance with several other Princes, as well as towns, elements of the Church, and yes, peasants. Some of their army would be from the Feudal levy as you described, often the core of it, but the second major part of organizing the army would be raising the money, and this would be spent to hire mercenaries. Mercenaries formed the bulk of many if not most medieval armies.

Countries which did have a King (like France, England or Spain) usually spent most of their time fighting other people who were trying to be the King, as part of competing alliances with different groups of nobles.

A lot of medieval armies would be organized by the Church (such as the numerous Crusades, of which there were probably 5 internal / anti-Christian one for every one of the more famous external Crusades) or by towns or groups of towns like the Hanseatic League or the Republic of Venice.

The heavy cavalry consisted of assorted knights and nobles, who are placed under the command of more senior nobles in a more-or-less haphazard manner, with the most senior nobles commanding wings and such of the army.
Heavy cavalry would partly be made up of knights and nobles, and partly from mercenaries and burghers. Generally princes, nobles, and mercenary captains commanded whoever they brought with them. Sometimes a powerful King or Prince would designate a marshall who would be in charge of some large part of the army.

Most of the infantry would have been knights who can't afford a horse, but can afford their other equipment. They'd be formed up in a similar manner as before--no formal, standing organization, but battlefield command based on seniority.

No. Infantry was usually either peasant, or burgher (town-folk) militia, or professional mercenaries (who were often peasants or town-folk). England did have a tradition of some knights fighting on foot but that wasn't because they were poor or couldn't afford horses. The infantry was typically pretty well organized and fought in formations.

Mercenaries were also widely-used in this period, as I recall. Were most of them niche groups, like the Genoese crossbowmen the French used, or were combined arms units also available? Were they almost exclusively infantry, or did cavalry mercenary units exist?

Yes mercenaries were widely used, no they were not mostly niche groups, they included both infantry and cavalry. Many armies in famous battles of the medieval period were made up almost entirely of mercenaries.

Also, as I understand it, peasant soldiers were very much the exception. Other than English longbowmen, I don't know of any examples. If they did exist, how would they be armed and organized?

Incorrect. Probably most infantry was made of peasants, as well as townsfolk (who were more expensive.) The most sought-after mercenaries in Europe, the Swiss, were probably 95% commoners (peasants and burghers).

And while we're at it, what was the difference between a knight and a full-blown noble? Other than social rank, I'm under the impression that the main difference is that a noble owns a large amount of land, while a knight is not landed despite being able to afford arms and armor.

Knight and noble were not distinct things but overlapped. There were many ranks of nobility within the feudal order, but these didn't mean as much as how much land and money and friends the noble in question had. In some places a Duke might be more powerful than a King (the Duke of Burgundy for example was more powerful than most Kings in Europe in the 14th-15th Centuries) in others a Count might be more powerful or some other rank such as the German Herzog or the Russian Knyaz.

Most knights were actually middle ranked nobles. There were also such a thing as serf-knights, and what are sometimes called 'men at arms' who are like knights but are equipped by some Lord (or another, real knight). A knight was someone who had a special military status, which gave them the right to wear a belt like Batman, and spurs (including gold or silver spurs) and conferred certain formal degree of respect on them within Feudal society. Knights were, very generally speaking, the wealthy and powerful elite of medieval armies, usually leaders of at least a few people. But there were also many nobles who had knightly rank but didn't really adopt the role, and lived their lives as eccentric gardeners or religious zealots or what have you.

I know the Medieval period covers a huge time frame and a lot of different cultures, but any kind of general overview would be appreciated. If it helps, I'm looking for a late-Medieval feel--knights in full plate, guns exist but are still relatively rare, and so on.

You are half-way there, but if you narrow it down one step further to a specific region (like Italy or Germany or England) the Osprey books are pretty good primers, and give you some useful images to work with as well.

EDIT: Also, any idea how large would an army "normally" be for the period? I know they are quite small by modern standards, but how many soldiers could a Medieval king expect to put on the field?

Much smaller than what we think of by say, WW II standards. A pretty big medieval army, such as that raised by a King, might be 20 or 30,000 men, truly epic could be 100,000 or more. More common would be around 5,000 - 10,000 men for a moderate 'situation', and fairly significant battles and military actions involving only a few hundred or even a few dozen men were not unusual.

G

rs2excelsior

2014-12-15, 07:45 PM

Most of that is all wrong...

Yeah, I figured it would be a gross oversimplification of things at best...

Heavy cavalry would partly be made up of knights and nobles, and partly from mercenaries and burghers. Generally princes, nobles, and mercenary captains commanded whoever they brought with them. Sometimes a powerful King or Prince would designate a marshall who would be in charge of some large part of the army.

So in that case, the basic tactical unit would have been the personal retinue of a particular noble? Was there any general effort to coordinate these different groups, or were they pointed at the enemy and told to go for it? I know the impetuousness of the knights often got them into trouble--they could be counted on to charge straight into a trap and keep on coming.

No. Infantry was usually either peasant, or burgher (town-folk) militia, or professional mercenaries (who were often peasants or town-folk). England did have a tradition of some knights fighting on foot but that wasn't because they were poor or couldn't afford horses. The infantry was typically pretty well organized and fought in formations.

Probably most infantry was made of peasants, as well as townsfolk (who were more expensive.) The most sought-after mercenaries in Europe, the Swiss, were probably 95% commoners (peasants and burghers).

Huh. This is probably the biggest misconception I had about the period, then. I figured the majority of the mercenaries were commoners (if you're already fairly wealthy, you don't really need to fight for pay), but I did not realize non-mercenary commoner units were widespread as well.

Were the militia groups standing, or would a nobleman simply offer pay to anyone willing to fight? Was there any kind of obligation on the part of these peasants or townsfolk, or was it primarily voluntary?

There were also such a thing as serf-knights, and what are sometimes called 'men at arms' who are like knights but are equipped by some Lord (or another, real knight).

It was the Men-at-Arms that I was thinking about for the dismounted knights. Although I had thought they provided their own equipment as well. So basically, the lord would equip the men-at-arms (and presumably provide some other sort of payment), and in exchange they would fight for him?

You are half-way there, but if you narrow it down one step further to a specific region (like Italy or Germany or England) the Osprey books are pretty good primers, and give you some useful images to work with as well.

That sounds like a good idea, I'll look into it. I'm working on the mechanics and background for a fantasy wargame, so I might try and base a few different regions of the human lands on different historical regions.

Much smaller than what we think of by say, WW II standards. A pretty big medieval army, such as that raised by a King, might be 20 or 30,000 men, truly epic could be 100,000 or more. More common would be around 5,000 - 10,000 men for a moderate 'situation', and fairly significant battles and military actions involving only a few hundred or even a few dozen men were not unusual.

Wow, that's actually a bit bigger than I was expecting. I had though that around 10-15 thousand was about as big as they got. Although I can see how much the army of a couple of nobles fighting their neighbors for a piece of land would differ from that of, say, the king of England raising an army to invade France.

Thanks for the clarifications, this will be useful!

Galloglaich

2014-12-15, 10:47 PM

Yeah, I figured it would be a gross oversimplification of things at best...

Usually is when it comes to history.

So in that case, the basic tactical unit would have been the personal retinue of a particular noble?

That was one type of basic unit, which would sometimes be called a banner. A banner might be as few as a couple of dozen to as many as several hundred lances. Below the level of the banner was the lance, which was a cavalry unit very roughly analogous to a modern squad, comprised of one heavy cavalryman and anywhere from 3 to 20 supporting horsemen, who might include less heavily armored lancers, mounted crossbowmen or archers (or later on, gunners) and some unarmed servants. In some versions of this (I think less cohesive or more theoretical) a lance might also include infantry. This unit usually called a 'lance' was also referred to as a 'gleve' or a 'helm' and by other euphemisms, all of which refer to the main cavalryman.

The wiki is a halfway decent overview

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

Was there any general effort to coordinate these different groups, or were they pointed at the enemy and told to go for it? I know the impetuousness of the knights often got them into trouble--they could be counted on to charge straight into a trap and keep on coming.

This is kind of a cliché, though there were plenty of times when heavy cavalry armies, particularly French armies, kind of went crazy and ignored tactics and their infantry and so on and got themselves killed.

Typically though, medieval armies were pretty organized, they used formations, kept reserves, used couriers and scouts, and were made up of combined arms forces including heavy and light infantry, archers (etc.) artillerymen and specialists of various types, and organized complex supply trains and things like bridge-building operations. Different medieval 'estates' tended to provided different elements, with the best crossbowmen and engineers coming from the towns, the best infantry from either the towns or the peasant districts, and the best cavalry coming from the Feudal nobility (though there was also pretty good cavalry that came from other estates).

The Feudal levies of course were semi-independent by their nature though and could be hard to control*. Actually just about every kind of medieval army could be hard to control depending on the circumstances, as the very fact of being armed and organized into a group gave you power to disagree about things. The type of strict discipline we know today in modern armies was not unheard of, but it wasn't common either especially since medieval armies were often made up of various elements from often impromptu and very fragile alliances which could sometimes shift at a moments notice. The better armies though (like the Swiss) usually had substantial discipline.

Huh. This is probably the biggest misconception I had about the period, then. I figured the majority of the mercenaries were commoners (if you're already fairly wealthy, you don't really need to fight for pay), but I did not realize non-mercenary commoner units were widespread as well.

A lot of wealthy nobles fought for pay, and a lot of nobles were also poor. A lot of commoners were rich for that matter, generally the richest men in Europe were commoners.

Were the militia groups standing, or would a nobleman simply offer pay to anyone willing to fight? Was there any kind of obligation on the part of these peasants or townsfolk, or was it primarily voluntary?

No it was an obligation, citizenship in a town required you to arm and equip yourself at a certain level, depending on your wealth. For peasants it depended if they were free clans or if they were under the direct control of some Feudal overlord, in the former case they would arm and drill themselves to protect their autonomy, in the latter the lord would often arm them and require them to remain prepared for war.

It was the Men-at-Arms that I was thinking about for the dismounted knights. Although I had thought they provided their own equipment as well. So basically, the lord would equip the men-at-arms (and presumably provide some other sort of payment), and in exchange they would fight for him?

Yes, though this term "Man-at-Arms" is only one of many to refer to this type of soldier (see link at the very bottom) and the same term was also used more generally to refer to any cavalryman or soldier in various contexts. Many 'unfree knights' and equivalent would be basically the henchman of some lord, and would fight for him when necessary but also act as a right-hand man around the ranch, as a foreman to supervise or keep the workers in line, solve problems, act as a courier etc. etc.

That sounds like a good idea, I'll look into it. I'm working on the mechanics and background for a fantasy wargame, so I might try and base a few different regions of the human lands on different historical regions.

They have pretty good ones for just about every region of Europe, and for the time period you are interested in (late medieval)

Wow, that's actually a bit bigger than I was expecting. I had though that around 10-15 thousand was about as big as they got. Although I can see how much the army of a couple of nobles fighting their neighbors for a piece of land would differ from that of, say, the king of England raising an army to invade France.

Yes and also for more serious things like major regional invasions, incursions by the Mongols or the Turks (which went on continuously from the 13th Century onward) "internal" Crusades, and so on.

Thanks for the clarifications, this will be useful!

My pleasure, that is what the thread is for.

G

* This was one of the reasons to arm and equip a sturdy young serf to become a ministerial

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

fusilier

2014-12-16, 02:27 AM

Wow, that's actually a bit bigger than I was expecting. I had though that around 10-15 thousand was about as big as they got. Although I can see how much the army of a couple of nobles fighting their neighbors for a piece of land would differ from that of, say, the king of England raising an army to invade France.

There's some detailed information on 15th century Italian army size in Michael Mallett's book Mercenaries and their Masters, pgs 115-120.

The numbers were quite surprising to me, especially given the smaller size of Italian states, although they were quite wealthy and could afford to pay for large armies.

Mallet also points out that "there are three different ways of thinking of an army:" 1. The total number of soldiers employed by a state, 2. The number of soldiers in a the field, and 3. the number of soldiers in a given battle.

A field army rarely exceeded 20,000 men, but both Venice and Milan were close to this number in the second quarter of the 15th century. At the beginning of the century Milan was reputed to have 20,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry under arms -- Milan was fighting a two front war at the time (also Milan was probably the most militaristic of the Italian states, usually ruled by condottieri). Other states were maintaining wartime armies of between around 8,000-12,000.

They were also keeping large numbers of troops under arms during peacetime (a result of the condottieri system) -- in 1456 Milan claimed to have 12,000 cavalry under arms. In 1472, the Sforza administration in Milan, drew up a very detailed list of how many troops it could expect to field in a war and came to the figure of 43,000. While optimistic, it's not unreasonable. It included documenting the peacetime contracts, those units that were under contract to be formed or expanded in war time, those who had feudal obligations to maintain troops (i.e. they weren't paid anything during peacetime), and those employed directly by the state. The result was a total of over 20,000 in peacetime alone! Venice at around the same time was fielding a peacetime army of around 10,000 but was able to expand that to 20,000 very quickly when war broke out.

I should stress that the Italian system was not the same used elsewhere, and relied heavily on long term contracts with mercenaries, although it was considerably more complicated than that.

Eldan

2014-12-16, 03:42 AM

In the Codex you get a pool of 4 dice to play with every round. These can be used in combinations for attacks, in a "roll many / keep one" manner, or for multiple attacks, or for 'Active' defense*, or for movement. If you have a spear say, and your opponent has a dagger, you definitely want to maintain distance. So you spend one of your pool in between attacks to keep the distance at 'onset'.

Conversely if you are the guy with the dagger you definitely want to get as close as possible. In the Codex rules a dagger is a really dangerous weapon unlike in regular DnD. You ideally want to rush though if they still have pool you risk an AoO. If you make it to grapple range you get your speed bonus but the enemy with a longer weapon might not get any. And their defensive value no longer applies (unless they have certain specific feats, like for using the weapon at half-sword / half-staff). There are also defensive feats which allow you to react to someone closing in on you by moving back or to the side... just like in real fencing..

To be fair, if you fight at the lowest levels in D&D, which vaguely correspond to the real world a bit more than higher level ones, grappling the enemy and then using a dagger to stab him in grapple is a totally viable tactic against an enemy with a heavier weapon.

Spiryt

2014-12-16, 03:59 AM

Huh. This is probably the biggest misconception I had about the period, then. I figured the majority of the mercenaries were commoners (if you're already fairly wealthy, you don't really need to fight for pay), but I did not realize non-mercenary commoner units were widespread as well.

Well:

1. Fighting professionally would usually require certain amount of wealth in the first place. Low-land peasants, combers, and other paupers wouldn't likely collect proper equipment and search adventures.They would have other problems and aspirations/

2. Being non-commoner absolutely wouldn't mean being 'fairly wealthy'. Demographic booms in Europe were frequently producing young nobles without perspectives, that were thus searching money and fame in warfare.

3. Common and practical use of solid amount of money is to use it to earn even more money, remember.

Were the militia groups standing, or would a nobleman simply offer pay to anyone willing to fight? Was there any kind of obligation on the part of these peasants or townsfolk, or was it primarily voluntary?

There were obligations, plenty of different ones, but it all completely depends on time and place, obviosuly.

snowblizz

2014-12-16, 09:30 AM

That sounds like a good idea, I'll look into it. I'm working on the mechanics and background for a fantasy wargame, so I might try and base a few different regions of the human lands on different historical regions.

When you do, be careful not to mix too diversely. It can hamper immersion when stuff are similar to history but mixing eras, like Warhammer where races tend to be assigned to a certain technological base and period which wouldn't have coexisted meaningfully in the real world.

Stuff like, "we are kinda stone-age but our neighbours have guns". But less egregious of course.

Galloglaich

2014-12-16, 09:50 AM

To be fair, if you fight at the lowest levels in D&D, which vaguely correspond to the real world a bit more than higher level ones, grappling the enemy and then using a dagger to stab him in grapple is a totally viable tactic against an enemy with a heavier weapon.

Yeah but in DnD you are still better-off with a sword or an axe or something, because in DnD there is really only one measure of a weapon - the maximum damage it does. There's no rating for speed, or defense, or reach. So since swords are supposed to be 'better' than daggers, we end up with a 16" double-bladed knife being a 'nuisance weapon' which only does D4 damage.

Venice at around the same time was fielding a peacetime army of around 10,000 but was able to expand that to 20,000 very quickly when war broke out.

As for the Army of Venice, keep in mind at that same time they were also fielding a 3,000 ship navy and bankrolling armies in the Balkans and elsewhere, (including a good portion of the Hungarian Black Army which was estimated at 28,000 men (the wiki here also estimates the Venetian peacetime army at 36,000 men)

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

G

Knaight

2014-12-16, 10:18 AM

Stuff like, "we are kinda stone-age but our neighbours have guns". But less egregious of course.

There are still plenty of people living with stone age technology. The colonial period had lots of direct military conflict between nations with dramatically different technological bases. Even in the context of extended military conflicts (e.g. between the Roman empire and some of the "barbarians" that they were in frequent conflict with), it's not that unusual for some level of technological disparity to exist. Coming back to the Roman example, the logistical sophistication and infrastructure was well ahead of most of their military opponents for the bulk of Rome's history.

Eldan

2014-12-16, 10:33 AM

Yeah but in DnD you are still better-off with a sword or an axe or something, because in DnD there is really only one measure of a weapon - the maximum damage it does. There's no rating for speed, or defense, or reach. So since swords are supposed to be 'better' than daggers, we end up with a 16" double-bladed knife being a 'nuisance weapon' which only does D4 damage. G

That still kills the average man on a good hit, or a tough guy in two or three.

Galloglaich

2014-12-16, 10:43 AM

There are still plenty of people living with stone age technology. The colonial period had lots of direct military conflict between nations with dramatically different technological bases. Even in the context of extended military conflicts (e.g. between the Roman empire and some of the "barbarians" that they were in frequent conflict with), it's not that unusual for some level of technological disparity to exist. Coming back to the Roman example, the logistical sophistication and infrastructure was well ahead of most of their military opponents for the bulk of Rome's history.

And a lower technology didn't necessarily mean an inferior military power.

Two examples I could think of in the late medieval world would include the pagan Lithuanians, who were at kind of a late Iron Age level of technology (right down to their hill forts or piliakalniai, which are reminiscent of those of the Celts, as were many of their swords) while their neighbors and perennial enemies in the Teutonic Order in Prussia and Livonia were at an advanced technology like plate armor and crossbows and guns, as were their other neighbors like Poland and Bohemia. And yet the Lithuanians would not only survive 200 years of Crusades they would go on to become one of the most powerful States in Europe.

Some medieval Lithuanian swords

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/files/anteninis_132.jpg

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/files/anteninis3_159.jpg

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/files/1678m07_110.jpg

Similarly, the Mongols of the Golden Horde and the Crimean Horde continued to use mainly bows and horse-archers at basically the same technology level as the Huns of Attila's time, even as their neighbors used guns and plate armor and cannons, and yet they still managed to pose a serious threat right up to the 18th Century.

G

Spiryt

2014-12-16, 11:09 AM

Well the thing with Lithuanians in 14th century was likely that the 'level of technology' wasn't really all that different when it comes to 'military power' though.

Surely, first plate armors, polearms, guns, crossbows, etc. were nice things, but those were details to the image of mounted guy clad in helmet and some iron, with stabbing lance and some striking implement.

Which wasn't that different from the rest of the Europe, even if that rest had more sophisticated smithing, bit bigger horses, Mediterranean textiles for armors etc. More of quantity differences than true 'quality'.

And by the time guns and plate armor really kicked in, Lithuania already had perfectly decent access to them anyway. Due to baptism and all.

Carl

2014-12-16, 11:23 AM

In case people are unfamiliar with Fantasy.

The Empire and Dwarves are roughly late pike and shot era, the empire in particular is just approaching the point at which they move to a napolionic style massed gunpowder army.

The Orcs and Norse are Iron age or in some cases stone age barbarian's, the Bretonnian's are a combination of Arthurian influences and Agincourt style french cavalry army theme's and the Lizardmen are Aztec's. Pretty much everyone else can't easily be compared to the real world. The Elves, Chaos, and Udnead, (7 factions), have so much "A Wizard Did It" going you can't say anything meaningful in comparison and the Skaven are just weird.

snowblizz

2014-12-16, 11:23 AM

There are still plenty of people living with stone age technology. The colonial period had lots of direct military conflict between nations with dramatically different technological bases.

And on average that worked how for the less technologically based groups? Badly.

The point was there are *reasons* for this to happen. It gets problematic when those reasons tends to be "Uhh... magic?", which is the way fantasy usually hand-waves it. It can be a legitimate excuse though. To use my earlier example, it still bugs me that facing the same challenges elves still insist on using ballistas (scorpions really) to somewhat annoy dragons when human and dwarven cannons kill them dead. Clearly the latter is more effective, but more dangerous, so put that glorious eleven mind to making a safe cannon doggonnit.

Alberic Strein

2014-12-16, 11:30 AM

I heard a number of points about axes and axefighting, and since I trust you guys more than a google search, here are some questions:

Are axes very noob unfriendly? I heard opinions about them being pretty much the worst melee weapon to put in beginner hands, the reasons being:
-You have a natural tendecy to use too much strength, which is deadly (for you) in a duel or on a battlefield, and their weight distribution makes things even worse.
-Proper edge alignment is ungodly difficult, way worse than a swod. A counterpoint to that was that unlike a sword, an axe strike has a lot of weight behind it, and that while an unaligned sword strike wouldn't do much damage by itself, an unaligned axe strike is not unlike a blow from a mace.

Are those true?

Would that mean that someone very proficient with an axe would have a tendency to be good with a sword? (used to less nimble weapon, has edge alignment down to pat)

Also, are there treatises on axe fighting? All I got wath Le Jeu de la Hache, and it's poleaxe centric.

If those are true, then why axes? They are cheaper than a sword sure, but they can't be much cheaper than a spear, which (if my sources aren't flawed) much more noob friendly. As a sideaem for mounted knights maybe?

Knaight

2014-12-16, 11:41 AM

And on average that worked how for the less technologically based groups? Badly.

Generally yes, though it is worth noting that individual battles sometimes went the other direction, though that involved large numerical differences. This gets much more true in the context of significantly smaller technological differences, such as the example Galloglaich gave with Lithuania. Other examples include conflicts between ancient China and their southern neighbors. Pretty much regardless of period (past the Qin dynasty anyways), there was a substantial technological difference, particularly in manufacturing. This was true even of the Khmer empire, which was a particularly impressive state.

If those are true, then why axes? They are cheaper than a sword sure, but they can't be much cheaper than a spear, which (if my sources aren't flawed) much more noob friendly. As a sideaem for mounted knights maybe?
For the most part, all over the world, over a wide variety of time periods, spears or spear derived weapons are the primary melee weapon of armies. Sometimes it's pikes (longer spears), sometimes lances are particularly worth noting (longer spears used from horseback), sometimes there were a lot of more complex pole arms (spears with more complex heads), etc. The point is, there are very few armies that can be pointed to where spears aren't the primary melee weapons, and even with cases such as later Rome, the auxiliary forces weren't exactly short on spears.

With that said, if one has a spear, it generally helps to also have some sort of sidearm, in case things get too close. Axes were often weapons for that niche, and a spear is clearly not going to work there.

Spiryt

2014-12-16, 11:42 AM

If those are true, then why axes? They are cheaper than a sword sure, but they can't be much cheaper than a spear, which (if my sources aren't flawed) much more noob friendly. As a sideaem for mounted knights maybe?

And sidearm for foot troops as well, when/if spear is broken, lost or unwieldy/impractical in combat.

Not to mention that not every user would be 'noob', obviously. :smallbiggrin:

The point was there are *reasons* for this to happen. It gets problematic when those reasons tends to be "Uhh... magic?", which is the way fantasy usually hand-waves it. It can be a legitimate excuse though.

And there are reasons, and it happens, in a world with NO magic (that's general stance of modern science at least.:D). Throw magic and Skavens in, and it can become even more pronounced.

To use my earlier example, it still bugs me that facing the same challenges elves still insist on using ballistas (scorpions really) to somewhat annoy dragons when human and dwarven cannons kill them dead. Clearly the latter is more effective, but more dangerous, so put that glorious eleven mind to making a safe cannon doggonnit.

One can just assume that Elves can have no real culture of large scale casting/Giessen - no knowledge, no infrastructure, don't like burning large amount of forest and stuff. And so on.

Don't like to import those, prefer to spend their moneys on other branches of industry.

Occasional elf militarist will of course see it as terrible. Write polemic articles about defenselessness and military disadvantage of glorious Elven Realms. With a lot sources. Some Elves will laugh at him, some will even care. Nevertheless, not much will change.

They prefer their warfare traditions, and are masters at them, so no there's no incentive for change.

Gnoman

2014-12-16, 11:47 AM

If those are true, then why axes? They are cheaper than a sword sure, but they can't be much cheaper than a spear, which (if my sources aren't flawed) much more noob friendly. As a sideaem for mounted knights maybe?

Don't forget that your average infantryman would be a commoner that used axes of one sort or another in their everyday life, for splitting firewood if nothing else. An axe might not be the easiest thing to use, but the basic mechanics would be nearly instinctual.

Carl

2014-12-16, 12:08 PM

One can just assume that Elves can have no real culture of large scale casting/Giessen - no knowledge, no infrastructure, don't like burning large amount of forest and stuff. And so on.

Don't like to import those, prefer to spend their moneys on other branches of industry.

Occasional elf militarist will of course see it as terrible. Write polemic articles about defenselessness and military disadvantage of glorious Elven Realms. With a lot sources. Some Elves will laugh at him, some will even care. Nevertheless, not much will change.

They prefer their warfare traditions, and are masters at them, so no there's no incentive for change.

The real issue with elves and the like is that lore wise they're not especially strong compared to human's, but they are rather skilled and fast. Something fantasy's rules totally fail to make relevant. So even though a given number of elven spearmen should totally massacre an equal number of human spearmen, but in practice it will be nothing even close to that, and if you start getting into equal points values the elves would often lose, admittedly as 6th edition dragged on and 7th came in GW started to recognize this and the balance got better, but in general elite armies like elves suffered because the game emphasized strength toughness, and armour over skill and speed. Basically even supremely skilled and fast fighters where barely above horde, (read attrition warfare tactics), armies in unit for unit power. Been writing my own tabeltop system recently based off various rules re-writes i came up with because of these and other issues in fantasy, (it's a badly flawed mess of a system really, but cool lore).

Gnoman

2014-12-16, 12:24 PM

Reading a FFVII LP, which had a link to someone making a replica of the buster sword, made me think about something. If you were to scale it down to sane proportions, would it be an effective weapon with that shape? Or would it just be badly balanced and useless?

Eldan

2014-12-16, 12:54 PM

The real issue with elves and the like is that lore wise they're not especially strong compared to human's, but they are rather skilled and fast. Something fantasy's rules totally fail to make relevant. So even though a given number of elven spearmen should totally massacre an equal number of human spearmen, but in practice it will be nothing even close to that, and if you start getting into equal points values the elves would often lose, admittedly as 6th edition dragged on and 7th came in GW started to recognize this and the balance got better, but in general elite armies like elves suffered because the game emphasized strength toughness, and armour over skill and speed. Basically even supremely skilled and fast fighters where barely above horde, (read attrition warfare tactics), armies in unit for unit power. Been writing my own tabeltop system recently based off various rules re-writes i came up with because of these and other issues in fantasy, (it's a badly flawed mess of a system really, but cool lore).

I don't know, elves have a fairly decent chance, really. They have first strike and higher initiative, plus higher weapon skill, so they usually reroll a good chance to hit against humans and go first, so they can easily massacre and equal number of humans by taking away entire ranks before the humans can fight back.

snowblizz

2014-12-16, 01:39 PM

Carl

2014-12-16, 01:40 PM

I don't know, elves have a fairly decent chance, really. They have first strike and higher initiative, plus higher weapon skill, so they usually reroll a good chance to hit against humans and go first, so they can easily massacre and equal number of humans by taking away entire ranks before the humans can fight back.

I think you must be thinking of a later edition, (i basically got out very early 7th), when i played the idea of an entire rank getting massacred was laughable. Even great weapon wielders/cavalry had to roll really well if they wanted to pull that off. WS4 S3 attacks. lol. Never gonna happen. And fights tended to be decided on the charge, where initiative never matters, expect charging with spearmen gave up every advantage spears gave so they where often on the receiving end, (high elf spearmen got this even worse than dark elf ones, even if they did get an extra rank to fight with).

Just as a quick example, (lucky i can get to my army books/remember some values), A block of 20 DE spearmen, 6th edition book costs the same as a block of 28 empire spearmen. Assuming the same 5 model rank width it takes 2 dead to rob the DE of a point of combat resolution, but 10 for the empire and the empire have outnumber bonus. After a couple of rounds they also have an extra point of rank bonus. Sure if the elves get lucky or the fight drags on long enough due to luck on the LD tests the slightly, (emphasis on slightly, average 1 extra wound taking into account lower kill rates of empire due to initiative differences) higher kill rates will even the numbers and ranks out. But before that they'll be making a whole bunch of leadership tests on -2 modifiers first. On average the empire wins hands down.

Sure go for even numbers and the reverse happens to the empire, but you can almost afford 3 unis of empire troops for 2 of elven and the power of flanks charges eclipses everything.

Start using actual elites or actual horde armies rather than the middle ground empire and it gets much worse than this. Empire spearmen is almost a favorable comparison compared to many units eleven spearmen could run into.

GraaEminense

2014-12-16, 01:47 PM

Regarding axes: as others have mentioned, it wasn't a question of axe or spear, but axe and spear. Axe or sword, however, is a valid question.

Are axes very noob unfriendly? I heard opinions about them being pretty much the worst melee weapon to put in beginner hands, the reasons being:
-You have a natural tendecy to use too much strength, which is deadly (for you) in a duel or on a battlefield, and their weight distribution makes things even worse.
-Proper edge alignment is ungodly difficult, way worse than a swod. A counterpoint to that was that unlike a sword, an axe strike has a lot of weight behind it, and that while an unaligned sword strike wouldn't do much damage by itself, an unaligned axe strike is not unlike a blow from a mace.

Are those true?
I don't think they're particularly "noob-unfriendly", if you have no clue what you're doing a weapon that wants you to do what comes most naturally (hard blows to the head from above) works better than most. When you have a bit of training the sword has the advantage of being stabbier and nimbler but a complete rookie won't get much mileage out of those.

Edge alignment is actually easier with axes, in my experience -the weight of the head tells you how to hit better than a sword blade does. Axes do pack more of a punch, the head lets you hit around shields in ways a sword won't, you can do all sorts of hooking tricks to ruin someone's day, and you can shorten it to knife-length if need be. They are also cheaper to make. Axes do have a fair amount of advantages.

They have some drawbacks too, of course -they tend to recover mores slowly from hard blows, they are less stabby and often shorter, they usually don't have a crossguard to protect the hand, they get stuck more easily... Axes are not superweapons, but they are not pointless.

Would that mean that someone very proficient with an axe would have a tendency to be good with a sword? (used to less nimble weapon, has edge alignment down to pat)
Yes. Good fighters are good fighters regardless of weapon, because a lot of the skills are not weapon-specific. Some techniques differ of course and a master swordsman is not necessarily a master axeman, but he'll tend to be a pretty good one -especially with relatively similar weapons (both are used in one hand, preferably with a shield).

In my experience, axe-fighting tend to rely on the shield for defense even more than sword-fighting, and avoid "fencing". Hard blows from maximum distance or hooking with the axe to control the opponent's weapon are favoured techniques. This is based mostly on unarmoured reenactment fighting though, so hardly conclusive. I haven't seen the one handed axe in any period manual.

Edit: One of the main problems Warhammer has always had was balancing elite infantry like Elves right. They never managed it while I played the game (4t-7th ed, 8th turned me off).

Carl

2014-12-16, 02:40 PM

Edit: One of the main problems Warhammer has always had was balancing elite infantry like Elves right. They never managed it while I played the game (4t-7th ed, 8th turned me off).

To be fair IMO you could, (and i have attempted to), write entire essay's on the flaws of the system. Elite vs horde infantry balance was just one symptom of a generally pretty massive set of problems.

KnotKnormal

2014-12-16, 02:52 PM

rs2excelsior

2014-12-16, 03:08 PM

When you do, be careful not to mix too diversely. It can hamper immersion when stuff are similar to history but mixing eras, like Warhammer where races tend to be assigned to a certain technological base and period which wouldn't have coexisted meaningfully in the real world.

Stuff like, "we are kinda stone-age but our neighbours have guns". But less egregious of course.

I'm shooting for late Medieval (with a few less guns--this is fantasy, after all) and working from there. Human nations will all be roughly at the same technology level. The Dwarves will have more gunpowder weapons, better crossbows, and more general mechanical whats-its (although not getting anywhere near steampunk levels of tech). The Elves could build gunpowder weapons, but choose not to for cultural reasons and due to their style of warfare. Plus, they have the most magic available in what will be a very low-magic setting. The Orcs will be behind the other races--homegrown stuff will probably still be mostly chainmail and Dark Ages to early/mid Medieval stuff, depending on the tribe/state, plus whatever higher-tech stuff from other races that they can get their hands on. And the goblins... well, the goblins are a servant race to the Orcs, and barely sentient (and incredibly bloodthirsty). So they don't really make much of anything.

With regards to the axe discussion... I've heard it is very easy for someone with little to no training to use a spear, and still fairly easy (but slightly harder) for them to use an axe, but it is almost impossible for a novice to fight well with a sword. A sword's expense, combined with the much greater training requirement, is why they were almost exclusively used by the upper warrior classes. Do swords really have that much steeper of a learning curve than other hand-to-hand weapons of the era?

Spiryt

2014-12-16, 03:31 PM

With regards to the axe discussion... I've heard it is very easy for someone with little to no training to use a spear, and still fairly easy (but slightly harder) for them to use an axe, but it is almost impossible for a novice to fight well with a sword. A sword's expense, combined with the much greater training requirement, is why they were almost exclusively used by the upper warrior classes. Do swords really have that much steeper of a learning curve than other hand-to-hand weapons of the era?

I don't think so, TBH.

The description about expense and 'upper class' doesn't really fit at all in many times and places.

Yes, a good sword would likely be quite a treasure in 'Dark Age' in Europe, but in 15th century it would be affordable for pretty much everyone who was not very poor.

And it would be used, well or not, by everyone in civilian and military situation.

Sure, 'effective' fighting against armed and defending opponent may not be for everyone, but absolutely every able bodied human can harm and kill other beings with a sword, very, very easily.

Same goes for all similar instruments, like sabres, falchions, messers.

Gnoman

2014-12-16, 03:38 PM

No brains

2014-12-16, 06:13 PM

Brother Oni

2014-12-16, 08:13 PM

I'm not sure if this has been asked already (37 pages is a lot reading that i can't do at work) but here goes. I'm looking to build my own set of armor, and I'm not quite sure how to design it. I want it to be some what realistic, yet stylish, A work of art, yet functional. I'm an avid Marksman, and particularly good with a bow, and I wan the armor to reflect that. Are there any parts of the body that i would avoid slapping a piece of steal on to? (like the finger tips, so that i can still feel the string, bow and arrow.) or it pretty much fair game. Also should I favor one side over the other? (such as my bow arm, as it will be stretch out and a prime target.) I want to avoid chain mail as much as possible, as it is loud, and very time consuming to make. The construction will mostly be leather and steal. (Aluminum or brass for light weight accents.)

Depending on your form and references, you may not want armour that hangs around your neck or bulky armour around the chest on the side of your drawing arm (especially if you wear a chest guard normally when shooting).

I would also recommend a smooth surface on the inside of your bow arm. While string slap is not an issue while clothed, anything that's spiky or ridged can potentially damage your bow string.

Since you haven't stated what period or style of armour you're after, here's a selection of examples:

Typical 15th Century English archer, such as might be worn at Agincourt:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02994/army-agincourt_2994156k.jpg
Note that the only armour he has, is a quilted jacket, coif and helmet with mail, a shield of some sort and a bracer.

Here's something earlier and further to the east:

http://www.oberlin.edu/images/645S.JPG

In comparison to the English archer, he would have worn lamellar instead, thus providing a more protection. He would have also worn a helmet of some sort:

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/42/60/8442608264ca003e6324bb397138597f.jpg

Gnoman's already mentioned the cataphracts who are the heaviest armoured archers that I know of and coming second would be the samurai:

http://i1.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/phys-e1375404147773.jpg?resize=632%2C474
They're wearing gusoku armour which has more freedom of movement than the old style o-yoroi armour. The one on the left has a yumi, which is asymmetric and also noticeably bigger than a western selfbow.

snowblizz

2014-12-17, 04:37 AM

In worlds where technology progresses unevenly between cultures, about how far apart in terms of tech can some people be? I had an idea for an RPG setting where the best tech anyone can get is on the level of renaissance, with most of the world still being pretty medieval and the most out of touch/the way places are still clinging to classical methods of doing things. Is that unrealistic? I thought that technology could spread that unevenly when the most impressive machines are kept secret. Is it wrong to believe that in the time that the first musket units are rolling out to the field that some people might still think Hoplites are the zenith of military power? I should mention that these cultures are only 'neighbors' in that they share a continent.

Maybe I play too much Civ.
Honestly, in practice the potential difference is almost limitless, but it needs to be motivated. There are essentially stone age tribes in the Amazon still, but that's mainly because Brazil has decided that that is the way they want it. Many "natives" held out for a long time against colonial powers but then again the latter were usually "phoning it in" so to speak, and as technology marched on the spread of it was relentless, in that many of the later instances both sides had similar weaponry. One of those things I find thought-provoking, as colonial powers divested armour since it was of little use in their "internal" struggles, lesser military technology starts to become more dangerous to them.

Consider that stuff like the trebuchet and gunpowder technology moved from the far east to the west and back again in a surprisingly short time. Most of the "isolationist" examples rely on distance and lack of ability to travel and project power.
And you can't really keep stuff secret and at the same time make use of it.
What it boils down to I'd say is, do the hoplites live next door to gunpowder users? IRL sharing a continent has meant that ideas and tech have been able to travel essentially uninterrupted. What is your reason for it not to.

Zizka

2014-12-17, 10:53 AM

Does anyone know how the Browning Automatic Rifle was actually used in practice? A 20 round magazine seems way too small for a light machine gun, and for a semi-automatic rifle it appears to be much too big and heavy to be practical.

Most WWII LMGs didn't have huge magazines -- the British Bren only had 30 rounds. Essentially the BAR was a squad support weapon, designed to assist the riflemen. There's a huge number of books about the weapon and its use.

Pierre Rinfret, a former Nixon advisor, was a BAR-man in the ETO and described his experiences on his (now defunct) website:

The Browning Automatic Rifle. It weighed about 18 pounds and the ammunition magazine weighed about 8/10 ounces each, held 20 rounds of 30 caliber ammunition. A magazine with 20 rounds of ammunition weighed about 1 pound 6 ounces so that my ammunition belt carried 12 magazines and with the BAR that meant a burden of close to 30/35 pounds (including the weight of the magazines loaded with ammo)! I lugged one around for about 9/10 months of Army duty. I had a love-hate relationship with this weapon of mine (I was a forward scout with a BAR) which was manufactured in 1917! Those that never carried it in combat rave about it! All I know is that mine failed me often, was a disaster to run with and jammed up much too much. It was designed for World War I and not World War II. It was far too noisy and readily attracted enemy fire! It was OK and that is as much praise as I willing to give it!

https://web.archive.org/web/20061219221751/http://www.rinfret.com/weapons.htm

Also:

My Browning Automatic Rifle had a glaring flaw. It had a bipod which (I believe) was designed for trench warfare in World War I . If you ran with the BAR the bipod would rotate at an accelerating rate and you could not control your running. I threw mine away. I got bawled out by an officer for destroying GOVT. property! Everybody threw theirs away. The weapon was for trench warfare and not for mobile warfare.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061231065644/http://www.rinfret.com/ww2.html

You can find out about his other WWII experiences here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070102113648/http://www.rinfret.com/ww2articles.html

Lilapop

2014-12-17, 11:15 AM

BladeofObliviom

2014-12-17, 11:41 AM

How feasible is reinforcing the palm of a plate gauntlet with mail, possibly of lighter (more expensive to produce) quality? I'd like to protect that area from the accidental slices it has to take, I imagine, in messy knife fights, the grappling/sword grabbing techniques used in longsword systems, and when halfswording.

If it completely destroys your ability to hold a weapon: How do you keep those wounds from occuring? Of course a controlled halfswording thrust against a stationary target can be executed without endangering your bare hands. But as soon as something unexpectedly pushes or pulls the blade you are grabbing, wouldn't you be in for a bad time?

...:smallconfused:

Unless it's really poor-quality, Plate Gauntlets should be more or less impervious to slashing weapons. If something's hurting you while you're in plate armor, it's typically either doing so with sheer crushing force, because it got around the armor, or because it focused a whole lot of force on a very narrow point (which is pretty difficult with era-appropriate weaponry). The last is the only one that could hypothetically occur in your scenario, and mail is simply not going to work better than plate for that purpose.

EDIT: Technically I guess someone could wedge a dagger into a joint, but mail wouldn't protect from that either.

Lilapop

2014-12-17, 12:06 PM

Uuuh... maybe I should have stressed that more, but I am talking about the palm, the inside of the hand. As far as I know, that part is only covered by relatively soft leather even on plate gauntlets.

Spiryt

2014-12-17, 12:11 PM

How feasible is reinforcing the palm of a plate gauntlet with mail, possibly of lighter (more expensive to produce) quality? I'd like to protect that area from the accidental slices it has to take, I imagine, in messy knife fights, the grappling/sword grabbing techniques used in longsword systems, and when halfswording.

If it completely destroys your ability to hold a weapon: How do you keep those wounds from occuring? Of course a controlled halfswording thrust against a stationary target can be executed without endangering your bare hands. But as soon as something unexpectedly pushes or pulls the blade you are grabbing, wouldn't you be in for a bad time?

For what it's worth, there's decent amount of medieval and later depictions where even the inside of the hand seems to be covered in mail.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4974/15443/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4418/8842/

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf28/otm28ra.gif

It's a good question, as far as I can tell most preserved gauntlets, or reconstructions, seem to have no mail on the palm.

Storm Bringer

2014-12-17, 12:17 PM

I know that pre plate chainmail mittens often had armoured palms, but I think the fact that appear to have gone form armoured palms to leather palms suggests that they were not that concerned about injuries there. my guess would be that the leather provided enough protection to their palms.

snowblizz

2014-12-17, 03:32 PM

But as soon as something unexpectedly pushes or pulls the blade you are grabbing, wouldn't you be in for a bad time?

It is actually possible to quite comfortably hold a sword in the half-swording position without injury. I think it's been discussed here before. You can put quite a lot of pressure against the skin even with sharp blade. The opponent grabbing the blade would have a similar problem but he'd be at the worse end.
A sword would not have that much of an edge close to the hilt either, not much point to it so far form the point. In fact many swords were designed with this in mind.

Especially if you have leather you'd be pretty much safe.

Now a curved blade is much more dangerous, which is why you never half-sword with katana....

Eldan

2014-12-17, 05:57 PM

I think I've seen people push their flat hand against the back of the Katana blade a few times? Not the same, I know, but probably for similar reasons.

Zizka

2014-12-17, 06:16 PM

Some slightly random notes of interest from "Counting the Dead: Traditions of Enumeration and the Italian Wars" by John Gagné in 'Renaissance Quarterly', Vol. 67, No. 3 (Fall 2014).

Military fraud is as old as time:

While generally effective, such efforts could not completely disable soldiers from attempting to claim the pay of others. In the Italian Wars, problems of what one might call identity theft continued, as Swiss fraud trials [in the Zurich State archives] against mercenaries indicate.

Early open government:

In fourteenth-century Florence...these figures [muster rolls] would have been a matter of public record since the size of the contracted military force impinged directly upon the value of forced loans [to pay for the war].

The 14thC (Northern European) method of calculating the number of casualties:

Since the French king had fled the battle [of Crecy, 1346], the victor — King Edward III (r. 1327–77) — undertook to count the French dead and nominated the knight Reginald Cobham to ‘‘assemble some knights who recognized arms [along with] all the heralds and go among the dead, write down the names of all the knights he could identify, and gather together at one side [the bodies of] all the princes and great lords with their names written on them, by which to recognize them and their service according to their estate.’

Child soldiers:

Swiss families [during the 16thC Italian Wars) lamented the human cost of the wars. Hans Frisching of Bern grieved the death of his fourteen-year-old son Ludwig in his family diary. The boy ‘‘died, struck by a pike through both thighs’’ at Marignano: ‘‘May God never forgive such a misdeed. And at the hour of his miserable death he was fourteen years, fifteen weeks, and one day old.’’

A Hollywood-style knight (also worth noting the trades of the common soldiers):

At the siege of Padua in 1509 the renowned [French] knight Bayard balked at a suggestion that nobles and soldiers should breach the wall together, wondering ‘‘whether it is reasonable to put such nobles in danger alongside foot soldiers who are ropemakers, farriers, bakers, and mechanicals, who hold their honor in less esteem than gentlemen do.’
Sans peur et sans reproche!

Battlefield tourism:

After the fighting [at the Battle of Agnadello in 1509], curious crowds assembled to see the carnage. So many came to view the bodies that a makeshift bridge rose over the Adda river to allow them easy passage.

Galloglaich

2014-12-17, 06:47 PM

It wasn't unusual by the late medieval period for people in Italy to wear mail-lined gloves in a civilian context, this was to make it easier to grab a possible enemies blade in a sword fight. This is something you see in a lot of the fight-books, usually after a bind. In Bolognese and later Italian rapier manuals you often hold your off-hand ready to grab the blade at every opportunity.

For half-swording you don't necessarily need gloves, mail-lined or otherwise, I've been told how safe it is depends on the specific shape of the sword but I have a couple of high-end sharps that we cut with in our fencing club and I could hold them tightly enough to stab it deeply into some ply-wood without hurting my bare hands.

G

oudeis

2014-12-17, 07:18 PM

It is actually possible to quite comfortably hold a sword in the half-swording position without injury. I think it's been discussed here before. You can put quite a lot of pressure against the skin even with sharp blade. The opponent grabbing the blade would have a similar problem but he'd be at the worse end.
A sword would not have that much of an edge close to the hilt either, not much point to it so far form the point. In fact many swords were designed with this in mind.

Especially if you have leather you'd be pretty much safe.

Now a curved blade is much more dangerous, which is why you never half-sword with katana....

Why wouldn't you?

Roxxy

2014-12-17, 08:15 PM

Spamotron

2014-12-17, 08:30 PM

Knaight

2014-12-17, 11:04 PM

Gnoman

2014-12-18, 03:26 AM

Let's say we have a strong, centralized state with a high or late medieval technology level. It needs a professional standing army, and the recruits are mostly peasantry. For such circumstances, Rome seems the best place to look for how to organize things and train soldiers, but that was over a millennia ago. Technology has changed quite a bit, though. The model needs to be updated to make full use of the available technology. What does that mean in terms of training and tactics? Is the Roman model particularly good for a medieval professional standing army recruited from peasantry?

Spanish infantry into the Renaissance era (including those loaded on the Invincible Armada) were explicitly modeled on the Roman style, although supplemented with arquebusiers. The important thing to remember is that until the age of the flintlock musket, and possibly even the rifle-musket, new technology didn't make that much of a tactical difference. Sure, a newer army would beat an older one fairly easier through better equipment, but in general a new weapon simply supplanted and eventually replaced the old one, and was used in the same way. For the most obvious example, the handgonne took the place of some of the crossbowmen, and later the arquebus began to take the place of handgonnes. The primary difference between Roman-era armies and medieval ones is that economic and political factors led to cavalry being esteemed over all other branches, despite the fact that whenever the heavy horse encountered genuine infantry (as opposed to the untrained peasant levy that usually bulked out armies or dismounted knights that were poorly equipped for fighting on foot) supported by archers, the cavalry was smashed. In other words, the change was a matter of doctrine rather than technology.

Even late into the Napoleonic era, a highly effective battle formation was men lined up shoulder to shoulder, moving with extreme precision and attacking as one. Although modern books and films tend to decry this as an overdeveloped sense of "honor", in reality it was the only way to maximize the firepower of the musket, and then provide solidity in the bayonet charge. In other words, except for carrying a musket instead of a spear, the troops were organized exactly the same way as the soldiers of Marathon or Thermopylae.

Eldan

2014-12-18, 03:42 AM

Don't forget command structure. One of the important inventions of the Romans over the Greeks was organizing units into sub-units and including several levels of officers for different levels of the hierarchy, so that larger units could be broken up for tactical flexibility. So, once again, doctrine.

snowblizz

2014-12-18, 04:24 AM

I think I've seen people push their flat hand against the back of the Katana blade a few times? Not the same, I know, but probably for similar reasons.
Yes, that's the only* safe way to hold or support the katana blade. You don't want the sharp bits against flesh.

I actually think you do something similar with sabres. And should probably not be gripping around the blade of sabre either for that matter.

*AFAIK

Why wouldn't you?
Because you won't have any fingers or much of a hand afterwards.

The curved blade enhances the cutting since all the force is transferred to a minuscule* impact point. Which means the even the slightest shifts will cut you, and cut you deep. That's the idea behind eg sabres, you don't chop with it, you slice. In ideal cases you only hold on to the blade (cavalry drive-by slashing).

*compared to a straight blade, it's the same principle as the blonde in high-heels and the elephant stepping on your foot, always pick the elephant

At the end of the day I'm sure there are situations where you could hold onto say a katana around the blade and not get hurt, but the risk are very much higher compared to a straight blade, and I'd say that is why I never heard of katana half-swording.

snowblizz

2014-12-18, 04:40 AM

Eldan

2014-12-18, 05:13 AM

Spiryt

2014-12-18, 10:08 AM

. The primary difference between Roman-era armies and medieval ones is that economic and political factors led to cavalry being esteemed over all other branches, despite the fact that whenever the heavy horse encountered genuine infantry (as opposed to the untrained peasant levy that usually bulked out armies or dismounted knights that were poorly equipped for fighting on foot) supported by archers, the cavalry was smashed. In other words, the change was a matter of doctrine rather than technology.

.

Uh, it's not true in the slightest.

Heavy infantry of late Medieval/Renaissance/Baroque, with proper morale, esprit de'arms etc. kind of brought such way of fighting into relevance again, but they didn't phase out heavy cavalry at all.

And heavy cavalry enjoyed plenty of victories still.

The curved blade enhances the cutting since all the force is transferred to a minuscule* impact point. Which means the even the slightest shifts will cut you, and cut you deep. That's the idea behind eg sabres, you don't chop with it, you slice. In ideal cases you only hold on to the blade (cavalry drive-by slashing).

*compared to a straight blade, it's the same principle as the blonde in high-heels and the elephant stepping on your foot, always pick the elephant

Except that it doesn't really have sense in this context.

The difference in impact point between straight and curved sabre isn't in any way enough to make a difference.

How do you imagine this?

Your description of 'draw slice' actually illustrates completely opposite principle - impact is SPREAD on large cutting surface, due to drawing action, instead of relatively small part of the edge.

When people grabs the blade, the hand obviously follow the curve anyway, to grab as big portion of edge as hand is.... The 'impact' length stays exactly the same.

With katana it likely could be even easier, because the flat, wide spine could allow better, safer grip on one side at least.

Gnoman

2014-12-18, 10:17 AM

Uh, it's not true in the slightest.

Heavy infantry of late Medieval/Renaissance/Baroque, with proper morale, esprit de'arms etc. kind of brought such way of fighting into relevance again, but they didn't phase out heavy cavalry at all.

And heavy cavalry enjoyed plenty of victories still.

I never once stated that heavy cavalry was phased out. I said that the doctrine of the Medieval period favored heavy cavalry to the exclusion of all other arms, relegating the role of infantry to the poorly equipped "foul smelling rabble", and that this persisted until heavy infantry was revived in the Renaissance era. This was despite the fact that there were few cases where a heavy-cavalry-only army met up with a proper infantry force and wasn't crushed.

Brother Oni

2014-12-18, 11:03 AM

Are there actually any techniques where one would try to push against the blade (of a straight sword or a katana) with the hand to deflect it? Dangerous, I know, but is there any evidence of it in any manuals or schools?

I have seen techniques where the additional force is applied to a katana blade by the user pressing on the blunt spine (usually in a bind or other close quarters fighting), but I haven't studied kenjutsu or kendo formally to know the exact circumstances or the names of the techniques (I know a bit obliquely via aikido and far too many video games).

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 11:08 AM

Are there actually any techniques where one would try to push against the blade (of a straight sword or a katana) with the hand to deflect it? Dangerous, I know, but is there any evidence of it in any manuals or schools?

Yes, quite a bit in the European fight-books, but almost inevitably after a bind, i.e. after you have parried them or they parried you, and the blade has stopped moving temporarily. You can for example grab a blade and quickly cut the other guy and end the fight with a cut to his face or neck, even if you did get cut you are still better off. I think this is the assumption usually in the Italian manuals for example: better to have a cut hand than a sword stuck through your head. But you can also 'safely' grab a sword if it's been stopped, you can also trap it under your armpit and so on. Once it's stopped it's much safer.

Here for example you can see two guys in a 'tug of war' with a sharp (not recommended to do this at home kids).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddeL1aw1BkE&safe=active

But the thing about a sword is that it cuts in ways that can be a bit unpredictable, you can go very suddenly from 'barely a scratch' to being cut all the way through your bones. Cut the wrong way and a sword may not do anything at all, cut the 'right' way and swords can really cause catastrophic injuries almost beyond belief. I think the concern with katanas and other curved swords is that it's easier to get a sudden slip. I don't really know I haven't experimented with one for the above reason, I have seen some rather awful accidents with swords. I've done the half-swording tests with my own because I know them very well after owning and cutting with them for years. But it was probably kind of stupid to risk it.

As for training, though medieval military people were indeed very interested in and influenced by Roman military techniques, I think the medieval training and style of fighting, command and control and so on, was actually quite different, and I would argue, more effective. After all, it was medieval armies, led by the Venetians, who defeated and really broke the back of the Byzantines during the IVth Crusade in the early 13th Century. Much more primitive and chaotic medieval armies than that one were already a major force to be reckoned with as early as the 1st Crusade. But by the late medieval era, 14th - 15th Century, I think European armies had reached a level of efficiency and deadliness that the Romans wouldn't have been able to imagine.

By the late medieval period when you see military forces such as the Black Army, due to a combination of training, technology, and organization I think they were much more efficient than a Roman army, and also very different. The Black Army was made up of mercenaries who were in turn originally militia who had already been through a lot of wars and battles back at home, in this specific case mainly religious wars and Crusades in the Czech region. The mercenaries in the Black Army were mostly the more extremist heretic sects who had been defeated by the moderates in Bohemia in the 1430's. They also included German, Italian, and even Scottish mercenaries who had got their original training from local rural or urban militias and combined that with a lot of combat experience and contests (more on the contests in a second).

Medieval soldiers were on the one hand, typically part time, in other words, they were the kinds of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers that Boucicaut, who like the famous Bayard, also sneered at, and yet at the same time they were highly skilled experts. Boucicaut himself was defeated by a commoner (a Condottieri captain) who was trained in fencing by the famous fencing Master and fight-book author Fiore Dei Liberi. It's so hard to convey the level of sophistication of the medieval military force without writing a ten page essay, but I'll try an analogy. Rome was a slave based society, which relied on huge masses of slave labor to do everything. Imperial-era Roman soldiers were basically slaves or indentured servants, who signed up for 20 year stretch and fought under a ruthlessly strict top-down military hierarchy which was so rigid that Caligula could allegedly force his Legions to attack the ocean and collect seashells for a 'triumph'. Roman Legions were vast, but were based on relatively simple people doing what they were told.

Medieval society was highly mechanized. A water mill in 11th Century England could grind as much grain as 50 Roman slaves could in a day, with the labor of only one person. By the time of the Domesday book of the Normans in 1070, there were over 6,000 water mills in England, and England at that point was a backwater compared to say Italy or Flanders. By the late medieval period, the large medieval middle and upper classes were highly skilled experts, people who created almost unbelievable monuments like the 460' tall Cathedral of Strasbourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_Cathedral) which rival the greatest Roman landmarks, but without using slave labor and in fact relying on only a tiny fraction of the work force (the city of Strasbourg probably had less than 30,000 people when they built the Cathedral) who were experts from the masons guild.

Medieval armies were typically made up of (literally) free-lance volunteers who got a lot of their training through contests. Tournaments, jousts, shooting contests, fencing contests, which were all big festivals that offered rich prizes for the winners. They were part of an incredibly, fiercely competitive, roiling, swirling rapidly changing, unstable society which relied heavily on machines and specialized skills to accomplish what the ancients had needed slaves to do. Most of them enjoyed a large amount of leisure time to spend on things like studying alchemy and fencing and engineering, which produced results like gunpowder weapons, the fencing of Fiore, and the architecture of their city walls, cathedrals and castles.

A medieval army was much smaller than a Roman army but it was also vastly more efficient. Whereas the Imperial Roman Legions were mainly infantry with a secondary (and often second rate) cavalry army, the Hungarian Black Army for example was truly combined arms, with strong heavy-infantry columns including war wagons, light infantry skirmishers and scouts, large numbers of hand-guns and highly efficient crossbows, but also light and heavy cavalry, all armored and equipped with superb military kit. Their armor was vastly better than anything the Romans had, as was their cavalry, their artillery, their swords, their archers and marksmen, their siege equipment and I suspect, their military organization. They were much more fluid and dynamic in their ability to react to new and dangerous problems, whereas the Romans did things by the book - by a very good book, but typically, if what they were doing wasn't working, they didn't seem to know how to change quickly. Some medieval armies were subject to terribly unstable morale, especially the Feudal armies which were heavily oriented toward heavy cavalry like the French were in a half dozen epic military disasters*. But in the more systematically, pragmatically organized medieval forces like the Black Army or the Swiss militias, which were much closer to the medieval "norm", if you could say they was such a thing, morale was very good, and they did not collapse when their leadership was taken out or when their forces were separated.

Which is why the Romans really had no answer for Parthian archers and heavy cavalry, but the Black Army was able to stop the much more powerful Ottoman Empire from taking over Hungary for nearly 50 years. Imperial Rome, on the other hand, was much more stable than medieval system, lasting for centuries. The Black Army fell apart when the Hunyadi / Corvinus dynasty failed, and the Venetian funding dried up, and the Bohemian heretics moved back north. The medieval system was more dynamic but also much more chaotic.

Another major difference between medieval and Roman armies, is that medieval armies tended to spare the conquered much more, since todays enemy over controlling some town or fiefdom might be tomorrows ally against the Turks. Victories tended to boil down to a re-arrangement of tax payments and little else. Roman victories tended to be much more long lasting since they would usually kill and enslave vast numbers of their enemies civilian population and a reorganization of the entire social and political system.

G

* In the English speaking world I think we tend to have a very skewed idea of medieval military organization because the English histories focus so heavily on the French, their main enemies, and French society was so heavily skewed toward the Feudal system and the aristocracy that they really couldn't even use their own infantry, since they hated the idea of arming their peasants, and instead relied heavily on foreign infantry from places like Genoa, the Rhineland and Switzerland.

Spiryt

2014-12-18, 12:31 PM

I never once stated that heavy cavalry was phased out. I said that the doctrine of the Medieval period favored heavy cavalry to the exclusion of all other arms, relegating the role of infantry to the poorly equipped "foul smelling rabble", and that this persisted until heavy infantry was revived in the Renaissance era. This was despite the fact that there were few cases where a heavy-cavalry-only army met up with a proper infantry force and wasn't crushed.

There were plenty of 'non foul smelling rabble' infantry, they just very often couldn't stand against cavalry, from France to Outremer.

It will be very hard to agree on definition of 'proper' - so essentially one could assume every smashed infantry army to be 'improper'.

Furthermore pure, cavalry vs infantry battles weren't that common, so it's hard to compare directly. Both armies were usually mixed, or cavalry vs cavalry. With cavalry being always limited resource, (way lesser numbers) and with ambushes, maneuvers, etc. breaking battles down to 'cavarly vs infantry' usually isn't easy.

Nevertheless one can easily find decent examples just by quick search.

Battle of Patay in 1429, Gerberoy in 1435.

Hiltersried in 1433 during Hussite wars.

In general, there are many examples of well placed, formed infantry, halting the advance of cavalry with help of terrain etc.

And similar, but opposite examples of cavalry managing to maneuverer infantry to more pitched battle.

Generally, in realities of late Medieval combat, attacking tended to be way harder to organize and control, and thus less and less effective.

On the other hand, infantry's capabilities of actually engaging cavalry were often small.

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 12:50 PM

The nice thing about being in the cavalry is that it's much easier to escape if the battle doesn't go well. If you are in the infantry and your group loses, you are in a world of hurt. You have to run away on foot and that is especially hard if the other side has cavalry. This is why discipline was so important for infantry - really well disciplined infantry which can hold together a square even if they are losing and retreat in a group in good order can live to fight another day, but if their discipline fails they are truly doomed.

Cavalry can also tactically choose when and where to attack which is another nice advantage. You can constantly probe, test, lure enemies into ambushes, put pressure on and take it off, go after lines of communication and so on, and any time the enemy shows weakness, you can ramp the pressure up, conversely if they are strong you can fade away as quick as you showed up. You can always go where they are weak and where you are strong.

This doesn't get emphasized that much in the histories, which seem to focus a lot on the halberd and the pike, but I think one of the main reasons that the momentum started to shift in Europe was due to crossbows. With weaker and shorter ranged missile weapons it was safer to circle around and around infantry and try for the weak spots and so on. But when you start to get crossbows that can kill horses at 200 meters, the whole proposition starts to become dicier. You either have to armor the horse as well as the rider, which limits the mobility of the horses and increases the expense of cavalry considerably, or you have to be a lot more careful (and lucky) about how you deal with the infantry*. Combine that with the advent of halberds and other similar polearms with their brutal amor-piercing and flesh hacking characteristics and infantry becomes less fun to play with, and the whole thing gets to be more balanced.

G

*the Mongols, and early observers of them like di Plano Carpini, mentioned crossbows quite a bit as one of their main problems in dealing with the European armies

Gnoman

2014-12-18, 12:52 PM

It will be very hard to agree on definition of 'proper' - so essentially one could assume every smashed infantry army to be 'improper'.

Nevertheless one can easily find decent examples just by quick search.

Battle of Patay in 1429, Gerberoy in 1435.

Hiltersried in 1433 during Hussite wars.

"Proper" means a force of infantry that is uniformly armed, carries real weapons instead of whatever they could find, and contains both hand-to-hand and missile weapons.

Patay was a force of unsupported archers with no pikes, bills, halberds, or even heavy swordsmen to keep horse at bay. A Greek phalanx would have been nearly as effective against them as the French horse was.

The only information about Gerberoy 1435 suggests that the English forces were largely defeated by fire from artillery before cavalry swept up the mess.

All the information I can find about the Hussite wars suggests that NO battles took place in 1433. Peace was negotiated early that year, and it held until 1434.

Spiryt

2014-12-18, 12:56 PM

As far as Romans vs Black Army goes, it is indeed rather unfair comparison for Rome.

Completely different world, largely built on remains of Latin and Hellenistic empires after, all, where wars indeed didn't appear as kind of 'one tribe trying to exterminate the other' anymore.

Different 'settings' indeed, politically, economically, socially, technologically etc.

But Roman legions at the height of their power had some pretty impressive cohesion and organization, particularly ability to provide (food, water, equipment) and care for their standing forces seems superior to what later civilizations were able to do, all the way to the very modern times.

They were ability to employ combined forces was pretty great, they simply didn't quite have that much choice to 'choose from'.

They were using various auxiliaries and artillery very well.

Which is why the Romans really had no answer for Parthian archers and heavy cavalry

To be fair, AFAIR their main problem was simply lack of ability to sensibly engage Parthians in vast lands of modern East Turkey, Syria, Iraq, etc.

They nevertheless were able to march hundreds of miles with Parthians harassing them and were able to take and hold most towns and fortresses.

but the Black Army was able to stop the much more powerful Ottoman Empire from taking over Hungary for nearly 50 years

That's kinda the point too, though - all European forces were still for the most part only able to defend against Ottomans, for a long, long time. On their own, war tormented lands, in case of Hungarians, Austrians, Wallachians, Bulgarians, Serbs and all other South Slavs, as well as Albanians, Greeks and so on.

Romans were actually actively trying to venture into Parthian, Scythian etc. lands. With very limited success indeed, but they were actually aggressive side for most part.

Able to defeat Parthian riders like under Mount Gindarus. Reach the Persian Bay, and generally claim the control over Mesopotamia on at least two different occasion.

So in comparison, they were doing pretty well.

Knaight

2014-12-18, 12:56 PM

The use of heavy cavalry is dramatically over exaggerated. During the high medieval period they dominated a lot of battlefields across a lot of different cultures, yes. However, the vast majority of military engagements weren't battles. There was lots and lots of raiding (which often did use cavalry), and lots and lots of sieges (in which cavalry aren't really that relevant). Battles get focused on because of a modern bias towards battles due to their importance in more recent conflicts (though sieges are far from gone), plus the tendency for battles to be romanticized as they transfer better to certain types of literature for whatever reason.

rs2excelsior

2014-12-18, 01:23 PM

Even late into the Napoleonic era, a highly effective battle formation was men lined up shoulder to shoulder, moving with extreme precision and attacking as one. Although modern books and films tend to decry this as an overdeveloped sense of "honor", in reality it was the only way to maximize the firepower of the musket, and then provide solidity in the bayonet charge. In other words, except for carrying a musket instead of a spear, the troops were organized exactly the same way as the soldiers of Marathon or Thermopylae.

I'm not sure exactly how you're defining the Napoleonic era, but those kinds of formations were quite effective up to Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, and through the American Civil War in the mid-1860s. The common perception of the Civil War was a bunch of idiot generals lining up their men against "modern" rifles that resulted in massive slaughters of all involved. But if you look at the casualty figures for individual units in individual engagements in the Civil War, the numbers are surprisingly low. Yes, rifles of the Civil War era were more accurate than smoothbores, but they were much closer in effectiveness and accuracy to their predecessors 50 years earlier in the Napoleonic Wars than their descendants 50 years later in WWI. Even massed frontal charges, like Pickett's Charge which Lee gets so much flak for, were made by both sides throughout the war, with a reasonable degree of success. The biggest difference between the Napoleonic Wars and the Civil War was that units in the latter were more likely to fight it out in a firefight than try to advance to contact with the bayonet (although it did still happen, and in both wars one of the units usually broke before contact).

Yes, by the later part of the war, the battle lines were loosening up, and Lee and Grant were writing the book on WWI-style trench warfare at Petersburg in 1864-65, but the transition from Napoleonic-style battle lines was far from over.

Imperial-era Roman soldiers were basically slaves or indentured servants, who signed up for 20 year stretch and fought under a ruthlessly strict top-down military hierarchy which was so rigid that Caligula could allegedly force his Legions to attack the ocean and collect seashells for a 'triumph'. Roman Legions were vast, but were based on relatively simple people doing what they were told.

...this really isn't true. Roman soldiers were free citizens--as far as I know, slaves couldn't be in the military. The soldiers in the Auxiliaries were a bit different, as they were from the periphery, but they were still far from being slaves or even indentured servants. One of the big draws to auxiliary service was the fact that auxiliaries who completed their term of service were granted full Roman citizenship.

And yes, the Roman army was rigid and highly structuralized. Look at any army that's actually successful in the field, and perhaps with the exception of a few anomalies that will be true of all of them. Armies where the soldiers can decide which orders to follow and which ones to ignore will be destroyed in war. So yes, Caligula could order his Legions to "attack" the sea. It was stupid, and the soldiers knew it. But that's how any military that's effective on the battlefield works. Not stifling individual initiative, mind, but if the company commander orders a platoon to circle around the left flank of the enemy, and half of the privates start arguing about how they think the right flank is a better option, that's not the sign of an effective military.

Medieval society was highly mechanized. A water mill in 11th Century England could grind as much grain as 50 Roman slaves could in a day, with the labor of only one person. By the time of the Domesday book of the Normans in 1070, there were over 6,000 water mills in England, and England at that point was a backwater compared to say Italy or Flanders. By the late medieval period, the large medieval middle and upper classes were highly skilled experts, people who created almost unbelievable monuments like the 460' tall Cathedral of Strasbourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_Cathedral) which rival the greatest Roman landmarks, but without using slave labor and in fact relying on only a tiny fraction of the work force (the city of Strasbourg probably had less than 30,000 people when they built the Cathedral) who were experts from the masons guild.

I really think you're overestimating the use of slave labor in ancient Rome. Yes, it existed, but they also made use of unskilled labor of free citizens, and a group of skilled engineers directed the work of the laborers. Rome was perhaps less mechanized than medieval Europe, but they had their fair share of architectural and mechanical works, some of which medieval Europe couldn't replicate.

Medieval armies were typically made up of (literally) free-lance volunteers who got a lot of their training through contests. Tournaments, jousts, shooting contests, fencing contests, which were all big festivals that offered rich prizes for the winners. They were part of an incredibly, fiercely competitive, roiling, swirling rapidly changing, unstable society which relied heavily on machines and specialized skills to accomplish what the ancients had needed slaves to do. Most of them enjoyed a large amount of leisure time to spend on things like studying alchemy and fencing and engineering, which produced results like gunpowder weapons, the fencing of Fiore, and the architecture of their city walls, cathedrals and castles.

And a Roman soldier had less leisure time, because he was a professional who did nothing but serve in the army. The Roman system of breaking and rebuilding an elaborate camp every day of the march meant Roman soldiers were extremely fit, and they too trained extensively. It's what would keep them alive in battle. And as you said, Roman soldiers late in their enlistments would have nearly twenty years of fighting experience, and many of the centurions who were on a second term would have more than that.

A medieval army was much smaller than a Roman army but it was also vastly more efficient. Whereas the Imperial Roman Legions were mainly infantry with a secondary (and often second rate) cavalry army, the Hungarian Black Army for example was truly combined arms, with strong heavy-infantry columns including war wagons, light infantry skirmishers and scouts, large numbers of hand-guns and highly efficient crossbows, but also light and heavy cavalry, all armored and equipped with superb military kit. Their armor was vastly better than anything the Romans had, as was their cavalry, their artillery, their swords, their archers and marksmen, their siege equipment and I suspect, their military organization. They were much more fluid and dynamic in their ability to react to new and dangerous problems, whereas the Romans did things by the book - by a very good book, but typically, if what they were doing wasn't working, they didn't seem to know how to change quickly. Some medieval armies were subject to terribly unstable morale, especially the Feudal armies which were heavily oriented toward heavy cavalry like the French were in a half dozen epic military disasters*. But in the more systematically, pragmatically organized medieval forces like the Black Army or the Swiss militias, which were much closer to the medieval "norm", if you could say they was such a thing, morale was very good, and they did not collapse when their leadership was taken out or when their forces were separated.

I don't really know much of anything about the Black Army, so I can't really say anything about their equipment and organization in comparison to that of the Romans, but a lot that you say here about the Roman army is incorrect.

Yes, the Roman legions were centered around their heavy infantry. In the Republican period, each legion included a contingent of velites (light infantry armed with javelins) and cavalry--both of which were, as you said, often second-rate. But Roman tactics relied on their heavy infantry, and even without support from good light units, the Romans won plenty of battles. The inferiority of their support arms did hurt them at times, especially against Hannibal in the Second Punic War--but even then, it was more often the inferiority of the light infantry rather than the cavalry that Hannibal used against them. Even in the Republican era, Roman cavalry was not very bad. Not great, either, but not exceedingly poor.

As you get into the later Republican and Imperial era, though, the light infantry and cavalry is removed from the legions. Instead, Roman armies begin to rely on Auxiliary cohorts for their cavalry, archers, and light infantry. All of which were much more effective, as the Romans took soldiers from conquered peoples and played to their strengths.

The Roman armies obviously didn't use gunpowder, but their battlefield artillery was unmatched by any other nation the Romans would have faced off against. As I understand it, field artillery (as opposed to siege artillery) was much, much more prevalent in Roman armies than Medieval ones. And even then, the Romans had larger ballistae and catapults for assaulting fortresses, made extensive use of siege towers and battering rams, and used various covered devices to advance infantry and rams up to the walls of a defending fortress. Combined with the fact that the Romans were much more adept at battlefield engineering and building formidable fortified positions in short order.

With regards to equipment, Roman chain mail was quite good at what it did, and the lorica segmentata=--segmented plate, in use from around 100 AD onward--was probably the equivalent of any Medieval armor short of late-Medieval full plate. Combine that with the fact that Roman soldiers were trained to cover one another with their large shields, and a Roman soldier was quite well protected on the battlefield.

And as to the flexibility of Roman legions in combat... they were renown for it. It was the greater flexibility and mobility of the legion that allowed them to defeat the Greeks and Macedonians who still used inflexible phalanxes on many occasions, and Hannibal modified the organization of his army to be more like the Roman legions to increase his own flexibility. Several years before he pulled the fake retreat in the center followed by a double envelopment at Cannae, he tried a similar trick at the Battle of the Trebia River. However, his forces were still organized in a phalanx style, so he couldn't control his men enough to pull off the fake retreat (phalanxes are notoriously difficult to move in any direction except forward). He was successful, largely due to the overconfidence of the Consul in charge of the Roman forces, but a large part of the Roman army managed to break through the center and escape.

The triplex acies was a very flexible formation, allowing Roman armies to easily reinforce their front lines or react to threats on their flanks. There are many accounts of cohorts being sent by the general to exploit an enemy weakness or shore up a breach in their own lines--and even centurions leading their cohorts to do so when they say the need. That is what happens when an army is effectively subdivided into units with leaders who can exercise their own initiative. And as for Roman soldiers breaking when their leaders were killed or when they were cut off... I don't know of any predisposition Romans had toward this tendency more so than any other army of any time period. In fact, I'd say a Roman force was more likely to fight on in these situations than any of its contemporaries.

Which is why the Romans really had no answer for Parthian archers and heavy cavalry, but the Black Army was able to stop the much more powerful Ottoman Empire from taking over Hungary for nearly 50 years.

It's the same problem conventional forces have fighting guerrilla (or guerrilla-style) forces anywhere, from the Parthian archers to current conflicts in the Middle East. I seriously doubt Medieval heavy cavalry would have been able to bring the Parthians to battle either, and Medieval infantry would certainly have met the same fate as the Romans did. And while the Romans made several unsuccessful attempts to conquer the Parthians, the Parthians never managed to loosen Roman control over areas in the region that they already held.

Overall, I think the Roman military system was much more effective than you give it credit for.

Spiryt

2014-12-18, 01:29 PM

"Proper" means a force of infantry that is uniformly armed, carries real weapons instead of whatever they could find, and contains both hand-to-hand and missile weapons.

And most infantry throughout the High/Early Medieval period matched all of those.

Spears, axes, crossbows (for most important ones for a while), as well as javelins to strike at range at closer distances.

Like Fatimid infnatry (https://books.google.pl/books?id=UalnoF5MBHMC&pg=PA511&lpg=PA511&dq=Fatimid+infantry&source=bl&ots=U4Tef2vE7l&sig=cyLtrS0I73MfdPP6-f3nKLDOwFs&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=SBiTVIfHBYqvPOjKgeAH&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Fatimid%20infantry&f=false)

or Frankish troops that had stopped the expansions of Maurs, Magyars, Avars etc.

Or German two handed sword wielding, armoured infantry like at Benevento in 1266.

And so on.

Completely random rabbles weren't really ever big thing, at least not something important in battles.

All the information I can find about the Hussite wars suggests that NO battles took place in 1433. Peace was negotiated early that year, and it held until 1434.

Hussites organized raid into Eastern German lands, in modern Bavaria.

On 21th September 1433 under Hiltersried, some 1000 local knights to take fortified Hussite camp of some ~2000 men, killing most of them.

Apparently the surprise factor was important, only German articles seem to have much about it.

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 01:52 PM

As far as Romans vs Black Army goes, it is indeed rather unfair comparison for Rome.
(snip)

But Roman legions at the height of their power had some pretty impressive cohesion and organization, particularly ability to provide (food, water, equipment) and care for their standing forces seems superior to what later civilizations were able to do, all the way to the very modern times.

Romans did do a good job with logistics and built impressive roads, but the extent of this sometimes gets exaggerated, after all Roman armies typically foraged in the field, individual Legionnaire's carried harvesting sickles on them if I remember correctly. Conversely, it's often assumed that medieval armies didn't have any logistical abilities, but their logistic skill was actually quite impressive.

They were ability to employ combined forces was pretty great, they simply didn't quite have that much choice to 'choose from'.

They were using various auxiliaries and artillery very well.

Yes but the lack of things to choose from is really what I'm referring to - Roman technology changed very gradually over centuries, medieval technology was similarly slow-changing until their economies started to take off in certain areas in the 12th-13th centuries, but from that point onward it developed with dramatic speed. Guns, cannon, plate armor, crossbows, all kinds of new siege weapons, war-wagons, new types of warships, etc. etc. And with these things larger numbers of skilled experts to use them. The romans lacked good heavy cavalry or (arguably) missile weapon troops, at least until quite late. And the late Byzantine forces couldn't hold up to the itlaians.

To be fair, AFAIR their main problem was simply lack of ability to sensibly engage Parthians in vast lands of modern East Turkey, Syria, Iraq, etc.

They nevertheless were able to march hundreds of miles with Parthians harassing them and were able to take and hold most towns and fortresses.

That's kinda the point too, though - all European forces were still for the most part only able to defend against Ottomans, for a long, long time. On their own, war tormented lands, in case of Hungarians, Austrians, Wallachians, Bulgarians, Serbs and all other South Slavs, as well as Albanians, Greeks and so on.

Romans were actually actively trying to venture into Parthian, Scythian etc. lands. With very limited success indeed, but they were actually aggressive side for most part.

Able to defeat Parthian riders like under Mount Gindarus. Reach the Persian Bay, and generally claim the control over Mesopotamia on at least two different occasion.

So in comparison, they were doing pretty well

Fair point, but the medieval city-states made similar accomplishments, and were not only just defending. They invaded the Middle East and captured Outremer which they held, however precariously, for 150 years in some parts (Antioch). Everyone knows about that. Fewer are aware of the many other examples of expansion, for example the Italian urban republics of Genoea and Venice taking over and (in an alternating manner) holding most of the Crimean peninsula for 271 years, in spite of the frequent active hostility of the Mongol Hordes. This of course was orchestrated to control their trade networks down the Silk Road, which included outposts in China by both cities in the 14th Century, something the Romans never accomplished.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Repubblica_di_Genova.png

Eurasian colonies of Venice

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Repubblica_di_Venezia.png/755px-Repubblica_di_Venezia.png

Or the Lithuanian and later Lithuanian-Polish expansion into formerly Mongol territory in what is now the Ukraine and Belarus.

For that matter it was essentially late-Medieval soldiers and explorers who captured much of the Caribbean and Central America and a foothold in various outposts in the far-East and Pacific Islands, and that is well beyond the Roman capabilities.

G

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 02:22 PM

Overall, I think the Roman military system was much more effective than you give it credit for.

You make fair points, and maybe I am being too hard on the Romans, but I'm really just playing the devil's advocate, not so much denigrating the Roman system (which was of it's own time) as pointing out the effectiveness of the medieval armies which tends to get very underestimated.

With regards to equipment, Roman chain mail was quite good at what it did, and the lorica segmentata=--segmented plate, in use from around 100 AD onward--was probably the equivalent of any Medieval armor short of late-Medieval full plate.

No, it looks the same superficially, but it's really not even close. Good quality late-medieval armor was made of steel, Roman armor was made of iron or sometimes brass. Lorica segmentata was really crude compared to medieval plate armor.

http://www.therionarms.com/reenact/therionarms_c744b.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/05/2f/49/052f4954667f210d7734e147754a782b.jpg
Which guy do you think would be harder to hurt?

Late medieval infantry armor covered more, was vastly better in terms of fit and bulk, and was basically bullet proof. It was also probably lighter since the steel, especially the tempered steel, could be much thinner and still provide equal or better protection than iron.

http://www.armae.com/Photos/Armures_et_cuirasses/Sur%20mesure/AG151/122PDAG151D.jpg

Medieval armies also had fully armored infantry and cavalry who were essentially invulnerable to weapon strikes or missile shots, the only way to get them was to pull them down or use special armor piercing weapons

http://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DSC_0029.jpg

Combine that with the fact that Roman soldiers were trained to cover one another with their large shields, and a Roman soldier was quite well protected on the battlefield.

Not well enough, as we know that Hun and Parthian arrows could punch through those shields and kill them in large numbers, as happened in many major battles.

And as to the flexibility of Roman legions in combat... they were renown for it. It was the greater flexibility and mobility of the legion that allowed them to defeat the Greeks and Macedonians who still used inflexible phalanxes on many occasions, and Hannibal modified the organization of his army to be more like the Roman legions to increase his own flexibility. Several years before he pulled the fake retreat in the center followed by a double envelopment at Cannae, he tried a similar trick at the Battle of the Trebia River. However, his forces were still organized in a phalanx style, so he couldn't control his men enough to pull off the fake retreat (phalanxes are notoriously difficult to move in any direction except forward). He was successful, largely due to the overconfidence of the Consul in charge of the Roman forces, but a large part of the Roman army managed to break through the center and escape.

It's true that Centurians had some tactical flexibility but I don't think as much as the elements of a medieval army did on the operational level, if their top commanders were killed or in some other way removed, they could elect or otherwise acquire new ones. They routinely split up into smaller units as a matter of normal operation.

And as for Roman soldiers breaking when their leaders were killed or when they were cut off... I don't know of any predisposition Romans had toward this tendency more so than any other army of any time period. In fact, I'd say a Roman force was more likely to fight on in these situations than any of its contemporaries.

I'm thinking of battles like Adrianople, Teutonoberg Forest, Carrhae etc. where the Legions simply collapsed.

It's the same problem conventional forces have fighting guerrilla (or guerrilla-style) forces anywhere, from the Parthian archers to current conflicts in the Middle East. I seriously doubt Medieval heavy cavalry would have been able to bring the Parthians to battle either, and Medieval infantry would certainly have met the same fate as the Romans did. And while the Romans made several unsuccessful attempts to conquer the Parthians, the Parthians never managed to loosen Roman control over areas in the region that they already held.

The Parthians didn't rely on guerilla tactics, they smashed Roman armies in pitched battles several times. You should read up on them it's interesting. At Carrhae for example a combination of archers and heavy cavalry charges broke the Legions, and these were capabilities which medieval armies had, in addition to heavy infantry like the Legions the Romans relied on so much, which was arguably at least as good as the Legionnaire's if not better.

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

The Romans never could quite extract themselves from Parthia and it contributed to their decline. Of course that meant decline for the Persians as well.

And these days our own empire seems to be bogged down in Parthia again.

G

Kiero

2014-12-18, 03:21 PM

With regards to equipment, Roman chain mail was quite good at what it did, and the lorica segmentata=--segmented plate, in use from around 100 AD onward--was probably the equivalent of any Medieval armor short of late-Medieval full plate.

Anyone who makes claims about the lorica segmentata being "good" I can be certain doesn't know what they're talking about. It wasn't good armour at all, it certainly wasn't as good as any kind of plate, and was arguably no better than regular mail. It was harder to maintain than mail, which is why it was dropped again in favour of the good, old, reliable lorica hamata.

rs2excelsior

2014-12-18, 03:24 PM

Which guy do you think would be harder to hurt?

Late medieval infantry armor covered more, was vastly better in terms of fit and bulk, and was basically bullet proof. It was also probably lighter since the steel, especially the tempered steel, could be much thinner and still provide equal or better protection than iron.

You'll notice I said that the lorica segmentata is the equivalent of anything except late Medieval full plate. I'll grant you, full plate armor provides more protection than any Roman armor--or indeed, most any armor that I know of before or since. And I could be wrong here, but I am fairly certain steel was available to the Romans, and that they used both steel weapons and armor, at least as you get into the Imperial period.

Also, the shield was a huge part of a Roman soldier's armor. Yes, a legionnaire's arms and upper legs were more exposed than those of an armored late-Medieval soldier. But if you are fighting a legionnaire, things have already gone wrong for the legion. The soldier wore greaves to protect his legs and a helmet to protect his face--which admittedly does sacrifice some of the protection of a full helm, but in exchange for much greater visibility. His front--from the greaves to the helmet, basically--would be protected by his shield, and his sides by the adjacent men, also carrying shields. The armor was a second line of defense, rather than the first.

Also, the Roman method of fighting emphasized quick thrusts with the short sword. Not only are thrusts easier and more lethal than a wide cut, the legionnaire can remain behind his shield, exposing only his arm for a brief instant.

Not well enough, as we know that Hun and Parthian arrows could punch through those shields and kill them in large numbers, as happened in many major battles.

I know of no accounts of an arrow piercing a Roman shield to kill the wielder behind it. These two seem to speak to the effectiveness of Roman shields against arrows:

with one eye gone, his thigh and shoulder wounded, and his shield bored through [with arrows] in a hundred and twenty places, [he] continued to guard the gate of a fortress put in his charge... [he] boarded the ship and drove the enemy before him with the boss of his shield.

One day, when they fell into an ambush and were being struck by dense showers of arrows, [the legionaries] suddenly formed the testudo by joining their shields, and rested their left knees on the ground. The barbarians... threw aside their bows, leaped from their horses, and drawing their daggers, came up close to put an end to them. At this the Romans sprang to their feet, extended their battle-line... and confronting the foe face to face, fell upon them... and cut down great numbers.

The first is from Suetonius, writing about one of Caesar's centurions at the Battle of Dyrrachium against Pompey, and the second is from Dio, about Mark Antony's soldiers fighting the Armenians.

It's true that Centurians had some tactical flexibility but I don't think as much as the elements of a medieval army did on the operational level, if their top commanders were killed or in some other way removed, they could elect or otherwise acquire new ones. They routinely split up into smaller units as a matter of normal operation.

Both of these are true about the Romans, as well. If a Roman general was killed, a subordinate could easily take his place. This was probably less true in the civil wars, but that was because the generals were the men fighting for power. If he was dead, unless an ambitious subordinate wanted to make a go at it in his stead, the solders' cause was already lost, so no reason to keep fighting.

And Roman legions did split into smaller units in battle--as I said before, cohorts would detach from the battle-line to respond to threats and opportunities as a matter of course. Individual cohorts were often detached from their legions for guard duty or to achieve specific operational objectives, especially in regions like Germania where there were relatively small numbers of legionnaires operating in a large theater.

I'm thinking of battles like Adrianople, Teutonoberg Forest, Carrhae etc. where the Legions simply collapsed.

The Romans weren't supermen. They could break and run like any other military force before or since.

By Adrianople, the Legions were a shadow of their former selves. They lacked the discipline, morale, and training of their predecessors. And the Roman rout was not due to the death of a leader or the army being split up--it was due to being surrounded by enemy cavalry and exhaustion from earlier fighting. The Roman general (Emperor Valens) was not killed until after the rout.

Teutoberger Wald was an ambush that Ariovistus led the Romans into. They were caught in column (with their baggage and noncombatants interspersed along the column between the fighting legions--a Roman army in column of march was an incredibly long, ponderous thing) in terrain exceedingly unfavorable to the Romans. Even so, the survivors of the first attacks managed to build a fortified camp for the night, and make a breakout from the encircling German forces--only to walk into another of Ariovistus's traps. The legions were massacred, yes, but they didn't collapse until the very end.

At Carrhae, much of the Roman army made it off the field. That battle was a comedy of errors--Crassus was a far more adept politician and businessman than general. Even so, the Parthians were not able to simply overrun the Romans. When confronted with their horse archers, the Romans formed a testudo (their famous "tortoise" formation)--at which point the Parthian cataphracts would charge, since the testudo severely limited the melee ability of the Romans. But still the Romans endured the fire of the archers and the attacks of the cataphracts. When Crassus's son Publius went forward, he was surrounded and destroyed, but his forces still fought right up to the end. It wasn't until Crassus tried to advance with his entire army that the Parthians were able to surround the Roman army and force it to retreat.

The Parthians didn't rely on guerilla tactics, they smashed Roman armies in pitched battles several times. You should read up on them it's interesting. At Carrhae for example a combination of archers and heavy cavalry charges broke the Legions, and these were capabilities which medieval armies had, in addition to heavy infantry like the Legions the Romans relied on so much, which was arguably at least as good as the Legionnaire's if not better.

The Romans received the charges of the cataphracts several times, and turned them back. The Parthians weren't using guerrilla tactics in exactly the modern sense, but even at Carrhae they refused to give direct battle. Whenever the Romans would try to engage their mounted archers, they'd retreat, firing off the back of their saddles--the famous "Parthian shots." It wasn't until they were able to draw Publius's detachment off, surround it, and crush it that they were able to do a large amount of damage to Crassus's army. At the same time, though, the Romans had done very little against the Parthians, while taking steady casualties of their own.

Also, from the article you linked, regarding Parthian arrows:

Some historians describe the arrows partially penetrating the Roman shields, and nailing the shields to the limbs of the Roman infantry. Other historians state that the majority of wounds inflicted were nonfatal hits to exposed limbs.

EDIT:

Anyone who makes claims about the lorica segmentata being "good" I can be certain doesn't know what they're talking about. It wasn't good armour at all, it certainly wasn't as good as any kind of plate, and was arguably no better than regular mail. It was harder to maintain than mail, which is why it was dropped again in favour of the good, old, reliable lorica hamata.

I've found no indication of this. Everything I've seen has pointed to the lorica segmentata being an effective piece of armor. Apparently the generally accepted range of use was from around 9 BC (apparently my earlier 100 AD date was rather off) to the late 3rd century AD. So if it was terrible armor, it took the Romans about 300 years to realize that fact. All of this being with the caveat that what we know about the specific details of the Roman military is surprisingly fuzzy.

That being said, I can see how segmented plate armor like that would be harder to maintain than chainmail.

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 03:57 PM

And I could be wrong here, but I am fairly certain steel was available to the Romans, and that they used both steel weapons and armor, at least as you get into the Imperial period.

You are wrong about that, steel armor was a late medieval invention, tempered steel armor was specific only to certain towns in Italy and Southern Germany mainly in the 15th Century on any kind of large scale. It was very hard to make. Tempered steel swords were the norm by medieval times. The Romans had some primitive steel in use in their swords but it wasn't tempered.

The whole thing about thrusting being superior to cutting is an old Victorian cliché which has been debunked. The Roman gladius was an effective weapon but it was gradually replaced by the longer spatha as metallurgy permitted. Very generally speaking the swords of the medieval period were more dangerous and effective weapons, both individually and en masse, though the quality difference from one ferrous sword to another is incremental compared to some of the other differences.

Also, from the article you linked, regarding Parthian arrows:

That sounds pretty bad! I don't know but suspect that different armies had bows of different power in classical times, the weapons faced during the civil wars would not be as dangerous as for example, the Huns. I can't prove but I am pretty confident that the Mongol and Ottoman steppe nomad bows faced by the medieval Europeans were significantly more dangerous than anything the Romans faced, and the longbows, heavy crossbows and guns used by the late medieval period could probably punch through a scutum.

In fact the more powerful of the hand-held late medieval crossbows, which were small enough to use from horseback, were probably the equivalent in power to much heavier and larger Roman artillery pieces like the scorpion and the ballista. Many late medieval crossbows used tempered steel prods (the bow part), another technology unavailable to the Romans.

My understanding of Carrhae is that most of the Roman army was killed or captured, and only a small number managed to escape.

I don't see the comparison of charging heavy cavalry wheeling away to charge again in the middle of a pitched battle as being in any way similar to guerilla warfare. It's simply fighting to your strength. Cavalry does not normally linger to duke it out with infantry, not even knights usually did that. They would attack, wheel away, charge again and so on.

Regarding shields, the medieval armies had shields too. Quite good ones. By the late medieval period they even had all-steel ones.

I guess for the rest of it we just have to agree to disagree. I shouldn't push too far against the Romans, they were certainly one of the greatest fighting forces in human history, but I think they had their limits and the specific tactical limitations you can see pretty clearly in battles like Carrhae and Adrianople, and I think medieval armies had the capabilities to exploit these same limitations while also having the Roman strength in heavy infantry.

The fact that medieval armies tended to be smaller but better equipped meant that supply was actually less of a problem.

G

Spiryt

2014-12-18, 03:59 PM

Imperial-era Roman soldiers were basically slaves or indentured servants, who signed up for 20 year stretch and fought under a ruthlessly strict top-down military hierarchy which was so rigid that Caligula could allegedly force his Legions to attack the ocean and collect seashells for a 'triumph'. Roman Legions were vast, but were based on relatively simple people doing what they were told.

Come on, those 'slaves' often were willingly signing up for another 20 years!

For the money (good), for the glory, for the travel, for the land given to them for service. Calling them slaves doesn't fit the Roman mentality at all.

Similarly, the 'slave oriented economy' had huge amount of completely free, well regarded specialists who were building Roman legions aqueducts in modern Bulgaria.

http://archeowiesci.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Novae.jpg

Of course they had slaves, but Medieval specialists also had bunches of unqualified working force, or journeymen forever bound to remain journeymen, who's situation often wasn't very unlike slavish either.

Most of them enjoyed a large amount of leisure time to spend on things like studying alchemy and fencing and engineering, which produced results like gunpowder weapons, the fencing of Fiore, and the architecture of their city walls, cathedrals and castles.

Yeah, most of them would gladly study Fiore in original... If they could read at all, that's it.

And most of what they would be able to read, if they could would still be Roman works.

Your posts are excellent as always, but in many of those paragraphs here you are stepping on some romanticizing pedal.

They invaded the Middle East and captured Outremer which they held, however precariously, for 150 years in some parts (Antioch). Everyone knows about that. Fewer are aware of the many other examples of expansion, for example the Italian urban republics of Genoea and Venice taking over and (in an alternating manner) holding most of the Crimean peninsula for 271 years, in spite of the frequent active hostility of the Mongol Hordes.

The thing is that indeed Venetians did this, while Milanese did something else, while Portugese were trying to get to India...

The Rome, was indeed, surprisingly united huge political being for most of the time, with all the consequences of it.

So it's hard to compare it to hundreds of different small states each one pulling their piece of pillow. :smallbiggrin:

Similarly, comparing Roman capabilities as far as technology, travel, etc. goes to much more 'evolved' (from the lack of better word) being that had evolved on Roman remains in the first place is not very good.

They could achieve this mostly because of what Rome had achieved before their Realms.

Up to this day, after all Elbe/Donnau etc. marks the border between more rich and resourceful Western Europe, and poorer East.

Because East had at least 400 years slowed down reception of Classical influences or Rome and Hellenistic world.

Medieval armies also had fully armored infantry and cavalry who were essentially invulnerable to weapon strikes or missile shots,

But Romans weren't exactly alien to armoring someone very effectively from head to toe:

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

They were able to 'field' person with very complete, impervious armor, yet they obviously did it only for enjoyment, not in actual practice.

The actual combat practice simply didn't lead them to thinking that trying it 'serious serious' was necessary or useful.

The shield protected whole body as well, while skilfully used, strapping pieces of armor to the whole body was problematic, weighted a lot etc.

So again, comparing ancient warfare to warfare where constant changes and experiences had actually lead to some (minimal, we have to remember) amount of fully armored infantry isn't very viable.

That's the problem with all those 'Time Machine Fighting Championships' really.

were probably the equivalent in power to much heavier and larger Roman artillery pieces like the scorpion and the ballista.

Uh, I don't think there's a way...

Aside from sheer size and draw weight difference, I'm pretty sure that torsion engine is actually way more efficient at storing energy than bow.

It's not viable for personal weapons most of the time, for obvious reason.

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 04:57 PM

Come on, those 'slaves' often were willingly signing up for another 20 years!

For the money (good), for the glory, for the travel, for the land given to them for service. Calling them slaves doesn't fit the Roman mentality at all.

I disagree, once you joined the Roman army you couldn't leave - I've been in the Army and I understand what it means to be in under a tour. It's just a different mentality than a medieval soldier fighting for a militia that he had some control over, or on the basis of a short term contract. But I'm really not trying to say "Roman bad" or "medieval good" - there were advantages and disadvantages to each system, I'm just trying to point out how dynamic and fluid the latter system was compared to the former. I do think it led to more initiative and flexibility, but of course it also caused many problems with consistency and reliability and discipline compared to a Roman Legion.

Similarly, the 'slave oriented economy' had huge amount of completely free, well regarded specialists who were building Roman legions aqueducts in modern Bulgaria.

They have done studies on the health of the average Roman citizen and it wasn't good. Compare human height in the 1st-2nd century to the 15th

http://pseudoerasmus.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/height_darkages.jpg

Of course they had slaves, but Medieval specialists also had bunches of unqualified working force, or journeymen forever bound to remain journeymen, who's situation often wasn't very unlike slavish either.

Journeymen weren't unskilled, since by definition they had already finished an apprenticeship, they were also by definition free to travel from one place to another, and find themselves better work where they could, something Roman slaves and serfs were definitely forbidden to do. European journeymen travelled the length and breadth of Europe and beyond. In many towns this meant that the majority of the population were from elsewhere, for example in 15th Century Vienna only 25% of the guild-masters were native born.

And while later in the Early Modern period (in the 17th and 18th Centuries) some journeymen were indeed stuck in their status, in the medieval period, partly due to the mostly unrestricted ability to roam on the 'waltz' and partly for other reasons, most journeymen eventually became guild masters. It may have taken them longer than it should, but if they lived long enough, knew how to do their job and didn't get in legal trouble or get married too early, they could get into the guild in most industries. Most of the major industries (textiles, iron, ship building, beer etc. etc.) themselves were expanding through most of the medieval era (very generally speaking.)

There were of course free citizens in Rome, but there were far fewer as a percentage of society. The degree of social mobility that a medieval apprentice or journeyman had was unheard of in Rome for the most part.

Yeah, most of them would gladly study Fiore in original... If they could read at all, that's it.

And most of what they would be able to read, if they could would still be Roman works.

Your posts are excellent as always, but in many of those paragraphs here you are stepping on some romanticizing pedal.

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment mostly (and I changed the emphasis to the best part) ;). I'm just being a bit provocative to make a point, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb. I think people get stuck on a lot of persistent clichés because they rely on outdated frameworks for the data they come across. Even really smart well-informed people like the one I'm debating with right now ;)

For example, you seem to be unaware that literacy and numeracy were very widespread in medieval Europe, certainly by the late medieval period it was near universal in places like Northern Italy or Flanders. This was largely due to some other technological advantages that the medieval societies had, the water wheel powered paper-mill, the scriptorium, municipal public schools, eyeglasses, Arabic number systems instead of the cumbersome Roman numerals, double-entry bookkeeping, the printing press etc. etc.

The thing is that indeed Venetians did this, while Milanese did something else, while Portugese were trying to get to India...

The Rome, was indeed, surprisingly united huge political being for most of the time, with all the consequences of it.

So it's hard to compare it to hundreds of different small states each one pulling their piece of pillow. :smallbiggrin:

Yes but isn't it amazing that some of those hundreds of small states accomplished so much? And think, in the late medieval period, there was another huge slave Empire like the Romans, specifically the Ottoman Empire, which was a similarly vast, centralized military state. And who was their most consistent and important impediment to taking over Europe? One (by today's standards) small urban Republic, Venice. This to me speaks of the relative merits and strengths of the two types of systems, the Ottoman was more like the old Roman Empire, and Venice which was one of the most effective examples of the new medieval state.

Similarly, comparing Roman capabilities as far as technology, travel, etc. goes to much more 'evolved' (from the lack of better word) being that had evolved on Roman remains in the first place is not very good.

Nevertheless they did evolve, and they evolved far more rapidly than they did under the Roman empire, because of the difference in social organization.

Up to this day, after all Elbe/Donnau etc. marks the border between more rich and resourceful Western Europe, and poorer East. Because East had at least 400 years slowed down reception of Classical influences or Rome and Hellenistic world.

You could argue the opposite, that the Roman dominated Southern part of Europe is economically lagging behind the barbarian northern part. And I would argue that the far-Eastern fringe (places like Romania or even to some extent Russia) is still suffering from the depredations of the Mongols and the Ottomans. Even in the East the north is richer than the South. Having been there, I can say with confidence Prague is a much wealthier and better-organized city than Sofia or Bucharest ... or Athens, Lisbon, Naples or Palermo. Or than my hometown of New Orleans for that matter.

But Romans weren't exactly alien to armoring someone very effectively from head to toe:

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

They were able to 'field' person with very complete, impervious armor, yet they obviously did it only for enjoyment, not in actual practice.

Because (and I'm just voicing my opinion) that armor is too clumsy to actually use in the field - unlike medieval armor which was so much better.

The actual combat practice simply didn't lead them to thinking that trying it 'serious serious' was necessary or useful.

The shield protected whole body as well, while skilfully used, strapping pieces of armor to the whole body was problematic, weighted a lot etc.

So again, comparing ancient warfare to warfare where constant changes and experiences had actually lead to some (minimal, we have to remember) amount of fully armored infantry isn't very viable.

That's the problem with all those 'Time Machine Fighting Championships' really.

It's true, the time machine aspect is problematic, but I didn't bring it up. That said, I think the elements which came together in medieval warfare were also all there, for the most part, in the Classical world. Part of what was so ingenious about the medieval societies was their ability to put together these elements, not just from the Romans, but also from the Greeks, Arabs, Persians, Chinese, Turks, Mongols, etc. etc., everything they had access to, and substantially improve upon them. For example, the Romans and all the rest of them had water wheels, but it was the medieval Europeans who figured out how to make them ten times more efficient, and connect them to trip hammers, forges, paper mills, sump pumps, etc. etc. to the extent that they could actually eliminate huge amounts of the drudgery in their era by comparison. This was the actual meaning of medieval society, they were at least as reliant upon Muslim scholars as upon the Classical ones we hear so much about today - Avicenna and Averros were as much household names then as Hyppocrates and Plato are today.

And because they had far less success than the Romans in imposing one more or less uniform culture across Europe, one rule, one set of laws and customs, instead remaining with a kalediescope of wildly different political systems and cultures that you see in the medieval world, they benefited from the enormous variety of cultural, economic and social experiments within Europe which produced it's own brilliant ideas. And people like Leonardo Da Vinci actually working on siege weapons during wartime.

As for the Roman influence for example we don't actually know if Vegetius was really a Roman military scholar or if he was the invention of some medieval author.

G

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 05:07 PM

I know it is a ridiculous question but let me ask you this, visualize in your head if the entire Fekete sereg, fully equipped and supplied was somehow transported back to the 1st Century and had to face three or four Legions of the Roman Empire at the peak of their power.

How do you think that would go?

EDIT:

Aside from sheer size and draw weight difference, I'm pretty sure that torsion engine is actually way more efficient at storing energy than bow.

It's not viable for personal weapons most of the time, for obvious reason.

I'm not referring to the really big artillery, but to the medium sized weapons like this

http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/pics/birdoswald-2005/Dsc_0040-manuballista.jpg

Compared to these

http://medieval.stormthecastle.com/images/crossbows/15th-century-crossbow.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-45yyT0gHwAg/UVK_jKc4xcI/AAAAAAAAAZI/Ii79S7RXxYA/s640/DT11560.jpg

... let alone these

http://webspace.webring.com/people/lt/thorvin.geo/images/arquebus.JPG

G

Spiryt

2014-12-18, 05:08 PM

The whole thing about thrusting being superior to cutting is an old Victorian cliché which has been debunked. The Roman gladius was an effective weapon but it was gradually replaced by the longer spatha as metallurgy permitted.

The thing is that swords of the early Roman period actually were pretty simply 'spatha sized'.

Not to mention all those La Tene swords that tended to be well over 1m long.

Gladii from Punic War period were often close to 3 feet long and then where gradually getting shorter.

It was clearly intentional process, not anything 'forced'.

Ancient swords were often elaborate pieces of welded/differentially hardened pieces if iron, nothing had really changed all the way until ~1300.

Long spatha were already existed along with gladii after all.

Towards the late 1rst century AD, Roman legionary would see Gaulic warriors with 1 meter long swords everywhere, and his cavalry Roman 'colleagues' with spathas that could easily be 3 feet long as well.

Yet his gladius was shortening more than ever.

http://www.romanscotland.org.uk/pages/campaigns/Lost_Legion/images/Newstead-finds,-Gladius-and-Spatha-blades.jpg

Logical answer is that it didn't have anything to do with any 'insufficient metallurgy',

Adoption of spatha by all (eventually) feet forces is fascinating riddle, no doubt.

I can't prove but I am pretty confident that the Mongol and Ottoman steppe nomad bows faced by the medieval Europeans were significantly more dangerous than anything the Romans faced,

But why??

We can argue about Romans and medieval Germans all we want, but there's no reason for main, heh, carriers of nomadic bow culture to significantly increase in draw weight, size and so on.

They didn't become bigger and stronger either.

In fact, since in so called 'Dark Ages' most of the prey of the Nomads wouldn't be really armored in any significant way.

Migrating tribes of Germans, Slavs, Tracians, Ugro-Finns... And all unnamed folk that actually felt from the Well of History.

They have done studies on the health of the average Roman citizen and it wasn't good.

But the health of 'average medieval citizen' wasn't 'good' either.

Kings and other people had tumors on their intentness, leaking ulcers they had to just live with. Such was life before modern medicine. Even if you were healthy like wild boar, you could just be unlucky and catch something nasty.

For example, you seem to be unaware that literacy and numeracy were very widespread in medieval Europe, certainly by the late medieval period it was near universal in places like Northern Italy or Flanders. This was largely due to some other technological advantages that the medieval societies had, the water wheel powered paper-mill, the scriptorium, municipal public schools, eyeglasses, Arabic number systems instead of the cumbersome Roman numerals, double-entry bookkeeping, the printing press etc. etc.

The Romans had schools, huge merchant/bookkeeping cities as well.

The degree of literacy in % would have to backed by sources.

But I seriously doubt that cobbler or wool cutter would really be able to ever learn to read. Even in Flanders.

You could argue the opposite, that the Roman dominated Southern part of Europe is economically lagging behind the barbarian northern part. And I would argue that the far-Eastern fringe (places like Romania or even to some extent Russia) is still suffering from the depredations of the Mongols and the Ottomans. Even in the East the north is richer than the South. Having been there, I can say with confidence Prague is a much wealthier and better-organized city than Sofia or Bucharest ... or Athens, Lisbon, Naples or Palermo. Or than my hometown of New Orleans for that matter.

Eh, modern state is completely different story, due to things like few agricultural revolutions, WWII, and increased amount of sheer factors due to population growing of course.

I'm talking on how post Roman modern France, Italy, Spain, Alpine Germany were the motor of all impressive inventions you were mentioning.

Spreading them northward, and eastwards.

Mills, metalworking, cathedrals, castles, law, Gothic, words to describe it all. From Latin 'tegula' to German ' Ziegel' to Polish 'cegła', and so on.

rs2excelsior

2014-12-18, 05:09 PM

You are wrong about that, steel armor was a late medieval invention, tempered steel armor was specific only to certain towns in Italy and Southern Germany mainly in the 15th Century on any kind of large scale. It was very hard to make. Tempered steel swords were the norm by medieval times. The Romans had some primitive steel in use in their swords but it wasn't tempered.

I've done a little looking since the last post, and it seems like the Romans did have at least some basic steelworking abilities, and at least some of their armor incorporated both steel and iron. But given the fact that I'm far from an expert and it wasn't a source I trust implicitly, I'm willing to let that one drop.

The whole thing about thrusting being superior to cutting is an old Victorian cliché which has been debunked. The Roman gladius was an effective weapon but it was gradually replaced by the longer spatha as metallurgy permitted. Very generally speaking the swords of the medieval period were more dangerous and effective weapons, both individually and en masse, though the quality difference from one ferrous sword to another is incremental compared to some of the other differences.

A thrust is quicker, and it requires the user to expose himself much less--that was actually an advantage the Romans exploited against the Gauls and Germans. And the force is on a much smaller area--the point, rather than a section of the blade. But a cut, especially with a longer sword, can get more power, and has a longer reach. It was the shield wall's job to negate the reach advantage and let the Roman soldiers close. So honestly I think the implementation matters quite a lot here.

That sounds pretty bad! I don't know but suspect that different armies had bows of different power in classical times, the weapons faced during the civil wars would not be as dangerous as for example, the Huns. I can't prove but I am pretty confident that the Mongol and Ottoman steppe nomad bows faced by the medieval Europeans were significantly more dangerous than anything the Romans faced, and the longbows, heavy crossbows and guns used by the late medieval period could probably punch through a scutum.

Potentially, yes, but the Romans did face skilled archers with excellent bows for the time. And I was never saying a Roman shield made its wielder impervious to arrows, but there's a big difference between nonfatal wounds to exposed limbs and possibly an arrow punching through the shield to hit the arm and an arrow going clean through the shield, potentially through armor as well, and still retaining enough energy to deal a lethal blow.

In fact the more powerful of the hand-held late medieval crossbows, which were small enough to use from horseback, were probably the equivalent in power to much heavier and larger Roman artillery pieces like the scorpion and the ballista. Many late medieval crossbows used tempered steel prods (the bow part), another technology unavailable to the Romans.

Well, yes. That's a bit like saying a M16A2 rifle has better long-range and armor-penetrating capabilites than a Model 1861 Springfield.

My understanding of Carrhae is that most of the Roman army was killed or captured, and only a small number managed to escape.

I don't see the comparison of charging heavy cavalry wheeling away to charge again in the middle of a pitched battle as being in any way similar to guerilla warfare. It's simply fighting to your strength. Cavalry does not normally linger to duke it out with infantry, not even knights usually did that. They would attack, wheel away, charge again and so on.

The ancient sources are notoriously unreliable about numbers and casualty figures. Many Romans were killed and many were captured, especially the wounded left behind when the army retreated. But the army did retreat, with at least a semblance of order--it was not a complete rout.

And perhaps guerrilla warfare is not the best example, but the Parthians did use harrassing, hit-and-run tactics against the Romans until they could isolate and surround a small portion of the army. It's not much different in my mind to ambushes that then break off contact as soon as the enemy tries to react, made possible on a smaller scale by greater tactical mobility. To be clear, I'm referring more to their horse archers, who as I understand it were mostly responsible for the Roman defeat, rather than their cataphracts.

I guess for the rest of it we just have to agree to disagree. I shouldn't push too far against the Romans, they were certainly one of the greatest fighting forces in human history, but I think they had their limits and the specific tactical limitations you can see pretty clearly in battles like Carrhae and Adrianople, and I think medieval armies had the capabilities to exploit these same limitations while also having the Roman strength in heavy infantry.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I don't know about you, but this discussion has been rather enlightening for me. I certainly have a better opinion of Medieval methods of warfare than I did before, although I still don't think they were vastly superior to Roman methods.

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 05:35 PM

Logical answer is that it didn't have anything to do with any 'insufficient metallurgy',

Adoption of spatha by all (eventually) feet forces is fascinating riddle, no doubt.

Ok they may have been able to make a spatha, but I still think the metallurgy was an issue because the lack of good tempered steel in the earlier periods meant that a lot of the early spatha-like swords were subject to bending and so on, which as I'm sure you know was described in Roman and Classical literature from the period. As things like pattern welding became more widespread (as apparently was the case among some of the 'new' Germanic tribes) a sword the size of a spatha became more like the medieval equivalent.

But lets say they had no metallurgical limitation on making a 3 foot sword. Are you suggesting they had sufficient metallurgy to make a 4 or 5 foot sword like you see routinely in the late medieval period?

I agree many of the most impressive accomplishments were made in Southern Europe particularly in the beginning of the medieval 'surge', but quite a few also came from well north of the Alps, like that Cathedral in Strasbourg, or the printing press, or the Hanseatic Cog, or any number of sophisticated inventions from Flanders in painting and textiles and so on.

The degree of literacy in % would have to backed by sources.

But I seriously doubt that cobbler or wool cutter would really be able to ever learn to read. Even in Flanders.

Then you yourself should do some reading my friend, because you would be wrong.

This scholarly article on the subject says that by the late 13th Century literacy around the region of Florence was "near universal" (direct quote) and by the end of the 14th it had become the norm in all the urbanized zones in Europe. The article deals primarily with Castille which lagged behind other parts of Spain like Aragon (modern day Catalonia), but even there literacy was apparently widespread by the 15th Century, including for women.

Public schools and libraries were in place in every town I know of in Italy and Central and Northern Europe by the late medieval period, including specifically Wroclaw, Krakow, Prague, Strasbourg, Augsburg, Nuremberg, Hamburg, Lubeck, Luneburg, Stockholm, Gdansk, Elbing and Torun, for which I have the dates of the founding of their public (as opposed to Church) schools in a document at home. The article I linked below mentions that by 1380 Florence was educating 8,000 boys and girls every year at the public expense. This was because literacy and numeracy were necessary to commerce.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1475382852000362079#.VJNT2k10ypo

In your native Poland, the Balthasar Behem Codex from Krakow in 1505 mentions that apprentices have to be taught to read and write and depicts the wives of guild masters doing the books, for example in this depiction of a crossbowmakers workshop.

http://mek.oszk.hu/09100/09175/html/images/551.jpg

I don't know for sure but I don't think the Romans typically taught women or girls at the public expense.

G

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 05:41 PM

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I don't know about you, but this discussion has been rather enlightening for me. I certainly have a better opinion of Medieval methods of warfare than I did before, although I still don't think they were vastly superior to Roman methods.

Trust me, I'm enjoying the discussion as much as you are, and I'm definitely learning from it as I so often do here, but I jut wanted to avoid butting heads too much.

G

Spiryt

2014-12-18, 06:24 PM

Armors we call 'segmentata' were generally case hardened at least, as in outer surface was additionally treated with charcoal, so the outer surface would attain the carbon level and internal structure of steel.

We can't tell how normal and used it was, mostly due to fact that amount of remaining artifacts is not very good from obvious reasons.

periods meant that a lot of the early spatha-like swords were subject to bending and so on, which as I'm sure you know was described in Roman and Classical literature from the period.

There are quotes and actual finds of very rubbish swords from medieval period as well. That doesn't really prove much, other than swords are tricky, indeed.

Are you suggesting they had sufficient metallurgy to make a 4 or 5 foot sword like you see routinely in the late medieval period?

I don't really know enough about metallurgy, but - why not?

Dacians were making 4 feet slashing blades. Romans saw and felt them first hand as well.

Seems that they've thought 'nice and all, but not for us' too, since they've never seemed to bother with any two handed weapon.

Nomads were making some enormous sabres as well, they were likely more of scythes to mow down the people from horsebac.

http://www.tforum.info/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=47466

In either way, one can speculate to death, because two handed swords were indeed more of an exception than a rule throughout times and places.

like that Cathedral in Strasbourg, or the printing press, or the Hanseatic Cog, or any number of sophisticated inventions from Flanders in painting and textiles and so on.

Strasbourg and Flanders were both still parts of Rome, even if border ones. Roman speaking artisans were living there making impressive things up to the 10th century after all.

But yeah, people were making plenty of impressive things all around the world, no discussion here.

Just pointing out that past Roman world was pretty much tower that already had foundation, to use poor but fitting metaphor.

Kiero

2014-12-18, 08:23 PM

I've found no indication of this. Everything I've seen has pointed to the lorica segmentata being an effective piece of armor. Apparently the generally accepted range of use was from around 9 BC (apparently my earlier 100 AD date was rather off) to the late 3rd century AD. So if it was terrible armor, it took the Romans about 300 years to realize that fact. All of this being with the caveat that what we know about the specific details of the Roman military is surprisingly fuzzy.

That being said, I can see how segmented plate armor like that would be harder to maintain than chainmail.

The lorica segmentata never completely replaced the lorica hamata (auxiliaries continued to use mail in large numbers), and I think it's telling that centurions often used either lorica hamata or lorica squamata (scale). I'm sure it looked great on Praetorians who did little more than parade about the place.

Galloglaich

2014-12-18, 09:45 PM

Ok Spiryt you got me on that one... that is an AMAZING saber! Love it! What time period and place is that? Can you tell me anything about it?

G

Galloglaich

2014-12-19, 11:03 AM

But I still don't think that Roman metalurgists, or even their Noricum vassals, had the skill to make a sword like this

http://www.kattnet.com/weapons/spadona_brescia.jpg

and I think a sword like that (along with the training you need to use it properly) does give you a big advantage over a gladius.

G

KnotKnormal

2014-12-19, 12:14 PM

Since you haven't stated what period or style of armour you're after, here's a selection of examples:

Typical 15th Century English archer, such as might be worn at Agincourt:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02994/army-agincourt_2994156k.jpg
Note that the only armour he has, is a quilted jacket, coif and helmet with mail, a shield of some sort and a bracer.

Here's something earlier and further to the east:

http://www.oberlin.edu/images/645S.JPG

In comparison to the English archer, he would have worn lamellar instead, thus providing a more protection. He would have also worn a helmet of some sort:

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/42/60/8442608264ca003e6324bb397138597f.jpg

Gnoman's already mentioned the cataphracts who are the heaviest armoured archers that I know of and coming second would be the samurai:

http://i1.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/phys-e1375404147773.jpg?resize=632%2C474
They're wearing gusoku armour which has more freedom of movement than the old style o-yoroi armour. The one on the left has a yumi, which is asymmetric and also noticeably bigger than a western selfbow.

I was honestly thinking along the line of full plate, but with a twist. I was going to use leather to make the the armor, and the use steal plates to cover sections of the leather. The leather will help keep the metal quiet and provide more impact protection, and the steal will keep the leather from getting cut to shreds, as well as adding superior protection. It won't have the coverage full plate has but I'll have a lot more mobility, and be a hell of a lot quieter. something kind of like this, except... better. I really just want to make the pattern and then post pictures... but it takes forever to make patterns, an i don't even know if it's going to work.
http://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/6627432/il_570xN.340805341.jpghttp://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTAwMFgxMDAw/$%28KGrHqZ,!kwE7!O%29+oBuBOzWF!dbvw~~60_35.JPG

Carl

2014-12-19, 02:24 PM

Galloglaich

2014-12-19, 04:05 PM

Gallioach: it's been at least a decade since i saw the documentary, so i can't name the specific enemy, but i recall a documentary about roman equipment evolution in which an enemy who had unusually good metallurgy for the era and used large two handed swords forced the Romans to make some modifications to their equipment, but they coped just fine. Sure start throwing full blown tempered steels at them it's another matter entirely, but that as you note wasn't common for something like a millennium after Rome fell.

That would be the Dacians which Spiryt referred to, and specifically their Falxes, which is more sort of a military scythe than a sword, As well as the closely related Thracian Rhomphia.)

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Dacian_Weapons.jpg/1280px-Dacian_Weapons.jpg

The Falx was a formidable weapon which actually gave the Romans serious problems, but it wasn't anything nearly as dangerous, or as large, or as sophisticated as a late medieval longsword, and it wasn't enough to overcome the many other advantages (including armor) that the Romans had over the Dacians.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22940&d=1083360193

As for stabbing. A stabbing weapon pisses on a crusher or a slasher every day of the week and twice on sunday's.

The whole idea that stabbing is superior to cutting is Victorian cliché which arose out of a misunderstanding of some Classical sources which were just propaganda. I know it's hard for non-fencers to understand but I'll try to make the simplest and clearest analogy I can. Yes it's true that a thrust two inches between your ribs can kill you instantly, but your torso is usually a lot further away from your enemy than your hand, and if you try to stab me in the chest but I cut your hand off, you are as good as dead, trust me, and it's a lot easier to cut somebodies hand than reach their body.

The torso is also the second most commonly armored part of the body (other than the head) and only the head and torso are likely to cause a quickly fatal injury with a thrust, whereas a cut like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDHpjv2WNfo&safe=active

... is instantly fatal or disabling in almost any part of the body.

The first recorded literary reference we have of the use of the Roman gladius was by Livy, describing a Roman victory against Macedonians (from Livy's History of Rome, XXXI)

"Philip gave orders that the horsemen who had fallen in this expedition should be borne into camp so that the funeral honors accorded them should be seen by all. This he did on the assumption that by making provision for the burial he would enhance his own popularity and increase the readiness of his men to face danger on his behalf . . . [But] a ceremony which he thought would make them more ready to undertake any conflict struck fear into their hearts and consequent reluctance. They had seen wounds caused by spears, arrows, and, rarely, by lances, since they were accustomed to fighting the Greeks and Illyrians; but now they saw bodies dismembered by the Gladius, arms cut off with the shoulder attached, or heads severed from bodies, with the necks completely cut through, internal organs exposed, and other horrible wounds, and a general feeling of panic ensued when they discovered the kind of weapons and the kind of men they had to contend with"

So it's obvious that the gladius was used both for cutting as well as thrusting.

Which is the other issue for something like that big sword you linked. How is that going to be swung from really close range with any kind of force and how are you going to maintain sufficiently tight spacing to not be outnumbered so that you've got two legionnaires coming at you at once.

Well, a quarter million Swiss pikemen can't be wrong, in my opinion. Their rivals the Landsknechts used a shorter cutting sword but the Swiss usually defeated them when they came up against each other.

https://gilbertdewolghop.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/battle_scene_after_hans_holbein_the_younger3.jpg

The longsword was one of the most common sidearms for elite medieval infantry. I suspect with good reason.

The weapon I linked (a famous longsword from Brescia Italy) isn't that big (it's a little less than four feet) and it's plenty quick, trust me. It is of course bigger than a gladius, but you get the reach advantage which goes with that. you also have sophisticated martial arts which go with it as well, and those include numerous techniques for using the sword as a grappling tool to quickly finish off and eliminate enemies.

http://www.hema.freehomepage.com/_borders/Dl20.gif

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

When you see these techniques done at speed it becomes a bit more obvious how they work at all personal combat ranges. And also that, unlike in DnD (or at least the versions I'm familiar with) they can both cut and thrust with equal efficiency, just like a gladius.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBwa6NgrQL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WzAHNdvWDU

G

Lilapop

2014-12-19, 05:21 PM

As for stabbing. A stabbing weapon pisses on a crusher or a slasher every day of the week and twice on sunday's.
There are contemporary reports of people surviving nasty torso thrusts, especially with all those narrow-bladed post-renaissance dueling swords.

In other news: Has anyone here had experience with the quality of http://www.kovex-ars.cz/index.php and their products? Some of the items look kinda nice, some are rather shoddy. The one that caught my eye doesn't look too bad on the photos, but who knows.

Carl

2014-12-19, 05:41 PM

Gallioch:

First), the video you linked shows a pretty standard cut. Which is not even close to as fast a killer as you claim. The fastest you can physically kill someone with a limb hit is to sever an artery. Even for the femoral artery, the biggest death takes a minute or more and unconsciousness around 30 seconds according to the one bit of info i could find on it. Compared tot he 10 seconds or less from cutting blood flow to the brain that's a massive increase. Sure shock can put someone down a lot faster if it happens, but reality has proven time and again that when someones pumped up on enough adrenaline, sock is not reliable.

Second), I never said they didn't hack with them, though don't assume severed limbs and heads means slashing, If you stab into the joint such that you break it and thus separate the connecting bones a soldier should them be able to sever the limb by simply pulling perpendicular to the stab. I merely said that the stated technique was a proffered method, no the only method, in fact i'd assume a fair degree of parrying would involve slashing moves so such would certainly be taught in case an opportunity arises to turn a parry into an attack if for no other reason, (and i agree other reasons present themselves).

Third), i think you need to consider the practical reach of the Gladius more carefully, at 5,11" i'm on the tall side for a roman and assuming i want at least 6" to penetrate my target a gladius would afford me maybe 3 feet of reach at full extension. Bearing in mind a full extension would presumably be a position to be avoided normally, so actual realistic reach is what, 2 feet, say 2,6" of actual movement? Now take of the space occupied by the shield , say 8" at a guess from seeing demonstrations. So a little over a foot of space between the shield and your chest. Can you really swing a sword adequately in the space, and can you cover all possible points of attack from your guard position with a movement of less than two and a half feet, measured from the center of mass of the sword blade?

And that's before we get onto the technique i mentioned. For that my realistic strike range is a lot less. You'd have maybe 6" to work with between my shield and your chest.

Fourth) some of your images aren't showing :(, so can't comment on them. I'm well aware however that you can stab with a longsword, (p.s. you should have specified the earlier sword length, i was assuming claymore sized 6 feet monster), but it's not the most wieldy weapon for it, the length requires you either have to have a lot of space or hold it rather awkwardly. As for the swiss thing, i think the key here is to remember the Scutum, it's not easy to hook from the sides due to the curvature, (which also makes it physically a lot tougher), and the sheer height makes above and below hooks hard and it exposes very little, it lets the Legionnaire force close range engagements against an opponent unable or unwilling to step back, and AFAIK history has long show that short reach weaponry in their own range have the advantage over long reach as a general rule. To my knowledge no similar shield of such sheer coverage area was ever widely used by a professional army on foot afterwards.

There are contemporary reports of people surviving nasty torso thrusts, especially with all those narrow-bladed post-renaissance dueling swords.

It can happen, but as you noted blade width plays a massive role and the gladius is real;ly bloody wide.

Galloglaich

2014-12-19, 07:07 PM

Gallioch:

First), the video you linked shows a pretty standard cut. Which is not even close to as fast a killer as you claim. The fastest you can physically kill someone with a limb hit is to sever an artery.

You are completely missing the point. I don't have to instantly kill you, if I do this to your weapon hand

http://i.imgur.com/Cl6G6iC.jpg

... you are as good as dead. Get it?

As for speed, how about this series of cuts right here (at a moving target)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9PiflQHYco#t=18

or these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ucqArlmpk#t=18

Second), I never said they didn't hack with them, though don't assume severed limbs and heads means slashing, If you stab into the joint such that you break it and thus separate the connecting bones a

Forgive me, but yeah I do assume that severed limbs means a cut. Show me an example or evidence of a sword thrust taking an arm off "with the shoulder attached" or beheading someone and then I'll change my mind.

Third), i think you need to consider the practical reach of the Gladius more carefully, at 5,11" i'm on the tall side for a roman

You can say that again. I guess nobody looked at the height chart I posted upthread... the average Roman man is 5' 5" in the 1st Century AD and closer to 5' 4" in the 3rd Century. The average man in Central Europe in the 15th Century is 5'7"

and assuming i want at least 6" to penetrate my target a gladius would afford me maybe 3 feet of reach at full extension. Bearing in mind a full extension would presumably be a position to be avoided normally, so actual realistic reach is what, 2 feet, say 2,6" of actual movement? Now take of the space occupied by the shield , say 8" at a guess from seeing demonstrations. So a little over a foot of space between the shield and your chest. Can you really swing a sword adequately in the space, and can you cover all possible points of attack from your guard position with a movement of less than two and a half feet, measured from the center of mass of the sword blade?

And that's before we get onto the technique i mentioned. For that my realistic strike range is a lot less. You'd have maybe 6" to work with between my shield and your chest.

In a word, yes I can - we can fence with that combination of weapons, I would have a foot of reach advantage on you with which to attack your lower legs and your face, and I'd have the free shot at your hand every time you tried to cut me or thrust with your sword.

Fourth) some of your images aren't showing :(, so can't comment on them. I'm well aware however that you can stab with a longsword,

Here are the images (you could have just watched the videos) the point wasn't about thrusting, which is one of the main techniques you do with a longsword, it was about using the sword as a tool for swift jujitsu like grappling at short range.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=121

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=119

stabbing with the longsword is slow etc
I'm well aware however that you can stab with a longsword but it's not the most wieldy weapon for it,
the length requires you either have to have a lot of space or hold it rather awkwardly.

Uh.... no. Please watch the two videos I posted in my last post already, or this one below. If you are trained stabbing someone with a longsword is lightning fast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc#t=41

As for the swiss thing, i think the key here is to remember the Scutum, it's not easy to hook from the sides due to the curvature, ... . To my knowledge no similar shield of such sheer coverage area was ever widely used by a professional army on foot afterwards.

Very similar shields to that were in wide use in the late medieval period. I've shown many examples of this many times in this thread, here is one.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=117

G

No brains

2014-12-19, 07:08 PM

That rhomphaia weapon I mentioned earlier is sort of like a falx. I wonder if it's just a different word or if there are nuanced differences...

Galloglaich

2014-12-19, 07:25 PM

That rhomphaia weapon I mentioned earlier is sort of like a falx. I wonder if it's just a different word or if there are nuanced differences...

Different, I would say. I think it's an earlier variant associated with the Thracians, it can also be a bit larger than the Falx, and thinner.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Rhomphaia.jpg

G

fusilier

2014-12-19, 10:13 PM

Very similar shields to that were in wide use in the late medieval period. I've shown many examples of this many times in this thread, here is one.

In fairness, they were used somewhat differently. Sword and shield men of the medieval/renaissance period seem to have preferred smaller shields. EDIT -- and longer swords (although falchions do seem to be have been used too).

Mike_G

2014-12-19, 10:34 PM

The tough thing about comparing later medieval armies to Roman ones is that nobody fights in a vacuum. Rome's army evolved to meet the challenges it faced. The Legions did well against a number of very different enemies, and conquered an awful lot of territory. As a big, centralized , standardized institution, there isn't much that you can compare it to in medieval Europe.

The later medieval soldiers were dealing with 500 to 1000 years of development in armor and weapons beyond what the Romans were. I think if we could choose our armor from 1400 or 100 AD, I'd think that 1300 years of experimentation would give us some advantages. The same probably goes for swords.

Roman legions might have had trouble with a Swiss army of pikemen, halberdiers, crossbowmen and gunners, but they never really needed to evolve to face that threat.They did successfully fight Macedonian phalanxes, so a pike square wouldn't be a totally new idea, but they never faced one supported by handguns, crossbows and plate armored cavalry. Rome had a very good military for its time. It might not have been a very good military 1000 years later.

I do agree with G's point that the cliche of "everything got worse from the fall of Rome until the Renaissance" is something we've been stuck with, and the "dark ages" weren't just a bunch of mud farmers like the peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail and a few warlords waiting for Galileo to rediscover all that lost Classical knowledge.

Carl

2014-12-20, 05:20 AM

Matthew

2014-12-20, 07:05 AM

You can say that again. I guess nobody looked at the height chart I posted upthread... the average Roman man is 5' 5" in the 1st Century AD and closer to 5' 4" in the 3rd Century. The average man in Central Europe in the 15th Century is 5'7"

One interesting point about heights, though, is that Vegetius wrote this:

THEIR SIZE

We find the ancients very fond of procuring the tallest men they could for the service, since the standard for the cavalry of the wings and for the infantry of the first legionary cohorts was fixed at six feet, or at least five feet ten inches. These requirements might easily be kept up in those times when such numbers followed the profession of arms and before it was the fashion for the flower of Roman youth to devote themselves to the civil offices of state. But when necessity requires it, the height of a man is not to be regarded so much as his strength; and for this we have the authority of Homer, who tells us that the deficiency of stature in Tydeus was amply compensated by his vigor and courage.

Of course, the Roman foot is slightly shorter than the modern (something like 0.97 or 11.5 inches), so practically that is more like a recommendation of 5'9", but still ...

fusilier

2014-12-20, 07:15 AM

1. Regarding the later shields, do you have any pictures and details of actual surviving examples? I've seen images myself but never an example that wasn't supposed to be a cavalry item, and given the kind of arguments we've had over artwork allready i'm always disinclined to take it as cannon without additional supporting evidence. In particular the size relative to average soldier size is very relevant).

Check up "pavise" -- there were many different styles and shapes to them, however. The standard pavise was usually designed to be propped on the ground and provide cover for crossbowmen, etc. (Creating a shield wall) There was a lot of variation in use also. I would say that *usually* the "shield bearers" were equipped with pavises and spears.

Italian "pavisieri" by the middle of the 15th century at the latest, seem to have preferred a large oval shield (and sometimes even a large round shield), that does not seem to have been designed to be propped on the ground. They still provided cover for crossbowmen etc, basically by standing in front of them.

Below is a replica that should give a sense of scale:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kc-IEvD_gQg/ToEuk7FqwcI/AAAAAAAAAZg/MvVsJzoGleI/Italian%252520Reenactor%25252013.jpg

As far as I can tell, it was standard practice to mix different troop types together. This page (in Italian) gives a description of how it was done, and provides an artist's rendition --

http://stemmieimprese.it/2012/09/17/la-battaglia-di-piombino-1448/

fusilier

2014-12-20, 07:22 AM

One interesting point about heights, though, is that Vegetius wrote this:

Of course, the Roman foot is slightly shorter than the modern (something like 0.97 or 11.5 inches), so practically that is more like a recommendation of 5'9", but still ...

What's with the fascination with height? I can understand it in individual combat, but the more modern evidence (albeit anecdotal) often suggests that it was the shorter people that made better "soldiers."

Kiero

2014-12-20, 08:12 AM

In any case, what often provided a pretty significant advantage to Roman armies was their vastly superior logistical and commissary arrangements. You shouldn't underestimate how powerful an impact it has on both morale and performance when all your soldiers have eaten the morning before battle.

Alberic Strein

2014-12-20, 09:10 AM

Galloglaich

2014-12-20, 10:11 AM

@Gallioch: not had a lot of sleep last night, struggling for it at the moment so my brain isn't firing on all cylinders here so bear that in mind.

1. Regarding the later shields, do you have any pictures and details of actual surviving examples? I've seen images myself but never an example that wasn't supposed to be a cavalry item, and given the kind of arguments we've had over artwork allready i'm always disinclined to take it as cannon without additional supporting evidence. In particular the size relative to average soldier size is very relevant).

I think you are being a little ridiculous about analysis of period art, but ok. One type is the pavise or the 'mini-pavise', as Fusilier noted (and you can see quite clearly in the period art) unlike in DnD these were not only put static on the ground but were carried on the arm or in the hand. There is a whole thread of them here:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711

And here is another example of 'untrustworthy' period art, from the Triumph of Maximilian

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Nqks9NLYI2M/Tz1N13gB6gI/AAAAAAAAAl4/ZKNwOYif6ZE/s400/Triumph+of+Maximilian+Hungarian+lords.jpg

These types of shields were particularly common among the Hungarian Black Army, and both among native Hungarians (depicted in the image above) and by their Bohemian mercenaries (many of the shields in the Myarmoury thread are Bohemian)

2. Completely missed the two later youtube links, my bad. Having watched them i didn't really see any examples of stabbing though and the slashes weren't especially fast, i mean i can only simulate a

I realize that it's hard to understand what you are looking at in a sword fight if you aren't a fencer, and that you are an intelligent well informed guy generally speaking and I'm assuming you really want to know the answers to all this, so I'm going to try to be patient. And please take this with a grain of salt - you are still completely missing what is going on in those videos. They were stabbing over and over again. This isn't in any way an outlier position or a new idea or in any way remotely controversial: longswords are intended for stabbing and they are very, very good at stabbing, it's one of the three primary ways one is meant to attack with them, the so-called 'three wounders' (thrusting, cutting, and slicing).

They are stabbing over and over and over in those videos. Watch it again and notice how many times the point is ending up in the mask or the body. They'll drive it home a little more into the mask since it's safer and less painful (and they are doing drills not sparring) but several times they do it hard enough to bend the sword!

One other aspect of this which may be confusing is that the German longsword fencing they are doing in those videos emphasizes a fluidity of action which typically alternates between parries, cuts and strikes in the same action. For example the Absetzen technique which is featured over and over in one of the videos (and done exetensively in both) involves parrying an incoming strike with a transition into a high guard (ox) usually to the upper left or upper right, while at the same time burying the point in the opponents face. Watch again and notice the guys head bouncing back. Another kind of similar offensive attack ,which also appears in the videos, is the Shielhau, (one of the so-called 'hidden strikes' or 'master hews' (meisterhau)), which starts as a cut with the true edge, then shifts instantly into a plunging thrust in the direction of the false edge, thus buying the point in their face or body.

Like this (notice where the point is)

http://thebooktrap.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/0/0/27007717/4504163_orig.jpg

The cut, thrust and slice are the primary but not the only types of attacks you do with a longsword, smashing with the pommel and even the cross are also emphasized

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_067.jpg/800px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_067.jpg[img]

The only difference between thrusting with a gladius and thrusting with a longsword is that the latter can do it from a foot further away and the narrow point can get through openings in armor and punch through clothing easier.

3. I'm not sure how you think you can slash at the legs, a roman would only have, (assuming shield held neutral with equal upper and lower exposure and no posture hunching on the romans part), 11 inches showing below a scutum

One would think Roman soldiers never died given how invulnerable the scutum makes them. I don't mean to 'speak from authority' here and my experience doesn't necessarily trump anyone elses, but I know, don't think, know, that I can slash at the legs because I've been fencing for a long time and I've sparred with people with large shields many times, especially in the early days of HEMA when we used to get challenged by SCA people a lot (and SCA people love huge shields). I also trained members of a Roman re-enactment group in Austin back in 2006 and used to spar with them and specifically with the scutum (not that they were anywhere near as formidable as a legionnaire would be).

So first, 11 inches is a lot of space to attack with using a sword (or a stick). If you are capable of hitting someone in the head that is only about 11 inches or so in size. You'll notice in those videos, the guys are only wearing t-shirts and they are being struck very hard in some cases with a steel longsword weighing around 3 pounds. If you get hit by that at full strength you can break a collar bone or an elbow pretty easily (it has happened many times). So those two guys are pretty confident they can hit each others masks every time very fast.

Specifically using a longsword (or a staff or a spear or a halberd) against a guy or girl with a large shield, you basically alternate your strikes from high to low, and then cut their weapon hand whenever they try to attack you. So for example, I'll make a vicious cut or stab at their face, then slice at their feet when they flinch a little and bring the shield up to protect their eyes. I know from experience I can actually do this as part of the same moulinet so it's very fast. This is one of the main advantages of a longer weapon, you can attack at widely different angles very quickly, especially with the leverage of the second hand on the weapon. With a slight shift of my hands I can alternate strikes from high or low. Cut at your foot, fine slam it down to stop me, now your face is exposed, and a quick moulinet and a movement of a few inches by my wrists has my blade cutting into your eyes.

The advantage the guy with the longer weapon has is that he can attack over and over without risk and remaining out of your range, and in order to get him you as the shield guy have to move forward which is much more of a telegraph.

This, incidentally, is also borne out by archeological evidence. In the battle of Wisby for example they excavated hundreds of bodies of a 14th Century peasant army which was heavily armed with shields, defeated by mercenaries armed with longer weapons; most of the wounds that show up on the skeletons were on the lower legs.

So with all due respect to your experiments with the hammer and the modeling program, none of this is really new or unique to my perspective. I've been fencing 15 years but I know there are a lot of others here who also have fencing experience and know how this works. And I'm also not saying that the shield guy has no advantage, your agenda as the shield guy is to remain disciplined and try to catch a bind on the shield so you can rush forward and get the other guy while their sword is bound up. It's just not that easy against a trained opponent, which is why weapons like halberds and longswords became so popular. (though to be fair, shields continued to be in use as well, I think mainly due to their value against missiles)

4. I can't really practically prove that a stab can sever limbs, but then i wasn't suggesting that this was how the majority where happening, i was suggesting that just because there are many severed limbs doesn't mean that thrusts where less important than slash's. Given the Roman's adaptability they'd presumably use what best suited the situation.

Some varaints of the gladius (which did change over the years and regionally) were quite broad and probably cut very well.

5. Getting short on time so this will be my last point and a bit quick. The main issue i see with those two pictures on grappling and the techniques from the videos is their all overarm techniques, and involve pulling yourself and the target together, leaving aside their romans friend's to the sides and behind, doing so leaves you completely open to his gladius thrusting from below and/or the sides. Everything I've seen about the Gladius's use has emphasized underarm and mid body techniques, and it's short length makes it very handy in those kinds of close quarters.

The gladius is quite handy at close quarters, but my point is that the longsword could be as well, and the medieval fencing techniques also taught you how to use the dagger which most people also carried... (although so did the Romans)

G

Spiryt

2014-12-20, 10:21 AM

Ok Spiryt you got me on that one... that is an AMAZING saber! Love it! What time period and place is that? Can you tell me anything about it?

Sadly, people keep reposting it from Russian sites without much info, but I will get what's possible without reading bukwy.

Apparently, 12-14 century, Ordynskoje in deep Syberia.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ордынское

Stirrups that apparently appeared in Russia somewhere ~ 11-13th century.

But I still don't think that Roman metalurgists, or even their Noricum vassals, had the skill to make a sword like this

Eh... Of course, but again, only because you're comparing incomparable.

They didn't really have a concept of two handed sword, actual pommel, hilt, and so on.

If you had somehow teleported this sword back in time, they would quite likely admire it for some time, and then respectfully break it apart, to make 2 'proper' swords out of it.

Doesn't have much to do with 'skill' as with tradition, expectations, market and ideas about how weapons work.

Similarly High medieval constructors certainly had the skills to build a ballista, or other torsion 'crossbow like' engine, but for one or the other reason it had never really kicked in.

Doesn't mean that they were made in any unskilled way.

Check what Peter Johnsson has to say about this:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19119

Instead there are many versions of complex cross sections, octagonal, hexagonal, groves and fullers in pairs and quadruples. Some spathae are very broad and pretty short. Other blades look like 17th C swords, although sturdier and as a rule better made (some incredible patter welding is going on n this period: work of a quality that can rival just about anything made before or after!)

Don't think you can accuse him of being biased towards gladii, really.

but it wasn't anything nearly as dangerous, or as large, or as sophisticated as a late medieval longsword

Actually, falx you keep posting were often well above 60 inches long. Making it way longer than vast majority of medieval longswords. Weight is harder to find, but some weighted ones are about 3 pounds + making it just as massive as longsword.

'Sophisticated' and 'dangerous' are arbitrary characteristics, particularly 'dangerous', without organizing some large scale gladiatorial combat again.

and I think a sword like that (along with the training you need to use it properly) does give you a big advantage over a gladius.

In use as 'self defense' those swords largely evolved for, without a doubt the range alone would be huge advantage. At least in unarmed combat, mail could change a lot.

With actual large shield, however, as gladii were meant to use properly, it would likely be completely different story.

The only difference between thrusting with a gladius and thrusting with a longsword is that the latter can do it from a foot further away and the narrow point can get through openings in armor and punch through clothing easier..

Eh, sorry, but no.

Sword being almost two 2 shorter, with different balance and pivoting will allow some completely different thrusting options and angles, particularly at very close distance, of course.

And, as linked above, many of gladii points were little masterpieces allowing to punch trough things via value of stiffness of short, broad blade, and carefully engineered, ruthless spike as a point.

http://www.albion-europe.com/ImageRoot/swords/Next%20Generation/Roman/Trajan/TrajaPoint768.jpg

Your stance gets dangerously close to suggesting that all people that were using basilards, katzbalgers, degens, dolches(tulichs), puginale and other hugely popular sidearms, (without even touching ancient stuff like gladii) were dense, or something, which is unacceptable.

Incanur

2014-12-20, 10:50 AM

According to Alan Williams in The Knight and the Blast Furnace and The Sword and the Crucible, late medieval and Renaissance metallurgy really had notably improved compared with Roman metallurgy.

As far as shields go, there's no question that 15th- and 16th-century Europeans knew about and used shields functionally equivalent to ancient Roman ones. Consider this 15th-century pavise (http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/23333), for example. 42.5 inches tall, 20.5 inches wide, and nearly 17 pounds. That falls in line with the measurements of the larger Roman shields. 16th-century commanders and theorists worked hard to promote targetiers armed in the Roman fashion but had limited success.

When it comes to longswords, unfortunately I don't know of any detailed manuals on their use in infantry battles. 16th-century English, French, and Italian military writers typically assumed single-handed swords and barely mentioned longswords. One of the Iberian montante manuals includes plays to use against multiple targetiers, but it's not for the field and the montante was rather larger than the longswords carried by most regular infantry and cavalry. But the evidence from 14th-century, 15th-century, and 16th-century as well as from China and Japan across many centuries suggest that two-handed swords work well enough as infantry sidearms.

Personally I think the better sort of Roman infantry would have done solid service against 15th- or 16th-century infantry. I wager men-at-arms on barded stallions, however, would have charged through them with near impunity. While relatively few in numbers, men-at-arms were profoundly influential on late medieval and Renaissance warfare.

Thus I imagine a competent full late medieval or Renaissance army would have odds against any Roman force. But battles are uncertain things.

Zizka

2014-12-20, 11:01 AM

Some things never change (much). Here's a ladder assault on a fortified position...in Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukdl9hkiIlE

Note appalling shooting throughout, especially the guy with the LMG at 2:17.

Storm Bringer

2014-12-20, 12:13 PM

Yora

2014-12-20, 01:10 PM

I always suspected it had something to do with the reliance on pikes without using phalanx formations. Why they used those in the first place, I have no idea, though.
Next door in Japan, the warrior elite was primarily mounted archers who would fight with spears and naginata while on the ground. But why the peasant troops used two-handed spears and no shields I also never understood.

Some things never change (much). Here's a ladder assault on a fortified position...in Syria.

Note appalling shooting throughout, especially the guy with the LMG at 2:17.
Not sure the room they are entering was occupied. It seems the rooms at the top are actually a bridge and the others are providing supressing fire on an enemy somewhere on the other side of the bridge. As they can't see anything from the ground with the wall between them and the enemy,they are getting on the bridge, presumedly to get a high vantage point from windows on the opposite side.

the_david

2014-12-20, 01:34 PM

Yora

2014-12-20, 01:50 PM

Range weapons generally lack stopping power. You will need a lot more than one hit to take an enemy out, or it will take many minutes before he's no longer a threat. For that reason, modern police prefers submachineguns for storming buildings, as they can get a lot of bullets into a target very quickly, even if you have almost no room to move. If you want to capture a single thief, then pointing a crossbow at his chest to make him surrender might work. In an all out battle situation, I'd say bows, crossbows, spears, and slings are all out of the question. A throwing axe might work, but most likely won't kill instantly either and then you still would have to move your weapon into your main hand, which could be a second that kills you. Probably wasn't used either.

A short spear might work in a large hallway, but when you are fighting surrounded by furniture, doorjambs, and other people, you are likely to get cought somewhere and can't move your weapon correctly, whic can also kill you.

I would say the best choice would be swords and axes no longer than arms length. Maces would probably work pretty decently as well. When it gets really tight, I think that probably nothing beats a really big knife.

Spiryt

2014-12-20, 01:56 PM

I was wondering what a good weapon would be to use inside. I got a feeling that swinging a greatsword around inside a dungeon would be virtually impossible unless the rooms and halls are the really big type that seem unrealistic. (Yes, I know that generally dungeon halls are 10 ft. wide and high, but who would make them that big? It's just an excuse to make combat easier, right?)

So I think that stabbing weapons would work the best, and a spear would be ideal. Is there anyone who could provide inside about this? What about ranged weapons?

10 feet is just shade above 3 m. It's still not a lot at all.

To wield any sword semi-comfortably one would have to stick to one wall.

Actual real life cellars, dungeons often tended to be a bit roomier at least.

Of course, on the other hand, they didn't span for kilometers, so one could fit whole kobold tribe guarding something in. :smalltongue:

Dungeons in fantasy tend to be the size of large mines at least fantasy, not very realistic.

Spear would be good, until one had to maneuverer a lot with it, at which point just dropping it would likely be best option. Large stick would be really unwieldy in limited space.

So for 'full time' use all kind of stabbing swords, daggers, knives etc. would likely be best option.

Carl

2014-12-20, 02:02 PM

@Gallioch: First thanks for a bit of ego strokage there. Kinda need a little at the moment.

1. okay, to be clear i'm perfectly aware of the Pasive. However prior to this my understanding, (limited i admit), did not include serious mobile use of it, (i assumed it was theoretically possible, but i couldn't recall any serious discussion of it used as such), and was to my knowledge prior to this limited primarily to missile troops where it was primarily a defensive tool against their opposite number. it's use primarily as a frontline melee defense appears to have been limited. Would you care to address this, was it really ever used as a serious front line melee shield?

2. Ok i think the slash vs thrust thing is a matter of how where defining things. Yes there are plenty of moves in those videos that end in a form of a thrust. But they all start as slashes of some kind that end in a parry where one side is then able to twist or slide the blade against the parry such that the point ends up in the other guys face, but both the initial lead in and the final twist or slide include considerable movements in the other two axis. I'm talking in terms of techniques that start as a thrust with limited lateral or horizontal movement.

3. Could you elaborate more on the shield thing as i'm having real issues visualizing that working against someone aware of the vulnerabilities and actively trained to avoid them. Specifically even wit the shield raised to cover the eyes you can't hit the legs with the hilt above approximately 40 inches off the floor, so roughly belly height, whilst an effective threaten to the head requires the hilt to be at a minimum at shoulder height. So your going from making a shoulder height blow, to withdrawing the blow to making a new blow with a large lateral component prior to the horizontal one to get the hilt low enough.

To me that only sounds workable if the shield wielder isn't extensively trained to always return the shield to the neutral position after a block, meaning he'll hold the shield up for a protracted period, (in sword-fighting time terms), rather than immediately seeking to restore his sight on you and lower the shield to re-cover his lower extremities.

I mean do remember your average roman spent a LOT of time practicing, it isn't unreasonable to believe either familiarity or a specific training regime could reduce or eliminate the flinch factor you mentioned, which would i suspect make even the most aware person slower to lower the shield than is ideal from a defensive efficiency PoV.

4. Remember also that sparring 1v1 is very different to massed unit fighting, as anyone who's been in a crowd know's, large groups of people have a certain inertia, doubly so if some factor, (psychological or otherwise), is pushing them to not give way. In a duel you can always step away from the roman, giving ground to maintain the reach advantage and forcing your opponent to telegraph his attacks, (and leave himself vulnerable), by stepping forward to make them. En-mass that front row shieldwall can advance on you till the slower movement of men behind you leaves you nowhere to go and then get stuck in when your hemmed in.

5. I never said the gladius wouldn't cut well, the things basically an oversized dagger crossed with an oversized machete, i was merely stating that my understanding is that thrusting was preferred, (please remember my understanding of gladius use is largely based off a handful of demonstrated techniques and comment thereupon from various historians in various contexts, i'm having to do a degree of inferring from that and scutum techniques and various sources and so on and so forth, you get the idea i hope).

6. I didn't mean to imply you couldn't. Rather those techniques whilst perfectly plausible on a roman, wouldn't necessarily immobilize the gladius since the scutum as apposed to the gladius could be used to defend against thrust and cut attempts forcing the grapple, making that the item immobilized, (though my preference would be to bash with the shield to force openings), leaving the gladius free to strike the grappler who has no defense against it without giving up his grapple.

Anyway many thanks for much patience :).

Brother Oni

2014-12-20, 02:05 PM

here is a question that has been in the back of my mind recently:

why did shields never seem to take off in china? I can't think of any image of a Chinese or Chinese influenced area that used them in any notable fashion. at all. it would seem to be impossible that they never thought of the concept, so clearly they felt it was not worth using them. but why?

I think you mean Japan, as shields were very common throughout Chinese history.

There are records of shields found with the Terracotta Army, indicating they were used as far back as the Qin Dynasty. The excavations have found different styles of shields and their locations suggest that they were differentiated between infantry and chariot troops.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8172/wip3shield1ve8.jpg
http://www.he.xinhuanet.com/zfwq/2007-12/29/xin_2231204291323125878416.jpg
http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/99/000999/ph-0.jpg
Rattan armour and shields are recorded as far back as the 3rd Century in the Three Kingdoms era.

Also popular during the Ming/Qing era was the rattan Hu Tou Pai, or Tiger Head shield, known for the painting on the front:
http://resources.made-in-china.com/actives_mic/industry_info/2/286444/1355450875609.jpg
One site I found suggested that some variants had hooks on the side to brace weapons against (rockets or a firelance possibly?).

Rattan and wicker shields persisted up until quite late - here's a picture from the Boxer Rebellion of a wicker shield:
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p124/huafa/Picture001-1.jpg
Given how well the Boxer Rebellion went for the rebels, you can guess how effective those shields were against something like the Lee Enfield rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield).

The main reason why you don't see them very much in popular culture, is that they're not very flashy weapons, thus not popular in most martial arts films or demonstrations.

Going back to Japan, they did use shields a very long time ago during the Nara period (8th Century AD), but these were very crude things:
http://m5.i.pbase.com/u7/joanseeuw/upload/41052065.IMG_1698.jpg

During the Heian period (8th-12th Century), the rise of the military caste (which later became the samurai) and their primary role as mounted archers/cavalry meant they had no need for (or ability to use) bulky awkward shields. They did persist in armour form as the osode, which was the big plate worn on the shoulder like a pauldron:
http://www.metmuseum.org/~/media/Images/About%20the%20Museum/Now%20at%20the%20Met/2014/Bashford%20Dean/Japanese-armor_fig-1-and-2.jpg

Other shields were still used by infantry archers and siege warfare, although they were more like pavises and were used in much the same way as cover from incoming projectiles.
http://www.planetdiecast.com/hwdphotos/uploads/32256/2335/Pavise_Shields_EOISCM302M.jpg
The only word I can find for them is 盾 (tate), but it's very vague.

Galloglaich

2014-12-20, 03:18 PM

Well I have to say, this has become quite an interesting discussion. Enjoying it.

Sadly, people keep reposting it from Russian sites without much info, but I will get what's possible without reading bukwy.

Apparently, 12-14 century, Ordynskoje in deep Syberia.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ордынское

Stirrups that apparently appeared in Russia somewhere ~ 11-13th century.

Ah, I see... well that puts it firmly in the medieval period then doesn't it, even toward the late medieval, so it's kind of outside of the Roman context.

Eh... Of course, but again, only because you're comparing incomparable.

I think someone else mentioned Roman vs. medieval upthread so blame them for that, I've just been toying with the idea.

They didn't really have a concept of two handed sword, actual pommel, hilt, and so on. [/quote]

Exactly.

Similarly High medieval constructors certainly had the skills to build a ballista, or other torsion 'crossbow like' engine, but for one or the other reason it had never really kicked in.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=74

They did make them and use them, quite extensively for sieges, but not for the open field the way the Romans did. The reason is that for the open field, the heavy crossbow / arbalest, the longbow or recurve, and the firearm proved to be more useful, lighter, more effective and etc.

They still used javelins too but they had been relegated to more of a niche role, as opposed to a primary weapon as they were for the Legions.

And by the time they started to develop cannon the torsion weapons lost their niche in siege warfare too.

Doesn't mean that they were made in any unskilled way.

Check what Peter Johnsson has to say about this:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19119

Don't think you can accuse him of being biased towards gladii, really.

No I wouldn't, I have mad respect for Peter Johnsson and his work - but there are two things you aren't taking into consideration here. First pattern welding was really a technology of the northern Barbarians, not the Romans. The Romans had some pattern-welded swords but they were by no means the norm nor as ubiquitous as they were among the Barbarians, and even among the Allemani or the Chauci, the pattern welded sword was a priceless heirloom.

Second, the reason pattern-welded swords were so rare was that the process was extremely labor intensive and required very highly skilled workers, not something that could be cranked out by the thousands by Roman slaves.

By the time you reach the medieval period however, highly skilled artisans relying on labor saving technologies such as the water wheel powered forge and trip hammer, and organized into sophisticated guild-based networks of contractors and subcontractors, were able to produce swords on a scale which not even the Romans could accomplish with their mostly iron gladius. A sword in the 6th century was a precious artifact which might be highly prized by a powerful chieftain, a sword in the 14th Century was something most peasants could easily afford.

And this process is something that Peter Johnsson has also described in some detail as you are probably aware. That is why pattern welding went away once they were able to produce large enough pieces of homogenous steel in their bloomery forges, partly I believe due to the automation of the overshot water-wheel. Peter has pointed out of course that a type of forge-welding continued, with hard blades welded to softer interiors, but the blades they were making in the 15th century were vastly more sophisticated than the typical gladius.

Actually, falx you keep posting were often well above 60 inches long. Making it way longer than vast majority of medieval longswords. Weight is harder to find, but some weighted ones are about 3 pounds + making it just as massive as longsword.

But this falx is a primary weapon, not a sidearm, and I'm not even convinced yet (maybe you can post something?) that 60" was a normal length for a falx, they don't look that big on Trajans column.

For the role of the falx you should really be comparing a primary weapon like a halberd or a bill not a longsword which is a sidearm; though I think a longsword would be very well-matched against a falx to be honest.

In use as 'self defense' those swords largely evolved for, without a doubt the range alone would be huge advantage. At least in unarmed combat, mail could change a lot.

With actual large shield, however, as gladii were meant to use properly, it would likely be completely different story.

You've never tried it?

Eh, sorry, but no.

Sword being almost two ft shorter, with different balance and pivoting will allow some completely different thrusting options and angles, particularly at very close distance, of course
And, as linked above, many of gladii points were little masterpieces allowing to punch trough things via value of stiffness of short, broad blade, and carefully engineered, ruthless spike as a point.

Those longswords also had sophisticated hardened points like that, and depending on the subtype obviously were quite a bit narrower and pointier.

I know you can thrust well with a gladius but are you really suggesting it's hard to thrust into somebody with a longsword?

Your stance gets dangerously close to suggesting that all people that were using basilards, katzbalgers, degens, dolches(tulichs), puginale and other hugely popular sidearms, (without even touching ancient stuff like gladii) were dense, or something, which is unacceptable.

Well, if you remember from the numerous images I've posted here, it was not at all unusual for soldiers to carry a longsword AND a baselard (or dolch, degen puginale etc. etc.) such as you can see here (among dozens of other images from the Swiss Chronicles... I could also post dozens of funerary etchings of knights showing the same)

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=123

for a little Lagniappe, some close-range longsword fighting on the battlefield and a real big shield

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=122

That said, I don't think it meant you were dense if you only carried a short sword or a single handed sword or a dagger, it could be due to a strategy or simple poverty or some other reason. But from my personal experience in fencing (again not saying this trumps anyone else's just my personal observations which have convinced me over the years) longsword requires more skill to use effectively and I suspect many if not most people who carried it, at lets face it considerable more nuisance and inconvenience than carrying a shorter weapon, did so because they were skilled in it's use. I would say the same for the rapier which became popular as a sidearm in the 17th Century.

I've seen large tournaments with singlesword, saber, and dussack in which large numbers of people relatively new to the weapons (as in maybe only a few weeks of training) did pretty well, but that's something you almost never see with longsword or rapier, or, I would wager, with the Japanese sword or the Chinese Jian. I do think some weapons are tougher to use than others and require more training.

That said I think all this debate about longsword vs. gladius is a bit of a side-track from the main debate. While I do think the longsword is better, due to reach, the protection from the cross, and yes much better metallurgy in most cases (special generals gladius excepted) I stipulated upthread that the difference in sidearms is at best an incremental advantage. Far more important, in my opinion, are the primary weapons, the armor, and the military and social organization.

Personally I think the better sort of Roman infantry would have done solid service against 15th- or 16th-century infantry. I wager men-at-arms on barded stallions, however, would have charged through them with near impunity. While relatively few in numbers, men-at-arms were profoundly influential on late medieval and Renaissance warfare.

Men at arms were important, and we can see from battles like at Carrhae and Adrianople, that the Romans had trouble with good heavy cavalry - sufficient that they had to develop their own heavy cavalry (the Clibinari) in imitation of the Central Asian Cataphract, which in turn was the direct inspiration for the medieval European knight, though the latter incorporated several improvements both in kit for horse and rider and in the horses themselves.

But I think you are too quick to dismiss the advantages of the medieval infantry over the Legions. First you have the crossbow, as well as the longbow and the early firearms. All three are probably more than a match for the scutum and the limited armor protection worn by the Roman Legionnaire. Then you have things like halberds and glaives. I don't think scuta would necessarily hold up very well to these, especially if the falxes were cutting through them. And finally the fully armored infantry, often in the front of the columns would be another major shock, with or without the pointy, stabby, quick longswords ...

In answering the somewhat ridiculous question of whether the Romans could handle a medieval force like the Black Army we have to make some assumptions - if you assume a Roman army teleported from the past "as-is", I think you would see them suffer a collapse much like they did at Carrhae and for the same reasons. Even more so because in addition to the dangers of arrows and lances, they would have to face heavy infantry as good as their own.

But on the other hand if you had a Roman society suddenly parked next to a medieval one, no doubt they would adapt after the initial shock (if they survived). They would go through something akin to the Marian reform and probably improve their shields, ditch the torsion artillery for guns and crossbows, improve their armor, and improve their cavalry. Then they would no doubt be a force to be reckoned with. To do this though they would have to change their social organization (the Ottomans for example adopted European style craft guilds in the 16th Century), make a lot of new infrastructure, and endure the inevitable political changes these things would trigger... in short they would have to become something more like a medieval society, in my opinion.

Would that force be enough to defeat the Fekete sereg? Maybe... but history suggests maybe not. The Ottomans were after all, in many ways very similar to the Roman State. Another vast slavery-based Empire, with a powerful heavy infantry (the Jannisaries) as well as heavy cavalry, light cavalry and horse archers better than what the Romans usually had (arguably the best the world ever saw) and like the Romans, these armies were HUGE, much larger than medieval armies. But for 50 years the Fekete sereg was able to fight them off, repeatedly defeat them and keep them at bay.

So yes, I concede the Roman Legions were mighty: disciplined, efficient, ruthless, and even adaptable within certain limits. But I think people tend to underestimate the effectiveness of medieval armies, partly because we have seen reasonable, at least remote ball-park depictions of Roman Legions in popular media (even if they never seem to throw pila) but we really haven't seen the equivalent of a medieval army, just the Monty Python / Peter Jackson stuff.

The medieval army was chaotic, often undisciplined, precarious and unlikely... but it worked. It contained within it the genius of medieval society. The archetype of someone like Leonardo Da Vinci making siege engines and helping devise battle plans was not unique or even unusual. What is less well known is the high level of skill of the knights, artisans and yes, even the peasants who made up the bulk of the armies.

Lets remember that while it was indeed 1000 years since the height* of the Roman Empire to the high medieval, there wasn't necessarily huge increases in military technology going on that whole time. Armor for example, and swords, remained pretty similar. It wasn't until the high medieval period that technology started to really explode, and that was due to some of the unique characteristics of that society, something we call the Renaissance and the first Renaissance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_of_the_12th_century

G

* one other comment, regarding the recommended height for Roman soldiers, during the Republic average height of Roman skeletons was higher, it declined during the Imperial period.

Spiryt

2014-12-20, 05:44 PM

Ah, I see... well that puts it firmly in the medieval period then doesn't it, even toward the late medieval, so it's kind of outside of the Roman context.

Not sure what it has to do with anything, really.

With a place so distant from Mediterranean, it wouldn't ever be in real 'context' with Rome.

It's just example that person with otherwise humble iron belongings/culture could have 4 feet damn sabre if it was somehow necessary to him.

They did make them and use them, quite extensively for sieges, but not for the open field the way the Romans did. The reason is that for the open field, the heavy crossbow / arbalest, the longbow or recurve, and the firearm proved to be more useful, lighter, more effective and etc.

That's not a ballista. That's a huge bow, or rather crossbow, of course.

Ballista is torsion engine - powered by twisting cords/sinew tighter and tighter, till they store huge amount of energy. Arms of ballista have no energy storing function at all, they just transfer it to arrow, of course.

And even if ballista was huge bow, and recurves/longbows 'were more effective'....

Then why the hell Romans would employ well paid specialists to use them, soldiers/animals to carry them etc., if their job could have been done by 'lighter, more effective' recurve bow, crossbow etc. they had plenty of?

No I wouldn't, I have mad respect for Peter Johnsson and his work - but there are two things you aren't taking into consideration here. First pattern welding was really a technology of the northern Barbarians, not the Romans. The Romans had some pattern-welded swords but they were by no means the norm nor as ubiquitous as they were among the Barbarians, and even among the Allemani or the Chauci, the pattern welded sword was a priceless heirloom.

Except that Roman were exporting huge amounts of swords into Barbaricum, actually. Even illegal, against the law of 'not arming the barbarians'.

Do you have any data suggesting that pattern welded, or at least differentially heat treated swords, and made from different materials, weren't the norm?

Second, the reason pattern-welded swords were so rare was that the process was extremely labor intensive and required very highly skilled workers, not something that could be cranked out by the thousands by Roman slaves.

This topic keeps on returning once in a while and I always keep on reminding that there about NO indication that Roman swords were even touched by a 'slaves'.

Leave alone being 'cranked in thousands'....

Roman swords were being made by highly skilled workers, often experienced legionnaires themselves, like any other swords. No problem here.

By the time you reach the medieval period however, highly skilled artisans relying on labor saving technologies such as the water wheel powered forge and trip hammer, and organized into sophisticated guild-based networks of contractors and subcontractors,

In Roman times highly skilled artisans were making swords as well, with contractors and subcontractor, banks, they had trip hammers as well.

They had been using welding, laminating and compostire structure in tools that were needing it way less than swords (https://books.google.pl/books?id=HmI7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=roman+metal+industry&source=bl&ots=zZJbGUY2Og&sig=kWppiYQbZqT0LSruYxRKGjpHOck&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=AfCVVI3WDceQPbKGgegL&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=roman%20metal%20industry&f=false)

You can claim that it was all 'much better' in 15th century Italy, and that's fine, even very probable, in all likeness.

But it doesn't change the fact that your thesis that most of Roman swords were some crap made by slaves in undependable.

Some probably were barely functional pokers, no doubt. So were plenty of medieval swords.

Most of them were impressively functional swords though, as noted.

But this falx is a primary weapon, not a sidearm, and I'm not even convinced yet (maybe you can post something?) that 60" was a normal length for a falx, they don't look that big on Trajans column.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2987

If it was 'normal' - no idea. Not enough data, sadly. As detailed as Trajan column is, it cannot in any way be used to guess accurate lengths of weapons.

Those longswords also had sophisticated hardened points like that, and depending on the subtype obviously were quite a bit narrower and pointier.

Of course, so what though? Being 'narrower and pointier' isn't any principle in itself.

There were plenty of very pointy swords around ~100 AD, in fact early gladii tended to be very pointy. But Roman/Gaulish/whoever smiths very visibly preferred them to taper very violently instead.

My guess would be that they wanted maximal 'damage' of unfortunate victim - sword stabs keenly, yet is very broad, so ruins way more tissue.

I know you can thrust well with a gladius but are you really suggesting it's hard to thrust into somebody with a longsword?

I haven't written anything like that at all... I was writing that thrusting with gladius is different.

Better at different ranges and angles, worst at the other (one it cannot reach in particular, duh).

Like pike vs shorter spear, jab vs underhook or elbow, and whatever.

I stipulated upthread that the difference in sidearms is at best an incremental advantage. Far more important, in my opinion, are the primary weapons, the armor, and the military and social organization.

The short swords were primary weapons of legions, alongside with heavy javelins though.

As far as armor goes, it's good to point out that in general Roman mail actually tends to appear very impressive compared to Medieval one.

Usually way smaller rings, and yet bound together very cleanly and tightly. So again, nothing suggest lower, shoddier craftsmanship.

In general I actually agree that Roman army would be having a lot of trouble against something like Black Army, English army from Totwon or Italian Condottieres.

Just because of concentration of different, varied threads they could not be very familiar with, because how.

On the other hand, some of most brutally, fiercely effective forces of 15th century in Swiss cantons actually weren't particularly well versed at all.

Sure, had artillery, cavalry and shooters, like everyone else, but of minimal importance compared to something like carefully collected and planned, poor Burgundian forces they utterly besmirched.

Most important part, by very far, was bunch of blokes with pikes.

So nothing is very obvious here, and one has to be very careful with statement on what would beat what and why.

Mr. Mask

2014-12-20, 06:08 PM

Galloglaich

2014-12-20, 06:34 PM

Not sure what it has to do with anything, really.

(snip)

It's just example that person with otherwise humble iron belongings/culture could have 4 feet damn sabre if it was somehow necessary to him.

It has to do with whether metallurgy in the Roman era was capable of making a sword like a medieval longsword, and I don't think it was (partly because I don't count a falx or romphaia as a sword)

That's not a ballista. That's a huge bow, or rather crossbow, of course.

Ballista is torsion engine -

Ok ok, I thnk you are picking nits here, but you are right, that isn't a torsion ballista (I guess we can debate what qualifies as a ballista), HOWEVER, we know that they did have torsion ballistae in the medieval period, I don't have time to go hunting for an image, but it mentions in the wiki here for example that Philip II of France used 'banks' off torsion powered siege engines in the siege of Chinon in 1205

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_siege_engine#Medieval

Then why the hell Romans would employ well paid specialists to use them, soldiers/animals to carry them etc., if their job could have been done by 'lighter, more effective' recurve bow, crossbow etc. they had plenty of?

They didn't have anything like a medieval crossbow, they certainly didn't have one of these

http://www.crossbowbook.com/fig92.gif

which is what made the most powerful ones really usable in the field. But more importantly we have ZERO evidence (that I know of at any rate) that the Romans ever made or used a steel prod crossbow or knew how to make the kind of composite prod crossbows that we started to see in the 13th Century in Europe.

I think you are overestimating the level of Roman technology generally.

And while the Romans eventually did have access to probably pretty decent recurve bows, I am of the school of thought that the use of these does require a lot of training and effectively, a kind of culture of using them, which the Steppe nomads had and the Romans did not, otherwise why would they have had so much trouble with the Huns?

Longbows may have been available to them as well, but I don't think they had whatever cultural elements were necessary to deploy them.

And I disagree with your premise that composite bows of antiquity were just as potent as composite bows being used by the Mongols in the 13th Century or the Ottomans in the 15th. I think the latter were much more powerful and efficient - my understanding is that the technology of the recurve bow did advance quite a bit during the medieval period.

Except that Roman were exporting huge amounts of swords into Barbaricum, actually. Even illegal, against the law of 'not arming the barbarians'.

Do you have any data suggesting that pattern welded, or at least differentially heat treated swords, and made from different materials, weren't the norm?

It is my understanding that that was the case, though I'd have to dig a little to find a source. I think Alan Williams mentions this among others.

This topic keeps on returning once in a while and I always keep on reminding that there about NO indication that Roman swords were even touched by a 'slaves'.

I guess we have another big debate then coming up about the economic and social structure of Roman society, and specifically their armaments industry.

In Roman times highly skilled artisans were making swords as well, with contractors and subcontractor, banks, they had trip hammers as well.

I'd really like to see evidence that the Romans had water wheel powered trip hammers, my understanding is that the necessary equipment wasn't developed until the 12th -13th Centuries... we can get into that if you want to I've done some research on it but I'll have to dig it up.

I haven't written anything like that at all... I was writing that thrusting with gladius is different.

Better at different ranges and angles, worst at the other (one it cannot reach in particular, duh).

Like pike vs shorter spear, jab vs underhook or elbow, and whatever.

Ok, agreed - but please keep in mind, another guy in the thread (Carl) was suggesting that longswords are hard to thrust with and I can only type so fast...

The short swords were primary weapons of legions, alongside with heavy javelins though.

Well, that really depends a lot on what you think is a primary and secondary weapon, and it's somewhat subjective, but IMO the pilum is the primary weapon of the Roman Legionnaire, the scutum probably second, gladius third and pugio last.

The primary weapon for a medieval soldier would be a halberd, pike, or crossbow (or gun, longbow etc.)

As far as armor goes, it's good to point out that in general Roman mail actually tends to appear very impressive compared to Medieval one.

Usually way smaller rings, and yet bound together very cleanly and tightly. So again, nothing suggest lower, shoddier craftsmanship.

I'm not sure I'd say their mail was necessarily a lot worse but I'd be really surprised if Roman mail was better made than 14th or 15th Century mail.

In general I actually agree that Roman army would be having a lot of trouble against something like Black Army, English army from Totwon or Italian Condottieres.

Just because of concentration of different, varied threads they could not be very familiar with, because how [could they be].

Well what are we arguing about then?

On the other hand, some of most brutally, fiercely effective forces of 15th century in Swiss cantons actually weren't particularly well versed at all.

Sure, had artillery, cavalry and shooters, like everyone else, but of minimal importance compared to something like carefully collected and planned, poor Burgundian forces they utterly besmirched.

Most important part, by very far, was bunch of blokes with pikes.

This idea that they were untrained is a theory, based on some old conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's well grounded. Militias from the towns Berne* and Zurich for example definitely did train drill, and we have evidence that the forest cantons did too. The Swiss had a lively shooting contests, they conducted fencing contests, and we even know that they hired fencing masters for the towns. Dr. Daniel Jaquet (who some here may know for his semi-viral video of climbing ladders in a nice Gothic harness) published an article last year which tracked the career of one of these fencing masters. If you like I can link you to it.

I also think it's a mistake to assume that the crossbows were not very important, even critically important in a lot of Swiss victories. The crossbow after all was the weapon most closely associated with Swiss national identity in their own minds (ala William Tell et al).

But probably most important, the urban and rural Swiss militias were fighting pretty much continuously in small and large engagements, much like the militias of most other towns and independent clans around Europe. So they were experienced. If you look at this list you'll note they were involved in a fairly major battle ever 2 or 3 years in the 15th Century (leading up to the Burgundian Wars you were referring to)

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

You can read about the Swiss shooting contests here (via google translate)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidgen%25C3%25B6ssisches_Sch%25C3%25BCtzenfest&prev=search

So nothing is very obvious here, and one has to be very careful with statement on what would beat what and why.

Yes indeed my friend, good advice, and that sword like my longsword cuts both ways! ;)

G

*Berne was one of the major belligerents on the Swiss side in the Burgundian Wars, Zurich contributed armies as well.

Galloglaich

2014-12-20, 06:36 PM

Anyway many thanks for much patience :).

Carl, right back at you. :) Keep in mind if my tone seems obnoxious it's only a reflection of my nerdly interest in the subject and not trying to be a jerk.

I don't have enough time to answer all this right now, but I have fencing class tonight and I have a couple of old shields, not quite scutum sized but I think big enough to demonstrate what I mean. I'll try to film something tonight that I can post here to explain my point.

G

Spiryt

2014-12-20, 06:56 PM

As far as shields go, there's no question that 15th- and 16th-century Europeans knew about and used shields functionally equivalent to ancient Roman ones. Consider this 15th-century pavise (http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/23333), for example. 42.5 inches tall, 20.5 inches wide, and nearly 17 pounds. That falls in line with the measurements of the larger Roman shields.

That indeed is OK as far as measurements go, but handling one could actually be surprising. Who knows what exact balance, distribution, pivot points (rims 'rotating' around hand, or to the sides) were - and with shield that large those were surely just as important as with sword.

It seems handle, so method of holding and using was often different, as well, judging from some preserved originals.

https://images1.bonhams.com/image?src=Images/live/2010-03/19/8011172-1-2.jpg&width=150

Different that 'standard' middle grip, lack of boss as well, very important feature.

Those were mostly wood planks, covered with leather and/or textile as well, unlike Roman trademarked plywood. Both construction most likely would behave differently as far as springiness goes, for example.

16th-century commanders and theorists worked hard to promote targetiers armed in the Roman fashion but had limited success.

People like Anthonis Duyck were actually writing about positive 'experiments' with targetiers walking trough pike companies.

Hard to guess how the hell would those 'tests' actually work, though. Very interesting.

Anyway, their problem was that 'promoting' something like targetiers isn't exactly doable.

To have people 'fighting like Romans' one would need some kind or Romans indeed - training, competing, showing off, with father, uncle, teacher, officers in actual army. So culture of attacking people with large shield and sword.

This cannot be exactly issued by some spontaneous action, if someone succeeds in training some targetiers, he will have some targetiers, not actual social base to recruit targetiers from.

Writers like Jan Kampenhausen were despairing about the decline of lance and pike, stating, with a lot of good points and real examples - on how those could still be brutally effective in 17th, 18th century.

Yet they couldn't change the fact that amount of combatant who were willing and able to engage enemy with polearm, particularity lance was dwindling dramatically.

Poland was about last place in Europe where culture and skill of effective lance charge was preserved since Medieval, and yet it mostly died out in 18th century as well. Sons and grandsons of Vienna victors had huge problems with defeating bandit packs in Ukraine in purely cavalry fights.

Spiryt

2014-12-20, 07:04 PM

This idea that they were untrained is a theory, based on some old conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's well grounded. Militias from the towns Berne* and Zurich for example definitely did train drill, and we have evidence that the forest cantons did too.

Ugh, it's late at night, so my English crashed.

It should be VARIED, not versed.

Whatever they training was, it's impossible to tell that weren't 'well versed', results speak for themselves. :smallmad:

The point that stands it that they weren't well rounded force theoretically, in fact very similar to Roman legion in their uniformity.

Like I said, of course they were shooting stuff, etc. but still all sources tend to agree very visibly:

- 1000 riders (out of 20 000 army)
- no riders
- no artillery
- some shooters

etc.

Only standard element being huge block of men with pikes. And halberds, sometimes less, sometimes more of them.

Brother Oni

2014-12-20, 08:02 PM

Come to think of it, if armies did end up using laser rifles and the ilk among infantry, wouldn't they be an issue in grasslands and forests? It seems that any laser hot enough to disable people and pierce laser-proofing would be capable of starting a fire. That could lead to some interesting problems.

Possibly. Bear in mind that high explosives, white phosphorous and other incendiary weapons have been used extensively in wooded and grassy terrain (off the top of my head, Normandy during WW2 for example) and forest fires were not a major hazard as far as I know.

Unless my understanding of pulsed laser weapons is off, they deliver a massive amount of energy to the target in a short amount of time. This vaporises the surface of the target, causing an explosion - a 1 MJ laser delivers approximately the same amount of energy as 200g of explosive with much the same effect, according to the wiki article. This is not quite the same thing as a thermal weapon (eg Babylon 5's PPGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_plasma_gun) or the rumoured MARAUDER system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER)), nor is it the same thing as sustained beam DEWs (which are unlikely to be man portable due to the massive power requirements), which would potentially cause heating of the surrounding material.
Blooming would be an issue with starting fires though, although that's not an intentional result of the weapon's use.

The only current day 'heat ray' that I know of, is the ADS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System), which boils the water under the skin of the target as an apparently non-lethal crowd control measure.

In comparison, modern firearms can also set fires with still burning gunpowder from the muzzle flash, particularly if you're shooting through cover like bushes or long grass.
Black powder weapons would also be very likely (especially cannon) and at re-enactments, I have seen the cannon crews stamp out fires from the ejected, still smouldering wadding.

Incanur

2014-12-20, 11:23 PM

That said, I don't think it meant you were dense if you only carried a short sword or a single handed sword or a dagger, it could be due to a strategy or simple poverty or some other reason. But from my personal experience in fencing (again not saying this trumps anyone else's just my personal observations which have convinced me over the years) longsword requires more skill to use effectively and I suspect many if not most people who carried it, at lets face it considerable more nuisance and inconvenience than carrying a shorter weapon, did so because they were skilled in it's use. I would say the same for the rapier which became popular as a sidearm in the 17th Century.

By the later 16th century, many Spanish, English, Italian, and other infantry troops carried single-handed swords with blade around or above 36 inches. Some of these were rapiers depending on how you use the term.

But I think you are too quick to dismiss the advantages of the medieval infantry over the Legions.

I should have elaborated that I consider the better sort of Roman infantry roughly equivalent to 15th- and 16th-century targetiers. Despite arguably inferior gear, I suspect they'd perform about like Renaissance targetiers if placed on a Renaissance battlefield. Under this interpretation, they could do well against pikers under certain circumstances, assault fortifications ably, assist in various skirmishes, and slug it out with opposing short weapons. They'd at a minimum have great difficult with a pike-&-halberd formation on level ground.

Then you have things like halberds and glaives. I don't think scuta would necessarily hold up very well to these, especially if the falxes were cutting through them.

Personally I suspect armored halberdiers beat armored targetiers in a melee. 16th-century military theorists had differing options about halberdiers. Machiavelli and Sutcliffe considered them basically second-rate targetiers, while Fourquevaux, Smythe, and Barwick expressed respect for the halberd.

And finally the fully armored infantry, often in the front of the columns would be another major shock, with or without the pointy, stabby, quick longswords ...

Yes, this point strikes me as key. Folks in full or three-quarters harness would be quite challenging for Roman infantry to take down.

Another vast slavery-based Empire, with a powerful heavy infantry (the Jannisaries) as well as heavy cavalry, light cavalry and horse archers better than what the Romans usually had (arguably the best the world ever saw) and like the Romans, these armies were HUGE, much larger than medieval armies. But for 50 years the Fekete sereg was able to fight them off, repeatedly defeat them and keep them at bay.

Some evidence indicates the Ottomans had relatively few expert, well-equipped troops, at least in the early 15th century. Bertrandon de la Brocquière wrote that some Ottoman infantrymen lacked basic gear, having only a sword, only a bow, or even only a big club. Of course, to extant I think most any large force had poorly equipped soldiers of dubious quality - Fourquevaux wrote as much about the pike formations of the 1540s, that all the best sort fought in the front ranks in armor and nobody had much faith in the lightly armored or unarmored ranks further back.

In any case, I agree the Hungarian Black Army would have odds against any numerically similar Roman force I can think of.

That indeed is OK as far as measurements go, but handling one could actually be surprising.

Sure, but Roman shields also varied and we know thousands of Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries fought with large shields. There's no reason to think their large shields were any worse than Roman ones.

People like Anthonis Duyck were actually writing about positive 'experiments' with targetiers walking trough pike companies.

Hard to guess how the hell would those 'tests' actually work, though. Very interesting.

The Dutch under Maurice of Nassau appear to have employed a significant number of both pikers equipped with smallish targets and dedicated targetiers with larger ones. Cecil (https://books.google.com/books?id=C3LPSRiBmMoC&pg=PA175&dq=cecil+%2B+maurice+of+nassau+%2B+six+pounds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rEeWVLKqH4HXggSE_YLQCQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cecil%20%2B%20maurice%20of%20nassau%20%2B%20six% 20pounds&f=false) praised the later sort of troops.

Anyway, their problem was that 'promoting' something like targetiers isn't exactly doable.

While I agree it's a lot of work to develop troop types without a tradition and social base, it happened with potent enough weapon systems. Furthermore, targetiers had tradition and a social base in numerous European societies. But they still didn't take off in 16th-century Europe. By contrast, nations and peoples who'd never fought with pike and gun learned to do so.

So culture of attacking people with large shield and sword.

Plenty of sixteenth-century Europeans had this. To a large extent all of them did. The evidence indicates that assaulting fortifications with a medium or large shield was common in the 15th century and well into the 16th. The Spanish easily fielded targetiers - though not typically with Roman sized shields - in the Americans and in Europe until they opted to decrease and then nearly eliminate targetiers in Europe. Targetiers of various kinds had a long history across Italy, though mass formations of solid heavy infantry were lacking.

rs2excelsior

2014-12-20, 11:53 PM

Well, that really depends a lot on what you think is a primary and secondary weapon, and it's somewhat subjective, but IMO the pilum is the primary weapon of the Roman Legionnaire, the scutum probably second, gladius third and pugio last.

I'm not going to jump back into the Rome vs. Medieval Europe debate, but I will say that I think this is backward. The pila were employed to break up an enemy formation--cause some degree of casualties, disorder, demoralization, and general loss of effectiveness in the enemy front ranks--before closing and finishing matters with gladii. I don't recall of a case where the pila decided a battle; it was almost always close action.

Put another way, I think a Roman legion without its pila would be far, FAR more effective than one without its gladii--which to me is an argument for considering a Legionnaire's gladius to be his primary weapon.

---

But the reason I've actually come here: Medieval troop types.

I've done a bit of digging about the organization of Medieval armies into Lances, and I've still got a couple of questions.

Based on my understanding, the most basic Lance consisted of three people: a Man-at-Arms (who socially may or may not have been a knight--I think my definition of "knight" was closer to an actual Man-at-Arms before folks in this thread disabused me of the notion), a squire, and a page. All were mounted. The knight (I'll use that from here on out) because it's shorter to type than man-at-arms) was heavily armed and armored. The squire served as his assistant but also fought alongside him, armed and armored in much the same fashion. He's basically a "knight in training." The page was purely a servant/assistant to the other two, probably armed only with a dagger, and not intended to fight. So far, so good.

It appears that Lances could, depending on location and time period, consist of more than these basic three. I've found reference to lances containing an additional Serjeant--who seems to be a cross between a servant of a lord and a man-at-arms--and/or a Coutilier. Both of them, especially the latter, seem to be like lightly armed and armored knights, although sometimes a Serjeant would replace a knight as the leader of a lance. Some additionally contained mounted archers, who I assume were mounted for strategic mobility, but would dismount and fight.

So, when lances consisted of these multiple troop types, did they stay together or split off? I can't imagine the archers remaining mixed in with the knights, but would the knights and their more lightly equipped counterparts split into heavy cavalry and light (well, less heavy) cavalry units?

Also, in terms of town militias and the like, would they provide separate contingents of archers, infantry, and cavalry? How could one expect them to be armed (I imagine it varied greatly between towns based on their wealth and such)? Would various town militias be combined into larger units based on type, or would they operate more or less independently?

How close would cooperation between feudal companies, town militias, and mercenary companies be?

How much room did Medieval fighting techniques require? I realize groups like Swiss pikemen fought basically in phalanx formation, but did knights charge knee-to-knee? Did infantry as a rule (both commoners and dismounted knights) fight in dense lines, or more spread out?

I realize these are novice questions, but like I said before, my knowledge of the Medieval period is limited (and apparently rather flawed, too).

Tobtor

2014-12-21, 03:42 AM

Yora

2014-12-21, 07:33 AM

Also, in terms of town militias and the like, would they provide separate contingents of archers, infantry, and cavalry? How could one expect them to be armed (I imagine it varied greatly between towns based on their wealth and such)? Would various town militias be combined into larger units based on type, or would they operate more or less independently?

How close would cooperation between feudal companies, town militias, and mercenary companies be?
Militias could come in a very wide range of forms. From peasants with pointy sticks to very professionally trained and equiped armies. To a great deal, that would depend on the wealth and size of the community.

Spiryt

2014-12-21, 10:22 AM

I read the comments about the axes, but didn't respond since I didn't have anything to add.

However, will all the advantages a shield gives to an axe, were two handed axes effective and really used by armies, or were their niche already occupied by halberds and other pole weapons?

Were two handed axes more useful in skirmishes compared to ranged battles or sieges?

No one can be really sure, sources don't really align into any clear picture.

Halberds and vast majority of other distinct pole weapons are generally 14-15th century thing.

"Halm-barde" literally means 'axe on a stick/stem, compare english word 'haulme'.

Early halberds were in all likeness pretty much 'two handed axes' before they've evolved into more 'classic' form, with point, edge, beak, all from one bit of iron.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/files/early_halberds_1a_580.jpg

Even in 15th century, sources, like French about 100 years war, are constantly mentioning people, particularly dismounted knights fighting with axes.

There are many finds of large axes from 15th century, that very well might have been military as well.

Then there are all kinds of pollaxes/haches that often are essentially THA with some additional elements.

Yora

2014-12-21, 10:56 AM

Halberd also often gets used to call all kinds of weapons that have a long pole but more than just a pointy end for stabbing.

Carl

2014-12-21, 11:03 AM

Just to address a few points raised:

@Gallioch: Heh, no your not coming off jerkish at all, i just wanted to make sure you understood i appreciated the patience.

Looking forward to the video if you can produce it but do bear in mind even a difference in height of shield relative to height of person makes a massive difference to the angles, so if it's even a few inches shorter relative to the height difference of your opponent vs a roman it will have a major impact, angles are weird like that.

@Spiryt: I think the point about lack of culture is important, though not quite for the reasons you state.

History is full of examples of military's having terrible doctrines for their equipment, or for dealing with their opponents equipment. And that is arguably one of the Romans strongpoints, they seemed to be able to make their equipment work well against any opponent. Recognize tactical flaws in their doctrine, and so on and so forth.

@Incaur: My argument is purely on the efficiency of a longsword armed man vs a scutum and gladius armed man with all other factors taken out of the picture, i have no doubt that heavy crossbows and especially gunpowder would pose huge issues for roman's in the late medieval period, never mind the more extensive body armour available.

Assuming Spiryt's description is accurate however a single plank un-curved construction would absolutely be far inferior to a curved multi-layered construction. The curve turns mos strikes into torshion rather than sheering stress and most materials do far better in torshion than sheer, layering would allow more spring, (in the same way it does in bows), and the curve would tend to cause some of the force to be deflected away, as well as being unfavorable to cut at certain angles.

Lastly i think an important point to note is that the gladius continued to shorten, not lengthen over it's life, given that the romans where very adept at recognizing the flaws of their equipment that suggests to me that reach, or lack thereof was not considered a key factor in the use of the gladius.

Galloglaich

2014-12-21, 12:43 PM

By the later 16th century, many Spanish, English, Italian, and other infantry troops carried single-handed swords with blade around or above 36 inches. Some of these were rapiers depending on how you use the term.

(Incanur I know you are aware of all the following but I'm going to explain a bit for others reading the thread). Many of these were 'rapier like' and this is certainly not definitive but I think personally I'd call those sideswords (spade da lato), cut-thrust swords, swords of the robes (espada ropera) etc.

http://p2.la-img.com/566/9600/2024766_3_l.jpg

You definitely have rapier-like hilt furniture / complex hilts, and a nice pointy business end, but these are cut-thrust weapons and much shorter than the definitive rapier that we usually associate with the term. Some of these are called 'transitional rapiers' and we can associate them with the Bolognese school of fencing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolognese_Swordsmanship) for example, or with 16th Century German masters like Joachim Meyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Meyer).

I should add that these type of shorter weapons also come in distinct civilian and military variants, the former being lighter and sometimes a little longer, the latter being more strongly made and sometimes wider in the blade.

you don't see this in widespread use on battlefields until the 17th Century I think (or the very late 16th).

http://www.antiques.com/vendor_item_images/ori_2063_1961112135_1115952_nu6.jpg

But, it's worth pointing out that contrary to conventional wisdom, you DO see rapiers like that as battlefield sidearms. If everyone will forgive a quick segue, I'd like to elaborate on this a bit more. There has been some really interesting research done in the last few years on the rapier fencing manuals, and by far the biggest revelation on this was the discovery and publication of the famous second Giganti manual, by fencer and researcher Piermarco Terminiello.

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

Giganti was a famous early 17th Century Venetian rapier master, who was known for centuries as a classic example of a 'pure' salon fencer - his manual taught the academic level of fencing, single rapier in one on one fights, as opposed to some of the other Italian manuals of the same era which more typically showed you how to use all kinds of other things in the off-hand (another sword, a dagger, a buckler, a cape, even a candlestick or a chair) and how to fight in messy brawls in small groups and so forth. Or the earlier Bolognese system which teaches swords with off-hand weapons, plus things like the two-handed sword, spear, partisan, dagger, grappling and so on.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/Agrippa/p092.JPG

Giganti was well regarded for his very clean technical system but was also derided because he claimed he was going to write a second and third book which would outline the rough and tumble types of battlefield fencing and the kind of fencing you needed for an ambush by 6 enemies in a dark alley. But we thought, until last year, that he never wrote this book. He was dismissed as an at least partial fraud for centuries of fencing history, but also praised by the most enthusiastic advocates of the thrust over the cut (which was a big deal in the 18th and 19th Centuries, subject to massive 'flame wars' among fencers and military people alike) since Giganti's book almost exclusively dealt with thrusting.

HOWEVER, thanks to Piermarco we now know that the second book does exist*, and in it Giganti delivers on his promise. And to our great surprise, for real life battlefield or back alley situations, Giganti turns out to be a major advocate of cutting with the rapier. Cut cut cut. He says you can't call yourself a fencing master unless you can cut. This was a MAJOR revelation, trust me. At a HEMA event I attended (and lectured at) this year in Boston, Piermarco did an analysis of Italian fencing manuals, which showed pretty definitively that contrary to the conventional wisdom which states that thrusting won over cutting because thrusting was just inherently more efficient, Italian rapier masters alternated between 'clean' salon type fencing which was thrust only, and 'dirty' street or battlefield type fencing which included as much cutting as the earlier Bolognese school did, all the way to the 18th Century. It was in the later 18th Century when interest in Italian fencing masters surged again in places like France, and the new (thrust-only) smallsword systems were being refined, that the distorted 'official' version of conventional wisdom seem to have become set in stone as it were.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FWe5pt_H51g/T0i1TnjGieI/AAAAAAAADUQ/e0bYLSXwJjg/s1600/entiere.jpg

Here is his lecture if anyone wants to watch it

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

This turns 200 years of fencing theory on it's head. What seems to be the case now is that rather than a strait evolution from cutting to cut / thrust to thrusting only swords (not counting sabers) we now have a much more complex and nuanced picture: thrust only was emphasized in the salon and was probably the trickiest thing to learn, but cut / thrust was the way fencing was taught for the battlefield. This is also emerging as the way things were done in Spain and in the 'ultramontaine' (north of the Alps) zones of Europe. There is a major new translation of a very important and interesting Spanish fencing manual which should be coming out this year which will double down on this point.

It also helps solve a puzzle as to why we have such variation in the basic 'true' rapier. We see ones with quite broad (and very, very sharp) blades that can cut well, as well as some very thin ones with almost no edge that can barely cut at all. For example:

http://www.salvatorfabris.org/img/WhatIsRapier2.jpg

I think on the battlefield you actually see the broader bladed 'cutting' type more often though there are still a mix. Quite famously in the 19th Century this was a big debate and some armies (or troop types) relied on thrust only weapon, some on cut-thrust, and some on cut only. But by then (IMO) the whole art of fencing had become very degraded and was being taught in a very, very simplified (you might say dumbed-down) version to military recruits and conscripts (these types of systems can be really fun to do though especially saber).

I should have elaborated that I consider the better sort of Roman infantry roughly equivalent to 15th- and 16th-century targetiers.

Agreed with some caveats ... mainly the shield and also the sword.

Personally I suspect armored halberdiers beat armored targetiers in a melee. 16th-century military theorists had differing options about halberdiers. Machiavelli and Sutcliffe considered them basically second-rate targetiers, while Fourquevaux, Smythe, and Barwick expressed respect for the halberd.

Yes! But that debate in military theory is one of pike only / formation fighting troops vs. 'melee' fighting troops. When the Swiss for example famously suffered some defeats at the hands of Spanish Rodelero's (more on them in a minute) in the late 15th and early 16th Century it was pretty much universally acknowledged that it was because the Swiss had so severely reduced the proportion of halberdiers (and two handed swordsmen etc.) in their ranks that the pikemen were vulnerable. They corrected this by increasing the proportion of halberdiers again. But in the long run it ended up being guns that were most important of all, and everyone started gradually shifting toward guns only.

The tradeoff is this: if you have more pikemen, your formation is more operationally effective assuming the battle goes well. Any halberdiers you have, whether it's 10% or 40%, will probably not do any fighting at all if the battle goes well, and therefore they are kind of dead weight and that is fewer pikemen you have to repel cavalry charges or crush other pike squares. On the other hand if the battle gets 'messy' and the formations collapse or inter-mingle, then the pikemen are highly vulnerable and the side which has more halberdiers typically wins out.

I also, incidentally, think this is why the Swiss carried such a high proportion of longswords and big messers as sidearms, because they usually won fights that got 'messy' almost every time, and I think the advantage in sidearms is part of the reason why. By the very end of the 15th Century the Swiss had gotten kind of sloppy in their military organization (due to 100+ years of all too frequent success) and I think had let the quality of their troops lapse. Almost anyone who was Swiss for example could join the French Swiss Royal guard (which remained in effect until the 19th Century)

The other role that halberdiers and two-handed swordsmen played was as body guards / shock troops to protect or attack Standards, cannons, and VIP's like generals. In a messy situation where say a column of troops attacks your standard, a few halberdiers or two-handed swordsmen can fight off a larger group of men armed with smaller weapons. This is also dealt with in the Spanish manuals.

Anyway the Rodelero, the Spanish version of the targeteer, was specifically intended as an experiment on reviving the Roman Legionaire with his scutum and gladius. They were successful for a while, but they had three major differences from Roman Legionaires: smaller but much stronger shields, they actually used steel rotella shields which were at least partly bullet proof (bullet resistant?) and this is, incidentally, something definitely WELL beyond Roman metallurgy in my opinion; they used cut thrust swords like the ones I linked above not short gladius; and they were deployed in kind of loose skirmisher type formations rather than maniples or centuries.

The wiki on them is actually pretty good and an interesting read.

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

G

* we never found the third Giganti book so who knows, maybe there is still more to learn!

Incanur

2014-12-21, 02:04 PM

Yes! But that debate in military theory is one of pike only / formation fighting troops vs. 'melee' fighting troops.

Well, not when it comes to specifically comparing targetiers with halberdiers. Machiavelli basically dismissed halberdiers - I guess because they weren't Roman enough - but Sutcliffe explicitly described halberdiers as equivalent to targetiers but worse: neither as well-protected nor as effectual. At least one other 16th-century English-language military manual made the same claim for the superiority of targetiers over halberdiers.

When the Swiss for example famously suffered some defeats at the hands of Spanish Rodelero's (more on them in a minute) in the late 15th and early 16th Century it was pretty much universally acknowledged that it was because the Swiss had so severely reduced the proportion of halberdiers (and two handed swordsmen etc.) in their ranks that the pikemen were vulnerable.

This certainly seems reasonable, but I'm curious about the source for it. From what I recall Machiavelli did not acknowledge this.

They corrected this by increasing the proportion of halberdiers again.

Interestingly enough, in a 1594 text Sir John Smythe recounted seeing a Swiss pike-&-halberd formation that contained lots of halberds in France "many yeares past" and in part based his instructions for pike-&-halberd formations on this Swiss example. Judging by Smythe's career he probably saw the Swiss formation in the 1550s or 1560s. Smythe absolutely love halberdiers and wanted more halberdiers than pikers overall.

The tradeoff is this: if you have more pikemen, your formation is more operationally effective assuming the battle goes well. Any halberdiers you have, whether it's 10% or 40%, will probably not do any fighting at all if the battle goes well, and therefore they are kind of dead weight and that is fewer pikemen you have to repel cavalry charges or crush other pike squares. On the other hand if the battle gets 'messy' and the formations collapse or inter-mingle, then the pikemen are highly vulnerable and the side which has more halberdiers typically wins out.

Smythe argued compellingly that pikers beyond the first five or so ranks couldn't effectively employ their pikes anyway, and some extent this is undeniable. A lot of folks in massed infantry formations in a lot of battles didn't really do anything except march and look threatening. I suspect the biggest advantages of uniform pike formations were the easy of dividing and combining forces and always having pikers when necessary despite losses. They also looked nicer! Smythe ascribed the decrease in the number of short weapons - by the 1590s primarily only guarding the ensigns - to lazy and ignorant commanders. I think he had a point but underestimated how much firearms were changing European warfare. Grand melee weren't nearly as important as they had been earlier, and armored pikers could still do good service in the melee with their swords and daggers. Contests between pike formation at times got too tight for even swords, much less halberds.

I also, incidentally, think this is why the Swiss carried such a high proportion of longswords and big messers as sidearms, because they usually won fights that got 'messy' almost every time, and I think the advantage in sidearms is part of the reason why.

I like this theory. Are there any surviving textual sources on using longswords in an infantry press?

Anyway the Rodelero, the Spanish version of the targeteer, was specifically intended as an experiment on reviving the Roman Legionaire with his scutum and gladius.

What's the source for this? I thought they came out the Reconquista without any explicit classical influence. They certainly seem well-suited for the siege warfare and irregular terrain often involved in that conflict.

They were successful for a while, but they had three major differences from Roman Legionaires: smaller but much stronger shields, they actually used steel rotella shields which were at least partly bullet proof (bullet resistant?) and this is, incidentally, something definitely WELL beyond Roman metallurgy in my opinion; they used cut thrust swords like the ones I linked above not short gladius; and they were deployed in kind of loose skirmisher type formations rather than maniples or centuries.

Yep, except that they fought in close order at times. In the Americas, Bernal Díaz del Castillo wrote about being shoulder to shoulder with fellow rodeleros. In Europe, they excelled in the press against disorder pike formations.

Galloglaich

2014-12-21, 03:16 PM

Regarding roman swords:

Judging from the Illerup bog find in Denmark (imported roman swords in barbarian army), most of the 200 swords was pattern welded. The scandinvian weapons was typically not pattern welded, though the lanceheads and spearheads (1.000 of them where found at Illerup) where made of two pieces of iron, one hard and on soft. The periode is around 200 AD.

The roman swords-production where of high quality and notions of poor workmanships is to be declined. Specialist workshops made the weapons.

Quite interesting. Is there strong evidence that these were not locally made? I know there is a major sword-making center pretty near there (Sollingen area)

That said I consider the 15th-16th century swords to be better, but mainly in design. But I do think the roman sword was as good or better than Manu 13th-14th century swords. So it all depend on what you refer to when you say roman and medieval, since both concepts are quite broad.

Possibly true, my knowledge is more limited to the later 14th-15th Century period we are calling Late medieval, which is specifically what was being compared to the Romans.

I agree that a longsword fencer would beat a roman legionare one-on-one, but I also agree that for mass formation fighting the roman style is more efficient. Pitting, lets say 1.000 medieval swordsmen against 1.000 legionaires would give the latter an advantage. But the late medieval swordsman is not designed to fight infantry in large pitched battles.

They would be after their primary weapon is spent or has become no longer usable - like in a broken-up pike square or after they have shot their crossbows / guns / bows and both sides are now at point blank range, and so on.

I can't honestly say I know much about what the group fight is really like on a personal level, since I've only done the one - on - one so far in any serious way, and most of the fencing manuals we have so far (and all the ones I've personally studied in any serious way) deal primarily with the one on one fight, as do our tournaments in the HEMA world. I kind of feel like personally I need to get more competent at the one-on-one before I start thinking about the other.

But lets not forget both the medieval army and the Roman are used to fighting in columns, in formations, and while the Romans were very sophisticated in their conduct of this, so, I would argue, were the medieval soldiers.

The late medieval advantage would not be the swords (even if slightly better and alot cheaper to produce), but the heavy crossbows and gunpowder units that could seriously damage and roman legion, that fights alot more stationary compared to medieval armies.

I agree this (and the halberds and better horses and better armored heavy cavalry and so on) would be the main advantage.

G: While I agree on that we should banish the thought of the medival period as a 'Dark age' with no progress, I do think you are taking it to far. The romans DID have a log of advanced technology and advances that was lost. You also overestimtimate or misjudge the slave economy. And you repeatedly compared with the most advanced citystates in Europe, and ignore the countryside, when consideringe levels of freedom (though it is true that in some regions peasants did have more freedom than portrayed in media, and more than in the following periods).

This is a fair criticism, and honestly, I can't say I actually have a complete picture of the late medieval European (and near-European) world. It's so big and so complex. If I have a vague picture of 10 or 15% of it I could feel proud. But what little I do now understand, at least partially, paints me a very different picture than the "conventional wisdom".

So lets say for sake of argument that I am exaggerating here and try to have a reality check. Certainly, it's not fair to use Venice as the standard of a medieval city, I will definitely concede Venice is an outlier as an extremely mighty, resourceful and incredibly rich medieval city-state, perhaps even comparable to Rome itself in it's young vigorous Republican stage.

The question is, how close is this admittedly extreme example of Venice to the norm, and how close is the conventional wisdom? If I'm exaggerating, is the default image that we live with also an exaggeration, and if so where is the 'sweet spot' of something closer to the reality that we can use as a baseline for trying to figure out the rest of it.

Now I love Monty Python as much as the next guy, like many other people in this forum I can quote most of the dialogue from the Holy Grail, and there was a time in my life when I thought that was a fairly accurate (is extremely satirical) rendering of history, as was Life of Brian and Jabberwocky and so forth. But I have come to learn that it's really not accurate at all even on that level, or maybe it's just that it pushed the pendulum too far in that particular silly direction **.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail007.jpg

This is kind of the default image we have, repeated ten thousand times in RPG's, video games, genre fiction, film and TV. Filthy mud farmers who die from leprosy at age 30, ("he got so scared his teeth turned white as snow!") with a tiny minority of comparatively clean nobles: King, queen, prince and princess, plus some villains who all dress in black and are usually led by a bald guy with a beard.

http://mattcbr.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/medieval-peasants.jpg
Medieval town dweller: pop culture

We think of medieval people as perpetually dirty, wearing pastel to mud colored crude clothing, living in poorly made crude wood and straw huts and hovels, crudely dancing to recorder and tambourine music, throwing sewerage out the window and speaking English with a heavy cockney accent, throwing bodies on a cart during perpetual outbreaks of the plague, and farming mud while waiting for Christopher Columbus and Gallileo to show them the world isn't flat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/drama/images/toga.jpg
Roman citizen: pop culture

Romans, we think of as living in stone buildings, wearing clean white and red togas, bathing regularly with the benefit of clean water from aqueducts, and being part of a political system which while after 600 years became a bit corrupt as an Empire and slightly more violent entertainment, in many ways does resemble our own society where many people have jobs and agency and can travel around and do things (other than dirt farming)... and to prove how civilized they are they speak English in upper class 'public' school accents. The truth is we generally identify with the Romans and think of them like us, and we don't identify with the medieval people, who seem much more alien.

I used to think this was kind of how it was, though I found it confusing when I went to Europe and saw medieval towns, churches, buildings (including simple peasant homes), even roads, bridges and so on, as well as Roman ruins. All quite impressive, but I couldn't say the medieval buildings looked crude compared to the Roman. To the contrary (though granted the Roman structures were so much older)

http://www.insecula.com/PhotosNew/00/00/10/43/ME0000104377_3.jpg
Actual medieval town dwellers of the middle class, (a goldsmith and his customers) from a Flemish painting, 15th Century

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jWHl7CbYXgM/TyDItGTY4VI/AAAAAAAABn4/MDWWeIvcDjk/s1600/Pieter_Bruegel_d._A%25CC%2588._011b.jpg
Actual medieval peasants, Flemish painting 16th C (the peasant wedding Pieter Bruegel the Elder 1567)

http://www.italianfoodraleigh.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mosaic-of-slaves-serving-at-a-banquet-Roman-from-Carthage-third-century-CE-.jpg
Actual Roman slaves (40% of the Roman population) serving food at a banquet, from a 3rd Century mosaic

I've since learned a few things that challenged this 20th Century stereotype. For example that for most of the medieval period, at least half the continent didn't even have a king (or was only very nominally under the rule of some distant foreign king in name only with no real local control). That medieval towns often had more public baths than the Roman towns did (though quite often it was the same bath used centuries later), had stone buildings, that they had public water systems distributing clean water around the towns, and that they even had things the Romans didn't have (like glass windows) and didn't have certain things the Romans did (like mass chattel slavery) and that the high number of machines in medieval society is part of the reason why.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/38/31/00/38310065675ca9b1a81cff073cb962b2.jpg

Public bath 15th Century, German

http://www.swissinfo.ch/blob/3419646/5c9d029de370a0d7d0f0ce55329947db/sriimg20030722-4056440-0-data.jpg

Early 16th Century public bath scene, Switzerland

https://jandekeyserdiaryandthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/lucas_1.jpg

Closeup view Here (https://jandekeyserdiaryandthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/lucas_1.jpg)

Public bath 16th Century Lucas Cranach the Elder

https://jandekeyserdiaryandthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sebald_beham_-_fountain_of_youth_and_bathhouse_-_google_art_project.jpg
Closeup view here (https://jandekeyserdiaryandthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sebald_beham_-_fountain_of_youth_and_bathhouse_-_google_art_project.jpg)

16th century (note the use of water-spraying bath toys)

http://www.pilloledistoria.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/12-22MedievalBath.jpg
Closeup view Here (http://www.pilloledistoria.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/12-22MedievalBath.jpg)

15th century

http://merryfarmer.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/bathhouse-1500s.jpg

Closeup view Here (http://merryfarmer.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/bathhouse-1500s.jpg)

16th century

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Albrecht_Durer,_%22Woman's_Bath%22.jpg
15th Century (Durer)
Closeup view Here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Albrecht_Durer,_%22Woman's_Bath%22.jpg)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_18v_19r_Badehaus.jpg

Closeup view Here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mittelalterliches_Hausbuch_von_Schloss_Wo lfegg#mediaviewer/File:Hausbuch_Wolfegg_18v_19r_Badehaus.jpg)

Private bath-house 15th Century

http://www.hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Czech4.jpg
Czech 15th Century

I also learned that Rome had the plague too. Justinians plague may have killed more people than the Black Death did, but for some reason it's just not on the radar. I learned that Roman cities, especially Rome itself, were not as clean and neat as they appear on the BBC. Maybe a little more like HBO's mini series. In fact Rome got to be such a slum that the Roman government left and went to Ravenna and Milan.

And maybe the most interesting thing I learned that medieval Europe was not one vast zone of mud-farming serfs ruled over by a tiny group of nobles living in a very fancy castle. This speaks to your criticism that I'm only talking about the richest free cities and what about all the poor peasants. So I made a map today, derived from some earlier maps I've used for academic lectures and research papers, a little bit thrown together.

Slavery, serfs, and peasants
Now some of the people also feel that I've been very unfairly slandering Imperial Rome as a slave society. From some of the outraged responses you might almost think there weren't any slaves in Rome and everybody was a skilled artisan (the reverse of what I've been accused of doing with the medieval society). So lets look at the numbers. According to the wiki (and I'm not an expert on Rome so maybe this is wrong) says that 35-40% of the population of Rome were chattel slaves at the time of Julius Caesar (owned, incidently, by less than 1.5% of the population, the richest 1.5%). I can tell you without a doubt that there was no country in medieval Europe with anywhere near that many slaves*. The Romans also had a huge desperately poor, mostly unemployed proletariat class in the cities (hence the need to leave Rome) invented serfdom, the Imperial Roman rural world was based on the vicious and cruel Latifundia system, with slaves and serfs blocked from moving around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Demography

for comparison, medieval commoners could in most cases freely travel from place to place, townsfolk for example almost invariably traveled and quite often settled in a different town. And there were many areas where peasants controlled their own governments, something I don't know of in a Roman context.

So here is the map I put together today, showing a partial collection of the autonomous cities and independent rural zones. It certainly doesn't represent all of Europe, but it's not insignificant either, and it includes some of the most densely populated zones (Flanders, Northern Italy, the Rhineland, Bohemia, northern Germany).

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=124

This is definitely not a complete map, I really haven't done any research of this type on France, England, southern Italy or the southern Balkans (much of the latter of which was under Ottoman control by the late medieval period, but there were also places like Croatia where there I think there were independent zones) or Poland which I know also had some independent rural zones (including a very large noble class which was around 1/5 of the population).

And I freely grant, I really don't know enough about the whole picture to say really whether the perspective I've been suggesting in the last few pages of this thread is more or less accurate than the default conventional wisdom / Monty Python** version. But I can say that this is the world described by primary sources like Pope Pious II and Jan Dlugosz. I can say there is evidence to support what I'm describing here. There was only one Venice, and only a handful of other cities which at one time or another could really compare to Venice (arguably Genoa, Bruges, Ghent), but there were dozens of other wealthy towns which were, like Venice, effectively republics, with a large middle class including a high proportion of skilled artisans, and which were fielding similarly skilled and well equipped soldiers. These towns may have been second or third tier in comparison to Venice but were also quite formidable in their own right; formidable enough that alone or in small groups they were able to resist and defeat powerful Kingdoms and mighty foreign invaders like the Mongol horde or the Ottoman Empire in some specific cases.

Among these I'd include in no particular order Antwerp, Gdansk, Milan, Florence, Cologne, Lubeck, Strasbourg, Augsburg, Bern, Nuremberg, Prague, Wroclaw, Riga, Hamburg, Brescia, Bologna, Dubrovnik, Barcelona, Frankfurt am Main, Krakow, Veliky Novgorod, Pskov, Tver and Bremen, just to name a few.

There were about 200 independent*** towns of significant enough size to be called cities in Central and Northern Europe, plus about 4,000 or so other towns. But even some of the smallest could be formidable. Just to cite one example, this little city of only 500 souls, a center for the butchering trade

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

...managed to remain independent from 1268, when it became a Free City by charter, until 1803 when Napoleon captured it. The reason why is evident in a close viewing of this lovely drawing of the town:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Reichsstadt_Rottweil.jpeg

Here are some links on some of the independent zones referenced in the map:

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9capole

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chodov%C3%A9

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalarna#History
Individually, all these things kind of look like one-off's, and that is how they are treated in most late 20th Century historical overviews (and electronic media, popular fiction etc.) when they are mentioned at all. But if you put them together, it starts to at least partially alter the picture of Europe we are usually working from.

G

* the number of serfs ranged widely from place to place in medieval Europe, but I don't think it was more than 10% in any part of Europe I have heard of yet (the highest being in places like France which were highly Feudal), and in many places it was closer to 2-3%.

** which is something that Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame has been trying to correct ever since, with some excellent revisionist popular history documentaries and books, albeit perhaps also exaggerated somewhat in the other direction.

*** by which I mean Free Cities, Free Imperial or Free Royal cities, and / or Hanseatic cities

Spiryt

2014-12-21, 03:56 PM

They didn't have anything like a medieval crossbow, they certainly didn't have one of these

Certainly possible, though depcitions of all kinds of Greek/Roman suggest some pretty elaborate spanning devices as well.

Lack of sensible sources is a problem sadly, even as far as pre-15th century crossbows go, let alone 2th century stuff. :smallfrown:

knew how to make the kind of composite prod crossbows that we started to see in the 13th Century in Europe.

What 'kind' of composite prods we started to see in 13th century?

Romans were actually likely familiar with composite technology from even more sources than Western Europe, at least initially. Hellenistic traditions, middle East traditions, Scythian, Partian, Egyptians traditions etc.

They were making and using plenty of composite bows, parts of which were indeed found.

There's no reason to assume that their composite technology was poor in any way.

which the Steppe nomads had and the Romans did not, otherwise why would they have had so much trouble with the Huns?

Because of their mobility? Ruthlessness? Numbers of subdued or just allied tribes they've pushed with them.

And so on.

Really, out of all factors Huns could bring 'somehow (how?) better composites than Egyptians/Greeks etc.' doesn't seem like best candidate for most important factor to me.

And I disagree with your premise that composite bows of antiquity were just as potent as composite bows being used by the Mongols in the 13th Century or the Ottomans in the 15th. I think the latter were much more powerful and efficient - my understanding is that the technology of the recurve bow did advance quite a bit during the medieval period.

So composite bows used in Roman period were, in turn, much more potent than bows used by Assyrians etc. around 2000 B.C?

I don't think so, because one would have to wonder why they would even bother with it, sticking to self bows would be better.

And whose technology had advanced and how? There were a lot of independent traditions that were carrying composite bow trough the time.

Chinese drawings, as well as preserved bows unsurprisingly show great 'perseverance' of form and designs, as far as profile, shape of siyah/horns, the way bows bend and work...

Take a look at very roughly 100 AD Han bows :

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/khotan_bow.htm

http://www.cinnabarbow.com/marinerbows/han.html

and some 800 years late Hungarian

http://classic-bow.com/catalog/traditional-roman-recurve-bow-g241-p-179.html

or straight out 1500 years later Ming stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow#mediaviewer/File:KaiyuanBowStrung.jpg

Of course, beside repeating and preserving forms, there was great richness and variation everywhere as well.

But that also suggests that assumption of constant, universal 'evolution' is rather problematic.

It is my understanding that that was the case, though I'd have to dig a little to find a source. I think Alan Williams mentions this among others.

As someone kindly mentioned above, Illerup swords are mostly pattern welded.

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/District/1014585

To be fair, I don't think I've actually seen much/any non pattern welded, or at least similarly twisted, or constructed from layers of different iron/steel from that period.

One could make 'simple' axes or spears, but sword was way too serious investment to make it' easy way'.

I'd really like to see evidence that the Romans had water wheel powered trip hammers, my understanding is that the necessary equipment wasn't developed until the 12th -13th Centuries...

https://books.google.pl/books?id=HmI7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Romans+water+wheel+powered+hammer&source=bl&ots=zZJbG0_7Qa&sig=LvmLc8s0byuOM2M1nERVLU-27MA&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=UzKXVPO6FsfDPLPigYgJ&ved=0CHMQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=Romans%20water%20wheel%20powered%20hammer&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_overshot_water-wheel

Can't say I know much about it, so if you claim that by 12th century Roman water wheel/technology was already surpassed greatly by Cistercians and other guy, I won't argue.

But dunno why deny them those things (likely 'Greek patents" anyway, if someone wants to go deep :P), especially since it seems that medieval tradition of those was continuation of ancient ones.

Well what are we arguing about then?

I'm arguing pretty much specifically about what I'm arguing.

Whole Black Army vs Rome really seems like some fresh mutation of those popular 'knight vs samurai' things, so I really don't care that much about it.

I'm just arguing against points that seem wrong/too strong/deceiving too me, like always.

Yora

2014-12-21, 04:08 PM

The Roman Legionaires were extremely effective in battles where everyone was extremely closely packed. When fighting the Iceni army in Britain, the heavily outnumered Romans managed to pick a battlefield where they had the high ground and there was no space to spread out to the sides. When the huge Iceni army came up the hill to fight them, the Romans moved down the hill and kept pushing into the Iceni with their shield wall. Things got too tight to really make use of spears, axes and any such weapons, but the Romans could still stab their short swords between the gaps of their shields. With no way to spread out to the sides and a huge army behind them, there wasn't anywhere to go to get some moving space. Tacitus always made up highly improbably numbers, but in that case he claims the casualty rates for that battle where 200 to 1, and he wrote that while many of the surviving Veterans were still around, so it certainly was a massive slaughter entirely in favor for the Romans.

If the Romans tried it as a regular tactic to push hard against enemies, then short stabbing swords would be the perfect weapon, espcially combined with a very large shield. And with their pilums, they also had a way to disrupt walls of spears and shields immediately before contact. If enemies have to drop their shield or pull out the pilums even for a few seconds, they wouldn't have an effective shield wall to block the Roman blades.

Galloglaich

2014-12-21, 05:21 PM

Certainly possible, though depcitions of all kinds of Greek/Roman suggest some pretty elaborate spanning devices as well.

Elaborate doesn't mean efficient or effective... I'll try to illustrate that.

Lack of sensible sources is a problem sadly, even as far as pre-15th century crossbows go, let alone 2th century stuff. :smallfrown:

Fair enough, but we do have a model of the crossbow of the Classical world, and both the device itself and it's spanning system are crude in comparison to a medieval arbalest:

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2005.web.dir/Jason_Hoisington/pictures/GastrophetesPic.jpg

http://cs409517.vk.me/v409517643/86f7/feAAgpVG0rQ.jpg

What 'kind' of composite prods we started to see in 13th century?

Like this one, as thick as my arm and made with various fish bones and ligaments from horses and so on. Much more powerful than any hand-held Classical weapon I know of, this thing, and the tempered steel prod weapon which arrived shortly afterward, brought something very close to the lethality of powerful but clumsy Roman Artillery to the hand of the individual infantry or horseman.

Medieval composite prod crossbow, strong, portable and powerful
http://www.artfinding.com/images/lot/_240/peter_finer_gothic_south_german_crossbow_122941684 43492.jpg

Medieval steel prod crossbow with cranequin ... expensive, but hard-hitting, small, portable, useable on horseback, with a small steel spanning device capable of drawing 1,500 lbs that can hang on your belt.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/61/4b/5e/614b5e7ad50d71dfa785bd2b943e7bd1.jpg

Roman Artillery: Powerful but clumsy, heavy, and ungainly crew-served weapon. Has a winch to span, which is also heavy large and complicated.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pics/scorpio01.jpg

Romans were actually likely familiar with composite technology from even more sources than Western Europe, at least initially. Hellenistic traditions, middle East traditions, Scythian, Partian, Egyptians traditions etc.

They were making and using plenty of composite bows, parts of which were indeed found.

There's no reason to assume that their composite technology was poor in any way.

But there is no evidence that I'm aware of that they ever figured out how to put together a crossbow like the one I linked above, which would have been a game changer in the Classical world. The design of the prods on these beasts, which is only partly understood today, is not the same as the construction of a composite recurve bow.

I'll make one concession here, I do agree with what I think is your implied premise (correct me if I'm wrong) that despite the fact we have no evidence of such things that doesn't follow that they didn't have them because there is really so much that we don't know about this Roman world. But I also think we can't assume that they had such things until we have some kind of evidence, however slight, that they did.

I think you are holding open the door for all kinds of things that the Romans 'might' have had that we really have zero evidence that they did.

Because of their mobility? Ruthlessness? Numbers of subdued or just allied tribes they've pushed with them.

My understanding is that Steppe nomad (Mongol, Kipchak, Tatar etc.) horses got better (the horse breed itself was improved in many ways), horse tack, saddles and harness got better, military techniques and strategy got better, and the bow itself got better. There was a major jump associated with the first eruption of the Mongols, and more technical and organizational "jumps" in the effectiveness of horse-archers, including better bows, associated with Tamarlane, the Mughals, and the Ottomans. I'm no expert on Steppe nomad warfare and this is just from summaries I've read in tertiary history books, but that's what I've learned to be the case. If it's incorrect I'm open to evidence.

But that also suggests that assumption of constant, universal 'evolution' is rather problematic.

I definitely don't think that. For example IMO 'evolution' of technology advanced far more rapidly in the period 1200-1500 than it did in the twice as long period 1-600.

To be fair, I don't think I've actually seen much/any non pattern welded, or at least similarly twisted, or constructed from layers of different iron/steel from that period.

Lets keep in mind, there is a big difference between a relatively simple forge-welded blade and a pattern welded blade like this

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

I think you are conflating the two to some extent.

"I'd really like to see evidence that the Romans had water wheel powered trip hammers, my understanding is that the necessary equipment wasn't developed until the 12th -13th Centuries..."]I'd really like to see evidence that the Romans had water wheel powered trip hammers, my understanding is that the necessary equipment wasn't developed until the 12th -13th Centuries..."

Can't say I know much about it, so if you claim that by 12th century Roman water wheel/technology was already surpassed greatly by Cistercians and other guy, I won't argue.

But dunno why deny them those things (likely 'Greek patents" anyway, if someone wants to go deep :P), especially since it seems that medieval tradition of those was continuation of ancient ones.

Yes, apparently some of the key elements of the technology needed to turn a water wheel into a real engine of smelting iron, making steel weapons and tools, sawing logs and so on, the camshaft for example, existed in certain Greek toys of he 3rd century. But there is zero evidence to date that these were ever used for anything other than toys, such as in a mill, during Roman times. It appears in a Persian book in 1206, also as part of a toy (automata), and it was apparently adapted for water mills either by the Arabs or in Spain in the 13th Century. It had become widespread in Eastern Spain and Italy by the dawn of the 14th.

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

This is more a matter of the differences in social and political organization than any other reason. Similar, for example, to many technologies which were developed long, long ago in China. Gunpowder projectile weapons (fire lance etc.) originated there, possibly as far back as the 9th Century, but they developed very rapidly in Europe in the 14th century, and exploded in changes in the early 15th, particularly in what is now the Czech area.

Now I could argue along the lines of what you have been saying about the Romans, and say the Chinese 'probably' had an arquebus or a musket by the 11th Century. Why not? They had all the necessary bits and pieces. But it does not appear that they did.

I'm arguing pretty much specifically about what I'm arguing.

Whole Black Army vs Rome really seems like some fresh mutation of those popular 'knight vs samurai' things, so I really don't care that much about it.

I'm just arguing against points that seem wrong/too strong/deceiving too me, like always.

I'm not trying to deceive anyone about anything. I think a few of your arguments here are "too strong" amigo. And I don't think you can participate so actively in this debate without being tainted like the rest of us with that 'Dangerous warrior' stereotype. It's just a thought experiment, and we really aren't stooping anywhere near as low as that show did. I'll just have to do my best to drag you down further into the mud with me, Ghenghis Khan vs. Justin Bieber FTW!

G

Incanur

2014-12-21, 05:31 PM

The standard (speculative?) gastrophetes does have a notable technical advantage over 15th- and 16th-century European crossbows: a longer powerstroke. But as far as I know there's no evidence that anybody in antiquity employed any sort of crossbow-type weapon in large numbers. Ancient Chinese militaries, on the other hand, did field massive forces of crossbowers armed with crossbows that appear to have been both powerful and efficient.

On the other hand, some reconstructions and primary sources suggest that Roman torsion artillery performed extremely well. Consider Firefly (http://alexisphoenix.org/ballista.php) and its performance (http://wattsunique.com/blog/?p=12647), for example. It's unclear that medieval nongunpodwer artillery matched this performance, though it may well have. I've heard the claim that medieval springalds were technically inferior to Roman torsion designs.

janusmaxwell

2014-12-21, 05:38 PM

Spiryt

2014-12-21, 06:11 PM

Like this one, as thick as my arm and made with various fish bones and ligaments from horses and so on. Much more powerful than any hand-held Classical weapon I know of, this thing, and the tempered steel prod weapon which arrived shortly afterward, brought something very close to the lethality of powerful but clumsy Roman Artillery to the hand of the individual infantry or horseman.

I really don't think they did, though, as already mentioned. Torsions engines are powerful, especially large, Roman ones with long levels and cord to span them with a lot of leverage.

http://wattsunique.com/blog/?cat=1&paged=2

http://ballista.wikia.com/wiki/Personal_torsion_weapons

Even heaviest composite crossbow is not going to achieve anything resembling artillery energies, ranges etc.

People are still in fact wondering on how much those were surpassing heavy bows, after all.

It's very feasible that all of hose ballista/ballistras were heavy, time consuming, and clumsy, so noone bothered with trying to use them seriously 'again', no discussion here.

But arguing that ~700 pound crossbow for our average shooter had anything even resembling that 'power' (as simplification) isn't really fair.

But there is no evidence that I'm aware of that they ever figured out how to put together a crossbow like the one I linked above, which would have been a game changer in the Classical world. The design of the prods on these beasts, which is only partly understood today, is not the same as the construction of a composite recurve bow.

Perhaps, but crossbow doesn't really have to be build that way. Gastraphetes were apparently 'small recurves bow on a stick' - only with greater draw weight, of course, to facilitate those crossbow perks.

I'll make one concession here, I do agree with what I think is your implied premise (correct me if I'm wrong) that despite the fact we have no evidence of such things that doesn't follow that they didn't have them because there is really so much that we don't know about this Roman world. But I also think we can't assume that they had such things until we have some kind of evidence, however slight, that they did.

I think you are holding open the door for all kinds of things that the Romans 'might' have had that we really have zero evidence that they did.

I'm not trying to open the doors for new Roman inventions, really.

Just st saying that stance strongly suggesting that the confirmed ones were somehow significantly 'worse' than some of those of other cultures is pure speculation as well.

Since we really don't have much numbers for any of the 'sides', sadly.

I definitely don't think that. For example IMO 'evolution' of technology advanced far more rapidly in the period 1200-1500 than it did in the twice as long period 1-600.

In Europe, yes, one can say so.

No way to extrapolate it on some Steppe nomads, Caucassian herders, etc. though.

You noted, and provided many examples for why Europe indeed had seen major 'technology jump', after 1200, at least in some fields.

This can't apply to people leaving completely somewhere else with their own history, obviously.

Lets keep in mind, there is a big difference between a relatively simple forge-welded blade and a pattern welded blade like this

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

I think you are conflating the two to some extent.

Quite certainly there is - though I don't think that there is, or can be, any real data about 'quality of patter welding", sadly.

Never claimed that all that there's no difference, so couldn't conflate anything.

Yes, apparently some of the key elements of the technology needed to turn a water wheel into a real engine of smelting iron, making steel weapons and tools, sawing logs and so on, the camshaft for example, existed in certain Greek toys of he 3rd century. But there is zero evidence to date that these were ever used for anything other than toys, such as in a mill, during Roman times. It appears in a Persian book in 1206, also as part of a toy (automata), and it was apparently adapted for water mills either by the Arabs or in Spain in the 13th Century. It had become widespread in Eastern Spain and Italy by the dawn of the 14th.

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

I'm just saying that experts in the field seem to indeed suggesting trip hammer seeing use, as menioned in linked articles.

http://www.academia.edu/435243/Machines_power_and_the_ancient_economy

In any case, just as I've said, with water hammer or not, they still had significant amount of water etc. powered tools.

Whether they were as useful, better/worse than '15th century' isn't very relevant, I was just pointing out that Romans did in fact have sophisticated.

Making them some 'opposite' of late Medieval one is just bit unfair.

I'm not trying to deceive anyone about anything. I think a few of your arguments here are "too strong" amigo. And I don't think you can participate so actively in this debate without being tainted like the rest of us with that 'Dangerous warrior' stereotype. It's just a thought experiment, and we really aren't stooping anywhere near as low as that show did. I'll just have to do my best to drag you down further into the mud with me, Ghenghis Khan vs. Justin Bieber FTW!
G

I'm not saying that you're trying to deceive anyone, just that some arguments may seem deceiving.

Not making any fun or looking down else out of someone enjoying Ninja vs Free Mason", sorry if it appeared that way. :smallwink:

Just saying that I personally don't dig them much.

Didn't think about 'that show' either, those discussions predate the show significantly, in fact one of my first adventures with (polish) Internet were some spectacular rants about katana being blindingly fast compared to European sword due to being more aerodynamic (!) due to curvature, or something.

And leather hussars of Uncle that poster had defeated via battle dance with two axes.

"Deadliest Warrior" was just the answer for the needs of thousands of people, not the other way around. :smallbiggrin:

I've heard the claim that medieval springalds were technically inferior to Roman torsion designs.

Can you perhaps remember where? Any info would be very interesting.

Galloglaich

2014-12-21, 06:56 PM

Lol ok Spiryt, you know I admire your knowledge and always appreciate your posts even when you are wrong wrong wrong! I've spent most of my time on forums like this debunking that same kind of stuff.

I read the abstract of that article, which mentions "water-lifting devices, the water-powered grain mill, and the diverse uses of water-power in mining"

water lifting device was archemedes screw I think, we know about the water grain mill, and probably some other uses in mining for crushing rock, but I don't see anything about a trip hammer for iron, or a water powered forge. Like thids bad boy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M24nZbhKkdU

The so called "Catalan forge" and "Barcelona hammer" I think really were major game-changers, they contributed to a huge increase in the output of iron, and the processing of iron and steel during the medieval period. Another really big one was the water-powered paper mill which appeared at some point between the 13th and 14th Century (the precise origin is hotly debated in academia) but it's really hard to overstate the importance of widespread paper in the medieval world, compared to ancient Rome.

The water-wheel itself apparently went through major changes / improvements, as you noted courtesy largely of the Cistercians (who deserve a lot of credit for pushing forward a wide range of technology all over Europe) which improved efficiency by a wide margin from the Roman era (I've read a factor of 6 or a factor of 10)

The wiki does a pretty good job of explaining the impact so I'll just quote that.

By the 11th century there were parts of Europe where the exploitation of water was commonplace.[22] The water wheel is understood to have actively shaped and forever changed the outlook of Westerners. Europe began to transit from muscle labour, human and animal labor, towards mechanical labour with the advent of the Water Wheel. Medievalist Lynn White Jr. contended that the spread of inanimate power sources was eloquent testimony to the emergence of the West of a new attitude toward, power, work, nature, and above all else technology.[22] Even the most conservative commentators regarding the extent to which the water wheel influenced Medieval western technology and science recognizes the basic elements of a power-based economy responsible for distinguishing the Europeans above all others, had begun with the framework instilled by the water wheel. Compared with the previous period, the change of scale in numbers, multiplied for each wheel by a substantial gain in power productivity, implied tremendous economic impacts. Harnessing water-power massively enabled huge gains in agricultural productivity, food surpluses and the large scale urbanization starting in the 11th century. Furthermore Europeans, for the first time had begun to show their own capabilities for mechanized innovations, by not limited themselves to merely water, but by beginning to experiment with wind and tidal mills.[24] Waterwheels influenced the construction of cities, more specifically canals. The techniques that developed during this early period such as stream jamming and the building of canals, put Europe on a hydraulically focused path, for instance water supply and irrigation technology was combined to modify supply power of the wheel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_wheel#Economic_influence

EDIT: I was reading the article you linked on the Roman torsion weapons.

"Winched cheiroballistra: 47m/s with 100 gram bolt (110 joules). Apparently the pull was around 739 pounds as in Wilkins' earlier tests. Power stroke was apparently around 60 cm.
◾ Winched three-span ballista: 37m/s with 200 gram bolt (136 joules). Power stroke length unknown. "

I think replica longbows have been recorded at 60 meters per second.

the same article notes

Author's ~300 lbs crossbow with steel bow, power stroke 27,5 cm: ◾ 60,6 m/s avg using a 47 gram bolt (86 joules)
◾ 49,4 m/s avg using a 81 gram bolt (99 joules)

I don't know if that 300 lb weapon is a replica medieval type or a modern type, (probably modern given the power-stroke) but Leo Todeschini said he did a test with his medieval crossbow replicas (which he mentions here (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19926&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=280) which achieved 45-47m/s with a 120gram bolt, so that does put it well into the range of the "winched cheiroballista" mentioned in the article and reposted by me above, in fact it's the same speed with a heavier bolt so it's more powerful.

But Leo says his replicas only shoot about 230 yards which is significantly less than Ralph Payne-Galway recorded shooting an antique Italian crossbow about 100 years ago, which shot a bolt 440 yards. That's almost twice as long range as the current replicas (which have been steadily improving in quality over the last 10 years or so as more and more accurate replicas are built, much like we have seen with sword replicas). But modern replicas probably haven't caught up yet.

According to a book called Die Armbrust (http://books.google.com/books/about/Die_Armbrust.html?id=ESEnAAAACAAJ) by Egon Harmuth, a roughly 1000lb steel crossbow shoots an 80-gram bolt at 67 meters per second. That's 180 J. Significantly faster and more powerful than either of the torsion weapons mentioned above. And we know medieval crossbows of the types I've shown went up to 1200 lbs draw and more.

So the current medieval crossbow replicas seem to be definitely in the range of power of some of the large, cumbersome Roman Torsion weapons and the real original ones may have actually been half again to twice as powerful. Wow!

Thanks for bringing the numbers into this it really grounds the discussion in fact.

G

fusilier

2014-12-21, 08:34 PM

Based on my understanding, the most basic Lance consisted of three people: a Man-at-Arms (who socially may or may not have been a knight--I think my definition of "knight" was closer to an actual Man-at-Arms before folks in this thread disabused me of the notion), a squire, and a page. All were mounted. The knight (I'll use that from here on out) because it's shorter to type than man-at-arms) was heavily armed and armored. The squire served as his assistant but also fought alongside him, armed and armored in much the same fashion. He's basically a "knight in training." The page was purely a servant/assistant to the other two, probably armed only with a dagger, and not intended to fight. So far, so good.

There were different types of "lances" which varied considerably by location, and they evolved over time.

What you are describing was pretty typical in Italy around 1400, having developed in the previous century. (There's an older barbuta? which was just a man-at-arms and his sergeant).

Originally the "squire" would have been more like a sergeant, and he was similarly armed to the man-at-arms, but with less armor. Over time, he evolved into more of a supporting unit -- especially as during the 15th century horse armor became more common. Perhaps becoming more of a medium cavalryman (compared to the men-at-arms as a "heavy cavalryman"). The paige was basically as you described. All were mounted for purposes of strategic mobility at least. The paige was probably equipped to fight and may have done so on occasion, but that was not his primary purpose in battle.

Over time the lance got larger, but was more and more organized to supporting a single man-at-arms, so the additional members of the lance were considered support. Later in the 15th century adding a mounted crossbowman was popular -- they had become popular as bodyguards, but were also being used more in combat. Units of mounted crossbowmen were becoming common too.

In combat, the men-at-arms were probably formed together, possibly supported by the sergeants, but they were not fighting "side-by-side" as they probably did in the early 15th century. Mounted crossbowmen would likely be formed in their own unit, and probably dismounted in battle (this is debated, but I'm of the opinion that they usually participated in battle on foot). However, they also functioned as light-cavalry in a strategic role -- scouting, foraging, raiding etc., so I'm sure they were usually capable of skirmishing from horseback.

By the end of the 15th century the four man lance was pretty common in Italy, with a heavily armed and armored man-at-arms (including horse armor), being supported by a more lightly armored sergeant and servants (one of whom was likely to be a mounted crossbowman). Five and six man lances, sometimes referred to as corazza, were appearing in some places, but were aren't entirely certain how they were organized. But, following the general trend they were probably just more support personnel -- there was more armor to transport more horses to look after, etc. Like the "paige" their primary purpose was support, but they were probably capable of some fighting if it was necessary.

This is different from the French style lance -- that was a larger, all-round battle force of cavalry and infantry. Italian contracts usually specified infantry separately from cavalry, even if they belonged to the same company (all infantry, even pikemen and pavisieri might be mounted for purposes of strategic mobility).

So, when lances consisted of these multiple troop types, did they stay together or split off? I can't imagine the archers remaining mixed in with the knights, but would the knights and their more lightly equipped counterparts split into heavy cavalry and light (well, less heavy) cavalry units?

It might be ok to think of an early style lance as a kind of "tactical" unit, but for the most part it's probably better to think of the lance as an "organizational" unit. It formed a kind of shorthand in Italian contracts for a man-at-arms and the necessary/expected support. The French lance was probably organizational in the sense that it provided a proportion of particular infantry types to cavalry types. I would expect the members of a lance to "mess" together, travel together, and perhaps occasionally skirmish as a unit, when foraging or scouting. (although heavy cavalry wasn't expected to perform those functions).

From what I can tell cavalry types were separated out on a medieval battlefield, although "medium" cavalry might providing immediate support for the men-at-arms.

Infantry, on the other hand, appear to have mixed themselves together . . . with crossbowmen, pikemen (some times referred to as infantry lances), shield-bearers, etc., mixed together. The particular tactic, by the middle of the 15th century, appears to be a rank of well-armored pikemen in front, followed by shield bearers (with large shields and spears), and everybody else behind them including more pikemen and shield-bearers. I've seen this description of infantry at the battle of Piombino (1448), and it's similar to the description of how the Hungarian Black Army's infantry was organized. I suspect it was fairly common, but I'm not certain. It fits with the traditional Italian infantry organization of shield-bearers, crossbowmen, and lances in roughly equal proportions.

The formation described above must have been fairly flexible, allowing crossbowmen to move to the front when necessary, and to take cover behind the shield-bearers -- basically adopting the above formation when they expected hand-to-hand combat. In which case it appears that the crossbowmen directly supported the hand-to-hand combat.

While in Italian there's a good (and too large to reproduce here) artist's rendition of infantry engaging each other on this website --
http://stemmieimprese.it/2012/09/17/la-battaglia-di-piombino-1448/

Later in the century, the proportion of crossbowmen increased, so perhaps they started to be fielded as a more homogenous force. Personally I would like to learn more about this myself, but so far this is all I've been able to find about how medieval infantry was organized tactically.

Galloglaich

2014-12-21, 11:03 PM

In 15th Century Germany and the Baltic a lance was usually 5 people; One man at arms or knight, 2 lancers, a mounted crossbowman, and a 'valet' or servant. All but the valet would be armed.

This was standard for the Livonian Order and the Teutonic Order, and for most of the German princes in the region, and for the towns.

The difference between the main knight and the other lancers at that time was that the knight had an armored horse. The lancers were also armored - their equipment was listed as costing 22 gulden (not counting the horse) so they had pretty good kit, but their horse wasn't (or was more lightly protected).

The lighter lancers and the mounted crossbowmen are necessary to deal with light cavalry and horse archers respectively, against whom the knight would be in trouble if he was on his own (since his horse is somewhat slowed down by the armor, apparently).

G

fusilier

2014-12-21, 11:33 PM

https://books.google.pl/books?id=HmI7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Romans+water+wheel+powered+hammer&source=bl&ots=zZJbG0_7Qa&sig=LvmLc8s0byuOM2M1nERVLU-27MA&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=UzKXVPO6FsfDPLPigYgJ&ved=0CHMQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=Romans%20water%20wheel%20powered%20hammer&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_overshot_water-wheel

Can't say I know much about it, so if you claim that by 12th century Roman water wheel/technology was already surpassed greatly by Cistercians and other guy, I won't argue.

But dunno why deny them those things (likely 'Greek patents" anyway, if someone wants to go deep :P), especially since it seems that medieval tradition of those was continuation of ancient ones.

I wonder if this debate has to do with perspective? I haven't really studied it, but from what I've seen the Roman Empire had pretty sophisticated water driven technology -- but that doesn't mean it was spread throughout the Empire, instead being more concentrated in the more built up areas (i.e. the Mediterranean). If looking at, for example, Northern France, the medieval water wheel technology may have been more developed than the water technology in Roman era Northern France. But that's not to say it was better/worse than what the Romans *could* produce.

Population density seems to play a role too -- old fashioned, horizontal wheel, water mills were being built in the American Southwest well into the 19th century, despite the fact that both over/undershot (and steam powered) mill technology was available. The simple, small, old fashioned mills were sufficient for the small populations.

Galloglaich

2014-12-22, 12:28 AM

I still say there is zero evidence that the Romans ever had a water-powered forge, blacksmith workshop, or paper mill anywhere in the Empire (let alone tens of thousands of water mills). I'm prepared to learn otherwise.

G

Brother Oni

2014-12-22, 03:22 AM

Recently watched Shanghai Noon, and a friend who studies martial arts and got me a bit more interested in the details of martial arts in general. There's a scene in that movie where Jackie Chan uses a horse-shoe tied to a length of rope as an impromptu Meteor Hammer.

The rules for improvised weapons, I believe applies to stuff like tree-branches, buckets, mugs/bottles of beer and anything else within reach, but what about when the improvised weapon is close enough to the actual weapon to be utilized just as effectively?

Would that still be considered and "Improvised Weapon" and thus negate the normal penalties for using such without a feat, or would it still carry some of the negatives, BUT would have the stats of the weapon that is being imitated?

Depends on the system in question. Pathfinder has a number of feats that reduce or negate the penalty, as does 3.5.

It would probably be easier to houserule it though - in the above specific case, I'd rule it as having a penalty to attack only (a horse-shoe is not as well balanced as a lead weight, but it's still probably going to hit as hard).
In the case of using something like a broom handle as a staff, I'd say there's no penalty whatsoever.

Storm_Of_Snow

2014-12-22, 04:37 AM

Possibly. Bear in mind that high explosives, white phosphorous and other incendiary weapons have been used extensively in wooded and grassy terrain (off the top of my head, Normandy during WW2 for example) and forest fires were not a major hazard as far as I know.

Unless my understanding of pulsed laser weapons is off, they deliver a massive amount of energy to the target in a short amount of time. This vaporises the surface of the target, causing an explosion - a 1 MJ laser delivers approximately the same amount of energy as 200g of explosive with much the same effect, according to the wiki article. This is not quite the same thing as a thermal weapon (eg Babylon 5's PPGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_plasma_gun) or the rumoured MARAUDER system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER)), nor is it the same thing as sustained beam DEWs (which are unlikely to be man portable due to the massive power requirements), which would potentially cause heating of the surrounding material.
Blooming would be an issue with starting fires though, although that's not an intentional result of the weapon's use.

The only current day 'heat ray' that I know of, is the ADS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System), which boils the water under the skin of the target as an apparently non-lethal crowd control measure.

In comparison, modern firearms can also set fires with still burning gunpowder from the muzzle flash, particularly if you're shooting through cover like bushes or long grass.
Black powder weapons would also be very likely (especially cannon) and at re-enactments, I have seen the cannon crews stamp out fires from the ejected, still smouldering wadding.
There's an episode of Top Gear where the British Army fire on a 4x4 that Jeremy Clarkson's driving (IIRC, it was seized from someone arrested for drugs offences) until he gets out and they really unload on it, and some of the undergrowth around it is set alight.

It would only really be a problem if the vegetation is quite dry, which would allow the fire to spread - basically, the same conditions as needed for forest fires. Although I think there were one or two instances of Napoleonic-era units getting caught in fires started by debris from their own shooting.

Brother Oni

2014-12-22, 05:30 AM

However, will all the advantages a shield gives to an axe, were two handed axes effective and really used by armies, or were their niche already occupied by halberds and other pole weapons?

Were two handed axes more useful in skirmishes compared to ranged battles or sieges?

As mentioned before, halberds (or at least things that are thought of as halberds) were generally a late medieval thing in the West.

In early to mid-medieval times, axes were very popular and the Saxon housecarls were renown for having big shields and a large two handed axe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_Axe), as they were better for breaking through shields than swords. The Bayeux Tapestry (11th Century) has some records of axe users and according to the wiki article, there's a 10th Century plaque showing a Varangian guard with an axe as big as himself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Housecarl_at_hastings.jpg
Note also the round shield worn by the Saxon versus the the longer kite shield of the Norman.

It would only really be a problem if the vegetation is quite dry, which would allow the fire to spread - basically, the same conditions as needed for forest fires. Although I think there were one or two instances of Napoleonic-era units getting caught in fires started by debris from their own shooting.

That was what I was thinking - pulsed laser weapons would be no more likely to start forest fires than current conventional munitions.

Storm Bringer

2014-12-22, 05:54 AM

There's an episode of Top Gear where the British Army fire on a 4x4 that Jeremy Clarkson's driving (IIRC, it was seized from someone arrested for drugs offences) until he gets out and they really unload on it, and some of the undergrowth around it is set alight.

It would only really be a problem if the vegetation is quite dry, which would allow the fire to spread - basically, the same conditions as needed for forest fires. Although I think there were one or two instances of Napoleonic-era units getting caught in fires started by debris from their own shooting.

I've seen that episode (pt 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5rRY2ICT4k), Pt 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzztdvPAsOI)). Trust me, Clarkson was never in the car when the army was firing at it That was just camera trickery and editing. If you watch the bits where he is being shot at, he's far too calm for someone with rounds pinging off around him.

No way they would actually risk hitting and killing Clarkson. or the camera crew......

but yhea, we often start small fires on ranges when the weather is dry. I've known a few exercise battles have to be halted so the participants can go put out a fire somewhere.

Thiel

2014-12-22, 06:31 AM

Spiryt

2014-12-22, 06:39 AM

I think replica longbows have been recorded at 60 meters per second.

Longbow have been recorded shooting even 70 m/s as well, all one needs is light enough arrows.

With 100g arrows you would need some enormous bow, of course.

So the current medieval crossbow replicas seem to be definitely in the range of power of some of the large, cumbersome Roman Torsion weapons and the real original ones may have actually been half again to twice as powerful. Wow!

I think, you misunderstood, linked 'cheiroballistas' and other 'portable' hand-helddevices indeed seem to be 'in range' of very good medieval crossbows.

Reconstructed 'larger scale' ballista apparently reach around 1600 J, with range of few hundred yards, and ~999 yards with some very light bolts instead.

http://wattsunique.com/blog/?p=12647

The point if the article, was to not that from whatever reason, Wilkin's reconstructions of hand held ballista had very awful efficiency, as in rate of energy gathered in twisted cord to energy of arrow.

Of about ~14% which is way worse than what large scale ballista seems to achieve.

That larger scale ballista was shooting stuff more than two times faster, even though, generally, increasing size and mass tends to start causing problems with velocity.

They are arguing that better reconstruction of cheiroballistra should actually achieve way better results, all the way to ~300-some Joules.

From the lack of data it's hard to tell what can be the 'truth'.

Perhaps hand held ballistas were indeed pretty powerful, for the cost of weight and long spanning.

Perhaps they weren't thus only bigger versions were used.

In any case, ~120 J for handheld weapon is still very respectable, and in row with most High medieval, personal crossbows we know of.

If it's worth constructing cheiroballistra, instead of sticking to 'normal' crossbow or just recurve bow, which can attain 120J too is tougher question.

GraaEminense

2014-12-22, 07:52 AM

However, will all the advantages a shield gives to an axe, were two handed axes effective and really used by armies, or were their niche already occupied by halberds and other pole weapons?

Were two handed axes more useful in skirmishes compared to ranged battles or sieges?
One of my favourite subjects! Others have covered most of the points already, but I'll add a couple more: Two-handed axes were a precursor to the halberds and other choppy-stabby polearms and must have covered the same niche. They are common enough finds in Scandinavia and (I think) the British Isles that there must have been a fair amount around -it is likely that they were considered useful in many situations.
It is probable that they were mostly used by warriors rich enough to be well-armoured, to compensate for the lack of a shield.
They never went completely out of style even if they were mostly supplanted by the halberd and the like, there are plenty depicted in later manuscripts like this one from Maciejowski:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBjXB52kTFv0w4bMZghIV18-1ZBUdlXgtTjOLWZox-iH-06R9WqA
These were also the lawfully required arms for the poorer land-owners in Christian IV's Norwegian Law of 1604 (granted, Norway was a backwater at the time, but even so):
http://media35d.dimu.no/media/image/NF/NF.2010-0610/480780?width=600&height=380

Tobtor

2014-12-22, 09:54 AM

Quite interesting. Is there strong evidence that these were not locally made? I know there is a major sword-making center pretty near there (Sollingen area)

Quite good for some of the swords; in general stamps of specific Roman factories with Latin inscriptions, the idea are partly copied by germanic runic inscription (also stamped) on a couple of lance-heads). They are definitely not local production, but a few has been suggested to be copies of the border regions of "germania". Some where still having "Roman"-type hilt and pommel, while for others it could be seen that these had been broken of and "Germanic" ones attached instead (silver and/por goldplated hilts and pommels was prefered for the ekstra "bling" factor), while some swords may have been exported in bolk blades, in spite of numurous Roman laws against exporting swords.

But generally they are definitely Roman. There is as far as I know, no evidence of advanced pattern welding in northern Europe (Scandinavia, northern Germany, northern Poland etc) in the period. Most local swords are single edged (short) swords made of 1-3 pieces of iron (of different hardness), while the Roman examples a made by a very evolved pattern welding (the well preserved examples are really beautiful).

Finds such as the Illerup is very interesting in seeing the makeup of a Germanic army (note only 40% of the area excavated, more weapons are out there):
Around 200 swords,
750 lanceheads (no pole preserved in full lenght, the longest part preserved was 270cm (aorund 8-9feet), several other above 2m, and 650 spearheads/javelinheads (smaller and with barbs preventing them being removed after impact). From contemproary graves we know that a lance and sear often followed in the grave making one "set".
A smaller number of axeheads and bows/arrows, equipment for horses etc.
Around 340 shiledbosses, of which 300 is of iron, 30 of brass/guilded brass, and 5 is of solid silver with gold parts (yes-crazy - they also had many small gold and silver ornaments on these).

Regarding Sollingen area as weapon production place: I cant find any references to this in pre-medieval context. Can you give some?

"We think of medieval people as perpetually dirty, wearing pastel to mud colored crude clothing, living in poorly made crude wood and straw huts and hovels, crudely dancing to recorder and tambourine music, throwing sewerage out the window and speaking English with a heavy cockney accent, throwing bodies on a cart during perpetual outbreaks of the plague, and farming mud while waiting for Christopher Columbus and Gallileo to show them the world isn't flat."

"I used to think this was kind of how it was, though I found it confusing when I went to Europe and saw medieval towns, churches, buildings (including simple peasant homes), even roads, bridges and so on, as well as Roman ruins. All quite impressive, but I couldn't say the medieval buildings looked crude compared to the Roman. To the contrary (though granted the Roman structures were so much older)."

Well coming from Europe, even a backwater place like Denmark, I think i never fully had the misconception you seemed to have. Hell every other small 10 houses hamlet has a 13th century stone build church.

"Romans, we think of as living in stone buildings, wearing clean white and red togas, bathing regularly with the benefit of clean water from aqueducts, and being part of a political system which while after 600 years became a bit corrupt as an Empire and slightly more violent entertainment, in many ways does resemble our own society where many people have jobs and agency and can travel around and do things (other than dirt farming)... and to prove how civilized they are they speak English in upper class 'public' school accents. The truth is we generally identify with the Romans and think of them like us, and we don't identify with the medieval people, who seem much more alien."

Probably much less true in parts of Europe that wherenever part of the Roman empire, most Danes have a way more accurate picture (though still very, very, very flawed, admittedly) and sense of "sameness" regarding the medieval period, whereas the Romans that are often seen as strange/exotic.

True about bathhouses etc, some of them was abolished in northern Europe in the 16th century (Lutherism had them abolished them outright in Denmark at least) leading to a decline in public health and sanity in the following centuries

About slaves: I did not deny that Rome had a huge reliance on slave labour, but I disagree of what that means. If everyone accepts slavery as a premise (and they did) there is less hostility towards it, and then you can have educated slaves, specialist etc. This is true for the Roman period where some where higly trusted advisors, as well as the Viking Age/Early medival Scandinavia, where smiths where often unfree (thralls)- but with high status compared to "free" tenant farmers.

Whereas tenant farmers was not slaves, but was still tied to a place by a fixed contract toward a nobleman. If you look at the few towns in Scandinavia the proportion of well of citizens with high amount of freedom would indeed be in the majority, but rural areas still consisted of 80+% of the population, and while free farmers did exists, most where tenant farmers by the 14th century etc.
I have seen some scientific reports indicating personal decline in height in the medieval period in Scandinavia (1.000-1.500AD), compared to the preceeding iron age/Viking age (500-1.000AD), this decline definetly increases toward the 17th-19th century thoug.

So, even though the period in the late medieval and foreward to 19th century is one of increasing liberty in towns and cities, the reverse could be suggested for the rural areas.

So while I agree that everyone was definately noy dirt farmers, and that no-one was as poor and backwater as potrayed by popular media, we should likewise be carefull about making statements about the liberty and wealth in the society based on merchants and crafstmen from the towns. Likewise we should also consider the picture of the slave, it is also portrayed wrongly (to some degree) or at least portraying the worst of slaves and the ones who have cruel masters. Sure un-educated mass labours slaves existed, but so did many other types.

So replacing one wrong image (that of dark medival to flowering rome) with another (flowering medievval and dark rome) is a bad way forth.

Galloglaich

2014-12-22, 10:26 AM

Longbow have been recorded shooting even 70 m/s as well, all one needs is light enough arrows.

With 100g arrows you would need some enormous bow, of course.

My understanding is that normal longbow arrows were pretty heavy, around 80 grams normally, compared to steppe nomad arrows which are more typically 40 grams, and crossbow bolts which could be anywhere from 60 to 120 grams. Flight arrows (and bolts) of course were much lighter, as much as half.

I think, you misunderstood, linked 'cheiroballistas' and other 'portable' hand-helddevices indeed seem to be 'in range' of very good medieval crossbows.

No I didn't understand, these smaller Roman artillery pieces (chieroballista etc.) are much larger, heavier, more cumbersome and more complex than the medieval crossbow, but the latter appears to perform better based on the tests so far.

Reconstructed 'larger scale' ballista apparently reach around 1600 J, with range of few hundred yards, and ~999 yards with some very light bolts instead.

Yes but the large ballista are competing with this instead in that 15th Century army

http://www.wythe-retinue.org.uk/images/Gnat%20%26%20Guns.jpg

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/25200/25214/cannon_25214_lg.gif

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

http://warsoftheroses.devhub.com/img/upload/8-french-artillery-1430-1453.jpg

http://rogue-artist.com/gothicgermany/images/camp%20and%20march/cannonwagon1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Breech_loading_swivel_guns_15th_16th_century.jpg

which is why ballistae and similar torsion weapons started being replaced in the 13th Century and were pretty rare by the 14th.

They are arguing that better reconstruction of cheiroballistra should actually achieve way better results, all the way to ~300-some Joules.

From the lack of data it's hard to tell what can be the 'truth'.

Yes, well it's the same issue on the crossbow side, both the torsion weapons and the crossbows do not yet equal what we believe the effectiveness of the real thing was. Based on the range of the 1200 lbs draw weapon that Payne-Gallway shot, they are estimating 208 Joules.

We won't know until they make better replicas, but at this point, the medieval weapons appear to be better, as well as much smaller and much easier to handle - to the extent that they were widely used on horseback in the 15th Century across Europe.

G

rs2excelsior

2014-12-22, 11:54 AM

It would only really be a problem if the vegetation is quite dry, which would allow the fire to spread - basically, the same conditions as needed for forest fires. Although I think there were one or two instances of Napoleonic-era units getting caught in fires started by debris from their own shooting.

I know of this happening in the American Civil War--at the Wilderness in 1864, I believe it was, forest fires started from all the shooting going on and many wounded on both sides died.

I do some WWI reenacting, and last April we had to stop several times because a small fire broke out. And that's just with firing blanks and throwing grenades with tiny bursting charges. So I can definitely see it happening, with lasers or modern weapons, but only in dry conditions.

KnotKnormal

2014-12-22, 01:00 PM

Spiryt

2014-12-22, 01:10 PM

My understanding is that normal longbow arrows were pretty heavy, around 80 grams normally, compared to steppe nomad arrows which are more typically 40 grams, and crossbow bolts which could be anywhere from 60 to 120 grams. Flight arrows (and bolts) of course were much lighter, as much as half.

I don't think we know much, TBH.

Apparently there's significant amount of Japanese arrows preserved, from one reason or another, and they're supposedly pretty heavy.

Arrow replicas intended too represent 'most typical arrow from Mary Rose" are around 65g it seems.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/tudor-livery-arrow.html

Yes, well it's the same issue on the crossbow side, both the torsion weapons and the crossbows do not yet equal what we believe the effectiveness of the real thing was. Based on the range of the 1200 lbs draw weapon that Payne-Gallway shot, they are estimating 208 Joules.

We won't know until they make better replicas, but at this point, the medieval weapons appear to be better, as well as much smaller and much easier to handle - to the extent that they were widely used on horseback in the 15th Century across Europe.

Well, not necessarily - 739 pounds is around 60% of 1200, and likewise, 110J appears to be around 55% of the theoretical 208.

So even those potentially failed creations seem potent enough. Too attain those 400 yards Gallway's crossbow would obviously need to have velocity/efficiency sorted out, bolt won't travel that far starting with 45 m/s.

Such large energies attained with such low efficiency suggest very good capabilities of storing energy.

The potential strong advantage over crossbow design of similar size seems to power stroke.

No hand crossbow crossbow of late medieval design really can approach 60 cm in any way, length of the bow arms limits them.

In torsion weapon, arms obviously don't work in any way, so force can be applied over long distance, and nothing will happen to them since they don't bend after all. All about cords.

It's possible that with well made one energies would be very impressive, offset by the fact that whole construction seems rather awkward indeed.

5 is of solid silver with gold parts (yes-crazy - they also had many small gold and silver ornaments on these).

Likely more of chieftain signs of status and kind of standard to gather around on battlefield than practical shield, I would guess?

Galloglaich

2014-12-22, 01:46 PM

I don't think we know much, TBH.

Apparently there's significant amount of Japanese arrows preserved, from one reason or another, and they're supposedly pretty heavy.

Arrow replicas intended too represent 'most typical arrow from Mary Rose" are around 65g it seems.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/tudor-livery-arrow.html

Yes but those were at the bottom of the sea for 500 years, which may change things a bit.

That same English Warbow society lists military arrows at a minimum of 113.4 grams, and there were a wide variety of arrows and arrowheads used, as you know, but what I've read is that 80 grams is about the average for English military arrows from the late medieval to Early Modern period.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/quarter-pound-arrow.html

The potential strong advantage over crossbow design of similar size seems to power stroke.

Pretty much all medieval crossbows have a very short powerstroke, this (and the use of much heavier, shorter bolts) is also the principal difference between modern crossbows and their medieval equivalent. We really don't know why they were made that way, but we know they were made that way on purpose, in fact power strokes got shorter and bolts got smaller as the medieval period, so it was clearly intentional.

G

Galloglaich

2014-12-22, 03:07 PM

Quite good for some of the swords; in general stamps of specific Roman factories with Latin inscriptions, the idea are partly copied by germanic runic inscription (also stamped) on a couple of lance-heads). They are definitely not local production, but a few has been suggested to be copies of the border regions of "germania". Some where still having "Roman"-type hilt and pommel, while for others it could be seen that these had been broken of and "Germanic" ones attached instead (silver and/por goldplated hilts and pommels was prefered for the ekstra "bling" factor), while some swords may have been exported in bolk blades, in spite of numurous Roman laws against exporting swords.

And these are fully pattern welded or forge-welded?

But generally they are definitely Roman. There is as far as I know, no evidence of advanced pattern welding in northern Europe (Scandinavia, northern Germany, northern Poland etc) in the period. Most local swords are single edged (short) swords made of 1-3 pieces of iron (of different hardness), while the Roman examples a made by a very evolved pattern welding (the well preserved examples are really beautiful).

(snip)

Regarding Sollingen area as weapon production place: I cant find any references to this in pre-medieval context. Can you give some?

Not quite that period but a bit later in the Frankish era, this is close to where they believe the Ulfberht workshop was (near Sollingen). Most Ulfberht swords were found between the lower Rhine and Jutland. That area round Sollingen appears to have been a center of blade making for a long, long time.

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

The wiki says that "smelters" (bloomery forges?) have been found in Solingen going back 2,000 years.

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

"We think of medieval people as perpetually dirty, wearing pastel to mud colored crude clothing, living in poorly made crude wood and straw huts and hovels, crudely dancing to recorder and tambourine music, throwing sewerage out the window and speaking English with a heavy cockney accent, throwing bodies on a cart during perpetual outbreaks of the plague, and farming mud while waiting for Christopher Columbus and Gallileo to show them the world isn't flat."

"I used to think this was kind of how it was, though I found it confusing when I went to Europe and saw medieval towns, churches, buildings (including simple peasant homes), even roads, bridges and so on, as well as Roman ruins. All quite impressive, but I couldn't say the medieval buildings looked crude compared to the Roman. To the contrary (though granted the Roman structures were so much older)."

Well coming from Europe, even a backwater place like Denmark, I think i never fully had the misconception you seemed to have. Hell every other small 10 houses hamlet has a 13th century stone build church.

I'm really talking about the popular media especially English language media, I think it's less the case in some parts of Europe, but then Europeans tend to have the disease that they know all of the special and interesting and unique things about their own country but tend to deride the one next door (like even between Danes and Swedes to some extent, though often half-joking these days)

True about bathhouses etc, some of them was abolished in northern Europe in the 16th century (Lutherism had them abolished them outright in Denmark at least) leading to a decline in public health and sanity in the following centuries

Personal hygiene seems to have started declining in Europe in the 16th Century and really plummeted in the 17th and 18th, but that is kind of the opposite of most people assume.

About slaves: I did not deny that Rome had a huge reliance on slave labour, but I disagree of what that means. If everyone accepts slavery as a premise (and they did) there is less hostility towards it, and then you can have educated slaves, specialist etc.

Everybody keeps bringing up these elegant, highly skilled slaves like Greek doctors or Gaulic poets. Ok fair enough, I know there were some in Rome, but what percentage was that? We have now established that 35-40% of the Roman population were slaves (plus I'm not sure how many, but a lot who were poor urban proletariat or rural serfs), I guess now we need to establish how many of these slaves were working in salt mines and quarries and how many were sipping wine while translating Plato.

This is true for the Roman period where some where higly trusted advisors, as well as the Viking Age/Early medival Scandinavia, where smiths where often unfree (thralls)- but with high status compared to "free" tenant farmers.

I'd like to see evidence that smiths in a Viking contexts were often thralls. From data I've seen, there was a major difference between pre-Christian Norse society and Roman (or for that matter, contemporaneous Christian / Saxon) in that the majority of the population were free. The Vikings engaged heavily in the slave trade, but they sold the vast majority of those slaves to the Byzantines (i.e. the Romans), the Turks, the Khazars and the Arabs, whose economies all depended heavily on slavery.

We know the Romans had 40% of the population in full blown chattel slavery, my understanding is that in Viking society they had a saying to the effect that you should never let the slaves outnumber the owners on a farm (for safety reasons). Norse society wasn't set up for mass slavery. There were precious few Roman farms where the slaves didn't outnumber the masters.

Whereas tenant farmers was not slaves, but was still tied to a place by a fixed contract toward a nobleman.

Not during the Viking era, and to only a limited extent (compared to Rome) during the medieval period. I don't know for sure about Denmark but I know in Sweden very few of the peasants were enserfed, the vast majority were free and also, incidentally, heavily armed.

In fact Sweden was fairly unique in that Peasants were represented in their national diet or Riksdag.

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

The first formal meeting of the Riksdag is closely associated with the fact that that there has just been yet another major peasant rebellion in the restive Dalarna region of Sweden, and as was often the case this was against the imposition of Feudalism by a Danish monarch, (Eric of Pomerania) who tried to impose a tax without checking with the Estates (including the burghers and peasants)

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

Swedish law granted many fairly generous rights to peasants and these were extended to Finland when Sweden took over most of that region in the late medieval period. Evidently the Swedish peasants had acquired so many arms from winning victories over foreign nobles (mainly mercenaries hired by the Danish King) that they remained all but ungovernable in many districts for several generations, until the reign of Gustav Adolphus.

It's worth pointing out that not being a slave, historically, was closely associated with being armed and trained for war when necessary.

Norway by comparison was somewhat oppressed by foreign rulers (including Danes, Swedes, and German merchants from the Hanseatic league) though they too had their rebellions.

If you look at the few towns in Scandinavia the proportion of well of citizens with high amount of freedom would indeed be in the majority, but rural areas still consisted of 80+% of the population, and while free farmers did exists, most where tenant farmers by the 14th century etc.
I have seen some scientific reports indicating personal decline in height in the medieval period in Scandinavia (1.000-1.500AD), compared to the preceeding iron age/Viking age (500-1.000AD), this decline definetly increases toward the 17th-19th century thoug.

If you look at that height chart I posted upthread a page or two, you'll notice height goes down in the Med during the late Imperial period, it shoots up across the board after the Roman Empire falls (6th -8th Century) then drops again in the early medieval, to reach a second peak by the late Medieval. So in this time we are speaking of (late 14th - 15th Century) personal health was near an all time high (if we accept height as an indicator, which many academics do.

So, even though the period in the late medieval and foreward to 19th century is one of increasing liberty in towns and cities, the reverse could be suggested for the rural areas.

I don't think things continued to get better right up to the 19th Century at all- quite to the contrary. Things started to get worse across the board in the mid 16th Century (with the advent of the religious wars, the opening up of the Atlantic and other factors) and took a serious nose dive in the 17th during and after the apocalyptic 30 Years War, which ended with the princes and high nobility having more power than ever before (the rise of so called Absolute Monarchs). Conditions in the cities didn't decline as fast as in the countryside, basically because of their walls and their valuable industries, but they did decline in the cities too, and by the time of Napleon there were only a few dozen free cities left.

So while I agree that everyone was definately not dirt farmers, and that no-one was as poor and backwater as potrayed by popular media, we should likewise be carefull about making statements about the liberty and wealth in the society based on merchants and crafstmen from the towns. Likewise we should also consider the picture of the slave, it is also portrayed wrongly (to some degree) or at least portraying the worst of slaves and the ones who have cruel masters. Sure un-educated mass labours slaves existed, but so did many other types.

That sounds like what some certain people used to say about the deep South where I live, it's hard not to see those nice plantation houses and think "oh these must have been nice people living there" but the reality of slavery is brutal and horrific for the vast majority of the slaves, don't fool yourself.

So replacing one wrong image (that of dark medival to flowering rome) with another (flowering medievval and dark rome) is a bad way forth.

I think I'm trying to portray a slightly different image than this one. Picture a very old, long living Roman State, which starts as a healthy if violent young republic, becomes a somewhat corrupt and mean one, then becomes an Empire, and then starts a long decline lasting many centuries. Well before the Imperial period this was a society which was heavily reliant on chattel slavery, meaning slavery in chains, the hard kind. Not just for scribes and doctors but for people digging canals and mining salt and lead, people who lived very short lives.

The medieval world included brutality of this type, but it also included zones of remarkable freedom and dynamic energy that nobody seems to know anything about. It was these regions which incubated the explosions of creativity and genius that we call the Renaissance, starting for the first time way back in the 12th-13th Centuries, and then again for a second time in the late 14th through the 16th. This society in places like Florence, Bruges, Venice, Strasbourg, Gdansk, was interesting, sophisticated, (and pretty clean!), and bringing it back to the original debate, militarily very capable. This society advanced technologically much faster than the Romans did, and yes they built on what the Romans themselves had achieved over the course of 1200 years, but every society did that. The Greeks built from the culture and science of the Persians and Babylonians and Egyptians and Celts, the Romans built from the Greeks and Etruscans and Carthaginians and the Celts and others, the Arabs built from the Persians and the Hindu's and the Greeks and the Romans (and indirectly from the Chinese), and the medieval Europeans drew from the Arabs and the Persians and the Greeks and yes the Romans too.

But something about that medieval society had within it an incredible dynamism, one which we are drawn to in genre fiction and games like this forum is designed for (via the imagery of knights and swords and plate armor and so on), and yet somehow at the same time, we feel compelled to caricature them, to make them into a pathetic cartoon of filth and backwardness and stupidity, while we glorify the slave-Empire of the Romans, (or some cartoon version of the Spartans). I don't really understand it. The purpose of this thread is to kind of put into context these things we want to play with, swords, armor, crossbows, what have you. I'm trying to do that, if it puts me in an uncomfortable outlier position for a while until it starts to become more generally understood, hey I'm willing to be that guy.

G

Spiryt

2014-12-22, 03:56 PM

Yes but those were at the bottom of the sea for 500 years, which may change things a bit.

That same English Warbow society lists military arrows at a minimum of 113.4 grams, and there were a wide variety of arrows and arrowheads used, as you know, but what I've read is that 80 grams is about the average for English military arrows from the late medieval to Early Modern period.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/quarter-pound-arrow.html

Dunno if water immersion changes that much, because ( I would hope at least) they were going by dimensions, and replicating those dimensions in 'fresh' wood.

And the difference between livery arrow and QP one is that the former dimesnions are indeed explained somehow,

QP is "representation of HW military arrows used to penetrate armor. It is similar to those shot at HYW."

And this is pretty much short, 2 sentences pure speculation sadly.

Pretty much all medieval crossbows have a very short powerstroke, this (and the use of much heavier, shorter bolts) is also the principal difference between modern crossbows and their medieval equivalent. We really don't know why they were made that way, but we know they were made that way on purpose, in fact power strokes got shorter and bolts got smaller as the medieval period, so it was clearly intentional.

I don't think it's completely mysterious as of why - longer power stroke means further flexion, and structure/material can only take so much.

For longer power stroke, one would need longer arms - which means more mass, more inertia (likely slower etc.) Early crossbow seemingly were pretty much bows on a stick, but they've apparently decided to go heavy.

Heavier means thicker bow, and stresses during bending thicker bows are greater. Solution would be to go longer instead of thicker, and vicious circle continues.

I remember that Harmuth you mentioned was writing something about 'safe' amount of bend in his 'Amrbrust' but I can't find the scan with those pages anymore. :/

Galloglaich

2014-12-22, 04:57 PM

For longer power stroke, one would need longer arms - which means more mass, more inertia (likely slower etc.) Early crossbow seemingly were pretty much bows on a stick, but they've apparently decided to go heavy.

Heavier means thicker bow, and stresses during bending thicker bows are greater. Solution would be to go longer instead of thicker, and vicious circle continues.

Uh, yeah but they could just as easily put a 140 lb composite bow on a stock with a really long powerstroke and make that your crossbow. This is a lot like how a modern crossbow works (replace the composite bow with a compound bow with pullies and so on) and it gives you pretty good performance (definitely good enough to kill people).

They certainly didn't have any problems making bows back then that have as long as a powerstroke as you could like (including, incidentally, steel self bows)

So for some reason they collectively, across 100 different countries, city states and so on, decided (for their top of the line military crossbows) to make these hugely powerful prods (800 -1200 lbs or more) shooting a short bolt with a short powerstroke, pushing it 6" instead of 21". They decided that worked better, obviously, since I have no doubt personally that they could make the other kind with no problem.

So the thing is we don't actually know why they did it that way but we do know they clearly had a good reason. The hint is that the super heavy prod with the short powerstroke actually works a lot better (Gallways famous shot with the antique 15th Century crossbow) but we still don't really understand why because they haven't completely figured out how to make medieval style crossbows.

They did a very interesting test not that long ago with some composite prod crossbows but the build failed after three shots. They still have a way to go I think.

G

snowblizz

2014-12-22, 05:29 PM

but tend to deride the one next door (like even between Danes and Swedes to some extent, though often half-joking these days)

Hey, it's none of our faults that the Swedes are such holier-than-thou know-it-all nancys.

Fun fact, all of Sweden's neighbours have this same half-joking don't kinda like them relationship.

Many European nations/regions after all have rivalries and histories as neighbours that goes back 2-3x the entire history of the US nation. No wonder we are kinda fed up with each other.:smallbiggrin:

Brother Oni

2014-12-23, 03:42 AM

I was honestly thinking along the line of full plate, but with a twist. I was going to use leather to make the the armor, and the use steal plates to cover sections of the leather. The leather will help keep the metal quiet and provide more impact protection, and the steal will keep the leather from getting cut to shreds, as well as adding superior protection. It won't have the coverage full plate has but I'll have a lot more mobility, and be a hell of a lot quieter. something kind of like this, except... better. I really just want to make the pattern and then post pictures... but it takes forever to make patterns, an i don't even know if it's going to work.
http://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/6627432/il_570xN.340805341.jpghttp://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTAwMFgxMDAw/$%28KGrHqZ,!kwE7!O%29+oBuBOzWF!dbvw~~60_35.JPG

I'm not sure why you've reposted this but I don't have anything to offer, as I would have just gone with a mail shirt and gambeson. The pictures you've posted resemble brigandine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine) armour though.

Many European nations/regions after all have rivalries and histories as neighbours that goes back 2-3x the entire history of the US nation. No wonder we are kinda fed up with each other.:smallbiggrin:

Yeah, like England and France. Or Germany. Or Scotland. We conquered the Welsh and stamped our authority down on them with all those castles, we didn't treat the Irish too well either and Spain did send that Armada. We were never fond of the Italians due their flip-flopping during the World Wars and there was the issue we had with all those vikings... crap, was there anybody in Europe we didn't fight at some point?

Eldan

2014-12-23, 03:54 AM

I'm really talking about the popular media especially English language media, I think it's less the case in some parts of Europe, but then Europeans tend to have the disease that they know all of the special and interesting and unique things about their own country but tend to deride the one next door (like even between Danes and Swedes to some extent, though often half-joking these days.

It's not our fault! Switzerland is just better than everyone else! I mean, look at how much cheese we have! :smalltongue:

snowblizz

2014-12-23, 04:16 AM

crap, was there anybody in Europe we didn't fight at some point?
Europe... heck try the entire world...

http://mentalfloss.com/article/13019/there-are-only-22-countries-world-british-haven%E2%80%99t-invaded

http://www.amazon.com/All-Countries-Weve-Ever-Invaded/dp/0750952121

There was even a discussion once that Sweden should br crossed of that list due to some incident in 1810.

Eldan

2014-12-23, 04:28 AM

Huh. When did Britain ever fight Switzerland?

Oh yeah. Probably when we were part of Napoleon's Empire.

Edit: yup. Wiki says, second, fourth, fifth and sixth coalition.

Then we fought against Nappy in the seventh.

And if that counts, we were against Scotland in Cambrai (though with England on our side.)

Tobtor

2014-12-23, 08:09 AM

And these are fully pattern welded or forge-welded?

Yes. I have some good pictures in books but not near any good scanners. If anyone reads german and is interested in the composition, equipment, personal gear, medical gear, equpments of personal hygiene, shields, horse equipment etc of an iron age germanic army, then the Illerup find is published in 14 heavy books that contains a lot of information...

This was the best photo I could find on the net:
http://www.dandebat.dk/dk-images/644p.jpg

Most people do not show close-ups of the swords. This photo show a small figure and thus the close-up photo, but pattern welding can be seen above the figure. The figure does not look like any Germanic art of the period, but very much like a Roman Victory-figure.

Here is a in-situ picture from the excavation:
http://www.illerup.dk/images/03b.jpg

Picture of a shield (with the background painted in the original colour
http://www.dandebat.dk/dk-images/643p.jpg

And a very old thread from swordforum.com with some blurry pictures:
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?47249-A-few-pictures-from-the-Illerup-Aadal-exhibit-at-Moesgaard-Museum

Not quite that period but a bit later in the Frankish era, this is close to where they believe the Ulfberht workshop was (near Sollingen). Most Ulfberht swords were found between the lower Rhine and Jutland. That area round Sollingen appears to have been a center of blade making for a long, long time.

Yes, I know of Ulfberth swords, but to be fair they are quite a bit later (7th-9th century, rather than early 3rd century, and we have Roman swords in Danish bogs from 1st century as well). Its like saying 15th century weapons are just slightly later than early 11th century ones. I have not seen any evidence of high end Germanic sword production before the 5th century north of the Roman border. I would say the Roman swords I have seen are better than most Frankish Swords (in forging quality, I do not know about design, lenght etc, thats a more difficult assesment to make and depends on purpose of the sword etc). I would suspect that the Frankish swords are developed on the background of the Roman smiths knowledge and changed to the new situation after the western empire fell apart.

Personal hygiene seems to have started declining in Europe in the 16th Century and really plummeted in the 17th and 18th, but that is kind of the opposite of most people assume.

I agree totally, but that is a completely different comparison than between Romans and the medieval period... both periods had some measure of personal hygiene even though this varied somewhat between different groups of people and different times, but was general high compared to later periods (baring modern times).

"I'd like to see evidence that smiths in a Viking contexts were often thralls."

I do not know whether smiths where often thralls, but that thralls where often smiths...

I don't have any articles of hand (its been years since my undergraduate studies, which was when I last where heavily reading Viking-stuff), but there are runestones made by "smiths" (smiður) which generally means any profession worker ("ironsmith", "woodsmith", "leathersmith" all exists as word in several scandinavia languages), dedicated to former master freeing them when he dies. Also the Sagas have their fair share of thrall-smiths (though of course saga are not totally reliable on that account).

Even in backwater viking aeas such as Iceland, every chieftan woulkd own slaves (thralls) some of whom would be living in their own hosues removed from the chieftains farm. The chieftain had the resources to have people dedicated to specific tasks (such as smithing), rather than being jack-of-all trades. Remember that Viking age towns where few and mainly trading centres, not fully evolved economic and craft centres of the later periods or contemporary southern Europe.
About viking age thralls I believe Stefan Brink has just written a book about it called something like "viking slaves" - cant remeber the language. The viking period is not my main (or even secundary( area of interest.

"Everybody keeps bringing up these elegant, highly skilled slaves like Greek doctors or Gaulic poets. Ok fair enough, I know there were some in Rome, but what percentage was that? We have now established that 35-40% of the Roman population were slaves (plus I'm not sure how many, but a lot who were poor urban proletariat or rural serfs), I guess now we need to establish how many of these slaves were working in salt mines and quarries and how many were sipping wine while translating Plato. "

I agree that the majority would have been just labour-force without skill, and that slavery is a horrible thing. But you are arguing that since they where not free, they could not be skilled workmen, making good pieces of craft, or at least not as good as the free people of late medieval cities. I agree that the late medieval was a period of cultural growth (the word "renaissance" was coined in northern Italy in this period - 14th-15th century for a reason), but I do not agree that slave-labour intensive empires could not make magnificent buildings or have highly specialised "item manufactures" - including skilled weaponsmiths.

So while I agree that the late medieval period had a better average living conditionsin southern Europe, than the Roman era, I think you are romanticising it a bit, and also romanticising the republic era, compared to the imperial one, making a simplified statements such as "starts as a healthy if violent young republic, becomes a somewhat corrupt and mean one".

Regarding peasant, freedom etc: As you mention Sweden is rather unique, in the amount power the peasant got, though Danish ones where in general also more involved in poltical life than peasants of northern Germany.

I think it is in part due to the fact that in Scandinavia there where a much more loose nobility, especially in the early period. Well into the 12th century the king in Denmark had to be elected in three national "things" - open gathering of free farmers and nobles. Later there where a period of direct heritage from father to son, before the danish court (with members of different groups, such as the church, nobility, towns) elected the King. However the Danish nobility did not have advanced layers of barons and counts and such, but just one class of nobles/knights (though the King of Denmark would in periods be the lord over counts and other nobles from northern Germany etc, and in the post medieval period be a duke himself in these regions).

The point is by the 13-14th century only about around 20% of the peasants where free. Others where tenants/serfs of the church or the local nobleman. It seem also that the free farmers had people working for them as servants, usually younger people who aspired to become tenant farmers (and even the 12th century bishop Absalon reportedly freed his thralls at his bed as a good Christian deed, so until that time thralls was accepted in Scandinavia). Sweden is just so much larger and with large forrest areas that the situation is different.

However I DO agree that most medieval peasant life would be better that slavery in Roman mines or similar, and also better than slaves at Roman farms (also the thralls of Scandinavia where also better treated than most Roman slaves). But I am just pointing out that slavery as well as medieval peasantry has many forms. So while I agree that slavery is wrong, you cant go from there to portraying all slaves as completely broken and un-skilled. By the way I think the later centuries of black slavery in some ways had some issues the earlier forms did not, being race-oriented which do not seem to be a feature of medieval/viking/roman slavery (at least not to the same extend).

Finally I would like to say I agree on your basic view of the medieval period as more dynamic (and better) than the Roman world, however I think you are biased by your (natural) dislike of slavery and this make you portray the romans as less sophisticated than they are. You also you seem to rebel against the general look on them as more sophisticated than medieval people (in which I think you are correct), but then do not recognise those areas where they did have a high degree of sophistication (which kind of do the opposite of the people who idealize the Romans and put down medieval achievements) - so what you end up with is not a more accurate or correct picture, than the ones who favour Romans, but just one where the roles a changed position.

Matthew

2014-12-23, 08:56 AM

What's with the fascination with height? I can understand it in individual combat, but the more modern evidence (albeit anecdotal) often suggests that it was the shorter people that made better "soldiers."

I don not know, but making yourself look big is a pretty well known human/animal defensive measure (from waxed up hair to decorative helmets). :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich

2014-12-23, 09:09 AM

One quick reply to your interesting post (and ... before I even get to this, I have to say, wow what a magnificent sword! I have to read more about that find. I do have a little bit more to add about Germanic made swords made north of the Alps though.)

But this demanded response before everything else.

Regarding peasant, freedom etc: As you mention Sweden is rather unique, in the amount power the peasant got, though Danish ones where in general also more involved in poltical life than peasants of northern Germany.

See I think this is a very good example of the way Europeans see their own history, they tend to know the interesting bits about their own country (like the 'ting) but allow the Anglo-American media to fill in the space for their view of the rest, with the same old Monty Python or Walt Disney cliché's.

Just south (and a little west) of Jutland, south of the Daneverk*, your neighbors the German and Frisian peasants of the Dithmarschen were some of the freest rural farmers in the history of the world. They were in fact a "peasant republic" so powerful that they were one of only two non-city entities (the other being the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order) that was ever admitted into the Hanseatic League.

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

http://www.amazon.com/Dithmarschen-A-Medieval-Peasant-Republic/dp/B004QBAVXU

The King of Denmark and various German** Dukes, Archbishops and Counts tried for 500 years to get control of the region and force them into Feudalism, they tried major invasions 4 or 5 times all of which ended in catastrophe for the invaders. The most powerful towns of the League such as Hamburg, Lübeck*** and Rostock attempted to defeat them but just gave up and made a treaty instead (allowing them into the League).

Nor were the Dithmarschen peasants unique, there were about a dozen smaller peasant clan zones around the marshy area of the low-German cost there which were strong enough to fight off the Feudal nobility and occasionally to go on rampages against the local towns and Churches when they were displeased.

This is just one MAJOR example among many in that immediate region.

And yet almost nobody knows anything about it. I think this is a pretty good illustration of what I was talking about.

G

* the little known outside of Denmark Danish version of Hadrians wall

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

** actually German / Danish / Slavic since that region in what is now northern Germany was a long way away from being 'pure' German but that complicates the story a bit too much to get into right now.

*** and Lübeck was powerful enough to defeat the Kingdom of Denmark in battle in the 14th Century and along with Gdansk, defeated England in the 15th

Tobtor

2014-12-23, 09:27 AM

Well I do know quite a bit about north German history as well as Danish (and Scandinavian in general, as well as some english, polish etc, also when it does not relate specifically to danish history), and I do know about stuff such as frisian being free, and I know that there where large slavic population in northern Germany (and even some living in Denmark), heck thay still live there (though many where romeved from the northernmost part in the 13-14th century). But yes then I do know more than the everage person. That does not change the fact that Holstein and Mecklenburg slavich/german rural population in general had less freedom/influence in the period compared to Danish/Swedish ones (with the Swedish being the most independent).

Galloglaich

2014-12-23, 12:38 PM

Yes. I have some good pictures in books but not near any good scanners. If anyone reads german and is interested in the composition, equipment, personal gear, medical gear, equpments of personal hygiene, shields, horse equipment etc of an iron age germanic army, then the Illerup find is published in 14 heavy books that contains a lot of information...

This was the best photo I could find on the net:
http://www.dandebat.dk/dk-images/644p.jpg

This is quite lovely, in fact I do love it, it's a really important find for reasons well beyond this discussion so I've ordered this book (http://www.amazon.com/Illerup-Adal-Archaeology-Mirror-Hardback/dp/B00EQC4LA8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419351734&sr=8-1&keywords=Illerup+Adal+-+Archaeology+as+a+Magic+Mirror
) which should have nice photos and further information. =

But I have to note a couple of things.

1) That is not a Gladius, or if it is, it's a new type to me, I've never seen a fullered Gladius. It may be more like a Spatha type (a type which, by my understanding, was influenced by and adopted from Germanic and earlier Celtic type weapons). Were any of these swords from the find of the Gladius type as far as you know?

2) There is considerable evidence of sophisticated weapon creation from north of the Alps. Pattern welding itself was developed, as far as I understand, by Barbarians of northern Europe, not by the Romans. The most important Roman center of ferrous metalurgy was in the Illyrian / Gaelic city of Noricum which is in modern day Austria, but there were many other centers much further north, including Sollingen.

Yes, I know of Ulfberth swords, but to be fair they are quite a bit later (7th-9th century, rather than early 3rd century, and we have Roman swords in Danish bogs from 1st century as well). Its like saying 15th century weapons are just slightly later than early 11th century ones.

I guess you didn't read the wiki which noted that they have found bloomery forges (or to use their term, 'smelters') in Sollingen going back to the 1st Century BC.

I have not seen any evidence of high end Germanic sword production before the 5th century north of the Roman border. I would say the Roman swords I have seen are better than most Frankish Swords (in forging quality, I do not know about design, lenght etc, thats a more difficult assesment to make and depends on purpose of the sword etc). I would suspect that the Frankish swords are developed on the background of the Roman smiths knowledge and changed to the new situation after the western empire fell apart.

My understanding was rather the reverse of this but I'm willing to learn different. Roman early-Imperial era swords (and much other equipment) seems to be mostly adopted from Celtic and Iberian tribes from what is now Spain, and then later Gaul and Illyria, and by the time of that Illerup find mostly Germanic.

This question of comparing north-European with Roman swordmaking in the Imperial era is another big can of worms and I guess will be another big debate, because while it's not an area of expertise for me, I have read a bit about this and my understanding is totally different from yours.

All of the three major type finds of the Roman Gladius that I know of, Fulham, Mainz and Pompeii, are basically partially carburized iron, definitely not pattern welded, and nowhere near as sophisticated as a Viking sword let alone a 15th Century spadona.

Even in backwater viking aeas such as Iceland, every chieftan woulkd own slaves (thralls) some of whom would be living in their own hosues removed from the chieftains farm.

Yes but in Iceland, both based on the archeology and the Sagas (which I'm very familiar with) the thralls are heavily outnumbered by the free farmers.

The chieftain had the resources to have people dedicated to specific tasks (such as smithing), rather than being jack-of-all trades. Remember that Viking age towns where few and mainly trading centres, not fully evolved economic and craft centres of the later periods or contemporary southern Europe.

Yes and most of the population are free farmers, and (closely related to this) heavily armed, something we can see in the Leidang laws which require them to show up for muster with mail armor, swords, spears, helmets bows etc. which is not something the modern cliché would associate with peasants, though that is what they were.

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

About viking age thralls I believe Stefan Brink has just written a book about it called something like "viking slaves" - cant remeber the language. The viking period is not my main (or even secundary( area of interest.

Are you suggesting that there were anywhere near as many thralls in Viking rural farms or Viking society in general as there were in ancient Rome (in the 35-40% ballpark?)

"Everybody keeps bringing up these elegant, highly skilled slaves like Greek doctors or Gaulic poets. Ok fair enough, I know there were some in Rome, but what percentage was that? We have now established that 35-40% of the Roman population were slaves (plus I'm not sure how many, but a lot who were poor urban proletariat or rural serfs), I guess now we need to establish how many of these slaves were working in salt mines and quarries and how many were sipping wine while translating Plato. "

I agree that the majority would have been just labour-force without skill, and that slavery is a horrible thing. But you are arguing that since they where not free, they could not be skilled workmen, making good pieces of craft, or at least not as good as the free people of late medieval cities. I agree that the late medieval was a period of cultural growth (the word "renaissance" was coined in northern Italy in this period - 14th-15th century for a reason), but I do not agree that slave-labour intensive empires could not make magnificent buildings or have highly specialised "item manufactures" - including skilled weaponsmiths.

I never said that. I know that they could, I was making a more nuanced argument. Also the Renaissance in the 14th-15th Century was not just Italy but Italy and Flanders, then the Rhineland and much of German and Slavic speaking Central and Northern Europe.

So while I agree that the late medieval period had a better average living conditionsin southern Europe, than the Roman era, I think you are romanticising it a bit, and also romanticising the republic era, compared to the imperial one, making a simplified statements such as "starts as a healthy if violent young republic, becomes a somewhat corrupt and mean one".

That is simply short-hand, the republic was no paradise but there were a lot more free people in Rome and it was a lot healthier in terms of it's politics in the early republic than the later republic, let alone during the Empire and the era of Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Commodus etc. etc.. But slavery was well established during the republic that was the era of the Spartacus revolt etc.

I think it is in part due to the fact that in Scandinavia there where a much more loose nobility, especially in the early period. Well into the 12th century the king in Denmark had to be elected in three national "things" - open gathering of free farmers and nobles.

But tribal assemblies like that were not unique to Scandinavia by any means. This is how they vote on things in certain parts of rural Switzerland to this very day. They still had to bring swords to these votes until the mid 20th Century (I think even later in some areas).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Landsgemeinde_Glarus,_2009.jpg

That is called the http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsgemeinde (Landsgemeinde) and they had it all over German speaking Europe and in many Slavic zones as well. They also had the Veche further east, a tradition as ancient as the Scandinavian Thing.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Pskov_Veche_Vasnetsov.jpg

Elections of kings were not so rare either.

Kings were also elected in Poland, in Bohemia, and in Hungary by tens of thousands of pepole, and even in the Holy Roman Empire though in that case, it was by a small number of electors.

In Poland something like 1/5th of the population had not only a vote on electing the King, but (by the mid 15th Century) a veto on most foreign policy.

What I have come to understand is that such assemblies were common throughout Europe, particularly in the less Romanized areas but also in Italy and Spain and so on. Feudalism attempted to suppress these assemblies and the clan based governments that they were part of, but met with very mixed success, in some places they succeeded but in many others they never did during the medieval period.

The point is by the 13-14th century only about around 20% of the peasants where free. Others where tenants/serfs of the church or the local nobleman.

There is a big difference between a tenant farmer and a serf, the latter by definition can't travel around. Denmark isn't a region I've studied closely yet for the medieval period but I'd be really surprised if 80% of the population were serfs. Do you have some data or source which says this?

But I am just pointing out that slavery as well as medieval peasantry has many forms. So while I agree that slavery is wrong, you cant go from there to portraying all slaves as completely broken and un-skilled. By the way I think the later centuries of black slavery in some ways had some issues the earlier forms did not, being race-oriented which do not seem to be a feature of medieval/viking/roman slavery (at least not to the same extend).

http://cdn.travelmint.com/photos/louisiana/oak-alley-plantation-5.jpg

Where I live there are many magnificent mansions made by slaves, (and in many cases the descendants of the slave owners still live there) so even here in the deep south there are thousands of examples of fine workmanship made by slave labor. The white house in Washington DC was made by slaves, some of whom were obviously very skilled.

http://blackhistoryfactorfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Black-Slaves-Building-The-White-House.jpg

As were many fantastic in mansions in northern cities like New York.

But this is what most of them did all day though (this is from the State prison Angola which is still one of the biggest sugar cane farms, dare I say plantations, in the State. A truly hellish place) working in back-breaking agricultural work, mines, canal digging...

http://i.imgur.com/rIgnW.jpg

...work which was also done by pauper immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Eastern Europe and Italy, who died by the tens of thousands digging the Eire canal (among many others) and working on those same sugar cane plantations from Jamaica to Alabama, many of them worked to death as indentured servants, others as tenant farmers.

So I think it's very dangerous to pretend that Roman slavery was "nicer" because there wasn't the same kind of racial element. Actually there was a racial element, the Romans were fairly racist, but it just wasn't based on skin color like today. Romans in the early Imperial period for example thought Gauls and Germans were racially inferior and made good slaves.

http://romanslavery.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/6/3/1063551/9659273.jpg?267
You probably have ancestors or distant relatives who had this done to them

These days the concept of slavery is so racialized (certainly here in the US but I think generally in popular media) that we have almost forgotten that almost every group of people in the world has suffered from the effects of brutal chattel slavery or it's very near equivalents. It's a nasty legacy we shouldn't forget about. During the medieval period and well into the Early Modern the largest slave markets in the world were the Mongol, North African and Ottoman slave markets which consisted largely of white European slaves. The annual Ottoman jizya (blood tax) on the Balkans for example was partly in slaves, mostly little boys.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Suleymanname_31b_2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme

Finally I would like to say I agree on your basic view of the medieval period as more dynamic (and better) than the Roman world, however I think you are biased by your (natural) dislike of slavery and this make you portray the romans as less sophisticated than they are. You also you seem to rebel against the general look on them as more sophisticated than medieval people (in which I think you are correct), but then do not recognise those areas where they did have a high degree of sophistication (which kind of do the opposite of the people who idealize the Romans and put down medieval achievements) - so what you end up with is not a more accurate or correct picture, than the ones who favour Romans, but just one where the roles a changed position.

Again, I believe I'm making a more nuanced argument than that.

What I'm really trying to point out is that the Roman economy was essentially slave based. Yes there were skilled artisan slaves and so on, but much of their production was based on slavery. Compare mining as just one example, between the medieval world and ancient Rome, it's really night and day (and quite an eye opener).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_and_metallurgy_in_medieval_Europe#Smiths_an d_miners_within_medieval_society

The medieval world was far more mechanized (and I'm happy to continue to look at numbers so we can compare the numbers of watermills, windmills, tidal mills and so on between Roman and medieval Italy for example) and had a rural economy still based on farming, but an urban economy which was fundamentally organized around skilled labor. The guild system was self managed and included wide scope for social mobility, when it came to the production of things like weapons, it was based on mechanization and skilled labor.

Rome was capable of great achievements, but it was fundamentally a slave society. Some very nice weapons and armor came out of their production shops, but I don't believe that the bulk of the kit for the tens of thousands of Legionaires was made by highly skilled labor, my understanding is (still) that it was mostly the result of slave labor, carefully organized in workshops much like the verlag or putting out system which gradually replaced craft guilds in the Early Modern period in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and ultimately led to modern factories, in which unskilled labor can produce goods which at least come close to the output of skilled labor but presumably, at much lower costs. Such workshops can produce good quality goods, but it's just a fundamentally different type of economy.

Both systems had their strengths and weaknesses. The Roman system was much more stable, it lasted more than 1200 years, closer to 2000 years if you include Byzantium. The most dynamic period of medieval society by contrast, only lasted about 420 years, from around 1100 to roughly 1520, and this was an incredibly tumultuous period. But I think it's hard to deny that the last half of the Western Roman Empire was a period of decline and misrule. Centuries of decline.

Ultimately the medieval society gave way to a much harsher system of Absolute Monarchies and widespread poverty during the Early Modern period, which in turn gave way to the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution and the Napoleonic conquest of Europe, which caused such a shock that it has led us to dismiss the 'ancient regime' as a bad business which simply put us into a dead end that we had to rise out of, phoenix like through throwing off the old ways wholesale. I suspect however, that we threw the baby out with the bathwater and left a lot out which was of great value. For some reason this led to us largely dismissing the accomplishments of the many generations of our ancestors for the better part of the last millennia and a half, and yet, oddly (to me) we still strongly identify with Rome.

Which is fine but I think we should be honest about what Rome was.

G

GraaEminense

2014-12-23, 02:06 PM

What's with the fascination with height? I can understand it in individual combat, but the more modern evidence (albeit anecdotal) often suggests that it was the shorter people that made better "soldiers."
How modern is this anecdotal evidence? Because in a melee, size matters. Bigger opponent often means stronger, longer reach, better able to hit your head, harder to defend against, heavier and harder to shift, and generally scarier.

It doesn't have to, of course, but if you want good melee troops going for the big guys gives you a better chance at getting just that.

Of course, if you look at things like "able to carry X% of own weight" and "number of calories per day needed" they may not look so hot logistics-wise, but I'm guessing most of history's recruiters were more concerned with the ability to bash heads. It's easier to quantify and looks good on parade.

Gnoman

2014-12-23, 03:18 PM

I can't say for sure what he's referencing, but the low average heights of Roman soldiers proved to be massive advantages against the spear-heavy armies of the age, allowing them to get under the spears and force the enemy into a close-in battle where their short swords were extremely effective. Much later on, the Spanish deliberately echoed this model as a counter to pikes.

fusilier

2014-12-23, 03:39 PM

How modern is this anecdotal evidence? Because in a melee, size matters. Bigger opponent often means stronger, longer reach, better able to hit your head, harder to defend against, heavier and harder to shift, and generally scarier.

It doesn't have to, of course, but if you want good melee troops going for the big guys gives you a better chance at getting just that.

Of course, if you look at things like "able to carry X% of own weight" and "number of calories per day needed" they may not look so hot logistics-wise, but I'm guessing most of history's recruiters were more concerned with the ability to bash heads. It's easier to quantify and looks good on parade.

19th century were a couple of examples that I were thinking of.

First was the observation that during the American Civil War officers tended prefer to recruit farm-boys -- large, well fed and soldierly looking, they succumbed to diseases in camp at a much higher rate than their smaller, city-dwelling comrades.

Second, was an observation by Friedrich Engels. He wrote an excellent series of articles in 1855 about the armies of Europe, covering equipment, organization, uniforms, but also things like the typical mindset, and physical characteristics of different armies. He personally saw French troops (the shortest barring the Piedmontese army) pile so much equipment on their knapsacks that it stuck above their shakos, then march all day and night. He noted that a typical British soldier (the tallest) would have collapsed under the load after very little marching.

I agreed that in hand-to-hand combat there was probably an advantage to height -- although whether or not that can be offset with training in formation fighting (and that's what we are talking about here, not one-on-one combat) is unknown to me.

More specifically, I felt that the argument was implicitly claiming that shorter populations are less healthy. More accurately they are usually shorter due to poorer nutrition, and specifically poorer nutrition during childhood (although one would expect that to hold true in adulthood too). My point was, what's the evidence that it actually had a significant effect on the "fitness" of those soldiers.

I do think there is a perception that shorter populations tended to be more "hardy" even if less "healthy." Poorer nutrition was (emphasis on was) usually a sign of higher population density, which usually entailed more diseases. Which meant that adults from such populations usually had greater resistance to disease. Likewise, as I noted, there's at least some evidence that they were better at carrying heavy loads over long distances. Whether or not that's down to conditioning, I don't know, but at the very least it seems to imply that being short isn't a disadvantage to making long marches. Both qualities seem to be very useful for soldiers. Perhaps a disadvantage in a fight, but soldiering isn't just about fighting. Also fighting in a battle, isn't just about one-on-one fighting -- one thing about the Romans is that they were all about teamwork.

Spiryt

2014-12-23, 03:48 PM

All things being equal, (which is always the hard part :P) bigger creature will tend to tire faster, it's simple and obvious enough.

Though the shortness or tallness itself isn't particularly important here as much as general mass, especially of muscle, and other energy and cardio taxing organs.

More mass means more oxygen consumption, more more weight to actually carry around (before adding anything carried 'artificially') etc.

fusilier

2014-12-23, 03:55 PM

Just a quick note on the whole Roman slave thing. The percentage of Romans that were slaves is debated, but is believed to have *peaked* at around a third of the population (specifically a third of the population in Italy). Rome truly had a slave-based society (like the American South EDIT-- i.e. they both had slave-based society, not that they were identical), but the percentage of slaves varied -- most became slaves through warfare, and as Rome's expansionist period wound down, the percentage of the population that was slave gradually decreased. The diminishment of slavery during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages was not the result of the collapse of Rome, but was the continuation of a trend that had already begun.

GraaEminense

2014-12-23, 06:07 PM

Thanks, fusilier. That matches pretty well with my assumptions.

And now I need to go read Friedrich Engels, and it's not even May 1st :p

Milodiah

2014-12-23, 06:19 PM

Spiryt

2014-12-23, 06:23 PM

It should be noted that even in the Napoleonic Wars, elite formations such as the British Grenadier Guards and the French Old Guard were expected/required to be around six feet tall. Obviously in earlier times when the title "grenadier" wasn't vestigial, tall burly dudes could throw the grenades further. But in the near-modern age it seems to be based in intimidation and tough appearance.

Well, in Napoleon times, even after throwing grenades wasn't very prevalent anymore, grenadiers were expected to commence powerful charges with bayonets and sidearms instead.

So the size and strength requirement still made all kind of sense.

fusilier

2014-12-23, 06:47 PM

Well, in Napoleon times, even after throwing grenades wasn't very prevalent anymore, grenadiers were expected to commence powerful charges with bayonets and sidearms instead.

So the size and strength requirement still made all kind of sense.

I think by that time it was more likely an issue of what kind of impression they would make, visually, than any sort of strength requirement . . . They made impressive guards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Giants

:-)

EDIT -- and also tradition!

fusilier

2014-12-23, 06:54 PM

Thanks, fusilier. That matches pretty well with my assumptions.

And now I need to go read Friedrich Engels, and it's not even May 1st :p

Yeah, those are just some thoughts about it. Health is pretty complex.

Anyway, I think this is the article by Engels "Armies of Europe" --
http://ciml.250x.com/archive/marx_engels/english/engels_1855_the_armies_of_europe.html

It's been a while since I've read it but I thought it was interesting.

Galloglaich

2014-12-23, 07:52 PM

Don't know what significance it really had in battle by this point, but it was clearly something they were still thinking about toward the end of the 19th Century

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Troops_of_the_Eight_nations_alliance_1900.jpg

Left-to-right: Britain, United States, Australian colonial, British India, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan.

In this case, I don't think it was a matter of population density, since all of these nations had pretty large populations. It was more a factor of diet, and social organization - if you want to take a page from Engels, what share of the food the working class people who made up most of the soldiery were getting in each society - how much protein they got in their diet, what kind of conditions they faced as young children especially.

This was the reason I mentioned average human height, as an indicator of health, not specifically to imply that the larger soldiers were better. I'm not sure they were, but I'm not sure I would argue that being short was an across-the-board advantage either. Smaller people use less calories, but because they had in at least some cases less calories when they were very young, they can suffer from certain well known adverse health effects.

During the early Republic average height was at it's peak in Roman Italy. It declined toward the late Republic and went way down after the Empire came into it's stride, then peaked again after the Empire fell.

Just a quick note on the whole Roman slave thing. The percentage of Romans that were slaves is debated, but is believed to have *peaked* at around a third of the population (specifically a third of the population in Italy). Rome truly had a slave-based society (like the American South EDIT-- i.e. they both had slave-based society, not that they were identical), but the percentage of slaves varied -- most became slaves through warfare, and as Rome's expansionist period wound down, the percentage of the population that was slave gradually decreased. The diminishment of slavery during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages was not the result of the collapse of Rome, but was the continuation of a trend that had already begun.

I'm not sure this is the case at all actually (especially the last sentence).

Roman rates of slavery may have decreased slightly in the later Imperial era, but this also coincided with a re-enslavement of their rural population under the Latifundia system, all due to a series of clumsy attempts to check the accelerating structural problems in Roman society. The problem which drove the government out of the city of Rome, i.e. the huge, dangerous mob of unemployed people, was getting worse and worse as people fled increasingly difficult conditions in the countryside

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifundium#Ancient_Rome

The Latifundia started in the poorer provinces and spread gradually toward Italy and Rome itself as tiny minorities of the super rich acquired huge grants of land as the 'spoils of war' and through political corruption. Since these estates were initially run by slaves who worked for room and board (or were worked to death) the remaining independent farmers couldn't compete and many became tenant farmers. Those who could fled to the provincial capitals and to Rome itself where they could join the mob in it's demands for bread and circuses.

Pliny the Elder predicted a problem when he traveled near Naples and saw only slaves working the land and none of the free farmers who had once made up the backbone of the old Roman Republic.

As tax pressures increased (and thanks to corruption were avoided by the only people who could afford the pay them, the Senatorial class and the super rich) conditions in the countryside got even worse for everyone who wasn't already a slave, and they started to pour into the Capital, abandoning the farms en masse. So the same senators who owned the Latifundia pushed for laws banning tenant farmers from traveling, this was the beginning of serfdom.

http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/S/SLA/slavery-11.html

Autocratic government, slavery, and crippling corruption are often closely linked and were a major problem for the Romans, essentially the biggest problem that led to their undoing. In the lead up to the Battle of Adrianople, Roman sources say that their own merchants had antagonized the Visigoths that had settled in their frontier (in the Balkans) after fleeing the Huns. Roman merchants were ripping people off to the extent that, allegedly, they would require starving Goths to sell one of their own children into slavery for a few pounds of dog meat.

https://books.google.com/books?id=yY7aAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=goths+adrianople+slavery+dog+meat&source=bl&ots=RmiOt_5nu7&sig=uB9JvpUiVEikye4lu4BEQgIBQXg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WQqaVP_NHITEgwSEhIGIBg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=goths%20adrianople%20slavery%20dog%20meat&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376%E2%80%93382)#Outbreak

So I'm not sure I buy this argument

...as Rome's expansionist period wound down, the percentage of the population that was slave gradually decreased, The diminishment of slavery during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages was not the result of the collapse of Rome, but was the continuation of a trend that had already begun.

I think you could actually argue that Roman was in the process of enslaving it's own population, that the voracious machine of conquest was devouring itself.

The brutal conditions suffered by the rural people in the countryside directly contributed to the gradual breakup of the Empire. If you have studied the history you that the Empire in the West didn't actually fall when Alaric "sacked" Rome in 410, or when it was sacked again in 455. In fact it's very hard to precisely define when Rome actually fell in the West and that is still hotly debated by historians (so I won't make an estimate here!)

But what really happened is that it was gradually parceled out to warlords, many of whom were at least nominally associated with the Roman army, but the army had become dominated by non Roman "Barbarians" and the warlords who controlled the provinces, and then eventually the Roman motherland itself, were less and less Roman in their customs and culture, and this (to the vast relief of the people in the countryside) included less institutional corruption, less brutal taxes, less ripoffs at the marketplace and so on, which the Roman social structure was still trying to enforce. So the more "barbarian" the district was, the less it suffered from uprisings and revolts. Eventually, the Roman system was confined to the Eastern Mediterranean, and the nominally latinized barbarians went on with their own culture, though they never entirely lost that Roman DNA, which is still with us to this day without a doubt (right down to the eagle on the flag-pole of the stars and stripes, or to the Fasci inscribed on the façade of the court-house in my home town.

http://www.noladefender.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_image_fixedwidth/tulanebroad.jpeg

G

Galloglaich

2014-12-23, 08:06 PM

By the way... I have to admit, this amazed me... but actual, literal Serfdom is not over in Europe. It's been openly restarted in Belarus. And they say history is over! Wow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/05/why-belarus-wants-to-bring-serfdom-back/

G

fusilier

2014-12-23, 08:10 PM

G -- Are you equating slavery with serfdom?

fusilier

2014-12-23, 09:09 PM

I think you could actually argue that Roman was in the process of enslaving it's own population, that the voracious machine of conquest was devouring itself.

Anybody? I mean statements like this only make sense if you consider slavery and serfdom to be tantamount.

Personally, I appreciate a more nuanced and detailed explanation over simplistic ones, and I think most of the people involved in the discussions here are capable of appreciating them too.

There is a link between the decline of slavery in Rome, and the rise of what would become the Coloni, the proto-serfs, as it were. But by the time the Western Empire had broken up, the number of *slaves* had been drastically reduced.

I would recommend:
Slavery from Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade, By William D. Phillips. To anyone who interested in learning about the transition from slavery to serfdom, and the general decline of slavery in Europe.

These institutions evolved and changed over time, and so the ratio of slaves to coloni, etc., wasn't fixed. Latifundia evolved over time too, by the 1400s they were hiring day-laborers! (See Daily Life in Renaissance Italy, by Thomas V Cohen, Elizabeth Storr Cohen)

Galloglaich

2014-12-23, 10:02 PM

G -- Are you equating slavery with serfdom?

Well, there are degrees of both and considerable overlap. When serfs can be bought and sold, as was often the case, can't travel on pain of death or maiming, and are forced to work their whole life (generation after generation) for little more than the bare minimum food and shelter needed to survive for someone else's benefit, frankly I don't see much difference.

Lets just put it this way, I think they both fall under the dismal rubric of 'forced labor' and they don't make for efficient economies or, for the most part*, good soldiers.

G

* with the exceptions of explicitly military slaves: ministerials, slave-soldiers ala Janissaries and so forth.

fusilier

2014-12-23, 10:02 PM

* the number of serfs ranged widely from place to place in medieval Europe, but I don't think it was more than 10% in any part of Europe I have heard of yet (the highest being in places like France which were highly Feudal), and in many places it was closer to 2-3%.

What are these numbers based on?

The wikipedia entry for "serfdom" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
States:

The Domesday Book showed that England comprised 12% freeholders, 35% serfs or villeins, 30% cotters and bordars, and 9% slaves.

It considers cotters and bordars to be of lower status than the serfs (and villeins are considered to be the common kind of serf).

So I was just wondering what your sources were, and how they were defining serf?

fusilier

2014-12-23, 10:06 PM

Well, there are degrees of both and considerable overlap. When serfs can be bought and sold, as was often the case, can't travel on pain of death or maiming, and are forced to work their whole life (generation after generation) for little more than the bare minimum food and shelter needed to survive for someone else's benefit, frankly I don't see much difference.

Lets just put it this way, I think they both fall under the dismal rubric of 'forced labor' and they don't make for efficient economies or, for the most part*, good soldiers.

G

* with the exceptions of explicitly military slaves: ministerials, slave-soldiers ala Janissaries and so forth.

Ok. I believe there were enough differences that they should be considered separately, although depending upon time and place the difference between serf and slave could be very difficult to distinguish. Primarily, it just wasn't clear if you were considering them together.

Incanur

2014-12-23, 10:35 PM

Yes, well it's the same issue on the crossbow side, both the torsion weapons and the crossbows do not yet equal what we believe the effectiveness of the real thing was. Based on the range of the 1200 lbs draw weapon that Payne-Gallway shot, they are estimating 208 Joules.

It may well have been even more than that, depending on the aerodynamic properties of the bolt. The 53.6g arrow shot by the 170lb flatbow for The Great Warbow had a velocity of 73.85 m/s but only managed a range of 387.7m. Based on the different between how much energy this actually took (145 J) and how much it would take in a vacuum (102 J), Payne-Gallwey's bow may have delivered 245 J up close at about 75 m/s. On the hand, it might simply have slowed down less from drag. As always, we need more tests!

Yes but those were at the bottom of the sea for 500 years, which may change things a bit.

They're still the main evidence we have for historical English arrows. There's no physical evidence for particularly heavy English arrows as far I know. I bet English archers used at least some 80-100+g arrows, and we have extant Manchu and supposedly Japanese and Korean arrows of such weights, so it's thoroughly plausible.

Uh, yeah but they could just as easily put a 140 lb composite bow on a stock with a really long powerstroke and make that your crossbow. This is a lot like how a modern crossbow works (replace the composite bow with a compound bow with pullies and so on) and it gives you pretty good performance (definitely good enough to kill people).

Is there any evidence they had the technical ability to do this effectively? The ancient Chinese crossbows with long powerstroke had intricate and compact trigger mechanisms quite different from the iconic European trigger mechanism.

I'm confident Europe from the 11th century on were effective weapons and competitive with yew and composite bows. However, that doesn't mean they had the most efficient designs. Chinese crossbows may well have had advantages over European ones. Current tests of reconstructions indicate that composite bows of various types performed significantly better than English yew bows. At the same draw weight, short Turkish composite can shoot much faster with light arrows and still deliver more energy with heavier arrows. Primarily numbers with big-eared Manchu bows suggest they hit dramatically harder with heavy arrows than yew bows. (A 100lb Manchu bow might hit as hard as a 150lb English bow with a similar arrow weight!) If such tests reflect historical weapons, then English bows would have appeared notably inferior by Chinese standards. (English bows are easier to maintain, so that's something.) Yet English bows proved pretty awesome in 15th-century Europe. So it's conceivable that European crossbows were also just plain technically inferior in certain regards. And 15th- and 16th-century European tempered plate armor was likely technically superior to equivalent armors anywhere else in the world. Etc. Such comparisons are necessarily conjectural, but I'd say we about the firmest evidence for the superiority of the best European armor and the best Turkish/Chinese composite bows.

Delving further into speculation, note that various Chinese sources suggest that ancient and medieval Chinese crossbows were exceptionally potent weapons (http://historum.com/asian-history/69030-han-dynasty-crossbow.html). As mentioned above, Han bronze crossbow trigger mechanisms were remarkably complex and the crossbows had grid sights. Both textual and archaeological evidence shows that ancient and medieval Chinese kingdoms employed crossbows in vast quantities. Surviving crossbow designs and their recorded draw weights suggest that these weapons were quite powerful, quite possibly delivering 200+ J. A Song-dynasty manual from 1044 (http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/514-chinese-crossbows/) extols the crossbow as "the most efficient weapon of any, even at distances as small as five feet" and describes a rotating volley system for deploying crossbowers in the field.

Mike_G

2014-12-23, 10:35 PM

Height is overrated.

Health is a big deal, strength is a big deal, fitness is a big deal.

I'm quite short (5'3"). I did fine in the Marine Corps, I love hand to hand combat (don't bother trying to use reach. Duck inside and use dirty tricks) bayonet drill and knife fighting. I earned national ratings in Sabre fencing in college, did very well as a foil fencer, and now I teach fencing.

I'm short, 46 years old and riddled with arthritis and I can still beat taller fencers. Skill and experience mean a ton more than height, and that's fencing with rules and stuff. Let me play dirty and I'm even better.

And once you get to the Napoleonic era, where firearms are the main weapons, being short is even better. A round that would hit a six foot Grenadier in the face misses me completely.

Short soldiers do better on meagre rations, they can march further without dropping out and are better and sneaking and using cover. Yes, it might be nice to have a reach advantage ( I wouldn't know) but you can always reach a man's knee, and you kick that out from under him, he's toast.

I fear no tall person.

Incanur

2014-12-23, 11:27 PM

Opinioned about the importance of height for melee combat varied historically. From what I've seen, 16th-century European military writers unanimously wanted the taller and stronger men to serve as pikers and halberdiers. Some 16th-century Korean commanders thought the invading Japanese too short to make effective soldiers, though in practice the Japanese tended to win close combat with swords and spears. George Silver (http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html) considered height a definite advantage for single combat in the open. Despite his obsession with reach, Joseph Swetnam (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/swetnam2.htm#.VJo7YF4AYg) ended up arguing that height and strength give little or no advantage and that little and weak men should take heart. I find Silver's analysis decidedly more sober and conceptually sound here. (Note also that they both give the same advice to the shorter combatant: let the taller foe attack first.) :smallamused:

Scholar: Does the tall man have odds over the short?
Silver: Yes, the tall man's greater reach and pace constitute a decided advantage.
Scholar: Well crap. Are you sure? What's the point of my learning all this fencing nonsense if I'm going to have trouble with somebody taller than me?
Silver: Sorry that's just how it is.

Scholar: Does the tall man have odds over the short?
Swetnam: No, not really. Well, maybe a little but not much, and short men are often way more skilled and braver and shouldn't get discouraged. Tall men are commonly losers but not quite all of them.

Galloglaich

2014-12-23, 11:28 PM

Payne-Gallwey's bow may have delivered 245 J up close at about 75 m/s. On the hand, it might simply have slowed down less from drag. As always, we need more tests!

Couldn't agree more, that's why I started that thread on Myarmoury all those years ago. Somebody needs to write a grant, because the replica makers are scared to push the limits due to liability issues.

They're still the main evidence we have for historical English arrows. There's no physical evidence for particularly heavy English arrows as far I know.

I was going by what it said on the English Warbow Society page. They have, incidentally, recorded some pretty impressive ranges in their longbow shoots, I don't know if you have seen their site... some shots of 370 meters with flight arrows, over 300 with standard, and 240 yards with the heavy "1/4 lb" arrows.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/records2013_EN.html

Is there any evidence they had the technical ability to do this effectively? The ancient Chinese crossbows with long powerstroke had intricate and compact trigger mechanisms quite different from the iconic European trigger mechanism.

I really have to learn more about these Manchu and Ming bows, they seem to be really extraordinary. So many books, so little time. I guess that's a good thing, I'd hate to run out.

That said, I'll say this. In the (in my opinion) extremely unlikely event that they couldn't make Chinese crossbows if they wanted to, I think they could import them. The Genoese had permanent trading settlements in China from the 14th Century, and as everyone knows the Venetians had reached China in the 13th. They brought a lot of stuff back along the Silk Road I'm sure of the bows over there were really that special they could bring some of those too.

I'm confident Europe from the 11th century on were effective weapons and competitive with yew and composite bows. However, that doesn't mean they had the most efficient designs. Chinese crossbows may well have had advantages over European ones. Current tests of reconstructions indicate that composite bows of various types performed significantly better than English yew bows.

But they certainly captured many thousands of Ottoman troops and sailors, presumably some of whom had bows. For that matter many Latin princes, such as the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the King of Poland to name two, had Tartar subjects and also routinely formed military alliances with the Golden Horde and the Crimean Khanate.

The Genoese once again actually ran most of the Mongol slave trade in the West over in Caffa, I'm sure they could have traded some slaves for some composite bows or a few experts skilled in their use (one of the things they got in trouble for with the Mongols was trading Mongol slaves). So if the secret of the composite bow was such a big deal I think the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order could have bought a few experts from the Genoese, or asked for some from the Poles or Luthuanians during one of their periods of collaboration.

At the same draw weight, short Turkish composite can shoot much faster with light arrows and still deliver more energy with heavier arrows. Primarily numbers with big-eared Manchu bows suggest they hit dramatically harder with heavy arrows than yew bows. (A 100lb Manchu bow might hit as hard as a 150lb English bow with a similar arrow weight!) If such tests reflect historical weapons, then English bows would have appeared notably inferior by Chinese standards. (English bows are easier to maintain, so that's something.) Yet English bows proved pretty awesome in 15th-century Europe.

English longbows were great weapons, without a doubt. That said, they never really took hold in Continental Europe, where it was in fact the Crossbow which held the dominant position in spite of all the other options, until firearms started to gradually take over in the second half of the 15th Century.

I just read an excerpt from Jan Dlugosz Annales yesterday which mentions off hand that 1,000 English Longbowmen joined one of the Crusader armies in 1428, and they ran away like the rest of them when faced with the crossbows and pipe-guns of the Czech heretics.

So it's conceivable that European crossbows were also just plain technically inferior in certain regards. (snip) As mentioned above, Han bronze crossbow trigger mechanisms were remarkably complex and the crossbows had grid sights.

Well, in Italy they built this thing in the 14th Century, and I think it's pretty complex

http://www.clockmaker.it/fotoorologi/astrario/foto37.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrarium_of_Giovanni_Dondi_dell'Orologio

They even had the werewithal to write a book about how to make it

http://vitruvio.imss.fi.it/foto/galileopalazzostrozzi/41300_1000.jpg

In Prague the town clock was this thing in 1410.

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

It's pretty sophisticated too. For that matter, the spanning devices they used for the really beastly crossbows ... also pretty well made ... even combining the astrological theme in some cases (just for fun)

http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/thira/collection_images/2008BW/2008BW2280.jpg

http://jamesdjulia.com/wp-content/uploads/images/auctions/327/images/org/46474x6.jpg

For that matter, they made friggin robots like this, in large numbers.

http://history-computer.com/Dreamers/images/The-monk-Torriano.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycyj76VPOtc

So no I don't think complicated bronze machinery was beyond their capabilities. But I don't have a time machine, I could be wrong, so there is always the possibility they would have to import some as I noted above. I can't think of a case where they just couldn't pull it off if there was a reason to do so. After all, when the Turks cut off their access to the Silk Road they built ships that crossed the Atlantic and went around the horn of Africa to go find it.

Both textual and archaeological evidence shows that ancient and medieval Chinese kingdoms employed crossbows in vast quantities. Surviving crossbow designs and their recorded draw weights suggest that these weapons were quite powerful, quite possibly delivering 200+ J. A Song-dynasty manual from 1044 (http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/514-chinese-crossbows/) extols the crossbow as "the most efficient weapon of any, even at distances as small as five feet" and describes a rotating volley system for deploying crossbowers in the field.

Somebody needs to do some tests on these things too, without a doubt.

G

Galloglaich

2014-12-23, 11:30 PM

I fear no tall person.

Well I think the Viet Cong pretty well established that meme...

G

Incanur

2014-12-24, 12:28 AM

I was going by what it said on the English Warbow Society page. They have, incidentally, recorded some pretty impressive ranges in their longbow shoots, I don't know if you have seen their site... some shots of 370 meters with flight arrows, over 300 with standard, and 240 yards with the heavy "1/4 lb" arrows.

I strongly suspect historical English archers used that full range of arrow weights, I just want to be clear there's no evidence for the 80+g arrows beyond a passing reference or two to quarter-pound arrows. On the other hand, there's at least one extant 177g 15th-century crossbow bolt (http://books.google.com/books?id=svxfAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA84&dq=crossbow+bolt+g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sZgoU7ieNtOeqQGd5oCAAw&ved=0CFIQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=bolt&f=false).

I really have to learn more about these Manchu and Ming bows, they seem to be really extraordinary. So many books, so little time. I guess that's a good thing, I'd hate to run out.

I recommend Fe Doro (http://www.manchuarchery.org/) and Peter Dekker's work.

That said, I'll say this. In the (in my opinion) extremely unlikely event that they couldn't make Chinese crossbows if they wanted to, I think they could import them. The Genoese had permanent trading settlements in China from the 14th Century, and as everyone knows the Venetians had reached China in the 13th. They brought a lot of stuff back along the Silk Road I'm sure of the bows over there were really that special they could bring some of those too.

The curious thing is some evidence indicates that Chinese crossbows declined in quality after the Mongol conquests. Song Yingxing in the late Ming marveled over surviving Han crossbow triggers and sights! He wrote that the antler triggers common in his day often broke. I'm not sure about prevalence or effective of crossbows in 13th- and 14th-century China. In any case, that would be an awfully long supply chain for a basic infantry weapon. Additionally, assuming that the long powerstrokes of some Chinese crossbows indeed made them more efficient, that doesn't necessarily mean they were better than European crossbows overall. Han spanning methods appear to have crude compared with the refinement of the triggers and sights: they either stood on the bow or braced it with the feet in a prone position to draw the string by hand or perhaps with some simple spanning tool. Physical strength was essential in this process. Spanning methods supposedly got better after that, but unclear exactly what they were. We mainly know that Song crossbow took a while to span - hence the system of rotating volleys. The long limbs also would have been more awkward in closed quarters such as a castle. Etc.

But again, as far as I know there's no evidence of anything like Han, Tang, or Song crossbows in Europe at any time.

So if the secret of the composite bow was such a big deal I think the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order could have bought a few experts from the Genoese, or asked for some from the Poles or Luthuanians during one of their periods of collaboration.

Even composite prods for crossbow weren't always easy to come by Europe, which is probably one reason why steel prods began to take over. It was specialized skill and a specialized industry they couldn't just have developed overnight. Various Europeans had intimate familiarity with Turkish-style bows. For one, the Burgundian Bertrandon de la Brocquière learned how to shoot a composite bow from horseback during his travels east during the first half of the 15th century. While impressed with speed and accuracy of Turkish archers at close and moderate range, he thought Turkish arrows too weak and light. And archaeological evidence supports the idea that Turkish archers used light (20-40g) arrows exclusively. De la Brocquière expressed a healthy respect for strong English-style arrows shot at long range - and for crossbows. So in the case of Turkish archery, it was a clash of profoundly different weapons systems. English-style infantry bows with heavy arrows would hit significantly harder than Turkish-style cavalry bows with light arrows, so we're talking apples and oranges. In theory English archers would have been even more awesome with honking big composites along the lines of Manchu bows, but such bows only came to prominence around the time of the English bow's demise as a martial weapon and it's unclear if any Europeans - much less English folks - even knew of their existence at that time. And they would have been a pain in the butt to maintain in English weather!

Still, it's fun to speculate on what the English could have done with 33-50+% more kinetic energy! (That's perhaps 220-230+ J from a 150lb bow with a heavy arrow.) Ming-loyalist archers with some sort of composite bows performed good service against Dutch guns in the 17th-century in Taiwan according to a Dutch source.

I just read an excerpt from Jan Dlugosz Annales yesterday which mentions off hand that 1,000 English Longbowmen joined one of the Crusader armies in 1428, and they ran away like the rest of them when faced with the crossbows and pipe-guns of the Czech heretics.

Yep, and there's that account of Spanish and French crossbowers holding their own or better against English archers in the early 15th century. On the other hand, there's that account of 1,000+ Dutch crossbows doing no more harm to the English "than a shower of rotten apples (https://books.google.com/books?id=H7VFJAK8LSUC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=dutch+crossbows+shower+of+rotten+apples&source=bl&ots=OyUVBoZ9_z&sig=nXvRyf1Mx7CdEar6JhiJrQYDRMU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SU2aVOvYCsOdNuGThLgH&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dutch%20crossbows%20shower%20of%20rotten%20apple s&f=false)," after which the English routed the Dutch only to lose to heavily armored Burgundian knights.

So no I don't think complicated bronze machinery was beyond their capabilities.

Theoretically most historical (and present-day) folks could have done a lot of things that they didn't do. :smallsmile: The fact is that actually existing 15th-century European crossbow triggers take up a lot more space than Han bronze crossbow triggers. There's no evidence anybody in Europe even knew about such crossbow designs, much less tried to replicate them. And Ming China apparently lacked the technical skill to do so!

I think weapon systems had to be significantly superior overall to warrant adoptions under the social and economic conditions of circa-1500 Europe. My main point is that European crossbows weren't necessarily the best they could possibly be just because they were prevalent and effective. Lots of 15th- and 16th-century military gear was passable at best and downright crappy at worst: wrought-iron armor, iron swords with somewhat harder edges, soft iron bills and halberds, poplar arrows, etc. 16th-century military writers were always complaining about poor equipment.