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

[Martin Greywolf]

If I'm in a bayonet fight, I REALLY don't care if the guy's wound bleeds or gets infected. I care about the next thirty seconds, not the next week.


Ah, you don't - and by you, I mean people who had to use bayonets in general - but it's not you who is ordering the standard-issue equipment. That is done by the generals, and they certainly do care about the long term. If one of them starts to believe (for whatever reason) that triangular bayonet ultimately kills more people, that's that and your unit (if not entire army) will be issued triangular bayonets.

You have a lot of this "generals who don't always know what they're talking about defining policy" thing going on, especially if there's a genuine disagreement between contemporary experts in the field. You can see it very clearly in cut vs thrust debate of British Empire, and bayonets were no different.

What I think is important to remember here is that the people using the weapons and people ordering the manufacture of weapons aren't the same people any more.

Edit: Pesky grammar.

[Mike_G]

The ease of loading thing might well have something to do with it--the offset you see with bayonets from this period helps to keep the blade away from your hand when you're loading, and it'd be harder to get that with a blade. Loading a musket with bayonet is really no more difficult than without (though I've obviously never done it while being shot at).

The "stab and twist" method wouldn't work as well with a sword bayonet, either... although now that I think of it, that technique might have come about after the offset, with the offset initially designed to allow for easier loading. I'm honestly not sure which came first, so to speak. I'm also not sure whether a triangular blade or a sword-type blade would be easier to manufacture... it'd probably depend a lot on how you're making them.

Stab and twist works fine with a sword bayonet. That's what they still teach. You let air into the wound and break the vacuum that holds the weapon in the body. The same way you rock and twist anything that is stuck in anything to work it free. And a sword bayonet will cut as you wiggle it, widening the wound and cutting itself free.

The triangular bayonet is easier to produce because the metal doesn't have to be as well forged, since the very thickness of the spike and shape means it will be strong even if the steel isn't all that carefully forged. It doesn't need to be as tough or resilient as a flat blade, and it doesn't have to hold a good edge.

And I think it wasn't wounding capability that determined the choice, since not many men are actually wounded or killed with the bayonet. You hope that it will see the enemy off. If you actually get to bayonet combat, things are very, very ugly, and the ease of stitching the wound is just ... like the last thing anybody will care about.

[gkathellar]

Stab and twist works fine with a sword bayonet.

It works fine with an actual sword, for that matter.

While learning dao, I was taught that twisting the blade lets you tear it out of the other guy instead of just going back out the entry wound, which causes further injuries and transitions smoothly into a guard position. I don't think you could do that with a triangular cross-section, so it might actually end up less immediately lethal. As Mike G says, by the time you've made bayonet contact, immediate lethality is probably your main concern.

[rs2excelsior]

Stab and twist works fine with a sword bayonet. That's what they still teach. You let air into the wound and break the vacuum that holds the weapon in the body. The same way you rock and twist anything that is stuck in anything to work it free. And a sword bayonet will cut as you wiggle it, widening the wound and cutting itself free.

Really? I would've thought that without a very strong mounting a blade wouldn't be able to twist as well. You still wouldn't get as much rotation of the blade, but I imagine the wounds would still be nasty.


And I think it wasn't wounding capability that determined the choice, since not many men are actually wounded or killed with the bayonet. You hope that it will see the enemy off. If you actually get to bayonet combat, things are very, very ugly, and the ease of stitching the wound is just ... like the last thing anybody will care about.

Of course. Bayonets caused a very small percentage of actual casualties (less than 1% in the American Civil War, probably similar in conflicts around the same time), not because they weren't used or were ineffective, but because one side or the other would usually lose their nerve before contact. Bayonets won battles by breaking enemy morale, not killing enemy soldiers.

[Mike_G]

Really? I would've thought that without a very strong mounting a blade wouldn't be able to twist as well. You still wouldn't get as much rotation of the blade, but I imagine the wounds would still be nasty.


I'm confused at why you think that. Sword bayonets have a ring in the quillon which fits over the muzzle and a slot in the pommel that a lug under the barrel clicks into. How is that weaker than a triangular bayonet's quarter turn fitting?

And why won't you get as much rotation? You twist the weapon 90 degrees, you get 90 degrees of twist.

You don't twist to make a worse wound, you twist to get the weapon out, or you shove the blade in to the hilt and torque the whole gun around to lever the guy onto the ground if he still looks like he wants to fight.

There are many accounts of WWII Japanese soldiers with sword bayonets lifting a man off his feet after stabbing him.



Of course. Bayonets caused a very small percentage of actual casualties (less than 1% in the American Civil War, probably similar in conflicts around the same time), not because they weren't used or were ineffective, but because one side or the other would usually lose their nerve before contact. Bayonets won battles by breaking enemy morale, not killing enemy soldiers.

Which is why I really don't think "nastier wounds" was a real reason for adopting the triangular bayonet, since you probably won't inflict any, and any bayonet on the end of a rifle held by an aggressive enemy is equally horrifying.

I think ease of mass production, and possibly the ability to more safely load the weapon from the muzzle are more likely the reason most 18th-19th Century armies used the triangular blade.

[BayardSPSR]

I think ease of mass production, and possibly the ability to more safely load the weapon from the muzzle are more likely the reason most 18th-19th Century armies used the triangular blade.

Oh! Because there's no edge pointing at the place where your hand's going to be? Which would also explain why triangular bayonets seem to become less universal once breech-loaders come around...

[rs2excelsior]

I'm confused at why you think that. Sword bayonets have a ring in the quillon which fits over the muzzle and a slot in the pommel that a lug under the barrel clicks into. How is that weaker than a triangular bayonet's quarter turn fitting?

It seems like it'd torque the bayonet off the lug. You've essentially got a lever multiplying the force on the back lug. Plus, it seems like the flat blade would have more resistance to being rotated. I've never actually stabbed someone with a sword bayonet (or a triangular one, for that matter) so this is just my impressions--I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just expressing surprise.

With a socket and ring bayonet, you physically have to break the front sight off the barrel to move the bayonet, though I suppose the same is true of the sword bayonet's lug. A well-made mounting shouldn't break, either way.


And why won't you get as much rotation? You twist the weapon 90 degrees, you get 90 degrees of twist.

You don't twist to make a worse wound, you twist to get the weapon out, or you shove the blade in to the hilt and torque the whole gun around to lever the guy onto the ground if he still looks like he wants to fight.

Again, the offset. Socket bayonets are set further from the muzzle of the weapon, so twisting through a given angle makes a wider arc. I can't speak for modern bayonet techniques, but with socket bayonets soldiers were trained to twist the weapon itself, which results in a lot of movement from the blade--which very well might help in recovering the bayonet, but I can't imagine it'd do much good for the insides of the person you stabbed. Speaking from manuals and the like, how they trained the soldiers rather than actual experience with using these weapons. In battle they might have done away with twisting the bayonet at all, or moved the rifle around the bayonet rather than the bayonet around the rifle in order to help retrieve it. But that's how it was done in the bayonet drills from the period.

I've got a copy of McClellan's manual for the bayonet at home, which was the most commonly used manual on both sides in the American Civil War. It's been a while since I've looked through it, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, and I don't have access to it at the moment. If I can get it to look through I'll see if there's any additional information I can add.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your points--I think they are all quite valid, and I don't know enough about the reasons triangular bayonets were adopted to say which came first. I definitely think your points were a large part of the reason they were ubiquitous, just pointing out that the wounds bayonets did cause were indeed quite bad.

Fun fact: I've got a two-band Zouave rifle (reproduction, obviously) from the ACW that has a ring-and-lug sword bayonet rather than the socket bayonet, and with a longer blade. That's also at home, but it's probably about 24 inches or more, vs. an 18 inch blade for the socket bayonets on the three-band rifles. I'm not sure if it was just a question of style, or if there was a reason the sword bayonet could be made longer than a triangular one.

[Mike_G]

It seems like it'd torque the bayonet off the lug. You've essentially got a lever multiplying the force on the back lug. Plus, it seems like the flat blade would have more resistance to being rotated. I've never actually stabbed someone with a sword bayonet (or a triangular one, for that matter) so this is just my impressions--I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just expressing surprise.

With a socket and ring bayonet, you physically have to break the front sight off the barrel to move the bayonet, though I suppose the same is true of the sword bayonet's lug. A well-made mounting shouldn't break, either way.



Again, the offset. Socket bayonets are set further from the muzzle of the weapon, so twisting through a given angle makes a wider arc. I can't speak for modern bayonet techniques, but with socket bayonets soldiers were trained to twist the weapon itself, which results in a lot of movement from the blade--which very well might help in recovering the bayonet, but I can't imagine it'd do much good for the insides of the person you stabbed. Speaking from manuals and the like, how they trained the soldiers rather than actual experience with using these weapons. In battle they might have done away with twisting the bayonet at all, or moved the rifle around the bayonet rather than the bayonet around the rifle in order to help retrieve it. But that's how it was done in the bayonet drills from the period.

I've got a copy of McClellan's manual for the bayonet at home, which was the most commonly used manual on both sides in the American Civil War. It's been a while since I've looked through it, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, and I don't have access to it at the moment. If I can get it to look through I'll see if there's any additional information I can add.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your points--I think they are all quite valid, and I don't know enough about the reasons triangular bayonets were adopted to say which came first. I definitely think your points were a large part of the reason they were ubiquitous, just pointing out that the wounds bayonets did cause were indeed quite bad.

Fun fact: I've got a two-band Zouave rifle (reproduction, obviously) from the ACW that has a ring-and-lug sword bayonet rather than the socket bayonet, and with a longer blade. That's also at home, but it's probably about 24 inches or more, vs. an 18 inch blade for the socket bayonets on the three-band rifles. I'm not sure if it was just a question of style, or if there was a reason the sword bayonet could be made longer than a triangular one.

Sorry if I came across as aggressive. The triangular bayonet thing annoys me, because I really don't think worse wounds was the reason, but it's quoted as gospel, even though hardly any other military melee weapon wen the "spike with no edge" route, and the sword bayonet came back to prominence once bolt rifles became the norm. "Not slicing your ramrod hand" seems a lot more plausible, if less exciting.

It's like my other pet peeve: the myth that target area in sport sabre fencing is from the waist up to protect the horses. Makes me tear my hair out. You don't want to take leg shots because you expose your weapon arm, neck, shoulder and head to give the guy a non fatal cut, and if he's on horseback, he's not even immobilized. But every amateur historian loves to use that to point out that horses were harder to train than cavalrymen, or some other stupid false "fact." Especially for a weapon from the Napoleonic era where infantry were told specifically to aim at horses when fighting cavalry. [/end rant]

That sounds like a cool rifle and bayonet you have. I like the long sword bayonet, because you can slice with it, or do a push or draw cut if you get too close or partially parried.

Full disclosure, I've never bayonetted anybody either, but I trained on dummy targets with the new sword (knife, I guess, considering the length) bayonet, and if you stick it in and pull straight out, it sticks a bit, but if you twist and slice, it comes out easily, and won't even hurt the M16, which is nowhere near as heavily built as a Brown Bess or 1860 Springfield

The theory is you thrust with the rifle held sideways, then twist it 90 degrees so it's back to normal orientation and kinda pull/slice/draw cut out and down as you recover it, which let's the blade cut its way out. It's easier to show than tell, but I think you get the idea.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I was in Greece the last week and was to the bronze age fortress in Mycene. While it's on an easily defensible hill that is very well integrated into the defenses, I found it quite unusual that it is pretty far away from the coast. The current port of the region goes back to Mycenaean times as well, so it's not a case of shifting coastlines.

Having a harbor seems to have been a distinguishing feature of nearly all the major city states in Greek antiquity. Does anyone know if this was different during the bronze age and what reason there might have been to put the fortress that far inland?
The port at Napflio has its own fortress that looks really formidable. Any reason why the Mycenaean would have preferred not to use such an obvious advantageous location that allows a fortress and port in one spot?

A lot of classical Greek cities were built on Mycenaean foundations, so no, there can't have been a big difference between city location choice between the eras. Thebes, Sparta and Athens are all Mycenaean cities with Corinth being the most important classical city without Mycenaean routes, Mycenae is the odd one out in that it wasn't a power centre in the classical period but it was still an inhabited city and its fortifications were still in use until the mid 5th century BC.

Pylos is important Mycenean archaelogical site mentioned in Homer's Illiad that was abandoned during the classical era and is a coastal port. From what we have of their financial records their coast guard appears to have been a major part of their national budget so pirates were probably a problem but on the other hand we only have the records from the year the palace was burned down so we don't know how normal that was. Profiting from trade while letting someone else pay to keep the sea routes safe probably gave inland states some advantage.

Having more spread out forts equals more territory. Its basically that simple. Having a port for trading is worthless unless you can also produce goods to export. If the good producing area can ledger a military advantage over the port it will be the capital.

The exception is the definitely post-Mycenean Greek colonies which are coastal because they're trade posts founded by sailors where the main priority was having a defensible site for a harbour. Colonies in the classical era didn't have to produce raw materials so they could afford to be just ports.

[rs2excelsior]

Sorry if I came across as aggressive. The triangular bayonet thing annoys me, because I really don't think worse wounds was the reason, but it's quoted as gospel, even though hardly any other military melee weapon wen the "spike with no edge" route, and the sword bayonet came back to prominence once bolt rifles became the norm. "Not slicing your ramrod hand" seems a lot more plausible, if less exciting.

It's like my other pet peeve: the myth that target area in sport sabre fencing is from the waist up to protect the horses. Makes me tear my hair out. You don't want to take leg shots because you expose your weapon arm, neck, shoulder and head to give the guy a non fatal cut, and if he's on horseback, he's not even immobilized. But every amateur historian loves to use that to point out that horses were harder to train than cavalrymen, or some other stupid false "fact." Especially for a weapon from the Napoleonic era where infantry were told specifically to aim at horses when fighting cavalry. [/end rant]

That sounds like a cool rifle and bayonet you have. I like the long sword bayonet, because you can slice with it, or do a push or draw cut if you get too close or partially parried.

Full disclosure, I've never bayonetted anybody either, but I trained on dummy targets with the new sword (knife, I guess, considering the length) bayonet, and if you stick it in and pull straight out, it sticks a bit, but if you twist and slice, it comes out easily, and won't even hurt the M16, which is nowhere near as heavily built as a Brown Bess or 1860 Springfield

The theory is you thrust with the rifle held sideways, then twist it 90 degrees so it's back to normal orientation and kinda pull/slice/draw cut out and down as you recover it, which let's the blade cut its way out. It's easier to show than tell, but I think you get the idea.

No problem, I think we were both arguing just past each other :smallbiggrin:

If I recall correctly, it's kind of the opposite in ACW manuals. The guard position has the rifle turned slightly, about 45 degrees from "normal" orientation, with the lockplate (right side of the rifle) upward and the point around shoulder level. When you thrust you rotate back to it's normal orientation, and the process of extending the arms moves the point down to the abdomen. The twist then turns 90 degrees to the right, so lockplate down, then recover to guard. Again, it's been a while since I last went through the manuals, but if I recall correctly this is how it was done (or at least taught).

It's a nice little rifle--I can't use it in reenactments due to safety issues (shorter musket, more likely to do some kind of damage to a person in the front rank), although two-banded muskets were far more common than most people realize. The longer bayonet brings it closer to a three-bander in terms of reach, although it still loses out a bit. It's a Zouave rifle, so made after French patterns--the French Zouaves were in vogue so to speak just before the war, which is why you get those gaudily-dressed units mostly from Louisiana and New York. I'm not sure how much of the reason for the sword bayonet was longer reach, and how much was just because the French were doing it.

I've never heard that bit of... "information" regarding saber fencing. It's a bit ridiculous. If a horse is in fact more difficult to train than a cavalryman, wouldn't you want to kill or incapacitate enemy horses?
I mean, I think some of the big two-handed swords could be used to cut the front legs off of a horse (or at least hack far enough in that the horse was out of the fight). Dying horses did a lot to spook the remaining horses and take the force out of a cavalry charge.

[gkathellar]

Re: saber targets, AFAIK, it's amateur historians misunderstanding the word "saber," to be less generic than it actually was. Dueling saber and military saber don't actually share much DNA, if any. A lot of swords only acquired unique names well into (or after) their period of use, and the fact that the two sabers didn't means a lot of people draw misbegotten conclusions about one from facts about the others.

[Vinyadan]

hardly any other military melee weapon wen the "spike with no edge" route,

Would estocs count?

[Mike_G]

Re: saber targets, AFAIK, it's amateur historians misunderstanding the word "saber," to be less generic than it actually was. Dueling saber and military saber don't actually share much DNA, if any. A lot of swords only acquired unique names well into (or after) their period of use, and the fact that the two sabers didn't means a lot of people draw misbegotten conclusions about one from facts about the others.

So, "sabre," as in the sport they do in the Olympics or college, not HEMA or SCA or historical re-enactors or whatever, has a defined target area from the waist up to score points. Fencing does have its roots in sword practice, but it's move pretty far.

I am fine with the legs being off target, because, since sabre wasn't intended for use with a shield and the blade is your defense as well as your offense, if you strike at the other guy's leg, you have to expose yourself really badly, and fencing's Right of Way rules or timing might protect you if you attacked the guy's shin and took a counter to the head, so better just not to give out points for creative suicide.

BUT...

Most fencing instructors (again, white uniform, blinky lights fencing) have told the story about how sabre was a cavalry weapon, and you aimed high so you could cut the rider and save the horse, so you could capture and use it.

Which is total crap.

It sounds kinda tournament-ish, but sabre (as it is taught) was a musket era military weapon, not a knightly tourney weapon, and I don't think the Scots Greys would have given a toss about hurting French horses.

You wouldn't target the leg because it's not a real vital area, like the head or torso or sword arm, and if the guy's on a horse and you hit his leg, he may be bleeding but he's still mobile, and if you sword is down there, he can hack you high, where your brain and sword arm and important organs are.

And it makes me nuts every time I hear it. Like how people keep talking about knights who needed to be hoisted onto horses and couldn't move if they got knocked off.

[Mike_G]

Would estocs count?

In theory, but I'd say that's apples to oranges, since they were designed to find gaps in armor, whereas bayonets were intended for use on unarmored men.

[gkathellar]

So, "sabre," as in the sport they do in the Olympics or college, not HEMA or SCA or historical re-enactors or whatever, has a defined target area from the waist up to score points. Fencing does have its roots in sword practice, but it's move pretty far.

I am fine with the legs being off target, because, since sabre wasn't intended for use with a shield and the blade is your defense as well as your offense, if you strike at the other guy's leg, you have to expose yourself really badly, and fencing's Right of Way rules or timing might protect you if you attacked the guy's shin and took a counter to the head, so better just not to give out points for creative suicide.

BUT...

Most fencing instructors (again, white uniform, blinky lights fencing) have told the story about how sabre was a cavalry weapon, and you aimed high so you could cut the rider and save the horse, so you could capture and use it.

Which is total crap.

It sounds kinda tournament-ish, but sabre (as it is taught) was a musket era military weapon, not a knightly tourney weapon, and I don't think the Scots Greys would have given a toss about hurting French horses.

You wouldn't target the leg because it's not a real vital area, like the head or torso or sword arm, and if the guy's on a horse and you hit his leg, he may be bleeding but he's still mobile, and if you sword is down there, he can hack you high, where your brain and sword arm and important organs are.

And it makes me nuts every time I hear it. Like how people keep talking about knights who needed to be hoisted onto horses and couldn't move if they got knocked off.

I'm aware - my maestro went on a similar rant where he indicated that military saber and dueling saber (the predecessor to collegiate) are not directly related. The latter, he said, emerged independently as a dueling weapon, and noted that it's a much lighter, more delicate weapon even in non-blindly incarnations.

Moreover, he noted, in our system, the fore leg is a valid target for either of these weapons. At this point, several of the more senior students winced, and one noted that anyone learning dueling saber for the first time will come home with plenty of welts on their front leg until they learn to guard it.

[Mike_G]

I'm aware - my maestro went on a similar rant where he indicated that military saber and dueling saber (the predecessor to collegiate) are not directly related. Moreover, he noted, in our system, the fore leg is a valid target. At this point, several of the more senior students winced, and one noted that anyone learning dueling saber for the first time will come home with plenty of welts on their front leg until they learn to guard it.

Just snap your leg back and whack him on the wrist until he smartens up and stops making that attack.

Hit his head in a real fight, but in fencing, the mask takes the sting out of a head shot. A whack on the radial prominence will teach people to keep the weapon up where it belongs.

[gkathellar]

Well, when I find my way to saber, I'll keep that in mind. I'm still learning basics of French foil, myself, so the only thing I can say firsthand is that transitioning from Chinese swords to tiny wrist and elbow movements is agonizing.

[rrgg]

The triangular bayonet wound thing is complex.

A flat blade leaves a slit, which seals itself better and can bleed less, and is easier to stitch up after the battle. A triangular blade leaves a bigger hole, and is harder to stitch.

But...

A triangular blade doesn't cut cloth or flesh on its way in, which means it may not penetrate as deeply. Look at the tests of bodkin type points against gambeson or heavy wool and you see them not do very well. It can't really slash or draw or push cut, which is sometimes useful if you can't line up the point in the press of melee, and it won't widen a wound as it goes in or out.

And the biggest argument for the sword bayonet, for me, is that it's more dangerous for your opponent to grab.

I think the triangular bayonet was probably easier to produce, easier to care for and honestly, the difference won't matter all that much. If I'm in a bayonet fight, I REALLY don't care if the guy's wound bleeds or gets infected. I care about the next thirty seconds, not the next week. I'm gonna stab him, and if he falls over, I'm happy and if he doesn't I'm gong to twist the weapon in him and use the gun like a pitchfork to throw him to the ground so he can't keep fighting me.

So, that's my perspective as a medic and as a guy who practiced bayonet training in the Marines.

Referring back to pages 88-90 of the book, he does mention that lance and bayonet wounds typically involve some degree of drawing motion and contusion rather than being just a puncture. If the weapon is being bent or twisted inside the wound would the size of the entry wound make more of a difference in survivability?

He also mentions that shallow puncture wounds, or wounds that puncture muscle tissue typically usually heal without many problems. Which seems odd, since I assume that would mean a wider blade which is more likely to nick an important artery or organ would be more deadly.

[Brother Oni]

He also mentions that shallow puncture wounds, or wounds that puncture muscle tissue typically usually heal without many problems. Which seems odd, since I assume that would mean a wider blade which is more likely to nick an important artery or organ would be more deadly.

A wider blade would be more likely to hit something important if they got in deep enough (organs and arteries are generally fairly deep in the body). The issue is that a wider blade means more surface are and thus more resistance, so for the same force blow, a wide blade wouldn't as penetrate as deep as a narrow spike.

To get a wide blade as deep as a narrow spike, you'd have to stab them harder. There's also the issue of a larger blade getting stuck on something like bone (eg trying to get a blade through the rib cage).

[snowblizz]

Been thinking a bit on battleships, the dreadnaught era (and just before) to be precise, due to reading a book which is fairly thick on the technical data but not always so good as contextualising it. So I got some questions and musings.

The definition of a battleship is kinda vague isn't it? The difference between the ships launched around the turn of the century and the WW2 German and Japanese behemoths is quite marked, under 20k tons vs 70k and more (esp for unplanned super battleships). To me it seems one might as well be comparing cruisers to early battleships.

The insistence on placing secondary armament in casemates low to the waterline continued to baffle me. Because the same note always followed, couldn't be used in rough seas. Yet the next ships did exactly the same thing despite some lessons that one would thought had been learned.

At various points the difficulty of aiming (over distance I assume) was mentioned with one ship with only 4 main gun(barrel)s was claimed to be neigh impossible to score hits with, 6 barrels minimum was the message I got. Is this to be understood so that the salvo is "small" enough and the targeting uncertain enough that it becomes impossible to "box in" the enemy? And what's the benefit in doing that? Because secondary and tertiary guns seemed to mess with this, and was one reason they moved to a main caliber and lighter support guns. But also, don't your pals' fire make it hard to tell, so they seem kinda screwed either way. This sort of jars with the pre-dreadnaughts too, where 4 main guns were considered plenty becked up by a plethora of secondary armaments.

Incidentally, was reading before this a book on artillery ww1 to modern and the huge number of barrels repurposed from dreadnaught construction to heavy siege artillery on land was quite surprising, though logical. Also made me chuckle when weak and underpowered secondary or tertiary gunds on ships would have counted amongst the heaviest field and siege artillery on land. Though it leads me to the question why did ship guns need to be so massive. Later on in the dreadnaught race ofc you made a bigger gun than the Ger... I mean likely opponents :smallbiggrin: and made your armour thick enough to withstand that (if you were american at least it seems). But where does it get started? Range? "kill power" ie weight of shells? Because as I understand it, fighting at range wasn't in the original plan e.g. where they put armour and the gunlayouts. It seems they were still thinking a lot like Trafalgar. That actually makes a tremendous sense for why the Russian fleet sailing to Tsutsuma straight got it's ass handed to it. (Not that they didn't have a lot of issues, just the idea of firing on British fishing ships because they may be Japanese torpedo boats, in the North Sea.) Because as I recall they had incredibly poor accuracy as they found out while practicing on the way. So they would have been expecting to fire almost flat trajectories over opensights mostly?

Which brings me to the armouring which was terribly confusing to follow in the text (finally figured out horinzontal and vertical, but then some of the "armoured decks" started throwing me off, isn't that what you get if you have the previous?). But the thickest armour was placed in the sides and turrets (the only one makes sense to me) usually. So clearly they were not expecting to stand at distance and actually drop shells on target (a limited portee in many cases that was later retrofitted). But if range wasn't that important, why the big guns? At least, before the measuring contest started.:smallbiggrin: Chicken/hen problem again it seems?
In this day and age where you don't so much drop bombs as shoot missiles would thick sidearmour make sense again? If we disregard how unsuited a BB really is, because come on, everyone knows you're not a real global power if you don't own a battleship (someone needs to twitter Trump about this).

Torpedo tubes on battleships?!?! Where'd they place those? Not at aft and fore surely? And, seriously? That's ironically about the one thing I almost felt was a definition of a weapon a battleship was not having. Yet the majority had them.

The ultimate disappearance of the battleship made a lot of sense when looking at a photo of a WW2 refurbished USS Texas (IIRC) it was absolutely bristling with AA guns (it looked like a teenage boy's drawing of ship-with-helluva-lotsofguns) and you just know it was still probably quite vulnerable to planes anyway.

At one point the author said something about static coastal fortifications always having an edge over moving ships (I may have to skim through and find it again). That seemed off. I was starting to tihnk it was a translation error. Because fortifications elsewhere tended to fail because they could not be moved and would be ground down by artillery.

Random musing of the day. Be interesting to get some thoughts.

[rs2excelsior]

Been thinking a bit on battleships, the dreadnaught era (and just before) to be precise, due to reading a book which is fairly thick on the technical data but not always so good as contextualising it. So I got some questions and musings.

The definition of a battleship is kinda vague isn't it? The difference between the ships launched around the turn of the century and the WW2 German and Japanese behemoths is quite marked, under 20k tons vs 70k and more (esp for unplanned super battleships). To me it seems one might as well be comparing cruisers to early battleships.

The definition of most ship types is somewhat vague, and often changes over time. I believe a similar thing happened with cruisers and destroyers as well; a destroyer built in 1945 would generally be a lot larger than one built in 1900. Role and gun caliber played a large part. For example, in WWII, the difference between "heavy" and "light" cruisers was almost entirely that the heavy cruisers carried 8" guns and the light cruisers had 6". So the earlier ships were battleships because they had battleship-caliber guns (around 10"-11" and bigger)


At various points the difficulty of aiming (over distance I assume) was mentioned with one ship with only 4 main gun(barrel)s was claimed to be neigh impossible to score hits with, 6 barrels minimum was the message I got. Is this to be understood so that the salvo is "small" enough and the targeting uncertain enough that it becomes impossible to "box in" the enemy? And what's the benefit in doing that? Because secondary and tertiary guns seemed to mess with this, and was one reason they moved to a main caliber and lighter support guns. But also, don't your pals' fire make it hard to tell, so they seem kinda screwed either way. This sort of jars with the pre-dreadnaughts too, where 4 main guns were considered plenty becked up by a plethora of secondary armaments.

Naval gunnery was an exercise in shooting at a target, seeing where your shots land, and adjusting your aim accordingly, which is why initial salvoes fired almost never hit. More guns means more shells, so a better chance to hit and more to see a centerpoint for your aim. I'm not sure about the 4 vs 6 gun thing, I haven't seen that number cited anywhere. Secondary guns did mess with main gun targeting, which was one reason among many nations switched to the all big gun battleships. The idea behind having a lot of secondaries was to inundate the target with gunfire and knock out their light gun positions, which were often lightly armored or open. Dreadnought battleships, obviously, were not vulnerable to that.

Multiple ships firing on the same target also caused problems. The Royal Navy experimented with putting dye in their shells; that way the column of water from a miss would be a different color depending on which ship fired. I can't remember how successful that idea was.


Incidentally, was reading before this a book on artillery ww1 to modern and the huge number of barrels repurposed from dreadnaught construction to heavy siege artillery on land was quite surprising, though logical. Also made me chuckle when weak and underpowered secondary or tertiary gunds on ships would have counted amongst the heaviest field and siege artillery on land. Though it leads me to the question why did ship guns need to be so massive. Later on in the dreadnaught race ofc you made a bigger gun than the Ger... I mean likely opponents :smallbiggrin: and made your armour thick enough to withstand that (if you were american at least it seems). But where does it get started? Range? "kill power" ie weight of shells? Because as I understand it, fighting at range wasn't in the original plan e.g. where they put armour and the gunlayouts. It seems they were still thinking a lot like Trafalgar. That actually makes a tremendous sense for why the Russian fleet sailing to Tsutsuma straight got it's ass handed to it. (Not that they didn't have a lot of issues, just the idea of firing on British fishing ships because they may be Japanese torpedo boats, in the North Sea.) Because as I recall they had incredibly poor accuracy as they found out while practicing on the way. So they would have been expecting to fire almost flat trajectories over opensights mostly?

You don't see the really big guns until after the dreadnought battleships, when range became a very important factor. You're firing at basically a floating fortress at extreme range. Even with pre-dreadnoughts, getting the first shot off can be useful even if you intend to make a fight of it at close range. Someone else can probably address this point better.


Which brings me to the armouring which was terribly confusing to follow in the text (finally figured out horinzontal and vertical, but then some of the "armoured decks" started throwing me off, isn't that what you get if you have the previous?). But the thickest armour was placed in the sides and turrets (the only one makes sense to me) usually. So clearly they were not expecting to stand at distance and actually drop shells on target (a limited portee in many cases that was later retrofitted). But if range wasn't that important, why the big guns? At least, before the measuring contest started.:smallbiggrin: Chicken/hen problem again it seems?
In this day and age where you don't so much drop bombs as shoot missiles would thick sidearmour make sense again? If we disregard how unsuited a BB really is, because come on, everyone knows you're not a real global power if you don't own a battleship (someone needs to twitter Trump about this).

Again, someone else can probably explain this better, but a lot of ships had an armored "citadel" in the middle where the machinery, ammunition, etc. was housed. The citadel armor was in addition to the belt armor and the deck armor. That might be what the book it talking about.

Heavily armored ships today probably wouldn't be as effective. It's too easy to attack a weakly-armored aspect, and too difficult to armor everywhere on the ship. Better to use countermeasures to not get shot at in the first place/fool the missile, or active defenses to negate it.


Torpedo tubes on battleships?!?! Where'd they place those? Not at aft and fore surely? And, seriously? That's ironically about the one thing I almost felt was a definition of a weapon a battleship was not having. Yet the majority had them.

Some were mounted internally. HMS Rodney is (as far as I'm aware) the only battleship to successfully torpedo an enemy battleship (Bismarck after she had been immobilized and her guns had been almost completely knocked out); I was trying to find something that showed how she mounted her torpedoes but I couldn't past a general reference to them being internal. Some had them mounted in deck launchers, as shown in the spoiler below (A German pocket battleship, not a proper battleship, but still). I believe they were meant as a deterrent to other battleships and cruisers getting in too close, which apparently worked :smallbiggrin:

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


At one point the author said something about static coastal fortifications always having an edge over moving ships (I may have to skim through and find it again). That seemed off. I was starting to tihnk it was a translation error. Because fortifications elsewhere tended to fail because they could not be moved and would be ground down by artillery.

Fortifications could be better armored and had a much more stable firing platform. They could land hits more accurately and resist hits more effectively. In the age of sail ships struggled to knock out coastal fortifications, I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true for many of the same reasons with gun battleships.

Someone else can probably elaborate on and/or correct these points, but that's what I've got for you.

[KarlMarx]

Been thinking a bit on battleships, the dreadnaught era (and just before) to be precise, due to reading a book which is fairly thick on the technical data but not always so good as contextualising it. So I got some questions and musings.

The definition of a battleship is kinda vague isn't it? The difference between the ships launched around the turn of the century and the WW2 German and Japanese behemoths is quite marked, under 20k tons vs 70k and more (esp for unplanned super battleships). To me it seems one might as well be comparing cruisers to early battleships.

The modern term 'battleship' is a shortening of 'line-of-battle ship', i.e. one that isn't intended to do anything other than blast away at the enemy. Other ships evolved around either supporting or targeting the enemy's battleships. Torpedo boats and later submarines were designed to shoot them at their weakest and be ridiculously cost-efficient, which led to destroyers entering the fleet to destroy enemy torpedo boats. Cruisers were initially designed to be heavy commerce raiders/patrol vessels, later moving into battle fleets as a way to chase down enemy destroyers.


The insistence on placing secondary armament in casemates low to the waterline continued to baffle me. Because the same note always followed, couldn't be used in rough seas. Yet the next ships did exactly the same thing despite some lessons that one would thought had been learned.

Essentially, this was a case of 'it's tradition'. Sailors were often trained on normal vessels, and thus would be familiar with ships of such layout, furthermore, there were no naval conflicts of not between battleships until the Russo-Japanese war, after which the Dreadnought was quickly adopted. The smaller guns, it turned out, worked much better in theory then practice.


At various points the difficulty of aiming (over distance I assume) was mentioned with one ship with only 4 main gun(barrel)s was claimed to be neigh impossible to score hits with, 6 barrels minimum was the message I got. Is this to be understood so that the salvo is "small" enough and the targeting uncertain enough that it becomes impossible to "box in" the enemy? And what's the benefit in doing that? Because secondary and tertiary guns seemed to mess with this, and was one reason they moved to a main caliber and lighter support guns. But also, don't your pals' fire make it hard to tell, so they seem kinda screwed either way. This sort of jars with the pre-dreadnaughts too, where 4 main guns were considered plenty becked up by a plethora of secondary armaments.

'Boxing in' lets you narrow down your range of fire so you can get around to actually sinking the enemy, something that cannot easily be done otherwise. On period battleships, there was simply no way to account for all factors influencing trajectories, so it was judged better to simply try to hit the general area. Ships had gunnery officers specially trained to quickly analyze whose shots were falling where and thus to narrow down the range.


As I understand it, fighting at range wasn't in the original plan e.g. where they put armour and the gunlayouts. It seems they were still thinking a lot like Trafalgar. That actually makes a tremendous sense for why the Russian fleet sailing to Tsutsuma straight got it's ass handed to it. (Not that they didn't have a lot of issues, just the idea of firing on British fishing ships because they may be Japanese torpedo boats, in the North Sea.) Because as I recall they had incredibly poor accuracy as they found out while practicing on the way. So they would have been expecting to fire almost flat trajectories over opensights mostly?

Again, conservatism. Before and during WWI, it was incredibly hard to accurately 'box in' with arcing trajectories, as the delay was simply too great. So they trained on flat trajectories, which everyone was used to, reinforcing said conservatism. As far as I'm aware, though, they never really figured out the problem of accuracy beyond the 'boxing in' method.


. So clearly they were not expecting to stand at distance and actually drop shells on target (a limited portee in many cases that was later retrofitted). But if range wasn't that important, why the big guns? At least, before the measuring contest started.:smallbiggrin: Chicken/hen problem again it seems?

Not really, no. Until the interwar period naval doctrine relied on flat trajectories, during WWII arcing ones were introduced and decks became more heavily armored (this was, many believe, the decisive advantage of the Bismark over the Hood. The big guns were used as a counter to armor, which originated in the 1850s and '60s. Larger shells were better at blasting/punching through armor plate, so the real arms race was just as much between armor and weapons as weapons and weapons.



In this day and age where you don't so much drop bombs as shoot missiles would thick sidearmour make sense again?

I'm no expert, but I'd guess modern tracking missiles, etc, have reached the point where either a) you have too much armor to move or b) you just decide to go without. In any case, ship designers today have to take into account power projection and such as much or more than inter-ship combat.


The ultimate disappearance of the battleship made a lot of sense when looking at a photo of a WW2 refurbished USS Texas (IIRC) it was absolutely bristling with AA guns (it looked like a teenage boy's drawing of ship-with-helluva-lotsofguns) and you just know it was still probably quite vulnerable to planes anyway

Yeah, WWII basically proved that battleships are basically floating targets for airplanes. Major projects on building battleships (Bismark, Yamato, etc.) ate up resources but ultimately had little tactical value. The aircraft carrier quickly took over in prestige/power projection, while lighter destroyers were much more cost-efficient escorts and support vessels.


At one point the author said something about static coastal fortifications always having an edge over moving ships (I may have to skim through and find it again). That seemed off. I was starting to tihnk it was a translation error. Because fortifications elsewhere tended to fail because they could not be moved and would be ground down by artillery.

That's true on land, where if you need a fort obliterated, you can always bring in enough heavy artillery to blast it back to the stone age. But at sea, the number and size of guns you can bring in is limited, as ships are only so large and can only handle so much recoil while maintaining any semblance of accuracy. Furthermore, they can't be as armored as ground fortifications and bunkers. Dedicated fortifications designed to control critical sections of water can always be more heavily armed and armored than any battleship. If it's weak from the air carriers can hypothetically knock it out, but not battleships, who can never outrange, outgun, or outlast a fort.

[Storm Bringer]

Been thinking a bit on battleships, the dreadnaught era (and just before) to be precise, due to reading a book which is fairly thick on the technical data but not always so good as contextualising it. So I got some questions and musings.

*cracks fingers*

ok, this is going to be a wall of text. just so your warned.




The definition of a battleship is kinda vague isn't it? The difference between the ships launched around the turn of the century and the WW2 German and Japanese behemoths is quite marked, under 20k tons vs 70k and more (esp for unplanned super battleships). To me it seems one might as well be comparing cruisers to early battleships.



"battleship" is a job title. its a ship for battles. as the requirements for battles change, so too do the ships in them. Its like how one man can be in charge of a company of (say) 500 people, and another can be in charge of a company of 5000, but both are called "CEO".







The insistence on placing secondary armament in casemates low to the waterline continued to baffle me. Because the same note always followed, couldn't be used in rough seas. Yet the next ships did exactly the same thing despite some lessons that one would thought had been learned.



it was a case of trying to work out how to pack as much armament into a hull, while keeping the centre of balance (the metacentric height) down low enough that the ship is not too unstable. Plus, it was one thing for the sailors to say "Yhea, those gun mounts are a bit wet", but another for the designers to understand that what they meant was "unusable in anything other than a dead clam".

also, remember that the secondary armaments were intended to dive off torpedo boats and such, which couldn't attack in rough weather either




At various points the difficulty of aiming (over distance I assume) was mentioned with one ship with only 4 main gun(barrel)s was claimed to be neigh impossible to score hits with, 6 barrels minimum was the message I got. Is this to be understood so that the salvo is "small" enough and the targeting uncertain enough that it becomes impossible to "box in" the enemy? And what's the benefit in doing that? Because secondary and tertiary guns seemed to mess with this, and was one reason they moved to a main caliber and lighter support guns. But also, don't your pals' fire make it hard to tell, so they seem kinda screwed either way. This sort of jars with the pre-dreadnaughts too, where 4 main guns were considered plenty becked up by a plethora of secondary armaments.



this is to do with range, range-finding, and the limits of what could be done, as well as a change in the paradigm of combat.

on every warship before radar, the targeting cycle went like this:

estimate range (this is always changing, as your on a moving platform, firing at a moving target, which is moving independently of you)
fire at target (often with several shots aimed further and shorter than the estimated range, in a "ladder" to help narrow it down quicker)
observe the fall of shot (ie, look where the shell splashes are)
revise range estimation
repeat


In the 1890s (when most pre-Dreadnought battleships were build), the best range finders were only accurate out to a few thousand yards. they could make guns than could fire much, much further than that, but they could not actually aim them.

So, the expected range of combat was a well within naked eye range. each gun was aimed and fired by its gun captain, and was adjusted individually. at this range, it was bloody obivious what each gun was doing, so small, high rate of fire guns could "smother" a target enemys decks and "Upperworks" (like the bridge and light guns) with lighter shells, while the heavy guns could punch into the "vitals". its worth mentioning that these Victorian heavy guns had rates of fire measured in minutes per round, rather than rounds per minute, so a heavy secondary and tertiary battery was considered necessary.

however, advances in optics meant that it was possible to start ranging at longer ranges, where it was no longer possible to tell a 6 inch, 8 inch or 12 inch shell splash apart. The only way to range was to salvo fire every gun at the same time, which natraully limited the rate of fire to that of the slower, bigger guns. at the same time, newer, faster firing heavy guns cut loading times down form 120-180 seconds to less than 30. these two factors combined removed the primary advantage of the lighter secondary's, their higher rate of fire.

at about the same time, the only major naval combats of the pre-dreadnought era happened, in the Ruso-Japanese war, and one of the take-away lessons was that while light guns could do some damage, the battles were decided by heavy guns and heavy gun hits.

thus, the logical switch to the "all big gun" dreadnought design.

as for other ships fire, unless your all firing at the exact same time, it should be easy enough to sort out the fire (as you know roughly when your shots are going to get their, so its just a matter of discounting the splashes that are happening when your not shooting(




Incidentally, was reading before this a book on artillery ww1 to modern and the huge number of barrels repurposed from dreadnaught construction to heavy siege artillery on land was quite surprising, though logical. Also made me chuckle when weak and underpowered secondary or tertiary gunds on ships would have counted amongst the heaviest field and siege artillery on land. Though it leads me to the question why did ship guns need to be so massive. Later on in the dreadnaught race ofc you made a bigger gun than the Ger... I mean likely opponents :smallbiggrin: and made your armour thick enough to withstand that (if you were american at least it seems). But where does it get started? Range? "kill power" ie weight of shells?


the short answer is nothing on land needed a thousand pound shell to travel 12 miles to deal with it in one hit. the heavy mortars used to break the big forts in WW1 only needed a range of a mile or two, and they could be pounded and pounded for weeks until they crumbled.




Because as I understand it, fighting at range wasn't in the original plan e.g. where they put armour and the gunlayouts. It seems they were still thinking a lot like Trafalgar. That actually makes a tremendous sense for why the Russian fleet sailing to Tsutsuma straight got it's ass handed to it. (Not that they didn't have a lot of issues, just the idea of firing on British fishing ships because they may be Japanese torpedo boats, in the North Sea.) Because as I recall they had incredibly poor accuracy as they found out while practicing on the way. So they would have been expecting to fire almost flat trajectories over opensights mostly?




basically, yes, because of the aforemented issues with aiming and ranging. because the guns were very high velocity guns over a comparatively short range (so they can pierce armour), they were coming in a nearly flat trajectory.





Which brings me to the armouring which was terribly confusing to follow in the text (finally figured out horinzontal and vertical, but then some of the "armoured decks" started throwing me off, isn't that what you get if you have the previous?). But the thickest armour was placed in the sides and turrets (the only one makes sense to me) usually. So clearly they were not expecting to stand at distance and actually drop shells on target (a limited portee in many cases that was later retrofitted). But if range wasn't that important, why the big guns? At least, before the measuring contest started.:smallbiggrin: Chicken/hen problem again it seems?



armouring is complex and nuanced topic that changed over time, but the short answer Is different armours were to protect against difference threats.

the "deck" armour was to protect against long range "plunging" shell fire, coming in at a steep angle, but having a lot of its energy, so it could be thinner. the "belt" armour was for shorter range fire, which was almost flat and going really fast, so it needed much thicker armour to deal with it.





In this day and age where you don't so much drop bombs as shoot missiles would thick sidearmour make sense again? If we disregard how unsuited a BB really is, because come on, everyone knows you're not a real global power if you don't own a battleship (someone needs to twitter Trump about this).


not really, the weight would be better spent on more CWIS, missles and other active defences.






Torpedo tubes on battleships?!?! Where'd they place those? Not at aft and fore surely? And, seriously? That's ironically about the one thing I almost felt was a definition of a weapon a battleship was not having. Yet the majority had them.



yhea, that were a bit of a dead end.




The ultimate disappearance of the battleship made a lot of sense when looking at a photo of a WW2 refurbished USS Texas (IIRC) it was absolutely bristling with AA guns (it looked like a teenage boy's drawing of ship-with-helluva-lotsofguns) and you just know it was still probably quite vulnerable to planes anyway.



its worth pointing out that it wasn't until December 1941 that a battleship under steam was sunk solely by air power. before that, it was strictly speaking a theoretical capability Even then, it took some seriously bad management by the brits to let it happen in the first place.

Also, it took 300+ aircraft to sink the Yamato. their wasn't a navy in the world that could put 300 planes into a carrier strike before mid 1944. before that point, it could have been used effectively, if only the japs were not so wedded to their decisive battle doctrine.




At one point the author said something about static coastal fortifications always having an edge over moving ships (I may have to skim through and find it again). That seemed off. I was starting to tihnk it was a translation error. Because fortifications elsewhere tended to fail because they could not be moved and would be ground down by artillery.

Random musing of the day. Be interesting to get some thoughts.


short answer is that, in a race to get a working firing solution, the fort has the advantage as it doesn't have to compensate for its guns waving all over the place like a ship would and can keep a better track of the target, so it will usually get shots on target faster and more consistently than a ship.

[Gnoman]

It is important to remember that HMS Dreadnought was the early-20th-century equivalent of the B-2 stealth bomber. As soon as she hit the water, she made every older battleship instantly obsolete - which is why we have the "pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, and super-dreadnought" categories in the first place.

Pre-dreads were built with the assumption that the big 12" rifles would be used for skirmishing as the fleets closed, since their glacial rate of fire and accuracy issues (due to poor fire control and rangefinding methods) made getting hits a matter of luck. For this reason, most ships carried a forward and an aft twin turret, anagalous to the bow and stern "chasers" mounted by Age of Sail warships.

The ship's real weapons were the massive batteries of the then newly developed Quick Firing guns - so named because their unitary ammunition allowed them to fire extremely quickly. Most navies found 6" guns to be the ideal for this, the US used 5" weapons instead. It was expected that the big guns would fire as the fleets maneuvered, until the range closed enough that a torrent of shells from the smaller guns would shatter the ship's mobility and allow them to be finished off with torpedoes. As technology improved, most navies experimented with an intermediate battery of 8"-10" guns, sometimes

The Russo-Japanese War proved that the big guns could hit at longer ranges (at least, as long as they weren't distracted by the fire of the ship's intermediate guns), and that the 6" weapons didn't do much against another battleship. Further, the rate of fire for the big guns had gone from 4 minutes a shot to 2 shots a minute, making the latest versions into very useful weapons indeed.

Naval architects all saw the way forward at about the same time, with Britain's project being the first by a few months. Dreadnought went from her immediate predecessor Lord Nelson-class ships (themselves an experimental design) 4 12", 9 9", 24 3" armament to one consisting of 10 12" guns and 27 3" - a massive increase in useful firepower. Not only were the guns more powerful, fire control of 10 identical guns without smaller big guns firing was vastly improved.

Dreadnought was also considerably faster (albeit with very slightly thinner armor, which wasn't so important at the longer ranges she was intended to fight at), rendering the difference in combat power to be almost exponential instead of merely multiplicative. In theory, one Dreadnought-type battleship could outfight any three pre-dreads, although the older ships were disposed of with such alacrity that the only combat between the types involved second-rate navies.

Dreadnought herself was obsoleted fairly quickly, due not only to a sudden rapid increase in gun caliber (needed for smashing ever-thicker armor at ever-longer ranges), fire control, and armor thickness (needed to stop ever-bigger shells), but to the innovations of All Or Nothing Armor (architects evaluated what parts of the ship were crucial to combat (engine rooms, magazines, command stations, turrets, etc) and armored those areas heavily, leaving things like crew quarters and mess halls (which will be empty in a battle anyway) completely unarmored - allowing much better protection for the same weight) and superfiring turrets (where one turret is elevated to allow firing over another - this not only allowed more guns to fire forward and/or aft, but allowed for a shorter ship with any given firepower). Ships of this generation are called "superdreadnoughts".

[Vinyadan]

About the ships and forts thing, some months ago I read an article reporting the notation of how a weak navy could be as well a non-existent navy, because it could not leave the areas protected by coastal fortifications (I think it referred to some episodes in the Russo-Japanese war and contemporary commentators, but I'm not sure). The article then expanded to wonder if today we were again at it, this time with anti-ship missiles projecting extremely long-range protection on a fleet. I wish I could remember which article it was, or where I read it.

[Gnoman]

That sounds very Mahanian, and only works in the concept of a power-projection navy (such as the modern US Navy or the Royal Navy). For coast-defense or control-denying navies not being powerful enough for a stand-up fight away from your coastal defenses isn't that big of an issue.

[fusilier]

If I recall correctly, it's kind of the opposite in ACW manuals. The guard position has the rifle turned slightly, about 45 degrees from "normal" orientation, with the lockplate (right side of the rifle) upward and the point around shoulder level. When you thrust you rotate back to it's normal orientation, and the process of extending the arms moves the point down to the abdomen. The twist then turns 90 degrees to the right, so lockplate down, then recover to guard. Again, it's been a while since I last went through the manuals, but if I recall correctly this is how it was done (or at least taught).

I'm not sure I'm following what you've said here. I have instructed some in the basics of McClellan's bayonet drill (which was derived from the French drill of the time). The guard position sounds right, and when thrusting the rifle is brought to the "normal" position. But I don't remember reading anything about twisting it a further 90 degrees. Or that twisting was done as part of the wound per say:


NOTE.- It is a general rule, which will not be repeated, that in all the thrusts and lunges, (except the shortened thrust, Nos. 44 to 49), at the same time that the blow is made, a rotary motion is given to the piece so as to bring the guard directly towards the ground and the lock plate square to the right. This rotary motion is of great importance, giving additional force and accuracy to the blow; and it is to obtain it that the lock plate is half turned up in the position of guard.

Also, the thrust was to the chest -- "the point of the bayonet at the height of the breast". Perhaps a triangular bayonet was less likely to be get stuck on the ribs? The French had demonstrated the usefulness of the system during the Crimean War, so there must have been something going for it.

There were other bayonet manuals used during the Civil War and they may have had different instructions.

McClellan's manual can be found online here:
http://www.drillnet.net/Bayonet.htm

[fusilier]

Torpedo tubes on battleships?!?! Where'd they place those? Not at aft and fore surely? And, seriously? That's ironically about the one thing I almost felt was a definition of a weapon a battleship was not having. Yet the majority had them.

Here's some pictures of the pre-dreadnought USS Indiana, which shows the hull mounted torpedo tube in the bow.

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/uss_indiana_bb1.htm

I've seen pictures of other battleships with them in basically the same position, but couldn't find any quickly. They were often removed during rebuilds.

Torpedos were seen as having a lot of promise in the late 1800s and early 1900s, once some practice was built up with them it became clear that they weren't as easy to use as first thought.

[Thiel]

short answer is that, in a race to get a working firing solution, the fort has the advantage as it doesn't have to compensate for its guns waving all over the place like a ship would and can keep a better track of the target, so it will usually get shots on target faster and more consistently than a ship.

Land based fortifications also tended to have way bigger range finders. Unlike on ships, their optics didn't have to be on a single rotating platform. They could be hundreds of yards apart which made them much more accurate as ranges increased. They also weren't limited to just two lines op position which further added to their accuracy. And perhaps the biggest advantage of all, any fort with respect for itself would have range tables worked up based on the best survey methods available. This made judging the fall of shot much easier.

It's also worth noting just how little combat there was between armoured vessels before WWI. There was a few clashes in the 1860ies and then there's a 45 year gap until the Russo-Japanese war.
This means that the Pre-Dread battleship evolves almost entirely in a vacuum. Everything is based on theories and trials and not actual combat experience.
A good example is the whole idea of ramming. It evolved out of one extraordinary event at the Battle of Lissa.

[rs2excelsior]

I'm not sure I'm following what you've said here. I have instructed some in the basics of McClellan's bayonet drill (which was derived from the French drill of the time). The guard position sounds right, and when thrusting the rifle is brought to the "normal" position. But I don't remember reading anything about twisting it a further 90 degrees. Or that twisting was done as part of the wound per say:



Also, the thrust was to the chest -- "the point of the bayonet at the height of the breast". Perhaps a triangular bayonet was less likely to be get stuck on the ribs? The French had demonstrated the usefulness of the system during the Crimean War, so there must have been something going for it.

There were other bayonet manuals used during the Civil War and they may have had different instructions.

McClellan's manual can be found online here:
http://www.drillnet.net/Bayonet.htm

Again, it's been a while since I've gone through the manual. I've seen the twist after the thrust advocated, just apparently not there.

Thanks for the link--the thrust to the chest is not something I remember (and I'm fairly certain not something I did when I was training with the manual). Lowering the point to the abdomen is fairly natural from the guard position, and I've definitely read that thrusts to the chest were discouraged on account of the ribcage. There are also the "Four Directions of Attack," which describe an identical thrust just to the left loin, right loin, left shoulder, or right shoulder--so different angles of attack were built in to the manual as well. I'll see if I can dig anything more solid up.

[Honest Tiefling]

Random question that might be tangentially related! How easy is it to steal a warhorse? My experiences of horses is pretty limited, but none of them cared to take orders from random people. I would imagine that war horses are both more difficult to bond with and have extensive training. So how does one get into a camp and steal the horses without them objecting?

[fusilier]

Again, it's been a while since I've gone through the manual. I've seen the twist after the thrust advocated, just apparently not there.

Thanks for the link--the thrust to the chest is not something I remember (and I'm fairly certain not something I did when I was training with the manual). Lowering the point to the abdomen is fairly natural from the guard position, and I've definitely read that thrusts to the chest were discouraged on account of the ribcage. There are also the "Four Directions of Attack," which describe an identical thrust just to the left loin, right loin, left shoulder, or right shoulder--so different angles of attack were built in to the manual as well. I'll see if I can dig anything more solid up.

Concerning the thrust to the chest -- I did quote the manual. In addition to there being different manuals, I've found that reenactors often make mistakes, which then get passed on and become "standard". There were many things that were wrong when I was taught bayonet training, that I didn't discover until years later when I had to lead bayonet drill and noted some discrepancies.

[Martin Greywolf]

Random question that might be tangentially related! How easy is it to steal a warhorse? My experiences of horses is pretty limited, but none of them cared to take orders from random people. I would imagine that war horses are both more difficult to bond with and have extensive training. So how does one get into a camp and steal the horses without them objecting?

Well, this has no easy answer. Primary problem is that we don't have a lot of period sources about horses prior to Napoleonic era, and most of what we have either talks about training their riders (Xenophon) or about taking care of them when they get sick (various Rosarienbuchs/Rosarienbucher, depending on how you like your plurals). To my knowledge, there is no renaissance or earlier manual on how to train the horses.

That said, we have some references to trained horses, be it insanely aggressive man-eating horses from Illiad or well-trained horses of nomads that will lie down on command.

From what we know, it seems you can train a horse to about the same ballpark you can train a dog, with some behaviours being easier to teach and some harder.

With that established, we have another factor - how exactly do you want to train your horses? If a noble is training his warhorse for personal use from foal to adulthood, there is no issue with changing ownership at face value, but what if you want to give it to someone as a gift? That was a common practice, to say nothing of horse markets being big and popular, and yes, you could buy warhorses there, if you had the money.

In the end, you could steal all but the most well-trained warhorses by giving them food to munch on and leading them away, IF no one noticed you, which is unlikely at best.

Bigger problem is what happens to you after that - if someone has a proper warhorse (destrier) in the first place, he is pretty wealthy by necessity. Horse theft carried death penalty as it is, let alone if you managed to snag a knight's favourite warhorse. If the word gets out, you can expect a massive headhunt to go after you, and when they catch you, death will be the least of your worries.

If you need a horse, steal less valuable one. If you want a revenge on the noble, just poison the horse, less risk of getting caught that way.

[snowblizz]

Pre-dreads were built with the assumption that the big 12" rifles would be used for skirmishing as the fleets closed, since their glacial rate of fire and accuracy issues (due to poor fire control and rangefinding methods) made getting hits a matter of luck. For this reason, most ships carried a forward and an aft twin turret, anagalous to the bow and stern "chasers" mounted by Age of Sail warships.

The ship's real weapons were the massive batteries of the then newly developed Quick Firing guns - so named because their unitary ammunition allowed them to fire extremely quickly. Most navies found 6" guns to be the ideal for this, the US used 5" weapons instead. It was expected that the big guns would fire as the fleets maneuvered, until the range closed enough that a torrent of shells from the smaller guns would shatter the ship's mobility and allow them to be finished off with torpedoes.
Right. That makes a lot of sense. There was a disconnect there for me between needing lots of heavy guns and the few they had earlier that was never really addressed in the text. That book could really have done with more introductionary chapter.



Yeah, WWII basically proved that battleships are basically floating targets for airplanes. Major projects on building battleships (Bismark, Yamato, etc.) ate up resources but ultimately had little tactical value. The aircraft carrier quickly took over in prestige/power projection, while lighter destroyers were much more cost-efficient escorts and support vessels.
Interestingly enough after I posted the other day I got a brief section of US battleship use as AA platforms to protect the carrier groups. And it was rather successful too. Since you could put silly amounts of guns on a stable platform and they wouldn't be the primary target, and if they drew fire away from the carrier, so much the better really. I found that to be rather hilarious actually.




Naval gunnery was an exercise in shooting at a target, seeing where your shots land, and adjusting your aim accordingly, which is why initial salvoes fired almost never hit. More guns means more shells, so a better chance to hit and more to see a centerpoint for your aim. I'm not sure about the 4 vs 6 gun thing, I haven't seen that number cited anywhere.
Had to go back to check what the book said, and to be more precise the text said that 4 guns was barely enough to hit a moving target, and contrasted it with one one of HMS Courageous' sisterships who had only two 46cm guns. These ships were intended primarily as shorebombardment, partly in the Baltic it seems.
Needing 6 guns was more my extrapolation of it, since that's the next logical step up, an extra turret. And most battleships went for at least 6 barrels in a broadside 8-10 being more common, some like HMS Agincourt going for a rather interesting 7 double turrets to get enough broadside weight (it was suppsoed to use heavier guns that weren't available and was rushed into war). That does remind me about the guns/turrets thing.

I am a bit curious about the combinations and layouts of guns and turrets too. I assume going from 2 to 3 or even 4 barrels per turret will rather sharply increase weight and engineering issues for turrets, because otherwise I can't quite see double-turrets persisted so long. 4 was very unusual and AFAICT only the WW2 vintage BBs have the tripple towers, late stage developments. Duno if that's the ideal compromise? It follows the American pattern of the all-or-nothing armouring concentrating firepower into as few turrets as possible.

It's kinda fascinating how schizophrenic the BB building was though, you get an arms race of technological innovation, frenzied warproduction, followed by naval treaties largely styming development and the another frenzy of building that's not really complete until the next war breaks out which essentially obsoletes the whole concept. Curious where the development had gone without the naval treaties. The traditionalist were not keen on airpower.



Fortifications could be better armored and had a much more stable firing platform. They could land hits more accurately and resist hits more effectively. In the age of sail ships struggled to knock out coastal fortifications, I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true for many of the same reasons with gun battleships.


That's true on land, where if you need a fort obliterated, you can always bring in enough heavy artillery to blast it back to the stone age. But at sea, the number and size of guns you can bring in is limited, as ships are only so large and can only handle so much recoil while maintaining any semblance of accuracy. Furthermore, they can't be as armored as ground fortifications and bunkers. Dedicated fortifications designed to control critical sections of water can always be more heavily armed and armored than any battleship. If it's weak from the air carriers can hypothetically knock it out, but not battleships, who can never outrange, outgun, or outlast a fort.
What you all say (more than just the quoted) say about land fortifications does make a lot of sense. I guess it's airpower and missiles that make naval fortifications somewhat useless? Because I know in the Baltic region the weaker nations relied a lot on naval fortifications to deny enemy navies, but that sort of died out and to a degree mobile naval artillery was preferred. In our region ofc there's plenty of scope for fortification, the coast is rugged, you need shallow drafts to even get anywhere meaningful and there's loads of chokepoints.
Despite this the performace of coastal forts in the reigon hasn't exactly impressed. I seem to recall in many conflicts from the 1800s and on coastal forts seem to have been rather lackluster all over the world. Although in a number of cases I'm thinking of the forts were kinda outdated. The slow build time of such forts often made them decades out of date it seems. Most attempts at a Gibraltar of the Baltic has sort of failed.
The only really successful application I can recall is the Finnish coastal guns keeping the Soviet navy away from supporting their troops stationed at Hanko at the beginning of the Continuation War. The Norwegians only had limited success during the German invasion in WW2.
Though Gibraltar and Malta might qualify, both were bases for the Royal Navy though. Similarly Kronstadt seems to have kept the enemy at bay but was also a naval base with a fleet in it.
Is there any good example of navla forts actually denying access somewhere?

[Vinyadan]

I think it's worth wondering whether we would know about them. A fort doing adequate deterrence would likely not be assaulted. So e.g. the Ligurian Wall was never attacked as far as I know, but then it was essentially useless, since the Allies opted for landing in Sicily and Southern France. Would they have landed in Northern Italy if it hadn't been for the Ligurian Wall? Unlikely (Liguria looks like the perfect place to mess everything up during a landing), but not impossible.

I think that forts were a bit like a strongbox in a bank: they aren't meant to resist against all that may come, and they can be forced open with enough preparation and effort, but they also are good enough to raise the bar of preparation and effort to a point where an attack becomes much less likely.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I think it's worth wondering whether we would know about them. A fort doing adequate deterrence would likely not be assaulted. So e.g. the Ligurian Wall was never attacked as far as I know, but then it was essentially useless, since the Allies opted for landing in Sicily and Southern France. Would they have landed in Northern Italy if it hadn't been for the Ligurian Wall? Unlikely (Liguria looks like the perfect place to mess everything up during a landing), but not impossible.

If by Southern France, you're referring to Operation Dragoon, that was partially to get the Mediterrean ports (Marseille and Toulon) to increase the flow of supplies to the Allied forces (as at that point they're basically using one Mulberry harbour due to bad weather damaging the other and what could be landed via things like DUKW's - Cherbourg's not even starting to be active as a port until the following month and Antwerp's later still), and partly political to keep people like de Gaulle on side, and worked primarily because the troops in Southern France were very low quality.

For Northern Italy, it's probably a combination of the landing at Salerno going badly (although not disasterously), the distance for supplies and troops to be sent and the risk of them being intercepted from Southern France or the eastern Med and the landing craft that would have been required going to Overlord and then Dragoon.

[Gnoman]

I am a bit curious about the combinations and layouts of guns and turrets too. I assume going from 2 to 3 or even 4 barrels per turret will rather sharply increase weight and engineering issues for turrets, because otherwise I can't quite see double-turrets persisted so long. 4 was very unusual and AFAICT only the WW2 vintage BBs have the tripple towers, late stage developments. Duno if that's the ideal compromise? It follows the American pattern of the all-or-nothing armouring concentrating firepower into as few turrets as possible.


Triple or quadruple turrets greatly decrease overall weight. This is because you need fewer turrets to carry a similar number of guns (The Bismark needed 4 turrets to get 8 guns, where the Iowas needed three to get 9, and the Delaware needed 5 turrets to get 10). Not only does this to allow you to armor the guns more efficiently, but you also can build a shorter ship.

The downside of more barrels in a turret is that you need a bigger turret, particularly if each gun can be elevated independently (which is very useful). This can force you to make the ship wider (or the guns smaller, which is undesirable for obvious reasons), which can cause performance issues, negate some of the weight advantages, or prevent the ship from using canals. Ammunition handling is also much more complicated, and you run the risk of a greater portion of the ship's armament being knocked out with a single hit.



It's kinda fascinating how schizophrenic the BB building was though, you get an arms race of technological innovation, frenzied warproduction, followed by naval treaties largely styming development and the another frenzy of building that's not really complete until the next war breaks out which essentially obsoletes the whole concept. Curious where the development had gone without the naval treaties. The traditionalist were not keen on airpower.


It is important to keep in mind that dreadnought battleships were the nuclear weapons of their day. Their very existence changed the balance of power dramatically, they divided the nations of the world into Powers (that had the ships) and Nobodies (that didn't have them), and there was a panic at somebody else having more. The naval treaties of the day were essentially the same as the SALT treaties of the modern era.

Also, you're quite wrong on one point. While the traditionalists of most navies were slow to adopt the notion that the carrier would eclipse the battleship in importance (although there is a reasonable argument that this didn't actually happen as soon as most people assume it did), all blue-water navies adopted carriers pretty much as soon as the things became possible, and built them fairly extensively. The only major nations that didn't build a lot of carriers were the brown-water navies that fully expected any naval combat to happen within the range of their land-based aircraft.

[PersonMan]

I've got a couple questions, related to modern-day type stuff. With the disclaimer of "but assume no nukes, large or small".

The first is: How big of an impact would surface-to-surface missiles have in a conventional war between countries with a fully modernized military?

The second: Could one make a fortified position incredibly difficult / costly to effectively attack? Assuming lots of resources, built with plenty of time. The idea I've been fiddling with is a central location with plenty of anti-air, anti-missile defenses, with its own air wing, surrounded by rings of ground fortifications to slow/break a land attack, all probably clustered around local centers of anti-air.

The third: Could one combine the two, to make a fortress that would force an attacker to either disable it or risk it inflicting large losses on them / making advance effectively impossible? Related to this: what capability would make a fortress a "must hit" target? I was thinking that functionality as some sort of communications/jamming/logistics center could make it an important target.

Semi-related: Is there any benefit to building absurdly massive (non-missile) artillery? I'm thinking of something like the Schwerer Gustav that proved to be basically obsolete for maneuver warfare from what I know. Would including that somewhere you know the enemy needs to go (whether because it's the only way through a mountain range, or you can force them to go there, or similar) make it relevant, or worth building? Or would it just always be better to make X smaller guns instead?

[Vinyadan]

Without a nuke on it, surface-to-surface missiles tend to turn into civilian terror weapons (not that nukes really are anything else...). You can have an example in the Iraq-Iran war, when Teheran was hit by 118 Al-Hussein missiles, or the Chechen wars, when Grozny was attacked with what possibly were Scud missiles. During the Russia-Georgia war, missiles were instead used to take out a tank formation.

I don't think they can have a very large impact on their own. They are very costly, and you need intelligence to use them against military targets. After all, they were born as a way to cause terror beyond the English Channel. They can be useful as retaliatory weapons, which I think is the way the US have sometimes used them (in Iraq in 1993 after the Bush senior assassination attempt, and recently in Syria), although those were always ship-borne.

However, they can have enormous impact if used in a strategic fashion. One example: if the enemy came from "far away", by ship, and you destroyed the infrastructure of a port your enemy needs. You can take out airport infrastructure, destroy bridges, etc. This may not win you the war, but it will give you time, and rise the cost for your enemy. You can safely attack supplies, although those are best hit if they are on ship.

There also are some high-value targets, like command and control centres, or satellite ground bases. Aircraft on the ground make for a bad target for missiles, simply because they move around often.

In general, you can read this paper, from which I took most of the stuff in the last two paragraphs: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat13.pdf

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I've got a couple questions, related to modern-day type stuff. With the disclaimer of "but assume no nukes, large or small".

The first is: How big of an impact would surface-to-surface missiles have in a conventional war between countries with a fully modernized military?

The second: Could one make a fortified position incredibly difficult / costly to effectively attack? Assuming lots of resources, built with plenty of time. The idea I've been fiddling with is a central location with plenty of anti-air, anti-missile defenses, with its own air wing, surrounded by rings of ground fortifications to slow/break a land attack, all probably clustered around local centers of anti-air.

The third: Could one combine the two, to make a fortress that would force an attacker to either disable it or risk it inflicting large losses on them / making advance effectively impossible? Related to this: what capability would make a fortress a "must hit" target? I was thinking that functionality as some sort of communications/jamming/logistics center could make it an important target.

Semi-related: Is there any benefit to building absurdly massive (non-missile) artillery? I'm thinking of something like the Schwerer Gustav that proved to be basically obsolete for maneuver warfare from what I know. Would including that somewhere you know the enemy needs to go (whether because it's the only way through a mountain range, or you can force them to go there, or similar) make it relevant, or worth building? Or would it just always be better to make X smaller guns instead?
1) Essentially you're looking at the same situation as with V1s and V2 rockets - civilian casualties, maybe military if you can get accurate enough to attack enemy facilities like naval yards, oil production facilities etc, or if you've got them set to hit areas in your own territory that you expect the enemy to attack and occupy, while your enemy is trying to destroy your launch sites and manufacturing facilities, or maybe set up some kind of interception counter measure (Operation Crossbow, or Patriot missiles vs Scuds in Desert Storm).

It also depends on what's in the warhead - a solid penetrator on an ICBM would likely be the Grandslam bomb on steroids, for example (although a combination penetrator/explosive probably wouldn't give you any extra damage), a MIRV would spread the impacts (and you might have some detonating on impact and others soft landing on timers to explode later, or have a cruise missile equivalent spraying submuntions on it's way to the target)), and even if nuclear's off the table, chemical or biological warheads are still possible.

2) Monte-Cassino's probably not a bad starting point for what you're thinking of.

3) Monte-Cassino pretty much had to be taken to allow the allied advance to continue through Italy. If there's some kind of time pressure (maybe the fortress is researching some war-winning technology and you can't afford the time to beseige it and starve the defenders out), then it would have to be attacked.

4) Potentially - it's kind of what was planned with the Pz 1500 "Monster" (which makes the super-heavy tanks in 40k look small). But there's all sorts of reasons why you wouldn't - the cost/material expenditure, the lack of mobility, it becoming the enemies primary target...

[Mr Beer]

If you can't have nukes, but you do have missile technology, you might consider using fuel air explosions as a sort of mini-nuke. The MOAB is 11 tons TNT equivalent and the FOAB was 44 tons equivalent. Pathetic by nuke standards but they could still make a nasty mess.

Another thing you might try to do is deliver a kinetic weapon from orbit. This would be very expensive to emplace but once there it can sit around for years. It depends why nukes are off the table.

[KarlMarx]

Random question that might be tangentially related! How easy is it to steal a warhorse? My experiences of horses is pretty limited, but none of them cared to take orders from random people. I would imagine that war horses are both more difficult to bond with and have extensive training. So how does one get into a camp and steal the horses without them objecting?

1. Not sure how related this is to what you want to know, but I believe/would guess that the standard goal of such operations in a military context would be to scare away the enemy's horses rather than capture them. Less-trained horses could easily be panicked, spreading through the herd to cause a stampede.[/QUOTE]


The second: Could one make a fortified position incredibly difficult / costly to effectively attack? Assuming lots of resources, built with plenty of time. The idea I've been fiddling with is a central location with plenty of anti-air, anti-missile defenses, with its own air wing, surrounded by rings of ground fortifications to slow/break a land attack, all probably clustered around local centers of anti-air.

The third: Could one combine the two, to make a fortress that would force an attacker to either disable it or risk it inflicting large losses on them / making advance effectively impossible? Related to this: what capability would make a fortress a "must hit" target? I was thinking that functionality as some sort of communications/jamming/logistics center could make it an important target.

2. Logically, yes. I'm certainly no expert on modern warfare, but it seems simple enough that there is a direct proportion between resources expended on digging in to difficulty of taking position. My only concern with such a strategy is that a) its certainly not optimal because b) the more stuff there is in a fort, the easier it is to hit something important with a mass bombing/missile campaign. Ideal strategy is probably several forts close together, any two of which are mutually supporting.

3. In a conventional war, position it either a) in a place the enemy must move through (mountain passes are probably the only such positions in modern warfare though) or (more likely) b) in places that the enemy cannot safely afford to move past. Keep a group of fast troops stationed inside to harass/cut supply lines if the fort is ignored, threaten any retreat by the enemy, etc. This is much more reliable than the route of keeping a top-secret research project of macguffin inside, as a) this is dependent on the enemy knowing what's inside which b) is not necessarily given and C) if does occur is incredibly risky and furthermore d) transfers initiative to the enemy.

[Gnoman]

I've got a couple questions, related to modern-day type stuff. With the disclaimer of "but assume no nukes, large or small".

The first is: How big of an impact would surface-to-surface missiles have in a conventional war between countries with a fully modernized military?

The second: Could one make a fortified position incredibly difficult / costly to effectively attack? Assuming lots of resources, built with plenty of time. The idea I've been fiddling with is a central location with plenty of anti-air, anti-missile defenses, with its own air wing, surrounded by rings of ground fortifications to slow/break a land attack, all probably clustered around local centers of anti-air.

The third: Could one combine the two, to make a fortress that would force an attacker to either disable it or risk it inflicting large losses on them / making advance effectively impossible? Related to this: what capability would make a fortress a "must hit" target? I was thinking that functionality as some sort of communications/jamming/logistics center could make it an important target.

Semi-related: Is there any benefit to building absurdly massive (non-missile) artillery? I'm thinking of something like the Schwerer Gustav that proved to be basically obsolete for maneuver warfare from what I know. Would including that somewhere you know the enemy needs to go (whether because it's the only way through a mountain range, or you can force them to go there, or similar) make it relevant, or worth building? Or would it just always be better to make X smaller guns instead?

1.) Extremely. Tactically, surface-to-surface missiles have made large-caliber tube artillery entirely obsolete, and constitute a huge part of an army's punching power. Strategically, conventional long-range missiles are heavily restricted by nuclear disarmament treaties, but such a weapon is entirely feasible, and equipping one with modern guidance systems would mean that any enemy infrastructure or fortifications would easily be shattered by missile fire from extreme range.

2.) No. Fixed targets are dead targets in a modern battlefield. PGMs from stealth aircraft, strike fighters escorted by drone swarms, or the extreme-range surface to surface missiles postulated in 1.) would render it impossible to keep any such fortress from being plastered so heavily as to eliminate it. Mobile forces in tough terrain can utilize effective field fortifications, and something like a city can be reinforced to a degree to make it very nasty to take (take being the key point - smashing a city into effective useless is pretty easy), but a dedicated fortress will be rendered combat-ineffective in a very short period of time.

3.) No. As mentioned in 2.), the age of the fixed fortification exerting control is over.

As for artillery, guns larger than 155mm (6") have all but universally been retired due to being more trouble than they are worth. When heavier firepower is needed, rocket artillery is much more effective than big artillery tubes. A massive super-gun is nothing but an easy target.

[PersonMan]

In general, you can read this paper, from which I took most of the stuff in the last two paragraphs: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat13.pdf

Thanks! I'll be sure to take a look at that.


2) Monte-Cassino's probably not a bad starting point for what you're thinking of.

I'll look into it, but I was worried that looking at WWII era fortresses wouldn't be ideal because of how air power and such have developed since.


2. Logically, yes. I'm certainly no expert on modern warfare, but it seems simple enough that there is a direct proportion between resources expended on digging in to difficulty of taking position. My only concern with such a strategy is that a) its certainly not optimal because b) the more stuff there is in a fort, the easier it is to hit something important with a mass bombing/missile campaign. Ideal strategy is probably several forts close together, any two of which are mutually supporting.

The idea would be to have a fort defended by enough air power / anti-air of its own that it would effectively require its own large-scale offensive type operation to be dealt with - i.e. rather than advancing through X region, everything is focused on the "uberfort".


1.) Extremely. Tactically, surface-to-surface missiles have made large-caliber tube artillery entirely obsolete, and constitute a huge part of an army's punching power. Strategically, conventional long-range missiles are heavily restricted by nuclear disarmament treaties, but such a weapon is entirely feasible, and equipping one with modern guidance systems would mean that any enemy infrastructure or fortifications would easily be shattered by missile fire from extreme range.

Are there any anti-missile systems that would be capable of protecting a target against this sort of attack? From what I've gathered, missile attacks seem to be something that can be somewhat defended against with interception missiles and so forth, but these systems can't handle a heavily concentrated missile attack, is that right?


2.) No. Fixed targets are dead targets in a modern battlefield. PGMs from stealth aircraft, strike fighters escorted by drone swarms, or the extreme-range surface to surface missiles postulated in 1.) would render it impossible to keep any such fortress from being plastered so heavily as to eliminate it. Mobile forces in tough terrain can utilize effective field fortifications, and something like a city can be reinforced to a degree to make it very nasty to take (take being the key point - smashing a city into effective useless is pretty easy), but a dedicated fortress will be rendered combat-ineffective in a very short period of time.

The reason I considered this (after asking somewhat similar fort-y questions in the past) was because of the kind of anti-missile systems I've heard about large ships having. Missile-intercepting-missiles, air units devoted to anti-missile duty and so on seem like they could do a fairly good job of defending against anything but a very large offensive of this type which could be acted against by moving additional resources in to bolster the defenses?

I've been operating under the assumption that, for the most part, hitting something with 900 missiles or something similar would requrie some preparation and maneuvering that could be potentially detected and reacted to.


3.) No. As mentioned in 2.), the age of the fixed fortification exerting control is over.

But if long-range missile/rocket fire can be so devastating, wouldn't a fortified launch site effectively exert that kind of "must kill this" pressure? Or are the majority best delivered by air power?


As for artillery, guns larger than 155mm (6") have all but universally been retired due to being more trouble than they are worth. When heavier firepower is needed, rocket artillery is much more effective than big artillery tubes. A massive super-gun is nothing but an easy target.

Gotcha.


Another thing you might try to do is deliver a kinetic weapon from orbit. This would be very expensive to emplace but once there it can sit around for years. It depends why nukes are off the table.

Well, in-world it's because they just don't exist. The meta reason is because they cause a paradigm shift I'd rather not have. So anything similarly "destroy cities instantly, threaten apocalypse, create MAD politics" would be similarly vetoed.

[Gnoman]

The thing about anti-missile missiles is that they have to have considerably higher performance than the missiles they are trying to stop. This means that it is easier to build more attack missiles - which is one of the big reasons for the ABM treaties at the end of the Cold War, because both parties feared a missile defense system would restart the arms race.

More importantly, you're trying to defend a fixed point, whereas the forces attacking you are by definition mobile. If I were fighting you, all I would have to do is mass my strike force, wait for you to build up enough defenses to protect your fortress, and then go blow up everywhere that isn't fortress. Even in WWII, where (as you correctly state) fortresses were still tactically viable, they were rather less effective strategically than pouring the same amount of resources into mobile forces would have been.



But if long-range missile/rocket fire can be so devastating, wouldn't a fortified launch site effectively exert that kind of "must kill this" pressure? Or are the majority best delivered by air power?

Any weapon of that power level is going to be target #1 in the event war breaks out. That is one of the primary reasons that our RW fortified launch sites are backed up with bombers and missile-carrying submarines, and both major powers were working heavily on mobile missile systems. If the balloon ever went up, both US and Soviet missile fields would be craters within twenty minutes.

[Mike_G]

While I'm not disagreeing with the poinst others have made, you can harden a position to where it's difficult to take out before it does its job.

Look at Cheyenne Mountain. Or even the artillery hidden in caves in the mou8ntains of North Korea. Sure, a sustained attack could take them out, but not before they reduced Seoul to glowing rubble. So a well fortified position a\can serve as a deterrent.

There are still geographic chokepoints, like ports, mountain passes, good LZs and so on where you can have forces near enough to deny them to the enemy, and well fortified or concealed enough to take a long time to defeat.

Lastly, don't overlook the concealment advantage of infrastructure, Underground bunkers and tunnels may not be invulnerable but theyt make it hard to find your forces, and hard to spot them on the move, away from cover.

The tactical value of the big, strong, obvious fortress is largely rendered obsolete, but that doesn't mean digging bunkers in mountains doesn't still have its uses.

[Lemmy]

Tsc... Someone has to invent force fields so that fortresses and castles become a thing again. :smallbiggrin:

[Max_Killjoy]

While I'm not disagreeing with the poinst others have made, you can harden a position to where it's difficult to take out before it does its job.

Look at Cheyenne Mountain. Or even the artillery hidden in caves in the mou8ntains of North Korea. Sure, a sustained attack could take them out, but not before they reduced Seoul to glowing rubble. So a well fortified position a\can serve as a deterrent.

There are still geographic chokepoints, like ports, mountain passes, good LZs and so on where you can have forces near enough to deny them to the enemy, and well fortified or concealed enough to take a long time to defeat.

Lastly, don't overlook the concealment advantage of infrastructure, Underground bunkers and tunnels may not be invulnerable but theyt make it hard to find your forces, and hard to spot them on the move, away from cover.

The tactical value of the big, strong, obvious fortress is largely rendered obsolete, but that doesn't mean digging bunkers in mountains doesn't still have its uses.


The distance from Seoul to the border is given as 35 miles, and the artillery has to be some distance back from there yet.

Despite the press repeating that refrain, I'm not sure Seoul itself is actually in conventional tube artillery range.

[Vinyadan]

Tsc... Someone has to invent force fields so that fortresses and castles become a thing again. :smallbiggrin:

There's Israel's anti-missile system. It haz lazerz. I mean, it will have it, probably, for short-range interception of missiles and artillery.

[Brother Oni]

The distance from Seoul to the border is given as 35 miles, and the artillery has to be some distance back from there yet.

Despite the press repeating that refrain, I'm not sure Seoul itself is actually in conventional tube artillery range.

True, but the North Koreans do have rocket artillery (the KN-09) which have that range and can reach various ROK and US bases in Korean as far south as Daejeon, 60 miles south of Seoul. It's probably the press failing to distinguishing between the two different types - all they hear is the word 'artillery'.


There's Israel's anti-missile system. It haz lazerz. I mean, it will have it, probably, for short-range interception of missiles and artillery.

I know CIWS have been successfully used to protect bases from mortar fire in Iraq and Afghanistan - are they capable of intercepting incoming artillery shells?

Obviously they can do missiles (it's what they're designed for) but there are more issues with protecting a land based target compared to a ship (ie more land to cover, terrain may preclude some firing arcs, etc).

[Vinyadan]

That's a good question. The "artillery" part came from Wikipedia. I checked their source, and it doesn't seem to name artillery, just mortars and missiles. The system is called Iron Beam.

[jayem]

True, but the North Koreans do have rocket artillery (the KN-09) which have that range and can reach various ROK and US bases in Korean as far south as Daejeon, 60 miles south of Seoul. It's probably the press failing to distinguishing between the two different types - all they hear is the word 'artillery'.

Also I think the 35 miles is I think well into Seoul (I make where Google maps has the label about 50km/30 miles from their line of the border).
Whereas the Yamato's guns had a range of 42km/26miles, and if your nations survival depends on you being able to (appear to) be able to match that range I'd make sure at least some did.

So at that point it seems likely there's a very high possibility of including Seouls equivelent of Dartford (which is 30 km from London) and a non-negligible possiblility of 'Greenwich' within conventional artillery. Which would mean the press would only have to merge statements like 'conventional artillery can hit (the very edge) of Seoul [city]'&'(rocket) artillery can hit Seoul.

[Mike_G]

My overall point being that by hardening the positions of their various artillery, be it howitzers or rockets or mortars or whatever, in range of major population centers, they have created a very good deterrent.

If those weapons were all on a football field or in a tent, we could take them out in minutes. The fact that it would take a while to find them and knock them out, and probably take air attack by specialized weapons capable of blasting into the fortified positions, which might take time to deploy, means that they would have long enough to inflict catastrophic casualties in the openeing hours of the war.

Which is a pretty good reason for South Korea not to attack them.

So, yeah, tunneling into mountains and hiding some rocket artillery, maybe on train tracks so it can be wheeled out, shoot and be wheeled back before the counterstrike, is still a good use of resources, whereas building a Krak De Chevaliers with anti air missiles on the turrets isn't really a way to go these days.

It all how you mean "fortification."

[Storm_Of_Snow]

My overall point being that by hardening the positions of their various artillery, be it howitzers or rockets or mortars or whatever, in range of major population centers, they have created a very good deterrent.

If those weapons were all on a football field or in a tent, we could take them out in minutes. The fact that it would take a while to find them and knock them out, and probably take air attack by specialized weapons capable of blasting into the fortified positions, which might take time to deploy, means that they would have long enough to inflict catastrophic casualties in the openeing hours of the war.

Which is a pretty good reason for South Korea not to attack them.

So, yeah, tunneling into mountains and hiding some rocket artillery, maybe on train tracks so it can be wheeled out, shoot and be wheeled back before the counterstrike, is still a good use of resources, whereas building a Krak De Chevaliers with anti air missiles on the turrets isn't really a way to go these days.

It all how you mean "fortification."
However, any intelligence gathering will likely see that there's work being done at those locations (remember that the Cuban Missile Crisis was started by a routine U2 flight over Cuba), and you can then task a satellite to orbit over the area to keep watch, fly recon aircraft/ drones over the area, monitor communications and potentially exploit human intelligence assets, so that if it does start to turn hot, you can deploy aircraft with specialised munitions, armed drones and special ops teams to the area, and maybe program some cruise missiles to hit the mountains, hopefully bringing rocks down over the entrances and sealing them in before they can fire.

Of course, you have to be sure you disable all of the sites before they can fire, some of which are almost certainly dummies to confuse your intelligence and make you expend resources for no effect. So some of the guns might get a few shots off before they can all be dealt with, and they may still be a perceived threat for a while afterwards.

[snowblizz]

Also I think the 35 miles is I think well into Seoul (I make where Google maps has the label about 50km/30 miles from their line of the border).
Whereas the Yamato's guns had a range of 42km/26miles, and if your nations survival depends on you being able to (appear to) be able to match that range I'd make sure at least some did.

So at that point it seems likely there's a very high possibility of including Seouls equivelent of Dartford (which is 30 km from London) and a non-negligible possiblility of 'Greenwich' within conventional artillery. Which would mean the press would only have to merge statements like 'conventional artillery can hit (the very edge) of Seoul [city]'&'(rocket) artillery can hit Seoul.
Modern tube artillery pieces can range upwards of 40km (with or even without) longrange ammunition and most who field them are developing extreme long range ammunition 50-60km of range. And that's on self-propelled artillery. If you are purpose building something for hitting Seoul, and I'd expect they had, it shouldn't be a problem at all. And this is excluding rocket artillery. With such a large and densely populated area as Seoul you'll be bound to inflict lots of damage before any response, however devastating, can reach back.


I was actually going to ask about the tube vs rocketartillery inspired by the battleship vs coastal fortress thing earlier. Since rocket artillery vastly outranges tubeartillery but it seems good old guns aren't quite obsolete yet. So I'm thinking it has to do with the speed (rockets seem rather slow to reload) and perhaps flexibility modern self-propelled artillery would have over what seems a fair bit of power and range advantage for rockets? Rocket artillery isn't the most circumspect and are vulnerable to counterbattery fire too I think.

So what's the pro cons of guns vs rockets here.

[Mike_G]

However, any intelligence gathering will likely see that there's work being done at those locations (remember that the Cuban Missile Crisis was started by a routine U2 flight over Cuba), and you can then task a satellite to orbit over the area to keep watch, fly recon aircraft/ drones over the area, monitor communications and potentially exploit human intelligence assets, so that if it does start to turn hot, you can deploy aircraft with specialised munitions, armed drones and special ops teams to the area, and maybe program some cruise missiles to hit the mountains, hopefully bringing rocks down over the entrances and sealing them in before they can fire.

Of course, you have to be sure you disable all of the sites before they can fire, some of which are almost certainly dummies to confuse your intelligence and make you expend resources for no effect. So some of the guns might get a few shots off before they can all be dealt with, and they may still be a perceived threat for a while afterwards.

Sure. You can destroy or disable them. The same way, with enough time and resources you can take any fortification.

But you have to either accept that they will take time to knock out, thus being able to hurt you for a while, or dedicate tremendous resources to hitting them.

This is no different from a castle. You can take it, or isolate it and besiege it, but at a cost. You can't just ignore it, because it can project power, keep troops who can sally out and cut your supply lines, etc.

This is all really useful as a deterrent, where you as the attacker have to decide if you want to spend those resources or do something else, like negotiate, which means it's served it purpose by preventing the war or improving the defender's bargaining position. Or attack elsewhere, which means it's done its job by closing the preferred route. Or just accept the losses, which means it's done its job in slowing your advance and bleeding your military.

No fortification is really expected to hold out indefinitely. They deter an attacker or slow an attacker to give you time to prepare your own move. If there were no hardened emplacements in N Korea, or if there was nothing near the border for them to shoot at, it would be easy to roll over them like the 1990 Gulf War campaign rolled over Iraq army, and even the 2003 war rolled into Baghdad quickly. But we haven't moved on North Korea in 60 years because from minute one of hostilities until we knock out those weapons, death would rain down on a huge population center.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sure. You can destroy or disable them. The same way, with enough time and resources you can take any fortification.

But you have to either accept that they will take time to knock out, thus being able to hurt you for a while, or dedicate tremendous resources to hitting them.

This is no different from a castle. You can take it, or isolate it and besiege it, but at a cost. You can't just ignore it, because it can project power, keep troops who can sally out and cut your supply lines, etc.

This is all really useful as a deterrent, where you as the attacker have to decide if you want to spend those resources or do something else, like negotiate, which means it's served it purpose by preventing the war or improving the defender's bargaining position. Or attack elsewhere, which means it's done its job by closing the preferred route. Or just accept the losses, which means it's done its job in slowing your advance and bleeding your military.

No fortification is really expected to hold out indefinitely. They deter an attacker or slow an attacker to give you time to prepare your own move. If there were no hardened emplacements in N Korea, or if there was nothing near the border for them to shoot at, it would be easy to roll over them like the 1990 Gulf War campaign rolled over Iraq army, and even the 2003 war rolled into Baghdad quickly. But we haven't moved on North Korea in 60 years because from minute one of hostilities until we knock out those weapons, death would rain down on a huge population center.

No idea why that exact Korean border was accepted.

[Vinyadan]

No idea why that exact Korean border was accepted.

The Korean war also wasn't much of a roll over, and more of a tidal wave going up and down for a few years until it turned into a war of attrition. The 1953 armistice asked the fighters to pull 2 km away from this last front, and the 4 km strip that was created this way became the demilitarized zone, which serves as a frontier and buffer zone between the two Koreas. So the current territorial division is pretty much the acceptance of the status quo when the war was frozen.

The earlier frontier was the 38° parallel, which also feels very artificial. But this was normal fare, when countries were partitioned -- the city of Mainz in Germany is still divided in two different German states, because the states' frontiers were based on those of the French and American sectors, which were based on river routes, and, since the Rhine river crossed the city, it cut it in half.

It's also true that North Korea also has some important city near the frontier, although nowhere as large or important as Seoul.

[KiwiQuest]

Modern tube artillery pieces can range upwards of 40km (with or even without) longrange ammunition and most who field them are developing extreme long range ammunition 50-60km of range. And that's on self-propelled artillery. If you are purpose building something for hitting Seoul, and I'd expect they had, it shouldn't be a problem at all. And this is excluding rocket artillery. With such a large and densely populated area as Seoul you'll be bound to inflict lots of damage before any response, however devastating, can reach back.


I was actually going to ask about the tube vs rocketartillery inspired by the battleship vs coastal fortress thing earlier. Since rocket artillery vastly outranges tubeartillery but it seems good old guns aren't quite obsolete yet. So I'm thinking it has to do with the speed (rockets seem rather slow to reload) and perhaps flexibility modern self-propelled artillery would have over what seems a fair bit of power and range advantage for rockets? Rocket artillery isn't the most circumspect and are vulnerable to counterbattery fire too I think.

So what's the pro cons of guns vs rockets here.


Source: I am an army officer. For the same reason I’m not going to comment much on naval artillery, because I’m not particularly well-versed on the subject.

Generally, rocket artillery is less accurate and cannot deliver sustained fire the same way guns can. They take more time to reload, and the ammunition is generally more expensive and larger. Thus, the rocket launchers require more logistics. The lack of recoil means the rocket launcher has less setup time, but creates a significant backblast instead, which makes a difference when selecting your firing position.
Rocket artillery is easy to trace back to the firing position, and thus vulnerable to counter battery fire, however the shorter setup time means you can avoid the worst of it by moving. This – along with the significant reload time - creates a “shoot and scoot” pattern when using rocket launchers, whereas the guns will often stay in the same firing position for extended periods of time comparably.
They do however outrange guns. Most modern guns range at about 20-40km, whereas for example the Russian 9A52-4 Tornado has a maximum range of 90km. Rocket launchers also deliver a more significant effect in a larger area, albeit for a shorter period of time.
That means you will generally use them for different purposes, even though there is significant overlap. You want to use guns for suppression and precision (own forces close to your target, hitting a small target). An example would be suppressing an enemy position for an extended period of time in order to enable an enveloping attack.
Guns are also more flexible in some ways, as you can concentrate on one target with a lot of guns, or suppress many small targets, and switch between the two fairly seamlessly.
You want to use your rocket launchers to destroy targets, especially unprotected and large ones, as they cause more damage in less time. An example would be a headquarters, or – in the case of Seoul – a large gathering of civilians.

Do bear in mind that this is an extremely generalized description. Some modern guns – like for example the French CAESAR 8x8 – have almost no setup time a well, and precision guided rockets exist for precision work, just to name a few exceptions to the description. Range has a lot to do with ammunition as well, and different ammunition types serve different purposes, so no matter how you approach the subject, there is significant overlap between the two types of artillery. Often the choice will come down to cultural/historical preference.

I hope that answers your question at least somewhat :)

[VoxRationis]

The earlier frontier was the 38° parallel, which also feels very artificial. But this was normal fare, when countries were partitioned -- the city of Mainz in Germany is still divided in two different German states, because the states' frontiers were based on those of the French and American sectors, which were based on river routes, and, since the Rhine river crossed the city, it cut it in half.

The use of rivers as borders can be weird like that, since they tend to end up being the core of a settlement pattern, since people travel on them easily, but also are obvious barriers to travel across them, and so make for good borders. Mountains are a lot less ambiguous.

[Max_Killjoy]

The use of rivers as borders can be weird like that, since they tend to end up being the core of a settlement pattern, since people travel on them easily, but also are obvious barriers to travel across them, and so make for good borders. Mountains are a lot less ambiguous.

I'm not sure Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and China would agree with you on the latter.

[Vinyadan]

Probably, the least ambiguous are river basins.

[napoleon_in_rag]

The use of rivers as borders can be weird like that, since they tend to end up being the core of a settlement pattern, since people travel on them easily, but also are obvious barriers to travel across them, and so make for good borders. Mountains are a lot less ambiguous.

One problem with rivers, though, is rivers move. They jump their banks, flood, and end up on a new course. Look at the boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana. The border doesn't line up with the river any more.

[snowblizz]

One problem with rivers, though, is rivers move. They jump their banks, flood, and end up on a new course. Look at the boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana. The border doesn't line up with the river any more.
There's also a US-Mexico issue along the Rio Grande due to the river moving.


Probably, the least ambiguous are river basins.
I'm not sure that's entirely true either. Kongo (the former Blegian colony) looks the way it does because they followed the river basin principle (the Belgians really hoodwinkled the rest there). Not sure that's particularly successful either.
My money is on the ocean as divider :P


I'm not sure Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and China would agree with you on the latter.
Indeed, in Europe and the Americas the mountain ranges are somewhat linear and usually not populated. Where's the regions you mention have a much more complicated geological and demographic pattern.

Not that there isn't a natural or unnatural border that humans haven't managed to mess up somehow. In reality borders are something that takes decades or centuries to become "natural" in the best of cases when allowed to organically grow. And to be honest it's the far away cartographers that generally cuase these types of issues.



I hope that answers your question at least somewhat :)
It does, mostly trying to provoke discussion since that sparks new thoughts. Which would mean the massive-central-fort-thingy another poster was talking about would be ideally placed to be saturated with rockets.

[Martin Greywolf]

One problem with rivers, though, is rivers move. They jump their banks, flood, and end up on a new course. Look at the boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana. The border doesn't line up with the river any more.

This is usually a holdover from pre-modern era. If you look at, let's say, medieval treaties, they described territory gained in terms that we would view as very... fuzzy, perhaps? You can see not only things like "border is on the river", but also "border turns east at the old tree". Granted, that last part is usually only used in smaller scale partitioning (where the borders between lands of two nobles are, not national borders), but still.

With rivers, you usually had explicitly specified who gets a city that lies in the middle of it or on both banks, with some exceptions when the city was split in two.

Thing is, with medieval mentality, you don't have the modern understanding of national security, if a noble from one kingdom crossed a border to pursue a criminal or whatnot, it was usually not a big deal - there are instances when the ability to do so is explicitly mentioned in a treaty. Borderlands like these were often 50 km wide, and trouble in them was expected and dealt with (most of the time) via local garrisons, therefore river not being always in the same place was not really a problem for anyone. Well, except for the people drowning in it because the ford wasn't where they thought it was.

The problems began when people started to describe borders in terms more rooted in geographic co-ordinates. This new way of doing things sometimes ran into old way of doing things and weird borders happened as a result - most notable here are US states borders, some are straight lines, others aren't. Add to that that some borders that were defined by natural features were then converted to absolute co-ordinates and you get what we have today, a delightful chaos.

[Vinyadan]

An image I found interesting, since we often notice how slingers tend to be overlooked, but were actually around for a very long time: a Roman slinger from the Trajan Column.

The plate is in four pieces, the slinger is in the third piece from left to right, in the foreground. The sling with a loaded bullet is easily visible, as well as the bag holding more.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/047_Conrad_Cichorius%2C_Die_Reliefs_der_Traianssäu le%2C_Tafel_XLVII.jpg

[KarlMarx]

Slings were essentially the direct competitor to bows as a weapon for much of ancient history. Slings are cheap, light, and easy to carry, so even heavy infantry could use them in the field as a backup weapon (made even easier by the fact that rocks can be used as ammunition). I believe that the Norman infantry--not archers, heavy melee infantry--went into battle at Hastings equipped with slings.

Furthermore, they are very easy to make and practice with. Civilians can train to use slings to defend themselves, and armies can likewise quickly instruct conscripts as to the basis of the weapon. Thus, they made a lot of sense in the eras before professional armies.

Bows, on the other hand, require a lot of practice to be effective, especially the heavier bows that dominate battlefields. England took somewhat draconian measures during the middle ages to ensure a population of trained longbowmen, banning all sports besides archery. Furthermore, a large bow and arrows are harder to carry than a sling, so it makes sense to have dedicated units of bowmen rather than infantry also carrying slings. Thus, once armies become more centralized and organized, dedicated archers are among the first things to emerge.

The slingers used by the Romans during the later empire were actually one of the last major employments of such troops. The Romans did have a highly organized and centralized military system, predisposing them to rely on trained archers often drawn from subject populations, but believed (probably correctly) that slingshot lost power less quickly than arrows at range, and thus found it valuable to employ them. Furthermore, they traditionally used slingers from the Balearic Isles, and were very conservative in phasing out such units. Even if they were not the most efficient use of manpower, the Roman army was juggernaut enough that it didn't need to adopt new doctrines for much of its existence...and by the time it did, it was already basically too late to stop the Empire's decline. After the Romans stopped using them no dedicated slinger units really existed, except perhaps in poor or isolated areas, and slings were more often used as an auxiliary ranged weapon by melee troops.

Edit: Vegetius, basically *the* source on later Roman military drill, wrote in one of his books that a) slingers are straight-up more lethal than archers against unarmored troops (though armor is, on the flip side, better at absorbing bludgeoning than piercing force, and for much of history Europeans didn't have access to particularly powerful bows), and insisted that all troops be trained to handle a sling.

[Kiero]

There's another major consideration at work: bows in the western Mediterranean were weak, less useful in a battlefield context than slings. All the decent bows (composite) were eastern in origin and didn't make their way as far west as Italy. The native missile weapon of Italy was the javelin, I'm sure there were shepherd boys with slings all over the countryside, but not in enough numbers to make them useful in a military context.

[Vinyadan]

I just noticed a detail which had escaped me before: the slinger on the column has one end of the band containing the bullets lying on his right shoulder, while the other hand goes on his left arm, which is holding the shield. So I guess they loaded the sling with only one hand, protecting themselves with the other?

[KarlMarx]

Possibly. The inscription may be accurate, or it may be stylized and thus distorted. The shield may have been light enough that the hand carrying it could be used to reload. It does, however, seem that a one-handed method would be blatantly inefficient/error prone and easily correctable via different reloading drill. Thus I think it unlikely but not impossible.

[Vinyadan]

Defensive weapons in general on the Column are shrunk to better show the people holding them, so it's possible that the shield was actually larger. Personally, I think it was the long flat oval shield that is generally shown for the auxiliarii. The small knife could have actually been a full-sized gladium. What is unusual is the little tunic he's wearing. It probably would have rung a bell of some kind to a Roman spectator; maybe it was typical for a region.

There's a couple more details I only now notice. You can see the ends of the band hanging beneath his left arm (the shield arm), which suggests that the band was knotted to the arm. Going to the right from an observer's point of view, directly in front of our slinger there is a second slinger, who's fallen or is kneeling. At least, I think it's a slinger, because there is a fold in his clothes, on his chest, which doesn't follow the others and probably was part of the bullet band. He also is holding a shield.

Behind the first slinger there is another man wearing a similar tunic, but he's almost fully covered, and I don't see his sling. He could be holding a spherical object in his left hand. Maybe he was throwing rocks or heavy bullets to the enemies with his bare hands? Or maybe he was a reloader?

The first slinger appears to also wear greaves. (edit: or maybe not?)

[Knaight]

Possibly. The inscription may be accurate, or it may be stylized and thus distorted. The shield may have been light enough that the hand carrying it could be used to reload. It does, however, seem that a one-handed method would be blatantly inefficient/error prone and easily correctable via different reloading drill. Thus I think it unlikely but not impossible.

Loading while holding a shield is a bit slower, but it's actually not that hard. On top of that, most of throws that we're familiar with showing up near Rome can largely be done while holding a shield (and there are styles where that doesn't work; trying to use figure 8 with a shield would be hilarious. On the other hand, trying to use figure 8 in any but the loosest formation is also hilarious), thus making this pretty plausible as something that can be done reasonably easily. That's not to say that it was done often, not least because one of the styles that doesn't do as well with a shield is the Balearic style.

[Vinyadan]

While we are at it, please admire the only roman rectangular, half-cylindrical shield which was found with paint still attached (although it was broken in twelve pieces, and so was restored):

https://s26.postimg.org/klt3ly86x/duraeuropos6.jpg

On top there's an eagle, possibly resting on a globe, to whom two personified Victories offer crowns. Below, the concentric square decorations must have been a continuation of the decoration on the umbo (we have other Roman umbons). On bottom there's a lion with two stars.

Example of Roman umbo: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=600632001&objectId=1363156&partId=1 (this umbo also has written on it the name of its owner, Iunius Dubitatus).

The shield is from the mid-third century AD and comes from Dura Europos, the umbo from the early second century AD.

Another interesting find from Dura Europos is the oldest original map found in the West, drawn by a Roman soldier on the leather cover of his shield. You cans search "Dura Europos Shield Map" to see more.

There also is the El Fayum shield, a first-century BC scutum that might have been Roman. http://www.roman-reenactor.com/scutum%20el%20fayum.html

We also have a few late-antique oval shields, a bit like those on the Column; they are made of poplar, which, AFAIK, is pretty light wood. https://news.yale.edu/2015/11/02/ancient-roman-shield-gets-makeover-thanks-yale-team

Finally, Polybius gives a description of the equipment of the contemporary Roman army (Polybius lived 206-124 BC, so this is pre-Marian):


1 The next in seniority called hastati are ordered to wear a complete panoply. 2 The Roman panoply consists firstly of a shield (scutum), the convex surface of which measures •two and a half feet in width and four feet in length, the thickness at the rim being •a palm's breadth. 3 It is made of two planks glued together, the outer surface being then covered first with canvas and then with calf-skin. 4 Its upper and lower rims are strengthened by an iron edging which protects it from descending blows and from injury when rested on the ground. It also has an iron boss (umbo) fixed to it which turns aside the most formidable blows of stones, pikes, and heavy missiles in general. 6 Besides the shield they also carry a sword, hanging on the right thigh and called a Spanish sword. 7 This is excellent for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm. 8 In addition they have two pila, a brass helmet, and greaves. 9 The pila are of two sorts — stout and fine. Of the stout ones some p321 are round and •a palm's length in diameter and others are a palm square. Fine pila, which they carry in addition to the stout ones, are like moderate-sized hunting-spears, 10 the length of the haft in all cases being about three cubits. Each is fitted with a barbed iron head of the same length as the haft. 11 This they attach so securely to the haft, carrying the attachment halfway up the latter and fixing it with numerous rivets, that in action the iron will break sooner than become detached, although its thickness at the bottom where it comes in contact with the wood is a finger's breadth and a half; such great care do they take about attaching it firmly. Finally they wear as an ornament a circle of feathers with three upright purple or black feathers •about a cubit in height, the addition of which on the head surmounting their other arms is to make every man look twice his real height, and to give him a fine appearance, such as will strike terror into the enemy. 14 The common soldiers wear in addition a breastplate of brass a span square, which they place in front of the heart and call the heart-protector (pectorale), this completing their accoutrements; but those who are rated above ten thousand drachmas wear instead of this a coat of chain-mail (lorica). The principes and triarii are armed in the same manner except that instead of the pila the triarii carry long spears (hastae).


(the "10 cm (one palm) at the rim" thing is likely the result of textual corruption and not factually accurate, unless it means something about how bent the surface of the shield was.)

[KarlMarx]

What is unusual is the little tunic he's wearing. It probably would have rung a bell of some kind to a Roman spectator; maybe it was typical for a region.

I believe the Balearic slingers disliked armor and thus declined to wear it, preferring to simply run away if necessary and stay out of the fray.

[Carl]

Fairly late getting to these so sorry for being a couple of weeks behind the curve.

Battleships and modern warships and armour first.


The reason you don't see armour on modern warships, (though it is starting to make a limited comeback), is mostly down to how warship design evolved in the aftermath of world war 2.

At the end of WW2 the mains air dropped weapons where dive bomber AP bombs and torpedoes still. Neither of which care about armour. In addition whilst guns where the primary AAA weapon still they where no longer the primary combat power. That meant anything bigger than a light cruiser wasn't especially useful, and Destroyers and smaller never really carried much armour IRL anyway.

Eventually the first generation of missiles came in and this further pushed big warships out of the picture, you didn't need cruisers to carry them so destroyers and frigates started to take over the role. The advances in sub warfare also pushed this as those where the traditional ASW platforms. Thats not to say no one was, (or still is), building cruisers, but they became much rarer and were built as giant destroyers, (this was also probably influenced by early missiles being big enough to present an overwhelming threat to cruiser level armour).

Since then things have very much changed, old style cruisers probably could take hits from modern ASM on their armour quite well, and there's been a steady uptick in size and mass of DD's, the end of WW2 era HMS Daring massed 3820 tons full load, the recently commissioned HMS Daring masses 8500 tons, thats getting near the lighter end of an early WW2 heavy cruiser. Square cube law means the smaller a ship is the greater the percentage of total mass is required to put X thickness of armour around the vitals. So a small light Destroyer or Frigate of yesteryear needs a lot more of it's total mass dedicated to armour to mount a useful amount. It's basically an economy of scale thing. But of course with the cold war over development is slowed right down so your seeing it take time for thinking to change. But as i noted already, armour in limited forms is making a comeback now. I suspect in time we'll see it slowly become standard fit again.



Modern Fortress:

First Gnoman is wrong, whilst long range interceptor missiles are more costly than long range attack systems, (they're really optimized to take out the launch platforms for the missiles rather than the missiles themselves), the medium and short rnage interceptors are cheaper and guns are cheaper still. And thats ignoring the value of what they're defending. A straight random fort probably isn't that valuable. A combined major army base with it's own air force compatible air strip. Or a major port, or a major command center, or several other similar locations however, thats a different matter entirely. For that matter Carrier Battle Groups are an extended example of exactly that. They're something so valuable that the cost of defending them is worth the price tag even if it takes the enemy less cost in ordnance to get their kill. There's also the question of how acurratte the costs are as a rule. It may sound a bit crazy but you have to remember that when your dealing with items that share a high degree of component types material's, e.t.c. costs in an ideal world should bear an at least approximate ratio to size. With complex systems that's not a hard and fast thing but it's a good general trend. Which makes the price tag of a Tomahawk a little odd compared to various SAM systems. Could be that the long service life with relatively modest modifications is acting as an economy of scale on costs, certainly according to a little digging the block IV missiles cost the RN less than the block III's. In which case the point about relative costs becomes even more relevant.

That raises the question of why we haven't done it and i think it comes down to one simple thing. The technology only became mature towards the end of the cold warm, and with it;s end there just isn't a desperate need. The only people with the tech and even a partial need, Israel, have been working on such systems.

I suspect interservice rivalries and the sheer cost are additional factors.


Conventional Ballistic Missiles:

Gnoman largely hit this on the head with one exception. MIRV warheads on pure kinetic impact have very little destructive power, there's actually archival video footage of the impacts out there. it'll mess up anything it directly hit but the destructive radius is small. Modern nukes are also quite small so fitting a decent sized conventional warhead in isn't practical. However many older missiles where designed to carry far more warheads than later treaties allowed, so they could easily still carry a relatively decent number of larger conventional warheads. A ballistic trajectory also offers excellent cost efficiency. The reported cost of a trident, (37 million US dollars), works out at a cost efficiency per pound of ordnance delivered that is approximately 1.6 times as much per pound as a tomahawk, (and thats assuming the declassified warhead carried data and warhead weight data are not understated which they may well be for obvious reasons), but is delivered using a system with over 6 times the range and a difficulty of terminal interception that is exceptionally high. At impact after allready slowing enormously they're still moving at mach 10, or around 2 miler per second. The difficulties involved in hitting such small fast targets, (and the standoff required when dealing with nuclear rather than conventional warheads), are why ABM systems are so expensive. But that same high range and high cost efficiency offers a fixed ground base some potentially hugely efficient strategic striking power. Effectively a base equipped with enough of them is as dangerous as a base for long range strike aircraft in strategic strike terms.

[Maquise]

A relatively quick question, I hope; was either sex of horse preferred for use as a war mount, and if so, why?

[Martin Greywolf]

A relatively quick question, I hope; was either sex of horse preferred for use as a war mount, and if so, why?

Male, at least as far as medieval Europe goes.

As for why, well, it's a tad complicated. There are some definite advantages of having a male warhorse, but honestly, they aren't all that great. What the people at the time thought was that male == manly man == good at war, with a whole set of mostly disproven arguments that explained why. One argument that still applies without question though is that male horses are more replacable - you need one good male horse to get X pregnancies in a few days, mares need more time and are therefore less replaceable.

That said, you do have records of some knights going meta on the manly man thing and using mares in heat, which wreaked merry havoc with how well enemy's horses obeyed their riders. It was considered a somewhat cheaty tactic to use, though, especially in jousts. In actual war, well, people may make a few jokes at your expense for bringing a woman to war, but that's about it.

An important caveat here are geldings, sterilized male horses - you won't get the problem with mares in heat and they are more obedient, but they are also a lot less aggressive, so it's a trade-off, especially when used as war horses.

[Kiero]

A relatively quick question, I hope; was either sex of horse preferred for use as a war mount, and if so, why?

If we're just talking about one rider, depends on preferences. If we're talking about mounting an entire unit, pick one and stick with it for all of them.

[KarlMarx]

I've heard that the Arabs preferred to use mares as warhorses; I believe a common name Arab soldiers used for their horses would translate as "daughter of the wind".

It was definitely a cultural thing as much as a practical one.

[wolflance]

Question: Is there a difference in metallurgy requirement in different type/length of sword?

For example, we generally want our sword blade to have a hard edge and a softer spine, is dagger or gladius any different?

Since a dagger is much shorter, and I presume harder to break, can I increase its blade hardness to the level of...let's say the same hardness as katana's edge, and still expect it to hold?

[Knaight]

Question: Is there a difference in metallurgy requirement in different type/length of sword?

Yes, although a lot of that simplifies down pretty simpler to longer swords requiring better metallurgy to get working.

[Tobtor]

Question: Is there a difference in metallurgy requirement in different type/length of sword?

For example, we generally want our sword blade to have a hard edge and a softer spine, is dagger or gladius any different?

Since a dagger is much shorter, and I presume harder to break, can I increase its blade hardness to the level of...let's say the same hardness as katana's edge, and still expect it to hold?

"katanas" are not necessarily harder than European swords. Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4q0reHAC8&list=PLWklwxMTl4swj2iFIjIPsHogwioUFTIxy) to Shads "katana series" (note there are 5 episodes).

To answer the question: depends on period.

To give a longer answer. IF we assume iron age/pre-medieval technology (since gladius is mentioned): it is true that the simple way is doing a soft core, but many swords where made just like the katanas with multiple layers "folded" together. See this image of a roman era sword from Illerup bog:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/20/c6/f220c6ecaaede42a4823a7c9b4275559.jpg

Then what about shorter weapons? It is surely easier to make shorter weapons, as we do not need to keep a long straight edge (which needs to be hard to stay sharp and cut things), while adding the flexibility of the softer metal. However if the type of steel they made is hard it is still brittle (like glass but less so) and can still break, thus we still need to add some flexibility. Also we are likely using the knife less in "fencing" (metal against metal) and less at hitting shields etc, so the edge is likely put to less stress.

I have never read any good, large scale analysis of military knifes, daggers etc. Most seem to be softer than the swords, not harder. Possible due to lack of investment in them. I have seen some puggio types with some pattern welding (though also some without).

If spearheads are any indication (also relatively small metal parts), I would argue that a simpler method was generally used. Germanic spears seem to have been made in the opposite way of the swords; some have been shown to have a thin hard core embedded in softer metal. The hard part the forms one edge and the point (the most important part) while the softer metal forms the rest. We could imagine that singled edged knifes/daggers would benifit from similar construction (a hard edge/point, and soft back).

As metallurgy improves (medieval period) you would get more "single-steel" knives/daggers, as the issue of breaking is smaller and less stress is applied compared with swords (longswords for example are very flexible). So I would say its easier to get a decent strength knife-blade, but you still wouldnt want it to be hard and brittle as it would stilll get chipped or break. So its easier to get a good short blade, but it will not be "harder".

[Tobtor]

Also, I wanted to say Lars Andersen have uploaded a new video of trick shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8dBQVDROdA

Were he does some really cool tricks (like shooting around a person in front of him, hitting a thrown machete out of the air, hitting an arrow with his arrow while hanging upside down etc). Also he shows that its possible to dodge a full-strength longbow shot arrow.

While yes its trick shooting, it should be noted that many (also medieval Europeans) trained by doing trick shooting. It generally a really cool set of tricks.

(disclaimer: I have met Lars several times at larps, though I am do not as such "know" him)

[wolflance]

"katanas" are not necessarily harder than European swords. Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4q0reHAC8&list=PLWklwxMTl4swj2iFIjIPsHogwioUFTIxy) to Shads "katana series" (note there are 5 episodes).
I know, that's why I specifically mentioned EDGE of katana.

I believe the general idea stays the same (soft blade but hard edge) even if forging techniques are different? As in, even with folded steel sword/dagger, you still want a softer blade & harder edge? And if you forge the sword from a single piece of steel, you heat-treat the edge to make only that part harder?




So I would say its easier to get a decent strength knife-blade, but you still wouldnt want it to be hard and brittle as it would stilll get chipped or break. So its easier to get a good short blade, but it will not be "harder".
If I understand you correctly, then assuming one has the expertise to make dagger, short sword and arming sword, he will not purposely make shorter sword harder than the longer one?

As you said, this question spring to my mind because I came across some data on Roman gladius (see picture below). The blade hardness of Tiberius and Fulham gladius strike me as insanely hard.....to my knowledge 500 Vickers is harder than the EDGE of many medieval sword. Won't this hardness make the gladius brittle to the point of unusable?

(And then what's the deal with that two swords with softer edge than rest of the blade?)

https://i.imgur.com/jM9kL5V.gif

[wolflance]

Also, I wanted to say Lars Andersen have uploaded a new video of trick shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8dBQVDROdA

Were he does some really cool tricks (like shooting around a person in front of him, hitting a thrown machete out of the air, hitting an arrow with his arrow while hanging upside down etc). Also he shows that its possible to dodge a full-strength longbow shot arrow.

While yes its trick shooting, it should be noted that many (also medieval Europeans) trained by doing trick shooting. It generally a really cool set of tricks.

(disclaimer: I have met Lars several times at larps, though I am do not as such "know" him)

Ho boy Lars is a legend!

[Max_Killjoy]

Matt Easton on "speed shooting" archery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr_1z3GwxQk).


My personal opinion on Lars Anderson is that he sends a ton of signals that scream "this guy is full of it", and I can't tell if he really believes all that, or he's a huckster. The whole "lost secrets of our ancestors" shtick, and his repeated reference to Hollywood and fiction as if those were the state of current knowledge on ancient and historical archery... ugh.

[wolflance]

Matt Easton on "speed shooting" archery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr_1z3GwxQk).


My personal opinion on Lars Anderson is that he sends a ton of signals that scream "this guy is full of it", and I can't tell if he really believes all that, or he's a huckster. The whole "lost secrets of our ancestors" shtick, and his repeated reference to Hollywood and fiction as if those were the state of current knowledge on ancient and historical archery... ugh.

In defense of Lars Andersen, I think he put up the videos to debunk the current level of LAYMAN's knowledge on historical archery. Also, instead of saying this and that is possible/impossible and invite disbelieves, he actually goes on to demonstrate the skill on what are possible, which put a lot more weight on his word.

As for the "lost knowledge" part, I think he does not meant to say that he has mastered some secret techniques to performed those insane feats, but the knowledge and perception of "what ancient archers could and ought to achieve" had been generally lost or at least heavily distorted.

(For one thing he has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve high accuracy at extreme range, even on quick moving small targets. Many people still think longbowmen shooting "into the crowd" of their enemies and war archery was purely a formation vs formation thing).

My only criticism on him is that he seems to treat “historical archery” as if it is universal, as different cultures had different approaches on their archery. It's unreasonable to believe that historical English longbowmen really ran around and shoot at small moving targets all the time, but archers from another culture (let's say Turkish) may found that all of his feats are just standard boring fare.

[Tobtor]

In defense of Lars Andersen, I think he put up the videos to debunk the current level of LAYMAN's knowledge on historical archery. Also, instead of saying this and that is possible/impossible and invite disbelieves, he actually goes on to demonstrate the skill on what are possible, which put a lot more weight on his word.

As for the "lost knowledge" part, I think he does not meant to say that he has mastered some secret techniques to performed those insane feats, but the knowledge and perception of "what ancient archers could and ought to achieve" had been generally lost or at least heavily distorted.

(For one thing he has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve high accuracy at extreme range, even on quick moving small targets. Many people still think longbowmen shooting "into the crowd" of their enemies and war archery was purely a formation vs formation thing).

My only criticism on him is that he seems to treat “historical archery” as if it is universal, as different cultures had different approaches on their archery. It's unreasonable to believe that historical English longbowmen really ran around and shoot at small moving targets all the time, but archers from another culture (let's say Turkish) may found that all of his feats are just standard boring fare.

I agree. Though not only laymans views, but also many historians. You can find many claims that stuff like doging arrows are purely made up etc. Now, I am sure he would agree that many other historically interedsted archers might now some of the things he says, but not (typical) historians and not typical sports archers.

A note about bout English archers: we have medieval European illustrations of archers using butterflys as "targets", these may be purely (medieval) fantasy, and most historians have claimed so, but watching Lars we a least should consider that it was perhaps not.

Yes, different cultures have different approaches, different draw weights, different tactics with the bow etc. What I find interesting is that he is exploring the things that can be done.

[jayem]

I could well imagine that there could well be uses for frequent/powerful/inaccurate, frequent/weak/accurate, infrequent/powerful/accurate vfreqent/weak/innacurate ... throughout the battle (of course if you can have everything that would be better).
Even in the line,v shield wall the variation could well be better than everyone being average. But if say the back ranks keep a constant rain of cheap* arrows (in the hope that some hit, and if not it keeps them from moving), while half the front rank fires at any exposed gap as soon as they can (on the basis even if it only irritates, it still might make them make a further mistake), and the other half get as it were 'sniper shots' in. Then it puts the defender covering a lot of basis.

*The logistics of supply might be an issue

[BayardSPSR]

Yes, different cultures have different approaches, different draw weights, different tactics with the bow etc. What I find interesting is that he is exploring the things that can be done.

Is he actually using a historically-accurate bow from any historical society? Historical archery traditions are alive and well, but I can't call to mind any that involve leaping through the air. Trick archery is fun, but it's not exactly experimental archaeology.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is he actually using a historically-accurate bow from any historical society? Historical archery traditions are alive and well, but I can't call to mind any that involve leaping through the air. Trick archery is fun, but it's not exactly experimental archaeology.

And with the light arrows and half-draw that he uses, he'd have trouble penetrating anything more than bare skin.

[Incanur]

I like that new video from Lars Andersen a lot. While it's wrong about volleys, which were used by various historical military archers and crossbowers, I consider the emphasis on how slow arrows are key for understanding archery and especially the question of bow vs. gun.

What we really need is to get folks to practice Andersen's techniques but with military-strength bows drawing 80-160+lbs.

Dodging and shooting at moving targets was obviously part of skirmishing with any style of bow. That's definitional. However, speed shooting was not the only way to use a bow in either skirmishing or a set battle. It wasn't necessarily the best way. The Manchu style, for example, focuses on making powerful and accurate shots rather than shooting lots of arrows quickly.

[wolflance]

I think trick archery has a long enough tradition that it too can be considered "historical archery", or a least an often overlooked facet of it. Many dismiss trick archery as being impractical/no value on the basis that it is nearly impossible to perform those tricks on stressful battlefield condition, but hey, so is target practice (in both traditional and modern context). In fact, EVEN MORE SO is target practice.



Is he actually using a historically-accurate bow from any historical society? Historical archery traditions are alive and well, but I can't call to mind any that involve leaping through the air. Trick archery is fun, but it's not exactly experimental archaeology.
I can't confirm, but he switched to a Yumi when performing the historical feat of a Japanese monk in the latest video, so I'd be inclined to say yes, or at least "somewhat accurate".


I agree that it is not experimental archaeology, as all of his leaping/wall jumping/upside down acrobatic stunts are likely just toned down version of what historical horse archers experienced. After all, he is in control of his own body while performing all that stunts, but horse archers can't control their horses as precisely (and horse is much faster, less stable, and more powerful than human). If his latest video is any indication, Lars is apparently a pretty dreadful rider.

The main points Lars is trying to confer (I think) are that:
1) Historical archers could (and often had to) shoot in various less-than-ideal conditions/body postures/constantly on the move (I think we can all agree on this one).
2) It is possible to maintain high level of accuracy, even at long range, during said less-than-ideal (that's putting it lightly) conditions.



And with the light arrows and half-draw that he uses, he'd have trouble penetrating anything more than bare skin.
As far as armor goes, tests conducted on reconstructed mail armor and plate armor demonstrated that these things stood up to even the strongest warbow (100# for mail and 150# for plate from the back of my head, regrettably no one has conducted test on a powerful Yumi or Manchu bow yet). Armor works fantastically and shield was a thing, so why bother?

After all, punching through armor was not the sole purpose of war archery.


Half-draw was a legitimate technique used in warfare and hunting though.

[Max_Killjoy]

As far as armor goes, tests conducted on reconstructed mail armor and plate armor demonstrated that these things stood up to even the strongest warbow (100# for mail and 150# for plate from the back of my head, regrettably no one has conducted test on a powerful Yumi or Manchu bow yet). Armor works fantastically and shield was a thing, so why bother?

After all, punching through armor was not the sole purpose of war archery.


It seems like half the "tests" come back with armor being useless against arrows even at long range, and half the "tests" come back with armor deflecting ballista bolts at 10 feet. Which tests are you referring to?


I'm going to be blunt here -- until this stuff starts coming from someone who does not have all the alarm signs of a total huckster and fraud (ie, not Lars and his videos... start with someone who doesn't begin his videos with "world-famous master Lars Anderson proves everyone else wrong and reveals The Truth"), I'm calling shenanigans and ignoring it. Seriously, Lars sets off every BS warning system I have.

[wolflance]

It seems like half the "tests" come back with armor being useless against arrows even at long range, and half the "tests" come back with armor deflecting ballista bolts at 10 feet. Which tests are you referring to?


I'm going to be blunt here -- until this stuff starts coming from someone who does not have all the alarm signs of a total huckster and fraud (ie, not Lars and his videos... start with someone who doesn't begin his videos with "world-famous master Lars Anderson proves everyone else wrong and reveals The Truth"), I'm calling shenanigans and ignoring it. Seriously, Lars sets off every BS warning system I have.
The 100# longbow test on mail come from ERIK D. SCHMID if I remember correctly, and I consider him the absolute best in the field of authentic mail reproduction, and thus also consider his test highly reliable.

Unfortunately I can't find the link of that test anymore (it's not a YouTubr video "test"), anyone here can help me out?

I agree with you on the part that Lars (the narrator to be precise) come off as quite braggy, although he sounds more like a "stating stuff that should be common knowledge/common sense as if it is some newly (re)discovered thing" to me. His demonstrations are impressive, but nothing exotic. They all boil down to "shoot fast, shoot accurate, shoot while moving, shoot moving targets, do all of them at the same time", hardly anything extraordinary (those are like the most basic requirements of horse archer). Even the trick archery-ish multishot had seen use on the battlefield.

Only things I don't already well aware in his new video are that people can dodge arrow, and arrow can fly around to bypass obstacle.

[Tobtor]

And with the light arrows and half-draw that he uses, he'd have trouble penetrating anything more than bare skin.

True, for a few of his shots (like the very rapid speed shooting). However, in his first video he did pierce mail/gambeson, while still shooting fast. Some have said its butted mail, they themselves say its riveted, and their success is due to close range and heavy arrows which are of good steel and very sharp etc. Anyway, even if it is butted mail, that is not the same as "bare skin", and there IS a gambeson underneath.

He uses different strength bows, but it is true none of them are 120 pound bows. I would like to note that we ALSO find weaker bows in historical context (iron age bows of 60 punds for example). Lars himself have admitted that he is not strong, but argues that what he is doing is a some years of training as a hobby, and that "historic" people would have had a better basic physique.

You loose accuracy over distance if your bow is too weak.


It seems like half the "tests" come back with armor being useless against arrows even at long range, and half the "tests" come back with armor deflecting ballista bolts at 10 feet. Which tests are you referring to?

I agree most tests are problematic. Part of the issue is that there is no such thing as "a mail" and "a 100pound bow".

-Mail would have come in a variety of qualities (quality of metal, thickness of rings, diameter of rings, are the rings pulled or punched, how is the rivets and rivetholes made, and are the rings flat or round just to mention the most important). (not to mention that some/most Japanese mail is not riveted etc)

-Also 100pound is the strength required to pull the bow, and its only partly reflecting how much resulting energy it delivers (it can vary from 65-90% of original force). So they should in reality give the resulting power, not the draw-weight for real scientific tests.

-Thirdly many test have similarly been done with sub-optimal arrows. Both in term of arrow tip quality (shooting basically iron arrows at steel mail will give a different result than steel arrows at iron mail etc)., but also in term of shaft quality. Some use straight machine cut shafts (which will break at much lower force than many historical shafts). Historical shafts follow the grain of the wood, and the arrow is sometimes thicker near the tip to prevent breaking.

So the test usually reflects whether the quality of the reconstructed weapons is successful or not. I have seen historical accounts of mail fail, and mail succeed at defending from arrows, but in these cases we have little information about bow-strength or mail quality.

I -think- that a GOOD mail WITH a heavy gambeson would withstand most 100pound bows with a decent quality arrow. However, most historical mails are not necessarily of the top quality (as discussed with swords, historical steel include a lot of slag, some mails are very low carbon steel, some have large rings etc). It is easier to get a good quality arrowhead than an entire mail-hauberk. Also the thick gambesons seem to have been worn alone, and it is indeed difficult to move arms/legs in too thick gamebsons, and I am (as we have discussed earlier) of the conviction that in the dark ages and early medieval did not have gambesons as such, at most a single layer of felt over the clothing (at least we havn't any evidence) . But again that is up for argument.

Anyway: IF armour is protecting from all arrows, then lighter arrows with greater accuracy should be better (in effect: doing like Lars and hitting the eye it will ALSO killer with a light bow). Then power becomes simply a matter of range. Then we also shouldnt see heavy arrows (as lighter arrows tend to go further).

[Tobtor]

They all boil down to "shoot fast, shoot accurate, shoot while moving, shoot moving targets, do all of them at the same time", hardly anything extraordinary (those are like the most basic requirements of horse archer). Even the trick archery-ish multishot had seen use on the battlefield.


I partly agree. It is also worthy of note that is EXACTLY what he is saying: that what he is doing is something that he found in books/illustrations (both arab/persian and european, asian etc), and that he tries to see if it can really be done. Alot people wouldnt belive it if you told them without someone doing it, and that ALSO goes for mainstream historians. So no he have not invented anything new. You might claim that others (in regions with closer affinity with horse-acher-culuture) knew about this stuff. But most people (laymen, moviemakers, sports archers, historeans etc) would deny that even some of the basic things he is doing is possible (at least before they saw the video).

Is the naration over the top? Possibly. Lars himself is in my experience (the little I have) a very down to earth guy.

I think people should watch the reply he made on the critism on his first video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA&t=2s

Where he clarifies some things, and reference other archers etc.

[Vinyadan]

Personally, I do believe to stories of people using butterflies as target practice. I have two reasons. The first is that you don't need to hit your target while practicing, but it's useful to have a small, moving target to aim for, so that you can better your technique and get increasingly close, to the point of occasionally hitting. The second is the fact that people used bows to hunt. I believe they used bows to hunt birds, too, which are remarkably small target, and can occasionally be very hard to hit, depending on how their species fly, plus the fact that they are high up. Then you have rabbits and hares, which are small, run in the grass, and zigzag a lot.

[wolflance]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fugtMuGMI
Metatron's rebuttal of Lars Andersen's video.

He does get something wrong though, Mongol bow is not any weaker than English/other bow. Also, his point about speed shooter uses up their ammo faster also holds no water - sooner or later, an archer will spent all arrows and become useless, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you shoot, as long as your arrows hit and injure/kill, you've done a good job.

(It is also viable to collect enemy arrows and shoot back at them)


Metatron's response also expose the weakness of Lars Andersen's approach as treating all "historical archery" as if it is one unified system - you can always find counterexample to refute his points (back quiver, arrow at right side of the bow, holding arrow in bow hand, stationary archer etc).

Many however use these counterpoints to dismiss the points made by Lars Andersen in its entirely.


I partly agree.
I should have phrased it better...

I am in agreement with you, that these qualities are not well-known among the laymen/moviemakers/armchair historians, or thought simply as "trick shooting" or "impossible in realistic combat situation”...which is, to be honest, correct to an extend.

Truth to be told, even those that are familiar with horse-archery-culture will NOT consider "shooting arrows through eye slit“ realistically possible during actual combat. However, it IS possible to pull off against slightly larger target - instead of aiming at the eyes, aim at the head or face. If the arrow hits, it will kill the enemy just as dead (not everyone wears face-covering helmet after all). To rephrase, delivering eye-shot reliably may not be possible under realistic combat situation, but headshot is totally doable (Chinese soldiers found this out the hard way facing Manchu horse archers that SPECIFICALLY targeted their exposed face/cheeks. Keep in mind that the Manchus did this on galloping horses while being shot at).

Similarly, the ability to launch eleven arrows into the air before the first one landed/hitting a machete mid-flight has no use in actual warfare, but the ability to shoot fast, aim instinctively, while maintaining high level of accuracy, while on the move, against moving targets, is very important. On their own, these qualities sounds like a given. Lars just "(re)discovered" that it is possible to achieve several and/or all of them at the same time...which may sounds unbelievable to some, but hardly anything truly extraordinary (i.e. Parthian shot requires the archer to do all of them at the same time).

[gkathellar]

@Wolflance: So basically, your point (and his point, you assert) is that archery has gotten a bad rap and it can be demonstrably more versatile, complex, and more effective than we often describe it as being (i.e. strong back muscles and volleys). While Lars may not be practicing it as a traditional martial art, what his work shows is that archers could and probably did perform astounding feats of skill that modern scholars might dismiss as fantastical.

That sounds credible to me, if only because we go through this exact arc of discovery pretty often. 50 years ago, we thought European swordsmanship was either clumsy and slow or flimsy and shallow, but now we've got precise, powerful rapier on longsword matches almost too fast to see. Scholars still parade around the myth that knights in plate could barely move under the weight of their kit, but I've seen guys do high front kicks in more accurate reconstructions. "Karate is the Dane Cook of martial arts" - which is no doubt why we've got katas that, on examination, appear to simulate the kidnapping of an imperial soldier. In general, the study of historical arms and martial arts has tended towards realizing that things were more effective and practitioners were more skilled than we gave them credit for (once we get blatantly silly stuff out of the way). If Lars's point is just, "here's some cool things folks could and probably did do with bows," then I think the historical precedent would suggest he's at least on the right track.

[Mike_G]

I think the problem with Lars Anderson is one of presentation more than substance. It's like watching a bad infomercial where the "historical" guy drops his arrows is like the guy on QVC who can't pour milk without the new exciting Handi-Spout(tm).

He come across as more showman than scholar. I have a love/hate relationship with his videos. I'm impressed at some of the stuff he does, but I can't take the presentation seriously.

Quibbles aside, we are learning more stuff about historical warfare these days, especially since the internet has allowed us to share information more quickly, so a community of archers trying out different techniques and sharing what works and doesn't may well change our view of historical archery.

[Galloglaich]

To give a longer answer. IF we assume iron age/pre-medieval technology (since gladius is mentioned): it is true that the simple way is doing a soft core, but many swords where made just like the katanas with multiple layers "folded" together. See this image of a roman era sword from Illerup bog:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/20/c6/f220c6ecaaede42a4823a7c9b4275559.jpg


My god those swords, esp. the one on the left with the inlay. Illerup continues to amaze!

A few thoughts on recent conversations.

Latinized Europeans did generally prefer to use ungelded stallions as warhorses, not exclusively but I think you can say predominantly. I believe this was not due to any myths or tropes or misconceptions but due to the way chargers were used in war (and warlike games like jousts and hunting to some extent). They were very carefully and intensively trained and they had sophisticated breeding programs. Having the stallion 'intact' was also important - the Teutonic Order who considered their horses to be one of their strategic assets, created special sterilization processes for their very carefully bred stallions so that if captured they could not be used by their enemies or 'frenemies' to breed their own lines of warhorses. Teutonic Order warhorses were bred for aggression, discipline / trainability (including being trained for ambling gaits etc.) as well as increased resistance to cold weather and ability to survive on different types of fodder.

It's worth noting that it was not just the Knights themselves who considered their mounts to be Strategic assets but also some neutral, rival and 'frenemy' chroniclers, all of whom praised their horses. They have discovered a few military stables from the medieval period like this one (https://www.horseloversmath.com/13th-century-horse-stable-discovered/) and this one (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/ecology-baltic-crusades-120612.html). Osteological analysis of the horses bones shed a lot of light.

This is a really good article which I've posted before in some different iterations of this thread over the years, which covers the use of horses by the Teutonic Order to some extent.

http://deremilitari.org/2014/03/horses-and-crossbows-two-important-warfare-advantages-of-the-teutonic-order-in-prussia/

While the Latinized Europeans did seem to depend on stallions for chargers, particularly mean ones apparently who could kill grooms or others that got too close to them, (in other words, who were a pain the ass) they did also use geldings and mares for a variety of purposes including for certain types of warhorse.


Arabs did also prefer mares in general for warhorses , and I think this too is a reflection of their style of warfare which was a bit more 'hit and run'. The stallions / mares dichotomy between Latinized and Arab / Turkish mounts was even blamed or proposed as one of the theories for the astonishing Crusader victory at the Battle of Antioch in the 11th Century. Also a good read and interesting story (spear of Longinus allegedly being involved plus that wonderful character Bohemond of Antioch)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antioch_(1098)


As for sword hardness, some interesting posts on that subject here. I think as a rule a shorter sword can get away with being harder and I'd include most gladii in that category, though as has been shown they too already had composite construction in many cases. By the middle ages various types of steel and iron / carbon composites end up in the blade with very different properties of hardness, ductility, springiness, and toughness (all different things), which they once thought was by accident (and a sign of ineptitude) but now know was by design and was an indication of their surprising sophistication. Albion's swordsmith Peter Johnsson has done some excellent videos on this subject which many of you have probably seen. This is just one of many

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyAc5HbUuqw

On Lars and the trick shooting...


I think it's both a gimmick and something very interesting. My thought is this. A lot of people from HEMA and more serious re-enacting circles get annoyed by guys like Lars who I think is a Larper, but who clearly comes at his expertise (and he obviously has considerable expertise) through basically play. As in, learning a skill more like a pro-skateboarder (I.e. through play) than like a soldier who goes through boot camp (and is taught things by rote, repeating actions as defined by a strict pedagogy) . The thing is, I think in the middle ages, 'warlike play' was actually a very important part of how they learned to fight. Play and specifically joyful and you can even say silly or absurd play (if also often somewhat rowdy and dangerous) was woven into the fabric of medieval life at almost every level. It was part of the leisure life of every estate and specifically thought of as preparation for war, which is something we find very hard to understand today and therefore usually dismiss as absurdity. But that is what the evidence tells us.

This is true in the middle ages and also in other warlike societies in Europe and well beyond. Ancient Greeks, Vikings (think Knattleikr, even board games like Hnefatafl ), Celts (hurling etc.), Slavs and proto-Slavs, Steppe nomads, Arabs, Iranians, people in Africa... all over the world as far as I can tell, warlike play and games was a key part of life and part of how boys became men and men became warriors.

http://www.landschaftsmuseum.de/Bilder/Schuetzenfest_Gallen-2.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/George_Catlin_-_Ball-play_of_the_Choctaw--Ball_Up_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/600px-George_Catlin_-_Ball-play_of_the_Choctaw--Ball_Up_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

http://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/article_image/1245764183_fighting.jpg http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/pix/ballgame_illustration.gif

https://cache-graphicslib.viator.com/graphicslib/thumbs674x446/8515/SITours/tuscany-wine-tasting-and-lunch-private-tour-siena-and-san-gimignano-in-rome-295993.jpg

https://www.hellotravel.com/hellotravel/config/images/events/738X538/medievel-footbal.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Les_joutes_agde.jpg/420px-Les_joutes_agde.jpg

So while I too, find Lars a little bit annoying mainly due to his wild claims and questionable conclusions, I think he also reflects something very real in the human condition which was also very important for understanding pre-industrial warfare. You can't argue (at least not definitively) with his results, he can do some neat things, and a stronger maybe more serious person could probably take it a lot further. What if we had 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000 obsessively playing around with bows in similar ways that Lars does, what kind of results would we see?

I do think he has a point that that is part of the definition of pre-industrial archery cultures. And many other martial traditions from wrestling to horsemanship to strategy games.

G

[Tobtor]

To both G, Mike and wolflance: I agree the narration is annoying. That is why I suggested to look at the video where he answers some of the critism of his first video, where he is more down to earth and acknowledge that what is said in the video is cut down to very basic (perhaps too basic) informations in order to get out with the main ideas.

And yes, I think he does train by playing, and yes I agree with G that this is a common way of acquiring skills in many historic societies (and in ethnographic examples today as well).


What if we had 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000 obsessively playing around with bows in similar ways that Lars does, what kind of results would we see?

And have done so since childhood. Lars was already "oldish" by medieval standards when he began shooting with a bow (in his 40'ies I think).

[2D8HP]

Probably old news to the learned ones who mostly post to this thread, but it was interesting to me:

Spirit of the 7th Sea: Interview with Samantha Swords (http://johnwickpresents.com/updates/spirit-of-the-7th-sea-interview-with-samantha-swords/)

Welcome to spirit of the 7th Sea, an interview series with experts and enthusiasts*who share a passion for early modern European history.

This month, we interviewed sword-fighter, performer, illustrator, and craftsperson Samantha Swords.

Originally from New Zealand, Samantha has traveled the world doing work in the film industry, as well as working with propmaking, armor construction, costume construction, large-scale sculpture, metalsmithing, and much, much more.

Samantha was kind enough to lend her time and expertise talking with us about historical sword fighting, pop culture myths, and favorite dueling maneuvers.

Hi Samantha! I’m thrilled to be able to talk with you about sword fighting. Thanks for lending your time and expertise!

Q: First, how did you get your start? What initially drew you to sword fighting and what attracted you to historical sword fighting over modern sport fencing?

Samantha: I have been passionate about medieval European swords since I was a child. I started training in historical fencing in 2008, but I did practice modern Olympic fencing for four years as a teenager. I don’t see much relationship between the two, as historically the art of defence was very practical and dangerous, and it’s much more interesting to me. Also the martial arts of medieval Europe are very beautiful, and the challenge of reviving them is unique and exciting!

Q: Like many people, my concept of historical sword fighting mostly comes from pop culture, and I know my knowledge is built on a lot of myths. What are the most common myths you’ve encountered?

Samantha:*The first is a strange myth that medieval swords weren’t actually sharpened much, or were mostly bludgeoning tools.

We know that medieval and Renaissance swords were very sharp, partly from surviving museum examples, through forensic evidence of damage to deceased fighters, and via documentation from the period. Also, feders—the sword-like tools that historical fencing schools used to train safely—are strangely-shaped so that they can simulate the weight, balance and other characteristics of a fully-sharpened sword. Essentially, there’s no sense in carrying around a 3 foot long blade if one isn’t going to use it as a blade!

Another myth many people love to hold onto is the idea that ‘swords were extremely heavy’. They weren’t. The average weight of any actively-used sword throughout the Middle Ages was a mere 1-3 pounds. Most single-handed arming swords were around 1 pound in weight, even Viking swords! In the case of Viking swords, they were secondary weapons, mainly used for cutting at exposed areas, not used for smashing into wooden shields (that’s what other shields and axes were for..!)

The later weapon, the longsword, averaged around 2-3 pounds in weight. The rapier was heavier than most people think and was around the same weight as a longsword, but the since it was a single-handed tool the weight was distributed more close to the hilt, allowing freer movement of its long, narrow blade.

Larger two-handed swords gained popularity in war and for ceremonial use from the 16th-17th centuries, and their size varied depending on different, specialised functions. Swords used in dueling tended to be smaller than those employed to hew through large groups of enemies at a time (such as the famousmontante, from the Iberian Peninsula). Two handed ‘schlachtschwert‘ (battle swords) were very large but still dynamic and well-balanced. Their great size made them well-suited for ceremonial use. Even ‘bearing’ swords, extremely large swords used only in parades to impress onlookers from great distance, were built to fighting-sword standards. Surviving examples of bearing swords are excellent examples of craftsmanship, and like battle swords, are only around 6-8 pounds. However a modern misunderstanding about the context of such weapons contribute to the myth of the oversized, overly-heavy medieval sword.

The good guide to debunking such myths is to remember that a tool is made to be useful, and in a fight, any excess weight will slow you down. Weapons and armour-makers intelligently designed their equipment to be as strong, lightweight and efficient as possible.

Q: Speaking of pop culture, let’s talk movie sword fights! I’ve always loved this fight scene from Princess Bride, between Inigo Montoya and the feared Dread Pirate Roberts. I’m ready to have my reality shattered. What do you see here that just wouldn’t fly in a real sword fight?

Samantha:*I love this scene. It perfectly captures the energy and character of Inigo and The Man in Black. The fighters’ use of the environment, their gymnastic feats and clear, disciplined attacks, the wit and wordplay the two engage in, the references to historical fencing masters and their strategies—everything is great for on-screen entertainment.

As with any stage combat, the strikes that both actors make are often wide, and won’t connect if the other performer misses with their block. This style of attack is done for the safety of the performers and usually hidden through camera angles, but in a real fight if an opponent makes an attack that won’t actually connect then there is no need to move and defend against it! Knowing when to move or not involves a mastery of distance— knowing how far you and your opponent can reach when the swords are extended in a thrust or cut.

The Man in Black and Inigo are fighting with rapiers, but not using them as rapiers were historically used according to the many sources that we have. Despite referencing four fencing masters, what they are doing in the scene doesn’t actually reflect the movements they are commenting on. This is unsurprising as the wonderful*sword choreographer Bob Anderson*was not well-versed in historical fencing so wasn’t able to bring in the complex techniques referenced as he created the fight.

The style that the two are fencing with more resembles the use of small-swords, which require a closer range to cause damage. Smallswords are also lighter than rapiers, which allow for soft, quick, flexible attacks, gymnastic behaviour like leaping and hopping, and antics like tossing the sword from hand to hand, as The Man in Black does towards the end, mid-defence. With a true rapier fight he wouldn’t be able to do this as the opponent, Inigo, would push through the centre the moment the Man in Black switched hands. As someone who ‘has studied his Agrippa’, this would be a simple matter for Inigo. Instead, the two constantly are swiping at one another with their swords, making contact and then breaking apart again.

Unlike what is often seen in movies, good historical fencing was based around being able to control the other fighter’s blade, not constantly knock it aside back and forth (most often seen with larger weapons such as longswords). The teeth of two sharp swords bite into one another and create a strong connection between both opponents. They are then ‘bound’ and able to feel the force and movements of the other, and a good fighter take can advantage of this feedback as they press one another for an opening.

It’s very realistic at the end of the fight that Inigo becomes erratic with his defence. A masterful swordsman would seek to defend with conservative motions, whilst still threatening and making their opponent move wider and wider until there is an undefended opening that the swordsman can take advantage of—just as The Man in Black does with Inigo. This kind of masterful control of a fight takes precision and patience, which is why Inigo realises that The Man in Black has bettered him, and he surrenders.

A masterful swordsman would seek to defend with conservative motions, whilst still threatening and making their opponent move wider and wider until there is an undefended opening that the swordsman can take advantage of.

Overall the duel at the Cliffs of Insanity is strictly linear in its motions, much like a modern fencing bout. One way to take such advantage would be to step offline, changing the angulation of the attack—such as using the strategies of Thibault. The linear fencing in the fight reads well on film, however, and has a beautiful flow to it that in no way detracts from the rest of the movie.

Despite the criticisms mentioned above, I feel that the style of combat in the scene was entirely appropriate. Having the two characters fight in any other way would detract from the lighthearted atmosphere of the encounter. Ultimately this is what good fight design should do—fit with the characters and story and feel like a seamless part of the world they are in. By this standard, the scene is perfect!

Q: My final pop culture question, and I hope this one doesn’t make you cringe. I love the trope of a blade so sharp it can cut another sword clear in half! I’m guessing that one’s … not very realistic. What would it take to make that happen?

Samantha:*Actually, this one isn’t so far fetched as other myths! It is possible for one sword to cut through another, but only if the sword that breaks is already weak; of poor quality. Steel is made up of crystals that form and weave together during forging, and once you fracture their structure (by heating or mistreating a blade) it is completely possible the sword can snap or yield to a forceful cut.

Two good steel swords that strike one another with a lot of power are going to be damaged, but if they are made well and flexible, their core should transfer the force along the length of the tang.

Blades cut when they are moving, and have thousands of microscopic teeth that bite into something, like a saw. Just pressing them hard against an object is not enough to cause a cut. There needs to be a sliding motion, just like with a saw cutting through wood.

When it comes to the trope of a sword slicing through armour, consider that armour is made to defend against swords and other weapons. That’s the purpose of its design. If swords were able to slice right through the layers then there would be absolutely no point to wearing a hot, heavy harness that takes a fair bit of time to put on. Armour worked, but like everything, it still had vulnerabilities. Many other tools were developed solely to damage a fighter in armour. If a sword were already able to do that then there would be no need for other weapons to exist like the war hammer, mace or flail.

If you were going to attack a well-armoured opponent with your sword, it would make sense to mainly thrust and only go for the gaps and weak places. Historically, fully-armoured knights fighting a sword-wielder would be targetted in areas like the armpits, the palms, the eye-sockets, inside the elbows, behind the knees, and other areas that armour wasn’t able to cover because it needed to still hinge and allow the fighter to move their body.

Although a sharp blade is dangerous and can cut easily, being able to make smooth, clean strikes that slice right through something requires a lot of practice. It takes very little pressure to cut through skin, but if you don’t follow through then an enemy may only be in pain, and able to strike you back! In historical swordsmanship, every cut should be an offensive blow. Even if it is a parry it should still be swung to still be a threat, and keep your opponent at bay.

Photo by Bruno Gallant.Q: While heroes get themselves into dire situations, sword fighting in 7th Sea often has a playful edge! In a real sword fight (or more casual swordplay), are there any maneuvers where you know someone is just messing with you? Like playful moves, or provoking moves?

Samantha:*Definitely! You can use your distance to trick an opponent, and bait them into attacking an opening that might be just out of range. You can switch your weapon from one hand to another, to confuse them, especially if they are not used to fighting a left-hander (although good fencing masters of the time would teach to defend against just that!).

You could play with them by making contact with their blade with the tip of yours, but not enough for them to control you—moving the fastest part of your sword around theirs. This can be very frustrating to experience because your opponent refuses to commit to an action.

You can lean away from your opponent when they strike, not even moving your feet. This can be annoying if the other person has put a lot of force into the blow… Another option when duelling at close range is to perform disarms. Many people don’t expect it, and it can be an amusing way to end a fight!

Q: In 7th Sea, the continent of Théah is made up of ten nations, each with its own distinct customs and personality. Can you talk about regional differences in bladed weapons? Are these differences largely aesthetic or will you find major differences in the shape, weight, and function of bladed weapons across 17th century Europe.

Samantha:*The 17th century saw dramatic changes in single handed swords, and how they were used. Following the Renaissance, several distinctive blade types developed in Europe. The iconic shape of the cruciform, double-edged medieval sword was largely replaced by blades that ranged in shape from wide and curved to straight and narrow. Civilian and military weapons were extremely diverse and developed both for fashion and for function.

As the blade styles evolved they were imitated universally, but decoration and other details varied depending on culture and region. Hand protection was added to many swords and classical-inspired styling, such as scalloped shapes and the chiselled likeness of animals were very fashionable features found on many swords. Italian and Spanish weapons tended to be elaborate and flamboyant, Germanic weapons were more simple and functional, and English and French swords fell somewhere in between.

Many sword types were effectively the same across Europe as their specialised parts would be made at certain workshops and manufacturing hubs, then shipped and assembled by local cutlers. Some of the reasons for this were to enable the best product quality and also practicality of transport. For example, sword blades packed tight and stored in a barrel are a lot easier to ship than a bundle of fully-finished swords.

Italian and Spanish weapons tended to be elaborate and flamboyant, Germanic weapons were more simple and functional, and English and French swords fell somewhere in between.

The lessening influence of the Church on nobility and increased trade with the East contributed to social acceptance of curved sabres, and also the increased skill of swordsmiths (combined with access to fine quality steel) allowed for the development of longer, finer weapons like the rapier and the smallsword.

As well as being a military weapon, the rapier became immensely popular during the 16th and 17th centuries due to its elegant appearance and lethal capabilities, and especially as it could be an ‘espada ropera’- a sword of the robes, or daily clothes. It could be worn anywhere, unlike the larger swords that were associated with the ‘work’ of war and considered provocative and inappropriate for civilian life. The rapier was discreet enough to still be worn for self defence and showed the wearer was both a swordsman and a gentleman. During the 17th century the preference changed in favour of the smallsword, and then by the end of the century, sadly the pistol replaced these as the duellist’s weapon of choice.

Other shorter bladed weapons were popular during this time too, such as the basket-hilted broadsword (with a wire cage that protected the user’s hand) and the messer, a sword-like knife worn by all classes of society. For the upper classes the rapier enjoyed the most use, and its extreme length (between 30-55 inches) was a great advantage in any duel. At the beginning of the 17th century rapier fencers would frequently use a left-handed dagger as well. This fell out of fashion in most areas, except in Italy and Spain where the weapon took on a highly-developed, specialised form.

The rapier was discreet enough to still be worn for self defence and showed the wearer was both a swordsman and a gentleman.

Some other blades were immensely successful in select regions, such as the stocky, powerful cinquedea of Italy, which was used extensively there and nowhere else. Another example is the katzbalger of the Landsknecht mercenaries, a short, brutal and effective weapon- an appropriate companion to the professional soldier.

In some cities the wearing of swords was restricted or banned outright, so other weapons were adopted, such as*falchions*orbaselards. Like their well-utilised cousin themesser, these might pass as swords at a distance but are actually constructed as knives with single edges and a different hilt, allowing them to defy legal restrictions through sheer technicality.

At sea, shorter weapons were also favoured due to their heft and manoeuvrability in close quarters. Firearms were becoming more efficient in the 17th century but were still limited with their reloading capacity and overall reliability, so many seamen opted to always fall back on wielding an axe, or a trusty blade.

Q: I’ve heard people refer to the katana as a superior bladed weapon. Do you think there’s a historic sword that’s a cut above the rest, or does it really come down to the skill of the bladesmith and the intended purpose of the sword?

Samantha:*Whilst the katana was produced by an extraordinary feat of engineering, it was still only suitable within the context that it was used—defeating other warriors in single combat. Different weapons develop for different purposes, and there are some exceptional weapons (especially from ancient Asian and Scandinavian cultures) so it is very difficult to decide on one ‘best sword of all’.

However, since the majority of medieval and Renaissance swords were designed to follow harmonic principles of geometry, the original objects are beautiful and extremely well-balanced, symmetrical tools. For me, this makes them superior to most other weapons. I’m also biased towards medieval swords!

Q: How customized is footwork when it comes to using different swords? For example, if you spent your life training with a rapier then picked up a longsword for the first time, would you really trip yourself up?

Samantha:*For later styles such as rapier or smallsword, footwork is very specialised, because the fencing style is based largely on thrusting and takes advantage of the minute differences in blade angles.

A rapier fighter could employ their footwork to wield a longsword and may still fight well, but there are major differences on how best to use your body to work with either weapon. A longsword requires both sides of the body to move together more wholistically, and to adjust your body structure for the powerful momentum of longsword cuts. The fencer would need to learn to wrestle as well, since the optimal sparring distance for longsword is much closer than rapier—just outside of grappling range—and the martial arts of the longsword largely incorporate switching between the two.

Samantha Swords fencing in Michigan.Q: Can you talk about little details a player or GM might add to their 7th Sea games to make dueling scenes or sword fights feel more realistic? Something that would take the scene from “awesome but impossible” to “awesome and plausible?”

Samantha:*I’ve thrown in some clues in my other answers, which I hope will help players build more realism into their game. The essence of creating believable combat in a role-play story is to understand the purpose of the fight, and the motivations of the people in it. Do they want to get away? Do they want vengeance? Are they impressing their peers, or surviving a brutal confrontation? Are they in or out of their comfort zone? How desperate are they? Are they tired? How far away is their backup?

I think of combat as falling into three different goals: for show (like a duel of honour or test of sportsmanship), for self defence (such as being ambushed and fighting to get away), or for survival (such as enduring a battle or a situation that you can’t just walk away from). Once you understand where a character falls into these important categories, you can then look at other smaller details and build them in.

The essence of creating believable combat in a role-play story is to understand the purpose of the fight, and the motivations of the people in it.

As well as understanding this breakdown of fighting goals, my best advice is to learn as much as you can about historical arms, armour and their limitations and advantages so you can exploit the details in your narrative. This will make it feel real and engaging to the other people involved in your story.

Q: Let’s talk scrappy fighting! In 7th Sea you’ll find trained nobles and naval officers with swords, but you’ll also find pirates. What are some of the notable differences you’d see in a fight between a trained swordswoman and a rough n’ tumble fighter? What bladed weapons might a wealthy person have access to that a pirate wouldn’t?

Samantha:*Did I hear you say, “Let’s talk about pirates”…?! Yarrr…!

‘Hit and run’ was the essential signature of a pirate attack. Historically, pirates worked through intimidation, relying on their reputation and superior strength to demoralise their victims, and the expectation was immediate surrender lest the hapless ship suffer fatal consequences. The majority of ships targeted by pirates were trade vessels that had never seen battle, so in most cases the terrified crew would comply after the pirates made a show of force and demanded a surrender. Many seamen could not swim, so even just the threat of fire and exploding devices such as early grenades thrown onto an oily wooden ship could be enough for a ship’s crew to be conquered without a drop of blood being spilled. On land, pirates would also employ raid techniques, sometimes banding together with other pirate crews so that their numbers overwhelmed the small towns they stormed.

Although pirates were thought of by their contemporaries as wild, cruel individuals that killed without hesitation, a great many were former merchant seamen; young men in their 20s who had willingly—or not—joined a pirate crew. Some would have been thugs and criminals, but the greatest fighting strengths that pirates possessed were their willingness to engage in violence, the firepower of their ship, and the reputation that preceded them.

Individually I can only speculate on how a pirate might fight. Brawling was common amongst both working men and academics in the 17th century, but a pirate’s intimacy with everyday violence would give them more comfort during a fight than a person living within the law might feel.

An experienced swordsman would have certainly studied rapier, military sabre or sidesword as a duelling weapon, as well as other ‘gentlemanly’ weapons such as dagger, cape and open hand/wrestling techniques. They would have been influenced by a calculated and mathematical approach to the defensive arts that grew during the Renaissance and was popularised by the writings of masters such as*Capo Ferro,Thibault*and*Fabris. With a better concept of physics and more conservative motions, the swordsman would have the upper hand in a civilised fight. However pirates worked outside the law, so ‘anything goes’ was probably the best approach to winning a one-on-one fight with such a person.

Reproduced illustration from Academy of the Sword by Girard Thibault (1628)

Public duels amongst 17th century swordsmen were often bloody affairs, though rarely lethal. Thus an experienced fencer could have won many duels, yet might struggle to keep their head during a scrap with a disreputable, ‘rough and tumble’ type. In this case I think having general military experience would serve a person much better in such a fight than having only studied 17th century martial arts.

A wealthy person had a great variety of weapons available to them. As well as pistols, rifles and muskets (which were very much in everyday use during the 17th century) bladed weapons that a person of means might carry include rapiers, broadswords, any type of long knife, basket-hilted swords, sabres, or in some cases pikes, warhammers and short spears.

Fighting seamen such as pirates would have fought with more simple weapons such as pistols, naval axes and hangers—thick, curved, single-edged swords. Essentially the same as messers, hangers were in use for hundreds of years as popular weapons but found special favour during the Age of Sail, where they evolved into the weapons known as cutlasses (derived from an Italian word for a ‘long knife’). The cutlass was the ideal close-combat weapon for ship use, but was not in widespread use until the very end of the naval era, despite being the most well-remembered weapon in our mythology and stories about that time. The earlier hanger and other broad-bladed swords were most often used by the military and were very useful in naval combat due to their short length, sturdy construction and terrific cutting power, which combined to make them excellent weapons within the tight quarters of a densely-rigged ship deck.

A 19th century French naval cutlassQ: Finally, if someone wanted to learn historical sword fighting today, where should they look? What do you recommend for beginners who can’t wait to jump in?

First I recommend watching ‘Back to the Source‘, an excellent documentary that was made recently about the historical European martial arts community. It covers a lot of what we do, is free to watch online and is very encouraging for folks just getting started!

There are many online resources, such as theWiktenauer*(a gigantic online library of historical European martial arts books) and terrific YouTube channels such as*Schola Gladiatoria, which will give you an abundance of historical martial arts knowledge.
You can also check out the*HEMA Alliance Club Finder*to search for local groups practicing near you.

Failing all that, should you wish to do library or internet research yourself, you can look for ‘Western Martial Arts’, ‘Historical European Martial Arts’, ‘Historical Swordsmanship’ or ‘Historical Fencing’.

I’d recommend buying some kind of starter sword (which can be made of wood or synthetic) and practice hitting a target. Don’t buy a steel sword until you know if it will suit regular training. HEMA-oriented websites should help you find*good, trustworthy brands of starter swords.

If you are training with a friend wear sturdy gloves and head protection at the very least! Many people buy fencing masks, which are good if you start sparring. If you do want to spar I’d also recommend wearing a mouthguard, some kind of joint, neck and torso protection, and groin protection for guys. Developing control is more important than having equipment, but safety gear needs to help keep you safe and confident while you learn. Personally, when I pick up a sword for practice I also put on safety glasses, which cost only a few dollars and are very good if your sword breaks or your friend slips and donks you in the eye!

HEMA is a growing movement and with the rich resources of the internet, it’s very possible to*start a club if there are none in your area. There are a great variety other medieval combat groups as well. For people who are less interested in historical martial arts and perhaps want to do armoured combat, there are many sports groups that specialise in this which aren’t associated with HEMA, but are also a lot of fun.

The ACL (Armored Combat League) and HMB (Heavy Medieval Battle) are two similar international organisations who do very competitive, highly-athletic medieval combat.

There’s also the SCA (Society of Creative Anachronism) who also train with medieval armour and host impressive, huge battles, and some SCA groups offer really good rapier training. If you’re not ready to get hit with steel or even wooden swords you might want to get some experience using foam swords with LARPing groups. There are many fighters from the groups above who cross-train in the relaxed, fun environment that LARPing offers, and I know HEMA groups that use foam to build up confidence and awareness with beginners, especially youth. It’s fine to use lots of training tools so long as you remember what they are simulating- a sharp steel sword used in the art of self-defence.

Whatever path you choose, if you get a sword, find someone to teach you, make time to practice, and keep at it, you will be well on the way to becoming a competent swordsperson!

This was fantastic, Samantha! Thank you again for sharing your time and enthusiasm in the name of 7th Sea.

[Galloglaich]

Probably old news to the learned ones who mostly post to this thread, but it was interesting to me:

Spirit of the 7th Sea: Interview with Samantha Swords (http://johnwickpresents.com/updates/spirit-of-the-7th-sea-interview-with-samantha-swords/)



I met Samantha 'Swords' before at an event, IGX up near Boston. She was at the beginning of some kind of US HEMA tour. Very nice person, striking, she's very slight, almost elfin. She didn't fight in the event. I think at that time she was just getting into HEMA proper and had been doing some other kinds of (SCA type? but I'm not certain) medieval sword fighting stuff. She was already kind of a mini-celebrity then though and that was like 3 or 4 years ago I think.

She seemed pretty typically NZ (based on my very limited experience) in that she was very open and cheerful. Obviously had some skill too and she was eager to learn more. I think her instant fame on the internet had a lot to do with her role in inspiring female fencers and in spreading the idea that with a sword, size and bulk don't matter so much in a fight. Skill and training can carry the day. We also had other examples of this like Kristine Konsmo defeating a 6' 3" stick fighter in a steel sword and buckler match at Swordfish, I forget what year though the video has ben posted before.

To be honest though in HEMA there are a relatively small number of women who participate in the open longsword tournaments, but there are always some who do and a few who truly excel. Rapier and other lighter weapons are a bit more equal. They also have women's only tournaments as well of course (something which was controversial within the women's Historical fencing association 'Esfinges as some of them were for it and some against. It was a touchy subject for a while!)

The last open tournament I was in (back in May I think) had several competitive female fencers participating.

G

[spineyrequiem]

Has there ever been an even passably successful clockwork firearm? I'm writing something of roughly WW1 technology where I want one of the cultures to have a semi-automatic rifle as standard due to a very assault-oriented mindset and love of night attacks where lots of close-range firepower is seen as necessary. I've also considered something based on automatic revolvers like the Webley-Fosbery, but I'm not sure the action would work with a full-length rifle barrel. Horrible reliability, high weight or anything else that would make the weapon impractical are not a problem as I want it to be a bit rubbish compared to their submachine guns.

[KarlMarx]

Not really that I can think of, no. Delicate clockwork and violent explosions are a bad combo.

The closest thing I can think of is the Austrian windsbusche used during the Napoleonic wars, which was used as a silent, accurate sniper and assault rifle and excelled in this role due to its use of air pressure rather than gunpowder. However, it was terribly delicate and exceedingly hard to re-pressurize, especially during battle, and tended to lose power as shots were fired in a way that was extraordinarily close to compensate for.

[Gnoman]

Has there ever been an even passably successful clockwork firearm? I'm writing something of roughly WW1 technology where I want one of the cultures to have a semi-automatic rifle as standard due to a very assault-oriented mindset and love of night attacks where lots of close-range firepower is seen as necessary. I've also considered something based on automatic revolvers like the Webley-Fosbery, but I'm not sure the action would work with a full-length rifle barrel. Horrible reliability, high weight or anything else that would make the weapon impractical are not a problem as I want it to be a bit rubbish compared to their submachine guns.

There's nothing preventing a semi-auto rifle from being made with WWI tech. There were working German examples in 1885, and there were several Winchester and Remington models sold on the civilian market by 1908 - these were primarily chambered in pistol calibers, although a .300 Savage version of Remington's weapon was available. Mexico used semi-automatic rifles in the Mexican Civil War, chambered for the famous 7x57mm Spanish Mauser that so impressed Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill. France made several attempts to introduce semi-automatic rifles before and during WWI, the RSC M1917 in 8mm Lebel being one of the few to see service.

All of these early rifles had serious issues with reliability and wear when firing full-rifle ammunition, significantly slowing their adoption. Given that you're perfectly happy with such drawbacks, patterning your gun on one of these seems quite appropriate.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's nothing preventing a semi-auto rifle from being made with WWI tech. There were working German examples in 1885, and there were several Winchester and Remington models sold on the civilian market by 1908 - these were primarily chambered in pistol calibers, although a .300 Savage version of Remington's weapon was available. Mexico used semi-automatic rifles in the Mexican Civil War, chambered for the famous 7x57mm Spanish Mauser that so impressed Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill. France made several attempts to introduce semi-automatic rifles before and during WWI, the RSC M1917 in 8mm Lebel being one of the few to see service.

All of these early rifles had serious issues with reliability and wear when firing full-rifle ammunition, significantly slowing their adoption. Given that you're perfectly happy with such drawbacks, patterning your gun on one of these seems quite appropriate.

And I don't think there were any limits that would have stopped someone from inventing an intermediate cartridge in that time period, that an earlier semi-auto could have handled while delivering better performance than pistol ammo.

[Gnoman]

You're quite right - which is why Winchester developed an early example of such in 1907. The .351 Winchester Self-Loading cartridge designed for the Winchester Model 1907 was very close in performance to the modern 7.62x39mm intermediate cartridge. It failed due to an odd case design and the very unusual caliber (both of which made the cartridge relatively expensive due to lack of tooling), but was briefly quite popular among police forces, and the French were fairly happy with the small number of Model 1907 rifles (originally purchased for police forces) they took to the trenches, eventually ordering 2500 in 1917. These were converted in-country to full automatic and to accept larger magazines.

[Mr Beer]

To be honest though in HEMA there are a relatively small number of women who participate in the open longsword tournaments, but there are always some who do and a few who truly excel. Rapier and other lighter weapons are a bit more equal. They also have women's only tournaments as well of course (something which was controversial within the women's Historical fencing association 'Esfinges as some of them were for it and some against. It was a touchy subject for a while!)

The last open tournament I was in (back in May I think) had several competitive female fencers participating.

G

Seems to me that women would be much closer to equality in a sword fight than in an unarmed combat match, where size and strength confers an almost overwhelming advantage*. You don't need to be particularly strong to deliver a crippling injury with 3 foot of sharp steel and likewise being twice the size of your opponent doesn't help you shrug off a pierced lung.

Put it this way, I think I could win some fights against trained women in a full-on brawl just via brute strength and mass, whereas I'd have roughly zero chance if blades were involved.

* I hear people argue otherwise but there's like 18 weight classes in boxing for a reason.

[rs2excelsior]

Arabs did also prefer mares in general for warhorses , and I think this too is a reflection of their style of warfare which was a bit more 'hit and run'. The stallions / mares dichotomy between Latinized and Arab / Turkish mounts was even blamed or proposed as one of the theories for the astonishing Crusader victory at the Battle of Antioch in the 11th Century. Also a good read and interesting story (spear of Longinus allegedly being involved plus that wonderful character Bohemond of Antioch)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antioch_(1098)

Any chance you could elaborate on this a bit more? It sounds like an interesting story, but the wikipedia article you link doesn't mention the theory regarding the different horses or the Spear of Longius. I did find a couple of links that mention the spear and a little more about Bohemond, but still nothing regarding the use of mares vs. stallions.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Siege-of-Antioch-1097-1098

http://deremilitari.org/2013/11/the-battle-for-antioch-in-the-first-crusade-1097-98-according-to-peter-tudebode/


Has there ever been an even passably successful clockwork firearm? I'm writing something of roughly WW1 technology where I want one of the cultures to have a semi-automatic rifle as standard due to a very assault-oriented mindset and love of night attacks where lots of close-range firepower is seen as necessary. I've also considered something based on automatic revolvers like the Webley-Fosbery, but I'm not sure the action would work with a full-length rifle barrel. Horrible reliability, high weight or anything else that would make the weapon impractical are not a problem as I want it to be a bit rubbish compared to their submachine guns.

The closest thing I can think of is the Wheellock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheellock), although it's clockwork in the sense of using springs and windings in a similar manner to clocks, rather than clockwork in the sense of steampunk-esque fantasy. They were historically used because they were more reliable and weather resistant than matchlocks, but not widely accepted due to vastly increased complexity and cost. They had to be re-wound after shots, which doesn't lend itself well to a semi-automatic weapon, but could possibly be worked around.

A couple of other (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt%27s_New_Model_Revolving_rifle) options (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle) to consider as well.

[DerKommissar]

I have a question on ‚shield bashing‘.

It’s a common trope in RPGs (D&D 3.5), Videogames (Diablo) and Television (300, Vikings) and is usually depicted as either punching the opponent with the whole shield, ramming into the enemy, or using it in a kind of ‘flaily’ movement, where you spin the whole body and hit with the rim. The effects in those media are that the opponent is pushed backwards or stunned.

So my question:

Is this really a thing? How would you do it (Ramming? Punching? Swinging?)? What parts of the body would you target? Is it something one can build a tactic on or would it be rather situational?

Please note that I’m not referring to using the shield to parry or hit the weapon, but to use the shield to attack the enemy’s body directly.

Thanks in advance! :)

[Kiero]

Yes it's actually a thing, one of the basic Roman drills is to slam your shield forward to knock your opponent off balance, then follow up with a stab to the groin.

However, "bashing" implies only the face of the shield can be used offensively, in fact the edge/rim is good for breaking jaws (slam it up in a press) or feet (slam down into the instep or onto the toes).

[Vinyadan]

I wonder if the shield slam was done with just the arm, or by putting the shield close to your body and throwing your whole weight forward, like charging to hit with your shoulder, but with added protection.

As for strength and weight categories, it's an interesting question. I think that weight is actually a shorthand for a combination of many things, like range, strength, the weight itself (which is important in sports like freestyle wrestling), and possibly the amount of protection the muscles are capable of giving.
However, skill can make up for a smaller size. But, at the same level of skill, the stronger athlete has the advantage.
I think that boxe actually allows you to fight in weight categories above yours, but not in those beneath. I guess it doesn't happen too often.

[DerKommissar]

I wonder if the shield slam was done with just the arm, or by putting the shield close to your body and throwing your whole weight forward, like charging to hit with your shoulder, but with added protection.

Thanks, thats what i meant by "ramming". Your wording makes it much clearer :)

[Brother Oni]

All of these early rifles had serious issues with reliability and wear when firing full-rifle ammunition, significantly slowing their adoption. Given that you're perfectly happy with such drawbacks, patterning your gun on one of these seems quite appropriate.

Alternately, you could take the British route of the period and train your rifle men to shoot really well.


Put it this way, I think I could win some fights against trained women in a full-on brawl just via brute strength and mass, whereas I'd have roughly zero chance if blades were involved.

Very generally in unarmed combat, the more safety rules there are, the more of an advantage brute strength and mass gives. Despite what its enthusiasts say, MMA isn't that close to street level fighting (no eye gouges, fish hooking or small joint manipulation for example).

It doesn't take very much strength to grab hold of someone's little finger and bend it back until it snaps, but that sort of thing is prohibited in competitive fighting, thus all the different weight categories.


Is this really a thing? How would you do it (Ramming? Punching? Swinging?)? What parts of the body would you target? Is it something one can build a tactic on or would it be rather situational?

Depends primarily on how you're holding the shield. If it's strapped to your forearm without a hand grip or only have a sling, you're essentially limited to a shoulder charge and tagging your opponent either with the shield face or the tip of the rim to the face.

Strapped and a hand grip lets you use the edge more and can punch with the edge to a degree or hit them with a backfist style move. You can still charge them, you just have more options.

Just a hand grip gives you the freest range of movement, so you can punch with the boss or shift your grip to strike with the rim, charge them, etc. The issue with this grip is that you can lose the shield, plus fatigue is an issue.

Target areas would be the face or body with the shield face/boss and the face with the edge (toes as well if you have a big/long shield like a kite).

Aggressive shield use is most certainly part of a fighting style - against an unshielded opponent, you can effectively push them around, since you're more protected.

[gkathellar]

Even (hell, especially) with a buckler, shield bashing is quite practical - it is, after all, a variation of the oldest and most practical maneuver in armed combat: Hittin' 'em With A Thingy. That said, it's going to vary quite a bit in execution depending on the type of shield. With a buckler, for instance, it'll more closely resemble an unarmed strike.


Seems to me that women would be much closer to equality in a sword fight than in an unarmed combat match, where size and strength confers an almost overwhelming advantage*. You don't need to be particularly strong to deliver a crippling injury with 3 foot of sharp steel and likewise being twice the size of your opponent doesn't help you shrug off a pierced lung.

Probably depends somewhat on the specific weapons involved, and on the use of armor - but in general, this mirrors what I've heard and seen.

[fusilier]

Has there ever been an even passably successful clockwork firearm? I'm writing something of roughly WW1 technology where I want one of the cultures to have a semi-automatic rifle as standard due to a very assault-oriented mindset and love of night attacks where lots of close-range firepower is seen as necessary. I've also considered something based on automatic revolvers like the Webley-Fosbery, but I'm not sure the action would work with a full-length rifle barrel. Horrible reliability, high weight or anything else that would make the weapon impractical are not a problem as I want it to be a bit rubbish compared to their submachine guns.

France had actually adopted a semi-automatic rifle before the outbreak of WW1 (the Meunier rifle). But the design was only just going into production, and they weren't tooled up to make the new ammo. So rather than introduce a new primary weapon on the eve of war they shelved the plans. Eventually they did introduce the RSC during the war -- although it was issued like a light machine gun or squad automatic weapon, and not to entire units.

Revolver rifles are a thing, they often weren't liked because of the danger of a chain fire -- but that danger would have been greatly reduced with the introduction of metallic cartridges. However, by that time other magazine rifle designs had been developed and were generally considered better.

[Incanur]

Seems to me that women would be much closer to equality in a sword fight than in an unarmed combat match, where size and strength confers an almost overwhelming advantage*. You don't need to be particularly strong to deliver a crippling injury with 3 foot of sharp steel and likewise being twice the size of your opponent doesn't help you shrug off a pierced lung.

This was basically Joseph Swetnam's position on height & strength differences: "a strong man hath greate oddes at the gripe, or in a close at any blunt weapon, but upon the point of a sharpe weapon, in a fight a strong man hath small or no oddes at all of the little or weake man." He was a famous misogynist, so he might not have applied this to women, but that's where the logic goes.

George Silver didn't address strength differences but did claim height & reach grants considerable odds. I consider Silver's commentary in this regard more sober. Swetnam seems to have been intensely interested in cheering up small/weak men and telling them they could do fine against tall/strong men. Silver was like, "Yeah, being tall is a big advantage, sorry."

I suspect Swetnam downplayed the advantage height provides but his point that strength matters more for grappling and with blunt weapons makes sense.


Put it this way, I think I could win some fights against trained women in a full-on brawl just via brute strength and mass, whereas I'd have roughly zero chance if blades were involved.

Note that some females are way stronger than some males. I'm biologically male by the common definition. Natalia Zabolotnaya is probably about four times as strong as I am.

The same goes for your average untrained male of Zabolotnaya's weight, according to this (http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SnatchStandards.html). (Power snatch = 80% of full snatch by the standard account.) Even a male in elite class can't quite match Zabolotnaya's world record 135kg (297lb) snatch. (I assume that's the bottom of elite class, and of course Zabolotnaya is much stronger than most female lifters.) I'm sure part of that is Zabolotnaya's specific genes (and maybe drugs), but it still indicates that it's not at all easy for males to match the strength of the strongest females.

TL;DR: I recommend not stepping into the ring with Gabi Garcia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabi_Garcia) unless you're really big/strong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note that some females are way stronger than some males. I'm biologically male by the common definition. Natalia Zabolotnaya is probably about four times as strong as I am.

The same goes for your average untrained male of Zabolotnaya's weight, according to this (http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SnatchStandards.html). (Power snatch = 80% of full snatch by the standard account.) Even a male in elite class can't quite match Zabolotnaya's world record 135kg (297lb) snatch. (I assume that's the bottom of elite class, and of course Zabolotnaya is much stronger than most female lifters.) I'm sure part of that is Zabolotnaya's specific genes (and maybe drugs), but it still indicates that it's not at all easy for males to match the strength of the strongest females.

TL;DR: I recommend not stepping into the ring with Gabi Garcia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabi_Garcia) unless you're really big/strong.

You're not comparing comparables with that first point. You'd need to compare to other olympic caliber powerlifters.

I once calculated the lift/weight ratios for world-class powerlifters (male and female). As it turns out, the weight classes for women end about half-way up on the weight classes for men, and the %-of-body-weight numbers were sharply lower for women than for men. In fact, the women at any given weight class were on-par or lower than the record-holders among high-school males. The gap was pretty big. When I'm at home I'll look and see if I still have that spreadsheet. The strongest men (as a % of weight) are vastly (40+%) stronger than the strongest women.

Of course, those are the ones at the very edge of the distribution. Down toward the middle (where I'm guessing most of us are), the curves overlap heavily so a stronger-than-average woman will beat an average man and there won't be tons of difference between average men and women. There is a big difference in height--several inches for the US: one source had it at 5'9" for men and 5'4" for women. That's a lot of reach in a boxing match (for example).

Another interesting fact--for both men and women the %-of-body-weight lifted was quite uneven as weight increased. Even discounting the super-heavyweight class (who start at about 310 lbs for men and about 185 for women), there were peaks and valleys within each individual type of lift.

[Knaight]

You're not comparing comparables with that first point. You'd need to compare to other olympic caliber powerlifters.

I once calculated the lift/weight ratios for world-class powerlifters (male and female). As it turns out, the weight classes for women end about half-way up on the weight classes for men, and the %-of-body-weight numbers were sharply lower for women than for men. In fact, the women at any given weight class were on-par or lower than the record-holders among high-school males. The gap was pretty big. When I'm at home I'll look and see if I still have that spreadsheet. The strongest men (as a % of weight) are vastly (40+%) stronger than the strongest women.

Not comparing comparables is the point. It's worth noting with just about any physical activity where there's a sex disparity that it almost always manifests in such a way that the gap between high level competitors is significantly smaller than the gap between any of those high level competitors and an average person. Power lifting is one example, as is extreme endurance running (where women generally start doing better once you hit 100+ miles, and the average person doesn't so much have a time it takes them to run 100+ miles so much as a measurement of what small fraction of that distance they made it at all). Fighting is just one more category where this holds, where an average fighter of some sort (including combat sports) has a very big edge over the average person with no training/experience.

[Incanur]

The strongest men (as a % of weight) are vastly (40+%) stronger than the strongest women.

I wouldn't call that "vastly," more like "significantly," but yeah, male records are about 135% of female records in Olympic weightlifting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting) in any given weight category. Conversely, female records are about 74% of male records. I assume part of that is because male athletes tend to have a lower fat % and thus more lean tissue.

The point is that size and strength vary dramatically among individual males and individual females. The aforementioned Gabi Garcia could probably do pretty well in HEMA if she wanted to, but folks in genetic elite tend to have better thing to do with their time.

Skill/experience does make a big difference and can compensate for some differences in strength or reach. Back when I was sparring regularly with Lancelot's RSW in George Silver's style, I once sparred a person I knew to be stronger. They had no experience with single-handed sword sparring specifically but some with messing around with staves and whatever. Curiously, I didn't notice the strength difference while sparring, and did rather well against this person. Now, I think it would have been different in an earnest fight, as part of the issue was that they fought too timidly, but I was still impressed with how useful a little skill/experience can be. I was never remotely strong and never got that good, but I did it enough to have an edge against folks unfamiliar with such sparring.

[Mr Beer]

Note that some females are way stronger than some males. I'm biologically male by the common definition. Natalia Zabolotnaya is probably about four times as strong as I am.

The same goes for your average untrained male of Zabolotnaya's weight, according to this (http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SnatchStandards.html). (Power snatch = 80% of full snatch by the standard account.) Even a male in elite class can't quite match Zabolotnaya's world record 135kg (297lb) snatch. (I assume that's the bottom of elite class, and of course Zabolotnaya is much stronger than most female lifters.) I'm sure part of that is Zabolotnaya's specific genes (and maybe drugs), but it still indicates that it's not at all easy for males to match the strength of the strongest females.

TL;DR: I recommend not stepping into the ring with Gabi Garcia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabi_Garcia) unless you're really big/strong.

Of course, there are lots of women in absolute terms who are stronger than me, just not many as a percentage of the general population. And there are plenty of women who could absolutely maim me in a fight, I don't imagine I'd beat any professional female fighter, ever. I'm just saying that a women could be a decent hobbyist fighter but still have half my upper body strength, so, you know, it could reasonably go either way in a brawl. In the same way that a 60kg guy who has done a lot of boxing could lose to a strong, aggressive 90kg man if they get into it outside a bar.

Then if you take a 60kg guy who has spent 2 years learning how to use a longsword and the 90kg guy has seen swords in movies, and they have a duel, the big guy is going to be 90kg of chopped meat.

EDIT

As far as trained weightlifters go, men are still greatly stronger than women. It's just that if you take the most genetically gifted women and train them to be as strong as possibly (and maybe chemically assist the process), then yeah those women will end up a lot stronger than the average man. But they'll still be a lot weaker than men who are as genetically gifted and go through the same process.

Likewise, you take an average woman and she trains fairly hard by normal standards, not like a professional athlete, chances are she'll end up about as strong or a bit stronger than the average untrained man. Probably have better lower body strength and she'll be fitter, her upper body strength will be about the same or even less.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not comparing comparables is the point. It's worth noting with just about any physical activity where there's a sex disparity that it almost always manifests in such a way that the gap between high level competitors is significantly smaller than the gap between any of those high level competitors and an average person. Power lifting is one example, as is extreme endurance running (where women generally start doing better once you hit 100+ miles, and the average person doesn't so much have a time it takes them to run 100+ miles so much as a measurement of what small fraction of that distance they made it at all). Fighting is just one more category where this holds, where an average fighter of some sort (including combat sports) has a very big edge over the average person with no training/experience.


I wouldn't call that "vastly," more like "significantly," but yeah, male records are about 135% of female records in Olympic weightlifting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting) in any given weight category. Conversely, female records are about 74% of male records. I assume part of that is because male athletes tend to have a lower fat % and thus more lean tissue.

The point is that size and strength vary dramatically among individual males and individual females. The aforementioned Gabi Garcia could probably do pretty well in HEMA if she wanted to, but folks in genetic elite tend to have better thing to do with their time.

Skill/experience does make a big difference and can compensate for some differences in strength or reach. Back when I was sparring regularly with Lancelot's RSW in George Silver's style, I once sparred a person I knew to be stronger. They had no experience with single-handed sword sparring specifically but some with messing around with staves and whatever. Curiously, I didn't notice the strength difference while sparring, and did rather well against this person. Now, I think it would have been different in an earnest fight, as part of the issue was that they fought too timidly, but I was still impressed with how useful a little skill/experience can be. I was never remotely strong and never got that good, but I did it enough to have an edge against folks unfamiliar with such sparring.

Absolutely to both. Being at least moderately trained makes a big difference in combat. I (although I'm larger than average) would not be too good because I'm completely uncoordinated physically. My only point was that comparing the top of the top women to the average man is kinda useless--the vast majority of even elite women are on par (physically) with the above-average (but not elite) men. And there are very few women at those levels, much fewer than there are men. At equal levels of training, mass, height, and testosterone receptors make a large difference. Much more so in things like wrestling or sport fighting than in combat with bladed weapons or street fighting since some of the more effective, but "dirty, techniques are forbidden.

[DerKommissar]

Depends primarily on how you're holding the shield. If it's strapped to your forearm without a hand grip or only have a sling, you're essentially limited to a shoulder charge and tagging your opponent either with the shield face or the tip of the rim to the face.

Strapped and a hand grip lets you use the edge more and can punch with the edge to a degree or hit them with a backfist style move. You can still charge them, you just have more options.

Just a hand grip gives you the freest range of movement, so you can punch with the boss or shift your grip to strike with the rim, charge them, etc. The issue with this grip is that you can lose the shield, plus fatigue is an issue.

Target areas would be the face or body with the shield face/boss and the face with the edge (toes as well if you have a big/long shield like a kite).

Aggressive shield use is most certainly part of a fighting style - against an unshielded opponent, you can effectively push them around, since you're more protected.

But why was it not standard to add a spike to the boss? Would seem to make it more dangerous at little cost...

[Kiero]

But why was it not standard to add a spike to the boss? Would seem to make it more dangerous at little cost...

How are you going to get a cover on your shield if it has a spike on it? What impact is having that attached to the boss going to have on the overall structural integrity of the shield?

Doesn't seem greatly advantageous to me, it also increases the chances of your shield getting stuck in your opponent, which is the last thing you need.

[snowblizz]

Also, you've got friends behind you. Do you really want to risk them having a spike poking you in the back? Or sticking out to the side into your sword arm from your pal on the right.

Keep in mind the shield has to be carried around in other circumstances than the front line of a shieldwall. A spike would interfere with several of those, for not too much tangiable benefit. While you could do more of a bodypush with it the guy on the other side will take it on his shield and stab you as you mash yourself into your own shield restricting your movements.

Most aggressive use of the shield comes form using the edges, not the boss, which is going to be a bit more ofa committed move in a fight.

I think I've seen bucklers with more of a spike like boss (I know fantasy versions of it tend to)? Would make a bit more sense there.

[Vinyadan]

I think the big rectangular Roman shield from Dura Europos had a single horizontal handle in the middle, behind the boss. I wonder if they carried it in battle with the palm upwards or downwards. Upwards looks more natural, but also very tiresome.

[gkathellar]

I think the big rectangular Roman shield from Dura Europos had a single horizontal handle in the middle, behind the boss. I wonder if they carried it in battle with the palm upwards or downwards. Upwards looks more natural, but also very tiresome.

It might be easier, depending on how close to the shoulder they held it. The more you let a carried object's weight "hang" from your body, in my experience, the more it messes up your gait and stresses your legs. In the short-term, it's easier on your arms, but over a length of time, it's murder on your whole body. Palm upward might also let you shift the shield around to more easily, so you could periodically shoulder some of the weight.

That aside, Legionnaires in general were renowned for their ability to march and fight with a heavy load, though, weren't they? Seems like it'd be in keeping with their reputation for them to have painful-to-carry shields.

[KarlMarx]

I think the big rectangular Roman shield from Dura Europos had a single horizontal handle in the middle, behind the boss. I wonder if they carried it in battle with the palm upwards or downwards. Upwards looks more natural, but also very tiresome.

I believe that Vegetius answered that question somewhere, though I'm not familiar with what that answer was. If anyone is more familiar with him than I and can answer that definitively, great, but I'm not sure when I'd have time to dig through and find the relevant passage(s).

However, I would guess that they held the shield palm-down on marches at least, because that seems like the optimal way to rest its weight on the thigh as the legionaries were supposed to do without straining the arm or shoulder during long marches.

[Haighus]

Probably old news to the learned ones who mostly post to this thread, but it was interesting to me:

Spirit of the 7th Sea: Interview with Samantha Swords

Welcome to spirit of the 7th Sea, an interview series with experts and enthusiasts*who share a passion for early modern European history.

This month, we interviewed sword-fighter, performer, illustrator, and craftsperson Samantha Swords.

Originally from New Zealand, Samantha has traveled the world doing work in the film industry, as well as working with propmaking, armor construction, costume construction, large-scale sculpture, metalsmithing, and much, much more.

Samantha was kind enough to lend her time and expertise talking with us about historical sword fighting, pop culture myths, and favorite dueling maneuvers.

Hi Samantha! I’m thrilled to be able to talk with you about sword fighting. Thanks for lending your time and expertise!

Q: First, how did you get your start? What initially drew you to sword fighting and what attracted you to historical sword fighting over modern sport fencing?

Samantha: I have been passionate about medieval European swords since I was a child. I started training in historical fencing in 2008, but I did practice modern Olympic fencing for four years as a teenager. I don’t see much relationship between the two, as historically the art of defence was very practical and dangerous, and it’s much more interesting to me. Also the martial arts of medieval Europe are very beautiful, and the challenge of reviving them is unique and exciting!

Q: Like many people, my concept of historical sword fighting mostly comes from pop culture, and I know my knowledge is built on a lot of myths. What are the most common myths you’ve encountered?

Samantha:*The first is a strange myth that medieval swords weren’t actually sharpened much, or were mostly bludgeoning tools.

We know that medieval and Renaissance swords were very sharp, partly from surviving museum examples, through forensic evidence of damage to deceased fighters, and via documentation from the period. Also, feders—the sword-like tools that historical fencing schools used to train safely—are strangely-shaped so that they can simulate the weight, balance and other characteristics of a fully-sharpened sword. Essentially, there’s no sense in carrying around a 3 foot long blade if one isn’t going to use it as a blade!

Another myth many people love to hold onto is the idea that ‘swords were extremely heavy’. They weren’t. The average weight of any actively-used sword throughout the Middle Ages was a mere 1-3 pounds. Most single-handed arming swords were around 1 pound in weight, even Viking swords! In the case of Viking swords, they were secondary weapons, mainly used for cutting at exposed areas, not used for smashing into wooden shields (that’s what other shields and axes were for..!)

The later weapon, the longsword, averaged around 2-3 pounds in weight. The rapier was heavier than most people think and was around the same weight as a longsword, but the since it was a single-handed tool the weight was distributed more close to the hilt, allowing freer movement of its long, narrow blade.

Larger two-handed swords gained popularity in war and for ceremonial use from the 16th-17th centuries, and their size varied depending on different, specialised functions. Swords used in dueling tended to be smaller than those employed to hew through large groups of enemies at a time (such as the famousmontante, from the Iberian Peninsula). Two handed ‘schlachtschwert‘ (battle swords) were very large but still dynamic and well-balanced. Their great size made them well-suited for ceremonial use. Even ‘bearing’ swords, extremely large swords used only in parades to impress onlookers from great distance, were built to fighting-sword standards. Surviving examples of bearing swords are excellent examples of craftsmanship, and like battle swords, are only around 6-8 pounds. However a modern misunderstanding about the context of such weapons contribute to the myth of the oversized, overly-heavy medieval sword.

The good guide to debunking such myths is to remember that a tool is made to be useful, and in a fight, any excess weight will slow you down. Weapons and armour-makers intelligently designed their equipment to be as strong, lightweight and efficient as possible.

Q: Speaking of pop culture, let’s talk movie sword fights! I’ve always loved this fight scene from Princess Bride, between Inigo Montoya and the feared Dread Pirate Roberts. I’m ready to have my reality shattered. What do you see here that just wouldn’t fly in a real sword fight?

Samantha:*I love this scene. It perfectly captures the energy and character of Inigo and The Man in Black. The fighters’ use of the environment, their gymnastic feats and clear, disciplined attacks, the wit and wordplay the two engage in, the references to historical fencing masters and their strategies—everything is great for on-screen entertainment.

As with any stage combat, the strikes that both actors make are often wide, and won’t connect if the other performer misses with their block. This style of attack is done for the safety of the performers and usually hidden through camera angles, but in a real fight if an opponent makes an attack that won’t actually connect then there is no need to move and defend against it! Knowing when to move or not involves a mastery of distance— knowing how far you and your opponent can reach when the swords are extended in a thrust or cut.

The Man in Black and Inigo are fighting with rapiers, but not using them as rapiers were historically used according to the many sources that we have. Despite referencing four fencing masters, what they are doing in the scene doesn’t actually reflect the movements they are commenting on. This is unsurprising as the wonderful*sword choreographer Bob Anderson*was not well-versed in historical fencing so wasn’t able to bring in the complex techniques referenced as he created the fight.

The style that the two are fencing with more resembles the use of small-swords, which require a closer range to cause damage. Smallswords are also lighter than rapiers, which allow for soft, quick, flexible attacks, gymnastic behaviour like leaping and hopping, and antics like tossing the sword from hand to hand, as The Man in Black does towards the end, mid-defence. With a true rapier fight he wouldn’t be able to do this as the opponent, Inigo, would push through the centre the moment the Man in Black switched hands. As someone who ‘has studied his Agrippa’, this would be a simple matter for Inigo. Instead, the two constantly are swiping at one another with their swords, making contact and then breaking apart again.

Unlike what is often seen in movies, good historical fencing was based around being able to control the other fighter’s blade, not constantly knock it aside back and forth (most often seen with larger weapons such as longswords). The teeth of two sharp swords bite into one another and create a strong connection between both opponents. They are then ‘bound’ and able to feel the force and movements of the other, and a good fighter take can advantage of this feedback as they press one another for an opening.

It’s very realistic at the end of the fight that Inigo becomes erratic with his defence. A masterful swordsman would seek to defend with conservative motions, whilst still threatening and making their opponent move wider and wider until there is an undefended opening that the swordsman can take advantage of—just as The Man in Black does with Inigo. This kind of masterful control of a fight takes precision and patience, which is why Inigo realises that The Man in Black has bettered him, and he surrenders.

A masterful swordsman would seek to defend with conservative motions, whilst still threatening and making their opponent move wider and wider until there is an undefended opening that the swordsman can take advantage of.

Overall the duel at the Cliffs of Insanity is strictly linear in its motions, much like a modern fencing bout. One way to take such advantage would be to step offline, changing the angulation of the attack—such as using the strategies of Thibault. The linear fencing in the fight reads well on film, however, and has a beautiful flow to it that in no way detracts from the rest of the movie.

Despite the criticisms mentioned above, I feel that the style of combat in the scene was entirely appropriate. Having the two characters fight in any other way would detract from the lighthearted atmosphere of the encounter. Ultimately this is what good fight design should do—fit with the characters and story and feel like a seamless part of the world they are in. By this standard, the scene is perfect!

Q: My final pop culture question, and I hope this one doesn’t make you cringe. I love the trope of a blade so sharp it can cut another sword clear in half! I’m guessing that one’s … not very realistic. What would it take to make that happen?

Samantha:*Actually, this one isn’t so far fetched as other myths! It is possible for one sword to cut through another, but only if the sword that breaks is already weak; of poor quality. Steel is made up of crystals that form and weave together during forging, and once you fracture their structure (by heating or mistreating a blade) it is completely possible the sword can snap or yield to a forceful cut.

Two good steel swords that strike one another with a lot of power are going to be damaged, but if they are made well and flexible, their core should transfer the force along the length of the tang.

Blades cut when they are moving, and have thousands of microscopic teeth that bite into something, like a saw. Just pressing them hard against an object is not enough to cause a cut. There needs to be a sliding motion, just like with a saw cutting through wood.

When it comes to the trope of a sword slicing through armour, consider that armour is made to defend against swords and other weapons. That’s the purpose of its design. If swords were able to slice right through the layers then there would be absolutely no point to wearing a hot, heavy harness that takes a fair bit of time to put on. Armour worked, but like everything, it still had vulnerabilities. Many other tools were developed solely to damage a fighter in armour. If a sword were already able to do that then there would be no need for other weapons to exist like the war hammer, mace or flail.

If you were going to attack a well-armoured opponent with your sword, it would make sense to mainly thrust and only go for the gaps and weak places. Historically, fully-armoured knights fighting a sword-wielder would be targetted in areas like the armpits, the palms, the eye-sockets, inside the elbows, behind the knees, and other areas that armour wasn’t able to cover because it needed to still hinge and allow the fighter to move their body.

Although a sharp blade is dangerous and can cut easily, being able to make smooth, clean strikes that slice right through something requires a lot of practice. It takes very little pressure to cut through skin, but if you don’t follow through then an enemy may only be in pain, and able to strike you back! In historical swordsmanship, every cut should be an offensive blow. Even if it is a parry it should still be swung to still be a threat, and keep your opponent at bay.

Photo by Bruno Gallant.Q: While heroes get themselves into dire situations, sword fighting in 7th Sea often has a playful edge! In a real sword fight (or more casual swordplay), are there any maneuvers where you know someone is just messing with you? Like playful moves, or provoking moves?

Samantha:*Definitely! You can use your distance to trick an opponent, and bait them into attacking an opening that might be just out of range. You can switch your weapon from one hand to another, to confuse them, especially if they are not used to fighting a left-hander (although good fencing masters of the time would teach to defend against just that!).

You could play with them by making contact with their blade with the tip of yours, but not enough for them to control you—moving the fastest part of your sword around theirs. This can be very frustrating to experience because your opponent refuses to commit to an action.

You can lean away from your opponent when they strike, not even moving your feet. This can be annoying if the other person has put a lot of force into the blow… Another option when duelling at close range is to perform disarms. Many people don’t expect it, and it can be an amusing way to end a fight!

Q: In 7th Sea, the continent of Théah is made up of ten nations, each with its own distinct customs and personality. Can you talk about regional differences in bladed weapons? Are these differences largely aesthetic or will you find major differences in the shape, weight, and function of bladed weapons across 17th century Europe.

Samantha:*The 17th century saw dramatic changes in single handed swords, and how they were used. Following the Renaissance, several distinctive blade types developed in Europe. The iconic shape of the cruciform, double-edged medieval sword was largely replaced by blades that ranged in shape from wide and curved to straight and narrow. Civilian and military weapons were extremely diverse and developed both for fashion and for function.

As the blade styles evolved they were imitated universally, but decoration and other details varied depending on culture and region. Hand protection was added to many swords and classical-inspired styling, such as scalloped shapes and the chiselled likeness of animals were very fashionable features found on many swords. Italian and Spanish weapons tended to be elaborate and flamboyant, Germanic weapons were more simple and functional, and English and French swords fell somewhere in between.

Many sword types were effectively the same across Europe as their specialised parts would be made at certain workshops and manufacturing hubs, then shipped and assembled by local cutlers. Some of the reasons for this were to enable the best product quality and also practicality of transport. For example, sword blades packed tight and stored in a barrel are a lot easier to ship than a bundle of fully-finished swords.

Italian and Spanish weapons tended to be elaborate and flamboyant, Germanic weapons were more simple and functional, and English and French swords fell somewhere in between.

The lessening influence of the Church on nobility and increased trade with the East contributed to social acceptance of curved sabres, and also the increased skill of swordsmiths (combined with access to fine quality steel) allowed for the development of longer, finer weapons like the rapier and the smallsword.

As well as being a military weapon, the rapier became immensely popular during the 16th and 17th centuries due to its elegant appearance and lethal capabilities, and especially as it could be an ‘espada ropera’- a sword of the robes, or daily clothes. It could be worn anywhere, unlike the larger swords that were associated with the ‘work’ of war and considered provocative and inappropriate for civilian life. The rapier was discreet enough to still be worn for self defence and showed the wearer was both a swordsman and a gentleman. During the 17th century the preference changed in favour of the smallsword, and then by the end of the century, sadly the pistol replaced these as the duellist’s weapon of choice.

Other shorter bladed weapons were popular during this time too, such as the basket-hilted broadsword (with a wire cage that protected the user’s hand) and the messer, a sword-like knife worn by all classes of society. For the upper classes the rapier enjoyed the most use, and its extreme length (between 30-55 inches) was a great advantage in any duel. At the beginning of the 17th century rapier fencers would frequently use a left-handed dagger as well. This fell out of fashion in most areas, except in Italy and Spain where the weapon took on a highly-developed, specialised form.

The rapier was discreet enough to still be worn for self defence and showed the wearer was both a swordsman and a gentleman.

Some other blades were immensely successful in select regions, such as the stocky, powerful cinquedea of Italy, which was used extensively there and nowhere else. Another example is the katzbalger of the Landsknecht mercenaries, a short, brutal and effective weapon- an appropriate companion to the professional soldier.

In some cities the wearing of swords was restricted or banned outright, so other weapons were adopted, such as*falchions*orbaselards. Like their well-utilised cousin themesser, these might pass as swords at a distance but are actually constructed as knives with single edges and a different hilt, allowing them to defy legal restrictions through sheer technicality.

At sea, shorter weapons were also favoured due to their heft and manoeuvrability in close quarters. Firearms were becoming more efficient in the 17th century but were still limited with their reloading capacity and overall reliability, so many seamen opted to always fall back on wielding an axe, or a trusty blade.

Q: I’ve heard people refer to the katana as a superior bladed weapon. Do you think there’s a historic sword that’s a cut above the rest, or does it really come down to the skill of the bladesmith and the intended purpose of the sword?

Samantha:*Whilst the katana was produced by an extraordinary feat of engineering, it was still only suitable within the context that it was used—defeating other warriors in single combat. Different weapons develop for different purposes, and there are some exceptional weapons (especially from ancient Asian and Scandinavian cultures) so it is very difficult to decide on one ‘best sword of all’.

However, since the majority of medieval and Renaissance swords were designed to follow harmonic principles of geometry, the original objects are beautiful and extremely well-balanced, symmetrical tools. For me, this makes them superior to most other weapons. I’m also biased towards medieval swords!

Q: How customized is footwork when it comes to using different swords? For example, if you spent your life training with a rapier then picked up a longsword for the first time, would you really trip yourself up?

Samantha:*For later styles such as rapier or smallsword, footwork is very specialised, because the fencing style is based largely on thrusting and takes advantage of the minute differences in blade angles.

A rapier fighter could employ their footwork to wield a longsword and may still fight well, but there are major differences on how best to use your body to work with either weapon. A longsword requires both sides of the body to move together more wholistically, and to adjust your body structure for the powerful momentum of longsword cuts. The fencer would need to learn to wrestle as well, since the optimal sparring distance for longsword is much closer than rapier—just outside of grappling range—and the martial arts of the longsword largely incorporate switching between the two.

Samantha Swords fencing in Michigan.Q: Can you talk about little details a player or GM might add to their 7th Sea games to make dueling scenes or sword fights feel more realistic? Something that would take the scene from “awesome but impossible” to “awesome and plausible?”

Samantha:*I’ve thrown in some clues in my other answers, which I hope will help players build more realism into their game. The essence of creating believable combat in a role-play story is to understand the purpose of the fight, and the motivations of the people in it. Do they want to get away? Do they want vengeance? Are they impressing their peers, or surviving a brutal confrontation? Are they in or out of their comfort zone? How desperate are they? Are they tired? How far away is their backup?

I think of combat as falling into three different goals: for show (like a duel of honour or test of sportsmanship), for self defence (such as being ambushed and fighting to get away), or for survival (such as enduring a battle or a situation that you can’t just walk away from). Once you understand where a character falls into these important categories, you can then look at other smaller details and build them in.

The essence of creating believable combat in a role-play story is to understand the purpose of the fight, and the motivations of the people in it.

As well as understanding this breakdown of fighting goals, my best advice is to learn as much as you can about historical arms, armour and their limitations and advantages so you can exploit the details in your narrative. This will make it feel real and engaging to the other people involved in your story.

Q: Let’s talk scrappy fighting! In 7th Sea you’ll find trained nobles and naval officers with swords, but you’ll also find pirates. What are some of the notable differences you’d see in a fight between a trained swordswoman and a rough n’ tumble fighter? What bladed weapons might a wealthy person have access to that a pirate wouldn’t?

Samantha:*Did I hear you say, “Let’s talk about pirates”…?! Yarrr…!

‘Hit and run’ was the essential signature of a pirate attack. Historically, pirates worked through intimidation, relying on their reputation and superior strength to demoralise their victims, and the expectation was immediate surrender lest the hapless ship suffer fatal consequences. The majority of ships targeted by pirates were trade vessels that had never seen battle, so in most cases the terrified crew would comply after the pirates made a show of force and demanded a surrender. Many seamen could not swim, so even just the threat of fire and exploding devices such as early grenades thrown onto an oily wooden ship could be enough for a ship’s crew to be conquered without a drop of blood being spilled. On land, pirates would also employ raid techniques, sometimes banding together with other pirate crews so that their numbers overwhelmed the small towns they stormed.

Although pirates were thought of by their contemporaries as wild, cruel individuals that killed without hesitation, a great many were former merchant seamen; young men in their 20s who had willingly—or not—joined a pirate crew. Some would have been thugs and criminals, but the greatest fighting strengths that pirates possessed were their willingness to engage in violence, the firepower of their ship, and the reputation that preceded them.

Individually I can only speculate on how a pirate might fight. Brawling was common amongst both working men and academics in the 17th century, but a pirate’s intimacy with everyday violence would give them more comfort during a fight than a person living within the law might feel.

An experienced swordsman would have certainly studied rapier, military sabre or sidesword as a duelling weapon, as well as other ‘gentlemanly’ weapons such as dagger, cape and open hand/wrestling techniques. They would have been influenced by a calculated and mathematical approach to the defensive arts that grew during the Renaissance and was popularised by the writings of masters such as*Capo Ferro,Thibault*and*Fabris. With a better concept of physics and more conservative motions, the swordsman would have the upper hand in a civilised fight. However pirates worked outside the law, so ‘anything goes’ was probably the best approach to winning a one-on-one fight with such a person.

Reproduced illustration from Academy of the Sword by Girard Thibault (1628)

Public duels amongst 17th century swordsmen were often bloody affairs, though rarely lethal. Thus an experienced fencer could have won many duels, yet might struggle to keep their head during a scrap with a disreputable, ‘rough and tumble’ type. In this case I think having general military experience would serve a person much better in such a fight than having only studied 17th century martial arts.

A wealthy person had a great variety of weapons available to them. As well as pistols, rifles and muskets (which were very much in everyday use during the 17th century) bladed weapons that a person of means might carry include rapiers, broadswords, any type of long knife, basket-hilted swords, sabres, or in some cases pikes, warhammers and short spears.

Fighting seamen such as pirates would have fought with more simple weapons such as pistols, naval axes and hangers—thick, curved, single-edged swords. Essentially the same as messers, hangers were in use for hundreds of years as popular weapons but found special favour during the Age of Sail, where they evolved into the weapons known as cutlasses (derived from an Italian word for a ‘long knife’). The cutlass was the ideal close-combat weapon for ship use, but was not in widespread use until the very end of the naval era, despite being the most well-remembered weapon in our mythology and stories about that time. The earlier hanger and other broad-bladed swords were most often used by the military and were very useful in naval combat due to their short length, sturdy construction and terrific cutting power, which combined to make them excellent weapons within the tight quarters of a densely-rigged ship deck.

A 19th century French naval cutlassQ: Finally, if someone wanted to learn historical sword fighting today, where should they look? What do you recommend for beginners who can’t wait to jump in?

First I recommend watching ‘Back to the Source‘, an excellent documentary that was made recently about the historical European martial arts community. It covers a lot of what we do, is free to watch online and is very encouraging for folks just getting started!

There are many online resources, such as theWiktenauer*(a gigantic online library of historical European martial arts books) and terrific YouTube channels such as*Schola Gladiatoria, which will give you an abundance of historical martial arts knowledge.
You can also check out the*HEMA Alliance Club Finder*to search for local groups practicing near you.

Failing all that, should you wish to do library or internet research yourself, you can look for ‘Western Martial Arts’, ‘Historical European Martial Arts’, ‘Historical Swordsmanship’ or ‘Historical Fencing’.

I’d recommend buying some kind of starter sword (which can be made of wood or synthetic) and practice hitting a target. Don’t buy a steel sword until you know if it will suit regular training. HEMA-oriented websites should help you find*good, trustworthy brands of starter swords.

If you are training with a friend wear sturdy gloves and head protection at the very least! Many people buy fencing masks, which are good if you start sparring. If you do want to spar I’d also recommend wearing a mouthguard, some kind of joint, neck and torso protection, and groin protection for guys. Developing control is more important than having equipment, but safety gear needs to help keep you safe and confident while you learn. Personally, when I pick up a sword for practice I also put on safety glasses, which cost only a few dollars and are very good if your sword breaks or your friend slips and donks you in the eye!

HEMA is a growing movement and with the rich resources of the internet, it’s very possible to*start a club if there are none in your area. There are a great variety other medieval combat groups as well. For people who are less interested in historical martial arts and perhaps want to do armoured combat, there are many sports groups that specialise in this which aren’t associated with HEMA, but are also a lot of fun.

The ACL (Armored Combat League) and HMB (Heavy Medieval Battle) are two similar international organisations who do very competitive, highly-athletic medieval combat.

There’s also the SCA (Society of Creative Anachronism) who also train with medieval armour and host impressive, huge battles, and some SCA groups offer really good rapier training. If you’re not ready to get hit with steel or even wooden swords you might want to get some experience using foam swords with LARPing groups. There are many fighters from the groups above who cross-train in the relaxed, fun environment that LARPing offers, and I know HEMA groups that use foam to build up confidence and awareness with beginners, especially youth. It’s fine to use lots of training tools so long as you remember what they are simulating- a sharp steel sword used in the art of self-defence.

Whatever path you choose, if you get a sword, find someone to teach you, make time to practice, and keep at it, you will be well on the way to becoming a competent swordsperson!

This was fantastic, Samantha! Thank you again for sharing your time and enthusiasm in the name of 7th Sea.
Nice interview, and counters many of the general myths about swords, twin-edged swords in particular. Unfortunately she then goes on to repeat some myths about single-edged medieval swords, such as messers becoming popular due to town laws restricting sword use (she also mixes up falchions and messers in the interview- falchions have sword hilts, messers knife hilts). If there is anything I've learnt from reading through 6 years of this thread (from the VII incarnation I think, missing a few of the more recent ones), it is that german towns where the messer was most popular generally mandated that people carried and owned swords. Thanks to Galloglaich and Spiryt in particular for improving my knowledge on this region.

On the plus side, she correctly points out that cutlasses were very late weapons, and not used during the golden age of pirates. I am still unsure personally as to what a hanger is though- it seems to originally just be a regional (English) term for a falchion in the 16th century, that remained in use as a term for similar weapons onboard ships until such weapons evolved into cutlasses.

I think a lot of research is lagging for single-edged swords. I myself have recently learned much more about them through finding out about the work of James Elmslie (through Shadiversity).

[Kiero]

A hangar is essentially a short sabre. Matt Easton shows many of them in his videos; in fact he's done one on pirate weapons where he shows a cutlass and hangar together.

[Haighus]

A hangar is essentially a short sabre. Matt Easton shows many of them in his videos; in fact he's done one on pirate weapons where he shows a cutlass and hangar together.

Yeah, I've watched a lot of those videos. It seems to descend from falchions, not sabers though, although there isn't a lot of difference between many later falchion blades and sabers (obviously not the earlier ones like the conyers falchion).

Edit: Does anyone know when hanger as a term first appeared? I have a vague feeling it was sometime around the 16th century, but if anyone has any sources, that would be great.

[wolflance]

Also, you've got friends behind you. Do you really want to risk them having a spike poking you in the back? Or sticking out to the side into your sword arm from your pal on the right.

Keep in mind the shield has to be carried around in other circumstances than the front line of a shieldwall. A spike would interfere with several of those, for not too much tangiable benefit. While you could do more of a bodypush with it the guy on the other side will take it on his shield and stab you as you mash yourself into your own shield restricting your movements.

Most aggressive use of the shield comes form using the edges, not the boss, which is going to be a bit more ofa committed move in a fight.

I think I've seen bucklers with more of a spike like boss (I know fantasy versions of it tend to)? Would make a bit more sense there.
I recall Scottish targe sometimes has a spike on the shield boss. Not all shield user fought in packed, shield locked formation, and even in tight formation, having only the front rank use shield is still viable.

[Kiero]

I recall Scottish targe sometimes has a spike on the shield boss. Not all shield user fought in packed, shield locked formation, and even in tight formation, having only the front rank use shield is still viable.

Having only the front rank with (body) shields isn't viable at all. There's no replacement for lost men if all those in the second and subsequent ranks are unshielded. You've got a temporary shield wall that shrinks with casualties.

[wolflance]

Having only the front rank with (body) shields isn't viable at all. There's no replacement for lost men if all those in the second and subsequent ranks are unshielded. You've got a temporary shield wall that shrinks with casualties.
It is, and it was used. The shieldmen's role is to deliver other troops into close combat in (relatively) one piece, keeping casualties from ranged weapon to a minimum, while at the same time still retain the deadliness of two-handed polearms (of the rest of the shieldless troops).

[Vitruviansquid]

Okay, question that probably straddles the border for this thread, but I figure let's throw it out there and see if anyone wants to contribute something:

In this RPG I am writing that is about 90% ready for "beta," I have a kingdom that recently experienced gross misrule and a revolution, leaving it carved up in the hands of multiple warlords, fragmenting its society along the lines of its four former provinces. The game's setting is themed around the post-revolution situation, the way that these societies controlled by warlords will go into the future, and the way they'll look at each other now that a kingdom with a few thousand years' history has fragmented.

One of these former provinces is called Urgens, and it was always something of a red-headed stepchild. Urgensians were an ethnic and cultural minority organized along tribal lines that had been subjugated in a past age. It had been technically under the suzerainty of the kingdom for an extremely long time. Centuries before the revolution that kicks off the setting when it ends, the Urgensians attempted to stage a separation rebellion that was ultimately crushed, and were punished with universal slavery that saw their tribal warrior society converted into a slave society in which individuals were treated like cogs in a machine. With the revolution, there has been an Urgensian movement to rediscover their cultural roots, resulting in a culture that is one third based on subsuming individuality for the greater good, one third based on notions of ancient warrior honor and religious mysticism, one third based on made up mumbo jumbo and misunderstandings/misinterpretations about a centuries-old culture.

The Urgensian way of war is this: When a threat appears, a chieftain (who was elected) can call upon his peers in the confederacy to form a council, which determines the scale of the threat and determines if a warband should be raised to deal with the threat. If yes, all chieftains are bound by law to make an equal contribution to this warband, though this contribution may take the form of warriors, equipment and supplies, or anything else deemed appropriate in the council. Once everybody's obligations are settled, the chieftains send messengers to inform his subchiefs at the local level of villages, towns, and cities, about the quota they have to meet. The subchiefs are responsible for summoning every able bodied man and a number of druids (the legal and religious leaders of Urgensian society) to a Mustering.

Participation in a Mustering is technically completely voluntary, but an able-bodied man of fighting age faces social censure for failing to show up. At the Mustering, the subchieftains handpick the men who will be allowed to join the warband, which is an honor. Subchieftains are responsible for the economic well-being of the settlement and choose based on ability as well as expendability - for example, a subchieftain is unlikely to allow all the men in charge of farming to go off to war, in case they don't come back and the village is out of experts to train more farmers. During this process, the druid(s) present may veto the subchieftain's picks and deny anyone permission to join the army if they are deemed inauspicious, or for any other reason the druid(s) see fit. To be thus vetoed is considered dishonorable.

Finally, all the picked men who were not vetoed are equipped from the village's/town's/city's armory, which is stocked with weapons and armor made by local manufacturing or procured by trade. This equipment is considered to be holy and imbued with local spirits. While it is considered honorable to die with them, it is considered extremely dishonorable to discard them, such as during a rout. All Urgensian men have some experience handling their holy weapons (which includes primitive firearms, bombs, and cannon in a setting where their rivals are mainly using swords and bows) due to drill and sparring being part of normal scheduled recreation.

The question is: Is this a realistic portrayal of a society and military, as far as you can understand? If not, what modifications would you think is necessary to make? Is there additional information that would be necessary or neat to include in this description?

[rs2excelsior]

The question is: Is this a realistic portrayal of a society and military, as far as you can understand? If not, what modifications would you think is necessary to make? Is there additional information that would be necessary or neat to include in this description?

Looks pretty interesting to me. A couple of points do jump out at me:


The Urgensian way of war is this: When a threat appears, a chieftain (who was elected) can call upon his peers in the confederacy to form a council, which determines the scale of the threat and determines if a warband should be raised to deal with the threat. If yes, all chieftains are bound by law to make an equal contribution to this warband, though this contribution may take the form of warriors, equipment and supplies, or anything else deemed appropriate in the council. Once everybody's obligations are settled, the chieftains send messengers to inform his subchiefs at the local level of villages, towns, and cities, about the quota they have to meet. The subchiefs are responsible for summoning every able bodied man and a number of druids (the legal and religious leaders of Urgensian society) to a Mustering.

It seems the calling of the council happens out of order. If a loose confederation of tribes exists, I'd think the council would de facto exist as well, especially if the council just consists of the chieftain of each tribe. I would think the council would be called, then upon determining that a warband was needed a head chief would be elected. Perhaps any chieftain has the authority to summon the others when faced with a military threat?

Also, if there is a major differentiation in power between the tribes, it doesn't make sense for each one to make an equal contribution (in absolute terms, which is how I was interpreting your statement--correct me if I'm misinterpreting). Either the smaller tribes are heavily overtaxed, or the stronger ones do not make full use of their strength. Perhaps a certain percentage of the tribe's population with a commensurate amount of supply and money, which could be rebalanced if needed (i.e. providing more warriors than required to make up for providing less supply, while a more agricultural tribe does the opposite).


Finally, all the picked men who were not vetoed are equipped from the village's/town's/city's armory, which is stocked with weapons and armor made by local manufacturing or procured by trade. This equipment is considered to be holy and imbued with local spirits. While it is considered honorable to die with them, it is considered extremely dishonorable to discard them, such as during a rout. All Urgensian men have some experience handling their holy weapons (which includes primitive firearms, bombs, and cannon in a setting where their rivals are mainly using swords and bows) due to drill and sparring being part of normal scheduled recreation.

Giving weapons/battle standards/etc. religious significance can definitely work, and has a historical precedent. The Eagle of a Roman legion had religious significance, and the legion was expected to die to the last man to prevent its capture. The Eagle being in danger prompted legions to acts of bravery (Julius Caesar's landing in Britain), and the three legions who lost their eagles in the Teutoberg forest were so dishonored as to be expunged from the records so thoroughly that we know almost nothing but their numbers today. So that's definitely plausible, though expect at times the warrior culture and religious significance and fear of dishonor won't be enough--they are human, after all.

The other thing is firearms. As a tribal society, I don't think they'd have as favorable a condition for coming up with the advanced metalworking and chemistry required for making firearms--it's probably possible (and maybe a lot more possible than I think it is) but it'd strike me as a little odd for firearm technology to begin here barring other circumstances.

Also, I assume these are weapons that are fairly new to all four areas? Historically when firearms arrived in Europe it took much less than on the order of a thousand years for them to become commonly accepted. Which means they wouldn't be a "traditional" weapon from when the area was previously independent. Would that have an effect on how these weapons would gain acceptance? Are they less "holy" because they aren't the weapons the tribe's ancestors fought with?

Just a couple of things that jumped out at me from the brief summary you gave.

[Vitruviansquid]

Wow, reply much sooner than I expected. Thanks!

About the council: I envisaged that the chieftains all have a spot on the council, and it is regularly convened to make non-emergency decisions. Perhaps rather than saying a council will be called, what I mean is the pre-existing council will have an emergency meeting. I forget to mention, during this meeting, a war chief is chosen to lead the war band. However, leaders under the war chief are elected by the men in a decimal scheme. Ten men have a headman, ten headmen have an overseer, ten overseers have a commander, and then every commander obeys the war chief (I am still re-considering the names of the Urgensian leaders, which should sound sort of industrial). In cases where military forces are needed but not on a scale that would require involving the entire confederacy, the sub-chiefs might convene a council with their chieftain, and basically do the entire process on a smaller scale.

About the tribes: I imagine there to be a bit of politicking and jockeying for power due to the law that each tribe contribute equal effort to a joint warband. Chieftains might attempt to argue that his tribe's providing some amount of food supplies is equivalent to another tribe's providing some amount of manpower, some tribe might attempt to claim they are having an emergency (drought ruined our crops, mine collapse reduced our industry, plague killed our people) that impedes their ability to contribute to the war effort and ask the confederation to waive their contribution or allow them to take a debt. Or maybe some tribes argue that contribution should be based on equal percentage of their total wealth and power while other tribes argue it should not. Which would be more compelling as a part of an RPG setting? It is, however, intended for this law to be awkward as a manifestation of the weirdness of this experimental society that is partially based on fragments of old legends.

About the sacredness of weaponry: I think pretty much any society that does war, which is pretty much any society, will have some rules of honor to prevent men from running from battle. This doesn't mean these rules always worked, and in fact, it would probably fail most of the time during military defeat, when people realize life is preferable to honor. Firearms are holy because they are imbued by local spirits, so in effect, because they were placed in the armory, which is itself holy ground.

About the production of weaponry: The ancient Urgensian tribes lived in a bountiful land of dense forests, lush fields and tall mountains. When they were enslaved, they were turned into an industrial society that had the ultimate goal of producing weapons and armor for the tyrant's limitless legions (which were literally grown in vast quantities from the blood of firstborn babies). Their advanced metalworking and chemistry knowledge comes from working in large-scale workshops and mines. After the revolution, the tribes that Urgensians attempted to reform mostly ended up based around major industrial bases, and so retain the facilities and expertise to produce things like gunpowder weapons. The civilian community structure of the Urgensians is somewhat of a hybrid between a Celtic tribe and a Communist... uhh... commune. Let's say there is an Urgensian community that is based on an old workshop that has been retrofitted during the revolution to provide the rebels with arquebus. You might have three extended families that specialize in work related to the foundry, and are responsible for running the foundry that makes the metal. An extended family in the community is responsible for the transport of metal ores from a separate mining community and sundries needed by the community from elsewhere and might be considered the equivalent of traders. Another extended family is responsible for the crafting of the founded metals into gun barrels. Another extended family might make some other part of the gun. There might be three extended families who farm or fish to sustain the community with food and plant/animal products. And so on and so forth. This is a tribe in the sense that an elected headman (I referred to them as subchieftains earlier on) can direct the families' efforts and do things like request the formation of a family to do a new kind of work (the headman cannot make force a job on people, though... yes, it is a paradoxical mix of freedom and slavery), or request that a family or set of families produce more or less of something or produce in a different way. Every village/town/city is also paired with a druid whose job it is to make sure the village's actions are in accordance with ancient law. Sometimes the druid's actions will be rooted in ancient ritual, like saying the village must cut open a goat and look at its liver before it can build a new watermill, but druids also do things like adjudicate in disputes.

On the spread of firearms (would be really good to get some reality-checking on this):Firearms are new to everybody. The Urgensian rebels' firearms were descended from explosives they used as slave miners, and while they were slave miners, they were not of course allowed to have any weapons. So they have not really existed at all until the last 100 years. Non-Urgensians really like to buy Urgensian cannon because of their utility against the dead tyrant's giant monsters, who are now loose and feral with their master dead. For the reason why nobody else extensively uses firearms besides cannons, Urgens is simply the only place equipped with the necessary facilities to produce gunpowder weapons and ammunition in a meaningful quantity, especially with cannon. Of the other major provinces...

...Lygistra in the west is far too politically divided and unstable for it to make sense for a warlord to build the necessary facilities. It is also rather agrarian and its population is sort of de-centralized.
... Plenoe in the north is dominated by three cities that have fairly extreme socio-economic disparity. They entered the revolution in its last days and so did not have the reason to produce firearms until way too recently to have a good home industry. Their potential for developing their own firearms is further spoiled by their strategy of offering amnesty for Witches (magic-wielding elites of the tyrant's former army) and hiring them on for military service.
... Thiber in the south I have simply not thought that deeply about yet. Thiber was the center of religion in the kingdom before the tyrant came into power, and is currently plagued by a large number of religious cults and movements that all have their own mystical philosophies that disagree with each other. Imagine if, out of every three towns, you had a Sodom, a Jonestown, and an Amish community.

But it would help to know - is it difficult for people using early firearms to produce gunpowder in sufficient quantities?
What is a good tech level for a firearm that did not do much to overshadow relatively low-tech armors and weapons? Some kind of firearm you might see alongside knights in mail wielding spears and shields?

[DrewID]

Very interesting background. You might look at the Irish state being created after centuries of English rule, although that might be a bit too modern.


About the tribes: I imagine there to be a bit of politicking and jockeying for power due to the law that each tribe contribute equal effort to a joint warband. Chieftains might attempt to argue that his tribe's providing some amount of food supplies is equivalent to another tribe's providing some amount of manpower, some tribe might attempt to claim they are having an emergency (drought ruined our crops, mine collapse reduced our industry, plague killed our people) that impedes their ability to contribute to the war effort and ask the confederation to waive their contribution or allow them to take a debt. Or maybe some tribes argue that contribution should be based on equal percentage of their total wealth and power while other tribes argue it should not. Which would be more compelling as a part of an RPG setting? It is, however, intended for this law to be awkward as a manifestation of the weirdness of this experimental society that is partially based on fragments of old legends.and weapons? Some kind of firearm you might see alongside knights in mail wielding spears and shields?

I'm not sure where you are from, but much of the debate surrounding the writing and adoption of the U.S. constitution was on a similar theme: should the larger more populous states have more say that the smaller ones, and contrariwise should they contribute more to the support of said government. It lead to the two houses of congress one proportional based on population, and the other even representation per state. Your council (the chiefs of the tribes) seems more analogous to the Senate; but your military command (based on powers of 10) would seem to weight the bigger tribes more heavily. If the Bessemer tripe contributed 1000 soldiers, but the Carnegie only 500, then the Bessemers would have ten overseers and even a commander, while the Carnegies would supply just five overseers and no commanders.

DrewID

[fusilier]

But it would help to know - is it difficult for people using early firearms to produce gunpowder in sufficient quantities?
What is a good tech level for a firearm that did not do much to overshadow relatively low-tech armors and weapons? Some kind of firearm you might see alongside knights in mail wielding spears and shields?

In Europe gunpowder was expensive and somewhat difficult to produce when first introduced. There the problem seems to have been saltpeter, which, once the natural sources had been exhausted, had to be produced. It took some time to figure out how to produce it consistently. As a result gunpowder was expensive when initially introduced, but the price dropped over the course of the 15th century.

As for firearms -- handgonnes and early arquebuses, are probably the most likely, although, historically, they overlapped more with plate armor.

[Hazzardevil]

The first recorded use of Solid Projectile gunpowder weapons (At least in Europe, I don't know if guns, as we think of them, were used in Asia before this) dates to the 12th or 13th century.

The last example of chain mail I can think of being used in Europe is the Sipahi in the Ottoman Empire. I know they were disbanded as a group of soldiers in 1826 and had used chain in the Napoleonic Wars and I think it's unlikely they changed in the time in between. It may have continued to have been used later than 1826 in the Ottoman Empire, but I don't know, but I am fairly sure it continued to be used in other places, including India. But this is getting into Colonial Warfare with vastly different levels of development clasing.

Firearms didn't develop all that much in between the 15th and 17th centuries, it just became cheaper to produce a lot of them, so if you want swords, spears and guns. You can have guns be rare and new, so they haven't taken over yet. But for reasons I won't go too much into here, tabletop games find it hard to balance. Either they end up being worse crossbows, like dnd 3.5, or they do so much damage they're borderline save or die.

[Vitruviansquid]

Thanks for all the helpful responses.

On the American Constitution: That'd be an interesting dimension to add to the nature of confederacy councils. I guess I should think more about fleshing out that part of the society.

On saltpeter: I think it would make sense to say that people had not really figured out how to produce saltpeter in the setting. Would it make sense to add that the other provinces in the kingdom don't really have large saltpeter deposits to mine?

On which guns to use: I think I should settle on the term "caliver," which as I'm reading, implies a standardized size to the firearms, which makes sense to me for this setting. I'm thinking these should be matchlock calivers that were being used.

On balance: In the context of the game, it actually doesn't matter which specific ranged weapon you have if you technically have a ranged weapon. Weapons are defined by having a key word (one handed melee weapons, for example, can be Smashing, Tearing, Puncturing, Nimble, etc.) and it doesn't matter how you describe your weapon, only the keyword matters.

[fusilier]

On saltpeter: I think it would make sense to say that people had not really figured out how to produce saltpeter in the setting. Would it make sense to add that the other provinces in the kingdom don't really have large saltpeter deposits to mine?

Yes. A hot climate and extended dry period are useful for generating naturally occurring saltpeter. In the 18th century the British and Dutch preferred to import saltpeter from India, rather than try to make it themselves. That said, the conditions under which natural saltpeter occur were pretty common, so, assuming other countries were aware of the "secret", they should be able to make at least small amounts of gunpowder.



On which guns to use: I think I should settle on the term "caliver," which as I'm reading, implies a standardized size to the firearms, which makes sense to me for this setting. I'm thinking these should be matchlock calivers that were being used.

Caliver is related to the word "caliber", and, originally, a defining feature of the caliver was that they were made to a standard bore size (or at least large groups of them were). However, the word changed pretty quickly to describe something lighter than a musket, with a particular stock-style.

The benefit of a standardized bore size is that ammunition could be made centrally and shared. However, it was more typical in the period that each gun was supplied with a bullet mold and the soldiers were supplied lead, which they cast themselves.

Personally I would avoid using the term "caliver" as to me it implies a later period than you seem to be describing (calivers came about in the second half of the 16th century). I like arquebus or one of the earlier variants -- but it's ultimately up to you what you decide to call them.

[rrgg]

@vitruviansquid

I agree that caliver is probably not the right word. It's pretty specific to late 16th century england and for the most part was just another word for arquebus.

do you have any specific sort of time period in mind for your firearms? If you're looking for one where a period were firearms don't really dominate the battlefield you probably want to look at examples from 1400s (https://imgur.com/a/BUKTP) or earlier. You'd have a pretty wide variety of different sized cannons, swivel guns, "hook guns", and simple handheld guns (some of which might have started to use simple matchlock mechanisms).

You also might want to look to ming china for inspiration since they tended to be the leading user of gunpowder weapons until the mid 1400s or so with around 10% of the army armed with fire lances. Some firelances were designed to shoot projectiles and be reloaded while others were designed to be a sort of short-ranged flamethrower. They also made very heavy use of gunpowder in the form of fire arrows, firebombs, rockets, explody bombs, even landmines.

[rrgg]

I like that new video from Lars Andersen a lot. While it's wrong about volleys, which were used by various historical military archers and crossbowers, I consider the emphasis on how slow arrows are key for understanding archery and especially the question of bow vs. gun.

What we really need is to get folks to practice Andersen's techniques but with military-strength bows drawing 80-160+lbs.

Dodging and shooting at moving targets was obviously part of skirmishing with any style of bow. That's definitional. However, speed shooting was not the only way to use a bow in either skirmishing or a set battle. It wasn't necessarily the best way. The Manchu style, for example, focuses on making powerful and accurate shots rather than shooting lots of arrows quickly.

Apparently Lars' video has been taken down, but I agree, it brought up some interesting points.

I wonder if projectile velocity is part of the reason crossbows tended to have very short draw lengths and a fairly poor efficiency in the later middle ages. The idea being that a short power stroke and an extremely high draw weight would maximize acceleration and minimize the time between pulling the trigger and striking the target. Some hunting crossbows in particular have a draw only 2 or 3 inches long.

[snowblizz]

Yes. A hot climate and extended dry period are useful for generating naturally occurring saltpeter. In the 18th century the British and Dutch preferred to import saltpeter from India, rather than try to make it themselves. That said, the conditions under which natural saltpeter occur were pretty common, so, assuming other countries were aware of the "secret", they should be able to make at least small amounts of gunpowder.
Wasn't dungheaps, outhouse and compost piles noted as being a source for chemicals for gunpowder in one iteration of the thread? Potassium nitrates? I forget the name of the other one, calcium nitrate? I know it was brought up in the old naval gun debates. Because one or the other was sensitive to moisture.




Personally I would avoid using the term "caliver" as to me it implies a later period than you seem to be describing (calivers came about in the second half of the 16th century). I like arquebus or one of the earlier variants -- but it's ultimately up to you what you decide to call them.
At the turn of 17th century Sweden the caliver was simply known as pipes ("rör" in original), so there's no need to hang on a term from our history to the weapons. Everything like arquebus, caliver, muskets etc . I know stuff like "thunderstick" has a bad resonance. But e.g. pistol comes from the Chechz word word whistle. Go on an etymology search for the names for fire arms and see if you cna figure out something fun.:smallsmile:

[Brother Oni]

I wonder if projectile velocity is part of the reason crossbows tended to have very short draw lengths and a fairly poor efficiency in the later middle ages. The idea being that a short power stroke and an extremely high draw weight would maximize acceleration and minimize the time between pulling the trigger and striking the target. Some hunting crossbows in particular have a draw only 2 or 3 inches long.

I haven't seen the video, but it's a possibility.

One justification for the short draw length is that the crossbow tended to be used from horseback in European warfare, so a long power stroke raises the risk of the bolt becoming misaligned during firing due to the motion of the horse.
The other is safety - with a long power stroke, there's a much bigger area you have to keep important things clear (fingers for example), otherwise the string will remove them.

So with a short draw length, to keep the lethality of the crossbow, you have to increase the draw weight. However this increases the stresses on the prod, which results in a shorter draw length and you end up with a careful balancing act of weapon integrity, draw length and draw weight.

[fusilier]

Wasn't dungheaps, outhouse and compost piles noted as being a source for chemicals for gunpowder in one iteration of the thread? Potassium nitrates? I forget the name of the other one, calcium nitrate? I know it was brought up in the old naval gun debates. Because one or the other was sensitive to moisture.

Yes, old cesspits, stable floors, etc, were all sources for natural saltpeter. But in Europe, those were exhausted pretty quickly (they would find new sources for many years, but it wasn't enough to meet demand). So they had to try to create it themselves. That was possible but seems to have taken some time to figure out a consistent way of doing so. Centuries later, natural sources, in places that had a better climate for it, like saltpeter from India, were preferred. In the late 18th century Antoine Lavoisier applied a scientific approach and enforced standards on the French saltpeter and gunpowder industry. At which point French gunpowder became considered the best available.

[Galloglaich]

Nice interview, and counters many of the general myths about swords, twin-edged swords in particular. Unfortunately she then goes on to repeat some myths about single-edged medieval swords, such as messers becoming popular due to town laws restricting sword use (she also mixes up falchions and messers in the interview- falchions have sword hilts, messers knife hilts). If there is anything I've learnt from reading through 6 years of this thread (from the VII incarnation I think, missing a few of the more recent ones), it is that german towns where the messer was most popular generally mandated that people carried and owned swords. Thanks to Galloglaich and Spiryt in particular for improving my knowledge on this region.

Very good point, but let me amend that slightly. Like everything in medieval Europe it's complicated.

TL : DR is probably about one third to half of male townfolks, specifically citizens, in the more urban zones of Europe had the right to carry arms, but not necessarily everybody.

Longer explanation follows.


In England after the 1390's, with the possible exception of York and London (I'm still not clear on this) it seems that most people were banned from carrying weapons inside the towns.

In France it seemed to vary by town for the 'bourgeois', but peasants were generally banned from carrying weapons in towns or abbeys for example. Everyone seemed to go armed when traveling though.

In the Low Countries (roughly today's Belgium and Holland), Scandinavia, Poland, Germany and Central Europe in general, it was allowed, and basically expected, that all male citizens, including partial citizens like journeymen- would carry swords at least when dressed formally so to speak. I.e. not necessarily while they were working.

But citizens were not everybody in town - it's something like 30-40% of the male population if you include journeymen. Citizens visiting from other towns also generally had the right, as did nobles so long as they were on good terms with the town (in some cases where there was an ongoing feud with a regional prince, for example between Cologne, Bremen, or Strasbourg with the Archbishop - his vassals were specifically prohibited from entering the town armed).

Commoners on lower status, including servants, were not necessarily allowed to walk around armed. This would depend on the specific town but some had rules requiring them to leave their weapons at the inn, and the innkeeper would be in charge as a representative of the legal authority of the town to keep an eye on them. Servants could be armed by their master or employer, at the discretion of the latter, but then that master was legally liable for their actions with the weapons. I.e. if they killed or wounded somebody he could be prosecuted. Same for apprentices and guild masters. Some guild masters armed their apprentices at least some of the time (like when traveling or when involved in a feud) but if they did they were responsible if the apprentice was involved in violence.

The majority of town populations in medieval and Early Modern Central Europe were female, depending on the town it seems like 50-60%, and most women did not carry arms. Generally speaking they could if they wanted to, but like Jews and Priests, if they did they lost their special protected legal status (immunity from attack, basically). About half of women were servants and the rest either in the guilds or part of artisan or merchant families, or religious communes. The majority of the male population in the town (~60% depending on the town) were day laborers and servants.

Outside of towns, in Central Europe, in the countryside and especially when traveling, everyone including peasants above the rank of serf seemed to carry arms when traveling, at festivals, and at weddings. But they would not always be allowed to bring them inside of the town gates.

The truth is we need a lot more research on this interesting area. I often run into tantalizing clues which provide more questions than answers. For example I read a rule from Nordlingen requiring Jews to leave their 'throwing axes' at the Inn when visiting. I think that meant hurlbats. But so many questions about that fact...

I don't know what the laws were in Italy but with certain exceptions (Milan, notably after the Duke took over) the rules and expectations seemed to be similar at least in practice, based on reading personal accounts from that period.


More broadly the question of whether messers had to do with sumptuary laws is a long lasting legend, and it's not clear yet to me at least if it's a Victorian legend or if it has some basis in fact. The estate most closely associated with the messer is the peasant. It apparently derives from the shorter but similar weapons like the bauernwehr, and it seems to have become 'elevated' as a weapon worthy of burghers and nobles in the 14th or 15th century, at the same time that it became a longer and more formidable weapon (including two-handed versions). By the 14th and 15th century they still had sumptuary laws (for example restricting how many silver plates you owned, what color or patterns of clothing you could wear, or what kind of cloth or fur like silk or ermine) but that was probably the low-point of them. Then by the end of the 16th century they started to be enforced again and got strict once more in the 17th.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauernwehr

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

In the Late medieval world these seemed to have been nominally followed by burghers. For example they wore silk and black velvet but not as often purple or cloth of gold, and they would wear fox or mink fur but not ermine. However even these rules would be flouted sometimes, and this was a frequent subject of complaints by the princes in the Imperial Diet (Riechtag). Sumptuary laws were more strictly enforced on the country people, depending on where and how strong the prince or prelate was who ruled over them. Certain estates like landsknecht mercenaries were explicitly exempt from sumptuary laws.

If there was indeed a sumptuary law banning peasants or commoners from carrying swords, i haven't found it yet but it may have existed earlier in the middle ages, such as maybe in the 11-12th Centuries in the heydey of Feudalism.

A lot of people in HEMA believe this though.





On the plus side, she correctly points out that cutlasses were very late weapons, and not used during the golden age of pirates. I am still unsure personally as to what a hanger is though- it seems to originally just be a regional (English) term for a falchion in the 16th century, that remained in use as a term for similar weapons onboard ships until such weapons evolved into cutlasses.

I think a lot of research is lagging for single-edged swords. I myself have recently learned much more about them through finding out about the work of James Elmslie (through Shadiversity).

A lot of research is lagging for all of it trust me!


G



.

[rs2excelsior]

In the Low Countries (roughly today's Belgium and Holland), Scandinavia, Poland, Germany and Central Europe in general, it was allowed, and basically expected, that all male citizens, including partial citizens like journeymen- would carry swords at least when dressed formally so to speak. I.e. not necessarily while they were working.

A somewhat related question: there seems to be a general idea that the sword, due to a combination of being more difficult to make (and therefore more expensive) and more difficult to learn to use effectively compared to weapons like spears and axes, was largely a mark of nobility. Obviously, based on this statement, "middle class" city dwellers (not sure if that's a completely correct term, but it seems to fit people between peasants and nobles) commonly carried swords. Is this something that was at least somewhat true in the dark ages/early medieval times and people assume it is still true past when it historically was, or is the entire concept utter hogwash?


But citizens were not everybody in town - it's something like 30-40% of the male population if you include journeymen. Citizens visiting from other towns also generally had the right, as did nobles so long as they were on good terms with the town (in some cases where there was an ongoing feud with a regional prince, for example between Cologne, Bremen, or Strasbourg with the Archbishop - his vassals were specifically prohibited from entering the town armed).

Commoners on lower status, including servants, were not necessarily allowed to walk around armed. This would depend on the specific town but some had rules requiring them to leave their weapons at the inn, and the innkeeper would be in charge as a representative of the legal authority of the town to keep an eye on them. Servants could be armed by their master or employer, at the discretion of the latter, but then that master was legally liable for their actions with the weapons. I.e. if they killed or wounded somebody he could be prosecuted. Same for apprentices and guild masters. Some guild masters armed their apprentices at least some of the time (like when traveling or when involved in a feud) but if they did they were responsible if the apprentice was involved in violence.

So what distinguishes a citizen from a non-citizen in medieval towns? And what do the non-citizens do (I believe you mention "servants and day laborers" later on)? Regarding the guilds, how prevalent were they? I get the impression that most tradespeople would be a member of their respective guild. How much influence did the guild masters have over members of the guilds?


The majority of town populations in medieval and Early Modern Central Europe were female, depending on the town it seems like 50-60%,

This is an interesting bit of information. Any idea as to why that was the case?


All of these questions with the caveat that I understand they probably don't have simple answers and varied quite a bit depending on exactly when/where you're talking about.

Also, just wanted to say I enjoy it when one of your posts comes up (as well as some other posters here who seem to be well versed in medieval history). Very informative, and they always make me realize the medieval world was far more complex and varied than most people (myself included) seem to realize. Often times they open up questions I wouldn't have thought of beforehand.

[Galloglaich]

A somewhat related question: there seems to be a general idea that the sword, due to a combination of being more difficult to make (and therefore more expensive) and more difficult to learn to use effectively compared to weapons like spears and axes, was largely a mark of nobility. Obviously, based on this statement, "middle class" city dwellers (not sure if that's a completely correct term, but it seems to fit people between peasants and nobles) commonly carried swords. Is this something that was at least somewhat true in the dark ages/early medieval times and people assume it is still true past when it historically was, or is the entire concept utter hogwash?


yes there was, generally speaking, a large middle class in most of the middle ages. I should be clear that my main focus of expertise, such as it is, resides in the Late Medieval period. Tobtor who posts here knows the early Medieval or Migration Era better than I, Incanur and Fusilier I think know the later 16th and 17th Centuries (what we call the Early Modern Period) better than I do.

So just keep in mind, I'm on fairly solid ground 1300-1520 or thereabouts, after and before that it gets a little more sporadic.

That said I think you can say very generally speaking there was a well established urban middle class in the High (12th-13th Century) in most of Latinized Europe. In terms of the breadth of the phenomenon the peak was probably during this High Middle Ages period, which some people called the First Renaissance. It represented the revival of Urbanization (i.e. significant towns) in Latinized Europe and the decline of feudalism. I would say this is where the breadth was greatest because you had a strong urban middle class almost everywhere in Europe, all the towns were increasing in power and autonomy.

The Late medieval period was the period of the greatest depth, I would argue, though the independence of the towns and the corresponding power and influence of the urban middle classes declined in several of the Atlantic facing Kingdoms - England, France, and what would become Spain and Portugal especially.

In Italy, what's now Belgium, Southern Germany and it's northern fringe, Catalonia and Bohemia and Poland, and a few other places, the towns retained their autonomy and became very powerful zones of technological and cultural genesis. We call this period the Renaissance now, and some scholars trace it's origin to Florence specifically in the 1380's. Others go further back or pick other places, but Florence is a good place to pin it. You could probably go back another 100 years.

In the towns, the urban middle class consisted of a landowning and business class called the 'patricians', who were kind of the elite of a larger mercantile class (both seagoing and land roving), and below them professionals like doctors and lawyers, university students, what were called artisans, and other skilled or educated labor.

In the urbanized zones like Northern Italy, Flanders, Swabia, the Rhineland etc., these folks - the patricians, merchants and artisans, made up the middle and upper class in the towns. Technically they were almost all commoners, though wealthier merchants and patricians were able to buy noble titles if they wanted them (or marry their children into noble families). Many did for legal or political reasons but they usually didn't use the titles. Together merchants, artisans, professionals etc. made up about 30-40% of the male population in a town.

Below them was mostly day laborers, servants, and people on alms (basically welfare).



Before the High Middle Ages you had the Carolingian and Merovingian eras, the heydey of the Franks, and this was also the peak of Feudalism. Feudalism seems to have come about as a reaction to the incessant invasions which Europe suffered in the Early Middle ages; the Huns, the Vikings, Moors, Magyars and many others who kept invading and devastating the coasts and borderlands. Part of the population was put into bondage to help equip and feed full time professional warriors we came to call knights.

in that period the professional soldiers themselves, many of them country gentry, as well as certain elements of the Church, Friars and monks and priests, made up the middle class - as well as untamed tribes.


In prior periods, the Migration Era etc., you didn't have feudalism per se except in certain areas (the most heavily Roman areas). People don't generally understand this, but both the spread of Christianity and the imposition of the Feudal order was a gradual process, especially in the zones which had heretofore been Barbarian lands, like in Northern Europe. In Sweden for example the peasants still hadn't been 'tamed' properly into Feudalism as late as the 1400 and 1500's. They remained a powerful force in the political landscape and would routinely fly into dangerous armed rebellions if their interests were ignored. It was the same in many other zones - Switzerland, the Tyrol, parts of the Pyrennes, Brittany, Bohemia, and much of Germany. In the Baltic vast areas were still ruled by pagan tribal warriors similar to Vikings in many respects as late as the 1300's and 1400's.

If you go back to the 4th, 5th, 6th centuries, you didn't really have peasants per se in a lot of Europe, you had tribesmen who were mostly free and were fairly well off in a lot of cases, especially if they had been doing successful raiding or trading. So you had a large rural middle class so to speak.




So what distinguishes a citizen from a non-citizen in medieval towns? And what do the non-citizens do (I believe you mention "servants and day laborers" later on)? Regarding the guilds, how prevalent were they? I get the impression that most tradespeople would be a member of their respective guild. How much influence did the guild masters have over members of the guilds?

The short answer is you basically bought citizenship. It was a bit more complicated than that but if you had money, and / or skill, you could become a citizen. If you had money and no skill you might have to marry into a merchant or guild family or pay to join a guild or some other association. If you had skill but no money you could become an apprentice or a journeyman - they would test you out and train you if you had aptitude.

Many people from the country came into the cities. The cities had a much lower birth rate which didn't quite keep up with mortality so there was a steady flow of immigrants from the peasant estate. The towns had a rule, known as "Stadtluft Macht Frei " the town air makes you free. So even if you were a criminal or a runaway slave or something, if you had managed to stay in town for a year and a day, which almost inevitably meant you had found some kind of gainful employment because they didn't tolerate a big underclass, then you were free from any claims on you. The Duke could come to collect you and the town would tell them to sod off. They routinely fought wars over this when it was violated, though it's also true that sometimes Noblemen would show up and collect peasants like in the 11th month of their stay in a town, which was sad news for them.


Both the merchants and the artisan had guilds - in the High Medieval period which was the rise of the merchants, the merchant guilds were the most important. In the Late Medieval period which was the heydey of the artisans, it was the craft artisan guilds which were ascendant. I.e. your 'butcher / baker / candlestick maker' type people.

In both cases the guilds were controlled by the masters, either master merchants or master artisans. They were an organization of the membership, with nobody else in charge or involved. They were also important social clubs (think something like masonic lodges or catholic benevolent associations) and acted as military units in time of war.




This is an interesting bit of information. Any idea as to why that was the case?

There are various theories, but I don't think they really know. The mortality rate was higher for men because they had to serve in the militia and did harder more dangerous work. But more women seemed to go to the towns, maybe it was easier for them to find work as servants.



All of these questions with the caveat that I understand they probably don't have simple answers and varied quite a bit depending on exactly when/where you're talking about.

Also, just wanted to say I enjoy it when one of your posts comes up (as well as some other posters here who seem to be well versed in medieval history). Very informative, and they always make me realize the medieval world was far more complex and varied than most people (myself included) seem to realize. Often times they open up questions I wouldn't have thought of beforehand.

Thanks, yes it is very complicated and much more interesting than most of the genre fiction etc. would lead you to believe.

G

[snowblizz]

Below them was mostly day laborers, servants, and people on alms (basically welfare). And below that, the worst of the worst. Wanderers. Jesters. Travelling performers and social/other groups with no permanent place and/or certain job groups considered taboo.



In Sweden for example the peasants still hadn't been 'tamed' properly into Feudalism as late as the 1400 and 1500's. They remained a powerful force in the political landscape and would routinely fly into dangerous armed rebellions if their interests were ignored. There was an interesting sidenote in one of Swedish historian **** Harrison's (name still being filtered I guess :smallbiggrin:) blogs about this. It tied the growth of the peasantry as a force to the development of crossbows and poleweapons as with these and the favourable terrain, trained knights were much more on par with the peasantry. From the sound of it it wasn't until the later 1300s and the 1400s we get significant peasant uprisings. Now of course, before that time there wasn't much of central government to rise up against either nor had feudalism really gotten a foothold in Scandinavia beyond the Danish territories. Ie there was no major confrontations between "peasants" and "authority" before quite late as there wasn't muhc power to argue about anyway. It's not really until we are into the 16th century when an actual Swedish state is "conceived" of, which ironically is the first to be able to really squash peasant uprisings.
So it's not really possible to untangle these strands of development from each other. Ie better weapons/armour made infantry better vs traditional knights, the growing "national" awareness and political expedience latched on to the peasants as military/economical/social force to compensate for lacking mroe traditional power.

Guess what I'm saying is, much as I like the idea of the unbroken peasant power, that maybe the reason for it is that no one serisously wanted or could challenge it until other developments changed the "balance of power". As contrasted to Europe proper where a much longer history of beaitng down the peasants existed. Ofc being the origin more than the sufferers of the processes that partly formed feudalism must have had something to do with it too.
I'm not sure what he builds the idea on, it was mostly a sidecomment in the article, but I thought it was an interesting thing I'd not considered.



There are various theories, but I don't think they really know. The mortality rate was higher for men because they had to serve in the militia and did harder more dangerous work. But more women seemed to go to the towns, maybe it was easier for them to find work as servants.
I would have thought women might live somewhat more healthy lives as much of the ameanities would be to a degree barred to them. Ie men would be out and about more, esp in the drinking with mates sense, so lead riskeir lives. The great exception would be childbirth which IIRC was the single most dangerous thing facing the medieaval woman.
Well for men in the countryside the main option was that they'd be expected to take over a farm, maybe start a new one somewhere. I think societies would have been more
inclined to accept itinerant women than men too. The latter tend to cause more direct societal disruptions.

[Galloglaich]

And below that, the worst of the worst. Wanderers. Jesters. Travelling performers and social/other groups with no permanent place and/or certain job groups considered taboo.

There was an interesting sidenote in one of Swedish historian **** Harrison's (name still being filtered I guess :smallbiggrin:) blogs about this. It tied the growth of the peasantry as a force to the development of crossbows and poleweapons as with these and the favourable terrain, trained knights were much more on par with the peasantry.

All the places where the peasants retained rights were like that - "good" defensive terrain that they knew well. I have read that some of the tricks used by the Finnish Army against the Russians in the WW2 / Winter War were actually derived from ambush tactics developed by Swedish peasants during uprisings against the Danes and some Swedish lords in the late medieval period.

The other thing I have read is that thanks to some early victories over Danish mercenaries (actually international mercenaries from all over but who were working for the Danes), the Swedish peasants gained a lot of good armor and weapons. I think also you had quite a few Swedish 'peasants' who were skilled labor and made money (so could afford things like crossbows etc.). Much of Sweden's formidable iron forging industry was out in the countryside, and there were miners who tended to be prosperous in the middle ages (many of the rebels like in Dalarna were miners) and others were fishermen who also did trading or made a bunch of money during the Skania market etc.



From the sound of it it wasn't until the later 1300s and the 1400s we get significant peasant uprisings. Now of course, before that time there wasn't much of central government to rise up against either nor had feudalism really gotten a foothold in Scandinavia beyond the Danish territories. Ie there was no major confrontations between "peasants" and "authority" before quite late as there wasn't much power to argue about anyway.

I would agree with this but this also kind of makes my point that up until the Nordic Union when the Danes started to try to enforce feudalism, the Swedish 'peasants' weren't really peasants at all, they were Swedish (or Gott or Svear or whatever) tribesmen. Heavily armed, not used to paying most of their money to somebody else, accustomed to hunting in their own land. This was also the same pattern in places like Lithuania, Poland, Frisia, the Alps and so on.




I would have thought women might live somewhat more healthy lives as much of the ameanities would be to a degree barred to them. Ie men would be out and about more, esp in the drinking with mates sense, so lead riskeir lives. The great exception would be childbirth which IIRC was the single most dangerous thing facing the medieaval woman.
Well for men in the countryside the main option was that they'd be expected to take over a farm, maybe start a new one somewhere. I think societies would have been more
inclined to accept itinerant women than men too. The latter tend to cause more direct societal disruptions.

I don't know about the healthy lives but women did hang around in bars along with men. Medieval society was not like Victorian society.

Augsburg tavern in the Summer - note the ladies

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/13/08/1c/13081c9d8f112da3f302d026afbd05b7--augsburg-germany-th-century.jpg

Not to mention the public baths, a different type of 'clean living'

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cc/5f/16/cc5f1679fb2a485425096cc33da4c17c--medieval-life-medieval-art.jpg

G

[Haighus]

Very good point, but let me amend that slightly. Like everything in medieval Europe it's complicated.

TL : DR is probably about one third to half of male townfolks, specifically citizens, in the more urban zones of Europe had the right to carry arms, but not necessarily everybody.

Longer explanation follows.
Snip

Thanks for the info, all very interesting. I still think any loophole that allowed someone to carry a messer into a place that restricted swords (with traditional hilts) would be closed extremely quickly though.


A lot of research is lagging for all of it trust me!


G

.

I defintiely do trust you on this- I discovered these threads whilst trying to find some reliable info about early firearms. Finding information in the public domain about most of this stuff is damn hard. Reading this thread has unearthed a few gems for me, like the King's Mirror translation that has been posted a few times over the years. I find that to be gold for reading about siege warfare.

I was referring mainly to swords, where double-edged swords seem to have been the area where modern, systematic research in medieval life really kicked off with Oakeshott in the 50's and 60's. In contrast, there has only just been a typology produced for medieval single-edged swords. I'd love to see similar typologies for other medieval weapons though! If there are any others that people know of, I'd appreciate a link. I only know of the Petersen typology for Viking swords in addition to the others mentioned.

[Galloglaich]

Thanks for the info, all very interesting. I still think any loophole that allowed someone to carry a messer into a place that restricted swords (with traditional hilts) would be closed extremely quickly though.

Yes I agree. Medieval law is really weird though. Quite often there were laws on the books which were never really enforced, or only enforced in special circumstances. Part of the reasons for many of the myths about medieval life is from them looking at the law books (and law proclamations of Kings and Popes) and assuming that this was how thing actually went. It wasn't until they started going through and translating actual court records that they realized the law as written and the law as practiced were very different, with the latter tending to be much more loose and flexible than the former.

Also many feudal rules which were pretty strict in the 8th-11th centuries were relaxed into non-existence by the 13th.

So it's possible that they had some sumptuary laws on peasants (or some estate) which later faded, particularly if the local peasants were politically /militarily strong which they were in some cases.




I defintiely do trust you on this- I discovered these threads whilst trying to find some reliable info about early firearms. Finding information in the public domain about most of this stuff is damn hard. Reading this thread has unearthed a few gems for me, like the King's Mirror translation that has been posted a few times over the years. I find that to be gold for reading about siege warfare.

I was referring mainly to swords, where double-edged swords seem to have been the area where modern, systematic research in medieval life really kicked off with Oakeshott in the 50's and 60's. In contrast, there has only just been a typology produced for medieval single-edged swords. I'd love to see similar typologies for other medieval weapons though! If there are any others that people know of, I'd appreciate a link. I only know of the Petersen typology for Viking swords in addition to the others mentioned.


Yes the Kings Mirror is a fantastic window in the crazy, crazy reality of medieval siege warfare - WAY beyond and much more interesting than what you see in films, TV shows and so on, and that is from the pre-gunpowder era. By the time you get to 1400's it's almost beyond my ability to imagine. Surreal, wild stuff. 16th Century is even crazier. Read about the siege of Malta if you get the chance it's off the chain. As is the Siege of Rhodes in ancient times.

I think there are some typologies for messers. I think sabers, rapiers, and various others too. I think there is a guy named Elmslie who did a messer typology?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e1/8a/ff/e18aff74596fffeadce13580787b9f93--knive-viking-age.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/11/2f/ce/112fce5052da485a34621aadb37c0261--th-century-swords.jpg

I know there are others but I don't know details. MyArmoury is the place to ask about this.

G

[Galloglaich]

One other comment on social estates in the middle ages (it's more accurate to use 'estates' than class in the medieval context)

I should have mentioned the gentry. In the countryside various people, some rich peasants, some retired or semi-retired mercenaries, or artisan or merchants who moved out of the cities, and a variety of others, lived in an estate between the peasantry and the nobility. In England the Yeoman farmer fit into this niche. In Central Europe the wealthier peasants (Bauer) sometimes did (depending on where this was specifically). These people, families, were vassals of lords or sometimes towns or monasteries, often fought like knights mounted on horseback, sometimes as part of a small unit (lance) led by an aristocratic knight or a burgher-knight, sometimes on their own or as leaders in their own right.

These people, the gentry, formed powerful estates in some areas. As in they would act together sometimes politically and militarily. Notably in Poland, Switzerland, Bohemia, and Catalonlia. They formed kind of a rural middle class.



somebody mentioned outlaws. This was a big thing.

One of the most severe punishments in medieval law was exile. Greatly feared. Town law wasn't that strict but if you disgraced or dishonored yourself it could start a downward spiral. Once exiled from the town (which could either be temporary, 1 year and 1 day, or permanent - 100 years and 1 day) you had a chance to get into another town but it would get harder if your reputation suffered. If you were known to have done something really bad you may be marked like with a cut on your ear or something.

You could also be made an outlaw formally.

Either way you then may be forced to live on the fringes of society in the rural areas which could be very rough and dangerous. Outlaws infested the roads in many areas, probably most of rural Europe, and both towns and princes struggled to keep the roads safe and free.

There were also something like 'travellers' and people like the Roma who moved around like nomads and sometimes got in trouble in various ways.

Life on the road sounded pretty rough in these days, and from the records a lot of people lived that way. Until they didn't!

G

[gkathellar]

Yes I agree. Medieval law is really weird though. Quite often there were laws on the books which were never really enforced, or only enforced in special circumstances. Part of the reasons for many of the myths about medieval life is from them looking at the law books (and law proclamations of Kings and Popes) and assuming that this was how thing actually went. It wasn't until they started going through and translating actual court records that they realized the law as written and the law as practiced were very different, with the latter tending to be much more loose and flexible than the former.

At least in the United States, this continues to be the case today. Some examples:

The New York State criminal code, for instance, has a law against riding a horse onto a subway platform - which, I suppose might have been a problem at some point in time.
A cross section of the penal law forbids registered sex offenders from selling frozen deserts out of a vehicle - which is to say, there is a law on the books specifically forbidding them from operating ice cream trucks, and only ice cream trucks.
All over the country, we have weapons codes that specifically mention oddities like ninja stars, or pilum ballistic knives, that received 15 minutes of fame at some point. In the meantime, virtually every bladed implement is, legally, a "knife" (this includes things like axes and spears).
Most criminal codes will have multiple statutes with what essentially amount to the same charge with extremely minor variations, due to our social definitions of particular crimes expanding.
If the body representing NYC law enforcement in court is of the opinion that a criminal statute would lose a constitutional challenge, they will refuse to provide representation to departments using it, which essentially shuts it down right then and there.
Likewise, when a DA "decriminalizes" something, it often means that they simply refuse to prosecute certain charges - to much the same effect.

It seems likely that similar things happened in any time and place you care to name, which can make the project of constructing a society based on its criminal codes ... somewhat iffy.

[Tobtor]

But citizens were not everybody in town - it's something like 30-40% of the male population if you include journeymen. Citizens visiting from other towns also generally had the right, as did nobles so long as they were on good terms with the town (in some cases where there was an ongoing feud with a regional prince, for example between Cologne, Bremen, or Strasbourg with the Archbishop - his vassals were specifically prohibited from entering the town armed).

I agree with the general points G makes, but I think the number 30-40% is based on various "countings" of households. It tended not to include (or not to an adequate way) the very bottom of society. As others have mentioned travellers, beggars etc, where common, and I think they would make up some proportion of any towns population at any time, but due to their semi-illegal status they are rarely counted in the official records. So while you may have something like 30-40% of the "registered" population being anything from a shopowner, craftsman or merchant, and 60-70% "servants", this does not include the true bottom of society, which may have made up 20-25% of the population (sort of like a large group of illegal immigrants today).



I would agree with this but this also kind of makes my point that up until the Nordic Union when the Danes started to try to enforce feudalism, the Swedish 'peasants' weren't really peasants at all, they were Swedish (or Gott or Svear or whatever) tribesmen. Heavily armed, not used to paying most of their money to somebody else, accustomed to hunting in their own land. This was also the same pattern in places like Lithuania, Poland, Frisia, the Alps and so on.


I agree. Or the concept of "peasant" is misleading, as we as modern readers see the typical feudal dependant peasant. They would consider themselves to be in the "peasant" class (bondi in old norse). They were (in a sense) all "yeoman", working as farmers, smiths and craftsmen.

The same is true of Danish rural country up until around 1200-1250. The interesting thin is the way it changed. The rural population were not:


put into bondage to help equip and feed full time professional warriors we came to call knights.

They where lured with clever business tactics and contracts they did not see the long term implications of (or did not care how it would affect coming generations):

The King wanted to exchange the basically tribal "leidgangr" army to a mix of mercenaries and knights. Knights to be called upon quickly and to be loyal to him (the leidgangr army was loyal to the country's "thing", not the king as such), and mercenaries for longer and larger wars. So he needed A money, and B people with money (to afford new armours, horses etc). In order to do this the exchange of leidgangr-responsibility of the farmers to a monetary tax was promoted. At first this seems good for the peasants, as they did not have to go to war. Then it is introduced that the farmers can be freed from the tax, IF they surrender their land to the new "nobles" in exchange for a few services. And who doesn't want to be free from tax? So a lot of the minor farmers gave up their ownership rights for life-long freedom from leidgangr tax. However, in the next generation the nobles now owned the land and could set more and more demands on the once free rural population.

So the peasant either paid tax (which could hire mercenaries) or support a noble (who could buy armour, horse, sword etc).

That said, there was still a quite prosperous "upper" class of free farmers (still owning something like 20% of the land in Denmark by the end of the medieval period). And as time went on the levy-tax declined in importance (as it was a fixed amount and was not affected by inflation).



In the urbanized zones like Northern Italy, Flanders, Swabia, the Rhineland etc., these folks - the patricians, merchants and artisans, made up the middle and upper class in the towns. Technically they were almost all commoners, though wealthier merchants and patricians were able to buy noble titles if they wanted them (or marry their children into noble families). Many did for legal or political reasons but they usually didn't use the titles. Together merchants, artisans, professionals etc. made up about 30-40% of the male population in a town.


While nobility was late introduced into Scandinavia, so was the "trading" of nobility titles. It wasnt before well into the 16th century this was possible in Denmark. BOTH of your parent had to be nobles, before you were noble. Thus no buying of titles for townsfolk and no marrying into noble families to get the title (though lots of intermarriage anyway - titles is not everything, there is also money). I think it was the same in northern Germany. The "bought" titles is a later thing.


On woman and towns:
Women could not be soldiers, mercenaries etc (or at least did not become so as frequent as men). So while a good deal of surplus male population would find their way to one of the battlefields of Europe, surplus women had to go to towns. Also men often travlled around in larger working crews (for constructing things etc).


Yes I agree. Medieval law is really weird though. Quite often there were laws on the books which were never really enforced, or only enforced in special circumstances. Part of the reasons for many of the myths about medieval life is from them looking at the law books (and law proclamations of Kings and Popes) and assuming that this was how thing actually went. It wasn't until they started going through and translating actual court records that they realized the law as written and the law as practiced were very different, with the latter tending to be much more loose and flexible than the former.

I very much agree. You might even say that many of the laws AGAINST something, hows that it was frequently done to the annoyance of the leaders.

[Hazzardevil]

The peasant discussion is going into far more detail than I know anything about, but I can talk about Germany and Messers a little.

Before we start, a sword blade does not stop at the hilt. The metal is solid from the point to inside the handle. Below is a dagger diagram I found online, which makes the tang clear.

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/sword-making-diagram.jpg

An alternative (And in my opinion, more likely) theory to explain Messers comes from guilds. The knifemakers guilds make blades with full length tangs, the swordmakers made blades with a shorter tang. Traditionally, that's always been the case. There's a major exception in the late 19th century when a company, I think it was Wilkinson Sword (Who did the majority of all British Government Sword contracts) who got the patent for swords with a full width tang. So they made sabres with it. I forget the reason why, but this was considered a large enough development that the Patent Office approved it.

Back to the point about Messers. The idea is that if you wanted to own a weapon, but there's no swordmakers in town, you'd go to the knifemakers. They'd make the messer blade and they have a functional "sword". A one handed cut and thrust blade, which is what you need for self defence.

And I think people misunderstand the Oakshotte Typology. There are other typologies which do the same things, but arranged different. I've heard of historians who think that the Falchion and Messer should be treated as the same weapon, due to being used the same way and the other difference being the width of the tang. I don't know how true this is though.

[Incanur]

Crossbows are so confusing.

Based on the historical record, you'd think the larger, heavier crossbow were more powerful than any bow, but so far replicas don't support this.

Tod Todeschini just came out with a video testing a 1,250lb windlass crossbow (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=35792). He did a distance test and only managed 235 yards with a 3.1oz bolt.

Ralph Payne-Gallwey claimed to have shot a 3oz bolt 460 yards with a 1,200lb 15th/16th-century crossbow. (He replaced the parts that had decayed, but at least the steel prod was original.)

This is a huge gap in performance. It depends on aerodynamics, but based on the tests in The Great Warbow, the Payne-Gallwey shot indicates 220+ J of initial kinetic energy. You'd need a ridiculous heavy (220+lb?) yew bow to shoot a 3oz project so fast, if it could be done at all.

By contrast, Tod's distance record indicates an initial kinetic energy under 120 J. (It's possible the bolts he used are just really bad for distance shooting, and/or the bolts Payne-Gallwey used were really good.)

According to current tests and models, a mere 80lb Manchu bow could deliver 120+ J with a heavy arrow (3-4 ounces, as Manchu archers frequently used).

I don't really know what's going on.

[Galloglaich]

Crossbows are so confusing.

Based on the historical record, you'd think the larger, heavier crossbow were more powerful than any bow, but so far replicas don't support this.

Tod Todeschini just came out with a video testing a 1,250lb windlass crossbow (http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=35792). He did a distance test and only managed 235 yards with a 3.1oz bolt.

Ralph Payne-Gallwey claimed to have shot a 3oz bolt 460 yards with a 1,200lb 15th/16th-century crossbow. (He replaced the parts that had decayed, but at least the steel prod was original.)

This is a huge gap in performance. It depends on aerodynamics, but based on the tests in The Great Warbow, the Payne-Gallwey shot indicates 220+ J of initial kinetic energy. You'd need a ridiculous heavy (220+lb?) yew bow to shoot a 3oz project so fast, if it could be done at all.

By contrast, Tod's distance record indicates an initial kinetic energy under 120 J. (It's possible the bolts he used are just really bad for distance shooting, and/or the bolts Payne-Gallwey used were really good.)

According to current tests and models, a mere 80lb Manchu bow could deliver 120+ J with a heavy arrow (3-4 ounces, as Manchu archers frequently used).

I don't really know what's going on.

With all due respect to Leo, who is a treasure to the community, he's not making weapons for war or hunting, he's making weapons for re-enactors and living history people. A 1,200 lb draw crossbow is a potentially very dangerous artifact. Certain aspects of the prod and the string in particular can't be pushed as far as they would when these things were used for war (or hunting bears, say)

And for all his expertise, Leo is one guy, one of a relative handful trying to revive traditions from 500 years ago which are no longer fully understood. I think it will take some time before we have the mystery of the medieval crossbow (which works in a completely different way than modern ones) 'cracked', so to speak.

G

[Galloglaich]

An alternative (And in my opinion, more likely) theory to explain Messers comes from guilds. The knifemakers guilds make blades with full length tangs, the swordmakers made blades with a shorter tang.... (snip)... if you wanted to own a weapon, but there's no swordmakers in town, you'd go to the knifemakers. They'd make the messer blade and they have a functional "sword". A one handed cut and thrust blade, which is what you need for self defence.


Interesting theory but as far as I know, that doesn't seem to be how these guilds were organized, cutlers (messerschmeid) made swords and messers and sabers and knives and all kinds of other blades, with networks of subcontractors who did things like the heat treatments, the sharpening and polishing, the hilt assembly and so on.

http://www.nuernberger-hausbuecher.de/75-Amb-2-279-14-r/large

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Balthasar_Behem_Codex01.jpg

G

[Raunchel]

I know that this might not be the best place to ask this, but I don't know if there is a thread for non-martial questions. If there is, please point me there.

I'm currently doing research for a story of which a part will be set in a village. It's a fantasy story, but the setting is very low fantasy and I want to keep things realistic. Unfortunately, it's very hatd to find any kind of decent information about villahe life that isn't from the perspective of the manor and its owner.

I'm especially looking for what kinds of things slightly wealthier prasants would have in a roughly 13th century setting, but any kind of information would be immensely helpful.

[gkathellar]

Can you give us any more information on the setting/its inspirations/real-world analogs? The 13th century looked very different in different parts of Europe.

[Raunchel]

It's mostly German in inspiration, especially focusing on the more southern areas. Right now, things still are very broad, so in the end it will probably become a mixture of multiple inspirations.

[Galloglaich]

I know that this might not be the best place to ask this, but I don't know if there is a thread for non-martial questions. If there is, please point me there.

I'm currently doing research for a story of which a part will be set in a village. It's a fantasy story, but the setting is very low fantasy and I want to keep things realistic. Unfortunately, it's very hatd to find any kind of decent information about villahe life that isn't from the perspective of the manor and its owner.

I'm especially looking for what kinds of things slightly wealthier prasants would have in a roughly 13th century setting, but any kind of information would be immensely helpful.

I read a good mystery novel one time set in England in the 13th Century in a small town or market village. The author is a HEMA guy so the fight-scenes are particularly realistic. But it give you a good idea of village life at that time I think.

https://www.amazon.com/Wayward-Apprentice-Jason-Vail/dp/1452876819

G

[wolflance]

With all due respect to Leo, who is a treasure to the community, he's not making weapons for war or hunting, he's making weapons for re-enactors and living history people. A 1,200 lb draw crossbow is a potentially very dangerous artifact. Certain aspects of the prod and the string in particular can't be pushed as far as they would when these things were used for war (or hunting bears, say)

And for all his expertise, Leo is one guy, one of a relative handful trying to revive traditions from 500 years ago which are no longer fully understood. I think it will take some time before we have the mystery of the medieval crossbow (which works in a completely different way than modern ones) 'cracked', so to speak.

G
Maybe Manchu bow is just that good...just kidding. Actually The Great Warbow's 150 lb draw longbow also outperform Tod's arbalest.

The physics behind bow/crossbow performance are quite set already (i.e. draw weight and powerstroke, as well as secondary factors such as bow limb/string/type of arrow/friction/release etc). There shouldn't be any more "X factor" that we don't already know.

To put it in another word, two similarly designed bow/crossbows with similar draw weight and powerstroke should have similar performance. IMHO no amount of optimization on those secondary factors can drastically improve the performance of one bow over another similar bow by a factor of two.

(So either Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey 460 yard shot is erroneous or influenced by external factors such as strong wind, or he was using a radically different, more efficient crossbow design)

[Mike_G]

Very interesting video I found while browsing Youtube.

I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is, but it's from a Spanish movie and shows the clash of two pike units in the 30 Years War. Before the infantry melee, the unit gets pummeled by artillery and stands off a cavalry assault.

What I though was kinda nifty was how when the ranks of pike meet, they don't smash into one another, but kind of fence a bit at distance. Then a few men with short weapons dash in under the pikes and start slashing and stabbing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6agtVxWi8&t=623s

Again, I don't know how much of this is accurate and how much is show biz, but it's worth a watch.

If anybody can critique it for accuracy, that would be nice as well.

[Galloglaich]

Very interesting video I found while browsing Youtube.

I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is, but it's from a Spanish movie and shows the clash of two pike units in the 30 Years War. Before the infantry melee, the unit gets pummeled by artillery and stands off a cavalry assault.

What I though was kinda nifty was how when the ranks of pike meet, they don't smash into one another, but kind of fence a bit at distance. Then a few men with short weapons dash in under the pikes and start slashing and stabbing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6agtVxWi8&t=623s

Again, I don't know how much of this is accurate and how much is show biz, but it's worth a watch.

If anybody can critique it for accuracy, that would be nice as well.

Yeah that movie Alatriste is pretty famous in HEMA circles, there are some good rapier duels in there too and other realistic stuff like French peasants getting 'transported' in cages to the New World.

It's one of a handful of movies in the last 60-70 years which are anywhere near the ballpark of reality for this type of era. The best others are either Polish (the With Fire and Sword films), Japanese (basically all the Kirosawa historical dramas) and a few of the early Anglo American films when they were still training actors to fence.

The Deulist is pretty good as is Rob Roy for more recent films.

This 1940 version of the Mask of Zorro has a really nice duel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB8tiSMCwRE

edit- fixing youtube link I forgot this forum doesn't have the youtube embed thing

G

[Mike_G]

Yeah that movie Alatriste is pretty famous in HEMA circles, there are some good rapier duels in there too and other realistic stuff like French peasants getting 'transported' in cages to the New World.

It's one of a handful of movies in the last 60-70 years which are anywhere near the ballpark of reality for this type of era. The best others are either Polish (the With Fire and Sword films), Japanese (basically all the Kirosawa historical dramas) and a few of the early Anglo American films when they were still training actors to fence.

The Deulist is pretty good as is Rob Roy for more recent films.

This 1940 version of the Mask of Zorro has a really nice duel

nB8tiSMCwRE

G

Thanks for the info.

I've seen The Duelists which I loved, and Rob Roy, since I am of good Franco-Irish Jacobite stock and married a Scot. I've seen a lot of old Hollywood fencing movies, which are fun, but it's largely Olympic style fencing, which was my thing, but I don't know how realistic it is. The 1974 Three Musketeers with Oliver Reed and Michael York had what looks like pretty good fencing in it.

In other news, I found a new HEMA group near me and was going to ask if you known them. Tried to PM you but the formus says your massages are full.

[Galloglaich]

Thanks for the info.

I've seen The Duelists which I loved, and Rob Roy, since I am of good Franco-Irish Jacobite stock and married a Scot. I've seen a lot of old Hollywood fencing movies, which are fun, but it's largely Olympic style fencing, which was my thing, but I don't know how realistic it is. The 1974 Three Musketeers with Oliver Reed and Michael York had what looks like pretty good fencing in it.

In other news, I found a new HEMA group near me and was going to ask if you known them. Tried to PM you but the formus says your massages are full.

Sorry about that will clear messages

[Raunchel]

Here I am again, with a whole bunch of questions. This time, they actually mostly deal with arms, armour, and combat, so I think that I’m improving. :)

1) Does anyone happen to know how fast a trained soldier in mail and bearing weapons can charge? I’m mostly looking for a rough figure, because I guess that there would be a lot of individual variation. And how would this speed be affected by being in a forest (moderately well-kept, so not too extreme undergrowth)?

2) I have recently also become interested in slings and their application in warfare. Right now, my understanding is that a good hit with a stone will break bones and the like when hitting unarmoured parts of the body, but that armour with padding under it will not do much more than cause some bruises. Would I be correct in assuming this? (they would be using stones, not lead bullets) And does anyone know how fast a slinger could be shooting?

3) If someone would be loading a crossbow with a cranequin, and let go of the cranequin halfway through the loading process for some reason, would the string remain in place or would it snap back to its normal position?

4) Continuing on the topic of crossbows, would one normally keep the crossbow fully loaded, so to say, whenever one ventures anywhere dangerous (for a few hours or so), or would it only really be loaded when necessary?

5) What kind of sound would a crossbow bolt or arrow flying very closely past someone make?

[Clistenes]

A question:

I have read several times in this thread that curved swords like sabres and scimitars are better at defense than longswords, arming swords and similar straight blades... but, is that true always, or only when people use curved swords to duel each other? has it been put to test when somebody uses a curved sword against an straight-bladed weapon?

I have no fencing experience at all, but it sound weird that a slashing weapon with the center of gravity closer to the point would parry faster than another weapon or similar length with the center of gravity closer to the pommel...

Could you explain to me what exactly makes curved swords better at defense?

[Knaight]

I have recently also become interested in slings and their application in warfare. Right now, my understanding is that a good hit with a stone will break bones and the like when hitting unarmoured parts of the body, but that armour with padding under it will not do much more than cause some bruises. Would I be correct in assuming this? (they would be using stones, not lead bullets) And does anyone know how fast a slinger could be shooting?

A stone can easily kill an unarmored person, and it doesn't just break bones - it can punch through skin and muscle no problem. Armor helps, but it doesn't reduce slings to just inflicting minor bruises (particularly if heavy stones are used).

[Brother Oni]

Here I am again, with a whole bunch of questions. This time, they actually mostly deal with arms, armour, and combat, so I think that I’m improving. :)

1) Does anyone happen to know how fast a trained soldier in mail and bearing weapons can charge? I’m mostly looking for a rough figure, because I guess that there would be a lot of individual variation. And how would this speed be affected by being in a forest (moderately well-kept, so not too extreme undergrowth)?

2) I have recently also become interested in slings and their application in warfare. Right now, my understanding is that a good hit with a stone will break bones and the like when hitting unarmoured parts of the body, but that armour with padding under it will not do much more than cause some bruises. Would I be correct in assuming this? (they would be using stones, not lead bullets) And does anyone know how fast a slinger could be shooting?

3) If someone would be loading a crossbow with a cranequin, and let go of the cranequin halfway through the loading process for some reason, would the string remain in place or would it snap back to its normal position?

4) Continuing on the topic of crossbows, would one normally keep the crossbow fully loaded, so to say, whenever one ventures anywhere dangerous (for a few hours or so), or would it only really be loaded when necessary?

5) What kind of sound would a crossbow bolt or arrow flying very closely past someone make?

1) Over short distances, about as fast as a normal person can sprint, so I'd say ~7.5 m/s (they'd cover 100m in ~13 seconds, which is a fair pace). Mail would affect endurance (not an issue at charging distances) and turning speed (they're not stopping or turning on a dime), which again isn't an issue if you're going to smash into an enemy combatant at the other end. In a forest, I'd say the speed would be halved if crashing through undergrowth, or virtually unaffected if following a path or in something like a pine forest.

2) I'm not very well versed in slings I'm afraid, but I've read that slingers could do some decent damage to armoured opponents.

3) Cranequins have a ratchet mechanism which prevent it from slipping, so you can stop any time you like. However you would be very ill advised to attempt to take the cranequin off if the string is under tension and not held by the nut (either complete the spanning or let it down back to its brace height).
Here's a video of a cranequin in action: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqlJiYqicJ0).

4) One of the main advantages of a crossbow over a bow is that it can be held under full tension and only loaded and shot when required. One common trick was to secure the bolt to the flight groove with a drop of hot wax, so it was ready when you needed it when out looking for trouble.

5) Assuming you're not including the bow noise or the sound of wood on wood from the arrow against the bow, it's surprisingly quiet: here's some aluminium (I think) arrows being shot from a suppressed (modern) recurve (https://youtu.be/RhveV-QPd9E?t=409). Here's the sound of a longbow with wooden arrows being shot from the archer's end (https://youtu.be/33LNnyqiQcs?t=141). It's more of a quiet whisper than the 'whistling' it's more typically described as (if your arrow's whistling in flight, then it's either a special noise maker arrow, or you have crappy arrows with poor flight characteristics).
The stereotypical 'boing' sound is the arrow connecting with the target and causing vibration - this won't happen in your example.
In the event that an arrow does connect, it depends on what it's hitting - wood tends to go 'thunk'; straw tends to be rather quiet; metal armour has a very quick metal on metal rasp (from the arrow head) and flesh generally has a wet 'smack', which may be followed by sounds of pain.

[warty goblin]

1) Over short distances, about as fast as a normal person can sprint, so I'd say ~7.5 m/s (they'd cover 100m in ~13 seconds, which is a fair pace). Mail would affect endurance (not an issue at charging distances) and turning speed (they're not stopping or turning on a dime), which again isn't an issue if you're going to smash into an enemy combatant at the other end. In a forest, I'd say the speed would be halved if crashing through undergrowth, or virtually unaffected if following a path or in something like a pine forest.


Having done some woods walking in mail, it can sometimes actually speed a person up. Mail is entirely* bramble-proof, which can be a real asset in dense enough brush. Of course nobody's charging anywhere in that sort of undergrowth anyway.

*Except for thorns that get broken off between links, and work their way inwards. Fun times.

[Brother Oni]

Having done some woods walking in mail, it can sometimes actually speed a person up. Mail is entirely* bramble-proof, which can be a real asset in dense enough brush. Of course nobody's charging anywhere in that sort of undergrowth anyway.[/SIZE]

I was thinking more about trip hazards, but I'll defer to your experience.

[KarlMarx]

2) I have recently also become interested in slings and their application in warfare. Right now, my understanding is that a good hit with a stone will break bones and the like when hitting unarmoured parts of the body, but that armour with padding under it will not do much more than cause some bruises. Would I be correct in assuming this? (they would be using stones, not lead bullets) And does anyone know how fast a slinger could be shooting?


Slings are negated by some armors and not by others, as far as I can tell. At short range with little padding, a lot of their force will carry over, likely resulting in bruises. Over longer ranges, they lose power. This is doubly true of stones, which have less mass for the same volume than lead bullets and thus less momentum and more air resistance. A single hit probably wouldn't do much to individual soldiers heavily armored, but lightly equipped slingers could rain down shot over time and wear down their targets.

As to the reload question, many sources indicate that they in fact had a quite rapid reload speed. Balearic slingers in the Roman army were known for their speed and accuracy, and in other cases trained soldiers could easily become quite proficient with the loading process. Ultimately, I'd guess that aiming and throwing the projectile would probably take a slight majority of your time, rather than reloading.

Furthermore, the real advantage of the sling is that it's so light, cheap, and convenient. Heavy infantry can easily carry one to give them some ranged capacity, while light infantry can use them to harass the enemy with great efficacy. Indeed, at Hastings the Norman infantry were equipped with slings and used them in their assault.

So in the long run slingers will probably not be as purely powerful as archers with the equivalent level of training, especially by the Medieval period when heavier draw weights entered the battlefield (part of what made the Balearics shine so much was the fact that archers didn't have that powerful bows at the time, and thus the effective range of a sling could actually be higher than that of a bow). However, they are a lot easier to train and a lot cheaper to employ, so they definitely have their uses on the battlefield.

[DerKommissar]

One of the most severe punishments in medieval law was exile. Greatly feared. Town law wasn't that strict but if you disgraced or dishonored yourself it could start a downward spiral. Once exiled from the town (which could either be temporary, 1 year and 1 day, or permanent - 100 years and 1 day) you had a chance to get into another town but it would get harder if your reputation suffered. If you were known to have done something really bad you may be marked like with a cut on your ear or something.

G

A bit late to the party but just two examples:

In modern german you can call someone a "schlitzohr", refering to him as "having his ear cut" meaning he is a petty criminal or a naughty child.

In bavarian/austrian you can call somebody "gschert" (= shorn) if you think he is somebody without manners. I heard two explanations: 1) you could avoid punishment by becoming a brother in a monastry where you got the tonsure. 2) in some medival law peasants where not allowed to wear long hair, but citizens were, so to sheer off the hair could symbol a loss in status.

---


About trade/crafts restrictions: the protection of local crafts and trades by cities didn't end with the city walls, but there were also areas around it called Bannmeile (german) or banlieue (french) where you were only allowed to buy products by "licensed" vendors.

---

About the "stadtluft macht frei": this was sometimes working in a similar way for bigger realms, so that it could happen, that a guy from genoa brings a slave with him to germany, loosing him in the process as slavery was abolished there.

Just some things i wanted to note while catching up with the thread :)

[Kiero]

So in the long run slingers will probably not be as purely powerful as archers with the equivalent level of training, especially by the Medieval period when heavier draw weights entered the battlefield (part of what made the Balearics shine so much was the fact that archers didn't have that powerful bows at the time, and thus the effective range of a sling could actually be higher than that of a bow). However, they are a lot easier to train and a lot cheaper to employ, so they definitely have their uses on the battlefield.

Just on this point, bows in the western Mediterranean in antiquity were predominantly self bows and not very powerful. Slings (with lead bullets) were a superior weapon.

However, in the eastern Mediterranean, they had access to Persian and steppe bows, which were composite and much more powerful.

[Knaight]

Just on this point, bows in the western Mediterranean in antiquity were predominantly self bows and not very powerful. Slings (with lead bullets) were a superior weapon.

However, in the eastern Mediterranean, they had access to Persian and steppe bows, which were composite and much more powerful.

There's also the matter of how range affects power. An arrow shot in a high arc and just falling is nowhere near as dangerous as an arrow recently shot out of a bow. Lead glandes* falling from a height after slinging in a high arc were still really dangerous due to their high densities, losing relatively little energy to air resistance and hitting hard enough to go into the target if it hits somewhere reasonably soft and to at least partially penetrate while breaking bones if it hits somewhere hard. Armor helps here (and shields help a great deal), but the idea of total immunity is hogwash.

*And to some extent even the clay ones that were essentially carefully shaped rocks and were thus largely less dangerous than lead.

[Vinyadan]

Something I found interesting: in 2.24, Polybius gives a calculation of the men able to bear arms on the Roman side at the start of the war against Hannibal, which totals at 700,000 (!) footmen and 70,000 horsemen. About 261,000 of both kinds were in arms when Italy was invaded.

He also gives some info about levy numbers for the single Roman federates, which must be interesting for ancient demography.

[Kiero]

Something I found interesting: in 2.24, Polybius gives a calculation of the men able to bear arms on the Roman side at the start of the war against Hannibal, which totals at 700,000 (!) footmen and 70,000 horsemen. About 261,000 of both kinds were in arms when Italy was invaded.

He also gives some info about levy numbers for the single Roman federates, which must be interesting for ancient demography.

Not really surprising given there were 2-3 million people in Italy at the time, and their militia system meant every free male above a certain level of property and between the ages of 16 and 60 had to spend some summers in the Legions. And all of them could be called up in dire emergencies.

[KarlMarx]

Though it should be remembered that many of those cities were uncertain at best when it came to helping the Romans.

[Roxxy]

This is really more of an opinion thing than a factual one, but, during either World War, would you say the capabilities of the infantry carried flamethrower were ever worth the costs and limitations, taking into account the differing circumstances on differing fronts?

[rs2excelsior]

This is really more of an opinion thing than a factual one, but, during either World War, would you say the capabilities of the infantry carried flamethrower were ever worth the costs and limitations, taking into account the differing circumstances on differing fronts?

Flamethrowers are very useful for assaulting fortified positions, specifically bunkers. The firing slits in bunkers are usually pretty small targets, but a flamethrower can generally get its burst of flame inside, which will basically neutralize the bunker. Also, flamethrowers were used in the Pacific in WWII to clear Japanese underground tunnel networks--the flame could be used to consume the oxygen in the tunnels, suffocating the defenders inside. Given the extensiveness of bunkers and (in the Pacific) underground fortifications, I'd say they were generally worthwhile. Plus the psychological effect could be prodigious--though that could draw more fire to the soldier operating the flamethrower. That said, there were other ways to assault these positions--all rather dangerous--and I'm not sure I'm qualified to say whether the flamethrower was better or worse.

Basically all the major combatants in WWII used them through--and at least in the US Army, after--WWII, which I think does speak to a degree of their effectiveness.

[Kiero]

Though it should be remembered that many of those cities were uncertain at best when it came to helping the Romans.

True, but it doesn't change the main point that numbers as high as those aren't outlandish for the deep reserves of manpower the Romans could draw upon.

[KarlMarx]

Yes, but going from the upper estimate of 3m people and a relatively low median age, say 15, which would be accurate for a low-life-expectancy, high childbirth rate society like that of the Romans, a back-of-the-envelope guesstimate would suggest that the military manpower for the period of Italy as a whole (all men of age greater than 15), was only about .75 million, if not less, depending on the adult sex ratio. Given again that the Romans couldn't depend on many of their allies for support, it would appear that Polybius' numbers were a little high (perfectly believable, given the tendency of ancient authors to exaggerate). If 2/3 of cities over the course of the war supported the Romans, they would be looking at a maximum manpower pool of 500,000 by this math, and again probably less. Remember, though, that this math is highly hypothetical, back-of-the-envelope material.

[Martin Greywolf]

This is really more of an opinion thing than a factual one, but, during either World War, would you say the capabilities of the infantry carried flamethrower were ever worth the costs and limitations, taking into account the differing circumstances on differing fronts?

Fun fact: US considered using these again in urban combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the idea went nowhere - not because flamethrowers themselves were deemed not effective, but because there was no manufacturer ready to make them, not without a big initial investment (basically building a new factory for them from the ground up). It was mentioned in Forgotten Weapons YT channel interview with a Vietnam war era flamethrower expert.



I have read several times in this thread that curved swords like sabres and scimitars are better at defense than longswords, arming swords and similar straight blades... but, is that true always, or only when people use curved swords to duel each other? has it been put to test when somebody uses a curved sword against an straight-bladed weapon?

I have no fencing experience at all, but it sound weird that a slashing weapon with the center of gravity closer to the point would parry faster than another weapon or similar length with the center of gravity closer to the pommel...

Could you explain to me what exactly makes curved swords better at defense?

Uh, no they aren't.

First off, curved swords - let's use the term sabres - aren't necessarily slashing weapons with PoB further from the hilt, it depends on the specific type of the sword, and often on specific sword, taking early Magyar sabres as examples, you have many choppy types and equally as many pointy stabby types, both with slightly curved blades, and they look virtually identical (stabby ones tend to have arming-sword shaped tip, but not always). The same goes for arming swords incidentally, there are some that feel really good in the hand, made for fencing, and others that have PoB far from the hilt, making them cleavers with comparatively little agility.

Then there's the problem of what curved really means, most sabres have vary slight curve on them, allowing you to stab with them reasonably well, extreme curves that turn a normal stab into a push slice are comparatively rare.

There's only one reason why you'd hear a claim like this I can think of, and it's a rather unfair comparision of high medieval arming sword with a basket-hilted sabre - in this case, the sabre is clearly better at defense since it has the basket hilt, but then you're not really comparing like with like. Compare a 13th century sabre with a 13th century sword, and you'll find out that they can be practically identical.

What sabres are better at are slicing cuts, because of a number of reasons, they tolerate you messing up the blade alignment a little better.

[gkathellar]

Adding to the above, it's been noted now and again that saber duels can go on for a long time, but this doesn't necessarily mean they're better for defense - just that saber-on-saber is characterized by effective defense. And you certainly can't generalize that to all curved swords.

[Mike_G]

Saber drill in the 18th-19th century emphasized a lot of defense, probably because it was expected to be used without a shield or much armor. I don't know how the curve would make it better for defending.

The curve does let you make some sneaky point attacks that are harder to parry.

[Roxxy]

Does anyone know to what degree nose art and the like has been tolerated among American aviation throughout history? I know plenty of examples exist, especially from World War 2, but existing doesn't mean being allowed, and I don't see it being tolerated in today's armed forces. Was it ever allowed? If so, when was it banned? If it was never allowed, how commonly was that rule broken, and when did it become universally enforced?

[fusilier]

Does anyone know to what degree nose art and the like has been tolerated among American aviation throughout history? I know plenty of examples exist, especially from World War 2, but existing doesn't mean being allowed, and I don't see it being tolerated in today's armed forces. Was it ever allowed? If so, when was it banned? If it was never allowed, how commonly was that rule broken, and when did it become universally enforced?

During WW1, customization of the paint ranged from a symbol or slogan on the fuselage (sometimes the wings), to a completely custom paint job over the whole aircraft. The more complete repaints were more common among German pilots, but did occur occasionally among the Allies and other Central Powers.

As for Americans in WW1, it appears to have been rare, but I have seen some really colorful SPAD fighters in American colors. Although they may have been painted that way after the Armistice. See here:
http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter1/showbirds.htm

[Brother Oni]

Does anyone know to what degree nose art and the like has been tolerated among American aviation throughout history? I know plenty of examples exist, especially from World War 2, but existing doesn't mean being allowed, and I don't see it being tolerated in today's armed forces. Was it ever allowed? If so, when was it banned? If it was never allowed, how commonly was that rule broken, and when did it become universally enforced?

Doing a bit of digging, it looks like nose art, especially the racy pinup, started being phased out during the Korean War, mostly due to changing military policies and attitudes towards the representation of women. It saw a bit of revival during the Vietnam War, with the AC-130 gunship unofficial badge of a skeleton with a minigun being adopted formally.

During Operation Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom, crews have been including the art as part of a camo pattern, and USAF have unofficially sanctioned nose art of clothed pinups on their bomber force, with strong encouragement of continuing historic names like Memphis Belle.
I found reference to a 2015 USAF memo, where crews can apply for permission for nose art, provided it is "distinctive, symbolic, gender neutral, intended to enhance unit pride, designed in good taste, and abide by copyright and trademark laws".

http://www.tinfeathers.com/Noseart/Bispo/F16/F16_01.JPG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/KC-135E_Stratotanker_with_patriotic_nose_art-1447cropped.jpg
http://images02.military.com/media/news/service/nose-art-600.jpg

[Yora]

Are there any well documented and researched examples of major wars in which both sides were using guerilla armies? Does that even work or is it a response to facing technologically and numerically superior enemies?

[Vinyadan]

When I was a child, I had a toy A-10 with that decoration.

I have been reading Machiavelli's Discourses about Livy. Among other things, he reports Livy's description of the old Roman system of principes, hastati and triarii. This comprises that somewhat odd description of their formation, in which the second line kept its ranks loose to allow the first line to merge into it if things went badly, and the third line was even looser to allow both lines to merge if forced to retreat.
The commenter said that Livy probably took these descriptions from a work of Cato Maior, and that they must have referred to some exercise, and not to a normal order of battle. However, while denying the reality of this practice in battle, the comment does not address how this exercise impacted battle performance, which I guess is the purpose of all military exercises.
Right now, my theory is that it was a way of showing soldiers how to handle it, if the men in front of them were forced to retreat, as to avoid two things: first, sandwiching the retreating first line between the advancing enemy and the back lines, when they couldn't fight; second, that the retreating first line would have impeded the ones behind it, stopping them from advancing and from joining combat, possibly weakening the formation and causing danger or defeat.
So, in practice, I think it was a way to teach the lines how much room they needed to create between each man if need be, and to teach the officers to be on the lookout and ensure that the line did have enough room to widen.

Are there some modern studies of how the system would have been applied, or, generally speaking, some educated guess?

[Kiero]

When I was a child, I had a toy A-10 with that decoration.

I have been reading Machiavelli's Discourses about Livy. Among other things, he reports Livy's description of the old Roman system of principes, hastati and triarii. This comprises that somewhat odd description of their formation, in which the second line kept its ranks loose to allow the first line to merge into it if things went badly, and the third line was even looser to allow both lines to merge if forced to retreat.
The commenter said that Livy probably took these descriptions from a work of Cato Maior, and that they must have referred to some exercise, and not to a normal order of battle. However, while denying the reality of this practice in battle, the comment does not address how this exercise impacted battle performance, which I guess is the purpose of all military exercises.
Right now, my theory is that it was a way of showing soldiers how to handle it, if the men in front of them were forced to retreat, as to avoid two things: first, sandwiching the retreating first line between the advancing enemy and the back lines, when they couldn't fight; second, that the retreating first line would have impeded the ones behind it, stopping them from advancing and from joining combat, possibly weakening the formation and causing danger or defeat.
So, in practice, I think it was a way to teach the lines how much room they needed to create between each man if need be, and to teach the officers to be on the lookout and ensure that the line did have enough room to widen.

Are there some modern studies of how the system would have been applied, or, generally speaking, some educated guess?

Livy makes stuff up and really doesn't understand military affairs (even though Machiavelli did understand them in his own time, he's reading someone who wasn't a soldier). If you want to know anything about the Roman military, from someone who was both a soldier and general, and indeed fought the Romans, read Polybius.

[KarlMarx]

When I was a child, I had a toy A-10 with that decoration.

I have been reading Machiavelli's Discourses about Livy. Among other things, he reports Livy's description of the old Roman system of principes, hastati and triarii. This comprises that somewhat odd description of their formation, in which the second line kept its ranks loose to allow the first line to merge into it if things went badly, and the third line was even looser to allow both lines to merge if forced to retreat.
The commenter said that Livy probably took these descriptions from a work of Cato Maior, and that they must have referred to some exercise, and not to a normal order of battle. However, while denying the reality of this practice in battle, the comment does not address how this exercise impacted battle performance, which I guess is the purpose of all military exercises.
Right now, my theory is that it was a way of showing soldiers how to handle it, if the men in front of them were forced to retreat, as to avoid two things: first, sandwiching the retreating first line between the advancing enemy and the back lines, when they couldn't fight; second, that the retreating first line would have impeded the ones behind it, stopping them from advancing and from joining combat, possibly weakening the formation and causing danger or defeat.
So, in practice, I think it was a way to teach the lines how much room they needed to create between each man if need be, and to teach the officers to be on the lookout and ensure that the line did have enough room to widen.

Are there some modern studies of how the system would have been applied, or, generally speaking, some educated guess?

The Manipular formation, probably what was loosely described, consisted of velites, hastati, principes, and triarii being arrayed in a "checkerboard" pattern, which was mostly used for maneuvering. Each type of troop would form a line of alternating maniples (~200 men) and gaps, with each gap being covered by a maniple of the infantry behind. Again, this was mostly used to move through difficult terrain--especially after the defeats of the early Samnite Wars--and in battle the troops would form solid lines in the same order. However, Manipular formation could also be used in battle, especially against light troops in rough terrain where battles quickly devolved into small unit actions, meaning that the maneuverability to deploy quickly trumped the necessity to maintain a solid line.

[rs2excelsior]

When I was a child, I had a toy A-10 with that decoration.

I have been reading Machiavelli's Discourses about Livy. Among other things, he reports Livy's description of the old Roman system of principes, hastati and triarii. This comprises that somewhat odd description of their formation, in which the second line kept its ranks loose to allow the first line to merge into it if things went badly, and the third line was even looser to allow both lines to merge if forced to retreat.
The commenter said that Livy probably took these descriptions from a work of Cato Maior, and that they must have referred to some exercise, and not to a normal order of battle. However, while denying the reality of this practice in battle, the comment does not address how this exercise impacted battle performance, which I guess is the purpose of all military exercises.
Right now, my theory is that it was a way of showing soldiers how to handle it, if the men in front of them were forced to retreat, as to avoid two things: first, sandwiching the retreating first line between the advancing enemy and the back lines, when they couldn't fight; second, that the retreating first line would have impeded the ones behind it, stopping them from advancing and from joining combat, possibly weakening the formation and causing danger or defeat.
So, in practice, I think it was a way to teach the lines how much room they needed to create between each man if need be, and to teach the officers to be on the lookout and ensure that the line did have enough room to widen.

Are there some modern studies of how the system would have been applied, or, generally speaking, some educated guess?

There was a pretty well researched site that discussed different ways to interpret the various histories depict Roman battle formations, but I can't seem to find it right now. Short answer is, we know they did something like this, but we don't really know how it worked.

The breakdown Machiavelli described was accurate. Republican-era legions consisted of three lines. The hastatii in the front were the least experienced and least well equipped, intended to deliver the initial charge and wear down the enemy a bit. The principes in the second line were more experienced and better armored, and in case the hastatii could not deal with the enemy the principes would engage. The triarii were the most experienced soldiers, and often carried spears instead of gladii like the rest of the legion. They were there in case everything else went horribly wrong--I can't remember the exact phrase, but something along the lines of "the battle reached the triarii" became an idiom in non-military settings to describe a situation where things had gone badly and you were desperately trying to avert complete disaster. As KarlMarx said, there were also Velites, who were light infantry that would not operate in line, and which the Romans never relied on as much as their heavy infantry. During the Second Punic War, for example, Roman velites were almost always swept aside by the Carthaginian light infantry. We know that in the late Republican/early Imperial period, after they did away with the distinction between hastatii, principes, and triarii, they kept the triplex acies (triple line) formation common to the pre-reform armies. We also know that these lines did support one another and one line could move forward and replace the other in battle. The way it was done is unclear.

The Romans fought in looser formations than, say, the Macedonian phalanxes (which gave them an edge over said phalanxes in rough terrain), but it would still be difficult to move through a formed-up body of infantry. One of the more common theories is that they formed in the "checkerboard," as Karl Marx said. If each maniple (which equated to two centuries working together) deployed with its centuries in front of/behind one another, instead of beside, with one century worth of room in between, you could move one line through the other, then form a solid line by having the rear centuries march to the side and then forward into the gap. The site I was talking about did some calculations about the time that would take, and it does take a while--possibly longer than would be practical in battle. Plus, the engaged line would have to have its centuries march backward then to the side, while in contact with the enemy, opening gaps which could be exploited. Additionally, post-reform, the triplex acies checkerboard was done with cohorts of six centuries rather than maniples of two, which multiplies the problems.

Another thing to keep in mind, however, is that ancient battles often weren't continuous affairs. There would be relatively brief periods of fighting, followed by longer lulls where the armies would fall back a bit and skirmish with ranged weapons, lighter troops, etc. That could provide an opportunity for such complex maneuvers, but still, it would be a prime opportunity for the enemy to take advantage of.

So basically, we know that the Romans did use a formation like Machiavelli describes in battle--and in battle with other heavy infantry, not just against light infantry--and that they did use more rearward lines to replace the forward ones as they became tired/demoralized/etc. But the details of how are not really well understood.

[Roxxy]

Okay, yet another question. In the quest to compare wand combat with firearms in my modernish fantasy "kinda like Harry Potter meets D&D, but every muggle knows about magic), I've tried to differentiate the two, and I've run into the issue that I don't know how deadly wands should be. My general assumption is that wizards fight by shooting magic blasts from their wands because it's convenient, not because it's superior to a gun (if you were casting spells, you had the wand out anyway).

The main issue with wand blasts is that they lack kinetic energy. They injure by burning a hole of maybe an inch right through the target, but tend not to cause wounds that bleed, or impart any kinetic energy into the target. Which means little stopping power, and wounds that are often easy to ignore in the heat of combat. A lot of magical creatures are much more susceptible to these wounds than humans, however. They're more accurate than handguns at close range because they lack recoil, are very light and easy to handle, and don't have ballistic properties, but the lack of sights is a huge issue at anything but immediate self defense ranges (not that handguns are that useful outside of this range). You can fire maybe 1 blast every 1.5 seconds, and don't need to reload. They're not as loud as gunshots, but not quiet, either (it's like clapping your hands really hard).

Because of these limitations, I imagine it isn't unheard of for wizards to carry and use firearms, and I think the wand really sees most of its use because the wizard already had it out (Even in the military, that'd be common, because an M16 has such a massive lethality advantage over a wand that you don't use your rather rare wizards as rifle infantry, you use them to cast support spells that help the dudes with M16s do their jobs better in classic D&D fashion. A military wizard like has a handgun, but not the time to stow their wand and draw it when they could just use the wand.), couldn't aquire or carry a gun (very common circumstance), or the enemy has specific vulnerabilities.

Which brings me to the question. Given how I described wand wounds, how lethal is that compared to something like 9mm, .40, or .45? I know its less effective, but I don't really have a solid handle on how much less effective.

[Gnoman]

This is an extremely complex subject, but the gist of it is that these wand wounds probably aren't going to be comparable to anything but the smallest of bullets.

If you get shot with an AP round from handgun or rifle (the closest analog to your wandshots, as it would be a straight hole with no fragmenting), the direct line of the bullet still isn't the main cause of your injury. The round will create a shockwave in your body that will open a wound channel much larger than the 7-12mm of the bullet itself, and this is the main thing that hurts you.


Any other sort of round will be significantly more damaging. Soft lead bullets will mushroom, full metal jacket bullets will fragment, hollowpoints will mushroom AND fragment, and all types will tumble in the body, greatly increasing the damaged area.

The only real exceptions are "mouse gun" calibers such as .25 ACP or .22LR. These don't have the energy to do much in the way of shock damage, and are small enough that the bullet itself won't do too much damage unless it directly strikes something vital.


Your wandshots make a pretty good sized hole (roughly the size of a US quarter, or about twice the diameter of most handgun bullets), but that's all the damage they'll do. They've certainly got the potential to be crippling or deadly, but they have to hit something important to do so, and even a handgun bullet doesn't.

Edit because I missed something:

One blast every 1.5 seconds takes this from "a tolerable backup weapon" to "worthless". A pistol can easily empty a magazine in not much more than that, giving a much greater chance of getting a hit in the first place, and likely resulting in multiple hits. That's not good odds even considering the "I'm already holding the wand, and would have to draw my pistol" factor.

[Roxxy]

This is an extremely complex subject, but the gist of it is that these wand wounds probably aren't going to be comparable to anything but the smallest of bullets.

If you get shot with an AP round from handgun or rifle (the closest analog to your wandshots, as it would be a straight hole with no fragmenting), the direct line of the bullet still isn't the main cause of your injury. The round will create a shockwave in your body that will open a wound channel much larger than the 7-12mm of the bullet itself, and this is the main thing that hurts you.


Any other sort of round will be significantly more damaging. Soft lead bullets will mushroom, full metal jacket bullets will fragment, hollowpoints will mushroom AND fragment, and all types will tumble in the body, greatly increasing the damaged area.

The only real exceptions are "mouse gun" calibers such as .25 ACP or .22LR. These don't have the energy to do much in the way of shock damage, and are small enough that the bullet itself won't do too much damage unless it directly strikes something vital.


Your wandshots make a pretty good sized hole (roughly the size of a US quarter, or about twice the diameter of most handgun bullets), but that's all the damage they'll do. They've certainly got the potential to be crippling or deadly, but they have to hit something important to do so, and even a handgun bullet doesn't.

Edit because I missed something:

One blast every 1.5 seconds takes this from "a tolerable backup weapon" to "worthless". A pistol can easily empty a magazine in not much more than that, giving a much greater chance of getting a hit in the first place, and likely resulting in multiple hits. That's not good odds even considering the "I'm already holding the wand, and would have to draw my pistol" factor.So, I really need to think about making wands more damaging, then, if I want to maintain the "It'll do the job, even if it isn't quite as good as a gun" factor? Maybe it can fire faster and the burning can open up a deep wound channel?

[Gnoman]

That's one option. Another would be to give the shots some (possibly random) secondary effect unique to magic, or supplement the damaging shot with something that works as a flash-bang or other distraction device.

[gkathellar]

How deep are these wand wounds? How rapidly can you fire? Because if you're basically shooting inch-wide holes through people, that may have it own immediate utility (and would be horribly disfiguring).

[Brother Oni]

The triarii were the most experienced soldiers, and often carried spears instead of gladii like the rest of the legion. They were there in case everything else went horribly wrong--I can't remember the exact phrase, but something along the lines of "the battle reached the triarii" became an idiom in non-military settings to describe a situation where things had gone badly and you were desperately trying to avert complete disaster.

From earlier on in the thread where we were discussing Roman spears, the phrase was 'rem ad Triarios redisse', meaning "it has come to the triarii", indicating an act of desperation.


That's one option. Another would be to give the shots some (possibly random) secondary effect unique to magic, or supplement the damaging shot with something that works as a flash-bang or other distraction device.

Given the description of burning through the target, could you treat them like a plasma based directed energy weapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_energy_projectile)? The beam ablates the top-most layer of the target, causing a small plasma explosion which can potentially knock down the target. In addition, the plasma explosion emits EM radiation, triggering nerves cells and causing intense pain and/or temporary paralysis.

All of these effects are on top of burning a hole through the target, thus giving it some parity with the significantly higher fire rate of modern SA/FA firearms. That said, any wounds it would cause are cauterised, thus blood loss would be minimal at best.

[Roxxy]

Given the description of burning through the target, could you treat them like a plasma based directed energy weapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_energy_projectile)? The beam ablates the top-most layer of the target, causing a small plasma explosion which can potentially knock down the target. In addition, the plasma explosion emits EM radiation, triggering nerves cells and causing intense pain and/or temporary paralysis.

All of these effects are on top of burning a hole through the target, thus giving it some parity with the significantly higher fire rate of modern SA/FA firearms. That said, any wounds it would cause are cauterised, thus blood loss would be minimal at best.That might well work pretty well. My main question is whether the pain would be comparable to gunshot wounds.

What I really like is that, by maintaining a slow rate of fire for wands, it reinforces that, powerful as they are, wizards HAVE to go into battle with infantry support if they want to stay alive to screw up the enemy.

[Xuc Xac]

That's one option. Another would be to give the shots some (possibly random) secondary effect unique to magic, or supplement the damaging shot with something that works as a flash-bang or other distraction device.

This is the way to go. It's magic. Let it do things that a gun can't.

The wand fires a little blast of elemental energy like a little fireball or an ice bullet or a miniature ball lightning. When it strikes a target, it doesn't have the physical impact of a bullet, so the damage is more localized. However, it really, really hurts and it doesn't stop. It's not just a puff of flame: it's a tiny salamander-like quasi-living elemental creature that bites, burns, and burrows into the target's flesh. It might not have the "stopping power" of a large bullet to knock the target down, but it will definitely get their attention.

If you use a pistol, you might fill your enemy full of bullets but he'll keep fighting back with an adrenaline rush if the bullets don't hit something important to stop him immediately. If you use a wand, even a minor hit to a non-vital area will result in your enemy screaming "Get it off! Get it off of me! Oh God! Get it out!" instead of shooting back at you.

[Brother Oni]

That might well work pretty well. My main question is whether the pain would be comparable to gunshot wounds.

They have only tested the technology on animals, but given that the project has been been put on the backburner due to concerns it could be used as a method of torture, I'd say the potential is certainly there - remember that the beam also burns a rather large hole through the target, which would painful in its own right.

As this is magic, you could arbitrarily state that it causes the same pain as a gunshot, rather than dig into the mechanics of weaponised plasma induced EM radiation causing nerve induction: Jiang and Cooper, "Frequency-dependent interaction of ultrashort E-fields with nociceptor membranes and proteins", Bioelectromagnetics 32: 148–63 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225892).


If you use a wand, even a minor hit to a non-vital area will result in your enemy screaming "Get it off! Get it off of me! Oh God! Get it out!" instead of shooting back at you.

I really like this idea much better than mine though. It's magic, make it something arcane and fearsome, rather than just a future-tech weapon brought forward a hundred years.

It gives the weapon more flavour and personality - having a small superhot critter eating and burrowing its way into you is far more disturbing to an enemy combatant than a energy weapon or a bullet in my opinion. If it makes cheerful little 'omnomnom' noises as it eats, it emphasises the effect - it's a weapon that enjoys killing, which is all kinds of disturbing on its own.

[Kiero]

There was a pretty well researched site that discussed different ways to interpret the various histories depict Roman battle formations, but I can't seem to find it right now. Short answer is, we know they did something like this, but we don't really know how it worked.

The breakdown Machiavelli described was accurate. Republican-era legions consisted of three lines. The hastatii in the front were the least experienced and least well equipped, intended to deliver the initial charge and wear down the enemy a bit. The principes in the second line were more experienced and better armored, and in case the hastatii could not deal with the enemy the principes would engage. The triarii were the most experienced soldiers, and often carried spears instead of gladii like the rest of the legion. They were there in case everything else went horribly wrong--I can't remember the exact phrase, but something along the lines of "the battle reached the triarii" became an idiom in non-military settings to describe a situation where things had gone badly and you were desperately trying to avert complete disaster. As KarlMarx said, there were also Velites, who were light infantry that would not operate in line, and which the Romans never relied on as much as their heavy infantry. During the Second Punic War, for example, Roman velites were almost always swept aside by the Carthaginian light infantry. We know that in the late Republican/early Imperial period, after they did away with the distinction between hastatii, principes, and triarii, they kept the triplex acies (triple line) formation common to the pre-reform armies. We also know that these lines did support one another and one line could move forward and replace the other in battle. The way it was done is unclear.

Another important element of the manipular system was that each was autonomous. While they acted as part of a greater whole, unit commanders were trusted to act on their own initiative. In battles like Pydna, the local flanking movements that ultimately routed the phalanx weren't ordered by the general leading the army, but by individual centurions in the fighting line seeing an opportunity and directing their men to take it.

On of the reasons the legions from Marius' Mules onwards did away with the distinctions between the three was that equipment was standardised. They were all basically equipped as principes. However, centuries were still referred to by those titles, with the triarii being the most senior and their centurion, the primus pilus - first spear, being the highest-ranking.

Triarii didn't do away with their gladii, there's no reason for them not to carry a sidearm. They probably didn't bother with any pila, though.


The Romans fought in looser formations than, say, the Macedonian phalanxes (which gave them an edge over said phalanxes in rough terrain), but it would still be difficult to move through a formed-up body of infantry. One of the more common theories is that they formed in the "checkerboard," as Karl Marx said. If each maniple (which equated to two centuries working together) deployed with its centuries in front of/behind one another, instead of beside, with one century worth of room in between, you could move one line through the other, then form a solid line by having the rear centuries march to the side and then forward into the gap. The site I was talking about did some calculations about the time that would take, and it does take a while--possibly longer than would be practical in battle. Plus, the engaged line would have to have its centuries march backward then to the side, while in contact with the enemy, opening gaps which could be exploited. Additionally, post-reform, the triplex acies checkerboard was done with cohorts of six centuries rather than maniples of two, which multiplies the problems.

Another thing to keep in mind, however, is that ancient battles often weren't continuous affairs. There would be relatively brief periods of fighting, followed by longer lulls where the armies would fall back a bit and skirmish with ranged weapons, lighter troops, etc. That could provide an opportunity for such complex maneuvers, but still, it would be a prime opportunity for the enemy to take advantage of.

So basically, we know that the Romans did use a formation like Machiavelli describes in battle--and in battle with other heavy infantry, not just against light infantry--and that they did use more rearward lines to replace the forward ones as they became tired/demoralized/etc. But the details of how are not really well understood.

Everyone fought in a looser formation than the Makedonian phalanx, there was nothing denser than it. It's also pretty clear that the phalanx declined in quality from their peak under Philippos II (Alexandros basically used the armies his father had trained and bloodied). In the Hellenistic era after Alexandros' death, the blocks got larger and denser. Pikes got longer and armour heavier. All of which was a cover for a reduction in capability.

In Philippos II's day, every phalangite was dual-trained a skirmisher, and could fight in both roles. As in he could tell off an entire block before a battle and tell them they were going to be javelineers for that encounter, especially useful for sieges. They were also described as fast and having an incredible fighting spirit. The survivors of these original bodies were still active in their eighties and nineties.

This was the sort of thing they were capable of, according to Arrian:


Then Alexander drew up his army in such a way that the depth of the phalanx was 120 men ; and stationing 200 cavalry on each wing, he ordered them to preserve silence, in order to receive the word of command quickly. Accordingly he gave the signal to the heavy-armed infantry in the first place to hold their spears erect, and then to couch them at the concerted sign ; at one time to incline their spears to the right, closely locked together, and at another time towards the left. He then set the phalanx itself into quick motion forward, and marched it towards the wings, now to the right, and then to the left. After thus arranging and re-arranging his army many times very rapidly, he at last formed his phalanx into a sort of wedge, and led it towards the left against the enemy, who had long been in a state of amazement at seeing both the order and the rapidity of his evolutions.

Changing formation in the face of the enemy. Not something later Hellenistic armies were capable of.

By the time of the Roman ascent, things were so formalised, with defeated phalanxes defecting to the winner and mutually-understood norms of behaviour, that they bore little resemblance to those originals. The Romans didn't understand when the phalanxes were surrendering at Pydna, and carried on killing them even though they were trying to stop fighting.

[DerKommissar]

In my campaign a smaller scale military conflict is about to begin, so I wanted to ask for historical examples or general input how you think this would go down.

Assume the setting to be close to 13th/14th century Northern Italy but with magic.

The situation:
There is an important trade route along a river. Downstream is Town A, upstream is Town B so goods are transported from Town B passing Town A to the final destination. Town A decided to impose a hefty fee on goods passing by which infuriates Town B as the general income drops. After a while a rebel group from Town B starts to attack ships from Town A and sink them. The Rebels are operating in guerilla tactics and come from the lower classes, which are affected worst by the fee. Officially they are not supported by Town B, but the local population helps and hides them.
Some people in Town A wanted the conflict to escalate, so they increased the fee further and finally made a false-flag-attack and in response the town council decided it’s time to take (punitive) actions against the Rebels.

Both towns have ~15-20k population and are wealthy free cities, but Town A is quite a bit richer than Town B.

So the situation at the moment in my campaign is, that Town A is gathering a strike force of Mercenaries in order to weaken/punish/discourage the rebels, but they won’t siege Town B directly (yet). Still Town A sees Town B responsible for the Rebel activities, as they should get them under control but rather they seem to support the Rebels.

So my questions:
- Do you know any historical examples I could read up about similar conflicts about trading tolls?
- Do you know any historical examples for renaissance mercenaries fighting militia rebels?
- What are your thoughts on the actions Town A might take against the rebels?
- How might Town B respond to those actions?

Sorry if the questions are a bit broad, but I'm still trying to brainstorm the whole thing, as the raids should start in the next session on sunday :) If you think its better to open a new thread then thats fine as well (maybe Im gonna do it anyways), but my hopes are you can give me some sources and ideas!

[Haighus]

The info about combat in the late antiquity period is reminding me- has anyone here played any 0 AD? Any comments on how realistic aspects of it are? I understand it has limitations due to the game wanting to have a certain build and destroy mechanic, but aside from that.

[jayem]

The info about combat in the late antiquity period is reminding me- has anyone here played any 0 AD? Any comments on how realistic aspects of it are? I understand it has limitations due to the game wanting to have a certain build and destroy mechanic, but aside from that.

Not for a while. It was pretty, but unfinished then.
It didn't feel massively realistic, it's very much a C&C -> Age of Empires -> 0AD progression, (not say even Total War).

[KarlMarx]

In my campaign a smaller scale military conflict is about to begin, so I wanted to ask for historical examples or general input how you think this would go down.

Assume the setting to be close to 13th/14th century Northern Italy but with magic.

The situation:
There is an important trade route along a river. Upstream is Town A, Downstream is Town B so goods are transported from Town B passing Town A to the final destination. Town A decided to impose a hefty fee on goods passing by which infuriates Town B as the general income drops. After a while a rebel group from Town B starts to attack ships from Town A and sink them. The Rebels are operating in guerilla tactics and come from the lower classes, which are affected worst by the fee. Officially they are not supported by Town B, but the local population helps and hides them.
Some people in Town A wanted the conflict to escalate, so they increased the fee further and finally made a false-flag-attack and in response the town council decided it’s time to take (punitive) actions against the Rebels.

Both towns have ~15-20k population and are wealthy free cities, but Town A is quite a bit richer than Town B.

So the situation at the moment in my campaign is, that Town A is gathering a strike force of Mercenaries in order to weaken/punish/discourage the rebels, but they won’t siege Town B directly (yet). Still Town A sees Town B responsible for the Rebel activities, as they should get them under control but rather they seem to support the Rebels.

So my questions:
- Do you know any historical examples I could read up about similar conflicts about trading tolls?
- Do you know any historical examples for renaissance mercenaries fighting militia rebels?
- What are your thoughts on the actions Town A might take against the rebels?
- How might Town B respond to those actions?

Sorry if the questions are a bit broad, but I'm still trying to brainstorm the whole thing, as the raids should start in the next session on sunday :) If you think its better to open a new thread then thats fine as well (maybe Im gonna do it anyways), but my hopes are you can give me some sources and ideas!

First question: why is Town B at a disadvantage? the downstream town, being closer to the ocean, should have the overall upper hand in trade disputes and the incentive to levy such fines.

As to the historical examples, I can't think of any in particular, but I would advise researching the military history of Italy basically from the departure of Byzantium to the Italian wars to get some background. Doesn't have to be exhaustive, just enough to get some idea of what's going on.

Town A could do several things. They could levy soldiers/hire mercenaries to guard trade better, attempt to pay off the rebels, or apply diplomatic pressure on B. It seems unlikely that they will offer to nullify the tariff (Italian towns were notoriously self-interested), but it's an option. As you hypothesized, however, going directly after the rebels seems most likely.

B's response to such an action is more interesting. If they still cover for the rebels, open war is only so far away, which will work to A's advantage as money=>mercenaries=>victory in late medieval Italy. Alternatively, they might sue for peace, offering to give up the rebels and take a subordinate position to A to preserve their freedom. Or, in what seems most interesting for a campaign to me, they could try to bribe a high-ranking official or powerful nobleman of A, as well as fomenting rebels within that city's territory.

[DerKommissar]

Thanks for the reply!


First question: why is Town B at a disadvantage? the downstream town, being closer to the ocean, should have the overall upper hand in trade disputes and the incentive to levy such fines.


I confused up- and downstream, so it is Town A that is closer to the ocean - fixed that in my original post.



Town A could do several things. [...] As you hypothesized, however, going directly after the rebels seems most likely.


In the campaign there is a shapeshifted demon, whose goal it is to bring people to kill each other. He suggested the tax raise and staged the false flag attack inside the city (burning down an iconic building). Being attacked directly in their city the townspeople want to see the rebels punished and the council of the town (inspired by the demon) think it’s best to hire mercenaries and send them out to "discourage" the rebels.

What do you think would be a likely first step in doing so? Some iconic atrocities to show town B cannot protect their people? Some random raids to punish the population?
I don’t really have a clue how people at that time would have seen collateral damage in the population: Unimportant as long as the rebels stop their attacks? Dangerous as you would gain a bad reputation? E.g. the Sack of Magdeburg didn’t get a lot of good press, but I don’t know if it had such a big ‘practical’ aftermath for the ones responsible



B's response to such an action is more interesting. If they still cover for the rebels, open war is only so far away, which will work to A's advantage as money=>mercenaries=>victory in late medieval Italy. Alternatively, they might sue for peace, offering to give up the rebels and take a subordinate position to A to preserve their freedom. Or, in what seems most interesting for a campaign to me, they could try to bribe a high-ranking official or powerful nobleman of A, as well as fomenting rebels within that city's territory.


These are some interesting ideas, as I think when it would really turn in a full scale war between A and B, the Town B would have to surrender and try to shut down the rebels themselves. But that will be up to my Players actions as well ;)

[snowblizz]

So my questions:
- Do you know any historical examples I could read up about similar conflicts about trading tolls?
- Do you know any historical examples for renaissance mercenaries fighting militia rebels?
- What are your thoughts on the actions Town A might take against the rebels?
- How might Town B respond to those actions?



I actually think there are similar parallells in real world medieaval Italy actually. I think it was Florens and Pisa and ended with Pisa essentially becoming a harbour for Florens.
The Öresund toll was a go to casus belli between Denmark and Sweden for about 400 years.

Something to note though is that in cases where random taxation occurs trade tends to find other ways. So if it was Pisa and Florens, Florens started fixing up and securing alternate routes over passes and improving rivers to be navigable further up. But also you risk rerouting trade patterns to the benfit of your rivals. So Town A may end up losing too on this, as Town C gets increased trade. It was a persistent risk when you had bridges and passes providing important income to you and some were tempted to try and "abuse" the position inevitably marginalising themselves in trade patterns.
In these times city merchants were fairly independant and cosmopolitan too and would not like the taxes and disrupted traderoutes. This kind of economic war can be kinda ruinous. There is a book about medieval trades and tradepatterns I read that covered a lot of stuff like this but be damned if I can find the name and author. Even though I mentioned it while I had it in one incarnation of the thread.

Town B would probably get on hiring mercenaries too, as self-defence and trying to get rid of their rebel problem, but also exploring other options for trade.
Some kind of raiding against the economy of Town B would be early steps, under the guise of hunting down the rebels, farms and mills and what not. Though this is a good way to ruin both towns economies in raiding and counterraiding. Medieval Spain saw a lot of it and set back economic development severly in e.g. Andalusia IIRC.

[Haighus]

Not for a while. It was pretty, but unfinished then.
It didn't feel massively realistic, it's very much a C&C -> Age of Empires -> 0AD progression, (not say even Total War).

Hmm, I should clarify I meant from a graphics and feel perspective, as in how the units are portrayed, the designs of soldiers, the buildings, the general units available to armies and their general use. I appreciate that any game with a build and destroy mechanic, where buildings are constructed and cities pop up in the same screen as the combat occurs, are intrinsically less realistic than games that divide the strategic building and the tactical combat (the exceptions being games where only small tactical buildings, like trenchlines and medic tents, are constructed).

From what I can see, they generally have a good attention to detail with the names of units, their designs, and the importance of their roles within different classical militaries, as well as the aesthetics of structures for different civilisations. But I don't know enough about the period to understand if my general feel for this is right.

Also, if you haven't played it for awhile, it still isn't finished, but has got a whole lot prettier ;)

[paddyfool]

I read somewhere that the big axes synonymous with viking warriors in various fiction were actually used as weapons to strike at enemies from behind a shield wall, i.e. as an adjunct to the ubiquitous spear and shield strategy and only for a limited period of viking history at that. How true is this?

[snowblizz]

I read somewhere that the big axes synonymous with viking warriors in various fiction were actually used as weapons to strike at enemies from behind a shield wall, i.e. as an adjunct to the ubiquitous spear and shield strategy and only for a limited period of viking history at that. How true is this?

If you are talking about the twohanded Dane axe it was a weapon mostly associated with the more elite warriors and of the later periods of the somewhat misnamed "viking period". You need good armour, in the period a full chainmail hauberk, to forgo the protection of the shield. Scandinavians were seldom initially heavily armoured lacking domestic armour manufacture in a large scale compared to the continent. And it's most famous use seems to come from "viking derivatives" Irish Galloglaich, Normans and the Varangian Guard in Byzantium which were much less "viking" by the later stages. Either way you won't have loads of people with the two-handed axes.

I think it depends on what you mean with striking from behind a shield wall. In reality if you are actually behind your shield wall only bows and spears are going to be easily used to attack the enemy. I would say the Dane-axe comes into it's own in breaking down the opponents shieldwall.

[Brother Oni]

I would say the Dane-axe comes into it's own in breaking down the opponents shieldwall.

This is both in actually hacking through shields and hooking enemy shields out of the way to enable your allies to stab through the newly made gaps.

[Yora]

Armor training in the 15th century. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI) Apparently non-standard, but still interesting to note.

[Lemmy]

So... I was thinking about pommels. Obviously, they work, considering how common they are...

Therefore, my question is: How effective were pommels as counter-weight? I mean... They are pretty close to the pivot (your hand) and (I'm guessing, but have no idea) not nearly as heavy as the blades.

But how much of a difference do they make? (as a counter-weight, I mean. They're still useful for stopping the hand from slipping and for flooding Skallagrim's comment sessions with overused memes).

Bonus Question: If you were designing a custom weapon for D&D, how would you represent the benefits of having a pommel (other than a simple bonus to attack rolls)?

Thank you all in advance.

[Mike_G]

So... I was thinking about pommels. Obviously, they work, considering how common they are...

Therefore, my question is: How effective were pommels as counter-weight? I mean... They are pretty close to the pivot (your hand) and (I'm guessing, but have no idea) not nearly as heavy as the blades.

But how much of a difference do they make? (as a counter-weight, I mean. They're still useful for stopping the hand from slipping and for flooding Skallagrim's comment sessions with overused memes).

Bonus Question: If you were designing a custom weapon for D&D, how would you represent the benefits of having a pommel (other than a simple bonus to attack rolls)?

Thank you all in advance.

It's pretty significant, but, as in all thing, it depends on the weapon. I used an extra heavy pommel when I was fencing competitively, and I think it did make my point more agile. For a cutting weapon, I'm not sure how much you want to counterweight the blade.

[snowblizz]

Bonus Question: If you were designing a custom weapon for D&D, how would you represent the benefits of having a pommel (other than a simple bonus to attack rolls)?

In short I think you simply don't. A pommel for sword that's supposed to have one isn't optional really. And adding one to a sword that's not meant to have one is not somethign you'd do either. I'd also say you are introducing unnecessary micromanaging in something like D&D with this. If you must I'd say treat an unblanced weapon as improvised (I knwo that temr exists but not sure of it's rule implication) or something like that. Low quality? I'm not familair with the rules obviously. But also feel it's incorrect to say a sword with a pommel gets a bonus, rather a sword without a pommel that's meant to should get a penalty. A bog standard D&D longsword comes with the assumptions that it's made the appropriate way, which includes a properly balanced pommel. (Or maybe it doens't and baseline D&D weaponry are really what IRL woudl be inferior.)
It's not just weight balance, the pommel keeps your grip stuff in place without it a good swing nets you a hollow wooden tube wrapped with leather in your hands and a longsword 5 yards further along and you in trouble.

[Brother Oni]

It's not just weight balance, the pommel keeps your grip stuff in place without it a good swing nets you a hollow wooden tube wrapped with leather in your hands and a longsword 5 yards further along and you in trouble.

Are there many longswords made in this fashion? I was under the impression that the vast majority had the grip firmly secured to the blade's tang.

[Vinyadan]

Thank you all for the answers about the Roman tripartite system. While I agree with Kiero's assessment about Livy and Polybius as a rule of thumb, it's worth saying that it becomes problematic when you do in-depth analysis of Livy, mostly because of the underlying source network. The most evident example I can think of is how Livy actually is one of the most important indirect sources for the lost parts of Polybius, which he very closely followed in some books.

I think that someone (Galloglaich?) talked about how nobility put itself out of the political game in many cities, since its strength was depleted through internal and civil strife during the XIV century. If anyone is interested into reading an example, the second book of Machiavelli's Florentine Histories deals with how this happened in Florence.

[Galloglaich]

Thank you all for the answers about the Roman tripartite system. While I agree with Kiero's assessment about Livy and Polybius as a rule of thumb, it's worth saying that it becomes problematic when you do in-depth analysis of Livy, mostly because of the underlying source network. The most evident example I can think of is how Livy actually is one of the most important indirect sources for the lost parts of Polybius, which he very closely followed in some books.

I think that someone (Galloglaich?) talked about how nobility put itself out of the political game in many cities, since its strength was depleted through internal and civil strife during the XIV century. If anyone is interested into reading an example, the second book of Machiavelli's Florentine Histories deals with how this happened in Florence.

Where can you get those? is there a cheap translation available?

I've been re-reading The Prince and noticed he had interesting comments about German cities:

"The cities of Germany are absolutely free, have little surrounding country, and obey the emperor when they choose, and they do not fear him or any other potentate that they have about them. They are fortified in such a manner that everyone thinks that to reduce them would be tedious and difficult, for they all have the necessary moats and bastions, sufficient artillery, and always keep food, drink and fuel for one year in the public storehouses. Beyond which, to keep the lower classes satisfied, and without loss to the commonwealth, they have always enough means to give them work for one year in these employments which corm the nerve and life of the town, and in the industries by which the lower classes live. Military exercises are still held in high reputation, and many regulations are in force for maintain them."

I suspect he has read my Baltic book ;)

I think Germany and Italy are slightly different in how the towns were organized, the Italian towns seemed to have included nobles a bit longer, whereas the big class struggle in late medieval Germany was more between the merchants and the artisans. The nobles and the prince (usually a bishop or archbishop, sometimes a Duke or a King) was typically evicted or pushed to the margins back in the 12th or 13th Century. Basically whenever the town was able to build walls. By the time you get through the Black Death (say 1360's) the German cities are accelerating rapidly toward their peak of power and influence which probably happened about 1510-1520. Decline began with the Reformation and religious wars but it was a long, slow decline. Their city walls protected a lot of them even in the 30 Years War.

In Italy it was more complex. For one thing the Italian cities were far more ruthless to each other, and more than willing to involve the nobility, and even foreign princes in their internecine conflicts. Ultimately this proved to be the undoing of many of them. You also had the Guelph-Ghibeline conflicts which played into the whole vendetta thing in Italy, leading to multi-generational conflicts and intense hatreds between families and factions, which I think began to eclipse the older class (or more precisely, 'estate') rivalries of their heyday which was probably like 1250-1400.

I think ultimately the Italian citizens just got tired of constant fighting and it led to the decline of their militia system. That is what Machiavelli is always on about, (a reflection of his personal experiences). They fought off the Emperor in the 12th and 13th Centuries, and then the Popes in the 14th, and the Kings of France and Spain in the 15th, but they wasted so much energy (and caused themselves so much misery) fighting rival factions and fighting other City-States. Eventually they just got sick of fighting, let the mercenaries take over in many cases.

The 16th Century turned into an endless series of wars, and in the end, only Venice was really left as a Republic out of all the towns of the once mighty Lombard League. And Venice, mighty as they were, was trapped between Spain (with all it's New World gold) and the Ottomans (with all the wealth of the Silk Road), with very little breathing room between.

G

[harlokin]

Are there many longswords made in this fashion? I was under the impression that the vast majority had the grip firmly secured to the blade's tang.

The vast majority of what we call longswords indeed had grips of leather wrapped wood, secured by compression, and possibly adhesive. Grosse messer, on the other hand, had a knife-like construction, with the handle securely pegged to the tang.

[Vinyadan]

@Galloglaich
I am reading the Italian OV, but there is an English translation at project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2464/2464-h/2464-h.htm#link2H_4_0012
Machiavelli talked about the German cities pretty often. He spent some time in his Discourses about Livy explaining how and why they functioned. There also is his 'Rapporto di cose della Magna', 'Report on German Affairs', but I am not sure of its content, because I haven't read it yet.

[Lemmy]

It's pretty significant, but, as in all thing, it depends on the weapon. I used an extra heavy pommel when I was fencing competitively, and I think it did make my point more agile. For a cutting weapon, I'm not sure how much you want to counterweight the blade.Hmm... Theoretically, it should make slashing strikes hit harder, but at the same time, make your weapon heavier, so while the angular velocity of the tip would increase, the general speed of the sword would be lower and/or you'd tire more quickly, since you're moving more weight around. For piercing strikes, I believe it would make bring the point of balance lower, giving you more control over the tip... And of course, more mass = heavier impact / greater power of penetration... But again, moving the sword around would be slower and/or more tiresome. Well... In any case, I will take your word for it. I doubt I'll have the chance to test swords and pommels any time soon. :smallbiggrin:


In short I think you simply don't. A pommel for sword that's supposed to have one isn't optional really. And adding one to a sword that's not meant to have one is not something you'd do either. I'd also say you are introducing unnecessary micromanaging in something like D&D with this. If you must I'd say treat an unbalanced weapon as improvised (I know that term exists but not sure of it's rule implication) or something like that. Low quality? I'm not familiar with the rules obviously. But also feel it's incorrect to say a sword with a pommel gets a bonus, rather a sword without a pommel that's meant to should get a penalty. A bog standard D&D longsword comes with the assumptions that it's made the appropriate way, which includes a properly balanced pommel. (Or maybe it doesn't and baseline D&D weaponry are really what IRL would be inferior.)That's a good point. I asked mostly because I have a custom weapon generation system for 3.X & Pathfinder (it's even in my signature! :smalltongue:) so I was wondering if I could incorporate it somehow... I suppose I could do something like allow it to be thrown but then cause a minor penalty to attack rolls... Doesn't seem useful or interesting, though. Way too situational to matter.


It's not just weight balance, the pommel keeps your grip stuff in place without it a good swing nets you a hollow wooden tube wrapped with leather in your hands and a longsword 5 yards further along and you in trouble.Yeah... The other uses of pommel I understand. Well... The counter-weight factor too, it's just that the total mass of the pommel is so small compared to the rest of the sword (I think) and so close to the pivot, that it didn't seem to me that it'd have much of an effect either way. didn't seem to have much of an effect.

Anyway, thank you both for answering my question. I really appreciate it.

[Roxxy]

All this talk of pommels and the need thereof, and we have yet to discuss the utility of ending one's opponent rightly.


https://youtu.be/jETLCm7k3sU

[Roxxy]

Here's kind of an odd question. My modernish (more like Cold War) fantasy had to have some level of space travel by the time it had 1940s tech, because it had colonies by the 60s. They don't have good enough sensor tech to replicate Cold War spy satellites, but they can get stuff into space easily enough (essentially, alchemists can make a mean engine with magic, but not a camera). We're going to talk about The Rod From God. If you have the tech to get a giant chunk of tungsten into space, you can drop it on people you don't like.

You're the combined alliance of Britain, France, Germany (long story short, no Nazis are around and Germany's still a republic), the Low Countries, and the Scandinavian Countries. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, and the Soviet Union wee the Comintern, and you were fighting them. America is friendly enough, but they got themselves buried neck deep in a land war in Asia, so they aren't coming to Europe. The rest of the Comintern has fallen and Soviets are being pushed back to their initial borders, but nobody wants to invade Russia, anymoreso than anyone wanted to invade Japan IRL. So, you need a superweapon. You can either try and build nukes (America is, though they aren't sharing that with ANYONE), or you can try for The Rod From God. I'm not sure which is better. The Rod sounds a whole lot easier, but tungsten is an essential war material, and I don't know how much one needs for the rod, and whether those supplies would be forthcoming. If the tungsten is there, are you better off starting up a Manhattan Project yourself, or just throwing rocks at the Russians from space until they give up?

[Mike_G]

Hmm... Theoretically, it should make slashing strikes hit harder, but at the same time, make your weapon heavier, so while the angular velocity of the tip would increase, the general speed of the sword would be lower and/or you'd tire more quickly, since you're moving more weight around. For piercing strikes, I believe it would make bring the point of balance lower, giving you more control over the tip... And of course, more mass = heavier impact / greater power of penetration... But again, moving the sword around would be slower and/or more tiresome. Well... In any case, I will take your word for it. I doubt I'll have the chance to test swords and pommels any time soon. :smallbiggrin:

.

You don't need a sword.

Get any 3 foot long stick, swing it, poke with it and see how that feels. Then tape a weight, like a battery or something, to the end and repeat. You'll find it much easier to control the tip with a counterweight attached.

As far as impact, the more weight at the point of impact, the more momentum the blow will have, so moving the center of balance away from the tip is bad for straight chopping damage. This is why a hammer or axe has the mass concentrated at the business end.

An axe or hammer of the same weight as a sword will hit harder, but be harder to control, harder to change direction or recover after an attack, and easier to avoid. And probably shorter for the same total weight.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

We're going to talk about The Rod From God. If you have the tech to get a giant chunk of tungsten into space, you can drop it on people you don't like.

You can either try and build nukes (America is, though they aren't sharing that with ANYONE), or you can try for The Rod From God. I'm not sure which is better.

I'm guessing it's all going to depend on how good your alchemy is. The fun of an atomic bomb is that you take a material you just dug up and turn it into energy for a really hard punch. In rods from god the energy comes in the form of flying the things up there in the first place. If that fuel is easier to get per joule of energy deposited into an enemy than uranium is it could be a good option.

There are still a couple of problems though. While it's virtually impossible to defend from a solid object falling from space ones it's falling, satellites typically have very predictable trajectories. In the real world people keep certain projects a secret by just pulling a tarp over the thing they're making every time a relevant spy satellite is about to pass overhead. And a camera can still turn around a bit, these rods will have some steering, but they're not going to land huge distances away from where they started (except in the down direction of course). So the amount of land you can hit with a single rod installation is going to look a bit like the path of an eclipse, even if you manage to give it a weird enough orbit that it doesn't pass the same points every round trip (should be very doable, I think) on any given trip it can only hit certain targets. An enemy could realistically avoid getting hit just by moving around, never be in the drop zone for whatever satellite is coming this way. Moscow is not going to stay safe this way, but an armor collumn could. It also creates an option for defenses against the satellites themselves. You can't really shoot down a dropping rod, but if space travel is really that easy you can shoot down an orbiting object and any international agreement against doing that goes out of the window as soon as someone is developing rods. As the war stretches out heavy tumbling tungsten rods, unexploded ordnance and lots of shrapnel are going to end up as space junk, which is going to endanger other space activities. Your setting is going to have answers to some of these things.

On the plus side, nukes are kind of a big boom per package delivered, they're suboptimal for precision strikes. If you can a good way to deliver that same amount of energy for the same mount of work but get the energy split up into more different packages you generally speaking have a better weapon. (On this scale, not true for say punches during a boxing match.) For the energy that would destroy the center of Moskou you can destroy just the Kremlin, a few military installations and an important factory or powerplant. You get more done. So that might be part of your justification.

[Vinyadan]

What would happen if it was lead instead of titanium? Liquid metal rain?

[Max_Killjoy]

What would happen if it was lead instead of titanium? Liquid metal rain?


Possibly even lead vapor in the atmosphere.

[Knaight]

What would happen if it was lead instead of titanium? Liquid metal rain?

Tungsten, not titanium. The key material properties are an extremely high density and melting point; titanium's key properties including a really low density, while having a pretty middling melting point.

[Max_Killjoy]

Tungsten, not titanium. The key material properties are an extremely high density and melting point; tungsten's key properties including a really low density, while having a pretty middling melting point.

Tungsten or titanium?

[Lemmy]

You don't need a sword.

Get any 3 foot long stick, swing it, poke with it and see how that feels. Then tape a weight, like a battery or something, to the end and repeat. You'll find it much easier to control the tip with a counterweight attached. It'll certainly be easier... What I was wondering is... How much easier?


As far as impact, the more weight at the point of impact, the more momentum the blow will have, so moving the center of balance away from the tip is bad for straight chopping damage. This is why a hammer or axe has the mass concentrated at the business end.Uh... Kinda of... If the weight is on the same side of the pivot, then yes, it does nothing but hamper you... But it is on the opposite side of pivot, it'll allow other end to apply more force (e.g.: swinging an axe by gripping at the center of a 40cm-long shaft is more effective than swinging an axe by gripping at the every end of a 20cm-long shaft). But if you have a counter weight on the opposite side of the pivot, it means you're aren't holding the "business end" from as far as you can, which means you have a shorter moment arm (which is the whole point of a counterweight. No one wants a building crane whose operator is miles away from whatever it's lifting!). But for a slashing/chopping weapon, it's easier to just hold it from as far as you can from the blade increase the arm of the moment and therefore the force applied to the blade. That way, you not only make your weapon lighter (no counterweight = less mass on the handle = you can add more mass to the impact end), but also gives you extra reach.

[Mike_G]

It'll certainly be easier... What I was wondering is... How much easier?


Ummm.. a lot.

Depends on the blade and the pommel, but even a slightly heavier pommel makes a more easily controlled tip.

I used an epee pommel on my foil when I was competing, and while it's only a tiny bit heavier, it made my point work much more precise, and even though the weapon was technically heavier, it was quicker to get back to defend after making an attack. It would have lost momentum in a swing, but that's irrelevant for the type of weapon it was. Even taking the sport element out of it and pretending it's a smallsword, you aren't going to try to bash or chop with it.

"How much?" isn't a question we can answer without defining a specific sword.



Uh... Kinda of... If the weight is on the same side of the pivot, then yes, it does nothing but hamper you... But it is on the opposite side of pivot, it'll allow other end to apply more force (e.g.: swinging an axe by gripping at the center of a 40cm-long shaft is more effective than swinging an axe by gripping at the every end of a 20cm-long shaft). But if you have a counter weight on the opposite side of the pivot, it means you're aren't holding the "business end" from as far as you can, which means you have a shorter moment arm (which is the whole point of a counterweight. No one wants a building crane whose operator is miles away from whatever it's lifting!). But for a slashing/chopping weapon, it's easier to just hold it from as far as you can from the blade increase the arm of the moment and therefore the force applied to the blade. That way, you not only make your weapon lighter (no counterweight = less mass on the handle = you can add more mass to the impact end), but also gives you extra reach.

Again, nobody's arguing that.

But the extra momentum you get, which makes it hit harder, also makes the weapon harder to control. It's harder to change angles to feint here and attack there with a forward weighted weapon, and if you miss it's much slower to get back into a guard to defend yourself.

There's a reason battle axes are lighter than splitting axes.

[Brother Oni]

Tungsten or titanium?

Tungsten: melting point 3422 C, density 19.25 g/cm3
Titanium: melting point 1668 C, density 4.51 g/cm3

As Knaight said, for a metal, titanium's got a fairly low density and middling melting point, making it sub-optimal for dropping from orbit onto somebody's head.

[KarlMarx]

Here's kind of an odd question. My modernish (more like Cold War) fantasy had to have some level of space travel by the time it had 1940s tech, because it had colonies by the 60s. They don't have good enough sensor tech to replicate Cold War spy satellites, but they can get stuff into space easily enough (essentially, alchemists can make a mean engine with magic, but not a camera). We're going to talk about The Rod From God. If you have the tech to get a giant chunk of tungsten into space, you can drop it on people you don't like.

You're the combined alliance of Britain, France, Germany (long story short, no Nazis are around and Germany's still a republic), the Low Countries, and the Scandinavian Countries. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, and the Soviet Union wee the Comintern, and you were fighting them. America is friendly enough, but they got themselves buried neck deep in a land war in Asia, so they aren't coming to Europe. The rest of the Comintern has fallen and Soviets are being pushed back to their initial borders, but nobody wants to invade Russia, anymoreso than anyone wanted to invade Japan IRL. So, you need a superweapon. You can either try and build nukes (America is, though they aren't sharing that with ANYONE), or you can try for The Rod From God. I'm not sure which is better. The Rod sounds a whole lot easier, but tungsten is an essential war material, and I don't know how much one needs for the rod, and whether those supplies would be forthcoming. If the tungsten is there, are you better off starting up a Manhattan Project yourself, or just throwing rocks at the Russians from space until they give up?

As previously mentioned, it's going to be very hard to use the Rod From God (RFG from now on) approach with any degree of accuracy. I'd need to run some numbers on this to give a definite answer, but it seems like the RFGs would have to be dropped with extreme horizontal velocity relative to target, and would further have their descents somewhat altered by weather. Compounded with the fact that you need to have a building full of vacuum tubes to give the modern equivalent of a four function calculator's computing power, it's going to be exceedingly hard to aim the Rods with precision, particularly if they're on the other side of the world, which would require satellite arrays to relay messages to the rod dropper. This opens the difficulty of having a large enough repeating network of satellites to activate the RFG asap to account for error, which in turn makes it easier for the Soviets to disrupt these communications. Atomic bombs don't have any of these issues, as they are essentially almost line-of-sight weapons (200 m error doesn't really matter for an a-bomb).

However, I do have to ask one question. As I recall, historically the Enola Gay flew from Tinian, in the Marianas, a relatively close position to Japan. Given that the front at the current time is somewhere in eastern Poland, the allied powers don't really have a good place to launch a plane carrying the bomb from. Carriers won't work, as planes large enough for atomic missions (B-29s) were too large to fit on carriers. Swedish airbases could probably serve as a base to hit Leningrad, but not much else, and as the war has been long already and the Allies control Oresund the Baltic probably isn't the most strategically important region. So, to get planes close enough to bomb Moscow and the other major industrial centers, one is still obliged to fight a *major* land war, while simultaneously guarding their flank in the Middle East. If too many troops are committed to the Steppes, the Red Army can use the Caucasus as a breakout point to hit the Middle Eastern regions where the Allies are likely getting almost all of their oil.

Now, that's not to say that the Allies can't win in these circumstances. Although an invasion of Russia sounds suicidal, once airbases close enough to hit major cities are acquired can quickly expedite the end of a campaign, forcing the CCCP to surrender. However, if the Allies get that far, they've likely (though not certainly) already won.

As an aside, there's no reason that an atomic bomb can't be split into smaller energy packets. It simply involves putting Uranium in different bombs, rather than one bomb. If anything, given that aiming RFGs at even a city is hard, they're easier to use in precision attacks.

[Lemmy]

Ummm.. a lot.

Depends on the blade and the pommel, but even a slightly heavier pommel makes a more easily controlled tip.

I used an epee pommel on my foil when I was competing, and while it's only a tiny bit heavier, it made my point work much more precise, and even though the weapon was technically heavier, it was quicker to get back to defend after making an attack. It would have lost momentum in a swing, but that's irrelevant for the type of weapon it was. Even taking the sport element out of it and pretending it's a smallsword, you aren't going to try to bash or chop with it.

"How much?" isn't a question we can answer without defining a specific sword.Yeah.... I know it can't have an exact answer. It was more of a "in a general sense" question, so that I could ahve an idea.


Again, nobody's arguing that.

But the extra momentum you get, which makes it hit harder, also makes the weapon harder to control. It's harder to change angles to feint here and attack there with a forward weighted weapon, and if you miss it's much slower to get back into a guard to defend yourself.

There's a reason battle axes are lighter than splitting axes.Indeed.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to reply. :smallsmile:

[Storm Bringer]

Here's kind of an odd question. My modernish (more like Cold War) fantasy had to have some level of space travel by the time it had 1940s tech, because it had colonies by the 60s. They don't have good enough sensor tech to replicate Cold War spy satellites, but they can get stuff into space easily enough (essentially, alchemists can make a mean engine with magic, but not a camera). We're going to talk about The Rod From God. If you have the tech to get a giant chunk of tungsten into space, you can drop it on people you don't like.

You're the combined alliance of Britain, France, Germany (long story short, no Nazis are around and Germany's still a republic), the Low Countries, and the Scandinavian Countries. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, and the Soviet Union wee the Comintern, and you were fighting them. America is friendly enough, but they got themselves buried neck deep in a land war in Asia, so they aren't coming to Europe. The rest of the Comintern has fallen and Soviets are being pushed back to their initial borders, but nobody wants to invade Russia, anymoreso than anyone wanted to invade Japan IRL. So, you need a superweapon. You can either try and build nukes (America is, though they aren't sharing that with ANYONE), or you can try for The Rod From God. I'm not sure which is better. The Rod sounds a whole lot easier, but tungsten is an essential war material, and I don't know how much one needs for the rod, and whether those supplies would be forthcoming. If the tungsten is there, are you better off starting up a Manhattan Project yourself, or just throwing rocks at the Russians from space until they give up?

if you cant build magitek cameras, I assume you cant build magitek computers, which Is a major problem for a Rods form God system as they need precision targeting and course-correction ability to accurately hit a target (as opposed to merely landing close enough the target sees the flash of impact), both of which require high speed number crunching.


so, it could be done, but it would be extremely inaccurate. the only sort of comparison I can give for long range 1940s computer guidance is the V2 program, which struggled to consistently hit one of the largest cities in Europe at 300Km range. magic may help, but frankly its a bugger to do well with modern tech, let alone 1940s (One of the reasons these system have not been developed in real life)

if you want an idea of the level of accuracy needed, check out Nukemap and see how close to a target a low kiloton bomb/KE event would need to be. but using London as an example, a 15KT bomb that landed directly on big ben would leave someone at the Tower of London with minor burns if they were outside, or basically unhurt if out of line of sight.

[Max_Killjoy]

Tungsten: melting point 3422 C, density 19.25 g/cm3
Titanium: melting point 1668 C, density 4.51 g/cm3

As Knaight said, for a metal, titanium's got a fairly low density and middling melting point, making it sub-optimal for dropping from orbit onto somebody's head.

(The post I was replying to originally said that tungsten had a low density, etc -- which is why I asked. :smallsmile: )

[Brother Oni]

(The post I was replying to originally said that tungsten had a low density, etc -- which is why I asked. :smallsmile: )

Derp, didn't see the edit asterisk. :smallredface:

[Knaight]

(The post I was replying to originally said that tungsten had a low density, etc -- which is why I asked. :smallsmile: )

While correcting a different post on the same error even. It was a badly placed typo.

[Vitruviansquid]

I remember watching this documentary that talked about Teutones and Cimbri raiding Roman settlements as they migrate south into Italy.

This documentary portrayed the raid in a fashion that seemed outright goofy to me. At first, there was a perfectly normal, humdrum market town with butchers and blacksmiths working out in the open and people browsing the stalls on the streets. All of a sudden, a pack of bloodthirsty barbarian warriors, wearing furs and wielding a motley collection of swords and axes enter the shot by rounding a corner, and they're upon the town instantly, slaughtering everyone, grabbing random baskets and pots and chickens, and kicking over everything they did not take.

So this seems silly for a few reasons:

First, I'm finding it kind of hard to believe that the town wouldn't know about the raiders until those raiders were literally upon them. Wouldn't it make more sense for someone, anyone, to have seen the raiders and informed the town? In order to have a town in the first place, shouldn't there be people who live close to, but not in the town itself?

Second, I don't know that the way the raiders behave makes much sense either. Why would raiders be trying to loot things as they come into the town? It strikes me that response times for local defenses would probably not be so quick that the raiders need to actually smash, grab, and get out.

So my question is, what do we know of how raids were performed from antiquity to medieval times? Were there any accounts from survivors or raiders that have some good historical value? Did anyone write anything like a guide to raiding or a guide to fighting back against raids?

[Roxxy]

However, I do have to ask one question. As I recall, historically the Enola Gay flew from Tinian, in the Marianas, a relatively close position to Japan. Given that the front at the current time is somewhere in eastern Poland, the allied powers don't really have a good place to launch a plane carrying the bomb from. Carriers won't work, as planes large enough for atomic missions (B-29s) were too large to fit on carriers. Swedish airbases could probably serve as a base to hit Leningrad, but not much else, and as the war has been long already and the Allies control Oresund the Baltic probably isn't the most strategically important region. So, to get planes close enough to bomb Moscow and the other major industrial centers, one is still obliged to fight a *major* land war, while simultaneously guarding their flank in the Middle East. If too many troops are committed to the Steppes, the Red Army can use the Caucasus as a breakout point to hit the Middle Eastern regions where the Allies are likely getting almost all of their oil.

Now, that's not to say that the Allies can't win in these circumstances. Although an invasion of Russia sounds suicidal, once airbases close enough to hit major cities are acquired can quickly expedite the end of a campaign, forcing the CCCP to surrender. However, if the Allies get that far, they've likely (though not certainly) already won.I'm guessing the Allies would launch a nuclear strike from Eastern Finland. That gives them about 900 to 1000 km to Moscow. The range of a P51D with external tanks is almost 3000 km. I think this is more important than the range of the bomber carrying the nuke, because the Red Air Force needs to be thoroughly trashed and air superiority ensured before sending the bomber up. Now, that's an American aircraft the Allies don't have, but it shows the technological possibility of such ranges, and the Allies would have to develop similar craft if they're fighting the Russians and know they need super long range fighters. B29 has a range in excess of 5000 km. So, the more vital thing is the ability to essentially pull off what the Battle of Britain couldn't. Which might actually be a challenge, but, with the Soviets having gone into the war with a weaker industrial economy, and with them not getting any lend lease, I wonder if they might lack the ability to outproduce the Allies in terms of building fighters, and if they may have serious trouble building and protecting a radar network compared to Britain. It's still going to be a major pain in the ass for the Allies, and I imagine they have no choice but to settle for clearing a path between Leningrad and Moscow and securing the front lines, rather than clearing the skies over all of Russia. In that case, the Soviets can probably still throw up some resistance compared to Japan, and success probably relies on the escort fighters doing their jobs bloody well.

Edit: You know, those Alchemists that can get rockets into space with magic engines rely mostly on, well, magical chemicals. AKA fuels. Which locally applies to land based aviation, too. The Allies should logically be able to eke out some massive ranges out of their aircraft compared to what we could do IRL. So, the bigger issue will be not getting intercepted by the Soviets, not having the combat range to fight all the way to Moscow. Admittedly, I'm actually on the fence about whether you can wreck the capability of the Red Air Force that bad without ground forces.



Now, that's not to say that the Allies can't win in these circumstances. Although an invasion of Russia sounds suicidal, once airbases close enough to hit major cities are acquired can quickly expedite the end of a campaign, forcing the CCCP to surrender. However, if the Allies get that far, they've likely (though not certainly) already won.That actually sounds about right. After all, IRL Japan was done by August 1945. There was no way they were ever going to beat back an American invasion force, much less deal with the Soviets showing up. The outcome of the war was pretty set in stone, it was just a question of whether the Japanese were going to face up to it and surrender, or go down the hard way. The nukes just convinced the Emperor to accept the inevitable rather than pursue a doomed struggle further. Russia ending up in basically the same position seems like it makes a whole lot of sense.

I also don't think the conventional "NEVER invade Russia" logic really applies to this scenario. Presumably, the Russians have experienced major combat attrition and a couple years of defeats at this point, so their military isn't in particularly great shape, and it's not going to get significantly better. All those ethnic minorities that hated Stalin are probably pretty angry right now, and Stalin lacks the IRL advantage of the Nazis trying to genocide a bunch of people and driving his enemies back into his arms. Huge chunks of the country are likely not loyal, and the strategic situation probably reminds the party establishment of World War 1, which would make Stalin even less popular. The whole country's probably in utter chaos, and I doubt the Soviet leadership even really commands respect anymore. If the Allies invade in the proper season and with the proper equipment, it might well work. It'd be a massively bloody business and nothing approaching easy, but it doesn't seem particularly suicidal in these circumstances. Just something you don't want to do because the ultimate cost will be very high indeed.