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

[Incanur]

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,

Girandoni bullets in this replica achieved 655-480 fps (http://www.network54.com/Forum/79537/message/1355287427/Girardoni+eye+candy). The originals were probably more consistent and may have been a bit more powerful as well. In any case, that's a lot faster than a harpoon/spear would travel. Girandoni rifles were, well, rifles and were reportedly pretty accurate.


and compared to your rifle would use about 2/3 the air at around the 200j level according to napkin math,

I'm not sure what you mean here.


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.

Yeah, logistical issues were presumably one of the reasons the Girandoni rifles fell out of service. In my setting only one powerful city-state makes extensive use of air rifles. That city-state is extremely rich (compared to its neighbors) and has limited industrialization (coal-powered steam engines, factories, trains, etc.). They employ steam air compressors among other methods to supply the necessary air. Besides Girandoni-style repeaters they use breech-loading air rifles the size of a 16th-century heavy musket, as mentioned previously. So that city-state's soldiers need lots and lots of compressed air and they have the infrastructure to meet the demand.

Some other armies in the regions use air rifles as well, but not in nearly as large numbers. Girandoni-style repeaters strike me as only decent on a 16th-century battlefield. They're akin to bows in their low power and high rate of shooting, albeit presumably more accurate and easier to shoot from cover. It's the high-powered air muskets alongside the repeaters and other designs that prompted the rich city-state to equip a sizable percentage of its soldiers with airguns of some variety.

The smaller tank-fed air rifles perform similarly to the Airforce Texan (http://www.airgundepot.com/airforce-texan.html), though they're larger and heavier. In contrast to the Girandoni, that's a solid power level for a 16th-century battlefield as it can potentially kill or seriously injure unarmored troops at 400+ yards while having at a chance of piercing lighter armor up close.

The Girandoni-style repeaters in my setting are more powerful (300 J or so) than the replica one linked above and I'm still skeptical they'd do more than annoy beyond 100 yards. They'd be about 80 J at 200 yards according to the calculator I used, which could theoretically inflict a serious wound, but seems super weak.

[Carl]

Ok you've got a problem. If it rifled they won't be using lead balls anymore, if they're upto the point of steam power however primitive they can create steel jacketed lead most likely and at that point they're going to utterly tear apart plate armour at considerable ranges, and with that refire rate even if they were only good at 50 yards so long as they've got bayonets and can form square even cavalry won't be able to overrun them. And thats before we get into what non-ball shot is likely to do in terms of positives for muzzle energy. Even simple minnie ball style bullets that are just a bit longer and a bit rounded nosed will be significantly more effective and powerful, and getting a usable steel core into those is pretty easy as they fly one way only. if they decided to double end it for ease of manufacture it would be even more efficient aerodynamically than the minnie ball as it would have a crude boat tail.

As far as what i meant with air volume. When the shot goes down the barrel it's accompanied by having to fill the volume behind the shot with air, using some napkin math i can get an estimate of how much 1 atmosphere pressure air is being used. The rifle your referencing looks to have used somwhere between 3 and 4 liters assuming it didn't have a severe inefficiency, (and the reservoir doesn't look that big), in it's usage. My estimate for a simple 200psi air spear thrower came to 2 liters of usage. Also note 2 liters from a 200psi reservoir is MUCH easier to refill than 4 from an 800 psi reservoir. I'd have to do the math to give you an idea of the energy differential but it isn't tiny.

[Martin Greywolf]

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.)


Knight and Blast Furnance gives this table for mild steel (0.15% carbon):

Thickness Arrow Bullet
1mm 55J 450J
2mm 175J 750J
3mm 300J 1700J
4mm 475J 3400J

And gives an estimate for following materials to multiply your values by:

Munition quality iron: 0.5
Low-carbon steel: 0.75
Medium-carbon steel (Milanese): 1.1
Hardened steel: 1.5

Even then, I only have the copied tables, not the book itself, so I have no way of knowing how good the arrow replica was, and that is kind of important with penetration values. You can't just take energy and call it a day, as the comparative energy for bullet and arrow shows. One of the more fundamental properties that goes into what happens when two things collide is momentum p = m*v, which more or less tells you how easy it is to change the velocity of the object. What that means that stuff like shape aside, you have to account for how heavy your projectile is when it hits something.

It changes little for your harpoon scenario, if anything, harpoon has an easier time to get through armor than you thought, but you need to be very careful when using physics for stuff like this - if it's physics you can understand easily without a degree (proper deformation equations use something called tensors, which are 3D matrices, and it gets uglier from there), you are probably doing something very wrong.

[Incanur]

It changes little for your harpoon scenario, if anything, harpoon has an easier time to get through armor than you thought,

How does what you posted change anything? I'm using the same numbers as you, from Alan Williams. 175 x 1.5 is 262.5. Yes, it's always more complicated than the energy figures alone, but they're a decent approximation when it comes to trying to pierce steel plates with arrowheads. There's been a fair amount of testing on this and it's all roughly consistent.


Ok you've got a problem. If it rifled they won't be using lead balls anymore, if they're upto the point of steam power however primitive they can create steel jacketed lead most likely and at that point they're going to utterly tear apart plate armour at considerable ranges, and with that refire rate even if they were only good at 50 yards so long as they've got bayonets and can form square even cavalry won't be able to overrun them.

I get the impression that you're not super familiar with air rifles. Again, you can't use effectively shoot a steel- or copper-jacketed bullets from an air rifle. Everything I've read (example (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=86182.0)) says the pressure isn't sufficient for the rifling to work with copper/steel. And all modern big-bore air rifles shoot pure lead or something close (some alloy or other soft metal).

I'm assuming steel cores for my setting, though I don't know exactly how much that would help, if at all. I'm not at all sure such air rifles would be tearing through armor even if they could shoot steel-jacketed bullets. Data on the difference between lead and steel bullets are fuzzy. In the Graz test, the 9mm Glock pistol managed 2mm steel penetration at 30m. They don't say, but the round it fires would typically be copper-jacketed. Controlling for surface area, it didn't do significantly better than wheellock pistol shooting a lead bullet. And the wheellock bullet presumably lost much more power at 30m than the Glock bullet did, so the lead wheellock bullet probably actually performed better by energy density. My air musket is .60-caliber, so its energy density at the muzzle is a spot less than either the Glock or the wheellock, 761 J/cm2.

If you go by Alan Williams's numbers for bullets (which are based off a steel bullet simulator I believe), then my air muskets at 1,385 J would only be able to kill through about 2mm hardened steel (1,125 J) and wouldn't have a chance against 3mm mild steel (1,700 J). Based on other tests, I think Williams's test overestimate steel's resistance to bullets, particularly at the higher thicknesses.

Note that I want my air muskets to at least have a chance of killing through hardened-steel breastplates at close range. They're supposed to echo 16th-century muskets in that respect.


so long as they've got bayonets and can form square even cavalry won't be able to overrun them.

Historically, Girandoni air rifles were considered too delicate (http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-girandoni-air-rifle/) for bayonet combat. Because of this, I don't use bayonets in my setting. (The air muskets are too long and heavy to take a bayonet regardless.) In any case, bayonets would be little help against a charge of 16th-century style men-at-arms in full barding.


And thats before we get into what non-ball shot is likely to do in terms of positives for muzzle energy.

I'm already assuming non-ball shot for the breech-loading air rifles. That's what contemporary big-bore air rifles like the Texan shoot. (Well, they can shoot balls too.) Other shapes indeed perform better. That's what allows the Texan to hit targets with considerable force at 400+ yards. Girandoni-style repeaters have to shoot balls for the reloading mechanism to function.

The air speargun idea makes me think of JoergSprave, particularly this video (https://youtu.be/7P4xBfCgb3M) and this video (https://youtu.be/f604TF11pEI).

[Vinyadan]

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.

This sounds a lot like the English in France during the Hundred Years War, in that they came up with a smaller army than the French could muster, occupied an advantageous position, and waited for the French to come; however, the English also forced them by laying waste to the countryside. This gets improbable when you don't invade the other country, which the US did not, simply because there isn't a reachable target to strike at with urgency.

[Carl]

First i'd be surprised if 800 PSI at the sizes where discussing couldn't handle steel jacketed, (the air guns i'm familiar with fire relatively small projectile, gives them a poor cross sectional area to diameter ratio), but even if it couldn't you could easily make a steel jacketed round in say 0.4 calibre, then put a soft copper or lead driving band on it, TBH given the calibre i'd probably just make the core solid steel. You could also use softened copper or brass and heat treat the nose only to get a similar if slightly less capable effect.

Second yes the ye olden days rifle needed round balls, but it's literally a lever or pump handle away from being able to use any shot it wants, it's literally a tube feed that uses gravity instead of the old style lever action, or modern shotgun style pump action to get the round into the chamber.

As far as how much a steel core or the like helps. A lot. The thing about old style musket balls, (and some forms of modern ammo, particularly civil ammo), is that they're inherently prone to extreme deformation when hitting somthing tougher than flesh, (you can see this in an old thread video someone posted of someone shooting muskets at period armour, the lead balls tended to splatter like rotten fruit). For modern ammo thats actually an advantage because it creates a bigger wound cavity in the target. But against armour it means most of the force and power goes into destroying the projectile and not into penetrating the armour. As an example Simple steel jacketed lead 50 cal goes through 8mm at 500 yards. Standard steel insert AP goes through 19mm, APDS goes through 34mm. The problem is once they get away from using round shot getting to using steel cores is really simple, too simple to say it doesn't happen.

The thing i keep running into is this, the IRL rifle your reference is on one hand an incredible achievement for it's era, but on the other because it was never developed it's actually really primitive compared to what they could have achieved, they just didn't have any pressing need to innovate on it. And it's biggest issue as a service weapon lay in the reservoir size and design, and the generally massive issues involved in supplying compressed air in mass quantities. get past those so you can issue it as a service weapon enmass and it's going to have enormous power just because as a rifled weapon that breech loads you can use more aerodynamic shapes that allow for things like steel inserts compared to muskets, even a simple minnie ball is a massive improvement over a standard musket ball in that respect despite being pure lead, the better length to diameter ratio helps at least a little. At that point as the figures Martin Greywolf posted show you don't need a huge amount of energy to put a hole in people in good quality armour.

@Martin Greywolf: believe me i'm entirely aware of that ;).

[Incanur]

First i'd be surprised if 800 PSI at the sizes where discussing couldn't handle steel jacketed,

Did you read the thread I linked? Apparently nobody even tries copper-alloy jackets with modern air rifles using 3000+psi. If that's not enough, 800psi isn't going to even come close.


Second yes the ye olden days rifle needed round balls, but it's literally a lever or pump handle away from being able to use any shot it wants, it's literally a tube feed that uses gravity instead of the old style lever action, or modern shotgun style pump action to get the round into the chamber.

The WWII-era Girandoni-style airgun (smoothbore, not rifled) uses balls too, though it has a spring rather than relying on gravity. I've seen very few contemporary big-bore airguns designed for rapid shooting. Most of them are single-shot, probably because holding enough air to many shots would make them inconveniently heavy.

Now, the Caselman air machine gun (http://thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/caselman-thg.pdf) does use more aerodynamic bullets rather than balls, so it's certainly possible.


As far as how much a steel core or the like helps. A lot.

Do you know of any big-bore air rifles that shoot steel-core bullets and any tests with them?


The problem is once they get away from using round shot getting to using steel cores is really simple, too simple to say it doesn't happen.

See above question. As far as I know, it's hardly ever been done. If people were shooting air rifles against steel armor, would they do it? Probably, which is why I was assuming some use of steel cores and modest performance increase for the air rifles in my setting. I may be underestimating the effect, but I don't know of any good data to go on. 16th-century soldiers at least occasionally used steel bullets and even bullets designed to cut like swords (?) in their pieces, but there's not a lot of data there either.


At that point as the figures Martin Greywolf posted show you don't need a huge amount of energy to put a hole in people in good quality armour.

They're the same figures I'm using and that anybody who has access to The Knight and the Blast Furnace uses. Again, Alan Williams's numbers actually make piercing iron/steel armor with an air rifle almost impossible. Williams table on page 928 says 750 J to just pierce 2mm mild steel. Very few contemporary big-bore air rifles can manage that, and the ones that can get 1-3 shots per fill. And 2mm hardened steel require 1,125 J according to Williams. And that's just to put a hole in the armor. You need more energy steel to defeat padding and actually inflict a wound.

As far as steel vs. lead goes, the table on page 942 does indicate that steel bullets require much less energy to penetrate, but the energy required to defeat 1.9mm wrought iron is still absurd high: 900 J for steel, 1,500 J for lead. Those must be some big bullet simulators.

The simulated part is important. Williams didn't shoot at armor but instead used drop tests. I suspect that's why Williams's results differ from the Graz tests and other tests that involve shooting bullets at armor.

In sum, Williams's work pushes in the opposite direction.

I've used to the Graz tests and their energy-density approach for my air rifle calcualations. If anything, I think I'm stretching a bit to have air rifles powerful enough to kill through 2-3mm steel at close range. That'd be hard to accomplish even with contemporary air rifle tech.

[Carl]

I doubt you'll find any data on steel cored rounds, they generally get banned as they're considered armour piercing. And yeah what type of bullet their using is hugely key. That 900j figure would for some applications be complete baloney. Whilst i can;t find a specific velocity chart for the round the standard 7.62mm NATO AP round should be pretty close to most other 7.62 rounds and will go through 7mm of high hardness armour plate at 500m, this stuff makes mild steel look like soft butter by comparison. Using those other velocity charts i got an impact energy of around 1550j's. It may be a bit on the low side estimation wise, but the amount of penetration is so drastically higher it's not funny. I suspect they where assuming ball shot of very high size or just plain got somthing wrong.

Don't misunderstand me, i think going through plate armour at modest distances with enough power to be wounding is the upper limit for the type of weapon your describing on the tech level your thinking of without needing some real marked genius involved, (though any nation with steam power however primitive does have those by default to some degree, but i'm looking at where i think the reasonable minimum would sit), but i don't think it's unreasonable.

As for fancy loading. First modern air rifle use a lot of air because they use small very high pressure tanks, the old school rifle you linked could get roughly 10 high power and 10 medium power shots out of a single tank and had 20 rounds in the tube. Thats begging to automate the loading for rapid fire. Probably because it's a rather large bore that uses a relatively modest amount of air per shot. At 3,000psi a 20 inch barrelled 7mm rifle would use a fair bit more air than the old rifle and the relatively small calibre and thus lightweight bullet would have to travel a lot faster, (which is really hard), to get the a useful amount of energy on target. So it's less efficient at using the energy stored in the air to cause damage. And i doubt the reservoir such a gun would use would be anywhere near as massive as the one on the old gun was, (which still isn't huge for what it was designed for but still). But the lack of repeatability on modern air guns is mostly down to the fact that it's a lot of trouble to go to for a weapon that doesn't need it as much in the applications it's used in. But air guns compared to muskets are tailor made for rapid fire because there's no priming mechanism to fill or loose powder to put in, all you need is a way of sealing and unsealing the breach easily and a way to shove a bullet into the breach at the same time and firearms started doing that very rapidly once cased ammunition started to come in. With air guns not needing cases it begs for it though if you can supply enough air.

As an example of the efficiency point, forward working the math i used to guess-estimate how much air the old rifle used, if you ramped it up to 3k PSI it would only develop about 1.1kj's, and thats before certain factors i don't account for kick in and make it worse. I can't give an exact idea of what a longer heavier bullet might do to the all up energy, (the benefit comes from the easing of those self same factors i can't account for that i mentioned), but it would give a modest boost without changing the air usage in the slightest, and whilst enhancing momentum with knock on positives in terms of reduced kinetic energy at impact to penetrate. Basically in terms of repeatable shots the lower air pressure the final energy ratio works in it's favour, a lot. It has some negatives in terms of larger impact area of course but as i noted above a mostly steel bullet would offer a lot of advantage in penetration terms.

[Incanur]

And yeah what type of bullet their using is hugely key. That 900j figure would for some applications be complete baloney.

Indeed. That one wheellock pistol in the Graz tests managed a bit over 917 J at the muzzle and pierced 2.8-3mm of 16th-century horse armor at 8m. It didn't pierce it enough to wound a being underneath, but it penetrated the metal entirely. The armor was work-hardened low-carbon steel. And that was with a lead ball.

I suspect this comes from Williams using drop tests rather than shooting lead (or steel) balls at high velocity. There probably something fundamentally different about high-velocity impacts versus drop tests at the same energy but much lower velocity.


Whilst i can;t find a specific velocity chart for the round the standard 7.62mm NATO AP round should be pretty close to most other 7.62 rounds and will go through 7mm of high hardness armour plate at 500m, this stuff makes mild steel look like soft butter by comparison.

Yeah, AP assault rifle rounds blow through steel. I remember doing calculations on that back in the day and the energy requirements were closer to Williams's figures for arrowheads than for bullets. The AP rounds may even have done better than Williams's arrowheads.

Even the Austrian assault rifles in the Graz tests, presumably not shooting dedicated AP rounds, managed 9mm and 12mm penetration respectively at 100m. Small, hard bullets at high velocity devastate steel.

Thankfully for my purposes, you can't do the same with air rifles. You can't even get that kind of performance with helium (http://www.extremebigboreairrifles.com/). Compressed gases just don't have the pressure to shoot anywhere near 800-1,000 m/s.

Now, helium rifles like that 1,300fpe .457-caliber one (1,663 J/cm2) could potentially kill through 3+mm hardened steel, especially with steel-core (or tungsten-core!) bullets, but that's serious technology and would still require lugging around a helium tank to get a decent number of shots. The dwarves in my setting do use helium rifles and dartguns (mainly dartguns, able to kill through up to 4mm of slag-free hardened steel), but only near their settlements and in full armies for supply reasons. Long-range scouts and skirmishers use crossbows as to be self-sufficient.

[Carl]

Sure you can't get up to 1kps or whatever with air, (generally anyway, >7kps is possibble, but there's very good reasons thats not normally doable), but here's the thing to remember, the 7.62mm AP rounds i described aren't any narrower in cross section, (it's literally just all the lead replaced by high hardness steel in a standard bullet in form, you can see a cross section here (https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/762ap.jpg), it's pretty close to full bore.) And they've almost certainly got well over to an order of magnitude more penetration than they'd need at a velocity of just 550m/s. Even accounting for the lowered energy, (somewhat offset by the higher momentum), and larger cross sectional area, i'd say a 300j steel bullet at close rnage vs medieval plate has a good chance of getting through with enough bang to hurt, it's right on the lower limit most likely and as allways i'm making an educated guess based on limited psychics knowledge combined with exemplar data. And really in the process of going from balls to bullets i'd expect an efficiency increase for the weapon with knock on benefits on ods of getting through.

And thats just for the rifle. The musket scale stuff well scary doesn't describe what i'm imagining there, they're tear apart plate armour and at considerable ranges, they wouldn't be very mobile, what with the large reservoirs and all, (much like early stand guns), but they'd have and effective range great enough that they wouldn't need it much.

p.s yeah drop tests aren't worth anything, it's not the velocity, it's the size of projectile they have to use and what that does to cross sectional density thats the issue.

[wolflance]

Two (possibly) long questions:

1) How common was two-handed bludgeoning weapon, such as mace and cudgel, during medieval period, specifically 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th century?


2) How good is the defense of mail armour against blunt trauma? It's anecdotal, but I've read somewhere that mail is actually surprisingly good against blunt weapon (and cut and thrust, for that matter).

Like "I took a full-powered baseball bat swing to the chest wearing a good mail and sweater (i.e. no padding whatsoever) with enough force to throw me off my feet, and suffered no injury and no stun whatsoever." good.

[Kiero]

Mail is only as good against blunt trauma as the padding underneath it. If you've got a lorica hamata with little padding underneath it, it'll give precious little protection. If you have a medieval hauberk with a gambeson underneath, much more.

[Lemmy]

So... When did I.D. documents became relatively common? And what were the first measures to avoid/detect forgeries?

[Incanur]

And they've almost certainly got well over to an order of magnitude more penetration than they'd need at a velocity of just 550m/s.

Which is still faster than even 4500psi helium rifles typically shoot.


Even accounting for the lowered energy, (somewhat offset by the higher momentum), and larger cross sectional area, i'd say a 300j steel bullet at close rnage vs medieval plate has a good chance of getting through with enough bang to hurt, it's right on the lower limit most likely and as allways i'm making an educated guess based on limited psychics knowledge combined with exemplar data.

Well, let me know if you find any actual data, particularly on steel-core lead bullets from air rifles. 300 J with a 7.62mm assault-rifle bullet would be 245 m/s and an energy density of 652 J/cm2 (not counting the pointed nose). Even if it were soft lead it could probably pierce 2mm mild steel or so with that energy density, and I'm sure it'd do better than that. I'm not sure it'd be enough to defeat 2-3mm hardened steel. For reference, the 7.62mm assault rifle in the Graz test pierced 12mm mild steel at 6,089 J/cm2. The 5.56mm assault rifle pierced 9mm mild steel at 5,729 J/cm2.

In theory, using the formula used by rsterne here (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?PHPSESSID=80ac2783ce1751dca33c5afaa24caf ba&topic=115255.20), 2000psi air, and 40% efficiency, my air musket design could shoot a 7.62mm bullet at 245 m/s or a touch faster. The base energy density about the same as at .60 caliber because of how air rifles function. So I guess the question is whether a steel-core air rifle bullet could perform as well as an assault rifle bullet? I doubt it, and of course I don't know exactly how well an assault rifle bullet performs at such a low velocity.


The musket scale stuff well scary doesn't describe what i'm imagining there, they're tear apart plate armour and at considerable ranges,

Again, you need a 4.5ft barrel and 2000psi air to get to a mere 750-760 J/cm2.


they wouldn't be very mobile, what with the large reservoirs and all, (much like early stand guns), but they'd have and effective range great enough that they wouldn't need it much.

That is the basic idea for how they function in my setting, albeit with somewhat less armor penetration. I figure they can defeat lower-quality harness at considerable range but can only pierce the best plate at close range if at all. The city-state in question prefer to deploy them from armor wagons and other fortifications whenever possible. If 2000psi is too much for what I want I can tone that down a bit. It's rather high anyway, and would require pretty solid tech to achieve.


p.s yeah drop tests aren't worth anything, it's not the velocity, it's the size of projectile they have to use and what that does to cross sectional density thats the issue.

The ones conducted by Alan Williams seem to be accurate enough for arrowheads against armor if you compare them to other tests. It's with bullets where things get funky.


1) How common was two-handed bludgeoning weapon, such as mace and cudgel, during medieval period, specifically 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th century?

The early part of this range isn't my period of focus. The first example that springs to mind is the goedendag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedendag) from the 14th century, basically a wooden club with steel cap and spike. Other varieties of bludgeoning weapons saw at least occasional use across Western and Central Europe in the 14th century and through the 15th century. In the early 16th century, English soldiers apparently (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=90465) used two-handed maces in significant numbers. The Venetian Antonio Bavarin, stationed in England, described the weapon as follows April 1513 (https://dev.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol2/pp96-101): "a weapon never seen until now, six feet in length, surmounted by a ball with six steel spikes." It's a strange claim to make, considering that extant example of similar weapons exist from Italy and I think specifically from Venice. In September 1513 (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol2/pp115-126), Bavarin wrote that the English force to Calais included "iron maces fit to level not only men, but cities."

Such two-handed bludgeons, often spiked, persisted into the 17th century, at least in some armories.

John Waldman's Hafted Weapons in Medieval and Renaissance Europe has a whole chapter on these bludgeoning weapons.


2) How good is the defense of mail armour against blunt trauma? It's anecdotal, but I've read somewhere that mail is actually surprisingly good against blunt weapon (and cut and thrust, for that matter).

Like "I took a full-powered baseball bat swing to the chest wearing a good mail and sweater (i.e. no padding whatsoever) with enough force to throw me off my feet, and suffered no injury and no stun whatsoever." good.

Potentially pretty good, especially with lots of padding, but not as good as rigid armor like plate.

[Storm Bringer]

So... When did I.D. documents became relatively common? And what were the first measures to avoid/detect forgeries?

kind of a complex question, with different answers depending on what counts as "relatively common", and the region.

officials would carry some form of ID, normally their badge of office, as far back as records go. generally, most people did not need ID documents, as they didn't travel very far and governing systems did not have the sophistication needed to require ID docs (until the later medieval period, a large percentage of the population did not have last name, as their simply wasn't a need for them, since you could get by with "john", "John the Smith", "Big John", etc)

for something resembling a passport as we know it today, the answer seems to be late medieval. Wiki says earliest reference to ID docs is in a 1414 Act of parliament. Bear in mind that a late medieval passport wouldn't be quite the same as today, as the modern concept of a state was not around yet. it would be more like a letter saying "this man really is John Smith, of Chelsea, and a subject of the King of England".

if your asking "when did It become standard for a traveller to have a Passport?", the answer is as recently as WW1, when they became a requirement as part of the general security measures being put in place.

for preventing fraud, for the most part, the traditional method was by use of wax seals and stamps held centrally or in trusted hands to verify the documents, but that's not a area I am well versed in.

[Vinyadan]

This is curious, because I wanted to share something about personal documents. Apparently, the Romans issued discharge papers to their auxiliares, which gave them citizenship. However, Romans being Romans, these papers were actually made of bronze. They were two slabs, bound like a book. The first "page" contained the whole of the text, and was exactly replicated on the second and third. The fourth page contained the names of the witnesses, which were protected by more metal. The two slabs were then sealed together, which made pages 2 and 3 inaccessible, possibly to prevent falsification.
The original was emitted by the Emperor (I guess through officials), and kept in an archive in Rome. None of these have been found, and they were likely used as raw materials. A certified copy was issued to the soldier; the copy was also made of bronze and sealed, and over 800 have been found around the Empire. The soldier at this point might have received a hefty sum, equivalent to the pay of 13 years (in the II century; earlier such a bonus was reserved for the legions, and it's not sure it was extended to auxiliares, although it's likely), and was free to go live where he wanted. If he had begun a relationship with a local woman, since Roman citizens were not allowed to marry non-Romans or non-Latins, and auxiliares received Roman citizenship after their service, he received a special authorization to marry her (connubium). When he went to the place where he had decided to settle down, he was to present his discharge bronze slabs (actually called diploma); the local archivist would then break the seals and add his name to the local resident Romans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_military_diploma

Another ID thing was the bulla, worn by Roman citizens until they were old enough. It is handled as an amulet by wikipedia, but I actually learned about it as a way to tell non-adult citizens apart. In general, however, this is a difficult question you are asking, because there has been very little research on this theme until recently. In 2001 came out the book "documenting individual identity", which gives a special weight to Revolutionary France. However, this other book https://books.google.it/books?id=I5PGqbKyEa8C&lpg=PA200&ots=ZGDUqPQ-nD&dq=%22identity%20documents%22%20antiquity&hl=it&pg=PA200#v=onepage&q=%22identity%20documents%22%20antiquity&f=false says that most people in the modern era had to carry papers around. It also says something about Mongol practice.

However, my impression is that the problem wasn't really to identify the person with these documents, as much as to determine what it was allowed to do and how it was to be handled by the State or local authorities. So Revolutionary France might be the best bet.

[Carl]

The velocity of the 7.62 isn't the important part, your proposed air rifle at somwhere over 300j has about a quarter the KE and a little over twice the impact area of the round, meaning as long as the latter can penetrate about 11 times what you need yours to do your good to go. Given the differences in target plate quality, (this has a really huge effect btw), thats more than probable. This is offset by the point martin greywolf made about energy alone not perfectly translating, but your air rifles better momentum to KE ratio actually helps it here by comparison. i'd still want a margin to be sure ofc.

Also you really don't need a 4.5 foot barrel under ideal circumstances with 2k PSI air to get that kind of performance. (The formulae he's using is just force x distance btw), A 4.5 foot barrel at brown bess scale firing a round at 2000psi would achieve an energy of 5900j, and a j/cm^2 of 1800j/cm^2. The problem as well is i'm not convinced that 800j cm^2 is anything like right for a steel core. I'm pretty sure you need a hell of a lot less with that, a lot depends on the shape too ofc, but minie balls are pretty close to the ideal shape, (at least the one's i've seen anyway), with their small diameter flat noses, so it's not a hard shape for them to stumble onto.

Thats ideal though, but the lower the muzzle velocity the closer you'd get. Using as stand gun can have a fairly long barrel, in fac 0.6 calibre with a 1.4m barrel could do it in an ideal world at about 850psi, real world will be less i'm trying to look up typical real world efficiencies now, but i'd be surprised if you couldn't get very close

As for the Graz test, they were almost certainly using steel jacketed lead, that has significantly worse penetration compared to steel core. The steel core penetrates two and a half times as much and the steel jacketed doesn't specify HHA target so it could be mild steel for that which would make the difference even greater.

The thing with drop tests on bullets is that unless they're spin stabilized they don't fall true. It may sound odd to check there but i suggest checking out mythbusters season 4 episode 7 where they did a big piece on falling bullets. They found both 9mm and .306 wouldn't fall faster than 100mph and did so on their side. As a result despite falling from heights as high as 10k feet if fired in such a way, (straight up as opposed to at an angle), that they lost their spin, they would not be able to inflict more than a nasty bruise and maybe a papercut if they hit someone. Conversely bullets fired at an angle, (which maintain their spin), have been known to kill people.

Relating to AP bullets i recommend checking episode 24 of season 4 for the sniper scope myth, (they can't do it but seeing them fail is useful for the next reference episode), and then S5 episode 6 for them succeeding, but only with an AP round. The real world shot took place at very extended ranges, yet without an AP round they couldn't recreate the effect at very close ranges. Note the episode claims it has a tungsten carbide core, but it's actually steel, same as the 7.62mm you can google it to check that. More modern latest generation AP does use tungsten carbide.

Don't get me wrong, i think dealing with plate armour with the tech of that era would be the absolute upper limit, somthing like a napoleonic cuirass designed explicitly to handle stuff like that would laugh at even the big guns, but it's still enough to create some real issues. And if it wasn't for the potential rate of fire coupled with the rifling i think it might be manageable. It;s the combination that i think becomes an issue, even if it can only deal with plate at closer ranges, there's going to be a lot of troops without that much protection around who are going to get absolutely slaughtered. That alone is going to make them a hugely influential weapon.

[fusilier]

So... When did I.D. documents became relatively common? And what were the first measures to avoid/detect forgeries?

I think it should also be remembered that many early nations didn't have "freedom of movement" -- so a lot of early id papers were permission to travel, internally. It probably varied by status too (nobles and merchants could probably travel relatively freely, and their identity could be established in other ways).

[Incanur]

A 4.5 foot barrel at brown bess scale firing a round at 2000psi would achieve an energy of 5900j, and a j/cm^2 of 1800j/cm^2.

I get 5,390 J for .75-caliber with 100% efficiency, which ain't never gonna happen. Based on actual air rifles, 40% is about as good as it gets with air. Maybe 50% at most but probably not. Helium can manage higher efficiency.


The problem as well is i'm not convinced that 800j cm^2 is anything like right for a steel core.

This again gets back to the fact that there's no data on steel-core air rifle bullets against armor. In the Graz tests, bullets with 939-1,162 J/cm2 pierced 3mm mild steel and 938-1,022 J/cm2 pierced 4mm. So that indeed doesn't seem to be the only relevant factory, but it's a ballpark.


Using as stand gun can have a fairly long barrel, in fac 0.6 calibre with a 1.4m barrel could do it in an ideal world at about 850psi,

At a realistic 40% efficiency, that'd be about 587 J and 322 J/cm2.


As for the Graz test, they were almost certainly using steel jacketed lead, that has significantly worse penetration compared to steel core. The steel core penetrates two and a half times as much and the steel jacketed doesn't specify HHA target so it could be mild steel for that which would make the difference even greater.

Where are you getting this? Modern rifles?


The thing with drop tests on bullets is that unless they're spin stabilized they don't fall true.

In the drop tests like Williams used I believe the bullet simulation is attached to a heavy object and dropped on the armor in question in a controlled environment. There's a graphic that shows that simulators that was going around years ago but I can't find it now.


And if it wasn't for the potential rate of fire coupled with the rifling i think it might be manageable.

I'm assuming 10 shots per minutes with air musket: like a Martini-Henry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini%E2%80%93Henry) but a bit slower because of how heavy the weapon is.


It;s the combination that i think becomes an issue, even if it can only deal with plate at closer ranges, there's going to be a lot of troops without that much protection around who are going to get absolutely slaughtered. That alone is going to make them a hugely influential weapon.

This matches what I have in mind. I'm assuming the air muskets (or heavy tankrifles, I think I'm gong to call them) can pierce lower-quality harnesses and lighters armors like most brigandines at considerable range. Based on how the Airforce Texan shoots, I'm assuming the heavy tankrifle will still be able to pierce 2mm mild steel at 400+ yards (456 J/cm2). Impact angle matters, but killing through a 2-2.5mm wrought-iron or low-carbon-steel breastplate seems possible even out that far.

So yeah, with a decent rate of shooting, high accuracy, and enough power to defeat at least some armor, air rifles beyond the Girandoni-style repeaters in my setting are hugely influential weapons and potentially a big advantage in combat for mundanes, for common soldiers. (Great heroes, champions who've won divine favor, etc. are thoroughly superhuman and far more potent, as are mages.) The disadvantage comes in the cost required to produce the high-power air rifles and supply them with air.

[Martin Greywolf]

1) How common was two-handed bludgeoning weapon, such as mace and cudgel, during medieval period, specifically 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th century?


Once armor got good enough to not require a shield (about 1350-1400), it was the go to weapon for fighting in armor on foot. Well, the polehammer/pollax was, the actual cudgel or mace-like weapons were more of an exception than a rule, but they did appear on occassion, there are plenty of examples from the Hussite wars.

While weapons like these could be used by people without armor, and they indeed were used like that after about 1400, you don't see them before partial plate armor simply because they weren't necessary to defeat armor and it was a lot more practical to just grab a one handed mace and a shield.

Do keep in mind these were used by foot troops, a cavalryman has no use for them since they can't be conveniently carried into battle on a horse. Knights usually did have a weapon like this (again, mostly pollaxe), simply because they could afford it and were expected to fight on foot quite a lot - can't exactly storm a castle wall on a horse.

Before 1350, they would be oddities or "in a pinch" cases - one of my friends has a bulava (bronze knobbed mace) with a really long handle that doubles as a walking stick (or can be used from horseback, we're not sure why the originals sometimes had long handles) - if someone jumps you with that, you could indeed grab it with both hands, but it's certainly not its intended use.



2) How good is the defense of mail armour against blunt trauma? It's anecdotal, but I've read somewhere that mail is actually surprisingly good against blunt weapon (and cut and thrust, for that matter).

Like "I took a full-powered baseball bat swing to the chest wearing a good mail and sweater (i.e. no padding whatsoever) with enough force to throw me off my feet, and suffered no injury and no stun whatsoever." good.

Mail isn't amazing at stopping blunt force trauma, but it does help. If nothing else, it's extra mass, and that will always help.

The way it does this is by spreading the impact over a slightly larger area - not as large as plate, but still larger than what you'd get from no mail. That means that if you have any sort of padding under it, it makes that exponentially more effective. A mail over a t-shirt won't do all that much, but mail over a thick sweater or hoodie is a different story.

That said, it very much depends on what kind of blunt impact we're talking about - something like a staff or a baseball bat already has a pretty wide area of impact, something like a hammer, not so much.

As for cut and thrust, well, good mail is practically impossible to cut through, and only the strongest thrusts penetrate it - you either need a spear in two hands or to brace your weight into a half-sworded thrust to do it consistently.

[Carl]

I get 5,390 J for .75-caliber with 100% efficiency, which ain't never gonna happen. Based on actual air rifles, 40% is about as good as it gets with air. Maybe 50% at most but probably not. Helium can manage higher efficiency.



This again gets back to the fact that there's no data on steel-core air rifle bullets against armor. In the Graz tests, bullets with 939-1,162 J/cm2 pierced 3mm mild steel and 938-1,022 J/cm2 pierced 4mm. So that indeed doesn't seem to be the only relevant factory, but it's a ballpark.



At a realistic 40% efficiency, that'd be about 587 J and 322 J/cm2.



Where are you getting this? Modern rifles?



In the drop tests like Williams used I believe the bullet simulation is attached to a heavy object and dropped on the armor in question in a controlled environment. There's a graphic that shows that simulators that was going around years ago but I can't find it now.



I'm assuming 10 shots per minutes with air musket: like a Martini-Henry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini%E2%80%93Henry) but a bit slower because of how heavy the weapon is.



This matches what I have in mind. I'm assuming the air muskets (or heavy tankrifles, I think I'm gong to call them) can pierce lower-quality harnesses and lighters armors like most brigandines at considerable range. Based on how the Airforce Texan shoots, I'm assuming the heavy tankrifle will still be able to pierce 2mm mild steel at 400+ yards (456 J/cm2). Impact angle matters, but killing through a 2-2.5mm wrought-iron or low-carbon-steel breastplate seems possible even out that far.

So yeah, with a decent rate of shooting, high accuracy, and enough power to defeat at least some armor, air rifles beyond the Girandoni-style repeaters in my setting are hugely influential weapons and potentially a big advantage in combat for mundanes, for common soldiers. (Great heroes, champions who've won divine favor, etc. are thoroughly superhuman and far more potent, as are mages.) The disadvantage comes in the cost required to produce the high-power air rifles and supply them with air.

First i think i misunderstood what type of environment you where trying to achieve, thats the downside of an outside in perspective, i thought you were trying to get somthing much lower on the effectiveness scale, between pike and shot and original stand-gun black powder muskets. If our fine with significant presence but want to fall just short of shifting to napoleonic tactics then yeah, everythings fine :).

As far as efficiency goes, the historical air rifle based on it's wikipedia image, i can;t find an exact barrel length so i'm estimating it at 0.8m, but that means it's achieving 50% efficiency allowing for some variance on that estimate. And thats on and old and doubtless more primitive design. large bores basically do a lot to help most of an air guns issues that cause the inefficiency. There's only really one the tech level wouldn't help, and thats timing the amount of gas, but thats more a gas usage rate inefficiency, rather than a maximising delivery of energy over the bore length issues.

As far as where i got 7.62mm ammo data: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/762mm_ammo.html

[Tobtor]

On maces, hammers etc.

I generally agree with the above post by Martin Greywolf. "crushing" weapons before the 14th century is very rare, and they develop alongside plate armour (either as one handed maces or poleweapons with a hammer).

On mail, I again largely agree with Martin.

Wearing mail does help. It spreads the impact force quite alot (depending on weave of the mail and the exact weapon). But it wont as such stop it or absorb it, so any "push" will carry over.


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 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.

Teotoburg lastet for more than a day. It was a series of ambushes, forcing the Romans to form a night camp, and continuing the next day. It oinvovled something like 15.000-40.00 germanic warriors (different estimates exist, enough to squash three legions and support troops).

I would like to see anyone do that without carefull planning and sub-commanders, and changes during the battle(s). "go get them" do not work for units above 20-50 persons. Even in small larp battles someone need to keep the soldiers attacking at the same time, retreating at the same time etc. If the structure does no exists, it quickly develops.

Also: Skimishing requires quite a lot of orders and a good command, as "go get them" will not let your troops know when to pull back. You cannot leave that to the individual "warrior", as that would mean unorganised retreat, either happening too soon (not dealing any damage to your enemy), too late (not being able to retreat safely), or a mix (leaving half your force being destroyed by the enemy). If we are dealing with a skirmish from a small unit of a few hundred men who knows eachother, then perhaps. But thousands of warriors from different tribes across Germany? Hardly. Sure command structure wasnt along the lines of "military" offices, but along tribal cheiftains.

We surely lack information from the ancient era, but from early medieval context we know that "north eropean" barbarians (whether Norse or Slavic) used various tactics in battles. Shieldswalls, swine-fylkning, fake retreat and turnarounds (needs very careful command structure and disciplined soldiers knowing what they are doing and when they should do so), various manoeuvres to let the enemy get themselves encircled etc. We know that messages was send around between "units" during the Viking era mid battle (horsemen, runners, musical instruments etc).

There is no reason to assume that the 5th century bc-5th century AD didn't also use these tactics (the weapon system being very similar).

Also we have germanic "lurs" and other instruments in the weapon sacrifices (such as Nydam) indicating the use of musik to give signals across the battlefield.

The tactics might not be the same or as refined as the Romans or Greeks, and they surely was organised differently. Instead of officers there would be a system of "warchiefs", chieftains, and sub-chieftains, which would have various assignments, leading different parts of the army on an ad-hoc basis. The discipline was not based on formal training, but on the reliance of tribal structures, that meant warriors would obey their own chieftain, who would then do what his superiors said etc.

While barbarians where surely less "civilised" than Romans or Greeks, didn't mean they didn't know how to fight (otherwise they wouldn't win as many battles as they did). The employed tactics, they had permanent borderforts, they had border palisade/dyke-fortifications, spanning many kilometres. They waged war. The romans and greeks might see it as chaos, but there would be purpose behind it. In many ways it would resemble medieval armies more than Romanb/Greek, but that doesnt mean there wasnt a command structure and orders giving throughout the battle.

[Incanur]

Before 1350, they would be oddities or "in a pinch" cases

Note that the goedendag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedendag) came to prominence about 50 years before that at Courtrai 1302.

As far as air rifle efficiency goes, the Airforce Texan gets about 36% at 505fpe at 735-750fps. Based on that and other examples, even getting to 40% efficiency is difficult. The Girandoni replica gets a little under 40% as well, assuming a 2.6ft barrel. The originals (http://www.beemans.net/images/Austrian%20airguns.htm) may have done better according to some reports, such as 217fpe for a .433-caliber air rifle at around 800psi, but barrel length isn't specified. 50% efficiency is maybe theoretically possible with air but apparently very challenging to achieve in practice.

Thanks for the feedback. I might tone down the pressure about bit for my air musket in light of how effective steel-core air rifle bullets would probably be.

[Potato_Priest]

Here's something I've always wondered about. Hopefully some of you will know the answer.

In the real-time strategy game Age of Empires 3, there's a troop type called the naginata rider, who wields a naginata from horseback.

I generally tend to think of 2-handed spears like the naginata as typically being used on foot. It seems like big polearms like that would be too awkward to wield in one hand, and when riding a horse it's hard to use two hands on the same weapon.

So, was wielding naginata or similar weapons from horseback ever a popular tactic in Japan? Have any other 2-handed spears or polearms been used by cavalry historically?

I'm fine with answers about any time period.

[Lemmy]

Thank you all for your answers to my question about ID documents...

If I may abuse your generosity a little... What would be the case (on that subject) in Renaissance Europe?

[BayardSPSR]

Here's something I've always wondered about. Hopefully some of you will know the answer.

In the real-time strategy game Age of Empires 3, there's a troop type called the naginata rider, who wields a naginata from horseback.

I generally tend to think of 2-handed spears like the naginata as typically being used on foot. It seems like big polearms like that would be too awkward to wield in one hand, and when riding a horse it's hard to use two hands on the same weapon.

So, was wielding naginata or similar weapons from horseback ever a popular tactic in Japan? Have any other 2-handed spears or polearms been used by cavalry historically?

I'm fine with answers about any time period.

Yes! In fact, double-handed lances were used centuries before the stirrup was. See kontos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontos_(weapon)), xyston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyston). The Bayeux tapestry seems to depict occasional two-handed lance use as well, though that could be me misinterpreting:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Tapestry_by_unknown_weaver_-_The_Bayeux_Tapestry_%28detail%29_-_WGA24162.jpg

Related question: did couched use of the lance completely replace overhand usage, and if so when and why?

Also, when we read of men-at-arms on foot "cutting down" their lances, what exactly does that mean?

[fusilier]

Thank you all for your answers to my question about ID documents...

If I may abuse your generosity a little... What would be the case (on that subject) in Renaissance Europe?

Off the top of my head -

It depends upon what the purpose of the ID document is. If it's simply to prove identity, then there really isn't anything (a noble might have a "patent of nobility"?). Perhaps you can ask around in the person's home town to see if they recognize him/her.

Otherwise ID documents are essentially "safe conduct" papers, which also identify the bearer. They usually aren't strictly necessary, but could be useful. Without them a traveller is at the whim of the local authority and could be expelled from the territory or imprisoned as a spy. But, conditions matter -- if travelling along a major pilgrimage route, toward a fair or market, etc., they are probably safe, unless there's some reason to be suspicious of them. Pilgrims and merchants were often encouraged and were granted certain protections, but a traveller may have to demonstrate that they are indeed a pilgrim or merchant (or a guard, etc.).

I'll see if I can dig up some more precise information from my sources.

[Mendicant]

Related question: did couched use of the lance completely replace overhand usage, and if so when and why?

Holding a lance couched allows you to transfer far more energy from a charge and do so with a heavier and longer lance. If the primary tactic is shock against massed units of armored enemies, a light lance held overhand just isn't going to cut it.

[Martin Greywolf]

Yes! In fact, double-handed lances were used centuries before the stirrup was. See kontos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontos_(weapon)), xyston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyston). The Bayeux tapestry seems to depict occasional two-handed lance use as well, though that could be me misinterpreting:


Probably not, notice how the ones using it are running down fleeing opponents. If there's little danger of being attacked, might as well not use a shield and get a bit of additional control over the lance with two hands.



Related question: did couched use of the lance completely replace overhand usage, and if so when and why?

You're assuming overhand usage here which is hell of an assumption. Lances and spears in general were used in both overhand and underhand, and couched lance is different from both - or subset of underhand use, if you want to get really precise.

As for completely replace, well, it depends on the time, place and specific lance in question. From about 1400 onwards, you have specialized charging lances that are very clearly meant to be used only as a couched charging weapon:


http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1054-14_large.jpg


Not that these are NOT tournament lances, tournaments were pretty much always done with lance types that were used in warfare, only with replaced tips and more breakable construction:


http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/972-9_large.jpg


That said, these specialized lance types were mostly the domain of heavy shock cavalry, and even then, they were only used sometimes. Lighter cavalry could and did use all three methods, as you can see here, with couched Lithuanian lancers:


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/81/df/2b/81df2b70e5dd9c30efd075433e69f37a.jpg


...and here with overhand use:


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkXgxKrxUtKYcFCIcLvUCbHaDviN-ZJAbZ3lQP2Aaydn30iWH3




Also, when we read of men-at-arms on foot "cutting down" their lances, what exactly does that mean?

This one is easy, though it has fuzzy terminology, lances in this case means long footmen stabby polearms, usually either a long spear or a pike, and soldiers weren't fond of carrying those all the time, so they sawed off a bit at the bottom. That made the weapon a lot easier to march with, but was a problem if your enemy had pikes good two feet longer than you did. There were pretty severe penalties for doing this as a result.

[snowblizz]

Also, when we read of men-at-arms on foot "cutting down" their lances, what exactly does that mean?
Winging it, but fairly certain it's correct. They'd be taking the back end off the lance, probably the entire part making a couched lance easier to hold while mounted to make a servicable spear of practical length on foot.

Admittedly it may be somewhat poetical licenses too and they'd just swap out for a regulation spear, which effectively, but not literally would cut down (the length) of their lances.

Admittedly my mind keeps picturing more of a tournament style lance so I can't wrap my head around how much less fancy a warlance would be.

[War_lord]

Yes! In fact, double-handed lances were used centuries before the stirrup was. See kontos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontos_(weapon)), xyston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyston). The Bayeux tapestry seems to depict occasional two-handed lance use as well, though that could be me misinterpreting

I think this is a misunderstanding of the question being asked. I believe to poster was referring to polearms like the Halberd, Fauchard, Glaive, Guisarme, Glaive-Guisarme, Partizan, Pollaxe, Ranseur, Spetum, Spontoon, Bohemian Earspoon and Voulge. Which were in fact not used mounted, as they were anti-cavalry weapons designed to be used in tight formations.

[snowblizz]

I think this is a misunderstanding of the question being asked. I believe to poster was referring to polearms like the Halberd, Fauchard, Glaive, Guisarme, Glaive-Guisarme, Partizan, Pollaxe, Ranseur, Spetum, Spontoon, Bohemian Earspoon and Voulge. Which were in fact not used mounted, as they were anti-cavalry weapons designed to be used in tight formations.

The OP asked about naginatas which were definitely used while mounted. One handed, similarly to a spear, but still, what was usually a 2 handed infantry weapon was in fact used mounted. Naginatas (especially) and yari were both more of a slashing spear anyway (compared to european use at any rate). The Japanese samurai would probably not have used yari two-handed like a kontos was though, they used a shorter yari than ashigaru pikers, though it was still generally considered a "spear", the Japanese don't really differentiate between spear and pike.

If the OP wanted to know about polearms such as listed by you they should have asked about them, which in case the answer would be, nope.

The answer to the OPs specific question about naginatas is yes they were used on horseback (though probably mostly one-handed) and yes similar weapons were used on horseback, e.g. the long spears used two-handedly by ancient cataphracts.

[Incanur]

16th-century (and probably later and earlier) Korean cavalry sometimes used a large flail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyeongon) in two hands from horseback (https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0397/83/1430903833136.jpg).

On the whole, there's plenty of evidence for two-handed weapons from the saddle, including cutting and bludgeoning ones.

On a different note, that earlier conversation got me think about the possibility of engineering a compressed-air assault rifle or least repeating rifle with modern tech. A few of these actually exist, such as the Hatsan Hercules (http://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Hatsan_Hercules_QE_Air_Rifle/4160/7949). The .357-caliber model manages 193 J and about 299 J/cm2. With a steel core that might defeat some armor, but probably not more than 2mm mild steel. The .357 Hercules gets 48 shots in 9-round magazines but weighs 13lbs. It also uses 250-bar air (3625psi).

In theory, you could do better with a longer barrel, say 3ft, but the trick would be keeping the weight tolerable while maintaining a decent number of shots per fill. Assuming you could make a repeating air rifle capable of piercing 3-4mm mild steel, you'd run into the issue of mediocre stopping power because of the relatively small bullets and low velocity (going bigger than .357 seems unwise if you want to minimize weight and maximize shots per fill). Assault rifles get around this somewhat via high velocity.

You could have a more powerful round and/or more shots per fill with an external tank, but at the cost of increased weight and awkwardness, presumably decreasing mobility. But hey, that works for flamethrowers, some (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammenwerfer_41) of which weigh 60-80+lbs. You could get a lot of everything at that weight with an air rifle.

[spineyrequiem]

Two (possibly) long questions:

1) How common was two-handed bludgeoning weapon, such as mace and cudgel, during medieval period, specifically 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th century?


2) How good is the defense of mail armour against blunt trauma? It's anecdotal, but I've read somewhere that mail is actually surprisingly good against blunt weapon (and cut and thrust, for that matter).

Like "I took a full-powered baseball bat swing to the chest wearing a good mail and sweater (i.e. no padding whatsoever) with enough force to throw me off my feet, and suffered no injury and no stun whatsoever." good.

1) There is no evidence for them in the West in the 11th or 12th centuries, from what I've seen. Polemaces appear in the 13th Century as a knightly weapon but were relatively rare still. I don't do any later period stuff :(

2) It's OK-ish. Depends on the mail. Flat-ring can spread the force a bit, enough that while I've repeatedly cut my shins open when training in soft kit I've never done it when in chausses (without padding underneath). It's also noticeably harder to get hurt through it and padding than just padding alone. Still, I'd always prefer to have some padding underneath where possible.

[wolflance]

Thanks Incanur, Martin Greywolf, Tobtor and Spineyrequeim for the answer (sorry for the late reply).

So to extrapolate from the answers given to me, two-handed crushing weapons weren't developed/came into widespread use earlier than 13th/14th century because armour wasn't as good back then?

(In other word, one-handed blunt weapon was considered up to the task if you want to crack/bypass a 10-12th century hauberk, but less adequate against later period armor?)




Here's something I've always wondered about. Hopefully some of you will know the answer.

In the real-time strategy game Age of Empires 3, there's a troop type called the naginata rider, who wields a naginata from horseback.

I generally tend to think of 2-handed spears like the naginata as typically being used on foot. It seems like big polearms like that would be too awkward to wield in one hand, and when riding a horse it's hard to use two hands on the same weapon.

So, was wielding naginata or similar weapons from horseback ever a popular tactic in Japan? Have any other 2-handed spears or polearms been used by cavalry historically?

I'm fine with answers about any time period.
Russians had cavalry armed with sovnya, which is basically a Russian naginata.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/RusVsad_tegilay.gif


https://youtu.be/91u90XET4IE?t=220
Here the Koreans actually demonstrate the techniques of using a weol-do (Guandao-equivalent) on horseback. (from 3:40)

Of course, there's the Chinese as well, in all their Romance of Three Kingdom glory (the novel may be fiction, but the author was very familia and heavily referenced actual military tactic of its time).



Now, using a two-handed chopping weapon is similar to using a one-handed saber on horseback, in the sense that it's easier to attack the rider's right hand side, but harder (not impossible) to attack to the left. In mounted vs mounted combat, a two-handed polearm actually confers several significant advantages over single sword or sword + shield, namely:

1) Reach, for obvious reason.
2) Power
3) Harder to use a shield on horseback.
4) Harder to parry/evade/move around too, for that matter.

[Brother Oni]

Naginatas (especially) and yuri were both more of a slashing spear anyway (compared to european use at any rate). The Japanese samurai would probably not have used yuri two-handed like a kontos was though, they used a shorter yuri than ashigaru pikers, though it was still generally considered a "spear", the Japanese don't really differentiate between spear and pike.

Minor nitpick - the Japanese word for spear is yari (槍). Yuri is either a girl's name or a sub-genre of manga focusing on lesbian relationships.

While true that the Japanese don't really have a separate term for a pike, they do differentiate between a 'normal' spear and the big 5+ metre haft; these were called nagae yari and were primarily used by ashigaru. Wolflance posted an image a while back that described how Ashigaru fought with them (primarily striking down from above rather than thrusting).

[snowblizz]

Minor nitpick - the Japanese word for spear is yari (槍). Yuri is either a girl's name or a sub-genre of manga focusing on lesbian relationships.

While true that the Japanese don't really have a separate term for a pike, they do differentiate between a 'normal' spear and the big 5+ metre haft; these were called nagae yari and were primarily used by ashigaru. Wolflance posted an image a while back that described how Ashigaru fought with them (primarily striking down from above rather than thrusting).
Oops.
No idea how that typo got in there! Oooh yea, I was thinking too hard to try and get it right and got yari and yumi mixed up and was too lazy to double check.

In regards to the original question I'm reminded of how Total War Shogun 2 still has mounted katana samurai even though that's really not a thing at all (exactly how a medieaval knight wasn't a sword and board dude on a horse). The mounted yumi samurai, sohei warriors and some others are also somewhat anacronisticly available. Games tend to grab on small differences to make more interesting gamepaly challenges.

[Potato_Priest]

Thanks for the answers, guys!
(That Sovnya picture looks awesome wolflance)



The answer to the OPs specific question about naginatas is yes they were used on horseback (though probably mostly one-handed) and yes similar weapons were used on horseback, e.g. the long spears used two-handedly by ancient cataphracts.

Do you happen to know how they managed to wield something like that in one hand? Did they use it mostly like a lance, or did they actually manage to chop with it?

[Lemmy]

Minor nitpick - the Japanese word for spear is yari (槍). Yuri is either a girl's name or a sub-genre of manga focusing on lesbian relationships.
Isn't yuri also the word for the lily flower as well?

[Tobtor]

So to extrapolate from the answers given to me, two-handed crushing weapons weren't developed/came into widespread use earlier than 13th/14th century because armour wasn't as good back then?

Close, but not quite. Two handed crushing weapons first came into widespread use in Europe in the 14th century (not the 13th, 1302 is 14th century, but arguably it did not become "normal" until 1350'ies or so, but here is room for disagreement and discussion on what is "widespread" etc).



(In other word, one-handed blunt weapon was considered up to the task if you want to crack/bypass a 10-12th century hauberk, but less adequate against later period armor?)

Well except that one handed blunt weapon wasn't very common in the 10-12th century.

I would estimate something like 99% of all close combat weapons in the 10th-11th century in western Europe (England, France, Germany, Scandinavia etc) would be swords, axes, spears and knives. Some exception exist (such as the Bishop Odo who uses a club on the Bayeux tapestry, possibly to avoid "spilling" Christian blood, though there is some disagreement on this part). By the 12th century we migh see some crushing weapons, but still it seem to be below 5% of the weapons.

"Clubs" (maces and similar) where possibly more common to the east (Byzantium/Russia), but I would argue still a minority weapon. It existed, and in some places saw some use (though still as a rarity weapon in the 10th century). By the 12th century we see more regular use as a secondary weapon for knights, though still ranking below swords).

Flails are known from the 10th century Russia-region, and spread into Europe during the 11th-13th century, but looking at the evidence it seem a rarely used weapon before late 12th or 13th century (at least in northern and western Europe, but even here we might see exceptions in some small regions). There isn't good evidence however that 'war flails' where ever used as a "common" weapon in warfare (few illustrations, few references, and few archaological finds, and only some questionable collection examples). But schaolars disagree to the extend of its use. Surely Hussites and others seem to have used flails in the late medieval period.

Other one handed "crushing" weapons, such as one handed warhammer type weapons, is typical for the late 14th century onwards, thus at the same time as twohanded bashing weapons become essential part of the army gear.

Thus it does not seem there where any great "exploitation" of mails weakness to blunt impact, and that is even though there probably wasn't heavy gambesons beneath them in the 10-12th century (we can discuss if this means no padding above thick clothing, or if thin padded armour where used, though very little evidence exists). This is even though mail have been known since the 4th century BC at least. We might assume the weapons they had did this part well enough: In general axes seem to be good enough at "crushing" through mail that fixed crushing weapons wasn't worth sacrificing the cutting ability for.

In the 13th century we might see better padding (arguably, this is interpretation from my side), and gradual development of the coat of plates and later plate armour in the 14th century made crushing weapons much more popular.

[Knaight]

I would estimate something like 99% of all close combat weapons in the 10th-11th century in western Europe (England, France, Germany, Scandinavia etc) would be swords, axes, spears and knives. Some exception exist (such as the Bishop Odo who uses a club on the Bayeux tapestry, possibly to avoid "spilling" Christian blood, though there is some disagreement on this part). By the 12th century we migh see some crushing weapons, but still it seem to be below 5% of the weapons.

I'd move that downwards a bit - staves weren't exactly uncommon during that period, and while they didn't tend to show up in actual battles much they could easily have represented a fairly large fraction of total weapons, not least because they're comparatively unlikely to be preserved (both because wood doesn't last as well as metal and because they're not going to end up in a grave).

[rs2excelsior]

A couple of quick questions (that've probably been asked before, but the search function doesn't seem to be yielding results, so here goes):

I'm working on a setting that's based on early iron age tech, rather than the high medieval assumption core to most high fantasy. So I'm planning on iron and bronze being the most common materials for weapons and armor, with steel being extremely rare/exotic. My planned system (Pathfinder) has rules for bronze as a material but not iron. So I have a few questions on the effectiveness of bronze vs. iron vs. steel.

First off, I know that iron being better than bronze is largely a myth--the shift from bronze to iron was driven more by the fact that iron was more plentiful than copper and tin, and that it was lighter. From what I understand, iron is harder than bronze, but more brittle. So, if a fighter with a bronze sword fought a fighter with an iron sword, both of decent quality metal and workmanship, the bronze would be more likely to nick but the iron to break entirely. How accurate is this? I realize that workmanship and quality of the material would play a large role, and that different places and time periods would likely have different standards--so I know the answer will likely be more complicated than I want it to be :smalltongue: Still, it'd help to see if I'm completely off base. Similarly, how does iron and steel compare in terms of weight and effectiveness? I imagine steel would be superior in both cases (again, with caveats based on quality of the item itself).

Second, what kinds of items can be made with various metals? I know bronze does not lend itself well to larger blades; you couldn't make a D&D style greatsword from bronze. So perhaps the longer blades (ones designed to be used either one- or two-handed, perhaps) would likely be available in iron but not in bronze. Could you make bronze chainmail?

Basically, by Pathfinder RAW bronze weapons and armor break more easily--when broken they have a penalty to attack rolls (weapons) or AC and ACP (armor).
If "broken" again they become unusable. Either must be repaired by magic or a mundane craftsman. Could I get away with using the same rules for iron and bronze?

Looking to be at least in the general vicinity of realistic, but hyper-realism isn't necessary, or else I wouldn't be using a D&D derivative system in the first place.

[Martin Greywolf]

So I'm planning on iron and bronze being the most common materials for weapons and armor, with steel being extremely rare/exotic.

Steel, at least medieval-quality steel, shouldn't really exist at this point. There was a small quantity of it produced, but the quality of it was rather poor, even Romans mostly used wrought iron at first. All steel you find at this point is of a very, very low quality and even lower consistency - which means it can be inferior to bronze. more on that in a while.



First off, I know that iron being better than bronze is largely a myth--the shift from bronze to iron was driven more by the fact that iron was more plentiful than copper and tin, and that it was lighter. From what I understand, iron is harder than bronze, but more brittle. So, if a fighter with a bronze sword fought a fighter with an iron sword, both of decent quality metal and workmanship, the bronze would be more likely to nick but the iron to break entirely. How accurate is this?

First of all, terminology. Iron is vastly inferior to bronze in all the ways that matter here. Once you work it properly into something like wrought iron or low-grade steel, it becomes actually useful.

You are correct in why the shift happened, iron was the only thing needed to make wrought iron sword, but as the technology improved and people learned to make first low-quality and then better and better steel, it became undisputably better for almost all uses.

Next thing. Iron being harder than bronze, well, not really. We're talking wrought iron swords that are work-hardened the same way the bronze ones are (i.e. you pound the edges with a hammer to make it harder), and these ones are not brittle at all and rather soft. There are numerous references in scandinavian early medieval sagas of swords not only bending, but being straightened mid-battle by stepping on them. I'd say that at this point, the difference between bronze and wrought iron sword is too small to be meaningful, except in that the iron ones are cheaper - which is why practically everyone is using them.



Second, what kinds of items can be made with various metals? I know bronze does not lend itself well to larger blades; you couldn't make a D&D style greatsword from bronze. So perhaps the longer blades (ones designed to be used either one- or two-handed, perhaps) would likely be available in iron but not in bronze. Could you make bronze chainmail?


No, you can't have longswords with this tech level, you can't even have long arming swords. The limit of what you can achieve with low quality steel is gladius, and maybe spatha, but it'll be a rather crappy spatha. There's a reason why viking swords cost as much as they did and why most scandinavians didn't use them, favoring cheaper axes as sidearms instead.

Perhaps even more importantly, having a two handed weapon with this level of armor tech is not a good idea because you can't use a shield. There are some rare examples of them (e.g. dacian falx), but these are rare exceptions, not the norm.

As for armor types, bronze chainmail can't be done, you're kind of limited to partial plate coverings with it, maybe some lamellar armor, but you need to make bronze (and iron) pretty thick to work properly. Chain mail is the pinnacle of armor technology at this time, and that's stretching it a bit - iron age ends at about 600 BC, Celts have chain mail around IIRC 400 BC.

The main battle weapon is, across all the cultures and almost without exception (damn nomads and their horse archery), spear.

The best thing you can do here is to look at what armor and weapons were used at the time - Romans, Celts, Chinese, Etruscans, Greeks and so on all had to solve this "how do I stab the other guy and get away with it?" problem.



Basically, by Pathfinder RAW bronze weapons and armor break more easily--when broken they have a penalty to attack rolls (weapons) or AC and ACP (armor).
If "broken" again they become unusable. Either must be repaired by magic or a mundane craftsman. Could I get away with using the same rules for iron and bronze?

Looking to be at least in the general vicinity of realistic, but hyper-realism isn't necessary, or else I wouldn't be using a D&D derivative system in the first place.

Remember that this is supposed to be in comparison to the main material of the setting, which is Renaissance level steel. If you compare it with that, well, it usually holds true, but fails to account for all the details.

Since you have these weapons as the main thing, you need to come up with something that would require less book-keeping. After all, it's not full plate clad longsword wielding knight against iron age warrior here, everyone is on the same footing. After you band the non-existent weapons (goodbye rapiers), come up with a quick and dirty system of weapon repairs - maybe something like, after every adventure, your equipment needs to be repaired for a fraction of purchase cost, if it isn't, it has penalties and will break after the next adventure. Hell, this was the case with steel equipment too, if your helmet gets dented, you need to hammer it back into shape.

This also means that magic items, even basic +1 magic items, will be even more valuable, since they don't break or dull as easily.

Oh, and a bit of game design warning, don't give players easy way to make this go away - no "I can repair weapons for free" feats allowed. That will remove one of the chief flavory mechanics you have here if even one of them takes it. Reducing the cost is ok, removing it not so much.

[Kiero]

No, you can't have longswords with this tech level, you can't even have long arming swords. The limit of what you can achieve with low quality steel is gladius, and maybe spatha, but it'll be a rather crappy spatha. There's a reason why viking swords cost as much as they did and why most scandinavians didn't use them, favoring cheaper axes as sidearms instead.

Perhaps even more importantly, having a two handed weapon with this level of armor tech is not a good idea because you can't use a shield. There are some rare examples of them (e.g. dacian falx), but these are rare exceptions, not the norm.

As for armor types, bronze chainmail can't be done, you're kind of limited to partial plate coverings with it, maybe some lamellar armor, but you need to make bronze (and iron) pretty thick to work properly. Chain mail is the pinnacle of armor technology at this time, and that's stretching it a bit - iron age ends at about 600 BC, Celts have chain mail around IIRC 400 BC.

The main battle weapon is, across all the cultures and almost without exception (damn nomads and their horse archery), spear.

The best thing you can do here is to look at what armor and weapons were used at the time - Romans, Celts, Chinese, Etruscans, Greeks and so on all had to solve this "how do I stab the other guy and get away with it?" problem.

Not in Europe it doesn't, and it varies by location. In the Near East by accepted convention it ends around 500BC, but in Europe it doesn't end until 1BC. From this error, lots of flawed assumptions flow.

Roman swords were low-grade steel. Those few they've been able to test (museums don't like people cutting up their exhibits) show this, and those forged from Austrian (Noricum) steel had manganese in them as well. Celts had longer swords than gladii or spatha, and long before the spatha appeared; they had better metallurgy than the Romans or Greeks. Not surprising since they likely invented mail.

There were lots of swords around in the Hellenstic era, towards the south. The Vikings were pretty poor compared to the Mediterranean communities, that's why they had less armour and swords.

You don't need bronze mail, because iron and low-grade steel mail is available for those who can afford it. Bronze still makes better, larger solid plates, though, so cuirasses are more like to be bronze than iron/steel. Lamellar and scale are abundant.

You're also overlooking the most common two-handed weapon in this period: the pike. Though the Makedonian-style phalanx had shields strapped to the shoulder.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I've heard that bronze can be easily bent or hammered back into shape without losing strength, it can essentially be reforged at room temperature, even if necessary under battlefield conditions, unless it has really teared or broken. I'm guessing that might also be sort of true for cruder forms of iron, while steel tends to buy its higher hardness from increased brittleness. That could make for an interesting difference in properties. Wrought iron is the cheap stuff, bronze is the highly practical but pretty expensive stuff family heirlooms are made off and steel is the hip new technology. It's the most expensive to buy, can only be repaired (short of an expensive reforging) in a way similar to the mending spell, function restored but no hitpoints regenerated, but it does have the highest hardness and the biggest damage bonus.

For armor, maybe do something with that too. Steel is harder to deform, while bronze can handle some other blows better precisely because it dents, that takes out the energy. Though I'm not sure what that would mean in game terms. Bronze extra resistant to bludgeoning (or some form of heavy melee attack, if bludgeoning weapons aren't common enough), steel to piercing and slashing? That would synergize reasonably well with chainmail being mostly made from steel as it is at least within the game often a favorite among more skirmisher like characters who deal with arrows and swords rather than heavy main melee battlefield weapons.

[Kiero]

In the Iron Age milieu, skirmishers generally didn't wear any armour at all, they prized mobility above all else. At most they might have a helmet as well as a shield, but body armour was uncommon.

The shield was the primary defensive device; I'd highly recommend changing it's impact depending on size. I did this in my ACKS historical game, see here (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Tyche%27s_Favourites/Chargen#Shields)for the alteration to shield effects.

[Tobtor]

I'd move that downwards a bit - staves weren't exactly uncommon during that period, and while they didn't tend to show up in actual battles much they could easily have represented a fairly large fraction of total weapons, not least because they're comparatively unlikely to be preserved (both because wood doesn't last as well as metal and because they're not going to end up in a grave).

I havn't seen much evidence for staves used in the 10th-12th Century combat. It is not just archaological records that lack them, they also rarely appear in inventories, depictions, accounts etc. The most quaterstaff teachings/mentions we have is from the 16th Century, with some going back to the 15th Century. People might have used them before, sure, but not as a regular common weapon.

Now; did peope sometimes used improvised weapons? Used a staff/walkingstick/bowstaff as an improptu weapon for melee? Very likely. But if you read historical accounts they very rarely show up. Things with iron bits was som common that you generally used that (most tools such as axes, knives, pichforks etc). But even this seem rare.

This could of course be due to the fact that historians generally describe nobility/Merchants/Kings, and not the lower classes. But: the sagas. Written from the 12th-14th Century and dealing with the period 9th-13th Century (we have "contemproary" sagas, dealing with the time the where writing about, such as the Sturlunga saga). In these Icelandic peasants is a large part of the action. We have people not being able to afford swords (burrowing when they have to duel) people being attacked while plouginh the field etc. The number of staves, Clubs etc is preciously low. When people fight unarmed they use knives... (everybody(!) had a knife).

I stand by my point that 99% of weapons used to fight (single combat, roibberies, battles everything) would be swords, axes, knives, and spears.

[Kiero]

Was the ubiquity of the staff as a commoner's weapon an English phenomenon, then?

[wolflance]

Not in Europe it doesn't, and it varies by location. In the Near East by accepted convention it ends around 500BC, but in Europe it doesn't end until 1BC. From this error, lots of flawed assumptions flow.

Roman swords were low-grade steel. Those few they've been able to test (museums don't like people cutting up their exhibits) show this, and those forged from Austrian (Noricum) steel had manganese in them as well. Celts had longer swords than gladii or spatha, and long before the spatha appeared; they had better metallurgy than the Romans or Greeks. Not surprising since they likely invented mail.

There were lots of swords around in the Hellenstic era, towards the south. The Vikings were pretty poor compared to the Mediterranean communities, that's why they had less armour and swords.

You don't need bronze mail, because iron and low-grade steel mail is available for those who can afford it. Bronze still makes better, larger solid plates, though, so cuirasses are more like to be bronze than iron/steel. Lamellar and scale are abundant.

You're also overlooking the most common two-handed weapon in this period: the pike. Though the Makedonian-style phalanx had shields strapped to the shoulder.
True indeed. If we're looking outside of Europe, Chinese had large two-handed swords throughout the entire Roman period, and Indian had it even earlier than the Chinese, having used the weapon during Alexander's invasion.

[Tobtor]

No, you can't have longswords with this tech level, you can't even have long arming swords. The limit of what you can achieve with low quality steel is gladius, and maybe spatha, but it'll be a rather crappy spatha. There's a reason why viking swords cost as much as they did and why most scandinavians didn't use them, favoring cheaper axes as sidearms instead.

While I genrrally agree with Martins post, I would like to stress two things:

1. As Kiero mentions Roman swords (and later germanic copies) contain steel (or the majority does). I think this is where the idea of the brittel iron comes from, because the Roman "steel" was indeed rather brittle, Thus many swords are made of a mix of iron and steel (pattern welded), where hard brittle steel is used on the edges and patternwelded iron/steel bars for the core of the sword. This make the sword hard enough not to bend, and soft enough not to snap/break (at least make it less likely). From the bogsacrifes in Scandinavia something like 80-90% of Spathas/gladius are pattern welded to some degree, while a few wrought iron swords are also present (possibly copies?).

As he also mentions celtic type swords are not that short. La tene swords are pretty long (though not longswords), typically longer than early gladius types.

2. While axes are more common in the 10th century viking age graves, the dominans of axes as a sidearm is not as great as often suggested. Also in earlier periods axes are rather few. Axe-burials is a 9th-11th Century thing, and possibly linked to the emergance of a "huscarl" class across Northern Europe, where axes became a symbol.

[Tobtor]

Was the ubiquity of the staff as a commoner's weapon an English phenomenon, then?

I think it was a later thing connected to 13th century onwards tough English regulations on real weapons perhaps? Simialr to the "messer" growing out of proportion in germany. A way of having a weapon without breaking any weapon Laws. I havent seen any evidence of staff-weapons being common in the 10th-11th century England. I might be wrong, but then I would like to see sources.

[Martin Greywolf]

I stand by my point that 99% of weapons used to fight (single combat, roibberies, battles everything) would be swords, axes, knives, and spears.

That is a vast overestimation, IMO. Yes, what you name were the most common non-projectile weapons, but really. There are many references to clubs in viking age sources like Gesta Danorum (most of them seem to indeed be in the hands of lower classes), some of them even in the hands of the kings, reinforced with golden nails. Also, let's not forget we must compare like with like - spear is hardly a sidearm, mace, sword or axe can be, but don't have to.

Actual maces with metal heads are a problematic topic before the 11th century - while we have no direct references to them, there is a strong possibility that they are simply not distinguished from the clubs when it comes to terminology. We can definitely say that they were used from 11th century onwards, seeing as Kyjev was a well-known centre of manufacturing rather well-made examples (hollow bronze heads with lead filling). These were then exported to, among other places, Scandinavia, Poland and Hungary, but were easy enough to make domestically, so you probably had a lot of lower quality ones made locally. If you really want to go into this rabbit hole, start with Kirpicnikovov typology: KIRPIČNIKOV, Anatolij Nikolajevič: Drevněrusskoje oružije. Vypusk vtoroj, Kopja, sulicy, bojevyje topory, bulavy, kisteni IX-XIII vv. Archeologija SSSR. Moskva : Nauka, 1966

For high medieval period, Hungary certainly used maces, they seemed to be fairly popular with cavalrymen, which in case of Hungary was an unusually high number of troops. Sándor Tóth collection has several of them from 12-13th centuries. The Rule of the Teutonic knights from 1264 also directly mentions maces as something you're allowed to use on your own troops if they don't obey you in battle, which sort of suggests that every knight had them as part of their standard kit - mostly because they weren't allowed to have anything that wasn't part of the standard kit.

[Tobtor]

There were lots of swords around in the Hellenstic era, towards the south. The Vikings were pretty poor compared to the Mediterranean communities, that's why they had less armour and swords.


There where lots of swords around Scandinavia in the "iron age" (North European termonology uses iron age untill at least 500 AD as we do not have a classical pperiod, the term doesnt Refer to best awailable material, but most common cutting material, genrally "hosue"/"eating" knives were made of iron until the medieval period).

In Denmark during the late la tene period (1rst Century BC) we have plenty of sword graves (swords even surpasses spears in some regions). We also have some mail armours. Then the Celtic World collapses and in the 1 and 2nd Century AD spear and shield is almost exlsuvie as finds in weapon graves (no armour) in Southern Denmark, while Northern Denmark have a continued use of home made single edged swords. In the late 2nd earl 3rd we find swords and mail again - thoug spears are more numerous (and then they stop using weapon burials altogether in Denmark).

The situation in the 1st century AD fits with the description of Tacitus that the Germanic tribes uses only spears and shields, with few mails and almost no helmets (fewer helmets than mails-shirts seem to be a thing in Northern Europe!).

We cannot compare vikings with hellenistic era, but I would venture the guess that if we measured sword pr. person in the entire society, the swords would be more numourous in 10th Century Scandinavia than in Hellenistic Medditerranean. But we are comparing apples and oranges. But weapon graves isnt very common in the hellenistic era (in percent of the total graves) as far as I know. I also think "non"-sword weapons dominate, but Greek archaology isn't my strong suit.

[Tobtor]

That is a vast overestimation, IMO. Yes, what you name were the most common non-projectile weapons, but really. There are many references to clubs in viking age sources like Gesta Danorum (most of them seem to indeed be in the hands of lower classes), some of them even in the hands of the kings, reinforced with golden nails. Also, let's not forget we must compare like with like - spear is hardly a sidearm, mace, sword or axe can be, but don't have to.

Actual maces with metal heads are a problematic topic before the 11th century - while we have no direct references to them, there is a strong possibility that they are simply not distinguished from the clubs when it comes to terminology. We can definitely say that they were used from 11th century onwards, seeing as Kyjev was a well-known centre of manufacturing rather well-made examples (hollow bronze heads with lead filling). These were then exported to, among other places, Scandinavia, Poland and Hungary, but were easy enough to make domestically, so you probably had a lot of lower quality ones made locally. If you really want to go into this rabbit hole, start with Kirpicnikovov typology: KIRPIČNIKOV, Anatolij Nikolajevič: Drevněrusskoje oružije. Vypusk vtoroj, Kopja, sulicy, bojevyje topory, bulavy, kisteni IX-XIII vv. Archeologija SSSR. Moskva : Nauka, 1966

For high medieval period, Hungary certainly used maces, they seemed to be fairly popular with cavalrymen, which in case of Hungary was an unusually high number of troops. Sándor Tóth collection has several of them from 12-13th centuries. The Rule of the Teutonic knights from 1264 also directly mentions maces as something you're allowed to use on your own troops if they don't obey you in battle, which sort of suggests that every knight had them as part of their standard kit - mostly because they weren't allowed to have anything that wasn't part of the standard kit.

When comparing to the finds of spears, then the finds of maces indeed is very, very low. There is nothing to suggest spears being better preserved. Also try counting the references to "Club" in gesta danorum with the mention of spears, swords and axes. Especially as vast parts of armies are armed with spears. Clubs seem to have been used by very few individals (bishops and a few kings, possibly as a symbol of power - hence the golden nails. A kind of sceptre). I strongly doubt you would get above 1%....

I did mention that "By the 12th century we see more regular use as a secondary weapon for knights, though still ranking below swords". I would still argue that swords where more common for knights that maces, even in the 13th Century when the Teotonic knights rule is from. But yes by the 13th Century maces are more common. Also as asomething you might use as keeper of the Peace in towns etc.

I note especially:


Actual maces with metal heads are a problematic topic before the 11th century - while we have no direct references to them, there is a strong possibility that they are simply not distinguished from the clubs when it comes to terminology.

We dont find the metal heads in weapon burials, on battlefields or in other achaeological context either. At least not as frequent as axes and swords, and far less than spears. I think 0,5% for maces would be generous considering the entire region of Northern and western Europe. I did mention that it might be more popular in the Eastern parts, though I still doubt you would see anything as popular as axes! I would think axe-finds would be 4 or 5 times more prominint that maces, and spears even more so in these regions. In other regiosn in would be thousands to 1. So neither historical nor archaological evidence supports maces as a common weapon in the 10-12th Century, possibly growing by the late 12th Century. This does suggest they where rare!

Fromm all evidence axes and swords are much more common "sidearms", next to speas, than maces. Most soldiers when not having a sword or axe, will use a large knife. The mace might be used by a few (especially in the 12th century), but as a secondary weapon to the sword (or axe).

[Kiero]

There where lots of swords around Scandinavia in the "iron age" (North European termonology uses iron age untill at least 500 AD as we do not have a classical pperiod, the term doesnt Refer to best awailable material, but most common cutting material, genrally "hosue"/"eating" knives were made of iron until the medieval period).

In Denmark during the late la tene period (1rst Century BC) we have plenty of sword graves (swords even surpasses spears in some regions). We also have some mail armours. Then the Celtic World collapses and in the 1 and 2nd Century AD spear and shield is almost exlsuvie as finds in weapon graves (no armour) in Southern Denmark, while Northern Denmark have a continued use of home made single edged swords. In the late 2nd earl 3rd we find swords and mail again - thoug spears are more numerous (and then they stop using weapon burials altogether in Denmark).

The situation in the 1st century AD fits with the description of Tacitus that the Germanic tribes uses only spears and shields, with few mails and almost no helmets (fewer helmets than mails-shirts seem to be a thing in Northern Europe!).

We cannot compare vikings with hellenistic era, but I would venture the guess that if we measured sword pr. person in the entire society, the swords would be more numourous in 10th Century Scandinavia than in Hellenistic Medditerranean. But we are comparing apples and oranges. But weapon graves isnt very common in the hellenistic era (in percent of the total graves) as far as I know. I also think "non"-sword weapons dominate, but Greek archaology isn't my strong suit.

As an example, Rome during the late La Tene period has almost a quarter of a million legionaries - every single one of them with a sword. During the civil wars, that number doubles. That's not counting sword-armed auxiliaries. That's not counting the Hellenistic kingdoms who could still raise armies of 25-50,000 men, many of whom again would have swords.

They may not make it into the archaeological record, but there were hundreds of thousands of swords washing about the place.

As for weapon-graves, in the Hellenistic era, I think it was only the Celts who maintained that practise (they still sometimes buried lords with chariots, even though they'd completely fallen out of battlefield usage).

[Tobtor]

As an example, Rome during the late La Tene period has almost a quarter of a million legionaries - every single one of them with a sword. During the civil wars, that number doubles. That's not counting sword-armed auxiliaries. That's not counting the Hellenistic kingdoms who could still raise armies of 25-50,000 men, many of whom again would have swords.

They may not make it into the archaeological record, but there were hundreds of thousands of swords washing about the place.

As for weapon-graves, in the Hellenistic era, I think it was only the Celts who maintained that practise (they still sometimes buried lords with chariots, even though they'd completely fallen out of battlefield usage).

Yes, thats what is the problem: we compare armies from history books with graves of individuals. Aplles and oranges. My point is that we have hundreds of graves with swords on the small Island of Bornholm from pre-roman iron age, but not a single from Zealand. Thus weapon graves might not be fully representitative of what is actually present.

A second point is that I would argue taht yes: romans and Greeks fielded thousands of warriors, but so did the celts, with a much smaller population! Thus we would have more weapons per capita.

[Vinyadan]

About Iron Age:
It's a definition I almost never use, simply because, in Europe, it overlaps with historical times in which known great changes happened (and we have enough information to talk about years and decades, in the Roman part at least). So e.g. I'd never talk about Iron Age Roman armies, or Iron Age Athenian pottery. In general, it's too vague compared to how much we know, which I guess is why it's used for prehistory and protohistory. However, I wanted to notice that the Iron Age in Northern/Germanic Europe lasts until 800 AD (!).

Anyway, since there is some talk about preferred/most important defensive equipment: excavations in Olympia seem to confirm what has often been said in this thread: excluding shields, the most often found armour are helmets, followed by greaves. The third most found are the relatively unknown ankle protections (which are not greaves); then we have torso armour, and the least common parts are thigh, foot, shoulder, arm and forearm protection.
The armoured run -- hoplitodromía, one of the ancient Olympic sports -- was done wearing only helm, greaves and shield, which must have been seen as the defining set for the hoplite.

As for maces, I have collected in this page (https://eleggo.net/maces-and) images of Byzantine maces from a XII century illuminated manuscript. There also are a couple of pickaxes used against city defenses, because I found it interesting to see. The manuscript is the Madrid Skylitzes, which is something of a fetish object for both Byzantinists and Scandinavists, since it contains the few contemporary images of the Varangian Guard.

[rs2excelsior]

-snip-


-snip-


-snip-


-snip-

Wow, lots of great info here, thanks for all the responses. As far as terminology, I seem to have a misconception about the start of the "iron age" (and a sense that it was a less nebulous term than I thought). The general tech level I'm looking for is around 500-400 BC, so before Alexander and the Sarissa (although the long pike might still make it in, I'm not doing a historical game but rather a fantasy game with roughly that level of tech). I'll play around with gear repair things--the RAW for bronze cover that pretty well, I think, with some tweaking. And simply -not- requiring that kind of maintenance might be good enough for high-quality steel or magical weapons (ironically, it might be a bit more accurate than it is when the assumption is that everyone has medieval grade steel). Also, I hadn't realized that many iron-age weapons were actually low quality steel.

Regarding Medieval grade steel: again, this is going to be a historically inspired fantasy setting, so "steel" (by game terms, referring to medieval quality steel standard in D&D assumptions) will be made in extremely exotic locations or by mythical creatures/deities. It won't be available on the streets; finding a steel weapon will be the result of an adventure or a gift from a deity.

Regarding shields: I plan on some tweaks to the shield system to make them more important for protection. I'll take a look at the system Kiero posted and see what I can do with that as well.

I've heard some reference to longer iron Celtic swords in this period. Would I be correct in assuming that they could be used either one or two handed? That seems to match most with what I have seen regarding Celtic/Germanic swords, though I am more familiar with the Roman era rather than classical Greece.

Edit: Also, regarding spears, with a ~8ft Dory common to the Greek hoplites (or especially the longer versions, but pre-Sarissa), how easy would it be for a swordsman to get in closer than the spear user could effectively strike back? i.e. is the spear an effective close-range weapon? I'm sure it'd be less effective than a short sword like the xiphos at close quarters, but would it be entirely useless?

[Kiero]

What you're essentially looking at is the Classical Era of Greece - the Greco-Persian Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars) or the era of the Athenian-led Delian League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League), for example. So yes, that would be pre-pike and pre-Romans (in this era they fought in the hoplite phalanx too, though their Samnite neighbours didn't).

Mail may not exist, in that case - ultimately your call, but I think the game would be more distinctly different without it. There's probably still low-grade steel in certain places, but mostly bronze.

On shields, that's another one that you can make a big distinction around. If shields are more than just +1/+2 AC, but have properties that means the size and shape require some thought, it can change the nature of combat. One of the things I really liked in my historical game was that if you were surprised, simply picking up shield and weapon, rather than spending the time to put your armour on, was a valid tactic.

Celtic swords generally don't have hilts long enough for two hands. Celts always used shields anyway, their oblong shields influenced a major shift in Hellenistic military thinking after they defeated one of the powers of the day.

A dory was counter-weighted with a sauroter, which could be used as a spike in a pinch. It shifted the balance point quite a long way back, which is what made the overhand grip comfortable. You could shorten that further, but you could most definitely use it up close and in one-on-one combat. That doesn't make it as handy as a kopis/xiphos up close, but unless you're in a press, that doesn't matter.

What are you doing about ships? Depending on how closely you're drawing on this era, maritime ventures were a major part of how everyone lived. Bulk trade all went by sea, any state worth talking about had a navy. This was the era of the triakonter, penteconter and trireme, as far as warships went.

[warty goblin]

I strongly suspect that one reason most 'iron age' weapons end up being steel is that with the refining technology available at the time, people simply accidentally produced steel. The only thing available that burned hot enough to liquefy the slag out of iron ore was charcoal. Put your ore in that and light it up, and the iron will naturally bond with carbon in the coal, producing steel.

What this isn't is controlled steel production, so the carbon content will vary substantially from one piece to the next. It's also not a particularly great way of getting a pure steel, because it's difficult/impossible to get all the slag out of the ore using the methods available in iron age Europe*; the ore never fully liquefies so slag remains trapped inside it. Forging the metal removes more impurities, but it's likely to have a substantial amount of slag in the final result. This makes the final result much more brittle.

Iron or low carbon steel is generally fairly soft, so it tends to bend. Hardening the steel via quenching produces a harder blade, but I'm not sure when heat treating weapons became common. Chemically this process works by altering the crystal structure of the steel, so it won't harden a carbon-free iron object, only one with reasonable amounts of carbon. In either case what you aren't going to generally see with iron age weapons is blades with a lot of spring to them, bend them too much and they'll stay bent or break. Nobody's going to be making a rapier in 350BC, even if they think of the design.


Bronze would not have the problems of slag and lack of alloy control inherent in early ironworking. Since bronze is mostly cast to shape, it is always entirely liquefied when it is cast as an ingot, which would separate out any impurities, and one controls how much tin/lead/whatever is in the metal simply by deciding how much to add to the crucible. You can't heat treat bronze (heating it up red hot and quenching it takes all the hardness out of copper alloys) but it work hardens quite impressively. Hammering, gently flexing, or otherwise working the material changes the crystal structure and hardens the metal substantially. I do a reasonable amount of chasing and repousse in copper and brass, and the degree to which even pure copper hardens is quite astonishing. After annealing it's so flexible a sheet is as flexible as paper, but you can literally feel the metal locking up as you work it. However it does not become significantly springy in the way we associate with modern tool steel; flex it more than maybe 15 or 20 degrees and fully hardened copper tends to bend permanently and often with significant damage to the object (don't use that number as representative of bronze, which is a different and tougher beast, my understanding is that it still behaves in roughly the same way however.)


My general sense for classical Greece is that bronze was used much more for armor, and iron/steel for weapons. This isn't an absolute in the sense that one would never see a bronze spearhead, or an iron helmet, but as a general rule. I suspect this is because hardened steel makes a cutting edge at least as good as bronze, and would possibly be more durable. However because iron at the time would be produced in small pieces and forge welded together, producing pieces large enough for solid armor plates was extremely difficult. Bronze can be cast relatively thin, and fairly close to the final shape before being hammered to final form, making a breastplate or helmet much cheaper to construct.



*In what is now India and Pakistan, people worked out how to build a furnace capable of fully liquefying iron fairly early, possibly by 300 BC or thereabouts. This allowed for the removal of much or all of the slag, and also deliberate and controlled introduction of carbon into the steel. This is why 'Damascus steel' is such a big deal. Of course because terminology is confusing, most of the time in a modern context damascus refers to pattern welding, which is quite different.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

About Iron Age:
It's a definition I almost never use, simply because, in Europe, it overlaps with historical times in which known great changes happened (and we have enough information to talk about years and decades, in the Roman part at least). So e.g. I'd never talk about Iron Age Roman armies, or Iron Age Athenian pottery. In general, it's too vague compared to how much we know, which I guess is why it's used for prehistory and protohistory. However, I wanted to notice that the Iron Age in Northern/Germanic Europe lasts until 800 AD (!).

True, the model does not really work in most of Europe, and even worst in most of Africa or the America's, but it works reasonably well in the Middle East I think. Or at least it helps define which part of antiquity you're talking about when everything between pyramids and the Coliseum is often referred to as kind of one large basket of stuff. And for the last part of that we have enough written sources to form relatively detailed images of places and events, but for the early iron age and before it helps te draw parallels, as a single place and time often does not show enough evidence. The bronze age Hittite library for instance was a great find, but most of what it told us was that they had invented bookkeeping.

And now that I think of it: I think several people including you already wrote about it in either of these threads, but reading and writing could probably have some sort of role in this world. Writing stuff down has been relatively trivial since paper, which is why modern D&D no longer really bothers with illiterate characters or limited availability of materials for scrolls. If you can find a cool way to work that stuff back in, in a way that adds something rather than just annoying people, that'd be cool. I for one kind of like the image, as bronze age as it may be, of an animal messenger being a cat with a baked clay tablet with information a day old tied to its tail.

[Storm Bringer]

True, the model does not really work in most of Europe, and even worst in most of Africa or the America's, but it works reasonably well in the Middle East I think. Or at least it helps define which part of antiquity you're talking about when everything between pyramids and the Coliseum is often referred to as kind of one large basket of stuff. And for the last part of that we have enough written sources to form relatively detailed images of places and events, but for the early iron age and before it helps te draw parallels, as a single place and time often does not show enough evidence. The bronze age Hittite library for instance was a great find, but most of what it told us was that they had invented bookkeeping.

And now that I think of it: I think several people including you already wrote about it in either of these threads, but reading and writing could probably have some sort of role in this world. Writing stuff down has been relatively trivial since paper, which is why modern D&D no longer really bothers with illiterate characters or limited availability of materials for scrolls. If you can find a cool way to work that stuff back in, in a way that adds something rather than just annoying people, that'd be cool. I for one kind of like the image, as bronze age as it may be, of an animal messenger being a cat with a baked clay tablet with information a day old tied to its tail.

in the pre-roman world, literacy was, in essence, a trade, the same as woodworking or blacksmithing. most of the time, it was just the scribes who could actually read and write (basic numeracy was much more common, as you would expect). I don't know the actual literacy rates, but its fair to say that mostly a specialist skill, that only the scribes and (maybe) the nobles learn. If not a skill points skill, then maybe a feat or class ability (assuming a 3.x type set up).

before the widespread use of wood pulp paper, several other media were used to write on. Animal Skins (vellum, the name is derived form the same root as veal, as in the meat) was a common choice for high end users. Papyrus, made form a reed type plant, was in common use in Egypt as far back as 2000BC. Stone or clay tablets were used for durable, long distance messages, but for quick and dirty writing and accounting, a blackboard and chalk, or a wax tablet (that could be melted to reset the tablet after use) were utilised.

[rs2excelsior]

What you're essentially looking at is the Classical Era of Greece - the Greco-Persian Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars) or the era of the Athenian-led Delian League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League), for example. So yes, that would be pre-pike and pre-Romans (in this era they fought in the hoplite phalanx too, though their Samnite neighbours didn't).

Yep, that's more or less the era I'm going for. Might shift where I draw inspiration from a little earlier, but not so far that these discussions should be invalidated.


Mail may not exist, in that case - ultimately your call, but I think the game would be more distinctly different without it. There's probably still low-grade steel in certain places, but mostly bronze.

My current plan is to make chainmail available but exceedingly rare. It would offer about as much protection as a bronze cuirass and probably be lighter and less restrictive, but far, far more expensive. Part of the problem is making different armor types viable with the somewhat restricted framework I'm working in. If I can't figure a way to work in chainmail that is both reasonably accurate and allows for both types to be viable choices, I'll axe it.


On shields, that's another one that you can make a big distinction around. If shields are more than just +1/+2 AC, but have properties that means the size and shape require some thought, it can change the nature of combat. One of the things I really liked in my historical game was that if you were surprised, simply picking up shield and weapon, rather than spending the time to put your armour on, was a valid tactic.

This is something I'm unclear on in general; how common was it for soldiers to march in full panoply? It seems to me like wearing armor seems to be a better option than carrying it, unless your soldiers leave their gear on a baggage train or have servants/slaves to carry it for them. I believe Roman armies (at least post-Marian reforms) typically marched with their armor, but I'm not sure if that applies to Greek hoplite armies (or 100% sure if it's accurate for the Romans, to be honest.


Celtic swords generally don't have hilts long enough for two hands. Celts always used shields anyway, their oblong shields influenced a major shift in Hellenistic military thinking after they defeated one of the powers of the day.

A dory was counter-weighted with a sauroter, which could be used as a spike in a pinch. It shifted the balance point quite a long way back, which is what made the overhand grip comfortable. You could shorten that further, but you could most definitely use it up close and in one-on-one combat. That doesn't make it as handy as a kopis/xiphos up close, but unless you're in a press, that doesn't matter.

Got it. I knew the Dory had a counterweight which allowed it to be used one-handed. This is where D&D style weapon sorting methods run into some problems :smalltongue: I haven't decided if I'm going to allow the Dory to be used one-handed by everyone or with a small penalty when untrained. I probably will allow it to be used at close ranges with a small penalty (so the short sword would still be preferable, if you can afford to abandon your main reach weapon).


What are you doing about ships? Depending on how closely you're drawing on this era, maritime ventures were a major part of how everyone lived. Bulk trade all went by sea, any state worth talking about had a navy. This was the era of the triakonter, penteconter and trireme, as far as warships went.

I've got some resources on ships in the era. There's an old Task Force Games RPG focused around the story of the Argonauts, and while that's about 800-1000 years earlier than the period I'm going for, it has some good stuff on ships and navigation. I am planning on a Mediterranean-esque geography, where most of the prominent city-states sit on or near the coast and sea travel is pretty much the primary way of getting from A to B long distance. That opens up all kinds of storytelling opportunities: the old galleys were not all that seaworthy and tended to stick to the coast, so even in an inland sea the deep water was somewhat dangerous (they could cross it, but would stay closer to shore if possible). That lets me populate the deep ocean with all kinds of exotic critters and civilizations... and the opportunity for a storm to blow in and strand the PCs out of sight of land with little accurate means of determining their position. I don't plan on making the deep sea too exotic, unknown, or inaccessible, but I want it to be a significant decision between going the long way around but staying close to shore vs risking deep water and storms, getting lost, and the like.

For right now I'm focusing on elements closer to home, i.e. weapons, races, cultures, deities, magic, and the like. But I do plan on ships playing a large role both in the culture and in the PCs' adventures.

EDIT:

And now that I think of it: I think several people including you already wrote about it in either of these threads, but reading and writing could probably have some sort of role in this world. Writing stuff down has been relatively trivial since paper, which is why modern D&D no longer really bothers with illiterate characters or limited availability of materials for scrolls. If you can find a cool way to work that stuff back in, in a way that adds something rather than just annoying people, that'd be cool. I for one kind of like the image, as bronze age as it may be, of an animal messenger being a cat with a baked clay tablet with information a day old tied to its tail.


in the pre-roman world, literacy was, in essence, a trade, the same as woodworking or blacksmithing. most of the time, it was just the scribes who could actually read and write (basic numeracy was much more common, as you would expect). I don't know the actual literacy rates, but its fair to say that mostly a specialist skill, that only the scribes and (maybe) the nobles learn. If not a skill points skill, then maybe a feat or class ability (assuming a 3.x type set up).

Now that you mention it, literacy is something I'll probably play around with. I think that's one way I can alter the basic assumptions of D&D to make the world feel a bit more unique, but (hopefully) without just being annoying.

This will (almost certainly) be in Pathfinder. Seems to me that the written version of a language could count as a separate language rules-wise. You either pick a written language as a bonus language at start or put a skill into Linguistics to learn to read/write. It doesn't account for different degrees of literacy, but that could be represented by other skills (including Profession (Scribe)).

[Brother Oni]

Isn't yuri also the word for the lily flower as well?

Yup. Lily is also the meaning of the same girl's name.

[rrgg]

@rs2excelsior

Bronze is harder and stronger than pure iron, but in practice the iron produced was almost never pure. Excessive slag content would make the iron harder but more brittle, it might include small amounts of carbon, it might even end up accidentally case-hardened. In practice the physical properties of iron could be all over the place for reasons that were poorly understood outside of a general understanding that certain mines or smiths tended to produce better iron than others. At times a smith could even forge the backbone of a sword out of "poor" iron and then weld the "good" iron onto the edges so that it cuts well.

[Carl]

before the widespread use of wood pulp paper, several other media were used to write on. Animal Skins (vellum, the name is derived from the same root as veal, as in the meat) was a common choice for high end users. Papyrus, made from a reed type plant, was in common use in Egypt as far back as 2000BC. Stone or clay tablets were used for durable, long distance messages, but for quick and dirty writing and accounting, a blackboard and chalk, or a wax tablet (that could be melted to reset the tablet after use) were utilised.

Interesting question this made me think of, when coming up with a non pulp writing medium that could work as a book like analog i came up with the following for a purpose a while back, i'm curious if anything like it was used in history.

It starts with bone cut into thin lengths, these are stacked to form a double sided mostly flat surface and are then bound in thick leather. The form double sided pages of sufficient stiffness to not crease or deform or the like. Writing onto this can be done by dye's, but for more long term applications the text will first be written with a weak diluted natural acid scoring the leather, then a dye over the top, with the page then sealed once the dye is dry with a wax coating.

[Kiero]

My current plan is to make chainmail available but exceedingly rare. It would offer about as much protection as a bronze cuirass and probably be lighter and less restrictive, but far, far more expensive. Part of the problem is making different armor types viable with the somewhat restricted framework I'm working in. If I can't figure a way to work in chainmail that is both reasonably accurate and allows for both types to be viable choices, I'll axe it.

I think mail is a signature medieval armour - axing it would make it very clear you're not in Kansas any more.


This is something I'm unclear on in general; how common was it for soldiers to march in full panoply? It seems to me like wearing armor seems to be a better option than carrying it, unless your soldiers leave their gear on a baggage train or have servants/slaves to carry it for them. I believe Roman armies (at least post-Marian reforms) typically marched with their armor, but I'm not sure if that applies to Greek hoplite armies (or 100% sure if it's accurate for the Romans, to be honest.

You didn't march in full panoply. It's uncomfortable, hot and you'll ruin your armour in no time if it's being constantly rained on. If you were expecting danger, or in the vanguard of a larger force, you might do. There's a reason Greeks had a specific title for someone who carries your shield - skeurophoros - because traditionally a hoplite would have a servant/slave/younger relative to do that for him. They'd also help him get in his armour and probably look after his equipment.

Shields were supposed to be covered with a leather sheath to protect it from the elements. Obviously if you're wearing it, that's not going to happen.

Pre-Marian Roman armies had loads of mules and slaves carrying equipment too - one of Marius' innovations was that every man carried his own gear, to cut down on the number of non-combatant hangers-on. That also reflected the poorer men they were recruiting from - most of them probably didn't have their own slaves or mules anyway.


I've got some resources on ships in the era. There's an old Task Force Games RPG focused around the story of the Argonauts, and while that's about 800-1000 years earlier than the period I'm going for, it has some good stuff on ships and navigation. I am planning on a Mediterranean-esque geography, where most of the prominent city-states sit on or near the coast and sea travel is pretty much the primary way of getting from A to B long distance. That opens up all kinds of storytelling opportunities: the old galleys were not all that seaworthy and tended to stick to the coast, so even in an inland sea the deep water was somewhat dangerous (they could cross it, but would stay closer to shore if possible). That lets me populate the deep ocean with all kinds of exotic critters and civilizations... and the opportunity for a storm to blow in and strand the PCs out of sight of land with little accurate means of determining their position. I don't plan on making the deep sea too exotic, unknown, or inaccessible, but I want it to be a significant decision between going the long way around but staying close to shore vs risking deep water and storms, getting lost, and the like.

Actually, the coasting behaviour had a different cause. An oared galley was seaworthy enough for the relatively gentle Mediterranean (outside of winter storms), but obviously wouldn't have been suitable for an ocean like the Atlantic. The main reasons for coasting were threefold:
1) Navigation. Most sailors could only navigate by points on land. In this era of antiquity, the foremost navigators were the Phoenicians, who could navigate by the stars. But that technique was a closely guarded secret never shared willingly with outsiders. If you can't find your way without landmarks, you can't cross the deep blue.
2) Food and water. Oared galleys need a lot of men to row them. Those men need a lot of food and water. Galleys have limited storage - not really enough for more than a few days without stopping and finding a beach.
3) Safety. Pirates and other opportunists are much more likely to risk the open water than traders. Friendly navies are going to be sailing from ports, so keeping to the coast keeps you under their aegis.

I'd highly recommend the works of Lionel Casson on navies of antiquity, one of his shorter works should be in most libraries, and it covers the development of galleys from the beginning right through to the Roman and Hellenistic eras. There are an awful lot of misconceptions and flat out falsehoods that seem to be "common knowledge" (mostly learned from Ben Hur, I think) about ships in antiquity.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

At times a smith could even forge the backbone of a sword out of "poor" iron and then weld the "good" iron onto the edges so that it cuts well.

I've heard something similar, if less sophisticated, about old timey (pre-industrial) tools. An axe would sometimes be a basic shape of iron (and a wooden handle of course) with a steel bit welded to the front. Ones the steel was almost completely gone from chopping and sharpening and choppin and sharpening the bit would be replaced. The iron core of the axe could be handed down for generations. Nowadays the price of decent tool steel is much lower compared to the hourly rate of a good blacksmith, but back then it was worth it, and things like that were done. In a similar vein, if a weapon has a butt spike or some other less essential metal part I'll gladly believe they sometimes used a cheaper material for that than for the main sharp part.

[Storm Bringer]

You didn't march in full panoply. It's uncomfortable, hot and you'll ruin your armour in no time if it's being constantly rained on. If you were expecting danger, or in the vanguard of a larger force, you might do. There's a reason Greeks had a specific title for someone who carries your shield - skeurophoros - because traditionally a hoplite would have a servant/slave/younger relative to do that for him. They'd also help him get in his armour and probably look after his equipment.

Shields were supposed to be covered with a leather sheath to protect it from the elements. Obviously if you're wearing it, that's not going to happen.

Pre-Marian Roman armies had loads of mules and slaves carrying equipment too - one of Marius' innovations was that every man carried his own gear, to cut down on the number of non-combatant hangers-on. That also reflected the poorer men they were recruiting from - most of them probably didn't have their own slaves or mules anyway.

just to expand on this, it was not common to be wearing armour unless you actually expected to go into a fight at short notice. seeing a warrior in full panoply, with the weather cover off his shields, and all his fancy plumes and feathers in their helmets, was a universally understood signal that this man was expecting to be in battle. Several accounts mention generals realising that the troops in the distance were planning to attack when they saw these things.

this was part of the reason why a ambush on the march was so effective, because most of the enemy army would be in their shirtsleeves and be at a big disadvantage in a fight, on top of any mental surprise.

[rs2excelsior]

Actually, the coasting behaviour had a different cause. An oared galley was seaworthy enough for the relatively gentle Mediterranean (outside of winter storms), but obviously wouldn't have been suitable for an ocean like the Atlantic. The main reasons for coasting were threefold:
1) Navigation. Most sailors could only navigate by points on land. In this era of antiquity, the foremost navigators were the Phoenicians, who could navigate by the stars. But that technique was a closely guarded secret never shared willingly with outsiders. If you can't find your way without landmarks, you can't cross the deep blue.
2) Food and water. Oared galleys need a lot of men to row them. Those men need a lot of food and water. Galleys have limited storage - not really enough for more than a few days without stopping and finding a beach.
3) Safety. Pirates and other opportunists are much more likely to risk the open water than traders. Friendly navies are going to be sailing from ports, so keeping to the coast keeps you under their aegis.

I'd highly recommend the works of Lionel Casson on navies of antiquity, one of his shorter works should be in most libraries, and it covers the development of galleys from the beginning right through to the Roman and Hellenistic eras. There are an awful lot of misconceptions and flat out falsehoods that seem to be "common knowledge" (mostly learned from Ben Hur, I think) about ships in antiquity.

I knew it was mainly due to navigation and supply reasons--I don't think I made that entirely clear in my initial post though. I wasn't aware that pirates were more likely to attack in open water, but it makes sense--harder to police further from shore. And while sea monsters might not have been a concern (or at least not a legitimate one) to classical Greek sailors, they certainly could be in a pseudo-Greek fantasy world :smallwink:

Don't worry, I know the whole warships rowed by slaves thing was nonsense (at least in most cases--I think slave rowers were used in the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto, at least for some ships). Many times professional oarsmen were very well paid and highly sought after, and would often take up arms to defend the ship in boarding actions. I actually have an old wargame that does ancient galley combat well, that could be easily ported over for ship to ship combat on a larger scale (plus some guidelines on the character, supply, and navigation level from the aforementioned RPG).

My local library is probably not going to be helpful with regards to military history for anything but the American Civil War and WWII, but I'll see if I can find anything from that author if I need some more references. Like I said, I'm working on the elements of the framework that I need to change first, and since D&D/Pathfinder doesn't really touch on ships/navigation details too much, I can (or should be able to) port that over from another system without too much difficulty.

[Vinyadan]

About literacy, unsurprisingly, there were large differences depending on place. In Athens, an ostrakon (a broken piece of pottery) was found with "Boy, put the saw into its place after having used it" written on it. "Boy" meant "slave". So there was this slave who could read, but worked on practical tasks. In Athens, writing was likely enormously widespread, enough to make ostracismus practicable -- if 6.000 citizens wrote the name of a citizen on ostraka, then this citizen was to be sent away from Athens for ten years. This was already in use in 510 BC. A similar method was adopted 100 years later to allow the citizens assembly to bestow citizenship on individuals.
In other cities, it may not have been like this. But there is one thing to be said: the Greek alphabet was developed from the Phoenician one, and Phoenicians were renowned traders. And the fact is that traders are the ones with the largest interest into alphabetization. Knowing how to write allows you to keep your books in order, as well as to keep in contact with your buyers, sellers, and home. A presentation letter could open you new doors, for example those of a king, or protect you from harassment. And even Greek numbers were actually letters from the alphabet. So I think that the alphabet came into Greece by way of traders. Other, older Greek writing systems might instead have been the monopoly of a class of bureaucrats and priests. At least, I don't know of any commercial text in Linear B, while Linear A and Cretan Hieroglyphs have not been deciphered yet. There also was the Cypriot Syllabary writing, which had a very long life (1400-400 BC). Anyway, in the end, the easiest system to learn (an alphabet, instead of a syllabary system) ended up replacing the others. So ease of use also increases the appeal of a system.

The Romans were interesting, because I am fairly certain that reading and writing skills were normality in the army. Areas surrounding the vallum Antonini produced millions or tens of millions of written documents every year. There was a big found recently, with legionnaires asking to send them beer near Adrian's Wall (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/10/holiday-please-new-haul-roman-letters-reveals-army-life-near/). These are wooden letters, and were preserved because of special anoxyd (?) conditions.
In this case, too, we have merchants who write. A very notable case is, imo, the fact that there was an Association of Wine Dealers of Lyon Resident in the Canabae, the canabae being the civilian agglomerations which formed around permanent Roman military fortifications. So writing, at this point, wasn't just a way to keep contact across distant places, but to also build associations, as well as to make them known.

[Kiero]

One other reason for coasting I forgot: to keep the hull dry. An idea sailing day with an oared galley ends with dragging the ship out of the water to dry out overnight, before setting sail again in the morning. While the mortise and tenon method of constructing the hull required a certain amount of water (and swelling of the boards) to make it water-tight, too much time in the water and the ship became slow and unwieldy. So it was a constant process of drying the hull at every opportunity, which is why ships weren't left moored to piers or the like, but were taken onto shore whenever possible.

[wolflance]

Actually, the coasting behaviour had a different cause. An oared galley was seaworthy enough for the relatively gentle Mediterranean (outside of winter storms), but obviously wouldn't have been suitable for an ocean like the Atlantic. The main reasons for coasting were threefold:
1) Navigation. Most sailors could only navigate by points on land. In this era of antiquity, the foremost navigators were the Phoenicians, who could navigate by the stars. But that technique was a closely guarded secret never shared willingly with outsiders. If you can't find your way without landmarks, you can't cross the deep blue.
2) Food and water. Oared galleys need a lot of men to row them. Those men need a lot of food and water. Galleys have limited storage - not really enough for more than a few days without stopping and finding a beach.
3) Safety. Pirates and other opportunists are much more likely to risk the open water than traders. Friendly navies are going to be sailing from ports, so keeping to the coast keeps you under their aegis.

I'd highly recommend the works of Lionel Casson on navies of antiquity, one of his shorter works should be in most libraries, and it covers the development of galleys from the beginning right through to the Roman and Hellenistic eras. There are an awful lot of misconceptions and flat out falsehoods that seem to be "common knowledge" (mostly learned from Ben Hur, I think) about ships in antiquity.
Actually, galley may be more seaworthy than that.

I've read that a fleet of eighty galleys and frigates was dispatched from Goa to relief the siege on (Portuguese-held) Malacca from the Aceh Sultanate in 1627. Which means the galleys probably had to power through both Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal and then enter Strait of Malacca. Quite a feat if you ask me.

[rs2excelsior]

Actually, galley may be more seaworthy than that.

I've read that a fleet of eighty galleys and frigates was dispatched from Goa to relief the siege on (Portuguese-held) Malacca from the Aceh Sultanate in 1627. Which means the galleys probably had to power through both Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal and then enter Strait of Malacca. Quite a feat if you ask me.

That was with the advantage of Renaissance-era navigational technology. Ancient galleys -could- cross open water--there is evidence that the Phoenicians sent ships to Great Britain, I think--but for the most part the navigational tools to maintain a course without landmarks just didn't exist at that time. It could be done, but there was a risk of getting lost, running out of supplies, etc.

[fusilier]

That was with the advantage of Renaissance-era navigational technology. Ancient galleys -could- cross open water--there is evidence that the Phoenicians sent ships to Great Britain, I think--but for the most part the navigational tools to maintain a course without landmarks just didn't exist at that time. It could be done, but there was a risk of getting lost, running out of supplies, etc.

Late Renaissance era galleys could be substantially built. The Spanish sailed galleys across the Atlantic in the 16th century to be used in an anti-piracy role in the Caribbean. Not all galleys were built for such voyages, and the Spanish galleys were known for being good sailing vessels (compared to other galleys), but they were still more fragile than a typical sailing vessel of the time.

Construction methods and designs changed over time, so, while certainly having similar functions, a medieval galley and an ancient galley had different capabilities.

[Raunchel]

This year, there actually was a really interesting paper about the beaching of ships. There only really is strong evidence for it in the early ages, but there isn't really any evidence in later periods, such as Classical Antiquity. It would also have been hard to do, especially when the warships became larger, because the tidal range is too small to use that, and dragging a massive ship out of the water would be an enormous amount of work.

I also have a little question, concerning maces. How much strength would it take to actually bash in someone's skull with a mace in a single blow? In this case, it would be a prisoner, so he would be bound and without a helmet.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Now there's a question you can probably answer best with a video or image search. Especially since the whole zombie defense thing started around 2000 or so people have been obsessing over exactly that question. Most of them use coconuts, because they're totally just like skulls you guys, but you can find some better tests as well.

[Kiero]

Actually, galley may be more seaworthy than that.

I've read that a fleet of eighty galleys and frigates was dispatched from Goa to relief the siege on (Portuguese-held) Malacca from the Aceh Sultanate in 1627. Which means the galleys probably had to power through both Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal and then enter Strait of Malacca. Quite a feat if you ask me.


Late Renaissance era galleys could be substantially built. The Spanish sailed galleys across the Atlantic in the 16th century to be used in an anti-piracy role in the Caribbean. Not all galleys were built for such voyages, and the Spanish galleys were known for being good sailing vessels (compared to other galleys), but they were still more fragile than a typical sailing vessel of the time.

Construction methods and designs changed over time, so, while certainly having similar functions, a medieval galley and an ancient galley had different capabilities.

This; despite being called the same thing and having a similar definition, the two weren't much alike. Ancient galleys were long, narrow and very low to the waterline. It made for a fast, maneuverable (and light) vessel, but one that could easily be swamped by big rollers in rough seas.

http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/images/istoria/ploia_mouseia/triiris_olympias/TRIHR001.jpg

That's the Olympias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympias_(trireme)), a reconstruction of an aphract (undecked) trieres that is part of the Greek navy.

Medieval/Renaissance galleys were higher-sided and much more substantial:

https://doubtfulsea.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/maltese-galley.jpg

That made them slower and less maneuverable, but much better suited to rough conditions. Look how much higher their oarsmen are above the water (and only one bank in this example). The tholes of the trireme's lowest bank are about a foot from the waterline.


This year, there actually was a really interesting paper about the beaching of ships. There only really is strong evidence for it in the early ages, but there isn't really any evidence in later periods, such as Classical Antiquity. It would also have been hard to do, especially when the warships became larger, because the tidal range is too small to use that, and dragging a massive ship out of the water would be an enormous amount of work.


Do you mean this (https://snr.org.uk/vessels-beach-ancient-mediterranean-assessment-textual-visual-evidence/)paper? An analysis of textual and visual evidence? Why not just ask the Greek navy if they could experiment with the Olympias, you know actually do it? Did they perform any calculations of the physics involved?

It wouldn't have been that hard to do, given they weren't that heavy (relatively speaking), they had shallow drafts (especially unloaded of their oarsmen), and you had hundreds of men (the oarsmen) on hand to assist every time you beached. A standard oar complement of a three was 170-180. For a five it was 300. That's a lot of muscle - and these are strong men, not underfed waifs. The traditional approach was stern-first - so you weren't ploughing the ram into the sand.

The Olympias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympias_(trireme)) has a displacement of 70 tonnes. Let's assume the marines and some sailors assist in beaching, so we have 180 men pulling it ashore. That's around 388kg each man has to pull - if it were along the sand. When it's floating, it's less due to buoyancy and other factors - I'll leave it to those more versed in the physics if they want to do the calculations.

Also note a five isn't actually much bigger than a three; slightly broader and longer, perhaps taller, but it isn't twice the size. Even a seven (which is starting to get into monstrous-sized vessels) wouldn't be a great deal larger - and again you have proportionately more oarsmen.

[Raunchel]

This; despite being called the same thing and having a similar definition, the two weren't much alike. Ancient galleys were long, narrow and very low to the waterline. It made for a fast, maneuverable (and light) vessel, but one that could easily be swamped by big rollers in rough seas.

http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/images/istoria/ploia_mouseia/triiris_olympias/TRIHR001.jpg

That's the Olympias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympias_(trireme)), a reconstruction of an aphract (undecked) trieres that is part of the Greek navy.

Medieval/Renaissance galleys were higher-sided and much more substantial:

https://doubtfulsea.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/maltese-galley.jpg

That made them slower and less maneuverable, but much better suited to rough conditions. Look how much higher their oarsmen are above the water (and only one bank in this example). The tholes of the trireme's lowest bank are about a foot from the waterline.



Do you mean this (https://snr.org.uk/vessels-beach-ancient-mediterranean-assessment-textual-visual-evidence/)paper? An analysis of textual and visual evidence? Why not just ask the Greek navy if they could experiment with the Olympias, you know actually do it? Did they perform any calculations of the physics involved?

It wouldn't have been that hard to do, given they weren't that heavy (relatively speaking), they had shallow drafts (especially unloaded of their oarsmen), and you had hundreds of men (the oarsmen) on hand to assist every time you beached. A standard oar complement of a three was 170-180. For a five it was 300. That's a lot of muscle - and these are strong men, not underfed waifs. The traditional approach was stern-first - so you weren't ploughing the ram into the sand.

The Olympias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympias_(trireme)) has a displacement of 70 tonnes. Let's assume the marines and some sailors assist in beaching, so we have 180 men pulling it ashore. That's around 388kg each man has to pull - if it were along the sand. When it's floating, it's less due to buoyancy and other factors - I'll leave it to those more versed in the physics if they want to do the calculations.

Also note a five isn't actually much bigger than a three; slightly broader and longer, perhaps taller, but it isn't twice the size. Even a seven (which is starting to get into monstrous-sized vessels) wouldn't be a great deal larger - and again you have proportionately more oarsmen.

It would be that paper yes. I don't recall the details (been a while since I read it), but their arguments made some sense, especially for merchant vessels. Of course, I'm not a historian, so I might be missing quite a bit in it.

[Kiero]

It would be that paper yes. I don't recall the details (been a while since I read it), but their arguments made some sense, especially for merchant vessels. Of course, I'm not a historian, so I might be missing quite a bit in it.

Merchant galleys and war galleys weren't the same. They did have sailing ships - the big grain ships that brought produce from the Black Sea to Athens, for example, didn't have many oars and relied primarily on the wind. For a merchant vessel, cargo space and seaworthiness were the primary considerations, not speed or manoeuvrability. They'd also have many fewer oarsmen - even a merchant trireme would be unlikely to have a full complement of rowers, since they're all quite literally eating into your profits. You could power the vessel with just the top bank of oars, but that would leave you with a lot less power to beach it (ie a third of what a warship has available). So it's entirely possible that was the case for bigger merchant vessels, even while warships continued to be beached.

[Vinyadan]

I think they found the land-housing for trieres in the Piraeus; unfortunately, I don't remember the details.

While we are at it, a contemporary depiction of a Roman galley from Pompeii

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Galley_fresco_Pompeii.jpg

There's actually many such frescos, you can just search galley + pompeii on Google images.

The vivid colours on the ship probably were actually used. The Greeks began using enkauston to paint their ships; it's a technique in which wax is used to cover a surface and is then dried to the heat. It then becomes extremely resistant to the elements. The Romans later used its more refined versions to paint anything, from walls to sarcophagi.

Concerning skull-bashing: I think that yes, it is completely possible. It also reminds me a bit of Pocahontas. Anyway, it depends on strength, aim, part of the skull which is hit, weight and shape of the mace, and can bring to a coma, with or without return, instead of/before actual death. Actual executions of this kind (mazzatello, mazzolatura) involved preliminary strikes, one main strike at the head with a heavy hammer, and then the slitting of the sentenced's throat.

[Vinyadan]

Pre-Marian Roman armies had loads of mules and slaves carrying equipment too - one of Marius' innovations was that every man carried his own gear, to cut down on the number of non-combatant hangers-on. That also reflected the poorer men they were recruiting from - most of them probably didn't have their own slaves or mules anyway.


That gives a whole new meaning to why his soldiers were called "the mules of Marius"...

[rs2excelsior]

That gives a whole new meaning to why his soldiers were called "the mules of Marius"...

That's actually exactly why they were called "the mules of Marius"--they did the work that mules normally did :smalltongue: The point was to shift the army from a landholding middle/upper class which provided its own equipment (and thus could probably afford to provide some mules and servants as well)and operated on a militia basis--going back home to their fields between campaigns--to a full time professional army largely recruited from the lower classes. I think I remember something about a post-Marian legion still having one servant assigned to each contubernium (tent-group of eight soldiers), but that was more to deal with camp duties than carrying gear. The soldiers also did the work in setting up a fortified camp at the end of each day's march according to a set plan, building a palisade wall and laying out the tents in a prearranged manner.

Regarding beaching galleys, I think it was definitely doable. Toward classical/Roman periods larger galleys than the old Trireme did see use, but the Quinquereme (5 banks, likely only 3 oars but two of those with two rowers) was still the mainstay. Big ships with something like sixteen banks weren't unheard of, but were hardly ever used. They were just too big and slow (and manpower intensive) to be practical. I believe some of the ancient sources say that the crew of a trireme could lift the bronze ram out of the water a bit by all going to the back of the ship. I don't know if that point is exaggerated, but if it's anywhere close to accurate I can definitely see them beaching stern-first.

[Kiero]

Regarding beaching galleys, I think it was definitely doable. Toward classical/Roman periods larger galleys than the old Trireme did see use, but the Quinquereme (5 banks, likely only 3 oars but two of those with two rowers) was still the mainstay. Big ships with something like sixteen banks weren't unheard of, but were hardly ever used. They were just too big and slow (and manpower intensive) to be practical. I believe some of the ancient sources say that the crew of a trireme could lift the bronze ram out of the water a bit by all going to the back of the ship. I don't know if that point is exaggerated, but if it's anywhere close to accurate I can definitely see them beaching stern-first.

Actually, it's pretty unlikely any polyreme ever had more than three banks of oars, the logistics of getting an oar into the water become pretty difficult beyond that. The number refers to the number of oarsmen in a file, rather than the number of banks.

So a trireme might actually have two or three banks, the bireme arrangement would have one man on the bottom bank and two on the top, as compared to the classic three banks, with one man per bank. A five could be a bireme arrangement with two on the bottom and three on the top, or three decks in 1-2-2 (but not five banks). A seven might be 2-2-3. Some of the silly numbers like 16-ers were catamarans, so really it was a pair of eights together (2-3-3).

The advantage of more men per oar, besides the power was that only the man on the inside had to be trained, and know how to keep time to the oar-master's beat. Thus you can manage with a large core of untrained muscle who just do as their file-leader tells them to.

[rs2excelsior]

Actually, it's pretty unlikely any polyreme ever had more than three banks of oars, the logistics of getting an oar into the water become pretty difficult beyond that. The number refers to the number of oarsmen in a file, rather than the number of banks.


the Quinquereme (5 banks, likely only 3 oars but two of those with two rowers)

I seem to be doing a poor job of expressing my thoughts clearly: I meant a 2-2-1 arrangement (3 oars, two of which had two rowers each) for the quinquereme here. I still use "banks" because that's the terminology originally used, thus leading to some of the initial confusion. But yes, I have also heard that ships with more than three oars stacked were basically impractical, and they achieved more power with more rowers per oar rather than more oars.

[snowblizz]

Do you happen to know how they managed to wield something like that in one hand? Did they use it mostly like a lance, or did they actually manage to chop with it?
Unfortunately not. Though the video linked should give soem idea. It's a while since I've consulted the books on Japanese warfare I have. The thing to remember is like yari, naginata refers to fairly broad category of blades, some more glaive like and some much closer to a spear, some with blades half the length of the shaft others almsot like spears. Like most Japanese blades the naginata is more slashy than stabby. And the ones with lighter blades and as I understand counterweighted should not present difficulties to be used slashing and stabbing one handed from the saddle (or as the video shows two-handed, and that blade is definitely heavier than most naginatas I've seen).

Interestingly naginatas are also storngly associate with female samurai, probably because reach and choppiness makes up for lack of power and it's very suited for defence.

[Storm Bringer]

That's actually exactly why they were called "the mules of Marius"--they did the work that mules normally did :smalltongue: The point was to shift the army from a landholding middle/upper class which provided its own equipment (and thus could probably afford to provide some mules and servants as well)and operated on a militia basis--going back home to their fields between campaigns--to a full time professional army largely recruited from the lower classes. I think I remember something about a post-Marian legion still having one servant assigned to each contubernium (tent-group of eight soldiers), but that was more to deal with camp duties than carrying gear. The soldiers also did the work in setting up a fortified camp at the end of each day's march according to a set plan, building a palisade wall and laying out the tents in a prearranged manner.


their are some historians who argue that the famous "Marian reforms" were not invented wholesale by consul Marius, but rather that he just started openly doing things that had been done on the sly for many years, like admitting citizens below the property qualifications.

there were two servants for each contubernium, who were permanent attachments to it (in modern jargon, they were an "Organic" support element). I think they are the reason the "century" had only 80 fighting soldiers, unlike the 100 its name suggests. Its not clear is each contubernium's servants only worked for their own section, or if they were pooled to be shifted about as needed, or some mix of both.

It's worth pointing out that the equivalent in modern armies to the contubernium servants are considered soldiers in their own rights.

The legions still had significant numbers of mules, about one per contubernium, or 500-600 per legion, but this is drastic reduction form pre Marian legions which made the roman army much more mobile on campgain.

[PersonMan]

So, as far as I know, maintaining a modern air force of even small size is pretty expensive and requires a pretty big web of resources to get spare parts, fuel, etc.

I've been wondering - for fighter jets, and tanks, assuming one doesn't have the resources to effectively keep them going for long, what the most likely strategies to be, for using them? Will they be kept as aces in the hole, a sort of "air force in being", or do they need enough periodic maintenance that flying 200 missions with degrading planes that are then all scrapped is a better idea?

Secondarily, if a larger region is 'pocketed' by an enemy force (I'm thinking of something like a Belgium-sized area, with or without larger cities) and is housing a large army, are there general ideas on how long they'd last* and what the 'decay' would look like as they run low on supplies?

*This is one of those that's super duper dependent on a ton of variables, but I'm hoping there are a few rules of thumb, so to speak.

Thanks ahead of time for any answers and information.

[Carl]

So, as far as I know, maintaining a modern air force of even small size is pretty expensive and requires a pretty big web of resources to get spare parts, fuel, etc.

I've been wondering - for fighter jets, and tanks, assuming one doesn't have the resources to effectively keep them going for long, what the most likely strategies to be, for using them? Will they be kept as aces in the hole, a sort of "air force in being", or do they need enough periodic maintenance that flying 200 missions with degrading planes that are then all scrapped is a better idea?

Secondarily, if a larger region is 'pocketed' by an enemy force (I'm thinking of something like a Belgium-sized area, with or without larger cities) and is housing a large army, are there general ideas on how long they'd last* and what the 'decay' would look like as they run low on supplies?

*This is one of those that's super duper dependent on a ton of variables, but I'm hoping there are a few rules of thumb, so to speak.

Thanks ahead of time for any answers and information.

200 without maintenance waaaay off, i'm not sure 20 would work for even a small percentage of planes.

[Brother Oni]

Interestingly naginatas are also storngly associate with female samurai, probably because reach and choppiness makes up for lack of power and it's very suited for defence.

More specifically, the ko-naginata was associated with females while the o-naginata was associated with men, sohei (warrior monks) in particular. The o-naginata had a bigger blade than the ko-naginata - I've seen some variants which are practically guandao.

[Storm Bringer]

So, as far as I know, maintaining a modern air force of even small size is pretty expensive and requires a pretty big web of resources to get spare parts, fuel, etc.

I've been wondering - for fighter jets, and tanks, assuming one doesn't have the resources to effectively keep them going for long, what the most likely strategies to be, for using them? Will they be kept as aces in the hole, a sort of "air force in being", or do they need enough periodic maintenance that flying 200 missions with degrading planes that are then all scrapped is a better idea?


Thanks ahead of time for any answers and information.



historically, both have been used, depending on the situation. in a shooting war, your generally better using it before you loose it. if you can foresee a imminent loss of the supply chain, then the best bet is to use what you have, while you can still use it. however, in a cold war/hot peace situation, you might do better by going down the "air force in being" route, cannibalizing broken planes to keep a few working and give the impression that the whole fleet is still good (i.e. a "paper tiger" or "fierce face" strategy).

the three biggest questions are 1) how long will your on hand stocks of spare parts last? and 2) How long will it be before you can get new stocks? and 3) are their any outside time pressures?

3 is a biggie, as if its "use them or the airbase will be overrun", then thiers no reason not to use them. if your in a situation like, say Iran is with its American made jets (can no longer get any spares, forced to either do without or made locally), then a "In Being" force might get better mileage diplomatically.




Secondarily, if a larger region is 'pocketed' by an enemy force (I'm thinking of something like a Belgium-sized area, with or without larger cities) and is housing a large army, are there general ideas on how long they'd last* and what the 'decay' would look like as they run low on supplies?


totally cut off form their supply lines? not long, at least not if the enemy is trying to remove the pocket. a few days to a few weeks would be all they could last, depending on how much supplies were caught in the pocket before it closed.

some things will break down pretty quickly, either because they are fragile or its impossible to repair in the field and no spares are handy. by robbing peter to pay paul, it might be possible to keep at least some armour working for as long as the fuel supplies last, but armour is very thirsty stuff. ammo will run out at different rates, so the troops may have plenty of loose rifle ammo, but have no belted ammo for their MGs, even if they are the same calibre. things that are carried as "Just in case" will get expended and not replaced, which covers things light LAWs and other light AT weapons

once diesel becomes scares, the pocket stops being a cohesive army and becomes more of a series of strongpoints, with troops basically pinned down wherever they were when the gas ran out. it becomes more or less impossible to move troops to meet threats or counterattack, and the pocket is lost, requiring only for the enemy to reduce it at his leisure.


their is a reason why armies are so keen to protect their flanks, and the fear of this happening is part of that reason.

[fusilier]

Medieval/Renaissance galleys were higher-sided and much more substantial:

There were different sizes of Medieval/Renaissance galleys, and some were quite low and shallow -- but they were also constructed differently. There was a change from lapstrake construction to carvel construction. This made the ships more sturdy, and may have contributed to the demise of the underwater ram. Of course the lack of an underwater ram on later galleys is another example of the changing design.


Merchant galleys and war galleys weren't the same. They did have sailing ships - the big grain ships that brought produce from the Black Sea to Athens, for example, didn't have many oars and relied primarily on the wind. For a merchant vessel, cargo space and seaworthiness were the primary considerations, not speed or manoeuvrability. They'd also have many fewer oarsmen - even a merchant trireme would be unlikely to have a full complement of rowers, since they're all quite literally eating into your profits. You could power the vessel with just the top bank of oars, but that would leave you with a lot less power to beach it (ie a third of what a warship has available). So it's entirely possible that was the case for bigger merchant vessels, even while warships continued to be beached.

Exactly, although some of the large Mediterranean merchant galleys in the early Renaissance could be well manned -- it was one of their "safety" features, having a large crew to help fend off pirates. (That said, sometimes they reduced the number of oarsmen to save money . . .).


This year, there actually was a really interesting paper about the beaching of ships. There only really is strong evidence for it in the early ages, but there isn't really any evidence in later periods, such as Classical Antiquity. It would also have been hard to do, especially when the warships became larger, because the tidal range is too small to use that, and dragging a massive ship out of the water would be an enormous amount of work.

I haven't had a chance to read the paper, but it looks like it is referring to the ancient/classical period? Backing war galleys onto a friendly beach was a well known defensive-tactic by the time of the Renaissance, and was particularly effective with cannon armed galleys. But, it required there to be good beaches to do so -- there were plenty of them in Mediterranean, but not so many in the North Atlantic.

[VoxRationis]

@Kiero: Is that necessarily a good picture, though? That sailing ship in the background has dangerously little space between its gunports and the water...
That said, some ships did operate like that, and to the end of several of them.

[Martin Greywolf]

More specifically, the ko-naginata was associated with females while the o-naginata was associated with men, sohei (warrior monks) in particular. The o-naginata had a bigger blade than the ko-naginata - I've seen some variants which are practically guandao.

Which samurai are we talking about here? Because the "naginata is female" thing is a product of Edo period - during the Sengoku Jidai, it was quite happily used by samurai, Musashi even notes it as the third best battlefield weapon, after a firearm and a spear.

When using it on horseback, you use it like a spear - not a lot of science necessary to determine that. You can't cut with it while you're moving because it would clothesline you off the horse, something that is a well known danger with even a lance if you have bad recovery from impact. Once the horse stops moving, though - which is in itself a problem - you may well use it in both hands and slash and chop.

Another way to use it is as mounted infantry - you can fill the role of shock cavalry, or you can relocate quickly, dismount and go to town. People tend to forget that this was one of the major uses of mounted units.

[snowblizz]

Which samurai are we talking about here? Because the "naginata is female" thing is a product of Edo period - during the Sengoku Jidai, it was quite happily used by samurai, Musashi even notes it as the third best battlefield weapon, after a firearm and a spear.

That's not exactly how I meant it. You are also making a distinction between female and samurai I also did not make. Nowhere did I say it was considered female exclusive. I said it's is strongly associated with female samurai, and yes especially from the Edo period and on. Then again, in the early periods naginatas were for low-rank retainer footsoldiers and the samurai weapon of choice was the bow. Over time, associations can shift. It happened with samurai armour too where the cheaper more practical types previously worn by retainers found it's way to the high-born as well as practical variants for more intense hand to hand combats and operating on foot.

Many tales exist of female samurai using other weaposn they would be expected to be proficient in. Similarly when I say the naginata was associated with home defence doens't mean it wasn't widely used on battlefields, it simply means that if someone would have gone to the local weaponsmith and asked for a home defence weapon (anacronistically speaking) they'd be offered a naginata (like in the US today, somekind of shotgun is usually the go to thing, but doesn't in any way alter it's popularity as a hunting weapon).

The Sohei were famous users (most of whom were strictly speaking not monks either) but likewise there's no automatic conenction betwene sohei and naginata, it wasn't an exclusive weapon, just what they were famous for using. If you say "sohei" or "female samurai" someone would picture a person armed with a naginata.

[wolflance]

Thanks for the answers, guys!
(That Sovnya picture looks awesome wolflance)

Do you happen to know how they managed to wield something like that in one hand? Did they use it mostly like a lance, or did they actually manage to chop with it?
Yes, they can chop with the weapon (naginata/guandao/woldo/sovnya). In fact, that's generally how the weapon is used.

This type of weapon is generally used two-handed on horseback, although sometimes the wielder can let go of one of his hand briefly or switch hands. Particularly if he want to perform a raising cut from the left or downward cut to the right.

Here's a better video of Koreans doing horseback martial art stuffs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79iOt-rvVdI), including lance, woldo, the fabled horseback two-handed flail, horseback double-saber and of course, horse archery.

[snowblizz]

It would be that paper yes. I don't recall the details (been a while since I read it), but their arguments made some sense, especially for merchant vessels. Of course, I'm not a historian, so I might be missing quite a bit in it.

How exactly do you define the Classical Antiquity because e.g. Carthage had a famous harbour, the Cothon with facilities to keep the galleys out of the water. There are archeological remains of similar sites elsewhere too, esp in phonecian sites.

[Kiero]

There were different sizes of Medieval/Renaissance galleys, and some were quite low and shallow -- but they were also constructed differently. There was a change from lapstrake construction to carvel construction. This made the ships more sturdy, and may have contributed to the demise of the underwater ram. Of course the lack of an underwater ram on later galleys is another example of the changing design.

I'd forgotten about construction - yes good point. Ancient galleys were built board-first, later ships (and to this day) keel-first.

One other major change was the invention of the lateen sail, which made sailing much more efficient as a source of motive power.


Exactly, although some of the large Mediterranean merchant galleys in the early Renaissance could be well manned -- it was one of their "safety" features, having a large crew to help fend off pirates. (That said, sometimes they reduced the number of oarsmen to save money . . .).

Indeed, as always for the merchant, it's a trade-off between security and profit. More men means a better chance of seeing off threats, but they have to be paid and fed.

I suspect quite a few merchant galleys in the middle to later Hellenistic era were former warships which were no longer big enough for the line of battle. Remove the ram, rebuilt the internal partitions, possibly close the lowest bank of oars and you've got yourself a merchantman.


I haven't had a chance to read the paper, but it looks like it is referring to the ancient/classical period? Backing war galleys onto a friendly beach was a well known defensive-tactic by the time of the Renaissance, and was particularly effective with cannon armed galleys. But, it required there to be good beaches to do so -- there were plenty of them in Mediterranean, but not so many in the North Atlantic.

Yes, it refers to the classical period, and is based on visual and textual evidence. Not experimenting with the thing.

Something else that occurred to me about towing things on water - it was pretty common in the Age of Sail to tow warships by throwing a load of hands into the launches. Bear in mind these things were hundreds or even thousands of tonnes, but a pair of longboats with fifty men rowing each was sufficient to move them.


@Kiero: Is that necessarily a good picture, though? That sailing ship in the background has dangerously little space between its gunports and the water...
That said, some ships did operate like that, and to the end of several of them.

I don't know, but it still clearly demonstrates the very different design of the two types of galley.

[Vinyadan]

How exactly do you define the Classical Antiquity because e.g. Carthage had a famous harbour, the Cothon with facilities to keep the galleys out of the water. There are archeological remains of similar sites elsewhere too, esp in phonecian sites.

See under "neosoikoi" (neos = of the ship, oikoi = houses) on Google to see how widespread they were. They were excavated by archaeologists in Athens (Zea, Piraeus), Siracusa, Apollonia of Cyrene, and likely other places. However, I have the impressione that the use of these shipsheds was different from the one Raunchel is talking about: the sheds held military ships which were not in use, while I think he's talking about the need to beach a ship on the shore during travel.

[Kiero]

See under "neosoikoi" (neos = of the ship, oikoi = houses) on Google to see how widespread they were. They were excavated by archaeologists in Athens (Zea, Piraeus), Siracusa, Apollonia of Cyrene, and likely other places. However, I have the impressione that the use of these shipsheds was different from the one Raunchel is talking about: the sheds held military ships which were not in use, while I think he's talking about the need to beach a ship on the shore during travel.

I see it as simply a formal, more permanent structure to provide the facility that every galley of the period would require. Rather than having them beach on the beaches and mudflats near the port, Athens own navy could be beached somewhere convenient.

[Raunchel]

See under "neosoikoi" (neos = of the ship, oikoi = houses) on Google to see how widespread they were. They were excavated by archaeologists in Athens (Zea, Piraeus), Siracusa, Apollonia of Cyrene, and likely other places. However, I have the impressione that the use of these shipsheds was different from the one Raunchel is talking about: the sheds held military ships which were not in use, while I think he's talking about the need to beach a ship on the shore during travel.

Well, I am a she, but otherwise this reflects my thinking. It seems likely that ships, especially warships, would be stored on land. You don't want your expensive fleet to suffer when you're not needing it all for a while. But on campaign it seems like a lot of work to do it every night.

[Kiero]

Well, I am a she, but otherwise this reflects my thinking. It seems likely that ships, especially warships, would be stored on land. You don't want your expensive fleet to suffer when you're not needing it all for a while. But on campaign it seems like a lot of work to do it every night.

And as I said, it really isn't. It's no more "work" than armies pitching a proper marching camp every night, or setting watches, or countless other campaigning tasks. All they have to do is turn around stern-first and back oars, then get some men over the side with lines to pull into the beach. Add more men the closer you get and done. Not a complex task for 200 strong men who are organised and know what they're doing.

Not to mention that a war galley isn't a comfortable place to spend even one night at sea, for the oarsmen especially. Look at how tightly packed they are on the Olympias:

https://www.purplemotes.net/extras/trireme-1.jpg

Plus they don't have the storage to hold much food or water to feed 200 people. And you're at the mercy of storms and being driven ashore. For anyone curious about the Olympias, you can watch the sea trials in 1990 here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcsrNrRkQis).

Warships beached every night, that study is dubious. We already know they didn't do any actual reconstructions, and can anyone confirm whether or not they worked out the physics of getting a 70 tonne ship out of the water?

Once again, it doesn't appear to require that much force to move huge objects afloat - here's two paintings of the common practise of using launches to move warships that weighed hundreds of tonnes:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bb/00/7d/bb007d2bcf3898646d5bcdaa66dc9647--uss-constitution-royal-navy.jpg

http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/leedsartgallery/supersize/lmg109109.jpg

Those aren't merely artistic license, it's something written about time and again from across centuries. The only difficult part would be getting it up the beach once it left the water - even then sand is relatively forgiving as surfaces to pull loads along go.

[wolflance]

A possibly stupid question again:

In a one on one duel on wide, flat ground, which one has the advantage? A two-handed spear or a sword and shield/spear and shield?

Assuming both parties are armed and armored in a 11th century fashion (i.e. Open face helmet, mail shirt, Viking shield or kite shield, generally no limb defense)

[Mike_G]

A possibly stupid question again:

In a one on one duel on wide, flat ground, which one has the advantage? A two-handed spear or a sword and shield/spear and shield?

Assuming both parties are armed and armored in a 11th century fashion (i.e. Open face helmet, mail shirt, Viking shield or kite shield, generally no limb defense)

The two handed spear has reach, and as long as he can move backwards and keep his reach advantage, he'll have an edge.

The guy with the shield will have to parry with the shield and close aggressively to use his weapon. It can be done, but he'll be at a disadvantage.

[Kiero]

True, though the two-hands-on-spear guy has pretty limited defensive options besides use of space. I'd put the spear-and-shield guy ahead, then the two-hands-on-spear and the sword-and-board guy last.

[Mike_G]

True, though the two-hands-on-spear guy has pretty limited defensive options besides use of space. I'd put the spear-and-shield guy ahead, then the two-hands-on-spear and the sword-and-board guy last.

Two hands on the spear gives you more control and more practical reach. It's easier to feint high/thrust low with the control two hands gives you. Feign a thrust to his face to bring his shield up, then thrust at his leg. You can do that from outside his range.

The guy with the one handed spear will have to either hold it in the middle, or fight against the mass of the weapon if he wants to make a change in his line of attack. The guy with two hands, one near the butt end and one about 1/3 to 1/2 way up can manipulate the point very easily.

If the guy with the two handed spear runs out of space to back up, he's in trouble, but as long as he has room to move, I'd give him the advantage over one handed spear and shield.

[Kiero]

Two hands on the spear gives you more control and more practical reach. It's easier to feint high/thrust low with the control two hands gives you. Feign a thrust to his face to bring his shield up, then thrust at his leg. You can do that from outside his range.

The guy with the one handed spear will have to either hold it in the middle, or fight against the mass of the weapon if he wants to make a change in his line of attack. The guy with two hands, one near the butt end and one about 1/3 to 1/2 way up can manipulate the point very easily.

If the guy with the two handed spear runs out of space to back up, he's in trouble, but as long as he has room to move, I'd give him the advantage over one handed spear and shield.

I had a hoplite in mind for the spear-and-shield guy; big shield and counter-weighted spear that can be held much further back as a result.

[Vinyadan]

I had a hoplite in mind for the spear-and-shield guy; big shield and counter-weighted spear that can be held much further back as a result.

I am quite sure that a hoplite would suffer when duelling alone. The Demaratus-Xerses dialogue, which was meant to illustrate differences between Spartans and Persians, had this as a starting point.

[rrgg]

A possibly stupid question again:

In a one on one duel on wide, flat ground, which one has the advantage? A two-handed spear or a sword and shield/spear and shield?

Assuming both parties are armed and armored in a 11th century fashion (i.e. Open face helmet, mail shirt, Viking shield or kite shield, generally no limb defense)

This is an interesting question.

During the late middle ages and early modern period we start to see the popularity of shields drop off quite a bit while spear and shield disappears almost completely. In George Silver's Paradoxes, he claims that essentially all two-handed weapons have the advantage over sword and shield in a duel, and that a polearm of "the perfect length" (8-9 ft.) in skilled hands even has the advantage when facing two targeteers at once. He doesn't mention spear and shield at all, but given that using a spear one-handed tends to sacrifice quite a lot of reach, power, and versatility it's hard to see how it would be an improvement.

This doesn't explain however why spear and shield seems to have remained so popular for so long on both the battlefield and in duels (http://imgix.scout.com/134/1340840.jpg). If a two-handed spear was better, we would expect that the very first thing everyone would do when a duel began would be to throw away their shield.

I do think that perhaps improving armor played a role in the shift. It's been brought up before on these threads that an overarm thrust or an overarm throw with a spear can generate a surprising high amount of force, far more than an arrow for example. If the two-handed spearman is wearing lower-quality mail with not enough padding, than a surprise throw or overhand slip-thrust might be enough to cause serious injury and win out.

If both duelists are carrying large shields on the other hand, throwing your only spear would be far too risky. The same would be true if your opponent is wearing post-blast furnace body armor.

Deflecting a thrown spear with a polearm isn't impossible though and the one-handed spearman is essentially only going to get one shot at it. I suspect that with or without armor the overall difference between single spear and spear w/shield in a duel wasn't that great and would have depended primarily on who had more skill.

[Vinyadan]

Those in the image, though, are Hector and Achilles. Their duel was before the hoplites came around, and the image itself is very free in their depiction (or simply refers to a different version than the one in the Iliad). Hector wasn't supposed to have a spear anymore, because he had thrown his own already. He also was supposed to be wearing Achilles's armour, and Achilles was supposed to be wearing his new, god-made armour.
Hector shows the same wounds in this vase, one on the leg and one to the chest ( http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/K8.6.html ). It comes from the same place and time as the one you linked (attic, 480-490 BC). So I guess it was a widespread iconography; I wonder what source it refers to.

Anyway, Homeric spears were both thrown and melee weapons. Achilles also had thrown his weapon, but Athena brought it back to him, so he used it to kill Hector at close quarter. It is worth noticing that, when Hector threw his spear, it was because he believed his brother was nearby and ready to supply him with more (it was actually Athena, disguised as his brother).

While Hector dodges the flying spear, Achilles blocks it with his shield.

[Mike_G]

On a battlefield I'd absolutely prefer a shield. There will be times you can't move freely, either because of the other men in your formation, or because you're holding a position and backing away would maybe help you not get stabbed, but would let the enemy take your ground, etc. If you can't dodge or retreat, then the shield is really useful. It can close off a line of attack if you are fighting multiple enemies. It's also good protection against arrows, which a two handed spear really isn't.

The original question was a one on one duel in the open, wearing 11th Century mail and helm, no greaves or vambraces. In that situation, I'd favor the two handed spear.

[Incanur]

I'm skeptical that spear & shield has the advantage over sword & shield for single combat, especially once we get to 15th/16th-century-style swords. With 11th-century swords, maybe, but I still doubt it.

As mentioned, Silver indeed put the sword & target far below his short staff in his ranking of weapons for unarmored single combat. His short staff was 8-9ft, spiked on each end, and sturdy and heavy enough to give mighty blows. The last part potentially distinguishes it from the spears used in conjunction with shields in the 11th century. There's not much point have a spear fit for cutting or bashing if you're planning on using it in one hand most of or all the time. It's likewise worth noting that 16th-century targets were smaller than many types of 11th-century shields. Silver didn't specify, but a diameter of 20-24 inches was common for round steel targets.

I suspect Silver underestimated the sword & shield somewhat; I don't know that the longsword has the advantage over that combination, for example. I'm confidant that 8-9ft spears do: that reach advantage is huge.

That's for unarmored singe combat. The partial armor complicates the matter: this isn't something historical masters wrote much about. I'd tentatively say that even a light spear used in two hands would have the odds because of reach and leverage for grappling up close.

Achille Marozzo (http://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2016/04/episode-62-bolognese-partisan-and.html?q=partisan)described taking the partisan in both hands during a partisan & rotella (target) duel. Sydney Anglo thought this might have been his best technique.

Finally, Silver did not claim his short staff had the odds against two foes with sword & target: "The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike."

He did apparently think staff blows could overwhelm a target: "Now for the vantage of the short staff against the sword and buckler, sword & target, two handed sword, single sword, sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard, there is no great question to be in any of these weapons. Whensoever any blow or thrust shall be strongly made with the staff, they are ever in false place, in the carriage of the wards, for if at any of these six weapons he carries his ward high & strong for his head, as of necessity he must carry it very high, otherwise it will be too weak to defend a blow being strongly made at the head, then will his space be too wide, in due time to break the thrust from his body. Again, if he carries his ward lower, thereby to be in equal space for readiness to break both blow & thrust, then in that place his ward is too low, and too weak to defend the blow of the staff: for the blow being strongly made at the head upon that ward, will beat down the ward and his head together, and put him in great danger of his life."

[Knaight]

True, though the two-hands-on-spear guy has pretty limited defensive options besides use of space. I'd put the spear-and-shield guy ahead, then the two-hands-on-spear and the sword-and-board guy last.

A two handed spear can pretty effectively parry up until very close ranges, and even at very close ranges there's still some amount that can be done. I'd take a two handed spear* first any day, and while part of that is it being the fighting style that I personally took to best part of it is that there are any number of fairly objective advantages.

*Which doesn't necessarily mean a one handed spear used in two hands, as there are a lot of one handed spears where the shaft is slimmed down to make it better for one handed use which just wouldn't work that well with a more two handed style.

[wolflance]

Thanks for the answers, you guys are being very helpful to me.


I'd tentatively say that even a light spear used in two hands would have the odds because of reach and leverage for grappling up close.
I can't quite grasp the "leverage for grappling" part, does that means the two-handed spear guy have the advantage if he goes into grappling range as well?

Wouldn't the spear/sword &shield guy can achieve similar advantage if he simply let go the shield?


An overarm throw with a spear can generate a surprising high amount of force, far more than an arrow for example. If the two-handed spearman is wearing lower-quality mail with not enough padding, than a surprise throw or overhand slip-thrust might be enough to cause serious injury and win out.
I also have trouble wrap my head around this...how is this possible (to generate a spear thrust more powerful than arrow)?

Sorry, I am not doubting what you say, I just have trouble to imagine it in my head...

[Vinyadan]

I am reading some huge values on the net about the force of a javelin at the moment in which it is thrown (300 j), but they are very different from those of I find in books (40 j at the moment of impact, also assumed for Mycenaean spears). 40j was the assumed energy at impact of a Homeric thrown spear.

Now sure, there is difference in energy between a projectile that has just been launched, and one that is at the end of its trajectory. It's also worth saying that Persian arrows weren't very powerful (30-35 j). So, at least in ancient times, a flying spear was a bigger deal than an arrow, even just by energy (40 to 30-35j). Then, of course, the fact that an arrow had a much smaller section and thinner blade meant that the would would not have been so scary as being hit by a 10 cm long, 4 cm wide spearhead (this is the size of of a Mycenean spearhead at Richmond http://classics.richmond.edu/gallery/aegean-collection/images/02.spear1.JPG ) with a 2 m shaft. Others were much larger: http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-mycenaean-bronze-spear-head-late-helladic-5157953-details.aspx is 47 cm total (!). I guess they didn't throw such large spears? Although desperate or very angry people will throw anything.

[rrgg]

Finally, Silver did not claim his short staff had the odds against two foes with sword & target: "The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike."

You are correct, I seem to have misremembered. He does mention that the pike is at a disadvantage against two sword and buckler men, which might be meant to imply that the half-pike isn't but you're right that he doesn't say anything about beating two targeteers.


I'm skeptical that spear & shield has the advantage over sword & shield for single combat, especially once we get to 15th/16th-century-style swords. With 11th-century swords, maybe, but I still doubt it. At the same time though, dueling with spear and shield seems to have been the norm for the bulk of antiquity. Most fighting would have been fairly small scale but ditching the shield and using the spear two-handed still doesn't seem to have been too common. Even the classic hoplite panalopy seems to have developed long before any evidence that it was used in close ordered phalanxes.

Curiously, Machiavelli concluded it was in tight formations that a one-handed spear and shield became awkward to use. He was definitely more of a scholar than a soldier, but presumably he would have known that Italian soldiers still sometimes used spear and shield as late as Fornovo (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Battle_of_Fornoue_6_July_1495.jpg) (far side of river).

Compared to a sword a 1 handed spear still has the advantage of reach and can be thrown. It probably doesn't fit with Siver's idea of the "perfect length" for a shortsword, but prior to the late middle ages swords with 37-40 in blades would have been relatively rare or not very durable.


I also have trouble wrap my head around this...how is this possible (to generate a spear thrust more powerful than arrow)?

Sorry, I am not doubting what you say, I just have trouble to imagine it in my head...

I haven't seen any detailed studies of this, but it seems to match my observations. A spear has more mass and you can put more muscle into an overarm throw than you do when drawing a bow. Olympic javelineers today can generate over 300 J of kinetic energy with an 800 g javelin.

A bow is much more efficient at throwing a very light object very fast than a human arm, generally giving it much better range and accuracy, but it doesn't generate more energy on its own.

Skalligram has a good video demonstrating the difference between different weights of spears. The light skirmisher javelin he tests simply bounces off the padded armor, but when he throws the heavy, full-sized spears they go right through.

https://youtu.be/eMVgpYenYcg?t=8m17s

[wolflance]

I am reading some huge values on the net about the force of a javelin at the moment in which it is thrown (300 j), but they are very different from those of I find in books (40 j at the moment of impact, also assumed for Mycenaean spears). 40j was the assumed energy at impact of a Homeric thrown spear.


I haven't seen any detailed studies of this, but it seems to match my observations. A spear has more mass and you can put more muscle into an overarm throw than you do when drawing a bow. Olympic javelineers today can generate over 300 J of kinetic energy with an 800 g javelin.

A bow is much more efficient at throwing a very light object very fast than a human arm, generally giving it much better range and accuracy, but it doesn't generate more energy on its own.

Skalligram has a good video demonstrating the difference between different weights of spears. The light skirmisher javelin he tests simply bounces off the padded armor, but when he throws the heavy, full-sized spears they go right through.

https://youtu.be/eMVgpYenYcg?t=8m17s

Oh yes, now that you mentioned it, I seems to recall reading somewhere that an atlatl could reach 700 J.



At the same time though, dueling with spear and shield seems to have been the norm for the bulk of antiquity. Most fighting would have been fairly small scale but ditching the shield and using the spear two-handed still doesn't seem to have been too common. Even the classic hoplite panalopy seems to have developed long before any evidence that it was used in close ordered phalanxes.
My current thinking (after reading the replies) is that this is not so much due to lower quality armor, but due to the lack of good limb protections. Most armors of the antiquities tend to have bad (read: non-existent) limb defense.



Curiously, Machiavelli concluded it was in tight formations that a one-handed spear and shield became awkward to use. He was definitely more of a scholar than a soldier, but presumably he would have known that Italian soldiers still sometimes used spear and shield as late as Fornovo (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Battle_of_Fornoue_6_July_1495.jpg) (far side of river).
I am just guessing, but Machiavelli could be comparing spear-and-shield guys with pikemen (that can cram into tighter space due to not having a shield).

[fusilier]

Curiously, Machiavelli concluded it was in tight formations that a one-handed spear and shield became awkward to use. He was definitely more of a scholar than a soldier, but presumably he would have known that Italian soldiers still sometimes used spear and shield as late as Fornovo (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Battle_of_Fornoue_6_July_1495.jpg) (far side of river).

Italian soldiers of the late 15th, and even very early 16th, centuries are often depicted with a large shield, and a spear, or other pole arm, such as a halberd, roncone (a kind of bill), poleax, etc. How they were supposed to wield what are considered two handed weapons with a shield isn't clear.

[Incanur]

I can't quite grasp the "leverage for grappling" part, does that means the two-handed spear guy have the advantage if he goes into grappling range as well?

For the age of the white harness (full plate), using two-handed weapons up close appears in extant manuals like Fiore de'i Liberi, Fillipo Vadi, Hans Talhoffer, etc. It's typically shown with a longsword or pollaxe, but I imagine you could do similar things with a spear, depending on the length. Such fighting often ends with both sides dropping their main weapons and retorting to daggers.

I'm unsure how a two-handed spear would line up against the spear & shield combination in this regard. Shields are good for knocking people over but otherwise seems meh at grapple range. And a spear in one hand seems pretty awkward.


I also have trouble wrap my head around this...how is this possible (to generate a spear thrust more powerful than arrow)?

This is an interesting question. I've always assumed a two-handed thrust would be more powerful than an arrow, but I'm not sure this is actually true. Some tests indicate that certain single-handed overarm thrusts can hit about as hard as two-handed thrusts. For either technique, the videos of seen of attacks against plate armor show penetrate around the 100-120 J level by the numbers from The Knight and the Blast Furnace.

That's approximately what you'd get from a light arrow from good-quality 150lb yew warbow. A heavy arrow from such a bow might be 150 J, while a heavy arrow from a 150lb Manchu-style composite bow could be well over 200 J. (Manchu bows are at least somewhat harder to draw than yew bows by all accounts I've seen.)

Of course, I don't know that either of the people I've seen test spears against armor can comfortably shoot a 150lb bow. I'm pretty sure Thrand can't. So it might a strength issue, but it's also different muscle groups for drawing bows and thrusting spears.

In the 17th century, there's an account (https://books.google.com/books?id=jl5thJiXkgsC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=were+pushed+by+a+pike+%2B+lost+his+life+%2B+arr ow&source=bl&ots=kh3d_okKct&sig=sTXMgqsNycDp1XfHx9JoJbWRmCM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRp9KZg6HVAhUj24MKHexkBKAQ6AEIJjAA#v=on epage&q=were%20pushed%20by%20a%20pike%20%2B%20lost%20his %20life%20%2B%20arrow&f=false) from the Pequot War of one Captain Turner receiving a arrow shot on his breastplate "as if it had been pushed with a pike." This suggests that it wasn't necessarily expected for arrows to hit as hard as two-handed spear thrusts, but they could do so at least at times.


I am reading some huge values on the net about the force of a javelin at the moment in which it is thrown (300 j), but they are very different from those of I find in books (40 j at the moment of impact, also assumed for Mycenaean spears). 40j was the assumed energy at impact of a Homeric thrown spear.

Now sure, there is difference in energy between a projectile that has just been launched, and one that is at the end of its trajectory. It's also worth saying that Persian arrows weren't very powerful (30-35 j). So, at least in ancient times, a flying spear was a bigger deal than an arrow, even just by energy (40 to 30-35j).

Those numbers strike me as unrealistically low. 40 J might be about right for the kind of spear thrusts a fit soldiers would likely be able to land in combat, but not for a full-power overarm thrust. Thrand's single-handed thrusts have gotten around an inch (25mm) of penetration against a 1.5mm (or so) breastplate, supposedly hardened if I recall correctly. Similarly, 30-35 J is just really weak for a warbow. It's pretty weak for a hunting bow, but some hunting bows did perform at that level or lower.

A 1kg spear would only need to be going 9 m/s (20mph) to have 40 J. People can sprint faster than that, and can of course throw fast than they can sprint. A 9 m/s launch would only travel about 10m at 45-degree angle from 2m up. People can of course throw spears much farther than that.

See this thread (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=32147&view=previous) for further discussion of javelin kinetic energy.


At the same time though, dueling with spear and shield seems to have been the norm for the bulk of antiquity.

I thought the Romans were more likely to duel with their huge shields and little swords, but that's not really my period of focus.


Curiously, Machiavelli concluded it was in tight formations that a one-handed spear and shield became awkward to use. He was definitely more of a scholar than a soldier, but presumably he would have known that Italian soldiers still sometimes used spear and shield as late as Fornovo (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Battle_of_Fornoue_6_July_1495.jpg) (far side of river).

I'm interested in that passage form Machiavelli. It makes sense. Spear and shield mostly fell out of use in the 16th century. Targetiers carried grenades or javelins on occasion, but they primarily fought with their swords.


Olympic javelineers today can generate over 300 J of kinetic energy with an 800 g javelin.

Note that this requires a full-on sprint. Pulling off an Olympic-style throw against an aware and mobile opponent would be almost impossible. Various accounts of thrown spears, particular heavier ones, note how easy they are to avoid.

Now, spear throws could still be extremely potent. Some accounts say it was a thrown spear that pierced Pierre d'Aubusson's breastplate at the Siege of Rhodes 1480 and put him out of action.


Oh yes, now that you mentioned it, I seems to recall reading somewhere that an atlatl could reach 700 J.

Yes, there's one published paper (https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=288156) that gives 771 J as the extreme high end (average 353 J with heaviest dart, 545g). Other figures are much lower, some absurdly low. :smallconfused:


I am just guessing, but Machiavelli could be comparing spear-and-shield guys with pikemen (that can cram into tighter space due to not having a shield).

Machiavelli was clear the pike couldn't be used in close combat, in a tight press, etc. That was his whole logic for armored targetiers: get past the first pike thrust and win the melee.

[Tobtor]

A possibly stupid question again:

In a one on one duel on wide, flat ground, which one has the advantage? A two-handed spear or a sword and shield/spear and shield?
Assuming both parties are armed and armored in a 11th century fashion (i.e. Open face helmet, mail shirt, Viking shield or kite shield, generally no limb defense)

I am very skeptical that a spear used two hands would be better than spear and shield or than sword and shield, that is: for duels. I acknowledge that’s what Silver suggests. My experience from larp as well as re-enactment is different. Also from watching many experienced fighters fight.

-IF- the person using the shield does it properly, then they win the majority of encounters against and evenly trained spearman with no shield. As people have pointed out shields have been widely used in close combat throughout history.

As 11th century armour is mentioned we might suggest that the combinations of weapon used at this time was best. When looking at both archaeological and historical account from the period, close combat was primarily done with a shield: also when the fight was one-on-one. Either spear andshield or sword (or axe) and shield. Two handed use of spears is almost never used.
It is though very possible that the issue have to do with armour. When wearing full plate strikes from a one-handed sword is of little concern, while using the back end of a spear (or half-pike) or indeed any blow from a pole-weapon might “stun” the opponent giving time to follow up. Also the smaller shields used in the 15th-16th century might be a factor. We see a general favouring of two handed weapons in the later period at least.

A quick look through some saga-fights (though not necessarily historical accurate they where written by and for people who knew combat) reveals that in small fights (one-on-one or very small groups), any spear is often thrown early on in the fight, before closing in with the sword/axe. This might suggest one of two things:¨

1: Sword/axe was better in the done-on-one situation. Spears reach is VERY important when fighting as a group. But if used correctly a shield allow the fighter to get very close in one-on-one fights, allowing for various stabs and cuts against the opponent which is very difficult to defend against, especially when a center grip round shield or heather shield is used.

2. Alternatively the throwing of the spear reflects the expectation of a short fight (one or two oponents) and here the chance of taking out (or just wound) the enemy before “hand combat” is greater than any advantage using the spear in hand combat gives. And almost every fighter would have a side arm, if nothing else a large knife/small sax, shield rushing your opponent stapping him with a knife is very effective against people with open faced helmets.

I do not think two handed spears give a much longer reach for striking (it does for parries), as your hand furthest from your opponent must also grip the spear. Using the shield overhand let you slide it during strikes (se thegn thrands tests on you-tube). This gives the full reach of the spear with full force on the attack, while two-handed strikes can be shifted to underhanded one-hand strikes, but this gives less power and control and not further reach. The advantage of two handed spear is that you can swing the spear (use it for cutting). This can also be done after an unsuccessful thrust (let’s say your thrust is parried, you can shift to a downwards cut against the leg). It also gives some defensive options and gives you the back end as a crushing weapon if the opponent comes in close.

As many of us disagree on what is best, and it also seem difficult to find very good historical evidence, then we can at least say your question isnt stupid...

[Kiero]

At the same time though, dueling with spear and shield seems to have been the norm for the bulk of antiquity. Most fighting would have been fairly small scale but ditching the shield and using the spear two-handed still doesn't seem to have been too common. Even the classic hoplite panalopy seems to have developed long before any evidence that it was used in close ordered phalanxes.

Yeah, the notion that you can't fight with hoplite panoply one-on-one seems fairly ridiculous to me, given how popular it was for so long. Just because it shines in close order, doesn't mean it's useless outside.


Curiously, Machiavelli concluded it was in tight formations that a one-handed spear and shield became awkward to use. He was definitely more of a scholar than a soldier, but presumably he would have known that Italian soldiers still sometimes used spear and shield as late as Fornovo (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Battle_of_Fornoue_6_July_1495.jpg) (far side of river).


I'd guarantee that's because Machiavelli's experience would be with people using an underhand grip, which is awkward in close formation with large shields. Especially if they didn't have counter-weighted spears.

[wolflance]

For the age of the white harness (full plate), using two-handed weapons up close appears in extant manuals like Fiore de'i Liberi, Fillipo Vadi, Hans Talhoffer, etc. It's typically shown with a longsword or pollaxe, but I imagine you could do similar things with a spear, depending on the length. Such fighting often ends with both sides dropping their main weapons and retorting to daggers.

I'm unsure how a two-handed spear would line up against the spear & shield combination in this regard. Shields are good for knocking people over but otherwise seems meh at grapple range. And a spear in one hand seems pretty awkward.
After watching several more demonstrations on half-swording and pollaxe fighting, what you said started to make more sense to me. Thanks!



This is an interesting question. I've always assumed a two-handed thrust would be more powerful than an arrow, but I'm not sure this is actually true. Some tests indicate that certain single-handed overarm thrusts can hit about as hard as two-handed thrusts. For either technique, the videos of seen of attacks against plate armor show penetrate around the 100-120 J level by the numbers from The Knight and the Blast Furnace.

That's approximately what you'd get from a light arrow from good-quality 150lb yew warbow. A heavy arrow from such a bow might be 150 J, while a heavy arrow from a 150lb Manchu-style composite bow could be well over 200 J. (Manchu bows are at least somewhat harder to draw than yew bows by all accounts I've seen.)

Of course, I don't know that either of the people I've seen test spears against armor can comfortably shoot a 150lb bow. I'm pretty sure Thrand can't. So it might a strength issue, but it's also different muscle groups for drawing bows and thrusting spears.
According to the test done on this site:

http://www.manchuarchery.org/bows

A 82# Manchu bow outperformed a 128# yew longbow, shooting the same heavy arrow, which means it is 56% more efficient than a longbow of the same draw weight (not surprising) .

If we assume this efficiency advantage is constant (I think it's not, but I am not certain), then a 150# Manchu bow should be about as powerful as a 234# warbow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg
Lindybeige did a test using a 150# longbow and what seems like a properly hardened arrowhead against a breastplate. No penetration (and the arrow broke). At this rate it is unlikely that an even more powerful bow can do much to the breastplate.

Mail, on the other hand...is hard to say. I've read of test done with 100# bow against mail (no penetration), but no test with more powerful bow than that as of now.

[Brother Oni]

A possibly stupid question again:

In a one on one duel on wide, flat ground, which one has the advantage? A two-handed spear or a sword and shield/spear and shield?

Assuming both parties are armed and armored in a 11th century fashion (i.e. Open face helmet, mail shirt, Viking shield or kite shield, generally no limb defense)

Further to other replies, I've been taught that during the time period concerned, it was very common practice for someone using a two handed spear to have a seax (small knife) held in their rear hand for when people get inside the spear's range.

[Vinyadan]

I'll be interested into any example of duels in hoplite gear you can provide. It's not that I think it was impossible to use it for duels (after all, nothing stops you from going to a duel wielding a baguette in your left and a lobster in your right), just that there were many better options, because the armour wasn't meant for that, and that this kind of duelling wasn't normal in ancient Greece after 750 BC.

[Tobtor]

Further to other replies, I've been taught that during the time period concerned, it was very common practice for someone using a two handed spear to have a seax (small knife) held in their rear hand for when people get inside the spear's range.

It is definitely practised among many re-enactors for that reason. However I have never seen the historic sources for it (we dont have manuals from the 11th Century, and I havnt seen the technique described in historic or literary sources). But holding a seax (which can be a rather large knife) is very usefull for spear-fighting. Whether it was done in the 11th Century is unknown (but I think not unlikely, but using just a spear was relatively rare, shield/spear really dominated, so it dominates descriptions and depictions).


Lindybeige did a test using a 150# longbow and what seems like a properly hardened arrowhead against a breastplate.

And other tests have gotten much better results with a 120lb bow. A lot of Things matters, and that test isn't very useful (to much missing information, one of the most important is how the arrowshaft is made. Try looking at some of the older lindybeige videos, he has one on how arrows benifit from being thicker 1/3 of the length from the point as to avoid breaking. Many modern replicas use machine-cut completely cylindrical shafts, which breaks much easier than accurately made arrows - that said I agree that top-quality late 15th Century plate will defeat almost every arrow shot from a bow. I just think that not all plate was top quality).

[wolflance]

I do not think two handed spears give a much longer reach for striking (it does for parries), as your hand furthest from your opponent must also grip the spear. Using the shield overhand let you slide it during strikes (se thegn thrands tests on you-tube). This gives the full reach of the spear with full force on the attack, while two-handed strikes can be shifted to underhanded one-hand strikes, but this gives less power and control and not further reach. The advantage of two handed spear is that you can swing the spear (use it for cutting). This can also be done after an unsuccessful thrust (let’s say your thrust is parried, you can shift to a downwards cut against the leg). It also gives some defensive options and gives you the back end as a crushing weapon if the opponent comes in close.

As many of us disagree on what is best, and it also seem difficult to find very good historical evidence, then we can at least say your question isnt stupid...
Two-handed grip has more reach by virtue of the user's ability to grip the shaft further back. Along with this, he can switch to a longer spear without losing any speed, control and precision.

While the "thegn's one-handed slide thrust" extended the reach of one handed spear grip greatly, it still has a somewhat shorter reach than a two-handed grip doing a similar slide-thrust (billiard cue thrust) and very much less control, due the the fact that thegn's thrust is overarm and angled downward, while two-handed grip can thrust with both the arms and the spear extended horizontally.

The "thegn's one-handed slide thrust" appears extremely powerful, hard-to-predict, and can still be used while two shields are pressed together. In many ways it is superior to underarm spear + shield. However the downsides of the technique, from what I observed from their videos, are that it is extremely slow to recover and can be knocked offline. It is basically a all-or-nothing attack (hence the reason he needs a shield), and if the attack does not connect, expect the opponent to immediately dives into grappling range.

That being said, I also think that if both sides are using a spear of equal length (let's say a typical?? 6.5ft one-handed spear used in shield wall), the two-handed spearman will indeed be disadvantaged (I will even say handicapped), as he essentially gives up an important piece of defensive equipment (shield) for some marginal increase in reach.

For two-handed spear to really show its worth, it really needs to be able to readily outreach the farthest reach of its one-handed counterpart.

[Incanur]

As far as I know, George Silver's manual is the only extant source that directly addresses whether two-handed weapons have the odds over shields in single combat.

Antonio Manciolino (https://artmilitary.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/hello-world/) favored longer weapons over shorter ones, going so far as to recommend the lancia (https://grauenwolf.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/equipment-for-bolognese-fencing/) over the spiedo. I don't believe he address shields in this hierarchy, however.

As mentioned previously, Achille Marozzo (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Achille_Marozzo) considered discarding the rotella and taking the partisan in two hands a fully respectable and perhaps advantageous technique for a partisan & rotella duel.

Giacomo di Grassi (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi) did indicate that you could defeat a two-handed sword used for great circular blows for fighting against many by rushing in with sword & shield. He also indicated you could do the same with just a single-handed sword. I'm not sure how to interpret that passage, but I suspect he was more speaking to the problems with that style of using continuous blows to oppose many foes than about the two-handed sword overall.

The montante material does have at least one play against two or more targetiers.

[Tobtor]

Two-handed grip has more reach by virtue of the user's ability to grip the shaft further back. Along with this, he can switch to a longer spear without losing any speed, control and precision.


It is not my experience in fighting though... The problem is that when using the spear two-handed you keep your hands some distance to each other (you hold it more like a quaterstaff than a greatsword), if you have both hands at the very end opposite the pointy end you loose the advantage of the manoeuvrability. Thus your "front hand" when using a spear two handed is very close to where your "front hand" (only hand) would be in the overhand position, and then in both "grips" you can move the spear foreward to a good "reachposition" (though it require more movement of your body when using it twohanded!).

That said two handed is useful for VERY long spear (pikes...) and as you say the overhand-style takes longer to retreat (and as I said also fewer defensive possibilities). Another great advantage of "two-handed" use is that you are in a better position to use the spears "butt2 end, and bring it foreward for a strike if the opponent comes in too close.

But I think there is god reasons why spears where used one-handed in the mail+shield period and two handed in the plater period. The ability to give many shorter blows with the two-handed version is paramount, as you don't expect to land a single killing blow through the enemies armours. Also the ability to parry with your spear and then bring in the back-end is very nice. At the same time shields where becoming less used (yes pavises and targets where still a thing, but not as "standard" as earlier period shields), thus you needed the two handed versions defensive abilities more.

[Galloglaich]

On a battlefield I'd absolutely prefer a shield. There will be times you can't move freely, either because of the other men in your formation, or because you're holding a position and backing away would maybe help you not get stabbed, but would let the enemy take your ground, etc. If you can't dodge or retreat, then the shield is really useful. It can close off a line of attack if you are fighting multiple enemies. It's also good protection against arrows, which a two handed spear really isn't.

The original question was a one on one duel in the open, wearing 11th Century mail and helm, no greaves or vambraces. In that situation, I'd favor the two handed spear.

I agree with Mike on this.

The way I would explain it is as follows:

The shield allows you to defend against a 'basic' attack with a lot less of your attention required for success. As in, if I want to parry an attack with my sword it may take 30% of my attention (if it is a swift, properly executed strike) whereas with a shield maybe it's more like 10%. So if my attention is divided between trying to track a half dozen or a dozen potential enemies, and missiles flying around the battlefield and where my allies are and the terrain and the commander and the disposition of the enemy formation and potential flanking movements and so on, in other words all the other things you have to think about on the battlefield, then with the shield maybe I could defend myself 10 times or more realistically, I could defend myself with 10% of my attention when 90% is focused on other things, which could save my life.


In a one-on-one duel, the two-handed weapon potentially has more flexibility. The shield makes it easy to parry but it also somewhat limits your options, you have (typically) a little less reach and / or a little less control of your weapon, the shield can block your vision and get in your way (particularly a larger shield - this is why some Masters prefer bucklers to larger shields in a one-on-one situation) and you can control the fight a little bit better with the two handed weapon, IF, and this is a big if, you are skilled / trained / experienced enough to use the weapon effectively.

Two-handed weapon use is trickier, IMO, than using a weapon with a shield, particularly a sword with a shield which is pretty easy to get to a 'competence' level with. It's much less forgiving of mistakes, much harder to parry effectively (while for example, protecting your hands) harder to avoid being vulnerable in a bind which is a standard way shield fighters get people with two-handed weapons, and so forth. Last year the fencer and researcher Piermarco Terminiello discovered some records from an Italian fencing master in which he was negotiating with the city of Florence to train fencers with various weapons, and the longsword or two-handed sword was the most expensive and took the most time. This jibes with my experience as a fencer and a fencing instructor. IIRC he required 6 months to train a longsword fighter vs. 2-3 months for most of the other weapons or weapon combinations.

G

[wolflance]

As far as I know, George Silver's manual is the only extant source that directly addresses whether two-handed weapons have the odds over shields in single combat.

Antonio Manciolino (https://artmilitary.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/hello-world/) favored longer weapons over shorter ones, going so far as to recommend the lancia (https://grauenwolf.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/equipment-for-bolognese-fencing/) over the spiedo. I don't believe he address shields in this hierarchy, however.

As mentioned previously, Achille Marozzo (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Achille_Marozzo) considered discarding the rotella and taking the partisan in two hands a fully respectable and perhaps advantageous technique for a partisan & rotella duel.

Giacomo di Grassi (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi) did indicate that you could defeat a two-handed sword used for great circular blows for fighting against many by rushing in with sword & shield. He also indicated you could do the same with just a single-handed sword. I'm not sure how to interpret that passage, but I suspect he was more speaking to the problems with that style of using continuous blows to oppose many foes than about the two-handed sword overall.

The montante material does have at least one play against two or more targetiers.
I dug around some Chinese sources, and found that Qi Jiguang actually made a sort-of-comparison...although he was pitting PIKE against other weapons.

From his writings, he appears to consider a pike to be advantageous against all other weapons including other two-handed polearms due to reach, ability to jab rapidly then recover, and the fact that parrying that many jabs makes you tire out faster.

His advise on defeating a pikeman with other two-handed polearm is to stay outside of his jab range, bait him to commit a powerful thrust that can't be recovered quickly, then rush in while smacking away the pike (multiple times).

His advise on defeating a pikeman with a sword-and-shield is to throw a javelin at the pikeman, and then rush in while he is distracted/injured. Otherwise ask a Langxian to provide cover/gank him.


Now given that this is Ming period, he was probably assume that the participants are unarmored (shield being an exception). The shield in question is a concave round shield, not center-gripped, roughly 80 cm ~ 96 cm in diameter (could be larger), and weight around 5.3 kg.

It is not very clear whether he was addressing single combat or formation fighting, although I am inclined to the former.

[Incanur]

Based on this video (https://youtu.be/SZZjtxgUGeU), the key to winning the spear-vs.-spear-&-shield fight is being Matt Easton. :smallamused:

Of course, those spear simulators look awfully light and fairly short too. A dedicated two-handed spear is considerably beefier and longer. George Silver's staff technique relies on mixing thrusts with powerful blows. You can't do that with a broom handle with a padded tip.

The Academy of Historical Fencing folks (Nick Thomas and company) write the following in this spear-&-shield-vs.-sword-&-shield video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHkW0rCoe_A): "In any kind of formation fighting the shield is amazing. Combined with a sword it is always amazing no matter what. One on one, we find the spear generally much better in two hands without a shield."

Of course, Nick Thomas also considers the long rapier the best sidearm for a duel, so he's obviously suspect. :smallwink:

[Tobtor]

Of course, those spear simulators look awfully light and fairly short too. A dedicated two-handed spear is considerably beefier and longer.

I agree the spears do look small. Though not as much smaller than the shield looks to 11th century shields..... If that is the size of shields imagined, then yes the spear will be better. Interestingly enough, many duelling spears of the late medieval are rather short: shorter than many "army" weapons, and definitely shorter than most 11th century spears as well.

As Matt say here:

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

Most of the people having been sparing alot with shields either. That also creates difficulties in estimating the efficiencies of various weapons. Either people have trained alot with shields/hand-weapon, or they have been practising longsword, rapier and possibly a bit of poleweapons. Figuring out how to compare two separate fighting styles is quite difficult.

[Incanur]

Yeah, the shield in Matt Easton's video even looks a bit small by 16th-century standards. Marozzo's rotella for partisan & rotella was slightly larger judging by the illustration.

Some of shields used by Nick Thomas's crew are about 11th-century-size.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, the shield in Matt Easton's video even looks a bit small by 16th-century standards. Marozzo's rotella for partisan & rotella was slightly larger judging by the illustration.

Some of shields used by Nick Thomas's crew are about 11th-century-size.

I was going to mention those - the Thomas brothers have some videos of various weapons vs. shields from a few years back, I think the spears are larger and longer and they do have some experience with them and tend to fight 'mean'.

[rrgg]

Most of the people having been sparing alot with shields either. That also creates difficulties in estimating the efficiencies of various weapons. Either people have trained alot with shields/hand-weapon, or they have been practising longsword, rapier and possibly a bit of poleweapons. Figuring out how to compare two separate fighting styles is quite difficult.

Similarly, not many have experience fighting with a two-handed weapon specifically against sword and shield or vise versa. The techniques best for one-on-one combat against a half-pike or longsword aren't necessarily the best for fighting against sword and target. I'm pretty sure that even for the weapons on silver's list it's skill that determine the winner more than anything.

In another discussion I read someone mentioned that even Silver's two-handed sword might have a slight advantage against sword and target assuming he makes use of one-handed thrusts and "whipping" strikes for reach and has lots of room to hit and run.

-

I do think that improving body armor is part of the reason two-handed weapons started to gain popularity. Limb armor for foot soldiers seems to have remained abnormal and Humfrey Barwick even claimed that a halberdier or billman could fight more effectively with no vambraces. Even the suggestion that pikemen carry lightweight leather shields on their backs seems to have fallen out of favor. In 1587 William Garrard mentioned that leather shields were currently used only by the pikemen of some nations who had ". . . want of brest plates of Iron." Some writers do seem to think that targeteers would be more effective than bills or halberds in a melee, but most seem to consider them more or less interchangeable, with bills and halberds generally growing much more common overall.

On the Bayeux tapestry you can see a couple of huscarls opt to discard their spear and shield in favor of using a daneaxe with two hands. Perhaps this would have made sense in a melee assuming these individuals could afford better quality chainmail or more padding over the torso than most other soldiers.

Getting back to the original question, I think I would perhaps frame it this way for a one-on-one duel with no armor/low-quality armor:

two-handed has a slight advantage over sword and shield

spear and shield has a slight advantage over two-handed

sword (w/~3 ft. blade) and shield has a slight advantage over spear and shield

[Incanur]

I wouldn't call limb armor abnormal for infantry in the 16th century. Pikers often wore arm harness and gauntlets, and most or all military writers thought they should. Regular halberdiers could wear arm harness and gauntlets, mail sleeves, or the more limited protection recommended by Barwick.

[rrgg]

I wouldn't call limb armor abnormal for infantry in the 16th century. Pikers often wore arm harness and gauntlets, and most or all military writers thought they should. Regular halberdiers could wear arm harness and gauntlets, mail sleeves, or the more limited protection recommended by Barwick.

I meant in the sense that most pikemen probably didn't wear lower arm protection, even if it was recommended, and even military writers stopped recommending protection for the lower legs. Smythe was complaining after all that most soldiers considered themselves well armored if they wore just a cuirass and helmet.

In the illustrations from Paul Dolnstein's diary he shows most of the landsknecht pikemen wearing helmets and cuirasses but no hand protection.

https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/dolnstein_battle_of_elfsborg_1502b_414.jpg

[Incanur]

Dolnstein's text (https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11100) mentions arm harnesses: "We were all wearing breast and back plates, skullcaps and arm defences." There's nothing to indicate they wore gauntlets, but gauntlets are hard to draw.

Smythe claimed that Spanish & Italian pikers did wear gauntlets, unlike English pikers and those of some other nations. There's support for this from Spanish sources. For example, Sancho de Londoño's manual (written 1569 or before) specified gauntlets for pikers.

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd sure as heck want some sort of protection for the part of my body usually sticking out the closest to the enemy and their weapons...

[rrgg]

One of the landsknechts in Dolnstein's sketch has a crossbow bolt buried in his arm. I don't think he meant to give the impression that all pikemen even on the front rank had complete arm protection.

[snowblizz]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd sure as heck want some sort of protection for the part of my body usually sticking out the closest to the enemy and their weapons...

Well hindsight is 20/20. When you gotta cart all that metal around by yourself for long periods of time with nothing at all happening... well... you didn't get paid and you really want to eat today for the first time in days. Do you really need gauntlets that bad? I mean really?:smallwink:

[Kiero]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd sure as heck want some sort of protection for the part of my body usually sticking out the closest to the enemy and their weapons...

Indeed, at the very least for your left arm, even if not the right. Same as Roman legionaries would often retain their left greave (which is on the foot closest to the enemy in a traditional guarding stance holding up your shield) even if they discarded the right one.

[Tobtor]

Similarly, not many have experience fighting with a two-handed weapon specifically against sword and shield or vise versa. The techniques best for one-on-one combat against a half-pike or longsword aren't necessarily the best for fighting against sword and target. I'm pretty sure that even for the weapons on silver's list it's skill that determine the winner more than anything.


I agree. Skill is central. It might also differ how much skill you need to learn different weapons and different weapon compositions. That is why I think the starting point should be what they did during the period you are interested in and assume that is what Works (best). So for 11th Century weapons and armour that would be something with a shield, in the 15/16th Century twohanded weapons should prevail.



On the Bayeux tapestry you can see a couple of huscarls opt to discard their spear and shield in favor of using a daneaxe with two hands. Perhaps this would have made sense in a melee assuming these individuals could afford better quality chainmail or more padding over the torso than most other soldiers.

Yes huscarls using axes is sort of their difining thing. How exactly it is used is a matter of debate. One of the advantages is definitely against formations.


Getting back to the original question, I think I would perhaps frame it this way for a one-on-one duel with no armor/low-quality armor:

two-handed has a slight advantage over sword and shield

spear and shield has a slight advantage over two-handed

sword (w/~3 ft. blade) and shield has a slight advantage over spear and shield

But that would mean that spearmen should be ditching the shield if they encountered a person with a sword/shield. it didnt seem to happen. Perhaps because having a spear/shield always mean you can change to handweapon/shield (handweapon being a sword, an axe or a knife).

[Incanur]

It's not my period of focus, but there is some evidence (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_spear.htm) for using spears in both hands in the 11th century.


When the line broke, stories say that people would sling their shields over their shoulders and use the spear two-handed, something that Þórolfr did in chapter 53 of Egils saga. Used this way, the spear has even more reach, since the fighter can bring his hands way back towards the butt end of the spear.

This technique works well in single combat, as well. In chapter 45 of Grettis saga, Þorbjörn knocked loudly on the door at Atli's farm, then hid. When Atli went to the door, Þorbjörn rushed up holding his spear in two hands and ran Atli through. When he took the blow, Atli said, "Broad spears are in fashion these days," and fell dead.

[Lemmy]

So... In a campaign I'm playing, the PCs decided to become proper citizens of the country where the adventure takes place... Now, this requires a small fee plus an oath of loyalty to the nation in question (follow the laws, don't sabotage or conspire against the nation, help defend it, should it ever be attacked, pay your taxes, etc)...

So... My question is... What could I use as the basis for the wording/binding of this oath?

If it makes any difference, the nation is ruled by a council of 12 men and women. There's no king, but there's a sort of "prime minister" figure that leads the executive power with relative independence from the council. There's no nobility eithet (although some families and organizations are so powerful and influential , they might as well be nobles).

Thanks in advance for any help. :)

[Storm Bringer]

So... In a campaign I'm playing, the PCs decided to become proper citizens of the country where the adventure takes place... Now, this requires a small fee plus an oath of loyalty to the nation in question (follow the laws, don't sabotage or conspire against the nation, help defend it, should it ever be attacked, pay your taxes, etc)...

So... My question is... What could I use as the basis for the wording/binding of this oath?

If it makes any difference, the nation is ruled by a council of 12 men and women. There's no king, but there's a sort of "prime minister" figure that leads the executive power with relative independence from the council. There's no nobility eithet (although some families and organizations are so powerful and influential , they might as well be nobles).

Thanks in advance for any help. :)

traditionally, you'd swear on a religious basis ("....so help me god"), so having a reference to the gods in their is a good bet. ("I swear, in the sight of the Gods Above, and of Men, that I will.....").

since thiers no official nobles, and no king, the oath would likely be made to the Republic (or whatever title the nation uses) ("I will obey the Laws and Customs of the Republic of Nameplace..."), you could stick a reference to the ruling council, but democracies* tend not to, since that comes across as something monarchs do.

*or a oligarchy that is dressed up as a democracy.

[Galloglaich]

So... In a campaign I'm playing, the PCs decided to become proper citizens of the country where the adventure takes place... Now, this requires a small fee plus an oath of loyalty to the nation in question (follow the laws, don't sabotage or conspire against the nation, help defend it, should it ever be attacked, pay your taxes, etc)...

So... My question is... What could I use as the basis for the wording/binding of this oath?

If it makes any difference, the nation is ruled by a council of 12 men and women. There's no king, but there's a sort of "prime minister" figure that leads the executive power with relative independence from the council. There's no nobility eithet (although some families and organizations are so powerful and influential , they might as well be nobles).

Thanks in advance for any help. :)


The German medieval towns had an oath that new citizens had to swear to and all the citizens swore to once a year. I think the Italian and Flemish and many other areas towns had the same. I know the one in Strasbourg was called the "Schwoerbrief" but I don't have the text of it. I'm actually curious myself and will try to find it.

G

[Potato_Priest]

A possibly stupid question again:

In a one on one duel on wide, flat ground, which one has the advantage? A two-handed spear or a sword and shield/spear and shield?

Assuming both parties are armed and armored in a 11th century fashion (i.e. Open face helmet, mail shirt, Viking shield or kite shield, generally no limb defense)

From personal Larp experience, I'd give the shield and sword guy the advantage. Here's why.

If the sword and board wielder gets past the spear's tip, he has essentially already won. A spear is far too awkward to maneuver up close, while a sword is not, and the swordsman will be able to move pretty fast the rest of the way down the shaft. Thus, the spear wielder has to rely almost solely on range to protect himself.

You can't run backwards and attack nearly as well as you can run forwards and attack. Have you ever tried running backwards? Have you tried it while trying to lethally stab someone with a significant amount of cover? It's really hard. Running forwards, on the other hand, doesn't screw you up nearly as much, in part simply because you can see where you're going.

So, the sword and boarder will be moving faster towards the spearman than the spearman can move away, and if he gets past the spearpoint without dying/being significantly wounded he wins. This means that the spearman will get one to at most 2 or 3 attempts to harm the shield wielder before he is rushed.

Now here's where it begins to really matter what type of shield we're talking about. The norman shield pictured here (http://www.medievalchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Kite-Shield-Norman-Knight-Holding-Kite-Shield.png?e2299c)is, I think, from about the right time period, and would pose a significant challenge for any spearman. By standing sideways with the shield at about chest height, the shieldman can protect his entire body by moving the shield a foot in any direction, which he will probably be able to do faster than the spearman can stab.

If the shield is more like this one (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/neck_to_knees.jpg), then it might be somewhat easier for the spearman to stab the shieldman in the leg or face, but it's still fairly difficult and I'd award a more moderate advantage to the shieldman.

When I am larping, I usually use a 2-handed spear, and I can tell you with certainty that it is not a dueling weapon. My spear is quite effective due to its range when I have even a single comrade to protect me, but when I am alone against a shield wielder I invariably get rushed. Even dueling one of my friends who was armed with only a sword, he managed to dodge my first stab, grab the shaft, and run up the spear to stab me. :smallredface:Like I said, it's not a dueling weapon.

[rrgg]

Indeed, at the very least for your left arm, even if not the right. Same as Roman legionaries would often retain their left greave (which is on the foot closest to the enemy in a traditional guarding stance holding up your shield) even if they discarded the right one.

When fighting with a pike almost the whole weight of the weapon needs to be supported by the left arm, which is probably part of the reason adding even more weight there seems to have been unappreciated by many soldiers. As I understand it, the idea behind the macedonian shield (https://www.sierratoysoldier.com/ourstore/pc/catalog/FL_AG/AG035_1(L).jpg) was that the weight was primarily supported by the body rather than the arm.


It's not my period of focus, but there is some evidence (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_spear.htm) for using spears in both hands in the 11th century.

To be honest, this is largely outside my area of focus as well. Take my speculations with a grain of salt.

[wolflance]

But that would mean that spearmen should be ditching the shield if they encountered a person with a sword/shield. it didnt seem to happen. Perhaps because having a spear/shield always mean you can change to handweapon/shield (handweapon being a sword, an axe or a knife).
There are several possible reasons a spearman wouldn't want to ditch his shield even if it will be advantageous in certain situations - missile weapon being the primary one. The shield might also have some cultural significance (Spartan losing shield = disgrace thing for example).



From personal Larp experience, I'd give the shield and sword guy the advantage. Here's why.

If the sword and board wielder gets past the spear's tip, he has essentially already won. A spear is far too awkward to maneuver up close, while a sword is not, and the swordsman will be able to move pretty fast the rest of the way down the shaft. Thus, the spear wielder has to rely almost solely on range to protect himself.

You can't run backwards and attack nearly as well as you can run forwards and attack. Have you ever tried running backwards? Have you tried it while trying to lethally stab someone with a significant amount of cover? It's really hard. Running forwards, on the other hand, doesn't screw you up nearly as much, in part simply because you can see where you're going.

So, the sword and boarder will be moving faster towards the spearman than the spearman can move away, and if he gets past the spearpoint without dying/being significantly wounded he wins. This means that the spearman will get one to at most 2 or 3 attempts to harm the shield wielder before he is rushed.

Now here's where it begins to really matter what type of shield we're talking about. The norman shield pictured here (http://www.medievalchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Kite-Shield-Norman-Knight-Holding-Kite-Shield.png?e2299c)is, I think, from about the right time period, and would pose a significant challenge for any spearman. By standing sideways with the shield at about chest height, the shieldman can protect his entire body by moving the shield a foot in any direction, which he will probably be able to do faster than the spearman can stab.

If the shield is more like this one (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/neck_to_knees.jpg), then it might be somewhat easier for the spearman to stab the shieldman in the leg or face, but it's still fairly difficult and I'd award a more moderate advantage to the shieldman.

When I am larping, I usually use a 2-handed spear, and I can tell you with certainty that it is not a dueling weapon. My spear is quite effective due to its range when I have even a single comrade to protect me, but when I am alone against a shield wielder I invariably get rushed. Even dueling one of my friends who was armed with only a sword, he managed to dodge my first stab, grab the shaft, and run up the spear to stab me. :smallredface:Like I said, it's not a dueling weapon.
No, spear is a dueling weapon alright.

A spear can jab/feint surprisingly fast, and while moving a shield is easier, moving the shield IN REACTION to a spear stab is much slower. Also, if the shield guy rush in, you can actually retract the spear along with running backward.

Not sure how a kite shield will affect the outcome as I've not seen many kite shield large enough to cover head to toe in action.

(start 1:22)

https://youtu.be/BrK5kVZh6Vw?t=83

The problem with LARPing (and in many HEMA sparring for that matter) is that participants tend to take risk much more readily (knowing that no harm's done even if they f**ked up), doing things that will be considered very reckless in actual combat.

On the other hand, martial arts reconstructions seems to assume that both parties will fight very cautiously (see video demonstrations below), with the sword-and-shield guy cancelling his rush midway if there's a slightest chance that he may not succeed (and the spearman that overly committed his thrust got his spear stepped on and his head lopped off)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoJ8nt7mg50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCBcYj5jEeA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZSoOCHNzAw

[Knaight]

The problem with LARPing (and in many HEMA sparring for that matter) is that participants tend to take risk much more readily (knowing that no harm's done even if they f**ked up), doing things that will be considered very reckless in actual combat.

I'd actually consider that a smaller problem with LARPing than how "no headshots" is a really common safety rule. That helps out sword and shield fighters a lot, while really hurting a few other weapon users (spears among them, but two handed swords probably suffer most). Similarly, the SCA safety restriction towards lower leg shots gets in the way of spear use a lot more than it does sword and shield.

[Tobtor]

It's not my period of focus, but there is some evidence (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_spear.htm) for using spears in both hands in the 11th century.

I did not say it didn't exist, but that it was uncommon.

This part:


When the line broke, stories say that people would sling their shields over their shoulders and use the spear two-handed, something that Þórolfr did in chapter 53 of Egils saga. Used this way, the spear has even more reach, since the fighter can bring his hands way back towards the butt end of the spear.
Is a clear exageration. The Thorolfr passage is a favorite of mine, and I have referenced it a few times in earlier versions of this thread (regarding straps on shields, specialized anti-mail weapons, un-armoured soldiers).
However, we should note a few things:
A. He wasn’t using a normal spear but a weapon called a “mail-troll” (see below).
B. Stories doesn’t say “people would do so”, but that Thorolfr did so in a specific context. It is quite clear from the story that he is doing a bold, but a bit reckless move. He does so to break the enemy formation, going for the “standard”-man (banner carrier), and with the “spear” chops down the standards pole (then he skewers the an opponent through mail-armour and is then himself killed).
C. There is no indication that Thorolfr used the weapon the way they depict in the accompanying picture (a very extended thrust holding the weapon with both and a the butt end). In fact it is quite clear he uses it to swing with and “chopping” down enemies. This relates to A.

Before the battle we have a “arming montage” which describes how the main characters are arming themselves, and there is a quite long description of Thorolfrs weapon. Some translations make it shorter, and most translaters doesn’t really care about weapons and don’t know how they work and what bits are described. When my wife was involved in a translation project we looked at the passage together (she as old-norse reader, me as an archaeologist). The text have a very in-depth description of the weapon: it have a very thin point with a square cross-section, this part is said to be what is roughly 60cm or two feets. This is the “stabby” bit. Below this the blade is said to widen and become “feather”shaped (a word used to describe wide-bladed weapons). This is the “choppy” bit. There is also a description of an attached “nail/spike”, but whether this is for fastening the spear point or if the weapon have a “spike”-bit is a bit uncertain.

Below the point the staff is said to be so high that a man touches the lower part of the point when extending his hands upwards (this seems to be a standard height for long spears in the sagas). Average height of people was roughly 5f.10inch, Thorolfr is described as tall (so possibly 6feet?), extending his hand would make the staff 6 and a half feet or so. Add to this the socket, the “choppy”-bit and the two foot “stabby” bit and we have something like 9 feet as a minimum. The weapon is described elsewhere in the saga and the 13/14th century writer compares it to a poleweapon of his own day (though as terminology is difficult to grasp from written sources what the pole-weapon is by modern definitions is difficult to say). This part is sometimes omitted in translations.

The battle makes it very clear that Thorolfr stop using his weapon as a stappy-weapon, and begins hewing down opponents, breaking their line (though he also stabs left and right). So we might assume he begins using the weapon more as “a halberd” (a very used old Icelandic to English dictionary translate this - and many other mentioned weapons - as “some kind of halberd”, and it is clear that the maker of the dictionary doesn’t really care what weapon is mentioned…). This is indeed a technique you can employ with big heavy “chpping”-spears, though it is a dangerous one, it tend to scare the opponent (a big viking hero swinging wildly with a 9-foot chopping spear is likely going to scare most men who value their lives). Interestingly Thorolfr and Egil and all their men are said to fight armed “Norwegian”-style, with –no- armour, but with their “Norwegian”-shields as their main protection.

The second description is missing that Atli is killed from behind, the spear is going his back and out his stomach and he utters his famous last words as he sees the spear-blade. When attacking someone un-armed from behind ramming them through, a shield is not necessary.

[Tobtor]

No, spear is a dueling weapon alright.

I agree. I also agree that it is a very good "duelling" weapon. I would like to note that most depictions of in the manuals I have seen are of short to average spears (yes, I know of pike-duelling as well - but most techniques I have seen are with shorter spears).

I once larped with a VERY experienced HEMA practitionor. He liked to use a duelling spear (adding another but smaller point in the but-end). He was a killer, when it came to defeat people with longswords, and also sword and smaller shields (he could easily defeat two less experienced fights with sword and buckler with his spear). But even though he was very experienced he did face trouble when enganging oponents with larger sheilds (whether round shields or kite-shileds). Not that he wouldnt sometimes win, but if the shield user could mannage to get "on the side" of the spear, pressing foreward is a viable option for killing the spearperson - especially if the spearperson is having no platearmour to protect him!


There are several possible reasons a spearman wouldn't want to ditch his shield even if it will be advantageous in certain situations - missile weapon being the primary one. The shield might also have some cultural significance (Spartan losing shield = disgrace thing for example).

Yes, but they vikings didnt have that, and they still used shields, also in small scale encounters without archers etc.



The problem with LARPing (and in many HEMA sparring for that matter) is that participants tend to take risk much more readily (knowing that no harm's done even if they f**ked up), doing things that will be considered very reckless in actual combat.

I agree with this bit as well. It is even apparent within LARP: I have met many people that when sparring they are pretty good (better than me), but when it comes to actual "combat" (even if it is only LARP), their fear of loosing, makes them fight overly defensively (to a degree where they risk lossing due to it). I can only imagine that it would be 10 times more so if it was their actual lives and not their characters lives at stake.


I'd actually consider that a smaller problem with LARPing than how "no headshots" is a really common safety rule. That helps out sword and shield fighters a lot, while really hurting a few other weapon users (spears among them, but two handed swords probably suffer most). Similarly, the SCA safety restriction towards lower leg shots gets in the way of spear use a lot more than it does sword and shield.

I agree. There are indeed many issues with any attampt to model fights. See for example Matt Eastons discussion on double hits etc. Depending on how LARP rules are formed, people during LARP fights in armour are quite willing to take a single "hit" if it gets them close in and kill his oponent to death with multiple attacks. Also some grabbling is allowed, but no-one is using full physical force in neither LARP nor HEMA fights. Again looking at a period weapon kit is more usefull, then various attempts to model it. The rules set up will determine outcome (is some strikes more deadly?, is some areas more vital? How to model armour and the affect on the duel? ETC, we dont want to test WHO ACTUALLY manages to kill the other person most often).

[Roxxy]

Quick question that's actually more about logistics than combat itself. One historical era of my world has American Civil War tech, but every reputable doctor understands and accepts the germ theory of disease, and the principle that sanitary operating conditions and sterilization of instruments after any surgery are of paramount importance. Let's plug this situation into the real American Civil War (I don't want to spend all day determining the exact capabilities of my fantasy military, complete with the economics and geography involved, so it's easier to use a real life analog, then use what we determine in deciding how I want war to look in my world), then look at the Union Army.

My question is, to what degree do you think the Union Army could actually provide sanitary conditions in field hospitals, or provide sterilized instruments for every operation? It's all well and good for the doctors to know it's a capital idea, but in the middle of a massive battle with limited resources on hand, how much of that idea is realistic, given the logistical capabilities and level of casualties that they had?

[Storm_Of_Snow]

You can sterilise to an extent with things like fire, iodine and alcohol, but medical instruments were very expensive in that era, so unless they've got at least one extra set supplied by the military so they can use one on one patient, then swap out and use the next set on their next patient while the previous set of instruments are sterilised, they're going to keep using them and only sterilise them when there's no more patients, and the biggest issues are cross contamination from the table the patient's being placed on, medical staff getting blood and other fluids on their clothing and not being able to change, or not cleaning their hands sufficiently (no latex gloves, and certainly nothing that's disposable like modern medical staff have), orderlies kicking up dirt and mud when they bring patients in and out of the field hospital and keeping bandages sterile while they're in storage, and dry/clean when they're in use.

Basically, you're looking at Boer War, maybe WW1 levels of behaviour, but still with ACW era medicine (lots of amputations and cauterising of wounds, bullets and other debris left in people because they don't have the ability to extract them, few drugs except for things like Chloroform and possibly narcotics like Opium derivatives, and certainly no antibiotics) - at a stretch you might have some surfaces which have antibacterial properties (silver, for example), but only because someone noticed incidences of infection were lower when they were present and they've put them in use without really understanding what's going on, and wards might be more spaced out so that the wounded aren't virtually on top of each other while they're recovering, before they're either returned to their unit or moved back to a proper hospital.

[Vinyadan]

This is actually the ephebic oath, which young Athenians took when becoming adults:


I will not bring dishonour on my sacred arms nor will I abandon my comrade wherever I shall be stationed. I will defend the rights of gods and men and will not leave my country smaller, when I die, but greater and better, so far as I am able by myself and with the help of all. I will respect the rulers of the time duly and the existing ordinances duly and all others which may be established in the future. Furthermore, if anyone seeks to destroy the ordinances I will oppose him so far as I am able by myself and with the help of all. I will honor the cults of my fathers. Witnesses to this shall be the gods Agraulus, Hestia, Enyo, Enyalius, Ares, Athena the Warrior, Zeus, Thallo, Auxo, Hegemone, Heracles, and the boundaries of my native land, wheat, barley, vines, olive-trees, fig-trees...

You could take a part of it, maybe deemphasizing the military part, or putting it in a second place.

[Incanur]

Even dueling one of my friends who was armed with only a sword, he managed to dodge my first stab, grab the shaft, and run up the spear to stab me. :smallredface:

I'll draw on Joseph Swetnam (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/swetnam2.htm) for this one: "I have known a man with a Sword and Dagger hath cut off the end of a Pike-Staffe, but I hold him an ignorant and unskillful man, that hath held the Staffe." That's a bit harsh, but that the basic point stands. Voiding and grabbing the staff constitute an appropriate technique (unlike trying to cut a staff), but they're not easy to pull off against a skillful staff wielder.

Personally, in the limited and controlled drills I did with single-handed sword against a 9ft hickory staff with padded ends, voiding or parrying was quite difficult.


Like I said, it's not a dueling weapon.

If so, the various 16th/17th-century masters who gave the spear/staff odds over shorter weapons were wildly mistaken. Antonio Manciolino, George Silver, and Joseph Swetnam all explicitly assigned advantage to two-handed staff weapons over shorter weapons. Far more masters taught dueling with staff weapons, including against shorter weapons.


I once larped with a VERY experienced HEMA practitionor. He liked to use a duelling spear (adding another but smaller point in the but-end). He was a killer, when it came to defeat people with longswords, and also sword and smaller shields (he could easily defeat two less experienced fights with sword and buckler with his spear). But even though he was very experienced he did face trouble when enganging oponents with larger sheilds (whether round shields or kite-shileds). Not that he wouldnt sometimes win, but if the shield user could mannage to get "on the side" of the spear, pressing foreward is a viable option for killing the spearperson - especially if the spearperson is having no platearmour to protect him!

Huh. It sounds like this person was about up to standard according to Silver if he could defeat two foes with sword & buckler at once. As mentioned previously, a key part of Silver's stated technique for staff against short weapons is alternating between a blow at the head and a thrust at the body. If a large shield could defend the head and body at the same time, it would invalidate that techniques. (Of course, then there's the option of attacking the legs, which Silver did mention for duels with the Welsh hook/forest bill.)

Did this person use full-power blows with a stout staff, or only thrusts?


Yes, but they vikings didnt have that, and they still used shields, also in small scale encounters without archers etc.

Note that the mere facts of historical use don't necessarily tell us what was better or worse in any simple fashion. To some extent, people fought with what they had in the customary fashion.

In the 16th century in Western/Central Europe, despite all the attempts to revive the old Roman shield, you still had various soldiers who skirmished lightly armored or unarmored with halberds, pikes, and half-pikes. You likewise had civilians who carried such weapons while unarmored or lightly armored.

The same goes for Ming China, where armored or lightly armored troops used a mix of pike, polearms, shields, and two-handed swords. (Ming armies also of course included more heavily armored soldiers.)

The simplistic narrative that improved armor led to the shield's decline has some merit but misses the full complexity involved.

[Tobtor]

Personally, in the limited and controlled drills I did with single-handed sword against a 9ft hickory staff with padded ends, voiding or parrying was quite difficult.

I agree. Against a single sword, the reach the spear gives you, end the "two ends" of it make it very dangerous. This also matters for sword/buckler.



Huh. It sounds like this person was about up to standard according to Silver if he could defeat two foes with sword & buckler at once. As mentioned previously, a key part of Silver's stated technique for staff against short weapons is alternating between a blow at the head and a thrust at the body. If a large shield could defend the head and body at the same time, it would invalidate that techniques. (Of course, then there's the option of attacking the legs, which Silver did mention for duels with the Welsh hook/forest bill.)

He was pretty good.

The thing with shields is that they don't have to "cover" the body. That would be a wrong use of the shield (one that seem to be used in some of the videos). In stead you should try to "catch" the spear on the outsider of the shield, and with a shield you can "feel" the spear and follow his movements, and he then have to move the point more than half a metre to get around your shield and you can follow his motions while moving foreward. Thus you "immobilise" the point end. A spearman then have the ability to move the "back-end" around for an attack to push you backwards, but while doing that left arm/should and the body is prime targets for the swordman.

Also note that due to how angles work, when you hold the shield up in front of you, the further it is from you the more it "covers" you, thus hitting the leg is quite a lot more difficult than you might think. Hitting the leg is actually quite difficult with a spear, you can quickly move your foot, and/or move your shield down to catch the spear between shield and the ground.


Note that the mere facts of historical use don't necessarily tell us what was better or worse in any simple fashion. To some extent, people fought with what they had in the customary fashion.

True enough (to a degree, people using inefficient tactics for long tend to die/loose). But so many cultures have developed a fashion for shields, that I tend to believe it was useful....



In the 16th century in Western/Central Europe, despite all the attempts to revive the old Roman shield, you still had various soldiers who skirmished lightly armored or unarmored with halberds, pikes, and half-pikes. You likewise had civilians who carried such weapons while unarmored or lightly armored.

Granted I give you that the shield might be "obsolete" (baring that it was still used) not only due to armour, but also due to other factors (such as advanced pole weapons with hooks, gunpowder etc). The thing is: the choice in the 16th century wasn't shield or no shield, but no armour, shield or armour. If you are going to carry the extra weight you might choose extra armour over a shield, while in the 11th century, you would choose the shield first, then the armour secondly. The favours had shifted due to technology of (primarily) better armour. That does not mean that no-one in the 11th century fought without shields, nor that all shields where abandoned in the 16th century.
But I agree halberds also have some tricks against shields (hooking, hacking etc), so does dane-axes etc. Spears: not so much.


The simplistic narrative that improved armor led to the shield's decline has some merit but misses the full complexity involved.

Well it quite clearly did. People at all times have sometimes chosen to move lightly, but in the 16hth century armour was chosen above shields, while in the 11th shields where chosen above armour. You rarely see 16th century fully armoured people, also using shields (though it did happen). The primary defence was now in the armour, and anything the shield could stop, so could the armour (though a buckler is much easier to carry and put away etc, but its not better than a plate armour at protecting you). But OK: also various pole-weapons with hooks/spikes, axe-parts became more common, which might have contributed to the decline of shields.

The thing is: IF it was better to fight without a shield, than with a shield. THEN people wouldn't have bothered. One thing is ditching good equipment who make you better because it is heavy to carry. That is a dilemma: do I want to carry the armour when it might help me survive a combat? I might even get some money if I sold this annoying plate part that my commander tells me to carry. I can see how that was alluring (getting rid of weight AND getting more money - yay! I will worry about dying when it comes to that).

Carrying around a heavy object that make you -worse- at fighting seems kind of the opposite: a no brainer. Why would anyone ever do that? Thus carrying around shields must have been worth it! Fighting with it must have been worth it also in situations like Iceland where you would really NEVER see armies in the 11th century, still shields was standard for any fight (with swords, with spears and any other weapons,... well except bows). Thus shields is in no way a purely "battle" only defensive weapon.

[Knaight]

The thing is: IF it was better to fight without a shield, than with a shield. THEN people wouldn't have bothered. One thing is ditching good equipment who make you better because it is heavy to carry. That is a dilemma: do I want to carry the armour when it might help me survive a combat? I might even get some money if I sold this annoying plate part that my commander tells me to carry. I can see how that was alluring (getting rid of weight AND getting more money - yay! I will worry about dying when it comes to that).

This doesn't necessarily hold in the limited context being described here. I'd argue that the historical evidence points towards a two handed spear being better than a spear and shield in a dueling or all melee skirmish situation. That doesn't mean that a shield isn't often a better idea anyways - there's arrows, there's javelins, there's slings, there's people throwing rocks, and there's just generally a risk that something dangerous will fly at you from a long distance, at which point you really want a shield. There's battles which involve large presses where there's not a lot of manueverability, at which point you really want a shield. That case in the viking saga being highlighted? Stuff flying from long distance was essentially taken out of the equation at that point, and at the edge of the line the press was gone.

[Incanur]

The thing with shields is that they don't have to "cover" the body.

Like swords and other weapons, they close lines of attack. George Silver claimed any of the various shorter weapons (sword, sword & dagger, sword & buckler, sword & target, longsword) would have to carry their wards high to defend against a blow or low to defend against a thrust. If they didn't carry the ward high, Silver claimed a staff blow would beat through the weapon/shield and cause injury or death. Similarly, Giacomo di Grassi claimed a properly given bill/halberd blow would cut through a sword or other weapon that opposed it. Contemporary sparring misses may miss some of this aspect because people rarely hit full-force with large two-handed weapons. (They do in HMB/bohurt, but only with considerable armor.)


But so many cultures have developed a fashion for shields, that I tend to believe it was useful....

There's no question that shields worked well for fighting in formations and against missiles. All historical sources I can think of agreed on this.


The thing is: the choice in the 16th century wasn't shield or no shield, but no armour, shield or armour.

While sometimes 16th-century soldiers would eschew the cuirass when using a shield (this appears in a Spanish military manual), in other cases targetiers wore extensive armor. That's what Machiavelli and Fourquevaux wanted. It's probably true that men-at-arms mostly (not entirely) discarded shields because their armor was so effective the shield became superfluous, but Fourquevaux still wanted his pikers who wore three-quarters harness, mail hose, and helm with the sight almost covered to have targets on their backs for the melee. This may have been excessive, and few soldiers actually carried that much defensive equipment, but Fourquevaux had ample military experience.

It's entirely possible that large-shield-&-spear/sword combination has the advantage against the two-handed spear in single combat and/or in skirmishing. As mentioned earlier, I don't know of any historical sources that specifically address this question. However, large shields do have certain vulnerabilities. It's difficult to make a large shield very durable. I suspect that's one reason for the popularity of 20-24in-diameter steel shields in the 16th century. That size allow for toughness without too much weight. (You also had extremely heavy targets of proof designed to stop bullets.) You can potentially thrust a spear through a large wooden shield. There's at least one account of that from the Sagas. That's how Bolli Þorleiksson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolli_%C3%9Eorleiksson) died. Now, this shouldn't come up much the person holding the shield knows what they're doing, but it's a potential issue.

[Tobtor]

This doesn't necessarily hold in the limited context being described here. I'd argue that the historical evidence points towards a two handed spear being better than a spear and shield in a dueling or all melee skirmish situation. That doesn't mean that a shield isn't often a better idea anyways - there's arrows, there's javelins, there's slings, there's people throwing rocks, and there's just generally a risk that something dangerous will fly at you from a long distance, at which point you really want a shield. There's battles which involve large presses where there's not a lot of manueverability, at which point you really want a shield. That case in the viking saga being highlighted? Stuff flying from long distance was essentially taken out of the equation at that point, and at the edge of the line the press was gone.

In Iceland we are always talking skirmish situations.... a big battle involved 20 people at either side in the 11th century. People still used shields. If three men when out to kill another three men, they brought shields. When a person expected to meet an enemy on the road, he brought a shield. When doing a formalised single combat he would bring a shield. If shields where for battles, then they would only bring them when they went with ship abroad.

Interestingly the case of someone ditching the shield is to hew with a poleweapon (not a normal spear), in a major battle in England...

In the Bolli fight quoted by incanur he ditch his sword before the freaking shield!

About presses: sure shieldwall and "shieldcasstles" where surely a reason, but they also almost always used shields in single combats!


Like swords and other weapons, they close lines of attack. George Silver claimed any of the various shorter weapons (sword, sword & dagger, sword & buckler, sword & target, longsword) would have to carry their wards high to defend against a blow or low to defend against a thrust.

Both the target and the buckler is considerably smaller than 11th century shields though, and the fighting technique was different.


If they didn't carry the ward high, Silver claimed a staff blow would beat through the weapon/shield and cause injury or death.
(my emphasis).

Through the shield? I don't see any way that is very likely. The spear (or staff) deflects away from the defender (you can easily move it to the side while moving foreward!).
But even if it didn't, then a staff hardly whent "through" the shield" (the spear maybe)? See Skallagrim trying to destroy shields:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcfIZA4nmtc

See also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYFBr2JIKIo

It is very difficult to get through a shield (a full all out attack might do it). But it is even hard to push the spear further into the enemy afterwards, and then your spear is basically stuck in your opponents shield. Silver must mean through the block/bypass it altogether? Shields get damaged yes, but only after repeating blows. In the Bolli fight Bolli is moving foreward with the shield in both hands to press his opponents inside a house. Still the mention is as much to show how the oponent is a mighty warrior. People also regularly cut and thrust through men wearing mail, so that their sword/spear goes out the back of the man.


While sometimes 16th-century soldiers would eschew the cuirass when using a shield (this appears in a Spanish military manual), in other cases targetiers wore extensive armor. That's what Machiavelli and Fourquevaux wanted. It's probably true that men-at-arms mostly (not entirely) discarded shields because their armor was so effective the shield became superfluous, but Fourquevaux still wanted his pikers who wore three-quarters harness, mail hose, and helm with the sight almost covered to have targets on their backs for the melee. This may have been excessive, and few soldiers actually carried that much defensive equipment, but Fourquevaux had ample military experience.

I did add "though it did happen", after my point. My main point is still: in the 16th century people (typically) got armour first and foremost. Shields was optional. In the 11th century it was the other way around.


It's entirely possible that large-shield-&-spear/sword combination has the advantage against the two-handed spear in single combat and/or in skirmishing. As mentioned earlier, I don't know of any historical sources that specifically address this question.

Right, probably because most of the writes from an 15-16th century perspective. The only people in the 11th century using only a spear did so in very spefic cases or out of lackof a shield.


However, large shields do have certain vulnerabilities. It's difficult to make a large shield very durable. I suspect that's one reason for the popularity of 20-24in-diameter steel shields in the 16th century. That size allow for toughness without too much weight. (You also had extremely heavy targets of proof designed to stop bullets.) You can potentially thrust a spear through a large wooden shield. There's at least one account of that from the Sagas. That's how Bolli Þorleiksson died. Now, this shouldn't come up much the person holding the shield knows what they're doing, but it's a potential issue.

It would be a potential issue in a prolonged battle with multiple damages to a shield yes. But I doubt it would ever pose a problem to a shieldman attacking a single spearman. At least it would be a minor issue. The shields are not that thick, but seem to hold up well enough. The point is to deflect/parry the weapon. Not to block it. Its a bit like a sword, except it has a 1m diameter.

The shield is weaker against axes (and some poleweapons), as the shield can be "hooked", and then basically open you up. Again suggesting another reason why large shield where less common in the 15th-16th century. Your edge of the shield is harder to control.

[Incanur]

Through the shield? I don't see any way that is very likely.

Silver wasn't saying the weapon or shield would break, but that the staff blow would beat the ward down onto the defender's head unless the defender held the ward high. I can totally see a staff blow stunning or maybe even kayoing through a shield in this manner. Paul Wagner tested this in a salty response video (https://youtu.be/PPDumKHfMSY) to Matt Easton.

(As an aside, I recognize Wagner's skill with the staff but think his grip is dubious for Silver's style. Silver mentioned a foot of staff behind rear hand as acceptable in the case of a staff that didn't perfectly suit its wielder, indicating that the default was to put the rear hand right by the butt of the weapon: "And this note, that these lengths will commonly fall out to be eight or nine foot long, and will fit, although not just, the statures of all men without any hindrance at all unto them in their fight, because in any weapon wherein the hands may be removed, and at liberty, to make the weapon longer of shorter in fight at his pleasure, a foot of the staff being behind the backmost hand does no harm.")

[Potato_Priest]

I'll draw on Joseph Swetnam (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/swetnam2.htm) for this one: "I have known a man with a Sword and Dagger hath cut off the end of a Pike-Staffe, but I hold him an ignorant and unskillful man, that hath held the Staffe." That's a bit harsh, but that the basic point stands. Voiding and grabbing the staff constitute an appropriate technique (unlike trying to cut a staff), but they're not easy to pull off against a skillful staff wielder.

Personally, in the limited and controlled drills I did with single-handed sword against a 9ft hickory staff with padded ends, voiding or parrying was quite difficult.


Fair enough. I certainly am no master spearman (although it's probably my best weapon) and I was 15 at the time. In retrospect, I shouldn't have mentioned that encounter, as it seems to have distracted from my main point, which is that in the 11th century, shields were large, and that while a spear is distinctly superior to a single sword, it will have substantial difficulties against a decent kiteshield.



If so, the various 16th/17th-century masters who gave the spear/staff odds over shorter weapons were wildly mistaken. Antonio Manciolino, George Silver, and Joseph Swetnam all explicitly assigned advantage to two-handed staff weapons over shorter weapons. Far more masters taught dueling with staff weapons, including against shorter weapons.


The 16th and 17 th century masters were undoubtedly correct- a spear is better in a duel than a rapier or a dagger or what have you. However, I would doubt that the 16 th and 17 th century masters had extensive experience with large shields like were used in the 11th century.

Lastly, a buckler is about the worst possible shield you could have against a spearman, as it offers extremely limited protection against a large weapon with good range. Bringing up examples of spear-wielders defeating people with sword and buckler is probably not terribly relevant to the situation asked about by the OP.

[Tobtor]

Silver wasn't saying the weapon or shield would break, but that the staff blow would beat the ward down onto the defender's head unless the defender held the ward high. I can totally see a staff blow stunning or maybe even kayoing through a shield in this manner. Paul Wagner tested this in a salty response video (https://youtu.be/PPDumKHfMSY) to Matt Easton.

(As an aside, I recognize Wagner's skill with the staff but think his grip is dubious for Silver's style. Silver mentioned a foot of staff behind rear hand as acceptable in the case of a staff that didn't perfectly suit its wielder, indicating that the default was to put the rear hand right by the butt of the weapon: "And this note, that these lengths will commonly fall out to be eight or nine foot long, and will fit, although not just, the statures of all men without any hindrance at all unto them in their fight, because in any weapon wherein the hands may be removed, and at liberty, to make the weapon longer of shorter in fight at his pleasure, a foot of the staff being behind the backmost hand does no harm.")

I watched the video (the actual hitting a few times). The staff-wielder takes almost a running start, bringing the "attaking end" behind him, making a full circle attack, and the shield man only flinches slightly.... And that is even with a full block which is not how I imaging shields being used at all. The thrust seem equally unconvincing, a guy thrusting at me like that (using his entire body to drive in the thrust), a let him slide off my shield and move foreward (or it seem he might actually close the distance for me...). I quite agree that you cant make a "block" with a a sword though. I doubt anyone would suggest that you could. I even am willing to agree that sliding/deflecting the staff away from you with a more suitable perry with a swrod will be difficult when the weapon have that much force.

[Knaight]

I watched the video (the actual hitting a few times). The staff-wielder takes almost a running start, bringing the "attaking end" behind him, making a full circle attack, and the shield man only flinches slightly.... And that is even with a full block which is not how I imaging shields being used at all. The thrust seem equally unconvincing, a guy thrusting at me like that (using his entire body to drive in the thrust), a let him slide off my shield and move foreward (or it seem he might actually close the distance for me...). I quite agree that you cant make a "block" with a a sword though. I doubt anyone would suggest that you could. I even am willing to agree that sliding/deflecting the staff away from you with a more suitable perry with a swrod will be difficult when the weapon have that much force.

Watch the end of the video - people repeatedly parry the staff with a sword around 16:45, outright undermining the video. Yes, trying to outright stop an incoming blow from a staff right while it's at its strongest point is a pretty bad idea with a one handed sword, but there are still workable parries.


Fair enough. I certainly am no master spearman (although it's probably my best weapon) and I was 15 at the time. In retrospect, I shouldn't have mentioned that encounter, as it seems to have distracted from my main point, which is that in the 11th century, shields were large, and that while a spear is distinctly superior to a single sword, it will have substantial difficulties against a decent kiteshield.
That the shield makes a huge difference isn't in contention - and there's a lot of room for a shield to help while still being at a disadvantage. A single one handed sword against a spear isn't just a disadvantage, it's the sort of disadvantage that has serious combatants (including the authors of fighting manuals) suggesting that two or three to one odds are needed just to make something a fair fight. I've done some of all of these, on all sides, and I'd consider spear against sword and shield (a large shield) a pretty fair fight if there aren't safety rules which inevitably help anyone with a shield more than anyone else - particularly in the context of spears with at least some cutting capability, which was common in viking equipment.

[Kiero]

In antiquity the shield was the first and primary defensive item. Next came the helmet, then body armour, then greaves and other bits. The only thing not optional was the shield.

[rrgg]

This article from the Arma includes passages mentioning combat from a number of different viking sagas and from a brief glance through it seems to cover just about every possible combination: Spears being thrown, spears being used w/shield, spears used with both hands, sword and shield, axe and shield, even dropping the sword and using the shield in both hands.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/vikingfight.htm

There's also the fact that discussion of general rules should perhaps not be limited to Europe. Two-handed polearms were widely used in ancient china, two-handed weapons took over Japanese warfare as well. In the Americas, Bernal Diaz mentioned that while many of the natives carried shields, many others instead used great "broadswords" which were wielded in both hands.

Edit: To me it does seem as though which is better has mainly to do with personal preference or whatever style is more familiar. Meanwhile all are equally inferior to muskets or a well-drilled pike square on open ground.

[wolflance]

Well it quite clearly did. People at all times have sometimes chosen to move lightly, but in the 16hth century armour was chosen above shields, while in the 11th shields where chosen above armour. You rarely see 16th century fully armoured people, also using shields (though it did happen). The primary defence was now in the armour, and anything the shield could stop, so could the armour (though a buckler is much easier to carry and put away etc, but its not better than a plate armour at protecting you). But OK: also various pole-weapons with hooks/spikes, axe-parts became more common, which might have contributed to the decline of shields.

The thing is: IF it was better to fight without a shield, than with a shield. THEN people wouldn't have bothered. One thing is ditching good equipment who make you better because it is heavy to carry. That is a dilemma: do I want to carry the armour when it might help me survive a combat? I might even get some money if I sold this annoying plate part that my commander tells me to carry. I can see how that was alluring (getting rid of weight AND getting more money - yay! I will worry about dying when it comes to that).
Actually it is possible that the preference switched (or was in the process of switching) as early as 13th century (when cap-a-pie hauberk came along). As far as I can tell, majority of troops depicted in the Morgan Bible use two-handed spear, some sort of two-handed axe or cleaver, or a one-handed arming sword without shield.

Which lead me to come to my current thinking:



My current thinking (after reading the replies) is that this is not so much due to lower quality armor, but due to the lack of good limb protections. Most armors of the antiquities tend to have bad (read: non-existent) limb defense.

Add to this speculation is the fact that most weapon-and-shield martial arts that I've seen, from sword and buckler to reconstructed Viking shield to kite shield, tend to place heavy emphasis on protecting the sword/spear hand (which is of course a logical and effective thing to do).

Which means the shield essentially acts as the "limb protection" for those lacking it (among other functions). If one has both his torso and his limbs armored, then there's no point of having a shield in close combat (he may still need the shield to defend against missiles though).

As thus, my current thinking is that, assuming equal armor and skill:


Spear + Shield > Two-handed spear (of equal length)
Two-handed spear > Shield + Spear (of shorter length)
Two-handed Spear > Sword + Shield
Sword + Shield ???? Spear + Shield (I am inclined to think that sword has the advantage here)


With antiquity to 11th century armoring technology, missile weapons probably pose great risk to a warrior, so most people would opt for spear+shield combo.

(plus shield is great for formation fighting, not only for mutual protection but also for maintaining a coherent frontage)




he then have to move the point more than half a metre to get around your shield and you can follow his motions while moving foreward.

As my previous video shows (specifically around 2:22), moving the spear point half a meter or even a full man's height is actually relatively easy with a two-handed grip due to the leverage - faster than the shieldman can react, it seems.

[Incanur]

Watch the end of the video - people repeatedly parry the staff with a sword around 16:45, outright undermining the video.

Silver never claimed you couldn't parry a staff with a sword, only that you couldn't hold in a sword (or sword & target, or longsword, etc.) in a position to stop both a powerful blow to the head and a thrust to body.

[Knaight]

Silver never claimed you couldn't parry a staff with a sword, only that you couldn't hold in a sword (or sword & target, or longsword, etc.) in a position to stop both a powerful blow to the head and a thrust to body.

Silver didn't. Paul Wagner pretty much did.

[Incanur]

Silver didn't. Paul Wagner pretty much did.

To use categories from Silver, Paul's simultaneously a master of defence and a resolute man half drunk. :smallwink: He gets a bit carried away with himself at times, and has some interpretations at odds with Silver's text (the difference is typically rather small).

[Tobtor]

Actually it is possible that the preference switched (or was in the process of switching) as early as 13th century (when cap-a-pie hauberk came along). As far as I can tell, majority of troops depicted in the Morgan Bible use two-handed spear, some sort of two-handed axe or cleaver, or a one-handed arming sword without shield.

That is an interesting observation. There are still some shields, but I can see it is mainly for cavalry (though also a few sword and shield fighters). It might be that they were armoured enough by that point, or that the advancement of poleweapons was enough to reduce the point of shileds?

Though the illustrator of the Morgan Bible clearly didn't put a lot of worth to the mail-armour, what with all the completely scewered mailclad soldiers, arms being cut right of with a single handed sword etc. (My belief is that you CAN wound someone through mail, but only minor wounds, and not something like cutting an arm right off, or split a head in two).


Add to this speculation is the fact that most weapon-and-shield martial arts that I've seen, from sword and buckler to reconstructed Viking shield to kite shield, tend to place heavy emphasis on protecting the sword/spear hand (which is of course a logical and effective thing to do).

The buckler definitely serves that purpose. But more importently it is the to help control the fight. Viking shields and kite shields protect quite a bit more then the hand. Many when completely un-armoured (that was definitely the main thing in Iceland). While Rolands reconstructions of Viking shield have a lot of merit, it is still based largely on the buckler, and I think there should be some adjustment made. Reconstructed Viking shield techniques are very diverse.


Which means the shield essentially acts as the "limb protection" for those lacking it. If one has both his torso and his limbs armored, then there's no point of having a shield in close combat (he may still need the shield to defend against missiles though).

Missiles is not more dangerous than spear-thrusts in the 11th century (when dealing with later crossbows etc, then yes).


As my previous video shows (specifically around 2:22), moving the spear point half a meter or even a full man's height is actually relatively easy with a two-handed grip due to the leverage - faster than the shieldman can react, it seems.

The shieldman is clearly doing things wrong in several of the encounters (holding his shield far to much backwards defensively, trying to parry with the sword instead! The point of having the shield is NOT as a passive defense on your left side, but to have something to change the fight with. He is very focused on his sword and what he is doing with that, that he neglects his shield). Secondly the shield is strapped to the arm and relatively small, both of which give very poor blocking capabilities against the spear. When using either a kire shield or a centregrip shield, your legs is much less of a target, thus the low feints the spearman in the video dosn’t matter as much. Beside, moving your leg out of the way isn’t that difficult and often a better tactic than to block or parry a very low strike.
What I meant is that if used right your shield should be “on” his spear as you move, possibly using the boss to keep the spear up/down depending. That way he needs to drag the spear along the spear and THEN down again (or the otherway around). Yes if the shieldman is just using the shield passively, he is in trouple.

Silver never claimed you couldn't parry a staff with a sword, only that you couldn't hold in a sword (or sword & target, or longsword, etc.) in a position to stop both a powerful blow to the head and a thrust to body.

I agree that holding the shield still and waiting for the attack is a bad move. That is why in a one-on-one duel, I would want to use my shield much more offensively. I would want to shield my movement forward by pushing his spear-point where I want it. This is difficult with a buckler, but not with a larger shield. He have very little strength in the end of a long spear (due to leverage).

[Tobtor]

As thus, my current thinking is that, assuming equal armor and skill:


Spear + Shield > Two-handed spear (of equal length)
Two-handed spear > Shield + Spear (of shorter length)
Two-handed Spear > Sword + Shield
Sword + Shield ???? Spear + Shield (I am inclined to think that sword has the advantage here)


With antiquity to 11th century armoring technology, missile weapons probably pose great risk to a warrior, so most people would opt for spear+shield combo.

(plus shield is great for formation fighting, not only for mutual protection but also for maintaining a coherent frontage).

I didnt see this the first time aroudnd:

1: how do we understand equal skill in this contexts?

Try looking at Gs very good post a few pages back on the different levels of trained for different weapon types:


Two-handed weapon use is trickier, IMO, than using a weapon with a shield, particularly a sword with a shield which is pretty easy to get to a 'competence' level with. It's much less forgiving of mistakes, much harder to parry effectively (while for example, protecting your hands) harder to avoid being vulnerable in a bind which is a standard way shield fighters get people with two-handed weapons, and so forth. Last year the fencer and researcher Piermarco Terminiello discovered some records from an Italian fencing master in which he was negotiating with the city of Florence to train fencers with various weapons, and the longsword or two-handed sword was the most expensive and took the most time. This jibes with my experience as a fencer and a fencing instructor. IIRC he required 6 months to train a longsword fighter vs. 2-3 months for most of the other weapons or weapon combinations.

I think this part is worth considering. It might be that when you reach "master" level a twohanded spear is better, but that it is much harder to get to that level.

Another issue is also fighting philosophy, let me explain: There are various different schools of martial arts in Europe during the medieval period, and they have some different basic idea of what the "master" practioner should achieve. They might have many of the same stances, the same knowlegde on how to strike and how to defend etc, but the "goal" of the training seem to differ.

One is a school of thought that focus on the master never getting into a position of getting hit, that is a somewhat defensive school of though. Others are less focussed on this part, focussing on how to win (this is somewhat an exageration to make a point).

Now we can all agree on not getting hit is a good thing, but sometimes risking 20% of getting hit in the foot, is worth a 40% chance to cut off the enemys head etc. Especially if it is a real life-and-death fight. If you focus on fighting "flawless" some weapons would be better that other.

This make the discussion very difficult, as there is so many more factors involved than just the weapons, and that equalising other factors might affect the results.

Let us say that we ahve a sword-shield and a twohanded spearman, they both have mail armour: then the spearman might think "hmmm I would risk him getting a hit to my left shoulder (which is mail covered) if I can plant my spear in his unprotected leg which isnt. Then I can pull back and have mobility AND reach advantage over him. The drawback is a slightly hurt arm (painful but not immobilised), which is not a fight ending situation".

Similarly if the same to fighters didnt have mail, a sword cut to your left shoulder might kill you, and then getting in a leg-hit is not worth it.

2. Your list. I dont think there will be agreement on that list, as different people have different opinions. It might work well for an RPG.

I would like to note/discuss the fact that many there might also be a maximum length for how long spears are effective duals (or rather an ideal length, where there area disadvantage to have longer weapons as well as shorter ones). I dont know where that is. Silver have some ideas, but I am unsure if he represent consensus for the period or not. What is clear is that many duelling spears from the period are on the "shorter" end, in comparison with spears used in formations. They are more in the length rate of other poleweapons (6feet) rather than the longer spears (9feet).

But on this I am unsure, and hope maybe some more experienced HEMA people can contribute? How long is an optimal spear length for dueeling?

[wolflance]

That is an interesting observation. There are still some shields, but I can see it is mainly for cavalry (though also a few sword and shield fighters). It might be that they were armoured enough by that point, or that the advancement of poleweapons was enough to reduce the point of shileds?

Though the illustrator of the Morgan Bible clearly didn't put a lot of worth to the mail-armour, what with all the completely scewered mailclad soldiers, arms being cut right of with a single handed sword etc. (My belief is that you CAN wound someone through mail, but only minor wounds, and not something like cutting an arm right off, or split a head in two).
That being said, there are other 13th century manuscripts that depict sword/spear + shield troops, so my observation isn't necessary correct.



Missiles is not more dangerous than spear-thrusts in the 11th century (when dealing with later crossbows etc, then yes).
What I mean is that early armor leaves more body parts vulnerable to missile fire. thus having a shield between you and all those arrows is certainly a good idea.

Arrow is, in general, not as deadly as a spear thrust.


The shieldman is clearly doing things wrong in several of the encounters (holding his shield far to much backwards defensively, trying to parry with the sword instead! The point of having the shield is NOT as a passive defense on your left side, but to have something to change the fight with. He is very focused on his sword and what he is doing with that, that he neglects his shield). Secondly the shield is strapped to the arm and relatively small, both of which give very poor blocking capabilities against the spear. When using either a kire shield or a centregrip shield, your legs is much less of a target, thus the low feints the spearman in the video dosn’t matter as much. Beside, moving your leg out of the way isn’t that difficult and often a better tactic than to block or parry a very low strike.

What I meant is that if used right your shield should be “on” his spear as you move, possibly using the boss to keep the spear up/down depending. That way he needs to drag the spear along the spear and THEN down again (or the otherway around). Yes if the shieldman is just using the shield passively, he is in trouple.
I agree that a center-grip shield change the dynamic drastically. Roland Warzecha's shield techniques (among others) appear to take advantage of this extensively.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI_yH-8swXQ
(Some center-grip shield demonstration.... I have to say the spear techniques are lackluster)

That being said, I am actually quite surprised that Vikings of all people used/developed techniques like that (using the shield offensively, shield-bind, and shifting the shield around utilizing its center-grip), since they usually fought in locked shield wall, i.e. everything these techniques are not.

I don't know how a kite shield factors in other than better leg defense (since I am not as familiar with kite shield).


I didnt see this the first time aroudnd:

1: how do we understand equal skill in this contexts?

Try looking at Gs very good post a few pages back on the different levels of trained for different weapon types:



I think this part is worth considering. It might be that when you reach "master" level a twohanded spear is better, but that it is much harder to get to that level.

Another issue is also fighting philosophy, let me explain: There are various different schools of martial arts in Europe during the medieval period, and they have some different basic idea of what the "master" practioner should achieve. They might have many of the same stances, the same knowlegde on how to strike and how to defend etc, but the "goal" of the training seem to differ.

One is a school of thought that focus on the master never getting into a position of getting hit, that is a somewhat defensive school of though. Others are less focussed on this part, focussing on how to win (this is somewhat an exageration to make a point).

Now we can all agree on not getting hit is a good thing, but sometimes risking 20% of getting hit in the foot, is worth a 40% chance to cut off the enemys head etc. Especially if it is a real life-and-death fight. If you focus on fighting "flawless" some weapons would be better that other.

This make the discussion very difficult, as there is so many more factors involved than just the weapons, and that equalising other factors might affect the results.

Let us say that we ahve a sword-shield and a twohanded spearman, they both have mail armour: then the spearman might think "hmmm I would risk him getting a hit to my left shoulder (which is mail covered) if I can plant my spear in his unprotected leg which isnt. Then I can pull back and have mobility AND reach advantage over him. The drawback is a slightly hurt arm (painful but not immobilised), which is not a fight ending situation".

Similarly if the same to fighters didnt have mail, a sword cut to your left shoulder might kill you, and then getting in a leg-hit is not worth it.

2. Your list. I dont think there will be agreement on that list, as different people have different opinions. It might work well for an RPG.

I would like to note/discuss the fact that many there might also be a maximum length for how long spears are effective duals (or rather an ideal length, where there area disadvantage to have longer weapons as well as shorter ones). I dont know where that is. Silver have some ideas, but I am unsure if he represent consensus for the period or not. What is clear is that many duelling spears from the period are on the "shorter" end, in comparison with spears used in formations. They are more in the length rate of other poleweapons (6feet) rather than the longer spears (9feet).

But on this I am unsure, and hope maybe some more experienced HEMA people can contribute? How long is an optimal spear length for dueeling?
It's okay, I edited my previous reply as an afterthought. I understand that my list won't convince everyone (and that's not my intention anyway, and the list may change if new input surfaces).

I come out with that list on the (admittedly overly simplistic) assumption/premise that a sufficiently long weapon confers a reach advantage that grants more options and allows the user to attack continuously without risking himself too much in the process. OTOH, for a shorter weapon (spear & shield, for example) to threaten long weapon, the user has to take risk charging in (which may or may not succeed) and/or take risk grappling (again, may or may not succeed) before he can attack. From here on, the more armored participants become, the more advantageous two-handed weapon become, since value of the shield diminish.

Since I start looking up Chinese sources again...ancient Chinese considered anything shorter than a pike "short weapon", but it appears to me that they considered a 10 ft spear ideal single combat weapon.

In Chinese martial arts, there is a technique to prevent a shieldman from charging close, known as Cha Hua (插花 or literally "flower bouquet"). Basically, you perform rapid short jabs against the legs/feet of your opponent. Although this may sounds like a no-brainer, you can force the shield guy to lower his shield to defend/move his legs, keeping him in a position that's inconvenient to start dashing forward indefinitely.

(Note: Chinese qiang is 10ft, due to shallower angle it is harder to grab the shaft of a 10 ft spear during a low jab. Short jab also minimize the risk of the spear being grabbed and/or being deflected)

[Tobtor]

That being said, I am actually quite surprised that Vikings of all people used/developed techniques like that (using the shield offensively, shield-bind, and shifting the shield around utilizing its center-grip), since they usually fought in locked shield wall, i.e. everything these techniques are not.


Just a short note on this: They actually didn't use shield wall that often. Or rather they did whenever they fought major battles. As with many other periods of North and western European history, major battles are the famous parts, but perhaps only a fe percent of the actual conflicts. There where hundreds of small skirmishes for every battle.

Note that as I mentioned Iceland where battles really did not occour, but lots of local feuds did. The same is true of other areas. Also note that vikings was Experts in raiding. Going inot a village, monastary or small town and looting it requires you to be an able one-on-one fighter, as you might encounter people not willing to part with their stuff.

Also note that large round shields with centre grip used alongside spears and swords where the norm since the 1st Century AD (and before that it was rektangular shields with centre grip). So really the weapon set is 800years old at the beginning of the viking age. If we include the rektangular celtic shields well over a millenia. In all this time the majority of fights would have included less than 100 people. A great deal of them much fewer (about 2-30 would likely be very common).

This gives plenty of time to develop different techniques to single combat, skirmish and battles.

Regarding the video: yes the spear person doesnt seem like an Expert, also the shields are realistic, but on the "lower end" for such tall persons. The could easily be 20cm larger.

[Incanur]

What Chinese sources consider a 10ft spear the best weapon for single combat? Note that that's very close to Silver's perfect length of 8-9ft.

As far as using a large shield actively goes, remember that large shields are heavy. Hurstwic (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm) claims 11-15.4+lbs for Viking-style shields, and their 11lb unfaced shield reconstructions have minimal durability. Reconstructions of ancient Roman and Greek shields often come in at around 15lbs or more. This (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/29.158.595/) 15th-century pavise is 16.69lbs. Etc.

Trying to move a large shield too much would become exhausting over the course of a longer duel. Giacomo di Grassi mentioned that some people would rest the round target on the thigh so as not to be wearied, a practice he ridiculed. And his round target probably didn't weigh above 10lbs, and might well have been less. (The 16th-century targets I've seen weights for fall into the 5-10lb range if you exclude the absurdly heavy targets of proof designed to stop bullets.)

[Tobtor]

As far as using a large shield actively goes, remember that large shields are heavy. Hurstwic (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm) claims 11-15.4+lbs for Viking-style shields, and their 11lb unfaced shield reconstructions have minimal durability. Reconstructions of ancient Roman and Greek shields often come in at around 15lbs or more. This (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/29.158.595/) 15th-century pavise is 16.69lbs. Etc.

Hmm They only use leather rims, alot of research show that the entire face of the shield (or the back) was covered in rawhide/or textile, making the shield much more durable (if planked shield). Even a thin hide or textile layer prevent the shield from splitting. Their layered shield is much more sturdy.

Weight: yes, shield have weight (thus are also good to hit with). I think 11-15lbs sound right (slightly less than the pavise). That just requires you to be strong, quite so. Now Vikings are used to rowing ships (up rivers for hours!), dragging ships across land when transferring between rivers in Russsia (and elsewhere), and in general was accustomed to physical labour. Maybe thats why Silver don't like big shields? He wasn't strong enough! (slightly joking).

Note that Viking shields wasn't proofed against bullets... so they did not need to be as strong as later targets.


Trying to move a large shield too much would become exhausting over the course of a longer duel. Giacomo di Grassi mentioned that some people would rest the round target on the thigh so as not to be wearied, a practice he ridiculed. And his round target probably didn't weigh above 10lbs, and might well have been less. (The 16th-century targets I've seen weights for fall into the 5-10lb range if you exclude the absurdly heavy targets of proof designed to stop bullets.)

Ohh certainly, fighting is hard. A spear is also heavy and have the weight much less comfortably distributed. A pike is even worse. They mention the Gokstad shields as 94 cm in width, similar measurements are found on shield from the iron age (90-105cm). A few shields are as low as 85cm, but their claim of 70cm is not actually supported as far as I know (possibly in Anglo-Saxon England?). But yes, to use a large shield you need to have the strengt.

These people seem to manage quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQzAfA41bY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBknff13oB8

Though their fighting skill might not be up to standard (though I wouldn't want to fight them be any means), and they are likely not in as good as shape as a 11th century scandinavian warrior. But they do seem to manage to continue fighting for quite some time with a heavy shield (and armour).

[Lemmy]

I'm just here to thank everyone who helped with my question about an oath of allegiance/loyalty.

Thank you all. I really appreciate the help. :smallsmile:

[Kiero]

As far as using a large shield actively goes, remember that large shields are heavy. Hurstwic (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm) claims 11-15.4+lbs for Viking-style shields, and their 11lb unfaced shield reconstructions have minimal durability. Reconstructions of ancient Roman and Greek shields often come in at around 15lbs or more. This (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/29.158.595/) 15th-century pavise is 16.69lbs. Etc.

Trying to move a large shield too much would become exhausting over the course of a longer duel. Giacomo di Grassi mentioned that some people would rest the round target on the thigh so as not to be wearied, a practice he ridiculed. And his round target probably didn't weigh above 10lbs, and might well have been less. (The 16th-century targets I've seen weights for fall into the 5-10lb range if you exclude the absurdly heavy targets of proof designed to stop bullets.)

Yes, which is why the Greeks had a specific servant - the skeurophoros or shield-bearer - who's job was to carry it about and manage the hoplite's equipment. But in battle they were expected to carry and manage their own shield, that was part of their training.

[Galloglaich]

Weren't most European shields relatively lightly made? I seem to remember wood like linden being very popular and typical thicknesses around 3/8"


I think one thing to consider in why shields declined (somewhat) in use and two handed weapons increased, aside from armor and the changing threat from missiles (personally I agree the main, though definitely not the only, value of shields was largely to protect from missiles) is the rise of two handed weapons as such.

Swords longer than around 1 meter / three feet seem to have been pretty rare before ~ 1100 AD. There are some exceptions and interesting outliers but the metallurgy obviously got much better from that point onward and larger and more sophisticated (harmonically balanced and 'airplane wing' like - to paraphrase Peter Johnsson) swords became ubiquitous.

True polearms at least in Europe also seem to rise to prominence fairly late, arguably some time in the 1200's you start seeing these becoming much more common. Proto-halberds, glaives, bills and so on begin to proliferate then and really takeoff in the 14th Century.

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/spear_assortment.jpg
Going back the Vikings seem to have had some kind of polearm (the precise nature of which is often debated) and certainly a spear which could also cut goes back to the Bronze Age, but specialized two-handed polearms seem to have developed fairly late in Europe anyway. I know they did also exist in China and later on in Japan, though I don't know how far back in either case. The Arabs, Mongols or Turks didn't seem to make very wide use of them.

http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/D56752/two_halberds_probably_german_16th_century_d5675216 h.jpg

I would argue (perhaps unsuccessfully) that the European polearms reached a higher level of efficiency and utility than even in China. Halberds, bill-guisarmes and so on are extremely lethal multi-purpose weapons.


As for the questions about what size spear works best... Personally I think a polearm of about 8 feet is good against a sword and shield, even a staff but particularly the hooked type ones, and a 6 foot zweihander or a 5 foot montante is pretty devastating against shield fighters if you know what you are doing with the weapon (big if) but even a (4 foot) longsword I think is pretty effective against your larger shields.

An experienced buckler fighter however, somewhat counter-intuitively, seems to be able to hold their own pretty well against the longsword though. That Halbshilt guard is a bitch.

I believe most (though not all) of the rapier masters advocated sword and dagger over sword and buckler, though the latter is better I think if you are facing a crowd or a chaotic situation.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/MS_44_A_8_2v.jpg/200px-MS_44_A_8_2v.jpghttp://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/a/a2/Cod.icon._394a_3r.jpg/300px-Cod.icon._394a_3r.jpg
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/image/fiore3.jpg

As for the different emphasis of the various masters. There is an old trope (from the 90's and early 2000's) about 15th-16th century German fencing ala Liechtenauer being "All attack" while Fiore for example is much more cautious. I think though there is a lot of overlap; Fiore (and some others in a cluster such as Vadi and the German Ludwig von Eyb) emphasize counter-cutting and double-time counters a bit more, as does Silver in England a few generations later. But I think the Liechtenauer manuals aren't so much "attack attack!" as emphasizing single-time counters as a way to make the fight safer. Basically you control the other guys weapon by attacking into his attack, you seize the initiative and finish him.

Same for distances - it can actually be safer to be close (in the Krieg for example in the German terminology, or even at Ringen / Abrazare range) so long as you have the Vor or initiative, than it is to hang back. Inexperienced or semi-trained fencers often fight from Onset range (at the extreme distance) for safety reasons, but tend to get a lot more double-hits and so on. The idea of the Liechtenauer Kunst Des Fechten is to take control either as an initial attack or as a counter (such as versetzen or absetzen, or even nachreisen) and then move in to decisively control your opponent.



In tournaments, both approaches work if you use them well and with discipline. There are far fewer people who can pull off the Fiore system under tournament level stress, but this is probably just because there are fewer sources for the Fiore type system and fewer clubs who train it. Richard Marsden out of Pheonix can do that, and I have fenced with Kel Rekuta from AEMMA and he can certainly pull it off.


Surrendering initiative can be very risky however in my opinion, and if you are going to wait for the other person to strike first so you can counter them I think it's a good idea to keep them guessing as to your intent, keep changing position and distance and not let them spend to long calmly developing a plan.

One of the fighting roles described by Joachim Meyer is kind of in between - pressure the opponent with feints and probes, keep moving and circling and don't let them rest, but only attack a 'safe opening'; i.e. one you have already controlled (double time counter) or know you can control because you can safely execute a (single time) counter.

G

[Max_Killjoy]

In these discussions of fighting techniques, there seems to be a lot of thought about rhythm and timing.

Would someone who didn't naturally fall into rhythmic movements, who "could not keep a beat or dance in time", have any sort of advantage, a sort of "broken rhythm", or would it hinder them in picking up their opponent's timing?

[Galloglaich]

In these discussions of fighting techniques, there seems to be a lot of thought about rhythm and timing.

Would someone who didn't naturally fall into rhythmic movements, who "could not keep a beat or dance in time", have any sort of advantage, a sort of "broken rhythm", or would it hinder them in picking up their opponent's timing?

it's an interesting question, but in my opinion no. But there is an asterix on that.

The short answer is, for the person lacking in rhythm and unable to grasp tempo, they are very likely to get hurt. So it's bad for them.

The long answer is it may also be bad for their opponent. This is attested by many fencing masters (especially from the rapier and smallsword era, and I think there is a reason for that) warning about 'not the best swordsman in all France, but the Worst!'



The tempo doesn't necessarily exist naturally, you basically impose it. When two experienced fighters get into a fight or a fencing match, they naturally fall into a rhythm. This is because they are trying to protect themselves and can recognize the threat of an attack and will try to avoid being hit. For example if you strike at the opponent from high on the right, you have openings - upper left, lower left, lower right. Center (especially for a thrust). If you sense an attack coming at one of these openings you will deal with the attack first before attacking again. Just as your opponent, if he or she is experienced, will parry your initial attack before hitting one of the openings.

This is what you might call 'rational' fencing and it will create a rhythm, more or less depending on the weapon (military saber or example easily falls into this rhythm partly because it's so easy to parry).


The problem is people don't always behave rationally. Especially when they have safety gear on and are fighting with blunt swords. This creates a huge controversy in fencing.

A semi-trained HEMA fighter will often attack all openings without any regard for tempo or safety - especially in tournaments. Many of them also probably don't have any rhythm ;P. Even a 'good' or well-trained fencer not used to tournaments will quite often attack spastically and out of tempo when they are new to the ring.

Many fighters claim there is no way to defend against a 'suicidal' fighter. This is what led to the infamous "Right of Way" in some forms of collegiate fencing. I think it's one of the worst things about collegiate fencing, aside from electronic scoring and the piste. In a nutshell, you get penalized if you attack 'out of turn' with regard to your opponents attack. I'll leave it at that, maybe Mike or someone else who does collegiate fencing can explain more about it. Essentially the rules are trying to force you to fence in tempo.

We get pressure all the time in HEMA to impose rules to make people fence 'better'. I know some very good fencers who I respect a lot who claim that you can't defend against an idiot. I disagree because as Silver notes in his famous "half drunk" comment, idiots had swords and dealing with an idiot is precisely one of the man reasons you would learn to fence. You can't assume your opponent will be rational.

I tell my students there are 5 levels of fencing under 'tournament pressure':

Level 1 - you know your guards and can make a reasonably structured attack, you strike with the edge, fully extend your arms and strike with speed and intent.
Level 2 - all of the above plus you can parry in tempo
Level 3 - all of the above plus you avoid stupid risks (don't act spastic) and can move properly, and attack 'judiciously' as the Master says, and at the right moment.
Level 4 - all of the above plus you can execute some advanced techniques like master cuts, disarms or moulinets in a fight,
Level 5 - all of the above plus you have some discipline, and you can cope with a spastic / suicidal fencer without getting too many double-hits.

Note dealing with the idiot is one of the hardest things. But this is truly probably one of the baselines you would try to achieve in the old days when the Masters walked the Earth as they say.

G

[Mike_G]

it's an interesting question, but in my opinion no. But there is an asterix on that.

The short answer is, for the person lacking in rhythm and unable to grasp tempo, they are very likely to get hurt. So it's bad for them.

The long answer is it may also be bad for their opponent. This is attested by many fencing masters (especially from the rapier and smallsword era, and I think there is a reason for that) warning about 'not the best swordsman in all France, but the Worst!'



The tempo doesn't necessarily exist naturally, you basically impose it. When two experienced fighters get into a fight or a fencing match, they naturally fall into a rhythm. This is because they are trying to protect themselves and can recognize the threat of an attack and will try to avoid being hit. For example if you strike at the opponent from high on the right, you have openings - upper left, lower left, lower right. Center (especially for a thrust). If you sense an attack coming at one of these openings you will deal with the attack first before attacking again. Just as your opponent, if he or she is experienced, will parry your initial attack before hitting one of the openings.

This is what you might call 'rational' fencing and it will create a rhythm, more or less depending on the weapon (military saber or example easily falls into this rhythm partly because it's so easy to parry).


The problem is people don't always behave rationally. Especially when they have safety gear on and are fighting with blunt swords. This creates a huge controversy in fencing.

A semi-trained HEMA fighter will often attack all openings without any regard for tempo or safety - especially in tournaments. Many of them also probably don't have any rhythm ;P. Even a 'good' or well-trained fencer not used to tournaments will quite often attack spastically and out of tempo when they are new to the ring.

Many fighters claim there is no way to defend against a 'suicidal' fighter. This is what led to the infamous "Right of Way" in some forms of collegiate fencing. I think it's one of the worst things about collegiate fencing, aside from electronic scoring and the piste. In a nutshell, you get penalized if you attack 'out of turn' with regard to your opponents attack. I'll leave it at that, maybe Mike or someone else who does collegiate fencing can explain more about it. Essentially the rules are trying to force you to fence in tempo.

We get pressure all the time in HEMA to impose rules to make people fence 'better'. I know some very good fencers who I respect a lot who claim that you can't defend against an idiot. I disagree because as Silver notes in his famous "half drunk" comment, idiots had swords and dealing with an idiot is precisely one of the man reasons you would learn to fence. You can't assume your opponent will be rational.

I tell my students there are 5 levels of fencing under 'tournament pressure':

Level 1 - you know your guards and can make a reasonably structured attack, you strike with the edge, fully extend your arms and strike with speed and intent.
Level 2 - all of the above plus you can parry in tempo
Level 3 - all of the above plus you avoid stupid risks (don't act spastic) and can move properly, and attack 'judiciously' as the Master says, and at the right moment.
Level 4 - all of the above plus you can execute some advanced techniques like master cuts, disarms or moulinets in a fight,
Level 5 - all of the above plus you have some discipline, and you can cope with a spastic / suicidal fencer without getting too many double-hits.

Note dealing with the idiot is one of the hardest things. But this is truly probably one of the baselines you would try to achieve in the old days when the Masters walked the Earth as they say.

G

I agree with most of this, but the explanation of Right of Way in Olympic style fencing is too complex and incomplete.

Sport fencing (Olympic, College, whatever, but the 2 guys on a strip in white suits) has three weapons, each has its own rules. And you only fence foils with other foils or sabers with other sabres, etc, so you're never using unlike weapons.

Foil and sabre have Right of Way. Epee does not, and winds up being the silliest weapon with the most double hits. This was put in back when the foil was used to train people to use a smallsword. It teaches you to defend yourself first, then attack, don't just run him through as he runs you through.

The rule really is simple, but it takes awhile to get used to it at speed.

If I attack you, I have Right of Way until you defeat my attack. If you just counterattack without parrying or evading and we both get hit, I score and you don't. If you parry, you take right of way, and if I press my failed attack while you riposte, rather than defending myself with a parry, you score and I don't. It's to reinforce defending yourself before countering.

Now, you can score without right of way. If I have right of way but I miss and you hit, you score.

It's not simulating combat. It's rewarding proper response to a sharp weapon coming at you, which is to parry it, not just stab the guy behind it. This would also help you defeat the suicidal fighter. Defeat the attack first, by parrying or voiding or whatever, then make your own attack.

Once you see how much better people defend themselves when they understand Right of Way, you see the reasoning. New fencer who don't fully understand Right of Way just both lunge and start frantically sawing at one another trying to get a point on target.

That said, it is artificial, and it's not combat, it's goal isn't like HEMA to understand how actual smallsword fighting worked. It's a sport.

But Right of Way isn't complex. An attack, defined by an extension of the blade threatening target, has priority until you do something about it. If you get hit by that blade, even if you hit the other guy in the same measure, you screwed up, and you get no points. Don't ignore sharp points coming toward you, and don't lunge onto sharp objects. Likewise, if you attack, and he parries or voids, expect his return attack and stop sawing, get back in guard and defend yourself.

[Max_Killjoy]

OK, so the rhythm is created more out of the nature of the thing, two people trying to simultaneously both wound the other while not being wounded -- rather than simply being the result of simply falling into rhythm out of some instinctive human thing.

I'd actually seen swordfighting used as an example for a "rhythm is natural to all things, you can't help it" claim.

The explanation given here makes a lot more sense than such a trite platitude.

[wolflance]

Weren't most European shields relatively lightly made? I seem to remember wood like linden being very popular and typical thicknesses around 3/8"
We actually don't have that many shield-using cultures to compare with European shield. Something like a scutum (22 lbs) is perhaps the heaviest of handheld shield already. Kite shield is lighter, around 12-15 lbs.

Islamic shields, such as the moorish adarga and dhal/sipar, are more buckler or rotella-sized, so I figure they weight around the same (as rotella).

Some Borneo shields such as Iban Terabai, weigh as little as 4.5 lbs despite being fairly large (something like 50 in x 14 in).

Chinese tengpai can weight as little as 5 lbs (one of the major advantage of rattan is its lightweight, and it is much tougher than most woods, plus it does not split along the grain to boot), but larger version can double that weight.




I would argue (perhaps unsuccessfully) that the European polearms reached a higher level of efficiency and utility than even in China. Halberds, bill-guisarmes and so on are extremely lethal multi-purpose weapons.

http://i.imgur.com/mVUOwdx.jpg
This Chinese double-sided-bill-with-double-hooks-with-spearhead begs to differ. Okay that's a name I made up.

As even something with a heavy head (like this polearm) can be made as long as 8ft without losing much maneuverability, a two-handed spear can supposedly be made even longer due to its lighter head. A 8ft two-handed spear is actually on the shorter side (Hoplite for example use a 8ft spear one-handed).

Anyway, I will argue that most polearms (excluding spear/pike) have similar functions/purposes - you mount something that can stab, chop, hook, and parry/trap enemy weapon on a wooden shaft, and you get a polearm. Almost every polearm that I known of fits the bill (pun intended).

[Martin Greywolf]

Fiore surrendering initiative is, IMO, not something you should be doing, but something you can be forced into, especially since I have heard claims that Italian trials by combat often had the rules that someone is to strike the first blow - haven't actually looked into that in-depth, though. His first sword on sword technique is essentially Zornhau - Ort, both the long version and the short Kohutovic version.

For shield weights, they vary a lot. The heaviest scutums have the top at about 10 kg, but most medieval shields have 5 kg at most. Viking round shields were incredibly light for their size, because they were very thin, think 8-5 mm thickness. And the size of the face of the shield doesn't mean it is heavier - the largest Roman shields tend to weigh 7-8 kg, it's the slightly smaller late republican ones that are 10 kg.

Now, as for Chinese polearms, the one wolflance posted is... not a good example at all. It's more likely than not ceremonial, if only because that tip wouldn't be able to withstand a single strong thrust without bending. Better example can be found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji_(polearm)#/media/File:Chinese_dagger-axe_and_related_polearms.svg). Those are various kinds of ge and ji and were used pretty frequently.

Another good one is guandao (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3b/91/ac/3b91ac2a4a83377717096ce26ef5270e--dao-tai-chi.jpg), which is basically a naginata with dao blade instead of katana's on top, with optional spikes added to it.

These three together basically give you halberd (some ge and some ji), spear (ji), billhook (ge) and glaive (guandao) variants, since they varied in their details as much as their European counterparts.

[wolflance]

For shield weights, they vary a lot. The heaviest scutums have the top at about 10 kg, but most medieval shields have 5 kg at most. Viking round shields were incredibly light for their size, because they were very thin, think 8-5 mm thickness. And the size of the face of the shield doesn't mean it is heavier - the largest Roman shields tend to weigh 7-8 kg, it's the slightly smaller late republican ones that are 10 kg.

Now, as for Chinese polearms, the one wolflance posted is... not a good example at all. It's more likely than not ceremonial, if only because that tip wouldn't be able to withstand a single strong thrust without bending. Better example can be found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji_(polearm)#/media/File:Chinese_dagger-axe_and_related_polearms.svg). Those are various kinds of ge and ji and were used pretty frequently.

Another good one is guandao (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3b/91/ac/3b91ac2a4a83377717096ce26ef5270e--dao-tai-chi.jpg), which is basically a naginata with dao blade instead of katana's on top, with optional spikes added to it.

These three together basically give you halberd (some ge and some ji), spear (ji), billhook (ge) and glaive (guandao) variants, since they varied in their details as much as their European counterparts.
The polearm I posted is actually a ceremonial version of a practical polearm - the practical version usually has no fragile-looking hooks, and a shorter stabbing tip. It actually ranks pretty high up in my list of "best Chinese polearm", for it is basically a double-edged guandao that can also stab.

What I found wanting in most Chinese polearms is the lack of back-spike (see picture) feature, so despite me half-jokingly refute him, what Galloglaich said isn't actually wrong from a certain point of view. That's why I consider Chinese polearm that can utilize both sides of the blade good.
http://i.imgur.com/2LqKNcY.jpg

As a side note, the blade of Guandao is actually unique to Guandao alone. The “spike” on the back of the blade is not optional, and it MUST be shaped like that (for example, if you modify the spike into a hook, then it is not Guandao). You also won't find that kind of blade on a short Chinese saber.

(There are other Chinese glaves, but those are also not Guandao).

[Vinyadan]

http://i.imgur.com/mVUOwdx.jpg
This Chinese double-sided-bill-with-double-hooks-with-spearhead begs to differ. Okay that's a name I made up.

As even something with a heavy head (like this polearm) can be made as long as 8ft without losing much maneuverability, a two-handed spear can supposedly be made even longer due to its lighter head. A 8ft two-handed spear is actually on the shorter side (Hoplite for example use a 8ft spear one-handed).

Anyway, I will argue that most polearms (excluding spear/pike) have similar functions/purposes - you mount something that can stab, chop, hook, and parry/trap enemy weapon on a wooden shaft, and you get a polearm. Almost every polearm that I known of fits the bill (pun intended).

Is that a 1850 weapon? Or does the number refer to size/weight/inventory number?

[Brother Oni]

Another good one is guandao (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3b/91/ac/3b91ac2a4a83377717096ce26ef5270e--dao-tai-chi.jpg), which is basically a naginata with dao blade instead of katana's on top, with optional spikes added to it.

Argh, conflicted loyalties. I'm not sure whether to get annoyed or smug at that description of the guandao. :smallfrown:



These three together basically give you halberd (some ge and some ji), spear (ji), billhook (ge) and glaive (guandao) variants, since they varied in their details as much as their European counterparts.

Minor nitpick - the spear is the qiang, the ge is a unique Chinese weapon (the dagger axe) which doesn't have a thrusting point. The halberd (ji) started out as the ancient equivalent of duct-taping a ge and qiang together, until it evolved into its own unique weapon.


Is that a 1850 weapon? Or does the number refer to size/weight/inventory number?

Yup, 1850 is the year of dating. The blue box in the bottom right hand corner states the year of dating, country of origin (China) and weapon length (250.5cm or 98.6 English inches).
Anything more than that needs more time or Google Translate as I'm really rusty and 国 is about the only character I know in simplified Chinese (I learnt it as 國).

[Incanur]

While bills and halberds, thanks to their blades, beaks and/or hooks, do provide lots of options, they're not necessarily better than a simple spear or staff with points for unarmored single combat. George Silver thought the staff and Welsh hook/forest bill, a light bill, basically tied for first place, with perhaps slight advantage to the Welsh hook. Joseph Swetnam preferred a staff with a sharp point to any polearm because he claimed the weight of complex head unbalanced the weapon.

Antonio Manciolino advised taking the lancia (longer simple spear/pike) over the spiedo (winged thrust-only spear).

Giacomo di Grassi, on the other hand, described the bill as the most perfect of staff weapons, but he didn't clearly assign it advantage over other staff weapons.

Now, I do I think of a reasonably short (no more than 7ft) pollaxe/halberd/bill as the absolute best weapon for fighting in full armor on foot, whether in single combat or a melee.

[Max_Killjoy]

it's an interesting question, but in my opinion no. But there is an asterix on that.

The short answer is, for the person lacking in rhythm and unable to grasp tempo, they are very likely to get hurt. So it's bad for them.

The long answer is it may also be bad for their opponent. This is attested by many fencing masters (especially from the rapier and smallsword era, and I think there is a reason for that) warning about 'not the best swordsman in all France, but the Worst!'



The tempo doesn't necessarily exist naturally, you basically impose it. When two experienced fighters get into a fight or a fencing match, they naturally fall into a rhythm. This is because they are trying to protect themselves and can recognize the threat of an attack and will try to avoid being hit. For example if you strike at the opponent from high on the right, you have openings - upper left, lower left, lower right. Center (especially for a thrust). If you sense an attack coming at one of these openings you will deal with the attack first before attacking again. Just as your opponent, if he or she is experienced, will parry your initial attack before hitting one of the openings.

This is what you might call 'rational' fencing and it will create a rhythm, more or less depending on the weapon (military saber or example easily falls into this rhythm partly because it's so easy to parry).


The problem is people don't always behave rationally. Especially when they have safety gear on and are fighting with blunt swords. This creates a huge controversy in fencing.

A semi-trained HEMA fighter will often attack all openings without any regard for tempo or safety - especially in tournaments. Many of them also probably don't have any rhythm ;P. Even a 'good' or well-trained fencer not used to tournaments will quite often attack spastically and out of tempo when they are new to the ring.

Many fighters claim there is no way to defend against a 'suicidal' fighter. This is what led to the infamous "Right of Way" in some forms of collegiate fencing. I think it's one of the worst things about collegiate fencing, aside from electronic scoring and the piste. In a nutshell, you get penalized if you attack 'out of turn' with regard to your opponents attack. I'll leave it at that, maybe Mike or someone else who does collegiate fencing can explain more about it. Essentially the rules are trying to force you to fence in tempo.

We get pressure all the time in HEMA to impose rules to make people fence 'better'. I know some very good fencers who I respect a lot who claim that you can't defend against an idiot. I disagree because as Silver notes in his famous "half drunk" comment, idiots had swords and dealing with an idiot is precisely one of the man reasons you would learn to fence. You can't assume your opponent will be rational.

I tell my students there are 5 levels of fencing under 'tournament pressure':

Level 1 - you know your guards and can make a reasonably structured attack, you strike with the edge, fully extend your arms and strike with speed and intent.
Level 2 - all of the above plus you can parry in tempo
Level 3 - all of the above plus you avoid stupid risks (don't act spastic) and can move properly, and attack 'judiciously' as the Master says, and at the right moment.
Level 4 - all of the above plus you can execute some advanced techniques like master cuts, disarms or moulinets in a fight,
Level 5 - all of the above plus you have some discipline, and you can cope with a spastic / suicidal fencer without getting too many double-hits.

Note dealing with the idiot is one of the hardest things. But this is truly probably one of the baselines you would try to achieve in the old days when the Masters walked the Earth as they say.

G

Now that I think of it, I do have a follow up.

Is it of any use to a skilled fighter to intentionally break up the rhythm at the right moment?


(Also, thank you to both you and Mike_G for the information, helpful as always.)

[Mike_G]

Now that I think of it, I do have a follow up.

Is it of any use to a skilled fighter to intentionally break up the rhythm at the right moment?


(Also, thank you to both you and Mike_G for the information, helpful as always.)

Yes. Very much so.

An attack out of measure or off speed is very likely to throw your opponent off. The tempo gets established and you just expect attacks to come at a certain time. I used to get a lot of hits in sabre by just slowing down my cut. People would be used to the speed of my normal cut and they'd parry, but they'd be too early for the slow cut, which would come in behind the parry and land on the wrist after the parry went past.

It's like an off speed pitch in baseball. A guy who has gotten used to seeing a fast ball will swing way too early.

You have to establish the tempo before you can break it, though.

[Vinyadan]

Feels like tennis.

[Galloglaich]

Yes. Very much so.

An attack out of measure or off speed is very likely to throw your opponent off. The tempo gets established and you just expect attacks to come at a certain time. I used to get a lot of hits in sabre by just slowing down my cut. People would be used to the speed of my normal cut and they'd parry, but they'd be too early for the slow cut, which would come in behind the parry and land on the wrist after the parry went past.

It's like an off speed pitch in baseball. A guy who has gotten used to seeing a fast ball will swing way too early.

You have to establish the tempo before you can break it, though.

Yeah breaking the rhythm of a fight can be a very good thing.

The Italians had concepts like Mezzo Tempo and Contra Tempo to do exactly that, either as spoiling attacks or intercepting attacks against the hands etc.

A subset of the Nachreisen in the Liechtenauer system also does this, as opposed to the 'typical' way it's depicted as a void and attack, it's where you chase after their preparatory moves inside their tempo.


Also more generally, this is one of the things that you do with the zornhau and other miesterhau plays in the Kunst Des Fechten - maybe you got into a rhythm or worse, you were reacting to them (fighting in the Nach). The versetzen are designed to allow you to take back the Vor and once you get it, in (tournament) practice, just speaking for myself here not the words of the master, that often means stepping up the tempo to maybe double the speed so you own the krieg (you have the vor and they are reacting to you, with increasing desperation) until you get your kill.


G

[wolflance]

What Chinese sources consider a 10ft spear the best weapon for single combat? Note that that's very close to Silver's perfect length of 8-9ft.
Can't believe I missed this one. It is actually something close to 10.4 ft. I take this from early Qing Dynasty Shou Bi Lu (《手臂錄》).

It's not explicitly mentioned, but is heavily implied, since the author was very critical of other Qiang methods with longer spear (and he was, as far as I aware, the only one to wrote about dueling martial arts as opposed to battlefield arts during this period)


Also a reply to Martin Greywolf.


Minor nitpick - the spear is the qiang, the ge is a unique Chinese weapon (the dagger axe) which doesn't have a thrusting point. The halberd (ji) started out as the ancient equivalent of duct-taping a ge and qiang together, until it evolved into its own unique weapon.
Ge was actually phased out relatively early...Han Dynasty at the latest.

Ji remained in use until Qing Dynasty, although its form changed quite a lot. As Brother Oni said, Ji started out as a duct-taped ge and spear, eventually evolved into a bill-like form. By Tang Dynasty, Ji turned into a half-trident (take a trident and snap off one of its prongs), and by Song Dynasty it became the most recognizable "Chinese halberd" today - a spear with a crescent-shaped axe head.

Most other types of Chinese polearms were developed during Song Dynasty (10-13th century). As was the case in Europe (but several centuries earlier), rise of large scale organised infantry warfare and improving armoring tech forced the development of heavier polearms. Chinese polearm can be roughly divided into several types:

1) Ji halberd - a spear or awlpike-head with an axe.
2) Chop-focused polearms like Guandao and other glaives.
3) Trident/fork type.
4) (Monk's) Spade.
5) Double-edged chop-and-stab polearm like the picture I posted.

[Martin Greywolf]

Chinese polearm can be roughly divided into several types:

1) Ji halberd - a spear or awlpike-head with an axe.
2) Chop-focused polearms like Guandao and other glaives.
3) Trident/fork type.
4) (Monk's) Spade.
5) Double-edged chop-and-stab polearm like the picture I posted.

Well, it sort of depends if we want to encompass the sum total of pole weapons used in China, or if we want to focus on the ones that saw reasonably wide military use. If it's the latter, we need to be careful not to fall into Talhoffer situation - namely, just because something is in a manual, doesn't mean that it was a common sight on the battlefield, if it was seen there at all.

Case in point:


http://wiktenauer.com/images/0/03/MS_Thott.290.2%C2%BA_100v.jpg


If we want to go for sum total, then various version of eighteen arms of wushu are a good place to start, but you get weirdness like rakes, tonfa, chains and meteor hammers.

If I had to make a list of typical Chinese pole weapons, I'd go with:

1) Staff - you gotta have simple staff, it's simple
2) Spear - ordinary spear, no double heads
3) Ji - can be called halberd, I suppose
4) Ge - can also be called halberd
5) Glaives - mostly guandao, but there is a lot of variation with that one

How widely used ji and ge are depends on the time period, as do the others to an extent. There are no tridents, rakes, spades and double-ended spears - it's hard to get good information on anything remotely kung fu, but these seem to have been curiosities, if they weren't relatively modern inventions (18th century, or post-Boxer rebellion). A lot of the weirdness we see in Chinese MAs and weapons today was caused by Sun Lutang (https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2013/01/07/lives-of-the-chinese-martial-artists-4-sun-lutang-and-the-invention-of-the-traditional-chinese-martial-arts-part-i/) at the beginning of 20th century, along with a lot of BS (e.g. internal vs external split), and it was unfortunately taken as a gospel of truth.

[wolflance]

Well, it sort of depends if we want to encompass the sum total of pole weapons used in China, or if we want to focus on the ones that saw reasonably wide military use. If it's the latter, we need to be careful not to fall into Talhoffer situation - namely, just because something is in a manual, doesn't mean that it was a common sight on the battlefield, if it was seen there at all.

Case in point:


http://wiktenauer.com/images/0/03/MS_Thott.290.2%C2%BA_100v.jpg


If we want to go for sum total, then various version of eighteen arms of wushu are a good place to start, but you get weirdness like rakes, tonfa, chains and meteor hammers.

If I had to make a list of typical Chinese pole weapons, I'd go with:

1) Staff - you gotta have simple staff, it's simple
2) Spear - ordinary spear, no double heads
3) Ji - can be called halberd, I suppose
4) Ge - can also be called halberd
5) Glaives - mostly guandao, but there is a lot of variation with that one

How widely used ji and ge are depends on the time period, as do the others to an extent. There are no tridents, rakes, spades and double-ended spears - it's hard to get good information on anything remotely kung fu, but these seem to have been curiosities, if they weren't relatively modern inventions (18th century, or post-Boxer rebellion). A lot of the weirdness we see in Chinese MAs and weapons today was caused by Sun Lutang (https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2013/01/07/lives-of-the-chinese-martial-artists-4-sun-lutang-and-the-invention-of-the-traditional-chinese-martial-arts-part-i/) at the beginning of 20th century, along with a lot of BS (e.g. internal vs external split), and it was unfortunately taken as a gospel of truth.

Actually, barring some truly insane stuffs (such as nine-section whip or that Bat'leth lookalike), most weapons in Chinese martial arts had been battlefield weapon at one point or another, including the five polearms that I listed (yes, that include the spade. And it's true for quarterstaff as well). Trident and rake (the rake is really just serrated trident) in particular were extremely common during Ming and Qing period, certainly more so than other things like Ge and Guandao.

[Incanur]

Yeah, tridents (Tang Pa (http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/03/tang-ba.html)) were apparently commonly used in the Ming military. The design looks similar to European winged spears like the spiedo, though some Ming tridents had a central spear point that was barely longer than the two side point, if it was long at all. That strikes me as problematic; I'd want at least 4 inches of central point beyond the side points in order to inflict a potentially lethal thrust without interference. In any case, though, having those wings or side points adds to parrying ability. (Of course, if you're holding such a weapon, those protrusions can be used against you as well.)

[wolflance]

Yeah, tridents (Tang Pa (http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/03/tang-ba.html)) were apparently commonly used in the Ming military. The design looks similar to European winged spears like the spiedo, though some Ming tridents had a central spear point that was barely longer than the two side point, if it was long at all. That strikes me as problematic; I'd want at least 4 inches of central point beyond the side points in order to inflict a potentially lethal thrust without interference. In any case, though, having those wings or side points adds to parrying ability. (Of course, if you're holding such a weapon, those protrusions can be used against you as well.)
I looked it up in Qi Jiguang's book. Apparently the design was intentional, the central spear is only 2.5 inches longer than the side prongs. He considered a central spear point that's too long will interfere with prong-parrying, and he also wanted to use the prongs as rocket-launching platform (no idea how that'd work).

[Incanur]

Huh. 2.5 inches is enough to inflict a dangerous thrust on some parts of the body, but it'd want a bit more myself.

I imagine you just tie or stick the rockets on the prongs and then light them. It's pretty sweet that rocket-launching trident is actually historical weapon. :smallamused:

Some surviving and reproduction Welsh hooks also have very short thrusting points. Consider this design (https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F564x%2Fba%2F4e%2F8d%2Fba4e8d5c368 a15bb67f3a6a6bd4318d1.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmyarmoury.com%2Ftalk%2Fvie wtopic.php%3Ft%3D34611&docid=GqLUtx0i5wM1NM&tbnid=u91HCwjoe1KObM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjkq-mzpbTVAhVEwlQKHSoqAdEQMwgmKAEwAQ..i&w=321&h=602&bih=974&biw=1920&q=welsh%20hook&ved=0ahUKEwjkq-mzpbTVAhVEwlQKHSoqAdEQMwgmKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8), for example.

[Roxxy]

I'm looking for examples of battles in which one European (or European style, as the case may be) musket armed force performed a bayonet charge agaonst another such force, and the defender attempted to take the charge head on (or was forced to) and fight the enemy in melee. I know this was very much considered bad warfare and not something a commander should do, but I know that it happened on occasion, for various reasons. I'd like the names of as many such battles as you know about, so that I can read about them.

[rs2excelsior]

I'm looking for examples of battles in which one European (or European style, as the case may be) musket armed force performed a bayonet charge agaonst another such force, and the defender attempted to take the charge head on (or was forced to) and fight the enemy in melee. I know this was very much considered bad warfare and not something a commander should do, but I know that it happened on occasion, for various reasons. I'd like the names of as many such battles as you know about, so that I can read about them.

Battle of Guilford Courthouse in the American Revolution, March 15 1781: the 2nd Maryland Regiment counter-charged the advancing British troops and then broke; subsequently the 1st Maryland engaged the Guards in hand-to-hand combat, resulting in Cornwallis' infamous order to fire his artillery into the melee when the American cavalry threatened to charge the rear of the British line.

Assault on Fort Stedman in the American Civil War, March 25 1865: Confederate forces assaulted one of the forts in the Union siege lines around Petersburg, taking the redoubt without loaded muskets and then losing it due to Federal artillery and counterattacks.

Battle of Waterloo in the Napoleonic Wars, June 18 1815: there was melee combat between British and French troops at Hougoumont Chateau during the early stages of the battle--French pioneers hacked down the gate and engaged the British Guards in melee.

Granted, bayonet charges rarely resulted in hand-to-hand combat, but that was not because it was "bad tactics" to make a charge or to receive one. It was a matter of psychology. It took troops with extremely good discipline and morale to stand against a bayonet charge, or to press one against an enemy that refused to yield. The low casualties caused by bayonets were less due to their ineffectiveness, more because one side or the other would give way before contact was made. In the late 17th and 18th centuries there was a split between those who believed in the superiority of firepower or shock. Many countries adopted a shock-based strategy (such as France and Sweden) with quite a bit of success. Even in the American Civil War, when the rifle is commonly believed to have invalidated the bayonet, the number of casualties per round fired (or more accurately the number of rounds which must be fired to secure a casualty) wasn't much different from the Napoleonic wars, due to battlefield factors like smoke and the fact that soldiers were generally not trained to aim their shots (many rounds simply went over the enemy's heads, as soldiers did not properly account for recoil or bullet drop).

Most of the hand-to-hand combat in the era was centered around fortifications of some sort (two of my three examples were), as there's more of an incentive to stand when you're stuck defending a fixed point and can't simply fall back. Many of the bayonet actions you'll find in field battles result with one side putting up at best token resistance then retreating without making a real fight of it.

Hope this helps!

[snowblizz]

As mentioned above the Swedes trusted to cold steel a lot. Unsurprisingly as they were generally outnumbered and had to win decisively.

So e.g. in the battle of Narva 1700 the Swedes broke the Russian army besieging Narva by charging into closecombat when conditions in the prevailing snow blizzard favoured them.

IIRC Napelonic Russian armies also tended to charge with the bayonet as they lacked the discipline, training and munititions for extended exchanges of fire.

Likewise Napolonic French did a fair number of bayonet charges. But I'd have to dig to find out more about the when and where.

As mentioned there was something of two "schools" of thought in the matter (same for cavalry, shoot or charge), the generals who picked the right answer at the right time for their troop's ability and in answer to their enemies capability are the ones we remember. I think for example Marlborough was fond of the cold steel charge for cavalry. It can lead to very decisive battles and some commanders greatly favoured this and the fame it brought.

[Kiero]

Were there any well-known mercenaries or even mercenary companies operating at the turn of the 20th century? I don't count the French Foreign Legion here, because while you could see them as mercenaries, they were solely in the service of one state. There seems to have been a lot of short wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399#1890.E2.80.931899) going on all over the place, mostly revolutions, decolonialisation or colonial powers fighting off the other two.

Famous personages like particular filibusters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military))of the 19th century seem to have disappeared after the 1860s.

Were non-state actors squeezed out of the war business in this period? I note, for example that Britain pased the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Enlistment_Act_1870) effectively banning mercenary service abroad. I wonder if other nations acted in a similar manner?

[IZ42]

This wiki seems to have quite a list, if that's what you're after, Kiero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mercenaries#Industrial

[Vinyadan]

I think a remember a mercenary in Tender is the Night (by Francis Scott Fitzgerald); a professional soldier fighting for any side or country that will pay him.

[Kiero]

This wiki seems to have quite a list, if that's what you're after, Kiero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mercenaries#Industrial

I hadn't spotted that, good catch!

[Blymurkla]

Many fantasy RPGs classify armour as light, medium and heavy. Apart from protection, weight and price correlates with these categories as well. If you're after a veneer of realism, are these categories sensible?

How often did multiple types of armour, offering different levels of protection, exist side by side? I have this notion that newer, better armour fairly quickly replaced older variants. There's exceptions, I know. The gambeson as an armour on its own survived for quite a long time, because it was substantially cheaper than mail and later plate armour. Still, I'm struggling to come up with a historic culture where no less than three types of armours where available and there was this classic rpg trade-off with more protection necessarily comes with more encumbering and more expensive armour.

[Mike_G]

Many fantasy RPGs classify armour as light, medium and heavy. Apart from protection, weight and price correlates with these categories as well. If you're after a veneer of realism, are these categories sensible?

How often did multiple types of armour, offering different levels of protection, exist side by side? I have this notion that newer, better armour fairly quickly replaced older variants. There's exceptions, I know. The gambeson as an armour on its own survived for quite a long time, because it was substantially cheaper than mail and later plate armour. Still, I'm struggling to come up with a historic culture where no less than three types of armours where available and there was this classic rpg trade-off with more protection necessarily comes with more encumbering and more expensive armour.

Different armor often existed side by side.

For much of the pre-modern period, armor and weapons weren't centrally issued to troops. Men were expected to have and maintain gear for when they were called up. So the wealthiest will get the newest, most expensive armor, the less wealthy will get what they can afford.

And what you planned to do on the battlefield might very well influence your choice as well. If you plan to wade into melee, you might want heavy armor, if you are a mobile skirmisher, you might opt for light armor.

Today, it's hard for us to imagine an army where older, less effective stuff works alongside new, expensive stuff, but even today that happens. It would be much more pronounced if the soldiers were each responsible for their own gear.

[Vinyadan]

You can see the old Roman army.

Depending on how rich they were, the warriors of the legion would wear a lorica (covering the whole of their torso) or just a pectorale (covering just the breast). Otherwise, they all carried a shield (2.5 ft x 4 ft), a bronze helm, and greaves.

https://s1.postimg.org/hxdduwrr3/Hastati.jpg

Other soldiers, like the velites, were supposed to support the legion. They wore a light leather armour, a small shield, and a simple helm. They were mainly skirmishers.

https://s1.postimg.org/iuhm4bc33/70f29cc088458a1720f3fe9c9f01a9e2.jpg

In practice, the choice between light, medium and heavy armour could depend on tactical purpose of the unit wearing it, or on the money available to arm the single soldier.

[Mendicant]

18th-century cuirassiers are an instance of varying armor levels being assigned based on varying functions and tactics. A steel cuirass provided enough value in calvary on calvary engagements and to a lesser extent against bayonets that armored cavalry was still fielded well after armor had lost its practical value for line infantry.

Turret gunners in modern armies often wear heavier armor than the others in their units, as the mobility cost is less telling and the risk is higher, though this is more a matter of adding modular pieces than wearing a truly different suit of armor.

[Blymurkla]

So, light, medium, heavy armour is fairly reasonable. Thanks for the replies.

[Kiero]

Many fantasy RPGs classify armour as light, medium and heavy. Apart from protection, weight and price correlates with these categories as well. If you're after a veneer of realism, are these categories sensible?

How often did multiple types of armour, offering different levels of protection, exist side by side? I have this notion that newer, better armour fairly quickly replaced older variants. There's exceptions, I know. The gambeson as an armour on its own survived for quite a long time, because it was substantially cheaper than mail and later plate armour. Still, I'm struggling to come up with a historic culture where no less than three types of armours where available and there was this classic rpg trade-off with more protection necessarily comes with more encumbering and more expensive armour.

Most fantasy RPGs are based on a medieval milieu, where armour is the most important defensive item. That wasn't the case in all ages. In antiquity, the shield was most important, because with a shield (and possibly a helmet) you had both protection and mobility. Body armour was only useful for someone who expected to be in prolonged melee and better still had a servant/slave who could carry and maintain it off the battlefield.

Change the focus of which items matter most (in terms of their mechanical treatment) and you can shift the paradigm.

[Max_Killjoy]

Most fantasy RPGs are based on a medieval milieu, where armour is the most important defensive item. That wasn't the case in all ages. In antiquity, the shield was most important, because with a shield (and possibly a helmet) you had both protection and mobility. Body armour was only useful for someone who expected to be in prolonged melee and better still had a servant/slave who could carry and maintain it off the battlefield.

Change the focus of which items matter most (in terms of their mechanical treatment) and you can shift the paradigm.


In the thing I'm working on, I'm trying to kinda split the difference, so that the shield, used as an active defense, is still the first choice for adventures in everyday situations, because it's relatively easy to lug around compared to a lot of armor, and doesn't arose as much suspicion as someone walking down the street kitted out for a pitched battle -- while armor is a tradeoff of greater protection but tiring out faster.

I'm also trying to find the right balance of ease-of-play and detail for retinues, retainers, henchies, etc. The Planet Mercenary sci-fi RPG has this really simplified "fireteams" mechanic, while some other games pretty much require every follower to be a straight up PC-type character sheet (and there are others between those ends). I'd like to find something in the middle of that big range.

I'm rambling a bit and probably veering off topic, so I'll stop.

[rs2excelsior]

In the thing I'm working on, I'm trying to kinda split the difference, so that the shield, used as an active defense, is still the first choice for adventures in everyday situations, because it's relatively easy to lug around compared to a lot of armor, and doesn't arose as much suspicion as someone walking down the street kitted out for a pitched battle -- while armor is a tradeoff of greater protection but tiring out faster.

Related to this... how long could a fighter carry on combat, and how did armor affect that? I realize this is a very open-ended question with a lot of variables, but is there a general rule of thumb? Would using a large shield and/or wearing heavier armor significantly reduce a fighter's endurance? Which would affect it more? Would a skilled, lightly-armored fighter be able to simply dodge until a more heavily armored opponent became fatigued in order to get an advantage?

[Mr Beer]

Related to this... how long could a fighter carry on combat, and how did armor affect that? I realize this is a very open-ended question with a lot of variables, but is there a general rule of thumb? Would using a large shield and/or wearing heavier armor significantly reduce a fighter's endurance? Which would affect it more? Would a skilled, lightly-armored fighter be able to simply dodge until a more heavily armored opponent became fatigued in order to get an advantage?

I think one of the reasons that there are so many variables is that there's a difference between equipping for a duel (relatively short fight vs. a known opponent), a battle (potentially many hours and highly chaotic fight) and a campaign when you have to do an awful lot of things that aren't fighting and lugging around optimal fighting loadouts D&D-style is detrimental to achieving those.

[Vinyadan]

I think it really depends on a lot of things, as you say: many variables.

The Romans were unusual in that they always wore their armour. They marched in it, and spent their day in it. The result was that they were conditioned to it. What I find weirdest is the fact that soldiers carried their shields when marching, holding its handle like a suitcase for 30-36 km a day. Romans also had other early advantages, such as easy access to salt, which bettered their general performance. So it is possible that a Roman would have tired less while fighting than an enemy wearing lighter armour, but less accustomed to it. (Now, I think that this "always wearing it" had some limit, but I couldn't find any info about it; legionnaires were supposed to also build roads and till fields, and I doubt they did that in armour, although, you know, Romans...)

But there are some episodes described in the wars against the Germani, in which terrain was very important and made heavy armour good or bad. So the Romans were smaller, with heavier armour and longer, heavier shields, while the Germani were taller, wearing lighter armour, and using wicker shields. This gave the Germani a huge advantage in swamps, but they were defeated on plain ground.

Everything alike was to the disadvantage of the Romans — the ground, deep in slime and ooze, too unstable for standing fast and too slippery for advancing — the weight of armour on their backs — their inability amid the water to balance the •pilum for a throw. The Cherusci, on the other hand, were habituated to marsh-fighting, long of limb, and armed with huge lances to wound from a distance.

I can't think of many cases right now in which there are explicit mentions of tiredness on the battlefield. I think Herodotus said it about the Spartans and the Greeks at the Thermopylae: there were expectations by Xerxes that the Greeks would simply grow tired and be found incapable of raising their arms, but they organized themselves into companies and took turns fighting, so that they weren't too tired.

About a duel, there still is that dialogue between the Spartan exile Demaratus and king Xerxes, in which Demaratus explained that the Spartans would not have fared particularly well in a one-on-one duel against Xerxes' elite guards, who, instead, were ready to fight alone against two men at once to show their skill. Beside the psychological aspects -- Persia is full of men who aim for personal glory, be they a king, an officer or a soldier, while Spartans fight as a body and don't care about such personal exploits -- equipment must have had a role: the immortals used smaller and shorter wicker shields, scale armour and shorter spears, with large daggers, which was lighter than the hoplitical equipment, and probably performed better in one-to-one fights (and much worse in a large battle).

Musashi noticed that some schools proposed using lighter weapons than your enemy to be able to strike while he recovered. He considered this a mistake, simply because you cannot control what weapon your enemy uses, so you cannot be sure that you will be using a lighter one than him. He also seemed critical of schools which proposed to use a lot of dexterity, simply because he assumed that the real fighting would be done in armour. Generally speaking, his proposal was that of finding the right equipment for yourself, and learning how to use it in different situations.

[Kiero]

Related to this... how long could a fighter carry on combat, and how did armor affect that? I realize this is a very open-ended question with a lot of variables, but is there a general rule of thumb? Would using a large shield and/or wearing heavier armor significantly reduce a fighter's endurance? Which would affect it more? Would a skilled, lightly-armored fighter be able to simply dodge until a more heavily armored opponent became fatigued in order to get an advantage?

How long? If at maximum effort, we're talking tens of seconds or low minutes. Fighting is tiring, even unarmed and unarmoured, the fittest fighters can't maintain high output for long. Watch a boxing match, for example, look at how tired the fighters get and the sweat pouring off them after minutes of work.

The primary issue with armour isn't it's weight (no one wears something which actually impairs your mobility so much that you can't fight), but the way it messes with your ventilation. Heat fatigue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_exhaustion) is the primary concern when wearing something covering your thorax, it stops you cooling down and makes you sweat a load. Worth noting that this doesn't change even in a modern context, contemporary body armour still creates problems with heat fatigue - they have monitors for that.

Wearing armour tires you faster, no doubt about it, but the lighter-armoured fighter can only take advantage of that if they have lots of space or the luxury of time. In a battlefield situation, you often have neither. That's different if it's a one-on-one duel.

Shield doesn't make much difference to fatigue from that perspective, but obviously the heavier it is the faster you'll tire. However, the shield also allows you to create opportunities to rest that someone without a shield can't.


The Romans were unusual in that they always wore their armour. They marched in it, and spent their day in it. The result was that they were conditioned to it. What I find weirdest is the fact that soldiers carried their shields when marching, holding its handle like a suitcase for 30-36 km a day. Romans also had other early advantages, such as easy access to salt, which bettered their general performance. So it is possible that a Roman would have tired less while fighting than an enemy wearing lighter armour, but less accustomed to it. (Now, I think that this "always wearing it" had some limit, but I couldn't find any info about it; legionnaires were supposed to also build roads and till fields, and I doubt they did that in armour, although, you know, Romans...)

Roman professionals, from Marius' Mules onwards, yes. Not Republican legionaries from before, who were militia and couldn't be compelled to wear their armour all the time. They didn't carry out camp tasks or engineering either, the former was for their slaves and servants, the latter didn't really happen.

[Martin Greywolf]

Related to this... how long could a fighter carry on combat, and how did armor affect that? I realize this is a very open-ended question with a lot of variables, but is there a general rule of thumb?

As others pointed out, armor makes little difference here. I can do about 1 - 2 minutes in gambeson at full speed duels, and 5 to 10 in a skirmish where you don't go full throttle all the time, and all chain mail does is slow me down a little if I decide to wear it. After this, I'm pretty beaten and have to both drink and have a break to cool down. Medieval battles could last from half an hour to half a day, but most of that was either marching or waiting.


Would using a large shield and/or wearing heavier armor significantly reduce a fighter's endurance? Which would affect it more?

Well, shields tire your arms more - obviously, but apart from that, most shields are light, especially period-accurate shields, and the heavy shields tend to be rested on the ground. In the end, all this pales when compared to heat exhaustion.


Would a skilled, lightly-armored fighter be able to simply dodge until a more heavily armored opponent became fatigued in order to get an advantage?

Unless you can rope the armor guy to chase you for half a mile, this is a really, really bad idea. Since we don't have HP in reality, one slight mistake means you are dead - unless you have armor. If you can stay completely out of armor guy's reach, you're set, but then he has no incentive to move all that quick to tire himself either, so you're in a really weird standoff.

What you could do is leg it, get good distance and grab a hefty rock, then chuck it at him and repeat the process. He could still catch you at the start, but his stamina will start to suffer. This is, of course, not possible in duels, because people tend to remove rocks and set up arenas for those. If you try this, be warned - there are techniques of sword throwing that are just begging to be used here - after all, full plate and dagger beats no armor and a sword.

[Vinyadan]

If you try this, be warned - there are techniques of sword throwing that are just begging to be used here -

End him rightly!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzLfQ-xVY0

[Mike_G]

Unless you can rope the armor guy to chase you for half a mile, this is a really, really bad idea. Since we don't have HP in reality, one slight mistake means you are dead - unless you have armor. If you can stay completely out of armor guy's reach, you're set, but then he has no incentive to move all that quick to tire himself either, so you're in a really weird standoff.
.

Skirmishers could probably goad troops into either pursuing or just taking missile hits.

One theory of the French defeat at Agincourt is that the French trudged hundreds of yards through a muddy field in plate armor and arrived at the English lines already exhausted. Men in lighter armor may have made the attack with some energy left, but would have been vulnerable to the archers. So I would say it's a tactic you could use, if you can force the enemy to come to you and wear himself out before he gets there.

[KarlMarx]

How valuable, historically, was the heavy cavalry charge (esp. in medieval times?)

I've heard many sources, including a professor of military history, claim that it has been overrated by various sources, and that disciplined infantry--even without spears/pikes--could easily repulse such charges if they stood their ground.

On the other hand, what infantry forces had this discipline in the middle ages?

Has the value of the knightly charge against non-pike/spear infantry been overestimated, or was it in fact a viable tactic?

[Vitruviansquid]

On the other hand, what infantry forces had this discipline in the middle ages?

As far as I understand, high quality medieval infantry was drawn from the middle class, and there were many ways you could have a middle class in the middle ages.

Cities like those in Flanders and Italy had populations of middle class burghers who made good infantry.

Countries with laws and traditions that allowed a relatively wealthy and independent peasantry, like England, could tap into that population for high quality infantry.

A wealthy and powerful individual could personally hire and train high quality infantry, such as with the Hungarian Black Army.

Alternately, a wealthy and powerful individual could pay to "borrow" any of the above sources of heavy infantry as mercenaries.

[wolflance]

About a duel, there still is that dialogue between the Spartan exile Demaratus and king Xerxes, in which Demaratus explained that the Spartans would not have fared particularly well in a one-on-one duel against Xerxes' elite guards, who, instead, were ready to fight alone against two men at once to show their skill. Beside the psychological aspects -- Persia is full of men who aim for personal glory, be they a king, an officer or a soldier, while Spartans fight as a body and don't care about such personal exploits -- equipment must have had a role: the immortals used smaller and shorter wicker shields, scale armour and shorter spears, with large daggers, which was lighter than the hoplitical equipment, and probably performed better in one-to-one fights (and much worse in a large battle).

Aren't Persian Immortal armed with giant rectangular shield that is much larger than both Scutum and Aspis?

http://i.imgur.com/wcZtA94.jpg

Sure doesn't look like something usable in a duel to me. In fact, I think the shield fits the bill of "fighting as one body" pretty nicely (i.e. forming up a shield wall).

[rrgg]

How valuable, historically, was the heavy cavalry charge (esp. in medieval times?)

I've heard many sources, including a professor of military history, claim that it has been overrated by various sources, and that disciplined infantry--even without spears/pikes--could easily repulse such charges if they stood their ground.

On the other hand, what infantry forces had this discipline in the middle ages?

Has the value of the knightly charge against non-pike/spear infantry been overestimated, or was it in fact a viable tactic?

During the early modern period there was definitely a belief that anything less than full length pikes was insufficient for stopping cavalry, and that you would need around 5-6 ranks of pikemen to really be confident. Even then at the battle of Marignano the heavily armored French Gendarmes were apparently able to fight toe to toe with Swiss pikemen and eventually come out ahead.

There's also the fact that in many cases, successfully resisting a charge by armored knights in the middle ages involved reliance on the use of static obstacles such as ditches, wagons, or sharpened stakes. While certainly not unstoppable I think that the supposed impotence of medieval cavalry even on flat ground has a tendency to be exaggerated as well.

The way Clifford Rogers describes it is that while by the hundred years war, it was definitely recognized that good infantry could provide a very solid defense, until the innovations from Swiss, infantry made a very poor offensive arm compared to cavalry. He writes: "John Chandos' observation of 1368 that 'it goes ill with the side that attacks first' was echoed by Jean de Bueil in the late fifteenth century: 'All those who advance on foot break their own array and put themselves out of breath, and ordinarily they suffer defeat.' Thus, strategy often involved the use of devastation, maneuvers, or sieges designed to push the enemy into accepting the burden of the tactical initiative."

In either case, even after the 'infantry revolution' in the early modern period battles continued to be most often decided by cavalry. Good infantry with no cavalry support whatsoever still has a significant disadvantage, and since one side's cavalry can usually be driven off well before the infantry come into melee that means that whichever side has the superior cavalry can gain a major upper hand early on.

[Martin Greywolf]

How valuable, historically, was the heavy cavalry charge (esp. in medieval times?)

I've heard many sources, including a professor of military history, claim that it has been overrated by various sources, and that disciplined infantry--even without spears/pikes--could easily repulse such charges if they stood their ground.

On the other hand, what infantry forces had this discipline in the middle ages?

Has the value of the knightly charge against non-pike/spear infantry been overestimated, or was it in fact a viable tactic?



This is a pretty complex topic, not the least because first question you need to ask is, what is your definition of heavy cavalry? If you describe it by equipment (e.g. both rider and horse have metal armor), then you have many medieval European knights that may not qualify despite still using charge tactics. If you describe it by function, as someone whose purpose is to use charges (and do you limit these to couched lance?), then a lot of comparatively lightly equipped soldiers will qualify.

Next thing is that 99% people imagine medieval warfare as being composed of mostly battles, and big battles at that. That is simply not true, overwhelming majority of fights were skirmishes between groups of no more than 50 men (Templar rule gives us a dozen war-ready riders for a proper independent scouting/foraging party), followed by sieges. Battles happened very rarely and needed a lot of stuff to go just right for one side not retreating to a castle.

Next item is discipline of troops, and here we run into the usual we don't know problem - there were very, very few accounts that dealt with average Joes of the day, most of what you have written is either from the point of view of the clergy, or (later) nobles or merchants. There is no doubt that non-knights had nowhere near the extensive training of the knights, but we don't have soldiers with training that extensive today. They were prepared for battle and politics from the age of 6, and it showed.

The rank and file troops can in the broadest sense be divided into two basic categories - willing and unwilling. The willing are those that want to make soldiering their career, be it as mercenary, levy or in permanent service to a lord (which one depends a LOT on time and place), so they are motivated to invest into their equipment and training. How disciplined they are, well, it depends on the commander and the regularity of pay. In general, these will be pretty disciplined.

The unwilling are rarer than people think, usually only in defensive wars or during sieges, and have little training and equipment, and will break extremely easily if pressed. They are almost universally levies.

Naturally, you have a lot of variation in this, and shenanigans can impact this a lot - Hussites did rout a knightly army by singing alone that one time, after all.

All right, so on to the actual question.

1) Knightly cavalry in skirmishes

This is where a knight really shines and is unstoppable but with terrain or another knight. The armor and horse combination means that he can hit the small number of enemies and bowl over those he doesn't kill with the lance or sword. You can counter them by taking potshots or forcing them off the horse, but not only do they have their own troops with them, they can dismount.

A knight in this setting is the troop type your strategy revolves around.

2) Knightly cavalry in sieges

Your first instinct is to say useless, but they can dismount, and armor is hell of a thing in this kind of fighting. Your heavy cavalry basically transforms into heavy infantry, but they are less economical, because loosing a highly-trained soldier with lots of personalized equipment to a rock is... less than ideal. Use with caution.

3) Knightly cavalry in field battles

This is the case with most variety - in general, shock cavalry in battle is something like a scalpel, or a sniper rifle. Use it properly and at the right time, and ti will win the battle seemingly on its own. Use it the wrong way, and you just invented a novel way to manufacture horse meat balls (give Ikea a call).

Braced infantry CAN repel a charge like this, but not easily - the first two to five rows of men are pretty much dead (how many depends on what weapon they have, with thick enough pikes they can stop the charge, but that's hardly medieval). Thing is, you can afford to replace those far, far easier than the amount of knights that will get cut down once the charge looses the momentum, so it is a good trade from the strategic viewpoint. That said, that strategic viewpoint looks mighty bad to the people in those first three ranks, and if they decide to run for it, well, you may have just lost a battle there.

Then there is the holy grail of heavy cavalry warfare, repeated charges. You charge in, you retreat, get new lances where necessary, repeat. Problem is, you need disciplined and well trained cavalry to do this, and knights don't have the best record here. Monastic orders were famous for being good enough to pull these off, but your average knightly force may not be.

Conclusion

So, how good was the charge? Pretty good, it was a powerful tool, both physically and psychologically, in the military commander's arsenal. Like any tool, however, it could be used improperly, and when it was, it resulted in pretty hard to replace losses.

[Kiero]

How valuable, historically, was the heavy cavalry charge (esp. in medieval times?)

I've heard many sources, including a professor of military history, claim that it has been overrated by various sources, and that disciplined infantry--even without spears/pikes--could easily repulse such charges if they stood their ground.

On the other hand, what infantry forces had this discipline in the middle ages?

Has the value of the knightly charge against non-pike/spear infantry been overestimated, or was it in fact a viable tactic?

Not-medieval times; in antiquity it was vital. By heavy cavalry, I mean those who's primary purpose is to close and melee, rather than skirmish and stay at range. That generally meant well-armoured noble cavalry in this period, usually armed with a two-handed lance.

From Alexander's Companions to Persian nobles to steppe nobles and cataphracts, they could turn a battle. While their main job was driving off lighter cavalry and crushing skirmishers who were caught in the open, they could also charge to the rear or flank of an engaged heavy infantry formation, and potentially rout them.

[Brother Oni]

Sorry to interrupt, but page 50.

New thread up here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?532903-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIV).