Index Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIII [Archive] - Page 5

Galloglaich

2017-06-14, 11:30 AM

Speaking of HEMA, a lot of HEMA folks seems to spar really seriously with a longsword/saber/sword & buckler etc., but I don't often see people sparring with spear, and have NEVER see HEMA people fighting with pike. Even the re-enactors just walk around with their pikes or engage in push-of-pike, but never actually fence with it.

I wonder why? After all, spear/pike was the main weapon on the medieval battlefield, not sword.

you have to remember, the modern HEMA revival has only been around about 20 years and only been doing serious tournaments for about 8 or 9 years.

So the short answer is, HEMA - and specifically the Late medieval and Renaissance subset of HEMA which is what most people usually mean by it, is such a vast area that we have only begun to really get into it. Some people think they have mastered longsword now but I think they are deluding themselves, but certainly longsword is what we have spent by far the most time figuring out, partly because there is more material for longsword than anything else.

Saber developed quickly because it's so easy and fast to learn, especially the simplified systems from the 18th and 19th Centuries. That and ease of parrying with sabers contributes to it being a fun spectator sport. We now also have pretty good steel and nylon simulators for sabers.

Sword and Buckler is popular because it shows up in the earliest known fencing manual (the I.33) and is fun, but there are far fewer advanced practitioners. Most S&B tournaments are a little sloppy IMO because only a few groups study it seriously (yet).

The other main reason though with some weapons like spears but also halberds, montante (the really big two-handed swords) pollaxe, and so on, is that it's very tricky to make safe sparring weapons to fight with realistically - especially in the No-Holds-Barred / limited rules format we are now used to in the HEMA tournament circuit.

The other main reason for the popularity of longswords is that we have a model- the sparring weapon we call today a 'feder', which we can copy and use fairly safely. The development of the modern longsword feder along with hugely improved specialized protective gloves has contributed heavily to the spread of HEMA and the increased profile of the tournament circuit.

Same for rapier, we have good, relatively safe rapier simulators which make it much more accessible though rapier is still hard.
That said there have been experimental tournaments with spears, notably at IGX in the New England area which tends to focus on experimental tournaments, and I know in Europe too but I don't know where. They have to develop special simulators which are made to minimize injury risk

Here is a photo of a spear tournament at SKUNKS in Poland with some kind of experimental simulators

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XOpOnVL-9R8/maxresdefault.jpg

a lot of people do actually study the techniques for spear, pike and long staff, as they are prominent in certain manuals. Like my friend Roger Norling practicing here doing Meyer long-staff

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/13450746_1235606433138977_6402913286380423503_n-795x447.jpg?x76772

G

Kiero

2017-06-14, 12:02 PM

Even leaving aside the dangers of the head of a spear; with a lever that long, it's very easy to break people's bones.

Galloglaich

2017-06-14, 01:10 PM

Even leaving aside the dangers of the head of a spear; with a lever that long, it's very easy to break people's bones.

yes, that is basically the problem.

http://static.flickr.com/100/315751490_92a7084149.jpg

http://cdn3.volusion.com/jkxpn.sognc/v/vspfiles/photos/TYPE-III-47.5F-3.jpg?1479363420

For longswords we stared with SCA type padded weapons covered in duct tape, then Shinai like they use in kendo (with a crossguard added) as pioneered by Matt Easton's group in the UK, then the revolutionary nylon 6 weapons pioneered by the Swedes (Pentti) - nylon 6 works out to have almost the same exact characteristics as steel in terms of weight and springiness, but at 3 x the thickness, so you can have a half-inch plastic 'blade' which behaves very similar to steel but with less risk. These are still fun and groups like purpleheart armoury (http://www.woodenswords.com/) are able to make them reasonably inexpensive for what you get (messers (http://www.woodenswords.com/Type_III_Messer_p/type-iii-messer.v3.htm) and sabers as well as swords).

https://68.media.tumblr.com/1b1d75e8eb4d33e6e21e4b95f95ab0e6/tumblr_inline_nix95nv8Bo1rzq2ed.jpg

Then finally we started getting the good steel simulators, at first based on the dozen or so surviving 16th Century sparring weapons which they were able to study and copy, making the modern feder (http://www.regenyei.com/en_feders_standard.php). This helped shift from people getting broken bones when fighting with steel to being able to hold tournaments with fairly low injury rates. The new kit helped a lot too when we were able to switch from lacrosse gloves to purpose made HEMA sparring gloves with complete coverage and hard outer shells etc., with the Polish variety (http://sparringglove.com/en_US/) now taking the lead in popularity, rivaled by some elegant Swedish types (http://www.saintmark.se/the-koning-glove/), and several in the US which were some of the first pioneers, and elsewhere.

http://www.saintmark.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/DSC_0060-300x200.jpg http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n111/Arino_2006/fechtschule_gauntlets.jpg

If it wasn't for the gloves the HEMA tournament scene would be pretty much limping along still. I don't know if he still makes them or not but these gloves made by Jeremiah Smith have saved my hands from breaking at least 9 times now.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/46/f7/71/46f7714de9e29c5ed77a705dbcc0b142.jpg

The thing with the bigger weapons like axes and spears and even the montante, we haven't been able to make simulators which are

1) Safe enough that we can use them with the light gear we like to use for blossfechten (as opposed to real armor like in Battle of The Nations, which is a different deal and a major shift in emphasis)
2) Don't look like LARP / SCA weapons with the duct tape
3) Behave more or less like the real thing in terms of weight, flexibility, how they impact with other weapons etc.

But I think this is just a matter of enough people getting into the 'other weapons' so to speak, they are a lot of fun once you play with them. We used to use padded versions back in the day and they were a blast. I once had a bill you could pull people off their feet with.

G

.

rrgg

2017-06-14, 03:38 PM

Well, as with most things in Late Medieval Warfare outside of England or France, it's hard to find much of anything in English.

. . .

For any more detail than that it's a pretty deep rabbit hole though I could help you get there if you are interested.

G

Thanks! I'll have to look those up. Although it sounds like once again I'm limited by my linguistic competence. : P

Everything I've read tends to focus on war wagons being largely defensive in nature. The Ottomans found wagon laagers to be very effective when they encountered them in eastern Europe and would go on to copy the tactic themselves, but they apparently did still consider the wagons' lack of mobility an Achilles heel.

From The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: “You rely on your carts and hope that the House of Osman will attack them, and that you will repel them with cannon and arquebus. But you don’t know that they have understood your trick . . . They will not attack your carts. No, they will surround you at a distance the guns cannot reach.”

Brother Oni

2017-06-14, 03:46 PM

"Push of pike" is just a pike thrust.

From my speaking to ECW re-enactors, they implied that after the first opening moments between two opposing units of pikemen, it did essentially turn into a shoving match, rather than thrusts at the enemy.

Doing some further reading indicates that 'push of pike' was just pike thrusts, rather than a more literal push - I guess they were mistaken.

wolflance

2017-06-14, 09:11 PM

you have to remember, the modern HEMA revival has only been around about 20 years and only been doing serious tournaments for about 8 or 9 years.

So the short answer is, HEMA - and specifically the Late medieval and Renaissance subset of HEMA which is what most people usually mean by it, is such a vast area that we have only begun to really get into it. Some people think they have mastered longsword now but I think they are deluding themselves, but certainly longsword is what we have spent by far the most time figuring out, partly because there is more material for longsword than anything else.

Saber developed quickly because it's so easy and fast to learn, especially the simplified systems from the 18th and 19th Centuries. That and ease of parrying with sabers contributes to it being a fun spectator sport. We now also have pretty good steel and nylon simulators for sabers.

Sword and Buckler is popular because it shows up in the earliest known fencing manual (the I.33) and is fun, but there are far fewer advanced practitioners. Most S&B tournaments are a little sloppy IMO because only a few groups study it seriously (yet).

The other main reason though with some weapons like spears but also halberds, montante (the really big two-handed swords) pollaxe, and so on, is that it's very tricky to make safe sparring weapons to fight with realistically - especially in the No-Holds-Barred / limited rules format we are now used to in the HEMA tournament circuit.

The other main reason for the popularity of longswords is that we have a model- the sparring weapon we call today a 'feder', which we can copy and use fairly safely. The development of the modern longsword feder along with hugely improved specialized protective gloves has contributed heavily to the spread of HEMA and the increased profile of the tournament circuit.

Same for rapier, we have good, relatively safe rapier simulators which make it much more accessible though rapier is still hard.
That said there have been experimental tournaments with spears, notably at IGX in the New England area which tends to focus on experimental tournaments, and I know in Europe too but I don't know where. They have to develop special simulators which are made to minimize injury risk

Here is a photo of a spear tournament at SKUNKS in Poland with some kind of experimental simulators

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XOpOnVL-9R8/maxresdefault.jpg

a lot of people do actually study the techniques for spear, pike and long staff, as they are prominent in certain manuals. Like my friend Roger Norling practicing here doing Meyer long-staff

http://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/13450746_1235606433138977_6402913286380423503_n-795x447.jpg?x76772

G
Wow, that's a really comprehensive answer. Thanks for the reply!

And that Poland experimental tournament (I Googled it up after seeing your answer) is exactly the "missing" thing that I am looking for!

By the way, is the spear length in the SKUNKS tournament the standard as taught in medieval treatises?

From my speaking to ECW re-enactors, they implied that after the first opening moments between two opposing units of pikemen, it did essentially turn into a shoving match, rather than thrusts at the enemy.

Doing some further reading indicates that 'push of pike' was just pike thrusts, rather than a more literal push - I guess they were mistaken.
While I agree completely with Incanur (i.e. push of pikes = thrust of pike, not literal shoving), this makes me wonder what is the purpose of having a massive block of pikemen behind the first rank (other than for staying power/replacement body once the first rank fell). Does it HAVE TO be pikemen behind them?

During a push of pike, it's likely that pikemen kept their distance with the enemy at the maximum practical reach of their pikes, as otherwise they couldn't thrust properly. This seems to make the subsequent ranks redundant (for that moment), as they literally had to wait for the rank in front of them to die out before they too can attack.

https://www.wpclipart.com/world_history/warfare/battles/Swiss_Phalanx_1339.png
The Swiss for example had a massive block of all-halberdier ranks behind their first couple (four?) ranks of pikemen. Sengoku Japanese sems to reflect this mindset in a smaller formation as well, having a fronk rank of pike-ashigaru followed by Samurai armed with shorter spears.

VoxRationis

2017-06-14, 09:59 PM

What do the halberdiers do? How do they get within reach of anything if they're stuck behind pikemen? How would they engage the pikemen of the enemy?

wolflance

2017-06-14, 10:11 PM

What do the halberdiers do? How do they get within reach of anything if they're stuck behind pikemen? How would they engage the pikemen of the enemy?
To be honest I have no idea, although I suppose the Swiss, being once the best pikemen of the Old World, had very good reason(s) for using that formation (as did Japanese).

My guess (NOTE: This is just a guess) is that once the first couple ranks of pikemen fell, the pike blocks (of both sides) would likely be disrupted enough that subsequent ranks of halberdiers could charge in and reach their enemies without worrying about the often touted "forest of spearpoints" issue, which could quickly render the opposite pike block (assuming that was a mostly-pikemen block) useless.

rrgg

2017-06-15, 12:04 AM

What do the halberdiers do? How do they get within reach of anything if they're stuck behind pikemen? How would they engage the pikemen of the enemy?

Pike squares of the late 15th-16th c generally consisted of a thick outer shell of pikemen surrounding a smaller solid square of troops armed with "short weapons": halberds, bills, partisans, greatswords, swords and targets, etc. With standards, ensigns, and higher ranking officers in the center of that square.

The idea was that the short weapons were more useful than the pikes on broken ground or in a broken formation. If attacking into a trench for example the short weapons can lead the way since they are more flexible. When fighting on an open plain it was typically the front ranks of pikemen which decided the push of pike while the short weapons just added mass. If the pike square ever started to rout then in theory the pikemen would melt away and the short weapons would be better equipped to protect the ensigns and cover the rest of the soldiers' retreat. Alternatively if the enemy formation started to fall apart then the short weapons could pass forward through the ranks to pursue, execute, and capture as many enemies as possible.

The proportion of short weapons in a pike square varied but it typically wasn't too large and generally declined over the course of the 16th century. In 1600 Robert Barret was arguing for as few short weapons in a pike square as possible, since according to him the front ranks tend to step back into the ranks behind them when checked, making it impossible to swing anything longer than a dagger anyways.

Alternatively it might have to do with the far more dominant role of shot in the later period. By this point it was starting to become uncommon for infantry to actually come into melee before the battle was decided. And if an extended push of pike ever did develop, it was probably more likely to end with with one side being flanked by short range musket volleys rather than devolving into a brawl with short weapons.

While I agree completely with Incanur (i.e. push of pikes = thrust of pike, not literal shoving), this makes me wonder what is the purpose of having a massive block of pikemen behind the first rank (other than for staying power/replacement body once the first rank fell). Does it HAVE TO be pikemen behind them?

During a push of pike, it's likely that pikemen kept their distance with the enemy at the maximum practical reach of their pikes, as otherwise they couldn't thrust properly. This seems to make the subsequent ranks redundant (for that moment), as they literally had to wait for the rank in front of them to die out before they too can attack.

https://www.wpclipart.com/world_history/warfare/battles/Swiss_Phalanx_1339.png
The Swiss for example had a massive block of all-halberdier ranks behind their first couple (four?) ranks of pikemen. Sengoku Japanese sems to reflect this mindset in a smaller formation as well, having a fronk rank of pike-ashigaru followed by Samurai armed with shorter spears.

Even that depiction would have been sort of atypical for an offensive formation. The "great squares" were often literal squares or columns 40-60 ranks deep.

Essentially, it was well known that a long thin line of pikemen or any infantry for that matter could be very strong defensively, but it was almost impossible to move forward or make an attack without losing cohesion, putting your infantry at a major disadvantage. A solid square or column on the other hand made a relatively rapid advance much easier.

Once the enemy line was reached there would be enough pikes on each side that flanking wasn't really a concern, and the nature of medieval command structures typically meant that pushing through the enemy center with a single mass be enough to cause a panic and rout their whole line.

wolflance

2017-06-15, 01:45 AM

Even that depiction would have been sort of atypical for an offensive formation. The "great squares" were often literal squares or columns 40-60 ranks deep.

Essentially, it was well known that a long thin line of pikemen or any infantry for that matter could be very strong defensively, but it was almost impossible to move forward or make an attack without losing cohesion, putting your infantry at a major disadvantage. A solid square or column on the other hand made a relatively rapid advance much easier.

Once the enemy line was reached there would be enough pikes on each side that flanking wasn't really a concern, and the nature of medieval command structures typically meant that pushing through the enemy center with a single mass be enough to cause a panic and rout their whole line.
Indeed most references that discus about pikemen at all seem to focus on later, Tercio-era defensive-oriented pikemen. 15~16c Swiss and Landsknecth tactics rarely get talked about.

Sixty deep is indeed a monstrously large formation, although I think there's a trade off between staying power and tactical flexibility.

the nature of medieval command structures typically meant that pushing through the enemy center with a single mass be enough to cause a panic and rout their whole line.
That sounds like a major defect in the command structure to me...why is this so often the case?

In 1600 Robert Barret was arguing for as few short weapons in a pike square as possible, since according to him the front ranks tend to step back into the ranks behind them when checked, making it impossible to swing anything longer than a dagger anyways.
While I don't doubt Robert Barret's expertise in warfare, I personally find his conclusion unconvincing...I mean, people fought with swords in even more cramped space (i.e cutlass during Age of Sail boarding action) all the time.

snowblizz

2017-06-15, 04:05 AM

From my speaking to ECW re-enactors, they implied that after the first opening moments between two opposing units of pikemen, it did essentially turn into a shoving match, rather than thrusts at the enemy.

Doing some further reading indicates that 'push of pike' was just pike thrusts, rather than a more literal push - I guess they were mistaken.

There are those famous pictures of pike armed rugby players* Galloglaich often posts. If they aren't complete fantasy then there's some truth to the push of pike idea. I guess it boiusl down to how typical it was.'

*note: no actual rugby players are depicted

Clistenes

2017-06-15, 04:40 AM

Pike squares of the late 15th-16th c generally consisted of a thick outer shell of pikemen surrounding a smaller solid square of troops armed with "short weapons": halberds, bills, partisans, greatswords, swords and targets, etc. With standards, ensigns, and higher ranking officers in the center of that square.

The idea was that the short weapons were more useful than the pikes on broken ground or in a broken formation. If attacking into a trench for example the short weapons can lead the way since they are more flexible. When fighting on an open plain it was typically the front ranks of pikemen which decided the push of pike while the short weapons just added mass. If the pike square ever started to rout then in theory the pikemen would melt away and the short weapons would be better equipped to protect the ensigns and cover the rest of the soldiers' retreat. Alternatively if the enemy formation started to fall apart then the short weapons could pass forward through the ranks to pursue, execute, and capture as many enemies as possible.

The proportion of short weapons in a pike square varied but it typically wasn't too large and generally declined over the course of the 16th century. In 1600 Robert Barret was arguing for as few short weapons in a pike square as possible, since according to him the front ranks tend to step back into the ranks behind them when checked, making it impossible to swing anything longer than a dagger anyways.

Alternatively it might have to do with the far more dominant role of shot in the later period. By this point it was starting to become uncommon for infantry to actually come into melee before the battle was decided. And if an extended push of pike ever did develop, it was probably more likely to end with with one side being flanked by short range musket volleys rather than devolving into a brawl with short weapons.

Even that depiction would have been sort of atypical for an offensive formation. The "great squares" were often literal squares or columns 40-60 ranks deep.

Essentially, it was well known that a long thin line of pikemen or any infantry for that matter could be very strong defensively, but it was almost impossible to move forward or make an attack without losing cohesion, putting your infantry at a major disadvantage. A solid square or column on the other hand made a relatively rapid advance much easier.

Once the enemy line was reached there would be enough pikes on each side that flanking wasn't really a concern, and the nature of medieval command structures typically meant that pushing through the enemy center with a single mass be enough to cause a panic and rout their whole line.

All pictures of XVI century pike blocks I have seen show the soldiers of the inside of the block wielding pikes too...

Brother Oni

2017-06-15, 06:20 AM

Sengoku Japanese sems to reflect this mindset in a smaller formation as well, having a fronk rank of pike-ashigaru followed by Samurai armed with shorter spears.

Well yes and no. Spear armed ashigaru were deployed in a single line, shoulder to shoulder, both to bolster their morale and to retain unit cohesion. There are 5 ashigaru at the 'squad' level but they would have been deployed at the 'platoon/company' level (yumigumi) in a single line of 25 ashigaru (not including their leadership).

The yari armed samurai were in a much looser formation in small teams, with a single samurai being supported by 1-2 retainers (who weren't armed with spears). The samurai were often deployed behind the ashigaru spear line, again to bolster the morale of the more expendable and (in theory) less experienced ashigaru. There would have been 14 samurai with 1-2 ashigaru each, so between 28-42 men in a 'squad', and they would have been deployed at the 'company' level of 2 squads (28 samurai with 28-56 ashigaru for a total of 56-84 men, again not including their leadership).

I did have unit numbers somewhere - I'll add them in later.

Edit: numbers added.

rrgg

2017-06-15, 08:09 AM

All pictures of XVI century pike blocks I have seen show the soldiers of the inside of the block wielding pikes too...

I believe that this was usually an artistic shorthand so that the artist didn't have to worry about as much detail. For instance this illustration of the battle of Pinkie Cleugh (http://www.musselburghmuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/B-of-P-map001.jpg) shows the English infantry as solid pike blocks even though most of the levies would still have been armed with medieval bills.

Here are some illustrations which show where the shorter weapons would have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pamphlet.jpg

http://imgur.com/a/AJ4Dc

Here's an interesting one which alternates pikes, then shorter weapons, then a smaller pike square:

http://www.wikiwand.com/de/Gevierthaufen

This painting is a 1533 re-imagining of the Battle of Alesia but the lower left is supposed to depict a contemporary German pike square. In this case ranks of halberders are shown sandwiched in rather than forming a square within a square, but the principle is the same:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siege_of_Alesia.jpg

Martin Greywolf

2017-06-15, 08:20 AM

Hopefully the new game Kingdom Come Deliverance which is set in Bohemia in the early 1400's will have some war wagons, I have high hopes anyway.

I really hate to dash people's hopes, but from what I've seen, KCD won't be all that accurate. I saw the armor of what was supposed to be Hungarian army, and, well, they couldn't have gotten it more wrong. The equipment was appropriate for Mongols circa Subutai, not Sigismund's troops.

Speaking of Hussite wagons, as someone who speaks Slovak and Czech, and can struggle through Polish, I can tell you that we don't really know how they were deployed. Period documents give us really vague descriptions, and most of the paintings are very clearly made by someone who only heard about them by word of mouth - some of the paintings even make you question if the painter ever saw a normal wagon.

What we do know is that they were definitely used while chained together, probably were rarely used as mobile platforms and what number of soldiers and of what type were on them. That's about it as far as hard facts go, anything else is an educated guess based on vague descriptions. That's probably why war wagons aren't mentioned that much in Osprey books.

One interesting thing to ponder is the use of "war" wagons before that - I'm convinced that there was some use of them, most prominent of them being makeshift "gates" when barricading passes (multiple references to this, e.g. Verecke pass before Subutai invaded Hungary), and there's no reason not to place a few guys with sharp spears on top of them while you're at it. Thing is, we have zero descriptions that are this detailed, and they definitely weren't used as basic army units.

Also, if you think about it, a battering ram with wheels and roof is basically a wagon used for warlike purposes.

Tobtor

2017-06-15, 01:35 PM

Punching through textile armours, sure. But a pike isn't going to go through mail or a cuirass (whether bronze or iron).

As others have pointed out Thrand does multiple test with a spear and penetrates mail regularly. This is STEEL mail, with welded rings, and a rettye decent size rings (Small and averagely thick). Representing a above average quality mail by the 14th century.

Roman and Celtic mail that was around in antiquity was pretty good quality (it was 4 in 1); it didn't cover the lower arms or lower legs, though.

I really cant make sense of this statement- It seem you are suggesting that by being 1 in 4 it was "pretty good quality". 1 in 4 is a pattern you can make mail in, but it does not say anything about quality. Indeed you would get higher quality in some 1 in 6 patterns (but these where often with larger and/or thinner rings averaging it out), and definitely in 1 in 8 weves (thoughh they are not really attested for historical mail armour). It is a bit like sayng "german WW II helmets where of pretty good quality, they where green".

Roman and celtic mail was almost always "iron", some with a little carbon content, but this is unevenly distributed and seem more accidental than not. They way swords where hardened in the period wouldn't work for mails (you would have to individually forge every ring!). They would be significantly weaker than what Thrand is testing.

Personally, I have doubts that spear or pike thrusts were reliable against armor, but there are certainly accounts which claim otherwise.

Including Thrand several times piecing good quality mail with spears in vidoes. He also resently did some with Roland Warzecha where Roland also pierces the mail. They dont go very deep, but its a very broad spearhead.

a pike isn't going to deliver a thrust much more powerful than a spear held two-handed, that length isn't doing anything particularly useful offensively, besides attacking at a longer range.

Depending on use I strongly disagree. The difference between a spear and a sword (or even dagger) is weight. HOw much weight you can get behind your trust is what matters (which is why pole-weapons with spikes is great). I assume most pikes weigh more than a spear, if you can propel (thrust) that force forward that is going to do better. Now: if the pike is used passively (no thrusting motion), you are correct. If it is thust at the enemy, the greater wieght would add more power to the thrust.

(note that the reason Thrand get more power out of the single handed slightly throwing style overhand thrust-thingy, is twofold: possibly a s slighly higher impact speed and no holding back on the weapon, thus the entire spear is allowed to be used, his actual strength is only used to propel the weapon in the first place).

Another thing most test doesn't take into account (well I haven't actually seen any that does!) is that the opponent is also moving forward (well in many cases at least!), adding quite a relative momentum to the thrust (this is especially true for cavalry charges!). I dont know how many joule that adds, but certainly some!

About historical sources:

I agree we cannot thrust them at face value. But to a degree they fit with modern tests. Thrand is able to pierce a good quality mail (most historical ones I have seen have been slightly or greatly poorer in quality) with a broad headed spear against a target not moving forward. A more piercing designed (triangular or square cross section of the point) would go much deeper into an enemy with a weaker mail charging at you (either on foot or horseback). So the historical sources cannot be totally dismissed either.

Apart from stories of penetrated mails, we also have have accounts of mails famed for being very strong so that they can withstand every attack (I mentioned Harald Hadradas amour earlier).

I think this is actually more significant: if everybody knows that weapons does not in fact break mail, then such a mail is not noteworthy! There is nothing gained by "embellish the reputation of their patron", if it is commonplace for mails to protect against all blows.

Thus that a fabeled armour would be able to protect against all attacks surely means that other mails do not! (this in a period where spears, axes, knives and swords making up 98% or so of all battlefield weapons). Many in the "audience" of icelandic sagas (and some of the authors such as Snorri Sturlason) was themselves actively pursuing a military career. Thus the source must have some credibility.

Incanur

2017-06-15, 03:48 PM

The idea was that the short weapons were more useful than the pikes on broken ground or in a broken formation.

The "broken formation" happened in any hard-fought battle between pike blocs. You can't use a 15-18ft in the press of battle, in a melee, so pikers necessarily resort to sidearm swords and/or daggers.

Alternatively it might have to do with the far more dominant role of shot in the later period. By this point it was starting to become uncommon for infantry to actually come into melee before the battle was decided.

I think this was a major reason. Niccolò Machiavelli and Sir John Smythe both wanted lots of short weapons in order do well in the melee. Raimond de Fourquevaux want his heavily armored pikers to carry shields on their backs to sling down during the melee for the same purpose, as well as a moderate number of halberdiers. You see significant numbers of short weapons during the Italians, for example, which involved numerous fierce melees. It was partially seeing Swiss units of halberdiers sometime in the second half of the 16th century that during his military service that Smythe drew on for recommending halberdiers himself.

I suspect mixed formations of pikes and short weapons generally were better in hard-fought melees than formation with only or primarily pikes.

On the other hand, pike-only or pike-heavy formations probably were easier to manage. Having too few pikers was bad news against cavalry, so the more mixed armies had to account for that. Pike-heavy formations had less to worry about in that regard. So by the late 16th-century, it wasn't really worthwhile to have lots of short weapons. (Note that even then you still saw some number of short weapons.)

Clistenes

2017-06-15, 03:58 PM

I believe that this was usually an artistic shorthand so that the artist didn't have to worry about as much detail. For instance this illustration of the battle of Pinkie Cleugh (http://www.musselburghmuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/B-of-P-map001.jpg) shows the English infantry as solid pike blocks even though most of the levies would still have been armed with medieval bills.

Here are some illustrations which show where the shorter weapons would have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pamphlet.jpg

http://imgur.com/a/AJ4Dc

Here's an interesting one which alternates pikes, then shorter weapons, then a smaller pike square:

http://www.wikiwand.com/de/Gevierthaufen

This painting is a 1533 re-imagining of the Battle of Alesia but the lower left is supposed to depict a contemporary German pike square. In this case ranks of halberders are shown sandwiched in rather than forming a square within a square, but the principle is the same:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siege_of_Alesia.jpg

I have checked and you are right, there were quite more halberds than I remembered... this is a diagram showing halberdiers and pikemen in a text from 1581 (Diego de Palacios's "Dialogos militares, de la formacion e informacion de personas, instrumentos, y cosas necessarias para el buen vso de la guerra " (http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/dialogos-militares-de-la-formacion-e-informacion-de-personas-instrumentos-y-cosas-necessarias-para-el-buen-vso-de-la-guerra/)).

The "X" are halberdiers, while the "0" are pikemen...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cU3lGABexqQ/VrCjC85uUCI/AAAAAAAABXA/ItIOGcnWqWY/s1600/Escuadr%25C3%25B3n%2Bcon%2Bordenes%2Bde%2Balabarde ros%2By%2Bbanderas%2Bperdidas.jpg

By the way, you can get the book for free in the original old Spanish here (http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/nd/ark:/59851/bmcx3500).

Also, do you remember when we spoke about the use of shields by spanish pikemen? In this page (http://ejercitodeflandes.blogspot.com.es/2009/11/alabardero.html) they speak about it: Diego de Salazar made a compilation of texts about military strategy, "De Rei Militari", and the fifth chapter, "Disciplina Militar y Instruction, de los hechos y cosas de guerra" by Langeay, mentions how the latter gave his pikemen rotellas so they could fight once the pike blocks were closely engaged and the pikes were useless...

You can get "De Rei Militari" for free here... (http://www.bibliotecavirtualdeandalucia.es/catalogo/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=151464)

Galloglaich

2017-06-15, 04:17 PM

I really hate to dash people's hopes, but from what I've seen, KCD won't be all that accurate. I saw the armor of what was supposed to be Hungarian army, and, well, they couldn't have gotten it more wrong. The equipment was appropriate for Mongols circa Subutai, not Sigismund's troops.

That's disappointing to hear. The German / Bohemian style armor and weapons, and the sword fighting look very realistic to me (the armor is maybe a tiny bit archaic) but I have been getting a bit worried by the generic 'fantasy' and kind of inept / rundown look of the villages, and haven't noticed any actual towns in the trailers I've seen. Haven't played the actual game yet even though I was an early kickstarter (or whatever service they used) backer and I have access. I've been too busy.

Speaking of Hussite wagons, as someone who speaks Slovak and Czech, and can struggle through Polish, I can tell you that we don't really know how they were deployed. Period documents give us really vague descriptions, and most of the paintings are very clearly made by someone who only heard about them by word of mouth - some of the paintings even make you question if the painter ever saw a normal wagon..

Everything I've read tends to focus on war wagons being largely defensive in nature. The Ottomans found wagon laagers to be very effective when they encountered them in eastern Europe and would go on to copy the tactic themselves, but they apparently did still consider the wagons' lack of mobility an Achilles heel.

From The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: “You rely on your carts and hope that the House of Osman will attack them, and that you will repel them with cannon and arquebus. But you don’t know that they have understood your trick . . . They will not attack your carts. No, they will surround you at a distance the guns cannot reach.”

Respectfully, I disagree- there actually are a lot of records on all this, they just haven't been made easily accessible yet.

Period sources for the use of war wagons include:

Town and monastic chronicles (most famously the helpfully illustrated Swiss chronicles but also many other less known ones all over Europe)
Personal Letters (such as the famous letters of Hunyadi but also many others for example from George of Podebrady, the Slovak or Moravian mercenary lord Jan Jiskra and a slew of Hussite Theologians)
Court cases and records (for example lawsuits related to people captured on the battlefield and then paroled, or people accused of cowardice etc.) which sometimes get into a lot of detail
Overviews by period historians such as Piccolomini and Jan Dlugosz who actually saw these weapons in action and commented on them, though often in a more abstract manner.
Period Military manuals such as the kriegsbuch of Ludwig von Eyb which sometimes get into a lot of detail including illustrations of different formations and so on.
Housbooks like the Von Wolfegg housebook which doesn't say that much but again has very detailed illustrations showing both war-wagons on the march and in tabor / wagon fort mode, as well as some of the stranger gun-wagons.

As I said before the war-wagons were used for enveloping actions as well as for static defense, quite famously and especially when in the hands of Hussite or Cossack troops but also by many others from Switzerland to Scandinavia.

The most famous example as in the Battle of Kutna Hora

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kutn%C3%A1_Hora

The Wikipedia describes it as a direct charge but I think it was actually a flanking maneuver if I remember correctly

"At Kutna Hora in the early winter of 1421, the Taborites were encircled by the superior forces of the Holy Roman Empire under King Sigismund.[2] Even though Sigismund's elite heavy cavalry was kept at bay by Zizka's artillery, the Taborites apparently faced imminent destruction.[2] However, on 21 December, Zizka grouped his war wagons into a column and charged the enemy lines. The battle wagons advanced rapidly, with all of their guns blazing.[2] The column smashed a hole through Sigismund's line, allowing the Taborites to escape the encirclement.[2] Sigismund decided against mounting a pursuit of the Hussites, for he incorrectly believed that they had been utterly defeated.[2]"

There were two other cases of mobile wagon column attacks during the original Hussite Wars and there are even some details into how the columns were organized, which incidentally match what you see in some of the artistic sources like in the Wolfegg housebook and so on.

Then in the mid 15th Century there are several cases where Hussite mercenaries successfully deployed in moving columns, usually pincer envelopments or flanking attacks, against Ottoman forces. Some of these were fighting with a Czech or Moravian mercenary leader named Jan Jiskra, who though himself a Catholic was famously 'tight' with a lot of Hussite mercenaries, others were fighting for Janos Hunyadi's famous "Black Army". One example was the battle of Jalomita or Ialomita river in 1442. In this case a combination of a flank or rear attack by the war-wagons with a frontal attack by the heavy cavalry wiped out the Ottoman forces. This is an account of the battle:

Battle of Ialomiţa river 1442

In 1442 Sehabeddin (Sa’d ed-din ?) the beylerbey of Rumelia (commander of Ottoman troops in Europe) attacked Wallachia with an army of 25-30 000 men. This time the army was reinforced with akincis and janissaries. Though the akincis were not present in the battle they were sent away to plunder countyside. The Hungarian army (cca. 10 000 men) waited in the valley of Ialomiţa (In Hungarian references often seen as Jalomica) and was reinforced by Hussite warwagons. In the strait valley the traditional Ottoman flanking tactics did not work well and the power of the knight’s charge could be more effective. The pretentious beylerbey did not mind the unfavourable terrain. Even so the Hungarians were not able to break the Ottoman line till the warwagons attacked the Ottoman rear simultaneously with a frontal charge of the heavy cavalry. This was the first time that Ottoman forces encountered with war wagons and the element of surprise was a key factor.

During the 15th Century the widespread use of Czech, Slovak and Moravian mercenaries meant that their tactics and weapons were copied in many places with mixed results. One of the most successful copies of Czech tactics was by the (at the time nascent) Zaparhozian Cossacks. They made wide use of the war wagons - the early days of Cossacks they were much more known for their infantry and what you might call marines or naval infantry than for what they were known for later, I.e. cavalry.

You can see a depiction of the Cossack use of War wagons in this Polish film based on Ogniuem I Mieczem / "With Fire and Sword". Note the small cannon on the wagons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j4AYK8KGKU

The famous battle of Orsha which is depicted in a wonderful painting and I think took place in 1505, was one of the first of a long series of increasingly vicious fights between the Poles and the Muscovites. While the main engagement was a huge cavalry fight, the actual victory was at the hands of an ambush by Czech mercenaries with war-wagons and cannons. You can actually see them in almost hidden in the upper-right corner of the famous painting.

By the mid to late 15th Century there were distinct German, Cossack, Russian and Turkish versions of the war wagons. Non-Czech use of the war wagons varied greatly, some were almost like tanks with multiple guns, some were dedicated gun wagons with one medium sized gun, and some were basically just mobile walls used for cover from arrows, what you might call field mantlets with no weapons (not to be confused with siege mantlets though more on that in a second)

The Russian version was usually more of a mantlet type though combined with the traditional Czech style wagons and gun-wagons. The Russians called them Gulyay-gorod

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulyay-gorod

They were used like the Czech and Cossack wagons for envelopments several times, probably most famously at the Battle of Molodi, a brutal fight in the terrible Livonan War where Ivan the Terrible's forced smashed the huge force of the Ottomans (40-60k soldiers) by a double encirclement with the wagons.

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

I think the correct way to think of these was more like WW 1 tanks than WW 2 tanks, but not precisely like either. It's true that we don't know exactly how the pincer movements and flanking attacks were done precisely but that is due to not having gone through and done proper analysis of the considerable documentary evidence, not because the evidence isn't there.

Though I think the culverin and later the cannon probably are what ended the war wagon in Western and Central Europe, the war wagon never really went away in the East and in fact was used during and after WW 1, with the adaptation of the maxim gun, in the form of the Ukranian Tachanka, a major and quite successful weapon of the Ukranian anarchists during the Russian Civil War.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Taczanka.jpg

Even this wasn't unheard of centuries earlier because they were already putting volley guns on wagons in the 1430's

G

BayardSPSR

2017-06-15, 04:51 PM

I think the correct way to think of these was more like WW 1 tanks than WW 2 tanks, but not precisely like either. It's true that we don't know exactly how the pincer movements and flanking attacks were done precisely but that is due to not having gone through and done proper analysis of the considerable documentary evidence, not because the evidence isn't there.

Though I think the culverin and later the cannon probably are what ended the war wagon in Western and Central Europe, the war wagon never really went away in the East and in fact was used during and after WW 1, with the adaptation of the maxim gun, in the form of the Ukranian Tachanka, a major and quite successful weapon of the Ukranian anarchists during the Russian Civil War.

Sounds more like a modern technical than any kind of tank?

Kiero

2017-06-15, 05:13 PM

Knives again, and 17th century again. I was reading the excellent Sons of Brabant series (it's slightly fantasy-tinged, historical fiction), which features a mercenary company involved in the Thirty Years War, plus apocalyptic prophecies and so on.

The leaders of the band are minor nobility and professional soldiers. When in undress situations (ie out of harness), they seem to carry two "belt knives", which they tend to dual wield when surprised into fighting. It seems a little strange that they don't carry swords routinely, since as nobility they'd be entitled to, wouldn't they? Even so, wouldn't your average belt knife make a poor weapon and be more useful as a tool? What sort of knife would it likely be? And wouldn't carrying two look odd; having one is the sort of thing no one would pay any attention to, but carrying two is surely a statement of intent, much like carrying a sword?

They also use throwing knives sometimes; again is that the sort of thing you'd have been able to get away with concealing on your person? If you were discovered with them, would people assume you were an assassin or something?

Spiryt

2017-06-15, 05:26 PM

As others have pointed out Thrand does multiple test with a spear and penetrates mail regularly. This is STEEL mail, with welded rings, and a rettye decent size rings (Small and averagely thick). Representing a above average quality mail by the 14th century.

"Steel" on it's own doesn't mean that much to be honest.

In modern world industry is making many different steels, some of them are really tough, while some are getting shredded by darts.

I think we thus have to be cautious about guesses of 'quality' of armor such as mail, when mail had died kind of natural death, and we don't exactly understand how people who made mail for a living were doing it for 'quality'.

Can't comment on stuff that Thrand uses, but some guys like Dan Howard do claim that vast majority of 'mail' patches uses isn't up to snuff.

http://fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15788

Including claim that many of mild steels used today actually may not be better material for mail (specifically) than proper, quality bloomery iron.

Incorrect metallurgy. Mild steel (or even so-called modern "iron") is not as ductile as bloomery iron and it is more likely to snap upon impact instead of stretching/bending.

Allan Williams tests show some pretty significant energies (for hand held weapons) required to defeat mail - though, interestingly, modern mail indeed performs better here. Sadly there are no detailed informations about those mails (size of the rings, density, weight)

https://books.google.pl/books?id=GpVbnsqAzxIC&pg=PA943&lpg=PA943&dq=period+mail+vs+halberd+tests&source=bl&ots=EIRcbY-d1x&sig=trzBBAsAH-QH4wSkuVQk0FmIa-U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5uMah5cDUAhVlQpoKHU9tBFwQ6AEIMjAC#v=on epage&q=period%20mail%20vs%20halberd%20tests&f=false

Roman and celtic mail was almost always "iron", some with a little carbon content, but this is unevenly distributed and seem more accidental than not. They way swords where hardened in the period wouldn't work for mails (you would have to individually forge every ring!). They would be significantly weaker than what Thrand is testing.

Again, we can't be sure it was "weaker" in the sense that interest us.

Whether they were or not, it's worth noting that much of Roman period mail was made out of extraordinarily fine rings - the links from Newstead's, Saalburg's etc. hamatas, best preserved ones out there, don't have links with outer diameter of more than 7mm, from what I gather.

Carl

2017-06-15, 09:19 PM

So the recent side talk on game system elements and representing them inspired me to resurrect a project I've been coming back to for a bit. My own combat system. It was and still is strongly inspired by elements I read about relating to the sword work for the prequel SW movies, (though I don’t want to restrict the result to lightsaber style weapons). For now I'm just laying broad general concepts for basic sanity checking, (i.e. am I forgetting anything on a basic principles level), it is slightly heroic in style ofc so there's an element of larger than life and that’s ok and mostly intentional. I may provide more detail than you need for this purpose, not totally sure how much you need. Feel free to ask clarifying questions.

Stats: Core Stats of the Martial melee side of things, these describe in combination the core concepts of the system. Some things will be random, (i.e. die roll), affected, some won't. At the core melee attacks always hit. You never miss a melee attack outright by default. it can be evaded, or blocked. But it can never simply miss on it's own, (so there's no rolling there). Just in case it sounds a bit complicated at times.

Power: Used in determining damage and part of a block. Bonuses apply from precision rolls to the blocking portion. Sufficient excess power means full power gets through for damage calculation. Less than that but not enough to fully block reduces damage. Sufficient will completely stop the attack with the block. Enough excess can allow the block momentum to overcome the power of the attack prompting a counterattack opportunity.

Precision: Attacks hit automatically, precision is a measure of your skill at weaponwork, your ability to aim your attack at a chink in the enemies defences, or position your own weapon, (or shield obviously, I' using weapon as a catchall here), into the path of an attack in the most beneficial way. Precision of both sides matches off against each other during attacks and parry attempts and can provide bonuses to power. This is where the equivalent of an attack roll takes place, low enough values can cause a failed block, high enough values produce a successful block, (which still has to pass the power check), and if sufficiently good and the power check is sufficient to at least stop the blow it can allow a counterattack even if you can't overpower the attack with the parry.

Reactions: The ability to make quick short sudden actions. Advantage here can provide precision bonuses representing the ability to make small movements that provide a positional advantage against the attack making blocking it and/or deflecting it, e.t.c. easier. It's also used any time a "get out of the way" check is needed.

Speed: A representation of your sustained ability to act. Almost everything that happens in combat is an action of sorts, how many actions you can take in a round (which represents a handful of seconds or so, much like a D&D round), is decided by this. You can take actions beyond your speed limit but you take ever increasing penalties to do so.

Footwork: If speed is a general measure of your ability to take broad range actions, and reactions your short sudden movement abilities. This is your ability to take broader movements within a fight without leaving yourself vulnerable. It's also representative of what you can do as part of another action without reducing the efficiency of that action. In effect your macro scale mobility within the fight. Aside from obvious positional advantages it also allows someone to give ground when attacked in exchange for defensive benefits.

Stamina: I'm not really sure I want to include this one. Debating. Conceptually it holds a very different role to speed but at the same time covers some of the same ground Most things you do will cost stamina. So long as you don’t go over this your fine. If you do it reduces how much stamina you have next round. Go over 2 or more rounds in a row and next round you'll take penalties. Where it differs from speed is that many things which take one action can take more than one stamina. A simple obvious example is that any footwork movement costs one stamina normally, but so does any attack or block, so doing both together is one action, but costs 2 stamina. You can also trade stamina points for bonuses to a specific stat for one action. This may actually end up being used the same way by magic and rouglike skillsets which would make it a "trineray", (yes I just made that up :p), skill that covers all 3 spheres and help prevent excessive "magic knight thief" syndrome.

Initiative: This simply determines in what order actions are declared and isn’t martial specific. In effect going in initiative order everyone declares an action, then all actions are resolved in that order, (I probably need to include something to discourage attack at the expense of defence without outright forbidding it), with certain counter action, (like a block against an attack), resolved with the action it's countering. A counterattack, (I think I'm going to properly term this reversal, a counterattack is any attack initiated by someone who's achieved a reversal on his opponent), reduces the person on the receiving end to an initiative of 1 below his opponent, (a reversal can itself be reversed knocking the other person down to 1 below his opponents already reversed value, and so on and so forth), until the end of round. As such a round is more a maximum time in which a discrete series of linked actions can take place. And serves an additional purpose by providing a natural reset for speed, stamina and a way to break up streaks. There are still ways and occasions you can take two, (or more), actions at once together but doing so usually has a cost and is limited as to when you can do so.

Schools and Techniques: Melee combat actually consists of executing techniques, (even the basic attack and block are techniques, just not complicated or bonus providing ones). The types of technique available relate to the "school" of weaponplay the character is currently using and acquiring knowledge of each school, it's techniques, and deeper mastery is part of character building. The nature of the schools probably draws the most directly on the inspiration material, but they're also somewhat generic in style covering basic conceptual ground. The devil will be in the techniques, but that’s a bit more detailed than I want to go here in a first pass. I'll lay out the kind of ground techniques for each school cover however. Each school also has innate effects, that is simply choosing to use the school for a round applies modifiers to stats. These may be "always on" or situational. Obviously whilst I think it's a bit complex to go into here there will be ways for a sufficiently leveled character to start combining schools producing a hybrid.

Common: The most basic school is the common one. It's techniques are always brutally simple "exchange X of one stat for X of another" types, although basic attacks and blocks fall under it's heading too. It's biggest strength is it's versatility, it's biggest weakness is that it lacks the specialised capabilities and it takes a lot of investment to get any growth. Without investment it also has no innate capabilities but gains them as you invest.

Precision: This style is all about precise weapon work at the cost of raw power. It also gets improved footwork defensive abilities and the ability when following up on someone who's giving ground to get offensive benefits as innate capabilities. It's techniques focus on feints and other setup attacks as well as things like disarms, binds, e.t.c. It's all about control over oneself and through that control over one's opponent.

Power: This is all about brute fore power first and foremost. it gains innate power bonuses at the expense of speed with the ability to exchange stamina for other stats at improved ratios. It's definitely a tough one to come up with techniques for, probably because it's the least subtle. Overwhelms intended to totally overcome a block such that it leaves them badly out of position vs follow-ups, coup-de-grace techniques. Probably also "improbable use of a weapon" techniques, (like the murder stroke), and so on and so forth. I'd love any thoughts you have on techniques here.

Defence: This gets significant defensive bonuses and bonuses to counterattacks to nearly every stat, but takes penalties when not counterattacking, technique wise aside from some special blocking techniques it gets littlie that’s entirely unique to itself, often aping other schools techniques, but as specialised more powerful counter attack versions. It's all about letting the enemy commit themselves and then exploiting them when they make a mistake as hard fast and brutally as possible.

AttackAttackAttack!RetreatRetreatRetreat!: Despite the TV Tropes name it's not quite as literally as the name makes it sound. Innately it takes power and precision penalties on both attack and defence but gets bonuses to avoid reversals. It also gains large passive reaction, speed and footwork bonuses. And it's techniques focus on action economy, improved footwork, (fewer directional limitations in many situations), and positional advantage improvements. It's got a certain freewheeling irreverence to it with a focus on a storm of deceptively poor attacks to keep the opponent off balance at the expense of being less able to quickly position for defence compensated for by a focus on positional advantage and simply getting the hell out of the way of the reprisal.

Kata's: I'm using the martial arts term atm as A) not sure what the proper terminology for non-martial arts would be, and B) it's covering the same rough conceptual ground as I understand it. That said I am being a bit more lenient and slapdash in some respects than I understand the IRL concept is. It's all about representing the synergy some techniques can have with each other. The basic point is you can, (with appropriate school and technique character building investment), when executing a technique gain a benefit to specific follow-ups techniques. In effect you can link different techniques together makes the combination more powerful. However the technique that is gaining a benefit only has to occur somewhere in the same round , it doesn't have to immediately follow on and whilst no technique can apply multiple stacks of it's buff to a single technique, it can apply bonuses to several different techniques if you invest enough in it and different techniques can apply separate buffs to the same technique.

Equipment: Equipment obviously comes in two key forms here weapons and armour. Shields in this respect will be weapons, though they're still a special case for obvious reasons. Weaponry has one of 3 basic damage types, sometimes some stats modifiers, (so a heavy weapon might slow you down, whilst a light one might speed you up, swords would probably have precision bonuses, e.t.c, I'd be happy to hear some thoughts on specifics here), and may in special cases have an AC modifier, plus a listed number of dice in damage. This is simply a number, (so 1+), all dice for all weapons start at D2 and go up one die size with each damage bonus size. Obviously this can with a big enough modifier roll over into extra dice. these are considered bonus dice and are not affected by armour or similar modifiers, (see below), and if you lose a base dice, (again see below), you lose any associated bonus dice with those base dice.

Weapons with multiple bits and pieces, (I'm looking at poleaxes and halberd and the like with this), may have multiple ways they can be used with stats for each.

Reach and Reach Bonus are also weapon stats. Reach bonus, (probably precishion again), applies so long as your reach is greater than your enemies and your outside his reach, and of course you have to be inside your own reach to attack someone.

I'm thinking the longsword will probably be an example of a middle ground weapon with no bonuses or penalties, and only moderate amounts of damage dice. (i'm thinking say 1 die for a basic dagger, 2 for a long dagger, 3-4 for a shortsword, 6 for a "normal" Sword, 8 for a longsword, 10-12 for a zwiehander or similar, and probably 14-16 for some really nasty polearm types, a roundel dagger might be 2 dice with a -2 or -3 AC modifier)

Armour has a series of damage reduction values for each physical damage type. Very rarely it will have a non-magical modifier to the various magical damage types, but that’s usually provided on a uniform basis by enchantment. And sometimes an AC modifier, (nearly always positive). AC as a system represents getting at chinks in the armour. Armour works by reducing the base number of dice rolled when dealing damage, if it reduces the number of dice to zero or less then just 1 point of damage is dealt.

AC works by default as a reduction to the number of dice of reduction the armour provide, though if for any reason the AC modifier is positive instead of negative (the precision step when making an attack can provide a positive or negative modifier, as well as magic, techniques, e.t.c.), it will simply have no effect, (they didn’t find a weakpoint), and no matter how severely negative it can never add to the number of base or bonus dice rolled.

Dual Wielding, (including sword and shield), is handled a bit simply in that you can make two attacks, but that means either the defender must parry one and let one through, (meaning one effectively binds his weapon), or he can try to parry both at a significant penalty. One handed has a major power penalty compared to two handed, but shields get a major defensive precision bonus. Not entirely sure how shield bashing should be handled in terms of weapon stats, it should be very powerful, but not necessarily very damaging.

Think that’s everything martial melee related. If it sounds a bit complex at first glance bear in mind most of it is rolling two dice, on each sides. doing a quick bit of math on a few inputs, and then rolling another set of dice for damage and applying them. It just sounds complex.

Let me know what you think, have I caught the major essences or am I way off base somewhere, you've talked plenty in the thread about various weapons, but that’s doesn't mean old bad fiction mental baggage hasn’t crept in, (though as noted there is a certain heroic element to it too).

Vitruviansquid

2017-06-15, 10:02 PM

You're gonna have to give me a concrete example of a round of combat using those rules.

wolflance

2017-06-15, 10:44 PM

Well yes and no. Spear armed ashigaru were deployed in a single line, shoulder to shoulder, both to bolster their morale and to retain unit cohesion.

The yari armed samurai were in a much looser formation in small teams, with a single samurai being supported by 1-2 retainers (who weren't armed with spears). The samurai were often deployed behind the ashigaru spear line, again to bolster the morale of the more expendable and (in theory) less experienced ashigaru.

I did have unit numbers somewhere - I'll add them in later.
I guess I simplified my description too much, but I hope my point/question (shorter weapon behind pike-line) still stands.

battle of Pinkie Cleugh (http://www.musselburghmuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/B-of-P-map001.jpg)

Am I seeing...halberdiers running out from the pike block to assault a camp across river? (Center part of the picture)

Depending on use I strongly disagree. The difference between a spear and a sword (or even dagger) is weight. HOw much weight you can get behind your trust is what matters (which is why pole-weapons with spikes is great). I assume most pikes weigh more than a spear, if you can propel (thrust) that force forward that is going to do better. Now: if the pike is used passively (no thrusting motion), you are correct. If it is thust at the enemy, the greater wieght would add more power to the thrust.

(note that the reason Thrand get more power out of the single handed slightly throwing style overhand thrust-thingy, is twofold: possibly a s slighly higher impact speed and no holding back on the weapon, thus the entire spear is allowed to be used, his actual strength is only used to propel the weapon in the first place).
Agreed. Here is some Chinese sources again, since as far as I am aware the Chinese are doing much more nonoperative competitive sparring with spear/pike than HEMA folks...safety equipment be damned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X9-SCyR-o8
In 1:50 one guy breaks a free-standing concrete brick with a pool cue thrust from a blunted round-head spear simulator. That is the force behind a one-handed spear thrust. (Note: the spears in this video is much shorter than the pikes in my previous video, but they are pretty much using identical techniques)

I don't think pike was ever used passively UNLESS the pikeman was readying himself to receive a cavalry charge. In a push-of-pike situation, all pikemen actively fence/parry and thrust with their pikes. Yes, one can totally lunge or doing pool cue thrust with even a 16-foot pike.

rrgg

2017-06-15, 11:41 PM

That sounds like a major defect in the command structure to me...why is this so often the case?

It mainly has to do with the difficulties of preventing a panic from spreading among a large number of men. A single footsoldier in the middle of line typically has little idea about what is going on around him, so if he percieves that the standards are being pushed back or that his side is losing his first instinct is to run for it.

Towards the end of the 16th century the solution was to instead field much smaller regiments in deep, checkerboard formations inspired by the ancient roman "triplex acies". The large gaps in between each regiment allowed them to easily pass by each other either to reinforce or retreat in good order. The gaps also meant that routs tended to be more contained and less likely to spread to other units. From Montecuccoli: "If a smaller troop is overturned, the disorder is not so great; nor is it as difficult to repair a breach which is not as wide."

http://forum.milua.org/archive/TactiqueUk_data/Hollande1610.jpg

Individually the smaller pike squares were more likely to be overrun. But rather than 3-5 main infantry divisions, which had been the norm previously, armies now had up to 20 and could suffer isolated defeats without losing the whole battle. Thus they could wear down larger squares over time.

According to Clifford Rogers, by the 17th century these sorts of tactics helped usher in an era where truly decisive battles became exceedingly rare as the focus on reserves was extremely risk adverse, and often left the victor almost as bloody as the loser.

Towards the end of the century as firepower became even more dominant linear tactics would make a return although in a very different form.

The "broken formation" happened in any hard-fought battle between pike blocs. You can't use a 15-18ft in the press of battle, in a melee, so pikers necessarily resort to sidearm swords and/or daggers.

I think this was a major reason. Niccolò Machiavelli and Sir John Smythe both wanted lots of short weapons in order do well in the melee. Raimond de Fourquevaux want his heavily armored pikers to carry shields on their backs to sling down during the melee for the same purpose, as well as a moderate number of halberdiers. You see significant numbers of short weapons during the Italians, for example, which involved numerous fierce melees. It was partially seeing Swiss units of halberdiers sometime in the second half of the 16th century that during his military service that Smythe drew on for recommending halberdiers himself.

I suspect mixed formations of pikes and short weapons generally were better in hard-fought melees than formation with only or primarily pikes.

On the other hand, pike-only or pike-heavy formations probably were easier to manage. Having too few pikers was bad news against cavalry, so the more mixed armies had to account for that. Pike-heavy formations had less to worry about in that regard. So by the late 16th-century, it wasn't really worthwhile to have lots of short weapons. (Note that even then you still saw some number of short weapons.)

I'm not so sure, I still think that ideally pikemen were supposed to be able to overthrow the enemy largely with their pikes alone while maintaining good cohesion, even if that didn't happen a lot of the time. Writers do tend to emphasize the pike in particular as being the decisive weapon on open ground. And even those who messed around with super bill-heavy formations like Thomas Diggs made sure to fill the first few ranks with armored pikemen.

I think Robert Barret's claims do have some merit. One Achilles heel of super-dense formations had long been that if they got bogged down, surrounded, and disordered such as at Dupplin Moor, then the troops inside could end up literally crushed to death, unable to use their weapons. And if that happened it wouldn't really matter much whether they were armed with pikes or short weapons. Barret's argument was that the short weapons should instead "mingle with your naked troupes of shot" in the wings in order to help back them up. And that from there they should be able to do everything they were supposed to do from inside the pike square but perhaps better.

rrgg

2017-06-16, 12:02 AM

@ Galloglaich

Thanks for the examples!

On the subject of war wagons. The greatmingmilitary blog has a couple of entries discussing Qi Ji Guang's use of war carts:

http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2017/02/qi-ji-guangs-che-ying-p1.html

http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2017/04/qi-ji-guangs-che-ying-p2.html

Am I seeing...halberdiers running out from the pike block to assault a camp across river? (Center part of the picture)

It's sort of depicting multiple parts of the battle at once. The right side is showing shattered scottish troops being run down and slaughtered by the English.

There are some other things wrong with the illustration as well, so it may have been drawn up some time after the event. Most notably the English archers are absent as well. Also, on the subject of pikemen with shields, according to Patten's account, the Scots pikemen at Pinkie were wearing wooden shields on their left arms, although this apparently didn't help much against artillery, mercenary harquebusiers, and one of the first decisive naval bombardments in history.

Kiero

2017-06-16, 03:10 AM

I don't think pike was ever used passively UNLESS the pikeman was readying himself to receive a cavalry charge. In a push-of-pike situation, all pikemen actively fence/parry and thrust with their pikes. Yes, one can totally lunge or doing pool cue thrust with even a 16-foot pike.

Unless you're in the first or second rank, you probably can't see the enemy. So how can you use it actively against an opponent you aren't aware of?

wolflance

2017-06-16, 03:35 AM

Unless you're in the first or second rank, you probably can't see the enemy. So how can you use it actively against an opponent you aren't aware of?
Uh, my bad. I didn't mean to say all pikemen actively used their pikes all at the same time...they fenced/thrusted when there were enemy within sight/reach.

It mainly has to do with the difficulties of preventing a panic from spreading among a large number of men. A single footsoldier in the middle of line typically has little idea about what is going on around him, so if he percieves that the standards are being pushed back or that his side is losing his first instinct is to run for it.

Towards the end of the 16th century the solution was to instead field much smaller regiments in deep, checkerboard formations inspired by the ancient roman "triplex acies". The large gaps in between each regiment allowed them to easily pass by each other either to reinforce or retreat in good order. The gaps also meant that routs tended to be more contained and less likely to spread to other units. From Montecuccoli: "If a smaller troop is overturned, the disorder is not so great; nor is it as difficult to repair a breach which is not as wide."

http://forum.milua.org/archive/TactiqueUk_data/Hollande1610.jpg

Individually the smaller pike squares were more likely to be overrun. But rather than 3-5 main infantry divisions, which had been the norm previously, armies now had up to 20 and could suffer isolated defeats without losing the whole battle. Thus they could wear down larger squares over time.

According to Clifford Rogers, by the 17th century these sorts of tactics helped usher in an era where truly decisive battles became exceedingly rare as the focus on reserves was extremely risk adverse, and often left the victor almost as bloody as the loser.

Towards the end of the century as firepower became even more dominant linear tactics would make a return although in a very different form.
Wow, while I am aware of the tactical flexibility offered by smaller unit, I didn't aware of its use in preventing domino-like battleline collapse.

wolflance

2017-06-16, 03:59 AM

@ Galloglaich

Thanks for the examples!

On the subject of war wagons. The greatmingmilitary blog has a couple of entries discussing Qi Ji Guang's use of war carts:

http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2017/02/qi-ji-guangs-che-ying-p1.html

http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2017/04/qi-ji-guangs-che-ying-p2.html

To clarify regarding Leonardo's tank - what we have best documented are fairly simple war-wagons and gun-wagons, which I think were light enough to be pushed along if necessary by their crews. Much more elaborate tank like or APC like machines also show up in military manuals and as illustrations in chronicles but we don't know much about them yet. Or at least I don't.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Husitsky_bojovy_vuz_replika.jpg/1200px-Husitsky_bojovy_vuz_replika.jpg

G
After (re)reading the blog's articles...I have a question: How heavy was a Taborite war wagon? The articles seem to imply that wagon weight (and intended foes) very much affecting deployment tactic.

Similarly, I think the Manchu's use of reverse-engineered European culverins also ended Ming Chinese war cart tactic.

Carl

2017-06-16, 06:50 AM

You're gonna have to give me a concrete example of a round of combat using those rules.

kay, probably take a day or 2, busy for most of today and i need to write up a couple of weapon profiles and armour profils for you.

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-06-16, 07:40 AM

If it sounds a bit complex at first glance bear in mind most of it is rolling two dice, on each sides.

You're gonna have to give me a concrete example of a round of combat using those rules.

kay, probably take a day or 2

Out of context quoting is fun.

Incanur

2017-06-16, 08:33 AM

I'm not so sure, I still think that ideally pikemen were supposed to be able to overthrow the enemy largely with their pikes alone while maintaining good cohesion, even if that didn't happen a lot of the time. Writers do tend to emphasize the pike in particular as being the decisive weapon on open ground. And even those who messed around with super bill-heavy formations like Thomas Diggs made sure to fill the first few ranks with armored pikemen.

There were different ways (https://artmilitary.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/on-the-push-of-pike/) to use the pike in formation. One way was for the front rank or ranks to essentially fence: thrust, parry, etc. This could also include some troops with shorter weapons closing the gap underneath the pikes. Sir John Smythe described this method, excoriating it as nonsense. Instead he recommend closing in an extremely tight formation where each rank of pikers gives a single pike thrust in a rapid succession. Then, if the enemy formation doesn't break, pikers in the front rank or ranks take to their swords and daggers. Blaise de Monluc outlined the difference between the German and Swiss method in broadly similar terms: the Germans fight at the length the pike, while the Swiss hold the pike in the middle and charge into opposing formations. I'm not sure about holding the pike in the middle, which Smythe certainly didn't advocate, but the basic idea is the same: either to you fight at a distance with the pike or you charge into to either break the enemy or force a bloody melee.

As we know from the Italians Wars, hard-fought encounters between pike formations could have extremely high casualties for front rank or ranks on both sides. According to Robert III de La Marck (Florange), at Novara 1513 only six of the 300-400 soldiers in the first rank of the pike formation he commanded survived, and victorious Swiss losses were equally severe. Florange himself lived to tell the tale because his father and some other men-at-arms charged into the infantry melee in order to save him. Florange's father found him literally "amongst the dead," with forty-six wounds. I suspect part of the advantage of the fencing method that Smythe decried was its lower intensity. Charging in, by contrast, was a gambit that could result in mutual annihilation if the enemy stood firm.

In any case, it's physically obvious that you can't use a pike in a tight press of humans, especially with other pikes all over the place. I suspect the pike fencing approach could transition into a melee, albeit more slowly than the charging-in method. Lots of 16th-century military writers made it clear that pikes sooner or later because useless when opposing soldiers came together and that pikers had to take to their swords and/or daggers under such circumstances.

Galloglaich

2017-06-16, 09:05 AM

Galloglaich

2017-06-16, 09:33 AM

After (re)reading the blog's articles...I have a question: How heavy was a Taborite war wagon? The articles seem to imply that wagon weight (and intended foes) very much affecting deployment tactic.

Similarly, I think the Manchu's use of reverse-engineered European culverins also ended Ming Chinese war cart tactic.

It's a good question, and I can only guess at an answer. I know that they mention on the one extreme something called 'ballast wagons' which would be filled with rocks and used when the tabor column deployed in static defense mode. This helped prevent the carts being tipped over by the enemy! The original Hussites used to also have at least three kinds of wagons, the basic war wagon, the more fortified type with extra wooden panels (including panels which unfolded to cover the bottom of the wagon, leaving gunports for shooters) and light supply wagons which were basically made of wicker with wooden axles and frames.

Modern replicas seem to be light enough for the men to push along themselves without horses, and they have big wheels for that same reason. After the 1450's they seem to have had some kind of primitive suspension too (chains I think originally, developed by the Hungarians). I think this is part of the reason for the huge (16-18 person) crews, when the wagon itself can probably only hold 3 or 4 people in it.

In period deployment descriptions and military manuals they show patterns with the heavier wagons on the outside and the light supply wagons in the center of the column. One description from the Hussite Wars describes Jan Ziska creating a 'maze' out of his wagons, supposedly while on the move, which enemy cavalry got caught into and confused by.

The later and more regionally varied types show everything from light wagons with basically just mantlet (walls) to very heavy looking, very elaborate gun-wagons with multiple, sometimes dozens of guns. The latter would clearly be very heavy. They also often show wooden panels deployed to protect the horse teams and in many cases show the horses pushing the wagons, and sometimes also pushing individual guns, from behind rather than from the front, presumably because it was safer for the horses.

Period commentators frequently noted the inability of the wagons to follow cavalry into hills or wooded terrain - there was a famous standoff in the 1470's between Bohemian (Czech) knight-King George of Podebrady and his one time protégé, then bitter rival Hungarian knight-king Matthias Corvinus, in which the Hungarian cavalry couldn't attack the Czechs due to the war wagons, but the war wagons (and Jan Dlugosz notes, the scythes on their wheels) which conversely couldn't get at the Hungarians when they fled up into the hills. Podebrady who was an old man at that time and not in good health, offered to fight a duel against Corvinus before the two armies but Corvinus declined.

I do think some war wagons, more properly gun-wagons, were kind of like technicals, others were sort of like movable forts I think a bit similar to WW 1 tanks. Others were sort of like APCs, others in categories hard to describe.

On the subject of mantlets, incidentally, there is a whole 'nother class of medieval war machine which wasn't a true war wagon though they looked similar, these were tank-like mantlets used only in sieges. These are basically boxes with wheels and overhead cover, usually open on one side, which sometimes had guns in them or cannon. Like this one you can see from one of the Diebold Schilling Swiss chronicles (I think it's Berne Chronik). There are bigger images of this around I couldn't remember the right search terms for it, maybe somebody else can google.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0a/4c/8a/0a4c8ab373e7fe7f14b49791fb9e66c9.jpg

these obviously had very limited mobility and weren't used outside of a siege context so far as I know.

G

Berenger

2017-06-16, 09:52 AM

There are bigger images of this around I couldn't remember the right search terms for it, maybe somebody else can google.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0a/4c/8a/0a4c8ab373e7fe7f14b49791fb9e66c9.jpg

Google has a reverse image search where you can enter the small picture and get links to bigger versions.

https://abload.de/img/pic1f0sv7.jpg

Galloglaich

2017-06-16, 09:52 AM

In any case, it's physically obvious that you can't use a pike in a tight press of humans, especially with other pikes all over the place. I suspect the pike fencing approach could transition into a melee, albeit more slowly than the charging-in method. Lots of 16th-century military writers made it clear that pikes sooner or later because useless when opposing soldiers came together and that pikers had to take to their swords and/or daggers under such circumstances.

Which is perhaps why the Swiss, who loved to mix it up as you noted, often carried big cumbersome 4' long longswords along with their pikes or hablerds, (though some also carried short baselards). In a chaotic fight with a lot of one on one, a longsword would have a big advantage over a shortsword or a dagger (unless the press was too tight)

Later on you see something similar with a lot of soldiers carrying rapiers.

In both cases, long sword or rapiers, the weapon requires a substantial amount of training to use effectively, but that is another investment in your personal survival.

English infantry apparently (billmen, longbowmen) often carried a sword and a buckler on their belt for the chaotic part of fighting, which also seems quite wise to me, used properly a buckler can help enormously in keeping you safe.

G

Max_Killjoy

2017-06-16, 09:57 AM

Google has a reverse image search where you can enter the small picture and get links to bigger versions.

https://abload.de/img/pic1f0sv7.jpg

There's a little bit of everything going on in that picture...

Galloglaich

2017-06-16, 09:59 AM

One other thing I wanted to mention related to cavalary war which is kind of neat and interesting - they also apparently made extensive use of caltrops and spiked chains kind of like what the State troopers use to stop a car, to interfere with and block cavalry moving around the wagon forts.

This was also true up in the Baltic going back to the 13th Century, the Sword Brothers were using them against the Russians.

An archeologist I know said they find old battlefields up in Lithuania, Estonia and Northern Poland by locating crossbow-bolt heads and caltrops with metal detectors. Crossbow bolt heads sometimes still embedded into the trees.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Drevnosti_RG_v3_ill130c_-_Caltrop.jpg
These are from the 16th Century

So anyway thought I'd mention it since it's kind of an interesting thing for gamers, which I had always thought of as sort of a gimmick device but it apparently it was very effective and real, kind of the medieval equivalent of land mines (they had real land mines too but they weren't cheap enough to be very widely deployed)

G

Galloglaich

2017-06-16, 10:02 AM

There's a little bit of everything going on in that picture...

yeah those Swiss Chronicles are goldmines, you can go through them page by page too, everything from prostitution to war machines to atrocities, charming scenes, comedy -- it's a trip behind the looking glass.

Spiryt

2017-06-16, 10:12 AM

Later on you see something similar with a lot of soldiers carrying rapiers.

In both cases, long sword or rapiers, the weapon requires a substantial amount of training to use effectively, but that is another investment in your personal survival.

I can't imagine any kind of 'clashed' formations of pikemen leaving enough space to employ longsword, not even mention rapier...

Assuming that soldiers stood 2 meters next to each other, (which is likely too much, as peple in this thread keep on noting, everyone wanted the pike formations to be close) and a pike is 6 meters, we are left with maybe ~ 5 meters wide 'corridor'.

With people very close to each other creating very chaotic 'wall' even if they are trying to create some space.

No much space to wield longsword, much less have proper footwork.

I would imagine longswords and rapiers would ideal be for skirmish on the flanks of formations, between the formations, broken formations, and so on. With some space.

Galloglaich

2017-06-16, 10:15 AM

I can't imagine any kind of 'clashed' formations of pikemen leaving enough space to employ longsword, not even mention rapier...

Assuming that soldiers stood 2 meters next to each other, (which is likely too much, as peple in this thread keep on noting, everyone wanted the pike formations to be close) and a pike is 6 meters, we are left with maybe ~ 5 meters wide 'corridor'.

With people very close to each other creating very chaotic 'wall' even if they are trying to create some space.

No much space to wield longsword, much less have proper footwork.

I would imagine longswords and rapiers would ideal be for skirmish on the flanks of formations, between the formations, broken formations, and so on. With some space.

yeah I don't mean so much in the press of pike, as immediately after when it starts to break up. But you do see the swords out quite a bit in the Swiss Chronicles etc. Even in Hans Holbeins famous "bad war" (which is in the press) you see a few guys using swords.

G

Galloglaich

2017-06-16, 10:26 AM

It's fascinating the similarities here. Both successful adaptations to dealing with the Mongols. Ming Dynasty wagon fort from the article on Chinese war wagons Rrgg linked:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qcJtXX_fRNc/WJggpcMFl7I/AAAAAAAADUA/sRYWAcprr_EalXg4eZ4DLicrmBPW85LRQCPcB/s640/Ming_dynasty_wagon_fort.jpg

Click here for a nearly identical wagon fort from the Ludwig von Eyb Kriegsbuch (circa 1505 if I remember right)

http://digital.bib-bvb.de/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1497626713086~684
Hussite War wagons in fort formation (modern depiction)

https://swordsandarmor.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hussite-war-wagons-formation.jpg?w=529

Wagon fort from the 1470's German Wolfegg housebook

http://rogue-artist.com/gothicgermany/images/camp%20and%20march/imperialcamp1.jpg

Cossack war wagons on the move and in formation

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/horsemusket/korsun/images/image4.jpg

Incanur

2017-06-16, 11:02 AM

I disagree that longswords couldn't be used in a pike-on-pike melee. Halberds were used in melees. Sir John Smythe specified that halberdiers using halberds no longer than six feet in total didn't hinder each other at all when fighting in formation. Raymond de Fourquevaux wrote about halberdiers rescuing his heavily armored pikers turned targetiers in the melee. Smythe envisioned something similar, albeit with more halberdiers than Fourquevaux. In both cases the press of battle between pike formations allowed halberdiers to operate. If you can use a halberd, you can most certainly use a longsword. A longsword wouldn't be much harder to use than a single-handed sword. Various 16th-century images show halberds, longswords, and single-handed swords used in conflicts between pike formations.

Now, sometimes the press got so tight that sword weren't useful, but this wasn't inevitable or generally desirable.

I suspect Swiss pikers equipped with longswords, assuming they charged into enemy formations like Monluc described, quickly resorted to their sidearms.

wolflance

2017-06-16, 11:42 AM

Wagon forts
Unfortunately your Ludwig von Eyb picture is broken, can't see it.

The resemblance is indeed uncanny - down to the "secondary fort" mentioned in the blog article and depicted in Wolfegg housebook.

Also, one of your picture (the Cossack one) depicts wagons pulled by four horses, so I guess the Ming military blog article is correct in asserting that Chinese version is lighter.

Galloglaich

2017-06-16, 11:54 AM

Unfortunately your Ludwig von Eyb picture is broken, can't see it.

The resemblance is indeed uncanny - down to the "secondary fort" mentioned in the blog article and depicted in Wolfegg housebook.

Also, one of your picture (the Cossack one) depicts wagons pulled by four horses, so I guess the Ming military blog article is correct in asserting that Chinese version is lighter.

Ah, it probably couldn't take the bandwidth. Go here manually then

Folio 64r

And dig around a bit for tons of other insane medieval war-goodness including some really far out medieval tanks

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Eyb_Kriegsbuch_(MS_B.26)

I think most of the war wagons show 2 horses, but they were 4 wheel wagons almost always, whereas at least some of the Chinese ones seem to be 2 wheeled so it's definitely lighter and a bit different.

EDIT: for example of one of the really heavy ones, look at 68v, it's a tank pushed (rather than pulled) by a team of no less than 12 horses.

G

Carl

2017-06-16, 12:04 PM

Out of context quoting is fun.

LOL:elan:

It really is as simple as i initially made out, made a sart before i had to head out and i'm mid way through the 3rd of five actions in a single round. it's actually surprising even to me how simple it's proving. Nuanced yes, complex no.

Jenrock

2017-06-16, 12:24 PM

Vinyadan

2017-06-16, 01:31 PM

About pikes doing holes into chain or plate, my uninformed two cents:

Chain doesn't seem too hard to perforate to me. If there is enough force behind the point to span the rings, it's going in. The question is, "how much energy?, and, what is there to perforate beyond the chain mail?"

And I think "mountedness" also is a big factor. A man at arms running towards you with a 500 kg horse plus equipment and himself (let's say a total of 600 kg) at 20 km/h will hit the pike much harder than on foot. Now, I don't know how steadily the pike could be held in such conditions, or if it was fixed in the ground, but that's going to be a very, very hard impact, and I think that the plate is going to get a hole, if the pike doesn't snap or the shape of the plate doesn't lead it away. My calculations are likely wrong, but I got 9,000 J as maximum energy in this case. Machiavelli noticed an episode in a battle: men at arms tried a charge against pikemen and were repelled with losses. They retreated, dismounted, attacked again on foot, and cut the pikemen to pieces. The horses were likely a weakness because they were easy to strike, but I think they also increased casualties because of their added speed and mass (and the possibility of falling down when hitting against the pointy stick).

About ancient times, it's hard to tell what exactly went on during battle, among other things, because a lot of images were very free in portraying clothes, see for example heroic nudity, nudity of the defeated, and so on. Blyth calculated between 31 and 41 J to penetrate hoplitic cuirass with an arrow. So I think that a pike getting through isn't impossible. He also worked on shields, but I don't have a quote at hand (Blyth 1977 and 1982).
Roman armour is yet another deal, and I couldn't find any number.

I'd like to thank who brought up the issue of size of horses in ancient times. I always thought small horses in classical art were a way to make better use of space, but I guess they just were quite small. Even emperor Marcus Aurelius has a smallish horse in his equestrian statue.

Some material:
Ancient Greece: https://books.google.it/books?id=kdFsAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=penetrating+hoplitic+cuirass&source=bl&ots=YMc563dskY&sig=DaQV7uHuhNwOnny6weQTYdZ-WUo&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW7-iM8sLUAhXJZlAKHT2wDQMQ6AEIHjAC#v=onepage&q=penetrating%20hoplitic%20cuirass&f=false
https://books.google.it/books?id=qj8hDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=The+Effectiveness+of+Greek+Armour+Against+Arrow s+in+the+Persian+War+(490-479+B.C.)+:+An+Interdisciplinary+Enquiry.&source=bl&ots=-weABQjBw3&sig=yHa9wx_WhcrYIbCokTdqo4gBb4Y&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwillIG388LUAhXFI1AKHXHDCpU4ChDoAQgUMAA#v =onepage&q=The%20Effectiveness%20of%20Greek%20Armour%20Agai nst%20Arrows%20in%20the%20Persian%20War%20(490-479%20B.C.)%20%3A%20An%20Interdisciplinary%20Enqui ry.&f=false

An amazing work about the lorica segmentata: https://www.academia.edu/513011/Lorica_Segmentata_Volume_I_A_Handbook_of_Articulat ed_Roman_Plate_Armour

Mike_G

2017-06-16, 01:38 PM

I read in books and see in tv/games/movies often that characters pre-load black powder pistols (flintlocks, wheellocks, etc) and wear them with the muzzle pointed down. I've seen IRL the ball fall out of those pistols when they're held level, let alone pointed down. Are the authors of these books/armorers for these shows just handwaving the issue, or am I missing some key element that keeps the pistol loaded?

If you ram down a wad of paper it keeps the ball in. If you load from paper cartridges, just pour in the powder and ram down the ball still in the paper. the wad also stops gasses leaking around the ball( as much) which robs the weapon of power.

Cavalry in particular would want to enter the battle with some loaded pistols available for when they got close. Loading is a long and fiddly affair not a thing you want to do within pistol range of the enemy.

Because that's petty much sword range plus a step.

Spiryt

2017-06-16, 01:50 PM

Eh, I guess it depends on what one means by "use a longsword".

Of course it can be used, to chop, stab, push in many different (but more 'room-saving) ways, it's just most of the footwork, maneuvers, guards, and stances are kinda are out of the window.

Similarly, only more so, with rapier.

I would suspect that daggers/short swords combined with wrestling/grappling described in many manuals would be an definite advantage there. Together with wrestling as grueling and well conditioning discipline being part of young noblemen bringing up in many cases.

It's all mostly speculation, but many of those 'Bad War' etching do show some naturalistic scenes of grappling, particularly by opponents hair...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Bad-war.jpg

Tobtor

2017-06-16, 02:36 PM

"Steel" on it's own doesn't mean that much to be honest.

Not in every case no. But generally? Yes.

In modern world industry is making many different steels, some of them are really tough, while some are getting shredded by darts.

I agree. But medium carbon steel is almost always better than ancient or medieval unhardened steel for mail uses. Thrand is quite clear on his quality, and he compares it to 14th century mail in the video and the person from the Oakshot institue agrees with him.

I think we thus have to be cautious about guesses of 'quality' of armor such as mail, when mail had died kind of natural death, and we don't exactly understand how people who made mail for a living were doing it for 'quality'.

We dont know that much no. But all the metallurgy I have seen point to them trying to make the mail steel in the medieval period (from about somewhere from around the 12th to 14th century) suggesting that steel was better than iron... otherwise the change would not have happened.

Can't comment on stuff that Thrand uses, but some guys like Dan Howard do claim that vast majority of 'mail' patches uses isn't up to snuff.

http://fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15788

If you look further into Dans 8 points doesn't apply to Thrands test, as most are related to the rivets (and Thrand uses only welded together rings). Last of dans points is about the metallurgy (steel rings can snap, which I sort of agree on as medieval/ancient steel can be brittle, thus why some swords are pattern welded with iron to get an effect similar (thoug not as good) to more refined steel), but the rings in Thrands test is not snapping, the are cut! And iron would be easier to cut than steel. Similar I have seen tests whith iron rings (experimental archaeology not published), where the iron rings indeed "stretching/bending", but this was not a godd thing (as Dan suggest) as it the rings bended enough that the point got pushed past them.

Including claim that many of mild steels used today actually may not be better material for mail (specifically) than proper, quality bloomery iron.

Only something like "carhood" steels (whi Thrands mail isnt). Similar most mails are not of "quality" bloomery ore, but rather filled with impurities, making them easier to break.

Similar I read all of Dans collection of accounts of mail use, and funnily enough he had as many cases (a few more if I am counting correct) of weapons penetrating mail than the other way around. He also notes on the use of "double mail" which was considered to be necessary to protect the wearer. What "double"mail is isn't known, but mentioned to be better than regular mail. Dans mentiones some of the theories including what I believe a sort of double weave of rings.

But note that most of accounts are medieval and some are of steel mails (which is still penetrated by both arrows and lances etc). Thus we have plenty of historical accounts that mail is penetrated and modern tests also seem to indicate that mail is penetrated, and thus we must at present assume that it was possible to do so, negating the original comment I was reacting to ("But a pike isn't going to go through mail").

Allan Williams tests show some pretty significant energies (for hand held weapons) required to defeat mail - though, interestingly, modern mail indeed performs better here. Sadly there are no detailed informations about those mails (size of the rings, density, weight)

So the modern mail seem to be better (as I said), but I would further venture that the medieval mail is better than the celtic/roman mail (but that might lead to a whole other argument between medieval "fanboys" and "classical" fanboys). Similar the weight of the spear used would also change the delivered energy.

Similar Williams testis as far as I remember mail over serious padding which helps absorb the impact. Such padding might be used in the medieval period, but roman era padding seem to be thinner (at least as far as I have seen the evidence). Similar the very thick padding sometimes used in tests cannot have been used under historical mail at all parts of the body (simply there wouldn't be room for padding AND persons under the mails. Perhaps in central torso parts. This is another reason padding to be worn over mail in the medieval period (something that wasn't done in the Roman period as far as I know).

For example see Lindybeiges ridiculous padding in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbmd-kVgc2E

Note hat he also mentions that he talks to the swedish people in charge and they say the fragments of padding from Visby is only 3-4 layers thick.

Again, we can't be sure it was "weaker" in the sense that interest us.

I disagree. Unless using really low carbon steel or mild steel not made to mail use, steel rings have we stand up better against the kind of damage (cutting) shown in the Thrand movies. Quite often just one (and a few cases 2) rings are broken/cut in the test, and this only allows the very wide spear a few inches of penetration (so: bad but not very lethal), but with iron rings the rings around might bend around the weapon. But in any case a narrower point would go deeper, especially if the opponent was moving forward at the time of impact.

[/QUOTE]Whether they were or not, it's worth noting that much of Roman period mail was made out of extraordinarily fine rings - the links from Newstead's, Saalburg's etc. hamatas, best preserved ones out there, don't have links with outer diameter of more than 7mm, from what I gather.[/QUOTE]

Dans extensive article seem to indicate the 7mm as the inner diameter of 2th century Roman mail, though he does mention earlier examples of smaller rings. But with lets say 4 mm inner diameter the rings cannot have been very thick (as you need for times the ring thickness to fit in those 4 mm, and then some room to spare, otherwise you cant bend the mail). His measurements fits danish eaxamples: the "finest" mail of the period from Denmark (the Hedegård mail rough 1-50AD if I remember correct) have 5 mm diameter and rings of 0,95mm in thickness, while Vimose and Tjorsbjerg have something like 10-12mm diameter but a thickness of 1,5-1,7mm (3rd century).

Mail from Vimose (3rd century):
http://natmus.dk/historisk-viden/danmark/oldtid-indtil-aar-1050/aeldre-jernalder-500-fkr-400-ekr/vaabenofret-fra-vimose/ringbrynjen-fra-vimose/

Spiryt

2017-06-16, 02:45 PM

And I think "mountedness" also is a big factor. A man at arms running towards you with a 500 kg horse plus equipment and himself (let's say a total of 600 kg) at 20 km/h will hit the pike much harder than on foot. Now, I don't know how steadily the pike could be held in such conditions, or if it was fixed in the ground, but that's going to be a very, very hard impact, and I think that the plate is going to get a hole, if the pike doesn't snap or the shape of the plate doesn't lead it away. My calculations are likely wrong, but I got 9,000 J as maximum energy in this case.

This is 9000 J total energy of rider and horse going forward.... Separate systems, moving separately, and being loosely conected.

Energy of a lance during charge is going to be much, much smaller - weight of the lance moving forward, supported, with varying efficiency, by forearm, arm and shoulder of a rider.

The momentum of whole rider and a horse cannot be obviously supported by arm and shoulder, something has to give.

Usually it would be lance, as far as I understand, given cross-section of wood can only take given amount of impact.

Polish hussars were pretty much always expected to return without lance, if the attack was successful.

With pike being held with two hands on the ground, it would be probably always shaft giving up.

In any case, we have descriptions of mail holding up to mounted spear/lance.

“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.”

Usaba ibn Munqidh/Munkiz Arab feudal lord, poet, warrior.

He also runs some other Frank with his lance apparently, only to meet him some time later, alive.

Degree of safety offered by a good coat of mail is probably going to be matter of debate forever.

What is certain though, is that maille was for most part most desired armor for many centutires, even when it did cost small fortune.

With battlefields dominated by spears, lances, javelins and arrows of all kinds, from England to Holy Land, if it "wasn't too hard to perforate" it most likely wouldn't be so widely used and prized.

Tobtor

2017-06-16, 02:55 PM

What is certain though, is that maille was for most part most desired armor for many centutires, even when it did cost small fortune.

With battlefields dominated by spears, lances, javelins and arrows of all kinds, from England to Holy Land, if it "wasn't too hard to perforate" it most likely wouldn't be so widely used and prized.

I certainly agrees it adds valuable protection! But we have equally many examples of mail failing. And if mail was ample protection, "double mail" (whatever that is), coat of plates above mail, padding above mail etc would never have been developed. Note that there is also something called jousting mail, which was considered stronger than battlefield mail, and this was considered the only safe mail for jousts.

This is 9000 J total energy of rider and horse going forward.... Separate systems, moving separately, and being loosely conected.

Energy of a lance during charge is going to be much, much smaller - weight of the lance moving forward, supported, with varying efficiency, by forearm, arm and shoulder of a rider.

The momentum of whole rider and a horse cannot be obviously supported by arm and shoulder, something has to give.

Usually it would be lance, as far as I understand, given cross-section of wood can only take given amount of impact.

I quite agree that we cannot use 9.000J for the energy result. How much energy does it require for a heavy lance staff or pikestaff to break? If its above 120-200J (depending on various factors), then it indeed would penetrate mails according to Williams test, before breaking (or possibly break while penetrating etc).

Carl

2017-06-16, 03:04 PM

Okay, was asked for an example so I'm going to mock up a very basic one without advanced techniques or kata's. Also take any equipment stats with a pinch of salt, that sort of very specific detail is very up in the air right now. These are of the cuff values only.

First for sake of simplicity I'm going to start the fight in melee range and assume for the sake of argument they have the same footwork value. At the same time this may not be a balanced matchup. That leaves us with values of:

Combatant 1 "Roy" (in great OOTS tradition). Numbers in () are after equipment modifiers.

Power: 6

Precision: 5 (7)

Reactions: 5

Speed: 7 (5)

Footwork: 20

Stamina: 14

Initiative: 7

For the sake of simplicity I'll give him 200 hitpoints.

He Wields a Zwihander. This has stats of:

12 dice of slicing damage, -2 speed penalty, +2 Precision Bonus, Reach 6, Reach Bonus +6

He Wears a Breastplate. This has stats of:

8 dice of damage reduction vs all types, -1 stamina penalty, (all actions consume an additional 1 stamina).

Underneath that he wears clothing equivalent to a light buffcoat. This has stats of:

3 dice of damage reduction vs slicing, and 1 each vs Piercing and Bludgenoning.

Thus his armour provides him 11 dice of protection vs slicing, and 9 dice vs Piercing and Bludgeoning. but makes all actiosn cost 1 more stamina.

Combatant 2 "Thog" (who else):

Power: 11

Precision: 4

Reactions: 3

Speed: 5 (3)

Footwork: 20

Stamina: 21

Initiative: 5

Thog has 300 hitpoints.

He Wields a Battleaxe. This has stats of:

14 dice of piercing damage, -2 speed, -1 stamina, (all actions cost one extra stamina), 6 reach and a +6 reach bonus.

Thog in this scenario where's a chainmail shirt and nothing else. This has stats of:

8 dice of protection vs slicing, 5 vs piercing, and 2 vs bludgeoning.

Ok the next bit I'm going to generate the die rolls using an online calculator, please bear that in mind. Also the choice of die sizes for the precision and power rolls is made so as to work well with the base numbers I've chosen, the actual die size I'll use will depend greatly on what I decide typical stats will look like.

Ok before anyone takes an action, because both sides are inside each others reach and have weapons with the same reach, neither gets any effect from that, it cancels out, (I deliberately did this, sorry), so we can forget that part of the stat cards.

Both are in range and since Roy has the higher initiative of 7 he gets to declare his actions first, the rest of the two sides are AWOL so there's no one else to worry about either.

Start of Round:

Roy declares he's going to attack Thog with a basic attack technique. Thog then declares he's going to attempt to block talky mans attack. Since both are using common school and neither has any real character development invested in the school and no real investment in basic attack or blocking techniques so no bonuses apply here.

A block is always resolved at the same time as the attack/s it's blocking.

First we check to see what effect reactions has here. Roy with reactions 5 beats Thog's reactions 3 by 2 points. This means Thog gets no bonus to his precision from his reactions whilst Roy gets a 2 point bonus because he beats Thog by 2 and can thus react mid swing to Thog faster than Thog can react to him.

Thus Thog has a precision of 4 vs Roy's 9.

Both roll 1D10 and add their precision to it:

Roy Rolls a 5

Thog Rolls a 9

This means Roy's total is 14, and Thog's is 13. Roy beats him by 1 which means he Gains a +1 Bonus to the subsequent Power roll.

Roy has a power of 6, and gets a +1 bonus from the precision roll for a total modifier to his power roll of 7. Thog has a power of 11, and gets no modifier to his power.

Both roll 1D10 and add their power to it:

Roy Rolls a 3

Thog Rolls a 10

Thus Roy scores a total of 10, whilst Thog scores a total of 21!. He has blocked Roy's attack, in addition he's throw back Roy's attack with such force, (double or more Roy's score), he's scored a reversal. This reduces Roy's initiative to 4 until end of round or until something else alters it.

Both also conducted one action and thus lose 1 stamina base plus an additional -1 for their stamina penalties. Thus Roy is reduced to 12 Stamina whilst Thog is reduced to 19.

Both have also used an action, this reduces Thog's speed to 2 and Roy's to 4.

The new initiative values mean Thog gets to declare the next action first not Roy as he now has the higher initiative, (5 to Roy's 4). Thog smash talky man! Thog declares he will attack Roy, Roy declares he will Block the Attack. But he also declares he will backup 6 paces. This is less than or equal to his max footwork so it can be done without spending another action. Thog is allowed to declare a reaction to this and moves forward 6 to stay with Roy. However to represent the fact that he will be moving away from the attack at the moment it lands and thus need less force to opposes the blow effectively; He gains a 3 point power bonus on all blocks as a result.

Otherwise the same factors apply as to Roy's attack. Thus Roy has a precision of 9 to Thog's 4.

Both roll 1D10 and add their precision to it:

Roy Rolls a 10

Thog Rolls a 2

Note: I really am having SRD wiki do these rolls, it's producing some real extreme rolls though.

Thus Roy has a score of 19 to Thog's 6. Roy has scored double Thog's value and so scores a reversal, thus reducing Thog to Initiative 3. However whilst the attack may leave Thog off balance whatever happens, it could still connect and deal damage. The outcome of the precision roll leaves Roy with a 13 point bonus to his power score. Add in the 3 point bonus of backing up also. This means a total bonus of 16 to Roy's power score.

This gives Roy a Power of 22, and Thog a Power of 11.

Both roll 1D10 and add their power to it:

Roy Rolls a 2

Thog Rolls a 7

Roy scores a total 25, whilst Thog scores a total 18. Roy blocks the blow successfully, (this could be a deflection to a safe spot, or a straight stopping of the blade, the system doesn't differentiate between the two). Thus Roy takes no damage.

Both also conducted one action, (albeit it was a combined action). This reduces Thog to speed 1 and Roy to speed 3.

Because they each conducted a combined action, itself made up of two sub actions they each take a base 1 point reduction to stamina per sub action for a total of 2, and an extra 2 points for their -1 penalties. Roy is reduced to 8 stamina whilst Thog is reduced to 15 stamina.

Roy has initiative again and once again declares he will attack Thog. Thog declares "Thog not scared of Talky man, Thog Smash Talky Man Again", and declare he will also attack Roy. Because Thog's initiative is lower Than Roy's and because his action is not a counter to Roy's action, his action is resolved first.

Since the attack is not blocked, (see below for an example of how a failed block on an attack will play out, I'll fudge the die rolls to demonstrate it if I have to), no precision step occurs. Roy. Automatically hits with a negative AC modifier equal to his precision modifier, (so 7 base plus and extra 2 from his higher reactions), of 9. And he gains his full damage bonus from power of 6 as his precision modifier is positive.

This Means that Thog's armour stops 9 fewer dice than it normally would. Since it only stops 8 dice max, that means Roy has found a gap and avoids the armours protection completely. Thus Roy deal a base of 12 dice of damage. He has a 6 point power modifier which means the die size is increased 6 steps. The first five steps go D2->D4->D6->D8->D10->D12, a that point they roll over granting a single bonus die per base die starting at D2 size, (further power modifiers would increase their die size). This means Roy does 12D12+12D2 damage. I won’t list the total rolls from the SRD but Roy in total deals 72 damage.

Now it's Thog's turn to launch an attack. But as he's been injured between declaring his action and executing it he takes a precision penalty equal to the total number of base dice of damage he took. In this case 12 base dice. This means Thog's final precision is -8. Thog has a power of 11 but due to the precision penalty this is reduced to 3. In addition thanks to his -8 precision modifier, his total AC modifier is +8, which means Roy gets the full benefit, (and nothing more), of his armour. Thus Roy reduces the total number of base damage dice Thog gets by 9. This means Thog's 14 base damage dice becomes 5 base damage dice and he only gets a 3 point bonus to them, making them D8's for a total of 5D8 damage to Roy. This rolls out at Thog causing a total of 22 damage.

At the end of the action Roy's HP is down to 178, Thog's is down to 228.

Each has conducted one action so their speed is reduced to by 1, Roy is now at 2 speed and Thog is now at 0 speed.

Each also takes stamina loss, 2 points each as they conducted a single non-combined action each and have a -1 penalty. This reduces Roy to 6 Stamina and Thog to 13 Stamina.

Owww, Talky Man Hurt Thog, Thog Scared.

Roy has initiative again, and once again declares he will attack thog. Thog is scared of talky man now so he blocks. However because he is conduction an action when he has a speed value of 0 or less he takes a penalty to his reactions, precision, and power equal to his speed - 1. So a -1 penalty. The drop in reactions means Roy now has a 10 point precision modifier and Thog only has a precision modifier of 3.

Both roll 1D10 and add their precision to it:

Roy Rolls a 7

Thog Rolls a 10

This gives Roy a score of 17 to Thog's 13. Thus Roy beats Thog by 4.

Roy and Thog then compare their respective power values. Thog is reduced to a power modifier of 10 by his penalty whilst Roy's precision modifier increases his to 10.

Both roll 1D10 and add their power to it:

Roy Rolls a 10

Thog Rolls a 7

Thus Roy scores 20 to Thogs 17 beating Thog by 3. This is lower than Roy's base power of 6 so he get the full amount as his power bonus to the damage dice.

Roy now works out damage. Thog gets 8 damage dice of reduction from his armour but Roy had a 4 point precision modifier giving him a -4 AC modifier, so he finds a weaker part of the armour with his blow and Thog only gets 4 dice of reduction from his armour. Thus Roy's base 12 dice are reduced to 8 dice total with a +3 damage modifier. 3 tiers of increase mean Roy deals 8D8 Damage. He rolls for 28 damage.

Thus Thog is reduced to 200 HP, whilst Roy has 178 HP.

They each took 1 action so their speeds are reduced by 1 making Roy's speed 1 and Thog's -1.

Because they each took 1 non-combined action they reduce their stamina by 2 each once more to 4 for Roy and 11 for Thog.

Roy retains initiative and attacks again, whilst Thog once again tries to block. because his speed is now -1 his penalty for the block action is -2. Thus Roy now has an 11 point precision bonus whilst Thog has 2 due to changes in reactions and precision.

Both roll 1D10 and add their precision to it:

Roy Rolls a 1

Thog Rolls a 10

Roy scores 12 whilst Thog also scores 12.

Thus Roy gains no bonus to his power roll, but he takes no malus either. This gives Roy 6 power whilst Thog is reduced to 9 by his sped penalty.

Both roll 1D10 and add their power to it:

Roy Rolls a 9

Thog Rolls a 2

Roy scores 15, whilst Thog scores 11. Thus Roy beats Thog by 4 points, since this is still less than or equal to Roy's power he gets a 4 point damage bonus.

Thog still has 8 dice of damage reduction and because the precision roll was a tie Roy has no AC modifier, thus only 4 base dice get through. Roy's power modifier makes these D10's, so he does 4D10 damage to Thog. He rolls for 29. Thus Thog is reduced to 171 hitpoints whilst Roy has 178 hitpoints.

Roy is now reduced to 0 speed whilst Thog drops to -2.

Roy's stamina is reduced to 2 whilst Thog's is reduced 9.

Because everyone involved in the fight now has 0 or less speed remaining the round ends. Everyone's speed, initiative, and Stamina values are reset, and then a new round begins.

1. Yes the hitpoints system is very unrealistic, whilst I do fully intent to work in localised damage systems I avoided them to keep the complication down for the example, at the same time hitpoints are still unrealistic, this boils down to acceptable breaks from reality, it may be realistic for one good blow to kill your opponent, but it isn’t fun to have your adventurer killed by the first dumb orc to get a blade past your guard.

2. Obviously in a similar vein the damage Thog did to Roy when both attacked at the same time was probably way on the low side by comparison to Roy's damage to him, again it's unrealistic but a side effect of the hitpoints system, there has to be a rule in place to avoid the two sides just trading mutual attacks while the guy with the better health to damage ratio win's because he can outlast the damage, there needs to be an incentive to block.

3. Each of the core 3 stats that play a part in things are representing different things, but they're doing so in a very generalised way. As such the actual block itself isn’t occurring until the power roll, everything before that is representing setup.

Reactions is a measure of your ability to see your opponents moves coming sufficiently in advance to get a direct advantage out of doing so. Whilst precision represents how, well, precise each side is in control of the weapon and a good precision roll off means the winner has his weapon in just about the best position possible. And the Power roll-off is where all of that combines with the relative momentums to determine an outcome.

Beating your opponent at that roll so thoroughly you get your full power bonus probably means the opponent wasn't able to get his weapon in the path of yours at all.

Getting past his block but not doing well enough to get your full power bonus could mean you just had to alter your strike a bit to get past his block compromising on pure striking power somewhat to get the blow in whilst avoiding his block, or it could mean he just caught your weapon but you slid off, or he caught it but you where able to slide along his weapon to still stab him or whatever, or it could mean he caught your weapon but with insufficient leverage and momentum to prevent you hitting him by forcing his weapon back.

Whilst failing to get past the block you either stopped his weapon motion, or you deflected it aside or some combination of the two.

3. Thog fought stupid here, bear in mind he could have traded over 3 or more rounds on his stamina advantage by backing up constantly or trading stamina for single action duration bonuses to stats. Then when roy was the one suffering penalties due to exceeding his stamina multipule rounds in a row go on the offensive to crush him. But then that’s the diffrance between Thog and Tarquin.

Tobtor

2017-06-16, 03:07 PM

rrgg

2017-06-16, 03:16 PM

There were different ways (https://artmilitary.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/on-the-push-of-pike/) to use the pike in formation. One way was for the front rank or ranks to essentially fence: thrust, parry, etc. This could also include some troops with shorter weapons closing the gap underneath the pikes. Sir John Smythe described this method, excoriating it as nonsense. Instead he recommend closing in an extremely tight formation where each rank of pikers gives a single pike thrust in a rapid succession. Then, if the enemy formation doesn't break, pikers in the front rank or ranks take to their swords and daggers. Blaise de Monluc outlined the difference between the German and Swiss method in broadly similar terms: the Germans fight at the length the pike, while the Swiss hold the pike in the middle and charge into opposing formations. I'm not sure about holding the pike in the middle, which Smythe certainly didn't advocate, but the basic idea is the same: either to you fight at a distance with the pike or you charge into to either break the enemy or force a bloody melee.

As we know from the Italians Wars, hard-fought encounters between pike formations could have extremely high casualties for front rank or ranks on both sides. According to Robert III de La Marck (Florange), at Novara 1513 only six of the 300-400 soldiers in the first rank of the pike formation he commanded survived, and victorious Swiss losses were equally severe. Florange himself lived to tell the tale because his father and some other men-at-arms charged into the infantry melee in order to save him. Florange's father found him literally "amongst the dead," with forty-six wounds. I suspect part of the advantage of the fencing method that Smythe decried was its lower intensity. Charging in, by contrast, was a gambit that could result in mutual annihilation if the enemy stood firm.

In any case, it's physically obvious that you can't use a pike in a tight press of humans, especially with other pikes all over the place. I suspect the pike fencing approach could transition into a melee, albeit more slowly than the charging-in method. Lots of 16th-century military writers made it clear that pikes sooner or later because useless when opposing soldiers came together and that pikers had to take to their swords and/or daggers under such circumstances.

The issue with charging in though is that you still need to push past multiple ranks of pike points.

Going back to descriptions of classical pike phalanxes for a moment. According to Polybius it was almost impossible for roman legionaries with large shields and short swords to hack their way to the front rank of a macedonian phalanx head on. And battles between the Romans and Greeks seem to bear that out, with the pike phalanxes initially driving back the romans until they encounter uneven ground or otherwise get disordered

What I'm arguing is that even the "charge" tactic during the renaissance was likely reliant on the initial pike thrust to bowl over the front ranks of the enemy pikemen and put them into disarray. If luck is on your side, that initial thrust might be able to put the enemy to flight right then and there.

I suspect that Montluc wasn't talking about literally holding the pikes in the very middle, rather he was ordering his men to hold their front hand farther forward so that they could put more leverage/body weight into the initial thrust.

I read in books and see in tv/games/movies often that characters pre-load black powder pistols (flintlocks, wheellocks, etc) and wear them with the muzzle pointed down. I've seen IRL the ball fall out of those pistols when they're held level, let alone pointed down. Are the authors of these books/armorers for these shows just handwaving the issue, or am I missing some key element that keeps the pistol loaded?

Cavalry usually carried their pistols or carbines pointing downwards and would have needed to load the bullets with some sort of cloth or paper wadding to keep them from rolling out. Prior to paper cartridges becoming widespread infantry may have often shot unpatched balls to speed up loading. Apparently one trick was to drop a few extra corns of gunpowder in with the bullet to keep it from rolling back out.

Spiryt

2017-06-16, 03:19 PM

Well is it is possible to test the the lance at a strength where it penetrates (170 J in Williams test), then the staff must be able to handle that... So polish Hussars breaking lances would mean energy above that...

It depends on a lot of more than energy though.

Basically, if there was a hit, and rider still had a lot of velocity, he was riding trough, so there was going to be bending factor... He would have to drop lance, have his joints/bones damaged. Or lance would break.

That's where this "9000 J" of horse and rider comes into play.

Williams tests had lance hitting straight on, and stopping dead on target, whether penetrating or not.

Also, I wouldn't even bet on Williams test having shafts... Wording indicated some 'simulated blade'.

Polish hussars were using hollow lances, usually glued together from two pieces, anyway. Few preserved examples show this clearly. So different than most medieval lances.

Incanur

2017-06-16, 03:29 PM

What I'm arguing is that even the "charge" tactic during the renaissance was likely reliant on the initial pike thrust to bowl over the front ranks of the enemy pikemen and put them into disarray. If luck is on your side, that initial thrust might be able to put the enemy to flight right then and there.

Oh, well I agree with that. Even Machiavelli wanted pikers in the front ranks.

I suspect that Montluc wasn't talking about literally holding the pikes in the very middle, rather he was ordering his men to hold their front hand farther forward so that they could put more leverage/body weight into the initial thrust.

Joachim Meyer mentioned holding the pike in the middle on the battlefield, so that may have been a thing.

Vitruviansquid

2017-06-16, 03:59 PM

Stuff

Okay, based on the example, unless I'm reading anything wrong...

1. Power, Reaction, and Precision are interchangeable because of the way dice rolls seem to play out. When you attack, you test each attribute one time, but any amount you have over the opponent gets carried into the next roll. Therefore, I don't see how it matters if you beat your opponent by 5 on precision or on power, so long as you've beaten your opponent by 5. Of course, special fighting styles and katas and stuff might be what defines the differences between the stats?

2. You are rolling 4 dice and adding 6 values to resolve whether someone got hit or blocks an attack at the most basic level. D&D 4e tends to be rolling 1 die and adding 1-2 values to see if someone gets hit. Your damage seems to just be a straightforward rolling of a crap ton of dice and counting them up, but your combat as a whole is still going to be extremely long to play out unless it was also fairly lethal. If you told me a character might have something to the tone of 5 effective speed, I should then wish a combat between two fighters to be over *before the second round has started* in order to resolve this in a sane amount of time.

3. What happens if Thog is fighting against Roy and also Haley? Is the penalty for fighting against multiple opponents simply that you spend more of your speed blocking than hitting? If so, then one vs. many situations are going to be even slower to resolve because fewer attacks are being thrown out.

This seems too overwrought and full of redundant parts to make a playable system. Whether or not it is a good simulation of real fighting... well, at the end of the day, all tabletop simulations of real fighting will be a bunch of throwing dice around.

Carl

2017-06-16, 09:06 PM

Okay, based on the example, unless I'm reading anything wrong...

1. Power, Reaction, and Precision are interchangeable because of the way dice rolls seem to play out. When you attack, you test each attribute one time, but any amount you have over the opponent gets carried into the next roll. Therefore, I don't see how it matters if you beat your opponent by 5 on precision or on power, so long as you've beaten your opponent by 5. Of course, special fighting styles and katas and stuff might be what defines the differences between the stats?

2. You are rolling 4 dice and adding 6 values to resolve whether someone got hit or blocks an attack at the most basic level. D&D 4e tends to be rolling 1 die and adding 1-2 values to see if someone gets hit. Your damage seems to just be a straightforward rolling of a crap ton of dice and counting them up, but your combat as a whole is still going to be extremely long to play out unless it was also fairly lethal. If you told me a character might have something to the tone of 5 effective speed, I should then wish a combat between two fighters to be over *before the second round has started* in order to resolve this in a sane amount of time.

3. What happens if Thog is fighting against Roy and also Haley? Is the penalty for fighting against multiple opponents simply that you spend more of your speed blocking than hitting? If so, then one vs. many situations are going to be even slower to resolve because fewer attacks are being thrown out.

4. This seems too overwrought and full of redundant parts to make a playable system. Whether or not it is a good simulation of real fighting... well, at the end of the day, all tabletop simulations of real fighting will be a bunch of throwing dice around.

Apologies for adding that 4 in there i wanted to address that first so i needed a number.

4. Whilst i'm happy to and will cover the rest of the points, as per the OP of this thread, this thread isn't for the review as a game system. It's for any real world questions relating to what your trying to do. The entire question i'm asking by posting it here is how well if at all i've done at covering the core points of weaponsplay. In that respect Power, Precision, and Reactions, plus initiative are supposed to cover the core points, initiative represents the direction of the flow of the blows, who has the upper hand at the moment. The other three represent the elements of strength, (both raw and good application thereof), skill, and pue reactions. Speed is more of a side thing that any fantasy compatible system needs because it can including things way outside the human norm as a matter of course. Techniques and schools of wepa onship represent the nuances in much the same way fencing schools do in IRL swordplay. I'm strictly in this thread trying to find how close if at all i've gotten to some kind of realistic representation of the interactions of those elements.

I think everyone's just too busy enjoy playing with pikes. Can't blame them, :haley:.

3. This is easy. Lets say Haley is Initiative 9, (to Roy's 7 and Thog's 5), so Haley Declares an Attack, then Roy declares an Attack, (Haley has higher initiative so she declares sooner than Roy but no one's actions are resolved till everyone has declared), then Thog Declares he will block both His block is resolved with a single roll each for Precision and Power but he's at half Precision and Power for it. He does the precision roll while Haley and Roy do theirs separately at the same time, (they're all worked out at Haley's initiative step, the fact that Thog is blocking her attack means his block happens at her step whilst the fact that he's blocking roy and his block is being resolved at a higher initiative step than roy moves roy's attack upto that initiative step). Works out the precision modifier for each of the based on his single roll, then does power roll with the two different power modifiers applied, then results are carried out.

1. Techniques and schools definetly come into it, as did the relatively unused stamina but there's a point your missing. Good precision gives you good armour penetration whilst gives you a high raw amount of damage. Thats why i emphasized the point that the equipment numbers are very WIP. One of the core things that should stand out is that precision is very useful vs someone wearing lots of good armour while high power is very useful vs someone with very poor armour. Of course techniques offer a lot of room to play with that in various ways and means, and thats deliberate. At the same time i'll admit i'm not entirely happy with how i've linked them. They have an effect on each other IRl to my understanding but the mechanical way i've done it is a bit inelegant for me. As a quick example, if Roy had Adopted the Power school at the start of round he'd have, (base level without any investment WIP numbers), -2 speed till end of round and +4 power till end of round. if on his first attack he'd used a Murder Stroke Technique he'd have lost 2 dice of damage from his weapon's base damage and changed it's type to bludgeoning, but he'd also have gained a -4 AC modifier. Meaning thog's armour just stopped mattering altogether and Roy has a much higher power. All at the expense of a little speed.

That said my gut feeling is that they are probably a tad too interlinked from a gameplay perspective.

2. OOOkay. I think the best thing i can do is outline some of my background and my thinking behind some points as a result. My personal tabletop background is coming in from the direction of WHFB and WH40K not RPG's like D&D, (though i've been fascinated enough with 3.5 since i found the SRD :smalltongue:), Their mass rolling 1-2 dozen dice just to see how many hits you get, then rolling all those hits to see which wound and then rolling all those wounds to see how many are stopped by armour, per unit per side, several times a battle. All within the span of about an hour to an hour and a half. You can easily roll >500 dice during a single battle of ethier system per player, and thats not more than half your time. And bigger battles or certain rarer army builds can roll many times that. So rolling a lot of dice isn't too hard an issue if you build the system to support it, you can do a lot of dice rolling shockingly fast.

That said i think you hit the key point with the maths comments. WHFB or 40k tell you what dice result you need so you roll the dice, and then just pick up the good ones, clear the bad to the side and proceed to the next step. Here there's at least a little math involved. It's probably the fact that i'm so good at in my head math, I just don't instinctively think of the issues it gives others. But that makes it much less quick and easy to grab and roll. I had been considering making the RNG element work like this, but didn't want to throw you RNG ypes with it:

Roll a number of D6 equal to your precision/power modifier, (as appropriate). Count up the number of 4+ rolls, this is your total precision/power for this attack/block. It makes the RNG element much less tedious to sort out because there's no math beyond counting the D6's.

That said one other core thing from the two systems i'm familiar with was to introduce the concept of semi-permanent modifiers. That is in most circumstances any modifier is allways on. So you don;t go around every fight going "roy has precisions 5 base, but gets +2 from his sword for 7", you go "Roy is base precision 7 whilst wielding his sword, if he loses it check his character sheet to see what his base is".

Obviously i also need to work on the damage system because your right rolling that many dice and adding them up could get messy, but i want somthing that dosen;t carry D&D's scaling issues so badly with base weapon damage becoming totally overshadowed by everything else.

wolflance

2017-06-16, 09:20 PM

The issue with charging in though is that you still need to push past multiple ranks of pike points.

Going back to descriptions of classical pike phalanxes for a moment. According to Polybius it was almost impossible for roman legionaries with large shields and short swords to hack their way to the front rank of a macedonian phalanx head on. And battles between the Romans and Greeks seem to bear that out, with the pike phalanxes initially driving back the romans until they encounter uneven ground or otherwise get disordered
I wonder if the Romans couldn't charge through because they needed to maintain the cohesion of their own formation, and whether this scenario is still applicable to Renaissance pike warfare (given the vastly superior armor, different tactics etc). Ancient phalanx warfare seems rarely (if ever?) boil down to the "Bad War" melee like Renaissance pike block did.

Also, in the case of "Bad War" style melee, how did the pikemen themselves wad through several ranks of enemy pikes? What's stopping shorter weapon troops (or Montluc's Swiss for that matter) from doing the same?

I suspect that Montluc wasn't talking about literally holding the pikes in the very middle, rather he was ordering his men to hold their front hand farther forward so that they could put more leverage/body weight into the initial thrust.
I may be wrong, but wouldn't that make the thrust weaker? (Since you've straightened your front hand, and thus can only power the thrust with your rear hand, using a "pool cue" thrust). Besides, a thrust with both hands ought to be more powerful.

As a side note, I hope Brother Oni can shed more light into this discussion from a Far East perspective, since he seems to be very knowledgable in Sengoku Jidai warfare...what's the Japanese take on this issue?. I've heard that pikemen-ashigaru smash, rather than thrust, their long yaris.

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

Vitruviansquid

2017-06-17, 12:30 AM

I guess I was also wondering why you put that request in this thread, but you asked for basic sanity checking, and I gave some basic sanity checking.

fusilier

2017-06-17, 02:00 AM

I may be wrong, but wouldn't that make the thrust weaker? (Since you've straightened your front hand, and thus can only power the thrust with your rear hand, using a "pool cue" thrust). Besides, a thrust with both hands ought to be more powerful.

This seems to have varied over time, and by nationality, but by the end of the 16th century it looks like pike thrusts were generally performed with the legs not the arms. See the manual plate below -- the posture doesn't seem conducive to thrusting with the arms.

https://otakudo.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/deghent_pike_thrust.jpg?w=640

As for extending the forward arm, it will be more tiresome. Tucking the arm against the body helps support the weight. [I've practiced it]

EDIT -- it's possible they adjusted their posture when actually engaged in combat to make thrusting with the arms easier, but I haven't seen anything that confirms that.

wolflance

2017-06-17, 03:34 AM

This seems to have varied over time, and by nationality, but by the end of the 16th century it looks like pike thrusts were generally performed with the legs not the arms. See the manual plate below -- the posture doesn't seem conducive to thrusting with the arms.

https://otakudo.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/deghent_pike_thrust.jpg?w=640

As for extending the forward arm, it will be more tiresome. Tucking the arm against the body helps support the weight. [I've practiced it]

EDIT -- it's possible they adjusted their posture when actually engaged in combat to make thrusting with the arms easier, but I haven't seen anything that confirms that.
To be honest I find the notion of thrusting performed with legs really hard to believe, for several reasons:

1) Likely there's not enough space to move back and forth in a pike block.
2) You risk disorient the entire formation if you move forward for a thrust while others don't.
3) A thrust like this is supposedly really predictable and easily parried, and you can't feint a thrust too.
4) It is too slow to recover a missed thrust.
5) Halberdiers/swordsmen getting pass several ranks of pikes become jokingly easy. They just have to block/parry/somehow survive the first thrust coming their way.

EDIT: I suppose you can thrust from that position with your arms in a manner not unlike a bayonet "shorten arm - point" thrust.
http://i.imgur.com/9BQcMlC.jpg

Brother Oni

2017-06-17, 03:41 AM

As a side note, I hope Brother Oni can shed more light into this discussion from a Far East perspective, since he seems to be very knowledgable in Sengoku Jidai warfare...what's the Japanese take on this issue?. I've heard that pikemen-ashigaru smash, rather than thrust, their long yaris.

http://i.imgur.com/FBOfMHm.jpg
Nagaeyari Tactics
The Nagaeyari is more effective swung down to hit or swiping the legs than piercing.

The battle between nagaeyari is hitting each other. The side which cannot withstand that attack and formation crumbles, is the loser. They are then attacked through (ED: other troops charge in).

[Right hand side]They used to draw the enemy soldiers as close as possible and on command by their commanding officer (yaribugyou), attacked together.

On the spears of the Takeda army (gun), they had a mallet under the head of the spear.

[Right hand side]Against cavalry, in order to not feel fear, the nagaeyari lowered their heads and raised their spears under the order of their commanders. Once they defended against the cavalry and the enemies’ formation is broken, the nagaeyari attacked either the bodies or legs of the horses and knocked the riders off their horses. At which point 5-6 people killed the rider by hitting or stabbing them.

[Next to the cavalry]Against cavalry, they stabbed, aiming for the body of the horse.

Yaribusuma [ED: this is the name of the tactical formation, much like the Roman testudo]

[Right hand side]They stabilised and raised their spear by stabbing the butt (ishizuki) against the ground.

[Middle]To defend against the enemy, they used to overlap the spears across each other so there were no gaps, with 2-3 rows.

[Bottom right]1st row kneeled down
2nd row stood above the waist
3rd row made this stance above the head.

The Takeda spear had an additional 'mallet' or hammerhead to aid striking downwards (this is the protrusion along the haft below the spear head).

Some notes on the Yaribusuma, this is a defensive formation to withstand an enemy attack. Every second and third spearman in the line crossed their spears to give additional support and this was repeated for all three rows (kneeling, waist height and above the head).

Some preliminary notes: Japanese 'pikes' were also called 'spears' (yari), with the extra long shaft (5-6 m long) spears being known as nagae yari, with the spear head also having its own name.
From the image, the spears used have a perpendicular spike (kama yari), much like a pollaxe's armour penetrating spike, so smashing down would have been effective.

Note that the poorest ashigaru may not have been able to afford a metal helmet/hat (jingasa), but a wooden helmet with paper for padding and lacquered leather for the outermost layer - a downwards swing with that sort of leverage would put a hole through that sort of helmet easily.

Can I ask where this page is sourced from? The use of western numbers and a right to left to right reading direction suggests a modern book, but the apparent thinness of the paper suggests something older.

Edit:Derp
Edit 2: Translation added

Clistenes

2017-06-17, 04:11 AM

wolflance

2017-06-17, 04:16 AM

I'll have a go at translating it, although I'll probably need the missus to help.

Some preliminary notes: Japanese 'pikes' were also called 'spears' (yari), with the extra long shaft (5-6 m long) spears being known as nagae yari, with the spear head also having its own name.
From the image, the spears used have a perpendicular spike (kama yari), much like a pollaxe's armour penetrating spike, so smashing down would have been effective.

Note that the poorest ashigaru may not have been able to afford a metal helmet/hat (jingasa), but a wooden helmet with paper for padding and lacquered leather for the outermost layer - a downwards swing with that sort of leverage would put a hole through that sort of helmet easily.

Can I ask where this page is sourced from? The use of western numbers and a right to left reading direction suggests a modern book, but the apparent thinness of the paper suggests something older.
That particular scan had been circulating around the internet, but I have no idea where it came from...It is probably an early 20th century (WWII) book...I think maybe 日本戰史?

I also think yari, with its longer, sword-like spearhead makes a rather good chopping weapon even without the spike part.

Incanur

2017-06-17, 09:05 AM

Sancho de Londoño gave detailed instructions for how to thrust with the pike from a posture similar to the one picture. It definitely involves moving the hands together, "with all possible fury" ("con toda la furia posible").

I've read about Japanese pikes being used for blows in a translation of 17th-century military manual. Seems weird by European standards, but it would make sense against soldiers with dubious head protection. And it's certainly possible European pikers gave blows with their pikes at times.

Carl

2017-06-17, 09:34 AM

I guess I was also wondering why you put that request in this thread, but you asked for basic sanity checking, and I gave some basic sanity checking.

O meant sanity check in terms of "Am i producing somthing that adequately simulates and emphasises the core elements of real world weapons play, there's more than a few HEMA and similar people here who've got more than just descriptions and video to go on.

That said i do appreciate what you did, if the people here give an ok i've then got to sit down and take rough concepts to the detailed rules stage and the kind of feedback you were willing to give me is vital to that, because again my best knowledge is only tangentially related. So a major +1 and thanks for what you've done allready.

rrgg

2017-06-17, 01:25 PM

I wonder if the Romans couldn't charge through because they needed to maintain the cohesion of their own formation, and whether this scenario is still applicable to Renaissance pike warfare (given the vastly superior armor, different tactics etc). Ancient phalanx warfare seems rarely (if ever?) boil down to the "Bad War" melee like Renaissance pike block did.

Also, in the case of "Bad War" style melee, how did the pikemen themselves wad through several ranks of enemy pikes? What's stopping shorter weapon troops (or Montluc's Swiss for that matter) from doing the same?

When the pikes first impact the men on the front ranks become injured, knocked down, or pushed backwards into the ranks behind them due to the force. If both sides are armed with pikes then both formations become disrupted due to this, creating a lot of gaps which can be exploited with swords and other short weapons. If one side is only armed with swords then they have to hack their way through all 4 or 5 layers of spearpoints before they can start disrupting the formation. This is why short weapons generally weren't seen as a direct counter to pikes on their own except on broken ground.

As for the "bad war" engraving, I don't actually know the context behind it or what engagement it's supposed to be depicting, but I'm not sure it was just a case of "wading" through the pikes. In the larger version (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Battle_Scene%2C_after_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg ) you can clearly see that while a brutal melee has developed, most of the soldiers are still angling their pikes towards each other or are attempting to thrust with pikes/other polearms. From the force of the impact a number of pikes seem to have been broken in half and are lying on on the ground.

fusilier

2017-06-17, 02:19 PM

I have read that stating from that posture, they would push the pike with the right arm, switly sliding it over the left hand, like some kind of giant billiard cue stick, aiming for the face of the opponent. If the whole front did the manouver at the same time, they could scare infantry troops what weren't as well trained...

I have not read anything to that effect, but it's not unlike a mid-19th century thrust with a bayonet. The point will be very far forward, and it could become unbalanced (or more unbalanced). However, even bayonet thrusts could also involve "springing" off the rear leg -- putting the whole body behind the thrust was probably more effective than simply thrusting with the arms.

In fact, a basic bayonet thrust is more like throwing a punch with the right hand, meaning a lot of the power comes from the torso. That can be quite awkward with a musket and bayonet, and sometimes involves letting go of the musket completely with the left hand during the strike, and then catching it before it falls to the ground. The end position is very awkward (the hands are together and the weight is far too forward), and the musket would have to be quickly withdrawn to get better grip, and be able to parry an attack.

I'll have to put that idea to the test the next time I have a pike in hand. Short jabs with the pike in that position have always seemed feasible to me, but powerful strikes would require getting more of the body involved.

fusilier

2017-06-17, 02:21 PM

Sancho de Londoño gave detailed instructions for how to thrust with the pike from a posture similar to the one picture. It definitely involves moving the hands together, "with all possible fury" ("con toda la furia posible").

If you can provide the original/translation, I would be curious to read it in detail. As it will fill a gap in our drills.

rrgg

2017-06-17, 02:46 PM

It might be worth mentioning that prior to the press at least, pikemen weren't necessarily packed in like sardines. The rule of thumb for a "square of ground" (that is a pike square which is physically the same length on each side) was apparently 7 files for every 3 ranks. Meaning that there was a bit of a gap between each rank.

Also, do you remember when we spoke about the use of shields by spanish pikemen? In this page (http://ejercitodeflandes.blogspot.com.es/2009/11/alabardero.html) they speak about it: Diego de Salazar made a compilation of texts about military strategy, "De Rei Militari", and the fifth chapter, "Disciplina Militar y Instruction, de los hechos y cosas de guerra" by Langeay, mentions how the latter gave his pikemen rotellas so they could fight once the pike blocks were closely engaged and the pikes were useless...

You can get "De Rei Militari" for free here... (http://www.bibliotecavirtualdeandalucia.es/catalogo/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?path=151464)

On the subject of shields, while george silver considered the sword and target a poor combination in one-on-one, he did think it was effective in massed combat between armored men. A number of english military writers did hold a pretty high opinion of targeteers including Robert Barret, who thought it was a much more effective weapon in confined spaces than the bill or halberd.

According to Webb's "Elizabethan Military Science" however, the target remained a very unpopular weapon among common soldiers due to it's weight, and its use stayed limited to officers or those who could afford a servant to carry their target around. Perhaps the reason the pikeman carrying a shield never caught on again because almost no one was willing to deal with the weight of a pike and armor and a metal target for extended periods of time.

fusilier

2017-06-17, 03:51 PM

EDIT: I suppose you can thrust from that position with your arms in a manner not unlike a bayonet "shorten arm - point" thrust.
. . .

You're missing some very key points here. In the picture of the pikeman at "charge your pikes", the center of gravity is very far in front of his left hand. Any serious motion of the arms with the pike in that position is going to be difficult to control.

Whereas in the position shown in the plate from Angelo's bayonet manual, the left hand is holding the musket near the center of gravity. The weapon is far easier to manipulate in that position.

With the pike, short quick jabs are possible, but will lack power. Clistenes described a process of "sliding" the pike forward in the left hand. That's doable, but will move the center of gravity even farther away from the hand. In theory you could use the twisting motion of the torso to put more power behind the attack, but probably only for relatively short distances -- otherwise you'll end up with both hands together at the tail end of the pike, and your front arm will no longer be against your body to help hold up the pike.

What you are left with is either weak attacks with the arms alone, or putting some power in it by using the legs. Even in the 19th century bayonet manuals, "straightening" the right leg during a thrust was called for.

Earlier depictions of pikemen often showed them holding the pike closer to the center of gravity which would probably give them more options to use the arms more effectively and/or get the torso more involved in an attack.

I did not mean to imply that the arms did nothing, but that the main power for the attack seems to have come from leg movement, not arm movement. I could be wrong, and I'm interested to see what others dig up on the subject, but in my experience motions with the arms are going to be very limited from that position.

A parry with a long weapon like a pike only involves a slight movement of the head -- given how far the opponent is, a slight angular deflection is all that is needed. That's easily effected with slight hand movements.

****Concerning the center of gravity on pikes: it is known that they sometimes weighted the the back end with lead to give it better balance. But that was far from universal, and soldiers were also known to cut off the last foot or two of their pikes to save weight (even though the practice was strictly forbidden).

Kiero

2017-06-17, 03:57 PM

As a general ergonomic principle, you'll get far more power from a blow driving up from your legs, through your hips, into the torso and through the shoulders in the arms, than you will any blow just using the arms/shoulders alone.

BayardSPSR

2017-06-17, 04:28 PM

As for the "bad war" engraving, I don't actually know the context behind it or what engagement it's supposed to be depicting, but I'm not sure it was just a case of "wading" through the pikes. In the larger version (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Battle_Scene%2C_after_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg ) you can clearly see that while a brutal melee has developed, most of the soldiers are still angling their pikes towards each other or are attempting to thrust with pikes/other polearms. From the force of the impact a number of pikes seem to have been broken in half and are lying on on the ground.

Looping back to the discussion of the role of halberdiers in a pike formation from earlier, I notice that the halberdiers in the Holbein engraving are choking up really far on their weapons, with the forward hand immediately below the head, and the rearward hand halfway between the forward hand and the butt.

I've read about Japanese pikes being used for blows in a translation of 17th-century military manual. Seems weird by European standards, but it would make sense against soldiers with dubious head protection. And it's certainly possible European pikers gave blows with their pikes at times.

And speaking of that engraving, it seems to show a lot of hats and bare heads... Might be artistic license, though?

Incanur

2017-06-17, 04:57 PM

If you can provide the original/translation, I would be curious to read it in detail. As it will fill a gap in our drills.

You can find the original here (http://www.vallenajerilla.com/berceo/antoninoperez/reducirdisciplinalondono.htm). Note that it was written in 1568 or so, and Sancho de Londoño died in 1569. It was published long after his death. He personally served as a piker. I haven't seen an English translation of the relevant section anywhere. I've been planning to do one, but I don't know when I'll get around to it.

This is the relevant section:

Pues cuando afronta un escuadrón con otro, han de ir tan constipadas, y los soldados tan juntos, que entre uno y otro no pueda pasar persona alguna, y las picas para hacer la ejecución que pueden, se han de llevar arrimadas a los pechos sobre lo más alto de los estómagos, cargadas desde la mano izquierda al codo del mismo brazo, que se ha de llevar arrimado al estómago, de manera que la mano pase hasta en par de la coyuntura del hombro derecho, o poco menos, la mano derecha retirada todo lo que se pudiere, teniendo a puño cerrado la pica, dejando hacia el cuento, parte que contrapese, y aligere a la que estando así armado pasare desde el codo izquierdo al hierro, y al tiempo de herir, afirmando el pie izquierdo delante, llegando con toda la furia posible la mano derecha a la izquierda, por la cual ha de correr la pica, y al mismo tiempo, juntando el pie derecho al izquierdo, saldrá lo más grueso de la pica del codo izquierdo adelante, con cuyo vaiven, y el del cuerpo, y la fuerza del brazo derecho se hará grandísimo golpe, al menos mucho mayor que con los dos brazos separados del pecho, y tomando la pica de cualquier otra manera de las que el escuadrón permite

And speaking of that engraving, it seems to show a lot of hats and bare heads... Might be artistic license, though?

I'm not sure. Unarmored pikers existed, though they often (typically?) had helmets, and never or almost never fought in the front ranks. Pikers in the front ranks were at least supposed to have considerable armor, half or three-quarters harness.

fusilier

2017-06-17, 05:11 PM

You can find the original here (http://www.vallenajerilla.com/berceo/antoninoperez/reducirdisciplinalondono.htm). Note that it was written in 1568 or so, and Sancho de Londoño died in 1569. It was published long after his death. He personally served as a piker. I haven't seen an English translation of the relevant section anywhere. I've been planning to do one, but I don't know when I'll get around to it.

This is the relevant section:

Thanks. I'll have to get it to a friend for a proper translation, as google translate can be quite rough. It sounds like some footwork might be involved.

Brother Oni

2017-06-17, 05:25 PM

That particular scan had been circulating around the internet, but I have no idea where it came from...It is probably an early 20th century (WWII) book...I think maybe 日本戰史?

I also think yari, with its longer, sword-like spearhead makes a rather good chopping weapon even without the spike part.

I've added the translation next to the image in my previous post. There's no real information on the mechanics, but it does say that they used the nagaeyari more for swings than thrusts.

Clistenes

2017-06-17, 07:24 PM

Thanks. I'll have to get it to a friend for a proper translation, as google translate can be quite rough. It sounds like some footwork might be involved.

The text describes the strike I mentioned earlier, holding the pike at he height of your chest with your left had, and pushing it forward with your right arm, letting it slide over your left hand, moving your right hand towards your left hand...

About the footwork, the text says that you start with your left foot forward, and when you hit, you make a step forward with your right foot; that way the strength of your right arm and the weight or your body will make the strike very powerful, and it is less tiring than other styles too.

Sancho de Londoño says that soldiers should wear the pike on their shoulders until they engage the enemy, because marching while wielding the pike in front of you is extremely tiring.

He also says that the stance in the picture, with the left hand close to the chest, allows the soldier to balance the weight of large pikes better, and that soldiers can keep that stance for a long time, but, when soldiers shorten their pikes (they sometimes did that in order to make them lighter), they will have to extend their arms in front of them in order to compensate for the shorter length of the pike, which is terribly tiresome, and their strikes will be weak, too...

I'm not sure. Unarmored pikers existed, though they often (typically?) had helmets, and never or almost never fought in the front ranks. Pikers in the front ranks were at least supposed to have considerable armor, half or three-quarters harness.

Sancho de Londoño's text mentions that the purpose of the unarmoured pikers would be to accompany groups of arquebusiers when they were deployed separatedly from the main body of the army, in order to protect them against cavalry charges. They didn't wear armor in order to be able to run faster, since they were often sent to occupy important positions during battle. Like, the commander ordered a group of gunmen to flank the enemy, and a group of unarmoured pikemen followed them to protect them against cavalry.

As part of the pike block, unarmoured pikemen would be place at the center of the block, while the armoured pikemen would surround them, protecting them.

fusilier

2017-06-17, 08:08 PM

The text describes the strike I mentioned earlier, holding the pike at he height of your chest with your left had, and pushing it forward with your right arm, letting it slide over your left hand, moving your right hand towards your left hand...

Thanks. That's how I had read it, but wanted to make sure I hadn't misunderstood something, as my Spanish is not even remotely good enough.

I did a little practicing with a halberd as the weight at he front gives a balance more like a pike. I think this would work bringing the right hand up to about the right shoulder -- I couldn't bring it any further forward than that however.

The other thing that's confusing in my translation, is the bit about bringing the left elbow forward when you strike.

About the footwork, the text says that you start with your left foot forward, and when you hit, you make a step forward with your right foot; that way the strength of your right arm and the weight or your body will make the strike very powerful, and it is less tiring than other styles too.

I was just chatting with a friend that practices and teaches Japanese weapons, and he said that they do something similar with the rear foot when attacking with polearms. You still push off with the rear foot, but then bring it forward with the body and set it down to maintain a better posture.

Sancho de Londoño says that soldiers should wear the pike on their shoulders until they engage the enemy, because marching while wielding the pike in front of you is extremely tiring.

He also says that the stance in the picture, with the left hand close to the chest, allows the soldier to balance the weight of large pikes better, and that soldiers can keep that stance for a long time, but, when soldiers shorten their pikes (they sometimes did that in order to make them lighter), they will have to extend their arms in front of them in order to compensate for the shorter length of the pike, which is terribly tiresome, and their strikes will be weak, too...

Yes, that makes sense to me from my experience with a pike.

Thanks to you and Incanur for your help on the subject.

Incanur

2017-06-17, 08:10 PM

The text mentions that the purpose of the unarmoured pikers would be to accompany groups of arquebusiers when they were deployed separatedly from the main body of the army, in order to protect them against cavalry charges. They didn't wear armor in order to be able to run faster, since they were often sent to occupy important positions during battle. Like, the commander ordered a group of gunmen to flank the enemy, and a group of unarmoured pikemen followed them to protect them against cavalry.

Yep, I was just reading that again. Sancho de Londoño mentioned that forty out of three hundred of the unarmored pikers should have helmets ("celadas"), so that presumably means the rest didn't have helmets or armor of any sort. I'm not sure whether that was the standard practice across all 16th-century armies. Sir John Smythe wanted helmets and some limited armor for his lighter pikers. Martin de Eguiluz wrote that Spanish arquebusiers wore helmets, which give them an advantage in close combat against arquebusiers that lacked them. And various other 16th-century manuals assign helmets to arquebusiers and musketeers. It seems odd for light pikers not wear helmets if even the arquebusiers they're guarding have them.

As part of the pike block, unarmoured pikemen would be place at the center of the block, while the armoured pikemen would surround them, protecting them.

Yes, I believe this arrangement was extremely common.

rrgg

2017-06-17, 08:21 PM

William Garrard had served extensively in the Spanish army and mentioned the "light armed pikes" which would be mixed in with the arquebusiers, but according to him they still wore a breastplate or coat of plates rather than being completely unarmored.

Vinyadan

2017-06-17, 08:38 PM

This is 9000 J total energy of rider and horse going forward.... Separate systems, moving separately, and being loosely conected.

Energy of a lance during charge is going to be much, much smaller - weight of the lance moving forward, supported, with varying efficiency, by forearm, arm and shoulder of a rider.

The momentum of whole rider and a horse cannot be obviously supported by arm and shoulder, something has to give.

Usually it would be lance, as far as I understand, given cross-section of wood can only take given amount of impact.

Polish hussars were pretty much always expected to return without lance, if the attack was successful.

With pike being held with two hands on the ground, it would be probably always shaft giving up.

In any case, we have descriptions of mail holding up to mounted spear/lance.

Usaba ibn Munqidh/Munkiz Arab feudal lord, poet, warrior.

He also runs some other Frank with his lance apparently, only to meet him some time later, alive.

Degree of safety offered by a good coat of mail is probably going to be matter of debate forever.

What is certain though, is that maille was for most part most desired armor for many centutires, even when it did cost small fortune.

With battlefields dominated by spears, lances, javelins and arrows of all kinds, from England to Holy Land, if it "wasn't too hard to perforate" it most likely wouldn't be so widely used and prized.

Thank you for the explanation and quote. While I occasionally use formulae, I don't have an all-around understanding of physics or maths. I found another quote that at first I understood as mail saving someone's life, but now I wonder if it actually refers to an attempt to take a prisoner (Anna Comnena, Alexiad):

"During this time, a Frank (Keltos in the original), belonging to the Domestic's troops, and, to make a long story short, a brave soldier, instinct with the spirit of Ares, noticed my father coming out from the enemy's centre, bare sword in hand, all smoking with blood, and took him for one of the enemy. In a trice he fell upon him, knocked him (hit in the original) on the chest with his spear, and was within an ace of hurling the General off his horse, had the General not seated himself more firmly, and addressed the soldier by name, and threatened to cut off his head with his sword. However, the Frank, by pleading his want of recognition, and the confusion consequent upon a night-battle, was allowed to remain among the living!"

BTW, how would it work if a charging knight were frontally hit by an arrow? Would the arrow hurt a lot more, or be too light and be moved away?

I certainly agrees it adds valuable protection! But we have equally many examples of mail failing. And if mail was ample protection, "double mail" (whatever that is), coat of plates above mail, padding above mail etc would never have been developed. Note that there is also something called jousting mail, which was considered stronger than battlefield mail, and this was considered the only safe mail for jousts.

I think that the problem was how there always were somewhat convenient ways to put a lot of energy in a small space. So I am looking at Williams's test, and he says that a bodkin harrow at 120 J made a 5 cm wide hole in the mail, perforated the padding, and penetrated 3.5 cm of plastilene. This is more effective than his 200 J halberd, which only breaks one link. Now, I don't know how he used/simulated the halberd, and it's also a good question under which conditions a arrow could have carried 120 J (because I think that's a lot, especially at a distance, and his table for a XII century longbow shows 80 J). But a vicious spike on the back of a bill could have been a problem. Another matter probably was that of distributing impact, because saving yourself from pointy death and to die anyway from a ruptured spleen would not have been good enough. But let's suppose that you are a proud knight and are charging a line of running peasants, and one of the filthy peons stops running, turns around, and bills you in the tight. Maybe those would have been 200 J under normal conditions, now it's likely more, if you were going that direction. That's one position where I think there was a chainmail gown coming from the torso and covering ulterior leg protection.

Unrelated: A magazine free online that should be interesting for modern, and, to a lesser extent, historical warfare: http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2006/

Incanur

2017-06-17, 08:48 PM

Over the course of the 16th century there seems to have been a general but erratic trend away from armor for lighter troops. Raimond de Fourquevaux wanted all arquebusiers to have a helmet and shirt of mail with sleeve and gloves if possible. He specified helmet, cuirass, and mail sleeves (probably with gloves) for his extraordinary pikers. There are other records from circa 1550 (and from earlier and later) that indicate that arquebusiers did at times wear mail shirts, brigandines, and so on. This of course gave an advantage in the close combat skirmishers might find themselves involved in. However, by the late 16th century, armor for arquebusiers beyond a helmet and perhaps mail sleeves was rare.

Martin de Eguiluz wrote that some arquebusiers, particularly the French, had even stopped wearing swords in order to more easily. (Swords particularly get in the way in the rough terrain that arquebusiers often skirmished in.) He noted the length of Spanish swords and their helmets as giving the advantage against those arquebusiers of other nations that had swords.

So, depend on the exact place and year, a 16th-century arquebusier or extraordinary piker might have considerable armor, no armor whatsoever with an unprotected head, or somewhere in between.

Clistenes

2017-06-17, 08:48 PM

Thanks. That's how I had read it, but wanted to make sure I hadn't misunderstood something, as my Spanish is not even remotely good enough.

I did a little practicing with a halberd as the weight at he front gives a balance more like a pike. I think this would work bringing the right hand up to about the right shoulder -- I couldn't bring it any further forward than that however.

The other thing that's confusing in my translation, is the bit about bringing the left elbow forward when you strike.

I can't find anything like that, but it says that your right hand should be as far back as you can extend your arm, and that your left hand should be close to your right shoulder, and your left elbow, over your stomach, and when you strike, the part of the pike that was behind your left elbow is projected forward beyond the elbow. I don't think the left elbow is supposed to move much, but to remain close to your stomach

wolflance

2017-06-17, 10:21 PM

You're missing some very key points here. In the picture of the pikeman at "charge your pikes", the center of gravity is very far in front of his left hand. Any serious motion of the arms with the pike in that position is going to be difficult to control.

Whereas in the position shown in the plate from Angelo's bayonet manual, the left hand is holding the musket near the center of gravity. The weapon is far easier to manipulate in that position.

With the pike, short quick jabs are possible, but will lack power. Clistenes described a process of "sliding" the pike forward in the left hand. That's doable, but will move the center of gravity even farther away from the hand. In theory you could use the twisting motion of the torso to put more power behind the attack, but probably only for relatively short distances -- otherwise you'll end up with both hands together at the tail end of the pike, and your front arm will no longer be against your body to help hold up the pike.

What you are left with is either weak attacks with the arms alone, or putting some power in it by using the legs. Even in the 19th century bayonet manuals, "straightening" the right leg during a thrust was called for.

Earlier depictions of pikemen often showed them holding the pike closer to the center of gravity which would probably give them more options to use the arms more effectively and/or get the torso more involved in an attack.

I did not mean to imply that the arms did nothing, but that the main power for the attack seems to have come from leg movement, not arm movement. I could be wrong, and I'm interested to see what others dig up on the subject, but in my experience motions with the arms are going to be very limited from that position.

A parry with a long weapon like a pike only involves a slight movement of the head -- given how far the opponent is, a slight angular deflection is all that is needed. That's easily effected with slight hand movements.

****Concerning the center of gravity on pikes: it is known that they sometimes weighted the the back end with lead to give it better balance. But that was far from universal, and soldiers were also known to cut off the last foot or two of their pikes to save weight (even though the practice was strictly forbidden).
If I understand correctly, what you mean is that the pikemen did not actually "walk forward" during a thrust, but used a "rapier lunge" like movement? That indeed sounds a bit more plausible, but preferably your body/leg stay as stationary as possible during a formation fighting, unless entire formation is moving forward (in that case you move together with the formation).

The “sliding motion" giant billiard cue thrust mentioned by Clistenes & Incanur sounds more doable, and seems to be the standard practice in Chinese spearwork.

(sorry I bring out the Chinese again, but in our modern days they seem to be the one that have the most practical experience with the longer stuff and thus have better idea on what's really going on during pike fighting, hence me asking why the HEMA spear sparring is so few in my reply a few pages back).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5fA5xpQWkA
From 1:14 onward the guy is "sliding" thrust with a 5 meter pole. His motion allows of minimal body movement, relative high precision (for such a monstrously long weapon) and rapid thrust & recovery. The shift of center of gravity is only momentary since he thrusts rapidly.

Also, it fits with Clistenes's description of "aiming for the face".

@Brother Oni
Thanks for the translation!

fusilier

2017-06-17, 11:50 PM

. . . and when you strike, the part of the pike that was behind your left elbow is projected forward beyond the elbow.

That makes sense, the google translation was garbled. Thanks again.

fusilier

2017-06-18, 12:03 AM

If I understand correctly, what you mean is that the pikemen did not actually "walk forward" during a thrust, but used a "rapier lunge" like movement? That indeed sounds a bit more plausible, but preferably your body/leg stay as stationary as possible during a formation fighting, unless entire formation is moving forward.

In melee? There's going to be disruptions to your order, unless perhaps you are defending a wall. Advancing and retreating (i.e. stepping forward or backward without crossing the legs) is easy enough to do, so that the soldiers can try to maintain some linear cohesion -- but I don't expect there to be any sort of strict adherence, not among the front rank. The supporting ranks probably did more to keep the unit cohesion. But I think you would be putting your soldiers at a disadvantage if you forbade them from advancing a step when they struck?

Yes I was thinking more like a lunge -- but as Clistenes and Incanur noted with the period description of how to attack it does describe advancing moving the right foot toward the left foot when striking, specifically to put more strength behind the blow.

wolflance

2017-06-18, 12:27 AM

In melee? There's going to be disruptions to your order, unless perhaps you are defending a wall. Advancing and retreating (i.e. stepping forward or backward without crossing the legs) is easy enough to do, so that the soldiers can try to maintain some linear cohesion -- but I don't expect there to be any sort of strict adherence, not among the front rank. The supporting ranks probably did more to keep the unit cohesion. But I think you would be putting your soldiers at a disadvantage if you forbade them from advancing a step when they struck?

Yes I was thinking more like a lunge -- but as Clistenes and Incanur noted with the period description of how to attack it does describe advancing the right leg when striking, specifically to put more strength behind the blow.
A "half step" with left foot moving forward is logical enough.

The "minimal body/food movement" is not to forbade the troops from advancing when they struck (even in the video the demonstrator straighten his right leg slightly to add power to the thrust), but to free them from the over-reliance on foot movement to power the thrust (i.e. they have the option to either advance or to stay stationary or even backstepping, and will be able to deliver thrusts in all three situations).

On the other hand, I am slightly confused on Clistenes's description as well. Aren't "advancing right leg" means crossing the legs (given the starting position of the pikemen) aready?

fusilier

2017-06-18, 01:19 AM

The "minimal body/food movement" is not to forbade the troops from advancing when they struck (even in the video the demonstrator straighten his right leg slightly to add power to the thrust), but to free them from the over-reliance on foot movement to power the thrust (i.e. they have the option to either advance or to stay stationary or even backstepping, and will be able to deliver thrusts in all three situations).

The attack wasn't supposed to be powered by literally running into the enemy -- with the huge caveat that does appear to be what the Swiss attempted to do, and may have been common in the early part of the 16th century.

Note that in the video he advances his left arm -- but Sancho de Londoño claims that is too tiring, and instead claims that you should keep your left arm tucked against your body, and use the right leg.

On the other hand, I am slightly confused on Clistenes's description as well. Aren't "advancing right leg" means crossing the legs (given the starting position of the pikemen) aready?

No, it was moving the right foot to (more specifically towards) the left foot. Not crossing the legs. I miswrote when I put "advancing the right leg" (I meant advance in the generic sense of the word, to move something forward of its current position, not in the relative positioning of the feet - I apologize for the confusion).

Sounds to me like they were supposed to advance the left leg before attacking, and push the body forward with the right leg as they struck. Giving more forward momentum than just standing still.

By the way, when they took the position of "charge your pikes" they advanced with the left foot forward, drawing the right foot up to meet it, but not crossing it. So even in the final few steps of closing with the enemy they weren't supposed to be crossing the legs.

Brother Oni

2017-06-18, 02:06 AM

(sorry I bring out the Chinese again, but in our modern days they seem to be the one that have the most practical experience with the longer stuff and thus have better idea on what's really going on during pike fighting, hence me asking why the HEMA spear sparring is so few in my reply a few pages back).

Please bear in mind that Chinese weapons tend to be made of waxwood, which tends to be more flexible than the wood used for western weapons, so Chinese spears will both perform and be used differently.

@Brother Oni
Thanks for the translation!

Not a problem.

wolflance

2017-06-18, 02:31 AM

The attack wasn't supposed to be powered by literally running into the enemy -- with the huge caveat that does appear to be what the Swiss attempted to do, and may have been common in the early part of the 16th century.

Note that in the video he advances his left arm -- but Sancho de Londoño claims that is too tiring, and instead claims that you should keep your left arm tucked against your body, and use the right leg.
I get where Sancho de Londoño was coming from, for the exact same pose is present in Chinese spear martial art as well. That being said, this guard is sacrificing reach (assuming pike of equal length) for increased stability/stamina.

http://i.imgur.com/R7ftN3Z.jpg

In the Chinese text (as far as I can understand it), this guard has good defensive value, as your tucked-in left hand and body acted as a pivot while your right hand can control the pike like a lever to fence/parry or even smash away (beat parry) opposing pikes.

The Chinese "left arm extended" pose (that's generally the "default" guard position), also has a way to support the spear with your body to conserve stamina, i.e. by tucking the spear against the abdomen.

Please bear in mind that Chinese weapons tend to be made of waxwood, which tends to be more flexible than the wood used for western weapons, so Chinese spears will both perform and be used differently.

It should be noted that the waxwood thing is mostly a modern wushu phenomena. It is to make the pole more flexible/shaky for dramatic effect (but also makes it harder to control). There is even a Qing period treatise that explicitly advise against using waxwood/soft wood to make spear. Recommended material for Chinese spear/pike is pear wood (Dichotomanthes wood) or other hardwood.

Clistenes

2017-06-18, 04:32 AM

I get where Sancho de Londoño was coming from, for the exact same pose is present in Chinese spear martial art as well. That being said, this guard is sacrificing reach (assuming pike of equal length) for increased stability/stamina.

http://i.imgur.com/R7ftN3Z.jpg

In the Chinese text (as far as I can understand it), this guard has good defensive value, as your tucked-in left hand and body acted as a pivot while your right hand can control the pike like a lever to fence/parry or even smash away (beat parry) opposing pikes.

The Chinese "left arm extended" pose (that's generally the "default" guard position), also has a way to support the spear with your body to conserve stamina, i.e. by tucking the spear against the abdomen.

Sancho de Londoño mentions that you can't keep your arms extended in front of you while wielding a large pike but for very short time, and that even if you are wielding a shorter pike, it is still tiring, and the strikes are weaker.

He goes on speaking about reach, giving measures in hands, and explains that if you use a shorter pike with your arms extended in front of you, you are losing reach, not gaining it, because the inches you gain by extending your arms are less than the inches you lose by shortening your pike...

Also, if you make a "cue slide" with a large pike, with your left arm extended in front of you, wouldn't the center of gravity of the pike be too far forward after you strike, and it will be hard to recover your weapon quickly?

Yep, I was just reading that again. Sancho de Londoño mentioned that forty out of three hundred of the unarmored pikers should have helmets ("celadas"), so that presumably means the rest didn't have helmets or armor of any sort. I'm not sure whether that was the standard practice across all 16th-century armies. Sir John Smythe wanted helmets and some limited armor for his lighter pikers. Martin de Eguiluz wrote that Spanish arquebusiers wore helmets, which give them an advantage in close combat against arquebusiers that lacked them. And various other 16th-century manuals assign helmets to arquebusiers and musketeers. It seems odd for light pikers not wear helmets if even the arquebusiers they're guarding have them.

A "celada" (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celada_(armadura)) isn't just a helmet; it's a helm with face protection (as matter of fact, "celada" means "masked" or "hidden"). A helmet without face protection would be a "morrión" or "borgoñota".

http://cvc.cervantes.es/img/quijote/ilustraciones/971.jpg

So, those forty men weren't wearing just helmets, they were wearing close helms, in order to protect their faces against enemy pikes when the blocks clashed.

Those men would probably wear "coseletes" (half-armor or full armor), while the rest would wear cuirasses and morriones, save for the light troops (arquebusiers and unarmoured pikemen) that were supposed to break from the main body of the army and run to strategic positions during battle.

wolflance

2017-06-18, 05:07 AM

Sancho de Londoño mentions that you can't keep your arms extended in front of you while wielding a large pike but for very short time, and that even if you are wielding a shorter pike, it is still tiring, and the strikes are weaker.
As mentioned in my previous reply there's a way to press the pike to the abdomen for support/to conserve stamina (when you are not actively thrusting with it).

EDIT: Now that you posted some armor pics, I wonder if that's the reason why European pikemen did not do that...pressing a pike to a curved, slippery metal surface (corselet) may be quite a bit harder.

EDIT2: Also, we don't actually know whether the "extending arm" mentioned by Sancho refers to a stance similar to the Chinese one (which is somewhat similar to the Macedonian, now that I rethink about it), or something like this but with a pike (that will indeed be insanely tiring):
http://www.thortrains.com/getright/1862ukbaypoint.jpg

The "strikes" as mentioned by Sancho de Londoño, is it actual striking, or he used the term in a general way to refer to thrust?

He goes on speaking about reach, giving measures in hands, and explains that if you use a shorter pike with your arms extended in front of you, you are losing reach, not gaining it, because the inches you gain by extending your arms are less than the inches you lose by shortening your pike...
The "losing reach" part was caused by the pikemen sawed off their pikes. Just use a longer pike with extended arm then.

Also, if you make a "cue slide" with a large pike, with your left arm extended in front of you, wouldn't the center of gravity of the pike be too far forward after you strike, and it will be hard to recover your weapon quickly?
Well in the video it doesn't seem too hard for the man to recover, even with a very shaky/flexible pole (He was actually doing a cue-thrust + counterclockwise parry + clockwise parry training routine, so he can actually go much faster if he focus on cue-thrust only). Obviously in actual engagement you won't cue thrust anywhere near as rapidly as the video, as you need also to fence with it.

Clistenes

2017-06-18, 05:24 AM

The "strikes" as mentioned by Sancho de Londoño, is it actual striking, or he used the term in a general way to refer to thrust?

I think he speaks of thrusts.

As mentioned in my previous reply there's a way to press the pike to the abdomen to conserve stamina (when you are not actively thrusting with it).

The "losing reach" part was caused by the pikemen sawed off their pikes. Just use a longer pike with extended arm then.

Well in the video it doesn't seem too hard for the man to recover, even with a very shaky/flexible pole (He was actually doing a cue-thrust + counterclockwise parry + clockwise parry training routine, so he can actually go much faster if he focus on cue-thrust only). Obviously in actual engagement you won't cue thrust anywhere near as rapidly as the video, as you need also to fence with it.

Sancho de Londoño says that you can't use a large, heavy pike that way. I guess the real pike was heavier than the one in the video (it had to stop charging horsemen) and they also had to fight for long periods of time, rather than making a few moves in front of a camera.

He literally says "no man can endure that for long" about fighting with a large pike extending your arms in front of you...

wolflance

2017-06-18, 05:37 AM

I think he speaks of thrusts.

Sancho de Londoño says that you can't use a large, heavy pike that way. I guess the real pike was heavier than the one in the video (it had to stop charging horsemen) and they also had to fight for long periods of time, rather than making a few moves in front of a camera.

He literally says "no man can endure that for long" about fighting with a large pike extending your arms in front of you...
How heavy is the European pike (of Sancho's time)? One Ming spear manual recommends a pike of roughly 16 ft with a weight somewhere around 4.1 kg. (And a 18ft 7kg pike for training).

http://i52.tinypic.com/11jufyv.jpg
As for being tiring, the Macedonians (and Chinese, for that matter) seems to be doing just fine?

EDIT
http://i.imgur.com/bWyC4lJ.jpg
I realized I haven't actually post a "standard" Chinese spear/pike stance...so here's it. Note that this guy is using a shorter spear, and also note that he tuck the spear into his body.

I believe this is a very standard guard and similar guards are used by probably all spear-using cultures around the world.

Vinyadan

2017-06-18, 05:57 AM

Notice how the sarissa lies on the tight. I wonder of that is a new trick or reported from some ancient source.

Clistenes

2017-06-18, 06:15 AM

http://i52.tinypic.com/11jufyv.jpg
As for being tiring, the Macedonians (and Chinese, for that matter) seems to be doing just fine?.

Notice how the Macedonian is holding the sarissa way closer to the center than the Spanish pikeman. Also, he is keeping his right arm behind, and his left arm isn't extended so forward as the Chinese martial artist in the video you linked...

That stance doesn't seem very practical for taking maximum advantage or the reach of the weapon...

Vercingex

2017-06-18, 06:36 AM

Gentlemen and women of the "Real World Weapon Armor and Tactics Question" Thread- what is your go-to place for primary sources?

Vinyadan

2017-06-18, 07:46 AM

I don't think there can be a single source. You'll probably receive multiple answers from everyone. "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" is often quoted. Polybius is seen as a reliable source for ancient times. Osprey Books also are well-loved. Otherwise, you can search for single pictures, some codices are better than others. There is one Bible codex in particular that is often quoted, maybe it's the Morgan Crusader's Bible. But even contemporary pictures are somewhat ambiguous. They can contain extremely realistic elements (for example, there was one picture of a medieval cannon with a brazier and a rod that was being warmed on it, to be used to light the charge in the cannon. But they also can contain very typified or idealized depictions (so, according to Frankish illuminated manuscripts, people were still running around in Roman army in 800 AD, probably the result of the influence of Byzantine artistic tradition).

EDIT: I misread what you wrote. I think that Google Books is a much better friend than Google Search or Google Scholar. I have the impression that large academic repositories tend to avoid this subject, maybe because it's too vast, and vastness implies generalization. Academic work instead focuses on relatively narrow subjects, like "Byzantine Weapons Excavated in the Province Spania". It will then examine how weapon typology can be compared to other founds in other regions, in and outside the Empire, and show eventual correspondence in textual sources. Then another archaeologist, maybe years later, will take some specimen, or maybe just the hinges on the specimen, and write about hinge production in the VII century, and how often it came up, materials, techniques, textual sources... A decent go-to place is the Wiki of fencing manuals: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page , but, of course, its range is limited.
We also speak and read different languages, so there are different sources we can use. If you read Latin, you can use the Du Cange dictionary to have at least a definition of strange medieval words. In theory it also contains references to sources, but I never actually learnt how to use them, especially because many of the works he refers to probably have new and better editions.
Some expositions have beautiful illustrated books you can buy at the exit. So there was an incredible exposition called Roma and/et/y/... i Barbari in Venice about the relations between Rome and the peoples of its successor states, with a thick and reliable book.
There also recently was a big exposition in Berlin about the Vikings, and that also came with the possibility to by a book filled with detail and images of founds.

But it mostly depends on what you want to find: ancient depictions (with commentary), recent and historically accurate depictions, experimental archaeologists, normal archaeologists, the experiences of re-enactors...

wolflance

2017-06-18, 08:20 AM

Notice how the Macedonian is holding the sarissa way closer to the center than the Spanish pikeman. Also, he is keeping his right arm behind, and his left arm isn't extended so forward as the Chinese martial artist in the video you linked...

That stance doesn't seem very practical for taking maximum advantage or the reach of the weapon...
There are some variations to the stance (including hand positioning), but the Chinese stance, called Zhong Si Ping Shi (中四平勢) or middle-four-horizontal stance, is known as the “king of all spear stances” in virtually ALL schools of Chinese martial arts, and holds several clear advantages over all other stances:

1) The pike is held almost-horizontally at the butt end close to the body, so it has the maximum threat range (when static) out of all stances, and maximum reach using an extended left hand "billiard cue" thrust (like the video), or an all-out one-handed lunge, while maintaining relatively fast recovery. While weapon reach isn't the be all, end all factor to decide the outcome of a battle, it does confer a very large advantage (especially in formation fighting).
2) The advantage of maximum threat range plus billiard cue thrust/lunge are that it will be very hard for the opponent to gauge whether he is already entering threat range or not, while you can be certain that you get to strike first.
3) The stance is very compact and rooted/stable.
4) Since the pike is held at the middle, the pikeman can respond to attack from all angles effectively. And you can choose to attack high, mid or low effectively, too.
5) It also allows the pikeman to retract his weapon quickly in the case that someone charge pass the spear point (or if the pikeman attempts to charge in for a melee).
6) The pole tucked in against the body allows the body to support part of the weight and conserve stamina. Since the pike is held low, the straightened left arm also helps conserve stamina too, unlike the Macedonian version.
7) You don't risk hitting the guy standing behind you.

In short, it is the best "general purpose/jack of all trade" spear guard. Other guards do better in other situations (i.e. A high guard defend against attacks from high angle better, for obvious reason), but this one is useful for all situations, with no obvious downside.

EDIT
I think the Macedonian sarissa in the photo is a bit on the short side...at realistic length it should be longer than the 5 m wooden pole in the video I posted.

Incanur

2017-06-18, 10:27 AM

A "celada" (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celada_(armadura)) isn't just a helmet; it's a helm with face protection (as matter of fact, "celada" means "masked" or "hidden"). A helmet without face protection would be a "morrión" or "borgoñota".

So, those forty men weren't wearing just helmets, they were wearing close helms, in order to protect their faces against enemy pikes when the blocks clashed.

Those men would probably wear "coseletes" (half-armor or full armor), while the rest would wear cuirasses and morriones, save for the light troops (arquebusiers and unarmoured pikemen) that were supposed to break from the main body of the army and run to strategic positions during battle.

Good point, but that's not consistent with the rest of the text: half of the armored pikers, 150 out of 300, are already described as wearing celadas. The line assigning celadas to forty out of three hundred comes right after describing unarmored pikers and specifically for fighting at batteries, which the unarmored pikers are better suited for. The forty celadas protect from stones and other things hurled from the batteries: "Así que en cada compañía de trescientos soldados debe haber cuarenta piqueros con celadas, que sin ellas no podrían llegar a baterías por la lluvia de las piedras, y otras cosas que de ordinario arrojan los de dentro."

Maybe the other 260 unarmored pikers were wearing morriones, as Sancho de Londoño mentioned for arquebusiers, but it's not clear from the text.

Or maybe the numbers refer to just one single company of 300: 150 coseletes cumplidos, 40 piqueros con celadas, 100 arcabuceros con morriones, and 10 unspecified or that I missed. That's probably it. That's how this analysis (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKk-Xb1sfUAhUK3IMKHdqQAlcQFgg0MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdialnet.unirioja.es%2Fdescarga%2 Farticulo%2F4094124.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEnyrNVl5FfXjOBy9k3arWwN80WJg&sig2=k1ZS-cBHwrkz-e1Ey4DJvg) describes it.

So all the unarmored pikers were wearing helmets with face protection, which makes a lot more sense than having pikers with exposed heads. And there weren't any pikers in just cuirasses and morions; all the armored pikers had three-quarters harness. (Of course, assuming this interpretation is correct, that's just what Sancho de Londoño wanted. It's consistent with various other military writers who stressed the importance of armor, but in practice it could be tricky to prevent soldiers from discarding parts of their harness to reduce weight.

Oh, and Spanish pikes probably weighed around 8-10lbs. This calculation (http://www.esgrimaantigua.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5026&start=60) gives 3.88kg (8.53lbs) for the wood alone as Sancho de Londoño describes it. Many surviving Central European pikes in museums are less, but they may have been cut down, rotted and lost weight, or whatever. And pikes certainly varied in weight in the period.

Also note that Sancho de Londoño's recommended pike was 5.43-5.46m, very nearly 18ft. I've heard people claim the Spanish used 16ft pikes unlike other European armies that used 18ft ones, but that's not what Sancho de Londoño wanted.

fusilier

2017-06-18, 11:32 AM

Also note that Sancho de Londoño's recommended pike was 5.43-5.46m, very nearly 18ft. I've heard people claim the Spanish used 16ft pikes unlike other European armies that used 18ft ones, but that's not what Sancho de Londoño wanted.

I've heard the claim too, but most of the sources that are clearly derived from Spanish sources say about 17 to 18 feet. It may be one of those things that was true at the beginning of the 16th century, but not in the second half. I do get the sense that English sources from the late 16th century seem to describe outdated Spanish practices.

Clistenes

2017-06-18, 11:43 AM

Good point, but that's not consistent with the rest of the text: half of the armored pikers, 150 out of 300, are already described as wearing celadas. The line assigning celadas to forty out of three hundred comes right after describing unarmored pikers and specifically for fighting at batteries, which the unarmored pikers are better suited for. The forty celadas protect from stones and other things hurled from the batteries: "Así que en cada compañía de trescientos soldados debe haber cuarenta piqueros con celadas, que sin ellas no podrían llegar a baterías por la lluvia de las piedras, y otras cosas que de ordinario arrojan los de dentro."

Maybe the other 260 unarmored pikers were wearing morriones, as Sancho de Londoño mentioned for arquebusiers, but it's not clear from the text.

Or maybe the numbers refer to just one single company of 300: 150 coseletes cumplidos, 40 piqueros con celadas, 100 arcabuceros con morriones, and 10 unspecified or that I missed. That's probably it. That's how this analysis (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKk-Xb1sfUAhUK3IMKHdqQAlcQFgg0MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdialnet.unirioja.es%2Fdescarga%2 Farticulo%2F4094124.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEnyrNVl5FfXjOBy9k3arWwN80WJg&sig2=k1ZS-cBHwrkz-e1Ey4DJvg) describes it.

So all the unarmored pikers were wearing helmets with face protection, which makes a lot more sense than having pikers with exposed heads. And there weren't any pikers in just cuirasses and morions; all the armored pikers had three-quarters harness. (Of course, assuming this interpretation is correct, that's just what Sancho de Londoño wanted. It's consistent with various other military writers who stressed the importance of armor, but in practice it could be tricky to prevent soldiers from discarding parts of their harness to reduce weight.

Oh, and Spanish pikes probably weighed around 8-10lbs. This calculation (http://www.esgrimaantigua.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5026&start=60) gives 3.88kg (8.53lbs) for the wood alone as Sancho de Londoño describes it. Many surviving Central European pikes in museums are less, but they may have been cut down, rotted and lost weight, or whatever. And pikes certainly varied in weight in the period.

Also note that Sancho de Londoño's recommended pike was 5.43-5.46m, very nearly 18ft. I've heard people claim the Spanish used 16ft pikes unlike other European armies that used 18ft ones, but that's not what Sancho de Londoño wanted.

Yeah, I answered that post without re-reading Sancho de Londoño's text. I missed that he was speaking of the unarmoured pikers, not of the pikemen in general...

But my point is, all soldiers were probably wearing morriones save those who were wearing celadas. I think arcabusiers stopped wearing helmets at some point, but at the beginning they had morriones too.

rrgg

2017-06-18, 02:45 PM

Would the celadas be exclusively helmets with face protection, or was it the equivalent of a burgonet which was sometimes worn with a face guard and sometimes wasn't?

On the subject of arquebusiers choosing not to carry swords, I found the quote I was looking for. While Garrard didn't want arquebusiers to be burdened by mail or heavy armor, he was strongly opposed forgoing the sword and dagger. He saw soldiers going into battle without a sidearm as a careless practice and a predictor of cowardice.

contrarie to the carelesse custome of some, whom I haue seene come into the Field without Rapier or Dagger, which was an assured argument, that their heeles should be their Tar∣get, and their shamefull st•…ght their saftie, when their Pouder was spent.

VoxRationis

2017-06-18, 04:47 PM

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-06-18, 05:02 PM

So continuing this discussion of pike square combat: Say you're a halberdier in one of these combined-arms formations. Your group marches into battle with another group. At what point do you start marching up and attacking? How do you do that? How do you slip past the points of the enemy pikes? If everyone's pressed together so chaotically, how do you use a halberd? (Even though it's much shorter than the pikes, it's still a 6-foot pole with a long head.) If you're choking up on it like that one guy in the woodcut shown earlier, why not just bring something shorter?

I suppose at least theoretically it would give more ranks the ability to fight ones in a decent push of pike. There's been a lot of discussion on this in this thread, but let's say they actually happened with some regularity, the pike blocks squash into each other, pikes are broken or pushed to the ground as the first two ranks of borh formations mostly die and the new front ranks become the worlds angriest rugby scrum. A halberdier on the second or maybe even the third row could poke past the guy in front of them, who's busy daggering his direct opponents eyes out, and stab someone. As a two handed weapon with a wooden shaft it might even be slightly safer for his friends on the front row than a sword.

But I suspect their value lay more in their ability to break formation. They can leave the block and flank the enemy or chase down attacking skirmishers, where that's much harder with a long pike. In the event that the pike formation loses a push or gets pummeled by artillery to such an extend that the block breaks and people start running halberdiers might be more inclined to stand their ground in smaller groups than pikemen, who are most effective in a solid line. This may save a lot of men from pursuers. Maybe not really from the cavalry, but at least from enemies charging after them on foot.

A halberd is a good allround weapon for if anything happens. Mixing them in might make the situations the formation as a whole can handle more diverse, and thus the block becomes harder to effectively counter.

Kind of like having two fighters and a rogue or ranger rather than three fighters, even if that lowers your theoretical total damage.

But that's just what I'd figure.

Clistenes

2017-06-18, 05:23 PM

Would the celadas be exclusively helmets with face protection, or was it the equivalent of a burgonet which was sometimes worn with a face guard and sometimes wasn't?.

Any helmet that covers the face would be a celada: Burgonets, sallets, bascinets, armets, close helmets... if they cover the face, they are celadas.

Wikipedia identifies the celada with the sallet, but Modern Age Spanish sources always call helmets with face protection "celadas", regarless of style and model (Don Quixote, for example, made a celada by adding a makeshift visor to a morrion), and the Royal Academy of Spanish Language (Real Academia Española) defines "celada" as "Pieza de la armadura antigua que cubría y protegía la cabeza, generalmente provista de una visera movible delante de la cara" ("part of the armor that used to cover and protect the head, usually with a movable visor over the face").

Incanur

2017-06-18, 05:40 PM

I don't know exactly how halberdiers managed to participate in the melee despite the 4-8+ ranks of friendly pikers in front of them, but 16th-century sources make clear that they did, at least in hard-fought battles. Apparently, despite the closeness of the formation, halberdiers were able to support pikers who'd dropped their pikes and resorted to sword. Raimond de Fourquevaux and Sir John Smythe both describe this. They may have been able to squeeze by friendly pikers.

In some cases, halberdiers separated from pikers and could attack the flanks. Robert III de La Marck (Florange) wrote (https://books.google.com/books?id=RtkePoWkij8C&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=florange+%2B+novara&source=bl&ots=cOYbvV-bsU&sig=DyBUErBm_gHnjCkui1k8rqxQFGI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidncbFucjUAhVEx2MKHXcVBgwQ6AEIJDAA#v=sn ippet&q=halberdiers&f=false) how this happened at Novara 1513. 400 Swiss halberdiers detached and routed 800 German arquebusiers, then attacked the Landsknecht pikers (possibly including some armed with halberds and/or two-handed swords) on flank as they were engaged with main Swiss force (presumably mostly pikers).

wolflance

2017-06-18, 10:40 PM

Oh, and Spanish pikes probably weighed around 8-10lbs. This calculation (http://www.esgrimaantigua.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5026&start=60) gives 3.88kg (8.53lbs) for the wood alone as Sancho de Londoño describes it. Many surviving Central European pikes in museums are less, but they may have been cut down, rotted and lost weight, or whatever. And pikes certainly varied in weight in the period.

Also note that Sancho de Londoño's recommended pike was 5.43-5.46m, very nearly 18ft. I've heard people claim the Spanish used 16ft pikes unlike other European armies that used 18ft ones, but that's not what Sancho de Londoño wanted.
I can't read Spanish, so I will have to trust you on the given data. That being said, the estimate isn't too far off from the Chinese one, which isn't surprising (wood is wood).

So continuing this discussion of pike square combat: Say you're a halberdier in one of these combined-arms formations. Your group marches into battle with another group. At what point do you start marching up and attacking? How do you do that? How do you slip past the points of the enemy pikes? If everyone's pressed together so chaotically, how do you use a halberd? (Even though it's much shorter than the pikes, it's still a 6-foot pole with a long head.) If you're choking up on it like that one guy in the woodcut shown earlier, why not just bring something shorter?

https://i.imgur.com/original/U/9/9/w/U99wlCi
Maybe Chronicon Helvetiae can be of some help...

What I can extrapolate from the illustration is that it depicts what's going on during a push of pike (and not a chaotic melee) - for while there are people dying, both sides appear to keep their distance with each other to "pike reach", with a distinguishing "empty zone" with only dead, injured and horizontal pikes.

The halberdiers appear to move to the foremost rank, presumably after the pikemen in front of them had fallen (like Level 2 Expert said). They also seem to utilize a vertical downward swing with the spike part of the halberd (incidentally, that seems to match with what ashigaru did).

I guess they not so much as slip past several ranks of pikes as to forcibly clear out a path (by knocking aside enemy pikes).

Martin Greywolf

2017-06-19, 02:23 AM

fusilier

2017-06-20, 01:24 AM

You're assuming that the pikemen are standing shoulder-to-shoulder, which they probably wouldn't have. From my practical experience, you need shoulder-to-shoulder formation to resist direct charges in a shield wall, but a charge like that is far more likely to happen against formations that don't happen to have 4 rows of pointy pikes to impale the chargers on. That means the pikemen can afford to have, say, 50 cm gap between them even in close formation, and once the close battle is joined, some of them will drop, opening more than enough space for the halberdiers to squeeze through.

A loose formation like that is often a good idea even with medieval shield walls - if you're fighting in a small skirmish (dozen men on either side or so) - which would be most of the engagements in a campaign - having some room to move your arms and elbows through is very nice, and you open up some lines of attack that are closed to you in a shield wall.

The manuals I've read specify about a foot gap between the files and about 3 feet between the ranks. They may have closed up more before contact with the enemy (not necessarily something that was trained it just happened).

However, there would have been some gaps as the position of charge pikes would cause the soldiers to adopt a narrower profile, increasing the side-to-side gap somewhat. Also, weapons like halberds could be swung down between fairly narrow gaps, not requiring much room side to side. Long weapons can also be maneuvered around comrades bodies, to provide some sort of attack.

That said, I'm not entirely clear on how they functioned. My guess is that they looked for opportunities, and perhaps worked a bit like later era file closers -- plugging gaps when they appeared. In the middle ages they often mixed all kinds of infantry together, melee troops with missile troops. During melee the missile troops would shift to the rear ranks, and I can only surmise that they simply looked for openings during a melee, and took shots where they could.

Martin Greywolf

2017-06-20, 02:18 AM

The manuals I've read specify about a foot gap between the files and about 3 feet between the ranks. They may have closed up more before contact with the enemy (not necessarily something that was trained it just happened).

I'm not clear on which ones you mean here - pike or medieval? IIRC Vegetius mentioned every soldier having enough space about him to turn his shield face first towards enemy - it comes to just under 1 meter per soldier in close formation, though it depends on how you count. That's for the close formation, and is almost shoulder to shoulder level, you have maybe a 20 cm elbow room on either side.

What I was saying is that pikemen usually don't really need to close up in the first place, simply because there are few troops willing to rush them like you can rush a shield wall. Once the rush does happen, however, you have a problem, which they solved by halberds (or troops with shorter weapons in general). I think they just went in and took up the space in the gaps, doubling the density of the formation - so we agree on this point, it seems.

In the middle ages they often mixed all kinds of infantry together, melee troops with missile troops. During melee the missile troops would shift to the rear ranks, and I can only surmise that they simply looked for openings during a melee, and took shots where they could.

As far as I can tell, it's pretty much accepted these days that this was indeed how medieval units worked. Not only can you see (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5006/15598/) it (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4069/22387/) in illuminations (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4451/11097/), there are some references in period documents that can be read as "archers in the back for point-blank fire". The newer interpretations of Agincourt's first wave look like this - archers hold fire until French are within about 50 meters of their own lines and use direct fire from behind their own troops and/or stakes.

wolflance

2017-06-20, 03:09 AM

I'm not clear on which ones you mean here - pike or medieval? IIRC Vegetius mentioned every soldier having enough space about him to turn his shield face first towards enemy - it comes to just under 1 meter per soldier in close formation, though it depends on how you count. That's for the close formation, and is almost shoulder to shoulder level, you have maybe a 20 cm elbow room on either side.

What I was saying is that pikemen usually don't really need to close up in the first place, simply because there are few troops willing to rush them like you can rush a shield wall. Once the rush does happen, however, you have a problem, which they solved by halberds (or troops with shorter weapons in general). I think they just went in and took up the space in the gaps, doubling the density of the formation - so we agree on this point, it seems.

http://syler.com/drillDemo/spacing/OrderCloseQueryPg.html

This link gives several interpretations on the spacing between 17th century pikemen in "close order", presumably the order they used against other infantry. Density of Spanish soldiers may or may not be different, though.

As far as I can tell, it's pretty much accepted these days that this was indeed how medieval units worked. Not only can you see (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5006/15598/) it (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4069/22387/) in illuminations (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4451/11097/), there are some references in period documents that can be read as "archers in the back for point-blank fire". The newer interpretations of Agincourt's first wave look like this - archers hold fire until French are within about 50 meters of their own lines and use direct fire from behind their own troops and/or stakes.
The overall size and design of longbow seems to lend toward shooting high-powered, heavy but relatively slow arrows at close range.

fusilier

2017-06-20, 09:23 AM

I'm not clear on which ones you mean here - pike or medieval? IIRC Vegetius mentioned every soldier having enough space about him to turn his shield face first towards enemy - it comes to just under 1 meter per soldier in close formation, though it depends on how you count. That's for the close formation, and is almost shoulder to shoulder level, you have maybe a 20 cm elbow room on either side.

I was referring to pike formations, as Wolflance pointed out (notice the link to "closest order" on that page). Specifically I was thinking of a late 16th century Spanish manual that details the distances.

What I was saying is that pikemen usually don't really need to close up in the first place, simply because there are few troops willing to rush them like you can rush a shield wall. Once the rush does happen, however, you have a problem, which they solved by halberds (or troops with shorter weapons in general). I think they just went in and took up the space in the gaps, doubling the density of the formation - so we agree on this point, it seems.

The pikemen seem to have closed up quite a bit (or at least had the opportunity to do so, again see "closest order" -- although that wasn't necessarily universal). What I was saying is that the pikemen's fighting posture is very narrow, and polearms both have reach, meaning a halberdier could be behind the pikemen he's assisting and still attack, and they don't need much room to attack, either thrusting or swinging down.

As far as I can tell, it's pretty much accepted these days that this was indeed how medieval units worked. Not only can you see (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5006/15598/) it (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4069/22387/) in illuminations (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4451/11097/), there are some references in period documents that can be read as "archers in the back for point-blank fire". The newer interpretations of Agincourt's first wave look like this - archers hold fire until French are within about 50 meters of their own lines and use direct fire from behind their own troops and/or stakes.

Thank you. I've seen other images, and read similar descriptions, but it's nice to see some more agreement about it.

Vinyadan

2017-06-20, 10:26 AM

As far as I can tell, it's pretty much accepted these days that this was indeed how medieval units worked. Not only can you see (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5006/15598/) it (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4069/22387/) in illuminations (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4451/11097/), there are some references in period documents that can be read as "archers in the back for point-blank fire". The newer interpretations of Agincourt's first wave look like this - archers hold fire until French are within about 50 meters of their own lines and use direct fire from behind their own troops and/or stakes.

Those are very similar to the representations of bow use in ancient Greece. The bowman is often kneeling or crouching behind an armoured soldier with a shield.

BayardSPSR

2017-06-20, 05:20 PM

As far as I can tell, it's pretty much accepted these days that this was indeed how medieval units worked. Not only can you see (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5006/15598/) it (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4069/22387/) in illuminations (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4451/11097/), there are some references in period documents that can be read as "archers in the back for point-blank fire". The newer interpretations of Agincourt's first wave look like this - archers hold fire until French are within about 50 meters of their own lines and use direct fire from behind their own troops and/or stakes.

From scattered reading, it seems like the main intention and effect of long-range fire was to provoke the other side to close to short range, hopefully attacking into a strong position or tiring themselves out while the side with archers stayed in good order. Agincourt's an example of this.

rrgg

2017-06-21, 08:29 AM

On the subject of how short weapons were used from inside a battle, here's a section from Thomas Diggs' book on math and war. The original was published in 1579, one of the first proper military manuals published by an englishman. Like many English authors he seems to take a lot of influence from the ancients and Machiavelli.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822038210373;view=image;seq=141;page=r oot;size=100;orient=0

But wheras it hath bene among our men of warre a custom to have the bodie of our battails, halberdes, billes, battleaxes, or such short weapons, and to impale them only with certaine ranckes of pikes, I think that custome first grew for want of sufficient numbers of pikes to make a solide battaile: for whosoever shall behold in the field two battailes, the one all massie through-out of pikes and the other of short weapon, onely impalled with certaine rankes of pikes, shall finde even in the eye a marvellous difference, in such sort as a man would farre sooner choose to charge, and hope to break the battaile impaled, then that which is massie with pikes: and in truth these short weapos (unlesse they were short swords and long shields after the Romane manner, are fitter to execute in a chase, after the battaile is woone, then to decide the furie of a battaile, or abide the violent charge of barbed lances: and to draw them out from the heart of the battaile to pursue a chase, cannot be done without great disorder.

Also here's Robert Barret's compaints about including short weapons in with the pikes from "The theorike and practike of moderne vvarres" (1598):

Gent.

In a set battaile would you not haue Bills or Halbards for the guard of your Colours?
Capt.

As few as might be▪ for in their steds farre better were so many armed Pikes, in mine opinion, considering that in set Battailes when men come to the shock, or push of the Pike, they sarrie close together, and the first three, fiue, or se∣uen rankes do beare the chiefe brunt; and entred so farre, men buckle Pell-Mell, close together, by which time commonlie the one side reculeth or swayeth, and a battell once reculing doth not lightlie hold long, so that ere the Center of the Bat∣taill be touched one side must fall to disaray; men once disordered, they commonly fall to rout, the rout is pursued with slaughter and ruine. Against horse the like reasons are to be made: thus either to offend or defend, farre better is the Pike, then either Bill, or Halbard. And to conclude, the strength of the Battaile is the armed Pike, so they be equally sorted with Harquebuze and Musket.

Gent.

Although you disalow and disproue to haue your battell of pikes mingled with short weapon; yet would you not alow them about the ensignes in the center of the battell?
Capt

For what purpose in the center of the battell?
Gent.

To defend the ensignes with hand blowes.
Cap.

I suppose it an error. For who doth not know that if the enemy be like to be victor, the armed pikes will yeeld backward as they feele themselues distressed, so as when the pikes are in such maner crashed and clustred together, that they can no longer charge and push with their pikes, then will the throng or presse in the center be so great, that the halberds and bils shall haue little roome to strike; nay short swords will hardly haue rome at that instant either to thrust or to strike. I would thinke daggers would do more execution at that time, and in that presse vntill one side fall to flight: so I see no reason at all for halberds or bills to haue place in a battell or stand of pikes: Besides the vnseemely shew they make either by themselues in the center, or mingled among pikes.

He also thinks that having pikes only in the battalion would make it much less compicated to break down into smaller maniples or change formations on the fly.

Also, here's his brief description of thrusting with the pike, it seems to be similar to the other ones which describe an overhand thrusting motion putting the weight on the left foot:

But principally, the souldiers marching in squadron, and vpon point to come to the push of the pike with their foote enemy, then are they first to aduaunce their pikes, as is said, bearing the same orderly with the right hand against the right thigh, and the left hand aboue neare about the shoul∣der, and so to charge vpon the left hand and push, standing firme and sure vpon the left foote. But if the squadron be charged with any troupes of the enemies horse, then must the Picquiers cowch their pikes fast vnder the right foote, hol∣ding the same 〈…〉 the left hand, and bow downe the point thereof against the breast of the hor•e, hauing his right hand ready to draw his sword, if occasion shall be offered.

Brother Oni

2017-06-21, 02:58 PM

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-06-21, 03:10 PM

From what I've read, at the Battle of Sekigahara, Oda samurai matchlock squads (deppo) were deployed far out in front of their lines and sniped at the Takeda cavalry with high calibre matchlocks in order to goad them into attacking.

Pike and shot. You're in trouble if you stay away, you're in big trouble if you charge in.

This might incidentally be another situation in which shorter weapons might help. If the cavalry closes in far enough that the musketeers have to retreat into the pike block but stays out of actual contact with the pikes the infantry formation is sort of neutralized. Musketeers can shoot from just in front of the pikemen, covered by the length of the pikes themselves, but it's hardly ideal. The pikemen can close in, but a marching line is no match for the speed of a horse. A halberd charge at cavalry that has a cold start could be really dangerous. If the the cavalry charges you catch them on the point, if they run you try to hook for the legs.

Mike_G

2017-06-21, 06:43 PM

wolflance

2017-06-21, 09:14 PM

Martin Greywolf

2017-06-22, 02:17 AM

From scattered reading, it seems like the main intention and effect of long-range fire was to provoke the other side to close to short range, hopefully attacking into a strong position or tiring themselves out while the side with archers stayed in good order. Agincourt's an example of this.

It was one of the possible uses of it, but not the only one. Also, it wasn't just long-range fire that was used this way, Magyar soldiers did this with help of horse archers and close-range fire - gallop into close range, loose arrows, retreat and hope the enemy charges after you, thinking you're retreating, then wheel around and finish off with either flanking fire or a charge once the formation is broken. The Magyar defeat at Lechfeld was largely due to the fact that the German forces refused to break formation like this.

Long-range fire could also be used as attrition and psychological warfare tool - Richard the Lionheart and his march to Arsuf are an example of this, as is almost every battle during the Crusades. And let's not forget that a lot of soldiers didn't have armor of the grade the first Agincourt wave had - plunging fire against them could at least injure them if they didn't have any cover.

Last but not least, plunging fire is very scary against unarmored horses - they are both big targets, and vulnerable. It bears mentioning that Hungarian armies were known for having an unusually high amount of metal horse armor even during high middle ages, and I think it was because of the nomads going after their horses. Hungarian eastern border was, after all, in a permanent state of war against whatever nomadic group happened to be near it. Horses being very common and therefore incredibly cheap in Hungary was likely another symptom.

snowblizz

2017-06-22, 02:49 AM

Max_Killjoy

2017-06-22, 06:35 AM

It does sound like Brother Oni means Nagashino.

Sekigahara is however famous (well also) for having Tokugawa troops fire at the undecided unegaged troops (nominal enemies, undeclared secret allies) whereupon they joined the Tokugawa side in battle. Speak about long range fire gauding troops.:smallbiggrin:

That part always confuses me to be honest, but can't argue with what works, hey.

"If it's stupid and it works... you're lucky and it's still stupid."

Brother Oni

2017-06-22, 06:36 AM

Wasn't that Nagashino? Or am I confusing the two?

It does sound like Brother Oni means Nagashino.

Sekigahara is however famous (well also) for having Tokugawa troops fire at the undecided unegaged troops (nominal enemies, undeclared secret allies) whereupon they joined the Tokugawa side in battle. Speak about long range fire gauding troops.:smallbiggrin:

That part always confuses me to be honest, but can't argue with what works, hey.

Hmm, my source definitely said Sekigahara and given that by the time of that battle, both the Takeda clan was effectively eliminated and Nobunaga had been assassinated, I guess that's an error there. :smallredface:

That said, Ieyasu definitely carried on the matchlock tradition started by his former lord, so I wouldn't be surprised if sniping deppo squads carried on in the Tokugawa army, as snowblizz mentioned.

snowblizz

2017-06-22, 07:09 AM

"If it's stupid and it works... you're lucky and it's still stupid."

Maxim 43. Nice to see another Schlock fan.:smallsmile:

Hmm, my source definitely said Sekigahara and given that by the time of that battle, both the Takeda clan was effectively eliminated and Nobunaga had been assassinated, I guess that's an error there. :smallredface: Yea that was what was confusing me. Some Odas were present at that battle but a quick look finds no Takeda.

rrgg

2017-06-22, 03:38 PM

Pike and shot. You're in trouble if you stay away, you're in big trouble if you charge in.

This might incidentally be another situation in which shorter weapons might help. If the cavalry closes in far enough that the musketeers have to retreat into the pike block but stays out of actual contact with the pikes the infantry formation is sort of neutralized. Musketeers can shoot from just in front of the pikemen, covered by the length of the pikes themselves, but it's hardly ideal. The pikemen can close in, but a marching line is no match for the speed of a horse. A halberd charge at cavalry that has a cold start could be really dangerous. If the the cavalry charges you catch them on the point, if they run you try to hook for the legs.

For european pike squares, defense against cavalry tended to usually involve shot crouching under the cover of the pikes and shooting the horsemen as they get close. It's not very easy to actually get inside a solid pike square, so if there were more shot than could fit underneath the cover of the pikes and battalion is in a position where cavalry might attack from all sides then the pikes would need to reform into a hollow square that has room inside.

here's an example for an army which is made up of 2/3rds shot: http://imgur.com/a/drCm9
In theory, a horseman is tall enough that if all of the pikemen and ranks in front crouch then the shot inside the square can also shoot at them.

You are right though that this was a situation where mixing short weapons in with the musketeers was apparently very useful. You are also right that infantry had to react to the presence of cavalry by bunching up and limiting their firepower. During the 17th century it became a fairly common tactic to incorporate squadrons of cavalry into the front line firing pistols or carbines in caracole, and even though they didn't have the firepower of musketeers, they made the enemy infantry more vulnerable to friendly shot and artillery.

Edit: actually looking through Thomas Stywards manual from ~20 years earlier, he does describe methods for the shot to retire in amongst a solid square of pikemen. http://imgur.com/a/vU22h this one is designed to provide good firepower any which way and then the triangles of shot on each side can invert and slide into the ranks of pikes without making it too crowded.

MasterMercury

2017-06-22, 04:15 PM

Carolus

2017-06-22, 05:23 PM

Sorry if this has already been asked, but how did people hold greataxes on their back? It wasn't a scabbard, but I don't know how they kept them on steadily? Did they carry them on their backs at all?
Most large weapons, including most large swords, weren't really worn on the back. People mostly just carried them in their hands, with the blade resting on the shoulder.
Although if I'm not mistaken this is not something with a single universally accepted answer.

Miraqariftsky

2017-06-23, 02:00 PM

Carl

2017-06-23, 03:58 PM

@Vitruviansquid: had an idea about improving general playability and reducing mathematics related to th system concept we where discussing, it's a bit off topic ofc, so would i be ok the PM you see what you think of the fairly heft revision?

Spamotron

2017-06-23, 05:19 PM

Thiel

2017-06-24, 04:43 AM

Sorry if this has already been asked, but how did people hold greataxes on their back? It wasn't a scabbard, but I don't know how they kept them on steadily? Did they carry them on their backs at all?
Generally speaking you didn't. Small axes can be carried in belt scabbards/holsters or just stuck through your belt, but I don't know how common that was historically. I suppose you could tie a sling to the axe head and carry it like a rifle, but that would be strictly for transport.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c2/a1/4d/c2a14de31b7882e59faaae7120e10218.jpg

Miraqariftsky

2017-06-24, 05:31 AM

As always context is king nothing happens in a vacuum. If the soldier has a history of insubordination the officer might throw the book at him. If its a first time outburst from an otherwise model soldier the officer might quietly have him pulled from the unit for a psychiatric evaluation. IIRC sudden bursts of aggression can be a warning sign for PTSD.

Understood, thank you.

It's for a PbP gig. The unit is a guerrilla outfit, deep within enemy territory. This is their first mission, first official action. Still practically green, in terms of experience.

Mr Beer

2017-06-24, 05:41 AM

Understood, thank you.

It's for a PbP gig. The unit is a guerrilla outfit, deep within enemy territory. This is their first mission, first official action. Still practically green, in terms of experience.

This implies special forces, in which case the debrief situation is drastically different from, say, a regular soldier mouthing off to the major in front of the entire battalion.

As said above, context is the thing. Who is the soldier, what's the setting, who is the officer etc.?

Thiel

2017-06-24, 05:50 AM

It's also worth noting that just because all his shots hit doesn't mean he did well.

Miraqariftsky

2017-06-24, 07:37 AM

This implies special forces, in which case the debrief situation is drastically different from, say, a regular soldier mouthing off to the major in front of the entire battalion.

As said above, context is the thing. Who is the soldier, what's the setting, who is the officer etc.?

Answering, then:

Situation in a nutshell: Genre of the campaign is military space opera. Most of the Solar System has been colonized. Human tech-level is still pre-FTL. Still split into myriad factions. A non-human invasion force drove into the heart of human space, but after a few years, bogged down due to unforeseen logistics problems. Bands of guerrillas strike from the shadows of the Asteroid Belt (artistic license invoked, made more dense.) while partisans hit and fade from the ruins of the Jovian colonies.

The protagonists are mecha pilots, Marines-equivalent (in space, in mecha). Despite the seemingly elite status, this was still their first op. First time a full, or close to full, unit could be assembled by their home ship. Some came from the Inner System, some came from the Outer System, some came from the Belt, some were simply refugees picked up who happened to have something extra. They are currently based in a dropship, going from canyon to canyon, asteroid to asteroid.

The "officer" is the ship's captain. Brief history on her: Young but hard. Survivor of one of the razed colonies. Lost both legs, had to be replaced with bionics. Scrabbled her way to boat command, even before her current set of prostheses were installed. Avid scavenger of salvage, knowing that resources are hard to come by.

It's also worth noting that just because all his shots hit doesn't mean he did well.

Interesting. Understood. Thank you. Because spec ops troopers need to understand more than just Tactics, they must have a grasp of their repercussions on Strategy and Logistics as well?

Thiel

2017-06-24, 07:46 AM

Interesting. Understood. Thank you. Because spec ops troopers need to understand more than just Tactics, they must have a grasp of their repercussions on Strategy and Logistics as well?

Being able to hit doesn't really indicate tactical skill. Knowing when and where to shoot does.
To make an extreme example, what if all the bullets hit civilians? Or maybe he started shooting and blew the groups cover. Or maybe he shot the guy you were trying to capture.

Kiero

2017-06-24, 09:20 AM

Vinyadan

2017-06-24, 01:14 PM

Anyone? What would be a mid-17th century (end of Thirty Years War) knife/dagger of choice? Did they still use rondels? Or would it be a main-gauche? Or something else?

I think that this is a weird situation. Yes, they would carry swords. People carried swords everywhere. They carried swords when in churches or cathedrals. They carried swords when they went for a walk. The richer, the cooler the hilt. I also don't think it was really a matter of how noble, more like how rich.

People of small earnings used knives. They used them as a weapon and as an ornament. People got married wearing knives, and, since the weapon was an ornament, they occasionally visited other people' home wearing them without harbouring bad intentions.

This was a very ostentatious age. You mostly carried a weapon for it to be seen. This wasn't just because it was a status symbol like a car or shoes, but because it had an intimidating function. You know, "Nemo me impune lacessit" and "Don't thread on me". You were supposed to be ferocious in the defence of your property, right, family, servants, and anything else that belonged to you and your honour.

Occasionally people went around overweaponed. These were mostly criminals and/or private militias of nobles and rich people. Sometimes, these carried both a knife and a sword (and maybe a pistol, too). This is because they were constantly looking for and stirring trouble. The existence of these guys, protected by lords, meant that applying weapon bans (assuming they existed, for example, within city walls) was a difficult thing to do.

This was an infantry knife (XVII century): http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1629 As you can see, it was large. All of the following are from the same century.
This is an English duelling dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1634
A Spanish one: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1635
A Venetian small dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17580
Dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17589
Small dagger from Brescia: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17595
Stiletto: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17603
Stiletto from Brescia: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17606
Centoventi: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17614 (a long dagger used by Venetian artillerymen to measure the calibre of guns).

Bonus:
A landsknecht knife from the XVI century: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=33624

Source: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Opere.asp?L=H

Spamotron

2017-06-24, 03:11 PM

Answering, then:

Situation in a nutshell: Genre of the campaign is military space opera. Most of the Solar System has been colonized. Human tech-level is still pre-FTL. Still split into myriad factions. A non-human invasion force drove into the heart of human space, but after a few years, bogged down due to unforeseen logistics problems. Bands of guerrillas strike from the shadows of the Asteroid Belt (artistic license invoked, made more dense.) while partisans hit and fade from the ruins of the Jovian colonies.

The protagonists are mecha pilots, Marines-equivalent (in space, in mecha). Despite the seemingly elite status, this was still their first op. First time a full, or close to full, unit could be assembled by their home ship. Some came from the Inner System, some came from the Outer System, some came from the Belt, some were simply refugees picked up who happened to have something extra. They are currently based in a dropship, going from canyon to canyon, asteroid to asteroid.

The "officer" is the ship's captain. Brief history on her: Young but hard. Survivor of one of the razed colonies. Lost both legs, had to be replaced with bionics. Scrabbled her way to boat command, even before her current set of prostheses were installed. Avid scavenger of salvage, knowing that resources are hard to come by.

Interesting. Understood. Thank you. Because spec ops troopers need to understand more than just Tactics, they must have a grasp of their repercussions on Strategy and Logistics as well?

It seems to me the real question you should be asking is what are this player's expectations for this game? From what I can tell you're planning a serious semi-realistic military game that just happens to be set in space fighting aliens with mechs. The player might be expecting are more movie or anime-esque game where the mouthy hot head with authority issues is an iconic archtype. For example Maverick in Top Gun is noted by real Navy Pilots as the kind of person who would have gotten washed out of basic pilot training in his first week for his antics but in the movie he's recruited to become one of the best of the best.

Clistenes

2017-06-24, 04:09 PM

I think that this is a weird situation. Yes, they would carry swords. People carried swords everywhere. They carried swords when in churches or cathedrals. They carried swords when they went for a walk. The richer, the cooler the hilt. I also don't think it was really a matter of how noble, more like how rich.

People of small earnings used knives. They used them as a weapon and as an ornament. People got married wearing knives, and, since the weapon was an ornament, they occasionally visited other people' home wearing them without harbouring bad intentions.

This was a very ostentatious age. You mostly carried a weapon for it to be seen. This wasn't just because it was a status symbol like a car or shoes, but because it had an intimidating function. You know, "Nemo me impune lacessit" and "Don't thread on me". You were supposed to be ferocious in the defence of your property, right, family, servants, and anything else that belonged to you and your honour.

Occasionally people went around overweaponed. These were mostly criminals and/or private militias of nobles and rich people. Sometimes, these carried both a knife and a sword (and maybe a pistol, too). This is because they were constantly looking for and stirring trouble. The existence of these guys, protected by lords, meant that applying weapon bans (assuming they existed, for example, within city walls) was a difficult thing to do.

This was an infantry knife (XVII century): http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1629 As you can see, it was large. All of the following are from the same century.
This is an English duelling dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1634
A Spanish one: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1635
A Venetian small dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1635
Dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17589
Small dagger from Brescia: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17595
Stiletto: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17595
Stiletto from Brescia: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17606
Centoventi: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17614 (a long dagger used by Venetian artillerymen to measure the calibre of guns).

Bonus:
A landsknecht knife from the XVI century: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=33624

Source: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Opere.asp?L=H

The use of swords was restricted to some social classes in some countries. In Spain, it was assumed that use of swords belonged to nobility or to those classes that were in the grey area between nobility and commoners (soldiers, bureocrats, magistrates, college graduates, doctors...etc.). "Familiares" (collaborators) of the Inquisition received the right to bear swords as a special privilege.

I know of at least a case of a minor local bureocrat or magistrate who petitioned for the right to bear a sword, but he found some difficulty because he has jew ancestry...

Of course, there were MANY people trying to pass for "hidalgos" (minor nobility) or for soldiers, and many more who just broke the laws. It was hard for the authorities to check if travellers had the right to bear weapons (the law defined "hidalgos" as "people who are considered of noble ancestry in their own homeland", which is vague enough...), so if you looked the part and were able to act like an hidalgo was expected to do, it probably was easy to pass. It was mostly locals who suffered those laws (if you were a local, the local authorites knew your social class and ancestry well enough...).

Kiero

2017-06-24, 05:20 PM

I think that this is a weird situation. Yes, they would carry swords. People carried swords everywhere. They carried swords when in churches or cathedrals. They carried swords when they went for a walk. The richer, the cooler the hilt. I also don't think it was really a matter of how noble, more like how rich.

People of small earnings used knives. They used them as a weapon and as an ornament. People got married wearing knives, and, since the weapon was an ornament, they occasionally visited other people' home wearing them without harbouring bad intentions.

This was a very ostentatious age. You mostly carried a weapon for it to be seen. This wasn't just because it was a status symbol like a car or shoes, but because it had an intimidating function. You know, "Nemo me impune lacessit" and "Don't thread on me". You were supposed to be ferocious in the defence of your property, right, family, servants, and anything else that belonged to you and your honour.

Occasionally people went around overweaponed. These were mostly criminals and/or private militias of nobles and rich people. Sometimes, these carried both a knife and a sword (and maybe a pistol, too). This is because they were constantly looking for and stirring trouble. The existence of these guys, protected by lords, meant that applying weapon bans (assuming they existed, for example, within city walls) was a difficult thing to do.

This was an infantry knife (XVII century): http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1629 As you can see, it was large. All of the following are from the same century.
This is an English duelling dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1634
A Spanish one: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=PP1635
A Venetian small dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17580
Dagger: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17589
Small dagger from Brescia: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17595
Stiletto: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17603
Stiletto from Brescia: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17606
Centoventi: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=17614 (a long dagger used by Venetian artillerymen to measure the calibre of guns).

Bonus:
A landsknecht knife from the XVI century: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Zoom.asp?Negativo=33624

Source: http://www.artito.arti.beniculturali.it:81/Armeria%20Reale/5PERCORSO/Opere.asp?L=H

The use of swords was restricted to some social classes in some countries. In Spain, it was assumed that use of swords belonged to nobility or to those classes that were in the grey area between nobility and commoners (soldiers, bureocrats, magistrates, college graduates, doctors...etc.). "Familiares" (collaborators) of the Inquisition received the right to bear swords as a special privilege.

I know of at least a case of a minor local bureocrat or magistrate who petitioned for the right to bear a sword, but he found some difficulty because he has jew ancestry...

Of course, there were MANY people trying to pass for "hidalgos" (minor nobility) or for soldiers, and many more who just broke the laws. It was hard for the authorities to check if travellers had the right to bear weapons (the law defined "hidalgos" as "people who are considered of noble ancestry in their own homeland", which is vague enough...), so if you looked the part and were able to act like an hidalgo was expected to do, it probably was easy to pass. It was mostly locals who suffered those laws (if you were a local, the local authorites knew your social class and ancestry well enough...).

The characters concerned here were dispossessed younger sons of Belgian nobility (specifically from the Duchy of Brabant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Brabant)) who made a living as mercenaries. It was in situations where they were unarmoured, and often doing courtly type stuff that they went without swords as well.

So in their homeland, they were nobles, though they were also outlaws. Wandering around war-torn Europe of the time, though, might make things trickier.

In essence, they only wear their swords when they're campaigning.

I wonder if it would be some sort of hunting knife?

Miraqariftsky

2017-06-25, 01:26 AM

It seems to me the real question you should be asking is what are this player's expectations for this game? From what I can tell you're planning a serious semi-realistic military game that just happens to be set in space fighting aliens with mechs. The player might be expecting are more movie or anime-esque game where the mouthy hot head with authority issues is an iconic archtype. For example Maverick in Top Gun is noted by real Navy Pilots as the kind of person who would have gotten washed out of basic pilot training in his first week for his antics but in the movie he's recruited to become one of the best of the best.

You understood correctly, yes. But with the addition of human pirates and other belligerent elements who can't find it in themselves to unite against a common foe.

Innnnnnteresting points, thank you for the insight. Alright, yeah. I'll take to the player regarding... expectations.

Indeed, as I'd surmised. Even from what little training I've had, seeing allegedly-professional military go off like that... well, wrankles. It's disrespect for the superiors, the unit and the service, as well as (if, assuming that the commander has decent insight and intel regarding the op, both before and after action) folly of not listening to feedback.

Again, thank you.

Storm Bringer

2017-06-25, 02:02 PM

Ahem. May I toss a question especially to the military folk here? (Sorry it's not explicitly an inquiry about weapons/armour/tactics.)

Units do debriefings after missions, yes? Suppose during the CO's review* of their operators' performance in the field, one of those troopers suddenly interrupts and says something along the lines of "All of my shots hit! Why am I getting lectured here?"

What are the most likely reactions of the CO to such interruption/lack of discipline/lack of respect? Tongue lashing? Corporal punishment? Brig time? Or something else?

*Is it reasonable to assume that such reviews in debriefings will cover: things that they did bad, things they did good, things that could be improved, consequences of their actions and the mission in the larger context of the conflict?

Thank you.

bit late to the party, but my 2cp:

as other saids, just because you hit every shot doesn't mean you cant improve. For example, you could have been out of position during a manoeuvre that left a squadmate exposed. Even if nothing bad happened because of it that time, it still needs to be noted because next time someone might get hurt next time ("if it's stupid and it works, your lucky and its still stupid"). Or that his targeting choices were perfect (he might have been concentrating on the wrong target or not putting enough fire towards the "right" targets, or put quickly 5 rounds into a armoured target that could have been better killed by one properly aimed shot, etc)

Also, the very attitude of "I did everything right, why are we talking about this?" is dangerous, because it implies a high level of arrogance and overconfidence, and a unwillingness to even consider the possibility that they can do better, or that they can make mistakes. its quite possible that while he did nothing wrong, that doesn't mean he couldn't have made some choices better (for example, used cover more effectively). some of these will be pedantic, but the point is to use the review to help the soldiers make better choices instinctively, by repeated examination and dissection of their choices, in a "slow time" environment with no time pressures so they can make "snap" judgements better.

third, even if he, personally, did not make any mistakes or make a suboptimal choice, that doesn't mean that no one made a sub-optimal choice. everyone can learn form everyones mistakes.

fourth, as a corollary to the third: modern post op debriefs are "360 degrees", in that everyone is entitled to a structured input into the performance of everyone else. while the CO may be leading the debrief and still gets the last word, that doesn't prevent those below him/her commenting on his choices form their own points of view (for example, if they understood his intent properly, or on the passage of information). If, as is stated, the unit has not done full scale op like this before, their are going to be literally dozens of minor things that didn't go as planned, and no single person is going to be aware of all of them. its only by collating all these ground-level views can you get a clear idea of the actual situation.

fifth. by being present at the debrief, the trooper can learn and understand how the op as a whole went, not just his own little battle. it might explain to him why (for example) the flanking attack was delayed, or why his extraction point changed at the last second. it gives him the situational awareness to properly understand what he saw and did, and lets him fill in others on what he saw and did so their battles make more sense.

As to how a CO would react to someone interrupting her to basically say "I don't need to here this, can I go now?". it really depends on how secure she is in her control over the unit, and how secure she feels in her control over the unit. while her initial reaction might be to want to throw the book at the trooper, she might not be able to without alienating her newly formed command form her ("all private smith did was speak his mind, and the Iron Witch hung him out to dry. no way am I busting my ass of for that tin pot dictator!").

conversely, while she may not be that bothered about it at a personal level, she may feel that she has to smack down the challenge to her authority and give him a punitive punishment to discourage others form following his lead.

as a immediate reaction, i would suggest she numerate all the reasons as to why he needs to be present for this "lecture", including any specific mistakes or sub optimal choices he made, followed by a polite but firm request to listen to the debrief and raise a hand next time he wants to add to the discussion in a constructive manner. following that, if he pipes up in a insubordinate manner again, then smack him with insubordination charges, because then, he clearly is trying to challenge her authority.

Indeed, as I'd surmised. Even from what little training I've had, seeing allegedly-professional military go off like that... well, wrankles. It's disrespect for the superiors, the unit and the service, as well as (if, assuming that the commander has decent insight and intel regarding the op, both before and after action) folly of not listening to feedback.

while his attitude might not be "professional", the unit you have described is not a regular professional unit, but more like a resistance or guerrilla cell, which have a different dynamic to regulars. the leaders of guerrillas tend towards a more personal than professional style of command, with a greater emphasis on personal charisma and ability, than on delegated authority and professional subordination. and troopers in such units often operate under looser discipline than a regular army unit, and may feel more at ease expressing their views.

Mr Beer

2017-06-25, 05:33 PM

In regular armies, you don't get to back-chat your CO in public, at least not regularly, you may get away with it once depending on the situation. Guerilla units may (or may not) allow more latitude but they probably also allow the CO more latitude for punishment as well e.g. "Private, the last man that spoke to me like that, the next time he opened his mouth it was in hard vacuum, I suggest you keep it shut, do you understand me?".

Depends on her approach to in-ship discipline really, at the very least she's going to have a friendly chat to tell him to keep his feedback useful.

EDIT

Some players intensely dislike feeling constrained by sensible social etiquette though and routinely have their characters behave in a manner which would get them imprisoned or executed if realistic consequences were applied. I suspect it's some kind of compensation issue.

Thiel

2017-06-26, 01:41 AM

Also, the very attitude of "I did everything right, why are we talking about this?" is dangerous, because it implies a high level of arrogance and overconfidence, and a unwillingness to even consider the possibility that they can do better, or that they can make mistakes.

So every player character ever basically.

Brother Oni

2017-06-26, 06:31 AM

Depends on her approach to in-ship discipline really, at the very least she's going to have a friendly chat to tell him to keep his feedback useful.

The other thing is, a navy Captain is NATO terms is an OF5, which is the equivalent to a Colonel in most other branches.

If they're that short staffed that the ship's Captain is running the debrief, the soldier needs a really good reason to be back-talking in an official debrief situation. This is not mentioning that the commander of a ship has pretty much the final say on anything that happens on her ship.

Storm Bringer

2017-06-26, 06:46 AM

The other thing is, a navy Captain is NATO terms is an OF5, which is the equivalent to a Colonel in most other branches.

If they're that short staffed that the ship's Captain is running the debrief, the soldier needs a really good reason to be back-talking in an official debrief situation. This is not mentioning that the commander of a ship has pretty much the final say on anything that happens on her ship.

bear in mind, in many naval traditions, the commander of a ship is always addressed as "Captain", even if he holds a lower rank. a dropship could well be a commander or Lt. commander, rather than a full Captain.

Brother Oni

2017-06-26, 07:37 AM

bear in mind, in many naval traditions, the commander of a ship is always addressed as "Captain", even if he holds a lower rank. a dropship could well be a commander or Lt. commander, rather than a full Captain.

True, although as I understand it, regardless of their actual rank, their word is still law on board their vessel.

As you mentioned earlier, this scenario isn't quite a 'full' professional unit, so discipline may be less lax (or more, if the captain is an insecure tinpot dictator desperate on proving herself as you've described).

Mike_G

2017-06-26, 07:38 AM

bear in mind, in many naval traditions, the commander of a ship is always addressed as "Captain", even if he holds a lower rank. a dropship could well be a commander or Lt. commander, rather than a full Captain.

Yeah that's weird.

If a Marine O3 is talking to a Navy O4 who is commanding the ship, and a Navy O6 enters the room, everybody is addressed as "Captain."

Carl

2017-06-26, 09:20 AM

Yeah that's weird.

If a Marine O3 is talking to a Navy O4 who is commanding the ship, and a Navy O6 enters the room, everybody is addressed as "Captain."

That must create some amusing situations :P.

Miraqariftsky

2017-06-26, 10:56 AM

Storm Bringer

2017-06-26, 03:05 PM

Yeah that's weird.

If a Marine O3 is talking to a Navy O4 who is commanding the ship, and a Navy O6 enters the room, everybody is addressed as "Captain."

well, see, the old English tradition was that their was only one captain on a ship, and that was the ships commanding officer. officers who were of the rank of captain (army or naval), who were not the ships commander, were given a "curtsey title" to the next rank up (IE, Major or Commadore), so that whenever someone was speaking about "the captain", their could be no confusion as to who was being referred to.

Also, a ships CO was only addressed as captain on his ship, and reverted to his normal rank title when off his boat.

in your above case, if it was the O4's ship, he would be the one addressed as captain, and the O6 would be Commadore X. if not, then the O6 would be, and the O4 would be Lt Cmdr (CO of HMS Example), the marine would be Major in either case

Kiero

2017-06-26, 06:29 PM

Brother Oni

2017-06-26, 06:58 PM

Could you still learn archery?

Yes, you would be able to still learn archery, but more as a hobby or light poaching than anything formalised and certainly not as a way of fighting. It wasn't until the 1780s that it properly took off again as a recreational sport for the upper classes.

Interestingly while looking around, I found reference to an impromptu militia armed with bows giving a good account of themselves against unarmoured musket men during a skirmish near Bridgnorth, in October 1642 during the English Civil War.

"Every man from 16 to 50 and upwards, gott himself into such armes as they could presently attaine, or could imagine be conduceable for the defence of the towne". "some companies of foote.. with their musketts... began to wade foarde, which being descried, we, with our bowes and arrows did so gaule them (being unarmed men) that with their utmost speed they did retreate".

wolflance

2017-06-26, 09:08 PM

Interestingly while looking around, I found reference to an impromptu militia armed with bows giving a good account of themselves against unarmoured musket men during a skirmish near Bridgnorth, in October 1642 during the English Civil War.
I won't be surprised that bow has the advantages over musket in a skirmish situation, due to its shooting rate, less sound, no smoke etc. But the account sounds a bit like a direct shoot-fest.

snowblizz

2017-06-27, 02:16 AM

That must create some amusing situations :P.

Especailly if they are named Oveur, Dunn and Unger.

Galloglaich

2017-06-27, 11:49 AM

What martial arts could feasibly be on offer in Restoration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_(England))-era London (circa 1660 if you want a specific year)? As in things you could either have already learned, or find someone to teach you.

I presume the usual mainstays like boxing (prizefighting), country wrestling, singlestick and quarterstaff would be available from the wider countryside? What about fencing, would the full spectrum of European styles (French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc) be available if you knew where to look (were there a number of fencing salons around?)? Could you still learn archery?

How and in what would soldiers, whether veterans of the Civil Wars, or those coming across with King James be trained?

What about more exotic stuff like zipota or savate - I don't think the latter exists in a form we might recognise that early, but there might be sailors around with the proto-kickboxing skills involved.

In London you had the officially sanctioned and chartered English martial arts instructors, a sort of a guild called the London Masters of Defense, who taught basically the martial arts systems of Europe, fencing (including long / two handed sword, sword and buckler, the backsword or broadsword, and rapier), grappling (kind of similar to jujitsu) and staff, bill, dagger and other weapons.

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

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

Savate is from a much later era, but the martial arts of the day included kicks and 'murder strikes'.

In addition to the local martial arts "company", you also had a variety of foreign fencing masters, who also taught various forms of grappling and unarmed combat as well (though the latter was considered somewhat disreputable). Most of these guys were Italian, though there were also sometimes German, Flemish, or even Spanish fencers around.

The 16th Century English fencing master and fight-book author George Silver used to rail against the Italian fencing masters in particular who he felt taught people how to stab somebody with a rapier but not adequately how to defend themselves. In other words he felt that some of these Italians of his day like Rocco Bonetti, Jeronimo and Vincentio Saviolo and Giacomo Di Grassi were effectively making fools of a lot of young English nobles, soldiers, courtiers and burghers, taking their money and teaching them bad fencing with the rapier which he thought wasn't a good weapon- Silver thought they were getting a lot of young men killed in pointless and unskilled dueling. However like the English Masters of defense the Italian masters taught how to fight with a variety of weapons, as well as unarmed, not just the rapier.

Overall, if you had time, money and sufficient connections, you could find very good martial arts instruction in England equivalent in lethality and sophistication to anything in the Far East. But in the second half of the 17th Century there might be more legal restrictions or political control over martial arts training than in previous eras. Like as in, if the King or some powerful Lord didn't want you to know how to fight, it might be hard to arrange it - the general trend was for fewer of the population to be armed or able to get away with fighting.

Finally on the opposite end of society, you could also find prize-players and prize fighters, many of whom were experienced military veterans, who you could hire to teach you more or less the same kind of continental martial arts systems plus whatever dirty fighting tricks they had learned. This would be more of a clandestine or shady type scenario though.

G

Galloglaich

2017-06-27, 11:55 AM

It seems it might have been better if I had waited a little bit longer and seen these newest pieces of insight and feedback. Again, appreciated, sirs. Ah, well.

From the previous sally, I talked with the player OOC. The player revised after having been made aware of how much insubordination his character was getting up to. When tones and expectations were discussed, he said he prefers (for example, Black Hawk Down over Top Gun). Yet still says that there WILL be a time when he'll be making the insubordination more blatant. Players and their fun, eh?

If you are an enlisted soldier in the US military mouthing off to an officer, especially an O-3 or higher, is pretty much a guaranteed article 15 or worse. A field grade officer (O-4 or higher, Major in the Army) can send you to 45 days in the stockade basically on a whim, so you tend to tread lightly around these guys. Even slouching is risky - you stand at attention until they say "at ease".

Of course individual personalities of different officers vary a lot and military commanders tend to be more strict about this than in some of the technical fields, but generally speaking flipping out on an officer is a good way to end up in handcuffs PDQ. And if an NCO like a 1st Sergeant sees you acting flip with an officer that might be even worse.

G

Kiero

2017-06-27, 12:32 PM

In London you had the officially sanctioned and chartered English martial arts instructors, a sort of a guild called the London Masters of Defense, who taught basically the martial arts systems of Europe, fencing (including long / two handed sword, sword and buckler, the backsword or broadsword, and rapier), grappling (kind of similar to jujitsu) and staff, bill, dagger and other weapons.

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

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

Savate is from a much later era, but the martial arts of the day included kicks and 'murder strikes'.

In addition to the local martial arts "company", you also had a variety of foreign fencing masters, who also taught various forms of grappling and unarmed combat as well (though the latter was considered somewhat disreputable). Most of these guys were Italian, though there were also sometimes German, Flemish, or even Spanish fencers around.

The 16th Century English fencing master and fight-book author George Silver used to rail against the Italian fencing masters in particular who he felt taught people how to stab somebody with a rapier but not adequately how to defend themselves. In other words he felt that some of these Italians of his day like Rocco Bonetti, Jeronimo and Vincentio Saviolo and Giacomo Di Grassi were effectively making fools of a lot of young English nobles, soldiers, courtiers and burghers, taking their money and teaching them bad fencing with the rapier which he thought wasn't a good weapon- Silver thought they were getting a lot of young men killed in pointless and unskilled dueling. However like the English Masters of defense the Italian masters taught how to fight with a variety of weapons, as well as unarmed, not just the rapier.

Overall, if you had time, money and sufficient connections, you could find very good martial arts instruction in England equivalent in lethality and sophistication to anything in the Far East. But in the second half of the 17th Century there might be more legal restrictions or political control over martial arts training than in previous eras. Like as in, if the King or some powerful Lord didn't want you to know how to fight, it might be hard to arrange it - the general trend was for fewer of the population to be armed or able to get away with fighting.

Finally on the opposite end of society, you could also find prize-players and prize fighters, many of whom were experienced military veterans, who you could hire to teach you more or less the same kind of continental martial arts systems plus whatever dirty fighting tricks they had learned. This would be more of a clandestine or shady type scenario though.

G

Thanks for those, that's helpful.

Wikipedia seems to suggest the Company of Masters fizzled out after the Tudor period, are they likely to have still been active after the English Civil War?

On your second point, I do wonder how much the Interregnum stifled or otherwise constrained some of the foreign influences that might be around. Cromwell and his fellow travellers were a pretty dour, joyless bunch in the main who disapproved of pretty much everything, though I don't know if violence got a pass.

They passed an ordinance against duelling in 1654: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp937-939

Not that I necessarily expect a mere law to stop what was a common practise, no matter the penalties. But it speaks to their mindset.

Or indeed whether London was still a major port city and window onto the rest of Europe that even a decade or so of borderline theocratic rule couldn't change the volume of people coming through and influencing it.

Random Sanity

2017-06-27, 04:14 PM

Yeah that's weird.

If a Marine O3 is talking to a Navy O4 who is commanding the ship, and a Navy O6 enters the room, everybody is addressed as "Captain."

That sounds like the setup for a Marx Brothers skit.

snowblizz

2017-06-28, 03:57 AM

Or indeed whether London was still a major port city and window onto the rest of Europe that even a decade or so of borderline theocratic rule couldn't change the volume of people coming through and influencing it.

London was and remain the most important city since like Roman times in Britain. I think you are overdoing the "puritanical nutjobs" angle a bit. Cromwell was deeply in bed with Louis the XIV during this time and 3 major commercial/naval wars were fought with the Dutch during the Protectorate and after Restoration until the Glorious Revolution (for obvious reasons) cemented a Anglo-Dutch understanding (and a couple even later finally asserting Britain as pre-eminent naval power).

Storm_Of_Snow

2017-06-28, 09:51 AM

London was and remain the most important city since like Roman times in Britain. I think you are overdoing the "puritanical nutjobs" angle a bit. Cromwell was deeply in bed with Louis the XIV during this time and 3 major commercial/naval wars were fought with the Dutch during the Protectorate and after Restoration until the Glorious Revolution (for obvious reasons) cemented a Anglo-Dutch understanding (and a couple even later finally asserting Britain as pre-eminent naval power).
Well, until containerisation (requiring deep water ports with large docks), refrigerated lorries and the expansion of the motorway network in the 1950s allowing goods to be unloaded at a distance and moved quickly to the city without spoiling, London's still a major port simply because of the need to get fresh food into the city (even though there's still wartime damage in places, which is not really fixed until the mid-late 80s and the gentrification of the Docklands area).

And I guess if you count Heathrow, Gatwick and the other airports, it's still technically a port city - the mostly short-haul London City airport's built in the docklands. Plus Brussels and Paris (and then the rest of the European rail network) with the Eurostar.

Fach

2017-06-28, 12:27 PM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

Kiero

2017-06-28, 01:10 PM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

Apparently, one of the tricks the migrating Celts who killed the Makedonian king Ptolemy Kervanos used was to roll under the pikes. No idea if that's true or one of those bizarre things ancient historians took as gospel when writing about events.

Vitruviansquid

2017-06-28, 02:46 PM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

A "mob" of anything, by definition can only fight with a frontal charge, and is also far weaker at doing so than a disciplined formation, no?

But apparently, phalanxes were very weak against skirmishers armed with missile weapons and being outflanked by cavalry.

As I understand about tercios, they were defeated by different formations and the adoption of more sophisticated weapons, neither of which I would say are particularly "barbaric"

Storm Bringer

2017-06-28, 03:27 PM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

hit and run.

a formed body like a phalanx can pretty much roll over anything it can get to grips with, but it can only move and manoeuvre so fast and still keep cohesion, which means a looser formation can hold back, throw spears/slingshots/etc for as long as they have ammo and space to fall back in. normally, the preferred method is to retreat into broken terrain that prevents the phalanx form fighting in tight formation, then using the gaps formed by the difficult terrain to get within swords reach, where the pikemen are at a disadvantage.

this works fine, so long as the pikemen cant pin you against something you simply must defend, like your village.

Vinyadan

2017-06-28, 03:46 PM

I get the impression that phalanx may be used for pike formation here, but of course I am not sure.
Pikes had troubles against fully armoured footmen armed with sword and shield (men at arms), which isn't very barbaric, but also against less armoured fighters with "claymores", which could cut or break the pikes (landsknecht). These guys however often cooperated with other pikemen.

Concerning the phalanx of ancient times: there are a few instances recorded in which it was defeated by a different kind of formation. If the phalanx had no way to reach a ranged opponent, it was done for. Sphakteria is the typical example. Cavalry and encirclement have already been named.
The Macedon phalanx, which was built around pikes and whose use supposed mixed unit tactics (so you were supposed not to send the phalanx alone, covering it instead with skirmishers, horsemen, and, if needed, a siege train), was considered invincible as long as the ground was even (literally, not metaphorically). The Romans defeated the last king of Macedon when his men advanced onto hilly terrain; which was an incredible blunder on his side, while his horsemen were on strike against him and left the phalanx alone.
Another important defeat was the destruction of Alexander's army in Sogdian, but I can't find details about it (you can search Pharnuches, maybe you'll find more).

Mike_G

2017-06-28, 05:57 PM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

Be slippery.

Hit and run, attack from one direction and then send men to sweep around the flanks, lure them into broken ground.

Skirmishers with bows or javelins, especially mounted ones could just harass the formation and goad it into charging, then have men hit the flanks. Lure them into an ambush.

A mob loses a straight up fight on level ground to a formation. The trick is to make them fight where they don't have an advantage.

Or just don't meet them in a pitched battle. Hit their supply trains, ambush them on the march, pick off sentries and patrols. Plenty of poorly armed and organized rebels have made life hell for regular armies. Just don't try to meet a solid formation with a mob in a fair fight.

Fair fights are for suckers.

Martin Greywolf

2017-06-29, 01:56 AM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

Pretty much what Mike_g said, but here's a caveat.

You can't have huge barbarian hordes as portrayed in most movies by definition. Gathering more than about a thousand troops into one army and then moving them anywhere is a feat that is not possible without good organization. Pre-modern armies were, most of the time, capped at about 30k soldiers per side per battle, with some exception reaching maybe as high as 100k (although at that point, the army had to be spread out over a significant amount of land).

Barbarian hordes in history are usually mentioned with fall of Western Rome, but these folks were actually pretty organized in a sense. They didn't have all the tactical drills the Romans had, but they were quite capable of marching in simple formation and forming a shield wall - it was maniple swap and similar things that were a bit beyond heir reach.

Kiero

2017-06-29, 03:21 AM

Concerning the phalanx of ancient times: there are a few instances recorded in which it was defeated by a different kind of formation. If the phalanx had no way to reach a ranged opponent, it was done for. Sphakteria is the typical example. Cavalry and encirclement have already been named.

Sphacteria involved Spartan hoplites, who were spearmen, not pikemen. The Athenians also massively outnumbered them, having deployed the oarsmen of their fleet as skirmishers.

The Macedon phalanx, which was built around pikes and whose use supposed mixed unit tactics (so you were supposed not to send the phalanx alone, covering it instead with skirmishers, horsemen, and, if needed, a siege train), was considered invincible as long as the ground was even (literally, not metaphorically). The Romans defeated the last king of Macedon when his men advanced onto hilly terrain; which was an incredible blunder on his side, while his horsemen were on strike against him and left the phalanx alone.
Another important defeat was the destruction of Alexander's army in Sogdian, but I can't find details about it (you can search Pharnuches, maybe you'll find more).

The Battle of Jaxartes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes) has a rather suspicious write-up where it's pitched as a Makedonian victory. Yet only a tithe of the Skythian force is killed or captured, and Alexander never advances any further into their territory.

There Alexander's phalanx came up against steppe horsemen.

BayardSPSR

2017-06-29, 04:41 PM

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-06-29, 04:52 PM

Question on naval architecture: can modern aircraft carriers launch and recover aircraft simultaneously? Does the answer differ depending on the layout of the flight deck, and whether the aircraft in question are VTOL-capable?

Yes, that's what angled flight decks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck#Angled_flight_deck) do. If you see those on a ship, it can do this. I'm not sure if they actually take of and land at exactly the same time (I'm sure someone else does), but they can definitely drag a plane into takeoff position while someone else is landing and get a plane off the landing lane while someone else is taking off, which would save about the same amount of time as performing these manoeuvres exactly simultaneous.

KarlMarx

2017-06-29, 08:22 PM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

Each situation presents a different challenge, and might require different approaches

The approaches discussed above should all work in principle against a phalanx, depending on the specific makeup of the 'mob'. A good battle to study might be the Teutoburg Forest, which although it did not involve pikemen nonetheless featured a similar strategic campaign of a barbarian 'mob' against a disciplined, formation-based Roman force.

A tercio might require more finesse, however. As it is surrounded by crossbowmen/arquebusiers/musketeers skirmishing may not be a good idea. Gustavus Adolphus, the general who broke the Tercio, ultimately resorted to mobile artillery and massed musketmen in a disciplined formation--definitely not a barbaric mob. At a technology and discipline disadvantage, the best idea is to use the terrain against the formation. Tactically, use hit-and-run attacks (coupled, if possible, with numeric advantage) to draw the tercio into unfavorable terrain, ideally where it cannot maneuver, and then hit it hard with the strongest infantry available. Strategically, resort to guerrilla warfare, cutting supply lines and striking when a disciplined formation cannot/is not maintained.

Mendicant

2017-06-29, 09:52 PM

Is there any history of amphibious vehicles prior to the 20th century, in a civilian or military context? I grew up thinking Conestogas could float but apparently that isn't really true.

Carlobrand

2017-06-29, 11:02 PM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

Don't fight them when they're in formation. Hit them while they're on the march, set up ambushes, avoid a set piece battle and instead hit undefended targets. Worked well for the natives during the French and Indian war and for Washington in the American Revolution. The only problem really is convincing a mob of barbarians that avoiding battle is an honorable strategy.

Berenger

2017-06-30, 01:40 AM

Is there any history of amphibious vehicles prior to the 20th century, in a civilian or military context? I grew up thinking Conestogas could float but apparently that isn't really true.

Wikipedia lists alligator boats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_boat) as amphibious vehicles. I think that's a bit of a stretch, because the only thing distinguishing them from a regular boat pulled overland is the fact that the cable winch is fixed to the prow. But technically it moves across land under its own power.

If the point is of any interest to you, there are several examples of non-amphibious watercrafts being transported over stretches of land for civilian and military purposes.

Kiero

2017-06-30, 03:16 AM

Don't fight them when they're in formation. Hit them while they're on the march, set up ambushes, avoid a set piece battle and instead hit undefended targets. Worked well for the natives during the French and Indian war and for Washington in the American Revolution. The only problem really is convincing a mob of barbarians that avoiding battle is an honorable strategy.

Many "barbarians" were raiders, so I don't think notions of honour are much of a consideration. They'd understand the value of hit and run attacks, ambushes and so on very well.

VoxRationis

2017-06-30, 07:26 PM

In terms of sword use: how related are the techniques and training for different types of swords? Would the skills associated with rapier carry over to a side-sword? An arming sword? A long dagger?

Jay R

2017-06-30, 08:32 PM

Don't fight them when they're in formation. Hit them while they're on the march, set up ambushes, avoid a set piece battle and instead hit undefended targets. Worked well for the natives during the French and Indian war and for Washington in the American Revolution. The only problem really is convincing a mob of barbarians that avoiding battle is an honorable strategy.

Don't sell it to them as avoiding battle. Describe it as not waiting for battle. Jump right in and fight before the other side gets to the battlefield.

Jay R

2017-06-30, 08:41 PM

In terms of sword use: how related are the techniques and training for different types of swords? Would the skills associated with rapier carry over to a side-sword? An arming sword? A long dagger?

There is a lot of overlap, but also a lot of things that are done differently. I'm currently training a top-level SCA sword-and-shield fighter how to use a rapier. And I use a lot of his current training to do it. For instance, I taught Di Grassi's broad ward by saying it's like an inside edge, only hitting with the point instead of the edge.

Note also that I find fighting with a shield very different from fighting without one, and at first I was able to use my rapier skills much more effectively with a two-handed sword than with a broadsword and shield. Crucial issues of (for instance) fort and foible apply directly if you are blocking or parrying with your sword, but are much less important when blocking with your shield. But side-sword with no shield, or with a buckler, is at least 70% rapier technique.

So it really depends on how the warrior was taught. If he or she was only taught specific moves, then they need to be re-learned. But if the training was about principles, then the lessons apply directly, but lead to different moves.

BayardSPSR

2017-06-30, 10:33 PM

Don't sell it to them as avoiding battle. Describe it as not waiting for battle. Jump right in and fight before the other side gets to the battlefield.

Why fight once when you could fight many times?

VoxRationis

2017-07-01, 01:22 PM

There is a lot of overlap, but also a lot of things that are done differently. I'm currently training a top-level SCA sword-and-shield fighter how to use a rapier. And I use a lot of his current training to do it. For instance, I taught Di Grassi's broad ward by saying it's like an inside edge, only hitting with the point instead of the edge.

Note also that I find fighting with a shield very different from fighting without one, and at first I was able to use my rapier skills much more effectively with a two-handed sword than with a broadsword and shield. Crucial issues of (for instance) fort and foible apply directly if you are blocking or parrying with your sword, but are much less important when blocking with your shield. But side-sword with no shield, or with a buckler, is at least 70% rapier technique.

So it really depends on how the warrior was taught. If he or she was only taught specific moves, then they need to be re-learned. But if the training was about principles, then the lessons apply directly, but lead to different moves.

Interesting. And how does one use a two-handed sword? Mostly for thrusting as well?

Jay R

2017-07-01, 03:10 PM

Interesting. And how does one use a two-handed sword? Mostly for thrusting as well?

I usually open with a thrust, as Di Grassi suggests, but once he parries and I can get past his tip, it's all edgework until we get further away again.

Using my forte on his foible lets me control his 2-hander very well, and they don't usually know why they can't overpower the short guy.

The angles and distance are very different, but many of the principles are the same.

rrgg

2017-07-01, 03:30 PM

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

The main issue is that if it really is a large, undisciplined "mob" then hit and run tactics on almost any decent scale are going to be extremely risky. It is very difficult to get large numbers of men to move or turn around on a dime and it is far too easy for a feigned rout to become a real one.

You might be able to get away with avoiding direct conflict and harassing with small numbers of troops at a time, in which case it would depend on the skill of your skirmishers vs the arquebusiers/halberdiers of the later pike squares or vs the hypaspists/peltasts of the a Macedonian army. Alternatively you could try digging in your whole army behind deep ditches and earthworks then hope for the best.

Mike_G

2017-07-01, 05:20 PM

The main issue is that if it really is a large, undisciplined "mob" then hit and run tactics on almost any decent scale are going to be extremely risky. It is very difficult to get large numbers of men to move or turn around on a dime and it is far too easy for a feigned rout to become a real one.

You might be able to get away with avoiding direct conflict and harassing with small numbers of troops at a time, in which case it would depend on the skill of your skirmishers vs the arquebusiers/halberdiers of the later pike squares or vs the hypaspists/peltasts of the a Macedonian army. Alternatively you could try digging in your whole army behind deep ditches and earthworks then hope for the best.

It can work if your barbarians are hunters/nomads and are used to stalking and ambushing prey. Command could be very decentralized, small groups of men who individually do hit and run stuff. The plains Indians did this well again the US Army without a lot of careful coordination and drill. And at King's Mountain in the American Revolution a bunch of militia pretty much surrounded a much more professional force of Loyalists and more or less shot at them from cover until they charged, ran away from the charge and melted into the woods while men on the flanks and rear kept sniping, then returned to harassing once the regulars charge ran out of steam and they moved back into a formation.

A bunch of individuals can generally outrun a formation if all they want to do is stay away. If they get caught they're in trouble, and getting them to stop is hard, but if their friends who aren't being charged hit the regulars from the flank and rear, they have time to get turned around and head back to the fight.

Jay R

2017-07-02, 10:08 AM

Yup. From the point of view of good, woodscrafty archers or musketmen hiding in their own woods, a formation in the open is a target gallery.

["... in their own woods" is crucial. They need to know where to go to reform after scattering, where the road the formation is following leads, and where the forest cover ends.]

Tobtor

2017-07-02, 10:33 AM

Pretty much what Mike_g said, but here's a caveat.

You can't have huge barbarian hordes as portrayed in most movies by definition. Gathering more than about a thousand troops into one army and then moving them anywhere is a feat that is not possible without good organization. Pre-modern armies were, most of the time, capped at about 30k soldiers per side per battle, with some exception reaching maybe as high as 100k (although at that point, the army had to be spread out over a significant amount of land).

Barbarian hordes in history are usually mentioned with fall of Western Rome, but these folks were actually pretty organized in a sense. They didn't have all the tactical drills the Romans had, but they were quite capable of marching in simple formation and forming a shield wall - it was maniple swap and similar things that were a bit beyond heir reach.

It seems many of the posters after this important post by Martin are ignoring it. They keep talking about unorganised barbarian mobs as if it was something that existed.

What kind of strategy could/would a mob of barbarians not fighting in formation use against a disciplined unit fighting in phalanx or tercio formation?

Simple: they wouldn't. They would form formations. "Barbarians" didn't fight out of formation. As Martin said they might not use the same formation as romans or greeks, but the disorganised "mob" wasn't really a thing (at least not the way "barbarians" prefered to fight - any army can be reduced to a mob if the commanders fail to keep cohesion).

Barbarians from ancient to early medieval Europe formed formation, they fought tactical (the "pretend to flee to draw out the enemy was common), they built permanent military forts, dikes, walls. They built temporary positions before battles/on the march. The understod various encircling tactic, they raided enemy surplylines, forcing the enemy into pursuit, they did hit and run, but also straight up attacks, breaking enemy formations.

Many "barbarians" were raiders, so I don't think notions of honour are much of a consideration. They'd understand the value of hit and run attacks, ambushes and so on very well.

I agree. Well except that they of course have notions of honour, just that most cultures (whether "barbarian" or "civilized") did not have stupid concept of honour that required them to die in suicide attacks (it existed for sure, but as exception, not the rule). Raiding have nothing to due with lack of honour.

As far as we can tell honour was very important in "barbarbarian" areas, whether Scythian or Celtic (or anything else). This does at times give good morale and people who if they so choose can do incredible brave things like pushing through an enemy formation. But of course they would only do so if they expected to win, otherwise different tactics would be used.

Mike_G

2017-07-02, 11:42 AM

It seems many of the posters after this important post by Martin are ignoring it. They keep talking about unorganised barbarian mobs as if it was something that existed.

Simple: they wouldn't. They would form formations. "Barbarians" didn't fight out of formation. As Martin said they might not use the same formation as romans or greeks, but the disorganised "mob" wasn't really a thing (at least not the way "barbarians" prefered to fight - any army can be reduced to a mob if the commanders fail to keep cohesion).

Barbarians from ancient to early medieval Europe formed formation, they fought tactical (the "pretend to flee to draw out the enemy was common), they built permanent military forts, dikes, walls. They built temporary positions before battles/on the march. The understod various encircling tactic, they raided enemy surplylines, forcing the enemy into pursuit, they did hit and run, but also straight up attacks, breaking enemy formations.

I disagree. I think the disorganized mob did exist.

We're talking a huge span of time and geography, and a broad definition of "barbarian," but there were many battles where "civilized" troops fought a "barbarian" culture that had a structured military tradition, but also a few where they didn't, or had a martial tradition of raids or small scale clan warfare, or widely decentralized command.

There's a huge difference between the Zulu regiments and Crazy Horse's warriors at Little Bighorn. Both managed top defeat modern, "civilized" armies with better technology, and the battles are only a few years apart, so they are a nice point for comparison.

American Indians did not fight in formation. They fought as individuals and small groups, and a leader would have control of just a few men near him. the overall strategy of "every man get close, shoot from cover until the enemy breaks, disengage when pressed, press when they retreat or break" are more or less mob tactics. they can work in the right circumstances, but they aren't organized tactics, and don't rely on coordination between groups. They couldn't really train with regimental tactics, because they were a group of diverse bands that happened to be together for that battle.

Contrast that with the Zulu who used regimental tactics with formations and tactical reserve and coordination between units. They weren't a mob, they weren't a raiding party or warband, they were an army with antiquated technology.

And again, not many people would call the Colonial militia "barbarians" but they did fight a few battles where they didn't form up but harassed and retreated, lather, rinse, repeat. It wasn't every battle like the myth or wily woodsmen sharpshooting the redcoats, but King's Mountain, or Concord Road. Bennington and Trenton were uses of sneakiness much like a barbarian raiding party would do.

Vinyadan

2017-07-02, 11:49 AM

Machiavelli actually said that you needed to march in such a formation, that the peasants in the countryside would be too intimidated to mob you and try to steal your stuff or slaughter your men. Not exactly barbarians, but still a thing that apparently happened.

rrgg

2017-07-02, 12:26 PM

It can work if your barbarians are hunters/nomads and are used to stalking and ambushing prey. Command could be very decentralized, small groups of men who individually do hit and run stuff. The plains Indians did this well again the US Army without a lot of careful coordination and drill. And at King's Mountain in the American Revolution a bunch of militia pretty much surrounded a much more professional force of Loyalists and more or less shot at them from cover until they charged, ran away from the charge and melted into the woods while men on the flanks and rear kept sniping, then returned to harassing once the regulars charge ran out of steam and they moved back into a formation.

A bunch of individuals can generally outrun a formation if all they want to do is stay away. If they get caught they're in trouble, and getting them to stop is hard, but if their friends who aren't being charged hit the regulars from the flank and rear, they have time to get turned around and head back to the fight.

That generally involved smaller scale engagements though, which is my point, an army numbering in the hundreds tends to behave very differently compared to an army numbering in the tens of thousands. There are plenty of examples where armies with large numbers of light infantry or light cavalry, who theoretically should have no trouble keeping at a distance, have wound up decisively defeated.

Quoting La Noue: "It is as if a man should say, that because in the field one harquebuzier may kill a pike man armed with his corcelet, it followeth that in pitcht fieldes the harquebuziers should ouerthrow the battailes [large squares] of pikes: which neuerthelesse falleth out cōtrarie, for it is certaine that for the most part those battailes do giue the victorie."

Whether the fighting takes place in an open field or in woods also makes a difference. However coordinating 10,000 men in dense woods is very difficult.

Mike_G

2017-07-02, 12:45 PM

That generally involved smaller scale engagements though, which is my point, an army numbering in the hundreds tends to behave very differently compared to an army numbering in the tens of thousands. There are plenty of examples where armies with large numbers of light infantry or light cavalry, who theoretically should have no trouble keeping at a distance, have wound up decisively defeated.

Quoting La Noue: "It is as if a man should say, that because in the field one harquebuzier may kill a pike man armed with his corcelet, it followeth that in pitcht fieldes the harquebuziers should ouerthrow the battailes [large squares] of pikes: which neuerthelesse falleth out cōtrarie, for it is certaine that for the most part those battailes do giue the victorie."

Whether the fighting takes place in an open field or in woods also makes a difference. However coordinating 10,000 men in dense woods is very difficult.

At Little Bighorn about a thousand Indians defeated 600 soldiers and killed about half of them. At King's Mountain 900 militia beat 1100 Loyalist more or less regulars, and wiped out the unit, killing 300 and capturing the rest for the loss of less than 100 killed and wounded. On the retreat from Concord, the 1500 British were subjected to a rolling ambush by up to 3000 Patriots who hit them over time in small bands, killing 75 and wounding another 175 plus 50 missing. Braddock and 1300 men got stomped at the Monogahela by 600 Indians. The Teutoberg forest battle claimed the lives of 16 thousand or so Romans.

These aren't small encounters. They all involved less organized not professional troops beating more professional troops badly. They all did involve small unit, hit and run tactics where the irregulars used terrain and avoided counterattacks by then regulars.

BayardSPSR

2017-07-02, 03:29 PM

Vinyadan

2017-07-02, 03:44 PM

cōtrarie
This is the first time I see the line for nasal (n) abbreviation used in a modern forum. What a strange feeling...

rrgg

2017-07-02, 07:50 PM

At Little Bighorn about a thousand Indians defeated 600 soldiers and killed about half of them. At King's Mountain 900 militia beat 1100 Loyalist more or less regulars, and wiped out the unit, killing 300 and capturing the rest for the loss of less than 100 killed and wounded. On the retreat from Concord, the 1500 British were subjected to a rolling ambush by up to 3000 Patriots who hit them over time in small bands, killing 75 and wounding another 175 plus 50 missing. Braddock and 1300 men got stomped at the Monogahela by 600 Indians. The Teutoberg forest battle claimed the lives of 16 thousand or so Romans.

These aren't small encounters. They all involved less organized not professional troops beating more professional troops badly. They all did involve small unit, hit and run tactics where the irregulars used terrain and avoided counterattacks by then regulars.

I think your making some assumptions about the discipline and organization of each side for most of those. At King's mountain the battle was largely militia vs militia. At teutoburg forest it was the Romans who were primarily on the defensive/doing the retreating, the Germans there were certainly not shying away from hand-to-hand combat.

Although this sort of gets to the main point that uniforms and formations aren't really the best predictor of quality and motivation. An inexperienced and poorly trained pike square may be easily overthrown. Conversely, the Genghis khan's army despite often being seen as a "horde" had extremely good training and discipline.

This is the first time I see the line for nasal (n) abbreviation used in a modern forum. What a strange feeling...

Well, it was originally written in the 16th century. I just copy-pasted from an online transcript.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05074.0001.001?view=toc

Mike_G

2017-07-02, 10:25 PM

I think your making some assumptions about the discipline and organization of each side for most of those. At King's mountain the battle was largely militia vs militia. At teutoburg forest it was the Romans who were primarily on the defensive/doing the retreating, the Germans there were certainly not shying away from hand-to-hand combat.

Although this sort of gets to the main point that uniforms and formations aren't really the best predictor of quality and motivation. An inexperienced and poorly trained pike square may be easily overthrown. Conversely, the Genghis khan's army despite often being seen as a "horde" had extremely good training and discipline.

I have to disagree a bit.

In none of the example I cited were the victors carefully coordinated or commanded--at all, really, once combat started. Yes, King's Mountain was militia versus militia, but the Loyalists fought formed up and made bayonet charges against the rebels who really did snipe from cover and run away from contact only to filter back and harass after the charges petered out.

As far as Teutoberg, retreat or attack isn't the point, the point is the Germans hit the Romans before they could form up and didn't let them fight the battle they were trained for. I highly doubt the Germans were carefully commanded other than surpirse and telling the warriors "Go get 'em."

At the Monagahela, the French commander was killed in the opening minutes, so there was no command at the high levels, just Indians fighting the best way they knew, which worked brilliantly. Braddock could hardly have done worse if he'd ordered all his men to shoot themselves the morning before battle. The British had a huge numerical advantage, took out the enemy command very early and still lost ten men for every Indian they killed and were routed.

The Patriots at Concord had no unified command, and most weren't even there at the beginning of the battle. Militia companies just kept moving to the fight, engaging the British column and breaking away from contact when they were pressed, only to filter back.

The words 'barbarian" and "mob" are pretty loaded, but I think in all these fights, irregular forces with no real command and control after the battle started just used individual small unit tactics to rout a force of professionals. Admittedly in favorable terrain, but that's kinda the whole point. I don't think any of these battles could have been won on an open field, as a set piece battle.

PersonMan

2017-07-05, 10:11 AM

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-07-05, 10:32 AM

Most of this question is going way outside my knowledge a bit, but one big aspect of it I think is that fortifications, especially temporary ones, are adapted to their function. For instance: in modern day mission camps in the Middle East they sometimes (often?) have a "bomb shelter" consisting of a single big pillar filled with sand sacks. If someone starts firing rockets at the camp all the personnel that is on base but not part of fighting off the rocket guys sits on the far side of the pillar, and that keeps them safe. If you were expecting attacks from multiple sides at ones or from straight above you would not design your shelter like that. So a large part of the question is going to be "what was the position fortified against and how is it actually being attacked?" Can we assume that both the veterans and the greenies had the same orders, the same info etc, or were the veterans building an actual full on wartime fortified position while the new guys are surprised in a shoddily build basecamp?

Storm Bringer

2017-07-05, 11:51 AM

Question: In a modern context (albeit with limited resources; so not too much in the way of heavy weaponry/armored vehicles), what would the main differences be between a position fortified by a well-trained, disciplined, veteran force during wartime and one set up by a less disciplined, green force before hostilities break out?

And what sort of problems would crop up in the defense (beyond the immediate 'men not at their posts' one) if the latter camp is hit by a surprise attack that begins a war?

first off would be the siting of the defensive positions. a green force might pick "bad" sites to try and defend*, or a few "good" sites that are too far apart to support each other (a classic "rookie" mistake, stemming form a lack of "bigger picture" thinking). a good defense is built around mutually supporting positions that cover each other, which often means that some troops are going to have to hold "poor" or middling positons that cover blind spots in the good ones.

about the positons themselves, a classic sign of ill-discipline is basically tidiness, or its lack. good troops keep their kit packed away, things are stowed in their proper places, the rubbish is collected and taken away, etc. while poor troops have bits of kit lying all over the place, rubbish just strewn around the site, etc. this means that when things get frantic, the good troops can find whatever it is they need, because they know where it is supposed to be, and its going to be their, while bad troops are reduced to scrabbling around trying to find things amongst all the junk.

related to the above is how well camouflaged a position is, and how much effort goes into hiding it. good troops in wartime would put a lot of effort into making their positions as hidden as possible, even at the expense of their protective qualities, because they know that any positon the enemy can spot is a target for heavy weapons. green troops might not get this, and spend a lot more time making elaborate and obvious defences, that an attacker can easily see and concentrate their fire one.

a key area where good troops do better is in foul weather, like sustained rainfall. troops in defensive positons, with access to dry cover, will be a lot less willing to go out and patrol though the rain for a hour, and will pay a lot less attention to their arcs when on guard. good troops will also be affected (no one works well when they've been in the same soaking clothes for 3 days), but good disciplined troops will suffer less, both because they make more effort to carry on despite the discomfort, and because proper and rigorous application of their survival and field admin training means they are, generally, less cold, less wet and more comfortable than badly led troops.

for a surprise attack, the key elements is how close you can get before the surprise is discovered, and how long the "shock" of the surprise lasts. a green unit attacked by surprise may not spot the attackers until they are literally almost at the walls, depending on how alert the guards are (this is heavily affected by weather the surprise is a strategic level surprise or merely a tactical surprise. ie, was a war expected, just not today)

a surprise attack works so well as it stresses the command and control systems by suddenly Appling unexpected pressure. since this is an area that green troops are normaly quite poor at anyway, a surpise attack can often put a green defender so off balance he never really recovers. the troops on the ground man their posts and shoot anything that moves, but the leaders are unable to get a clear picture of what is going on, what needs to be done, who is available to do it, and what they can do to make it happen. a lot of the time the grunts basically just hold their trenches until they are overrun or run out of ammo, because no one is able to order them to do anything else.

*a example of a "badly" sited defense position was one that happened in the 1st gulf war. A Iraqi tank unit attempted to use a reverse slope defense, digging in back form a ridgeline to negate the better gunnery of the coalition tanks, but they'd dug in too far back, and instead of forcing the coalition tanks to crest a ridge under fire, they'd basically given the attackers at perfect hull down firing position, beyond their own effective range but within the coalition tanks range. Worse, they hadn't pre-ranged the ridgeline, so when they were getting shot at in poor light by coalition tanks, they were reduced to trying to range off the muzzle flashes, which didn't work very well. that, and poor crew training meant that a lot of the tanks either got the ranging process wrong, or went off a basic "battle sighting" method that was ineffective at the ranges they were fighting at.

Mr Beer

2017-07-05, 04:54 PM

Green troops might prepare positions more per the book, whereas veterans who have been in country for a while will fine-tune to a lot more to local conditions.

BayardSPSR

2017-07-05, 06:05 PM

To add to other people's excellent commentary, a bottom-of-the-barrel green unit might also fall apart and completely disperse under a surprise attack. And if that happens, it's probably going to be precipitated by the officers leaving first.

Vinyadan

2017-07-05, 07:12 PM

Thinking about the Paris Commune, observers noticed how unevenly the defenses were spread, and the lack of a common plan. So some places were overdefended, and others were left too weak. This was evident in how heavier weapons like chainguns were distributed among the trenches. So if the green troops are very eager, they may collect anything they can find and place it in their position, ignoring that the weapons are needed elsewhere, and not by them.

Roxxy

2017-07-05, 10:32 PM

How much would the existence of disparate fantasy races effect the logistical train of a late 20th century military force? My world has established that humanity is divided up into races, the relevant ones right now being orcs, elves, dwarves, jotunn, and goblins. These races have very different body shapes and sizes. Jotunn are most similar to us but a little taller, orcs are average height but usually pretty thickly built, dwarves are around 4 1/2 to 5 feet but broad, goblins are an inch or two above dwarves but lighter, and elves are of typical height but lanky and androgynous. Then you have sexual dimorphism, which varies by race (Elves don't really have it, dwarven women are bigger and stronger but not too much so, orc women are just plain bigger and stronger, jotunn and goblin men are bigger and stronger than women.). Adding to this, you have multiracial individuals who range all around this spectrum. The military recruits from all 5 of these races, and doesn't restrict tasks based on race or gender (especially with sexual dimorphism being different in basically every race, plus crossbreeds). All of these people have to be clothed, armed, and fed, and vehicle crews need to fit inside their vehicles at least somewhat comfortably. I'm especially wondering how much of a pain in the ass finding uniforms for all these people is going to be, and whether finding rifles everyone can use is going to present an ergonomics issue.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-05, 10:44 PM

It strikes me that 20th century militaries already have soldiers of various shapes and sizes. If a Jotunn will want a different kind of gun than what a goblin would want, modern militaries also already have soldiers of different roles armed in different ways.

So really, I feel like there would be pretty much no difference compared to what 20th centuries militaries already dealt with.

snowblizz

2017-07-06, 02:38 AM

The military recruits from all 5 of these races, and doesn't restrict tasks based on race or gender (especially with sexual dimorphism being different in basically every race, plus crossbreeds). All of these people have to be clothed, armed, and fed, and vehicle crews need to fit inside their vehicles at least somewhat comfortably. I'm especially wondering how much of a pain in the ass finding uniforms for all these people is going to be, and whether finding rifles everyone can use is going to present an ergonomics issue.
The thing is, restricting tasks based on size and ability (which would be to a degree based on race and gender, even if we don't go as far as "all orcs are infantry") is exactly what they'd do. If can't fit in the tank hatch you're not going to be a tanker. If you are a large whatever forget emualting Tom Crusie in Top Gun. They'd pick the average size or rather something including a large majority of expected size range and everyone else are not needed or will have to grin and bear it.

Finding uniforms would be the least of the problems really. In such a universe clothing industry would have adapted to the various shapes already and uniforms is just a party where eveyrone dresses in the same colours.

Presumably they'd might want to take advantage of different sizes, so if you got bigger stronger orcs well guess who usually carries the SAW? As mentioned armies already equip units and branches differently according to needs and job so presumably they'd work with. That neatly work towards the strength of an army with a lot of physical disproportions rather than thinking of fight around it's weaknesses. Armeis today have certain limitations based on physical fitness and size for various roles, that would hold for your fantasy world regardless of how inclusive the military are going to be.

snowblizz

2017-07-06, 02:47 AM

As far as Teutoberg, retreat or attack isn't the point, the point is the Germans hit the Romans before they could form up and didn't let them fight the battle they were trained for. I highly doubt the Germans were carefully commanded other than surpirse and telling the warriors "Go get 'em."

The Germans were superbly commanded precisely in that the whole ambush was meticulosuly planned and excuted. By one guy. Who personally led the Romans into the trap more or less. Arminius, who the Romans thought was a friend and ally. The original counterpoint people were making was that you cannot assemble and direct such things as a classic "barbarian mob" without strong leadership and organisation. Teutoberg is not a counterexample since it was a very organised thing, led and orchestrated by Arminius to a large degree.

Vinyadan

2017-07-06, 06:45 AM

Different races: if things go well and civilians have power over the military, then you can expect that the military will add some sort of entrance requirements, which will almost surely be easier to fulfil for certain races than for others. These requirements might be different from service to service, though, and so you might see some services with different concentrations. When general mobilization is required, however, these requirements might become less stringent.

If the civilians do not control the military, then you can expect a much stronger push to enter it and much more screening for it, mostly on an ideological basis. The army might be much more open to different races and have much lower standards to fulfil on a physical level, preferring absolute obedience and the will to act oppressively against your own country. Option B is that the army (and its power) ends up monopolised by a single race.

Kiero

2017-07-06, 07:49 AM

I learned a new word for a sword today, reading Arthur Conan Doyle's Micah Clarke: whinyard. Which is an old word for a hanger/short sword. It's been entirely replaced in common parlance, and now refers only to a type of duck!

Mendicant

2017-07-07, 09:38 PM

*a example of a "badly" sited defense position was one that happened in the 1st gulf war. A Iraqi tank unit attempted to use a reverse slope defense, digging in back form a ridgeline to negate the better gunnery of the coalition tanks, but they'd dug in too far back, and instead of forcing the coalition tanks to crest a ridge under fire, they'd basically given the attackers at perfect hull down firing position, beyond their own effective range but within the coalition tanks range. Worse, they hadn't pre-ranged the ridgeline, so when they were getting shot at in poor light by coalition tanks, they were reduced to trying to range off the muzzle flashes, which didn't work very well. that, and poor crew training meant that a lot of the tanks either got the ranging process wrong, or went off a basic "battle sighting" method that was ineffective at the ranges they were fighting at.

Properly ranged defensive fighting positions, no matter what the weapon in question is, are one of the best signs that you're dealing with professional and well-led troops. Just about anyone will understand that you need some amount of cover and concealment--movies and common sense would get you that far. Properly filled out range cards, though, are the kind of mundane but super-important thing that only really happens with trained troops who have good NCOs and junior officers. Even if you plopped a world-class commander into that base, he can't micromanage those kinds of details and still do his job.

Vinyadan

2017-07-08, 07:41 PM

Mike_G

2017-07-09, 11:09 AM

I can think of two examples now.

One isn't that of how to build a base, more of how to build an ambush. The Iraqi Republican Guard during the second gw managed to fend off a helicopter assault through positioning of their tanks and men, doing the opposite of what the "normal" crews had failed to do during the first. This was however done in an urban setting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

A bad example of top-level leadership wasting well-trained and supplied forces by setting them into a weird position doing the wrong job is the Marines base of Con Thien. This base was placed behind the Demilitarized Zone and west of the McNamara Line, which they were to protect. It also was in the right spot to be under constant artillery fire, up to 300 shells per day (atop a prominent hill, without forest shelter, near enemy territory). While the base held its ground and objectively had its use (starting points for attack and interception, coast control), it also had its problems: it was hard to keep supplied and to defend, demanded an enormous human toll, and was part of a general strategy revolving around the Line, which simply could not be successful. But, of course, as anything in VN, it's all hugely debatable.

Prominent defensive positions were a big thing in Vietnam, going back to the French at Dien Bien Phu. The idea was to make a base the enemy would want to attack, to draw the enemy into battle, since finding them was a big problem, and the French and the US felt that if they could bring the enemy to battle, their superior equipment and training would let them crush the Communists.

This tended not to work as well as hoped. The Vietnamese could still choose to fight when the had the forces to do so, and avoid combat when they needed to regroup, and they actually won at Dien Bien Phu, which the French never expected.

So, while it was a questionable strategy, it wasn't really a bad position, as far as defensibility. It did draw the enemy out, and they lost a lot of men attacking it, which was the boneheaded beancounting theory of fighting a war of attrition in Asia.

PersonMan

2017-07-09, 03:27 PM

If Con Thien is what I think it is, then it was actually not placed too poorly, and it wasn't "supposed" to ever come under artillery fire, since the surrounding jungle-covered hills couldn't be used to fire on it due to the thick vegetation. The artillery pieces actually had to be dismantled, hauled up, then put back together under the cover of night to make it work.

Incanur

2017-07-09, 11:28 PM

Anybody know anything about the gasoline-powered machine gun described in this thread (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f66/gasoline-powered-machine-gun-38652/index2.html)?

I'm curious about it for my homebrew fantasy setting. I want to get a sense of what could be done with 21st-century technology but minus gunpowder and other similar explosives. (In this setting, the deity of war intervened and made fast-burning gunpowder too unreliable to use after seeing dwarves wield it to great effect.)

I suspect air guns of some variety would be the personal ranged weapon of choice, probably something along the lines of the Airrow Stealth (http://www.airgunadvice.net/viewtopic.php?t=3147) for efficiency. You could theoretically make a machine gun powered by compressed air, but it'd take massive tanks and/or a powerful compressor to maintain a decent number of shots per second or per minute. Air rifles (http://www.airgundepot.com/airforce-texan.html) managing so much as 500fpe gobble up air, and less than that would be pathetic for a machine gun.

The above gasoline-powered machine supposedly performs more like a gunpowder machine gun than like an air gun, 300 grains at 3,600 fps. Given the extreme performance claims, I'm skeptical.

Mr Beer

2017-07-10, 01:30 AM

I'm curious about it for my homebrew fantasy setting. I want to get a sense of what could be done with 21st-century technology but minus gunpowder and other similar explosives. (In this setting, the deity of war intervened and made fast-burning gunpowder too unreliable to use after seeing dwarves wield it to great effect.)

You could have steam or gasoline powered artillery firing out napalm shells for anti-personnel use and kinetic penetrators for bunker busting. With crappy rifles for the troops, there will be more reliance on heavy weapons. Maybe flamethrowers are more popular and useful.

Remotely delivering death becomes a lot more difficult without bombs and the development of GPS and computers will probably be a game changer since you can get your kinetic penetrators to have the accuracy needed to strike armoured vehicles, individual buildings etc. It might be worth developing orbital bombardment weapons i.e. put a lot of large steel rods with fins and guidance systems into orbit, drop down gravity well when required. Super expensive though.

Assuming traditional explosives have been banned, what about alternatives? Fuel/air explosions can be generated from various types of dusts, so that's a difficult one to prevent. Nuclear weapons are also a possibility, though I suppose you need traditional explosives to get them going. You could probably create nuclear squibs easily enough or salt the ground with radioactive material from an aeroplane. Not as spectacular as a Hiroshima but having a Chernobyl type meltdown in the middle of your city is a pretty unpleasant outcome.

Incanur

2017-07-10, 11:58 AM

Thermobaric weapons are good call. They even have thermobaric grenades now, so that would be a possibility as a potent nongunpowder personal weapon. On the other hand, such weapons should be harder to do without a base conventional explosive. Obviously the principle would still work, as flour explosions show, but it'd be more challenging to set up.

I don't necessary want to derail this thread with a long discussion of nongunpowder warfare with 21st-century tech, but I curious if anybody know about the above gasoline-powered machine gun or other machine gun designs that don't involved standard explosives.

Carl

2017-07-10, 12:38 PM

Incanur

2017-07-10, 02:11 PM

The problem you have is that if the local war god came down on fast burning gunpowder, he's going to come to come down on anything that achieves the same effect, which basically invalidates everything your considering.

I've yet to find anything that achieves exactly the same effect as gunpowder and its successors.

For example, airguns are rather different from firearms. While potentially extremely accurate, even the highest-tech air (or helium) rifles struggle to match the kinetic energy of a 16th-century arquebus. And the few modern airguns that do manage 1000+fpe get perhaps one to three shots per fill.

Because of this, airguns constitute an excellent fit for fantasy settings where you want guns and circa-1500-style armor to happily coexist. (Firearms of course developed alongside plate armor historically, but they came to dominate and mostly drove plate armor from the field.) Even circa-1800 air rifles have certain advantages over bows and crossbows against unarmored and lightly armored targets.

You'd be hard pressed to design a personal airgun that can defeat high-quality plate armor, especially with pre-21st-century technology. For my default setting, I've come up with giant air rifles similar to the 16th-century heavy musket that might be able to beat 3mm mild steel up close, but they require a large air tank connected to the rifle to get a decent number of shots. They operate in the context of a region similar to 16th-century Europe but more technologically advanced in certain ways, such as the airgun tech. Magic and the superhuman prowess and stats of champions likewise shape warfare in the region.

The war deity tolerates such airguns because they don't reduce close combat to the extent that gunpowder would (and did at one point in the setting).

High-powered airguns shooting darts and possible machine guns are for an earlier time in the setting, where an empire briefly managed nearly modern tech in some respect but then fell into a devastating civil war. Warfare for mundanes in that period resembled WWI, with ubiquitous dartguns capable of piercing any wearable armor with a heavy dart, artillery powered by steam and/or petrol, and extensive use of chemical weapons like poisoned darts and nerve gas. The war deity was presumably one of the factors the promoted this cataclysmic conflict and the ensuing loss of the ability to mass produce the best sort of airguns.

Carl

2017-07-10, 03:15 PM

I've yet to find anything that achieves exactly the same effect as gunpowder and its successors.

For example, airguns are rather different from firearms. While potentially extremely accurate, even the highest-tech air (or helium) rifles struggle to match the kinetic energy of a 16th-century arquebus. And the few modern airguns that do manage 1000+fpe get perhaps one to three shots per fill.

Because of this, airguns constitute an excellent fit for fantasy settings where you want guns and circa-1500-style armor to happily coexist. (Firearms of course developed alongside plate armor historically, but they came to dominate and mostly drove plate armor from the field.) Even circa-1800 air rifles have certain advantages over bows and crossbows against unarmored and lightly armored targets.

You'd be hard pressed to design a personal airgun that can defeat high-quality plate armor, especially with pre-21st-century technology. For my default setting, I've come up with giant air rifles similar to the 16th-century heavy musket that might be able to beat 3mm mild steel up close, but they require a large air tank connected to the rifle to get a decent number of shots. They operate in the context of a region similar to 16th-century Europe but more technologically advanced in certain ways, such as the airgun tech. Magic and the superhuman prowess and stats of champions likewise shape warfare in the region.

The war deity tolerates such airguns because they don't reduce close combat to the extent that gunpowder would (and did at one point in the setting).

High-powered airguns shooting darts and possible machine guns are for an earlier time in the setting, where an empire briefly managed nearly modern tech in some respect but then fell into a devastating civil war. Warfare for mundanes in that period resembled WWI, with ubiquitous dartguns capable of piercing any wearable armor with a heavy dart, artillery powered by steam and/or petrol, and extensive use of chemical weapons like poisoned darts and nerve gas. The war deity was presumably one of the factors the promoted this cataclysmic conflict and the ensuing loss of the ability to mass produce the best sort of airguns.

If you make producing a good airgun that hard, people won't use them, crossbows do the same thing and are a lot easier to produce at the level of technology involved.

The second issue you've got is that your assuming your airgun needs a thousand foot pounds, (1300 and odd joules), of energy and that isn't remotely necessary to deal with plate armour. Sure if your using lead balls you need that much, but a society thats gone through that kind of boom and bust cycle isn't remotely going to lose everything and i doubt they'd be using soft lead balls anymore. For that matter i'm not convinced ye olden people would be using them. An airgun doesn't have most of the issues of a gunpowder wepaon as far as sticking somthing like a flightless crossbow bolt in the end, you just need a way to produce a gas seal and preferably some lubricant to keep friction down, that radically alters the power level required to be dangerous

It wouldn't be very accurate, but it should work and you won't need anything like as much energy to be seriously dangerous.

The other point i'd raise is that even with WW1 tech and a god egging things on it would be very hard to have a war destructive enough to completely obliterate technology as a whole, the destructive effects just aren't pervasive enough in terms of area or longevity.

Galloglaich

2017-07-10, 03:15 PM

Prominent defensive positions were a big thing in Vietnam, going back to the French at Dien Bien Phu. The idea was to make a base the enemy would want to attack, to draw the enemy into battle, since finding them was a big problem, and the French and the US felt that if they could bring the enemy to battle, their superior equipment and training would let them crush the Communists.

This tended not to work as well as hoped. The Vietnamese could still choose to fight when the had the forces to do so, and avoid combat when they needed to regroup, and they actually won at Dien Bien Phu, which the French never expected.

So, while it was a questionable strategy, it wasn't really a bad position, as far as defensibility. It did draw the enemy out, and they lost a lot of men attacking it, which was the boneheaded beancounting theory of fighting a war of attrition in Asia.

I thought the problem in Diem Bien Phu was that the French position was down at the bottom of a valley which the Vietnamese Communists were able to saturate with AAA and mortars etc., to both attack the fortified position and blast any aircraft which came in to support them (aircraft being one of the main French advantages)

Similarly, the North Vietnamese used to hollow out tunnels beneath American firebases, allowing them to have many advantages especially in S.I., and they also made pre-prepared tunnel honeycombed positions on hilltops which they then baited the Americans into attacking (ala 'Hamburger Hill') and do as much damage as they could while defending a prepared position, only to melt away down into the tunnels and away when the assault became too intense.

The use of Tunnels has apparently also become a factor in our current wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, presumably because of the more or less continuous heavy use of air power.

G

Incanur

2017-07-10, 03:46 PM

If you make producing a good airgun that hard, people won't use them, crossbows do the same thing and are a lot easier to produce at the level of technology involved.

Producing powerful airguns is inherently difficult. The Girandoni rifles that saw limited military service 1780-1815 had low kinetic energy (probably around 200 J) as well as major manufacturing and maintenance issues. High-powered airguns today aren't cheap.

In my setting, only a few areas in the Europe-like region have the ability to produce decent airguns in large numbers. Bows and crossbow see widespread use, particularly in areas with less access to airguns. The idea is mimic some of the aesthetics of 16th-century Europe but with less overwhelmingly powerful, albeit perhaps more accurate and reliable, guns.

The second issue you've got is that your assuming your airgun needs a thousand foot pounds, (1300 and odd joules), of energy and that isn't remotely necessary to deal with plate armour. Sure if your using lead balls you need that much, but a society thats gone through that kind of boom and bust cycle isn't remotely going to lose everything and i doubt they'd be using soft lead balls anymore.

Modern air rifles use lead bullets almost exclusively. The pressure's lower, so the bullet has to be soft for the rifling to work properly. I assume you could use a steel core to improve penetration. I haven't see anybody trying this with modern big-bore air rifles, presumably because it would counterproductive for shooting game.

For that matter i'm not convinced ye olden people would be using them. An airgun doesn't have most of the issues of a gunpowder wepaon as far as sticking somthing like a flightless crossbow bolt in the end, you just need a way to produce a gas seal and preferably some lubricant to keep friction down, that radically alters the power level required to be dangerous

Yep, that's why I think something along the lines of the Airrow Stealth would be the most effective design. However, note that that's late 20th-century tech designed for military use. I can't think of any earlier (19th century and before) airguns that shot darts, though there probably are a few. I suspect it's not trivial to figure out and pull off successfully. While miserable against armor, the Girandoni design has the advantage of rapid shooting over dartguns.

A high-powered version of the Girandoni rifle could work and would offer certain advantages, but you could make comfortable steel armor that would stop it. In theory 3000psi air might get a Girandoni design up to 500-600 J per shot, but that would probably require too much air to put in a rifle and wouldn't be enough to defeat armor in any case. Apparently (http://www.beemans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm) repeating airguns saw a tiny bit of use in WWII.

The other point i'd raise is that even with WW1 tech and a god egging things on it would be very hard to have a war destructive enough to completely obliterate technology as a whole, the destructive effects just aren't pervasive enough in terms of area or longevity.

The additional context is that the modern-like tech levels came about directly because of a visionary and thoroughly superhuman emperor. The high-powered airguns and company hadn't been in mass production long before the civil war started. (This emperor perished trying to conqueror a nation protected by another deity.) Said tech didn't fade away completely, but the economic and social infrastructure for mass production never returned. Additionally, each side did specifically target the other's military production centers and so on.

Mike_G

2017-07-10, 03:49 PM

I thought the problem in Diem Bien Phu was that the French position was down at the bottom of a valley which the Vietnamese Communists were able to saturate with AAA and mortars etc., to both attack the fortified position and blast any aircraft which came in to support them (aircraft being one of the main French advantages)

Yeah, the French greatly underestimated the ability of the Viet Minh to bring artillery to bear.

But the whole intent wasn't to create a camouflaged position, but to put a fortified position inside enemy territory, to provoke an attack, bring the enemy out of hiding and defeat them.

This is a variation on the colonial powers strategies in Africa in the 19th Century, where they acted strategically offense but the tactical defense, trusting to better weapons to destroy the enemy once they provoked the attack.

They were trying to engineer a Rourke's Drift or Omdurman kind of situation, but it really didn't work out well for them.

So the position wasn't so much poorly designed as it was designed for a flawed strategy and on flawed assumptions.

Similarly, the Maginot Line was a well designed defensive fortification. It just wound up having very little impact on the actual defense of France, because the Germans just attacked where it wasn't.

Similarly, the North Vietnamese used to hollow out tunnels beneath American firebases, allowing them to have many advantages especially in S.I., and they also made pre-prepared tunnel honeycombed positions on hilltops which they then baited the Americans into attacking (ala 'Hamburger Hill') and do as much damage as they could while defending a prepared position, only to melt away down into the tunnels and away when the assault became too intense.

The use of Tunnels has apparently also become a factor in our current wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, presumably because of the more or less continuous heavy use of air power.

G

I'm reminded of the situation where a Vietnamese general met an American general after the war. The American pointed out that the Vietnamese had never defeated the US in a major battle. He replied "That is true. It is also irrelevant."

So, troops in the field can do a great job of executing strategy put forth by High Command, but if that strategy itself is flawed, they can still lose badly.

Mr Beer

2017-07-10, 07:01 PM

We might be using vehicle-mounted electromagnetic weapons by now, if we couldn't have explosive-powered projectiles. We may not need the hyperfast projectiles currently being used in order outperform mechanical machine guns.

Carl

2017-07-10, 08:13 PM

Producing powerful airguns is inherently difficult. The Girandoni rifles that saw limited military service 1780-1815 had low kinetic energy (probably around 200 J) as well as major manufacturing and maintenance issues. High-powered airguns today aren't cheap.

In my setting, only a few areas in the Europe-like region have the ability to produce decent airguns in large numbers. Bows and crossbow see widespread use, particularly in areas with less access to airguns. The idea is mimic some of the aesthetics of 16th-century Europe but with less overwhelmingly powerful, albeit perhaps more accurate and reliable, guns.

Modern air rifles use lead bullets almost exclusively. The pressure's lower, so the bullet has to be soft for the rifling to work properly. I assume you could use a steel core to improve penetration. I haven't see anybody trying this with modern big-bore air rifles, presumably because it would counterproductive for shooting game.

Yep, that's why I think something along the lines of the Airrow Stealth would be the most effective design. However, note that that's late 20th-century tech designed for military use. I can't think of any earlier (19th century and before) airguns that shot darts, though there probably are a few. I suspect it's not trivial to figure out and pull off successfully. While miserable against armor, the Girandoni design has the advantage of rapid shooting over dartguns.

A high-powered version of the Girandoni rifle could work and would offer certain advantages, but you could make comfortable steel armor that would stop it. In theory 3000psi air might get a Girandoni design up to 500-600 J per shot, but that would probably require too much air to put in a rifle and wouldn't be enough to defeat armor in any case. Apparently (http://www.beemans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm) repeating airguns saw a tiny bit of use in WWII.

The additional context is that the modern-like tech levels came about directly because of a visionary and thoroughly superhuman emperor. The high-powered airguns and company hadn't been in mass production long before the civil war started. (This emperor perished trying to conqueror a nation protected by another deity.) Said tech didn't fade away completely, but the economic and social infrastructure for mass production never returned. Additionally, each side did specifically target the other's military production centers and so on.

First i'm pretty sure prior claims of the energy to penetrate plate armour in this thread where way below 300-500j for several things, that sounds simply way too high, going from memory ofc. For that matter 3000psi to reach that sounds way to high for the kind of weapon i was describing if taken up a notch or so in size, (musket scale basically). Though it would depend a little on frictional losses and such like.

I also think your drastically overstating the difficulty, most of the difficulty in the kind of weapon i described is in the valve work and reservoir, not the barrel/projectile. now if you want fins or rifling, sure, but if your happy to accept very modest accuracy you don't need either of those, what you've really got at that point is an air powered above water spear gun.

The problem with the high tech period is, high tech doesn't happen on it's own, long before that factory got going a whole bunch of other sub advances elsewhere would have to occur across industry, agriculture, transportation, and probably a few other fields. Sure a single superhuman dude could invent it, but getting it to the point where it's ready to be produced is going to need a lot more in the way of country wide changes which are going to introduce many of the elements needed to at least drastically improve on old designs never mind re-invent the fancy stuff across a wide area, too many people know too much to entirely wipe that knowledge out unless you outright go carthage on them wiping them, their culture, their people, their works and virtually every trace they ever existed from the face of the earth. And doing that to a highly industrialised society of the kind needed to actually produce that level of tech on a large enough scale to be useful is very, very, very hard.

Incanur

2017-07-10, 09:22 PM

First i'm pretty sure prior claims of the energy to penetrate plate armour in this thread where way below 300-500j for several things, that sounds simply way too high, going from memory ofc.

For arrowheads and other sharp points, yes: about 262.5 J delivered with an arrow defeats 2mm of hardened steel at a perpendicular impact angle. (Hardened steel completely free of slag as some modern steel is might be a bit better, requiring perhaps 10% more energy to pierce.) The Airrow Stealth manages more than that with light darts. Lead bullets require much more energy to penetrate steel armor, though exactly how much more differs depending on the experiment you look at.

what you've really got at that point is an air powered above water spear gun.

That could probably work. Airrow made (makes?) a harpoon gun (http://www.network54.com/Forum/79537/thread/1161070462/forgot+about+this+airgun....) that supposedly manages 1,085 J at 52 m/s. With lower-pressure air you might only get a third of that power, or about 362 J. That'd still be enough to pierce about 2.5mm of hardened steel. I've considered such weapons for my setting, but they occupy a different role from rifles, dartguns, crossbows, and bows. Such spearguns could only get a few shots at most. They're akin to javelins, which in theory could also pierce plate armor, at least with a running start and great strength as well as skill. Spearguns would provide the same power with more precision and convenience.

I could see armored infantry and maybe men-at-arms using spearguns for a single mighty shot before engaging in close combat. Maybe they could get off a shot a medium range and then another right before contact.

Against unarmored troops, a Girandoni rifle would perform better service.

And doing that to a highly industrialised society of the kind needed to actually produce that level of tech on a large enough scale to be useful is very, very, very hard.

That's part of the appeal of a cataclysmic period. Popular imagination has frequently exaggerated the limited historical evidence for lost knowledge and dark ages. It's a compelling narrative. This thread really isn't the place to argue about the impracticality/impossibility of technological decline. Maybe I'll start another thread about that at some point. For now, let's stick to weapons and warfare.

The technical aspects of nongunpowder weapons remain the same regardless of how I (mis)use them in my setting.

Carl

2017-07-10, 09:54 PM

For arrowheads and other sharp points, yes: about 262.5 J delivered with an arrow defeats 2mm of hardened steel at a perpendicular impact angle. (Hardened steel completely free of slag as some modern steel is might be a bit better, requiring perhaps 10% more energy to pierce.) The Airrow Stealth manages more than that with light darts. Lead bullets require much more energy to penetrate steel armor, though exactly how much more differs depending on the experiment you look at.

That could probably work. Airrow made (makes?) a harpoon gun that supposedly manages 1,085 J at 52 m/s. With lower-pressure air you might only get a third of that power, or about 362 J. That'd still be enough to pierce about 2.5mm of hardened steel. I've considered such weapons for my setting, but they occupy a different role from rifles, dartguns, crossbows, and bows. Such spearguns could only get a few shots at most. They're akin to javelins, which in theory could also pierce plate armor, at least with a running start and great strength as well as skill. Spearguns would provide the same power with more precision and convenience.

I could see armored infantry and maybe men-at-arms using spearguns for a single mighty shot before engaging in close combat. Maybe they could get off a shot a medium range and then another right before contact.

Against unarmored troops, a Girandoni rifle would perform better service.

That's part of the appeal of a cataclysmic period. Popular imagination has frequently exaggerated the limited historical evidence for lost knowledge and dark ages. It's a compelling narrative. This thread really isn't the place to argue about impracticality or impossibility of technological decline. Maybe I'll start another thread about that at some point. For now, let's stick to weapons and warfare.

The technical aspects of nongunpowder weapons remain the same regardless of how I (mis)use them in my setting.

For the latter part, i brought it up to try and do a bit of brainstorming, basically i agree it's a compelling narrative and i've used it a time or two myself in my world-building for that very reason, i just think your explanation needs a wee bit more work :).

As far as spear guns and limits go, your not really going to see a lot of difference i don't think from your air guns with those, neither is going to have a lot of range or accuracy, and compared to your rifle would use about 2/3 the air at around the 200j level according to napkin math, looking up the rifle you mentioned also reveals like a billion problems, mainly the fact that it uses 800PSI air, thats a huge pressure and a huge issue to compress for even the scale of use your describing. I'd need to set up a spreadsheet to calculate the work input, but i'll warn you, it's a lot, supply a few irregulars with those is one thing, an entire army would be a logistical nightmare. Even a portable horse worked treadmill would have serious issues compressing enough air for even a small army.