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

[Pauly]

Thanks for the explanation, you guys are awwsome! ☺

One thing about the aiming computer, it says in the wiki (quote)
"Bei Tag wurde mittels des Raumbildentfernungsmessers (Em4mR) auf Basis 4 m das Ziel optisch erfasst und verfolgt. Diese Werte wurden in den Kommandorechner automatisch („Kommandogerät 41“) eingegeben."

Translation: "During the day the coincidence rangefinder [?] was used to optically trace the target on a "basis 4 m". This data was automatically entered into the Comando computer ("kommandogerät 41")"

It seems at some point there was a direct optical input which was analogely computed? How does that even work haha ;)

As explained by stormbringer: human measuring optics and shouting variables, other human punching them into computer - this could probably be done with 17-18th century mechanic calculators. But the direct link optical - computing puzzles me when theres no digital computing in use...

If this is what I think it is:

The range finder has two lenses a set distance (4m) apart. The operator then brings the images together until they coimcide. At that point you use triangulation to compue the range. Larger ships were able to carry larger range finders and were able to calculate better gunnery solutions than smaller sjips at the same range.

[LudicSavant]

So here's something I've been looking into a bit and I'm curious if anyone here has any insight.

I've been wondering about flails. This originally came up since I was attempting to rebalance the 5e weapons (which contain a number of pointless or trap options, of which flails are one). And I realized I had no real idea how someone actually fought with a flail effectively... so I started looking for demonstrations, and it turns out there's some controversy over whether medieval flails existed at all (one side claims that they seem to have been real but rare, while the other is more skeptical). I did however find references to other cultures using flail-like weapons, like the Japanese Chigiriki. I found a couple of demonstrations as well, which were interesting (it's certainly used differently than medieval flails are often portrayed in fiction).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeCrBDlWixM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt__otLtfZ0

As far as European flails, I didn't have much luck (other than finding out about the sort modified from farming equipment that resembles a two section staff).

So my question is: What're the views on the historicity of flails in various cultures? How were they used? Any good demonstrations? What niches did they fill, including advantages and disadvantages?

[Carl]

Thanks for the explanation, you guys are awwsome! ☺

One thing about the aiming computer, it says in the wiki (quote)
"Bei Tag wurde mittels des Raumbildentfernungsmessers (Em4mR) auf Basis 4 m das Ziel optisch erfasst und verfolgt. Diese Werte wurden in den Kommandorechner automatisch („Kommandogerät 41“) eingegeben."

Translation: "During the day the coincidence rangefinder [?] was used to optically trace the target on a "basis 4 m". This data was automatically entered into the Comando computer ("kommandogerät 41")"

It seems at some point there was a direct optical input which was analogely computed? How does that even work haha ;)

As explained by stormbringer: human measuring optics and shouting variables, other human punching them into computer - this could probably be done with 17-18th century mechanic calculators. But the direct link optical - computing puzzles me when theres no digital computing in use...

Compared to the math involved in calculating the proper aim point thats trivial. You dont need an electronic computer, (note not all electronic computers are digital, thats a recent thing relatively speaking, analog computers where used for a long time), it can be done mechnaichially. Big pieces of kit ofc.

[Brother Oni]

I guess the targeting system should also work quicker, as it was build to shot down fast and 3 dimensional moving airplanes - does this make a difference when using against ground vehicles?

Further to Storm Bringer's points, the Flak 88 fired different shells at aircraft compared to tanks.

Since aircraft are basically unarmoured compared to tanks (the A-10 Thunderbolt aside), using a kinetic penetrator is overkill, so they used high explosive (HE) shells or flak shells.
Flak shells only need to be the general vicinity to damage or kill (burst radius) and the 88's effective burst radius was ~30ft.

You're right that shooting aircraft was more difficult - flak shells had fuses which allowed them to be set to detonate at a specific altitude which was a concern that the anti-tank HE shells didn't have (these had contact fuses).


As for fire rates, the PAK 43 had between 6-10 rounds per minute, while the PAK 40 is listed as 14 rpm.

[Gnoman]

Note that the bursting of the shell against was based purely on a time fuse. The Anglo-American invention of the proximity fuse was considered a superweapon at the time, and was used only by naval units and British Isles base defense until late in the war to ensure that the Germans couldn't copy it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Note that the bursting of the shell against was based purely on a time fuse. The Anglo-American invention of the proximity fuse was considered a superweapon at the time, and was used only by naval units and British Isles base defense until late in the war to ensure that the Germans couldn't copy it.

Indeed -- the 40mm shells with proximity fuses in particular were game-changers against Japanese aircraft.

[Galloglaich]

Note that the bursting of the shell against was based purely on a time fuse. The Anglo-American invention of the proximity fuse was considered a superweapon at the time, and was used only by naval units and British Isles base defense until late in the war to ensure that the Germans couldn't copy it.

Very interesting, all of the posts on this from everybody. Learned a bit here, thanks!

G

[Vinyadan]

About flails, I think they were used for threshing corns. It was an enormously tiresome thing to do, so various techniques were developed: using flails, jumping on corns, having animals walk over them (after covering them, I guess), making corns jump on some sort of very large drum... and you had little time, because rain would ruin the harvest. I think that the item pharahos held in their hand was a flail (the other one looks like a shepherd cane). About military use in the West: good question. It looks very unwieldy, and I believe that flails were meant to strike at ground level, which isn't too good. However, I can see some experiments being made, or simply very poor conscripts or rebel peasants using what they could find, improving it, and then a full military version being developed. It could be that better armour made the long-chained versions obsolete before other spiky weighted weapons that allowed better trajectory control, increasing the effectiveness of the spike.

Fun fact: today, AA missiles still are flack-like in the way they explode, with e.g. a 50 m explosion diameter for certain Russian missiles. Some Buk have altitude fuses.

About fuses, German AA forces had at least in one case an agreement between fighter planes and ground AA for AA fuses to be set at a certain height and fighters were supposed to operate above this height and above enemy bombers. I don't know if it was a special case or a widespread tactic to avoid friendly fire.

[Yora]

Does anyone know the properties of meteoritic iron? Could you even make a blade the size of a gladius or would it be too much prone to breaking and bending in such a large weapon made for actual combat?

[DerKommissar]

In the wiki about the flak they tell that it also was the impact fuses (in addition to timed ones, so dual fuse systems) that almost trippled the rates of planes shot down. Before that it seems the shells often overpenetrated through the planes and exploded far above the planes...

[Yora]

Since it would be really hard to get adirect hit, I doubt it made such a huge difference.

[Gnoman]

Direct hits weren't as hard as you would think. With good radar direction, you can get a very good idea of speed and altitude to lay your fire, so you'll be pretty close to a plane in the first place, and with an entire battery blazing away you're going to have a dozen rounds in that general area at any given time. At that point a direct hit is only a matter of time. Good evasive techniques made that harder, but there are times in the flight where that is very hard to do (when you're settling down for your bomb run, for example), and the guns took full advantage.

[Storm Bringer]

Thanks for the explanation, you guys are awwsome! ☺

One thing about the aiming computer, it says in the wiki (quote)
"Bei Tag wurde mittels des Raumbildentfernungsmessers (Em4mR) auf Basis 4 m das Ziel optisch erfasst und verfolgt. Diese Werte wurden in den Kommandorechner automatisch („Kommandogerät 41“) eingegeben."

Translation: "During the day the coincidence rangefinder [?] was used to optically trace the target on a "basis 4 m". This data was automatically entered into the Comando computer ("kommandogerät 41")"

It seems at some point there was a direct optical input which was analogely computed? How does that even work haha ;)

As explained by stormbringer: human measuring optics and shouting variables, other human punching them into computer - this could probably be done with 17-18th century mechanic calculators. But the direct link optical - computing puzzles me when theres no digital computing in use...


a coincidence rangefinder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_rangefinder)is basically two mirrors, set a certain distance apart (in this case 4meters). both pointed in roughly the same direction, the operator would see a split image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_rangefinder#/media/File:Coincidence_rangefinder_(Warships_To-day,_1936).jpg), which he then adjusted by turning the mirrors until the image was whole and lined up correctly. Then, using high school maths, you can work out how fat the target is. You have a triangle, with the two mirrors at the base and the target at the point. Knowing the angle of the two mirrors, and the distance between them, you can work out how far away the third point of the triangle is.


now, it might be that the FDC (Fire Direction Computer) could take its input readings directly form the sight as the aimer adjusted his views (since you could tie the computer inputs onto the mirror adjusting system so as the gunner adjusts the image, he also inputs the mirror angles into the computer), skipping the "shouting the range to the computer operator" stage, but the system still needed a gunner looking though the sights to match the images manually and generate the range.


So, there is not a direct optical input, but a mechanical input linked to a optical system, adjusted by a operator. make sense?

Again, this is basically the same system as used on naval range finders of the time, though they tended yo use much bigger systems for increased accuracy and range (as the accuracy of these is directly linked to the distance between the mirrors, with a bigger baseline increasing the angle between the mirrors, so letting you work out longer ranges). this is a photo of HMS Hood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood#/media/File:HMS_Hood_h60450.jpg) in 1924, and you can see 4 separate rangefinders in this image (one each of the turrets, one on top of the conning tower, and another at the top of the mast). the rear turrets would also have one each, plus a secondary FDC site, and several more for the AA guns.


and in essence, yes, the system could have been created by a really skilled steampunk type engineer. Babbage'sDifference Engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine)was designed to solve fire control equations of a similar type. But that was a master crafted item that cost more than 2 1st rate warships of the time, not something that could be issued to every single AA battery in the german army.

[Strigon]

Assuming a solid-hulled spacecraft similar in design to modern-day warships, how would various types of projectile weapons likely inflict their damage?
We're not thinking flimsy ISS-type, or Lunar Landers of course, but properly armed and armoured warships, with similar interior layouts to those used today. The primary difference is the presence of a vacuum, and 0 G.

If relevant, what would be the effects of a 30cm, 10cm, or 5cm rounds?
The velocity would be ~3km/s, and the rate of fire would be 1000 RPM, but the majority of shots would likely be ricochets or misses.

What would be the effects if these rounds:
Overpenetrated, passing entirely through the hull intact?
Fragmented upon piercing the hull, spraying the interior with smaller shards that spread out?
Rounds that detonated upon piercing the hull?
Rounds that flattened like hollow-points upon piercing the hull?

The relevant details I'm looking for include how it would affect the crew in the compartments being targeted, how it would affect the components being targeted, how it would affect the ship's capabilities as a whole, and what damage control would likely be performed following such an assault.

[Max_Killjoy]

Assuming a solid-hulled spacecraft similar in design to modern-day warships, how would various types of projectile weapons likely inflict their damage?
We're not thinking flimsy ISS-type, or Lunar Landers of course, but properly armed and armoured warships, with similar interior layouts to those used today. The primary difference is the presence of a vacuum, and 0 G.

If relevant, what would be the effects of a 30cm, 10cm, or 5cm rounds?
The velocity would be ~3km/s, and the rate of fire would be 1000 RPM, but the majority of shots would likely be ricochets or misses.

What would be the effects if these rounds:
Overpenetrated, passing entirely through the hull intact?
Fragmented upon piercing the hull, spraying the interior with smaller shards that spread out?
Rounds that detonated upon piercing the hull?
Rounds that flattened like hollow-points upon piercing the hull?

The relevant details I'm looking for include how it would affect the crew in the compartments being targeted, how it would affect the components being targeted, how it would affect the ship's capabilities as a whole, and what damage control would likely be performed following such an assault.


For reference, most modern warships aren't really that armored, they rely on active defense systems, electronic warfare, range, and obfuscation / evasion.

If you want substantial armor, you're looking at ships from the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s.

[Strigon]

For reference, most modern warships aren't really that armored, they rely on active defense systems, electronic warfare, range, and obfuscation / evasion.

If you want substantial armor, you're looking at ships from the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s.

It's true, but they are "armored" just by dint of being solid, massive vessels. They might not have dedicated armor, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) you still wouldn't be able to pierce its hull with anything that wasn't at least an anti-tank weapon.
Besides, all my questions were explicitly about the rounds that penetrated, so it's something of a moot point.

[Yora]

I would expect such weapons and armor work the same way as they do in atmosphere and gravity. If you shot a missile at a ship that floats on water or that flies through space shouldn't make a difference with the same warhead and propulsion. Missiles could go faster because they don't experience air drag, but with explosive warheads I don't think this makes a difference. It would only help with hitting the target.

For people inside the ship the initial hit should again feel the same, though after that you obviously have the air rushing out of the hole into space. Depending on the size of the hole and the compartment behind it, it can actually take quite a long while to vent all the atmosphere. But when we're talking a missile hit the hole would probably be big enough to make this irrelevant. The ship would probably also be designed to have pretty small compartments with sealed doors between them so that any hole would only mean the loss of a relatively small section of the ship. However, this means that anyone inside that compartment would be running out of air much faster.
Things might look different with solid penetrators from rail guns, though. Those might perhaps cause pretty small holes that would leak air over several minutes. Though everyone inside that compartment would probably be dead from the force of the impact. Solid penetrators look pretty much like explosive warheads when they hit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2QqOvFMG_A), simply from the force of the impact that causes a lot of heat.

The biggest difference would be that a space ship can not sink and will not slowed down unless it uses its engines to decelerate. You also don't have to worry about structural strength while moving at a constant speed. So when a space ship loses engine power and can neither accelerate or decelerate, you could keep shoting holes into it for hours and it would still retain its shape and continue to fly on its current course at its current speed. You probably would have everyone on board dead from constant explosions a good time before you'd see the ship actually disintegrate.
Exceptions would obviously be a hit in the ammunition storage that sets off a good number of the warheads stored there resulting in a massive explosion that could rip apart significant portions of the ship and send the fragments drifting in different directions. Space Operas like reactor explosions, but that's actually something that can only happen with steam boilers (which are sitting on top of the uranium heating element in current nuclear power plants) but that seems very unlikely as a power source for space warships. Since this all sounds rather low-tech as sci-fi goes, the most likely power source would be fusion power and all the concepts currently in development can't explode. If something goes wrong they immediately cease functioning and can't possibly lead to an overload or chain reaction from damage.

[Strigon]

Snip

So, in summary, it would likely be similar to Age of Sail naval combat, in that the ship on the whole can keep on chugging pretty much indefinitely, but the crew will tend to be where the damage shows itself?

Edit: Holy crap, just got out of class and watched that video. Suddenly, the space combat just became a heck of a lot grittier, scarier, and more epic.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's true, but they are "armored" just by dint of being solid, massive vessels. They might not have dedicated armor, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) you still wouldn't be able to pierce its hull with anything that wasn't at least an anti-tank weapon.
Besides, all my questions were explicitly about the rounds that penetrated, so it's something of a moot point.


The current cruisers and destroyers of the USN typically have their "armor" listed as something like "limited Kevlar splinter protection in critical areas". A .50BMG AP round could penetrate the steel outer hulls in some places.

[Yora]

While railguns are a cool idea in fiction, they are probably really impractical for actual space battles. In space you could see enemy ships from huge distances and if you shot a railgun from that far away it will be several seconds at the very least until the projectile gets to the target. And then you have the target moving at incredible speeds as well and even small nudges in course corrections will lead to the projectile going wide by a considerable distance.

At the same time, missiles have the ability to make course asjustments while they are on their way to the target and so completely avoid this problem.

But then again, a missile in space travelling a long distance should be a relatively easy target for automated missile defense railguns. So you could somewhat reasonably argue that nobody bothers with shoting missiles from extreme distances because they always get shot down anyway. Getting close enough to literally slug it out with short range railguns could be made into a somewhat plausible scenario. The optimal engagement distance would be close enough to land hits but still far enough to make evasive maneuvers. Whoever has the longer "effective range" would be at a massive advantage. Once one ship loses engines and can no longer make evasive maneuvers the fight would be over as every shot would hit it every single time.

One possible solution to counter defensive maneuvers would be to shot all guns at once with each ones targeting at different locations above, below, before, and behind the enemy ship so that whichever way it attempts to evade, it will still move in the course of one other gun. Wouldn't work 100% of the time, but would become exponentially more effective the closer you get.

Now that I think of it, such battles could indeed become pretty oldschool. Like 1930-40s.

[oudeis]

Does anyone know the properties of meteoritic iron? Could you even make a blade the size of a gladius or would it be too much prone to breaking and bending in such a large weapon made for actual combat?Somebody here once pointed out that while the iron in metallic meteorites was of very high purity, it would still need to be alloyed with carbon to obtain the necessary hardness to get and keep a working (cutting) edge. Since (as someone else here once pointed out), Roman gladii were essentially case-hardened cast iron, I'd surmise you should be able to make one from a meteorite with little extra trouble. Carburizing the blade with vegetable or animal charcoal could also serve as a symbolic or actually magical union of the celestial and the terrestrial spheres.

[warty goblin]

While railguns are a cool idea in fiction, they are probably really impractical for actual space battles. In space you could see enemy ships from huge distances and if you shot a railgun from that far away it will be several seconds at the very least until the projectile gets to the target. And then you have the target moving at incredible speeds as well and even small nudges in course corrections will lead to the projectile going wide by a considerable distance.

At the same time, missiles have the ability to make course asjustments while they are on their way to the target and so completely avoid this problem.

But then again, a missile in space travelling a long distance should be a relatively easy target for automated missile defense railguns. So you could somewhat reasonably argue that nobody bothers with shoting missiles from extreme distances because they always get shot down anyway. Getting close enough to literally slug it out with short range railguns could be made into a somewhat plausible scenario. The optimal engagement distance would be close enough to land hits but still far enough to make evasive maneuvers. Whoever has the longer "effective range" would be at a massive advantage. Once one ship loses engines and can no longer make evasive maneuvers the fight would be over as every shot would hit it every single time.


It seems to me that the sensible thing to do is to shoot your missiles out of a railgun. Or a light gas gun, ram cannon, or other high-velocity delivery method.

[Vinyadan]

If you are on a spaceship and shoot a bullet or railgun projectile in the direction you are travelling to, do you get slower? What about missiles?

There exists a dagger made of meteoric iron, which was in Tutankamon's tomb. Unfortunately, I can't find how long it is.

[warty goblin]

If you are on a spaceship and shoot a bullet or railgun projectile in the direction you are travelling to, do you get slower? What about missiles?



You do. The relevant math is conservation of momentum. Assuming nobody's shooting or traveling a substantial fraction of the speed of light, momentum is mv, where m is mass, and v is velocity. Note that v is a vectored quantity, so direction matters.

So you're cruising along in your spaceship, which has an engine at the back, and a big cannon sticking out the front. Suddenly you see a hostile Martian Nazi on your scope, so you aim yourself at said bug-eyed bogey and fire. Up until you squeezed the trigger, your ship and the bullet sitting in the chamber of your space-cannon weren't moving relative to each other, so the total momentum of the ship-bullet system can be taken to be zero. Then you fire, the bullet with mass mb leaves the ship at velocity vb. The ship has mass ms.

Since the total momentum of the ship-bullet system was zero before you fired, it must be zero after you fired because momentum is a conserved quantity. So mb vb = ms vs. Solve for vs, and get

vs = vb mb / ms.

In words, you'll be moving backwards at a velocity equal to the velocity of your bullet, scaled by the ratio of masses between bullet and ship. If you are moving directly towards the Martian Nazi, your new velocity towards said bug-eyed bogey is now reduced by this amount. If you're moving at an arbitrary velocity v0, your final velocity is v0 + vs, which ends up involving cosines, but is still pretty simple math.

Relativity complicates this in ways I don't understand.

edit: Assuming you actually kick the missile out of the door with some velocity, then this still holds true. If you simply release the holding clamps and let it rip, it won't impact your velocity at all. Generally however, I'd think that velocity lost to shooting is among the least of one's worries, since it should generally be fairly easy to get back in any ship with good enough engines for tactical maneuvering in the first place. Short version, you'll need to fire your engines to get back to your original speed/heading, but this shouldn't be that big of a problem.

Long version: The useful conserved quantity for dealing with the effects on your velocity of firing is kinetic energy, given by m v2. You fired your shot, which changed your velocity by vb mb / ms. So you've altered your kinetic energy by ms ( vs mb / ms) 2 = mb2 / ms vs2, which is also the additional amount of energy you need to get back to your original course/heading* Since you want to shoot fast, and that term is squared, bullet velocity is going to dominate this. So for a high velocity, this could in fact be a substantial amount of energy - but it's less than you used to shoot the bullet in the first place! That required a full mb vb2 units of energy. So your total energy expenditure is (energy cost of firing bullet + energy cost of resuming course) = mb vb2 (1 + mb/ms), and for a heavy ship 1/ms is going to be very close to zero. In other words, most of your energy problems comes from shooting something freakishly fast in the first place.


*it's actually slightly less than this, since you aren't carrying the bullet around anymore. But that's probably not a lot of mass, so shouldn't make a substantial difference, and there's no chance I'm gonna try to type that up right in forum code.

[Strigon]

While railguns are a cool idea in fiction, they are probably really impractical for actual space battles. In space you could see enemy ships from huge distances and if you shot a railgun from that far away it will be several seconds at the very least until the projectile gets to the target. And then you have the target moving at incredible speeds as well and even small nudges in course corrections will lead to the projectile going wide by a considerable distance.


Really, the relative velocities don't matter at all, since most shots would likely be lined up by the computer. Neither does the huge distance, on its own; it only matters when you take into account the speed of the rounds.
Small course corrections wouldn't necessarily be enough, either; if you adjust by, say, 5 m/s and it takes 3 seconds to impact, that's only 15 meters of movement. Well within practical amounts when you're shooting at a cruiser-sized target with a number of weapons. Especially if the rounds are as destructive as those you mentioned.
Of course, the larger the course corrections, and the longer the time to impact, the more these things matter.

And, here's a question about missiles in space I've never seen addressed: chaff.
On a planet, chaff naturally disperses and falls to the ground. In space, however, with an appropriate deployment mechanism, it would stick around far longer; theoretically, it could be held in place magnetically, assuming no extreme maneuvering, and it would be virtually guaranteed to intercept at least one missile before being blown away - depending on the density of the chaff and the payload of the missile, possibly far more.
Or am I missing something?

Edit:

It seems to me that the sensible thing to do is to shoot your missiles out of a railgun. Or a light gas gun, ram cannon, or other high-velocity delivery method.
Of course, the issue is that the faster you go, the harder serious course corrections are. At that point, you don't have a missile so much as you do a semi-guided shell. It could work, of course, but it's not the solution to all space-warfare problems.

[warty goblin]

Of course, the issue is that the faster you go, the harder serious course corrections are. At that point, you don't have a missile so much as you do a semi-guided shell. It could work, of course, but it's not the solution to all space-warfare problems.

If I'm distance d from a target, it takes me d/c seconds to detect them, where c is the speed of light. My uncertainty in their position when I pull the trigger (ignoring measurement error for the moment) is vd/c, where v is their velocity. Since I'm unlikely to be shooting at something a long way away as measured by lightspeed, I suspect there's going to be basically zilch in terms of positional uncertainty in my target due to their movement.

The dominant factor in making me miss is then going to be uncertainty in where the target will be when my shot gets to it, which is determined by t = d/vb. The locations the enemy can be at by the time my shot reaches them are basically determined by their maximum acceleration and t. I can't control their acceleration, so my best bet is to make t as small as possible. Further, the possible target volume will vary roughly as the cube of t for a given acceleration rate in the enemy ship. Shooting a slower projectile in the hopes of outmaneuvering my enemy is in other words not a good bet, if nothing else because a slower shot is a lot easier to shoot down.

[Brother Oni]

And, here's a question about missiles in space I've never seen addressed: chaff.
On a planet, chaff naturally disperses and falls to the ground. In space, however, with an appropriate deployment mechanism, it would stick around far longer; theoretically, it could be held in place magnetically, assuming no extreme maneuvering, and it would be virtually guaranteed to intercept at least one missile before being blown away - depending on the density of the chaff and the payload of the missile, possibly far more.
Or am I missing something?


It depends on the type of ECM as they're specific to the guidance system of the missile bearing down on them.

Chaff is intended to defeat radar guided homing systems. Chaff is essentially thin metallic strips of metal of a particular length and this length is critical to defeat a particular radar wavelength - the problem is, different radar systems use different wavelengths so as I understand it, chaff that works for one radar type, might not work too well against another.
Missiles can be remotely guided by the source however, either by following a laser beam or radio commands, which chaff won't block.

Chaff also doesn't work against IR missiles ('heat seekers'), which require flares to defeat and in a real world setting, stealth is basically impossible in space.

Most sci-fi settings I know of also have sufficiently advanced technology for decent image recognition guidance systems - chaff's not going to stop something that essentially uses a digital version of the MK1 Eyeball, unless it's dense enough to effectively block sight and the missile is stupid enough to blow up when it loses sight of the target (impact fuses rather than proximity fuses would be one simple way around this).

[theasl]

Not quite real world, but...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJLBVyz4GBs

Would that sort of stealth (basically, keeping all emissions in an internal heat sink) even be feasible for a real-world self-propelled object, though? I'm guessing it wouldn't.

[Strigon]

It depends on the type of ECM as they're specific to the guidance system of the missile bearing down on them.

Chaff is intended to defeat radar guided homing systems. Chaff is essentially thin metallic strips of metal of a particular length and this length is critical to defeat a particular radar wavelength - the problem is, different radar systems use different wavelengths so as I understand it, chaff that works for one radar type, might not work too well against another.
Missiles can be remotely guided by the source however, either by following a laser beam or radio commands, which chaff won't block.

Chaff also doesn't work against IR missiles ('heat seekers'), which require flares to defeat and in a real world setting, stealth is basically impossible in space.

Most sci-fi settings I know of also have sufficiently advanced technology for decent image recognition guidance systems - chaff's not going to stop something that essentially uses a digital version of the MK1 Eyeball, unless it's dense enough to effectively block sight and the missile is stupid enough to blow up when it loses sight of the target (impact fuses rather than proximity fuses would be one simple way around this).

Huh. You know, I knew that. I really did.
I was taught by F-117 Nighthawk.

Why, then, I thought chaff worked by being a cloud of shrapnel that physically intercepted the missile, making it blow up, I couldn't tell you.

How would that system work in space, then? A field of ball-bearing sized iron pellets dispersed around the spacecraft, hopefully detonating any missiles that approach.

[Carl]

Okay space stuff. geek out.

The big issue you run into is that with orbital velocities being what they are impact velocities are going to be so high that without magical tech in either materials or propulsion you've got so much energy comic at you just from simple impact physics that your ship is going to be reduced to a debris field. And thats assuming basics. If all the gloves come off and anything goes your likely to be dealing with Casaba Howitzer. Nuclear driven plasma lances that throw massive amounts of plasma at huge velocities producing incredible penetrating power over huge area's, (relative to the likely size of any target). Something built even like a middle of last century battleships would just flash vaporise under that kind of energy. They're basically nuclear detonation driven plasma lances in sci-fi parlance.

That said don;t buy everything Atomic Rockets tells you. Stealth in space vs modern tech is far from impossible. If you ever took a photo out in an open space with an old camera phone from somwhere where you could see miles behind whatever you took the picture of you'll have seen how at extreme range pixelation from bad resolution can completely remove details from the image. The thermal signature of a ship should certainly be detectable at enormous ranges to modern sensor tech, but i've yet to hear a proposal that achieves anything like a sensible sounding resolution, not to mention how a sufficiently energetic background can hide things. A planet puts out more than enough energy to be detected at interstellar distances, doesn't mean we can check every star in the sky for planets, the star obscures it. That's a petty extreme example of course but it's another issue and bad resolution would just compound it. There are other issues with most proposals but thats just for starters.

As far as dodging goes. The maximum dodge vs an unguided round is equal to 0.5*A*T^2 where A is the acceleration and T is the time. So for 3 seconds of flight and a 7 g dodge your talking being able to sidestep 315 meters. ofc if your rate of Fire is high enough you can scatter rounds across the possibble path and if they can explode to create shrapnel you can expand that further effectively letting you deduct your 1 kill zone radius from the dodge radius.

[Telwar]

Of course, the issue is that the faster you go, the harder serious course corrections are. At that point, you don't have a missile so much as you do a semi-guided shell. It could work, of course, but it's not the solution to all space-warfare problems.

Semi-guided shells thrown from something railgun-like with the ability for mid-course corrections and standoff warheads are basically what I've come up with if you want to shoot at something that's more than a few light-seconds away and probably knows you're there. A radar-absorbent coating would help significantly against interception (and you can have them fired with sabots if you're worried about the coating ablating in the initial acceleration), though they'd likely show up on IR at least a little bit, and you can seed the volleys with specialized sensor and decoy shells; in particular, a shell that simply sent out a very energetic radar pulse to help the actual warheads with their final attack corrections if you want to minimize emissions (assuming, of course, we don't have tiny ansibles on each shell for coordination).

And I mean volleys, lots of them, because we're having to fire into t, or as I think of it, the cone of uncertainty. Granted, if it's using a reaction drive, you'll probably get an idea which way it's going regardless. But even if we're working bomb-pumped lasers, that's still a relatively slender beam against what might be a fairly small target, so you'll want a lot of them. And if you think you might be able to get some of your shells close, you could have some that shot small penetrators at relativistic velocities that just ram and do ridiculous impact damage. That's probably not as flexible as a bomb-pumped laser, but some defenses may work better against those, and frankly, someone's going to want to fire a gun using another gun anyway. :smallsmile:

Of course, there are tradeoffs. Depending on how good you are at shoving stuff into tubes, you may not be able to carry many of these missile-sized "shells," certainly not enough for many volleys unless you're using large, large ships, and depending on their sizes, they may be easier to locate and intercept. Probably the best response to try to intercept these is to launch sandshot (buncha buncha bitty ball bearings if you have money to burn, sand if you don't) down the projected course of launches to try and take out as many as you can, which in turn leads to try to hide the launch and/or building in more maneuverability at the expense of payload, and so on and so forth. Failing that, taking a cue from Safeguard, nuclear-armed CIWS turrets, flinging out a hail of mininukes to try to get as many of the hypothetical projectiles before they reach attack ranges.

[LudicSavant]

Still hoping for an answer to my question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21880376&postcount=252) if anyone knows.

[Pauly]

Well before looking at the design of the weapon, we should look at the design of the space warship.

First issue is where it is constructed. I will assume ISS style construction, with components prefabricated on planet then boosted into space. This assumes zero atmospheric capability. This allows you to design a spaceship with no need for wings or other aerodynamic considerations.

In order to reduce target size the most efficient design is the needle, similar to a submarine. You will have your firepower and armor if present forward and aft.

Probably you would have an open box design, like the lander from Space 1999. there is no need to create a skin or large volumes of open space inside the ship. You probably need separation between crew areas and weapon areas and engines.

With such a design you could create a very effective nose cap to prevent direct fire projectiles (rail guns/lasers/bullets). Which leads to missiles using a blast radius to get into the softer target areas as being more of a threat, even if their attack time is slower and they are easier to counteract than a direct fire weapon.

Which leads to a WW2 naval kind of dynamic, where guns shooting at armor is the most common event but tis rarely eventuated in an immediately decisive outcome. Torpedoes, however, at close range where the most dangerous element

[Telwar]

Why, then, I thought chaff worked by being a cloud of shrapnel that physically intercepted the missile, making it blow up, I couldn't tell you.

If I remember my late-eighties/early-nineties technothrillers correctly, usually they mention the radar-guided missile runs into the chaff and explodes, and fail to mention the missile's proximity fuse went off. I can easily see how one might get that impression. :smallbiggrin:


How would that system work in space, then? A field of ball-bearing sized iron pellets dispersed around the spacecraft, hopefully detonating any missiles that approach.

One of my favorite milSF authors, Ian Douglas (aka Keith Laumer) has these used in his recent space naval combat series to intercept missiles fired from other fighters*. One of the viewpoint characters gets his nickname from an inspired use of them, actually.



* - Which are useful because there is FTL travel but not communication, and FTL doesn't work in the inner system. The first notice of a fleet coming out of warp is the visible signature of the ships coming, and the fighters are typically screaming in right behind it at ridiculous accelerations to say "Hi!" with missiles and pew-pew guns and inflect maximum carnage in the surprise round, as it were. The capital ships come out a few minutes later and theoretically mop up. Of course, this rarely happens exactly as planned, and the fighters tend to get eaten up pretty bad.

[Pauly]

Still hoping for an answer to my question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21880376&postcount=252) if anyone knows.

Some you tube videos that may help
Scholagladiatoria
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGf7n7iUF_k
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B85tEumvz3w

Lindybeige
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O-y6oirEsZA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UGv_UdgHeCQ

[theasl]

If it (probably) works for intercepting projectiles, could overwhelming the physical defenses of a whole spaceship with a giant cloud of space debris work as a weapon? Like flak vs planes or hedgehogs vs subs.

[LudicSavant]

Some you tube videos that may help
Scholagladiatoria
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGf7n7iUF_k
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B85tEumvz3w

Lindybeige
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O-y6oirEsZA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UGv_UdgHeCQ

Thanks. I had already seen 3 of those, but hadn't seen scholagladiatoria's second video on the subject. What about two-handed or multi-headed flails, though? And especially, are there any good demonstrations of use? Practical demonstrations or techniques is what I'm really hoping for here (such as with the Araki Ryu school demonstrations).

[Carl]

Semi-guided shells thrown from something railgun-like with the ability for mid-course corrections and standoff warheads are basically what I've come up with if you want to shoot at something that's more than a few light-seconds away and probably knows you're there. A radar-absorbent coating would help significantly against interception (and you can have them fired with sabots if you're worried about the coating ablating in the initial acceleration), though they'd likely show up on IR at least a little bit, and you can seed the volleys with specialized sensor and decoy shells; in particular, a shell that simply sent out a very energetic radar pulse to help the actual warheads with their final attack corrections if you want to minimize emissions (assuming, of course, we don't have tiny ansibles on each shell for coordination).

And I mean volleys, lots of them, because we're having to fire into t, or as I think of it, the cone of uncertainty. Granted, if it's using a reaction drive, you'll probably get an idea which way it's going regardless. But even if we're working bomb-pumped lasers, that's still a relatively slender beam against what might be a fairly small target, so you'll want a lot of them. And if you think you might be able to get some of your shells close, you could have some that shot small penetrators at relativistic velocities that just ram and do ridiculous impact damage. That's probably not as flexible as a bomb-pumped laser, but some defenses may work better against those, and frankly, someone's going to want to fire a gun using another gun anyway. :smallsmile:

Of course, there are tradeoffs. Depending on how good you are at shoving stuff into tubes, you may not be able to carry many of these missile-sized "shells," certainly not enough for many volleys unless you're using large, large ships, and depending on their sizes, they may be easier to locate and intercept. Probably the best response to try to intercept these is to launch sandshot (buncha buncha bitty ball bearings if you have money to burn, sand if you don't) down the projected course of launches to try and take out as many as you can, which in turn leads to try to hide the launch and/or building in more maneuverability at the expense of payload, and so on and so forth. Failing that, taking a cue from Safeguard, nuclear-armed CIWS turrets, flinging out a hail of mininukes to try to get as many of the hypothetical projectiles before they reach attack ranges.

As my littile equation, (i think my post s bottom of last page), shows you don't need light second distances. If your firing at 50km a second launch velocities, (high but theoretically possibble for railgun launched stuff), anything over a few hundred km away is going to be hard to hit without guidance.

Of course one intresting concept that maybe might work for serious on target bang is firing railgun slugs that are basically an impact driven gun type fission device. messy but about as brute force simple as it gets.

[Vinyadan]

Thank you warty goblin for the very throughout answer! I am not a math person, but you were very clear.

About ball bearings in space, the question is how the explosion is triggered. Assuming a missile at 30.000 km/h, anything it hits, it will cause enough resistance to kill an hypothetical man launched at the same speed. However, (rl civilian) space rockets are extremely sturdy. A satellite was e.g. once hit by a Pleiad, travelling between 11 and 70 km/s. The satellite (Olympus 1) did not explode, instead it was knocked out of its orbit. So I am quite sure that ball bearings wouldn't do much, since they don't have much weight, and I think such a defense would have been considered by the missile maker. To put things into perspective, there are bombs meant to dive into mountains to explode in the underlying tunnel and make it collapse. Now, if you were to shoot ball bearings at high speed around the ship to intercept the missile, that would work a lot better, and it's not too different fron today's anti missile defense systems on many ships.

One scientist once explained that one speckle of paint lost in space, when hitting the cockpit of a Space Shuttle, is the same hit as if a grenade had exploded against it. I guess they are pretty solid.

[Carl]

Thank you warty goblin for the very throughout answer! I am not a math person, but you were very clear.

About ball bearings in space, the question is how the explosion is triggered. Assuming a missile at 30.000 km/h, anything it hits, it will cause enough resistance to kill an hypothetical man launched at the same speed. However, (rl civilian) space rockets are extremely sturdy. A satellite was e.g. once hit by a Pleiad, travelling between 11 and 70 km/s. The satellite (Olympus 1) did not explode, instead it was knocked out of its orbit. So I am quite sure that ball bearings wouldn't do much, since they don't have much weight, and I think such a defense would have been considered by the missile maker. To put things into perspective, there are bombs meant to dive into mountains to explode in the underlying tunnel and make it collapse. Now, if you were to shoot ball bearings at high speed around the ship to intercept the missile, that would work a lot better, and it's not too different fron today's anti missile defense systems on many ships.

One scientist once explained that one speckle of paint lost in space, when hitting the cockpit of a Space Shuttle, is the same hit as if a grenade had exploded against it. I guess they are pretty solid.

A 100 gram ball bearing at 70km/s hits with the force of 54kg's of TNT, thats enough to obliterate most things. That meteorite that knocked out Olympus was probably a glancing blow from somthing much lighter, (also depending on orbital mechanics it may have been hit from an angle that took it's own orbital velocity of the impact instead of adding it, or being neutral). Bear in mind anything bigger than a marble will make it to the ground intact. We don;t get many that do, that should give you an idea of how small the one that clipped the satellite must have been.

Also as a p.s ball bearing being denser would have greater bang, they would shed less energy disintegrating than meteorite.

As an example of the kind of damage a colony would suffer, a 112 gram pebble meteorite moving at expected impact speeds, (they seem to be assuming low, which make sense given certain other paramatars), would be sufficient to punch a hole over 3 feet in diameter in a colony. Note that said colony has a double hull with 6 feet of soil packed between the two layers and the hole size is the innermost one.

[Strigon]

If I remember my late-eighties/early-nineties technothrillers correctly, usually they mention the radar-guided missile runs into the chaff and explodes, and fail to mention the missile's proximity fuse went off. I can easily see how one might get that impression. :smallbiggrin:



One of my favorite milSF authors, Ian Douglas (aka Keith Laumer) has these used in his recent space naval combat series to intercept missiles fired from other fighters*. One of the viewpoint characters gets his nickname from an inspired use of them, actually.



* - Which are useful because there is FTL travel but not communication, and FTL doesn't work in the inner system. The first notice of a fleet coming out of warp is the visible signature of the ships coming, and the fighters are typically screaming in right behind it at ridiculous accelerations to say "Hi!" with missiles and pew-pew guns and inflect maximum carnage in the surprise round, as it were. The capital ships come out a few minutes later and theoretically mop up. Of course, this rarely happens exactly as planned, and the fighters tend to get eaten up pretty bad.

And here I was thinking I was clever for coming up with it for my own sci-fi book :P



About ball bearings in space, the question is how the explosion is triggered. Assuming a missile at 30.000 km/h, anything it hits, it will cause enough resistance to kill an hypothetical man launched at the same speed. However, (rl civilian) space rockets are extremely sturdy. A satellite was e.g. once hit by a Pleiad, travelling between 11 and 70 km/s. The satellite (Olympus 1) did not explode, instead it was knocked out of its orbit. So I am quite sure that ball bearings wouldn't do much, since they don't have much weight, and I think such a defense would have been considered by the missile maker. To put things into perspective, there are bombs meant to dive into mountains to explode in the underlying tunnel and make it collapse. Now, if you were to shoot ball bearings at high speed around the ship to intercept the missile, that would work a lot better, and it's not too different fron today's anti missile defense systems on many ships.

One scientist once explained that one speckle of paint lost in space, when hitting the cockpit of a Space Shuttle, is the same hit as if a grenade had exploded against it. I guess they are pretty solid.

Of course, unless we're talking about an ICBM, commercial rockets and military missiles have almost nothing in common. It's like comparing a moose to a rabbit; just because a moose can shrug something off, that doesn't imply the rabbit can.
Besides, even if it survives one, there's a whole cloud of them, in theory. It should be torn apart, yes?


A 100 gram ball bearing at 70km/s hits with the force of 54kg's of TNT, thats enough to obliterate most things. That meteorite that knocked out Olympus was probably a glancing blow from somthing much lighter, (also depending on orbital mechanics it may have been hit from an angle that took it's own orbital velocity of the impact instead of adding it, or being neutral). Bear in mind anything bigger than a marble will make it to the ground intact. We don;t get many that do, that should give you an idea of how small the one that clipped the satellite must have been.

Also as a p.s ball bearing being denser would have greater bang, they would shed less energy disintegrating than meteorite.

As an example of the kind of damage a colony would suffer, a 112 gram pebble meteorite moving at expected impact speeds, (they seem to be assuming low, which make sense given certain other paramatars), would be sufficient to punch a hole over 3 feet in diameter in a colony. Note that said colony has a double hull with 6 feet of soil packed between the two layers and the hole size is the innermost one.

Since your answer is the one that is most convenient to work off of, I'm accepting it as canon!

[Martin Greywolf]

Thanks. I had already seen 3 of those, but hadn't seen scholagladiatoria's second video on the subject. What about two-handed or multi-headed flails, though? And especially, are there any good demonstrations of use? Practical demonstrations or techniques is what I'm really hoping for here (such as with the Araki Ryu school demonstrations).

I have used flails, and had them used against me. The latter is not fun, let me tell you.

For the recent Schola video, only thing Matt says that is wrong is that you shouldn't get multi-headed flails - you can, but you have to reduce the size of the balls accordingly. if that's practical, well, kinda. It splits the impact force into several areas, making each impact weaker, but on the other hand, if you thought the normal flail is a pain in the ass to parry...

Two handed flails, often called bohemian flails - because Czechs spanked several Crusades with them - are by far the most common type. They are designed to be cheap, quick to make (take agricultural tool, slap some iron on its business end, optionally replace leather hinge with iron), and are a really, really terrible weapon when used individually. Thing is, even two handed versions are bad at defense, especially when compared to halberds or spears - the Hussites compensated for this with using them from war wagons or from behind shieldmen.

The advantage - they are extremely difficult to parry, even in one on one situation, you basically need to rush the guy holding it to stop him from being able to swing it, or use your shield at odd angles. On a battlefield where the flailman has friends... yeah, can't rush him, you'll get overwhelmed. Can't place your shield at odd angles, you'll get stabbed in the face. What would be effective is archery fire, but again, Hussites didn't expose their flailmen to that, using either pavaises, war wagons or other fortifications to hide behind.

Caveat into Asian chain weapons: pretty much all of them are not historically used as weapons and the few that were (and they were usually a niche weapons at best - Okinawan MAs are a good example of where they thrived to bypass the local laws) don't have original methods left. Some of them may work, some may not, it depends on what the approach of each individual dojo to their techniques is.

Now, for actual techniques, we have a few. Not a lot, though, because of two factors. First one is that flails are just maces that wanted to be more metal. They are blunt and have a stick, so any sort of system that has that will work with these - Fiore and his dagger/bastoncello techniques are a good example. To use these, you need to hold the chain alongside your shaft, stopping the head from moving, or maybe grabbing end of shaft with one hand and chain next to the ball with the other.

The two handed version can use a lot of material for the staff, and we have a considerable amount of techniques for that - remember, spear and poleaxe use staff techniques, we have more of those than pure staff. There are specialized flail techniques in De Arte Athletica (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef9Xuzu3aa0).

The more important factor for not seeing a lot of techniques is that, well, it's not a nimble weapon - there's not that much skill to it apart from the basics of distance, timing and throwing a proper blow, and it was more of an emergency weapon to boot - if you had the money and the time, you usually got yourself a poleaxe or a halberd. Even the aforementioned De Arte Athletica has it as more of a curiosity weapon that was probably used for judicial duels for the most part, the same book also shows you sickle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDRBrvgcJp8) and scythe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoeNwEjpTE4) (agricultural scythe without modification to blade direction) techniques.

Only other manuscripts that show you flail directly (that I know of) are Michael Hundt (one technique on how to defeat flail ambush with a rapier), Jakub Sutor von Baden (a single technique) and Hans Talhoffer (two pages with very few words in the Königsegg manuscript). Most of the time, people using them would either fall back on their halberd/staff/spear technique, or hammer away.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

While railguns are a cool idea in fiction, they are probably really impractical for actual space battles. In space you could see enemy ships from huge distances and if you shot a railgun from that far away it will be several seconds at the very least until the projectile gets to the target. And then you have the target moving at incredible speeds as well and even small nudges in course corrections will lead to the projectile going wide by a considerable distance.

A "small" nudge will require a large amount of propellant to vector you across (and as Carl pointed out, you're not moving that far, and even those numbers may be optimistic depending on the mass of your vessel), which may lead to you having to disengage simply through having lost the ability to maneuver.

But most vessels would probably have multiple weapon types - energy for engagement at light-second ranges, torpedoes and missiles for medium range, large projectiles/railguns for close range and small rapid fire projectiles for point defence.
A 100 gram ball bearing at 70km/s hits with the force of 54kg's of TNT, thats enough to obliterate most things.
Assuming you can fire the thing without turning it into thin smear of metal on the surface of whatever tried to fire it because your projectile couldn't handle the acceleration and broke up, and that you can provide the kinds of power required to accelerate it to that speed in the first place (it's the equivalent of Mach 240 or there abouts). And even if it hits a vessel, it's probably going straight through the outer hull, all the inner decks and out the other side without stopping, so you're reliant on hitting a vital system that doesn't have a backup.

Anyway, going back to the original question,

if a vessel's got chance to prepare, all the crew would be in pressure suits - at the very least, the crew's uniform should probably include a pressure garment around their torsos and a full face mask that also covers the ears with an internal short duration air supply and an external air feed hose as a just in case measure, at duty stations, likely deep within the core of the vessel, and pretty much everywhere on board will be depressurised and sealed with bulkheads - the only potential exception would be medical, and even that might be depressurised.

Any spalling or fragmentation probably wouldn't break out of the compartment they're in, could well pierce pressure suits (they're not likely to be as bulky as the suits we're used to seeing, as they would be designed for wearing while on ship and thus wouldn't normally need the layers of coolant, radiation shielding and micro-meteor impact absorbtion - there'd also be those bulkier suits for external work), but chances are the crew aren't in the outer hull anyway.

Hollow points may not make it through the armour - if they do they'll maybe breach one compartment before running out of useful energy. The damge would like render those compartments inaccesible this side of returning to a dock or a support vessel that can repair them (through and throughs could likely just be patched by damage control teams, or the vessel may have a self-sealing system that automatically does it), but probably wouldn't critically damage the vessel itself.

[Kiero]

If you have time to prepare, and all your crew can don vacuum suits, surely the best thing to do if you're expecting hull breaches is to vent all your atmosphere? No oxygen means no combustion/fires/explosions.

[Pauly]

If you have time to prepare, and all your crew can don vacuum suits, surely the best thing to do if you're expecting hull breaches is to vent all your atmosphere? No oxygen means no combustion/fires/explosions.

How would you re-supply the atmosphere if you wented it into space?

Short version is that air is a valuable and finite resource.

[Kiero]

How would you re-supply the atmosphere if you wented it into space?

Short version is that air is a valuable and finite resource.

Depends how far from a station/planet you're operating. If you're close enough to go and resupply after the fight, then it may not be an issue.

[Strigon]

If you have time to prepare, and all your crew can don vacuum suits, surely the best thing to do if you're expecting hull breaches is to vent all your atmosphere? No oxygen means no combustion/fires/explosions.

Ah, yes; the FTL contingency. Brilliant!

How would you re-supply the atmosphere if you wented it into space?

Short version is that air is a valuable and finite resource.
If we're going with sufficiently advanced technology, you could theoretically have a dense, solid, nitrogen rich compound, and another similarly dense, solid, oxygen rich compound. When you need air, you make each of them undergo a chemical reaction that liberates them into N2 and O2. You could have a massive store in a relatively small space.


Depends how far from a station/planet you're operating. If you're close enough to go and resupply after the fight, then it may not be an issue.

In the material being referenced, pretty much all combat would be in close orbit around a planet.
Which also makes light-second distances less likely to occur.

[Galloglaich]

So here's something I've been looking into a bit and I'm curious if anyone here has any insight.

I've been wondering about flails. This originally came up since I was attempting to rebalance the 5e weapons (which contain a number of pointless or trap options, of which flails are one). And I realized I had no real idea how someone actually fought with a flail effectively... so I started looking for demonstrations, and it turns out there's some controversy over whether medieval flails existed at all (one side claims that they seem to have been real but rare, while the other is more skeptical). I did however find references to other cultures using flail-like weapons, like the Japanese Chigiriki. I found a couple of demonstrations as well, which were interesting (it's certainly used differently than medieval flails are often portrayed in fiction).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeCrBDlWixM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt__otLtfZ0

As far as European flails, I didn't have much luck (other than finding out about the sort modified from farming equipment that resembles a two section staff).

So my question is: What're the views on the historicity of flails in various cultures? How were they used? Any good demonstrations? What niches did they fill, including advantages and disadvantages?

Sorry I missed this.


The short answer is,

1) Yes Flails were used and they were actually militarily significant.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Arte_De_Athletica_2b.jpg/520px-Arte_De_Athletica_2b.jpg

2) The actual type of flail in wide use historically in Europe was a two-handed infantry flail. This was that 'two -section staff' type thing you are talking about, which is an adaptation of the threshing flail used by peasants to thresh grain. They basically remade it with a chain to connect the two sections instead of a rope or leather thong, they used heavier wood, and they reinforced the business end with heavy iron bands and spikes.

This is a pretty accurate replica of a Czech Hussite war-flail from circa 1420

https://www.wulflund.com/img/goods/en/medium/flail_flails_weapon_hussite_wars_b.jpg

This is a piece of a surviving antique

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/b7/32/72b7329d6f1c877d4c0cb9e08660706c.jpg

This is a peasants threshing flail, an agricultural tool.

https://forum.kingdomcomerpg.com/uploads/default/4282/c366a7880313d8bf.jpg

3) This type of infantry flail was in wide use around Europe but became especially famous in the hands of the Czech Hussite heretics, for whom it was one of their characteristic weapons in their successful 1420 -1430 uprising and counter-Crusade. Their other weapons were the handgun, early field artrillery or mini-howitzer, war-wagon, awl-pike, and crossbow. We know that these weapons were widely adopted in Germany, Poland, and by polities in other neighboring regions after their encounters with the Czechs.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b3/d3/41/b3d341d54b0a4e85f7594f9b7c9fd3de.jpg

4) Smaller single handed flails used by cavalry, and two-handed infantry flails with longer chains also existed and appeared all over Europe but were much rarer.



The Czech style flail was part of a family of weapons which include the Scottish shiltron (a kind of proto-pike), the Flemish godendag (a two-handed mace / spear), and the Swiss Halberd which proved highly effective against armored cavalry from circa 1300-1420. Later on the pike, awl-pike, bill, poll-axe / poll-hammer, glaive, partisan and a variety of other polearms also fitted into this niche.

Hope that helps,

G

[Galloglaich]

The two handed version can use a lot of material for the staff, and we have a considerable amount of techniques for that - remember, spear and poleaxe use staff techniques, we have more of those than pure staff. There are specialized flail techniques in De Arte Athletica (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef9Xuzu3aa0).

The more important factor for not seeing a lot of techniques is that, well, it's not a nimble weapon - there's not that much skill to it apart from the basics of distance, timing and throwing a proper blow, and it was more of an emergency weapon to boot - if you had the money and the time, you usually got yourself a poleaxe or a halberd. Even the aforementioned De Arte Athletica has it as more of a curiosity weapon that was probably used for judicial duels for the most part, the same book also shows you sickle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDRBrvgcJp8) and scythe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoeNwEjpTE4) (agricultural scythe without modification to blade direction) techniques.

Only other manuscripts that show you flail directly (that I know of) are Michael Hundt (one technique on how to defeat flail ambush with a rapier), Jakub Sutor von Baden (a single technique) and Hans Talhoffer (two pages with very few words in the Königsegg manuscript). Most of the time, people using them would either fall back on their halberd/staff/spear technique, or hammer away.

Sorry, you beat me to it. I think you are forgetting the big one here, Paulus Hector Mair (source of the colored image in my previous post), but maybe that is because he was aggregating from other sources.

I don't think this was an ideal weapon for a one-on-one fight, but I'm not sure if it's as ineffective as you suggest here. However, the purpose of the flail as I'm sure you know from playing with sparring or re-enactment, is really the impact of it. The impact of a flail seems to be more than any hammer or mace. It's really the ultimate bludgeon weapon, and when you add spikes it's devastating.

If it's strongly made enough (and that is a big if, I have made them myself and it's hard to make a flail that won't fall apart after a few hits) the repeated impact of these things is one of the few things that will really defeat even good armor. And the Czechs in particular used peasants to wield them (including sometimes women) who were experts at threshing and could whip it 120 times per minute allegedly.


At any rate, as Martin said, I think they were typically used behind a wall of pavises and were especially helpful in 'discouraging' attempts to breach an infantry line (or a war-wagon line) as they could negate the protective effect of the armor. They were impressive enough in battle that I can tell you I've seen records from several cities and princely armies where they scrambled to buy hundreds of these things within a few weeks of their initial encounters with Hussite raids.

G

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Depends how far from a station/planet you're operating. If you're close enough to go and resupply after the fight, then it may not be an issue.
If you're damaged, atmospheric entry is a really bad idea - Columbia shows that. :smallfrown: Assuming your craft is aerodynamic enough to be able to do it in the first place. And shuttling back and forth from the planet probably wouldn't bring enough air up in each trip and would take an extraordinary amount of fuel.

While armouring the whole ship to withstand direct hits might be impossible, the inter-war "all or nothing" principle may be able to be applied, and vital structures like air tanks could potentially be small enough to be both difficult to hit and sufficiently armoured to avoid damage, and they and the air feeds could have enough redundancy to allow the crew to operate until they can either repair damage or reach support. Plus there's always the chance of using things like oxygen candles, lifeboats and other ships craft, emergency tanks and so on.

[Max_Killjoy]

If your life support system is sufficiently advanced, get the crew into suits and then re-compress the oxygen out of the internal atmosphere to reduce pressure and change the mix to inert. That way if you do get punctured, there's a much lower fire chance, less risk of blowouts, and you retain that precious oxygen.

[Yora]

Somebody here once pointed out that while the iron in metallic meteorites was of very high purity, it would still need to be alloyed with carbon to obtain the necessary hardness to get and keep a working (cutting) edge. Since (as someone else here once pointed out), Roman gladii were essentially case-hardened cast iron, I'd surmise you should be able to make one from a meteorite with little extra trouble. Carburizing the blade with vegetable or animal charcoal could also serve as a symbolic or actually magical union of the celestial and the terrestrial spheres.

Meteoritic iron would be easier to turn into a sword-grade aloy than iron ore, right?

I am considering a setting in which bronze is the standard material for blades and only iron weapons can lethally harm spirits. Only gnomes learned refining iron ore from giants (and as such have a monopoly on it) and everyone else has to rely on meteoritic iron to make their own iron blades. Seems plausible enough to me. Anything about that seeming odd?


A 100 gram ball bearing at 70km/s hits with the force of 54kg's of TNT, thats enough to obliterate most things.

Relevant link. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPRIUJzmkC0) :smallbiggrin:

[Max_Killjoy]

Refining ore into usable iron of at least the quality needed to make decent-size decent-quality knife blades, would appear to have been a hard secret to keep, in our own history.

Also, without looking, I'm going to guess that the link is to a certain background scene from Mass Effect 2...

[Carl]

A "small" nudge will require a large amount of propellant to vector you across (and as Carl pointed out, you're not moving that far, and even those numbers may be optimistic depending on the mass of your vessel), which may lead to you having to disengage simply through having lost the ability to maneuver.

But most vessels would probably have multiple weapon types - energy for engagement at light-second ranges, torpedoes and missiles for medium range, large projectiles/railguns for close range and small rapid fire projectiles for point defence.
Assuming you can fire the thing without turning it into thin smear of metal on the surface of whatever tried to fire it because your projectile couldn't handle the acceleration and broke up, and that you can provide the kinds of power required to accelerate it to that speed in the first place (it's the equivalent of Mach 240 or there abouts). And even if it hits a vessel, it's probably going straight through the outer hull, all the inner decks and out the other side without stopping, so you're reliant on hitting a vital system that doesn't have a backup.

Anyway, going back to the original question,

if a vessel's got chance to prepare, all the crew would be in pressure suits - at the very least, the crew's uniform should probably include a pressure garment around their torsos and a full face mask that also covers the ears with an internal short duration air supply and an external air feed hose as a just in case measure, at duty stations, likely deep within the core of the vessel, and pretty much everywhere on board will be depressurised and sealed with bulkheads - the only potential exception would be medical, and even that might be depressurised.

Any spalling or fragmentation probably wouldn't break out of the compartment they're in, could well pierce pressure suits (they're not likely to be as bulky as the suits we're used to seeing, as they would be designed for wearing while on ship and thus wouldn't normally need the layers of coolant, radiation shielding and micro-meteor impact absorbtion - there'd also be those bulkier suits for external work), but chances are the crew aren't in the outer hull anyway.

Hollow points may not make it through the armour - if they do they'll maybe breach one compartment before running out of useful energy. The damage would like render those compartments inaccesible this side of returning to a dock or a support vessel that can repair them (through and throughs could likely just be patched by damage control teams, or the vessel may have a self-sealing system that automatically does it), but probably wouldn't critically damage the vessel itself.


Nothing personal but there's a really severe lack of understanding of the effects at work here. If your going retrograde around the earth and your targets going prograde, minimum impact velocity is 60KPS, (EDIT: I'm pretty sure this is wrong now my brains caught up, i think it would 14 from memory, but you it varies with exact orbits, and it's still just a minimum, i think someone substituted escape velocity and orbital velocity in the table i looked up). if you just empty the bearings out the airlock. You don;t have to launch at extreme speed to get high impact velocities, and if your firing missiles the d/v needed to change orbits is likely to produce impact velocities in the 10's of kps range just from the missiles own velocity.

Second how impacts work varies with a whole bunch of factors. But your not looking at a simple hole once the velocity hits 6-7kps, (below that or vs brittle materials, maybe, as the US Navy's railgun has been doing vs con create in testing for example). It starts acting like a liquid under impact, not a solid, so the hole will be much larger than the projectile that made it and a considerable amount of material around the impact point will just detach and go flying inward at high speed, at a high enough impact velocity it will do so ast enough to have the same effect on whatever it hits, and so on and so forth. In addition that motion of flowing away from the impact is a result of an internal shock wave within the target material, so it can travel anywhere the material goes for as long as there's enough energy. 54kg'sof TNT is 245MJ's. Thats a lot.

Here's a couple of images to put things into perspective:

This is a 1.7 gram aluminium sphere @ 6800m/s vs a 7 inch thick block of aluminium:

http://i.imgur.com/PFzvR1B.jpg

And this is a 7 gram Lexan, (bullet resistant plastic), @ 7000m/s vs an aluminium block, AFAIK the ruler is in inches, not cm as it's an old SDI image.

http://i.imgur.com/oD1haU1r.jpg

Now multiply that energy a hundred fold vs somthing a lot less sturdy using a projectile much more massive and you get the idea.

[Max_Killjoy]

You can also see the start of a spalling effect off the back of the first aluminum block.

A bit more energy, and that bit that's puckered out shatters off in a bunch of lethal shrapnel inside the vehicle.

[Carl]

Meteoritic iron would be easier to turn into a sword-grade aloy than iron ore, right?

I am considering a setting in which bronze is the standard material for blades and only iron weapons can lethally harm spirits. Only gnomes learned refining iron ore from giants (and as such have a monopoly on it) and everyone else has to rely on meteoritic iron to make their own iron blades. Seems plausible enough to me. Anything about that seeming odd?



Relevant link. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPRIUJzmkC0) :smallbiggrin:

You posted while i was typing. One of my favorite sci-fi moments because the methodology of acceleration aside, everything in there is fact. Ofc factual sci-fi cna also be scary, "The Impossible Planet" scene with the Scarlet system springs to mind there. Unless intelligent life is much rarer than we postulate ATM somwhere sometime, that has happened, Depending on the number of planets and civilisations and black holes out there it's quite possibble that theres allways a scene like that playing out somwhere.

[Clistenes]

Question: Does this look like something that existed in real life, or just as a fantasy weapon?

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt211/Adrian_Merkel/Polearm_zpsmpm5nzdd.jpg

It looks like they tried to combine a hammer's head, an axe blade, a hook and a bec de corbin's beak in a single weapon....

Would it be a practical weapon, or would the axe blade and the bec de cobin's beak in each othe's way?

[Brother Oni]

Would it be a practical weapon, or would the axe blade and the bec de cobin's beak in each othe's way?

From eyeballing it, it seems reasonable to me, although I'm not a fan of the extended spike rivets on the langlets. The beak still looks long enough to be effective in penetrating armour and if you overshoot the target with the beak anyway, you hit them with the blade instead.

[Berenger]

I'm not a fan of the extended spike rivets on the langlets.

Perhaps those aren't meant as an additional (redundant) option for attacks but to prevent the enemy from grabbing the halberd?

[Strigon]

Question: Does this look like something that existed in real life, or just as a fantasy weapon?


I'm no expert, but it certainly looks reasonable.
How well it would work, I can't say exactly, but just by appearances it's fine. It doesn't look so different from a standard halberd.

If, however, you want to go with as realistic an image as possible, I think it should be significantly longer. Most polearms, from what I know, were 6 feet long if not more.
Of course, as mentioned above, I'm no expert, so this could use some verifying. Plus, you know, there's no scale, so it's possible my eyes are deceiving me.

[Telok]

A very short note on space combat: Whipple shields are currently a strong contender for high velocity micrometeor shielding. It's multiple layers of thin shielding spaced a bit apart. The effect is that projectiles punch through the outermost layer, break up, and the fragments have significantly less penetration ability.

[LudicSavant]

Question: Does this look like something that existed in real life, or just as a fantasy weapon?

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt211/Adrian_Merkel/Polearm_zpsmpm5nzdd.jpg

It looks like they tried to combine a hammer's head, an axe blade, a hook and a bec de corbin's beak in a single weapon....

Would it be a practical weapon, or would the axe blade and the bec de cobin's beak in each othe's way?
You might want to check out this guy's comments (https://youtu.be/GsckeyktMS0) on why halberds are shaped the way they are when considering the viability of this weapon.

AFAIK, halberds tend to be very long, can have longer spikes (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Svenska_hillebarder_%281500-talet%29%2C_Nordisk_familjebok.png/220px-Svenska_hillebarder_%281500-talet%29%2C_Nordisk_familjebok.png) than some more chopping-focused polearms (https://www.google.com/search?q=bec+de+corbin&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivwsrD6o7TAhWb14MKHer8CssQ_AUICCgB&biw=1213&bih=513) like the bec-de-corbin (which a long spike could interfere with), and have blades pointed at an angle towards the user (rather than parallel to the shaft), and don't have totally random spikey bits.

[Pauly]

Question: Does this look like something that existed in real life, or just as a fantasy weapon?

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt211/Adrian_Merkel/Polearm_zpsmpm5nzdd.jpg

It looks like they tried to combine a hammer's head, an axe blade, a hook and a bec de corbin's beak in a single weapon....

Would it be a practical weapon, or would the axe blade and the bec de cobin's beak in each othe's way?

It's a bit busier than most halberds, but not extremely so.

While I don't recall seeing that particular convex axehead/spike grouping before, it was very common for halberds with concave axeheads to come to one, sometimes two, spikes at the end of the blade that would definitely function like a bec de corbin.

To be a halberd there is an axeblade on one side, a spike at the end, and another weapon (typically hammer or bec de corbin, but sometimes another axehead) on the reverse side to the axeblade. It was very common to have some definite hooking ability on weapon.

[Yora]

Question: Does this look like something that existed in real life, or just as a fantasy weapon?

in a way, all polearms are fantasy weapons to some degree. People have been experimenting with sticking all kinds and shapes of sharp and pointy bits on the end of sticks of various different lengths. Some combinations ended up becoming quite popular and eventually getting a name, but it's no hard science which ones are their own distinct weapons and which ones are combinations of others.

[Incanur]

Halberds and company weren't necessarily all that long. Sir John Smythe and George Silver recommended around 6ft for halberds/bills/battleaxes. Many, probably most, halberds were longer than this, but you see a range of lengths. (Smythe wanted longer and, if possible, lighter halberds for the halberdiers accompanying the shot, who often faced multiple opponents in close combat.)

[Clistenes]

Perhaps those aren't meant as an additional (redundant) option for attacks but to prevent the enemy from grabbing the halberd?

That's what I think; some nails to make the weapon more difficult to grab when you are trying to stab or hook the enemy... I have seen some japanese polearms with those...


You might want to check out this guy's comments (https://youtu.be/GsckeyktMS0) on why halberds are shaped the way they are when considering the viability of this weapon.

AFAIK, halberds tend to be very long, can have longer spikes (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Svenska_hillebarder_%281500-talet%29%2C_Nordisk_familjebok.png/220px-Svenska_hillebarder_%281500-talet%29%2C_Nordisk_familjebok.png) than some more chopping-focused polearms (https://www.google.com/search?q=bec+de+corbin&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivwsrD6o7TAhWb14MKHer8CssQ_AUICCgB&biw=1213&bih=513) like the bec-de-corbin (which a long spike could interfere with), and have blades pointed at an angle towards the user (rather than parallel to the shaft), and don't have totally random spikey bits.

It seems closer to a pollaxe to me, actually...

[Spiryt]

This spike above the cutting edge looks like it would pretty much inhibit any slashing/hacking action of the blade in like 95% of cases. So no real point of having it there.

Seems to me like most pointless (heh) element of the whole design.

Everything else is roughly reasonable.

[Martin Greywolf]

First of all, don't listen to Lindybeige on any subject that touches medieval weaponry. He never does proper research, gets multiple things wrong etc etc. So far every video on that topic was poorly informed. That's not to say he doesn't make some good points or say some true facts, but it's a gamble to take his word on these topics.

Next up, what you have there isn't a halberd - halberds have spear-length shafts and were meant to be used in a formation, by gambeson-armored people against folks in metal armor (mail, plate, brigadines). When you try to use them in 1v1 fight, well, they are rather clunky, I'd much rather have a spear. When used in groups of several, they are excellent weapons, able to keep people at bay and deliver very powerful hits.

The weapon on the picture is a pollaxe. It should be about as tall as the man using it, or a little shorter, definitely not longer. Front and butt spikes are okay, no great science, but will shank whoever you need to.

Hammer head is not so great, it is slanted backwards and that will make it not hit all at once, increasing probability of glancing off of stuff - if you want penetrating spike, use that, otherwise keep the head of the hammer parallel to the shaft - technically, you should very, very slightly slant it to account for angular movement, but that would be a) almost not noticeable and b) not have a consistent angle, as there are several ways to grip the weapon. That said, it's still a reasonably functional lump of metal.

Blade-spike thingy is more of a problem, though. Now, while idea of a spike and an axe at one time isn't bad, this thing works as a spike pretty much all the time, you will never get a slice with the axe blade. Now, the blade does give you some benefit in added weight and more sharp areas, but the thing is, I'd rather have less weight and more nimbleness.

Spikes near the axe are pointless - they offer no advantage, don't protect the weapon from being grabbed (you can just grab the metal spike), can't be used to attack and can't really be used to trap a blade in a bind. That said, they don't get in the way of using this weapon all that much.

The spikes at the end of the socket are a problem, though. They will make it hard to switch your grip and are too small to act as a disk crossguard you see on some of these weapons.

My final verdict is that what you have on the picture is usable, but could be improved. If you want it to be a ceremonial but also somewhat functional weapon of some elite guard, go for it. If it's supposed to be purely utilitarian, modify it.

[Clistenes]

This spike above the cutting edge looks like it would pretty much inhibit any slashing/hacking action of the blade in like 95% of cases. So no real point of having it there.

Seems to me like most pointless (heh) element of the whole design.

Everything else is roughly reasonable.

Yes, pretty much no slashing. I assume the beak would be used to hit the head, shoulders and body, while the main purpose of the axe blade would be to be aimed at the hands and forearm, which would be harder to hit with a beaklike weapon...

[Yora]

Those hooks on the axe blade look indeed rather questionable. Removing the lower spike and moving the lower tip of the axe edge further from the shaft would probably make it a much better weapon.

[Carl]

A very short note on space combat: Whipple shields are currently a strong contender for high velocity micrometeor shielding. It's multiple layers of thin shielding spaced a bit apart. The effect is that projectiles punch through the outermost layer, break up, and the fragments have significantly less penetration ability.

Their effectiveness is dependant on a lot of factors, go to really high velocity military grade impactors and the type and depth of whipple shielding you need gets a bit extreme. It's all related to how the energy transfers. Certainly viable upto a certain size of projectile at below a certian velocity though.

[BayardSPSR]

A very short note on space combat: Whipple shields are currently a strong contender for high velocity micrometeor shielding. It's multiple layers of thin shielding spaced a bit apart. The effect is that projectiles punch through the outermost layer, break up, and the fragments have significantly less penetration ability.

Sounds like... spaced armor. :smallcool:

On the halberd/polearm thing: hook, blade, hammer; pick two of three (in addition to the spike on the end), trim the spikes on the shaft for finger-safety, and you'll be fine.

[Mike_G]

A very short note on space combat: Whipple shields are currently a strong contender for high velocity micrometeor shielding. It's multiple layers of thin shielding spaced a bit apart. The effect is that projectiles punch through the outermost layer, break up, and the fragments have significantly less penetration ability.

What if you filled the space between the layers of armor with a compressible elastic filling, like foam, that wouldn't really transfer the energy directly to the inner layer, but would absorb it and catch fragments and spalling and slow them?

[Max_Killjoy]

Question: Does this look like something that existed in real life, or just as a fantasy weapon?

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt211/Adrian_Merkel/Polearm_zpsmpm5nzdd.jpg

It looks like they tried to combine a hammer's head, an axe blade, a hook and a bec de corbin's beak in a single weapon....

Would it be a practical weapon, or would the axe blade and the bec de cobin's beak in each othe's way?

Are those more spikes, or is it a disk guard, just above where the wood slots into the metal part? (Can't remember the name for the flat metal bits that protect the halft / shaft).

[Galloglaich]

Are that more spikes, or a disk guard, just above where the wood slots into the metal part? (Can't remember the name for the flat metal bits that protect the halft / shaft).

If you look at real halberds, they achieve the same goal as that spike by simply extending the pointy ends of the axe blade. Older ones mainly with the top point, but some variations of the partisan / ranseur / spetum family do this with two points.

Generally speaking, that abortion of a poll-axe / halberd thing seems like a modern attempt to half-assedly solve a problem which had a perfect solution centuries ago.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Hallebardes-p1000544.jpg

Personally, for what it's worth, I also disagree with martin on the efficacy of those in a one-on-one fight. I think they are very effective especially if you use them in the manner recommended by the masters, i.e. using the queue forward most of the time and switching to the business end when you need to. You basically use them a lot like a staff or a spear but they have much enhanced ability to do harm and to hook shields or trip people, pull people off of horses and so on. Something I call 'grappling from a distance' in the codex.

G

[Telok]

What if you filled the space between the layers of armor with a compressible elastic filling, like foam, that wouldn't really transfer the energy directly to the inner layer, but would absorb it and catch fragments and spalling and slow them?

Perhaps. I'm on a slightly limited mobile right now, just posting between events. I'm mentioning it because I saw one, post testing and sitting next to a slab of aluminum, also post testing, like the image previous. Regrettably I cannot recall at which exhibit I saw it.

It's a less massive shield than solid armor for the same effect against the intended impactors, which do include metal debris. I don't know any technical specs for it.

[Pauly]

In defence of lindybeige and his video about the halberd he makes it very clear that it is speculation, not a lecture on known historical facts.
He states there is no detailed information about their battlefield, as opposed to duelling, usage.
His speculation is based on
(1) the typical angle of the axehead which is angled towards the user, as opposed to parallel to the shaft as for a poleax;
(2) the fact they were used in tight formations, and it is well documented that they sometimes were the front rank of pike blocks;
(3) they were not knightly weapons used by warriors n full plate, who used the poleaxe instead;
(4) the subsequent ergonomics of weilding a weapon of that design in a dense formation by a relatively lightly armored user.

Martin, Golloglaich, if there is something he specifically got wrong in that video I'd really like to hear your explanation.

[Incanur]

I think they are very effective especially if you use them in the manner recommended by the masters, i.e. using the queue forward most of the time and switching to the business end when you need to.

Note that leading with the butt/queue wasn't universal. For example, Joachim Meyer's halberd techniques lead primarily (or exclusively, can't remember) with the head. Meyer's system features plenty of cuts.

As far as battlefield usage of halberds goes, Sir John Smythe wanted halberds/bills no longer than 6ft and expected halberdiers to use blows at the head and thrusts at the face. He was a big fan of the halberd/bill. His ideal regular halberdiers, the ones fighting in close formation, wore considerable armor: three-quarters harness or so, with the possibility of mail sleeves instead of arm harness.

For whatever reason, Smythe specified hablerds/bills with long, straight edges.

As far as halberd length goes, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote that shafts of Swiss/German halberds were three braccia (arm's lengths), which for Florence was apparently around 70 inches (1.77m). This implies that weapon overall was approximately seven feet (2.13m), depending on the size of the head.

[Pauly]

Note that leading with the butt/queue wasn't universal. For example, Joachim Meyer's halberd techniques lead primarily (or exclusively, can't remember) with the head. Meyer's system features plenty of cuts.

As far as battlefield usage of halberds goes, Sir John Smythe wanted halberds/bills no longer than 6ft and expected halberdiers to use blows at the head and thrusts at the face. He was a big fan of the halberd/bill. His ideal regular halberdiers, the ones fighting in close formation, wore considerable armor: three-quarters harness or so, with the possibility of mail sleeves instead of arm harness.

For whatever reason, Smythe specified hablerds/bills with long, straight edges.

As far as halberd length goes, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote that shafts of Swiss/German halberds were three braccia (arm's lengths), which for Florence was apparently around 70 inches (1.77m). This implies that weapon overall was approximately seven feet (2.13m), depending on the size of the head.

From what you've described Smythe seems to describing what we would catedorize as poleaxes in modern parlance. Shorter haft and parrallel blades are what modern authors describe as poleaxe, longer haft and back angled blades are part of the modern definition of what a halberd is. Along with the heavy armor it makes me think he is discussing a different situation than the one lindybeige was speculating on.

[DerKommissar]

This is a bit of a sidetrack, but I’m curious about your opinions: What do you think about the quality of information from Lindybeige?

Note that I’m not asking about the aspects of entertainment, etc. but only if the information he is giving matches with your knowledge, or if one should rather be careful what to believe and what not.



To give a short explanation where this question is coming from:

I’m interested in military history (obviously when reading this thread), but I don’t have a lot of first-hand experience, nor did I read a lot of the sources or specific literature on the topic. So I kinda depend on high quality second-hand experience, either by people who served/re-enacted/smithed/etc or who know a lot about the topics by reading/studies/etc.

I started reading this Thread from the beginning and am now half-way through [I’m in September 2013, but still 11 more threads to go ;) ] and so with some of you guys I spent quite some time even if you didn’t notice and there are some of you around for long time constantly producing first class information.

To put it short: Guys like me depend on high quality second hand information, as sometimes I can use my logic / match it with my knowledge, but other times I just have to believe what somebody is telling me. Therefore I was curious what to make of Lindybeiges’ channel, as entertaining as it is, and if I’d better take it with a grain of salt…

Hope this question somewhat fits the general topic of this thread and does not start a flaming war ;)

But I don’t really know where else to ask…

[snowblizz]

Basically I'd say most youtube stuff needs to be taken with a grain of salt. As does most stuff here, even Galloglaich's posts that I more oftne than not read as gospel.:smallbiggrin:

However, if anyone really knew the answers people like Lindybeige and Shadiversity (look him up on youtube, I really dig him because he has a very scientific approach to things and changes stuff when new information is available) wouldn't be doing this stuff. I agree with Pauly on the halberd stuff Lindybeige said, it sounds reasonable enough given the context he presents.

The upside is that the community isn't vast on this stuff on Youtube so you'll find rebuttals to what one guy says by other's and Youtube algorithms tend make sure you see them. The stuff to really look out for is IMO the made-for-network docus ppl upload. Those TV ppl despite having real experts are definitely taking the mick a lot of the times and aren't available to answer critcism.

Katanas cutting through paltearmour my ass!

[Martin Greywolf]

1) Halberds

Ad Galloglaich: I didn't mean to say halberds were useless in one on one fight, just suboptimal compared to spear or pollaxe, depending on how armored you were. I'd still take halberd over a sword, but that's because you always pick a polearm (unless it's a pike) vs a sword.

2) Lindy in general


Lindy is, IIRC, an archaeologist specializing in ancient world, and there, his info is solid. Anything Hannibal- or bronze age-related, he's probably correct at. Outside of that, he's prone to make insufficient research and come to bad conclusions because of it, his video on Ochs, for example, is an unmitigated catastrophe.

Also keep in mind that while Lindy has a touch more perspective on fighting in formation, since he did re-enactment, many professionals don't - a historian may well spout a lot of impractical nonsense because while he is an expert on artifacts, he has little experience in their actual use. One great example of this concerns a bunch of bronze cones, dating to bronze age, found in Slovakia. Archaeologists identified them as decorative helmet peaks, and labelled them as such for a few decades.

Long story short, someone who did some experimental archaeology eventually took one look at them and identified them as what they really were - ends attached to smith's bellows.

The moral of the story is that an expert is always an expert in something and not necessarily all that knowledgable in other related areas, and you need to make your own conclusions.

3) Lindy and halberds

First off, if you're making a sponsored educational video, not being an expert and admitting it is a bit of a weak argument. So, where he went wrong.

Dating - eh, let's let it slide, hlaberds begin in 14th century, but saying they were common from 15th+ is not wrong.

Halberdiers are professionals in armor - not really. Sure, Swiss mercenaries were famous for having these as their early weapon, but halberds were used by footmen of all wealth and experience levels. As for armor, pretty much anyone in this period can afford at least a gambeson, and halberdiers often stopped at that. There were some heavily armored halberdiers, but not all. Compare these (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4465/10707/)two (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/3963/13534/)pictures of halberdier kits.

Long spikes on top of a halberd - no, not on majority of them. Sometimes halberds have long spikes, sometimes they have short spikes, sometimes they have spearheads, sometimes the head is elongated. There's not one overwhelmingly popular type.

Group weapons - yes, by men in lots of armor - not necessarily.

Hitting weak points in armor with spike - this is not true. There's a reason why half-swording was used, and that reason is that hitting a gap in armor with a long weapon you're holding the end of is really, really hard. Also, once you have a spear head, this becomes rather ineffective against anything with mail shirt underneath or gussets. Also, halberd has all the weight at the front, so nimbly hitting a gap is almost impossible, as Lindy would know if he had an actual halberd.

Using halberd in formation to chop - as someone who had this used against me, yes, you can chop with halberd in formation. What you do is completely vertical blow from the top down, usually when you're in second row behind shieldmen (or halberdiers fending off people with thrusts). It's a scary, scary thing to go against, and you better pray your helmet is good and person using it isn't an idiot who will put his weight behind it, because this hit can and does cave in helmets on occasion. Lindy also says you can't bring the halberd up for vertical blow, because you'll hit people behind you - well, if you're swinging your halberd like that, you're not using it properly, just hold it pointing to the sky and bring it down. Gravity and leverage will do the rest. And guess what? We have sources showing us this. (https://talhoffer.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/l-oberhut.jpg)

Thrusting against armored targets is more effective - okay, that's simplifying things to a point where you're basically straight up lying. It's like saying that US soldiers in Middle East are terrible shots because most of the bullets fired don't hit anyone.

If someone falls in front of halberdier formation in heavy armor, they'll most likely use a chop, simply because finding a gap in plate takes time and you don't have a lot of that. If a full power hit lands on anyone in any armor in that position, where he can't be knocked back, bones will break at the very least, hell, you can rupture organs that way.

Parrying the spike - okay, when he talks leverage, he's right. Problem is, any competent soldier knows the length of his weapon and will not attack you by hacking at you with a spike. He'll wait until you can't retreat because of people behind you and then whack you in the helmet once you're close enough.

Spike is bad for chopping - yes, and axe head is liability for thrusting, that happens when you make a swiss army weapon. It's going to be worse at everything than dedicated weapon, but will be able to do all of the things. It's like rapier vs side sword argument - rapier is specialized for duels so it beats rapier there handily, but has more trouble going against polearms.

"If I step back, I'm gonna be hit on the shoulder" - well yeah, and if you step that far back against a halberd with a short spike, you won't get hit at all.

Chopping on retreat - this will do little to no damage against a gambeson alone, let alone a well armored person. Only thing this will do is hook, and axe blade slanted towards you will actually get in the way of that, it will want to slice (quite possible ineffectively because of armor). Halberds well suited to hooking usually have either a long axehead, have a sort of bearded axe head or both. Look at halberds number 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (numbered from left) on Galloglaich's picture for examples. You can hook with axe blades of others, but not as well as with these.

Chopping at weapon shafts - this has been show to be horribly impractical time and time again.

4) So how were halberds used?

First of all, we do have manuscripts that show us how to use halberds, most prominent are De Arte Athletica (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_HeHzcVY-4o/VW89Qs45DdI/AAAAAAAAFlc/tiLngUXW1tM/s1600/mair-dussack_vs_halberd.jpg), Hans Talhoffer (http://www.encasedinsteel.co.uk//wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ms.Thott_.290.2%c2%ba_077v.jpg) and Joachim Meyer (http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/five-halberd-designs-Meyer-1570-01-673x341.jpg?x76772).

In general, their length meant they were mostly a group weapon. The spike was meant for repelling charges and fending off people, and stabbing people with less armor. You could use halberd in a half-swording way (2/3 staff grip), but it was hardly ideal because of the length.

Axe head was likely to be used against people armored in gambesons, the spike opposite to it was there to penetrate plate or mail. Hooking was used a lot, whether against weapons or shields. Whether you stabbed or chopped depends on the circumstances, both were possible.

Angulation seen on some of the heads was probably there to make the impact slice into the opponent better, you see similar angulation on other axes as well, from bearded axes to danaxes (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4e/12/e5/4e12e5423f113a4f73a55024912bbabb.jpg).

[Kiero]

This is a bit of a sidetrack, but I’m curious about your opinions: What do you think about the quality of information from Lindybeige?

Note that I’m not asking about the aspects of entertainment, etc. but only if the information he is giving matches with your knowledge, or if one should rather be careful what to believe and what not.


I think he's completely wrong about how hoplites held their spears, and why. You can't use a spear underhand, in close formation, with a shield as large as an aspis. He also seems to overlook the fact that the Greek doru was counter-weighted.

[Clistenes]

*Lots of stuff about use of haldberds in combat*



Why do you think pollaxes with a combination of beak and axe blade are so rare?

Halberds, which aren't close combat/dueling weapons usually had that combination, but pollaxes, which were usually used by knights and men-at-arms against each other most often combined a hammer head with a pick/beak or an axe blade...

[Max_Killjoy]

If you look at real halberds, they achieve the same goal as that spike by simply extending the pointy ends of the axe blade. Older ones mainly with the top point, but some variations of the partisan / ranseur / spetum family do this with two points.

Generally speaking, that abortion of a poll-axe / halberd thing seems like a modern attempt to half-assedly solve a problem which had a perfect solution centuries ago.


I'm not asking about the obvious spikes up near the blades and bits -- I'm asking about the bit right at where the shaft sockets into the metal, that could be spikes or could a disk, but it's hard to tell because of the camera angle being dead parallel to that part of the image.

[VoxRationis]

Quick question: What is the point of a nagamaki? Is it supposed to be analogous to the European zweihanders with forward grips? What tactical role does the weapon serve? Is there a point to it at all?

[Galloglaich]

I'm not asking about the obvious spikes up near the blades and bits -- I'm asking about the bit right at where the shaft sockets into the metal, that could be spikes or could a disk, but it's hard to tell because of the camera angle being dead parallel to that part of the image.

That is a roundel, like you see here on this awl-pike

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Ahlspiess_Boeheim.jpg

[Galloglaich]

Quick question: What is the point of a nagamaki? Is it supposed to be analogous to the European zweihanders with forward grips? What tactical role does the weapon serve? Is there a point to it at all?

In a word, horse killing. This is what they typically describe the use of these (and their cousins like miao dao, nodachi etc.) for in kind of military shorthand in Japan, China, Korea etc.. I suspect it's actually one of the main reasons for the zweihander etc. in Europe too.. One of them anyway. Killing horses is really important and hard to do quickly with a lot of hand weapons. I think this was also one of the main reasons for halberds, glaives (and many other polearms), for pikes, and also the bigger crossbows, wall-guns (dopplehacken, arquebus a croc etc.) and probably to some extent longbows too with their big, heavy arrows.

The other point in the Latin Europe, the one mentioned most often mentioned by the European fencing masters is 'when few must contend with many', for protecting VIP's, protecting standards, protecting cannon... or for shock troops attacking the same.




I think a two handed sword is basically similar to a halberd (or a naginata, yari, guang dao etc.) except it's

1) Harder to grab a sharp blade than a polearm haft (good)
2) A little bit more agile (good)
2) A little harder to learn to use (requires more training - bad)

G

[Max_Killjoy]

That is a roundel, like you see here on this awl-pike

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Ahlspiess_Boeheim.jpg


I couldn't tell looking at the image of the "ultra-axe" if we were looking at a rounel, or more spikes. Thanks.

[Galloglaich]

Basically I'd say most youtube stuff needs to be taken with a grain of salt. As does most stuff here, even Galloglaich's posts that I more oftne than not read as gospel.:smallbiggrin:

However, if anyone really knew the answers people like Lindybeige and Shadiversity (look him up on youtube, I really dig him because he has a very scientific approach to things and changes stuff when new information is available) wouldn't be doing this stuff. I agree with Pauly on the halberd stuff Lindybeige said, it sounds reasonable enough given the context he presents.

The upside is that the community isn't vast on this stuff on Youtube so you'll find rebuttals to what one guy says by other's and Youtube algorithms tend make sure you see them. The stuff to really look out for is IMO the made-for-network docus ppl upload. Those TV ppl despite having real experts are definitely taking the mick a lot of the times and aren't available to answer critcism.

Katanas cutting through paltearmour my ass!

yeah, you should take everything on all this stuff with a grain of salt, including my posts. I've made mistakes and continue to learn a lot and change my positions since I've been posting on this thread for what... ten years now? I don't even know.

I think generally speaking, the main problem is in trying to talk about the elusive reality of the pre-industrial world in particular, including early modern, medieval, samurai, Viking, celt, Roman, Greek, Bronze Age cultures and so on and so forth, is that we are generally covering a very wide gap between the evidence, the data so to speak, and what even the educated general public thinks. And this gap is ten times wider for anything medieval. The reasons for this are varied and complex, but it presents immense challenges, and this is something you can see clearly in this thread. I think this thread, incidentally, is a good resource and we have now 10 or 12 people who post here regularly who are experts in their various areas.





personally I haven't been 100% impressed with Lindybeige and now that Martin kind of explained what his expertise is, it makes sense. On medieval stuff he seems like about 20% accurate by my very unscientific and purely arbitrary estimate. He seems to be smart and has common sense but he's mainly working from cliché's and tropes that have little bearing on the reality of the times. I think it is really important for these guys to cross- train each other and to be very clear up front what their area of expertise really is.

I try to do that, this is why for example I usually specify "Late medieval central / northern Europe" as what I mostly know about, even though I know a little about some other stuff too. I think after years of bickering here in this thread we have kind of learned to respect each other for our specific areas of expertise. I wouldn't challenge Tobtor on migration era Europe, or fusilier on early modern firearms or incanur on English treatises on warfare, for example.

Something changed in Academia since the mid-20th century where historians tend to no longer be generalists but instead are very, very specialized. There are reasons for this and it's worth discussing, but maybe too much to get into right now.

I've worked closely with scores of PhD's in my research over the years, and some of the ones associated with HEMA are quite well informed (Jurg Gassman, Daniel Jaquet, and Fabrice Cognot come to mind immediately) but I've also met dozens who seem to know virtually nothing outside of their very specific are of specialization. It's almost like they got everything else they know from Lord of the Rings or History Channel.




For those Youtube podcasters, I think Matt Easton is the one who is the best informed when it comes to medieval, and also Victorian weapons and war, though to be fair I know him and consider him a friend so take that with a grain of salt. He's well read, a legit HEMA fencer, instructor and researcher (specialized in Fiore) but he also ran one of the early HEMA forums and knows all the early HEMA people in the HEMAC European umbrella group, and so learned a lot from all the others who were some very smart, very capable, very interesting people. He also has a great collection of antique swords and is very well read.

Even Matt though does have his own pet theories, and his own blind spots, and I think the temptation to push the envelope so to speak sometimes when you know people consider you an expert can be hard to resist. Let's just say I don't agree with him on everything and some of the things he used to troll on in his forum show up in the youtube commentaries.

But I probably agree with him 90% of the time.

G

[rrgg]

This is a bit of a sidetrack, but I’m curious about your opinions: What do you think about the quality of information from Lindybeige?

I think a lot of Lindybeige's videos are pretty interesting. The issue is that he engages in a lot of speculation and theorizing, and as a general rule you should take any speculation you hear on youtube or these threads for that matter with a heavy dosage of salt unless they are well backed up by primary sources.

Intuition and "common sense" are not sources, and the more you study history you will come to see that they are incredibly unreliable. You just can't take it for granted that people from hundreds of years ago thought like people today do. Nor is something true just because it "sounds right" or a lot of other people think it's true.

To his credit, Lindybeige does sometimes try to back up his claims. For instance he showed that there is a lot of Ancient Greek artwork depicting hoplites fighting with their spears underarm as well as overarm. And there have been a lot of previously assumed "facts" about hoplite combat called into question by academics in recent years. It's probably something we'll never know for certain unless someone finds some sort of Ancient Greek military manual lying around.

Personally I think that's when Lloyd is at his best, when he's challenging previously held assumptions and pop culture.

[rrgg]

With apologies ahead of time for linking to reddit, u/iphikrates has made a lot of in-depth posts on the subject of Ancient Greek warfare over on AskHistorians if anyone is interested in some reading.

Some really interesting ones:

on "Phalanx Exceptionalism" (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4jbbdw/phalanx_exceptionalism_what_distinguishes_the/)

on Phalanx combat (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5wz2au/how_did_the_actual_melee_fighting_technique_of/deephje/)

on Hoplite training or lack thereof (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5zca4h/how_did_the_greeks_in_the_classical_or/)

on the middle-class infantryman (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/61tpf6/victor_davis_hanson_and_the_question_of_the/)

on Greek skirmishers (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/477gbp/was_ranged_combat_slings_archery_etc_seen_as_less/)

on Greek cavalry (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ktsij/why_were_cavalry_forces_seemingly_always_so_small/)


flaired user profile with more links (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/profiles/iphikrates)

[Max_Killjoy]

With apologies ahead of time for linking to reddit, u/iphikrates has made a lot of in-depth posts on the subject of Ancient Greek warfare over on AskHistorians if anyone is interested in some reading.

Some really interesting ones:

on "Phalanx Exceptionalism" (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4jbbdw/phalanx_exceptionalism_what_distinguishes_the/)

on Phalanx combat (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5wz2au/how_did_the_actual_melee_fighting_technique_of/deephje/)

on Hoplite training or lack thereof (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5zca4h/how_did_the_greeks_in_the_classical_or/)

on the middle-class infantryman (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/61tpf6/victor_davis_hanson_and_the_question_of_the/)

on Greek skirmishers (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/477gbp/was_ranged_combat_slings_archery_etc_seen_as_less/)

on Greek cavalry (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ktsij/why_were_cavalry_forces_seemingly_always_so_small/)


flaired user profile with more links (https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/profiles/iphikrates)


Given the project I'm working on, these links make for absolutely wonderful reading. Thank you.

[BayardSPSR]

Separately from that, something's been bothering me for a while, so it's about time I asked. In any army that fights in a formation of multiple ranks, the combatants in the frontmost ranks are taking on a vastly disproportionate amount of risk. Aside from cases where we have documentation of higher pay for whoever stands in the front, how would pre-modern forces decide whose life to risk?

Found another good answer to my own question here (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/48pumt/did_the_people_in_the_front_lines_of_ancient/d0ly1na/) via
With apologies ahead of time for linking to reddit, u/iphikrates has made a lot of in-depth posts on the subject of Ancient Greek warfare over on AskHistorians if anyone is interested in some reading.

Thanks!

TL;DR Formation density (50-deep phalanx at Leuctra, Napoleonic columns) and triarii-like placing of older, more reliable men in the rear of the formation to prevent retreat.

[Incanur]

Pike beats sword and all weapons under 8-9ft according to George Silver. Antonio Manciolino likewise recommended choosing the longest weapon, including the lancia (more or less a pike, maybe only 12-14ft) over the spiedo (https://grauenwolf.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/equipment-for-bolognese-fencing/), a shorter polearm around 8ft.

I don't see why you couldn't use a halberd of the classic Swiss style in middle of back-half grip for armored dueling just like a 15th-century pollaxe. Historical fencing masters rarely made a big distinction between halberds and similar polearms.

As far as I know, Sir John Smythe is the only writer who gave specific details on how halberdiers fought in formation: blow at the head and thrust at the face. I would assume there are some relevant manuals or accounts in German, but I don't read German and haven't heard of them. And I guess there's Giacomo di Grassi's instruction for chopping up pikes, which does feature the butt first.

In any case, Smythe's approach seems practical. The head constitutes the most convenient target in formation. Striking at the head and thrusting at the face keeps the halberd high and as free from hindrances as possible. We see various upraising halberds in period art.

[Kiero]

In a lot of fantasy, the PCs are adventurers who routinely go about armoured, including into settlements. No one bats an eyelid at heavily armoured and armed strangers entering walled towns at will.

In history, in many periods it was very different. I know in antiquity the wearing of armour was a privilege reserved for citizens, and even then there were often conventions against wearing it in town. Strangers certainly weren't allowed to.

What about other periods and places? I'm particularly interested in the Europe (including England) in the 17th century; were there ordinances against the wearing of armour by strangers, or indeed anyone within the limits of the town? Were they likely to be enforced, and by whom?

[Clistenes]

In a lot of fantasy, the PCs are adventurers who routinely go about armoured, including into settlements. No one bats an eyelid at heavily armoured and armed strangers entering walled towns at will.

In history, in many periods it was very different. I know in antiquity the wearing of armour was a privilege reserved for citizens, and even then there were often conventions against wearing it in town. Strangers certainly weren't allowed to.

What about other periods and places? I'm particularly interested in the Europe (including England) in the 17th century; were there ordinances against the wearing of armour by strangers, or indeed anyone within the limits of the town? Were they likely to be enforced, and by whom?

Using mail under your clothes or wearing a brigandine was sometimes done by people who expected to be the target of assassination attempts: I have read an account about a group of conspirators planning the murder of an important man in Italy (one of the Medici, I think), and one of the steps before the assassination itself was for a man to hug him in order to discover if he was wearing mail under his clothes...

Heavier armor would be too uncomfortable to use at all times, so it wasn't normal. And since it wasn't normal, people wearing it would look like weirdos (kinda like a guy being dressed like a commando at all times, helmet, backpack, gun and cammouflage paint included).

[Pauly]

On the youtubers,
Firstly and most importantly they are there to defy conventional wisdom. If they were repeating what you see on the History Channel or the BBC they'd get no clicks.

Secondly it is important to differentiate their speculative videos their straight history videos and their reconstructive archeology videos. Most of them are very good at the straight history, but they often fall into pitfalls with the other 2 types of video.

Thirdly they look at things through their own perspective. Matt Easton, for example, does a lot of straight history, but when talking about officer's weapons he talks about pistol and sword and neglects the fact that an officer's primary weapon is his unit and doesn't take command and control considerations into his discussions. Also some of the sword guys have videos about edge sharpening. Speaking as a chef, my livelihood depends on having sharp blades and none of the sword guys on the internet have made a sharpening video worth a bucket of warm spit. The knife and razor guys are the guys to go to for sharpening (btw I am talking about technique, not the edge geometry which is different for swords and knives, so go to the sword guys for geometry and the knife/razor guys for technique).

[Max_Killjoy]

On the youtubers,
Firstly and most importantly they are there to defy conventional wisdom. If they were repeating what you see on the History Channel


If they were repeating what's on the History Channel they'd also be wrong a lot more often... :smallwink:

[Telwar]

If they were repeating what's on the History Channel they'd also be wrong a lot more often... :smallwink:

...maybe they're trying to be the guy in Rick's "I know a guy?" :smallsmile:

Sorry, carry on.

[Galloglaich]

In a lot of fantasy, the PCs are adventurers who routinely go about armoured, including into settlements. No one bats an eyelid at heavily armoured and armed strangers entering walled towns at will.

In history, in many periods it was very different. I know in antiquity the wearing of armour was a privilege reserved for citizens, and even then there were often conventions against wearing it in town. Strangers certainly weren't allowed to.

What about other periods and places? I'm particularly interested in the Europe (including England) in the 17th century; were there ordinances against the wearing of armour by strangers, or indeed anyone within the limits of the town? Were they likely to be enforced, and by whom?

I am not certain in the 17th century but I can say that generally speaking, in the late medieval period, going around armored was considered more unusual and more threatening than going around armed. Regulations varied from place to place on both arms and armor, sometimes non citizens or non-nobles were required to leave armor and certain specific weapons at Inns or taverns.

However, as others mentioned, wearing mail under the clothes seemed to be pretty common in Italy in particular, and both brigandine and textile armor seems to show up as regular clothing in various contexts.


in the first half of the 17th Century soldiers and militia were going around armored routinely all over the place, so it may not have been that unusual, but at the same time, rules and laws tended to be a lot stricter than in medieval times and class differentiation was much sharper, so for commoners who didn't have a good reason my guess would be armor was restricted. If they could pass themselves off as soldiers or agents on some mission in association with a local grandee, probably no issue.

G

[snowblizz]

If they were repeating what's on the History Channel they'd also be wrong a lot more often... :smallwink:
And talking alot more about aliens. Like alot.



In a lot of fantasy, the PCs are adventurers who routinely go about armoured, including into settlements. No one bats an eyelid at heavily armoured and armed strangers entering walled towns at will.

In history, in many periods it was very different. I know in antiquity the wearing of armour was a privilege reserved for citizens, and even then there were often conventions against wearing it in town. Strangers certainly weren't allowed to.

What about other periods and places? I'm particularly interested in the Europe (including England) in the 17th century; were there ordinances against the wearing of armour by strangers, or indeed anyone within the limits of the town? Were they likely to be enforced, and by whom?I can't speak for ordinances, but generally speaking any town if you were armed and/or armoured you should probably have an explanation for it. Ie we're the town militia, or government/local dignitary soldiers passing through. The poorer/lower class you were the less likely you should be sporting weapons. Similarly the smaller the town and the more rural the area it would be less likely ppl went around armed and armoured. In the 1600s even just moving around would in fact be kinda suspect. This is just about when nation states manages to build an apparatus for (mostly) state monopoly on (oraganised) violance. And about when the state starts to provide the arms for soldiers so you have less stockpiling their own.

My gut feeling based on what I've read in general, but nothing I could specifically point at now is that in larger towns you'd have some people armed with "classic duelling swords" and the PCs better explain why being equpied for war, whereas in the country side there'd be less challenge but it would eb bounced up the chain of authority until you get to a grandee of somekind who manages security for the area. Because the word for random armed strangers would be "bandits".:smallbiggrin:

[Lemmy]

Wait... Are you saying I shouldn't blindly believe strangers on the internet???!!!!

[DerKommissar]

Thanks guys for your opinions on the topic :)

Once in a while the thread went to a meta-level (e.g. " What's your background?") and i found it interesting, as i have the profound feeling that most posters in this thread have the aim to clarify things and to get close to sone kind of "reality" or "truth" - even if it shakes up what they used to believe before. I learned a lot reading here!

So please carry on with the discussion :)

[Kiero]

Using mail under your clothes or wearing a brigandine was sometimes done by people who expected to be the target of assassination attempts: I have read an account about a group of conspirators planning the murder of an important man in Italy (one of the Medici, I think), and one of the steps before the assassination itself was for a man to hug him in order to discover if he was wearing mail under his clothes...

Heavier armor would be too uncomfortable to use at all times, so it wasn't normal. And since it wasn't normal, people wearing it would look like weirdos (kinda like a guy being dressed like a commando at all times, helmet, backpack, gun and cammouflage paint included).

Would there be penalties for being caught wearing mail under your clothes? Or brigandine? Or would it depend entirely on your social standing as to whether it's an offense or merely a breach of social convention?

Indeed, one of the first things I made clear to the players in the historical game I ran was that their characters were assumed not to be wearing armour, unless they expressly said they were putting it on. That included not sleeping in it. The combat rules were also rejigged such that shields were pretty handy defense-wise, so not putting your armour on was an option if you were pressed for time and hadn't already armoured-up.


I am not certain in the 17th century but I can say that generally speaking, in the late medieval period, going around armored was considered more unusual and more threatening than going around armed. Regulations varied from place to place on both arms and armor, sometimes non citizens or non-nobles were required to leave armor and certain specific weapons at Inns or taverns.

However, as others mentioned, wearing mail under the clothes seemed to be pretty common in Italy in particular, and both brigandine and textile armor seems to show up as regular clothing in various contexts.


in the first half of the 17th Century soldiers and militia were going around armored routinely all over the place, so it may not have been that unusual, but at the same time, rules and laws tended to be a lot stricter than in medieval times and class differentiation was much sharper, so for commoners who didn't have a good reason my guess would be armor was restricted. If they could pass themselves off as soldiers or agents on some mission in association with a local grandee, probably no issue.

G

I'm thinking primarily of English Civil War and Thirty Years War, or the decades shortly afterwards. Are you aware of people being prosecuted/fined for wearing armour in town, or was it likely if you could afford it you'd have a way around any laws?

As far as law enforcement functions, would that have been performed by thugs/tenants of the local lord?

Interesting that they might be directed to specific inns/taverns - people weren't routinely barred entry from walled settlements if they were armoured?

How easy was it to disguise textile armour as clothing? I know there were fashions that imitated war-gear, but that's subtly different.


I can't speak for ordinances, but generally speaking any town if you were armed and/or armoured you should probably have an explanation for it. Ie we're the town militia, or government/local dignitary soldiers passing through. The poorer/lower class you were the less likely you should be sporting weapons. Similarly the smaller the town and the more rural the area it would be less likely ppl went around armed and armoured. In the 1600s even just moving around would in fact be kinda suspect. This is just about when nation states manages to build an apparatus for (mostly) state monopoly on (oraganised) violance. And about when the state starts to provide the arms for soldiers so you have less stockpiling their own.

My gut feeling based on what I've read in general, but nothing I could specifically point at now is that in larger towns you'd have some people armed with "classic duelling swords" and the PCs better explain why being equpied for war, whereas in the country side there'd be less challenge but it would eb bounced up the chain of authority until you get to a grandee of somekind who manages security for the area. Because the word for random armed strangers would be "bandits".:smallbiggrin:

I'm primarily interested in armour, rather than weapons, the latter is easier to get away with if they aren't big and obviously soldier's gear. Also easier to hide than the bulk of being armoured. Armour is something of a statement of intent and changes the nature of any threat assessment more than weapons alone do.

[Storm Bringer]

Would there be penalties for being caught wearing mail under your clothes? Or brigandine? Or would it depend entirely on your social standing as to whether it's an offense or merely a breach of social convention?

Indeed, one of the first things I made clear to the players in the historical game I ran was that their characters were assumed not to be wearing armour, unless they expressly said they were putting it on. That included not sleeping in it. The combat rules were also rejigged such that shields were pretty handy defense-wise, so not putting your armour on was an option if you were pressed for time and hadn't already armoured-up.



I'm thinking primarily of English Civil War and Thirty Years War, or the decades shortly afterwards. Are you aware of people being prosecuted/fined for wearing armour in town, or was it likely if you could afford it you'd have a way around any laws?

As far as law enforcement functions, would that have been performed by thugs/tenants of the local lord?

Interesting that they might be directed to specific inns/taverns - people weren't routinely barred entry from walled settlements if they were armoured?

How easy was it to disguise textile armour as clothing? I know there were fashions that imitated war-gear, but that's subtly different.



I'm primarily interested in armour, rather than weapons, the latter is easier to get away with if they aren't big and obviously soldier's gear. Also easier to hide than the bulk of being armoured. Armour is something of a statement of intent and changes the nature of any threat assessment more than weapons alone do.

to my knowledge (admittedly limited to internet discussion), it was basically routine (or at least no noteworthy) for travellers to be armed in pre-modern days, pretty much up to the later 19th century, as until modern policing came about the countryside was pretty much unpoliced, so travellers would be armed for self defence (hence "riding shotgun" for the guy sat next t the driver, as the ).

Since it was normal for legit travellers to travel to cites armed, most cities would have regulations in place to accommodate them. The specification of going to a specific inn would be that the inn in question was likely owned by a notable citizen of the cite who was considered "trusted" by the city council (or was even part of the council), and it presumably had some sort of lock room were weapons and armour could be kept.


armour, as far I as I know, was not worn unless Expecting Trouble, and it would be seen as more offensive and exceptional. people who owned armour did not go about wearing it all the time. form what I have heard, it wasn't common for soldiers on campaign to wear armour unless they expected battle. For example, at the battle of Stanford Bridge, the Viking forces were surprised by the appearance of the English army, and most went into battle in just their normal clothes and with their shields for protection. I remember several examples of soldiers seeing troops in the distance, and realising they intended to attack because they were "dressed for battle", with all their war gear on and having taken the protective covers off their shields, ect.

obiviously, there were times when people might be wearing armour, for example notables who were concerned about potential assassination attempts, for military figures in certain formal situations, but it was not a everyday thing.

So, rocking up in full plate armour to a city gate was uncommon, and might arouse interest form the city guards. but it wouldn't be a crime pre se, so long as they took it off when they got to the inn.

[Incanur]

form what I have heard, it wasn't common for soldiers on campaign to wear armour unless they expected battle.

This is probably generally true, though some military writers (Raymond de Fourquevaux, etc.) expressed the desire for soldiers to wear their armor regularly so that they became accustomed to its weight. Here as elsewhere, what commanders wanted differed from what soldiers wanted.

[BayardSPSR]

This is probably generally true, though some military writers (Raymond de Fourquevaux, etc.) expressed the desire for soldiers to wear their armor regularly so that they became accustomed to its weight. Here as elsewhere, what commanders wanted differed from what soldiers wanted.

I think I remember reading - maybe in Vegetius' De Re Militari? that at one point much of the Roman military ceased using armor completely for reasons of comfort. Presumably troops weren't seeing large-scale battle often enough to see the weight and inconvenience as justified.

Of course, maintaining the armor would also be a problem, so I'd imagine a private individual who owned armor would try to wear it as infrequently as possible (unless nearly certain of being attacked, as people have said).

[Incanur]

Of course, maintaining the armor would also be a problem, so I'd imagine a private individual who owned armor would try to wear it as infrequently as possible (unless nearly certain of being attacked, as people have said).

Yeah, I recall reading a letter in which a man complained about being in such fear for his life that he had go around armored all the time. It generally wasn't a desired situation. People did roll around in armor (often mail and a steel cap) in 15th/16th/17th-century towns/cities, but it was a sign of being in danger and/or up to no good. I can't remember an example of armor being specifically illegal, but appearing at an inn or whatever in armor tended to at least freak people out.

[Pauly]

I don't know about civilian contexts. But Roman Legionnaires after the Marian reforns were noted as wearing armor at all times in campaign, such as marching, making camp, building bridges etc. This was considered so remarkable that it was commented on.
As others have noted it was normal for soldiers on campaign only to wear armor when battle was imminent.

If rules didn't exist it is probable because it wasn't done and no one thought of doing it. In modern day, as far ad I am aware, it isn't illegal to get on the subway in combat helmet, flak jackets et al as long as you are not impersonating a police officer or soldier. Not because society is OK with it, but because it isn't a problem and goverments have not thought of addressing becau it is so rare.

[Storm Bringer]

This is probably generally true, though some military writers (Raymond de Fourquevaux, etc.) expressed the desire for soldiers to wear their armor regularly so that they became accustomed to its weight. Here as elsewhere, what commanders wanted differed from what soldiers wanted.

still done today. My unit spent a few months leading up to deployment wearing webbing filled with assorted heavy things, to accustom us to the extra weight of body armour.

that was just an annoyance. what was weird was coming back form tour, when, to a man, the whole unit spent weeks walking around, trying to work out what we'd forgotten and realising it was their weapons and body armour we no longer needed to carry all the time.

[Brother Oni]

In modern day, as far ad I am aware, it isn't illegal to get on the subway in combat helmet, flak jackets et al as long as you are not impersonating a police officer or soldier. Not because society is OK with it, but because it isn't a problem and goverments have not thought of addressing becau it is so rare.

Depends on the country (in Australia, it's apparently illegal), but even in places where it's not illegal, you are bound to attract the attention of the local police who are going to ask what you're up to.
There's also the age old issue of attracting unwanted attention - in the UK, criminal gangs tend to wear vests as protection from rival gangs. If they see a person they don't recognise wearing protection, they're going to assume it's a rival gang member and thus highlight them as a target.


that was just an annoyance. what was weird was coming back form tour, when, to a man, the whole unit spent weeks walking around, trying to work out what we'd forgotten and realising it was their weapons and body armour we no longer needed to carry all the time.

I've been told that personnel fresh off tour have moments of panic when they notice that their weapon is missing before they remember that they don't need them any more. From various anecdotes on r/military, asking such a person 'where's your weapon?' is NOT a good prank to play.

[snowblizz]

I'm thinking primarily of English Civil War and Thirty Years War, or the decades shortly afterwards. Are you aware of people being prosecuted/fined for wearing armour in town, or was it likely if you could afford it you'd have a way around any laws?

As far as law enforcement functions, would that have been performed by thugs/tenants of the local lord?

Interesting that they might be directed to specific inns/taverns - people weren't routinely barred entry from walled settlements if they were armoured?

How easy was it to disguise textile armour as clothing? I know there were fashions that imitated war-gear, but that's subtly different.


I'm primarily interested in armour, rather than weapons, the latter is easier to get away with if they aren't big and obviously soldier's gear. Also easier to hide than the bulk of being armoured. Armour is something of a statement of intent and changes the nature of any threat assessment more than weapons alone do.
In ECW/30YW times armour was rather uncommon. No one seriously travelled in it because it tended to be much heavier and poorer than the previous century. Especially considering most armour would be so much tinfoil against the gunpowder weapons of the day anyway (I exaggerate a bit, but this is the period when armour goes away to a large degree). Consider the 3 Musketeers stories, no one there wears armour (and large parts of the plot revolve around the rules banning use of weapons, ie duelling).
The newly arisen absolutist monarchies did not like peopel being armed/armoured. In the same vein ultimately it's the King's problem if you show up armed and armoured. In a 1600s setting I guess the sheriff or magistrate is going to be the one saying "so yeah uh, breach of King's peace, demobilize k thx pls?". A local lord might also be involved but at this time they don't have any real military might to call upon of their own.

FWIW in Japan the 47 Ronin made do with improvising their armour kit as commissioning suits of armour would have told everyone they were up to something.

In essence the response I'd expect is being met by a bunch of very nervous militia with worse kit, politely asking them to remove their prescence elsewhere. And if you don't it's going to be bounced up the chain of command until a representative who can "sort you out" will be found. To agree I think it would be simialr to as suggsted in the modern context you walk around in bodyarmour, no one thought to make it illegal because that's really something only soldiers in battle were expected to be wearing.

Textilearmour would be difficult to disguise I'd say since it needs substantial thickness. That's one strength of metal armour, protection without bulk. You'd be kinda obviously bulky.

[Kiero]

I don't know about civilian contexts. But Roman Legionnaires after the Marian reforns were noted as wearing armor at all times in campaign, such as marching, making camp, building bridges etc. This was considered so remarkable that it was commented on.
As others have noted it was normal for soldiers on campaign only to wear armor when battle was imminent.

If rules didn't exist it is probable because it wasn't done and no one thought of doing it. In modern day, as far ad I am aware, it isn't illegal to get on the subway in combat helmet, flak jackets et al as long as you are not impersonating a police officer or soldier. Not because society is OK with it, but because it isn't a problem and goverments have not thought of addressing becau it is so rare.

However, it's worth noting that those same legionaries would have been barred from entering Rome armoured-up. By law and custom, no one but the Master of Horse (a temporary position created by emergency decree) was allowed to pass through the pomerium (the boundaries of the original walls) in armour or mounted. In the Republican era, legionaries were never allowed into the city, even the two consuls of the day's armies would be garrisoned on the Campus Martius outside the city if for some reason soldiers were needed close at hand.


In ECW/30YW times armour was rather uncommon. No one seriously travelled in it because it tended to be much heavier and poorer than the previous century. Especially considering most armour would be so much tinfoil against the gunpowder weapons of the day anyway (I exaggerate a bit, but this is the period when armour goes away to a large degree). Consider the 3 Musketeers stories, no one there wears armour (and large parts of the plot revolve around the rules banning use of weapons, ie duelling).
The newly arisen absolutist monarchies did not like peopel being armed/armoured. In the same vein ultimately it's the King's problem if you show up armed and armoured. In a 1600s setting I guess the sheriff or magistrate is going to be the one saying "so yeah uh, breach of King's peace, demobilize k thx pls?". A local lord might also be involved but at this time they don't have any real military might to call upon of their own.

FWIW in Japan the 47 Ronin made do with improvising their armour kit as commissioning suits of armour would have told everyone they were up to something.

In essence the response I'd expect is being met by a bunch of very nervous militia with worse kit, politely asking them to remove their prescence elsewhere. And if you don't it's going to be bounced up the chain of command until a representative who can "sort you out" will be found. To agree I think it would be simialr to as suggsted in the modern context you walk around in bodyarmour, no one thought to make it illegal because that's really something only soldiers in battle were expected to be wearing.

Textilearmour would be difficult to disguise I'd say since it needs substantial thickness. That's one strength of metal armour, protection without bulk. You'd be kinda obviously bulky.

Interesting, I'm looking at it primarily from a post-ECW context, but I got the impression buff coats were quite common - or was that just a cavalryman thing? They would appear to be something you might hide under a cloak without too much suspicion, but of course if it's the height of summer that might be a difficult prospect. I would have imagined they weren't too uncomfortable, besides wearing something heavy and thick.

What do you mean by armour being poorer than the previous century? Are you referring to a degradation of the armourer's art over time as gunpowder advances and makes all but the heaviest plate potentially obsolete?

[Martin Greywolf]

1) Wearing armor in town

It really depends on the context. No one would probably immediately arrest you if you did it, but people would notice you in a sort of "huh, that's weird" way. Well, provided that there are no actual laws against this, which can happen sometimes. From what I've seen, most cities didn't have them, but that doesn't mean that all cities don't have them. At any rate, citizens (legal citizens, not just all people living in a city) and aristocracy usually were allowed to keep arms and armor regardless, though.

That said, if the city recently had trouble with mercenaries, or there is an enemy army incoming or any number of other factors, the reaction will be very different, especially since medieval laws were sort of done on a case by case basis, and local authorities may well decide to throw you out even if you did nothing wrong per se.

Also note the once any trouble starts, the guy in armor will be immediately suspect of being the one who started it, he was wearing armor, after all, and therefore clearly expected trouble.

2) Gambesons as clothes

Depends on era and culture. Arming doublets in Italy were sometimes worn as clothes, and could be quite fancy, but hte bottom line is that gambeson is thick. If you are in a cold enviroment, then no one may notice if you alter it slightly, if you're in the tropics, you'll stand out like a sore thumb.

As for trouble you'd get in, depends on the context. If there was an assassination nearby, you'll get snagged if they catch you, regardless of whether you had anything to do with it or not. Otherwise, why would they even look?

3) Why was armor not worn all the time?

It had less to do with laws and much, much more to do with the fact that armor, no matter how well fitted, is both inconvenient and uncomfortable when compared to clothes. Sure, that full plate is protective, but you can hardly flirt with local maidens - and heaven help you if it goes beyond flirting - and while it's not cripplingly heavy, it's still 20 kilos of stuff you need to carry around with you for no reason.

Soldiers on campaign and armor is bit of a strange topic. We have very little written on them before middle ages ended, so we don't really know what the armor doctrine was (and it almost certainly varied even within one army). People tend to find a few accounts and then make sweeping statements - a good example is Stanford bridge. We know an army was caught with armor off while near a river and likely bathing, but we don't know if not having armor on was usual or not, whether it was general stupidity or if it was just the scouts that effed up and so on and so forth.

Last but not least, consider that soldier in a camp knows full well that enemy must first get past their scouts to attack, and there's no artillery or snipers (usually) to get you while there, so there's no reason to wear armor while sleeping or resting. Armor that isn't full plate can be thrown on in about a minute or two if you're in a hurry. While on march, on the other hand, well, the more veteran/better trained troops would probably keep it one, the less disciplined troops, not so much.

4) Sleeping in armor

No. Just no. It can be done, but you'll not sleep well, and you still need to take bits of it off. Gambeson and mail are a touch more forgiving, but still rather uncomfortable. People will only do this in the most dire of circumstances, like a siege with imminent storming of the walls.

5) On the road in armor

Really, really depends on the circumstances. Stable kingdom - I'll take sword and buckler, just in case. Hungary during Anjou interregnum - I'm looking to hire a small army to get anywhere. Anything goes here, really, from plain clothes to full plate, with gambesons and brigandines as a nice middle ground. One reason why brigadines were popular was that they got in the way decidedly less that plate.

[Clistenes]

I think I remember reading - maybe in Vegetius' De Re Militari? that at one point much of the Roman military ceased using armor completely for reasons of comfort. Presumably troops weren't seeing large-scale battle often enough to see the weight and inconvenience as justified.

Of course, maintaining the armor would also be a problem, so I'd imagine a private individual who owned armor would try to wear it as infrequently as possible (unless nearly certain of being attacked, as people have said).

I suspect Vegetius wasn't completely honest... Maybe it wasn't a good idea to remind the emperor that he wasn't giving the soldiers armor for economic reasons...?

[snowblizz]

Interesting, I'm looking at it primarily from a post-ECW context, but I got the impression buff coats were quite common - or was that just a cavalryman thing? They would appear to be something you might hide under a cloak without too much suspicion, but of course if it's the height of summer that might be a difficult prospect. I would have imagined they weren't too uncomfortable, besides wearing something heavy and thick.

What do you mean by armour being poorer than the previous century? Are you referring to a degradation of the armourer's art over time as gunpowder advances and makes all but the heaviest plate potentially obsolete?

Depends on what one means with common. Buffcoats were fabulously expensive in comparison to arms and armour. I can't give numbers now (seen em quote in one of my Osprey books), but in the ECW for a cavalryman only the horse was more expensive. The only ones really affording them were nobility and townmilitia in large towns, eg the Dutch city militias would have buffcoats. And those equipped by grandees, kings and such. Cromwell's Ironsides being another. As a rule, common soldiers had to make do with government issue metal armour. Cavalry could be splurged on, but often equipped themselves too, in Sweden in the 1600s you could get a tax-relief if you equipped a horseman (in fact was a way to climb the social ladder into nobility). Common in cavalry as a primary/secondary defense and soemthignto add a cuirass to, but not common among the infantry. Late 1600s government armies probably had (heavy) cavalry fully equipped in buffcoats and cuirass, I think the British did (but their army was rather small) as well as the Swedish army.

A buffcoat is pretty bulky actually, think full on "goth kid" long leathercoat for visibility I'd say. If you actaully dyed it, I think most were in "buff", hence name, and had a fancier one, it could probably pass for a dresscoat. But a nobleman would already run several layers of cloth for dress, so the buffcoat would add substantially to your "thickness". I'm not a reenactor so I'll have to admit to speculating. But eg Gustavus 2 while getting shot dead in the buff(coat) was wearing 2-3 shirts IIRC underneath. Basically, my question would be, are you wearing a thick leather coat while sitting down by the computer? Probably not because it's a lot more uncomfortable than not doing so, same applies with a buffcoat.

Yea that's what I mean with the armour comment. In the 1600s soldiers by and large started dumping metal armour due to it being less effective but also more hindering on long marches. The closer to the 1700s we get the less real armour is worn outside of cavalry and even then mostly special units.
I deem it unlikely anyone in the 1600s would be wearing anything like a cuirass unless being forced to and/or imminent battle.

[Kiero]

Great stuff. If you couldn't afford a buff coat (ie the majority of people), what would you wear under a metal cuirass? Just enough material to prevent chafing at the shoulders and hips?

[snowblizz]

Great stuff. If you couldn't afford a buff coat (ie the majority of people), what would you wear under a metal cuirass? Just enough material to prevent chafing at the shoulders and hips?

That would be my understanding yes. I may have oversold the buffcoat thing, but I guess if you could afford to be cavalry then likely could afford the buffcoat to wear too. The buffcoat tends to be associated primarily with cavalry. Also comes back to general lack of armour, if you "had to" wear a cuirass, you could likely afford the buffcoat and probably was a cavalryman. It's sort of a catch 22, the ones actually wearing a cuirass were likely mounted, hence likely had access to wealth and probably could get a buffcoat.

I do want to say I seem to recall an infantry unit in the ECW outfitted with buffcoats by it's (wealthy) captain. But I am not entirely sure. Usually when I get these "memoryflashes" am pretty good at getting it right. Just can't easily recall where it was so need to reread a whole book :p

I'll just borrow something Galloglaich said about armour in general in medieaval times, it's not quite that it is so expensive most can't afford it no matter what, but it was expensive enough that buying one without a very good reason was unlikely.

[Brother Oni]

I'll just borrow something Galloglaich said about armour in general in medieaval times, it's not quite that it is so expensive most can't afford it no matter what, but it was expensive enough that buying one without a very good reason was unlikely.

If we head that far back, there are also various laws, like the 1181 Assize of Arms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181), which state how much kit (arms and armour) people were required to have, based off the value of their possessions/earnings.

[Martin Greywolf]

If we head that far back, there are also various laws, like the 1181 Assize of Arms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181), which state how much kit (arms and armour) people were required to have, based off the value of their possessions/earnings.

Yeah, but you need to be really careful with them when you want to find out what an actual medieval army looked like.

First of all, laws need to be enforced. This is the duty of a local noble/other authority figure (castellan, bishop, mayor, etc), and since they are the ones who loose money because of this, whether directly (has to pay for helmets) or indirectly (if people buy helmets, they have less money and no reason to pay bribes), he may well not bother with it. There is a lot of people mentioning this, usually when having to excuse a military defeat. Eventually, at least in England, the bribes for not having helmets were passed into law as scutage.

Another problem people tend to fall into, especially on English-speaking forums, is that England is not Europe. HRE, Italy, Hungary, Scandinavian kingdoms, Poland and so on had different systems, different arms and different army compositions. For Hungary in roughly the same time, mail horse armor was standard for heavy cavalry (mentioned by Italian chroniclers), and about a third of the army was mounted (mentioned by Bohemian chroniclers), there was no general militia and whatever infantry there was was usually better armed and armored than you'd get from Assize alone (infantrymen paid for by the cities were most likely heavily armored mounted infantry, though we're not sure about the mounted part), though the numbers suffered for it.

Also, in the completely different direction, Assize is the bare minimum you must have for a defensive war. Pretty much anyone going into and offensive campaign will buy more than that, I'd say that especially cheap pieces of kit like a gambeson were pretty much standard. Nobles especially would bring both more and better armed men if they wanted to bring home some good loot and glory. Assize does stop you from doing that in section 6, but it only applies to burgess, and can be worked around if you want to have mail hauberk in an actual fight (not sure if we have any direct sources confirming this was done, but I'm gonna say it almost certainly was, otherwise we wouldn't have a law against it).

What Assize actually tells us is what was the minimum for a soldier to be considered effective at all, as opposed to being a highly opinionated arrow bait.

[Galloglaich]

And talking alot more about aliens. Like alot.


I can't speak for ordinances, but generally speaking any town if you were armed and/or armoured you should probably have an explanation for it. Ie we're the town militia, or government/local dignitary soldiers passing through. The poorer/lower class you were the less likely you should be sporting weapons. Similarly the smaller the town and the more rural the area it would be less likely ppl went around armed and armoured. In the 1600s even just moving around would in fact be kinda suspect. This is just about when nation states manages to build an apparatus for (mostly) state monopoly on (oraganised) violance. And about when the state starts to provide the arms for soldiers so you have less stockpiling their own.

I think there is a small but important point to be made here. If you were a town citizen (of the town you were in or of another town) you were allowed and in fact expected to carry a sidearm, particularly when travelling, and this included partial town citizens including journeymen, who were both young quite poor generally speaking. Apprentices and personal servants could also be armed if given arms by their Master (who was responsible for their behavior). Similarly, university students (not all wealthy) and anyone associated with a lord, from their lowly personal servants to their courtiers, typically had at least a sidearm, and even wealthier peasants from clans on good terms with the town authorities could walk around town carrying sidearms. In period artwork they are usually shown carrying messers, but also sometimes swords, daggers, staves and things like threshing flails.

From reading personal accounts by people like Buenvenutto Cellini, it seems like in most districts it was fairly normal for anybody to go around armed, and to wear sidearms in town, without necessarily being challenged. Cellini was a middle to high ranking commoner (depending on the waxing and waning fortunes of his rather wild life) but even his own servants and apprentices seem to have typically gone around armed (and armored) as well.

Regulations seem to be limited mostly to controlling missile weapons and armor, and for certain specific estates. For example I found regulations requiring that Jewish people leave their 'throwing axes' at their inns (I think this maybe meant hurlbats, though I wasn't able to find the original German for the regulation). Certain districts notably Milan in Italy and I think much of England eventually enforced strict regulations on who could go around armed. German towns also had a lot of prohibitions against certain types of swords, swords that were 'too pointy' or were otherwise specialized for dueling, or swords above a certain length.

Rights for individual commoners, particularly peasants, declined after the German peasants war in the 1520's but burghers still retained many of these rights even into the 17th Century and beyond, so I don't think these were necessarily gone by then.

TL: DR commoners, including poor commoners, could still often carry arms.

G

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't know about civilian contexts. But Roman Legionnaires after the Marian reforns were noted as wearing armor at all times in campaign, such as marching, making camp, building bridges etc. This was considered so remarkable that it was commented on.
As others have noted it was normal for soldiers on campaign only to wear armor when battle was imminent.

If rules didn't exist it is probable because it wasn't done and no one thought of doing it. In modern day, as far ad I am aware, it isn't illegal to get on the subway in combat helmet, flak jackets et al as long as you are not impersonating a police officer or soldier. Not because society is OK with it, but because it isn't a problem and goverments have not thought of addressing becau it is so rare.

There are jurisdictions where wearing bullet-proof gear in public is restricted under law.

[Max_Killjoy]

Soldiers on campaign and armor is bit of a strange topic. We have very little written on them before middle ages ended, so we don't really know what the armor doctrine was (and it almost certainly varied even within one army). People tend to find a few accounts and then make sweeping statements - a good example is Stanford bridge. We know an army was caught with armor off while near a river and likely bathing, but we don't know if not having armor on was usual or not, whether it was general stupidity or if it was just the scouts that effed up and so on and so forth.


The part I bolded seems to be a wide-spread problem in these sorts of discussions. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen someone post a single example as their proof that something was done a certain way historically -- often too-broadly applying that example across continents and centuries.

[Galloglaich]

I'm thinking primarily of English Civil War and Thirty Years War, or the decades shortly afterwards. Are you aware of people being prosecuted/fined for wearing armour in town, or was it likely if you could afford it you'd have a way around any laws?

As far as law enforcement functions, would that have been performed by thugs/tenants of the local lord?

Interesting that they might be directed to specific inns/taverns - people weren't routinely barred entry from walled settlements if they were armoured?

How easy was it to disguise textile armour as clothing? I know there were fashions that imitated war-gear, but that's subtly different.



I'm primarily interested in armour, rather than weapons, the latter is easier to get away with if they aren't big and obviously soldier's gear. Also easier to hide than the bulk of being armoured. Armour is something of a statement of intent and changes the nature of any threat assessment more than weapons alone do.

I'll only speak in generalities about England in the ECW / 30 Years War period, since it's definitely not my area of expertise. My guess is that in England in that time one or the other of the armies in the Civil War and their local representatives or allies would strictly control who was armed and armored and why.

But your questions reminded me of an anecdote that helps illustrate the nature of this issue in a broader sense in the medieval period.

What regulations you were under vis a vis weapons in a town depended a lot on who you were associated with. For example, if you were citizen or representative of another friendly town (including lower ranking) you were probably ok. On the other hand, even a high ranking person in the entourage of a potentially hostile prince maybe not so much.

For example the 'Bishops needle' in Bremen was a special gate built by the town for the benefit of their Archbishop so that he could enter and do business related to the Cathedral. It was called 'the needle' because it was made so narrow that it was impossible to get through on horseback, specifically so that the Archbishop could not bring an entourage of mounted retainers with him when he came into town. From the wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishopric_of_Bremen#Gaining_Grounds_for_a_Prin ce-Archbishopric_of_Imperial_Immediacy

"The fortified city of Bremen held its own guards, not allowing prince-archiepiscopal soldiers to enter it. The city reserved an extra very narrow gate, the so-called Bishop's Needle (Latin: Acus episcopi, first mentioned in 1274), for all clergy including the Prince-Archbishop. The narrowness of the gate made it technically impossible to come accompanied by knights. Therefore, the Prince-Archbishops rather preferred to reside outside of the city, first in Bücken and later in the Vörde Castle, which became the principal fortress of Prince-Archbishop Gerhard II, Edelherr zur Lippe in 1219."


In the medieval period, and on into the Early Modern, your affiliations would be part of your clothing, the colors you wore etc. If you were traveling in a substantial well-armed group, you would be expected to carry a little flag, or badges on your clothing or livery colors or something to identify your affiliation (with a prince, a town, a church, a university, a clan or family, etc. etc.). This affiliation told people how to deal with you. If you had no such affiliation that would make people at least curious.

G

[Vinyadan]

Acus episcopi probably was a pun, since arcus = arch and acus = needle. It probably also is a pun about the phrase in the Bible "it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle's head, than for a rich man to enter heaven".

About colours, the use of a livery was normal in Italy for many centuries. The people who served you used your colours, which set them above other people and represented that they were under your protection.

People carried weapons everywhere in XVI-XVII century Italy. A crazy example was how bishop Frederick of Milan was defended by a group of gentlemen who drew their swords in the Cathedral, so that the enthusiast crowd had to back off instead of crushing him. The richer, the better your weapon. A farmer would have a large knife, a nobleman a long sword and a number of armed servants, among which a few violent criminals which he kept under his protection and used as a private militia.

Generally speaking, the presence of laws doesn't mean much about their effects. Actually, it means that there was a situation they were attempting to change, but whether they did it or not can be most easily seen by looking for later laws with the same dispositions, which means a failure of the previous ones, or protocols of proceedings against infractors.

[Kiero]

I think there is a small but important point to be made here. If you were a town citizen (of the town you were in or of another town) you were allowed and in fact expected to carry a sidearm, particularly when travelling, and this included partial town citizens including journeymen, who were both young quite poor generally speaking. Apprentices and personal servants could also be armed if given arms by their Master (who was responsible for their behavior). Similarly, university students (not all wealthy) and anyone associated with a lord, from their lowly personal servants to their courtiers, typically had at least a sidearm, and even wealthier peasants from clans on good terms with the town authorities could walk around town carrying sidearms. In period artwork they are usually shown carrying messers, but also sometimes swords, daggers, staves and things like threshing flails.

From reading personal accounts by people like Buenvenutto Cellini, it seems like in most districts it was fairly normal for anybody to go around armed, and to wear sidearms in town, without necessarily being challenged. Cellini was a middle to high ranking commoner (depending on the waxing and waning fortunes of his rather wild life) but even his own servants and apprentices seem to have typically gone around armed (and armored) as well.

Regulations seem to be limited mostly to controlling missile weapons and armor, and for certain specific estates. For example I found regulations requiring that Jewish people leave their 'throwing axes' at their inns (I think this maybe meant hurlbats, though I wasn't able to find the original German for the regulation). Certain districts notably Milan in Italy and I think much of England eventually enforced strict regulations on who could go around armed. German towns also had a lot of prohibitions against certain types of swords, swords that were 'too pointy' or were otherwise specialized for dueling, or swords above a certain length.

Rights for individual commoners, particularly peasants, declined after the German peasants war in the 1520's but burghers still retained many of these rights even into the 17th Century and beyond, so I don't think these were necessarily gone by then.

TL: DR commoners, including poor commoners, could still often carry arms.

G

I'm jumping around here, but you've touched on something else I think people often overlook or don't appreciate when talking about pre-20th century societies in Europe: social class and how fundamental it was to the way you lived. In particular the role of servants, valets, apprentices and other social lessers who made the status of someone of higher status. If you didn't have at least a valet, you weren't a gentleman, because gentlemen didn't dirty their hands with base transactions like doing their own shopping. If you were a commoner, you didn't just walk up to a nobleman in the street and start a conversation with them, you approached one of their servants. Even as late as the Victorian era, you weren't middle class if you didn't have someone in service in your household, for example.

This level of social stratification is alien to our modern, egalitarian thinking in most of the West, but if you're going to do an appreciably accurate historical game, it needs to be taken into consideration. There was some social mobility, especially in times of strife (war and pestilence were great social levellers), though it varied a lot by time and place.

It's another thing where a standard fantasy trope, of a group of PCs who are unaccompanied by servants, retainers or other camp followers, is at odds with any historical analogues.

[Berenger]

If rules didn't exist it is probable because it wasn't done and no one thought of doing it. In modern day, as far ad I am aware, it isn't illegal to get on the subway in combat helmet, flak jackets et al as long as you are not impersonating a police officer or soldier. Not because society is OK with it, but because it isn't a problem and goverments have not thought of addressing becau it is so rare.

This depends, in germany it's strictly illegal to bring Schutzwaffen (lit. "defensive weapons" = armor and other protective gear) to assemblies in the open. That may include (depending on the circumstances) even otherwise normal civilian gear such as motorcycle helmets. The explicit rationale behind this is that an armored person likely intends to participate in a violent situation that involves either direct resistance against the authorities or a fight with a rival group that will in turn force the authorities to intervene (folklore events that display historical armor, sport events that require appropriate gear for all participants and other such cases are of course exempt from this law).

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm jumping around here, but you've touched on something else I think people often overlook or don't appreciate when talking about pre-20th century societies in Europe: social class and how fundamental it was to the way you lived. In particular the role of servants, valets, apprentices and other social lessers who made the status of someone of higher status. If you didn't have at least a valet, you weren't a gentleman, because gentlemen didn't dirty their hands with base transactions like doing their own shopping. If you were a commoner, you didn't just walk up to a nobleman in the street and start a conversation with them, you approached one of their servants. Even as late as the Victorian era, you weren't middle class if you didn't have someone in service in your household, for example.

This level of social stratification is alien to our modern, egalitarian thinking in most of the West, but if you're going to do an appreciably accurate historical game, it needs to be taken into consideration. There was some social mobility, especially in times of strife (war and pestilence were great social levellers), though it varied a lot by time and place.

It's another thing where a standard fantasy trope, of a group of PCs who are unaccompanied by servants, retainers or other camp followers, is at odds with any historical analogues.


"Adventurers" tend to do their own shopping, don't they? I wonder if this is because they don't trust GM-played NPC retainers to get exactly the right item. :smallbiggrin:

I recall you mentioned this in my "4th century BCE" thread too. This is a VERY interesting topic, but I don't want to derail this thread, so perhaps we need a separate thread.

[2D8HP]

Wikipedia has the Rapier sword being first developed around 1500 as the Spanish "Espada Ropera" (dress sword).

The Mary Rose sank in 1545 with many English/Welsh Longbow's aboard.

How long were both Rapier's worn as "town swords", and "warbows" in use?

[Galloglaich]

I'm jumping around here, but you've touched on something else I think people often overlook or don't appreciate when talking about pre-20th century societies in Europe: social class and how fundamental it was to the way you lived. In particular the role of servants, valets, apprentices and other social lessers who made the status of someone of higher status. If you didn't have at least a valet, you weren't a gentleman, because gentlemen didn't dirty their hands with base transactions like doing their own shopping. If you were a commoner, you didn't just walk up to a nobleman in the street and start a conversation with them, you approached one of their servants. Even as late as the Victorian era, you weren't middle class if you didn't have someone in service in your household, for example.

This level of social stratification is alien to our modern, egalitarian thinking in most of the West, but if you're going to do an appreciably accurate historical game, it needs to be taken into consideration. There was some social mobility, especially in times of strife (war and pestilence were great social levellers), though it varied a lot by time and place.

It's another thing where a standard fantasy trope, of a group of PCs who are unaccompanied by servants, retainers or other camp followers, is at odds with any historical analogues.

On class, servants and estates

You have a very good point, in one sense, but I think you are also missing an important nuance. What you are describing is very true for the estate of the nobility, and in a lot of the countryside, and in certain kingdoms, this was more or less the law of the land. But in places like Italy, Flanders and the Holy Roman Empire & it's close neighbors (Poland, Hungary etc.) you have to remember the urban estate. Most of the land was under feudal law, but a lot of the population lived in cities and under town law (from 40% to as much as 60% in the more urbanized areas like Tuscany, Lombardy, the Rhineland, Flanders, Prussia and so on). In the towns there was also stratification but the stratification - at least in the medieval period, was neither as open or as strict. Even Cosimo de Medici, who most certainly had an army of servants, had to maintain a kind of republican or almost egalitarian pretense as a 'fellow citizen'.

In some ways actually I think late medieval urban society, and some of the rural areas too (those with the stronger peasant clans) it was actually quite a bit more egalitarian and less stratified than today. You could not get away for example with insulting employees or servants the way you can today - the courts are full of all kinds of lawsuits and criminal cases to do with bosses abusing their employees, in man cases in ways that would not be actionable today (calling somebody stupid for example, or disparaging their birth).

Burghers did not like the pretentions of the nobility, and this too lasted a long time. As late as the lead up to WW II some of the Hanseatic cities (who had their own internal stratifications by then) openly looked down on nobles to the extent that marrying into a noble family could cause you problems, and imitating the fancy airs, dress, and accoutrement of nobles was heavily frowned upon.

Even among the nobles, in the medieval period, you still had a lot of independent 'Free Imperial Knights' of the HRE, or the Szlachta in Poland, who had 'horizontal' relationships with other nobles, even much richer and more powerful ones, because technically (in theory) they were equals. The professional courtesy of the knightly class was also extended to serf-knights (ministerials) and burgher knights or esquires. This of course did not mean they were all equals but certain minimum standards of mutual respect were highly policed so to speak and would be defended by the entire 'estate' (a very different concept from class, but one which overlaps somewhat)



Acus episcopi probably was a pun, since arcus = arch and acus = needle. It probably also is a pun about the phrase in the Bible "it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle's head, than for a rich man to enter heaven".

About colours, the use of a livery was normal in Italy for many centuries. The people who served you used your colours, which set them above other people and represented that they were under your protection.

People carried weapons everywhere in XVI-XVII century Italy. A crazy example was how bishop Frederick of Milan was defended by a group of gentlemen who drew their swords in the Cathedral, so that the enthusiast crowd had to back off instead of crushing him. The richer, the better your weapon. A farmer would have a large knife, a nobleman a long sword and a number of armed servants, among which a few violent criminals which he kept under his protection and used as a private militia.

Pretty much identical to Germany and the HRE. Burghers would often be accompanied by their apprentices, servants and armed journeymen.


Generally speaking, the presence of laws doesn't mean much about their effects. Actually, it means that there was a situation they were attempting to change, but whether they did it or not can be most easily seen by looking for later laws with the same dispositions, which means a failure of the previous ones, or protocols of proceedings against infractors.

On law as written vs. law as practiced

What vindayan said does bear repeating, it's a very good point. One of the most confusing things about the middle ages is that there are tons of laws on the books that tell us one story - often a story of a very strictly regulated society with all kinds of rules and harsh punishments, like you get your hand cut off or head chopped off for almost everything. This is what they thought medieval society was like for a while. Then they looked at the court records, i.e. how the laws were actually applied in practice. Turns out to be very different.

We also see things like very harsh laws against a given practice issued over and over again, like every 5 -10 years for 6 or 7 generations, indicating that the behavior that was to be curtailed was a continuing problem.


Like for example if someone looked at the law books in the US in the 20th Century, you might conclude that nobody ever smoked marijuana. But if you looked deeper in the records, you may realize it was fairly commonplace among certain groups of people.

Medieval law is also further complicated by the fact that you have multiple overlapping legal systems in place and it's often very unclear as to which one applies. Feudal Law, traditional tribal law, Church law, Town Law and University law all competed for control of various districts. A given malefactor could often shop around for his judgement and punishment. So for example if the Duke is threatening to hang you for some offense, maybe you go to the Church instead, who impose a fine and a long pilgrimage (and a bunch of Hail Mary's) as penance for your crime. If you are town citizen you always have the right to be judged according to town law, which may or may not be a good thing depending on if you did something which annoys the town authorities.

This would also cause problems because people in one estate often didn't recognize the legal authority of other estates, or just seem to have forgotten about it. So a nobleman might think he's perfectly justified to rob a merchant because he has declared a feud against the merchants city in the Feudal court. But the city may well hang him as a common thief if they catch him because they didn't record the feud in their own feud book, or if they decide the noble violated their landfrieden.

So yeah, don't go find one example of something being banned, or something being allowed or practiced, and assume it's universal to pre-industrial society.

G

[Mike_G]

Wikipedia has the Rapier sword being first developed around 1500 as the Spanish "Espada Ropera" (dress sword).

The Mary Rose sank in 1545 with many English/Welsh Longbow's aboard.

How long were both Rapier's worn as "town swords", and "warbows" in use?

Any classification is going to be approximate, and imprecise.

BUT, that said, traditional rapiers (long, thrust centered but capable of cutting, elaborate hand protection) were popular from about 1500 through maybe 1700, at which time they had fallen out of common use, being replaced by a smallsword for civilian use and duels (and some military officers) or a backsword or sabre (or spadroon which wants to be all things to all people and winds up being kinda garbage) for military use (and some civilian use)

This is speaking generally. There are a lot of swords that kind of straddle the line, and a number of writers and historians who call things rapiers that we would call smallswords or broader cut and thrust swords with an eleaborate hilt.

I'm sure there will be extensive nitpicks on dates and typology, but I think we can safely say you don't see true rapiers much in 1750

As far as the warbow, it's hard to give a start date, since archery is older than written history. When the "warbow" developed isn't really agreed upon, but it's use by the English as a major component of their armies is probably 13th through 16th centuries. it was in use in the 16th century, but guns were becoming more and more prevalent. Again, it varies hugely from place to place, but I don't think any great numbers of longbowmen were deployed past 1600.

So there's probably about a hundred years from 1500-1600 when you might see both, but you won't see rapiers at Agincourt or many longbows in the English Civil War

[Galloglaich]

In New Orleans, gentlemen in the 1700's often carried a 'colichemarde', also known as a konigsmark in Germany, which was a special type of smallsword with a carp's tongue blade shape, which in effect meant that it had a much stronger forte, making it capable of say, parrying a cudgel wielded by some uncouth ruffian, while simultaneously allowing you to fight like you would with a normal smallsword.

https://www.euro-knife.com/sub/euro-noze.sk/images/shop-active-images/cold-steel-colichemarde-sword..jpg

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



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Matthaus_19_years.jpg/220px-Matthaus_19_years.jpg

Records of confiscation of what sound like rapiers or some kind of pointy dueling sword show up as far back as 1400 in Augsburg. By ~1510 full fledged rapiers (as distinct from espada ropera or spada da lato etc. etc.) are clearly visible in the autobiographical paintings trachtenbuch of Matthaus Schwarz so I suspect our timeline of how early these things actually showed up may need to be pushed back a little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matth%C3%A4us_Schwarz


but basically I agree with you.

[2D8HP]

....there's probably about a hundred years from 1500-1600 when you might see both, but you won't see rapiers at Agincourt or many longbows in the English Civil War


Thanks!

I assume that the Rapier wouldn't be a battlefield weapon, just a sword "in town"?

[jayem]

...
How long were both Rapier's worn as "town swords", and "warbows" in use?

With respect to the warbows, I guess in the widest sense from antiquity till around the 1880's (cowboys and indians, post usa civil war, though 1 in 10 had repeating rifles and so that's a bit fuzzy).

With respect to the English, you have Crecy in 1346 to Azincourt 1415 as being clearly within high points.
Whereas by the Civil war 1642 you don't think of archers being used (there's a mention of some at Bridgenorth, but that's the exception that proves the rule)

A lot (2000) were lost to cavalry at Patay (1429) and then you had the war of the roses. At Bosworth 1485 field there were 1500 archers. And they were still present at Flodden and Spurs in 1513, but not in the same way as earlier.

[Mike_G]

In New Orleans, gentlemen in the 1700's often carried a 'colichemarde', also known as a konigsmark in Germany, which was a special type of smallsword with a carp's tongue blade shape, which in effect meant that it had a much stronger forte, making it capable of say, parrying a cudgel wielded by some uncouth ruffian, while simultaneously allowing you to fight like you would with a normal smallsword.

https://www.euro-knife.com/sub/euro-noze.sk/images/shop-active-images/cold-steel-colichemarde-sword..jpg

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



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Matthaus_19_years.jpg/220px-Matthaus_19_years.jpg

Records of confiscation of what sound like rapiers or some kind of pointy dueling sword show up as far back as 1400 in Augsburg. By ~1510 full fledged rapiers (as distinct from espada ropera or spada da lato etc. etc.) are clearly visible in the autobiographical paintings trachtenbuch of Matthaus Schwarz so I suspect our timeline of how early these things actually showed up may need to be pushed back a little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matth%C3%A4us_Schwarz


but basically I agree with you.

Yeah, there are just so many variations and so much ambiguity of terms that it's tough to nail down exact dates.

[Storm Bringer]

Thanks!

I assume that the Rapier wouldn't be a battlefield weapon, just a sword "in town"?

normally, yes, but i'm sure It ended up on the battlefield a few times in its history.

[Incanur]

Bows likewise saw military use through the 19th century in China and perhaps into early 20th century, though I can't think of any accounts of bows being effective in that region past the 18th century or so. Native American bows apparently performed useful service against U.S. soldiers in the second half of the 19th century, typically in conjunction with firearms.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not sure how it worked out in actual history, but I would think that if you had a sizeable number of archers available, and no firearms to assign to those men, that for a certain span of history, arrows being loosed into the enemy ranks (in a time when armor was becoming less common / less covering) in support of your heavy infantry and "gunmen" would have been better than telling those archers to stay home. Not to mention using those archers as skirmishers, scouts, foragers, etc to some degree.

E: considering it further, it also occurs to me that despite whatever utility they might have had, that the archers likely went the way of the slinger... not so much disappearing because they'd have been "useless" at that immediate time in history, but rather because the cultural elements underlying the existence qualified archers had already faded to such a degree that large numbers of qualified archers just didn't exist. (Specifically bow-and-arrow archers, in this case.)

[Berenger]

Thanks!

I assume that the Rapier wouldn't be a battlefield weapon, just a sword "in town"?

Didn't the the conquistadors use swords that could be accurately described as rapiers as one of their main melee weapons? If that's the case and I'm not mistaken, that would certainly imply a rather widespread battlefield use because their kit was definitely military-grade and most likely not that different from other spanish soldiers of their time.

[rrgg]

Thanks!

I assume that the Rapier wouldn't be a battlefield weapon, just a sword "in town"?

The rapier definitely saw use as a battlefield weapon, there are military writers that do specify arming troops with them. Conversely, there seems to have been a bit of push back against the rapier's popularity as well, with a number of others preferring troops be armed wit 3-foot, cut-and-thrust "short swords" instead. George Silver was conviced that the rapier was inferior to the short sword even as a dueling and self-defense weapon.

Most of the time though writers would just say "sword."

The longbow was officially declared obsolete in 1595. This was decades after crossbows had been largely phased out on the continent due to the fact that the bow was so ingrained into English culture and, unlike the crossbow, it remained a far cheaper weapon to purchase than firearms were. In general, longbowmen's track record against matchlocks during this period seems to have been less than stellar. Smythe excluded, more and more Englishmen were becoming convinced that they weren't very effective in combat and something only to be used if there was not enough other shot available.

That said though laws requiring archery technically remained on the books into the mid-17th century and there are records that some counties still occasionally saw men show up to muster with bows decades after it was decided they were obsolete. It's just that they would typically then be reclassified as "unarmed men" and put into a much lower pay grade.

[Mike_G]

Didn't the the conquistadors use swords that could be accurately described as rapiers as one of their main melee weapons? If that's the case and I'm not mistaken, that would certainly imply a rather widespread battlefield use because their kit was definitely military-grade and most likely not that different from other spanish soldiers of their time.

Rapiers were used on the battlefield, to some extent. And a lot of "transitional rapiers" or "sword-rapiers" which were swords with a broader, slightly shorter blade and a rapier guard are quite common. These were better for cutting than a true rapier, and it's nice to have a more versatile weapon in combat. But they look rapier-y and are more thrust-oriented than a broadsword or arming sword. They were very much a battlefield weapon.

So, again, terms are not as simple or concrete as we would like.

This page has a good overview, and shows the many varied types of sword that might be called a "rapier."

http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm#.WOvZtGe1t2E

[Galloglaich]

Didn't the the conquistadors use swords that could be accurately described as rapiers as one of their main melee weapons? If that's the case and I'm not mistaken, that would certainly imply a rather widespread battlefield use because their kit was definitely military-grade and most likely not that different from other spanish soldiers of their time.

Rapiers are specialized civilian dueling weapons, and increasingly became associated with aristocrats and their friends (courtiers and bodyguards, artists and musicians, academics and university students, and so on) as rights for everyone else rapidly diminished in the 17th Century.

Eventually, around the time you start to see common soldiers wearing powdered wigs, anyone with social pretentions preferred to carry a rapier. Even if they lacked the training to use it right (and rapiers took a lot of training compared to many other weapons)

Rapiers also come in very different varieties, some robust and suitable for cutting as well as thrusting (and strong enough to say, parry a spear haft) others long, delicate and fragile, but ideal for a one-on-one duel.

http://www.salvatorfabris.org/img/WhatIsRapier2.jpg

To further confuse matters (since that is my job here, to confuse people) the rapier has a lot of cousins like the 'sidesword' (to use a modern term) and it's many equivalents, which were not really a rapier but shared many characteristics like the complex hilt optimized for point control. You probably start seeing true rapiers and their many cousins on the battlefield from as early as whenever rapiers first appeared.


The Spanish also had some very robust, broad-bladed battlefield swords with complex hilts or 'bells', which the neophyte might confuse for a rapier but they are anything but. More like an English backsword or something. These were specifically associated with the conquistadors.

http://www.antique-swords.eu/images/C74-1.jpg

G

[Kiero]

On class, servants and estates

You have a very good point, in one sense, but I think you are also missing an important nuance. What you are describing is very true for the estate of the nobility, and in a lot of the countryside, and in certain kingdoms, this was more or less the law of the land. But in places like Italy, Flanders and the Holy Roman Empire & it's close neighbors (Poland, Hungary etc.) you have to remember the urban estate. Most of the land was under feudal law, but a lot of the population lived in cities and under town law (from 40% to as much as 60% in the more urbanized areas like Tuscany, Lombardy, the Rhineland, Flanders, Prussia and so on). In the towns there was also stratification but the stratification - at least in the medieval period, was neither as open or as strict. Even Cosimo de Medici, who most certainly had an army of servants, had to maintain a kind of republican or almost egalitarian pretense as a 'fellow citizen'.

In some ways actually I think late medieval urban society, and some of the rural areas too (those with the stronger peasant clans) it was actually quite a bit more egalitarian and less stratified than today. You could not get away for example with insulting employees or servants the way you can today - the courts are full of all kinds of lawsuits and criminal cases to do with bosses abusing their employees, in man cases in ways that would not be actionable today (calling somebody stupid for example, or disparaging their birth).

Burghers did not like the pretentions of the nobility, and this too lasted a long time. As late as the lead up to WW II some of the Hanseatic cities (who had their own internal stratifications by then) openly looked down on nobles to the extent that marrying into a noble family could cause you problems, and imitating the fancy airs, dress, and accoutrement of nobles was heavily frowned upon.

Even among the nobles, in the medieval period, you still had a lot of independent 'Free Imperial Knights' of the HRE, or the Szlachta in Poland, who had 'horizontal' relationships with other nobles, even much richer and more powerful ones, because technically (in theory) they were equals. The professional courtesy of the knightly class was also extended to serf-knights (ministerials) and burgher knights or esquires. This of course did not mean they were all equals but certain minimum standards of mutual respect were highly policed so to speak and would be defended by the entire 'estate' (a very different concept from class, but one which overlaps somewhat)



My knowledge in this era is quite localised to particular places, so thanks for pointing that out. The urban estate isn't something I'm terribly familiar with, beyond when people have mentioned it in this thread.

There's a general sense I'm getting that the period I'm looking at, the 17th century, was one where there was a general shift towards greater stratification and a reduction in the rights of people generally. Was that just the move towards absolutism by many monarchs, or were there other social movements at work as well?

[2D8HP]

....There's a general sense I'm getting that the period I'm looking at, the 17th century, was one where there was a general shift towards greater stratification and a reduction in the rights of people generally. Was that just the move towards absolutism by many monarchs, or were there other social movements at work as well?


Well, in the UK they were the land enclosures (http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain)

[Mr Blobby]

If I remember correctly, the English govt told county militias to stop offering / recruiting longbowmen in 1598 due to them being utterly obsolete.

But I do have a few questions...

1/ As a rule, is it better for a left-handed person to use small arms using their dominant hand [and put up with the issues this creates] or to use it 'correctly' and suffer their RL 'off hand penalty'? I'm assuming here that while they're familiar with small arms in general, they've not been properly trained.

2/ Does firing a bolt-action rifle with the bayonet attached reduce accuracy?

3/ How small-framed / light does a person have to be before it becomes an issue for using 'normal-sized' weapons such as shotguns and assault rifles correctly?

[Incanur]

Various 16th-century military writers rejected any sword with a blade over 36-37 inches because of concerns that soldiers wouldn't be able to draw such long swords quickly enough. Joseph Swetnam suggested a person could effectively use his long rapier (4+ft overall length) in war, but didn't go into much detail about this.

Also note that the blade lengths specified by George Silver, 37in for a man of mean stature and 39-40 inches for a man of tall stature, are actually slightly higher than what writers like Sir John Smythe and Sancho de Londoño wanted. (Smythe set 36in as a limit, Londoño closer to 37in.) Long rapiers frequently had blades of 42 inches and beyond. Many of these still could cut to some extent, and any long rapier useful for self-defense had to be able to parry a strong blow.

[Vinyadan]

There's a general sense I'm getting that the period I'm looking at, the 17th century, was one where there was a general shift towards greater stratification and a reduction in the rights of people generally. Was that just the move towards absolutism by many monarchs, or were there other social movements at work as well?

I think that, in Italy, it depended on foreign powers taking over. After 1550 the king of Spain owned Sardinia, Sicily, Naples, Milan and the Presidii. Here the great nobles weren't the local elite any more, they were foreigners belonging to a neatly separate social class, which the Italian nobles had to imitate to make it clear that they were part of the dominators and not of the dominated. Especially in northern Italy, the Spanish domination started during the Siglo de Oro, when Spain really was the foremost and richest power, which added to the appeal of its ways.

To make a comparison to the previous times: when the German emperors lost their grip on northern Italy (a long process between the x and the xiii centuries), there was a huge shift in power to the advantage of cities. The old Frankish and Lombard nobility was sometimes even forced to reside in the cities and abandon their feudal castles. When they begun feuding inside the cities and building towers as their house-fortresses, some cities forced them to cut the towers down. There was the age of the Comuni, through which cities developed an administration that pretty much bypassed the nobles.

There followed the age of the Signorie - lords who somehow hijacked the government of their city, often extending its power to the surrounding areas. The Medici, Sforza, Visconti, Gonzaga, Malatesta belong to this group. But these were still, at least nominally, working in the Comune frame. They might have a title given by the Pope or Emperor, but still were locals from "normal" or normalized families.

The Spanish lords were a completely different matter. They weren't just foreigners, they also descended from an enormously old nobility that traced themselves back to Charlemagne or the Goths and had always existed within a monarchical, feudal mindset.

Even when the Siglo de Oro ended, bringing about the decline of Spain, which also caused a long lasting decline of Italian economy, the societal changes it had introduced took a long time to disappear, especially since Spain remained the hegemonic power in Italy until 1713, when most of its possessions went to Austria.

[Gnoman]

If I remember correctly, the English govt told county militias to stop offering / recruiting longbowmen in 1598 due to them being utterly obsolete.

But I do have a few questions...

1/ As a rule, is it better for a left-handed person to use small arms using their dominant hand [and put up with the issues this creates] or to use it 'correctly' and suffer their RL 'off hand penalty'? I'm assuming here that while they're familiar with small arms in general, they've not been properly trained.

2/ Does firing a bolt-action rifle with the bayonet attached reduce accuracy?

3/ How small-framed / light does a person have to be before it becomes an issue for using 'normal-sized' weapons such as shotguns and assault rifles correctly?

1. In my experience, handedness is much less important than eyedness. I'm right-handed, but I shoot much better left handed because my left eye is the dominant one.

2. That depends on what you are used to. A bayonet changes the balance of the weapon, but since military weapons are usually designed with the bayonet or other attachments in mind, it usually doesn't affect it enough to unbalance the weapon in a objective sense. If you are accustomed to a muzzle-heavy weapon, you'll generally shoot marginally better with the bayonet fixed, while if you are accustomed to a muzzle-light weapon you'll shoot marginally worse. In either case, the effect is very, very slight, because the weight of the bayonet is fairly slight.

3. Essentially the difference between a 12-year-old and an adult. This is why manufacturers make youth-model rifles and shotguns (intended to allow you to teach your kid how to shoot and basic firearm safety with a firearm that isn't hazardously large) but do not generally manufacture "woman model" (there are some with aesthetics changed, but they're generally the same size as any other version) guns, with the main driver of gun size being universal considerations such as how easy a handgun is to conceal, or how likely it is for a rifle or shotgun to snag on branches.

[Pauly]

If I remember correctly, the English govt told county militias to stop offering / recruiting longbowmen in 1598 due to them being utterly obsolete.

But I do have a few questions...

1/ As a rule, is it better for a left-handed person to use small arms using their dominant hand [and put up with the issues this creates] or to use it 'correctly' and suffer their RL 'off hand penalty'? I'm assuming here that while they're familiar with small arms in general, they've not been properly trained.

2/ Does firing a bolt-action rifle with the bayonet attached reduce accuracy?

3/ How small-framed / light does a person have to be before it becomes an issue for using 'normal-sized' weapons such as shotguns and assault rifles correctly?


With respect to (2)
I have read WW1 diaries/memoirs of common soldiers. The only one I remember commenting on shooting with a bayonet ("The Desert Column" by I L Idress) specifically says that shooting with an 18" weight added to the end of the barrel significantly reduces accuracy. So soldiers, even if they had been told to fix bayonets for possible melee, would remove the bayonets if there was any extended shooting.
Idress was a spotter for a sniper in Gallipoli, and was his squadron's designated marksman so he he probably had more interest in marksmanship than the average soldier.

[Pauly]

In New Orleans, gentlemen in the 1700's often carried a 'colichemarde', also known as a konigsmark in Germany, which was a special type of smallsword with a carp's tongue blade shape, which in effect meant that it had a much stronger forte, making it capable of say, parrying a cudgel wielded by some uncouth ruffian, while simultaneously allowing you to fight like you would with a normal smallsword

.

Interestingly, Matt Easton of scholagladiatoria has made some videos recently about the colichemarde, and saying in effect that contemporary records don't state the reason for the design and that he is unhappy with the assertion it is for enhanced parrying.

I won't comment on the correctness or otherwise of that from a sword fighter's perspective. What I will say is that my immediate impression as a knife user was that the design would have been for enhanced stiffness in the blade. If you look at boning or fishing knives, especially carbon steel models, they have a wide base and taper quickly to a long narrow blade. That design significantly enhances stiffness over a long narrow blade. Although this is hard to tell with stainless steel blades, because SS blades are thicker than CS blades because SS is more brittle than CS. You do really notice the difference if you use CS blades.

[Carl]

Very late coming back as i've been binging on stellaris since utopia came out.

Regarding wimple shields the basic theory is similar to for example throwing a lump of chalk through a glass window when there's thick closed curtains behind it, the chalk if the lumps big enough probably will shatter the window and send glass into the curtains, but the chalk itself will break up and be stopped and anyone behind the curtain is safe. A lot of the effect comes from the fact that micrometeorites are basically rock and they're striking at velocities rather a lot higher than is achieved by shaped charges, they're going (on average), 3 times as fast a an MIRV at ground impact. Putting the speed into perspective is just impossible, nothing observable with the human eye moves at that velocity in atmosphere, nothing moves even close to that speed. And thats for micrometeorites, an actual attack, especially if taking advantage of retrograde intercepts or done on a high speed flyby attack is as fast again as that. Even an APFSDS round from a 120mm tank gun is only traveling about an eighth as fast at the muzzle as the micrometeorite.

Thus when they strike even a thin sheet of metal, they shatter into sand, and what you get is some shrapnel produced from the thin wall and sand flying inwards. You just need an inner wall that can catch this. But the bigger the piece of rock you want to break up the thicker the first wall needs to be and the larger and higher velocity the shrapnel produced. Beyond a certain point the shrapnel itself needs another wimple shield to handle it.

Now remember any prospective attack weapon isn't like to some in one at a time, it isn;t going to be throwing crumbly easily broken rocks, an the velocities are going to be waaaay higher and your starting to see the issues. The wimple shield with enough layers can work, but it's still goign to be big and heavy, especially the big part, the spacing is on the order of feet or, (even meters depending), not inches or cm's.

[Galloglaich]

Interestingly, Matt Easton of scholagladiatoria has made some videos recently about the colichemarde, and saying in effect that contemporary records don't state the reason for the design and that he is unhappy with the assertion it is for enhanced parrying.

I won't comment on the correctness or otherwise of that from a sword fighter's perspective. What I will say is that my immediate impression as a knife user was that the design would have been for enhanced stiffness in the blade. If you look at boning or fishing knives, especially carbon steel models, they have a wide base and taper quickly to a long narrow blade. That design significantly enhances stiffness over a long narrow blade. Although this is hard to tell with stainless steel blades, because SS blades are thicker than CS blades because SS is more brittle than CS. You do really notice the difference if you use CS blades.

I like Matt and usually agree with him but I also think he trolls sometimes.

I can't claim to know for sure, but what I can say is that there was always a problem with swords breaking, and this was magnified considerably with rapiers, and then an order of magnitude more so with smallswords. So there was certainly a reason to make a more robust smallsword.

Anyway, in New Orleans that I the local assumption about the colichmarde.

G

[Mike_G]

I like Matt and usually agree with him but I also think he trolls sometimes.

I can't claim to know for sure, but what I can say is that there was always a problem with swords breaking, and this was magnified considerably with rapiers, and then an order of magnitude more so with smallswords. So there was certainly a reason to make a more robust smallsword.

Anyway, in New Orleans that I the local assumption about the colichmarde.

G

I agree. I watched Matt Easton's video and was unconvinced. It came down to "I don't know what it's for, but not that." which didn't work for me.

The smallsword is already very stiff, by virtue of the triangular cross section blade, so I don't think that's it.

And the wider section wouldn't do much to make it better in a duel against another smallsword.

But it would make the forte stronger, which you'd want if you were going to use it to face heavier weapons. A smallsword is fast and precise, but it's really light and lacks mass. Dosen't matter much if you're parrying a thrust from another smallsword, but a cut or strike from a heavier weapon is different.

[Max_Killjoy]

Do we have any good contemporary sources or experimental archaeology results that give a good indication of the penetrating power of a man-portable scorpion such as those used by the Roman military?

I've seen a couple of claims lately about the bolts "penetrating multiple ranks", and I'm suspicious that this is conflating the power of very large bolt-throwing engines, with the power of the smaller weapons used in open battle by a crew of 2-4 men lugging it around by hand and rapidly firing smaller bolts.

[Pauly]

I agree. I watched Matt Easton's video and was unconvinced. It came down to "I don't know what it's for, but not that." which didn't work for me.

The smallsword is already very stiff, by virtue of the triangular cross section blade, so I don't think that's it.

And the wider section wouldn't do much to make it better in a duel against another smallsword.

But it would make the forte stronger, which you'd want if you were going to use it to face heavier weapons. A smallsword is fast and precise, but it's really light and lacks mass. Dosen't matter much if you're parrying a thrust from another smallsword, but a cut or strike from a heavier weapon is different.

If we look at the question of why is there a collimecharde design.
Possible answers include.
1) for better parrying of heavier weapons. Matt Easton disagreed because the overall mass of collimecharde and non collimecharde small swords is about the same.

2) increased stiffness. The thicker extended base would function in a similar way to halfswording with a longsword. It is a way of increasing stiffness without increasing brittleness. A stiffer blade is always more effective at thrusting than a more flexible blade.

3) reduced chance of breakage from longitudinal force. If you thrust and hit something hard then the increased mass at the bass will disperse the force more efficiently.

4) reduced chance of breakage from lateral forces. There are some good videos on youtube which show lateral (cutting) forces won't break a well made blade. Basically the hand holding the sword acts as a shock absorber allowing the force to be converted to movement. Of corce in earler centuries metal refining and casting was less good than now so casting and/or forging flaws would make historical blades more susceptible than modern blades.
Since small swords are dedicated thrusting weapons we can discount lareral farces from the weilder cutting with it.

5) a barrier. it prevents thrusts travelling too deep into the target.

6) it made it easier to extract the blade without breaking. If the blade is trapped in a body and the body twists or falls it creates pressure nodes. Making it more likely to break.

7) it looked cool. Maybe there was a perception that the collimecharde improved combat even if there was no actual benefit.

It seems quite reasonable to believe that small sword broke more easily than other swords, I'm not aware of data to back that up but I am in no way a sword historian. But to work out if the collimecharde helps we need to know how and why the swords typically broke.

Also the collimecharde seems to have been a more warlike version of the small sword. In that it seems to be associated with people who have actual intent of using it in combat, not a fashion accessory that might or might not be called upon to fight a duel.

[Mike_G]

If we look at the question of why is there a collimecharde design.
Possible answers include.
1) for better parrying of heavier weapons. Matt Easton disagreed because the overall mass of collimecharde and non collimecharde small swords is about the same.


Except it's not the same. It's more mass. It just is. And it's more mass at the forte, where you parry, not the tip, where you would cut or thrust, so it seems to strengthen the part of the blade you use for defense.

You don't need to add a lot of mass to the blade if you put it in the right place



2) increased stiffness. The thicker extended base would function in a similar way to halfswording with a longsword. It is a way of increasing stiffness without increasing brittleness. A stiffer blade is always more effective at thrusting than a more flexible blade.


But the smallsword is already about as stuff a blade as you can get. And the collichemarde section is farthest from the tip, so it wouldn't keep the first third of the blade from flexing if it hit a bone or button or something.



3) reduced chance of breakage from longitudinal force. If you thrust and hit something hard then the increased mass at the bass will disperse the force more efficiently.


I'd think the change in geometry would create a weak point at the transition.




4) reduced chance of breakage from lateral forces. There are some good videos on youtube which show lateral (cutting) forces won't break a well made blade. Basically the hand holding the sword acts as a shock absorber allowing the force to be converted to movement. Of corce in earler centuries metal refining and casting was less good than now so casting and/or forging flaws would make historical blades more susceptible than modern blades.
Since small swords are dedicated thrusting weapons we can discount lareral farces from the weilder cutting with it.


OK. So better at parrying a cut from a cutting sword.

Which is what Easton was skeptical of.



5) a barrier. it prevents thrusts travelling too deep into the target.


Not seeing it.

It's tapered, not a wing that would stop the body, and it's really far down the blade. If you hit that part you've already put two feet of steel in the guy when four inches would have done the job.



6) it made it easier to extract the blade without breaking. If the blade is trapped in a body and the body twists or falls it creates pressure nodes. Making it more likely to break.


Eh. I don't see how it makes extracting the blade easier.




7) it looked cool. Maybe there was a perception that the collimecharde improved combat even if there was no actual benefit.

It seems quite reasonable to believe that small sword broke more easily than other swords, I'm not aware of data to back that up but I am in no way a sword historian. But to work out if the collimecharde helps we need to know how and why the swords typically broke.

Also the collimecharde seems to have been a more warlike version of the small sword. In that it seems to be associated with people who have actual intent of using it in combat, not a fashion accessory that might or might not be called upon to fight a duel.

I think it was a more warlike version, but I think that a soldier is more likely to have to deal with sabres, broadswords or bayonets than a civilian is, so now we're back to a smallsword that can parry heavier weapons.

[Pauly]

But the smallsword is already about as stuff a blade as you can get. And the collichemarde section is farthest from the tip, so it wouldn't keep the first third of the blade from flexing if it hit a bone or button or something.



I'd think the change in geometry would create a weak point at the transition.
.

I don'tknow about the other possibilities, but from handling knives with wide base leading to a long narrow blade I guarantee you that 2 and 3 are real. Narrow blades without a wide base you can feel in your hand are not as stiff, and they will snap near the handle if you put the point into a bone too hard. Whether they are why that feature is in the collimecharde design is a different question.
Just because the small sword is already stiff doesn't mean there is no benefit to making it stiffer.

[Martin Greywolf]

With respect to (2)
I have read WW1 diaries/memoirs of common soldiers. The only one I remember commenting on shooting with a bayonet ("The Desert Column" by I L Idress) specifically says that shooting with an 18" weight added to the end of the barrel significantly reduces accuracy. So soldiers, even if they had been told to fix bayonets for possible melee, would remove the bayonets if there was any extended shooting.
Idress was a spotter for a sniper in Gallipoli, and was his squadron's designated marksman so he he probably had more interest in marksmanship than the average soldier.

Honestly, I'd say this is a problem of what you mean when you say "problems with accuracy". Putting on a bayonet may not affect your usual soldier at the ranges he fights all that much, but can make the gun less than ideal for a marksman trying to go at it at the long to extreme ranges. I suspect many WW1 marksmen would consider modern assault rifles to be horribly inaccurate.

Anyway, you don't put a bayonet on unless you know enemy is close-ish, so it probably wouldn't be a problem most of the time.

On Matt Easton and Colichemarde

I have to agree with Matt on one thing - no one should say with air of authority or definitiveness that widened section there is to make the blade better for parries unless he has some significant data or sources for it. We have a "western swords can't cut" situation here, people look at something, make a quick judgement without testing, and it gets passed on as fact.

Honestly, if we want to know this, take a smallsword and colichemared of similar sizes and test it - block spears, halberds, other swords etc, give it to good smallsworders as well as beginners and see what happens. Until then, don't say "it's wide to make parries easier", say "it's wider, and we think that's because it potentially makes parries easier".

Incidentally, that goes for all the rest of the reasons Matt gave - if it's there to make blade more durable, test it. If it's there to make redirecting thrusts easier, test it.

Calling people on making conjectures and passing them off as fact is not trolling. All the innuendo, on the other hand...

[Brother Oni]

Do we have any good contemporary sources or experimental archaeology results that give a good indication of the penetrating power of a man-portable scorpion such as those used by the Roman military?

I've seen a couple of claims lately about the bolts "penetrating multiple ranks", and I'm suspicious that this is conflating the power of very large bolt-throwing engines, with the power of the smaller weapons used in open battle by a crew of 2-4 men lugging it around by hand and rapidly firing smaller bolts.

'Man-portable' covers a range of designs, from the Vitruvius' ballista which fired 2lb projectiles, down to the smallest Vespa (or Xanten) scorpion.
Could you clarify a bit what you're interested in specifically as the experimental archaeology is a bit scattered and I'd like to focus down my searches before I start number crunching.

For reference, the three span larger scorpion was the standard during the Roman invasion of Britain and praised by Caesar for its accuracy, which may be a good start.

[Max_Killjoy]

'Man-portable' covers a range of designs, from the Vitruvius' ballista which fired 2lb projectiles, down to the smallest Vespa (or Xanten) scorpion.
Could you clarify a bit what you're interested in specifically as the experimental archaeology is a bit scattered and I'd like to focus down my searches before I start number crunching.

For reference, the three span larger scorpion was the standard during the Roman invasion of Britain and praised by Caesar for its accuracy, which may be a good start.

The thing in question appeared to be something that two fit Roman soldiers could have picked up and lugged across a battlefield at a fast walk.

But that big variation in sizes that fall under-man portable could be the sort of confusion I'm concerned is underlying the claim (read elsewhere).

[Galloglaich]

On Matt Easton and Colichemarde

I have to agree with Matt on one thing - no one should say with air of authority or definitiveness that widened section there is to make the blade better for parries unless he has some significant data or sources for it. We have a "western swords can't cut" situation here, people look at something, make a quick judgement without testing, and it gets passed on as fact.

Honestly, if we want to know this, take a smallsword and colichemared of similar sizes and test it - block spears, halberds, other swords etc, give it to good smallsworders as well as beginners and see what happens. Until then, don't say "it's wide to make parries easier", say "it's wider, and we think that's because it potentially makes parries easier".

Incidentally, that goes for all the rest of the reasons Matt gave - if it's there to make blade more durable, test it. If it's there to make redirecting thrusts easier, test it.

Calling people on making conjectures and passing them off as fact is not trolling. All the innuendo, on the other hand...

You make some good points here, but I would offer a few counterpoints.

1) We aren't talking about a sword from 5 centuries back, this was in use in the founding fathers era, George Washington carried one for example. It's a fairly well documented and accessible period.

2) The notion that the 'carps tongue' blade shape allows for more effective parrying is not a wild guess from just looking at the blade shape, it comes from documentary evidence (i.e., books, letters, newspaper articles and so on) from the period when it was in use. I know for a fact this is what was said about that type of sword in New Orleans, and from what I gather in the US Colonies, France, and Germany as well.

3) The issue of the sword breaking is not at all negligible. Yes, Pauly, swords are made to resist breakage. However, no, this does not mean they don't break. Swords break all the time in normal use* and being both narrow and stiff, smallswords are even more vulnerable to this than most other swords. We know this from documentary evidence, English coroners rolls and French court records for example are full of smallswords in particular breaking.

4) We also know a bit about the context here. The smallsword was a specialized dueling sword for aristocrats and courtiers. It was not designed to be robust. We know that in this period (late 17th through the 18th Century) emulation of courtiers and aristocrats was an important and widespread social practice particularly among members of the military (common soldiers wearing powdered wigs and so forth) but also in the mercantile and manufacturing class, rural landowners, and other social elites.

On the battlefield in particular, officers were generally expected to carry the smallsword (or some version of it) while common soldiers carried sabers or backswords, or even strange little short swords such as you see in the French Napoleonic artillery units. We know that smallswords were vulnerable when being used against other more robust weapons, it even led to the development of the unfortunate 'spadroon' family of swords, which were designed to be some kind of hybrid between a smallsword and a backsword.

So in this context the conventional explanation for the shape of the colichemarde makes sense.


However I do agree something more subtle could be at work. That would indeed fit the pattern of common tropes hiding a more nuanced reality. I'm just not sure Matt has made the point that this is the case, I think his 'Trolling' comes into play when he a little too forcefully downplays the conventional explanation. He may be doing so for a good reason (what I just described), but I think that is what he's doing there.

In short, there very well may be other reasons for the carps tongue shape, and either they do not in fact make the sword more robust or they may serve more than one purpose. It may be a bit like the shilt on a feder sword for example which I think kind of serves both purposes.

I've handled some very nice antique colichemardes incidentally and they don't feel like slow weapons in the least.

G

[Galloglaich]

I should add that, aside from the military context I mentioned, around the New Orleans area anyway it is also well established that duels for example were fought with a wide variety of weapons; while the colichemarde was the most popular for people who thought of themselves as 'gentlemen', sabers, a wide variety of back swords or 'broad swords', bowie knives, various types of canes, sticks and staves, even axes and hatchets were all commonly used. So a gentleman would want to be ready to face people with more robust weapons.

G

[Kiero]

I should add that, aside from the military context I mentioned, around the New Orleans area anyway it is also well established that duels for example were fought with a wide variety of weapons; while the colichemarde was the most popular for people who thought of themselves as 'gentlemen', sabers, a wide variety of back swords or 'broad swords', bowie knives, various types of canes, sticks and staves, even axes and hatchets were all commonly used. So a gentleman would want to be ready to face people with more robust weapons.

G

That is really interesting, I'd always assumed duelling was solely a "gentlemanly" endeavour, and anyone participating would seek to emulate them. As in fight with swords.

Was it purely a local phenomenon that men would duel with essentially whatever weapons they were familiar with? Canes I could see still being gentlemanly (since they were often carried in lieu of swords), but sticks, staves, axes, knives?

I'd imagine a man with a knife or axe would be at quite a disadvantage against someone with a smallsword, but a staff would be extremely handy.

[Mike_G]

That is really interesting, I'd always assumed duelling was solely a "gentlemanly" endeavour, and anyone participating would seek to emulate them. As in fight with swords.

Was it purely a local phenomenon that men would duel with essentially whatever weapons they were familiar with? Canes I could see still being gentlemanly (since they were often carried in lieu of swords), but sticks, staves, axes, knives?

I'd imagine a man with a knife or axe would be at quite a disadvantage against someone with a smallsword, but a staff would be extremely handy.

Duels and knife fights exist on the same spectrum. Jim Bowie used his famous knife in what is described as one or the other, by his fans or critics.

And you can be assaulted by a man with a hatchet and have your "dueling" weapon to defend yourself.

If I was going to have to fight a duel of honor tomorrow at sunrise, and my opponent were going to have a similar weapon, then a smallsword makes sense, no need for a heftier blade. Especially given the years of fencing I've had.

Now, if I expected to meet people with sabres, backswords or more thuglike weapons like clubs and so forth, I would want something strong enough to parry them. A sword that let me parry those weapons without breaking, and still could be used offensively like I learned in fencing, that would work nicely for me.

[Kiero]

Duels and knife fights exist on the same spectrum. Jim Bowie used his famous knife in what is described as one or the other, by his fans or critics.

And you can be assaulted by a man with a hatchet and have your "dueling" weapon to defend yourself.

If I was going to have to fight a duel of honor tomorrow at sunrise, and my opponent were going to have a similar weapon, then a smallsword makes sense, no need for a heftier blade. Especially given the years of fencing I've had.

Now, if I expected to meet people with sabres, backswords or more thuglike weapons like clubs and so forth, I would want something strong enough to parry them. A sword that let me parry those weapons without breaking, and still could be used offensively like I learned in fencing, that would work nicely for me.

It sounds particularly American though; I couldn't imagine the same being acceptable in Europe at the time.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm jumping around here, but you've touched on something else I think people often overlook or don't appreciate when talking about pre-20th century societies in Europe: social class and how fundamental it was to the way you lived. In particular the role of servants, valets, apprentices and other social lessers who made the status of someone of higher status. If you didn't have at least a valet, you weren't a gentleman, because gentlemen didn't dirty their hands with base transactions like doing their own shopping. If you were a commoner, you didn't just walk up to a nobleman in the street and start a conversation with them, you approached one of their servants. Even as late as the Victorian era, you weren't middle class if you didn't have someone in service in your household, for example.

This level of social stratification is alien to our modern, egalitarian thinking in most of the West, but if you're going to do an appreciably accurate historical game, it needs to be taken into consideration. There was some social mobility, especially in times of strife (war and pestilence were great social levellers), though it varied a lot by time and place.

It's another thing where a standard fantasy trope, of a group of PCs who are unaccompanied by servants, retainers or other camp followers, is at odds with any historical analogues.


"Adventurers" tend to do their own shopping, don't they? I wonder if this is because they don't trust GM-played NPC retainers to get exactly the right item. :smallbiggrin:

I recall you mentioned this in my "4th century BCE" thread too. This is a VERY interesting topic, but I don't want to derail this thread, so perhaps we need a separate thread.

Posted a thread on this topic.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?521171-Retainers-Bodyguards-Lieutenants-Henchmen-Followers-Servants-Slaves-Troops

[Mike_G]

It sounds particularly American though; I couldn't imagine the same being acceptable in Europe at the time.

What is an American if not somebody who was tossed out of another country for not following the rules?

[Brother Oni]

The thing in question appeared to be something that two fit Roman soldiers could have picked up and lugged across a battlefield at a fast walk.

But that big variation in sizes that fall under-man portable could be the sort of confusion I'm concerned is underlying the claim (read elsewhere).

Well this is a reconstruction of the 1st Century 3 span scorpion, which looks just about 2 man carry-able:

http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/Military/trisa-composite.jpg

The 3 span scorpions were so called as their projectiles were 3 span long, which is ~27 inches in today's measurements. The Roman siege engineer Vitruvius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius) left behind some fairly detailed instructions on how to build one, which these people have interpreted and extrapolated to build their own replica: link (http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~whutchis/scorpion/Scorpion%20Documentation.pdf).
These arrows would have weighed about 120g and velocities of the reconstructions clock in at between 50-60m/s, so taking the upper values, they would have a momentum of 7.2 kg/m/s and a KE of 216J.

Looking at hunting sites, you need about 65 ft-lbf to kill large game like elk and bear, which translates to ~88J. This would imply that at 216J, a scorpion bolt will easily kill with energy to spare, but I'm having difficultly finding an approximate value to penetrate through a human body.
With regard to the original claim of it piercing multiple ranks, it probably depends on where it penetrates the various targets - hitting bone or armour would likely slow it down.

Both Caesar's Gallic Wars and Vitruvius' writings have records on their performance.

You also need to be careful about the time period - the scorpion was superseded by the cheiroballistra which had improved performance, so if the other forum isn't being careful about their terms, they may be mistaking the later weapon for the former.

[snowblizz]

Great stuff. If you couldn't afford a buff coat (ie the majority of people), what would you wear under a metal cuirass? Just enough material to prevent chafing at the shoulders and hips?

Finally remembered to check. An English writer in 1640 notes you can't get a good buffcoat for under £10. A used one for Swedish guards cost £2.67 and a new one £4.44 in materials alone. An ordinary Swedish troopers armour and helmet cost ~£1.

[Clistenes]

Finally remembered to check. An English writer in 1640 notes you can't get a good buffcoat for under £10. A used one for Swedish guards cost £2.67 and a new one £4.44 in materials alone. An ordinary Swedish troopers armour and helmet cost ~£1.

I guess those cuirasses and helmets were of quite poor quality... But anyways, cavalry soldiers still wore cuirasses over their buffcoats; the buffcoats wasn't better than metal armor, both kinds of armor complemented each other.

[snowblizz]

I guess those cuirasses and helmets were of quite poor quality... But anyways, cavalry soldiers still wore cuirasses over their buffcoats; the buffcoats wasn't better than metal armor, both kinds of armor complemented each other.

Yes. All stuff I've pointed out earlier btw. When horsemen's armour was delivered in 1632 to the Swedish army the inspector complained about the poor quality. An order of some 8000 sets of armour was placed in 1631. At delivery in 1632 only 197 were deemed to pass muster (though it's not made clear how large this delivery was, unlikely to be the full order at any rate). But they cancelled the rest claiming quality issues, but at the root of the problem soldiers were unwilling to wear it anyway and naturally they'd save money too. By 1635 they instruct the country stop all deliveries of harness to cavalry and infantry alike as it is not used

[Pauly]

You make some good points here, but I would offer a few counterpoints.


2) The notion that the 'carps tongue' blade shape allows for more effective parrying is not a wild guess from just looking at the blade shape, it comes from documentary evidence (i.e., books, letters, newspaper articles and so on) from the period when it was in use. I know for a fact this is what was said about that type of sword in New Orleans, and from what I gather in the US Colonies, France, and Germany as well.

3) The issue of the sword breaking is not at all negligible. Yes, Pauly, swords are made to resist breakage. However, no, this does not mean they don't break. Swords break all the time in normal use* and being both narrow and stiff, smallswords are even more vulnerable to this than most other swords. We know this from documentary evidence, English coroners rolls and French court records for example are full of smallswords in particular breaking.


G

Thanks very much for the detailed information.

I should clarify what I meant about breakages. Firstly whether small swords were more susceptible to breakage seems completely reasonable. Yes we have records of gentlemen breaking their weapons, but that may simply be observer bias, since common soldier's breakages may not be reported. I am not disputing the belief that small swords broke more easily than other swords, more that I saying that am unaware of documentary evidence to back it up.
More important is how and where the swords typically broke. If small swords tended to break near the tip then the collimecharde almost certainly isn't for making the blade more robust. However if the small sword had a particular problem with breaking near the hilt then the main purpose of the design may have been to prevent breakage, not parrying.
Then whether small swords broke more frequently from lateral or longitudinal forces. Since the small sword is essentially a 2 dimensional object we can disregard vertical forces (against the flat of a blade).
I would expect there to be different design requirements if it was strengthening specifically for different directions of force.

The main reason I find the parrying rationale questionable is that if you simply wanted to add more mass at the base of the blade you can achieve that with a simple box section steel bar. The collimecharde on the other hand is a more technical design which requires much more skill and time to make. People generally won't pay for that without an increase in functionality.

We also need to separate primary design requirements from secondary additional benefits. Also since the collimecharde supplemented rather than replaced the small sword we probably have to accept that there was a cost-benefit trade off between the designs.

[Mike_G]

Thanks very much for the detailed information.

I should clarify what I meant about breakages. Firstly whether small swords were more susceptible to breakage seems completely reasonable. Yes we have records of gentlemen breaking their weapons, but that may simply be observer bias, since common soldier's breakages may not be reported. I am not disputing the belief that small swords broke more easily than other swords, more that I saying that am unaware of documentary evidence to back it up.
More important is how and where the swords typically broke. If small swords tended to break near the tip then the collimecharde almost certainly isn't for making the blade more robust. However if the small sword had a particular problem with breaking near the hilt then the main purpose of the design may have been to prevent breakage, not parrying.
Then whether small swords broke more frequently from lateral or longitudinal forces. Since the small sword is essentially a 2 dimensional object we can disregard vertical forces (against the flat of a blade).
I would expect there to be different design requirements if it was strengthening specifically for different directions of force.

The main reason I find the parrying rationale questionable is that if you simply wanted to add more mass at the base of the blade you can achieve that with a simple box section steel bar. The collimecharde on the other hand is a more technical design which requires much more skill and time to make. People generally won't pay for that without an increase in functionality.

We also need to separate primary design requirements from secondary additional benefits. Also since the collimecharde supplemented rather than replaced the small sword we probably have to accept that there was a cost-benefit trade off between the designs.

Here is where I think we have misunderstanding

A smallsword is the least two dimensional blade commonly used in fighting.

The cross section was a triangle. There is no "flat." That's why it doesn't cut.

Beefing up the part you parry with make the parrying part stronger.

[Pauly]

Here is where I think we have misunderstanding

A smallsword is the least two dimensional blade commonly used in fighting.

The cross section was a triangle. There is no "flat." That's why it doesn't cut.

Beefing up the part you parry with make the parrying part stronger.

From an engineering point of view A regular sword has three different dimensions. Acroos the width of the blade edge to ecge), across the thickness of the blade and the down the length of the blade.there is an up and down, a side to side and back and forth. There are three clear and distinct planes for force to be applied.
The small sword design effectively eliminates the flat of the blade. Your forces become side to side and back and forth.

[Brother Oni]

Finally remembered to check. An English writer in 1640 notes you can't get a good buffcoat for under £10. A used one for Swedish guards cost £2.67 and a new one £4.44 in materials alone. An ordinary Swedish troopers armour and helmet cost ~£1.

Did you convert the prices from pounds/shillings/pence into pence then into metric pounds? £2.67 decimalised pounds in old money is £2 5s 7d but £2.67 old pounds is £2 13s 7d.

To help put those prices in context, in the 1640s the average daily wage for a farmhand was 9d a day and 1lb (~1 small loaf) of bread was ~1.5d.

[Gnoman]

This might sound like (or even be) a stupid question, but what color would bronze weapons and armor be in actual use? Most bronze alloys I've seen are really shiny, which seems like an undesirable quality even in open-field combat, and an extremely bad one for ambushes.

With steel, most of the rust-protection methods I know of would have a significant dulling effect, but I don't know about bronze.

[Martin Greywolf]

2) The notion that the 'carps tongue' blade shape allows for more effective parrying is not a wild guess from just looking at the blade shape, it comes from documentary evidence (i.e., books, letters, newspaper articles and so on) from the period when it was in use. I know for a fact this is what was said about that type of sword in New Orleans, and from what I gather in the US Colonies, France, and Germany as well.

Well, if that is so, then Matt was simply wrong and not trolling, since his entire point was "we don't know", and our debate is way off than where it should be. Which is you providing some of the sources and us either shutting right up or challenging them on basis of being false advertising or some such - but then we would definitely need to have some actual testing data.




Looking at hunting sites, you need about 65 ft-lbf to kill large game like elk and bear, which translates to ~88J. This would imply that at 216J, a scorpion bolt will easily kill with energy to spare, but I'm having difficultly finding an approximate value to penetrate through a human body.

You'll likely not find anything useful, the energy required very much depends on the projectile, where you hit and what the body is wearing. Most of the numbers available would likely be for bullets, but even FMJ ammunition is very different from a scorpion bolt. For example, a .380 ACP bullet with low estimate of energy at 260 J penetrates some 23 inches into ballistics gel, where anything over 18 inches is considered an overpenetration.

On one hand, a bullet is smaller, on the other hand, a bolt cuts rather than tears apart if it has the right head, and the energy you gave is close-ish... Well, I'd say what we need to do is find someone with a replica scorpion and have him shoot at two pig carcasses separated by about a meter of space.

I can see weapons like these penetrating multiple ranks if they hit their first hit through the neck or some such pretty easily, though, which may be enough to make the claim that "scorpion penetrates multiple ranks". Personally, I think they were there to go through shields and still be able to injure the men behind them, which would be especially useful if you were besieged and your enemies set up a wooden "pavaises" to be able to start sapping/shooting back at you.

[Kiero]

This might sound like (or even be) a stupid question, but what color would bronze weapons and armor be in actual use? Most bronze alloys I've seen are really shiny, which seems like an undesirable quality even in open-field combat, and an extremely bad one for ambushes.

With steel, most of the rust-protection methods I know of would have a significant dulling effect, but I don't know about bronze.

Most of the periods in which it was in significant usage, stealth was rarely a battlefield concern. Indeed "looking good" was a pretty important consideration, so I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be shiny.

Bronze goes green when it corrodes, but I don't think it's anything other than a patina on the surface, rather than a deep sort of corrosion into the material itself.

[Vinyadan]

Bronze can be very dark and opaque. I don't know what causes the change. You can see the statues in Piazza Cavalli in Piacenza for an example. It's also used in modern times for gravestones, although with a different process.

Also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatizon

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_bronze (this one far less likely to be used for armour).

[Brother Oni]

You'll likely not find anything useful, the energy required very much depends on the projectile, where you hit and what the body is wearing. Most of the numbers available would likely be for bullets, but even FMJ ammunition is very different from a scorpion bolt. For example, a .380 ACP bullet with low estimate of energy at 260 J penetrates some 23 inches into ballistics gel, where anything over 18 inches is considered an overpenetration.

I forgot about ballistic gel penetration comparisons (I was looking more along the lines of morbidity and mortality studies). I'll try looking up some arrow ballistic gel penetration tests and see if they scale up.

[snowblizz]

Did you convert the prices from pounds/shillings/pence into pence then into metric pounds? £2.67 decimalised pounds in old money is £2 5s 7d but £2.67 old pounds is £2 13s 7d.

To help put those prices in context, in the 1640s the average daily wage for a farmhand was 9d a day and 1lb (~1 small loaf) of bread was ~1.5d.

I've not converted them as such. This is simply what the author of the Osprey book about Gustavus Adolphus Army Vol 2 Cavalry and Artillery writes. He gives Swedish riksdaler values from the accounts for Swedish stuff and then translates them into the comparasion pound values I listed. I can only hope he has considered these things.:smalltongue:

[Gnoman]

Most of the periods in which it was in significant usage, stealth was rarely a battlefield concern. Indeed "looking good" was a pretty important consideration, so I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be shiny.


It isn't just concealment that I was thinking of (although I've read several claims that at least some factions in the period were very fond of ambushes), but the thought of trying to fight in tight formation with the sun reflecting off of every surface - it seems rather disorienting.

If it would be common to have the armor clean and shiny, however, I might have to rewrite that description to have the character's armor gilded.

[Kiero]

I've not converted them as such. This is simply what the author of the Osprey book about Gustavus Adolphus Army Vol 2 Cavalry and Artillery writes. He gives Swedish riksdaler values from the accounts for Swedish stuff and then translates them into the comparasion pound values I listed. I can only hope he has considered these things.:smalltongue:

Is it likely that prices would have been different in England than Sweden? England had a much larger population, perhaps leather wasn't as expensive?


It isn't just concealment that I was thinking of (although I've read several claims that at least some factions in the period were very fond of ambushes), but the thought of trying to fight in tight formation with the sun reflecting off of every surface - it seems rather disorienting.

If it would be common to have the armor clean and shiny, however, I might have to rewrite that description to have the character's armor gilded.

I'm sure mercenaries and other professionals might have dirtied the surface to reduce glare, but for a lot of people wearing their gear, I think that sort of practicality might have been low-priority. Besides rank after gleaming rank of well-equipped men is more intimidating.

[Jay R]

This might sound like (or even be) a stupid question, but what color would bronze weapons and armor be in actual use? Most bronze alloys I've seen are really shiny, which seems like an undesirable quality even in open-field combat, and an extremely bad one for ambushes.

With steel, most of the rust-protection methods I know of would have a significant dulling effect, but I don't know about bronze.

Bronze is shiny when you keep it shiny, and dull when you don't, like most other metals - including steel. I don't polish my bronze axe, and it isn't shiny.

[Lemmy]

This might sound like (or even be) a stupid question, but what color would bronze weapons and armor be in actual use? Most bronze alloys I've seen are really shiny, which seems like an undesirable quality even in open-field combat, and an extremely bad one for ambushes.

With steel, most of the rust-protection methods I know of would have a significant dulling effect, but I don't know about bronze.
Heh... I often see the term "bronze-colored" or just "bronze" used to describe the appearance of stuff... But somehow, I don't think "it looks like bronze" would be a nice answer to give... :smallbiggrin:

[Vinyadan]

Btw, isn't anyone else surprised that there's been a time and place in which people were familiar enough with carp tongues as to name objects after their shape?

[Gnoman]

Heh... I often see the term "bronze-colored" or just "bronze" used to describe the appearance of stuff... But somehow, I don't think "it looks like bronze" would be a nice answer to give... :smallbiggrin:

Some more information might be in order. A game backstory I've been developing off and on for quite a long time now involves an unplanned uprising that takes place in a setting where the dominant metal is bronze (the dwarves have started experimenting with other metals, and the gods have their own special form of steel that is very rare even among the armies of the Dark God). Right now, it isn't really written down, but shows up a lot in my games as bits of bad poetry, descriptions of artwork (statues, paintings, engravings, etc.), ancient monuments, and memorial echos. The uprising (later known as the Titan War) ended in a six month siege of the Dark God's impregnable fortress, which was taken because some of the Dark God's orcs switched sides and opened the gates, allowing the remnants of the rebel army to break through the lines of the army and take the walls, after which the leader (wielding a godforged sword made for this exact purpose) slew the Dark God in single combat. Fairly standard stuff, of course, but I'm trying to clean up what a descriptive element I used actually meant.

The wording varies, but I usually describe the final charge along the lines of

"As he raised the Cornered Rat [the rebel banner] and ordered the gates flung open, a hush slowly fell over the battlefield as both sides began to realize what had happened. Just as he began to fear he had moved too late, a great horn sounded from atop the juniper covered hill where the rebels had rallied for a final stand. With what seemed like agonizing slowness, the dark ranks of his new allies parted, and the king he had chosen to serve rode forth, with all his men about him, covered as he was in armor from head to toe on horses covered from nose to hoof. The tips of their lances shone like diamonds, the first rays of the rising sun turned horse and rider alike into molten gold, and he somehow felt each hoof strike the ground with a force that suggested the ending of the world."


My intention was that the rebel leader and his bodyguard, convinced they had lost, had spent the night giving themselves the funeral rites that their enemies would not provide - anointing themselves with oils, grooming themselves perfectly, and scouring their armor lean and polishing it to a parade ground state. Thus, they charged forward in shining armor instead of the more utilitarian sort everyone else was wearing, and created a scene fit for an epic painting as a result. I originally wrote it with steel armor and described them as molten silver before deciding that I wanted a Bronze Age aesthetic for the distant past, and was thinking of the armor being coated with one of the various anti-rust measures that were in common use. Once I changed it, I realized I didn't actually know
enough about Bronze Age armor to make the visual work.

[Galloglaich]

Thanks very much for the detailed information.

I should clarify what I meant about breakages. Firstly whether small swords were more susceptible to breakage seems completely reasonable. Yes we have records of gentlemen breaking their weapons, but that may simply be observer bias, since common soldier's breakages may not be reported. I am not disputing the belief that small swords broke more easily than other swords, more that I saying that am unaware of documentary evidence to back it up.

Well, that would be due to not asking and not looking. There is an enormous amount of documentary evidence to show swords breaking, both in duels and fights, and specifically (although anecdotally, I don't know of any study showing this) smallswords and rapiers apparently broke more than other types of swords. I'm going to answer your implicit question here, not to school you so much as to make the sources for these available to other readers of this thread, because these accounts are often very entertaining for anyone interested in sword fighting.

The best widely available sources are as follows:

English coroners rolls

In England dueling was forbidden on pain of death pretty early (I think 15th Century? I'm not certain) but naturally if you were connected, you could get out of it. The Coroners of each town or borrough were typically in charge of ruling on these incidents. They kept records of each incident which usually get into a lot of detail (though they can be somewhat misleading because smart defendants would always claim to have acted only in self defense and been backed into a corner, eyewitnesses however often contradict this). Somebody collected a whole bunch of these into a few documents which were posted on Schola Gladiatora forum many years ago. I don't remember where or who but you could probably find them on there or ask Matt Easton, he could tell you.

French letters of remission

Very similar to the English coroners rolls, except these are typically letters written by professional lawyers trying to get their clients out of trouble, (since duels were also illegal and extremely harshly published in France, usually by execution, but if you had connections this was easy to avoid) so they are a bit less reliable. However in many cases the French Royal (and later Republican) bureaucracy would record other evidence, like contradictory eyewitness or interrogation testimony, along with the letters. I know of at least one study including statistical analysis of these duels in the academic journal Acta Periodica Duelletorum, some time around 3 or 4 yeas ago. That journal is available on the website for the Dutch academic publisher De Gruyter, and you can search for specific articles on their website.

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/apd

(For full disclosure I should not that I have also written articles for that particular journal)

Italian Barbers records
Similar to the English or French, but less fraught since dueling was not always illegal in Italy (depending where exactly) until the 20th Century probably because they were not as often fatal. Italian formal duels were often fought to 'first blood' for a very minor wound. In Italy when someone came to the barber-surgeon to get stitched up, the latter was obligated to write up a record of what caused the wound. Many detailed sword fights were included in these.

German (Polish, Czech, Swiss, Dutch, Hungarian etc.) town council records
Free cities in Germany, and throughout Central Europe recorded detailed investigations into most violent incidents, and even near-violent incidents which took place there. Most of these are in German but some have been translated. Notably professor Ann Tlusty of Buchnell University published an excellent book called The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany which includes dozens of individual accounts of formal and informal duels and street fights, plus a lot of statistics and analysis.

https://www.amazon.com/Martial-Ethic-Early-Modern-Germany/dp/0230576567

If that one is too pricey for you, you can find academic articles and lectures based on this same info, plus she published several other books from the same records which are much cheaper on Amazon right now. For example this one has many of the same accounts and is drawn from the same data records largely from 16th Century Augsburg

https://www.amazon.com/Bacchus-Civic-Order-Culture-Germany/dp/0813920450/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492102656&sr=1-3

Military accounts and records
There are literally tons of these, but someone has helpfully collected a lot of the ones related to swords, which you can get here. It's a self-published / print on demand book but the sources are legit, and it includes dozens of personal accounts of sword fights, duels, and battles involving swords, mainly from Victorian era England and just prior.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/d-a-kinsley/swordsmen-of-the-british-empire/hardcover/product-22361371.html


There are more sources but that is a pretty good cross section. You could also go much further back to some of the Icelandic family sagas which have pretty realistic accounts of formal and informal sword fights, many one on one or involving small groups.

From my reading of these records, I think you can say (as an estimate) swords broke anywhere from 5-10% of the time in accounts of duels I've read in the middle ages and as much as 80% of the time in accounts involving gentlemanly duels in the Victorian era. It was so common in fact by then that when 'affairs of honor' were arranged it was routine for people to bring several swords.



More important is how and where the swords typically broke. If small swords tended to break near the tip then the collimecharde almost certainly isn't for making the blade more robust. However if the small sword had a particular problem with breaking near the hilt then the main purpose of the design may have been to prevent breakage, not parrying.

All swords have a problem with breaking near the hilt and it's the reason for a wide variety of design features invented to help deal with the problems, such as the brass 'chape' like structures you see on a lot of sabers (despite sabers generally being more robust than smallswords).

What i was saying, that you may not have caught, is that a major part of what makes swords not break is their flexibility. A real sword is basically spring steel.



Then whether small swords broke more frequently from lateral or longitudinal forces. Since the small sword is essentially a 2 dimensional object (snip) ... you can achieve that with a simple box section steel bar. The collimecharde on the other hand is a more technical design which requires much more skill and time to make. People generally won't pay for that without an increase in functionality.

We also need to separate primary design requirements from secondary additional benefits. Also since the collimecharde supplemented rather than replaced the small sword we probably have to accept that there was a cost-benefit trade off between the designs.

It's good to come at things like fencing and sword design from an engineering or physics perspective, but I think it's very common to underestimate the sophistication of sword design in general. You should probably read up on it a little more before you make such suggestions, nobody would want a box section steel bar because for one thing it would be way too heavy, and not shaping it properly would cause a variety of problems.

Swords, real swords made from a sword using culture and meant for fighting, are very generally speaking very light and extremely efficient instruments. As the sword design expert Peter Johnsson put it, more like an airplane wing than an i-beam.

By all means bring your physics approach to understanding this, but do more homework first.

G

[Vitruviansquid]

Strange question, perhaps:

I enjoy learning about medieval weapons.

I also enjoy RPGs with a healthy amount of abstraction and streamlining.

So let's say you had to categorize the breadth of medieval melee weapons into only 5 broad categories for "one-handed" weapons, no more, no less, and also 5 broad categories for "two-handed" weapons, no more, no less.

What would your categorizations be, and by what logic did you arrive at them?

[rrgg]

Strange question, perhaps:

I enjoy learning about medieval weapons.

I also enjoy RPGs with a healthy amount of abstraction and streamlining.

So let's say you had to categorize the breadth of medieval melee weapons into only 5 broad categories for "one-handed" weapons, no more, no less, and also 5 broad categories for "two-handed" weapons, no more, no less.

What would your categorizations be, and by what logic did you arrive at them?

If it's for a strategy game, you might be able to get away with just dividing melee weapons into "pikes" and "not pikes", then varying them by unit quality.

Aside from that you could start with George Silver's hierarchy of weapons since it includes advantages and disadvantages. The categories are:

filthy foreign bird-spit; worst weapon

sword; beats all above

sword and dagger; beats all above

sword and target; beats all above, good in melee

sword and bucker; beats all above, bad in melee

two-handed sword; beats all above, good in melee

weapon of weight; beats all above, good in melee

short staff; beats all above, bad in melee

pike; beats all above except short staff, defends battle from horse and man

forest bill; beats all above, bad in melee

aside from that you just need to figure out where to work in the one-handed spear, one-handed axes or maces, and possibly add a separate category for large, center-grip shields if you don't think they fit under "buckler".

[Galloglaich]

Strange question, perhaps:

I enjoy learning about medieval weapons.

I also enjoy RPGs with a healthy amount of abstraction and streamlining.

So let's say you had to categorize the breadth of medieval melee weapons into only 5 broad categories for "one-handed" weapons, no more, no less, and also 5 broad categories for "two-handed" weapons, no more, no less.

What would your categorizations be, and by what logic did you arrive at them?

You could do that, make 10 categories - many RPG's have done so. But it wouldn't really be meaningful as far as what the weapons were really like.

How you would try to approach something like that would depend on what things you track in your combat system.

D&D for example basically only tracks damage, with a little addendum for attack type and critical hit factor. But essentially that is just damage too (speaking of version 3.5 DnD on back, I am not familiar with the more recent versions)

Most RPG's are similar and don't get into more detail than that.

In the real world however, weapons have a variety of factors that contribute to their utility as such, (or the lack thereof). You could have a simplified list of these, for example


Length or reach - reach is probably the single most important factor, which is why pikes are so good
Speed or agility - reach is very important initially but quickness matters once you get closer
Utility in defense - how good for parrying, does it have hand protection (surprisingly important)
Damage type(s) - chop, slice, blunt force, pierce / stab, is it a 'swiss army weapon' or a one-trick pony, and how good is it at how it hurts?

These four factors are enough in and of themselves to give you much more dynamism in how your system handles combat than most RPGs. So for example a spear might be

Reach 7 / Speed 2 / Defense 5 / Attack P 6 / S 4

A mace might be

Reach 3 / Speed 2 / Defense 3 / Attack B 8

A saber

Reach 3 / Speed 4 / Defense 4 / Attack S 8 / C 6

and so on.


In the codex I also track:

Armor-piercing features - An awl-pike or a poll-axe have an extra purpose for punching through armor
Grappling at a distance - the existence of hooks, spikes, protruding blades and other features that allow you to grab somebody with your weapon, or pull their shield down etc.


For individual weapons you might also track things like how well made the weapon is, how old it is, how sturdy or gracile it is, and what it's made of (some materials being superior - wootz steel swords or ash spear hafts)

G

[Galloglaich]

With even just the four categories, you have a simple system from which you could start with ten weapons but add more as needed, you could accommodate the actual differences of dozens of weapons (I guess 256 total, is that right?)

This way someone's choice of a weapon would actually be part of a strategy related to how they fight, what they are good at, what their physical characteristics are, what kind of enemies they expect to face and in what circumstances, and so on.

...as opposed to just having 20 different names which all do the same 1D8 damage and really have no functional difference whatsoever. Like most RPG's.

[Brother Oni]

Ok, I've found a number of ballistic gels tests and shooting some meat joints, but this is the first proper paper I found of people shooting pig carcasses: link (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13533525_Experimental_arrow_wounds_ballistics_and_ traumatology).

The closest match I can find to a scorpion bolt is the longbow shooting a German bodkin point - this had a 39g weight at ~45m/s for ~39J KE and a momentum of 1.8 kg/m/s.
This achieved a penetration into soft tissue of 31.5 and 44.0 cm on the abdomen (no bone).

For reference the 18" value quoted by Martin above for an over-penetration is 45.7 cm.

Doing a straight scale up, a 216J bolt would therefore penetrate 174-244cm of soft tissue or between 3-6 people. However I think this range is completely misleading as people are not just hitting soft tissue (at least not then anyway), plus the resistance through a body would be considerably greater on a larger scorpion bolt.

One of the conclusions from the paper is that gelatin is poor substitute for tissue (penetration into gel was 24cm for the same arrow) with regard to arrows as they don't have the same characteristics as bullets and the majority of their damage isn't caused by hydrostatic shock.

[wobner]

What is an American if not somebody who was tossed out of another country for not following the rules?

As an American I have to say, that is beautiful. Truely.

If i bothered with signatures, I would use that.

[Vinyadan]

As an American I have to say, that is beautiful. Truely.

If i bothered with signatures, I would use that.
Isn't that an Australian, though?

[Mike_G]

As an American I have to say, that is beautiful. Truely.

If i bothered with signatures, I would use that.

Thanks.

I'm pretty proud of it.

[Telok]

So let's say you had to categorize the breadth of medieval melee weapons into only 5 broad categories for "one-handed" weapons, no more, no less, and also 5 broad categories for "two-handed" weapons, no more, no less.

What would your categorizations be, and by what logic did you arrive at them?

1. short&fast. Iconic: dagger/knife
2. medium chop/bash. Iconic: mace/axe
3. medium poke/slice. Iconic: sword
4. crushing blow. 2 handed bashing weapons
5. big cutter. 2 handed edged weapons
6. pole weapon. Has a long stick component
7. blunt missile. Iconic: slings
8. sharp missile. Iconic: bows
9. thrown object. Iconic: javelins
10. misc.

Massive, massive oversimplification.

[snowblizz]

Is it likely that prices would have been different in England than Sweden? England had a much larger population, perhaps leather wasn't as expensive?

On the contrary, England would have been poorer in the type of leather that made a nice buffcoat compared to Sweden, e.g. thick elk hides.

However that's beside the point. As I wrote in the original reply, an English *period* writer (1640) complained about the high cost of quality buffcoats at over £10 each. So clearly a buffcoat is considered expensive in England regardless of what it might cost elsewhere.

Since material cost alone for the Swedish example the modern author compares with is roughly 50% of the stated cost the period English writer claims is expensive, it also seems there's fairly stable price point for items such as these.

[Mr Blobby]

If I remember wrongly, the 1640's was a period of major wars over much of the continent, as well as a series of poor harvests etc due to bad weather. It's possible that said 'high' price could be an old supply-demand issue. £10 then would be roughly £1,000 today, which would be fairly cheap if compared to the costs of kitting out a soldier today.

The visibility issue reminds me of an old history teacher at school who was an utter stickler for historical accuracy in films etc. One of the things he pointed out was that until the mid 19th Century, textile dyes weren't colourfast - meaning that the famous scarlet worn by the British Army etc would have faded over time; meaning troops wearing old coats would have been a duller red or even borderline brown. Hardly camo, but would have been *a bit* less noticeable in say a forest than the parade-ground shinyness seen in films.

[Kiero]

On the contrary, England would have been poorer in the type of leather that made a nice buffcoat compared to Sweden, e.g. thick elk hides.

However that's beside the point. As I wrote in the original reply, an English *period* writer (1640) complained about the high cost of quality buffcoats at over £10 each. So clearly a buffcoat is considered expensive in England regardless of what it might cost elsewhere.

Since material cost alone for the Swedish example the modern author compares with is roughly 50% of the stated cost the period English writer claims is expensive, it also seems there's fairly stable price point for items such as these.

Fair enough. I take it cowhide isn't anywhere near as good as elk for making armour?


If I remember wrongly, the 1640's was a period of major wars over much of the continent, as well as a series of poor harvests etc due to bad weather. It's possible that said 'high' price could be an old supply-demand issue. £10 then would be roughly £1,000 today, which would be fairly cheap if compared to the costs of kitting out a soldier today.

A period of major wars is something of an understatement; the Thirty Years' War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) was winding down by the 1640s, it devastated much of central Europe and Germany.

[Jay R]

That is really interesting, I'd always assumed duelling was solely a "gentlemanly" endeavour, and anyone participating would seek to emulate them. As in fight with swords.

You are making the false assumption that there is a single thing called "duelling".

Judicial duels existed primarily from 501 to 1571. This was an actual legal trial, presided over by the noble who "granted the field". That noble would authorize the field based on an accusation that could not be proven or disproven. He could stop the duel at any time. During that period, people looked down on people who would duel by themselves in the woods as uncivilized. That's just brawling. A "real" duel" is done in public.

One duel was fought by Aubrey de Montdidier's dog. After the dog unearthed Montdidier's body, and attacked Robert Macaire repeatedly, King Charles decided that it counted as an unprovable accusation, and granted the field. The dog defeated Macaire in a duel fought before the court. Clearly the dog was not emulating a gentleman.

The duel in the woods became common after the Council of Trent declared that a noble granting the field would be excommunicated along with the duelists. The judicial duel turned off like a lightswitch in Italy, more slowly elsewhere, leading people to go out in the woods, where there was, obviously, no authority to guarantee that you would do it "correctly". This led to many bizarre variants, including the duel with sausages and trichinosis.


Was it purely a local phenomenon that men would duel with essentially whatever weapons they were familiar with? Canes I could see still being gentlemanly (since they were often carried in lieu of swords), but sticks, staves, axes, knives?

This is very much dependent on time, place, and participants. Knives? Certainly. Jim Bowie did it, with their left hands tied together. Staves? Robin Hood and Little John in legend. I don't know of a duel fought with axes, nut it wouldn't surprise me.


I'd imagine a man with a knife or axe would be at quite a disadvantage against someone with a smallsword, but a staff would be extremely handy.

My experience is that the person who understands both weapons has a huge advantage over the person who only knows his own, regardless of the weapons. I won a fairly easy SCA fight of dagger and buckler against glaive. The glaiveman assumed he had an advantage. [He did, but it's not as big as he thought, and it ended early. Obviously, he gets the first shot; that's his advantage. I left an opening so I'd know when and where he would attack. I blocked it, rushed in, and grabbed the glaive with the buckler hand. Then I get the next seventeen shots.]

[Incanur]

As far as weapon hierarchies go, it's important to remember that length, while it grants an advantage in an unarmored fight in the open (and to a less extent in armored fights), it can become a hindrance indoors, in the press of battle, in a cave, etc. Additionally, ranged weapons have the longest reach for unarmored fighting in the open. Neither George Silver nor Antonio Manciolino addressed it, but I'm guessing the bow trumps all staff weapons in that context.

(This is an interesting theoretical point because of how relatively slowly arrows move and how long it can take to make a second shot with a bow, especially a heavy one. A very skill person might be able to dodge an arrow shot from too far away and close the distance before the archer can manage a second shot. But even then, if a skilled archer waited until the right moment to shoot, the distance in which the opponent can't react fast enough, then that should still work, especially if the archer has a sidearm.)

Ideally a RPG would make so the various iconic weapons (bow, spear, halberd/pollaxe/bill/etc., longsword or one-handed sword, & dagger) all have their niche.

A historical approach might seem to push people into wandering around in full harness with a pollaxe (probably the best kit for single combat, assuming a dagger or three as well) all the time, but context should mitigate that.

[Vinyadan]

I can't check the 40es right now, but there was a huge famine in Italy in 1630, as well as bubonic plague (~1 million dead) and various Spain - France - HRE wars.

The difference in length and how it changes usability in different areas was well noticed by Musashi, who was very succinct but also quite complete about it.

In case anyone is interested, Lombard law (the Germanic people who took most of Italy from Constantinople) foresaw dueling in certain cases. The laws are in Latin, with some Germanic word thrown in (camphio being one). An interesting detail is that you weren't allowed to bring maleficent herbs with you in the fight, although I'm not sure of what that meant.

Galloglaich, I had no idea that barbers kept records. Do you know if any have been published? I can think of a few troublesome artists who likely have left some trace over there.

[Clistenes]

Galloglaich, I had no idea that barbers kept records. Do you know if any have been published? I can think of a few troublesome artists who likely have left some trace over there.

Are you thinking about Caravaggio? I doubt barbers would dare ask him too many questions... he was perfectly able to stab them if they bothered him too much... :smalltongue:

[Telok]

the duel with sausages and trichinosis.

[morbid curiosity] reference please? [/morbid curiosity]

[Jay R]

[morbid curiosity] reference please? [/morbid curiosity]

"Sausage duel" in Google finds several descriptions of it. This one (http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/69846301798/the-sausage-duel-of-1865-in-the-mid-19th-century) is as good as any.

[snowblizz]

"Sausage duel" in Google

You are a braver man than me daring to google that... chorrizos at dawn! With coleslaw.

[Brother Oni]

An interesting detail is that you weren't allowed to bring maleficent herbs with you in the fight, although I'm not sure of what that meant.

Essentially you're not allowed to use poison in your duel (eg belladonna, wolfsbane, hemlock, etc), presumably by coating your weapon with a paste of the herb.

While most poisons wouldn't have disabled your opponent in time during the duel, it was intended for afterwards to ensure that he died alongside you in case you lost, or where you still wanted to kill your opponent in non-lethal duels .

[Martin Greywolf]

Strange question, perhaps:

I enjoy learning about medieval weapons.

I also enjoy RPGs with a healthy amount of abstraction and streamlining.

So let's say you had to categorize the breadth of medieval melee weapons into only 5 broad categories for "one-handed" weapons, no more, no less, and also 5 broad categories for "two-handed" weapons, no more, no less.

What would your categorizations be, and by what logic did you arrive at them?

If I wanted to make a realistic-ish system, I wouldn't be dividing weapons into categories in the first place, just give them various attributes. Many people did this, some in response to you, some more traditionally - Escrima, IIRC, thinks of everything like a weapon with features (edge, hook, etc), and what fetures you have determines how you use it.

If I had to give categories, a lot would also depend on time period, Migration era had different weapons than early Renaissance.

For general purposes, one handed weapon categories would probably be daggers, cut-and-thrust swords, cutting swords, thrusting swords and front-heavy weapons (axes and maces). A lot of weirder weapons would be left out, so they'd have to conform to these categories - a Zulu one handed spear would fall into thrusting swords, for example.

Two handed weapons, well this really depends if you want to have things like pikes in there, which are great in formation and a liability outside of it. I'd probably give them as swords, spears, pollaxes, halberds and formation weapons (pikes and lances). Note that not all swords would go into swords category, greatsword is more of a spear than a sword, really (some manuals explicitly tell you to use it as one).

One thing I'd give a system like this are perks from training or weapons themselves that allow you to use a weapon as a weapon of different category - make use of Mordschlag to transform a two handed sword into a pollaxe, for example, or switch montante between sword and spear modes.

[Lemmy]

So let's say you had to categorize the breadth of medieval melee weapons into only 5 broad categories for "one-handed" weapons, no more, no less, and also 5 broad categories for "two-handed" weapons, no more, no less.

What would your categorizations be, and by what logic did you arrive at them?
I have a similar question...

I'm currently working on a Custom Weapon Generation System (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VJNynrpwteY3NLoXRMrPXkEdUZMJJxZokWidA16ef_w/edit?usp=sharing) for D&D 3.X and PF... Now, it isn't meant to be realistic, just a free customization tool for players and GMs. (Apologies for the shameless self-promotion :smallbiggrin:)

However, part of the future of that project is adding a set of optional rules that accounts for differences in weapon length (not considering Reach property, just stuff like sword vs dagger), "agility" (rapier vs ax) and weight distribution (a mace vs rapier).

Now... I have an idea for weapon length (basically, there are 3 possible blade lengths, the shorter ones gain a bonus in very close quarters, but in every other situation, they provoke attacks of opportunity from longer weapons with each attack. Longer weapons, OTOH, suffer a big penalty on very close quarters, but have the advantage of getting free AoO against shorte), but I'm not sure how to reflect the effects of differences in weapon "agility" and weight.

I'm thinking of something like characters gaining a "parry" bonus to AC when wielding weapons... Heavier weapons gain a bonus to "parry bypassing" and armor penetration, but provide a lower "parry bonus", due to lower agility... But I don't know how a accurate that would be. I'm not looking for 100% realism, just a portrayal* that feels somewhat right and intuitive for people with better knowledge of how weapons actually worked.

So... My question is:

How would you go about portraying the effects of different weapon weight/agility? This is meant for D&D 3.X and Pathfinder... But more general ideas are appreciated as well. :smallsmile:

- - -

*Argh! I forgot the word for something that's not completely accurate , but a simplified representation meant to evoke an idea/visual... My head is hurting of trying to remember it! :smallannoyed:

[Vitruviansquid]

@rrgg - What are "weapons of weight" and "forest bills?"

@Galloglaich - I don't know that defining each weapon by 4 criteria and then adding properties on top is remotely streamlined.

@Martin Greywolf - I was considering simply classing weapons as small/medium/large and then adding properties, like you describe in Escrima. I think for many players, there is something cool about having a "mace" as opposed to a "medium weapon with the smashy property."

[warty goblin]

I have a similar question...

I'm currently working on a Custom Weapon Generation System (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VJNynrpwteY3NLoXRMrPXkEdUZMJJxZokWidA16ef_w/edit?usp=sharing) for D&D 3.X and PF... Now, it isn't meant to be realistic, just a free customization tool for players and GMs. (Apologies for the shameless self-promotion :smallbiggrin:)

However, part of the future of that project is adding a set of optional rules that accounts for differences in weapon length (not considering Reach property, just stuff like sword vs dagger), "agility" (rapier vs ax) and weight distribution (a mace vs rapier).

Now... I have an idea for weapon length (basically, there are 3 possible blade lengths, the shorter ones gain a bonus in very close quarters, but in every other situation, they provoke attacks of opportunity from longer weapons with each attack. Longer weapons, OTOH, suffer a big penalty on very close quarters, but have the advantage of getting free AoO against shorte), but I'm not sure how to reflect the effects of differences in weapon "agility" and weight.

I'm thinking of something like characters gaining a "parry" bonus to AC when wielding weapons... Heavier weapons gain a bonus to "parry bypassing" and armor penetration, but provide a lower "parry bonus", due to lower agility... But I don't know how a accurate that would be. I'm not looking for 100% realism, just a portrayal* that feels somewhat right and intuitive for people with better knowledge of how weapons actually worked.

So... My question is:

How would you go about portraying the effects of different weapon weight/agility? This is meant for D&D 3.X and Pathfinder... But more general ideas are appreciated as well. :smallsmile:

- - -

*Argh! I forgot the word for something that's not completely accurate , but a simplified representation meant to evoke an idea/visual... My head is hurting of trying to remember it! :smallannoyed:

The most recent version of The Dark Eye does something along these lines. Short weapons get -2 attack against medium and -4 against long. Medium gets -2 against long. However medium and long weapons take substantial penalties in confined spaces, up to being flat out unusable, while short weapons operate without any penalty.

There's also some broad rules for defense that depend on weapon class. Daggers and fencing weapons can't parry two handed swords for instance, parry/dodge attempts against fencing weapons get a penalty of -1, you can't parry with flails, but other weapons parry them at -2 and they negate a lot of a shield's benefits.

The previous version also did something along those lines, but it was more complicated. That was the edition that had quadratic equations for encumbrance after all.

[rrgg]

@rrgg - What are "weapons of weight" and "forest bills?

The "weapons of weight" are weapons like the black bill, halberd, and battle axe. According to Silver they were typically between 5 and 6 feet in length and in massed combat between armored men they did more to offend the enemy "by reason of their weights, shortness, and great force."

The forest bill/welsh hook sort of fits into the same category as the "short staff" weapons, which included half pikes, partisans, and glaives and according to Silver were typically "the perfect length" (8-9 feet long, depending on the user's stature). The difference is that the forest bill has a complex head which can be used to hook forward or backward and give blows, giving it an advantage over the other staff weapons. This was enough for silver to give it it's own category when listing the vantages of different weapons. The downside is that it needs room to maneuver and isn't as useful outside of a one on one situation.

Silver doesn't fill in all the blanks, but what I was thinking was that this list might be a good place to start gamifying. For instance, single sword, sword and dagger, two handed sword, sword and buckler, and sword and target are less powerful, but they are the only weapons which can be carried as sidearms, while the polearms can't. Of these, the single sword or sword and dagger have the least encumbrance and the fastest draw speed, with sword and dagger requiring duel wielding skills to use together. Sword and target on its own isn't very powerful and is cumbersome if used as a sidearm, but it provides extra protection against missiles and powerful blows making it the single best weapon for a tank role. Sword and buckler provides some tanking ability, but with a focus more on single combat. The two-handed sword is an all around decent weapon with moderate encumbrance and and draw speed, but is expensive. Of the polearms, weapons of weight do the most DPS, but struggle at getting close to weapons with more reach. Forest bills and weapons of the perfect length are king in one on one combat, but start to suffer a bit against armor or where there isn't room to maneuver. Pikes might be a bit more difficult to represent, in single combat Silver claims that it is possible to choke up and use a pike as a half-pike, giving it the advantage over everything but an actual half-pike. For massed combat they were considered very good in a formation, but less so on rough terrain or if the formation breaks apart.

The main issue is that, even for silver's time there are some weapon types missing. For instance a great sword, like a zwiehander, probably fits more into the weapons of weight category than with smaller two-handed swords. Also, while silver states that a halberd was between 5 or 6 feet, this is probably closer to what most people today might categorize as a poleaxe. A lot of halberds could be relatively light weapons 7 or more feet long. it would probably depend on the exact weapon whether it should be classified as a weapon of weight, a forest bill, or something in-between. Also, I'm not sure where a one-handed spear and shield would fit into all of this.

[Max_Killjoy]

There are so many variations that I don't know if there's any good way to categorize in detail all these different weapons, and sometimes I wonder if half the little details aren't pretty meaningless anyway.

[Kiero]

Unknown Armies had a neat way to classify weapons; there were three potential properties it might have: Big, Sharp and Heavy, in any combination. So a knife is simply Sharp, a sword Big and Sharp. A two-handed maul would be Big and Heavy. A halberd or pollaxe all three.

[Incanur]

Additional notes of Silver's hierarchy of weapons: The most contested or dubious parts include the low ranking of long rapiers (with 42+in blades), the high assessment of the longsword, and low assessment of the sword & target (shield).

I tend to think Silver may have had a point about all of these, but contemporary sparring often shows results. For example the long rapier alone tends to match or best the longsword. The sword & shield can do well against even staff weapons. Etc.

Depending on your interpretation of real-world advantages and what feel you want in your game, you may want to make the long rapier and/or the longsword worse. By default, the longsword seems awfully strong (https://artmilitary.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/longsword-conundrum/) in Silver's hierarchy. It's short enough to wear on your side, but gives you odds against even someone with a sword and shield. It's not really clear why you'd choose Silver's single-handed sword over the longsword from a gaming perspective. Now, Silver doesn't tell us exactly how long or heavy his longsword should be, but he said it had the same 37-40in blade as his single-handed sword. It probably wasn't more than 8-16 ounces heavier than the single-handed sword. Basically, the single-handed sword wins in terms of convenience of carry and for when you need your offhand for another task task. That's it.

For my own fantasy world and gaming system, I want the longsword mechanically optimal and desirable, but I'm still not sure about giving the longsword odds over the sword & shield.

[Mr Blobby]

After I got sick of my WoD players keep on picking stupid / exotic / impractical weapons and asking for me to find/make stats, I simply gave up and started to assign weapons into general classes, generally [unconsciously] following Unknown Armies' method. Made my life much easier.

[gkathellar]

Additional notes of Silver's hierarchy of weapons: The most contested or dubious parts include the low ranking of long rapiers (with 42+in blades), the high assessment of the longsword, and low assessment of the sword & target (shield).

Isn't there a general consensus that Silver's vitriol for rapier had more to do with the quality of rapier fencing in England at the time than it did with the actual effectiveness of the weapon?

[Mike_G]

Isn't there a general consensus that Silver's vitriol for rapier had more to do with the quality of rapier fencing in England at the time than it did with the actual effectiveness of the weapon?

I think a good deal of has nothing to do with any kind of quality, but with the fact that the rapier was a "foreign" weapon, favored by Italians and Spaniards, unlike good stout English weapons, like the wooden stick.

Not saying the rapier was a super weapon, or that the staff wasn't useful, but to hear Silver tell it, a lot of Continental swordsmiths and fencing masters could have saved themselves a world of trouble by taking five minutes to walk out into the woods and pick up a stick.

Make you wonder why we bothered to invent the forge in the first place.

[Vitruviansquid]

I think a good deal of has nothing to do with any kind of quality, but with the fact that the rapier was a "foreign" weapon, favored by Italians and Spaniards, unlike good stout English weapons, like the wooden stick.

Not saying the rapier was a super weapon, or that the staff wasn't useful, but to hear Silver tell it, a lot of Continental swordsmiths and fencing masters could have saved themselves a world of trouble by taking five minutes to walk out into the woods and pick up a stick.

Make you wonder why we bothered to invent the forge in the first place.

I wonder, however, if civilian dueling weapons like rapiers were also being carried around as a sort of status symbol or sign of conspicuous consumption.

[BayardSPSR]

Not saying the rapier was a super weapon, or that the staff wasn't useful, but to hear Silver tell it, a lot of Continental swordsmiths and fencing masters could have saved themselves a world of trouble by taking five minutes to walk out into the woods and pick up a stick.

Make you wonder why we bothered to invent the forge in the first place.

I haven't read Silver, but I get the sense that we should try not to rely so heavily on one expert's opinion. The fact that he's put most of the weapons of his day into a simple, comprehensible hierarchy makes me skeptical - not because he's wrong or it's not a useful exercise, but because it's so easy to use as a source that we might be prone to elevating it over other sources.

That said, it's really tempting...

[Hoosigander]

In case anyone is interested, Lombard law (the Germanic people who took most of Italy from Constantinople) foresaw dueling in certain cases. The laws are in Latin, with some Germanic word thrown in (camphio being one). An interesting detail is that you weren't allowed to bring maleficent herbs with you in the fight, although I'm not sure of what that meant.


Essentially you're not allowed to use poison in your duel (eg belladonna, wolfsbane, hemlock, etc), presumably by coating your weapon with a paste of the herb.

While most poisons wouldn't have disabled your opponent in time during the duel, it was intended for afterwards to ensure that he died alongside you in case you lost, or where you still wanted to kill your opponent in non-lethal duels.

In this case I believe the herbs referred to might be magical charms rather than poisons. In the legal vocabulary of the Middle Ages Maleficium, pl. Maleficia was used as a technical term for any magical act intended to cause harm or death to people or property. Since the Latin of that passage in the Lombard laws describes the herbs as "quod ad maleficias pertenit" it seems likely that the idea is that people might "cheat" by carrying enchanted herbs on their person. Another thing to note about the Lombard Laws: they explicitly deny the existence of witches and other magic practitioners and have penalties for people who kill suspected witches. This is in line with a lot of Early Medieval thought about magic, that saw belief in the reality of magic as incompatible with Christianity. In light of this, it is a bit odd why the Lombard Laws outlaw another magical practice, perhaps they saw witches and herbal charms as two different types of magic, perhaps they didn't believe in herbal charms but wanted to stamp out an unchristian practice, in addition it is important to remember that the Lombard Laws were gathered from the proclamations of several different kings with a basis in oral tradition so some inconsistencies might be expected.

[Mike_G]

I wonder, however, if civilian dueling weapons like rapiers were also being carried around as a sort of status symbol or sign of conspicuous consumption.

I don't even completely disagree with Silver. I prefer a cut and thrust sword to a rapier, and I think the really long bladed rapiers become too specialized and too awkward. I'd sooner have a shorter, more versatile weapon.

But Silver is so biased, and so obviously biased, that I don't consider him an authority on rapiers, or trust him to give a rapier a fair assessment against any other weapon. I think he'd favor a sharpened spoon over a rapier, so long at it was a spoon of good Sheffield manufacture.

Look, I grew up in Boston, and if you listened to local sports commentators, the New York Yankees are the worst, most over-rated team in the history of baseball, and couldn't beat my high school team without cheating and dumping unfair amounts of money into their payroll.

That may be Gospel in Boston, but it's objectively called into question by all those World Series the Yankees won.

So Silver is pretty much the equivalent of the guy in the booth with Jerry Remy. He knows baseball, but don't expect an objective assessment of a New York player.

[Incanur]

I think he'd favor a sharpened spoon over a rapier, so long at it was a spoon of good Sheffield manufacture.

If you read the sober parts of Paradoxes of Defense carefully and unpack their implications, Silver technically gave a rapier at or above his perfect length the advantage over a baskethilt sword under his perfect length.


And if two shall fight with staves or swords, or what weapons soever, the one of them having his weapon longer than the perfect length, and the other shorter than the perfect length, he that has the longer has the vantage, because the shorter can make no true cross in true time.

He described how to find one's perfect length for a sword (Paradox 19) and specific blade lengths at 37 inches for men of mean stature and 39-40 inches for men of all stature (Paradox 15). Some prominent folks (Stephen Hand, Paul Wagner, etc.) argue that the method from Paradox 19 leads to shorter blade lengths than the numbers Silver specified. Personally, I'm 5' 10" and I can easily manage a 38+in blade in the measuring position, so I find the stated lengths consistent with that position. Note that average male height in Silver's time and place was probably between 5' 6" and 5' 8".

Thus, a strict reading of Silver's hierarchy gives a 42in-blade rapier the odds over a 36in-blade baskhilt sword. That's probably being too literal, but there's little question Paradox 28 gives the long rapier odds over single-handed swords significantly shorter than the perfect blade length of 37-40 inches. That includes lots of single handed cutting swords across time and space.

As mentioned previously, various English, Spanish, and Italian writers wanted to military swords to have blades no longer than 36-37 inches and military writers rarely recommended baskethilts, so at least for taller men, the long rapier seems to have the advantage over the standard military sidearm in an unarmored duel according to Silver.

Paradox 23 indicates that the rapier and poniard has the advantage against the single-handed sword alone: "That all manner of double weapons, or weapons to be used with both hands, have advantage against the single rapier or single sword, there is no question to be made."

Silver's beloved short sword was a rather specific and really quite long baskethilt cut-&-thrust sword.

Additionally, Silver's short staff wasn't just any old stick: it was basically a 8-9ft spear with a stout shaft and points without cutting edges. It's shown as having metal points on each end and Silver clearly expected it to give potentially fatal thrusts against the unarmored human body. He considered it equivalent to the half pike.

Now, even a rough staff (stick) of reasonable length (5+ft?) could have odds against the single-handed sword, rapier, or longsword in an unarmored duel in the open. There's nothing contradictory about this, because you can't carry such a staff at your hip as a sidearm like you can with swords (apart from full-size montantes and company).

As far as single-handed weapon length goes, Silver may have set the maximum somewhat too low, but there must be a point a which a rapier becomes just too damn long. Rapiers according to Ridolfo Capoferro (http://blog.subcaelo.net/ensis/capoferro-weapon-length/) had 48+in blades for people 6' tall!

As Girard Thibault complained, wearing such a huge rapier a one's side would be awkward, and drawing it swiftly would be challenging to impossible. Even if it has the advantage over shorter sidearms, which is debatable (without a dagger, it seems tricky against opponents to manage to get close), it's almost stopped being a sidearm because you can't ready it quickly or wear it conveniently.

Thibault's recommended rapier length comes from a measuring position not so different from Silver's that tends to produce longer blade lengths by an inch or three.

[Clistenes]

As mentioned previously, various English, Spanish, and Italian writers wanted to military swords to have blades no longer than 36-37 inches and military writers rarely recommended baskethilts, so at least for taller men, the long rapier seems to have the advantage over the standard military sidearm in an unarmored duel according to Silver.

Well, a rapier is a weapon for unarmoured dueling. In battle, you had a lot of guys with helmets and cuirasses and rotellas hacking and stabbing each other with bills and halberds and pikes... You can't stand in place for long, you can't watch your footwork, you can't focus your attention in a single foe, you don't have freedom to move the way you want, you can't pick a single foe. People are attacking you in groups, grabbing you from behind, attacking you with polearms, and you will often have barely room enough to use your sword...

I don't think that even HEMA melee battles can be compared to that. HEMA aficionados are sportmen trying to enjoy a mutual hobby. Even if they are trying to fight as realistically as possible, deep down they want to beat each other in single combat, not to go around tripping people and hitting them from behind and mauling them while they are on the ground, so that must subconsciously influence how they fight (I would like to listen the opinion of the actual HEMA aficionados around here...).

By the way, I remember reading that one of the reasons the Spanish high command wanted to limit the length of their swords was that they were to be able to unsheath them very quickly, since those usually weren't their primary weapons, but secondary ones to be used if the enemy managed to close up before they could reload, or to slip under the pikes and into the bloc.

[Incanur]

By the way, I remember reading that one of the reasons the Spanish high command wanted to limit the length of their swords was that they were to be able to unsheath them very quickly, since those usually weren't their primary weapons, but secondary ones to be used if the enemy managed to close up before they could reload, or to slip under the pikes and into the bloc.

Yep, that seems to be the key reason military writers, captains, and so on from England, Spain, Italy, France, etc. wanted to limit sidearm blade length. And as you say, the press of battle could also get so tight that it could be hard to use even a 36in-blade sword. One circa-1600 English manual mentions how pikers could often only use their daggers in a piker-vs.-piker melee.

[Spiryt]

I don't think that even HEMA melee battles can be compared to that. HEMA aficionados are sportmen trying to enjoy a mutual hobby. Even if they are trying to fight as realistically as possible, deep down they want to beat each other in single combat, not to go around tripping people and hitting them from behind and mauling them while they are on the ground, so that must subconsciously influence how they fight (I would like to listen the opinion of the actual HEMA aficionados around here...).

.

Hitting while on the ground tends to be limited, but as far as hitting from behind, and tripping/throwing/taking down while unexpected, it's pretty much fauvorite tactic in all kinds of hard, full contact kinds of fights, like bohurts on BotN, Grunwald, IMCF.

[Mike_G]

They do allow people to haul off and belt one another, but there are still safety rules, so you can't, for example, stab somebody through the gaps in his armor.

Because then he would die.

[Mr Beer]

They do allow people to haul off and belt one another, but there are still safety rules, so you can't, for example, stab somebody through the gaps in his armor.

Because then he would die.

Rules lawyers get everywhere :(

[Jay R]

Yep, that seems to be the key reason military writers, captains, and so on from England, Spain, Italy, France, etc. wanted to limit sidearm blade length. And as you say, the press of battle could also get so tight that it could be hard to use even a 36in-blade sword. One circa-1600 English manual mentions how pikers could often only use their daggers in a piker-vs.-piker melee.

Yup. In my experience, the pike gets the first attack. The dagger gets the next seventeen.

[Galloglaich]

@rrgg - What are "weapons of weight" and "forest bills?"

@Galloglaich - I don't know that defining each weapon by 4 criteria and then adding properties on top is remotely streamlined.

Well, if you want the weapons to feel like weapons, it's reasonably streamlined. Reach, speed, defense and damage is basically the minimum to differentiate one weapon from another. I find it incredible that not just in DnD, but hundreds of tabletop RPG's and computer games, picking up a weapon doesn't actually help you with your defense at all.

It's actually the main reason most people carried weapons. Not to do 1d8 damage. But to fend off other people with weapons.

Similarly, a spear pretty much sucks as a weapon in any game where there is no advantage for reach.


As for streamlined, well, combats go faster with these stats in my game than they do in DnD with all the magic, miniatures, special rules and everything.

More people end up dead though, so there's that.
It is, I've tested it a lot...



@Martin Greywolf - I was considering simply classing weapons as small/medium/large and then adding properties, like you describe in Escrima. I think for many players, there is something cool about having a "mace" as opposed to a "medium weapon with the smashy property."

I actually like the sound of this though too....

[Galloglaich]

You are making the false assumption that there is a single thing called "duelling".

Judicial duels existed primarily from 501 to 1571. This was an actual legal trial,

You seem to make the assumption that there was one government in Europe between 501 to 1571 that people obeyed.

The most common type of duel in the real world historically was the impromptu, informal duel which was basically what we would today call a bar fight.

Laws on dueling, formal or informal, varied wildly from one region to the next, from one estate to the next, and from one time period to the next.

Judicial combat as such was considered was already very rare and generally considered disreputable in much of Europe by the 14th Century.

Formal duels were tolerated but technically illegal in Italy through most of the medieval period and well into the early Modern (though banned in the 16th Century in Milan), where they were rarely fatal. They were very harshly punished (at least in theory) in France and England where they were much more often fatal for a variety of reasons.

In German polities, particularly in the towns, informal duels were common and had a fairly low mortality rate, though not as low as Italy. One was expected to at least initially strike with the flat and to never stab unless under extreme duress. Cuts after sufficient provocation, even fatal cuts, were considered acceptable and did not necessarily result in any punishment at all.

In most of the rest of Central and Northern Europe, at least the urbanized parts, in Poland, Bohemia, Switzerland, Flanders, Holland, Hungary and Lithuania, the rules were basically similar to the German towns.

University students in the German and slavic speaking areas developed their own special rules for their own formalized duels which survive to this day (mensur) with very low mortality but a high likelihood of a permanent scar on your face in some versions.

G

[Martin Greywolf]

In most of the rest of Central and Northern Europe, at least the urbanized parts, in Poland, Bohemia, Switzerland, Flanders, Holland, Hungary and Lithuania, the rules were basically similar to the German towns.

Not quite so with Hungary. We can essentially divide medieval Hungary into 4 parts for our purposes here.

Part 1 is 500 - 900, roughly before Magyar conquest. We know very little of this time, there are few if any written records etc etc. Only thing we can say is that any kind of duelling was probably more like brawls between clans/chiefs, since there was no stable central authority, most there was were some exceptional chiefs (Svatopluk, Mojmir) that could bring their peers in line. There also isn't a Hungary yet, the population is mostly Slavic in mountainy parts and nomadic (Avar) on the flat plains.

Once the Magyars arrive, very little changes during early stages of conquest, they just boot out or co-operate with the very top of the local nobility and do their own thing, leaving a lot of locals to do whatever it was they were doing before - while paying them taxes, of course.

Part 2 is Magyar integration, 900 - 1100, the crucial year is 955 when Magyar factions that wanted to raid get mostly destroyed at Lechfeld. From that point on, Holy Roman Emperor, Pope and Byzantine Emperor all vie for influence over the new kingdom. Since the closest allies of the Arpads, Slavic houses of Hont and Poznan, are mostly aligned with Rome, it ends up being the dominant influence, and the religion in the region is stabilized at Christianity. That said, other religions are fairly tolerated and/or turned a blind eye to - very important for us, since it means that judicial duels are going strong despite the Church trying to ban them.

Part 3 is the Arpad rule, let's call it era of Saint Stephen, 1100 -1300, central authority is more or less stable, and we have first proper documents concerning judicial duels. These are based in cities, and from what we can tell, not only are they happening relatively often, you can buy a professional judicial dueller to fight in your stead. This essentially menas that there are at least some people who can make their living primarily fighting judicial duels, though there are no direct notes on what rules there are. They must be pretty non-lethal, though, if people are willing to go into them as part of a job.

In part 4, 1300-1500, we see a massive influx of primarily germanic settlers into Hungary. Be it because of re-settling after Subutai's invasion, or because of Charles Robert and Louis the Great reforms of mining cities (they encouraged german miners to settle), german folks come streaming in, and end up overtaking administration and law-making in many free royal cities. That means they essetnially bring German laws and customs, including as they apply to judicial duels. The cities that avoided the german settlement influx (at least for a time), mostly ones that have no mining (e.g. Trnava), still keep their old customs.

Problem is, at this point hussites invade and bring their law with them into cities they successfully occupy, and religious hassles start to get bloody (well, bloodier). After that, ottomans invade and all things go to hell resulting in what can be described only as utter anarchy, with everyone doing whatever they want. Fortified cities still have their own laws, but you sort of need to start looking at them independently - one may be based on old Hungarian stuff only, other on Hungarian and German customs, third one is occupied by Hussites for a long time and keeps some bits and pieces of their stuff there, another has a charismatic Calvinist preacher, etc etc

In conclusion, rules similar to German laws in Hungary is only true after about 1300, and then only in some cases.

[Galloglaich]

Not quite so with Hungary. We can essentially divide medieval Hungary into 4 parts for our purposes here.

Part 1 is 500 - 900, roughly before Magyar conquest. We know very little of this time, there are few if any written records etc etc. Only thing we can say is that any kind of duelling was probably more like brawls between clans/chiefs, since there was no stable central authority, most there was were some exceptional chiefs (Svatopluk, Mojmir) that could bring their peers in line. There also isn't a Hungary yet, the population is mostly Slavic in mountainy parts and nomadic (Avar) on the flat plains.

Once the Magyars arrive, very little changes during early stages of conquest, they just boot out or co-operate with the very top of the local nobility and do their own thing, leaving a lot of locals to do whatever it was they were doing before - while paying them taxes, of course.

Part 2 is Magyar integration, 900 - 1100, the crucial year is 955 when Magyar factions that wanted to raid get mostly destroyed at Lechfeld. From that point on, Holy Roman Emperor, Pope and Byzantine Emperor all vie for influence over the new kingdom. Since the closest allies of the Arpads, Slavic houses of Hont and Poznan, are mostly aligned with Rome, it ends up being the dominant influence, and the religion in the region is stabilized at Christianity. That said, other religions are fairly tolerated and/or turned a blind eye to - very important for us, since it means that judicial duels are going strong despite the Church trying to ban them.

Part 3 is the Arpad rule, let's call it era of Saint Stephen, 1100 -1300, central authority is more or less stable, and we have first proper documents concerning judicial duels. These are based in cities, and from what we can tell, not only are they happening relatively often, you can buy a professional judicial dueller to fight in your stead. This essentially menas that there are at least some people who can make their living primarily fighting judicial duels, though there are no direct notes on what rules there are. They must be pretty non-lethal, though, if people are willing to go into them as part of a job.

In part 4, 1300-1500, we see a massive influx of primarily germanic settlers into Hungary. Be it because of re-settling after Subutai's invasion, or because of Charles Robert and Louis the Great reforms of mining cities (they encouraged german miners to settle), german folks come streaming in, and end up overtaking administration and law-making in many free royal cities. That means they essetnially bring German laws and customs, including as they apply to judicial duels. The cities that avoided the german settlement influx (at least for a time), mostly ones that have no mining (e.g. Trnava), still keep their old customs.

Problem is, at this point hussites invade and bring their law with them into cities they successfully occupy, and religious hassles start to get bloody (well, bloodier). After that, ottomans invade and all things go to hell resulting in what can be described only as utter anarchy, with everyone doing whatever they want. Fortified cities still have their own laws, but you sort of need to start looking at them independently - one may be based on old Hungarian stuff only, other on Hungarian and German customs, third one is occupied by Hussites for a long time and keeps some bits and pieces of their stuff there, another has a charismatic Calvinist preacher, etc etc

In conclusion, rules similar to German laws in Hungary is only true after about 1300, and then only in some cases.



I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. The hiring of champions for Judicial combat was common in much of Europe through the mid 13th century, and petered out toward the 14th. It was one of the many things that gave judicial combat a bad reputation.

It also gave professional fencers and fencing instructors a bad reputation too, and the disappearance of the judicial combat actually coincided with the rise in popularity (or if not popularity, social acceptability with the more respectable artisan and burgher classes and even nobles) of fencing in general.

probably along with the invention of what we call today the feder sword.

I think though, most of the larger "Royal" (i.e. effectively independent) towns in Hungary were chartered under German town law at some point during the 13th Century, Buda, Pest (Buda being more German than Pest but I think Pest was also under German town law), Bratislava, all those Saxon villages in Transylvania etc. and including Trnava, and even where the Czech Hussites took over, it's not necessarily a huge difference - most of the Czech towns including Tabor were basically under German town law. A Czech version of it obviously. These towns would to a large extent retain their nominally German urban culture and law regardless of the outside world beyond their walls, whether in a fairly strong monarchy or total anarchy.

But that is the problem with calling it German, by the 14th century it (and the town population) was already becoming a kind of local hybrid with whoever the native population was, to a greater or lesser degree, although a German speaking population remained in most of those towns (more or less in different areas). The reason being that the Germans had a system for founding towns and making them work as markets and trading centers, which was better developed than the urban systems already established in much of Central and Northern Europe. May or may not have been as sophisticated as the Italians but the Italians didn't rent out town-founding services (with 'locators' etc.) as readily as the Germans. And the German system was highly adaptable to local conditions and preferences, you see Scandinavian variants, Polish, Lithuanian, Russian / Ukranian, Czech, Duch, French and so on versions of this around Europe.

The Czechs / Slovaks did certainly have their own variation on this for sure and you see that not just in Hungary but also in Silesia and other places, but I'm not aware of any major differences from German town law aside from the obvious religious ones, and maybe some differences in women's rights since the Czechs generally allowed more of that. I'd be interested to know what the major differences were if you know. One thing I have noticed is that some of the Czech towns were actually settled by Flemish as opposed to Germans (all tend to be lumped together as German in many histories but there are important cultural and legal differences) so maybe that accounts for some of it. I think Buda was also settled partly by French speaking Walloons right?

G

[Martin Greywolf]

I think though, most of the larger "Royal" (i.e. effectively independent) towns in Hungary were chartered under German town law at some point during the 13th Century...


Not quite. The guy who gave the cities their privileges, Bela IV, did raft them roughly based on Southern German town privileges, but created a local variations of those - several of them specifically mention Ispans, for example, article 14 of Trnava privileges:

"Neither Ispan, nor any other holder of royal office/noble can settle himself in their city without their consent. Even if he has their consent, he must acquire all the necessary materials and labor for it with a fair purchase."

Incidentally, from the same, article 3 that we know was not adhered to:

"They cannot force themselves [burghers] or others [other free people, nobles or serfs] by any judgement to a trial by combat/duel. Every point of contention has to be solved by oath of twelve men. The witnesses against them can be brought only from among themselves or from guests [immigrants with privileges] who have similar freedoms. [so not even nobles, technically]"

As for what the citizens then passed into law, we don't know for 13th century, earliest intact city book that I know of is from 1466.

Moreover, analysis of names and surnames in some of these cities has shown that there were little to no german names in them before c 1300 (Trnava, Kremnica) - that would suggest their city laws were, at first, not based on germanic ones.

Later documents show that german settlers pretty much took over, and to such a degree that it resulted in, in some cases, armed rebellions, starting in roughly 14th-15th century. The letters to the royal administration and replies (sometimes by the king in person) are very specific about that, usually to the tune of "local folks are mostly slavic, and these new german guys are running roughshod all over us and electing their friends to city council even though they can't by law".



Bratislava

Calling this one a Hungarian city is a stretch, if you ask me. It changed hands so often and so fast it can't really be considered as a good general example of Hungarian, German, Austrian or Bohemian city.



Even where the Czech Hussites took over, it's not necessarily a huge difference - most of the Czech towns including Tabor were basically under German town law. A Czech version of it obviously. These towns would to a large extent retain their nominally German urban culture and law regardless of the outside world beyond their walls, whether in a fairly strong monarchy or total anarchy.


At this point no, but we're in the 14th century here when germanic settlers do take over. Most of the problems from Hussite occupations were religious in nature, many churches were emptied of all art (sometimes by burning them down) etc etc.

Best thing to say is that Hussite takeover was a huge shock, but not because of secular law. Documents from the era mostly show locals being unhappy with Hussites looting local churches, as opposed to making weird new laws. Well, they did complain about taxes, but people do that all the time.




But that is the problem with calling it German, by the 14th century it (and the town population) was already becoming a kind of local hybrid with whoever the native population was, to a greater or lesser degree, although a German speaking population remained in most of those towns (more or less in different areas). The reason being that the Germans had a system for founding towns and making them work as markets and trading centers, which was better developed than the urban systems already established in much of Central and Northern Europe. May or may not have been as sophisticated as the Italians but the Italians didn't rent out town-founding services (with 'locators' etc.) as readily as the Germans. And the German system was highly adaptable to local conditions and preferences, you see Scandinavian variants, Polish, Lithuanian, Russian / Ukranian, Czech, Duch, French and so on versions of this around Europe.


Not disagreeing with the second part, but the first one is most likely... well, not backwards, but not quite right either. The very first town laws were mix of local customs and German law, and influx of German settlers then proceeded to bend them into something much closer to "standard" German system, to the displeasure of locals. This displeasure lasted for a long, long time, forced Magyarization was, at first, more of a response to German settlers than to slavs, and many slavs did actually endorse it. And forced Magyarization happened well beyond even renaissance.

The evidence for this is, however, scarce (for the early years, anyway) and mostly unavailable in English.



The Czechs / Slovaks did certainly have their own variation on this for sure and you see that not just in Hungary but also in Silesia and other places, but I'm not aware of any major differences from German town law aside from the obvious religious ones, and maybe some differences in women's rights since the Czechs generally allowed more of that. I'd be interested to know what the major differences were if you know. One thing I have noticed is that some of the Czech towns were actually settled by Flemish as opposed to Germans (all tend to be lumped together as German in many histories but there are important cultural and legal differences) so maybe that accounts for some of it. I think Buda was also settled partly by French speaking Walloons right?


Hm, since I haven't done any comparative studies, I think it's best if I translate Trnava privilegis from 1238, granted by Bela IV.


In the name of most holy and inseparable Trinity. Belo, by the grace of God king of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia, Rama, Serbia, Halics, Vladimirsk and Cumania, we declare to be forever remembered: the office of royal sovereignity should gather, what was scattered, and what was thus gathered keep, and protect its people in silent calm, giving everyone what he is due.

Since town in Bratislava county called Trnava [Zumbothel, Sobotiste in original] seems to be the best to settle guests [guests were a separate social class in hungary], we give to citizens living in this town, and to those who would want to move in there later, a privilege: they will belong to the royal crown, and can't be subservient to no other person or law.

1. They can't be forced to serve in any army, save for the one led by the king himself in person.

2 They must, for every 100 houses, provide a single soldier armed in all the panoply of war [most likely heavy infantry in top of the line armor, explanation for why this is would take a while].

3 They cannot force themselves [burghers] or others [other free people, nobles or serfs] by any judgement to a trial by combat/duel. Every point of contention has to be solved by oath of twelve men. The witnesses against them can be brought only from among themselves or from guests [immigrants with privileges] who have similar freedoms. [so not even nobles, technically]

4 They are only required to answer summons to the royal judge [there was a royal office with this name, but there were also deputized judges travelling from town to town, this likely means both], or to whoever they elect as their mayor.

5 Let mayor be he who they elect together, or who their more numerous and richer part elects, with royal agreement, of course. [rich german settlers abusing this to keep locals out of elections is what sparked problems in later centuries]

6 If it was found out that the mayor is not fit for office, let him be removed from the office by the royal authority. This judge [i.e. the mayor] has the right to judge both civil and criminal cases, between them [citizens] or them and other foreigners [not just other guests, i.e. anyone who is not a noble and is in town]. Only if the mayor is negligent or unjust, or if the entire city is demanding it, only then should they turn to a royal judge.

7 All who come to live here are subservient to the mayor only.

8 In the matter of taxes, let them be considered to have the same privileges as Szekesfehervar citizens.

9 The mayor should, in his city, deal with moneylenders and take care of royal finances in the city, in such a way that they are famed in the way of royal decrees [i.e. famed for being carried out so well]

10 The mayor and 12 men in oath can give the punishment of behedaing, or any other, for crimes done in the surrounding area [outside of town walls], unless it concerned a noble, right to judge those is kept by the royal crown.

11 Where electing a pastor is concerned, we wish that they kept the general right to freely elect him. Then they must announce him to Archbishop of Esztergom, who will determine if he is able. All the while, privileges of Esztergom bishopry from this pastorage are to be kept intact.

12 The Tenths [taxes] are to pe paid according to the german tradition in crosses of wheat, as was usual until now.

13 Free people [another social group in Hungary, at this time most of the population] can move into the city at any time, with no obstacle to their person or belongings [aside from the substantial cost of any land in the city, of course].

14 Neither Ispan, nor any other holder of royal office/noble can settle himself in their city without their consent. Even if he has their consent, he must acquire all the necessary materials and labor for it with a fair purchase.


Edit: Just to be clear, I took some liberties with punctuation in that translation to make it readable in English. Don't any of you dare to copy it into your academic papers and then blame me for the fallout. :smallcool:

[dramatic flare]

Edit: Just to be clear, I took some liberties with punctuation in that translation to make it readable in English. Don't any of you dare to copy it into your academic papers and then blame me for the fallout. :smallcool:

Ah man, and here I was thinking that would be perfect for my paper on interwar to early WWII Shanghai. :roach:

[Galloglaich]

Edit: Just to be clear, I took some liberties with punctuation in that translation to make it readable in English. Don't any of you dare to copy it into your academic papers and then blame me for the fallout. :smallcool:

Wrote a long detailed reply but accidentally deleted it (I really hate this forum for that reason)

But needless to say I'm delighted by your translation and would love to use it, citing you as a source of course. There are several interesting aspects to that one including the specific mention of judicial dueling. Do you have access to any other town charters from Slovakia or Hungary?

G

[BayardSPSR]

Tangential question: does Thucydides ever actually support his thesis on the cause of the 2nd Peloponnesian War, or am I wasting time trying to find such?

[Vinyadan]

What cause did he give? Is it Thukydides' trap?

[Martin Greywolf]

Vinyadan: Cause he gives is essentially a proto-WW1 kerfluffle of alliances, to quote a summary:



The outbreak of the war came when the Spartans issued ultimatums to Athens that the men of the Athenian assembly rejected at the urging of Pericles. The Spartan ultimatums promised attack unless Athens lifted its economic sanctions against the city-state of Megara, a Spartan ally that lay just west of Athenian territory, and stopped its military blockage of Potidaea, a strategically located city-state in northern Greece. The Athenians had forbidden the Megarians from trading in all the harbors of the Athenian empire, a severe blow for Megara, which derived much income from trade. The Athenians had imposed the sanctions in retaliation for alleged Megarian encroachment on sacred land along the border between the territory of Megara and Athens. As for Potidaea, it been an ally of Athens but was now in rebellion. Potidaea retained ties to Corinth, the city that had originally founded it, and Corinth, an ally of Sparta, had protested the Athenian blockade of its erstwhile colony. The Corinthians were already angry at the Athenians for having supported the city-state of Corcyra in its earlier quarrel with Corinth and securing an alliance with Corcyra and its formidable navy. The Spartans issued the ultimatums in order to placate the Megarians and, more importantly, the Corinthians with their powerful naval force. Corinth had threatened to withdraw from the Peloponnesian League and join a different international alliance if the Spartans delayed any longer in backing them in their dispute with the Athenians over Potidaea. In this way, the actions of lesser powers nudged the two great powers, Athens and Sparta, over the brink to war in 431 B.C.


BayardSPSR: Not sure what you mean by support. If you mean "lists sources" then no, and sources themselves would be rather suspect. History at this time knows no objectivity and is done in service to a political faction, and Athens themselves were far from united, let alone their league. You can pretty much always assume that the allies of person writing an account were worse than he says and enemies were better.

What you'd need here is an account from the Spartan point of view, and even then you'd need to read both and critically examine them, ideally with other documents backing them as well, but as far as I know, we have none of that.

[gkathellar]

That said, it's certainly a plausible history, as we've seen very similar things happen repeatedly in the 20th century alone. Thucydides' assertion that this sort of thing is inevitable proves quite difficult to argue with after hundreds or thousands of repetitions.

[snowblizz]

Regarding buffcoats. I got access to some other books on my other main computer finally and need to revise previous numbers.

A couple of mentions of price form civil war, in 1642 a leather worker sold 53 coats at 1£ 18s each, in 1646 an officer bought 3 coats at 4£ 10s. Also in 1642 citizens of London equipped a troop of horse at ~25£ each (horse and equipment), of which arms, ie pistol, sword, carbine and buffcoat was some 10-12£ (based on 2 donations that didn't include the horse).

The 1640 writer mentioned previously with his £10 buffcoats may well have been being fleeced (pun intended), and as such was making special mention of how dear the buffcoats were. These numbers fit better with the Swedish ones actually.

[rrgg]

Well, if you want the weapons to feel like weapons, it's reasonably streamlined. Reach, speed, defense and damage is basically the minimum to differentiate one weapon from another. I find it incredible that not just in DnD, but hundreds of tabletop RPG's and computer games, picking up a weapon doesn't actually help you with your defense at all.

It's actually the main reason most people carried weapons. Not to do 1d8 damage. But to fend off other people with weapons.

Similarly, a spear pretty much sucks as a weapon in any game where there is no advantage for reach.


As for streamlined, well, combats go faster with these stats in my game than they do in DnD with all the magic, miniatures, special rules and everything.

More people end up dead though, so there's that.
It is, I've tested it a lot...



I actually like the sound of this though too....

Adding on to this, treating polearms like solid objects, rather than going the route of most computer games and, if they factor in reach at all, making them basically a ranged weapon with really short range. A spear isn't very useful if the enemy can run straight through the point aimed at their chest, soak and kill you.

Although it tends to be a bit like the problem of representing muskets in an RPG setting. If it's one shot one kill then it would be OP, if it's one shot does 99% damage then it feels useless because you'll never have the time to finish reloading before the other guy runs up and kills you.

[BayardSPSR]

What you'd need here is an account from the Spartan point of view, and even then you'd need to read both and critically examine them, ideally with other documents backing them as well, but as far as I know, we have none of that.

Figures. That's the weird thing: he seems to rely so heavily on his account of Spartan reasoning being taken at face value, but a) he's Athenian, and b) the whole "fear of the power of Athens" thing doesn't even seem to appear in his account of Spartan deliberations.


That said, it's certainly a plausible history, as we've seen very similar things happen repeatedly in the 20th century alone. Thucydides' assertion that this sort of thing is inevitable proves quite difficult to argue with after hundreds or thousands of repetitions.

The "Thucydides Trap" seems to be a modern invention, since the hegemon/rising power international system doesn't seem to have existed in his account. If anything, it's a stable-seeming bipolar system in which the war breaks out.

[Kiero]

Regarding buffcoats. I got access to some other books on my other main computer finally and need to revise previous numbers.

A couple of mentions of price form civil war, in 1642 a leather worker sold 53 coats at 1£ 18s each, in 1646 an officer bought 3 coats at 4£ 10s. Also in 1642 citizens of London equipped a troop of horse at ~25£ each, of which arms, ie pistol, sword, carbine and buffcoat was some 10-12£ (based on 2 donations that didn't include one).

The 1640 writer mentioned previously with his £10 buffcoats may well ahve bene being fleeced, and as such was making special mention of how dear the buffcoats were. These numbers fit better with the Swedish ones actually.

Thanks for digging that up, it's interesting stuff.

[Martin Greywolf]

So I recently found something that will be of interest to pretty much everyone in this thread - actual, honest to God reference to leather armor in a medieval chronicle.

The source
Chronica Picta, aka Vienesse Chronicle, made in Hungary (with Italian and Czech artistic influences), some time between the years 1342 - 1370, though exact numbers vary. It was recently published as a facisimile with translation in Slovakia, so I was naturally all over it. It recounts all the true history of Hungary from the Great Flood until reign of Luis the Great, though parts of it were obviously written before that - there are references to "our current king Robert", Loui's father, whose death is recorded in the chronicle itself.

Naturally, it's full of Biblical "history", utter fairy tales and propagandistic inventions (going so far as to change who a father of an entire branch of Arpad dynasty was to make the later kings look good).

The section of interest
The passage of interest describes one of the (many) wars of succession/rebellions (which one depends on which side you ask), this time between duke Geza and king Solomon. To paraphrase, there was a guy clad in shiny mail in Solomon's army who kept challenging Geza's soldiers to single combat. Only one who answered from camp Geza was a "famous and excellent" knight Opus, who, clad only in leather armor, charged Opus.

The details
First and foremost is Opus. He is mentioned several times at rather disparate time periods, as something of a proverbial good knight - current leading theory is that he was a folk/national (as far as nations existed then) hero when the chronicle was written. Important detail is that he is never mentioned as anything else than a knight, and he is pretty much always not rich, or his wealth isn't mentioned. We can safely assume that his gear reflects what the low-end nobility used, if that.

Next is actual Latin. I managed to track down the exact spot in facisimile part of the book, and word used to describe the shining armor of the enemy and leather armor of Opus is the same: lorica.

Unfortunately, as for the word for leather, I can't quite make heads or tails of it, since my Latin skills are almost non-existent.

The theories
There's been some extensive debating around central European parts about use of leather in armor. What the consensus is at the moment is that gambesons likely did use leather to strengthen sections of them, though we can't really know how extensive that was.

What Opus was likely wearing there, though, was probably one of two things - either a nomad gambeson, with layers of thin leather instead of cloth layers, or, what is more likely IMO since the word is lorica, lamellar armor with scales amde of leather instead of metal. We have no evidence for or against the former, the latter is documented with very infrequent survivals.

At the time when Chronicle was written, Hungary employed significant numbers of nomads in their armies, either as mercenaries or as... well, the explanation is a bit lengthy, let's say semi-professional standing army. Whether Mongols, Szekelys or Cuimans, these nomads almost certainly were the otigins of Opus armor.

Last note, the chronicle makes a point of emphasizing just how unusual it is for Opus to have, to quote, "only leather armor", so don't take this as "leather armor was commonly used by Hungarian nobles" - it wasn't.

I will continue trying to decipher the pesky Latin in question and searching the Chronicle for an illumination of Opus. More info to (hopefully) follow.

[Vinyadan]

I took a look and it probably is lorica cucullata (literally "hooded"). The comment I am reading says (in Latin, as they once normally did): lorica cucullata, seu pellicea (also called "of hide"), villosa (hairy), lanea (woolen), coriacea ("of leather") duntaxat (as far as this matter is concerned); ahenis squammis minime tecta (very little covered of bronze scales), quae linteo ferreis laminis in modum plumae adnectabantur (which were connected with linen to iron blades like a feather). I'm not really clear on what the part after duntaxat means.

[Brother Oni]

There's a Playgrounder who is a professional Latin translator, T-Mick, who I saw in Friendly Banter.

If we ask nicely, he may be able to help, although I believe medieval Latin is different to classical Latin?

I'm at work at the moment, so can I confirm that the phrase in question is:

Lorica cucullata, seu pellicea, villosa, lanea, coriacea duntaxat; ahenis squammis minime tecta, quae linteo ferreis laminis in modum plumae adnectabantur.

[Lemmy]

So... If one had to fight an enemy that can't be neutralized by any means other than decapitation. What would be the best melee weapon for the job?

I'm thinking a sickle-like weapon, with the edge on the concave side of the blade would work best, but I am not sure. Maybe one of those war-scythes?

What do you guys think?