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

[Vinyadan]

If it helps at all, over here in the rougher parts of the UK, sharpened screwdrivers are often used as weapons - these tend to be of the flat head chisel type, since they slip between the ribs easier.

While your phillips head one does bear a passing resemblance to a rondel dagger, I'd still try and push the screwdriver through a gap in the armour (joints, visor, etc) than try and punch through a helmet or chestplate.

Even better:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/YatesOpener3.jpg

Most authentic polearm used by the Luxembourgish master duellist Canosaup against armoured opponents. I think it's in the Imperial Museum now.

[Incanur]

I think when it comes to this notion that you can hack through, or even stab through plate armor it's really just the long, long persistence of myths originating in the SCA and DnD and LARP and a million bad movies and books and TV shows, and maybe even all the way back to Victorian tropes about armor that weighs 200 lbs and only protects against 'glancing blows'.

Technically, if you're taking this line, it goes back to medieval/Renaissance artwork and texts that depict or describe swords as cutting or piercing plate armor. Armor gets cut through all the time in 15th/16th-century romances, for example.

In five hundred years, scholars may debate whether circa-2000 handguns can actually send people flying backwards. :smallwink:

[Berenger]

In five hundred years, scholars may debate whether circa-2000 handguns can actually send people flying backwards. :smallwink:

The answer will be: "Yes, obviously, they'd drift through space for all eternity!" - until some acient grognard pops in and points out that, back in ye olden days on earth, the whole surface was contaminated by filthy atmosphere and a bone-crushing 1g gravity.

[Knaight]

I think when it comes to this notion that you can hack through, or even stab through plate armor it's really just the long, long persistence of myths originating in the SCA and DnD and LARP and a million bad movies and books and TV shows, and maybe even all the way back to Victorian tropes about armor that weighs 200 lbs and only protects against 'glancing blows'. I think you are really reaching to rationalize what you already believe.

Part of it is that there's documentation out there that suggests that you can stab through armor with a few dedicated pole arms, and that people tend to underestimate just how much better they are at stabbing than the typical sword. Plus, these myths are old - they show up in early literary works all the time, and while contemporary audiences wouldn't have read Lancelot cutting through armor as an indication that they could less educated modern audiences might.

[Galloglaich]

Technically, if you're taking this line, it goes back to medieval/Renaissance artwork and texts that depict or describe swords as cutting or piercing plate armor. Armor gets cut through all the time in 15th/16th-century romances, for example.

In five hundred years, scholars may debate whether circa-2000 handguns can actually send people flying backwards. :smallwink:

I think that is actually a fairly apt analogy. Romances, with a few exceptions, tell stories at roughly the same level of realism as modern American soap operas or action movies - or Romance novels which is what they were more precisely. I don't think we are assuming Sir Lancelot was real etc. This was the expectation of that specific type of literature in the period, as I'm sure you know. Which is why I try to rely on chronicles, letters, personal diaries, fencing manuals, war-books etc., and presumably why you rely on books on military theory.

However, there were a few which were taken more seriously, like Tiran Lo Blanc. He does mention denting some helmets with axes but to do actual killing he seems to always cut the helmet straps.

The real first hand accounts of combat seem to go more like this, where the armor seemed to work well:

The infidel threw his shield in front of him, and laying his spear on his arm he ran swiftly at me, uttering a cry. I approached, having my spear at the thigh, but as I drew near I couched my spear and thrust at his shield, and although he struck at me with his spear in the flank and forearm, I was able to give him such mighty thrust that horse and man fell to the ground. But his spear hung in my armor and hindered me, and I had great difficulty in loosing it and alighting from my horse. By this time he also was dismounted. I had my sword in my hand; he likewise seized his sword, and we advanced and gave each other a mighty blow. The infidel had excellent armour, and though I struck him by the shield he received no injury. Nor did his blows injure me. We then gripped each other and wrestled so long that we fell to the ground side by side. But the infidel was a man of amazing strength. He tore himself from my grasp, and we both raised our bodies until we were kneeling side by side.

I then thrust him from me with my left hand in order to be able to strike at him with my sword, and this I was able to do, for with the thrust his body was so far removed that I was able to cut at his face, and although the blow was not wholly successful, I wounded him so that he swayed and was half-blinded. I then struck him a direct blow in the face and hurled him to the ground, and falling upon him I thrust my sword through his throat, after which I rose to my feet, took his sword, and returned to my horse. The two beasts were standing side by side. They had been worked hard the whole day, and were quite quiet.

When the infidels saw I had conquered they drew off their forces. But the Portuguese and Christians approached and cut off the infidel’s head, and took his spear, and placed the head upon it, and removed his armour. It was a costly suit, made in the heathen fashion, very strong and richly ornamented...

-from the diary of the German knight Jorg von Ehingen, who fought with the Portuguese in 1467


G

[Incanur]

And a later writer described Jorg von Ehingen as having cut the Moorish champion in half or some such. It's a good example of how things get exaggerated and tall tales spread.

[Max_Killjoy]

If it helps at all, over here in the rougher parts of the UK, sharpened screwdrivers are often used as weapons - these tend to be of the flat head chisel type, since they slip between the ribs easier.

While your phillips head one does bear a passing resemblance to a rondel dagger, I'd still try and push the screwdriver through a gap in the armour (joints, visor, etc) than try and punch through a helmet or chestplate.

The "ingenuity" of people who really want to hurt someone as part of their "line of work" is amazing. One might almost think that bans of actual weapons were meaningless.

[Knaight]

The "ingenuity" of people who really want to hurt someone as part of their "line of work" is amazing. One might almost think that bans of actual weapons were meaningless.

If you ignore the way that these people frequently fail to get plenty of weapons and even professional criminals in many places end up with knives instead of guns, sure. "Weapon bans" is a very broad category that can cover everything from restricting nunchucks* to nuclear proliferation treaties, and just ignoring details in a thread dedicated to looking into specific weapon and armor details is just sloppy.

*Also known as low grade clubs significantly less threatening than a baseball bat.

[Max_Killjoy]

Re-reading my statement, it came out more political than I meant -- let's just drop it.

[Knaight]

Re-reading my statement, it came out more political than I meant -- let's just drop it.

Works for me. I'm keeping my description of nunchucks as is, but I'm with you in dropping the rest.

[Pauly]

Technically, if you're taking this line, it goes back to medieval/Renaissance artwork and texts that depict or describe swords as cutting or piercing plate armor. Armor gets cut through all the time in 15th/16th-century romances, for example.

In five hundred years, scholars may debate whether circa-2000 handguns can actually send people flying backwards. :smallwink:

Even then the older Arthurian legends describe duels between two evenly matched plate armored opponents as lasting for hours, with the participants having a rest break before continuing.

The Icelandic sagas also describe duels between armored and equally skilled opponents as lasting for hours too.

Which kind of sounds like the literary equivalent to the extravagantly long fight scenes in early Jackie Chan films to me.

The descriptions of fighters punching through armor is generally used to describe either some superhero or a famous sword of super high quality.
As for the scenes of swords cutting through plate armor I do think it did happen. Lack of modern Quality control and cumulative effect of damage logically means that armor will fail now and then, which of course is really dramatic and worthy of being shown in the tapestries. Whether it is a regular daily occurrence is another question.

[Lemmy]

I saw people commenting on the effectiveness of sword strikes to the helmet... Now I don't know much about swords or meeieval helmets, but I do know this:

It's very possible to seriously injure and even kill someone with an impact to the head that damages no bones (or even skin). Since someone mentioned boxe, remember that whilw still rare, deaths in boxe became MORE frequent after the introduction of padded gloves. Those gloves are meant to protect the boxer's hands, not the opponent's head. This allowed boxers to striker harder and faster, which made concussions and brain damage more common, even though these attacks didn't do as much as break skin.

tl;dr: Just because a helmet stops the impacting object from piercing your skull, that doesn't mean it'll prevent all harm. So yes, a strong enough impact CAN in fact harm or kill someone without breaking their helmet.

Helmets are still very useful, of course... Not only because they do absorb and disperse the energy to a degree, but also because having a concussion is better than having a concussion AND a split skull.

(I've personally seen a helmet save a man's life, but he still had to go to the hospital. The doctor did confirm that if the man weren't using his helmet, he probably wouldn't have even lasted until the ambulance arrived).

On a separate note, I'd say the main reason modern competitions and reenactments have low death rates is because no one is actually trying to kill or even seriously wound anyone.

[Knaight]

Even then the older Arthurian legends describe duels between two evenly matched plate armored opponents as lasting for hours, with the participants having a rest break before continuing.

The older legends tend to describe this with mail, and it's part of the way they're ridiculous. The fights last for hours, the armor gets cut into tatters, eventually a helmet gets cut in half or similar. It's part of a whole series of tropes about characters who were basically the medieval equivalent of superheroes.

[Galloglaich]

I saw people commenting on the effectiveness of sword strikes to the helmet... Now I don't know much about swords or meeieval helmets, but I do know this:

It's very possible to seriously injure and even kill someone with an impact to the head that damages no bones (or even skin). Since someone mentioned boxe, remember that whilw still rare, deaths in boxe became MORE frequent after the introduction of padded gloves. Those gloves are meant to protect the boxer's hands, not the opponent's head. This allowed boxers to striker harder and faster, which made concussions and brain damage more common, even though these attacks didn't do as much as break skin.

tl;dr: Just because a helmet stops the impacting object from piercing your skull, that doesn't mean it'll prevent all harm. So yes, a strong enough impact CAN in fact harm or kill someone without breaking their helmet.

Helmets are still very useful, of course... Not only because they do absorb and disperse the energy to a degree, but also because having a concussion is better than having a concussion AND a split skull.

(I've personally seen a helmet save a man's life, but he still had to go to the hospital. The doctor did confirm that if the man weren't using his helmet, he probably wouldn't have even lasted until the ambulance arrived).

On a separate note, I'd say the main reason modern competitions and reenactments have low death rates is because no one is actually trying to kill or even seriously wound anyone.


I don't think anyone is claiming that you can't hurt somebody through a helmet, but rather that it's really, really hard to do so with a blade, especially a relatively narrow blade like a sword blade.

I'm sorry for repeating those yet again, but I don't understand how people can watch those BOTN videos and still claim that if you hit somebody really hard with your sword you can knock them out or kill them. I doesn't seem to be the reality. Hundreds of guys bash away at each others helmets every time they do one of those tournaments and they have been doing it for many years now, over and over and over again, and yet I don't know of anyone dying. This includes people basically jammed up against a wall or something, unable to defend themselves, being hit by 7 foot poleaxes and the like. How do you square this with the notion that you can hit somebody with your sword and KO them through a typical helmet.


I also really have a hard time jibing my own personal experiences of fencing for 15 years, fighting in 10 tournaments, with nothing to protect my head except fencing masks and not getting KO'd even once.


Yes people can get KO from boxing, because a fist wrapped up in a big boxing gloves is actually a lot better at delivering blunt impact than a sword blade is. Same for a staff, incidentally.

This again, was the purpose of hammer heads on war hammers, poll-hammers, and of flails, maces, and godendags, morgensterns etc.


Blades make crappy hammers. There is a kind of 'paper scissors rock' aspect to medieval weapons. Which is why you get weapons like this

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/56/04/29/5604294182a213e43b3aea44281b734d.jpg


which give you multiple options, smash, pierce, cut, pick, etc.

G

[Galloglaich]

On a separate note, I'd say the main reason modern competitions and reenactments have low death rates is because no one is actually trying to kill or even seriously wound anyone.

I think you should at least go see, if not experience a real one* in real life before you say that. Usually there are some rules like don't aim for the nape of the neck or so on, or don't hit people when they are down, but if you can't tell that they are swinging for the fences in those BoTN videos... when Ukraine is fighting Russia or Poland is fighting Germany, if you don't think they are striking full force then you are just not paying attention.

It's the same in HEMA tournaments, some people do try to be reasonable, but the majority don't know each other, are nervous and hyped up, they want to win and they don't want to be dominated by some strange, they swing hard. And there are always 'head hunters' who try to hurt people. This is why you have to wear extra safety gear at tournaments that most of us don't wear in routine sparring.

Like I said, even with the extra safety gear, I have seen masks caved in, I have also seen people break arms and legs, ribs, collar bones, and not for a lack of caution. It's just tournaments bring out adrenaline etc.


I have been in a lot of real fights on the street and the difference between that and a modern HEMA tournament is basically


No sucker punches (since you know you are in a fight)
That the ref stops the fight at some point in a tournament, and
they don't hit when you are down too much,



but the actual fighting part is basically the same based on my experience.

G


* by real one I mean a real bohurt type tournament or a real HEMA tournament, not some LARP or Ren Faire thing

[Tobtor]

This doesn't match my reading of The Knight in the Blast Furnace. Alan Williams estimates that air-cooled medium-carbon steel is 10% better than modern mild steel.

As I read it he is talking about the central part of the breastplates highest value. That at least fit the measured results. The thing is most breastplates are very unevenly tempered, and when you go into other parts it gets even worse. I havnt seen any actual studies to show it to be better though, more carbon, yes, but hampered by slag, inlusion and uneven distribution of said carbon, the armours will perform worse.



A lot of Italian armor was at least air-cooled medium-carbon steel. Obviously, it depends on the exact place and time.

Indeed it does!


I suspect armors before 1450 or so were often low-quality, and this more or less aligns with prevalence of accounts of piercing armor. But roughly 1450-1600, various armories produced hardened armor that was/is significantly better than modern mild steel. And the stuff of low-carbon steel was usually, though not always, reasonably thick.

Here I am certain Williams would disagree.

According to this discussion (http://archive.is/20120906195250/www.oakeshott.org/metal.html#selection-507.211-507.302) on armour production, the other is told by Williams that "The North Italian makers stopped hardening armor regularly fairly suddenly around 1500-1510". So maybe they only even attempted hardening the produced armours in the period 1450-1500 in italy (in exemption for a few rare cases). But even in this narrow window many armours are untreated or so badly treated that it doesn't compare to mild steel.

The German producers continued for some time, and some made better "average" armour, but I disagree with williams comaprions to modern steels. I havn't seen any replica armours for HEMA/re-enactement etc of "mild steel" reaching the low levels he indicate, he must mean something else by mild steel than do others (maybe more like those car-hoods discussed previously, the yes, I belive the medieval armours to be better).

As I understand modern steel qualities, even poor modern steel reach around 500VPH, while some go as high as 750.

See for instance this comparison (http://myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html) between swords and modern steels (again the ultimate source seem to be Williams):

http://myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_mow_bladehardness03.jpg

It is true some ancient weapons have a higher carbon content, but only the tip reach the hardness of modern steel.

Note that the Helmschmieds from Augburg works averaged 240-441 VPH (see the first linked article), with a few going higher. And they where famed for the craftsmanship. Testing other armours/helmets it seem that most armour parts fall well below this point.

So, yes the weapons do also fall short of being good "modern" steel. Only at the tip the quality is very high, but that is the part that needs to get thoruhg. So when we have many armours of a hardness of maybe 100-150VPH, then a sword with the same hardness, but with a much improved tip might do the trick.


I agree with Incanur on the Milanese armor, most of it was steel from my understanding, going all the way back to the mid 14th Century, just not heat treated the same way as the Augsburg.

See my reply above. Steel (as in amount of carbon) then some of the Milanese, yes until around 150/1510. Not well tempered steel, or steel with out major impurities (including micro impurities not visible to the eye, all over the armour but worse in some parts like the edge of the worked plate stemming from the way it was produced) which further weaken the armour.


You seem to forget that there are other types of armor. Like mail, textile armor, coat of plates and etc.

You should also read the parts uyou didnt quote. Then you would see that I didn't forget that there where other types of armour. I specifically mentions that panzebrecher-types is WORSE at cloth armours (a very common type of armour in the late medieval period) (this also goes with leather armour), and that the are developed after the mail era, suggesting that mail wasn't their target.

I think you are misrepresenting my arguments.


between plates in a coat of plates or brigandine

Panzebrechers have a thicker cross-section and are thus worse for getting through gaps (I think I covered this already, if not my mistake).

They are clearly design to get through something, just like the type 16 arrowhead. If they didn't work on armour why develop them?

Besides your own post have a guy standing while he jams his sword through his oponents PLATE armour, while both of them are standing. Yes, he uses halfswording, and yes the oponent might not die (just as an unarmoured opponent might not die from a knife wound, it is always better to keep going if you hit your opponent, until you are very, very sure he doesn't get you back) - but the manual seem to expect blood to come out....


I have occasionally seen fencing masks collapse under strikes when metal fatigue has worn them out for example

Could be interesting to do metal analysis/strength test on fencing masks to be able to compare.


I think when it comes to this notion that you can hack through, or even stab through plate armor it's really just the long, long persistence of myths originating in the SCA and DnD and LARP and a million bad movies and books and TV shows, and maybe even all the way back to Victorian tropes about armor that weighs 200 lbs and only protects against 'glancing blows'. I think you are really reaching to rationalize what you already believe.

Again you are misrepresenting me: "ohh another person who believes in movies/LARPS". Even when I clearly said that I actually began believing like you do now! See my previous post, just there below the first quote.

The whole thing about romances: On that I agree, literature is a poor source (though sometimes the only available source). But even in more reputedly sources we see people in armour get killed through that armour (plate, helmets, mail etc).

But then again, even medieval history books are nothing more than propaganda and in the end we cant really be sure if we can use them for anything. We can only use them to get an idea of what they believed was credible.

So that is why I have not used them extensively, nor want to discuss one written source's credibility over another (as that will be a long debate).

But clearly people back then believed it was possible to cleave a helmet, we see skeletons with cutting blows to the head (though we cannot prove what helmet they wore), and we see lots of crappy armour around. That might indicate (rather than prove) that it was achievable.

Then as armours get better (1450-1500) we see a desperate attempt to keep it that way (estocs, halfswording etc), but gradually after 1500 armouring is declining again in Italy (and I concede, maybe 50 or 80 years later in Germany). This leave a window of 50-130 year period where you only get through with halfswording and specialised weapons.

[Lemmy]

I don't think anyone is claiming that you can't hurt somebody through a helmet, but rather that it's really, really hard to do so with a blade, especially a relatively narrow blade like a sword blade.

I'm sorry for repeating those yet again, but I don't understand how people can watch those BOTN videos and still claim that if you hit somebody really hard with your sword you can knock them out or kill them. I doesn't seem to be the reality. Hundreds of guys bash away at each others helmets every time they do one of those tournaments and they have been doing it for many years now, over and over and over again, and yet I don't know of anyone dying. This includes people basically jammed up against a wall or something, unable to defend themselves, being hit by 7 foot poleaxes and the like. How do you square this with the notion that you can hit somebody with your sword and KO them through a typical helmet.


I also really have a hard time jibing my own personal experiences of fencing for 15 years, fighting in 10 tournaments, with nothing to protect my head except fencing masks and not getting KO'd even once.


Yes people can get KO from boxing, because a fist wrapped up in a big boxing gloves is actually a lot better at delivering blunt impact than a sword blade is. Same for a staff, incidentally.

This again, was the purpose of hammer heads on war hammers, poll-hammers, and of flails, maces, and godendags, morgensterns etc.


Blades make crappy hammers. There is a kind of 'paper scissors rock' aspect to medieval weapons. Which is why you get weapons like this

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/56/04/29/5604294182a213e43b3aea44281b734d.jpg


which give you multiple options, smash, pierce, cut, pick, etc.

GLike I said, I don't know much about swords or medieval helmets... I've been researching more about it lately since I piqued my interest a while ago, but I'm still just a curious layman. In any case, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm actually agreeing with your points! I'd be rather surprised if swords were able to cut through well-made metal helmets... Between the hardness of the material, the roundish design and the target moving around, it seems like slicing through helmets would be quite difficult. It's also my understanding that swords not only were quite light, but also usually had their center of mass closer the handle than the point, which would make them quite bad at bludgeoning, kinda like a hammer being held by its head and having its handle used to hit the nail.

Like you said, blades make poor hammers... If they didn't, no one would have bothered to create maces and war hammers.

What I meant is that just because there are no bones showing signs of blunt impact, that doesn't mean their deaths weren't cause by bludgeoning weapons... In fact, i'd say that's far more likely than they having been slain by a strong impact from a sword.

[Lemmy]

I think you should at least go see, if not experience a real one* in real life before you say that. Usually there are some rules like don't aim for the nape of the neck or so on, or don't hit people when they are down, but if you can't tell that they are swinging for the fences in those BoTN videos... when Ukraine is fighting Russia or Poland is fighting Germany, if you don't think they are striking full force then you are just not paying attention.Perhaps... But I bet than when someone is too exhausted to keep fighting, knocked unconscious and/or breaks an arm, leg or ribcage, the fighter is safely removed away and given modern medical treatment, rather than being forced to fight for his life.

[Mike_G]

Perhaps... But I bet than when someone is too exhausted to keep fighting, knocked unconscious and/or breaks an arm, leg or ribcage, the fighter is safely removed away and given modern medical treatment, rather than being forced to fight for his life.

But that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of how hard or easy it is to kill a man in armor.

Yeah, it's a sport, so you try to stop short of killing people. If this were a battle, then the guy whom you hit ten times in the head and knocked down would get his helm torn off and his head bashed in or his throat cut. But the blows landing on his helm clearly don't kill him, even the big wind-ups with a seven foot poleaxe.

What even is the point of this post?


.

[Lemmy]

But that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of how hard or easy it is to kill a man in armor.

Yeah, it's a sport, so you try to stop short of killing people. If this were a battle, then the guy whom you hit ten times in the head and knocked down would get his helm torn off and his head bashed in or his throat cut. But the blows landing on his helm clearly don't kill him, even the big wind-ups with a seven foot poleaxe.

What even is the point of this post?Someone used tournaments and reenactments as evidence of how good is the protection offered by helmets. I agreed that helmets are pretty useful, but as an aside mentioned that there are other reasons why there are few, if any, deaths in said tournaments and reenactments. The post you quoted was part of the discussion.

What is even the point of a post asking the point of another post?

[Galloglaich]

Like I said, I don't know much about swords or medieval helmets... I've been researching more about it lately since I piqued my interest a while ago, but I'm still just a curious layman. In any case, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm actually agreeing with your points! I'd be rather surprised if swords were able to cut through well-made metal helmets... Between the hardness of the material, the roundish design and the target moving around, it seems like slicing through helmets would be quite difficult. It's also my understanding that swords not only were quite light, but also usually had their center of mass closer the handle than the point, which would make them quite bad at bludgeoning, kinda like a hammer being held by its head and having its handle used to hit the nail.

Like you said, blades make poor hammers... If they didn't, no one would have bothered to create maces and war hammers.

What I meant is that just because there are no bones showing signs of blunt impact, that doesn't mean their deaths weren't cause by bludgeoning weapons... In fact, i'd say that's far more likely than they having been slain by a strong impact from a sword.

I just don't think the strong impact from the sword can kill people through helmets, if so I'd probably be dead. Strong impact from a hammer or a mace or a godendag, yeah probably. Maybe not routinely or with one hit, but probably sometimes.

G

[Mike_G]

Someone used tournaments and reenactments as evidence of how good is the protection offered by helmets. I agreed that helmets are pretty useful, but as an aside mentioned that there are other reasons why there are few, if any, deaths in said tournaments and reenactments. The post you quoted was part of the discussion.


But nobody ever used the reenactments to say you can't kill a guy in armor. Just that you can't kill him by hitting him on his helm with a sword, because they hit each other on the helms with swords all day and don't die. People upthread were arguing you could kill a man and not dent his helmet. Which is all that G was trying to debate. I'm sure we agree that battles had a higher body count than reenactments.



What is even the point of a post asking the point of another post?

Because in a debate about can a sword cut through armor, discussion of stopping hitting a guy who is down is an irrelevant tangent. If armor is good, you have to knock him down, which doesn't kill him, then if it's a sport, you go collect your trophy and if it's a battle you stab him through the visor slits or take off his helmet and kill him.

But in both battle and reenactment, hitting the top of his helm with a sword is very unlikely to kill anybody, which is the point of the discussion.

[Galloglaich]

As I read it he is talking about the central part of the breastplates highest value. That at least fit the measured results. The thing is most breastplates are very unevenly tempered, and when you go into other parts it gets even worse. I havnt seen any actual studies to show it to be better though, more carbon, yes, but hampered by slag, inlusion and uneven distribution of said carbon, the armours will perform worse.

You don't actually know that without testing them.


According to this discussion (http://archive.is/20120906195250/www.oakeshott.org/metal.html#selection-507.211-507.302) on armour production, the other is told by Williams that "The North Italian makers stopped hardening armor regularly fairly suddenly around 1500-1510".

This is because Milan started specializing in parade armor for nobles, as I mentioned the last time we had this argument. Augsburg became the main center for battlefield armor.



So maybe they only even attempted hardening the produced armours in the period 1450-1500 in italy (in exemption for a few rare cases). But even in this narrow window many armours are untreated or so badly treated that it doesn't compare to mild steel.

Heat treating predates that by at least 50 years in South Germany. And lets not forget, plate armor itself wasn't around all that long, it's a fairly short window.



The German producers continued for some time, and some made better "average" armour, but I disagree with williams comaprions to modern steels. I havn't seen any replica armours for HEMA/re-enactement etc of "mild steel" reaching the low levels he indicate, he must mean something else by mild steel than do others (maybe more like those car-hoods discussed previously, the yes, I belive the medieval armours to be better).

As I understand modern steel qualities, even poor modern steel reach around 500VPH, while some go as high as 750.

I think what you are missing here is that armor isn't meant to be as hard as swords, it actually doesn't perform as well if it's too hard. What you want in armor is toughness and resiliency, that is why they were tempering it.

For that matter, most parts of swords aren't meant to be as hard as for example tool steel or drill bits. Swords are harder than armor but need to be more springy and flexible than tool steels etc.

See for instance this comparison (http://myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html) between swords and modern steels (again the ultimate source seem to be Williams):

http://myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_mow_bladehardness03.jpg

It is true some ancient weapons have a higher carbon content, but only the tip reach the hardness of modern steel. [/quote]

But I think you are missing something, I am not an expert, but guys like Peter Johnsson point out that this is an intentional design feature - like the soft wrought iron spine on a katana. Only the edge of the blade needs to be hard.

In your comparison of old vs. new steel here you are comparing apples to oranges, IMO. The tests that have been done on the antique armor shows it performed very well.




I think you are misrepresenting my arguments.

It's possible, but not intentionally.


Panzebrechers have a thicker cross-section and are thus worse for getting through gaps (I think I covered this already, if not my mistake).

They are clearly design to get through something, just like the type 16 arrowhead. If they didn't work on armour why develop them?

I think what they are intended to penetrate, depends precisely on which type of sword or estoc (or panzerbrecher?) you are referring to. You have a lot of swords kind of in between as well. Swords with stiffened and narrowed points good for thrusting, like many of the Oakeshott type XVI and XVII, XVIIIa and XVIIIb

http://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o673/AlaeSwords/M2-1934_zps56591fde.jpg

http://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o673/AlaeSwords/G49112_zps92849fd3.jpg

Many of these still have sharp edges and still do cut, but not always as well as other types. Paper scissors rock, this is kind of an attempt to have two of the three traits.

From doing a lot of test cutting and general abuse of sword replicas, I think a lot of that shape is to keep the sword from bending or breaking when you are poking it against something very hard like armor, and I do think a pointy sword like that would be good at getting between plates in a brigandine or under a pauldron or a fauld, or through mail. Maybe not textile though that depends on the specific sword.



Besides your own post have a guy standing while he jams his sword through his oponents PLATE armour, while both of them are standing. Yes, he uses halfswording, and yes the oponent might not die (just as an unarmoured opponent might not die from a knife wound, it is always better to keep going if you hit your opponent, until you are very, very sure he doesn't get you back) - but the manual seem to expect blood to come out....

I will concede, with the right kind of sword (like an Oakeshott XVII), in a half-swording grip, using the sword like a spike, you can probably in some cases punch through the weaker parts of the armor, though I haven't read that play, he might be going into a joint in the shoulder (under the pauldrons) or through the mail under the arm. This is what I meant by a special sword with special techniques.







Again you are misrepresenting me: "ohh another person who believes in movies/LARPS". Even when I clearly said that I actually began believing like you do now! See my previous post, just there below the first quote.

Tobtor, Forgive me for giving that impression - I was trying to be careful in what I said, I didn't say YOU were believing in movies / LARPS, I was saying that movies, LARPS, video games, DnD, SCA etc. still influence our culture generally, and this is part of the reason why there is still so much out there justifying it.

I respect your knowledge a great deal especially in archeology and related to Danish and North European pre-historic cultures and I don't mean to misrepresent what you are saying.


So that is why I have not used them extensively, nor want to discuss one written source's credibility over another (as that will be a long debate).

Just don't pick on Jan Dlugosz or Herodotus too much and we'll get along ... ;)




But clearly people back then believed it was possible to cleave a helmet, we see skeletons with cutting blows to the head (though we cannot prove what helmet they wore), and we see lots of crappy armour around. That might indicate (rather than prove) that it was achievable.

Skulls with cutting blows to the head seem pretty rare, we don't see helmets that look like they have been cleaved through very often either, and I question the notion of crappy armor.



Then as armours get better (1450-1500) we see a desperate attempt to keep it that way (estocs, halfswording etc), but gradually after 1500 armouring is declining again in Italy (and I concede, maybe 50 or 80 years later in Germany). This leave a window of 50-130 year period where you only get through with halfswording and specialised weapons.

It also started earlier in Germany, I believe Alan Williams points that out.

Even non-tempered Milanese harness I think would be very hard to damage let alone punch through with a sword. Possible with a two handed half-swording stab with the right sword, maybe... but I doubt very often.

G

[Incanur]

As I read it he is talking about the central part of the breastplates highest value. That at least fit the measured results. The thing is most breastplates are very unevenly tempered, and when you go into other parts it gets even worse.

Air-cooled armor isn't tempered, at least not by how Alan Williams uses the term. Air-cooled armor can't have uneven tempering.


According to this discussion (http://archive.is/20120906195250/www.oakeshott.org/metal.html#selection-507.211-507.302) on armour production, the other is told by Williams that "The North Italian makers stopped hardening armor regularly fairly suddenly around 1500-1510". So maybe they only even attempted hardening the produced armours in the period 1450-1500 in italy (in exemption for a few rare cases). But even in this narrow window many armours are untreated or so badly treated that it doesn't compare to mild steel.

Again, air-cooled medium-carbon steel is still 10% harder to penetrate than modern mild steel. Good Italian armor was medium-carbon steel after they stopped quenching and tempering. And other places still used full heat treatment after Italian manufacturers stopped, such as in various German towns and at Greenwich in England (after 1560).


I havn't seen any replica armours for HEMA/re-enactement etc of "mild steel" reaching the low levels he indicate, he must mean something else by mild steel than do others

Williams's mild steel has a carbon content of 0.1-0.15%. Many definitions go as low as 0.05% or as high as 0.3%, so yeah, there's variation. "Mild steel 3" is apparently (https://www.facebook.com/BattleoftheNations/photos/a.486341224043.273518.206676754043/10152150290414044/) common for HMB, but I'm not sure exactly what that means. They do use hardened steels, but it looks like mild steel is steel the most common because it's cheaper.

Based on that same link, HMB armor isn't terribly thick compared with historical armor. 2-2.5mm helmets are common. Some historical helmets of hardened steel were 1.4-1.5mm (circa 1500), but other helmets were thicker, up to 4.57mm at peak on some circa-1375 bascinets (http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/12/armor-vs-muscle.html). So HMB helmets are definitely thicker than some historical heavy-infantry and heavy-cavalry helmets, but not necessarily thicker than all of them.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah the many different types of heat treatment (and lack thereof) can be quite confusing.



Based on that same link, HMB armor isn't terribly thick compared with historical armor. 2-2.5mm helmets are common. Some historical helmets of hardened steel were 1.4-1.5mm (circa 1500), but other helmets were thicker, up to 4.57mm at peak on some circa-1375 bascinets (http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/12/armor-vs-muscle.html). So HMB helmets are definitely thicker than some historical heavy-infantry and heavy-cavalry helmets, but not necessarily thicker than all of them.

What is HMB?

My understanding is that in battle of the nations they actually have a maximum armor weight, since the main game there is knocking people down, they don't want people getting hurt by having too heavy of armor, or being hard to stand up. And again from what I gather / remember they achieved that minimum weight through more widespread practice of tempering the armor so it could be thinner and still just as safe or safer.

G

[Incanur]

HMB is historical medieval battle. According to the 2014 Battle of the Nations Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/BattleoftheNations/photos/a.486341224043.273518.206676754043/10152150290414044/) I linked, mild steel was then the most common metal for armor, though spring steel was becoming more and more popular. Maybe that's changed by now and spring steel has taken over.

[Akolyte01]

If it helps at all, over here in the rougher parts of the UK, sharpened screwdrivers are often used as weapons - these tend to be of the flat head chisel type, since they slip between the ribs easier.

While your phillips head one does bear a passing resemblance to a rondel dagger, I'd still try and push the screwdriver through a gap in the armour (joints, visor, etc) than try and punch through a helmet or chestplate.

Rondel daggers themselves were used specifically for pushing through gaps in plate. Trying to pierce plate is a fools errand. Even warhammer were designed with the pointy end for burstring through chain mail, with the hammer head for transferring concussive force *through* plate (or to crush joints.)


*A BUNCH OF COOL FACT*

Great post.

[Lemmy]

I just don't think the strong impact from the sword can kill people through helmets, if so I'd probably be dead. Strong impact from a hammer or a mace or a godendag, yeah probably. Maybe not routinely or with one hit, but probably sometimes.

GYou know... I was agreeing with you. :smallwink:

[Galloglaich]

You know... I was agreeing with you. :smallwink:

I apologize, I do literally need glasses I must have misread your last post...

[Kiero]

I don't think anyone is claiming that you can't hurt somebody through a helmet, but rather that it's really, really hard to do so with a blade, especially a relatively narrow blade like a sword blade.

I'm sorry for repeating those yet again, but I don't understand how people can watch those BOTN videos and still claim that if you hit somebody really hard with your sword you can knock them out or kill them. I doesn't seem to be the reality. Hundreds of guys bash away at each others helmets every time they do one of those tournaments and they have been doing it for many years now, over and over and over again, and yet I don't know of anyone dying. This includes people basically jammed up against a wall or something, unable to defend themselves, being hit by 7 foot poleaxes and the like. How do you square this with the notion that you can hit somebody with your sword and KO them through a typical helmet.


I also really have a hard time jibing my own personal experiences of fencing for 15 years, fighting in 10 tournaments, with nothing to protect my head except fencing masks and not getting KO'd even once.


Yes people can get KO from boxing, because a fist wrapped up in a big boxing gloves is actually a lot better at delivering blunt impact than a sword blade is. Same for a staff, incidentally.

This again, was the purpose of hammer heads on war hammers, poll-hammers, and of flails, maces, and godendags, morgensterns etc.


Blades make crappy hammers. There is a kind of 'paper scissors rock' aspect to medieval weapons. Which is why you get weapons like this

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/56/04/29/5604294182a213e43b3aea44281b734d.jpg


which give you multiple options, smash, pierce, cut, pick, etc.

G

I wasn't talking about swords, personally, the whole "strike without even damaging helmet" point I'm making is about is cushioned and blunt trauma. My experience is full contact martial arts (karate, kung fu, Muay Thai, others), especially when wearing a headguard and other "protectives", being stunned or knocked out is a real possibility. There's countless videos of Muay Thai knockouts from kicks, knees and elbows (and even some KOs from body shots). Hitting certain spots with enough force, or better yet rotational force can put someone out without even delivering a lot of energy in the strike.

I didn't watch the videos (I rarely do with videos linked on fora), but if they'd been kitted out in full-contact pads and been kicking, punching and grappling each other, the injury rates would have been very different from what you're reporting here.

[Tiktakkat]

I wasn't talking about swords, personally, the whole "strike without even damaging helmet" point I'm making is about is cushioned and blunt trauma. My experience is full contact martial arts (karate, kung fu, Muay Thai, others), especially when wearing a headguard and other "protectives", being stunned or knocked out is a real possibility. There's countless videos of Muay Thai knockouts from kicks, knees and elbows (and even some KOs from body shots). Hitting certain spots with enough force, or better yet rotational force can put someone out without even delivering a lot of energy in the strike.

I didn't watch the videos (I rarely do with videos linked on fora), but if they'd been kitted out in full-contact pads and been kicking, punching and grappling each other, the injury rates would have been very different from what you're reporting here.

My experience is contact martial arts as well, though on the point fighting end of the spectrum. Though I have been knocked out, and knocked someone out, plus a few other injuries.

I was thinking about "standard" martial arts/full-contact helmets awhile back after watching a video from Matt Thiesen/Scholagladiatoria on "medieval" helmets.

Simply, they are not made the same.
I don't mean the difference between metal and foam or padded leather.

"Real" helmets are "shells" that have space before contacting the padding and the head to absorb and dissipate the impact energy.
Martial arts helmets don't. They fit tight around the head, and while they "cushion" impacts, they pretty much transfer all the impact energy straight through.

As such, comparing injury rates between the two is really going to be comparing apples to oranges. Although they are both called helmets/headgear, they are functionally completely unrelated.


It should also be noted that the primary use of martial arts hand and foot gear is to protect the person striking, NOT protect the person being struck.
They reduce friction burns and lighten the effects of hitting with the wrong bone or impacting a bone.
They do nothing to reduce the impact power.
That applies to boxing gloves too. The reason they were invented was because people shattered their hands in bare knuckle matches. While wonderfully bloody, it also meant they couldn't keep fighting. With gloves, their hands remained functional, and they could keep punching each others faces in.
(One of the things that always amused was the "tough guys" who wanted to get "uppity" and start a "fight" during a match. They thought they were hockey players, and the first thing they did was strip their gloves off. I'm not the biggest or the baddest, but if you can't hurt me punching with foam dipped pads on, you absolutely cannot hurt me without them on. But hey, thanks for telling me you don't know how to punch!)

So again, comparing the effect of someone with full contact gloves knocking someone out with a punch to someone with a weapon knocking someone out through armor is just not going to work.

[Lemmy]

But nobody ever used the reenactments to say you can't kill a guy in armor. Just that you can't kill him by hitting him on his helm with a sword, because they hit each other on the helms with swords all day and don't die. People upthread were arguing you could kill a man and not dent his helmet. Which is all that G was trying to debate. I'm sure we agree that battles had a higher body count than reenactments.
*sigh*

Look... I'll explain this one more time and then drop it: G made a point that swords can't cut through helmet... To support his claim, he said that if that was the case, people would be dying constantly in Battle of Nations. Here... You can see his post:


If that was really the case, you would think people would be dying constantly while playing this game, and getting knocked out every time they played. But it seems quite rare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkteEFI-PBs

Because of this, while I agreed with him that's unlikely for swords to cut through metal helmets, I chose to address this particular point, saying that it's not such a good indication since people in this game are not trying to actually kill each other, which means there are rules and etiquette and a bunch of other factors that would stop people from dying in BoN, so "swords are not good at cutting or bludgeoning helmets" is probably not the main factor, or at least, not the only one (if there were no helmets around, I'm sure the game would have rules against hitting people in the head, after all).

To put it shortly: I agreed with G's general point, but felt it'd be more honest to point out what I see as a flaw in his argument, even though I agree with said argument. That's all.

[Pauly]

Rondel daggers themselves were used specifically for pushing through gaps in plate. Trying to pierce plate is a fools errand. Even warhammer were designed with the pointy end for burstring through chain mail, with the hammer head for transferring concussive force *through* plate (or to crush joints.)



Great post.

An interesting modern theory I have seen about warhammers is that the blunt end was more for deforming plates, to stop the articulation from working. Meaning you can put an opponents arm or leg out of action without actually having to cause an injury.
The pointy end isn't long enough to cause an injury through plate and mail and gambeson even if you achieved a perfect hit and full penetration.

[Incanur]

Honestly, after watching some HMB/bohurt-style polearm duels, I'm convinced it's difficult to use blows from a bladed staff weapon to kayo an experienced fighter through a 2+mm helmet with good padding. I suspect polearms with sharp edges do somewhat better, but probably not enough to totally change the dynamic. This is entirely consistent with The Trewe Encounter's account of Flodden Field 1513, of armored Scottish soldiers remaining standing as four or five bills struck one of them at once.

HMB polearm duels are bizarre because they're only allowed to use one historical technique for armored combat with a polearm, the mighty blow. They can't grapple to speak of, they can't thrust, and their weapons don't have points anyway. Since the blades lack edges, they can block and parry with exposed wood. (Those hafts look beaten to hell toward the end of events.) It's probably a decent approximation of historical tournament fighting, though some of that was more dangerous.

Historically, many helmets weren't 2+mm and didn't have the same padding as HMB helmets do.

Oh, and as best as I could tell with an Italian dictionary handy, Cesare d'Evoli (https://books.google.com/books?id=iZ2KQAEs3AcC&pg=PA10&dq=Delle+ordinanze+et+battaglie+del+signor+Cesare+ d%27Evoli&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOkN-hkPLQAhWCKGMKHaUjAYIQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) really did write, as Sydney Anglo claimed, that both plate and mail armor failed against commonly used weapons: arquebus, pistol, pike, lance, hammer (martelli), lancegay (zagaglie), staff weapon, bow, and crossbow. Notably, he didn't include any sort of sword in this list. Armor that failed against such weapons was likely of poor metal and/or fairly thin. D'Evoli also expressed a preference for armor of soft (molle) temper as to better resist firearms (and possibly do worse against pointed weapons like the pike). I'm not sure what to make of that; Anglo interpreted it as tempered in a way to avoid excessive brittleness. According to Alan Williams, they weren't really hardening and tempering armor in Italy in d'Evoli's period anyway, so I'm not sure what's going on.

So yeah, more evidence for the notion that 16th-century armor ranged from "lol don't bother attacking it unless you've got a miniature cannon (aka musket)" to "can't even stop an arrow."

[Lemmy]

I can't find it right now, but there's a video from Scholagladiatoria where Matt says one of the difficulties of training with poleaxes is that even with full plate armor they can hurt and bruise the students and that they had to change the wood used in his polearms for a more flexible one because even ash wood was still rigid enough to hurt fighters in protective gear.

[Mike_G]

I can't find it right now, but there's a video from Scholagladiatoria where Matt says one of the difficulties of training with poleaxes is that even with full plate armor they can hurt and bruise the students and that they had to change the wood used in his polearms for a more flexible one because even ash wood was still rigid enough to hurt fighters in protective gear.

Which makes sense, because poleaxes were designed to fight men in armor.

[Galloglaich]

So yeah, more evidence for the notion that 16th-century armor ranged from "lol don't bother attacking it unless you've got a miniature cannon (aka musket)" to "can't even stop an arrow."

Without a doubt there was some very cheap armor around. In Gdansk in 1454 there are cuirasses listed for as low as 5 kreuzer and coat of plates for 12, whereas a side of bacon is 40 kreuzer and a sword is 20 kreuzer in the same market. Another 'cuirass with pauldrons' for 39 kreuzer and a half armor 'of proof' for 90 kreuzer.

A mason could make 26 Kreuzer per week at this same time, a mercenary halberdier 180 kreuzer and a lancer 600. That is of course if they were actually paid. Neither the cheap coat of plates nor the 5 kreuzer cuirass would pass militia inspection for a citizen in Gdansk. Even a half citizen like a journeyman had to have a 'good' harness though they don't say what that means exactly (like of proof or anything). Some urban militias specifically required gauntlets for the lowest rank of infantry (billmen) even though gauntlets, from what I gather, were expensive.

So I doubt that much of the cheap armor was in use except in second tier troops. Of course I admit, this is a guess. All we can do is make educated guesses.

G

[Incanur]

I'm still not quite sure what to make of Cesare d'Evoli's manual. From Sydney Anglo's description and the sections I've been able to decipher, lots of it is similar to earlier Italian and French manuals and to Spanish and English manuals from 5-10 years later: pikes and guns matter the most (not universal but a common opinion), bows and crossbows are a joke compared with guns (also not universal but common), shields are good against pikes, swords shouldn't be too long, it's good for lances to be sturdy, lots of detailed tactical and equipment guidelines, etc. But d'Evoli had a lower opinion of armor than anybody else I've read from the 16th century. (He did still want considerable armor for pikers and heavy cavalry, and helmets and mail sleeves for arquebusiers.)

[Martin Greywolf]

Let's say this once and clearly, so that we can discuss thing at a better level: primary protection you get against blunt force from PROPER medieval helmets is not the padding under it. Primary protection is liner (you can easily google what it is and how it was made) and the fact that the thing clocks in at 2 kilos+ and is almost impossible to cut through - almost, but not quite. Box/MMA/kickbox style knockouts just don't happen with a helmet like that on.

From what we see from modern tests and period accounts, cutting through the helmet is a thing that did happen, very rarely. It's a bit like sniper taking out opponent by seeing the light glint off of his scope - it happens, but you really don't want to rely on it as your go-to technique. I also suspect that a lot of those helmet penetrations may have occured on horseback, when two horsemen were charging each other after their lances were broken.

As for mighty blows of pollaxes, it may or may not daze you enough, it may or may not knock you over. It was certainly a fairly common technique to use. Thrusts and grappling were far more common, though, and that would suggest that mighty blow was used when you thought your opponent is more susceptible to it for some reason - like an already damaged helmet, long fight, being thin but tall, you not being able to reach him for one reason or another etc etc.

[Tobtor]

You don't actually know that without testing them.

They clearly tried (in Germany at least) not to have many inclusions, etc. And yes we can know that steel with inclusions is both more brittle and less hard... It is not a trade-off like it is with iron/steel or the tempering process in swords (does it bend or break).



This is because Milan started specializing in parade armor for nobles, as I mentioned the last time we had this argument. Augsburg became the main center for battlefield armor.

Yes, we discussed this before. I mentioned it above: it appear also the non ornamented armour was made like that. And beside with the amount of armours spit out by Milan it cannot have been all for nobles (but also burghers and mercenaries who wanted to look cool).

But perhaps here there is actually a trade off, going into Incanurs post about some historical sources wanting soft armours - I could see that as a way of having the armour act as a buffer, rather than a shell against weapons (guns) wich penetration effect lies not in a sharp or pointed thing but very high velocity. But anyway it will make it more prone to be penetrated with pointy things (arrows, pikes etc).


Heat treating predates that by at least 50 years in South Germany. And lets not forget, plate armor itself wasn't around all that long, it's a fairly short window.

I was referring to a post giving 1450-1600 as a timetable for tempered Italian armours, and pointed out that at least from 1510 they didn't really do that.

The reason I did not object at the other year (1450) is that, yes they where definately experimenting with heat treatment before that (going back bay a 100 years). But that was the year stated by several people in this thread and in various articles (some have 1430, other 1480 etc) for when they became just somewhat stable in their output.



I think what you are missing here is that armor isn't meant to be as hard as swords, it actually doesn't perform as well if it's too hard. What you want in armor is toughness and resiliency, that is why they were tempering it.

?

I am not quite sure I get that point. They definitely tempered it to become thougher (yes, true they didn't want to over temper it!). They also got quite successfully in some cases (especially for parts of the armour). I am noting that they did not do so reliably.

Besides modern replica armours are typically not as bittle as medieval ones AND is tougher.

Note also that the tip of the sword sometimes have 2 or 3 times the VPH of the armour (though not the best armours).



For that matter, most parts of swords aren't meant to be as hard as for example tool steel or drill bits. Swords are harder than armor but need to be more springy and flexible than tool steels etc.

Yes. But the thing is that it is the quality of the steel they used that made the armours brittle!



But I think you are missing something, I am not an expert, but guys like Peter Johnsson point out that this is an intentional design feature - like the soft wrought iron spine on a katana. Only the edge of the blade needs to be hard.

Yes and no. The katana have that design feature BECAUSE they couldn't make good steel (which isn't as bittle). And thus they needed to counteract this. It is the same with roman, celtic, viking age, early and late medieval swords: they have a lot of slag, various inclusions etc, that make the steel brittle. To counteract this they can do various things, including using iron to (which is NOT springy!). Thus by combining the brittle steel with the soft iron they sort of simulate the "springynes" of good steel. But the cost is lower hardness for the overall thing. As I said it dosnt hurt the sword all that much, as the point (and to some degree edges) can be hard, while the core keeps it from breaking. But for armour you in theory need every part to equally springy and hard which is not achievable by the chosen solution.



In your comparison of old vs. new steel here you are comparing apples to oranges, IMO. The tests that have been done on the antique armor shows it performed very well.

Please give a link. I have only seen tests on replicas using modern(ish) steels.



I think what they are intended to penetrate, depends precisely on which type of sword or estoc (or panzerbrecher?) you are referring to. You have a lot of swords kind of in between as well. Swords with stiffened and narrowed points good for thrusting, like many of the Oakeshott type XVI and XVII, XVIIIa and XVIIIb

Many of these still have sharp edges and still do cut, but not always as well as other types. Paper scissors rock, this is kind of an attempt to have two of the three traits.


I said as much. I noted that it didn't mean a complete loss of cutting ability, just that it reduced it (which would counteract it against soft armours and un armoured parts)


Tobtor, Forgive me for giving that impression - I was trying to be careful in what I said, I didn't say YOU were believing in movies / LARPS, I was saying that movies, LARPS, video games, DnD, SCA etc. still influence our culture generally, and this is part of the reason why there is still so much out there justifying it.


I think you are really reaching to rationalize what you already believe.

I will take it as a failure of the English language then. You (meaning English speakers in general) should really find a way of separating you (singular), you (plural), and you (as a general statement).


Skulls with cutting blows to the head seem pretty rare

Not all that rare, no. The problem is rather that it is somewhat diffiicult to A) establishe that they wore a helmet, and B) what kind of weapon delt the damage (was it a sword or a halberd like matters for our discussion)

"we don't see helmets that look like they have been cleaved through very often either, and I question the notion of crappy armor."

We have very few preserved helmets from battle situations. Secondly we have very few where we know their later treatment (deliberate damage in the past, damage during recovery where spades cut into old rusty finds as they were recovered etc).

Note again I am not talking about full cleaving the helm in two (that would indeed be noteworthy/legendary). More along the line of cavalry riding down wavering or routing infantry and with downward "tip-cuts" cut into the helmets. Due to the size of historical helmets compared to historical skulls, we can see that while they likely had some padding, they did definitely not have 30 layers of linen below the helmet or whatnot. Thus cutting just a few inches into the helmet will give cuts to the skull

From a horseback you get two advantaes to power: 1. speed from the horse, and 2. you can get a better weight out of the sword (it still is not a hammer I know, but it gets more like a hammer when it goes down).


It also started earlier in Germany, I believe Alan Williams points that out.

Started, yes. Not 'perfected'. He notes that the earlier periods had a very large range in quality, and that it became 'more standard' in the later part. Which is why I accepted others use of the year 1450.


Incanur

Air-cooled armor isn't tempered, at least not by how Alan Williams uses the term. Air-cooled armor can't have uneven tempering.

From wikiepedia:


Tempering is a process of heat treating, which is used to increase the toughness of iron-based alloys. Tempering is usually performed after hardening, to reduce some of the excess hardness, and is done by heating the metal to some temperature below the critical point for a certain period of time, then allowing it to cool in still air. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering_(metallurgy)#Terminology)

Tempering is the heating process, not the quenching proses... It is true that it is sometimes used a bit interchangeable, but it is wrong.

The idea is that by heating the steel at above a certain level it changes the properties of the steel. Thus if the armour is heat-treated differently in different places, it is unevenly tempered. It is used to control the hardness contra toughness, but also (importently for this discussion) to release internal stress.

If heated too much it looses hardness and became tougher, but there is a some levels where it become britle:

"tempering in the range of 260 and 340 °C (500 and 644 °F) causes a decrease in ductility and an increase in brittleness, and is referred to as the "tempered martensite embrittlement" (TME) range. Except in the case of blacksmithing, this range is usually avoided."

The problem with pieces of armour is that you need to reach the same temperature all over the armour, otherwise it will become hard and somewhat tough in some places, but too tough and not hard enough in others, while in between these twoo it actuall becomes too brittle (not very tough but not very hard either).

It can be used in weapon-smithing, but it is undesirable in armour smithing.


Williams's mild steel has a carbon content of 0.1-0.15%. Many definitions go as low as 0.05% or as high as 0.3%, so yeah, there's variation.

Again the hardness and thoughness is not only reliant on the amount of carbon content, as seen in the sword example before. The light grey/purble graph (the elfberth compiled sword) had a carbon content at the tip at 0,8 but it was still markedly less hard than the 6150 modern steel with a carbon content below 0,5. So its not just about carbon content (it enters into it for sure), but also the treatment of the metal.

Also note that the HMB page you linked write that the mild steel is not likely to survive more than a single season, this is with blunt blades.

Normally we would say high carbon-steel is better, but only if this is tempered correctly reaching the correct temperature for which is needed, and if the carbonization (process have been done correctly.

The problem is also all the impurities (slag, inclusions, unevenly carborized) and internal stress in medieval armours, which increases brittleness without increasing hardness.

[Incanur]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about tempering. According to Alan Williams and Wikipedia, tempering was done to increase toughness after hardening through heating and quenching or whatever. Air-cooled steel, at least historically, didn't have to be tempered because it wasn't hardened in the first place (according to Williams).

The 1450-1600 date range I used was for Western/Central Europe, not for Italy. As mentioned, Greenwich was producing hardened armor until around 1600 (maybe a little later).

[Max_Killjoy]

Without a doubt there was some very cheap armor around. In Gdansk in 1454 there are cuirasses listed for as low as 5 kreuzer and coat of plates for 12, whereas a side of bacon is 40 kreuzer and a sword is 20 kreuzer in the same market. Another 'cuirass with pauldrons' for 39 kreuzer and a half armor 'of proof' for 90 kreuzer.

A mason could make 26 Kreuzer per week at this same time, a mercenary halberdier 180 kreuzer and a lancer 600. That is of course if they were actually paid. Neither the cheap coat of plates nor the 5 kreuzer cuirass would pass militia inspection for a citizen in Gdansk. Even a half citizen like a journeyman had to have a 'good' harness though they don't say what that means exactly (like of proof or anything). Some urban militias specifically required gauntlets for the lowest rank of infantry (billmen) even though gauntlets, from what I gather, were expensive.

So I doubt that much of the cheap armor was in use except in second tier troops. Of course I admit, this is a guess. All we can do is make educated guesses.

G

Was a side of bacon a luxury item... or do these figures call into question the oft-repeated notion that sword and armor were "for the wealthy" or "cost the average person a vast chunk off their annual income"?

[Carl]

@Tobtor: given the descriptions provided by other users what's being referred to here as tempering is actually properly called annealing, (thank you for getting me to go check on this, it's been a decade since i last had to seriously use this and i'm rusty it seems).

[Galloglaich]

We are veering deep into metallurgy here, and let me stipulate this is way beyond my level of understanding let alone expertise. But I'll try to identify a couple of points where we are diverging with hopefully more light than heat.


If I understand guys like Peter Johnsson correctly, they seem to be saying now that the wrought iron that you find in swords, incidentally not just iron-poor Japan but in iron-rich Central Europe, is an intentional design feature. The cores of a lot of Late medieval swords seem to be wrought iron. It's not just the old forge welded and pattern welded ones from the migration era or the old La Tene culture etc. I could be wrong in this, but that is what I have been given to understand.

Yes slag is bad, always bad, but there are other factors in the metallurgy of iron and steel artifacts which effect their utility for different tasks, including as armor

Tempering usually though not always involves quenching. In the medieval period from what I gather they typically tempered by color - as it heats it turns brown, purple, blue - blue is the right color for swords according to some manuals, and then you quench it to 'set' it at that specific stage. We know now that this makes certain chemical changes in the iron-carbon compound we call steel, specifically shifting ferrite into martensite. The speed and specific area of the quench is an important part of the tempering process and how much of each of the various iron compounds you get. My understanding is that the quench 'freezes' the martensite structure in a specific (desirable) high-carbon state which correlates with springiness (very important especially for swords but armor too) and 'toughness'.



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

from the wiki:

"Martensite is formed in carbon steels by the rapid cooling (quenching) of austenite form of iron at such a high rate that carbon atoms do not have time to diffuse out of the crystal structure in large enough quantities to form cementite (Fe3C). As a result, the face-centered cubic austenite transforms to a highly strained body-centered tetragonal form called martensite that is supersaturated with carbon"

When you just quench especially high carbon you get more cementite, which is what is in cast iron, and is too brittle for swords or armor.

If you air-cool it 'normalizes' the iron and you don't get the same amount of martensite (or springiness) but you do get less brittle structure. I think that is what Incannur referred to and what the Italians, or at least specifically, the Milanese started doing a lot of around 1510.


Also my understanding from Williams and other sources on armor production history is that

Spring-steel (tempered) armor started becoming a notable and desired export feature of Augsburg, Nuremberg and other South German armor production centers by the late 14th Century, 1390's. It starts showing up in inventories as a product distributed by the South German "Grand Ravensburg brotherhood" around 1396. At this point it is expensive but the price starts going down rapidly and volume going up, steadily, throughout the early 1400's. By the 1420's the undecorated armor is basically affordable for burghers and wealthier peasant, let alone knights - the expensive stuff is the gilded and etched armor.

The reason I often cite 1450 as the beginning of the best armor is that armor gets thicker by then. Gothic harness in 1400 tends to be thinner, around 2mm max thickness, by 1450 you have better shaped (with some very sophisticated 'ballistic' shapes which we sometimes see centuries later in armored vehicles), thicker (maybe an average of around 3mm in the thickest parts) and also some things like fluting which add structural strength, and just overall extremely sophisticated ergonomics / shape making it both easier to wear and more protective. But it's already pretty good and much more protective than any other armor in the world (IMO) by around 1400. The increased thickness I believe is a direct response to firearms becoming much more widespread on the open battlefield after 1420.

The guild structures in places like Augsburg were set up in very sophisticated subcontracting networks for armor design (as well as sword design incidentally) with numerous specialists involved in each stage of the process. They had big watermill powered forges and trip hammers where they churned out the basic metal, they people who did the design work (and made nice sketches of it much of which we can see from the Thun sketchbook) had specialists making all the various types of pieces, and specialists who did the heat treatments, as well as people who did the decoration and tailoring and many other specialties I can't remember.

Augsburg differs I believe from Milan in this sense because most of the workshops in Milan were family / corporation based as opposed to guild based, at least by the 15th Century (not certain about that) whereas in Augsburg they were also family based but as part of this guild system which politically dominated Augsburg through most of the 15th Century and into the early 16th. The guild government being undermined by Emperor Charles V during the Wars of Religion probably had something to do with the decline of mass-produced high quality armor (as many of the most prominent armorers went to work for the Princes and many of them moved to Innsbrook)


We have a really interesting insight into the armor production in Augsburg incidentally due to the existence of the Thun sketchbook (or sometimes "Thunn workbook"). The various craft guilds were joined together in these social guilds (sodalities or confraternities), kind of like masonic clubs or what we call "Social Aid and Pleasure clubs" here in New Orleans (and as here, often closely associated with Carnival), and sometimes oddly grouped crafts would be in the same guild. Apparently in Augsburg the armorers and the painters were in the same social guild and some painters took work a bunch of work design sketches from the armorers and painted them into this beautiful book which was left to us today. Maybe the painters did some of the gold leaf, etching and other decoration on a lot of the armor.

I'll include some of the lovely images from the book in the hope that this way people here will like me even if they don't agree! A common scheme on my part ;) These date from about 1475, you can see the extreme sophistication of the armor. They are also making numerous types of armor for everything from jousting to export to England, Italy, or France (with different specific regional styles).


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1b/73/cc/1b73cc5944f72dbc665ae495c1578a39.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/38/41/3f/38413f0e499312f1e5d4a1580b548a21.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/06/73/42/067342d83faadd7b036d0e662007c5e6.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f3/e7/65/f3e765a0e50ac709aef779f7b8b381d4.jpg



Most of these are not super easy to find in high res online but if you search a bit you can find dozens more, all very interesting if you like this kind of thing.

Some of this armor is still around, much of it was made by the Helmschmied family in Augsburg

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

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


G

[Galloglaich]

Was a side of bacon a luxury item... or do these figures call into question the oft-repeated notion that sword and armor were "for the wealthy" or "cost the average person a vast chunk off their annual income"?

The latter. bacon wasn't super cheap but not luxury. A side of bacon is a lot of bacon, like today you would buy 1 lb of bacon not a whole side of it, normally, but if you were in a medieval household that might be part of the food budget for a month.

Common citizens of most towns were required to own armor, and not the cheapest armor - as I was pointing out. Swords were so cheap in the 15th Century that basically anyone could afford one (at least a cheap one)

I think the point of confusion is that earlier in the medieval period, like Carolingian or Migration era times, anything made of metal was much more expensive.

One of the big problems of medieval history is that they tend to conflate 1000 years of time, like if you were talking about Boston today and bringing up Cotton Mather.

By the Late medieval period (roughly say 1300 - 1520) things like swords were affordable to most people, due largely to water-wheel powered mechanization that made production much more efficient. Almost like factories today.

G

[Galloglaich]

@Tobtor: given the descriptions provided by other users what's being referred to here as tempering is actually properly called annealing, (thank you for getting me to go check on this, it's been a decade since i last had to seriously use this and i'm rusty it seems).

Annealing is different, it mostly just softens the metal. Like if you are beating something into shape with a hammer, it gradually gets harder, so you anneal it with a torch to soften it back up.

G

[Carl]

Ok Galloglaich we've got some serious problems here because it's not clear to me now what they were doing to the armour anymore. You need to specify the exact process being used here, amount of heat, and how it's cooled afetrwards.

Heat treatment falls realistically into two categories. Hardening processes and Softening processes.

Hardening process which make the material harder, but more brittle. Generally umbrellaed under the term quenching.

And softening processes which make it tougher but softer. Generally umbrellaed under Tempering and/or Annealing.


Both involve heating the material in question, how much depends on how much you want to harden or soften it. Then cooling it at a specific rate. Generally for low carbon steels anything faster than air hardens. For medium and up you need to be even slower than air to avoid hardening.

As an aside slag is an issue because it changes the heat treatment effects by changing the temperature properties of the material, (you can see this with how carbon content changes how air cooling works in even modern high purity steels). Depending on how the type of slag affects the material you could see some parts hardening, other undergoing a full annealing, and yet others just tempering, (to use these in purely technical rather than umbrella definitions).

[Incanur]

As far the mysteries of plate armor go, Pedro Monte's manual (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Exercitiorum_Atque_Artis_Militaris_Collectanea_(Pe dro_Monte)) is impressive resource that unfortunately few of us can understand. (I wish the Spanish manuscript were available online, but haven't been able to find it.) Monte apparently wrote in great detail about armor, right at the time when some of the best armor was being produced in Innsbruck and so on, circa 1500. According to Sydney Anglo, Monte favored lightness and mobility in plate harnesses. The circa-1510 Ausburg harness (Wallace A22 (http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/result.t1.collection_lightbox.$TspTitleImageLink.l ink&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=1&sp=7&sp=2&sp=Slightbox_3x4&sp=108&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=113)) of hardened steel that Williams describes, with its 1.3mm (or 1.5mm, Williams lists it inconsistently) breastplate, 1mm backplate, 1.5mm helmet skull, may have been sort of light harness Monte encourage. (On the other hand, it might have been too light for him.)

In any case, that harness would have provided impressive protection with relative ease and comfort. It's listed as currently weighing 19.56kg (43.12lbs), which seems to include the 19th-century restorations that could be a bit heavier than the originals. Depending on the amount of mail and arming clothes worn underneath, the total armor probably weight right around 50lbs. On the other hand, assuming the measurements are correct, it wouldn't necessarily have been totally impervious to attack. By Williams's figures, it would take 150-160 J from an arrow to penetrate 1.5mm of hardened steel, assuming a perpendicular hit. A close-range or medium-range shot from a powerful crossbow or a close-range shot from 150+lb yew bow with a heavy arrow might be able to manage that. (Padding would add something like 20-30 J to the require energy to penetrate, making it nearly impossible for the yew bow but maybe still possible for a heavy crossbow, if the stars aligned. And an extremely strong thrust from a pike or such weapon could conceivably do it.) I'm surprised it's not lighter, given how thin it apparently is.

A direct strike from a heavy lance might well penetrate if delivered with skill and strength, though Monte wrote that people customarily wore placates (over-breastplates). According to Anglo, Monte suggested possibly leaving off the placate because one can avoid the first strike of lance and gain the opponent's back.

Through this kind of logic, we can see that the desire for a light harness encouraged some period warriors to accept less protection. Lighter harnesses like this one look to have been designed for excellent protection against most weapons but not strict invulnerability. I suspect later harnesses became so proof against the lance in part because of increasing concern about gunpowder weapons. This was especially true in François de la Noue's time, when cavalry wore breastplate proof against the pistol and perhaps arquebus. It's a lot harder to avoid a pistol shot than it is to avoid a lance, so techniques like the one Monte protect weren't as applicable in the late-16th-century context. (The technique of gaining the opponent's back doesn't seem suit to charging in formation either.)

[Max_Killjoy]

As an aside... I love this thread.

[Vinyadan]

As far the mysteries of plate armor go, Pedro Monte's manual (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Exercitiorum_Atque_Artis_Militaris_Collectanea_(Pe dro_Monte)) is impressive resource that unfortunately few of us can understand. (I wish the Spanish manuscript were available online, but haven't been able to find it.)

Are you sure that there was a Spanish version? I don't know about this particular work, but a lot of texts were written in Latin well into the XVIII century in various parts of Europe. A Latin print version in available here: http://archive.thulb.uni-jena.de/hisbest/rsc/viewer/HisBest_derivate_00000604/BE_0392_0111.tif?logicalDiv=log000003

Looking a bit into it, Pedro Monte seems to be the Spanish version of Pietro Monte, who could have been Spanish or Italian and lived in Milan, where he was friends with Leonardo.

Addendum: the Spanish and Italian manuscripts actually are versions of a part of the De Dignoscendis hominibus, which is a different work and the only one of his that was printed during his lifetime. The Collectanea was collected from his works by a second person.

An interesting book:
https://s23.postimg.org/vsrvhfki3/Screenshot_2016_12_16_20_51_44.png

On googlebooks: https://books.google.de/books?id=un2kDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=Codex+Estense+T.VII.25&source=bl&ots=BBUQBFmD_l&sig=-EcoXX1Srvo1UV5JsNGtbviEslo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZrJihvfnQAhVG2BoKHU4KBckQ6AEIIjAB#v=on epage&q&f=false

It doesn't contain the books, I think, but talks about what they contain.

[Galloglaich]

Ok Galloglaich we've got some serious problems here because it's not clear to me now what they were doing to the armour anymore. You need to specify the exact process being used here, amount of heat, and how it's cooled afetrwards.

Heat treatment falls realistically into two categories. Hardening processes and Softening processes.

Hardening process which make the material harder, but more brittle. Generally umbrellaed under the term quenching.

And softening processes which make it tougher but softer. Generally umbrellaed under Tempering and/or Annealing.


Both involve heating the material in question, how much depends on how much you want to harden or soften it. Then cooling it at a specific rate. Generally for low carbon steels anything faster than air hardens. For medium and up you need to be even slower than air to avoid hardening.



Like I said, I'm not an expert on physics or metallurgy. But I have actually done this process making crude knives with my friends, and I've seen the material go through this process. So you tell me.

We made 4 knives out of railroad spikes with a forge we made out of a brake drum and a hair dryer, following techniques I'd read about from the medieval context.


Verified sufficient carbon content of some of the railroad spikes using the spark test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_testing) (some spike were wrought iron, some medium carbon steel)

Heated up to straw yellow, beat the knife into shape for 2 or 3 minutes until it turns red, then reheat and repeat. (this took a loooooong time since we didn't have a trip hammer - I think like 1000 iterations)

Sharpen knife with file. Knife was sharp and hard but very stiff.

Heat and quench in warm oil once more after sharpening.

Reheat slowly up to 700 f until it turned blue. I think this took about an hour.

Quenched again in warm oil.

Knife became springy.



Now from what I read, quenching during that particular phase of the reheating process 'freezes' the carbon diffusion and a particular stage and gives you more of the martensite which makes the metal behave like a spring. It also makes it tougher. I think it was actually a bit less hard than before we tempered it but still very hard.

But the springiness characteristic I think is important there. Again, I'm no blacksmith, but it's what I understand the process to be and I have witnessed it myself.

G

[Incanur]

The Wiktenauer page I linked links to the page describing the the Spanish manuscript (no scans available). Exercitiorum Atque Artis Militaris Collectanea was published 1509. At least one scholar has been working on an English translation, but I don't know if that's actually going to get published.

Edit: don't know

[Galloglaich]

From the wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering_(metallurgy)#Carbon_steel


Steel can be softened to a very malleable state through annealing, or it can be hardened to a state nearly as rigid and brittle as glass by quenching. However, in its hardened state, steel is usually far too brittle, lacking the structural integrity to be useful for most applications. Tempering is a method used to decrease the hardness, thereby increasing the ductility of the quenched steel, to impart some springiness and malleability to the metal. This allows the metal to bend before breaking. Depending on how much temper is imparted to the steel, it may bend elastically (the steel returns to its original shape once the load is removed), or it may bend plastically (the steel does not return to its original shape, resulting in permanent deformation), before fracturing.

This seems to match my understanding that annealing softens, but tempering (i.e. typically reheating and then quenching) makes it springy (depending on how you do the tempering and if you have sufficient carbon content)

I know for a fact, that most swords really need to be essentially sharp springs to work right. I was under the impression that it was similar with the Late medieval armor but I could be wrong.

G

[Galloglaich]

The Wiktenauer page I linked links to the page describing the the Spanish manuscript (no scans available). Exercitiorum Atque Artis Militaris Collectanea was published 1509. At least one scholar has been working on an English translation, but I know if that's actually going to get published.

I know the people who run the wiktenauer, if you want I can find out for you what the status is. I know some of the Spanish manuscripts are being worked on by a group in DC and I know those guys too. If it's one of those then it's a work in progress.

G

[Knaight]

The latter. bacon wasn't super cheap but not luxury. A side of bacon is a lot of bacon, like today you would buy 1 lb of bacon not a whole side of it, normally, but if you were in a medieval household that might be part of the food budget for a month.

Common citizens of most towns were required to own armor, and not the cheapest armor - as I was pointing out. Swords were so cheap in the 15th Century that basically anyone could afford one (at least a cheap one)

I think the point of confusion is that earlier in the medieval period, like Carolingian or Migration era times, anything made of metal was much more expensive.

One of the big problems of medieval history is that they tend to conflate 1000 years of time, like if you were talking about Boston today and bringing up Cotton Mather.

There's also the matter of how much space there is. People can point out that swords and armor genuinely were expensive in 500 CE scandinavia where they were largely dependent on bog iron. That doesn't mean they were nearly as expensive even in 500 CE in, say, the Byzantine empire.

[Max_Killjoy]

The latter. bacon wasn't super cheap but not luxury. A side of bacon is a lot of bacon, like today you would buy 1 lb of bacon not a whole side of it, normally, but if you were in a medieval household that might be part of the food budget for a month.

Common citizens of most towns were required to own armor, and not the cheapest armor - as I was pointing out. Swords were so cheap in the 15th Century that basically anyone could afford one (at least a cheap one)

I think the point of confusion is that earlier in the medieval period, like Carolingian or Migration era times, anything made of metal was much more expensive.

One of the big problems of medieval history is that they tend to conflate 1000 years of time, like if you were talking about Boston today and bringing up Cotton Mather.

By the Late medieval period (roughly say 1300 - 1520) things like swords were affordable to most people, due largely to water-wheel powered mechanization that made production much more efficient. Almost like factories today.

G


There's also the matter of how much space there is. People can point out that swords and armor genuinely were expensive in 500 CE scandinavia where they were largely dependent on bog iron. That doesn't mean they were nearly as expensive even in 500 CE in, say, the Byzantine empire.


Thank you. Confirmations on my thoughts and more good thoughts to bring to the table the next time I have this discussion with certain persons offline.

[Carl]

@Galloglaich: The problem is "springyness" isn't a property from a material science PoV. Assuming you mean what i think you mean, (that the material is able to flex without permanent deformation under both sustained and sock loas), thats a factor of ductility, (how much the material deforms under load), Toughness, (technically it's about energy absorption during deformation without fracturing, but simply put can be considered a measure of it's resistance to shattering under sharp shocks), and if the forces are high enough, it's Yield strength, (the amount of force required to produce permanent deformation). Annealing only reduces the latter when taken to extreme's, such as a full anneal. Conversely hardening process involve decreasing those values, but as the naming implies, also increase hardness, and depending on material specifics and exact state of it prior to treatment, also potentially increase the ultimate and yield strengths.

Having read your account of using the process i think i know whats going on and why i was getting thrown for a loop. My own materials science classes dealt strictly with modern uses. Generally at least, (i'm sure specialised exceptions exist that my general course didn't cover), heating somthing then cooling it in oil hardens it, not softens. In fact for high carbon steels that can't be cooled in water oil is the preferred medium for hardening processes. Hence my considerable confusion.

Where i slipped up is in forgetting that modern processes almost never work a material to anything like the degree required to induce hardness so extreme heating and then cooling in oil would soften the material. But the amount of working you describe probably would do that. Still heating and then cooling in oil still leaves you with a material thats going to be on the harder, lower toughness, end of the possibilities scale.

[Galloglaich]

@Galloglaich: The problem is "springyness" isn't a property from a material science PoV. Assuming you mean what i think you mean, (that the material is able to flex without permanent deformation under both sustained and sock loas), thats a factor of ductility, (how much the material deforms under load), Toughness, (technically it's about energy absorption during deformation without fracturing, but simply put can be considered a measure of it's resistance to shattering under sharp shocks), and if the forces are high enough, it's Yield strength, (the amount of force required to produce permanent deformation). Annealing only reduces the latter when taken to extreme's, such as a full anneal. Conversely hardening process involve decreasing those values, but as the naming implies, also increase hardness, and depending on material specifics and exact state of it prior to treatment, also potentially increase the ultimate and yield strengths.

Having read your account of using the process i think i know whats going on and why i was getting thrown for a loop. My own materials science classes dealt strictly with modern uses. Generally at least, (i'm sure specialised exceptions exist that my general course didn't cover), heating somthing then cooling it in oil hardens it, not softens. In fact for high carbon steels that can't be cooled in water oil is the preferred medium for hardening processes. Hence my considerable confusion.

Where i slipped up is in forgetting that modern processes almost never work a material to anything like the degree required to induce hardness so extreme heating and then cooling in oil would soften the material. But the amount of working you describe probably would do that. Still heating and then cooling in oil still leaves you with a material thats going to be on the harder, lower toughness, end of the possibilities scale.

I was referring to the 'elasticity' property it mentions in the Wikipedia article on tempering. I believe this is still widely used for example to make springs and basically every kind of ferrous metal object that has to behave like a spring. In other words, quoting from the wiki:

Depending on how much temper is imparted to the steel, it may bend elastically (the steel returns to its original shape once the load is removed),

So yes of course it's hard, but it's not hard like a drill bit. It's hard like a sword, and it's "springy" (has the property of elasticity so that it returns to it's original shape when the load is removed)

I have actually seen 1000 year old swords bent nearly 90 degrees and return to true (on video), so this is obviously a property that has been long sought after in making swords.

G

[Carl]

That's properly called ductility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductility) :). Wiki article for you. The Yield strength value then determine how much deformation can occur before it becomes permanent. And the Ultimate strength determines how much further it can go before somthing snaps.

[Galloglaich]

That's properly called ductility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductility) :). Wiki article for you. The Yield strength value then determine how much deformation can occur before it becomes permanent. And the Ultimate strength determines how much further it can go before somthing snaps.

I don't think ductility and elasticity are the same thing but I am tired of debating it and it's not my field so I yield to you on this subject.

G

[Lemmy]

I don't think ductility and elasticity are the same thing but I am tired of debating it and it's not my field so I yield to you on this subject.

Elasticity is how much an object can "stretch" and still return to its original shape. Ductility is how much an object can "stretch" before it breaks, even if it won't return to its original shape anymore. The most common examples used to illustrate these concepts are rubber and clay, respectively.

[VoxRationis]

So as far as I can gather, there was a fairly long period of time where tabards and surcoats weren't used but people were still all armored up. How did anyone tell who was on which side at that time?

[snowblizz]

So as far as I can gather, there was a fairly long period of time where tabards and surcoats weren't used but people were still all armored up. How did anyone tell who was on which side at that time?

With some difficutly :P.

Field signs and passwords were commonly used even after armour was lost and you could see people faces.

A battle wouldn't be quite as chaotic that you couldn't tell roughly who the other people were.

Depending on though. Sometimes the highest social class could recognize each other. Styles of armour could be fairly distinctive too, even though major centres made them in bulk there were national styles.

[GraaEminense]

Real-world weapons and armour question: Varangian Guard.

I'm looking for sources on what kind of equipment the Varangian guardsmen of the Byzantine Emperors were using around 1000 CE.

From what I've read, they were obviously heavily armoured elites and known for their two-handed Scandinavian axes. It seems very likely that they were carrying swords and shields as well. I'm particularly interested in what kind of armour and helmets they were likely to be wearing. I can assume they were wearing Byzantine or a mix of Scandinavian and Byzantine kit (their axes indicate that they did embrace their alien-ness to some extent), but any good sources that would reduce the amount of guesswork I have to do would be very much appreciated.

[snowblizz]

Real-world weapons and armour question: Varangian Guard.

I'm looking for sources on what kind of equipment the Varangian guardsmen of the Byzantine Emperors were using around 1000 CE.

From what I've read, they were obviously heavily armoured elites and known for their two-handed Scandinavian axes. It seems very likely that they were carrying swords and shields as well. I'm particularly interested in what kind of armour and helmets they were likely to be wearing. I can assume they were wearing Byzantine or a mix of Scandinavian and Byzantine kit (their axes indicate that they did embrace their alien-ness to some extent), but any good sources that would reduce the amount of guesswork I have to do would be very much appreciated.

I've been thumbing through (figuratively) a bunch of Osprey books on the Byzantines and quick and dirty answer would indeed be a mix of Byzantine and Nordic kit. They were a well paid elite and would have the best armour Byzantium could provide, so chainmail or scale/splintmail, graves, vambraces. Shields and swords are mentioned yes.

It's going to be difficult to say specifically though since except the axes they wouldn't ahve been very outlandish compared to most other well armoured soldiers. They brought some kit with them so woudl definitely be some mixing, probably increasingly more Byzantine stuff the longer they were there.

[PersonMan]

I've got a pair of partially intertwined questions, looking at modern warfare again.

A: How much of an obstacle would the following types of terrain be, to a fully modernized military*: Sahara-like desert, thick rainforest, large rivers (assuming a lack of pre-built infrastructure to cross them) and cold mountain/valley regions.

B: What would the worst situation be to attack into, assuming roughly equal numbers, technology, etc. on both sides? Would it be possible to succeed even in this kind of scenario if one is willing to lose enough men/materiel?


*Assuming it's defended and needs to be attacked through, rather than being moved around or ignored by either/both sides.

[jayem]

I've got a pair of partially intertwined questions, looking at modern warfare again.

A: How much of an obstacle would the following types of terrain be, to a fully modernized military*: Sahara-like desert, thick rainforest, large rivers (assuming a lack of pre-built infrastructure to cross them) and cold mountain/valley regions.

B: What would the worst situation be to attack into, assuming roughly equal numbers, technology, etc. on both sides? Would it be possible to succeed even in this kind of scenario if one is willing to lose enough men/materiel?


*Assuming it's defended and needs to be attacked through, rather than being moved around or ignored by either/both sides.

I'm guessing truely mountainy cold/blizzardy is winning in terms of an obstacle. As else more would be happening in the antarctic, and we'd know more about everest as countries show off. (I understand the research base is cut off, at times). I think arguably you literally couldn't throw enough men. (Of course the defenders have that problem also, and all the time). Switzerland and the Austro/Italian front in WW1 show things can get nasty when milder mountains are involved.

Practically we have Vietnam and Iraq for rainforest and desert wars.

I think Iraq (I&II) shows that desert is not obstacle to cross (when you have air superiority). (For that matter you have a Sahara race). But a large low density land is hard to occupy and has issues. [NB Monty&Rommel managed to fight also, so that's both sides of Vietnam covered]

While again the rainforest is established as very difficult to cross, monitor or bomb reliably (more bombs dropped than in WW2), but the Vietnam war was at least possible (and arguably winnable by the US, or won by the North when not against the US).

While D-day shows that even a strongly defended 20 mile river can be crossed given enough time and preperation. Show I think that is the easiest case.

[Mr Beer]

A. How big are these areas? Desert is the easiest. Without roads, vehicles may not be able to get through mountains or rainforest, depending on the exact terrain. Some vehicles will go better than others, e.g. Jeeps > main battle tanks.

Various partially mechanised armies navigated over large rivers during WWII, I believe this technology is pretty mature now.

B. Allegedly rule of thumb is an attacker wants a 3:1 numerical advantage over a defender. So one answer is that none of these positions will be successfully attacked assuming equal forces on both sides.

Desert is the easiest terrain to attack into. Rainforest will be tough on both the attacker and defender, but worse on the attacker because it's tougher to attack. Mountains favour the defenders heavily. Rivers will favour the defenders.

Mountains are going to be the worst to attack IMO.

It's going to be harder to attack the longer the defenders have to work to shore up their positions.

No single position is invulnerable to a modern army.

[Gnoman]

I've got a pair of partially intertwined questions, looking at modern warfare again.

A: How much of an obstacle would the following types of terrain be, to a fully modernized military*: Sahara-like desert, thick rainforest, large rivers (assuming a lack of pre-built infrastructure to cross them) and cold mountain/valley regions.


A desert is pretty much ideal tank country, provided that you can keep up with supplies. This is even more true with GPS technology, because navigation becomes trivial, and you can literally attack whenever and wherever you choose. The only hope of defending a desert successfully is to interdict the fuel and water transports, but this is never an easy task. Obstacle rating: 0/10

Cold mountains aren't the trouble they used to be. They provide lots of cover, but aerial recon can find most positions, and mobile lightweight artillery to smash strongpoints is much more available now than it used to be. Obstacle rating 3/10

Rivers have been the bane of strategists since Alexander, and that hasn't changed. Bridging a river under fire is borderline impossible, so the only practical recourse is to deploy pontoons or bridgelayer vehicles under cover of night, keeping a running firefight going as a distraction. Then blitz across as soon as the bridges are laid. Heavy casualties are an inevitable outcome. Obstacle rating 10/10

Thick rainforest would be a nightmare to fight in. Armour can't hope to get through and heavy weapons teams are going to lag significantly, so the only reliable combat power an attacker is going to have is the infantryman armed with an assault rifle. Most modern electronics, assuming you could keep them from rotting, won't help too much. GPS signals will be unreliable under the canopy, and won't help you navigate in that kind of terrain very much, IR sensors will be blinded by background heat, and radios won't help as much as they would normally because it's so hard to give relative positions for coordination. Essentially, the most advanced military in the world would be reduced to the level of a grunt in Vietnam in 1968 or even a Marine fighting on Guadalcanal in 1942.

By contrast, defending it is much easier. The terrain is absolutely perfect for all manner of ambushes and booby traps, and the difficulty of moving heavy weapons doesn't bite the defenders nearly as hard, since they can position them and retreat in that direction. Obstacle rating 12/10





B: What would the worst situation be to attack into, assuming roughly equal numbers, technology, etc. on both sides? Would it be possible to succeed even in this kind of scenario if one is willing to lose enough men/materiel?


All that said, a modern city is still worst of all. Infinite cover that just gets better the more you attack it, a precisely defined layout that makes defensive coordination trivial (squad Alpha covers Poplar Street while Bravo and Charlie withdraw down Main street, etc.), quite probably a difficult-to-knock-out hardwired communications network, countless observation posts and snipers nests, massive stockpiles of food, fuel, and medical supplies, actual hospitals to treat the wounded in. That fight with modern weapons would make Stalingrad look like a kid's tea party. It is entirely possible that even a first-rank military power couldn't succeed. Even if they're willing to pay the cost, they might not have the men and material to do it.

[Mike_G]

A desert is pretty much ideal tank country, provided that you can keep up with supplies. This is even more true with GPS technology, because navigation becomes trivial, and you can literally attack whenever and wherever you choose. The only hope of defending a desert successfully is to interdict the fuel and water transports, but this is never an easy task. Obstacle rating: 0/10

Cold mountains aren't the trouble they used to be. They provide lots of cover, but aerial recon can find most positions, and mobile lightweight artillery to smash strongpoints is much more available now than it used to be. Obstacle rating 3/10

Rivers have been the bane of strategists since Alexander, and that hasn't changed. Bridging a river under fire is borderline impossible, so the only practical recourse is to deploy pontoons or bridgelayer vehicles under cover of night, keeping a running firefight going as a distraction. Then blitz across as soon as the bridges are laid. Heavy casualties are an inevitable outcome. Obstacle rating 10/10

Thick rainforest would be a nightmare to fight in. Armour can't hope to get through and heavy weapons teams are going to lag significantly, so the only reliable combat power an attacker is going to have is the infantryman armed with an assault rifle. Most modern electronics, assuming you could keep them from rotting, won't help too much. GPS signals will be unreliable under the canopy, and won't help you navigate in that kind of terrain very much, IR sensors will be blinded by background heat, and radios won't help as much as they would normally because it's so hard to give relative positions for coordination. Essentially, the most advanced military in the world would be reduced to the level of a grunt in Vietnam in 1968 or even a Marine fighting on Guadalcanal in 1942.

By contrast, defending it is much easier. The terrain is absolutely perfect for all manner of ambushes and booby traps, and the difficulty of moving heavy weapons doesn't bite the defenders nearly as hard, since they can position them and retreat in that direction. Obstacle rating 12/10





All that said, a modern city is still worst of all. Infinite cover that just gets better the more you attack it, a precisely defined layout that makes defensive coordination trivial (squad Alpha covers Poplar Street while Bravo and Charlie withdraw down Main street, etc.), quite probably a difficult-to-knock-out hardwired communications network, countless observation posts and snipers nests, massive stockpiles of food, fuel, and medical supplies, actual hospitals to treat the wounded in. That fight with modern weapons would make Stalingrad look like a kid's tea party. It is entirely possible that even a first-rank military power couldn't succeed. Even if they're willing to pay the cost, they might not have the men and material to do it.

I agree with pretty much all of this. You can use your tech in a city, though, where a lot of it you can't use all that well in a jungle.

But cities can be taken with enough time and resources and blood. Berlin fell. Seoule fell. Hue was taken. Faluija was taken. A few times.

Notably, Stalingrad wasn't, so it's not easy, and you can chew an army to death in a city, if they won't quit.

[Gnoman]

But cities can be taken with enough time and resources and blood. Berlin fell. Seoule fell. Hue was taken. Faluija was taken. A few times.


I said that it is possible for a city defended heavily enough to be untakeable, not that it was certain.

[Mike_G]

I said that it is possible for a city defended heavily enough to be untakeable, not that it was certain.

The other thing is it's easier to surround a city than a jungle. Cities tend to be fairly small as area goes, and the surrounding area tends to be developed enough that you can drive your tanks around in it and set up firebases, staging areas, field hospitals and so on, where jungles and mountains can be harder to operate your support units in.

[Lemmy]

So... How difficult and costly was it to maintain a siege compared to resisting one (in medieval times)? Who usually had the upper hand there? Did most sieges usually end in favor of one side or another, or was it more or less even?

[Max_Killjoy]

On the subject of rivers, keep in mind that the Romans managed to build some really impressive bridges across wise rivers while opposed by hostile forces, in multiple instances, including the Rheine and the Danube.

[Storm Bringer]

So... How difficult and costly was it to maintain a siege compared to resisting one (in medieval times)? Who usually had the upper hand there? Did most sieges usually end in favor of one side or another, or was it more or less even?

generally. any fortified position (even something as basic as a scot tower house or a toll house on a bridge) was a very difficult position to take, and you would need substantially more men than the defenders to effectively blockade it and lay siege.

that said, if you had the numbers to lay siege, then barring outside interference and given enough time, the attacks will win, as stored food can only last so long.

The primary purpose of most forts was two fold: deter raids and to slow larger attacking forces down in a manpower effective manner,

A lot of warfare in medieval times was raiding by small groups (less than a 100), and a well sited fort that controled a access route could massively reduce the options and effectiveness of such raids, because they couldn't take the fort, and they couldn't bypass it if it controlled the only road.

with bigger armies, they could not just screen and avoid a castle because that would leave a force of cavalry in their rear that was able to then attack and harry their supply lines. Because taking a castle was a slow, time consuming undertaking even if you had massive numerical advantage, a relatively small force could hold up a much larger one for weeks while they dealt with the castle, allowing the defenders to muster a relief force and ride to the aide of the castle.

[snowblizz]

that said, if you had the numbers to lay siege, then barring outside interference and given enough time, the attacks will win, as stored food can only last so long.

Theoretically yes.

In medieaval practice though the attacker was often the one with provision problems. Simply put the small number of defenders and large (relatively) stores they could have built up meant the attackers much larger force would rather quickly exhaust their ability to forage the countryside. There's a limit to how far you can actually range for forage.

And that's ignoring privations and disease that would be likelier to strike the enemy.

Which means time will tend to favour the defender and not the other way around.

[Tobtor]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about tempering. According to Alan Williams and Wikipedia, tempering was done to increase toughness after hardening through heating and quenching or whatever.

No. Again: Quenching is not required for tempering (we can debate whether quenching CAN be part of the tempering (I will say it can), but it definitely isn't required).

That was the linked wiki was for: "Tempering is usually performed after hardening, to reduce some of the excess hardness, and is done by heating the metal to some temperature below the critical point for a certain period of time, then allowing it to cool in still air."
My emphasis


Air-cooled steel, at least historically, didn't have to be tempered because it wasn't hardened in the first place (according to Williams).

Which is true enough, they where not very hard.


Air-cooled armor can't have uneven tempering.

But this isn't true. As the armour have been heated during the production, they would reach different tempering levels, also when air cooled. Thus different parts of the armour would have different hardness/thoughenss (in effect different tempering).

[Tobtor]

Real-world weapons and armour question: Varangian Guard.

I'm looking for sources on what kind of equipment the Varangian guardsmen of the Byzantine Emperors were using around 1000 CE.

From what I've read, they were obviously heavily armoured elites and known for their two-handed Scandinavian axes. It seems very likely that they were carrying swords and shields as well. I'm particularly interested in what kind of armour and helmets they were likely to be wearing. I can assume they were wearing Byzantine or a mix of Scandinavian and Byzantine kit (their axes indicate that they did embrace their alien-ness to some extent), but any good sources that would reduce the amount of guesswork I have to do would be very much appreciated.

I agree with snowblizz, though I think they would be more "Scandinavian"-equipped than "Byzantine". I doubt the Byzantines wanted to equip them, but instead required them to already have their gear on employment. As he notes especially in the individual Varangians early years, as time goes replacement ger would likely be more Byzantine.

Also when we reach later periods of the Vrangian guard we see many Russians, Lithuanians etc joining, with a general more 'eastern' gear.

We dont have many period sources describing this sort of thing in detail (thus even the Osprey books are mainly guessing), but it is worth noting that the sagas typically dont describe them in foreign gear when they return home. Also the weapon set you want to fight with is the one you trained with.

As they where drawn from the elite classes of Scandinavia they would likely have a mail hauberk, shield, spear, sword and axe, some might only have two weapons though (elite graves with sword/spear, or Axe/spear are common enough, also axe/sword exist but is rarer, even with the large axes). They would often also have a larger dagger/fighting knife.

[Incanur]

No. Again: Quenching is not required for tempering (we can debate whether quenching CAN be part of the tempering (I will say it can), but it definitely isn't required).

That was the linked wiki was for: "Tempering is usually performed after hardening, to reduce some of the excess hardness, and is done by heating the metal to some temperature below the critical point for a certain period of time, then allowing it to cool in still air."

I'm talking about how Alan Williams uses the terms in The Knight in the Blast Furnace, not about Wikipedia. And the quoted definition notes that tempering is performed after hardening to reduce hardness, which is definition Williams employs. Of course, "temper" can and often is used more broadly.


Which is true enough, they where not very hard.

But air-cooled medium-carbon steel, as many Italian armors were, is still harder than mild steel according to Williams. Even considering slag, Williams rates it as requiring 10% more energy to penetrate.

Now, if the steel is heterogeneous enough, an air-cooled piece of armor could have a significant range of hardnesses across it.

[Vinyadan]

It just lasted too long to give a general answer, from the X century until 1453, and I think the Latin emperors also had a similar guard as a symbol of their authority. So it's a good thing you gave a clear temporal space.

In 1000, the Varangian Guard was still made up by people from Rus or Scandinavia; the change towards anglo-saxons began with the end of the XI century, but some see some traces of it as early as 1035, when pilgrimage to the city became a huge publicity for adventurers. Anyway, the strongest change came after the Variags were pretty much all killed in Manzikert (1071).

The axes weren't just a sign of alien-ness: palace guards had been using them even before the Varangian Guard.

Anyway, unfortunately the only illuminated Byzantine chronicle comes from the XII century, so it's a bit off, although it contains images of the Varangian Guard:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Skylitzis_Chronicle_VARANGIAN_GUARD.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/A_Thracesian_woman_kills_a_Varangian.jpg

Michael Psellos lived in the XI century: here is what he wrote:

"Surrounding these again we saw the light-armed troops without armour, and behind them all the allied forces which had joined him from different barbarian nations. There were Italians, and Scyths from the Taurus, men of fearful appearance, dressed in fearful garb, both alike glaring fiercely about them. They were not alike in other respects, for while the one tribe painted themselves and plucked out their eyebrows, the other preserved their natural colour; the one made their attacks as the spirit moved them, were impetuous and led by impulse, the other with a mad fury; the former in their first onslaught were irresistible, but they quickly lost their ardour; the latter, on the
other hand, were less impatient, but fought with unsparing devotion and a complete disregard for wounds. These then were the warriors who rounded off that circle of shields, armed with long spears and single-edged battle-axes. The axes they carried on their shoulders, and with the spiked ends of the spears jutting out before and behind them the intervals between the ranks were, so to speak, roofed in. "

Unfortunately I couldn't find other depictions from this time.

[Storm Bringer]

The axes weren't just a sign of alien-ness: palace guards had been using them even before the Varangian Guard.
.

it probably dates back to the fasces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces)used by the Lictors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lictor)of Republican Rome.

[Galloglaich]

So... How difficult and costly was it to maintain a siege compared to resisting one (in medieval times)? Who usually had the upper hand there? Did most sieges usually end in favor of one side or another, or was it more or less even?

Thanks for your earlier reply about ductility vs. elasticity, very helpful.



I think very generally siege warfare favored the defense in the medieval period, though it varied widely according to a number of factors, and changed over time with technology and so on.

The basic issue is that if you assume that the defender has had time to prepare supplies and has a well made fortification, an adequate garrison, and the will to resist, they can wait in more comfort than the attacking army can. They often have more supplies. Many if not most sieges that last long enough often end when the attackers start dying due to outbreaks of disease or weather.

The long and short of it is that it's easier and more comfortable to wait for weeks in a house than in a trench. But of course it's more complex than that.



First of all, many armies lacked sufficient engineering capability to conduct offensive siege warfare successfully. Siege warfare technology changed dramatically over time but there were many periods when the technology was lacking.

Very generally speaking, the defender of a well-fortified site, especially a city, has the advantage of being pre-prepared, often for generations, in their systems for defense, whereas the attacker has to typically create most of their attacking gear on the fly and on-site, with maybe some weapons pre-prepared. This latter becomes more of a factor a bit in the age of cannon but I'll get back to that.

This early siege of Rhodes also illustrates another common issue, in that defenders sometimes had advantages in naval capabilities. Besieged citadels or towns that were well built and could be resupplied by ship could often resist sieges indefinitely.


Classical (Hellenistic through Late Roman) period

It reached an early peak in late antiquity under Roman and Hellenistic armies. The siege of Rhodes in 305 BC is a really interesting example of a kind of peak of siege warfare in Antiquity, the extremely sophisticated methods used by both attacker and defender almost defy belief, and would be fantastic to see in a movie.

Too much to get into here but one interesting outcome was that the famous bronze colossus of Rhodes was made out of bronze scale covering of a 65 foot high siege tower by the (ultimately unsuccessful) attacker, called the "Helepolis"

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Helepolis.png/640px-Helepolis.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(305%E2%80%93304_BC)

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

The Romans of course also had very good engineering capability and were good at siege warfare both offensively and defensively, as were the Parthians and Sassanids and many of their other middle-eastern enemies.


After the decline of the Roman Empire in the Migration Era, siege technology fades quite a bit in Europe and the Middle East, with the exception of the Byzantines. Many of the scariest armies of the era were pretty bad at siege warfare. The Huns, the Goths, Vandals, Allemani et-al were fairly bad at siege warfare and often had to bypass well fortified cities. newer cities and fortresses often only had wooden defenses or simple built up timber and rubble, and were not as sophisticated.

Carolingian through High Medieval period
Under the Carolingian era some engineering started to return to European fortifications, which though still largely of wood construction, gradually began to get more sophisticated and carefully thought through. The seemed, incidentally, to go through the same stages of development as the earlier Mycenaeans and Greeks had. By the 12th Century you start to see more stone fortifications again. The Mongols had trouble with when they arrived in Europe in the 13th Century, they were often stymied by well put together defensive positions. The high-water mark of Mongol invasions in Europe in the 1240's was in Croatia where they ran into a lot of strong fortifications, and the last real full scale invasion by the Mongols into Europe in the 1280's was stopped by some very recently upgraded fortifications in Krakow.

By that high to late medieval period siege warfare began to accelerate rapidly in Europe and in the Middle East, both on the offensive and defensive sides. Stone became the norm, and increasingly diabolical systems came back - some from reading ancient Greek, Arab and Roman texts. At this time there was (arguably) roughly parity between European and Muslim siege warfare.

For an idea of the defensive capabilities of a siege in the High medieval period the Norwegian "King's mirror" is an excellent source I've linked here before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konungs_skuggsj%C3%A1

You can read a translation of the text here. The section on siege warfare is eye opening. Gives you an idea of the diabolical and ingenious array of defenses available to High medieval defenders and faced by attackers at this time.

https://archive.org/stream/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft_djvu.txt



One of the most potent offensive weapons was tunneling. The famous and visually striking Krak des Chevaliers Crusader fortress in Syria, built by the Knights Hospitaliers, was ultimately defeated by tunneling, because it was put on a hill made of relatively soft substrate. Placement of castles (their specific location) was as important as how well they were built. Tunneling was probably the most important thing on both sides, with tunnels and counter-tunnels dug, and even chemical warfare taking place.

Many fortifications and cities in Europe were built on water which made tunnels harder to use, and attackers had to resort to floating siege engines.

Enter the cannon

Cannons shook things up increasingly in Europe from the third quarter of the 13th Century (roughly 1275 onward), requiring some changes to castle and fortified town design, though they probably weren't playing a major role in siege warfare until the early 1300's.

By the end of the 14th Century cannon were beginning to become a real threat to castle walls. This did not necessarily put the advantage back in the hands of the attacker though, because many cities in particular turned out to be better at making cannon and more able to make them quickly than attacking armies could, and because cannon were hard to move around. The Ottomans were one of the few Muslim powers to really do a good job of keeping up with this technology, and they had huge bombards that could knock down almost any walls, but they were often unable to get them into place despite huge resources.

Cannon casting technology rapidly increased in the late 14th and early 15th Century, and were exploited for defense by the most wealthy and technologically advanced cities (like Venice, Nuremberg and Ghent, for example) and offensively by Burgundy and France, as well as the Ottomans. Temporarily the latter development meant that defenders were disadvantaged for a while.

Fortifications got redesigned though very quickly and everyone bought or made cannon, since they were clearly needed, and it kind of came back into a stalemate with advantage going back to the defender again for quite a while - assuming a good well defended fortification.

Towns and larger castles whose defenses were breached often got breached over and over, (like Rome for example or Jerusalem) where as towns or castles which resisted sieges often resisted over and over (like Danzig or Breslau)

In the late medieval period defenders often sallied out to harass and kill attackers such as when the latter were dispersed to forage for food. This proved effective for the defense in many sieges.

The siege of Rhodes in 1480 is a very good example of a successful defense on a very large scale siege, the one in 1522 is a good example of a masterful attack, and the siege of Malta in 1565 is another example of successful defense which probably could have gone either way.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1480)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1522)

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

G

[Galloglaich]

Thanks for your earlier reply about ductility vs. elasticity, very helpful.



I think very generally siege warfare favored the defense in the medieval period, though it varied widely according to a number of factors, and changed over time with technology and so on.

The basic issue is that if you assume that the defender has had time to prepare supplies and has a well made fortification, an adequate garrison, and the will to resist, they can wait in more comfort than the attacking army can. They often have more supplies. Many if not most sieges that last long enough often end when the attackers start dying due to outbreaks of disease or weather.

The long and short of it is that it's easier and more comfortable to wait for weeks in a house than in a trench. But of course it's more complex than that.


I should have added here what is kind of implicit but not spelled out:

Once a fortification is at the point of being made of thick stone and well designed, it is very hard to break the fortification by force. The fortification is effectively a force-multiplier on defense, maybe by a factor of 100 or 1000. With medieval engineering it's hard to knock down the walls or climb over them. So for this reason, unless he has those 10-1 odds in terms of numbers and capabilities, the attacker is usually forced to play a waiting game, and the defender has an advantage in the waiting game.

Tunneling did prove to be one way to overcome this, but that depended on the terrain where the fort is situated. But by the High Medieval period many forts were on the water, and most cities were either on coasts or rivers or both, and made use of natural water defenses, channeling the rivers into moats etc., like you see in this map of Frankfurt.


https://belgeo.revues.org/docannexe/image/11877/img-7.jpg

This made it hard to tunnel under those walls.

That map is interesting in like a lot of those towns, you can see the various layers of previous wall-systems inside of the active walls at the time that map was made.


Cannons destabilized things again for a minute, but this too was soon addressed as I noted, leading to the Trace Italienne type of forts and castles bristling with guns of their own.

G

[Lemmy]

Ah, thanks for the information, guys! Specially Galloglaich.

It was obvious to em that invading a fortified position was dangerous and costly (it it weren't, why bother with fortifications, after all). I was really in doubt about who could last longer, since the attackers theoretically have the advantage of having a free supply route. I knew it couldn't be as simple as that, but I wasn't sure what factors were in play.

Once again, thank you all for the clarifications. :smallsmile:

[Galloglaich]

Ah, thanks for the information, guys! Specially Galloglaich.

It was obvious to em that invading a fortified position was dangerous and costly (it it weren't, why bother with fortifications, after all). I was really in doubt about who could last longer, since the attackers theoretically have the advantage of having a free supply route. I knew it couldn't be as simple as that, but I wasn't sure what factors were in play.

Once again, thank you all for the clarifications. :smallsmile:

Closing off supply routes to the defenders is one of the attackers most important and difficult challenges. This is where some of the real drama happens too like the Spanish building a bridge to block resupply of Antwerp and then the Flemish sending a ship made into a shaped charge warhead to blow it up. Or all the blockade running at Malta and Rhodes, or even in inland sieges on waterways like the siege of Nuess.

But even without resupply it's amazing how long some castles, citadels, and cities could last under siege. They seem to have been able to store up food and water sufficient for years in some cases. Castles that lacked a good well or spring inside the walls were usually not long-lasting as castles. They often had huge granaries and by the High-to Late Medieval period they had developed a lot of preserved foods which could last a long time, like salted meat, dried fish, dried fruit, pickles, hard cheeses, hard sausages and so on and so forth which they would also stock up on.

This a photo of granaries in a castle in Italy

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/interior-of-the-granary-costigliole-dasti-castle-monferrato-piedmont-picture-id607223401

These are some (rebuilt) medieval granaries in Poland which themselves qualify as significant fortifications in their own right

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/medieval-granaries-at-vistula-river-waterfront-picture-id148532271?s=170667a


The textbook successful siege would be something like where Julius Caesar defeated Vercingetorix, creating a double line of walls around the fort he was besieging, to prevent resupply and reinforcement or communication, until starvation took it's toll. But none of that was as easy against a medieval castle as against an oppidae.


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

G

[fusilier]

Ah, thanks for the information, guys! Specially Galloglaich.

It was obvious to em that invading a fortified position was dangerous and costly (it it weren't, why bother with fortifications, after all). I was really in doubt about who could last longer, since the attackers theoretically have the advantage of having a free supply route. I knew it couldn't be as simple as that, but I wasn't sure what factors were in play.

Once again, thank you all for the clarifications. :smallsmile:

Even if the attackers could completely blockade the besieged, their own supply could become an issue. The logistical organization to transport sufficient supplies was often absent, and armies of the time usually foraged off the land (especially when in foreign/enemy territory). This means that the attacker might exhaust the food stocks in the immediate area, more quickly than the besieged ran out of supplies. Illness could become rampant in the siege camps too, with the result that the besiegers might be suffering as much, or more than, the besieged. Many sieges were lifted simply because the besiegers ran out of supplies and/or illness was starting to cripple their force.

[Galloglaich]

Even if the attackers could completely blockade the besieged, their own supply could become an issue. The logistical organization to transport sufficient supplies was often absent, and armies of the time usually foraged off the land (especially when in foreign/enemy territory). This means that the attacker might exhaust the food stocks in the immediate area, more quickly than the besieged ran out of supplies. .

Historically one of the biggest problems seems to be in feeding the horses. A besieging army which has a lot of cavalry almost immediately has to start sending small parties out to gather fodder for the horses, and they are vulnerable to ambush. A skillful defender will often ambush them at this point.

A really good fortress, like a well fortified city or major citadel level castle, will almost always have hidden sally ports, tunnels etc. from which defenders can emerge and attack smaller groups of besiegers.

Interestingly, due to the honor system of warriors which was in effect at this time, individuals from small groups of defenders would apparently often challenge members of the besieging army to semi-formal duels, and somewhat amazingly to a modern mind, the men from the attacking army would often play along, and quite often lose their lives in the process. This is how Strasbourg and Breslau / Wroclaw broke up some major sieges in the 15th Century. Due to the reputation system attached to honor, declining an offer to duel even when it was militarily advantageous to do so was apparently hard to do socially.


Illness could become rampant in the siege camps too, with the result that the besiegers might be suffering as much, or more than, the besieged. Many sieges were lifted simply because the besiegers ran out of supplies and/or illness was starting to cripple their force

Yes, I mentioned this too but it bears repeating. Once food starts to run out, plague almost inevitably shows up. You can almost time sieges in the later 14th and through the 15th Century by outbreaks of plague. This is especially true if scorched-earth tactics are being used by either side. And that is incidentally one of the reasons why customs came into being in certain areas which limited the severity of such tactics by common agreement.

An extreme example of this was the so called 'Hunger War' in Poland between the Teutonic Knights and the Poles, in the 1414-1420's. The war only lasted a few years and caused limited casualties, but due to scorched earth tactics practiced by both sides and the subsequent famine, a very severe outbreak of plague erupted which ended up killing the equivalent number of Teutonic Knights as they might have lost in a major battle. As a result Poland and the Teutonic Order had a kind of informal agreement in their subsequent wars and battles to limit certain types of scorched earth activities, such as a proscription against burning mills and granaries or burning crops on too large of a scale. This was enforced during their ongoing legal battles within the Church. Whichever side performed such 'war crimes' was often excoriated in Vatican courts. It also coincided with a less harsh treatment of prisoners who were often simply disarmed and released.

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

This informal limitation lasted intermittently at least to some extent throughout the Baltic region, for a surprisingly long time but it really broke down again in the 16th Century when the Muscovites invaded Livonia. The wide cultural gap between the Latinized and Russian armies prevented such "niceties", and famine got so bad as to lead to mass-starvation and outbreaks of cannibalism.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Cannibalism_1571.PNG


G

[Incanur]

As far as sieges of Rhodes go, in 1480 a Turkish warrior apparently (https://books.google.com/books?id=BokyAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT41&lpg=PT41&dq=d%27aubusson+%2B+rhodes+%2B+mace&source=bl&ots=iqRAH5eBwL&sig=Y6CuBtmaKQMf-ov5vMNGodFC7Ac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqze-2q4HRAhUGr1QKHZemAo0Q6AEIODAG#v=onepage&q=d'aubusson%20%2B%20rhodes%20%2B%20mace&f=false) managed to pierce Pierre d'Aubusson's breastplate with a thrown spear or spear thrust, deep enough to inflict a dangerous, quickly incapacitating wound that d'Aubusson barely managed to survive. I can't find the primary source for that, but it's mentioned in various secondary sources. If accurate, it's one of the most impressive examples of plate armor penetration I can think of. Of course, by the standard narrative, d'Aubusson's armor protected him from countless serious injuries before that one attack.

[Tiktakkat]

I would suggest that one element in considering sieges is something Clausewitz touched on, though clearly in reference to post-Renaissance warfare.
That is, such strongpoints, because of the difficulty in taking them, are not intended so much to be the scene of great battles, but rather as a threat in being that drains the forces of an attacker who cannot afford to leave such places behind him without investing them.

Thus, you get sieges whose purpose is primarily to keep the defenders inside, and not raiding your supply lines, or reporting your position, or other irritating things, and not actually break in and take the place.
Certainly if the position runs out of food for some reason, or suffers an outbreak of disease, or is betrayed, or other such "event" you happily claim it, but that isn't the prime reason you invest it.

And if an attacker "traps" his main army investing the place, sacrificing a third in storming the walls and another third in disease, you happily write off the small garrison, even paying modest fees to ransom the survivors, but that was not your prime reason for building it.

Further, such places served as primary marshalling and supply points, providing opportunities and targets for both sides.
Invest the place quickly enough, and the defender cannot equip his entire army.
Break a siege quickly enough, and feed your entire army for a sudden counter-attack.

It would only be when you get past those strategic and operational points of a fortress or similar strongpoint that you start delving into the tactical details of actually winning a siege, at which point the various issues relating to surrender to avoid pillage and massacre start to become relevant.

[GraaEminense]

Vinayadan, Tobtor, Snowblizz: Thanks. Not many good sources to work with it seems, but at least it confirms what I've been thinking more or less.

I've been looking at that Byzantine chronicle image before, trying to figure out what kind of armour they're wearing. It does look like one guy has a mail coif while the rest have some kind of scale or lamellar. Funky helmets too, I wonder how far back they go.

[rrgg]

This isn't really related to the current discussion but I found it interesting. In Monluc's commentaries he mentions that when his crossbowmen ran out of ammunition they would draw their swords and then fight holding their crossbow in their left hand as a buckler.

[Lemmy]

So... What kind of weapon would knights usually pick if they were expecting to fight an skilled opponent in full plate? Say... In a duel. Swords? Mace? Something else?

Also... How good were gauntlets at ptrotecting fingers? I mean... I guess they protected pretty well against cuts, but finger joints are so fragile that I wonder if they wouldn't be hurt by a solid impact, even with armor.

[Galloglaich]

So... What kind of weapon would knights usually pick if they were expecting to fight an skilled opponent in full plate? Say... In a duel. Swords? Mace? Something else?

On horseback, a lance, probably a warhammer, a mace, or some kind of estoc for backup. On foot, a pollaxe. Seemed to be the favored hand to hand weapon for kinghts, kind of like the knightly version of the halberd.



Also... How good were gauntlets at ptrotecting fingers? I mean... I guess they protected pretty well against cuts, but finger joints are so fragile that I wonder if they wouldn't be hurt by a solid impact, even with armor.

probably not enough. This is why you see a lot of mitten gauntlets etc.

They were recommended specifically for billmen and halberdiers.

It's interesting to note also, if you look closely for example at the gauntlets on that armor from Thunn sketchbook I posted, that there are spikes for punching people built in. Gauntlets would be pretty badass to have on in a fight.

Check out this guys gauntlets

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/69/11/bc/6911bc78a81f9f3fa94ae7e8506f12b5.jpg

G

[Incanur]

This isn't really related to the current discussion but I found it interesting. In Monluc's commentaries he mentions that when his crossbowmen ran out of ammunition they would draw their swords and then fight holding their crossbow in their left hand as a buckler.

Yep. This was also done with the arquebus. Sir John Smythe and Captain Martín de Eguiluz both mentioned this technique. I'd like to see somebody recreate this historical style.


On horseback, a lance, probably a warhammer, a mace, or some kind of estoc for backup.

Note that Juan Quijada de Reayo's jousting/cavalry manual ordered cavalry weapons for war as follows: lance, estoc, arming sword, hammer, dagger. So Quijada de Reayo recommend first use the lance, then drawing the estoc and fighting with that until lost or broken, then drawing the arming sword, etc.

[Galloglaich]

Yep. This was also done with the arquebus. .

FYI, I found a passage in a book describing a recent ballistics test in Austria, testing pistols against modern replica breast plates and one antique, medieval breast plate - and the medieval one performed better than the modern. The same book has another passage which described a test conducted in England in the 1570's, shooting pistols at English made and German made breast plates, and the pistol shot through both sides of the English made breast plate but bounced off the German one.

I'll post it later.

[VoxRationis]

They shot up an antique, period breastplate? How in the world did they ever get permission to do that and why did they think that was a good thing to do?

[Mike_G]

Yep. This was also done with the arquebus. Sir John Smythe and Captain Martín de Eguiluz both mentioned this technique. I'd like to see somebody recreate this historical style.




This guy talks about using the carbine in the off hand like a shield with a melee weapon. I'm sure there's a lot of similar technique that works for crossbows or arquebus even though he's discussing a much later period. He's applying the concept to firearms that either didn't take a bayonet, or would have had a reach disadvantage, being shorter, but I'm sure the principle is the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbx4qXvOYE

[rrgg]

They shot up an antique, period breastplate? How in the world did they ever get permission to do that and why did they think that was a good thing to do?

I believe it was from these tests at the Graz armory in Austria. It was a horse's breastplate from the 16th century, but it did outperform modern steel of the same thickness and carbon content.

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312

Presumably they got permission the same way they got permission to put gunpowder in a couple of 400 year old muskets.

[Galloglaich]

They shot up an antique, period breastplate? How in the world did they ever get permission to do that and why did they think that was a good thing to do?

yes they do that some times. You would be amazed how many old breast plates and other pieces of armor they have mostly not even on display in museums and private collections all over Europe. Practically every castle has a dozen or so too.

G

[Galloglaich]

I believe it was from these tests at the Graz armory in Austria. It was a horse's breastplate from the 16th century, but it did outperform modern steel of the same thickness and carbon content.

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312

Presumably they got permission the same way they got permission to put gunpowder in a couple of 400 year old muskets.

Yes that is the one. it does not in and of itself prove anything, but it is a data point that undermines the argument, suggested by some folks several times in the last few pages of this thread, that modern steel armor replicas are inevitably better than actual steel armor made for protecting people's lives from 400 - 500 years ago.

One thing I have learned about metallurgy in following this and similar subjects with interest for a while now, is that there are a lot of subtleties. I used to think for example that phosphorus was always bad for steel in swords, but then learned that phosphorus up to a certain point, helped in better work-hardening for some kinds of processes

http://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=kts&NM=211

I've seen data showing how some 14th Century hand-gonnes actually performed better using the old, theoretically less efficient gun powder (black powder?) formulas of their day than with modern powder.


When it comes to steel, today we make steel which is very good for washing machines, rebar, I-beams and ship hulls, but it may not be ideal in every subtle respect for making armor. Generally the rule of thumb that people 500 years ago were actually pretty smart and good at what they did holds true for me fairly consistently.


Like I said though, one data point certainly does not definitively prove anything, but it's another interesting step toward understanding this era and the exigencies of war and personal conflict within it.

G

[fusilier]

I've seen data showing how some 14th Century hand-gonnes actually performed better using the old, theoretically less efficient gun powder (black powder?) formulas of their day than with modern powder.

I know that many old hand-gonnes have chambered bores, and they perform better with serpentine powder than corned powder.

[rrgg]

I know that many old hand-gonnes have chambered bores, and they perform better with serpentine powder than corned powder.

I suspect this has to do with the grain size. For a short barrel you need an extremely fine powder which burns very quickly and flaky serpentine powder, assuming it is packed just right, is about as much surface area per mass as you can get.

I know there was one experiment performed by Alan Williams where replica 15th c handguns loaded with a homemade dry-mixed powder achieve a slightly higher velocity than those loaded with wet-mixed powder (one of them fired at over 500 m/s!). However the wet-mixed powder had a much more consistent velocity and didn't misfire nearly as much.

[Incanur]

The "Material Culture and Military History" comparison between modern mild steel and that 16th-century horse armor wasn't much of a comparison. They shot a 18th-century rifled musket at the 3mm of modern mild steel and a 1620 wheellock pistol at the 16th-century Ausburg piece of horse armor. Apples and oranges. The authors indicate it was a comparison, that the historical armor did better, but they report shooting it with an entirely different gun. The 18th-century gun delivered about three times they kinetic energy and still significantly more when accounting for bullet diameter. Thus, either their report or their conclusions are in error.

[rrgg]

The article is a summary of the results from the 325 test firings. The implication seems to be that at one point the pistol did manage to penetrate 3mm of modern mild steel at 8.5 m. According to the chart the pistol was only able to penetrate 2mm of modern steel at 30 m but it had lost more than a third of its kinetic energy at that point.

[rrgg]

Does anyone happen to know how widespread pistol-carbines were in the 18th and 19th centuries?

http://i.imgur.com/5NwBDQc.jpg

[Tobtor]

The "Material Culture and Military History" comparison between modern mild steel and that 16th-century horse armor wasn't much of a comparison. They shot a 18th-century rifled musket at the 3mm of modern mild steel and a 1620 wheellock pistol at the 16th-century Ausburg piece of horse armor. Apples and oranges. The authors indicate it was a comparison, that the historical armor did better, but they report shooting it with an entirely different gun. The 18th-century gun delivered about three times they kinetic energy and still significantly more when accounting for bullet diameter. Thus, either their report or their conclusions are in error.

I agree with this.

But I also think it is interesting to note the different qualities of different armour types. I think you (Incanur) posted an example of an Italian(?) author who preferred "softer" armour against bullets. I have though about it, read more on metallurgy etc, and think it might make sense.

A bullet itself is relative soft, thus it is not difficult to get the armour to be harder than the bullet, but the bullet delivers a lot of energy (compared to handweapons/bows). Secondly the bullet is relatively large (compared to a tip of an arrow or the tip of a poleaxe). Thus you want the armour to be able to absorb, rather than withstand, the large amount of energy. The test above had the bullet go through the historic plate but loosing all the energy, so that it would only bruise the person behind it.
Also note that 2,8-3mm is a very thick plate, even fore 15/16th century armour.

Pointed weapons are in contrast very pointed (that is sort of the point of them). That means that, lets say a pike or spear, or even an arrow of type 16 (to avoid the sword argument from repeating itself), have less energy (than the bullet) but delivers that energy to a very small area (the tip). At the same time it is easier to get the tip of a melee weapon to be very hard. As such the penetration ability is better (compared to the bullet), but the weapon delivers a lot less force.

Thus the armour is less likely to break, but more likely to let the weapon through with a very small hole. Thus you would want the armour to be harder, as you want it to be able to withstand the sharper impact of a point (and if possible make it deform slightly), and that the ability to absorb the damage overall is less of a concern.

From this perspective it does make sense to have harder (but less though) armour against pointy things, and softer, but thougher armour against large round things with lots of energy.

About modern steel: It is a bit hard for me to see exactly what kind of steel they are using (maybe I am blind? I couldnt see the specifications for the modern steel, carbon content, to which hardness it was tempered etc). If it is the same kind carhoods are made of, I am very sure medieval plate is at least 10% better (and quite possibly somewhat more than 10%). But then again Thegn Thrand not only thrust through carhoods, but also cuts what looks like 30cm long slashes in it with an arming sword (or viking age sword). Something I would never claim was possible on medieval armour (except extremely poor/malfunctional ones).

[Tobtor]

Yes that is the one. it does not in and of itself prove anything, but it is a data point that undermines the argument, suggested by some folks several times in the last few pages of this thread, that modern steel armor replicas are inevitably better than actual steel armor made for protecting people's lives from 400 - 500 years ago.

I am a bit unsure if they are using actual replica plates, first they write: "mild steel targets" (the initial tests), and later "Modern steel plate 3-mm thick (of the same standard as employed in the indenting test tabulated above), was lined with two layers of linen and placed before a soap block; the entire target was mounted nine metres from the muzzle."

So it could be they just use 3mm plates as a approximation for modern replica armour. But it is definitely worth noting the results: "There was splintering of the shot and the armour plate, leaving splinters some 80-mm deep in the cavity." My emphasis.

In contrast the historical plate didn't leave any splinters.

[Incanur]

Alan Williams seems to think hardened armor, at least if properly tempered, worked the best against bullets. Greenwich armors intended to resist the pistol were hardened, though not quite to the same level of average hardness of earlier Innsbruck armors.

As far the venerable bow-versus-gun question goes, I came across another source from Barnabe Rich: his 1598 work A martial conference pleasantly discoursed betweene two souldiers, the one Captaine Skil, trained vp in the French and Low Country seruices, the other Captaine Pill, only practised in Finsburie fields in the modern warres of the renowmed Duke of Shordich and the mightie Prince Arthur. Rich mocked the pro-bow position adopted by Sir John Smythe and others.

While I'm still sympathetic to Smythe's arguments, Rich's 1598 text highlights a key disadvantage the bow has against the gun; shooting from cover. A soldier can use a gun more easily from cover while archers have to expose themselves to shoot. I've considered that an important reason for the bow's downfall in English armies; this text provides additional evidence. So I'd say the gun's ability to defeat armor and to shoot from behind cover (ditches, hedges, bushes, trees, etc.) were the two chief reasons that it outcompeted the bow in 16th-century Europe.


Againe, they can serue out of euery bush, and from behind euery trée vndiscerned or séen by those that shal serue against them, whereas the Archer must stand in open shew, and make himselfe an open marke to his enemie, or otherwise he cannot serue at all.

Rich, like Humphrey Barwick, gave high figures for the musket's effective range, writing they could shoot at troops of infantry and/or cavalry at 600 yards and that they shot with "great force and furie" within 480 yards. I'm skeptical that person could hit much of anything at 600 yards with a circa-1590 heavy musket, but there's definitely evidence that the English used muskets at such ranges.

[Max_Killjoy]

Rich, like Humphrey Barwick, gave high figures for the musket's effective range, writing they could shoot at troops of infantry and/or cavalry at 600 yards and that they shot with "great force and furie" within 480 yards. I'm skeptical that person could hit much of anything at 600 yards with a circa-1590 heavy musket, but there's definitely evidence that the English used muskets at such ranges.


I would suspect massed fire against massed targets as the origin of those range numbers.

[Galloglaich]

The article is a summary of the results from the 325 test firings. The implication seems to be that at one point the pistol did manage to penetrate 3mm of modern mild steel at 8.5 m. According to the chart the pistol was only able to penetrate 2mm of modern steel at 30 m but it had lost more than a third of its kinetic energy at that point.

Yeah I concur with this. I don't think they would have put it the way they did if they hadn't compared like with like.

Anyway it was a pretty late build breastplate, for me if it had been a 3mm thick Augsburg or Nuremberg from before 1520 or earlier it would have been a much more interesting test (and I doubt the bullet would penetrate) but that would have been too expensive for the test probably.

However I do certainly agree with Tobtor that hard pointy penetrating objects (like arrowheads or lance points) are much harder to resist than soft squishy ones like lead bullets. Alan Williams points this out repeatedly in Knight and the Blast Furnace and his numbers bear it out. It takes a fraction of the amount of joules for an arrow to penetrate plate armor than it does a bullet, but a bow still can't generate enough joules even for the much lower number.

This is also why armor-piercing (e.g. steel core) rifle bullets can usually defeat any personal body armor and often light armored vehicles too, and why anti-tank APDS ammunition consists of a narrow steel or tungsten dart which is much smaller than the original projectile.



A for this hard vs. soft armor, I despair of people more generally being able to understand the importance of the actual tempering i.e. elasticity property along with mere hardness, when it comes to body armor. I actually suspect this is one of the reasons why they stopped wearing textile armor over the plate armor in the 15th Century - because even if your armor saves you, you don't want it dented or holed do you? But the tempered steel armor was less likely to dent.

G

[Incanur]

Yeah I concur with this. I don't think they would have put it the way they did if they hadn't compared like with like.

If so, it's sloppy reporting/writing. As with The Knight and the Blast Furnace, that ain't the only error. See footnote 4 for "Table 2," for example.


However I do certainly agree with Tobtor that hard pointy penetrating objects (like arrowheads or lance points) are much harder to resist than soft squishy ones like lead bullets. Alan Williams points this out repeatedly in Knight and the Blast Furnace and his numbers bear it out. It takes a fraction of the amount of joules for an arrow to penetrate plate armor than it does a bullet, but a bow still can't generate enough joules even for the much lower number.

Note that the numbers from Williams conflict with those from the Graz tests. Williams give 1700 J as the energy required for a bullet to defeat 3mm mild steel. That 1620 wheellock pistol total penetrated 2.8-3mm of 16th-century armor with only around 900 J (this matches Williams's definition of "defeat" for bullets, p. 927). I suspect the drop tests Williams conducted don't completely align with the dynamics of a high-velocity impact, and/or Williams tested with a larger bullet than that pistol shot.

[Galloglaich]

If so, it's sloppy reporting/writing. As with The Knight and the Blast Furnace, that ain't the only error. See footnote 4 for "Table 2," for example.



Note that the numbers from Williams conflict with those from the Graz tests. Williams give 1700 J as the energy required for a bullet to defeat 3mm mild steel. That 1620 wheellock pistol total penetrated 2.8-3mm of 16th-century armor with only around 900 J (this matches Williams's definition of "defeat" for bullets, p. 927). I suspect the drop tests Williams conducted don't completely align with the dynamics of a high-velocity impact, and/or Williams tested with a larger bullet than that pistol shot.

I bet you could teach him a thing or two ;)

G

[rrgg]

Rich, like Humphrey Barwick, gave high figures for the musket's effective range, writing they could shoot at troops of infantry and/or cavalry at 600 yards and that they shot with "great force and furie" within 480 yards. I'm skeptical that person could hit much of anything at 600 yards with a circa-1590 heavy musket, but there's definitely evidence that the English used muskets at such ranges.

Under perfect conditions muskets may have been effective that far out. During one experiment performed by the French army in 1800 a volley of musket fire scored a 5% hit rate against a battalion-sized target over 500 yards away. Other musket trials from the same period tend to show similar results.

On the other side of the world range was cited as a major advantage held by the Japanese musketeers. The Korean Prime minister in his account frequently mentioned the Japanese shooting "several hundred paces" and that "When our soldiers are lined up against the enemy ranks, our arrows do not reach the enemy while their musket balls rain down upon us."

This seems to back up Rich's argument that a force of musketeers would easily be able to displace a force of archers "by reason of their farre shooting".

If anything I'm convinced by the arguments from Humfrey Barwick and the like. That firearms were just all-around better than bows and crossbows in terms of range power and accuracy.

In the 1860s, Ardant du Picq spent a significant part of his Battle Studies trying to explain why gunfire tended to still be generally ineffective beyond short range, even through the troops were now all armed with rifles.


The rifleman. . . only by will-power keeps his ability to aim. But the excitement in the blood, of the nervous system, opposes the immobility of the weapon in his hands. No matter how supported, a part of the weapon always shares the agitation of the man. He is instinctively in haste to fire his shot, which may stop the departure of the bullet destined for him. However lively the fire is, this vague reasoning, unformed as it is in his mind, controls with all the force of the instinct of self preservation. Even the bravest and most reliable soldiers then fire madly.

If that was the response of a rifleman, then I don't think you can expect an archer to carefully estimate his angle and draw his bow all the way back for every single shot when there are bullets whistling past his head.

[Galloglaich]

So here is the book I was referring to earlier:

Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe Bert S. Hall
https://books.google.com/books/about/Weapons_and_Warfare_in_Renaissance_Europ.html?id=x 30mj4xVtSYC

Page 147
“One reason why England continued to import Continental armor throughout the sixteenth century was its inability to make bullet-resistant plate armor at home. In 1590 Sir Henry Lee yielded to urgings to try some steel breastplate made from domestic English iron. He arranged to have a second breastplate identical to the test subject made in the armory from the German steel that was customarily used. At proof firing with the same pistol the specimens made from German steel “helde out, and more than a little dent of the pellet nothinge perced,” whereas the domestic breastplates were pierced “clean through.” Lee warned Lord Burghley not to be misled by armor plate’s surface appearances, for “yt is better to have an armore of evill shape and good mettell than of goode shape and evil mettel.” But he concluded by urging more purchases of body armor, whether from domestic or foreign manufacturers, arguing that “the worlde… is lykelye to use more hereafter than in the tyme past.” Clearly, those who could afford it expected to wear reliable protection against most shots they could reasonably expect to encounter in battle.

This seems to put paid to the idea that the Greenwich armor had quickly reached the levels of the South-German armor.

On page 148 he seems to be implying that the Graz tests on the old armor and the modern mild steel were done both with musket and pistol, and attributes the superior performance of the 16th Century armor to “working the breastplate and hardening the surface”. I would translate that personally as more accurately tempering, though the way he describes the armor being made in England with German steel doesn’t quite wash with that.

I couldn’t really read everything in this part though because I don’t have the book and my buddy just sent me pics from his phone and this one was a bit blurry. I found it on google books (linked above) but they don’t provide a preview or allow searching it.

On page 191 he mentions another very interesting fact I was unaware of – the wheel lock seems to be much older than I realized. He says that the wheel lock appears in a 1505 manuscript associated with a Nuremberg patricia named Martin Loffelholtz, but that it can be traced back to the 15th Century to notebooks of Da Vinci, implying that it already existed in Italy at that time. That’s interesting to me because I thought the wheel lock didn’t arrive until around the mid-16th Century. It seems like it may have been yet another Late Medieval urban invention that disseminated very slowly into the rest of Europe.

This looks like (a rather garbled auto translation of an article about) the Loffelholz family on Germany wikipedia, I’d never heard of this guy or his manuscript but I’d like to see it if anyone knows where to find it.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%25C3%25B6ffelholz_von_Kolberg&prev=search (link)

The author (Bert S. Hall) goes on to suggest his theory that the rather precipitous decline in the use of armor can be attributed to the wheel lock pistol, but I’m not convinced of that interpretation.
Of course interpretations aren’t worth much compared to data, hopefully this tidbit about armor tests in England is another interesting data point if nothing else.


G

[Incanur]

If anything I'm convinced by the arguments from Humfrey Barwick and the like. That firearms were just all-around better than bows and crossbows in terms of range power and accuracy.

If you look only at Europe, Japan, and maybe Korea, sure. China significantly complicate the bow-vs.-gun question. The best Ming-aligned archers, under Koxinga, preformed well against Dutch rifles in the 17th century. Manchu and then Qing forces that includes cavalry archers as well as infantry gunners and archers performed well into the middle of the 18th century if not later. So there's evidence bows, at least composite bows, had a place on the battlefield long after Europeans discarded them.


This seems to put paid to the idea that the Greenwich armor had quickly reached the levels of the South-German armor.

So I guess you have a few things to teach Alan Williams too, huh? It looks like (https://books.google.com/books?id=O6feCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=Sir+Henry+Lee+%2B+pistol+%2B+breastplate+test&source=bl&ots=Jov4oaip5R&sig=4JsUxEquSZYe7kYvwAeFjh0JxaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8ouPJ34rRAhXHNSYKHSGpCjcQ6AEIGjAA#v=on epage&q=Sir%20Henry%20Lee%20%2B%20pistol%20%2B%20breastp late%20test&f=false) the breastplate that Sir Henry Lee saw tested that resisted the pistol shot was made in Greenwich, out of imported metal.

[Galloglaich]

If that was the response of a rifleman, then I don't think you can expect an archer to carefully estimate his angle and draw his bow all the way back for every single shot when there are bullets whistling past his head.

Historically, you seem to have two numbers estimated for max range of muzzle-loading long-arm firearms right up to the civil war. Around 50 feet (or sometimes they say 50 yards or meters) up to around 300 or 400 meters or yards. There is some strong evidence to support both range bands, so to speak, and I suspect the difference boils down to quality of weapons and troops.

On the one hand, from manuals and accounts of battle, typical infantry marksmen in battle seems to usually assume a short range, especially from the second half of the 16th century through the 18th Century. The 50-150 feet max effective range we hear about so often. There are some accounts which seem to make different assumptions but this seems to be pretty common.

But remember that in this 30 Years War era of roughly 1620-1650, (not all the time but in most cases) we know that pikemen essentially seem to have lost the ability to move around the battlefield in rapidly shifting columns that can suddenly change direction, turn, sweep around, take enemies in the flank and so on as the Swiss and Lansknechts, Spanish Tercio's and Dutch militia all seem to have been able to do routinely in the era 1480-1550. Instead pikemen are now positioned on the battlefield as a static defense to protect cannon, VIP's, banners and so on, and rarely even move out into combat because they weren't trusted to have the skill to do so without their formations falling apart if they come under attack.

So I think it's safe to assume a similar decline in the quality of the average gunner from the later 16th Century onward, as armies got larger skill decreased. So did equipment.

In spite of the existence of much more sophisticated weapons, the majority of firearms used by infantry from 1550- 1750 were pretty simple match-lock, smoothbore guns not necessarily made to the kind of high production standard that were associated with Late medieval guild workshops. I think, in fact, that many of the same economic and political factors which led to the decline in the quality of armor also led to a decline in the quality of firearms, especially from certain production centers (royal armories for example). Anecdotes tell us fairly dismal stories of accuracy and effective range of gunners in this period down to that 50-100 feet range.

At the same time however, you also hear of guys like Bevennuto Cellini who seem to have been able to pick off enemy targets 300 meters away with his arquebus. The ranges and target sizes in shutzenfest contests in Germany and Switzerland in the late medieval period and their equivalents in Italy and Flanders, seem to have also indicated a much higher level of accuracy and a longer effective range than what seemed typical of early modern military. However in military accounts we also hear of men who far exceed the average capabilities. If you read the detailed history of the famous late 16th Century siege of Malta by the Ottomans, it sounds like both the Ottomans and the Hospitallers / Spanish had a small number of men, maybe 50 each, who were sharpshooters that could far outrange the typical soldiers. Hit targets 200-300 meters away and more, and yet this still seems to be with roughly the same weapons.


In every case like this I know of, guys like Cellini and the marksmen in the shooting contests, they mention that the shooters had their own carefully selected, high-quality weapons (often owning more than one) and significantly I think, made their own powder and load outs.

So I suspect like a lot of military tech which comes out of the Late Medieval period and gets standardized for the (very generally speaking) larger and lower skilled armies of the Early modern period, you have a majority of low-skilled, poorly armed gunners, and a smaller elite of high skilled, well armed gunners, and this accounts for the differences we see in reported effective range. I would include in this some of the small cadre of heavy-musket armed marksmen in both Spanish and Ottoman armies in the 16th Century.

G

[Green Elf]

I agree with this.

But I also think it is interesting to note the different qualities of different armour types. I think you (Incanur) posted an example of an Italian(?) author who preferred "softer" armour against bullets. I have though about it, read more on metallurgy etc, and think it might make sense.

A bullet itself is relative soft, thus it is not difficult to get the armour to be harder than the bullet, but the bullet delivers a lot of energy (compared to handweapons/bows). Secondly the bullet is relatively large (compared to a tip of an arrow or the tip of a poleaxe). Thus you want the armour to be able to absorb, rather than withstand, the large amount of energy. The test above had the bullet go through the historic plate but loosing all the energy, so that it would only bruise the person behind it.
Also note that 2,8-3mm is a very thick plate, even fore 15/16th century armour.

Pointed weapons are in contrast very pointed (that is sort of the point of them). That means that, lets say a pike or spear, or even an arrow of type 16 (to avoid the sword argument from repeating itself), have less energy (than the bullet) but delivers that energy to a very small area (the tip). At the same time it is easier to get the tip of a melee weapon to be very hard. As such the penetration ability is better (compared to the bullet), but the weapon delivers a lot less force.

Thus the armour is less likely to break, but more likely to let the weapon through with a very small hole. Thus you would want the armour to be harder, as you want it to be able to withstand the sharper impact of a point (and if possible make it deform slightly), and that the ability to absorb the damage overall is less of a concern.

From this perspective it does make sense to have harder (but less though) armour against pointy things, and softer, but thougher armour against large round things with lots of energy.

About modern steel: It is a bit hard for me to see exactly what kind of steel they are using (maybe I am blind? I couldnt see the specifications for the modern steel, carbon content, to which hardness it was tempered etc). If it is the same kind carhoods are made of, I am very sure medieval plate is at least 10% better (and quite possibly somewhat more than 10%). But then again Thegn Thrand not only thrust through carhoods, but also cuts what looks like 30cm long slashes in it with an arming sword (or viking age sword). Something I would never claim was possible on medieval armour (except extremely poor/malfunctional ones).

Although we have had better technology in more recent times, mideval steel plate armor is better than today's armor. Bullets usually either bounce off or shatter on steel, no matter the bullet. Sure, there are little holes and things but that was in spots like under the arms... Where you hold you shields and weapons would be. Then why would we change our armor? Well, steel plate was very hard to get, especially a full set. Usually, only the knights had this luxury. Steel plate is extremely strong, but extremely hard to get.

[Galloglaich]

So I guess you have a few things to teach Alan Williams too, huh? It looks like (https://books.google.com/books?id=O6feCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=Sir+Henry+Lee+%2B+pistol+%2B+breastplate+test&source=bl&ots=Jov4oaip5R&sig=4JsUxEquSZYe7kYvwAeFjh0JxaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8ouPJ34rRAhXHNSYKHSGpCjcQ6AEIGjAA#v=on epage&q=Sir%20Henry%20Lee%20%2B%20pistol%20%2B%20breastp late%20test&f=false) the breastplate that Sir Henry Lee saw tested that resisted the pistol shot was made in Greenwich, out of imported metal.

You are right, I should amend my statement so I don't appear to suggest such a thing: it sounds like Greenwich wasn't able to make high quality armor without relying on South-German production centers to make the steel for them first.

G

[Galloglaich]

Although we have had better technology in more recent times, mideval steel plate armor is better than today's armor. Bullets usually either bounce off or shatter on steel, no matter the bullet. Sure, there are little holes and things but that was in spots like under the arms... Where you hold you shields and weapons would be. Then why would we change our armor? Well, steel plate was very hard to get, especially a full set. Usually, only the knights had this luxury. Steel plate is extremely strong, but extremely hard to get.

It's actually not true, it wasn't so expensive - many burghers and even some peasants owned steel armor in the Late Medieval period.

Really expensive armor had fancy scrollwork and gold leaf on it and so on.

Steel armor did become much more expensive relative to average income by the 17th Century though.

G

[Lilapop]

On page 191 he mentions another very interesting fact I was unaware of – the wheel lock seems to be much older than I realized. He says that the wheel lock appears in a 1505 manuscript associated with a Nuremberg patricia named Martin Loffelholtz, but that it can be traced back to the 15th Century to notebooks of Da Vinci, implying that it already existed in Italy at that time. That’s interesting to me because I thought the wheel lock didn’t arrive until around the mid-16th Century. It seems like it may have been yet another Late Medieval urban invention that disseminated very slowly into the rest of Europe.

This looks like (a rather garbled auto translation of an article about) the Loffelholz family on Germany wikipedia, I’d never heard of this guy or his manuscript but I’d like to see it if anyone knows where to find it.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%25C3%25B6ffelholz_von_Kolberg&prev=search (link)
The article on the family mostly has very general info about their social status and how it fluctuated over the centuries (part of the city council; helped win a war, got a castle for it, added it to the name). The list of dead links on the bottom however mentions Martin, died 1533, as "Pfleger des Pflegamts Lichtenau". Lichtenau (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenau_(Mittelfranken)) (don't bother checking the English one, its essentially a stub) is a tiny town with a castle 20 km from Nürnberg, but the title is harder to interpret without knowing the context.

"Amt" translates to office, either as kind of a title (one person holding an office) or as a... base of operations for a bunch of buerocrats, like the places where you go to get a new passport made or where they review your tax records. "Pfleger" means caretaker, and just as the English word has carries no defition of what is taken care of. Can be medical stuff (male nurses are usually called Pfleger, as the word for nurse is unambigiously female), in which case the Pflegamt is a nursery station; can be a memorial or collection, making curator a pretty accurate translation (but sounds unlikely for the period). Hell, I don't even know if he was called that back in the day or if its just a modern term.

[Kiero]

Historically, you seem to have two numbers estimated for max range of muzzle-loading long-arm firearms right up to the civil war. Around 50 feet (or sometimes they say 50 yards or meters) up to around 300 or 400 meters or yards. There is some strong evidence to support both range bands, so to speak, and I suspect the difference boils down to quality of weapons and troops.

On the one hand, from manuals and accounts of battle, typical infantry marksmen in battle seems to usually assume a short range, especially from the second half of the 16th century through the 18th Century. The 50-150 feet max effective range we hear about so often. There are some accounts which seem to make different assumptions but this seems to be pretty common.

But remember that in this 30 Years War era of roughly 1620-1650, (not all the time but in most cases) we know that pikemen essentially seem to have lost the ability to move around the battlefield in rapidly shifting columns that can suddenly change direction, turn, sweep around, take enemies in the flank and so on as the Swiss and Lansknechts, Spanish Tercio's and Dutch militia all seem to have been able to do routinely in the era 1480-1550. Instead pikemen are now positioned on the battlefield as a static defense to protect cannon, VIP's, banners and so on, and rarely even move out into combat because they weren't trusted to have the skill to do so without their formations falling apart if they come under attack.

So I think it's safe to assume a similar decline in the quality of the average gunner from the later 16th Century onward, as armies got larger skill decreased. So did equipment.

In spite of the existence of much more sophisticated weapons, the majority of firearms used by infantry from 1550- 1750 were pretty simple match-lock, smoothbore guns not necessarily made to the kind of high production standard that were associated with Late medieval guild workshops. I think, in fact, that many of the same economic and political factors which led to the decline in the quality of armor also led to a decline in the quality of firearms, especially from certain production centers (royal armories for example). Anecdotes tell us fairly dismal stories of accuracy and effective range of gunners in this period down to that 50-100 feet range.

At the same time however, you also hear of guys like Bevennuto Cellini who seem to have been able to pick off enemy targets 300 meters away with his arquebus. The ranges and target sizes in shutzenfest contests in Germany and Switzerland in the late medieval period and their equivalents in Italy and Flanders, seem to have also indicated a much higher level of accuracy and a longer effective range than what seemed typical of early modern military. However in military accounts we also hear of men who far exceed the average capabilities. If you read the detailed history of the famous late 16th Century siege of Malta by the Ottomans, it sounds like both the Ottomans and the Hospitallers / Spanish had a small number of men, maybe 50 each, who were sharpshooters that could far outrange the typical soldiers. Hit targets 200-300 meters away and more, and yet this still seems to be with roughly the same weapons.


In every case like this I know of, guys like Cellini and the marksmen in the shooting contests, they mention that the shooters had their own carefully selected, high-quality weapons (often owning more than one) and significantly I think, made their own powder and load outs.

So I suspect like a lot of military tech which comes out of the Late Medieval period and gets standardized for the (very generally speaking) larger and lower skilled armies of the Early modern period, you have a majority of low-skilled, poorly armed gunners, and a smaller elite of high skilled, well armed gunners, and this accounts for the differences we see in reported effective range. I would include in this some of the small cadre of heavy-musket armed marksmen in both Spanish and Ottoman armies in the 16th Century.

G

This quality v quantity dichotomy seems to be universal throughout history. Reading this reminded me of the changes over time in phalangites, from Philip II of Makedon's first armies, down through the Hellenistic era. Essentially that first army Philip trained himself (based on his instruction by Epaminondas) was the best of them. Not only were they capable of a more active set of maneuvers on the battlefield, but they were cross-trained as skirmishers too (though in reality they were probably just bringing their pre-existing hunting skills with them), so he could tell off a portion of his heavy infantry to serve as lights if desired. Especially useful during sieges. Many of these men were still in harness in their eighties and even nineties, serving Alexander's successors.

Later phalanxes, though, focused on heavier armour, longer pikes and deeper files - and lots more of them. Gone was the ability of the phalanx to go on the offensive, instead relying entirely on cavalry and other arms to act as the hammer to the phalanxes anvil. Even melee combat dropped away, the likelihood of fighting outside the phalanx being so low men stopped carrying swords. It was commented that at the battle of Pydna, for example, when the Romans infiltrated the phalanx, many of the opposing pikemen had nothing to fight back with.

[rrgg]

If i recall one of the issues with Allan Williams charts is that he only tested 2mm plates and then extrapolated for the other thicknesses, so it's probably at best a rough approximation. If you calculate the kinetic energy at 30 and 100 m of each gun in the graz test it doesn't seem to always line up with the amount of steel penetration. Interestingly the amount of wood penetrated also doesn't always match up with the amount of steel penetration. This might be in part due to the differing cross section of each bullet.

In theory, a small, high velocity projectile should be the most efficient at penetrating armor. Maybe a long-barreled wheelock pistol overcharged with powder and placed directly against a targets armor will penetrate better than we think.

As i understand it, the main factor when it comes to understanding the structural properties of steel is the fact that as it cools it forms little crystal microstructures (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/CrystalGrain.jpg/800px-CrystalGrain.jpg). The size and shape of these depend on exactly how much it was heated and how quickly it was cooled. As a result depending on the exact alloy and the exact process used properties such as ultimate yield strength (how much pressure can be applied before the steel permanently deforms) and ultimate tensile strength (how much pressure can be applied before the steel breaks) can vary dramatically. Even today many steel companies prefer to keep their exact manufacturing process a secret. So back when temperature control was done by eyeball and the alloy depends on where the ore was mined these properties may have been more or less random.

There is an article available online where Alan Williams studied the metallurgy of various Ulfbert swords and he concluded that a couple of them actually were made out of imported, high-carbon crucible steel, but the temperatures they were worked at got too hot and broke apart the steel microstructures. This resulted in swords which were far less hard and strong then the correctly worked Ulfbert swords.


If you look only at Europe, Japan, and maybe Korea, sure. China significantly complicate the bow-vs.-gun question. The best Ming-aligned archers, under Koxinga, preformed well against Dutch rifles in the 17th century. Manchu and then Qing forces that includes cavalry archers as well as infantry gunners and archers performed well into the middle of the 18th century if not later. So there's evidence bows, at least composite bows, had a place on the battlefield long after Europeans discarded them.


The issue Koxinga's victory and the Qing victories against the russians can be in part attributed to superior numbers, while the reverse seems to be true for a number of European victories. In 1651 an army of at least 200 Cossacks attacked a fortified village defended by 800 infantry and 50 manchu cavalry and won a decisive victory with only 4 killed and 45 wounded. In 1652 a force of 2,000 manchu with cannons was sent defeat the Cossaks at Fort Achansk, but despite blowing a hole in the fort's wall with cannons the assault ended with 700 manchu dead compared to only 10 russians.

The qing did invest in matchlock firearms quite heavily, but there might be cultural or economic reasons that they continued to use large numbers of bows. Perhaps industry remained such that decent firearms and ammunition remained expensive relative to bows and arrows, or there remained a general lack of experience in marksmanship or tactics when it came to firearms compared to bows. Bows are more difficult to learn how to aim however practice arrows can at least be reused, unlike bullets and gunpowder. Especially if you want to teach soldiers something complex like loading and shooting from horseback how many practice shots is that going to take? Never mind actually training the horse to get used to gunfire.

At the battle of Sarhu the korean musketeers were in theory trained in european-like volley techniques, but in practice it seems the majority only managed a single massed volley before being overrun by Manchu cavalry. This apparently did slow down the Korean adoption of muskets temporarily, causing them to incorporate spearmen and archers into their tactics. However it 500 of the best trained musketeers on the eastern front apparently were able to keep their discipline and held off the Manchu cavalry all on their own using a constant barrage of volleys by rank until their allies routed and they were forced to surrender.

There's also the fact that the Manchu were heavily reliant on cavalry, and muzzle loading weapons were fairly difficult to use on horseback. Wheelock pistols became extremely popular in western Europe, to the point that lancers there became practically extinct. However while mounted musketeers were used to some degree in china, and the matchlock musket became a very popular weapon for cavalry in india, smaller guns like pistols and carbines seem to have remained a largely European phenomenon.

In case anyone in interested in some further reading:

Andrade, "The Gunpowder Age"

Kahn, "Gunpowder and Firearms: warfare in Medieval India"

Kang, "Big Heads and Buddhist Demons" http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kang/files/jcmh_2.2_big_heads_and_buddhist_demons.pdf


---

@Galloglaich

Training might be part of it, but what is weird is just how consistent most of these musket trials are: typically in the realm of 40-60% accuracy against a battalion target at 100 yards. This is drastically less accurate than the Graz tests suggests these weapons were, yet at the same time drastically more accurate than the weapons were in battle (the first volley seems to have been typically between 1-5% casualties at that distance, sometimes lower). Wilhelm Muller's manual included trial results for both "ordinary" and "well-drilled" soldiers. At 400 paces the well drilled troops were twice as accurate, but at 100 paces the ordinary troops scored about 40% while the drilled troops scored 53%. Fuller's book "The Rifled Musket" includes results from an experiment performed by the US army in the mid 19th century testing various rifles. When the experiments involved only a single shooter most rifles achieved a grouping around 10 inches across at 100 yards. When the experiment involved 10 shooters firing those same rifles either in volleys or at will the grouping was closer to 10 feet across, and there was no tight grouping of 5 bullets in the very center.

It might be in part the smoke or the noise, but it seems like there's just something about when a formation of soldiers are stand together firing at a large target accuracy instantly goes out the window.

[Lemmy]

Was there a pre-firearms military unit that could be called an "elite troop" or something? I'm looking for inspiration for an upcoming campaign, so I was wondering it there ever was some army or organization or whatever that was known for consistently doing amazing stuff, like defeating opponents that outnumber them considerably or pulling some crazy stunt.

What about some sort of "black ops" unit? Any famous ones?

[Galloglaich]

The article on the family mostly has very general info about their social status and how it fluctuated over the centuries (part of the city council; helped win a war, got a castle for it, added it to the name). The list of dead links on the bottom however mentions Martin, died 1533, as "Pfleger des Pflegamts Lichtenau". Lichtenau (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenau_(Mittelfranken)) (don't bother checking the English one, its essentially a stub) is a tiny town with a castle 20 km from Nürnberg, but the title is harder to interpret without knowing the context.

"Amt" translates to office, either as kind of a title (one person holding an office) or as a... base of operations for a bunch of buerocrats, like the places where you go to get a new passport made or where they review your tax records. "Pfleger" means caretaker, and just as the English word has carries no defition of what is taken care of. Can be medical stuff (male nurses are usually called Pfleger, as the word for nurse is unambigiously female), in which case the Pflegamt is a nursery station; can be a memorial or collection, making curator a pretty accurate translation (but sounds unlikely for the period). Hell, I don't even know if he was called that back in the day or if its just a modern term.

Thanks Lilapop, that 's very interesting. Particularly the bit about Lichtenau, we have been interested in that place for a while already because of it possibly being linked to the mysterious grand master of German fencing, Johannes Liechtenauer. I'm going to ask Mike Chidester and Christian Trosclair at Wiktenauer if they can track down that Manuscript I bet it's worth a look.

G

[Galloglaich]

@Galloglaich

Training might be part of it, but what is weird is just how consistent most of these musket trials are: typically in the realm of 40-60% accuracy against a battalion target at 100 yards. This is drastically less accurate than the Graz tests suggests these weapons were, yet at the same time drastically more accurate than the weapons were in battle (the first volley seems to have been typically between 1-5% casualties at that distance, sometimes lower). Wilhelm Muller's manual included trial results for both "ordinary" and "well-drilled" soldiers. At 400 paces the well drilled troops were twice as accurate, but at 100 paces the ordinary troops scored about 40% while the drilled troops scored 53%. Fuller's book "The Rifled Musket" includes results from an experiment performed by the US army in the mid 19th century testing various rifles. When the experiments involved only a single shooter most rifles achieved a grouping around 10 inches across at 100 yards. When the experiment involved 10 shooters firing those same rifles either in volleys or at will the grouping was closer to 10 feet across, and there was no tight grouping of 5 bullets in the very center.

It might be in part the smoke or the noise, but it seems like there's just something about when a formation of soldiers are stand together firing at a large target accuracy instantly goes out the window.

You may be on to something. I think there is for sure an issue with different troop types working together, the French nobles for example on numerous occasions completely mismanaged their infantry and even in several cases ran down their own infantry simply because they were in the way. They even did this to Genoese mercenaries in their employ, though I don't think they ever tried it with the Swiss.

Hastily thrown together international armies often performed very poorly in the medieval world.

You do I think however see some cases of small-ish units of gunners performing well, for example I think Fusilier or Incannur mentioned several thread iterations back an incident where musketeers were able to wreak havoc on some targets across a river something like 300 yards away if I remember properly.

I suspect though you have a point, unit cohesion is an issue. For that matter, it's one of the curiosities about medieval martial training, there is little evidence for unit drilling in the medieval period, even though medieval armies seemed to have had good unit cohesion in the field sometimes. Fencing training seems to emphasize the one -on - one duel and marksmanship training seemed to center around individualized shooting contests. Jousts, similarly, emphasized the one-on-one competition.

I think from reading about the urban militias that they acquired unit cohesion by fighting together in constant low intensity warfare that was almost always going on. But it's just a hunch, we really don't know.

G

[Galloglaich]

Was there a pre-firearms military unit that could be called an "elite troop" or something? I'm looking for inspiration for an upcoming campaign, so I was wondering it there ever was some army or organization or whatever that was known for consistently doing amazing stuff, like defeating opponents that outnumber them considerably or pulling some crazy stunt.

What about some sort of "black ops" unit? Any famous ones?

The answer is yes, I think, but you really need to narrow it down a bit further. Pre-firearms takes you from semi-mythological Celtic times, through the Romans and the Vikings, the Crusades and into the High Medieval period. And in various regions around Europe, there are examples of elite military units or entourages, in England, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain... so narrow it down some in terms of time and place and we'll be able to help better. There is no generic DnD fantasy land to just pluck ideas from.

G

[Lemmy]

The answer is yes, I think, but you really need to narrow it down a bit further. Pre-firearms takes you from semi-mythological Celtic times, through the Romans and the Vikings, the Crusades and into the High Medieval period. And in various regions around Europe, there are examples of elite military units or entourages, in England, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain... so narrow it down some in terms of time and place and we'll be able to help better. Hmm... Let's say something from the pre-Christianity Roman Empire and something from... I don't know? Europe in 1300~1500? Something that would fit in a mostly medieval fantasy world.

I apologize for my vagueness... I'm not sure where to begin, to be honest. If you have any favorites, I'd love to hear about them... :smallbiggrin:


There is no generic DnD fantasy land to just pluck ideas from.Why do you have to crush my dreams? :smallfrown:

[GraaEminense]

The Varangian Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard) of the Byzantine emperors fall outside those dates (they were most prominent around roughly 1000-1200), but they were a military unit with a distinct reputation for skill, brutality and loyalty and were definitely considered elite. They were also an institution rather than a short-term warband. Edit: And, since this will become a recurring theme, they did support a usurper emperor at least once.

The knightly orders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_order_(monastic_society)#List_of_military _orders) of the various Crusades, like the Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights, were not only elite military units but independent or at least autonomous mini-states. Time-wise they are perfect for your European fantasy world.

The mamluks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk#Organization) of Egypt and other muslim rulers were slave soldiers, but also important members of the administration. In Egypt they eventually seized power, ruling the country from 1250 to 1517. They were not a single unit, but a soldier caste.

A similar system was set up in Turkey, with the janissaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries). These were the Sultan's guards (so more of a single unit, but also important parts of the palace administration), and eventually they too became kingmakers and power-players.

If you want Romans, the Praetorian Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_Guard) of the emperors were probably considered elite (they were well paid and expected to be loyal). However, they did end up murdering emperors and choosing new ones...

The moral of history is that you really shouldn't have royal guards.

[Kiero]

Was there a pre-firearms military unit that could be called an "elite troop" or something? I'm looking for inspiration for an upcoming campaign, so I was wondering it there ever was some army or organization or whatever that was known for consistently doing amazing stuff, like defeating opponents that outnumber them considerably or pulling some crazy stunt.

What about some sort of "black ops" unit? Any famous ones?

There are countless examples from antiquity. Persian Immortals. The Spartiatai (note they're the Spartan elite, not the common soldiers). Makedonian Agema (royal guard), including the Hetairoi and Hypaspistai. Dacian Ktistes. The Epilektoi in Greek armies. The Extraordinarii in pre-Marian Roman armies. Iberian devotio. Theban Sacred Band. Carthaginian Sacred Band. Those are just off the top of my head.

[Carl]

The moral of history is that you really shouldn't have royal guards.


This deserves some kind of lulz.

[GraaEminense]

This deserves some kind of lulz.
It's all I ever imagined it would be, and so much more.

[Galloglaich]

Hmm... Let's say something from the pre-Christianity Roman Empire and something from... I don't know? Europe in 1300~1500? Something that would fit in a mostly medieval fantasy world.

That's part of the problem right here - Europe 1300-1500 is within the gunpowder era...



I apologize for my vagueness... I'm not sure where to begin, to be honest. If you have any favorites, I'd love to hear about them... :smallbiggrin:

Why do you have to crush my dreams? :smallfrown:

No problem, it's our job here in this thread to crush dreams

G

[Max_Killjoy]

That's part of the problem right here - Europe 1300-1500 is within the gunpowder era...




For comparison, what would be the "era of full plate armor"?

(If necessary, pick a subregion of Europe where that concept even makes sense.)

[Galloglaich]

For comparison, what would be the "era of full plate armor"?

(If necessary, pick a subregion of Europe where that concept even makes sense.)

Ok for comparison of like with like , Teutonic Knights

1200's (this would be before your period)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/63/a5/c6/63a5c6463dc648da6a0c0f4399afdf8d.jpg


14th Century (1300's)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ae/47/f8/ae47f899361d82043f912b0190ea7abd.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/3f/1b/953f1bc295531864207b8e5380b4fc72.jpg

15th Century (1400's)
http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/large_orig_teutonic_g.jpg

hope that helps,

G

[Max_Killjoy]

So yeah, the idea that gunpowder instantly made armor obsolete... busted.

(And yeah, I run into that idea a lot.)

[Galloglaich]

So yeah, the idea that gunpowder instantly made armor obsolete... busted.

(And yeah, I run into that idea a lot.)

Don't feel bad, it's a very common trope. This is why almost everyone assumes that DnD generic fantasy land where they have plate armor (Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings) shouldn't have any guns, but the opposite is true.

And yet there is some truth in the trope too, it's just much more gradual. Gunpowder almost certainly contributed to the development of plate armor from 1300-1500, and then contributed to the gradual demise of plate armor from 1500-1650.

In other words it did help end the era of armor it was just a very slow and somewhat convoluted process. From 1350-1500 armor and all armor-piercing weapons were kind of in a see-saw arms race as to which one was superior. I think there were also some real important political and economic factors after 1500 as well but that is just a theory.

G

[Max_Killjoy]

Don't feel bad, it's a very common trope. This is why almost everyone assumes that DnD generic fantasy land where they have plate armor (Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings) shouldn't have any guns, but the opposite is true.

And yet there is some truth in the trope too, it's just much more gradual. Gunpowder almost certainly contributed to the development of plate armor from 1300-1500, and then contributed to the gradual demise of plate armor from 1500-1650.

In other words it did help end the era of armor it was just a very slow and somewhat convoluted process. From 1350-1500 armor and all armor-piercing weapons were kind of in a see-saw arms race as to which one was superior. I think there were also some real important political and economic factors after 1500 as well but that is just a theory.


I don't mind anyone creating a game setting with any combination of "period appropriate" plate armor and firearms.

It just bugs me when someone claims "because history" when they decide on plate armor and no firearms, or slam another game/setting for making a different decision.

[Tiktakkat]

And yet there is some truth in the trope too, it's just much more gradual. Gunpowder almost certainly contributed to the development of plate armor from 1300-1500, and then contributed to the gradual demise of plate armor from 1500-1650.

In other words it did help end the era of armor it was just a very slow and somewhat convoluted process. From 1350-1500 armor and all armor-piercing weapons were kind of in a see-saw arms race as to which one was superior. I think there were also some real important political and economic factors after 1500 as well but that is just a theory.

G

I would say that the problem is in failing to recognize that the "idea of gunpowder" was not instantaneous, and even more that the "functionality" of gunpowder was even less instantaneous.

Had "everyone" switched from pikes and bows to rifled flintlocks between 1300 and 1301, I expect "everyone" would have switched from full suits of plate to buff coats, helms, and the odd breastplate between 1301 and 1302.
They couldn't and so they didn't.

Add on top of that people living in an era when we went from rifled flintlocks (okay, caplocks) to auto-cannons in one John Moses Browning, and the trope, however flawed, is actually understandable, particularly since nobody had any real experience with full armor by that time.

And then add in the "eternal technology" of most fantasy settings, where "everyone" has had plate for the last ten thousand years, and so "of course" they must have had gunpowder for the same period of time, and thus plate "must" be long since obsolete.

When you add together all the tropes, plus the life experience (or at least recent history reading) of the designers, plus the "in media res" nature of most settings, it starts to become a more reasonable expectation.

[Galloglaich]

I would say that the problem is in failing to recognize that the "idea of gunpowder" was not instantaneous, and even more that the "functionality" of gunpowder was even less instantaneous.

Had "everyone" switched from pikes and bows to rifled flintlocks between 1300 and 1301, I expect "everyone" would have switched from full suits of plate to buff coats, helms, and the odd breastplate between 1301 and 1302.
They couldn't and so they didn't.

I really don't think plate armor went away for purely technological reasons, though that is debatable. But it's not debatable that firearms and equivalent anti-personnel weapons like volley guns were around and widespread from the late 1300's and they certainly did not lead to plate armor going away.



Add on top of that people living in an era when we went from rifled flintlocks (okay, caplocks) to auto-cannons in one John Moses Browning, and the trope, however flawed, is actually understandable, particularly since nobody had any real experience with full armor by that time.

And then add in the "eternal technology" of most fantasy settings, where "everyone" has had plate for the last ten thousand years, and so "of course" they must have had gunpowder for the same period of time, and thus plate "must" be long since obsolete.

When you add together all the tropes, plus the life experience (or at least recent history reading) of the designers, plus the "in media res" nature of most settings, it starts to become a more reasonable expectation.

Well, no doubt there are a lot of cultural reasons for game designers and genre fiction authors and TV producers being wrong, but our job in this thread is to set the record strait as to what was historically true.

I think the main reason they were wrong is because they, we, simply don't understand the medieval world at all. Lack of guns is just the tip of the iceburg. People tend to portray the medieval world as populated by sort of imbecile cavemen clad in rags, with recorder music and crude wooden artifacts...

G

[Lemmy]

So yeah, the idea that gunpowder instantly made armor obsolete... busted.

(And yeah, I run into that idea a lot.)That's not even the worst part... I often see movies and TV shows, including high-budget ones, such as Game of Thrones, treat armor like nothing more than a shiny costume, and having character downright slice through it like butter. I mean... Do the producers and/or audience think people used armor for the fashion statement?

[Galloglaich]

That's not even the worst part... I often see movies and TV shows, including high-budget ones, such as Game of Thrones, treat armor like nothing more than a shiny costume, and having character downright slice through it like butter. I mean... Do the producers and/or audience think people used armor for the fashion statement?

yeah that is a huge problem. People can't get their head around the idea that armor ever worked, for anything. It was so sad in the otherwise pretty good Lord of the Rings series to see how useless the armor was for those Gondor dudes (and everyone else)

One of the few flaws in the recent Star Wars film is that yet again, those poor stormtroopers armor is utterly worthless. They really aren't scary at all now, just mooks. Their job is a little too clearly to die like flies and armor is one of the signs of a disposable mook. Always less impact when you see anonymous faceless people getting whacked than what are clearly individualized people.

G

[Blackhawk748]

Fairly simple question here, which im sure has a not so simple answer. What was the primary use of the Chariot? Now i know that the Celts used them as a sort of mobile firing platform for archers, and im pretty sure the Greeks ran people over with theres. Where Chariots just "horse cavalry but bulkier" or did they serve a somewhat different purpose?

I ask cuz im designing a setting and i want to include Chariots, but there will also be conventional cavalry and i want to see if thats plausible.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not even the worst part... I often see movies and TV shows, including high-budget ones, such as Game of Thrones, treat armor like nothing more than a shiny costume, and having character downright slice through it like butter. I mean... Do the producers and/or audience think people used armor for the fashion statement?




yeah that is a huge problem. People can't get their head around the idea that armor ever worked, for anything. It was so sad in the otherwise pretty good Lord of the Rings series to see how useless the armor was for those Gondor dudes (and everyone else)

One of the few flaws in the recent Star Wars film is that yet again, those poor stormtroopers armor is utterly worthless. They really aren't scary at all now, just mooks. Their job is a little too clearly to die like flies and armor is one of the signs of a disposable mook. Always less impact when you see anonymous faceless people getting whacked than what are clearly individualized people.



So true, on all accounts.

Even GoT series, so praised by critics for its "realism", is so full of garbage when it comes to weapons and armor. Personally, I'm at least as tired of the "Dung Ages" trope as I am of "Ye Goode Olde Days".



(The animated series Rebels has an old Clone Trooper from TCW as a supporting character, and he makes comments about how pointless Stormtrooper armor is... I think the people who make that show are a bit more self-aware than some of the movie-makers.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Fairly simple question here, which im sure has a not so simple answer. What was the primary use of the Chariot? Now i know that the Celts used them as a sort of mobile firing platform for archers, and im pretty sure the Greeks ran people over with theres. Where Chariots just "horse cavalry but bulkier" or did they serve a somewhat different purpose?

I ask cuz im designing a setting and i want to include Chariots, but there will also be conventional cavalry and i want to see if thats plausible.

Various probable uses, not mutually exclusive.

1) charge toward enemy, launch missile attacks, speed away -- repeat
2) charge toward enemy, deliver heavily-equipped and socially important elites to the fighting, then stay as close as you can to extract them when they're injured or tired or being overwhelmed
3) provide commanders with platform which makes them more visible to their troops and more mobile

[Lemmy]

So true, on all accounts.

Even GoT series, so praised by critics for its "realism", is so full of garbage when it comes to weapons and armor. Did you know? In Westeros, shields and helmets are rarer and more expensive than valyrian steel!

[Storm Bringer]

Various probable uses, not mutually exclusive.

1) charge toward enemy, launch missile attacks, speed away -- repeat
2) charge toward enemy, deliver heavily-equipped and socially important elites to the fighting, then stay as close as you can to extract them when they're injured or tired or being overwhelmed
3) provide commanders with platform which makes them more visible to their troops and more mobile

may I add to 3) by pointing out that it not only makes them more visible, it let them see more over massed troops, so giving them a better understanding of the battlefield and thus letting them give better (or at least more informed) orders.

[Galloglaich]

Fairly simple question here, which im sure has a not so simple answer. What was the primary use of the Chariot? Now i know that the Celts used them as a sort of mobile firing platform for archers, and im pretty sure the Greeks ran people over with theres. Where Chariots just "horse cavalry but bulkier" or did they serve a somewhat different purpose?

I ask cuz im designing a setting and i want to include Chariots, but there will also be conventional cavalry and i want to see if thats plausible.

Very generally I think, horse cavalry > chariots

The main reason for chariots was horses were not suitable for riding: too small / not well bred enough or trained / lacked suitable horse harness, saddles, stirrups etc.

That said, caveat - depending on the capabilities of horse and rider (early cavalry was kind of limited in how maneuverable the horses were etc.)

But basically yeah ride around and throw javelins or shoot arrows. There were some variants with scythe wheels and stuff which may have been used to attack people on the run, but the horse is always vulnerable.

There are however also war-wagons with the horses (or oxen) were somewhat protected and they were used for close combat, but they had guns by then. Works pretty much the same with crossbows though.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/19/6e/f3/196ef361810104929bd2e2bc3d23dcdd.jpg

G

[Lemmy]

Fairly simple question here, which im sure has a not so simple answer. What was the primary use of the Chariot? Now i know that the Celts used them as a sort of mobile firing platform for archers, and im pretty sure the Greeks ran people over with theres. Where Chariots just "horse cavalry but bulkier" or did they serve a somewhat different purpose?

I ask cuz im designing a setting and i want to include Chariots, but there will also be conventional cavalry and i want to see if thats plausible.Admittedly, I know little about medieval weaponry... But it seems cavalry would have the advantage of being more maneuverable, while chariots have the advantage of allowing heavier "cargo". I remember seeing something about chariot wheels having spinning blades and such. I'd say they were probably easier more comfortable to ride too, but I have no idea.

Horse biology and military roles really aren't something I can say I know much about... :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Of course G would ninja me with a much more knowledgeable and enlightening post... But hey! My guess was pretty accurate for layman's guess! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT 2: BTW, G, thanks for the post on "elite military units from the olden days". I have no idea how you can recall so much information about so many different ages. I can barely remember my own birthday!

[Vitruviansquid]

That's not even the worst part... I often see movies and TV shows, including high-budget ones, such as Game of Thrones, treat armor like nothing more than a shiny costume, and having character downright slice through it like butter. I mean... Do the producers and/or audience think people used armor for the fashion statement?

Actual medieval and earlier literature also had people going through armor like butter. The Song of Roland is full of swords bisecting people from head to groin, going through shields and byrnies.

Armor sucking is as much a trope of the genre as anything.

[Tiktakkat]

I really don't think plate armor went away for purely technological reasons, though that is debatable. But it's not debatable that firearms and equivalent anti-personnel weapons like volley guns were around and widespread from the late 1300's and they certainly did not lead to plate armor going away.

And neither is it debatable that melee weapons and equivalent were also still widespread by the late 1300's.
Indeed, it is not debatable that firearms were not the predominant weapon in the late 1300's, or even the late 1400's.
Thus, as I was noting with a bit of hyperbole to stress the point, the difference between something existing and something being so ubiquitous as to be universal, and for that to impact other aspects.


Well, no doubt there are a lot of cultural reasons for game designers and genre fiction authors and TV producers being wrong, but our job in this thread is to set the record strait as to what was historically true.

If you do not understand why they are wrong you will have a hard time setting the record straight.
Otherwise you wind up throwing a mass of techno-babble at people who will just smirk and point at the claims of "research" behind game products and "technical advisors" on media productions and ask what makes you better than them.


I think the main reason they were wrong is because they, we, simply don't understand the medieval world at all. Lack of guns is just the tip of the iceburg. People tend to portray the medieval world as populated by sort of imbecile cavemen clad in rags, with recorder music and crude wooden artifacts...

G

Among other things.

But just as they are wrong to think medieval people were just ignorant fools, it would be wrong to think modern people are just ignorant fools because they think medieval people were just ignorant fools.
Quite a few otherwise distinguished scholars contributed to misperceptions of the medieval world, quite a few established people have a vested interest in not upsetting that status quo, and quite a few more make errors even as they correct mistakes.

[Kiero]

Fairly simple question here, which im sure has a not so simple answer. What was the primary use of the Chariot? Now i know that the Celts used them as a sort of mobile firing platform for archers, and im pretty sure the Greeks ran people over with theres. Where Chariots just "horse cavalry but bulkier" or did they serve a somewhat different purpose?

I ask cuz im designing a setting and i want to include Chariots, but there will also be conventional cavalry and i want to see if thats plausible.

Archery/javelin platform and battle taxi. The latter is the more useful one - a means to get the noble to the fight quickly, so he can dismount and lead. Also the means to get him out again, either to flee, or if he's required to stem the tide somewhere else.

The Celts didn't do much with archery, and as far as I'm aware didn't use chariot-based archery. Their missile weapon of choice was the javelin. They also pretty much abandoned the chariot by the middle of the third century BC, except as a funeral artefact. Cavalry was simply much better and more flexible on the battlefield.

[Vinyadan]

To be fair, there is a movie in which armour is super effective!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6VrmOQY1M

[GraaEminense]

Chariot uses:

1) Battle taxi for important people who fight on foot, because walking to the battlefield in armour for is plebs and retreating on foot is dangerous. The Mycaeans and Celts may have used them like this. Homer describes these chariots in the Trojan war, but he probably worked from limited information -he knew they had chariots, but can't fathom how else they could be used. It was more likely to be...

2) Archery/javelin platform. Chariots allow elite warriors a stable archery platform that can carry lots of arrows as well as men in armour. With a driver, archers can focus on their job rather than manouvering a horse around. It also allows an easy escape from infantry -remember, chariots fall out of favour fast with most cultures that master horseriding. This is the main Middle Eastern bronze age use of the chariot, and which the Egyptians in particular are renowned for.

Chariots were used over simply riding the horse not only because horses were too weak to carry a fully equipped warrior, but also because riding the beasts is something that takes quite a while for a culture to master. And riding them in combat is harder still. From what I remember, when chariot cultures switched to horse archers they kept the system of one archer and one "driver" to control both horses for a while -I know there are depictions of Assyrians fighting like this, at least.

Don't underestimate how hard it is to get from horses as food to cavalry, is my point.

3) Mobile command post, as already mentioned. That makes sense if you haven't mastered horseriding yet or you just need something more impressive and comfortable (Darius III, looking at you).

However, we shouldn't forget...

4) Spiky terror-machine of death. A chariot is obviously vulnerable to missiles or to disciplined infantry, but huge spiky things coming right at you is going to open up an undisciplined infantry formation -much like heavy cavalry much later. The Persian scythed chariots at Gaugamela were intended for this use, and some of the heavier bronze age chariots (probably not Egyptian, but Assyrian and Hittite) could probably do the job. The Sumerian ones look like they should, but with the charge speed of donkeys or mules it seems unlikely. The earlier Celtic ones I've seen assumed used like this, but as far as I know we know little of what Celts actually were up to when they weren't fighting Romans. Caesar describes Celtic elites using chariots as a mix of battle taxi and javelin platform, the Celts seem to have been transitioning from chariots to cavalry when encountering the Romans.



TLDR: Chariots are used to do what horses do, before you have bred proper horses and have developed a horse-riding culture.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd118/MSguy_photo/Civ%20V/Washington/MS-RPCWashC06.jpg

[Max_Killjoy]

Archery/javelin platform and battle taxi. The latter is the more useful one - a means to get the noble to the fight quickly, so he can dismount and lead. Also the means to get him out again, either to flee, or if he's required to stem the tide somewhere else.

The Celts didn't do much with archery, and as far as I'm aware didn't use chariot-based archery. Their missile weapon of choice was the javelin. They also pretty much abandoned the chariot by the middle of the third century BC, except as a funeral artefact. Cavalry was simply much better and more flexible on the battlefield.

Weren't the Celts of Britain (as in the island, not the not-yet-country) still using chariots when the Romans conquered parts of the island?

[GraaEminense]

Weren't the Celts of Britain (as in the island, not the not-yet-country) still using chariots when the Romans conquered parts of the island?
Yes. At least it seems so.

Caesar, The Gallic Wars (copied from Wikipedia): "Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the mean time withdraw a little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry."

I found another one, from just after the Roman invasion:
"They make war not only on horseback but also from 2 horse chariots and cars armed in the Gallic fashion – they call them covinni – on which they use axles equipped with scythes."
It's suspected that this one is propaganda though, as there is little evidence of Celtic scythed chariots (unlike Persians).

[Galloglaich]

To be fair, there is a movie in which armour is super effective!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6VrmOQY1M

Wow, what a fantastic fight scene! Half-swording, pommel strike, half-decent fencing over all, and the armor worked, at least until the very end. Seemed like a real fight too. And I liked the decapitation.

Thanks for posting that I'd never seen it before, must have been one of the last properly fight-coordinated fight scenes in Hollywood. Kudos to Polanski, (even though he's a perv)

EDIT: I guess we've also got Robocop for effective armor! maybe a little too effective but still, it bucks the trend.

G

[Blackhawk748]

Firstly, thanks for all the info guys. Nice to know i wasnt horribly off the mark.

How many people does a Chariot usually fit, 3 plus a driver? Cuz if you're just using it for drivebys you need less horses per warrior that way.


To be fair, there is a movie in which armour is super effective!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6VrmOQY1M

Is it just me or does the fact that they have sword blows bouncing off their armor make this fight more badass?

[Max_Killjoy]

Firstly, thanks for all the info guys. Nice to know i wasnt horribly off the mark.
How many people does a Chariot usually fit, 3 plus a driver? Cuz if you're just using it for drivebys you need less horses per warrior that way.


Egyptian chariots had just a driver and a warrior, who was primarily an archer or javelin-man in most cases IIRC.

Hittite chariots had a driver and two warriors.

Celtic chariots (at least in their heroic tales) were a driver/"spear-carrier", and an "elite warrior/hero".

[Lemmy]

Hmmm... I wonder what a modern smith, with modern tools and resource accessibility would do if he wanted to create a battle helmet to be used in medieval times (by some time traveler or whatever)... Helmet technology actually advanced quite a bit, but there isn't much focus in protecting the face from heavy impacts and/or high-speed projectiles (people prefer to simply keep their face out of the way, most of the time).

From what I could see, the bascinet was damn effective... But, man... Is it ugly as hell. It looks like a smiley fox... ><'

EDIT: Merry Christmas to you all, BTW! ^^

[Knaight]

Actual medieval and earlier literature also had people going through armor like butter. The Song of Roland is full of swords bisecting people from head to groin, going through shields and byrnies.

Armor sucking is as much a trope of the genre as anything.

It's a genre trope when it happens in heroic sagas, usually right alongside a whole bunch of other ludicrous feats (e.g. swimming for days on end, then getting right out of the ocean and winning a wrestling match with a gigantic monster). When it happens in fiction that's supposed to be more grounded it's usually indicative of author ignorance.

[Kiero]

Weren't the Celts of Britain (as in the island, not the not-yet-country) still using chariots when the Romans conquered parts of the island?

Britons were still using chariots, but they weren't Celts. While they had contact with the Celts of continental Europe and lots of shared material culture, they were a distinct and different people.

And as I said, by Ceasar's time, the Celts had dropped the chariot a couple of centuries earlier. They were master horsemen, and the wearing of trousers or bracchae was a sign of a man of high enough status to ride.

[Gnoman]

On this subject, I'm currently going through the third edition of Montross's War Through The Ages, and she cites a quote from Procopius that is related, regarding the horse-archers of the Byzantine Empire of AD 530.


But the bowmen of the present time go into battle wearing corselets and fitted out with greaves which extend up to the knee. From the right side hang their arrows, from the other the sword. And there are some who have a spear also attached to them and, at the shoulders, a sort of small shield without a grip, such as to cover the region of the face and neck. They are expert horsemen, and are able without difficulty to direct their bows to either side while riding at full speed, and to shoot an opponent whether in pursuit or in flight. They draw the bowstring along by the forehead about opposite the right ear, thereby charging the arrow with such an impetus as to kill whoever stands in the way, shield and corselet alike having no power to check its force.


Does anybody have sources to dispute this, or more details on the "corselet" of the era?

[Lilapop]

Wow, what a fantastic fight scene! Half-swording, pommel strike, half-decent fencing over all, and the armor worked, at least until the very end. Seemed like a real fight too. And I liked the decapitation.
That thrust at least went through the (shoddy-looking) mail. And it was a thrust. I guess keeping with the "find a weak spot and thrust at it" is about as much as we can ask for, and definitely better than we usually get today.

[Galloglaich]

On this subject, I'm currently going through the third edition of Montross's War Through The Ages, and she cites a quote from Procopius that is related, regarding the horse-archers of the Byzantine Empire of AD 530.



Does anybody have sources to dispute this, or more details on the "corselet" of the era?

A corselet could really mean anything, though it usually refers to metal armor. It could be mail, it could be a breast plate, but given that particular context I would guess lamellar over mail, specifically some version of a type of Byzantine armor they sometimes called 'klibanion'

G

[Galloglaich]

That thrust at least went through the (shoddy-looking) mail. And it was a thrust. I guess keeping with the "find a weak spot and thrust at it" is about as much as we can ask for, and definitely better than we usually get today.

Yeah reasonable points. No doubt about it, it was a great scene. And I agree 100% with Blackhawk748, the fact that the armor works does make the fight more exciting.

G

[Tobtor]

This seems to put paid to the idea that the Greenwich armor had quickly reached the levels of the South-German armor.

On page 148 he seems to be implying that the Graz tests on the old armor and the modern mild steel were done both with musket and pistol, and attributes the superior performance of the 16th Century armor to “working the breastplate and hardening the surface”. I would translate that personally as more accurately tempering, though the way he describes the armor being made in England with German steel doesn’t quite wash with that.

Well there are both hardening and tempering going on in the way the armour seem to be treated. Perhaps already the earlier steps had reduced the amount of impurities in the 'German' steel, thus making the steel harder AND easier to temper (you need both to make it springy, but if you cannot achieve that you might want it soft rather than glass-like which is what you can get with a wrong tempering)? One issue with tempering is that those colour schemes (blue for good swords etc) is relying on 1) relatively pure steel (other materials might colour at the wrong time). 2. A somewhat evenly and -fast- heating, as the colour is also reached at lower temperatures, if its heated for longer.

But definitely an interesting source. I will see if I can find it when I have some time.


This is why almost everyone assumes that DnD generic fantasy land where they have plate armor (Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings) shouldn't have any guns, but the opposite is true.

That is one of the things I was also very disappointed about in the movie version of LotR. From the book it is quite clear that the main armour is mail, and the weapon technology is more like 11th-12thcentury (and for Rohan more like 8th-11th century: Vikings/Anglo-Saxon on horses). If you go through the books descriptions of weapons and armour, there is as far as I remember, only once where armour described in a way that could be interpreted as plate (I think it said that Gimli wore a cuirass or something like that - so perhaps dwarves is experimenting with plate).

So Peter Jackson and team really 'invented' the plate/lack of late medieval technology problem (no advanced poleweapons, no heavy windlass crosbows, no gunpowder guns (only the bombs Sarumans troops use at Helms deep).

[Tobtor]

The Varangian Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard) of the Byzantine emperors fall outside those dates (they were most prominent around roughly 1000-1200), but they were a military unit with a distinct reputation for skill, brutality and loyalty and were definitely considered elite. They were also an institution rather than a short-term warband. Edit: And, since this will become a recurring theme, they did support a usurper emperor at least once.

The knightly orders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_order_(monastic_society)#List_of_military _orders) of the various Crusades, like the Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights, were not only elite military units but independent or at least autonomous mini-states. Time-wise they are perfect for your European fantasy world.

The mamluks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk#Organization) of Egypt and other muslim rulers were slave soldiers, but also important members of the administration. In Egypt they eventually seized power, ruling the country from 1250 to 1517. They were not a single unit, but a soldier caste.

A similar system was set up in Turkey, with the janissaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries). These were the Sultan's guards (so more of a single unit, but also important parts of the palace administration), and eventually they too became kingmakers and power-players.

If you want Romans, the Praetorian Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_Guard) of the emperors were probably considered elite (they were well paid and expected to be loyal). However, they did end up murdering emperors and choosing new ones...

The moral of history is that you really shouldn't have royal guards.

Well... other troops might have rebelled MORE or abandoned you in face of other threats.

Beside that royal guards, hirds, huscarls etc, seem to be pretty common. There is two ways of doing it: foreigners (Varangains, Swiss Guards etc), or local elites given special privileges to stay loyal (hirds, knights etc).

Apart from the ones mentioned above you could also add the Jomsvikings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomsvikings). Though accounts of the exact deeds are legendary I think it is proven that they existed (various slightly later sources as well as references on contemporary rune stones).

[GraaEminense]

I forgot the Jomsvikings! Well caught. It does seem likely that they existed (mentioned in several sagas, after all) and that they were a group of elite warriors with a well-known brand. They fit the "elite pre-gunpowder unit" category very well.

[Storm Bringer]

Well there are both hardening and tempering going on in the way the armour seem to be treated. Perhaps already the earlier steps had reduced the amount of impurities in the 'German' steel, thus making the steel harder AND easier to temper (you need both to make it springy, but if you cannot achieve that you might want it soft rather than glass-like which is what you can get with a wrong tempering)? One issue with tempering is that those colour schemes (blue for good swords etc) is relying on 1) relatively pure steel (other materials might colour at the wrong time). 2. A somewhat evenly and -fast- heating, as the colour is also reached at lower temperatures, if its heated for longer.

But definitely an interesting source. I will see if I can find it when I have some time.



That is one of the things I was also very disappointed about in the movie version of LotR. From the book it is quite clear that the main armour is mail, and the weapon technology is more like 11th-12thcentury (and for Rohan more like 8th-11th century: Vikings/Anglo-Saxon on horses). If you go through the books descriptions of weapons and armour, there is as far as I remember, only once where armour described in a way that could be interpreted as plate (I think it said that Gimli wore a cuirass or something like that - so perhaps dwarves is experimenting with plate).

So Peter Jackson and team really 'invented' the plate/lack of late medieval technology problem (no advanced poleweapons, no heavy windlass crosbows, no gunpowder guns (only the bombs Sarumans troops use at Helms deep).

nah, that was a thing well before the LOTR were made. watch pretty much any 50s King Arthur or Robin Hood flim and you'll see the same things.

[Tobtor]

nah, that was a thing well before the LOTR were made. watch pretty much any 50s King Arthur or Robin Hood flim and you'll see the same things.

I didnt say the problem was not there before LotR, just that it was the film version which introduced it to the LotR universe (not the books).

Though if you see the 1952 version of Ivanhoe you see mail (sort of a Robin Hood film), the same goes for the 1938 Robin Hood (and the 1922 one at that, I believe it also goes for Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950) but its been very long since I have seen it), and its always hard to get the "right" costumes for King Arthur anyway, as it is "set" in a mythological past, but written and imagined in the medieval period, thus giving them 'dark age' clothing clash with the 'medieval' story. Guns in King Arthur would be kind of strange, but (some versions) where written in the plate era. The armour in the 1953 version of King Arthur looks as very early plate, maybe 1380'ies or so (so portable guns should still be rare, especially in backwater England). They definately wear less plate than in the 1981 Excalibur movie (both have much better costumes than lets say "First Knight" from 1995, or the n2004 version of King Arthur).

So barring King Arthur movies, I think the 'problem' of plate armour and no guns, is restricted to fantasy and newer films (I can't remember outright plates in the 2010 Robin Hood film, but they are wearing various coat of plates, scale mail etc, which seem off for the period and place). In fact like "weird" leather things, plates before the plate era is sort of a growing thing, and not a very old one.

[Vitruviansquid]

I didnt say the problem was not there before LotR, just that it was the film version which introduced it to the LotR universe (not the books).

Though if you see the 1952 version of Ivanhoe you see mail (sort of a Robin Hood film), the same goes for the 1938 Robin Hood (and the 1922 one at that, I believe it also goes for Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950) but its been very long since I have seen it), and its always hard to get the "right" costumes for King Arthur anyway, as it is "set" in a mythological past, but written and imagined in the medieval period, thus giving them 'dark age' clothing clash with the 'medieval' story. Guns in King Arthur would be kind of strange, but (some versions) where written in the plate era. The armour in the 1953 version of King Arthur looks as very early plate, maybe 1380'ies or so (so portable guns should still be rare, especially in backwater England). They definately wear less plate than in the 1981 Excalibur movie (both have much better costumes than lets say "First Knight" from 1995, or the n2004 version of King Arthur).

So barring King Arthur movies, I think the 'problem' of plate armour and no guns, is restricted to fantasy and newer films (I can't remember outright plates in the 2010 Robin Hood film, but they are wearing various coat of plates, scale mail etc, which seem off for the period and place). In fact like "weird" leather things, plates before the plate era is sort of a growing thing, and not a very old one.

It was also common to see really bad history in actual medieval pictures. Medieval artists would put the ancient Greek characters of, say, the siege of Troy, in medieval mail armor with medieval helmets and wearing the latest in medieval fashions.

[Storm Bringer]

It was also common to see really bad history in actual medieval pictures. Medieval artists would put the ancient Greek characters of, say, the siege of Troy, in medieval mail armor with medieval helmets and wearing the latest in medieval fashions.

in defence of art, you see the exact same sort of thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBsi0VxiLg)these days as well.

its the reason why people think Jesus had pale skin, long flowing hair and a goatee, because renaissance painters painted him in contemporary style.

[Galloglaich]

It was also common to see really bad history in actual medieval pictures. Medieval artists would put the ancient Greek characters of, say, the siege of Troy, in medieval mail armor with medieval helmets and wearing the latest in medieval fashions.

Yes but that wasn't necessarily out of ignorance - in fact typically it was intentional. They knew what Roman and Greek armor looked like from Roman and Greek art, in fact they used to make imitations of it sometimes, and sort of hybrid designs for both weapons and armor.

You have to keep in mind, late medieval and Renaissance art was almost always representative of several things simultaneously. it was very common to have a painting, a tapestry or a fresco which was Greek or biblical story on the surface, a contemporary political allegory beneath that (referring for example to recent battles, elections or other events), religious controversies or factional positions which may or may not overlap with the politics, and a personal story which had directly to do with the artists immediate circle of friends, family and associates (for example the models who were quite often lovers of the artist).

For example, this famous triptych by Hans Memling featuring the Last Judgement, shows the guy who commissioned the painting, Thomas Portinari, the Medici agent for Bruges, being judged worthy next to his wife. On the far right side you can see people burning in hellfire. if you look closely, many of them are tonsured. Apparently these were Dominican friars and allied priests who Memling disliked. Conversely being judged worthy are several members of a political faction in Bruges (town councilors and guild aldermen and their wives) who advocated neutrality in the Anglo-Hanseatic war instead of siding with England. Two of the women in the background were former girlfriends of Memling and he also put one of his drinking buddies on the 'going to hell' side as a joke. There are also apparently some inside jokes to do with the physical appearance of some of the naked people, which Memling and his audience were familiar with from the baths.

The fact that Saint Michael is wearing a nice Milanese harness or that there is a 15th Century style sword in the top of the painting is simply due to Memlings personal preference, as are similar 'anachronisms' in his paintings to do with Biblical stories or Greek fables.


Ironically on it's way to Florence in a heavily armed Italian galley, this painting was captured by a privateer under a Danzig city-councilor named Paul Benecke, due to an embargo being enforced by the Hanseatic league because of the Anglo-Hanseatic War, and ended up in Danzig (Gdansk) where it remains to this day.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Das_J%C3%BCngste_Gericht_%28Memling%29.jpg/640px-Das_J%C3%BCngste_Gericht_%28Memling%29.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Das_J%C3%BCngste_Gericht_%28Memling%29.jpg

I happen to know a bit about this one painting because of research I did on that war, but I've run across many similar deeply complex stories, wheels within wheels so to speak, on many other Flemish, German and Italian paintings.

G

[Eladrinblade]

Mongol horsearchers: comp shortbows or comp longbows?

My 3.5 representation: CN Human Ranger 4
4d8+4 (25 hp)
Init +3
Spd 30ft
AC 18 (+3 dex, +1 shield, +4 armor)
Bow +8 (1d8+2, x3, 110ft)
Saber +9 (1d6+2, 19-20/x2)
Favored Enemy (humans or animals) +2, Wild Empathy +5, Animal Companion (1 bonus trick, link, share spells)
1 - (1st level spell)
F+5, R+7, W+2
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8
Animal Affinity, Mounted Combat, Track, Rapid Shot, Mounted Archery, Endurance
Geography 4, Handle Animal 8, Listen 8, Nature 7, Ride 10, Search 5, Spot 8, Survival 8/10/12
Common
MW Mty Comp Longbow (+2), x40 Arrows, MW Saber*, MW Chain Shirt, MW Buckler, Riding Saddle, Light Warhorse Animal Companion,
Wand of Longstrider (x20 Charges), Wand of Cure Light Wounds (x20 Charges), Scroll Case (Barkskin CL 5, Cats Grace CL 3,
Entangle CL 1, Protection from Energy CL 3, Spike Growth CL 3), Oil of Shield (CL 2), Oil of Magic Weapon (CL 2), Potion of
Protection from Arrows, Potion of Shield of Faith +2 (CL 2), 103gp for whatever else (basic gear, special material arrows, etc)

*from the forgotten realms campaign setting

[Lilapop]

Mongol horsearchers: comp shortbows or comp longbows?

My 3.5 representation: CN Human Ranger 4
4d8+4 (25 hp)
Init +3
Spd 30ft
AC 18 (+3 dex, +1 shield, +4 armor)
Bow +8 (1d8+2, x3, 110ft)
Saber +9 (1d6+2, 19-20/x2)
Favored Enemy (humans or animals) +2, Wild Empathy +5, Animal Companion (1 bonus trick, link, share spells)
1 - (1st level spell)
F+5, R+7, W+2
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8
Animal Affinity, Mounted Combat, Track, Rapid Shot, Mounted Archery, Endurance
Geography 4, Handle Animal 8, Listen 8, Nature 7, Ride 10, Search 5, Spot 8, Survival 8/10/12
Common
MW Mty Comp Longbow (+2), x40 Arrows, MW Saber*, MW Chain Shirt, MW Buckler, Riding Saddle, Light Warhorse Animal Companion,
Wand of Longstrider (x20 Charges), Wand of Cure Light Wounds (x20 Charges), Scroll Case (Barkskin CL 5, Cats Grace CL 3,
Entangle CL 1, Protection from Energy CL 3, Spike Growth CL 3), Oil of Shield (CL 2), Oil of Magic Weapon (CL 2), Potion of
Protection from Arrows, Potion of Shield of Faith +2 (CL 2), 103gp for whatever else (basic gear, special material arrows, etc)

*from the forgotten realms campaign setting
Ruleswise, you can't use longbows on horseback*. Historically, you'll end up with the same verdict: pretty much every bow that was ever used on a horse would be categorized as shortbow in D&D - the only exception is that asymmetrical japanese thing that afaik has its shape for this specific purpose.
I'd go with fighter over ranger (or a 2/2 combo), rgr4 is getting a bit too magic for my taste and you'd want at least three horses per warrior anyway. Also, look at Oriental Adventures or the Arms & Equipment Guide for typical asian lamellar armor (maybe even mix in those silly bracers and extra breastplates); and jump through some hoops to get a quickdrawn heavy wooden shield (or just accept the move action).

*Thats what I get for not doublechecking. Composite longbows can be used while riding, just regular longbows can't. Still, what the mongols used was the size of a shortbow.

[Kiero]

A horseman's bow will always be a "shortbow" in D&D nomenclature. Footmen can use longer bows with a longer range - which is one of the effective counters to horse archery.

[Incanur]

The 17th-century big-ear Manchu bow (http://www.manchuarchery.org/bows), which became the dominant style across China in the Qing era, comes the closest to 3.x D&D's composite longbow.

[Thinker]

Britons were still using chariots, but they weren't Celts. While they had contact with the Celts of continental Europe and lots of shared material culture, they were a distinct and different people.

By some arguments, there was no such thing as "Celts" at all. There was a Celtic language group, which included the Britons, but not a common ethnicity or history.

[Blackhawk748]

By some arguments, there was no such thing as "Celts" at all. There was a Celtic language group, which included the Britons, but not a common ethnicity or history.

To be fair when most people say Celt they are typically either referring to a) the Gaelics or b) the Gauls. On top of this Wikipedia does list Britain as Cetlic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts), but im pretty sure they're using it as a very broad term.

[Beleriphon]

That is one of the things I was also very disappointed about in the movie version of LotR. From the book it is quite clear that the main armour is mail, and the weapon technology is more like 11th-12thcentury (and for Rohan more like 8th-11th century: Vikings/Anglo-Saxon on horses). If you go through the books descriptions of weapons and armour, there is as far as I remember, only once where armour described in a way that could be interpreted as plate (I think it said that Gimli wore a cuirass or something like that - so perhaps dwarves is experimenting with plate).

So Peter Jackson and team really 'invented' the plate/lack of late medieval technology problem (no advanced poleweapons, no heavy windlass crosbows, no gunpowder guns (only the bombs Sarumans troops use at Helms deep).

In fairness the Lord of the Rings has this weird mishmash of tech levels going on, and by weird its often off by at least a few centuries between groups. So the Rohirrim are horse Vikings, while Gondor has this post-Rome Arthurian vibe that's been going on for three millennia, and Galadriel hasn't updated her outfit in at least 15000 years (she's the oldest character as of Lord of the Rings, last calculation I did was something in the range of 23000 years on the low end), so the elves decided they won at awesome and haven't done anything new for a least a dozen millennia. Dwarves are wearing heavy mail coats and at least some variety of plate armour. Oh, and the Shire is basically a pre-Industrial English countryside, complete with the local pubs. Which is at least a millennia ahead of any place else in the setting.

It is best to remember that Professor Tolkien was a professor and lover of languages, not metallurgy.

[Carl]

To be fair though he's also better about some things than a lot of authors. generally armour does it's job, the only occasions i can think of where it dosen;t involve explicitly magic weaponry, (the Witch king breaking Eowyn's shield arm through her shield, and Anduril cleaving that Orc Captains skull in two through a helm in moria, the movie replaces that with the cave troll btw).

Alsoto be fair some of the stasis makes sense, the Elves have been using magic of one form or another for a long time and once the lines of men possess lesser but potent powers of their own and magic weapons and armour plus mithril where much more common. When you've got functional magic a lot of advances make less sense.

[Clistenes]

That is one of the things I was also very disappointed about in the movie version of LotR. From the book it is quite clear that the main armour is mail, and the weapon technology is more like 11th-12thcentury (and for Rohan more like 8th-11th century: Vikings/Anglo-Saxon on horses). If you go through the books descriptions of weapons and armour, there is as far as I remember, only once where armour described in a way that could be interpreted as plate (I think it said that Gimli wore a cuirass or something like that - so perhaps dwarves is experimenting with plate).

So Peter Jackson and team really 'invented' the plate/lack of late medieval technology problem (no advanced poleweapons, no heavy windlass crosbows, no gunpowder guns (only the bombs Sarumans troops use at Helms deep).

Well, the world of LOTR works quite diferently than our own, and with regards to technology, it is almost a mirror opposite.

The way I see it, elves started having XVIII technology (before Industrial Revolution) plus magic, and since then, everything has been degenerating and becoming worse. Armour and weapons and buildings and walls and bridges become worse over time, not better. The Edain of Belariand, who lived in close proximity to Eldar and Dwarves 6500 years before the LOTR probably had better tech than the Rohirrim as we see them in the book. If we find superior tech, it's a renmant of a lost past, not a proof of advancement.

The exception are industrial type technology, as introduced by Saruman and Sauron, which Tolkien saw as evil. So it makes sense that Saruman's army used windlass crossbows and advanced poleweapons; his troops even used gunpowder in Helm's Deep (it's in the books).

[Carl]

The exception are industrial type technology, as introduced by Saruman and Sauron, which Tolkien saw as evil. So it makes sense that Saruman's army used windlass crossbows and advanced poleweapons; his troops even used gunpowder in Helm's Deep (it's in the books).


SO Doe Sauron at the peligior, (spelling is off), walls. For that matter Gandalf's fireworks.

[Kiero]

By some arguments, there was no such thing as "Celts" at all. There was a Celtic language group, which included the Britons, but not a common ethnicity or history.


To be fair when most people say Celt they are typically either referring to a) the Gaelics or b) the Gauls. On top of this Wikipedia does list Britain as Cetlic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts), but im pretty sure they're using it as a very broad term.

I have a number of ancient historians I can ask about these sort of things, one is a specialist on Iron Age Britain, though also has a good general knowledge of the continental Celts too (especially the Gauls). He's pretty adamant that the Britons are different, I can go and ask him why, if you like?

[Thinker]

I have a number of ancient historians I can ask about these sort of things, one is a specialist on Iron Age Britain, though also has a good general knowledge of the continental Celts too (especially the Gauls). He's pretty adamant that the Britons are different, I can go and ask him why, if you like?

Sure. I'd wager that the term "Celt" is useless as a term to describe culture and marginally less so to describe language groups. The groups lumped in with the "Celts" are as different as Moroccans and Iranians today - some threads might connect them, but it's tenuous at best. It's better to think of the Celts as all those conquered by the Romans in Western Europe.

[Vinyadan]

I hope not, there's all the Etruscans, Greeks, Basques, Germani and so on. But it's true that Celts were almost universally conquered by the Romans.

In general, names used for ancient history populations can have various reasons.

The easiest is "that's what they were called back then according to sources".

Another one is the linguistic argument. So the Romans called Germani a number of peoples, some of which did not speak a Germanic language. Nowadays we call some of these Balts.

A third one is general cultural homogenity, and that's something you can deduce by a mix of elements, like Druidism, art and form of government.

In general, I have always seen Britons being considered Celts, and the same for Gauls, Galatas, Welsh, Gaels, Celtiberians and so on. Of course, that depends on the criterion you choose.

[Blackhawk748]

I have a number of ancient historians I can ask about these sort of things, one is a specialist on Iron Age Britain, though also has a good general knowledge of the continental Celts too (especially the Gauls). He's pretty adamant that the Britons are different, I can go and ask him why, if you like?

Its probably just because they are so different, cuz i know that Gaelics are a branch of the Celts

[Kiero]

Sure. I'd wager that the term "Celt" is useless as a term to describe culture and marginally less so to describe language groups. The groups lumped in with the "Celts" are as different as Moroccans and Iranians today - some threads might connect them, but it's tenuous at best. It's better to think of the Celts as all those conquered by the Romans in Western Europe.

What's consistent about the way he and the other Celtic specialists have represented it, is that there are essentially western Celts (Gauls primarily) and eastern Celts (those in southern Poland, the Balkans etc), with the Alpine region a sort of crossover. With the added complication of migrations of western Celts eastwards (and allegedly back again). Furthermore, lots of non-Celtic peoples were conquered by the Celts, and others simply adopted their material culture. Because the Celts were really good at making stuff, both metalwork and other crafts (they invented the barrel, for example). Even where their stuff wasn't adopted wholesale, the elites of a society would have them as status symbols.

It certainly isn't accurate to describe Britons, Iberians, people north of the Rhine, natives of Illyria, Liguria or Venetia, and lots of others in western Europe as "Celts".


I hope not, there's all the Etruscans, Greeks, Basques, Germani and so on. But it's true that Celts were almost universally conquered by the Romans.

In general, names used for ancient history populations can have various reasons.

The easiest is "that's what they were called back then according to sources".

Another one is the linguistic argument. So the Romans called Germani a number of peoples, some of which did not speak a Germanic language. Nowadays we call some of these Balts.

A third one is general cultural homogenity, and that's something you can deduce by a mix of elements, like Druidism, art and form of government.

In general, I have always seen Britons being considered Celts, and the same for Gauls, Galatas, Welsh, Gaels, Celtiberians and so on. Of course, that depends on the criterion you choose.

Caesar was mostly full of crap, frankly. He imagined a distinction that wasn't anywhere near that clear-cut.

That Wikipedia article is wrong; Britain and Iberia weren't Celtic, even if they had people who adopted some elements of Celtic material culture. I've gathered that much from listening to the historians talk (I know an Iberian/Carthaginian specialist who'd say as much of Iberia). Thracians, Illyrians, Ligurians, ancient peoples of Germany, Anatolian tribes - lots of people who came into contact with the Celts adopted their gear and changed the way they fought.

It's worth noting that losing to Celts (and Samnites) in the 4th century BC was what caused the Romans to drop the (hoplite) phalanx and adopt the more flexible manipular system. Losing to the migrating Gauls (some of whom later settled in Turkey) drove a new evolution of equipment and tactics in the Hellenistic powers in the 3rd century BC.

[Vinyadan]

As for the British Isles being Celtic, it depends on what you mean. There sure were Celtic languages being spoken, and they also are the only modern survivors to the coming of Germanic peoples.

What distinction made by Caesar are you referring to?

[Kiero]

As for the British Isles being Celtic, it depends on what you mean. There sure were Celtic languages being spoken, and they also are the only modern survivors to the coming of Germanic peoples.

What distinction made by Caesar are you referring to?

I'm saying it wasn't Celtic in the Iron Age, largely being defined by closeness to La Tene (or Halstatt) cultures.

I'm talking about Caesar's distinction between Gauls and Germanians.

[Max_Killjoy]

What about the Celtiberians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberians)?

[Kiero]

What about the Celtiberians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberians)?

Again, not Celts. They adopted some Celtic material culture, but they spoke a different language and were a different people.

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, not Celts. They adopted some Celtic material culture, but they spoke a different language and were a different people.

What I'm finding seems to indicate that they spoke a Celtic language and had some descent from Celtic migrants.

[Vinyadan]

Kiero, a lot of the stuff you are saying goes against any publication I can find. Celtiberian in particular was a Celtic language. Maybe you could name some of the experts whose views you follow, or some publications?

[Kiero]

Kiero, a lot of the stuff you are saying goes against any publication I can find. Celtiberian in particular was a Celtic language. Maybe you could name some of the experts whose views you follow, or some publications?

I've put the question out to four of them, I'll see what they come back with.

[rrgg]

You may be on to something. I think there is for sure an issue with different troop types working together, the French nobles for example on numerous occasions completely mismanaged their infantry and even in several cases ran down their own infantry simply because they were in the way. They even did this to Genoese mercenaries in their employ, though I don't think they ever tried it with the Swiss.

Hastily thrown together international armies often performed very poorly in the medieval world.

You do I think however see some cases of small-ish units of gunners performing well, for example I think Fusilier or Incannur mentioned several thread iterations back an incident where musketeers were able to wreak havoc on some targets across a river something like 300 yards away if I remember properly.

I suspect though you have a point, unit cohesion is an issue. For that matter, it's one of the curiosities about medieval martial training, there is little evidence for unit drilling in the medieval period, even though medieval armies seemed to have had good unit cohesion in the field sometimes. Fencing training seems to emphasize the one -on - one duel and marksmanship training seemed to center around individualized shooting contests. Jousts, similarly, emphasized the one-on-one competition.

I think from reading about the urban militias that they acquired unit cohesion by fighting together in constant low intensity warfare that was almost always going on. But it's just a hunch, we really don't know.

G

Good points.

As i understand it, the main innovation from the Swiss were new tactics that limited the amount of cohesion needed to pull off. Deep squares or columns of pikemen could advance while maintaining cohesion far more easily than a long, thin phalanx. And once the pike square started pushing part of the line back, the rest would usually begin routing as well.

[Brother Oni]

Mongol horsearchers: comp shortbows or comp longbows?

They used composite recurve bows, which are more efficient than a longbow of the equivalent draw. Unfortunately, I don't think that D&D has that level of detail, so a composite longbow is probably the best match performance wise.

As Lilapop said, their bows would be the size of a D&D shortbow, if you wanted to match appearance.


Egyptian chariots had just a driver and a warrior, who was primarily an archer or javelin-man in most cases IIRC.

Hittite chariots had a driver and two warriors.

Celtic chariots (at least in their heroic tales) were a driver/"spear-carrier", and an "elite warrior/hero".

Chinese Qin era chariots had a driver and seats for two passengers, judging from the examples recovered from the Terracotta Army.


Historically, you'll end up with the same verdict: pretty much every bow that was ever used on a horse would be categorized as shortbow in D&D - the only exception is that asymmetrical japanese thing that afaik has its shape for this specific purpose.

This is what I thought as well, but it turns out that the yumi's shape was originally for shooting while kneeling and the shape carried over well when the samurai made the transition to mounted warriors.

[Kiero]

Kiero, a lot of the stuff you are saying goes against any publication I can find. Celtiberian in particular was a Celtic language. Maybe you could name some of the experts whose views you follow, or some publications?

First response, from our Iberian/Carthaginian specialist:


On one hand, Celtiberians had Celtic traits like the language or the worship of several deities but on the other hand they don't belong to La Tene culture, their material culture is typical of the Meseta, there aren't druids attested, etc.

The origin of the Celtiberians differed from the origin of the Gauls. In the case of the Celtiberians, they were the result of the interactions between the elements of the local Late Bronze age (proto-Celtic) and foreign elements (Urnfield culture) imported by the elites. The Celtiberian culture appeared in the sixth century BC and evolved without the arrival of new people.

Finally, it should be noted that the Mediterranean culture impacted in the Celtic-Iberian world to a greater extent than in Gaul. Celtiberians developed a society organized in clans and small city-states organized by senates, assemblies and political charges. This is equivalent to the institutions of demos, ecclesia and boulé (there are even Celtiberian stasis episodes attested).

In summary, Celtiberians belonged to a different culture that share some elements with the "Celtic world", but their origin and evolution were different to the ones attested in Gaul.

Also:


Historians who support a culture based on local proto-Celtic elements and external traits we can name Almagro Gorbea, Francisco Marco or Gabriel Sopeña among others

The way "Celtic" is used by my team is to reflect belonging to La Tene culture. That narrows it down somewhat from simply using Celtic-derived languages or distant origins.

[Galloglaich]

In fairness the Lord of the Rings has this weird mishmash of tech levels going on, and by weird its often off by at least a few centuries between groups. So the Rohirrim are horse Vikings, while Gondor has this post-Rome Arthurian vibe that's been going on for three millennia, and Galadriel hasn't updated her outfit in at least 15000 years (she's the oldest character as of Lord of the Rings, last calculation I did was something in the range of 23000 years on the low end), so the elves decided they won at awesome and haven't done anything new for a least a dozen millennia. Dwarves are wearing heavy mail coats and at least some variety of plate armour. Oh, and the Shire is basically a pre-Industrial English countryside, complete with the local pubs. Which is at least a millennia ahead of any place else in the setting.

It is best to remember that Professor Tolkien was a professor and lover of languages, not metallurgy.

I'm not sure I buy most of that. I'm not a Tolkein expert but this is now what I remember reading about him. Tolkein was a linguist but he was very into a specific genre of literature, Norse sagas and Edda's, early Saxon sagas like Beowulf, the Finnish, Irish and North German and related literature from that same era. The tech level is roughly late Roman to Viking. So that boils down to mail and maybe scale or lamellar armor.

Gandalf, Frodo, etc. were the names of real people, actual Viking chieftains. The cursed ring, the dragon, the hidden horde of gold, the dwarves and elves and other non-human people, the mysterious, dangerous, widely roaming forest-dwelling traveler with a royal pedigree, these are all characters from specific sagas that Tolkein was translating.

There were actually several Viking chieftains named Gandalf. These guys were associated with people the Swedes thought of as elves, but they were real people in a place called Alfheim, which includes parts of Sweden and Norway.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lfheimr_(region)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lfheimr_(region)#On_the_borders_of_history

(From the wiki:)

Gandálf: He was son of Álfgeir. Since this Gandálf was an older contemporary of Harald Fairhair and since the historical Viking leaders identified as sons of Ragnar Lodbrok in some traditions were also contemporaries of Harald Fairhair, it is not impossible that Álfhild, the supposed mother of Ragnar Lodbrok, was the daughter of this Gandálf as the Hversu Noregr byggdist states. What is told in the Heimskringla is that after many indecisive battles between Gandálf and Halfdan the Black, Vingulmork was divided between them, Halfdan regaining the portion which had been the dowry of his grandfather's first wife Álfhild. Two sons of Gandálf named Hýsing (Hýsingr) and Helsing (Helsingr) later led a force against Halfdan but fell in battle and a third son named Haki fled into Álfheim. When Halfdan's son Harald Fairhair succeeded his father, Gandálf and his son Haki were both part of an alliance of kings who attacked Harald. Haki was slain but Gandálf escaped. There was further war between Gandálf and Harald. At last Gandálf fell in battle and Harald seized all of Gandálf's land up to the Raum Elf river, at that time not taking Álfheim itself.

The place Alfheim is supposed to be in this zone of Sweden near the Norwegian border (and also in another contiguous region in Norway). One of my HEMA buddies has a summer-house there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohusl%C3%A4n

Bohuslan is a place where there is deep and eerie historical roots in Sweden, there are bronze age petroglyphs all over the place, stone-henge style menhirs, cairns, and these things called 'elven mills' where people to this day surreptitiously leave beer and butter for the ancestors spirits, or the faeries or whatever you want to call them.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Tanumshede_2005_rock_carvings_3.jpg/636px-Tanumshede_2005_rock_carvings_3.jpg

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/a558/a312/gallery/Scandinavia/Sweden/pj_IMG_0216.jpg
Toklein's initial foray into story telling came about from his interest, as a sort of game, in making up a language for the Elves he read about in the Norse and Finnish and Irish (etc.) sagas and legends.

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/a558/a312/gallery/Scandinavia/Sweden/Vinbrackastenen_0801.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Blomsholm%2C_Skee%2C_Bohusl%C3%A4n%2C_Sweden.jpg/640px-Blomsholm%2C_Skee%2C_Bohusl%C3%A4n%2C_Sweden.jpg



As for pubs, they are older than you seem to think. There is one in Poland, the Piwnica Świdnicka in the basement of the Wroclaw Town Hall, which has been in continuous operation for over 700 years. Pubs in Central Europe go back twice as long as that. "Ale houses" in England apparently go back to the 9th Century. In Central Europe pubs, inns and taverns were part of urban life going back to the migration era and by the Carolingian period were maintained as part of the European road network, to facilitate travel.

There are clear anachronisms in Tolkein, such as smoking pipes, but I think you can attribute that to an inside joke.

This book I think did a really good job of portraying the material culture of Tolkein's world closer to what I personally would have expected it to look like. You see mail and scale armor for the most part, roughly Viking era tech level, well illustrated

https://www.amazon.com/Tolkien-Bestiary-David-Day/dp/0517120771


David Day -

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/Noldor.jpg
http://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/3/29/2065067124-a-guide-to-tolkien-pb-david-day-2002-reprint-illustrated-saruman-hobbit-elves-_4_-1878-p.jpg


The kit actually looks like some of the kinds of stuff you see from archeology from the Celts through the migration era.

G

[Galloglaich]

Good points.

As i understand it, the main innovation from the Swiss were new tactics that limited the amount of cohesion needed to pull off. Deep squares or columns of pikemen could advance while maintaining cohesion far more easily than a long, thin phalanx. And once the pike square started pushing part of the line back, the rest would usually begin routing as well.

This is a sort of shorthand trope which I think goes back to a misunderstood statement Hans Delbruck, but it does not reflect the reality.

I recommend reading up on that era a bit. Swiss tactics were very different when fighting at home vs. when fighting as mercenaries. As mercenaries, especially in Italy in the 16th Century, the Swiss greatly simplified their tactics and their main strategy was just to overwhelm the enemy and get the fight over with as quickly as possible, because they knew that attrition through disease and exposure to the elements was often more lethal than even a brutal fight, and they also knew that they could usually overwhelm any enemy they could manage to come to grips with. The emphasis was on a quick, brutal fight, and then go home with your pay and loot. The only times this didn't work was usually because the enemy had set up ditches and entrenched artillery etc.

But back home in Switzerland defending their country against the Burgundians, the Hapsburgs etc., and in nearby regions of the Rhineland, Germany, Austria etc., they used much more sophisticated tactics. They usually used at least three main columns for their infantry, as well as numerous smaller formations. I wish I had time to get into it but I don't. In a nut-shell though they were able to march for days, attack suddenly and unexpectedly, maneuver their columns, and attack in the flanks and so on. They won several of their most important battles by coordinating attack from reinforcing columns at the last moment, often from groups from cantons foreign to the one that started the battle.

However you can get a pretty good summary of their tactics from the Osprey military book on the Swiss, as well as the two on the Landsknechts. For a deeper dive if you peruse the images online from the Bern, Lucerne and other chronicles illustrated by Diebold Schilling, you can see they also made extensive use of hand-gunners, war-wagons, volley-guns, cannon of all sizes, war-rafts, armed boats, and sophisticated tactics of all types.

G

[Tobtor]

The way "Celtic" is used by my team is to reflect belonging to La Tene culture. That narrows it down somewhat from simply using Celtic-derived languages or distant origins.

That definitely narrows it down, but that is by no mean a standard definition. Many Celt didnt belong to the La Tène culture. And what happened after the end of La Tène? Did the people stop being Celtic? What about Celts going into Anatolia etc, they quite quickly stopped being La Téne, but we would still say they remain Celtic.

It might be a good definition if you want to work with Celtic artefacts or society: then you need some sort of boundary and the La Tène culture might work as suitable as that. However, material culture is in no way a better way of defining etnicity than language or religion, rather to the opposite (it is often easier to adopt material culture, than to adopt language, see how 'english-america' clothing have become the norm, but people remain Germans, Russians etc beneath that).

It is also recognised that many people using La Téne artefacts wasn't indeed Celts. WHen people start becomming a people is very difficult to answer (even today).

[Max_Killjoy]

This is a sort of shorthand trope which I think goes back to a misunderstood statement Hans Delbruck, but it does not reflect the reality.

I recommend reading up on that era a bit. Swiss tactics were very different when fighting at home vs. when fighting as mercenaries. As mercenaries, especially in Italy in the 16th Century, the Swiss greatly simplified their tactics and their main strategy was just to overwhelm the enemy and get the fight over with as quickly as possible, because they knew that attrition through disease and exposure to the elements was often more lethal than even a brutal fight, and they also knew that they could usually overwhelm any enemy they could manage to come to grips with. The emphasis was on a quick, brutal fight, and then go home with your pay and loot. The only times this didn't work was usually because the enemy had set up ditches and entrenched artillery etc.

But back home in Switzerland defending their country against the Burgundians, the Hapsburgs etc., and in nearby regions of the Rhineland, Germany, Austria etc., they used much more sophisticated tactics. They usually used at least three main columns for their infantry, as well as numerous smaller formations. I wish I had time to get into it but I don't. In a nut-shell though they were able to march for days, attack suddenly and unexpectedly, maneuver their columns, and attack in the flanks and so on. They won several of their most important battles by coordinating attack from reinforcing columns at the last moment, often from groups from cantons foreign to the one that started the battle.

However you can get a pretty good summary of their tactics from the Osprey military book on the Swiss, as well as the two on the Landsknechts. For a deeper dive if you peruse the images online from the Bern, Lucerne and other chronicles illustrated by Diebold Schilling, you can see they also made extensive use of hand-gunners, war-wagons, volley-guns, cannon of all sizes, war-rafts, armed boats, and sophisticated tactics of all types.


In general I think that there's a tendency (perhaps going back to the Victorians?) to view the tactics and techniques of previous eras as crude and brutal and even stupid.

[Max_Killjoy]

That definitely narrows it down, but that is by no mean a standard definition. Many Celt didnt belong to the La Tène culture. And what happened after the end of La Tène? Did the people stop being Celtic? What about Celts going into Anatolia etc, they quite quickly stopped being La Téne, but we would still say they remain Celtic.

It might be a good definition if you want to work with Celtic artefacts or society: then you need some sort of boundary and the La Tène culture might work as suitable as that. However, material culture is in no way a better way of defining etnicity than language or religion, rather to the opposite (it is often easier to adopt material culture, than to adopt language, see how 'english-america' clothing have become the norm, but people remain Germans, Russians etc beneath that).

It is also recognised that many people using La Téne artefacts wasn't indeed Celts. WHen people start becomming a people is very difficult to answer (even today).

Yeah... I see the "end date" for the La Tène culture often listed as ~1 BCE or something similar. Would that mean there are no more "Celts" after that date?

It seems to me that each "discipline" wants to define ethnicity by their specific standard, and draw the boundaries there. Many archaeologists insist on material culture. Many linguists insist on language. Many geneticists insist on genetic analysis. Etc. I would instead suggest that material culture, language, religion, genetics, physical attributes, etc, are all part of one whole that needs to be understood about the people of a specific place and time.

[Kiero]

That definitely narrows it down, but that is by no mean a standard definition. Many Celt didnt belong to the La Tène culture. And what happened after the end of La Tène? Did the people stop being Celtic? What about Celts going into Anatolia etc, they quite quickly stopped being La Téne, but we would still say they remain Celtic.

It might be a good definition if you want to work with Celtic artefacts or society: then you need some sort of boundary and the La Tène culture might work as suitable as that. However, material culture is in no way a better way of defining etnicity than language or religion, rather to the opposite (it is often easier to adopt material culture, than to adopt language, see how 'english-america' clothing have become the norm, but people remain Germans, Russians etc beneath that).

It is also recognised that many people using La Téne artefacts wasn't indeed Celts. WHen people start becomming a people is very difficult to answer (even today).


Yeah... I see the "end date" for the La Tène culture often listed as ~1 BCE or something similar. Would that mean there are no more "Celts" after that date?

It seems to me that each "discipline" wants to define ethnicity by their specific standard, and draw the boundaries there. Many archaeologists insist on material culture. Many linguists insist on language. Many geneticists insist on genetic analysis. Etc. I would instead suggest that material culture, language, religion, genetics, physical attributes, etc, are all part of one whole that needs to be understand about the people of a specific place and time.

The team I work with are focused on the period from 272BC to 14AD - so "what happens after" isn't hugely relevant for what we're doing. Within that period, Latenisation is the simplest shorthand for Celts.

I've already noted lots of non-Celts took on La Tene artifacts (Thracians, Illyrians, Ligurians, Dacians, Germanic peoples, etc). They had good stuff.

[Galloglaich]

In general I think that there's a tendency (perhaps going back to the Victorians?) to view the tactics and techniques of previous eras as crude and brutal and even stupid.

yes, indeed. This is a major issue with all things medieval especially though. For some reason we can see the Greeks and the Romans as fairly sophisticated, but in spite of walking past the incredible architectural achievements of the Renaissance, we still think of the medieval world as essentially cavemen with churches.


This is an example of the type of Swiss battle I was referring to, though these guys were kind of "auxillary" Swiss so to speak (in the process of becoming part of the Swiss confederation).

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

In the battle, the Hapsburgs had created this massive field fortification called a Letzi, full of spikes and barriers and festooned with cannon. The Three Leagues (Swiss, more or less) attacked frontally but couldn't get through. So they managed to split their forces and coordinate two flanking maneuvers to get around the barrier. The first, after marching over a mountain through the night and defeating Hapsburg defenders, was stopped at the choke-point of a bridge. The second, a group of about half of their army managed to march across another mountain and take the Hapsburgs in the flank, while the first group kept up pressure on the barricade (taking heavy casualties in the process, including losing two of their commanders). The Hapsburg army collapsed and many were wiped out trying to flee across rivers etc.

In later eras, even splitting spontaneously and marching around under duress (and potential attacks by cavalry) in the field would have been too much for most pike squares of the 30 years War. Being rebuffed in one flanking attempt would have led to the breakup of a lot of armies, as would taking apparently 30% casualties attacking the barricades and losing key commanders. But it is typical of the Swiss that they usually perserveered and maintained both unit cohesion and tactical flexibility to the end.

Two interesting things to note here.

1) In this particular battle the Swiss (the Three Leagues, soon to be Swiss) numbered around 6,000 while the Hapsburgs had closer to 12,000, according to the wiki, and nevertheless the Hapsburg forces, consisting of Swabian Landsknechts, German knights, Italian mercenaries and Tyrolian peasants, was hard pressed to hold their own even in a well prepared defensive position - even with 2-1 odds in their favor.

2) This was one of ten (!) Battles that the Swiss fought in that year, 1499 against the forces of Emperor Maximillian I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Ten_Cantons_. 281481.E2.80.931500.29

There was another battle in 1499 in which similar but better executed tactics by the Swiss carried the day. Once again they were up against a Letzi. They actually split their forces in three, with the local guys (Three Leagues) kept the fortification busy, two Swiss columns flanked the enemy, and hit it from high ground and from two sides at once. According to the Wiki this led to a very lopsided victory for the Swiss, 10 dead (including one of their commanders who was shot by a handgun - probably piercing his armor) and 60 wounded, whereas the Hapsburgs lost 2-3000 dead.

G

[Galloglaich]

There was another battle in 1499 in which similar but better executed tactics by the Swiss carried the day. Once again they were up against a Letzi. They actually split their forces in three, with the local guys (Three Leagues) kept the fortification busy, two Swiss columns flanked the enemy, and hit it from high ground and from two sides at once. According to the Wiki this led to a very lopsided victory for the Swiss, 10 dead (including one of their commanders who was shot by a handgun - probably piercing his armor) and 60 wounded, whereas the Hapsburgs lost 2-3000 dead.

G

I forgot to post the link to this other battle - here it is:

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

G

[Vinyadan]

For what concerns the Celtiberians, I am pretty much satisfied with Trarco's answer. He makes a good and synthetic job at separating the different elements that build a culture.

As for ethnogenesis, that's a very complex deal. There are a lot of different elements, and, sometimes, it was a very artificial reality, compared to a romantic ancestral idea. So you have the Romans; during late Antiquity, Rome, Romania and Romans are used everywhere in the Empire. What we call Byzantines were called Romans by themselves and many of their neighbours, even though many of them didn't have a drop of Latin blood, and also didn't speak Latin. The French also are a people that was built by their nation, instead of being a people building a nation. The Goths in Spain called themselves Goths even though they actually were Latin-speaking Romans ruled by Goths, and called Romans the people occupying southern Spain. Even today, people of the Canary Islands call the Iberian Spanish "Goths" (with disdain). The Goths themselves have a long history of mixing themselves up with other peoples while they served the Romans.

There are a few works on the subject, maybe I'll link a few later. There's a book named Ethnogenese, but it's written in German.

[Kiero]

For what concerns the Celtiberians, I am pretty much satisfied with Trarco's answer. He makes a good and synthetic job at separating the different elements that build a culture.

As for ethnogenesis, that's a very complex deal. There are a lot of different elements, and, sometimes, it was a very artificial reality, compared to a romantic ancestral idea. So you have the Romans; during late Antiquity, Rome, Romania and Romans are used everywhere in the Empire. What we call Byzantines were called Romans by themselves and many of their neighbours, even though many of them didn't have a drop of Latin blood, and also didn't speak Latin. The French also are a people that was built by their nation, instead of being a people building a nation. The Goths in Spain called themselves Goths even though they actually were Latin-speaking Romans ruled by Goths, and called Romans the people occupying southern Spain. Even today, people of the Canary Islands call the Iberian Spanish "Goths" (with disdain). The Goths themselves have a long history of mixing themselves up with other peoples while they served the Romans.

There are a few works on the subject, maybe I'll link a few later. There's a book named Ethnogenese, but it's written in German.

Rome itself ceased to be meaningfully "Latin" after the conquest of Greece; they may have overcome Hellas by arms, but Hellas in turn consumed Rome turning them into Philhellenes who spoke Greek as a second or even sometimes first language.

[Lemmy]

So... We always see poison-coated blades in fiction, but in reality, how feasible would that be, if at all? It feels like the poison would fly away from the blade before the strike even hit its target. :smallconfused:

[Max_Killjoy]

So... We always see poison-coated blades in fiction, but in reality, how feasible would that be, if at all? It feels like the poison would fly away from the blade before the strike even hit its target. :smallconfused:

I suspect it's more common on arrows and bolts, and on daggers intended for "non battlefield" uses. Objects expected to penetrate on their first hit, and if they don't, it doesn't matter.

A sword would probably lose a lot of its poison being smacked against the target's armor, sword, shield, etc.

[Blackhawk748]

So... We always see poison-coated blades in fiction, but in reality, how feasible would that be, if at all? It feels like the poison would fly away from the blade before the strike even hit its target. :smallconfused:

I seem to recall a few types of blades that where made specifically to hold poison, but now i cant find them. But ya, they would be Daggers by necessity. Also do remember that poison to coat a weapon with wouldnt be liquid, but more likely a kind of gel.

I recall a fantasy story i was reading once (sadly cant remember what it was) but a character had an arrow with its tip in a leather sheathe. He had it that way because he had scorpion venom applied to it in a gel like form and he didnt want to get it on him. Now im not sure if its 100% accurate, but it sounds plausible enough and makes far more sense than having a liquid on your blade. Ive also seen characters let a poison dry on their blade so the blood soaks it and causes it to liquefy again, though this one seems more iffy to me.

[Lemmy]

Hmmm... It does seem like arrows and daggers would be more likely to be used with poison. I vaguely remember some story about archers sinking their arrows in dirt before shooting them so that wounds would be more likely to get infected... That said, I have no idea if that's true, a common myth or something from an specific story.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hmmm... It does seem like arrows and daggers would be more likely to be used with poison. I vaguely remember some story about archers sinking their arrows in dirt before shooting them so that wounds would be more likely to get infected... That said, I have no idea if that's true, a common myth or something from an specific story.

Could be something that was true -- that the wounds were more likely to get infected -- but not necessarily intentional at the time it was done.

[Lemmy]

Could be something that was true -- that the wounds were more likely to get infected -- but not necessarily intentional at the time it was done.
Yeah, a dirty arrow is obviously more likely to cause infection than a clean arrow. My doubt is about the archer's intention.

[Vinyadan]

Curare used on projectiles for hunting is the first thing that comes to mind.

[Fri]

So... We always see poison-coated blades in fiction, but in reality, how feasible would that be, if at all? It feels like the poison would fly away from the blade before the strike even hit its target. :smallconfused:

Traditional Kris blades was said to be forged with various kind of poison like arsenic to make the blade's permanently poisoned, but pretty sure it won't have any effect and is mainly to give it cool patterns and colour and such (especially since the "poisoning" of the blade are secret of the smiths).

I heard that some type of Kris have channels or hollows where you can store poison that will effect your stabbing, but can't give you citation for that right now.

[Mike_G]

As far as assassinating people, poison makes sense, but not really from a battlefield perspective.

I don't care if the guy I hit gets an infection. I don't really care if he lives a long, happy life, so long as he falls over and stops trying to kill me today. Poison doesn't work fast enough to take a man out of the fight, it just reduces his chance of surviving the wound, which has no military value, really. Add in the chance that i might poison myself handling the weapon, and it's just not something any general would want his troops to do.

I know that booby traps have been poisoned, generally just coated with feces or something else to cause infection, and that makes a little more sense, since those are designed to erode the enemy strength by injuring them, and hamper movement by making them not want to patrol, encouraging them to avoid going where you don;t want them to, and the threat of a poisoned spike, as opposed to a just plain sharp spike is more of a psychological deterrent.

[Kiero]

So... We always see poison-coated blades in fiction, but in reality, how feasible would that be, if at all? It feels like the poison would fly away from the blade before the strike even hit its target. :smallconfused:

Never mind that, most of the compounds used would lose their potency within hours of being applied to the blade.

Dirt is more effective for this purpose, or things like animal excrement.


Traditional Kris blades was said to be forged with various kind of poison like arsenic to make the blade's permanently poisoned, but pretty sure it won't have any effect and is mainly to give it cool patterns and colour and such (especially since the "poisoning" of the blade are secret of the smiths).

I heard that some type of Kris have channels or hollows where you can store poison that will effect your stabbing, but can't give you citation for that right now.

Given the tropical environments the kris was traditionally used in, seems pretty pointless to poison them. Simply opening up a wound will be enough, and the environment will do the rest.

[Berenger]

I vaguely remember some story about archers sinking their arrows in dirt before shooting them so that wounds would be more likely to get infected...

I'd expect archers to stick their arrows into to ground in front of them to enable rapid shooting, it allows for quicker reload times than pulling them from a chock-full quiver or (when quivers were not used) pulling them from under your belt or a bundle of tied arrows. So the average arrow tip shot in a battle would be covered in remnants of whatever soil or mud or dirt the archer stood on.

https://abload.de/img/main-qimg-2a586939f4bczxfd.jpg

[Thinker]

Poison doesn't work fast enough to take a man out of the fight, it just reduces his chance of surviving the wound, which has no military value, really.

I don't know about that. I would agree that poison arrows don't have much military value - if the arrow is penetrating flesh enough to deliver poison, it's likely to take the warrior out of the fight regardless of whether or not it infects him - but poison itself is a good way to deplete your enemy's ability to fight. A sick warrior is one who isn't going to fight your armies. From what I understand, poisoning water supplies and hurling rotting flesh over walls was a common and effective method in sieges.

[Kiero]

I don't know about that. I would agree that poison arrows don't have much military value - if the arrow is penetrating flesh enough to deliver poison, it's likely to take the warrior out of the fight regardless of whether or not it infects him - but poison itself is a good way to deplete your enemy's ability to fight. A sick warrior is one who isn't going to fight your armies. From what I understand, poisoning water supplies and hurling rotting flesh over walls was a common and effective method in sieges.

More to the point, significantly more men were killed by disease and deprivation on campaign than contact with the enemy. If this markedly increases the rates of men being incapacitated or killed, it could have a significant impact over the course of a fighting season.

[Lemmy]

Well... I figure it'd be more of something used in long-term campaigns.

While poison and infections wouldn't work fast enough to affect the battle itself, they can have morr long-term effects on the enemy's mobilify anx resources (any time and/or supplies spent taking care of the wounded is time/supplies not being used against you), which could be useful in wars and sieges. And maybe it's one fewer enemy to worry about in the next battle.

[Kiero]

Well... I figure it'd be more of something used in long-term campaigns.

While poison and infections wouldn't work fast enough to affect the battle itself, they can have morr long-term effects on the enemy's mobilify anx resources (any time and/or supplies spent taking care of the wounded is time/supplies not being used against you), which could be useful in wars and sieges. And maybe it's one fewer enemy to worry about in the next battle.

I'd recommend you look into the Spanish campaigns in the Phillipines, to give a good idea of how much disease and the environment can impact warfare.

[Mike_G]

I don't know about that. I would agree that poison arrows don't have much military value - if the arrow is penetrating flesh enough to deliver poison, it's likely to take the warrior out of the fight regardless of whether or not it infects him - but poison itself is a good way to deplete your enemy's ability to fight. A sick warrior is one who isn't going to fight your armies. From what I understand, poisoning water supplies and hurling rotting flesh over walls was a common and effective method in sieges.

The question was about poisoned blades. I don't think it has a use as a battlefield weapon. A man with an arrow in him is either incapacitated by the arrow or he isn't, whether or not it was poisoned. If he's out of action, then you've achieved your aim. If he isn't, and he's still fighting, you haven't, even if he does get sick later.

Biological warfare is different that poisoned weapons. This is where we have the smallpox blankets, diseased bodies launched over walls, poisoned water supplies etc.

The other consideration is that those actions tend to cross a line, and that can lead to reprisals and come back on you, which may not be worth it for the military value.

[Galloglaich]

I'd recommend you look into the Spanish campaigns in the Phillipines, to give a good idea of how much disease and the environment can impact warfare.

The Moro and some other tribes in the Philippines had a type of sword called a kampilan, which had a sort of spur on the back which was (from what I understand) typically coated with poison, often organic substances which would cause disease but sometimes other types.

I believe Magellan was killed by this type of sword. I can't find any documentation about the poison use though quickly googling, I just heard this from some FMA practitioners I know. Maybe it's a legend.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Kampilan_moro_sword_laminated_blade.jpg/640px-Kampilan_moro_sword_laminated_blade.jpg

One of the uses for those light repeating crossbows was dipping them in poison (or 'organic substances', i.e. poop) to cause disease in their targets. The arrows themselves didn't hit very hard, but they could spread disease this way particularly during sieges.

G

[MrZJunior]

Wouldn't sticking your arrow in the dirt blunt it, making it less effective?

[Kiero]

Wouldn't sticking your arrow in the dirt blunt it, making it less effective?

Only if you're sticking it into dirt packed with stones and other hard things.

[Vinyadan]

OK, I made a quick check. There are two kinds of poisons that were surely used on darts.
One is dart frog poison. They dipped the missile into the frog before use.
The second one is curare. There were two varieties, one for animals and hunting, which was weaker (still deadly) but could be digested, and one for humans and war, which was toxic to eat.
These are really fast acting, and can kill or incapacitate real fast, and make a difference.

In general, today we see the difference between biological warfare and toxic stuff, but that's thanks to germ theory and its developments. In the past, it's probable that they couldn't tell this kind of stuff apart. Instead, they had a "virtue" theory, which you often find in books about animals, stones and trees. These things were supposed to have an active power (called virtue), to be used in certain ways, sometimes through more metaphysical means, sometimes pretty practical and immediate.

[MrZJunior]

Only if you're sticking it into dirt packed with stones and other hard things.

How would they know that there aren't rocks there? Besides, I would expect earth to act like sand paper, tiny grains rubbing away at the arrow head.

[Max_Killjoy]

How would they know that there aren't rocks there? Besides, I would expect earth to act like sand paper, tiny grains rubbing away at the arrow head.

As far as I know, war arrows didn't rely on being razor-sharp. And, it takes a lot more than a rub or two of dirt to take the edge of a weapon.

[warty goblin]

How would they know that there aren't rocks there? Besides, I would expect earth to act like sand paper, tiny grains rubbing away at the arrow head.

It will dull your arrows if you stab them into the dirt a lot. But since you stick arrows into the ground right before you shoot them, you're gonna stick any arrow into the ground once or maybe twice. If this is enough to make your arrows dull enough to be noticibly less effective, then there's something wrong with your arrows. Like they're made out of tinfoil or something, because steel just does not blunt that fast.

[Incanur]

Poisoned arrows, darts, bolts, and so on were used in war by various groups, from the Scythians to Lang Bing (http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/09/liang-guang-yao-jian.html) in the Ming era (and beyond). I doubt this was only to terrify enemies. Instead, I suspect poisoned projectiles constituted a military advantage.

The idea only immediate incapacitation matters and that arrow wounds necessarily incapacitated strikes me as misguided. There are numerous accounts of soldiers fighting on despite arrow wounds. Battle could last hours, while some poisons can incapacitate within 5-20 minutes (or faster, maybe). Thus for skirmishes and for many battles, poisons would matter, turning some number of wounds that wouldn't otherwise have incapacitated into wounds that take a soldier out of action.

Now, poisoning projectiles may not have been worth the expense for many historical armies, but it helped make ranged weapons more dangerous when available.

[Kiero]

As promised, more on "Celts", this time our resident Britain/Gaul specialist:


This hits on about 30 years of debate. So, summarised:

"Celts" has several definitions:
1. A person/group who speak a language classified as Celtic (Gaulish, Celtiberian, Brythonic, Lepontic, Noric, Welsh, Gaelic etc)
2. A person/group who produced La Tene culture material: inhabitants of the British Isles, most of France (exlucing Flanders), Catalonia, southern Germany, northern Italy, western Swiss plateau, Bohemia, southern Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, north west Romania and parts of Ukraine, Moldova and Ukraine.
3. A person/group described as Celtic by themselves (what is known as an emic ascription) or by contemporaries (an etic ascription): the Gauls (though probably not the Belgae), Celtiberians, various Celtic speaking groups in Iberia, inhabitants of southern Germany, northern Italy and central Europe, and possibly the Galatians.

The Britons are not considered Celts as, although they spoke a Celtic language and belonged to the La Tene zone, they were never described as Celts by contemporary peoples; indeed Roman authors often contrasted them against the Celts in Gaul.

The peoples north of the Rhine, the Dutch grabenfeld culture and Jastorf culture, do not appear to have spoken Celtic languages, did not belong to the La Tene zone and were never described by contemporary sources as Celts.

There's two others I asked - one specialises in eastern/Balkan Celts, the other in Iron Age Germany, but both are more sporadic in their contact.

[Max_Killjoy]

So the Britons were "Celts" by 1 and 2, but not by 3, so that makes them "not Celts"?

Is this a "must be all of these" or "several definitions"?

[Beleriphon]

So the Britons were "Celts" by 1 and 2, but not by 3, so that makes them "not Celts"?

Is this a "must be all of these" or "several definitions"?

Its a "we can't decide, so we'll pick the one we like depending on our academic objectives are".

[Theodoric]

There's two others I asked - one specialises in eastern/Balkan Celts, the other in Iron Age Germany, but both are more sporadic in their contact.
Really not sure what the 'grabenfeld' culture is supposed to be, though (Harpstedt?). And from what I know the Romans actually were plenty confused as to who was Germanic and who was Celtic in the modern-day Low Countries area, with Caesar using subtly different definitions than Tacitus, and so on. And looking at material cultures and the names of leaders, plenty of peoples living in the Low Countries weren't completely Germanic or Celtic either.

But that's deviating a bit, and obviously I'm not an expert. Neat stuff, thanks for sharing.

[Blackhawk748]

So the Britons were "Celts" by 1 and 2, but not by 3, so that makes them "not Celts"?

Is this a "must be all of these" or "several definitions"?

Well im gonna still call them Celts, cuz 2 out of 3 works for me. I mean contemporaries may not have called them Celts, but wouldnt the Gauls be called Gauls by contemporaries as well?

[Vinyadan]

I don't think it's a X out of 3 problem. It all depends on why you want to use that term, and what you apply it for.

So it's completely possible that the Ancient World saw the Britons as not Celts. It's possible that they actually seceded, if there ever was some sort of Celtic governing body (for example, in Greece there actually was a recognized body that decided who was Greek and who wasn't, because only the Greeks could take part to the Olympic games). It also could be that they actually weren't Celts "by blood" and simply adopted language and items.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that they belonged to a kind of Celtic culture. So you could say that they were Celts based on their culture. And they spoke a Celtic language, so you can say that they were Celts based on their language (which is something I am very cautious about: Celt and "Celtophone" are as different as Englishman and Anglophone).

Anyway, there is a strong movement towards using names as given in the sources, at least when it comes to polities. So for example Herwig Wolfram refers to the barbarian tribes that entered Roman territory as "gentes", because that's the term that the Romans used (we don't know what term the "Germani" used), and it's a different term from e.g. natio, and it was loaded with both ancestral ties and political organization.

Anyway, someone was asking about chariots and someone answered the Celts. The Gauls didn't use them in Caesar's time, but you can still find Caesar meeting Briton warriors running around on chariots, and it appears that they were a very common occurrence. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/britannia/boudica/chariot.html


"In chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to throw their opponents' ranks into disorder. Then, after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from the chariot and engage on foot. In the meantime their charioteers retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such a position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have an easy means of retreat to their own lines. Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying power of infantry; and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that even on a steep incline they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them in a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back into the chariot as quick as lightning" (Gallic War, IV.33).

[Kiero]

Britain was, even before Caesar's time, a backwater in many respects. The only places you saw chariots on the continent by around 3rd century BC were as part of burials, they weren't used in battle.

For the Britons, they were often used as battle taxis.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

After reading a certain webcomic a question came to my mind. Would it be better, if you had a "hidden" dagger sheathed somewhere on your back, to have it oriented horizontally? For the purposes of historical and/or modern knife/dagger fighting. Just by trying to get my hands behind my own back, it does seem like the horizontal orientation is better, but that's basically just a guess. Also maybe it makes it easier to sit and so forth. Just curious.

[GraaEminense]

Depends on how you intend to get to it -what is it hidden behind? Ignoring that, if you want to draw a dagger quickly and discreetly then horizontally on your back near/on the belt is the place to wear it.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Hidden behind a cape/cloak, basically. The kind of thing you can feasibly draw quickly and surprise the enemy with.

[Beleriphon]

Hidden behind a cape/cloak, basically. The kind of thing you can feasibly draw quickly and surprise the enemy with.

Horizontally is your best bet since you can sweep the cloak out of the way at the same time. A vertical pull will make the motion of drawing a blade more obvious, especially if the sheath is in a comfortable place on your back. Try doing both motions right now, you'll see how your elbow male-chickens out at a funny angle if you do the vertical motion, while it is somewhat less obvious with the horizontal, particularly if you imagine wearing a cape/cloak and sweeping it away from your body with a big flourish.

[Carl]

If you can devise a quickly releasable restraining method having the hilt point down and slightly to the side would be the easiest.

[Lemmy]

Was there any weapon similar in look to a mining pick? It seems like that would be pretty good against armor, but all I could find were pick axes whose point seemed too small really pierce into the body of an armored opponent... OTOH, if they were much bigger, they would probably be too heavy and require rathet wide swings to strike the target, which can't be good.

On an unrrlated note...

It's my understanding that rapiers are quite long, often over 1 meter in length. That coupled with the fact that they are straight blades got me wondering... Was quickly unsheathing a rapier difficult?

[Tobtor]

Was there any weapon similar in look to a mining pick? It seems like that would be pretty good against armor, but all I could find were pick axes whose point seemed too small really pierce into the body of an armored opponent... OTOH, if they were much bigger, they would probably be too heavy and require rathet wide swings to strike the target, which can't be good.


?
Many medieval pole-weapons (poleaxes, polehammers etc) have picks. I think they are typically long enough.


http://www.manningimperial.com/gallery/p19of4j2cn1k0p17k116k2mk198fi.jpg



It's my understanding that rapiers are quite long, often over 1 meter in length. That coupled with the fact that they are straight blades got me wondering... Was quickly unsheathing a rapier difficult?

No, drawing them wasn't difficult nor did it take a long time. Remember a rapier is flexible.

[Berenger]

It's my understanding that rapiers are quite long, often over 1 meter in length. That coupled with the fact that they are straight blades got me wondering... Was quickly unsheathing a rapier difficult?

Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a10ncllct6Q) is a video of a guy trying to unsheath a rapier in a hurry several times in slow motion. Most of the time, he succeeds and is really quick, but at 10:09, for example, he screws up for the exact reason you suspect. Note that he does this on a open area, and I imagine that drawing a rapier might be further complicated when you stand with the back pressed against a wall because the scabbard can't be held in the shown position.

[Lemmy]

?
Many medieval pole-weapons (poleaxes, polehammers etc) have picks. I think they are typically long enough.


http://www.manningimperial.com/gallery/p19of4j2cn1k0p17k116k2mk198fi.jpg
My bad, I meant to specify something that could be used one-handed, like a mace or ax. But still, thanks for the image. Maybe I was underestimating the effectiveness of those picks.



No, drawing them wasn't difficult nor did it take a long time. Remember a rapier is flexible.


Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a10ncllct6Q) is a video of a guy trying to unsheath a rapier in a hurry several times in slow motion. Most of the time, he succeeds and is really quick, but at 10:09, for example, he screws up for the exact reason you suspect. Note that he does this on a open area, and I imagine that drawing a rapier might be further complicated when you stand with the back pressed against a wall because the scabbard can't be held in the shown position.I see, thanks for the clarifications. :smallsmile:

[Xuc Xac]

Was there any weapon similar in look to a mining pick?

Warhammers.

[snowblizz]

My bad, I meant to specify something that could be used one-handed, like a mace or ax. But still, thanks for the image. Maybe I was underestimating the effectiveness of those picks.


Warhammers.
Exactly. Also known as a horseman's pick.



Keep in mind, armour plates are not thicker then like 3mm max (it's not tank armour we are piercing), plus some padding underneath (which the pick will compress when it pierces). Even a 1cm pierce into the skull and the brain is probably damaged. A couple of inches of "beak" is all you need really, and well made articulate plate that gets dented or pierced even though saving the wearer will be severely compromised.

The are pick like weapons with somewhat longer blades, one handed warschytes and such too. But they'd not exactly be armour piercing.