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

[Max_Killjoy]

For a bomber or something like that I can certainly see why people would worry about autonomous drones, but I can't figure there'd be so much in the way of worries about civilian casualties for an air superiority autonomous drone. I mean there just aren't that many things that look like fighter jets that aren't fighter jets.


Civilian airliners can look a lot like enemy transports or bombers, however...

E: that's what I get for responding without refreshing the page

[Carl]

UAVs do have a unique vulnerability when it comes to EW, though; even the most advanced remotely-piloted vehicle would only need its connection with its pilot to be cut for it to be disabled. This might not be the case for autonomous vehicles, but that's a huge can of worms when it comes to targeting...

The same is true of frankly a whole bunch of military items, mid air-refueling without pre-planned meetups and especially AWAC's to pick two important examples completely breaks down without functional hard to jam comms. It';s just that no one's putting any thought into putting decent quality comms gear on drones atm.

And if we ever get LIDAR working, well you ain't jamming the comms on any drone you can draw LoS on anymore, none of the methods for interfering with ti ae very practical for large area coverage.


That said the real issue is that right now no one seems to be recognising there are roles, (AWAC and mid-air refuelling), where a semi-autonomous drone works fine and a few, (several forms of ground attack where the ordnance is itself autonomous in guidance, or any delivery of ordnance that targets specific map/GPS coordinates), were completely autonomous work just fine as well. And there's a lot more where a drone can function semi-autonomously. Whilst replacing the A-10 with a drone isn't really a benefit, (that honking great gun is a bigger factor in several design factors that removing a pilot normally eases), for CAS work such drones are perfect, existing CAS as i understand it allready relies on the ground units communicating targets to the aircraft overhead so communicating targeting info to a drone whilst perhaps requiring some new hardware isn't out of line with what allready has to be done. Long range missile fire in the air-defence role is also somthing they can do, flying around and handling a missile engagement is something a computer can do just fine, all you need a human in the loop with is somwhere between the AWAC's drone and the missile carrying drone to parse the data and call engage/leave then forward that to the missile packing drones.

Where humans really come into their own in direct control is in certain types of CAS situation where the pilot is having to rapidly find and engage targets on his own initiative without the benefit of taking time to look over a lot of remote data when there's a lot of friendly and/or neutral targets closely mixed in amongst or alongside enemy targets. Or in dogfighting. Basically anywhere where complex judgement calls or fast reactions or both are a requirement over looking at and properly processing data and carrying out basic pre-planned responses to the results.

[Gnoman]

Absent a transponder, the only difference between a fighter plane and an airliner, as far as a radar is concerned, is the size of the return. That's far too small a data point to make shoot-no-shoot decisions on - a trained pilot can figure out the difference by flight pattern and behavior, but this is far beyond any system that could be built into a single aircraft, and relying on a weapon system that requires external control is a recipe for defeat - there are dozens of ways to cut a control link, and even if you manage to come up with a way around that, you're still guaranteeing that taking out a single base or control center guarantees defeat - a single commando strike or Six-Day-War type misdirection and you lose the ability to fight - even if your enemy throws away three quarters of their air force, that is an acceptable price to pay for taking out your entire force.

It is hardly a new concept. Not so many years ago the futurists were proclaiming that "The infantry anti-tank missile makes tanks obsolete" or "the armored attack helicopter will dominate the battlefield of the future" - both of which were based primarily on peacetime theorycrafting and low-intensity battlefields, and both were proved utterly wrong in 21st century combat. The current war in the Ukraine has proved that first-line tanks are virtually invulnerable to ATGMs, and attack helicopters have proven scarily easy to take out in full-scale combat.

[fusilier]

Ah, yes, that would make more sense, weird stuff as a remedy was pretty common, including possible human sacrifice in Hungary of 16th century. From reading the article, I'm pretty sure that's what it was and some incautious editing or rampant extrapolation led to them claiming that people drank it regularly. One other thing we should note is that the article's main academical person, Dr Joan Fitzpatrick, is a lecturer of English, not a historian per se.

That article really doesn't go into any detail, other than to quote a sentence that claimed it was good for consumption. It would be nice if it had linked to a more detailed article.

[Carl]

and relying on a weapon system that requires external control is a recipe for defeat - there are dozens of ways to cut a control link,

And yet weapons which rely on datalinks for mid course guidance are the norm for BVR capable weapons across all theatres and comms connections are vital to the functionality of a whole host of other military items. I'll buy that many types of comms are easily jammed, i'll buy that no systems perfect. But going on about how vulnerable drone comms are when the vast majority of military hardware and doctrine across the world flat out cannot function without working comms in any meaningful way either strikes me as kind of stupid, because it's not restricted to drones.


and even if you manage to come up with a way around that, you're still guaranteeing that taking out a single base or control center guarantees defeat - a single commando strike or Six-Day-War type misdirection and you lose the ability to fight - even if your enemy throws away three quarters of their air force, that is an acceptable price to pay for taking out your entire force.

Right because everybody uses a single airbase for their entire air defence needs. Please. Just because they could concentrate all their drone control system in one place dosen;t mean they would. If simple cost efficiency could do that many european countries would maintain a single airbase. Yet they don;t. In fact very small or very poor, (and thus generally very lacking in the air force department), countries aside no one does that even if it's geographically very workable.

[Brother Oni]

But going on about how vulnerable drone comms are when the vast majority of military hardware and doctrine across the world flat out cannot function without working comms in any meaningful way either strikes me as kind of stupid, because it's not restricted to drones.


The problem is there are concerns than effectiveness and military capability in modern warfare. Autonomous drones that can identify and independently choose to engage threats opens up a whole ethical can of worms, mainly because of the liability issue of false positive IDs and their threat to civilian populations.

Landmines for example, are a very low tech version of an automated device that independently identifies and engages targets. Imagine what it would be like if mine fields could move around secretly and covertly according to operational need - very effective militarily, but the political fallout would make it untenable.
Things like CIWS and similar point defence systems do the same but there's always a human operator who makes that initial decision to engage.

[Carl]

@Oni: how did you go from comms to fully autonomous drones with nothing in between. Sorry your not making sense. What you said had nothing to do with what i said in the quoted line.

Obviously fully autonomous weapon carrying drones are a terrible idea. But there's a lot of room for in between that and the current, "everything done from base over constant datalink" setup. Remember most guided weapons are autonomous once launched and don't require much or any input until at the earliest just before launch.

As an example, (and this is loosely based on how i'm told brimstone missiles where was employed over libya). You could have your drone programed on the launch rail/ramp/runway/whatever to launch and then fly to a specific location using some basic parameters for threat avoidance and course, speed and altitude considerations, only contacting base again before reaching the target area if the threat warning system detects unusual circumstances. Once it reaches the assigned target area, (which could be updated in flight if needed with a single transmission), it takes sensor images of the selected target zone and once it has them all, transmits back to base. The operator takes a look at and asseses the images and based on this gives a go no go order possibly amending the targeting area. The drone then salvo's off its brimstones which go find the targets in their selected areas on their own, breaks off and fly's itself back to base with no further input from the operator.

There's no danger of such a drone shooting up civilians, but it doesn't have the honking great issue of needed constant input from the operator.

[Brother Oni]

@Oni: how did you go from comms to fully autonomous drones with nothing in between. Sorry your not making sense. What you said had nothing to do with what i said in the quoted line.

Obviously fully autonomous weapon carrying drones are a terrible idea. But there's a lot of room for in between that and the current, "everything done from base over constant datalink" setup. Remember most guided weapons are autonomous once launched and don't require much or any input until at the earliest just before launch.

As an example, (and this is loosely based on how i'm told brimstone missiles where was employed over libya). You could have your drone programed on the launch rail/ramp/runway/whatever to launch and then fly to a specific location using some basic parameters for threat avoidance and course, speed and altitude considerations, only contacting base again before reaching the target area if the threat warning system detects unusual circumstances. Once it reaches the assigned target area, (which could be updated in flight if needed with a single transmission), it takes sensor images of the selected target zone and once it has them all, transmits back to base. The operator takes a look at and asseses the images and based on this gives a go no go order possibly amending the targeting area. The drone then salvo's off its brimstones which go find the targets in their selected areas on their own, breaks off and fly's itself back to base with no further input from the operator.

There's no danger of such a drone shooting up civilians, but it doesn't have the honking great issue of needed constant input from the operator.

Semi or fully autonomous drones would be an answer to the EW and comms issues that's currently being debated. I agree that there's a lot of operational space between '100% human operator' and '100% fully automated', it's just where you draw the line.

Your example of the Libya deployment also mirrors development programmes on semi-autonomous drones I've heard of in Iraq, where they'll fly to a target area, patrol it for however many hours, then return to base. The only input required is if a potential target is detected, at which point a human operator will take over and make the decision to engage or not.

Given that the drone can automatically detect potential targets, it's not a very difficult technical step to make the engage/do not engage decision automatic as well and this is the issue I'm addressing.

There is absolutely an issue of a drone shooting up civilians by accident given that even with the current system of a human operating piloting the drone all the time, mistakes have been made (for example this wedding convoy attack (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-strike-idUSBRE9BB10O20131212)). Deferring the threat assessment to an image recognition algorithm will be incredibly difficult to get right* and when a false positive is potentially a war crime, it'll make the political will to deploy such weapons very difficult.

As for things like smart munitions and guided missiles, there is indeed the same issue, but the decision to launch is more easily justifiable as they'll hit a single specific target rather than threaten an entire area.


*XKCD has a comment on this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tasks.png

[Carl]

Oh i agree fully autonomous is a baaaad idea for weapons applications a couple of very specific exceptions aside, (you could use a low altitude iron bomb dropping drone attacking fixed GPS/Map coordinates as a reusable cruise missile alternative for example and that would be no more problematic than a cruise missile as a fully autonomous after launch setup), i think even most manned air sorties require a go no go authorisation at some point unless they been given total free fire authority prior to takeoff, (feel free to correct that if it's wrong).

My point with the autonomous weaponry as well is that there are some missiles, (of which brimstone is one and has i've been told been used i this fashion in limited numbers over libya), which can be fired into a general target area with no target selected and no confirmation of a target with orders to seek and destroy on their own guidance system. And apparently somthing about how they setup targeting priorities allows them to be programed prior to launch so that very large numbers can be fired into the same area and they won't attack the same target twice. Whilst using them in such fashion is unlikely outside of specific circumstances and would likely require more missiles than have ever been produced so far it's possible with enough launch platforms to blanket hundreds of square miles with thousands of missiles without ever confirming or refuting the presence of enemy assets in the target area and without a human ever taking a look at what's being hit till recon afterwards. The fact that the capability was specified and built in clearly represents a belief it will have sufficient viable applications in some form of conflict to justify building it in.

Which i think represents the difference between a large scale hard conflict and a large scale soft conflict. Going after a conventional military force spread across a country is a very different thing from protecting a country from an insurgency, and drones definitely have less flexibility there.

[Vitruviansquid]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

[Garimeth]

UAVs do have a unique vulnerability when it comes to EW, though; even the most advanced remotely-piloted vehicle would only need its connection with its pilot to be cut for it to be disabled. This might not be the case for autonomous vehicles, but that's a huge can of worms when it comes to targeting...

I think the solution to this is reducing the distance to the UAV. You make one manned aircraft that has vtol capability, make the signal encrypted, and make it be a "short range" communication that doesn't have to utilize satellites. Also as mentioned by some others we already have drones that are mostly autonomous, they basically leave with their orders and transfer control to an operator for the kill/no kill decision. A carrier or transport can store/hold/equip far more UAVs than piloted aircraft, and the training takes less time and costs less money. I won't say that there will be NO manned aircraft, I think CASEVAC and SAR will be manned at the very least, though in the case of SAR, I think it would best be supplemented with many UAVs helping canvass a search area.

Hell, for that matter. If I were a squad leader I'd love to have a little helo style UAV that I could either have fly an automated circuit around a village or something for MOUT and have a little like wristwatch or screen that displayed what it saw, could warn us of enemy activity or attempts to flank the squad. Or imagine if I could have my forward observer or overwatch guy have that and then radio it in. I know this is a change of topic from my f-35 argument, but there is a lot of untapped or only partially tapped potential for partially autonomous or automated UAVs.

FWIW I think that we will see something similar for conventional ground combat in the future, not replacing the infantryman - but certainly supplementing him. Not before I retire from the military, and possible not even in my lifetime, but I think it will happen.

[MrZJunior]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

It's not quite the same thing but the forlorn hope, soldiers who were first in line to assault a breach in the walls of a fortress, would sometimes be given a whole bunch of brandy and other booze to psyche them up and lessen the effects of fear.

[Vinyadan]

I think it worked the opposite for Swiss mercenaries: since the officers gained more, their men pretty much forced them to fight in the front.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hell, for that matter. If I were a squad leader I'd love to have a little helo style UAV that I could either have fly an automated circuit around a village or something for MOUT and have a little like wristwatch or screen that displayed what it saw, could warn us of enemy activity or attempts to flank the squad. Or imagine if I could have my forward observer or overwatch guy have that and then radio it in. I know this is a change of topic from my f-35 argument, but there is a lot of untapped or only partially tapped potential for partially autonomous or automated UAVs.


That's actually an area of focus on R&D for UAVs -- small, agile, long-endurance drones that will patrol defined area without constant supervision, send video and other data to the operating squad, and have a way to set "tell me if someone crosses this area" sorts of alerts.

[Martin Greywolf]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

Well, yes, broadly speaking.

Forlorn hope units, the ones that were the first to storm a besieged fortifications, would often be made up of prisoners or criminals, with the promise of them going free if they lived. As far as I can tell, this promise was mostly kept.

Often, when the situation called for it, there was some incentive announced - bucket of gold for the head of the enemy commander, or, which was pretty common, money to the first soldier over the walls - this was declared at the Ottoman siege of Vienna. Another example is during First Crusade, where one of the leaders promised to pay folks for every rock they threw into a ditch near the walls to make way for a siege tower.

Lastly, even Doppelsoldners weren't quuuite paid for the dangerous job per se. Thing is, when you showed up to a levy or to a mercenary company, you were expected to provide your own equipment, and were given pay based on that - show up with a spear and a shield, and you get little, sow up with heavy armor and halberd, and you get a lot more. This means that you were paid according to what class of soldier you were - this price was dictated by how many soldiers like that were around and how much you needed them. If one of your soldier classes gets depleted more than the other and has fewer volunteers, well, you can increase pay to stop that from happening.

This was, however, not unique to Doppelsoldners - every time a kingdom needed a particular type of soldier, their pay increased, and kingdom needed a particular type of soldier (in most cases) because they get killed faster than they could replace them. An example here can be several military reforms in Hungary, where heavy infantry became more desirable, nobles and free cities of the realm had to supply more of them, and their pay suddenly became higher as a result of increased demand.

[Vitruviansquid]

You know, I always wondered about those rewards for killing the enemy commander or being the first over the walls.

Assuming he doesn't die, did the first guy over the walls actually end up getting the gold? Because it seems like there would be a lot of guys going over the wall at once if an attack on the walls is successful. It might be difficult to tell who was first, especially if a bunch of guys who were all more like among the firsts made it over the walls at about the same time. If the army had uniforms, I might not even be able to tell who it was from a distance. If it's about killing the enemy commander, what if the enemy commander had a bunch of body guards and you and your mates have to fight the enemy commander as a gang because he has a gang? What if you stabbed him in the chest with your spear and then I chopped his head with a sword right after? Did we split the gold? I mean, you'd claim it was you because a bucket of gold is at stake, and I'd claim it was me, right?

[gkathellar]

Or lasers. It would be hilarious if, against all expectations, late 21st century air combat strongly resembled the dogfights in Star Wars.

Well, since lasers are functionally instantaneous and invisible barring significant interference, lasers would actually have the opposite effect.

[Brother Oni]

Hell, for that matter. If I were a squad leader I'd love to have a little helo style UAV that I could either have fly an automated circuit around a village or something for MOUT and have a little like wristwatch or screen that displayed what it saw, could warn us of enemy activity or attempts to flank the squad.

While looking up the meaning of MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain), I discovered it's been largely replaced by the term UO (Urban Operations). I also discovered that the British equivalent is OBUA (Operations in Built-Up Areas) or FIBUA (Fighting In Built-Up Areas).
The British being British have also the informal terms FISH (Fighting In Someone's House) and FISH and CHIPS (Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc In People's Streets). :smallbiggrin:


It's not quite the same thing but the forlorn hope, soldiers who were first in line to assault a breach in the walls of a fortress, would sometimes be given a whole bunch of brandy and other booze to psyche them up and lessen the effects of fear.

Further to Martin Greywolf's post, there was often intense competition to be part of the forlorn hope since survival often guaranteed glory and promotion, something extremely coveted by officers who didn't have a patron or were otherwise too poor to buy promotion.
There's a number of mentions of this in accounts from the Peninsular War (mostly because of the British Army system at the time) and is also a plot point in the book Sharpe’s Company.

Modern day soldiers can qualify for additional pay for particularly dangerous or objectionable jobs; for example, the US Army has Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/Federal_Benefits_Page/Hazardous_Duty_Incentive_Pay_.html?serv=147) and the British Army has Unpleasant Work Allowance (http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/unpleasant-work-allowance-on-ops.58711/).
I'm sure the serving and former-serving here can fill in the actual details.

[Storm Bringer]

You know, I always wondered about those rewards for killing the enemy commander or being the first over the walls.

Assuming he doesn't die, did the first guy over the walls actually end up getting the gold? Because it seems like there would be a lot of guys going over the wall at once if an attack on the walls is successful. It might be difficult to tell who was first, especially if a bunch of guys who were all more like among the firsts made it over the walls at about the same time. If the army had uniforms, I might not even be able to tell who it was from a distance. If it's about killing the enemy commander, what if the enemy commander had a bunch of body guards and you and your mates have to fight the enemy commander as a gang because he has a gang? What if you stabbed him in the chest with your spear and then I chopped his head with a sword right after? Did we split the gold? I mean, you'd claim it was you because a bucket of gold is at stake, and I'd claim it was me, right?

my guess is that it came down to witness reports, specifically officers witness reports. theirs quite a few things done in war that would get a man promoted or decorated if only a officer was present, but don't because none was their to record it.

However, I know of at least one case where during a roman storming of a city, where their were two competing claims between the roman army and the navy. In the end, as both men had managed to be "first" over the walls on opposite sides of the town, they both got rewarded.



While looking up the meaning of MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain), I discovered it's been largely replaced by the term UO (Urban Operations). I also discovered that the British equivalent is OBUA (Operations in Built-Up Areas) or FIBUA (Fighting In Built-Up Areas).
The British being British have also the informal terms FISH (Fighting In Someone's House) and FISH and CHIPS (Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc In People's Streets).

I knew it as Causing Havoc In Public Spaces, but yhea, that. My understanding is that it partly came about as a result of our northern Ireland experience. The traditional US conception of urban warfare was rooted in the cold war idea that the population would have fled the city before or early in the fighting, whereas our conception and experience leaned towards the locals staying local.

[snowblizz]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

Yes. A US Paratrooper in WW2 got 50 dollars more in pay (monthly I think) 'cause parashuting is dangerous, to incentivice volounteering IIRC.

Generally speaking it's quite common to pay more for dangerous duty, because sometimes it's the only way to get the job done.

[Garimeth]

While looking up the meaning of MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain), I discovered it's been largely replaced by the term UO (Urban Operations). I also discovered that the British equivalent is OBUA (Operations in Built-Up Areas) or FIBUA (Fighting In Built-Up Areas).
The British being British have also the informal terms FISH (Fighting In Someone's House) and FISH and CHIPS (Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc In People's Streets). :smallbiggrin:



Further to Martin Greywolf's post, there was often intense competition to be part of the forlorn hope since survival often guaranteed glory and promotion, something extremely coveted by officers who didn't have a patron or were otherwise too poor to buy promotion.
There's a number of mentions of this in accounts from the Peninsular War (mostly because of the British Army system at the time) and is also a plot point in the book Sharpe’s Company.

Modern day soldiers can qualify for additional pay for particularly dangerous or objectionable jobs; for example, the US Army has Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/Federal_Benefits_Page/Hazardous_Duty_Incentive_Pay_.html?serv=147) and the British Army has Unpleasant Work Allowance (http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/unpleasant-work-allowance-on-ops.58711/).
I'm sure the serving and former-serving here can fill in the actual details.

Hmm, I've never heard UO, but my experience is mostly USMC - UO might be an Army or joint thing. I feel like MOUT rolls off the tongue better though!

As far as the pay, there are a large number of special pays that one could qualify for - to include HDIP as Brother Oni mentioned. Off the top of my head:

Hazardous Duty/ Imminent Danger Pay
Sea Pay
Jump Pay
Flight Pay
Diving Pay
Sub Pay
Hardship duty Pay
Family Separation Allowance
Service in a "combat area" is tax free.

And then many officers of various varieties earn annual bonuses for being doctors, nurses, pilots, etc.

[Galloglaich]

So build an improved F-18, and improved A-10 and an improved Harrier, rather than a huge, expensive boondogle that won't do any of those jobs as well.

We don't have a Navy of one model of all purpose carrier/cruiser/destroyers. We don't have an infantry company where every man has a rifle, LMG, ATGM, mortar and sniper rifle. Why the hell do we think we can make one fighter that can do everything?

Here here. The DoD, and especially the Air Force, has a long history of trying to make procurement "quantum leaps" which end up as total disasters. Going back far enough in the past that it shouldn't be a (current) political issue, look at B-70 Valkyrie, F-104 / 102 et al,

the over-reliance on super-tech to fix everything in these quantum leaps sometimes works but sometimes fails spectacularly. At one point the big wonder-feature was supersonic, mach 2 mach 3 etc.

Another good example was their over-emphasis on air-to-air missiles during the Vietnam era, which they had to back away from when the missiles proved to be not quite as good as hoped, and they had to go back to guns and to dogfight training (hence the Top Gun school for the Navy and equivalent for the Air Force). Another problem was the (arguably too early) mass-introduction of the M-16 and the use of defoliants.

Problems of this type go back all the way to WW II, the Norden Bomb sight for example. But some of these big gambles do turn out to be effective, like radar (which made our navy in particular much more effective) and the atomic bombs which certainly worked, for better or worse in the long run remains to be seen of course.

I'm not going to speak about todays issues, but historically a lot of times the servicemen suffered, the taxpayers suffered, the military as a whole suffered, and the only beneficiary was the defense contractors.




G

[Garimeth]

historically a lot of times the servicemen suffered, the taxpayers suffered, the military as a whole suffered, and the only beneficiary was the defense contractors.

G

This is so true.

[Galloglaich]

I remember reading an article that pointed out that people in the Middle Ages did drink water -- they just didn't write about it often as it was normal and boring. I think it went on to mention that from time to time city and town records show concern for accessing clean and healthy water. Having said that, they may have considered beer and wine to be safer if the water supply was questionable.

This is definitely true. Beer started getting really popular in the 12th century and was a major industry by the 15th, but all these stories about medieval people drinking filthy water and eating rotten food as explanation for why they drank so much beer and had such a high demand for spices are nonsense. They actually had far stricter regulations than we do on food (and threw away a lot more than we would under normal circumstances) and had very good clean water systems in most towns, similar to the Romans but actually better in many cases. They had very strict laws on protecting the water supply, contaminating it was one of the few crimes punishable by death under several forms of German Town Law.

Cities that got really dirty in the 17th -18th Century due to outgrowing their sewer and water systems, notably London and (especially) Paris, tend to be used as examples projecting backward to the medieval period but that is a myth.

I think they drank a lot of beer because they liked beer and they though it helped relieved pain and was generally healthy for you. Which became especially true after they started putting hops in it I think the 13th or 14th Century.

G

[Galloglaich]

While this is true, the case is that:



Is unrealistic either way. I do not think the entire UK will have to shut down all wind mills for a week do to heavy wind either.... (at least even in small Denmark it have never happened for more than a day or two). Especially as heavy wind usually comes with periods of good strong wind for windmills in neighbouring regions (storms in Scotland might mean strong wind in Wales/Southern England etc). Also bad weather also include rain and thus continues new supplies for any hydro plants (which usually gathers up water through rivers which can include a large area).

Now, I do agree that most countries shouldn't be relying on wind energy alone (Denmark is I believe one of the only countries were wind have made up 100% of the needed electricity, and that is only for a couple of days).

But a combination of renewable energy sources might be realistic. At the moment they are focusing on improving the grid in order to connect countires, making sure that when the wind is too strong or too weak in Denmark you can either get power from German wind (or sun), or Norwegian/Swedish waterfalls.

Water can in some countries be the sole energy source.

The main reason that Iceland have aluminium smelters is that they have a lot of cheap renewable energy (hydro plants 70% and geothermal energy 30%). The geothermal also gives 92% of the heating (and they use a lot of heat and never thinks of saving it - heating important streets etc with underground heating systems). Thus in some cases renewable energy does supply the was majority of power needed (only 0.2% is fuels based (oil)).

Of course Iceland is a small country (300.000 inhapitants), but it is also a major aluminium "producer: Wikipedia have that "The aluminum industry in Iceland used 71% of produced electricity in 2011." And Iceland smelts something like 2% of the worlds aluminium (and also a few other metals is smelted). USA is at 4%. Thus if USA had an Iceland within the borders, it could increase the aluminium production capacity with at least 50% of the current one (or apply the energy toe steel or other industries).

Creating large scale hydro plants and geothermal energy stations is of course something that takes times, but not unrealistic in a war economy.

Geothermal energy is mostly used for heating (apart from in Iceland) but could be applied for electricity in many countries, also many with much less activity than Iceland (geothermal energy is viable in most of Europe, just more expensive).

Fascinating thanks for posting! Iceland continues to amaze.

Also impressive how much wind energy Denmark is using.

At some point, these renewable energy methods seem inefficient, pie in the sky, but at some point they do become efficient and really start to make sense. Energy storage is tricky but as you noted, when you have multiple sources, thanks to computers it's quite possible to reroute energy through the grid - especially if combined with partly off-grid co-generation systems in individual homes and businesses.


Anybody know what the verdict is on the Tesla powerwall type lithium storage now days? I'm just wondering how effective it is now realistically. Has it panned out? Can you power the air conditioner in a house on it? Could you power a military vehicle this way? I assume you could at least for short trips. I know the Army already uses solar panels to charge communications gear. I wonder about drones, both flying, swimming \ sailing and crawling \ rolling types.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is definitely true. Beer started getting really popular in the 12th century and was a major industry by the 15th, but all these stories about medieval people drinking filthy water and eating rotten food as explanation for why they drank so much beer and had such a high demand for spices are nonsense. They actually had far stricter regulations than we do on food (and threw away a lot more than we would under normal circumstances) and had very good clean water systems in most towns, similar to the Romans but actually better in many cases. They had very strict laws on protecting the water supply, contaminating it was one of the few crimes punishable by death under several forms of German Town Law.

Cities that got really dirty in the 17th -18th Century due to outgrowing their sewer and water systems, notably London and (especially) Paris, tend to be used as examples projecting backward to the medieval period but that is a myth.

I think they drank a lot of beer because they liked beer and they though it helped relieved pain and was generally healthy for you. Which became especially true after they started putting hops in it I think the 13th or 14th Century.

G

"Medieval filth" / "The Dung Ages" is a one of the most popular, unshakable, and pernicious historical myths still clinging to history.

I wonder, however, if your post might not go too far in the other direction.

Also, the discussion of drinking things other than water to avoid issues with the water also covers a lot more than "medieval Europe" -- beer as a beverage goes all the way back at least to the very very earliest civilizations, for example.

[Galloglaich]

"Medieval filth" / "The Dung Ages" is a one of the most popular, unshakable, and pernicious historical myths still clinging to history.

I wonder, however, if your post might not go too far in the other direction.

I can't say how universal it was, but what I was saying about regulations on food and drinking water are true for many Late Medieval towns, I can provide evidence if needed. Butchers regulations tended to be very strict. As one example, cows, sheep or pigs that died on their own (i.e without being slaughtered) could not be processed for food, nor could calves \ kids etc. that were below a certain age, or animals that showed certain signs of illness. They couldn't even be fed to animals in some cases but had to be buried or burned (in other cases they could be fed to chickens, dogs or pigs). Sadly a lot of this has gone away in modern times. They slaughtered the animals in the open where the public could see, and only in certain (what they thought were) humane ways, for example by cutting the vein in the throat but they were not allowed to smother them. Same as most of the workshops for any kind of artisan, and they (both town authorities and guilds) had regular inspections of all kinds of food processing which were quite strict. Added fillers like wax, straw, sawdust etc. could not be added to food or drinks (unlike today) at risk of losing your license as a baker, brewer, butcher whatever.
Throwing trash, sewerage or animal parts into the potable water source (usually a spring) was punishable by death according to several versions of German town law that applied to hundreds of cities, not just in German-speaking areas but also in Slavic, French, Baltic, Flemish and Scandinavian towns. They actually had water systems made of hollowed out wooden logs that distributed clean, potable water through the cities. This went on in some places well into the 19th Century (including in some towns in the US).


They would deliver the water through pipes like this

http://sandal-woodsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/wood-water-pipe.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Saint-Paul_de_Vence_-_Jean-Charles_GUILLO.JPG/640px-Saint-Paul_de_Vence_-_Jean-Charles_GUILLO.JPG
http://www.flowersway.com/var/user/S/f/media_fichier_fr_PHBD000439_P_Berthe.jpg

..to fountains like this, which you still see in nearly every old city, town and village in Europe, hiding in plain sight so to speak.

Or even gigantic, aqueduct fed ones like this one in Croatia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Velika_Onofrijeva_%C4%8Desma.JPG/800px-Velika_Onofrijeva_%C4%8Desma.JPG

http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e888330147e054c771970b-500wi
This is how they would hollow out the logs

Medieval towns also had public workers cart the trash out of the city limits every day and had strict rules on privies or sewerage systems.

Generally these rules were all put in place over fears of disease. Just like the similar strict ones they had in place related to fire codes. Regarding public health, in general they had strict regulations on anything that smelled bad, because they thought bad smells caused disease. Of course that isn't directly true but being careful about things that smelled badly could roughly correlate to what was dangerous. They also seemed to have some idea of what caused parasites as well and how to kill them. We have direct evidence of that going surprisingly far back.

Of course they didn't have refrigeration, or much more limited at least in the warmer months (though they did have ice houses) and they didn't have things like cellophane to keep bugs away and so on. And they didn't know nearly what we do today about microbiology needless to say. They had no antibiotics but ours are fading in efficacy today aren't they? Partly due to their use in conjunction with questionable livestock raising and slaughtering practices.

It's hard to know precisely how widespread such rules were but they seem to have been in effect in hundreds of towns and villages.



Also, the discussion of drinking things other than water to avoid issues with the water also covers a lot more than "medieval Europe" -- beer as a beverage goes all the way back at least to the very very earliest civilizations, for example.

It's true generally speaking, and I can't say for other times and places, but in Central and Northern Europe in the medieval period, and I think in Italy as well, wine or beer consumption (or cider etc.) was basically a function of wealth. The wealthier you were the more you could afford to drink alcoholic beverages (including the weak 'small beer' and equivalent watered wine and so on). Once you ran out of money or reached your budget limits you drank water, or in some cases and in certain areas (like in Frisia and parts of Holland), milk.

G

[cobaltstarfire]

They had no antibiotics but ours are fading in efficacy today aren't they?


Yeah, I wonder how that's going to go for us, we've been using older antibiotics to deal with resistant bacteria, but recently a strain of E coli showed up in several places with a mutation that makes it resistant to those older antibiotics too (leaving us with nothing left that isn't resisted in some way or another). The worry about that is the mutation is on a part of the bacteria that is easy to "break off" and transfer to other bacteria.

I expect if that mutation does start spreading around it's going to have very unpleasant implications for people on the battle field, as well as anyone that needs to go to the hospital even for minor surgery...

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, I wonder how that's going to go for us, we've been using older antibiotics to deal with resistant bacteria, but recently a strain of E coli showed up in several places with a mutation that makes it resistant to those older antibiotics too (leaving us with nothing left that isn't resisted in some way or another). The worry about that is the mutation is on a part of the bacteria that is easy to "break off" and transfer to other bacteria.

I expect if that mutation does start spreading around it's going to have very unpleasant implications for people on the battle field, as well as anyone that needs to go to the hospital even for minor surgery...

* BAN any and all "growth agent" uses of antibiotics in livestock.

* start enforcing prescription restrictions -- no antibiotics to placate patients when they don't have a bacterial infection.

* re-emphasize sterilization and sanitation in health care, as opposed to the belief "we'll just give the patients antibiotics".

* broad public education on the effects of misusing antibiotics.

* more research for novel drugs unrelated to current antibiotics.

[Mike_G]

Couple of points.

1. Outright banning of all growth or antibiotics on livestock would greatly increase the cost of production, and reduce the output. So, food becomes scarcer and more expensive. This is like the "No GMO" stance, which is madness. We can certainly look at tighter regulation, but blanket bans will really hurt our ability to feed ourselves.

2. Sanitation in the medical setting has never been de-emphasized. And we no longer reuse equipment, which was common in the days before antibiotics. Everybody wears gloves for every procedure now, which was not the standard back in the day, and we have more "clean" rooms, positive pressure rooms, and so on. There is no attitude of not worrying about cleanliness because we have drugs.

Now, hospitals do administer prophylactic antibiotics to "cover" patients, which probably contributes to the problem. And doctors do over prescribe antibiotics to every kid with a sore throat.

Yes there's a problem, but these are not the easy answers you are looking for.



* BAN any and all "growth agent" uses of antibiotics in livestock.

* start enforcing prescription restrictions -- no antibiotics to placate patients when they don't have a bacterial infection.

* re-emphasize sterilization and sanitation in health care, as opposed to the belief "we'll just give the patients antibiotics".

* broad public education on the effects of misusing antibiotics.

* more research for novel drugs unrelated to current antibiotics.

[Galloglaich]

Couple of points.

1. Outright banning of all growth or antibiotics on livestock would greatly increase the cost of production, and reduce the output. So, food becomes scarcer and more expensive. This is like the "No GMO" stance, which is madness. We can certainly look at tighter regulation, but blanket bans will really hurt our ability to feed ourselves.

2. Sanitation in the medical setting has never been de-emphasized. And we no longer reuse equipment, which was common in the days before antibiotics. Everybody wears gloves for every procedure now, which was not the standard back in the day, and we have more "clean" rooms, positive pressure rooms, and so on. There is no attitude of not worrying about cleanliness because we have drugs.

Now, hospitals do administer prophylactic antibiotics to "cover" patients, which probably contributes to the problem. And doctors do over prescribe antibiotics to every kid with a sore throat.

Yes there's a problem, but these are not the easy answers you are looking for.

I'm not sure we actually need 99 cent hamburgers to be honest. A lot of our food industry is incredibly wasteful. A little bit of grass fed beef apparently has more nutrition than a lot of factory farmed ... that is one reason why we have so many people today who are obese but also suffer the effects of malnutrition simultaneously.

And sometimes simple changes can make major differences. One thing they figured out is that the old tradition of using brass and other copper (or silver) alloys for touchable surfaces like door knobs and bed rails actually has extremely beneficial effects in preventing spread of disease. Aluminum or stainless steel is very cheap but doesn't have the same effect.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2016-02-23/copper-kills-mrsa-at-a-touch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_copper-alloy_touch_surfaces

From the Wiki:

Antimicrobial copper-alloy touch surfaces can prevent frequently touched surfaces from serving as reservoirs for the spread of pathogenic microbes. This is especially true in healthcare facilities, where harmful viruses, bacteria, and fungi colonize and persist on doorknobs, push plates, railings, tray tables, tap (faucet) handles, IV poles, HVAC systems, and other equipment. These microbes can often survive on surfaces for surprisingly long periods of time (sometimes more than 30 days).

The surfaces of copper and its alloys, such as brass and bronze, are antimicrobial. They have an inherent ability to kill a wide range of harmful microbes relatively rapidly – often within two hours or less – and with a high degree of efficiency. These antimicrobial properties have been demonstrated by an extensive body of research. The research also suggests that if touch surfaces are made with copper alloys, the reduced transmission of disease-causing organisms can reduce patient infections in hospital intensive care units (ICU) by as much as 58%.[1][2]

http://www.diehl.com/uploads/pics/Bild_2_CU_TOUCH.jpg

We replaced this stuff because we thought, it's only there for looks, but we didn't realize there were other benefits that the ancestors had laboriously figured out over many generations.

I suspect it's actually similar with spices - they were definitely not using them to hide the taste and smell of rotten food, it doesn't work that way. I think they were medicine.


Some of the old traditions of centuries or even millennia ago, even though not based on nearly as advanced of a grasp of the underlying science, actually had remarkable benefits that we haven't always recognized until very recently. Conversely, some of our innovations haven't turned out to be as great as we expected.

Maybe it's because I work in a high tech field, I'm a bit suspicious of innovation. I love my smart phone, don't get me wrong, and this computer we can communicate on so wonderfully here. But newer isn't always automatically better.

G

[Max_Killjoy]

Couple of points.

1. Outright banning of all growth or antibiotics on livestock would greatly increase the cost of production, and reduce the output. So, food becomes scarcer and more expensive. This is like the "No GMO" stance, which is madness. We can certainly look at tighter regulation, but blanket bans will really hurt our ability to feed ourselves.


Yeah, 5 cents extra per pound of hamburger is really going to bring us to starvation.

For the record, my stance on GMO is "be very careful" and "you shouldn't be able to patent naturally occurring genes", not "ban them all cause it's evil".




2. Sanitation in the medical setting has never been de-emphasized. And we no longer reuse equipment, which was common in the days before antibiotics. Everybody wears gloves for every procedure now, which was not the standard back in the day, and we have more "clean" rooms, positive pressure rooms, and so on. There is no attitude of not worrying about cleanliness because we have drugs.



You'd be shocked by what goes on at some facilities.

And then there's what goes on outside the "first world".



Now, hospitals do administer prophylactic antibiotics to "cover" patients, which probably contributes to the problem. And doctors do over prescribe antibiotics to every kid with a sore throat.


Very much so. Those uses need to stop.

[warty goblin]

Couple of points.

1. Outright banning of all growth or antibiotics on livestock would greatly increase the cost of production, and reduce the output. So, food becomes scarcer and more expensive. This is like the "No GMO" stance, which is madness. We can certainly look at tighter regulation, but blanket bans will really hurt our ability to feed ourselves.


It would increase the cost of meat, not food in general. It's perfectly possible to eat a very nutritious diet that's mostly to entirely meat-free, and cheap meat is an ecological catastrophe of global proportions.

[Max_Killjoy]

It would increase the cost of meat, not food in general. It's perfectly possible to eat a very nutritious diet that's mostly to entirely meat-free, and cheap meat is an ecological catastrophe of global proportions.

Well, that might be overstating it a bit...

[warty goblin]

Well, that might be overstating it a bit...

Unfortunately it really isn't (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.V5pZo_krL0M). This is why I've cut my meat consumption drastically over the last year, because I don't need it, and a hamburger is, by a lot of measures, extremely damaging in a lot of ways.

[Gnoman]

Here here. The DoD, and especially the Air Force, has a long history of trying to make procurement "quantum leaps" which end up as total disasters. Going back far enough in the past that it shouldn't be a (current) political issue, look at B-70 Valkyrie, F-104 / 102 et al,

the over-reliance on super-tech to fix everything in these quantum leaps sometimes works but sometimes fails spectacularly. At one point the big wonder-feature was supersonic, mach 2 mach 3 etc.

Another good example was their over-emphasis on air-to-air missiles during the Vietnam era, which they had to back away from when the missiles proved to be not quite as good as hoped, and they had to go back to guns and to dogfight training (hence the Top Gun school for the Navy and equivalent for the Air Force). Another problem was the (arguably too early) mass-introduction of the M-16 and the use of defoliants.

Problems of this type go back all the way to WW II, the Norden Bomb sight for example. But some of these big gambles do turn out to be effective, like radar (which made our navy in particular much more effective) and the atomic bombs which certainly worked, for better or worse in the long run remains to be seen of course.

I'm not going to speak about todays issues, but historically a lot of times the servicemen suffered, the taxpayers suffered, the military as a whole suffered, and the only beneficiary was the defense contractors.




G

I'd hesitate to classify either the XB-70 or the Norden as such. Both were simply evolutionary developments of existing concepts -the XB-70 was conceptually a merging of the B-52 Stratofortress with the B-58 Hustler, while everyone on the planet was trying to come up with a better bombsight. The Valkyrie was canceled due to obsolescence of concept in the face of then-modern SAMs and interceptors (accidentally creating the F-15 in the process), and while the Norden didn't live up to expectations (not least due to the fact that nobody was shooting back when they tested it) it genuinely was more accurate than previous methods. Whether it was accurate enough to justify throwing bombers right into the teeth of Axis air defenses in broad daylight is a different question.

[Galloglaich]

But wine, on the other hand, is good for the soul

http://fotservis.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c018253ef017c33f8c0e9970b-450wi

[Max_Killjoy]

Unfortunately it really isn't (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.V5pZo_krL0M). This is why I've cut my meat consumption drastically over the last year, because I don't need it, and a hamburger is, by a lot of measures, extremely damaging in a lot of ways.

I'll read over it... but it's a decade old, and from the UN, which means the risk of gross overstatement is high (see also, RED MEAT WILL MAKE YOU DIE FROM CANCER!)

[Galloglaich]

I'd hesitate to classify either the XB-70 or the Norden as such. Both were simply evolutionary developments of existing concepts -the XB-70 was conceptually a merging of the B-52 Stratofortress with the B-58 Hustler, while everyone on the planet was trying to come up with a better bombsight. The Valkyrie was canceled due to obsolescence of concept in the face of then-modern SAMs and interceptors (accidentally creating the F-15 in the process), and while the Norden didn't live up to expectations (not least due to the fact that nobody was shooting back when they tested it) it genuinely was more accurate than previous methods. Whether it was accurate enough to justify throwing bombers right into the teeth of Axis air defenses in broad daylight is a different question.

Well I guess you could of course argue that there was some kind of logical context for them in the evolution of weaponry or technology, but in both cases it was also a matter of cost relative to outcome. The Norden sight cost 1.5 billion (in 1945 dollars) to develop, which is half the cost of the Manhattan project (!), and considering that not only did the device not prove to really work in field conditions, and the bombers often couldn't even navigate to the right place to begin with, it was clearly money that could have been better spent elsewhere at the time. But at least the Norden sight was used in combat, however rarely it was ever effective. The B-70, so far as I know, never flew a combat mission.

And yet those cost 750 million a piece, (in 1960's money) which would be the equivalent of almost 200 A-4 Skyhawks, or 50 F-16a's, or 57 A-10's.

That makes the cost really painful, especially when you see one crash. (Considerable irony here since the culprit in the crash, an F-104, was also a hugely expensive, virtually useless boondoggle which had virtually no use in combat... and notoriously hard to control)

https://youtu.be/fCORwUxlNQo?t=90

G

[Mike_G]

I'm not sure we actually need 99 cent hamburgers to be honest. A lot of our food industry is incredibly wasteful. A little bit of grass fed beef apparently has more nutrition than a lot of factory farmed ... that is one reason why we have so many people today who are obese but also suffer the effects of malnutrition simultaneously.


Well, Americans don't need 99 cent hamburgers, but plenty of starving people in the world need cheap food, and GMO and modern agricultural methods make that more possible. Feeding 7 billion people is a challenge that our ancestors simply never faced.




But newer isn't always automatically better.

G

I agree. I'm a dinosaur who misses the M 14. I just finished railing against the F 35, because I'd rather the Marines brought back the F4U Corsair for CAS and rolled the savings into yeterans benefits.

But I object to the idea that we need to "re-emphasize" sanitation when it never went out of style.

The Good Old Days were never as good as people like to remember. Adnaces in tech can fail to live up to promises, and we do hit dead ends and wrong turns, but when I have my heart attack, I want a 2016 style cardiac catheterization and stent through my radial artery, not a 1930's "crack my chest open and spread my ribs" operation, even if the OR doorknobs aren't copper anymore.

[Gnoman]

Well I guess you could of course argue that there was some kind of logical context for them in the evolution of weaponry or technology, but in both cases it was also a matter of cost relative to outcome. The Norden sight cost 1.5 billion (in 1945 dollars) to develop, which is half the cost of the Manhattan project (!), and considering that not only did the device not prove to really work in field conditions, and the bombers often couldn't even navigate to the right place to begin with, it was clearly money that could have been better spent elsewhere at the time. But at least the Norden sight was used in combat, however rarely it was ever effective. The B-70, so far as I know, never flew a combat mission.

And yet those cost 750 million a piece, (in 1960's money) which would be the equivalent of almost 200 A-4 Skyhawks, or 50 F-16a's, or 57 A-10's.

That makes the cost really painful, especially when you see one crash. (Considerable irony here since the culprit in the crash, an F-104, was also a hugely expensive, virtually useless boondoggle which had virtually no use in combat... and notoriously hard to control)

https://youtu.be/fCORwUxlNQo?t=90

G

I was not disputing that the XB-70 was a failure, but objecting to your classification of it as an attempt at a "quantum leap" - the biggest problem with it was that they should have known that the service lifespan of a high-altitude bomber relying on supersonic speed was going to be very short.

As for the Norden, it certainly didn't live up to the money spend on it, although how much that is attributable to no bombsight being much good under the conditions that the day bombers faced is impossible to tell.

The really bizarre thing is that the US could have entered into WWII with what was essentially Paveway had more resources been given to RCA, who had begun work on TV bomb guidance in January of 41, but fears of spending too much on an unproven concept such as television led to a less-accurate radar guidance system to be used instead.

[warty goblin]

I'll read over it... but it's a decade old, and from the UN, which means the risk of gross overstatement is high (see also, RED MEAT WILL MAKE YOU DIE FROM CANCER!)

There's plenty of other sources over the last decade saying the same thing. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and cows make a lot of it. This paper suggests about 14 - 15% of greenhouse emissions are due to livestock, or more than the combined total output of the world's cars, plains and trains. The EPA has a couple (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html) of results (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/print_global-ghg-emissions-2014.pdf) that say basically the same thing, although their estimates are a bit lower.

This is ignoring other sources of environmental and ecological harm caused by meat production. There's an argument to be made for grazing livestock on land unsuited for agriculture, and indeed this is less damaging to an ecosystem than tillage. Cows, sheep, etc damage the ecosystem, tilling it is near total annihilation. However a lot of meat, particularly in western agriculture, is fed up on corn, which totally negates that benefit, and consumes enormous amounts of fresh water in the bargain. You also have to deal with lots of animal excrement, which tends to do things like leak into the groundwater.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's plenty of other sources over the last decade saying the same thing. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and cows make a lot of it. This paper suggests about 14 - 15% of greenhouse emissions are due to livestock, or more than the combined total output of the world's cars, plains and trains. The EPA has a couple (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html) of results (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/print_global-ghg-emissions-2014.pdf) that say basically the same thing, although their estimates are a bit lower.

This is ignoring other sources of environmental and ecological harm caused by meat production. There's an argument to be made for grazing livestock on land unsuited for agriculture, and indeed this is less damaging to an ecosystem than tillage. Cows, sheep, etc damage the ecosystem, tilling it is near total annihilation. However a lot of meat, particularly in western agriculture, is fed up on corn, which totally negates that benefit, and consumes enormous amounts of fresh water in the bargain. You also have to deal with lots of animal excrement, which tends to do things like leak into the groundwater.

You'll note I said that your first statement was "overstating things a bit", not "wrong".

You have a valid point, but "cheap meat is an ecological catastrophe of global proportions" is an overstatement.

[Galloglaich]

Well, Americans don't need 99 cent hamburgers, but plenty of starving people in the world need cheap food, and GMO and modern agricultural methods make that more possible. Feeding 7 billion people is a challenge that our ancestors simply never faced.

True, I guess I just don't trust the current industry and their methods to solve this problem in our interests, or anyone's other than short term profit motive. And I think we actually could learn from some much older methods, we are seeing a trend that way now. High skilled labor responses to technological improvements have been around a long time.


I agree. I'm a dinosaur who misses the M 14. I just finished railing against the F 35, because I'd rather the Marines brought back the F4U Corsair for CAS and rolled the savings into yeterans benefits.

But I object to the idea that we need to "re-emphasize" sanitation when it never went out of style.

The Good Old Days were never as good as people like to remember. Adnaces in tech can fail to live up to promises, and we do hit dead ends and wrong turns, but when I have my heart attack, I want a 2016 style cardiac catheterization and stent through my radial artery, not a 1930's "crack my chest open and spread my ribs" operation, even if the OR doorknobs aren't copper anymore.

Good point! I am similarly a big fan of air-conditioning and lets face it, for all it's (many serious) flaws, the internet. Which allows me to talk to smart people like yourself among other things. But I think we can all get a bit hypnotized by new toys and fall into the simplistic delusion that progress is inevitable and linear, rather than chaotic and complex. Things don't always get better and better in a steady line.

The notion of the inevitable march of progress is a specific historical trope, and no more or less delusional than those of the ancient Greeks or whomever.

G

[warty goblin]

You'll note I said that your first statement was "overstating things a bit", not "wrong".

You have a valid point, but "cheap meat is an ecological catastrophe of global proportions" is an overstatement.

I'm failing to see what isn't A) catastrophic and B) global about it. It's not my most moderate turn of phrase, I'll grant that, but I can't see anything particularly inaccurate about it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't know if I'd call the XB-70 a failure.

First, it started before the realization that "higher and faster to avoid defenses" wasn't going to work much longer had really sunk in.

Second, technological advances (aerodynamics, materials, etc) that came out of the program are still important today.

Third, misunderstanding of the XB-70 program contributed to the Soviets fielding the MiG-25. In turn, Western intelligence grossly overshooting the real abilities of the MiG-25 lead to the program that gave us the F-15, which is still at this point the most dominant fighter ever built (over 100 kills for 0 losses in air combat).

[BayardSPSR]

And yet those cost 750 million a piece, (in 1960's money) which would be the equivalent of almost 200 A-4 Skyhawks, or 50 F-16a's, or 57 A-10's.

That makes the cost really painful, especially when you see one crash. (Considerable irony here since the culprit in the crash, an F-104, was also a hugely expensive, virtually useless boondoggle which had virtually no use in combat... and notoriously hard to control)

For context, how much does it cost to train a pilot, and to keep that pilot trained over the course of a career?

Same question for the cost of protected hangers per plane, and the logistical burden of getting personnel and materiél to forward bases (and keeping them there).

[Galloglaich]

I don't know if I'd call the XB-70 a failure.

First, it started before the realization that "higher and faster to avoid defenses" wasn't going to work much longer had really sunk in.

Just because they had a reason to make a mistake, doesn't mean they didn't make a mistake. I wonder if the same thing is happening right now with stealth. It seems like it's often easier to adjust missiles and sensors and software than it is expensive aircraft, ships and so on.



Second, technological advances (aerodynamics, materials, etc) that came out of the program are still important today.

Questionable, certainly in terms of cost-effectiveness.



Third, misunderstanding of the XB-70 program contributed to the Soviets fielding the MiG-25. In turn, Western intelligence grossly overshooting the real abilities of the MiG-25 lead to the program that gave us the F-15, which is still at this point the most dominant fighter ever built (over 100 kills for 0 losses in air combat).

So it made us spend too much on something which made them spend too much... don't you think they could have developed the F-15 without the B-70?

What constitutes failure is up for debate, but in my book when you spend billions on something that never gets used and quickly gets cancelled, it's probably a screw up. Maybe they could have better spent the money on a DARPA challenge type thing.

G

[cobaltstarfire]

* BAN any and all "growth agent" uses of antibiotics in livestock.

* start enforcing prescription restrictions -- no antibiotics to placate patients when they don't have a bacterial infection.

* re-emphasize sterilization and sanitation in health care, as opposed to the belief "we'll just give the patients antibiotics".

* broad public education on the effects of misusing antibiotics.

* more research for novel drugs unrelated to current antibiotics.


Well it would have been nice for that stuff to have happened to some degree before drug resistance became such a big problem. The damage is already done and can't be retroactively fixed, only slowed down.

And what little I've read/heard there hasn't been any new antibiotic discoveries since around when I was born (+-30 years). I mean part of that is likely because there is little incentive to research antibiotics, but even setting that aside it's a nonstop arms race with bacteria, one where they iterate much faster than we can probably discover and test new things.

I did hear about a pretty neat anti-bacterial surface found on the wings of a particular species of cicada (http://phys.org/news/2013-03-cicada-wing-bacteria-contact-video.html) which is pretty cool. I have no idea if stuff that has anti-microbial properties is something that bacteria can evolve past, but bringing back stuff like what G mentioned does sound like it could be a good start?

Either way, I expect we're soon going to be in a future where even minor injuries or surgeries could become more deadly than we are used to, simply because currently bacteria is winning that arms race.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well it would have been nice for that stuff to have happened to some degree before drug resistance became such a big problem. The damage is already done and can't be retroactively fixed, only slowed down.

And what little I've read/heard there hasn't been any new antibiotic discoveries since around when I was born (+-30 years). I mean part of that is likely because there is little incentive to research antibiotics, but even setting that aside it's a nonstop arms race with bacteria, one where they iterate much faster than we can probably discover and test new things.

I did hear about a pretty neat anti-bacterial surface found on the wings of a particular species of cicada (http://phys.org/news/2013-03-cicada-wing-bacteria-contact-video.html) which is pretty cool. I have no idea if stuff that has anti-microbial properties is something that bacteria can evolve past, but bringing back stuff like what G mentioned does sound like it could be a good start?

Either way, I expect we're soon going to be in a future where even minor injuries or surgeries could become more deadly than we are used to, simply because currently bacteria is winning that arms race.


You say that like now that some bacteria are resistant to some drugs, there's no going back and all drugs will be useless against all bacteria in less than a decade. That's not how it works.

Many types of bacteria also LOSE resistance once a drug is taken out of usage for a sufficient period of time -- the resistance loses its competitive advantage.

Continued increases in resistance occur because of continued human errors in the usage of antibiotics, not as an inevitable process that cannot be stopped or mitigated.

There are other types of drugs that were somewhat effective against bacteria before modern antibiotics, so we know that there are other options both discovered and undiscovered.

[Knaight]

Well, Americans don't need 99 cent hamburgers, but plenty of starving people in the world need cheap food, and GMO and modern agricultural methods make that more possible. Feeding 7 billion people is a challenge that our ancestors simply never faced.

GMOs weren't what was criticized though - it was specifically the heavy use of antibiotics in healthy meat animals, and even cheap meat isn't cheap food globally.

[cobaltstarfire]

You say that like now that some bacteria are resistant to some drugs, there's no going back and all drugs will be useless against all bacteria in less than a decade. That's not how it works.


You should re-read the first post I made on the subject then. Health Professionals are legitimately worried at this point that most bacteria can and soon will be resistant to even older classes of antibacterials that were specifically brought back because the bacteria weren't resistant yet (and those older classes of antibacterials were originally stopped because newer ones had fewer side effects).

So yes I am talking as if more and more bacteria are resistant to most if not all available drugs, because it's quickly becoming a reality.

[Max_Killjoy]

You should re-read the first post I made on the subject then. Health Professionals are legitimately worried at this point that most bacteria can and soon will be resistant to even older classes of antibacterials that were specifically brought back because the bacteria weren't resistant yet (and those older classes of antibacterials were originally stopped because newer ones had fewer side effects).

So yes I am talking as if more and more bacteria are resistant to most if not all available drugs, because it's quickly becoming a reality.


I replied to that post. I stand by both of my replies.

END OF THE WORLD declarations are usually overblown, and usually just result in people throwing up their hands and doing nothing.

[Mr Beer]

The fact that antibiotics are decreasing in effectiveness is another reason why vaccines are so important and why anti-vaxxers are a danger to public health.

[cobaltstarfire]

END OF THE WORLD declarations are usually overblown, and usually just result in people throwing up their hands and doing nothing.

So where exactly did I make an end of the world declaration?

You've really gotta stop accusing people of things they didn't do or say.

[Carl]

@Combaltstarfire: Max_Killjoy is spot on about how resistance works. Whatever report you've read is wrong. Simple as that. Bacterial antibiotics resistance is a perfect example of darwin in action. The microbes that have a resistance will survive were those that don't won't. Until you stop using the antibiotic in question. Then suddenly that resistance is a negetive as it takes energy to grow, so suddenly the non-resistant ones out-reproduce the resistant ones.


@Gallioch: it's more than that. Without the MIG-25 there would have been no incentive to design the F-15. And without the XB-70 there would have been no MIG-25.

Also the XB-70 wasn't as obsolete when it flew it's final flight as some claim, the first generation of patriot missiles would have found intercepting it nearly impossible for example. The plane would pretty much have to fly right at the launcher to get hit. That's not to say interceptors like the MIG-25 wouldn't have been able to ace it, but it would have required a whole new generation of hardware to do it, (which the MIG-25 was), which itself would have suffered serious limitations in what it could do outside of that. Thats why the MIG-25 was such a dead duck design overall. Without a Mach 3+ high altitude target to intercept it was just too bad at anything else to do it effectively.

[Max_Killjoy]

So where exactly did I make an end of the world declaration?

You've really gotta stop accusing people of things they didn't do or say.


Well, here's where that comes from...




Well it would have been nice for that stuff to have happened to some degree before drug resistance became such a big problem. The damage is already done and can't be retroactively fixed, only slowed down.

And what little I've read/heard there hasn't been any new antibiotic discoveries since around when I was born (+-30 years). I mean part of that is likely because there is little incentive to research antibiotics, but even setting that aside it's a nonstop arms race with bacteria, one where they iterate much faster than we can probably discover and test new things.

I did hear about a pretty neat anti-bacterial surface found on the wings of a particular species of cicada (http://phys.org/news/2013-03-cicada-wing-bacteria-contact-video.html) which is pretty cool. I have no idea if stuff that has anti-microbial properties is something that bacteria can evolve past, but bringing back stuff like what G mentioned does sound like it could be a good start?

Either way, I expect we're soon going to be in a future where even minor injuries or surgeries could become more deadly than we are used to, simply because currently bacteria is winning that arms race.




Yeah, I wonder how that's going to go for us, we've been using older antibiotics to deal with resistant bacteria, but recently a strain of E coli showed up in several places with a mutation that makes it resistant to those older antibiotics too (leaving us with nothing left that isn't resisted in some way or another). The worry about that is the mutation is on a part of the bacteria that is easy to "break off" and transfer to other bacteria.

I expect if that mutation does start spreading around it's going to have very unpleasant implications for people on the battle field, as well as anyone that needs to go to the hospital even for minor surgery...




You should re-read the first post I made on the subject then. Health Professionals are legitimately worried at this point that most bacteria can and soon will be resistant to even older classes of antibacterials that were specifically brought back because the bacteria weren't resistant yet (and those older classes of antibacterials were originally stopped because newer ones had fewer side effects).

So yes I am talking as if more and more bacteria are resistant to most if not all available drugs, because it's quickly becoming a reality.

[Vitruviansquid]

Thanks for all the answers about money for danger in the military. Didn't realize that was actually still a common thing in modern militaries.

On the topic of generals offering rewards to individuals for important tasks like taking a valuable piece of ground, can I get some links of reliable accounts that describe this process? Something like:

"During the battle, King Bob yelled that the first man to get over the walls of the city would be rewarded with a bucket of gold... Sir Jeff was the first one over the wall, and was presented with a bucket of gold after the battle."

[Vinyadan]

I can't think of medieval examples right now, but the Romans doubtlessly had a prize for the first to climb on the walls: the corona muralis, which was made of gold. Wikipedia should have links to single episodes.

[Hoosigander]

During the Siege of Acre in 1191 Richard the Lionhearted offered a cash reward for anyone who brought back a stone from a tower defending the city:


The King ordered the criers to proclaim that anyone who removed a stone from the wall next to the aforesaid tower would receive two pieces of gold from the King. Later he promised three gold pieces and then four, so that however many stones anyone removed, he received a payment of four gold pieces for each. Then you could see the young men rush forward and the courageous followers swarm to the wall. When the stones were taken out they would go on eagerly, greedy for praise as well as for payment. Even in the midst of the enemy's missiles they worked on bravely at tearing down the wall. Many of them were wounded, however, and were put out of action. Others, in fear of death, stayed away from danger. But some of them manfully pushed the Turks back from the wall and some of these men were protected neither by shields nor weapons. The wall was extremely high and immoderately thick. The men, however, inspired with courage, overcame danger and removed a great many stones from the massive wall.
From the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, which was probably written about thirty years after the siege.

On the note of current danger pay, the U.S. Foreign Service also has both danger pay and hardship pay for officers stationed in certain posts.

[Brother Oni]

@Combaltstarfire: Max_Killjoy is spot on about how resistance works. Whatever report you've read is wrong. Simple as that. Bacterial antibiotics resistance is a perfect example of darwin in action. The microbes that have a resistance will survive were those that don't won't. Until you stop using the antibiotic in question. Then suddenly that resistance is a negetive as it takes energy to grow, so suddenly the non-resistant ones out-reproduce the resistant ones.

I'd amend 'stop using the antibiotic in question' to 'stop using the class of antibiotic in question'.

Antibiotics attack bacteria via certain biological mechanisms, for example a large number of antibiotic families work by stopping bacterial cell wall synthesis by use of their beta-lactam ring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%92-lactam_antibiotic). Bacteria have adapted by having enzymes which attack and destroy this particular structure (called beta-lactamase unsurprisingly), but it only works for this structure; a different anti-biotic class will be completely unaffected (eg the glycopeptide antibiotics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycopeptide_antibiotic)).

The problem is, removing all beta-lactam antibiotics from use for however long for the non-resistant bacteria to out-compete the resistant bacteria is simply not feasible (the other classes can have significant side effects), as patient exacerbations and mortality will rise to unacceptable levels. It's also not as simple as denying all patients antibiotics if they don't need it - less scrupulous doctors and pharmacies will still prescribe or sell antibiotics to whoever's willing to pay, and that's not including overly demanding patients getting violent over apparently being denied treatment (GPs over here have been assaulted for less).*

The 'bits of bacteria that break off' is a bit simplistic view of gene transfer via plasmids (basically viruses that infect bacteria and carry a 'payload' of the genes that give antibiotic resistance) as it accounts for antibiotic resistance moving between populations as opposed to a population being naturally selected to only having the antibiotic resistant bacteria.

All these various systems have possible methods of attack, which some work has gone into (ie new classes of antibiotics), but the problem is that there's very little money in the field to incentivise pharmaceutical companies to work on them, coupled with the long time of drug development (it can be decades) and the cost (last estimate was potentially upwards of 1.3 billion USD to bring a drug from initial screening to the market) has lead to the looming gap in antibiotic cover that healthcare specialists are concerned about.


*I agree that the main concern is agricultural livestock over-use of antibiotics, but they tend to stick to the same class and the bugs there still need to jump the species gap to people. Prophalytic use in people is just giving human disease causing bacteria, a head start.

[Carl]

Cheers for clarifying oni. I only understand the basics. Getting a more thoroughly grounded explanation helps.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd amend 'stop using the antibiotic in question' to 'stop using the class of antibiotic in question'.

Antibiotics attack bacteria via certain biological mechanisms, for example a large number of antibiotic families work by stopping bacterial cell wall synthesis by use of their beta-lactam ring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%92-lactam_antibiotic). Bacteria have adapted by having enzymes which attack and destroy this particular structure (called beta-lactamase unsurprisingly), but it only works for this structure; a different anti-biotic class will be completely unaffected (eg the glycopeptide antibiotics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycopeptide_antibiotic)).

The problem is, removing all beta-lactam antibiotics from use for however long for the non-resistant bacteria to out-compete the resistant bacteria is simply not feasible (the other classes can have significant side effects), as patient exacerbations and mortality will rise to unacceptable levels. It's also not as simple as denying all patients antibiotics if they don't need it - less scrupulous doctors and pharmacies will still prescribe or sell antibiotics to whoever's willing to pay, and that's not including overly demanding patients getting violent over apparently being denied treatment (GPs over here have been assaulted for less).*

The 'bits of bacteria that break off' is a bit simplistic view of gene transfer via plasmids (basically viruses that infect bacteria and carry a 'payload' of the genes that give antibiotic resistance) as it accounts for antibiotic resistance moving between populations as opposed to a population being naturally selected to only having the antibiotic resistant bacteria.

All these various systems have possible methods of attack, which some work has gone into (ie new classes of antibiotics), but the problem is that there's very little money in the field to incentivise pharmaceutical companies to work on them, coupled with the long time of drug development (it can be decades) and the cost (last estimate was potentially upwards of 1.3 billion USD to bring a drug from initial screening to the market) has lead to the looming gap in antibiotic cover that healthcare specialists are concerned about.


*I agree that the main concern is agricultural livestock over-use of antibiotics, but they tend to stick to the same class and the bugs there still need to jump the species gap to people. Prophalytic use in people is just giving human disease causing bacteria, a head start.


One terrible irony here is that the realization that bacteria could develop resistance has lead to big pharma going cold on researching new antibiotics -- they'd rather put their money into "willy pills" and into non-cure therapeutics that they can sell to the same patient for 20-50 years.

[Brother Oni]

One terrible irony here is that the realization that bacteria could develop resistance has lead to big pharma going cold on researching new antibiotics -- they'd rather put their money into "willy pills" and into non-cure therapeutics that they can sell to the same patient for 20-50 years.

While I'm not defending big pharma in general, it's a bit disingenuous to say that they focus solely on treatments for quality of life diseases like erectile dysfunction and medicine that alleviates symptoms than remove the disease.

Take asthma for example - we haven't pinned down a single root cause as it's a complex multi-factorial disease that has genetic and environmental components. While removal of allergens helps along with things like stopping smoking, how to do you treat immune system hypersensitivity or other genetic causes?

Cystic fibrosis is another disease without curative treatments, only QOL improvements, despite the exact cause being known (a specific mutation in the CTFR gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis_transmembrane_conductance_regulato r)). While there's work been done on a gene therapy treatment, that's still not a cure since the 'fixed' cells will die eventually and short of re-writing the genetic code in a majority of the cells in the patient's entire body, a cure would be impossible.

Influenza is disease that needs new vaccines every year due to its habit of undergoing complete antigenic shift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigenic_shift) every few years. Eradication of disease causing organisms is impossible with anything above a certain infection rate, which is why only smallpox and rinderpest have been formally eradicated (although we are working on a number of others like polio and malaria).


While I'd be the among the first to say that big pharma have done some very morally questionable things, I am saying that people who say big pharma neglect the development of cures because it's more profitable to have repeat treatments, are vastly underestimating the complexity of developing cures and deploying them.

[Galloglaich]

While I'd be the among the first to say that big pharma have done some very morally questionable things, I am saying that people who say big pharma neglect the development of cures because it's more profitable to have repeat treatments, are vastly underestimating the complexity of developing cures and deploying them.

Given that the influence of Big Pharma not only skews studies and buys politicians, but now already starts in medical school with Doctors before they are even Doctors, it's hard to have clear idea where things really stand. How level things are minus their thumb on the scale.

If they want cures, maybe they should go through old medieval books....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/health/anglo-saxon-potion-mrsa/



London (CNN) — It might sound like a really old wives' tale, but a thousand-year-old Anglo-Saxon potion for eye infections may hold the key to wiping out the modern-day superbug MRSA, according to new research.

The 10th-century "eyesalve" remedy was discovered at the British Library in a leather-bound volume of Bald's Leechbook, widely considered to be one of the earliest known medical textbooks.

Christina Lee, an expert on Anglo-Saxon society from the School of English at the University of Nottingham, translated the ancient manuscript despite some ambiguities in the text.

"We chose this recipe in Bald's Leechbook because it contains ingredients such as garlic that are currently investigated by other researchers on their potential antibiotic effectiveness," Lee said in a video posted on the university's website.

"And so we looked at a recipe that is fairly straightforward. It's also a recipe where we are told it's the 'best of leechdoms' -- how could you not test that? So we were curious."


Lee enlisted the help of the university's microbiologists to see if the remedy actually worked.

The recipe calls for two species of Allium (garlic and onion or leek), wine and oxgall (bile from a cow's stomach) to be brewed in a brass vessel.

"We recreated the recipe as faithfully as we could. The Bald gives very precise instructions for the ratio of different ingredients and for the way they should be combined before use, so we tried to follow that as closely as possible," said microbiologist Freya Harrison, who led the work in the lab at the School of Life Sciences.

The book included an instruction for the recipe to be left to stand for nine days before being strained through a cloth. Efforts to replicate the recipe exactly included finding wine from a vineyard known to have existed in the ninth century, according to Steve Diggle, an associate professor of sociomicrobiology, who also worked on the project.

The researchers then tested their recipe on cultures of MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a type of staph bacterium that does not respond to commonly used antibiotic treatments.

The scientists weren't holding out much hope that it would work -- but they were astonished by the lab results.

"What we found was very interesting -- we found that Bald's eyesalve is incredibly potent as an anti-Staphylococcal antibiotic in this context," Harrison said.

"We were going from a mature, established population of a few billion cells, all stuck together in this highly protected biofilm coat, to really just a few thousand cells left alive. This is a massive, massive killing ability."

Diggle said the team also asked collaborators in the U.S. to test the recipe using an "in vivo" wound model -- meaning it's in a live organism -- "and basically the big surprise was that it seems to be more effective than conventional antibiotic treatment."

The scientists were worried they wouldn't be able to repeat the feat. But three more batches, made from scratch each time, have yielded the same results, Harrison said, and the salve appears to retain its potency for a long time after being stored in bottles in the refrigerator.

The team says it now has good, replicated data showing that the medicine kills up to 90% of MRSA bacteria in "in vivo" wound biopsies from mice.

Harrison says the researchers are still not completely sure how it works, but they have a few ideas -- namely, that there might be several active components in the mixture that work to attack the bacterial cells on different fronts, making it very hard for them to resist; or that by combining the ingredients and leaving them to steep in alcohol, a new, more potent bacteria-fighting molecule is created in the process.

"I still can't quite believe how well this 1,000-year-old antibiotic actually seems to be working," Harrison said. "When we got the first results we were just utterly dumbfounded. We did not see this coming at all."

She added: "Obviously you can never say with utter certainty that because it works in the lab it's going to work as an antibiotic, but the potential of this to take on to the next stage and say, 'yeah, really does it work as an antibiotic' is just beyond my wildest dreams, to be honest."

Lee, who translated the text from Old English, believes the discovery could change people's views of the medieval period as the "Dark Ages."

"The Middle Ages are often seen as the 'Dark Ages' -- we use the term 'medieval' these days ... as pejorative -- and I just wanted to do something that explains to me how people in the Middle Ages looked at science," she said.

[Max_Killjoy]

While I'm not defending big pharma in general, it's a bit disingenuous to say that they focus solely on treatments for quality of life diseases like erectile dysfunction and medicine that alleviates symptoms than remove the disease.

Take asthma for example - we haven't pinned down a single root cause as it's a complex multi-factorial disease that has genetic and environmental components. While removal of allergens helps along with things like stopping smoking, how to do you treat immune system hypersensitivity or other genetic causes?

Cystic fibrosis is another disease without curative treatments, only QOL improvements, despite the exact cause being known (a specific mutation in the CTFR gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis_transmembrane_conductance_regulato r)). While there's work been done on a gene therapy treatment, that's still not a cure since the 'fixed' cells will die eventually and short of re-writing the genetic code in a majority of the cells in the patient's entire body, a cure would be impossible.

Influenza is disease that needs new vaccines every year due to its habit of undergoing complete antigenic shift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigenic_shift) every few years. Eradication of disease causing organisms is impossible with anything above a certain infection rate, which is why only smallpox and rinderpest have been formally eradicated (although we are working on a number of others like polio and malaria).


While I'd be the among the first to say that big pharma have done some very morally questionable things, I am saying that people who say big pharma neglect the development of cures because it's more profitable to have repeat treatments, are vastly underestimating the complexity of developing cures and deploying them.

Fair enough -- but it does seem to me that something changed when they were allowed to openly advertise.

On the vaccines against influenza and other rapidly-changing viruses, one promising development is that better tools are letting us find that some of those viruses have parts that don't change repeatedly, and that it might be possible to create immune reactions to THOSE bits of the viruses, creating a vaccine that's effective for a long time, and engenders an immunity that doesn't lose a lot of effectiveness when the next season rolls around.




Given that the influence of Big Pharma not only skews studies and buys politicians, but now already starts in medical school with Doctors before they are even Doctors, it's hard to have clear idea where things really stand. How level things are minus their thumb on the scale.

If they want cures, maybe they should go through old medieval books....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/health/anglo-saxon-potion-mrsa/

One interesting part in there is the recurrence of the idea of a "cocktail" of compounds that make it hard for a the microbes to resist the treatment by attacking very different bits of the microbe all at once.

[Brother Oni]

Fair enough -- but it does seem to me that something changed when they were allowed to openly advertise.

This differs country by country - in the UK, it's still illegal to advertise a prescription only medicine to a patient, so if you feel that something has changed where you are, I'll defer to your judgement.



One interesting part in there is the recurrence of the idea of a "cocktail" of compounds that make it hard for a the microbes to resist the treatment by attacking very different bits of the microbe all at once.

Throwing a large cocktail of drugs that work in mutually exclusive ways at infections is something they used to do, until the increasing toxicity of the new individual drugs and the combined severity of all the side effects became unacceptable.

With regard to the Anglo-saxon cure, I'd personally run it against a control of ethanol/water before saying it's a miracle cure. Alcohol and water by itself is an effective mixture as the alcohol punches temporary holes into the cell wall and the concentration gradient causes the water to rush in, until the cell bursts (we use a 70:30 IPA:water spray in the lab and our manufacturing facility).

It's like saying this special weaponised liquid spray can disable any vehicle it's used on, when it's just the engine getting flooded by the water in the spray.

As for why we don't use IPA:water sprays to treat eye infections, try pouring some vodka in your eyes - it *bleeping* hurts and that's only ~30% alcohol.

[Galloglaich]

With regard to the Anglo-saxon cure, I'd personally run it against a control of ethanol/water before saying it's a miracle cure. Alcohol and water by itself is an effective mixture as the alcohol punches temporary holes into the cell wall and the concentration gradient causes the water to rush in, until the cell bursts (we use a 70:30 IPA:water spray in the lab and our manufacturing facility).

It's like saying this special weaponised liquid spray can disable any vehicle it's used on, when it's just the engine getting flooded by the water in the spray.

As for why we don't use IPA:water sprays to treat eye infections, try pouring some vodka in your eyes - it *bleeping* hurts and that's only ~30% alcohol.

I think it does pass that test, I mean, ultimately every antibiotic is essentially something that works nearly as well as rubbing alcohol but doesn't burn your eyes, organs, muscle tissue whatever. Isn't toxic like ethanol or concentrated iodine, acetone whatever.

This stuff is apparently mild enough to use in the eyes so I think that is why they were so interested in it.

There were many ways of course in which Medieval medicine utterly failed, but we tend to assume far too much that people back then were dumber than they are today. Would they go to physicians who killed their patients? The school of medicine that they taught in Universities and used from the High medieval period onward, based on Latin European interpretations and experiments which were based on Arab interpretations (especially Avicenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna)) and experiments which were based on Greek (especially Hypocrates, Galen and Aristotle but also many others) interpretations of earlier Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Indian etc. medicine, are actually still taught in certain parts of the world. Most notably in India where thee are 40 Universities that offer courses, but also in South Africa and some other countries. I would liken it to traditional Chinese medicine, it's not always apparent when it works and when it trails off into questionable mysticism. But clearly there is something valid in it too.

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

This doesn't mean "miracle cure" but it's a far cry from the way it's perceived (essentially ranging from no value to inevitably harmful and cures worse than the disease etc.)

The emphasis is much more on prevention of illness and maintenance of health than on curative measures, and is much more holistic including diet, exercise, sleep, metabolism, etc. - exactly where our modern medicine and nutrition fails.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Tacuinum_sanitatis-garlic.jpg

http://www.zestletteraturasostenibile.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/La-vendemmia-Tacuinum-Sanitatis-in-Medicina-fine-XIV-secolo-%C3%96sterreichische-Nationalbibliothek-Vienna.jpg

This Arab medicinal book the Tacuinum_Sanitatis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacuinum_Sanitatis) in it's various highly modified Latin incarnations especially contains with in it most of the secrets including the non-dietary secrets, of what they now call the "Mediterranean Diet" that our reductionist Western medicine is trying but mostly failing to figure out (it's a lot more than resevetrol). In it's (far greater than generally understood today) subtle, deep complexity, is the reason why people in places like Sardinia live such extraordinarily long lives and have such a low incidence of cancer, heart disease, dementia, and so many of the plagues of the modern era which we have proven so unable to effectively prevent - to the contrary they seem to be getting worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-people-forget-to-die.html?_r=0

Again, this is also in parallel to certain places in China and Japan and elsewhere in South and East Asia. But culturally, today we seem to be more comfortable acknowledging that there may be something to ancient practices in those areas, whereas we have more trouble recognizing it in Europe particularly in the medieval period.

Again, I concede it's foolish to fetishize the past and dismiss our modern achievements, but I think the pendulum is way over in the opposite direction, especially for that time frame. High to late medieval. Yes they had the plague but so did the Romans and the Greeks, and the Chinese and everyone else.


G

[cobaltstarfire]

Well, here's where that comes from...




Yeah none of those are dooms day declarations. It's the reality of there being a form of resistance to all classes of antibacterials in the wild now. That doesn't mean we're doomed, if you want to incorrectly continue to inject that into what I'm saying, then fine, you're still wrong but that's ok.

But again, I'm not and never had said that "we're doomed"


I very much enjoy the conversation from Oni and Carl though, it has been pretty interesting and instructive. I don't really have much else to add to it. I think Oni is better getting to what I was thinking/have read than I was communicating, cause I'm not especially knowledgeable in those things.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah none of those are dooms day declarations. It's the reality of there being a form of resistance to all classes of antibacterials in the wild now. That doesn't mean we're doomed, if you want to incorrectly continue to inject that into what I'm saying, then fine, you're still wrong but that's ok.

But again, I'm not and never had said that "we're doomed"


I very much enjoy the conversation from Oni and Carl though, it has been pretty interesting and instructive. I don't really have much else to add to it. I think Oni is better getting to what I was thinking/have read than I was communicating, cause I'm not especially knowledgeable in those things.


Let me put it this way, then: "all our antibiotics are about to stop working" is precisely what I call a doomsday scenario, and I also think it's an exaggerated interpretation of the facts at present.

[Knaight]

Let me put it this way, then: "all our antibiotics are about to stop working" is precisely what I call a doomsday scenario, and I also think it's an exaggerated interpretation of the facts at present.

That isn't what was said, and even if it was that wouldn't be doomsday scenario. Even with all antibiotics down for the count, plenty of people would be fine. Lifetimes would shorten, death rates would increase, and the species as a whole would keep on trucking. Even without antibiotics our working systems of hygiene (water treatment, ubiquitous sewers) leave us better off than people in a lot of historical eras. What was actually said though was that there would be much more antibiotic resistant bacteria - which still leaves a lot that aren't antibiotic resistant and can be dealt with.

It's not a good situation, and it's one that we should try to avoid. It's far from a doomsday scenario though.

[Brother Oni]

I think it does pass that test, I mean, ultimately every antibiotic is essentially something that works nearly as well as rubbing alcohol but doesn't burn your eyes, organs, muscle tissue whatever. Isn't toxic like ethanol or concentrated iodine, acetone whatever.

This stuff is apparently mild enough to use in the eyes so I think that is why they were so interested in it.


Now that I'm actually able to read the original story, they did run a control of distilled water and a brass sheet (to mimic the brewing vessel) and found that the treatment, Bald's eyesalve, showed a statistically significant effect over all the individual components.

The really interesting bit I found was, that it didn't kill the individual bacteria, it stopped the cell to cell messaging thus stopping a biofilm forming or repairing, thus presumably letting the ethanol and metal ions get to work. Dragging it back on thread with tactical example, bacteria resist the environment by forming a biofilm, much like soldiers forming a shield wall. Bald's eyesalve does the equivalent of blindfolding and earplugging the soldiers, so they can't communicate and form an effective shield wall, letting the enemy destroy them in detail.

While antibiotics are nearly as effective as alcohol at killing non-resistant bacteria, it does it through very different means. While it's simple to envisage cutting off the enemy's spear head off (beta-lactamase versus beta-lactam ring class antibiotics), it's a lot harder to become resistant to the chemical equivalent of having a holes knocked through you and a high pressure water hose inserted. :smalltongue:

It looks like the eyesalve was tested out of pure curiosity rather than any real interest in its effectiveness - the original doctor was a specialist in history not medicine and she recruited the microbiology department in testing out the cure she had translated.



That isn't what was said, and even if it was that wouldn't be doomsday scenario. Even with all antibiotics down for the count, plenty of people would be fine. Lifetimes would shorten, death rates would increase, and the species as a whole would keep on trucking. Even without antibiotics our working systems of hygiene (water treatment, ubiquitous sewers) leave us better off than people in a lot of historical eras.

While true to an extent, it would effectively put an end to modern surgical techniques or significantly increase the cost and pressure to make everything aseptic.

That said, no or limited antibiotics would make bacterial disease outbreaks far more likely, particularly from things we don't normally see. Plague for example, is effectively kept under control at the moment as the organism, Y.pestis, is very sensitive to antibiotics. Resistant plague strains have been noted recently and while I highly doubt we would get another pandemic on the scale of the Black Death, a fully resistant strain would probably result in a localised epidemic in places with poor hygiene and pest control.

On the plus side, it would remove any tolerance of the anti-vaxxers movement (or just let nature take its course and they get removed via natural selection).

[cobaltstarfire]

While true to an extent, it would effectively put an end to modern surgical techniques or significantly increase the cost and pressure to make everything aseptic.


What kinds of changes might the increased risk of secondary resistant infection bring about on the battle field?



(want to ask more but it's dinner time...I'll be back later!)

[Carl]

I'd recommend looking up WW1, they didn't have antibiotics as we think of them then. A lot of people don't realise just how new antibiotics are. Also Axis powers in WW2, the first large scale Antibiotic was penicillin and it only got into production because america in the war got behind a pushed the development of effective mass manufacturing along.

[cobaltstarfire]

I'm asking about in a modern scenario, not in a past one.

Unless you're saying in a round about way that it'd be more like WWI, but WWI might be a little too far in the other direction in regards to secondary infection?

[Carl]

Well thats why i pointed to axis in WW2 as well. The thing to remember is that whilst we've got ever more efficient methods of delivering death and destruction and injury to the enemy, the basic methods those weapons use to inflict it hasn't changed very much since then. We've maybe got some better sanitation methods these days and a few other things that can do wonders to deal with some kinds of trauma, but secondary infections and the things that cause them haven;t changed much from WW2 AFAIK. Oni or Mike_G will probably be able to give nice detailed answers ofc, but WW2 axis powers would make a good lookup till then.

[Brother Oni]

What kinds of changes might the increased risk of secondary resistant infection bring about on the battle field?

I was going to ask in which period, but I see that you meant current day.

Generally resistant bugs aren't going to be an issue during combat - any modern weapon is going to kill you far faster than infection. It's only afterwards that it's going to be an issue; anybody severely injured enough to require medevac will end up in proper care fast enough that any secondary infection will basically be in a hospital situation, so it's all the minor grazes, cuts and other injuries that soldiers and marines just suck up and get on with, that will be the issue.

Mike_G has first hand experience on this subject so I will defer to him on this, but I would think that more care would be taken to avoid infection but inevitably the casualty rate is going to go up (more personnel requiring evacuation due to secondary infections). That said, antibiotic resistance is energetically expensive as Carl said, so out in the field where antibiotics aren't normally found, you're more likely to find non-resistant populations outside of enclosed living spaces with poor hygiene like FOBs really out in the sticks.


Anecdotally due to ammunition shortages during WW1, the British made a large number of .303 ammunition with sterilised wooden tips under the jacket rather than aluminium. This was discovered during the Egyptian revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_1919) during the 1920s by Sir Sydney Smith, a well known forensic pathologist and pioneer forensic ballistics experimenter, after examining some of the injuries caused by the riots.

He wrote to the War Office pointing out that some ammunition manufacturers were using wood pulp instead of aluminium in their bullets, the wood pulp tips appeared to be achieving the same results as the aluminium and, given the previous two points, wouldn't it be much cheaper to use wood pulp in all ammunition instead of aluminium? The War Office replied, saying that they were aware of the substitution as it had been authorised during WW1 at a time when aluminium was in critically short supply. It also wouldn't be cheaper to use wood pulp, as the pulp had to go through a number of sterilising procedures to ensure that wounds wouldn't become infected or contaminated by it.

This struck Sir Sydney as a rather delicate thoughtfulness for the victim of a gunshot. :smalltongue:

That said, you can imagine the wood fragmentation after it entered the body - you're never getting all of it out if you do survive.

[Vinyadan]

This struck Sir Sydney as a rather delicate thoughtfulness for the victim of a gunshot. :smalltongue:


Well I'd say he was right, given that today it's become normal to shoot uranium at people.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well I'd say he was right, given that today it's become normal to shoot uranium at people.

Eh... what weapon are you thinking of here?

[Vinyadan]

Eh... what weapon are you thinking of here?

Large autocannons and machine guns, mostly. 25-30 mm. Depleted uranium is used to improve armour penetration.

[Mike_G]

I was going to ask in which period, but I see that you meant current day.

Generally resistant bugs aren't going to be an issue during combat - any modern weapon is going to kill you far faster than infection. It's only afterwards that it's going to be an issue; anybody severely injured enough to require medevac will end up in proper care fast enough that any secondary infection will basically be in a hospital situation, so it's all the minor grazes, cuts and other injuries that soldiers and marines just suck up and get on with, that will be the issue.

Mike_G has first hand experience on this subject so I will defer to him on this, but I would think that more care would be taken to avoid infection but inevitably the casualty rate is going to go up (more personnel requiring evacuation due to secondary infections). That said, antibiotic resistance is energetically expensive as Carl said, so out in the field where antibiotics aren't normally found, you're more likely to find non-resistant populations outside of enclosed living spaces with poor hygiene like FOBs really out in the sticks.



As Oni says, antibiotics aren't front line medicine. In the field you're concerned with treating water before drinking it, not relying on drugs, and keeping waste separate from everything else. MREs are packaged so that they shouldn't be contaminated. The more permanent a base is, the more likely it is to have better sanitation for food prep, water supply and waste removal.

Also, if we're fighting in a developing nation, which we usually are, chances are the population hasn't been over exposed to antibiotics, so they are unlikely to carry resistant strains of bacteria. If anything I'd worry about a situation similar to the introduction of disease to the Americas by European settler, which devastated the native population by exposing them to bacteria they hadn't built any immunity to. We're more likely to bring MRSA to Afghanistan than bring it home from Afghanistan.

As far as infected wounds, less effectiove antibiotics will be an issue. Combat wounds are dirty by definition. Extended time to sterile surgical treatment lets bacteria get started on growing.

Surgical infections aren't the common problem in hospitals. Post operative infections are. ORs are very sterile, instruments are sterilized unless they are single use, everybody is in full gowns, gloves, etc. You ahven't seen OCD until you've seen an Orthopedic surgeon with his sterile field.

The problem is wound care afterwards, where the wards are less meticulously clean, and full of sick people coughing and sneezing into the air, nurses who treat one patient then move to the next patient. they should be gloved up and washing hands, but nobody changes scrubs between patients, and nurses get sick from being around sick people and may transmit germs before they know they are sick and may not have sick time to cover staying home every time they have a scratchy throat, so they come in because they have bills to pay.

At my first EMT job, we got 24 hours sick time per year, and I had a wife and a mortgage, and believe me, I worked very sick a few times, because the bank wasn't interested in my excuses.

There would need to be a lot of reforms to combat hospital and ambulance transmitted infection. It's doable, but the system would need a lot of expensive overhaul, particularly giving the workforce mandatory close to unlimited sick days.

[Max_Killjoy]

Large autocannons and machine guns, mostly. 25-30 mm. Depleted uranium is used to improve armour penetration.

OK, yes, in some cannon ammunition, depleted uranium is used.

(Just had an argument with someone IRL recently, when they confused "hot" uranium with DU, and heavy weapons with small arms, and claimed that the US was committing war crimes by firing radioactive small arms ammo at enemy combatants.)

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem is wound care afterwards, where the wards are less meticulously clean, and full of sick people coughing and sneezing into the air, nurses who treat one patient then move to the next patient. they should be gloved up and washing hands, but nobody changes scrubs between patients, and nurses get sick from being around sick people and may transmit germs before they know they are sick and may not have sick time to cover staying home every time they have a scratchy throat, so they come in because they have bills to pay.


That's the sort of thing I was talking about earlier, with some facilities having developed a less rigorous institutional culture at certain times (and maybe it's getting better than when I was reading about it?) because they could at the time just throw drugs at any infection that popped up.

[Carl]

That's the sort of thing I was talking about earlier, with some facilities having developed a less rigorous institutional culture at certain times (and maybe it's getting better than when I was reading about it?) because they could at the time just throw drugs at any infection that popped up.

Bear in mind that this may be more of a US than a general issue, or at least thats my guess. I know in parts of europe, if an employee is sick with certain symptoms they flat out cannot work around food period from a legal standpoint. Now how well that law is enforced, different matter. I'd assume those parts of europe however would have similar rules for hospital workers however.

[Brother Oni]

On a separate note, I found this interesting short video of a dandao (a 17th Century Chinese anti-cavalry sword) build using a mixture of traditional and modern methods: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhdFygUJOek).

The Man at Arms team also do a number of other fantasy and video game weapon builds that are fun to watch: link (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUUGFk1wE5OHqeNDwp2q9_ZiPqKlWNc6V).

[BayardSPSR]

(Just had an argument with someone IRL recently, when they confused "hot" uranium with DU, and heavy weapons with small arms, and claimed that the US was committing war crimes by firing radioactive small arms ammo at enemy combatants.)

Talk about a frustrating conversation. Another fun one is having to explain that SDBs aren't worse in terms of collateral damage risks than what they replace. In general, there seem to be a lot of people who assume that if Amnesty International dislikes something it must be illegal.

[Storm Bringer]

Talk about a frustrating conversation. Another fun one is having to explain that SDBs aren't worse in terms of collateral damage risks than what they replace. In general, there seem to be a lot of people who assume that if dislikes something it must be illegal.

SDB? Small Diameter Bomb? why would Amnesty International have a problem with them, specifically?

[Storm Bringer]

This struck Sir Sydney as a rather delicate thoughtfulness for the victim of a gunshot. :smalltongue:

That said, you can imagine the wood fragmentation after it entered the body - you're never getting all of it out if you do survive.


I think it was because the Geneva Convention, and the "no unnecessary suffering" ruling that the Powers That Be were trying to avoid. after all, a bullet that kills or wounds had done its job, but a bullet that is specifically trying to cause infectious wounds that increase looses without additional military benefit (a wounded solider is out of the battle, whether he gets better or not) is cruel and unnecessary.

[BayardSPSR]

SDB? Small Diameter Bomb? why would Amnesty International have a problem with them, specifically?

Because the wounds caused by it have tended to remove legs when non-fatal, and apparently the tiny tungsten pellets can cause cancer in rats, and "Also, they are, by some, classified as nuclear weapons."

In practice, it may be something to do with its users. Which include ISRAEL.

Interestingly, a connection between tungsten and cancer would suggest that either there are no substances suitable for APFSDS munitions that AI approves of, or that the criticism of DU in that roles is entirely spurious.

Don't get me wrong, AI does some great stuff, they're just not remotely military experts.

[Vinyadan]

Talk about a frustrating conversation. Another fun one is having to explain that SDBs aren't worse in terms of collateral damage risks than what they replace. In general, there seem to be a lot of people who assume that if Amnesty International dislikes something it must be illegal.

TBH, DU might be no worse than tungsten or other "penetrators", but these shells are known for causing cancer not only to US servicemen, but also to allies whose countries don't use them (I also assume to resident civilians, but I don't have any data about that.).


Bear in mind that this may be more of a US than a general issue, or at least thats my guess. I know in parts of europe, if an employee is sick with certain symptoms they flat out cannot work around food period from a legal standpoint. Now how well that law is enforced, different matter. I'd assume those parts of europe however would have similar rules for hospital workers however.

Employees of public hospitals receive an enormous number of mandatory vaccines in some European lands, with related visits to verify their efficacy and automatic repeat when it's time for a recall. They also have a chance to get other vaccines for free.

[BayardSPSR]

TBH, DU might be no worse than tungsten or other "penetrators", but these shells are known for causing cancer not only to US servicemen, but also to allies whose countries don't use them (I also assume to resident civilians, but I don't have any data about that.).

Yeah, that's definitely bad, and a point against their use, even. But "war crime" means something very specific and very important. and I get frustrated when people try to warp the term.

[Max_Killjoy]

Because the wounds caused by it have tended to remove legs when non-fatal, and apparently the tiny tungsten pellets can cause cancer in rats, and "Also, they are, by some, classified as nuclear weapons."

In practice, it may be something to do with its users. Which include ISRAEL.

Interestingly, a connection between tungsten and cancer would suggest that either there are no substances suitable for APFSDS munitions that AI approves of, or that the criticism of DU in that roles is entirely spurious.

Don't get me wrong, AI does some great stuff, they're just not remotely military experts.


How the hell can they classify a SDB as a "nuclear weapon"?



TBH, DU might be no worse than tungsten or other "penetrators", but these shells are known for causing cancer not only to US servicemen, but also to allies whose countries don't use them (I also assume to resident civilians, but I don't have any data about that.).

Did that ever get to the point of being confirmed by independent data and analysis?

[Vinyadan]

Did that ever get to the point of being confirmed by independent data and analysis?

The problem is what independent means, but in Italy the Ministry of Defence was declared guilty by a court for not taking precautions or giving advice to the soldiers on how to protect themselves; the same court declared the link between DU and later death due to illness undeniable. Recent events make me doubt the value of such sentences when it comes to medicine, but I guess that one could look for the reasoning behind the sentence and see on which studies it was based. It's a difficult job, however: the Italian juridical bureaucracy is a mess.

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem is what independent means, but in Italy the Ministry of Defence was declared guilty by a court for not taking precautions or giving advice to the soldiers on how to protect themselves; the same court declared the link between DU and later death due to illness undeniable. Recent events make me doubt the value of such sentences when it comes to medicine, but I guess that one could look for the reasoning behind the sentence and see on which studies it was based. It's a difficult job, however: the Italian juridical bureaucracy is a mess.


I hope no one takes offense if I fail to take the Italian court system all that seriously as an objective finder of fact... of course, when it comes to science, American courts aren't that much more reliable (http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2010/05/hlaw1-1005.html).

[Vinyadan]

None taken, I think that's a worldwide problem.

[Mike_G]

Bear in mind that this may be more of a US than a general issue, or at least thats my guess. I know in parts of europe, if an employee is sick with certain symptoms they flat out cannot work around food period from a legal standpoint. Now how well that law is enforced, different matter. I'd assume those parts of europe however would have similar rules for hospital workers however.

In the Good Ol' US of A, that would be an undue burden for the company to pay you to stay home, which is filthy Socialist thinking.

Like I said, I had 24 hours per year of sick time, working with sick people. And I had a 24 hour shift, so I could be sick once before I started losing money.

I worked a lot of days really really sick that first year, before my immune system got used to the constant barrage of germs. Now my white blood cells actually scare off muggers.

[Mr Beer]

OK, yes, in some cannon ammunition, depleted uranium is used.

(Just had an argument with someone IRL recently, when they confused "hot" uranium with DU, and heavy weapons with small arms, and claimed that the US was committing war crimes by firing radioactive small arms ammo at enemy combatants.)

lol

'...and the Americans load up their rifles with plutonium bullets just to cause extra birth defects...'

[Vinyadan]

lol

'...and the Americans load up their rifles with plutonium bullets just to cause extra birth defects...'

That would be a hell of a way to cause birth defects in the USA.

[No brains]

Can anyone verify if "Shut your face/ shut up" truthfully relates to knights being told to shut the visors on close helms?

Further, does the motion of a salute also come from knights opening their visors to greet each other?

[Gnoman]

Can anyone verify if "Shut your face/ shut up" truthfully relates to knights being told to shut the visors on close helms?

Further, does the motion of a salute also come from knights opening their visors to greet each other?

1. Almost impossible. "Shut your face" is a later evolution of "shut up", which does not appear to have been used for "stop making noise" until the late 19th century.

2. It is 100% certain that the modern salute came about from the custom of removing headgear - 18th century military manuals proscribing removal of the hat in favor of the modern gesture are still around. That the custom of removing headgear dates back to opening of visors is plausible (and appears in some military manuals) but unconfirmed.

[BayardSPSR]

2. It is 100% certain that the modern salute came about from the custom of removing headgear - 18th century military manuals proscribing removal of the hat in favor of the modern gesture are still around. That the custom of removing headgear dates back to opening of visors is plausible (and appears in some military manuals) but unconfirmed.

Might it pre-date visors? I'm thinking of William at Hastings, and Patroclus in Achilles' armor - helmets have a longstanding habit of making their wearers difficult to recognize.

[Vitruviansquid]

I've been told by a history professor (albeit informally) that the salute comes from shielding your eyes from a spiritual "glow" of authority that royalty had in ancient Persia, called the "farr"

I looked it up on Wikipedia to confirm, and it seems to also be called "Khvarenah."

Don't quote me on any of this.

[fusilier]

I'm asking about in a modern scenario, not in a past one.

Unless you're saying in a round about way that it'd be more like WWI, but WWI might be a little too far in the other direction in regards to secondary infection?

I think the reason that WW1 was recommended was because it was a major war after the acceptance of germ theory, but before the development of antibiotics (or as also recommended consider the Axis experience in WW2). Studying the particular aspect of how they dealt with infection, would probably provide insight in to how infection might be dealt with on a modern battlefield without effective antibiotics.

[fusilier]

So a "doppelsoldner" is a landsknecht who received double pay for fighting in the front rank of a pike formation.

Besides the landsknechts, were there other military forces who offered material incentives for soldiers who did more dangerous duties?

Spanish tercios paid their "corseletes"(?) more than the common pikemen. The term implies that they had armor, or more armor, but that would imply that they stood at the front of the pike square.

Some material incentives were in the form of rewards for special actions, capturing some equipment etc. I think in the Renaissance, occasionally even a common soldier might be rewarded with a pension for some particularly brave action. Although I would have to double check the sources.

[Martin Greywolf]

Might it pre-date visors? I'm thinking of William at Hastings, and Patroclus in Achilles' armor - helmets have a longstanding habit of making their wearers difficult to recognize.

No, they don't, not really. You're thin modern terms of mass production where every s has the same (or same looking) kit - that wouldn't be the case until late renaissance in most cases (e.g. monastic orders).

Someone like Alexander or William would have gear that would make them quite recognizable - apart from being one of the few people decked in full armor, their armor would have at least some decoration (what exactly depends on the armor), and the helmet would likely be gold-plated.

Add to that that the folks were well aware that recognizing their leader was important and added things to helmets to help with that, and you end up being more recognizable with a helmet than without. Roman helmet broom heads, Greek hair plumes and Teutonic knights horned helmets were all examples.

[Vinyadan]

I remember reading in a Chronicle of a knight who was being thrown out of an Italian city after his men had been defeated and the slaughtering was still going on. He had his horse and his helmet, and in his indecision he kept putting on and off his helmet, and the chronicler explained that, when he put the helmet on, it was because he wanted to charge and fight, and, when he took it off, it was because he wanted to hide, until he finally took off his helmet and tried to slip away unnoticed. He was found by the citizens, killed, undressed and dragged across the streets with a hook.

So, apparently, the knight in question knew that the helmet made him recognizable. I think that taking off your hat or helmet was more of an act of courtesy: wearing something on your head makes you look taller and more imposing. To this you can add the habit of praying with an uncovered head for lay men in Europe after the V century AD, and the fact that divine attributes were easily transported upon the bishop, king or emperor, and such attitudes were transmitted, in smaller versions, to the lower classes (respect shown by inferior to superior, even outside the royal court), to the point of becoming, from recognition of authority, common courtesy. (Interestingly, other cultures see an uncovered head as too straightforward and therefore disrespectful or not the best choice in certain environments).
Tipping your hat (without taking it off) is something similar to military salute in an informal setting, as long as you have a hat. I have also been often greeted by someone by raising their chin, although I really don't know where this comes from. Maybe it means something like "keep your heart high", or maybe it's some gestural jargon which ended up being commonplace.

[Max_Killjoy]

No, they don't, not really. You're thin modern terms of mass production where every s has the same (or same looking) kit - that wouldn't be the case until late renaissance in most cases (e.g. monastic orders).

Someone like Alexander or William would have gear that would make them quite recognizable - apart from being one of the few people decked in full armor, their armor would have at least some decoration (what exactly depends on the armor), and the helmet would likely be gold-plated.

Add to that that the folks were well aware that recognizing their leader was important and added things to helmets to help with that, and you end up being more recognizable with a helmet than without. Roman helmet broom heads, Greek hair plumes and Teutonic knights horned helmets were all examples.


So every helmet-wearing soldier had a different helmet?

[Storm Bringer]

more to the point, William the Conqueror was mentioned because of a incident recorded at Hastings, where a rumour spread of his death, and panic threatened to rout his army until he rode along his lines with his helmet off so his troops could see that he was still alive.

Also, their are several accounts of medieval commanders and kings getting several trusted knights to dress up in their livery and such for a battle, in order to confuse enemy head-hunters.

So, clearly, the armour and helmets were sufficiently generic that it was possible for a leader to be mistaken or otherwise not recognised.

[Knaight]

more to the point, William the Conqueror was mentioned because of a incident recorded at Hastings, where a rumour spread of his death, and panic threatened to rout his army until he rode along his lines with his helmet off so his troops could see that he was still alive.

Also, their are several accounts of medieval commanders and kings getting several trusted knights to dress up in their livery and such for a battle, in order to confuse enemy head-hunters.

So, clearly, the armour and helmets were sufficiently generic that it was possible for a leader to be mistaken or otherwise not recognised.

Not necessarily. Just seeing the distinctive armor of someone rumored to be dead isn't strong proof that they're alive, it could be someone else in the armor. Seeing their face is much stronger.

[Galloglaich]

Not necessarily. Just seeing the distinctive armor of someone rumored to be dead isn't strong proof that they're alive, it could be someone else in the armor. Seeing their face is much stronger.

One thing I know about the medieval period is that, unlike today, few people were alarmed by someone being openly armed. it's kind of like how in some parts of the US today you'll see almost every man wearing a folding knife in their belt, with the clip showing so you can see they have it, or in a sheath on their belt. Not too alarming since everyone has it.

In the medieval period, every free man, more or less, was armed when out in public pretty much all the time. Because everyone else is armed too, it's not especially alarming. If the guy goes nuts he's likely to be in for a short fight. But if someone is wearing armor it's a different story. That means they are looking for trouble, ready to fight. If you are wearing plate harness or even just a corselet and a helmet, you could entertain the plausible idea of attacking a group of people and hurting them, without necessarily fearing too much for yourself. People wearing armor were considered much more alarming. There were regulations on that in the towns for example. In Italy men often wore very fine mail shirts under their clothing, but it was technically illegal. In German and Slavic towns there were strict rules on wearing armor in public, usually either if you were on guard duty, militia muster, or just arriving from the countryside, it was Ok, the rest of the time it wasn't.

Kind of like carrying live ammo in the US Army. Everyone carries their rifle when in the field, all the time. But they are empty of ammo. Basically ammo is only acceptable at the range or coming off guard duty or in a combat zone.


And from doing HEMA for 16 years I can tell you that the helmet is the single most important piece of armor you can have. You are more likely to get hit in the head than anywhere else other than the hands. Depends on the weapons somewhat but with swords, the head is essentially your single most vulnerable spot.

So unlike in 99% of genre fiction and movies, fighting with armor on but no helmet is truly ridiculous.

Maybe tipping your helmet off is a sign of peaceful intent, though probably recognition is the main reason.

G

[Vinyadan]

There also was an episode when he and his son William Rufus tried to kill each other in battle without realizing who was whom when they were at war against each other.

[gkathellar]

Maybe tipping your helmet off is a sign of peaceful intent, though probably recognition is the main reason.

G

I've heard it said that tipping the hat or helm was originally intended to demonstrate there was no weapon hidden in it (which I can say from my security experience is a real concern). Though, I wouldn't be surprised if it evolved quickly past that into a general way of saying "hello."

[Galloglaich]

I've heard it said that tipping the hat or helm was originally intended to demonstrate there was no weapon hidden in it (which I can say from my security experience is a real concern). Though, I wouldn't be surprised if it evolved quickly past that into a general way of saying "hello."

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a helmet. What kind of weapon would you have hidden in or under your helm? Throwing stars? Phaser?

I guess I can see later on like 19th Century London or something, re: hiding a weapon under your hat.

G

[Galloglaich]

Of course the Sikhs did sometimes put Chakram / quoits on their turbans...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Akali_Turban_with_quoits.JPG/220px-Akali_Turban_with_quoits.JPG

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


But they don't wear hats! ;)

G

[Mike_G]

I think the art/movie convention of fighting without a helmet is so we can recognize the hero, and see his or her expression. It's basically artistic license.

I agree that in sparring you get hit in the head a lot. I'd wear a helm and no other armor before I'd wear full plate and no helm.

[BayardSPSR]

There also was an episode when he and his son William Rufus tried to kill each other in battle without realizing who was whom when they were at war against each other.

The Shanameh has a similar incident, where a father ends up unknowingly killing his son on the battlefield.

[Galloglaich]

I think the art/movie convention of fighting without a helmet is so we can recognize the hero, and see his or her expression. It's basically artistic license.

I agree that in sparring you get hit in the head a lot. I'd wear a helm and no other armor before I'd wear full plate and no helm.

Yep me too. Though apparently they used to fight a lot with open faced helmets or with the visor up, both to see and to breathe. Full face protection was mainly for cavalry charges or when under a heavy rain of arrows or other missiles ...

So you could have the hero, villain etc. fighting with their faces visible, And they did wear those crests on their helmets, I for one trust my fellow TV and movie audience members to be able to follow the action even if less ridiculous. Many disagree with me though.

For example the dogs head helmet for The Hound in GoT was pretty distinctive and cool, I think popular with the kiddies, but we barely ever saw it.

G

[snowblizz]

I for one trust my fellow TV and movie audience members to be able to follow the action even if less ridiculous.
You don't pay many X of millions to get the big name and then hide him under a blank armour. He better act for his money's worth whether he/she
can or not dammit! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Brother Oni]

But they don't wear hats! ;)

Depends on the turban. I've been told some of the posher turbans can be removed very carefully like a hat, useful if you you're feeling lazy and can't be bothered to unwrap it at night then re-wrap it in the morning.


You don't pay many X of millions to get the big name and then hide him under a blank armour. He better act for his money's worth whether he/she
can or not dammit! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

There's an anecdote that when Karl Urban was auditioning for Dredd, he was told by the director "You know that the helmet never comes off, right?", to which Urban replied, "If it did, I wouldn't be here.". :smallbiggrin:

[Vinyadan]

Depends on the turban. I've been told some of the posher turbans can be removed very carefully like a hat, useful if you you're feeling lazy and can't be bothered to unwrap it at night then re-wrap it in the morning.


I've read that the Talibans in Pakistan used to blow their nose with the free end of their turban

Bleah.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Adriaen_Brouwer_-_The_Bitter_Potion_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

[snowblizz]

Back on track with the helmet thing, I don't buy the whole "could recognize ppl in helmets" deal. Almost all of the fancy helmet stuff was tournament or show helmets after all. As was the most fancy armours. Coming off the heraldic surcoat period (armorus being fairly similar too ofc but you had the coat) and into "white plate armour" period it seems armours were generally fairly uniform in appearance. Be hard at a glance to recognice ppl, especially through your own visor. Even kings would rarely have much fancy dress beyond maybe a small crown bolted to the helmets it seems (for battle armour), at least from all the books I've gone through.

I also think it's taking it too far to trace the salute back to medieaval times, at least as a specific gesture, there are a number of good reasons I could see and many have been suggested already for why you would lift your visor when talking to superiors. I'd say there's a bit too long of not having visors in between it and modern saluting though for it to be a direct causation. Unless ofc the victorians got in between us and the thing and they simply invented something out of thin air based on their misunderstanding the period. Would not be the first time.:smallwink:

Did the Teutonic knights really use the horn-helmets in battle? They strike me as pretty no nonsense ppl not given to fancy. Some exceptions aside.
IIRC the greathelm itself wasn't around too long (in battle) due to design being somewhat weak in defence compared to later evolutions more prone to be rounded so stuff didn't "catch" on it?

In the huge pile of things I'd like to ask the ppl themselves, right after I make myself a millionaire with the time travelling.

[Vinyadan]

So, here is a fresco by Beato Angelico (aka Fra' Angelico), painted between 1438 and 1440. To the left you can see the head of a spitting man, taking off his hat (a gesture of respect used, in this case, to derisorily mean its opposite, in keeping with the general theme of the image, where humiliation is shown through a parody of recognition of authority: a thorny crown instead of a real crown, a stick instead of a sceptre, an unidentified yellow object instead of the orb, all while being blindfolded, slapped and beaten with a cane).
In general, it's safe to say that in XV century Italy taking off your hat was a sign of respect, unless it was used gibingly, like you could do today making the military salute to an ex general who has just been expelled from the Army.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Sangelico%2C_cristo_deriso_1440-1441.jpg/743px-Sangelico%2C_cristo_deriso_1440-1441.jpg

I see the current military salute as a simplified version of taking your hat off. Making yourself recognizable was probably a different problem if you were wearing a helm, especially because I don't think it was always an easy and fast thing to take it on and off.

[Hoosigander]

The Shanameh has a similar incident, where a father ends up unknowingly killing his son on the battlefield.

It seems to be a bit of motif in a lot of Epic literture, in the Hildebrandslied there is a similar incident, although the outcome is unknown since we only have a fragment of the text. In Aided Óenfhir Aífe the famous Cú Chulainn kills his son as well.

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/hildebrand.html

[Garimeth]

I think the art/movie convention of fighting without a helmet is so we can recognize the hero, and see his or her expression. It's basically artistic license.

I agree that in sparring you get hit in the head a lot. I'd wear a helm and no other armor before I'd wear full plate and no helm.

Absolutely agree with both of these, especially the second one - regardless of the type of combat. Kevlar is just as important.

[wobner]

Not sure this is the best place to ask, maybe should get its own thread, but thought I'd try. Has anyone encountered a good system for categorizing melee style weapons to represent similar/common function or usage, shared skill sets essentially. Is such a thing really possible? For example Skyrim has one handed two handed, which seems laughable. Mount and blade adds polearms to that list, still seems silly. Morrowind at least had short blade, long blade, axe, blunt and spear, but really grouping a long sword with a scimitar seems inappropriate to me especially after separating a tanto into its own group, and grouping a club or baton with a morning star seems wrong as well. D&D has only its simple, martial, and exotic, but then you specialize individually anyway. Most real world sources I can find follow close to Morrowind's example or worse go Edged vs Blunt and that's it. Any ancient historians, reenactors, game systems, or weapon masters done a better job of grouping them? Are any of these groupings better than I'm giving them credit for? Or is attempting such a grouping inaccurate and doomed to failure, and you are better off just individualizing them?
Any information is appreciated.

[Garimeth]

Not sure this is the best place to ask, maybe should get its own thread, but thought I'd try. Has anyone encountered a good system for categorizing melee style weapons to represent similar/common function or usage, shared skill sets essentially. Is such a thing really possible? For example Skyrim has one handed two handed, which seems laughable. Mount and blade adds polearms to that list, still seems silly. Morrowind at least had short blade, long blade, axe, blunt and spear, but really grouping a long sword with a scimitar seems inappropriate to me especially after separating a tanto into its own group, and grouping a club or baton with a morning star seems wrong as well. D&D has only its simple, martial, and exotic, but then you specialize individually anyway. Most real world sources I can find follow close to Morrowind's example or worse go Edged vs Blunt and that's it. Any ancient historians, reenactors, game systems, or weapon masters done a better job of grouping them? Are any of these groupings better than I'm giving them credit for? Or is attempting such a grouping inaccurate and doomed to failure, and you are better off just individualizing them?
Any information is appreciated.

It might be helpful to telegraph what you are wanting to do with the information, as that will affect the best type of categorization for people to help you with.

FWIW all those that you mentioned suck imo also. Take just three types of "long blades" or "martial 1h swords" or w/e.

Rapier, scimitar, "long sword". All very different, all with sub-types, and all wielded very differently.

[Tiktakkat]

Not sure this is the best place to ask, maybe should get its own thread, but thought I'd try. Has anyone encountered a good system for categorizing melee style weapons to represent similar/common function or usage, shared skill sets essentially. Is such a thing really possible?

I wound up making my own system.

One issue that shows up commonly is the "exotic" weapon concept, which in FRPGs requires a cultural bias that isn't really justified, combined with "K-word" Syndrome, magnified into power creep.
("Their" weapons are kewler than "our" weapons, and therefore require "special" skillz, and also do special "stuff". So D20 has a kama and a sickle with absolutely identical stats, but one is a simple weapon while the other is an exotic weapon that a monk gets bonuses with. Likewise a nunchaku would be a "light" flail without the trip option (which it should have, but that's another rant). Meanwhile a sai, which is otherwise a light hammer with half the range by stats, or a blunt European parrying dagger with a bonus to disarm, is an exotic weapon rather than just another variant dagger like a punching dagger, which is based on the katar from India and would be exotic to people who use rapiers. Because "monks" or something.)

So yeah, my own system.

[BayardSPSR]

Rapier, scimitar, "long sword". All very different, all with sub-types, and all wielded very differently.

If you wanted to be really realistic, you'd need to put in proficiencies for every weapon, for every opposing weapon...

[Garimeth]

If you wanted to be really realistic, you'd need to put in proficiencies for every weapon, for every opposing weapon...

I'm lazy. I want my setting to make sense more than my combat mechanics. I can refluff or change how combat is described most of the time to make it real ENOUGH, but the setting being inconsistent or not believable ruins my suspension of disbelief. Same with when supposedly competent rulers, people, or experts are portrayed as being inept or stupid.

[rrgg]

Not sure this is the best place to ask, maybe should get its own thread, but thought I'd try. Has anyone encountered a good system for categorizing melee style weapons to represent similar/common function or usage, shared skill sets essentially. Is such a thing really possible? For example Skyrim has one handed two handed, which seems laughable. Mount and blade adds polearms to that list, still seems silly. Morrowind at least had short blade, long blade, axe, blunt and spear, but really grouping a long sword with a scimitar seems inappropriate to me especially after separating a tanto into its own group, and grouping a club or baton with a morning star seems wrong as well. D&D has only its simple, martial, and exotic, but then you specialize individually anyway. Most real world sources I can find follow close to Morrowind's example or worse go Edged vs Blunt and that's it. Any ancient historians, reenactors, game systems, or weapon masters done a better job of grouping them? Are any of these groupings better than I'm giving them credit for? Or is attempting such a grouping inaccurate and doomed to failure, and you are better off just individualizing them?
Any information is appreciated.

George Silver had a classification system he used to set up a "hierarchy of weapons" based on how they were used. Aside from the rapier, which he hated because he thought it was a foreigner weapon, it went:

sword

sword and dagger

sword and target

sword and buckler

two-handed sword

"weapons of weight" -battle axes, halberds, black bills, etc.

"weapons of the perfect length" -short staff, half-pike, forest bill, glaive, etc.

"weapons above the perfect length" -long staff, morris pike, etc.


he also included some detail about when he thought the advantages of certain weapons applied. For instance the perfect length weapons are the best at single combat, but in massed combat the weapons of weight do more offense and the morris pike defends better. Similarly the sword and buckler is better in one on one combat while the sword and target is better in massed battles.


That's hardly the end-all be all though. A lot of people tend to disagree with Silver about the effectiveness of the rapier for one thing. And his classification still has gaps, for instance the two-handed sword he is talking about is similar in blade length to a 1-handed sword, so it's not clear where greatswords like the zweihander would go.

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html

[Knaight]

If you wanted to be really realistic, you'd need to put in proficiencies for every weapon, for every opposing weapon...

The problem here is that the same weapons get used different ways, and it's not uncommon for there to be a lot more overlap when it comes to one style of fighting with any number of weapons than between two different styles of fighting with one weapon. A big example here is shield use - there are some people who tend to fight more defensively with a shield, and others who fight really aggressively with it. The first type of person might have a sword, or an axe, or any number of other fairly short one handed weapons, and they will have a pretty similar fighting style regardless. The same applies to the second. At the very least, the first person with sword and shield is much closer to the first person with sword and axe than they are the second person with sword and shield.

[gkathellar]

If you wanted to be really realistic, you'd need to put in proficiencies for every weapon, for every opposing weapon...

Yes and no? A lot of weapons apply similar skillsets, with slight but significant modifications. And generally, expertise in a weapon makes you better at using other weapons and/or no weapons.

My fencing master starts everyone on foil, because for him, foil is a foundation from which you can build towards any other weapon, even things like spear, or bare-handed, or stabbing someone to death with a ballpoint pen. He's also noted that compatibility is sometimes intentional, as with singlestick, where it's explicitly modeled on saber. Likewise, speaking from experience, staff, spear, and Chinese saber teach you things about unarmed fighting that you would never learn otherwise - things about flow, coordinated movement, tension, and acceleration. I have a karateka friend who thinks every karate fighter should learn sai, because it teaches you to chamber your arms with great precision. Etc.

That's not to say weapons don't differ, but ... a lot of things are the same, at both a basic and a conceptual level.

[Vinyadan]

So what about stances as main background, with weapons acting as modifiers to speed, penetration, range and so on?

[BayardSPSR]

I'm lazy. I want my setting to make sense more than my combat mechanics.

(Likewise; the rules I'm currently messing around with can resolve a fight in one opposed die roll. The diversity of pre-modern hand-to-hand weapons makes me prefer abstraction to granularity that has a high probability of being or feeling unrealistic.)

[Mr Beer]

Not sure this is the best place to ask, maybe should get its own thread, but thought I'd try. Has anyone encountered a good system for categorizing melee style weapons to represent similar/common function or usage, shared skill sets essentially. Is such a thing really possible?

GURPS has a go at this.

So for example, you would learn Broadsword skill, that's what you use for the following:

Any balanced,
2- to 4-foot blade wielded in
one hand – broadsword, cavalry saber,
scimitar, etc. This skill also covers any
stick or club of similar size and balance
to these blades, as well as bastard
swords, katanas, and longswords used
one-handed.

Then you also get to use some other weapons with your Broadsword skill with a penalty, even if you never trained with them, for example, greatswords, shortswords etc.

[GraaEminense]

In the medieval period, every free man, more or less, was armed when out in public pretty much all the time. Because everyone else is armed too, it's not especially alarming. If the guy goes nuts he's likely to be in for a short fight. But if someone is wearing armor it's a different story. That means they are looking for trouble, ready to fight. If you are wearing plate harness or even just a corselet and a helmet, you could entertain the plausible idea of attacking a group of people and hurting them, without necessarily fearing too much for yourself. People wearing armor were considered much more alarming. There were regulations on that in the towns for example. In Italy men often wore very fine mail shirts under their clothing, but it was technically illegal. In German and Slavic towns there were strict rules on wearing armor in public, usually either if you were on guard duty, militia muster, or just arriving from the countryside, it was Ok, the rest of the time it wasn't.

On a similar note, I know that bucklers were at times heavily regulated. Of course you should carry a sword to show your status and scare off muggers, but with a buckler you might get the idea that you could get into a fight and walk away with all your bits intact. That means trouble when young men are out drinking.

[Martin Greywolf]

The only remotely realistic system of weapon skills I can think of is to note how much training you did with each specific weapon and then assign penalties based on how much a given weapon differs - and to do that, you need a massive amount of knowledge about the weapons involved. A cavalry and infantry saber look basically the same on a picture, but you quickly find out that they're very different weapons. Chinese Han Jian and European longsword look very different, and yet we have hard proof that they share most of their techniques (compare Fiore to Military Preparation Manual).

For example, someone who trained Japanese Katana styles can pretty much grab European bastard sword and use it in the way he was taught. Perhaps he's not using it to quite its full potential, but he'd still be great with it. A guy trained in Victorian saber using a katana like it was a saber will also be okay, the absence of basket hilt will be a bit inconvenient, but we do have manuals in Europe that use these saber techniques with sabers that don't have guards (e.g. shashka).

Lastly, a good combatant doesn't learn how to use a weapon, he learns a martial art. Evidence clearly shows that historical ones were wide, sophisticated systems that included a variety of weapons. Using Fiore as an example, he has unarmed, dagger, sword in one an both hands, spear, sword in armor, pole hammer in armor and lance as his base weapons, with few odd bits thrown in. And once you get to, say, sword on horseback, he tells you to use techniques he taught you way back in dagger section.

Lastly, weapon skill is not linear. I can easily take down three or four people who are untrained (if I have enough space), and I'm a mediocre swordsman at best. Those same people would probably give me a lot of trouble after 4 hours of instruction, and the best of the best in HEMA today have winrates that are something like 70-80 percent. That may seem high, but in real fight, that means serious injury in 1 fight out of 5, so you hit diminishing returns pretty fast.

[wobner]

It might be helpful to telegraph what you are wanting to do with the information, as that will affect the best type of categorization for people to help you with.

FWIW all those that you mentioned suck imo also. Take just three types of "long blades" or "martial 1h swords" or w/e.

Rapier, scimitar, "long sword". All very different, all with sub-types, and all wielded very differently.


My apologies, mostly this is academic, curiosity coupled with insomnia, "is there a way to meaningfully group weapons based on common usage and skills." So really, approach it that way. If you think a context will help, computer role playing game(I've been working on it for years and will likely never finish, so again, academic) The intent is to treat 'combat skills' like other 'skills'(sneak, diplomacy, whatever) much as Skyrim and similar games do as it both feels more appropriate to me, and for the purpose of 'skill points' so that combat heavy 'classes' can have an equal number of 'skill points' as 'skill' heavy classes without providing useless or inappropriate skills or skill perks that are little more than skill sinks for those characters. Of course this requires weapons provide in game options, or these weapon skills became useless themselves beyond the first, but I digress.

It seems like you would have to generalize weapons in this context(I'm open to suggestions), or else overwhelm and confuse the players, but I don't want to go so simple it becomes unrealistic and silly, or end up with absurd groupings, unless I can be convinced its not unrealistic or absurd, and I am simply being naïve or am misinformed(that definitely works too). but also too few options defeats the purpose of putting them there in the first place.

I simply cannot, for game purposes or for real life, come up with system of categorizing them that works for me though.(I would rather focus on real life and then try to dumb it down if needed.)

That's where I am currently at, though I am not married to anything.
And thank you all for the feed back, very much appreciated. I love this thread.

[Mike_G]

My apologies, mostly this is academic, curiosity coupled with insomnia, "is there a way to meaningfully group weapons based on common usage and skills." So really, approach it that way. If you think a context will help, computer role playing game(I've been working on it for years and will likely never finish, so again, academic) The intent is to treat 'combat skills' like other 'skills'(sneak, diplomacy, whatever) much as Skyrim and similar games do as it both feels more appropriate to me, and for the purpose of 'skill points' so that combat heavy 'classes' can have an equal number of 'skill points' as 'skill' heavy classes without providing useless or inappropriate skills or skill perks that are little more than skill sinks for those characters. Of course this requires weapons provide in game options, or these weapon skills became useless themselves beyond the first, but I digress.

It seems like you would have to generalize weapons in this context(I'm open to suggestions), or else overwhelm and confuse the players, but I don't want to go so simple it becomes unrealistic and silly, or end up with absurd groupings, unless I can be convinced its not unrealistic or absurd, and I am simply being naïve or am misinformed(that definitely works too). but also too few options defeats the purpose of putting them there in the first place.

I simply cannot, for game purposes or for real life, come up with system of categorizing them that works for me though.(I would rather focus on real life and then try to dumb it down if needed.)

That's where I am currently at, though I am not married to anything.
And thank you all for the feed back, very much appreciated. I love this thread.

I like the idea of defaulting a new weapon to one you are trained in. Like GURPS will let you use a rapier with your Broadsword skill at a penalty.

Some things translate across all combat, like timing reactions, reading your opponent, etc. Some stuff is specific to certain weapons, and some weapons equate better that others.

I'd say, for ease of use, use your trained weapon skill as your base, and let people use other similar weapons at a small penalty, and less familiar weapons at a greater penalty. Group one handed swords as all pretty close, one handed cutting or bashing weapons one degree farther, two handed slashing weapons another degree out, spears and polearms further out.

It also depends on the system. If it's D&D, where your BAB counts for everything, it's not a big deal. If it's more like RQ where you have a totally different skill roll with different weapons, it's harder to model without going nuts. If I use the sabre like a broadsword, is that easier than using a shortsword like a broadsword kind of nitpicking that gets oppressive..

[Garimeth]

(Likewise; the rules I'm currently messing around with can resolve a fight in one opposed die roll. The diversity of pre-modern hand-to-hand weapons makes me prefer abstraction to granularity that has a high probability of being or feeling unrealistic.)

Exactly! We play 13th Age, which has d20 based combat, but handles damage and HP a with a broader brush. My players asked me once why I put so much effort into the realism of tech and culture and economics of my setting, but I enjoy such an abstract combat system.

I told them its because I can refluff the hell out of
To Hit: 20
AC: 21
Miss

or

To Hit: Nat 20
AC: 18
Damage: 34

To sound cool and be awesome and believable given the context. Its a lot harder to hand wave the setting implications of scrying and resurrection magic.


...

For example, someone who trained Japanese Katana styles can pretty much grab European bastard sword and use it in the way he was taught. Perhaps he's not using it to quite its full potential, but he'd still be great with it. A guy trained in Victorian saber using a katana like it was a saber will also be okay, the absence of basket hilt will be a bit inconvenient, but we do have manuals in Europe that use these saber techniques with sabers that don't have guards (e.g. shashka).

Lastly, a good combatant doesn't learn how to use a weapon, he learns a martial art. Evidence clearly shows that historical ones were wide, sophisticated systems that included a variety of weapons. Using Fiore as an example, he has unarmed, dagger, sword in one an both hands, spear, sword in armor, pole hammer in armor and lance as his base weapons, with few odd bits thrown in. And once you get to, say, sword on horseback, he tells you to use techniques he taught you way back in dagger section.

Lastly, weapon skill is not linear. I can easily take down three or four people who are untrained (if I have enough space), and I'm a mediocre swordsman at best. Those same people would probably give me a lot of trouble after 4 hours of instruction, and the best of the best in HEMA today have winrates that are something like 70-80 percent. That may seem high, but in real fight, that means serious injury in 1 fight out of 5, so you hit diminishing returns pretty fast.

As far as the actual question, from academic or hobbyist standpoint, I have to agree with these guys. The basics are the basics, and a lot of what makes somebody good is footwork, kinesics, reaction speed, balance, and various levels of physical conditioning - and these things exist across a spectrum of styles.

Martin is spot on about the diminishing returns too. I remember when I switched from Tae Kwon Do to MMA I used to be able to get the guillotine choke off on people all the time. Then I never could, no matter how well I set it up. I eventually realized, and then later confirmed, that its because while that choke is easy to get off, its also very easy to defend against if you know about it. As my skill level went up, so too did my training partners.

[Spiryt]

Is anyone familiar with relation from 1683 Vienna campaign by some Djebedji called 'Hassan Esiri"?

I've stubmled upon some fascinating quotes from his work.

About monstrosities committed by Turks in Christian lands (admission of such deeds by 'your side' obviously makes the whole thing more trusty).

And for something completely different, some fascinating close combat descriptions.

But apart from those two parts in some Polish translation, I can't find anything else. Which frustrates me....

[Galloglaich]

Not sure this is the best place to ask, maybe should get its own thread, but thought I'd try. Has anyone encountered a good system for categorizing melee style weapons to represent similar/common function or usage, shared skill sets essentially. Is such a thing really possible? For example Skyrim has one handed two handed, which seems laughable. Mount and blade adds polearms to that list, still seems silly. Morrowind at least had short blade, long blade, axe, blunt and spear, but really grouping a long sword with a scimitar seems inappropriate to me especially after separating a tanto into its own group, and grouping a club or baton with a morning star seems wrong as well. D&D has only its simple, martial, and exotic, but then you specialize individually anyway. Most real world sources I can find follow close to Morrowind's example or worse go Edged vs Blunt and that's it. Any ancient historians, reenactors, game systems, or weapon masters done a better job of grouping them? Are any of these groupings better than I'm giving them credit for? Or is attempting such a grouping inaccurate and doomed to failure, and you are better off just individualizing them?
Any information is appreciated.

At the risk of tooting my own horn...

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/63628/Codex-Martialis-Weapons-of-the-Ancient-World--Part-1-Melee-Weapons?filters=0_0_10123_0_0

G

[Max_Killjoy]

At the risk of tooting my own horn...

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/63628/Codex-Martialis-Weapons-of-the-Ancient-World--Part-1-Melee-Weapons?filters=0_0_10123_0_0

G


Toot away. While I'm not using 3.5 or any other D&D ruleset, I'm still considering picking up the bundle based on the previews. It looks like you did a lot of the historical research I've been trying to piecemeal together myself.

[ZxxZ]

How impenetrable was medieval plate mail? I've heard varying accounts, some people say that if you had a good set you were completely invincible, others say that you were perfectly safe from most slashing attempts, but bludgeoning and piercing such as heavy arrows and maces got you. The second sounds most realistic to me, but I'm no expert.

How viable versus armored foes would something along the lines of an oversized weaponized churchkey can-opener be? Something like a large dagger/short Sword with the lever action deal to rip off armor before going for a second blow with a more realistic offhand.

[Galloglaich]

The only remotely realistic system of weapon skills I can think of is to note how much training you did with each specific weapon and then assign penalties based on how much a given weapon differs - and to do that, you need a massive amount of knowledge about the weapons involved. A cavalry and infantry saber look basically the same on a picture, but you quickly find out that they're very different weapons. Chinese Han Jian and European longsword look very different, and yet we have hard proof that they share most of their techniques (compare Fiore to Military Preparation Manual).

For example, someone who trained Japanese Katana styles can pretty much grab European bastard sword and use it in the way he was taught. Perhaps he's not using it to quite its full potential, but he'd still be great with it. A guy trained in Victorian saber using a katana like it was a saber will also be okay, the absence of basket hilt will be a bit inconvenient, but we do have manuals in Europe that use these saber techniques with sabers that don't have guards (e.g. shashka).

Lastly, a good combatant doesn't learn how to use a weapon, he learns a martial art. Evidence clearly shows that historical ones were wide, sophisticated systems that included a variety of weapons. Using Fiore as an example, he has unarmed, dagger, sword in one an both hands, spear, sword in armor, pole hammer in armor and lance as his base weapons, with few odd bits thrown in. And once you get to, say, sword on horseback, he tells you to use techniques he taught you way back in dagger section.

Lastly, weapon skill is not linear. I can easily take down three or four people who are untrained (if I have enough space), and I'm a mediocre swordsman at best. Those same people would probably give me a lot of trouble after 4 hours of instruction, and the best of the best in HEMA today have winrates that are something like 70-80 percent. That may seem high, but in real fight, that means serious injury in 1 fight out of 5, so you hit diminishing returns pretty fast.

And even when you win you a match can still get hit. Hence the need for armor...

I agree with you a lot about the ratios of trained vs. untrained. I've been doing HEMA about 15 years and we get lots of people coming through the club. There is a sharp learning curve.

For me it would be more like this:

(assume a fit, very athletic and young person)

Against Untrained - With longsword, I have probably a 99% chance to win, I seem to always win. All of our experienced people and instructors can beat newbies easily, even if they are athletic and have martial arts background (unless it's some kind of weapon based thing which included sparring)

Trained 1 day - still probably 95% - though you have to be much more careful.

Trained 3 weeks - probably 80%, but now I'm paying close attention. By now they know their guards so it's harder to hit them and they how to strike. and should have some decent footwork.

Trained 1 year - probably 60-70% depending on their natural ability and how fast they learn, and their confidence. They should know master strikes, footwork, and a few plays. They should no longer telegraph. They will know some sneaky tricks.

After 1 year, it's pretty close to even, I still have a little bit of an edge but have to use all my tricks if I want to win. Maybe I'm still at 55% -60% but it depends how confident they are, a lot of times I can win just because they expect me to win because I'm more experienced. But if they had more confidence and learn to fight to their own strengths and to my weaknesses, it's hard. By that 1 year mark, for a fit, confident young person, you are pretty close to parity unless you, the more experienced person, can get sufficiently "in the zone" to use more techniques than you might normally do. Like tournament level fighting. but that is exhausting.


For saber the learning curve is a lot quicker, probably more like 6 months to get to that point.

To me it depends a lot on the weapon in that sense, I see some weapons as 'hard', some as 'easy'. Longsword is hard, you have to learn to do a lot of things right before you can do much with it, though just by learning guards and one good cut you could hold your own. Rapier is similar, to me just as hard and requires even more patience and proper form. Both are also very hard to defend against and to learn to use properly for defense. That is the difference between a good and bad fighter - how good you are at parrying, voiding, versetzen etc. It's not to hard to hit, but can you prevent yourself from being hit.

Dussack is relatively simple, you can fight decently with just a hanging parry and one or two cuts. You'll have an edge if you learn more sophisticated techniques but only an incremental difference.

Saber is a little bit more complex than Dussack but only so much. It's very defensive, so if you are cautious and can parry reasonably well, give ground in your fight and you could survive a long time with a few months worth of training.

Sword and buckler, well it depends on the system but once you learn that half-shield guard properly, you can stay alive a long time in a sword and buckler fight. It's even more defensive than saber so if you fight very patiently and disciplined, you can hold your own against a better fighter for a while, whereas with rapier or longsword you'd be dead much quicker.

G

[Brother Oni]

How impenetrable was medieval plate mail? I've heard varying accounts, some people say that if you had a good set you were completely invincible, others say that you were perfectly safe from most slashing attempts, but bludgeoning and piercing such as heavy arrows and maces got you. The second sounds most realistic to me, but I'm no expert.

How viable versus armored foes would something along the lines of an oversized weaponized churchkey can-opener be? Something like a large dagger/short Sword with the lever action deal to rip off armor before going for a second blow with a more realistic offhand.

Depends on the grade of steel and the actual type of plate harness. Decent grade steel and any design from about 12th Century Gothic plate onwards made you pretty much immune to anything man powered.

http://www.historical-armoury.com/608-2060-thickbox_default/gothic-plate-armor-.jpg
http://pre06.deviantart.net/d93d/th/pre/i/2010/291/c/9/maximillian_plate_armor_by_oldsoulmasquer-d311az5.jpg
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_19.131.1,2.jpg

Arrow penetration tests have indicated that anything of 2mm effective thickness of mild steel made you immune to longbows and most crossbows. You're basically looking at the big 1,000+lb draw crossbows and heavy muskets to penetrate that at a distance.

You're highly unlikely to be able to 'rip' armour plate off with a lever action during a fight. What they did was have a long thin icepick-like dagger (a rondel or a misericorde dagger was most common), that let you get in between the gaps in the plates or through other openings like the visor while wrestling with your armoured opponent. Armour penetrating spikes were also very common.
Bludgeoning weapons being good against armour is generally a fantasy and video game invention, as all armour is worn with padding underneath, which mitigates the force of the impact. If you notice the flanged mace below, the flanges let you concentrate the force of your blow into a very small point, helping the blow penetrate the armour.

http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/theenglishcutler/images/knives-3/img-ec3-knives-rondel-dagger-1-700x215.jpg
http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/images/Product/large/600756.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Maza_de_armas.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii123/AgentGriff/pic_spot_poleaxe18.jpg
http://www.medievalists.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/medieval-poleaxes.png

[snowblizz]

How impenetrable was medieval plate mail? I've heard varying accounts, some people say that if you had a good set you were completely invincible, others say that you were perfectly safe from most slashing attempts, but bludgeoning and piercing such as heavy arrows and maces got you. The second sounds most realistic to me, but I'm no expert.
As you surmised nothing is impenetrable. Slashing isn't going to do much to plate unless we are talking absurd amounts of force (or lucky hits on weak areas). So in that sense sure, which is why you didn't try and slash someone in plate.
Bludgeoning can sometimes bypass the armour (which is another reason you wear padding), or damage it so you function less well, harder to breathe or damaged articulation. To actually go through you need the piercing damage, which is why plate armour opener have a strudy sharp beak like thing (which incidentally is also a type of can opener).


How viable versus armored foes would something along the lines of an oversized weaponized churchkey can-opener be? Something like a large dagger/short Sword with the lever action deal to rip off armor before going for a second blow with a more realistic offhand.
Having looked up said implement I'm going to go with "probably not very". While the theory is sound and it has a piercing beak I don't think you can make the weapon useful enough against armour. A can doesn't fight back and plate armour tended to be shaped so you couldn't easily land or catch blows on the armour. The force required to defeat the armour (and the leverage needed to be employed) probably won't be available in anything that's going to be easily wieldable.

That's my gutraction to the idea at least. There may be some way to leverage (hah!) the churchkey idea.

[Vinyadan]

Does plate mail actually contain mail? Or does mail just mean armour in this case?

[Mr Beer]

Does plate mail actually contain mail? Or does mail just mean armour in this case?

"Plate mail" may be a D&D-ism I think. It refers to the plate rather than to mail, or "maile" if you prefer. But if you're kitted out in plate, you'd often have vulnerable gaps covered with chain armour, as well as padding underneath. It's a full system rather than something homogenous.

[snowblizz]

Indeed. Few armours are completely plate, though there are some excellent examples of fully articulated plate armours. I'm not sure where I saw the images of one. Belonged to Henry VIII.

But sometimes even kings skimp, so this is an more "functional" example of plate armour, one of Henry VIII's also. So even thoguh he could have and had a fully plated example made he woulda used something like this in combat.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff120/ang_h_ri/Trips/New%20York%20City/Met%20Museum/IMG_1835.jpg (http://s238.photobucket.com/user/ang_h_ri/media/Trips/New%20York%20City/Met%20Museum/IMG_1835.jpg.html)

[BayardSPSR]

Is anyone familiar with relation from 1683 Vienna campaign by some Djebedji called 'Hassan Esiri"?

I've stubmled upon some fascinating quotes from his work.

About monstrosities committed by Turks in Christian lands (admission of such deeds by 'your side' obviously makes the whole thing more trusty).

And for something completely different, some fascinating close combat descriptions.

But apart from those two parts in some Polish translation, I can't find anything else. Which frustrates me....

Sounds interesting. I only have enough Polish to get "hello" and "thank you" confused with each other, but maybe the passages will stand up to machine translation. Is there a link to it, or is it hard-copy-only?

[Tiktakkat]

Does plate mail actually contain mail? Or does mail just mean armour in this case?

Mail has come to be used as a synonym for armor.
Similarly, chain has come to be used to describe mail armor.
Thus "chain mail", which is technically redundant.
Those seem to be more general errors in terminology going back rather far, and not just something that can be passed off on RPGs for getting wrong.

Plate armors can be plates reinforcing mail (the earliest), plates combined with mail (the middle era), plates with remnant pieces of mail for joints and gaps (the late era), or just plate over leather padding (the final stage when full coverage plate began to diminish as gunpowder weapons became ascendant).

[Hoosigander]

Is anyone familiar with relation from 1683 Vienna campaign by some Djebedji called 'Hassan Esiri"?

I've stubmled upon some fascinating quotes from his work.

About monstrosities committed by Turks in Christian lands (admission of such deeds by 'your side' obviously makes the whole thing more trusty).

And for something completely different, some fascinating close combat descriptions.

But apart from those two parts in some Polish translation, I can't find anything else. Which frustrates me....

I don't know if this is the place where you found your quotes but a chapter of Kara Mustafa pod Wiedniem: Źródła Muzułmańskie do Dziejów Wyprawy Wiedeńskiej 1683 Roku by Zygmunt Abrahamowicz has a translation of the portion of Hasan Esiri's memoir dealing with the siege, as well as other Ottoman accounts.

[BayardSPSR]

Mail has come to be used as a synonym for armor.
Similarly, chain has come to be used to describe mail armor.
Thus "chain mail", which is technically redundant.
Those seem to be more general errors in terminology going back rather far, and not just something that can be passed off on RPGs for getting wrong.

Speaking of which, the broader (if improper) use of the term "mail" means that it could be justified to refer to aircraft electronic countermeasures as "e-mail."

[No brains]

Speaking of which, the broader (if improper) use of the term "mail" means that it could be justified to refer to aircraft electronic countermeasures as "e-mail."

Good one! :smallbiggrin:

[Mr Beer]

Captain: "Enemy attack, time for email!"

Co-pilot: "This is hardly the time Captain!"

[Storm Bringer]

Does plate mail actually contain mail? Or does mail just mean armour in this case?

as others have said, "plate Mail" was a term invented by DnD, but the answer to the question is yes, it did contain areas of chain mail, which covers the inside of joins and other areas where mobility was essential (ie armpits, elbows, knees, and the groin. often this mail was incorporated into a "arming shirt (http://s690.photobucket.com/user/thedarkeneddevil/media/ArmingDoubletChainSkirt.jpg.html)", which was worn as the base layer of the armour. the arming shirt was also covered in laces, which were their to tie various armour plates onto the body.

its worth pointing out that putting on plate mail isn't something a person can really do alone. it requires laces tying that a wearer simply cant reach. normally, A knight would have a squire or fellow knight help him don his armour.

[Brother Oni]

Does plate mail actually contain mail? Or does mail just mean armour in this case?

I've always understood 'plate mail' to be a D&D contraction of 'plate and mail' as an abstraction of all the various combinations of rigid plates worn over padding and mail to cover the really awkward bits (inside of the elbow, behind the knee, etc).


Captain: "Enemy attack, time for email!"

Co-pilot: "This is hardly the time Captain!"

"Got just enough time to twitter this!" 'Just avoiding haters #ECMFTW'

[Martin Greywolf]

Armor time!

1) Mail and chain mail and plate mail, oh my

This discussion is pointless pedantry at this point. Mail by itself just means armor, but it was used/is most well known from period when armor meant chain mail. Chain mail wasn't used historically as far as I'm aware, but is descriptive and everyone knows what it means. For that matter, most of the terminology around weapons we use today wasn't used historically, and if it was, it was in a descriptive rather than prescriptive way, i.e. longsword means a sword that is long compared to usual context of the text, not a specific type of sword.

Plate mail is, therefore, absolutely correct in original meaning, as it means plate armor, but folks here are right in that modern professional terminology doesn't have any such thing. What the term means in DnD is likely early partial plate harnesses, where cuirass and other plate components went on top of a full chain mail shirt - KnyghtErrant of YouTube has one of those, it looks like this (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/k24y_ZmxRHg/maxresdefault.jpg).

Full plate is, therefore, plate suit that doesn't have full mail shirt under it, which brings us to the next question.

2) Chain mail in full plate

It existed and was called gussets. Partial plate harness slowly had more and more plates added to it to the point where mail under them was just an unnecessary weight, so they got rid of it and kept mail only in gaps, it was usually fastened to the gambeson under the armor. The transition was a steady one, so at first you begin to see stuff like mail shirt that has its torso portion missing and has only sleeves, then you get only sleeves, like this (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/7d/f7/3e7df71aa64058ab85a5880bfd065ece.jpg).

As the time went on to early modern period, however, the armor was reduced, and gussets were among the first things to go, until you end up with just a cuirass. Why this happened is a complicated topis, short version is the combination of economic factors, increase in army size and rise of light cannon.

3) Full plate protection and penetration

Well, it doesn't make you completely immune. Keep in mind that there are grades to the plate here, high-quality heat-treated suit will be much better than low cost mild steel or even iron one. A rich noble will be almost immune to most things out there including longbows, someone less well off will not be so well protected.

Now, the top quality stuff will make you almost impervious to things, but that doesn't mean immune. Swords, arrows, axes and maces will not penetrate most of the time. But! There are circumstances when no amount of armor will help. If someone really puts their weight behind a mace blow and you don't avoid or parry it, you're in trouble. Sure, a blow like that is easy to parry, but you only need to slip up once.

Next problem is that even if plate makes you immune to 49 arrows out of 50, that 1 arrow still gets through, and you will be felled by the power of statistics. Medieval commanders were well aware of this, and armies that used archery heavily made sure to keep them well supplied with arrows, making archery into a numbers game. Speaking of archery, archers often waited until point-blank range to shoot fully armored people, if they had positional advantage (stakes, walls, steep slopes, muddy fields, all of the above, etc), and these shots were much more likely to get through.

Another factor is that even if a blow doesn't penetrate, blunt force does go through. Now, with a sword, that is small enough to be negligible, maybe giving you a bruise, but axe or mace have bigger impacts, potentially breaking bones straight through the armor. Arrows have the impact comparable to a sword, problem is, you can catch a lot of them to the face, leaving your sorry armored butt all bruised up.

In the end, plate armor offered enough protection that you ended up in grappling if you went up against someone wearing it. Once he's on the ground, just stomp his head into the dirt until he stops moving.

4) Techniques against plate

No ripping plates off. Just no. If you must do it, then you need to slap on a lot of magic to make it viable, otherwise it's just not possible.

In general, you had three methods to penetrate plate:

a) Blunt force

We talked about this, bypass the whole thing with blunt impacts, tearing off organs and breaking bones. Hammers and maces did this.

b) Penetration

Make a spike, swing a spike at the armor, hope spike goes through. Horesman's pick, beaks on warhammers and halberds and rectangualr cross-section spear-like spikes on polearms were used for this.

c) Avoidance

Hit him where plate is not. Find gaps and slip a sharp thing into them. Daggers, swords in half-swording grips and spears in two-thirds grip were used this way.

[Spiryt]

The world 'mail' apparently acquired it's meaning in Old French, and simply meant "net, mesh," acquired it's meaning from Latin 'hole, eye in a net;.

See 'neutral sense'

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macula#Latin

So originally, mail most indeed meant armor made out intertwined rings.

I suppose later when mail came out of use, neologism as 'chain mail' started to appeared and the rest was obvious.



Sounds interesting. I only have enough Polish to get "hello" and "thank you" confused with each other, but maybe the passages will stand up to machine translation. Is there a link to it, or is it hard-copy-only?

Descirption of polish cavalry that attacked Ottoman infantry to scout the terrain and enemy. Didn't end well.

First iron clad cohort had attacked the saian of his excellence Serdar. Against it came and engaged with it the levendi of his excellence Serdar and his palace and court Agas. Giauors, though, were all covered in iron, so the sabres were useless, but battle hardened heroes didn't worry. Every one of them had mace, axe or hammer, and started to bash the giaours to the heads, to the faces and arms. Those who had no such weapons, were rending the horses with their sabres. This way, with God's favor, they were forced to retreat, and most of them killed or wounded.

Translation is mine, from there (http://kadrinazi.blogspot.com/2010/04/po-gowach-twarzach-i-rekach-wieden-1683.html).

It's interesting, because all this 'he is all armored, so let's grab a hammer' is usually assumed to be only logical, but I haven't seen much of actual descriptions. :smallsmile:

[Max_Killjoy]

The one thing "mail" or "maille" doesn't mean, is "armor" generally or generically. It referred specifically to what is known in the nails-on-chalkboard neologism lexicon as "chain mail". The misuse of "mail" to mean "armor" dates to the early 1800s, so it can't entirely be pinned on D&Disms. (See also, the butchery of sword terminology by Victorian writers).

[Yora]

See also the butchering of basically anything else pre-1800 by Victorian Writers.

Their crimes against knowledge are second only to the burning of the library of Alexandria. Or worse, as they did not destroy knowledge but attempted to replace it with lies.

[harlokin]

'Plated mail', a chain armour with integrated solid metal plates around the torso, existed in Central, and South Asia.

[Corenair]

I can't say how universal it was, but what I was saying about regulations on food and drinking water are true for many Late Medieval towns, I can provide evidence if needed.

I for one, would be very interested in evidence if that's not too much of a hassle. Not because I doubt you, but because I would like to be able to provide it myself if called upon.

[Garimeth]

I have to say, I really appreciate the level of scholarship here. I have a few questions I would like to bounce off of you all. I'm really searching for any holes in my logic, incorrect assumptions, and the like. I apologize in advance for the length.

In the setting for my games and novels I am writing there was previously a Wizard Emperor who used magic to cause the region (arable land is roughly the 125% the size of France) to be capable of Roman levels of food production. He also conquered the entire area. He became a lich and **** started going south, and after time (he was the first necromancer and first lich so nobody knew that was "bad") his martial based generals attempted a coup which failed. some escaped, formed a new kingdom and ensues big giant wasteland in what used to be the breadbasket, undead in the region constantly reform, and now in the winter un cremated dead rise. The previously united region is now separated by this wasteland a sea that takes roughly 500 miles to cross, and several mountain chains. This has lead to the primary sub kingdom being very insular, this is where my story primarily takes place. It is roughly 25k square miles.

The system of government is very inefficient, which is a feature not a flaw. Basically the Church wields a lot of political influence, but is beholden to know one. The lands are feudal, but can be bought and sold. There are only three "major" cities who each have an elected leader who is elected from a council of nobles. There is a group of knights who everyone pays taxes to that provide magistrate and mediation services between landowners, and also man a small (like less than 100 people, probably more like 50) garrison around each city to help deal with any undead that reanimate during that time of year. Their primary mission is to man the fort that borders the wasteland to prevent any intelligent undead from entering the kingdom, and also to guard or warn against an exodus of undead, which has happened a few times over the 3 centuries since the fall of the empire. They also despise and witch hunt any non cleric or paladin magic users.

Alright! Now to the meat.

4,000 people for the order of knights, counting non knight soldiers. Realistic number?

Which the low population and food production problems, as well as the synod having the only standing "army" lords rarely war with each other in anything larger than a small skirmish. Most fighting involves banditry, self defense, or putting down random undead during the winter. As a result the spear is no longer the weapon of choice. No formations, and not of particular use against skeletons or zombies. Instead soldiers are issued a shield, a mace, and a sword or axe. Training emphasizes personal defense as opposed to formations, because most fights are a small number of men, against a small number of unintelligent undead or bandits. Does that sound reasonable?

Most nobles are tired of paying taxes to the Synod, because they feel like the only real service they offer is the mediation services, because their hasn't been a threat from the Wastes in a long time. The reason the current government hasn't been overthrown, is that actual warfare tactics are not trained for, and the Synod is really the only "large" group of professional warriors - and they enforce the peace and protect their power. This will change during the story. Sound reasonable?

Last question, one of the protagonists is basically a 4e warlord (its 13th Age and he's a commander). He is a lieutenant, and is usually going out with only 5-10 soldiers with him. Is "squad" an appropriate term for his element? Also, the only non officer ranks are Private, and Sergeant. There are positions, but those are the only ranks. Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks in advance!

[Berenger]

I'll reply in red directly in the quote.


I have to say, I really appreciate the level of scholarship here. I have a few questions I would like to bounce off of you all. I'm really searching for any holes in my logic, incorrect assumptions, and the like. I apologize in advance for the length.

In the setting for my games and novels I am writing there was previously a Wizard Emperor who used magic to cause the region (arable land is roughly the 125% the size of France) to be capable of Roman levels of food production. "Roman levels of food production" were actually not that impressive. The romans never invented an efficient horse collar and the three-field system. It's their knack for logistics and lines of supply that were impressive, not the actual production. He also conquered the entire area. He became a lich and **** started going south, and after time (he was the first necromancer and first lich so nobody knew that was "bad") his martial based generals attempted a coup which failed. some escaped, formed a new kingdom and ensues big giant wasteland in what used to be the breadbasket, undead in the region constantly reform, and now in the winter un cremated dead rise. The previously united region is now separated by this wasteland a sea that takes roughly 500 miles to cross, and several mountain chains. This has lead to the primary sub kingdom being very insular, this is where my story primarily takes place. It is roughly 25k square miles. Sure, why not.

The system of government is very inefficient, which is a feature not a flaw. Basically the Church wields a lot of political influence, but is beholden to know one. Who rules that church? An actual god, a pope, local bishops? The lands are feudal, but can be bought and sold. There are only three "major" cities who each have an elected leader who is elected from a council of nobles. There is a group of knights who everyone pays taxes to that provide magistrate and mediation services between landowners, and also man a small (like less than 100 people, probably more like 50) garrison around each city to help deal with any undead that reanimate during that time of year. Is this some kind of protection racket? Also, who is "everyone"? Even the church? What does the church think of those knights, wouldn't they like that authority for themselves? Their primary mission is to man the fort that borders the wasteland to prevent any intelligent undead from entering the kingdom, and also to guard or warn against an exodus of undead, which has happened a few times over the 3 centuries since the fall of the empire. They also despise and witch hunt any non cleric or paladin magic users. Why? Are there religious reasons? Are those magic users associated with the Lich?

Alright! Now to the meat.

4,000 people for the order of knights, counting non knight soldiers. Realistic number? An "order of knights" can be anything from a handful of individuals to an entire state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Teutonic_Order). If they are enough to fulfill the responsibilities you just lined out depends on the number of undead, their allies (are there militias in the settlements?) and other factors.

Which the low population and food production problems, as well as the synod having the only standing "army" lords rarely war with each other in anything larger than a small skirmish. So lords get taxed and have no significant forces under their direct control? That's not a very typical form of feudalism. Is there a king? Most fighting involves banditry, self defense, or putting down random undead during the winter. As a result the spear is no longer the weapon of choice. No formations, and not of particular use against skeletons or zombies. Instead soldiers are issued a shield, a mace, and a sword or axe. Training emphasizes personal defense as opposed to formations, because most fights are a small number of men, against a small number of unintelligent undead or bandits. Does that sound reasonable? I think it's a horrible idea to give up formations and go in every man for himself. There should be specialized tactics for dealing with unintelligent undead (for example: One or two men with boar spears pin them down while another man uses an axe to smash in the head / sever the neck or whatever has to be done. Or maybe they use ropes and nets to immobilize them walking bones.).

Most nobles are tired of paying taxes to the Synod, because they feel like the only real service they offer is the mediation services, because their hasn't been a threat from the Wastes in a long time. The reason the current government hasn't been overthrown, is that actual warfare tactics are not trained for, and the Synod is really the only "large" group of professional warriors - and they enforce the peace and protect their power. I'm more and more convinced that those are not "feudal" lords as I know them. This will change during the story. Sound reasonable?

Last question, one of the protagonists is basically a 4e warlord (its 13th Age and he's a commander). He is a lieutenant, and is usually going out with only 5-10 soldiers with him. Is "squad" an appropriate term for his element? Also, the only non officer ranks are Private, and Sergeant. There are positions, but those are the only ranks. Does that sound reasonable? If you aim for a "medieval" feel, all those neat ranks and units are anachronisms. There were "Sergeants" but the not in the modern sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant#Usage The persons under your protagonists command may be called a lance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lances_fournies), but I don't think those were intended as combat units for proper battles.

Thanks in advance!

[Tiktakkat]

. . . to be capable of Roman levels of food production.

As Berenger said, but also:
1. Part of the production was because it was the "Roman Warm Era" - the climate was prime for growing crops.
2. Part of the production was because of the latifundia - the massive slave farms.
Do you mean using magic to improve the climate and the productivity of slaves?


. . . ensues big giant wasteland in what used to be the breadbasket, undead in the region constantly reform, and now in the winter un cremated dead rise.

Why exactly does that cause a wasteland, and not just revert the farmland to high quality prairie or forest?


The lands are feudal, but can be bought and sold.

Feudal lands were bought and sold all the time. They were also sub-infeudated and leased all the time.
How exactly do you intend the use of "feudal" here?
Do you know the difference between dictionary feudalism, real examples of feudalism, and manorialism?


. . . and also man a small (like less than 100 people, probably more like 50) garrison around each city to help deal with any undead that reanimate during that time of year.

How much area do these cities occupy? 50 people means a watch strength of maybe 10 to ride circuit around an entire city. That's not very much at all.


Their primary mission is to man the fort . . .

AND they man a fort?

Wait . . . AND provide judicial services?


4,000 people for the order of knights, counting non knight soldiers. Realistic number?

4,000 to garrison a fort, ride circuit on 3 cities (what about other settlements?), and provide judicial services for 25K square miles at Roman population densities . . .
Checking . . .
16/sq. km overall, 26-29 or 39-42 for Italy and the islands, means . . .
40/sq. mile overall to 71.5-105 sq. mile for an area dependent on heavy imports, means . . .
1M-2.625M population . . .
With a core military/judiciary of 4,000.
Do you think that is enough?


Which the low population and food production problems,

Check the numbers above. Your population isn't that low.


As a result the spear is no longer the weapon of choice. No formations, and not of particular use against skeletons or zombies. Instead soldiers are issued a shield, a mace, and a sword or axe. Training emphasizes personal defense as opposed to formations, because most fights are a small number of men, against a small number of unintelligent undead or bandits. Does that sound reasonable?

Why not spears?
Even without formations, you still want a range advantage, particularly on undead that will not have weapons.
If you are going "D20 rules" where skeletons require blunt weapons and zombies require slashing weapons, you would still want some kind of modified halberd/bill/poleaxe with a hammer face instead of a back spike to keep the undead at range.
Mind you, sidearm and shield is more "traditional" for the heroic fantasy concept, but spears and related polearms never really go out of style.


Most nobles are tired of paying taxes to the Synod, because they feel like the only real service they offer is the mediation services, because their hasn't been a threat from the Wastes in a long time. The reason the current government hasn't been overthrown, is that actual warfare tactics are not trained for, and the Synod is really the only "large" group of professional warriors - and they enforce the peace and protect their power. This will change during the story. Sound reasonable?

It is a pretty common trope.
In fact it sounds similar to the Pern novels, where the nobles are tired of paying off the dragonriders for protecting them from a threat from space that only comes every 200 or 400 years but the dragonriders have, well, dragons, and the nobles live in isolated valleys that have made warfare above petty raids pretty much non-existent.

[Knaight]

As Berenger said, but also:
1. Part of the production was because it was the "Roman Warm Era" - the climate was prime for growing crops.
2. Part of the production was because of the latifundia - the massive slave farms.
Do you mean using magic to improve the climate and the productivity of slaves?


There's also the small matter of the Roman conquest of Egypt, which they held for a while. Up until a few years after the construction of the Aswan dam the Nile delta was ridiculously fertile, with multiple extremely good harvesting seasons every year.

[Tiktakkat]

There's also the small matter of the Roman conquest of Egypt, which they held for a while. Up until a few years after the construction of the Aswan dam the Nile delta was ridiculously fertile, with multiple extremely good harvesting seasons every year.

That is more related to how they were able to feed the population of Rome itself, with the massive requirements of the corn dole.
Egypt definitely helped, but they also imported massive amounts from Sardinia, Sicily, Spain, and Tunisia (Carthage).

As it goes, the Nile delta remains ridiculously fertile, it just has significant production diverted to cotton as a cash crop rather than producing grain.

[Storm Bringer]

1)I have to say, I really appreciate the level of scholarship here. I have a few questions I would like to bounce off of you all. I'm really searching for any holes in my logic, incorrect assumptions, and the like. I apologize in advance for the length.

2) In the setting for my games and novels I am writing there was previously a Wizard Emperor who used magic to cause the region (arable land is roughly the 125% the size of France) to be capable of Roman levels of food production. He also conquered the entire area. He became a lich and **** started going south, and after time (he was the first necromancer and first lich so nobody knew that was "bad") his martial based generals attempted a coup which failed. some escaped, formed a new kingdom and ensues big giant wasteland in what used to be the breadbasket, undead in the region constantly reform, and now in the winter un cremated dead rise. The previously united region is now separated by this wasteland a sea that takes roughly 500 miles to cross, and several mountain chains. This has lead to the primary sub kingdom being very insular, this is where my story primarily takes place. It is roughly 25k square miles.

3) The system of government is very inefficient, which is a feature not a flaw. Basically the Church wields a lot of political influence, but is beholden to know one. The lands are feudal, but can be bought and sold. There are only three "major" cities who each have an elected leader who is elected from a council of nobles. There is a group of knights who everyone pays taxes to that provide magistrate and mediation services between landowners, and also man a small (like less than 100 people, probably more like 50) garrison around each city to help deal with any undead that reanimate during that time of year. Their primary mission is to man the fort that borders the wasteland to prevent any intelligent undead from entering the kingdom, and also to guard or warn against an exodus of undead, which has happened a few times over the 3 centuries since the fall of the empire. They also despise and witch hunt any non cleric or paladin magic users.

Alright! Now to the meat.

4 )4,000 people for the order of knights, counting non knight soldiers. Realistic number?

5) Which the low population and food production problems, as well as the synod having the only standing "army" lords rarely war with each other in anything larger than a small skirmish. Most fighting involves banditry, self defense, or putting down random undead during the winter. As a result the spear is no longer the weapon of choice. No formations, and not of particular use against skeletons or zombies. Instead soldiers are issued a shield, a mace, and a sword or axe. Training emphasizes personal defense as opposed to formations, because most fights are a small number of men, against a small number of unintelligent undead or bandits. Does that sound reasonable?

6) Most nobles are tired of paying taxes to the Synod, because they feel like the only real service they offer is the mediation services, because their hasn't been a threat from the Wastes in a long time. The reason the current government hasn't been overthrown, is that actual warfare tactics are not trained for, and the Synod is really the only "large" group of professional warriors - and they enforce the peace and protect their power. This will change during the story. Sound reasonable?

7) Last question, one of the protagonists is basically a 4e warlord (its 13th Age and he's a commander). He is a lieutenant, and is usually going out with only 5-10 soldiers with him. Is "squad" an appropriate term for his element? Also, the only non officer ranks are Private, and Sergeant. There are positions, but those are the only ranks. Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks in advance!




1) thankyou. I try my best, as do the others (who usually do better than me in the scholarship stuff.)

2) people are under this impression that the romans did everything better than later ages and it took until the Renaissance for society, technology and science to recover. That, basically, is plain wrong. To a roman, the engineering skills needed to make a cathedral, with its flying buttresses and large, open interior space were breathtakingly advanced. same goes with things like farming tech, or metallurgy. the reason the romans never made full plate armour was because they simply could not cast or forge steel of that quality in plates that big. I'm don't have actual figures, but I'm pretty sure medieval France was able to support a larger population, with a lower ratio of farmers to non farmers, than roman Gaul did.


3) a religious order of warrior monks that act as mediators in the disputes between powerful parties, and who guards the lands against a threat that the powers that be no longer take seriously, I swear I have heard (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Night%27s_Watch)that before, somewhere (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jedi_Order)....*. other than that, I cant really comment on the political set up, it sounds messy, but I;m sure their were messier systems in real life.


4) well, yhea, it might be. Let me put it this way. The fate of England was decided at the battle of Bosworth by three armies, none of which was much more than 5,000 strong. at the same time, we have battles during the crusades with 20,000 a side.

5) Teamwork is almost always more effective than individual skill. while the small size of the forces involved may make formation fighting less relevant, it would never be irrelevant. And against mindless undead or bandits that had little formal training, formation fighting would be a ace in the hole, to a "Spartans in the flim 300 level.


6) reasonable enough, at least to my ears, so long as either the knights are willing to coerce nobles who withhold their taxes, or the nobles haven't figured out that the while the knights can supress one or two nobles but, they would be unable to actually occupy the kingdom if they all acted in unison.

7) as mentioned "sergeant" didn't have the same meaning back then, being a more general title that covered a larger range than the contemporary rank does. likewise, "lieutenant" and "captain" did not have clearly associated command sizes. A captain was a independent leader and a lieutenant was a junior leader of some sort, but a lieutenant in a large formation might have a bigger command than the captain of a small merc company. ranks like "Major" and "Colonel" weren't used in the Medieval period. In general, the rank structure was less rigid, and more personal (ie. they gabve authority to specific persons they trusted, rather than to commanders in a fixed rank structure).

*

* I'm not disparaging your ideas, because everyone borrows ideas form somewhere, including George Lucas and George R R Martin. just pointing out two well known examples that you may wish to draw ideas form.

[Garimeth]

Thanks for the responses guys!


As Berenger said, but also:
1. Part of the production was because it was the "Roman Warm Era" - the climate was prime for growing crops.
2. Part of the production was because of the latifundia - the massive slave farms.
Do you mean using magic to improve the climate and the productivity of slaves?


The pre collapse used magic to make the land more profitable, as well as skeleton based slave labor from pisoners. The magic "war" lasted a long time, and the excessive use of necromancy basically caused a blight on the land, it is now unable to be farmed.







Feudal lands were bought and sold all the time. They were also sub-infeudated and leased all the time.
How exactly do you intend the use of "feudal" here?
Do you know the difference between dictionary feudalism, real examples of feudalism, and manorialism?
I don't per se. When I'm saying feudal, I'm mostly referring to a landed noble owning the land, which he has serfs work, and in exchange for the cut of their labor, he provides protection and governance. There is no King. The people who survived the rebellion feared too much consolidated power, and as a result made a wonky and ineffective version of governance involving a number of councils, and no actual executive authority outside of the limited amount wielded by the knights. It worked for a while, but the society has outgrown it, and the ramifications of how bad it is set up will be a portion of the story.




How much area do these cities occupy? 50 people means a watch strength of maybe 10 to ride circuit around an entire city. That's not very much at all.
These guys aren't the guardsmen, those are independently staffed and paid by the city itself. Think of these guys as like the knighthood's magistrates/national guard, not the city watch.




AND they man a fort?

Wait . . . AND provide judicial services?



4,000 to garrison a fort, ride circuit on 3 cities (what about other settlements?), and provide judicial services for 25K square miles at Roman population densities . . .
Checking . . .
16/sq. km overall, 26-29 or 39-42 for Italy and the islands, means . . .
40/sq. mile overall to 71.5-105 sq. mile for an area dependent on heavy imports, means . . .
1M-2.625M population . . .
With a core military/judiciary of 4,000.
Do you think that is enough?



Check the numbers above. Your population isn't that low.
Lol, well this is why I'm asking here. So they are not CURRENTLY at Roman levels of density, they used to be. The largest city is like 23k population or so. The other two are more like 10-15k, everything else is fiefdoms and townships. Only the knights themselves, not their soldiers, function as judiciary, and only among disputes involving the nobility for the most part. They police the nobles, the nobles are expected to police their lands. They can request supplemental aid from the knights when they need it. I do want the number to be low, because part of the plot is the failure of an outgrown and inept government, but I need it to be believable that it has sustained itself during the growth of the last 2 centuries or so, and is just now falling apart. What number would you recommend?




Why not spears?
Even without formations, you still want a range advantage, particularly on undead that will not have weapons.
If you are going "D20 rules" where skeletons require blunt weapons and zombies require slashing weapons, you would still want some kind of modified halberd/bill/poleaxe with a hammer face instead of a back spike to keep the undead at range.
Mind you, sidearm and shield is more "traditional" for the heroic fantasy concept, but spears and related polearms never really go out of style.
My reasoning is that the skeletons have to actually be smashed to be stopped, and these are the majority of what they fight. Only the fresh undead would be zombies, and the society cremates their dead to avoid them re-animating. That's why I kind of figured the mace would be the default weapon. Lack of vital signs would reduce the efficacy of spears, but you make a good point about the polearms.



Berenger:


Who rules that church? An actual god, a pope, local bishops? Is this some kind of protection racket? Also, who is "everyone"? Even the church? What does the church think of those knights, wouldn't they like that authority for themselves?

ME: It didn't start out as a protection racket, but it has slowly kind of turned into one. The comparison of Pern's dragonriders is a good one. The knighthood supports the church and vice versa. The church is run by a high priest/priestess. It is somewhat similar in structure to the catholic church.


They also despise and witch hunt any non cleric or paladin magic users. Why? Are there religious reasons? Are those magic users associated with the Lich?
Both. in the setting, magic is magic, but the church has an active propaganda campaign to keep people viewing non church magic as bad, so that everybody who can use magic joins the church.




4,000 people for the order of knights, counting non knight soldiers. Realistic number? An "order of knights" can be anything from a handful of individuals to an entire state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_...Teutonic_Order). If they are enough to fulfill the responsibilities you just lined out depends on the number of undead, their allies (are there militias in the settlements?) and other factors.

The lords of lands can put their people under arms for a time, provided they can pay them and get away with not having those people farming. The individual lords of counties have their own magistrates and guardsmen, think of the knight order as being a combination national guard and supreme court. As far as the number of undead. The average farmer has grown up living with these undead every winter as a fact of life. They build their houses with rooftop ladders and entrances, have long polearms designed to kill the undead besieging their houses (usually a small number) from their rooftops, and also cremate all their dead to prevent them from rising. Basically travel is dangerous, but outside of that its not the biggest threat as long as you keep your wits about you and don't go out alone.


I think it's a horrible idea to give up formations and go in every man for himself. There should be specialized tactics for dealing with unintelligent undead (for example: One or two men with boar spears pin them down while another man uses an axe to smash in the head / sever the neck or whatever has to be done. Or maybe they use ropes and nets to immobilize them walking bones.).

Well, they aren't everyman for themselves, but they aren't lining up in nice little formations either. I like the idea of the boar spear, and Tiktakkat made a great argument for non spear polearms, so I'll look into that.


I'm more and more convinced that those are not "feudal" lords as I know them.

They aren't, but I did a better job of describing them, above, in this post.


If you aim for a "medieval" feel, all those neat ranks and units are anachronisms. There were "Sergeants" but the not in the modern sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant#Usage The persons under your protagonists command may be called a lance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lances_fournies), but I don't think those were intended as combat units for proper battles.

Well, I don't want it to necessarily be "medieval" other than in tech level, they have the printing press, they have clock towers, crossbows are just coming on the scene. I'm going more for fantasy than medieval, but I want it to all make sense, and you know how it is when you've been staring at your own project for months.


1) thankyou. I try my best, as do the others (who usually do better than me in the scholarship stuff.)

2) people are under this impression that the romans did everything better than later ages and it took until the Renaissance for society, technology and science to recover. That, basically, is plain wrong. To a roman, the engineering skills needed to make a cathedral, with its flying buttresses and large, open interior space were breathtakingly advanced. same goes with things like farming tech, or metallurgy. the reason the romans never made full plate armour was because they simply could not cast or forge steel of that quality in plates that big. I'm don't have actual figures, but I'm pretty sure medieval France was able to support a larger population, with a lower ratio of farmers to non farmers, than roman Gaul did.
Ah, yes. I'm really only referring to population desnity and urbanization. In the setting they had the benefit of magically improved massive farmland. That area is now blighted.



3) a religious order of warrior monks that act as mediators in the disputes between powerful parties, and who guards the lands against a threat that the powers that be no longer take seriously, I swear I have heard (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Night%27s_Watch)that before, somewhere (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jedi_Order)....*. other than that, I cant really comment on the political set up, it sounds messy, but I;m sure their were messier systems in real life.

Yeah...my players commented on that as well as the dead rising in the winter thing. I'm actually not a fan of GoT, and if you were to read the actual game transcripts, I think it comes across as fairly different. But of course that's hard to convey in a short amount of space. The example of Pern actually is closer to what I was going for.




4) well, yhea, it might be. Let me put it this way. The fate of England was decided at the battle of Bosworth by three armies, none of which was much more than 5,000 strong. at the same time, we have battles during the crusades with 20,000 a side.

5) Teamwork is almost always more effective than individual skill. while the small size of the forces involved may make formation fighting less relevant, it would never be irrelevant. And against mindless undead or bandits that had little formal training, formation fighting would be a ace in the hole, to a "Spartans in the flim 300 level.[/QUOTE]
I don't mean to imply there are NO tactics or formations, simply that not in the traditional sense. I orvided some clarification to my thoughts on the numbers above in a response to Tiktakkat



6) reasonable enough, at least to my ears, so long as either the knights are willing to coerce nobles who withhold their taxes, or the nobles haven't figured out that the while the knights can supress one or two nobles but, they would be unable to actually occupy the kingdom if they all acted in unison.
The knights aren't squeamish about killing or coercing, and I figured on at least a few occasions they have had to go and collect taxes that a noble thought they could withhold.



7) as mentioned "sergeant" didn't have the same meaning back then, being a more general title that covered a larger range than the contemporary rank does. likewise, "lieutenant" and "captain" did not have clearly associated command sizes. A captain was a independent leader and a lieutenant was a junior leader of some sort, but a lieutenant in a large formation might have a bigger command than the captain of a small merc company. ranks like "Major" and "Colonel" weren't used in the Medieval period. In general, the rank structure was less rigid, and more personal (ie. they gabve authority to specific persons they trusted, rather than to commanders in a fixed rank structure).

This is kind of what I was going for. In general there is the idea of the "commander" in charge of everyone, his various captains, and then their lieutenants. A sergeant is just a non officer/noble that has a billet of authority, more a position than a rank. Wasn't sure if the way I was portraying it was anachronistic or not.

I didn't take your comments about Got or Star Wars as disparaging. My players made the GoT comments themselves, but I'm trying to portray them as differently as possible in the actual game and corresponding novel that they don't come across that way. The big difference is in cosmology, political structure, and then the nature of the winter undead and the knights. The knights are a governing body wielding great prestige and power, not the place you send criminals and miscreants. Also the undead rising is a fact of life everyone lives with for almost four months out of the year, not something that happens once every couple of decades. Lastly the order of knights are also kind of like the supreme court, and wield tremendous political power as well.

[Carl]

2) people are under this impression that the romans did everything better than later ages and it took until the Renaissance for society, technology and science to recover. That, basically, is plain wrong. To a roman, the engineering skills needed to make a cathedral, with its flying buttresses and large, open interior space were breathtakingly advanced. same goes with things like farming tech, or metallurgy. the reason the romans never made full plate armour was because they simply could not cast or forge steel of that quality in plates that big. I'm don't have actual figures, but I'm pretty sure medieval France was able to support a larger population, with a lower ratio of farmers to non farmers, than roman Gaul did.


Be careful not to go too far the other way. Roman Concrete for example is still unmatched in it's properties. there are several building built out of it still standing and more we have evidence of that architecturally are still impossible for us to do today using unreinforced concrete, (we can do it with reinforced however). They may not be the Ubermensch's some people treat them as, but they weren't lacking in unique accomplishments that weren't bettered for a long time, (or in the case of roman concrete ever).

[Mr Beer]

Spears are a great weapon against dumb slow zombies - it keeps them at range and they can be used to pin them while another man kills them. Spears with a longish blade can sever limbs (or necks), which is amazing vs. zombies when combined with range. Formations of troops (yes I'm piling in on this one) can use spears to easily and safely fend off zombies - a zombie can maybe move forward with one spear in its torso but not against several. Also spears are cheap and relatively easy to use, which contributed towards them being such a universal battlefield weapon up until rifles completely took over.

[Vinyadan]

I quote Carl about the Romans. There's also the fact that later ages lacked the kind of money and internal market needed to realize certain things. Ever heard of the thermae of Caracalla and Diocletian? They both were civilian structures covering each 120,000 square meters and open to the public. I think this is the big difference with the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages would build a number of structures, but many of them (the fortress, the house of the Cathedral Council, the palace of administration, the palace of the nobles, monasteries) weren't really meant for the people of the city. You had the Cathedral and the market, and that, with some exception, was pretty much it. In Rome, you had temples, market, churches, theatres, amphitheatres, public baths, public toilettes... in a million city with a sprawling sewer, water and road system.
The West had to wait until 1800 to once again have such a city. That gives some credit to the Romans, since they could maintain it for so long.

Anyway, concerning production: remember that the latifund was only possible because the Empire was huge and had no inner taxes for transport of goods within its frontiers. This means that you could make oil in Baetica and sell it in Rome and to the soldiers garrison on the Rhine, and that you could produce pottery in Africa and sell it in Spain, and that was actually how it worked: there was a tendency towards intensive production of the same good in a single place. The Roman farmer wasn't autonomous at all, he worked for different people depending on the time of the year, sometimes not even in agriculture, and bought pottery, textiles and other things with the money he got. The reason why the barbaric invasions (known in non Latin countries as Migration Period) were such a disaster is that they destroyed this marked, annihilated security near seas and rivers (pirates) and couldn't preserve the techniques with which everything was upheld; the work of the monasteries helped preserve part of the agricultural knowledge, but, in many fields, a lot was lost (I think of sculpture and mathematics). IIRC, Baetica lost half its population in the first century of Gothic rule because of these factors.

I'm not saying that the Middle Ages didn't make nice things (Venice, Bologna, Cologne, Paris are all pretty well known), it's just that it was an age of cultural unity and political fragmentation which hampered the realization of certain things, not to say anything of the time needed to complete certain projects: Dome of Milan: 1387-1932, Cologne: 1248-1880, Reims: 1211-1475, Rouen: 1030-1540, Paris: 1163-1344. By comparison, the baths of Diocletian took about 10 years to be built.

[BayardSPSR]

Description of polish cavalry that attacked Ottoman infantry to scout the terrain and enemy. Didn't end well.

First iron clad cohort had attacked the saian of his excellence Serdar. Against it came and engaged with it the levendi of his excellence Serdar and his palace and court Agas. Giauors, though, were all covered in iron, so the sabres were useless, but battle hardened heroes didn't worry. Every one of them had mace, axe or hammer, and started to bash the giaours to the heads, to the faces and arms. Those who had no such weapons, were rending the horses with their sabres. This way, with God's favor, they were forced to retreat, and most of them killed or wounded.

Translation is mine, from there (http://kadrinazi.blogspot.com/2010/04/po-gowach-twarzach-i-rekach-wieden-1683.html).

Fascinating indeed. Observations:

It sounds as though the Poles were conducting a reconnaissance mission with heavy cavalry. Do we know whether these were hussars or just pancerni? Similarly, brief research suggests "levendi" were some kind of marines or naval infantry; is that accurate? Finally, it sounds as though armored units were relatively rare in the Ottoman military, given that their presence among the enemy is considered notable.

@Garimeth: Forces reacting to even small numbers of the enemy will always want to outnumber them - so it's likely that a relatively professional group responding to a few undead or bandits will prefer to gather up as many able-bodied combatants as possible to manage risk. Why fight one-on-one, out of formation, if you don't have to? Even if taken by surprise, it's often going to be a good idea to prioritize coming into some sort of order to defend yourselves rather than being defeated in detail.

[Spiryt]

Fascinating indeed. Observations:

It sounds as though the Poles were conducting a reconnaissance mission with heavy cavalry. Do we know whether these were hussars or just pancerni? Similarly, brief research suggests "levendi" were some kind of marines or naval infantry; is that accurate? Finally, it sounds as though armored units were relatively rare in the Ottoman military, given that their presence among the enemy is considered notable.
.

Sobieski had apparently send hussars, about 100 of them, and less than 100 pancerni joined them spontaneously and voluntarily. So all would be 'iron clad', impossible to tell how very 'ironclad'.

I would have to check more about it, but it appears to be agreed on.

Sobieski had apparently needed those combat reconnaissances a lot, because he send couple of them.

[Tiktakkat]

Thanks for the responses guys!

You're welcome.


The pre collapse used magic to make the land more profitable, as well as skeleton based slave labor from pisoners. The magic "war" lasted a long time, and the excessive use of necromancy basically caused a blight on the land, it is now unable to be farmed.

So then . . . yes.
And then . . . yes, that would cause a rather significant ecological backlash and wasteland rather than a simple return to forest.


I don't per se. When I'm saying feudal, I'm mostly referring to a landed noble owning the land, which he has serfs work, and in exchange for the cut of their labor, he provides protection and governance. There is no King. The people who survived the rebellion feared too much consolidated power, and as a result made a wonky and ineffective version of governance involving a number of councils, and no actual executive authority outside of the limited amount wielded by the knights. It worked for a while, but the society has outgrown it, and the ramifications of how bad it is set up will be a portion of the story.

Okay. That is basically "popular conception feudalism", rather than book definition or historically quirky feudalism.

First, what you have is closer to manorialism, the economic function of estates during the "feudal era", aka Middle Ages, rather than direct feudalism, which refers to exchanging military service for protection and sufficient lands to maintain yourself (and possibly others) as armored warriors (often mounted).

However, even under manorialism there is a great deal of private land ownership over and above the direct feudal fees. I don't recall the numbers offhand, but an English manor could be about 1/3rd serf, 1/3rd tenant, and 1/3 freeholder. The serf MUST stay there, the tenant can leave - if he ever gets out of debt, the freeholder owns his property. The thing is, there was a great deal of crossover between those three, so a serf could be a serf and also own significant property to the point of being able to pay people to do the work he owes for him. A freeholder could be so wealthy as to be entitled to show up for muster as a mounted warrior.

One element of feudalism that may seem odd is that it does not require a king. That is monarchy. For that matter, feudalism can involve and exchange of services other than military. It should also be noted that the head noble owning all the land directly is a specific artifact of England as a result of the conquest by William I. So there is nothing impossible about having limited feudalism under a federal system of councils and the like. In fact, that is closer to what Rome had, with patrons and clients in a "proto-feudal" relationship, while the Tribal Councils and Senate formed the government.

A bit peculiar, maybe slightly anachronistic, but examine history closely and there are precedents for way more than you'd expect.


These guys aren't the guardsmen, those are independently staffed and paid by the city itself. Think of these guys as like the knighthood's magistrates/national guard, not the city watch.

That's a bit less work for them, but you may still want to up their numbers a bit.


Lol, well this is why I'm asking here. So they are not CURRENTLY at Roman levels of density, they used to be. The largest city is like 23k population or so. The other two are more like 10-15k, everything else is fiefdoms and townships. Only the knights themselves, not their soldiers, function as judiciary, and only among disputes involving the nobility for the most part. They police the nobles, the nobles are expected to police their lands. They can request supplemental aid from the knights when they need it. I do want the number to be low, because part of the plot is the failure of an outgrown and inept government, but I need it to be believable that it has sustained itself during the growth of the last 2 centuries or so, and is just now falling apart. What number would you recommend?

Demographics is not an easy thing to work with. As it goes, I am barely above hobbyist level at it, so don't take it as expert.
I would expect a standing military to be at about 2-4% of the population, depending on just how persistent and imminent the threat is.
As a limited judiciary, you need a lot less, maybe round up on your total instead of rounding down.
The bigger thing is make sure you understand just how few you have, and stick with it, rather than start throwing around random "big shots" to support various scenes until you have identified dozens of "important" judges out of 100 senior knights or somesuch, particularly if a rebellion breaks out and you start identifying dozens of knights as being killed.


My reasoning is that the skeletons have to actually be smashed to be stopped, and these are the majority of what they fight. Only the fresh undead would be zombies, and the society cremates their dead to avoid them re-animating. That's why I kind of figured the mace would be the default weapon. Lack of vital signs would reduce the efficacy of spears, but you make a good point about the polearms.

That's a pretty good basis.
My question would then be: why not morningstars?
You get the smashy element, plus a decent end spike to hold mindless undead at range.


For most of these you have reasonable explanations for why things would go outside the "normal" medieval expectations, so even if they aren't totally "realistic", they wouldn't require significant suspension of disbelief to break the immersion.

[fusilier]

This is kind of what I was going for. In general there is the idea of the "commander" in charge of everyone, his various captains, and then their lieutenants. A sergeant is just a non officer/noble that has a billet of authority, more a position than a rank. Wasn't sure if the way I was portraying it was anachronistic or not.

Captain was kind of a general title -- anybody in charge of a "company" was a captain.* That company could be a small 50 man one, or one of several thousand . . .

It's probably better to think of medieval "ranks" as "titles", rather than ranks in the modern sense. A lieutenant was somebody who stood in for the captain when he was away.

So the overall commander of an army would often be a senior captain (seniority based upon several factors, including reputation and the size of the company he could bring). He might be given a title like "captain-general" although other titles were used.

In the renaissance the Italian term Colonello (root of Colonel) was given to a captain in charge of a "column" -- this was something of an ad hoc formation, usually made up of elements from different companies. However, it was a fairly standard size. The title wasn't permanent, it was just granted as long as the captain was in charge of the formation.

A squadra (squadron/squad) was usually 20-25 lances, and was lead by a caposquadra, similar to a corporal, and I think was just a senior man-at-arms. A lance might consist of a man-at-arms supported by a sergeant (and usually at least one other, the size of a lance varied from place to place and over time). All of this information mostly comes from my knowledge of how Italian Condottieri were organized, and while I'm sure there were differences, the general principles are probably the same.

The simple fact of the matter is it doesn't translate easily into modern rank structure -- but if you want to, you can just make something up that does. I think the Romans had a more recognizable rank structure.

*Infantry captains are usually given the lesser appellation "constable", although some were respected enough to be referred to as "captain" in the Renaissance. The really big companies usually contained a mix of mounted forces and infantry.

[BayardSPSR]

"captain-general"

"General" being the adjective, "captain" being the noun. Technically a Lieutenant General (for example) wasn't originally "a general," but "a lieutenant, generally."

[fusilier]

"General" being the adjective, "captain" being the noun. Technically a Lieutenant General (for example) wasn't originally "a general," but "a lieutenant, generally."

Right! :-) In a similar vein a "lieutenant commander" in the navy was originally "lieutenant commanding" (i.e. a lieutenant commanding a ship) -- or something like that.

In the Spanish tercios of the 16th century, the "Sergeant-Major" was the captain of the second company (the captain of the first company was the commander of the tercio). He was responsible for forming the tercio on the field.

Major General, was originally Sergeant Major General.

[Martin Greywolf]

So, my 2 cents.

1) Army ranks

A good name for the unit your character has would be Banner/Bandiere/Banderium, depends on which country writes it down. It's a rather small banner at that, some of the largest ones had about a hundred men, but still. The version I'm familiar with was used in Anjou Hungary, it was a paid-for-service group of soldiers nobles hired full-time. As such, they had the best equipment around, usually meaning heavy cavalry or infantry, or professional crossbowmen.

As for the leader of it, captain is okay. Medieval armies had no proper structure, and I think others have said enough on this. Unless the character is a noble, then he would use his own title (e.g. count, sir, your magnificence) in pretty much all places where you'd expect him to use his military rank.

2) Army size

A pre-industrial country can afford to have at most 5% of its people doing things not related to production. Standing army counts here, nobles not quite (they are administrators and judges too). Clergy goes into this number too, but there usually isn't enough of them around. In times of crisis or certain times of year, you can get more people by raising levies, but those are temporary and not particularly well-trained, which is why they weren't used all that often.

Forcing farmers into an army was done almost never, usually only in desperate situations - not only do those soldiers have low morale and no real training, if you loose them, you're gonna be hungry.

3) Knights and numbers

For comparison, Teutonic order had, at the apex of its power, 400 full knights, 8000 half-brothers and about 20 000 other troops. At Grunwald, they fielded almost all of the knights and half-brothers and some 10 000 soldiers.

The biggest battle of the Middle ages happened at river Sajo (and literally no one in the Western world knows about it), Hungarian army of about 30 000 met Subutai leading a Mongol army of 40 000 - 60 000. Another battle that comes close is Falkirk campaign where English also had 30 000 soldiers.

For area the size of France, total number of troops available will be much higher than 30k, probably something under 100 000 (Cao Cao had total armies size like this in the Three Kingdoms period), but it will be logistically impossible to deploy more than 30 000 of them at one place. How many of these have to be nobles varies - you can go from 1 person in 100 to one in three (Hungary before WW1). Most of these nobles will be relatively poor, no richer than a well-off farmer, and own only a small amount of land.

[BayardSPSR]

For area the size of France, total number of troops available will be much higher than 30k, probably something under 100 000 (Cao Cao had total armies size like this in the Three Kingdoms period), but it will be logistically impossible to deploy more than 30 000 of them at one place.

Probably politically impossible as well - prior to maybe Napoleon, I've never heard of a country succeeding in coming close to mobilizing its entire "available" manpower (with the possible exception of Rome, during civil wars).

[Vitruviansquid]

Why have the nobles in the first place?

The Synod handles protection of the people from threats outside (the undead) and threats inside (magic users/nobles who break the rules). They also do administrative and judicial duties. They have the military strength to remove any opponents or competition, and in your setting have been keeping the nobles on a short leash. So what exactly are the nobles responsible for? If nothing, then why are they tolerated by either the Synod or the people?

[Garimeth]

Spears are a great weapon against dumb slow zombies - it keeps them at range and they can be used to pin them while another man kills them. Spears with a longish blade can sever limbs (or necks), which is amazing vs. zombies when combined with range. Formations of troops (yes I'm piling in on this one) can use spears to easily and safely fend off zombies - a zombie can maybe move forward with one spear in its torso but not against several. Also spears are cheap and relatively easy to use, which contributed towards them being such a universal battlefield weapon up until rifles completely took over.

Somebody else said this also, and I'm familiar with the history of the spear as the go to infantry. I think you guys bring some interesting points about pinning them, but skeletons, not zombies, are the main undead that are fought. By the time the winter comes to reanimate the dead, most of the flesh is gone, or has been eaten by wild animals, and the bones reform to animate. I'm not as sold on spears working well on skeletons. I DO think that the reach argument makes a good case for a versatile polearm though. Thoughts?


@Garimeth: Forces reacting to even small numbers of the enemy will always want to outnumber them - so it's likely that a relatively professional group responding to a few undead or bandits will prefer to gather up as many able-bodied combatants as possible to manage risk. Why fight one-on-one, out of formation, if you don't have to? Even if taken by surprise, it's often going to be a good idea to prioritize coming into some sort of order to defend yourselves rather than being defeated in detail.

Yeah I didn't mean to give the impression these guys are going out massively outnumbered and dueling. They go out in groups of around 10, and typically encounter no more undead at once than maybe a family that died of disease at a farm or something. I agree that you will want to outnumber them, but there is also the matter of paying, equipping, and training them. The lack of formations is more to imply the lack of large, organized warfare against an intelligent foe.


Why have the nobles in the first place?

The Synod handles protection of the people from threats outside (the undead) and threats inside (magic users/nobles who break the rules). They also do administrative and judicial duties. They have the military strength to remove any opponents or competition, and in your setting have been keeping the nobles on a short leash. So what exactly are the nobles responsible for? If nothing, then why are they tolerated by either the Synod or the people?
So the nobles actually handle most of the day to day governance, and they are really only nobles because of the owning land, and the responsibility they have for those that live on that land. In general the nobles in my setting treat their people about as well as you might expect a modern day rich person to treat poor people. Neither the people, nor the Synod, have much to tolerate in the forms of crazy abuse and the nobles actually do most of the decentralized government stuff.

Also the pre-collapse system of governance was a more normal feudalism, and this kind of grew out of that being combined with an intense fear of centralized power, which is what the increased growth and authority of the Synod would represent.


First, what you have is closer to manorialism, the economic function of estates during the "feudal era", aka Middle Ages, rather than direct feudalism, which refers to exchanging military service for protection and sufficient lands to maintain yourself (and possibly others) as armored warriors (often mounted).

However, even under manorialism there is a great deal of private land ownership over and above the direct feudal fees. I don't recall the numbers offhand, but an English manor could be about 1/3rd serf, 1/3rd tenant, and 1/3 freeholder. The serf MUST stay there, the tenant can leave - if he ever gets out of debt, the freeholder owns his property. The thing is, there was a great deal of crossover between those three, so a serf could be a serf and also own significant property to the point of being able to pay people to do the work he owes for him. A freeholder could be so wealthy as to be entitled to show up for muster as a mounted warrior.

One element of feudalism that may seem odd is that it does not require a king. That is monarchy. For that matter, feudalism can involve and exchange of services other than military. It should also be noted that the head noble owning all the land directly is a specific artifact of England as a result of the conquest by William I. So there is nothing impossible about having limited feudalism under a federal system of councils and the like. In fact, that is closer to what Rome had, with patrons and clients in a "proto-feudal" relationship, while the Tribal Councils and Senate formed the government.

That's closer to what I am imagining. I'll take a closer look at how Rome did things.



That's a pretty good basis.
My question would then be: why not morningstars?
You get the smashy element, plus a decent end spike to hold mindless undead at range.

I like the Morningstar idea, can give the setting a more stylized feel for one. I'm not sure that the spikes are really adding that much reach to the weapon though.

EDIT: Thanks for the input guys, this is helping tremendously.

[Max_Killjoy]

Somebody else said this also, and I'm familiar with the history of the spear as the go to infantry. I think you guys bring some interesting points about pinning them, but skeletons, not zombies, are the main undead that are fought. By the time the winter comes to reanimate the dead, most of the flesh is gone, or has been eaten by wild animals, and the bones reform to animate. I'm not as sold on spears working well on skeletons. I DO think that the reach argument makes a good case for a versatile polearm though. Thoughts?

Ranseur, corseque, or spetum -- long handle, with extra bits to the side of the main blade. The bones of an animate skeleton would easily catch between all those bits, holding it at bay.

Then another guy with something like a bec de corbin, pole hammer, or long mace, uses it to smash the bones until they stop moving, without getting too close.

[Coidzor]

I'm sure even boar spears would see use amongst the common people, and crossguards would become a lot more common on polearms generally.

[Galloglaich]

I'm sure even boar spears would see use amongst the common people, and crossguards would become a lot more common on polearms generally.

Based on evidence we have ranging from graves to documents, by the High-to-Late medieval period, even peasants tended to be pretty well armed and armored compared to how they are portrayed on TV and in RPG's. Even at Wisby, where the outnumbered peasant army were considered by contemporary chroniclers to be poorly equipped, they had pretty good body armor (coat of plates etc.), helmets, and good weapons such as polearms, crossbows etc., as well as a large number of shields and sidearms (mostly swords). Even a large number of such exotic kit (for the time) as gauntlets. I think they found more than 20 gauntlets, and this was just the stuff that was thrown away (i.e. buried with the bodies in a mass grave). We don't have any way of knowing how many of them were wearing armor for sure, since obviously most of them were stripped of valuables before burial, but from period records it's a fairly safe assumption (in my opinion, anyway) that most were well-equipped for battle.

https://www.amazon.com/Armour-Battle-Wisby-Bengt-Thordeman/dp/1891448056



In other news, a few pages back in this thread and in earlier incarnations we were talking about ancient China quite a bit. I think this story is amazing and sounds like it would make a fantastic setting for an RPG:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/05/chinas-great-flood-tests-on-childrens-bones-support-4000-year-old-legend


Analysis of the crushed skeletons of children have revealed that an earthquake 4,000 years ago could be the source of a legendary “great flood” at the dawn of Chinese civilisation.

A Chinese-led team found remnants of a vast landslide, caused by an earthquake, big enough to block the Yellow river in what is now Qinghai province, near Tibet.

Ancient sediments indicated the pent-up river formed a vast lake over several months that eventually breached the dam, unleashing a cataclysm powerful enough to flood land 2,000km (1,200 miles) downstream, the scientists wrote in the journal Science.

The authors put the Yellow river flood at about 1920 BC by carbon dating the skeletons of children in a group of 14 victims found crushed downstream, apparently when their home collapsed in the earthquake. Deep cracks in the ground opened by the quake were filled by mud typical of a flood and indicated that it struck less than a year after the quake.

The flood on Asia’s third-longest river would have been among the worst anywhere in the world in the past 10,000 years and matches tales of a “great flood” that marks the start of Chinese civilisation with the Xia dynasty.

“No scientific evidence has been discovered before” for the legendary flood, lead author Wu Qinglong of Nanjing Normal University told a telephone news conference.

In traditional histories, a hero called Yu eventually tamed the waters by dredging, “earning him the divine mandate to establish the Xia dynasty, the first in Chinese history,” the scientists wrote.

Their finds around the Jishi gorge from about 1900 BC would place the start of the Xia dynasty several centuries later than traditionally thought, around the time of a shift to the bronze age from the stone age along the Yellow river.

Some historians doubt the Xia dynasty existed, reckoning it part of myth-making centuries later to prop up imperial rule. Written records date only from 450 BC.

The evidence of a massive flood in line with the legend “provides us with a tantalising hint that the Xia dynasty might really have existed”, said one of the authors, David Cohen of National Taiwan University.

Deluges feature in many traditions, from Hindu texts to the biblical story of Noah. In pre-history, floods were probably frequent as ice sheets melted after the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, raising sea levels.

[Hoosigander]

In other news, a few pages back in this thread and in earlier incarnations we were talking about ancient China quite a bit. I think this story is amazing and sounds like it would make a fantastic setting for an RPG:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/05/chinas-great-flood-tests-on-childrens-bones-support-4000-year-old-legend

Thanks for that fascinating article, I agree that Bronze Age China would be a great RPG setting. However, I'm skeptical of drawing a link between this flood and the Xia dynasty, as some of the scholars interviewed in this article do. There seems to be a tendency among some archaeologists to try and fit any bronze age finds from North China into the traditional historical sources like theBook of Documents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Documents), the Bamboo Annals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_Annals), and the famous Records of the Grand Historian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_of_the_Grand_Historian), all of which are much much younger than the time period the Xia supposedly flourished. In addition none of the Shang oracle bones mention the Xia dynasty, which they are supposed to have conquered. Some scholars have noted the parallels between the story of the fall of the Xia and the fall of the Shang and suggested it was ideologically useful to have an early dynasty to show the Shang doing to them, what the Zhou did to the Shang.

People have been proposing links between the Erlitou Culture (http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln270/SanDaiChronology.htm) and the Xia since the 70s. Even if we choose to call the Erlitou Culture "Xia," what significance could that have since we cannot responsibly use the king lists and other information in the traditional accounts from a thousand years later? Now, past generations of historical skeptics were wrong about the Shang since we have the oracle bones, which confirm many of the names of the kings mentioned in the later sources. But I believe that, unless more concrete evidence emerges, debating whether this piece or that piece of archaeological evidence is related to the Xia is a less useful endeavour than trying to understand the archaeological remains on their own terms.

Another good article on this topic, with a little more of the contrasting opinion: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/massive-flood-may-have-led-chinas-earliest-empire

[BayardSPSR]

However, I'm skeptical of drawing a link between this flood and the Xia dynasty, as some of the scholars interviewed in this article do.

There is considerable political value in interpreting evidence as confirmation of the foundation myths of your society, especially if you can draw a connection between those myths and your present society. Especially if you're in a country why "harmony" is something your government is actively promoting as a national value.

[Carl]

Sooo, interesting question for everyone, working on a D&D 3.5 rework and one aspect i want to handle is parrying with weapons as a default mechanism. But i could do with a bit of advice on exactly how high to set some of the values. I'll provide a link to the D&D 3.5 weapons table on the SRD in a moment but i figured i might as well lay down some initial points and clarifications.

1. I don't need you to go produce your own tables, (well unless you feel like doing so), just getting enough general idea's t extrapolate helps.

2. As allways D&D naming conventions are a bit odd. Also D&D has some made up weapons, not all of which make total sense outside of rule of cool, do your best here.

3. The scale runs from 0-5 and needs values for both being used to attack with and (in the case of 1-handed weapons only), when used in the offhand soely as a parrying tool, (if any weapon could resonably be used to parry with and attack with in the off hand at the same time feel free to point that out.

4. I know there's a fair degree of variance in specific weapon vs weapon matchups. I'm not looking for values that are super acurratte in every matchup, more a "this weapon is generally better in most scenarios".

5. Ignore the shield entries, i've totally re-worked shields so they now come i 3 categories, light (e.g. buckler and similar), medium (target's, kite shields, and pretty much anything else bigger than a light but smaller than a heavy), Heavy (Scutum or anything of a similar size). With current values being set at 2 for light, 3 for medium, and 5 for heavy. That should provide you with a baseline to work with.

D&D 3.5 Table linky: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

[Kiero]

Were mail shirts really a thing? By which I mean fine coats of mail, like a vest, worn under a doublet or other garment, to protect against assassination attempts.

I'm reading some G A Henty, and his protagonists whether from the 16th century or anywhere up to 19th century seem to favour them whenever they are afraid their enemies are going to send some thugs to murder them in a back alley.

While I don't doubt it was technically possible to have someone manufacture one at great expense, was it really done?

[Max_Killjoy]

Were mail shirts really a thing? By which I mean fine coats of mail, like a vest, worn under a doublet or other garment, to protect against assassination attempts.

I'm reading some G A Henty, and his protagonists whether from the 16th century or anywhere up to 19th century seem to favour them whenever they are afraid their enemies are going to send some thugs to murder them in a back alley.

While I don't doubt it was technically possible to have someone manufacture one at great expense, was it really done?


Yes.


This is also why you see both museum examples of, and paintings that appear to feature "important" people in, these shirts with little rivets or studs in them -- on the inside, fixed to the cloth or leather, are little metal plates. Finely made, somewhat stealthy brigandine.

[Galloglaich]

Sooo, interesting question for everyone, working on a D&D 3.5 rework and one aspect i want to handle is parrying with weapons as a default mechanism. But i could do with a bit of advice on exactly how high to set some of the values. I'll provide a link to the D&D 3.5 weapons table on the SRD in a moment but i figured i might as well lay down some initial points and clarifications.

1. I don't need you to go produce your own tables, (well unless you feel like doing so), just getting enough general idea's t extrapolate helps.

2. As allways D&D naming conventions are a bit odd. Also D&D has some made up weapons, not all of which make total sense outside of rule of cool, do your best here.

3. The scale runs from 0-5 and needs values for both being used to attack with and (in the case of 1-handed weapons only), when used in the offhand soely as a parrying tool, (if any weapon could resonably be used to parry with and attack with in the off hand at the same time feel free to point that out.

4. I know there's a fair degree of variance in specific weapon vs weapon matchups. I'm not looking for values that are super acurratte in every matchup, more a "this weapon is generally better in most scenarios".

5. Ignore the shield entries, i've totally re-worked shields so they now come i 3 categories, light (e.g. buckler and similar), medium (target's, kite shields, and pretty much anything else bigger than a light but smaller than a heavy), Heavy (Scutum or anything of a similar size). With current values being set at 2 for light, 3 for medium, and 5 for heavy. That should provide you with a baseline to work with.

D&D 3.5 Table linky: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

I did basically exactly this already (rating for defensive value) in my Codex weapons book about 5 years ago. I'd link it but I already linked it upthread a couple of pages answering a similar question. Seems to be coming up a lot lately. Anyway it's in my sigline too, just look for the weapons book specifically if you are interested.

G

[Brother Oni]

Were mail shirts really a thing? By which I mean fine coats of mail, like a vest, worn under a doublet or other garment, to protect against assassination attempts.

Yes. I believe there was a greeting that involved checking whether the other person was wearing mail under their clothes (hugging I think?).
As mentioned earlier in the thread, there was a prohibition on civilian wearing of armour in towns, since armed young men going out drinking got into enough trouble without armour bolstering their courage. In the UK, there was a statute from 1313 which forbids the wearing of armour while in Parliament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_forbidding_Bearing_of_Armour) and like many archaic UK laws, this is still in force. I'm sure other people here can cite references for other countries (I'm sure Galloglaich knows of some from Germany).

In popular culture, the Red Wedding scene in Game of Thrones shows how easily a mail shirt can be worn under layers of clothing.

In non-western culture, mail sewn inbetween layers of cloth were also popular in Japan:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Kusari_katabira.JPG


As Max_Killjoy said, other disguised or less obvious armour types were also common - coat of plates were more obvious, but jack of plates were much more inconspicuous. I concede that at the time, they would be more obvious since people would be more familiar with them, but fashion styles seemed to go for multiple layers, helping their concealment.

http://img11.deviantart.net/308c/i/2010/135/3/7/coat_of_plates_by_theholywenzel.jpg
http://www.medieval-market.com/img/plates_hardened_type_2_3.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Jack_of_plate%2C_English_or_Scottish%2C_c1590%2C_R oyal_Armoury%2C_Leeds.JPG

[Galloglaich]

Yes. I believe there was a greeting that involved checking whether the other person was wearing mail under their clothes (hugging I think?).
As mentioned earlier in the thread, there was a prohibition on civilian wearing of armour in towns, since armed young men going out drinking got into enough trouble without armour bolstering their courage. In the UK, there was a statute from 1313 which forbids the wearing of armour while in Parliament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_forbidding_Bearing_of_Armour) and like many archaic UK laws, this is still in force. I'm sure other people here can cite references for other countries (I'm sure Galloglaich knows of some from Germany).

In popular culture, the Red Wedding scene in Game of Thrones shows how easily a mail shirt can be worn under layers of clothing.

In non-western culture, mail sewn inbetween layers of cloth were also popular in Japan:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Kusari_katabira.JPG


As Max_Killjoy said, other disguised or less obvious armour types were also common - coat of plates were more obvious, but jack of plates were much more inconspicuous. I concede that at the time, they would be more obvious since people would be more familiar with them, but fashion styles seemed to go for multiple layers, helping their concealment.

http://img11.deviantart.net/308c/i/2010/135/3/7/coat_of_plates_by_theholywenzel.jpg
http://www.medieval-market.com/img/plates_hardened_type_2_3.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Jack_of_plate%2C_English_or_Scottish%2C_c1590%2C_R oyal_Armoury%2C_Leeds.JPG

In the 16th century civilian clothing for middle class and elites mimicked the military attire as well in terms of how it was cut and so on, which probably made it easier to conceal armor under the clothes. It seems to have been a routine practice in Italy as early as the 15th Century, to wear mail under civilian clothes.


G

[Spiryt]

Wasn't Saladin saved from an assassination attempt due to some presumably fine mail hidden under clothing?

I seem to recall that story of one of attempts to kill him, but I can't find the source?

[spineyrequiem]

Wasn't Saladin saved from an assassination attempt due to some presumably fine mail hidden under clothing?

I seem to recall that story of one of attempts to kill him, but I can't find the source?

I have a feeling he was actually wearing a kazaghand, a kind of coat incorporating one or two layers of mail and up to three layers of padding. One of my mates has made one and I can tell you it is impossible to tell it's armour unless you pick it up and feel how absurdly heavy it is. Or notice the bulk, but as it's an overcoat it's not so visible.

[Vinyadan]

I do recall the story of a petty thief who introduced himself into the house of a Grandee of Spain, was mistaken for a famous bullfighter and was asked to fight a bull that same evening, and only saved himself because of the silver platter from the Grandee's house that he was hiding under his coat.

[Hoosigander]

There is considerable political value in interpreting evidence as confirmation of the foundation myths of your society, especially if you can draw a connection between those myths and your present society. Especially if you're in a country why "harmony" is something your government is actively promoting as a national value.

Indeed, one can see a similar process (without the authoritarian government) at work when reports in the press of any discovery relating to 6th century Britain immediately try to connect it to King Arthur. It must be said that Chinese archaeologists have been doing a lot of interesting work on Bronze age cultures outside the Yellow River region, complicating the traditional picture of how Chinese civilization emerged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanxingdui
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wucheng_culture

[Martin Greywolf]

Wasn't Saladin saved from an assassination attempt due to some presumably fine mail hidden under clothing?

I seem to recall that story of one of attempts to kill him, but I can't find the source?

Can't remember the source, but it was actually his biographer, they came under an attack and the guy caught an arrow or thrust in the torso (didn't penetrate, just knocked the wind out of him). Saladin was a bit worried he's dead or hurt, but he just pointed out to him he was wearing a mail shirt sewn into his upper clothes. Interesting bit was that he referren to the mail specifically as Frenk (i.e. Crusader/European) armor.

[Mr Beer]

Somebody else said this also, and I'm familiar with the history of the spear as the go to infantry. I think you guys bring some interesting points about pinning them, but skeletons, not zombies, are the main undead that are fought. By the time the winter comes to reanimate the dead, most of the flesh is gone, or has been eaten by wild animals, and the bones reform to animate. I'm not as sold on spears working well on skeletons. I DO think that the reach argument makes a good case for a versatile polearm though. Thoughts?

OK, well a double hammer head with a spear/spike facing out should do the job.

You have a spear, which is useful for all the things a spear is good for, the hammers can be used to smash the skeleton apart and with a double hammer head, you effectively have crossguards that prevent the skeletons from closing on the wielder.

[GraaEminense]

OK, well a double hammer head with a spear/spike facing out should do the job.

You have a spear, which is useful for all the things a spear is good for, the hammers can be used to smash the skeleton apart and with a double hammer head, you effectively have crossguards that prevent the skeletons from closing on the wielder.
If you're in fantasyland and need a tool for all your non-ranged-weapon-using-Undead needs, this is it:

http://www.tournamentofthephoenix.com/images/jeff_pollaxe_stant.jpg

[Martin Greywolf]

If you're in fantasyland and need a tool for all your non-ranged-weapon-using-Undead needs, this is it:

--pollaxin' it--

Eh, for guys in heavy armor sure, but for the less rich, halberd is probably a better choice, if we're not limited by slightly stupid DnD classification of axe as slashing weapon - if anything, it's a hacking, or slashing/bludgeoning weapon. Halberd combines axe, anti-armor spike and spear int one economy package, which is why it was popular. It straight up looses horribly against a spear (spear is a lighter, quicker and nimbler weapon), but once armor enters the field, or we have things that stabs can't hurt, it rules the day.

As for why for the not quite so rich, well, it's longer than a pollaxe, allowing you to keep the enemy cutty stabby bits far away from own face, which is kinda important if you don't have good armor. In formation, you can use it as a winged spear to pin skeletons at range while your second-rank friends pummel them with heavy blows. This would be even more effective against skeletons, since they would have a hard time getting through by sheer weight - bones don't weight all that much.

[Tobtor]

Based on evidence we have ranging from graves to documents, by the High-to-Late medieval period, even peasants tended to be pretty well armed and armoured compared to how they are portrayed on TV and in RPG's. Even at Wisby, where the outnumbered peasant army were considered by contemporary chroniclers to be poorly equipped, they had pretty good body armor (coat of plates etc.), helmets, and good weapons such as polearms, crossbows etc., as well as a large number of shields and sidearms (mostly swords). Even a large number of such exotic kit (for the time) as gauntlets. I think they found more than 20 gauntlets, and this was just the stuff that was thrown away (i.e. buried with the bodies in a mass grave). We don't have any way of knowing how many of them were wearing armor for sure, since obviously most of them were stripped of valuables before burial, but from period records it's a fairly safe assumption (in my opinion, anyway) that most were well-equipped for battle.


I would respectfully disagree on Visby and what the finds suggest.

Some of the coat of plates are indeed OK quality, but most are little more than strips of iron around the central torso.

In general there isn't that much armour in the find, considering that it is likely that local magnates (knights/squires) participated. While these where likely few, so are the recovered pieces of armour.

Additionally very few helmets were found. While this can partially be explained by stripping (helmets are easy to strip) before burial, it isn't evidence that they had helmets. That remains based on other sources (laws on what peasants had to bring, I will come back to this). A good deal of mail coifs have been found though - and it is possible that some went to battle with only a coif (or indeed nothing).

While it is true that stuff like gauntles and sabatons where also found, but as discussed by Lindybeige here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMrTi79D2Js (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMrTi79D2Js)

Some of the pieces of "armour" are little more than bits of metal added to the clothing. Far from most modern replicas in nicely forged mild steel.

This is important to note: while medieval laws pointed out to a required amount of armour, it didnt point to any quality, it usually just said "iron hat", "body armour" or "a coat of mail". When move move away from the rich in the towns and the knights archaeology suggest that quality was more often than not of a poor quality.

Secondly we know that by 1361 when the Visby battle was fought, the requirement to own weapons (which isnt a requirement to own weapons, but a requirement to show up bearing weapons) was rarely used, as the requirement to show up was largely replaced with taxes. So while the law did stipulate you had to show up with a padded armour and iron helmet, the majority of peasants had for a generation or more paid a sum each year so they didn't have to. Thus it is unlikely they spend money investing in weapons/armour when they are already paying NOT to...

Secondly the military requirement was household based, the peasant could in fact send his son, manservant etc instead (at least in Scandinavian laws I have seen). The major peasants owning land enough to be better equipped would have at least one or two male servants, similarly they might have one or more sons/brothers etc. So even if they had to provide one man in weapons/armour for normal muster, they would be 4-5 adult males per househhold. In situations like the Visby battle all these adult males (between 15-60 years) would have joined. So it is unlikely that they were all fully equipped.

From a 13th century kings saga writing about the near past (within living memory with informants who was present during the events), we have a description of an army were it says "they were two men to each shield" suggesting that only 1/2 the army had shields. This is in a period where shield would be the first piece of defensive weapon you would invest in, before the helmet. Now this is a desperate situation, but so is Visby.

So while when a planned army is attacking I agree the level of armament was decent (at least a helmet for every man, and more than half with some sort of body armour), desperate defences such as Visby, would be 200-400 well armed men, and then alot of poorly armed men (the size of the army is unknown, but around 1.800 Gotlandish peasants died).

[BayardSPSR]

So while when a planned army is attacking I agree the level of armament was decent (at least a helmet for every man, and more than half with some sort of body armour), desperate defences such as Visby, would be 200-400 well armed men, and then alot of poorly armed men (the size of the army is unknown, but around 1.800 Gotlandish peasants died).

Wow, I didn't realize it was that much of a massacre... And thank you for explaining some of the probable reasons why it was such a massacre.

[Tobtor]

Wow, I didn't realize it was that much of a massacre... And thank you for explaining some of the probable reasons why it was such a massacre.

Yes, it was indeed a massacre. Estimate on army size is around 2000-2500 on both sides, so almost the entire Gotlandish army was killed. The number of dead on the Danish side is unknown (with German mercenaries and Danish knights). Estimates range from around a hundred to three hundred. Only few artefacts from these have been recovered.

A good summery of the battle can be read in this thread (written by Björn Hellqvist):

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?2898-Armour-from-the-Battle-of-Wisby-1361

In another thread he (Björn) writes:
"One of the coats-of-plates sport heraldic buckle mounts (IIRC), indicating that the owner was probably a younger member of a Friesian noble family who went the mercenary route and fought on the Danish side. As the Friesian isles aren't the most abundant farming country, it is possible that the family was minor and not very rich, the c-o-p being handed down to a younger son."
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26004&view=previous

[Vinyadan]

How far back can we go with attested symptoms of PTSD due to war activities? I personally can't think of anything before shell-shock and the War Poets (WWI).

[gkathellar]

How far back can we go with attested symptoms of PTSD due to war activities? I personally can't think of anything before shell-shock and the War Poets (WWI).

There's an argument that the Odyssey is at least partially about struggling with combat-PTSD, and an entire form of therapy for veterans centered on the concept. Even if you don't buy that argument, the Classical Greeks did recognize something similar to the modern definition (just as they did with depression, manic-depression, and various other mental health issues). I'd bet that if you look around, other major cultures will have similar accounts.

That said, research increasingly suggests that the use of explosives in warfare are a big factor in PTSD, as they lead to hundreds or sometimes even thousands of minor concussions. Chemical exposure can also have negative effects of this type. A lot of vets struggling with PTSD have spots on their forebrain, especially in special ops, where they love to use small plastic explosives to open locked doors. So it's logical that we'd see a dramatic rise in prevalence around WW1, where explosives were suddenly everywhere.

[Berenger]

How far back can we go with attested symptoms of PTSD due to war activities? I personally can't think of anything before shell-shock and the War Poets (WWI).

There is "Achilles in Vietnam" by Jonathan Shay. It compares PTSD in vietnam veterans and the warriors of the Iliad. I have not yet actually read it, so I can't give any more useful information on this.

For knights, I remember this article: http://sciencenordic.com/violent-knights-feared-posttraumatic-stress - I believe I found it in a previous incarnation of this thread.

[gkathellar]

There is "Achilles in Vietnam" by Jonathan Shay. It compares PTSD in vietnam veterans and the warriors of the Iliad. I have not yet actually read it, so I can't give any more useful information on this.

Ach so, this is what I was referring to. It's very good. The followup, "Odysseus in America," is also excellent.

[Tobtor]

The inability of 'berserkers' to fit in and live "normal" peaceful lives have also at times been attributed to PTSD. I think a few articles on this exists (cant find them atm). The argument is that the normal warrior/hero in the sagas settles and lives normal lives (marries and have children). In contrast berserkers have a difficulty with this, and keeps being angry even bordering paranoid,

I am personally not convinced of the theory, but it exist. If it is of any interest I can try and locate the articles discussing this.

[gkathellar]

The inability of 'berserkers' to fit in and live "normal" peaceful lives have also at times been attributed to PTSD. I think a few articles on this exists (cant find them atm). The argument is that the normal warrior/hero in the sagas settles and lives normal lives (marries and have children). In contrast berserkers have a difficulty with this, and keeps being angry even bordering paranoid,

I am personally not convinced of the theory, but it exist. If it is of any interest I can try and locate the articles discussing this.

Didn't berserkers use something similar to PCP? Being a drug addicted murder machine would be a pretty big contributor to inability to live a normal life.

[Hoosigander]

This is a very interesting article on psychological trauma in the American Civil War.


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ptsd-civil-wars-hidden-legacy-180953652/?no-ist=&page=1

[Storm Bringer]

The inability of 'berserkers' to fit in and live "normal" peaceful lives have also at times been attributed to PTSD. I think a few articles on this exists (cant find them atm). The argument is that the normal warrior/hero in the sagas settles and lives normal lives (marries and have children). In contrast berserkers have a difficulty with this, and keeps being angry even bordering paranoid,

I am personally not convinced of the theory, but it exist. If it is of any interest I can try and locate the articles discussing this.

Lindy has a long video on the subject on berserkers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBUGQkpk3RE&index=14&list=PLzzh7AuEBkEnwByVv24Hzk3Ha8ajdOhUP), and its quite informative.

the TL: DR version:

1) their are people in the Viking sagas who are called "berserkers", but they never "go berserk"

2), Their are people in the sagas that "go berserk", but they are never discibed as "berserkers"

3) Lindy points to a French translation of a Viking saga that translates "berserker" as "champion" (in the sense of "professional warrior who fights as a stand in for his lord in single combats"), which makes a certain kind of sense.

[fusilier]

How far back can we go with attested symptoms of PTSD due to war activities? I personally can't think of anything before shell-shock and the War Poets (WWI).

During the American Civil War the term "cannon fever" was often used for a similar, if primitive, concept. (Although sometimes the term seems to have been a simple substitute for cowardice).

[Hoosigander]

3) Lindy points to a French translation of a Viking saga that translates "berserker" as "champion" (in the sense of "professional warrior who fights as a stand in for his lord in single combats"), which makes a certain kind of sense.

Small nitpick, it's the other way round. An originally French story, Yvain, The Knight of the Lionwhere the French word for Champion is translated as Berserker.

[Tobtor]

Didn't berserkers use something similar to PCP? Being a drug addicted murder machine would be a pretty big contributor to inability to live a normal life.

It is a pretty old theory, and it have no claim.


Lindy has a long video on the subject on berserkers, and its quite informative.

He bases it on a PhD dissertation, which I (or rather my wife) have around somewere. I didnt read it all, but only sections of it.

I slightly disagree with conclusions of the author of the dissertation. There ARE cases of berserkers going "berserk", even though the word isn't used, they go "crazy, howling" etc. Also the Champion/berserker is slightly problematic, as Champion is more frequently translated into "kappa", and some kings have both a group of kappas (fighters/champions) and Berserkers. The beserkers are always more troublesome...

Also Berserkers can roam freely and causes problems by harassing locals, and the hero in the story needs to kill him. Thus "champion" is not quite right.

But generally I agree that Berserkers does not seem to be a group of people relying on either drugs or similar to achieve the results (and that at least not all of them had anything like PTSD, though I think anyone who had might fit well into the Berserker role).

[Vinyadan]

My memory of readings from old Norse gave me the impression that Berserkers were people who gave up on normal society and went out to live in a somewhat weird way, sort of like they were their own kings and only cared about immediate strength relations. These may be the free-range Berserkers which you refer to and go around pestering peasants, some sort of asocial, bellicose rover. (Rereading these sentence, it feels like if I were proposing to translate Berserker with "Asocial Weirdo")
Also, if berserkers don't go berserk, why do I remember the verb berserkganga?

BTW, thanks for the answers, I didn't know there were such an extensive literature on the subject.

[Martin Greywolf]

PTSD was a thing historically, that much is clear. But, PTSD doesn't have to relate to combat, it usually doesn't, in fact. It arises as a result of circumstances that the one experiencing them considers traumatic. This is a very, very important thing.

Thing is, with how widespread PTSD was after WW1 and WW2, you'd expect it to crop up a lot more in old sources than it does. As it is, it appears that historically, PTSD was not as common in soldiers as a result of combat deployments as it is today. There are two chief factors to this.

1) Cultural

Thou shalt not kill. Say what you want about Christianity, but it is the cultural basis of our world. Most tales of PTSD we hear are from people who grew up in a culture heavily influenced by it, and have values that reflect it.

What happens is that you raise a kid and tell him all the time that killing is pretty much the worst thing he can do, that killers are bad etc etc, and then, once he's in his teens, you slap on a helmet and a rifle and send him off to slaughter people. I think we can all agree that this is traumatic all by itself, and while it won't start a full on breakdown at first, it certainly doesn't help.

This is not just a theory, mind - research shows that Romans, who lacked this set of values - didn't suffer from PTSD in this way. Their PTSD was related to the loss of face in public, which their culture held as the most shameful thing you could do, going into combat to redeem themselves actually helped with PTSD, as did decimation (the historical decimation).

2) Nature of combat

Fallout may tell you that war never changes, but it does. A pre-modern battle is a nasty affair, but over fairly quickly, in a matter of days at most. Once it's over, you're not in a lot of danger most of the time, since armies are big, scary things and people tend to avoid starting trouble in them, so you can relax.

This period of relaxation is gone from modern combat, WW1 has omnipresent artillery barrages, modern day sees things like airstrikes and cruise missiles. You could die every second of every minute you are deployed, and you know it. After about six months, well, it takes a toll.

3) Achilles

It's worth noting that Achilles who is given as PTSD example, doesn't suffer PTSD as a result of combat operations, but as a result of loss of face and personal loss - he let his pride get the better of him and his friend/lover died as a result.

You do have other characters having PTSD symptoms in Illiad, though, but! What does Illiad describe? Is it average ancient battle? Well, no, it describes the longest siege ever done, and when you want to see ancient and medieval PTSD symptoms, sieges are where they are most commonly found. This is most likely because a siege is pretty close to modern military campaign in terms of constant danger being a barrage on your psyche.

4) PTSD outside of combat

This one is easy and can be seen a lot. PTSD symptoms as a result of rape, loss of fortune, death of a loved one and so on are well documented in all stories all over the world. While it is a done deal, we should always keep it at the back of our heads when discussing combat-related PTSD specifically.

[Tobtor]

My memory of readings from old Norse gave me the impression that Berserkers were people who gave up on normal society and went out to live in a somewhat weird way, sort of like they were their own kings and only cared about immediate strength relations. These may be the free-range Berserkers which you refer to and go around pestering peasants, some sort of asocial, bellicose rover. (Rereading these sentence, it feels like if I were proposing to translate Berserker with "Asocial Weirdo")

That translation might not be far off. However there are also sources where there seem to be a specific elite group with a common bond which are also "berserkers", these are ossciated with Odin. Likely some variation is present and some changes to the interpretation over time as most descriptions are written in the Christian period, looking back on pagan times (where Odins select warriors might not have been praised...).

Also there is a paralel group called Ulfhedinnar (Ulfhedinn) (ulf=wolf - so ulfskin clad men, and Berserkers bear skins clad men).



Also, if berserkers don't go berserk, why do I remember the verb berserkganga?

There are several instances of Berserkergang (to go berserk), though the word is not used in the same text about the same people who are called berserkers. Hence the two first arguments that it isnt a class/group from lindibeige (and the PhD):
1) their are people in the Viking sagas who are called "berserkers", but they never "go berserk"
2), Their are people in the sagas that "go berserk", but they are never discibed as "berserkers"

However some of the descriptions make it clear that those who go berserk are a specific group of people:

"His men rushed forwards without armour, were as mad as dogs or wolves, bit their shields, and were strong as bears or wild oxen, and killed people at a blow, but neither fire nor iron told upon them. This was called Berserkergang." From Ynglingatal (Snorri Sturlason).

Some scholars thus still hold to the idea that Berserkers where a select elite group of warriors with associated rituals. And this seem to me plausible (at least in some cases).

In some cases however it is used about people who are agressive asocial weirdos, who might or might not have PTSD.


BTW, thanks for the answers, I didn't know there were such an extensive literature on the subject.

Yes, many subject have huge literatures when you go into it.

[Max_Killjoy]

4) PTSD outside of combat

This one is easy and can be seen a lot. PTSD symptoms as a result of rape, loss of fortune, death of a loved one and so on are well documented in all stories all over the world. While it is a done deal, we should always keep it at the back of our heads when discussing combat-related PTSD specifically.

Even the traumatic end of a relationship can result in PTSD-like symptoms (http://degree180.com/a-traumatic-breakup-can-actually-cause-symptoms-of-ptsd/).

[Maquise]

I have a couple of questions:

1. Would it be reasonable to refer to a schiavona as a broadsword? To me it would seem so. (By the way, I would also be interested in any reading concerning the schiavona that anyone has.)

2. How modular were different types of plate armor? Could they be worn piecemeal as the situation required?

[BayardSPSR]

I have a couple of questions:

1. Would it be reasonable to refer to a schiavona as a broadsword? To me it would seem so. (By the way, I would also be interested in any reading concerning the schiavona that anyone has.)

I don't believe it was called a broadsword historically, but reasonable? Sure.


2. How modular were different types of plate armor? Could they be worn piecemeal as the situation required?

I've heard of people changing out certain pieces of armor to optimize it for foot combat vs. jousting, and so on. That said, they are systems made and meant to fit together, so I doubt people would be wearing, I don't know, pauldrons by themselves or something.

[Maquise]

I don't believe it was called a broadsword historically, but reasonable? Sure.

Did it see much use in English-speaking countries? Just curious how the languages could indicate what it was called.

[AMFV]

I think the reason you'd hear less about PTSD in the older world is that the older world was considerably more dangerous. I mean even if you look at Little House in the Big Woods, there's a reference to an Uncle who had "Gone mad from the war", but generally in a more dangerous world PTSD works more like it does in combat, it keeps you alive. Hyper-vigilance in a world where you could get eaten by a Panther as well as killed by a man, isn't a drawback like it is in the modern world. It's an advantage. The ability to quickly suppress emotional stimuli and ignore them is as useful when your entire family dies of the black plague as it is when your entire unit is wiped out. That's why I think you see less accounts of it, because the difference between a combative and warzone danger type environment was a little less pronounced, which made the adaptations that PTSD causes less notable.

[Galloglaich]

Some great posts in the thread, particularly by Tobtor and Brother Oni as well as others, I don't have time to chime in but just wanted to post this link, to a type of road (really a legal category thereof) from medieval German-speaking areas. The Hellweg, (and also the Salzweg too -of which I posted some examples upthread).

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

The German-language wiki probably has a lot more detail but I didn't have time to look. But this is worth noting:

"Their breadth was decreed as an unimpeded passageway a lance's width, about three metres, which the landholders through which the Hellweg passed were required to maintain."

and

"The name Hellweg, connoting the wide "bright" clearway (heller Weg) through the forest, derives from Low German helwech with this same significance. "

This is pertaining to an earlier upthread conversation about medieval travel.

A buddy also turned me on to this book, which looks promising:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184383507X/ref=ox_sc_mini_detail?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3ADN03F2ABAVW

Finally, I remembered a passage from a 19th Century German history, which goes into some of the rituals and rules associated with travel on a Hanseatic vessel, I thought people here might find it interesting. This is from my Baltic book:

When a vessel put into sea, the captain assembled the sailors and passengers and gaves a speech, of which we have this example from the 19th Century German cleric and historian Johannes Janssen: "We are in the hands of God. We are exposed to the winds and waves, sharing the same perils; so we are all equal. We may have to confront tempests or pirates. Innumerable dangers surround us; therefore strict discipline is necessary. Let us commence with prayer, and sing canticles unto God, to obtain a fair wind and a prosperous voyage .” After this, with the general consent, a bailiff, four officers, and a judge, invested with the full right to punish, were selected, and maritime law was established . Cursing was forbidden. No one was allowed to use the devil’s name, to neglect prayer, to go around with lights, to waste food, to encroach on the rights of the quartermaster, to play dice or cards after sunset, to irritate the cook, to interfere with the sailors; all infringements of these regulations are punished by fines . Corporal punishment was meted out for sleeping while on guard, making a disturbance on board, using arms, for theft, and for other misdemeanors. Murder or other felonies were punishable by execution.

At the end of the passage the judge and other authorities summoned all on board, and the former gave up his jurisdiction with the words: “Let us mutually forgive any unpleasantness that may have happened during the passage, and let it be dead and buried. Our judgments have been passed with a sense of justice and right; therefore I beg all to lay aside enmity and swear by bread and salt not to harbor ill-feeling. If anyone thinks, however, that he has a grievance, he must take complaint, according to ancient usage, to the land authorities and demand judgement before sunset.” Everyone then ate bread and salt to seal the bargain in the old pagan manner as a sign of friendship, and the purse containing any fines which had been exacted during the voyage was given to the authorities in the port, allegedly to be distributed among the poor . All of these traditions probably dated back to the earliest days of the Hanse caravans, but continued into the 15th Century.

I'll comment on urban sanitation, PTSD, Berzerkers and Ulfhednar, and Wisby later when I can, maybe tomorrow.

G

[fusilier]

1. Would it be reasonable to refer to a schiavona as a broadsword? To me it would seem so. (By the way, I would also be interested in any reading concerning the schiavona that anyone has.)

The shape of the blade is pretty similar to a broadsword (especially to some Espadas Ancha I've seen).

[BayardSPSR]

Did it see much use in English-speaking countries? Just curious how the languages could indicate what it was called.

George Silver uses the terms "sword," "short sword," "long sword," "back sword" (once), "two handed sword," and "rapier," so my expectation is that around 1600 a schiavona in England would have been called a "sword." Based on this (http://www.thearma.org/essays/broadsword.htm#.V6rWS5MrJZ0), in Italy a schiavona would have usually been referred to as a "spada" (sword), and the term "broadsword" came about in the late 17th century to distinguish other weapons from smallswords.

EDIT: That is, if you're distinguishing it from a "narrow sword," it would be appropriate to describe it as a "broad sword," but no technical term seems to have existed. Swords were swords, until you needed to distinguish them from other swords.

[Martin Greywolf]

I have a couple of questions:

1. Would it be reasonable to refer to a schiavona as a broadsword? To me it would seem so. (By the way, I would also be interested in any reading concerning the schiavona that anyone has.)

2. How modular were different types of plate armor? Could they be worn piecemeal as the situation required?

1) Schiavona

Eh, call it a broadsword, it's perfectly historical. Thing is, period sources use descriptive terms, not prescriptive, they don't have predefined categories to sort swords into, they just throw in a descriptive word and call it a day. If schiavona is a broader sword than the norm, then it's a broadsword. Once you get to, say, British Imperial era, then a broadsword is a officially defined thing that follows regulations.

If you want a better name, Balkan broadsword, or Venetian broadsword both work.

As for the techniques, look at European saber or broadsword techniques - the swords are so similar there will be little difference between them.

2) Modular armor

Not at all. Even putting an Italian helmet on a German plate is a bad idea. Armor was designed to work together, so replacing bits of it with bits from another type is a bad idea.

As for modularity within the same type, only thing you can actually give to another person and expect to work well is the helmet, and even then, your head needs to be of similar size. Other bits of plate are (supposed to be) closely fitted to the individual, they will range from mildly uncomfortable (cuirass) to almost unusable (greaves).

Wearing bits of armor piecemeal is another topic entirely, ant it was possible, and done with some frequency. Replacing helmets was common (kettle hat, sallet and great bascinet could well be in use by a single knight), not putting on arm or leg protection in certain situations could be done but was usually a bad idea, taking off armored gloves was done very frequently.

[snowblizz]

2) Modular armor
[...]
Not at all.
[...]
Other bits of plate are (supposed to be) closely fitted to the individual[...]

There are armours specifically designed to allow this. Allowing you to use a basic set of harness for combat and jousting e.g., by swapping out the cuirass or adding another metal "layer" ontop of it (can't recall exactly which or if both existed), this was of course a specially designed set of harness and pieces.

While a very good armour is fitted indivudually places like Augsburg and Milan also churned out munitions grade armour and pieces you could probably swap around as long as you were mostly the same size. With enough padding you can get away with things. Be fairly close to off-the reacket men's formalwear I'd say. I couldn't help but draw parallells to the two times I have been fitted into a tuxedo, with straps and buckles and padding there is some leeway, however "quality" does suffer.

However, as noted it's far from ideal. The more generic and less fitted the stuff you wear the more the potential exists for vulnerabilities, ie gaps. Though not every type of armour is compatible, the Italian and German "styles" would have a lot of incompatability as Martin notes. As would earlier and later armours too.

In short, it's *very* complicated since it'll depend on the details.

[Galloglaich]

There are armours specifically designed to allow this. Allowing you to use a basic set of harness for combat and jousting e.g., by swapping out the cuirass or adding another metal "layer" ontop of it (can't recall exactly which or if both existed), this was of course a specially designed set of harness and pieces.

While a very good armour is fitted indivudually places like Augsburg and Milan also churned out munitions grade armour and pieces you could probably swap around as long as you were mostly the same size. With enough padding you can get away with things. Be fairly close to off-the reacket men's formalwear I'd say. I couldn't help but draw parallells to the two times I have been fitted into a tuxedo, with straps and buckles and padding there is some leeway, however "quality" does suffer.

However, as noted it's far from ideal. The more generic and less fitted the stuff you wear the more the potential exists for vulnerabilities, ie gaps. Though not every type of armour is compatible, the Italian and German "styles" would have a lot of incompatability as Martin notes. As would earlier and later armours too.

In short, it's *very* complicated since it'll depend on the details.

Keeping in mind that the superb fit of mid-range 15th Century plate harness far eclipsed that of earlier transitional armor say from the 13th Century or early 14th. The clanking and rattling and awkward movement that we see in most modern depictions, including by re-enactors and so on (at least in the US) is what ill-fitting armor looks like. We rarely see harnesses that are truly customized to the individual as harness should be, and when we do see that, it's pretty spectacular and extremely expensive. Like this famous bit of kit.

http://i.imgur.com/rdyvg7S.jpg

In Europe good if not great fitting harness is a bit more common and a bit less expensive, but still quite pricey and rare. Thanks to combat sports like Bohurt we do see quality increasing and prices dropping. But it's nowhere near like the industry that existed when this stuff was actually for life and death.


The armor industry in the 15th Century had gotten so efficient that they could make armor that was well within the price range that even a reasonably well-off peasant could afford. That doesn't mean they actually bought it. Technically, I could afford a $2000 M-14 SOCOM rifle today but that doesn't mean I'll actually buy one. It depends on how badly you need it. Personally I can't rationalize it because all I would use it for is target practice and the very remote possibility of some kind of temporary or permanent societal collapse. It's hard to justify (especially when the wife gets a say in the budget).

But having looked at the numbers even common people, certainly burghers with say a half-citizenship, could afford armor and often had to buy it depending on how stringent the laws were (most towns required you have the actual armor and not pay some tax in lieux of it). Many peasants could also afford good tempered steel armor, apparently, though whether or not they actually had any depended a lot on the region and local customs, what degree of martial traditions remained in the culture.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f4/f8/7e/f4f87e713359a3b7cc5d07c37f00f8b4.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/75/e1/c6/75e1c65c54cf437798ce5649cfc18d18.jpg
Edit - not sure about this one, it might be a modern replica... anybody know?

https://i0.wp.com/media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2f9tzzWLr1qggdq1.jpg

Armor reached a high peak of quality and affordability in the Late Medieval period, which was to the point that to distinguish themselves from the rabble, wealthy nobles and princes routinely had armor covered in gold or silver and artistic scrollwork and actual etchings and so on. Helmets made to look like scary or funny faces and so forth. The basic high quality tempered steel harness was pretty affordable though. In fact Milan's armor industry started to specialize in the beautiful looking parade armor which was steel but untempered, while Augsburg was making more of the basic no-frills but highly functional armor but which was heat-treated.

As an example, check out this bunch of goons from the Amsterdam civic militia in 1531 (Cornelis Anthonisz):


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H6udxhPeZmY/VW1Tl5k63VI/AAAAAAAABZs/0D5xjgNsp0c/s1600/Cornelis%2BAnthonisz._Rot%2BA%2Bvan%2Bde%2Bkloveni ers%252C%2B%2528Amsterdam%252C%2B1531%2529.jpg

G

[snowblizz]

Keeping in mind that the superb fit of mid-range 15th Century plate harness far eclipsed that of earlier transitional armor say from the 13th Century or early 14th. The clanking and rattling and awkward movement that we see in most modern depictions, including by re-enactors and so on (at least in the US) is what ill-fitting armor looks like. We rarely see harnesses that are truly customized to the individual as harness should be, and when we do see that, it's pretty spectacular and extremely expensive. Like this famous bit of kit.

Funnily enough that was an image I was thinking of evoking in my previous reply. Because that is exactly how I'd imagine many of those who decided to go for a budget or more pieced together set of harness might look on the battlefield (or even someone who has upgraded his protection from previous battles, that's still a thing people did right?). Especially that of earlier ages, where harnesses were more...ummm... piecemeal? The transaltional armour. I mean when your basic body armour is a full chain shirt and you add plate for arms and legs and maybe a half plate for the stomach (or coat of plates) then the pieces don't have to be as "made together" as an articulated plate.

Last book on medieaval knights I had (why do these questions always come up 2 weeks after I had to return it to the library?:smallwink:) e.g. had a late 15th century (IIRC 1480s something) gothic style harness pictured which had fairly substantial parts only covered by mail in joints, groin and to the lower back, obviously meant for a rider I'd say. That was a fairly late plate harness I think might be a bit easier to use more modularly. I was actually surpised how much chain was used in such a late example of harness. A reminder that even though incredibly fine pieces like some of Henry VIII Grenwich suits, and ofc the masters on the contient, could be made, it was't always the case.

Sorta on the topic because it came to me while typing. Looting people of their armour *was* a real thing right? The more I read this thread the less sure I become of stuff :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:.

[Galloglaich]

Funnily enough that was an image I was thinking of evoking in my previous reply. Because that is exactly how I'd imagine many of those who decided to go for a budget or more pieced together set of harness might look on the battlefield (or even someone who has upgraded his protection from previous battles, that's still a thing people did right?). Especially that of earlier ages, where harnesses were more...ummm... piecemeal? The transaltional armour. I mean when your basic body armour is a full chain shirt and you add plate for arms and legs and maybe a half plate for the stomach (or coat of plates) then the pieces don't have to be as "made together" as an articulated plate.

Last book on medieaval knights I had (why do these questions always come up 2 weeks after I had to return it to the library?:smallwink:) e.g. had a late 15th century (IIRC 1480s something) gothic style harness pictured which had fairly substantial parts only covered by mail in joints, groin and to the lower back, obviously meant for a rider I'd say. That was a fairly late plate harness I think might be a bit easier to use more modularly. I was actually surpised how much chain was used in such a late example of harness. A reminder that even though incredibly fine pieces like some of Henry VIII Grenwich suits, and ofc the masters on the contient, could be made, it was't always the case.

Sorta on the topic because it came to me while typing. Looting people of their armour *was* a real thing right? The more I read this thread the less sure I become of stuff :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:.

Yes it definitely was, in fact, we were speaking about Swedish (or more specifically, Gotlandish) peasants - apparently Swedish peasants in particular had a lot of armor that they looted from mercenaries working for either the Swedish or (especially) Danish royal authorities. They were using all kinds of sophisticated ambush tactics and their knowledge of local terrain, and evidently became a potent fighting force partly because of all the kit they looted from Danish royal military and well equipped mercenaries from Germany, Italy, Scotland and various other parts of Europe.

Well enough that the peasants as a separate estate were recognized in the Swedish national assembly by the mid 15th Century, one of the few countries in Europe which ever did that.

Some other sources on this though say that a lot of their kit also came from wealthier miners from certain districts. Miners in the medieval period were typically paid quite well, especially miners of precious metals like gold, silver and copper. I'm not sure what they were mining in Sweden but I do know there were several miners uprisings in the 1400's some of which dovetailed into general rebellions against the Danes, who were the nominal rulers of Sweden at that time under the Kalmar Union.


Anyway, to your point, a lot of people did loot armor from the battlefield and presumably in many cases they did indeed use it piecemeal. An ill-fitting breastplate or helmet might still be better than none at all, especially if you have some ability to modify it with the help of a blacksmith or some resourceful field expedient methods.

We even sometimes see plate armor apparently cut up by shears and used to make jack of plates armor, like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Jack_of_plate%2C_English%2C_c1580-90%2C_Royal_Armoury%2C_Leeds.JPG/576px-Jack_of_plate%2C_English%2C_c1580-90%2C_Royal_Armoury%2C_Leeds.JPG

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


Personally though if I was a Swedish peasant and I won a battle against some Danish mercenaries, I'd take what I got to a city like Stockholm, or Wisby, and trade or sell it to armorers in exchange for harness that actually fit me properly.

G

[snowblizz]

Well enough that the peasants as a separate estate were recognized in the Swedish national assembly by the mid 15th Century, one of the few countries in Europe which ever did that. Not just down to being well armed, I believe a number of factors impacted, feudalism not having time to establish itself properly and the "viking heritage" (term used losely, but distance from freeholding peasants with few chieftans to medieaval was short). Weak kingship (partly due to the former). Weak nobility and weak church. Any time one or the other tried to grab positions the other's would ally against whoever went for power. Peasantry becomes a pawn in this really. And the rugged terrain and bad communications certainly doesn't help helping peasants to fight of authority as it were. Gustav Vasa very very skillfully played all sides against each other when establishing "modern Sweden" (the parallells to Henry VIII are many actually, wouldn't too far off to consider him a Swedihs Henry the VIII, though king Gustav was luckier with his issue, that is, in producing them, what oldest son going mad, and IIRC another one too, second son John usurping mad Erik, and having his son Sigismund usurped by his own uncle Karl who would continue the Vasa dynasty. If these were an English dynasty there'd be a very good BBC series on them, like The Tudors, in fact could use half the script for that right off the bat, no wife murdering though). Starting with peasantry that Gustav won over with patriotism, eventually wining the nobility by pretending to promote their interests, the Hanseatic league he wooed with trade rights, crushing the church (although IIRC he managed to promsie them stuff too, more independence or some such). With the riches from that he took apart each of the other "powers", he joined the Danish to beat the Hanseatic league e.g. so much for supporting him.:smallbiggrin: He even went and crushed the same peasant who had first sided with him, so much for being patriotic. As for the nobility Gustav removed the last of the independent large noble holdings of castles, and put many areas under direct and stricter royla control, though if anyone actually gained (lost least) from his reign probably nobles as a group.



Some other sources on this though say that a lot of their kit also came from wealthier miners from certain districts. Miners in the medieval period were typically paid quite well, especially miners of precious metals like gold, silver and copper. I'm not sure what they were mining in Sweden but I do know there were several miners uprisings in the 1400's some of which dovetailed into general rebellions against the Danes, who were the nominal rulers of Sweden at that time under the Kalmar Union.
Iron, copper and from the 1400s some silver. Mainly iron and copper. Sweden provided the majority of the copper to arm the 30YW and pike and shotte period.:smallbiggrin: IIRC silver mine at Sala was pretty significant source of income for one Gustav Vasa who promoted it's expansion, one it's more important periods was around his reign.
Miners had quite good benefits too, part (or total) ownership in mines. One reason was the lack of local knowhow, a lot of outside experts were brought in by Gustav and other kings, which usually meant giving fairly broad concessions in freedom and taxation.

As an aside, one of the more famous Swedish vs Danish medieval battles in 1471 had large amounts of Swedish Upland (a fertile farm dominated region north of Stockholm) peasantry on the "Danish" side.



Personally though if I was a Swedish peasant and I won a battle against some Danish mercenaries, I'd take what I got to a city like Stockholm, or Wisby, and trade or sell it to armorers in exchange for harness that actually fit me properly.

G
Provided you could actually travel around that far. Communications were bad and noone liked people moving around too much. Unless you live on Gotland you're probably not going to Visby very often in your life. The number of decent sized town in medieval Sweden was as I have mentioned before very small compared to continental Europe.

If I drone on a lot about one Gustav Vasa it's becasue I read a book dealing with the period from the view of the common people during summer.:smallwink: Although thanks to this thread I was muttering a lot about some inaccuracies in battle and equipment descriptions.:smalltongue:

Edit: Whew. Almsot lost the post there.

[BayardSPSR]

As an example, check out this bunch of goons from the Amsterdam civic militia in 1531 (Cornelis Anthonisz):


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H6udxhPeZmY/VW1Tl5k63VI/AAAAAAAABZs/0D5xjgNsp0c/s1600/Cornelis%2BAnthonisz._Rot%2BA%2Bvan%2Bde%2Bkloveni ers%252C%2B%2528Amsterdam%252C%2B1531%2529.jpg

This demands the famous image of the same city's militia a century later, for unnecessary context:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt.jpg/737px-The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt.jpg

On a totally different topic, for the purpose of accurately representing present-day military hardware in a near future setting, I've been doing some research on tanks (among other things). This research suggests that prior the introduction of, say, the Leclerc, Western tanks with well-trained human loaders could have a practical rate of fire fully double that of Soviet-style armor with autoloaders (at least in short-term, but I don't believe armored warfare often demands high long-term sustained rates of fire for direct-fire weapons). Can anyone confirm the accuracy of this? And just how much of an advantage would this be in practice? Gaming suggests "huge," but I expect reality to be more complicated.

[Mike_G]

On a totally different topic, for the purpose of accurately representing present-day military hardware in a near future setting, I've been doing some research on tanks (among other things). This research suggests that prior the introduction of, say, the Leclerc, Western tanks with well-trained human loaders could have a practical rate of fire fully double that of Soviet-style armor with autoloaders (at least in short-term, but I don't believe armored warfare often demands high long-term sustained rates of fire for direct-fire weapons). Can anyone confirm the accuracy of this? And just how much of an advantage would this be in practice? Gaming suggests "huge," but I expect reality to be more complicated.

I think it matters less than you think.

Modern MBTs like the Abrams have amazing targeting systems, and a very good gun. You don't need a high rate of fire when your shots are very accurate and very likely to produce a kill. Tanks don't want to lay down a volume of fire, they want a gun that hits what it shoots at and kills what it hits.

That said, the M1 faced a lot of now obsolete Soviet designed tanks in the Iraqi army. And if you put an M1 against a T-72, it's like bringing an assault rifle to a paintball game. I don't know how big an advantage we'd have against the latest Russian MBT.

[BayardSPSR]

I think it matters less than you think.

Modern MBTs like the Abrams have amazing targeting systems, and a very good gun. You don't need a high rate of fire when your shots are very accurate and very likely to produce a kill. Tanks don't want to lay down a volume of fire, they want a gun that hits what it shoots at and kills what it hits.

That said, the M1 faced a lot of now obsolete Soviet designed tanks in the Iraqi army. And if you put an M1 against a T-72, it's like bringing an assault rifle to a paintball game. I don't know how big an advantage we'd have against the latest Russian MBT.

Would you expect the same to apply in situations with lopsided numbers - say, an isolated tank in a defensive position attacked by a platoon? Or would the time required to acquire subsequent targets make the ability to reload quickly irrelevant?

[Tiktakkat]

I think it matters less than you think.

Modern MBTs like the Abrams have amazing targeting systems, and a very good gun. You don't need a high rate of fire when your shots are very accurate and very likely to produce a kill. Tanks don't want to lay down a volume of fire, they want a gun that hits what it shoots at and kills what it hits.

That said, the M1 faced a lot of now obsolete Soviet designed tanks in the Iraqi army. And if you put an M1 against a T-72, it's like bringing an assault rifle to a paintball game. I don't know how big an advantage we'd have against the latest Russian MBT.

I think the circumstance in which it would be relevant is when you face disproportionate numbers.
Like . . . M1s facing off against 3-10 times their numbers of Iraqi T-72s.
Or for that matter theoretical match-ups against current Russian MBTs, with theoretical levels of "full" mobilization and production and all that for the Russians. (And somewhere between the two for the Chinese I expect.)

The M1s would need to get off a good half dozen or so rounds before one of the mass of tanks on the other side got lucky. At least theoretically, since we don't really know for sure what has a reasonable chance of getting a kill on an M1 yet.

Of course once you get past that, you come up with the next critical factor, which is the number of rounds stored on an M1 or other MBT. An M1 carries 40 rounds, so barring an ammunition vehicle rolling right behind it and not getting blown up, it isn't going to sustain that high a rate of fire for particularly long anyway.

[Martin Greywolf]

There are armours specifically designed to allow this. Allowing you to use a basic set of harness for combat and jousting e.g., by swapping out the cuirass or adding another metal "layer" ontop of it (can't recall exactly which or if both existed), this was of course a specially designed set of harness and pieces.

Well, yes, but it's not a truly modular armor, is it? While it is modular in the sense that you can swap out modules, it's not modular in a sense of being made of standardized bits and pieces that fit together and are interchangeable, and the official definition of modularity is the latter.

If we want to put this into TTRPG terms, then a full plate not fitted to you should have penalties to both protectiveness and impeding your movement, especially the latter. You really shouldn't be able to take a guy's fancy cuirass and use it well yourself, unless there's magic involved. That said, this is a lot of math for rules-light systems...

[BayardSPSR]

Well, yes, but it's not a truly modular armor, is it? While it is modular in the sense that you can swap out modules, it's not modular in a sense of being made of standardized bits and pieces that fit together and are interchangeable, and the official definition of modularity is the latter.

Tank analogy, to merge the topics: you can't fire a 125mm HEAT shell through a 100mm barrel. You can fire a 100mm HEAT shell OR a 100mm APFSDS through it, though. The armor - or the weapon+ammunition - is a system.

[Tobtor]

Great posts G and snowblizz- however a few notes:


Many peasants could also afford good tempered steel armor, apparently, though whether or not they actually had any depended a lot on the region and local customs, what degree of martial traditions remained in the culture.

'good tempered steel armour', is really a rarity in the 15th century.

Even Augsburg armour wouldn't all fit modern definitions of the term good tempered steel. Sure by medieval standards, yes. Not by ours.

From this (http://www.oakeshott.org/metal.html) source

"The "steel" used in the age of plate armor, say 1300 to 1650, was quite different from the homogenous refined material in use today. It was a very streaky steel that could vary from wrought iron to medium carbon steel in the same piece and often had a good deal of slag throughout."''

And later

"The carbon content of the steel the armourers had to work with varied from .02 to .8% 6 which equates to low and medium carbon steels today. This would not be consistent throughout the plate. The highest quality material did come close but almost all of the material examined so far exhibits a streaky and inconsistent in nature. This inconsistency would not allow heat treating to achieve a consistent hardness throughout any given piece and would have been the chief challenge to an armorer of the period attempting to produce hard armor on a consistent basis" (my emphasis).

And later:

"It is surmised that possibly carburizing armor was used early in the period of plate armor but abandoned later. There are no clear cut examples where a plate armor item can be identified as having been case hardened after fabrication, but a few where it may be a possibility, the Pembridge Helm being one".

"Later in the 15th and 16th C. armorers achieved more consistent results, such as the Helmshmied family of armorers in Augsburg who between c.1480 and 1551 averaged 240-441 VPH (20.3-44 Rc) on 17 items of their work sampled. Lorenz Helmschmied created one of the most consistent and well hardened pieces yet tested in an Armet (c. 1492), No. 66 Churburg which averaged 525 VPH (abt. 50 Rc)." (note most are very late 15th century or 16th century).

While the average is significantly better than others of the period, and of that of the previous periods, only a few of the pieces of armour qualify for the term "good tempered steel", mostly smaller pieces, and they would still contain more slag than most modern replicas re-enactors buy. So even one of the best smith families in the town most notable for armour in Germany, didn't provide good results for every piece (not something modern producers of mild steel would get away with selling their customers).

While I agree that the top end armour (such as that from Augsburg), have very good properties (though poorer than modern replicas), they are exactly that: the top end.

About personal fitting:

"The vast majority of armor produced throughout the period of armor making would have to have been for "off the rack" purchase".

Of course this is dependent on exact situation, but those vast amounts of armour produced in Italian and German workshops at times, must have been made in several sizes that was then fitted and slightly adjusted to the wearer. Rich merchants and nobles would of course have personally fitted armour, but poor knights, men at arms and lower class merchants and rich farmers might make due with less tailored armour.

We of course we have some representational problems, as most of the preserved armour is the top end (as gild magasines and royal armories comprises of many of our pieces). Thus we need more studies to layman's armour to properly estimate average quality.


Yes it definitely was, in fact, we were speaking about Swedish (or more specifically, Gotlandish) peasants - apparently Swedish peasants in particular had a lot of armor that they looted from mercenaries working for either the Swedish or (especially) Danish royal authorities. They were using all kinds of sophisticated ambush tactics and their knowledge of local terrain, and evidently became a potent fighting force partly because of all the kit they looted from Danish royal military and well equipped mercenaries from Germany, Italy, Scotland and various other parts of Europe.

Swedish peasants and armour would have been different in 1361 than in 1450-1500. All those peasant victories over well armed troops happened after Visby and in the Kalmar period. Thus in 1361 I doubt Gotlandish peasants had had any possibility to gather up stores of armour (I cant think of a Danish-Swedish battle near Gotland in the period before Valdermar's attack).


Well enough that the peasants as a separate estate were recognized in the Swedish national assembly by the mid 15th Century, one of the few countries in Europe which ever did that.

As snowblizz I think this is related to the low degree of feudal organisation in Scandinavia. But also to the tradition of parliaments in the 'things'. Until the 13th century the things (were every free man could speak and at least all freeholders had a wote) was the principal law creating institution. In the 13th century its power decreased greatly and in the 14th (for Sweden) and 15th (for Denmark) their role had been changed into only a court (with very limited influence). The peasantry in Sweden was however so important that it needed to be recognized as an part to be heard.

[BayardSPSR]

Modern MBTs like the Abrams have amazing targeting systems, and a very good gun. You don't need a high rate of fire when your shots are very accurate and very likely to produce a kill. Tanks don't want to lay down a volume of fire, they want a gun that hits what it shoots at and kills what it hits.

Thinking about this further: what if you're in a situation where p(hit) is high, but p(k) isn't (for example, an extensively upgraded Cold War tank that's still relying on a 105mm L7 firing at something newer)?

[snowblizz]

reat posts G and spiryt- however a few notes:

As Spiryt I think this is related to the low degree of feudal organisation in Scandinavia.
I do believe you mean me.:smallconfused:

[Tobtor]

I do believe you mean me.:smallconfused:

Sorry: yes I do mean you.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

That said, the M1 faced a lot of now obsolete Soviet designed tanks in the Iraqi army. And if you put an M1 against a T-72, it's like bringing an assault rifle to a paintball game. I don't know how big an advantage we'd have against the latest Russian MBT.
From memory, most of the Iraqi armour in Desert Storm was knocked out by Apaches and Warthogs (plus their crews simply running away at the first opportunity due to poor morale), there were very few actual tank vs tank battles. And having said that, I'm sure someone will produce stats from somewhere to prove me wrong. :smallbiggrin:

The T-72 was designed as a cheaper alternative to the T-64 (which was great but too expensive for even the USSR to field in great numbers, let alone the rest of the Warsaw Pact, but is really what the current generation of NATO tanks was designed to go up against), and the gun's an absolute beast. By the time they're in Iraq (as the "Lion of Babylon"), they're export models without the better equipment the USSR had built in, or built from kits or "spare parts" bought in order to get around any weapons sales embargos.

[Mike_G]

Thinking about this further: what if you're in a situation where p(hit) is high, but p(k) isn't (for example, an extensively upgraded Cold War tank that's still relying on a 105mm L7 firing at something newer)?

If you're fighting a much better tank, just firing a lot of rounds probably isn't going to do the job. At that point, you have to fight smarter, use concealment and cover, try to get close, to maneuver to get a shot at the side or rear. Work in teams where one tank engages the enemy, and when he turns to face that one, another targets his rear armor. For examples, look at WWII, where one side was often fighting with inferior tanks, and the edge went back and forth as both sides fielded new tanks.

As somebody said earlier, tank ammo is pretty limited, so it's not like you can just lay down fire all day. Spray and pray doesn't work with main guns. Because once you shoot, the target will shoot back, and if the target has better armor your hit won't kill him, but his might kill you.

It not that rate of fire doesn't matter, I just think it doesn't matter as much as a lot of other factors. Tanks need to survive hits, and to deliver enough punch to take out the enemy.

[Thiel]

It's also worth noting that during WWII something like80% of tank on tank duels ended before the loser spotted the winner.

[Max_Killjoy]

Where rate of fire becomes important is when you're outnumbered and defending.

For example, when the Abrams was originally designed, the expectation was that it would be defending against large numbers of Soviet tanks, from a series of fallback positions. Fire off a fast sequence of accurate killing shots, then drop back before the Soviets could organize a concentrated attack on the position, maneuver quickly to new positions, engage Soviet tanks again, etc. This is why it's also seemingly so over-engined -- when it came time to move, it needed to be able to move.

(Meanwhile, the AH-64s and A-10s would be engaging the Soviet tanks as well, taking advantage of the Abrams killing the organic AD assets and the chaos of the Soviets trying to advance into the defense in depth.)



From memory, most of the Iraqi armour in Desert Storm was knocked out by Apaches and Warthogs (plus their crews simply running away at the first opportunity due to poor morale), there were very few actual tank vs tank battles. And having said that, I'm sure someone will produce stats from somewhere to prove me wrong.

Depending on whose claim you believe, in Desert Storm, "the most tanks killed" title goes to the A-10, the F-111, the Bradley, etc, etc, etc... there are dueling claims and dueling stats about that all over the place.

[Beleriphon]

That said, the M1 faced a lot of now obsolete Soviet designed tanks in the Iraqi army. And if you put an M1 against a T-72, it's like bringing an assault rifle to a paintball game. I don't know how big an advantage we'd have against the latest Russian MBT.

Not as much as you might think, the T-14 Armata is considered roughly on par with any other modern MBT. The big thing is it doesn't do "everything" but what it does do it does exceptionally well, which home defense against other tanks. Its equipped with an electronic targeting system similar to an upgraded M1 Abrams, active and passive defenses, and a bunch of other stuff that one expects in a modern MBT. As an aside its autoloader fires upwards of 12 rounds a minute from the main gun, which is pretty good when you consider its a 125mm smoothbore cannon.

One of the wackiest claims is that is invisible to radar and IR detectors. The Russian Defense Minister has noted that they mean Air-to-Ground detection rather than land forces destroying the tank. The claims are questionable on the IR front, but apparently the thing is radar absorbing enough with its paint that it blends into the background when trying to target it with missiles the active missile defense system on board is more than enough to handle anything that does get a lock.


The M1s would need to get off a good half dozen or so rounds before one of the mass of tanks on the other side got lucky. At least theoretically, since we don't really know for sure what has a reasonable chance of getting a kill on an M1 yet.

Another M1. If I recall correctly the only confirmed M1 kills are friendly fire, or having to destroy one during Desert Storm that was disabled somehow.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not as much as you might think, the T-14 Armata is considered roughly on part with any other modern MBT. The big thing is it doesn't do "everything" but what it does do it does exceptionally well. Its equipped with an electronic targeting system similar to an upgraded M1 Abrams, active and passive defenses, and a bunch of other stuff that one expects in a modern MBT. As an aside its autoloader fires upwards of 12 rounds a minute from the main gun, which is pretty good when you consider its a 125mm smoothbore cannon.

One of the wackiest claims is that is invisible to radar and IR detectors. The Russian Defense Minister has noted that they mean Air-to-Ground detection rather than land forces destroying the tank. The claims are questionable on the IR front, but apparently the thing is radar absorbing enough with its paint that it blends into the background when trying to target it with missiles the active missile defense system on board is more than enough to handle anything that does get a lock.

Wacky claims are par for the course on that front...