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

[Gnoman]

Barring extreme supernatural shenanigans, such an enemy can still be disabled at least temporarily by attacks to the limbs; or else disarmed and pinned down. At that point you use a very heavy axe or sword to remove the head.

If such shenanigans are in place, you're going to need to use something heavy in combat. A two-handed sword or axe could do it, as would several kinds of polearm. Forget anything one-handed (barring vorpal-like enchantments), as cutting off a head is much harder than depictions would have you believe. One handed weapons can sever a head, but it isn't something you should count on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

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.

I had a latin teacher at my school translate it as follows:


Here's my best Ciceronian effort: chest armor with a hood, whether made of skins, furs, wool, or leather so far as this is concerned; very lightly covered with bronze scales , which were joined with linen to iron plates in the manner of feathers. Or possibly with iron plates to the linen.

I can see why no translation was provided!

[Mr Beer]

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?

I think you have your friends break his legs with polearms, then whale on him while he's down to prevent him being able to retaliate any time soon, then line up your headsman's axe to one shot him.

[Vinyadan]

Thank you Phoenix and your teacher for the translation.
About Oni's observation concerning medieval Latin: it's different, but nowhere near as much as a natural language would have become in that many centuries. Written Latin detached itself from spoken Latin around Cicero's time, and remained very stable until today, although the syntax got looser. However, you will find occasional oddities, like "bota" meaning "boat". There are a number of medieval Latin dictionaries, made on different standards. Du Cange made a huge dictionary of all medieval Latin. Others made various medieval Latin dictionaries on a national or local level. So you e.g. have a dict. of Belgian med. Latin, one for the British Isles, a lot for Italy and Italian regions, and two for Hungary. The older one I checked out and did not contain cucullatus with this meaning, there remains the newer one to check (LEXICON LATINITATIS MEDII AEVI HVNGARIAE). Du Cange understood lorica cucullata as a kind of armour that protected both body and head, and distinct from wearing helm and cuirass (under zaba). It's a pity that the author of the commentary that was translated didn't give his sources for the definition he gave. I don't think he gave it randomly, and the fact that his version was kept in a modern translation probably means that it has been validated. The zaba, with which the lorica cucullata is often put in relation or even given as synonym, is sometimes said to have been made of boiled leather.

Fun fact, cucullati homines are the hooded men, the monks.

[Martin Greywolf]

Well, what do you know, it actually is lorica cucullata, it's just that cucullata was at the end of the line, ending up with cu-cullata, which threw me off something fierce. The original sentence is pretty much just "i lorica cucullata", the previous hlaf talks about what horse Opus had.

Still, hooded? Hm, if the "hooded" was meant metaphorically as "covered", it may well mean coat of plates - you see those all over the chronicle, and I have no idea why cucullata is translated as leather.

The problem with the bronze scales description is that, while you do get leather-backed scale armor in Hungary at this time (one can even be seen in Codex Manesse), I didn't ever see any example of it with a hood.

Third option is... deceptively simple. If we take lorica cucullata at face value without other comments, which we maybe should, it could just mean mail with a hood. At the time the Chronicle was written, this armor would have been obsolete (pretty much everyone of note has a mail shirt with coat of plates and an early bascinet, usually without a visor), and the phrase may allude to Opus not having a helmet or having just a crevelliere.

I really don't trust translations of armor and weapons to be all that accurate - there is this one weapon, that is written as just B in several early sources (Sigismund's Bratislava laws, Chronica Picta itself) that historians made a big deal out of, calling it a fokos/war pickaxe. While those weapons did exist later, Chronica picta has actual picture of that weapon in regicidal use - and it's a baselard.



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?


Well, first thing first, if the enemy has armor, you're screwed - you'll have to grapple him to the ground, pin him and then remove armor to cut off the head. Good luck doing that by yourself.

Without armor, your weapon choice depends on what circumstances you're in. If that weapon has to be a sidearm, then go with a slicing or chopping blade - sabre, katana, falchion, tulwar or messer would do.

If you can upsize, then a polearm that can cut is probably the best bet here. Most two handed swords aren't all that great, while they can cut, they are mostly meant for thrusts, and the grip configuration means that you'll overswing quite a bit. It can work, but is not ideal. As for what is ideal, I'm gonna say zhanmadao, or horse-cleaving saber, if you will. Halberds aren't great for being clunky and meant mostly as formation weapons (and also having relatively narrow head that needs to hit just right), but can work, pollaxes are a bit better but pretty much require armor to use.

Still, you're at a massive disadvantage here, since your opponent is effectively wearing armor with only one weak spot. Bring friends (armed with something that can hook - like halberd) to even the odds.

[Vinyadan]

About leather: I was reading a bit. As it turns out, in 1947 two Roman tegumenta (leather sheets covering the outside of the shield) were found. They likely hadn't been coloured, while the tag with the number was painted black.
And it appears that leather armour was used in jousting, although the weapons were silvered whalebone. The text I read refers to M. Beaby and T. Richardson, ‘Hardened leather armour’, Royal Armouries Yearbook 2 (1997), 68–71

[Martin Greywolf]

And it appears that leather armour was used in jousting, although the weapons were silvered whalebone. The text I read refers to M. Beaby and T. Richardson, ‘Hardened leather armour’, Royal Armouries Yearbook 2 (1997), 68–71

Well yes, this is the famous cuir bouilli, it supposedly had about the weight and durability of plastic. I may be misremembering, but I heard about it being used in melees, not jousts proper, where it would work rather well with bone swords wrapped in padding. Those padded swords are actually not that different from modern hard foam/rubber LARP swords - if you get hit with it and have a gambeson, you're gonna be fine, if you have metal armor, you won't feel it.

Like I already said, there is evidence, including survivals, that leather armor was rather widespread among the nomads in eastern Europe, and these nomads were often hired as mercenaries or settled in the border kingdoms (Poland, Hungary, Byzantium, Russian kingdoms). The surviving ones were basically lamellar armor with changed material, you can see a reproduction of one type of it here (http://galahad.sk/img_loader.php?img=wfwqma0IDMZdxbqlSfnjXYslCfhj3f9 NXLxl1MWAJMvMXfnFxbjlSYqjXfsF2fvUmbyVGdu92a). While this armor may have been boiled, it's different from the cuir bouilli.

[Kiero]

I've been reading some historical fiction (Caribbee and now The Moghul by Thomas Hoover), both set in the early 17th century. While for the most part it's pretty credible, there's one small thing that appeared in the first that bugged me. They had ship-board infantry making an assault landing armed with half-pikes (spontoons) and matchlocks. Now you could carry both of these, one in each hand, but how are you going to fight with either of them? Both require two hands to use, and you can't exactly load a breech-loading black powder longarm while holding a spear in the crook of your arm.

I could see this being a loadout while fighting on board a ship - the sailors would fire off their muskets, leaving their half-pikes on the deck or some other convenient place until boarding was imminent, when they'd throw down their guns and switch to spears. That's when you're never going to be too far from your weapon, and could recover it easily. The same isn't true on land, especially during an assault.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

For clarification: did they say a single soldier used both weapons? They could just mean mixed troops. Early 17th century is pre-bajonet, which on land means pike and shot formations, roughly a 50/50 mix of pikemen and musketeers (or similar). I'm not sure how useful that would have been on a ship, after all the main reason for pike use was cavalry. On the other hand, I guess some sort of polearm would help in repelling boarders. Ones they're actually on board you might run out of space to wield it, but the spontoons would be short enough to take the edge of that downside. Plus these men probably all carry some sort of sidearm, rapiers or maybe maybe daggers if they're a little short on funds. Most soldiers of the day were mercenaries after all, although that trend was changing, and ship-board soldiers specifically were more often than other types of troops part of a national core military. When soldiers on campaign in some foreign land start roaming and plundering because you stopped paying them that's one thing, it's less funny if it happens on your own ship.

TL;DR: Yes, one soldier with both weapons sounds a bit odd, my best guess is that half the men have muskets, and half spontoons.

[dramatic flare]

For clarification: did they say a single soldier used both weapons? They could just mean mixed troops. Early 17th century is pre-bajonet, which on land means pike and shot formations, roughly a 50/50 mix of pikemen and musketeers (or similar). I'm not sure how useful that would have been on a ship, after all the main reason for pike use was cavalry. On the other hand, I guess some sort of polearm would help in repelling boarders. Ones they're actually on board you might run out of space to wield it, but the spontoons would be short enough to take the edge of that downside. Plus these men probably all carry some sort of sidearm, rapiers or maybe maybe daggers if they're a little short on funds. Most soldiers of the day were mercenaries after all, although that trend was changing, and ship-board soldiers specifically were more often than other types of troops part of a national core military. When soldiers on campaign in some foreign land start roaming and plundering because you stopped paying them that's one thing, it's less funny if it happens on your own ship.

TL;DR: Yes, one soldier with both weapons sounds a bit odd, my best guess is that half the men have muskets, and half spontoons.

A spontoon also has a style which combines an axe with a pike, in which case it makes enormous sense aboard a ship as a boarding axe or similar weapon. As for directly repelling boarders, yes polearms were used in the 17th century and yes they were useful, but not as useful as you're imagining. If the ship is a ship of the line, it tends to have a... very technical term which I currently forget, but basically the actual top deck is narrower than the decks below, which serves the purposes of providing more room below deck (and thus more room for guns) and further keeps the actual board-able portion of the ship further away from (and likely higher than) the point of attack.
However, unless I am very mistaken, no sailors used Rapiers. Rapiers were too long and cumbersome for the type of acrobatic climbing shipboard life required. This generated the creation and widespread use of the cutlass, a short and brutal blade well suited to the close quarters of sailing life. Though you are correct that almost every sailor carried a knife, however less due to funds and more due to how incredibly useful a knife if when you work with wet rope all day.

I would also dispute that sailors were more often the core military during the 17th century, though I don't neccessarily have the numbers with me to back it up right now. A stupidly large amount of the sailors in the British empire were essentially civilians; privateers working under the crown to attack the crown's enemies and make some profit at it too. Perhaps by the Nepolianic Wars they were most national military, but I would still suspect otherwise. Even by the late 1800s British sailors were independent enough to nearly engage in piracy of British warships over several grievances.

I do agree that one sailor with each weapon does sound odd though.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

the cutlass, a short and brutal blade well suited to the close quarters of sailing life. O, right, how could I miss that one. The style was possibly/probably not outright created for just naval combat (the Dutch name "hartsvanger" suggests people took it with them when hunting deer, I guess Rambo was on to something after all) but it was widely used.


Though you are correct that almost every sailor carried a knife, however less due to funds and more due to how incredibly useful a knife if when you work with wet rope all day. Okay, sure, but those don't count as weapons in this context. And neither do those big pins they used for getting between stuff and loosening knots. I was thinking more in the direction of a dagger, size wise in the direction of a short blade like a cutlass, maybe even in combination with a sword. These are ship soldiers after all, not just armed sailors.


I would also dispute that sailors were more often the core military during the 17th century, though I don't neccessarily have the numbers with me to back it up right now. A stupidly large amount of the sailors in the British empire were essentially civilians; privateers working under the crown to attack the crown's enemies and make some profit at it too. Good point. I was thinking mostly of the soldiers on board of ships owned by the crown or by national trading companies. Halfway the 17th century is the era in which marines started finding their spot in warfare, like when de Ruyter used them for sacking the British fleet in London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_the_Medway). But yeah, lots of sea battles weren't really state affairs but matters of privateers, correct.

[rrgg]

The boarding pike remained a very popular weapon for naval combat pretty much throughout the age of sail. It had a lot of reach, it generally beat a sword in one on one combat, it was excellent for defending something like a narrow hallway, and it didn't need to be reloaded, nor was it prone to misfires when wet like a musket. It was pretty common for ships to have a handful of boarding pikes sitting on deck ready to be used at short notice.

That said, boarding actions tended to be carried out with a random assortment of weapons including boarding pikes, muskets, swords, axes, and pistols. I doubt your source meant that ever single boarder was armed with both a pike and a musket.

[Kiero]

In the book, it was an invasion of Barbados, rather than a boarding action. The "marines" were Roundhead veterans who'd been transported specifically to overawe any colonists who thought to resist Cromwell's writ over all these places set up by royal charter. Ie over which Parliament (now supreme given that the king had been executed) technically had no authority.

[Martin Greywolf]

That said, boarding actions tended to be carried out with a random assortment of weapons including boarding pikes, muskets, swords, axes, and pistols. I doubt your source meant that ever single boarder was armed with both a pike and a musket.

Not really. As Matt Easton pointed out, any dedicated military ship, and most of the merchant ones, had rack upon racks of (usually) cutlasses present. While axe could be used in a "I was cutting rope and this fella jumped me" context, it was practically never used as your go to weapon. Boarding pike was, obviously, but it was less of a disorganized mob and more of a "everyone knows what they're doing" situation.

Once the fighting started, it could and did get chaotic, because that's what melees do, but the part before swords were crossed was fairly well organized.

And to round up the Matt Easton points, look at the military manuals for sailors in the Age of Sail - whole lot of stuff on pike/bayonet, sabre and cutlass, almost nothing (or perhaps nothing, I'm not hugely focused on manuals in this period) on axes. And why would you use an axe in the first place? It's terrible at defense, has no advantage over the sword when hitting unarmored opponents and is front-heavy to boot. And the rack with cutlasses is right there.

[Kiero]

You can throw an axe. And it's more robust than a cutlass. There are plenty of reasons why someone might choose an axe over a cutlass, plus it's there just the same. If you're going aland, an axe is much more practical for bush clearance, and if you have to choose between carrying both or just one, I'd suspect you'd choose the axe. It's notable that Native Americans chose to adopt the naval axe as one of their preferred weapons over the equally-available cutlass, in terms of foreign weapons they were exposed to.

If they were totally redundant aboard ship, no one would have bothered inventing things like axe-pistols.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

any dedicated military ship, and most of the merchant ones, had rack upon racks of (usually) cutlasses present.

As a footnote: Present, but not always readily available. To prevent mutinies the weapons were often locked away until needed, even on pirate vessels. Under most circumstances that will not factor into a battle, since it's kind of hard to sneak up on a ship in the middle of the ocean and start a battle without a minutes notice. But say in a port the chance of fighting with axes and knives and what not when some other crew or land based gang ran onto the dock goes up.

[Roxxy]

You can throw an axe.Why would I want to throw my primary melee weapon away from me in the middle of a confused brawl? That sounds like a horrible idea. I just disarmed myself and there's a bunch of other people about who want to kill me.
And it's more robust than a cutlass.I severely doubt that. We're comparing a wooden hafted weapon with a thick metal weapon. Something tells me breaking the wooden haft is easier than breaking the sword blade.
There are plenty of reasons why someone might choose an axe over a cutlass, plus it's there just the same. If you're going aland, an axe is much more practical for bush clearance, and if you have to choose between carrying both or just one, I'd suspect you'd choose the axe.Not necessarily. A lot of machetes have very similar blade profiles to cutlasses, and I'd choose a machete over a hatchet or a woodcutting axe for brush clearing any day.
It's notable that Native Americans chose to adopt the naval axe as one of their preferred weapons over the equally-available cutlass, in terms of foreign weapons they were exposed to.Well, the tomahawk was a useful tool (it's a hatchet, after all), and without metalworking, they never really developed fencing techniques. Why trade for a weapon you have no idea how to use effectively over a useful tool that you've been using stone versions of in fighting for longer than you can remember? It's not like the white folk are going to teach you how to swordfight. Even with the cutlass being the better weapon, if a dude with a cutlass who has no idea how to use it runs up against a dude with a tomahawk who knows full well how to use it, tomahawk dude is gonna win.


If they were totally redundant aboard ship,They weren't redundant. Axes had plenty of vital uses as tools.
no one would have bothered inventing things like axe-pistols.I'm not sure bringing up a weapon that almost nobody ever used in a fight demonstrates much.

[Roxxy]

Anyway, I'm reading the always excellent Richard Holmes, and he speaks some on the phenomena of musket armed soldiers making bayonet charges with unloaded weapons. I've heard of this before, and doubted it ever happened, but Holmes is an excellent academic quoting trustworthy primary sources. He brings it up specifically in the context of British troops making assaults on forts under the cover of darkness, an environment in which shooting muskets at the French is futile because you can't see what you're pointing a gun at, so a musket volley probably isn't going to go anywhere near where you want it to go and you can't rightly tell where you want it to go, anyway (which could in fact be potentially dangerous to your fellow troops). Furthermore, the action of stopping to fire would break the momentum of the attack. So, you rely on the lack of vision to make it much harder for the French to shoot at you, and close to melee as rapidly as possible (either through a breach in the walls or with ladders). That makes much more sense as to why the British would keep their muskets unloaded, but now I have to ask how common these night assaults on forts were, and whether there are any other circumstances in which a force armed with muskets chose to go on the attack without loading those muskets.

Edit: Just found a description of Colonial troops charging entrenched British infantry with unloaded muskets during the American Revolution, relying solely upon the bayonet. It was a night attack, and it seems that the British shot at them and hit many, but by the time the sentries had seen the Colonials they were within pistol range, so the Colonials were able to carry their momentum through the British volley. At the end of the night the Colonials took the position and killed 4 redcoats for every one of their own they lost, so it was certainly successful. Richard Holmes's accounts were from the Napoleonic War, so perhaps this technique had some degree of commonality to it.

[snowblizz]

Anyway, I'm reading the always excellent Richard Holmes, and he speaks some on the phenomena of musket armed soldiers making bayonet charges with unloaded weapons. I've heard of this before, and doubted it ever happened, but Holmes is an excellent academic quoting trustworthy primary sources. He brings it up specifically in the context of British troops making assaults on forts under the cover of darkness, an environment in which shooting muskets at the French is futile because you can't see what you're pointing a gun at, so a musket volley probably isn't going to go anywhere near where you want it to go and you can't rightly tell where you want it to go, anyway (which could in fact be potentially dangerous to your fellow troops). Furthermore, the action of stopping to fire would break the momentum of the attack. So, you rely on the lack of vision to make it much harder for the French to shoot at you, and close to melee as rapidly as possible (either through a breach in the walls or with ladders). That makes much more sense as to why the British would keep their muskets unloaded, but now I have to ask how common these night assaults on forts were, and whether there are any other circumstances in which a force armed with muskets chose to go on the attack without loading those muskets.

Edit: Just found a description of Colonial troops charging entrenched British infantry with unloaded muskets, relying solely upon the bayonet. It was a night attack, and it seems that the British shot at them and hit many, but by the time the sentries had seen the Colonials they were within pistol range, so the Colonials were able to carry their momentum through the British volley. At the end of the night the Colonials took the position and killed 4 redcoats for every one of their own they lost, so it was certainly successful. Richard Holmes's accounts were from the Napoleonic War, so perhaps this technique had some degree of commonality to it.
I'm not an expert but it seems to have been something done yes. One reason would be as you mention to avoid people firing, stalling the charge into a firefight instead. Firefights are rather slow attritional affairs that require trained troops and are seldom decisive. Going in with the bayonet tends to decide things then and there, for better or worse. I think I've seen it mentioned that less trained troops were more likely to be use this way, e.g. the French columns in the Napoleonic war made up for the lack of troop training/experience by utilizing the morale of the citizen soldiery. Similarly vague I recall Russians did too, since they had bigger problems supplying powder and shot to their troops than shaking out more men. And this is just bog standard daylight battles.

Contrary to one would think charging into melee kinda made sense from a total loss perspective, assuming you can be confident in breaking the enemy (you take a probably slightly higher initial loss, but cause the colalpse of the enemy unit). The limits on muzzle-loaded muskets are just that bad you can get away with taking the first (hopefully badly aimed) volley and break through a battle line with your concentrated mass of an attack column. Somewhere from around the Crimean War I think, but definitely by the ACW, mass standing and shooting and bayonet charging the enemy becomes suicidal due to better shooting weapons.

[Brother Oni]

I've read of Revolutionary War accounts where soldiers were not issued with ammunition for the same reasons as mentioned above (the generals didn't want the attack to stall by the soldiers engaging in broadly ineffectual fire) - I'll look up the references when I get back to my books.

I know that the British doctrine at the time was to advance to about 50 paces, fire a volley, fix bayonets and shout a loud 'huzzah' before charging in, so they didn't bother to reload after firing.


I know not issuing ammunition before an attack was a fairly common occurrence with the French military, since the bayonet charge was so highly valued in their doctrine from the Napoleonic era onwards. I remember reading somewhere that this persisted up to the early battles of WW1 (with the expected ineffectiveness and casualties), but I may not be able to find references for that.

As snowblizz said, bayonet charges generally decide the issue - bayonet charges are scary things to be on the receiving end of and generally the attacked force either retreats or breaks before taking the charge.

[Roxxy]

As snowblizz said, bayonet charges generally decide the issue - bayonet charges are scary things to be on the receiving end of and generally the attacked force either retreats or breaks before taking the charge.On that note, the battle Richard Holmes describes is one in which the French, stuck inside their fort, didn't really have the ability to retreat in the face of the charge, and therefore had to fight the British hand to hand. From the accounts, it sounds like it was a particularly brutal fight.

Also, you can lop a redcoat's arm right off with a single saber stroke whilst on foot, and he might well die from the sheer blood loss, but his mates are going to skewer you with their bayonets while you raise your sword to finish off the dying guy (so maybe don't do that, because it's not like he remains a threat to you with his arm off).

[Martin Greywolf]

Also, while you can lop a redcoat's arm right off with a single saber stroke whilst on foot, and he might well die from the sheer blood loss, but his matkes are going to skewer you with their bayonets while you raise your sword to finish off the dying guy (so maybe don't do that, because it's not like he remains a threat to you with his arm off).

Well, uh, obviously. Once you're in a melee, you don't have an option of even pursuing the fleeing opponents, not with his friends right there, you just defend yourself and attack any target of opportunity you can get to, in that order. As for whether musket or sabre is better, eh, it depends on the situation, there can be all sorts of things in that free hand if you have saber (e.g. your third loaded revolver), but bayonet is longer, but then again clunkier what with the rifle attached to it etc etc. Sabre is definitely more comfortable to go around with, though.

As for the unloaded musket topic, I think you have it backwards. Modern day firearms are carried around loaded, but you can't do that long-term with black powder - or rather, it would be a major hassle to do it every damn day, not to mention potential for accidents. First revolvers ran into this problem of people not reloading them every day and then having a lot of duds. With this in mind, you actually need a reason to do any loading at all in the first place, and in case of a night attack or any other situation when you want to charge in ASAP, that's just a 20 seconds of utterly wasted time.

Also, depending on what musket you're using, running with it fully loaded may not be possible, you'd have to at least put some powder on the priming pan, so again, pretty pointless to do the loading if you will not have the time for that.

[Brother Oni]

On that note, the battle Richard Holmes describes is one in which the French, stuck inside their fort, didn't really have the ability to retreat in the face of the charge, and therefore had to fight the British hand to hand. From the accounts, it sounds like it was a particularly brutal fight.

Being forced to take a bayonet charge is pretty much falls under the definition of 'bad war' from earlier times, where both sides are locked in combat and unable or unwilling to retreat. Older examples would be Early Modern era 'push of pikes' or infantry taking a cavalry charge and neither side breaks off.

Back to the topic of unloaded muskets, during the night time attack of Stony Point on 16 July 1779, the American soldiers had orders to assault with bayonets only, in order to prevent an accidental discharge alerting the British or a friendly fire incident.
I'll see if I can dig up something more (there's a record of the British getting drawn into ineffectual fire during the Battle of Bunker Hill).

[Vinyadan]

Since there was some talk about cross-shaped Crusader swords and crescent-shaped Muslim swords, it seems that the difference in weaponry had been noticed in the Middle Ages and occasionally was pointed out in figurative arts (here Crusaders vs Turks at Chayzar):

https://s2.postimg.org/4i6co3t09/2017-05-15.png

Of course, the sword types could just have depicted a difference between France and the Eastern Mediterranean, rather than Christians vs Muslims. The image comes from a XIII-century codex and is now in a French library (Boulogne-sur-Mer). It was painted in Palestine.

[Roxxy]

Well, uh, obviously. Once you're in a melee, you don't have an option of even pursuing the fleeing opponents, not with his friends right there, you just defend yourself and attack any target of opportunity you can get to, in that order. As for whether musket or sabre is better, eh, it depends on the situation, there can be all sorts of things in that free hand if you have saber (e.g. your third loaded revolver), but bayonet is longer, but then again clunkier what with the rifle attached to it etc etc. Sabre is definitely more comfortable to go around with, though.I refer to a specific incident quoted. The redcoats were charging through a breach in the fort, and a redcoat with a bayonet ended up facing down a French officer with a sword. The redcoat moved to attack, but the officer was quicker and cut his arm off. Then the office raised his sword to deliver a death blow, but more redcoats intervened and bayoneted the officer to death before the blow could be delivered. The wounded redcoat then proceeded to bleed to death.

Then a redcoat slipped in all the blood and fell on top of a French soldier, and they rolled around fighting on the ground until the redcoat somehow angled his bayonet into the Frenchman's chest (not sure how you do that in a grapple).

[snowblizz]

Since there was some talk about cross-shaped Crusader swords and crescent-shaped Muslim swords, it seems that the difference in weaponry had been noticed in the Middle Ages and occasionally was pointed out in figurative arts (here Crusaders vs Turks at Chayzar):

Extant weapons show no marked general differences in preference. However, what that images does is show how this iconography is used as an artistic device to diffrentiate the "us" and the "them".

[Jay R]

I once wrote a Crusader poem for the SCA. The quatrain on swords was:


Oh, yes, our swords have all been blessed to save us from a loss,
Let its shape inspire you, remind you of the cross,
Its cruciformic shape will help inspire every cut.
But scimitar or broadsword makes no difference in the gut.

[rrgg]

As far as I can tell charging without troops ever loading muskets in the first place seems to have been only done when surprise/speed were essential. In most situations troops charging with bayonets never actually came into contact with the enemy, so relying on cold steel alone would likely result in heavy losses with very little to show for it.

That said, a charge with loaded weapons tended to quickly become a charge with unloaded weapons since having a loaded weapon in hand tended to be too tempting for the average soldier not to fire, even if they just shot into the air. This is why it was more effective to deliver a single controlled volley before charging, or to slowly advance while delivering volleys until the enemy was close enough for a sudden charge.

[Mike_G]

It's probably also more common to attack with unloaded muskets when assaulting a fort.

If you are advancing on an enemy in the field, then pausing and firing one volley before the charge makes sense to soften them up before charging home. If you are attacking a fort, the enemy has cover and you don't, so any firing you do probably won't be effective, but you'll spend more time in the kill zone.

[Martin Greywolf]

Since there was some talk about cross-shaped Crusader swords and crescent-shaped Muslim swords, it seems that the difference in weaponry had been noticed in the Middle Ages and occasionally was pointed out in figurative arts (here Crusaders vs Turks at Chayzar):

Of course, the sword types could just have depicted a difference between France and the Eastern Mediterranean, rather than Christians vs Muslims. The image comes from a XIII-century codex and is now in a French library (Boulogne-sur-Mer). It was painted in Palestine.

The curved swords goes to saracens was pretty much a shorthand on the part of author to make someone seem non-christian, foreign etc etc, the exact details vary a bit between periods and places. If you want to see illuminators do interesting things with this symbology, look at Chronica picta - since it depicts Hungary, sabers are used as part of the whole kit. Sometimes, they are seen in Cuiman or Tartar (i.e. Mongol) hands, but they also appear in the hands of one of the Seven Chieftains of the old Magyars, specifically to clue you in that they came from the steppes and are related to Attila.

Archaeology and written word tells a different story, however. Sabres were popular about as much as straight swords in Hungary and there seems to be no real stigma attached to using one, since we have records of high nobility sometimes favoring them in tournament melees.

An important thing to note is that the sabres drawn in the manuscripts are drawn rather poorly. To my knowledge, that smoothly curving shape with no extensions on the back of the blade was used only rarely outside of Byzantium. Byzantine paramerion was used in the Balkans, though, with two main variants, the AFAIK more common one (http://s1033.photobucket.com/user/Son-of-Fire/media/Serb%20Frescoes/SerbFrescoPecsaintmichaelsabla.jpg.html) looked not unlike the liuyedao (https://a2-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/121/57cc3078db38217d026ed6f7e9c62a7a/300x300.gif) (the top one), the less common one (https://i0.wp.com/i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o673/AlaeSwords/paramerion2_zpsff3b535d.jpg) fused the blade with the crossguard.

The typical sabre had two basic shapes, cutty end (http://eda.eme.ro/bitstream/handle/10598/15145/EME_Regeszet_Kvar_Zapolya_6_006.jpg?sequence=1) (note the raised back of the blade near the tip) and stabby end (http://media.snimka.bg/5132/016518757-big.jpg) (the one on the far left). Sometimes, they sort of combined both features, sabre of Charlemagne (http://casiberia.com/img/prod/sh2288_1.jpg) is an example of that.

As you can see, none of those looks like what we see in the manuscripts, and that's not even going into things like Maciejowski cleaver which may be what the artist thought a sabre looks like based on vague descriptions. That said, most of them, especially the ones from western Europe, do look like falchion blades, which the artists would be familiar with.

[Kiero]

Why would I want to throw my primary melee weapon away from me in the middle of a confused brawl? That sounds like a horrible idea. I just disarmed myself and there's a bunch of other people about who want to kill me.I severely doubt that.

If you're on the deck of a ship, it's unlikely to be your sole or primary melee weapon, given the abundance of pikes, cutlasses and myriad improvised weapons. But the point is it's an option you don't have with a cutlass.


We're comparing a wooden hafted weapon with a thick metal weapon. Something tells me breaking the wooden haft is easier than breaking the sword blade.

A cutlass isn't a "thick metal weapon", it's a sword blade like any other. Sword blades are inherently rather fragile. I think you overestimate the robustness of a blade (especially a cheap one, as cutlasses generally were) compared to a wooden haft.


Not necessarily. A lot of machetes have very similar blade profiles to cutlasses, and I'd choose a machete over a hatchet or a woodcutting axe for brush clearing any day.

A machete isn't even a weapon, often it's nothing more than a sharpened bit of metal. But the jury is out whether a machete or axe is better for bush/brush clearance. You can find debate after debate going in both directions, though it seems to loosely fall on climate. Hotter/tropical climes favour machete, colder/temperate ones the axe.

And again, if you have limited carrying capacity, a tool that more usefully doubles as a weapon is better than something that's only a tool, really. An axe is also much more robust than a machete, and more useful as a tool, since it does more than just chop vegetation.


Well, the tomahawk was a useful tool (it's a hatchet, after all), and without metalworking, they never really developed fencing techniques. Why trade for a weapon you have no idea how to use effectively over a useful tool that you've been using stone versions of in fighting for longer than you can remember? It's not like the white folk are going to teach you how to swordfight. Even with the cutlass being the better weapon, if a dude with a cutlass who has no idea how to use it runs up against a dude with a tomahawk who knows full well how to use it, tomahawk dude is gonna win.

You've still not established how the cutlass is "the better weapon" beyond assertion. It's rather short to allow a lot of the advantages of swordsmanship, not to mention being less handy for thrusting.


They weren't redundant. Axes had plenty of vital uses as tools.

They were also handy weapons.


I'm not sure bringing up a weapon that almost nobody ever used in a fight demonstrates much.

Right, because you have an encyclopaedic record of every fight there ever was, to know it wasn't used. I am doubtful they would even have bothered to manufacture something if no one ever used it. Less still come up with lots of variations on it.

Apparently, it was a trademark Polish cavalry weapon from 16th to 18th centuries, so you're simply wrong there.

[Brother Oni]

Then a redcoat slipped in all the blood and fell on top of a French soldier, and they rolled around fighting on the ground until the redcoat somehow angled his bayonet into the Frenchman's chest (not sure how you do that in a grapple).

Short haft the musket until you essentially have a dagger (with a really long handle) in your hand. In my experience, grapples in armed but unarmoured combat tend to involve grabbing hold of each other's wrists/arms and wrestling for dominance until one side can stick their weapon into the other.

At that sort of range, if your opponent's weapon is not under your control, you'll get stabbed/shot in very short order.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

It's probably also more common to attack with unloaded muskets when assaulting a fort.

If you are advancing on an enemy in the field, then pausing and firing one volley before the charge makes sense to soften them up before charging home. If you are attacking a fort, the enemy has cover and you don't, so any firing you do probably won't be effective, but you'll spend more time in the kill zone.
You're also likely to be attacking a fort or other defended position under the cover of darkness to maximise surprise, and the chance of something snagging the lock, accidentally firing and alerting the defenders means it's safer. Although officers would likely have any pistols loaded, any sharpshooters would be primed and waiting to snipe anyone they could when the alarm finally gets raised (especially riflemen), and you might have troopers in the second wave loaded so they can fire over the heads of the assault troops and at the very least supress alerted defenders.

[RazorChain]

Being forced to take a bayonet charge is pretty much falls under the definition of 'bad war' from earlier times, where both sides are locked in combat and unable or unwilling to retreat. Older examples would be Early Modern era 'push of pikes' or infantry taking a cavalry charge and neither side breaks off.

Back to the topic of unloaded muskets, during the night time attack of Stony Point on 16 July 1779, the American soldiers had orders to assault with bayonets only, in order to prevent an accidental discharge alerting the British or a friendly fire incident.
I'll see if I can dig up something more (there's a record of the British getting drawn into ineffectual fire during the Battle of Bunker Hill).

"The bullet is a mad thing; only the bayonet knows what it is about. Attack with the cold steel! Push hard with the bayonet!"

Alexander Suvorov would vehemently disagree and he never lost a battle.

[Mike_G]

You've still not established how the cutlass is "the better weapon" beyond assertion. It's rather short to allow a lot of the advantages of swordsmanship, not to mention being less handy for thrusting.


.

A cutlass has better reach than a one handed axe, it's able to thrust where an axe isn't, and its better balanced, so it's more nimble in the hand, better able to parry and you get some protection for the sword hand.

An axe might hit harder, but if nobody's wearing armor that's not much of an advantage.

An axe is useful as a weapon if it's nearby, but given the option of cutlass or axe, I think the smart money is on the cutlass.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

But the jury is out whether a machete or axe is better for bush/brush clearance. You can find debate after debate going in both directions, though it seems to loosely fall on climate. Hotter/tropical climes favour machete, colder/temperate ones the axe.

To be fair, that's probably mostly because brush clearing is less of an issue in colder climates. Wild temperate forests tend to be more open on ground level (not completely open, but still more so) than wild tropical forest, because much less sunlight makes it to the ground. (Although to be fair the growth that is there can be pretty tough and wood-like, so there is something to be said for an axe for brush clearing in temperate regions.) At the same time chopping firewood is more important in a colder climate, and that's where axes shine. And even then axes are far from a necessity when going off trail in a temperate forest, while anyone going into the rainforest for an expedition (and who knows what they're doing) will at least think about taking a machete. Now, I don't own a machete while I do have a light hatchet (and a sturdy survival knife which is just heavy enough for chopping tasks if you've got the power to put into it). But if I was packing for brush clearing I'd get one. No contest.

But that whole thing is a side note to a side note at this point. I'm decisively better at amateur lumberjacking than at brutal ship to ship combat.

[rrgg]

It's probably also more common to attack with unloaded muskets when assaulting a fort.

If you are advancing on an enemy in the field, then pausing and firing one volley before the charge makes sense to soften them up before charging home. If you are attacking a fort, the enemy has cover and you don't, so any firing you do probably won't be effective, but you'll spend more time in the kill zone.

Very true, but even then unloaded attacks weren't always done. In an ideal world troops would attack with muskets loaded and then blast the first enemy they see as soon as they reach the top of the rampart. The concept of suppressing fire may also have existed throughout the era of muskets, there's a 16th century siege where Humphrey Barwick describes arquebusiers getting so close to the enemy walls that the defenders couldn't put their heads up to fight back without being shot, which resulted in the town being taken with minimal casualties.

In the description of the surprise attack on Stony Point in Christopher Duffy's book, the concept of attacking with unloaded weapons was apparently so alien that one American soldier stopped to load his weapon despite repeated warnings from an officer not to. Then said officer "dispatched him".


"The bullet is a mad thing; only the bayonet knows what it is about. Attack with the cold steel! Push hard with the bayonet!"

Alexander Suvorov would vehemently disagree and he never lost a battle.

Right, while actual bayonet clashes when they occurred could get pretty messy, bayonet charges in general weren't exactly seen as "bad war." If anything they were at times considered more humane since they could decide the issue more quickly and with fewer casualties than a lengthy exchange of musket fire.

[Admiral Squish]

Simple-ish question: Presuming you had the know-how, could you make a crossbow out of natural materials in a survival situation, or would it require metal? And if you could make it out of natural materials, how much more difficult would it be to make a crossbow instead of a regular bow?

[rs2excelsior]

So I'm working on an RPG system, and I'd like to have some degree of realistic interplay between melee weapons. I've got some ideas for modifiers, but as I'm not all that well versed in hand-to-hand combat, I thought I'd ask some people who are more familiar with medieval/ancient combat.

Here's what I've got so far:

Axes should have a bonus when attacking against a shield (and possibly weapon) parry--and possibly have a disadvantage when used to parry an enemy attack, due to the fact that they are generally unwieldy
Light blades (i.e. daggers, very short swords) should have a disadvantage when used to parry larger weapons
Polearms should have a disadvantage when used to parry non-polearms
Bludgeoning weapons such as maces and hammers should negate a small amount of the enemy armor when they hit

So do these seem reasonable? Are there other weapons that should be particularly good/bad when used against other particular weapons? I'm especially curious about the axes. It seems logical to me that they would be good for hacking an enemy shield out of the way. It also seems like it would be difficult to parry an attack with a heavy battleaxe using a sword; is that accurate?

Any advice would be appreciated, and I can provide more context if need be.

[gkathellar]

Polearms should have a disadvantage when used to parry non-polearms

Absolutely not. Short polearms (5-8 or so feet) are superb defensive weapons - sure, they can get jammed up it the enemy breaks past the end, but they have to do that first, and often the end is usable much farther back than you'd think.

Long polearms, on the other hand, simply have no defensive uses. They exist for the purpose of formation combat and formation combat alone.

Your other preconceptions are also problematic, but I can't speak as directly to them. But uh trying to get past a halberd or staff-fighter with a sword can be a very difficult proposition.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think I saw a video ones, probably by Lindybeige or something, or maybe I was just reading a wikipedia article, but they had some stats on duels, I think from France, that I found surprising. They categorized the weapons used in three categories: pole arms (short ones, like halberds or something), swords and some fancy word for short swords, similar to cutlasses and machetes. What was surprising to me was not even so much that pole arms were victorious over typical swords most of the time, or that the longer swords beat the shorter ones, but that the short weapon users were typically victorious over pole arm wielders.

And I can't really figure out how that works. Assuming the statistics represent something close to a universal truth rather than a one time fluke or people using short swords just knowing what they're doing because they're all from bad neighborhoods where they learned how to fight before they could count, there is some sort of maneuvering bonus coming into play, the short weapon users have an easier time getting close to the pointy bit of the pole arm and then sprinting past it to stab the guy holding it than the rapier (that was probably what most of those swords were) users are. A rapier weights like one kg (two pounds), so it can't have been that much slower than a shorter weapon. Maybe it's simply part of how people fight with these weapons? If the longer sword guys were using a fencing like style, keeping the tip of their enemies weapon a blade length away from them, that might have made it easier for the pole people to stop any breakthrough attempt, relative to a more in your face style closer to something like boxing the machete group might have used. Maybe it was just harder for the halberdiers to get back out of range because the short sworders automatically ran closer to them?

As a suggestion you can play around with for realistic sword play in an RPG system: maybe try modeling having to get past someones weapon? When two weapons with different reach square off, only the longer weapon can attack, or probably better, the longer weapon gets some sort of advantage on its attack. A bonus to parrying, or let's call it blocking since I'm using the term parry for a different mechanic in the next sentence, could actually work very well for that. This goes on until the shorter weapon user manages to parry (knock aside) their weapon (some sort of opposed roll, maybe just an extra effect of their attack rolls, part of the normal attack, but with them possibly having to take some sort of disadvantage to try it or something?) If the parry check is successful the tables are turned, and the longer weapon guy has to make some sort of step out check, probably very similar mechanically to the parry check. Add some modifiers on how hard each roll is with each weapon, or maybe just take into account how many "length categories" difference there is... If a step out check becomes more difficult against a weapon two steps smaller, while it does not make a difference on a parry, short swords start beating halberds ones they got them on the ropes, and long swords beat pikes, but halberds beat swords and pikes beat halberds. Okay, not sure if that last one works in real life. If it did we would have seen pikes as a dueling weapon.

[jok]

Here's what I've got so far:

Axes should have a bonus when attacking against a shield (and possibly weapon) parry--and possibly have a disadvantage when used to parry an enemy attack, due to the fact that they are generally unwieldy
Light blades (i.e. daggers, very short swords) should have a disadvantage when used to parry larger weapons
Polearms should have a disadvantage when used to parry non-polearms
Bludgeoning weapons such as maces and hammers should negate a small amount of the enemy armor when they hit



Axes could have a bonus for destroying shields. But there is the problem of getting your axe stuck in the shield. As far as I understand it, if people could afford a sword they would use it instead of an one handed axe. One handed axe is used because its a repurposed tool or it is the only thing one can "afford".
It needs less complicated metallurgy then a sword. Then there are two handed axes wich as far as I know are very long and comparable to polearms.

There is no reason why polearms should have a disadvantage to parry smaller weapons. Unless you have some other mechanic for distance or reach.
Generally a realistic two handed weapon always has the advantage over​ a one handed weapon. Environment and ofcause a shield might change that. Just think about the warriors of almost any society in history almost none of them would carry a single one handed weapon without a shield as his primary weapon to war. Smaller weapons without a shield are sidearms. You carry them on your side while doing other stuff or while hauling around your primary weapon like a spear, big shield, bow, gun or halberd.

I think a good approach to make things realistic is to consider this: Either have a big shield or have a long weapon or have really good amor or be at a big disadvantage in a melee.

[Vinyadan]

Simple-ish question: Presuming you had the know-how, could you make a crossbow out of natural materials in a survival situation, or would it require metal? And if you could make it out of natural materials, how much more difficult would it be to make a crossbow instead of a regular bow?

Assuming you are very good at survivalism:

You need the right stones to create a blade. With the blade, you can work the wood.

Crossbow is a very general definition. In theory, you could make a very simple one, by binding a bow to a stick. However, cogwheels aren't something you can improvise, and I am not so sure about a do-it-yourself trigger mechanism for a crossbow.

Bows are much easier to improvise. It won't be very good because it's unseasoned wood, but you can look for the right trees, pick up a branch, try how it bends, and remove material until both sides bend equally. You need a string for the tillering (gradual bending of the bow) and a string for the bow. Strings can be of vegetal or animal origin, I think material from the guts were normally used, as well as tendons, skins, flax... It's a complex procedure and, unless you have it already on you, you are likely screwed. Then you have to make the arrows. The point can be hardened with hot coals.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Assuming you are very good at survivalism:

You need the right stones to create a blade. With the blade, you can work the wood.

Crossbow is a very general definition. In theory, you could make a very simple one, by binding a bow to a stick. However, cogwheels aren't something you can improvise, and I am not so sure about a do-it-yourself trigger mechanism for a crossbow.

Bows are much easier to improvise. It won't be very good because it's unseasoned wood, but you can look for the right trees, pick up a branch, try how it bends, and remove material until both sides bend equally. You need a string for the tillering (gradual bending of the bow) and a string for the bow. Strings can be of vegetal or animal origin, I think material from the guts were normally used, as well as tendons, skins, flax... It's a complex procedure and, unless you have it already on you, you are likely screwed. Then you have to make the arrows. The point can be hardened with hot coals.

If we're just limiting ourselves to no metal, but we do get a fully equipped medieval woodworking shop and the knowhow to use it (plus some good rope) I think it could be done. You don't want to put too much stress on a wooden trigger mechanism anyway, no matter how bulky you make it, so you'd make a reloading mechanism with a lever. (Or maybe even a stirrup, a foot brace on the front of the bow that let's you pull the rope tight using your legs and back.)

Lever mechanism explanation: basically, there's a notch or dent in the surface the arrow will rest on just in front of the trigger. The lever itself is a wooden stick with some sort of protrusion just a little further up from the base than the notch is from the trigger. You insert the lever from the front of the bow, going under the rope, and sliding until the base reaches the notch, with the protrusion pointing up. By now working the lever as, well, a lever, you can **** a bow about 4 times stronger than you could without it. At least, that's the theory.

But in a survival situation? I think you wouldn't just have trouble with the trigger (which is going to be a veritable pain in the ass, don't get me wrong, it's incredibly difficult to make some sort of smooth pivot out of wood, and I think you need at least one of those for a trigger. A single big sturdy nail would help the project a lot), but it's also simply hard to make a bow part of the crossbow that even has that kind of draw strength. Most woods are either supple and bendy or sturdy and unbreakable. Good crossbows I think often use at least some metal in the bow part, or use multiple layers of wood bound together like a leaf spring, or other complicated stuff. And if you're not a good woodworker who has done something similar before, it's probably not very realistic to pull this off. The reloading mechanism and the rope at this point count as the realistic parts of the project.

What just might be possible is a repeater crossbow. That's because they don't have a greater draw strength than a normal bow. In fact, it's usually much lower. But now you're working with an even more complex trigger mechanism, and you've got a weapon that needs poisoned bolts to be effective.

Generally, I'm not sure this has ever been done. Cool for a game, but in reality you probably want to go atlatl (A highly underrated hunting weapon, just a stick that gives a lot of extra oomph to a spear. See *Warning, footage of an animal dying* here (https://youtu.be/rUuV5AJFZLk?t=41s) for a 7 year old completely piercing through a deer using it. Not the best for accuracy maybe, but great for power and thus range.), sling (The thing David used against Goliath, also an important ranged weapon in Roman armies and feared by modern crowd control police around the globe.), or just a thrown weapon, a spear or a club/rabbit stick/boomerang. Or a regular bow if you're good with them and know how to make one. Traps might be worth their time as well, if it's hunting you're interested in.

EDIT: Hahaha, the forum software blocks ****. Of course it does, it's such a cockblocker. No crossbow cocking for me.

[Martin Greywolf]

So I'm working on an RPG system, and I'd like to have some degree of realistic interplay between melee weapons. I've got some ideas for modifiers, but as I'm not all that well versed in hand-to-hand combat, I thought I'd ask some people who are more familiar with medieval/ancient combat.


It would really help to know what system you're using and what type of games you want out of this. The answers will depend on whether you want to have Witcher-like feel to combat, or if you want something more Wuxia. Then there's a question if you want something simulationist (e.g. GURPS) or narrativist (e.g. FATE), if you want all of your play8ers to run around with nothing but full plate and pollaxe (which is what knights did when it came to wars) etc etc.

In real world, a melee weapon is a potentially deadly tool that can cause anything and everything from not even getting through clothes to cutting your torso clean in two. Both are extremes, but both are achievable, and there are practically no systems that model that to any degree of accuracy.



Here's what I've got so far:

Axes should have a bonus when attacking against a shield (and possibly weapon) parry--and possibly have a disadvantage when used to parry an enemy attack, due to the fact that they are generally unwieldy

Not really. Axes do more damage to shields than swords, but so do maces, or front-heavy swords. What axes should perhaps be able to do is to hook the shield, stopping the person using it from using it to its full potential, thereby allowing the axemans' friend to go to town.

As for parries, yes, they are hardly ideal for a number of reasons, but that problem basically disappears once you have a shield.



Light blades (i.e. daggers, very short swords) should have a disadvantage when used to parry larger weapons


Not good. There's a reason why off hand daggers were used to parry rapiers instead of bucklers. The interplay between what is and is not easy to block is a lot more complex.



Polearms should have a disadvantage when used to parry non-polearms


Not even close. You can parry evarything outside of grapple range easily. Many polearms (e.g. winged spears) have little things to assist with parries. Also, where to long axes fall? Are they polearms or are they axes?



Bludgeoning weapons such as maces and hammers should negate a small amount of the enemy armor when they hit


Kinda, but not quite - they should negate specific kinds of armor - mail is of limited use, but plate is much more powerful against them, etc etc. It's not just armor.



It also seems like it would be difficult to parry an attack with a heavy battleaxe using a sword; is that accurate?


Static block would be a bit tough, but you'd slow the axe enough that it wouldn't get through gambeson. Any trained fighter wouldn't bother with it most of the time and redirect it, it's pretty easy to do to front-heavy weapons.

Long story short(-ish)

Your system is a bad idea. As has been said in this thread several times, you can't divide weapons into a small number of categories and expect any kind of accuracy in your combat system. There are axes that handle more like daggers, swords than handle like axes, two handed swords that can be easily used in one hand, one handed swords that are really hard to usee for fencing in one hand etc etc. Even if you go to specifics, like Hungarian high medieval one handed saber, there are different kinds that are used very differently.

Your best bet is to rethink this weapon system in terms of traits, kinda like Kali does, and categorize weapons according to that. More than that, some weapons will switch these traits depending on how you are holding them (dagger in icepick grip, half-swording etc).

So an axe may have "Front heavy", "Bladed", "Hooking" and "One handed" traits (early medieval bearded axe), and those will tell you how it handles, but another axe may not have the "Bladed attribute" (some early medieval Slavic axes), or it may be "Two handed", or it may also have "Thrusting point" (again, some early medieval Slavic axes).

And then you need to consider these traits for shields and armor too, since they don't exist in a vacuum. Aspis may have "Large", "Strapped grip" and "Dedicated to formation combat", stereotypical viking shield will have "Light", "Large", "Center grip" and "Dedicated to duels", and how well they do against, say, an axe will depend on the axe and how its traits play along with the traits of the shield.

This will also allow you to make enviromental penalties and bonuses a lot more easily on the fly, if the fight is in a corridor, you can just slap a penalty on every weapon that is "Long", or you can make a barrier made of cut down trees that can be attacked through with "Long" weapons etc etc.

[Knaight]

Bows are much easier to improvise. It won't be very good because it's unseasoned wood, but you can look for the right trees, pick up a branch, try how it bends, and remove material until both sides bend equally. You need a string for the tillering (gradual bending of the bow) and a string for the bow. Strings can be of vegetal or animal origin, I think material from the guts were normally used, as well as tendons, skins, flax... It's a complex procedure and, unless you have it already on you, you are likely screwed. Then you have to make the arrows. The point can be hardened with hot coals.

You don't need a particularly impressive bow for hunting - a 60 lb bow is just fine for almost anything*, and a relatively simple self bow is doable, with various improvised strings. With that said, traps are almost certainly more useful in most cases, and as far as ranged weapons made from improvised materials goes it doesn't get much easier than a sling.

*Maybe not bear.

[Admiral Squish]

To be a little more specific, I was asking about making crossbows out of natural materials because I was wondering if colonial-era native american societies would be able to make crossbows without access to refined metal.

[Gnoman]

That's a more useful question.


Nothing in a crossbow requires metal, but the Amerindians would see relatively little benefit from doing so. The bows they had were already more than adequate for taking down the animals they hunted and killing unarmored men, while any extra power you get from a crossbow would be inadequate to put a stone point through metal armor, although it is slightly less impossible an idea with flint than it is with obsidian. They might have an easier time taking down very powerful animals such as bear and moose (although those animals are so powerful that even a powerful crossbow is so inadequate that you'd have to hunt them in swarms anyway), and they might provide an edge in tribal warfare if non-metal armor showed up, but the main deficiency of the traditional Amerindian bow is that it was an inadequate weapon against Europeans.

[Martin Greywolf]

The bows they had were already more than adequate for taking down the animals they hunted and killing unarmored men


The exact same thing is true for European crossbows, your medieval crossbow needs to be at something over 200 pounds draw weight to match a 90 lbs bow, with some variation depending on stroke length - rule of thumb is 3 to 1 advantage to the bow. That means that all crossbows before at least goat's foot were inferior to bows in terms of power.



while any extra power you get from a crossbow would be inadequate to put a stone point through metal armor,


Amerindians don't need to do this in the first place, even European armor is almost gone at this point, and you're certainly not facing a full plate. Even the very earliest conqistadors had breastplate and helmet only for the most part.



They might have an easier time taking down very powerful animals such as bear and moose (although those animals are so powerful that even a powerful crossbow is so inadequate that you'd have to hunt them in swarms anyway)


Eh, large animals being taken down is more a matter of how long they take to bleed than penetration. From what I was able to find out by looking at modern hunters, 60-90 lbs bow will do perfectly fine. That large group is there to pin the bear with spears to make sure he can't maul you while he bleeds out.




and they might provide an edge in tribal warfare if non-metal armor showed up,

No. A 90 lbs bow is perfectly capable of punching through a gambeson, and as I said, you need at least goat's foot crossbows to have crossbows with more power than a decent war bow.



but the main deficiency of the traditional Amerindian bow is that it was an inadequate weapon against Europeans.

By the time repeating rifles were in use, yes, before that, not so much. Main deficiency of the bow was that there wasn't enough of bowmen. British Empire experimented with bringing in longbowmen during the colonial era, but decided not to once it became apparent how much resources would have to be spent training them. And let's not forget that major factor of indians going down as fast and hard as they did was their own infighting.

There's one advantage only that a crossbow below 200 lbs gives you over bow - concealment. You can lie in wait with it, you can round corners with it loaded, you can poke very little of you over a battlement to shoot it. All of these are things that a bow can't do as well, if it can do them at all. It also explains why crossbows were popular in forested or hilly areas, and bows were more popular on open terrain.

[Knaight]

By the time repeating rifles were in use, yes, before that, not so much. Main deficiency of the bow was that there wasn't enough of bowmen. British Empire experimented with bringing in longbowmen during the colonial era, but decided not to once it became apparent how much resources would have to be spent training them. And let's not forget that major factor of indians going down as fast and hard as they did was their own infighting.

A lot of it isn't really infighting - these were frequently separate tribes, and conflict between them was "infighting" in the same way that the 30 years war or similar was.

[Kiero]

By the time repeating rifles were in use, yes, before that, not so much. Main deficiency of the bow was that there wasn't enough of bowmen. British Empire experimented with bringing in longbowmen during the colonial era, but decided not to once it became apparent how much resources would have to be spent training them. And let's not forget that major factor of indians going down as fast and hard as they did was their own infighting.


Uh, no, it wasn't "infighting" that devastated most Amerindian cultures after contact with the Old World, but disease. Poxes and other scourges travelled faster than the invaders did, they killed up to 90% of the population of the Americas. Smallpox in particular, but it wasn't the only pathogen.

If you were running an RPG from the native perspective in that era, it would be most appropriately pitched as post-apocalyptic.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Poxes and other scourges travelled faster than the invaders did, they killed up to 90% of the population of the Americas. Smallpox in particular, but it wasn't the only pathogen.

"Up to 90%" might in fact be too low a number. I've seen estimates of 96% of the population for the plague alone. This was just before the pilgrims finally managed to put down a settlement in America (not coincidental, resistance tends to break when 96% of the people get killed) and about 200 years after the continent had already been ravaged by everything explorers like Columbus brought along.

[rrgg]

Uh, no, it wasn't "infighting" that devastated most Amerindian cultures after contact with the Old World, but disease. Poxes and other scourges travelled faster than the invaders did, they killed up to 90% of the population of the Americas. Smallpox in particular, but it wasn't the only pathogen.

If you were running an RPG from the native perspective in that era, it would be most appropriately pitched as post-apocalyptic.

The idea that the decline 90% of the native american population can really be attributed to disease alone seems to have largely fallen out of favor among historians. The Americas were definitely not some pristine, disease-filled Eden prior to European arrival and the theory doesn't really fit with what we know about the nature of epidemics, which tend to be a lot more complicated than "who's immune and who isn't". The Cocoliztli epidemics which hit Mexico in the 16th century, for example, seem to have most likely been a native disease which resurfaced due to droughts and killed large numbers of natives and Europeans alike.

The better explanation is probably to say that the decline was the result of a variety of complex factors which all came together in just the right mix to cause a complete societal collapse, including disease, slaving raids, the destruction of native food sources, and conflict with each other as tribes migrating to get away from european raids and famine came into conflict with other groups. The constant warfare further affected native people's nutritional status as the threat of raids from hostile tribes or Europeans turned hunting and foraging into extremely dangerous tasks. Which in turn greatly lowered disease resistance even further similar to refugee populations today.

[Admiral Squish]

I was under the impression that one major advantage of a crossbow over a bow was accessibility. The argument being that drawing and firing a bow with accuracy requires a great deal of training, practice, and significant physical strength and coordination, whereas a crossbow can be drawn by almost any reasonably fit individual, and can be aimed without having to hold that draw. Which, in turn, meant less training required, more archers on the battlefield, and less dependence on a small group of specialized archers.
I did not know crossbows were actually weaker than bows at first, so that's something I learned today.

[Storm Bringer]

I was under the impression that one major advantage of a crossbow over a bow was accessibility. The argument being that drawing and firing a bow with accuracy requires a great deal of training, practice, and significant physical strength and coordination, whereas a crossbow can be drawn by almost any reasonably fit individual, and can be aimed without having to hold that draw. Which, in turn, meant less training required, more archers on the battlefield, and less dependence on a small group of specialized archers.
I did not know crossbows were actually weaker than bows at first, so that's something I learned today.

even with the mechanical advantages of stirrups, windlasses and such, it still took a significant amount of physical strength to load most crossbows, but the key difference is that the effort of loading can be palmed off onto a lacky who is loading one crossbow while the marksman is aiming and shooting another. IIRC, mercenary crossbowman had a higher wage than longbowmen, but that extra pay was to support their loader and the shield man who protected the whole team..

a similar thing was sometimes done with muskets, if you had one really good shot, then two or three people might just be stood there loading for him, and the net result was better than those people shooting an loading for themselves.

[gkathellar]

The idea that the decline 90% of the native american population can really be attributed to disease alone seems to have largely fallen out of favor among historians. The Americas were definitely not some pristine, disease-filled Eden prior to European arrival and the theory doesn't really fit with what we know about the nature of epidemics, which tend to be a lot more complicated than "who's immune and who isn't". The Cocoliztli epidemics which hit Mexico in the 16th century, for example, seem to have most likely been a native disease which resurfaced due to droughts and killed large numbers of natives and Europeans alike.

The better explanation is probably to say that the decline was the result of a variety of complex factors which all came together in just the right mix to cause a complete societal collapse, including disease, slaving raids, the destruction of native food sources, and conflict with each other as tribes migrating to get away from european raids and famine came into conflict with other groups. The constant warfare further affected native people's nutritional status as the threat of raids from hostile tribes or Europeans turned hunting and foraging into extremely dangerous tasks. Which in turn greatly lowered disease resistance even further similar to refugee populations today.

Not to disagree with your broader point about complexity, but my understanding is that smallpox in particular, not disease in general, is seen as the driving force behind the disappearance of First Nations peoples. Obviously they had their own diseases, but they lacked specific resistance to smallpox and its cousins due in part to a lack of animal husbandry, and lacked social rules for containing the disease due to a lack of experience with it - and of course were encountering strains of smallpox that had been evolving to deal with improving human resistance for thousands of years.

[rrgg]

Not to disagree with your broader point about complexity, but my understanding is that smallpox in particular, not disease in general, is seen as the driving force behind the disappearance of First Nations peoples. Obviously they had their own diseases, but they lacked specific resistance to smallpox and its cousins due in part to a lack of animal husbandry, and lacked social rules for containing the disease due to a lack of experience with it - and of course were encountering strains of smallpox that had been evolving to deal with improving human resistance for thousands of years.

The average mortality rate for smallpox though was only around 30%, and it continued to to be a big problem for Europeans as well. A smallpox epidemic tore through the Thirteen colonies causing heavy casualties right in the middle of the American Revolution, and a large portion of Washington's army was only saved by ordering them to undergo mandatory variolation treatments.

For a recent book on the subject of disease in the americas i would try Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America

[VoxRationis]

I've now seen several separate references to the Khmer putting small ballistae or large scorpions on top of elephants. However, all of these references are sort of suspect. One is in the recent Age of Empires expansion, the other is as a troop type in De Bellis Multitudinis, and the third is a single line without citation in Wikipedia. Does anyone have better knowledge or better sources of this topic?

[Storm Bringer]

I've now seen several separate references to the Khmer putting small ballistae or large scorpions on top of elephants. However, all of these references are sort of suspect. One is in the recent Age of Empires expansion, the other is as a troop type in De Bellis Multitudinis, and the third is a single line without citation in Wikipedia. Does anyone have better knowledge or better sources of this topic?

i know of a osprey book (https://ospreypublishing.com/siege-weapons-of-the-far-east-1) which mentions them, they were not torsion powered like most ballistae or scorpions, but basically large crossbows.

they were of a double bow design, with two bowstaves facing in opposite directions. they were strung in such a way that you could push the rear bow to slacken the string, thus making it easier to draw and load the bow.

the book is quite intresting, it also talks about a three bow design used by the Chinese that looped the string over all three bow staves to increase power (you can see a modern drawing of one on the book cover art)

[gkathellar]

The average mortality rate for smallpox though was only around 30%, and it continued to to be a big problem for Europeans as well. A smallpox epidemic tore through the Thirteen colonies causing heavy casualties right in the middle of the American Revolution, and a large portion of Washington's army was only saved by ordering them to undergo mandatory variolation treatments.

For a recent book on the subject of disease in the americas i would try Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America

I'm curious as to how one would get that 30% figure.

The thing is, looking into this, I can't find anything indicating that, "it mostly wasn't disease," is the current scholarly consensus. There seems to be agreement that my initial understanding was wrong and that it was more than just smallpox (measles, pertussis, and flu seem to have played significant roles), and from what I can see the proximal effects of disease were pretty huge (suicide, disability, collapse of the apparatus of everyday life, inadvertent increases in population density as people relocated, etc) but it seems like even those mostly killed by accelerating the spread of disease. Likewise the spread of disease seems to have been aggravated by lack of insulating social protocols, but that's still disease in the end.

So while native population decline was certainly complex, I feel it mischaracterizes the issue to say that disease wasn't the cause, driving force, and main actor in that decline.

[rrgg]

I'm curious as to how one would get that 30% figure.

The thing is, looking into this, I can't find anything indicating that, "it mostly wasn't disease," is the current scholarly consensus. There seems to be agreement that my initial understanding was wrong and that it was more than just smallpox (measles, pertussis, and flu seem to have played significant roles), and from what I can see the proximal effects of disease were pretty huge (suicide, disability, collapse of the apparatus of everyday life, inadvertent increases in population density as people relocated, etc) but it seems like even those mostly killed by accelerating the spread of disease. Likewise the spread of disease seems to have been aggravated by lack of insulating social protocols, but that's still disease in the end.

So while native population decline was certainly complex, I feel it mischaracterizes the issue to say that disease wasn't the cause, driving force, and main actor in that decline.

It's not that disease didn't have a huge impact, it's the idea that European dominance over the Americas was inevitable because europeans developed a superior genetic resistance to disease which is very problematic and requires heavy cherry-picking to make work. Jared Diamond's GG&S in particular has received heavy criticism from academic historians and anthropologists.

[gkathellar]

It's not that disease didn't have a huge impact, it's the idea that European dominance over the Americas was inevitable because europeans developed a superior genetic resistance to disease which is very problematic and requires heavy cherry-picking to make work. Jared Diamond's GG&S in particular has received heavy criticism from academic historians and anthropologists.

You're kinda putting words into my mouth, here, since I haven't claimed any of these things, and I don't really know why you're bringing up Jared Diamond (or alleging that he talked about European generic superiority, since that is the opposite of what he did - his work centers on geography).

"Superior genetic resistance to disease" is sort of a nonsense statement in light of how immune systems actually work. What you can have is resistance to particular diseases, either for genetic reasons or because of exposure, and you can have social protocols that help deal with those diseases. The lack of either meant that Native Americans had very long odds against smallpox, measles, and flu epidemics. I've seen nothing to indicate that historical consensus takes any other stance.

And I'm still wondering where you got that 30% figure from.

[rrgg]

http://www.who.int/biologicals/vaccines/smallpox/en/

~30% is the mortality rate typically cited for the variola major variety. Variola minor has a mortality rate of about 1%.

Jared Diamonds book doesn't set out to be about genetic superiority, but the crux of his theory still ends up being that one race was destined to conquer most of the world due to the geography of their ancestors. Which is really problematic and historians have pointed out a lot of flaws in his reasoning, especially since his training was in natural science, not history or anthropology.

For a good overview u/anthropology_nerd has put together a large collection of posts on the conquest of the Americas including sources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/profiles/anthropology_nerd

Here's one discussing Jared Diamond in particular:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mkcc3/how_do_modern_historians_and_history/

[gkathellar]

http://www.who.int/biologicals/vaccines/smallpox/en/

~30% is the mortality rate typically cited for the variola major variety. Variola minor has a mortality rate of about 1%.

I note that this is not and does not resemble a historical figure on mortality among Native Americans in the 15th-18th centuries. You can't present contemporary figures and splice them into the historical record with no context.


Jared Diamonds book doesn't set out to be about genetic superiority, but the crux of his theory still ends up being that one race was destined to conquer most of the world due to the geography of their ancestors.

That word, "destined," is really misplaced, and is something of a tautology. You seem to be taking Diamond's work as making some kind of meritocratic argument, which it really isn't. The "conquest" of much of the world happened: GG&S sets out to explain why, not to provide justification. It does so in a flawed way, for sure - but then, I'm not really interested in arguing how Diamond is generally perceived, and have only noted that it's problematic to ascribe Eurocentricism to a worldview of geographical determinism because it implies the holder believes that the conditions they're trying to describe are just.

What I've alleged is that 90% of pre-Columbian Native American populations were killed by foreign diseases that they lacked effective immunological or social responses to. The fact that you keep responding to that by saying, "Jared Diamond was wrong about stuff," honestly comes across as disingenuous. Yes, Jared Diamond was wrong about a lot of stuff - most notably, as per the link you provided, his understanding of political and military affairs was shoddy at best. That really has very little to do with the assertion that a huge, overwhelming majority of deaths in post-Columbian America were driven almost entirely by disease.

[rrgg]

What I've alleged is that 90% of pre-Columbian Native American populations were killed by foreign diseases that they lacked effective immunological or social responses to.

This is incorrect. Looking at Mexico, which is a fairly unique case when it comes to how quickly population decline occured, the original Smallpox outbreak in 1520 killed only around 8 million while the subsequent Cocoliztli epidemics were responsible for killing around 12-17 million. The symptoms of Cocoliztli suggest it was most likely a type of viral hemorrhagic fever native to the Americas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1576_Cocoliztli_epidemic

Americans had survived major epidemics before, as have human societies throughout history. And the population decline wasn't something that happened overnight, it took centuries. The issue with simply stating that 90% were killed by disease is that had native societies not also been forced to deal with European raids, destruction of food supplies, slavery, and being driven towards increased conflict with each other the results of the epidemic likely would have been very different.

[VoxRationis]

What's the point of light infantry in the context of Napoleonic-era fights? I see the word "harass" a lot, but what does that really mean? Could they actually hold up an advance to a meaningful degree, or inflict worthwhile casualties against lines of infantry? Would having a couple sharpshooters pick off a handful of people have actual implications on the morale of a group of soldiers trained under the paradigm of "march under direct musket and cannon fire on open ground?"

[Galloglaich]

So I'm working on an RPG system, and I'd like to have some degree of realistic interplay between melee weapons. I've got some ideas for modifiers, but as I'm not all that well versed in hand-to-hand combat, I thought I'd ask some people who are more familiar with medieval/ancient combat.

Here's what I've got so far:

Axes should have a bonus when attacking against a shield (and possibly weapon) parry--and possibly have a disadvantage when used to parry an enemy attack, due to the fact that they are generally unwieldy
Light blades (i.e. daggers, very short swords) should have a disadvantage when used to parry larger weapons
Polearms should have a disadvantage when used to parry non-polearms
Bludgeoning weapons such as maces and hammers should negate a small amount of the enemy armor when they hit

So do these seem reasonable? Are there other weapons that should be particularly good/bad when used against other particular weapons? I'm especially curious about the axes. It seems logical to me that they would be good for hacking an enemy shield out of the way. It also seems like it would be difficult to parry an attack with a heavy battleaxe using a sword; is that accurate?

Any advice would be appreciated, and I can provide more context if need be.

Damn, a guy asks this on this thread, and nobody thinks of the Codex? I thought I had an ounce of respect around here! :smallsigh:

G

[Kiero]

What's the point of light infantry in the context of Napoleonic-era fights? I see the word "harass" a lot, but what does that really mean? Could they actually hold up an advance to a meaningful degree, or inflict worthwhile casualties against lines of infantry? Would having a couple sharpshooters pick off a handful of people have actual implications on the morale of a group of soldiers trained under the paradigm of "march under direct musket and cannon fire on open ground?"

Light infantry like riflemen? Who wrought a horrible toll on French officers in the Peninsular War, for example?

Same sorts of activities as light cavalry; scouting, screening, skirmishing, driving off enemy skirmishers, establishing a position before the line infanty or artillery come in and set up.

[Galloglaich]

As a suggestion you can play around with for realistic sword play in an RPG system: maybe try modeling having to get past someones weapon? When two weapons with different reach square off, only the longer weapon can attack, or probably better, the longer weapon gets some sort of advantage on its attack. A bonus to parrying, or let's call it blocking since .

Sigh. Man, no love.

[Galloglaich]

I think I saw a video ones, probably by Lindybeige or something, or maybe I was just reading a wikipedia article, but they had some stats on duels, I think from France, that I found surprising. They categorized the weapons used in three categories: pole arms (short ones, like halberds or something), swords and some fancy word for short swords, similar to cutlasses and machetes. What was surprising to me was not even so much that pole arms were victorious over typical swords most of the time, or that the longer swords beat the shorter ones, but that the short weapon users were typically victorious over pole arm wielders.


I believe this is from an article in the Acta Periodica Duellatorum by Pierre Henry Bas, who looked at French letters of remission (legal letters from Lawyers trying to get their clients out of trouble with the authorities) related to dueling incidents. Due to the severe laws on dueling in France anyone who could afford a lawyer to do this did so, as the alternative was to be executed for getting in a fight basically. Pierre analyzed the records which was of a fairly small subset of about 300 incidents in I think the 14th and 15th Centuries.

http://www.actaperiodicaduellatorum.com/previous-issues-1/?tag=Pierre-Henry+Bas

There was indeed a pattern where you could see kind of a paper-scissors-rock effect, in which spears or halberds beat swords but daggers beat spears. He also looked at the type and locations of injuries from different weapons. It's not enough of a data set to draw definitive conclusions but it was certainly interesting.

Here are a couple of tables from the article

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=88

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=87



The pattern does make sense, in that, reach is a huge advantage initially, it really should not be discounted (and actually, we know for a fact that very long spears, staves and pikes were indeed used for individual self-defense for exactly this reason) but once you get past the point, and especially into a grappling type situation, the smaller weapon like the dagger is faster. Medieval daggers were also designed to kill. We are not talking about a small folding knife like most people have today, but something like a 12"-18" very stiff, very strong, very pointy blade made to pierce all the way into vital organs and blood vessels and cut them up.

In D&D a dagger is almost a nuisance weapon which only does 1d4 damage (or anyway, older versions of DnD - I am not up to speed on the latest editions) but that is because they only measure one factor for a weapon. They didn't have any other way to make a sword more useful besides damage so they nerfed daggers. But in the real world a 15" stiff unbreakable blade is super dangerous and very likely to cause fatal injuries. The advantage of the sword is in reach, versatility, and (especially) utility in defense, i.e. parrying and so on, which is almost never modeled in RPG's.




As for the whole Simulationist vs. Narrativist vs. Gamist etc. concept, I wrote the codex combat system specifically to disprove that who . It's an old and very limited theory of game design popularized on some indy game developer forum called the Forge back 10 or 15 years ago. The notion was that realistic games and games that rely on the story and games in which combat (or other activities) are kind of a game within themselves are all mutually exclusive. Simulation was supposed to be slow and ultra detailed, like Rolemaster or some other (basically failed) early attempts to make realistic combat.

Codex was made to prove that you could start with an accurate model, then pare it down to it's core elements, and thereby make a system which was fast, had verisimilitude, fit with the narrative elements (since it's from the same universe, so to speak) and also worked like a game within the game, since fencing or martial arts are actually also a game.

I believe I proved that point. Anyway I won several bets with other game designers, including one over the role of reach with my friend Jake Norwood, the inventer of Riddle of Steel, which we tested out with a dagger against a sword and buckler in real life.

G

[Durkoala]

This is unrelated to any game, but it's something I've been wondering about. In a fair amount of fantasy art (especially anime art for some reason) there's a woman in a dress with a skirt of armour plates. Is this a reasonably useable design?

As far as I can think, the main downside would be the extra weight caused by the large metal plates. If the hem was high enough to avoid getting trodden on, it might even be better at guarding than the usual greaves, as it's harder to see where the wearer's legs are?

http://www.fightersgeneration.com/nz/char/saber-fateunlimited-artwork.png

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I believe this is from an article in the Acta Periodica Duellatorum by Pierre Henry Bas

You're my hero. I tried googling a bit, but I was using all the wrong terms.


This is unrelated to any game, but it's something I've been wondering about. In a fair amount of fantasy art (especially anime art for some reason) there's a woman in a dress with a skirt of armour plates. Is this a reasonably useable design?

As far as I can think, the main downside would be the extra weight caused by the large metal plates. If the hem was high enough to avoid getting trodden on, it might even be better at guarding than the usual greaves, as it's harder to see where the wearer's legs are?

http://www.fightersgeneration.com/nz/char/saber-fateunlimited-artwork.png

There is some precedent in both the eastern (https://www.google.nl/search?q=samurai+armor&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAspne9YPUAhXNYVAKHYzrD78Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662#imgrc=9KOoqPK-ZRPKpM:) and western (https://www.google.nl/search?q=gambeson&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix-vv49oPUAhVHElAKHYAwDcsQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662) tradition.

I don't think an actual long armor skirt would be practical. Too much weight, not enough freedom of movement. But the basic idea is not bad. The plates on the side of the legs in those samurai pictures protect against heavy sword blows that are easier to deal there than on other parts of the leg, and a skirt like design can also help decrease the complexity of (upper) leg armor, which is especially important on the slightly more budget sets of armor. A helmet, a breastplate and a short skirt wouldn't be a bad set for the money it costs. The next upgrade might be pauldrons, shin guards or full torso coverage.

If a character really needs a long skirt as well as realism, maybe use a skirt out of heavy cloth or leather and add a short plate skirt on top. I think that might actually work pretty well.

[Galloglaich]

You're my hero. I tried googling a bit, but I was using all the wrong terms.


I've written 4 articles for the same small journal so I recognized it immediately.

G

[AMX]

This is unrelated to any game, but it's something I've been wondering about. In a fair amount of fantasy art (especially anime art for some reason) there's a woman in a dress with a skirt of armour plates. Is this a reasonably useable design?

As far as I can think, the main downside would be the extra weight caused by the large metal plates. If the hem was high enough to avoid getting trodden on, it might even be better at guarding than the usual greaves, as it's harder to see where the wearer's legs are?

http://www.fightersgeneration.com/nz/char/saber-fateunlimited-artwork.png


There is some precedent in both the eastern (https://www.google.nl/search?q=samurai+armor&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAspne9YPUAhXNYVAKHYzrD78Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662#imgrc=9KOoqPK-ZRPKpM:) and western (https://www.google.nl/search?q=gambeson&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix-vv49oPUAhVHElAKHYAwDcsQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662) tradition.

I don't think an actual long armor skirt would be practical. Too much weight, not enough freedom of movement. But the basic idea is not bad. The plates on the side of the legs in those samurai pictures protect against heavy sword blows that are easier to deal there than on other parts of the leg, and a skirt like design can also help decrease the complexity of (upper) leg armor, which is especially important on the slightly more budget sets of armor. A helmet, a breastplate and a short skirt wouldn't be a bad set for the money it costs. The next upgrade might be pauldrons, shin guards or full torso coverage.

If a character really needs a long skirt as well as realism, maybe use a skirt out of heavy cloth or leather and add a short plate skirt on top. I think that might actually work pretty well.
I think the word you're looking for is tonlet (https://www.google.com/search?q=tonlet&tbm=isch).

[Kiero]

On armoured "skirts", I've seen a layered pteryges that's basically skirts with metal plates in it.

Also worth noting that something that covers the sides of the legs like that with some flaring to it could act as a flanchard when mounted. Ie protect the horses sides where the rider's legs are.

[Storm Bringer]

What's the point of light infantry in the context of Napoleonic-era fights?

1) I see the word "harass" a lot, but what does that really mean?
2)Could they actually hold up an advance to a meaningful degree, or inflict worthwhile casualties against lines of infantry?
3) Would having a couple sharpshooters pick off a handful of people have actual implications on the morale of a group of soldiers trained under the paradigm of "march under direct musket and cannon fire on open ground?"

1) shooting things, basically, in a age were most soldiers were not trained shots so much as trained loaders, a group of light infantry, in an open order and trained to properly sight and use their guns, could inflict a steady toll on a advancing enemy, and could move faster, avoiding the formed heavy infantry that needed to keep formation to protect against cavalry.

2) hold up? not really, but they could inflict worthwhile casualties, especially among the sergeants and officers. even wounding the line infantrymen would cause disruption to the line and slow the advance, disorder it, and generally make life miserable for the heavy infantry.

3)yes. of the 600+ men in a infantry battalion, maybe 50 of them were the critical NCOs and officers who have the knowledge and skills to properly direct the line infantrymen, get them moving in the right direction, keep them in formation, and know when to fire and when not to. heavy losses amongst those men would lead the battalion pretty much coming to a halt and changing form a formed body of men able to take ground and hold it, to a armed mob firing ineffectually at whatever it could see. once that happens it is basically out the battle, and useless to the general leading the army, as he cant get it to do anything.


privates look to their officers and sergeants for direction, to tell them what they are supposed to be doing, and why, because those officers and sergeants have the experience, knowledge and training to know what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. take away that leadership, and the unit stops being a unit, and becomes a armed gang that happens to all be wearing the same clothes.

[Berenger]

There is also some early greek armor with a lower part that looks a bit like a skirt.

https://abload.de/img/mycarmoryiuov.jpg

[Carl]

So was ill most of last week. As i'm wont to do when feeling unwell i thought about all kinds of random stuff including some of my settings, figured some more bits out and raised a couple of questions i want to throw at people.

1. In a combat situation how big an issue is having a scope, (particularly a wide FoV, Low Magnification one), on a rifle at shorter or outright CQC ranges, Is it somthing that can be worked with or do you really need good old fashioned iron sights badly?

2. What are the practical limits on an Assault rifle in your opinion in terms of dimensions. Specifically thing like height and width. An to a degree length. Particularly with magazines that significantly increase this like P90 style mag or large drum designs like the Beta C-Mag. It's for use by power armoured troops so the weight isn't a huge issue, the main need is to be able to establish sufficiently secure grip/s on the weapon to minimise frame flex. But i'm not sure what the limits on size are before the weapon starts getting in the way of holding the grips as that'll more or less set the magazine size limits.

3. Assuming the following scenario what would be a reasonable advance rate be for infantry on foot: Your ferried to the outskirts of an urbanised area that has just been torn up by heavy artillery fire and into which you have reason to believe enemy infantry, (also on foot), will be advancing but the enemy for whatever reason is unable to provide further artillery covering fire, (and your unable to bring anything that can't be hoofed in on foot into play yourselves), your goal is to advance as far into the cityscape as possibble before the enemy can likewise advance to that position, and then hold it against their attacks for a period whilst your own mechanised assets catch up a while later, (i'm basically trying to figure the timespan on somthing that i need to set a time value to, figuring out how far the attacker in the scenario could advance give same part of that as thats the distance they could cover before enemy action began to slow them down).

I'd imagine there are two advance rates ofc, the first for when your confident the enemy couldn't have beaten you to a location, and the rate when your having to be more cautious because the enemy might allready be there.

4. Does any of the more medically inclined here have any info on how higher partial oxygen pressure, (effectively an oxygen rich breathing medium), affects aerobic exercise limits. A cursory google search suggest research has been done on it, but actual details seem to be lacking.



Regarding the skirts question. I forget where i saw the image but i have seen an image of an actual historical, (i believe it belonged to one of the english monarchs and is on display in the UK somwhere), suit of plate armour that includes a short kilt of metal plates, presumably to protect the thigh joints, (sensible really).

[Carl]

Found it. It's at the Royal Armouries in leeds and is a suit of Henry the Vii's, (that guy, again).

Image dug off a search and a video courtesy of the museum.

https://danielletriggs.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/tonlet-armour.jpg


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

It is tournament rather than battlefield armour, but i don't see too many flaws with the core concept myself. And if the video is accurate that armour was actually used in a tournament fight.

[sengmeng]

I've often heard of and seen photos or artwork of two-handed swords with a dull portion of the blade forward of the guard, and some had a smaller secondary guard at the end of the dull portion, most notably the wave-bladed flamberge. However, I once heard of a sword like this that had a significantly longer dull portion and thinner blade referred to as a "saddle-sword." Google seems to think a saddle sword is any small sword kept on the saddle. The stated purpose of this one I'm trying to find out about was to function as a lance on the initial charge and then allow slashing attacks without changing weapons. Essentially it was such a light and thin but long sword that you could one-hand it if all you meant to do was stab. Has anyone ever heard of this? Is it historical? And is there a more common name for it?

[VoxRationis]

Light infantry like riflemen? Who wrought a horrible toll on French officers in the Peninsular War, for example?

Same sorts of activities as light cavalry; scouting, screening, skirmishing, driving off enemy skirmishers, establishing a position before the line infanty or artillery come in and set up.


1) shooting things, basically, in a age were most soldiers were not trained shots so much as trained loaders, a group of light infantry, in an open order and trained to properly sight and use their guns, could inflict a steady toll on a advancing enemy, and could move faster, avoiding the formed heavy infantry that needed to keep formation to protect against cavalry.

2) hold up? not really, but they could inflict worthwhile casualties, especially among the sergeants and officers. even wounding the line infantrymen would cause disruption to the line and slow the advance, disorder it, and generally make life miserable for the heavy infantry.

3)yes. of the 600+ men in a infantry battalion, maybe 50 of them were the critical NCOs and officers who have the knowledge and skills to properly direct the line infantrymen, get them moving in the right direction, keep them in formation, and know when to fire and when not to. heavy losses amongst those men would lead the battalion pretty much coming to a halt and changing form a formed body of men able to take ground and hold it, to a armed mob firing ineffectually at whatever it could see. once that happens it is basically out the battle, and useless to the general leading the army, as he cant get it to do anything.


privates look to their officers and sergeants for direction, to tell them what they are supposed to be doing, and why, because those officers and sergeants have the experience, knowledge and training to know what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. take away that leadership, and the unit stops being a unit, and becomes a armed gang that happens to all be wearing the same clothes.

So it was common to selectively target officers? What was the rate of attrition on those guys? I was under the impression that they tended to dress impressively and stand where people could see them, which doesn't sound healthy in an environment where snipers are after you.

[Duncadile]

So it was common to selectively target officers? What was the rate of attrition on those guys? I was under the impression that they tended to dress impressively and stand where people could see them, which doesn't sound healthy in an environment where snipers are after you.


It was an uncommon thing. Maybe in the early medieval era. But later everyone realized that officers are too valuable to be killed outright, if you capture them, they make an excellent ransom. Also, if you kill the officer, and the enemy army escapes, the ensuring chaos is just as bad as it is good, since they will definietly spread out and raze the land.
But really, it depends on situation.

[Martin Greywolf]

I've often heard of and seen photos or artwork of two-handed swords with a dull portion of the blade forward of the guard, and some had a smaller secondary guard at the end of the dull portion, most notably the wave-bladed flamberge.

This has nothing to do with the wavy blade, secondary crossguard is a fairly standard feature of... let's call the greatswords. The dull portion between the crossguards is there to allow your hand to grip it into a sort of a spear-like grip, the secondary crossguard is there for two reasons: it protects your hands in the spear grip, and it also protects your hands in standard grip by altering possible angles during a bind with another sword.

Wavy blades were rare no matter the weapon type, most greatswords didn't have them. Modern tests suggest they give you some advantage in certain types of bind, but the added hassle during sharpening apparently wasn't worth it to most fighters.


However, I once heard of a sword like this that had a significantly longer dull portion and thinner blade referred to as a "saddle-sword." Google seems to think a saddle sword is any small sword kept on the saddle.

I think Google is right on this one. That is not to say the sword you saw wasn't a saddle sword, it just wasn't the only possible type of saddle sword. If you show us pictures of the sword in question, we'll be able to tell you more. Also, there's a difference between a small sword (probably any one handed sword) and a smallsword (specific, mostly civilian, thrust-only sword meant for fighting on foot only).


The stated purpose of this one I'm trying to find out about was to function as a lance on the initial charge and then allow slashing attacks without changing weapons. Essentially it was such a light and thin but long sword that you could one-hand it if all you meant to do was stab. Has anyone ever heard of this? Is it historical? And is there a more common name for it?

Yes, this is called a sword. Observe:

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/66-30_large.jpg

The leftmost guy uses the bastard sword in a very "British colonial sabre" way to thrust, the guy next to him is preparing to cut. The exact same swords are used in two hands when on foot and without shield, and sometimes even on horseback without a shield.

That said, there were swords that were essentially small lances meant for charges, and swords meant specifically for cavalry (e.g. British regulation heavy cav sabers) were usually more top-heavy and more heavy in general than infantry versions. There were many variations among them, and the blade shape you mentioned is not necessary feature for that - not that it couldn't be used like that. As I said, we need to see the sword in question to really tell you.

As a last note, there are cases of some cavalrymen having several swords strapped to the saddle, probably meant for different things rather than just backups, the problem is finding details on what was used how. One famous group that did this were the Polish hussars.

[Kiero]

So it was common to selectively target officers? What was the rate of attrition on those guys? I was under the impression that they tended to dress impressively and stand where people could see them, which doesn't sound healthy in an environment where snipers are after you.

In the Napoleonic era, it wasn't common to target officers. They still held to certain notions of honour in warfare, and while killing plebs was one thing, men of "quality" were distinct. There are anecdotes of the battle of Waterloo, for example, where Wellington chastised his artillery for firing on the area where Napoleon was thought to be.

Furthermore, officers made good prisoners, to be swapped later for your own men of similar rank. They could be paroled when captured, instead of being locked up, if they gave their word they wouldn't try to escape. If they agreed, they'd be better treated and allowed a lot of autonomy, until such time as they could be exchanged.

[snowblizz]

This is unrelated to any game, but it's something I've been wondering about. In a fair amount of fantasy art (especially anime art for some reason) there's a woman in a dress with a skirt of armour plates. Is this a reasonably useable design?

As far as I can think, the main downside would be the extra weight caused by the large metal plates. If the hem was high enough to avoid getting trodden on, it might even be better at guarding than the usual greaves, as it's harder to see where the wearer's legs are?


There's been a lot of real world examples posted so I won't do that.

I will mention something I don't saw brought up yet. The vast majority of cases of armoured skirts exist either because it was the only way you could reasonably armour yourself within the technological, material and practical limitations (e.g. samurai armour and the Dendra panoply) or you were going for stylistic aspects, the Henry 8 skirt thing is part of fashion fad really.

Consequently, no it's a not really a reasonable design if you have other options. An armour dress is stupid if you could as easily make a more formfitting plate armour.

[eru001]

So it was common to selectively target officers? What was the rate of attrition on those guys? I was under the impression that they tended to dress impressively and stand where people could see them, which doesn't sound healthy in an environment where snipers are after you.

It was uncommon up until about the second half of the 18th century. It became very popular right around the 1770's and it's effectiveness was demonstrated thoroughly to the British at Saratoga. The british had already been developing their own marksman units, such as Ferguson's Rifles, which were somewhat short lived as a unit, and several others, of which the 95th rifles, which fought in the Napoleonic Wars would become the most famous, but their experiances in the colonies, particularly in the French and Indian war (colonial portion of the seven years war) and the American Revolution, were what convinced them of the value of dedicated light infantry and of targeting officers.

[sengmeng]

Yes, this is called a sword. Observe:

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/66-30_large.jpg

The leftmost guy uses the bastard sword in a very "British colonial sabre" way to thrust, the guy next to him is preparing to cut. The exact same swords are used in two hands when on foot and without shield, and sometimes even on horseback without a shield.

That said, there were swords that were essentially small lances meant for charges, and swords meant specifically for cavalry (e.g. British regulation heavy cav sabers) were usually more top-heavy and more heavy in general than infantry versions. There were many variations among them, and the blade shape you mentioned is not necessary feature for that - not that it couldn't be used like that. As I said, we need to see the sword in question to really tell you.

As a last note, there are cases of some cavalrymen having several swords strapped to the saddle, probably meant for different things rather than just backups, the problem is finding details on what was used how. One famous group that did this were the Polish hussars.

This is the portions that actually addresses the question I had, and your first sentence is kind of unhelpful, innacurate, and sarcastic. No, not every sword can thrust at all, nor are all of them that can long enough to extend past a horse's head to function as a lance, but I guess you did confirm later that there were swords designed to intentionally function as a light lance, so thanks. I suspect that the single source I found this in was not very credible, but I don't have access to it any more. I could try to draw it from memory I suppose.

[Roxxy]

I've seen a reasonable number of depictions of French cavalry from roughly the Napoleonic Era to World War 1 wearing cuirasses. Just how widespread was this, and how much protective value did the cuirass actually provide? Was this chiefly a French thing, or did others do it, too?

[Kiero]

I've seen a reasonable number of depictions of French cavalry from roughly the Napoleonic Era to World War 1 wearing cuirasses. Just how widespread was this, and how much protective value did the cuirass actually provide? Was this chiefly a French thing, or did others do it, too?

They were a specific class of the heaviest cavalry (cuirassiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirassier)), and seem to have been in used by the Russians and Germanic kingdoms/duchies/principalities as well.


Though the armour could not protect against contemporary flintlock musket fire, it could deflect shots fired from long-range, stop ricochets and offer protection from all but very close range pistol fire. More importantly, in an age which saw cavalry used in large numbers, the breastplates (along with the helmets) provided excellent protection against the swords and lances of opposing cavalry and against infantry bayonets. It also had some psychological effect for the wearer (effectively making the cuirassier more willing to plunge into the thick of fighting) and the enemy (adding intimidation), while it also added weight to a charge, especially in cavalry versus cavalry actions.

Napoleonic French cuirasses were originally intended to be proof against three musket shots at close range; however, this was never achieved in practice. The regulations eventually recognised this, and cuirasses were subsequently only expected to be proof against one shot at long range.[11]

The utility of this armour was sometimes disputed. Prussian cuirassiers had abandoned the armoured cuirass before the Napoleonic Wars, but were reissued with it in 1814. During this period, a single British cavalry regiment (Royal Horse Guards) wore cuirasses during the Netherlands campaign of 1794, using breastplates taken from store.[12] The Austrian cuirassiers traded protection for mobility by wearing only the half-cuirass (without back plate) and helmet.[13] Napoleon believed it sufficiently useful that he had cuirassier-style armour issued to his two carabinier regiments after the Battle of Wagram. Despite being highly advanced from the plate armour of old, the Napoleonic era cuirass was still quite cumbersome and hot to wear in warm weather; however, the added protection that it gave to the wearer and the imposing appearance of an armoured cavalryman were factors favouring retention.

[Gnoman]

The cuirass was fairly effective in that time period. It could deflect a musket ball if the range was long enough, and pistol balls had trouble penetrating even at close range. This made it harder to disperse heavy cavalry at long range, and gave a significant edge against pistol-wielding light cavalry in close encounters.

[rrgg]

I've seen a reasonable number of depictions of French cavalry from roughly the Napoleonic Era to World War 1 wearing cuirasses. Just how widespread was this, and how much protective value did the cuirass actually provide? Was this chiefly a French thing, or did others do it, too?

At the time of the Napoleonic wars it was primarily a french thing. Although the popularity of cuirasses tended to fluctuate up and down during the 17th through 19th centuries.

As for why they weren't used more often, here's William Muller's opinion on heavy cavalry from 1811:


On Cuirassiers

1. The heaviest description of cavalry are stiled cuirassiers, more particularly in reference to their cuirasses, and never act on foot, being indeed so loaded with weight that they can scarcely move.

2. Iron cuirasses are only retained in use among the French, and serve almost no other purpose, than to fatigue both the men and the horses. They merely preserve the breast and the belly, from the bullets of small arms, but this the horses neck does also.

3 Cuirassiers are armed with two pistols and a sword, and if they have no cuirasse, they carry carabines and bayonets.

[Galloglaich]

Despite being highly advanced from the plate armour of old, the Napoleonic era cuirass was still quite cumbersome and hot to wear in warm weather; however, the added protection that it gave to the wearer and the imposing appearance of an armoured cavalryman were factors favouring retention. .

That part is highly dubious.

[Mr Beer]

That part is highly dubious.

Everyone knows that Napoleonic metallurgy was far more advanced than the primitive efforts of mediaeval armourers. :p

:retreats to a safe distance:

[Kiero]

That part is highly dubious.

Not my words; straight off Wikipedia without amendment.

[Carl]

Yeah but haven;t we had multiple pieces of evidence in this thread before showing that the reverse was actually true...

[Galloglaich]

Yeah but haven;t we had multiple pieces of evidence in this thread before showing that the reverse was actually true...

Of course.

It's just hard to understand because in the Anglophone world we like to think of history as The Steady March of Progress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_progress#Myth_of_progress

And then we think it ended, because thanks to that process, we became so perfect.

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



And, even though I use it a lot, Wikipedia is a limited source with a lot of flaws. Not even admissible in Academia. It's weird how on the web, gradually, so many of the other sources of general historical or scientific information have disappeared and the 'pretty good' source of Wikipedia (which can certainly be very useful) is basically all that is left (at least in English) for a lot of subjects. Wikipedia is now the main source for almost every kind of information - unless you have either

1) very good / exceptional google fu skillz
2) LexisNexis access as an attorney or a journalist working for some big institution with deep pockets, or
3) (real, as opposed to the fake / limited) JSTOR et al access as a professor or student associated with an accredited University, which these days also means big bucks.


As a researcher, I've noticed that freely accessible historical data available to the general public is usually very limited and more and more misleading (think "Fake News"), while data of any use is going behind very high pay-walls. There is an illusion that everything is available online - and technically it is, but for the typical user it's hard to access anything real. By which essentially I mean anything that isn't already in the public domain and therefore very dated. There are counter-currents to this trend, many European and some American Universities have made raw data like scans of ancient books and records available online for free as scans, but most real technical information, such as academic articles, are treated as property, IP, and not easy to access. And scans of 500 year old books require a lot of skill to be useful.

Of course how-too's are available for current things within the public knowledge on sites like youtube (like how to fix your car and so on), but this doesn't extend backward very well to history in spite of the efforts of some people to fight the disnformation (which is part of what we do in this thread as well)


Most of what gets passed around on Social Media and so forth is just marketing sound-bytes with very little behind it and often sourced 80-100 years old (whatever the limits of public domain are for a given legal system - to the extent that it remains)


G

[Max_Killjoy]

Of course.

It's just hard to understand because in the Anglophone world we like to think of history as The Steady March of Progress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_progress#Myth_of_progress

And then we think it ended, because thanks to that process, we became so perfect.

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



And, even though I use it a lot, Wikipedia is a limited source with a lot of flaws. Not even admissible in Academia. It's weird how on the web, gradually, so many of the other source of general information on the web have disappeared and the 'pretty good' source of Wikipedia (which can certainly be very useful) is basically all that is left. Wikipedia has value but it also major limitations but it's now the main source for almost every kind of information - unless you have LexisNexis access as an attorney or a journalist working for some big institution with deep pockets, or (real, as opposed to the fake / limited) JSTOR et al access as a professor or student associated with an accredited University, which these days also means big bucks.


As a researcher, I've noticed that freely accessible historical data available to the general public is usually very limited and more misleading (think "Fake News"), while data of any use is becoming more and more behind very high pay-walls, there is an illusion that everything is available online - and technically it is, but for the typical user it's hard to access anything real. There are counter-currents to this trend, many European and some American Universities have made raw data like scans of ancient books available online for free, but most real technical information, such as academic articles, are treated as property, IP, and not easy to access.

Of course how-too's are available for current things within the public knowledge on sites like youtube, but this doesn't extend backward very well to history in spite of the efforts of some people to fight the disnformation (which is part of what we do in this thread as well)


Most of what gets passed around on Social Media and so forth is just marketing sound-bytes with very little behind it and often sourced 80-100 years old (whatever the limits of public domain are for a given legal system - to the extent that it remains)


G


And if you try to correct a Wikipedia article that's full of "everyone knows" falsehoods, it will immediately get bombed with reversals from people who insist that the "everyone knows" is factual and that you're a nut.

See for example, trying to correct all the bullcrap that's "common knowledge" about WW2 tanks, such as the nonsense about the Sherman being a deathtrap and a terrible tank with no armor.

[Galloglaich]

And if you try to correct a Wikipedia article that's full of "everyone knows" falsehoods, it will immediately get bombed with reversals from people who insist that the "everyone knows" is factual and that you're a nut.

See for example, trying to correct all the bullcrap that's "common knowledge" about WW2 tanks, such as the nonsense about the Sherman being a deathtrap and a terrible tank with no armor.

Yes that's why there is some kind of rule where the more obscure or technical the article (and the search term which finds it) often the better it is.

[Incanur]

Have there been any metallurgical tests of Napoleonic cuirasses? I'm skeptical they were better than the best 15th/16th-century plate armor in terms of hardness, etc.

[Galloglaich]

Have there been any metallurgical tests of Napoleonic cuirasses? I'm skeptical they were better than the best 15th/16th-century plate armor in terms of hardness, etc.

I think they are basically just iron. Not even steel let alone heat treated. Even a lot of the swords they were making at that point were terrible.

[Galloglaich]

I knew they used whistling arrows and crossbow bolts in the middle ages but I had no idea how far back that went!

Apparently the Romans also used noisemaking "missiles that whistle", in this case lead sling stones which some archeologists are claiming had the equivalent energy of a 44 magnum, and a range of about 180 meters. This latter apparently determined through modern testing.

http://www.livescience.com/55050-whistling-sling-bullets-from-roman-battle-found.html

http://boredomfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/whistling-bullets6.jpg

http://www.realmofhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/burnswark-major-roman-invasion-scotland_1.jpg


Some 1,800 years ago, Roman troops used "whistling" sling bullets as a "terror weapon" against their barbarian foes, according to archaeologists who found the cast lead bullets at a site in Scotland.

Weighing about 1 ounce (30 grams), each of the bullets had been drilled with a 0.2-inch (5 millimeters) hole that the researchers think was designed to give the soaring bullets a sharp buzzing or whistling noise in flight.

The bullets were found recently at Burnswark Hill in southwestern Scotland, where a massive Roman attack against native defenders in a hilltop fort took place in the second century A.D. [See Photos of Roman Battle Site and Sling Bullets]

These holes converted the bullets into a "terror weapon," said archaeologist John Reid of the Trimontium Trust, a Scottish historical society directing the first major archaeological investigation in 50 years of the Burnswark Hill site.

"You don't just have these silent but deadly bullets flying over; you've got a sound effect coming off them that would keep the defenders' heads down," Reid told Live Science. "Every army likes an edge over its opponents, so this was an ingenious edge on the permutation of sling bullets."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wpy_mnTY8fA/TfoLJeJc2MI/AAAAAAAAAiE/rlAAouFU5Po/s1600/r%25C3%25ADmsky+%25C3%25BAtok+na+Burnswark.jpg


The whistling bullets were also smaller than typical sling bullets, and the researchers think the soldiers may have used several of them in their slings — made from two long cords held in the throwing hand, attached to a pouch that holds the ammunition — so they could hurl multiple bullets at a target with one throw.

"You can easily shoot them in groups of three of four, so you get a scattergun effect," Reid said. "We think they're for close-quarter skirmishing, for getting quite close to the enemy."

Sling bullets and stones are a common find at Roman army battle sites in Europe. The largest are typically shaped like lemons and weigh up to 2 ounces (60 grams), Reid said.

Smaller bullets shaped like acorns — a symbol the Romans considered lucky — have also been found at Burnswark Hill and other sites in Scotland.

About 20 percent of the lead sling bullets found at Burnswark Hill had been drilled with holes, which represented a significant amount of effort to prepare enough ammunition for an assault, Reid said.

"It's a tremendous amount of work to do, to just chuck them away," he said.
Sling weapon secrets

Whistling sling bullets haven't been found at any other Roman sites, but ceramic sling bullets with holes punched out have been discovered at battle sites in Greece from the second and third centuries B.C, Reid said. [Photos: Ancient Roman Fort Discovered]

Many archaeologists had assumed that the holes in the Greek bullets were reservoirs for poison, he said.

But in slinging experiments using about 100 replicas of the whistling bullets, Reid found that they would have been little use as poisoned weapons.

"The holes are too small, and there's no guarantee that these are going to penetrate skin," Reid said. "And they are ballistically inferior: They don't fly as far, don't fly as fast and don't have the same momentum [as larger sling bullets] — so why put poison holes in only the little ones?"

Reid's brother, a keen fisherman, offered some insight into their possible purpose when he suggested the bullets were designed to make noise in flight.

"I said, 'Don't be stupid; you've no idea what you're talking about. You're not an archaeologist,'" Reid joked. "And he said, 'No, but I'm a fisherman, and when I cast my line with lead weights that have got holes in them like that, they whistle.'"

"Suddenly, a light bulb came on in my head — that's what they're about. They're for making a noise," Reid said.
Deadly in expert hands

At the time of the Roman attack on Burnswark Hill, slings were used mainly by specialized units of auxiliary troops ("auxilia") recruited to fight alongside the Roman legions.

Among the most feared were slingers from the Balearic Islands, an archipelago near Spain in the western Mediterranean, who fought for the Roman general Julius Caesar in his unsuccessful invasions of Britain in 55 B.C. and 54 B.C.

"These guys were expert slingers; they'd been doing this the whole of their lives," Reid said.

In the hands of an expert, a heavy sling bullet or stone could reach speeds of up to 100 mph (160 km/h): "The biggest sling stones are very powerful — they could literally take off the top of your head," Reid said.

Burnswark Hill lies a few miles north of the line of Roman forts and ramparts known as Hadrian's Wall, built during the reign of the emperor Hadrian between A.D. 117 and 138.

Reid said the Roman attack on the Burnswark Hill fort was probably part of the military campaign ordered by Hadrian's successor, the emperor Antoninus Pius, to conquer Scotland north of the wall.

"We think it was an all-out assault on the hilltop, to demonstrate to the natives what would happen to them if they resisted," Reid said.

But the Scottish tribes fought back hard for more than 20 years, and in A.D. 158, the Romans gave up their plans to conquer the north and pulled their legions back to Hadrian's Wall.

"Scotland is rather like Afghanistan in many respects," Reid said. "The terrain is pretty inhospitable, certainly the farther north you go, and the isolation and long supply lines would make it difficult for servicing an army that far north."

[Storm Bringer]

Of course.

It's just hard to understand because in the Anglophone world we like to think of history as The Steady March of Progress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_progress#Myth_of_progress

And then we think it ended, because thanks to that process, we became so perfect.

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



And, even though I use it a lot, Wikipedia is a limited source with a lot of flaws. Not even admissible in Academia. It's weird how on the web, gradually, so many of the other sources of general historical or scientific information have disappeared and the 'pretty good' source of Wikipedia (which can certainly be very useful) is basically all that is left (at least in English) for a lot of subjects. Wikipedia is now the main source for almost every kind of information - unless you have either

1) very good / exceptional google fu skillz
2) LexisNexis access as an attorney or a journalist working for some big institution with deep pockets, or
3) (real, as opposed to the fake / limited) JSTOR et al access as a professor or student associated with an accredited University, which these days also means big bucks.


As a researcher, I've noticed that freely accessible historical data available to the general public is usually very limited and more and more misleading (think "Fake News"), while data of any use is going behind very high pay-walls. There is an illusion that everything is available online - and technically it is, but for the typical user it's hard to access anything real. By which essentially I mean anything that isn't already in the public domain and therefore very dated. There are counter-currents to this trend, many European and some American Universities have made raw data like scans of ancient books and records available online for free as scans, but most real technical information, such as academic articles, are treated as property, IP, and not easy to access. And scans of 500 year old books require a lot of skill to be useful.

Of course how-too's are available for current things within the public knowledge on sites like youtube (like how to fix your car and so on), but this doesn't extend backward very well to history in spite of the efforts of some people to fight the disnformation (which is part of what we do in this thread as well)


Most of what gets passed around on Social Media and so forth is just marketing sound-bytes with very little behind it and often sourced 80-100 years old (whatever the limits of public domain are for a given legal system - to the extent that it remains)


G


another factor is something I refer to as the "Half Hour History" syndrome.

for the majority of people, formal education in history ends once they leave high school, and after that, the only other real exposure to history will be TV shows and such.

Thus, the people writing these history programs/lessons are faced with trying to condense the thousand year sweep of history into a set of discrete, 30 minute chunks that you can get a kid to parrot back to you at the exam, or hold a viewers interest while hes waiting for Game of Thrones to download.

in short, they haven't got time to be subtle or to show the full nuances of their subjects. So, they go down the "lies to children" route and teach something they know to be false, but is easier to understand. thus, the focus on clear, easy to remember "facts" like "the germans had better tanks".

[Brother Oni]

"Scotland is rather like Afghanistan in many respects," Reid said. "The terrain is pretty inhospitable, certainly the farther north you go, and the isolation and long supply lines would make it difficult for servicing an army that far north."

And if you've ever been to a dodgy part of Glasgow, with the unfriendly hostile natives who don't speak much English, decrepit buildings and crushing poverty, there's a lot more similarities.

Hell, on a Friday night after happy hour, Afghanistan is probably safer than Glasgow.

[Vinyadan]

If you take a look at those singing sling bullets, you'll notice that they are also decorated with little drawings of pointy blades and text. So they actually were multimedia bullets!

I find it very impressive. I knew that blades occasionally have writings (mostly because many fragments in Germanic languages before the Middle Ages are attested because of such weapons and I think some helms), but it tended to be items of some worth. Shields also were well decorated, but they are very visible. But decorated bullet slings? That's something for insider jokes among the soldier, morale and all, and the feeling of having stuff custom made and that even your ammo looks interesting. It also reminds us that, while the Romans were a civilization that put a lot of weight on know-how and practical applications, they still loved figurative arts. For example, their taverns had mosaics with very naturalistic fish, representing what was on the menu.

[Martin Greywolf]

I wouldn't necessarily elevate decorated bullets all that high. In my opinion, they are one of the many moments in historical research where you can see that people don't change. It was simply a way for the soldiers to pass time while in the field and not training, fighting or marching. Sitting down to carve a few (hopefully) witty one liners was just a means of passing time. Cases like this are pretty common everywhere - I recall seeing a standard-issue WW2 rifle (probably, it is almost a decade and I was never great at telling firearms apart) in a museum that had a really nice engraving on its wooden furniture - apparently, someone was bored and decided to decorate.

Another indication of this being done is a reference in Rule of Teutonic knights, where the Brothers are specifically told that a proper way to pass the time when on campaign is to carve tent pegs out of wood. This is not only a documented evidence of soldiers just passing time (these are full-fledged Ritterbruder, they have enough people to carve stuff for them if they need stuff carved), we also have a hint that carving pretty things was something the knights did, and perhaps used to loophole around the whole "no personal(-ized) possessions" rule.

And sometimes, these gestures were weaponized for propaganda uses. Bombs are popular canvas for the creativity of ground crews, and there was that one occasion where it was made into a political gesture, by returning some Japanese medals (and a whole lot of napalm) back to Tokyo.

[Vinyadan]

I personally have some doubts that carving tent pegs was meant as a way to carve pretty things: making a stick pointy is a pretty instinctive thing to do, sort of like playing solitaire. It sure was a good way to spend time without gambling, drinking, quarrelling, and other things unoccupied soldiers (and other people) do.
Anyway, the bullets aren't carved: the words and figures are high relief. That isn't something a soldier can do himself during his spare time.
I searched a bit, and it turns out that during the Perusine War there were a lot of word-bearing bullets thrown around, with messages like "Lucius Antonius the Bald and Fulvia, show us your butt!" (LACALVEFULVIACULUMPAN) ("I've got a bullet with your name on it", literally). The carving was made on the moulds used for the bullets. Concerning figures, the British Museum has one bullet with a "dexai" (catch!) written on it, and a thunderbolt on the other side ( http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectid=399876&partid=1 ), which it catalogues as 4th century BC (but also puts in relation to a siege that happened in the I century BC, so I am not so sure as to what is meant). Anyway, apparently, this was a diffuse habit, and there is some literature about it (e.g. http://be-ja.org/?articles=a-lead-sling-bullet-of-the-macedonian-king-philip-v-221-179-bc ), the most important being a book published in 1864 (!): https://books.google.de/books/about/On_Inscribed_Sling_bullets.html?id=R6gTAAAAQAAJ&redir_esc=y .
Greeks and Romans had something of a habit of putting little symbols everywhere. They for example often used letters as decorative amulets, with meanings that we don't know anymore (one example: the H on these clothes in a hellenized synagogue: http://cdn.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/nat-geo-huqoq.jpg?x10423 ). So the depictions and words on bullets may belong to this category. I still find it impressive that they took the time to embellish the moulds of throw-and-forget bullets that would have worked exactly the same, but I guess they found that they stung more this way.

Also, is that a two-bladed axe in the image? That's interesting to see in a military context.

[Storm Bringer]

And sometimes, these gestures were weaponized for propaganda uses. Bombs are popular canvas for the creativity of ground crews, and there was that one occasion where it was made into a political gesture, by returning some Japanese medals (and a whole lot of napalm) back to Tokyo.


at the risk of censure for being Too Soon, a case in point (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/raf-gunners-scrawl-love-from-manchester-on-side-of-syria-bound-hellfire-missile-heading-for-isis/ar-BBBwL9H?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp)

[Vinyadan]

Looking for info about sling bullets, I found that various ancient authors said that the bullet melted while flying. Does anyone know if this can help determine the speed of the bullet?

[Gnoman]

Looking for info about sling bullets, I found that various ancient authors said that the bullet melted while flying. Does anyone know if this can help determine the speed of the bullet?

This is extensively debunked. It is entirely possible that at least some ancient authorities believed this to be true, but it is essentially impossible. Most firearms (there's some possible cases with extremely high velocity low caliber rounds) can't achieve this, and those bullets go far, far faster than any sling bullet could, and are smaller (and thus easier to melt) to boot.

[Kiero]

That wasn't Livy making crap up again, was it?

[Lemmy]

So... My friend wants to create a Barbarian and decided to go with a "Bikini Chainmail" look... But also wants the character to be "believable, although not realistic" (her words). I suggest shields, but she really wants to use a two-handed ax. It wouldn't matter much, but she asked me to draw the picture. So... What do you guys suggest? I was thinking about simply giving the character metal armor for her limbs, as if someone had looted just the arms and legs of a full plate armor... Plus a spartan-style helmet. Could that possibly work in a "believable, although not realistic" kind of way?

[Vitruviansquid]

There's a lot of "realistic armor" stuff or "practical armor" stuff online that is reacting against chainmail bikini female armor that I think goes way too far in the other direction. They make it seem like armor is absolutely worthless unless every part of your body is covered by it always.

And that's not actually true. There have been lots of people who fought without being fully super heavily armored.

You'd have to concede that the chainmail bikini is really more for decoration than protection, but there have been warriors who fought with uncovered thighs, uncovered shins, with uncovered arms, with uncovered hands, with uncovered faces, with uncovered torsos, etc. Look up a picture of a Roman Republican-era Hastatus and you will find some wearing a bronze square on their chest rather than a fully armored shirt.

I don't know that it's super realistic to have fully armored arms and legs with a chainmail bikini - it seems that when warriors went less than fully armored, they tended to lose the armor on their legs and arms BEFORE losing the armor on their torsos and heads. As for the reason, I think that armor on legs and arms becomes more difficult to wear, because leg armor will tire you much faster when you are running and arm armor will tire you much faster when you are swinging your weapon and doing other hand-stuff. But then again, if your barbarian is not from a culture where they make good armor, you might say she only wears what she got her hands on through looting and pillaging, which just happened somehow to not include the cuirass.

As for the axe, it should be long with a small head, reminiscent of the Dane axe.

[warty goblin]

Pectoral-only armor metallic armor was certainly a thing in the Mediterranean in antiquity. Not exactly a literal chainmail bikini, but the female version would essentially be a very high cut plate belly shirt. Though I doubt very much that ancient Italian warriors wore only pectorals and loincloths...

If you wanted to play up the antiquity angle, and didn't mind throwing stuff together that totally didn't belong there, a falx would be a rather cool weapon for a barbarian.

[rrgg]

So... My friend wants to create a Barbarian and decided to go with a "Bikini Chainmail" look... But also wants the character to be "believable, although not realistic" (her words). I suggest shields, but she really wants to use a two-handed ax. It wouldn't matter much, but she asked me to draw the picture. So... What do you guys suggest? I was thinking about simply giving the character metal armor for her limbs, as if someone had looted just the arms and legs of a full plate armor... Plus a spartan-style helmet. Could that possibly work in a "believable, although not realistic" kind of way?

George silver thought that the 5-6 foot "weapon of weight" (halberds, bills, battle axes, and such like weapons) was a pretty effective. He thought it had the advantage over the sword and shield or two-handed sword in single combat, and unlike a two handed spear it's shortness and weight made it very effective at giving strong blows in massed combat between armored men. So it should be a feasible weapon if the character is skilled at attacking and defending with it. Something like a daneaxe would be classic for the early middle ages, or you could go for some sort of bardiche, sparth axe, or even just a knightly poleaxe.

Heavy armor on the limbs along with a helmet that heavily obscures vision but no torso armor would be extremely unusual. Ankle weights and wrist weights tend to tire a person more than weight worn on the head or torso. And even with medieval medicine, cuts or wounds to the extremities tended to be rarely fatal compared to say, an arrow to the stomach. I suppose it might be practical in the case of an adventurer if you don't want the party to have to suddenly take a break for a couple months because someone got a nicked tendon, but historically it wasn't really done.

As for other arms, we do have examples of soldiers carrying two handed axes with shields. The Bayeux tapestry shows a saxon huscarl fighting with a spear and shield while holding his daneaxe in his shield hand. After the initial charge he ditches the spear and shield and fights with the axe alone. Although again that much equipment might be somewhat cumbersome for an adventurer, so it might be better to just cut out the middle man instead of trying to track down where you dropped the shield after each fight. At the very least she should probably carry a sword, dagger, or both as a sidearm, as they are always handy at times. If she wants to just carry the axe alone she would need to be very skilled at cqc with it.

[Lemmy]

My idea was that she would block with her weapon and arms and legs... And then completely avoid thinking about she blocks ranged projectiles. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe not full armor for the limbs... But maybe some stylized metal boots and tight armor and similarly "believable" gauntlets and arm/shoulder armor? Maybe some sort of large egyptian-looking metal necklace that happens to cover part of her torso. It's not supposed to be realistic, of course... It's more... Uh... "True to fantasy tropes, but not completely nonsensical", I guess... :smallsmile:

[Knaight]

If you take a look at those singing sling bullets, you'll notice that they are also decorated with little drawings of pointy blades and text. So they actually were multimedia bullets!

I find it very impressive. I knew that blades occasionally have writings (mostly because many fragments in Germanic languages before the Middle Ages are attested because of such weapons and I think some helms), but it tended to be items of some worth. Shields also were well decorated, but they are very visible. But decorated bullet slings? That's something for insider jokes among the soldier, morale and all, and the feeling of having stuff custom made and that even your ammo looks interesting. It also reminds us that, while the Romans were a civilization that put a lot of weight on know-how and practical applications, they still loved figurative arts. For example, their taverns had mosaics with very naturalistic fish, representing what was on the menu.
It's pretty standard in a lot of cases. Depending on how glande manufacturing was handled by a civilization you might just get the slingers molding clay and putting some writing on it, or you'd get lead modified after the fact, or you'd get lead where something went into the mold. It's worth remembering that soldiers spend a great deal of time just killing time, and that the description of warfare as long periods of boredom punctuated by brief moments of terror and chaos can extend backwards for a very long time. You might as well modify your ammo at that point, and some of the modifications suggest that people were having fun with it (the infamous glande that somebody wrote "catch"* on being a particularly hilarious example).

*Translated


My idea was that she would block with her weapon and arms and legs... And then completely avoid thinking about she blocks ranged projectiles. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe not full armor for the limbs... But maybe some stylized metal boots and tight armor and similarly "believable" gauntlets and arm/shoulder armor? Maybe some sort of large egyptian-looking metal necklace that happens to cover part of her torso. It's not supposed to be realistic, of course... It's more... Uh... "True to fantasy tropes, but not completely nonsensical", I guess... :smallsmile:

If anything I'd go away from that. Throwing in the boots, gauntlets, and just general limb armor implies that it's prevalent within the setting, the character has enough means to get it, and they still didn't bother covering their torso first. Meanwhile clothing that isn't intended to be armor plus a helmet represents a plausible minimum level of protection (although the absence of a shield is still odd), while retaining at least some of the intended armor. Said non-armor clothing then has a wide range of available aesthetics.

[spineyrequiem]

Wearing just gauntlets and an (open faced) helmet makes a kind of sense, your hands tend to be very vulnerable (especially when using a polearm) and head injuries are Very Bad Things. Wouldn't recommend having greaves as well though, they're not worth the weight if you're not wearing other armour. For the chest, she could just have a plackart (belly plate) with the upper chest uncovered as that leaves her arms unrestricted. It also has the advantage that as long as it's got the right straps you can get away with an ill-fitting one while an even slightly dodgy breastplate hampers your movements noticeably; if you assume she looted most of her kit it'd make sense that the breastplate might have just fit too poorly to be worth bothering with. Other bits probably aren't worth it, maybe a gorget or some forearm guards if she really wants to block with her arms (though most of the time I'd recommend taking it on the weapon, sure it'll get a bit dinged up but that's better than your favourite elbow getting rearranged)

Alternatively, a cheap helmet and basic clothing is what many warriors around the world wore for centuries. Are you absolutely tied to her being armoured?

[Carl]

So was ill most of last week. As i'm wont to do when feeling unwell i thought about all kinds of random stuff including some of my settings, figured some more bits out and raised a couple of questions i want to throw at people.

1. In a combat situation how big an issue is having a scope, (particularly a wide FoV, Low Magnification one), on a rifle at shorter or outright CQC ranges, Is it somthing that can be worked with or do you really need good old fashioned iron sights badly?

2. What are the practical limits on an Assault rifle in your opinion in terms of dimensions. Specifically thing like height and width. An to a degree length. Particularly with magazines that significantly increase this like P90 style mag or large drum designs like the Beta C-Mag. It's for use by power armoured troops so the weight isn't a huge issue, the main need is to be able to establish sufficiently secure grip/s on the weapon to minimise frame flex. But i'm not sure what the limits on size are before the weapon starts getting in the way of holding the grips as that'll more or less set the magazine size limits.

3. Assuming the following scenario what would be a reasonable advance rate be for infantry on foot: Your ferried to the outskirts of an urbanised area that has just been torn up by heavy artillery fire and into which you have reason to believe enemy infantry, (also on foot), will be advancing but the enemy for whatever reason is unable to provide further artillery covering fire, (and your unable to bring anything that can't be hoofed in on foot into play yourselves), your goal is to advance as far into the cityscape as possibble before the enemy can likewise advance to that position, and then hold it against their attacks for a period whilst your own mechanised assets catch up a while later, (i'm basically trying to figure the timespan on somthing that i need to set a time value to, figuring out how far the attacker in the scenario could advance give same part of that as thats the distance they could cover before enemy action began to slow them down).

I'd imagine there are two advance rates ofc, the first for when your confident the enemy couldn't have beaten you to a location, and the rate when your having to be more cautious because the enemy might allready be there.

4. Does any of the more medically inclined here have any info on how higher partial oxygen pressure, (effectively an oxygen rich breathing medium), affects aerobic exercise limits. A cursory google search suggest research has been done on it, but actual details seem to be lacking

Since it seems to have gotten lost in subsequent discussion, just going to repost via quote.

[Incanur]

Unarmored halberdiers and such were a thing historically, so wearing a chainmail bikini and wielding a two-handed axe isn't completely unbelievable. If you want to add armor, in the 16th century it was pretty common to fence with gauntlet(s) or glove(s) of mail. I can't think of any examples with polearms but it seems vaguely reasonable and might look badass. An open helmet likewise has some merit and could fit with the aesthetics.

Lots of limb armor with no torso armor and no shield seems rather weird. Infantry often eschewed leg armor, probably because it adds a significant amount of effort to walking and this adds up when marching around all day.

[rrgg]

I mean, walking around or fighting for a lengthy period with just a gauntlet or vambrace shouldn't be much more cumbersome than with a sturdy target strapped to your arm. Either with or without the arm armor would probably be feasable if you wanted, however without would definitely be the historical option if you have no chest protection either. Perhaps people of the past thought the small bit of extra protection wasn't with it, unlike a whole shield. Or perhaps it just wasn't fashionable to wear only vambraces like that.

[Berenger]

So... My friend wants to create a Barbarian and decided to go with a "Bikini Chainmail" look... But also wants the character to be "believable, although not realistic" (her words). I suggest shields, but she really wants to use a two-handed ax. It wouldn't matter much, but she asked me to draw the picture. So... What do you guys suggest? I was thinking about simply giving the character metal armor for her limbs, as if someone had looted just the arms and legs of a full plate armor... Plus a spartan-style helmet. Could that possibly work in a "believable, although not realistic" kind of way?

If it fits with her backstory, having been a gladiator in The Empire might allow her to get away with "silly" armor. Gladiator armor isn't designed by the same principles as regular armor and tends to cover limbs and the head (to protect against crippling / paralyzing wounds that take the thrill out of the fight [and leave the audience without a kill and the owner with a gladiator unfit for future fights]) but not the torso (to allow for deadly wounds to the internal organs). With gladiators being sex symbols, I can see them wearing exotic and sexy yet suboptimal armor. Why a sensible person should wear it outside of the arena is another question, but perhaps she was popular and proud of her career and wishes to be recognized or thinks the armor to be lucky. Or she is totally okay with death in battle but horryfied by the prospect of becoming a cripple and a burden to her people, which would further tie into common barbarian tropes.

[jayem]

Since it seems to have gotten lost in subsequent discussion, just going to repost via quote.

4)
The British 2012 Olympic athletes slept in a reduced oxygen tent, so they got the boost of sudden oxygen increasing.
The impression given being that acclimatisation would occur.

3)
To give an upper and lower bound
20km/hour would be full on running speed
6km/hour is the burdened combat fitness test
scout hiking is 3km an hour
The allies on D-day were hoping for a front link 16km inland. (They didn't get that, but did get at least 8km). Suggesting that less than 0.5km/hour is pretty poor if no actual opposition.

They also need to set up and things. So plucking some numbers where unopposed.

The back line moving at around 2km an hour, that is hiking carrying the first aid tents and setting them up where needed.
The back of the main advance moving at around 2.5km an hour (hiking, with various light support things, and a bit of caution)
The front of the main advance moving around 3km an hour (alternate sections running and then planning the next run)
Where lucky bold reckless small light groups going up to 10 km/hour

When opposed the main advance dropping to (on average) 1km/hour and the others dropping back.

The liberation of Paris might be a good comparision, if you can find any details. I can see they got to the centre at 2100. But not sure when near.

Regarding the chainmail bikini, you've got the femoral artery close to the groin, with only skin to the front, lower down it's behind some muscle. So you could possibly hype up the protection it gives there. Although [that would then be shorts] have to consider the contact it makes, perhaps a very light chainmail skirt with a solid crotch piece might be more ergonomic. Similarly you've got the stab up the chest, which wouldn't be covered by a actual bikini, but some form of tank top might be enough. I doubt it would be the most protection, but it might handwave enough for those who want to believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_soldier_175_aC_in_northern_province.jpg (providing a bit more coverage, but only about double)

[jok]

So... My friend wants to create a Barbarian and decided to go with a "Bikini Chainmail" look... But also wants the character to be "believable, although not realistic" (her words). I suggest shields, but she really wants to use a two-handed ax. It wouldn't matter much, but she asked me to draw the picture. So... What do you guys suggest? I was thinking about simply giving the character metal armor for her limbs, as if someone had looted just the arms and legs of a full plate armor... Plus a spartan-style helmet. Could that possibly work in a "believable, although not realistic" kind of way?

Why not go with a breastplate modelled like breast armor for some Roman officers. But female. Maybe even in a corset kind of way. The roman breastplates were sometimes decorated like a classical torso. Sixpack and all that.
So my proposition would be a "roman style" but female breast part with chainmail corset abdomen. Its not really bikini but close enough and somewhat plausible.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why not go with a breastplate modelled like breast armor for some Roman officers. But female. Maybe even in a corset kind of way. The roman breastplates were sometimes decorated like a classical torso. Sixpack and all that.
So my proposition would be a "roman style" but female breast part with chainmail corset abdomen. Its not really bikini but close enough and somewhat plausible.

"Muscle cuirass", and it predates the Romans by quite a bit.

[Lemmy]

Hello, everyone. Thank you all for your suggestions and input. I really appreciate it. :smallsmile:

The reason I want her to have gauntlets/boots and some armor to her thighs and arms is because I figured that while she could protect her torso pretty well (by using her axe to parry/block incoming attacks), I just couldn't get over the fact that her hands would be very exposed (I don't know how common or practical handguards are in two-handed axes, if existent at all, but the axe she asked me to draw has none) so I wanted to give her gauntlets (even if somewhat stylized to look more cool than realistic) to keep her fingers safe. Arms, legs and thighs also seem more difficult to protect (in my mind, anyway), even if injury to them is less deadly. The helmet is not only obviously useful in combat, but can be an important protection in all kinds of situations (it's no coincidence that it remains the most commonly used piece of armor in all sorts of professions and sports), besides, it can be justified by saying it gives the character less need to protect her head from every little bump, thus allowing her to better protect her exposed torso (also, it looks really freaking cool, IMHO :smallbiggrin:).


(...) Or she is totally okay with death in battle but horrified by the prospect of becoming a cripple and a burden to her people, which would further tie into common barbarian tropes.I really like this idea! I'll pass it to the player (and pretend it was mine! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Nah... Just kidding. I'll give you due credit. :smalltongue:)!


Why not go with a breastplate modelled like breast armor for some Roman officers. But female. Maybe even in a corset kind of way. The roman breastplates were sometimes decorated like a classical torso. Sixpack and all that.
So my proposition would be a "roman style" but female breast part with chainmail corset abdomen. Its not really bikini but close enough and somewhat plausible.
I thougth about that... Apparently "boob plate is dumb and ridiculous", but fighting with no torso protection (even though you have access to it) isn't... Well. I can't say much. I had my share of shirtless bad-ass characters in the past (and still create some on occasion :smallbiggrin:).

[Carl]

4)
The British 2012 Olympic athletes slept in a reduced oxygen tent, so they got the boost of sudden oxygen increasing.
The impression given being that acclimatisation would occur.

3)
To give an upper and lower bound
20km/hour would be full on running speed
6km/hour is the burdened combat fitness test
scout hiking is 3km an hour
The allies on D-day were hoping for a front link 16km inland. (They didn't get that, but did get at least 8km). Suggesting that less than 0.5km/hour is pretty poor if no actual opposition.

They also need to set up and things. So plucking some numbers where unopposed.

The back line moving at around 2km an hour, that is hiking carrying the first aid tents and setting them up where needed.
The back of the main advance moving at around 2.5km an hour (hiking, with various light support things, and a bit of caution)
The front of the main advance moving around 3km an hour (alternate sections running and then planning the next run)
Where lucky bold reckless small light groups going up to 10 km/hour

When opposed the main advance dropping to (on average) 1km/hour and the others dropping back.

The liberation of Paris might be a good comparision, if you can find any details. I can see they got to the centre at 2100. But not sure when near.

Regarding the chainmail bikini, you've got the femoral artery close to the groin, with only skin to the front, lower down it's behind some muscle. So you could possibly hype up the protection it gives there. Although [that would then be shorts] have to consider the contact it makes, perhaps a very light chainmail skirt with a solid crotch piece might be more ergonomic. Similarly you've got the stab up the chest, which wouldn't be covered by a actual bikini, but some form of tank top might be enough. I doubt it would be the most protection, but it might handwave enough for those who want to believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_soldier_175_aC_in_northern_province.jpg (providing a bit more coverage, but only about double)

Cheers for that, to clarify a couple of points that i guess i didn't think to clarify the first time.

3. Well it's about going from a normal/ish oxygen environment to an enriched one, (power armoured troops going from out of armour to in armour), so acclimatisation isn't a concern. But i can't seem to get a clear idea of just how much it adds in terms of endurance performance.

4. Things like followup units bringing stuff up is a total non-issue. It pure combat infantry rushing into position to hold up the advance over and for a relatively short period of time.

I avoided outlining the scenario too heavily before to try an avoid too many tangents but i guess from your reply i need to do so, (also bloody stupid internet just lost this once grrr):

That said your replies allready are super useful.

Basic scenario is an orbital landing. Various factors mean the defenders can get foot troops in much faster than vehicles, but where still talking both within a few hours so things like support structure coming up behind totally isn't an issue, they need to cart short term combat stuff only.

The attacker's job is to clear a radiu around the landing point so the delicate machinery, (before it's setup it's delicate anyway), needed to establish an initial fortified FOB can be brought in without being subject to light artillery/missile or heavier attack, that means pushing the enemy infantry back somewhat, to allow the setup to occur. Conversely the defenders want to prevent that setup by keeping enough massed infantry with the appropriate types of weapons to overcome the active and passive defences such things do still possess within the appropriate radius until the AFV's can show up and finish the job.

The attackers are using power armour. Whilst this doesn't totally un-encumber the wearer, (it uses reading of muscle contractions and skin pressure on the interiour of the suit frame to determine what the wearer wants the suit to do), it's very close to it meaning the wearer can move very nearly as fast as they would unencumbered. Given probable rubble strewn terrain, military instead of professional marathon runner, and light encumbrance they're not going to be matching pro-marathon rates, (unless use of oxygen enrichment would pull that much back for them anyway), when unopposed but they're probably not going to be far behind. And the sheer combat power advantage of power armour is totally going to give them a devastating opposed advance rate.

Conversely the defenders have bog standard infantry, though transporting their troops, (and eventually AFV's), to just outside the requisite radius in mass numbers is pretty easy, (they actually use magical portals, but the attackers have jamming stuff to keep them outside the radius and larger portals for AFV's take exponentially longer than small infantry ones), but they can only advance at typical rates.

Thus how long it will take the attackers on average to secure the radius and get the FOB gear setup, (which is slightly better than the average AFV response time), is going to be dependent on how fast the two sides advance when not opposed and how much ground they have to cover whilst opposed, (which is going to be also dependent on how fast both sides advance unopposed, when they switch to cautious advance, and how long the defender takes to get the infantry portals open).

Still like i said some of the figures you gave are still very useful to have.

[Gnoman]

Is the assault rifle you're asking about for power-armored normal humans or for those Fallen things you were talking about before?

Are the optics you're talking about for the same gun, or for pure-normal use?

[Kiero]

Pectoral-only armor metallic armor was certainly a thing in the Mediterranean in antiquity. Not exactly a literal chainmail bikini, but the female version would essentially be a very high cut plate belly shirt. Though I doubt very much that ancient Italian warriors wore only pectorals and loincloths...

If you wanted to play up the antiquity angle, and didn't mind throwing stuff together that totally didn't belong there, a falx would be a rather cool weapon for a barbarian.

Well, most of the images of Samnites and other southern Italic warriors have their genitals exposed, because their tunics are so short.


Alternatively, a cheap helmet and basic clothing is what many warriors around the world wore for centuries. Are you absolutely tied to her being armoured?

Yes, but generally the other essential piece of kit to go alongside the cheap helmet was a decent-sized shield.


I mean, walking around or fighting for a lengthy period with just a gauntlet or vambrace shouldn't be much more cumbersome than with a sturdy target strapped to your arm. Either with or without the arm armor would probably be feasable if you wanted, however without would definitely be the historical option if you have no chest protection either. Perhaps people of the past thought the small bit of extra protection wasn't with it, unlike a whole shield. Or perhaps it just wasn't fashionable to wear only vambraces like that.

The only instance, historically, where that was done was gladiators. Who were a very specific and deliberately-designed sort of loadout to ensure only critical wounds, rather than minor ones that might slow a gladiator down and make the fight less interesting.

[Mike_G]

In general, from pre-history through the present day, the first piece of armor is the helmet, then torso armor, then arms and legs. Probably arms before legs, unless you have a shield on it.

Now, I've done sparring where I've gotten hit in the hand more than the chest, so it's not insane in theory, but I've never seen or heard of historical soldiers who armored the limbs before the vitals.

[Carl]

@Gnoman:

2. is primarily Power armour based, it has a few potential playoffs elsewhere but they're the ones it's likely to be a real limit for, I should note the power armour bulk mostly comes from the armour layers in it, so it's probably not significantly worse than old school plate armour, (unlike most other depictions of power armour, 40k, Fallout, i'm looking at you here). It is a factor in the size of weapon they can handle, but i figure normal human limits on ergonomics would be as big or bigger.

1. Is actually related to the the cultists and one of their weapons, (so completely unrelated to two), i'm starting to lean away from the concept that would make such a scope necessary, (TLDR alternate sight path because of other design aspects making sighting along the top of the weapon fairly impractical, so a low mag wide FoV sight with mirrors redirects around), but still a useful datum to have as theres a point or two where i'd want to consider reuse of the concept if practical.

[Incanur]

I've never seen or heard of historical soldiers who armored the limbs before the vitals.

Cesare d'Evoli wanted only morions and mail sleeves (possibly including gloves) for arquebusiers in his late-16th-century military manual. He wrote that mail sleeves were of great use against sword blows when arquebusiers found themselves into close combat. I don't know that this was actually done, but it follows a certain logic.

[Max_Killjoy]

To be bluntly factual, chainmail bikinis and the "only armor on the arms and legs" look really only belong in spoofs, farces, and a certain sort of DeviantArt posting.

[Mike_G]

Cesare d'Evoli wanted only morions and mail sleeves (possibly including gloves) for arquebusiers in his late-16th-century military manual. He wrote that mail sleeves were of great use against sword blows when arquebusiers found themselves into close combat. I don't know that this was actually done, but it follows a certain logic.

Like I said, in theory, I get the idea. Arms get hit a lot. So I'm not surprised that somebody wrote that in a treatise.

But I don't know anybody who actually went into battle thinking "Screw protecting my heart, lungs and guts. I need me some vambraces."

You see it constantly throughout history. When warriors wear partial armor, it's a helmet first. Then protection for the vitals organs, and last for the limbs.

You see a lot of warriors with short sleeved mail shirts or breastplates and bare arms and legs, even though we see a lot of limb wounds. Getting a cut arm is a bad day, but a thrust in the guts is a much worse one.

After armor more or less disappeared from the battlefield in the 18th Century, the first thing to come back was the helmet, then torso armor. Limb armor still hasn't made a real reappearance, other than knee and elbow pads, and those are for incidental protection when you drop to the ground to take cover, not to stop enemy weapons.

[Galloglaich]

Like I said, in theory, I get the idea. Arms get hit a lot. So I'm not surprised that somebody wrote that in a treatise.

But I don't know anybody who actually went into battle thinking "Screw protecting my heart, lungs and guts. I need me some vambraces."

You see it constantly throughout history. When warriors wear partial armor, it's a helmet first. Then protection for the vitals organs, and last for the limbs.

You see a lot of warriors with short sleeved mail shirts or breastplates and bare arms and legs, even though we see a lot of limb wounds. Getting a cut arm is a bad day, but a thrust in the guts is a much worse one.

After armor more or less disappeared from the battlefield in the 18th Century, the first thing to come back was the helmet, then torso armor. Limb armor still hasn't made a real reappearance, other than knee and elbow pads, and those are for incidental protection when you drop to the ground to take cover, not to stop enemy weapons.


I concur with that 100%. It's pretty much universal in every period and every part of the world I've ever studied. Torso and head are the top places protected.

If you look at that chart I posted upthread tracking the wounds from French letters of remission, it also backs this (admittedly with a small sample). Wounds to head, chest or abdomen are the most likely to be fatal.

G

[rrgg]

http://www.isegoria.net/images/Notes-on-Arrow-Wounds-1-400x189.png

Here's the table from Dr Bill's Notes on Arrow Wounds (https://books.google.com/books?id=eVs9AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA365#v=onepage&q&f=false) involving US Army cases from the late 19th century. By far the most common injuries were those to the upper extremities, of which 1 out of 27 cases died. Penetration of the heart, spine, or intestines on the other hand had a 100% mortality rate.

[rrgg]

So the guy who runs the Bow vs Musket
(https://bowvsmusket.com/2017/05/20/plymouth-plantation-bow-vs-musket-battle/) blog is back and he's found an interesting account of a group of English settlers being ambushed near Pymouth. It seems to show that it is indeed possible for someone to see an arrow coming at them and duck out of the way.



There was a lusty man and no whit less valiant, who was thought to be their captain, stood behind a tree within half a musket shot of us, and there let his arrows fly at us; he was seen to shoot three arrows, which were all avoided, for he at whom the first arrow was aimed, saw it, and stooped down and it flew over him, the rest were avoided also


we took up 18 of their arrows which we have sent to England by Master Jones, some whereof were headed with brass, others with harts’ horn, and others with eagles’ claws many more no doubt were shot, for these we found were almost covered with leaves: yet by the especial providence of God, none of them either hit or hurt us, though many came close by us, and on every side of us, and some coats which hung up in our barricade, were shot through and through.

[Incanur]

This (http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000052132&page=67) 16th-century image shows a curious case of armoring only the arm, specifically the left arm. Most of the weapons and armor in the work are quite reasonable. Based on the bagpipes, I'd guess the figures are supposed to be either Irish or Scottish.

And yes, it's obvious that people can dodge arrows because of how slowly arrows move. It's good to have more primary sources for it.

[Knaight]

In general, from pre-history through the present day, the first piece of armor is the helmet, then torso armor, then arms and legs. Probably arms before legs, unless you have a shield on it.

Probably legs before arms - having a shield is pretty common, and by the time shields were less common armor with pretty complete coverage was ubiquitous. There were still exposed areas - the back of the legs would be left open fairly often for infantry, and the face protection of closed helmets is often not worth the vision loss and heating issues for people who aren't shock cavalry, but legs tended to come before arms. Take a look at greaves, and the comparative coverage of arms and legs in mail, where short sleeves and upper leg protection are common, but if only one of the two is present it's almost certainly the upper leg protection.

[Vercingex]

Primary sources escape me at the moment, but I've read that one of the most common injuries to Roman legionnaires was to their right (sword) arms- aka the unarmored part that most often pokes beyond their shield wall.

More recently, concern with protecting the hand can be seen with the evolution of sword hilts, with crossguards giving way to more complex and protective hilts through the later Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and beyond.

[Clistenes]

A few questions about aketons and gambesons.

I have been reading about the different ways linen cloth, wool or cotton stuffing, leather...etc., were layered to make aketons/gambesons. For example there are historical examples of:



-A Jack of 30 layers of linen can stand alone
-A Jack of 25 layers and a leather shell can also stand alone
-A jack of 18 layers of fustian and 4 plus layers of linen
-A Jack of 10 or more layers should have a maille shirt with it
-A Jack that is four to six layers of canvas stuffed with raw cotton (a.k.a. cotton wool)

Wool or raw cotton wouldn't offer almost any protection against crossbow bolts, spears and lances, so I guess as many layers of linen, futian and leather as possible would be prefered over cotton or wool stuffing if you were to use the gambeson as stand-alone armor.

On the other hand, if you are using plate armor, most weapons won't be able to pierce or hack the plates, so your main concern would be to absorb concussive damage. I guess stuffed padding could maybe be prefered over many layers of linen (I don't really know... would stuffed padding really be better at absorbing shock than the same weight of layered cloth? has anybody tested it?).

It could also be that suffed wool or cotton was simply cheaper and faster to make than many-layered linen cloth gambeson, so given equal effectivity at absorbing shock damage, stuffed padding would be chosen by plate-armored warriors...

But what about hauberks? The main purpose of the gambeson underneath would be to absorb blunt damage, but poweful enough piercing attacks can punch through mail too... so, what would you choose? the 30 layers of linen for better anti-piercing defense? Or the stuffed padding for better shock absortion? Would the suffed padding be in fact better than just layered linen cloth against concussive damage, or would not?

Another question: About the hides of large sharks, large crocodiles and giant stingrays... do you know if somebody has tested their toughness and resistance against perforation and cuts? I have been searching about any use of those supposedly super-hard skins as armor, but besides that ceremonial Roman-Egyptian armor whose pictures are around the net and the decorative use of stingray sking in samurai armor, I haven't found anything... If say shark or crocodile skin were better than cowhide or buffalo skin, wouldn't somebody have used them for jacks and targes?

[Yora]

Unwoven fibres are not padding. They still provide substential cutting protection. Though not sure how well they do against thin penetrating points if they are not held in place by some glue that keeps them from sliding sideways and only providing friction to slow the projectile down. I think it probably helps, but might indeed be much less efficient than glued woven fabric.

What I would chose would to a large degree depend on what I could afford. Stuffed raw fibres should be signficantly cheaper without all the work of spinning and weaving that is required for making fabric.

[wkwkwkwk1]

Hello, guys!

Got three questions for y'all: :smallsmile:

1. Where does the base of the japanese cuirass (okegawa dô) sit? At the level of the navel, like european ones? In the images I could see, it seems to sit a little below.

2. Which is thicker at its thickest, the katana, or the various types of longsword? I would say that the more diamond-shaped longswords would be a little thicker, but in general, the katana seems to be thicker.

Thanks, guys! :smallbiggrin:

[Clistenes]

Unwoven fibres are not padding. They still provide substential cutting protection. Though not sure how well they do against thin penetrating points if they are not held in place by some glue that keeps them from sliding sideways and only providing friction to slow the projectile down. I think it probably helps, but might indeed be much less efficient than glued woven fabric.

What I would chose would to a large degree depend on what I could afford. Stuffed raw fibres should be signficantly cheaper without all the work of spinning and weaving that is required for making fabric.

Mmmm... but what about concussive damage? Would a quilted gambeson made of many layers of linen cloth sewed together be as good absorbing shock as a padded gambeson stuffed with wool or raw cotton?

I think the multilayered linen cloth would indeed be better both against piercing and slashing, my doubts are mostly about concussive damage...


Hello, guys!

Got three questions for y'all: :smallsmile:

1. Where does the base of the japanese cuirass (okegawa dô) sit? At the level of the navel, like european ones? In the images I could see, it seems to sit a little below.

2. Which is thicker at its thickest, the katana, or the various types of longsword? I would say that the more diamond-shaped longswords would be a little thicker, but in general, the katana seems to be thicker.

Thanks, guys! :smallbiggrin:

The katana is thicker on average. Given the same weight, a longsword's blade would be longer and wider, but thinner.

Katana blades' sections:

https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_b/illustr/jap_sword_x-section_types.gif

Longsword blades' sections:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Sword_cross_section.svg/220px-Sword_cross_section.svg.png

[Spiryt]

"Concussive damage" is pretty hard to define, I think that's quite the problem.

But I think that the key fact about that is that well conditioned body of human who's in shape cant actually take a lot of such.

Which is why plenty of martial artists, football, rugby, basketball players continue with broken ribs, arms, hernia, and so on.

Most important thing was to not actually get hacked and pierced to bloody pieces. Which is why many sources seem to indicate wearing mail over ordinary clothes.

Which seems counterintuitive to modern reenact ors looking to reduce the blunt trauma.



As far as "quilted soft mass" vs "multiple layers of some textile" goes, we, unfortunately don't have much sources.

[MrZJunior]

How would you guys design a castle for centaurs?

Obviously the halls and rooms should be higher, the stairs should be shallow and wide, and everything should generally be larger. Maybe replace stairs with ramps?

[Vinyadan]

About the melting lead bullets: as it turns out, the misconception was probably born out of the fact that a strong impact not only wildly deforms the bullet, but also makes it quite hot. Some ancients might have thought that high temperature + deformation = melting.

About breastsmail, you could go with an Athena-like aegis. It would protect the shoulders and upper torso and leave the underboobs visible, if worn without a tunic or peplum beneath it.

Also, Frank Miller is for going hoplitical wearing everything but a cuirass.

[Vinyadan]

How would you guys design a castle for centaurs?

Obviously the halls and rooms should be higher, the stairs should be shallow and wide, and everything should generally be larger. Maybe replace stairs with ramps?

Stairs designed for horses have very shallow and long steps. It would mean that space would have to be organized in a different way because of the room they would take. Maybe have far fewer of them. Getting directly from one level of a tower to the one below would be difficult. There could be cranes here and there to avoid long detours in some places along the walls.

I do wonder how the latrines would look like. Also, castles had places to sit near windows to allow women to work with the windows' light. I guess they would be absent here, because centaurs can just lay on the ground while they work with their upper arms. The leaders would likely have a carpet or a baldaquin instead of a throne. Depending on how centaur hooves are, you would have a lot of farriers, so, a bigger forge than normal. You would also need inner doors that are strong enough for a horse not to destroy or unhinge them when going backwards, or if a garment or weapon gets caught in it while running (and that would have to be a very solid door...).

[MrZJunior]

Stairs designed for horses have very shallow and long steps. It would mean that space would have to be organized in a different way because of the room they would take. Maybe have far fewer of them. Getting directly from one level of a tower to the one below would be difficult. There could be cranes here and there to avoid long detours in some places along the walls.

I would probably make sense for it to be built like the Bastille with the towers even with the walls to avoid having too many stairs.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Bastille%2C_1790_retouched.jpg

[Natediggadoggit]

I do wonder how the latrines would look like.

Well, I don't think they'd be able to use chamber pots, it'd be too hard to aim when your body is that long.

I think the necessity of latrines would depend on the centaurs diet. If they're omnivores, like humans, their feces would be toxic to the environment, and smell much worse, and they'd probably want to enclose it and bury it. But if they are herbivores, the feces might not be bad smelling enough to worry about containing and burying. The whole castle might just have a small grove/garden area where they go, and then just compost it.

Also, dried feces can be burned as fuel. If they can decide to only void outside, and defecate in a separate place, the feces could dry quickly enough to be used for that purpose.

There is a military latrine that could be used for sapient quadripeds though: the "straddle trench latrine" (I'd post the picture, but I don't have enough posts yet. This is part that attempt, while still being helpful)

It's basically a long 3 foot deep trench in the ground, 1 or two foot wide, that you fill in and extend as needed. It would work perfectly for long bodied quadripeds,

All latrines would not be in an upper floor of the castle, they'd have to be on the ground floor, and probably outside

[Gnoman]

@Gnoman:

2. is primarily Power armour based, it has a few potential playoffs elsewhere but they're the ones it's likely to be a real limit for, I should note the power armour bulk mostly comes from the armour layers in it, so it's probably not significantly worse than old school plate armour, (unlike most other depictions of power armour, 40k, Fallout, i'm looking at you here). It is a factor in the size of weapon they can handle, but i figure normal human limits on ergonomics would be as big or bigger.

1. Is actually related to the the cultists and one of their weapons, (so completely unrelated to two), i'm starting to lean away from the concept that would make such a scope necessary, (TLDR alternate sight path because of other design aspects making sighting along the top of the weapon fairly impractical, so a low mag wide FoV sight with mirrors redirects around), but still a useful datum to have as theres a point or two where i'd want to consider reuse of the concept if practical.

If you're using a rifle like a rifle, having a scope as your only optic is a bad thing. For closer range targets, it would become very easy to lose track of what you're trying to shoot at when you bring the weapon up to aim, because a scope inherently narrows your field of view. If you play War Thunder or World Of Tanks, try fighting while only using the gunsight mode - same thing. It isn't particularly difficult to have offset sights, but you do need some sort of no-maginfication sighting system.

This is why I asked if it was for power armor - if it was, you could easily just give it some sort of HUD uplink for aiming in closer quarters, while using a scope for accurate long-range fire.


As for assault rifle dimensions, the key limit is that you have to be able to comfortably fit the rear half between your shoulder and your hand while your arm is not fully extended. A bullpup design, particularly with caseless ammunition, could have this be the entire length of the weapon, so that fits well as a minimum size.

For maximum size, you can theoretically go quite a bit longer and heavier with strength assist from power armor, so three or even four times that length is plausible. Otherwise, you don't want more than twice that, or the balance will be fairly poor.

[Telok]

For the packed wool or cotton in the textile armor it may be much closer a thick felt than anything else. When my mother first started weaving we built her a simple wall loom. The first thing she made, to test the loom, was a loose wool rug. It replaces much of the weft with just bits of raw wool and consequently is much faster and easier to make than fully woven fabric.
Twenty five years later that quick little test project is still here on the floor. It's pretty well felted and has lasted longer than several other commercial products. I could accept that as the basis of a textile armor if it's paired with something like heavy canvas or sail cloth.

[Carl]

If you're using a rifle like a rifle, having a scope as your only optic is a bad thing. For closer range targets, it would become very easy to lose track of what you're trying to shoot at when you bring the weapon up to aim, because a scope inherently narrows your field of view. If you play War Thunder or World Of Tanks, try fighting while only using the gunsight mode - same thing. It isn't particularly difficult to have offset sights, but you do need some sort of no-maginfication sighting system.

This is why I asked if it was for power armor - if it was, you could easily just give it some sort of HUD uplink for aiming in closer quarters, while using a scope for accurate long-range fire.


As for assault rifle dimensions, the key limit is that you have to be able to comfortably fit the rear half between your shoulder and your hand while your arm is not fully extended. A bullpup design, particularly with caseless ammunition, could have this be the entire length of the weapon, so that fits well as a minimum size.

For maximum size, you can theoretically go quite a bit longer and heavier with strength assist from power armor, so three or even four times that length is plausible. Otherwise, you don't want more than twice that, or the balance will be fairly poor.

On the sight thing, i was absolutely thinking no magnification or very low, (sub 2x), do you have examples of offset sights IRL, maybe i'm overthinking this, i've just never heard about IRL examples before so i'd be interested to see how they solved it. That said, yeah power armoured troops absolutely use that kind of thing.


As far as the dimensions thing, my main concern isn't so much the length, (it still has to work in tightish spaces, but based on their uses in such conditions in recent conflicts i imagine anything upto at least M240 sized will work there, which should be more than enough), though it is a sort of limit of it's own, but rather the width of the weapon and how that could make getting to the forward grip point a problem. Here's an example (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Beta_C-Mag_on_M4.jpg/300px-Beta_C-Mag_on_M4.jpg) of the beta-c-mag which is one high capacity concept i dug up that looks reasonable for this situation, (the other one would basiclaly be a scalled up P90 mag), given the bse cartridge width diffrances a variant for the wepaon in question would be a littile over twice the dinmenshions. Bearing in mind the rifle itself, (which is a bit of a misnomer in of itself as due to recoil it's used in belt fed tripod mounted form as a crew served weapon by normal infantry), will doubtless be wider than a standard infantry weapon to start with.

[Martin Greywolf]

Wool or raw cotton wouldn't offer almost any protection against crossbow bolts, spears and lances, so I guess as many layers of linen, futian and leather as possible would be prefered over cotton or wool stuffing if you were to use the gambeson as stand-alone armor.

Nothing short of at the very least coat of plates can stop a dedicated thrust with a spear on foot, and even that can sometimes be pierced. Roland Warzecha did some testing with migration era hauberks, and a spear will absolutely wreck the armor. Padded armor doesn't stand a chance there, so the reasonable thing to do is not even demand that from your armor and block spear thrusts with a shield, or deflect them.

Lance... well, it can be sometimes be stopped by plate cuirass, but the impact alone is likely to unhorse you and break a few things. It can be frequently deflected by plate armor, provided it is properly angled, and it can be likewise deflected by shields, but the impact is just too much for any other armor form.

To put it in other words, before you get to angled plate era, you don't even consider these as point against armor, kinda like you don't think less of bulletproof vest because it can't stop an RPG - it's just not designed to stand up to that.

As for crossbow and bow projectiles, that be dangerous waters. Crossbows aren't necessarily better at getting through armor than bows are, it depends on the crossbow and the bow, and also depends on the time period. Guns also start to come into this depate by the time crossbows have mechanical spanning aids.



On the other hand, if you are using plate armor, most weapons won't be able to pierce or hack the plates, so your main concern would be to absorb concussive damage. I guess stuffed padding could maybe be prefered over many layers of linen (I don't really know... would stuffed padding really be better at absorbing shock than the same weight of layered cloth? has anybody tested it?).

Remember, your plate armor isn't everywhere, and you need the protection of the lower layers the most in places where it isn't, so it is not a simple decision of "plate+stuffed is better", because you will have just gambeson, with maybe some gussets, in some places. Also, some transitional types of armor have gambesons, mail and plate all layered on top of each other, which complicates this further.

Also, you probably don't want to own two separate kinds of gambeson - if you have just one that can do decently both with and without plate, you can relatively quickly tailor your armoredness to the situation.



It could also be that suffed wool or cotton was simply cheaper and faster to make than many-layered linen cloth gambeson, so given equal effectivity at absorbing shock damage, stuffed padding would be chosen by plate-armored warriors...

Ah, economics at last. While the stuffed padding may be better for fully plated people, which it may not, see above point, there are relatively few of those people around. That means that specialized "for plate armor only" gambesons don't have anywhere near the demand, so there are fewer people making them, so the prices are higher because they can ask their price.

That, of course, assumes that the plated man is in a price range where he scrounged enough cash for the plate armor in the first place and is now almost broke. That was usually not the case, prices of gambesons were in general low enough thet they were not a factor to the people capable of fielding plate armor. That in turn means that your original question of "is stuffing cheaper" is not a question they'd ever need to ask.



But what about hauberks? The main purpose of the gambeson underneath would be to absorb blunt damage, but poweful enough piercing attacks can punch through mail too... so, what would you choose? the 30 layers of linen for better anti-piercing defense? Or the stuffed padding for better shock absortion? Would the suffed padding be in fact better than just layered linen cloth against concussive damage, or would not?

There is one more factor to account for here - mobility. Even the best made 30-layer gambeson will affect it in some ways, so you may well opt to go for something thinner, but easier to move in. Remember, a soldiers spends most of his career marching, not fighting, and while being as ready for battle as possible is logical, people tend to be not at their most logical when it comes to short term vs long term decisions. That's why we have rules banning soldiers from cutting down their pikes, after all.

Also, there is this line of thought among people making reproductions of medieval gambesons that they may well have had bits of leather sewn into them to reinforce some parts of it - I personally did this with my padded mittens, and was very happy with the result. We can't say for sure if they did this, because there are practically no survivals from this era, but it seems like a rather likely thing to do. This complicates your question even more, because thick gambeson can suddenly be two different kinds of gambeson.



Another question: About the hides of large sharks, large crocodiles and giant stingrays... do you know if somebody has tested their toughness and resistance against perforation and cuts? I have been searching about any use of those supposedly super-hard skins as armor, but besides that ceremonial Roman-Egyptian armor whose pictures are around the net and the decorative use of stingray sking in samurai armor, I haven't found anything... If say shark or crocodile skin were better than cowhide or buffalo skin, wouldn't somebody have used them for jacks and targes?

Look into African tribal stuff, like Zulu shields, there is a decent amount on those from British colonial sources - apparently, some of them could stop musket balls. They are routinely using thick hide there, but I don't think you'd have that much luck making a full-plate like armor out of it, since it tends to be really thick. Skallagrim also did some testing with thick leather, IIRC.

[Kiero]

Lance... well, it can be sometimes be stopped by plate cuirass, but the impact alone is likely to unhorse you and break a few things. It can be frequently deflected by plate armor, provided it is properly angled, and it can be likewise deflected by shields, but the impact is just too much for any other armor form.


The best defense against a lance is alertness. There are many anecdotes from the Napoleonic era of men with no weapons (or armour/shields) at all turning the point of a lance aside, rendering it harmless (such as General Beresford at the battle of Albuera, who disarmed a Polish lancer with his bare hands).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Bereford.jpg

[Lemmy]

Thank you, everyone for your input. I talked a little more with my player and she's happy with "preview" of the picture... It ended up with stylized gauntlets and steel-toed boots (for blocking and punching/kicking) and some small protection for her arms, shins and thighs... Mostly for style. She likes the idea of carrying a sword and dagger as backup weapons and a stylized plackart next to her belt (as well as a heavy "egyptian-style" necklace to cover part of her heart).

She loved the idea of the character beinf terrified of becoming a cripple, and added that to her original idea.

Once again, thanks for your input.


To be bluntly factual, chainmail bikinis and the "only armor on the arms and legs" look really only belong in spoofs, farces, and a certain sort of DeviantArt posting.
There's nothing factual about where a certain type of art "belongs". My players wants a bad-ass warrior in chainmail bikini, that's waht she gets. I know plenty of non-spoof media with far more unrealistic aspects. You don't have to like it, but saying it's only good for spoofs, farces and porn is not only rude, but completely false and ignorant.

[Mike_G]

Thank you, everyone for your input. I talked a little more with my player and she's happy with "preview" of the picture... It ended up with stylized gauntlets and steel-toed boots (for blocking and punching/kicking) and some small protection for her arms, shins and thighs... Mostly for style. She likes the idea of carrying a sword and dagger as backup weapons and a stylized plackart next to her belt (as well as a heavy "egyptian-style" necklace to cover part of her heart).

She loved the idea of the character beinf terrified of becoming a cripple, and added that to her original idea.

Once again, thanks for your input.


There's nothing factual about where a certain type of art "belongs". My players wants a bad-ass warrior in chainmail bikini, that's waht she gets. I know plenty of non-spoof media with far more unrealistic aspects. You don't have to like it, but saying it's only good for spoofs, farces and porn is not only rude, but completely false and ignorant.

OK, for a game, you and your players should do what you enjoy, since that's the point of a game.

But this is a "real world weapons and armor" thread, and the chainmail bikini simply does not really have much support in historical real world examples.

It's fantasy. It's a trope of fantasy art. Nobody said "porn." Now there's nothing wrong with it. Frazetta's Conan covers with the hulking barbarian wearing a fur loincloth and sometimes a steel skullcap are iconic. But they have no real world analogue. Even the Conan inside those lurid covers, on the pages Howard wrote, wears actual armor more often than not, because the author knew that a well oiled six pack might sell copies, but will not stop a swordthrust.

So please, play the bare chested, heavily greaved and vambraced warrior of your dreams, but try not to be overly offended when people on a Real World Weapon and Armor say that is a concept for a certain type of fantasy art, not history.

[Galloglaich]

I disagree with the notion that lances easily pierced armor.

In (Late Medieval) Germany they did a specific type of sport jousting, known to be risky, where they jousted with sharp points and minimal armor (helmet and cuirass, basically, or just the helmet) and yet the armor was good enough to protect them.

It is what they are doing in this illustration from the Wolfegg housebook.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_21v_22r_Scharfrennen.jpg/500px-Hausbuch_Wolfegg_21v_22r_Scharfrennen.jpg

Which you can compare with this image from the same housebook (note the difference in the lance points and the armor)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a9/cf/27/a9cf273b6cdfc0d8a1ab8a4a58ea07c0.jpg

The diplomat, agent, humanist, historian and later Pope Annaeus Sylvio Piccolomini described how Duke Albrecht Achilles was a fan of the more risky type of joust:

On seventeen occasions, protected only by a shield and helmet with the rest of his body uncovered (as in a type of duel practiced by the Germans), he charged with pointed lance in hand against challengers armed the same way, without ever suffering an injury or failing to unhorse his opponents.

My understanding though of this type of dueling is that typically they did wear torso protection.

Even with mail, it's unclear that it was easy to pierce it. With all due respect to Roland Warzecha (sincerely) i disagree with the conclusions of those particular tests he did.

Usamah Ibn Munquidh describes running battles with Frankish knights in which the lance couldn't pierce the mail. This is from the 12th Century

“By this time the vanguard of the Frankish horsemen had reached me, so I retired before them, turning back my lance in their direction and my eyes toward them lest some one of their horse should prove to quick for me and pierce me with his lance. In front of me were some of our companions, and we were surrounded by gardens with walls as high as a sitting man. My mare hit wit it’s breast one of our companions, so I turned it’s head to the left and applied the spurs to it’s sides, whereupon it leaped over the wall. I so regulated my position until I stood on a level with the Franks. The wall only separated us. One of their horsemen hastened to me, displaying his colors in a green and yellow silk tunic, under which I thought was no coat of mail. I therefore let him alone until he passed me. Then I applied my spurs to my mare, which leapt over the wall, and I smote him with the lance. He bent sideways so much that his head reached the stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head. By that time we had reached our infantry. He then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him. His companions caught up to him, all returned together, and the footman recovered his shield, lance, and helmet.”




G

[Lemmy]

OK, for a game, you and your players should do what you enjoy, since that's the point of a game.

But this is a "real world weapons and armor" thread, and the chainmail bikini simply does not really have much support in historical real world examples.

It's fantasy. It's a trope of fantasy art. Nobody said "porn." Now there's nothing wrong with it. Frazetta's Conan covers with the hulking barbarian wearing a fur loincloth and sometimes a steel skullcap are iconic. But they have no real world analogue. Even the Conan inside those lurid covers, on the pages Howard wrote, wears actual armor more often than not, because the author knew that a well oiled six pack might sell copies, but will not stop a swordthrust.

So please, play the bare chested, heavily greaved and vambraced warrior of your dreams, but try not to be overly offended when people on a Real World Weapon and Armor say that is a concept for a certain type of fantasy art, not history.I never disputed that it wasn't historical, nor am I offended by the notion that it's completely impractical armor... In fact, the whole point of my question was precisely because I wanted it to be at least a little more feasible (obviously, chainmail bikini is no good protection, so I wondered about ways of making it less pointless without compromising the player's idea). I thought adding some arm/legs protection could help, even if a "doesn't do much, but at least won't get in the way" kind of way... And as such, I decided to ask you guys what you thought.

And I'm greateful for the input.

It's just the "this type of art has no place anywhere but in X, Y and Z" notion that annoys me. I'm sorry for my knee-jerk reaction, but too many times I've been the target "your tastes are wrong and you're having badwrong fun!" rethoric, so I may have developed a denfensive reflex to stuff that sounds like that.

[rrgg]

I disagree with the notion that lances easily pierced armor.


By the late 16th century La Noue claimed that it was very rare for anyone to be killed or injured by lancers during the first impact, except for perhaps the horses of the front ranks. He argued that this was how Pistol-armed cavalry could beat lancers, since they absorb the damage at impact and once they got mixed in the reiters would "be all fire".

[Lvl 2 Expert]

How would you guys design a castle for centaurs?

Obviously the halls and rooms should be higher, the stairs should be shallow and wide, and everything should generally be larger. Maybe replace stairs with ramps?

I'd leave out stairs as much as possible. The outer wall of the courtyard would become a dirt mound. Straight stone wall on the outside, grassy hill on the inside. (Or muddy hill, after a few months of siege.) The stone part won't have to be as thick as on a normal castle, since anyone shooting through it will just hit a whole lot of sand, but the wall will have to be longer to be left with the same size courtyard. And since centaurs take up quite a bit of space, these castles would be pretty large indeed. This would in turn give them room to do other shapes than a classic square castle.

My reasoning is this: Your entire force are cavalry, their great unique strength is mobility. Centaurs are therefor uniquely equipped to drop what they're doing on the sound of the horn and within 30 seconds mount a massive charge out of the main gate. But they can only do that if everyone has a quick path to that gate.

Speaking of gates, I might add several of them rather than just one. It adds huge weak points in the defences, but it also makes the charges less predictable, the enemy now has to spread their capability to fire at your hordes over several points. 3 or 4 gates would be nice, with drawbridges across moats. You don't want to impede the outgoing forces too much, but you do want to stop battering rams from reaching those gates. Alternatively have the whole thing on a hill. The enemy will have to come closer to be able to take a shot at you, so it gets easier to charge at them.

The main keep would probably be integrated into the outer wall, giving you entrances along the slope of the hill to every level except for the top few, which can only be reached by internal ramps or some sort of flat stairs. Yes, this makes it hard to defend the keep, but you can't defend it at all if your own soldiers don't have good access to the place. Any more secluded design would give a lot of other fantasy races a big advantage over centaurs when navigating the structure, and you do not want the enemy to have a terrain advantage inside your own castle. Having to fall back to the keep is even worse than it is in human castles, centaur warfare is aggressive, and some castles probably do not have a proper keep at all, just a (mostly) cannon proof living space that does not serve as a tower.

To save on space there would also be a couple of basements dug out below the structure. They sit a bit away from the outer wall and are accessible by a wide ramp. These things house stuff like the extended armory and if appropriate to the setting gunpowder storage. Stuff that is too big to keep inside the keep but is nice to have quickly accessible.

That's probably how I'd do it.

[Kiero]

I never disputed that it wasn't historical, nor am I offended by the notion that it's completely impractical armor... In fact, the whole point of my question was precisely because I wanted it to be at least a little more feasible (obviously, chainmail bikini is no good protection, so I wondered about ways of making it less pointless without compromising the player's idea). I thought adding some arm/legs protection could help, even if a "doesn't do much, but at least won't get in the way" kind of way... And as such, I decided to ask you guys what you thought.

And I'm greateful for the input.

It's just the "this type of art has no place anywhere but in X, Y and Z" notion that annoys me. I'm sorry for my knee-jerk reaction, but too many times I've been the target "your tastes are wrong and you're having badwrong fun!" rethoric, so I may have developed a denfensive reflex to stuff that sounds like that.

As I said upthread, which seems to have been ignored, there is a historical precedent for that style of armour: gladiators.

[Knaight]

As I said upthread, which seems to have been ignored, there is a historical precedent for that style of armour: gladiators.

Modern fencing is also a historical precedent for swords with bizarre grips that are extremely light and whippy, but that doesn't make them showing up in the hands of someone who is supposed to be an actual warrior fighting for something other than sport sensible.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Modern fencing is also a historical precedent for swords with bizarre grips that are extremely light and whippy, but that doesn't make them showing up in the hands of someone who is supposed to be an actual warrior fighting for something other than sport sensible.

But we were shooting for:

"believable, although not realistic" (her words)
And that's exactly what an escaped gladiator who keeps wearing their show outfit throughout long military campaigns or jungle adventures would be.

Add some nice details, like a not quite optimal but very decorative helmet or a big armguard on one arm only and it looks the part very nicely.

Wrong thread for this question? Maybe. Good answer? Definitely.

[Mike_G]

Modern fencing is also a historical precedent for swords with bizarre grips that are extremely light and whippy, but that doesn't make them showing up in the hands of someone who is supposed to be an actual warrior fighting for something other than sport sensible.

That's not really fair. fencing swords are light and whippy in order not to hurt your opponent, which is totally the opposite of any historical warrior's goal. The modern pistol grips give more precise control of the tip of the very light foil. They would be impractical on a heavier weapon. And I mean "heavier" like a real smallsword.

Fencing weapons are not weapons. they are sporting gear. Like a lacrosse net or hockey stick. If you score with a touch, then lighter is better, because lighter is faster, and weight isn't helpful, since you don't care about the force of the hit, and the pistol grip is more precise, which is better, since the lack of pommel and strong grip doesn't matter because the blade weighs next to nothing. It's chosen not for how well it will take out your enemy, which is the primary job of a real sword.

And I say this as a rated sport fencer. It's not a fight. It's playing tag with kinda swordy things.

Gladiators are a closer analogue, but they aren't acting as "warriors" really. They fought and wounded or killed one another, but the armor and weapons were designed with entertainment in mind, not practical use. Most historical warriors chose armor that gave them a better chance of staying alive, not of what looked cooler in the Colosseum.

If modern Olympic fencing is aggressive tag, then gladiatorial combat is pretty much the WWE in Rome. Neither of these can be as example of historical "warriors."

[Berenger]

How would you guys design a castle for centaurs?

Obviously the halls and rooms should be higher, the stairs should be shallow and wide, and everything should generally be larger. Maybe replace stairs with ramps?

It's not exactly what I think first when I hear the word "castle", but maybe an improved version of a ring fort with a higher stone wall might be a starting point. Instead of real towers, it could have slightly elevated fighting platforms like the forecastle of a ship. It won't boast the most impressive defensive features, but it avoids stairs, ladders and cramped spaces that would be highly irritating to centaurs. More and bigger gates would enable better chances for "cavalry" sorties at the price of higher vulnerability.

https://abload.de/img/bloodgate-web-air-recdyjdr.jpg

[Max_Killjoy]

OK, for a game, you and your players should do what you enjoy, since that's the point of a game.

But this is a "real world weapons and armor" thread, and the chainmail bikini simply does not really have much support in historical real world examples.

It's fantasy. It's a trope of fantasy art. Nobody said "porn." Now there's nothing wrong with it. Frazetta's Conan covers with the hulking barbarian wearing a fur loincloth and sometimes a steel skullcap are iconic. But they have no real world analogue. Even the Conan inside those lurid covers, on the pages Howard wrote, wears actual armor more often than not, because the author knew that a well oiled six pack might sell copies, but will not stop a swordthrust.

So please, play the bare chested, heavily greaved and vambraced warrior of your dreams, but try not to be overly offended when people on a Real World Weapon and Armor say that is a concept for a certain type of fantasy art, not history.


Indeed, my comment had nothing to do with "porn" as such. For some reason, there's a deluge of work on DeviantArt featuring women who are only wearing armor on their arms, legs, and maybe some decorative bits on their chest. They're clothed to whatever degree otherwise, from barely at all to completely covered and then some, but that's not the point. It's silly "armor" based purely on aesthetic appeal, that has no factual precedent, and no place in a game that might claim to represent anything like functional armor and weapons. Maybe an actual gladiator might be forced to wear such a getup, purely for the entertainment of the leering masses.

And the point was, as you said, that we're concerned with "Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics", and the answers and comments are going to be in that context.

[Incanur]

Frazetta's Conan covers with the hulking barbarian wearing a fur loincloth and sometimes a steel skullcap are iconic. But they have no real world analogue.

No exact analogue, perhaps, but as I mentioned previously, unarmored halberdiers were a thing, as were halberdiers with only helmets for protection. And civilians often carried various two-handed weapons without armor. Civilian clothing helps a bit against blades, but the difference between a doublet and a loincloth or chainmail bikini isn't huge here.

Fighting in a loincloth or completely naked is totally reasonable. I find mail bikinis silly, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them from a practical point of view. It's roughly like fighting naked or in light civilian clothes. Fighting naked or with minimal clothing plus a helmet is likewise totally reasonable and established.

Fighting naked or lightly clad but with a helmet and some metal arm protection has limited historical precedent, mainly in terms of Cesare d'Evoli's arquebusiers with mail sleeves and helmets, or gladiator armor, or the practice of dueling or sparring while wearing one or two gauntlets.

Fighting with a helmet, metal arm protection, and metal leg protection, but with the torso exposed, has no historical precedent that I know of except maybe gladiator kit.


I disagree with the notion that lances easily pierced armor.

The evidence points in both directions. Raimond de Fourquevaux (1548) and François de la Noue (late 16th century) considered men-at-arms nearly impossible to incapacitate or kill with the heavy lance. Fourquevaux recommended aiming at the horse instead. On the other hand, Juan Quijada de Reayo (1540s) instructed aiming the heavy lance at either the rider's (armored) belly or at the horse.

Earlier, circa 1500, Pietro Monte noted the lance, along with the crossbow, as a potential danger to an armored rider. He wrote how plackarts were typically worn to reinforce breastplates, but suggested this wasn't necessary if you avoided your opponent's lance and got behind them with skillful riding. This all indicates that heavy lances could pierce torso armor at times.

Giovanni de’ Medici (early 16th century) supposedly drove his lance through an opposing rider's armor on at least two occasions, though at least one of his contemporaries considered one of the cases a fluke.

Humphrey Barwick (https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=33242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)(1590s) thought mail and brigandine or coats of plate a joke against the couched lance. He gave a specific account of a lance piercing a coat of plate of the best sort front and back.

[Galloglaich]

No exact analogue, perhaps, but as I mentioned previously, unarmored halberdiers were a thing, as were halberdiers with only helmets for protection. And civilians often carried various two-handed weapons without armor. Civilian clothing helps a bit against blades, but the difference between a doublet and a loincloth or chainmail bikini isn't huge here.

Fighting in a loincloth or completely naked is totally reasonable. I find mail bikinis silly, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them from a practical point of view. It's roughly like fighting naked or in light civilian clothes. Fighting naked or with minimal clothing plus a helmet is likewise totally reasonable and established.

Fighting naked or lightly clad but with a helmet and some metal arm protection has limited historical precedent, mainly in terms of Cesare d'Evoli's arquebusiers with mail sleeves and helmets, or gladiator armor, or the practice of dueling or sparring while wearing one or two gauntlets.

Fighting with a helmet, metal arm protection, and metal leg protection, but with the torso exposed, has no historical precedent that I know of except maybe gladiator kit.



The evidence points in both directions. Raimond de Fourquevaux (1548) and François de la Noue (late 16th century) considered men-at-arms nearly impossible to incapacitate or kill with the heavy lance. Fourquevaux recommended aiming at the horse instead. On the other hand, Juan Quijada de Reayo (1540s) instructed aiming the heavy lance at either the rider's (armored) belly or at the horse.

Earlier, circa 1500, Pietro Monte noted the lance, along with the crossbow, as a potential danger to an armored rider. He wrote how plackarts were typically worn to reinforce breastplates, but suggested this wasn't necessary if you avoided your opponent's lance and got behind them with skillful riding. This all indicates that heavy lances could pierce torso armor at times.

Giovanni de’ Medici (early 16th century) supposedly drove his lance through an opposing rider's armor on at least two occasions, though at least one of his contemporaries considered one of the cases a fluke.

Humphrey Barwick (https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=33242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)(1590s) thought mail and brigandine or coats of plate a joke against the couched lance. He gave a specific account of a lance piercing a coat of plate of the best sort front and back.

Interesting post as usual Incanur, but I have a couple of quibbles

1) I know military theory is something you are into and have read several manuals on, which provide a unique perspective on warfare in these times, but it's important to keep in mind the difference between theory, and the authors generalized opinion, vs. records or accounts of actual battles - i.e. war in practice. Some of those theoretical manuals propose some really far out ideas which we both know were never used. I think it's a valuable insight but it's not definitive. No written records are of course but there is an extra grain of salt you have to take with these types of manuals - especially the types which are proposing ideas for the future rather than describing war as it was known during the authors own time (like a lot of the kreigsbucher).

2) I don't think what you are saying here really contradicts what we were saying. I said "I don't think the lance easily pierces armor" (even mail armor). However, we do know for a fact that a lance strike can de-horse even a very well-protected rider. That is useful in and of itself as a dismounted (and presumably somewhat stunned) rider can be and was more easily dealt with. It's also the case that the armor worn on the front of the head and torso is stronger than armor on other parts of the body. Pistol armed cavalry were often instructed to shoot at the thighs of their enemies for example as the armor was thinner there. Armor on the back and limbs was usually thinner too. So you can do more damage with a flank attack, something cavalry tried to do whenever they could.

3) Also, Brigandine and coat of plates armor are potentially one of the worst types of armor to use against a spear or lance strike, especially when not worn with mail. As you know, these types of armor consist of separate plates with gaps between them - in some cases (depending on the quality of the armor) significant gaps. If you strike a gap in the armor the lance has very little to stop it.

4) There are different types and sizes of lance, and different types of cavalry mounts. A light cavalryman riding a pony with a ten foot spear does not have the same impact as a heavy lancer riding a destrier or a courser and striking with an 18 foot lance, as was normal for example among the 16th-17th Century Polish Hussars among others. Lances also had different types of tips, some more like a general purpose or hunting spear and others like an awl-pike or an armor-piercing spear. The latter was more dangerous to an armored target obviously.




Here is another combat example demonstrating the efficacy of armor. This is from Jan Dlugosz 'annales', describing a duel which took place before a battle in 1411 in the aftermath of the Battle of Grunwald (source (http://hroarr.com/chivalry-east-of-the-elbe-part-i/)):

"The men of both armies are well experienced in the art of war, men who will fight with the greatest courage. However, before the two sides actually engage, Conrad of Niemcza, a Silesian [German, more or less] in King Sigismund's army, on his own initiative rides out and challenges the Poles to a duel.

The challenge is taken up by Jan Szczycki, who unseats the challenger and tramples him. The two ranks then close with great shouts. Each stands firm and the outcome is long uncertain, for the two sides are equal in armament, skill and experience; but eventually they become exhausted and fighting stops, as if a truce had been agreed. One is then arranged, and for a short period the ranks separate, wipe away their sweat, and rest. After a while, the truce is declared at an end and fighting resumes. Many are killed or taken prisoner. When exhaustion again overcomes them without Fortune having given any indication of where the advantage lies, a fresh truce is arranged, during which the knights rub down their horses and themselves, bandage wounds, rest, talk, exchange prisoners and captured horses, send each other wine and clear up the ground of the wounded and those thrown from their horses and unable to get up, lest these be trampled when the fighting resumes; indeed, the scene is such that all of them might have been thought the greatest friends, instead of enemies."

the guy who got dehorsed and trampled was later captured and then released on his honor. Later on there was a lawsuit about the incident. But the point is that neither being struck with the lance and dehorsed nor being trampled afterward seems to have caused permanent injury to him.

G

[Galloglaich]

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/9669bbb4-73d8-4b0c-8fed-86d4bace75d9_l.jpg

[Incanur]

3) Also, Brigandine and coat of plates armor are potentially one of the worst types of armor to use against a spear or lance strike, especially when not worn with mail. As you know, these types of armor consist of separate plates with gaps between them - in some cases (depending on the quality of the armor) significant gaps. If you strike a gap in the armor the lance has very little to stop it.

Well-made brigandines and 16th-century coats of plates don't have gaps over important areas. The plates overlap. Barwick considered brigandines better than the jacks of mail Smythe also mentioned for lighter troops, so he apparently considered brigandines generally better than mail. That's the common opinion today. Even Dan Howard of all people considers brigandines more protective than mail at any given weight. Dan absolutely adores mail.

So no, I completely disagree here. I'd say a brigandine is one of the best armors against a spear or lance. Only larger plates protect better.


There are different types and sizes of lance, and different types of cavalry mounts. A light cavalryman riding a pony with a ten foot spear does not have the same impact as a heavy lancer riding a destrier or a courser and striking with an 18 foot lance, as was normal for example among the 16th-17th Century Polish Hussars among others. Lances also had different types of tips, some more like a general purpose or hunting spear and others like an awl-pike or an armor-piercing spear. The latter was more dangerous to an armored target obviously.

Yep. My post was talking about the heavy lance used with a rest, the most powerful of lances. That's what 16th-century men-at-arms and lancers typically used. Armor similarly varied, from slaggy wrought iron to fully hardened steel. De la Noue was writing in the context of breastplates designed to resist pistols. It's not surprising even the heavy lance had trouble with pistol-proof armor. In Pietro Monte's day, by contrast, you had many suits of hardened steel that were quite thin for maximum comfort and mobility. I suspect a heavy lance would penetrate such a thin breastplate without a plackart.

As far as 15th-century sources go, Jean de Waurin (https://books.google.com/books?id=H3V2Qv6E5cEC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=agincourt+%2B+lance+%2B+plates+%2B+belly&source=bl&ots=BNeSVRu9vo&sig=8c2hciJ-YCMfQF7ZHgdtfkDnHY8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtj-qi_pXUAhUJjlQKHSdEAlcQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=agincourt%20%2B%20lance%20%2B%20plates%20%2B%20b elly&f=false) wrote that the French knight Lancelot Pierre received a mortal belly wound from an English lance that pierced "the plates of his armor." Give the location and description of plates, this probably means the lance hit Pierre in the fauld, or in between the breastplate and fauld. The belly appears to have been a somewhat vulnerable spot for armored riders. That's where Quijada de Reayo instructed readers to aim and that's where one of Giovanni de' Medici's penetrating lance hits landed, in that case supposedly striking where two or more plates joined or a gap or some such.

As far manuals go, sure, some of the ideas in manuals that deviate from practice probably weren't used because they had serious problems. On the other hand, I suspect some of them weren't used primarily because they would have cost too much to implement or weren't really necessary. For example, Fourquevaux wanted armor for every soldier, all soldiers accustomed to their armor, and all soldiers in great physical condition and well-trained. That differed from reality, but it wasn't exactly misguided; I bet it would have been quite effective had it been achieved. (Such a standard was perhaps achieved in some smaller elite units.) But armor was expensive. Making sure you only recruited the best of the best was hard. Conditioning all soldiers to armor was hard. Most soldiers didn't actually fight most of the time anyway, so having a bunch of unarmored or lightly armored pikers of low or medium quality to fill out formations had lots of benefits.

In war, as elsewhere in life, you rarely need the absolute best. You merely need good enough. Exactly what's good enough varies.

[rrgg]

Interesting post as usual Incanur, but I have a couple of quibbles

1) I know military theory is something you are into and have read several manuals on, which provide a unique perspective on warfare in these times, but it's important to keep in mind the difference between theory, and the authors generalized opinion, vs. records or accounts of actual battles - i.e. war in practice. Some of those theoretical manuals propose some really far out ideas which we both know were never used. I think it's a valuable insight but it's not definitive. No written records are of course but there is an extra grain of salt you have to take with these types of manuals - especially the types which are proposing ideas for the future rather than describing war as it was known during the authors own time (like a lot of the kreigsbucher).

G

Actual military treatises still tend to be a pretty valuable source of information since they are written by men with a fair amount of military experience who are attempting to give practical advice. When looking at just at accounts we tend to have a limited number of engagements to learn from. And as a general rule chronicalers tend to be uninterested in the exact details of combat, and when they do, they tend to focus on details that are interesting or abnormal to them.

A lot of the things the treatises describe don't reflect reality because of social or supply limitations, rather than because they wouldn't work. Military writers would go into great detail about what their ideal soldier would be like: fit, honorable, educated and a citizen soldier holding up classical ideals. This is a far cry from what we know about actual early-modern soldiers, who were often hired from the most desperate parts of society and at times actual criminals.

[Clistenes]

Nothing short of at the very least coat of plates can stop a dedicated thrust with a spear on foot, and even that can sometimes be pierced. Roland Warzecha did some testing with migration era hauberks, and a spear will absolutely wreck the armor. Padded armor doesn't stand a chance there, so the reasonable thing to do is not even demand that from your armor and block spear thrusts with a shield, or deflect them.

Lance... well, it can be sometimes be stopped by plate cuirass, but the impact alone is likely to unhorse you and break a few things. It can be frequently deflected by plate armor, provided it is properly angled, and it can be likewise deflected by shields, but the impact is just too much for any other armor form.

To put it in other words, before you get to angled plate era, you don't even consider these as point against armor, kinda like you don't think less of bulletproof vest because it can't stop an RPG - it's just not designed to stand up to that.

As for crossbow and bow projectiles, that be dangerous waters. Crossbows aren't necessarily better at getting through armor than bows are, it depends on the crossbow and the bow, and also depends on the time period. Guns also start to come into this depate by the time crossbows have mechanical spanning aids.

Yeah, but not all blows from lances and spears will come at full force and with all the weight of the foe behind it, and not all arrows and bolts will be shot at close distance. There would be many times a sword or spear thrust bypassed the mail, but the aketon underneath prevented it from penetrating the flesh deep enough to be life-threatening.

I mean, how many of those tests you watch online have the spear or sword penetrating more than a one or two inches after bypassing the mail? Reducing that penetration even a bit can save your life.

And of course, padding can prevent broken bones from sword slashes.

As for arrows and bolts, I have often read that bodkins do better against mail while leaf-shaped arrowheads are better against gambesons; it would make sense to use a combination of both...



Remember, your plate armor isn't everywhere, and you need the protection of the lower layers the most in places where it isn't, so it is not a simple decision of "plate+stuffed is better", because you will have just gambeson, with maybe some gussets, in some places. Also, some transitional types of armor have gambesons, mail and plate all layered on top of each other, which complicates this further.

But the point is, if you are wearing plate, you probably aren't worried about most weapons punching through it, so the aketon underneath doesn't need to be able to stop thrusts, just concussive damage.

And yes, you can add some extra like pieces of mail and leather under the weak points were the armor joints leave you exposed, and diferent thickness for sleeves and the body, and maybe stuffing for the body and just layers of cloth for the arms...etc.

That doesn't change my question about stuffing being better at stopping shock than layers of cloth or not.


Also, you probably don't want to own two separate kinds of gambeson - if you have just one that can do decently both with and without plate, you can relatively quickly tailor your armoredness to the situation.

I assume people would usually wear the same armor to battle. The only expection would be the super-rich, and those would have gambesons taylored for each armor.


Ah, economics at last. While the stuffed padding may be better for fully plated people, which it may not, see above point, there are relatively few of those people around. That means that specialized "for plate armor only" gambesons don't have anywhere near the demand, so there are fewer people making them, so the prices are higher because they can ask their price.

I doubt that's how it works. The same guy probably made both kinds of gambesons, and would demand more money from the piece that was harder to make, more time consuming and required more expensive components. Otherwise the customer would just buy the layered cloth one, and the greedy taylor would have to work more for less money.



That, of course, assumes that the plated man is in a price range where he scrounged enough cash for the plate armor in the first place and is now almost broke. That was usually not the case, prices of gambesons were in general low enough thet they were not a factor to the people capable of fielding plate armor. That in turn means that your original question of "is stuffing cheaper" is not a question they'd ever need to ask.

Well, if stuffed padding is just as good, then it makes no sense to buy layered cloth just for the sake of it, no matter how rich you are.



There is one more factor to account for here - mobility. Even the best made 30-layer gambeson will affect it in some ways, so you may well opt to go for something thinner, but easier to move in. Remember, a soldiers spends most of his career marching, not fighting, and while being as ready for battle as possible is logical, people tend to be not at their most logical when it comes to short term vs long term decisions. That's why we have rules banning soldiers from cutting down their pikes, after all.

Well, the 30 layers gambeson is a real thing from historical texts. It was considered the minimum for stand-alone armor, I think.

Gambesons that were used under armor were probably thinner.


Also, there is this line of thought among people making reproductions of medieval gambesons that they may well have had bits of leather sewn into them to reinforce some parts of it - I personally did this with my padded mittens, and was very happy with the result. We can't say for sure if they did this, because there are practically no survivals from this era, but it seems like a rather likely thing to do. This complicates your question even more, because thick gambeson can suddenly be two different kinds of gambeson.

In my post I explicitly mentioned that, in according to contemporary sources, a layer of leather could replace five layers of linen.


Look into African tribal stuff, like Zulu shields, there is a decent amount on those from British colonial sources - apparently, some of them could stop musket balls. They are routinely using thick hide there, but I don't think you'd have that much luck making a full-plate like armor out of it, since it tends to be really thick. Skallagrim also did some testing with thick leather, IIRC.

Thank you. I have found a shield and a breastplate, but they still seem to be super-rare. The thickness doesn't seem enough to prevent you from making at least a cuirass, though... I wonder why the weren't used more often... maybe they are very heavy?


As far as 15th-century sources go, Jean de Waurin (https://books.google.com/books?id=H3V2Qv6E5cEC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=agincourt+%2B+lance+%2B+plates+%2B+belly&source=bl&ots=BNeSVRu9vo&sig=8c2hciJ-YCMfQF7ZHgdtfkDnHY8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtj-qi_pXUAhUJjlQKHSdEAlcQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=agincourt%20%2B%20lance%20%2B%20plates%20%2B%20b elly&f=false) wrote that the French knight Lancelot Pierre received a mortal belly wound from an English lance that pierced "the plates of his armor." Give the location and description of plates, this probably means the lance hit Pierre in the fauld, or in between the breastplate and fauld. The belly appears to have been a somewhat vulnerable spot for armored riders. That's where Quijada de Reayo instructed readers to aim and that's where one of Giovanni de' Medici's penetrating lance hits landed, in that case supposedly striking where two or more plates joined or a gap or some such..

I wonder if Quijada de Reayo wasn't using "belly" as an euphemism for "crotch", the same way "thigs" and "kidneys" were sometimes used in place of "genitals" out of modesty...

[Incanur]

Quijada de Reayo (https://books.google.com/books?id=lqZ2J8lsSrYC&pg=PA249&dq=estoc+%2B+reayo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm_Ziph5bUAhUojFQKHSUPDJwQ6AEIKjAA#v=sn ippet&q=belly&f=false) used "la barriga" in the original Spanish. Aiming a lance at a mounted opponent's crotch seems difficult because of the saddle, the horse's neck, and the angles involved.

For example, look this museum setup (https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0318/44/1398971118122.jpg). In this case, even most of the belly is covered.

Likewise see this 1552 piece by Nicholas Hogenberg:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5e/d3/10/5ed31015635645ca35aa4436d2300fa8.jpg

[Mike_G]

Interesting post as usual Incanur, but I have a couple of quibbles

1) I know military theory is something you are into and have read several manuals on, which provide a unique perspective on warfare in these times, but it's important to keep in mind the difference between theory, and the authors generalized opinion, vs. records or accounts of actual battles - i.e. war in practice. Some of those theoretical manuals propose some really far out ideas which we both know were never used. I think it's a valuable insight but it's not definitive. No written records are of course but there is an extra grain of salt you have to take with these types of manuals - especially the types which are proposing ideas for the future rather than describing war as it was known during the authors own time (like a lot of the kreigsbucher).

G

Exactly.

For a more recent example, Ben Franklin advocated arming the Continental Army with bows. It's not an insane idea, given the difficulty obtaining powder versus making arrows, given that the whole Eastern US is pretty much one big forest, and the slow rate of fire and short range of the common muskets and the fact that nobody wore armor. But we have no record of any unit of archers actually seeing combat in the American Revolution.

So there are plenty of interesting ideas that were proposed, but never actually tested in battle.

[Clistenes]

Quijada de Reayo (https://books.google.com/books?id=lqZ2J8lsSrYC&pg=PA249&dq=estoc+%2B+reayo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm_Ziph5bUAhUojFQKHSUPDJwQ6AEIKjAA#v=sn ippet&q=belly&f=false) used "la barriga" in the original Spanish. Aiming a lance at a mounted opponent's crotch seems difficult because of the saddle, the horse's neck, and the angles involved.

For example, look this museum setup (https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0318/44/1398971118122.jpg). In this case, even most of the belly is covered.

Likewise see this 1552 piece by Nicholas Hogenberg:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5e/d3/10/5ed31015635645ca35aa4436d2300fa8.jpg

Well, in the case of the lance, he could be aiming for the center of gravity, in order to maximize the impact, hoping to pierce it (if the cuirass is of low quality) or to dismount the foe. But I can't see how using a sword or stoc against the belly could do damage... When using the sword, the crotch doesn't seem harder to hit than the armpit or the eyes, at least not if the foe is turning on his saddle while trying to reach you.

[rrgg]

Exactly.

For a more recent example, Ben Franklin advocated arming the Continental Army with bows. It's not an insane idea, given the difficulty obtaining powder versus making arrows, given that the whole Eastern US is pretty much one big forest, and the slow rate of fire and short range of the common muskets and the fact that nobody wore armor. But we have no record of any unit of archers actually seeing combat in the American Revolution.

So there are plenty of interesting ideas that were proposed, but never actually tested in battle.

Ben Franklin wasn't exactly an experienced soldier though. And while his suggestion for bows wasn't taken very seriously, many people did agree with him about arming troops with pikes, including George Washington. Quite a few pikes and trench spears did end up being used by the continental army prior to an ample supply of muskets being established.

[Incanur]

Oh, with the sword/estoc, sure, there's more target flexibility there. The term "la barriga" might include the groin for Quijada de Reayo. I wouldn't rule out piercing the fauld and/or skirt of mail, especially with an estoc.

Just looking at that 1552 image of men-at-arms scares me, by the way. I can see why pike formations were deep! Of course, I've always been wary of horses.

[Clistenes]

Ben Franklin wasn't exactly an experienced soldier though. And while his suggestion for bows wasn't taken very seriously, many people did agree with him about arming troops with pikes, including George Washington. Quite a few pikes and trench spears did end up being used by the continental army prior to an ample supply of muskets being established.

Even without taking into account the limitations of the weapon itself, I wonder if Ben Franklin realized how long it would take to train an useful archer...

[Deffers]

So here's a weird question. Let's say that for random reasons, some dude or a group of dudes from the present day have to go fight melee combatants from all sorts of time periods and geographical. They're not allowed to bring guns, or for that matter any ranged weapons outside of javelins and throwable spears. Whatever this skirmish looks like they won't be able to recharge any electronic devices they bring along either. Now, for whatever reason, they've got an effectively infinite budget to equip themselves for this combat. What I want to know is, what kind of weapons and armor would be best to equip these people with assuming they can commission custom equipment fit to purpose with modern manufacturing techniques? Basically, I want to know: what would be the best suit of armor and the best melee weapons that modern technology could produce for exclusively melee combat against soldiers who used melee weapons? And yes, I know the answer would change depending on whether or not we're describing single combat or group combat-- so let's answer both. I'm wondering things like would we use wholly aramid textile based armor, would we be utilizing ceramics in the manufacture of plate armor-- would we have troubles with things like joints? What kind of melee weapons would we provide these people?

TL:DR; if you had modern manufacturing tech, how would you equip a guy to fight knights and other historical combatants that could be armed with all kinds of melee weapons, both in terms of arms and armor, assuming you couldn't bring guns and couldn't recharge electronics? How does your answer change if we're considering one-on-one combat compared to mass combat?

I know it's a really weird question but I think it fits with this thread because you'd have to consider weapons from across history and real-world manufacturing techniques as well as what tactics would be best for total generalism-- the guys we're fielding might be fighting a dude in full plate armor with a poleaxe one day and then a dude with a macuahuitl and some cloth armor the next, maybe a doppelsoldner at some point, who knows!

[Mike_G]

Even without taking into account the limitations of the weapon itself, I wonder if Ben Franklin realized how long it would take to train an useful archer...

To train one of Henry V's longbowmen to pull a heavy warbow and hit a clout at 200 yards, sure. But to train a man to be able to hit a company sized mass at fifty yards, which is what he was expected to do with a musket, you could do that in the time it would take to drill him on musketry.

It isn't that it's a good idea or a bad idea. It was proposed, and the argument can be defended, but it was never put in practice. My point is that a lot of theory gets thrown around, and not a lot of it makes it into the field. So we can bring up a treatise on how pikemen should be armored or deployed or whatever, but that doesn't hold the weight of an actual example of how soldiers in documented combat were armored.

[Vinyadan]

@ deffers: does an APC count? Or a bulldozer?

Even without guns, you can carry manpads and throw missiles at your opponents...

Anyway, generally speaking, spears were really good, so a spear would be nice. As far as armour goes, full plate with ballistic plates stuffed beneath the padding and with a suit between the plates and you. A sword as a side weapon and a sling as ranged option.

[Mr Beer]

With modern materials, we could make some really good armour. Fully titanium platemail maybe?

Weapons, probably 6' to 8' long polearms. The wooden shaft could be replaced with stronger materials. The head itself probably wouldn't benefit much from modern science, since good quality steel is an excellent material. However, if you have some kind of armour-piercing spike, you could probably use tungsten or some other exceptionally hard, dense material.

Sidearms would be a sword and/or dagger I guess and would offer no particular benefit over high quality mediaeval equivalents. A mace might benefit from a super-dense striking surface, so tungsten again maybe?

EDIT

I assume we're not allowed to have devices to spray liquids? Because even without the option to bring a flamethrower to a sword fight, having a modest range liquid projector (which could be purely mechanical), a chem suit and full access to a war laboratory would be a game changer. It's tough to fight someone if they get to hose you down with sarin first.

[Clistenes]

To train one of Henry V's longbowmen to pull a heavy warbow and hit a clout at 200 yards, sure. But to train a man to be able to hit a company sized mass at fifty yards, which is what he was expected to do with a musket, you could do that in the time it would take to drill him on musketry.

It isn't that it's a good idea or a bad idea. It was proposed, and the argument can be defended, but it was never put in practice. My point is that a lot of theory gets thrown around, and not a lot of it makes it into the field. So we can bring up a treatise on how pikemen should be armored or deployed or whatever, but that doesn't hold the weight of an actual example of how soldiers in documented combat were armored.

Well, you have to take into account the experience of the guy writing the proposal. Benjamin Franklin lacked military experience.

Qi Jiguang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_Jiguang), on the other hand, was an officer since he was 17, took part in actual combat since he was 20, was a field commander at 25. and became one of the most succesful generals of his generation, developing his own training methods and military tactics. He claimed that the musket was five times as accurate as the bow.

[Deffers]

Let's say APCs don't count because... well, then you'd just run people the hell down. Question answered. Chemical throwers would have crazy range too, but we'll keep in mind that they *can* exist. A super-soaker full of acid would be acceptable but I don't think access to a war lab will be provided. So there's that. Would aramid fibers be a good replacement for armor joints? Do we have any methods to deal with how hot full armor gets?

[Galloglaich]

With modern materials, we could make some really good armour. Fully titanium platemail maybe?

Titanium would make terrible armor, you could easily pierce it with a good steel weapon.

I don't think you could really improve on late medieval tech for hand to hand fighting, at least not without inventing a whole new culture of fighting in hand to hand with a related economic system to help ramp up techiques and new protective and weapons gear.

Electric / shock weapons would be good if you were allowed to use those. Maybe some kind of super fast vibrating knives or something like those stun pistons they use to kill cattle in slaughterhouses would be good.

[spineyrequiem]

I'd want a clear plastic visor instead of eyeslits on the helmet, basically whatever they use on riot police. Possibly with a steel/hard plastic mandible with some breathing holes added, I don't know how tough the plastic is. For the body of it I'd want either armox or whatever it is they use to make modern combat helmets as I know that's lighter than steel and bulk doesn't really matter on a helmet. Body protection is hard to improve (maybe armox would be better? Don't know how much it weighs compared to medieval steel) but I would try and invest in a decent cooling system (probably in the form of a wardrobe full of single-use icepacks) so I could fight longer than my opponents before exhaustion. For weaponry, it's hard to improve on a good poleaxe, beyond a stronger/lighter shaft and a stronger piercing spike. Plus a sword and a dagger or two for if it gets dropped or broken.

[Mr Beer]

Chemical throwers would have crazy range too, but we'll keep in mind that they *can* exist. A super-soaker full of acid would be acceptable but I don't think access to a war lab will be provided.

Well if we have ruggedized super soakers, there are a whole range of interesting liquids that can be used.

Strong acids or bases would be useful mainly for blinding or otherwise disabling opponents I think. Less flesh melting and more simple horrible pain.

Even if we don't have flame throwers, you could still soak people with jellied petrol and then manually ignite them with flaming torches; if nothing else once one enemy gets lit up, others who have been 'wetted down' are going to be reluctant to come close enough to get set on fire.

You seem to be against nerve gas and anyway spraying the area with sarin would be too insanely dangerous unless everyone is in full chemical suits, with a mobile decontamination lab on hand. But I imagine there are a whole array of incredibly nasty substances (corrosive, exothermic, highly toxic etc.) which could be used. Maybe some kind of binary system could be employed so that the two key ingredients are kept apart until they both contact the enemy.

I think you'd combine super soaker wielders protected by armoured pollaxe guys. Super soakers would hit at range to injure enemies and break formations, then the pollaxe men close to kill.

[Kiero]

To train one of Henry V's longbowmen to pull a heavy warbow and hit a clout at 200 yards, sure. But to train a man to be able to hit a company sized mass at fifty yards, which is what he was expected to do with a musket, you could do that in the time it would take to drill him on musketry.

It isn't that it's a good idea or a bad idea. It was proposed, and the argument can be defended, but it was never put in practice. My point is that a lot of theory gets thrown around, and not a lot of it makes it into the field. So we can bring up a treatise on how pikemen should be armored or deployed or whatever, but that doesn't hold the weight of an actual example of how soldiers in documented combat were armored.

Indeed, longbowmen aren't all archers; basic proficiency with a self bow to the level where it's more effective than a musket doesn't take that long. It's far more accurate and has a longer range than a smoothbore musket. For light infantry at least, especially in a wooded area, they'd be a good choice. There's even a wealth of troops already bow-armed in the form of the natives too.

[spineyrequiem]

You seem to be against nerve gas and anyway spraying the area with sarin would be too insanely dangerous unless everyone is in full chemical suits, with a mobile decontamination lab on hand. But I imagine there are a whole array of incredibly nasty substances (corrosive, exothermic, highly toxic etc.) which could be used. Maybe some kind of binary system could be employed so that the two key ingredients are kept apart until they both contact the enemy.


If we're using chemicals, tear gas'd do the job. All you need is a pretty basic gas mask to protect yourself and it'll pretty effectively break up a formation, most people hit with that stuff won't be able to fight on. Plus you could launch the canisters from a staff-sling or something rather than needing to worry about making a supersoaker work consistently and not leak acid onto your hands.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I'd want a clear plastic visor instead of eyeslits on the helmet, basically whatever they use on riot police. Possibly with a steel/hard plastic mandible with some breathing holes added, I don't know how tough the plastic is. For the body of it I'd want either armox or whatever it is they use to make modern combat helmets as I know that's lighter than steel and bulk doesn't really matter on a helmet. Body protection is hard to improve (maybe armox would be better? Don't know how much it weighs compared to medieval steel) but I would try and invest in a decent cooling system (probably in the form of a wardrobe full of single-use icepacks) so I could fight longer than my opponents before exhaustion. For weaponry, it's hard to improve on a good poleaxe, beyond a stronger/lighter shaft and a stronger piercing spike. Plus a sword and a dagger or two for if it gets dropped or broken.
I'd go with Kevlar and ceramic plates for armour.

For a polearm, maybe composites for the shaft, possibly ceramics for piercing points. You'd still have Steel for blades, but materials control would be so much better than anyone else's.

As for throwing chemicals around, while the nastier things like nerve gas might not be a great idea, what about riot control gear like tear gas and pepper spray?
(Edit: Didn't see the previous post :smallsigh: )

[rrgg]

Indeed, longbowmen aren't all archers; basic proficiency with a self bow to the level where it's more effective than a musket doesn't take that long. It's far more accurate and has a longer range than a smoothbore musket. For light infantry at least, especially in a wooded area, they'd be a good choice. There's even a wealth of troops already bow-armed in the form of the natives too.

It takes a lot of skill with a bow to shoot more accurately than a musket even on the practice range. In actual combat the accuracy of musketeers and riflemen tended to take a massive nose-dive, down to around 1/50th what they could achieve against a practice target or less. For a more complicated weapon like the bow accuracy would have suffered even worse.

Especially in wooded areas the musket tends to have the advantage. A musket shot is less likely to be affected by leaves or undergrowth and muskets were generally considered easier to use from behind cover. Not to mention that the ability to take cover while reloading largely offsets the musket's main weakness.

From Barnabe Rich: "Besides this euery Bushe, euery Hedge, euery Ditch, euery Tree, and almost euery Moalhil is a sufficient safgarde for a shotte, where the Archer is little worse, but on a playne, when the shotte wyll conuay them selues into euery couerte, that the Archer shall not see whereat to shoote, and yet hee himselfe remayne a fayre marke for the o∣ther, or els can vse no seruice."

[rrgg]

As far as melee weapons with modern technology go, it really depends a lot on exactly what the rules are. Being able to store a huge amount of energy chemically or through some other method still tends to be a huge advantage over muscle power alone. Which turns it into a question of what you can get away with while still technically not being "a ranged weapon." For instance the ballistic fist from Fallout, or a gun which shoots a retractable piston instead of a bullet.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Which turns it into a question of what you can get away with while still technically not being "a ranged weapon." For instance the ballistic fist from Fallout, or a gun which shoots a retractable piston instead of a bullet.

Or a diving knife injecting pressurized air, or a chainsaw...

[Martin Greywolf]

So here's a weird question. Let's say that for random reasons, some dude or a group of dudes from the present day have to go fight melee combatants from all sorts of time periods and geographical. They're not allowed to bring guns, or for that matter any ranged weapons outside of javelins and throwable spears. Whatever this skirmish looks like they won't be able to recharge any electronic devices they bring along either. Now, for whatever reason, they've got an effectively infinite budget to equip themselves for this combat. What I want to know is, what kind of weapons and armor would be best to equip these people with assuming they can commission custom equipment fit to purpose with modern manufacturing techniques? Basically, I want to know: what would be the best suit of armor and the best melee weapons that modern technology could produce for exclusively melee combat against soldiers who used melee weapons? And yes, I know the answer would change depending on whether or not we're describing single combat or group combat-- so let's answer both. I'm wondering things like would we use wholly aramid textile based armor, would we be utilizing ceramics in the manufacture of plate armor-- would we have troubles with things like joints? What kind of melee weapons would we provide these people?

TL:DR; if you had modern manufacturing tech, how would you equip a guy to fight knights and other historical combatants that could be armed with all kinds of melee weapons, both in terms of arms and armor, assuming you couldn't bring guns and couldn't recharge electronics? How does your answer change if we're considering one-on-one combat compared to mass combat?

I know it's a really weird question but I think it fits with this thread because you'd have to consider weapons from across history and real-world manufacturing techniques as well as what tactics would be best for total generalism-- the guys we're fielding might be fighting a dude in full plate armor with a poleaxe one day and then a dude with a macuahuitl and some cloth armor the next, maybe a doppelsoldner at some point, who knows!

It depends a bit on the circumstances - are they marching with their equipment? Do they have to be able to carry all of it themselves? What exactly is and is not banned?

For generalist setup, here are some thoughts.

Armor would see more change than weapons, but not as much as you may think at first glance. Your basis is still full plate steel, ceramic plates work by being ablative and are a bad idea for prolonged engagement - that's one of the reasons why they are usually only used in bulletproof vests only when steel will not do.

We could improve the lower layers, though. Gambesons made of non-newtonian fluids or with plastic plates reinforcing certain parts of them instead of leather would be thinner and perhaps nicer to wear, and you could whip up some lower garments that would help you handle the heat and sweat, perhaps something inspired by the astronaut suits?

Speaking of suits, if we can use chemical weapons, making yourself fireproof and then coating everything with napalm is something you can and should do, if the situation calls for it, but then we're not really fighting in melee.

Helmets with visor that is filled with plastic is a pretty good idea, I'll add integrated gas mask into the mix if we can use chemical weapons.

Also, make everything covered with something that stops it from rusting.

Weapons, well, it really depends on how many you can carry. Pollaxe and sword would probably be a good bet, if you can have more than that, use pollaxe against heavily armored foes and sword/spear and shield against everyone else. Also, carry a knife or dagger. Always carry a knife or dagger. Weapon materials wouldn't really change that much, maybe slightly better steel or something like coating blade edges with very hard materials at best, steel managed to be a pretty nice sweet spot for balancing weight (needed to hit things hard) and speed (needed to hit things in the first place). One area where you could improve things are wooden and leather parts, synthetic materials and maybe something to add weight if necessary.

Shields are an interesting topic, actually. Can you replace them? No matter what the answer is, you may consider making a shield out of plastic that can be seen through from one direction - that way, you can still hide your weapons behind it and can actually see through it, which is something many people who fight with large shields dream about.

[Incanur]

Poison would be another thing to consider for this hypothetical scenario. You could design melee and thrown weapons to deliver fatal doses of the deadliest poisons known, ones that potentially incapacitate in a few minutes.

Of course, technically the rules as written don't explicitly ban explosives, so you could just make exploding javelins.

If this actually happened, I imagine there'd be lots of testing and folks would come up with amazing new armor and weapon designs.

[Kiero]

It takes a lot of skill with a bow to shoot more accurately than a musket even on the practice range. In actual combat the accuracy of musketeers and riflemen tended to take a massive nose-dive, down to around 1/50th what they could achieve against a practice target or less. For a more complicated weapon like the bow accuracy would have suffered even worse.

Especially in wooded areas the musket tends to have the advantage. A musket shot is less likely to be affected by leaves or undergrowth and muskets were generally considered easier to use from behind cover. Not to mention that the ability to take cover while reloading largely offsets the musket's main weakness.

From Barnabe Rich: "Besides this euery Bushe, euery Hedge, euery Ditch, euery Tree, and almost euery Moalhil is a sufficient safgarde for a shotte, where the Archer is little worse, but on a playne, when the shotte wyll conuay them selues into euery couerte, that the Archer shall not see whereat to shoote, and yet hee himselfe remayne a fayre marke for the o∣ther, or els can vse no seruice."

More skill to shoot more accurately than a musket in battlefield conditions, when you're lucky to hit anything remotely like what you're aiming at beyond 50 yards? You don't even need an arcing shot with a bow at that sort of range, so I'm not convinced.

Fair enough on the value of cover, but you have to also consider that a bow is much quieter than a musket, better for surprise attacks and hit-and-run.

[Incanur]

As far as bow-vs.-gun accuracy goes, I'm convinced it's easier to hit things with early firearms than with bows up to at least a moderate skill level. At advanced skill levels, bows and crossbows may have been more accurate because of higher reliability. Raimond de Fourquevaux's description of bows and crossbows as more reliable and of the single crossbower who got more kills than five or six of the best arquebusiers at a 1520s siege potentially fits this model.

Of course, even then, the best 16th-century sharpshooters with the best 16th-century firearms achieved quite impressive results, as you see in shooting contests and so on. So it's perhaps fair to say that good early firearms were just more accurate than bows and crossbows, period.

[Mr Beer]

Speaking of suits, if we can use chemical weapons, making yourself fireproof and then coating everything with napalm is something you can and should do, if the situation calls for it, but then we're not really fighting in melee.

Ah, the old "everything is now napalm" answer to close-quarter fighting.

[rrgg]

More skill to shoot more accurately than a musket in battlefield conditions, when you're lucky to hit anything remotely like what you're aiming at beyond 50 yards? You don't even need an arcing shot with a bow at that sort of range, so I'm not convinced.

Fair enough on the value of cover, but you have to also consider that a bow is much quieter than a musket, better for surprise attacks and hit-and-run.

A smoothbore musket was a pretty accurate weapon at 50 yards and a good shot with a well-bored weapon could hit a standing man at 80-120 yards most of the time. With a bow, even if you were accurate enough to hit a man farther than 50 yards away there was a good chance he would move or duck out of the way before your arrow hit. There's also the fact that a large caliber musket ball has far more stopping power than an arrow. Even if you were only interested in the ability to hit a small target or put the maximum number of projectiles down range, a bow would still usually be outclassed by a musket loaded with hailshot or buckshot.

Even at shorter ranges aiming and shooting a bow is more complex and requires more concentration than lining up the barrel of a musket, which is a significant liability in combat. During the early modern period it was usually considered lucky if a soldier took the time to fully level his musket before shooting, however according to mercenary Humphrey Barwick even that wasn't nearly as bad as nervous longbowmen who, as the enemy got close, would resort to wildly shooting half-drawn arrows into the air as rapidly as they could and did little damage even if they hit.

As far as ambushes go, a musket or shotgun is also pretty quiet until you shoot it, and when you do it will cause far more damage and confusion than a couple of arrows will. Smoothbore firearms were extremely popular among native American tribes and fit right in with the ambush warfare they typically engaged in. Guns and gunpowder quickly became one of if not the most popular trade item in the new world and by 1700 most tribes in close contact with European traders had become fairly well equipped with them.

[rrgg]

As far as bow-vs.-gun accuracy goes, I'm convinced it's easier to hit things with early firearms than with bows up to at least a moderate skill level. At advanced skill levels, bows and crossbows may have been more accurate because of higher reliability. Raimond de Fourquevaux's description of bows and crossbows as more reliable and of the single crossbower who got more kills than five or six of the best arquebusiers at a 1520s siege potentially fits this model.

Of course, even then, the best 16th-century sharpshooters with the best 16th-century firearms achieved quite impressive results, as you see in shooting contests and so on. So it's perhaps fair to say that good early firearms were just more accurate than bows and crossbows, period.

Comparisons between bows and crossbows tend to be all over the place. In China, Qi Jiguang wrote that soldiers with matchlock muskets would typically hit the bullseye five times as often as the archers did. There's also the fact that the average quality of firearms varied and may have been increasing over time, according to Barwick the firearms being used in 1592 were much better than the ones in use when he first became a soldier around 45 years earlier.

In Greener's "The Gun and it's Development" he mentions an exhibition from near the end of the 18th century in which a longbow archery champion managed to outshoot a man with a musket at 100 yards, striking the target 14/20 times as opposed to 11/20. So there might be some merit to the idea that an extremely skilled archer could be more accurate than a musket during Ben Franklin's time.

However it's worth remembering that even for a smoothbore the Brown Bess was hardly optimized for accuracy. As part of Bosworth's experiments in the 1840s he found that the spread of a typical infantry musket could be cut in half by using far less powder than was in a standard "war charge", which was apparently a trick which had be known to hunters and sport shooters for a very long time. So it really just goes to further show that raw accuracy was hardly the primary concern when it came to military shooting.

[Mike_G]

So it really just goes to further show that raw accuracy was hardly the primary concern when it came to military shooting.

Accuracy on the battlefield with the typical Brown Bess or Charleville musket of the American revolution was poor past 50 yards.

As you've said, the tactic was to use massed fire at enemy formations, so the need to hit a man at 100 yards wasn't what drive them to choose a weapon.

I am in no way saying bows are better, but I do think that a company of archers shooting at a company of infantry at 50 yards could be plenty accurate enough. And the bow can shoot faster than a musket, so in a sustained fight, it could put more rounds down range.

I think the American Indians wouldn't have been so keen to get muskets if bows were better, but I don't think a bow is all that much worse than a Brown Bess. I've done a bit of archery and hitting a target at 50 yards doesn't take Robin Hood. Hitting a company of redcoats in close order certainly doesn't. Wellington supposedly floated the idea of archers in the Napoleonic Wars, since a rain of arrows on a tightly packed column of unarmored French infantry probably would have been fairly damaging. From what I recall, the idea was scrapped because there were few trained archers and no time to train them.

Lost in the nitpicking of bow versus gun, is my point that many reforms have been proposed that sounded at least a little feasible, but never actually saw service,

[Knaight]

If modern Olympic fencing is aggressive tag, then gladiatorial combat is pretty much the WWE in Rome. Neither of these can be as example of historical "warriors."

That's my point - the equipment for both makes no sense in an actual armed conflict.

[Max_Killjoy]

IMO, IF a military had had access to a sufficient reserve from the population, of archers, who were already-trained, well-trained, and self-equipped with bows, then it would have made sense to field specialist units of archers who could double as scouts, etc, and whose role in pitched battle would have been to fire over the front line of musket-armed troops and into the mass of the enemy.

Once a population doesn't include that reserve, IMO, it no longer makes sense to spend the military's time and money training archers instead of musket-armed troops, and if you're looking for specialists, then train those who show promise to be marksmen with rifled (or even just precision-made smoothbore) firearms.

[Mike_G]

IMO, IF a military had had access to a sufficient reserve from the population, of archers, who were already-trained, well-trained, and self-equipped with bows, then it would have made sense to field specialist units of archers who could double as scouts, etc, and whose role in pitched battle would have been to fire over the front line of musket-armed troops and into the mass of the enemy.

Once a population doesn't include that reserve, IMO, it no longer makes sense to spend the military's time and money training archers instead of musket-armed troops, and if you're looking for specialists, then train those who show promise to be marksmen with rifled (or even just precision-made smoothbore) firearms.

Again, it's not a good idea, which is why they never did it.

But part of Franklin's thinking was the difficulty in obtaining gunpowder, so riflemen weren't the answer. His theory was that we can't supply powder, but we can make arrows, bows won the battle of Agincourt and the Brown Bess isn't exactly a magic wand, why not arm some units with bows?

Standard issue smoothbore muskets didn't really have much of a range or accuracy advantage. Not practically, at any rate. Muskets did have an ease of use advantage, and they didn't need the muscle power so maybe a guy starving at Valley Forge could pull a trigger but not draw a heavy bow.

Once you have rifles, then you outrange bows by a lot, and once you have breeechloaders you gain rate of fire parity if not superiority to bows. Until then, bows are worse, but still capable of competing. Custer's men were beaten a hundred years later by an enemy who still fielded a lot of bows and they had breechloading rifles.

Once last time, it's not brilliant, Washington didn't leap to implement it, but it's somewhat reasonable.

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, it's not a good idea, which is why they never did it.

But part of Franklin's thinking was the difficulty in obtaining gunpowder, so riflemen weren't the answer. His theory was that we can't supply powder, but we can make arrows, bows won the battle of Agincourt and the Brown Bess isn't exactly a magic wand, why not arm some units with bows?

Standard issue smoothbore muskets didn't really have much of a range or accuracy advantage. Not practically, at any rate. Muskets did have an ease of use advantage, and they didn't need the muscle power so maybe a guy starving at Valley Forge could pull a trigger but not draw a heavy bow.

Once you have rifles, then you outrange bows by a lot, and once you have breeechloaders you gain rate of fire parity if not superiority to bows. Until then, bows are worse, but still capable of competing. Custer's men were beaten a hundred years later by an enemy who still fielded a lot of bows and they had breechloading rifles.

Once last time, it's not brilliant, Washington didn't leap to implement it, but it's somewhat reasonable.

Once the social/cultural support structure for the archers is gone, it's absolutely pointless, I totally agree there. Something that came up either earlier in this thread or in the previous iteration, was the suggestion that as with slings and javelins, the loss of that culture of civilian training with the weapon is one of the crucial factors in their abandonment as weapons of war -- when the civilians aren't training with them and there's an easier weapon for commanders or militaries to train troops en masse with, then the old weapon disappears from military use.

What makes it such a terrible idea in the hypothetical situation that you do have a civilian population with sufficient numbers already trained in use of bows -- and your firearms haven't yet reached the point of firing more than once every 30+ seconds?

(E: I'm not arguing that you're wrong, I'm asking why I'm wrong.)

[rrgg]

Accuracy on the battlefield with the typical Brown Bess or Charleville musket of the American revolution was poor past 50 yards.

As you've said, the tactic was to use massed fire at enemy formations, so the need to hit a man at 100 yards wasn't what drive them to choose a weapon.

I am in no way saying bows are better, but I do think that a company of archers shooting at a company of infantry at 50 yards could be plenty accurate enough. And the bow can shoot faster than a musket, so in a sustained fight, it could put more rounds down range.

I think the American Indians wouldn't have been so keen to get muskets if bows were better, but I don't think a bow is all that much worse than a Brown Bess. I've done a bit of archery and hitting a target at 50 yards doesn't take Robin Hood. Hitting a company of redcoats in close order certainly doesn't. Wellington supposedly floated the idea of archers in the Napoleonic Wars, since a rain of arrows on a tightly packed column of unarmored French infantry probably would have been fairly damaging. From what I recall, the idea was scrapped because there were few trained archers and no time to train them.

Lost in the nitpicking of bow versus gun, is my point that many reforms have been proposed that sounded at least a little feasible, but never actually saw service,

It doesn't take an expert marksman to hit a target at that distance with a rifle, but on battlefields of the 18th and 19th centuries most riflemen don't seem to have been very accurate beyond 50 yards either. I suspect the accuracy of archers would have been even worse with bullets and cannonballs whistling past their ears, Blaise de Montluc claimed in 1545 that the English archers he faced would wait until they were within "four or five pike lengths" before they started shooting.

I still haven't been able to find a source for that anecdote about Wellington, so it's hard to tell what the context was or how serious he was about fielding longbowmen. If he did say something like that he wouldn't have been alone, I have come across newspaper articles from the first half of the 1800s for example which speculate about how amazing longbowmen would be. However they tend to be heavily based on on nostalgia, i.e. "what if the (mythologized) archers of Henry V were still around today?"

I do agree there is a good chance longbows would have been better than nothing though. In the late 16th century longbows were still relatively inexpensive weapons compared to firearms and aside from hardcore bow defenders like John Smythe, there were a number of writers who still thought it would be useful to retain the longbow as a militia weapon at least. William Garrard thought that if there was no other shot available, then archers could still be effective if, for example, they were stationed behind fortifications and caught unarmored musketeers out in the open. Of course it was still the "longbows are useless, get rid of them" crowd that eventually won out though.


whose role in pitched battle would have been to fire over the front line of musket-armed troops and into the mass of the enemy.

As long as I'm being nitpicky this probably wouldn't have been the best way to deploy archers alongside firearms. The English experimented with tactics like this during the Elizabethan period as firearms came to take over the forlorn hope and wings of the formation and the longbows were pushed back to the rear. Sir John Smythe came to the conclusion that tactics like this were part of the reason commanders had such a negative view of longbowmen, since once the archers' vision is blocked by a forest of pikes or gunsmoke it is impossible for them to shoot with any kind of accuracy. He concluded that archers needed to be positioned at the front or wings of a formation to be most effective like they were in medieval English armies.

[Max_Killjoy]

It doesn't take an expert marksman to hit a target at that distance with a rifle, but on battlefields of the 18th and 19th centuries most riflemen don't seem to have been very accurate beyond 50 yards either. I suspect the accuracy of archers would have been even worse with bullets and cannonballs whistling past their ears, Blaise de Montluc claimed in 1545 that the English archers he faced would wait until they were within "four or five pike lengths" before they started shooting.

I still haven't been able to find a source for that anecdote about Wellington, so it's hard to tell what the context was or how serious he was about fielding longbowmen. If he did say something like that he wouldn't have been alone, I have come across newspaper articles from the first half of the 1800s for example which speculate about how amazing longbowmen would be. However they tend to be heavily based on on nostalgia, i.e. "what if the (mythologized) archers of Henry V were still around today?"

I do agree there is a good chance longbows would have been better than nothing though. In the late 16th century longbows were still relatively inexpensive weapons compared to firearms and aside from hardcore bow defenders like John Smythe, there were a number of writers who still thought it would be useful to retain the longbow as a militia weapon at least. William Garrard thought that if there was no other shot available, then archers could still be effective if, for example, they were stationed behind fortifications and caught unarmored musketeers out in the open. Of course it was still the "longbows are useless, get rid of them" crowd that eventually won out though.



As long as I'm being nitpicky this probably wouldn't have been the best way to deploy archers alongside firearms. The English experimented with tactics like this during the Elizabethan period as firearms came to take over the forlorn hope and wings of the formation and the longbows were pushed back to the rear. Sir John Smythe came to the conclusion that tactics like this were part of the reason commanders had such a negative view of longbowmen, since once the archers' vision is blocked by a forest of pikes or gunsmoke it is impossible for them to shoot with any kind of accuracy. He concluded that archers needed to be positioned at the front or wings of a formation to be most effective like they were in medieval English armies.

I had not considered the smoke, I sometimes forget just how smokey firearms could be before the ~1880s and the introduction of smokeless propellants.

[Incanur]

Bows did of course retain a place on the battlefield alongside firearms in the Chinese region, in South Asia, and probably in other parts of Asia I'm less familiar with. I'm not convinced the bow was completely obsolete until the breech-loading rifles of the middle of the 19th century. Firearms proved superior to bows in specific martial, social, and economic context of 16th-century Europe and Japan, but not everywhere else.

Guns were generally better for skirmishing on foot in rough terrain, for defending fortifications, and obviously against armor.

Infantry archers had potential advantages in open battles and for covering gunners via higher rate of shooting and higher reliability in adverse weather. Most notably, bows excelled from horseback.

It's additionally worth mentioning that at any given level of quality, Asian composite bows perform better than European self-bows. Good composite bows launch arrows at higher velocity and/or with more kinetic energy than English warbows per unit of draw weight. Perhaps one reason that European bows disappeared is because their bows weren't that great. (Now, environmental might make it difficult to maintain Asian-style composite bows in Europe. That was an issue in parts of Asia as well, of course.)

[Clistenes]

Musashi Miyamoto liked bows, but he admitted their greatest flaw was that they had a very narrow "sweet spot" (I think it was around 20 yards). Further away arrows don't do enough damage, and they aren't accurate enough; at closer range the enemy tends to make a dash against you rather than escape...

About longbows, I think it was said that an archer would have time to shoot only two effective arrows against a charging knight before being trampled.

It could be argued that British troops were unarmoured, and hence, vulnerable at a longer range, but making jacks and gambesons isn't rocket science; if attacked with bows, they would have adapted.

And again, Qi Jiguang, the guy who used both, said that muskets were five times as accurate as bows...

[Carl]

Regarding the accuracy question, what size of target was usually used for longbow practise? That would give us a good idea of the kind of target they were expected to hit? A quick search shows modern assault rifles aren't exactly imbued with massive accuracy, (target size varies between 2/3 of a foot to a 1 and a half feet at longbow practise ranges), and we know that unrifled smoothbores firing round balls where/are significantly less acurratte than modern firearms. That suggests the patterns should be wider still for them, but if typical longbow targets where 6+feet across then it may be plausible if we assume the difference between a modern firearm and a smoothbore wasn't several times worse but only fractions worse, (i.e. less than a 2x worse but worse than equivalent).

I find the idea however that bows where 5 times less acurratte than firearms to be highly dubious since i'd expect personally that the accuracy of smoothbores would be several times worse than a modern assault rifle. Given that, the level of inaccuracy that would have to be present in bows to be 5 times worse becomes highly suspect.

[Kiero]

I think people are overestimating the accuracy of smoothbore muskets, those like the Brown Bess and Charleroi patterns. Rifled weapons are an entirely different conversation, not relevant to this comparison of (smoothbore) muskets and bows. In perfect conditions, they weren't accurate beyond 50 yards (there's a contemporary quote I can't remember the source of saying you "might as well shoot at the moon" beyond that range). When you add battlefield conditions, they're even less accurate, fouling making it hard to even load the next round and adding even more garbage to the inside of the barrel making it likelier for the bullet to spang off in a random direction.

On stealth, muskets aren't stealthy at all, you get your first shot, which announces your exact position with a flash, loud bang and plume of smoke. After that you can't hide your position and every shot highlights where you are. An archer makes far less of an announcement and is harder to track.

I agree with Incanur that western bows were generally pretty poor, and eastern ones much better. I have to wonder how effective steppe-style horse archers might have been against Napoleonic infantry and indeed light cavalry (both of whom were unarmoured). Did the Ottomans still deploy Anatolian sipahis in the 19th century?


It doesn't take an expert marksman to hit a target at that distance with a rifle, but on battlefields of the 18th and 19th centuries most riflemen don't seem to have been very accurate beyond 50 yards either. I suspect the accuracy of archers would have been even worse with bullets and cannonballs whistling past their ears, Blaise de Montluc claimed in 1545 that the English archers he faced would wait until they were within "four or five pike lengths" before they started shooting.


This is incorrect, the regularly assumed effective range of a Baker rifle in the hands of a light infantryman like those of the British 95th (early 19th century) was 200 yards. Trained men could reliably hit the man they were aiming at (usually officers or NCOs) at that range. They regularly beat their musket-armed opposing French light infantry (voltigeurs and tirailleurs) in the Peninsular War precisely because they could hit the man they were aiming at, reliably, at a much longer range, even if the rifle was slightly slower to reload.

That's with standard cartridges. Switch to a greased leather patch, a loose ball and powder from a horn, measured out appropriately for the shot, and it extended to up to 800 yards for the best men. Rifleman Plunkett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Plunket) famously killed General Colbert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Fran%C3%A7ois-Marie_de_Colbert-Chabanais) at a range of 600m (656 yards) during the retreat to Corunna. To show it wasn't a fluke, his next shot killed one of the general's aides who went to the general's side.

A rifle would be a better weapon on foot than almost any kind of bow; but a smoothbore musket isn't a rifle.

[Max_Killjoy]

Regarding the accuracy question, what size of target was usually used for longbow practise? That would give us a good idea of the kind of target they were expected to hit? A quick search shows modern assault rifles aren't exactly imbued with massive accuracy, (target size varies between 2/3 of a foot to a 1 and a half feet at longbow practise ranges), and we know that unrifled smoothbores firing round balls where/are significantly less acurratte than modern firearms. That suggests the patterns should be wider still for them, but if typical longbow targets where 6+feet across then it may be plausible if we assume the difference between a modern firearm and a smoothbore wasn't several times worse but only fractions worse, (i.e. less than a 2x worse but worse than equivalent).

I find the idea however that bows where 5 times less acurratte than firearms to be highly dubious since i'd expect personally that the accuracy of smoothbores would be several times worse than a modern assault rifle. Given that, the level of inaccuracy that would have to be present in bows to be 5 times worse becomes highly suspect.

I think part of the problem is that we've got testimony from all sorts of people across a vast span of time and location, using all sorts of different weapons. The selection of "smoothbores" from across that sample space is almost countless, there are mass-issued guns intended for mass-conscripted troops and volley-fire, and there are weapons intended for precision use by highly-experience marksmen. Same with the bows, and crossbows, and so on.

So when someone from time A and place B talks about "the accuracy of weapon H vs weapon J", or numerical records for smoothbores from A/B are compared to those of bows from C/D, we're not just comparing apples to oranges, sometimes we're comparing five kinds of apple against seven kinds of motorbike.

It's possible that the person someone with personal experience in both claiming that bows were five times less accurate than muskets was comparing apples to motorbikes, or had a personal bias, or was just better with the firearm.

But given how inaccurate muskets often were in combat, the idea that the "fair comparison" bow-arrow-archer combination would be five times less accurate at say 50 or even 100 yards... fired against the same sorts of mass targets... I find that somewhat dubious. Maybe there are other reasons that they'd be ineffective as troops in the era in question, but I don't think an apples-to-apples accuracy is going to be the killer answer here.


I'm still inclined to go with "changes in the structure of societies and in how armies were raised and trained" over "the musket was in all ways superior from an early point in time" when it comes to why the bow faded out so quickly as a weapon of war in many places. There are plenty of legitimate historical reasons and practical reasons why armies stopped fielding archers when they did.

But there's a span of time in which, if someone had said to me as a commander, "Here are 1000 archers, fully-trained and equipped, battle-experienced, and able to maintain their own weapons and make their own arrows"... I don't think I've seen a solid why I should have replied "Send them away, or send them to get trained with these mass-issue firearms, they're useless to me."

[Brother Oni]

Infantry archers had potential advantages in open battles and for covering gunners via higher rate of shooting and higher reliability in adverse weather. Most notably, bows excelled from horseback.

It's additionally worth mentioning that at any given level of quality, Asian composite bows perform better than European self-bows. Good composite bows launch arrows at higher velocity and/or with more kinetic energy than English warbows per unit of draw weight. Perhaps one reason that European bows disappeared is because their bows weren't that great.

Note that in Middle Eastern and Far Eastern archery, they also used a particular draw that was optimal for horseback archery - thumb draws keep hold of the arrow throughout the whole nock and draw process, compared to the three finger Mediterranean draw.

I'd also argue that it's the recurve design rather than composite build that enabled bows to keep their popularity (my archery instructor reckons that for a given draw weight, a recurve is about twice as efficient as a self bow), which is possibly supported by the enthusiastic uptake of muskets by the Japanese during the 15th/16th Century, since they were still using self bows despite their knowledge of Mongol composite recurves.

[KateMicucci]

Once the social/cultural support structure for the archers is gone, it's absolutely pointless, I totally agree there. Something that came up either earlier in this thread or in the previous iteration, was the suggestion that as with slings and javelins, the loss of that culture of civilian training with the weapon is one of the crucial factors in their abandonment as weapons of war -- when the civilians aren't training with them and there's an easier weapon for commanders or militaries to train troops en masse with, then the old weapon disappears from military use.

What makes it such a terrible idea in the hypothetical situation that you do have a civilian population with sufficient numbers already trained in use of bows -- and your firearms haven't yet reached the point of firing more than once every 30+ seconds?

(E: I'm not arguing that you're wrong, I'm asking why I'm wrong.)
The Henrican laws requiring archery practice on Sunday evenings and holidays was not repealed until 1631, and Englishmen in high government positions had been calling the bow obsolete since the 1560's. Ease of use was not a factor in the replacement of the longbow. The matchlock musket was so dangerous that it was considered a weapon fit only for "perfectly" trained men, while the English state considered the longbow perfectly suitable for untrained auxiliaries in case of invasion but not much else.
https://bowvsmusket.com/2017/05/29/musketeers-were-not-easier-to-train-than-archers/

[rrgg]

This is incorrect, the regularly assumed effective range of a Baker rifle in the hands of a light infantryman like those of the British 95th (early 19th century) was 200 yards. Trained men could reliably hit the man they were aiming at (usually officers or NCOs) at that range. They regularly beat their musket-armed opposing French light infantry (voltigeurs and tirailleurs) in the Peninsular War precisely because they could hit the man they were aiming at, reliably, at a much longer range, even if the rifle was slightly slower to reload.

That's with standard cartridges. Switch to a greased leather patch, a loose ball and powder from a horn, measured out appropriately for the shot, and it extended to up to 800 yards for the best men. Rifleman Plunkett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Plunket) famously killed General Colbert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Fran%C3%A7ois-Marie_de_Colbert-Chabanais) at a range of 600m (656 yards) during the retreat to Corunna. To show it wasn't a fluke, his next shot killed one of the general's aides who went to the general's side.

A rifle would be a better weapon on foot than almost any kind of bow; but a smoothbore musket isn't a rifle.

The gun was accurate at much farther distances. But outside of a very skilled sharpshooter firing from a very sheltered position the soldiers weren't. I have yet to come across any examples of a single volley from a rifle company decimating the enemy at 600 yards, or at 100 yards for that matter. Generally the riflemen were still only considered good for harassment and being a general nuisance, like tirailleurs were. They had an advantage in skirmishes but not nearly as much as you might think.

During the US civil war the weapons used were much more accurate than the baker rifle had been. Yet all the way up through Appomattox soldiers still typically fought standing shoulder to shoulder in lines around 100 yards apart, and the accuracy still doesn't seem to have been much better than it was during the napoleonic era, maybe up to 2%.

Here's an excerpt from Ardant Du Picq's "Battle Studies" written in the 1870s, where he explains why accuracy still wasn't that great even with modern weaponry:

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

-

As far as horse archers against Napoleonic infantry go, General Marbot in his memoirs wrote about his experiences fighting against Tartar and Baskir horse archers employed by the Russians in 1813 and the impression doesn't seem to have been great, whether it was against French infantry or Chasseurs. He concluded that they did little other than to strip the countryside and help starve the regular Russian troops.

"With much shouting, these barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows, which did very little damage because the Baskirs, being entirely irregulars, do not know how to form up in ranks and they go about in a mob like a flock of sheep, with the result that the riders cannot shoot horizontally without wounding or killing their comrades who are in front of them, but shoot their arrows into the air to describe an arc which will allow them to descend on the enemy. But as this system does not permit any accurate aim, nine-tenths of the arrows miss their target, and those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. In fact, the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtedly the world's least dangerous troops."

[KateMicucci]

This is incorrect, the regularly assumed effective range of a Baker rifle in the hands of a light infantryman like those of the British 95th (early 19th century) was 200 yards. Trained men could reliably hit the man they were aiming at (usually officers or NCOs) at that range. They regularly beat their musket-armed opposing French light infantry (voltigeurs and tirailleurs) in the Peninsular War precisely because they could hit the man they were aiming at, reliably, at a much longer range, even if the rifle was slightly slower to reload.

That's with standard cartridges. Switch to a greased leather patch, a loose ball and powder from a horn, measured out appropriately for the shot, and it extended to up to 800 yards for Rifleman Plunkett famously killed General Colbertat a range of 600m (656 yards) during the retreat to Corunna. To show it wasn't a fluke, his next shot killed one of the general's aides who went to the general's side.

A rifle would be a better weapon on foot than almost any kind of bow; but a smoothbore musket isn't a rifle.
The shoot-the-moon quote you're thinking of was from a publication by George Hanger. The context of the quote, which is always ignored, is that Hanger was describing the allegedly poor construction of Tower muskets and he was trying to sell his own brand of muskets for skirmishers, who would fight from a distance of , Hanger said, no less than 150 yards.

An 800 yard shot with a Baker rifle sounds incredible to me. The bullet would have lost so much energy at that distance it would be hardly better than a slingstone. Even the most optimistic estimates of 17th century military men put the maximum lethal range of even the largest muskets (which were loaded with more powder than anyone today would dare use) at only 600 yards.

[Carl]

I think part of the problem is that we've got testimony from all sorts of people across a vast span of time and location, using all sorts of different weapons. The selection of "smoothbores" from across that sample space is almost countless, there are mass-issued guns intended for mass-conscripted troops and volley-fire, and there are weapons intended for precision use by highly-experience marksmen. Same with the bows, and crossbows, and so on.

So when someone from time A and place B talks about "the accuracy of weapon H vs weapon J", or numerical records for smoothbores from A/B are compared to those of bows from C/D, we're not just comparing apples to oranges, sometimes we're comparing five kinds of apple against seven kinds of motorbike.

It's possible that the person someone with personal experience in both claiming that bows were five times less accurate than muskets was comparing apples to motorbikes, or had a personal bias, or was just better with the firearm.

But given how inaccurate muskets often were in combat, the idea that the "fair comparison" bow-arrow-archer combination would be five times less accurate at say 50 or even 100 yards... fired against the same sorts of mass targets... I find that somewhat dubious. Maybe there are other reasons that they'd be ineffective as troops in the era in question, but I don't think an apples-to-apples accuracy is going to be the killer answer here.


I'm still inclined to go with "changes in the structure of societies and in how armies were raised and trained" over "the musket was in all ways superior from an early point in time" when it comes to why the bow faded out so quickly as a weapon of war in many places. There are plenty of legitimate historical reasons and practical reasons why armies stopped fielding archers when they did.

But there's a span of time in which, if someone had said to me as a commander, "Here are 1000 archers, fully-trained and equipped, battle-experienced, and able to maintain their own weapons and make their own arrows"... I don't think I've seen a solid why I should have replied "Send them away, or send them to get trained with these mass-issue firearms, they're useless to me."

Oh absolutely, i wasn't disputing that. But some things are so absurd it beggars belief. The 5x is a great example. it requires a vastly larger divergence per 100m for the bow, and given even a bakar rifle wouldn't be matching an M-16 or the like that requires divergence that i find fairly hard to swallow given i've never seen depictions of obsessively large archery targets anywhere regardless of the bow type in question. Given what i've seen in depictions my estimates of the apparent size thereof of the targets and the kinds of ranges longer ranged archery practise would be done at i find a value much over 5 feet radius at 1000 feet hard to swallow. Thats a fair degree of inaccuracy, but vs massed formations is quite reasonable. If thats 5 times worse that even a baker rifle, that means a baker rifle was at worst twice as bad as a modern assault rifle, (specifically M-16, it would be about 1.5 times worse than an AK-47), thats a little hard for me to swallow, (at leas with round shot, somthing similar in shape to the later minnie balls is more reasonable though i'd still be a little dubious on that).

My point was more to claim that the inherent accuracy of any firearm vs any bow outside of rifled weapons was not at worst for the bow equivalent feels very dubious because it would either require bows to be significantly less acurratte than seems reasonable given apparent target sizes and ranges for a wide variety of bow types, or for old school firearms to be a hell of a lot more acurratte in relation to modern ones than seems reasonable.


That said i totally agree that factors outside of the weapons inherent abilities are likely to determine maximum accuracy, but the inherent accuracy is likely to carry a great deal of weight nonetheless as it puts some innermost bounds in place as it where. If you'll pardon me for borrowing from wikipedia here's a section from there thats relevant and seems to have an explicit source for you lot to comment on. Though i'm mainly quoting it for the quote it contains at the end, because if acurratte, (i've no idea if it's period sourced, can anyone here say), it explains a hell of a lot:


However, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.
To explain this seeming contradiction between technology and tactical reality, Guelzo points out that even when laboratory tests indicates accuracy with a rifled musket from 600 yards, in an actual battlefield situation, the lack of smokeless powder quickly would obscure visibility. The gunpowder of the time produced a great deal of smoke when fired. Thus, in larger battles, battles began with artillery firing for some time, and skirmishers had been firing at each other for some time. By the time the main lines of infantry began approaching each other, visibility was significantly obscured. Once the infantry began the main engagement, visibility quickly was reduced to almost nil. With the lack of visibility, only massed infantry fire was effective, and this reality is reflected in the tactics of the time. Guelzo argues that rifling only truly benefited the sharpshooters on the skirmish line, who fought before their visibility was obscured, but the main line of infantry could not take advantage of the benefits of rifling.
In Gettysburg, the Last Invasion, (Guelzo, Allen C. (2013). Gettysburg: The Last Invasion. Knopf. p. 656. ISBN 978-0-307-59408-2.) Guelzo also points out the technical difficulty of aiming a rifled musket. While rifling improved overall accuracy of muskets, the rifling also formed a trajectory that caused the bullet to quickly "drop" from where it was aimed (in contrast to the flat trajectory of smoothbore muskets). Thus to hit a target at distances beyond 40–50 yards, the rifleman would require knowledge of trajectory and distance, aiming the rifle at a precise angle above the target. In actual battlefield situations, such precise aiming was virtually impossible. Under the stress of battle, virtually every infantryman asked about aiming on the battlefield replied that in practice, the best one could do was "simply raise his rifle to the horizontal, and fire without aiming." (Guelzo p. 62).

[KateMicucci]

Regarding the accuracy question, what size of target was usually used for longbow practise? That would give us a good idea of the kind of target they were expected to hit? A quick search shows modern assault rifles aren't exactly imbued with massive accuracy, (target size varies between 2/3 of a foot to a 1 and a half feet at longbow practise ranges), and we know that unrifled smoothbores firing round balls where/are significantly less acurratte than modern firearms. That suggests the patterns should be wider still for them, but if typical longbow targets where 6+feet across then it may be plausible if we assume the difference between a modern firearm and a smoothbore wasn't several times worse but only fractions worse, (i.e. less than a 2x worse but worse than equivalent).

I find the idea however that bows where 5 times less acurratte than firearms to be highly dubious since i'd expect personally that the accuracy of smoothbores would be several times worse than a modern assault rifle. Given that, the level of inaccuracy that would have to be present in bows to be 5 times worse becomes highly suspect.

Modern rifles of any kind are extremely accurate. An inherent spread of 1-2" at 100 yards is typical. Targets are larger than that because of the innaccuracy of the shooter, not the weapon.

I have searched a lot, but still do not know of any regulation target size for historical longbow practice. There probably wasn't any. The "target" for long-range or clout shooting was a small flag or something similar on the ground, and the goal was not to hit it but to land as close as possible to it.

The size of the target does not really tell us much about the accuracy of the weapon, though, unless we also knew how often they were hitting it, and even then, the skill of the shooter could be far more important than the inherent accuracy of the weapon.

[rrgg]

But there's a span of time in which, if someone had said to me as a commander, "Here are 1000 archers, fully-trained and equipped, battle-experienced, and able to maintain their own weapons and make their own arrows"... I don't think I've seen a solid why I should have replied "Send them away, or send them to get trained with these mass-issue firearms, they're useless to me."

Well, the archers still need to be fed. So it does somewhat depend on how desperate you are for manpower and whether you think they will be effective enough to be worth it.

[Kiero]

The gun was accurate at much farther distances. But outside of a very skilled sharpshooter firing from a very sheltered position the soldiers weren't. I have yet to come across any examples of a single volley from a rifle company decimating the enemy at 600 yards, or at 100 yards for that matter. Generally the riflemen were still only considered good for harassment and being a general nuisance, like tirailleurs were. They had an advantage in skirmishes but not nearly as much as you might think.

During the US civil war the weapons used were much more accurate than the baker rifle had been. Yet all the way up through Appomattox soldiers still typically fought standing shoulder to shoulder in lines around 100 yards apart, and the accuracy still doesn't seem to have been much better than it was during the napoleonic era, maybe up to 2%.

Here's an excerpt from Ardant Du Picq's "Battle Studies" written in the 1870s, where he explains why accuracy still wasn't that great even with modern weaponry:

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

Rifle companies tried to avoid being in a situation where they traded volleys with line infantry; that's pretty much the epitome of using the wrong tool for the job. Though the Light Brigade/Division did take it's place in the line of battle when requested. They killed an awful lot of officers and NCOs, which contributed to the degradation of French effectiveness throughout the Peninsular War. Much easier for a British line to shatter a French column if the rifles have taken out most of the leaders first.

In the ACW we're talking largely about men who couldn't shoot, being given accurate weapons, but made to fire volleys because their commanders lacked the tactics or faith in their shooting to deploy them otherwise. How many Union soldiers were enlisted straight off the boats at Ellis Island and had probably never shot a gun before? I'm not sure it's really a useful analogy to the Napoleonic era.

I believe Dave Grossman (On Killing) had a lot to say about the deliberate misses of Civil War soldiers, which is the only way to explain how volley rifle fire managed not to kill as many as it should have.


As far as horse archers against Napoleonic infantry go, General Marbot in his memoirs wrote about his experiences fighting against Tartar and Baskir horse archers employed by the Russians in 1813 and the impression doesn't seem to have been great, whether it was against French infantry or Chasseurs. He concluded that they did little other than to strip the countryside and help starve the regular Russian troops.

"With much shouting, these barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows, which did very little damage because the Baskirs, being entirely irregulars, do not know how to form up in ranks and they go about in a mob like a flock of sheep, with the result that the riders cannot shoot horizontally without wounding or killing their comrades who are in front of them, but shoot their arrows into the air to describe an arc which will allow them to descend on the enemy. But as this system does not permit any accurate aim, nine-tenths of the arrows miss their target, and those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. In fact, the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtedly the world's least dangerous troops."

Fair enough, though they don't exactly sound like the most competent horse archers in the world.


The shoot-the-moon quote you're thinking of was from a publication by George Hanger. The context of the quote, which is always ignored, is that Hanger was describing the allegedly poor construction of Tower muskets and he was trying to sell his own brand of muskets for skirmishers, who would fight from a distance of , Hanger said, no less than 150 yards.

An 800 yard shot with a Baker rifle sounds incredible to me. The bullet would have lost so much energy at that distance it would be hardly better than a slingstone. Even the most optimistic estimates of 17th century military men put the maximum lethal range of even the largest muskets (which were loaded with more powder than anyone today would dare use) at only 600 yards.

I'd be dubious of any smoothbore hitting what it aimed at, at 150 yards. Unless Hanger was selling rifles?

Plunkett's celebrated shot was around 656 yards. Note that was in the early 19th century, not the 17th. Firearms technology had progressed quite a bit by then - rifles especially. The Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle didn't appear until the mid-18th century.

[Carl]

Modern rifles of any kind are extremely accurate. An inherent spread of 1-2" at 100 yards is typical. Targets are larger than that because of the innaccuracy of the shooter, not the weapon.

I have searched a lot, but still do not know of any regulation target size for historical longbow practice. There probably wasn't any. The "target" for long-range or clout shooting was a small flag or something similar on the ground, and the goal was not to hit it but to land as close as possible to it.

The size of the target does not really tell us much about the accuracy of the weapon, though, unless we also knew how often they were hitting it, and even then, the skill of the shooter could be far more important than the inherent accuracy of the weapon.


I dug up with a quick google search divergence at 100m values off 11cm for the M-16 and 15cm for the AK-47. Thats the values i'm using ;). Thats 0.5-0.75 feet a 1000 ft.

Further digging dug up some more info, apparently that 11cm is the mean radius figure, not the "all shots land in a circle this wide" value, and is the acceptance value the rifles have to meet, but not all will be anywhere near that bad. The actual acceptance value is 8 MOA or 8/60ths of a degree of variance. (for the non-math heads out there Tan of 8/60 times range in meters will give mean variance in meters as a circular diameter value. You can of course substitute meters for yards or feet or whatever).

[Max_Killjoy]

The gun was accurate at much farther distances. But outside of a very skilled sharpshooter firing from a very sheltered position the soldiers weren't. I have yet to come across any examples of a single volley from a rifle company decimating the enemy at 600 yards, or at 100 yards for that matter. Generally the riflemen were still only considered good for harassment and being a general nuisance, like tirailleurs were. They had an advantage in skirmishes but not nearly as much as you might think.

During the US civil war the weapons used were much more accurate than the baker rifle had been. Yet all the way up through Appomattox soldiers still typically fought standing shoulder to shoulder in lines around 100 yards apart, and the accuracy still doesn't seem to have been much better than it was during the napoleonic era, maybe up to 2%.

Here's an excerpt from Ardant Du Picq's "Battle Studies" written in the 1870s, where he explains why accuracy still wasn't that great even with modern weaponry:

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

-

As far as horse archers against Napoleonic infantry go, General Marbot in his memoirs wrote about his experiences fighting against Tartar and Baskir horse archers employed by the Russians in 1813 and the impression doesn't seem to have been great, whether it was against French infantry or Chasseurs. He concluded that they did little other than to strip the countryside and help starve the regular Russian troops.

"With much shouting, these barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows, which did very little damage because the Baskirs, being entirely irregulars, do not know how to form up in ranks and they go about in a mob like a flock of sheep, with the result that the riders cannot shoot horizontally without wounding or killing their comrades who are in front of them, but shoot their arrows into the air to describe an arc which will allow them to descend on the enemy. But as this system does not permit any accurate aim, nine-tenths of the arrows miss their target, and those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. In fact, the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtedly the world's least dangerous troops."

Is a French general griping about his opponent's allies, with all the snobbery of a European elite dismissing "barbarians", a reliable source here?

E -- I really don't know, it just strikes me as very "feh, unwashed primatives!" in a way.

[KateMicucci]

I dug up with a quick google search divergence at 100m values off 11cm for the M-16 and 15cm for the AK-47. Thats the values i'm using ;). Thats 0.5-0.75 feet a 1000 ft.

Further digging dug up some more info, apparently that 11cm is the mean radius figure, not the "all shots land in a circle this wide" value, and is the acceptance value the rifles have to meet, but not all will be anywhere near that bad. The actual acceptance value is 8 MOA or 8/60ths of a degree of variance. (for the non-math heads out there Tan of 8/60 times range in meters will give mean variance in meters as a circular diameter value. You can of course substitute meters for yards or feet or whatever).

I only know from my personal experience in shooting. 8moa, even 4moa, is considered unacceptably bad. People bragging about having a 1-2 moa rifle get yawns because it's so common that it's completely unimpressive. There is a video on youtube of a guy with a mosin nagant, not considered a particularly accurate rifle, hitting torso-sized targets out to 900 yards.

But this is tangental. I think you rather overestimate the accuracy of archers much more than you underestimate the accuracy of rifles.

[Gnoman]

I dug up with a quick google search divergence at 100m values off 11cm for the M-16 and 15cm for the AK-47. Thats the values i'm using ;). Thats 0.5-0.75 feet a 1000 ft.

Further digging dug up some more info, apparently that 11cm is the mean radius figure, not the "all shots land in a circle this wide" value, and is the acceptance value the rifles have to meet, but not all will be anywhere near that bad. The actual acceptance value is 8 MOA or 8/60ths of a degree of variance. (for the non-math heads out there Tan of 8/60 times range in meters will give mean variance in meters as a circular diameter value. You can of course substitute meters for yards or feet or whatever).

Most AR-type rifles on the civilian market are no worse than 3 minutes of angle in accuracy, with little significant difference in production value than the military models. This leads me to suspect that either the figures you're citing are for automatic fire (which is inherently far less accurate), or else were designed to ensure that the reject rate was not too high on a less critical function. Reports from combat data show that soldiers have little trouble dropping targets with headshots (against targets in cover, or when you suspect that the target is strapped with explosives and is standing near something you don't want to risk blowing up) at 200-300 meter range. As 11 centimeters is too large a radius for an reliable killshot against the head, the accuracy figures Wikipedia is using are rather suspect.

[KateMicucci]

I'd be dubious of any smoothbore hitting what it aimed at, at 150 yards. Unless Hanger was selling rifles?

Plunkett's celebrated shot was around 656 yards. Note that was in the early 19th century, not the 17th. Firearms technology had progressed quite a bit by then - rifles especially. The Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle didn't appear until the mid-18th century.

Hanger was selling both. His smoothbores, he claimed, were effective to 150 or 200 yards. He claimed that his rifle could carry a bullet to 600 yards but hedged, saying that he couldn't hit an elephant at that distance.

Handheld firearms had not really advanced that much. Rifling was known since the early 1500's. My doubt isn't as much that a very skilled and lucky rifleman couldn't hit someone at that distance but that his gun wasn't poweful enough. I mentioned the 16th century specifically because the muskets were even larger and more powerful and still weren't considered lethal at that distance. The baker was of a bore equal to a caliver, a smaller weapon.

Doing some quick research, a reenacting company for the 95th also casts some doubt on the shot. French sources apperantly blame the death on artillery, and even if Plunkett did take the shot it might have been as short a distance as 200m. I guess we'll never know but it sounds exceedingly unlikely.

[Mike_G]

For some perspective, regular infantry (not riflemen, but musket armed line companies) didn't even train to hit individual man sized targets. They trained firing at a company or battalion target, which was a sheet about six feet tall and maybe 100 feet long, representing an enemy formation.

Firing standard combat loads (paper cartridge, priming from the cartridge, undersized ball) no greased patches, no sniper/rifleman tricks, it's fine to hit a company target at 50-100 yards. I wouldn't feel confident in an average infantryman hitting a single man at over 50 yards with a Brown Bess under those conditions.

Now I, an overweight, arthritic, middle aged guy who did casual archery for several years, can reliably hit a sheet the size of a barn door at 50 yards with a bow all day long. And shoot more arrows than the two or three rounds a minute the average musketeer can do.

So apples to apples, line company regulars with smoothbore muskets are not an order of magnitude better than a similar number of archers. I think if you put 100 of each 50 yards apart, shoulder to shoulder, it would be fairly even money.

The musket in ambush, as preferred by Native Americans, is good because you can stay hidden until the enemy is at point blank range, fire your one shot, duck and wait for the reply volley and then rush and tomahawk him before he can reload.

It's much easier to knock an arrow while moving than reload a musket on the move (not sure it can even be done) and if you shoot a bow from cover, the lack of noise or smoke makes you hard to pinpoint, so I don't see how muskets are better for harassing/skirmishing.

Again, I don't think bows are better per se. But I think that a company of archers is maybe 75% as effective as a company of men with smoothbore muskets, not worthless or completely outclassed. Once youy start comparing marksmen or breechloading or repeating rifles, or even rifles at all, then we're in a different conversation.

The US army lost a number of battles to the Native American Indians, even those groups who had few guns. Modern commanders from Braddock (yeah, I know, not US Army but a Brit) through St Claire, and Fetterman to Custer discovered that bringing a bow to a gunfight can still be dangerous.

[Gnoman]

In Custer's case, that had more to do with poor tactical decisions and the fact that his guns were almost literally single-shot - at that time ammuntion for the 1873 Springfield was made with a copper cartridge case, that expanded too much when firing, leading to a lot of cartridges that had to be removed manually with a ramrod or pried out with a knife. Only a small portion of recovered cases show signs of being pried out, but we know that at least one soldier spent most of the battle taking jammed carbines from cavalrymen to use his cleaning rod to unjam them.

[Carl]

Most AR-type rifles on the civilian market are no worse than 3 minutes of angle in accuracy, with little significant difference in production value than the military models. This leads me to suspect that either the figures you're citing are for automatic fire (which is inherently far less accurate), or else were designed to ensure that the reject rate was not too high on a less critical function. Reports from combat data show that soldiers have little trouble dropping targets with headshots (against targets in cover, or when you suspect that the target is strapped with explosives and is standing near something you don't want to risk blowing up) at 200-300 meter range. As 11 centimeters is too large a radius for an reliable killshot against the head, the accuracy figures Wikipedia is using are rather suspect.

Didn't get the 8 MOA from wiki ;). That said the source did go out of it's way to specify that most rifles fell well under that, that was just the rejection standard, not the expected value. Still i'd expect even a bad modern rifle to be waaay better than a good blackpowder uncased era design.

p.s Gnomon, no further comments on my last post about my question a page or so back, not sure if you've run out of info or just forgotten about it?

[KateMicucci]

For some perspective, regular infantry (not riflemen, but musket armed line companies) didn't even train to hit individual man sized targets. They trained firing at a company or battalion target, which was a sheet about six feet tall and maybe 100 feet long, representing an enemy formation.

They did train against man sized targets.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/

Thomas Digges, mustermaster general during Leicester's campaign, refused to pay musketeers who couldn't hit a man-height target at iirc 180 yards. I think he said 160-200 but don't have the source with me. For context Digges was a mathematician and experienced artillerist so I don't think his estimates were sloppy.

Don't confuse battlefield accuracy (battalion sized targets at 50 yards) with practice range accuracy. My own experience is that I can consistently hit a target a little smaller than beachball at 50 yards. I tend to have one tight group near the center with the holes even overlapping and then some more shots scatterred 6-12" offcenter when I mess up my aiming or flinch, which is why I say consistently. Better shots than me can easily hit pie plates every time with their smoothbores at the same distance.

[Gnoman]

Didn't get the 8 MOA from wiki ;). That said the source did go out of it's way to specify that most rifles fell well under that, that was just the rejection standard, not the expected value. Still i'd expect even a bad modern rifle to be waaay better than a good blackpowder uncased era design.

p.s Gnomon, no further comments on my last post about my question a page or so back, not sure if you've run out of info or just forgotten about it?

Since this isn't the first time you've made this mistake, I'm going to politely correct it - the name is GnomAn, not GnomOn. Not a particularly important issue, but it ruins the joke I was going for with the name, and thus annoys me a little.


I seem to have missed your reply to my last comment on your question in the mass of posts. I'll comment on it when I have a chance to go back and find it.


As for the current subject, I was not claiming that you got your numbers from Wikipedia, merely that the raw accuracy figures are on there. I merely note that there is something significantly off about them, and was speculating as to what that could be.

[Spiryt]

Is a French general griping about his opponent's allies, with all the snobbery of a European elite dismissing "barbarians", a reliable source here?

E -- I really don't know, it just strikes me as very "feh, unwashed primatives!" in a way.

Dunno, about snobbery, but Western Europeans, at the end of the day were times, times much more advanced military than Steppe people at this point.

Russians conquered half of composite bow using Siberia with arquebus using Cossacks, much much earlier.

Polish riders were carrying bows up to the very end of 18th century and polish independence in general - but weren't using them anymore.

Archery, particularly flight archery, with attempts to beat distance record had been Turkish national sport up into the 19th century, but main bulk of Turkish soldiers were using firearms at the start of 17th century already.

It was simple, methodical change, that cannot be really brushed away by 'no sufficiently skilled archers anymore'. Bows got replaced, because firearms were considered more useful in both hunting and war, despite all their shortcomings.


Traditional 'primitive' bows and arrows have that romantic aura around them, and for from whatever reason are way more beautiful than any firearm - but they lost in arm's race rather quickly. :smallwink:

[Brother Oni]

I have searched a lot, but still do not know of any regulation target size for historical longbow practice. There probably wasn't any. The "target" for long-range or clout shooting was a small flag or something similar on the ground, and the goal was not to hit it but to land as close as possible to it.

I've found mention of shooting at butts (large wooden casks) at ranges of 100-140 yards circa 1600s; the target itself was a piece of circular cloth ~4 inches in diameter. Later on, the casks were replaced by wedge shaped earth mounds 7 feet high, 4 feet wide at the base narrowing to 1 foot 4” at the top, with a length of 9 feet tapering into the ground.
There was also 'wand shooting' where a willow staff was stood against the butts and shot at.

Another form of target archery was 'turk's head' shooting where pickled Saracen heads brought back by Crusaders were brought out on special occasions and shot at (quite a few pubs in older cities like Exeter (http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/_pubs/turkshead.php) still have the name). Presumably this would date back to the times of the Crusades (11th-13th Century).

Target archery in the UK has a number of historical forms - the two oldest I know of are clout (either a flag or an ~18" cloth disk on the ground) as you've mentioned and there's popinjay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popinjay_(sport)), where you shoot vertically at bird shaped targets with flu flus (blunt arrows with special spiral fletching to slow down their speed). The variant of popinjay I've seen involves standing at a church door and shooting upwards at the bell on the steeple (then stepping back sharpish into cover to avoid being hit by the falling arrow!).

As archery became more of a sport, the regulations for targets start appearing in print - the York Round from the mid 19th Century for example.


There are also still a number of old laws not repealed in the UK, like vicars having the right to call their congregation to practice (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10300924) or only recently repealed (it was legal to kill a Scotsman in York if he was carrying a bow and arrows up until ~2013).


Now I, an overweight, arthritic, middle aged guy who did casual archery for several years, can reliably hit a sheet the size of a barn door at 50 yards with a bow all day long. And shoot more arrows than the two or three rounds a minute the average musketeer can do.

Depends on the bow poundage though - anything at about hunting levels (40-60lbs) gets tiring quickly, let alone once you start getting into warbow territory of 70-90+lbs.

[Mike_G]

Depends on the bow poundage though - anything at about hunting levels (40-60lbs) gets tiring quickly, let alone once you start getting into warbow territory of 70-90+lbs.

I have a 45 pound and a 55 pound recurve. I can comfortably shoot either one for dozens of shots over a few hours. Most ranges I've been to aren't really long. 25 to 50 yards. I can reliably hit a standard round archery target out to 50 yards, which is waaaay smaller than a company of Redcoats.

I'm not sniping anybody with a headshot, but I think I can stay on par with most smoothbore shooting I've seen (combat loading, no patches or rest for the gun) out to that range. I don't know what my maximum realistic range would be, since I've never had a safe place to just launch the arrow for distance without endangering the neighbors.

I have not had a chance to shoot a smoothbore flintlock, so i have no firsthand knowledge of that. No black powder experience at all, so I'm going by what others have posted. I've shot plenty of rifles out to 500 yards, but that's a different animal.

[rrgg]

They did train against man sized targets.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/


And conversely, William Müller claimed in 1811 that riflemen need to start their practice against a target 5 feet wide and only 50 yards away so that they don't grow discouraged.

---

@ Mike_G

From records of musket trials carried out around the napoleonic era, it seems that the average soldier, firing in a volley, could hit a battalion-sized wooden target around 50% of the time at 100 yards. The important statistic though is that in actual combat that accuracy dropped to less than 2%, with at times hundreds or even thousands of shots being fired for every casualty. If troops had ever even gotten close to that theoretical 50% in combat linear tactics would have been completely useless, with entire battalions being unable to survive even a minute at common combat ranges.

As for why this is, Grossman's theory might be part of it, although he seems to faced quite a bit of criticism, and casualties often do increase significantly at much shorter ranges, which likely wouldn't happen if the soldiers are intentionally aiming to miss. Smoke might also be a factor after the first few volleys. However the main cause cited seems to be simply nervousness and fear on the part of the common soldier as well as the general chaos of battle.

In Claud Fuller's "The Rifled Musket" he includes a the results of a series of tests performed by the US army in the mid 19th century which involved various brands of rifled musket. For most of the rifles, a single shooter could achieve a grouping about 1 foot across at 100 yards. When they told 10 soldiers to fire together however, whether in volleys or "as skirmishers" the grouping was closer to 8 or 9 feet across, sometimes only a little better than the smoothbores performed (in fact, even at 200 yards the smoothbores using buck and ball loads were still technically putting more projectiles on target). And again, that's just 10 soldiers under rushed conditions, just imagine what it would be like with 100, or even 1000 firing together while also being shot at.

Also, it's again worth remembering that the rifle was hardly a new weapon at the time of the revolution or napoleonic wars. Up until the introduction of the Minie ball, their basic function hadn't really changed much since 1600.

---

As far as the utility of archers after the introduction of firearms, the most success does seem to come from horse archers, although perhaps not for the reason you might be thinking. The single greatest victory for horse archers over a heavily firearm-equipped army would be the Manchu victory at Sarhu in 1619.

The Manchu weren't known for long range shooting however, or even accurate shooting compared to their neighbors like Korea. What they did have were very powerful bows optimized for shooting heavy arrows at short ranges. At Sarhu the Manchu tactics involved first, using their mobility to concentrate their forces and defeat the enemy piecemeal, and second, riding to within very short range of the enemy and then pelting them with heavy arrows or simply charging home with lances and swords. In other words they were able to use their mobility to make up for the limitations of their weapons. This would be far more difficult to pull off with foot archers.

However part of the victory may be more due to a lack of experience among the allied troops. The Koreans brought a force of 10,000 matchlock musketeers to the battle who were theoretically drilled in fire by rank volley techniques. However when the battle began most of the Korean troops are described delivering only a single massed volley before being overrun, and Korean sources afterwards admit that they hadn't brought enough spearmen to prevent this. The one exception was reportedly a vanguard of 500 Korean musketeers on the eastern front, who apperently did manage to maintain their volley drill and successfully kept the enemy cavalry at bay with continuous fire until their Chinese allies surrendered.

Qing China became sort of an exception among major powers. In the Ottoman Empire and India horse archers seem to have largely fallen out of use during the 18th century. And by the outbreak of the First Opium War, Manchu bows don't seem to have helped much against the British who were still mostly armed with flintlock muskets.

[Vinyadan]

My two cents.

I saw someone naming Musashi. In my edition of his book, a note was added, explaining that Japanese bows were much worse than their Western counterparts.

About gun vs bow, a killing point imho is that you can't strap a bayonet to a bow. A man with a gun could also serve in melee with a polearm, a man with a bow couldn't. This means that the man with a gun can be sent in the front and then defend himself, or sent to the sides and, after the volley, defend the sides of the formation. A bowman to the front will be a hindrance for a charge and will have to run away if the enemy charges, to the sides will need dedicated troops for defense, to the back will have troubles hitting anything.

The tale is that Alasdair McColla intelligently took advantage of the time needed by the English to attach a bayonet to the gun after shooting. He charged with pistols and knives, shooting the pistols and mêléeing while the English soldiers were still busy with the bayonets. The tactic was kept for some decades, but grew old when plug bayonets were substituted by ring bayonets.

[Incanur]

The horse archers General Marbot encountered apparently didn't even have swords and fought totally differently from Manchu/Qing cavalry and rather differently from Ottoman cavalry based on the description. It's good antidote for claims that bows would necessarily do well against Napoleonic troops, but it doesn't prove that bows were as thoroughly outclassed or as obsolete as Marbot says.

The fighting in the First Opium War wasn't of the sort where you'd expect bows to shine, much less horse archers. That war mainly involved naval engagements and attacks on ports. And the British used plenty of rifles. And the Qing forces had a leadership and morale problems. In any case, bows sure don't counter superior artillery. Bows aren't a match for rifles.

As far as Japanese bows go, I suspect they're actually pretty good. Unfortunately, I don't know of any numbers, but if nothing else the long draw of some yumi should make them quite powerful. And some historical Japanese arrows were very heavy, designed to have the best shot and piercing armor.

[Blackhawk748]

So i've been watching The Last Kingdom and now im curious about Early Medieval tactics and gear.

Gear wise i assume its swords, axes, spears etc and Mail with some plate helms and shields. Its the tactics im really curious about. I know of the Saxon shield wall, and a few other basics that hung around for centuries after, but how common was cavalry? How big where the battles? (on average)

For clarity's sake i'm aiming for around 800 CE give or take.

[Gnoman]

On the sight thing, i was absolutely thinking no magnification or very low, (sub 2x), do you have examples of offset sights IRL, maybe i'm overthinking this, i've just never heard about IRL examples before so i'd be interested to see how they solved it. That said, yeah power armoured troops absolutely use that kind of thing.


As far as the dimensions thing, my main concern isn't so much the length, (it still has to work in tightish spaces, but based on their uses in such conditions in recent conflicts i imagine anything upto at least M240 sized will work there, which should be more than enough), though it is a sort of limit of it's own, but rather the width of the weapon and how that could make getting to the forward grip point a problem. Here's an example (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Beta_C-Mag_on_M4.jpg/300px-Beta_C-Mag_on_M4.jpg) of the beta-c-mag which is one high capacity concept i dug up that looks reasonable for this situation, (the other one would basically be a scaled up P90 mag), given the base cartridge width differences a variant for the weapon in question would be a little over twice the dimensions. Bearing in mind the rifle itself, (which is a bit of a misnomer in of itself as due to recoil it's used in belt fed tripod mounted form as a crew served weapon by normal infantry), will doubtless be wider than a standard infantry weapon to start with.

I don't know to what extent, if any, offset sights are used militarily - this may be because they aren't putting scopes on all their rifles, or due to some other tactical concern. Offset sights are, however, used extensively in shooting competitions to save time transferring from short-range to long-range targets - a set can be obtained for around $70.

As for rifle dimensions, if you're using it on a tripod the constraints you're concerned about don't exist. Using it as a rifle, you've got a lot of room to play with -there is a firearm on the market that is essentially two twelve-gauge shotguns bolted together, and reviews say it is comfortable enough to use-, but the best way to figure it out for sure would be to make something out of cardboard and feel it out..

[Carl]

Since this isn't the first time you've made this mistake, I'm going to politely correct it - the name is GnomAn, not GnomOn. Not a particularly important issue, but it ruins the joke I was going for with the name, and thus annoys me a little.


I seem to have missed your reply to my last comment on your question in the mass of posts. I'll comment on it when I have a chance to go back and find it.


As for the current subject, I was not claiming that you got your numbers from Wikipedia, merely that the raw accuracy figures are on there. I merely note that there is something significantly off about them, and was speculating as to what that could be.

Fair enough, and sorry. Dyslexic, i can read somthing, know exactly how to spell it, and still get it wrong. Will try to keep a better eye on that in future now i know it's something i'm specifically miss-spelling. Oddly i pronounce it correctly, but never noticed the joke, lulz i guess on that.


I don't know to what extent, if any, offset sights are used militarily - this may be because they aren't putting scopes on all their rifles, or due to some other tactical concern. Offset sights are, however, used extensively in shooting competitions to save time transferring from short-range to long-range targets - a set can be obtained for around $70.

As for rifle dimensions, if you're using it on a tripod the constraints you're concerned about don't exist. Using it as a rifle, you've got a lot of room to play with -there is a firearm on the market that is essentially two twelve-gauge shotguns bolted together, and reviews say it is comfortable enough to use-, but the best way to figure it out for sure would be to make something out of cardboard and feel it out..

Hmm, you may be right on the second part, awkward for me to do but not impossible, (as a p.s the weapon exists in two forms, a belt fed tripod mounted infantry form, and a clip fed power armoured troop rifle form), the first, i was wondering if you had any links to images or articles o them as i've never turned anything up with a google search.

[Gnoman]

Fair enough, and sorry. Dyslexic, i can read somthing, know exactly how to spell it, and still get it wrong. Will try to keep a better eye on that in future now i know it's something i'm specifically miss-spelling. Oddly i pronounce it correctly, but never noticed the joke, lulz i guess on that.



Hmm, you may be right on the second part, awkward for me to do but not impossible, (as a p.s the weapon exists in two forms, a belt fed tripod mounted infantry form, and a clip fed power armoured troop rifle form), the first, i was wondering if you had any links to images or articles o them as i've never turned anything up with a google search.

Here's a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg94TKKv8no) of offset sights in use. You can find more by googling "AR-15 offset sight", but a lot of the articles are from sources that get a bit political, so I'm hesitant to link them directly.

As for the other part, you might be able to get away with your power armored troops just using the machine gun variant - guns that can take either belts or clips exist, and the idea of powered armor giving the strength to handle the recoil isn't particularly outlandish.

[rrgg]

So i've been watching The Last Kingdom and now im curious about Early Medieval tactics and gear.

Gear wise i assume its swords, axes, spears etc and Mail with some plate helms and shields. Its the tactics im really curious about. I know of the Saxon shield wall, and a few other basics that hung around for centuries after, but how common was cavalry? How big where the battles? (on average)

For clarity's sake i'm aiming for around 800 CE give or take.

Well, the main character's sword is pretty silly. Its handle is far too long for the period and the blade is clearly to long to be drawn easily from the back. The few times they show him drawing his sword on screen he has to do some silly maneuver where he tosses the sword up a ways, grabs it by the blade, and then pulls it the rest of the way out.

As far as tactics go, in usual hollywood fashion they don't use spears enough. Also, the idea that viking age shield walls involved any sort of professional organization or drill probably isn't very realistic.

Other than that the story is pretty neat.

[Carl]

Cheers for the link and the google search terms Gnoman, will look into them in a second.

As far the second part. The weapon was developed as a SOAS rifle first, then some bright spark amongst the regulars got the idea of modifying it for infantry belt fed use as a crew served weapon. The Crew Served variant also has to use a blank rifle cartridge driving a gas piston to re-**** the weapon, (my guesstimate is a 170lb spring force), the power armour guys can just hand **** it with their greater strength. And yeah recoil isn't an issue for them, (their Pistol/PDW calibre is 13.6x54mm after all). To be fair stick the infantry version on a bipod, fire in semi only and i doubt it would be any worse than a 50cal rifle, possibly quite a bit better, but there's no way somthing like that is getting fired without a tripod in full auto for normal infantry.

p.s LOL @ the censor :smalltongue:.

[Clistenes]

My two cents.

I saw someone naming Musashi. In my edition of his book, a note was added, explaining that Japanese bows were much worse than their Western counterparts.

But, would the Americans be able to mass produce bows of better quality than japanese bows, or to train archers of more skill than samurai in just a few months? I doubt it...

[Blackhawk748]

Well, the main character's sword is pretty silly. Its handle is far too long for the period and the blade is clearly to long to be drawn easily from the back. The few times they show him drawing his sword on screen he has to do some silly maneuver where he tosses the sword up a ways, grabs it by the blade, and then pulls it the rest of the way out.

As far as tactics go, in usual hollywood fashion they don't use spears enough. Also, the idea that viking age shield walls involved any sort of professional organization or drill probably isn't very realistic.

Other than that the story is pretty neat.

Ya thats all true, didnt realize the sword was too big for the time period, so thats interesting.

[Clistenes]

I have a 45 pound and a 55 pound recurve. I can comfortably shoot either one for dozens of shots over a few hours. Most ranges I've been to aren't really long. 25 to 50 yards. I can reliably hit a standard round archery target out to 50 yards, which is waaaay smaller than a company of Redcoats.

I'm not sniping anybody with a headshot, but I think I can stay on par with most smoothbore shooting I've seen (combat loading, no patches or rest for the gun) out to that range. I don't know what my maximum realistic range would be, since I've never had a safe place to just launch the arrow for distance without endangering the neighbors.

I have not had a chance to shoot a smoothbore flintlock, so i have no firsthand knowledge of that. No black powder experience at all, so I'm going by what others have posted. I've shot plenty of rifles out to 500 yards, but that's a different animal.

A fully trained napoleonic soldier could sustain a rate of nine shots per minute during several minutes, and their bullets were deadly at several hundred yards, at a range most arrows would do relatively little damage.

No, muskets wouldn't be accurate at that range, but arrow would be even less accurate .

[Spiryt]

From records of musket trials carried out around the napoleonic era, it seems that the average soldier, firing in a volley, could hit a battalion-sized wooden target around 50% of the time at 100 yards. The important statistic though is that in actual combat that accuracy dropped to less than 2%, with at times hundreds or even thousands of shots being fired for every casualty. If troops had ever even gotten close to that theoretical 50% in combat linear tactics would have been completely useless, with entire battalions being unable to survive even a minute at common combat ranges..

With traditional bows firing arrows at velocities 1/10 of those of bullets, and with such bows being inherently even more affected by shooters errors :

- mistake of centimeters in release angle ends in arrow hitting the target meters away from intended
- bad draw, bad, inefficient release decreasing the performance
- string slapping the wrist

and so on, it's rather clear that with equally inexperienced, freaked out by battle around archers, the efficiency of archery fire would be even more dreadful than that of muskets... like less than 0.2%, instead of less than 2%/


That's the error people make here I think - they read about those pitiful accuracy, but assume that arrows at Crecy would have been raining surely and steadily at the enemy, instead of all over the place. From the lack of comparable data from the Medieval Period of course.

[Kiero]

A fully trained napoleonic soldier could sustain a rate of nine shots per minute during several minutes, and their bullets were deadly at several hundred yards, at a range most arrows would do relatively little damage.

No, muskets wouldn't be accurate at that range, but arrow would be even less accurate .

You mean three shots a minute for a trained regular. I've never heard of even the best-drilled line infantry being able to maintain that sort of speed.

[Max_Killjoy]

But, would the Americans be able to mass produce bows of better quality than japanese bows, or to train archers of more skill than samurai in just a few months? I doubt it...

That's part of why doing it from scratch isn't a great idea.

What I objected to was the notion that it never would have made sense even if you had a reserve of people trained and equipped with good bows, and willing to fight, from the moment that mass-issued firearms became a thing.



A fully trained napoleonic soldier could sustain a rate of nine shots per minute during several minutes, and their bullets were deadly at several hundred yards, at a range most arrows would do relatively little damage.


On the first... source?

On the second... if I'm doing the math right, at that range (400+ yards) and muzzle velocity, you might get unlucky and take a musketball to the foot, unless someone was deliberately aiming at you and taking drop into account. And also a world-class human-max shot with a smoothbore muskets.

[Berenger]

So i've been watching The Last Kingdom and now im curious about Early Medieval tactics and gear.

Gear wise i assume its swords, axes, spears etc and Mail with some plate helms and shields. Its the tactics im really curious about. I know of the Saxon shield wall, and a few other basics that hung around for centuries after, but how common was cavalry? How big where the battles? (on average)

For clarity's sake i'm aiming for around 800 CE give or take.

If you have the chance, try to pick up the books the series is based on. The descriptions of the battles make way more sense and you get a plethora of explanations about everything going on, including warfare and military equipment. Sadly, the series is pretty dumbed down and not exactly faithful to the original, so you will see nothing of the sort on screen. For example, the first battle at Eoferwic actually takes place at Eoferwic and not in a random spot in the wilderness where, supposedly, the vikings sheer heathen evilness made the very trees burst out in flames. Also, the people in the books believe in helmets.

[Mike_G]

A fully trained napoleonic soldier could sustain a rate of nine shots per minute during several minutes, and their bullets were deadly at several hundred yards, at a range most arrows would do relatively little damage.

No, muskets wouldn't be accurate at that range, but arrow would be even less accurate .

I'm gonna need some citation for nine shot per minute. I've never heard more than 3 expected for a trained soldier, and I've seen videos where people rush it to get (barely) five, and that's not even aiming at all, just point it in the right compass direction.

I straight up don't believe you can handle a cartridge, prime the weapon, load the charge, ram it down, aim and fire in seven seconds.

And the bullet might theoretically be deadly at several hundred yards, but I don't think anybody expects a smoothbore musket fired by line infantry under combat conditions to come anywhere near its intended target at 200 yards.