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

[Martin Greywolf]

Was leather armor ever used historically? Who used it, when, and what were the designs like? How effective and common was it? Images would be nice (some of the hits from Google images are suspect if not clearly fantastical). I don't suspect leather holds up well across the centuries, so there might not be historical survivals, but if there are I'd appreciate a link.


This is like asking to define 20th century in three sentences - only possible in German. There are a massive number of cultures over the time, with wildly differing access to materials and tech levels.

In general, if a civilization has access to metals and tech level to use them, they don't use leather armor as you imagine it. What you can use, and probably was used, is gambesons with leather as the final layer. We have no evidence for this simply because there are no gambesons meant to be used as the topmost layer left any more. How effective this is, well, pretty effective - it can stop a lot of bows and practically all slashing/hacking, but lets blunt damage go through, and stabs barely notice it unless it's uncomfortably thick. Armor like this was probably used since stone age (earliest forms would probably be several animal pelts put on as shirts).

Images of this type are indistinguishable from gambesons, really, at least period depictions.

Second common way of using leather in armor is using it to make lamellar armor. Again, is civilization had access to iron, they preferred that, and that's the reason we see a lot of this type of armor in use by steppe nomads who had a massive surplus of leather and not that much iron. Even then, rich nomads did use iron armor (lamellar or mail). These look just like metal lamellar armor, but made of leather, and therefore are often not distinguishable from metal armor on period depictions. Picture (https://curiavitkov.cz/images/zivot/bochumi.jpg).

However, unlike gambesons, there are (https://sites.google.com/site/archoevidence/home/lamellar-armour) some (http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/ConAntiq/treament/leatherfull.jpg) survivals (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/94/bc/0f/94bc0f39002035d969f0541edd21bdab.jpg).

Something that looks like leather armor but really isn't is coat of plates, it's a leather vest/jacket with rivets that has metal plates under it, and it's this thing that probably gave birth tu studded leather armor in DnD.

Reproduction of one of the Visby types. (https://www.medieval-market.com/img/plates_hardened_type_2_3.jpg) Photo is of the inside side.

Next, the mythical cuir bouilli, or to translate it, boiled leather. Here, boiled leather was supposedly used as plates, but no one is really sure, and to add to that no one knows if it was ever meant for real combat (evidence suggests it may have been training only armor, for use with sticks wrapped in leather). There are no definitive depictions or reproductions, and for there latter, there can't be any by definition unless we find more evidence somewhere. Using this type of armor is, at this point, an exercise in speculation at best.

For a picture, the best period depiction that some claim is it is from Maciejowski bible, guy at the far right (http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf27/otm27va&b.gif).

Edit: Tweaked formatting.

[snowblizz]

Just to add to what Martin said.

Some Samurai armours used laquered leather pieces instead of (or combined with) metal in the armour.

And in the Pike and Shotte era, ie 1600s and into the 1700s a bit, in Europe the buffocat was used. Essentiually a thick hide coat that was adequate protection againts swords and pistols. It tended to form the basic layer of protection, much as a gambeson earlier, to which a much heavier (than for plate armour) cuirass was added for those who really cared about their protection.

[Kiero]

Nomads didn't need to be rich in bronze or iron when they could trade for what they needed with settled communities under their "protection".

That's when they couldn't tax the trade routes carrying gold, amber and other valuable materials through their areas of control.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Thanks for the replies and links. I'm sorry for posting such a broad question, but leather armor is a topic that has interested me for a while. Looks like there were more survivals that I thought, which is nice.

[Lemmy]

Assuming most non-precious metals are equally available, would bronze be a better choice for crafting weapons and armor meant to be used in really cold environments?

I'm not a materials engineer, but IIRC, copper alloys in general are really good choices for most modern uses of metal in low temperatures, since they actually suffer an improvement in hardness, yield strength and tensile strength in extreme cold. However, I don't know if steel would still be more advantageous or if there are any considerations I'm missing when it comes to medieval warfare...

What do you guys think?

[Roxxy]

Are there any examples of 1930s-1950s destroyers or cruisers designed specifically for providing artillery support for ground forces, not for more multipurpose uses? Is there any example of a tactical philosophy of moving small ships close to shore and accepting some might be lost, as opposed to using big guns like the Iowa from many miles off?

Trying to find a fantasy application for this. If we presume an aircraft carrier can keep a demonic horde's fliers away from the marines but is stalemated against enemy AA, you need something to attack that AA and give the marines fire support. I'm wondering about using lots of destroyers and light cruisers firing 5" and 6" shells from close to shore. Demons can probably cripple a few ships with hellfire (honestly, even a battleship would eventually fail against a concentrated attack like that), but not whole squadrons if the marines are winning. I'm wondering if maybe the philosophy of "We'll lose ships and sailors, but it's a lot more important that the marines have 5" shells raining down on that horde every 3-4 seconds" is a good philosophy if air superiority isn't there and 16" guns are seen as too slow firing (I'm not sure the sheer size of those shells is worth dropping to 1 round every 30 seconds when you're fighting a horde of enemies that dies to artillery about as easy as humans do). If you move the battleship close enough to use the secondary armament, you've put it within range of return fire, and it's a big target that the enemy has weapons capable of damaging.

[Max_Killjoy]

Are there any examples of 1930s-1950s destroyers or cruisers designed specifically for providing artillery support for ground forces, not for more multipurpose uses? Is there any example of a tactical philosophy of moving small ships close to shore and accepting some might be lost, as opposed to using big guns like the Iowa from many miles off?

Trying to find a fantasy application for this. If we presume an aircraft carrier can keep a demonic horde's fliers away from the marines but is stalemated against enemy AA, you need something to attack that AA and give the marines fire support. I'm wondering about using lots of destroyers and light cruisers firing 5" and 6" shells from close to shore. Demons can probably cripple a few ships with hellfire (honestly, even a battleship would eventually fail against a concentrated attack like that), but not whole squadrons if the marines are winning. I'm wondering if maybe the philosophy of "We'll lose ships and sailors, but it's a lot more important that the marines have 5" shells raining down on that horde every 3-4 seconds" is a good philosophy if air superiority isn't there and 16" guns are seen as too slow firing (I'm not sure the sheer size of those shells is worth dropping to 1 round every 30 seconds when you're fighting a horde of enemies that dies to artillery about as easy as humans do).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)#Twentieth_century

[Roxxy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)#Twentieth_centuryThe problem with monitors is that they're too big for their guns a lot of the time. I boarded a WW1 monitor in Portsmouth, and the Royal Navy veteran showing me around admitted it was way more gun than that boat could ever handle. The boat wasn't stable enough to shoot accurately, and recoil was so heavy it shook the hell out of the hull and damaged ship components. Something tells me destroyers with smaller guns are probably a whole lot more suited to the role.

[Pauly]

Are there any examples of 1930s-1950s destroyers or cruisers designed specifically for providing artillery support for ground forces, not for more multipurpose uses? Is there any example of a tactical philosophy of moving small ships close to shore and accepting some might be lost, as opposed to using big guns like the Iowa from many miles off?

Trying to find a fantasy application for this. If we presume an aircraft carrier can keep a demonic horde's fliers away from the marines but is stalemated against enemy AA, you need something to attack that AA and give the marines fire support. I'm wondering about using lots of destroyers and light cruisers firing 5" and 6" shells from close to shore. Demons can probably cripple a few ships with hellfire (honestly, even a battleship would eventually fail against a concentrated attack like that), but not whole squadrons if the marines are winning. I'm wondering if maybe the philosophy of "We'll lose ships and sailors, but it's a lot more important that the marines have 5" shells raining down on that horde every 3-4 seconds" is a good philosophy if air superiority isn't there and 16" guns are seen as too slow firing (I'm not sure the sheer size of those shells is worth dropping to 1 round every 30 seconds when you're fighting a horde of enemies that dies to artillery about as easy as humans do). If you move the battleship close enough to use the secondary armament, you've put it within range of return fire, and it's a big target that the enemy has weapons capable of damaging.

Naval ships have been used for shore support since the imtoduction of rifled barrels.

Generally speaking naval gunfire is inferior to land gunfire of the same calibre. Naval guns are true high velocity guns requiring relatively thick jackets for their shells. Land guns tend to be howitzers or gun-howitzers, featuring lower velocities that allow a lobbed shell to land vertically and with more HE filler per round. By WW1 navies had developed far more sophisticated targeting than was used in land attillery, so Naval Gunfire was better at hitting specific targets despie the disadvantages of being on an unstable platform, that is until you get down to tank sized targets where ATGs were better.

In terms of offense land artillery is superior at area bombardment, Naval Gunfire is superior at direct fire at specific targets. That is assuming same/similar calibres.

On defense coastal defense guns were naval guns mounted with Naval sighting in secure hardened bunkers, leading to Nelson himself saying "No sailor but a fool attacks a harbour". Coastal defense guns werre capable of mind boggling accuracy and were close to impervious, so they were either avoided, taken out by other means or completely overwhelmed by superior firepower.

Getting back to shore support. The British had river gunboats designed for infantry support in colonial warfare, which were used in the Med in WW2. In landings DDs, CLs and CAs were designated to support spcific landing forces, the ship assigned depending on the size of the unit and their objective. Then there was a pool of reserve ships that could be assigned as needed depending on the course of the landing.

Please note that the difference between a CL and CA is wether it carries 6" or 8" gins, not the weight of broadside. Some CLs had significantly heavier broadsides than some CAs.

[Xuc Xac]

tl;dr about leather armor: Did real people in history use armor with significant parts made of animal skin? Yes. Did anyone ever wear leather armor that looked like what a "rogue" or "thief" character would wear in an RPG? No.

[Roxxy]

Naval ships have been used for shore support since the imtoduction of rifled barrels.

Generally speaking naval gunfire is inferior to land gunfire of the same calibre. Naval guns are true high velocity guns requiring relatively thick jackets for their shells. Land guns tend to be howitzers or gun-howitzers, featuring lower velocities that allow a lobbed shell to land vertically and with more HE filler per round. By WW1 navies had developed far more sophisticated targeting than was used in land attillery, so Naval Gunfire was better at hitting specific targets despie the disadvantages of being on an unstable platform, that is until you get down to tank sized targets where ATGs were better.

In terms of offense land artillery is superior at area bombardment, Naval Gunfire is superior at direct fire at specific targets. That is assuming same/similar calibres.Is there any possibility of firing a lower velocity round out of a naval gun at a high angle to approximate land based artillery? If you have a mount that can be elevated as a howitzer (which, to my knowledge, did exist shipboard for AA use if we're just talking 5" and 6" guns), and if you expect to do a lot of shore bombardment, it may make sense to carry ammunition specifically for that role, and firing lower velocity rounds out of a high velocity gun shouldn't pose a problem. It'll mean shorter ranges, but that explains why ships are having to get in close and risk getting holes melted through them, which is good story-wise.

[Carl]

You could but there's little advantage to it, leaving aside rifling issues; Sitting further back and lobbing shells is safer for the ship doing it. Naval shells of a similar calibre tend to be bigger so there's allready a power advantage. Naval guns in many cases are much bigger, 50-60 is still an wera when a lot of nations had BB's wandering about. When one of those goes to town, well, you really know about it. Grabbed this anecdote from the WoWS forums.


Take a look at the concussion/blast radius from a 14 inch or 16 inch bombardment shell. Not to mention the kill radius. Danger close with Naval gunfire is something far and away different than calling 155's or 4.2 inch mortars. I have called in fire missions with both of those. The old fashioned way, map, compass, and protractor. We use an 8 digit grid. For naval gunfire it required a 10 digit grid at the time because the power of naval artillery. A 155 hitting near would shake the ground, hurt your ears and shower you with dirt. The concussion from the blast of a 16 Inch shell landing near you could kill you outright. So often a direct hit is not needed to render a target combat ineffective. I would imagine having heavy naval gunfire in area would pretty much render a topographical map useless in some cases lol as they rearrange the terrain so much. I remember reading about the retreat from Chosin in Korea. The Chinese Army nipped at the heels of the retreating Marines until they got under the cover of naval gunfire and that was the end of it.

And lastly. Artillery whilst can these days be used as a precision weapon, is and allways has been more of a "kill everything in this target area" piece of kit. Whilst at close enough ranges with the right shot you can use it to punch out a specific bunker without hitting anything else nearby, the more common scenario is to lather the bunker and surrounding area with fire and take out the bunker and everything aroudn ti through sheer weight of fire. Like i said there can and have been time when it has and is used as a precision weapon. But mostly it's not.

[Pauly]

Is there any possibility of firing a lower velocity round out of a naval gun at a high angle to approximate land based artillery? If you have a mount that can be elevated as a howitzer (which, to my knowledge, did exist shipboard for AA use if we're just talking 5" and 6" guns), and if you expect to do a lot of shore bombardment, it may make sense to carry ammunition specifically for that role, and firing lower velocity rounds out of a high velocity gun shouldn't pose a problem. It'll mean shorter ranges, but that explains why ships are having to get in close and risk getting holes melted through them, which is good story-wise.

Not really.

First of of all for cruisers the main guns only have elevation of around +20 degrees or so, so you have a limited parabolic arc to work with. CLAAs did have high angle fire with 5.25" guns but CLAAs are not used for shore bombardment.

The second problem is that if you refuce the charge too much what happens is the barrel gets fouled by incompletely burnt propellant. So you'll lose your accuracy pretty quickly. That assumes you could even persuade the Navy to foul their primary means of combat if the other navy turns up.

Finally you still have thick jacketed high velocity shells in the lockers anyway. So even if you could lob them and even if the ships captains agreed to do they'd be like using a screwdriver as a hammer.

When you get into the big ordnance, 12" shells and up they are applying firepower beyond anything the land artillery can provide. I've read accounts from Korea where BB support mase mountains shorter. Another account from Australian troops in VietNam that had their artillery support request responded to by the Missouri was they thought the Americans were using nukes.

[Gnoman]

It is worth noting that 6" (155mm) guns are fairly big guns by land-based standards, and 8" (203mm) is pretty much top end. By naval standards neither is that big.

[Martin Greywolf]

Nomads didn't need to be rich in bronze or iron when they could trade for what they needed with settled communities under their "protection".

That's when they couldn't tax the trade routes carrying gold, amber and other valuable materials through their areas of control.

Which is why the rich ones did, in fact, have metal armor, not leather. Leather didn't replace high end metal armor, it replaced munitions-grade metal armor that areas with a lot of bronze/iron used on their mid-tier soldiers. There are few survival of these kits, mainly because no one treasured them the way they did high-quality stuff. Battle of Visby has some survivals of these kinds of armor for late middle ages.

Since these aren't pretty or finely craften, they are really hard to find anywhere except archaeological studies.



Assuming most non-precious metals are equally available, would bronze be a better choice for crafting weapons and armor meant to be used in really cold environments?

I'm not a materials engineer, but IIRC, copper alloys in general are really good choices for most modern uses of metal in low temperatures, since they actually suffer an improvement in hardness, yield strength and tensile strength in extreme cold. However, I don't know if steel would still be more advantageous or if there are any considerations I'm missing when it comes to medieval warfare...

What do you guys think?


The answer to this is, for once, pretty clear. No, it wouldn't be practical.

The initial assumption alone is somewhat flawed, areas that have both tin and copper are rare, so you usually have to trade at least one component. Iron is found more readily, but is harder to work with. So price factors that go into a finished bronze and iron/steel sword are so disparate you'd see them equal pretty much never.

Assuming you somehow do, though, it still wouldn't work for medieval tech levels. Each individual sword would be too different from the other because of imprecise way of making them. You'd get far more variance from that than you'd ever have from temperature changes, especially since those temperature changes would only be relevant in about 80 Kelvin range (-40 to 40 degrees Celsius) if were being generous.

Since I'm not an expert on copper alloys, I can't really say, but there is a good possibility that while they get harder when cooled, they also become more brittle, which is an obvious problem when dealing with swords.

[Khedrac]

Are there any examples of 1930s-1950s destroyers or cruisers designed specifically for providing artillery support for ground forces, not for more multipurpose uses? Is there any example of a tactical philosophy of moving small ships close to shore and accepting some might be lost, as opposed to using big guns like the Iowa from many miles off?
If you lose ships, then you are not doing it right...

Well, actually that depends, when supporting infantry (e.g. Anzio and D-Day landings) then the ships may have to be in range of shore guns, and yes, you use every ship you can, not just those with the range to say safe; however, if not directly supporting troops, then you shouldn't be subject to return fire.
E.g. back in WW2 in the Med, my grandfather commanded HMS Penelope (a light cruiser) and, being a gunnery specialist, he liked to shell the Italians in such a way that they thought they were under air attack and returned fire with anti-aircraft guns... Yes, this probably depended upon the weather, but there was no risk to the ship. Yes, naval guns may not be capable of very high angles, though I think most were - the 6" main guns on light cruisers were used for anti-aircraft fire which requires a high angle - but when the range is miles you don't necessarily need that high an angle to be able to drop shells on people.

That said, this wasn't a specialist design (to my knowledge). The main specialist designs in the WW2 era that I know of were anti-aircraft ships (like the USS Atlanta), so I think the navies didn't need or want specialist anti-shore ships after the WW1 monitors.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Yes, naval guns may not be capable of very high angles, though I think most were - the 6" main guns on light cruisers were used for anti-aircraft fire which requires a high angle - but when the range is miles you don't necessarily need that high an angle to be able to drop shells on people.

That said, this wasn't a specialist design (to my knowledge). The main specialist designs in the WW2 era that I know of were anti-aircraft ships (like the USS Atlanta), so I think the navies didn't need or want specialist anti-shore ships after the WW1 monitors.
They used high angle shots to penetrate through relatively weaker deck armour (plunging fire) - the Bismarck could only get her guns to 30 degrees, while HMS King George V is up around 40 degrees. As for using the main guns for AA - it did happen, but it was a bit of a desperation move (you need fused shells for altitude, although you've a chance of catching torpedo-bombers in the spray thrown up by a shell detonating when it hits the water), all ships had AA guns to do that job normally.

[Lemmy]

The answer to this is, for once, pretty clear. No, it wouldn't be practical.

The initial assumption alone is somewhat flawed, areas that have both tin and copper are rare, so you usually have to trade at least one component. Iron is found more readily, but is harder to work with. So price factors that go into a finished bronze and iron/steel sword are so disparate you'd see them equal pretty much never.

Hey, thanks for the answer! I'd like to make a few clarifications about my question, though, if you don't mind:

This is for a campaign setting my gaming group is creating. There's a society that inhabits really cold regions, so I was wondering what would be the best material for them to mine/trade. They have some mines and neighboring allies who are willing to trade the necessary metal ores, so the real world frequency of copper/tin mines is not relevant, unless there's some reason other than random chance for these metals to not be found close to each other.


Assuming you somehow do, though, it still wouldn't work for medieval tech levels. Each individual sword would be too different from the other because of imprecise way of making them. You'd get far more variance from that than you'd ever have from temperature changes, especially since those temperature changes would only be relevant in about 80 Kelvin range (-40 to 40 degrees Celsius) if were being generous.

I understand the crafting method for these tools would be imprecise and less than ideal and that cold and snow are less than ideal circumstances for the creation and maintenance of metal weapons and armor, but since the weapons are needed anyway, the society in question will just have to bear with it.


Since I'm not an expert on copper alloys, I can't really say, but there is a good possibility that while they get harder when cooled, they also become more brittle, which is an obvious problem when dealing with swords.Curiously, copper alloys actually become both stronger and more ductile the colder it gets, and retain great resistance to impact in temperatures as low as -420 F (that's what I recall from college, anyway, but a quick research actually supported this assertion).

I believe a better way to phrase my question would be:

- Assuming weapons and armor are necessary for a medieval-ish society living in cold regions (because of raiders, neighboring enemies, natural predators, etc), like the arctic circle, what material would be ideal (or at least, the least problematic) to use in the creation of these items?

Bronze? Steel? Something else entirely?

[Pauly]

If you lose ships, then you are not doing it right...

Well, actually that depends, when supporting infantry (e.g. Anzio and D-Day landings) then the ships may have to be in range of shore guns, and yes, you use every ship you can, not just those with the range to say safe; however, if not directly supporting troops, then you shouldn't be subject to return fire.
E.g. back in WW2 in the Med, my grandfather commanded HMS Penelope (a light cruiser) and, being a gunnery specialist, he liked to shell the Italians in such a way that they thought they were under air attack and returned fire with anti-aircraft guns... Yes, this probably depended upon the weather, but there was no risk to the ship. Yes, naval guns may not be capable of very high angles, though I think most were - the 6" main guns on light cruisers were used for anti-aircraft fire which requires a high angle - but when the range is miles you don't necessarily need that high an angle to be able to drop shells on people.

That said, this wasn't a specialist design (to my knowledge). The main specialist designs in the WW2 era that I know of were anti-aircraft ships (like the USS Atlanta), so I think the navies didn't need or want specialist anti-shore ships after the WW1 monitors.

The Penelope did some pretty legendary things.

[Khedrac]

The Penelope did some pretty legendary things.

True, unfortunately that includes holding the record (so far as is known) for the highest speed being travelled when struck by an aimed torpedo (she was pretty much at full speed heading back to Anzio having just gone to re-ammo); I think the speed was in excess of 27 knots (which makes it very good piece of seamanship by the U410). My grandfather did not survive the sinking.

[Carl]

The ability of naval guns to sustain much higher RoF also counts for a lot, especially in the era your discussing. 2rpm, was a common 155mm sustained RoF. Naval 6" guns where achieving 8rpm+, and 8" was 4rpm+. The American Des Moines where designed for 10rpm, and apparently if the turret crews disabled every safety feature and pushed the machinery to it's limits could achieve 14rpm, and the british had a design on the drawing board at the end of WW2 capable of throwing 200rpm of 6" fire and 1920rpm of 3". The british also had a design for 16" guns capble of 3rpm on the drawing board.

[snowblizz]

Is there any possibility of firing a lower velocity round out of a naval gun at a high angle to approximate land based artillery? If you have a mount that can be elevated as a howitzer (which, to my knowledge, did exist shipboard for AA use if we're just talking 5" and 6" guns), and if you expect to do a lot of shore bombardment, it may make sense to carry ammunition specifically for that role, and firing lower velocity rounds out of a high velocity gun shouldn't pose a problem. It'll mean shorter ranges, but that explains why ships are having to get in close and risk getting holes melted through them, which is good story-wise.

They did all this during D-Day. It wasn't deamons but German shoreguns they watched out for. Destroyers (IIRC) were equipped with rocket batteries (I've seen clips of it) and would dash in through mine-cleared lanes to fire and the retreat out to sea.

There's no real need for anything special, naval artillery already can do shore bombardment. It's just a question of risk to the ships, and risk of hitting your own men.

IIRC naval bombardment on some D-Day beaches was limited by either of these. I forget which, but at least mines would be a great concern, fire you can dodge, mines not so much (that is they restric manouverability).

Do the deamons mine the water?

[Mr Beer]

This is for a campaign setting my gaming group is creating. There's a society that inhabits really cold regions, so I was wondering what would be the best material for them to mine/trade. They have some mines and neighboring allies who are willing to trade the necessary metal ores, so the real world frequency of copper/tin mines is not relevant, unless there's some reason other than random chance for these metals to not be found close to each other.

Really cold places would probably trade fish and furs for finished metal goods, sugars and booze.

[Gnoman]

IIRC naval bombardment on some D-Day beaches was limited by either of these. I forget which, but at least mines would be a great concern, fire you can dodge, mines not so much (that is they restric manouverability).


The problem they ran into during OVERLORD wasn't mines, but shallow water combined with a communications foulup. The ships firing support couldn't get close enough to the beach for reliable direct observation due to the shallow water, and the forward observers weren't reporting in. IIRC, this was solved on one beach by a destroyer captain deliberately running aground in order to get the target zone in sight.

[Brother Oni]

If you move the battleship close enough to use the secondary armament, you've put it within range of return fire, and it's a big target that the enemy has weapons capable of damaging.

Bear in mind that 'moving closer enough to use the secondary armament' is only relative to the main armament. The Iowa class main battery had a range of ~24 miles; the 5" cannon component of its secondary battery had an approximate range of 'only' 10 miles. Depending the elevation of the target, 10 miles may still be over the horizon (< ~67 ft if my maths is correct).


When you get into the big ordnance, 12" shells and up they are applying firepower beyond anything the land artillery can provide. I've read accounts from Korea where BB support mase mountains shorter. Another account from Australian troops in VietNam that had their artillery support request responded to by the Missouri was they thought the Americans were using nukes.

And that's when they're not using actual nukes - see the nuclear Mk23-16 In Naval shell with a 15-20 kiloton yield (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2532).


As for using the main guns for AA - it did happen, but it was a bit of a desperation move (you need fused shells for altitude, although you've a chance of catching torpedo-bombers in the spray thrown up by a shell detonating when it hits the water), all ships had AA guns to do that job normally.

The Yamato had special AA shells, San Shiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)) or 'Type 3 Shell', designed to be fired out of its 18" cannon, although they weren't very successful.

[Pauly]

They did all this during D-Day. It wasn't deamons but German shoreguns they watched out for. Destroyers (IIRC) were equipped with rocket batteries (I've seen clips of it) and would dash in through mine-cleared lanes to fire and the retreat out to sea.

There's no real need for anything special, naval artillery already can do shore bombardment. It's just a question of risk to the ships, and risk of hitting your own men.

IIRC naval bombardment on some D-Day beaches was limited by either of these. I forget which, but at least mines would be a great concern, fire you can dodge, mines not so much (that is they restric manouverability).

Do the deamons mine the water?

The D-Day shore bombardment didn't have true reverse slope targeting. If you look at the bombardment zones from the original plans there are still dead zones. They tried to compensates by shooting from a wide range of angles but some German position were out of reach to the shore bombardment, Mines and shallows helped limit the available firing arcs. Those areas got hit by the RAF/USAAF to compensate.

Much more impressive thanthe DDs with rocket rails were the LCT(R)s. If you havent seen them do a youtube on them, it worth the 5 minutes.

[Storm Bringer]

The problem they ran into during OVERLORD wasn't mines, but shallow water combined with a communications foulup. The ships firing support couldn't get close enough to the beach for reliable direct observation due to the shallow water, and the forward observers weren't reporting in. IIRC, this was solved on one beach by a destroyer captain deliberately running aground in order to get the target zone in sight.

on another beach, a destroyer took its lead form a DD tank on the beach, and concentrated fire on anything the tank lit up with its main gun (the DD couldn't tell which bunkers were still firing back and which were silent, but the tank could) sort of the ultimate "watch my tracer" fire control order.

[Martin Greywolf]

This is for a campaign setting my gaming group is creating. There's a society that inhabits really cold regions, so I was wondering what would be the best material for them to mine/trade. They have some mines and neighboring allies who are willing to trade the necessary metal ores, so the real world frequency of copper/tin mines is not relevant, unless there's some reason other than random chance for these metals to not be found close to each other.


IIRC the base ores that contain copper and tin are mutually exclusive, but I'm not great at geology and may be misremembering something.



I understand the crafting method for these tools would be imprecise and less than ideal and that cold and snow are less than ideal circumstances for the creation and maintenance of metal weapons and armor, but since the weapons are needed anyway, the society in question will just have to bear with it.


Not my point. The point is that from their point of view, there would be more difference between a sword made by a good smith and a sword made by a great smith than between sword made of bronze and sword made of iron/steel. They'd likely use what was more convenient to a particular smithy.



Assuming weapons and armor are necessary for a medieval-ish society living in cold regions (because of raiders, neighboring enemies, natural predators, etc), like the arctic circle, what material would be ideal (or at least, the least problematic) to use in the creation of these items?

Bronze? Steel? Something else entirely?

Well, purely realistically speaking, something else, that something else being leather for armor and wood and bone for weapons. Thing is, with medieval tech, societies that can support large enough cities to have significant industry just aren't around, and that means no proper mines and smithies. Those start to appear only once you can settle down in one place, and that usually requires agriculture - very first bronze age smithies were found in agricultural villages with permanent settlement. Not big villages, mind, about 100 people or so, but one of those probably traded with a lot of their neighbours (we can't know for sure since receipts weren't exactly a thing yet).

So, if you are above arctic circle, no dice without something that allows the people there to live in stable settlements (hunting alone won't do most of the time).

Assuming they overcome that problem, they'll do what most people did when it comes to weapons and armor: use what's convenient and easiest to get. Thing about this is, since iron is one ore, and a pretty common one at that, it's really easy to get anywhere, so once you figure out how to make a decent sword out of it...

So the short answer to your new and revised question (tm) is: they'd use both. That would give them a pretty interesting look, now that I think about it. For armor, though, steel would be popular, since it's lighter than bronze, and that's a much bigger consideration with armor than weapons. This would also mean that, all things being equal, axes and maces would be made of bronze and swords and spears of steel - hell, maces were made of bronze until about 14th century in real world.

If you have mythical/magical critters there, their body parts could well be used too, leather used as top layer of gambeson is a good example. With magical bones that refuse to break, you could have armor that is much, much lighter than steel (that may well be why crossbow bolts were made of horn or bone most of the time), and magical ice is always popular, whether it's an ore or dragon poop.

One note on aesthetics there, though. There would be as little exposed metal as possible. Once it gets cold it tends to do nasty things to bare skin, so even things like a plate cuirass or helmet would be covered with leather, cloth or fur to stop that from being a problem. Covering crossguards reliably is a bit more of a problem, so you'd have mandatory gloves or small/non-existent crossguards (like some Russian weapons have, whether this is a reason for it, no one knows).

[Tobtor]

IIRC the base ores that contain copper and tin are mutually exclusive, but I'm not great at geology and may be misremembering something.

They do have access to both tin and copper on the British isles. I think you are right that they are at different geological stratas, but quite often very different geological formations can be rather close to each other. You could easily have a scenario where an area have acces to both and living in a cold environment (Sweden have lots of metals, copper, gold, zink, lead etc, i dont think there is any (enough) tin, but a theoretical fantasy country could have)



Well, purely realistically speaking, something else, that something else being leather for armor and wood and bone for weapons. Thing is, with medieval tech, societies that can support large enough cities to have significant industry just aren't around, and that means no proper mines and smithies. Those start to appear only once you can settle down in one place, and that usually requires agriculture - very first bronze age smithies were found in agricultural villages with permanent settlement. Not big villages, mind, about 100 people or so, but one of those probably traded with a lot of their neighbours (we can't know for sure since receipts weren't exactly a thing yet).

So, if you are above arctic circle, no dice without something that allows the people there to live in stable settlements (hunting alone won't do most of the time).

Rich silver/gold mines could be the perfect reason. Thus coper/iron etc, would be secondary, but the society would focus on getting metal anyway, might be strong on metallurgy even in smaller societies.


Assuming they overcome that problem, they'll do what most people did when it comes to weapons and armor: use what's convenient and easiest to get. Thing about this is, since iron is one ore, and a pretty common one at that, it's really easy to get anywhere, so once you figure out how to make a decent sword out of it...

I tend to agree: iron is very easy to access, however tin and copper is in theory easier to extract and work with (lower melting temperatures). In general it is about access: whatever you feel like there being a sufficient enough quantity of. If you want them in bronze, just have rivers with tin and copper a side-product of gold mining. If you want iron/steel, then just have that.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Might need a bit of work, but they could potentially export ice - until refrigeration became commonplace, large blocks of ice were cut and transported to major cities. So long as you've got insulating materials that can keep it solid until it arrives at it's destination, fast enough ships (ice clippers rather than tea clippers?) and someone willing to pay for it.

[Martin Greywolf]

They do have access to both tin and copper on the British isles. I think you are right that they are at different geological stratas, but quite often very different geological formations can be rather close to each other. You could easily have a scenario where an area have acces to both and living in a cold environment (Sweden have lots of metals, copper, gold, zink, lead etc, i dont think there is any (enough) tin, but a theoretical fantasy country could have)

Well, I bow to your superior grasp of geology.





Rich silver/gold mines could be the perfect reason. Thus coper/iron etc, would be secondary, but the society would focus on getting metal anyway, might be strong on metallurgy even in smaller societies.


There's a couple of problems with this, but it may be doable, depending on how you define society.

First off, you need either climate or materials there to make day-to-day life viable. Beyond arctic circle, that either means relatively young cities that follow forests, or maybe settlement near thermal springs.

Next problem is that a lot of the food will have to be imported, and that's a problem without well-maintained roads (by land or sea), and to have those, you need either settlements or at least guardposts along the way. And settlements here need hotsprings or a lot of wood and are inhospitable, so not a lot of people would like to live there. Sea can make this easier if it is melted at least partially through the year, a lot fo merchants would try to make a killing by making the dangerous road to trade grain for gold.

But, that brings us to the next problem. Gold is probably not precious enough to warrant all this. Every town you go through, every day of the voyage, every tax and toll along the way will make whatever you're buying there more expensive to get to the final customer, therefore driving the price up. You need something that is really damn scarce in the rest of the world to warrant that kind of expense, and when you get to those levels, you may well run into a problem of no one being rich enough to afford it.

Settlements that specialized in mining and imported food seemed to have existed since bronze age, problem is, they were located on already established trade routes, serving as both a mining and trading town - there were a few towns like these found in northern Slovakia on the Amber route. That said, they weren't big enough to be really called kingdoms, even city-state is a stretch. What they were is an independent frontier town. Probably. Archaeology from this far back rarely gives you hard and fast answers.



Might need a bit of work, but they could potentially export ice - until refrigeration became commonplace, large blocks of ice were cut and transported to major cities. So long as you've got insulating materials that can keep it solid until it arrives at it's destination, fast enough ships (ice clippers rather than tea clippers?) and someone willing to pay for it.

Unless they have really well developed ships or a world that has weird geography, this'll probably not work. It's cheaper to get your snow and ice from the local/nearest mountains than to cart it south from the arctic. That means that ice isn't expensive enough to make trade a good idea anywhere near where they can cart it.

[Khedrac]

They do have access to both tin and copper on the British isles. I think you are right that they are at different geological stratas, but quite often very different geological formations can be rather close to each other. You could easily have a scenario where an area have acces to both and living in a cold environment (Sweden have lots of metals, copper, gold, zink, lead etc, i dont think there is any (enough) tin, but a theoretical fantasy country could have)
Forget "the British Isles" - it's called "Cornwall" (which basically controlled the world tin trade until the 20th century) - also mined there: arsenic, silver, and zinc.
That said, Cornwall is not good terrain for much food production - so add in Devon and there you go.

Note: the UK's geology is fairly unusual, one of the main reasons that most geological periods are named after parts of the UK is because we have example strata from most of them.

[Kiero]

Historically, access to tin was always the issue with bronze making. The other alternative compound to mix with copper was arsenic - you can imagine how sustainable that was.

Copper and tin don't occur together naturally, which is why trade routes sprung up. Britain was (and indeed still is) a source of tin.

The advantage with iron ore is that both coal and charcoal are common and occur close to sources of iron.

[hifidelity2]

The main specialist designs in the WW2 era that I know of were anti-aircraft ships (like the USS Atlanta), so I think the navies didn't need or want specialist anti-shore ships after the WW1 monitors.

Monitors were built for shore bombardment

Roberts-class_monitor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts-class_monitor)
and
Monitor World_War_II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)#World_War_II)

[Beleriphon]

Historically, access to tin was always the issue with bronze making. The other alternative compound to mix with copper was arsenic - you can imagine how sustainable that was.

Incidentally this is the reason Hephaestus is usually depicted a disabled. Arsenic poisoning can do that, and a smith was in ancient Greece was probably prone to a life of permanent disability due to arsenic.


The advantage with iron ore is that both coal and charcoal are common and occur close to sources of iron.

Yep, its also on of the single most common metals on the planet, if not the entire solar system.

[snowblizz]

There's a couple of problems with this, but it may be doable, depending on how you define society.

First off, you need either climate or materials there to make day-to-day life viable. Beyond arctic circle, that either means relatively young cities that follow forests, or maybe settlement near thermal springs.

Next problem is that a lot of the food will have to be imported, and that's a problem without well-maintained roads (by land or sea), and to have those, you need either settlements or at least guardposts along the way. And settlements here need hotsprings or a lot of wood and are inhospitable, so not a lot of people would like to live there. Sea can make this easier if it is melted at least partially through the year, a lot fo merchants would try to make a killing by making the dangerous road to trade grain for gold.

But, that brings us to the next problem. Gold is probably not precious enough to warrant all this. Every town you go through, every day of the voyage, every tax and toll along the way will make whatever you're buying there more expensive to get to the final customer, therefore driving the price up. You need something that is really damn scarce in the rest of the world to warrant that kind of expense, and when you get to those levels, you may well run into a problem of no one being rich enough to afford it.



Almost everything you say about the north is categorically wrong. Can you please stop misrepresenting it?

Scandinavia has been settled since the stoneage. Up to and including the Arctic. In the northernmost parts agriculture is limited but you supplement with hunting, animal husbandry and especially fising which is usually excellent in colder climates due to how nutrients are carried in seas.

Plenty of valuable commodities can be found in the north, furs, ivory and bulk worth transporting, in the real word eg fish, timber and so on. And gold is definitely enough to warrant it. In the medieval period precious metals were hard enough to come by you had to mine where you could and any scenario where there might be imbalances in trade precious metals tend to be what balances the books.

Also a society isn't a big city only and you don't need big cities to produce metalworking/mining. Many cultures with limited metalworking or production ability could do very fancy metalwork.

[Tobtor]

Historically, access to tin was always the issue with bronze making. The other alternative compound to mix with copper was arsenic - you can imagine how sustainable that was.


I don't think arsenic was added on purpose. Arsenic copper is naturally occuring in central Europe in the upper layers. These where exploited during the "Chalcolithic", but seem to have dryed out in the early bronze age. The resulting artefacts isnt really bronze, but slightly enhanced copper.


Scandinavia has been settled since the stoneage. Up to and including the Arctic. In the northernmost parts agriculture is limited but you supplement with hunting, animal husbandry and especially fising which is usually excellent in colder climates due to how nutrients are carried in seas.

Plenty of valuable commodities can be found in the north, furs, ivory and bulk worth transporting, in the real word eg fish, timber and so on. And gold is definitely enough to warrant it. In the medieval period precious metals were hard enough to come by you had to mine where you could and any scenario where there might be imbalances in trade precious metals tend to be what balances the books.

Also a society isn't a big city only and you don't need big cities to produce metalworking/mining. Many cultures with limited metalworking or production ability could do very fancy metalwork.

I tend to agree with this.

Sure you wouldnt have large buzzling cities, but you could have trading ports and coimmunities among a arctic area. Even more so if you have good (or just decent) coastal access. Iceland (while not entirely arctic, then very close) housed something like 20.000-50.00people during the early medieval period: this is without precious metals and harsh seas to cross for trade. True, Iceland (and southern Greenland) have the advantage of currents making agriculture possible (Icelanders didn't need to import food at all) Agriculture was (and is) a viable option that far north. Due to landscape and soil conditions, they did need to import lumber from Norway and North America to sustain their wood based ship and housing traditions.

Imagine a world where there where land contact from southern Norway going over Iceland to Greenland and North America. This would make a very rich trading route. Then add some mountains (low ones like in Cornwall) with tin somewhat inland, and have 3-4rivers running from these rivers toward the coast. Then some way add some old mountains (Sweden) with copper and possibly gold/silver resources. Then you have some tribes living in one group of mountains with access to tin, and another group of tribes with access to copper/gold in the other mountains. A third group control the coast and trade routes out (possibly also some ivory and/or amber). In the middle you have some tribes who have limited access to metals, though they can exploit some tin resources from river beds (brought from the mountains), and rich fur resources from both forests and further north tundra.

The whole region might have to import a bit of food, but among coastal regions you have good farming, while fishing/hunting/herding is going on inland. The mountains might have reasonably low food resources (a bit of herding and a bit of hunting/fishing/gathering). As no group have access to all necessary resources you see a lot of trade but also frequent raids to access metals, furs, food etc. At the same time you would have low enough development that you only have small towns and dispersed craft specialization etc.

I could easily see that as a game world.

[Lemmy]

Thank you all for the replies. You guys really made very solid points, some of them about things I hadn't even considered. :)

The society I mentioned has access to copper and silver mines (separate mines, of course), but iron and tin comes from trade agreements with allies who live on the (considerably warmer) mountain range to the south (which will probably include dwarfs, so mining isn't an issue).

I think I'll make bronze their most common used metal, with steel being somewhat more expensive. Wealthier members of this society likely being the only ones who can afford full sets of steel armor.

Does that sound plausible?

[Tobtor]

Thank you all for the replies. You guys really made very solid points, some of them about things I hadn't even considered. :)

The society I mentioned has access to copper and silver mines (separate mines, of course), but iron and tin comes from trade agreements with allies who live on the (considerably warmer) mountain range to the south (which will probably include dwarfs, so mining isn't an issue).

I think I'll make bronze their most common used metal, with steel being somewhat more expensive. Wealthier members of this society likely being the only ones who can afford full sets of steel armor.

Does that sound plausible?

Yes, if iron ore for some reason is scarce, or they haven't figured out to use all sources.

[Blackhawk748]

So, don't know if all of you history buffs have heard about this yet, but Gamer theories did a Viking vs. Samurai vs Knights (from For Honor, sort off) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwoGVWgK8v8). To say this video is innaccurate is...generous. Now, Matpat is usually pretty entertaining, but he is so far off on this, Skallgrim (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_pCM6gFXXE&t=923s), Shadiversity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18c3S7JiRNA) and Metatron (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTw_i9dBEmM&t=635s) each did videos debunking him, each one of course focusing on their specialty.

So i bring forth the question to you all, it is the 11th century and through some insane contrivance, a viking, a knight and a samurai find themselves in a martial arts tournament. Who wins the cup? Also, for added fun and profit, who wins in a battlefield situation.

To note i am not expecting anything conclusive here, just a fun discussion

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Why the 11th century? We're still comparing a Viking (8th-10th centuries), a knight (11th-15th centuries) and a samurai (13th-17th centuries). One is a farmer-trader and part-time raider, one is heavy cavalry, the other is a mounted archer. The latter two are professional warriors. Comparing vikings and knights means directly comparing the same or neighbouring societies at different technological levels. What is a "knight" anyhow? 11th centuries mail and spear, or 15th century full Milanese plate?

[Blackhawk748]

Why the 11th century? We're still comparing a Viking (8th-10th centuries), a knight (11th-15th centuries) and a samurai (13th-17th centuries). One is a farmer-trader and part-time raider, one is heavy cavalry, the other is a mounted archer. The latter two are professional warriors. Comparing vikings and knights means directly comparing the same or neighbouring societies at different technological levels. What is a "knight" anyhow? 11th centuries mail and spear, or 15th century full Milanese plate?

The 11th century is because all of them where active during that period. The Samurai where just starting, the Knights where areound for a bit and the Vikings where towards their end.

So the Knights are using SPears, Arming swords, mail and kite shields, the Vikings (we're going to use the ones on the richer end) are armed with Round Shields, Mail, Spear, and a sword or axe, the Samurai has his Bow, Yari, Daisho and is wearing O-yoroi

[Max_Killjoy]

The 11th century is because all of them where active during that period. The Samurai where just starting, the Knights where areound for a bit and the Vikings where towards their end.

So the Knights are using SPears, Arming swords, mail and kite shields, the Vikings (we're going to use the ones on the richer end) are armed with Round Shields, Mail, Spear, and a sword or axe, the Samurai has his Bow, Yari, Daisho and is wearing O-yoroi

Setting aside the bow, as an actual close-in fight, I'd give the advantage to the knight. Best combination of training and equipment.

[marycrook]

I just like this game..

[rrgg]

A well-off 11th century viking and an 11th century knight are going to look pretty similar.

[Tobtor]

Vikings versus Knights versus Samurai:

I think Skallagrim makes a good point about not knowing, as Samurai and European gear have not been tested against eachother.

Looking at the videos and from what I know, I think it seem the Samurai armour isn't alot better, rather a bit more risky in melee combat. It may or may not be more protective where it covers, but to me the shown (11th century) pieces in metatron video have a lot of gaps (like below the arms/armpits etc). It seem it might be better at warding off arrows (but I wouldnt say it was as good as the shield/mail combo for that either). So if I had to fight I would choose the European gear (for which Viking and Knights from the 11th century would be pretty much the same if we consider something like Hirdmen for Vikings to get the same social strata).

Vikings versus knights:

First of in one on one combat the individual and his skills is more important than any gear difference between the two. So it is going to be difficult. I mean if we look at the Anglo Saxon chronicle (yes, yes I knwo historical sources are not reliable) a single Norweigean held up the entire english army for a long time before the battle of Stamford Bridge. If that was the "viking" then fighting a random knight, well then the Viking. But then what if we take X-famous knight who slew so and so many we might get a different result. We don't have a baseline for what a knight is and a what a Viking is.

For a battlefield situation: in the long run the knights took over the way wars where fought, and thus we must assume that they where better (all things considered). Knights out competed vikings so to speak.

We could also cite Hastings where Norman knights defeated Anglo Saxons who had defeated Vikings at Stamford. However a series of problems of course arise: There seem to have been more Anglo Saxons than Vikings at Stamford, and the vikings where caught by surprise etc. Similar for Hastings, while the armies have been estimated differently in size, they seem pretty equal. It have often been used to show that cavalry beats "shield and spear" armies of the day.
However, I think it is a lot less clear (it is like citing Agincourt to say archers will always trump knights): The Saxon had first fought at Stamford and then rushed through most of England before arriving at Hastings, thus we must assume some weariness and fatigue on the Saxon side. Secondly: the Anglo Saxon formation actually held against the Norman assault! The tired Saxon army actually managed to fend of the cavalry, and it was first when the less experienced part of the Saxon army tried to pursue the Norman army and thus broke the formation that they where defeated. Still after this the Shield formation of Harold held on for a long time after that. So Hastings was really a pretty close thing.

We might instead say: well the French had used knights for a few centuries at this time (starting really systematically in the 9th century), and they still lost plenty of battles to Vikings. Also guys like Harold Hardrada fought battles from Sicily, Asia Mnor (Turkey) Kievian Russia, Norway and England. Both as an independent ruler or raider, and as a high ranking member of the Varangian guard. So "Vikings" cannot have been totally worthless in the 11th century oif still employed by the Byzantine empire... and not just for show, but actual battle field use.

[Brother Oni]

The 11th century is because all of them where active during that period. The Samurai where just starting, the Knights where areound for a bit and the Vikings where towards their end.

So the Knights are using SPears, Arming swords, mail and kite shields, the Vikings (we're going to use the ones on the richer end) are armed with Round Shields, Mail, Spear, and a sword or axe, the Samurai has his Bow, Yari, Daisho and is wearing O-yoroi

O-yoroi armour is intended for mounted combat as the thigh and midriff section is essentially a big box:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Samurai_o-yoroi.jpg

Since they're on foot for this battle, that starts them off with a mobility disadvantage. Domaru would be a better option for fighting on foot.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Dou_maru_gusoku.jpg



Looking at the videos and from what I know, I think it seem the Samurai armour isn't alot better, rather a bit more risky in melee combat. It may or may not be more protective where it covers, but to me the shown (11th century) pieces in metatron video have a lot of gaps (like below the arms/armpits etc). It seem it might be better at warding off arrows (but I wouldnt say it was as good as the shield/mail combo for that either).

Those gaps would be covered by either padded/quilted armour or armoured plates sewn on or into fabric (link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_armours_of_Japan)).

The gaps could also have been possibly covered by kusari (mail) armour, but extant examples only date back as far as the 13th Century Mongol Invasions and evidence for earlier use is sketchy.

In my opinion, whether a samurai would be better than a viking or a Norman knight would be more dependent on the skill of the combatant rather than any innate advantage offered by the equipment, since they're all approximately equivalent. It's not as if we're putting gothic plate armour knight against a Dark Ages Saxon fyrdsman.

Edit: and I see Metatron's video has already addressed pretty much all of my points.

[Vinyadan]

I mean if we look at the Anglo Saxon chronicle (yes, yes I knwo historical sources are not reliable) a single Norweigean held up the entire english army for a long time before the battle of Stamford Bridge. If that was the "viking" then fighting a random knight, well then the Viking.

I have some problems with this story, since I can't imagine it happening, unless England was bereft of stones and rocks, as well as of people smart enough to throw them.

[Kiero]

In the Eighty Years War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War), there was a battle to hold the dykes where a single man with sword and shield held the Spanish at bay for a long time.

Can't remember the guy's name now, or which battle it was.

[Tobtor]

In the Eighty Years War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War), there was a battle to hold the dykes where a single man with sword and shield held the Spanish at bay for a long time.

Can't remember the guy's name now, or which battle it was.

Yes, several such stories exist. I think they might be true, one very determined person CAN make attackers uneasy. There is also on i came across reading Tom Reiss biography "The Black Count", about Dumas (the general, father of the author), who was a soldier, later general in the revolutionary army of France. There is an episode where he single handily holds a whole group of enemy troops from crossing a bridge. A feat Napoloen himself later mentions as a reason to be forgiving of Dumas (which ends up an enemy of Napoleon). This is in a period with guns.


I have some problems with this story, since I can't imagine it happening, unless England was bereft of stones and rocks, as well as of people smart enough to throw them.

While I agree (and hinted in the post) that this exact story might not be entirely true, or at least embellished, stones and rocks is not going to make a difference! Even a hard stone throw hurts, but in no way incapacitate though heavy clothing, let alone armor. If the guy ad a shield he would be safe. Anyway you need to get quite close to use a stone in a way that really hurts. Think of it: how far can you throw a heavy stone? Would you like to venture out onto a bridge with a stone in your hand facing an obviously crazy guy with a weapon? If you cannot hit in the head, he might very well kill you! And if he is wearing a helmet (and he most likely is) hitting in the head dosn't help.

Try making a few tests at home: see what distance you can hit a target with a stone and break something like a rib (use a animal ribcase with meat on it from your local butcher) through heavy clothing....

Now from a wall in a defence situation, you can throw much larger and heavier stones, using gravity as your helper, and here stones are deadly. On a open battlefield they are more of a nuisance or only effective on very close distances (used to the effect of detering an enemy assault on your position).

Now the Saxons had spears, and that would of course put the Viking guy at a problem. Though you still need to get within his reach with a spearthrow to be able to hit him. So if one guy misses, he can grab that spear and hit YOU with it. So psychology plays into it a lot. A determined person have a huge advantage over a group of non-determined people.

[Lemmy]

In the Eighty Years War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War), there was a battle to hold the dykes where a single man with sword and shield held the Spanish at bay for a long time.

Can't remember the guy's name now, or which battle it was.
Ah... the Eighty Year Wars... Memorable for being possibly the only "X-years War" that actually lasted the number of years that give it its name... :smallbiggrin:

[Brother Oni]

While I agree (and hinted in the post) that this exact story might not be entirely true, or at least embellished, stones and rocks is not going to make a difference!

Slingers would disagree with you on this and ancient armies made use of them against even armoured foes.

That said, the English countryside isn't great for finding suitable stones, nor were the Saxons renown for using the weapon. The Bayeux Tapestry apparently records slings being used for hunting and the Portugese and Spanish liked using against the quick and lightly armoured Moorish troops.


Ah... the Eighty Year Wars... Memorable for being possibly the only "X-years War" that actually lasted the number of years that give it its name... :smallbiggrin:

Off the top of my head, there's the Arab-Israeli Six Day War, which is technically 0.02 years. :smalltongue:

[Tobtor]

Slingers would disagree with you on this and ancient armies made use of them against even armoured foes.

Well there is a big difference between having acces to stones lying on the ground and having acces to slingers......

You both need slings and people who know how to use them. A sling acelerates the stones much more than a normal person can throw them (that is sort of the point of slings).


That said, the English countryside isn't great for finding suitable stones, nor were the Saxons renown for using the weapon. The Bayeux Tapestry apparently records slings being used for hunting and the Portugese and Spanish liked using against the quick and lightly armoured Moorish troops.

That may be true, there is however no indication of them being used for battles in the early medieval period in North Western Europe. They used spears and/or arrows as their distance weaponry.

[Deadmeat.GW]

The Flemish did have some slingers units which were quite good and very skilled at skirmishing (the terrain did help there for example, where they came from the terrain was quite soggy and marsh like due to large amounts of small rivers and canals for draining water from fields) and these did harass the French Crossbowmen during several battles quite effectively.

A very good slinger can do an impressive amount of damage to a person that is not expecting it, even if they were wearing quite good armour.

mostly because they are good enough when well trained to hit something as small as someone's face at 75 metres.

[Pauly]

The Flemish did have some slingers units which were quite good and very skilled at skirmishing (the terrain did help there for example, where they came from the terrain was quite soggy and marsh like due to large amounts of small rivers and canals for draining water from fields) and these did harass the French Crossbowmen during several battles quite effectively.

A very good slinger can do an impressive amount of damage to a person that is not expecting it, even if they were wearing quite good armour.

mostly because they are good enough when well trained to hit something as small as someone's face at 75 metres.

The Spanish were very impressed by the accuracy of the Incan slingers they encountered. In Inca society all boys had to serve as human scarecrows using slings to keep birds out of the crops, and as you can imagine they got very good at slinging. There is an accounts of aimed slingshots knocking weapons out of Spanish hands.

[Kiero]

The Spanish were very impressed by the accuracy of the Incan slingers they encountered. In Inca society all boys had to serve as human scarecrows using slings to keep birds out of the crops, and as you can imagine they got very good at slinging. There is an accounts of aimed slingshots knocking weapons out of Spanish hands.

They'd have been better off putting them through Spanish eyes...

[snowblizz]

The Spanish were very impressed by the accuracy of the Incan slingers they encountered. In Inca society all boys had to serve as human scarecrows using slings to keep birds out of the crops, and as you can imagine they got very good at slinging. There is an accounts of aimed slingshots knocking weapons out of Spanish hands.
I'm sure they were all kinds of impressed while trampling all over the Mezo-American cultures.

At the end of the day, crossbows and guns beat stones. And probably paper and scissor too. Not sure about Lizard and Spock.

[Beleriphon]

I'm sure they were all kinds of impressed while trampling all over the Mezo-American cultures.

At the end of the day, crossbows and guns beat stones. And probably paper and scissor too. Not sure about Lizard and Spock.

Definitely Lizard. Maybe Spock.

[oudeis]

It depends whether we're talking about regular Spock or evil mirror-universe Spock.

[Tobtor]

The Flemish did have some slingers units which were quite good and very skilled at skirmishing (the terrain did help there for example, where they came from the terrain was quite soggy and marsh like due to large amounts of small rivers and canals for draining water from fields) and these did harass the French Crossbowmen during several battles quite effectively.

I stand corrected: I didnt know Flemish slingers where active at this period. Anyway.... my main point stands: throwing rocks is not a good offensive weapon in the 11th century! And the Saxon did not have slingers at Stanford Bridge. And there is no mention of Flemish slingers at Hastings (though plenty of Flemish soldiers mind you).


A very good slinger can do an impressive amount of damage to a person that is not expecting it, even if they were wearing quite good armour. mostly because they are good enough when well trained to hit something as small as someone's face at 75 metres.


Well most thing hurt if you can hit someones face from 75 metres. That is a VERY impressive feat. However, I would rather be able to shoot someone with a bow than throw a rock (even with a sling) at them at that distance (and I doubt bows are harder to hit with than slings).

[Knaight]

I'm sure they were all kinds of impressed while trampling all over the Mezo-American cultures.

At the end of the day, crossbows and guns beat stones.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. For one thing, there's some big weapon differences that aren't on the personal weapon side (cannons, horses) that are much more significant. For another, the presence of one highly dangerous enemy weapon doesn't mean that the whole host of advantages (e.g. armor, cannons, horses, and yes crossbows and guns) somehow stop mattering. Then there's the extent to which said trampling had to do with the Spanish showing up as a catalyst for warfare between existing cultures. It's not like the Aztec Empire didn't make local enemies.

In short: Slings were phased out for a reason, but it took a lot longer than it is often portrayed as, and the idea that slings weren't dangerous weapons is utterly ludicrous.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's a bit of an oversimplification. For one thing, there's some big weapon differences that aren't on the personal weapon side (cannons, horses) that are much more significant. For another, the presence of one highly dangerous enemy weapon doesn't mean that the whole host of advantages (e.g. armor, cannons, horses, and yes crossbows and guns) somehow stop mattering. Then there's the extent to which said trampling had to do with the Spanish showing up as a catalyst for warfare between existing cultures. It's not like the Aztec Empire didn't make local enemies.

In short: Slings were phased out for a reason, but it took a lot longer than it is often portrayed as, and the idea that slings weren't dangerous weapons is utterly ludicrous.

100 troops, who've been slinging to put food in their bellies and keep predators away from their flocks since they were children, motivated by the threat of the enemy killing them... I'd expect that to be an exceedingly dangerous unit.

As for the Spanish vs the Aztecs... it did help the Spanish out greatly that there were plenty of locals with major grievances against the Aztecs.

[Beleriphon]

As for the Spanish vs the Aztecs... it did help the Spanish out greatly that there were plenty of locals with major grievances against the Aztecs.

Cortes was if nothing else capital at turning the locals against the Aztecs. In fact its probably one of the reason the Spanish actually ended up conquering so much of Mezoamerica.

[Knaight]

Cortes was if nothing else capital at turning the locals against the Aztecs. In fact its probably one of the reason the Spanish actually ended up conquering so much of Mezoamerica.

I wouldn't describe it as turning locals against the Aztecs. It's not like he came in and manufactured a bunch of feuds where previously there was only harmony. The Aztec Empire ran a brutal campaign of conquest, they operated with a brutal occupation force, and they made enemies. That these enemies jumped at the first good chance they got to go against The Aztec empire is hardly a surprise. Had they known that Cortes was just as bad going in it would have been, but at the time Cortes was essentially an unknown.

It's a pretty typical case historically. The people militarily conquered using an outside invasion as a time to strike back routinely happened to Rome, routinely happened in China, routinely happened to the Mongol Empire, routinely happened to the British Empire (and colonial forces in general, given that WWII had a whole bunch of them suddenly busy with each other), so on and so forth.

[Beleriphon]

I wouldn't describe it as turning locals against the Aztecs. It's not like he came in and manufactured a bunch of feuds where previously there was only harmony. The Aztec Empire ran a brutal campaign of conquest, they operated with a brutal occupation force, and they made enemies. That these enemies jumped at the first good chance they got to go against The Aztec empire is hardly a surprise. Had they known that Cortes was just as bad going in it would have been, but at the time Cortes was essentially an unknown.

Very true, he did a great job of stirring and already bubbling pot and then pointing at the thing he wanted boiled.

[Pauly]

They'd have been better off putting them through Spanish eyes...

They did that too. But when your intent is to capture it was an effective way to disarm the Spaniard. Hitting a moving sword is a more impressive bit of acvuracy than putting it between the eyes.

[Pauly]

The Azrecs were in Mexico and were mesoamericans
The incas ran Peru/Bolivia and were not mesoamericans.

Cortez, aided by a coalition of Tlascalans and other smaller nations defeated the Aztecs. The Tlascalans thought they were using the Spanish as expendable shock troops.
Terror of horses and the ineffectiveness of obsidian weapons plus the Aztec method of conducting war in order to obtain human sacrifices were the tactical advantages the Spanish had. In the initial conflicts guns terrified the Aztecs, but the Aztecs learned to adjust quickly, for example by throwing themselves on the ground to make smaller targets when the Spanish were aiming. The main missile weapon used by the Aztecs was the atl-atl, a woomera type arrangement throwing a short spear/dart with a stone arrowhead.

Pizarro conquered the Incas without allies, and with far fewer men than Cortez. He landed in Peru at the end of a savage civil war. Due to a failure in his intelligence operation the emperor underestimated the Spanish and agreed to meet them and got captured.
In the fighting there the horse was the decisive weapon. Many Spaniards ditched their metal armour apart from helmets as gambesons provided sufficient armor. The Incas used bronze for their weapons and their main missile weapon was the sling.

He Incas and Aztecs were separated by over 1000 miles. They had different levels of technology. They had different methods of fighting war. They are different cultures. The Aztecs are from hot humid lowlands. The Incas are from cold dry mountains.

The Spanish did conquer both empires in a relatively close time period. The method of conquest was different, and the decisive factors in the campaigns wre different.

Mixing up the Aztecs and the Incas is a bit like mixing up tChinese and Indians

[Telwar]

Hrm. Speaking of slingers, does anybody know when the last organized units of (Old World) slingers were? I know the Romans had auxiliary slingers, and Deadmeat mentions Flemish slingers above, but I'm not clear on dates for the latter.

[Brother Oni]

Terror of horses and the ineffectiveness of obsidian weapons plus the Aztec method of conducting war in order to obtain human sacrifices were the tactical advantages the Spanish had.

While I agree with your other points, I think you're overestimating the supposed ineffectiveness of obsidian weapons, especially when you start looking at period accounts. One of Cortes' conquistadors, Bernal Diaz del Castillo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_D%C3%ADaz_del_Castillo), recorded a macuahuitl decapitating a horse and there are a number of similar accounts from other sources.

Part of the reason the Spanish stopped using metal armour was that the climate was unsuitable, plus the obsidian arrowheads the Incans used tended to shatter on the armour, sending shards and slivers of broken glass everywhere.

That said, the war dogs (mastiff breeds) that the Spanish used absolutely terrified the natives. Bartolome de las Casas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas) has a number of quite horrific accounts of human hunts, La Monteria infernal, in his book "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies", although his bias should be remembered.

[Pauly]

While I agree with your other points, I think you're overestimating the supposed ineffectiveness of obsidian weapons, especially when you start looking at period accounts. One of Cortes' conquistadors, Bernal Diaz del Castillo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_D%C3%ADaz_del_Castillo), recorded a macuahuitl decapitating a horse and there are a number of similar accounts from other sources.

Part of the reason the Spanish stopped using metal armour was that the climate was unsuitable, plus the obsidian arrowheads the Incans used tended to shatter on the armour, sending shards and slivers of broken glass everywhere.

That said, the war dogs (mastiff breeds) that the Spanish used absolutely terrified the natives. Bartolome de las Casas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas) has a number of quite horrific accounts of human hunts, La Monteria infernal, in his book "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies", although his bias should be remembered.

I should have said i effectiveness of obsidian against metal armor. The conquistadors kept their helmets and usually their arm protection and sometime their breastplates. I hadn't rad about the shattering of arrowheads before, but it does make sense in the Aztec situation.

As for the wardogs my reading was that they were more useful as an instrment of terror after the main battles had finished.

Aztec warrior culture was built around individual skill at arms, like Greek Hoplites or medieval knights. I don't see the warrior caste from that socity dropping their bundle when faced by a huge dog. I do see a disarmed populace being terrified of wardogs

[Maquise]

Does anyone know of any information on the pros and cons of various shield grip types? I've heard opinions, and ones that make sense, but not much in the way of actual research/testing.

[Martin Greywolf]

Does anyone know of any information on the pros and cons of various shield grip types? I've heard opinions, and ones that make sense, but not much in the way of actual research/testing.

How exactly do you propose any of this should be tested? Pretty much only proper testing is to use both types of shields against people and draw conclusions from that - folks with enough experience (top of the pack is probably Roland Warzecha) are our go to authority on this.

Next problem is that most of the time, grip of a shield isn't something you swap out, it's meant to be used with the given shield in a given way. Sword and buckler used in I.33 way are a different thing from strapped-to-the-forearm bucklers seen in Talhoffer, and different still from Indian bucklers. To get any useful data from grip comparison, you'd need to have a shield that uses both, and I can't think of a single case, though there's probably some out there (keep in mind that superficial resemblance doesn't make a shield type, hoplite shields and viking shields are both round, but have very different weight and handling characteristics).

Long story short, only useful thing to compare are two shields with all the belts and whistles, otherwise you're basically asking if motorcycle clutch is better than a car clutch when it comes to vehicles.


Hrm. Speaking of slingers, does anybody know when the last organized units of (Old World) slingers were? I know the Romans had auxiliary slingers, and Deadmeat mentions Flemish slingers above, but I'm not clear on dates for the latter

Depends on what you call slingers. Vegetius advises every Roman legionnaire to carry one in De Re Militari, you occasionally see them in 13th century (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/8016/) and staff slings are sometimes shown during sieges or naval battles (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4454/8412/).

Just be really careful to filter out all of David vs Goliath imagery when looking into how often they were used. Though even David depictions tell us that slings were in use for pretty much all of the middle ages, seeing as they are pretty much always drawn accurately.

[Brother Oni]

To get any useful data from grip comparison, you'd need to have a shield that uses both, and I can't think of a single case, though there's probably some out there (keep in mind that superficial resemblance doesn't make a shield type, hoplite shields and viking shields are both round, but have very different weight and handling characteristics).

When I was part of a Norman times re-enactment group, we had kite and round shields with both a central vertical grip and a sling. The central grip lent more control in skirmishing and when you had the hand free for the shield.

The sling was worn around your neck with your front hand thumb hooked around where the sling attached to the shield; by pushing out with the hand, it gave you a bit of control while letting you use a two handed spear. There was less control for round shields as the weight distribution to a kite shield was different, but people still managed.

I concede that this was for re-enactment rather than full contact sparring (most period depictions of spears in Norman times are in an overhand grip for face stabbing, something that's not permitted due to safety reasons!) so may be of limited application to actual historical usage.

[Pauly]

Does anyone know of any information on the pros and cons of various shield grip types? I've heard opinions, and ones that make sense, but not much in the way of actual research/testing.

The center boss grip, the most common hisirical grip, allows the shield to be extended further and used dynamically.

The strapped to the forearm grip provides a more solid grip, but with reduced range of movement. They seem to have mostly been used by impact cavalry.

My understanding of the sling around the neck was that it was developed as a means for a horseman to not lose his center grip shield in the case of a drop.

[Martin Greywolf]

The center boss grip, the most common hisirical grip, allows the shield to be extended further and used dynamically.

Extended further part is correct, and you do have more techniques open to you with these shields, generally speaking, but that doesn't mean that strapped shields aren't used dynamically. If you're in formation, then you can't be al that dynamic, but once you fight in a skirmish, you can and should use any shield actively, not just as a covering plate. HMB actually has some great examples of how you can do this with strapped shields.

Also, it's not the most common historical grip. Strapped shields go back just as far (early bronze age at the least), and for some of the really old shields (of which we only have fragments more often than not), we can't really tell. Then there are shields that are on the edge of both, like Indian bucklers - technically centre grip, but you can't use them like European bar-handle bucklers.



The strapped to the forearm grip provides a more solid grip, but with reduced range of movement. They seem to have mostly been used by impact cavalry.


Not really, they were in use by both footmen and cavalry, Greek hoplite shields, kite and heather shields as well as some transitional shields from central Slavic region use strapped to the forearm style. One factor influencing this may have been armor (you don't need to move your shield around so much if you have other protection), but even this isn't universal.



My understanding of the sling around the neck was that it was developed as a means for a horseman to not lose his center grip shield in the case of a drop.

Not really. We can't know why it was developed, retention was probably a small part of that, but not only for cavalry, a footman can drop his shield too, after all. What seems more important to me, and many people who march with big shields for more than 15 minutes is that it makes the shield easier to carry, which would matter a whole lot more if you had to do said marching for months on end, as opposed to just weekends.

[Tobtor]

Extended further part is correct, and you do have more techniques open to you with these shields, generally speaking, but that doesn't mean that strapped shields aren't used dynamically. If you're in formation, then you can't be al that dynamic, but once you fight in a skirmish, you can and should use any shield actively, not just as a covering plate. HMB actually has some great examples of how you can do this with strapped shields.

Also, it's not the most common historical grip. Strapped shields go back just as far (early bronze age at the least), and for some of the really old shields (of which we only have fragments more often than not), we can't really tell. Then there are shields that are on the edge of both, like Indian bucklers - technically centre grip, but you can't use them like European bar-handle bucklers.

I agree there are more to grip than center versus strap (I did a post a while ago on shield-use in this thread discussing it). However, I tend to agree that for at least European history pre medieval period, the majority of shields are centre grip. Yes you do have hoplite shields with "argive" grips (sort of strap, but quite different from medieval heather shields).


Not really, they were in use by both footmen and cavalry, Greek hoplite shields, kite and heather shields as well as some transitional shields from central Slavic region use strapped to the forearm style. One factor influencing this may have been armor (you don't need to move your shield around so much if you have other protection), but even this isn't universal.

Not really. We can't know why it was developed, retention was probably a small part of that, but not only for cavalry, a footman can drop his shield too, after all. What seems more important to me, and many people who march with big shields for more than 15 minutes is that it makes the shield easier to carry, which would matter a whole lot more if you had to do said marching for months on end, as opposed to just weekends.

At least kite and heather shield developed in combination with focus on cavalry, lending some strength to the idea that there is a connection. But hoplite shields are clearly infantry shields, and their (more or less unique) grip style facilitates a very strong defensive position. Also some kite shields at least seem to also have a centre grip or mixed grip (see Brother Onis post above).

On marching with shields: if anyone marched a lot, it was the Romans, who where using centre grip shields.... Anyway whenever you are marching for days, your are NOT going to do it with your shields strapped to your arm anyway. It is either carried by horses, wagons or similar, or carried on your back with a strap (a simple belt through the handle allows you to easily carry a centregrip shield, and lets you quickly acces it if need be).

I think the medieval shift from centre grip to strapped shields where indeed linked to cavalry warfare. On horseback you need the shield, the reins and you main weapon (spear/lance). Other uses (such as the hoplite shields) are developed in order to give as much "push" factor and defensive strength, giving up on some of the offensive capabilities (yes, still mobile and still used offensively, just not as much). This makes sense since they where using very long close combat weapons (very long spears/pikes), in contrast to lets say romans who threw their spears, and then went in with shorter weapons (swords).

[Kiero]

I don't think arsenic was added on purpose. Arsenic copper is naturally occuring in central Europe in the upper layers. These where exploited during the "Chalcolithic", but seem to have dryed out in the early bronze age. The resulting artefacts isnt really bronze, but slightly enhanced copper.

Only for the earliest arsenical bronzes; given the concentrations of arsenic in some of the later ones, that was a conscious choice to use it. For certain applications, arsenical bronze is better than that made with tin.


I agree there are more to grip than center versus strap (I did a post a while ago on shield-use in this thread discussing it). However, I tend to agree that for at least European history pre medieval period, the majority of shields are centre grip. Yes you do have hoplite shields with "argive" grips (sort of strap, but quite different from medieval heather shields).

The porpax and antilabe (strap and hand-grip) arrangement wasn't only used by hoplites, though they were the most common exponent of it. Quite a few later, shielded Hellenistic cavalry units made use of the same arrangement.

Numerous types of bucklers, the scutum, thureos and Celtic lozenge shield were all centre grip.

[Clistenes]

I should have said i effectiveness of obsidian against metal armor. The conquistadors kept their helmets and usually their arm protection and sometime their breastplates. I hadn't rad about the shattering of arrowheads before, but it does make sense in the Aztec situation.

As for the wardogs my reading was that they were more useful as an instrment of terror after the main battles had finished.

Aztec warrior culture was built around individual skill at arms, like Greek Hoplites or medieval knights. I don't see the warrior caste from that socity dropping their bundle when faced by a huge dog. I do see a disarmed populace being terrified of wardogs

The reason they the Conquistadores replaced their metal armor with cotton armor wasn't fear to flying shards of shattered obsidian, but the fact that exhaustion was more likely to defeat them that wounds...

Even without gunpowder, steel weapons and armor gave them such an advantage that each Conquistador often killed dozens of foes in a single battle; each of Pizarro's men killed around forty Incas during the capture of Atahualpa, and Cortes's men killed many more Aztec warriors during the Noche Triste, which was a very long fighting retreat.

At the end of the Noche Triste most of the Spanish survivors were unharmed, but they could barely stand or lift their weapons due to sheer exhaustion.

So they had to minmax their options: Steel helmet and shield combined with cotton armor to get good protection for less weight.

As for dogs, they allowed them to track the natives even in unknown terrain, they warned them of ambushes and kept guard during night. Basically, they countered many of the guerrilla tactics the Native Americans could have successfully used against them. And you have to take into account that they didn't recogize the European catch dogs as dogs, but they thought they were some kind of bizarred wild predators, more similar to pumas or jaguars than to dogs or wolves.

[Martin Greywolf]

I agree there are more to grip than center versus strap (I did a post a while ago on shield-use in this thread discussing it). However, I tend to agree that for at least European history pre medieval period, the majority of shields are centre grip. Yes you do have hoplite shields with "argive" grips (sort of strap, but quite different from medieval heather shields).


Unless you have some comprehensive study, I can't really agree on majority of pre-medieval shields being centre grip. Roman shields were - though we could argue that their centre grip was very different in use from medieval era centre grip, being rotated 90 degrees - but Greeks used both centre and strapped styles.

Bronze age central Europe used strapped shields from what we can tell, though we have very few shields, and fewer still that aren't fragmentary. There are shields that could be used as both centre grip and strapped, sometimes allowing you to switch the grips as the situation demanded (these are mostly wicker or straw shields, though).

For early medieval period, I can't speak for vikings, but no one really knows how slavic shields were made. For central slavic area (Great Moravia), there is grand total of one (metal) grip of a shield found, with the rest being in a condition bad enough we can't tell what grip they had. While they are without a boss more often than not, that really doesn't say anything. There are also whields that almost certainly didn't have centre grip from the way they are shaped, you can see one of those reconstructed here (http://slovane.cz/?p=232), along with a wicker shields that does have centre grip.




At least kite and heather shield developed in combination with focus on cavalry, lending some strength to the idea that there is a connection. But hoplite shields are clearly infantry shields, and their (more or less unique) grip style facilitates a very strong defensive position. Also some kite shields at least seem to also have a centre grip or mixed grip (see Brother Onis post above).


Heather and kite shields certainly did develop for cavalry, but the strapped grip definitely didn't, since it pre-dates widespread use of cavalry. That doesn't mean it isn't better for shock cavalry use, it clearly is, but we can't claim that the grip itself was developed for that reason. Greek bronze-age shields alone are sufficient proof of that.



On marching with shields: if anyone marched a lot, it was the Romans, who where using centre grip shields.... Anyway whenever you are marching for days, your are NOT going to do it with your shields strapped to your arm anyway. It is either carried by horses, wagons or similar, or carried on your back with a strap (a simple belt through the handle allows you to easily carry a centregrip shield, and lets you quickly acces it if need be).


First of all, everyone marched a lot. Unless you had a horse, that was the only way to get around. That strap you mention is the same strap I meant, it can be used to just let the shield hang from your back, or you can have the shield ready on your arm and supported by it if you expect trouble or are relocating during/before a battle. I'd say that all shields had a strap like this, no matter the period, and the old ones simply rotted away.

Putting the strap through the handle can work, but it's not my first choice, let me tell you that. The strap has a habit of getting in the way, so you have to fold it and hold it, and that makes manipulating the shield itself a tad more difficult. If you attach the strap to the edges of the shield, it makes it a lot more inobtrusive. Here's a frankish example (http://monsieurgeoffrey.faithweb.com/images/frankish_shield_back.jpg).



I think the medieval shift from centre grip to strapped shields where indeed linked to cavalry warfare. On horseback you need the shield, the reins and you main weapon (spear/lance). Other uses (such as the hoplite shields) are developed in order to give as much "push" factor and defensive strength, giving up on some of the offensive capabilities (yes, still mobile and still used offensively, just not as much). This makes sense since they where using very long close combat weapons (very long spears/pikes), in contrast to lets say romans who threw their spears, and then went in with shorter weapons (swords).

I fully agree with this, but none of it makes centre grip be the dominant one in pre-medieval times. There are periods where we can clearly say one or the other was dominant - namely, Romans and Greeks - but we simply lack the data for the rest up until the middle ages, in some areas up until the high middle ages.

[Tobtor]

Unless you have some comprehensive study, I can't really agree on majority of pre-medieval shields being centre grip. Roman shields were - though we could argue that their centre grip was very different in use from medieval era centre grip, being rotated 90 degrees - but Greeks used both centre and strapped styles.

I have looked at -a lot- of shields. It is true most are from Northern Europe, but also central and western Europe.

Apart from the Romans, we have the celts (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_shields):

First we have the evidence from Hjortspring (roughly 350 BC), many shields have been recorvered, some very fragmented but others rather well preserved.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/88/2e/e1/882ee143fb654411aa5d687e95144837.jpg

Most have horisontal grips, while others have vertical grips. I have discussed the issue with the two different way of orienting the central grip in a previous post (in this thread I think, or the one before). This fits the other examples found throughout Europe, whether on Britain (both display shields like the Battersea shield or stray finds of shield boses) or the continent (such as halsatt shields). The good thing about stuff like the Hjortspring is that we have more than the boss, and you know what: not a single shield have places to fasten strips or straps.

This covers northern, central and western Europe in much of the iron age.



Bronze age central Europe used strapped shields from what we can tell, though we have very few shields, and fewer still that aren't fragmentary. There are shields that could be used as both centre grip and strapped, sometimes allowing you to switch the grips as the situation demanded (these are mostly wicker or straw shields, though).

Both shields from Britain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetholm-type_shield) and Scandinavian (http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-bronze-age/the-bronze-age-shields/) shields from the bronze age have centre grips, both on cases found and how they appear on rock carvings. A few like the Svenstrup shield, have some things along the edge where you in theory could have straps, but not for using in combat. Some of these shields might not have been used for combat (though newer tests show they might have been (https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25204&view=previous)), but they are part of a type with centre grip.

We also have a single leather shield from Ireland - with centre grip.

If you want a more precise scholarly work I suggest The Function of Bronze Age Shields. (https://www.academia.edu/1200494/THE_FUNCTION_OF_BRONZE_AGE_SHIELDS)

Almost all have centre grip, a few with additional straps.



For early medieval period, I can't speak for vikings

Good thing I can then.

Germanic type round shields are known from the bog finds of the 1st-5th century AD, as well as stray bosses from then onwards until we again find wooden shields at Gokstad and at Trelleborg in the Viking age. The type of shield is common from England tthrougout scandinavia, northern Germany and parts of Poland (even slavic areas). The all have centre grip. All wooden examples (quite a few) have no place to add a strap.


but no one really knows how slavic shields were made.

Slavic in this sense is rather a larger area. Northern slavs used metal central bosses at least.


For central slavic area (Great Moravia), there is grand total of one (metal) grip of a shield found, with the rest being in a condition bad enough we can't tell what grip they had. While they are without a boss more often than not, that really doesn't say anything. There are also whields that almost certainly didn't have centre grip from the way they are shaped, you can see one of those reconstructed here (http://slovane.cz/?p=232), along with a wicker shields that does have centre grip.

I will take your word for it, central slavi areas in the late iron age isnt my research area. So thats one area with mixed evidence/no evidence.


Heather and kite shields certainly did develop for cavalry, but the strapped grip definitely didn't, since it pre-dates widespread use of cavalry.

I did mention stuff like the greek hoplon/argive shields. Though they are very different from the western straped shields of the medieval period. Also greek and roman (?) cavalry also seem to have used strapped shields - pointing to it as a cavalry thing very early. Greek also have some centre grip shields (such as the Thureos mentioned by Kiero). I dont know how common each greek shield-type was neither at any point in time or through time in the greek world. But I do concede that greek styled phalanx did adopt strapped shields, for what i would consider more "defensive" use that what the roman, celts, britains, scandinavians, and at least northern slavs where doing from roughly 1300bc until 900-11000AD (round shields are still used by infantry until the early 12th century in northern and north western europe)


That doesn't mean it isn't better for shock cavalry use, it clearly is, but we can't claim that the grip itself was developed for that reason. Greek bronze-age shields alone are sufficient proof of that.

As I stated above, I did acknowledge the fact in my previous post. But again the western European strapp is very different from the greek hoplon argive grip type. At the time they shifted to heather and kite shields the straps where an invention to improve usability on horseback.



First of all, everyone marched a lot. Unless you had a horse, that was the only way to get around.

Vikings would disagree.... (and likely also a lot of other people traveling around the mediteranean).

My point was that Romans had a very large empire and send troops around a alot more than many other people at the time (here time is the Iron Age).



That strap you mention is the same strap I meant, it can be used to just let the shield hang from your back, or you can have the shield ready on your arm and supported by it if you expect trouble or are relocating during/before a battle. I'd say that all shields had a strap like this, no matter the period, and the old ones simply rotted away.

By far the minority of the hundreds of shields I have discussed above have any fastenings, rivets or other traces thereof, to fasten such straps or strips, even when wood is preserved. This clearly indicate they didn't. My practical experience tells me the is for a good reason. The reason why I used a belt through the handle is that I can quickly dis the belt, as it is very annoying to have flying around inside your shield when fighting. You DONT want to have the strap attached to you in any way while fighting with a round shield or "celtic" shield, as they hamper your "moves".


Putting the strap through the handle can work, but it's not my first choice, let me tell you that. The strap has a habit of getting in the way, so you have to fold it and hold it, and that makes manipulating the shield itself a tad more difficult. If you attach the strap to the edges of the shield, it makes it a lot more inobtrusive. Here's a frankish example (http://monsieurgeoffrey.faithweb.com/images/frankish_shield_back.jpg).

Ditching the strap altogether is much more sensible. Remember they werent re-enactors or larpers (like me) who needs to fight 4-5timers a day. Most of the time you wouldn't be fighting for months (and even rarer would the fight be a surprise, thus you would have time to remove the belt well before any fighting), ditching the belt takes about 3 seconds of combat time. I have larped for 15 years: I have never been caught by a surprise attack less than 3 seconds away from me. It is very easy to complete ditch a belt, a fastened strap: not so much.


I fully agree with this, but none of it makes centre grip be the dominant one in pre-medieval times. There are periods where we can clearly say one or the other was dominant - namely, Romans and Greeks - but we simply lack the data for the rest up until the middle ages, in some areas up until the high middle ages.

Apart from Greek hoplons I havn't seen any evidence for other regions/periods in European history with dominant straped shields for infantry. European bronze age have centre grip from Britannia to central Europe, from Scandinavia to the Alps. The Celts, the Germanians, the Vikings, the nbaltic coast slavs etc, all used centre grips, with no strips. You point to that for some slavs we have very little evidence. So yes for some regions, times etc we lack data. But if we divide europe into regions (like Britain, Scandinavia, Northern Germany and the lowland, central Europe, France, Italy, Greece etc) and the devide time periods of lets say 500 years, (1500-1000bc, 1000bc-500bc etc) we would have something like 30 datapoints with centre grip, a few undetermined and then maybe four or five with strapped shields (mainly in Greece).

[rrgg]

During the 16th century the dominant infantry shield when shields were used was the target, which was strapped to the arm. According to George Silver, the center-grip buckler had the advantage over the target in one on one combat, but in a battle between masses of armored men the target was better for receiving blows.

[Pauly]

During the 16th century the dominant infantry shield when shields were used was the target, which was strapped to the arm. According to George Silver, the center-grip buckler had the advantage over the target in one on one combat, but in a battle between masses of armored men the target was better for receiving blows.

With all the examples of strapped shield given so far they seem to revolve around the wearer expecting to receive a shock of impact.

My understanding of Chinese shields was that they were center grip type arrangements, although the Chimese did also make higher use of what westerners would consider personal pavises.

Edit: just did a bit of google fu and found out that later era Chinese did use forearm grips on round shields.

[Kiero]

I have to agree with Tobtor, in antiquity the porpax and antilabe setup was the exception, outside of Greek-influenced warfare it was rare. Even then it was hoplites, phalangites and some cavalry, later on many adopted the Celtic-inspired thureos, which was a centre-gripped shield. Lots used pelte, caetra and other bucklers with a centre grip.

[Mike_G]

Question for any flintlock experts:

Saw a movie about the American Revolution where a sharpshooter, just before a nighttime raid in bad weather, primes his rifle, closes the frizzen, then dribbles candle wax over it, to keep the powder dry.

Now, it seems plausible, but I've never seen or heard of this anywhere else.

So, does anybody know if this was done, and would it work?

[Kiero]

I've heard of men wrapping their locks with cloth or leather to try to keep them dry in foul weather conditions, but not sealing it with wax.

[oudeis]

For what it's worth, in the 15-odd books of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series that I read the riflemen and redcoats only ever used rags to cover the firing pans. Given the amount of research Cornwell put in this makes the wax option seem dubious to me.

[Mike_G]

It seemed odd to me as well, since in all my reading, it's the only time I ever encountered it. Maybe the screenwriter just came up with the idea and put it in the film with no period source of testing.

But I don't see why it wouldn't work, so I'm asking if anybody knows why it would be a bad idea. But I don't see why it wouldn't have occurred to anybody back in the days of flintlocks, so maybe they tried it and it didn't work or terrible things happened

[TheFrickinPope]

Speaking of the Theuros, does anyone know if it was vertical or horizontal gripped? I believe most Scuta were horizontal, but don't know about the Theuros.

[Pauly]

Question for any flintlock experts:

Saw a movie about the American Revolution where a sharpshooter, just before a nighttime raid in bad weather, primes his rifle, closes the frizzen, then dribbles candle wax over it, to keep the powder dry.

Now, it seems plausible, but I've never seen or heard of this anywhere else.

So, does anybody know if this was done, and would it work?

Without seeing how it was depicted, wouldn't that defeat the hole purpose of the flash from the firing pan travelling down the touch hole?

[Kiero]

Speaking of the Theuros, does anyone know if it was vertical or horizontal gripped? I believe most Scuta were horizontal, but don't know about the Theuros.

Every depiction I've ever seen suggests a horizontal grip - and the same for the Celtic lozenge-shaped shields that inspired them. They're too heavy to hold upright all the time, as would be implied by a vertical grip, which is more appropriate to a buckler/pelte.

[snowblizz]

Without seeing how it was depicted, wouldn't that defeat the hole purpose of the flash from the firing pan travelling down the touch hole?
The frizzen covers the pan, giving some protection from the elements. I guess the idea here is to seal it watertight for a while. When you'd want to fire it would be trivial to crack the "wax seal", igniting charge and fire. Basically don't need to unwrap the protection since the firing action would crack the wax most likely.

There seems to be some logic about it. Since you could be faster firing.

[Galloglaich]

The reason they the Conquistadores replaced their metal armor with cotton armor wasn't fear to flying shards of shattered obsidian, but the fact that exhaustion was more likely to defeat them that wounds...

Even without gunpowder, steel weapons and armor gave them such an advantage that each Conquistador often killed dozens of foes in a single battle; each of Pizarro's men killed around forty Incas during the capture of Atahualpa, and Cortes's men killed many more Aztec warriors during the Noche Triste, which was a very long fighting retreat.

At the end of the Noche Triste most of the Spanish survivors were unharmed, but they could barely stand or lift their weapons due to sheer exhaustion.

So they had to minmax their options: Steel helmet and shield combined with cotton armor to get good protection for less weight.

As for dogs, they allowed them to track the natives even in unknown terrain, they warned them of ambushes and kept guard during night. Basically, they countered many of the guerrilla tactics the Native Americans could have successfully used against them. And you have to take into account that they didn't recogize the European catch dogs as dogs, but they thought they were some kind of bizarred wild predators, more similar to pumas or jaguars than to dogs or wolves.

Based on Bernal Diaz, I have a few comments on this

1) most of the original group of Spanish troops were rodoleros - lightly equipped guys with sword and shield. So not that much metal armor anyway. Also they came with their own textile armor it wasn't something they learned from the locals as is often claimed, though they adopted the similar local armor once theirs got rotten or torn up.

2) They had small numbers of special weapons but all were used to the max and all were very important. About 20 cavalry, most apparently armored, were very important ad decisive in several battles. 12 arquebusiers and 13 crossbowmen, all of whom were very important. About half a dozen small cannon, also important, and the dogs. They also had a small number of men armed with polearms, halberds or bills etc., and possibly a few montante (big two handed swords). The polearms were also crucial in a couple of situations.

3) Another really important thing especially for fights in mexico proper was the 'schooners' they made out of the parts from the burned ships and armed with some of the small cannon. These were critical in breaking up attacks by boats and canoes on the lake.

4) Cortez's original force was only 500 guys and he had to defeat the tlascans before they joined up with him. The credit for his victory always gets handed to his allies in modern accounts but I don't think that is realistic.

5) Most of his guys survived too.

6) The dogs do seem to have been a factor, along with the horses, and not just in the occupation. They called them 'greyhounds' but clearly it's not the same dog they race today. I think they had military significance.

7) Cortez seems to have done an excellent job of juggling his various 'surprise / special weapons' incliuding the cavalry, dogs, crossbows and guns, cannon and his ships, and of exploiting the superstition of the Indians and the terror effect of the new things. There is a scene in Bernal Diaz where he makes the horses neigh (by putting mares upwind of stallions) and tells the tlascans that his war gods are mad at them for killing and wounding a few of his guys in a battle earlier that day, and then he has cannons shot into the trees and tells them that this is his thunder god. Dude knew how to mess with minds.

[Mike_G]

Without seeing how it was depicted, wouldn't that defeat the hole purpose of the flash from the firing pan travelling down the touch hole?

With the frizzen closed, the touchhole should be shielded from the wax. The wax would seal the frizzen, and keep water out, thus keeping the powder dry.



The frizzen covers the pan, giving some protection from the elements. I guess the idea here is to seal it watertight for a while. When you'd want to fire it would be trivial to crack the "wax seal", igniting charge and fire. Basically don't need to unwrap the protection since the firing action would crack the wax most likely.

There seems to be some logic about it. Since you could be faster firing.

That's how I saw it. I don;t see a downside, but since I only saw it once, in a single US made movie, I wonder if it was viable, why don't we have any other record of it?

Unless there's a big downside we don't know about.

[Storm Bringer]

With the frizzen closed, the touchhole should be shielded from the wax. The wax would seal the frizzen, and keep water out, thus keeping the powder dry.




That's how I saw it. I don;t see a downside, but since I only saw it once, in a single US made movie, I wonder if it was viable, why don't we have any other record of it?

Unless there's a big downside we don't know about.

only one I can think of is the need to mess about with a lit candle or other heat source while juggling a loaded flintlock. it seems like it has a non-zero chance being the root cause of a negligent discharge happening.

I think the leather covers were preferred as they not only kept the powder dry, but kept the whole lock dry, which would reduce the chance of rusting on the delicate lock mechanism.

[Mike_G]

only one I can think of is the need to mess about with a lit candle or other heat source while juggling a loaded flintlock. it seems like it has a non-zero chance being the root cause of a negligent discharge happening.


Well, you could prime it, wax it, then load it. Or just soften a candle in a flame and rub the warm wax on the lock, not actually hold the dribbly candle over the gun.



I think the leather covers were preferred as they not only kept the powder dry, but kept the whole lock dry, which would reduce the chance of rusting on the delicate lock mechanism.

I can see that, and also you can issue leather covers to a whol regiment without any real danger.

This just seemed, and was portrayed as a wily frontier sharpshooter using a trick to keep his powder dry, which would be a concern, especially when crossing a river at night in the middle of winter to attack the Hessians.

For all I know, it's just something Hollywood made up. I just found it interesting, and I've never heard of it anywhere else, but it feels plausible.

[Telok]

I would note that for a very long time candles were generally made of tallow, wax candles were more of a luxury item. We forget this because modern chemistry allows us to create waxes from chemical sources. So the wax in question is very likely beeswax.

[Blackhawk748]

I can see it being plausible, but unlikely, mostly because its just easier to wrap it in cloth cuz you have that right there, whereas a candle isn't something id imagine a soldier having in his pocket.

Still, see no reason why it wouldnt work.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is regarding flintlocks, right?

Is it possible that the wax would foul or lubricate the steel or flint, keeping it from striking a reliable spark?

[Mike_G]

This is regarding flintlocks, right?

Is it possible that the wax would foul or lubricate the steel or flint, keeping it from striking a reliable spark?

I suppose it's possible.

The idea would be to get the wax around the edge of the pan, not the flint or the strike face of the frizzen, but maybe that's a concern.

[Pauly]

I suppose it's possible.

The idea would be to get the wax around the edge of the pan, not the flint or the strike face of the frizzen, but maybe that's a concern.

Plenty of things to go wrong if thereis any degree of carelessness in the procedure.

Safe to say it isn't really a viable technique for mass combat. I am having difficulty seeing any distinct advantage it brings over a leather cover. The potential drawbacks - wax in the touch hole, wax on the firing mechanism, possibility of accidental ignition - are real problems.

[Lemmy]

So... I've been researching about bastion forts and how they were meant to resist cannon fire, but now I have a question:

Does architecture like the one below have any disadvantage or flaw that would make it a problem if the invader didn't have cannons? Or was it just simpler/cheaper to build in the usual castle shape (or maybe it's simply because no one came up with this building design before cannons became a problem).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Fortbourtange.jpg

As usual, thanks in advance for any replies. :smallsmile:

[Storm Bringer]

So... I've been researching about bastion forts and how they were meant to resist cannon fire, but now I have a question:

Does architecture like the one below have any disadvantage or flaw that would make it a problem if the invader didn't have cannons? Or was it just simpler/cheaper to build in the usual castle shape (or maybe it's simply because no one came up with this building design before cannons became a problem).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Fortbourtange.jpg

As usual, thanks in advance for any replies. :smallsmile:

not really, its just optimisation against different threats.

pre cannon, their weren't that many weapons that could actually break a properly made wall, so you tended to go for high, comparatively thin stone walls that were hard to scale and have you a greater height advantage over an attacker. Once cannons started to become common, walls tined to become lower, but much thicker, and stone faced earth, all to be better at absorbing cannon fire. But the other methods of attacking a fort were not forgotten, and forts were still designed to defend against them.

Against a foe with no cannons, the attackers options are basically either attempt a escalade (ie scale the walls with ladders), undermine a section and then storm the breech, or encircle, besiege and try to stave the defenders out. the walls are generally lower, which makes scaling a little easier, but they are still designed to defend against that sort of attack (normally they have some sort of protruding frame or such which makes it impossible to place a ladder onto the fort walls), and the defender has plenty of good sight lines. undermining, as far as I know, wasn't normally attempted against these sorts of forts, but I don't know it that's just because there were faster options available or if they included extra defences against it (a lot of the time, the terrain makes it impossible to undermine, such as on near rivers where the tunnels would flood, or bare rock).

the reason why castles were generally rounded was that it made it harder to break into them (a corner of a wall is easier to damage, so they avoided corners). the straight angles of star forts are to avoid creating "dead ground" at the base of the wall, where cannons cant fire. each "face" of a bastion is covered by fire form a neighbouring bastion, so you cant "run in under the guns", get to the base of the wall, and be free to do what you want with no threat form the defenders.

[Galloglaich]

So... I've been researching about bastion forts and how they were meant to resist cannon fire, but now I have a question:

Does architecture like the one below have any disadvantage or flaw that would make it a problem if the invader didn't have cannons? Or was it just simpler/cheaper to build in the usual castle shape (or maybe it's simply because no one came up with this building design before cannons became a problem).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Fortbourtange.jpg

As usual, thanks in advance for any replies. :smallsmile:

I would say that those kind of trace italienne fortifications are a little flawed against pre-firearms armies in that the glacis (the sloped, grass-covered dirt ramparts or mounds) which work so well against cannonballs are actually easier to climb and dig into than a strait vertical wall.


Prior to the larger cannon coming online in the 14th Century, (in fits and starts) the main threats were

1) scaling ladders \ swarming attacks

2) massive siege engines (everything from siege towers to giant trebuchets and so on)

3) battering rams

4) tunneling

5) Pre-gunpowder pyrotechnic weapons.


All of these things still existed after cannon, but by then the defenders too had cannon, guns and pyrotechnic weapons which gave them extra capabilities against attackers. Siege towers could be blown apart at a distance with cannon. It was easier to set mantlets and tunneling operations on fire much more quickly. You could repel swarms of men with ladders with volleys of gunfire and hurled grenades, and all sorts of other diabolical pyrotechnic weapons like hoops and trumps and etc.


but if cannons weren't there, it made more sense to have taller, harder walls.

Some castles and fortresses well within the gunpowder era still retained these design features and relied on having a lot of their own cannon to fend off enemy artillery. I think these were sometimes called 'artillery forts'. here is an interesting example of an early artillery fort, Deal Castle (http://www.starforts.com/deal.html) in England.

http://www.starforts.com/gr/deal/dealdrawing.jpg

This drawing was made in 1539

http://www.starforts.com/gr/deal/deal45.jpg




You'll see both types in the Carribbean if you ever travel around there, it's quite interesting to compare and contrast them. Two particularly impressive ones I remember were El Morro in Puerto Rico and Brimstone castle on St. Kitts.

https://www.shoretrips.com/excursion-image/st-kitts/fort-brimstone-in-depth/119408_160217101011.jpg

https://cdn2.vtourist.com/4/3952366-Fortress_in_the_Caribbean_Brimstone_Hill_Saint_Kit ts_and_Nevis.jpg

Brimstone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_Hill_Fortress_National_Park)


http://puertorico.com.pr/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/El-Morro-Puerto-Rico11.jpg

El Morro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castillo_San_Felipe_del_Morro)

G

[Clistenes]

1) most of the original group of Spanish troops were rodoleros - lightly equipped guys with sword and shield. So not that much metal armor anyway. Also they came with their own textile armor it wasn't something they learned from the locals as is often claimed, though they adopted the similar local armor once theirs got rotten or torn up.

2) They had small numbers of special weapons but all were used to the max and all were very important. About 20 cavalry, most apparently armored, were very important ad decisive in several battles. 12 arquebusiers and 13 crossbowmen, all of whom were very important. About half a dozen small cannon, also important, and the dogs. They also had a small number of men armed with polearms, halberds or bills etc., and possibly a few montante (big two handed swords). The polearms were also crucial in a couple of situations.


The Conquistadores weren't, for the most part, professional soldiers, but adventurers (some of which had a military background, and some which didn't). They didn't fit properly in any of the typical soldier types of the century.

They carried as much weaponry as the could afford to lug around. Ideally, they would try to have a morrion, steel rodela (round shield), breastplate, sword, dagger, and some other weapon like an arquebuss, spear or crossbow. Horsemen would wear a bit more armor.

Of course, their weapons would break and their gunpowder would get spent, so they had to improvise as they went. I guess some of them couldn't afford armor and had to settle for textile or leather armor (a jerkin) from the beginning.

I don't think they carried montantes, those were mostly outdated weapons by then, and unpractical in their context.


4) Cortez's original force was only 500 guys and he had to defeat the tlascans before they joined up with him. The credit for his victory always gets handed to his allies in modern accounts but I don't think that is realistic.

Yes, and the Spaniards were always first in line during battle, even when backed by huge armies of allies.

During the Noche Triste the Spaniards were put in between their retreating allies and the enemy, and they did most of the work covering the retreat (there was little space to manouver, and only a small fraction of the army could fight, so Cortez put his most effective troops where the actual fighting was done).



6) The dogs do seem to have been a factor, along with the horses, and not just in the occupation. They called them 'greyhounds' but clearly it's not the same dog they race today. I think they had military significance.

They weren't modern greyhounds, which have been selectively bred for speed for very long, but big game sighthounds/bay dogs, similar to deerhounds, catch dogs similar to modern Dogos Argentinos or Presa Canarios, or a mix of both.

Dogs like Leoncillo, Becerrillo and Amadís were dangerous enough that even Conquistadores were careful around them. Vasco Nuñez de Balboa lent his dog Becerrillo to his lover as self-protection, and the dog was poisoned by another man who wanted to seduce the woman but was afraid she would sic the dog at him...

Those dogs receives a pay as an elite soldier, and human soldiers didn't protest about that, because they acknowledged they were more useful than men.

[Lemmy]

Thanks for the information, guys. I really appreciate it.

I have a question, though...

During my research (today was a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery slow day at work) I found the following image:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/StarFortDeadZones.png

With what else I could find abou dead zones and general castle/fort defenses, I have to ask:

Wouldn't the bolded part on the quote below also apply to pre-gunpowder combat as well? Wouldn't it be more advantageous than having round walls?


the reason why castles were generally rounded was that it made it harder to break into them (a corner of a wall is easier to damage, so they avoided corners). the straight angles of star forts are to avoid creating "dead ground" at the base of the wall, where cannons cant fire. each "face" of a bastion is covered by fire form a neighbouring bastion, so you cant "run in under the guns", get to the base of the wall, and be free to do what you want with no threat form the defenders.

BTW, is there point does increasing the height of the castle walls provides no significant benefit? If yes, how does that point change between the absence and the presence of cannons in the attacker's forces? I noticed bastion forts had lower, thicker walls to better resist cannon fire, but what if they had enough resources that they didn't have to compromise between height and thickness (I know that's absurd, I'm just wondering if there's a point where height won't matter significantly, even if it can still be increased)?

[rrgg]

I would say that those kind of trace italienne fortifications are a little flawed against pre-firearms armies in that the glacis (the sloped, grass-covered dirt ramparts or mounds) which work so well against cannonballs are actually easier to climb and dig into than a strait vertical wall.

I'd argue that has more to do with whether the defenders have firearms. The idea behind the trance italienne design is that there isn't any place for the attackers to climb up without being blasted away by musket and cannon fire from protected positions. If the defenders are relying on arrows or stones dropped on top of the attackers instead then stopping the enemy becomes far less certain and the more complete fields of fire probably don't help as much.

An example would be the siege of Fort Zeelandia. Koxinga had defeated the small Dutch force sent out to meet him and was expecting to easily overrun the fort, yet the garrison had no trouble repulsing his massive army. This resulted in a protracted siege which lasted for months. It apparently wasn't until a dutch defector came to Koxinga and taught him were to dig trenches and concentrate his cannon fire that the fort finally fell.

On the subject of the English device forts such as the picture you showed, keep in mind that England was relatively slow to modernize and wasn't using guns much during the early part of the 16th century. As a result their more "medieval" design might have more to do with the English being unfamiliar with the developments occurring in Italy.

The device forts were designed primarily to protect English harbors. They appeared as part of a general retrofitting of the English army and Navy which occurred after king Henry VIII decided antagonize most of mainland Europe and the threat of invasion suddenly became very real.

[Storm Bringer]

Thanks for the information, guys. I really appreciate it.

I have a question, though...

During my research (today was a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery slow day at work) I found the following image:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/StarFortDeadZones.png

With what else I could find abou dead zones and general castle/fort defenses, I have to ask:

Wouldn't the bolded part on the quote below also apply to pre-gunpowder combat as well? Wouldn't it be more advantageous than having round walls?



BTW, is there point does increasing the height of the castle walls provides no significant benefit? If yes, how does that point change between the absence and the presence of cannons in the attacker's forces? I noticed bastion forts had lower, thicker walls to better resist cannon fire, but what if they had enough resources that they didn't have to compromise between height and thickness (I know that's absurd, I'm just wondering if there's a point where height won't matter significantly, even if it can still be increased)?

On the dead ground thing, yes, in theory, it was Never Good to have dead ground at the base of a wall. However, pre gunpowder, people didn't have the weight of fire needed to keep people away form the base of a wall, if they really, really wanted to get their. Plus, unless they brought a ladder, their wasn't much a man could do at the base of a solid stone wall, so it was less of a worry. what was more of a worry was that a square tower (with a point on it) would be more vulnerable to things like trebuchets or some mining methords, because the loads would concentrate at the corners, and breaking the corner could breach a wall much eaiser (see the siege of Rochester castle, for example)

for height, it point of deminising returns is the point where it becomes impractical to built a man portable ladder to try and scale the walls. once you get the point where any ladder tall enough to scale your walls is so long and unwieldy that they cant actually raise it against your walls without mechanical assistance (which you could easily smash with a cannon), then extra height it really not needed.

However, the effort needed would likey be better spent adding outworks and thus "depth" to the forts defences, rather than height.

[snowblizz]

On the subject of the English device forts such as the picture you showed, keep in mind that England was relatively slow to modernize and wasn't using guns much during the early part of the 16th century. As a result their more "medieval" design might have more to do with the English being unfamiliar with the developments occurring in Italy.

The device forts were designed primarily to protect English harbors. They appeared as part of a general retrofitting of the English army and Navy which occurred after king Henry VIII decided antagonize most of mainland Europe and the threat of invasion suddenly became very real.
It was a certain type of fortification that was briefly popular, in hindsight as a transitional fortresss design. Rounded towers were a response to guns. The natural reaction to them not holding up to bigger guns was lower and much thicker walls with their own cannon. The method was used in the Swedish kingdom under king Gustav (I) as being hypermodern. In many cases yes, built to augment existing castles so would tend to adapt to their older medieval "environment".

I would say it was more of a case that the trace de italienne becomes fashionable as siege engineering developes quickly into a science. There was more money and need in the areas where the Italian Wars raged.

Most coastal forts seem to imitate this style I've noticed. And in the middle of the 19th centurey they still build round coastal fortresses.

[Beleriphon]

You'll see both types in the Carribbean if you ever travel around there, it's quite interesting to compare and contrast them. Two particularly impressive ones I remember were El Morro in Puerto Rico and Brimstone castle on St. Kitts.


Don't forget the Caribbean forts were designed to protect from attacking ships rather than land based offensives. If you really consider it most Caribbean islands have a very limited number of effective ports to land troops, so a defender only needs to really defend a port from canon fire with fortress facing the sea. You see similar designs in the Mediterranean. The Caribbean design of only one defended facing obviously doesn't work well if you land troops 50 miles away like you can in many places in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia.

[Galloglaich]

The Conquistadores weren't, for the most part, professional soldiers, but adventurers (some of which had a military background, and some which didn't). They didn't fit properly in any of the typical soldier types of the century.

What type would that be? In the 15th Century most 'typical' soldiers were actually people who had some other kind of day job or identity. That didn't mean they were bad at being soldiers either.

Most of the early conquistadors were poor peasants and gentry from estramadura and other improverished parts of the Iberian peninsula.



They carried as much weaponry as the could afford to lug around. Ideally, they would try to have a morrion, steel rodela (round shield), breastplate, sword, dagger, and some other weapon like an arquebuss, spear or crossbow. Horsemen would wear a bit more armor.

Most of Cortez' original band of 500 men were specifically rodeleros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros), meaning they had the rotella and the sword, and as much as armor as they could afford of course, but not much else in the way of other weapons. As I already mentioned, he only had about a dozen each of arquebusiers and crossbowmen, both of whom were specialists and paid more than rodoleros. Very few were carrying spears.


Of course, their weapons would break and their gunpowder would get spent, so they had to Improvise as they went. I guess some of them couldn't afford armor and had to settle for textile or leather armor (a jerkin) from the beginning.

Agreed except leather armor isn't likely. Textile yes.



I don't think they carried montantes, those were mostly outdated weapons by then, and unpractical in their context.

Not only were montante's still in use then, that exact period was actually the heyday of the montante, particularly in Spain. Most of the fencing manuals which teach the montante were written in the lae 15th and through the 16th Century. They also (after Cortez) established a fencing school in Mexico City which was still teaching montante in the late 16th Century. They would train elite soldiers from the Americas to use as muscle in their far flung Empire.

I don't however know for sure that anyone with Cortez had them. Some of the cavalry had longswords apparently but that's a different weapon. Some of Cortez's men did also have halberds or bills (roncha)



Yes, and the Spaniards were always first in line during battle, even when backed by huge armies of allies.

Yes that is a good point.




They weren't modern greyhounds, (snip) Dogs like Leoncillo, Becerrillo and Amadís were dangerous enough that even Conquistadores were careful around them.

Yes that is what I assumed, fits the pattern of that kind of dog in that era. They had a type of hunting dog called an alaunt which was considered unsafe to be around and had to be kept in kennels.

G

[rrgg]

What type would that be? In the 15th Century most 'typical' soldiers were actually people who had some other kind of day job or identity. That didn't mean they were bad at being soldiers either.

Most of the early conquistadors were poor peasants and gentry from estramadura and other improverished parts of the Iberian peninsula.
I think what he's getting at is that European soldiers were undergoing some major changes during the late 15th and 16th centuries with rising levels of drill and professionalism. Most notably starting with the Swiss. A popular theory holds that this development is in part responsible for the growing western military dominance which begins in this era, but the counter-argument is that most of the actual conquering wasn't actually done by modern European armies marching in lock-step formation. Instead it was done by small ad-hoc bands of adventures like the conquistadors in the Americas or the Cossacks in Sibera.


Most of Cortez' original band of 500 men were specifically rodeleros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros), meaning they had the rotella and the sword, and as much as armor as they could afford of course, but not much else in the way of other weapons. As I already mentioned, he only had about a dozen each of arquebusiers and crossbowmen, both of whom were specialists and paid more than rodoleros. Very few were carrying spears.

As I understand it, rather than a steel shield most of the rodeleros would have been using a wood or leather version, or at least adopted a leather version once they reached the Americas. Although I'm a bit unclear on on the concept of the "rodelero". According to Taylor's Art of War in Italy, de Cordoba's reforms just called for 1/3rd of the men to be armed with a sword and dagger, as opposed to those who needed to bring a pike, sword, and dagger or an arquebus, sword, and dagger and that the decision to bring a shield as well was one the soldiers themselves made. Does that mean that the presence of so many sword and shield men was more of a cultural result rather than a tactical decision made by higher ups? For instance how 16th century English armies kept finding themselves flooded with billmen?

As for Spears, Bernal Diaz does mention at one point that Cortes had some of his native allies manufacture a large number of copper-tipped spears to equip his men with.

[snowblizz]

I would say that those kind of trace italienne fortifications are a little flawed against pre-firearms armies in that the glacis (the sloped, grass-covered dirt ramparts or mounds) which work so well against cannonballs are actually easier to climb and dig into than a strait vertical wall.

I disagree on that. On a properly made starfort the earthen ramparts aren't continuous. It's slopes up to protect the walls behind. But they will stop in a many meters wide moat (which is covered by guns down low) intended to contain any breach material in case of walls breaking down. This means you work up a sloped swept by guns, only to find you need to leap a metes wide chasm to actually reach the fortress walls proper.

A temprary field fortification, or hastily and cheaply built fortification (and there were plenty) would be more likely be what you describe as easily scaled.

[Lemmy]

Thank you all for your replies to my questions. It's really cool that I can learn this stuff over here. :smallsmile:

I hope I'm not abusing your patience, but I have a two other questions:

1- If I had to make a fort to defend against both cannon fire and pre-firearm armies, what would be a good compromise in architectural design? I suppose it'd just be better to use anti-cannon structure and then use cannons yourself to repel armies without firearms... But what if cannons were rare and/or too expensive too have in significant numbers?

2- What is the longest blade (or maybe I should say "reach"?) a one-handed curved blade can have (or has had, historically) before curving too much to be able to stab efficiently? I'm not sure if my words convey the exact doubt here... Like... What is the longest a one-handed saber (or similar sword) could be?

As usual... Thanks in advance for all and any replies. :smallsmile:

[Clistenes]

What type would that be? In the 15th Century most 'typical' soldiers were actually people who had some other kind of day job or identity. That didn't mean they were bad at being soldiers either.

Hernán Cortez started his conquest in 1519, and Francisco Pizarro started in 1524, so it was the XVI century.

If we are speaking of Spain, soldiers were by then full-time professionals who were recruited at 20+ years old by a captain who was touring towns and villages seeking soldiers, accompanied by a banner-carrier and a tambourine player. The captain would go to the main square, have the tambourine man play to call for attention, and make a speech asking for soldiers to serve the king.

Men under 20 years old were usually rejected, as they were thought to be not tough enough to endure war. Men who were too old or weren't physically fit would be rejected too.

Teenagers could join the army as servants: scullions, mochileros ("backpack carriers", would take care of their master's stuff during battle), pajes de rodela ("shield page", would carry their master's shield until he needed it)... etc.

Soldiers were expected to buy their own equipment, but sometimes wealthy captains and maestres who wanted their unit to be powerful bought armor and weapons for them.

The basic unit was the company of 250 men (before 1534 companies could be as big as 500 men), but those often couldn't cover their losses and shrunk to 100 men or little more. 12 companies made a coronelía (before 1534) or tercio (after 1534).

Within the company there were "brotherhoods" of men who lived in the same tent, bought and cooked their food together, and helped each other... they were basically friends and roomies. The captain took into his own brotherhood the poorest men in the company and supported them.

Companies were of two kinds: Pikemen (made of pikemen, a few halberdiers or glaivemen and a few musketeers) and Arquebusseers (made of arquebusseers, a few halberdiers or glaivemen and a few musketeers).

By 1503 the soldiers were evenly divided among pikemen, shieldmen (rodeleros) and gunmen, but rodeleros soon dissapeared, being folded into the other categories (pikemen and gunmen would carry a shield on their back and a sword and would drop their pike or gun and take their shield and sword for close combat). The number of gunmen grew steadily, going from 1/3 of the army to 2/3 or even 3/4 of the army during the XVI century.

At the beginning, the rodeleros would carry javelins too, and they would throw those before engaging the enemy in close combat, but those were soon regarded as too ineffective and ceased to be used. Halberdiers were added to the mix to make it more effective in close combat.

Pikemen, halberdiers, glaivemen and rodeleros would use half-armor and morrion, and the rodeleros would use a round shield (usually of steel) too. However, some soldiers could afford neither a gun nor armor, and those would be given a pike and put in the rear until they could save enough money for armor. Soldiers with better armor were put in the vanguard, and would earn more money and have better chances of promotion.

Gunmen were supposed to have a steel morrion, breastplate and steel shield, but many couldn't afford it, and were allowed to use just a leather jerkin and a morrion, or sometimes not even that. Over time it was acknowledged that speed and stamina was more useful to gunmen than armor, and they were allowed to ditch armor entirely (many would keep using a leather jerkin, though).

Spaniards prefered to be arquebusseers, while Germans prefered to be pikemen.

As for crossbows, those were outdated in Europe, but they were still used in America due to the scarcity of gunpowder.

Spanish recruits were usually sent to Italy (which was considered an easy, low risk zone), where they would be distributed among veteran companies, so they could learn from their seniors. Once they were judged to be trained and hardened enough, they were sent to Netherlands, Franche-Comté, Germany... etc., were the fight was harder.

They had a lot of trouble getting good cavalry, or any cavalry at all. Spanish horsemen tended to be "lanzas ligeras", armed with lance and half-armor, while German one tended to be Retiers, armed with guns. Maestres tended to recruit the cavalry directly, since it was so hard to find.

There wasn't a fixed term of service for these soldiers; on paper, it seems they would serve until the king or the maestre chose to discharge them, but there are stories of men entering service, leaving and coming back, so it seems there was a way for them to leave the army without dishonor.


Most of the early conquistadors were poor peasants and gentry from estramadura and other improverished parts of the Iberian peninsula.

Mostly Extremadura and Andalucia, which were closer to the ports of Cadiz and Seville, the only allowed to host the American fleets.

"Poor peasants and gentry" was pretty much most of the population of Spain by then. Hidalgos (low rank aristocracy) were overrepresented in America, due to the lack of opportunities in Spain (Hidalgos were forbidden to pursue both commerce and most menial jobs under penalty or losing nobility status, so those who didn't want to be priests, were too poor to go to college or didn't like studying and couldn't rise in the army were very short of options).

They went to America with the dream of serving the governors in the war against the natives and receiving a piece of land and vassals as reward.

Most of Cortez and Pizarro's generation had lived in La Española for some time, and had gotten their battle experience working as slave-hunters, attacking native villages, rounding the inhabitants and taking them to the colonies. Before they conquered the Aztec and Inca Empires, they tended to be seen as scum by the rest of the Spaniards.

The first wave of Conquistadores were adventurers. A powerful man would get a contract from the Crown or from a governor, getting permission to conquer a piece of territory in exchange for some reward (land, vassals, tittles...etc.), and then he would recruit his own army. Hernán and Pizarro were like that, but they bended the law quite a bit and acted on their own.

Later, Felipe II of Spain put his foot down and sent governors, judges, soldiers and administrators to America, ending the age of the adventurers. The conquest of America was completed by soldiers under command of the governors.


Most of Cortez' original band of 500 men were specifically rodeleros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros), meaning they had the rotella and the sword, and as much as armor as they could afford of course, but not much else in the way of other weapons. As I already mentioned, he only had about a dozen each of arquebusiers and crossbowmen, both of whom were specialists and paid more than rodoleros. Very few were carrying spears.

A proper rodelero was a soldier specialized in close combat. Cortez's Conquistadores were adventurers who carried whatever weapons and armor they could get their hands on. Swords and rodelas were just the basic equipment, their bread and butter. They didn't have more arquebusses because they couldn't afford or find them, and they didn't have more crossbows because they didn't find more men trained in their use.

As for armor, I think most of them were relatively well armoured, it is the only thing that explains their high survival rate against their spear-wielding and javelin-throwing foes.

Anyways, if you read my post, I said that ideally they would get armor (morrion, shield and breastplate), sword and dagger (their basic weapons) and something else on top of that. They couldn't always get all of that.


Agreed except leather armor isn't likely. Textile yes.

Spanish soldiers who couldn't get metal armor or prefered to not use it wore tough leather jerkins, not textile armor. They rediscovered textile armor again in America.


Not only were montante's still in use then, that exact period was actually the heyday of the montante, particularly in Spain. Most of the fencing manuals which teach the montante were written in the lae 15th and through the 16th Century. They also (after Cortez) established a fencing school in Mexico City which was still teaching montante in the late 16th Century. They would train elite soldiers from the Americas to use as muscle in their far flung Empire.

I don't however know for sure that anyone with Cortez had them. Some of the cavalry had longswords apparently but that's a different weapon. Some of Cortez's men did also have halberds or bills (roncha)

Nope. montante fencing kept existing for some time as a sport, the same way crossbow shooting kept existing as a very popular sport in Europe long after it was discarded as a war weapon.

The montante wasn't one of the weapons used by the Spanish army, and the Conquistadores used a sword and shield combination, not montantes.

Some people have claimed that Don Juan de Austria used a montante, but they are wrong; he used a jineta, an ancient medieval arabic one-handed sword; foreign scholars read that Don Juan used an antiquated medieval sword, and they assumed it was a montante, but they were wrong.


As I understand it, rather than a steel shield most of the rodeleros would have been using a wood or leather version, or at least adopted a leather version once they reached the Americas. Although I'm a bit unclear on on the concept of the "rodelero". According to Taylor's Art of War in Italy, de Cordoba's reforms just called for 1/3rd of the men to be armed with a sword and dagger, as opposed to those who needed to bring a pike, sword, and dagger or an arquebus, sword, and dagger and that the decision to bring a shield as well was one the soldiers themselves made. Does that mean that the presence of so many sword and shield men was more of a cultural result rather than a tactical decision made by higher ups? For instance how 16th century English armies kept finding themselves flooded with billmen?

As for Spears, Bernal Diaz does mention at one point that Cortes had some of his native allies manufacture a large number of copper-tipped spears to equip his men with.

The military-grade rodelas crafted in Europe were made of steel. Once those ceased to be produced in Europe, colonial armies kept using shields, making them with leather, which was lighter, easier to make, and tough enough to counter the crappy weapons of the Native Americans.

But I think Pizarro and Cortez's men used European steel shields. There is no way leather shield would endure the kind of punishment it is described in the texts.

Of course, some men may have been so poor they couldn't afford a steel shield and had to use a leather one...

[snowblizz]

1- If I had to make a fort to defend against both cannon fire and pre-firearm armies, what would be a good compromise in architectural design? I suppose it'd just be better to use anti-cannon structure and then use cannons yourself to repel armies without firearms... But what if cannons were rare and/or too expensive too have in significant numbers?


Designing it properly in the way a starfort is actually made.

Which protects against cannons and any pre-firearm army. Which they did were tested against (to a degree, eg in colonial wars). Even in the heyday of starforts some were stormed. The Swedes eg didn't take to formal siege much. Sometimes it worked, often it lead to huge casualities. Ironically the Charles XII died ina formal by the book siege when he went into the trenches. He was a lead from front guy. And the 1600s was still fought by and large hand to hand.

The whole "designed against cannon" *includes* adequate protection from being stormed. It's not like the trace italienne is only for/against cannon.
If cannon are rare the round bastion type could make sense. That was one reason it was used in the North, not a lot of cannon around when it all came down to it. However they are very expensive to build. Am not 100% but it seems to me they provide a larger arc of fire with less cannon emplaced, where a starfort's batteries very efficiently cover a smaller area. Oh, and something just struck me. It's not always possible to build a proper starfort due to terrain e.g., it's a fairly sprawling complex. The most impressive looking ones tend to be on low flat ground.

[rrgg]

The military-grade rodelas crafted in Europe were made of steel. Once those ceased to be produced in Europe, colonial armies kept using shields, making them with leather, which was lighter, easier to make, and tough enough to counter the crappy weapons of the Native Americans.

But I think Pizarro and Cortez's men used European steel shields. There is no way leather shield would endure the kind of punishment it is described in the texts.

Of course, some men may have been so poor they couldn't afford a steel shield and had to use a leather one...

Rawhide is surprisingly tough stuff. Multiple layers of it would probably be enough to stop arrows or javelins while still being lighter than a steel shield.

The Tlaxcala Codex shows some of the spaniards carrying steel rodelas and some of them carrying leather Adargas.
http://www.mesolore.org/uploads/original/32TlaxIntroCell27-1341246067.jpg

http://www.mesolore.org/tutorials/learn/19/Introduction-to-the-Lienzo-de-Tlaxcala-/56/Before-the-Emperor-Mirrors-and-Shields

[Incanur]

By 1503 the soldiers were evenly divided among pikemen, shieldmen (rodeleros) and gunmen, but rodeleros soon dissapeared, being folded into the other categories (pikemen and gunmen would carry a shield and a sword in their back and would drop their pike or gun and take their shield and sword for close combat).

What's your source for wearing the shield on the back and slinging it down to use with the sword for close combat? That's exactly what Raimond de Fourquevaux recommended in his 1548, but haven't found any other evidence for it. One late-16th-century English military manual recommends equipping arqubusiers with Venetian-style leather shields on their backs but this was hypothetical rather than common practice.


At the beginning, the rodeleros would carry javelins too, and they would throw those before engaging the enemy in close combat, but those were soon regarded as too ineffective and ceased to be used.

I'm also curious about your source for this. I haven't been able to find much about the military use of javelins in the 16th century.


They had a lot of trouble getting good cavalry, or any cavalry at all.

My impression is that much Spanish medium/light cavalry was high-quality. The cavalry under Hernán Cortés certainly perform incredible feats. Spanish men-at-arms did tend to lose to their French counterparts in the 16th century. Near the end of the 16th century, Sir Roger Williams seemed to respect Spanish lancers.


Most of Cortez and Pizarro's generation had lived in La Española for some time, and had gotten their battle experience working as slave-hunters, attacking native villages, rounding the inhabitants and taking them to the colonies. Before they conquered the Aztec and Inca Empires, they tended to be seen as scum by the rest of the Spaniards.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo mentioned companions who'd served in the Italian Wars and against the Ottomans, so some of them apparently had formal military experience in Europe.


Nope. montante fencing kept existing for some time as a sport, the same way crossbow shooting kept existing as a very popular sport in Europe long after it was discarded as a war weapon.

The montante wasn't one of the weapons used by the Spanish army, and the Conquistadores used a sword and shield combination, not montantes.

I don't know of any evidence of the Spanish army using montantes at any point in time, but the same basic weapon (the large two-handed sword) saw military use by Italian and German forces into the late 16th century. Giacomo di Grassi mentioned using two-handed swords to guard ensigns. Humphrey Barwick mentioned large two-handed swords as the reason for the long points on halberds: "the cause that the French officers do vse them with such long staues and pykes, is to encounter with the Lance-knights, who do vse being Sargiants of foote-bandes, to carrie verie good long swordes or Slaugh swordes."

Edit: Also, montantes in Spain and Portugal weren't only used for sport, but for civilian self-defense, especially by bodyguards.

As far as crossbows go, Fourquevaux advocated for them in 1548, when they indeed had mostly fallen out of military use.

[Max_Killjoy]

On leather:

(can't find the original video right now, just the two follow-ups)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=472fNlfSQYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmdZYXu4zVw

[Clistenes]

What's your source for wearing the shield on the back and slinging it down to use with the sword for close combat? That's exactly what Raimond de Fourquevaux recommended in his 1548, but haven't found any other evidence for it. One late-16th-century English military manual recommends equipping arqubusiers with Venetian-style leather shields on their backs but this was hypothetical rather than common practice.

These soldiers are Scottish (from the garrison of Lieja), but they are carrying their shields that way:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QLzj2W0fMQc/VbH8tY-4dII/AAAAAAAAA6o/6VrqEMSYNB4/s1600/Rodelas.%2BSoldados%2Bescoceses%2Bde%2Blos%2Bestad os%2Bcombaten%2Bfuera%2Bde%2BLieja%2B-%2BEne1577.jpg

According to Diego de Salazar, it seems that the first line of the Spanish pike bloc in the Battle of Ravena (1512), made up mostly of captains and alféreces dropped their pikes and attacked their foes with sword and rodela.


I'm also curious about your source for this. I haven't been able to find much about the military use of javelins in the 16th century.

Because they saw barely any use at all. It was an idea that was brought up periodically and dropped again, because it didn't work. Machiavello proposed their use, Don Gonzalo de Córdoba tried to use them, and Diego de Salazar wanted to do it again. All of them were inspired by the Romans.


My impression is that much Spanish medium/light cavalry was high-quality.

The problem wasn't so much average quality, but that their recruiting was haphazard and inefficient, so they never got enough cavalry and had to resort to a lot of mercenaries. Spain didn't have something like the french gendarmerie


The cavalry under Hernán Cortés certainly perform incredible feats.

Those were private adventurers, they weren't representative of standing armies.


Bernal Díaz del Castillo mentioned companions who'd served in the Italian Wars and against the Ottomans, so some of them apparently had formal military experience in Europe.

Yes, as I said: "The Conquistadores weren't, for the most part, professional soldiers, but adventurers (some of which had a military background, and some which didn't)."

[Incanur]

Great, thanks for for the image and information. It looks like it's from Tercios de Flandes (http://ejercitodeflandes.blogspot.com/2012/06/rodela-rodelero.html), so I've probably seen it before but must have forgotten. That's evidence that Fourquevaux's recommendation wasn't just a commander's wishful thinking. Wearing a shield on one's back in way that you can sling it down quickly without it getting in the way seems challenging, both for arquebusiers and pikers, but I guess it was possible. Pikers under Maurice of Nassau carried shields on their back during march but slung them down before getting their pikes in position according illustrations in manuals.

I'll have to look at Diego de Salazar again. I remembered that he'd recommended the javelins for targetiers. Fourquevaux recommended fireworks/grenades instead of javelins. Writing in the late 16th century, Matthew Sutcliffe suggested half-pikes for targetiers, to help resist cavalry and to throw at infantry. I'm not sure this was completely misguided, but it seems it at least didn't much matter or wasn't worth the trouble and/or expense.

Edit: It looks like Spanish soldiers did make some marginal use (http://ejercitodeflandes.blogspot.com/2012/06/montantes-o-espadones-mandoble.html) of montantes (large two-handed swords). It seems like it was mainly German, Swiss, and perhaps Italian soldiers than used large two-handed swords in significant numbers.

[rrgg]

The Scottish pikemen at Pinkie Cleugh were also each wearing a wooden shield on their left arm. Although it doesn't seemed to have helped much against arquebus and cannon fire. Towards the end of the century, those who still wanted "roman infantry" in their army were recommending a pistol instead of a javelin.

In the English colonies during the early 17th century, targeteers with pistols were apparently more useful against the native americans than pikemen, halberders or billmen were.

[Mike_G]

In the English colonies during the early 17th century, targeteers with pistols were apparently more useful against the native americans than pikemen, halberders or billmen were.

That seems like it makes sense for fighting skirmish type warfare in wooded and broken ground. I can't see the Native Americans attacking a pike block. They'd probably just retreat, fade into the woods then come and attack the army when it camped for the night.

[Amaril]

I'm working on a setting with about a late 9th century CE Carolingian tech level, and I'm thinking about what equipment would be available. Would maces or other blunt weapons be an option? I haven't encountered any mention of them in any of my research on the period, but I see no reason why at least some people wouldn't use them, even if they're not favorites. If they exist, what forms would they take?

[Pauly]

I'm working on a setting with about a late 9th century CE Carolingian tech level, and I'm thinking about what equipment would be available. Would maces or other blunt weapons be an option? I haven't encountered any mention of them in any of my research on the period, but I see no reason why at least some people wouldn't use them, even if they're not favorites. If they exist, what forms would they take?

Macrs, warhammers, flailsand other blunt instruments were known of but extremely rare. Since there was mo plate armor there was no real need for blunt impact weapons and swords, axes and spears were more effective against the armor they were facing mail, shield, helmet.

[fusilier]

Because they saw barely any use at all. It was an idea that was brought up periodically and dropped again, because it didn't work. Machiavello proposed their use, Don Gonzalo de Córdoba tried to use them, and Diego de Salazar wanted to do it again. All of them were inspired by the Romans.

The Hesperis manuscript (1460s?) depicts javelinmen on both sides during the siege of Piombino (1448). They are shown with small shields and are deployed alongside crossbowmen and handgunners. I do not know how widespread they were or if they employed beyond the 15th century.

[Kiero]

Because they saw barely any use at all. It was an idea that was brought up periodically and dropped again, because it didn't work. Machiavello proposed their use, Don Gonzalo de Córdoba tried to use them, and Diego de Salazar wanted to do it again. All of them were inspired by the Romans.


For infantry maybe; the Spanish fielded thousands of jinetes (javelin-armed horsemen) in this period.

[Clistenes]

For infantry maybe; the Spanish fielded thousands of jinetes (javelin-armed horsemen) in this period.

Javelin-armed horsemen were dropped during that period; pistols made javelins obsolete at the beginning of the the XVI century.

[Kiero]

Javelin-armed horsemen were dropped during that period; pistols made javelins obsolete at the beginning of the the XVI century.

Sorry if I don't believe it was the appearance of crappy early firearms made a well-deployed panolpy "obsolete". A javelin has a longer range and better accuracy than a horse pistol, and is much faster to "reload". The jinete wasn't just deployed in large numbers, it was a significant proportion of Spanish cavalry used in the Italian Wars. According to this article (http://xenophongroup.com/EMW/article001.htm):


Jinetes constituted 38% of the Spanish horse at Cerignola (550 of 1,450), and 8% of the entire army (550 of 6,950). In the force organized for the second Naples expedition (1500), they were 50% of the cavalry (300 of 600) and 8% of the total. At Seminara I the jinetes were approximately 40% of the Spanish horse (400 of 1,000). In the army that confronted the French in Perpignan in 1503 there were 4,500 jinetes among the 6,500 horse (69%). The total strength of the army was 19,500.

These data, adduced from various sources, all considered reliable, show that in the period under consideration jinetes could constitute from 38-69% of the cavalry in any typical Spanish army. They would be about 8-23% of all field forces. These data underscore their significance in the early Italian Wars Spanish army.

I think it rather more likely that there were other underlying factors.

[rrgg]

Sorry if I don't believe it was the appearance of crappy early firearms made a well-deployed panolpy "obsolete". A javelin has a longer range and better accuracy than a horse pistol, and is much faster to "reload". The jinete wasn't just deployed in large numbers, it was a significant proportion of Spanish cavalry used in the Italian Wars. According to this article (http://xenophongroup.com/EMW/article001.htm):



I think it rather more likely that there were other underlying factors.

That is what eventually happened though. By the end of the 16th century, pistoliers and mounted harquebusiers had almost completely replaced all other sorts of cavalry in western europe. Under ideal conditions a wheellock pistol shouldn't have much trouble hitting a horse and rider at at least 30 meters. Aiming the pistol while on a moving horse with multiple people charging to kill you was much more difficult, but so was aiming a javelin, or a 12 foot lance for that matter. In addition the pistol could penetrate armor much better and "murders more" than the other weapons could.

That said though the wheellock pistol didn't start to take off as a cavalry weapon until around 1530-1540 or so. In the few decades prior to that, small hackbutts and arquebuses were steadily becoming more popular among light horsemen. But for most of the Italian wars the main weapons used by light cavalry were still spears, javelins, bows, or crossbows.

[Kiero]

That is what eventually happened though. By the end of the 16th century, pistoliers and mounted harquebusiers had almost completely replaced all other sorts of cavalry in western europe. Under ideal conditions a wheellock pistol shouldn't have much trouble hitting a horse and rider at at least 30 meters. Aiming the pistol while on a moving horse with multiple people charging to kill you was much more difficult, but so was aiming a javelin, or a 12 foot lance for that matter. In addition the pistol could penetrate armor much better and "murders more" than the other weapons could.

That said though the wheellock pistol didn't start to take off as a cavalry weapon until around 1530-1540 or so. In the few decades prior to that, small hackbutts and arquebuses were steadily becoming more popular among light horsemen. But for most of the Italian wars the main weapons used by light cavalry were still spears, javelins, bows, or crossbows.

None of which contradicts my point - where's the evidence in any of that, that it was the pistol itself that was the cause of the decline? As opposed to other factors, like the type of men being used, the drain on the traditional source of light cavalry, whether the climate or terrain of one conflict favoured one type over another, size of armies and professionalism, and so on?

I'd also note by the time you're into the 1540s, we're not at the beginning of the 16th century any more.

[Pauly]

I'm working on a setting with about a late 9th century CE Carolingian tech level, and I'm thinking about what equipment would be available. Would maces or other blunt weapons be an option? I haven't encountered any mention of them in any of my research on the period, but I see no reason why at least some people wouldn't use them, even if they're not favorites. If they exist, what forms would they take?

One other thing i fotrgot to mention. In the time period you are looking at maces were mostly a round weight at the end of a shaft. The spikes, flanges and facets that are features of later maces did not exist because plate armor did not exist. In D&D terminology they are 'clubs' not 'maces'

[rrgg]

where's the evidence in any of that, that it was the pistol itself that was the cause of the decline?

You mean aside from the fact that for almost two millennia prior light cavalry in europe fought in more or less the same way, but within just a couple of generations after the pistol was invented it didn't any more?

Wheellocks were pretty expensive weapons, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been so popular if they weren't effective. Contemporary writers also typically held firearms in high regard, unlike javelins which by the end of the century were only considered fit for "poor and savage peoples". It was also wheellock pistols which first allowed lighter cavalry to actually go toe to toe with heavy lancerslike at Saint-Vincent in 1552 or Saint-Quentin in 1557. Prior to its introduction, an engagement would almost universally play out like it did at Seminara in 1495, where the lighter Spanish horsemen were completely crushed by the heavy French Gendarmes.

[Incanur]

You mean aside from the fact that for almost two millennia prior light cavalry in europe fought in more or less the same way, but within just a couple of generations after the pistol was invented it didn't any more?

A then a couple hundred years later, it did: the lance returned to Western European cavalry service. Of course, the lance never really left Eastern European cavalry service.


It was also wheellock pistols which first allowed lighter cavalry to actually go toe to toe with heavy lancerslike at Saint-Vincent in 1552 or Saint-Quentin in 1557. Prior to its introduction, an engagement would almost universally play out like it did at Seminara in 1495, where the lighter Spanish horsemen were completely crushed by the heavy French Gendarmes.

I don't know about this part. Sir John Smythe, that famous proponent of the English warbow, looked east when it came to cavalry. It was Hungarian- or Turkish-style light cavalry that Smythe focused on in addition to mounted archers and crossbowers. Smythe argued that light cavalry, armed with either lancegays/zagayas (double-headed lances) or common English border lances used as punching staves, could do well against lancers (basically men-at-arms in slightly less armor astride unarmored horses) by adopting a half-moon or oblique formation, refusing the lancers charge, and then attacking the lancers once they couldn't effectively use their heavy lances.

Maybe Smythe was wrong, but the technique seems solid and there's some evidence the Ottomans and company did use similar tactics, such as at Mohács 1526 (https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=32490&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20).

I agree the pistol transformed Western European cavalry, but I'm not sure that the gun-heavy cavalry kit used in 17th century was generically optimal.

As far as javelins go, I can't think of any examples of javelin-armed cavalry persisting in the 17th century and beyond, while bow-armed cavalry and lance-armed cavalry did in certain regions.

[rrgg]

A then a couple hundred years later, it did: the lance returned to Western European cavalry service. Of course, the lance never really left Eastern European cavalry service.
Light lances returned somewhat, but they didn't quite reach the same dominance that they had before. Even the famous winged hussars were matched once king Gustavus adopted the tactics developed by the french protestants in the 16th century. In addition lancers by this period were typically carrying pistols as well, so even there it's probably safe to say that cavalry combat had changed quite a bit.



I don't know about this part. Sir John Smythe, that famous proponent of the English warbow, looked east when it came to cavalry. It was Hungarian- or Turkish-style light cavalry that Smythe focused on in addition to mounted archers and crossbowers. Smythe argued that light cavalry, armed with either lancegays/zagayas (double-headed lances) or common English border lances used as punching staves, could do well against lancers (basically men-at-arms in slightly less armor astride unarmored horses) by adopting a half-moon or oblique formation, refusing the lancers charge, and then attacking the lancers once they couldn't effectively use their heavy lances.

Maybe Smythe was wrong, but the technique seems solid and there's some evidence the Ottomans and company did use similar tactics, such as at Mohács 1526 (https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=32490&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20).

I agree the pistol transformed Western European cavalry, but I'm not sure that the gun-heavy cavalry kit used in 17th century was generically optimal.

As far as javelins go, I can't think of any examples of javelin-armed cavalry persisting in the 17th century and beyond, while bow-armed cavalry and lance-armed cavalry did in certain regions.

What I meant by toe to toe is that the reiters were able to charge headfirst into the Gendarmes and still come out on top. Other sorts of light cavalry typically had to rely on feigned retreats and harassment.

I think Smythe tended to get carried away with his arguments at times. He was also of the opinion that english longbowmen were stop heavy cavalry (both horse and man covered by pistol-proof armor) all on their own without any help from pikes, a ditch, or sharpened stakes. Which does not seem to match the reality. Stradiot mercenaries from eastern europe played a big role in the Italian Wars, but they seem to have been slowly incorporating small guns into their ranks as well.

I'm a bit less familiar with specific accounts between cavalry with bows and cavalry with guns. I do know that, according to Busbecq, there was one encounter during the 16th century where 500 Christian cavalry with small guns was able to rout a force of 2500 Sipahis.

During the long Hungarian war when ottoman power started to be checked by europeans, ottoman sources do cite the disparity in firearm capabilities as the issue. To quote the Grand Vizer "‘in the field or during a siege we are in a distressed position, because the greater part of the enemy forces are infantry armed with muskets, while the majority of our forces are horsemen and we have very few specialists skilled in the musket." This also coincides with the size of the Janissary corps increasing dramatically, and some household cavalry troops starting to be equipped with carbines.

I'll admit that the popularity of the wheellock pistol does seem to be somewhat limited to europe. The ottoman cavalry didn't really start using pistols until much cheaper and more reliable firelocks were developed in the mid 17th century. However there are many cultures where short muskets seem to have been found to be very effective weapons from horseback. In 1634 there was an incident where 60-70 Mughal horsemen with muskets were able to turn back a raiding force of around 1000 infantry and cavalry armed with traditional weapons. (edit: from Gunpowder and Firearms: Warfare in Medieval India by Khan)

[Clistenes]

Sorry if I don't believe it was the appearance of crappy early firearms made a well-deployed panolpy "obsolete". A javelin has a longer range and better accuracy than a horse pistol, and is much faster to "reload". The jinete wasn't just deployed in large numbers, it was a significant proportion of Spanish cavalry used in the Italian Wars. According to this article (http://xenophongroup.com/EMW/article001.htm):



I think it rather more likely that there were other underlying factors.

The spanish army Don Fernando of Aragon took to the Italian Wars was basically a medieval army specially suited for mountain warfare, with lots of light infantry, lots of light cavalry, a few gunmen and many crossbowmen, but Don Fernando tried to face the french army head on (he was ashamed to use unchivalric tactics against Crhistian foes) and was crushed.

Later, Don Fernando left, leaving Don Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba to fix his mess. Don Gonzalo shifted to guerrilla tactics, mountain warfare and retreating to defensive positions until he received the help of German Landsknechts reinforcements. He combined the German and Spanish troops using classical texts as inspiration, and started to get victories in 1503. That was the root of the famous tercios.

At that point the spanish army still had many javelin-armed horsemen and crossbowmen, because that was what they had brought to Italy, but their tactics and weapons kept evolving, and during the next one or two decades javelins an crossbows were discarded. By 1534 the tercios had fully transitioned to a typical XVI century pike and shot bloc, and their cavalry was made of light lances and retiers, no javelin throwers left.

[Incanur]

I think Smythe tended to get carried away with his arguments at times. He was also of the opinion that english longbowmen were stop heavy cavalry (both horse and man covered by pistol-proof armor) all on their own without any help from pikes, a ditch, or sharpened stakes. Which does not seem to match the reality.

Where did Smythe write that? That section in the 1590 treatise wasn't talking about fully barded horses and was mainly invoking English military history. As he noted, true men-at-arms with armored horses had mostly fallen out of use in the late 16th century. The formation he recommended in his 1594 treatise included a fair number of pikers and halberdiers, and described how they would resist cavalry charges. At in the 1594 text, Smythe wasn't expecting archers alone to stop cavalry charges.

[rrgg]

Where did Smythe write that? That section in the 1590 treatise wasn't talking about fully barded horses and was mainly invoking English military history. As he noted, true men-at-arms with armored horses had mostly fallen out of use in the late 16th century. The formation he recommended in his 1594 treatise included a fair number of pikers and halberdiers, and described how they would resist cavalry charges. At in the 1594 text, Smythe wasn't expecting archers alone to stop cavalry charges.

It's from the response to Barwick's Breef Discourse Smythe was working on during the period when his writings were being suppressed and he couldn't risk criticizing more influential figures like Sir Roger Williams. I'm getting it J. R. Hale's introduction to Certain Discourses Military. Ultimately it wasn't published and Hale concludes that it was probably for the best. Apparently it mainly involved doubling down on all his arguments, criticizing Barwick for being a commoner, and occasionally making pedantic grammar complaints.

It does seem like he cooled down quite a bit and adjusted his thoughts somewhat prior to the 1594 treatise, though. In the surviving draft to his Barwick response he claimed that archers could shoot multiple arrows at once like a gun could shoot multiple bullets, but according to Hale that section was crossed out. In the 1594 work he instead makes it a point that, when used, muskets should usually be loaded with multiple bullets or hailshot.

[Incanur]

Again, it doesn't make much sense to talk about true men-at-arms on fully barded horses in the late 16th century. Could you quote that part? I agree Smythe generally overestimated archery and underestimated gunpowder weapons, especially in the 1590 text. That one includes lots of longbow hyperbole based on the Hundred Years' War. Smythe arguments aren't totally wrong there but are ultimately misguided. (English archery was often quite effective against heavily armored soldiers, but in part of because of French incompetence. Also, armor got better and more available after the English bow's great victories.)

The 1594 treatise, however, convinces me Smythe had real military experience and at least some idea what he was talking about.

[Galloglaich]

Well old fellow, you certainly are sure of yourself.

Do you have any examples of this leather armor you are speaking about from 16th Century Spain ? I'd love to see some. Either surviving antique or in a painting perhaps? Or records? As far as I know, there is very little evidence of leather armor as such in use in Europe prior to the 17th Century buff coat phenomenon. Or as something like doe skin worn as an outer layer of textile armor.



Nope. montante fencing kept existing for some time as a sport, the same way crossbow shooting kept existing as a very popular sport in Europe long after it was discarded as a war weapon.

True, except that hadn't happened by the 1520's, in fact it hadn't happened by the 1550's. Crossbows were still in fairly wide use in the first half of the 16th Century in much of Europe, both in field armies and in particular for civic defense. They were also popular for hunting and the shooting societies had a social niche.

The montante was used both for the battlefield and on the street, whether you care or not you are talking to somebody who actually knows whereof he speaks. The montante and it's equivalent weapons were used in a very specific niche in most of Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Flanders, Switzerland, the HRE, Poland, Bohemia and Hungary to name a few). Their use en-masse was rare outside of the British Isles (where some 'Gallowglass' mercenaries fought with them as primary weapons), but they remained in wide use for dopplesoldners and their equivalent to protect VIP's, banners and artillery, as part of 'forlorn hope' formations of gunners to help protect the latter, and as teams of skirmishers who would seek out enemy VIP's, banners, and cannon etc.

The weapon also had a niche on the street so to speak, as a weapon for bodyguards specifically to contend with being outnumbered by heavily armed enemies. Something that happened all too often in the vicious politics of Early Modern Spain (and in Italy and many other places). On the battlefield it's a similar and overlapping niche to where halberds and their equivalent were used, but a little better and therefore more expensive. You see them for example in the Swiss chronicles fighting under a banner with crossed axes just like the halberdiers. I have posted some of the images in this thread one or two incarnations back.

To paraphrase Pietro Monte (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Monte), the Montante was for "when few must contend with many". Montante fencing was taught alongside the rapier, espada ropera, longsword, and all other weapons in all the Iberian fencing manuals from the 15th and 16th Centuries, it was considered part of the Destreza. Figueiredo, Godinho, Carranza etc. all describe it's use in this particular niche.

Of course I don't know if Cortez's men had any. I'm just saying it wasn't unusual for Spanish military forces at that time.



But I think Pizarro and Cortez's men used European steel shields. There is no way leather shield would endure the kind of punishment it is described in the texts.


I agree, though I think the loophole or confusion on these shields is that the requirement was really for the first rank or ranks to have them, because being steel they helped protect against gunfire as well as pike points and so on. Not every guy has to have one but I think they would come in very handy in Mexico.

G

[Galloglaich]

As for javelins and light troops more generally,

You do see javelins in use through the medieval and into the early modern periods. Sometimes by infantry, sometimes by cavalry. The most famous infantry to use them were probably the Almogavars of the Catalan Grand Company in the 14th Century. They were extremely effective with them.

Specific types used included all-metal ones which were capable of piercing armor but worked only at very short range, and various 'weavers beam' or 'swiss arrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_arrow)' types with strings that wrapped around the haft either just as an extra 'lever' or coiled to impart spin. You also see a lot of vaned ones in the artwork kind of like larger versions of the Roman plumbata

Lithuanians were also still making heavy use of darts and javelins in the 15th century both as infantry and, increasingly, cavalry. They were also carried by Irish Kern which is another light infantry type still around into the Early Modern period. The Swiss used them too, for skirmishers, as did the Bohemians and Hungarians. But they were kind of harassing weapons and not superior to any one other thing, so they don't get a lot of fame.

They also show up in the arsenals of gate towers and so on in towns well into the 16th Century all throughout Central and Northern Europe. Javelins along with rocks, were probably the most popular weapons in sieges ... mainly because cheap.

The light cavalry did get a bit more famous and while some light cavalry was mostly associated with lances, many if not most also sometimes used darts or javelins (and / or threw the lances), notable Irish Hobelar, the Lithuanians again, the Spanish Jinetes, the Ottoman Akinci (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinji) and many others. The Lithuanians broke the back of the Teutonic and Lithuanian Orders on three separate occasions mainly using light armed troops equipped largely with javelins (first infantry and later cavalry) they fought off the Russians, and conquered vast territories from the Mongols of the Golden Horde using light cavalry for the most part, apparently, along with some Genoese and Czech mercenaries (gunners) and some German knights. How this worked I still have yet to actually determine.

The most famous though were the Hungarian light Hussars (as distinct from the perhaps more famous Polish 'winged' Hussars who were basically medium or heavy cavalry depending on how you calculate that). The obvious influence is the Ottoman irregulars, the Akinci who I already mentioned, but apparently their organization as a specific force and part of the Black Army and other Royal armies in the region was spurred very specifically by the fall of Serbia and subsequent raids by Serbian Guzars or 'robbers'. Some of these were recruited into the Hungarian forces, others imitated the new trend.

In the German and Czech urban polities the most common way to deal with the light cavalry or cavalry archers was originally with mounted crossbowmen. I think in Italy too, they became part of a lance, as in just about every heavy cavalryman would have at least one with him. These men were highly skilled and therefore very expensive, they cost almost as much as a lancer. The mighty Czech war-leader Jan Ziska organized a core of well-mounted crossbowmen as scouts in the 1420's. This was still very much a thing in several battles in the 1480's and 1490's. When the wheel-lock pistol and equivalent carbine like weapons suddenly arrived in the early 16th Century, those same urban polities and some of the princes in those regions had the money to buy them and I think they replaced the crossbow niche.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/99/76/57/997657f5fb5ba17c6e60e968b844a728.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/94/43/21/944321f0488cd6a09f766e13369a5d64.jpg
The Hungarian Hussars with their characteristic teardrop shaped shield and top-hat, were of course excellent scouts, skirmishers, raiders, and were also capable of surrounding and 'harassing to death' heavy cavalry. They seemed to have a role against horse archers too, but they couldn't quite operate on their own. Significantly, for Janos Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus, they noted that these types of troops, many of whom were probably essentially refugees, were more 'expendable' than heavy cavalry. One of the problems with heavy cavalry is that if they were captured you their employer would be expected to ransom them out or at least facilitate their ransom, which could be a nuisance. And they wouldn't agree to do super risky things necessarily, knights in particular were infamous for deciding when and where they wanted to fight.


The type of warfare leading into the 17th and 18th Centuries was moving toward more cannon-fodder so military theory of the day embraced the light cavalry perhaps even beyond the very useful niche they already had.

G

[Roxxy]

I've got a question about armor. To put it bluntly, a breastplate has got to be very hot inside. Metal helmets with visors, too. Even a gambeson or some brigandine (I mean, it's like wearing a really thick coat). I'm not sure about chain mail (anyone know?). In the summer, especially somewhere really hot like the Middle East or Spain or Italy, that has got to be brutal. Sounds like a recipe for people getting exhausted quickly, well as heat exaustion and heatstroke. Not to mention it must have been hard to get water to those people. How was this problem mitigated? Just how severe was the problem?

[Max_Killjoy]

I've got a question about armor. To put it bluntly, a breastplate has got to be very hot inside. Metal helmets with visors, too. Even a gambeson or some brigandine (I mean, it's like wearing a really thick coat). I'm not sure about chain mail (anyone know?). In the summer, especially somewhere really hot like the Middle East or Spain or Italy, that has got to be brutal. Sounds like a recipe for people getting exhausted quickly, well as heat exaustion and heatstroke. Not to mention it must have been hard to get water to those people. How was this problem mitigated? Just how severe was the problem?

Metal is a good conductor of heat. If you keep the sun off it, the only problem is that any solid plates stifle air circulation. If you don't keep the sun off it, it can be like wearing a frying pan.

The insulation problem comes from heavy items worn underneath.

[Pauly]

I've got a question about armor. To put it bluntly, a breastplate has got to be very hot inside. Metal helmets with visors, too. Even a gambeson or some brigandine (I mean, it's like wearing a really thick coat). I'm not sure about chain mail (anyone know?). In the summer, especially somewhere really hot like the Middle East or Spain or Italy, that has got to be brutal. Sounds like a recipe for people getting exhausted quickly, well as heat exaustion and heatstroke. Not to mention it must have been hard to get water to those people. How was this problem mitigated? Just how severe was the problem?

In the Parsian area, from the time of e Archemenids onwards, it was common practice to wear cotton or silk clothes over the top of mail. This lasted until maybe the 1500s or 1600s.
Crusaders adopted surcoats over their mail.

[Galloglaich]

I've got a question about armor. To put it bluntly, a breastplate has got to be very hot inside. Metal helmets with visors, too. Even a gambeson or some brigandine (I mean, it's like wearing a really thick coat). I'm not sure about chain mail (anyone know?). In the summer, especially somewhere really hot like the Middle East or Spain or Italy, that has got to be brutal. Sounds like a recipe for people getting exhausted quickly, well as heat exaustion and heatstroke. Not to mention it must have been hard to get water to those people. How was this problem mitigated? Just how severe was the problem?

It was a very big problem, particularly for plate armor because it doesn't 'breathe' the way mail can or even brigandine. But all armor is hot. Heat is really the one flaw, out of all the flaws they bring up about medieval armor, this is the one that is true.

It wasn't necessarily so heavy, it did work, it could even stop bullets, but heat was a real problem.

Even in cold weather, at the Battle of Towton, amidst snow-flurries, many among the Lancastrian forces fell apparently due to heat exhaustion.

Several major battles in the Crusades were decided by heat issues and lack of water, Hattin being the most famous.

G

[Martin Greywolf]

It was a very big problem, particularly for plate armor because it doesn't 'breathe' the way mail can or even brigandine. But all armor is hot. Heat is really the one flaw, out of all the flaws they bring up about medieval armor, this is the one that is true.


Eh, I'd still say it's a little overstated.

Enclosed helmets are a killer when it comes to breathing after sprinting, but that's why all of them can be either taken off quickly or opened to get some fresh air in. In a pinch, you can even fight in what's underneath the helmet, and many knights had several helmets, one for heavy fighting, one for scouting forays etc. Charles Robert of Hungary is depicted in visored barnutte, unvisored barbutte and a kettle hat in a single chronicle.

Plate vs mail, well, mail breathes a bit easier, sure, but you have a gambeson (i.e. a thick coat) under both, so the difference isn't all that great. Okay, early medieval Europe may not have used gambeson, strictly speaking, just several layers of wool, but that's still effectively the same thing. One thing to be aware of here is that plate does get way more heated from the outside and can be used for all sorts of stunts mail can't - like cooking a dinner on it, for example.

Now, gambeson. You put it on, you get hot in it inside of 2 minutes tops and start sweating like a racehorse. Once that starts, the sweat cools you down quite a bit and you no longer have heat problems, not even after sprinting. At least not major ones.

When the problem starts is after, oh, about 10 minutes to an hour, depending on the weather and how much you exert yourself - you sweated out quite a bit, and start to get thirsty. If you don't get access to water, and don't get it quick at that, you'll start getting dehydrated. Not only that, but you'll run out of sweat and start to heat up, and that's how you get heatstroke in medieval battle.

(listed times are based on personal experience and estimation, since I'm not in the habit of taking a stopwatch into a melee)

Now, the chief thing to keep in mind here is perspective - if you die of heatstroke in battle after 30 minutes, it means you didn't die of swords and arrows for 30 minutes straight, and that can be harder than it sounds.

[Kiero]

As for javelins and light troops more generally,

You do see javelins in use through the medieval and into the early modern periods. Sometimes by infantry, sometimes by cavalry. The most famous infantry to use them were probably the Almogavars of the Catalan Grand Company in the 14th Century. They were extremely effective with them.

Specific types used included all-metal ones which were capable of piercing armor but worked only at very short range, and various 'weavers beam' or 'swiss arrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_arrow)' types with strings that wrapped around the haft either just as an extra 'lever' or coiled to impart spin. You also see a lot of vaned ones in the artwork kind of like larger versions of the Roman plumbata


Just on these two specifically, in ancient Iberia they also used an all-iron missile, which the Romans called the soliferrum. Javelins of various sorts have always been popular in Iberia.

As far as throwing cords go, the amentum/ankyle was well known in antiquity, it wrapped around the shaft, then looped around the first two fingers, to impart greater energy.

[Clistenes]

Well old fellow, you certainly are sure of yourself.

Do you have any examples of this leather armor you are speaking about from 16th Century Spain ? I'd love to see some. Either surviving antique or in a painting perhaps? Or records? As far as I know, there is very little evidence of leather armor as such in use in Europe prior to the 17th Century buff coat phenomenon. Or as something like doe skin worn as an outer layer of textile armor.

Well, for starters, the XVI century's military leather jerkin had a name of its own: The military version was called "cuera", while the civilian version was called "coleto". The military version was thicker and tougher, since it was supposed to protect its wearer against swords and dagger.

Later, both variants came to be called "coleto".

Here is a page (https://vestuarioescenico.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/nomenclatura-del-traje-y-la-moda-coleto-cuera-jerkin/), but I'm afraid it's in spanish... The protective function of the cuera is explicitly mentioned several times.

Look this picture:
http://www.abc.es/Media/201506/02/arcabucero-principal-portada--644x362.jpg

The sleeveless brown overcoat the arquebusseers are wearing is a coleto or cuera.

As for crossbows, there is no mention of the spanish army using them in Europe past the first quarter of the XVI century, I think. The accounts of the Battle of Pavia, for example, speak a lot about the action of the spanish gunmen, but I can't remember crossbowmen playing any part...
It was still popular as hunting weapon as a sporting weapon, as a weapon of civic guards and it was used in America, were gunpowder was often scarce.

[snowblizz]

Look this picture:
http://www.abc.es/Media/201506/02/arcabucero-principal-portada--644x362.jpg

The sleeveless brown overcoat the arquebusseers are wearing is a coleto or cuera.


And incidentally that is the 1600s (17th century) buffcoat phenomenon Galloglaich spoke about.

The coat/jack you seem to be talking about is called a doublet in English. And or a jerkin.

Interestingly the early 1600s also saw somekind of coat worn by musketeers which isn't covered well in sources. At least common anglo-saxon ones, some authors I've read refer to the garment but period sources seem to only refer to a cloak.

[Gnoman]

As far as throwing cords go, the amentum/ankyle was well known in antiquity, it wrapped around the shaft, then looped around the first two fingers, to impart greater energy.

Do you have any understanding on how such a thing compared to the atl-atl in performance? I've always found that branch of weaponry fascinating, and regret that I can find so little information about them that doesn't make literally impossible claims.

[Clistenes]

And incidentally that is the 1600s (17th century) buffcoat phenomenon Galloglaich spoke about.

The coat/jack you seem to be talking about is called a doublet in English. And or a jerkin.

Interestingly the early 1600s also saw somekind of coat worn by musketeers which isn't covered well in sources. At least common anglo-saxon ones, some authors I've read refer to the garment but period sources seem to only refer to a cloak.

The spanish text explicitly mentions that the coleto and cuera were in use in Spain from 1530 to 1600, and that the military version, the cuera, was intended as protection, while the civilian version, the coleto, was used for fashion.

The buff coat would have sleeves, I think. Anyways, the spanish and english terms aren't perfectly translatable. For example, the Spaniards don't seem to have adopted the XVII century british (New Model Army) buff coat, so there isn't a direct translation.

[jok]

Let's say two relatively evenly matched forces join battle on an open field or plain, but one side does not have unmounted scirmishers. How exactly could the other side exploit this to get an important tactical advantage?
I am especially interested how this would work before widespread use of rifled muskets?

Or another way to phrase this question: Let's say a Greece city state during the hoplite area could wish for exactly 500 fighting men with any equipment. But no one else could join the army. Would they wish for any amount of scirmishers?

[Kiero]

Let's say two relatively evenly matched forces join battle on an open field or plain, but one side does not have unmounted scirmishers. How exactly could the other side exploit this to get an important tactical advantage?
I am especially interested how this would work before widespread use of rifled muskets?

Or another way to phrase this question: Let's say a Greece city state during the hoplite area could wish for exactly 500 fighting men with any equipment. But no one else could join the army. Would they wish for any amount of scirmishers?

Completely impossible to answer in a vaccuum. What manpower does the state have to draw upon - if it went all-hoplite, would they all be of good quality, men who spend their free time training together? Where are they going to fight, will there be broken ground and elevation lighter troops could take advantage of? Who are they fighting - will they have to deal with cavalry?

What kind of skirmishers are we talking about? Psiloi with no equipment beyond their weapon, or better-equipped peltastai who might be professional light troops? Are they archers, slingers or javelineers?

[snowblizz]

The spanish text explicitly mentions that the coleto and cuera were in use in Spain from 1530 to 1600, and that the military version, the cuera, was intended as protection, while the civilian version, the coleto, was used for fashion.

The buff coat would have sleeves, I think. Anyways, the spanish and english terms aren't perfectly translatable. For example, the Spaniards don't seem to have adopted the XVII century british (New Model Army) buff coat, so there isn't a direct translation.
A buff coat can have sleeves. The earliest ones did not AFAIK. A buffcoat is simply a protective coat of leather armour, and should be more or less analogous to a cuera. As we go along the 1600s the buffcoats improve in quality (eg enhanced mobility) and cut.

The style of clothing became popular elsewhere. One of the men in the page you linked is an Englishman.:smallbiggrin: The "peascod" style breastplate is specifically made to imitate this type of clothing.


Let's say two relatively evenly matched forces join battle on an open field or plain, but one side does not have unmounted scirmishers. How exactly could the other side exploit this to get an important tactical advantage?
I am especially interested how this would work before widespread use of rifled muskets?

Or another way to phrase this question: Let's say a Greece city state during the hoplite area could wish for exactly 500 fighting men with any equipment. But no one else could join the army. Would they wish for any amount of scirmishers?
They would probably yes. If they wanted to win. One of the classic defeats of a Spartan force came at the hands of skirmishers that simply refused to be caught by the heavier Spartan soldiers harassing them incessantly. That's broadstrokes though. Skirmishers obviously are better when there is terrain to contend with. But skirmishers can easily get to the sides and rear of a hoplite unit to harass them. I vaguely remember a number of such battles (or battles were skirmishers harassing the enemy heavies made a difference). You gain a important tactical advantage by disrupting the enemy formation, which in hoplite warfare was fundamental.
In the end it comes down to a lot of specifics. Is there any mounted units. What kind of skirmishers. What are each side trying to do.

[Kiero]

They would probably yes. If they wanted to win. One of the classic defeats of a Spartan force came at the hands of skirmishers that simply refused to be caught by the heavier Spartan soldiers harassing them incessantly. That's broadstrokes though. Skirmishers obviously are better when there is terrain to contend with. But skirmishers can easily get to the sides and rear of a hoplite unit to harass them. I vaguely remember a number of such battles (or battles were skirmishers harassing the enemy heavies made a difference). You gain a important tactical advantage by disrupting the enemy formation, which in hoplite warfare was fundamental.
In the end it comes down to a lot of specifics. Is there any mounted units. What kind of skirmishers. What are each side trying to do.

If you're referring to the battle of Sphacteria, the Athenian force massively outnumbered the Spartan one, which was trapped on an island. The Athenian rowers alone (from which the skirmishers were drawn) outnumbered the Spartans several times over.

I'm no Spartan fanboy by any means, but while this does show in the right circumstances skirmishers can rout heavy infantry, it's extremely conditional.

[snowblizz]

If you're referring to the battle of Sphacteria, the Athenian force massively outnumbered the Spartan one, which was trapped on an island. The Athenian rowers alone (from which the skirmishers were drawn) outnumbered the Spartans several times over.

I'm no Spartan fanboy by any means, but while this does show in the right circumstances skirmishers can rout heavy infantry, it's extremely conditional.

I believe I made a point of the conditions may apply part. I was just giving an example of what skirmishers would do vs heavy infantry. IIRC at Sphacteria the Spartan hoplites eventually surrendered, almost unheard of at the time. The hoplite phalanx was hard to manouvre so they would try to have skirmish units to guard flanks and delay any surprise enemies.

All things being equal it's going to be a slugout either side can win. I'm not sure what an ideal number would be, but some percentage of peltasts 20-30 maybe would probably tip odds in favour of those who brought them. Thinning the main line too much ofc just means your skirmishers get to cover the escape of the hoplites...

This is how I would win as Greeks in Rome Total War. Front up phalanxes with phalanxes and get javelin emn to pour fire into the enemy backs and thne charge to break cohesion so the enemy phalanx falls apart.

[Incanur]

Do you have any understanding on how such a thing compared to the atl-atl in performance? I've always found that branch of weaponry fascinating, and regret that I can find so little information about them that doesn't make literally impossible claims.

I've long found the data on hurled weapons (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=29604) vexing. Atlatl kinetic energy numbers, for example, range from being lower than any military bow (22-43 J) to being as high or higher than even the heaviest military bow (247-353 J). (For context, a good 150lb yew warbow should manage 100-150 J, depending on arrow weight.)

The weight of the evidence indicates that at least heavy javelins could hit harder than warbows in combat conditions. The best modern Olympic javelin throws can definitely manage over 300 J with rigid modern javelins, theoretically enough to pierce lots of historical torso armor. However, that's for totally unencumbered elite athletes with a running start. Doing the same on the battlefield would have disadvantages, especially considering that javelins are slow and thus easy to dodge or deflect.

In theory, unarmored javelineers could lob their javelins into heavy infantry with no missile capability and pierce their armor, as apparently happened sometimes in ancient Greece. However, even soldiers in formation who couldn't dodge could probably use their swords or spears to deflect some of the javelins. A forest of spears or pike by itself might passively deflect some too.

So dedicated javelineers going for maximum power could have potentially been effective, but probably not as effective as kinetic energy figure indicate. And they would have gotten slaughtered by archers, crossbowers, or gunners in any skirmish, because of how slow thrown javelins move and their lower range.

I suspect throwing javelins in armor, while holding a heavy shield and attempting to maintain some sort of formation, reduced kinetic energy. Based on the marginality of the javelin in the 16th century, as we just discussed, I'm guessing armored targeteers couldn't generally throw hard enough to pierce plate armor, so probably not more than around 200 J. 200 J or so would be plenty to defeat most or all mail and other nonplate armors, but not enough to defeat a low-quality breastplate at an angled impact.

[Pauly]

Let's say two relatively evenly matched forces join battle on an open field or plain, but one side does not have unmounted scirmishers. How exactly could the other side exploit this to get an important tactical advantage?
I am especially interested how this would work before widespread use of rifled muskets?

Or another way to phrase this question: Let's say a Greece city state during the hoplite area could wish for exactly 500 fighting men with any equipment. But no one else could join the army. Would they wish for any amount of scirmishers?

Using Greeks as an example, the terrain is a huge issue. Greek terrain features a lot of relatively impassable mountains with flat valleys in between. It is a heavy spearman/skirmisher paradise. There isn't room for cavalry to turn flanks and there is sufficent flat grond to prevent skirmishers dominating, as they did in Thrace and Illyria or in the Iberian peninsula.

[Max_Killjoy]

Using Greeks as an example, the terrain is a huge issue. Greek terrain features a lot of relatively impassable mountains with flat valleys in between. It is a heavy spearman/skirmisher paradise. There isn't room for cavalry to turn flanks and there is sufficent flat grond to prevent skirmishers dominating, as they did in Thrace and Illyria or in the Iberian peninsula.

The terrain of Greece underlies much of its unique history, political, military, and otherwise.

[Galloglaich]

The terrain of Greece underlies much of its unique history, political, military, and otherwise.

If you read a bit about the Catalan Grand Company, operating in the early 14th Century in and around Greece, they had a pretty interesting history. They did have some cavalry but were mostly light infantry called Almogavars armed largely with javelins, adapted to mountainous terrain (mostly from the Pyrennes) they proved capable of defeating Norman knights, Byzantines, and Turks with equal success. Their motto was 'Desperta Ferro' - Awake Iron!

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awake_iron!

They ended up ruling a substantial part of the Balkans for quite a while, and were so mean that to this day Catalans are not welcome in certain parts of Greece. But they seem to have been effective against cavalry.

While the Almogavars and the Catalan Grand Company were kind of an extreme example, and probably a bit of an outlier, I think infantry like this was still around in Central Europe, Spain, Ireland, and certainly the Balkans. They weren't necessarily the decisive factor in a lot of battles but they were helpful to have in a combined-arms force. And scary to deal with if you were there enemy.

[Vinyadan]

A couple of large images I find very interesting and I didn't know anything about until yesterday:

An ancient fresco of a galley, from Pompeii
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Galley_fresco_Pompeii.jpg
Still life with gauntlets and a bolt (xvi century)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Jacopo_de%27_Barbari_001.jpg

[Galloglaich]

A couple of large images I find very interesting and I didn't know anything about until yesterday:

An ancient fresco of a galley, from Pompeii
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Galley_fresco_Pompeii.jpg
Still life with gauntlets and a bolt (xvi century)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Jacopo_de%27_Barbari_001.jpg


Nice, both of those ... thanks for posting!

G

[pendell]

Okay, I have a question. What's the story behind this armor (http://io9.gizmodo.com/5927038/this-siberian-bear-hunting-suit-from-the-1800s-turns-you-into-a-human-blowfish)?

It's not designed for combat, but for hunting bears. At first glance, it looks Awesome But Impractical. But would it actually protect from a bear? A bear is a massive creature ; if it charges it can probably kill just from sheer mass without bringing teeth or claws into play.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Vinyadan]

I think it relies on the bear recognizing the spikes and refraining from attacking. It might work, since bears are very smart. Otherwise, I doubt any personal armour could be good on its own: bears can bite through a skillet, open cars, and, more importantly, are probably strong enough to kill with a powerful blow of their paws.

[Yora]

Did anyone ever actually take a castle by having soldiers climb the walls with ladders?

I've seen it in pictures many times, but from what I know about castle construction and sieges this sounds rather impossible.

[Mike_G]

Did anyone ever actually take a castle by having soldiers climb the walls with ladders?

I've seen it in pictures many times, but from what I know about castle construction and sieges this sounds rather impossible.

Depends on how narrowly you define "castle," but fortresses have been taken by storm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Badajoz_(1812)

Yes, it was besieged for a bit, and artillery made some breaches in th walls, but it was taken by infantry with scaling ladders against actively defended walls.

[Galloglaich]

Did anyone ever actually take a castle by having soldiers climb the walls with ladders?

I've seen it in pictures many times, but from what I know about castle construction and sieges this sounds rather impossible.

yes, hundreds of times. Advantage was with the defenders but when there is enough attackers especially well supported, they could and did go over the walls.

[Max_Killjoy]

Did anyone ever actually take a castle by having soldiers climb the walls with ladders?

I've seen it in pictures many times, but from what I know about castle construction and sieges this sounds rather impossible.


Yes , but as noted, this usually didn't involve just showing up in the morning, and going over the walls that afternoon.

A lot of softening up the structure and the defenders was usually required.

[snowblizz]

Yes , but as noted, this usually didn't involve just showing up in the morning, and going over the walls that afternoon.

Unless you show up really early one morning and do it immediately.:smallwink:

Hell, one "English" (ie English held in France) was taken by attackers scaling up the privy drain (apparently not Plan A either). That one always makes me think they might have preferred taking their chance with the ladders.

[Pauly]

Did anyone ever actually take a castle by having soldiers climb the walls with ladders?

I've seen it in pictures many times, but from what I know about castle construction and sieges this sounds rather impossible.

The viability of escalade dpends on several factors
Probably the most important is the numerical situation. If the attackers can swarm he defenders then they can go straight over. Castles usually srrendured if they thought this was going to happen to them. Immediate escalade was probably more common in Chinese warfare than western warfare.

Another factor is surprise. Night attacks, pinning down defenders with a feint, attacking from what was thought to be inacessible (Wolfe's attack on Montreal is a classic example). Generally you don't need a huge number of attackers to get over the wall for an escalade to be effective, the hard part is getting over the wall.

If you don't have a sufficient numerical advantage or surprise to jump over you then have to go the long route with formal seige and reduction of defenses. In European warfare it was more common for one side or the other to recognise their approach was going to fail and surrender/break off.

In the relatively rare situation where there was an attempt at assault the attackers usually had 2 or 3 methods of assault go in at the same time to prevent the defendes from being able to concentrate their defences. An escalade was the usually part of this assault plan so even if the escalade itslf didn't work it might take enough defenders away to allow the other assaults to work. Assaulting a breach in the walls was actually considered more dangerous, which is why the phrase 'forlorn hope' is still in the English language to this day.

[Galloglaich]

The viability of escalade dpends on several factors
Probably the most important is the numerical situation. If the attackers can swarm he defenders then they can go straight over. Castles usually srrendured if they thought this was going to happen to them. Immediate escalade was probably more common in Chinese warfare than western warfare.

Another factor is surprise. Night attacks, pinning down defenders with a feint, attacking from what was thought to be inacessible (Wolfe's attack on Montreal is a classic example). Generally you don't need a huge number of attackers to get over the wall for an escalade to be effective, the hard part is getting over the wall.
.

Numbers and surprise were both involved in most of the attempts I know of. In the Baltic specifically and Central Europe more generally, these were attempted frequently right after the moats had frozen over in the winter.

the famous astronomer Copernicus once led the defense of a castle against the Teutonic Knights in just such a situation, he was successful because the alarm was raised in time. In several other cases I know of however attackers were able to storm castles.

it also of course depends on the fortification itself. There were thousands of minor castles around Europe which weren't that formidable, many little more than fortified homes, but there were maybe a few hundred which were very formidable, basically impregnable, as were quite a few of the larger towns.

Much easier for a determined group to storm something like this

http://www.zerobyzero.ca/Starstruck/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/l-640-427-5705f822-d216-43cf-b3e9-df1b03701ffd.jpeg

...than something like this

http://www.worldatlas.com/r/w728-h425-c728x425/upload/62/ee/d4/corvin-castle.jpg

Let alone this
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8461/7889591860_326389068d_b.jpg


or this

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0e/4c/db/b7/cesky-sternberk-czech.jpg

or this

https://sites.google.com/site/mffgusa/academics/articles/a-brief-history-of-medieval-strassburg/745px-Absolute_Strasbourg_1644_Merian_01.jpg

[snowblizz]

Numbers and surprise were both involved in most of the attempts I know of.

Japanese castles were taken by storm often. Since they didn't do siege machinery nor cannon really until the very end it was really the only option. Besides starvation naturally.

At least one occasion I've read of they would sweep the enemy walls with arrow and arquebus fire before storming over. Easier to do since walls were never as high and the earthquake resistant foundations makes for comparatively easy climbing.

It's an interesting variant on the theme, since normally the rush the walls approach isn't the Plan A.

[Galloglaich]

Japanese castles were taken by storm often. Since they didn't do siege machinery nor cannon really until the very end it was really the only option. Besides starvation naturally.

At least one occasion I've read of they would sweep the enemy walls with arrow and arquebus fire before storming over. Easier to do since walls were never as high and the earthquake resistant foundations makes for comparatively easy climbing.

It's an interesting variant on the theme, since normally the rush the walls approach isn't the Plan A.

I think plan A. was often rush the gate before it could be closed. That seemed to work fairly often. Once the thing is all buttoned up it's harder, but that depends on the castle and how well positioned and difficult it is.

In antiquity through the high medieval tunneling seemed to be the next go-to method. The famous and extremely impressive Krak des Chevaliers was taken in that manner. But by the Late medieval they started building fortifications more and more on water or very hard rock i think that led to cannon becoming the go-to method. So long as you had more than the defenders did.

[gkathellar]

Okay, I have a question. What's the story behind this armor (http://io9.gizmodo.com/5927038/this-siberian-bear-hunting-suit-from-the-1800s-turns-you-into-a-human-blowfish)?

It's not designed for combat, but for hunting bears. At first glance, it looks Awesome But Impractical. But would it actually protect from a bear? A bear is a massive creature ; if it charges it can probably kill just from sheer mass without bringing teeth or claws into play.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, it certainly wouldn't stop a bear from killing you if it felt it absolutely had to, but I think that in general, a bear that discovered you were uncomfortably prickly just wouldn't engage. Wild animals usually try to avoid getting hurt, because very few things are worth the cost of a serious injury - that's the whole reason large animals will sometimes back down in the face of small, ferocious ones. Since the armor hardly looks easy to move in, I doubt it would be useful under any circumstances.

[Mr Beer]

Well, it certainly wouldn't stop a bear from killing you if it felt it absolutely had to, but I think that in general, a bear that discovered you were uncomfortably prickly just wouldn't engage. Wild animals usually try to avoid getting hurt, because very few things are worth the cost of a serious injury - that's the whole reason large animals will sometimes back down in the face of small, ferocious ones. Since the armor hardly looks easy to move in, I doubt it would be useful under any circumstances.

It could be used to one-up the big spenders down at the local BDSM club.

[Blackhawk748]

So i just finished watching a documentary called Samurai Headhunters and im curious if headhunting was as common as it makes it out to be. Google doesnt seem to tell me much.

A second, unrelated question, what would the Yakuza going to war look like? Im referring to them during the Edo period.

[Pauly]

So i just finished watching a documentary called Samurai Headhunters and im curious if headhunting was as common as it makes it out to be. Google doesnt seem to tell me much.

A second, unrelated question, what would the Yakuza going to war look like? Im referring to them during the Edo period.

Decapitatng your enemy was widely commented in literature, as a way to show a character's strength or the quality of his sword.
There's nothing in Shnito religion that makes a dead body sacred, so there wouldn't be any strong cultural taboos about keeping an enemy's head. So a rough parralel would be the celtic epic poems or the viking sagas, where head lopping features prominently. However I seriously doubt it was a widespread practice. Even going back to the Heian period being courtly and graceful was admired. Letters from Tokugawa are kept and displayed to show his skill shodo (calligraphy). So even the most ferocious warriors and warlords were expected to show appreciation of high culture.

Whilst it is in the fiction, it doesn't fit the character of the culture. Undoubtedly some samurai did it, just like some Marines decorated their jeeps with human skulls on Guadalcanal, but that doesn't make it a widespread or culturally approved practice.

The Yakuza didn't go to war. They are a hidden society, like the Mafia. In the Edo period they would have the normal ban on commoners being armed. So they would look like commoners with improvised weapons.
On a side note the British army actively recruited the 'hard men' from the Glasgow razor gangs into the Commandos in WW2, on the theory they were experienced at the sort of fighting special forces do. Without exception they all washed out. It seems They were good at intimidating weaker or unprotected people, but when the push came to shove against armed and disciplined opponents they really weren't that hard. The Australian Army had a similar experience in the Pacific. Which kind of backs up some sociological studies about gang which show that for every genuinely dangerous member there are about 8 to 10 hangers on who ride on the coattails of the genuinely dangerous ones.
So if the Yakuza went to war they'd probably be like the bandits from the 7 Samurai.

[Clistenes]

Decapitatng your enemy was widely commented in literature, as a way to show a character's strength or the quality of his sword.
There's nothing in Shnito religion that makes a dead body sacred, so there wouldn't be any strong cultural taboos about keeping an enemy's head. So a rough parralel would be the celtic epic poems or the viking sagas, where head lopping features prominently. However I seriously doubt it was a widespread practice. Even going back to the Heian period being courtly and graceful was admired. Letters from Tokugawa are kept and displayed to show his skill shodo (calligraphy). So even the most ferocious warriors and warlords were expected to show appreciation of high culture.

Whilst it is in the fiction, it doesn't fit the character of the culture. Undoubtedly some samurai did it, just like some Marines decorated their jeeps with human skulls on Guadalcanal, but that doesn't make it a widespread or culturally approved practice.

The Yakuza didn't go to war. They are a hidden society, like the Mafia. In the Edo period they would have the normal ban on commoners being armed. So they would look like commoners with improvised weapons.
On a side note the British army actively recruited the 'hard men' from the Glasgow razor gangs into the Commandos in WW2, on the theory they were experienced at the sort of fighting special forces do. Without exception they all washed out. It seems They were good at intimidating weaker or unprotected people, but when the push came to shove against armed and disciplined opponents they really weren't that hard. The Australian Army had a similar experience in the Pacific. Which kind of backs up some sociological studies about gang which show that for every genuinely dangerous member there are about 8 to 10 hangers on who ride on the coattails of the genuinely dangerous ones.
So if the Yakuza went to war they'd probably be like the bandits from the 7 Samurai.

The samurai would get rewards and promotions depending on the number and relevance of the foes they killed, so they carried net bags to carry the decapitated heads of their foes as proof of their kills.

This custom remained even when pike and shot replaced individual combat.

Heads were presented to a superior, the reward collected, and then the heads were buried.

During Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea soldiers took to collect noses rather than whole heads, since those were easier to carry around...

[snowblizz]

The samurai would get rewards and promotions depending on the number and relevance of the foes they killed, so they carried net bags to carry the decapitated heads of their foes as proof of their kills.

This custom remained even when pike and shot replaced individual combat.

Heads were presented to a superior, the reward collected, and then the heads were buried.

During Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea soldiers took to collect noses rather than whole heads, since those were easier to carry around...
There never was a period of "pike and shot" nor a period where it "replaced individual combat". Into the last period of Samurai relevance as a military force, that I'd say was early Edo period, mid 1600s, any decently sized combat was generally decided upon in hand to hand combat.

Otherwise I agree. Samurai would cut the heads of famous opponents to present proof to back claims for rewards. I believe I even recall disputes about who took the head. Usually one of your attendants would "bag it and tag it".

There's a rich culture of this kind of thing. Our best Heian period imagery (I think, 1200s anyway) comes from a scroll painted by a samurai fighting the Mongol invaders who was seeking rewards from his superiors. The expectation of reward for service rendered was a continual problem for the authorities, usually the inability to reward samurai for actual or unsanctioned services are watershed moments for whoever was the final authority. Much in the same way European feudalism always ran into the issue of having parceled out all the available lands.

[Clistenes]

There never was a period of "pike and shot" nor a period where it "replaced individual combat". Into the last period of Samurai relevance as a military force, that I'd say was early Edo period, mid 1600s, any decently sized combat was generally decided upon in hand to hand combat.

Otherwise I agree. Samurai would cut the heads of famous opponents to present proof to back claims for rewards. I believe I even recall disputes about who took the head. Usually one of your attendants would "bag it and tag it".

There's a rich culture of this kind of thing. Our best Heian period imagery (I think, 1200s anyway) comes from a scroll painted by a samurai fighting the Mongol invaders who was seeking rewards from his superiors. The expectation of reward for service rendered was a continual problem for the authorities, usually the inability to reward samurai for actual or unsanctioned services are watershed moments for whoever was the final authority. Much in the same way European feudalism always ran into the issue of having parceled out all the available lands.

Actually, the inability of the shogun to reward every combatant against the invading Mongols seem to have been one of the factors that weakened severely the Kamakura regime...

[rrgg]

Again, it doesn't make much sense to talk about true men-at-arms on fully barded horses in the late 16th century. Could you quote that part? I agree Smythe generally overestimated archery and underestimated gunpowder weapons, especially in the 1590 text. That one includes lots of longbow hyperbole based on the Hundred Years' War. Smythe arguments aren't totally wrong there but are ultimately misguided. (English archery was often quite effective against heavily armored soldiers, but in part of because of French incompetence. Also, armor got better and more available after the English bow's great victories.)

The 1594 treatise, however, convinces me Smythe had real military experience and at least some idea what he was talking about.

I'd have to check the book out again from the library a town over, sorry. He was responding to a claim by Humfrey Barwick, who did mention that horses wore armor over their breasts sometimes. If I recall Smythe's argument was that the archers would be able to pick off the unarmored feet and eyes of horse and rider, but in my opinion that sort of trick shooting wasn't reliable in combat.

I know some historians have brought up the apparent similarity between longbow tactics and tactics with early firearms, both were extremely effective from a strong defensive position, although I still think there's an important difference in how they were used. While there are multiple examples of massed musket fire breaking up a charge or even preventing it in the first place (For instance Montluc's account of a small force of mostly arquebusiers being caught out in the open by enemy lancers), the effect of the longbowmen at battles like Augincourt especially seems to have been coaxing the enemy into charging prematurely while they were still disorganized. The bulk of the killing then happened after the exausted enemy troops reached the English men-at-arms.

In his youth Smythe served as a mercenary in the ottoman-hungarian wars, so that might be where he gained his appreciation for stradoits and horse archers, but strangely he doesn't seem to offer much in the way of personal anecdotes to back up his claims. Instead relying on hearsay or historical examples. When he returned to England he settled into a job training county levies, but I'm not sure how much experience he had with English longbowmen in combat. Meanwhile, Barwick, Roger Williams, and Barnabe Rich, who did fight alongside english archers, all grew to despise them.

[rrgg]

Do you have any understanding on how such a thing compared to the atl-atl in performance? I've always found that branch of weaponry fascinating, and regret that I can find so little information about them that doesn't make literally impossible claims.

If I remember the atl-atl was better overall. As far as physics go, a throwing string doesn't actually act as an extension of the arm and provide extra leverage like the atl-atl does. Instead the benefit is that the throwing string increases contact with the weapon, so in other words you are still pushing the javelin and applying force even after your arm has reached the apex of its arc.

Keep in mind though that an atl-atl dart needs to be flexible and typically isn't going to be nearly as heavy as a pilum for example.

[snowblizz]

Actually, the inability of the shogun to reward every combatant against the invading Mongols seem to have been one of the factors that weakened severely the Kamakura regime...

Yup, the Kamakura bakufu was one of those. But it happened a lot. All land was supposedly the Emperor's and only "lent out", we know how that tended to end up. It is a fundamental weakness of the feudalistic systems really.

[Pauly]

Otherwise I agree. Samurai would cut the heads of famous opponents to present proof to back claims for rewards. I believe I even recall disputes about who took the head. Usually one of your attendants would "bag it and tag it".



Collecting the heads of important foes, definitely fits Japanese culture. The Japanese are very big on providing proof of claims, as anyone who has had to deal with Japanese bureaucracy will attest.

Going around Dayak style and collecting heads for the sake of collecting heads is not.

Once someone became famous (Musashi, Ittosai) or powerful (Tokugawa, Hideyoshi) then the need to take heads disappears. It is something lower levels did to show proof.

[snowblizz]

Collecting the heads of important foes, definitely fits Japanese culture. The Japanese are very big on providing proof of claims, as anyone who has had to deal with Japanese bureaucracy will attest.

Going around Dayak style and collecting heads for the sake of collecting heads is not.
I haven't seen the documentary in question, but I am 99% certain it would not have suggested it was done at random or for the lulz. Those of us not seen the programme in question can't of course determined what their claims was exactly. Calling it headhunting is rather crude and give the wrong type of connotations to any slightly knowledgeable person. It happened, and I'd even go as far as suggest it was common. There's a even a headviewing ceremony for after a battle.


Once someone became famous (Musashi, Ittosai) or powerful (Tokugawa, Hideyoshi) then the need to take heads disappears. It is something lower levels did to show proof. Obviously. Since then you are the one who has to fork out the rewards to those serving you. It is an activity for those who need to prove themselves in varous ways.

[Pauly]

I haven't seen the documentary in question, but I am 99% certain it would not have suggested it was done at random or for the lulz. Those of us not seen the programme in question can't of course determined what their claims was exactly. Calling it headhunting is rather crude and give the wrong type of connotations to any slightly knowledgeable person. It happened, and I'd even go as far as suggest it was common. There's a even a headviewing ceremony for after a battle.

Obviously. Since then you are the one who has to fork out the rewards to those serving you. It is an activity for those who need to prove themselves in varous ways.

The term "headhunter" is what confused me. I was thinking of the Dayak style of doing it for the lulz.

[Knaight]

The term "headhunter" is what confused me. I was thinking of the Dayak style of doing it for the lulz.
The term is also used for stuff along the lines along the lines of demonstrating prowess by showing how many people you, personally, killed - and in some cases in some eras for some soldiers, if you killed certain specific people.

[snowblizz]

The term is also used for stuff along the lines along the lines of demonstrating prowess by showing how many people you, personally, killed - and in some cases in some eras for some soldiers, if you killed certain specific people.
Or today, the process of recruiting for specific jobs. You ask me, they should do more traditional headhunting on CEOs. We'd all benfit.

[Clistenes]

I'd have to check the book out again from the library a town over, sorry. He was responding to a claim by Humfrey Barwick, who did mention that horses wore armor over their breasts sometimes. If I recall Smythe's argument was that the archers would be able to pick off the unarmored feet and eyes of horse and rider, but in my opinion that sort of trick shooting wasn't reliable in combat.

I know some historians have brought up the apparent similarity between longbow tactics and tactics with early firearms, both were extremely effective from a strong defensive position, although I still think there's an important difference in how they were used. While there are multiple examples of massed musket fire breaking up a charge or even preventing it in the first place (For instance Montluc's account of a small force of mostly arquebusiers being caught out in the open by enemy lancers), the effect of the longbowmen at battles like Augincourt especially seems to have been coaxing the enemy into charging prematurely while they were still disorganized. The bulk of the killing then happened after the exausted enemy troops reached the English men-at-arms.

In his youth Smythe served as a mercenary in the ottoman-hungarian wars, so that might be where he gained his appreciation for stradoits and horse archers, but strangely he doesn't seem to offer much in the way of personal anecdotes to back up his claims. Instead relying on hearsay or historical examples. When he returned to England he settled into a job training county levies, but I'm not sure how much experience he had with English longbowmen in combat. Meanwhile, Barwick, Roger Williams, and Barnabe Rich, who did fight alongside english archers, all grew to despise them.

Italian mercenaries with milanese full plate were impervious to longbows at the end of the 100 years war.

That kind of armor was, however, vulnerable to guns.

[Beleriphon]

Collecting the heads of important foes, definitely fits Japanese culture. The Japanese are very big on providing proof of claims, as anyone who has had to deal with Japanese bureaucracy will attest.

Going around Dayak style and collecting heads for the sake of collecting heads is not.

Once someone became famous (Musashi, Ittosai) or powerful (Tokugawa, Hideyoshi) then the need to take heads disappears. It is something lower levels did to show proof.

Having visited Osaka-jo relatively recently I can confirm this did indeed happen .Not only did the Japanese subordinates collect heads as a way to collect on informal bounties, they would sometimes have the teeth dyed black as it was the style of nobility to have blackened teeth. So if a low ranking attendant or even ashigaru killed some random schlub and took a head they could fake their way into having killed a high ranking samurai.

[warty goblin]

So my girlfriend is working on a story, which involves assorted goings-on at a market in a rough fantasy approximation of a late medieval city, and was looking for things that could be going on. I suggested some sort of athletic competition, since I know they were a big deal in a lot cities, but I know very little in detail about them. Does anybody have some decent info or sources they can share?

[Beleriphon]

So my girlfriend is working on a story, which involves assorted goings-on at a market in a rough fantasy approximation of a late medieval city, and was looking for things that could be going on. I suggested some sort of athletic competition, since I know they were a big deal in a lot cities, but I know very little in detail about them. Does anybody have some decent info or sources they can share?

A Grand Melee might appropriate. An informal tennis game, children playing tag, some variety of hand ball or football might work. Otherwise group of minstrels playing music and singing looking to collect pennies, hawkers of all sorts. If you want an idea mimic an open air summer farmer's market, and apply appropriate medieval type accoutrements and away you go.

[oudeis]

So my girlfriend is working on a story, which involves assorted goings-on at a market in a rough fantasy approximation of a late medieval city, and was looking for things that could be going on. I suggested some sort of athletic competition, since I know they were a big deal in a lot cities, but I know very little in detail about them. Does anybody have some decent info or sources they can share?

I can't say that these are authentic or historically non-anachronistic (chronistic?) by any means, but these leap to mind:


wrestling contests
feats of strength

caber tossing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caber_toss)
stone lifting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_stone)
weight throwing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_throw)


running events, both short and long distance
in the Howard Pyle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merry_Adventures_of_Robin_Hood) version of the Robin Hood legend, they played a game (?) called buffets, which consisted of standing flat-footed and punching the other guy in the jaw to see if you could make him stagger back (goode cleane funne, I guesseth).
staff/stick fighting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlestick)
quoits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoits)
archery contests

[Galloglaich]

So my girlfriend is working on a story, which involves assorted goings-on at a market in a rough fantasy approximation of a late medieval city, and was looking for things that could be going on. I suggested some sort of athletic competition, since I know they were a big deal in a lot cities, but I know very little in detail about them. Does anybody have some decent info or sources they can share?

Shutzenfest (shooting contest), fechtschuler (fencing contest), grappling tournament,

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/fechtschule-im-Schlosshof-am-19-juni-1585-D%C3%BCsseldorf-02.jpg?x76772

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Oeffentliche-Fechtschule-im-Halsprunner-Hof-zu-N%C3%BCrnberg-1623-02.jpg?x76772

http://www.dsb.de/media/historie/mittelalter/mittelalter2.jpg

http://www.wilnet.ch/getAttachment.aspx?attaName=6b953cd9-8c9b-448f-89ac-1d5769013d6b

They say a picture is worth a thousand words (especially a picture from 'back then')

Late medieval Augsburg in the Spring

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/J%C3%B6rg_Breu_-_Augsburg_-_Spring.JPG

Summer

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/J%C3%B6rg_Breu_-_Augsburg_-_Summer.JPG
Autumn

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/J%C3%B6rg_Breu_-_Augsburg_-_Autumn.JPG

Winter

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/J%C3%B6rg_Breu_-_Augsburg_-_Winter.JPG

Hope that helps, I have more if you need it.

G

[Galloglaich]

children playing tag

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_Children%E2%80%99s_Games_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

[Galloglaich]

Some things to notice in the shutzenfest, people dancing and racing, throwing rocks and having other contest (triple jump and broad jump were common). Some of the people racing may be prostitutes who were hired to 'entertain' the crowds and sometimes encouraged to run foot races. Guy with the jester spanking somebody, he is the dude who enforces range security etc., part of his job is to spank people when they break the rules (like crucial range safety rules), jester outfit is so that VIP's will go along with it. Sometimes princes, dukes, bishops etc. would join in all the contests like everybody else. The jester guy would later write a poem about the whole event.

Some things to note from those marvelous Jorg Breu Augsburg murals -

Spring:
men and women drinking together in the tavern, joust taking place in the town square (probably both burghers and knights jousting), guys in black armor fencing with sabers or dusacks behind the joust, people hunting in the background on the top (outside of the city) spring was the favorite time for large scale hunting then, musicians with brass instruments (what look like trumpets or trombones) in the background behind the joust.

Summer
Men and women bathing in a pool half naked set up in the town square. Two men (possibly knights) with dead foxes hanging from their belts, probably just back from hunting, burgher woman on horseback talking to a man.. Broad hats to keep the sun at bay.

Autumn

Peasants harvesting on the edge of town. Pet monkeys sitting on the wall with a kid (pet monkeys show up with surprising frequency in Late medieval European art). Town militia marching back into town. Some people possibly shooting at birds.

Winter

Wild pigs being herded behind sleds (those personal sleds show up a lot in winter in Central & North European towns) town hall tower in the background.

In General

Peasants (usually depicted with scythes or other peasant tools) and knights (often wearing furs or feathered hats to distinguish them) mixing with burghers in all four seasons. Burghers carrying swords as sidearms. Little written signs all over the place.

[warty goblin]

A Grand Melee might appropriate. An informal tennis game, children playing tag, some variety of hand ball or football might work. Otherwise group of minstrels playing music and singing looking to collect pennies, hawkers of all sorts. If you want an idea mimic an open air summer farmer's market, and apply appropriate medieval type accoutrements and away you go.




I can't say that these are authentic or historically non-anachronistic (chronistic?) by any means, but these leap to mind:


wrestling contests
feats of strength

caber tossing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caber_toss)
stone lifting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_stone)
weight throwing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_throw)


running events, both short and long distance
in the Howard Pyle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merry_Adventures_of_Robin_Hood) version of the Robin Hood legend, they played a game (?) called buffets, which consisted of standing flat-footed and punching the other guy in the jaw to see if you could make him stagger back (goode cleane funne, I guesseth).
staff/stick fighting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlestick)
quoits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoits)
archery contests





Shutzenfest (shooting contest), fechtschuler (fencing contest), grappling tournament,

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/fechtschule-im-Schlosshof-am-19-juni-1585-D%C3%BCsseldorf-02.jpg?x76772

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Oeffentliche-Fechtschule-im-Halsprunner-Hof-zu-N%C3%BCrnberg-1623-02.jpg?x76772

http://www.dsb.de/media/historie/mittelalter/mittelalter2.jpg

http://www.wilnet.ch/getAttachment.aspx?attaName=6b953cd9-8c9b-448f-89ac-1d5769013d6b

They say a picture is worth a thousand words (especially a picture from 'back then')

Late medieval Augsburg in the Spring

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/J%C3%B6rg_Breu_-_Augsburg_-_Spring.JPG

Summer

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/J%C3%B6rg_Breu_-_Augsburg_-_Summer.JPG
Autumn

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/J%C3%B6rg_Breu_-_Augsburg_-_Autumn.JPG

Winter

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/J%C3%B6rg_Breu_-_Augsburg_-_Winter.JPG

Hope that helps, I have more if you need it.

G
These are great, I'll pass them along. Thanks!

[Pauly]

Novelty events could involve climbing a greased pole, or trying to catch a greased pig for a prize.

Childrens event might include catching a piglet,

In a timber working region you would have tree felling competitions and the like, similar to modern lumberjack events.

Although if younare a fan of The Big Knights you could always include "throw the old witch".

[Vinyadan]

Does anybody know how long you needed to train your men before they were reliable crossbowmen? And what about slingmen?

[Storm_Of_Snow]

For the market, there might be a small circus/carnival group - maybe a ring with a fighter who'll take on all-comers, who can win a decent purse if they can defeat the fighter, possibly a freak show, a fortune teller and so on.

There'll almost certainly be a money-lender, whether that's someone who's set up their business in town, travels around in an armoured caravan, or is wandering around, loaning money as needed and acting as an independant assessor. And there might be a court, both for arbitrating deals at the market and dealing with complaints from the populace, run by the lord's sheriff, and possibly public executions or other forms of punishment (stocks etc).

There's also likely to be food sellers, both local (produce and food style) and more exotic, although the actual number and make up of the latter would depend on how large the town and market are and how far from other regions it is. Certain markets at different times of the year might also have competitions around beer brewing, wine making etc.

For contests, you might also have agricultural events like sheep shearing, shoeing horses, hay bale carrying, wheat skein tying or skills around whatever the local industry is, games like horseshoe tossing, boules/petang and so on. There might also be a form of village football - if the market's weekly, each village in the area might send a team to compete against another village in a knockout tournament, with the last two villages facing off during the town's annual festival (plus the town might be split on geographical lines - even if it's just something like east and west banks of the river - and send teams to compete), or it could be a multi-village free for all.

[Pauly]

Does anybody know how long you needed to train your men before they were reliable crossbowmen? And what about slingmen?

Most slingers weren't trained per se. It was an activity undertaken usually by boys - hunting small game, protecting crops from birds. The David and Goliath story has a typical background of a slinger in it.

So the answer is years of experience but not formal training

[Knaight]

Most slingers weren't trained per se. It was an activity undertaken usually by boys - hunting small game, protecting crops from birds. The David and Goliath story has a typical background of a slinger in it.

So the answer is years of experience but not formal training

It also depends on what you're doing. Clout shooting at a reasonably large area is pretty easy - I had the aim for it after maybe 12 hours of practice, though distance grows with practice beyond that. Target shooting with a sling is much harder.

[Max_Killjoy]

The decline of the sling and javelin as weapons of war was in part because of their decline as weapons that the common folk grew up using. The pool of those who could be recruited or levied ready-able dried up.

[Galloglaich]

For the market, there might be a small circus/carnival group - maybe a ring with a fighter who'll take on all-comers, who can win a decent purse if they can defeat the fighter, possibly a freak show, a fortune teller and so on.

There'll almost certainly be a money-lender, whether that's someone who's set up their business in town, travels around in an armoured caravan, or is wandering around, loaning money as needed and acting as an independant assessor. And there might be a court, both for arbitrating deals at the market and dealing with complaints from the populace, run by the lord's sheriff, and possibly public executions or other forms of punishment (stocks etc).

There's also likely to be food sellers, both local (produce and food style) and more exotic, although the actual number and make up of the latter would depend on how large the town and market are and how far from other regions it is. Certain markets at different times of the year might also have competitions around beer brewing, wine making etc.

For contests, you might also have agricultural events like sheep shearing, shoeing horses, hay bale carrying, wheat skein tying or skills around whatever the local industry is, games like horseshoe tossing, boules/petang and so on. There might also be a form of village football - if the market's weekly, each village in the area might send a team to compete against another village in a knockout tournament, with the last two villages facing off during the town's annual festival (plus the town might be split on geographical lines - even if it's just something like east and west banks of the river - and send teams to compete), or it could be a multi-village free for all.


This really sounds more like 19th Century England than anything medieval, though that also points up the other obvious issue with answering this question - late medieval town where. High to -Late medieval towns in Central or Northern Europe, or Italy, would be much more complex and sophisticated than what you are describing here.

G

[Galloglaich]

This really sounds more like 19th Century England than anything medieval, though that also points up the other obvious issue with answering this question - late medieval town where. High to -Late medieval towns in Central or Northern Europe, or Italy, would be much more complex and sophisticated than what you are describing here.

G

I should say... it sounds specifically like small town or village life in 19th Century England. Larger towns like York or London wouldn't be like that either I don't think, though I'm no expert on England.

G

[Kiero]

The decline of the sling and javelin as weapons of war was in part because of their decline as weapons that the common folk grew up using. The pool of those who could be recruited or levied ready-able dried up.

Pretty much; when they're tools which protect your flocks/herds and fill a cooking pot, you get very good with them.

[Beleriphon]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_Children%E2%80%99s_Games_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

It amuses me to no end there is a little girl in bottom centre, poking what appears to be a pile poo.

[Pauly]

Does anybody know how long you needed to train your men before they were reliable crossbowmen? And what about slingmen?

Going back to crossbows forba mnute.

Crossbowmen were much easier to train than bowmen. The Chinese had huge units of levees/conscripts armed with them.

In medieval warfare the crossbow used was more complex for the user than Chinese versions, so it appears a higher degree of training was required. One of the reasons continental armies moved to crossbows was that it was comparatively easier to train crossbowmen than longbowmen, or other archers using a powerful bow. Also crossbows are more useful in seiges (the dominant form of warfare) because it can be held loaded making it easier to line up aimed shots or take snap shots fom behind defences.
Even then in England fairly serious measures had to be undertaken to ensure a large enough pool of trained archers, the famed order that the only sport allowed was archery for example.

Slingers would arrive ready teained. The length of training for a crossbow would depend on the complexity of the crossbow. Simple ones pulled by the body probably would take a day or two to be proficient. More complex ones using levers or windlasses maybe a week or two.
To be skilled obviously takes longer still. As a rough rule of thumb in moden workplaces it is assumed it takes 10 times the length of time to be proficient to become skilled. Becoming highly skilled depends more on the motivation/ability of the individual than the length of time doing the skill.

But much shorter than the months/years it takes for archers using powerful bows to become proficient/skilled.

[Knaight]

Pretty much; when they're tools which protect your flocks/herds and fill a cooking pot, you get very good with them.

Added to that, herding is not the most mentally stimulating thing. If you've got a sling you might do some target shooting with rocks you get while watching your flock just for the fun of it - and records bear this out, at least from what I've seen of the Balearic slingers.

[Incanur]

Crossbowmen were much easier to train than bowmen.

While this is the standard narrative today, what period evidence is there for it?


The Chinese had huge units of levees/conscripts armed with them.

Chinese armies also included huge numbers of archers at times, so I don't know that this proves crossbowers were easier to train.


One of the reasons continental armies moved to crossbows was that it was comparatively easier to train crossbowmen than longbowmen, or other archers using a powerful bow.

Note that most or all crossbow spanning methods up to about 1400 in Europe required physical strength just like a bow. See El Victorial for how period warriors competed over how mighty a crossbow they could span. The same was true for most or all spanning methods used in China, and you see references to only accepting crossbowers who could manage strong crossbows, etc.

The idea that anybody could span a heavy crossbow comes from mechanical spanning methods such as cranequins and windlasses that become common rather late in the crossbow's history in Europe. And even when these methods were common, you still had others that required strength, such as the goat's-foot lever. (Some cranequins and windlasses may have been geared so as to require significant strength, but apparently most/many weren't.)


Also crossbows are more useful in seiges (the dominant form of warfare) because it can be held loaded making it easier to line up aimed shots or take snap shots fom behind defences.

I think that's the main reason for the crossbow's dominance in the Continent. Crossbows may have been easier to train with in the sense that they were inherently more accurate.

[Galloglaich]

While this is the standard narrative today, what period evidence is there for it?

Chinese armies also included huge numbers of archers at times, so I don't know that this proves crossbowers were easier to train.

Note that most or all crossbow spanning methods up to about 1400 in Europe required physical strength just like a bow. See El Victorial for how period warriors competed over how mighty a crossbow they could span. The same was true for most or all spanning methods used in China, and you see references to only accepting crossbowers who could manage strong crossbows, etc.

The idea that anybody could span a heavy crossbow comes from mechanical spanning methods such as cranequins and windlasses that become common rather late in the crossbow's history in Europe. And even when these methods were common, you still had others that required strength, such as the goat's-foot lever. (Some cranequins and windlasses may have been geared so as to require significant strength, but apparently most/many weren't.)

I think that's the main reason for the crossbow's dominance in the Continent. Crossbows may have been easier to train with in the sense that they were inherently more accurate.

I agree with that. Crossbows seem to been closely associated with the towns. The ones you usually hear about at the 'cliche' level, the Genoese, were essentially town militia. The main purpose of the town militia was to protect the town walls. So crossbows were ideal for the town defense, i.e. siege warfare. Once they proved themselves they started getting hired as mercenaries. The Genoese militias proved themselves to the French specifically during the Crusades when, having been hired to transport the French Crusaders on ships, they proved invaluable in several sieges. Of course they also moved further out onto the battlefield with the help of pavises and later war wagons etc.

I've mentioned a few times, for training (or to encourage training) the towns created this elaborate system of contests and tournaments with big money involved. There was a very well established and broad based culture of shooting crossbows in Italy, Germany, and all over Central Europe.

I agree they were not necessarily easy to span. Mine isn't. Look at some of those videos with Leo spanning the cranequin or windlass crossbow, because you can tell how nervous he is. If you screw up spanning a 400 lb or an 800 lb or 1200 lb draw crossbow you could lose a hand. In those shooting contest rules they required the shooters to wrap the prods with wire so that in case they broke so the pieces didn't injure the bystanders.

By the late medieval period of course you have all those mounted crossbowmen, and I can guarantee that isn't easy to train.



Crossbows, just like longbows, recurve bows, slings, javelins or anything, tended to be wielded by people who were part of a culture of using them. I think the (mostly) myth about the supposed ease of using the crossbow came from English Longbow enthusiasts in the Victorian era and through the 20th Century. Of course, lighter and simpler crossbows of say 150 lb -200 lb draw or whatever, were probably easier to use. And they were of some use especially for sieges. But by 12th -13th Century the standard battlefield weapon was more formidable than that. not to mention all the other things you had to do in a combat context.


G

[Deadmeat.GW]

The thing is that basic training for Crossbows is easier then for Longbows, lets NOT go into slings here...

Once you get past the basics you run into physical conditioning which in case of longbowmen was quite extreme as these were pretty much the strongest men typically in an army and crossbows require less extreme conditioning.

Don't forget that the back muscles are incredibly important for shooting warbows, several of the more prominent video posters point this out.
An English warbow was not shot in the same way as a targeting longbow, you put your whole back into it.

Whereas with crossbows it was your back, arms and legs all together so you did not have to develop a specific part of your body massively.
That however did not mean they were not fit and well trained men but that the requirements they faced were different and took less time to build up.

The issue with crossbows is more that you need to do a lot of things quickly so you are way busier if you were alone then a longbowmen on average so to get up to speed and to get the best use out of it you had to train a lot.

The Flemish did a lot of crossbow shooting competitions and also bowshooting but all in all they used more crossbows then bows because they had the technical expertise to make very high quality crossbows.

Some towns still had a tradition of skirmishers with slings which were very well trained and drilled but the slings were used as harassing weapons and then they went over to sword and bucklers to tackle enemy skirmishers.

These slingers however disappeared rather abruptly when gun powder weapons became wide spread in Flanders, the time it took to train for using a sling was pretty much from infancy so when a town stopped doing it this died out quickly.
It may not have been directly been linked to firearms but it does look like it stopped being used at roughly this time (which was incidentally also the heyday of the full plate armours and high quality large amount of armour becoming fairly affordable).

I personally think it was the combination of the two made it obsolete and once training stopped for the youths it disappeared within only a few generations.

EDIT: Lets call it easy to learn and very difficult to master for Crossbows versus difficult to learn and time consuming to master for Longbows.

[Incanur]

Once you venture outside of European history, the notion that archers required extraordinary strength and/or skill looks pretty weird. Sure, bows cultures put a lot of emphasis on archery, but some Middle Eastern, South Asian and East Asian powers could field serious numbers of archers.

Now, I tend to think English archers, at least during their height, were especially skilled and strong archers; that's almost necessary to explain their success, given how relatively inefficient their bows were. But I'm skeptical that English archers were the strongest folks in any given army or that they always underwent more extreme conditioning than others.

[Vitruviansquid]

I find this discussion about the ease of training crossbowmen and archers curious.

It seems to me that we are discussing the time for training crossbowmen and archers in kind of a video game fashion, like Age of Empires where you order up a five-pack of crossbowmen or archers, and then wait some amount of time until they troop out of the archery range. I don't think this is a fair way of viewing archery and crossbowing.

First: Shooting bows as well as shooting crossbows probably are not activities that really have an upper limit on training. Asking how much training a crossbowman requires would kind of be like asking how much training a basketball player requires. There are casual basketball players, good basketball players, and professional basketball players. I'd expect that there were also casual bowmen, good bowmen, and the hardcore professional bowmen, and really the same with any other weapon, ranged or hand-to-hand. I doubt that actual users of the bow, crossbow, sword, spear, or whatever, thought about how many years it would take to become good enough. Instead, they probably thought in terms of how frequently they practiced with these weapons, and when was the last time they practiced. They also probably didn't think of a requirement of "you need X years of crossbow training to be a crossbowman," the casual crossbowmen probably put in crossbow practice once in awhile, the good crossbowmen who probably belonged to fairly militaristic militias probably put in regular crossbow practice, and the hardcore crossbowmen who may have aimed to win shooting competitions were probably practicing a large amount of time every day, kind of like the different grades of modern athletes.

Second: It also seems to me that too much focus is being put on the shooting part of being an archer or crossbowman. Certainly, one was required to practice using the weapon, but it also occurs to me that there are far more skills involved in soldiering than the operation of your weapon. Even if the actual shooting of the crossbow required no training at all (which would be untrue), merely being fit enough to march and fight surely means that not anyone can be a crossbowman.

Third: What Galloglaich says about cultures rings true to me. You do not get good basketball players by taking a few guys off the street, and having them practice basketball for X years. You get good basketball players by taking guys who have played basketball as a major form of recreation from childhood, and then have them continue practicing basketball until you are no longer in need of good basketball players. I also doubt anybody ever says "you're good enough at basketball," after some amount of training, you would probably always need to be practicing to maintain your skill level, and there was probably always room to get better.

[Kiero]

Also crossbows are more useful in seiges (the dominant form of warfare) because it can be held loaded making it easier to line up aimed shots or take snap shots fom behind defences.

Worth noting that a version of the crossbow, the gastraphetes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes), was known to Hellenistic (and therefore Roman) powers. However, they pretty much only used it in sieges; outside of that the bow and sling were preferred for long-range fire.

[Galloglaich]

Third: What Galloglaich says about cultures rings true to me. You do not get good basketball players by taking a few guys off the street, and having them practice basketball for X years. You get good basketball players by taking guys who have played basketball as a major form of recreation from childhood, and then have them continue practicing basketball until you are no longer in need of good basketball players. I also doubt anybody ever says "you're good enough at basketball," after some amount of training, you would probably always need to be practicing to maintain your skill level, and there was probably always room to get better.

I think it's actually both things.

There are weapons systems, or types of warriors that really require an ongoing culture of that type of fighting, and certain cultural contexts to keep them alive. For example in Hungary we could witness through the records how Steppe nomads would settle down from their Nomadic lifestyle and literally lose their ability to fight as horse-archers or light-cavalry within two or three generations. Magyars themselves and then for example, Cumans.

There is a reason why almost all good infantry comes from Republics like city-states, almost all good horse archers come from nomads, and nearly all good heavy cavalry comes from feudal systems.

But simultaneously, certain fighting systems could be reduced to simple elements and used to train and raise specific troop types in a predictable time. The Romans eventually mastered this skill and could churn out predictable Legionairre infantry with standardized kit etc.


in the middle ages they were kind of in between. They could and did intentionally create cultural conditions to help create a lot of highly skilled people who could fight as a certain type of warrior, or often, more than one type (English knights for example could be infantry leaders or cavalry, and urban militia could usually fight as marksmen / gunners, skirmishers, or heavy infantry). But whereas most of this on the continent during medieval times was done on a kind of ad-hoc basis by dozens of little towns and principalities, English archery was being pushed this way from the central government, by the Monarchy. So it was more like that Roman system.

Longbows were simpler weapons and the training for them, though it did require building up strength - particularly for peasants no longer used to fighting, it could be reduced to a relatively simple system.

Crossbows are particularly confusing on this type of subject because there are really many different distinct weapons which we call crossbows and they kind of look alike, but it's almost like calling a single barreled shotgun a gun and a minigun a gun, but we know they are very different and require very different types of training.

Front line military grade crossbows from the 12th or 13th Century onward really weren't simple enough to use to systematically train peasants to use them. They required people of some wealth and basically skilled labor in some kind of culture of using the weapon.

Guns were that way too initially, in fact Genoese militia often hired out as gunners in the 14th and 15th Centuries for the same reasons as they used to hire out as crossbowmen. But once they solved the problems with gunpowder and fuses and firing mechanisms and so on, they were able to start systematically training unskilled labor to shoot guns and that was one of the biggest shifts from the medieval period to the Early Modern.

G

[Max_Killjoy]

Is that simplified training with more-reliable firearms part of what started the transformation of European warfare to larger, less-skilled forces?

[Gnoman]

I'd personally guess that the concept of the standing army lead to larger forces, and the need for larger forces forced armies to accept lesser skill. Once kings started raising permanent military formations loyal only to the country, they no longer had to rely on the vagaries of the feudal levy. This allowed them to build up larger forces, particularly since the permanent formations served quite well as a "skeleton" for even larger wartime forces. Fighting such an army requires comparable bulk (unless, of course, there is so great a difference in equipment, average individual skill, or generalship to make up the difference), so everybody had to start raising larger forces to counter the early adopters.

[Galloglaich]

Is that simplified training with more-reliable firearms part of what started the transformation of European warfare to larger, less-skilled forces?

I would say so, yes.


I'd personally guess that the concept of the standing army lead to larger forces, and the need for larger forces forced armies to accept lesser skill. Once kings started raising permanent military formations loyal only to the country, they no longer had to rely on the vagaries of the feudal levy. This allowed them to build up larger forces, particularly since the permanent formations served quite well as a "skeleton" for even larger wartime forces. Fighting such an army requires comparable bulk (unless, of course, there is so great a difference in equipment, average individual skill, or generalship to make up the difference), so everybody had to start raising larger forces to counter the early adopters.

To some extent the skeleton always existed, even if it was the only the personal bodyguard of the nobleman or king or whatever.

It also seems at least to a point, the cheaper armies made the national standing armies possible ... in a kind of circular way.

But that doesn't hold up 100% because some parts, at least, of the standing armies were quite expensive troops at least for a while. For example the French Gendarmes, the kind of standing army of knights bankrolled and to some extent equipped by the King - very expensive and skilled. I think the Polish Winged Hussars though similar were more self-funded though I'm not certain, I think they were given land? And when you look at the large armies of Spain etc. I think that was made possible by the injection of money from the New World and Pacific Rim colonies and so on.

So it's a combination of things.



There was also always a kind of complex calculus between numbers and quality. The best of the small Late Medieval armies held their own against sometimes enormous Ottoman armies, and similar asymmetries were apparent within Latin Europe on numerous occasions. The Swiss are just one example among may.

If you had a lot of troops they were also harder to feed, move around, manage and stay in control over at least potentially. Sometimes it just became unmanageable, especially when the troops weren't all that used to working together. Big Crusader armies and large forces quickly raised from myriad mercenary sources often failed catastrophically, where smaller, better organized armies that had worked together before sometimes prevailed.

But as Stalin said, quantity has a quality all it's own. In WW II 1,000 T-34 / 86 's could ultimately overwhelm 100 Panzerkampfwagen V tanks even though the latter was a better tank. You just have to be willing to pay the 'iron price' right?

At some point, maybe late 16th or early 17th Century, armies made up of simplified versions of arquebus gunners, pikemen, cannon crews etc. trained by standardized processes from rabble and equipped on the cheap reached a tipping point of efficiency where they could beat smaller armies of more skilled mercenaries, militia, yeomen and aristocrats

And then I think after the treaty of Westphalia the 'professional' mercenaries gradually came back again in the late 17th and 18th Centuries, only to be wiped out by conscripted French peasants in the 1790's. So I guess it goes back and forth like a see-saw.



G

[Berenger]

Is that simplified training with more-reliable firearms part of what started the transformation of European warfare to larger, less-skilled forces?

Yes, but I suspect that advancements in the civilian sector (the capacity to produce large quantities of weapons, uniforms and military equipment as well es a substantial surplus of food) may have been equally important. The ability to produce more food with less manpower also enlarges the pool of men available for military service.

[Gnoman]

But as Stalin said, quantity has a quality all it's own. In WW II 1,000 T-34 / 86 's could ultimately overwhelm 100 Panzerkampfwagen V tanks even though the latter was a better tank. You just have to be willing to pay the 'iron price' right?


That's a really bad example. The loss ratio of the Panzer V Panther against the 76mm M4 or the T-34-85 is heavily imbalanced against the Panther. The entire "Tiger/Tiger II/Panther takes 4 or 5 M4/T-34 to kill" narrative is based entirely on records the Wehrmacht threw out as absurd, popularized in later years by a few veterans who couldn't even get their own specialty right in their memoirs. Cross-referencing with the loss records of British, American, or Soviet forces (the falsification of which ranged from imprisonment to death depending on the army) show that most of the claimed kills of the big cats never happened, and their losses were hidden by the German practice of not declaring a salvageable vehicle as a loss. The Russians did use a dedicated Panther-killing vehicle - the otherwise antiquated Vickers Valentine, which was quiet enough to move undetected to where it could punch through the Panther's tissue-paper side armor.

If you were to use something like 1000 Zeros against 100 Corsairs, or 1000 Panzer IIs against 100 KV-1s, you'd have a better example.

[Tobtor]

Medieval festival/market

Another thing to include in medieval festivities could be mystery plays and miracle plays etc, very common at least by the late medieval period.

In addition to normal tournaments, around 1500-1550 "ring riding (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringreiten)" (there is no english wiki - only danish german and various netherland languages) developed. It evolves around using a lance to gather rings in a field as a form of peacefull non-dangourous way of showing horsemanship.It is still practised today as town festivals across the netherlands, northen Germany and southern Denmark, today of course in non-medieval clothing etc. You might call ring riding a form of martial art surviving from the very late medieval period.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Fotothek_df_tg_0000951_Kriegskunst_%5E_Pferd_%5E_L anzierer_%5E_Lanze.jpg

Another danish (and dutch(?)) tradition is "beating the cat out of the barrel". It is eactly that: you put a cat in a barrel and a groupd of people have to beat the barrel until it breaks and the cat escapes (or drops dead out of the bottom). It seem to have been known in Denmark at some point before 1500AD (exact year is missing, mentioned 'in passing' in a 1508 text).

It is practise around the time of carnival/lent, today by children dressed up in costumes. Today the barrel is typical filled with candy and not a live cat (sometimes there is a paper cat outside on the barrel, a live cat is not allowed). The winner becomes "cat-king" and the runner up "cat-queen" (with various local rules as to who wins/comes in second), very prestigious titles among children today.

However it was even more important previously: until the 20th century it was done on horseback and by young adult males. During the 16-19th century the farm where the cat king lived (whether he was a son or a worker there) would be exempt from taxes for a year! It certainly promoted the farmers wish to have his men train to ride on horseback and swing a weapon (even though mainly a club for training).
http://traditionstid.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Sl%C3%A5-katten-af-t%C3%B8nden-til-hest-300x181.png

So apart from shooting contest all sorts of semi-military games would be appropriate.

[Kiero]

I'd personally guess that the concept of the standing army lead to larger forces, and the need for larger forces forced armies to accept lesser skill. Once kings started raising permanent military formations loyal only to the country, they no longer had to rely on the vagaries of the feudal levy. This allowed them to build up larger forces, particularly since the permanent formations served quite well as a "skeleton" for even larger wartime forces. Fighting such an army requires comparable bulk (unless, of course, there is so great a difference in equipment, average individual skill, or generalship to make up the difference), so everybody had to start raising larger forces to counter the early adopters.

It's not always quite so straightforward. Depending on the time, place and wealth of prominent men, even "feudal levies" could be very large. Pompey the Great levied three legions from his clients in Picenum, effectively a private army numbering almost 20,000 men. Remember that to qualify as legionaries, these men all had to be properly equipped, with helmet, body armour, shield and weapons. It helped that Italy had absolutely vast reserves of manpower in this era (literally millions of able-bodied men of military age, with traditions of militia service).


In addition to normal tournaments, around 1500-1550 "ring riding (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringreiten)" (there is no english wiki - only danish german and various netherland languages) developed. It evolves around using a lance to gather rings in a field as a form of peacefull non-dangourous way of showing horsemanship.It is still practised today as town festivals across the netherlands, northen Germany and southern Denmark, today of course in non-medieval clothing etc. You might call ring riding a form of martial art surviving from the very late medieval period.


I suspect this particular game is much, much older than a few centuries. I've seen the same thing described being played by Skythian nomads back as far as 4th century BC.

[Lilapop]

It evolves around using a lance to gather rings in a field as a form of peaceful non-dangourous way of showing horsemanship.
The English term for the modern tradition is "feat of arms" if I'm not mistaken, with "tent pegging" being one of the disciplines. Remember seeing a few youtube videos about it, one of them might have been Matt Easton talking about it.

[Galloglaich]

The English term for the modern tradition is "feat of arms" if I'm not mistaken, with "tent pegging" being one of the disciplines. Remember seeing a few youtube videos about it, one of them might have been Matt Easton talking about it.

They actually still do ring-lancing (they call it tournoi) in a little town here in Louisiana, in Cajun country. it's part of the lead up to Carnival

https://www.villeplattetoday.com/local/nice-ring-it

https://www.villeplattetoday.com/sites/evangelinetoday.com/files/styles/medium/public/field/image/CraneAction.jpg?itok=liLWqc4e

One of the old medieval traditions from the very rich tapestry of warlike games and martial sports.

They also of course had reckless horse races like the pallio di sienna

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

Strange sports like boat-jousting

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

Organized stick fights like in venice, or football games like the Calcio Fiorentino etc. etc.

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

and shooting the popinjay and a thousand other things, ranging from only mildly dangerous to incredibly dangerous. many of these sports have either been revised or never went away, but they are kind of uniquely medieval in the sense that along with hunting and low-intensity warfare, this was the main manner in which they actually trained for war. Many other cultures had these same kinds of games and forms of warlike play, (particularly the nomads) but medieval Europe is almost unique in that they seem to have been almost the only way they did war preparation. You don't see a lot of formal pike drill or Roman or modern (or early modern) style boot camp.

This is a lecture on the subject from a recent HEMA event

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bsV3NFtDzU





As for the whole T-34 vs. Panther vs. Tiger vs. Sherman etc., I know you have a particular point of view on this Gnoman, and was careful in the term i used - T-34/76, which frequently got wiped out by Panthers. Panthers, incidentally, did not have tissue paper thin side armor, their side armor was actually as thick as the frontal armor on the early T-34/76 (45 mm). It just wasn't as formidable as their front armor and not thick enough for the guns on a lot of tanks by around 1944. But the Panther could knock out the T-34 easily at very long range through their frontal armor, whereas the reverse definitely was not true. T-34's as late as 1943 were still being knocked out routinely by 50mm guns.

I agree the WW II Germans (and their many modern apologists) exaggerated the successes of all the German kit and fighting forces, and especially the 'big cats', but you can also go way too far in the other direction. Somebody killed a whole lot of Russian troops and wiped out a whole lot of Russian tanks especially in 1941-1944. The Panther was very lethal in the open areas, due to it's strong frontal armor and very powerful, very accurate gun, and recorded some pretty epic victories and kill ratios in battles in open terrain, which you can confirm by looking at Soviet records. But it was also sometimes decimated in closer-in fights both on the Russian front several times and in the West on a couple of occasions.

It wasn't a perfect design and it does get over-hyped, (I'm not sure if I agree it was the best tank of WW II as so many historians claim) and I do for example agree with you the Sherman tank was not the utter failure it's sometimes made out to be, but I think you are going too far in the other direction.

I know we won't agree either I'm just stating my opinion on it. And I'm not uninformed on this subject.

One other data point, there is indeed a great deal of data that has come out in the last 20 yeas on the tank battles in WW II, including some we had never heard of, and it does change our understanding of what really went on substantially. Unfortunately a lot of this has not really been digested and presented in a form the general public can grasp yet, and I concede to Gnomon that there is considerable room for interpretation of data. This lecture is one of the best I've seen giving you a hint of the scope and scale of the new information, for example, tank battles bigger than Kursk in the first year of the war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qkmO7tm8AU

[Galloglaich]

Medieval festival/market

Another thing to include in medieval festivities could be mystery plays and miracle plays etc, very common at least by the late medieval period.

In addition to normal tournaments, around 1500-1550 "ring riding (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringreiten)" (there is no english wiki - only danish german and various netherland languages) developed.

It's also worth mentioning there was jousting on the more reckless side of the spectrum too, even in the Late medieval - this was a type done more informally and with much less safety gear, unarmored horses and only torso and head armor for the riders, and using sharp points. There is a specific German name for it which I've forgotten, but I remember Duke Albrecht 'Achilles' bragged about doing it 7 times without being injured.

I believe the joust they are doing here from the Wolfegg housebook, which as you can see is with pointed lances, was this specific type of joust.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8e/75/b3/8e75b3646021c70be64e91f3db46b332.jpg

All kinds of martial sports and warlike games, play as war - like kittens turning into lions.

[Clistenes]

They actually still do ring-lancing (they call it tournoi) in a little town here in Louisiana, in Cajun country. it's part of the lead up to Carnival

https://www.villeplattetoday.com/local/nice-ring-it

https://www.villeplattetoday.com/sites/evangelinetoday.com/files/styles/medium/public/field/image/CraneAction.jpg?itok=liLWqc4e

One of the old medieval traditions from the very rich tapestry of warlike games and martial sports.

They also of course had reckless horse races like the pallio di sienna

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

Strange sports like boat-jousting

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

Organized stick fights like in venice, or football games like the Calcio Fiorentino etc. etc.

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

and shooting the popinjay and a thousand other things, ranging from only mildly dangerous to incredibly dangerous. many of these sports have either been revised or never went away, but they are kind of uniquely medieval in the sense that along with hunting and low-intensity warfare, this was the main manner in which they actually trained for war. Many other cultures had these same kinds of games and forms of warlike play, (particularly the nomads) but medieval Europe is almost unique in that they seem to have been almost the only way they did war preparation. You don't see a lot of formal pike drill or Roman or modern (or early modern) style boot camp.

This is a lecture on the subject from a recent HEMA event

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bsV3NFtDzU


In Renaissance Spain they had the "Stick Game" or "Game of Sticks". Two teams or unarmoured horsemen wielding leather shields and javelins without a metal head would fight, doing two caracoles in a square and throwing the javelins to each other, trying to dismount the riders of the opposing team. Pretty much the same game the horsemen of Sumba island still play today... (http://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/features/2014/04/11/pasola-festival-where-sumba-island-horsemen-once-fought-to-the-death/)

[Vinyadan]

irst of all, thank you for your answers about crossbowmen and slingers.

About Roman reserves and manpower, there is something I find insane: they could handle losing about 100.000 men in a storm off the coasts of Africa during the first Punic War, and they kept going. This is something crazy, and I find it hard to think of similar losses in the Ancient Era. The Second Persian War is the only one I have in mind right now.

About Pompey and his clients, a very important factor there was how ludicrously rich his allies were. I am guessing, since I did not check if there are clear infos about them, but I suppose they were senators and holders of latifunds, and that many clients were veterans from previous wars, as well as powerful people from territories he had conquered.

[Max_Killjoy]

Regarding the Sherman and its undeserved reputation as a deathtrap -- much of that can be blamed on uninformed accounts such as Belton Cooper's Deathtraps.

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/29/debunking-deathtraps-part-1/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

[Storm Bringer]

irst of all, thank you for your answers about crossbowmen and slingers.

About Roman reserves and manpower, there is something I find insane: they could handle losing about 100.000 men in a storm off the coasts of Africa during the first Punic War, and they kept going. This is something crazy, and I find it hard to think of similar losses in the Ancient Era. The Second Persian War is the only one I have in mind right now.

About Pompey and his clients, a very important factor there was how ludicrously rich his allies were. I am guessing, since I did not check if there are clear infos about them, but I suppose they were senators and holders of latifunds, and that many clients were veterans from previous wars, as well as powerful people from territories he had conquered.

how certain are those numbers? 100,000 is a lot. Even Canne, the great defeat that forced the romans onto the defensive for years, was less then 75,000 at the most.

all I;m saying is historical writers tended to inflate numbers, both because the exact numbers were often not precisely known*, and to make their patrons seem even more powerful (


*while the units involved in a given battle are often know with a fair degree of certainty, their strengths can vary quite a bit, depending on how badly understrength they are. To name one example, the British at Waterloo had "battalions" with a strength of anything as low as 350 to as much as 1,200, even though all these units had a "paper" strength of around 1,000 (the "over strength" units were the Foot Guards, who seem to have been overmanned to better cover their public duties).

[Vinyadan]

I think the calculations make sense this time. Penteres (quinquireme) needed 300 rowers, plus some 70 more sailors. The fleet was about 400 ships, which would mean 370 seamen x 400 = 148.000 men at sea just to make the ships operative. If 320 ships were lost, 118.400 seamen were aboard. If the fleet was just 364 ships, as Polybius says, with 80 escaping, then 280 x 370 = 103.600 men. This fleet was also carrying part of Regulus' army, as well as prisoners and booty and the men needed to fight at sea if need be. It probably was the worst recorded loss of life at sea we know of.

[Berenger]

It's also worth mentioning there was jousting on the more reckless side of the spectrum too, even in the Late medieval - this was a type done more informally and with much less safety gear, unarmored horses and only torso and head armor for the riders, and using sharp points. There is a specific German name for it which I've forgotten, but I remember Duke Albrecht 'Achilles' bragged about doing it 7 times without being injured.

I think that term is Scharfrennen (scharf = sharp | rennen = race or running).

Edit: https://books.google.de/books?id=x6pBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=albrecht+achilles+scharfrennen&source=bl&ots=3CGADPKz-8&sig=Qne0JdHGJVqJne5xop6cR_llT3U&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU-c64kdLSAhVBjCwKHTB4Dw0Q6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=albrecht%20achilles%20scharfrennen&f=false, according to this book a certain Aenaes Sylvius (aka Pope Pius II) claims that the Duke did it seventeen times.

Edit 2: I'm pretty sure now, I found the term in the description of your picture in the german Wiki, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hausbuch_Wolfegg_21v_22r_Scharfrennen.jpg

[Pauly]

I think the calculations make sense this time. Penteres (quinquireme) needed 300 rowers, plus some 70 more sailors. The fleet was about 400 ships, which would mean 370 seamen x 400 = 148.000 men at sea just to make the ships operative. If 320 ships were lost, 118.400 seamen were aboard. If the fleet was just 364 ships, as Polybius says, with 80 escaping, then 280 x 370 = 103.600 men. This fleet was also carrying part of Regulus' army, as well as prisoners and booty and the men needed to fight at sea if need be. It probably was the worst recorded loss of life at sea we know of.

The other source of confusion is conflating men with solders.

Ancient historians tended to count their soldiers and the enemy's men.

[Kiero]

About Roman reserves and manpower, there is something I find insane: they could handle losing about 100.000 men in a storm off the coasts of Africa during the first Punic War, and they kept going. This is something crazy, and I find it hard to think of similar losses in the Ancient Era. The Second Persian War is the only one I have in mind right now.


how certain are those numbers? 100,000 is a lot. Even Canne, the great defeat that forced the romans onto the defensive for years, was less then 75,000 at the most.

all I;m saying is historical writers tended to inflate numbers, both because the exact numbers were often not precisely known*, and to make their patrons seem even more powerful (


*while the units involved in a given battle are often know with a fair degree of certainty, their strengths can vary quite a bit, depending on how badly understrength they are. To name one example, the British at Waterloo had "battalions" with a strength of anything as low as 350 to as much as 1,200, even though all these units had a "paper" strength of around 1,000 (the "over strength" units were the Foot Guards, who seem to have been overmanned to better cover their public duties).

100,000 is not a lot for the Roman Republic in this era. They lost huge numbers at Lake Trasimene and Trebia as well as Cannae, and had no problem filling up the rosters again. They didn't go on the defensive because they couldn't afford the losses, they went on the defensive because they couldn't find a winning combination against Hannibal. The population of Roman Italy alone around this time was estimated at 4 million, it was one of the most populous parts of the ancient world. That's not counting Sicily (easily over a million people) and the rest of Italy, south and north of the central Roman heartland. All of Italy south of the Alps in this period likely had a population in excess of 10 million. The Roman system of militia mobilisation meant even though you were only drawing upon free male citizens (and those with Latin rights) between 16 and 60, owning a certain miminum amount of land, that was still a huge potential being constantly cycled through and refreshed. It was also leaving untapped another large number who didn't qualify (especially the urban poor).

This isn't someone counting paper strength of legions and effectively multiplying up, the Romans really did have vast reserves of manpower. That, even more than how wealthy they were in terms of equipment, was their real secret to success. They could outlast virtually any other power they were opposed to.

If a Hellenistic king lost his entire royal army of 50-75,000 men in a disastrous defeat, he was done. It would take him years to recover from that, he didn't have the manpower available to simply replace them. The Romans did that several times over in the later years of the Republic, and at the close could still muster armies of hundreds of thousands to oppose each other in civil wars (though these later ones drew on provincial manpower heavily). Pyrrhos learned this lesson the hard way almost a century before Hannibal, the Romans lost far more men than he did in the battles, but he couldn't simply replace them with fresh reserve the way they could.


About Pompey and his clients, a very important factor there was how ludicrously rich his allies were. I am guessing, since I did not check if there are clear infos about them, but I suppose they were senators and holders of latifunds, and that many clients were veterans from previous wars, as well as powerful people from territories he had conquered.

Those three legions were from Picenum, not any overseas territories (for him to take with him to Spain). Again, there were a lot of people in Italy, raising 15-20,000 isn't logistically difficult if you can afford it. Which by then you had to be able to do, since men expected to be paid and equipped by the state (or a rich benefactor).


I think the calculations make sense this time. Penteres (quinquireme) needed 300 rowers, plus some 70 more sailors. The fleet was about 400 ships, which would mean 370 seamen x 400 = 148.000 men at sea just to make the ships operative. If 320 ships were lost, 118.400 seamen were aboard. If the fleet was just 364 ships, as Polybius says, with 80 escaping, then 280 x 370 = 103.600 men. This fleet was also carrying part of Regulus' army, as well as prisoners and booty and the men needed to fight at sea if need be. It probably was the worst recorded loss of life at sea we know of.

The exact number of oarsmen a fiver needs depends on it's arrangement - the Carthaginians preferred bireme (two-deck) oar banks, rather than three, for example. But they didn't need 70 sailors; it only needed around 20, the mast, sails and rigging weren't that complicated. Most of those men you counted sailors are actually marines, because the Romans preferred to go heavy on the fighting complement rather than trust to sailing skill. That also made them less seaworthy and more likely to sink in a storm, since all that extra weight up top made the vessel even less stable. Same goes the boarding ramps they invented.

Still, those were reasonable estimates of the losses. There were plenty of large naval battles with great loss throughout antiquity.


The other source of confusion is conflating men with solders.

Ancient historians tended to count their soldiers and the enemy's men.

That's an absolutely baseless, sweeping generalisation. It depends entirely on the historian in question, how distant they were from the events and so on. Some historians were more reliable than others (Livy spouts all kinds of nonsense, for example, Polybius is much more grounded).

[Tiktakkat]

100,000 is not a lot for the Roman Republic in this era. They lost huge numbers at Lake Trasimene and Trebia as well as Cannae, and had no problem filling up the rosters again. They didn't go on the defensive because they couldn't afford the losses, they went on the defensive because they couldn't find a winning combination against Hannibal. The population of Roman Italy alone around this time was estimated at 4 million, it was one of the most populous parts of the ancient world. That's not counting Sicily (easily over a million people) and the rest of Italy, south and north of the central Roman heartland. All of Italy south of the Alps in this period likely had a population in excess of 10 million. The Roman system of militia mobilisation meant even though you were only drawing upon free male citizens (and those with Latin rights) between 16 and 60, owning a certain miminum amount of land, that was still a huge potential being constantly cycled through and refreshed. It was also leaving untapped another large number who didn't qualify (especially the urban poor).

10,000,000
minus women
5,000,000
minus children
2,500,000
minus the non-citizens
1,250,000
minus the slaves
675,000
minus the poor
337,500

Losing 100,000 was a bit of an imposition on their social structure and economy.
Losing 100,000 more than once had a significant impact on their social structure and economy.

One might note that the Romans typically extended various rights and privileges, including making it possible for the poor to join the legions, after some of the major wars where they suffered such losses.
Likewise big swings in control of the Senate, followed by various civil wars, had a tendency to follow such major wars.

So yes, losing 100,000 like that was a lot.

[Mike_G]

10,000,000
minus women
5,000,000
minus children
2,500,000
minus the non-citizens
1,250,000
minus the slaves
675,000
minus the poor
337,500

Losing 100,000 was a bit of an imposition on their social structure and economy.
Losing 100,000 more than once had a significant impact on their social structure and economy.

One might note that the Romans typically extended various rights and privileges, including making it possible for the poor to join the legions, after some of the major wars where they suffered such losses.
Likewise big swings in control of the Senate, followed by various civil wars, had a tendency to follow such major wars.

So yes, losing 100,000 like that was a lot.

To put it even more in perspective, 100,000 is 1% of a population of 10 million.

The US population today is just over 300 million. 1% of that would be 3 million.

Imagine a campaign where we lost 3 million men.

We could lose 3 million people and go on. The USSR and China had that kind of loss of life relative to population in WWII. But it would be catastrophic, and not the kind of thing we could just replace and recover.

[Max_Killjoy]

On the issue of Roman population and ability to recover from major losses of manpower, I think you're all somewhat right.

100k is a big loss even with 10 million, but it's also something they could recover from, relative to others in that time and space.

[Tiktakkat]

To put it even more in perspective, 100,000 is 1% of a population of 10 million.

The US population today is just over 300 million. 1% of that would be 3 million.

Imagine a campaign where we lost 3 million men.

And note that: "campaign"; not "entire war".
Indeed, sometimes it was just "battle".
The closest we ever came to that was how people viewed the losses during the biggest battles of the ACW. If the losses of the entire war were those of one campaign? Of one battle?


We could lose 3 million people and go on. The USSR and China had that kind of loss of life relative to population in WWII. But it would be catastrophic, and not the kind of thing we could just replace and recover.

France had barely recovered from combat losses in WWI by WWII.
The Soviets suffered so many losses in WWII they were taking people from the factories near the end. As it goes, demographically, the Russians have really never recovered from those losses.
China kept stumbling along because the Japanese were defeated and they were "just" killing each other with nobody invading.


100k is a big loss even with 10 million, but it's also something they could recover from, relative to others in that time and space.

Well, that "relative" part is something to look at as I already noted:

After one of those big wars, the Romans started being less "Romans" and more "Italians".
That is, they extended citizenship to a number of their allied Italian tribes.

After another one, everyone in "Italia" became "Romans".

After another, the number of slaves began soaring to the point of changing the economy.
This caused a major shift both in how many urban poor there were as well as how many "Romans" could die without derailing the economy.

After another, the urban poor were allowed to join the legions.
And on retirement were given lands so their children could fully qualify.

Lather, rinse, repeat that not just during the Republic, but into the Principate, when Gauls became "Romans", and then the Empire, as Germanic barbarians were first hired, then became foederati, then client kings, until you had said newcomers becoming Emperors, particularly in the (Eastern) Roman Empire.

The Romans "recovered" by changing the definition of "Roman", sometimes via whoever just inflicted those massive losses on them but still lost.
The nearest equivalents I can think of offhand would be the Tsars incorporating former kingdoms and khanates, or the British recruiting from "warlike races" in India. Smaller examples are the U.S. making Puerto Ricans citizens for WWI, and Germany recruiting SS "volunteers" from various conquered countries.


Taking both of the above together:
It is VERY impressive that the Romans repeatedly maintained the will to keep fighting after losses.
Granted, they kinda, sorta, "cheated" to recover, but they still managed it, including devastating losses to the Senatorial class during the Republic.

[Kiero]

Those Italians had been serving alongside the legions for centuries, by the time they were enrolled as "Romans". Military service wasn't a new thing for them, all that changed was their status (by that time their equipment was likely identical to that of Romans anyway).

My point still stands, if a Hellenistic contemporary (or Carthage) had suffered losses like that, they would have sued for peace. And taken a generation to restore themselves to fighting numbers.

[Vinyadan]

IIRC, after Cannae they actually made up an army with 8.000 slaves. They really were desperate back then, to the point of making the last state-sanctioned human sacrifices in Roman history. However, it was a methodical kind of desperation, since they actually were still besieging Capua with another army, and they didn't lift the siege to use the soldiers against Hannibal.

Polybius had something to say about doing things the hard way, the Roman way:

"The Romans, to speak generally, rely on force in all their enterprises, and think it is incumbent on them to carry out their projects in spite of all, and that nothing is impossible when they have once decided on it. They owe their success in many cases to this spirit, but sometimes they conspicuously fail by reason of it and especially at sea."

This was said referring to the fleet lost in the storm. (1.37)

[Blackhawk748]

Got a question that has nothing to do with the current topic.

The Tiger 2 (commonly called the King Tiger) is popularly considered to be fairly advanced for the time. I was curious as to how long the tank could have stayed in service post WWII before being considered obsolete. And by obsolete i mean using it was an exercise in futility. My guess would be about the 1960s.

[Tiktakkat]

My point still stands, if a Hellenistic contemporary (or Carthage) had suffered losses like that, they would have sued for peace. And taken a generation to restore themselves to fighting numbers.

Except your point is wrong - 100K was quite a lot for the Romans during that period.

The difference is in cultural attitude, as Vinyadan notes and cites from Polybius, not in some Roman transcendence of basic demographic math.
Yes, Hellenes or the Carthaginians would surrender. Meanwhile the Romans just promoted non-Romans and kept fighting, indeed even refusing to accept a status quo ante bellum with a foreign army in Italy.

The population of Latins, the "actual" Romans, did take a generation, or more, to recover, with the ultimate result that the primary speakers of the Romance languages are the descendants of Germans rather than Latins or Italians.

[Max_Killjoy]

Got a question that has nothing to do with the current topic.

The Tiger 2 (commonly called the King Tiger) is popularly considered to be fairly advanced for the time. I was curious as to how long the tank could have stayed in service post WWII before being considered obsolete. And by obsolete i mean using it was an exercise in futility. My guess would be about the 1960s.

It would have needed a complete mechanical rework. It had a high degree of unnecessary complexity, a drive drain originally designed for a much lighter vehicle, and so on -- which meant it wasn't reliable in real field conditions. Many of the Tiger II loses were due to being destroyed in place to prevent enemy capture of the vehicle after they broke down.

[Blackhawk748]

It would have needed a complete mechanical rework. It had a high degree of unnecessary complexity, a drive drain originally designed for a much lighter vehicle, and so on -- which meant it wasn't reliable in real field conditions. Many of the Tiger II loses were due to being destroyed in place to prevent enemy capture of the vehicle after they broke down.

I thought the Tiger 2 upgraded the drive train? I know the early production models had some serious issues, but i know that later on they had something like a 68-69% reliability rating. Personally id prefer a 75% minimum but im not sure what the actual goal is.

[Roxxy]

If we're dealing with Eberronish tech, and armor is being mass produced, what armors do you think would best lend themselves to this? I'm assuming the biggest issue is fitting the armor to the wearer properly, so I'm guessing that gambesons and maybe brigandine are easiest because you can manufacture them in general sizes and then tailor them to fit the wearer, maybe followed by mail for the same reason, but I'm no armorer or tailor.

On a related note, I posit that, back when there were nobles in my world, they typically studied magic because they had the resources to send their children off to such schools and naturally want access to that power. So, knights knew magic, even if they also knew how to swing a sword. This being D&D, where magic and heavy armor rarely mix, I'm wondering if there's any reason for full plate or three-quarter plate to ever really have been a common thing. The people with the money to buy that armor outright were wearing lighter armor so they could easily cast spells, and mass producing full plate seems a recipe for a lot of problems fitting it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I thought the Tiger 2 upgraded the drive train? I know the early production models had some serious issues, but i know that later on they had something like a 68-69% reliability rating. Personally id prefer a 75% minimum but im not sure what the actual goal is.

Nope, the drive train was insufficient.

Even with the later fixes/improvements, it approached reliability in the low 60% range.

The Tiger II was more reliable than the Panther, but that's kinda like being the tallest guy at a "little people" convention.

[Gnoman]

Got a question that has nothing to do with the current topic.

The Tiger 2 (commonly called the King Tiger) is popularly considered to be fairly advanced for the time. I was curious as to how long the tank could have stayed in service post WWII before being considered obsolete. And by obsolete i mean using it was an exercise in futility. My guess would be about the 1960s.

It was entirely obsolete in 1945. The Tiger II was essentially just a morbidly obese Tiger I with sloped armor (in use by every tank-building country not named Germany by 1941) and a longer gun - on par with the 100mm D10T (technically, the D10T had about 3% better performance) the Soviets were putting into their medium tanks by then, and only marginally superior to the then-current versions of the US 90mm. The frontal armor was very good in WWII, but by the end of that war it was merely acceptable, and the primary reason none seem to have been killed frontally is that so few went into combat in the first place, and the tank's extreme vulnerability to flank attack made that the primary method of killing them.

All of this was in a package so heavy that it was not only extremely difficult to transport it (most bridges had great difficulty taking the weight) but it regularly overwhelmed the tank's own suspension and drive system.

If all of those limitations were not enough to prove the obsolescence of the tank, remember that every army abandoned heavy tanks after the war, with the Soviet IS-3 (vastly superior to the Tiger II) being the last in service, serving in a reserve role into the 1960s.

[Max_Killjoy]

It was entirely obsolete in 1945. The Tiger II was essentially just a morbidly obese Tiger I with sloped armor (in use by every tank-building country not named Germany by 1941) and a longer gun - on par with the 100mm D10T (technically, the D10T had about 3% better performance) the Soviets were putting into their medium tanks by then, and only marginally superior to the then-current versions of the US 90mm. The frontal armor was very good in WWII, but by the end of that war it was merely acceptable, and the primary reason none seem to have been killed frontally is that so few went into combat in the first place, and the tank's extreme vulnerability to flank attack made that the primary method of killing them.

All of this was in a package so heavy that it was not only extremely difficult to transport it (most bridges had great difficulty taking the weight) but it regularly overwhelmed the tank's own suspension and drive system.

If all of those limitations were not enough to prove the obsolescence of the tank, remember that every army abandoned heavy tanks after the war, with the Soviet IS-3 (vastly superior to the Tiger II) being the last in service, serving in a reserve role into the 1960s.

The US did field the postwar M103 in limited numbers to get a heavier gun (120mm) into the field in Europe. The was finally phased out of the Marine Corps' tank units in 1974.

If one wants to look at heavy tanks designed in WW2 that had lasting impacts on tank design, the Tiger II / King Tiger just would not be one of them -- it was a total dead end.

Rather, the aforementioned IS-3, and the T29/30/34 pilot program, would be where one would be advised to dig.

[Gnoman]

The US did field the postwar M103 in limited numbers to get a heavier gun (120mm) into the field in Europe. The was finally phased out of the Marine Corps' tank units in 1974.

If one wants to look at heavy tanks designed in WW2 that had lasting impacts on tank design, the Tiger II / King Tiger just would not be one of them -- it was a total dead end.

Rather, the aforementioned IS-3, and the T29/30/34 pilot program, would be where one would be advised to dig.

That is a good point. I tend to forget about the US heavy tank projects because they were very much a secondary notion, as well as the T-10 (which I forget about because it didn't cause the ruckus that the IS-3 did.)

Also, I just noticed that it seems to be time for a new thread.

[Roxxy]

Also, I just noticed that it seems to be time for a new thread.It's been done now.

[Galloglaich]

It's been done now.

Link to the new thread?