Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIV [Archive] - Page 4

wolflance

2017-11-06, 03:46 AM

yes, this is super important. There is an incredibly persistent myth or trope of heavier = better for swords but that isn't how blades work.

Also two things:

1) Skilled vs. unskilled fighters. Musketters may know how to shoot but most will not have much training in hand-to-hand combat (Alexander Dumas notwithstanding) and they are probably pinning their hopes on one devastating attack.

2) Two of the basic things a skilled fencer or fighter will do effectively but unskilled will not is defend themselves with their weapon (something left out of most RPG's which don't have any way to parry - but it's real important in a sword fight) and do follow up attacks.

With something real unbalanced and heavy like a musket, you can get an attack off which can certainly kill if they don't void (dodge) or parry it, but your follow up may be pretty slow. with a sword you can parry, cut, parry again, and cut two more times in the same amount of time that it probably takes to swing a musket around a second time.

If you use the musket two-handed and train to compensate for it's limitations this can help a little, but you will still be at a disadvantage against a skilled opponent with a real hand-to-hand weapon.

Swordfights are fast if you know what you are doing. Not like game of thrones or something

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esI1fIAHNgY

I think some musketeers may have preferred striking with their musket than their sword because it was bigger and because they weren't really trained for hand to hand fighting, as by the 17th or 18th century (etc.) you had a lot of guys who were sort of cannon fodder. Wouldn't belong to a fencing guild the way some 15th or early 16th century Landsknecht might.

This is probably why you will notice a lot of artwork showing elite mercenaries like Swiss Reislauffer walking around with longswords on their hip.

http://www.tforum.info/forum/uploads/post-1554-0-41969100-1360753498.jpg

The other thing is sidearms in the 17th-18th century were sometimes fairly flimsy weapons like sideswords or spadroons which probably couldn't parry a strike from a heavy object like a musket.

G
So, to sum it up, it makes sense to use a much heavier blunt weapon, but not sharps.

BTW are there other examples of soldiers using very heavy blunt weapons? I heard that English longbowmen resorted to mauls during Battle of Crecy, and Russians did use a type of iron clubs called "Oslop" that weighs 6-12kg (!). Chinese monks also apparently used 9kg full-iron quarterstaffs for actual combat.

snowblizz

2017-11-06, 06:28 AM

One other interesting possibility i've come across is that military treatises repeatedly stress the "honor" of being a pikeman Because carrying a gun was more popular and they wanted to shift that opinion. In the military thinking of the time the pike square was still the 'moral strength' of a battalion, ie if the pikemen broke then the shot nearby also broke and ran but if the pikemen held fast then the naked shot can seek safety with them and potentially rally if they start to waver. Thus battles were still won by quality pikemen even if shot were "the fury of the field". Normally officers like seargents and those guarding the ensigns would be carrying "short weapons" such as halberds, but writers specify that captains themselves should carry a pike, apparently as an example.
Been thinking about this a bit now and obviously there's a lot of things that go into it. But it seems a fairly common idea that shooters aren't as good as meleers. But it should always be kept in mind that practice and theory differ a lot. We can see similar thoughts in the distillation of samurai ideals
that to this day (incorrectly) thinings guns were banned and so forth.

Some thoughts. To use closecombat weapons you need strength, skill and bravery (you are pitting yourself against another man afterall). To use a bow you need skill (strength depending a bit on context) but you are generally in less immediate danger, so bravery you can skimp on, to do damage you kinda need to hit well. To use a gun as time goes on you really need less and less individual skill as it turns into a every shoots generally in that direction. Also a gun will kill or hurt independent of how good you are at aiming, as long as you get it sort of right. This kinda works to the concept of "well, anyone can kill with a gun" and how shooting is more down to luck than personal prowess.

Starting with the ancient Greeks and Romans matters were decided by heavily armed meleers, whereas the ranged component were poorer and less well thought of people. Shooters naturally were easier to shift on the battlefield and "flightier". These are cultures the west large builds it's identity on. In an English 100YW army the nobles were the dismounted core, the rock around the army formed, wheras archers, as strong and skilled as they were, were mostly commoners.
So there's certainly historical baggage to the idea that melee = betters.

As you say rrgg pike were the rock of the army, cavalry and shooters needed the pikes to protect them which sorta says "pikes are more important". Cavalry ofc benefit from other societal factors giving prestige which are largely lacking for shooters. Though a period army doesn't really function at all without all three (or four if considering artillery separate) components.

Other cultures ofc work a bit differently, most notably steppe nomads. Which is part of why they did so well against "civilised" cultures, they weren't playing by similar rules.
Samurai are interesting here since they start out on the shooting side of things, though as an individual skill, but as shooting becomes more broad and "luck based" (i.e. volleying) they migrate to melee as a way to show their skills.

I short there is some historical baggage to being someone exclusively armed for ranged combat. The degree to which (it is perceived) "anyone can do it" will reduce the prestige of what you do which tends to matter for "warrior cultures".

gkathellar

2017-11-06, 06:55 AM

So, to sum it up, it makes sense to use a much heavier blunt weapon, but not sharps.

BTW are there other examples of soldiers using very heavy blunt weapons? I heard that English longbowmen resorted to mauls during Battle of Crecy, and Russians did use a type of iron clubs called "Oslop" that weighs 6-12kg (!). Chinese monks also apparently used 9kg full-iron quarterstaffs for actual combat.

There's the kanabo/tetsubo, of course. I think the biggest reason to develop super-heavy blunt weapons is that you expect to go up against a lot of very effective armor, and if you go up against a lot of very effective armor, you're going to learn that super-heavy blunt weapons are less effective than stuff like war hammers and flails.

Even with blunts, weight is probably more useful in a military setting than a civilian one. If you're just looking to bash an unarmored guy's skull in, a length of sturdy wood will generally do just fine. In something like singlestick, where the fingers and wrists do most of the work, you're not getting any mileage out of a heavier weapon. Another amusing case was the Japanese jo, a staff three or four inches longer than an Edo-period katana. The idea was to take advantage of the katana's standardized length by using a lighter weapon with slightly better reach - allowing a warrior to fight very aggressively.

Lvl 2 Expert

2017-11-06, 07:12 AM

Some thoughts. To use closecombat weapons you need strength, skill and bravery (you are pitting yourself against another man afterall). To use a bow you need skill (strength depending a bit on context) but you are generally in less immediate danger, so bravery you can skimp on, to do damage you kinda need to hit well. To use a gun as time goes on you really need less and less individual skill as it turns into a every shoots generally in that direction. Also a gun will kill or hurt independent of how good you are at aiming, as long as you get it sort of right. This kinda works to the concept of "well, anyone can kill with a gun" and how shooting is more down to luck than personal prowess.

Except not nearly everyone can kill with a gun.

Research done after WW2 indicates about a quarter of soldiers did as much as shooting in the general direction of the enemy, only about 2 percent of them could actually under real battle circumstances shoot to kill. And this wasn't a new trend. In the musket era people had already noticed how accuracy over 70 meters was decent on a shooting range, but on a real battlefield hardly anyone on the other side dropped dead.

Officers tried to explain this by citing musket smoke obscuring the view and adrenaline foiling people's aim. But the biggest culprit was probably this: people don't like killing other people, we are very hardwired against doing it. But there are four main circumstances known under which we can overcome this instinct. 1 When drilled to fire at anything that looks like an enemy. This is the modern solution of the problem. Modern armies claim up to 98% of their soldiers can shoot to kill. If another world war breaks out, so many people are going to die. 2 When we are a psychopath or sociopath, and don't automatically and instinctively attribute as much value to human life as "normal" people. (Side note on this below.) 3 When we are conditioned to do absolutely everything for our friends. A disproportionate amount of combat heroes turn out to have had a ****ty youth where they were effectively responsible for the well being of their younger siblings. It turns out that those are the people who will actually kill for any surrogate family they end up in. Most other people saying that are just talk, or psychopaths. 4 When we are directly threatened ourselves.

And this last bit is where I wanted to go. When there's a hundred guys shooting at your lines from a hundred meters away there is not as much of a clear threat as when someone is charging at you screaming holding a sharp weapon. And you can't make the threat of a hundred guys shooting go away by killing one of them. While in melee either you stab them or they stab you. Melee combatants I figure stayed so important for such a long time because they were more deadly, because it's easier for people to stab a stabber than to shoot a shooter. I don't know how many people back then would have figured this out (I certainly didn't think of it myself), but an officer who sees their archers melt away when charged while their stabbing guys take out most of the resistance is going to add more stabbing guys next time.

This would also explain why bayonet charges were for a long time popular, as well as the counter charge tactic of "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes". At that point your own guys feel threatened enough by the oncoming stabbers to actually shoot them. If they fire while the guys are still 70 meters out they all semi-intentionally miss yet still don't have time to properly switch to melee for defense, particularly in the plug bayonet era. The flip side of this all is that it might be harder to get a melee fighter to go to fighting range in the first place. After all, when you're close enough to stab them, they're close enough to stab you. And nobody wants to be stabbed. This was a problem with bayonets. People in a close quarters environment would often choose to reload and shoot again when running up and stabbing the other guy would have been quicker or even more likely to end well for them. If you can fight from a distance, you would be mad to get in close.

The promised side note: You know the popular idea in news media that a relatively high amount of spree shooters would be autistic or show symptoms of autism? It's extremely controversial and clear data is lacking, so don't take this as a confirmation of the idea, merely some thoughts about it. As someone on the spectrum myself I kind of think there might be some truth to it. Not because autistic people are more likely to want to shoot people to death than regular folks, maybe even the opposite (I mean, have you met normal people?), but because similar to how there's a bunch of us with ADD and ADHD like behavior, there's also a chunk with mild sociopathic tendencies, related to the common general tendency for not being able to deal with social situations and the thing you often see in young kids where they can't properly attribute value to stuff and end up "fighting" another person over what should happen to some dumb inanimate thing they made. (Some grownups do stuff like this too, that's mostly about attributing too much value to money and is unrelated to autism.) That might enough to let those people cross the line others can't, and make the difference between someone who chickens out or gets arrested walking around their school with a can of gasoline and someone who can actually go through with it. Please do note that this is not supported by the previously mentioned data from WW2, so it could just as well be the other way around: sociopaths get mistaken for autistic because they act weird around other people, and doubly so after they shot a whole bunch and got caught. Awkwaaaaaard.

Brother Oni

2017-11-06, 07:31 AM

I heard that English longbowmen resorted to mauls during Battle of Crecy...

They actually used wooden mallets for knocking in stakes and tent pegs, so heavy blunt objects designed for maximising force on a comparatively static object, which is basically what a mud-mired French knight was. Never underestimate a British soldier's tendency to use whatever's at hand to fight the enemy (a famous example is the Gloucester Regiment during the Battle of the Imjin River from the Korean War, where encircled and out of ammunition, they resorted to throwing tins of food at the Chinese).

Another amusing case was the Japanese jo, a staff three or four inches longer than an Edo-period katana. The idea was to take advantage of the katana's standardized length by using a lighter weapon with slightly better reach - allowing a warrior to fight very aggressively.

The jo is a bit of an oddity as I've seen it used as both a sword (ie one or both hands holding it at one end) and a staff inter-changeably (hands spaced apart), often as part of a single technique (at least, that's how I was taught).

Gnoman

2017-11-06, 04:59 PM

Except not nearly everyone can kill with a gun.

Research done after WW2 indicates about a quarter of soldiers did as much as shooting in the general direction of the enemy, only about 2 percent of them could actually under real battle circumstances shoot to kill.

Hate to break it to you, but that much-touted study has been thoroughly discredited.

To sum up the problems with it:

1. The author had already formed the theory well before the war, and explicitly set out to prove it.

2. The number of units the study claimed to have investigated in-depth is literally impossible - the author would not physically had time to give that many men even a brief interview, let alone the claimed in-depth one

3. The study makes no distinction between various types of not-shooting or missing. According to him, every bullet fired without a hit was a deliberate miss, and every time a soldier had the opportunity to fire his weapon and did not was because of reluctance to kill. The possibility that soldiers were missing because of tactical circumstances (taking hastily-aimed snap shots to minimize exposure time, poor visibility, etc) or suppressive fire (bullets fired that aren't meant to hit, just to get close enough to an enemy to keep them in cover so they can't see well or shoot back) was ignored, as was the possibility that people were holding fire because of fire discipline (only firing your weapon when it is tactically useful to do so, something the Canadian Army in particular spent a great deal of effort beating into their trainees) or simple fear.

4. There are no reliable reports from officers or senior noncoms of the area regarding this problem, despite the fact that weakening a unit's fire to this degree would be a huge liability in combat, and men have been court-martialed for less. Quite the opposite is observed - the most common complaint about raw soldiers of the time is that they were far too eager to open up on anything they saw, which wasted ammunition at best and invited enemy fire at worst.

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-06, 05:03 PM

Hate to break it to you, but that much-touted study has been thoroughly discredited.

To sum up the problems with it:

1. The author had already formed the theory well before the war, and explicitly set out to prove it.

2. The number of units the study claimed to have investigated in-depth is literally impossible - the author would not physically had time to give that many men even a brief interview, let alone the claimed in-depth one

3. The study makes no distinction between various types of not-shooting or missing. According to him, every bullet fired without a hit was a deliberate miss, and every time a soldier had the opportunity to fire his weapon and did not was because of reluctance to kill. The possibility that soldiers were missing because of tactical circumstances (taking hastily-aimed snap shots to minimize exposure time, poor visibility, etc) or suppressive fire (bullets fired that aren't meant to hit, just to get close enough to an enemy to keep them in cover so they can't see well or shoot back) was ignored, as was the possibility that people were holding fire because of fire discipline (only firing your weapon when it is tactically useful to do so, something the Canadian Army in particular spent a great deal of effort beating into their trainees) or simple fear.

4. There are no reliable reports from officers or senior noncoms of the area regarding this problem, despite the fact that weakening a unit's fire to this degree would be a huge liability in combat, and men have been court-martialed for less. Quite the opposite is observed - the most common complaint about raw soldiers of the time is that they were far too eager to open up on anything they saw, which wasted ammunition at best and invited enemy fire at worst.

That is a classic example of forcing the evidence to fit the conclusion, conducted by someone who clearly didn't know a damn thing about combat.

And yet it's still cited routinely in the pop media.

Vinyadan

2017-11-06, 05:39 PM

Storm Bringer

2017-11-06, 05:56 PM

4. There are no reliable reports from officers or senior noncoms of the area regarding this problem, despite the fact that weakening a unit's fire to this degree would be a huge liability in combat, and men have been court-martialed for less. Quite the opposite is observed - the most common complaint about raw soldiers of the time is that they were far too eager to open up on anything they saw, which wasted ammunition at best and invited enemy fire at worst.

just to add to this, a point Gnoman didn't mention was that rookie troops often didn't spend much time checking the identity of potential targets they could see, so they had a nasty habit of shooting at their own side thinking it was the enemy trying to flank them.

This was particularity true for aircraft, as rookie troops tended to assume they were under air attack whenever they saw a plane in the sky.

thiers a poster form WW1 that was posted around American* sectors showing the UK/USA roundrel, and basically saying "if the plane has this on it, its a friendly plane trying to help you, DONT SHOOT IT!"

*not because the Americans were extra trigger happy or anything, just they were uniformally green in 1918 when every other army had been fighting for years, and thus had a leavening of experienced NCOs to keep the rookies in check.

Kiero

2017-11-06, 09:10 PM

Starting with the ancient Greeks and Romans matters were decided by heavily armed meleers, whereas the ranged component were poorer and less well thought of people. Shooters naturally were easier to shift on the battlefield and "flightier". These are cultures the west large builds it's identity on. In an English 100YW army the nobles were the dismounted core, the rock around the army formed, wheras archers, as strong and skilled as they were, were mostly commoners.
So there's certainly historical baggage to the idea that melee = betters.

As you say rrgg pike were the rock of the army, cavalry and shooters needed the pikes to protect them which sorta says "pikes are more important". Cavalry ofc benefit from other societal factors giving prestige which are largely lacking for shooters. Though a period army doesn't really function at all without all three (or four if considering artillery separate) components.

Just on Greeks, before the rise of Makedonian thinking via Philip/Alexander, cavalry was regarded as untrustworthy. After all, a man on horseback could easily flee an engagement they were losing. If an aristocrat wanted to demonstrate his commitment to a fight, he did so on foot, preferably in the front rank of the phalanx.

snowblizz

2017-11-07, 04:20 AM

Just on Greeks, before the rise of Makedonian thinking via Philip/Alexander, cavalry was regarded as untrustworthy. After all, a man on horseback could easily flee an engagement they were losing. If an aristocrat wanted to demonstrate his commitment to a fight, he did so on foot, preferably in the front rank of the phalanx.

Right. Conditions and restrictions may apply. There's alot of things going into who is given pride of place. I was mostly thinking of the early pike and shot era and where their opinions would come from. The ancient Greek weren't much of a horse culture and until Alexander's days didn't really deploy better than light cavalry and those woudl have usually been mercenaries I think. The Romans were only little better though did value their barbarian cavalry at times, like Ceasar did IIRC.

Most armies have some kind of pecking order, and I'd hazard to say it's usually based on perceived danger. Not necessarily about who is actually the most effective. Cavalry e.g. generally kept a status it's usefullness may no longer have warranted.
Finnish WW2 troops didn't think highly of the horsehandlers who were blamed for half their ills at the frontline. In the ACW reluctance to use black troops was strong on both sides, in the North in particular because white soldiers didn't want to share the glory (and some other reasons I'm not sure we can discuss here). It's not really until after WW2 the US starts to use black troops "for reals" IIRC? One would have thought they'd be willing to share the burden of dieing equally.

Light cavalry was usually considered little better than bandits, which of course is what they often were since people whose lifestyle matches your need are quite effective. It doesn't seem to be until around the 19th century when the concept of hussars are widely adopted that light cavalry's status is elevated. The uniforms probably helped :smallbiggrin:.

Vinyadan

2017-11-07, 05:49 AM

If the Greek idea of cavalry was "band of raiders", then it is not surprising that they did not have a high view of them in battle.

However, in Athens at least, being part of the cavalry was an aristocratic thing, and there are tombs depicting the buried as a heroic rider. If the cavalry was seen negatively here, it probably was also because of the constant conflict between classes, with aristocrats being subjected to suspicion of wanting to overturn democracy.

Kiero

2017-11-07, 06:22 AM

Right. Conditions and restrictions may apply. There's alot of things going into who is given pride of place. I was mostly thinking of the early pike and shot era and where their opinions would come from. The ancient Greek weren't much of a horse culture and until Alexander's days didn't really deploy better than light cavalry and those woudl have usually been mercenaries I think. The Romans were only little better though did value their barbarian cavalry at times, like Ceasar did IIRC.

Most armies have some kind of pecking order, and I'd hazard to say it's usually based on perceived danger. Not necessarily about who is actually the most effective. Cavalry e.g. generally kept a status it's usefullness may no longer have warranted.
Finnish WW2 troops didn't think highly of the horsehandlers who were blamed for half their ills at the frontline. In the ACW reluctance to use black troops was strong on both sides, in the North in particular because white soldiers didn't want to share the glory (and some other reasons I'm not sure we can discuss here). It's not really until after WW2 the US starts to use black troops "for reals" IIRC? One would have thought they'd be willing to share the burden of dieing equally.

Light cavalry was usually considered little better than bandits, which of course is what they often were since people whose lifestyle matches your need are quite effective. It doesn't seem to be until around the 19th century when the concept of hussars are widely adopted that light cavalry's status is elevated. The uniforms probably helped :smallbiggrin:.

If the Greek idea of cavalry was "band of raiders", then it is not surprising that they did not have a high view of them in battle.

However, in Athens at least, being part of the cavalry was an aristocratic thing, and there are tombs depicting the buried as a heroic rider. If the cavalry was seen negatively here, it probably was also because of the constant conflict between classes, with aristocrats being subjected to suspicion of wanting to overturn democracy.

Greeks had native cavalry pre-Philip/Alexander, it just wasn't very good for the most part. A bunch of aristocrats on an extended hunting expedition might be the best characterisation of them. They were skirmishers and had a bad reputation for fleeing any battle that wasn't going their way, but were happy to cut down fleeing men if they were winning - still ultimately useless in the main clash of infantry. They were high-status, they just weren't well regarded.

The exception was the aristocracy of Thessaly, who had excellent cavalry. They were the model Philip used when he reformed the Makedonian military, which then became the template for all Hellenistic powers. Heavy lancers who could close with the rear and flanks of engaged infantry, as well as drive off lighter cavalry.

Romans were generally terrible cavalrymen (worse than Greeks, even), which is why they tended to trust others to provide their cavalry, whether Italic tribes, Celts, Iberians, Thracians or Numidians. They knew what they were good at (heavy infantry) and relied on the auxilia to do everything else.

snowblizz

2017-11-07, 06:35 AM

If the Greek idea of cavalry was "band of raiders", then it is not surprising that they did not have a high view of them in battle..
That's not exactly what I said. I'm speaking very generally and broadly over timeperiods. During the 30YW some of the best light cavalry were "Croats" (not necessarily all from what we now call Croatia) probably including a variety of Balkan people used to irregular warfare in the borderlands between Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Mainly used by Habsburg and other Catholic forces. In Italy (and elsewhere) stratioti was used which were similar.
By their opponents considered the epitome of pillaging. Dragoons (sometimes claimed so named because the damage they did) filled a similar niche for other armies.

However, in Athens at least, being part of the cavalry was an aristocratic thing, and there are tombs depicting the buried as a heroic rider. If the cavalry was seen negatively here, it probably was also because of the constant conflict between classes, with aristocrats being subjected to suspicion of wanting to overturn democracy.

For the Greeks I can't say, just that heavy cavalry is not something I've ever seen depicted as part of a Greek force. Mostly more of skirmishing type. Until Alexander abouts. Who ofc wasn't a proper Greek from the perspective of Sparta, Athens and Thebes. You ar ecorrect it seems on the conflcit though, wikipedia suggests the middleclass mass of the phalanx weren't too keen on the aristrocratic horsemen. Classical Greek combat didn't have that much room for horsemen anyway.

Horse and nobility goes way back though, didn't know ancient Greeks had much of both but it makes sense there was some. What we see of ancient Greek tends to be very phalanx (and Athens) focused anyway. Which sorta was my point, perception of what's proper soldiery. Note though that I contrast to later Western culture which was fairly horse-centric compared to ancient Greek and Romans in it's outlook. My impression is that comes from Germanic and ultimately steppe culture. Or nobility were just regarded higher?

Romans were generally terrible cavalrymen (worse than Greeks, even), which is why they tended to trust others to provide their cavalry, whether Italic tribes, Celts, Iberians, Thracians or Numidians. They knew what they were good at (heavy infantry) and relied on the auxilia to do everything else.
The Romans always struck me as very pragmatic in their approach, and something of a rolemodel when it came to using "tribal abilities" wholesale. However, they do describe those not quite part of the legion, ie the heavy infantry, as "auxilia". To me that sorta rings of "those others", useful as they may have been, weren't quite "proper".

Kiero

2017-11-07, 06:52 AM

As I said, the Thessalians were notable for having a "proper" cavalry tradition even before Philip - he copied them when reforming the Makedonian cavalry (particularly for the Hetairoi/Companions). The whole business of horse fighting in a diamond formation was a Thessalian innovation.

On dragoons, it's notable that the original Swedish ones weren't actually cavalry. They were mounted infantry (or even "mounted labourers") and had a status and pay as such. Their job was to be able to get to the fighting, dismount, fight on foot, and remount if they needed to be somewhere else. They could be better relied upon to perform all the boring-but-necessary campaigning jobs like scouting, screening and skirmishing than the "real" cavalry who thought themselves too good for that sort of thing.

From the Napoleonic era, the British military used the conversion of cavalry units into dragoons as a sly way to cut their military expenditure, since dragoons were paid less than "proper" cavalry.

Brother Oni

2017-11-07, 07:58 AM

1. The author had already formed the theory well before the war, and explicitly set out to prove it.

Wasn't the author an USMC Lt.Col or am I thinking of a different study?

Vinyadan

2017-11-07, 09:03 AM

Mike_G

2017-11-07, 11:15 AM

Wasn't the author an USMC Lt.Col or am I thinking of a different study?

Not if it's Gen Marshall's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall) study "Men Against Fire," which does state that only about 20% of US troops in WWII fired their weapons at the enemy.

Buit he then stidied Vietnam and found that 80% of troops fired on the enemy.

This article sums up the study, and offers a lot of counterpoints, with a lot of explanation.

http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm

I think that green, scared troops might not fire. But I think a lot of the rest of the data is people trying to reconcile rifle range hit percentage to combat hits. I think that's explained better by poor accuracy due to adrenaline, make, noise, etc, or just a lack of a good view of the enemy to shoot at.

If only 20% of men in combat were contributing, the military would have found a way to address that.

LordEntrails

2017-11-07, 04:40 PM

..
If only 20% of men in combat were contributing, the military would have found a way to address that.
Contributing may not be the right word. I believe the PBS series "The Vietnam War" state that only 20% of the members of the soldiers (*) saw combat.

Which in such a conflict seems reasonable to me, if you count soldiers in a certain way (i.e. my asterisk).

So, are you just counting combat trained troops? Don't forget about those in logistics, training, medical and administrative billets. And except for the riverboat crews, the Navy sailors really didn't see combat. And then the Air Force, Do bomber pilots counts? Or only if they get shot at? All of the support crew in the Air Force wouldn't count.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is 20% of what?

rs2excelsior

2017-11-07, 05:12 PM

I remember reading references to similar studies that found some percentage of soldiers would actively seek out engagements--i.e. some percentage (20 or 30%) would fight to kill the enemy, most of the rest would fight to not get hurt. "Killers" and "fillers" were I believe the terms, in case that rings a bell for anyone else regarding what I might have been looking at. I sadly don't remember the source, so I can't really speak to the reputability of the study one way or the other, but to me that seems a lot more reasonable than some percentage just not shooting at the enemy (or deliberately missing)--the difference instead being that not all soldiers will go out of their way to inflict harm on the enemy but will fight back if fired upon. If I recall correctly it was a modern study, but the site was applying it to ancient battles--explaining that most soldiers would likely have stayed within the shield wall, possibly just outside of the enemy's reach, while the few more aggressive soldiers would actually press the engagement, possibly encouraging others forward with them, leading to spurts of small combats up and down the line after the initial clash. It's been a while so I may be misremembering details.

Gnoman

2017-11-07, 05:31 PM

Not if it's Gen Marshall's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall) study "Men Against Fire," which does state that only about 20% of US troops in WWII fired their weapons at the enemy.

Thank you. This allowed me to find the detailed rebutta (http://www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/4-Engen-Marshall-under-fire.pdf)l of Marshall's claims that I thought I had had bookmarked. A choice excerpt:

The case for Marshall’s work is further compromised when one abandons the assumption that his ratio of fire data represent trustworthy evidence. There is little evidence to support the claims made in Men Against Fire about infantry non-firing being a universal phenomenon. Contemporary Canadian evidence of weapons’ usage on the battlefield does not correlate with how Marshall claimed soldiers behaved in battle.

There are also troubling questions about Marshall’s reliability as a scholarly source. A real possibility exists that the famous ratio of fire numbers were fabricated on the basis of Marshall’s preconceptions of combat. For all his fine historical work – and there was much of it – Marshall was a man who suffered from a scholarly myopia, and saw precisely what he wanted to see. In his memoirs Marshall described how during his very first assignment as a combat historian, at the US amphibious assault on Makin Island in 1943, he witnessed not the “universal” low firing ratio he later championed, but green US Marines with jittery nerves hitting the beach and blazing away with their weapons at anything that moved and many things that did not.

It was the opposite of the ratio of fire: frightened soldiers employing too much fire to help calm themselves and assert power over their situation. Most importantly, Marshall wrote that he decided not to report on this at the time, because at that point he believed it was low firing ratios that were the most serious problem of modern infantry warfare.

Marshall wilfully disregarded important evidence because he had already made up his mind that non-firing was the “real” problem – at his very first deployment as a combat observer! He allowed his preconceptions to govern his findings. According to those who knew him, this was not unusual for Marshall.

Colonel E.M. Parker, a fellow analyst during the Korean War, wrote that Marshall conducted his interviews and research in such a way as to support his tendentious ideas. One of his aides during the Second World War, John Westover, made similar comments: “Marshall was an intuitive thinker. He did not gather evidence, weigh it ponderously, draw tentative hypotheses, then test them.
If he did, it was not in an organized manner. Usually, from ‘out of the blue’ he stated a principle. Then he marshalled his evidence and statistics to back his concepts. Some of his statistics are subject to grave question as to source.”

Another former aide was David Hackworth, who wrote in his controversial memoir that, “Veterans of many of the actions [Marshall] ‘documented’ in his books have complained bitterly over the years of his inaccuracy or blatant bias. It was a conscious effort on his part to give the audience the impression he was there...he didn’t seem to care that what he wrote was totally inaccurate and easily disproved. He seemed to have relied (and successfully so) on the notion that no one would ever dare to correct him.

Mr Beer

2017-11-07, 05:45 PM

Storm Bringer

2017-11-07, 05:50 PM

In the ACW reluctance to use black troops was strong on both sides, in the North in particular because white soldiers didn't want to share the glory (and some other reasons I'm not sure we can discuss here). It's not really until after WW2 the US starts to use black troops "for reals" IIRC? One would have thought they'd be willing to share the burden of dieing equally.

it mainly boils down to those reasons you don't want to talk about.

to paraphrase a abolitionist of the era, "I dare any man to look upon a coloured solider, rifle in hand and blood on his bayonet, whose uniform bears the initials of the United States, and can name a long list of coloured soldiers, his friends, who have died for the Union, and then tell that solider that he has no say in how that Union is to be governed".

it was recognised even before the war that arming the free black population (or ex slaves) would inevitably lead to emancipation, and enfranchisement for those same blacks. while many in the north hated slavery, they didn't really like the free negro population.

however, the post war US did keep several regiments of Coloured Troops in service, including 2 regiments of cavalry that helped tamed the West(the "Buffalo Soldiers" that Bob Marley sang of), and several of infantry. several of these were active in WW1, and a few in WW2, but they were generally kept for garrison and rear area duties. it was only in the late 50s that the US army properly desegregated.

rs2excelsior

2017-11-07, 06:08 PM

however, the post war US did keep several regiments of Coloured Troops in service, including 2 regiments of cavalry that helped tamed the West(the "Buffalo Soldiers" that Bob Marley sang of), and several of infantry. several of these were active in WW1, and a few in WW2, but they were generally kept for garrison and rear area duties. it was only in the late 50s that the US army properly desegregated.

Fun fact: I do some WWI reenacting, and we have a group that portrays one of these units that fought in WW1. They came over with uniforms but without weapons, gear, or helmets, and Pershing was unwilling to actually use them as combat troops. The French didn't have any issues with doing so, and several of these regiments were basically transferred over to the French. They fight in the French portion of the line, have US uniforms but carry French gear and rifles, and have French helmets. Not really related to anything particular, but I think it's a pretty interesting and little known fact. One of those regiments was the 369th Infantry Regiment, formerly the 15th New York National Guard. They earned the nickname "the Harlem Hellfighters," and if wikipedia is to be believed, "they never lost a man through capture, lost a trench or a foot of ground to the enemy."

Mabn

2017-11-07, 09:38 PM

Mr Beer

2017-11-08, 01:29 AM

Mutazoia

2017-11-08, 06:18 AM

They earned the nickname "the Harlem Hellfighters," and if wikipedia is to be believed, "they never lost a man through capture, lost a trench or a foot of ground to the enemy."

And the Tuskegee Airmen were said to have "never lost a plane [they were escorting] to enemy action" which, given the era, seems as unlikely as a ground unit never losing any ground to the enemy.

caveat:not an expert

1. It's slow and cumbersome to push massive loads around. I can push a 200lbs wheelbarrow around too but not across rough ground. Even if you're fighting on smooth tarmac, it might be better to forgo a shield that exhausts you if you have move it at sprinting speed.

2. They had cannon in Napoleonic times, probably difficult to make a man portable shield that deflects cannon fire.

You also need to take into account the ground conditions on most battlefields of that era. Mostly churned mud. If it wasn't when the battle started, it probably was shortly after. Try loading up a wheelbarrow up with 200lbs of junk that is taller than you are, using old wooden wheels, and push it through mud.... Plus, having to push those things around might be great if you are setting up to defend, an not planning to move, but it sucks balls having to try to advance with them. They were also pretty ineffectual against any kind of flanking attack, so once warfare evolved beyond the "form ranks and trade volley fire" phase, anything that couldn't maneuver quickly was instantly antiquated. And then there was the cost in time and materials to make them...if the metal could be better used making a cannon that can kill a dozen or so men, than a huge wall that could protect two or three.....

DerKommissar

2017-11-08, 09:41 AM

@DerKomissar: Okay, the work you're going to be looking at was done by William Atwell. He published a series of articles on the idea in 1977, 1882, 1986, and twice in 1988, but the theory was eventually challenged and largely discarded. He wrote a more recent defense of his thesis in 2005, (this I actually have). I've not read any of it yet and cannot speak to its relative merits.

Thanks gkathellar and wolflance for the info!

snowblizz

2017-11-08, 09:59 AM

So a question formed in my mind a few minutes ago. I was under the impression that pavises were fazed out by the Napoleanic wars because they couldn't stop massed gunfire without becoming to heavy to carry. Now my question is why would they have to carry them? I can push a wheelbarrow or handcart weighing hundreds of pounds, and I'm fairly out of shape. Couldn't they have attached wheels and handles to very heavy shields and pushed them in front of their formations?
Pavises were mostly phased out well before that really, say 200 years before Napoleon. No one seriously deployed them in Western Europe by the pike and shot period, exceptions may apply (because someone will have an example of them I'm sure, in the same way even though the Irish rebels used pikes at the end of the 18th century that doesn't make it pike and shot period).
Cannons are definitely one thing. But also cavalry. When you get flanked by cavalry who shoot you and then charge you in the flank it matters little what kind of frontal protection you had. From this period and going forwards firepower matters mostly, and pavises get in the way of your troops firing too.

Not only battle field logistic but strategic logistics would be a nightmare, so many additional wagons doing nothing but hauling pavises.

What you describe is normally called siege mentlets. And the clue when they make sense is in the name really.

rs2excelsior

2017-11-08, 12:18 PM

And the Tuskegee Airmen were said to have "never lost a plane [they were escorting] to enemy action" which, given the era, seems as unlikely as a ground unit never losing any ground to the enemy.

Oh, definitely, I'm somewhat skeptical of that as well, thus the wikipedia caveat :smalltongue: I'm a bit more skeptical about never having a soldier captured, given how much of WWI was small unit raids back and forth. Plus the Germans only really made one major push after the American troops came over (the Spring Offensive in 1918), if I remember correctly. Still, though, their reputation of ferocious fighting was well-deserved, even if a little exaggerated there. A member of that unit was the first American to win the Croix de Guerre, and the unit received several individual and unit citations at the end of the war.

Mike_G

2017-11-08, 01:29 PM

Contributing may not be the right word. I believe the PBS series "The Vietnam War" state that only 20% of the members of the soldiers (*) saw combat.

Which in such a conflict seems reasonable to me, if you count soldiers in a certain way (i.e. my asterisk).

So, are you just counting combat trained troops? Don't forget about those in logistics, training, medical and administrative billets. And except for the riverboat crews, the Navy sailors really didn't see combat. And then the Air Force, Do bomber pilots counts? Or only if they get shot at? All of the support crew in the Air Force wouldn't count.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is 20% of what?

The context of the study is 20% of combat soldier in combat. Like 2 of the 10 guys in a rifle squad. This doesn't include support troops.

The study is still very very poorly done, and full of holes an ignores simple explanations of poor hit ratios to force the conclusion that men are just squeamish about shooting one another.

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-08, 01:33 PM

The context of the study is 20% of combat soldier in combat. Like 2 of the 10 guys in a rifle squad. This doesn't include support troops.

The study is still very very poorly done, and full of holes an ignores simple explanations of poor hit ratios to force the conclusion that men are just squeamish about shooting one another.

My expectation from speaking with people who've seen live combat is that most soldiers, once they're taking fire and someone is trying to kill them and their friends, will engage with deadly force -- I find the notion that 80% of combat troops, in combat, never direct "shots to kill" against the enemy, to be dubious at best.

Mike_G

2017-11-08, 03:58 PM

My expectation from speaking with people who've seen live combat is that most soldiers, once they're taking fire and someone is trying to kill them and their friends, will engage with deadly force -- I find the notion that 80% of combat troops, in combat, never direct "shots to kill" against the enemy, to be dubious at best.

I completely agree.

Some men don't shoot, but I think that's more because of fear or opportunity, like they don't have a target, than reluctance to hurt a guy who is actively trying to kill you. And there area million reasons that hit percentage in battlefield conditions is way lower than under rifle range conditions.

Clistenes

2017-11-10, 04:00 AM

About class conflicts in Athens, there is an article about the stele of Dexileos that delves into how representation of a cavalryman was bound to aristocratic status, and also talks about a shared tomb (Polyandron) that was decorated with the images of a hoplites and a cavalryman striking the enemy in unison, probably inviting to unity of different classes for the sake of the polis. https://www.ancient.eu/amp/2-631/

I have read that the underdevelopment of cavalry in Greece was due in part to social and political reasons, in addition to Greece not being horse country, and pre-styrrup cavalry not being that effective unless the riders had trained during their whole lives...

So escarcity of horses (and hence, they were very expensive) plus need of a lot of free time to train (which only very rich people could afford), plus there weren't professional soldiers and everybody was expected to train themselves and to buy their own weapons and armor and mount, meant cavalry was very strongly associated to aristocracy AND very small in numbers...

Also, during the aristocratic period armies were really small, there weren't large battles, and a large part of it were raids for cattle and slaves, piracy and sieges against weaker settlements.

Enter the democratic period and the creation of large armies of citizen soldiers, poorly trained, but with the numbers and cohesion to compensate that. The hoplite soldier is created, and official doctrine is "we don't need expensive horses or full-time warriors, we are many, we are brave and we are united and that's enough to kick any aristocratic horseman's ass!". That discouraged the Greek from trying to develope good cavalry...

The Spartans were professional full-time warriors, but they were still too poor to afford horses, and had a strong sense of unity and equality between Spartoi citizens...

Kiero

2017-11-10, 05:31 AM

I have read that the underdevelopment of cavalry in Greece was due in part to social and political reasons, in addition to Greece not being horse country, and pre-styrrup cavalry not being that effective unless the riders had trained during their whole lives...

So escarcity of horses (and hence, they were very expensive) plus need of a lot of free time to train (which only very rich people could afford), plus there weren't professional soldiers and everybody was expected to train themselves and to buy their own weapons and armor and mount, meant cavalry was very strongly associated to aristocracy AND very small in numbers...

Also, during the aristocratic period armies were really small, there weren't large battles, and a large part of it were raids for cattle and slaves, piracy and sieges against weaker settlements.

Most of Greece is mountainous or coastline (barring Thessaly), so no, not cavalry country. Aristocrats rode when they hunted, but were expected to fight in battle on foot. As before, if they did ride in battle, they were viewed with suspicion, since it facilitated easy flight if things weren't going well. So all the pressures are against developing much of a cavalry tradition.

I have to debunk the stirrup thing, that's a myth. You don't need stirrups for effective charges, they provide lateral (side-to-side) stability which gives you a more stable archery platform, and improves your survivability in a standing melee.

Again, though, Thessaly was a notable exception to the overall picture, they had good cavalry and their nobility preferred to ride. It's coastal plains and lowlands are flatter than most of the rest of Greece and so more conducive to movement of large bodies of horse.

Enter the democratic period and the creation of large armies of citizen soldiers, poorly trained, but with the numbers and cohesion to compensate that. The hoplite soldier is created, and official doctrine is "we don't need expensive horses or full-time warriors, we are many, we are brave and we are united and that's enough to kick any aristocratic horseman's ass!". That discouraged the Greek from trying to develope good cavalry...

The Spartans were professional full-time warriors, but they were still too poor to afford horses, and had a strong sense of unity and equality between Spartoi citizens...

You're conflating two different things here. The democratic period certainly led to the creation of huge fleets of citizen-oarsmen who weren't much in a fight (battle of Sphacteria aside), but you can't really get away with a poorly-trained phalanx. Moving as a unit requires training as a body, and the yeoman farmers and upwards who made up the phalanx had the leisure time to put aside to train together. The institution of the gymnasium encouraged them to maintain their fitness as well, not to mention the presence of many professional and amateur athletes in the phalanx. Being an Olympian didn't exempt you from standing in the line of battle when the rest of the citizen were summoned. That didn't make them professionals, but nor were they an untrained rabble.

In the period of war with the Persians, most Greeks served as either oarsmen or heavy infantry. Given they were often outnumbered and fighting a lot of (very good quality) cavalry, there wasn't much call for having a lot of their own. Then we move into the period of Athenian ascendancy and war with the Spartans, where most of the action took place in summer in Boeotia, between two bodies of hoplites or else cross-border raiding.

Outside of the regular summer campaigning were marine/amphibious actions, which didn't see much use of cavalry. Transporting horses around the place adds a whole new dimension of logistical burdens, and they're not the most useful for things assaulting island strongholds.

Once more, Thessaly's cavalry tradition continued to develop in this period, their mastery of the horse was something that allowed them to keep their southern neighbours at bay, even though they weren't particularly numerous.

Also notable that once the mantle had passed to Makedonia as the primary power in Hellas, the Thessalian tradition they'd adopted was in the ascendant. The Seleukids even exported Thessalians as military settlers to Syria to give them a reliable source of recruitment for heavy cavalry.

Vinyadan

2017-11-10, 06:43 AM

About the aristocracy being expected to fight on foot, I am not sure if that's the case, at least in Athens. Here being a rider was bound to census (hippeis). Now, we can wonder exactly how long the timocratic system kept working (I think that Aristoteles noticed that it had lost social meaning by his time), but only the two upper classes could be riders: the question is if they could or they had to. (Being in these classes, pentakosiomedimnoi and hippeis, was also very good because the highest magistrates could only come from them, something that was changed over time to the advantage of the zeugites, who were the hoplites).

As a side note, it's interesting that even the Macedonian cavalry was aristocracy-driven. This in a kingdom that had enough money to have actual siege trains working with the army, which afaik was very unusual in Greece.

Generally, there sure is no doubt that cavalry was secondary in the south. Athens probably never had more than 1.000 horsemen. Personally, I believe that they were more active than we would assume, but also very limited in function by number and horse quality.

Kiero

2017-11-10, 07:31 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2017-11-10, 07:31 AM

A question that came up in another thread--

How useful (if at all) would a decorative weapon be in actual combat? I'm thinking of the cheap display swords that are mass manufactured in China (or their medieval equivalent, if such existed)? What about a wooden practice sword (like the solid ones used for kendo training)?

It also plays into the trope of the over-decorated weapon carried by a fop that is totally unsuited for actual use. Did such things exist in the historical record or is that a modern invention after such weapons were already obsolete?

Clistenes

2017-11-10, 07:45 AM

Aristocrats rode when they hunted, but were expected to fight in battle on foot. As before, if they did ride in battle, they were viewed with suspicion, since it facilitated easy flight if things weren't going well. So all the pressures are against developing much of a cavalry tradition.

You are thinking of the democratic period. Things were different during the aristocratic period: During the aristocratic period usually only as small aristocratic elite actually fought, there weren't real armies, and aristocrats fought whatever way it was most convenient for them. Most of the fighting was done on foot, but it wasn't related to cavalry being looked down.

Eventually certain non-aristocratic groups gained power in cities, and pushed aristocrats out of power, largely because they found that 500 merchants/artisans/whatever with armor, shields and long spears could defeat 10 aristocratic warriors.

I have to debunk the stirrup thing, that's a myth. You don't need stirrups for effective charges, they provide lateral (side-to-side) stability which gives you a more stable archery platform, and improves your survivability in a standing melee.

Maybe. It doesn't change the fact that merchants and artisans didn't have as much free time to spend training as nobles did. Plus many people who could afford armor weren't able to afford horses.

You're conflating two different things here. The democratic period certainly led to the creation of huge fleets of citizen-oarsmen who weren't much in a fight (battle of Sphacteria aside

That came later, starting during the Greco-Persian Wars and the rise Athenian power. Only Athens and Corinth developed huge warfleets, but most Greek states developed armies of citizen-soldiers.

but you can't really get away with a poorly-trained phalanx. Moving as a unit requires training as a body...

...In the period of war with the Persians, most Greeks served as either oarsmen or heavy infantry. Given they were often outnumbered and fighting a lot of (very good quality) cavalry, there wasn't much call for having a lot of their own. Then we move into the period of Athenian ascendancy and war with the Spartans, where most of the action took place in summer in Boeotia, between two bodies of hoplites or else cross-border raiding.

Greek warfare became increasingly sofisticated over time, eventually evolving into fully professional armies during the Macedonian and Hellenistic period. At the beginning, when they toppled the nobles during the VII-VI a.C, they had just enough training to stay in formation and move towards the enemy.

We tend to see Greek history as an homogeneous thing, but there were around 160 years between Maraton and the conquest of the Persian empire.

and the yeoman farmers and upwards who made up the phalanx had the leisure time to put aside to train together. The institution of the gymnasium encouraged them to maintain their fitness as well, not to mention the presence of many professional and amateur athletes in the phalanx. Being an Olympian didn't exempt you from standing in the line of battle when the rest of the citizen were summoned. That didn't make them professionals, but nor were they an untrained rabble.

Being and athlete is very different from being a martial artist, and even more different from being a trained soldier. Training with sword and spear was, surprisingly, unpopular in Athens during the classic period.

And not everybody could afford to spend a lot of time training in the gymnasium. There is a difference between the ideal the Greek set for themselves and their reality. People like Socrates and Plato actually had an aristocratic mindset, and the ideal citizen they described was modelled after the athenian upper class, but many artisans, merchants and farmers had to work long hours.

Also, the term "yeomen" isn't really appropiate for Greece. During the classic period Athenian society was, roughly speaking, divided into rich landowners who had labourers work their land, city-dwelling merchants, artisans and sailors, and poor farmers who owned their own land but had to word hard and didn't had leisure time. Free farmers became poorer and poorer during the classic period, losing a lost of land to rich landowners, creating social tensions, until most free farmers were very poor people working the worst lands who couldn't afford to buy hoplite armor.

Gnoman

2017-11-10, 07:59 AM

How useful (if at all) would a decorative weapon be in actual combat? I'm thinking of the cheap display swords that are mass manufactured in China (or their medieval equivalent, if such existed)?

Most such display swords are made of mild steel, not the weapon-grade stuff that real blades are made of. I own a few, and even a cheap pocketknife is enough to gouge the blades pretty badly. I highly suspect that a single blow from a real weapon swung for effect would destroy one. That said, you can sharpen them, and they will hold an edge for a blow or two, so you could probably cut someone up pretty bad if they didn't have armor.

Apart from that, most are not properly balanced for fighting, and many have really impractical decorative hilt designs. They'd be pretty unwieldy compared to a real sword.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-11-10, 08:12 AM

Most such display swords are made of mild steel, not the weapon-grade stuff that real blades are made of. I own a few, and even a cheap pocketknife is enough to gouge the blades pretty badly. I highly suspect that a single blow from a real weapon swung for effect would destroy one. That said, you can sharpen them, and they will hold an edge for a blow or two, so you could probably cut someone up pretty bad if they didn't have armor.

Apart from that, most are not properly balanced for fighting, and many have really impractical decorative hilt designs. They'd be pretty unwieldy compared to a real sword.

That's what I presumed. I have two decorative swords--one is super cheap (no real tang, mild steel, horrible balance), the other is slightly better (in my amateur opinion).

Was having a decorative weapon (other than maybe an ancestral weapon that's too old to be used due to brittleness) a thing back in medieval times?

Vinyadan

2017-11-10, 08:18 AM

Just because you qualify as a hippeus, doesn't mean you'll opt to, or are obliged to fight that way.

Do you have a source for this?

Vinyadan

2017-11-10, 08:46 AM

About "skill" and training: I am under the impression that the idea of hoplite was strictly bound to making personal skill less important and putting much more on discipline.
So individual skill - like fencing - became far less important than cohesion. Now, the fact that a soldier knows how to stick to his comrades makes him skilled, in a way: a different kind of skill.
The less respected kinds of warrior, like the horseman, the archer, the slinger and so on, needed instead high levels of individual skill: riding, marksmanship.... At the same time, however, they were less in danger.
Hoplites, being heavily armoured and pressed from all sides, had far less mobility, and skill would have benefited them less. At the same time, melee probably needed less skill than shooting. What hoplites really needed was the courage not to give up to fear, and the discipline to stick together. And these skills were easier to give to well equipped unprofessionals, compared to making fencers out of them. Culture also surely helped a lot, not only in Athens: Archilochus fr 114 West: "I have no liking for a general who is tall, walks with a swaggering gait, takes pride in his curls, and is partly shaven. Let mine be one who is short, has a bent look about the shins, stands firmly on his feet, and is full of courage." https://www.loebclassics.com/view/archilochus-fragments/1999/pb_LCL259.153.xml
In practice, it was the opposite of the Homeric world of individually skilled aristocrats duelling against each other.

Clistenes

2017-11-10, 09:50 AM

Do you have a source for this?

I know that, during the Persian War young Athenian aristocrats gave the harnesses of their horses to the temple of Poseidon (or was it Athena's?) to show that they would fight on sea rather than on horse... not sure if the city could command them to change back to being cavalry...

snowblizz

2017-11-10, 09:57 AM

It also plays into the trope of the over-decorated weapon carried by a fop that is totally unsuited for actual use. Did such things exist in the historical record or is that a modern invention after such weapons were already obsolete?
Actually yes I think so. There's a whole class of "dress swords" where the primary function is to look good and usefulness as a weapon is somewhat secondary. The same is actually true for armour.

I'm leafing through a "big book of weapons" thing and I've just passed pages of superbly decorated swords I'm not certain are super practical. Especially weapons that are engraved, blued and in other ways decorated in ways that would interfere with proper tempering would make thme more pretty than practical. You also get hilts that are overlaoded with stuff. This is true across all cultures from the West right across to Japan, those with wealth and station liked to show it off, either for themselves or in lavish gifts to others. Most such persons could probably expect to not be in great need to see to thier own safety. Ie there was bound ot be someon clsoe by with actually practical weapons for defence if need be. Unless those also had over-ceremonial weapons as many "parade" lifeguards did.

One caveat though. Modern overdecorated weapons are much much less practical than the pasts overdecorated foolishness. There was noone churning out not-practical weapons when you could take a decent enough weapon and decorate it. In other words I'd say historical weapons that are overly decorated are much closer to being proper weapons than what is amde today. You'd not want to have to rely solely on them but you could at least have some use out of it. Theremonial halberds of the 17th century would not stand up to the use a 15th century war halberd would but you could use one to stab a guy with a rapier pretty solidly.

There's a dagger given to Henry IV by the citizens of Paris on his marriege that's absolutel loaded with decoration, though the edge is plain and could probably be fairly functional.

That's ignoring weapons that were outriiht made to be ceremionial like ridicilously oversized swords given to temples and such.

Was having a decorative weapon (other than maybe an ancestral weapon that's too old to be used due to brittleness) a thing back in medieval times?
Again I think there are examples. Even from earlier times too. I am positive I've seen ancestral swords passed along mentioned somewhere. The Japanese certainly did. Some of the finest katanas are the 14th-15th century ones before warproduction kicked in during the Sengoku Jidai period. Ancestral weapons were often used even.
Now I notice you kinda asked the opposite question but there are example of decorated weapons, partly or wholly ceremonial from about the time metal was used for weapons. Just looked at an egyptian dagger with an ironblade from 1360ish BCE that would not have shamed a Roman emperor or medieaval king. Seriosuly, I had to read the paragraph twice saying it was Egyptian. However in Europe at least a lto medieaval blades end up incredibly corroded but you can see on the hilts at least that they were lavishly decorated. Haivng decorated weapons has beena thing about from the day after the first human cut himself on a sharp rock and had an idea.

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-10, 10:13 AM

I am under the impression that period-made ornamental and ceremonial weapons, which tended to be preserved and often ended up in collections and museums, have been a source of much misunderstanding and misinformation.

Suits of armor that would be impractical in combat were regarded as examples of things actually worn in battle.

Giant, heavy, poorly-balanced, unedged swords never used in combat were taken as evidence that European medieval combat was a clumsy, unskilled mosh of men beating each other with sword-shaped clubs.

snowblizz

2017-11-10, 10:38 AM

Vinyadan

2017-11-10, 10:42 AM

I know that, during the Persian War young Athenian aristocrats gave the harnesses of their horses to the temple of Poseidon (or was it Athena's?) to show that they would fight on sea rather than on horse... not sure if the city could command them to change back to being cavalry...
Poseidon was the god of both sea and horses, so that must have felt very appropriate, if it was in his temple.
The problem I see is that, if the people who could afford being horsemen chose not to, the city could find itself without a cavalry force. I mean, I think that the point of the timocratic system system was to make sure that all arms would be available.
In the case of Athens, the richest citizens also paid the trierarchy liturgy, which meant having to equip a whole trireme and commanding it for a year. However, I don't think that this was the case of the young men you named, mainly because I believe that so much money would have been in the hands of older members of the family.
There could also have been a more religious aspect, in that certain aristocratic families had hereditary priesthood (others believed to be descendants of the gods, Plato was supposed to be a descendant of Poseidon). This also had a political importance. Anyway, I wonder if this cerimony meant that they were exchanging what was a duty towards the mores of their family and towards Poseidon for another way to wage war for the benefit of the city.
I am kinda building this up mixing what I know and what I suppose. If you can remember the source of this episode, I'd like to take a look at it.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-11-10, 11:15 AM

Actually yes I think so. There's a whole class of "dress swords" where the primary function is to look good and usefulness as a weapon is somewhat secondary. The same is actually true for armour.

<snip>

Again I think there are examples. Even from earlier times too. I am positive I've seen ancestral swords passed along mentioned somewhere. The Japanese certainly did. Some of the finest katanas are the 14th-15th century ones before warproduction kicked in during the Sengoku Jidai period. Ancestral weapons were often used even.
Now I notice you kinda asked the opposite question but there are example of decorated weapons, partly or wholly ceremonial from about the time metal was used for weapons. Just looked at an egyptian dagger with an ironblade from 1360ish BCE that would not have shamed a Roman emperor or medieaval king. Seriosuly, I had to read the paragraph twice saying it was Egyptian. However in Europe at least a lto medieaval blades end up incredibly corroded but you can see on the hilts at least that they were lavishly decorated. Haivng decorated weapons has beena thing about from the day after the first human cut himself on a sharp rock and had an idea.

I figured that they'd decorate even practical things. We're still doing it--the nose-paints and decals on all sorts of things come to mind. I just wasn't sure about the use of (relatively) expensive metal to make useless things outside of a display of wealth.

Most such display swords are made of mild steel, not the weapon-grade stuff that real blades are made of. I own a few, and even a cheap pocketknife is enough to gouge the blades pretty badly. I highly suspect that a single blow from a real weapon swung for effect would destroy one. That said, you can sharpen them, and they will hold an edge for a blow or two, so you could probably cut someone up pretty bad if they didn't have armor.

Apart from that, most are not properly balanced for fighting, and many have really impractical decorative hilt designs. They'd be pretty unwieldy compared to a real sword.

I am under the impression that period-made ornamental and ceremonial weapons, which tended to be preserved and often ended up in collections and museums, have been a source of much misunderstanding and misinformation.

Suits of armor that would be impractical in combat were regarded as examples of things actually worn in battle.

Giant, heavy, poorly-balanced, unedged swords never used in combat were taken as evidence that European medieval combat was a clumsy, unskilled mosh of men beating each other with sword-shaped clubs.

As with most things, that's probably the fault of Victorian British. They are probably the fist to start hoarding weapons decoratively. In the on the wall display kind of way at least.

Thanks everybody!

Vinyadan

2017-11-10, 11:20 AM

I can think of decorative weapons in Roman times, like the six-bladed spears used by the guard of Massentius and excavated about ten years ago.
You are more likely to find this kind of stuff in very rich areas of the Middle Ages. So Rome and Constantinople are the first places I'd look. Rome: the Pope gave away oversized weapons as a gift to political leaders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_sword_and_hat
Constantinople: ceremonial weapons were used when creating officers. In particular, a sword suspended to a special belt was given to guard captains, and has been found in Viking cemeteries. Other special weapons were sent as gifts. I am not sure of how usable they were.
In the Islamic world, two-bladed swords were sometimes produced to represent a legendary sword: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfiqar

Knaight

2017-11-10, 02:40 PM

Giant, heavy, poorly-balanced, unedged swords never used in combat were taken as evidence that European medieval combat was a clumsy, unskilled mosh of men beating each other with sword-shaped clubs.

That's part of it, but a bigger part had to do with how medieval swords generally don't work if you try to wield them like a modern fencing foil - which people did, at which point they came to the conclusion that the swords were too heavy and basically useless, rather than the conclusion that the style of sport fencing was less than ideal for the kind of combat that happened in the medieval period.

Clistenes

2017-11-10, 03:04 PM

Poseidon was the god of both sea and horses, so that must have felt very appropriate, if it was in his temple.
The problem I see is that, if the people who could afford being horsemen chose not to, the city could find itself without a cavalry force. I mean, I think that the point of the timocratic system system was to make sure that all arms would be available.
In the case of Athens, the richest citizens also paid the trierarchy liturgy, which meant having to equip a whole trireme and commanding it for a year. However, I don't think that this was the case of the young men you named, mainly because I believe that so much money would have been in the hands of older members of the family.
There could also have been a more religious aspect, in that certain aristocratic families had hereditary priesthood (others believed to be descendants of the gods, Plato was supposed to be a descendant of Poseidon). This also had a political importance. Anyway, I wonder if this cerimony meant that they were exchanging what was a duty towards the mores of their family and towards Poseidon for another way to wage war for the benefit of the city.
I am kinda building this up mixing what I know and what I suppose. If you can remember the source of this episode, I'd like to take a look at it.

I think it happened when Themistocles convinced the Athenians to spend the wealth of the silver mines of Laurion in building a warfleet able to fight the Persians.

Mmmm... Poseidon was the god of both horses and ships, but Athena was credited with the invention of harnesses, and she was the goddess of war and the protector of Athens, so she makes sense too...

Here is a source: (https://books.google.es/books?id=-UAsDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=themistocles+fleet+cavalry+temple&source=bl&ots=WDjpN4Qwo3&sig=96NppaoNkfXxuz1Zjw9dpPK96i0&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA0NDB57TXAhVLVhoKHcwTCxcQ6AEIYDAL) "... ... and a group of his noble friends who were all riders in the cavalry staged a demonstration to assert the loyalty of the aristocracy and its backing for Themistocles. They dedicated their bridles at the temple of Athena on the Acropolis ..."

Anyway, going back to the original question, I think that rich citizens provided cavalry and funded the warfleet though the trierarchia mostly to preserve their reputations, not because of a strict law... popular image being very important, because being perceived as a stingy or as a coward who refused to contribute to the defense of the city could get you exiled (ostracism). So rich people probably did just what was expected of them, regardless of what actual law said...

Vinyadan

2017-11-10, 03:30 PM

OK, thanks. It comes from Plutarch's Life of Cimon, 5.2-3

"When the Medes made their invasion, and Themistocles was trying to persuade the people to give up their city, abandon their country, make a stand with their fleet off Salamis, and fight the issue at sea, most men were terrified at the boldness of the scheme; but lo, Cimon was first to act, and with a gay mien led a procession of his companions through the Cerameicus up to the Acropolis, to dedicate to the goddess there the horse's bridle which he carried in his hands, signifying thus that what the city needed then was not knightly prowess but sea-fighters. 3 After he had dedicated his bridle, p419 he took one of the shields which were hung up about the temple, addressed his prayers to the goddess, and went down to the sea, whereat many were first made to take heart."

Clistenes

2017-11-10, 03:47 PM

In the Islamic world, two-bladed swords were sometimes produced to represent a legendary sword: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfiqar

Mmmm... about Zulfiqar... I remember seeing picture of a weird arabic gigantic scissors/dagger/shortsword... the book claimed that it was a real weapon, and that its purpose was to open the scissors when the were stuck in the gut of the foe, making horrible, untreatable internal wounds, but I don't think that would be practical at all, and I wonder if that scissors-sword was a ceremonial blade intended to represent Zulfiqar...

DerKommissar

2017-11-13, 05:42 AM

What was the purpose of a flame-bladed sword? Whats the advantage of the „flames“ over a straight edge?

Storm Bringer

2017-11-13, 07:54 AM

What was the purpose of a flame-bladed sword? Whats the advantage of the „flames“ over a straight edge?

minimal, as far as I am aware. a lot of these "wavy" swords are mainly intended to look good on parades, much like how some modern armies still use full length wooden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade#/media/File:2010_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade-25.jpeg) stocked rifles for some ceremonial (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Marine_Corps_Silent_Drill_Team_6.jpg) functions.

others just use their modern, short service rifles (http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9f1fe567023a492c8b0b496bb4d0eccb/foot-guards-parade-at-buckingham-palace-london-uk-d4crbx.jpg) and dare anyone to snigger at the man with the bayoneted rifle and campaign medals on his chest. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

sorry, couldn't resist a quick dig.

that said, I cannot and will not categorically state they were never used in warfare, only that I've not heard of it being done (I.E. absence of evidence, not evidence of absence).

snowblizz

2017-11-13, 08:57 AM

What was the purpose of a flame-bladed sword? Whats the advantage of the „flames“ over a straight edge?

Not sure if it can be claimed as a direct advantage but it's possible it enhances cutting. Generally curved blades are considered better cutters, but that may not matter too much on a two-handed sword.

I think primarily it's to look rad. But I think I've seen wavy bladed weapons that weren't clearly ceremonial. Not all modifications are necessarily for an enhancement sometimes it's just becasue.

Galloglaich

2017-11-13, 01:11 PM

Not sure if it can be claimed as a direct advantage but it's possible it enhances cutting. Generally curved blades are considered better cutters, but that may not matter too much on a two-handed sword.

I think primarily it's to look rad. But I think I've seen wavy bladed weapons that weren't clearly ceremonial. Not all modifications are necessarily for an enhancement sometimes it's just becasue.

Agreed. I suspect that it was to enhance slicing or draw cutting, which could become necessary with the type of swords you usually see this on (mainly montante / zweihanders and rapiers) but the TL : DR on it is that the jury is still out. There is still a lot of debate.

Some clearly are ceremonial (and not sharp) but some are sharp and I suspect it's a lot of work to make a blade like that anyway.

The Filippino Kris type blades and some of the Middle Eastern ones seem to be wavy for ceremonial / magical reasons. One story I love from the Philippines was that a kris was used to 'stab' the shadow of an enemy as part of putting a curse on them.

Mike_G

2017-11-13, 03:22 PM

Agreed. I suspect that it was to enhance slicing or draw cutting, which could become necessary with the type of swords you usually see this on (mainly montante / zweihanders and rapiers) but the TL : DR on it is that the jury is still out. There is still a lot of debate.

Some clearly are ceremonial (and not sharp) but some are sharp and I suspect it's a lot of work to make a blade like that anyway.

The Filippino Kris type blades and some of the Middle Eastern ones seem to be wavy for ceremonial / magical reasons. One story I love from the Philippines was that a kris was used to 'stab' the shadow of an enemy as part of putting a curse on them.

I fenced a guy this weekend who used a flambard rapier. I asked him if it made a difference and he said it behaves a bit differently in a bind.

I didn't notice, but I'm new-ish to HEMA blades. It may have had an effect that I didn't register. I did win the bout and a number of binds with a borrowed straight bladed rapier. His weapon was on the heavy side, which I think was more relevant than the curves.

Obviously, we weren't really cutting one another, so I don't know about that, but I figured I'd pass on the anecdote.

DerKommissar

2017-11-13, 04:29 PM

Galloglaich

2017-11-13, 08:53 PM

I fenced a guy this weekend who used a flambard rapier. I asked him if it made a difference and he said it behaves a bit differently in a bind.

I didn't notice, but I'm new-ish to HEMA blades. It may have had an effect that I didn't register. I did win the bout and a number of binds with a borrowed straight bladed rapier. His weapon was on the heavy side, which I think was more relevant than the curves.

Obviously, we weren't really cutting one another, so I don't know about that, but I figured I'd pass on the anecdote.

It's interesting that you mention that, because one of the theories about the wave blades - at least in some cases, is that it has some kind of effect in the bind. Not sure if I buy it but it's out there.

G

Galloglaich

2017-11-13, 09:01 PM

I found so far only three modern uses for blades with a wave edge:

- cutting machines for bred, sausage cheese, etc: they recommend this edge for bread with a hard crust, straight edge for meat

- carpenters tools: they recommend it for cutting hard surface and mineral wool

- outdoor: cutting ropes, seatbelts, this kind of stuff, not good for cooking, difficult to sharpen

So it seems to develop an effect a bit like a saw, but doesent tend to get stuck (don’t know the word, maybe bite?) while the sawing movement.
Did armor/weapon have parts that could be sewered? Like leather parts you could reach from the outside?

One of the interesting things I've learned about swords over the years, is that different types of blades have fairly widely varying cutting effectiveness against different types of targets.

You can see some interesting threads on this on MyArmoury for example where they have done various types of test on different media. Tatami is kind of the standard but newspaper, pool noodles, plastic water bottles, wood, animal parts like from a butcher shop, and ballistic gel are all used for example.

When you narrow it down to the more realistic media, they find that the type of blade which cuts through bone effectively, or wood (like a weapon haft or a shield) often doesn't cut that well through soft media like the meat of a pigs leg or a tatami mat. And vice versa.

On top of that (and this might be the most relevant part) cutting through clothing can be surprisingly tricky. Very sharp thin blades cut through clothing best, whereas narrower wedge-like blades cut through bones and hard media best. Cutting through both simultaneously is the hardest. So in cutting contexts at HEMA tournaments the hardest level is usually a thick tatami mat with a wooden dowel inside and covered by cloth to simulate clothing.

When it comes to a fight with a Montante / Zweihander, or a rapier, there is an (arguably) better chance than usual that you might need to do a draw-cut if you get in a bind. Montante is mainly for chopping like a cleaver and rapier mainly for thrusting / stabbing, but if your opponent gets close there are techniques in the systems for slicing. maybe the wave blade is better at slicing or draw-cutting through textile armor or the kind of heavy clothes a soldier would typically wear.

That is kind of my theory anyway but we really don't know.

Also a wavy blade probably creates a horrible wound with a thrust.

Mike_G

2017-11-13, 10:32 PM

It's interesting that you mention that, because one of the theories about the wave blades - at least in some cases, is that it has some kind of effect in the bind. Not sure if I buy it but it's out there.

G

Yeah, I didn't notice a difference. It was a heavy, long blade, compared to what I was using, so he had an advantage in the bind, but I did a few where I got my strong on his weak, and that worked fine. If the wavy blade changed things, it was pretty subtle.

It's interesting seeing how the more realistic blades change the game. I do very well with rapier from 30 years of sport fencing. I can hold my own, and not lose too badly with a single sword like a sidesword or sabre. Sword and buckler I can kinda do OK, but worse than single sword. They mop the floor with me with longswords. Those are just too different, and not much of my experience carries over.

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-13, 11:48 PM

Also a wavy blade probably creates a horrible wound with a thrust.

Would it cause a wound more like wider a blade, without the full weight of the wider blade?

Galloglaich

2017-11-14, 12:30 AM

Yeah, I didn't notice a difference. It was a heavy, long blade, compared to what I was using, so he had an advantage in the bind, but I did a few where I got my strong on his weak, and that worked fine.

That's what it's all about ain't it?

If the wavy blade changed things, it was pretty subtle.

It's interesting seeing how the more realistic blades change the game. I do very well with rapier from 30 years of sport fencing. I can hold my own, and not lose too badly with a single sword like a sidesword or sabre. Sword and buckler I can kinda do OK, but worse than single sword. They mop the floor with me with longswords. Those are just too different, and not much of my experience carries over.

So you find sport fencing (epee? saber? I can't remember what you specialized in?) translated more over to rapier than to smallsword? That's kind of surprising to me I would have thought smallsword would translate better.

Saber you'll probably just have to get more used to cutting from the elbow and the shoulder instead of just from the wrist, and moving off line (off the piste). Once you make that adjustment your skills should definitely translate there. Have you tried dussack or messer?

For longsword, if you decide to get into it (some rapier guys don't) just requires you to learn the basics first - especially the true / false edge stuff and the mastercuts. Once you have that down you'll do very well and your sport fencing background will help a lot. It takes ~ 2- 3 months though depending on your instructor and how much you train.

Dustin Reagan is an A rated epeeist and one of the top longsword fighters in the US. But he had to learn the longsword before he got good and his skills started to transfer over.

G

Galloglaich

2017-11-14, 12:32 AM

Would it cause a wound more like wider a blade, without the full weight of the wider blade?

Good question, probably true...

Clistenes

2017-11-14, 02:32 PM

Good question, probably true...

What I have heard is that its wounds would be harder to treat, would bleed more and get infected more often...

If you make parallel cuts in a body, the flesh between them doesn't receive blood and it dies and rots; what you get is a wide wound with a piece of dead rotting flesh stuck in it...

A flamberge's doesn't make a single clean cut, because the "waves" are never perfectly aligned while slicing, but rather make parallel cuts inside whe wounds.

Mike_G

2017-11-14, 03:04 PM

That's what it's all about ain't it?

So you find sport fencing (epee? saber? I can't remember what you specialized in?) translated more over to rapier than to smallsword? That's kind of surprising to me I would have thought smallsword would translate better.

I imagine smallsword would be very close, but we didn't do any smallsword. Rapier was really easy to adapt to. The blade is heavier and bigger, but the principles are the same.

Saber you'll probably just have to get more used to cutting from the elbow and the shoulder instead of just from the wrist, and moving off line (off the piste). Once you make that adjustment your skills should definitely translate there. Have you tried dussack or messer?

Saber was pretty much what you say. after so long making all the cuts with my wrist and even fingers, it's just different to use the elbow, since I fought that tendency in sport sabre, because it gives them an opening and telegraphs your cut. The switch from a feint here to a cut there takes a lot more effort with a realistic blade versus a car antenna.

I did some dussack, which was closer to sport saber, just because of weight, no messer, but some arming sword and buckler. I had a lot of fun, and did OK, but its' mostly just adjusting to the different weapons and to less restricted footwork, use of the off hand and that kind of thing. Timing is still timing, parries are still parries.

And I have to remember to cover myself so as not to get hit by the afterblow, which isn't a thing in sport fencing.

For longsword, if you decide to get into it (some rapier guys don't) just requires you to learn the basics first - especially the true / false edge stuff and the mastercuts. Once you have that down you'll do very well and your sport fencing background will help a lot. It takes ~ 2- 3 months though depending on your instructor and how much you train.

Dustin Reagan is an A rated epeeist and one of the top longsword fighters in the US. But he had to learn the longsword before he got good and his skills started to transfer over.

G

That makes a lot of sense. It just the most different thing I've tried.

I really wish the HEMA community was around 25 years ago when I was fencing competitively.

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-14, 03:34 PM

What I have heard is that its wounds would be harder to treat, would bleed more and get infected more often...

If you make parallel cuts in a body, the flesh between them doesn't receive blood and it dies and rots; what you get is a wide wound with a piece of dead rotting flesh stuck in it...

A flamberge's doesn't make a single clean cut, because the "waves" are never perfectly aligned while slicing, but rather make parallel cuts inside whe wounds.

I find those "it's more likely to kill the guy days later" explanations a bit, um, off, when it comes to designing weapons for combat.

If I'm the middle of a melee or in the press of battle, I don't care if someone dies in a week from infection, I care if I can make him stop trying to kill me right now, before he kills me.

DerKommissar

2017-11-14, 03:42 PM

Could it be that after a thrust it also does damage while being pulled out while not getting stuck so easily? No idea if this is a thing in the first place, just a guess...

Vinyadan

2017-11-14, 04:12 PM

About "horrible pain/death, later", I think that it might have been useful indirectly, for the soldier, if your enemies were scared enough to avoid you. And, in heavier cases than the flamberge (poison?), it might have been useful as a contrinuting factor to scare off whole formations. Of course, this probably also means that, when your enemies muster up the courage to actually fight, both individually and as a formation, they are much more determined to end you.

Clistenes

2017-11-15, 05:25 AM

I find those "it's more likely to kill the guy days later" explanations a bit, um, off, when it comes to designing weapons for combat.

If I'm the middle of a melee or in the press of battle, I don't care if someone dies in a week from infection, I care if I can make him stop trying to kill me right now, before he kills me.

True, but remember, flamberge blades never got really popular/mainstream, so most soldiers probably thought like you do; they didn't want to spend the extra money in something that wasn't that useful during actual combat... and then there was that guy who liked to be seen carring a weapon that could mess you up badly, not to win fights, but to be more intimidating...

If flamberges were really more effective than simpler blades in actual combat, everybody would have used them, or at least everybody with enough money to pay for it...

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-15, 07:26 AM

Finally had the chance to watch the NOVA episode on armor from a few weeks back.

The point is reinforced for me as applies to RPG design is that quality matters. The idea that the type of armor is all that makes a difference needs to die.

"Does plate armor stop bullets?" Depends, what sort of plate are we talking about?

"Does 'chainmail' stop thrusts and arrows?" Depends, what sort of mail are we talking about?

Brother Oni

2017-11-15, 09:07 AM

I've been away for a week and just catching up.

I remember reading references to similar studies that found some percentage of soldiers would actively seek out engagements--i.e. some percentage (20 or 30%) would fight to kill the enemy, most of the rest would fight to not get hurt. "Killers" and "fillers" were I believe the terms, in case that rings a bell for anyone else regarding what I might have been looking at.

It can also depend on the service doctrine. I know during recent conflicts, US Army protocol to a convoy ambush was to break through and get clear, while the USMC standard response was to dismount and go kill the enemy.

What about a wooden practice sword (like the solid ones used for kendo training)?

There's two types of blunt training weapons used in kendo - shinai (made of bamboo) and bokken (made of wood). From experience, shinai hurt less - there's isn't that much difference between a solid piece of wood carved into a sword shape compared to a solid piece of wood shaped like a staff as both can be lethal when used appropriately.

Vinyadan

2017-11-15, 09:49 AM

Musashi occasionally killed people with wooden swords, I think.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-11-15, 09:57 AM

There's two types of blunt training weapons used in kendo - shinai (made of bamboo) and bokken (made of wood). From experience, shinai hurt less - there's isn't that much difference between a solid piece of wood carved into a sword shape compared to a solid piece of wood shaped like a staff as both can be lethal when used appropriately.

I was talking specifically about bokken. I figured that shinai would leave bruises but be less likely to actually injure someone (hence the common use in introductory training).

BTW--I'm always grateful for y'all and what I learn. TIL the name of the bamboo training swords! :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich

2017-11-15, 11:19 AM

I was talking specifically about bokken. I figured that shinai would leave bruises but be less likely to actually injure someone (hence the common use in introductory training).

BTW--I'm always grateful for y'all and what I learn. TIL the name of the bamboo training swords! :smallbiggrin:

We used to use shinai in the early days of HEMA (with crosses added), before we had the good nylon and steel feders. They aren't even 'solid' bamboo - but rather bamboo slats tied together in a very clever way so that they kind of bend to absorb impact when you hit something.

Very light (about 1 lb) and very good for sparring compared to say, padded boffer or larp type swords, because they have a realistic presence in the bind (i.e. hard rather than spongy) and they are pretty well balanced too.

The only downside is they are a little shorter than real longswords, very stiff so not safe to thrust with (you have to use a lot of control). And they are a little fragile and can break on shield rims etc., though they hold up pretty well against each other.

Good cheap sparring weapon if you want to learn any kind of hand-and-a-half sword fencing, whether Asian or European.

G

Galloglaich

2017-11-15, 11:20 AM

Musashi occasionally killed people with wooden swords, I think.

Yes he did, you can train with bokken but you have to have very good control. It's hardwood so not too difficult to hurt somebody pretty badly with them.

Vinyadan

2017-11-15, 11:38 AM

What's the mega-bokken called? I remember seeing it used in Niten Ichi-ryū videos. As long as a bokken, but heavier and far thicker.

Lemmy

2017-11-15, 12:47 PM

Huh... I think wavy blades were made simply because people liked the aesthetics and/or assumed it had some useful property and "confirmed" it through the magic of confirmation bias... Not everything humans do is 100% about practicality and/or result of unbiased, scientific research and testing, after all. It certainly wouldn't be the first (or last) such case.

That said, I'm not an expert or even scholar on swords... I'm basing my hypothesis on human nature, rather than any actual knowledge on swords or martial arts.

Brother Oni

2017-11-15, 04:15 PM

What's the mega-bokken called? I remember seeing it used in Niten Ichi-ryū videos. As long as a bokken, but heavier and far thicker.

I'm not familiar with the style, but a quick google check indicates they include use of a daitou (大刀), which is longer than a typical katana.

I've also seen mention of heavier training weapons solely intended for technique and strength building, the suburitou and the furibo, the former being pretty much the oar that Miyamoto Musashi reputedly used to kill Sasaki Kojiro.

https://i1.wp.com/kenshi247.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/furibo-s.jpg?w=201

snowblizz

2017-11-15, 04:16 PM

Yes he did, you can train with bokken but you have to have very good control. It's hardwood so not too difficult to hurt somebody pretty badly with them.

In fact in the Pacific they made weapons solely out of hardwood. Africa too I seem to recall. And I mean other than clubs. Sort of edged weapons. Sword-clubs and such. Just got to those in a book about weapons.

Be easy with a bokken to crush someones windpipe e.g.

Martin Greywolf

2017-11-16, 04:48 AM

THe worst bit about shinai IMO isn't the unsafe thrust - you kinda already need to put a lot of trust into your fellow fencers - it's that it doesn't really teach you blade alignment. This is less of a problem for Asian styles of swordplay that have very little work in a bind, but for European ones that are almost universally dependent on it, not so much. I've seen a lot of people have trouble adjusting to actual swords having blade alignment after using wooden sticks or shinai.

All in all, can't really recommend them, not now that we have better and reasonably cheap alternatives in synthetic sparring swords.

gkathellar

2017-11-16, 09:02 AM

We used to use shinai in the early days of HEMA (with crosses added), before we had the good nylon and steel feders. They aren't even 'solid' bamboo - but rather bamboo slats tied together in a very clever way so that they kind of bend to absorb impact when you hit something.

Very light (about 1 lb) and very good for sparring compared to say, padded boffer or larp type swords, because they have a realistic presence in the bind (i.e. hard rather than spongy) and they are pretty well balanced too.

The only downside is they are a little shorter than real longswords, very stiff so not safe to thrust with (you have to use a lot of control). And they are a little fragile and can break on shield rims etc., though they hold up pretty well against each other.

Good cheap sparring weapon if you want to learn any kind of hand-and-a-half sword fencing, whether Asian or European.

G

IIRC, the bending/splintering is an intentional design feature, so that you can swing full force with very little risk of hurting the other guy. Kenjutsu had a long history of unsafe training practices, and a lot of styles permitted very little, if any, free sparring. The shinai was invented for a style that focused heavily on free sparring and was all about preparation for unarmored duels.

wolflance

2017-11-16, 12:13 PM

True, but remember, flamberge blades never got really popular/mainstream, so most soldiers probably thought like you do; they didn't want to spend the extra money in something that wasn't that useful during actual combat... and then there was that guy who liked to be seen carring a weapon that could mess you up badly, not to win fights, but to be more intimidating...

If flamberges were really more effective than simpler blades in actual combat, everybody would have used them, or at least everybody with enough money to pay for it...
Slightly off-(this)-topic,but wavy-blade keris was pretty popular in SE Asia, so maybe the advantage lies in thrusting, rather than cutting?

I suppose, a wavy blade can create a wider wound during a thrust, and makes the wound more likely to disable the combatant, without having to make a wider blade?

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-16, 12:34 PM

Slightly off-(this)-topic,but wavy-blade keris was pretty popular in SE Asia, so maybe the advantage lies in thrusting, rather than cutting?

I suppose, a wavy blade can create a wider wound during a thrust, and makes the wound more likely to disable the combatant, without having to make a wider blade?

We were musing over the same possibility.

Also a wavy blade probably creates a horrible wound with a thrust.

Would it cause a wound more like wider a blade, without the full weight of the wider blade?

Good question, probably true...

Geodude6

2017-11-20, 05:54 PM

Broadly speaking, how effective were medieval/renaissance-era firearms compared to, say, crossbows?

No brains

2017-11-20, 07:54 PM

In terms of performance, how does a brigandine differ from a solid breastplate? My guesses are that a solid plate might be proportionally stronger in terms of weight, yet may be more expensive and harder to repair. I assume that in their own ways, they are equally labor-intensive to make, yet a solid plate requires more specialized knowledge.

Asking again. I also saw that new-ish Nova about armor and with how difficult the one breast-plate was to make, I'm wondering why people didn't stick with the many smaller plates of a brigandine.

Gnoman

2017-11-20, 10:31 PM

Broadly speaking, how effective were medieval/renaissance-era firearms compared to, say, crossbows?

That is an extremely complex question, but in general terms the firearms were quite a bit better after the earliest models. The very earliest handgonnes were lacking in accuracy (as much due to the extremely primitive ergonomics of the weapons and the inadequacies of the touch-lock system as to anything else), but even in that era the potential force of the shot was greater, and there was a not-insignificant morale effect.

wolflance

2017-11-20, 11:47 PM

Broadly speaking, how effective were medieval/renaissance-era firearms compared to, say, crossbows?
Even a matchlock arquebus will generally outrange bow/crossbow, more accurate, hit harder, kill or decapacitate faster, and punch through armor better.

They generally reload slightly faster than windlass crossbow, too.

For handgonne, while the accuracy at long range is abyssmal, you can load it with pellets and go shotgun with it.

Mutazoia

2017-11-21, 04:47 AM

Asking again. I also saw that new-ish Nova about armor and with how difficult the one breast-plate was to make, I'm wondering why people didn't stick with the many smaller plates of a brigandine.

A few reasons (all era dependent):

For one, a solid piece, although harder to make, offers very little in the way of gaps that a weapon can slip through. And then there's the status factor. A noble was rich enough to afford the harder to make, more expensive armor, whereas the common soldier would be in the cheaper, easier to make brig....and you wouldn't catch a Lord dead in armor designed for a peasant soldier. Although that ideology tended to wane as time went on.

Later on, a noble might wear brig armor if he wasn't really expecting to fight, and only bust out the plate when he personally rode into battle. This way he was armored in case the enemy made it to the camp, but wasn't stomping around in a Buick's worth of metal all day.

Eventually, the full plate was mostly for show/tournaments, especially once "guns" were more common. A musket could fire once or twice, but if the enemy charged, you didn't have time to re-load, so it was back to swords, where a breast plate would be more effective, but a full suit was too cumbersome. And by THIS time, making a breast plate was comparably easier and less expensive (they could "machine" barrels, after all. Making a plate was relatively easy) and provided far more protection than the old suit of brig. Even then, it was usually the rich that got the breast plate, the rank and file were S.O.L.

gkathellar

2017-11-21, 06:38 AM

Broadly speaking, how effective were medieval/renaissance-era firearms compared to, say, crossbows?

Expanding on what wolflance says about going shotgun, not that the comparison between firearms and crossbows isn't always apt. Handgonnes and pistols were often used at extremely short range, and in some cases substituted for the lance, rather than the crossbow. I've seen training manuals that depict sword-on-gun and gun-on-sword techniques for heavy cavalry.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-23, 11:52 PM

Mr Beer

2017-11-24, 02:48 AM

Pig carcasses are supposed to be a good analogue, but people get all weird when you nail up dead pigs in your garden, dress them in olde worlde clothes and armour and then chop them up with mediaeval weaponry. It's all 'disturbing behaviour' and 'budding serial killer' :smallfurious:

Vinyadan

2017-11-24, 06:49 AM

Bamboo is quite typical, but very hard to cut, and you might want to wait until your technique is better. Iirc, a 10 cm diameter bamboo is as hard to cut through as two men.

snowblizz

2017-11-24, 07:51 AM

I once saw Skallagrim use some sort of starch and water mixture to make some sort of gel in a bottle, so i think i may go with that. Any other suggestions?

That sounds a lot like ballstic gelatin which is used for testing weapons as the properties is close to flesh. Mythbusters used a lot of that stuff. However needed to be refrigerated a lto before use, and I suspect it's not gonna be cheap.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-24, 09:56 AM

That sounds a lot like ballstic gelatin which is used for testing weapons as the properties is close to flesh. Mythbusters used a lot of that stuff. However needed to be refrigerated a lto before use, and I suspect it's not gonna be cheap.

I know he has Ballistic Gel, which he uses in his Torso mold and remolds periodically, but it was in his Dane Axe review where he had some sort of Starch Water mix.

Bamboo is quite typical, but very hard to cut, and you might want to wait until your technique is better. Iirc, a 10 cm diameter bamboo is as hard to cut through as two men.

Well i dont have access to bamboo. Would a thick cardboard tube designed to hold plastic wrap at a factory work? Cuz i can get a ton of those

Mike_G

2017-11-24, 11:10 AM

Well i dont have access to bamboo. Would a thick cardboard tube designed to hold plastic wrap at a factory work? Cuz i can get a ton of those

If you want to practice your technique, like your edge alignment and so on, those are fine. They're fine for evaluating a flat chop versus a draw cut kind of thing, or one blade versus another. They are not a good body simulator, so you can't say "Wow, this thing cuts through a tube, it would be devastating to a limb" with any conviction.

You can also cut the tubes, then put clothing on them and try again to see how much difference that makes.

In short, thye're not perfect, but you can learn a lot using them.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-24, 11:14 AM

If you want to practice your technique, like your edge alignment and so on, those are fine. They're fine for evaluating a flat chop versus a draw cut kind of thing, or one blade versus another. They are not a good body simulator, so you can't say "Wow, this thing cuts through a tube, it would be devastating to a limb" with any conviction.

You can also cut the tubes, then put clothing on them and try again to see how much difference that makes.

In short, thye're not perfect, but you can learn a lot using them.

Excellent, cuz im gonna need a good practice target and i can get those for free. Im gonna have a fun weekend when my Bill comes in.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-24, 05:57 PM

Mike_G

2017-11-24, 06:35 PM

Putting this in a different post cuz its a radically different question: Why did they stop using Khopeshes? Seriously, from what i've seen its an excellent cutting weapon, one that only gets better when made from steel, so why did they suddenly stop?

Well, similar blade styles do crop up later. And they would be bad at thrusting, and not have a lot of reach, and were maybe heavy for the reach they got. And cutting is not very effective against a lot of armor types, so if your enemies are well armored, maybe it's a bad choice.

This is all me spitballing. Lost of considerations go into choosing a weapon, and maybe its streghths were ourtweighed by its weaknesses.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-24, 07:07 PM

Well, similar blade styles do crop up later. And they would be bad at thrusting, and not have a lot of reach, and were maybe heavy for the reach they got. And cutting is not very effective against a lot of armor types, so if your enemies are well armored, maybe it's a bad choice.

This is all me spitballing. Lost of considerations go into choosing a weapon, and maybe its streghths were ourtweighed by its weaknesses.

I dont buy the thrusting thing. Thrand (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPhKlGEq884) did a video with it and while its not as good as a dedicated thruster, its perfectly fine at thrusting. Plus he was using one that didn't have a sharpened tip.

I do plan on testing thrusting ability once i get mine as the Devils Edge one has a sharpened tip, but as i see, its biggest weakness seems to be reach, but axes had a similar issue, but people still used those, so im not sure.

Edit: Once more, completely unrelated, i now have a Historical Stuff (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClANENgV5YvLiLi7zXEsIyg) channel and i've got a video about chariots. So go rip that to shreds and make fun of my editing if you are so inclined

Deepbluediver

2017-11-24, 10:03 PM

Gnoman

2017-11-24, 10:40 PM

The famous Byzantine horse-archers fought in fairly heavy armor. I strongly suspect that any lack of armor on foot-archers had more to do with lightening their load than it does any armor-weapon interference.

rrgg

2017-11-24, 10:57 PM

I have a question- does armor interfere with firing a bow in any significant way? I know that armor was less cumbersome than it's sometimes depicted as in movies, but athletes still usually compete in very loose (or skintight), lightweight clothing for freedom of movement and such. European archers aren't usually shown in heavy armor, I guess because being ranged combatants they wouldn't need it as much, but is there any reason you wouldn't want to have a platoon of archers in plate armor other than the cost to equip them? I've also read that while in Europe the bow was the weapon of the common man, in Japan it was almost exclusively a samurai weapon, and they had a different style of armor (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6a/a6/fa/6aa6fa1fc3b8123795f56cedd9fdacc0--samurai-armor-armors.jpg) with large shoulder pauldrons. Does anyone have any information on firing a bow while wearing something like that? Would armor significantly impact accuracy or rate of fire or anything?

I don't think it made shooting a bow impossible but the type of armor seems to have had some impact. Elizabethan military treatises tend to specify that longbowmen should continue to wear flexible jacks and medieval-style "skull" helmets instead of corslets, morions, or burgonets like other soldiers. Sir John Smith felt that crossbowmen could be armed with a solid curiass and a morion, but that archers should wear "deepe steele skulles" or something else with a very narrow brim and either mail shirts or "light and easie brigandines" that provide a lot of flexibility.

According to Thomas Styward on the arming of archers/longbowmen:

"NEcessarie it is that euerie man haue a good and méete Bowe according to his draught and strength, light and easie: a Iacke with a skull, sword and dagger, nothing vpon his armes, whereby in time of seruice he maye easily draw the arrow to the head, that they may deliuer the same with strength an arte as Englishmen be accu∣stomed. They must haue also braser and shooting glooue, their strings whipped and waxed ouer with glew, their feathers drie: so bee they seruiseable in any weather to serue against the enemie to slaughter and execution."

Brother Oni

2017-11-25, 02:58 AM

I have a question- does armor interfere with firing a bow in any significant way? I know that armor was less cumbersome than it's sometimes depicted as in movies, but athletes still usually compete in very loose (or skintight), lightweight clothing for freedom of movement and such. European archers aren't usually shown in heavy armor, I guess because being ranged combatants they wouldn't need it as much, but is there any reason you wouldn't want to have a platoon of archers in plate armor other than the cost to equip them? I've also read that while in Europe the bow was the weapon of the common man, in Japan it was almost exclusively a samurai weapon, and they had a different style of armor (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6a/a6/fa/6aa6fa1fc3b8123795f56cedd9fdacc0--samurai-armor-armors.jpg) with large shoulder pauldrons. Does anyone have any information on firing a bow while wearing something like that? Would armor significantly impact accuracy or rate of fire or anything?

The only real requirements for shooting a bow in armour is that you have sufficient range of movement in your shoulders and back, and that there aren't any protrusions or loose/free bits for the bow string to catch along its path.
The former means you want something fairly flexible while the latter usually means nothing on the inside arm of the arm holding the bow and generally nothing too ornate around the face.

Samurai armour is fairly open-faced, so the helmet doesn't interfere with shooting and the Japanese style of archery using a thumb draw to the ear, also permits a lot leeway in armour styles:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/2b/f7/382bf792b79918e9d446bf617e1a2a16.jpg

As for affecting the shooting rate, I found this old pre-WW2 video: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcu-8GvaqFk)
The rate of fire doesn't seem to be affected, although I can hear my range officer's bellow from here (https://youtu.be/rcu-8GvaqFk?t=160). :smallbiggrin:

The bow was far more common a weapon among the non-samurai than you seem to think - I agree that mounted archery was exclusively samurai, but there were plenty of ashigaru (and samurai) foot archers.

Edit: Olympic athletes do target archery, where accuracy and consistency is prized above all else. This means that the technique and equipment are specialised for this, so drawing any conclusions on historical battlefield techniques and equipment from modern target archery should be very carefully done - for example in modern target archery, there's nobody attempting to kill you, so there's no point in being able to achieve a high rate of fire (Olympic regulations allow 2 minutes per 3 arrows).

Another consideration is cost - plate harness is expensive and since the average English bowman wasn't especially rich, they wouldn't have the money to go into combat equipped in full plate harness.

gkathellar

2017-11-25, 06:57 AM

Putting this in a different post cuz its a radically different question: Why did they stop using Khopeshes? Seriously, from what i've seen its an excellent cutting weapon, one that only gets better when made from steel, so why did they suddenly stop?

Speculative, but I feel instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of trying to fence with a khopesh. That sickle blade looks awkward and top-heavy to me, enough that I wonder why you wouldn't just use an axe. While the hook could be useful against some other weapons, it seems like it would come at the cost of more general advantages, like a strong spine or a false edge. Given only a portion of one edge was historically sharpened, it might also have presented opportunities for an opponent looking to get in close.

But these are just guesses.

Vinyadan

2017-11-25, 08:32 AM

About the kopesh, a good way to know is looking for what substituted it.

About bows, I believe the Spartans had bowmen in heavy armour.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-25, 09:50 AM

Thanks everyone who responded to my question about armor and bows- I've got to look up some of the stuff mentioned for more details, but it all sounds like it makes sense. In general it seems like the answer is mostly "no", and if yes then all they really needed was some simple variants to make it work pretty well.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-25, 10:37 AM

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-25, 11:44 AM

Speculative, but I feel instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of trying to fence with a khopesh. That sickle blade looks awkward and top-heavy to me, enough that I wonder why you wouldn't just use an axe. While the hook could be useful against some other weapons, it seems like it would come at the cost of more general advantages, like a strong spine or a false edge. Given only a portion of one edge was historically sharpened, it might also have presented opportunities for an opponent looking to get in close.

But these are just guesses.

There's a lot of variation in the "kopesh" -- some of them had almost the entire front edge sharp, an actual thrusting point in line with the hilt, and a small false edge (between the tip and the "hook").

Its ture that it isnt a fencing weapon, but everything i've heard has said that its actually not as top heavy as it looks. Apparently it handles similar to a Falcata. Also its more weildy than an axe, or at least thats what i heard.

I guess i could see it being replaced as a general weapon by straight blades, but its not like people didnt have specialized weapons before.

If I had to take a stab at it, I'd say the kopesh was hard to make from early iron, and never came back as the quality of iron improved and thus the size and shape of blades that could be made expanded.

Martin Greywolf

2017-11-26, 02:23 PM

So i just bought a Devils Edge steel Khopesh and a Cold Steel Bill from Kult of Athena. These are my first fully functional weapons i've ever bought and im wondering what a good thing to test them on is. I've seen water bottles and tatami mats, but water bottles dont seem like enough and tatami mats just feel like im wasting money.

I once saw Skallagrim use some sort of starch and water mixture to make some sort of gel in a bottle, so i think i may go with that. Any other suggestions?

First question you ned to answer yourself is if you know how to do cuts well enough to not kill yourself and/or bystanders. Just taking a sharp piece of steel and going to town isn't the best of ideas.

If you do go for it, start with plastic bottles. You need to see if you have good edge alignment in a cut, and if you can string together several cuts without compromising it. If the asnwer is no, then there's no real point in going for something sturdier - well, other than fun.

After that, tatami mat substitutes tend to work well. Either use them or tightly rolled newspapers - you need to thoroughly soak the later to make them a good analogue.

Ballistics gel is a terrible medium - it is a good substitute for human flesh only if you are using firearms on it. If offers much, much greater resistance to any larger blades, even bladed arrows, than it really should.

Putting this in a different post cuz its a radically different question: Why did they stop using Khopeshes? Seriously, from what i've seen its an excellent cutting weapon, one that only gets better when made from steel, so why did they suddenly stop?

They aren't excellent cutting weapon - they are good, but not better than other, later blade types, and certainly not better than longer blades like spatha and it's ilk. When it comes to weirdly shaped weapons like these, the answer is always simple - it wasn't worth the hassle.

Kopesh is the way it is because it's a neat way to make a good cutter out of bronze - making a bronze blade in the shape of a falchion wouldn't end well simply because it's so thin. Once you have better quality of iron, there's nothing the gladius can't do as well as kopesh, and it's a lot less involved process to forge the latter out of a bar of metal.

As for thrusting, there's a vast difference between can't thrust at all, can thrust and can thrust well. Kopesh falls into the middle category - you can stab someone but it clearly isn't designed to be a good thruster.

I have a question- does armor interfere with firing a bow in any significant way? I know that armor was less cumbersome than it's sometimes depicted as in movies, but athletes still usually compete in very loose (or skintight), lightweight clothing for freedom of movement and such.

What you wear into a competition has no place here - armor, no matter what type, is costly and restrictive and therefore much less comfortable than civilian wear. You don't put it on unless you need it, and people often don't put it on even when they really should. You can clearly see this in some of the medieval hunts where nobles wore their normal clothes, even though armor does help a bit if a bear decides to chew your leg off.

European archers aren't usually shown in heavy armor,

Yes (http://www.historic-uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/the-history-of-the-english-longbow.jpg) they (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b0/29/f8/b029f8722b2100683b191cb416981d9f.jpg) are (https://i.pinimg.com/236x/6e/23/2a/6e232ac8dddc5270071bf25a91bf0046.jpg). It's just that combatants in general aren't usually depicted in heavy armor since it was expensive and therefore not universally used. And yes, that third link was indeed a horse archer in full plate.

Also consider that the depictions of archers in brigadines are heavy armor, knights themselves often went to battle in brigadines as shock cavalry.

I guess because being ranged combatants they wouldn't need it as much, but is there any reason you wouldn't want to have a platoon of archers in plate armor other than the cost to equip them?

Not really, but I think you underestimate just how high that cost is, especially since these are medieval recruitment methods - there is no central authority issuing equipment, you show up with whatever equipment you have and are paid accordingly.

I've also read that while in Europe the bow was the weapon of the common man,

This is a bloody stupid myth that needs to go die in a fire. Bow was a weapon first and foremost, and was used by anyone and everyone. The composite bow was associated specifically with the steppe nomads, but they certainly aren't commoners.

Also keep in mind that when someone says medieval Europe, they really mean medieval England with maybe some France and Germany throw in 99 times out of 100.

And let's not forget that when it comes to armored people capable of archery, every single knight is one. It's just that they are much more valuable as shock cavalry, since all you need for an effective archery unit is a bow and arrows equipped people, but you need the full gear for shock cavalry one. In essence you can mitigate the need for armor on your archers by tactics - hide them behind infantry with shields, behind walls or trees, etc etc, and put your armored folks where you need the line to hold.

Or, to put it in another way, think more in terms of "I have 50 suits of heavy armor, 100 spears, 100 bows and 200 men, how do I get the most out of them", instead of "I have 200 men, how do I equip them to have a balanced force". The army you get is never the army you want.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-26, 03:52 PM

What you wear into a competition has no place here - armor, no matter what type, is costly and restrictive and therefore much less comfortable than civilian wear. You don't put it on unless you need it, and people often don't put it on even when they really should. You can clearly see this in some of the medieval hunts where nobles wore their normal clothes, even though armor does help a bit if a bear decides to chew your leg off.
*snip*
Or, to put it in another way, think more in terms of "I have 50 suits of heavy armor, 100 spears, 100 bows and 200 men, how do I get the most out of them", instead of "I have 200 men, how do I equip them to have a balanced force". The army you get is never the army you want.
Thank you very much- that's all nice and educational. It doesn't really answer my question though.
You provided a lot of evidence that soldiers did wear armor while using bows, but I'm asking if doing so interfered with your ability to shoot the bow, and by how much in terms of rate-of-fire and accuracy. Even if it does, it might still be beneficial overall to wear armor because the tradeoff is a relatively large benefit to protection and a small loss in other factors.

I guess the absolute answer is yes, so maybe I should instead be phrasing my question as "how does shooting a bow while wearing armor compare to shooting a bow without armor". I ask because in addition to simple curiosity, I was wondering if it would make sense in a game to have some sort of armor-penalty apply to ranged attacks.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-26, 04:02 PM

First question you ned to answer yourself is if you know how to do cuts well enough to not kill yourself and/or bystanders. Just taking a sharp piece of steel and going to town isn't the best of ideas.

If you do go for it, start with plastic bottles. You need to see if you have good edge alignment in a cut, and if you can string together several cuts without compromising it. If the asnwer is no, then there's no real point in going for something sturdier - well, other than fun.

After that, tatami mat substitutes tend to work well. Either use them or tightly rolled newspapers - you need to thoroughly soak the later to make them a good analogue.

Ballistics gel is a terrible medium - it is a good substitute for human flesh only if you are using firearms on it. If offers much, much greater resistance to any larger blades, even bladed arrows, than it really should.

Im not formally trained or anything, but im fairly confident i can use a sword without harming myself or others. I of course will be very careful, thus why my first targets are milk jugs.

They aren't excellent cutting weapon - they are good, but not better than other, later blade types, and certainly not better than longer blades like spatha and it's ilk. When it comes to weirdly shaped weapons like these, the answer is always simple - it wasn't worth the hassle.

Kopesh is the way it is because it's a neat way to make a good cutter out of bronze - making a bronze blade in the shape of a falchion wouldn't end well simply because it's so thin. Once you have better quality of iron, there's nothing the gladius can't do as well as kopesh, and it's a lot less involved process to forge the latter out of a bar of metal.

As for thrusting, there's a vast difference between can't thrust at all, can thrust and can thrust well. Kopesh falls into the middle category - you can stab someone but it clearly isn't designed to be a good thruster.

Huh, interesting. Once i get a good straight blade i can do a real comparison. I guess i just see a few advantages the Khopesh has over a normal cutter (the ability to hook being a big one) so i was mostly curious why noone seemed to try and revive it.

Mike_G

2017-11-26, 04:18 PM

Vinyadan

2017-11-26, 09:00 PM

About safety: the one instruction I'd give is: when using sharp implements, swing in such a way that, even if you were to miss, or if you were to cut through your target, you will not hurt yourself. It's very easy to hit your legs. It's something of a ritual for beginners working with a billhook. It was much worse when people used sickles, since they tended to wound their inner thigh and bleed to death (which could have been avoided by cutting away from themselves, instead of towards them).
Try doing some hits before you sharpen your weapon. Like, a few days, or even weeks. An unwhetted blade is much more forgiving on your body, even though it can still chop wood. It probably won't cut plastic bottles, but you can better your aim.
Also, keep length in mind, and don't poke your eyes out.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-26, 09:52 PM

You need good range of motion to fight at all, so armor that interferes with shooting a bow would interfere with swinging a sword.
That's a good point- I guess any sort of armor would be designed with the end goal for it's use already in mind, and could be adjusted appropriately.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-27, 06:44 AM

Martin Greywolf

2017-11-27, 06:54 AM

Thank you very much- that's all nice and educational. It doesn't really answer my question though.
You provided a lot of evidence that soldiers did wear armor while using bows, but I'm asking if doing so interfered with your ability to shoot the bow, and by how much in terms of rate-of-fire and accuracy. Even if it does, it might still be beneficial overall to wear armor because the tradeoff is a relatively large benefit to protection and a small loss in other factors.

Historically speaking, RoF and accuracy weren't a factor when it came to the "do we have archers in heavy armor" question, which is the gist of my point. To expand on these a bit.

RoF is practically a non-issue in military archery. One archer can carry 30-ish arrows on him, if you go ham with those, you run out really, really quickly. There are some tactical situations where you want high RoF, but they are relatively rare - mowing down charging, lightly armored infantry is about the only case.

Most of the time, archers are used for longer range harrasment - keep shooting people to make them hide behind shields and not move around. You want to keep up a steady stream of missiles in this case, slow enough to easily resupply everyone, fast enough to keep people hunkered down.

Second most common archery use is point-blanking, hide behind an obstacle (brambles, ditch, third row of shield wall, etc) and shoot an arrow into weak points in armor from rather close distance. Which brings us rather neatly into accuracy, and you need quite a bit of it here.

So, RoF is not that important, accuracy is more important, and armor restricts both to some degree. However... it's not that much.

I guess the absolute answer is yes, so maybe I should instead be phrasing my question as "how does shooting a bow while wearing armor compare to shooting a bow without armor". I ask because in addition to simple curiosity, I was wondering if it would make sense in a game to have some sort of armor-penalty apply to ranged attacks.

Ah, much more specific.

RoF in armor doesn't really suffer all that much, or rather, it is a question of gloves. Any kind of gloves impairs your fine manipulation, and nocking an arrow is pretty fiddly. For our purposes, all gloves are mostly equal - sure, plate gloves have inflexible parts on them, but their insides, i.e. where it counts for manipulating arrows, are leather. And let's not forget that you can counteract this problem by simply training in gloves, or not wearing them at all. So answer here would be maybe a small penalty, but give it to everyone who has gloves.

There are arguably differences between types of gloves (hourglass gauntlets get more in the way than late gothic ones) and between good quality tailor made gloves and some bits of metal you scrounged up, so maybe -1 penalty that goes away for masterwork?

Accuracy is pretty much unaffected, with a caveat - if you have a visored helmet, you can see your target just fine, but you loose a lot of peripheral vision, which you may well need to quickly change targets. This problem is not just for archers, heavy infantry fought with raised visors on foot a lot of the time, putting them down only for defending against arrows or for mounted charges (if they had a horse, which they mostly did - a knight will fight as a heavy infantry during a siege, after all). The field commanders universally had their visor raised, with some opting for kettle hats or other visorles helmets.

Putting this into game penalties is iffy - what you have here is an action that reduces how well protected you are and increases your situational awareness or vice versa - if you want to go into this level of detail.

There is one thing, however, that has a much greater impact on how effective an archer you are - fatigue. No matter how good the armor, fact of the matter is you're still lifting 2 kilos of metal more than you would without it, and you are stewing in your own juices all the while. Again, this is also a problem for heavy infantry. From my experience, you get thirsty after about an hour of just standing in full mail armor on the sun (granted, it was 40 Celsius at the time), and three hours without water will make your head spin (at best) or give you a full on blackout. As someone who prefers being a spearman in gambeson, I can attest to the fact that once things go south, I can sprint away a lot faster than the heavies.

The issue with this is that you don't have a lot of systems that model stamina elegantly, so it's pretty hard to represent this mechanically. Since most of the fights in TTRPGs last a very short amount of time (seconds to minutes, not minutes to hours), I'd go with not bothering with this.

In conclusion, I'd say a small penalty for gloves that goes away with masterwork fitted armor is about right, with maybe adding opening and closing visor into the mix. If you do the latter, do remember that your opponent can open/close your visor for you on some helmet types!

And as Mike_G said, there are specialized tournament or parade armors that would make you, in some cases, unable to use a bow at all. These are, however, not really meant to be fighting a war in.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-27, 07:30 AM

@Martin Greywolf

Thank you very much- that was all very informative and interesting to read. I've never worn armor of any kind, and the only experience I have with bows are the lightweight ones they let kids shoot at summer camp.
In think you're right and I'm going to leave aside the penalties for now; the combat systems in games are supposed to be an abstraction, and when the quirks are two small or to finicky to model well, it's better to just not have them.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-27, 04:36 PM

rs2excelsior

2017-11-27, 05:17 PM

I've got another odd question that I figured I'd throw out there, since this thread is extremely helpful.

Has anyone got any good resources they could link me about the historical costs of weapons and armor? Specifically anything that relates it to a sort-of equivalent cost in modern terms? What I mean is, telling me that something cost 12 shillings and 4 pence in 1500 doesn't give much information at all, since I don't have any frame of reference to compare that to. I know that a lot of the stuff you see in museums, especially plate-armor, was the most ornate examples and at least sometimes designed only for display and parades, and not really intended for combat. And common soldiers used many varieties of weapons and armor that were passed down, or acquired second-hand, and/or weren't manufactured to custom standards. What kind of investment might someone make if they wanted to buy a serviceable, average sword, spear, mace, shield, gamebeson, leather cuirass, mail hauberk, etc.

What I'd really love, if anyone has any idea, is some sort of cost in terms of hours or days of labor you'd have to work to buy something. I realize the whole concept is clashing in weird ways, and modern labor standards don't really apply to medieval settings, but I'm trying to base a fictional economy on a sort of universal minimum wage, and then I can estimate what might be appropriate prices for equipment at various socio-economy strata.

As a starting point, there's this post from page 22 on the thread:

A compilation of prices (http://www.myschwerk.webzdarma.cz/cenik.html) from Czech area, mostly based on Prague goods. It's in Czech, so to make it easier for you, the only relevant table is the first one, the rest are Italian prices for comparision. The prices are converted into gros (gr.) or kopa grosu (kop gr). 1 kop gr == 60 gr, though the exact amount varied, and should be equivalent to 253 g of silver. 1 kop gr was at first enough gros to get you 253 gr of silver, or 1 hrivna, but this being the middle ages, there's an ungodly mess there.

Some highlights:

550 liters of beer, varies due to place and quality = 25 - 42 gr.
36 liters of wheat, bought from farmer directly = 8 - 10 gr
helmet = 30 gr
good cow = 46 gr
helmet with visor = 48 gr
rent for 1 0,173 square kilometer of land = cca 60 gr
stallion = 6 kop gr
warhorse = 20 kop gr
property needed to serve as witness = 10 -12 kop gr
2-story ordinary house in a city = 17 - 22 kop gr
cuirass = 4 kop gr
Milanese cuirass = 8 kop gr
top of the line armor = 75 kop gr
price of a minor noble's (zeman) holdings = 50 - 60 kop gr
sword = 20 kop gr and higher

If we assume that Czechs drank as much beer back then as today (cca 140 liters per capita) - which we probably can, these being Czechs - then one person spent 6.4 - 10.7 gr on beer alone per year, and assuming 2 EUR per liter (for beer in somewhat higher end pubs), we get 1 gr = 28 EUR.

Helmet then costs 840 EUR (my kettle hat cost about 300, but really good helmets are about this expensive today), sword goes from 33 000 upwards (top of the line modern replica goes for about 1 000+ for a simple sword), 2-story city house goes for 28 000 EUR (HA! I wish), and top of the line armor sets you back a steep 63 000 EUR.

Keep in mind that, when smaller goods are concerned, these are prices for brand new items made by licensed craftsmen (they were taken from a city's guild records for the most part), you could and did find many of these made by not so great craftsmen or re-sold on second-hand market for much, much lower price.

There was quite a bit of discussion on the topic as well on the next few pages, you can go back and look through that yourself. As far as hours worked, I can't help you there, but I'm sure some of the knowledgeable folks here can dig up information on wages and whatnot that you can compare.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-27, 06:11 PM

There was quite a bit of discussion on the topic as well on the next few pages, you can go back and look through that yourself. As far as hours worked, I can't help you there, but I'm sure some of the knowledgeable folks here can dig up information on wages and whatnot that you can compare.
Thank you- I'm reading through it in detail right now. I might have to start looking up conversion tables and historical interest rates though, since groschens and marks and florens don't really mean much to me. :smallwink:

I know the whole question is a bit weird since even during the renaissance period the vast majority of people were farmers and didn't really earn a wage in the modern sense, and a lot of exchange was still done on the barter system.

snowblizz

2017-11-28, 06:50 AM

Thank you- I'm reading through it in detail right now. I might have to start looking up conversion tables and historical interest rates though, since groschens and marks and florens don't really mean much to me. :smallwink:

I know the whole question is a bit weird since even during the renaissance period the vast majority of people were farmers and didn't really earn a wage in the modern sense, and a lot of exchange was still done on the barter system.

It's not really weird. It's just very difficult to answer in any broader sense. You'd be surprised how much monetization of the economy there was. It was one of the major moves any up and coming king would try and do, money is better than taxes inkind. It's something of a trope that people used to barter until Adam Smith invented capitalism.

Generally speaking you are going to have a lot of work trying to get pricelists. Since what information exists is hard to get and covers very local circumstances. And keep in mind money value changes a lot, not just in exchange rates but as a function of how much precious metal existed in the European economy. There was a large drain towards the East of silver and gold, though not always constantly.
Most lists posted here do tend to have some normal stuff to compare to, say livestock and sometimes wages.
I think you are going to spend a lot of effort figuring out something that ultimately won't give you much in return. Am sorry to say. It sorta gets into that "too much detail to be useful" again.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-28, 08:08 AM

It's not really weird. It's just very difficult to answer in any broader sense.
....
It sorta gets into that "too much detail to be useful" again.
Oh, well, at least I don't have to worry about anyone else in the game figuring it out and telling me I'm wrong then :P
I'll keep looking though.

gkathellar

2017-11-28, 10:19 AM

It's not really weird. It's just very difficult to answer in any broader sense. You'd be surprised how much monetization of the economy there was. It was one of the major moves any up and coming king would try and do, money is better than taxes inkind. It's something of a trope that people used to barter until Adam Smith invented capitalism.

Adding to this: barter systems can function at a much higher level of abstraction than we give them credit for. If Farmer Ezekiel is thinking, "well, I'll trade three sheep for two wheat, because I can then trade two wheat for the four bricks that I actually want," you've got the rudiments of money right there. So long as Ezekiel believes that the value of precious metals (or paper notes, or even raw credit) is guaranteed, not a ton immediately changes when he takes those in place of the wheat. Money doesn't immediately replace barter so much as place goods in the abstract, and all this actually requires is that the value of some objects be seen as a truism.

Oh, well, at least I don't have to worry about anyone else in the game figuring it out and telling me I'm wrong then :P
I'll keep looking though.

It becomes a question of relative supply vs. relative demand as measured against the socially accepted baseline (which may be dollars, silver pieces, acres of land, head of cattle, etc) just as in the modern world.

Lapak

2017-11-28, 12:11 PM

Deepbluediver

2017-11-28, 03:25 PM

It becomes a question of relative supply vs. relative demand as measured against the socially accepted baseline (which may be dollars, silver pieces, acres of land, head of cattle, etc) just as in the modern world.
Yeah, I think I'm just going to set a minimum effective wage of something like 1 or 1/2 a unit of currency per hour, have skilled labor be some multiple of that, and go from there based on how long I expect something to take. Part of it is that I'm not actually trying to make a medieval economy- I want something that's a bit more like a cross between the gilded age and the roaring twenties, just with swords-and-sorcery. Magic takes the place of technology, and there's less mass-manufacturing, but things like airships and long-range communication are available (if expensive for common folk). And of course there will still be places set firmly in every time period right back to the stone age.

And unintentionally hilarious/depressing when you see how every third leader comes along and debases the currency to solve a financial crisis. Seriously, it’s like clockwork.
Yeah, I've read a lot of the wikipedia articles on hyperinflation in modern countries. I kinda want to work currency-forging into a plot at some point.

I don't really want to get super-complicated overall though, and I admit the one-world currency most settings have going on would be incredibly unrealistic for a variety of reasons. But this is supposed to be D&D, not Accountants and Audits.

Haighus

2017-11-28, 07:20 PM

Fascinating documentary about wootz damascus steel. The whole thing is based upon years of experiemental archaeology, and they are providing a strong suggestion that Damascus actually had local production of wootz steel, not just imported material from India. The whole process, and the effects on the metallurgy of the steel, are very interesting to watch. The labour required is enormous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP8PCkcBZU4

Martin Greywolf

2017-11-29, 03:45 AM

Yeah, I think I'm just going to set a minimum effective wage of something like 1 or 1/2 a unit of currency per hour, have skilled labor be some multiple of that, and go from there based on how long I expect something to take. Part of it is that I'm not actually trying to make a medieval economy- I want something that's a bit more like a cross between the gilded age and the roaring twenties, just with swords-and-sorcery. Magic takes the place of technology, and there's less mass-manufacturing, but things like airships and long-range communication are available (if expensive for common folk). And of course there will still be places set firmly in every time period right back to the stone age.

If you want to convert medieval currency to modern day equivalent, there's one hard truth to accept - you can't. You can recalculate them based on various things (property values, bread, beer, etc) but the problem is that medieval price ratios were completely different - food prices fluctuated a lot more, spices were hell of a lot more expensive, purp0le color was so rare it was only affordable by emperors etc etc.

If you want roaring twenties, my advice is to use that and reskin the dollar. If you make 1 dollar == 1 sp, you can easily convert even modern day prices by calculating inflation. Last 100 years did see some price ratio changes, but not as dramatic ones as when comparing it to 1300, seeing as both 20s and modern day are post-industrial.

Last caveat is that mass manufacture isn't a matter of technology, merely organization (which technology makes easier). Venetian Arsenal could build a galley in a day by having spare parts pre-made, and Roman empire had workshops churning out chain mail.

Yeah, I've read a lot of the wikipedia articles on hyperinflation in modern countries. I kinda want to work currency-forging into a plot at some point.

Ah, this one is easy even with medieval currency, and was a massive problem - as an example, Hungary (in c1350) had the penalty of death and loss of all titles and posessions of you and your family to the third degree for doing this. The way this was done was simple - you mixed something other than silver or gold into the coins. Take 200 sp, melt them into silver, add some lead and remake them into 400 sp. The actual pictures were usually carved by hand (and pretty obviously at times - I suspect these were in a bottom half of a chest for large transaction).

Another way to do this is if you don't have a central (or big enough) banking system - you can forge checks or letters of debt/credit. These were used from about 1200 by pretty much all merchants, both locally and internationally.

Brother Oni

2017-11-29, 07:49 AM

I don't really want to get super-complicated overall though, and I admit the one-world currency most settings have going on would be incredibly unrealistic for a variety of reasons. But this is supposed to be D&D, not Accountants and Audits.

Surprisingly there's a fantasy anime series based on this - Spice and Wolf, where a travelling merchant ends up getting involved with a forgotten animist wolf god.

If you could narrow down the time period you're interested in, we can provide more detailed information. I did some translation work for wages and costs of some goods in early Edo era Japan in this thread if you want to dig through it: link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?359855-Japan).

An important note - before cultures went to a fiat currency, they often went by the actual metallurgical value of the coinage, particularly when trading between cultures. As Lapak said, this was a problem where they debased coinage to sort out financial crisis (at one time, during the Edo period, Japan went from 80% silver content coinage to 20% silver content coinage, which increase the internal price of imported goods by fourfold - this actually helped with the isolationist policies the government were instituting at the time).
Japan also had odd coins, the mameita-gin and the cho-gin, which were lumps of silver stamped with the coin's weight as proof of their worth.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-29, 09:12 AM

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-29, 09:27 AM

Martin Greywolf

2017-11-29, 10:44 AM

Got a question about some LARP armor. In NERO LARPing we have a costume armor we call chip plate, what it is is basically a surcoat with a bunch of pockets on the inside and in each pocket is a poker chip. Now, I know a poker chip sized piece of metal wouldn't work for armor, but would the basic concept?

My idea is this: Take the pocket coat and instead if poker chips put in 3x3 inch metal square in each pocket and have each line of pockets be one layer deeper than the last, so you can overlap the plates. Would this work as armor?

This is almost exactly coat of plates or brigandine - the difference between the two is a matter of size of individual plates more than anything.

Your exact idea has one problem - it's heavy. You will already need a gambeson on you, so what you're doing is creating an alternative or addition to chain mail. However, with your design (if I understand in correctly), you basically have double the plates per area of body when compared to a plate. Not only that, you have a lot of fabric there needed to make proper pockets.

It would take anyone about five minutes to come up with an idea of just riveting the plates on a layer of fabric with slight overlap at the edges and... well, what we have here now is coat of plates.

So, it's not that your armor is unable to stop strikes or too heavy to use, it's just that we already have an armor type offering comparable protection with less weight. Think an assault rifle with wooden furniture vs plastic furniture.

snowblizz

2017-11-29, 12:05 PM

And unintentionally hilarious/depressing when you see how every third leader comes along and debases the currency to solve a financial crisis. Seriously, it’s like clockwork.
Indeed, it has bene pitched as the reason the Roman empire fell. This exactly what happens when you have a coinage tied to a commodity and can't expand the money base as the economy grows.
Something all the goldstandard proponents seem collectively unable to grasp.

Adding to this: barter systems can function at a much higher level of abstraction than we give them credit for. If Farmer Ezekiel is thinking, "well, I'll trade three sheep for two wheat, because I can then trade two wheat for the four bricks that I actually want," you've got the rudiments of money right there. So long as Ezekiel believes that the value of precious metals (or paper notes, or even raw credit) is guaranteed, not a ton immediately changes when he takes those in place of the wheat. Money doesn't immediately replace barter so much as place goods in the abstract, and all this actually requires is that the value of some objects be seen as a truism.
Well that's more of a credit system which was common in more local cultures where there was societal trust and you could keep track of transactions communally. Barter and later monetary economies is for when you can't trust the other party. I can't remember who it was but I've read a quite nice put down of Adam Smith's work which totally missed the point and saw barter as inherently more primitive than a monetary economy.

Yeah, I think I'm just going to set a minimum effective wage of something like 1 or 1/2 a unit of currency per hour, have skilled labor be some multiple of that, and go from there based on how long I expect something to take. Part of it is that I'm not actually trying to make a medieval economy- I want something that's a bit more like a cross between the gilded age and the roaring twenties, just with swords-and-sorcery. Magic takes the place of technology, and there's less mass-manufacturing, but things like airships and long-range communication are available (if expensive for common folk). And of course there will still be places set firmly in every time period right back to the stone age.I was gonna put in a mention not to make the mistake that a farmer is dirt poor.
However since you mention the late 1800 to- early-1900s I must point out anything regarding medieaval prices has no bearing on that, what so ever. It also becomes much easier because there's actual statistics for that. Also a medieval price ons words woudl not translate into turn of the century. Be much easier to just look at what a decent handgun goes for and use that as a base for what peopel could afford.

As Brother Oni says "universal" currencies are less silly than one would think. In the times before fiat currency there was one effectively. In that gold and silver values/weights were used. It's actually not until we are off the goldstandard in the 1970s that's finally buried. And in a sense US dollars work that way today.

not Accountants and Audits.
To quote Varsaavius: "And what would the problem with that be?"

Lapak

2017-11-29, 12:50 PM

As Brother Oni says "universal" currencies are leess silly than one would think. In the times before fiat currency there was one effectively. In that gold and silver values/weights were used. It's actually not until we are off the goldstandard in the 1970s that's finally buried. And in a sense US dollars work that way today
Less silly but still maybe worth considering for the very reason we talked about and potentially fun to model in a game. People see you’re flashing Czech crowns in the period where the silver mines at Kutna Hora were running full steam and they take them without question, but they see you offering old Roman coins and they need to do some examination to see if it was Diocletian or Constantine who minted them. At any given time there are probably a few different currencies that people will accept on sight (even if they are foreign) and some which they’ll be skeptical about (even if they are local.)

Brother Oni

2017-11-29, 01:17 PM

Less silly but still maybe worth considering for the very reason we talked about and potentially fun to model in a game. People see you’re flashing Czech crowns in the period where the silver mines at Kutna Hora were running full steam and they take them without question, but they see you offering old Roman coins and they need to do some examination to see if it was Diocletian or Constantine who minted them. At any given time there are probably a few different currencies that people will accept on sight (even if they are foreign) and some which they’ll be skeptical about (even if they are local.)

During the Sengoku period of Japan, all the major clans minted their own currency. Off the top of my head, the Takeda koban (gold coin) was the most prestigious as the Takeda holdings had gold mines with highest purity ore, while the Oda koban was the lowest purity of gold.
Technically speaking, they all had the face value of 1 ryo of gold (~15g), but in practicality, the worth of a coin was dependent on where you were spending it. One overlooked factor these days, is tracking spies and other foreigners by the coinage they're spending.

As an aside, don't be too worried about making your monetary system too complicated - you're unlikely to beat the British system:

Farthing = 1/4 penny
Half penny = 1/2 penny
Threefarthing = 3/4 penny
Penny = 1 penny = 1d
Half groat = 2 pennies = 2d
Groat = 4 pennies = 4d
Sixpence = 6 pennies = 6d
Shilling = 12 pennies = 1s
Half crown = 30 pennnies = 2s 6d
Quarter angel = 30 pennies = 2s 6d
Crown = 60 pennies = 5s
Half angel = 60 pennies = 5s
Angel = 120 pennies = 10s
Half pound = 120 pennies = 10s
Pound = 240 pence = 20s = £1
Fine Sovereign = 360 pence = 30s = £1 10s

Note that some denominations are worth the same value, but are different coins (the various angel and crown denominations).

A nobleman would earn wages between £1500 to £3000 per annum
A merchant would earn wages of £100 per annum
A parson would earn wages of £20 per annum
A carpenter would earn wages of £13 per annum
A labourer would earn wages of £5 - £10 per annum

gkathellar

2017-11-29, 01:26 PM

As an aside, don't be too worried about making your monetary system too complicated - you're unlikely to beat the British system:

Farthing = 1/4 penny
Half penny = 1/2 penny
Threefarthing = 3/4 penny
Penny = 1 penny = 1d
Half groat = 2 pennies = 2d
Groat = 4 pennies = 4d
Sixpence = 6 pennies = 6d
Shilling = 12 pennies = 1s
Half crown = 30 pennnies = 2s 6d
Quarter angel = 30 pennies = 2s 6d
Crown = 60 pennies = 5s
Half angel = 60 pennies = 5s
Angel = 120 pennies = 10s
Half pound = 120 pennies = 10s
Pound = 240 pence = 20s = £1
Fine Sovereign = 360 pence = 30s = £1 10s

Note that some denominations are worth the same value, but are different coins (the various angel and crown denominations).

A nobleman would earn wages between £1500 to £3000 per annum
A merchant would earn wages of £100 per annum
A parson would earn wages of £20 per annum
A carpenter would earn wages of £13 per annum
A labourer would earn wages of £5 - £10 per annum

I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.

Gnoman

2017-11-29, 04:13 PM

I don't really want to get super-complicated overall though, and I admit the one-world currency most settings have going on would be incredibly unrealistic for a variety of reasons. But this is supposed to be D&D, not Accountants and Audits.

I've run a game with per-nation currencies. It is absolutely more trouble than it is worth, even with a static exchange rate.

snowblizz

2017-11-29, 04:38 PM

Deepbluediver

2017-11-29, 06:00 PM

If you want to convert medieval currency to modern day equivalent, there's one hard truth to accept - you can't. You can recalculate them based on various things (property values, bread, beer, etc) but the problem is that medieval price ratios were completely different - food prices fluctuated a lot more, spices were hell of a lot more expensive, purp0le color was so rare it was only affordable by emperors etc etc.
Yeah, I was just trying to have some estimate about their relative value/worth to other goods, so I didn't end up with something completely ridiculous. Not that completely ridiculous price-differentials don't exist today. I think as I work on it and develop some more basic rules about what my economy us going to be like, I can base it mostly on the cost of labor.

If you want roaring twenties, my advice is to use that and reskin the dollar. If you make 1 dollar == 1 sp, you can easily convert even modern day prices by calculating inflation. Last 100 years did see some price ratio changes, but not as dramatic ones as when comparing it to 1300, seeing as both 20s and modern day are post-industrial.
I was talking more about the quality-of-life I want to present, because I mainly don't want a dung-ages setting.

Ah, this one is easy even with medieval currency, and was a massive problem - as an example, Hungary (in c1350) had the penalty of death and loss of all titles and posessions of you and your family to the third degree for doing this. The way this was done was simple - you mixed something other than silver or gold into the coins. Take 200 sp, melt them into silver, add some lead and remake them into 400 sp. The actual pictures were usually carved by hand (and pretty obviously at times - I suspect these were in a bottom half of a chest for large transaction).

Another way to do this is if you don't have a central (or big enough) banking system - you can forge checks or letters of debt/credit. These were used from about 1200 by pretty much all merchants, both locally and internationally.
The way I figure I'll frame it is that after several large and very expensive wars, the nations of the world mainly decided that it just wasn't worth it, and mutually agreed to some standards for currency. No one is particularly happy with it, but the penalties someone would risk on both a personal and national level mean you have to be REALLY desperate to consider forgery.

Part of my setting is that I actually want fewer countries and a setup more like city-states; I don't know how that might believably affect things though.

If you could narrow down the time period you're interested in, we can provide more detailed information. I did some translation work for wages and costs of some goods in early Edo era Japan in this thread if you want to dig through it: link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?359855-Japan).
I'll check it out- thanks.

I wasn't trying to get this thread to off topic, but... I'm looking to make a more modern (late 1800's to early 1900's) take on the swords-and-sorcery setup, with adventurers as a sizable profession and social class, city-states as the main political model with everything from democracies to dictatorships as their government. Travel is possible but difficult and expensive, especially overland (the large adventurer profession is supported by a frankly ridiculous level of flora and mega-fauna), and outside the civilized areas plenty of humanoids still live in iron or even stone-age conditions.

One of the major differences is that because of the profusion of plant and animal-life, traditional agriculture didn't really develop. The cities are supported by hunting & gathering, which sometimes overlaps a bit with the more standard adventurers, plus a small amount of high-intensity agriculture for certain high-value crops, like spices and vices (tobacco, etc).

Well that's more of a credit system which was common in more local cultures where there was societal trust and you could keep track of transactions communally. Barter and later monetary economies is for when you can't trust the other party. I can't remember who it was but I've read a quite nice put down of Adam Smith's work which totally missed the point and saw barter as inherently more primitive than a monetary economy.
The biggest issue I see with basing more of the economy on barter is the issue of non-durable goods. Salt will last if you keep it dry, but things like sheep or wheat have a definite best-used-by date. I think most food will be produced locally, and trade will be for raw materials and for manufactured goods.

I was gonna put in a mention not to make the mistake that a farmer is dirt poor.
No, on the contrary, I want my populous to have lots of money to spend. The jobs may be hard and dangerous, but if you're strong enough, smart enough, or just plain lucky enough, you'll be able to eventually live in comfort, possibly even luxury. Of course it runs the other way to- screw up enough and nothing will protect you from losing the family fortune. I want to emphasize the meritocracy factors.

Be much easier to just look at what a decent handgun goes for and use that as a base for what people could afford.
That's a good idea- as soon as I figure out exactly what to put into google, I'm sure I'll start finding more stuff like this (https://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-480020.html).

As Brother Oni says "universal" currencies are less silly than one would think. In the times before fiat currency there was one effectively. In that gold and silver values/weights were used. It's actually not until we are off the goldstandard in the 1970s that's finally buried. And in a sense US dollars work that way today.
I figured the coin-sizes will be standardized, and each producer will stamp them with their own face, flag, family-seal, emblem, racial mark, etc.

To quote Varsaavius: "And what would the problem with that be?"
Some people do that every day as their JOB, and when they come home to relax all they really want to think about is how awesome it will be to punch a dragon in the face (http://media.wizards.com/2015/images/daily/cardart_EpicConfrontation.jpg).

As an aside, don't be too worried about making your monetary system too complicated - you're unlikely to beat the British system:
I think I'm gonna take Martin Greywolf's and make it like the dollar, where each coin is just worth a different amount. So a copper penny is 1, a copper piece is 5, a silver penny is 10, etc etc etc. Then all the prices will just be listed as numbers, and you don't have to convert between denominations.

As an aside, most game systems seem to use the 1:10:100 metric because it's easy to do the math for, but when you look at it closely it seems completely ridiculous. It's like a monetary system where the smallest bill is $1 and the largest is $100- imagine trying to buy cars (or horses) and houses with bags full of $100 bills and nothing large.
The ancient Babylonians (and a few other cultures) had a unit of currency called the Talent, which was equal to 60 Minaes, which was equal to 60 Shekels. That puts the ratio at 1:3600; a whole order of magnitude and then some above the 1:100 setup. I think I'll have more than 3 denominations of currency, but that's the kind of scale I'm looking at.

Brother Oni

2017-11-30, 07:55 AM

As an aside, most game systems seem to use the 1:10:100 metric because it's easy to do the math for, but when you look at it closely it seems completely ridiculous. It's like a monetary system where the smallest bill is $1 and the largest is $100- imagine trying to buy cars (or horses) and houses with bags full of $100 bills and nothing large.

Which is why letters of credit and other methods of transferring currency were introduced, which evolved into a proper banking system.

Before the introduction of a banking system, transferring wealth from one country (or even town in another county) was done on a personal level, with someone you know giving you a letter of introduction to an associate of theirs in the new location. The Knights Templar expanded this letter of credit system so that a traveller could withdraw deposited funds from any Templar house.

These days, bank notes are technically worth nothing as they're merely promissory notes; in the UK, these are backed by the Governor of the Bank of England with a statement "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of" and the amount. Before the change to fiat currency, you could technically go to the Bank of England and exchange the note for the equivalent value of gold.

My D&D knowledge is a bit out of date, but even they had the copper:silver:electrum:gold:platinum system of 1:10:50:100:500 relative value.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-30, 02:13 PM

My D&D knowledge is a bit out of date, but even they had the copper:silver:electrum:gold:platinum system of 1:10:50:100:500 relative value.
I had forgotten about Platinum- if I recall rightly in 3.5 it's just 10 times the gold coin, so it's 1:10:100:1000. Except everything is still listed in it's price in gold, and I don't recall ever seeing anything about electrum coins.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-30, 05:17 PM

I had forgotten about Platinum- if I recall rightly in 3.5 it's just 10 times the gold coin, so it's 1:10:100:1000. Except everything is still listed in it's price in gold, and I don't recall ever seeing anything about electrum coins.

I think Electrum is from Planescape. Kingdoms of Kalamar has a glass coin thats worth 5 GP, which i always thought is neat.

This is almost exactly coat of plates or brigandine - the difference between the two is a matter of size of individual plates more than anything.

Your exact idea has one problem - it's heavy. You will already need a gambeson on you, so what you're doing is creating an alternative or addition to chain mail. However, with your design (if I understand in correctly), you basically have double the plates per area of body when compared to a plate. Not only that, you have a lot of fabric there needed to make proper pockets.

It would take anyone about five minutes to come up with an idea of just riveting the plates on a layer of fabric with slight overlap at the edges and... well, what we have here now is coat of plates.

So, it's not that your armor is unable to stop strikes or too heavy to use, it's just that we already have an armor type offering comparable protection with less weight. Think an assault rifle with wooden furniture vs plastic furniture.

I think you have it more or less correct, though im not sure what you mean by "double the amount of plates" They overlap, but not a ton. Mostly its just to make sure a blade tip can't get caught in between the plates, which is something i think could happen with a coat of plates.

Deepbluediver

2017-11-30, 05:27 PM

I think Electrum is from Planescape. Kingdoms of Kalamar has a glass coin thats worth 5 GP, which i always thought is neat.
I'll try to look both of those up, particularly the glass coins which sound really neat; I want to know if the setting keeps them from being mass-forged. It also got me wondering if something like glass beads might be a more durable shape.
I figured I'd use the standard precious metals, copper, silver, gold, & platinum, with platinum coins being a non-standard (https://www.fleur-de-coin.com/articles/unusual-coins) shape to help differentiate them from silver. Only the smallest denomination coins, iron bits, where going to be made from a base-metal so that it wasn't worthwhile to forge them.

Max_Killjoy

2017-11-30, 05:33 PM

I think Electrum is from Planescape.

Electrum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrum) coins in D&D date back to at least the original edition of AD&D, and were listed in the PHB as standard currency.

Blackhawk748

2017-11-30, 07:11 PM

I'll try to look both of those up, particularly the glass coins which sound really neat; I want to know if the setting keeps them from being mass-forged. It also got me wondering if something like glass beads might be a more durable shape.
I figured I'd use the standard precious metals, copper, silver, gold, & platinum, with platinum coins being a non-standard (https://www.fleur-de-coin.com/articles/unusual-coins) shape to help differentiate them from silver. Only the smallest denomination coins, iron bits, where going to be made from a base-metal so that it wasn't worthwhile to forge them.

Ya in KoK its one city state in Renaria Bay that makes them, though the coin is honored regionally. Also i dont think its actually a coin shape, but i cant be bothered to go look it up :smalltongue:

Electrum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrum) coins in D&D date back to at least the original edition of AD&D, and were listed in the PHB as standard currency.

Huh, guess 3.5 dropped that

Mr Beer

2017-11-30, 07:19 PM

D&D got round the problem of insufficiently high denomination coins by using gems for large transactions. Makes me think that there could be an analogy to the real world 1ct diamond trade. So maybe the standardised 1,000gp gem complete with assay certificate.

A particular type of D&D economy could also run on a standard magic item currency unit e.g. the Standard Magic Longsword (SML-backed currency).

Vinyadan

2017-11-30, 08:41 PM

rs2excelsior

2017-12-01, 01:29 AM

Regarding coinage in D&D, I typically don't worry about the exact coins/denominations. When you're walking into a mage's guild and commissioning a magic item for 50,000 gp, I assume you aren't carrying that many gold coins around; but you have that amount of coins/gems/precious metals/whatever, so long as it is in a form that works reasonably well as currency. By the time you're up to that point the exact coinage doesn't matter that much.

I was thinking of a setting where different city states minted their own coins and depending on the reputation would be accepted either at face value or for less outside of that city (or maybe even in the city, if the rulers had a particular habit of debasing currency). But it probably would be a lot more work than it's worth. Much easier to just say "you find a bag of coins worth X amount of Y standard currency." Has the same effect in the long term with a lot less hassle.

Clistenes

2017-12-01, 03:00 AM

Aes signatum FTW

BTW, they recently found Roman coins from the time of Constantine the Great beneath a medieval castle in Japan. I guess that they got around.

https://www.google.de/amp/world.greekreporter.com/2016/09/29/ancient-coins-bearing-byzantine-emperor-constantine-the-first-found-in-japan/amp/

Japan didn't mint its own coins until the Edo period, save some minor attempts to copy chinese copper coins, so it imported a lot of foreign coins, mostly China's copper currency...

As for Byzantium, they imported chinese silk, so it wasn't so strange for their coins to end in China.

Japan and China had at times a diplomatic envoys/gift exchange/official trade system in place, and most items exchanged were coin, precious materials and luxury wares.

What I find surprising is the date. Japan didn't really opened to the outside world until centuries after Constantine's time... they were literally prehistoric (as, they didn't even know how to write) during Constantine's reign. Both American and Japanese media tend to portray Japanese culture as ancient, but they are babies when compared to China or Europe...

Brother Oni

2017-12-01, 12:16 PM

Huh, guess 3.5 dropped that

Yes, the last version of D&D I played was the Red Box edition, so pre-dating even AD&D.

God I feel old now... :smallsigh:

Yora

2017-12-03, 06:23 AM

snowblizz

2017-12-03, 06:46 AM

The armour is types that were common to Eastern Europe, Russia and further into the steppes. You'll note those are Russian reanactors.

The syle is of the 11th-13th centuries about. It's going to look rather strange since it combines Scandinavian, European, Byzantine, Steppe and Islamo-turcic features. In no particular order.

And is indeed a mail hauberk underneath scale and lamellar cuirasses. Does it have a name? Probably, my guess whatever "armour" is in Russian or some other slavic language. Someone more versed in eastern europe stuff can probably give a better anwser.

Not sure there's anything spectacularly noteworthy, other than that the style is strongly mixed from various influences. Obviously draws heavily from the steppe lineage of mounted archer warfare being scale/lamellar for flexibility. I'm a strong believer in lamellar amrour is lamellar armour, plate armour is plate armour (whether made in the West or East)and there's not a lot of point in trying to find categorisation that weren't relevant for the people using it.:smallbiggrin:

Yora

2017-12-03, 08:29 AM

I didn't know about the Byzantine influence, but it's really apparent now.

Byzantine design is actually a really cool reference for fantasy cultures. A nice blend of Roman, Persian, and medieval influences, and one which I think I've never really seen used before. Could be a great fit for the big southern city states in my new setting.

Clistenes

2017-12-03, 09:04 AM

Kiero

2017-12-03, 10:46 AM

Lamellar is much, much older than 11th-13th century. There are examples of it in the same region in antiquity, over a millenia earlier.

Yora

2017-12-03, 10:50 AM

So is mail. But the helmets make a pretty narrow time period iidentifiable.

HeadlessMermaid

2017-12-03, 12:20 PM

So is mail. But the helmets make a pretty narrow time period iidentifiable.
The first picture is Russian armour, 10th-11th century.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/b5/13/f3b5134aaa932fb6273f304d2e4c0c20.jpg
The 2nd is obviously inspired by Byzantine armour (very similar with what the Rus used), and the imagery is from all over including an Orthodox St. George killing the dragon, a Celtic cross, an English lion...

If you want some quick visuals, go to Google Images and search for "Byzantine armour Osprey" (or Russian, etc). From there you can either pick what pleases you aesthetically, or, if you want to simulate something specific, focus on a period/region and refine your search.

Kiero

2017-12-03, 12:48 PM

So is mail. But the helmets make a pretty narrow time period iidentifiable.

Looks like a konos helm with a bit of chasing/repoussé work on it. They're pretty old too.

Vinyadan

2017-12-03, 04:07 PM

You probably can see that sort of armour in Eisenstein's Aleksandr Nevsky, if you like old movies.

Martin Greywolf

2017-12-03, 05:24 PM

On Russian armor

Don't equate Russian with eastern European, and don't forget that Russia at this time doesn't exist - even less so than, say, Germany. Russian armor has one very specific origin that more southern parts of eastern Europe lack - Scandinavia. The gist of it is that Scandinavian colonization efforts during the viking age led to a whole lot of what is modern Ukraine, Russia, Crimea and Turkey being inhabited by Scandinavian-origin colonists that then sort of merged with local communities into sort of a hybrid.

Most well known example of this is the Varangian Guard in Byzantium, the equipment they used was essentially the same as that of the "Russian" area, mostly because that is exactly where they came from. Lamellar armor itself is harder to trace to its origins, but I'd say it was ultimately either Parthia or China - the style was widely used on the steppes, often for leather armor.

As you go south, however, differences swiftly emerge, even between Slavic tribes. Northern Slavs adopted more of a viking style to their arms and armor, southern tended to have more of a thing of their own, mostly influenced by germanic stuff, although this is a bit of a chicken or the egg thing. You see stuff like different axe heads, southern Slavs using strapped shields and later much quicker adoption of crossbows.

Eastern Europe armor c1000

You tend to see three three spheres of influence, let's call them western, nomad and russian. Western is your mailed knight, you folks described russian one pretty well here and nomad is lightly armored horse archer, with heavy units being less common and equipped more like the russian ones (also different base clothes and padded armor solutions).

Of the local kingdoms, area of modern Russia has mostly russian style with some nomad, Poland has russian combined with some western in roughly 50/50 ratio, Hungary has western with some Russian and nomad influence thrown in and Byzantium has an even mix of all - one thing they seemed to excel at was taking good ideas from foreign armies and organizing them better. Serbia, Bulgaria and the rest of the Balkans have Hungary-like equipment with varying degrees of nomad and Byzantine influence. Nomads themselves have their own style with whatever they managed to acquire via plunder, trade or bribes, seeing some of them with chinese weapons/armor isn't that unusual.

One notable detail is that mercenaries are used freely, and it's nothing unusual to see Hungarian army sacking a Polish city with reinforcements from Byzantium, all the while both sackers and sackees employ nomad mercenries or allied chieftains.

rrgg

2017-12-03, 05:24 PM

We've discussed the subject of early modern armor before in these threads. I came across this section from James Turner's 1683 *Pallas Armata* where he laments the fact that modern soldiers typically don't wear armor any more.

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

It seems that to his contemporaries, one of the main issues with armor was its inconvenience.

. . . because the long and continuated marches of our Modern Armies, not only for many days, but for many weeks and months, both in the extream heat of Summer, and the rainy and tempestuous weather of winter, require that the Souldiers should be eased of the weight and trouble of their Defensive Arms, that when less toyl they may endure and undergo those marches.

He disagrees, however.

To which I shall answer, first that we have no such Marches now adays, as the Ancients, especially the Romans had. . .

He also argues that if the souldiers trained and exercised in armor every day, they would get used to the weight.

On the subject of armored horsemen:

Here I must answer an Objection, which is this, if the armour for Horsemen be not Musket-proof, either the Bullet pierceth through, or beats the Iron into the Horsemans bod, which is equally dangerous; if it be proof, it is exceeding troublesome to both man and horse; but I answer that there hath been, and are at this day Arms made that are proof, and of no considerable weight, and it is supposed a Curiassier should be of a strong body, and should ride a horse that for height and strength should be fit for that service. . .

According to him then, in 1683 it was possible to make armor that was both musket-proof and relatively lightweight. So perhaps the knowledge of how to make high quality steel armor hadn't been completely lost. It might also be in part due to the fact that the typical musket in Turner's day had become slightly weaker, (shooting a 1.33 oz. ball instead of a 2 oz. ball like the 16th century Spanish musket did).

That he says "either the Bullet pierceth through, or beats the Iron into the Horsemans bod, which is equally dangerous" is interesting to me. Perhaps one of the reason makers started to prefer softer, wrought-iron plates was a concern that harder plates might come out too brittle, sending shrapnel into the wearer when struck? Unfortunately I don't know enough about metallurgy to tell if that would be true.

Vitruviansquid

2017-12-03, 06:37 PM

Blackhawk748

2017-12-03, 06:42 PM

Vinyadan

2017-12-03, 07:10 PM

Camping toilets? Soap? TNT? A compass?

Soap was actually the idea of two scientists in a short story by Primo Levi. They had been studying a native tribe of the Amazon, where useless people were killed due to very low resources, and had therefore been imprisoned and sought for ideas to show that they were useful before their scheduled execution.

Galloglaich

2017-12-03, 07:44 PM

I was looking for new options for fantasy armor that don't look like the common medieval knight or samurai types but are also closely based on armor that actually exists and looks cool, and I came across this:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/9f/44/059f44256e3a9bc26288fd2cbd77cbd1.jpg

http://www.beastsofwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Medieval-Russians.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e7/93/a2/e793a2b7881ea554cb2fdea357035668--military-uniforms-military-history.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a0/b7/3d/a0b73d4a785208c1ff1ed30698f349d1--medieval-russia-lamellar-armor.jpg

It looks very realistic and perhaps even authentic and also satisfies my wishes for looking badass. Heavy, but also a bit low tech. I like it.

What can you tell me about it?

I guess it would be lamellar over a mail hauberg and a spectacle helmet with a mail aventail. But does this combination have an established name and does it have any noteworthy traits compared to other types of medieval armor?

There was a specific type of armor panoply that the Byzantines used called "Klibanion" or "Klivanion" (κλιβάνιον), which consisted of lamellar over mail with some other plates or strips of iron (very loosely analogous to what Gary Gygax used to call 'split mail') on some of the limbs.

This was considered effective but heavy and was mainly worn by Clibanari / Cataphract heavy-cavalry. The Byzantine Anna Comnena describes a Byzantine noble being hit with a full lance charge which knocked him half out of his saddle, but being unharmed due to his klibanion. The word seems to be linked to the name for cavalry - so it means something like 'armor of the oven men'.

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

The Swedish Varangians and Rus / Russians seem to have adopted this at least some of the time, though it's unclear how popular it really was.

By the High Middle Ages in Rus city-states you start to see indications of something which looks similar but is a bit different - mail armor with small iron or steel plates linked into the mail itself. This seems to be unique to the Rus areas (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus etc.) and into Central Asia as you don't really see it in other parts of Europe. This armor is sometimes called 'Bakhterets' or ''Yushman' but is also known by many other terms, in Rus lands and also in Persia, India, Turkey etc.

There are some threads on this type of armor in Myarmoury which is probably your best open-to-the-public source.

https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7075

This is a re-enactor wearing some

http://www.xenophon-mil.org/rushistory/medievalarmor/alexnev1.jpg

And this is some antique armor of that type. It's pretty cool looking and probably a bit better protection against arrows than just regular mail, but not nearly as heavy as all the layers of Klibanion.

These are Russian:

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/db/66/89/db668902226117da302b4fb8b81677d2.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b2/c6/fd/b2c6fd4003406cf02e49a01d90762acf--chain-mail-st-petersburg-russia.jpg

I think this one is Persian or South Asian

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/8d/63/f48d631b6985d6513029663b7de4598e.jpg

This is a full panoply, I think Russian

http://media.snimka.bg/7803/021860472-big.jpg

Closeup of armor

https://jamesdjulia.com/wp-content/uploads/images/auctions/358/images/lrg/51026x4.jpg

Some Russian artists from the 19th and early 20th Century made very accurate depictions of this type of armor, for example many by Viktor Vasnetsov as you can see here:

https://uploads0.wikiart.org/images/viktor-vasnetsov/a-knight-at-the-crossroads-1878.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Die_drei_Bogatyr.jpg/1024px-Die_drei_Bogatyr.jpg

Those guys in the paintings, incidentally, are Bogatyr, a special type of Rus knight-errant of whom there was quite a rich body of literature, mainly from Veliky Novgorod, one of the great Rus city-states - arguably the greatest in the medieval period, though eclipsed by Muscovy in the late 15th Century.

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

You can go into a really fun rabbit-hole reading about those dudes. Great RPG story-hook fodder.

G

Max_Killjoy

2017-12-03, 07:54 PM

Vasnetsov's Knight at the Crossroads has a very Witcher video game vibe to it.

Would not surprise me if the creative people behind that franchise were familiar with his work.

Galloglaich

2017-12-03, 07:55 PM

Let's say you were magically transported back in time with nothing but the clothes on your back. You end up in the court of a historical monarch, who is skeptical of your claim to be from the future. He (or she) tells you, "teach me one thing from the future that I can implement right now that my armies can use on campaign, and I will make you an advisor in my court and reward you richly. However, if the technology you would teach me does not help me, or cannot be adequately explained by you, or cannot be implemented, then I will know you are a charlatan and I will execute you."

What would you teach the monarch?

What if this monarch was Alexander the Great? What if it was Constantine?

I would explain how to smelt and forge steel and how to heat-treat it to make large swords, springs (like crossbow prods) and steel armor.

What if it was William the Conquerer?

I would show him how to use the cam slider and cam shaft to build a Barcelona hammer and a Catalan forge & a blast furnace to create steel on a large scale. I would teach him / them how to use war-wagons with crossbows. I would teach him the use of the rudder, the keel and the compass and the advantages of the lateen sail. I would show him how to convert stamping mills into paper mills and how to modify an olive press for wood-block printing (I lack the metalurgical skill to make movable type fonts).

I would reveal the (Arab and Greek) sources to use for the formulae and techniques necessary to distill acids used in mining such as Aqua Regia and Aqua Fortis.

I would show him some advanced techniques for making cyphers he might not be familiar with (though he might).

Genghis Khan? Oda Nobunaga, assuming he's already learned about matchlock guns?

Edit: challenge mode: the technology cannot involve gunpowder

I think it would be so unethical to give any technological / military aid to Genghis Khan that I hope I would have the courage to let him execute me instead. He killed enough people as it was! Teaching the other tyrants would be bad enough.

If i was too cowardly for that I would teach him the same things as William the Conquerer or maybe some siege techniques.

Kublai Khan apparently asked Marco Polo to teach him memory palace techniques and the Seven Liberal Arts so I could get into some of that, at least on a general level if they were interested.

G

Galloglaich

2017-12-03, 07:57 PM

Vasnetsov's Knight at the Crossroads has a very Witcher video game vibe to it.

Would not surprise me if the creative people behind that franchise were familiar with his work.

I would say that is pretty much guaranteed. Andrzej Sapkowski is very familiar with the history and mythology of Poland and the whole region around it, and I think most people in that part of the world are familiar with Vasnetsov and a whole constellation of other artists and authors, much as we in the West know Tolkein and Robert E. Howard and so on.

G

Galloglaich

2017-12-03, 08:09 PM

The big one in Poland is Henryk Sienkiewicz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Sienkiewicz)
whose 'With Fire and Sword' historical novels are probably comparable to Tolkein for Eastern Europe. And a variant of Mount and Blade though i have never tried it.

http://www.bluedreamfilm.pl/images/portfolio/full-width-55-360x360.jpg

http://www.oocities.org/rcda_sg/Media/int8.jpg

Vitruviansquid

2017-12-03, 08:31 PM

That really depends on the period. I'd have to take a look at what they already have to know what i could improve or flat out make up. I mean, something as simple as a scalpel with basic medical hygiene could do it depending on the period.

And in order:

1.Crossbows
2.Crossbows
3.Crossbows
4. Clear lines of succession
5. Flintlocks and rifled cannons

I'm very certain crossbows have been around since Constantine, if not Alexander the Great. Maybe you could justify an upgrade to a particular part of the crossbow? As I understand, Romans have been using technologies like it since before Constantine, in the form of larger scale catapults and scorpions.

I expect Genghis Khan knows about how non-Mongolians work succession, especially if we are talking about him after a few conquests, and he merely prefers traditional succession?

I'm actually curious what kinds of pre-requisites rifled cannons have. Were they only made possible after certain advancements in metallurgy, or would they have been possible but not obvious to Oda Nobunaga? According to Wikipedia's entry on "Rifling," the technique was known since the 16th century, but not widely used until the 19th century because black powder would foul the barrels.

Camping toilets? Soap? TNT? A compass?

Soap was actually the idea of two scientists in a short story by Primo Levi. They had been studying a native tribe of the Amazon, where useless people were killed due to very low resources, and had therefore been imprisoned and sought for ideas to show that they were useful before their scheduled execution.

I wonder how it plays out in your head to explain how to make TNT to Alexander the Great.

Blackhawk748

2017-12-03, 09:16 PM

I'm very certain crossbows have been around since Constantine, if not Alexander the Great. Maybe you could justify an upgrade to a particular part of the crossbow? As I understand, Romans have been using technologies like it since before Constantine, in the form of larger scale catapults and scorpions.

I expect Genghis Khan knows about how non-Mongolians work succession, especially if we are talking about him after a few conquests, and he merely prefers traditional succession?

I'm actually curious what kinds of pre-requisites rifled cannons have. Were they only made possible after certain advancements in metallurgy, or would they have been possible but not obvious to Oda Nobunaga? According to Wikipedia's entry on "Rifling," the technique was known since the 16th century, but not widely used until the 19th century because black powder would foul the barrels.

They were, they just didnt use them in war in Europe until much later (for whatever strange reason). Apparently they where great for bird hunting though.

That was mostly a joke.

The fouling is why i went with cannons, its a bit easier to clean them than a musket. The other reason was it was more work for not a huge improvement. Im going with it cuz im not sure if Japan was aware of it at the time.

I wonder how it plays out in your head to explain how to make TNT to Alexander the Great.

"I want you to imagine a miniature Volcano...."

Vinyadan

2017-12-03, 09:56 PM

Make aqua regia, add silver (obtain nitric acid).
Mix fuming nitric acid with starch or wood fiber.
Blow it up.

This wasn't TNT, it was xyloïdin. Ask Alexander the Great if he wants more and better.

Yora

2017-12-04, 01:13 AM

Byzantium has an even mix of all - one thing they seemed to excel at was taking good ideas from foreign armies and organizing them better.

No surprise. They are Romans, after all.

snowblizz

2017-12-04, 04:07 AM

Lamellar is much, much older than 11th-13th century. There are examples of it in the same region in antiquity, over a millenia earlier.
That's not what I said.

I said the type of armour pictured is from that about that period and place based on all the other evidence in the pictures. I went and cross referenced with 2 Osprey books on Russian* medieval troops. One of the pictures looks like it is *from* an Osprey book.
The Fireforge games picture is from their Medieval Russian infantry, placed around the time of Alexandre Nevsky. So yea, I'm going with about 11-13th century, give or take a century at each end.

*not actually Russian Russian, but that's the only place I would expect the average reader to find on a map.

Martin Greywolf

2017-12-04, 05:08 AM

I would say that is pretty much guaranteed. Andrzej Sapkowski is very familiar with the history and mythology of Poland and the whole region around it, and I think most people in that part of the world are familiar with Vasnetsov and a whole constellation of other artists and authors, much as we in the West know Tolkein and Robert E. Howard and so on.

G

Not really, only internationally known authors among the former Soviet block are Sapkowski and maybe Sienkiewicz and Lukjanenko. The reasons behind this mostly run down to borderline fetish all of the former Soviets got for western works after the curtain fell, with a solid dash of nationalistic and anti-soviet animosities. There's not an awful lot of cultural cross-linking going on here.

Even Sienkiewicz is more of a catholic and historical fiction writer than anything like Tolkien, his most well known work by far around here is Quo Vadis, especially since Fire and Sword has a lot of Polish nationalism, so a lot of non-Poles find it a bit too on the nose. If you're looking for LotR in Eastern Europe, Sapkowski's Narrenturm trilogy should be your first stop, being based on Hussite wars with a dash of magic thrown in.

You may also notice all of these people mostly got their fame post-1989, that is not a coincidence. Fantasy and most of the sci fi were discouraged at best and imprisonable offense at worst before that, so you don't really have Tolkien-like figures with both a wide influence and a long time for that influence to spread. The closest would probably be Strugatsky brothers.

tl;dr Most people in my part of world have no idea who Vasnetsov is, let alone know a constellation of authors. Eastern European Tolkien and Howard are, well, Tolkien and Howard, and you have to be a pretty big fantasy fan to know anything other than the Witcher. Even most local TTRPGs are either re-skins of DnD, attempts at simulating the Witcher verse or both, with few notable exceptions.

snowblizz

2017-12-04, 07:38 AM

Not really, only internationally known authors among the former Soviet block are Sapkowski and maybe Sienkiewicz and Lukjanenko. The reasons behind this mostly run down to borderline fetish all of the former Soviets got for western works after the curtain fell, with a solid dash of nationalistic and anti-soviet animosities. There's not an awful lot of cultural cross-linking going on here.

Even Sienkiewicz is more of a catholic and historical fiction writer than anything like Tolkien, his most well known work by far around here is Quo Vadis, especially since Fire and Sword has a lot of Polish nationalism, so a lot of non-Poles find it a bit too on the nose. If you're looking for LotR in Eastern Europe, Sapkowski's Narrenturm trilogy should be your first stop, being based on Hussite wars with a dash of magic thrown in.

tl;dr Most people in my part of world have no idea who Vasnetsov is, let alone know a constellation of authors. Eastern European Tolkien and Howard are, well, Tolkien and Howard, and you have to be a pretty big fantasy fan to know anything other than the Witcher.
I think what G meant was that they could have been generally known and shared cultural aspects, the few who haven't read Tolkien in the west can sorta pin it down to elfs and halflings or some such, not necessarily Soviet-hobbits (though that would probably be it's own kind of awesome). I think you make a fair point about the system not being so fond of flights of fancy, fairytales, fantasy and such belonging to a "mysticism" box along with religion. At least that's the impression I get. It seems sci-fi was more a communist thing, especially the stuff showing the brave new world of technology and progress it was gonna lead to. Star Trek but waaay over the top sort of. Didn't Asimov write a lot of his stuff under the suffocating blanket of Soviet censors? IIRC some things he did was clearly painting socialism better to appease the world around him?

Max_Killjoy

2017-12-04, 07:45 AM

Vinyadan

2017-12-04, 09:55 AM

Zamyatin and Bulgakov, good times. Although they are more satirical than hard sci fi.

snowblizz

2017-12-04, 09:56 AM

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

His family left the USSR for the US when he was three.

Well oops!

Then I don't quite know who I am thinking of. One of those random things I remember seeing mentioned but can't exactly attribute anymore. I remember the analysis saying all future utopias were strongly socialist in nature and blaiming it on the author's conenctions. Maybe it was still Asimov but meant less literally. Or whoever wrote it had ODed on Macartyism.
Sci-fi is not my thing, only run into it by accident here and there.

Max_Killjoy

2017-12-04, 10:04 AM

Zamyatin and Bulgakov, good times. Although they are more satirical than hard sci fi.

Zamyatin's We should be required reading for all high school students at this point, with its prescient depiction of a all-controlling surveillance state.

(Also on that reading list, Brave New World, 1984, and Anthem -- sadly most schools are terrified of the notion that their students might come to question authority, hierarchy, and obedience.)

wolflance

2017-12-04, 10:08 AM

Most well known example of this is the Varangian Guard in Byzantium, the equipment they used was essentially the same as that of the "Russian" area, mostly because that is exactly where they came from. Lamellar armor itself is harder to trace to its origins, but I'd say it was ultimately either Parthia or China - the style was widely used on the steppes, often for leather armor.

I keep reading about the laments (?) of Varangian reenactors that virtually nothing about their looks is known for certain. Most if not all of their kit (Byzantine/Russian-like lamellar over mail, splinted limbs etc) are either imagined, speculated or conjectured from their place of origin/from their Byzantine master.

For lamellar armor, as far as I am aware, Byzantine lamellar (or at least the reconstruction of it) looks nothing like the Parthia and/or Chinese style lamellar, but Russian style is much be closer to the Mongol/Chinese style.

Lamellar is much, much older than 11th-13th century. There are examples of it in the same region in antiquity, over a millenia earlier.
The dead giveaway is the hand protection, which really wasn't all that common until 11-13th century.

Deepbluediver

2017-12-04, 10:17 AM

I keep reading about the laments (?) of Varangian reenactors that virtually nothing about their looks is known for certain. Most if not all of their kit (Byzantine/Russian-like lamellar over mail, splinted limbs etc) are either imagined, speculated or conjectured from their place of origin/from their Byzantine master.

For lamellar armor, as far as I am aware, Byzantine lamellar (or at least the reconstruction of it) looks nothing like the Parthia and/or Chinese style lamellar, but Russian style is much be closer to the Mongol/Chinese style.
Just the other day I was trying to find information about medieval (or earlier) leather-armor, and most of the stuff I read seemed to say that scholars don't actually know much about it, because leather rots away much quicker than metal under most circumstances. They are certain it was used for things like straps or backing (lamellar) or as an under-layer, but the full-body leather suits as presented in a lot of fantasy works seems to be more of an open question.

I found myself Googling leather motorcycle suits, and I was wondering if anyone has experience with historical reenactment or LARPing might offer some response on the viability of that type of gear.

Yora

2017-12-04, 10:34 AM

Mongol leather lamellar appears to be pretty well accepted. Everything else seems to be completely fumbling in the dark and make believe.

There was a specific type of armor panoply that the Byzantines used called "Klibanion" or "Klivanion" (κλιβάνιον), which consisted of lamellar over mail with some other plates or strips of iron (very loosely analogous to what Gary Gygax used to call 'split mail') on some of the limbs.

That's a nice design. I think I am going to adapt that for the soldiers of the southern city states in my new setting.

wolflance

2017-12-04, 10:44 AM

I'm very certain crossbows have been around since Constantine, if not Alexander the Great. Maybe you could justify an upgrade to a particular part of the crossbow? As I understand, Romans have been using technologies like it since before Constantine, in the form of larger scale catapults and scorpions.

I expect Genghis Khan knows about how non-Mongolians work succession, especially if we are talking about him after a few conquests, and he merely prefers traditional succession?

I'm actually curious what kinds of pre-requisites rifled cannons have. Were they only made possible after certain advancements in metallurgy, or would they have been possible but not obvious to Oda Nobunaga? According to Wikipedia's entry on "Rifling," the technique was known since the 16th century, but not widely used until the 19th century because black powder would foul the barrels.

I wonder how it plays out in your head to explain how to make TNT to Alexander the Great.
Crossbow was around during the time of Constantine, and during Alexander's time, the oxybeles (and gastraphetes?). That being said, ancient crossbow was nowhere near as advance, sophisticated and powerful as medieval crossbow

(and for some reason nobody thought of mounting a sight on the weapon until 16th century, I think)

The Mongol did have some sort of hereditary bloodline succession (the "Golden family" or Borjigin), it is just that succession crisis will happen regardless.

For Oda Nobunaga, the problem isn't just about the cannon, but transportation, ammunition, and gunpowder (very hard to move around heavy artillery in Japan, they had to import gunpowder material, and few iron resource)

Vinyadan

2017-12-04, 10:46 AM

As far as I know, the only reliable representation of the Varangian Guard is in the Madrid Skylitzes codex. It's not much.
About leather, there is boiled leather. The other thing is that the Latin word coriacea, from which comes cuirass, literally means "made of leather", so it is generally assumed that, at least at an early age, armour was made of leather.
There remain of course some questions, like the fact that leather protection didn't have to be meant for the battlefield: I am quite certain that the Romans had leather forearm and shin protections, for hunting and forestry. So the word might have been carried over to metal protection meant for fighting.
Leather was used a lot for shields and to make things fireproof, untreated leather in particular iirc. We have leather shield covers from the Roman legions in Germania.

wolflance

2017-12-04, 10:54 AM

Just the other day I was trying to find information about medieval (or earlier) leather-armor, and most of the stuff I read seemed to say that scholars don't actually know much about it, because leather rots away much quicker than metal under most circumstances. They are certain it was used for things like straps or backing (lamellar) or as an under-layer, but the full-body leather suits as presented in a lot of fantasy works seems to be more of an open question.

I found myself Googling leather motorcycle suits, and I was wondering if anyone has experience with historical reenactment or LARPing might offer some response on the viability of that type of gear.
Unfortunately the lack of resource also cause many "experts" and YouTubers to dismiss the effectiveness of leather, even considering it to be worse than gambeson.

At the moment only Skallagrim's piece of leather appears to do leather armor justice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEVjxLrc9k). There are also multiple ways to reinforce the leather (boiling, compressing, laminating, tung oil, lacquering, + wood to form composites etc), yet their effects remain unexplored.

If you look outside of Europe you can still find plenty of examples of full body leather armor, although usually in the form of lamellar. Horse armor was more commonly made of leather as well.

Galloglaich

2017-12-04, 11:14 AM

I think what G meant was that they could have been generally known and shared cultural aspects, the few who haven't read Tolkien in the west can sorta pin it down to elfs and halflings or some such, not necessarily Soviet-hobbits (though that would probably be it's own kind of awesome). I think you make a fair point about the system not being so fond of flights of fancy, fairytales, fantasy and such belonging to a "mysticism" box along with religion. At least that's the impression I get. It seems sci-fi was more a communist thing, especially the stuff showing the brave new world of technology and progress it was gonna lead to. Star Trek but waaay over the top sort of. Didn't Asimov write a lot of his stuff under the suffocating blanket of Soviet censors? IIRC some things he did was clearly painting socialism better to appease the world around him?

You definitely do have strong Sci Fi from Slavic countries, including well before the wall came down - Stanislaw Lem is the giant there, internationally popular and one of his films was adapted by the great Soviet filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky (and then again many years later by Hollywood).

https://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheGraphics/covers/DVD/solaris_dvd_it_Cover.jpg

https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1261069262l/1282668.jpg

Lem was wildly popular all over Europe, and not cautious, or in a way he was, but he walked a really fine line which matched the rising curve of his popularity and definitely pushed the limits. His work was sardonic and subversive, ranging from hilarious satirical fairy tales to much sharper, much harder Sci Fi like Solaris. His Futurological Congress was a Philip K. **** style absurd dystopia and sharp social criticism (like Philip K. ****, accurately predicting many of the grimmer aspects of modern life). His Memoires found in a bathtub, nominally a satire of the CIA, was a very effective Orwellian / absurdist send up of the Communist police state as well.

You also have guys like the Czech author Karel Capek, inventor of the word Robot (in his famous novel RUR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.) also has some Philip K. **** vibes) and his War with the Newts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_with_the_Newts) is a hilarious satirical Sci Fi gem which is hard to compare to anything else I know of.

As for the East European fantasy authors, I get my sense of this from the HEMA scene, and that might be a little skewed. Every HEMA fighter I've met from Poland, Czech, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, or Sweden seems to know all about Seinkeweick and Sapovsky, and you see art from painters like Billibin and Vasnetsov showing up in art from over there routinely on their Facebook posts. It seems to be part of the whole re-enactor / pagan metal scene over there as well which a lot of them are linked to. I'm only just now starting to meet Russians, mostly from St. Petersburg in the HEMA world so I don't really know what their tastes are like. And admittedly I only know a handful of fencers from Slovakia (Anton Kuhotovic and his group) and one from Hungary and she's no longer doing HEMA.

http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/bilibin9.jpg

I think it may just be an outgrowth of the internet, if you google certain search terms, and words for things like 'sword', 'knight', 'armor' etc. by their Slavic or German names you'll often find this art. That's how I originally ran across it anyway.

G

Deepbluediver

2017-12-04, 11:19 AM

Mongol leather lamellar appears to be pretty well accepted. Everything else seems to be completely fumbling in the dark and make believe.
When you say "leather lamellar" do you mean something entirely made of leather, with pieces stitched together? Or do you mean a leather sheet with small pieces of something else attached to it? My understanding of lamellar was that it was one large piece of cloth or leather with small metal (or wood I guess) scales sewn on to it.

There remain of course some questions, like the fact that leather protection didn't have to be meant for the battlefield: I am quite certain that the Romans had leather forearm and shin protections, for hunting and forestry. So the word might have been carried over to metal protection meant for fighting.
Leather was used a lot for shields and to make things fireproof, untreated leather in particular iirc. We have leather shield covers from the Roman legions in Germania.
Yeah, it was definitely used as a component of armor, I was curious about it's use as the primary material to adsorb hits and such.

Unfortunately the lack of resource also cause many "experts" and YouTubers to dismiss the effectiveness of leather, even considering it to be worse than gambeson.
That is one of the things I read, which surprised me because I remember how tough a baseball glove would feel.

At the moment only Skallagrim's piece of leather appears to do leather armor justice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEVjxLrc9k). There are also multiple ways to reinforce the leather (boiling, compressing, laminating, tung oil, lacquering, + wood to form composites etc), yet their effects remain unexplored.
That was a neat video, thank you. One thing that struck me was that he was using full two-handed swings on a stationary target; I'm thinking that most fighters wouldn't just stand there and let you wail on them, so that leather might be sufficiently effective to ward off glancing blows.

Max_Killjoy

2017-12-04, 11:40 AM

Speaking of Skall, here he is musing on the swords vs other weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixyEjSXAJ5U

wolflance

2017-12-04, 11:56 AM

When you say "leather lamellar" do you mean something entirely made of leather, with pieces stitched together? Or do you mean a leather sheet with small pieces of something else attached to it? My understanding of lamellar was that it was one large piece of cloth or leather with small metal (or wood I guess) scales sewn on to it.
"Leather lamellar" is entirely made of leather (small leather plates joined to each other by leather lacing or other cords). Lamellar armor does not need a backing (i.e. small plates and cords are all there is), although some still have it.

https://i.imgur.com/nVtLfmA.jpg
(Inside of a metal lamellar armor)

That was a neat video, thank you. One thing that struck me was that he was using full two-handed swings on a stationary target; I'm thinking that most fighters wouldn't just stand there and let you wail on them, so that leather might be sufficiently effective to ward off glancing blows.
Which shows that how insanely tough leather armor actually is - that piece of leather actually resisted not just glancing blows, but quite a lot of directed powerful hits.

Skall also does dane axe/wood axe and light crossbow test on the leather. It resisted all but the heaviest blows from the axes, and survived nearly all crossbow shots excepts the one with a wicked hunting broadhead tip.

Vinyadan

2017-12-04, 12:00 PM

I wonder how people smelled after wearing leather armour all day. It doesn't strike me as perspirating.

Blackhawk748

2017-12-04, 12:13 PM

I wonder how people smelled after wearing leather armour all day. It doesn't strike me as perspirating.

It doesn't, and God does it get warm. I have a hardened leather vest for LARPing.

As far as historical viability goes I never actually questioned it. The biggest issue I see of non lamellar leather armor is that you can repair it. Once a cut is in it, it's there forever, unlike a gambeson or lamellar

Yora

2017-12-04, 12:17 PM

Galloglaich

2017-12-04, 12:36 PM

I wonder how people smelled after wearing leather armour all day. It doesn't strike me as perspirating.

Aside from not being that good at stopping blades, the problem with leather in general, is that if you make it thick enough to be relatively effective armor, it's very thick, and therefore stiff, heavy and bulky. You end up with leather about 13-15 oz (5-6mm) compared to 1-3mm (3mm on the front of the helmet and breast plate, 1-2mm everywhere else typically) for most iron steel armor in the medieval period. Leather isn't light and leather that thick is heavy, bulky and very stiff.

https://www.scaleatherarmor.com/images/product/large/bts-2480_5_.jpg
This isn't easy to move around or fight in even in a LARP or SCA fight

You can have a mail shirt weighing as little as ~10 lbs which is flexible, breathes and doesn't get in your way, more effective protection than a 15-20 lbs leather torso armor which is much harder to move in.

The persistent notion that leather armor is light, cheap and flexible is probably based on our experiences with things like leather motorcycle jackets, but those are only 2.5 oz leather, which is 1mm thick, and that definitely won't work for armor.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/cc/2e/be/cc2ebeec37c7d02fe3b890d93c3916b9.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/51/f1/1e51f11db4aab2b75a92a98d62dc9a9d.jpg

Lamellar helps fix the flexibility problem of 'armor grade' leather due to how it's put together. You also get some overlapping so it's effectively stronger for less thickness of individual lames. I believe the Mongols (and others in Asia) also used some kind of buffalo hide which was stronger and more suitable for armor, and therefore could be lighter than ordinary cow leather.

Leather was also cheaper for Mongols who were herding pastoral people, than for settled Latinized Europeans in the Middle Ages, for whom textiles and cloth was a big industry and therefore more economical for "poor mans" armor.

However all that said, and as much as I hate the "glancing blow" Trope, any kind of clothing and especially something relatively tough like leather does offer some protection. A good, well-done cut with a sharp blade will go through it, but not everybody cuts so well especially in the middle of a fight. Also, I think the Mongols main concern (depending on where and when precisely) was arrows, and leather lamellar probably protects pretty well against arrows.

G

Max_Killjoy

2017-12-04, 01:24 PM

Why I hate Hollywood combat...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCjYrTEioNI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drd8dQKr-oY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aVcMQffpTs

(Also why I hate YouTube and DMCA...)

Yora

2017-12-04, 01:38 PM

Aside from not being that good at stopping blades, the problem with leather in general, is that if you make it thick enough to be relatively effective armor, [...]

This all matches pretty much how far I got with my own research a year or two back.

I did an image search for "leather armor", and there wasn't a single result that I would consider as "genuine". :smallannoyed: There were two images of what looked like actual functional armor, but I'm not sure that they were not simply metal originals replicated in leather.

Deepbluediver

2017-12-04, 01:45 PM

"Leather lamellar" is entirely made of leather (small leather plates joined to each other by leather lacing or other cords). Lamellar armor does not need a backing (i.e. small plates and cords are all there is), although some still have it.

I mean armor with lamellar construction with leather as the protective material.
I thought the definition of lamellar armor what that it was plates attached to something else, and plates-woven-together was that they called scale-mail, but I know that the term "mail" (or "maille"?) is misused a lot. So apparently I was even more wrong than I thought.

Aside from not being that good at stopping blades, the problem with leather in general, is that if you make it thick enough to be relatively effective armor, it's very thick, and therefore stiff, heavy and bulky. You end up with leather about 13-15 oz (5-6mm) compared to 1-3mm (3mm on the front of the helmet and breast plate, 1-2mm everywhere else typically) for most iron steel armor in the medieval period. Leather isn't light and leather that thick is heavy, bulky and very stiff.

You can have a mail shirt weighing as little as ~10 lbs which is flexible, breathes and doesn't get in your way, more effective protection than a 15-20 lbs leather torso armor which is much harder to move in.

Leather was also cheaper for Mongols who were herding pastoral people, than for settled Latinized Europeans in the Middle Ages, for whom textiles and cloth was a big industry and therefore more economical for "poor mans" armor.
The impression I'm getting is that leather armor isn't necessarily bad, but that if you have access to fabrics and/or metallurgy, there are better options. So like a lot of stuff, it's realistic to have it but not all at once in the sort of fantasy-kitchen-sink that most games and many books and movies seem to operate in.

That is a really cool picture though.

The persistent notion that leather armor is light, cheap and flexible is probably based on our experiences with things like leather motorcycle jackets, but those are only 2.5 oz leather, which is 1mm thick, and that definitely won't work for armor.
I saw that notation- rating leather by weight, in a few other places as well, but what exactly does it refer to? Mostly stopping power boils down to thickness, right? How does 1mm=2.5 oz?

Why I hate Hollywood combat...
I've had this discussion before with other people (most recently in the "What Fantasy Tropes annoy you most" thread I think) but at some point you have to either stop watching shows for entertainment or accept that its easier to make things like cool than it is to make them realistic.

Lots of people have different points at which their suspension of disbelief breaks (for me my two most common triggers are first-aid and fist-fights) and it's easier to cater towards most people's previously-held misconceptions. As they say, knowledge is power but ignorance is bliss.

wolflance

2017-12-04, 02:00 PM

Aside from not being that good at stopping blades, the problem with leather in general, is that if you make it thick enough to be relatively effective armor, it's very thick, and therefore stiff, heavy and bulky. You end up with leather about 13-15 oz (5-6mm) compared to 1-3mm (3mm on the front of the helmet and breast plate, 1-2mm everywhere else typically) for most iron steel armor in the medieval period. Leather isn't light and leather that thick is heavy, bulky and very stiff.

https://www.scaleatherarmor.com/images/product/large/bts-2480_5_.jpg
This isn't easy to move around or fight in even in a LARP or SCA fight

You can have a mail shirt weighing as little as ~10 lbs which is flexible, breathes and doesn't get in your way, more effective protection than a 15-20 lbs leather torso armor which is much harder to move in.

The persistent notion that leather armor is light, cheap and flexible is probably based on our experiences with things like leather motorcycle jackets, but those are only 2.5 oz leather, which is 1mm thick, and that definitely won't work for armor.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/cc/2e/be/cc2ebeec37c7d02fe3b890d93c3916b9.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/51/f1/1e51f11db4aab2b75a92a98d62dc9a9d.jpg

Lamellar helps fix the flexibility problem of 'armor grade' leather due to how it's put together. You also get some overlapping so it's effectively stronger for less thickness of individual lames. I believe the Mongols (and others in Asia) also used some kind of buffalo hide which was stronger and more suitable for armor, and therefore could be lighter than ordinary cow leather.

Leather was also cheaper for Mongols who were herding pastoral people, than for settled Latinized Europeans in the Middle Ages, for whom textiles and cloth was a big industry and therefore more economical for "poor mans" armor.

However all that said, and as much as I hate the "glancing blow" Trope, any kind of clothing and especially something relatively tough like leather does offer some protection. A good, well-done cut with a sharp blade will go through it, but not everybody cuts so well especially in the middle of a fight. Also, I think the Mongols main concern (depending on where and when precisely) was arrows, and leather lamellar probably protects pretty well against arrows.

G
Leather is actually pretty resistant against cuts and pierce. Not as good as good quality metal armor, obviously, but better than the crappy ones.

It should be noted that thickness alone provides additional protective benefit to the armor, so it makes sense to make the armor as thick as possible (especially for less dense material) so long as it remains practical to use. Koreans for example allegedly created super thick cotton armor that even resisted 19th century US Army rifle (somewhat) reliably, and the armor is still light enough to be practical battle armor. OTOH, making a chainmail to achieve similar protection will probably make it too heavy.

Max_Killjoy

2017-12-04, 02:01 PM

I thought the definition of lamellar armor what that it was plates attached to something else, and plates-woven-together was that they called scale-mail, but I know that the term "mail" (or "maille"?) is misused a lot. So apparently I was even more wrong than I thought.

AFAIK, "scale" armor is little plates attached to a backing, lamellar armor is little plates laced together.

Galloglaich

2017-12-04, 02:31 PM

AFAIK, "scale" armor is little plates attached to a backing, lamellar armor is little plates laced together.

What he said.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Lamellar_lacing.gif

So long as you have the pieces cut out and the holes punched, it's actually easy to 'make' (assemble) and kind of fun. I think it works well too. You can buy leather, plastic or steel lames online pretty cheap.

I don't know what the leather thickness as measured by the ounce thing originates from, but if you google it there are charts which shows how to convert it to millimeters etc.

As for the quality of leather as protection, all I can say is I seen people have trouble cutting it (and have trouble cutting plastic water bottles too) if they cut wrong or have a dull sword, have cut a bunch of quite thick leather with a sharp sword (mainly my Albion Constable). When it's sharp - which is an important caveat, I could cut through 6mm leather no problem. I have also noticed though, and it's been mentioned before, that different types of blades cut better against different types of medium. Blade that cuts very well against wooden shields or weapon hafts, may not cut well against textiles (and vice versa) or bones or flesh.

We used to make fencing gloves for longsword fencing out of thick leather and it worked well. I think that is why SCA etc. likes it - it's good for impact absorption. But I wouldn't want to depend on it for protection from sharp blades - I'd rather textile or (especially) steel.

G

Galloglaich

2017-12-04, 02:35 PM

This all matches pretty much how far I got with my own research a year or two back.

I did an image search for "leather armor", and there wasn't a single result that I would consider as "genuine". :smallannoyed: There were two images of what looked like actual functional armor, but I'm not sure that they were not simply metal originals replicated in leather.

There is some parts of a panoply, quite famously from Italy from the 15th Century. I have seen photos of it. But it was apparently for tournament with 'whalebone' weapons. Kind of like the 15th Century equivalent of LARP ;)

The only authentic purely leather armor I've seen so far is from Asia, mainly Central Asia but also Japan and Korea. They have armor made of out of Elephant, Rhino or Crocodile hide in South Asia, and in Europe there is a lot of armor made of combinations of leather with textile and / or iron.

G

Storm Bringer

2017-12-04, 05:56 PM

rrgg

2017-12-04, 06:13 PM

@Galloglaich

What do you know about the role and effectiveness of handgunners in the Hungarian Black Army?

It seems like most sources tend to focus on the Italian Wars as the turning point for small arms, glossing over eastern Europe, perhaps mentioning the hussites as a possible exception. Often the defeat of Charles the Bold gets used to suggest that technology and tactics hadn't quite caught up to where massed handgunners were a viable strategy yet.

Also, what do you think of the statement that cannons and handguns were mostly just effective in sieges or from stationary defensive positions in the 15th century? I know you've pointed out before that war wagons could be used offensively as well as defensively, do you know any examples where handgunners were used effectively as light skirmishers or otherwise going on the offensive?

wolflance

2017-12-04, 10:07 PM

As for the quality of leather as protection, all I can say is I seen people have trouble cutting it (and have trouble cutting plastic water bottles too) if they cut wrong or have a dull sword, have cut a bunch of quite thick leather with a sharp sword (mainly my Albion Constable). When it's sharp - which is an important caveat, I could cut through 6mm leather no problem. I have also noticed though, and it's been mentioned before, that different types of blades cut better against different types of medium. Blade that cuts very well against wooden shields or weapon hafts, may not cut well against textiles (and vice versa) or bones or flesh.

We used to make fencing gloves for longsword fencing out of thick leather and it worked well. I think that is why SCA etc. likes it - it's good for impact absorption. But I wouldn't want to depend on it for protection from sharp blades - I'd rather textile or (especially) steel.

G
A good rule of thumb about the protectiveness of leather armor is that, if it is less protective than a suit of thick gambeson (the standalone type) then there's probably something wrong with the leather processing procedure. There are many ways to cause a piece of leather to become less protective than it should be, wax-hardening for example makes the leather “brittle” and much easier to cut through.

(EDIT: as well as modern chrome-tanning)

Many historical "leather" armors also appear to be actually made of rawhide.

Vinyadan

2017-12-04, 10:11 PM

I wonder how different leather from different animals can be. If some animal's e.g. worked better against certain weapons.

wolflance

2017-12-04, 10:46 PM

I wonder how different leather from different animals can be. If some animal's e.g. worked better against certain weapons.
There are probably significant differences, but we can't exactly cut down rhino to test it out nowadays...

Vitruviansquid

2017-12-04, 11:44 PM

Crossbow was around during the time of Constantine, and during Alexander's time, the oxybeles (and gastraphetes?). That being said, ancient crossbow was nowhere near as advance, sophisticated and powerful as medieval crossbow

(and for some reason nobody thought of mounting a sight on the weapon until 16th century, I think)

The Mongol did have some sort of hereditary bloodline succession (the "Golden family" or Borjigin), it is just that succession crisis will happen regardless.

For Oda Nobunaga, the problem isn't just about the cannon, but transportation, ammunition, and gunpowder (very hard to move around heavy artillery in Japan, they had to import gunpowder material, and few iron resource)

I wonder if there is a consensus among historians for why the small crossbows were not being used by ancient Greek soldiers.

And could the reason for the lack of a sight be because early crossbows shot with so little force that bolts tend not to land straight where the sight would indicate anyways? Or maybe because it would cause the crossbowman to have to put his eye way too close to a potentially dangerous string?

Yora

2017-12-05, 12:19 AM

I wonder how different leather from different animals can be. If some animal's e.g. worked better against certain weapons.

Probably quite significantly. But when we're talking military equipment, we usually don't mean singular curiosities. For a technology to become common, you need to be able to equip armies. There might very well be much tougher leather than cattle, but I don't think any of those would be available in anywhere near the quantities of cattle leather.

wolflance

2017-12-05, 12:56 AM

Probably quite significantly. But when we're talking military equipment, we usually don't mean singular curiosities. For a technology to become common, you need to be able to equip armies. There might very well be much tougher leather than cattle, but I don't think any of those would be available in anywhere near the quantities of cattle leather.
While this is indeed true, ancient people sometimes went great length to make their equipment better. I.e. rhino was hunted to extinction in China because they made leather armor.

Also, i wonder how many eagles and other birds they had to kill to be able to produce like fifty million arrows yearly...

Haighus

2017-12-05, 05:14 AM

While this is indeed true, ancient people sometimes went great length to make their equipment better. I.e. rhino was hunted to extinction in China because they made leather armor.

Also, i wonder how many eagles and other birds they had to kill to be able to produce like fifty million arrows yearly...

Geese and other domestic fowl were favoured in Europe I think, so probably not much more than were being killed anyway.

Mutazoia

2017-12-05, 05:54 AM

Geese and other domestic fowl were favoured in Europe I think, so probably not much more than were being killed anyway.

A goose feather shaft was highly prized in medieval England

snowblizz

2017-12-05, 06:39 AM

There might very well be much tougher leather than cattle, but I don't think any of those would be available in anywhere near the quantities of cattle leather.
I think it was on a nature programme they mentioned the toughness of hippo hide, apparently sometimes musketballs (or rifle shots, I forget) could glance off. Some of it is the natural thickness of the hide, which you can probably "fix" by alyeirng coehide.

I wonder how different leather from different animals can be. If some animal's e.g. worked better against certain weapons.
Maybe. Some animals had very thick hides, e.g. Rhinos and hippos. But the 17th century buffcoats woudl also be mad eof game such as elk and moose, at least where they were more plentiful.

But I do think a lot has to do with availability. Cowhides comes naturally as part of farming/husbandry activities after all. The more exotic and mostly thicker hided animals tend to be wild or rare.

The only authentic purely leather armor I've seen so far is from Asia, mainly Central Asia but also Japan and Korea. They have armor made of out of Elephant, Rhino or Crocodile hide in South Asia, and in Europe there is a lot of armor made of combinations of leather with textile and / or iron.
A book on weapons I just read had an Roman Egyptian crocodile armour pictured. Inluding helmet. Says it's a parade armour though, but still.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/72/16/f9/7216f9c15ab050fdbf5f94c3533bfc11.jpg

Galloglaich

2017-12-05, 12:01 PM

i think part of the people is a classic case of "little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge".

in this case, "experts" have been explaining to people form RPG background that historically, leather armour wasn't worn, at least not in the style that DnD used it, during the medieval period, that its become received wisdom that Leather Armour Was Not A Thing, despite growing evidence to the contrary as the internet allowed non European sources greater audiences. Now, as these sources get more known, the answer changes again, this time to Leather Armour Was Sometimes A Thing.

Actually I don't agree- I think those with some knowledge of this, like for example some of the regulars over at Myarmoury, said from the outset that Leather Armour Was NOT A Thing In Europe. We know, and have always known, that it was sometimes used in Central and East Asia. But even there it doesn't seem to have been all that common, iron lamellar was used for the heavily armored troops, most of the others didn't wear any armor at all.

. Then, better more accurate info on the real medieval Europe got shared about and the tall tales of Japanese super-samurai were picked apart and shown to be myths or exaggerations, so the pop culture consensus swung to a more neutral position.

It's a good analogy but I don't think it fits here.

Leather armor wasn't really a thing in medieval or Migration-era or Classical Europe, though there can be a few exceptions to the rule, it's very rare at best before the 17th Century. Same for "Splint Mail" and "Studded Leather" and "Banded Mail" which are all basically D&D-isms which originate with Gary Gygax and Co., and got repeated by lazy game designers until they became embedded in the pop culture, like all those other myths about knights being winched into saddles - which started out as a satirical anecdote about a crippled Henry VIII, was elaborated upon as a joke by Mark Twain, and then irresponsibly repeated in a movie or two in the 20th Century.

G

Galloglaich

2017-12-05, 12:18 PM

@Galloglaich

What do you know about the role and effectiveness of handgunners in the Hungarian Black Army?

I think they were very effective, so do most serious military historians who know anything about it, going back to Hans Delbruck and before. This is why the Hunyadi's put so much emphasis on them, hired so many of them, and paid them so much. And put up with their misbehavior and antics in the case of a lot of the Czech ones in particular. Matthias Corvinus gets into this in a lot of letters which have survived to this day.

It seems like most sources tend to focus on the Italian Wars as the turning point for small arms, glossing over eastern Europe, perhaps mentioning the hussites as a possible exception. Often the defeat of Charles the Bold gets used to suggest that technology and tactics hadn't quite caught up to where massed handgunners were a viable strategy yet.

It's worth noting that many of the handgunners in the Black Army were actually Hussites.

I think this is kind of the bias of the Western and English oriented perception of history in the Anglophone sphere. I think the historiography is a little different in other languages, though the rebound effect of American pop culture is strong and sometimes influences people who should know better.

There is a general lack of understanding about anything in the middle ages which is why we never knew about European Martial Arts or fencing manuals (outside of a small group of scholars in the know) until the late 20th Century. The middle ages is hard to understand, harder for us today to get our heads around than Roman or Early Modern combat.

Also, what do you think of the statement that cannons and handguns were mostly just effective in sieges or from stationary defensive positions in the 15th century? I know you've pointed out before that war wagons could be used offensively as well as defensively, do you know any examples where handgunners were used effectively as light skirmishers or otherwise going on the offensive?

I think handguns were mostly used in sieges in the 14th Century. But by the 15th they were clearly moving into the open field. At first with the war wagons and other strange war machines, (which incidentally persisted in significant numbers all over Europe until at least the 1480's) but by the second half of the Hussite wars, the increasing ubiquity of crude match-locks, priming pans and other innovations, not to mention corned and crumbled powder, meant infantry was clearly moving into the open field in the more advanced armies of Europe. In addition to the Hungarian Black Army which is the most famous, the Italians, Flemish, Germans, Bohemians of course, Poles, and also Spanish and Croatians and others, were making wide-use of hangunners. They were typically paid double that of ordinary mercenaries (same as the heavy crossbowmen) frequently fought with 1 or 2 servants (often to carry a pavise) and also operated various war machines like volley guns / ribauldaquin.

German cities spent a fortune on shooting contests which were turned into huge festivals and major diplomatic events, and had clearly shifted toward handguns over crossbows (though crossbows still persisted as well) by the 1440's - 1450's.

I would go so far as to say that it was handgunners, in part, which basically stopped the Mongols and slowed the Ottomans advance into the Balkans by 100 years (this was why Venice gave the Hunyadi's so much money to finance the Black Army). Of course the Ottomans themselves were also rapidly adopting handguns at this time of course and the famous Janissaries switched from bows to firearms in the 15th Century. Some people attribute the development of the true musket to the Ottomans, other say the Spanish, but it was clearly something which arose in the midst of their rivalry.

I also think it's quite obvious that the Swiss themselves, incidentally, used quite a lot of handgunners both as skirmishers and as main troops as you can see them depicted all over the Swiss chronicles in large numbers. Including at the time of the Burgundian Wars. I don't think Charles the Bold's problem was that handgunners weren't ready for prime time, his longbowmen failed just as miserably.

Generally speaking, I think the ubiquity of firearms (and cannon, grenades, mines, flares, fireworks, and all sorts of crazy, bizarre war machines featuring pyrotechnic devices or guns) is one of the hardest things for us to get our heads around regarding the Late Medieval period. By the time you have plate armor you should also have guns. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings - the tech level of Gondor or the Lannisters should include firearms and cannon.

But our myths are dark and full of terrors!

G

Galloglaich

2017-12-05, 12:22 PM

I wonder if there is a consensus among historians for why the small crossbows were not being used by ancient Greek soldiers.

I don't think their crossbow prods were efficient enough. The composite and later steel prods of late medieval Europe seem to be (though we still don't understand precisely how they worked) much more powerful than anyone anywhere else, with the possible exception of some in China which also seem to have had remarkable properties.

And could the reason for the lack of a sight be because early crossbows shot with so little force that bolts tend not to land straight where the sight would indicate anyways? Or maybe because it would cause the crossbowman to have to put his eye way too close to a potentially dangerous string?

The latter. Same is true for a lot of early firearms where many sparks and fire comes out of the priming pan. Tricky to aim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE

As for the other question about different animals hides for leather, one thing I keep seeing all the time in primary sources is reference to some kind of buffalo hide.

G

Vinyadan

2017-12-05, 12:22 PM

Does anyone know how large the largest pauldrons in history were?

Max_Killjoy

2017-12-05, 12:29 PM

Generally speaking, I think the ubiquity of firearms (and cannon, grenades, mines, flares, fireworks, and all sorts of crazy, bizarre war machines featuring pyrotechnic devices or guns) is one of the hardest things for us to get our heads around regarding the Late Medieval period. By the time you have plate armor you should also have guns. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings - the tech level of Gondor or the Lannisters should include firearms and cannon.

But our myths are dark and full of terrors!

If we're talking a historical or "heavily based on history" setting, I'm in absolutely agreement here.

For LotR or GoT, I'm less of a stickler, because it's not our world or history, and who knows, maybe gunpowder is still waiting to be discovered -- the Chinese stumbled on it looking for immortality elixirs, right?

Yora

2017-12-05, 12:49 PM

Plate armor was not a consequence of the emergence of guns. Guns are not a neccessary precoursor to the development of plate armor, so you can either have it or don't. It doesn't make a difference.

Having plate armor alongside rifles would be a different story though.

Vinyadan

2017-12-05, 12:51 PM

For all we know, Saruman might have discovered gunpowder 1000 years before L.R. and decided to keep it secret, to use it as a secret weapon when the time came (against Rohan).
Gandalf also possibly used it for his fireworks.
It's never confirmed that that's real gunpowder, however, instead of magic stuff.

Vinyadan

2017-12-05, 12:53 PM

Tolkien also never talked about full plate, I believe. All my memories of the books are with chain mail.

Galloglaich

2017-12-05, 01:11 PM

Tolkien also never talked about full plate, I believe. All my memories of the books are with chain mail.

Tolkein's Hobbit / LOTR books are much closer to the Migration Era Volsunga Saga (cursed ring with invisibility powers, magic sword, evil dragon, elves, dwarves etc.) which is based on events around the 4th Century, so the tech level is mail etc., I was referring to the (today better known) Peter Jackson movies though where the people of Gondor have 14th-15th Century style plate armor.

Plate armor was not a consequence of the emergence of guns. Guns are not a neccessary precoursor to the development of plate armor, so you can either have it or don't. It doesn't make a difference.

Actually I think you are wrong - plate armor was at least in part, developed due to guns, (and heavy crossbows and recurve bows).

They were proofing plate armor with test-dents from crossbows in the 14th Century and started using firearms in the 15th, which I think is a pretty good indication of the link.

Having plate armor alongside rifles would be a different story though.

I think that would be pretty pointless.

G

Galloglaich

2017-12-05, 01:17 PM

If we're talking a historical or "heavily based on history" setting, I'm in absolutely agreement here.

For LotR or GoT, I'm less of a stickler, because it's not our world or history, and who knows, maybe gunpowder is still waiting to be discovered -- the Chinese stumbled on it looking for immortality elixirs, right?

I just mean our default late medieval fantasy setting "Frog DNA" needs to be updated to include firearms for most civilizations that also have plate armor, two-handed swords etc.

I don't think you would see the rapid development of plate armor without the emergence of firearms. Maybe crossbows and powerful bows would be enough to spur it on but I kind of doubt it. There seems to have been an arms race between missiles and armor in which gunpowder played a significant part.

And sure you can take this or that element out of it, but it's a bit like jenga, you take the wrong piece out and the whole thing can start to fall apart.

G

Max_Killjoy

2017-12-05, 02:17 PM

Roxxy

2017-12-05, 03:57 PM

Blackhawk748

2017-12-05, 04:13 PM

Are there any documented cases of somebody from the Warsaw Pact during their mandatory military service, managing to immigrate to a NATO country, and then serving in that country's military? I'm wondering if there are any written accounts from people who have served on both sides of the curtain.

Sabaton has a song called Soldier of t
Three Armies, which is about a man who fought for the Nazis, then the communists and then America iirc.

Storm Bringer

2017-12-05, 04:28 PM

Sabaton has a song called Soldier of t
Three Armies, which is about a man who fought for the Nazis, then the communists and then America iirc.

I believe he was eastern European, was conscripted by the Germans and sent to fight in Russia, was captured by the Russians, dragooned into the Red Army and sent off to the far east, where he was captured by the Chinese, who dragooned him into the PLA, and was finally captured by the Americans in Korea, to the utter confusion of all involved.

Batou1976

2017-12-05, 04:48 PM

I just mean our default late medieval fantasy setting "Frog DNA" needs to be updated to include firearms for most civilizations that also have plate armor, two-handed swords etc.

I don't think you would see the rapid development of plate armor without the emergence of firearms. Maybe crossbows and powerful bows would be enough to spur it on but I kind of doubt it. There seems to have been an arms race between missiles and armor in which gunpowder played a significant part.

And sure you can take this or that element out of it, but it's a bit like jenga, you take the wrong piece out and the whole thing can start to fall apart.

G

FWIW, gunpowder weapons and armored knights existed alongside each other for longer than most people realize- about 300 years altogether before firearms became developed to the point of obviating the protective value of steel plate armor, IIRC what I've read before. The development of medieval war equipment was an arms race between weapons and armor, to be sure, but there's another factor in the rise of plate harness and decline of mail I've read of which doesn't have anything to do with weapons at all, and that's the Black Plague.

By the mid-14th century when the Plague hit Europe, they were already beginning to add plates to the ubiquitous full suit of mail, as they had attained the metallurgical skill to craft them and found their protective value surpassed that of mail. In the aftermath of the Plague, with so many millions dead, the pool of skilled mail makers had of course significantly shrunk; since mail was already so time consuming to make, it wasn't cheap to begin with and with fewer people making it, the price of their labor went up even more. Steel plates, OTOH, don't take quite so much time to craft. According to the piece where I read this (I wish I could remember where, but I've lost track of the article :smallfrown: ), all this meant by the early 15th century, a breastplate could be made in, I think, a week, and cost the equivalent of two cows, while providing superior protection to a mail haubergeon which took months to make and cost several times what the breastplate did.

This may be an even bigger factor than the rise of gunpowder weapons in the decline of mail, but I'll leave that to the historians to argue over. :smallwink:

Blackhawk748

2017-12-05, 05:03 PM

Vinyadan

2017-12-05, 06:04 PM

Gen. Dmitri Polyakov, the head of Soviet intelligence, was actually an American spy. Does that count? :biggrin:

Clistenes

2017-12-05, 06:09 PM

I believe he was eastern European, was conscripted by the Germans and sent to fight in Russia, was captured by the Russians, dragooned into the Red Army and sent off to the far east, where he was captured by the Chinese, who dragooned him into the PLA, and was finally captured by the Americans in Korea, to the utter confusion of all involved.

That was more common that people believe nowadays...

During the Spanish Civil War both sides of he conflict forcefully pressed into service all able males they could seize. Many of those tried to desert and change sides.

Afterwards, dictator Francisco Franco wanted to join he Axis, but not until he was sure Germany would win the war, so, until then, he claimed neutrality while selling tungsten and other stuff to Germany and sent a group of "volunteers" to help Germany in the Russian Front, the Blue Division. That way he could help Germany without officially taking a side, and without provoking US, UK and France too much (he didn't give a damn what Russia thought of him).

Many of the soldiers of the Blue Division were in fact prisioners of war, soldiers from the Republican army and militias who were offered a pardon in exchange for joining (the other option was forced labor under horrid conditions...).

Some of those soldiers were later captured by the Russians and forced to join their army, or they deserted, and joined the Red Army on their own...

However, Stalin was really paranoid about spies, and many who deserted or were pressed into service received very bad treatment because they were suspected to be spies...

I know of a man who deserted the Blue Division and joined the soviets, but he later regretted his decision and escaped, joining back the Blue Division. He claimed to have been captured by the Russians, so he was allowed back into the Blue Division...

Storm Bringer

2017-12-05, 06:12 PM

So i was right Nazi-> Communists -> America :smalltongue:

well, National Socialist-Marxist Socialist-Maoist Socialist-Capitalist, to be more accurate. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Haighus

2017-12-05, 06:39 PM

well, National Socialist-Marxist Socialist-Maoist Socialist-Capitalist, to be more accurate. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Hmm, I am either missing something, or there must have been a small window of Chinese Nationalist for the poor sod to be captured from the Russians, before Maoist Socialist took over China.

rrgg

2017-12-05, 08:23 PM

I think they were very effective, so do most serious military historians who know anything about it, going back to Hans Delbruck and before. This is why the Hunyadi's put so much emphasis on them, hired so many of them, and paid them so much. And put up with their misbehavior and antics in the case of a lot of the Czech ones in particular. Matthias Corvinus gets into this in a lot of letters which have survived to this day.

It's worth noting that many of the handgunners in the Black Army were actually Hussites.

I think this is kind of the bias of the Western and English oriented perception of history in the Anglophone sphere. I think the historiography is a little different in other languages, though the rebound effect of American pop culture is strong and sometimes influences people who should know better.

There is a general lack of understanding about anything in the middle ages which is why we never knew about European Martial Arts or fencing manuals (outside of a small group of scholars in the know) until the late 20th Century. The middle ages is hard to understand, harder for us today to get our heads around than Roman or Early Modern combat.

I think handguns were mostly used in sieges in the 14th Century. But by the 15th they were clearly moving into the open field. At first with the war wagons and other strange war machines, (which incidentally persisted in significant numbers all over Europe until at least the 1480's) but by the second half of the Hussite wars, the increasing ubiquity of crude match-locks, priming pans and other innovations, not to mention corned and crumbled powder, meant infantry was clearly moving into the open field in the more advanced armies of Europe. In addition to the Hungarian Black Army which is the most famous, the Italians, Flemish, Germans, Bohemians of course, Poles, and also Spanish and Croatians and others, were making wide-use of hangunners. They were typically paid double that of ordinary mercenaries (same as the heavy crossbowmen) frequently fought with 1 or 2 servants (often to carry a pavise) and also operated various war machines like volley guns / ribauldaquin.

German cities spent a fortune on shooting contests which were turned into huge festivals and major diplomatic events, and had clearly shifted toward handguns over crossbows (though crossbows still persisted as well) by the 1440's - 1450's.

I would go so far as to say that it was handgunners, in part, which basically stopped the Mongols and slowed the Ottomans advance into the Balkans by 100 years (this was why Venice gave the Hunyadi's so much money to finance the Black Army). Of course the Ottomans themselves were also rapidly adopting handguns at this time of course and the famous Janissaries switched from bows to firearms in the 15th Century. Some people attribute the development of the true musket to the Ottomans, other say the Spanish, but it was clearly something which arose in the midst of their rivalry.

I also think it's quite obvious that the Swiss themselves, incidentally, used quite a lot of handgunners both as skirmishers and as main troops as you can see them depicted all over the Swiss chronicles in large numbers. Including at the time of the Burgundian Wars. I don't think Charles the Bold's problem was that handgunners weren't ready for prime time, his longbowmen failed just as miserably.

Generally speaking, I think the ubiquity of firearms (and cannon, grenades, mines, flares, fireworks, and all sorts of crazy, bizarre war machines featuring pyrotechnic devices or guns) is one of the hardest things for us to get our heads around regarding the Late Medieval period. By the time you have plate armor you should also have guns. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings - the tech level of Gondor or the Lannisters should include firearms and cannon.

But our myths are dark and full of terrors!

G

Thanks! you've made a lot of good points :)

It's interesting you should mention the mongols and ottomans. Spain's widespread adoption of the arquebus seems to have mainly taken off during the fighting in Granada in the late 15th century, which did consist of a lot of sieges, but also a lot of small-scale skirmishes involving light horsemen and light infantry. In 1495 the Spanish army arrived in italy with a lot of flexible jinetes, rodeleros, and crossbowmen/arquebusiers which perhaps struggled to stand up against pikemen or gendarmes in the field at first, but proved extremely effective at harassment and "small war" tactics.

According to tonio Andrade the, Ming similarly considered their handguns to be very effective weapons against nomadic cavalry forces in the north. Perhaps constant raids and skirmishes against tartars and turks is what accelerated the development of handgun technology in eastern europe?

I agree that there seems to be quite a lot of anglo bias among english-language historians. It's telling that descriptions of gunpowder's history in europe tend to start with Roger Bacon, even though england was about as far away from gunpowder's origin point as possible. There's also all the constantly repeated myths about the english longbow, which have sometimes turned into myths about archers in general.

In particular I've noticed that a lot of historians, Bert Hall included, tend to focus way too much on the use of small arms in large formations delivering massed volleys, with some even claiming that this was the only way early firearms could be used effectively. In reality even english primary sources tend to make it clear that matchlocks were fantastic skirmishing weapons, it was figuring out how to use them in large numbers that was the hard part:

"A small number of targetters if once they come to reach shot with their swordes, put great numbers of them out of the field. Put case that some come shorte; yet sure not manie, considering that onely the first rankes of shot can discharge, and that all doe not hit, and few mortally, especially if the first targets be of proofe, and the men march resolutely to the charge. Neither can shot retire where many of them are in the field, nor save themselves in any place, but targetters wil come to them. . . The force of shot is greater in skirmish, then in set battelles. For shot if they bee driven to stand thicke have no use. As the unprofitable number number of shot at the battell of Moncontour, and Dreux: and other incounters in the late warres of France, declare sufficiently."

I've suspected that handguns were being used in skirmishes more and more often in the 15th century as well, although perhaps early handguns were a bit more troublesome to carry around, aim, and reload with than the "classic" matchlock mechanism that was eventually introduced?

---

Anyways, I know many have problems but are there any english-language sources or translations in particular that you would recommend?

Deepbluediver

2017-12-05, 08:55 PM

FWIW, gunpowder weapons and armored knights existed alongside each other for longer than most people realize- about 300 years altogether before firearms became developed to the point of obviating the protective value of steel plate armor, IIRC what I've read before.
Damn, now I feel compelled to start working out stats for guns in my setting. :smallbiggrin:

I figured that magical weapons might necessitate the production of magical armor, so the "arms race" could continue and produce plate and such without firearms and it would still feel valid, but all this is really interesting and hard to argue against. Especially since I like high-magic settings, and it wouldn't be to hard to imagine an alchemical gunpowder analogue.
Maybe I'll stat guns like I was thinking about an Arbelast- large damage but with a long reload time, so it's really only attractive to people in siege-situations and maybe massed-combat. Definitely not the sort of thing adventurers in small-group or solo-combat situations would favor.

rrgg

2017-12-05, 08:58 PM

Re: the development of plate armor

I think the other common argument is that plate armor required first developing blast furnaces which could produce a single piece of iron or steel large enough to make a breastplate out of.

Plate armor seems to have originated some time in the 1200s as a supplement to existing armor, with plates worn either over or underneath mail. This is the same century that gunpowder seems to have arrived in europe so it might have had some infulence, although other possibilities include a reaction to stronger crossbows, the growing popularity of jousting or heavy lances (in the 16th century Humphrey Barwick seemed to think that a lance could still sometimes work its way through a coat of brigandine), or even a declining cost of armor leading to more experimentation and knights able to afford more protection.

In either case China was using blast furnaces, high-powered crossbows, and gunpowder weapons for far longer than europeans were and didn't seem too interested in full suits of plate armor, so no, technology doesn't necessarily follow some sort of linear progression.

edit: Also, rifles were used alongside plate armor as well in the 16th century, possibly earlier. :smalltongue:

Blackhawk748

2017-12-05, 09:21 PM

Re: the development of plate armor

I think the other common argument is that plate armor required first developing blast furnaces which could produce a single piece of iron or steel large enough to make a breastplate out of.

Plate armor seems to have originated some time in the 1200s as a supplement to existing armor, with plates worn either over or underneath mail. This is the same century that gunpowder seems to have arrived in europe so it might have had some infulence, although other possibilities include a reaction to stronger crossbows, the growing popularity of jousting or heavy lances (in the 16th century Humphrey Barwick seemed to think that a lance could still sometimes work its way through a coat of brigandine), or even a declining cost of armor leading to more experimentation and knights able to afford more protection.

In either case China was using blast furnaces, high-powered crossbows, and gunpowder weapons for far longer than europeans were and didn't seem too interested in full suits of plate armor, so no, technology doesn't necessarily follow some sort of linear progression.

Though, to be fair, China had way more people under a single government that any European power, so they could just bury the problem in people. And i certainly wouldnt want to try and equip an entire Chinese army in plate armor.

rrgg

2017-12-05, 09:36 PM

Damn, now I feel compelled to start working out stats for guns in my setting. :smallbiggrin:

I figured that magical weapons might necessitate the production of magical armor, so the "arms race" could continue and produce plate and such without firearms and it would still feel valid, but all this is really interesting and hard to argue against. Especially since I like high-magic settings, and it wouldn't be to hard to imagine an alchemical gunpowder analogue.
Maybe I'll stat guns like I was thinking about an Arbelast- large damage but with a long reload time, so it's really only attractive to people in siege-situations and maybe massed-combat. Definitely not the sort of thing adventurers in small-group or solo-combat situations would favor.

:smalltongue:

As we were discussing, if anything it's sort of the opposite. A handgun or arquebus could be made into good cooperative weapon in small groups. For instance if you have a couple of guys with shields or good armor and polearms to protect him or bottle up enemies at a choke point during his lengthy reload or in case he misfires. You could also give the gunner multiple ammo options, for instance a single bullet which can do massive damage/potetially overpen at point blank range vs. loading the barrel with a handful of pebbles/pellets which makes him very likely to hit even a small target but perhaps doesn't do as much damage or only causes a debuff. It would also be good if you played enemies a bit more cautious about being one-shotted or maimed by firearms rather than starting every encounter with "if we all charge at once then he can't kill us all". That way you could use the gun to set up a standoff or force a dialog, or if there were two gunners in a party could potentially make the enemy very reluctant to charge if they make sure that only one gunner fires his weapon at a time.

Clistenes

2017-12-05, 09:39 PM

I agree that there seems to be quite a lot of anglo bias among english-language historians. It's telling that descriptions of gunpowder's history in europe tend to start with Roger Bacon, even though england was about as far away from gunpowder's origin point as possible. There's also all the constantly repeated myths about the english longbow, which have sometimes turned into myths about archers in general.

Nowadays most books acknowledge that gunpowder was invented in China and it was brought to Europe by Muslims, but it still frustrates me to no end when Roger Bacon is said to be the "inventor of gunpowder in Europe" or the "introductor of gunpowder to Europe...".

By the time Roger Bacon wrote Opus Major (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Majus), his contemporary, king Alfonso X of Castile describes cannons being deployed Spain! (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niebla_(Espa%C3%B1a)#Historia)

Roger Bacon obviously learnt about gunpowder either in the University of Paris, or maybe in Oxford, from either a master trained in Paris or from a text brought from Paris. Spanish and Italian scholars had translated latin and greek texts about philosophy, medicine and science adquired from the Muslims, and that's how Aristotle was reintroduced in Europe (mostly through the University of Paris). Rober Bacon was a lecturer greek philosophy, on Aristotle, both in Oxford and in Paris, so he probably was interested in science and alchemy Arab books (because Arab books were the main source of Ancient knowledge) ... the link is there...

He most probably read about gunpowder in some text about alchemy translated from Arab.

By the time Bacon learned about gunpowder, there probably were thousands of people in southern Europe who were making it and using it for war...

Storm Bringer

2017-12-06, 04:28 AM

Hmm, I am either missing something, or there must have been a small window of Chinese Nationalist for the poor sod to be captured from the Russians, before Maoist Socialist took over China.

your missing something, specifically that the formal name for the party that Hitter was the leader of was the NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Haighus

2017-12-06, 04:54 AM

your missing something, specifically that the formal name for the party that Hitter was the leader of was the NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers Party.
That isn't the bit I mean- why would Communist China capture a soldier from Communist Russia? There must be a brief period where the soldier was captured by the nationalists in China before Mao took over.

Storm Bringer

2017-12-06, 07:19 AM

That isn't the bit I mean- why would Communist China capture a soldier from Communist Russia? There must be a brief period where the soldier was captured by the nationalists in China before Mao took over.

because the two communist nations didn't always get along. there were a few border disputes between the two that rumbled on for decades, plus the russains thought that all communists should listen to the them as the leaders of the communist world, and china, following a different strain of communist thought, did not.

of coruse, i might be misremember it, he might have been traded by the russains to the Chinese. either way, he ended up in korea and was captured by the US.

PersonMan

2017-12-06, 07:25 AM

If it's the "soldier of three armies" from the Sabaton song, his career was Finnish -> German -> American, fighting in the Winter War, Continuation War and then the Vietnam War. It was a lot less convoluted than being captured over and over; as far as I can tell it was mostly that he didn't like the Soviet Union or their friends.

Mike_G

2017-12-06, 08:07 AM

There was also a Korean solider who was forced to fight for the Japanese, was captured by the Russians at Kalkhin Gol, fought for them, was captured by the Germans, forced to fight for them, and was eventually captured by the US.

There was a movie about him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Way_(2011_film)

Kiero

2017-12-06, 08:26 AM

I was busy and lost track of this.

You are thinking of the democratic period. Things were different during the aristocratic period: During the aristocratic period usually only as small aristocratic elite actually fought, there weren't real armies, and aristocrats fought whatever way it was most convenient for them. Most of the fighting was done on foot, but it wasn't related to cavalry being looked down.

Eventually certain non-aristocratic groups gained power in cities, and pushed aristocrats out of power, largely because they found that 500 merchants/artisans/whatever with armor, shields and long spears could defeat 10 aristocratic warriors.

Perhaps I'm blurring the two. It was certainly the case in the democratic period, running right up to the rise of Makedon, that there was a suspicion of aristocrats choosing to fight on horseback.

Maybe. It doesn't change the fact that merchants and artisans didn't have as much free time to spend training as nobles did. Plus many people who could afford armor weren't able to afford horses.

There's no maybe about it, the notion that stirrups are required for a couched charge is nonsense. Alexander's Companions were charging-home, heavy cavalry, none of them had stirrups. Their primary purpose was to give horse-archers a good seat.

That came later, starting during the Greco-Persian Wars and the rise Athenian power. Only Athens and Corinth developed huge warfleets, but most Greek states developed armies of citizen-soldiers.

There isn't really a lot of time between the re-establishment of democracy in 510BC and the Ionian Revolt in 499BC, so I think the point is rather moot.

Greek warfare became increasingly sofisticated over time, eventually evolving into fully professional armies during the Macedonian and Hellenistic period. At the beginning, when they toppled the nobles during the VII-VI a.C, they had just enough training to stay in formation and move towards the enemy.

We tend to see Greek history as an homogeneous thing, but there were around 160 years between Maraton and the conquest of the Persian empire.

I'm pretty clear on the differences between Greco-Persian Wars and Hellenistic era. I was already distinguishing in that part you quoted between the Greco-Persian Wars, the wars of the Delian League and those of the Peloponnesian War. The Hellenistic era is often ignored altogether, except as the prelude to the era of Roman dominance.

For the most part, Greece itself didn't have professional armies in the Hellenistic era, it still relied on citizen-militias. They changed back and forth between hoplite/pike/thureophoros models as they won and lost in conflicts. The closest anyone came to professionalism was if they turned mercenary.

Even Alexander didn't have a lot of use for Greeks on his campaigns; the fighting was done by Makedonians and various allied nations, Greeks might be put on a flank or more often used as garrisons to hold strong points while the rest of the army moved on.

The professionals in the Hellenistic were Makedonian settlers and other Hellenes and Hellenising peoples given grants of land in return for service. And mercenaries.

Being and athlete is very different from being a martial artist, and even more different from being a trained soldier. Training with sword and spear was, surprisingly, unpopular in Athens during the classic period.

No they weren't different, that's a modern division that doesn't apply. Athletes trained for the Olympics and other major games, which contained a host of martial events in them; running in and out of armour, throwing javelins and discus, boxing/wrestling (pankration), fighting in armour, horse-racing. All those events were practise for war. We have the example of the athlete Dioxippus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxippus) famously beating one of Alexander's soldiers in a set-piece bout.

And not everybody could afford to spend a lot of time training in the gymnasium. There is a difference between the ideal the Greek set for themselves and their reality. People like Socrates and Plato actually had an aristocratic mindset, and the ideal citizen they described was modelled after the athenian upper class, but many artisans, merchants and farmers had to work long hours.

Also, the term "yeomen" isn't really appropiate for Greece. During the classic period Athenian society was, roughly speaking, divided into rich landowners who had labourers work their land, city-dwelling merchants, artisans and sailors, and poor farmers who owned their own land but had to word hard and didn't had leisure time. Free farmers became poorer and poorer during the classic period, losing a lost of land to rich landowners, creating social tensions, until most free farmers were very poor people working the worst lands who couldn't afford to buy hoplite armor.

Maybe, but the minimum requirement for a hoplite wasn't a full panoply, but a shield, helmet and spear. That isn't as high a bar as also having cuirass/thorax, greaves, possibly arm and thigh plates.

Do you have a source for this?

I was thinking of countless Athenian and other Greek generals, from Miltiades down, who all fought on foot (often in the centre of the front rank) even though they were of the highest social classes and could ride.

Add to that the low proportion of cavalry in the battles of the Peloponnesian War compared to those of Philip/Alexander. There's no way the aristocracy were only represented in the tithe of cavalry present.

I don't believe anyone would have cleaved strictly to the Solonian divisions, there would be aristocrats too impoverised to fight in the saddle and richer artisans who nevertheless continued in the traditions of their fathers and fought in the phalanx.

Martin Greywolf

2017-12-06, 12:04 PM

Nowadays most books acknowledge that gunpowder was invented in China and it was brought to Europe by Muslims, but it still frustrates me to no end when Roger Bacon is said to be the "inventor of gunpowder in Europe" or the "introductor of gunpowder to Europe...".

We actually have a pretty solid date for the first use of gunpowder in Europe, 11 April 1241, at Mohi. The slight problem is that it was used against European troops, and that some of the western historians took some significant liberties with interpreting the information we have, some claiming that gunpowder was then spreading in Hungary.

What Carmen Miserabile basically tells us is that mongols used hwacha against Hungarian army to panic them, and that's about it. There are indeed records of some later use of mongol mercenaries in Hungary (though again, some historians tend to claim Ladislaus the Cuiman employed them on a large scale, which he almost certainly did not, he employed the cuimans), but nothing that proves or disproves hwachas or other gunpowder being used by them. If anything, Hungary was as dramatically unprepared for Hussite tactics as the rest of Europe.

If I had to make a guess, gunpowder came to Europe through attempts at Franco-Mongol alliance, and as such arrived at first to kingdoms that had a keen interest and connections in Outremer - France (Templars), Italy (Papacy and Venice ferrying people for hefty fees), England (mostly because of Lionheart nostalgia) and HRE (Teutonic knights). Countries that were either in the middle of succession crisis at the time (Hungary) or separated by geography and disinterest (Poland, Scandinavian kingdoms) acquired it later from their neighbours.

This also means that gunpowder wasn't arguably brought to Europe by Muslims, seeing as mongols weren't Muslim until Ghazan's conversion circa 1300.

gkathellar

2017-12-06, 12:13 PM

That isn't the bit I mean- why would Communist China capture a soldier from Communist Russia? There must be a brief period where the soldier was captured by the nationalists in China before Mao took over.

In general, the various "Socialist" powers were allies of opportunity, if that. There is a strong argument to be made that they only ever sided with one another because they all had the United States breathing down their necks. There's a great quote from the movie Fog of War illustrating this:

"Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us." - Xuân Thuỷ, Foreign Minister of North Vietnam (1963 to 1965), during a 1995 meeting former US Secretary of Defense, serving from 1961 to 1968, Robert S. McNamara

The point being: the Cold War cannot be simplified down to a conflict between capitalists and communists (a descriptor that may not accurately describe any of the parties involved).

Vinyadan

2017-12-06, 12:38 PM

Generals don't make for a good argument, I think. There are two reasons for this, the first one being that generals are, by definition, an exception within an army. The second one is that, in Athens, the strategoi and the archon polemarchos were chosen by the city, and these roles would surely have overruled membership to a corps.

However, I do recognize that things weren't anywhere near as clear cut as I stated earlier. I have taken a look around. Apparently, the Athenian cavalry could have amounted to just 90 men before the Persian Wars, which suggests either that very few of the hippeis actually served, or that many preferred to serve elsewhere. It might however be worth wondering whether Athens needed a huge army before 490. Anyway, nothing sure is known from this time about Athenian cavalry, with different scholars giving a radically different reading of the few data we have (iconography in particular).
Later the cavalry was expanded up to 1000 riders + 200 horse archers. The increase was gradual and took place over many decades. What I find interesting is that the horses were property of the riders, but would be refunded by Athens if they were lost in the fighting. Documents reporting the value of the single horses have been found. These riders were not just Athenians, but also aristocrats from allied cities.

Anyway, numbers are probably the best argument for free choice among hippeis, since Athens was in a position to pretty much never run out of its allotted horsemen, even with free choice. I am not as incredulous as I was, although I keep some doubts. The thing is that I see the presence of such a class as a way to make sure that there was enough equipment and horses. So I wonder if a rich artisan that didn't want to be a rider or waste time on a stable could instead pay a tax equivalent to the cost of equipping a rider and keeping his horse(s).

As a side note, an impoverished aristocrat would have fallen from hippeus to zeugite. That kind of mobility was probably expected.

The different sets of skill between boxing and warfare was already recognised in Homer. See the Patroclus games. It would be interesting to see what the Olympic poets thought.

Concerning the development of the fleet, those aren't the relevant dates. Around 500 Athens had about 50 penteconters, and sent 20 ships to the Ionian Revolt. Themistocles entered politics around 493 and had the port moved to Piraeus. But the huge enlargement of the fleet became possible in 483, after the discovery of the silver, after which Themistocles managed to get over 200 new ships built. This was made possible by the pressure of war upon the voters, first against Aegina, and then the expected one against Persia. Otherwise, the silver would probably have been distributed to the citizens. I think that it was the fleet which strengthened democracy, but democracy didn't cause the construction of the fleet. By comparison, Corinth wasn't a democracy and developed its naval power under tyrants and an olygarchy.

Clistenes

2017-12-06, 02:20 PM

We actually have a pretty solid date for the first use of gunpowder in Europe, 11 April 1241, at Mohi. The slight problem is that it was used against European troops, and that some of the western historians took some significant liberties with interpreting the information we have, some claiming that gunpowder was then spreading in Hungary.

What Carmen Miserabile basically tells us is that mongols used hwacha against Hungarian army to panic them, and that's about it. There are indeed records of some later use of mongol mercenaries in Hungary (though again, some historians tend to claim Ladislaus the Cuiman employed them on a large scale, which he almost certainly did not, he employed the cuimans), but nothing that proves or disproves hwachas or other gunpowder being used by them. If anything, Hungary was as dramatically unprepared for Hussite tactics as the rest of Europe.

If I had to make a guess, gunpowder came to Europe through attempts at Franco-Mongol alliance, and as such arrived at first to kingdoms that had a keen interest and connections in Outremer - France (Templars), Italy (Papacy and Venice ferrying people for hefty fees), England (mostly because of Lionheart nostalgia) and HRE (Teutonic knights). Countries that were either in the middle of succession crisis at the time (Hungary) or separated by geography and disinterest (Poland, Scandinavian kingdoms) acquired it later from their neighbours.

This also means that gunpowder wasn't arguably brought to Europe by Muslims, seeing as mongols weren't Muslim until Ghazan's conversion circa 1300.

If you follow the link I posted, primitive cannons were used by the Andalusian garrison against Castilian troops during the Siege of Niebla, in 1262. Technically speaking, the tiny kingdom of Niebla was part of Europe, even if it was a muslim state.

And it wasn't even a big, rich, well-connected kingdom; it was a tiny, remote kingdom, the westernmost muslim state in the world. The knowledge of how to make gunpowder and cannons had to cross the whole muslim world before reaching Niebla, and there were many states who were able to pay more to experts for their knowledge. I think there were many people in the Muslim world who knew how to make and use gunpowder and primitive cannons.

If you compare the cultural and knowledge exchange between Christian Europeans and Arab-speaking Muslims and between Christian Europeans and Mongols (muslim or otherwise), the flow of knowledge from the Mongols was almost neligible, when compared to the knowledge adquired from the Arab-speaking Muslim world...