PDA

View Full Version : Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIV



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Brother Oni
2017-08-09, 06:17 AM
Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XXIV

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons, armour and tactics. The concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better, thus it's here rather than in Friendly Banter.

A few rules for this thread:


This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and tactics really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.

Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).

No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so politics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis (These are arbitrary dates but any dates would be, and these are felt to be reasonable).

No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.


With that done, have at and enjoy yourselves!
Thread I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?24294-Got-A-Weapon-or-Armor-Question)
Thread III (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?21318-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-III)
Thread IV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18302-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IV)
Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80863-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-V)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124683-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VI)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?168432-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VII)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192911-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VIII)
Thread IX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217159-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IX)
Thread X (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238042-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-X)
Thread XI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255453-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XI)
Thread XII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?282471-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XII)
Thread XIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308462-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XIII)
Thread XIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?327994-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-XIV)
Thread XV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347806-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XV)
Thread XVI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371623-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVI)
Thread XVII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392804-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVII)
Thread XVIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?421723-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVIII)
Thread XIX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454083-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XIX)
Thread XX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480058-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XX)
Thread XXI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493127-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXI)
Thread XXII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503643-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXII)
Thread XXIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518251-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIII)

Brother Oni
2017-08-09, 06:23 AM
As others pointed out, armor makes little difference here. I can do about 1 - 2 minutes in gambeson at full speed duels, and 5 to 10 in a skirmish where you don't go full throttle all the time, and all chain mail does is slow me down a little if I decide to wear it. After this, I'm pretty beaten and have to both drink and have a break to cool down. Medieval battles could last from half an hour to half a day, but most of that was either marching or waiting.

I'd say another factor is footwear. A man in armour with non-gripping shoes (during the Norman times, they had leather wraps) isn't stopping quickly on a surface like wet grass, especially if they've just been chasing someone in light or no armour.

Kiero
2017-08-09, 08:01 AM
How valuable, historically, was the heavy cavalry charge (esp. in medieval times?)

I've heard many sources, including a professor of military history, claim that it has been overrated by various sources, and that disciplined infantry--even without spears/pikes--could easily repulse such charges if they stood their ground.

On the other hand, what infantry forces had this discipline in the middle ages?

Has the value of the knightly charge against non-pike/spear infantry been overestimated, or was it in fact a viable tactic?

Not-medieval times; in antiquity it was vital. By heavy cavalry, I mean those who's primary purpose is to close and melee, rather than skirmish and stay at range. That generally meant well-armoured noble cavalry in this period, usually armed with a two-handed lance.

From Alexander's Companions to Persian nobles to steppe nobles and cataphracts, they could turn a battle. While their main job was driving off lighter cavalry and crushing skirmishers who were caught in the open, they could also charge to the rear or flank of an engaged heavy infantry formation, and potentially rout them.

Carl
2017-08-09, 08:05 AM
3) Knightly cavalry in field battles

This is the case with most variety - in general, shock cavalry in battle is something like a scalpel, or a sniper rifle. Use it properly and at the right time, and ti will win the battle seemingly on its own. Use it the wrong way, and you just invented a novel way to manufacture horse meat balls (give Ikea a call).

I know it's highly inappropriate but the ikea bit got a real chuckle out of me.

Deadmeat.GW
2017-08-09, 10:50 AM
Actually in Flanders heavy infantry that was well drilled several times beat cavalry charges by knights.

In several cases it was the terrain that was the big determination but a few times they did succeed in defeating knights in melee without this advantage.

It was however not considered a standard thing, it was exceptional which is why it got mentioned.

It was the combination of pikes and then the polearms to finish the job or bring horses down.
The goedendag was used it seems by the second ranks to support and provide a heavy impact before the development of the bigger polearms such as halberds or Lucerne hammers really became widespread to replace them (or the production becomes good enough in quality to make these weapons of a sufficient quality to reliably do what people wanted themto do).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Goedendag_on_chest_of_Kortrijk.jpg

gkathellar
2017-08-09, 11:03 AM
Related to this... how long could a fighter carry on combat, and how did armor affect that? I realize this is a very open-ended question with a lot of variables, but is there a general rule of thumb? Would using a large shield and/or wearing heavier armor significantly reduce a fighter's endurance? Which would affect it more? Would a skilled, lightly-armored fighter be able to simply dodge until a more heavily armored opponent became fatigued in order to get an advantage?

I once read an estimate from the US Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau, that an agent can usually last for about three minutes of close combat for every mile they can run inside of an hour.

Mind you, when I related that tidbit to a karate expert friend of mine, she scoffed and suggested the ratio was probably the other way around.

In either case, the point is that pitched fighting is pretty draining even unarmored, and that someone used to what they're wearing is probably going to tire from running out of breath well before they have a chance to tire from the weight of their armor.

(Also, at least with respect to knife-proof vests, you get used to having the weight on you pretty quickly if you wear it for 8-16 hours a day. I would say that after about a month, people hardly even notice the thing. I even knew people who worked out in the thing, and they got used to that pretty quickly.)

Vinyadan
2017-08-09, 11:45 AM
Aren't Persian Immortal armed with giant rectangular shield that is much larger than both Scutum and Aspis?

Sure doesn't look like something usable in a duel to me. In fact, I think the shield fits the bill of "fighting as one body" pretty nicely (i.e. forming up a shield wall).

I have looked over my post again, and the part in which I called the immortals wicker shield "small" was likely a mistake I made while writing, because it was meant to refer to the Germanic shield (I think so at least; I don't remember exactly), which is also made of wickers. I remember looking for size, and that looks more like the size of Germanic shields than of the Persians. At least, I guess so. I distinctly remember having to look up the Germanic shield measures, because I recalled it being larger than the Roman one, which would have been enormous, especially in swampy terrain.

However, I don't think that the Immortals exclusively used the shield you show in the picture. I have given a quick glance to the literature. The opinion I found is that the Immortals (and the Persians in general) used two kinds of shield, one much larger and rectangular (spara), the other smaller and eight- or violin-shaped (which is a shape we also find in the Greek world), this one made of reed and leather, maybe with a metal boss. The larger kind was made of wickers and was used by the front line, while the following lines used the smaller one. This, at least, seemed like a meaningful assumption, since we have depictions of those 8-shields. Another hypothesis is that they were only used when performing a guard function. I have read the same hypothesis about the spara shield, however.
The spara shields would have also been used by normal frontline troops (both Immortals and not Immortals) to protect themselves during the clash with the enemy, and hold their ground while the archers behind them kept firing.

Anyway, the academic literature on the subject generally seems to be in a very bad shape, since we don't have much info coming from Persia, and there also were problems understanding what descriptions referred to what unit. A rampart made of spara shields (like the one in the picture you posted) is assumed to be described by Herodotus during the battle of Plataea, and might well not refer to the Immortals, but to standard infantry. In Plataea, the soldiers hiding behind the shields are described as shieldless and unskilled, and even the 1,000 soldiers picked by Mardonius to hold on around him only have spears, and no shields.

Illustration at Persepolis:
https://s1.postimg.org/4vzim5jn3/persian-soldiers.jpg

Equipment of immortals as described by Herodotus:

The dress of these troops consisted of the tiara, or soft felt cap, embroidered tunic with sleeves, a coat of mail looking like the scales of a fish, and trousers; for arms they carried light wicker shields, quivers slung below them, short spears, powerful bows with cane arrows, and short swords swinging from belts beside the right thigh.
Description of Plataea by Herodotus:

Now, therefore, as they were about to engage with Mardonius and the troops under him, they made ready to offer sacrifice. The victims, however, for some time were not favourable; and, during the delay, many fell on the Spartan side, and a still greater number were wounded. For the Persians had made a rampart of their wicker shields, and shot from behind them stich clouds of arrows, that the Spartans were sorely distressed. The victims continued unpropitious; till at last Pausanias raised his eyes to the Heraeum of the Plataeans, and calling the goddess to his aid, besought her not to disappoint the hopes of the Greeks.

[9.62] As he offered his prayer, the Tegeans, advancing before the rest, rushed forward against the enemy; and the Lacedaemonians, who had obtained favourable omens the moment that Pausanias prayed, at length, after their long delay, advanced to the attack; while the Persians, on their side, left shooting, and prepared to meet them. And first the combat was at the wicker shields. Afterwards, when these were swept down, a fierce contest took Place by the side of the temple of Ceres, which lasted long, and ended in a hand-to-hand struggle. The barbarians many times seized hold of the Greek spears and brake them; for in boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were not a whit inferior to the Greeks; but they were without bucklers, untrained, and far below the enemy in respect of skill in arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer and now more in number, they dashed upon the Spartan ranks, and so perished.

[9.63] The fight went most against the Greeks, where Mardonius, mounted upon a white horse, and surrounded by the bravest of all the Persians, the thousand picked men, fought in person. So long as Mardonius was alive, this body resisted all attacks, and, while they defended their own lives, struck down no small number of Spartans; but after Mardonius fell, and the troops with him, which were the main strength of the army, perished, the remainder yielded to the Lacedaemonians, and took to flight. Their light clothing, and want of bucklers, were of the greatest hurt to them: for they had to contend against men heavily armed, while they themselves were without any such defence.

Going by Herodotus alone, who only mentions wicker shields in use as to build a rampart, the most obvious thing to think would be that the Immortals effectively only used spara shields, and used them to prepare the field, searching for a good defensive position, from which to shoot the enemy, and using the spear only to defend themselves if it came to melee.

It is interesting that Herodotus doesn't say anything about shields when the Immortals fight the Spartans at the Thermpylae, where they had to attack someone else's position. However, here Herodotus is merely describing the disadvantages of the Immortals compared to the Spartans, and having a shape-of-eight shield would not have been a disadvantage, so it could have been left out.


and when the Medes were being
roughly handled, then these retired from the battle, and the Persians,
those namely whom the king called "Immortals," of whom Hydarnes was
commander, took their place and came to the attack, supposing that
they at least would easily overcome the enemy. When however these also
engaged in combat with the Hellenes, they gained no more success than
the Median troops but the same as they, seeing that they were fighting
in a place with a narrow passage, using shorter spears than the
Hellenes, and not being able to take advantage of their superior
numbers.
In this same occasion, the Immortals are called unskilled, which also goes for the Persian who fought in Plataea.

Anyway, the depictions from the time show us soldiers, assumed to be a royal guard, using shields of a different kind. It doesn't help that Herodotus is the only one to talk about the Immortals, which may have existed as a body for a very limited time, been a mistranslation, or who knows what. I also believe that, when Xerxes went back home, he did carry a royal guard with him, while the Immortal remained in Greece with Mardonius.

The dialogue between Xerxes and Demaratus:


When he heard this promise, Demaratus spoke as follows: "O king! Since you command me to speak the truth, I will not say what will one day prove me a liar. Difficulties have at all times been present in our land, while Courage is an ally whom we have gained through wisdom and strict laws. Her aid enables us to solve problems and escape being conquered. All Greeks are brave, but what I am about to say does not concern all, but only the Spartans."

"First then, no matter what, the Spartans will never accept your terms. This would reduce Greece to slavery. They are sure to join battle with you even if all the rest of the Greeks surrendered to you. As for Spartan numbers, do not ask how many or few they are, hoping for them to surrender. For if a thousand of them should take the field, they will meet you in battle, and so will any other number, whether it is less than this, or more."

When Xerxes heard this answer of Demaratus, he laughed and answered: "What wild words, Demaratus! A thousand men join battle with such an army as mine! Come then, will you -- who were once, as you say, their king -- fight alone right now against ten men? I think not. And yet, if your fellow-citizens really are as you say, then according to your laws as their king, you should be twice as tough and take on twenty all by yourself!"

But, if you Greeks, who think so hightly of yourselves, are simply the size and kind of men as those I have seen at my court, or as yourself, Demaratus, then your bragging is weak. Use common sense: how could a thousand men, or ten thousand, or even fifty thousand -- particularly if they are all free, and not under one lord -- how could such a force stand against a united army like mine? Even if the Greeks have larger numbers than our highest estimate, we still would outnumber them 100 to 1."

If they had a single master as our troops have, their obedience to him might make them courageous beyond their own desire, or they might be pushed onward by the whip against an enemy which far outnumbered them. But left to their own free choice, they will surely act differently. For my part, I believe that if the Greeks had to contend with the Persians only, and the numbers were equal on both sides, the Greeks would still find it hard to stand their ground. We too have men among us as tough as those you described -- not many perhaps, but enough. For instance, some of my bodyguard would willing engage singly with three Greeks. But this you did not know; and so you talked foolishly."

Demaratus answered him- "I knew, O king, that if I told you the truth, I would displease you. But since you wanted the truth, I am telling you what the Spartans will do. I am not speaking out of any love that I have for Sparta -- you know better than anyone how I feel about those who robbed me of my rank, of my ancestral honours, and made me a homeless exile.... Look, I am no match for ten men or even two, and given the choice, I would rather not fight at all. But if necessary, I would rather go against those who boast that they are a match for any three Greeks."

"The same goes for the Spartans. One-against-one, they are as good as anyone in the world. But when they fight in a body, they are the best of all. For though they are free men, they are not entirely free. They accept Law as their master. And they respect this master more than your subjects respect you. Whatever he commands, they do. And his command never changes: It forbids them to flee in battle, whatever the number of their foes. He requires them to stand firm -- to conquer or die. O king, if I seem to speak foolishly, I am content from this time forward to remain silent. I only spoke now because you commanded me to. I do hope that everything turns out according to your wishes."

This was the answer of Demaratus, and Xerxes was not angry with him at all, but only laughed, and sent him away with words of kindness.

BTW, translations don't really help. The shields used to build the rampart and the shields described in the equipment are called with the same name, but the translator felt the need to add a "light" in the equipment description. The "build a rampart" part could both mean "fence in, build a fence", "surround with a shield", or be a metaphor used for holding shields and weapons close together. I personally am more for reading it as actually creating a defensive structure, because the text says "the fighting came first to be around the wicker shields", not "around the Persians holding the shields", which seems unusual to me if it referred to the men holding them. Reason #2 is the fact that the word I am translating with "wicker shields" actually means "anything made of wicker". So those could actually be wicker walls (or mantlet-like defenses), and no shields at all. Then Herodotus says, "as those wickers fell...", not "as those shield bearers fell". Finally, Herodotus describes the Immortals wicker shields as "shields made of wickers", while these wickers are only described as "wickers".

So I currently believe that the objects described by translators as wicker shields at Plataea weren't shields in the man-carriable sense, but defenses made of wicker, and not even spara shields.

Also, I wrote that the 8-shield was made of reeds and leather. Right now, the truth is that each source I read has a different description of its components: leather over reeds, or over metal, or over wood, or metal over wood... It would also be nice to know when the Persians began using them.

Is that image from the Osprey books? It reminds me of their style, for the little I have seen.

Kiero
2017-08-09, 01:21 PM
I got the impression those big Persian shields were more like pavises than personal shields. Set up to protect the line against missile fire.

wolflance
2017-08-10, 01:48 AM
Is that image from the Osprey books? It reminds me of their style, for the little I have seen.
Thanks for the clarification - that's some impressive wealth of knowledge.

I just grab the picture off Google without looking at the source...but I am almost certain that it isn't from Osprey book.


I got the impression those big Persian shields were more like pavises than personal shields. Set up to protect the line against missile fire.
I also think this to be plausible, although I have the impression that the Greeks/Macedons in general were not particularly exceptional in the missile weapon department (compared to the Persians that had lots of composite bow archer, that is).


Another (unrelated) question:
Is there any recorded (or modern measured) draw weight of medieval siege/rampart crossbow? The kind that's too heavy to be man-portable and has to be mounted on a rest/stand/cart.

Range too.

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-10, 02:11 AM
I'd say another factor is footwear. A man in armour with non-gripping shoes (during the Norman times, they had leather wraps) isn't stopping quickly on a surface like wet grass, especially if they've just been chasing someone in light or no armour.

It would be, but everyone is wearing the same thing, more or less. It's also touch less of a problem than people usually imagine, you can get used to it and adapt how you walk and run - I did - it's just more of a hassle.


I know it's highly inappropriate but the ikea bit got a real chuckle out of me.

Then my work here is done.



Actually in Flanders heavy infantry that was well drilled several times beat cavalry charges by knights.


Not just Flanders, there were places that had elite heavy infantry - in Hungary, cities provided that after Belo IV. post-mongol reforms, for example - but not only was that not the norm, this heavy infantry was dismounted knights a lot of the time, most prominently in cases of England and monastic orders. You could therefore argue that heavy cavalry can be used to beat itself if it dismounts, but then we start going in circles.



Is there any recorded (or modern measured) draw weight of medieval siege/rampart crossbow? The kind that's too heavy to be man-portable and has to be mounted on a rest/stand/cart.


There is a fairly good replica of Orşova ballista that is just barely not man-portable that clocks in at 4700 lbs and works quite well. For the estimated ranges, portable crossbows have their top draw weight at 3000 - 6000 lbs, depending on who you ask, with 1000+ lbs crossbows being quite common during late renaissance - you obviously need a cranequin and a fair amount of time to use those.


http://alexisphoenix.org/imagesromania9/ballistaontrucksm.jpg


For siege engines, I saw top estimate of 12 000 lbs, but beware, this will be even less useful than it is for crossbows - people tend to be obsessed with Joules and whatnot, while forgetting that these aren't uniform bullets going out of fairly uniform barrels - a lot will depend on specifics of the ballista: how quick does the string move, how much the projectile flexes, what exactly is the projectile, etc etc.

wolflance
2017-08-10, 02:38 AM
There is a fairly good replica of Orşova ballista that is just barely not man-portable that clocks in at 4700 lbs and works quite well. For the estimated ranges, portable crossbows have their top draw weight at 3000 - 6000 lbs, depending on who you ask, with 1000+ lbs crossbows being quite common during late renaissance - you obviously need a cranequin and a fair amount of time to use those.


http://alexisphoenix.org/imagesromania9/ballistaontrucksm.jpg


For siege engines, I saw top estimate of 12 000 lbs, but beware, this will be even less useful than it is for crossbows - people tend to be obsessed with Joules and whatnot, while forgetting that these aren't uniform bullets going out of fairly uniform barrels - a lot will depend on specifics of the ballista: how quick does the string move, how much the projectile flexes, what exactly is the projectile, etc etc.
I am aware of the power and range of Firefly Orsova ballista, however since it is a Roman torsion-powered siege engine, I think it is quite different from flexion-powered medieval crossbow, thus not really a good example.

But 3000, 6000 and 12000 lbs is still quite impressive, even for a siege crossbow. Are these using steel prod?

snowblizz
2017-08-10, 03:14 AM
http://alexisphoenix.org/imagesromania9/ballistaontrucksm.jpg



Oh look! An Ancient Roman technical! As always the Romans were among the first with the concept. If only we hadn't lost the pick-up technology in the Dark Ages.

Tobtor
2017-08-10, 06:58 AM
Another (unrelated) question:
Is there any recorded (or modern measured) draw weight of medieval siege/rampart crossbow? The kind that's too heavy to be man-portable and has to be mounted on a rest/stand/cart.

Range too.


In this case I do not think draw-weight is actually the most accurate number to go by, Stored energy and the the actual energy is much more important.

Even within smaler weapons like bows there is a very great difference in resulting force (which is what we are ultimately after). It is not difficult to make something have a high Draw weight, it is difficult to make that draw weight matter! There are a series of loses of power along the way: including: how much energy does death weight account for,ghow fast is the movement of the bow, how long is the draw-lenght at the measured draw-weight, how is the release mechanism designed, what is the weight of the arrow compared to the above factors etc.

I am by no Means an Expert, but try reading these links:

http://www.dryadbows.com/Defining%20Bow%20Performance%20Dryad.pdf

and:

http://archeryreport.com/2009/11/arrow-kinetic-energy-momentum-archer/

The thing is with "very big bows" (or crosbows etc), is that there is a greater potential for lost "power" due to dead weight (alot of the draw-force isn't going into the projectile, but into the arms of the bow when shot). It is also harder to do optimal releases with the shots. A bow of double the draw-weight might not mean double power!

Thus we would dieally measure speed and momentum, or impact force, rather than draw weights. Especially when dealing with "Things" that big (the difference in dead weight per lbs isn't big between a 90 Pound and a 120 Pound bow, thus draw-weight is a practical way of comparing weapons which requires lot less research than momentum of the arrow, but dealing with weapons with huge diversity such as siege weapons might not give usefull results).

Storm Bringer
2017-08-10, 03:07 PM
Oh look! An Ancient Roman technical! As always the Romans were among the first with the concept. If only we hadn't lost the pick-up technology in the Dark Ages.

the correct term is carroballista (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroballista)
:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Lemmy
2017-08-10, 06:16 PM
I know this is a very broad question, but I really just want to have some basis for analyzing and creating games and stories.

So... How long can a reasonably fit man march, (assuming he isn't carrying anything particularly heavy nor treading on particularly difficult terrain)? And at what speed?

How much does, say, a breast plate, helmet, sword and shield affect that (made of steel)?

How does that figure change for large armies?

Like I said... I know there are way too many variables here... I really only want a point of reference. There must be some study about it.

Vinyadan
2017-08-10, 06:41 PM
The first question is, just man or also woman? In my experience men walk a longer distance. Longer legs probably help.

Reasonably fit is also a good question. The fatter you are, the more tiresome it becomes to walk. It might depend on weight you have to carry, or difficulty in dissipating heat. Lots of sweat! But, this is mostly true for people who don't walk much normally, and suddenly find themselves on the march.

Marching is indeed the kind of thing you can train. People are meant for walking, after all. 30 km with a 12 kg weight on your back for many days in hilly terrain is very much possible, even without much conditioning. On actual mountains, however, you stop calculating the distance by km and start using hours, because of slopes and difference in altitude, as well as a great variation in quality and danger of roads and paths.

I know that Tolkien calculated the distances covered by Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas while following the orcs with a manual concerning the various distances you could expect to be covered on foot in a day. The Three Hunters were using one of the hardest paces.

The Romans marched in armour, and we know that they could do 30 km in 6 hours a day. They also had faster paces, if they were needed. However, they had a lot of training; marching and marching as a body at the same pace were the first things a legionnaire learnt.

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-11, 02:29 AM
I know this is a very broad question, but I really just want to have some basis for analyzing and creating games and stories.

So... How long can a reasonably fit man march, (assuming he isn't carrying anything particularly heavy nor treading on particularly difficult terrain)? And at what speed?

How much does, say, a breast plate, helmet, sword and shield affect that (made of steel)?

How does that figure change for large armies?

Like I said... I know there are way too many variables here... I really only want a point of reference. There must be some study about it.

31 kg for 19 km in 3 hours is required for USAF Expert Infantryman Badge for shorter distances is a good estimate, for longer ones, French Foreign Legion has Raid March of 120 km with full combat gear and 30 kg load on top of that to be done in 3 days - this one does simulate raiding checkpoints, so it is a fair estimate for a medieval army, just replace checkpoints with food gathering. These are, of course, top speeds you can get out of your men, and not to be done for too long.

When it comes to moving armies, your limiting factor isn't marching speed of men, but of the baggage train - one of the reasons why Romans could travel as fast as they did was reducing the size of that by carrying a lot of stuff themselves. Even then, you can expect to be held up massively at places where you can't march through in a wide column, European mountains are littered with them and they were important strategic places, Hungary referred to them as Gates to the Kingdom.

In contrast to that quick speed, it took Suleiman 100 days to travel 525 km from Sofia to Mohacs, but the conditions were very bad - rain made all roads more mud than road and he had to transport heavy Ottoman cannons.

The second part of the question is how armor will impact it, and the answer is not much if at all provided the weather is cold enough. Any decent medieval armor has its weight distributed much better than modern combat gear and will therefore almost not register as long as you're just walking. The potential problem here is the heat exhaustion - you have to stay hydrated and stay cool. When this does not happen, you will have horrific casualties and assassinate your combat effectiveness, for a good example look at Outremer Crusades, especially the first one.

Battle of Hattin is infamous for this, Crusader leadership ordered their people to march and then rest without water when they really should have known better.

Brother Oni
2017-08-11, 07:39 AM
I know this is a very broad question, but I really just want to have some basis for analyzing and creating games and stories.

So... How long can a reasonably fit man march, (assuming he isn't carrying anything particularly heavy nor treading on particularly difficult terrain)? And at what speed?

How much does, say, a breast plate, helmet, sword and shield affect that (made of steel)?

How does that figure change for large armies?

Like I said... I know there are way too many variables here... I really only want a point of reference. There must be some study about it.

The Roman Legions marching speed has been covered, but they're regarded as the apex of infantry armies and this is assuming good roads. 'Regular step' was the ~30km/6 hours mentioned by Vinyadan and this was carrying 20.5kg worth of gear. 'Faster step' was 35.5 km with the same gear in the same time.

As mentioned by Martin Greywolf, the baggage train often dictated how fast an army travelled (Caesar often forced marched his army faster than their baggage train, with the fastest I've read is 32 miles a day for 3 days).

8-10 miles a day for a medieval army was about typical if they were carting their own supplies. During the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionhearted kept his army supplied by sae and managed better pace (I've read between 18-20 miles a day for a typical medieval army).
Armies had all sorts of tricks for lightening their load while march, from not wearing lower leg armour, to ECW-era pikemen dragging their weapons on the ground behind them on the march ('trailing their pikes').
There's a number of mentions of armies leaving their armour back on their baggage train while they marched ahead, and more than a few times where they've come a cropper because of it (the Vikings at the Battle of Stamford Bridge for example).

Modern infantry has already been mentioned, but they generally travel in smaller groups and the faster light infantry tend to have excellent training, morale and discipline (British light infantry are expected to maintain 24 miles a day while tabbing with full kit of ~50kg).

Tobtor
2017-08-11, 08:56 AM
The second part of the question is how armor will impact it, and the answer is not much if at all provided the weather is cold enough. Any decent medieval armor has its weight distributed much better than modern combat gear and will therefore almost not register as long as you're just walking. The potential problem here is the heat exhaustion - you have to stay hydrated and stay cool. When this does not happen, you will have horrific casualties and assassinate your combat effectiveness, for a good example look at Outremer Crusades, especially the first one.

I agree with most of the post, but even well distributed wearing armour will cause you to get more tired faster, even in Scandinavian winters. You might be able to keep up a marching pace with an unarmoured person for an hour or so, but then fatigue begins to affect the matter. Especially if its leg armour, but also if its not. Weight is weight. I have seen this many times in LARPs. The armoured people needs more and longer rests - thus reducing how far they can travel. The thing is that weight is weight no matter how its distributed. So of course if the un-armoured person is carrying the same weight then it cancels out (though padding makes you hot, and leg armour is hard on the leg , backs are also not very comfortable etc). But then the armour people have to carry less "other gear". Counting the armour among the remaining encumbrance is likely enough, but that stills people in armour will generally travel shorter.

Persistance hunting is also a good way of seeing how much the human body can do at the maximum:


The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa, and David Attenborough's documentary The Life of Mammals (program 10, "Food For Thought") showed a bushman hunting a kudu antelope until it collapsed. It is thought that the Tarahumara natives of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may have also practiced persistence hunting. The procedure is not to spear the antelope or kudu from a distance, but to run it down in the midday heat, for about two to five hours over 25 to 35 km (16 to 22 mi) in temperatures of about 40 to 42 °C (104 to 108 °F).

From wikipedia.


Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land animal, the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen from northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat of the day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats

Also from wikipedia.

I suposse that mainly possible without armour (though it would be a "fun" experiment to run down a deer wile wearing mail)

Brother Oni
2017-08-11, 03:28 PM
I suposse that mainly possible without armour (though it would be a "fun" experiment to run down a deer wile wearing mail)

I'd like to point out that persistence hunting is only possible for humans due to our superior thermoregulation. Both examples you've quoted have been in very hot environments where we have an advantage; although slower, we keep on going while the animal eventually collapses from over heating.

In colder climates, we don't have as much of an advantage; while running down an antelope in 42C heat is possible, running down a red deer in a 15C temperate climate is unlikely.

Incanur
2017-08-11, 09:49 PM
Note that extremely fit individuals can cover much more distance in a day than you might think, up to nearly 190 miles in 24 hours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_run). That's on smooth, level ground without any encumbrance, of course, and long-distance runners aren't built for fighting. However, I still suspect certain individuals and perhaps elite troop historically could have marched for much farther than the standard 20-40 miles per day.

fusilier
2017-08-12, 12:52 AM
Note that extremely fit individuals can cover much more distance in a day than you might think, up to nearly 190 miles in 24 hours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_run). That's on smooth, level ground without any encumbrance, of course, and long-distance runners aren't built for fighting. However, I still suspect certain individuals and perhaps elite troop historically could have marched for much farther than the standard 20-40 miles per day.

I don't think this has been mentioned, and I apologize if it was already brought up, but larger units move slower. I suspect this has to do, at least in part, with road congestion. If I remember correctly, one of Napoleon's innovations was to split his large armies into corps that could take different routes, and could therefore move faster (and forage more effectively). A single corps contained all branches (infantry, cavalry, artillery) so if a corps encountered an enemy army it could fight a delaying action until the rest of the corps could converge on its location.

So when talking about marching rates, it's important to consider the size of the formation. A small group can cover a lot more distance than a larger one. The manual I have from WW1 specifies marching times and distances, assuming a regiment sized formation, and it explicitly states that larger formations move slower.

Brother Oni
2017-08-12, 01:21 AM
So when talking about marching rates, it's important to consider the size of the formation. A small group can cover a lot more distance than a larger one. The manual I have from WW1 specifies marching times and distances, assuming a regiment sized formation, and it explicitly states that larger formations move slower.

While road congestion is an issue (the back of the army can't move before the front and middle is out of the way), simply getting several thousand people pointed in the right direction for that day can also be a task in itself. The route is also going to play a factor - a dirt road is going to be a churned up mud pit after a several hundred people in gear have walked down it.

While it's been touched upon above with regard to the baggage train, logistics becomes more significant the larger the unit. For example, a group of 20 men doesn't have to worry about digging latrine pits, finding water sources and simply enough space to set up camp that a thousand men would; a quartermaster can distribute rations to 20 men in about 5 minutes; even at the same rate, a thousand men would take over an hour and half.

Lemmy
2017-08-12, 10:26 AM
Thank you all for your replies. It was really enlightening. I honestly had no idea how long/far marches could go. :smallsmile:

fusilier
2017-08-12, 12:53 PM
While road congestion is an issue (the back of the army can't move before the front and middle is out of the way), simply getting several thousand people pointed in the right direction for that day can also be a task in itself. The route is also going to play a factor - a dirt road is going to be a churned up mud pit after a several hundred people in gear have walked down it.

While it's been touched upon above with regard to the baggage train, logistics becomes more significant the larger the unit. For example, a group of 20 men doesn't have to worry about digging latrine pits, finding water sources and simply enough space to set up camp that a thousand men would; a quartermaster can distribute rations to 20 men in about 5 minutes; even at the same rate, a thousand men would take over an hour and half.

Those are all good points too. I know that the baggage train was mentioned, but I'm reluctant to say anything definite about how much a baggage train slows down a force. I've read accounts where exhausted soldiers rode in the supply wagons to keep up a forced march. On the other hand, I know of cases where infantry out marched their own supplies.

I remember a specific incident during the Mexican American War -- When General Kearny was planning his campaign down the Santa Fe Trail, he had only mounted troops at his disposal. Desiring some infantry, he managed to convince two companies of Missouri Volunteers to dismount. Wanting to prove that they could keep up with the mounted forces, they marched so hard the first day they actually out marched the cavalry (something they would do repeatedly during the long march). One of the companies, however, also out marched their own supply wagons, and had to eat cold rations, and sleep without tents.

VoxRationis
2017-08-12, 01:46 PM
It is my understanding that the late Roman army replaced the old pila with lead-weighted darts. When did this occur, and why? Is this a cost-saving measure? Is this a response to legionaries of lesser discipline discarding or cutting down their pila to save weight? Is there a good tactical reason to use darts instead of spears? (I know AD&D would say rate of fire, but that's not really a good source!) Is my understanding simply incorrect, or based on misconceptions?

Kiero
2017-08-12, 02:23 PM
Those are all good points too. I know that the baggage train was mentioned, but I'm reluctant to say anything definite about how much a baggage train slows down a force. I've read accounts where exhausted soldiers rode in the supply wagons to keep up a forced march. On the other hand, I know of cases where infantry out marched their own supplies.

I remember a specific incident during the Mexican American War -- When General Kearny was planning his campaign down the Santa Fe Trail, he had only mounted troops at his disposal. Desiring some infantry, he managed to convince two companies of Missouri Volunteers to dismount. Wanting to prove that they could keep up with the mounted forces, they marched so hard the first day they actually out marched the cavalry (something they would do repeatedly during the long march). One of the companies, however, also out marched their own supply wagons, and had to eat cold rations, and sleep without tents.

Humans can outmarch pack animals, and survive much nastier conditions (in terms of being wet and cold, mostly) over a genuinely long timescale. Equines are surprisingly fragile and require a lot of careful husbanding to keep them alive under the rigours of campaigning. There were numerous incidents in the long retreats during the Peninsular War, for example, of pack animals being lamed trying to keep up with the men (and being shot and eaten as a result).

A horse can beat a man over 10 miles once. But a man can beat that same animal if they're travelling 1000 miles, day after day. The only animals with long-term stamina equivalent to humans are canines (wolves more specifically).

Amaril
2017-08-12, 03:00 PM
Few questions here. Let's say I'm working on a low-fantasy game with the tech level of the setting pegged to mid-to-late 11th century western Europe (if a specific year is needed, go with 1066 CE). It's rules-light, with a simple combat system that uses ablative armor. You can equip up to four kinds of armor at once: cloth or leather padding (a gambeson or something similar), a shield, a helmet, and mail or lamellar. When you get hit, you can sacrifice one piece of armor to protect yourself; on a good armor roll, that piece is intact but no longer useful in that battle (helmets get knocked off, straps on mail come undone, etc.), on a bad roll, it's broken and will need repair.

I want weapon selection to matter in this system, so one way it factors in is that certain types of weapons can't be blocked by certain types of armor. My main question is, what weapons should get past what armor? The weapon list I'm imagining would include one-handed spears, two-handed longspears and glaives, one-handed axes, two-handed battleaxes, swords, maces/hammers, bows, slings, and daggers (the last two inferior to everything else in pretty much every way, but acquirable basically for free as backup weapons). There would also be a note made that crossbows exist, but are unpopular among adventurers because their long loading times leave the user vulnerable in the short-range, small-group engagements they tend to end up in. I know maces were historically used to deal crushing blows through mail, so I'd assume they'd also ignore padding; is that accurate? My research so far has turned up conflicting reports about the effectiveness of piercing weapons against mail, so how would that work? What about against padding? How about swords, would they ignore anything? Axes?

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-12, 07:50 PM
Humans can outmarch pack animals, and survive much nastier conditions (in terms of being wet and cold, mostly) over a genuinely long timescale. Equines are surprisingly fragile and require a lot of careful husbanding to keep them alive under the rigours of campaigning. There were numerous incidents in the long retreats during the Peninsular War, for example, of pack animals being lamed trying to keep up with the men (and being shot and eaten as a result).

A horse can beat a man over 10 miles once. But a man can beat that same animal if they're travelling 1000 miles, day after day. The only animals with long-term stamina equivalent to humans are canines (wolves more specifically).


Two species of highly social animal that engaged in cooperative endurance hunting.

In hindsight it seems almost inevitable that humans and wolves would end up joining forces and/or with one killing the other off...

Tobtor
2017-08-13, 06:56 AM
I'd like to point out that persistence hunting is only possible for humans due to our superior thermoregulation. Both examples you've quoted have been in very hot environments where we have an advantage; although slower, we keep on going while the animal eventually collapses from over heating.

In colder climates, we don't have as much of an advantage; while running down an antelope in 42C heat is possible, running down a red deer in a 15C temperate climate is unlikely.

I agree (somewhat). It wasn't to discuss persistence hunting, but that it shows that humans are really good long distance-animals. Even more so if they can bring flasks of water etc.
By the way persistence hunting can, and have been, practised in more temperate climates (I have seen persistence hunting examples for 25C, though not 15c but in relatively open land or by groups I could see it done for large game). There is also examples in arctic climates, though here we are "cheating" with cross country skies (with traditional types of skis), while the animal have to move through snow. Snow also make the animal very much easier to track (and there are generally less cover during winter).

Blymurkla
2017-08-13, 11:51 AM
In fantasy/medieval RPGs (as well as, say, Warhammer Fantasy Battle and similar) goes lengths to distinguish between one-handed and two-handed weapons.

In these games, the main advantage of two-handed weapons are generally that they deal more damage. Some of them also have longer reach than one-handed weapons (but that's usually reserved for spears and pole-arms). If they have a disadvantage, other than occupying both hands, it's that they're slower. For example, in the alternate speed factor system of D&D 5e, they have a negative initiative modifier.

I had a friend that practised sword fighting (don't ask about what kind or at what level) that said this was bull****. First, he didn't like the damage difference and claimed that you're equally dead from a dagger stab in the stomach as from a two-handed sword going through your shoulder and into your torso (technically, I suppose that's correct. But the abstract nature of hit point systems make it a bit more complicated). Secondly, he argued that two-handed weapons are faster. You're using both arms, i.e. double your strength, to move the weapon around, making your attacks and responses easier. Lastly, he pointed out that reach is probably the main advantage of two-handed sword vs. a one-handed one.

His simple suggestion, that works in most system, was to make damage pretty much equal between weapons but give two-handed weapons a +1 to hit (or similar) to simulate that they're easier to wield. The reach part, I thought then, is trickier, you'd need to increase granularity the grid system or use 'zones' of distance or something for theatre-of-mind games. Now, I'm thinking that perhaps you could invert the initiative modifier in the speed factor system, making two-handers having a better chance of going first in initiative order. That would simulate that the guy with the longer weapon can strike first.

Is it the RPGs that are wrong, or am I? Could you help sort this out for me - what advantages and disadvantages are there to one-handed and two-handed weapons, and how could that be represented in traditional RPGs?

Tobtor
2017-08-13, 01:18 PM
In fantasy/medieval RPGs (as well as, say, Warhammer Fantasy Battle and similar) goes lengths to distinguish between one-handed and two-handed weapons.

In these games, the main advantage of two-handed weapons are generally that they deal more damage. Some of them also have longer reach than one-handed weapons (but that's usually reserved for spears and pole-arms). If they have a disadvantage, other than occupying both hands, it's that they're slower. For example, in the alternate speed factor system of D&D 5e, they have a negative initiative modifier.

I had a friend that practised sword fighting (don't ask about what kind or at what level) that said this was bull****. First, he didn't like the damage difference and claimed that you're equally dead from a dagger stab in the stomach as from a two-handed sword going through your shoulder and into your torso (technically, I suppose that's correct. But the abstract nature of hit point systems make it a bit more complicated). Secondly, he argued that two-handed weapons are faster. You're using both arms, i.e. double your strength, to move the weapon around, making your attacks and responses easier. Lastly, he pointed out that reach is probably the main advantage of two-handed sword vs. a one-handed one.

His simple suggestion, that works in most system, was to make damage pretty much equal between weapons but give two-handed weapons a +1 to hit (or similar) to simulate that they're easier to wield. The reach part, I thought then, is trickier, you'd need to increase granularity the grid system or use 'zones' of distance or something for theatre-of-mind games. Now, I'm thinking that perhaps you could invert the initiative modifier in the speed factor system, making two-handers having a better chance of going first in initiative order. That would simulate that the guy with the longer weapon can strike first.

Is it the RPGs that are wrong, or am I? Could you help sort this out for me - what advantages and disadvantages are there to one-handed and two-handed weapons, and how could that be represented in traditional RPGs?

I think it is difficult to divide weapons into "one handed" and "two-handed" as such. There is more to it than that.


Rapier is one handed is fast and quite long (good reach).
Longsword (late medieval sword primarily used two handed) might have about the same reach as rapier and also be very fast.
Small-sword is also fast but shorter.
Arming sword/viking age sword are shorter (thus less reach) and not as fast (though still "fast"). Is it enough to give rapiers/longsword the reach-advantage like spear/polewepons?
Greatsword/claymore/Zweihander etc, is a very different weapon, and I would argue not as fast, but much harder hitting (for defeating armoured oponents, cutting polewepons staffs etc, this is handy). I would say bonus reach, but slower than longsword/rapier.
"short" swords (messers, seaxes etc). Fast, but poor reach.


The reach thing is difficult as you might not have "a whole" square/yard/foot/zone extra reach, but its still important to the fight. Depends on how the system operates how the best solution is. A simple solution is having the weapon giving a bonus to initiative or similar (a way of giving the one with the longest weapons within the category a chance to get an attack first). Then I would have "greatswords" (true double handers) in the same reach category as short pole-weapons. But Longswords/rapiers/arming-swords in another category. So I would give initiative to the longsword over the "normal" one handed sword, but equal to the rapier. I would similar have the arming sowrd and twohanded sword have the same initiative, but having the "greatsword" having a greater reach than both the arming sword and longsword.

I am no expert swordsman, but from what I have tried, it is also easier to parry with a longsword than an arming sword. It is much easier to get the sword where you want it fast (which you need when parrying). Others (such as G) might have more accurate (skilled) opinion on this.

About damage: no you are not equally dead with a dagger than a sword (or: dead is dead, but not all wounds are fatal right away). Yes, if it hits your vital organs. But a dagger to your body doesn't necessarily bring you down. A cut from a greatsword does. Similar a sword cut can pretty much remove an arm or leg, a dagger might not (note armour changes things, but lets leave that out for now).

DnD hit points confuses things as you can survive the most extreme situations.... (like falling from high buildings, shrug of the damage and move on). But a greatsword SHOULD give more damage than a seax or other small sword. Also more than an arming sword.

I think damage is difficult to calculate between stuff like rapier/longsword/arming sword. Rapiers thrust really well, and also cut fine, but I would argue doesn't have the power of a longsword for powerful cuts (perhaps disallow attacks such as DnD "power" attacks with a rapier could model this). An arming sword also possibly cuts better than a rapier.

Instead of having classes of wepons in earlier version of this thread people have suggested using "features" of the wepons instead. This could look like this (with variansion depending on system)
Rapier: fast and long (good initiative), cuts and thrust fine, but no power-cuts.
Longsword (used twohanded): fast and long (good initiative), thrust and cuts, "power-cut", good at parrying/manoeuvre (+ to skill or parry or AC or whatever the system uses). Doesn't leave a hand free.
Arming sword types (including Spathas, Viking swords etc): Not as long and fast as rapiers, but still decently fast (compared to axes etc). Cut (and likely thrust depending on type). Decent power cut (compared to rapier). Suited to use with large shields.

And so on.

wolflance
2017-08-13, 02:02 PM
Snip
Your friend is mostly correct if we are talking about real-life, or human vs human combat...well, only mostly. I've read that most knife-related murder cases takes dozens of knife stabs to finally kill someone, but I presume a powerful sword slash can end someone's life pretty quickly.

Now, in a fantasy world with ogres and dragons running around, this will certainly not be the case. Some of these monstrous humanoid can apparently survive a cannonball to the gut, so using a two-handed sword will certainly be more effective against them (deal more damage) compared to a dagger.

However, he is more or less correct in stating that two-handed weapon has better reach, speed, control/accuracy and leverage if you are going into a bind (and power/killing potential too, actually), all else being equal. They are just that good.

The only thing going for one-handed weapon is that you can grab a shield/a second weapon with your off hand.

Tobtor
2017-08-13, 02:18 PM
Few questions here. Let's say I'm working on a low-fantasy game with the tech level of the setting pegged to mid-to-late 11th century western Europe (if a specific year is needed, go with 1066 CE). It's rules-light, with a simple combat system that uses ablative armor. You can equip up to four kinds of armor at once: cloth or leather padding (a gambeson or something similar), a shield, a helmet, and mail or lamellar. When you get hit, you can sacrifice one piece of armor to protect yourself; on a good armor roll, that piece is intact but no longer useful in that battle (helmets get knocked off, straps on mail come undone, etc.), on a bad roll, it's broken and will need repair.

I want weapon selection to matter in this system, so one way it factors in is that certain types of weapons can't be blocked by certain types of armor. My main question is, what weapons should get past what armor? The weapon list I'm imagining would include one-handed spears, two-handed longspears and glaives, one-handed axes, two-handed battleaxes, swords, maces/hammers, bows, slings, and daggers (the last two inferior to everything else in pretty much every way, but acquirable basically for free as backup weapons). There would also be a note made that crossbows exist, but are unpopular among adventurers because their long loading times leave the user vulnerable in the short-range, small-group engagements they tend to end up in. I know maces were historically used to deal crushing blows through mail, so I'd assume they'd also ignore padding; is that accurate? My research so far has turned up conflicting reports about the effectiveness of piercing weapons against mail, so how would that work? What about against padding? How about swords, would they ignore anything? Axes?

Note that there is almost no maces in western Europe in the 11th century. We had a long debate about it in the previous thread. When Maces became more "popular" was a matter of debate though (my opinion later, more like 14th century than 12th century, well except for in Byzantine empire and partly "Russia").

I have difficult answering your question as I do not understand the armour system (or do not agree with the premise). Armour can withstand multiple hits (yes they get worn down over time, loosing rings etc, but not by one or two hits!). Also Padding as standalone armour is not a 11th century thing (and until proven otherwise I will argue that thick clothing was the only padding worn, no evidence of padding until somewhat later).

No weapon should really ignore armour. Swords might cut through padding, but it will still not go as deep as without padding etc.

I always think giving armour a damage resistance is much better. Then certain weapons (such as "spiky things" for mail, cutting things for padding etc) can reduce the damage resistance. Thus a mail might have between 4 and 8 of DR depending on quality, then sword cuts deal 1d6 damage, a narrow-pointed spear also 1d6 (or possibly 1d8 or whatever), but with a 50% reduction to DR giving it a change to hurt the opponent (thus reducing the armour protective value to 2 or 4 depending on quality, thus many hits will still be ignored).

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-13, 03:05 PM
Note that there is almost no maces in western Europe in the 11th century. We had a long debate about it in the previous thread. When Maces became more "popular" was a matter of debate though (my opinion later, more like 14th century than 12th century, well except for in Byzantine empire and partly "Russia").

I have difficult answering your question as I do not understand the armour system (or do not agree with the premise). Armour can withstand multiple hits (yes they get worn down over time, loosing rings etc, but not by one or two hits!). Also Padding as standalone armour is not a 11th century thing (and until proven otherwise I will argue that thick clothing was the only padding worn, no evidence of padding until somewhat later).

No weapon should really ignore armour. Swords might cut through padding, but it will still not go as deep as without padding etc.

I always think giving armour a damage resistance is much better. Then certain weapons (such as "spiky things" for mail, cutting things for padding etc) can reduce the damage resistance. Thus a mail might have between 4 and 8 of DR depending on quality, then sword cuts deal 1d6 damage, a narrow-pointed spear also 1d6 (or possibly 1d8 or whatever), but with a 50% reduction to DR giving it a change to hurt the opponent (thus reducing the armour protective value to 2 or 4 depending on quality, thus many hits will still be ignored).

That's similar to what we did in the old homebrew.

Every weapon had a damage and a "penetration" value, and every armor had a "reduction" value.

(No "armor makes you harder to hit", either.)

Vitruviansquid
2017-08-13, 03:52 PM
Few questions here. Let's say I'm working on a low-fantasy game with the tech level of the setting pegged to mid-to-late 11th century western Europe (if a specific year is needed, go with 1066 CE). It's rules-light, with a simple combat system that uses ablative armor. You can equip up to four kinds of armor at once: cloth or leather padding (a gambeson or something similar), a shield, a helmet, and mail or lamellar. When you get hit, you can sacrifice one piece of armor to protect yourself; on a good armor roll, that piece is intact but no longer useful in that battle (helmets get knocked off, straps on mail come undone, etc.), on a bad roll, it's broken and will need repair.

I want weapon selection to matter in this system, so one way it factors in is that certain types of weapons can't be blocked by certain types of armor. My main question is, what weapons should get past what armor? The weapon list I'm imagining would include one-handed spears, two-handed longspears and glaives, one-handed axes, two-handed battleaxes, swords, maces/hammers, bows, slings, and daggers (the last two inferior to everything else in pretty much every way, but acquirable basically for free as backup weapons). There would also be a note made that crossbows exist, but are unpopular among adventurers because their long loading times leave the user vulnerable in the short-range, small-group engagements they tend to end up in. I know maces were historically used to deal crushing blows through mail, so I'd assume they'd also ignore padding; is that accurate? My research so far has turned up conflicting reports about the effectiveness of piercing weapons against mail, so how would that work? What about against padding? How about swords, would they ignore anything? Axes?

I, and apparently most gamers, are perfectly okay with unrealistic interactions as long as they make mechanical sense. Fire Emblem's sword beats axe, axe beats spear system doesn't have any justification as far as I can tell, but it works perfectly well in their context of a turn based tactics game.

I'm not sure about the gameplay utility of this system either. Damage resistances tend not to work in a system where you can only control one unit. So if I built my character to be good with a sword, but a sword doesn't do well against mail armor, am I just screwed in a fight against someone wearing mail? That's not fun, nor does it make sense for realism - in reality, mailed warriors with swords killed each other all the time by using their swords on the body parts not covered by mail, sometimes requiring a bit of close quarters struggle. Or, if it's not a big deal to use a different weapon, does this mean that all player characters will want to have access to a large breadth of weapons? If that's possible, what's the point of having this different weapons system to begin with?

If weapons are supposed to feel different, where does this difference in feel come in? Am I more likely to encounter some armor types than others? Is it a bigger deal to be able to pierce lamellar than it is to be able to pierce gambeson? What makes a player choose one weapon types or armor types over the others, besides what all the other players are choosing?

Mr Beer
2017-08-13, 05:43 PM
First, he didn't like the damage difference and claimed that you're equally dead from a dagger stab in the stomach as from a two-handed sword going through your shoulder and into your torso (technically, I suppose that's correct. But the abstract nature of hit point systems make it a bit more complicated).

I agree that a killing blow can be delivered by different scale weapons and when you're dead it doesn't matter what weapon did it, but the idea that all weapons therefore do equal damage is just silly. I guess it doesn't matter if you get the result you want from a game, but if you're trying for 'simulationist', there should be differences in damage.

Amaril
2017-08-13, 07:41 PM
My responses to a lot of these comments will have to stray away from history and into game design, so I'll spoiler them for now, and if the discussion continues that way, I'll move it to its own thread.


I have difficult answering your question as I do not understand the armour system (or do not agree with the premise). Armour can withstand multiple hits (yes they get worn down over time, loosing rings etc, but not by one or two hits!).

...

I always think giving armour a damage resistance is much better. Then certain weapons (such as "spiky things" for mail, cutting things for padding etc) can reduce the damage resistance. Thus a mail might have between 4 and 8 of DR depending on quality, then sword cuts deal 1d6 damage, a narrow-pointed spear also 1d6 (or possibly 1d8 or whatever), but with a 50% reduction to DR giving it a change to hurt the opponent (thus reducing the armour protective value to 2 or 4 depending on quality, thus many hits will still be ignored).

That's similar to what we did in the old homebrew.

Every weapon had a damage and a "penetration" value, and every armor had a "reduction" value.

(No "armor makes you harder to hit", either.)
The system is a Powered by the Apocalypse hack. For reference, here's the combat rules as they currently stand.

Stats
Characters have five main stats. Each ranges from -3 to +3. The two most directly relevant to combat are brave and strong.

Brave means courageous, thrill-seeking, lacking in self-preservation, able and willing to throw yourself into danger without faltering.

Strong means physically strong, strong-willed, tough, aggressive, violent and skilled in the doing of violence.

Basic Moves
For anyone not familiar with Powered by the Apocalypse, the game revolves around actions called moves. A move is triggered when a player character does something that creates uncertainty in the fiction. Almost all moves involve a roll of 2d6 plus relevant modifiers, usually a stat. A total of 10 or higher indicates a complete success--the character accomplished exactly what they wanted. A 7-9 indicates a partial success--they get part of what they want, or succeed with complications. A 6 or lower is a failure, which usually gives the GM open-ended license to inflict badness as fictionally appropriate.

In Drifters, much of combat is based around two basic moves: throw yourself into danger and do battle.

Throw yourself into danger
When you throw yourself into danger, or steel yourself to endure, roll +brave. On a 10+, you do it. On a 7-9, you flinch, hesitate, or stall; the GM can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice. On a miss, be prepared for the worst.

Do battle
When you attack an enemy in combat, roll +strong. On a 10+, you inflict harm, evade or stop their counterattack, and keep them at the distance you want. On a 7-9, you inflict harm, and they retaliate, inflicting harm back on you, or moving to their preferred range if they can't. On a miss, be prepared for the worst.

Peripheral Moves
There are two peripheral moves that will also come up a lot in a fight: harm and armor.

Harm
When you suffer harm, mark off a harm box and roll +current harm. On a 10+, you're incapacitated, out of the fight. On a 7-9, you're struggling; take -1 forward. On a miss, you're fine for now. If you're at 4 harm, don't bother rolling, because you're dead.
When you rest up in town, if you're at 1 harm, heal up to full health. Anything more serious will require treatment.

Armor
When you protect yourself from harm with armor, choose a piece of armor you're wearing and roll. On a 10+, the armor stops the hit, but you won't be able to use it again this fight. On a 7-9, as above, and the armor gets in your way; take -1 forward. On a miss, the armor stops the hit, but breaks in the process, and won't be usable again until someone with the appropriate skills takes time to fix it up.

More on Combat
When you get in a fight, the first thing you need to figure out is what range you're fighting at. This is determined by your weapon. Too far, and you can't reach; too close, and you don't have the space to swing properly. The ranges are shot (bows, slings), thrown (thrown weapons), reach (longspears, glaives), close (most other melee weapons), and hand (daggers, bare hands). Sometimes, the location of the fight will determine the range--if you're fighting in a closet, you're at hand range. Failing that, compare your weapon with your enemy's; the person with the longer range gets to pick. You can't attack someone outside your range, unless you can close the gap somehow, which will probably mean throwing yourself into danger. If you have the range advantage, your enemy can't hit you, but may get a chance to close the distance as per your do battle move. The same applies if either of you wants to retreat to a longer range.

Besides its range, every weapon has its own strengths and weaknesses. Common weapons are listed here with theirs.

(Still working on the weapon list, but below it, I'll have a list of each characteristic and what it means.)

Weak means it can't get through armor. If your opponent is wearing any, you're out of luck. This will mostly apply to unarmed attacks.

Deadly means if it's not stopped by armor, it inflicts 2 harm. Keep in mind that helpless, unaware, or unsuspecting targets can't use armor, even if they're wearing it. (I hadn't mentioned that last part yet here, but it's detailed in the full rules as part of the move for attacking such targets.)

Cheap means any time you have a chance to pick up new weapons, you can get one essentially for free, no bargaining or spending treasure needed. Expensive means it'll cost you 2 treasure instead of 1 (or double the price of other weapons, whatever that is at the moment).

Two-handed means you can't use a shield with it.

Ammo means it uses a limited supply of projectiles, which you can run out of.

(My plan was to also have characteristics that let weapons bypass different types of armor, but obviously I'm still nailing down just how that works.)

More on Harm
When you get hurt, you take harm. Most injuries are 1 harm--that includes normal weapon strikes. Drifters have 4 harm boxes. 1 harm is scrapes, bruises, and shallow cuts--painful, but not serious, and they'll get better on their own with time and rest. 2 harm is a real, telling injury that hurts a lot and needs help to heal, but isn't life-threatening. 3 harm is a mortal wound; if you don't get help within a few minutes, you'll bleed out and die. 4 harm is death--you might have time for a few last words, but no healing can save you now. Remember, though, that even 1 harm can take you out of a fight if you get unlucky with your harm move; this is where armor can really be helpful.

Most NPCs, human or otherwise, die at 2 harm, though some really tough ones might take 3. There's also d-harm, or direct harm. D-harm is for things like poison, or falling off cliffs; normal armor can't stop it.

You can equip up to four pieces of armor: padding, mail, a helmet, and a shield. As per the armor move, you can use it to avoid harm. Mail is expensive to buy, though not to repair. Armored NPCs don't roll for armor--they just spend it to absorb hits, 1 piece per hit. Certain non-human creatures also have 1 or more n-armor, or natural armor, which they can spend the same way. N-armor might be ignored by certain types of weapons (a skeleton's n-armor might be ignored by blunt weapons, for example), or by certain other kinds of harm, like fire or silver. N-armor can stop d-harm, unless the d-harm is of a kind that specifically bypasses that creature's n-armor.

Treasure
Treasure is abstracted as points, found in the course of adventures or given as payment by NPCs. In terms of relevance to combat, 1 treasure buys: a new weapon; a new piece of armor; the repair of two broken pieces of armor; or full treatment by a healer (all assuming you get a fair deal, which you often won't). Anything cheap is free of this price, anything expensive doubles it.
I think that about covers it. Anyway, the gist of it is, PbtA systems don't make damage granular enough for weapons with AP ratings to be viable. Granted, the original Apocalypse World does armor as simple damage reduction, but the armor system I'm using is essentially copied from Sagas of the Icelanders; I thought it more fitting for a dungeon-crawling fantasy system with more focus on combat than vanilla AW. The reason for the fragility of armor is that fights are extremely short. Most fights between unarmored combatants will come down to just one or two rolls; with that kind of lethality, a single piece of armor absorbing one hit nearly doubles your survivability, which is a big deal. Also, keeping your armor in working order is meant to be a huge part of the resource allocation game--you only have so much treasure to throw around, so do you spend it on a bed for your stay in town, or on fixing the broken helmet that might save your life? It's definitely unrealistic for armor to fall apart so fast, and the only real explanation here is "because games", but I'm comfortable with that.


No weapon should really ignore armour. Swords might cut through padding, but it will still not go as deep as without padding etc.

See above. I'm sure realistically, no weapon completely ignores any type of armor, but at the level of granularity I'm working with (very little), it makes sense to abstract it as such. It's a case of rounding the effect of armor to "no damage" or "full damage", and the former doesn't work.


I, and apparently most gamers, are perfectly okay with unrealistic interactions as long as they make mechanical sense. Fire Emblem's sword beats axe, axe beats spear system doesn't have any justification as far as I can tell, but it works perfectly well in their context of a turn based tactics game.

Couldn't agree more. Hopefully my above responses have made it a little clearer where I'm coming from.


I'm not sure about the gameplay utility of this system either. Damage resistances tend not to work in a system where you can only control one unit. So if I built my character to be good with a sword, but a sword doesn't do well against mail armor, am I just screwed in a fight against someone wearing mail? That's not fun, nor does it make sense for realism - in reality, mailed warriors with swords killed each other all the time by using their swords on the body parts not covered by mail, sometimes requiring a bit of close quarters struggle. Or, if it's not a big deal to use a different weapon, does this mean that all player characters will want to have access to a large breadth of weapons? If that's possible, what's the point of having this different weapons system to begin with?

If weapons are supposed to feel different, where does this difference in feel come in? Am I more likely to encounter some armor types than others? Is it a bigger deal to be able to pierce lamellar than it is to be able to pierce gambeson? What makes a player choose one weapon types or armor types over the others, besides what all the other players are choosing?

As I've hopefully explained, all weapons can get through all armor, so you can totally kill someone in mail using a sword. It'd just take a roll or two longer than using a weapon against which mail is ineffective. My goal is, indeed, for PCs to want access to a variety of weapons. The main limiting factor on that will be what your class allows you to start with (in standard Apocalypse World and Dungeon World fashion, each class offers a different selection of starting equipment), and how much treasure they have to spend on buying new weapons, or replacements for ones they lose when they blow their moves and the GM gets to take their stuff.

Note that there is almost no maces in western Europe in the 11th century. We had a long debate about it in the previous thread. When Maces became more "popular" was a matter of debate though (my opinion later, more like 14th century than 12th century, well except for in Byzantine empire and partly "Russia").

I've been told they're rare, but I'm given to understand they did exist, in the form of simple blunt instruments--no flanges or proper warhammers. PCs in this game are supposed to be unconventional, so even if they're uncommon, it's appropriate to have them.


Also Padding as standalone armour is not a 11th century thing (and until proven otherwise I will argue that thick clothing was the only padding worn, no evidence of padding until somewhat later).

Really? My research has turned up talk of leather used as armor going back to the viking age. Are we talking about different kinds of padding?

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-14, 03:00 AM
Gambesons

This is honestly little more than semantics in terms of protectivity. Sure, migration era Europe didn't have gambesons per se, but if you're wearing 4 thick wool layers and maybe reinforce some of it with leather, it functions pretty much the same. It matters when you're trying to put together a period appropriate costume, not so much when designing a TTRPG system.

In any case, there are far, far too few find of any sort of clothing and armor to make sweeping conclusions. From what we have, several thick layers plus leather looks reasonable and works pretty well in practice. I added strips of leather into my padded mittens (for c1300 AD) to help with protecting my fingers, once they were in, no one was able to tell my gambeson was anything but standard, and I don't think no one at the time when they were used thought of this.

Weapon systems

My advice is, don't try to go in too deep into the rabbit hole, or go all the way. If we want to go all the way, we must ask ourselves, what does damage represent? In DnD-like system, it measures how much hurt a weapon can deliver if it hits. A big blade is far better at this than a little one, simply because it has a bigger chance to hit something important, like an artery. A guy may walk away from a stabbing if he's lucky, not so much if he has a longsword in the middle of his ribcage.

DR as armor is not a good idea either, simply because it represents how armor works rather poorly. Sure, if you try hitting the armored part, then it's accurate, but what about someone having a mail shirt with short sleeves while you try to chop off his hands? In some respect, armor should also represent that it makes harder to hit a body part that is unprotected by it. Hybrid AC and DR system may work, but then you need to ask yourself why apply DR if the AC is higher? You could also split the target roll into 3 areas (no hit, hit armor, hit unarmored part) but that becomes rather tedious pretty quickly.

And let's not even go into how some weapons (e.g. a pollaxe) work far, far better when paired with armor.

Then you have the problem of scaling. Most TTRPGs have characters become more powerful, so how do you reflect that mechanically while keeping the longsword through the ribcage as lethal at level 1 as it is at level 15? There are solutions to this, like transforming HP to represent being tired or lucky etc etc, but none of them are perfect.

You have two options there, go with a completely new system built from ground up - one based on how Filipino MAs deal with weapon types could work well - or pick a really abstract system like FATE and assign bonuses on a case-by-case basis. If you feel compelled to make changes based on "realism" don't. If you want to make changes for mechanical reasons (e.g. one handed weapons suck compared to two handed ones in this system), ignore our reality and substitute your own.

Vinyadan
2017-08-14, 06:56 AM
Maces in 1066 AD. Note that it could be not just a weapon, but also a symbol of authority.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Odo_bayeux_tapestry.png
https://s30.postimg.org/pbd5y6vf5/Screenshot_2017-08-14_12.20.56.png
https://s30.postimg.org/ba16cmrv5/Screenshot_2017-08-14_12.24.18.png


Also: spade fight!


https://s30.postimg.org/ppehxsfip/Screenshot_2017-08-14_12.23.38.png


Concerning weapon categories, I'd add manoeuvrability, which isn't the same as speed. Musashi said that you couldn't move a katana like a washizaki, because the katana was longer, which gave it more momentum. So you couldn't just interrupt the swing of your katana like you could interrupt the swing of your washizaki, which gave you a "recovery time" you had to account for.

Brother Oni
2017-08-14, 07:08 AM
Your friend is mostly correct if we are talking about real-life, or human vs human combat...well, only mostly. I've read that most knife-related murder cases takes dozens of knife stabs to finally kill someone, but I presume a powerful sword slash can end someone's life pretty quickly.

In previous threads, we devised a way of expressing the difference as lethality and incapacitation.

A dagger to the gut and a sword cleaving you in two are both equally fatal (ie you will die from this), but the former isn't as incapacitating (you can no longer fight). This means you can stab the person back, often fatally as well as their dagger is currently buried in your belly. I believe the 'right of way' rules in modern fencing were devised as a way of addressing this as 'both fencers dead' isn't a satisfying result for determining a winner in a sport.
Poisoned weapons (barring some rare and incredibly toxic ones) are also generally lethal but not incapacitating.

Things like nets, entangling weapons (eg 'man catchers') and tear gas are on the other side - incapacitating but generally not lethal. In very, very general terms, most slashing weapons tend not to be as lethal as piercing weapons, but location matters (severing the tendons in an arm tends not to be lethal, but hitting a major artery is; stabbing someone in the thigh isn't as lethal as stabbing someone in the head).


The only thing going for one-handed weapon is that you can grab a shield/a second weapon with your off hand.

You can also grab your opponent, their weapon (eg polearm haft), or something in the environment, either to throw at them or to steady yourself on unstable surfaces like a ship's deck.

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 08:22 AM
Hi guys, welcome to the new thread everybody. So this is number 24? I think I've been on this thread for maybe 10 or 15 incarnations. It's always fun and I often learn things here.

I have a few comments on the recent questions.

On disciplined infantry in the middle ages.

This was not nearly as rare as people assume. One has to remember that most European armies in the early medieval period, the migration era, were made up of infantry, infantry which was sufficiently disciplined to eventually overwhelm the Roman Empire. In Europe you had both heavy and light infantry, but Europe was really (arguably) the epicenter of heavy infantry, infantry wearing mail armor and helmets, and in those earlier days, protected with strongly made shields (made of wood with bronze or iron bosses as opposed to those light wicker shields used by the Persian infantry) proved capable of facing down every other troop type.

Perhaps the most famous and well-known triumph of Germanic infantry in the Early Medieval or Migration Era was Charles Martel's famous victory at Tours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours) against a massive invading army of Arab / Moorish cavalry in 732 AD. This engagement, which ended a major incursion into France by the Moors and we now know (though nobody did back then) reflected the high-water mark of Moorish conquest of Europe, represented the classic dynamic of infantry vs. cavalry warfare: a small but well-disciplined and well-led force of heavy infantry faces down repeated charges and sustained missile attacks from a much larger force of cavalry, by both resisting attacks and counter-attacking opportunistically without losing unit cohesion. Frankish heavy infantry at this time would be armed something like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X9fPa05ba44/T4oM6xhn07I/AAAAAAAAEgo/6ESJrwXIcNc/s1600/11-6th+century+Frankish+warrior.jpg

...armed and protected in a manner similar to a Roman Legionnaire of 3-4 centuries earlier.

Tours in 732 is the template for the successful infantry battle against a cavalry force. It would be repeated again and again through the centuries, with both cavalry and infantry forces adjusting tactics in response to one another, in kind of a see-saw effect where cavalry would be ascendant for a while, then infantry, then cavalry again and so on, but with the "oscilations" gradually diminishing as each type of unit improved their game so to speak, both in terms of tactics and gear.

Tribal armies of the Migration Era had acquired this ability, as a fusion of Celtic / Germanic / Greek and other indigenous fighting traditions with sophisticated theoretical Roman tactics and equipment (which in turn were largely adapted from their enemies in places like the Iberian peninsula).

Heavy infantry vs. cavalry.
Heavy cavalry seems to have come to Europe from the Central and South Asian areas, especially from Persia / Iran. We know that the Franks, which were a tribal confederation rather than a tribe (like most of the Germanic 'tribes' that you hear about - Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Allemani, Vandals - all tribal federations made up of multiple ethnic and language groups) incorporated Taifal and Alan tribesmen from Iran, as part of the cavalry branch of their armies. The Franks themselves - the ethnic Franks or Franconians, specialized in light-infantry, but had heavy infantry as well. I often irritate my French relatives by pointing out that these Iranian people were settled in France as founding members of what became the French nobility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifals#Presence_in_Merovingian_Gaul). We even had a Taifal Saint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senoch).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Knight-Iran.JPG/407px-Knight-Iran.JPG

I like to point out this image out when making this point in lectures etc. Look closely at these cavalry warriors. They look like they could be French knights from the 13th- 14th Century. But they aren't -they are Sassanid cataphracts from Iran in the 6th Century. Heavy cavalry of this type was effective against the Roman Empire and the Romans, particularly the Byzantines of the Eastern Empire, adapted their own version, the Clibinari.

The rise of Feudalism and Heavy Cavalry
During the period roughly from the Carolingian Age through the time of the brutal Norman conquest of England in 1066, much of Latinized Europe was under very heavy and sustained pressure from external enemies. Pagan Norse Vikings, Magyars from the Steppe (who were just the latest incarnation of Steppe raiders after the devastating invasions by the Huns), Moors in Spain and Arabs throughout the Mediterranean basin, invaded and conducted devastating slave raids into Europe from all directions. Gradually, in response to this and as a byproduct of the process of Christianization and the adoption of Roman customs, what became known as the Feudal system came into existence.

This allowed political leaders to summon forth armies of suitably equipped and armed men, who were in turn supported by (a usually fixed ratio) of unarmed men or families, as a type of military tax. For example, for every ten men from a given region one man had to be armed with mail, a shield, a helmet, an axe and a spear. Or in poorer districts maybe just a man with an axe, a bow, and 20 arrows. We have plenty of these laws, Merovingian and Carolingian Capitularies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulary), Norse leidang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidang), Anglo-Saxon Fyrd etc. which outline all these rules and the specifics of what weapons were required.

At this time, in many though by no means all areas, serfdom was introduced at the same time that the need for heavy cavalry was recognized. Cavalry had the advantage of being able to rapidly descend on a given trouble-spot, such as some port on a river attacked by Viking raiders, and many of the invading forces (Arabs, Moors and Magyars among others) were heavily based on cavalry and it was hard to intercept a raiding column of Magyars with marching infantry following them around on foot. Cavalry was needed, and this meant more people had to work to support the fighting class or estate, in what French philosophers called the three estate system. In the relatively inefficient Carolingian economy, to support a heavily armored rider on a horse with 2 or 3 attendants, it took 20, 30, maybe 50 farmers working full time. These same warriors also became tax collectors, and eventually, part of a hereditary nobility.

Cavalry in Latin Europe quickly developed it's own special niche - Latinized European armies began to specialize in the Sassanid type heavy cavalry, but with many improvements. Better armor, better saddles and stirrups and horse harness, new and stronger breeds of horses, longer lances. Better swords. A rapidly developing and increasingly robust warrior culture developed in Latin Europe in part by the emerging violent martial sports such as in the Chivalric tournament. It was with the heavy cavalry that Latin European armies had their best military successes toward the end of the Carolingian period, leading into what you might call the Norman heydey of the 11th -12th Century, when Latin heavy cavalry proved to be a major shock to Arab, Turkish and Byzantine observers.

But at the same time, Latin military leaders had two problems. On the one hand, cavalry wasn't enough, a truly effective military force was always combined-arms, utilizing every troop type available, and had both light and heavy cavalry as well as infantry. They had a need for infantry, this is something you can see clearly in the story of Alfred the Great who reorganized Anglo-Saxon militia back in the 8th Century to better face Viking raids. Part of what he was forced to do was give the Feudalized tribesmen more autonomy, because serfs made poor soldiers. The other part of the dilemma that Latin leaders had was that the process of Feudalization was uneven, in many areas the local tribes, who had a tradition of every able-bodied man being a fighter, strongly resisted being pushed down into the status of serfs. This was particularly true in mountainous, forested, or swampy areas, and in towns.

The revival of infantry
It was this latter process which eventually put elite Latinized cavalry into direct conflict with their own people, armed and kitted out as infantry, and the latter gradually began to gain the upper hand. This was a kind of an arms race between the new noble Estate and what was emerging as a 4th estate - the burghers.

Frankish infantry of the 5th-8th Century were armed like Roman Legionaires - with a large shield, a javelin which also worked as a spear (the angon), a sword as a sidearm, mail shirt and a helmet. This kit was no longer sufficient to face off armored heavy cavalry by the 11th-12th Centuries. New weapons however helped even the score - larger spears, two-handed poll-maces, the longbow, the crossbow, and the halberd and various polearm cousins were gradually developed. A major source of innovation for infantry came into being with the revival of the towns. Already in the 9th-10th Century we can see that Frankish armies were utilizing town militia as a separate and better class of infantry over the regular rural levies. The towns had the money to afford much better equipment, especially armor, and could also much more rapidly disseminate new and better types of weapons like the new types of crossbows and rapidly evolving battle axe / halberd precursors.

This led to major conflicts between the nobility, with their excellent heavy cavalry, and the newly assertive urban militias, protected by their town walls but emerging into the open to fight in the field, with increasing discipline and improved weapons. Local conflicts escalated upward as regional knights and counts were defeated by burghers and untamed rural tribes, until the princes themselves got involved. Again, there were many examples of this happening but the biggest shock early on was probably the defeat of the Holy Roman Emperor by the Lombard League in Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_League) in the 12th Century. This was an alliance of dozens of Italian towns which rose up in defiance in the 11th Century and continued to match escalating military pressure from the Emperor, culminating in the Battle of Legnano in 1176 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnano).

By the end of this series of wars, which continued intermittently through the 13th Century, the Emperor was basically thrown out of Northern Italy, the cities had become independent city-states, and the would -be King of Italy (and son of the Emperor) was held in golden chains by the militia of Bologna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fossalta).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Enzo_Codice_Chigi.JPG
(This is him being led into his jail cell)

At this juncture you begin to see a different type of infantry, well protected with body armor and lines of pavise shields, armed with lethal missile weapons such as longbows and powerful mechanically spanned crossbows, and wielding long spears and large two-handed cutting or smashing weapons. Heavy infantry of this type was almost as expensive as cavalry, and had an equally important role.

http://www.dsb.de/media/historie/mittelalter/mittelalter2.jpg

To cultivate the warlike esprit de corps among their citizens the towns held their own war-games and warlike sports, with an increasing emphasis on shooting - the schutzenfest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenfest#History) of the German, Flemish and Czech towns and the Palio della Balestra (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palio_della_Balestra&prev=search) of the Italians. The Genoese became famous very early on in the Crusades for the effectiveness of their crossbowmen, but they were by no means unique. This emphasis on warlike games seems to be another particular (though not quite unique) characteristic of European warriors (in both Latin and Greek cultural zones). The Greeks of course had the Olympic games.

In this same period, in places like Flanders, the Rhineland, Southern Germany, Bohemia, and Poland, urban militias were facing down the regional gentry in pitched battles. One example I have cited before is the battle where the 'fighting Bishop' Walter von Geroldseck was defeated in the field by the militia of Strasbourg. By the end of the 13th Century mighty Latin princes were defeated in Flanders at Golden Spurs, in Scotland at Bannock burn, and in Switzerland at Morgarten

But I never heard of this !?

We don't know much about this rise of the cities and rise of infantry because we English-speakers get our history from England and France, which were both strong Monarchies and areas with limited urban development (particularly in England). Though a Renaissance had started in southern France in the 11th-12th centuries, it ended in a smoking ruin with the Albigensian Crusades. Instead, it was in Flanders, northern Italy, the Rhineland and Southern Germany, later to be joined by several other scattered zones (Catalonia, the shores of the Baltic and North Sea, Bohemia etc.) where urbanization took hold and all the new technology and innovations, as well as surging wealth, began to change the fabric of Latin Europe.


In the 15th Century the Swiss rose to such a high level in Central Europe, with the innovative revival of pike warfare, and the Czechs similarly a little bit further to the East relying on guns, war-wagons and two-handed flails, that the balance tipped back toward infantry became if anything a bit more dangerous on the field than cavalry.

But this continued to shift back and forth - in the 16th Century new types of cavalry emerged, with longer lances and new tactics, and toward the later 16th - pistols, all of which helped cavalry keep pace with infantry. The French Gendarmes and the Polish Winged Hussars reached lethal new levels of efficiency. At the same time, social and political conditions changed rapidly with the opening up of the Atlantic and Pacific trade routes, the conquest of foreign people, the establishment of overseas colonies and slave plantations, all led to massively increased wealth for the powerful coastal Monarchies of England, France, Portugal and Spain. These in turn, linked by marriage to Central Europe (for example the Hapsburgs connecting Spain, Flanders and Germany), began to consolidate power and diminish the strength of the towns.

Serfdom, essentially, returned to much of Latin Europe and with it came a degradation of the social base of heavy infantry.



So the TL : DR is that the High to Late middle ages was actually the heydey of strong, disciplined infantry, which faded to a large extent into the Early Modern era, until gradually the musket and the bayonett brought even conscripted troops back up to parity with cavalry once again.


G

Kiero
2017-08-14, 08:42 AM
Just to emphasise something Galloglaich was saying about interchange between northern Europe and central Asia, that expressway was in operation as far back as 4th century BC, Skythians and others had been roving as far as modern Poland or even Germany for that long. Partly for trade in amber, but there was also some exchange in peoples too.

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 09:24 AM
Just to emphasise something Galloglaich was saying about interchange between northern Europe and central Asia, that expressway was in operation as far back as 4th century BC, Skythians and others had been roving as far as modern Poland or even Germany for that long. Partly for trade in amber, but there was also some exchange in peoples too.

Yep

In fact Polish mythology / cultural narrative in the late medieval to Early Modern period emphasized the idea that they (the very large Polish nobility in particular) were descended from the Sarmatians. It was a doctrine which some modern scholars believe was intended to differentiate them both from the Germans and other West-Europeans and simultaneously from the Greek-Orthodox and Mongol dominated Russians.

They had their own unique fashions and everything based on this idea, which was called 'Sarmatism'

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



In the late medieval period, it was that other group of West-Slavs, the Czechs, particularly Czech Hussite heretics, who helped stem the tide of the Steppe nomads, largely with heavy infantry. The war-wagon tactics initially developed against the Crusaders were utilized by Czech mercenaries fighting for Hungary (including in the Black Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary)), for Poland, for Austrian and various other German polities, and as mercenaries hired by the Venetians and Genoese - against the Mongols and the Ottomans, where they proved highly effective against steppe-nomad tactics.

The other tactic which seems to have worked well was river-borne 'marines', a tactic utilized with great success by the Norse Varjag trading and war-bands, which by the late medieval period was augmented by the addition of swivel-guns on the boats.

Both of these tactics, as well as (eventually) and adaptation of Steppe nomad type light cavalry warfare, were adapted by the runaway slave armies of the Cossacks of the Dnieper and Don rivers, and they in-turn were used from the Early Modern to Modern period as muscle by the Russians, who conquered much of Siberia and Central Asia with armies of Cossacks.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Surikov_Pokoreniye_Sibiri_Yermakom.jpg/1024px-Surikov_Pokoreniye_Sibiri_Yermakom.jpg

The Cossacks and their Ukranian descendants continued to use and develop war-wagon tactics right into the machinegun age with the tachanka.

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

G

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-14, 09:34 AM
One could argue that it (the improvised war wagon / the tachanka) survives in spirit to this day in parts of the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 09:54 AM
Regarding weapons,

- as a side note, I am biased, I made the Codex Martialis combat system specifically to answer these kinds of questions.

The TL : DR is that it's subtle and hard to account for in a combat system with only one die-roll 'To hit' and one for damage, but with a little bit more granularity you can simulate something much more like a real fight without making your game slow or overly complex. You just have to think of the whole system and then pare it down to the level of simplicity you are comfortable with.

Two handed vs. single-handed
Having said that, the issue of what the difference really is between two-handed and single-handed weapons is actually one of the most difficult to quantify and is harder and less intuitive than it sounds like it would be. It's definitely not as simple as giving a +1 to two-handed weapons, because many single handed weapons are extremely accurate as noted upthread - spears, rapiers, arming swords, spatha, gladius, sabers, maces, war-hammers, daggers and so on are very effective, accurate and very fast in the hands of a trained fighter (with the level of training needed varying by weapon type).

having been doing Historical Fencing for 20 years with all types of weapons I still can't really summarize it perfectly, but I would say the biggest single difference is that a two-handed weapon has more authority in the bind. All things being equal, the single handed weapon actually has a bit more reach, effectively, maybe a few inches. Single-handed weapons can be extremely fast, especially in the initial attack, and in the case of shorter weapons like sabers, gladiii or daggers.

With longer weapons though (say, four feet or more) in particular, the issue comes with control at the bind. When your opponent parries or you parry your opponents attack, for example, a swift response is arguably easier with a two-handed weapon. It's also easier to exploit weakness or strength at the bind.

Precisely how to emulate this in an RPG is a challenge. Two handed weapons can probably be said to help with defense, if you model defensive value of weapons (which most systems don't) but not necessarily over shields. They are also better than other long weapons in follow-up attacks, giving you more authority at a distance. But this only matters if you do multiple attacks and / or make note of fighting ranges or distances.

Thrusting vs. cutting
This was a huge debate for centuries and subject to a sort of flame war in particular in the 18th-19th Centuries. Cavalry people liked the effects of saber while smallsword fencers advocated the primacy of the thrust. The latter would point out that only 3-4" of a thrust in the right place (between the third and fourth rib, say) can kill very quickly, whereas in most parts of the body a cut will only wound or maim.

However the devil is in the details - a thrust in the heart, throat or eye can kill instantly, but a good cut to the neck or head, or a cut to the hand or wrist can end the fight just as quickly. In German medieval laws wounding someone with a thrust was considered a more serious crime normally, since medicine at the time was fairly good at coping with cuts but bad at coping with stab wounds, particularly where the abdomen or lungs were penetrated.

We do actually have a lot of statistics now gathered from coroners rolls in England, letters of remission in France, court records in Italy and town council records in Germany, which give us some idea of the lethality of different weapons based on thousands of recorded incidents. I have posted some of these stats on previous incarnations of this thread. And the results are quite interesting.

The dagger is not a nuisance weapon!
FBI statistics show us that knife attacks with modern knives are not frequently lethal - because most modern knives are folding blade weapons of flimsy construction and blades of 3"-4". FBI stats show a substantial rise in lethality with larger and sturdier kitchen knives or bayonets with a blade length of 6" or more.

Ballock daggers, roundel daggers, stilettoes, baselards, bauernwehr, and various other knives used as weapons in the medieval period - were often double edged, very sturdily made, and ranged from 10" - 20" blades (or spikes, in some cases). And it turns out from what we know so far from recorded incidents of violence that the lethality of dagger attacks in particular was apparently the highest for any weapon used regularly in urban brawls. This is also noted or alluded to in Fight-books from the middle ages. The sword was for self-defence, the rapier for the duel, the dagger was for killing.

A dagger strike with a 16" blade can kill just as easily as a sword cut and at close range a dagger is much faster than any sword. A sword has better reach and can probably more easily disable an attacker, and a sword is better for defense.

Daggers do the infamous 1d4 damage in DnD because DnD has no way to differentiate weapons except for damage. So if a longsword does 1d8 and a dagger is cheaper, the dagger must do less damage or players will 'cheat'. The difference isn't actually damage though it's reach and defensive value. A longsword can cut or stab you from 5 or 6 feet away, and a longsword can parry or pre-empt an attack very easily, a dagger can't parry very much and has comparatively short range.

How to model armor protection
People debate whether it's better to model armor as going around it, or going through it. The reality was that people preferred to go around armor (especially anything stronger than textile armor) but would try to go through it if they had to. For metal armor this typically meant using specialized armor-piercing weapons (even if that only meant a spear with a narrow striking point).

In the Codex I do both. DR to go through if you want to - and if you have a specialized weapon like a halberd, a roundel dagger or a war-pick this might be a good option - and a 'bypass' option to try to attack the unprotected parts, for a To-Hit penalty.

There is also an optional rule which allows certain attack types to work better against armor than others. Smashing or piercing attacks are generally better against armor, slicing or cutting is better against unprotected flesh.


Weapons for defense
The most important thing left out on almost all RPG's is the value of weapons for defense. If someone is trying to hurt you with a weapon your best defense is another weapon. A staff, a spear, a longsword, a saber- these weapons help enormously in defending yourself against an enemy attack, so long as you have some training. If all you have is a dagger you are basically going to be relying on voiding - jumping out of the way or ducking. This forces you to be much more careful with your distance. With a spear or a staff facing a shorter weapon like a hand axe or a knife, you can hit them before they even have a chance to get at you. With a weapon like a sword, you can parry an attack and move in aggressively to counter. This is especially true if you have a weapon with substantial hand protection like a cross or a complex hilt, something almost unique to Latin Europe and one of the key characteristics which differentiates martial arts in Latin Europe from elsewhere in the world.

A shield of course also works this way. Shields can be incredibly effective for defense far more than the +1 you get in DnD (or did in the older versions, I don't know anything about 4E or 5E). In the Codex I give a 'free dice' to the shield bearer - they get to roll two die rolls for defense and keep the higher number.

But you can also hack through shields, depending on what they are made of...

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 09:56 AM
One could argue that it (the improvised war wagon / the tachanka) survives in spirit to this day in parts of the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

Yes I think you are right. Dan Carlin also argues that this is the modern adaptation to ancient light cavalry warfare tactics in the Middle East.

G

Tobtor
2017-08-14, 01:05 PM
Gambesons

This is honestly little more than semantics in terms of protectivity. Sure, migration era Europe didn't have gambesons per se, but if you're wearing 4 thick wool layers and maybe reinforce some of it with leather, it functions pretty much the same. It matters when you're trying to put together a period appropriate costume, not so much when designing a TTRPG system.

In any case, there are far, far too few find of any sort of clothing and armor to make sweeping conclusions. From what we have, several thick layers plus leather looks reasonable and works pretty well in practice. I added strips of leather into my padded mittens (for c1300 AD) to help with protecting my fingers, once they were in, no one was able to tell my gambeson was anything but standard, and I don't think no one at the time when they were used thought of this.

Do you have any evidence that they specifically used up to 4 layers of thick wool to protect themselves? I haven't seen any, and I have seen the suggestion brought up multiple times. Also there is no historical mentions of "cloth" armour from western Europe in the time-frame 10th-12th century that I am aware of: text usually differentiate between armoured (meaning mail) or unarmoured. Nothing in between.

I do not think its a pedantic question: I feel heavy gambesons is just as much out of place in the 11th century as coat of plates or early plate-armour. They could have made it (since romans sort of did) but didn't. It is OK if you take it in as a fantasy element, as people mix periods up anyway, but it isn't 11th century.


Maces in 1066 AD. Note that it could be not just a weapon, but also a symbol of authority.

Here I agree it is a matter of terminology. I consider it a club, not a mace (I think a mace should have a straight pole and a "head" mounted on it). But yes we do have a few clubs. And if you call them maces, then they exists. Odo is famous for it in that scene, but it isn't a common weapon people go around with. If Odo used it in order not to spill (Christian) blood or it was a symbol of some sort is debated (he was Williams brother and a bishop). But you don't see normal soldiers using it in the tapestry

Amaril
2017-08-14, 01:24 PM
Alright, I'll avoid calling them gambesons in the rules text (don't think I was going to anyway), but I'll keep thick cloth or leather as the most basic armor. If it's still a little anachronistic, eh, no big deal.

Setting aside any game design concerns, can I just ask whether piercing weapons like spears or arrows were effective at penetrating mail of the period? I've seen conflicting reports.

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 01:56 PM
Do you have any evidence that they specifically used up to 4 layers of thick wool to protect themselves? I haven't seen any, and I have seen the suggestion brought up multiple times. Also there is no historical mentions of "cloth" armour from western Europe in the time-frame 10th-12th century that I am aware of: text usually differentiate between armoured (meaning mail) or unarmoured. Nothing in between.

I do not think its a pedantic question: I feel heavy gambesons is just as much out of place in the 11th century as coat of plates or early plate-armour. They could have made it (since romans sort of did) but didn't. It is OK if you take it in as a fantasy element, as people mix periods up anyway, but it isn't 11th century.



Here I agree it is a matter of terminology. I consider it a club, not a mace (I think a mace should have a straight pole and a "head" mounted on it). But yes we do have a few clubs. And if you call them maces, then they exists. Odo is famous for it in that scene, but it isn't a common weapon people go around with. If Odo used it in order not to spill (Christian) blood or it was a symbol of some sort is debated (he was Williams brother and a bishop). But you don't see normal soldiers using it in the tapestry

This has been an issue brought up many times before in many places, both with the weapons and the armor, but this may have to do with the type of records we have and the artistic conventions of the time. We see clothing for example portrayed rather stylistically - it all tends to look kind of like togas or airy tunics. Most of the records I know of from that far back is in Latin and often tends to be abbreviated and not that good to begin with. They use terms like 'ballista' for crossbow and 'scutum' for shields, miles for soldiers or knights and so forth, even though we know that isn't precisely what they meant.

We also don't get that many textiles in the archeological record from that far back - some, of course (I mean in extreme cases we have bog men and guys like the Ice man but those are pretty rare)

I suspect however there are some records from Italy which do mention textile armor. I can't see why they wouldn't use it, it was known in prior periods, the 11th-12th centuries are themselves part of a period of intense and increasingly sophisticated textile production, and the effects of textiles against weapons like arrows are pretty obvious (while mail's vulnerability, especially if we assume mail actually was as vulnerable as some suggest) would seem to require addressing. Byzantine records would probably also be worth checking.

The earliest references I know of to textile armor is in the 13th Century, specificially the word 'aketon' referenced in conjunction with soldiers from the Hebrides, specifically with coverings of pitch possibly for waterproofing. Arab writers like Usamah Ibn Munqidh mention combined textile and mail armor in the same period (13th Century).




I am of the opinion however that textile armor would have been in continuous use from the Classical era through the late medieval, though it's popularity would wax and wane for various military, cultural and economic reasons.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 02:02 PM
The Kings Mirror (13th Century) also mentions textile armor both for horse and rider, specifically 'blackened' which probably means with pitch like in the Hebrides. See Chapter XXXVIII: Weapons for Offense and Defense

http://deremilitari.org/2014/04/medieval-warfare-from-the-kings-mirror-a-thirteenth-century-norwegian-text/

for the horse:

"He should also should have a good shabrack (14) made like a gambison of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth, for this is good protection against all kinds of weapons. "

for the rider (to be worn under metal armor)

"Above and next to the body he should wear a soft gambison, which need not come lower than to the middle of the thigh."

The thing is, we just don't really have a lot of documents of the verbose and somewhat prosaic type as the King Mirror or Usamah Ibn Munqidh's memoires from prior centuries. Or anyway they are a lot more rare in Northern or Central Europe from those earlier periods.

G

Mike_G
2017-08-14, 02:44 PM
Setting aside any game design concerns, can I just ask whether piercing weapons like spears or arrows were effective at penetrating mail of the period? I've seen conflicting reports.

That is a huge can of worms.

There is vast disagreement, and a lot of tests are very bad. You can watch lots of guys go out in the backyard and attack butted mail with weapons, and defeat it. But that's a poor material to use for a test. It's fine if you want it to look like mail, but not if you want it to keep sharp points out of you.

In general, good riveted mail offers reasonable protection against piercing weapons. Narrow points can go through a ring and maybe, with enough force, burst the ring, but it loses some power doing so and may not penetrate deeply, especially against padding, which is good at slowing down weapon that don't have a good edge to cut the path in the cloth as they penetrate. Bodkin arrows, for example, don't do well against gambeson. Big, massive piercing weapons, like the top spike of a halberd, may well have enough momentum to punch through.

So, the jury is out. Mail must have worked well enough, or people wouldn't have worn it for a thousand years, but it mustn't have been perfect or they wouldn't have spent sop much time improving plate.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-14, 02:54 PM
I also think there's some odd requirements for armor that get into people's heads.

Armor doesn't need to be perfect to be useful... it just needs to do enough to be worth the cost and weight and extra fatigue and so on.

Armor that even quite often manages to turn a killing blow into an incapacitating blow you might at least live through, and an incapacitating blow into a surface wound you can fight on with and thus maybe live another day, will still be worth it to the people wearing it.

Amaril
2017-08-14, 03:03 PM
That is a huge can of worms.

There is vast disagreement, and a lot of tests are very bad. You can watch lots of guys go out in the backyard and attack butted mail with weapons, and defeat it. But that's a poor material to use for a test. It's fine if you want it to look like mail, but not if you want it to keep sharp points out of you.

In general, good riveted mail offers reasonable protection against piercing weapons. Narrow points can go through a ring and maybe, with enough force, burst the ring, but it loses some power doing so and may not penetrate deeply, especially against padding, which is good at slowing down weapon that don't have a good edge to cut the path in the cloth as they penetrate. Bodkin arrows, for example, don't do well against gambeson. Big, massive piercing weapons, like the top spike of a halberd, may well have enough momentum to punch through.

So, the jury is out. Mail must have worked well enough, or people wouldn't have worn it for a thousand years, but it mustn't have been perfect or they wouldn't have spent sop much time improving plate.

Noted, thanks. For the sake of giving blunt weapons a niche in my game, I'll have mail be effective against piercing weapons, as much as anything.

Can I ask a similar question about 11th century helmets? Are there contemporary weapons especially suited to getting through them, or was the solution to a helmeted enemy to just not attack their head?

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 03:10 PM
I also think there's some odd requirements for armor that get into people's heads.

Armor doesn't need to be perfect to be useful... it just needs to do enough to be worth the cost and weight and extra fatigue and so on.

Armor that even quite often manages to turn a killing blow into an incapacitating blow you might at least live through, and an incapacitating blow into a surface wound you can fight on with and thus maybe live another day, will still be worth it to the people wearing it.

This sounds very much like the rationalization that the SCA repeated millions of times for the basis of their fighting system.

As Mike said, it's hard to know for sure whether mail can protect against powerful bows, because the tests done depend a lot on having the right kind of mail (a much trickier proposition than most people would assume - just riveted mail isn't enough) and the right kind of bow and the right kind of arrow and so on. Probably the same for spear thrusts, we can't be certain yet because not enough testing has been done.

But we do know that neither bows nor swords nor spears or axes could do much of anything to a man in plate armor. We know that mail can turn aside cuts very easily.

The notions like that armor was supposed to protect against a 'glancing blow' are very misleading - armor was meant to save your life and it did. The expense and hassle involved with armor would not be endured by the kind of warriors who used it, if it didn't work very well indeed. Armies 500 or 1000 years ago weren't conscript armies who wore uniforms.

It's an incredibly persistent trope in RPGs, video games and movies and so on, that armor only protects 'sometimes' or against 'glancing blows'. Generally speaking it protected almost all the time unless you went around it.

The other equally idiotic myth is that blades could knock people out through armor. I've been fencing for 5 years against steel weapons with no more protection than a fencing mask some elbow pads and a padded coat, and I haven't been knocked out yet. Including in tournaments where people are swinging for the fences.

BOTN and other Bohurt events show irrefutable proof that blades make very bad hammers and that armor protects extremely well.

That is why armor piercing weapons were invented folks.

G

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-14, 03:47 PM
This sounds very much like the rationalization that the SCA repeated millions of times for the basis of their fighting system.

As Mike said, it's hard to know for sure whether mail can protect against powerful bows, because the tests done depend a lot on having the right kind of mail (a much trickier proposition than most people would assume - just riveted mail isn't enough) and the right kind of bow and the right kind of arrow and so on. Probably the same for spear thrusts, we can't be certain yet because not enough testing has been done.

But we do know that neither bows nor swords nor spears or axes could do much of anything to a man in plate armor. We know that mail can turn aside cuts very easily.

The notions like that armor was supposed to protect against a 'glancing blow' are very misleading - armor was meant to save your life and it did. The expense and hassle involved with armor would not be endured by the kind of warriors who used it, if it didn't work very well indeed. Armies 500 or 1000 years ago weren't conscript armies who wore uniforms.

It's an incredibly persistent trope in RPGs, video games and movies and so on, that armor only protects 'sometimes' or against 'glancing blows'. Generally speaking it protected almost all the time unless you went around it.

The other equally idiotic myth is that blades could knock people out through armor. I've been fencing for 5 years against steel weapons with no more protection than a fencing mask some elbow pads and a padded coat, and I haven't been knocked out yet. Including in tournaments where people are swinging for the fences.

BOTN and other Bohurt events show irrefutable proof that blades make very bad hammers and that armor protects extremely well.

That is why armor piercing weapons were invented folks.



OK, if my post came across as promoting the "glancing blow" fallacy, that's not at all where I was trying to go with it. Of course armor worked, of course it saved lives, very few would have gone to the trouble if it was just for show.

But what I've seen at the far end of the fallacy spectrum is this idea that armor had to be perfect to be useful. I mean, literally absolutely perfect. As if the slightest dent or bruise or anything that drew blood was an instant death sentence. That it had to be absolutely proof against all blows in order to save the wearer's life.

For example, the idea that if a helmet doesn't allow you to ignore every blow to the head, you might as well not wear it -- that the difference between having your skull caved in by a club without a helmet or having the same blow leave you dazed but able to recover with a helmet, is nothing, and you might as well not wear that helmet at all.


To use a modern example: bullet proof vests are hot and bulky and uncomfortable, and getting shot still hurts like hell and leaves an awful bruise sometimes, and it doesn't protect from headshots -- it's not perfect -- but police still wear them while on duty because it greatly increases their chances of coming home alive from a Very Bad Day At Work. That's what I was getting at.


When some people see these tests and the arrows or whatever don't just bounce off... they assume the armor was "worthless". The whole "longbows are can-openers" thing.

Mike_G
2017-08-14, 04:00 PM
Noted, thanks. For the sake of giving blunt weapons a niche in my game, I'll have mail be effective against piercing weapons, as much as anything.

Can I ask a similar question about 11th century helmets? Are there contemporary weapons especially suited to getting through them, or was the solution to a helmeted enemy to just not attack their head?

Again, you're going to get different answers.

I think it would be very difficult to hurt somebody through a decent helmet.

There is a whole thing about katana cutting helmets, but even under perfect conditions (helmet is on a hard surface, at waist height, swordsman has all day to wind up and make a cut) they don't split helmets like watermelons, they may achieve a gash in the metal.

As G pointed out, looking at modern full contact tournaments like Battle of Nations, people are winding up and smacking helmets with big heavy swords and axes and generally the victim keeps on fighting just fine.

I'm not saying it's impossible to kill a man through a helmet, just that it's very unlikely, and you're better off hitting him someplace else.

Most of the ways to defeat armor are:

1. Hit where there is no armor.
2. Find the gaps in armor.
3. Knock the guy down and take him prisoner or stab him through a gap in armor, or make a gap in his armor and then stab him through it.

It was almost never "Just hit him really hard in the armor with your ancestor's sword."

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 04:05 PM
I think clubs and maces, and flails, and hammers and so on, probably do more damage even through a helmet. I would be careful against them. I think helmets are the reason for example why steppe warriors often have those light maces with a thong around the wrist. Some guy riding by fast on a horse and banging you on the head as he goes by would very likely ring your bell.

Blades just don't seem to work that well against armor. I know a modern fencing mask isn't the same but they are hardly all that formidable, and if anything in the HEMA world they have conveyed too much of a sense of invulnerability against steel blades.

One big difference from what we do compared to BOTN is that you are much less likely to get blindsided by person C when you are fighting person B, so you probably don't get hit as hard. It's not easy to deliver the same kind of haymaker you could when somebodies back is to you as you can when you are in a fight with them.


G

Galloglaich
2017-08-14, 04:09 PM
OK, if my post came across as promoting the "glancing blow" fallacy, that's not at all where I was trying to go with it. Of course armor worked, of course it saved lives, very few would have gone to the trouble if it was just for show.

But what I've seen at the far end of the fallacy spectrum is this idea that armor had to be perfect to be useful. I mean, literally absolutely perfect. As if the slightest dent or bruise or anything that drew blood was an instant death sentence. That it had to be absolutely proof against all blows in order to save the wearer's life.

For example, the idea that if a helmet doesn't allow you to ignore every blow to the head, you might as well not wear it -- that the difference between having your skull caved in by a club without a helmet or having the same blow leave you dazed but able to recover with a helmet, is nothing, and you might as well not wear that helmet at all.


To use a modern example: bullet proof vests are hot and bulky and uncomfortable, and getting shot still hurts like hell and leaves an awful bruise sometimes, and it doesn't protect from headshots -- it's not perfect -- but police still wear them while on duty because it greatly increases their chances of coming home alive from a Very Bad Day At Work. That's what I was getting at.


When some people see these tests and the arrows or whatever don't just bounce off... they assume the armor was "worthless". The whole "longbows are can-openers" thing.

Ok sorry that just 'triggered me' so to speak heh heh...

I think you are right when it comes to textile armor etc. and when it comes to bows maybe mail too.

G

Vinyadan
2017-08-14, 04:35 PM
Here I agree it is a matter of terminology. I consider it a club, not a mace (I think a mace should have a straight pole and a "head" mounted on it). But yes we do have a few clubs. And if you call them maces, then they exists. Odo is famous for it in that scene, but it isn't a common weapon people go around with. If Odo used it in order not to spill (Christian) blood or it was a symbol of some sort is debated (he was Williams brother and a bishop). But you don't see normal soldiers using it in the tapestry

Personally, I read it as a weaponized sign of authority, since William was the only other carrier of such a weapon. It must have not been too unique, however, because William has to show his face to prove he's not dead, so he wasn't too recognizable, even with a club. What I find interesting is that, out of battle, William bears a sword as ensign.

However, there are more mace-y weapons around. They seem to be thrown by the Angli.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/BayeuxTapestryScene52a.jpg
To the far left, there is a flying mace.

Angli escape while carrying maces:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Fleeing_bayeux_tapestry.png

Cool unrelated detail: a Norman knight cuts away the blade of a war axe while the owner is looking the other way (to the left, the first person on the left bears the sword, the second the now useless axe-shaft, while the blade flies away):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/BayeuxTapestryScene53.jpg

I searched for other mace heads, and I got this (early Norman):
https://s27.postimg.org/oj047r937/mace.gif
See here for details: http://www.hillside.co.uk/arch/stgeorges41/excavation.html

A similar item: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/75038

These last two might actually have been rattles with religious purposes.

gkathellar
2017-08-14, 05:43 PM
It's worth noting that the bludgeon serves as a symbol of political authority even in many modern democracies, where ceremonial maces and hammers abound in parliamentary and judicial settings. I don't know how far back this goes, but it certainly wouldn't be shocking to see a king carrying a ceremonial club. Carry a big stick and all that.

Vinyadan
2017-08-14, 06:33 PM
It's worth noting that the bludgeon serves as a symbol of political authority even in many modern democracies, where ceremonial maces and hammers abound in parliamentary and judicial settings. I don't know how far back this goes, but it certainly wouldn't be shocking to see a king carrying a ceremonial club. Carry a big stick and all that.

It's very old. The first description of a sceptre in western literature is in the Ilias. The kings hold it in turns while speaking, and Odysseus uses it as a club to beat up an insolent soldier of low birth. In a flashback he also receives it when sent as an ambassador to Troy, and he moves it to create expectation in the listeners.

Roman centurions bore a 1 m long vine staff. It was a symbol of their status and a way to punish soldiers.

The thing I find most interesting are the imperial ensigns of Massentius, which were excavated in 2005. https://biatec.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/le-insegne-di-massenzio/ All of the sceptres have globes on them. They look a lot like maces to me.

However, in the times of Augustus, the symbol of imperium was a spear.

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-15, 02:41 AM
Armor works, and it works well, that much we can be certain of. But there is a lot of debate around the specifics.

Quality

Nor all armor is made equal, and I don't mean mail and plate, I mean two pieces of mail in the same period, the same place and often by the same manufacturer. Less than consistent metallurgy aside, there always are cheaper but worse versions of all equipment, be it swords, armor or pottery.

When you start to talk about or test armor, you have to consider this. Are you testing cobbled-together stuff that quickly assembled militia would have, solid middle range that most knights would use, or top of the line armament of dukes? Most of us here are familiar with what the equipment was like at battle of Gotland.

I think it's pretty obvious this will impact your results a lot.

Edge cases

When you put an armor on mannequin, brace it against a wall and thrust through it, you're not really simulating real combat conditions - those are pretty impossible to simulate without at least some animal cruelty. A lot of the tests are made to simulate edge cases of what is the most that could happen, ThegnThrand is a good example of tests like this.

While these do have value, they don't tell you what was usual on the battlefield.

Then there's the training factor, and that's hard to account for. If someone knows to go with the blow, armor will protect him a lot better than someone who braces.

Battle of Nations

It has little value in this discussion, the equipment there is so over-engineered that it resembles medieval armor in look only, if that. When your helmet is twice the thickness of the originals, it will protect you a lot better, even from blunt blows, that's how inertia works.

Breaking a bone through the armor with a sword is possible, but why would you try? It's also hard and rather pointless if you can stab a guy in the face. There are times when you're in a pinch and will have to try, but it's not a go-to tactic.

Last caveat tot his is that hitting someone in armor like this may very well be defensive in nature, deliver your hit to stop his or to stop his step.

Maces

I'll just reiterate that Kyjev was famous for making a high-quality composite mace heads from about the end of migration period, so Eastern Europe was very familiar with them, even if they weren't rank and file weapon.

Latin Europe and cavalry

If Latin Europe means Holy Roman Empire (which includes present day Germany, northern Italy, Austria and Czech Republic) then yes, town militias were in constant civil conflict with knights. For the rest of the Europe, not so much. I can't really speak for Scandinavia, "Russia", Poland and "Spain", since they are out of my area of expertise, so I'll just focus on Hungary (which includes most of Balkans and Croatia).

For the duration of middle ages, there was basically zero conflict between townsmen and nobility. Cities, especially those with privileges, were an important player both politically and militarily, but they never sought independence at this time, in part quite possibly because they were given a LOT of freedom and privileges. What you did see was cities siding with this or that faction in struggles for the throne, but that was more an extension of nobility politics.

Of course, there is a massive, tremendous amount of research that says otherwise, but look at the dating on that. Anything, ANYTHING from the former Soviet sphere of influence will tell you this narrative, simply because all research had to abide by Soviet doctrines of class struggle (you got thrown in jail otherwise, and your family was blacklisted from ever gaining higher education or a good job). Problem is, a lot of people who were/are unaware of this take older works at their word, when you need to read between the lines.

Hungary didn't escape these struggles, though. The uprising of György Dózsa was very different from the HRE wars, though, since it came from the serfs, not town militias, and was brutally, brutally suppressed. After this, you start to see internal problems and reprisals that will give rise to nationalist struggles of non-magyars in Hungary and eventually tear it apart post WW1.

Galloglaich
2017-08-15, 10:02 AM
I've never done it myself, but my understanding of BOTN is that they actually have gone to much thinner armor. They initially had a kind of arms race where armor was getting heavier and heavier, but the game is actually about knocking people down (that is how you win a match - knocking the other guys down) and the heavier armor was actually contributing to injuries, so now they have a maximum weight for armor which is quite light. This was made possible by switching to tempered steel armor instead of mild steel (or essentially, wrought iron) like a lot of SCA etc. armor in the US. I don't remember what the weight limit is now off hand (somebody can maybe look it up) but I remember it was quite low. Less than 50 pounds for a full panoply IIRC.

Which is very interesting because that is precisely what happened in medieval Europe - they switched to steel and then tempered steel (especially out of South German centers like Augsburg) and armor got much lighter very generally speaking. Some Gothic Harness were ~ 30 lbs.

Town vs. noble
As for the towns, I don't want to give the impression of permanent class struggle either, that is an exaggeration. You have a good point about the Communist Era but the reverse is also true further West, there was, and to some extent still is a tendency to tell the stories of the high nobility and completely ignore all commoners including the towns altogether, and when they were mentioned at all it was usually in a kind of belittling way, with failed uprisings emphasized and successes never mentioned. The only people in the West who even know about the Hussites are people deep into military history and the origins of modern firearms.

As a general rule, the towns fought nobles when they had to in order to protect their privileges and their rights - to protect the freedom of the roads and their people traveling from place to place. They had much more conflict with the lower nobility than with the kings or princes but there were periods of fights with the latter every few generations. It was more typical however for the towns to ally themselves with factions of princes (high ranking nobles) against other ones, at least nominally, though their main goal was always their own, mainly economic interests, as opposed to the "Game of Thrones" which the princes were perpetually involved in.

The history of towns vs. nobles varied a lot by region so I'll break it down that way.

Latin Europe
Means basically the Latinized part of Europe - which correlates to the lands under the Catholic umbrella, which also tended to use Latin as an international administrative language, and adopted a wide slew of other Roman customs- as opposed to the (Greek) Orthodox zone (most of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Greece, and some of the Balkans) which followed Orthodox Christianity and adapted versions of the Greek written language and so on (with a strong Byzantine influence), and the pagan zone (mainly up in the Baltic areas) which had their own interesting but poorly documented cultural traditions.

Italy
Northern Italy as I mentioned before basically threw out the Emperor and the would-be king in the 12th-13th Centuries. Then followed a period of cultural genesis but also infighting between Italian city-states. All of the above peaked in the 15th Century when Italy was the cultural epicenter of Europe in just about every measurable way, but they started coming under increasing pressure from outside Monarchs eager to seize the great wealth generated there: France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Emperor. The Pope himself also became a powerful prince and nominal alliance with the pope vs. the Emperor (Guelph vs. Ghiibelline) also contributed to infighting among the Italian cities.

Southern Italy was owned by a series of various mostly foreign rulers, including France but especially Spain. Naples was an important city culturally and economically but never really independent like the ones in the North.

By the end of the 16th Century constant massive foreign invasions had beaten down Lombard and Tuscan Italian City-States only Venice was still truly independent.

Holy Roman Empire
The towns in the HRE fought wars against regional overlords (like the Archbishops of Strasbourg or Bremen, or the Herzog of Bavaria) when they had to or in order to achieve independence, but most of them did not have territorial ambitions the way the Italian City States like Milan, Genoa, Venice, or Florence did. There were basically 3 zones - Southern Germany where there were powerful manufacturing towns like Augsburg and Nuremberg, the Rhineland dotted with mighty citadels of trade and manufacturing like Strasbourg and Cologne, and then up north along the seas with the Hanseatic league trading towns, dominated by Lubeck and Hamburg (later Danzig up in Prussia).

The Hanse was probably the most aggressive, taking on England and Denmark several times and facing down regional Dukes of Holstein and Mecklenberg, and even the Emperor, the Duke of Burgundy, and various other monarchs when necessary. The Rhineland towns tended to fight when they had to, and contributed to the defeat of Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy, but were mainly worried about Robber Knights and often sided with the princes against them. The South-German towns also mainly fought with robber knights but got into turf wars with the princes sometimes (losing famously at Doffingen). Nuremberg was probably the strongest and usually came out on top in their conflicts. (we also happen to know they hired Talhoffer as muscle to kill a robber knight in one occasion)

Switzerland
The Swiss confederation started out as a peasant uprising but became quickly dominated by the militia of two cities - Berne and Zurich. Zurich once tried to break away and was defeated in war but retained their autonomy and power.

France
France started out on a similar path to Northern Italy, with the Champagne faires in Normandy, the Universities in Paris and Toulouse and Montpelieir, and the thriving cities of Langedoc. The latter were crushed and wiped out in a smoking ruin in the Albigensian Crusades, one of the many internal Crusades in Europe. The larger and more important French towns kept pace with Central Europe until the end of the 14th Century when French monarchs increasingly restricted autonomy. After that they remained behind though they still had many towns - they were more like mediatstadt or territorial towns, basically under the thumb of their regional prince or the king.

England
England was not as urbanized as Italy or Central Europe in the middle ages but they did have some important trading towns including London, York and Boston among others, which had town rights similar to the HRE. This was curtailed in the 1390's though still lingered in residual form a bit longer. From that point onward though urban militias were not able to really act on their own

Flanders
Flanders was the most important cultural zone in medieval Europe after Northern Italy, and their powerful trade and manufacturing towns like Bruges, Ghent, Lieges, Ypres and many others, proved to be highly assertive and had powerful militias. They were also, like in Italy and the Rhineland, at the forefront of military technology like cannon. After a volatile period of uprisings and crackdowns, (including the famous urban victory at the Battle of Golden Spurs) they achieved a kind of alliance with a spin-off from the French monarchy, the powerful Valois Dukes of Burgundy, who for several generations existed in an uneasy harmony with the Flemish city-states, sometimes fighting them, more often allied with them, always benefiting from their great wealth and cultural power. They had a run of very good Dukes (really in effect Kings) especially Philip the Good who was one of the most effective monarchs in European history, but his son Charles the Bold got himself killed by the Swiss and Rhineland cities, and shortly after that the Duchy of Burgundy was inherited by the Hapsburgs, and that in turn came to mean by Spain, ushering in a period of brutal Spanish occupation, wars and decline. Most of the cultural power moved north to Holland - a zone dominated by Free cities which broke free of Spain after the 80 Years War and became one of the great world powers.

Scandinavia
Not very urbanized and the few small towns (like Stockholm and Visby) were mostly run by foreginers, especially Germans. They had a very strong and independent peasantry however and their cities were involved with the Hanse and could count on other cities for support. They were involved in all the politics of the region, battles for control between Denmark and Sweden etc.

Poland
Not highly urbanized except in Prussia which became part of Poland in the 15th Century. Most of the cities were run by Germans and other Westerners, at least initially. A few, notably Lviv and Krakow and (after a successful war of independence against the Teutonic Knights - in the 13 years War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Years%27_War_(1454%E2%80%9366))) the Prussian cities led by Danzig and Torun, proved to be quite powerful and independent. Krakow in particular played a crucial role in thwarting the 3rd and last major Mongol Invasion of Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mongol_invasion_of_Poland) - as luck would have it only one year after their first stone walls were completed. Danzig also became a very powerful force to be reckoned with in the second half of the 15th Century, on par with Lubeck. As Militarily important allies the towns here tended to side with the Polish (Lithuanian) King against the Germans even though the urban populations were themselves German speaking, because the Poles respected their rights whereas the Teutonic Knights often didnt', and the Russians or Mongols etc. definitely wouldn't.

Bohemia
Lots of towns, some German speaking populations but a lot also with Czech. The Czechs seem to have been the most urbanized of the slavs. Prague was an important university town and seat of the HRE under Emperor Charles IV, and they tended to side with the princes usually, until the Hussite Wars of the 1420's. After that Prague and the other Czech and Moravian towns (Brno, Tabor, Pilsen, Wroclaw) were assertive and sided with one faction or the other (Hussite or Catholic) but exercized their own policies and were kind of their own faction who had to be taken into consideration. Prague and Wroclaw were particularly tough and usually on opposite sides. Like the Flemish, German and Italian towns, the Czech towns were innovative in military technology and tended to introduce game changing weaponry to the battlefield.

I wanted to get into Livonia and Spain but i don't have time...

By and large, the extent of the 'militancy' depended on the strength of the towns and how hard they were pushed. Some rose up to the challenge, others like in France or Spain or England, collapsed under the pressure from a strong Monarch. It certainly wasn't class struggle all the time, and the towns were usually ambivalent about peasant uprisings for example (sometimes cautiously supportive, sometimes part of the crack-down). In general they just wanted their rights and autonomy respected and preferred to keep the peace. In much of the HRE and parts of Slavic Central Europe this lasted a very long time, for centuries. Lubeck and Danzig lasted as partly autonomous until WW 2.

G

Archpaladin Zousha
2017-08-15, 02:53 PM
Pathfinder's Warden of the Woods (http://archivesofnethys.com/MagicArmorDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Warden%20of%20the% 20Woods) is described as a set of splint mail made of enchanted wood that can be worn by Druids, but mail usually implies the inclusion of chain in the armor, which is metal. This holds true for most examples of "splinted armor" which just has strips of metal reinforcing chain sleeves. Are there examples of splinted armor that don't have chain in its construction? What would such armor look like? I'm eager for Druid armor that looks more distinguished than crudely stitched together pelts, but I don't wanna look like a darn Roman in lorica segmentata!

Varon
2017-08-15, 04:51 PM
What sort of armor and weapons would have been common in 5th and 6th century Britain, especially the types of metal? I've been looking and haven't been able to find anything satisfactory. It seems too early for steel to be common.

Galloglaich
2017-08-15, 08:15 PM
What sort of armor and weapons would have been common in 5th and 6th century Britain, especially the types of metal? I've been looking and haven't been able to find anything satisfactory. It seems too early for steel to be common.

You would have some steel swords though of special construction (pattern welded). Everything else would be iron or bronze. There were still Romans there until 410 so largely thanks to them iron would be around in some quantity. The Romans had a center for making 'steel' swords in Noricum near modern day Croatia and those would be brought into England.

England was also an important production center for silver and tin - tin being a key component of bronze.

wolflance
2017-08-16, 01:24 AM
Question again: Anyone has any idea what is the proper name for this thing? Oversized plumbata?

I heard that it was pretty common among landskecht, does it has a German name?

http://i.imgur.com/XZWqA51.jpg

Tobtor
2017-08-16, 01:52 AM
What sort of armor and weapons would have been common in 5th and 6th century Britain, especially the types of metal? I've been looking and haven't been able to find anything satisfactory. It seems too early for steel to be common.

As G said: the Romans would be very influential in the earliest part of the period. But quite quickly you would get early Anglo-Saxon kind of gear, and when you define it as 5th and 6th Century I assume thats what you are after.

Basic "kit" (most common items) would be a spear and a shield:
The shield are round with a centre grip. I am unsure wheather they where domed at this time, the area where (Northern Germany/Jutland/Frisia) Anglo-Saxon came they remained flat, but at some point English shields seem to have become smaller, and some suggest sligthly domed. I thinkt they would have remained flat in the 5th and 6th Century. Diametre of 85-105cm is documented for the period on the continent, but I have seen suggestions that the Anglo-Saxon ones could go Down to smaller (though I think its more of an 7th-8th Century thing). It generally easier to find information on the 8th century onward stuff.

As a side arm a "small sax" is most common in Britain (treat as a dagger rather than a sword). The longer ones are typically later. Though long single edged swords are known from Scandinavia at the timem, but mainly to the North and East.

A double edged swords exiast and is a weapon for the dedicated warrior (a village chiefatain might own one or he might not depending on his wealth, but above that level a person would efinitely have one). Really elites should have "ring-swords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period_sword#/media/File:Ringknaufschwert_1.JPG)". Possibly made in England.

Next thing to add would be a helmet. Sutton Hoo is Again slightly too young (7th Century), but should give you an idea. Its a really high status person so tone it Down a bit. Similar helmets are found in Sweden also from the 7th Century (and possibly late 6th). I think the "basic" type of helmet would be widespread in Northern Europe also in the 6th Century (at least thats the best we can get). From various sources, textual and achaeological helmets seem to be relatively rare in Scandinavia during this period. Swords seem more common.

For body armour mail is the only thing you would see in britain at this time, and it would be a relatively expensive thing, reserved for high status individuals. Most village chieftains would not have one.

The order of weapons/armour a person would get might be something like this: spear - sax - shield- axe/sword - helmet - mail. Note that dedicated "weapon" axes are not common this early (they become very popular for the warrior class in the 9th and especially 10th Century).

Basically this is weapon system is seen across Northern Europe outside Roman influence from the 2nd centyr AD until the viking age with minor variations.

Weapons out of "good steel" was not common. Instead you mix "iron" or soft steel with harder steel, but this steel isnt like later steel able to flex as much, Thus in can snap during use. In order to prevent this you mix it with the softer one, as G says "pattern welded". This is common, especially in high end swords. You see a wide variaty going from realtively soft non steel swords (mainly shorter Saxes, but also some swords) to really well made swords with many layers, some twisted in various ways (similar to how katanas is made). In between you have some made of an "iron" cor and steel edges. Similar we have spears with a steel point, "wrapped" in iron, so its the point of the point thats steel (if that makes sense). The mail would not be high quality steel, but very "soft" steel or iron.

I dont think we have any bronze weapons in the period at all (definitely not on the continent: bronze weaponry stopped way before this). Maybe a few buckles for the mail, and as shield bosses for the shields though (at least on the continent, around 20% of shields have copper/bronze bosses in the 2-4th Century, becoming rarerer toward the 7t Century, but almost no evidence in the 5-6th centry compared to both earlier and later.

snowblizz
2017-08-16, 03:49 AM
Pathfinder's Warden of the Woods (http://archivesofnethys.com/MagicArmorDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Warden%20of%20the% 20Woods) is described as a set of splint mail made of enchanted wood that can be worn by Druids, but mail usually implies the inclusion of chain in the armor, which is metal. This holds true for most examples of "splinted armor" which just has strips of metal reinforcing chain sleeves. Are there examples of splinted armor that don't have chain in its construction? What would such armor look like? I'm eager for Druid armor that looks more distinguished than crudely stitched together pelts, but I don't wanna look like a darn Roman in lorica segmentata!
It's true that to some degree chain mail is a redundant term, but let's not let those grumpy sword-categorisers decide everything! Most historical weapons and armour would not have been categorised in ways we try to today (giving us guisarm-glaive-guisarms :P).
Quick look and what you want is "lamellar armour". The D&D people simple use another term to cover to broadly similar types of armour focusing on the common denominator, i.e. small (metal) plates atached together to form flexible yet covering armour. So the correct reading is "the Warden of the Woods is a set of lamellar armour..."

Imagine something like Japanese armours e.g. the medieaval types were metal and/or leather splints (effectively) bound together with silk cord (spider's thread! :P). You've got a lot of freedom to tailor the look.

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

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-16, 04:10 AM
Pathfinder's Warden of the Woods (http://archivesofnethys.com/MagicArmorDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Warden%20of%20the% 20Woods) is described as a set of splint mail made of enchanted wood that can be worn by Druids, but mail usually implies the inclusion of chain in the armor, which is metal. This holds true for most examples of "splinted armor" which just has strips of metal reinforcing chain sleeves. Are there examples of splinted armor that don't have chain in its construction? What would such armor look like? I'm eager for Druid armor that looks more distinguished than crudely stitched together pelts, but I don't wanna look like a darn Roman in lorica segmentata!

Mail, by itself, simply means armor, and that's about it. The word for it was widely used at a time when that meant chain mail in Europe, so the term stuck to it, but there's technically nothing wrong with applying it to, say, full plate. Very technically.

Splinted armor without mail was pretty common, especially for forearms and foreleg protection (there are woodcarvings of Carolingian cavalrymen wearing those), but not as common for the rest. I don't think splint armor as such is a thing, closest to it would be lamellar and then various types of armor that use integrated metal plates to help protection, mostly of Indian and near east origin.

Easy way to make the armor you're looking for is to replace chain mail in it with padded cloth and call it a day. At this point, you're essentially creating a weird coat-of-plates or brigandine, and wearing those without chain mail is perfectly fine.



Question again: Anyone has any idea what is the proper name for this thing? Oversized plumbata?

I heard that it was pretty common among landskecht, does it has a German name?


That's almost certainly azcona, javelin used by Iberian almogavars - they got their own unit in Medieval 2 Total War. This kind of dual-purpose spear/javelin with fletching pops up from time to time in Europe, and Landsknechts did use them for a short period of time before they retired them in favour of pikes.

They are mostly associated with Moors or naval warfare, but not exclusively so - I think it's because having a ship eliminates a lot of supply problems with javelins.

As for specifically German name, well, Speerwurf, which translates to "throwing spear", as German doesn't have a specific word to it. Which is pretty interesting, since English and a lot of Slavic languages do, but perhaps we shouldn't read too much into it.

wolflance
2017-08-16, 04:26 AM
It's true that to some degree chain mail is a redundant term, but let's not let those grumpy sword-categorisers decide everything! Most historical weapons and armour would not have been categorised in ways we try to today (giving us guisarm-glaive-guisarms :P).
Quick look and what you want is "lamellar armour". The D&D people simple use another term to cover to broadly similar types of armour focusing on the common denominator, i.e. small (metal) plates atached together to form flexible yet covering armour. So the correct reading is "the Warden of the Woods is a set of lamellar armour..."

Imagine something like Japanese armours e.g. the medieaval types were metal and/or leather splints (effectively) bound together with silk cord (spider's thread! :P). You've got a lot of freedom to tailor the look.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamellar_armour
Using modern, non-rpg categorization, scale, lamellar, laminar and splint armor tend to refer to different things.

1) Scale armor is made of small pieces of armor plates attached to some textile/leather/mail backing.
2) Lamellar armor is made of small pieces of armor plates laced to each other, thus does not require a backing (but you can still attach one).
3) Laminar armor is made of joining together long armor bands, laid HORIZONTALLY. Something like Roman Lorica Segmentata can be classified as laminar armor.
4) Splint armor is made of joining together long armor bands, laid VERTICALLY. Uncommon on body armor, but quite common in early medieval vambraces/greaves.

Now, from the description, Warden of the Woods sounds exactly like this armor to me:

http://i.imgur.com/pqq6LQW.jpg
Tlingit armor, made from hardwood slats. (The slats are joined by rope, so all-natural)




That's almost certainly azcona, javelin used by Iberian almogavars - they got their own unit in Medieval 2 Total War. This kind of dual-purpose spear/javelin with fletching pops up from time to time in Europe, and Landsknechts did use them for a short period of time before they retired them in favour of pikes.

They are mostly associated with Moors or naval warfare, but not exclusively so - I think it's because having a ship eliminates a lot of supply problems with javelins.

As for specifically German name, well, Speerwurf, which translates to "throwing spear", as German doesn't have a specific word to it. Which is pretty interesting, since English and a lot of Slavic languages do, but perhaps we shouldn't read too much into it.
Was Almogavars particularly associated with death/suffering during Medieval time? I've also seen a lot of the skeletons in the "Danse Macabre" images wielding it.

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 07:41 AM
Question again: Anyone has any idea what is the proper name for this thing? Oversized plumbata?

I heard that it was pretty common among landskecht, does it has a German name?

http://i.imgur.com/XZWqA51.jpg

It's just a vaned javelin or dart, the size depicted is unrealistic but you see them from around 3' to up to 6' long. They were common weapons and do appear in art in Central Europe as well as in places like Ireland. It probably does have a German name but I don't know what it is.

There are a few threads on MyArmoury about these though where you could probably find out more.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 07:44 AM
I dont think we have any bronze weapons in the period at all (definitely not on the continent: bronze weaponry stopped way before this). Maybe a few buckles for the mail, and as shield bosses for the shields though (at least on the continent, around 20% of shields have copper/bronze bosses in the 2-4th Century, becoming rarerer toward the 7t Century, but almost no evidence in the 5-6th centry compared to both earlier and later.

In addition to the shield bosses the Romans also had a fair number of bronze (or brass) helmets. I think bronze mace heads were around in Central /Eastern Europe by that time but not sure about England.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 07:50 AM
Was Almogavars particularly associated with death/suffering during Medieval time? I've also seen a lot of the skeletons in the "Danse Macabre" images wielding it.

Cheers on the Tiglit wooden armor, that is an amazing panoply.

Almogavars were people from the Pyrennes mountains many of whom formed mercenary bands active in the 14th century, who got involved in Byzantium initially against the Turks, but who later devastated and took over large areas of what are today Greece and the Balkans, creating bad memories which still linger. That might be the death connection. Main case is the so called 'Catalan Grand Company' led by Roger de Fleur

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

G

Archpaladin Zousha
2017-08-16, 09:09 AM
Would Celtic tribes like the Picts or early Irish (basically ones that weren't Romanized) have access to leather lamellar armor, or does it pretty much jump from "basic leathers" or just your clothes straight to chain hauberks (I know hauberk is more evocative of the Middle Ages than post-Antiquity, but I can't think of another term to describe mail that just covers the torso without things like sleeves and leggings that I'm not sure you see until you've got Norman knights running around apart from the RPG term "chain shirt" and I know this thread isn't the place to use RPG terms :smallredface: )?

I'm trying to figure out armor for a warrior druid, you see, that doesn't have the "I just crudely stitched together the stinky pelts of random animals I hunted so I put the hobo in murderhobo!" look you so often see in fantasy druids, but my only other references are Total War: Rome II and Total War: Atilla, where the Iceni's "Druidic Nobles" just go into battle in regular clothes along with a sword and shield, or the Pictish units use basic leather or even go shirtless, and the Europa Barbarorum mod for the original Rome: Total War, where the Casse Drwdae and the Aedui Carnute Cingetos wear chain armor that Pathfinder druids aren't allowed to wear.

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 09:46 AM
Would Celtic tribes like the Picts or early Irish (basically ones that weren't Romanized) have access to leather lamellar armor, or does it pretty much jump from "basic leathers" or just your clothes straight to chain hauberks (I know hauberk is more evocative of the Middle Ages than post-Antiquity, but I can't think of another term to describe mail that just covers the torso without things like sleeves and leggings that I'm not sure you see until you've got Norman knights running around apart from the RPG term "chain shirt" and I know this thread isn't the place to use RPG terms :smallredface: )?

I'm trying to figure out armor for a warrior druid, you see, that doesn't have the "I just crudely stitched together the stinky pelts of random animals I hunted so I put the hobo in murderhobo!" look you so often see in fantasy druids, but my only other references are Total War: Rome II and Total War: Atilla, where the Iceni's "Druidic Nobles" just go into battle in regular clothes along with a sword and shield, or the Pictish units use basic leather or even go shirtless, and the Europa Barbarorum mod for the original Rome: Total War, where the Casse Drwdae and the Aedui Carnute Cingetos wear chain armor that Pathfinder druids aren't allowed to wear.

I think you are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole with that. There is no historical proscription against wearing metal armor that I ever heard of.

Whether leather was around or not - especially as armor, is debated. There is a reference in the Icelandic sagas about "Reindeer hide armor" but reindeer hide is very soft and would make terrible armor. It may have meant textile armor with a deerskin hide covering for waterproofing, or it may have meant to be 'magical' somehow, or it may have meant some other kind of animal skin.

The random hides thing - is not something you see in this part of the world. The dark age or medieval caveman look is probably already very rare by the time of the late copper age (even Otsi the Iceman seems to have been somewhat well put together). By the time you get into the Bronze Age let alone the Iron Age people seem to have had nice clothing which is usually made out of colorful textiles (think plaid) and even when it's made of doeskin or leather looks fairly modern - such as we can see for example in bog and salt mine finds. The same is true, incidentally for clothing used by Native Americans. If you see real buckskin clothing in a museum it's eye opening.

We do not have either a "medieval caveman" OR a "medieval heavy metal dude" such as we almost always see on TV.



https://i.pinimg.com/736x/27/5f/3c/275f3ca5884d57cb2183707567cc2d15--celtic-dress-celtic-mythology.jpg
Actual Iron Age people (use soap, have textile making and tailoring skillz)

http://tvdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/vikings-202-recap.jpg
Modern trope of Iron Age people


I think you have already been given the best possible thing to match your Pathfinder dilemma - the only way you don't have metal armor is if you either A) don't have technology for metal, or B) are too poor to afford metal. In the latter case textile armor is probably most likely in Europe in my opinion. Leather lamellar (or buffalo hide) seems to exist in Central Asia though so it's probably known in Europe too.


G

Kiero
2017-08-16, 09:52 AM
I'm trying to figure out armor for a warrior druid, you see, that doesn't have the "I just crudely stitched together the stinky pelts of random animals I hunted so I put the hobo in murderhobo!" look you so often see in fantasy druids, but my only other references are Total War: Rome II and Total War: Atilla, where the Iceni's "Druidic Nobles" just go into battle in regular clothes along with a sword and shield, or the Pictish units use basic leather or even go shirtless, and the Europa Barbarorum mod for the original Rome: Total War, where the Casse Drwdae and the Aedui Carnute Cingetos wear chain armor that Pathfinder druids aren't allowed to wear.

Disclaimer: I'm a developer on Europa Barbarorum II (in the mechanics section): there's an awful lot of fantasy crap in the Celtic section of EB1, largely because of Ranika. He was the "historian" for Britain and to be frank made a lot of stuff up. Anything you see there in Britain, ignore for the most part, it's probably wrong. Look to the units in EBII and you'll find a lot with a solid historical grounding.

As far as Celts of the period went, they didn't actually wear a lot of armour, especially not things like helmets (despite making some very good quality helms). Nobles and retainers wore mail, everyone else relied on their shield and mobility. Professionals and mercenaries were more likely to have helmets, but body armour was actually relatively rare, even though it was likely the Celts who invented mail.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-16, 09:56 AM
Just to add on, the "druid" of D&D has little other than the name in common with the historical druid (by that name or others) "social class" of various Celtic peoples.

AFAIK, there's no historical precedent for the prohibitions against metal armor or types of armor impossed on certain D&D character classes.

Lemmy
2017-08-16, 10:27 AM
So... I know this one, but I was hoping someone could give me a more precise/detailed answer:

Let's say two armies of equal skill and training and whatever else are facing each other over a long campaign... But one side has access to iron/steel, while the other uses bronze...

What exactly are the main advantages of steel in long term conflicts?
What are the advantages in battle, assuming both sides are well rested and ready for it?

Archpaladin Zousha
2017-08-16, 10:40 AM
Disclaimer: I'm a developer on Europa Barbarorum II (in the mechanics section): there's an awful lot of fantasy crap in EB1, largely because of Ranika. He was the "historian" for Britain and to be frank made a lot of stuff up. Anything you see there in Britain, ignore for the most part, it's probably wrong. Look to the units in EBII and you'll find a lot with a solid historical grounding.

As far as Celts of the period went, they didn't actually wear a lot of armour, especially not things like helmets. Nobles and retainers wore mail, everyone else relied on their shield and mobility. Professionals and mercenaries were more likely to have helmets, but body armour was actually relatively rare, even though it was likely the Celts who invented mail.
I see. Thank you for this information, I had no idea! :smalleek:

Is there a listing of EBII's factions and their units like on EB1's old website? The actual EBII website and forums don't seem to have one. :smallfrown:

And to those mentioning that there is no historical prohibition against metal armor, yes, I'm well aware that's not a real thing, but I have to roll with it as part of Pathfinder's rules, historical precedent or no historical precedent. The only way to get around it would be to make a suit of chain armor out of carved wooden links and cast an ironwood spell on it. :smallannoyed:

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 10:42 AM
I see. Thank you for this information, I had no idea! :smalleek:

Is there a listing of EBII's factions and their units like on EB1's? The actual EBII website and forums don't seem to have one. :smallfrown:

And to those mentioning that there is no historical prohibition against metal armor, yes, I'm well aware that's not a real thing, but I have to roll with it as part of Pathfinder's rules, historical precedent or no historical precedent. The only way to get around it would be to make a suit of chain armor out of carved wooden links and cast an ironwood spell on it. :smallannoyed:

That's fine of course, it's just this may not be the thread to find your answer. The real world is the real world and the game world is the game world. They don't always meet perfectly needles to say.

Archpaladin Zousha
2017-08-16, 10:55 AM
That's fine of course, it's just this may not be the thread to find your answer. The real world is the real world and the game world is the game world. They don't always meet perfectly needles to say.
I understand and thank you. :smallsmile:

I'm just frustrated in trying to get them as close to meeting perfectly as possible, since the "medieval caveman" depiction of Iron Age people and any other people RPGs label as "barbarian" irritates me perhaps more than any other trope. :smallfurious:

Kiero
2017-08-16, 11:45 AM
I see. Thank you for this information, I had no idea! :smalleek:

Is there a listing of EBII's factions and their units like on EB1's old website? The actual EBII website and forums don't seem to have one. :smallfrown:

We haven't produced anything like that yet; it's still an active mod in development (with a major release coming soon), documentation is well behind coding. We have been working on the website in the background, but it isn't ready to be deployed yet. Those are the sorts of features that it will have, likely a port from the games text files.

I'd highly recommend giving the current version (2.2b + the patch to 2.2r) a go if you have M2TW Kingdoms and spare time.

DrewID
2017-08-16, 12:03 PM
I think you are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole with that. There is no historical proscription against wearing metal armor that I ever heard of.

Whether leather was around or not - especially as armor, is debated. There is a reference in the Icelandic sagas about "Reindeer hide armor" but reindeer hide is very soft and would make terrible armor. It may have meant textile armor with a deerskin hide covering for waterproofing, or it may have meant to be 'magical' somehow, or it may have meant some other kind of animal skin.

Geoffrey of Monmouth in Historia Regnum Britanniae (ce. 1135) describes Arthur as being armed in "a leather jerkin (lorica) worthy of so great a king" along with a golden helmet with a dragon crest and a round shield with an image of the Virgin Mary. Unusual as (unlike most early authors) he does not describe Arthur as wearing contemporary arms and armor, which lends at least some credence to Geoffrey's claims to be working from earlier source material.

DrewID

Kiero
2017-08-16, 12:08 PM
It's very old. The first description of a sceptre in western literature is in the Ilias. The kings hold it in turns while speaking, and Odysseus uses it as a club to beat up an insolent soldier of low birth. In a flashback he also receives it when sent as an ambassador to Troy, and he moves it to create expectation in the listeners.

Roman centurions bore a 1 m long vine staff. It was a symbol of their status and a way to punish soldiers.

The thing I find most interesting are the imperial ensigns of Massentius, which were excavated in 2005. https://biatec.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/le-insegne-di-massenzio/ All of the sceptres have globes on them. They look a lot like maces to me.

However, in the times of Augustus, the symbol of imperium was a spear.

Actually, even in the time of Augustus, the symbol of imperium was an axe wrapped in a bundle of rods, the fasces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces). Representing the ability to administer capital punishment (the axe) and corporal punishment (the rods). Lictors of magistrates with imperium would each carry one.

VoxRationis
2017-08-16, 01:02 PM
Asking again about plumbata--I think my earlier comment was overlooked. Anyone know why the Romans switched?

Archpaladin Zousha
2017-08-16, 01:28 PM
Geoffrey of Monmouth in Historia Regnum Britanniae (ce. 1135) describes Arthur as being armed in "a leather jerkin (lorica) worthy of so great a king" along with a golden helmet with a dragon crest and a round shield with an image of the Virgin Mary. Unusual as (unlike most early authors) he does not describe Arthur as wearing contemporary arms and armor, which lends at least some credence to Geoffrey's claims to be working from earlier source material.

DrewID
Considering I'm drawing a lot of inspiration from Arthur for my character, this is quite helpful. It looks like I'll want to use regular leather armor for his gear, then. Thank you! :smallsmile:

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 01:50 PM
Not just Flanders, there were places that had elite heavy infantry - in Hungary, cities provided that after Belo IV. post-mongol reforms, for example - but not only was that not the norm, this heavy infantry was dismounted knights a lot of the time, most prominently in cases of England and monastic orders. You could therefore argue that heavy cavalry can be used to beat itself if it dismounts, but then we start going in circles.
.

Heavy infantry defeating heavy cavalry in the middle ages was rare in the 13th century, common in the 14th and routine (if not automatic by any means) in the 15th Century.

The most obvious examples were the Swiss and the Czechs since they revolutionized warfare in the Late Medieval period, but there are dozens of cases of heavy infantry, specifically not stiffened by dismounted knights in the English manner (I consider that a different kind of thing), defeating both heavy and light cavalry in the field, going all the way back to Charles Martel and before.

Swiss infantry of course defeated the Hapsburgs / HRE armies on multiple occasions, won (and occasionally lost) many battles in Italy and France as mercenaries, and defeated Charles the Bold of Burgundy 3 times. The Czech Hussites infantry defeated the flower of Latin European nobility almost too many times to count.

Most of the ~100 or so German Royal towns which became Free Cities had to fight and win at least one battle against a regional prince (Duke or Count) or prince-prelate (Abbot, Bishop or Archbishop).

Well-disciplined infantry, including both militia and mercenaries, in Sweden, Livonia, Prussia, Silesia, Lusatia, Italy, and Austria, and Hungary as well (notably in the part which is now Slovakia) defeated heavy cavalry in the field. In most cases so far as I'm aware this was done without a lot of knights present. Cossack infantry were the terror of the Mongols and the Ottomans by the 16th Century.

Read Hans Delbruck on this or for a more succinct and abridged version, pick up a couple of the Osprey Military Books: "German Medieval Armies" or "The Swiss At War" or "The Hussite Wars" or "Teutonic Knight"

Mounted knights (and their equivalent) remained effective but by the 15th Century it would be very unusual to deploy them without competent infantry support.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 01:52 PM
Asking again about plumbata--I think my earlier comment was overlooked. Anyone know why the Romans switched?

Could you repost your question I couldn't find it.

G

VoxRationis
2017-08-16, 02:15 PM
It is as follows:

It is my understanding that the late Roman army replaced the old pila with lead-weighted darts. When did this occur, and why? Is this a cost-saving measure? Is this a response to legionaries of lesser discipline discarding or cutting down their pila to save weight? Is there a good tactical reason to use darts instead of spears? (I know AD&D would say rate of fire, but that's not really a good source!) Is my understanding simply incorrect, or based on misconceptions?

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 02:44 PM
It is as follows

It is my understanding that the late Roman army replaced the old pila with lead-weighted darts. When did this occur, and why? Is this a cost-saving measure? Is this a response to legionaries of lesser discipline discarding or cutting down their pila to save weight? Is there a good tactical reason to use darts instead of spears? (I know AD&D would say rate of fire, but that's not really a good source!) Is my understanding simply incorrect, or based on misconceptions? :

Oh ok, that is the plumbata. 'Plumbo' for the lead weight that made the thing work so well.

http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Images/Thumbnails/plumbatae%20-thrown.jpg

http://openarchaeology.info/files/main_1.jpg

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

You see a nice example of some historical ones here (http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Military%20Accessories/4th%20Century%20Plumbata/Plumbata.htm)

It's kind of a neat weapon, and apparently pretty effective at least for 'harassing' missile attacks at a pretty long range. Good for putting pressure on enemy troops and for unnerving horses etc.

My understanding about the plumbata is the following:


It did not ever actually replace the pilum, which continued in use through the fall of the Roman Empire and continued to be found among the Franks long after that as the "Angon" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angon)

It was used by some Legions IIRC specifically in the Central and Eastern European provinces

It's advantage was mainly long range. I think they could also carry more of them (I remember something about sticking them in slots on their shields)

I think they rose in prominence as a response to archers such as those of the Huns and the Parthians. The Romans needed a longer-ranged missile weapon to answer long range archery attacks

The Romans also did develop specialist archers as troop-types in the Late Imperial period, both mounted (see Equitus Sagitarii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarii)) and infantry archers, again mainly in response to their Eastern foes, but it was nice to give the Legions a way to answer attacks too, especially since the Legions had the better endurance (largely due to armor and the scutum shield, but also due to discipline). Archers were often (I think) auxiliary troops.



Like the Pilum, the Plumbata also lingered a lot longer than most people realize. The Swiss had a very similar weapon (small vaned dart with lead weight built in) still in use at least as late as the 14th Century, when the larger vaned dart started to replace it. Another type of dart which remained popular (but kind of flies under the radar in games and genre culture) is the dart or javelins which work by winding a cord around them, that unwinds and imparts spin when you throw it, like the weavers beam and the Swiss Arrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_arrow). These were popular with rural militia in particular and apparently pretty effective as harassing fire (similar to shooting bows with flight arrows)

EDIT: Oh and another type of vaned dart or javelin is the Kestros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kestros), possibly an ancestor of the plumbata

G

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-16, 02:48 PM
If I'm interpreting that image correctly, it's a sort of underhand throwing motion?

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 02:52 PM
If I'm interpreting that image correctly, it's a sort of underhand throwing motion?

Looks like that was at least one way to do it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tub0zFz5WGc

Vinyadan
2017-08-16, 03:04 PM
Actually, even in the time of Augustus, the symbol of imperium was an axe wrapped in a bundle of rods, the fasces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces). Representing the ability to administer capital punishment (the axe) and corporal punishment (the rods). Lictors of magistrates with imperium would each carry one.

You are, of course, right. The importance of the fasces in later times is testified by Domitian's decision that the Emperor should get 24 fasces.

What I wrote about the lance depended on something I had read about the restoration of the Augustus of Prima Porta statue, where the restored staff he carried was removed, and it was supposed that he carried a lance. I don't exactly remember what was written, maybe it said that it was a symbol of being a military commander. Unfortunately I can't find where I read this, the only trace I found was an article or book that should say something about spears in Roman imperial iconografy (Hölscher 1967, title unknown.)

Kiero
2017-08-16, 03:19 PM
Another type of dart which remained popular (but kind of flies under the radar in games and genre culture) is the dart or javelins which work by winding a cord around them, that unwinds and imparts spin when you throw it, like the weavers beam and the Swiss Arrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_arrow). These were popular with rural militia in particular and apparently pretty effective as harassing fire (similar to shooting bows with flight arrows)

This is the much like the amentum (which the Greeks called the ankyle):

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/14300/14399/acontium_14399_lg.gif

Used originally on javelins, but would work much the same on a dart.

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 04:04 PM
This is the much like the amentum (which the Greeks called the ankyle):



Used originally on javelins, but would work much the same on a dart.

Yes exactly thanks, I couldn't remember the name

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

G

rrgg
2017-08-16, 04:38 PM
On the subject of throwing darts/javelins. In terms of pure distance the standard method might not be the most optimal. In 1956 one athlete achieved a distance of 99+ meters, higher than the current olympic record while practicing the newly invented "spanish style" but it was banned before it could be used in the actual Olympics due to safety concerns.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6dCL2vOkk

Some other "freestyle javelin" techniques:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sFb4idJASTo/UsGoWlD8sEI/AAAAAAAACZ4/46yAbU98S0g/s1600/freestyle.jpg

Clistenes
2017-08-16, 06:56 PM
On the subject of throwing darts/javelins. In terms of pure distance the standard method might not be the most optimal. In 1956 one athlete achieved a distance of 99+ meters, higher than the current olympic record while practicing the newly invented "spanish style" but it was banned before it could be used in the actual Olympics due to safety concerns.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6dCL2vOkk

Some other "freestyle javelin" techniques:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sFb4idJASTo/UsGoWlD8sEI/AAAAAAAACZ4/46yAbU98S0g/s1600/freestyle.jpg

I have read that the athlete who developed that style (Miguel de la Quadra Salcedo?) copied it from a goat herder he saw throwing sticks at stray dogs who were harassing his goats...


Oh ok, that is the plumbata. 'Plumbo' for the lead weight that made the thing work so well.

http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Images/Thumbnails/plumbatae%20-thrown.jpg

http://openarchaeology.info/files/main_1.jpg

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

You see a nice example of some historical ones here (http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Military%20Accessories/4th%20Century%20Plumbata/Plumbata.htm)

It's kind of a neat weapon, and apparently pretty effective at least for 'harassing' missile attacks at a pretty long range. Good for putting pressure on enemy troops and for unnerving horses etc.

My understanding about the plumbata is the following:


It did not ever actually replace the pilum, which continued in use through the fall of the Roman Empire and continued to be found among the Franks long after that as the "Angon" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angon)

It was used by some Legions IIRC specifically in the Central and Eastern European provinces

It's advantage was mainly long range. I think they could also carry more of them (I remember something about sticking them in slots on their shields)

I think they rose in prominence as a response to archers such as those of the Huns and the Parthians. The Romans needed a longer-ranged missile weapon to answer long range archery attacks

The Romans also did develop specialist archers as troop-types in the Late Imperial period, both mounted (see Equitus Sagitarii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarii)) and infantry archers, again mainly in response to their Eastern foes, but it was nice to give the Legions a way to answer attacks too, especially since the Legions had the better endurance (largely due to armor and the scutum shield, but also due to discipline). Archers were often (I think) auxiliary troops.



Like the Pilum, the Plumbata also lingered a lot longer than most people realize. The Swiss had a very similar weapon (small vaned dart with lead weight built in) still in use at least as late as the 14th Century, when the larger vaned dart started to replace it. Another type of dart which remained popular (but kind of flies under the radar in games and genre culture) is the dart or javelins which work by winding a cord around them, that unwinds and imparts spin when you throw it, like the weavers beam and the Swiss Arrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_arrow). These were popular with rural militia in particular and apparently pretty effective as harassing fire (similar to shooting bows with flight arrows)

EDIT: Oh and another type of vaned dart or javelin is the Kestros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kestros), possibly an ancestor of the plumbata

G

But during the late Empire they replace most of the classical pilum-throwing units with spearmen and archers, didn't they?

Galloglaich
2017-08-16, 07:15 PM
But during the late Empire they replace most of the classical pilum-throwing units with spearmen and archers, didn't they?

I'm not sure, I'm not an expert on that period by any means, but I believe Procopius mentioned plumbata and pila in his Gothic Wars or one of the Wars books. Which is about mid 6th Century.


I have a question for the gun people on this forum. The ballistic experts. How much protection would a mantlet of 4" thick wood provide against firearms, assuming pretty tough or hard wood.

I know that a modern rifle would probably shoot through that. or anyway I've myself shot holes through and through trees that were probably 10" or so thick, though I don't know how much the type of wood matters.


I'm reading a military manual from the 15th Century and it recommends 4" thick wood for wheeled mantlets like the ones I've posted images of in earlier incarnations of the thread, such as we see in Bellifortis, the Wolfegg Housebook, von Eyb's kriegsbuch, and the various Swiss chronicles. I'm eager to understand better if this is plausible protection.

Would it protect against a modern pistol? Carbine? Rifle?

Would it protect against an Early modern pistol, petronel, arquebus or musket? (I would kind of doubt the latter but I know nothing like John Snow)

Any info and especially stats and sources would be appreciated.

G

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-16, 07:39 PM
I'm not sure, I'm not an expert on that period by any means, but I believe Procopius mentioned plumbata and pila in his Gothic Wars or one of the Wars books. Which is about mid 6th Century.


I have a question for the gun people on this forum. The ballistic experts. How much protection would a mantlet of 4" thick wood provide against firearms, assuming pretty tough or hard wood.

I know that a modern rifle would probably shoot through that. or anyway I've myself shot holes through and through trees that were probably 10" or so thick, though I don't know how much the type of wood matters.


I'm reading a military manual from the 15th Century and it recommends 4" thick wood for wheeled mantlets like the ones I've posted images of in earlier incarnations of the thread, such as we see in Bellifortis, the Wolfegg Housebook, von Eyb's kriegsbuch, and the various Swiss chronicles. I'm eager to understand better if this is plausible protection.

Would it protect against a modern pistol? Carbine? Rifle?

Would it protect against an Early modern pistol, petronel, arquebus or musket? (I would kind of doubt the latter but I know nothing like John Snow)

Any info and especially stats and sources would be appreciated.


I don't think modern firearms with ballistically efficient, hard-jacketed ammunition are going to be a good parallel for weapons firing big fat spheres of lead.

Gnoman
2017-08-16, 09:28 PM
I'm not sure, I'm not an expert on that period by any means, but I believe Procopius mentioned plumbata and pila in his Gothic Wars or one of the Wars books. Which is about mid 6th Century.


I have a question for the gun people on this forum. The ballistic experts. How much protection would a mantlet of 4" thick wood provide against firearms, assuming pretty tough or hard wood.

I know that a modern rifle would probably shoot through that. or anyway I've myself shot holes through and through trees that were probably 10" or so thick, though I don't know how much the type of wood matters.


I'm reading a military manual from the 15th Century and it recommends 4" thick wood for wheeled mantlets like the ones I've posted images of in earlier incarnations of the thread, such as we see in Bellifortis, the Wolfegg Housebook, von Eyb's kriegsbuch, and the various Swiss chronicles. I'm eager to understand better if this is plausible protection.

Would it protect against a modern pistol? Carbine? Rifle?

Would it protect against an Early modern pistol, petronel, arquebus or musket? (I would kind of doubt the latter but I know nothing like John Snow)

Any info and especially stats and sources would be appreciated.

G

I can't remember the source, and there area a lot of details missing, but I have a note on my computer (must have been something I was researching for a modern-era game) that 2.5" of plywood will stop most lower-powered pistol rounds. , 5" for medium powered ones, and 8" for high powered ones. A cursory check brings up videos that get similar results.

If this information is correct, that may be a useful starting point. A 17th century musket has similar energy levels to a modern medium-powered pistol (I'm finding roughly 550 ft-lbs for the musket, 300-400 for 9x19 parabellum, and 480-550 for .45 ACP), but the shape of the ball is going to make it significantly poorer at penetration (and better at wounding). This suggests, to me, that 4" of good wood will stop rounds from most man-portable black powder weapons. The popularity of logs as field fortifications in that era lends credence to this, as most available logs would not be much thicker than 4".

wolflance
2017-08-16, 09:46 PM
But during the late Empire they replace most of the classical pilum-throwing units with spearmen and archers, didn't they?
Maybe they supplanted the pila with plumbata because of the spear? Since carrying a spear (main weapon) along with several javelins won't be as easy when compared to a gladius, especially when you are also carrying a large shield.

Several other (possible) reasons that I can think of:

1) Adoption of barbarian practices
2) Enemy became more mobile, which rendered close range pilum less effective
3) Deterioration of other ranged elements in the legion (doubtful)

Mike_G
2017-08-16, 10:01 PM
I can't remember the source, and there area a lot of details missing, but I have a note on my computer (must have been something I was researching for a modern-era game) that 2.5" of plywood will stop most lower-powered pistol rounds. , 5" for medium powered ones, and 8" for high powered ones. A cursory check brings up videos that get similar results.

If this information is correct, that may be a useful starting point. A 17th century musket has similar energy levels to a modern medium-powered pistol (I'm finding roughly 550 ft-lbs for the musket, 300-400 for 9x19 parabellum, and 480-550 for .45 ACP), but the shape of the ball is going to make it significantly poorer at penetration (and better at wounding). This suggests, to me, that 4" of good wood will stop rounds from most man-portable black powder weapons. The popularity of logs as field fortifications in that era lends credence to this, as most available logs would not be much thicker than 4".

I agree.

Interestingly enough, even with am higher energy, the 45 ACP is worse at penetrating than the 9 mm, since it's slower but more massive. I can imagine a round lead musket ball would be even less efficient at penetrating wood.

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-17, 01:46 AM
I have read that the athlete who developed that style (Miguel de la Quadra Salcedo?) copied it from a goat herder he saw throwing sticks at stray dogs who were harassing his goats...


Not sure about the name, but the throwing style is called barra vasca, and you can see here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6dCL2vOkk)why there were safety concerns. It's a traditional Basque technique, called Palanka in basque.

It's damn near impossible to find any good information on it on the English internet.

wolflance
2017-08-17, 08:38 AM
Question again: At what time did sabatons started to (re)appear in Medieval Europe again? I recall last time someone ever used sabatons was during Archaic Greek period...

Also, there's also something I don't understand about the following passage:


Then could be seen the iron Charles, helmeted with an iron helmet, his hands clad in iron gauntlets, his iron breast and broad shoulders protected with an iron breast-plate; an iron spear was raised on high in his left hand; his right always rested on his unconquered iron falchion. The thighs, which with most men are uncovered, that they may the more easily ride on horseback, were in his case clad with plates of iron: I need make no special mention of his greaves, for the greaves of all the army were of iron. His shield was all of iron: his charger was iron-colored and iron-hearted. All who went before him, all who marched by his side, all who followed after him and the whole equipment of the army imitated him as closely as possible.
While I understand that Notker was largely writing to impress and Carolingian soldiers didn't really armed that way, the passage really does make me twirl my head a little.

Does the concept of "man encased in iron armor" really exist that early in the Middle Ages? Notker's writing sounds like a description of late Medieval knight in full plate, especially since he mentioned "iron breastplate", "thighs clad with plates of iron", as well as "iron sleeves" "iron gauntlets" etc, and this was before any kind of hand/foot armors existed in medieval Europe!

Vinyadan
2017-08-17, 09:42 AM
You would need the Latin text to check that out.

Tobtor
2017-08-17, 01:17 PM
Question again: At what time did sabatons started to (re)appear in Medieval Europe again? I recall last time someone ever used sabatons was during Archaic Greek period...

Also, there's also something I don't understand about the following passage:


While I understand that Notker was largely writing to impress and Carolingian soldiers didn't really armed that way, the passage really does make me twirl my head a little.

Does the concept of "man encased in iron armor" really exist that early in the Middle Ages? Notker's writing sounds like a description of late Medieval knight in full plate, especially since he mentioned "iron breastplate", "thighs clad with plates of iron", as well as "iron sleeves" "iron gauntlets" etc, and this was before any kind of hand/foot armors existed in medieval Europe!

Alot of things apear in medieval texts that did not exist. Some texts have "men" made of iron (iron statues - no living men inside) which are able to move (in effect: robots!). I hardly think they existed... But people sure thought such things would be cool (as today apparently).

Some of the descriptions of the different parts of armour might be affected by our vocabulary, rather than the text: so as Vinyadan say: You would need the Latin text to check that out. But it is worse than that, a 9th century Latin might not really be easy to translate when it comes to details, if we do not know what they are talking about... A word refers to something a person knows or can imagine, but as we want to know what the person knows/imagines we get into a circular conundrum of what the words mean.

rrgg
2017-08-17, 01:22 PM
I have a question for the gun people on this forum. The ballistic experts. How much protection would a mantlet of 4" thick wood provide against firearms, assuming pretty tough or hard wood.

I know that a modern rifle would probably shoot through that. or anyway I've myself shot holes through and through trees that were probably 10" or so thick, though I don't know how much the type of wood matters.


I'm reading a military manual from the 15th Century and it recommends 4" thick wood for wheeled mantlets like the ones I've posted images of in earlier incarnations of the thread, such as we see in Bellifortis, the Wolfegg Housebook, von Eyb's kriegsbuch, and the various Swiss chronicles. I'm eager to understand better if this is plausible protection.

Would it protect against a modern pistol? Carbine? Rifle?

Would it protect against an Early modern pistol, petronel, arquebus or musket? (I would kind of doubt the latter but I know nothing like John Snow)

Any info and especially stats and sources would be appreciated.

G

It depends quite a bit on the wood, but a 4 inch mantlet would probably protect against most rounds at a distance.

The Graz tests article which has been posted here before includes penetration results from various weapons against spruce at 30 and 100 meters.

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312


Lewis' Small Arms and Ammunition in the US Service includes the results of some experiments against white oak starting on page 93. The flintlock musket using a service load was able to penetrate 1 inch and 100 yards, .55 inch at 200 yards, and zero at 300 though a shallow dent was made.

https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/22919

gkathellar
2017-08-17, 03:03 PM
Re: wood and bullets, you have to consider the age of the forests, in addition to the type of tree. Modern lumber tends to be weaker than what the Swiss probably would have been using, because it mostly comes from farmed trees harvested young. The difference isn't necessarily enormous, but it can be noticeable.

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-18, 02:04 AM
Question again: At what time did sabatons started to (re)appear in Medieval Europe again? I recall last time someone ever used sabatons was during Archaic Greek period...


1999, that's when the crazy Swedes formed the band.

Okay, serious answer.

First off, what do we consider sabatons? If the answer is plate kinda-sorta boots, then we need to go to about 1300 at the earliest, with them being in common use somewhere around 1350-1380.

Thing is, the foot was hardly unprotected before then, mail hose went all the way down, earliest depiction I can think of is from 1150.


http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/684-1_large.jpg


As for the reason, I'd say it's because of how shields for the infantry were shaped - they were quite long and protected your feet enough as it was, so you had no need for them unless you were cavalry, and even then, kite shields did offer some protection at least. I'd say it is no accident they appear in the period of time when we see kite shields being shortened into heater shields.



While I understand that Notker was largely writing to impress and Carolingian soldiers didn't really armed that way, the passage really does make me twirl my head a little.

Does the concept of "man encased in iron armor" really exist that early in the Middle Ages? Notker's writing sounds like a description of late Medieval knight in full plate, especially since he mentioned "iron breastplate", "thighs clad with plates of iron", as well as "iron sleeves" "iron gauntlets" etc, and this was before any kind of hand/foot armors existed in medieval Europe!

+1 to "we need latin text", historians are notoriously bad at translating equipment-related terminology. There was this one time I happened on leather armor in 1350 manuscript, and with the help of some people from this thread, found out the latin phrase was "lorica cucullata", which means hooded armor, and the phrase therefore probably meant vanilla mail without coat of plates or helmet (probably with crevelliere). Again, this was translated as leather armor.

wolflance
2017-08-18, 10:01 PM
Thanks for the answers guys.


1999, that's when the crazy Swedes formed the band.
Okay, serious answer.

First off, what do we consider sabatons? If the answer is plate kinda-sorta boots, then we need to go to about 1300 at the earliest, with them being in common use somewhere around 1350-1380.

Thing is, the foot was hardly unprotected before then, mail hose went all the way down, earliest depiction I can think of is from 1150.

As for the reason, I'd say it's because of how shields for the infantry were shaped - they were quite long and protected your feet enough as it was, so you had no need for them unless you were cavalry, and even then, kite shields did offer some protection at least. I'd say it is no accident they appear in the period of time when we see kite shields being shortened into heater shields.
Yes, I was asking about kinda-sorta plated boots. For chainmail foot armor, I recall there's evidence (and reconstruction) that suggest that Vendel splinted greaves include them.

What about scale sabaton?


+1 to "we need latin text"
Unfortunately I can't find the Latin text, and I can't read latin either (sad puppy face).

Brother Oni
2017-08-19, 01:03 AM
Unfortunately I can't find the Latin text, and I can't read latin either (sad puppy face).

There's a number of people on the board that can read Latin and even medieval Latin to a degree, so if you can find the text, we can do the rest.

Unfortunately, my knowledge of Latin extends to an understanding of 'Romanes eunt domus'.

wolflance
2017-08-19, 06:26 AM
There's a number of people on the board that can read Latin and even medieval Latin to a degree, so if you can find the text, we can do the rest.

Unfortunately, my knowledge of Latin extends to an understanding of 'Romanes eunt domus'.

I actually found what appear to be the Latin text of Deeds of Charlemagne

http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000692_00060.html?sortIndex=010%3A060%3A0012% 3A010%3A00%3A00&zoom=0.75

Unfortunately, having no knowledge on Latin, I have no idea which page is about the passage.

Vinyadan
2017-08-19, 08:58 AM
I actually found what appear to be the Latin text of Deeds of Charlemagne

http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000692_00060.html?sortIndex=010%3A060%3A0012% 3A010%3A00%3A00&zoom=0.75

Unfortunately, having no knowledge on Latin, I have no idea which page is about the passage.


I actually found what appear to be the Latin text of Deeds of Charlemagne

http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000692_00060.html?sortIndex=010%3A060%3A0012% 3A010%3A00%3A00&zoom=0.75

Unfortunately, having no knowledge on Latin, I have no idea which page is about the passage.

http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000869_00783.html
from #40, tunc visus est...

My translation:

Charles himself then seemed made of iron, surmounted by an iron helmet (galea), decked with iron armlets*, his iron breast and broad shoulders protected by an iron cuirass**, having filled his left hand with an iron spear held high; for his right hand was always stretched to the unconquered steel sword***; the exteriors of the tights/hips, which others use to leave bare to climb with better ease, in his case were encompassed by iron leaves****. What should I say about the greaves? Which the whole army also used to always wear of iron. Nothing is to be seen in the shield, but iron. His horse also shone back with iron, both in his temperament and in his colour.

* sleeves: manicis armillatus. Armillatus means "decked with something surrounding the limb", and, while it's often used for bracelets, it can also be used for different body parts, like the neck. "manicis" means "with manicae", which literally are sleeves that were so long as to cover the hands too. Because of this, the word could also mean gloves. In Roman times, when used referring to a soldier, it was arm protection (an armlet). So it could also be an armlet. At first I thought that it was the long sleeves of a mail, but then the description seems to talk about the single separate parts of the panoply one by one, so I guess armlets.

** OK, I'm posting this in case someone ever looks for platonic shoulders or homeros platonicos: Plato's name meant "broad" because he had very broad shoulders. Option B was understanding it as a derivative of a word meaning marble, like "marble shoulders", but it isn't likely. "Iron breast" is likely a play on the fact that breast also meant temperament. The cuirass is a general term for torso protection. Thorax means torso, but can also mean any clothing worn on it, and cuirass too; here is in the form without h, and is also feminine instead of the usual masculine, which can happen and is registered in dictionaries. Anyway, it doesn't have to be a breastplate.

*** Steel: calibem. The word also means "things made of steel", among which swords (there is an example in which someone holding "steel" means that he has an unsheathed sword in his hand).

**** This is actually said by the philologist who made the critical edition: bratteolis:laminis. Bracteolae were very thin leaves of gold in classical Latin, laminis can be larger. Now, how large were these metal leaves or plates? And what were they supposed to be? I honestly don't know. Maybe they were some sort of iron pteruges, maybe they were scales. I find the note interesting, because, if it was a hindrance, then it's possible that the mails worn on the torso had some sort of slit to allow for movement, or was too short to protect the legs, and so he wore (or Balbulus made up) a kind of protection worn on the external side of the tights, separate from the torso armour.

Fun fact about the greaves: according to the dictionary, the Romans used to wear one on the right leg only, while the Samnites used to wear one on the left leg only.

Anyway, I guess the translator wasn't too interested into medieval weaponry of different periods :smallbiggrin: In general, the translation is sort-of-right, in that he picked meanings which the words can have, but the words also have other meanings that are better suited to this case. But it isn't an easy pace. The only thing I don't get is why he translated visus sum as "I am seen" instead of "I seem, appear".

It would be useful if someone else also gave a translation, so as to have more than one mind.

wolflance
2017-08-19, 10:22 PM
My translation:

Charles himself then seemed made of iron, surmounted by an iron helmet (galea), decked with iron armlets*, his iron breast and broad shoulders protected by an iron cuirass**, having filled his left hand with an iron spear held high; for his right hand was always stretched to the unconquered steel sword***; the exteriors of the tights/hips, which others use to leave bare to climb with better ease, in his case were encompassed by iron leaves****. What should I say about the greaves? Which the whole army also used to always wear of iron. Nothing is to be seen in the shield, but iron. His horse also shone back with iron, both in his temperament and in his colour.
Wow, thanks for the translation! You are awesome!

Your translation actually makes a lot more sense to me now. I can more easily picture Charlemagne as an extremely well-armored, if somewhat fanciful, warrior of the 9th century, instead of the previous full-plate knight in my head.


armlets

iron leaves
It appears to me that Nokter was trying to emulate the attire of an armored Roman general? The "manicae" and "iron leaves" give off the vibes of the Roman armguard (manica) and Pteruges, respectively.

Add a muscled cuirass and you get someone that's nearly indistinguishable from a Roman general.

Does the "armlet" imply short length? I recall some Byzantine armors have short armlets that protect only the upper arm.



Fun fact about the greaves: according to the dictionary, the Romans used to wear one on the right leg only, while the Samnites used to wear one on the left leg only.
Many tell me that Roman use right greave because they already had a big shield to protect their left, although I can't really understand the logic behind it.

Most people lean their body sideways during combat (especially formation fighting), presenting their left side to enemy while hide their right side away from them. Right leg should be the most well-hidden body part in most cases, so it really doesn't need that extra protection.

Samnites choice makes much more sense to me.

Brother Oni
2017-08-20, 01:36 AM
Many tell me that Roman use right greave because they already had a big shield to protect their left, although I can't really understand the logic behind it.

Most people lean their body sideways during combat (especially formation fighting), presenting their left side to enemy while hide their right side away from them. Right leg should be the most well-hidden body part in most cases, so it really doesn't need that extra protection.

Samnites choice makes much more sense to me.

Except that legionaries typically fought with a gladius which is a comparatively short sword (blade length of 50-60cm). When you're pressed up against the enemy in close formation, you would stand side on as you need the extra stability and footing for what is essentially a pushing competition with extra stabbing, and the short range of the weapon is an advantage (easy to move about and not get tangled up with the person next to you).

However before that stage, the two sides will start off outside of weapons range and move in to trade blows - here you would need the extra range granted by standing face on, particularly to make up for the short length of the gladius. Additionally if you stepped in to lunge, your right leg would be exposed, thus the additional protection.
Generally after a few minutes of close-in shoving-match fighting, the two sides will tend to back off to get a breather and work up the courage to have another go - it's not like in Hollywood where battles are depicted as non-stop close in fighting, although siege assaults are a prime exception.

As can be seen, the Roman style of fighting was designed for close in combat, so savvy opponents didn't give them that opportunity where possible.

comicshorse
2017-08-20, 06:20 AM
I was just reading Warren Ellis's graphic novel 'CRECY' about the battle of Crecy and after the battle the point-of-view character/narrator, a longbowman in the English army comments :
" We finished the idea of horses in war for over two hundred years "

This seems a very strange statement to me and I wondered if there was anything to back it up ?

( As the character is, as he says, a provincial common soldier he's referring to war in Europe only)

Vinyadan
2017-08-20, 06:47 AM
It is possible that the author was trying to portray a Roman-looking Emperor. We have very few reliable illustrations of Frankish equipment from this period (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stuttgarter_Psalter_-_Württembergische_Landesbib_Bibl.fol.23 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Leiden_1_Maccabees_manuscript_/_Codex_PER_F_17 ), and those which go for idealization tend to show Roman-like equipment, possibly under Byzantine influence ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bible_de_Charles_le_Chauve_-_BNF_Lat1 ).

There's also the fact that certain Roman art pieces like Trajan's Column were well known, and some have identified their influence on Medieval art (some e.g. see the Bayeux Tapestry as a reelaboration of the Column).

The Latin word for armlet doesn't say anything about length. Manicae could even be handcuffs, or sleeves covering the whole of the arm. The term is also used in the testament of Everardus, one of Charlemagne's dukes, likely also describing an armourpiece ( Bruniam unam, helmum unum, Manicam unam. ) So we can suppose that Charles wasn't the only one using those in battle, and that they really did exist, at least for the elite.

rs2excelsior
2017-08-20, 11:05 AM
I was just reading Warren Ellis's graphic novel 'CRECY' about the battle of Crecy and after the battle the point-of-view character/narrator, a longbowman in the English army comments :
" We finished the idea of horses in war for over two hundred years "

This seems a very strange statement to me and I wondered if there was anything to back it up ?

( As the character is, as he says, a provincial common soldier he's referring to war in Europe only)

They could be referring to the idea of the mounted charge, though it's a bit anachronistic. It's true that most cavalry in Europe went through a period where the caracole was popular--the cavalry would not charge; instead, they were arranged in a loose, deep formation, and would fire pistols before rotating to the back of the formation to reload. The caracole began to see widespread use in the early-mid 1500s and was beginning to be replaced by 1600 or before, although it still did exist afterward. Even then, there were armies who still used shock cavalry (mostly eastern Europe--the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never really broke from shock cavalry, as far as I know), and some western European armies that ordered cavalry to fire their pistols then charge. That shift in tactics is likely due more to the rise of gunpowder weapons rather than anything to do with the battle of Crecy or the effectiveness of the bow against knights. It'd take almost six hundred years before the horse in battle was totally "finished"; in the First World War both sides had reserve cavalry divisions in place to exploit a breakthrough up until the latter stages of the war.

Even then, in some of the more recent conflicts in the Middle East, the US Army has used horses for transportation (if not for combat) since they're able to navigate the rough, mountainous terrain better than some vehicles. So the horse arguably still makes itself useful in warfare even today.

EDIT: as a specific counterexample, the battle of Grunwald in 1410 that marked the beginning of the end for the Teutonic Order between the TO and Polish-Lithuanian forces saw heavy shock cavalry in use by both sides, less than a hundred years after Crecy.

Vinyadan
2017-08-20, 11:35 AM
There's something I find interesting. With many of the battles won by the English during the 1H Years' War, there is widespread knowledge of how and why the English won, be it tactics, mistakes on the other side, equipment, and so on.
On the other hand, the English lost the war, but all I know about this sums up to "And the Joan D'Arc appears (and La Hire too!)". Is there a more practically minded explanation of why the French won and the English lost?

Tobtor
2017-08-20, 12:03 PM
There's something I find interesting. With many of the battles won by the English during the 1H Years' War, there is widespread knowledge of how and why the English won, be it tactics, mistakes on the other side, equipment, and so on.
On the other hand, the English lost the war, but all I know about this sums up to "And the Joan D'Arc appears (and La Hire too!)". Is there a more practically minded explanation of why the French won and the English lost?

Possibly several. Depend on who you ask really.

First thing many will point out: yes the English won many famous battles. Not necessarily that many battles. What history remembers is however Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt. This is partly due to English language histories which is dominated by the successes of the English. However, there is no denying that the English was generally "gaining" in the first "series" of wars, and the French did better in the campaigns around Jeanne d'Arc.

What prevented the English is large that France is a very big realm (geographically) and that it is very difficult to completely control it. Secondly prolonged campaigns again and again was unpopular back England where peasants had to pay for it (by taxes or sons or both). So troubles back in England prevented full exploitation of military victories. Similar there where several local revolts against the English in France.

Also: the war was a cycle of wars over various questions (inheritance of various French territories, but also succession issues over France as such), and some of the was won by the English (gaining control over Aquitaine for some periods example), but not enough to enforce a complete conquest of France, which meant that whenever the French was recovered they could have another go.

Also though we might consider the hundred years war ending in the 1450'ies (because thats when the battles stopped), but in legal terms didnt stop before somewhat later (cannot remember the exact year), at a time when England was engaged in "War of the Roses". Thus, you could theorize that it wouldn't have ended if the war of Roses did not happen: the cycle could have continued for many rounds yet if the English had not been forced to fight at home. It almost broke out again a few times, but the English could never really muster enough home support for another extended French campaign. Also their "mainland" ally, the Burgundians lost power in the late 15th century. But various English rules until the early 19th century kept claiming to be rightful rulers of France (or at least part of it). By the time the situation in England got stable, they where more involved in getting full control over the isles (Scotland/ireland) than invading France.

So the explanations in short form is:

England did not win all battles, just the ones we remember.
France is hard to control (including local revolts, large territories, and independent minded nobles).
Wars are expensive, and English had an issue of getting enough support at home.
France did better at the end of the war, and then England got involved in vary serious civil wars making another "round" of French wars impossible.

rs2excelsior
2017-08-20, 12:07 PM
There's something I find interesting. With many of the battles won by the English during the 1H Years' War, there is widespread knowledge of how and why the English won, be it tactics, mistakes on the other side, equipment, and so on.
On the other hand, the English lost the war, but all I know about this sums up to "And the Joan D'Arc appears (and La Hire too!)". Is there a more practically minded explanation of why the French won and the English lost?

All of the following is with the caveat that Medieval history isn't as much my thing as later periods. As far as I understand it this is correct, but someone with more knowledge may be able to elaborate/correct what I say here.

It had a lot to do with the fact that the English were trying to project power onto the French home turf. At its core, the HYW was an attempt by the English kings to press their claims on the French throne. Which meant getting to Paris, knocking down the door, seating yourself on the throne, and declaring yourself King of France. And getting the old French king to stop calling himself that. And getting all the French dukes to recognize you and stop rebelling. The English had to win, it was enough for the French to not lose.

Through most of the Hundred Years' War, the French had the advantage in manpower (as far as I can tell at least). So many of the English victories were in battles where they were badly outnumbered by the French, which is part of the reason they're considered great victories. The English had the advantage at sea, which made it difficult for the French to make a landing in England and force peace that way (as far as I know, the French never landed in England during the HYW), but the English had to get an army onto the continent and maintain it. Their armies were usually smaller and their supply lines much longer. Even though they could beat French armies, the French could come back from those losses more easily than the English.

Also, Medieval warfare was not really about battles, it was about sieges. No matter how well you beat an army in the field, it made no difference if their castles were still intact and resisting (of course, not having a hostile army breathing down your neck made sieges easier). The English might have won some field victories, but they still had to take French castles, where the problems of supply and reinforcement in hostile territory become even more pronounced.

Despite all of this, the English did manage to take a significant portion of French land, and were not driven totally out of France until the mid-late 1400s (I don't know the exact date). Also keep in mind that the HYW was not a single unbroken conflict, it was a series of smaller wars (some won by the English, some won by the French, none really fully deciding the issue of succession to the throne) broken by periods of truce.

Kiero
2017-08-20, 04:52 PM
Many tell me that Roman use right greave because they already had a big shield to protect their left, although I can't really understand the logic behind it.

Most people lean their body sideways during combat (especially formation fighting), presenting their left side to enemy while hide their right side away from them. Right leg should be the most well-hidden body part in most cases, so it really doesn't need that extra protection.

Samnites choice makes much more sense to me.

Uh, all the depictions of Romans with one greave I've seen are always with just the left, ie the one furthest forward, just in case any blow slips under the shield.

Vinyadan
2017-08-20, 05:18 PM
Uh, all the depictions of Romans with one greave I've seen are always with just the left, ie the one furthest forward, just in case any blow slips under the shield.

Vegetius I.20 describes the old infantry wearing greaves on the right.

KarlMarx
2017-08-20, 05:54 PM
There's something I find interesting. With many of the battles won by the English during the 1H Years' War, there is widespread knowledge of how and why the English won, be it tactics, mistakes on the other side, equipment, and so on.
On the other hand, the English lost the war, but all I know about this sums up to "And the Joan D'Arc appears (and La Hire too!)". Is there a more practically minded explanation of why the French won and the English lost?

As far as I am aware, several factors were all very important:

1. The English were fighting far from their homeland, and had to deal with the problem that they essentially had to occupy all of France. Revolts and such were common, meaning that the English had to devote significant resources simply to retaining control of what they had, leaving their resources much more thinly stretched than the French.

2. On a strategic level, the English also had many more geopolitical concerns than the French did. The latter had only to reconquer their country, but the English had to also deal with the Castilians in Spain for much of the war, and had to retain enough troops in England proper to deter the Scots from invading. In addition, they often split their attentions furthermore by showing a particular focus on the Low Countries, rather than France proper.

3. Leadership. At the end of the war, England was led by Henry VI, who was an exceedingly weak monarch. Under him, many factions began competing for political influence, further losing focus on the war. Meanwhile, France was led by the proficient, if not exceptional, Charles VII, who was much more able to rally support to him from his country--and to pry important nations, such as Burgundy, away from their English alliances.

4. These ultimately led to the English being completely and totally overstretched by comparison to the French, who could fight more centralized campaigns. Once they started losing major forces, it was hard for them to replenish, leading to a snowball effect and a French victory.

On a completely unrelated note, is anyone here aware as to whether the Scimitar played a role in the Middle East or elsewhere similar to that of the knightly longsword--i.e. did it have a similar symbolism as a weapon of justice, nobility, and honor?

Galloglaich
2017-08-21, 12:20 AM
There's something I find interesting. With many of the battles won by the English during the 1H Years' War, there is widespread knowledge of how and why the English won, be it tactics, mistakes on the other side, equipment, and so on.
On the other hand, the English lost the war, but all I know about this sums up to "And the Joan D'Arc appears (and La Hire too!)". Is there a more practically minded explanation of why the French won and the English lost?

Real good question.

It's because the History that we know today in English at least, comes from the English. And the English love to talk about their victories.

They also, to be fair, had the phenomenal playwright Shakespeare writing marvelous stories about English victories like Agincourt and he knew there was no market for writing about Castillon

So it's also why almost nobody knows that the Canute the Great conquered England a generation before William the Conquerer, or that the Hanseatic League defeated them in the 1470's, or about any number of other English military defeats and blunders from many other eras.

It's why the Opium Wars are rarely discussed or show up on History Channel documentaries...

To this day many if not most prominent Historians in the English language for any period before the American Revolution are from the UK.

This has had a lot of knock on effects, far more than you might expect.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-21, 12:27 AM
As far as I am aware, several factors were all very important:

1. The English were fighting far from their homeland, ...

No offense, but as far as I know this is mostly nonsense, the French won the war largely due to their mastery of cannon.


On a completely unrelated note, is anyone here aware as to whether the Scimitar played a role in the Middle East or elsewhere similar to that of the knightly longsword--i.e. did it have a similar symbolism as a weapon of justice, nobility, and honor?

Sort of, but

1) there is no such thing as a 'scimitar' in the real world and
2) Sabers didn't really become that common in the Middle East until long after the Crusades were over. They mostly used strait swords similar to the ones the Crusaders had, in fact, they also used a lot of swords either purchased from or captured from or given as tribute from Europe. When they did use sabers they were basically just simple Chinese type Dao. The special Middle Eastern variants came in the 16th Century mostly.

And most of their swords were strait. The most you get with medieval Islamic swords is usually a curved grip.

https://defence.pk/pdf/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Frhodesyup1.files.word press.com%2F2009%2F08%2Fal-qala.jpg%3Fw%3D432%26h%3D150&hash=14088c69802034746a29fb468cb96f2a

http://yakhwajagaribnawaz.com/islamic-images/islamic-images-05.jpg

The crescent shape of the various unique regional saber variants - killij in Turkey, the saif of the Arabs, shamshir in Persia, the talwar down in South Asia and so on, did have a nice correlation to the Islamic crescent, and this was indeed noticed and appreciated. Still shows up in flags today. Including some versions of the ISIS, ISIL or IS flag, though I won't post that here as it may be a bit sensitive.



G

wolflance
2017-08-21, 01:32 AM
Sort of, but

1) there is no such thing as a 'scimitar' in the real world and
2) Sabers didn't really become that common in the Middle East until long after the Crusades were over. They mostly used strait swords similar to the ones the Crusaders had, in fact, they also used a lot of swords either purchased from or captured from or given as tribute from Europe. When they did use sabers they were basically just simple Chinese type Dao. The special Middle Eastern variants came in the 16th Century mostly.

And most of their swords were strait. The most you get with medieval Islamic swords is usually a curved grip.

G
To my knowledge that type of curved saber originated from the Turkic tribes, then spread all over the places by the Mongols. So cultures that use curved saber tend to be those that were once conquered, or fought against, the Mongols.

So I think the Middle Eastern variants should came by a couple of centuries earlier?




It's why the Opium Wars are rarely discussed or show up on History Channel documentaries...

G
Didn't English win this one?

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-21, 03:07 AM
2) Sabers didn't really become that common in the Middle East until long after the Crusades were over. They mostly used strait swords similar to the ones the Crusaders had, in fact, they also used a lot of swords either purchased from or captured from or given as tribute from Europe. When they did use sabers they were basically just simple Chinese type Dao. The special Middle Eastern variants came in the 16th Century mostly.

The crescent shape of the various unique regional saber variants - killij in Turkey, the saif of the Arabs, shamshir in Persia, the talwar down in South Asia and so on, did have a nice correlation to the Islamic crescent, and this was indeed noticed and appreciated. Still shows up in flags today. Including some versions of the ISIS, ISIL or IS flag, though I won't post that here as it may be a bit sensitive.


Noooot quite. Middle East is a large region, and sabers are rather under-researched in the West.

The short version of it is that sabers in the Outremer were generally seen in the hands of nomadic mercenaries, usually in the northern regions. You did have these guys around during the Crusades (and before that), serving both sides, to say nothing of Mongols at Ain Jalut in 1260, they certainly had a lot of sabers and Crusades weren't quite done yet.

The local nobility and population didn't use them for the most part, not until the Ottomans came around, and part of the reason why Ottomans used them was that they also heavily used nomadic mercenaries in their raiding/scouting border parties (and were nomads themselves at the start). What they did was basically combine curved kilts with curved swords. (Curved. Swords.)

The saber as Islamic symbol comes largely from this era, when Catholic Europe and Islamic Ottoman Empire came into direct conflict and both sides used the equipment in use at the time in propaganda. Hungarians didn't get a say about the saber mostly because at the time, Hungary was practically non-existent, with large portions occupied by Ottomans, and what was left depended on German Habsburgs for war resources.

Funnily enough, sabers were brought into Crusades by the Europeans - Hungary used sabers across all societal classes since before there was Hungary (first sabers dated to 700, Magyars conquered what would become Hungary in c900), and there were detachments of Crusaders from it, albeit mostly small before the Fifth one at Damietta (1210's). There were even what you can call hand-and-a-half sabers in Hungary since about 1340's, taking the "make it longer" of bastard swords to sabers.

Byzantine forces also had some curved swords at their disposal at this time, there are saints and generals depicted with paramerion, and again, nomadic mercenaries have their own sabers. These sabers sometimes use hilt mounting system you see on liuyedao and katana, a brass ring on the blade under the hilt, and are the closest thing you get to a "Chinese dao".

Speaking of Chineese dao, first of all, which one are we talking about? Tang dao and later models (e.g. liuyedao) are quite different, and none of them look anything like modern Wushu Federation dao. From the evidence I've seen, it's the other way around, China used nomadic swords and called them dao, then developed them into their own thing, which is the exact same thing Europe did. Of course, you need to keep in mind that China during Yuan dynasty is significantly nomadic, since it's ruling class is essentially Mongolian, so to a degree they ARE nomads, at least culturally.

Lastly, some pictures.


http://www.historicarmsgallery.co.uk/Images/avarsabreheader.jpg



http://hunarchery.com/catalog/images/hun_saber5.JPG



https://i0.wp.com/i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o673/AlaeSwords/paramerion2_zpsff3b535d.jpg



http://media.snimka.bg/5518/017291402-big.jpg



http://media.snimka.bg/3643/013541561.jpg



https://www.dynastyforge.com/images_products/56513e3948539_product_zoom.jpg



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WsG1W-379v0/UvYQ9KO32xI/AAAAAAAABDs/lzhsgnS3pfU/s1600/Attila+Sword.jpg



http://www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=67040&stc=1&d=1185111404



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Pala_type_of_kilij.jpg/214px-Pala_type_of_kilij.jpg



http://www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=78260&d=1223986511



http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1012-212_large.jpg



http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/506-6_large.jpg


Edit: I can tell left from right now, Ma!

wolflance
2017-08-21, 03:32 AM
Speaking of Chineese dao, first of all, which one are we talking about? Tang dao and later models (e.g. liuyedao) are quite different, and none of them look anything like modern Wushu Federation dao. From the evidence I've seen, it's the other way around, China used nomadic swords and called them dao, then developed them into their own thing, which is the exact same thing Europe did. Of course, you need to keep in mind that China during Yuan dynasty is significantly nomadic, since it's ruling class is essentially Mongolian, so to a degree they ARE nomads, at least culturally.

Edit: I can tell left from right now, Ma!
I read Chinese and have a fair bit of knowledge in Chinese history, so I can tell you with certainty that indeed curved Chinese dao is indeed the result of Mongol Yuan influence. Beforehand they mostly used straight (single-edged) swords.

Dao is just an umbrella term to describe all single-edged sharp implement that's not an axe or saw. A katana, a messer, a meat carver, or even the sharp bits on a lawnmower are all called Dao in Chinese.

The modern Wushu dao is evolved from the late Qing Niuweidao (oxtail saber), which is a dao with increasing broader blade toward the tip, usually with relatively thin blade for a Chinese sword. It's a real weapon, albeit not a military one (more of a law-enforcement/town guard weapon).


Niuweidao
http://i.imgur.com/uDOcrB3.jpg


Quick question: Is there other armies that use majority sword-and-shield troops for their infantry? Other than Rome, that is.

Kiero
2017-08-21, 03:44 AM
Vegetius I.20 describes the old infantry wearing greaves on the right.

Vegetius wasn't a soldier or even a historian, just a compiler of other people's works. Polybius is a better source for military details.

snowblizz
2017-08-21, 03:47 AM
No offense, but as far as I know this is mostly nonsense, the French won the war largely due to their mastery of cannon.

G
If it is nonsense to say the English lost the war because they were fighting a long way from home it's equally nonsensical to claim they lost it due to cannon.

The French eventually won the war because France outmassed England in just about every measure that was important to medieaval warfare and unless you have an overwhelming technological advantange (or other force multiplier like say magic)*.

Crediting Joan of Arc or the superb French knight Arnoul d'Audrehem is also incorrect. They were an important part however in unifying France which was one of the most important strategic fails France had in the wars with England.

The 100YW started because the English royal line wanted to protect what was left of it's French holdings (at one point a bit earlier the English crown held more land than the rulign French monarch did). The fact that some lands remained was more to do with the local potentates favouring a distant light hand of rule over the French king's desire to control the domains he was titularly head of. Prensenting a claim on the French crown was a slightly later move designed to give a casus belli, and upset the French enough that they'd embark on the for them so disastrous courses of open battle. Some of the motivations did change, and one might say the English rather disastrously pursued the French crown at oen point, but those laying the claim originally didn't set out to conquer France or win the crown.

There are a lot of parallells to WW2 Germany invading the Soviet Union actually, too big a task, muddled objectives and trying to find a decisive target, yet finding none, leading to eventual grinding down of forces.

Almost invariably the English were "making expeditions" to France. Some of the famous wins came as a result of what was essentally raids in force. The reason for this strategy was that the English knew they could not hope to defeat and overrun the French with the resources at their disposal. So they usually went for maximum damage (and pillaging for income). But also their goal was not to conquer France, but to gain concessions to lands they considered theirs by inheritance (and it was, by the laws of the time, the French king was rather unscrupulously trying to enrich himself by taking from the most distant of his powerful vassals).

The reason it even had a shot at working was exactly that the French king was weak compared to his "overmighty subjects" like the Duke of Brittany, the Duke of Burgundy, the Duke of Aquitane (ie the English king) and others. To a degree by playing Game of Thrones - French edition was a key cornerstone of English policy. Ironically, the 100YW ended by the French doing the same to the English, by enabling and protecting claimants in the War of Roses. Similarly when they could the French would play the Scottish card. Considering how cynically the French took advantage of the Scots it always baffled me how eager they were to have another go (they were hung out to dry a lot).

The French started out playing to the English game of meeting them in battle on English terms, which is what is remembered in the famous victories. When they didn't it went much better. When more effective and unified French leadership was found they fortified the major cities and let the English ravage the comparatively poor countryside, which ruined the English economical disruption and living off the land strategy. Since effectively England did not have the economical output to support sustained and continued operations in France. They did a lot with what they had though. And the French squandered much of their resources too.

Fighting far away from home was important in that without the Battle of Sluys the English could not have transported, supplied or maintained any kind of forces in France at all. The financing of the wars also depended a lot on wine trading from Gascony which was always at risk when the English navy was weak (which it was at times). Thus it is not nonsense at all to say the English lost because they were fighting far away. At trhe later stages not being able to easily and effectively reinforce Gascony lost it to the English too. Distance was most definitely a factor contributing. Homefield advantage isn't necessarily a given though, if like the French you can't effectively organise yourself out of a wet paper bag.

It is certainly true that at the end cannon mattered. The French could retake castles and towns in days or weeks that the English spent months or years besieging. But to suggest *that* is the reason the conflict ended is preposturous. It greatly sped up what was by that time a forgone conclusion.

Basically at the height of her mostly unanticipated success in France ,the English crown decided that the French crown might not be an utopical goal after all, kinda losing sight of what they had been doing in the first place (protecting lands and rights). Which meant they effectively united all the disparate powers in France against what they feared the most, a powerful French monarchy. If you really want to go all jingoistic on stuff one can always claim that the English provided the motivation for France to become France. I think I've seen the argument that without the 100YW France would not have as easily and readily become a centralised(ish) state.
(*) Speaking of technological gaps, the English advantage at the onset of the war was their technological mastery of bureaucracy and centralisation :smallbiggrin:. They could raise and finance fighting forces much easier than the French crown. Unfortunately (for the English) that was something that could be fixed, eventually.

If anything is nonsense about the 100YW it's that *this* one thing was what won or lost it over some other thing.


There's something I find interesting. With many of the battles won by the English during the 1H Years' War, there is widespread knowledge of how and why the English won, be it tactics, mistakes on the other side, equipment, and so on.
Is there a more practically minded explanation of why the French won and the English lost?
Yes.
There is of course an Osprey book on this, "The Fall of English France". It goes into the military, strategical and politcal stuff (and it mentions many fo the battles the English lost). It's really dismal reading if you root for the English btw, like I did :smalltongue::. Man I did not see tha coming.:smallbiggrin:

gkathellar
2017-08-21, 09:19 AM
I read Chinese and have a fair bit of knowledge in Chinese history, so I can tell you with certainty that indeed curved Chinese dao is indeed the result of Mongol Yuan influence. Beforehand they mostly used straight (single-edged) swords.

No, they date back to at least the Han. Jian were generally seen as requiring far too much training for the average soldier (in my own experience, just holding a dao gives you a basic sense of what you should be doing with it). I've seen stuff indicating it had almost entirely replaced the straight sword well before the Yuan. No doubt the Mongols influenced design and caused a shift toward something cavalry saber-esque, but the single-edged sword had been in use for a while.


The modern Wushu dao is evolved from the late Qing Niuweidao (oxtail saber), which is a dao with increasing broader blade toward the tip, usually with relatively thin blade for a Chinese sword. It's a real weapon, albeit not a military one (more of a law-enforcement/town guard weapon).

Hey, it's not just from wushu - we use it in real martial arts too! :P

But yeah, adding to the above, the aforementioned feature of widening up the length of the blade is hugely exaggerated in the wushu dao, presumably so it'll flop around dramatically during forms and fill traditional kung fu people with as much contempt as a human body can contain. A serious saber won't be made of spring steel, and will be of a more uniform profile - broad, heavy, and relatively short.

wolflance
2017-08-21, 09:52 AM
No, they date back to at least the Han. Jian were generally seen as requiring far too much training for the average soldier (in my own experience, just holding a dao gives you a basic sense of what you should be doing with it). I've seen stuff indicating it had almost entirely replaced the straight sword well before the Yuan. No doubt the Mongols influenced design and caused a shift toward something cavalry saber-esque, but the single-edged sword had been in use for a while.
No, I mean the CURVED Chinese daos are post-Mongol. There are some very early bronze curved daos (more like a knife rather than a sword though), and some Han period Daos have a very slight inward curve (like an almost-straight falx) , but most of them are straight, and the curved ones have no direct relationship with the Ming/Qing curved sabers.

(And there is an odd one that's basically a double-edged bronze falx with flattened tip)

Indeed Dao superseded Jian very early (around Han). Straight Dao, that is.

There's apparently a debate of sort on whether the flared blade of Niuweidao serves a practical purpose or not (given that it is relatively thin). However those intended to be used in serious martial arts/real combat are certainly not floppy.

Galloglaich
2017-08-21, 09:56 AM
Noooot quite. Middle East is a large region, and sabers are rather under-researched in the West.

!

Nice images. I am aware of all that.

You realize that all the examples you posted are basic Chinese / Mongol (etc) Dao variants. Obviously that is a big can of worms in and of itself.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Portrait_of_the_Imperial_Bodyguard_Zhanyinbao.jpg/243px-Portrait_of_the_Imperial_Bodyguard_Zhanyinbao.jpg

Weapons like that basic yanmaodao, zhibeidao etc. (single edged with a slight curve) actually go back to the early Bronze Age in China. Definitely predates the Yuan dynasty by centuries though it became much more widespread from that point onward. They first became popular in the Han dynasty but they existed before that.

The "Scimetar" concept, I think, usually correlates to the later regional variations of the saber found around the Middle East, Persia, and South Asia, as I mentioned - as well as the European variants in Hungary, Ukraine, and later Poland, Germany etc. etc.

You also have the indigenous single-edged swords in Europe like the Czech dussack type (which can be found as far back as the early Iron Age ~ 800 BC in that area, Uniteice Culture) and the bauernwehr / messer family, and the Norse long-sax. These are different though in that they are all basically infantry weapons whereas the saber is almost always a cavalry weapon. In Hungary (and later Switzerland) there seems to have also been a hybrid of the saber and the messer.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-21, 10:08 AM
If it is nonsense to say the English lost the war because they were fighting a long way from home it's equally nonsensical to claim they lost it due to cannon...

(snip)

It is certainly true that at the end cannon mattered. The French could retake castles and towns in days or weeks that the English spent months or years besieging. But to suggest *that* is the reason the conflict ended is preposturous. It greatly sped up what was by that time a forgone conclusion.



No, it's not even close to preposterous, and if you really want to take a deep dive into it we can. But I don't think you know the history very well based on what you wrote.

The war essentially had three phases on a tactical level.

1) English move in after their Dynastic opening allows them inheritance claims, French attack, English win several major victories in the field. As usual though like most medieval wars everything consists of sieges in the field. French morale sags.

2) French rally with the appearance of Joan of Arc. Joan is captured and put to death by Burgundians pretty quickly, but by now the momentum has shifted.

3) French begin to produce large numbers of cannon, notably cast iron cannon on wheeled carriages, and work out streamlined methods of using them to attack and reduce strongholds. French make a separate peace with Burgundy.

Basically all the French victories / English defeats were in phase three and almost all of them were sieges decided by cannon.


The logistics and political problems faced by the English were the same by any invading army anywhere, particularly in the Medieval era. They are relatively insignificant compared to the problems faced by the Teutonic Knights in the Baltic (to cite just one example), and yet they overcame opposition for far longer than 100 years.


G

KarlMarx
2017-08-21, 10:57 AM
No, it's not even close to preposterous, and if you really want to take a deep dive into it we can. But I don't think you know the history very well based on what you wrote.

French begin to produce large numbers of cannon, notably cast iron cannon on wheeled carriages, and work out streamlined methods of using them to attack and reduce strongholds. French make a separate peace with Burgundy.

Basically all the French victories / English defeats were in phase three and almost all of them were sieges decided by cannon.


The logistics and political problems faced by the English were the same by any invading army anywhere, particularly in the Medieval era. They are relatively insignificant compared to the problems faced by the Teutonic Knights in the Baltic (to cite just one example), and yet they overcame opposition for far longer than 100 years.


G

It is true that the French cannon did provide them with an advantage late in the war, but that does not imply that it was a decisive one. Even the Knights ran into problems ultimately--particularly once the Poles and Lithuanians formed the (relatively) centralized personal union. Furthermore, they did not have the logistical difficulty of managing as many fronts as the English--who had to defend their holdings in Aquitaine and elsewhere, fought several campaigns in Spain and the Low Countries, and had to maintain enough force at home to deter/respond to the Scots. Thus--even if they could have, per se, supplied troops at the relative distances with the technology they had, they were far too overstretched to do so.

If the French had not had their cannon, the English would have been able to hold out much longer on both the tactical and strategic levels, mustering forces to relieve sieges and concentrate on specific objectives while fighting delaying actions elsewhere.

However, they could not overcome the barrier of being overstretched no matter how much time they had--especially considering as the French had a population--and thus manpower--in excess of twice that of England, by most estimates.

If the English had been on the same level as the French in weapons technology, this would not have changed. If neither had had cannons, then the outcome likely changes somewhat, with England being able to hang on to more coastal enclaves than just Calais, but would have certainly failed in their (stated) war aim of taking the French crown and (unstated) aim of retaining their large French empire.

gkathellar
2017-08-21, 12:10 PM
Since we're talking about them, with respect to single-edged swords, what are the advantages of curved vs. straight, in civilian and military settings? Why not go double-edged if the sword is straight?


No, I mean the CURVED Chinese daos are post-Mongol. There are some very early bronze curved daos (more like a knife rather than a sword though), and some Han period Daos have a very slight inward curve (like an almost-straight falx) , but most of them are straight, and the curved ones have no direct relationship with the Ming/Qing curved sabers.

(And there is an odd one that's basically a double-edged bronze falx with flattened tip)

Indeed Dao superseded Jian very early (around Han). Straight Dao, that is.

There's apparently a debate of sort on whether the flared blade of Niuweidao serves a practical purpose or not (given that it is relatively thin). However those intended to be used in serious martial arts/real combat are certainly not floppy.

Ah, fair enough. As you said, the word kinda ends up meaning, "sharp thing," hence confusion.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the niuweidao is nonsense - it's what I'm trained on. I'm noting that the common modern spring steel dao exaggerates its characteristics (at least partly so I can take potshots at organized wushu but that's neither here nor there).

wolflance
2017-08-21, 12:44 PM
Since we're talking about them, with respect to single-edged swords, what are the advantages of curved vs. straight, in civilian and military settings? Why not go double-edged if the sword is straight?

Ah, fair enough. As you said, the word kinda ends up meaning, "sharp thing," hence confusion.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the niuweidao is nonsense - it's what I'm trained on. I'm noting that the common modern spring steel dao exaggerates its characteristics (at least partly so I can take potshots at organized wushu but that's neither here nor there).
I'm sure someone will come out with a counterpoint that refutes me, but my current understanding is that

1) Straight edge makes excellent chopper.
2) Curved edge is better at slicing (draw-or-push cutting), its curve enables you to slice while you chop, more or less.
3) Apparently curved blade design also makes you less likely to screw up your attack (mistakenly hit with the flat etc).

From the looks of it (I haven't had the chance to handle one) pre-Mongol Chinese dao ("straight dao"), particularly Han Dynasty Dao, is pretty much designed with but one purpose in mind - to deliver powerful chops into flesh and bone, and possibly into shield and armor. Han Dao really can't thrust all that well, but it chops like a freaking rhomphaia/zweihander.

Having only a single edge allows the bladesmith to make the sword thicker and sturdier (Han Dynasty dao can be as thick as 9mm at the thickest part of its spine, and despite being more slender than Dadao, it is heavier) and hold a harder edge. I recall one example (a double-edged Han Dynasty Jian) that has cutting edge hardness around 900 - 1170 HV (Note that this is REALLY REALLY HARD) and core hardness of 220 - 300 HV, but most munition-grade daos are only around 500 - 600 HV edge hardness, still very hard by the standard of their time.

Galloglaich
2017-08-21, 02:49 PM
I'm sure someone will come out with a counterpoint that refutes me, but my current understanding is that

1) Straight edge makes excellent chopper.
2) Curved edge is better at slicing (draw-or-push cutting), its curve enables you to slice while you chop, more or less.
3) Apparently curved blade design also makes you less likely to screw up your attack (mistakenly hit with the flat etc).

From the looks of it (I haven't had the chance to handle one) pre-Mongol Chinese dao ("straight dao"), particularly Han Dynasty Dao, is pretty much designed with but one purpose in mind - to deliver powerful chops into flesh and bone, and possibly into shield and armor. Han Dao really can't thrust all that well, but it chops like a freaking rhomphaia/zweihander.

Having only a single edge allows the bladesmith to make the sword thicker and sturdier (Han Dynasty dao can be as thick as 9mm at the thickest part of its spine, and despite being more slender than Dadao, it is heavier) and hold a harder edge. I recall one example (a double-edged Han Dynasty Jian) that has cutting edge hardness around 900 - 1170 HV (Note that this is REALLY REALLY HARD) and core hardness of 220 - 300 HV, but most munition-grade daos are only around 500 - 600 HV edge hardness, still very hard by the standard of their time.

I think all of the above plus

4) Draw cuts are ideal for cavalry, and

5) Curved blades - especially doing draw cuts - are easier for weapon retention. That plus canted hilts which you also see on a lot of sabers.


When you are riding at close to full speed you close to double the impact of a sword cut, both on you and your target. This can make it hard to hold on to the sword. Even at half speed it's a substantial increase in the impact on your hand.

When you are riding by attacking a target (whether another horseman moving in an oppsite or perpendicular direction or someone on the ground) a percussive cut isn't necessary. You can deliver a devastating draw cut just by laying the sword on them as you go by, and a curved sword is ideally suited for that.


I didn't have time to get to this earlier but I also think this cavalry / infantry interplay is the reason for leg armor, especially mail or plate leg armor in medieval Europe. When cavalry are among infantry their legs are exposed; at the same time, cavalry aren't bothered as much by the weight on their legs (until their horse dies or gets wounded!)

G

Mike_G
2017-08-21, 03:08 PM
These are all general, and everything is relative, and the differences are often really minor but...

Straight swords are better for thrusting. The whole blade is lined up behind the point, all on the same vector, and being lined up makes aiming easier. A straight blade can often have a narrower point, which is easier to get into gaps in armor as well. The double edge helps widen the wound or cut a bigger opening in padded armor. Some sabres have a point shaped for thrusting and the first few inches of the false edge sharpened, so they'd gain the advantages of this as well, but it's nearly universal on straight blades. A straight blade is a bit longer for the same weight, because of the whole "shortest distance between two points" thing. And if you have a straight, double edges sword, you can turn it around and use the other edge if one gets notched or blunted.

Curved swords slice better. If you just swing the weapon, the edge will naturally strike with a drawing motion. They are easier to keep aligned to hit with the edge as opposed to at an angle. There's a physics reason for this, and it was explained to me, but I don't remember it, being a grunt and not a scientist. Single edges blades can have a more acute edge for the same weight/ breadth of blade. A cutting edge is at the most basic concept, a wedge. Two wedges back to back will either be a lot broader than a single wedge, or much less acute. And you can get sneaky with a curved blade, getting the point in around a parry. This is subtle, but useful.

Again, these are all general pros and cons. The weapon's length, balance, weight, flexibility, and edge and point geometry all count in there as well, so before the pedants come crawling out of the woodwork, yes, I know there's a lot more to swords, but this is a solid, basic answer to why some people prefer straight and some prefer curved for different strengths and weaknesses which may be more or less important depending on the weapon's purpose.

gkathellar
2017-08-21, 03:11 PM
Makes sense, in light of kitchen knives.

Is there any discernible reason why the cross-guard only became widespread in Europe or parts of the Middle East?

Galloglaich
2017-08-21, 03:29 PM
It is true that the French cannon did provide them with an advantage late in the war, but that does not imply that it was a decisive one. Even the Knights ran into problems ultimately--particularly once the Poles and Lithuanians formed the (relatively) centralized personal union. .

All the factors that you or others mention which the English struggled with are real (political issues, expenses and logistics, manpower of the French) but they are not the really relevant issue.

For one thing, the French also had plenty of challenges (including interregnums, revolts, famines, other foreign military problems like Saracen pirates, treacherous Dukes and assassinations among other nastiness)

But all those things are just the common problems of any large scale invasion. Cromwell faced the same problems in Ireland, Cortez and Pizarro et al faced many times the same problems in the New World.

Dismissing the Teutonic Order's conquest of Prussia and Livonia is particularly foolish. Look at a map. London is 116 miles to Calais, 292 miles from Paris. You can see across the English Channel on a clear day. The English also inherited their way into France and didn't have to conduct a fighting invasion.

Look where Talinn is - 1,000 km from Rostock. Or pick your city in Germany. The territory conquered by the Teutonic Knights and their allies / vassals (Livonian Order etc.) in the Baltic covers almost as much land as England itself, and stretches further than the distance from Houston to Miami. They also controlled these areas for more than 300 years. Though they had plenty of major problems, including at least 5 major defeats, they always overcame them. The check they received in the 15th Century from Poland and Lithuania were part of another war, a new war. Lithuania had converted to Christianity and Poland was contesting their territories in Prussia with what ultimately became a revolt of German cities who wanted to leave the rule of the Order. The reason for the existence of the Order, which had become conquest of Pagan Prussia, no longer had relevance.

But putting all that aside, and without making any claim that the Teutonic Knights were in the right or were anything like the "good guys" in any of this, there is no debating that they did a masterful job of conquering, controlling, and building up the territories they invaded, vastly better than the English did in France. What ultimately undid them was that they couldn't get along with their own allies, such as Poland and the Prussian and Livonian cities.



As for the 100 Years War itself, like I said, 3 phases. The English initially exploited a major weakness in the French military system, namely the reckless and heedless nature of French heavy cavalry charges, which they worked out a way to defeat in open field battles. Longbow archers plus stakes in the ground plus dismounted knights to act as officers to stiffen the ranks.

The English believe they were unique in figuring out how to exploit the French failure to develop combined arms forces or to properly develop or deploy infantry, but they were not - the French made the same kinds of mistakes many times and in many places - in Spain, against the Turks such as famously at Nicopolis in 1396. Seemingly no matter how many times the French got smacked in the head by doing this they kept doing it.

Medieval wars tended to consist typically of 1) raiding - usually heavily armed fighters vs. unarmed or lightly defended peasants, 2) sieges, typically long lasting and more or less continuous in one place or another and 3) (much more rarely) open field battles. The open field battles while rare, could be extremely devastating to the loser, and often had a random element, which is why they tended to be avoided by wise commanders. Something the French at that time, largely for cultural and socio-economic reasons, were basically lacking in especially in the 14th Century.

Much of the war did boil down to raiding or Chevauchee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e) but sieges continued to break out.

The transition phase with Jean D'Arc coincided with the development (or arrival) of new cannon by the French. It was basically a technology developed by Burgundy via the Flemish cities, but the French got the gist of it by the 1430's and were beginning to have major successes in sieges - first defensively, famously at Orleans when it was relieved by 'the Maid", and then increasingly offensively. Cannon were helpful in both ways, though the French had also improved military engineering and architecture (with innovations largely borrowed from Italy) and by the 1429 Battle of Jargeu, the French start to win battle after battle.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Fran%C3%A7ais_5054%2C_fol._229v%2C_Bataille_de_Cas tillon_1453.jpg/617px-Fran%C3%A7ais_5054%2C_fol._229v%2C_Bataille_de_Cas tillon_1453.jpg

Beaugency - French victory in an (offensive) siege using cannon. 1429
(Treaty of Tours 1444)
Rouen - French victory in an (offensive) siege using cannon. 1449
Harfleur French victory in an (offensive) siege using cannon. 1449
Fresnoy French victory in an (offensive) siege using cannon. 1450
Formingy - French victory in an open battle which was part of the defensive siege of Carentan) using cannon 1450 (in this case the English were hit in the flank when they left their prepared position to capture two French cannon)
Castillon - French victory in a (offensive / defensive) siege - their besieging army set up an artillery fort which resisted attack by a relieving column of English. 1453

There were also some important French cavalry victories, but the cannon was the thing that the English had no answer for, just as the French couldn't figure out to cope with the longbow in it's proper context) during the first half of the war.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-21, 03:41 PM
And if you have a straight, double edges sword, you can turn it around and use the other edge if one gets notched or blunted.

It's much more than that though. For one thing you also have two cutting edges when you stab into someone, rather than just one.

http://corkblademasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1024px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_018-zwerchau.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc

But far more importantly - the fencing systems of the medieval period make extensive use of wounding with both edges. Even with single-edged swords you will often see a partial false-edge on the weak (close to the tip) but with a double-edged sword you can cut with the false-edge. If you are using longsword, particularly in the German systems but also in the Italian and Iberian, the false-edge cut is a crucial and lethal part of the system. Among many other things you can follow-up from a parry (either from your parry or from your opponents parry) with a very rapid cut to the opposite opening. It's a key part of fencing with a longsword and one of the biggest differences between how they are portrayed in genre fiction like Game of Thrones vs. real life.

Though it's emphasized more with the longsword and it's sharp friends, you also see a lot of use of the false edge in single sword manuals such as the I-33.

But this is not intuitive and does require training to use effectively. Hence both in Europe and China, the double-edged sword was well known to require more training. Single-edged weapons are simpler to use.

As for the cross and hand protection, I think it's due to the style of warfare. I'm not a big fan of Victor Davis Hansen or his idea of 'European shock warfare' but there is some truth to there being a bit more emphasis on fighting up close and personal in a sustained manner in Europe than in most other places. I think it coincides with the use of armor in Europe. Japan was also like this to some extent though their fencing system (and blades) adapted to it in different ways.

If you are a steppe-nomad riding by on your horse with a saber, you need only make one cut and keep going, you don't need to parry and if you do, you probably have a small shield. But Latin infantry, and the Greeks before them, were trained to duke it out. It was part of fighting culture in much of Europe long before even the Romans.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/80/Mcbane2.jpg/220px-Mcbane2.jpg http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/img/capo_en.gifhttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e6/e5/8e/e6e58e19bd44bf9e496511a5ab547c07--the-sword-swords.jpg
Hand protection on the sword, starting from the cross and moving on to complex hilts, and eventually cups and basket hilts etc., make it much easier and safer to parry, and give you more options for how to fence - like fencing with a much more forward leaning guard.

G




.

Kiero
2017-08-21, 04:10 PM
Just to note all of the steppe hunting techniques and games designed to improve hunting skills (all of which are adapted to warfare) emphasise strike and move. Whether that's with bow, or javelin, or lance/spear. Closing and staying in melee is something they avoided unless absolutely necessary, and that tended only to be the armoured nobles. The average rider, who made up the bulk of their forces, was rarely armoured at all.

Storm Bringer
2017-08-21, 05:15 PM
Didn't English win this (the opium wars)?

yes, we did, but we generally don't go around reminding people of that time we went to war with china over our right to sell drugs to Chinese people.

twice.


but, oddly enough, my phase 1* platoon was called Peking, and was in a company with Taku Forts platoon, both of which are battles form said opium wars.


*UK basic training. phase 2 is special to arm training, phase 3 is training later in a soldiers career.

Mike_G
2017-08-21, 05:56 PM
It's much more than that though. For one thing you also have two cutting edges when you stab into someone, rather than just one.


I did mention that.




But far more importantly - the fencing systems of the medieval period make extensive use of wounding with both edges. Even with single-edged swords you will often see a partial false-edge on the weak (close to the tip) but with a double-edged sword you can cut with the false-edge. If you are using longsword, particularly in the German systems but also in the Italian and Iberian, the false-edge cut is a crucial and lethal part of the system. Among many other things you can follow-up from a parry (either from your parry or from your opponents parry) with a very rapid cut to the opposite opening. It's a key part of fencing with a longsword and one of the biggest differences between how they are portrayed in genre fiction like Game of Thrones vs. real life.

Though it's emphasized more with the longsword and it's sharp friends, you also see a lot of use of the false edge in single sword manuals such as the I-33.

But this is not intuitive and does require training to use effectively. Hence both in Europe and China, the double-edged sword was well known to require more training. Single-edged weapons are simpler to use.


G




Lots of false edge moves in several sabre manuals and styles, so I didn't mention it as a straight sword only thing. You can't just turn a sabre around and fight with the other edge if your primary edge gets dull, though, which is why I brought it up.

gkathellar
2017-08-21, 06:02 PM
It's much more than that though. For one thing you also have two cutting edges when you stab into someone, rather than just one.

http://corkblademasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1024px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_018-zwerchau.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc

But far more importantly - the fencing systems of the medieval period make extensive use of wounding with both edges. Even with single-edged swords you will often see a partial false-edge on the weak (close to the tip) but with a double-edged sword you can cut with the false-edge. If you are using longsword, particularly in the German systems but also in the Italian and Iberian, the false-edge cut is a crucial and lethal part of the system. Among many other things you can follow-up from a parry (either from your parry or from your opponents parry) with a very rapid cut to the opposite opening. It's a key part of fencing with a longsword and one of the biggest differences between how they are portrayed in genre fiction like Game of Thrones vs. real life.

Though it's emphasized more with the longsword and it's sharp friends, you also see a lot of use of the false edge in single sword manuals such as the I-33.

But this is not intuitive and does require training to use effectively. Hence both in Europe and China, the double-edged sword was well known to require more training. Single-edged weapons are simpler to use.

As for the cross and hand protection, I think it's due to the style of warfare. I'm not a big fan of Victor Davis Hansen or his idea of 'European shock warfare' but there is some truth to there being a bit more emphasis on fighting up close and personal in a sustained manner in Europe than in most other places. I think it coincides with the use of armor in Europe. Japan was also like this to some extent though their fencing system (and blades) adapted to it in different ways.

If you are a steppe-nomad riding by on your horse with a saber, you need only make one cut and keep going, you don't need to parry and if you do, you probably have a small shield. But Latin infantry, and the Greeks before them, were trained to duke it out. It was part of fighting culture in much of Europe long before even the Romans.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/80/Mcbane2.jpg/220px-Mcbane2.jpg http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/img/capo_en.gifhttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e6/e5/8e/e6e58e19bd44bf9e496511a5ab547c07--the-sword-swords.jpg
Hand protection on the sword, starting from the cross and moving on to complex hilts, and eventually cups and basket hilts etc., make it much easier and safer to parry, and give you more options for how to fence - like fencing with a much more forward leaning guard.

G

Can you (or others) expand on (or speculate on) why the crossguard never migrated to other places with developed fencing traditions, though? China and Southeast Asia, for instance (Japan, at least, has contributing historical circumstances that I'm aware of). Was stand-and-fight warfare really so uncommon across the entire continent of Asia?

Mike_G
2017-08-21, 06:36 PM
Can you (or others) expand on (or speculate on) why the crossguard never migrated to other places with developed fencing traditions, though? China and Southeast Asia, for instance (Japan, at least, has contributing historical circumstances that I'm aware of). Was stand-and-fight warfare really so uncommon across the entire continent of Asia?

Well, hand protection developed more and more when the shield went away, so you used the sword more for defense, and when fencing with the sword hand forward became more common. Compare an 18th Century basket hilt broadsword or a three bar sabre to the guard on a 13th Century arming sword.

There are Indian swords with fairly substantial cross guards, and the straight Crusades- era Islamic sword had a decent crossguard. As mush as the European ones did, more or less.

My guess is that schools of fighting developed in different regions that emphasized different guards and moves, and they depended less on the guard.

Matt Easton of Schola Gladiatora has some good videos showing guard positions of sabre manuals from the 17-earky 19th century, when the guard was simple, where they keep the hand farther back, and the late 19th Century, when the guard had become much more complete, and they fenced with the hand more forward.

KarlMarx
2017-08-21, 06:52 PM
All the factors that you or others mention which the English struggled with are real (political issues, expenses and logistics, manpower of the French) but they are not the really relevant issue.

For one thing, the French also had plenty of challenges (including interregnums, revolts, famines, other foreign military problems like Saracen pirates, treacherous Dukes and assassinations among other nastiness)

But all those things are just the common problems of any large scale invasion. Cromwell faced the same problems in Ireland, Cortez and Pizarro et al faced many times the same problems in the New World.

Dismissing the Teutonic Order's conquest of Prussia and Livonia is particularly foolish. Look at a map. London is 116 miles to Calais, 292 miles from Paris. You can see across the English Channel on a clear day. The English also inherited their way into France and didn't have to conduct a fighting invasion.


G

1. The French definitely had their share of challenges, but they (largely) diminished over time, especially once their leadership got put together at the end of the war. Meanwhile, the English suffered weak leadership at a critical point under Henry VI, with various factions beginning the power struggles that would become the Wars of the Roses, and had to deal with powerful allies of suspect loyalty, most notably Burgundy. Thus, the French enjoyed a stability towards the end of the war that the English couldn't match.

2. The success of such invasions, however, is largely dependent on the ability of the invader to account for such difficulties. Cortez and Pizarro exploited native rivalries to gain supplies and cannon fodder, for example, and succeeded. Napoleon failed to do so in Russia, leading to his defeat and the launch of the Coalition that ultimately destroyed him. Logistic challenges are indeed a central piece of any campaign; a war may be lost by an army with good logistics, but the examples of those with poor logistics being victorious are vanishingly few at best.

3. The English, unlike the Knights, had to fight or manage too many fronts. Their navy was a significant, necessary investment, keeping vital sea lanes open. Furthermore, they had to or chose to--in addition to fortifying their strongholds in Gascony, etc.--manage several campaigns simultaneously to the War in Spain, devote significant investment to retaining their Burgundian ally and other resources in the Low Countries, and retain substantial forces in England proper to deter the Scots. The Knights, for much of their history, only had to move east, trusting their allies to the west and south and the sea to their north as bulwarks against any issue. Thus, it is not only the logistics of supplying forces but the strategy of when and where to concentrate said forces.

3a. In addition, it is unfair to underestimate English difficulties in supplying troops in France. The Channel has always been a difficult place to maneuver large vessels, especially ones carrying square sails (there are many, many cases in which English vessels or fleets were waylaid by winds for weeks if not months in the Channel). Furthermore, difficulties on land in travel--storms, landslides, etc.--generally mean that you have to only either wait or go around. Such incidents at sea--storms, especially--mean that there is a good chance of losing the supply fleet, and even if it weathers the storm largely intact it will generally have been driven dozens, if not hundreds, of miles downwind, distance it will have to recover. If the wind is against the fleet, it will often simply have to wait until a shift, or will move so inefficiently that it might as well. Square-rigged, large, non-maneuverable vessels are terrible at beating into the wind, especially in unskilled hands (remember, command of a ship for centuries was often awarded on basis of connections, not merit, and thus command in such situations would be either incompetent or in the hands of a sailing-master with little legal authority). These conditions often meant that less than half the year could be a viable 'sailing season' for such fleets. It cannot be said that land transport was easy in the Middle Ages, but waterborne transport posed vastly more challenges in logistical terms over the same lengths (i.e. a short voyage could be just as hard to pull off as a long march).

4. The French, at the bottom line, had a vastly greater pool of resources on which to draw. Their population, as previously mentioned, was much greater than England's, leading to their having much greater manpower reserves. That, in turn, led to much greater ability to recover from defeat. Part of the reason Agincourt especially was such a major success was because it enabled the experienced English army to escape and fight another day. The English, ultimately, had much less ability to recover from defeat than the French, so once the French started winning battles they snowballed onward as the English lost resources. The cannon helped them in this regard, but did not prove decisive in the strategic sense. Once the French had the ability to start winning major battles--a situation all but guaranteed to them by their logistic superiority--this effect would come into play, regardless of cannon.

4a. Cannon were expensive! Saying the French won because of their cannon is ultimately an indirect way of saying they won because they were better at raising and using revenue. Cannon were certainly known in the British Isles since the early 1300s--heck, the English brought five to Crecy! But they, ultimately, cannot or did not utilize them with the same efficiency as the French--which can only be attributed to lack of logistical skill and efficiency.

5. Joan of Arc aside, it is fair to say that the end of the war brought an upsurge of French nationalism. Thus, the English had to further devote resources merely to holding the territory they had, not to aggressively countering French forces. Cities often being in places ideal for controlling the countryside, it is no surprise that sieges were fought in such places, favoring the French artillery. But, even without cannon, the difficulty of retaining territory as well as countering the French military would have doomed the English. Cannon merely expedited their downfall, but did not cause it.

Archpaladin Zousha
2017-08-21, 06:54 PM
Does anyone have pictures of bone armor that doesn't look like a skeleton Halloween costume? :smallannoyed:

Kiero
2017-08-21, 07:03 PM
2. The success of such invasions, however, is largely dependent on the ability of the invader to account for such difficulties. Cortez and Pizarro exploited native rivalries to gain supplies and cannon fodder, for example, and succeeded.

Cortez and Pizarro were also (unwittingly) preceded by a wave of disease that wiped out 90-95% of the native population and caused societal collapse compounding the issues of resistance.

Vinyadan
2017-08-21, 07:28 PM
Does anyone have pictures of bone armor that doesn't look like a skeleton Halloween costume? :smallannoyed:

Very ancient Siberian bone armour:
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/warriors-3900-year-old-suit-of-bone-armour-unearthed-in-omsk/

Whale bone armour, Siberia or Alaska, XIX century:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dervish/15091298648

Cuirass breastplate
Italy
Late 16th century
Steel, bone, wrought and carved
h 42 cm
© State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
(I guess it was just for show)
https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/cuirass.jpg

Dunkleosteus Armour (proof that Nature Does It Better: 3m length, and look at that eye protection!)
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/21/9f/e7219f741e66f25289ed13473ac423c7.jpg

Comments to the answers to my question coming tomorrow!

Archpaladin Zousha
2017-08-21, 07:39 PM
I look forward to it! Thank you already! :smallsmile:

KarlMarx
2017-08-21, 08:08 PM
Cortez and Pizarro were also (unwittingly) preceded by a wave of disease that wiped out 90-95% of the native population and caused societal collapse compounding the issues of resistance.

And that doesn't support the thesis that relative logistical strength and resources are decisive...how exactly?

wolflance
2017-08-21, 09:25 PM
I do not mention thrust at first because Han-to-Song Dynasty Chinese dao is pretty much the odd one that's perfectly straight, no false edge, and with a tip that's unsuitable for thrusting. It appears to be a chop-exclusive weapon.


Three Kingdom period Two-handed Dao
http://i.imgur.com/y9JF8Nu.jpg




Victor Davis Hansen or his idea of 'European shock warfare'

there is some truth to there being a bit more emphasis on fighting up close and personal in a sustained manner in Europe than in most other places. I think it coincides with the use of armor in Europe. Japan was also like this to some extent though their fencing system (and blades) adapted to it in different ways.

If you are a steppe-nomad riding by on your horse with a saber, you need only make one cut and keep going, you don't need to parry and if you do, you probably have a small shield. But Latin infantry, and the Greeks before them, were trained to duke it out. It was part of fighting culture in much of Europe long before even the Romans.

G

I don't really get this reasoning - aren't a combat style that focus on fighting up close and staying in combat, which coincide with the use of armor, counterproductive to the development of complex handguard? After all, most troops would wear gauntlets already (including those that are too poor to wear complete metal armor - see picture. At the very worst they can still use a shield), making hand guard unnecessary.

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

Galloglaich
2017-08-22, 12:00 AM
I do not mention thrust at first because Han-to-Song Dynasty Chinese dao is pretty much the odd one that's perfectly straight, no false edge, and with a tip that's unsuitable for thrusting. It appears to be a chop-exclusive weapon.


Three Kingdom period Two-handed Dao
http://i.imgur.com/y9JF8Nu.jpg



I don't really get this reasoning - aren't a combat style that focus on fighting up close and staying in combat, which coincide with the use of armor, counterproductive to the development of complex handguard? After all, most troops would wear gauntlets already (including those that are too poor to wear complete metal armor - see picture. At the very worst they can still use a shield), making hand guard unnecessary.

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

Well, you are missing a couple of things here.

Those gauntlets are there for the same reason - that kit, including the gauntlets (which were routinely recommended for polearm -equipped troops) are used the same way as a crossguard.

But gauntlets are of limited utility. Look at the gauntlets in that image, do you think you can shoot a gun or a crossbow with those on? Or handle a sword?

Really good articulated gauntlets, as opposed to simple half-gauntlets or 'clam shells' of the type in that image, were quite expensive and even the best onesoffered limited hand protection. I can tell you that in fencing in longsword tournaments today, I wear very expensive, excellent quality protective gloves made out of the best materials the modern world can devise and 15 years of experimentation and gradually perfected designs (all of us do these days - it's a requirement) but I rely far more on my weapon - and the cross- to protect my hands than I do on the gloves. The gloves are great, a major investment (probably the single most expensive bit of protective gear for most HEMA people, except maybe the coat). But if the gloves are protecting me it means I made a mistake.

In fact I actually bought a heavy tournament sword with a sidering recently even though it's a bit heavier than I would prefer, because of the extra hand protection it provides. Hand hits were a problem for a long time in HEMA. In the early days of the current HEMA revival they were actually talking about banning hand-hits in tournaments because so many people were getting their hands broken, and because a lot of people thought "hand sniping" was a form of "cheating", like it was a way to game the rules. Even though the manuals often specifically tell you to target the hands, and there are no rules in a real fight. But what happened is people learned to fence better and use their cross properly. It also goes along with proper edge alignment, you learn to be aware of the direction your blade and your cross are pointing at all times, until it becomes instinct, second nature. The guards (fighting positions) in the various medieval and Early Modern European fencing systems are set up to help you align your cross correctly. Most of the Master-cuts and other single-time counter techniques actually rely heavily on the cross to protect your hands.


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ln94E9AGYTc/maxresdefault.jpg


As for shields, the shield is good protection but it doesn't always protect your weapon hand. The use of the shield, specifically the buckler in our oldest known European fencing manual, the I.33, does in fact strongly emphasize protecting the weapon hand as much as possible, (this is another thing you never see in genre films, shows or games) but it's nowhere near as effective in that role as built in hand protection on the sword hilt itself.

http://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/3/33/MS_I.33_20r.jpg/200px-MS_I.33_20r.jpg


The other part of it has to do with the specific role of a sword on the battlefield. A sword is a sidearm. Which means it's used after you use your main weapon, and it's also for "civilian" defense as well. You may not be wearing any armor at all, but you should always have your sword (and anyone of a military estate or caste would normally be allowed to carry their sidearm at all times) and you may need it to defend yourself. If you have a complex hilt or even just a cross, you can use the sword much more effectively in defense. This isn't part of most RPG's or CRPG's etc., but it is actually one of the most important reasons for a sword - to defend against attacks.

Earlier swords in Europe and those from other parts of the world without significant hand protection were either meant to be used with a shield or were meant to use in a 'hit and run' type attack, or they were used with sophisticated martial arts emphasizing voiding and special parries that minimize exposure of the hands. But the hands are always a target, they are the part of the enemy closest to you most of the time and they are also the part bearing the weapon. In FMA they call it 'defanging the snake'. It's all over the medieval manauls.


https://partikron.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/talhoff1.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/e8/1d/f3e81d452a4fce7740f6911ae0379fef.jpg


It's just a theory, I don't have a deep enough knowledge of fencing systems from the Middle East, Central or South Asia, China or Japan to say for sure why, but I know from doing medieval fencing for 15 years now that you rely heavily on the cross and all the other forms of hand defense (knucklebows, siderings, finger rings, and so on) in the fencing systems of Latin Europe. Many of the techniques simply wouldn't work without those hilt elements.

http://www.katetattersall.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1788-HC.jpg
English cavalry sword

http://p2.la-img.com/858/15292/4983553_1_l.jpg
Polish Pallash cavalry sword

https://www.michaeldlong.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=77ffce89-aea4-481a-80d9-1d26d26e4396

One other thing worth mentioning - sabers were later to get complex hilt elements in some parts of the world, specifically because cavalry swords intended for the 'stand-up fight' - heavy cavalry weapons, were the ones given the complex hilt features and pretty quickly, basket hilts. The Pallasch, the Schiavona, the English backsword and so forth. They usually also had fairly long, strait blades either double-edged or with a partial false edge.

Those were the weapons meant for duking it out at close quarters. The saber proper was intended (at least in theory) for the ride by attack or hit-and-run. Sabers got some hand protection (knucklebow) at least intermittently as far back as the 16th Century - but the need for it was largely based on the use of the saber as a personal sidearm and in duels and so forth, which is why more hand protection became more common by the 19th.

G

wolflance
2017-08-22, 01:27 AM
Snip
G
So, to sum it all down, it is "you need complex hilt because you don't always have gauntlet or shield with you/can't always afford them/need the protection in duel" ?

That sounds fair enough.

rs2excelsior
2017-08-22, 01:29 AM
https://partikron.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/talhoff1.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/e8/1d/f3e81d452a4fce7740f6911ae0379fef.jpg

So the number of lightsaber duels in Star Wars that end via... dis-arming your opponent has a grain of truth? :smalltongue:




https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ln94E9AGYTc/maxresdefault.jpg

A serious question: a lot of people post pictures of fighting manuals that show parries in these kinds of positions, and it just seems incredibly awkward a lot of the time. The only experience I have that's even remotely close are the bayonet fighting manuals from the American Civil War, where the parries are short, quick motions to just deflect an attack (granted the musket with a bayonet is a vastly different weapon from a sword, and volunteer soldiers in the ACW would have nowhere near the experience or training in hand-to-hand combat that a Medieval swordsman usually had). How easy is it to make one of these (seemingly) complicated parries vs. simply deflecting an enemy attack? Obviously they worked given how many people have posted manuals showing these kinds of things.

Also related to some of the things you were saying here, would someone carrying, say, an axe or a hammer be at a disadvantage against someone using a sword with crossguard in terms of being able to defend themselves? What about polearms? I can't see most weapons on those categories being as good at parrying as a sword, but I have zero experience actually using them.

wolflance
2017-08-22, 02:04 AM
A serious question: a lot of people post pictures of fighting manuals that show parries in these kinds of positions, and it just seems incredibly awkward a lot of the time. The only experience I have that's even remotely close are the bayonet fighting manuals from the American Civil War, where the parries are short, quick motions to just deflect an attack (granted the musket with a bayonet is a vastly different weapon from a sword, and volunteer soldiers in the ACW would have nowhere near the experience or training in hand-to-hand combat that a Medieval swordsman usually had). How easy is it to make one of these (seemingly) complicated parries vs. simply deflecting an enemy attack? Obviously they worked given how many people have posted manuals showing these kinds of things.

Also related to some of the things you were saying here, would someone carrying, say, an axe or a hammer be at a disadvantage against someone using a sword with crossguard in terms of being able to defend themselves? What about polearms? I can't see most weapons on those categories being as good at parrying as a sword, but I have zero experience actually using them.
I don't think the technique is awkward, but I do think it is an incredibly risky move. A slight mistake, and your hand or worse will get cut immediately ( as the discussion above shows, getting Luke Skywalker-ed is really BAD news).

I'd prefer to stay as far away as possible from my opponent's blade, with or without complex hilt/shield/gauntlet. There have to be other, better ways to defend/parry without letting opponent's blade coming THAT close to your body (something like a hanging parry for that specific situation, perhaps?). That being said, German longsword seems to love taking that risk.

Now for your second question, assuming unarmored + no shield, guy with the sword will have both reach and defensive advantage (not to mention sword is better balanced/nimbler) over axe/hammer. Guy with the polearm will have advantage over all of the rest, simply because of the massive reach advantage.

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-22, 02:39 AM
... lots of stuff about hand protection


I can't quite agree with you on this one, or rather, it's a bit more nuanced thing. Crossguard on European swords doesn't do an awful lot to protect your hand in most cases.

What is does do is protect your hand in a bind, and it works really well there (if you do things right, there's a reason why Kohutovic wrote an entire article about not loosing your fingers in a Zwerch), but outside of it, not so much, not when you start to compare it to I.33 use of buckler or complex hilts. If you have a fighting style that doesn't have a lot of sword binds, or doesn't have lot of work in Edel Krieg to put it in Lichtenauer way, then you don't really need it as much.

Viking (and I use the term here colloquially) sword and shield (most likely) relies on shield binds, and viking-type swords do lack the crossguard, as do many Asian swords meant for fighting styles that lack or de-emphasize binds (which is most of them, really).


So the number of lightsaber duels in Star Wars that end via... dis-arming your opponent has a grain of truth? :smalltongue:

More than a grain - chopping off someone's sword hand is the best defense you could ask for. It's not like it can stab you from the ground.



A serious question: a lot of people post pictures of fighting manuals that show parries in these kinds of positions, and it just seems incredibly awkward a lot of the time.

Most manuals doesn't mean that it was the most widespread, it's just that one tradition of fencing in HRE had a fetish for writing books, so we have a disproportionate amount of material about them. Other sources, e.g. Fiore, don't have many of the complex positions - and have some others.

As for awkwardness, not really, they are quite comfortable to do once you figure out how. Keep in mind that manuals often draw things off-model to show you how the position works, they don't care that much about anatomical correctness, hence guy in Fiore who has arms that are 4/5 the length of his torso.



The only experience I have that's even remotely close are the bayonet fighting manuals from the American Civil War, where the parries are short, quick motions to just deflect an attack (granted the musket with a bayonet is a vastly different weapon from a sword, and volunteer soldiers in the ACW would have nowhere near the experience or training in hand-to-hand combat that a Medieval swordsman usually had). How easy is it to make one of these (seemingly) complicated parries vs. simply deflecting an enemy attack? Obviously they worked given how many people have posted manuals showing these kinds of things.

Taking the Absetzen in Ochs from Galloglaich's post as an example, the idea here is that you're basically both attacking and defending in the same tempo. This is slightly harder and riskier to do than parry-riposte system of Napoleonic and later eras, but it is a lot, and I mean A LOT harder to defend against.

Thing is, these techniques are meant mostly for duels. You can use some of them on the battlefield, but skirmishes are less about technique and more about situational awareness and group cohesion - I've seen quite a few people who were very good at duels/HEMA (some of them trained by the guy in Galloglaich's picture) crash and burn in group battles because they got tunnel vision and overextended, only to get smacked by a flail. If you have a bunch of soldiers who need to also train to shoot properly, you teach them a few basic attacks, and that then focus on group fights, your time is limited, after all.

Let's not forget about one more thing when comparing these techniques to bayonet fighting - rifles are heavy and unwieldy and have a lot of fiddly bits that get in the way of techniques - they are meant to shoot first and stab second. This means that a lot of things you can do with a short staff or spear are not possible to do (or are harder to do) with a rifle. Lancing out with a long, one-handed thrust comes to mind as an example.

Last but not least, those quick parries and deflections do exist in the manuals, it's just that the manuals tell you not to do them because what they are showing you is better. That basically tells you that people who didn't have enough time and money to train in these techniques did very likely use something like a parry-riposte.




Also related to some of the things you were saying here, would someone carrying, say, an axe or a hammer be at a disadvantage against someone using a sword with crossguard in terms of being able to defend themselves? What about polearms? I can't see most weapons on those categories being as good at parrying as a sword, but I have zero experience actually using them.

Axe and hammer loose against sword, crossguard or not, if we are talking about unarmored combatants. At the end of the day, sword is just far quicker and likely longer than hammer or an axe, and additional strength of blows you get from them doesn't do much in this case - if you hit someone twice as hard, he's not gonna be twice as dead.

If you introduce large center-gripped shields into the mix, then axes are on a somewhat equal footing with swords, because your main defensive tool is now covered, and axe can hook the shield out of the way, while the sword can move faster. What is better depends a lot on personal preferences and fighting styles.

As for polearms, they beat everything. Their length gives you a huge advantage, and even a very good swordsman will be very leery of going against a semi-competent spearman. There is a minor caveat here, though, some polearms are designed for use in armor, using these when you're not in armor is not such a good idea, since they tend to be on the short side.

Kiero
2017-08-22, 03:19 AM
And that doesn't support the thesis that relative logistical strength and resources are decisive...how exactly?

Their success had a lot more to do with the fact that any potential resistance collapsed before they even met it. If the natives hadn't been wiped out by disease, their logistical strength and resources would have been completely irrelevant.

Vinyadan
2017-08-22, 05:16 AM
Vegetius wasn't a soldier or even a historian, just a compiler of other people's works. Polybius is a better source for military details.

This is true. However, concerning the detail of Roman legionnaires wearing only the right greave, I think he can be believed (as in, that he has correctly understood and conveyed the meaning of his source). The largest problem with him is the fact that he tends to mix up different times. In this case, however, he is explicitly talking about the old Roman army (the time of principes etc.), and I don't see how his source could have been referring to something else. To make a comparison, in the same paragraph he gives an information which I consider unreliable: he says that, in this same ancient era, the Roman archers wore armour on the left arm. He uses, once again (in this discussion) the term "manica". He evidently understands this as armour, because the phrase is inserted into a whole discourse extolling the great value of armour in shaping Roman military success. However, I think it much more likely that the word "manicae" had been used by his source with a different meaning, that of a protective sleeve or glove which wasn't meant as armour, but to protect the archers from being hurt by their own bow. Manica could indeed mean protective implements used on the job, like fingerless gloves for working, and we know of leather sleeves or gloves used by hunters.

What I find interesting is how Vegetius was, from many points of view, an ancient Wikipedia editor... :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, I now am curious as to where the image of left-greave Roman soldiers came from. It could have been an expansion on Livy's notation of Samnites wearing graves on the left, come from another literary source, from iconography, or from reenactment.

Kiero
2017-08-22, 07:00 AM
Oh dear, Livy is even worse. He just makes things up.

Galloglaich
2017-08-22, 08:50 AM
So, to sum it all down, it is "you need complex hilt because you don't always have gauntlet or shield with you/can't always afford them/need the protection in duel" ?

That sounds fair enough.

Yeah that is a bit jumbled ;) let me try to unpack it a bit more clearly.

You need a substantial cross, and then later other complex hilt elements, because

1) You don't always have a gauntlet

a) While crude gauntlets were affordable for most infantry, the type with fingers (and also well made enough to not be clumsy) were much more expensive.

2) Gauntlets make it hard to do things.

a)Gauntlets get in the way. Even those really nice fingered gauntlets are hard to work with if you are doing things like spanning crossbows, putting gunpowder into an arquebus, adjusting the straps on a horse or the buckles on armor, or fiddling around with cannon.
b) As a result gauntlets were one of the first things which were left behind even by people who could afford them. One compromise was a half-gauntlet (covering the back of your hand but not your fingers). The other thing people often left exposed when fighting hand to hand was their face, because of the need to breathe and see clearly. The visor would be down when in a cavalry charge or when under attack by arrows or other missiles. But it's hard to fight with swords while looking through it.

3) Gauntlets aren't really enough protection (especially gauntlets with fingers)

a) Many people did fence with gauntlets of course, but as I said, the cross is still always your first and best line of defense.
b) The tradeoff between clumsy mitten or clamshell type gauntlets and the type with fingers is that while the latter lets you do more, including control a sword more effectively, they can't really protect well against your hand getting smashed especially by large hand weapons. The cross is much more effective for this and much more robust in defense. In a really insane full scale battle you are probably best off with both, though many fighters seem to have gone without the gauntlet and just relied on the complex hilt features.

4) The shield doesn't protect your weapon hand, typically

a) unless you use specific techniques like the halbschilt guard in I.33, but not all fencing systems made use of those and they aren't perfect anyway.

5) The sword was a sidearm, and you would have the sword with you much more often than you would have armor

a) both in a civilian context and on the battlefield. Armor takes a long time to put on, and there were laws against walking around in armor
b) Italians in particular seem to have broken those laws though and did sometimes wear mail under their clothing and also wear gauntlets, as noted by George Silver and acknowledged by Benvenutto Cellini in his autobiography.

5) In Europe at least, one of the most important roles of the sword was for defense, to prevent you being hurt by someone else with a weapon.

a) Many documented sword fights ended with no injuries. It's much safer to defend yourself with the weapon if there is hand protection.



Hope that helps a bit,

G

KarlMarx
2017-08-22, 09:14 AM
Their success had a lot more to do with the fact that any potential resistance collapsed before they even met it. If the natives hadn't been wiped out by disease, their logistical strength and resources would have been completely irrelevant.

There certainly was still resistance--the Aztec fought campaigns against the Spaniards in vain, and Pizarro faced decades of unrest from pretenders reorganizing fractions of the old empire. They attempted to resist; the Spaniards didn't simply walk in and conquer ghost cities. The plagues damaged much of their logistic potential, most specifically their 'social infrastructure'--i.e. leadership and organization--that would have enabled them to manage the resources to wage an effective campaign. In both conquests, a strong emperor had died of plague recently to be replaced by a contentious and opposed successor, who could not muster effective loyalty to fight a broad campaign.

This, on top of the nightmare of raising effective forces following their decimation by the plague, and of still having the supporting farmers, craftsmen, etc., proved their undoing.

Logistics isn't just about having stuff, it's also about distributing stuff.

Galloglaich
2017-08-22, 09:25 AM
So the number of lightsaber duels in Star Wars that end via... dis-arming your opponent has a grain of truth? :smalltongue:

Very much so, though it's a trick they tended to overuse in all the subsequent films. The original (and only good -ha ha ) Star Wars was largely inspired by the excellent Kirosawa Samurai films. Those are known for their realistic fencing. And in those films there are a couple of famous scenes where someones hand or arm is cut off. For example "there is no cure for fools" from Yojimbo. Note the dialogue and the similarity to the bullies in the Mos Isely cantina in Star Wars. "I'm wanted by the authorities!" "They'll hang me if they catch me!"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_dpJRs9fSfU/TeQ2IGfXfmI/AAAAAAAACKk/hLOnSdexZ6s/s1600/yojimbo.png

http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/304171/Yojimbo-Movie-Clip-No-Cure-For-Fools.html



A serious question: a lot of people post pictures of fighting manuals that show parries in these kinds of positions, and it just seems incredibly awkward a lot of the time. The only experience I have that's even remotely close are the bayonet fighting manuals from the American Civil War, where the parries are short, quick motions to just deflect an attack (granted the musket with a bayonet is a vastly different weapon from a sword, and volunteer soldiers in the ACW would have nowhere near the experience or training in hand-to-hand combat that a Medieval swordsman usually had). How easy is it to make one of these (seemingly) complicated parries vs. simply deflecting an enemy attack? Obviously they worked given how many people have posted manuals showing these kinds of things.

Like I said, they are counter-intuitive. What you are seeing there is a single-time counter. Some of them are parries, some are actually attacks. They aren't something you do naturally without training, but if you are trained and have drilled it in a bit, they are actually safer to use than a 'regular' parry.

Many of the mastercuts, the zornhau for example, use this single-time technique. It is the safest and best thing to use when your opponent is presenting you with the opportunity. Sometimes it's better to use the double-time counters where you beat the enemies weapon aside and then counter, or more gently 'capture' it with a parry, luring them close so you can attack another opening.

Single-time counters and attacks also work better (IMO) with either a longsword or a thrusting sword like a rapier, not as easy to do with a shorter cutting sword.



Also related to some of the things you were saying here, would someone carrying, say, an axe or a hammer be at a disadvantage against someone using a sword with crossguard in terms of being able to defend themselves? What about polearms? I can't see most weapons on those categories being as good at parrying as a sword, but I have zero experience actually using them.

As others mentioned, the reach matters - a lot. Though it doesn't inevitably overcome. An experienced swordsman can beat a spearman. The biggest problem with hafted weapons is that they can be seized a lot easier. If you parry - get a bind, you can grab the haft and then cut them. This is a common tactic when fencing. You can also parry and then just target the (typically unprotected) hands and this is exactly why gauntlets were recommended historically for polearm fighters. And why a lot of real actual polearms from the late medieval period had roundels which were also meant to protect the hand, as well as langets to protect the haft itself from being cut.

The sword can be grabbed too of course but it's much riskier, and the sword is usually a little quicker than most polearms even the short ones.

But these attacks, and the counters like 'absetzen' do work, just like in the image of Anton I posted, and they are reliable. I did an absetzen exactly like that against a kid in a tournament two months ago and I do have it on video. For me, whether or not you use single or double-time counters or attacks depends on the way the other guy fights. A half-trained fighter who is aggressive, as tournament fighters in safety gear sometimes will be, and attacks every opening safe or unsafe, is best dealt with by parrying before attacking and if possible, using double-time counters. Someone who fences in correct tempo and is more aware of the blade however is riskier to deal with in this manner, because they can exploit the opening in tempo that you give them with that first parry.

This is the real problem with a simple parry or a hanging parry. Every and any parry is better than being hit. Unlike some HEMA coaches I teach all the parries, simple to sophisticated, because you need them when you don't have time to think. It's a controversial issue actually but I believe the manuals expect you to know them, they are referred to repeatedly just not emphasized. But the problem with them is while they save you in the instant, you still don't have the initiative, the other person is going to attack again. And simple parries can be exploited for a near-certain killing follow-up (like doing a zwerchau after the other guy does an off-line simple parry). Single-time counters by contrast, as well as some of the more sophisticated double-time counters (krumph-schiel for example or parrying with the kron / sprechfenster) do not give your opponent this opening, on the contrary they threaten your opponent and may kill or wound them, but if properly executed they will almost always give you back the initiative. It puts your opponent on the defensive, wins you the center, and puts you back in the right tempo.

So the shorthand TL : DR is, single-time counters help put you in control of the fight.

The mastercuts, and techniques like absetzen, are all about controlling the other persons blade. One way to do this is to attack across their own line of attack. This is how zornhau works, and trust me, it works. You can also control the other persons blade by parrying, but that only buys you a couple of seconds. In a successful absezten like that one Anton was doing in the image, you have basically locked up your opponents sword, so they can't get you. This gives you a level of certainty in your defense which is ideal. They could always leap back and avoid your point - it doesn't always give you that killing shot, the part you are actually more certain of (not 100% certain but much more certain) is controlling their blade, because if you do this, you did so because you identified their intent.

This is also just a modification of a basic parry - if they attack your left shoulder or left side of your head (the single most common attack if they are right handed) in Liechtenauer you parry in left Ochs. You also see this exact same parry in many other fencing systems incidentally. In left Ochs, your cross protects your hand and their sword gets trapped between your blade and your cross. The technique part comes from just raising your cross and dropping your point while stabbing once you realize their sword is trapped. If you do it quickly you will get them. If you didn't do it quickly you still in all likelihood parried their attack, and your hand is made safe by your cross, so long as your edge alignment is correct (you want your cross at about a 45 degree angle up and out)


I don't know if that makes any sense, if I had time I'll try to find some video to demonstrate it.


I can't quite agree with you on this one, or rather, it's a bit more nuanced thing. Crossguard on European swords doesn't do an awful lot to protect your hand in most cases.

What is does do is protect your hand in a bind, and it works really well there (if you do things right, there's a reason why Kohutovic wrote an entire article about not loosing your fingers in a Zwerch), but outside of it, not so much, not when you start to compare it to I.33 use of buckler or complex hilts. If you have a fighting style that doesn't have a lot of sword binds, or doesn't have lot of work in Edel Krieg to put it in Lichtenauer way, then you don't really need it as much.

Martin, no offense but what you are saying here is from the perspective of someone with experience in re-enactor type fighting but not a lot of training in fencing per-se.

You don't just use the cross just in a bind, you use it when doing ordinary parrying, otherwise the hand is very exposed.

The basic defensive guards in the Kunst Des Fechten - pflug, ochs, they are all about your alignment with the cross. This keeps the opponents sword from bouncing or sliding down the blade and hitting your hand when you parry. Just in simple parries when you learn to use your cross, or with the messer also the nagel, you will find yourself fighting much better.

You also have the option of pushing things and forcing binds, for example performing and absezten or using sprechfenster or waiting in 'pflug' to catch your opponent in a bind with the 'kron' guard, you rely heavily on the cross to protect you when doing that, and it's an ideal entry into a whole host of fight-finishing techniques.

This is also a big reason for the hand-forward guard you see in Destreza or some of the Italian rapier systems, you can get away with this because a slight turn of the wrist can deflect attacks at the big target presented by your hand.

With more sophisticated fencing techniques, both with thrusting / dueling swords like the sidesword (modern term), rapier, or later on the smallsword, take advantage of the hand protection in fact the 'fingered grip' that you use is almost impossibly risky to use without it.


https://68.media.tumblr.com/be1b75ede2943fac0ec53cebf21fa28a/tumblr_inline_nug291er4e1rtdfb6_1280.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1a/86/71/1a867155a3e245854f3fd1ccca7acc2b.jpg


You are absolutely correct of course that a lot of HEMA fighters don't know how to fight in a group. That requires it's own kind of training and it is indeed a different kind of fighting. I used to do re-enactor type group fighting but it doesn't pull me as much today (partly because I have limited time and money, though I do still find it interesting) and I've kind of lost the knack for it - as you noted, situational awareness suffers when all you study for is the duel. But that doesn't mean by any stretch that knowing how to fence properly would interfere with fighting in groups, or that the fencing techniques in Liechtenaur or Fiore would be some kind of detriment historically. It's an artifact of our modern world and the HEMA and re-enactor scenes. Nor is the implication that these techniques were somehow 'fancy' or 'expensive' things that regular joe fighters didn't have time for really on point, so to speak. Fencing and battle overlap - there are some techniques more appropriate for a one on one fight (I'd be very carefful about grappling on the battlefield) but it's still useful to know them (for example grappling techniques can be used to avoid grapple which I actually do all the time in tournaemnts).

The fact is HEMA fencers spend most of their money on swords and know a lot more about fencing, re-enactors spend most of their money on armor and know a lot more about ancient battles.

I may cringe a little bit when I see the 'fencing' going on in a bohurt or a lot of re-enactor battles, but I know that group fighting techniques for most HEMA guys is cringeworthy for guys like you. We benefit from understanding each others research and experiences a little bit, because the real world that guys like Talhoffer actually lived in required both skill sets.

G

Blymurkla
2017-08-22, 12:07 PM
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/506-6_large.jpg


»I know there's a war and stuff going on. A crusade, even, I think. But you know what? ... boardgames!«

Vinyadan
2017-08-22, 12:42 PM
Is this the "sad" book about the English losing the war? https://ospreypublishing.com/the-fall-of-english-france-1449-53 :smallbiggrin:

Thanks for the explanations. I don't fully get the discussion about what factor was THE factor, because the most important ones being named are actually results of each other: had the French not been rich, they would not have got the cannons; had they not had the cannons, their money would have been useless. Had the tactics not put the strategies to fruition, the strategies would have been fruitless, and, had the strategies and logistics not enabled the tactics, even the best tactics would have had to stay in the generals' minds, and never see the field.

What I don't get is: how important were English-held fiefdoms during the war? When it is said that France had twice the manpower of England (I think they likely had more, in total), does that comprise the English fiefs? Didn't the English raise men from there? Were they afraid of rebellions? Eleanor died in 1204, after which the huge Aquitaine was left to King John. They had owned it for more than a century when the war begun.

What I find impressive is that the radical change in time scale for sieges had already happened back then, because of the new French model for artillery. The Italians were forced to come to terms with it much later, during the Italian Wars, when the scale got even smaller: sieges that would have been a matter of months or years, during the last years of the English in France became a matter of days; during the Italian wars, with lighter cannons pulled by horses and shooting iron balls instead of rock, they turned into a matter of hours.


»I know there's a war and stuff going on. A crusade, even, I think. But you know what? ... boardgames!«

Also, pink chainmail is the mark of true men!

KarlMarx
2017-08-22, 01:20 PM
Is this the "sad" book about the English losing the war? https://ospreypublishing.com/the-fall-of-english-france-1449-53 :smallbiggrin:

What I don't get is: how important were English-held fiefdoms during the war? When it is said that France had twice the manpower of England (I think they likely had more, in total), does that comprise the English fiefs? Didn't the English raise men from there? Were they afraid of rebellions? Eleanor died in 1204, after which the huge Aquitaine was left to King John. They had owned it for more than a century when the war begun.



At the beginning of the war, England actually only held Gascony (the remnant/core of Aquitaine). They quickly expanded into southern France as far as Languedoc, but didn't hold this territory particularly long, forfeiting most of their conquests in a truce of 1360 to consolidate their control in Aquitaine. Until 1415, the war was fought as a naval conflict and war of succession in Castile, but other than raiding by each side there was little fighting in France proper. After that year, Henry V invaded France and conquered Normandy, Champagne, and the Ile-de-France (including Paris), but only maintained tenuous control of those regions. Within 30 years at most, the French had driven them out of most of the territory; the remainder of the war was essentially the final conquest of Aquitaine. Thus, aside from that single territory--of which only Gascony was solidly English for most of the war--there were no English fiefs in France from which an army could be raised. The 'golden age' of England in France was the Angevin Empire of Henry II, in the 1100s.

Nonetheless, the French did not control the entirety of their country for most of the war. Brittany and Burgundy, for much of the time, fought for the English, and many other fiefs essentially descended into anarchy. Though statistics are uncertain in general, and I am certainly far from an expert on demography of the period, it is by disregarding these fiefs as well as Aquitaine that I arrived at the guesstimate of 2:1 for the relative manpower of each country.

Tobtor
2017-08-22, 03:17 PM
The last stage of the conflict (leading up to Castillion) was actually the English "comming to a the aid" of a Pro-Rnglish revolt in Gascony as far as I understand it. So they certainly did gain some "man power" from "french" areas. But as KarlMarx said (the poster not the author), it was mainly from Gascony. England retained some power at Calais as well, but mainly as a landing point for armies.

While the cannons are certainly important in the last stage, I think the English would have lost irregardless. The last campaign was very small (in terms of English soldiers), and all the English could hope for was a Frenchs disaster in line with Agincourt.

Planning (hoping!) for an Agincourt is a pretty dangerous tactic, especially as the current French king seems to have been a pretty decent commander/king. So even though the french did benefit from the superiority of cannons, I think the English would have lost anyway.

In general we can list the number of things that happened, but its hard to pin-point the exact course, as we cannot test different scenarios. I think such long lasting conflicts are resolved more due to political and socio-economics reasons than single technologies. After overall political and social/economical factors, I think persons (the ruler/king/generals etc) matters more than the technology.

Sapphire Guard
2017-08-22, 03:44 PM
What does a supply depot look like? I know it's a very open question, but can anyone tell me roughly what a small supply station behind the lines of a modern war might look like, what facilities it needs and doesn't need? Nothing too fancy, just somewhere for a few vehicles to overnight on their way to the front. Let's say, at company level, where they aren't expecting determined assaults but guerrilla raids could be a possibility?

Thanks. I hope the question makes sense.

gkathellar
2017-08-22, 08:38 PM
The last stage of the conflict (leading up to Castillion) was actually the English "comming to a the aid" of a Pro-Rnglish revolt in Gascony as far as I understand it. So they certainly did gain some "man power" from "french" areas. But as KarlMarx said (the poster not the author), it was mainly from Gascony. England retained some power at Calais as well, but mainly as a landing point for armies.

While the cannons are certainly important in the last stage, I think the English would have lost irregardless. The last campaign was very small (in terms of English soldiers), and all the English could hope for was a Frenchs disaster in line with Agincourt.

Planning (hoping!) for an Agincourt is a pretty dangerous tactic, especially as the current French king seems to have been a pretty decent commander/king. So even though the french did benefit from the superiority of cannons, I think the English would have lost anyway.

In general we can list the number of things that happened, but its hard to pin-point the exact course, as we cannot test different scenarios. I think such long lasting conflicts are resolved more due to political and socio-economics reasons than single technologies. After overall political and social/economical factors, I think persons (the ruler/king/generals etc) matters more than the technology.

Well, it's not like any of these things are discrete. Technology, politics, and economics all enable and involve each other. A hypothetical where any one factor was different requires the others be different as well.

wolflance
2017-08-22, 11:53 PM
»I know there's a war and stuff going on. A crusade, even, I think. But you know what? ... boardgames!«
Tabletop game is serious business!


@Galloglaich & Martin Greywolf
I find that both of your replies have merits after digesting them, although I want to add some speculations on my part.

It appears to me that single-time counter, particularly mastercuts, works on the premise that:

1) Your sword is longer, or at the very minimum, of equal length/not significantly shorter than the other guy's sword.
2) You have a good enough (cross/basket/cup etc) guard to minimize the risk.

Thus swords & swordmanships developed in the combat environment that regularly pit them against significantly longer weapons (i.e. the "reenactment combat" type of fighting) will not focus on/develop that kind of techniques, which may be the reason that stunted the development of complex guard in other parts of the world. Afterall people only spend time developing/training/refining the techniques they think will be useful.

In other word, my theory goes like this: European generally used longer swords, and had numerous? dueling traditions that can utilize various single-time counters to their fullest, thus they developed larger and more protective guards, and later found out that these guards are also useful in other situations/on the battlefield.

If we wider our focus to include other parts of the world...let's say Japanese. The Japanese used their swords (as sidearms) on and off the battlefield, and carried sword in their day-to-day life. They also dueled. Japanese likely faced all the issues mentioned by Galloglaich (no gauntlets, gauntlets interfering with dother things, gauntlets offer insufficient protection, no shield, etc) but developing complex guard never seems to occur to them.

I think the reason might be that Japanese "duel" is actually very different from European duel/juridical combat in that there's no sense of fairness and nothing dishonorable about "bring an oar to a sword fight" so to speak. Apparently the participants are free to muster every ounce of advantage they can, including bringing more men to gank up on the other party (it is only a duel in the sense that both parties agreed to show up on a set date to duke it out). They probably attended a duel with very different expectations/mindset from the European, and as such did not develop complex guard.


sliding down the blade
I heard that sharp swords actually bite into each others and do not slide down as much as HEMA steel simulators did. Is that true?




Those were the weapons meant for duking it out at close quarters. The saber proper was intended (at least in theory) for the ride by attack or hit-and-run. Sabers got some hand protection (knucklebow) at least intermittently as far back as the 16th Century - but the need for it was largely based on the use of the saber as a personal sidearm and in duels and so forth, which is why more hand protection became more common by the 19th.

G
That's not always the case. Case in point:

Persian saber (shamshir) appears to be intended for duke-it-out combat only. There's actually no unarmored Persian swordsmanship. All Persian martial arts, with the exception of dagger combat, assume you are armored, wear bazubands, carry a buckler or shield (or another sword/dagger), and heavily emphasize strength training and grappling/wrestling.

(Being the originator of superheavy catapharct cavalry, Persian were probably liking the duking quite a bit more than ride by slashing)

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-23, 03:50 AM
So, on crossguards and binds.

1) HEMA experts agree wit me

Both Roland Warzecha and Matt Easton have said that crossguard is there and most likely came to be sued because of sword binds. Matt had a video up very recently on this, Roland had this in one of his instructional videos IIRC. This is not just me guessing.

That aside.

2) Pflug and Ochs ARE binds

European fencing styles between high medieval and Napoleonic period, roughly speaking, are all about binds. Pflug and Ochs are a way to force an advantageous bind out of your opponent, as are sieges of I.33. Crossguard helps you in them because that's literally what its purpose is.

What it doesn't protect you from, unlike more complex hilts, is someone sniping your hand after voiding the initial attack, you have to use other methods to do that, be it timing and distance, or a buckler. Preferably both.

Once we start to look at Filipino MAs (or Chinese, but good luck finding any good interpretations), we can see that they deal with the attacks in a different way, that will not result in loss of all their fingers. You have a lot more cutting into attacks and guiding them aside to snipe at the hand, no transition into a bind war. Static parries are there at times, but they tend to be done with the middle of the blade rather than the strong, and are discouraged as a last resort.

Then there are rapiers who rely on binds so much that they can't really work with simple crossguard, and later parry-riposte styles that stick your hand far forward where it is very liable to be sniped, again needing the crossguard to work well. You could argue that the latter doesn't need the complex hilt per se, but it's just so, so much more dangerous without it.

3) Re-enactor battles

Look, this isn't an issue of technique, there's a fair amount of HEMA people who are also re-enactors. Problem is safety, when wearing period gear, thrusts aren't allowed, period. You can't live through a stab in the face while wearing a kettle hat. Only people who are allowed to stab are spearmen, and that comes with blunted tips, a heap of restrictions (no upwards-pointing thrusts, no thrusts above into ribcage and above unless they come down at a significant angle etc), as well as sort of an unwritten agreement that you won't be a giant dickosaurus and pull your blows to spare internal organs.

Once you basically take thrusts out of a fight, you aren't even slightly accurate any more. Everyone on that battlefield knows it.

4) "Secret" techniques

One thing that is definitely not true however is that techniques in fencing treatises weren't exclusive - they very much were, and the books themselves tell us so. I.33 goes at length about dealing with generales, Fiore devotes several pages of pure text to tel;ing us how much more he knows and how both he and his students are able to defeat other, lesser fencers, and Lichtenauer tradition made certifying fencers into a lucrative business.

The costs of learning these aren't astronomical, but they are an expense of both time and money, and therefore, not everyone will bother to do it, kind of like not everyone who owns a gun bothers to learn how to use it properly. That the manuals give us advice on how to deal with these unskilled opponents is evidence enough.

5) Training soldiers

When you have a few months to train your raw recruits in how to war properly, corners are going to be cut. You're not gonna bother teaching them about binds, you're gonna give them basic cuts and parries and move on to group tactics. Knowing Fiore/Lichtenauer or whoever else will not hurt, quite the opposite, but you simply don't have the time to give your people that level of skill.

On the other hand, if you do know how to fence, you have to sort of shift your mental gears a little when going into a skirmish and you're set. Getting good at battlefield awareness will still need time, but at least you don't have to worry about knowing how to stab someone properly.

6) Sharp swords biting

I have done some very, very, very careful work with sharp swords, and to me they do bite, but with a significant asterisk.

For most angles of blade contact, they stick a little - perhaps to throw you off, but not enough to actually stop you from using a sliding technique, you just have to do it deliberately as opposed to accidentally. What you learn with steel blunts should carry over quite nicely after a little while.

Where the swords DO bite quite a bit is when you hit them at nearly 90 degree angle, edge straight on edge, then they do stick together much more than blunts do. Thing is, this isn't something you're supposed to do in the first place.

snowblizz
2017-08-23, 06:28 AM
Is this the "sad" book about the English losing the war? https://ospreypublishing.com/the-fall-of-english-france-1449-53 :smallbiggrin: That's the one. I'm not even English so post-brexit I have no idea why I keep rooting for them to win.



Thanks for the explanations. I don't fully get the discussion about what factor was THE factor, because the most important ones being named are actually results of each other: had the French not been rich, they would not have got the cannons; had they not had the cannons, their money would have been useless. Had the tactics not put the strategies to fruition, the strategies would have been fruitless, and, had the strategies and logistics not enabled the tactics, even the best tactics would have had to stay in the generals' minds, and never see the field.
That was sort of the point I wanted to make, it all feeds into each other and singling out one factor as the decisive makes little sense as they all depend on each other. That's what is so wrong with a lot of Victoria English longbow fetishists who have had a lot of influence on the view of the conflict. Equally no single thing or person on the French side was the "thing" of victory. Every historian or other expert which ever form they may take will be able to find something in their own field that had a positive influence on defeat or victory in such a long and complex conflict that stretched from Scotland to Spain in wars and proxy wars. A Great Man proponent have plenty of personalities to see, a feminist scholar will see Joan of Arc, the sociology major follows the trends in politics changing over the course of time, the epidemologist will see the diseases rampant, Victorians can't see the wood for the (long)bowstaves and English bravery (we beat Napoleon!) and so on and so on. Me, as someone who has a background in economics, will tend to emphasize the economical foundations of waging war, money after all is the sinews of war.:smallbiggrin: I won't say that's the one true factor, just that you can't really ignore it. For various important reasons. One is that a medieaval kingdom is more a crime syndicate than a nation as we understand it. We see an English-French conflict when that's about the last thing it was. Though in both kingdoms the powers at be played on such themes when trying to justify what was more about the power and wealth at the highest echelons of society. Consider that Henry IV was the first English king to natively speak English. Says something about how "English" and "French" the contest actually was. Just going to mention it because I find it interesting, since we are justified in asking why on earth would you pick a fight you were unlikely to win. This comes from the crime syndicate thing, it made little sense for England to got to war with a paper-strength much more powerful France, however, the power balance between the English king and his French counterpart was much more even due to their respective ability to raise revenue and consequently troops and materiel. What was good for the English king (more personal power in France) was not necessarily good for England. Many (probably most) royal houses or high nobility in Europe strived to increase dynastic holdings (the Habsburgs were very successful building up holdings but it tended to generate broad european wars) often in the long term at the expense of the countries they ostensiably ruled.


What I don't get is: how important were English-held fiefdoms during the war? When it is said that France had twice the manpower of England (I think they likely had more, in total), does that comprise the English fiefs? Didn't the English raise men from there? Were they afraid of rebellions? Eleanor died in 1204, after which the huge Aquitaine was left to King John. They had owned it for more than a century when the war begun.
This has been answered by others already, I'll just add some details. First ownership of Gascony and Aquitane was in part in disputed, and often contested by the French crown in various ways. Gascony did provide troops and monies (I'll get back to the latter), but most other fiefs were much looser held (most gains by treaty the French never intended to honour) and their previous owners had in many cases not relinquished control and the English had to pry the castles out of their cold dead hands themselves. Not made easier by the under-the-table support the French monarchy gave them. After all, the French had a long term goal to outwait and outgrind the English more or less. There were plenty of rebellions, near rebellions and local "wars" by deposed or neighbouring French lords who absolutely did not have the French monarch tacit approval to distrupt the English, honest! The reason Gascony was loyal was in part historical ties, but more pragmatically the light hand of rule from distant England. Essentially there was a limit how far the English could push their Gascon subjects, who to a degree were only required to self-defend which ofc was in their own interest. As the end-game started England had more and more difficulties providing meaningful support to it's Gascon subjects, e.g. to curtail raids from neighbouring French territories.
About money. One of the key sources of income for the English crown was taxation of the Gascony wine trade. French wine imported to England was to large degree from Gascony, which naturally tied the Gascons to the English too. I'm not gonna go give numbers but a large part of the French wars were paid for by said taxation (the other major income was the English wool trade), which consequently meant the region was incredibly important to the war effort, seeing as the English preferred to raise troops by paying for them over direct feudal obligations. It's certainly true that you don't necessary need actual manpower yourself as long as you have the means to pay for it.

Brother Oni
2017-08-23, 06:57 AM
If we wider our focus to include other parts of the world...let's say Japanese. The Japanese used their swords (as sidearms) on and off the battlefield, and carried sword in their day-to-day life. They also dueled. Japanese likely faced all the issues mentioned by Galloglaich (no gauntlets, gauntlets interfering with dother things, gauntlets offer insufficient protection, no shield, etc) but developing complex guard never seems to occur to them.

On the battlefield, I'm not sure the samurai ever went without gauntlets. I don't think I've seen any kote (secondary sleeve armour) that don't have an integrated tekko (gauntlets):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Sangu.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Sangu_1.JPG

Even in peace time and out of armour proper, they sometimes wore this textile gauntlet/sleeve which covered the forearm and back of the hand (sometimes the forearm part was reinforced with mail or metal plates). Embarrassingly I am completely blanking on the name of this armour, although knowing the Japanese, it was probably called kote and tekko as well.

Aside from the armour, I think some of the reason for a lack of a complex guard might be due to differences in fencing styles. Unfortunately I haven't done enough kendo or any fencing to offer anything more constructive than this supposition.

Mike_G
2017-08-23, 09:44 AM
Tabletop game is serious business!


@Galloglaich & Martin Greywolf
I find that both of your replies have merits after digesting them, although I want to add some speculations on my part.

It appears to me that single-time counter, particularly mastercuts, works on the premise that:

1) Your sword is longer, or at the very minimum, of equal length/not significantly shorter than the other guy's sword.
2) You have a good enough (cross/basket/cup etc) guard to minimize the risk.

Not really.

A single time counter is just combining the parry with the riposte/counter. It's often like a bind, or can actually be a bind, but not always.

You deflect his attack while putting your weapon, generally the point, in line with his body. You don't need a longer weapon. You don't really need a complex guard. This is taught in foil fencing with the wee circular bell guard and weapons of the exact same length.

The simplest way to explain it (and, please, I beg of you guys, don't stomp on this and add a billion qualifiers. This is the wicked simple explanation) is you block with the strong or your blade (near the hilt) and angle your sword so the hilt is out away from your body and the point is inside, toward your enemy. Use the sword like a snowplow, let the angle direct his attack away. His attack should be moved aside, your point is lined up, and when his blade is past you, if you need to you can lunge, maintaining the contact and angle to keep him off target while you put your point in him (works well if you have a shorter weapon), or you can just extend your arm, which should hit since you've lined up the point already. This is risky with a shorter weapon because when you straighten your arm, you might lose the angle that keeps his point out of you.

This is "single time" because your counter happens while he's still in the process of making his attack, when he's vulnerable, rather than parry, then riposte which is double time, which gives him more chance to switch from attack to defense.

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 10:52 AM
So, on crossguards and binds.

1) HEMA experts agree wit me

Both Roland Warzecha and Matt Easton...

Those guys are respected in the HEMA community, but aren't by any stretch the final word on anything. I can assure you that I'm not alone in my opinion on this matter either. I have known Matt quite well for 15 years, and while I haven't seen the video you mentioned I suspect you are missing some of the nuance in what he said.

Regardless, even if Matt does actually disagree with me here which I doubt, I could poll 20 'Names' in the HEMA community and ask their opinion and you'd get 5 different nuances of the same thing I am trying to explain to you. Binds are part of the use of the cross, but you are vastly overstating their relevance and don't seem to grasp the utility of the cross (and other protective hilt features) in basic parries.

Roland is very respected too but his ideas are more representative of a certain subset of people in the community. Many of his interpretations are a bit outlier (like translating I.33 to Viking swords) and he does some odd things like insisting on training with sharps.



2) Pflug and Ochs ARE binds


No. They can help you get into binds but they are not in and of themselves binds nor is parrying in Pflug or Ochs automatically going to put you into a bind, far from it. In fact unless you seek the bind actively (like with an absetzen or winden) you are almost certain not to get a bind.



What it doesn't protect you from, unlike more complex hilts, is someone sniping your hand after voiding the initial attack, you have to use other methods to do that, be it timing and distance, or a buckler. Preferably both.

I think this is where you are missing the point of the cross. If you are cutting at someone and someone snipes at your hand, a slight shift of your wrist and a turn of the cross is precisely what you do to save your hand.


Then there are rapiers who rely on binds so much

I think you are confusing binds with parries again. You do a lot of binds with rapier but you do far more parries than actual binds.


3) Re-enactor battles
Look, this isn't an issue of technique, there's a fair amount of HEMA people who are also re-enactors. Problem is safety, when wearing period gear,

It's gear, it's time, it's money, and it's a matter of emphasis based on what we are all interested in.

You can definitely do a pretty realistic sword fight without thrusting - this is what they used to do in fechtschule after all. But it takes a lot of fencing training to learn to fence properly. Time that most re-enactors send more of putting together accurate gear and clothing, learning how to march in formation, simulating battles in large groups, camping out and brewing beer and so on.



4) "Secret" techniques

One thing that is definitely not true however is that techniques in fencing treatises weren't exclusive - they very much were, and the books themselves tell us so.

Fortunately we have far more data than just the fechtbucher, of which we have many different types which were written for different audiences, to tell us who got trained and to what extent, and at what cost. We know for example who was involved in training in the various fechtschuler in many cities, and these were not wealthy people. Quite often apprentices and journeymen, in fact journeymen were sometimes the organizers of the events. We have lists of these from several cities I read a list of them from Strasbourg for over the course of 100 years.

Basically anyone who would be a part time soldier, someone who was the vassal of a rural lord, or in a urban militia, would be very likely to have this kind of training, as well as a wide variety of other training mostly in the form of martial sports and games ranging from shooting contests to water jousting to horse racing to jousts and bear baiting and a huge variety of other activities, which were routine and took place dozens of times through the year in a given area, at least in the High to Late Medieval period.

This is a lecture on the subject if you want a deeper dive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bsV3NFtDzU



5) Training soldiers

When you have a few months to train your raw recruits in how to war properly,

This isn't how most fighters or soldiers were prepared for war in the medieval period. See the above. It was a combination of martial sports and games, hunting, and more or less continuous low-intensity warfare and raiding.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 11:04 AM
In other word, my theory goes like this: European generally used longer swords, and had numerous? dueling traditions that can utilize various single-time counters to their fullest, thus they developed larger and more protective guards, and later found out that these guards are also useful in other situations/on the battlefield.

I would agree with Mike that this is not necessarily the case. It's harder not to die when you are attacked with a longer weapon, but if you aren't killed or wounded right away, and you do manage to parry, you can still seek the bind and if you get it, do the single-time counter or mastercut. It has to do with the geometry of weapons, as Mike mentioned - putting your strong on their weak and sliding in like a snow plow. It still works the same way, once you clear their point you are good to go.

That said, of course having the longer weapon is always helpful (until / unless you are very close).



If we wider our focus to include other parts of the world...let's say Japanese. The Japanese used their swords (as sidearms) on and off the battlefield, and carried sword in their day-to-day life. They also dueled. Japanese likely faced all the issues mentioned by Galloglaich (no gauntlets, gauntlets interfering with dother things, gauntlets offer insufficient protection, no shield, etc) but developing complex guard never seems to occur to them.

I think the reason might be that Japanese "duel" is actually very different from European duel/juridical combat in that there's no sense of fairness and nothing dishonorable about "bring an oar to a sword fight" so to speak. Apparently the participants are free to muster every ounce of advantage they can, including bringing more men to gank up on the other party (it is only a duel in the sense that both parties agreed to show up on a set date to duke it out). They probably attended a duel with very different expectations/mindset from the European, and as such did not develop complex guard.

I am no expert on Japanese fencing, but I would say this: from what I understand, in a nutshell, Japanese fencing relies on a high level of training and skill to protect yourself with the sword, using special techniques


Japanese fencing emphasized some parrying with the curve of the blade, and especially voids via movement and tempo (similar to the German "Nachreisen"), and other complex maneuvers and counters - all things which you find in European fencing as well, but without relying on the more aggressive parries (hard vs hard) which require the hand protection (tsuba) very much, for obvious reasons. I think this is partly because the Japanese sword is essentially a saber, and also because the very hard, very sharp katana / tachi blades were potentially vulnerable to edge on edge contact. Which bleeds into your next question.



I heard that sharp swords actually bite into each others and do not slide down as much as HEMA steel simulators did. Is that true?

This is something a lot of people have been looking into in recent years and is a bit of a controversy in the HEMA world. I know Roland for example has experimented with it, among other people. I've done a little bit of careful experimentation. There is also a certain notorious group in Germany whose name I won't mention who does some rather reckless types of 'experiments' and I know people have talked to them about this exact issue. They say that they don't notice it very much, I.e. they rarely stick, others like Roland say it almost always does stick.

Based on my own experiments I suspect it matters a great deal what the metallurgy and level of sharpness of the swords are and how you are fencing / parrying.

The honest answer is though that the jury is still out on this.




That's not always the case. Case in point:

Persian saber (shamshir) appears to be intended for duke-it-out combat only. There's actually no unarmored Persian swordsmanship. All Persian martial arts, with the exception of dagger combat, assume you are armored, wear bazubands, carry a buckler or shield (or another sword/dagger), and heavily emphasize strength training and grappling/wrestling.

(Being the originator of superheavy catapharct cavalry, Persian were probably liking the duking quite a bit more than ride by slashing)

Interesting, and that makes sense. Do you know sources on this?

I know in the Sikh martial arts, Gatka and ... I forget what the more 'pure' version is called, they do kind of a hybrid type of saber and buckler fencing which seems to simulate being on horseback some of the time. But they also do put knucklebows on their sabers and swords (so called 'ferrengi' or foreign hilt).

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 11:05 AM
Even in peace time and out of armour proper, they sometimes wore this textile gauntlet/sleeve which covered the forearm and back of the hand (sometimes the forearm part was reinforced with mail or metal plates). Embarrassingly I am completely blanking on the name of this armour, although knowing the Japanese, it was probably called kote and tekko as well.
.

Very interesting point thanks for posting! I didn't know that.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 11:26 AM
What it doesn't protect you from, unlike more complex hilts, is someone sniping your hand after voiding the initial attack, you have to use other methods to do that, be it timing and distance, or a buckler. Preferably both.
I think this is where you are missing the point of the cross. If you are cutting at someone and someone snipes at your hand, a slight shift of your wrist and a turn of the cross is precisely what you do to save your hand.

Let me unpack this a bit more.

From my understanding, fencing systems around the world tend to have a lot of similarities. I know from working with a lot of FMA guys over many years (there are a lot of Kali / Arnis people in HEMA) there is an enormous amount of overlap between FMA specifically and Liechtenauer fencing. Same with Japanese fencing.

All fencing systems I know of advocate striking the weapon hand. The response, once you have given your enemy that opening, is similar - with some nuance which basically relies on the hilt protection; i.e. without the cross, you need to move your weapon more for a parry further down your blade (like a 'krumphau'), or yank your arm back further out of the way, or change your cut at their head or body into a cut at their weapon hand (which can also be a 'krumphau' or a type of 'nachreisen'). You do all of these things in Liechtenauer as well.

But with the cross you have another option - you don't need to pull back nearly as far and you can instead just move your wrist slightly and align your cross properly with the attacking blade, so it's a slightly shorter and simpler movement. You can also then possibly get a bind which you can then exploit with a counter*.

This, in aggregate, translates to being able to put your hand out there a bit more, because when you do get 'sniped' at, you can remedy the situation more quickly and simply, and therefore it isn't as risky and doesn't interrupt your tempo as much.




This is also probably the same difference between European medieval fencing systems vs. earlier (Viking, Migration era, Gallic, Iberian, Roman, Greek etc.) though we don't know for sure because we don't really have enough data about them.




*I should also point out that getting the bind does NOT mean that you are always going to go for a thrust or a single time counter, it may very well mean you do a double time counter, or cut against another opening like with a 'zwerchau' or a 'schielhau', or move into grappling or a disarm, or a pommel strike, or any number of other techniques. Getting into the bind just opens up a whole host of more advanced techniques which you can potentially exploit.

This is why, incidentally, the Liechtenauer manuals advise you that if you are fencing against a master, avoid the bind! This is also a good idea if you are fencing against a Fiorista because they will use those angles on you.

G

Lemmy
2017-08-23, 11:52 AM
How much food/water did ancient armies typically carry? Like... Did they ring just enough to survive? Did they bring as much as possible, just to be safe? Something in-between? How dependent were armies from seizing food/water from enemies/locals?

Incanur
2017-08-23, 11:58 AM
As far as complex hilts go, note that 16th-century English military writers disagreed on the utility of complex hilts for soldiers. Sir John Smythe wanted daggers with a simple cross and swords with a simple complex hilt: "with their hilts only made with. 2. portes, a greater and a smaller on the out side of the hiltes, after the fashion of the Italian and Spanishe arming swordes." I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I'm imagining something like a knuckle-bow and side ring. And Smythe assigned this same style of sword and dagger to archers as well as heavily armored pikers, so it's not just a matter of gauntlets, which he wanted pikers to wear, making more extensive hilts unnecessary.

Humphrey Barwick assigned arquebusiers swords and daggers without commenting on hilt style but specified a simple cross only for pikers, who wore gauntlets, and halberdiers, who apparently didn't have gauntlets (it's not perfectly clear).

George Silver of course recommended a basket hilt for both civilian and military use. He mentioned that some critics complained that a basket hilt made a sword more difficult to draw quickly.

So in late-16th-century England, where a variety of different styles of complex hilt were common, there was no consensus that they were appropriate for military service.

While I do consider hand protection valuable for single combat, even then it's not a huge advantage. I suspect various historical martial cultures failed to develop or adopt complex hilts in part because they just weren't that important and had potential marginal downsides as well as benefits. The downsides include increased cost of manufacture, increased weight, increased bulk when wearing, and increased difficulty of drawing swiftly.

gkathellar
2017-08-23, 12:30 PM
This is taught in foil fencing with the wee circular bell guard and weapons of the exact same length.

If I understand your description right, it's practically the second thing I've been taught in classical French foil, and at my school we use tiny figure eight guards so that you learn not to rely on the hand protection too much.

On the subject of single-time counters, I'm familiar with the concept and have seen some of the longsword techniques described as such, but I feel like I'm missing some things. Would it be fair to say that a single-time counter is a defense that positions your weapon for immediate offense (the guard position also being the start of an attack)? Or is it more "defending with an attack?" Or are these both misunderstandings?

Also: I feel like most of the video or picture examples I've seen of single-time moves lead into thrusts (and cuts with the false edge, maybe). Are there single-time chops?


While I do consider hand protection valuable for single combat, even then it's not a huge advantage. I suspect various historical martial cultures failed to develop or adopt complex hilts in part because they just weren't that important and had potential marginal downsides as well as benefits. The downsides include increased cost of manufacture, increased weight, increased bulk when wearing, and increased difficulty of drawing swiftly.

The place I find its absence especially odd is the jian, which tends to have a proto-crossguard but lack the more fully developed type seen in the West. There's some moves here and there which would need to be a tiny bit different, but in general a larger guard seems like it'd be logical.

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 01:20 PM
On the subject of single-time counters, I'm familiar with the concept and have seen some of the longsword techniques described as such, but I feel like I'm missing some things. Would it be fair to say that a single-time counter is a defense that positions your weapon for immediate offense (the guard position also being the start of an attack)? Or is it more "defending with an attack?" Or are these both misunderstandings?

They are both correct - you can attack in a way that also defends you (by covering their weapon, so to speak - meisterhau) and you can defend while attacking (versetzen, which are basically just defensive meisterhau, or absetzen etc.)



Also: I feel like most of the video or picture examples I've seen of single-time moves lead into thrusts (and cuts with the false edge, maybe). Are there single-time chops?

Yes most definitely. Zwerchau is probably the easiest and most obvious example of this, but there are many others.




The place I find its absence especially odd is the jian, which tends to have a proto-crossguard but lack the more fully developed type seen in the West. There's some moves here and there which would need to be a tiny bit different, but in general a larger guard seems like it'd be logical.

Agreed, the differences may be due to variations in the fencing system. Possibly due to a blade that isn't as stiff?

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 01:23 PM
Just FYI, in Liechtenauer, most of the attacks can be either a thrust, a slice, or a cut (the 'three wounders'), depending on what your opponent does and what happens in the bind etc.

So a Zornhau can be a cut, or a thrust, or even (in the followup) a slice. Shielhau can be a cut or a thrust... or a slice in followup.Zornhau starts as a cut but can morph into a thrust or a slice. Krumphau can be a cut or a slice, probably a thrust too though I can't think of how off the top of my head.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 01:35 PM
As far as complex hilts go, note that 16th-century English military writers disagreed on the utility of complex hilts for soldiers. Sir John ...(snip)...

While I do consider hand protection valuable for single combat, even then it's not a huge advantage. I suspect various historical martial cultures failed to develop or adopt complex hilts in part because they just weren't that important and had potential marginal downsides as well as benefits. The downsides include increased cost of manufacture, increased weight, increased bulk when wearing, and increased difficulty of drawing swiftly.

I think there is definitely a sweet spot, and without a doubt you can clearly see that more complex hilts appear for the civilian or what you might call "semi-civilian" context (like town guards for example who would wear some armor but not necessarily gauntlets) vs. full fledged military, for some of the reasons you stated above, namely bulk and the potential for things to get in the way.

For example these 'Swiss sabers' were often associated with town guards and with civilian use as sidearms, and had a lot of complex hilt features

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/d0/02/81d002a884f52f8dfe1e58b1df824bb7.jpg

http://www.christianfletcher.com/_Media/p1030715_med.jpeg

You also see longswords of hand-and-a-half length (i.e. slightly shorter than ususal) with complex hilt features, and sometimes coinciding with broad-blades that are more for cutting than thrusting, which come from town armouries and were specifically used by the town guard.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/54/cf/6a/54cf6aa1b58dceb3acaa67d5163fa18e--landsknecht-waffen.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f2/39/42/f23942cc16d9413c4e80e1fa64274ffe--vapen-scharf.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/89/82/7d89822a649ab31f6ba09d98376deac4.jpg


Simpler is better for the military but they still used a cross, a nagel or clamshell, and later on fairly often other things like finger rings and siderings, and knucklebows, on most military swords from the High Medieval into the Industrial era.


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bb/32/ce/bb32ce63bfbf2774535af47bf8b9f8cf--bastard-sword-medieval-weapons.jpg


As well as all your basket-hilt swords which were most closely associated with 'heavy' (I.e. 'stand and fight') cavalry

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/34/3f/c4/343fc485823e9e34bd69db52d5bad2ad--thumb-rings-armature.jpg



G

Incanur
2017-08-23, 02:11 PM
I think full basket hilts were fine for military service too, assuming no gauntlets, but not unambiguously superior. You do see them from time to time, most famously in Scottish hands but going well beyond that.

It's additionally possible that complex hilts on certain sword designs were just better, a technological advantage in the broad sense. Sometimes one marital culture has better gear than another. For sabers and other single-edged one-handed swords, at least a knuckle-bow strikes me as advantageous at minimal cost. (If you have a double-edged sword, on the other hand, a knuckle-bow gets in the way of reversing the sword. Not a big deal, but a potential disadvantage.)

For an example of superior gear, the weight of the available evidence indicates that Manchu composite bows were and are considerably more efficient than English-style yew bows for launching heavy arrows. Manchu bows are more difficult to construct and maintain, especially in moist environments, and harder to draw at any given draw weight, but they still trump yew bows in terms of sheer performance.

European plate armor likewise appears to outperform any other armor design for overall protection. It's complicated to produce, maintain, and put on, but a full harness can make the wearer nearly immune to muscle-powered weapons at relatively light weight. (Of course, I don't know of any comprehensive tests of numerous historical armors, so it's possible some other designs were better. I've heard rumors of one Chinese design performing best in one test, but I've never be able to find the details.)

Personally, I adore both the aesthetics and function of complex-hilt swords, especially complex-hilt longswords like the so-called Swiss saber.

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 02:19 PM
I think the complex hilt is a superior technology and confers an advantage, very generally speaking, but it's also tailored to specific fighting styles, and the differences in the general approach to fighting are part of what led to their development.

Same with the best types of armor for example which also developed alongside either heavy cavalry or heavy infantry, not just in Europe but in places like Central Asia, Persia etc..

http://68.media.tumblr.com/b5c48df968bc7e5c8a16760e782cd363/tumblr_inline_ntyma3oZO31r8c6s8_500.jpg

The Indians adapted some complex hilt features in their swords, but the Japanese didn't, even though they did adapt European plate armor and firearms and so on. I think this is because their fencing system worked without it (and perhaps, because they had cut themselves off from foreign contact for a long time after about 100 years of interacting with the Portuguese and Spanish).

G

gkathellar
2017-08-23, 02:47 PM
Sword design in Japan was also standardized by Hideyoshi IIRC, and were required to be a certain length to qualify as katana/wakizashi/etc. Prior to that point there was a lot of variation, and swords were more often worn edge down (and referred to as tachi). I'm given to understand that even today, kenjutsu has a whole etiquette of sword use that forbids things like stepping over a blade on the ground. Introducing complex hilts would've been socially taboo during the Edo period, and possibly illegal. During the late Edo period there was some experimentation with sword design, but swords were also banned during the Meiji period, so ... yeah.

Wonton
2017-08-23, 05:15 PM
Was curious about everyone's opinion on this weapon from a recent Game of Thrones episode:

(BIG SPOILERS FOR GOT S7E5)

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

Is that as completely unrealistic as I think? Given what real warhammers looked liked, that thing seems like it would be impossibly heavy to swing.

Or is there something I don't know.

rrgg
2017-08-23, 05:49 PM
Was curious about everyone's opinion on this weapon from a recent Game of Thrones episode:

(BIG SPOILERS FOR GOT S7E5)

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

Is that as completely unrealistic as I think? Given what real warhammers looked liked, that thing seems like it would be impossibly heavy to swing.

Or is there something I don't know.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's a big, dumb fantasy hammer which handles on the show like it's made out of plastic rather than metal. Medieval warhammers and poleaxes generally didn't need extremely heavy heads to do a lot of damage, but they did need to be able to swing quickly and recover quickly.

KarlMarx
2017-08-23, 06:06 PM
How much food/water did ancient armies typically carry? Like... Did they ring just enough to survive? Did they bring as much as possible, just to be safe? Something in-between? How dependent were armies from seizing food/water from enemies/locals?

In general, it was pretty dependent on local conditions, culture, etc., and varied heavily.

Roman legionaries carried a lot of supplies, as well as cooking implements--they earned the nickname 'Marius' Mules', after a famous commander, for the amounts of equipment and supplies they carried. At the same time, the Romans were certainly not above foraging from local terrain, and certain soldiers were exempted from labor duties--building camps, etc.--instead functioning as hunters.

Greek hoplites generally fought campaigns within a few day's march of their homes, and thus would be less dependent on carried food.

Quite frankly, I don't know much about other ancient armies, though I'd say from what I do know that the Assyrians especially were known for having large supply trains for food and other things.

All in all, though, it probably depended on the season, availability of food, and duration of campaign, and was extremely flexible.

Vinyadan
2017-08-23, 06:16 PM
Was curious about everyone's opinion on this weapon from a recent Game of Thrones episode:

(BIG SPOILERS FOR GOT S7E5)

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

Is that as completely unrealistic as I think? Given what real warhammers looked liked, that thing seems like it would be impossibly heavy to swing.

Or is there something I don't know.

This might be a better example of unusually large warhammers: http://bilddb-old.khm.at/viewArtefact?id=372700&image=HJRK_A_304_45868.jpg
From Hungary, around 1530.

gkathellar
2017-08-23, 06:31 PM
Was curious about everyone's opinion on this weapon from a recent Game of Thrones episode:

(BIG SPOILERS FOR GOT S7E5)

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

Is that as completely unrealistic as I think? Given what real warhammers looked liked, that thing seems like it would be impossibly heavy to swing.

Or is there something I don't know.

I think we all need to take a moment to appreciate just how stupid that thing looks.

Mr Beer
2017-08-23, 06:40 PM
Was curious about everyone's opinion on this weapon from a recent Game of Thrones episode:

Is that as completely unrealistic as I think? Given what real warhammers looked liked, that thing seems like it would be impossibly heavy to swing.

Or is there something I don't know.

I estimate the head on that would weigh at least 10 kilos if made of iron or steel.

A standard sledgehammer has a head which is more like 4 kilos. I'm around normal adult male strength or slightly over, and I would find a 4 kilo sledge extremely unwieldy*. To the point that I would much rather use the unweighted handle as a weapon. If I had to fight with a sledgehammer, I'd grip it with both hands like a spear and jab with it because it's too slow and clumsy to swing.

From that, I'd guess you'd have to be x2.5 as strong as me to use the illustrated weapon as clumsily as I could use a sledge. The strongest men in the world are around x4 or x5 as strong as me. So I guess if you're the strongest man in the world, you might be able to wield that GoT weapon effectively, though I suspect it would still be somewhat clumsy.

Cliffs: yeah it's absurd.

* to swing at people. It's a fine weight to wield overhead at a static target that I want to hit hard.

Vinyadan
2017-08-23, 06:58 PM
Also, compare to medieval tools (sledge hammers):
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/12/77002 (about 1470)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Clock_of_San_Marco_(Venice)_-_the_Moors?uselang=it#/media/File:Mori_Torre_dell%27Orologio_2010_n2.jpg In this case, the shape of the haft has been slightly modified to give a better sound (about 1500)

Finding images of actual hammers was too hard. I kept getting warhammers, or, in academic repositories, every damn object that had been hammered.

EDIT: Finally I found one! 24 cm long sledge hammer head, used for metal working, 1500-1700, from England. Its shape kind of reminds me of war hammers. Almost 3 kg. https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/152197

Lemmy
2017-08-23, 07:12 PM
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's a big, dumb fantasy hammer which handles on the show like it's made out of plastic rather than metal. Medieval warhammers and poleaxes generally didn't need extremely heavy heads to do a lot of damage, but they did need to be able to swing quickly and recover quickly.Apparently Westeros imports weapon designs from Lordaeron (WoW setting)!

I usually don't mind dumb fantasy tropes, like bigass weapons and chainmail bikinis... But it's completely out of place in GoT, which is a more gritty and "realistic" setting.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-23, 07:21 PM
Apparently Westeros imports weapon designs from Lordaeron (WoW setting)!

I usually don't mind dumb fantasy tropes, like bigass weapons and chainmail bikinis... But it's completely out of place in GoT, which is a more gritty and "realistic" setting.

For some values of "realistic".

gkathellar
2017-08-23, 07:27 PM
For some values of "realistic".

Pff, you just don't realize that grime and misery = realism. Ten year summers that don't ruin local agriculture happen all the time.

rs2excelsior
2017-08-23, 07:32 PM
This might be a better example of unusually large warhammers: http://bilddb-old.khm.at/viewArtefact?id=372700&image=HJRK_A_304_45868.jpg
From Hungary, around 1530.


I think we all need to take a moment to appreciate just how stupid that thing looks.

The different impressions I get from these two pictures is kind of funny. With the GoT hammer, it looks cool but stupid--it's one of those things that looks like a cool weapon for your hulking warrior fantasy trope, but you (should) recognize that practically, it'd be incredibly dumb to try and use in battle. The real warhammer looks kind of dumb just from aesthetics, but I can believe that it'd actually make an effective implement on the battlefield. Funny how that works sometimes.

Lemmy
2017-08-23, 07:42 PM
Pff, you just don't realize that grime and misery = realism. Ten year summers that don't ruin local agriculture happen all the time.
You'll notice that I added quotation marks to the word "realistic".

In any case, it's not the grime and misery that make it realistic... It's the fact that there are far fewer fantastical elements than, say, World of Warcraft. Magic itself is rarer and (usually) more subtle. You know the deal. Still... Even a "realistic" (notice the quotation marks again) fantasy setting is still a fantasy setting, so there's impossible/nonsensical stuff in it, anyway.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-23, 07:52 PM
You'll notice that I added quotation marks to the word "realistic".

In any case, it's not the grime and misery that make it realistic... It's the fact that there are far fewer fantastical elements than, say, World of Warcraft. Magic itself is rarer and (usually) more subtle. You know the deal. Still... Even a "realistic" (notice the quotation marks again) fantasy setting is still a fantasy setting, so there's impossible/nonsensical stuff in it, anyway.

It's not the dragons and spells that make me scoff at the notion that GoT is "realistic"... it's that it's just a wild over-reaction to the nice and pretty faerie-tale ren-faire version of the times/places that inspire these settings.

(And I didn't mean to imply that you meant it was realistic, just following up on your comment, as an aside.)

Galloglaich
2017-08-23, 08:19 PM
As fantasy genre show, GoT was kind of realistic. More so than others. It had more internal consistency and the plot and some of the characters were loosely based on history, so it had that ring of truth. That and major characters being able to die... made it feel plausible.

I think that is kind of changing as the show wraps up though (and surges way past the ground covered by the novels)

That hammer thing is a LARP weapon, as are the big axe and a lot of others making appearances lately.

Most of the weapons and sword fighting etc. in GoT have been pretty bad though.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-23, 08:36 PM
As fantasy genre show, GoT was kind of realistic. More so than others. It had more internal consistency and the plot and some of the characters were loosely based on history, so it had that ring of truth. That and major characters being able to die... made it feel plausible.

I think that is kind of changing as the show wraps up though (and surges way past the ground covered by the novels)

That hammer thing is a LARP weapon, as are the big axe and a lot of others making appearances lately.

Most of the weapons and sword fighting etc. in GoT have been pretty bad though.


Someone did a running count of the number of times weapons slide right through chain or plate like armor is decorative, but I can't find the video.

Lemmy
2017-08-23, 10:02 PM
As fantasy genre show, GoT was kind of realistic. More so than others. It had more internal consistency and the plot and some of the characters were loosely based on history, so it had that ring of truth. That and major characters being able to die... made it feel plausible.

I think that is kind of changing as the show wraps up though (and surges way past the ground covered by the novels)

That hammer thing is a LARP weapon, as are the big axe and a lot of others making appearances lately.

Most of the weapons and sword fighting etc. in GoT have been pretty bad though.
Yea... I hate sounding like a book elitist... But the show really started falling in quality after it stopped following the books... Some events, character decisions and plot lines simply make no sense whatsoever. :smallsigh:

But anyway... I'll stop with the derailment now. :smallsmile:

(BTW, once again: Thank you very much to everyone who answered my questions. I really appreciate your kindness.)

wolflance
2017-08-23, 10:18 PM
Single-time counter explanation
Thanks for the explanation, that clarify a lot of things for me (especially on the "don't need complex guard" part). That being said, the two points I suggested, while no longer absolute, are still GENERALLY true, aren't they?

(in the sense that having longer sword and better guard do help a great deal and encourage this type of techniques)

A question though, how easily can one performs single time counter with guardless weapon? i.e. in a quarterstaff vs quarterstaff fight.



This isn't how most fighters or soldiers were prepared for war in the medieval period. See the above. It was a combination of martial sports and games, hunting, and more or less continuous low-intensity warfare and raiding.
G
(This is beside the point of swordmanship/complex guard discussion)

Umm, you mean, they didn't formally drill the troops in formation maneuvering (advancing/retreating/disengage/change direction) back then?



Interesting, and that makes sense. Do you know sources on this?

I know in the Sikh martial arts, Gatka and ... I forget what the more 'pure' version is called, they do kind of a hybrid type of saber and buckler fencing which seems to simulate being on horseback some of the time. But they also do put knucklebows on their sabers and swords (so called 'ferrengi' or foreign hilt).

G
There's a revival movement of sort for Persian/Iranian martial arts, in the same vein as HEMA, known as Razmafzar. I learned a great deal from their YouTube channel (they use English and do a bit of cross-discipline sparring with the HEMA folk).

Razmafzar (https://www.youtube.com/user/JahaneRazmafzar/videos)



Agreed, the differences may be due to variations in the fencing system. Possibly due to a blade that isn't as stiff?

G
Chinese sword blade is generally stiffer than its European counterpart, because they don't taper the blade that much. I think flexible yet tough blade is only really feasible with superior European metallurgy.



The place I find its absence especially odd is the jian, which tends to have a proto-crossguard but lack the more fully developed type seen in the West. There's some moves here and there which would need to be a tiny bit different, but in general a larger guard seems like it'd be logical.

Not that I agree with him, but this article (http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2016/02/some-thoughts-on-why-chinese-never.html) makes some interesting points (especially about archery and its relation on the development of sword guard).



Sword design in Japan was also standardized by Hideyoshi IIRC, and were required to be a certain length to qualify as katana/wakizashi/etc. Prior to that point there was a lot of variation, and swords were more often worn edge down (and referred to as tachi). I'm given to understand that even today, kenjutsu has a whole etiquette of sword use that forbids things like stepping over a blade on the ground. Introducing complex hilts would've been socially taboo during the Edo period, and possibly illegal. During the late Edo period there was some experimentation with sword design, but swords were also banned during the Meiji period, so ... yeah.
Japanese sword quality also plummeted after the Koto period (i.e. after Sengoku Jidai concluded), as they made their sword increasingly ornate but less functional. Sword smithing traditions nearly went extinct, in fact. Some lineage struggled but somewhat survived, and there were later attempts to revive the tradition, but then modernization happened, then war happened, and they lost the war, forcing many sword smiths to went underground until relatively recent time.

(I think the bad reputation of Katana being "if you bend it, it stays bend" also comes from this, most surviving antiques come after their sword quality plummeted. It does bend if you subject the blade to very serious abusing though.)

Which may be another reason why they didn't develop complex guard. “Older is better" was actually true for them during that period (that and they're cut off from outside influence).

Wonton
2017-08-24, 02:37 AM
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's a big, dumb fantasy hammer which handles on the show like it's made out of plastic rather than metal. Medieval warhammers and poleaxes generally didn't need extremely heavy heads to do a lot of damage, but they did need to be able to swing quickly and recover quickly.

Yeah! It even looks like it's made of plastic! Like they couldn't put a more metallic paint on it or something? It literally looks like a fake fantasy weapon you'd buy at Walmart. With their budget, you'd think the prop department could do a biiiiit better...


I think we all need to take a moment to appreciate just how stupid that thing looks.


Apparently Westeros imports weapon designs from Lordaeron (WoW setting)!

I usually don't mind dumb fantasy tropes, like bigass weapons and chainmail bikinis... But it's completely out of place in GoT, which is a more gritty and "realistic" setting.

Agreed. GoT has usually been pretty decent about realism. Here's an interview from Season 1 with the weapon master, who talks about needing to make the weapons aesthetically pleasing, but also practical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSReDJYHsM

This monstrosity is NOT practical, and like Lemmy said, looks like it was ripped straight from WoW. Very jarring.

Kiero
2017-08-24, 05:00 AM
In general, it was pretty dependent on local conditions, culture, etc., and varied heavily.

Roman legionaries carried a lot of supplies, as well as cooking implements--they earned the nickname 'Marius' Mules', after a famous commander, for the amounts of equipment and supplies they carried. At the same time, the Romans were certainly not above foraging from local terrain, and certain soldiers were exempted from labor duties--building camps, etc.--instead functioning as hunters.

Greek hoplites generally fought campaigns within a few day's march of their homes, and thus would be less dependent on carried food.

Quite frankly, I don't know much about other ancient armies, though I'd say from what I do know that the Assyrians especially were known for having large supply trains for food and other things.

All in all, though, it probably depended on the season, availability of food, and duration of campaign, and was extremely flexible.

Actually, the reason legionaries from Marius onwards were nicknamed "Mules" was because they had to carry their own equipment. As opposed to slaves and other servants doing all of that in earlier armies. One of the reasons he was able to get away with that imposition on his men is because he recruited from the urban poor, instead of the traditional rural yeomanry.

Greek hoplites were as often mercenaries for other cities or empires, so while they might have always fought close to home during the Peloponnesian War, that wasn't the case in other contexts.

Hellenistic armies had sophisticated supply arrangements - necessary due to the size of armies and the distances they covered. For example, Demetrios Poliorketes would not have been able to maintain the siege of Rhodes for over a year, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and slaves, without a very comprehensive commissary arrangement.

wolflance
2017-08-24, 06:13 AM
How much food/water did ancient armies typically carry? Like... Did they ring just enough to survive? Did they bring as much as possible, just to be safe? Something in-between? How dependent were armies from seizing food/water from enemies/locals?
“Carrying three day worth of ration" is a common ancient Chinese saying that more or less means the army was going light. Either they need to force march really quickly, or they are special operation force that operate behind enemy line and do not expect regular resupply.

I recall reading some Qing Dynasty campaign that brought eighty to one hunderd days worth of food for every troops and horses with them (i.e. they could go on campaign for 80 days without needing to forage & resupply), but Qing had pretty abnomal logistic capabilities even by Chinese standard, so I am not sure if that is "typical" or not.

gkathellar
2017-08-24, 08:58 AM
A question though, how easily can one performs single time counter with guardless weapon? i.e. in a quarterstaff vs quarterstaff fight.

Take a look a zwerchau (the single-time cut that Galloglaich mentioned earlier); I think it'll be illustrative. It's executed without the crossguard, but you wouldn't want to try it without at least basic hand protection, as a mistimed move could result in the loss of your hand.

(At least assuming the versions I could find were any good.)

Mike_G
2017-08-24, 09:57 AM
Take a look a zwerchau (the single-time cut that Galloglaich mentioned earlier); I think it'll be illustrative. It's executed without the crossguard, but you wouldn't want to try it without at least basic hand protection, as a mistimed move could result in the loss of your hand.

(At least assuming the versions I could find were any good.)

I agree.

I haven't really trained with staff, but it seems that your hands are much morre in harms way than with a sword, so while it should be possible to counter in time, I'd say it's risky.

Even with a sword with n o guard, you're holding the back of it, far from the dangerous bits. With a staff, you've got at least on hand at the middle-ish

Galloglaich
2017-08-24, 10:00 AM
Thanks for the explanation, that clarify a lot of things for me (especially on the "don't need complex guard" part). That being said, the two points I suggested, while no longer absolute, are still GENERALLY true, aren't they?

(in the sense that having longer sword and better guard do help a great deal and encourage this type of techniques)

A question though, how easily can one performs single time counter with guardless weapon? i.e. in a quarterstaff vs quarterstaff fight.

As gthalkar mentioned, it's a bit riskier, but you can also do this - for example you could do something like a zwerchau with a staff, you would just need to make sure you did it with a bit more consciousness of where you contacted their weapon.




(This is beside the point of swordmanship/complex guard discussion)

Umm, you mean, they didn't formally drill the troops in formation maneuvering (advancing/retreating/disengage/change direction) back then?

Yes, that is what I mean. We have very little evidence of formal drill like that in the medieval period. They must have done some, but it seems to have been more "On the Job Training". The first evidence I know of formal drill in the medieval period comes at the very end, both related to the Swiss - in one case Berne and I think one or two of the other cities started putting some of "their" peasants through drills to incorporate them into their army, and in the other Emperor Maximillian hired Swiss veterans and used them to train Swabian peasants to become the original Landsknechts. Both of these cases were in the final quarter of the 15th Century.

There were probably other cases but they seem to be exceedingly rare. For a long time this led to a wide variety of assumptions, ranging from the notion that medieval armies couldn't do complex infantry maneuvers .... sometimes even in the face of direct evidence that they did, but this was gradually debunked. The other assumption is that they just didn't leave any records of it for some reason.

But the video I linked upthread outlines what seems like the theory which fits the data the best: they didn't really do formal drill. They did individual skills training in the form of games like tournaments, jousts, shooting contests, fencing contests, wrestling contests, organized stick-fights, horse-races, water jousting, bear baiting etc. etc.; they did hunting in an extremely organized manner similar to battle, and they engaged in more or less continual low-intensity warfare and deployments (like marching out to surround some enemy castle). So the 'new recruits' so to speak would just join the existing knightly vassals, or militia, or mercenary company, and learn on the job. When they got there they would typically bring their own weapons and be expected to know how to use any weapon the brought with them pretty well.

The emphasis on warlike games and hunting can also be seen in many other cultures too, such as the Vikings, the Celts, and many of the Steppe Nomads, who did some of the same games. It kind of seems to fit with the nomadic lifestyle intuitively. But the incorporation of war-sports so to speak as the main type of training in the medieval world seems very odd to the modern mind. It's one of the stark differences between our culture today and then.

Someone mentioned board games - these too (like Chess and Hrnaftl) were considered prep for war and taken very seriously.



There's a revival movement of sort for Persian/Iranian martial arts, in the same vein as HEMA, known as Razmafzar. I learned a great deal from their YouTube channel (they use English and do a bit of cross-discipline sparring with the HEMA folk).

Razmafzar (https://www.youtube.com/user/JahaneRazmafzar/videos)

Wow that's fascinating, thanks for posting, really interesting I didn't know that had come so far. I had heard some chatter ... I think there are similar things going on in Turkey and Egypt, and the Sikhs have been doing Gatka forever and have links to HEMA particularly in the UK. I will spread this news though I wasn't aware.



Chinese sword blade is generally stiffer than its European counterpart, because they don't taper the blade that much. I think flexible yet tough blade is only really feasible with superior European metallurgy.

Didn't know that either - I thought the Jian in particular was flexible but I guess I am just going by 'Crouching Tiger / Hidden Dragon' ;)





Japanese sword quality also plummeted after the Koto period (i.e. after Sengoku Jidai concluded), as they made their sword increasingly ornate but less functional. Sword smithing traditions nearly went extinct, in fact. Some lineage struggled but somewhat survived, and there were later attempts to revive the tradition, but then modernization happened, then war happened, and they lost the war, forcing many sword smiths to went underground until relatively recent time.

(I think the bad reputation of Katana being "if you bend it, it stays bend" also comes from this, most surviving antiques come after their sword quality plummeted. It does bend if you subject the blade to very serious abusing though.)

Which may be another reason why they didn't develop complex guard. “Older is better" was actually true for them during that period (that and they're cut off from outside influence).

Very interesting didn't know that either.

They do seem to have adapted Portuguese armor and that arquebus too but I remember they 'froze' the arquebus design into some sub-optimal snap trigger which was only used in Europe for 20 years or something. And they never really developed cannon to any serious extent.

G

Galloglaich
2017-08-24, 10:16 AM
I agree.

I haven't really trained with staff, but it seems that your hands are much morre in harms way than with a sword, so while it should be possible to counter in time, I'd say it's risky.

Even with a sword with n o guard, you're holding the back of it, far from the dangerous bits. With a staff, you've got at least on hand at the middle-ish

There are kind of two ways to hold a staff or a pole-arm, in a nutshell 'half staff' and 'quarter staff'. The latter means you are holding it in the back quarter, getting the most out of the reach. You don't go to holding it in the middle until and unless you are close.

That is the neat thing about a staff, you get the reach but when you are close in you change how you use it and can still strike and parry in the krieg very well.

Staff, pike, pollarm, halberd etc. fighting relies on a lot of the same kind of leverage (putting your strong on their weak) and if you know what you are doing you can do techniques similar to the mastercuts, albeit with greater vulnerability to your hands.

They do recommend using gauntlets with polearms in the period literature though.



I think the guards on a sword just make it so that it takes less time and requires less thought to protect your hands, if that makes sense.

G

wolflance
2017-08-24, 01:19 PM
Didn't know that either - I thought the Jian in particular was flexible but I guess I am just going by 'Crouching Tiger / Hidden Dragon' ;)
As always, entertainment media are poor sources to research real-life arms & armors. Chinese movies can be particularly bad in this.



Very interesting didn't know that either.

They do seem to have adapted Portuguese armor and that arquebus too but I remember they 'froze' the arquebus design into some sub-optimal snap trigger which was only used in Europe for 20 years or something. And they never really developed cannon to any serious extent.

G
Post-Sengoku, Japanese armor also became increasingly ornate and less practical. The plain yet practical Tosei-Gusoku style armor evolved (devolved?) into a style that resemble, but not quite the same as, the o-yoroi of old. Pauldrons became larger again, more blings being attached to armor, and Japanese helmets put most fantasy helmet to shame.

In the case of arquebus, that really wasn't the Japanese's fault - pretty much entire Southeast Asia & Far East was like that. That's because Portuguese-controlled Goa Arsenal in India continued to churn out arquebus of that design, and the technology spread all over that region. Only two exceptions exist AFAIK: The rest of India preferred a Turkish-inspired design, while the Chinese just reverse-engineered everything they get their hands on (so they had Portuguese-Goa, Japanese, European, and Turkish arquebus in their arsenal, although Japanese version still remained the most popular until nearly the end of Ming. By Qing period they switched to a design that resemble Indian/Afghanistan-style).

Also, snapping matchlock really isn't inferior to other type of matchlock, just different (and comes with different set of advantage/disadvantage). Snap-matchlock is spring-powered, so it is the fastest of the matchlock mechanism, which means less delay and more accuracy (due to how black powder gun works, there's a noticeable delay between pulling the trigger and the gun actually firing. The shooter is likely to fumble during that delay and disturb the aim. Snap matchlock reduces this delay to a minimum, thus improving accuracy).

The downsides are that snap matchlock is more complicated to make, you need to **** it after firing (not much of a downside unless you want to shoot/reload as fast as possible), and sudden snapping of the serpentine may extinguish the match.

As for cannon, Japan's heavily forested mountainous terrain makes heavy artillery unfeasible, so they didn't feel the need to mass-adopt. They also had enough trouble providing ammo for their matchlocks (Japan does not produce saltpeter naturally, and produces very little lead. Luckily they knew how to make saltpeter out of urine...)

rrgg
2017-08-24, 01:43 PM
The downsides are that snap matchlock is more complicated to make, you need to **** it after firing (not much of a downside unless you want to shoot/reload as fast as possible)

I beg your pardon?

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-24, 02:28 PM
I'm guessing that the word in **** is a word for the action of pulling back and setting the hammer on a firearm such that it is set to release when the trigger is pulled. Also another word for a rooster.

Reminds me of the forum that censored the words assassin, assassination, and assassinate, because of the particular repeated syllable.

Vinyadan
2017-08-24, 04:33 PM
Well, you know that African landlocked country south of Libya and north of Nigeria? *****? You can't talk about it here.

wolflance
2017-08-24, 09:34 PM
I beg your pardon?
My god, what have I done?



The downsides are that snap matchlock is more complicated to make, you need to CHICKEN it after firing (not much of a downside unless you want to shoot/reload as fast as possible)
Here, fixed ;)

fusilier
2017-08-24, 10:11 PM
Snap-matchlock is spring-powered, so it is the fastest of the matchlock mechanism, which means less delay and more accuracy (due to how black powder gun works, there's a noticeable delay between pulling the trigger and the gun actually firing. The shooter is likely to fumble during that delay and disturb the aim. Snap matchlock reduces this delay to a minimum, thus improving accuracy).

The downsides are that snap matchlock is more complicated to make, you need to **** it after firing (not much of a downside unless you want to shoot/reload as fast as possible), and sudden snapping of the serpentine may extinguish the match.

The accuracy issue is debated -- the action of the snapping matchlock is more abrupt and less controllable than a sear style matchlock. At least that's one of the arguments.

The sudden snapping of the action could extinguish the match, but could also cause it to fall out. In fact, there's evidence that most snapping matchlocks were actually "tinder-locks". Instead of placing the match in the c0ck they would put a small piece of tinder fungus and light it with the match. The tinder was expendable, and was probably replaced after each shot (would be dangerous otherwise). The evidence for this is depictions from the early 1500s. It's possible that such actions were designed to use either tinder or match, but I've seen claims on the internet that the jaws of the c0ck indicate which kind.

Why exactly the snapping lock mechanism fell out of favor isn't entirely clear. It may have been it was complicated, it may have been that it was better suited for tinder, and the extra hassle of having to deal with a piece of tinder was seen as unnecessary. Or it just may have been that a sear-lock mechanism was cheaper and easier to produce.

From experience, the step of placing the match in the c0ck is the most fiddly step. I've heard that when in a rush, they skipped that step, and simply touched off the priming powder by hand (like an older handgonne). Lists of weapons, and depictions, into the 1530s still show that there were some arquebuses being made without a lock, and were clearly using this method.

snowblizz
2017-08-25, 03:53 AM
As for cannon, Japan's heavily forested mountainous terrain makes heavy artillery unfeasible, so they didn't feel the need to mass-adopt. They also had enough trouble providing ammo for their matchlocks (Japan does not produce saltpeter naturally, and produces very little lead. Luckily they knew how to make saltpeter out of urine...)
There's a bit more to it than that. Many of the really important castles were constructed on the floodplains, the economic centres of feudal Japan (hence controlling significant concentrations of wealth). So it's not just about getting to hilltop castles.

Just in general the Japanese seem to have escewed heavy siege weaponry, not just cannon, even though they knew about them and occasionally made use of such. Even when such things could be more easily used.

In the last stages of Sengoku Jidai both the Western and Eastern armies got hold of any cannon they could and merchant vessels with cannon would often have any cannon "bought" by the Japanese. And the siege of Osaka used quite a few on both sides, though much lighter than what would have been the case in Europe.

I would point out Japanese castles were generally much weaker structurally than European counterparts. And much weaker to escalades due to their construction. Basically you lack the high vertical and solid stone walls European castles had to stop people 1) climbing over and 2) smashing through. Being an earthquake prone area made the European style pretty much unfeasible and their solution to earthquake resistance dictated a lot of castle design.
They were also very vulnerable to fire (being largely constructed from wood) and many a castle taking ended with the whole thing burning accidentally or not.

Something that may also matter is how an European castle is usually one major fixed point whereas Japanese fortifications could be more of an mutually supportive chain of smaller fortifications. A factor of the generally mountainous terrain to a large degree I'm sure. So not only is it a bit difficult to get siege equipment in palce, you have to redo it 3-4 times for the same general area.

Somewhat impacting on tactics I'd say is also the social/cultural aspects of the samurai, without myth-bushidoing this. There were strong economic incentives (rewards for acts of bravery and "glory") to go for a more costly storming than just trying to burn the whole thing down around the defenders. As mentioned earlier compared to a European castle it was generally much easier and less suicidal to try.

It's an interesting question, because despite having options direct assault after a storm of arrows and shot tended to be the go to option. They definitely knew about and probably had the technology to make some, they just seem to large have stopped using it. IIRC might have been tied into the samurai coalecing as a class. About the time armies went from being government affairs to more "privatized" rent-an-soldier types as the samurai started out as.

wobner
2017-08-25, 07:46 AM
Not strickly a militiary question here, but what are the benefits of traveling up river by boat, specificly like biremes and oar driven Galleys?Obviously not steam powered and such. Is it strickly a cargo capacity thing, supplies and ship mounted artillary, or is it actually potentially faster than traveling on foot even against currents, less exhausting? I understand the Vikings often dragged their long ships out of the water and carried them, but from what i read that was more to account for impassable sections of the rivers than anything else? I remeber stories of the egyptians having their barges pulled by animals from the shore, but its been too long to trust my memory of such things, like the circumstances for doing it.

My internet searches are failing to find the answers i seek, so any help is appreciated.

rrgg
2017-08-25, 10:43 AM
@wolflance

Anyways, overall I agree that japanese firearms were not really inferior to European matchlocks, they just had different strengths and weaknesses. According to accounts from the imjin wars (https://bowvsmusket.com/tag/korea/) Japanese muskets were effective from up to several hundred paces away and were more accurate than chinese-style "victory guns". In sieges the Japanese would apparently rely on building towers or otherwise gaining high ground with their gunmen and then shooting down on top of the defenders to drive them from the walls.

One interesting difference is that apparently the full shoulder stock never really caught on in japan. However we know that shooting from the shoulder took a long time to become the standard method in europe as well, perhaps it only improved accuracy much when it came to larger caliber muskets.

There's also this video which has been posted before with a Japanese reenactor reloading his matchlock quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-lGCtbg580

VoxRationis
2017-08-25, 11:40 AM
Not strickly a militiary question here, but what are the benefits of traveling up river by boat, specificly like biremes and oar driven Galleys?Obviously not steam powered and such. Is it strickly a cargo capacity thing, supplies and ship mounted artillary, or is it actually potentially faster than traveling on foot even against currents, less exhausting? I understand the Vikings often dragged their long ships out of the water and carried them, but from what i read that was more to account for impassable sections of the rivers than anything else? I remeber stories of the egyptians having their barges pulled by animals from the shore, but its been too long to trust my memory of such things, like the circumstances for doing it.

My internet searches are failing to find the answers i seek, so any help is appreciated.

Depending on the river, the boat, and the crew, rowing can be pretty fast. A lot of rivers don't flow that quickly. Moreover, rivers tend to be already flat and clear of obstacles, whereas it can be difficult to find a path overland. I was on the rowing team in college and, while those boats are obviously a lot more streamlined than galleys, and thus experience the flow of the river less, I can tell you that rowing upstream was plenty fast and practical.
Plus, as you mentioned, using a boat of any kind (well, except racing shells) means your cargo capacity becomes much better than traveling on foot.

Brother Oni
2017-08-25, 12:10 PM
I would point out Japanese castles were generally much weaker structurally than European counterparts. And much weaker to escalades due to their construction. Basically you lack the high vertical and solid stone walls European castles had to stop people 1) climbing over and 2) smashing through. Being an earthquake prone area made the European style pretty much unfeasible and their solution to earthquake resistance dictated a lot of castle design.
They were also very vulnerable to fire (being largely constructed from wood) and many a castle taking ended with the whole thing burning accidentally or not.

While true, Japanese castles were designed to be defended differently. The internal layout was designed to be a maze, so attackers ended up in switchbacks, dead ends and other obstacles that exposed them to enfilade fire from arrows/rocks/other defender fire. Now that I think about it, I suppose that style of defence isn't too far from the principles of a tower defence game. :smalltongue:


It's an interesting question, because despite having options direct assault after a storm of arrows and shot tended to be the go to option. They definitely knew about and probably had the technology to make some, they just seem to large have stopped using it. IIRC might have been tied into the samurai coalecing as a class. About the time armies went from being government affairs to more "privatized" rent-an-soldier types as the samurai started out as.

I would say that it was more that they didn't really need it during the Edo period. In my opinion, it's only after the Bakumatsu and their various battles against western nations that they realised 'oh crap, we need better cannon' and started the rapid modernisation of the Meiji era.

Yora
2017-08-25, 12:38 PM
I was in Greece the last week and was to the bronze age fortress in Mycene. While it's on an easily defensible hill that is very well integrated into the defenses, I found it quite unusual that it is pretty far away from the coast. The current port of the region goes back to Mycenaean times as well, so it's not a case of shifting coastlines.

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

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-25, 12:51 PM
I was in Greece the last week and was to the bronze age fortress in Mycene. While it's on an easily defensible hill that is very well integrated into the defenses, I found it quite unusual that it is pretty far away from the coast. The current port of the region goes back to Mycenaean times as well, so it's not a case of shifting coastlines.

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

It seems to me that they also considered hilltops to be important locations for reasons of both defense and religion.

How far was it from Mycene to the port, there? Athens was about 5 miles from Piraeus.

wolflance
2017-08-25, 01:05 PM
The accuracy issue is debated -- the action of the snapping matchlock is more abrupt and less controllable than a sear style matchlock. At least that's one of the arguments.

The sudden snapping of the action could extinguish the match, but could also cause it to fall out. In fact, there's evidence that most snapping matchlocks were actually "tinder-locks". Instead of placing the match in the c0ck they would put a small piece of tinder fungus and light it with the match. The tinder was expendable, and was probably replaced after each shot (would be dangerous otherwise). The evidence for this is depictions from the early 1500s. It's possible that such actions were designed to use either tinder or match, but I've seen claims on the internet that the jaws of the c0ck indicate which kind.

Why exactly the snapping lock mechanism fell out of favor isn't entirely clear. It may have been it was complicated, it may have been that it was better suited for tinder, and the extra hassle of having to deal with a piece of tinder was seen as unnecessary. Or it just may have been that a sear-lock mechanism was cheaper and easier to produce.

From experience, the step of placing the match in the c0ck is the most fiddly step. I've heard that when in a rush, they skipped that step, and simply touched off the priming powder by hand (like an older handgonne). Lists of weapons, and depictions, into the 1530s still show that there were some arquebuses being made without a lock, and were clearly using this method.
I would argue that abrupt snapping is still miles better than having multiple moving fingers pulling the bar trigger (as in European matchlock, although not all matchlock use bar trigger) till the very end. I imagine it will be much harder to force the gun to stay stable if the gunner is actively moving his hand/fingers.

However, this topic is indeed still up for debate.

Anyway, maybe snapping tinder-lock was used in Europe, but I am fairly certain this design/practice never spread to Far East, since I've never heard of it in any source I came across.


Awesome info about Japanese castles & cannon
Thanks for the info. Yes, even the few cannons they used are comparatively light by European standard...perhaps only equal to a 3~6-pdr regimental gun or something.

Apparently they rarely used wheeled carriage, adding even more trouble to transport heavier pieces.



@wolflance
Japanese muskets were effective from up to several hundred paces away and were more accurate than chinese-style "victory guns". In sieges the Japanese would apparently rely on building towers or otherwise gaining high ground with their gunmen and then shooting down on top of the defenders to drive them from the walls.

There's also this video which has been posted before with a Japanese reenactor reloading his matchlock quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-lGCtbg580
"Victory Gun" is actually a Korean (not Chinese) handgonne, proper name Seungja-Chongtong 승자총통. Any matchlock gun worth its salt will outrange it.

It is very hard to gauge "weapon superiority/inferiority" due to a variety of criteria that can be used/have to be considered. For example, if we judge by firepower alone, then European heavy musket is decidedly superior to Japanese arquebus. Judge by craftsmanship, then they are about equal (I think). This will be further complicated if we consider multiple factors together.

My connection is real bad right now so I played the video on lowest resolution. I am guessing maybe he's using hayago (pre-loaded reusable bamboo tube "catridge") to be able to shoot that fast.

The siege technique ("fixed" siege tower to attack defenders on the wall) is a continuation of ancient practice that had been around since China's Warring States period (they used bows & crossbows back then though).

fusilier
2017-08-25, 02:39 PM
I would argue that abrupt snapping is still miles better than having multiple moving fingers pulling the bar trigger (as in European matchlock, although not all matchlock use bar trigger) till the very end. I imagine it will be much harder to force the gun to stay stable if the gunner is actively moving his hand/fingers.

However, this topic is indeed still up for debate.

The smoothness of the action is the issue. I haven't handled originals, but the well made reproductions have a light well balanced pull, and the action doesn't involve much "twisting" of the wrist. Some of the Indian reproductions have a stronger sear-spring and the action is less smooth.

Even on modern weapons the amount of force needed on the trigger pull is considered an issue. Although there are other factors.


Anyway, maybe snapping tinder-lock was used in Europe, but I am fairly certain this design/practice never spread to Far East, since I've never heard of it in any source I came across.

Actually, there doesn't appear to be evidence for it any source I've read, even for Europe. The evidence has been presented on the internet, and is based upon study of the imagery from the time. At the very least nobody has discovered any detailed instructions of how to load and fire an arquebus from the late 15th or early 16th centuries.

I make no claim to how they were used in Asia, except to note that matchlocks were used for a very long time there. (I actually knew someone who, in basic training, used a matchlock -- I assume as a drill rifle).

Yora
2017-08-25, 02:54 PM
It seems to me that they also considered hilltops to be important locations for reasons of both defense and religion.

How far was it from Mycene to the port, there? Athens was about 5 miles from Piraeus.

A bit over 20 km. A considerable distance that would take men on foot a good part of a day to cover, even with roads.

One idea I just got is that it might have been deliberately placed away from the coast as a defence against sea raids. Vision from Mycene over the valley and to the coast is fantastic, and with that distance any raiders reaching the beaches could be spotted a long time before they got anywhere near the city. This would provide plenty of time to evacuate all nearby farms and villages to the castle, including supplies.
With settlements directly at the shore surprise raids would be much more of a risk.

Vinyadan
2017-08-25, 04:31 PM
One important factor is the presence of drinkable water. And yes, the position with sight on the sea was likely a deliberate choice. In general, Mycenae reminds me of Vetulonia, enormous walls and all of that.

Concerning later times, AFAIK Sparta didn't have a close harbour. I don't think Argos did. Then there's Elis. In general, however, it's true that most important cities did have a harbour. But I think it's because of a circle: Greece was a poor country. The inland wasn't very productive, with the exception of a few good agricultural areas. Even good metal sources were hard to find. Sparta was hogging on a huge part of Peloponnesus, which kind of made other cities nearby irrelevant. Athens was born from the political union of many villages to an ancient fortress on a hill. Thebes also was in the inland, built around a hill fortress. But colonies were easiest built on the coast, since it gave easy connection to the metropolis. Many of the largest, richest Greek cities were actually colonies. If you have a harbour, you can trade with the colonies and with the non-Greek cities, and get larger in spite of the fact that your territory is small and poor. When there are too many inhabitants for the territory, you build another colony (Sparta and Athens built very few colonies because they had large territories to rely upon).

So there were multiple factors why most large cities had a harbour: very few inland cities were powerful enough to control enough inland territory and be internationally relevant; there was a planned colonization effort that created harbour cities; a poor territory meant that commerce was the best way to generate wealth. Very large cities ended up having a port even though they were inland cities (Sparta technically had a port, 40 km south of the city!), as a result of their expansive influence.

So in the case of Mycenae it's possible that the city was first meant as an inland city, and later achieved enough wealth, power and territory to have a detached harbour. You can compare Rome and its port, Ostia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostia_Antica) (and, much later, Portus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portus)).

rrgg
2017-08-25, 05:40 PM
It is very hard to gauge "weapon superiority/inferiority" due to a variety of criteria that can be used/have to be considered. For example, if we judge by firepower alone, then European heavy musket is decidedly superior to Japanese arquebus. Judge by craftsmanship, then they are about equal (I think). This will be further complicated if we consider multiple factors together.

During the 16th century most European soldiers would have still been armed with smaller arquebuses or calivers, which were more similar in size to most japanese matchlocks. So up until the decline of major conflicts in japan I would say that japanese guns were essentially on par with european ones for the most part. In addition to the arquebus, the japanese infantry had access to larger caliber guns or even handheld cannons as well. This passage from the other link:

"The sound of their muskets was terribly loud and intimidating, and the bullets crossed the river to fall down in the fortress. Some of the longest shots, flying over a distance of more than a thousand paces, fell on the roof tiles of Taedonggwan Hall. Some of them even drove as deep as several inches into the wooden columns of the battlements."

seems to indicate some guns firing a pretty heavy bullet capable of retaining enough energy to penetrate wood even at a very long distance.


Humphrey Barwick assigned arquebusiers swords and daggers without commenting on hilt style but specified a simple cross only for pikers, who wore gauntlets, and halberdiers, who apparently didn't have gauntlets (it's not perfectly clear).

Getting back to this for a moment, Barwick wasn't the only writer to recommend soldiers with shorter polearms be less well armored than pikemen. I don't know whether it really improves combat ability, but I suspect part of this is that the "short weapons" troops were often expected to pursue fleeing infantry or help protect the shot during skirmishes, and thus needed to be more mobile.

Gnoman
2017-08-26, 05:08 PM
Not strickly a militiary question here, but what are the benefits of traveling up river by boat, specificly like biremes and oar driven Galleys?Obviously not steam powered and such. Is it strickly a cargo capacity thing, supplies and ship mounted artillary, or is it actually potentially faster than traveling on foot even against currents, less exhausting? I understand the Vikings often dragged their long ships out of the water and carried them, but from what i read that was more to account for impassable sections of the rivers than anything else? I remeber stories of the egyptians having their barges pulled by animals from the shore, but its been too long to trust my memory of such things, like the circumstances for doing it.

My internet searches are failing to find the answers i seek, so any help is appreciated.

Prior to (and during the early part of) the age of the railroad, people were spending massive quantities of labor and capital to construct artificial rivers for horse-drawn boats. The fact that this was considered an economical alternative to building roads pretty much guarantees that the river was faster and carried more cargo/passengers than a road-based means of transport.

Yora
2017-08-27, 02:33 AM
The problem with roads is that they have to be build at a great expense first. If you don't have an already existing road, travel over land, especially with cargo, can be really slow. And since rivers already form a network connected by the sea, settlements with river access tended to become the most important places for trade, so that almost all places worth visiting were accessible by boat.

While getting a boat up a river can mean considerable work, you always will be going down that river again and then you get it powered for free. So the actual work of rowing or pulling is only half.

It's also important to remember that on water you have minimal friction and odds to get stuck. With carts on a road you have the wheels rubbing on the axles and digging into the mud. With this in mind, the labor of rowing or pulling a boat floating on water is again relatively low.

If you get the lucky situation to have wind blow upriver, you can also use sails for power. And if you hav3 triangular sails and a sufficiently large river (which doesn't have to be much based on the size of your boat) you can even sail upriver when the wind is blowing downriver. Though I believe this type of sail only became widespread around the start of the middle ages, when lots of great cities were already very old.

--

While I was in Greece, we had to fill out a day and made a little detour to see a small local museum in a town I never heard of in the Mycene area. And on display they had the full original Dendra Panoply. I've seen is described as the oldest existing suit of metal armor or the oldest existing armor in the western world. I know that there's at least one pretty well preserved suit of bone armor from Siberia that is estimated to be 600 years older, but do we have any actual metal armor from anywhere in the world that predates 1400 BCE? And was the Dendra armor unique or do we have fragments and depictions from other sourves as well? At least for the boar tusk helmet that goes with it I've seen several examples and plenty of contemporary depiction, so that one was at least to some degree common in the area at that time.
I think the Dendra Panoply is a really pretty ugly armor that looks really cumbersome, but unexpectedly running into one of the most significant artifacts in the history of armor was still really cool. :smallsmile:

Vinyadan
2017-08-27, 05:02 AM
Rivers are a bit like railways, very little friction compared to roads, especially medieval roads. Plus they are already there, and they likely will remain there. I remember that the Rhone was used this way to travel towards Paris in the XVI century, and likely earlier and later too.

PersonMan
2017-08-27, 10:36 AM
The downsides are that snap matchlock is more complicated to make, you need to **** it after firing (not much of a downside unless you want to shoot/reload as fast as possible), and sudden snapping of the serpentine may extinguish the match.

FYI you're allowed to sidestep the filter with color formatting if it's for the inoffensive form of words with multiple meanings, like this:

"The downsides are that snap matchlock is more complicated to make, you need to **** it after firing (not much of a downside unless you want to shoot/reload as fast as possible), and sudden snapping of the serpentine may extinguish the match."

rrgg
2017-08-27, 02:56 PM
https://books.google.com/books?id=DENgAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=a+treatise+on+gunshot+wounds+plates&source=bl&ots=ocMWKbvAap&sig=KAHjicIZmmANnOnSzTmNOy0nBZM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj--Pr3_TSAhUJ22MKHbBcA4oQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=lance&f=false

So the claim that wounds made by a small triangular bayonet are more deadly is one I've heard pretty often before, however I recently came across an example from an actual early 19th century medical book, where the author argues that bayonet wounds are actually more dangerous than lance wounds because the small opening does not allow material to flow out very easily. This seems sort of counter-intuitive to me since I always assumed one of the advantages of a leaf blade or a broad headed arrow was that it did more damage during penetration and was thus more deadly.

Does anyone know very much about the survivability of puncture wounds?

Vinyadan
2017-08-27, 04:49 PM
I think it has something to do with the fact that fluids not discharged may turn into a focus of infection, or lead to retained blood complications.

You can try wikipedia's page on drain (surgery), which I won't link because it contains graphic material, and those about retained blood complications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retained_blood_syndrome) and pericardial tamponade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_tamponade). These problems are something that can come up after surgery, but I guess that something similar may happen if you are inflicted a wound that cannot discharge outwards and your fluids accumulate at the wrong places.

Anyway, I think there is a physician who follows this thread, so he might give you better info.

Kiero
2017-08-27, 04:49 PM
https://books.google.com/books?id=DENgAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=a+treatise+on+gunshot+wounds+plates&source=bl&ots=ocMWKbvAap&sig=KAHjicIZmmANnOnSzTmNOy0nBZM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj--Pr3_TSAhUJ22MKHbBcA4oQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=lance&f=false

So the claim that wounds made by a small triangular bayonet are more deadly is one I've heard pretty often before, however I recently came across an example from an actual early 19th century medical book, where the author argues that bayonet wounds are actually more dangerous than lance wounds because the small opening does not allow material to flow out very easily. This seems sort of counter-intuitive to me since I always assumed one of the advantages of a leaf blade or a broad headed arrow was that it did more damage during penetration and was thus more deadly.

Does anyone know very much about the survivability of puncture wounds?

I thought the reasoning was that triangular wounds are much more complex to heal than simple linear punctures?

Brother Oni
2017-08-27, 05:17 PM
I thought the reasoning was that triangular wounds are much more complex to heal than simple linear punctures?

The reason I heard was that a triangular bayonet was stronger due to its shape and therefore could withstand higher stresses. This meant it could be stuck into the body with more force, causing more damage and hence harder to heal wounds.

Regarding the survivability of puncture wounds, location is key, but I found reference to a study used to develop standards for stab resistant body armour which indicates that 20mm penetration to the torso has a 41% chance of puncturing a lung, 60+% chance of liver or femoral artery rupture and a 6% chance of heart penetration.

I can dig up some more medical papers on stab wounds, but I suspect Mike_G's more practical experience is more worthwhile.

Mike_G
2017-08-27, 05:18 PM
The triangular bayonet wound thing is complex.

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

But...

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

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

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

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

rs2excelsior
2017-08-27, 06:45 PM
So the claim that wounds made by a small triangular bayonet are more deadly is one I've heard pretty often before, however I recently came across an example from an actual early 19th century medical book, where the author argues that bayonet wounds are actually more dangerous than lance wounds because the small opening does not allow material to flow out very easily.

Given that this is from an early 19th century text, this might come from a misunderstanding of how wounds heal. At that time germ theory was not accepted, and medical practice still resolved around the "humors." Infection was believed to be a part of the healing process; there's an account from the American Civil War of a Union Army doctor believing he had left something lodged in a wound when his patient did not have fever and pus flowing from the wound--the "bad humors" were not being allowed to drain properly. In the process of reopening the wound and poking around for a nonexistent obstruction, he did infect the wound which eventually resulted in the soldier having his leg amputated. I did a bit of reading around the quotes you referenced and didn't see anything explicitly stating that was the case, but it seems like a good explanation to me.

Bayonet wounds were deadly for multiple reasons. The triangular head does make a wound that is more difficult to stitch closed than a flat blade. Also, soldiers were trained to stab for the belly with the bayonet, then twist and pull out. The triangular profile, combined with the offset of the bayonet itself, would cause a lot of internal damage to the intestines and the like. Surgeons in the era did not do much work in the body cavity; there were limited things they could do but nowhere near as much (it's hard to amputate someone's abdomen). The damage caused combined with the limited options surgeons had to repair that damage resulted in an extremely lethal weapon; albeit one that usually didn't kill immediately. Very few casualties were actually caused by the bayonet, however, due to the increasing effectiveness of infantry fire and the psychological impact of a bayonet charge--usually one side or the other would break and run before contact, rather than actually engaging the enemy. Bayonets won battles by breaking enemy morale, not killing enemy soldiers.

fusilier
2017-08-27, 07:00 PM
I think the triangular bayonet was probably easier to produce, easier to care for and honestly, the difference won't matter all that much.

It also makes a better tent stake, and a decent candle holder. ;-)

Mike_G
2017-08-27, 09:15 PM
It also makes a better tent stake, and a decent candle holder. ;-)

Oh, yeah. It would be awesome at those.

But, I really don't think the design was better for fighting, and I think all the wounding theories are just after the fact thinking. If it made them cheaper to produce less work to keep clean and sharp, that's a reason a military might switch.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-27, 09:51 PM
Oh, yeah. It would be awesome at those.

But, I really don't think the design was better for fighting, and I think all the wounding theories are just after the fact thinking. If it made them cheaper to produce less work to keep clean and sharp, that's a reason a military might switch.

If it was purely a stabbing spike, perhaps the soldier who forgot he had it mounted in the stress of combat would be less likely to cut himself when he tried to load a shot?

(Totally spitballing there...)

rs2excelsior
2017-08-27, 11:09 PM
The ease of loading thing might well have something to do with it--the offset you see with bayonets from this period helps to keep the blade away from your hand when you're loading, and it'd be harder to get that with a blade. Loading a musket with bayonet is really no more difficult than without (though I've obviously never done it while being shot at).

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

fusilier
2017-08-28, 01:37 AM
The ease of loading thing might well have something to do with it--the offset you see with bayonets from this period helps to keep the blade away from your hand when you're loading, and it'd be harder to get that with a blade. Loading a musket with bayonet is really no more difficult than without (though I've obviously never done it while being shot at).

Yes, I do think there is some truth to this. With the introduction of breechloading firearms it becomes moot.

EDIT -- Might also be a bit safer in close formations, two or three ranks deep. Although they sometimes did use sword bayonets during the muzzleloading period they were comparatively rare.

Thiel
2017-08-28, 02:26 AM
Rivers are a bit like railways, very little friction compared to roads, especially medieval roads. Plus they are already there, and they likely will remain there. I remember that the Rhone was used this way to travel towards Paris in the XVI century, and likely earlier and later too.

Still is to this day.