Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Pauly]

The falx isn't a scythe; I don't think it would be very useful for any attempts to harvest crops since the blade is set at the wrong angle.

https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/pw/uaja5fdbvomu.jpeg

Here's the various ancient Balkan choppers, the sica, falx and rhomphaia.

The same way a medieval “war scythe” is not a true scythe. It’s fairly common for unfamiliar objects to be given a name of a common object people are familiar with. I don’t know if it is a fact, but it wouldn’t surprise me if in Italian falxes and rhomphaia are colloquially known as scythes.

As an aside falxes and rhomphaia look a lot like a short handled medieval war scythe.

[Vinyadan]

The same way a medieval “war scythe” is not a true scythe. It’s fairly common for unfamiliar objects to be given a name of a common object people are familiar with. I don’t know if it is a fact, but it wouldn’t surprise me if in Italian falxes and rhomphaia are colloquially known as scythes.

As an aside falxes and rhomphaia look a lot like a short handled medieval war scythe.

While English uses Latin words directly like "falx" or "gladius", Italian generally uses the Italian or italianate form (falce, gladio). "Falce", per se, means "scythe". And yes, I used scythe in the same, ambiguous way we use billhook. Rather than the war scythe, I was thinking of the one and only preserved scythe sword (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Senseschwert.png), which belonged to the peasant leader and preacher Thomas Müntzer (d. 1525 AD).

In this particular case the translation I made was incorrect, however, since what I called "scythe" was called rhomphaia in the text; I thought it was the Greek name of the falx. Now that I look it up, rhomphaia as a word precedes the Dacian wars, and I found it first used in Greek in the third century BC to describe the sword used to decapitate Goliath, and there it simply means a very large sword. Interestingly, in Latin it was first described as a long "telum" (missile), and later as a sword or spear. Telum in theory can also simply mean "weapon", thrown or melee, but it's interesting that Albanian and Macedonian apparently still have words derived from the name of the rhomphaia to mean "thunderbolt". This is pretty common with names of missiles (see the aforementioned thunderbolt). Who knows, maybe in Dacian it was a generic name for weapons, or it meant "the long one".

The Romans were rather liberal with what they called falx (falx messoria: sickle, falx foenaria: scythe, falx vinitoria: a billhook used in vineyards, falx putatoria: a billhook for tree branches, falx with the meaning of "securis": axe; then you have the falx muralis, a hook they used to pull down walls during sieges, and, apparently, also a falx navalis used in naval engagements); so, curved blades, mostly. You can see something similar with the weapon we call falchion, a name also derived from falx.

About agricultural use, while I assume that the weapons the Dacians used against the Romans were born as war weapons, the sica and falx definitely resemble certain agricultural instruments, even with a straight handle (compare the sickle held by Saturnus (http://www.pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/R6/6%2009%2006%20atrium%20part%203_files/image009.jpg)). But they admittedly would resemble the various other falces rather than the scythe, which, in Roman times, could be much more arched that today.

[Lemmy]

So... A question for those who know Asian, spespecially Japanese, culture better than I do...

It isn't exactly about weapons/tactics, and it mau be a really dumb question, but... Is purple (and/or maybe dark blue) associated with assassination, poison, cruelty or something like that?

It's just something I've been wondering about after seeing many, many characters with a purple-dominant color scheme and assassin/poison/cruelty theme.

(Seriously... Just in the Street Fighter universe there are like... 4 or 5 purple-clad assassins/sadists/psycopaths).

[Pauly]

So... A question for those who know Asian, spespecially Japanese, culture better than I do...

It isn't exactly about weapons/tactics, and it mau be a really dumb question, but... Is purple (and/or maybe dark blue) associated with assassination, poison, cruelty or something like that?

It's just something I've been wondering about after seeing many, many characters with a purple-dominant color scheme and assassin/poison/cruelty theme.

(Seriously... Just in the Street Fighter universe there are like... 4 or 5 purple-clad assassins/sadists/psycopaths).

I am living in Japan current,y. I haven’t done any study into color associations, but I have discussed color associations with some Japanese students. Unfortunately the color purple hasn’t come up.

What I have noticed is that purple is associated with hiding in shadows. A lot of yokai are depicted in purple. Many dark type pokemon have purple as a major or minor color.

I think that purple is primarily associated with dark/shadow and from there it naturally lends itself to being a color used to depict assassins and poisoners.

[gkathellar]

So... A question for those who know Asian, spespecially Japanese, culture better than I do...

It isn't exactly about weapons/tactics, and it mau be a really dumb question, but... Is purple (and/or maybe dark blue) associated with assassination, poison, cruelty or something like that?

It's just something I've been wondering about after seeing many, many characters with a purple-dominant color scheme and assassin/poison/cruelty theme.

(Seriously... Just in the Street Fighter universe there are like... 4 or 5 purple-clad assassins/sadists/psycopaths).

Purple is traditionally a color of aristocracy and wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple#Asian_culture) in Japan, as in many other places.

I suspect the main reason you'd see purple used for "dark" characters is simple color theory: dark purple naturally complements or substitutes for black.

[Lemmy]

I am living in Japan current,y. I haven’t done any study into color associations, but I have discussed color associations with some Japanese students. Unfortunately the color purple hasn’t come up.

What I have noticed is that purple is associated with hiding in shadows. A lot of yokai are depicted in purple. Many dark type pokemon have purple as a major or minor color.

I think that purple is primarily associated with dark/shadow and from there it naturally lends itself to being a color used to depict assassins and poisoners.


Purple is traditionally a color of aristocracy and wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple#Asian_culture) in Japan, as in many other places.

I suspect the main reason you'd see purple used for "dark" characters is simple color theory: dark purple naturally complements or substitutes for black.
Those are good points... Like how they use dark blue instead of black in American comics because it's easier to paint around

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/23/ff/28/23ff28082b196b9b6fdf2c98cba8ef17.jpg

Huh... That said, I thought the "Purple = Royalty" thing was only in Europe.

But, by all gods... So many purple assassins/psychopaths/sadists... Even ones that don't even use stealth...

http://pm1.narvii.com/6511/62b12683d5e6c78ccdc9b05e469acaaf9f694110_00.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2Mx-olY5bi0uNNP2051s7mBmx7kSSVOnx_V9GwDEV_kmtn1IA
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/jorjorswackyjourney/images/a/a9/F.A.N.G.clean.png/revision/latest?cb=20171016002037
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/c5/d7/81c5d71a2cd6d517465178128336f14d.jpg


And those are just from Street Fighter! And not including the ones that wear different colors, but use some sort of purple energy, like Akuma and M.Bison... :smallconfused:

[Max_Killjoy]

Purple has been associated with royalty off and on in Japanese culture and law -- though it seems to often have been a lighter purple than we're discussing.

[Martin Greywolf]

Purple is associated with royalty worldwide simply because, before synthetic dyes, it was expensive as hell. Lesser known fact is that there are two kinds of purple, expensive for different reasons.

Tyrian purple is western/European purple, it can be crimson to light purple in actual color, and is expensive because you need a massive amount of very specific sea snails to make it. It was so expensive only the very wealthiest, like emperors and kings, could afford clothes made of fabric with base purple color, usually with gold thread and other bling. THe wealthiest merchants and dukes could persumably afford, say, a hat.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Purpur-mit-Ausfaerbung.png/481px-Purpur-mit-Ausfaerbung.png

Then there is Qi purple, popularized by an emperor of China's Qi dynasty. It has a less rich shade of purple compared to Tyrian and is made from gromwell plant root - it is expensive because it's a massive pain in the neck to get it to stick to fabric, though it wasn't quite as expensive as Tyrian, since high nobles could afford it.


https://barefootshepherdess.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834208ab853ef0133f18223c2970b-320wi
https://barefootshepherdess.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834208ab853ef0133f18227fa970b-320wi


That said, you still had lesser substitutes, and could make sort of purple, but not quite with them. THese usually are fairly dull colors, or approach brown or red much more than the above two purple variants.

http://www.historicenterprises.biz/misc/refpics/colors07TN.jpg

It is therefore quite apparent why Qi and Tyrian purple had its status - the only time you could see a color like that, either delicately or richly purple, was when someone re3ally, really important showed up in your corner of the world.

Or, y'know, in actual flowers. Give that ninja a hula skirt of forget-me-nots!

[Kiero]

Can't mention the colour purple without also mentioning sumptuary laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law), of which purple clothing was the most visible sign of ostentation that such laws were designed to curb.

Those laws in ancient Greece and Rome specifically referenced purple clothing, alongside gold and other luxuries.

[Pauly]

Those are good points... Like how they use dark blue instead of black in American comics because it's easier to paint around

Huh... That said, I thought the "Purple = Royalty" thing was only in Europe.

But, by all gods... So many purple assassins/psychopaths/sadists... Even ones that don't even use stealth...

And those are just from Street Fighter! And not including the ones that wear different colors, but use some sort of purple energy, like Akuma and M.Bison... :smallconfused:

As you’ve noted dark blue is associated with shadows in Western art. It’s not unusual for colors associated with a particular thing change in different cultures.
Some examples I have come across in Japan.
The Sun: Western = yellow; Japan = red.
Good luck: Western = green (luck of the Irish); Japan = red.

[Max_Killjoy]

As you’ve noted dark blue is associated with shadows in Western art. It’s not unusual for colors associated with a particular thing change in different cultures.
Some examples I have come across in Japan.
The Sun: Western = yellow; Japan = red.
Good luck: Western = green (luck of the Irish); Japan = red.

Death: Western = black; Japan = white (I think)

[Pauly]

Death: Western = black; Japan = white (I think)

That’s changing now. I was thinking of putting it on the list, but it aint that cut and dried in 2019

[deuterio12]

A purple toga was basically the ultimate luxury item in ancient times.


Death: Western = black; Japan = white (I think)

Interestingly enough despite being opposite colors the original reason is the same.

That original reason because people since ancient times thought that death rituals like funerals would attract all kind of nasty spirits, so the living during said death ritual started to dress in a way to "disguise" themselves from said nasty spirits.

In the west that meant dressing in black since people were mostly pale-white skinned, so supposedly the spirits would ignore a bunch of black-clad figures.

In Japan where people had other shades of skin, they would dress in white for the same exact reason.

Although it progressively became more a matter of tradition.

Meanwhile in several places of Africa black is associated with good luck and life because it's the color of rain clouds.

[Beleriphon]

As you’ve noted dark blue is associated with shadows in Western art. It’s not unusual for colors associated with a particular thing change in different cultures.
Some examples I have come across in Japan.
The Sun: Western = yellow; Japan = red.
Good luck: Western = green (luck of the Irish); Japan = red.

It isn't just shadow, its a highlight on black. Batman's cape and cowl were never supposed to be blue, but due to comic book printing they only effective way to show shape and motion on something that is supposed to be black is to highlight with blue. Unfortunately this make it look like a blue object with deep shadows. The above picture of Ghost Rider is better as the highlight is a very deep navy blue, and its obvious he's wearing a black biker jacket so we immediately read it as a highlight rather than the base colour.

Anyway, yes purple. Rich guys love the stuff in the pre-modern world. I'm assuming this is the reason for the purple stripe on senators togas in Rome.

[Clistenes]

The meaning of colour changes even among different European countries... In UK blue is associated to sadness, but in Spain it is associated to the sky, purity, sanctity and peace...



That original reason because people since ancient times thought that death rituals like funerals would attract all kind of nasty spirits, so the living during said death ritual started to dress in a way to "disguise" themselves from said nasty spirits.

In the west that meant dressing in black since people were mostly pale-white skinned, so supposedly the spirits would ignore a bunch of black-clad figures.

In Japan where people had other shades of skin, they would dress in white for the same exact reason.

Although it progressively became more a matter of tradition.

Meanwhile in several places of Africa black is associated with good luck and life because it's the color of rain clouds.

Actually, while that is a real theory by real antropologists, it is a gross generalization...

Ancient Roman and medieval English widows wore black, but Middle and Modern Age Spanish and French people wore white.

And Japanese people's skin tone isn't really that different from Europeans'. The reason Asians got associated with yellow colored skin is due to British and German racist "antropologists" from the Colonial period who tried to put every human "race" into a color-coded box. Hence Europeans were White, Africans were Black, Arabs were Brown, Asians were Yellow, Native Americans were Red, and Indians were Green..

Japanese use white as mourning colour due to Buddhist influence; White, representing purity, was a mourning colour in India, and Buddhist propagated that custom to many countries...

[awa]

Im curious about battle standards and field musicians specifically how they were used in the east (any where between the middle east and china would be good enough)

Did they use them the same way as in Europe? The information I found on my own is either to modern or European focused to help me.

[Pauly]

Im curious about battle standards and field musicians specifically how they were used in the east (any where between the middle east and china would be good enough)

Did they use them the same way as in Europe? The information I found on my own is either to modern or European focused to help me.

At its simplest they were used the same way:
Musicians to transmit order.
Standards to show where the boss was.

Most ancient battles and early gunpowder battle were on flat plains so standards were surprisingly visible.

[awa]

So they were in common use in those regions?
Does any one know what instruments were used?

[Pauly]

So they were in common use in those regions?
Does any one know what instruments were used?

Standards were in use pretty well everywhere, flags being the most common. In some places and some times oversize parasols on a chariot or elephant were also used.

Musicians most commonly used trumpets and drums. Stringed instruments and flutes weren’t loud enough to be heard on the battlefield unless used en masse.

[Beleriphon]

IIRC, and please correct me, but the Vietnamese word for noble of some particular rank is roughly "bannerman", that is to say he has a banner to indicate his troops in a battle.

[Max_Killjoy]

IIRC, and please correct me, but the Vietnamese word for noble of some particular rank is roughly "bannerman", that is to say he has a banner to indicate his troops in a battle.

See English custom, as well -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_banneret

[awa]

that's good I thought it was the case but I couldn't find any references to support it

[Pauly]

IIRC, and please correct me, but the Vietnamese word for noble of some particular rank is roughly "bannerman", that is to say he has a banner to indicate his troops in a battle.

I’ve read translations from Chinese that use “bannerman” to indicate an officer, for precisely the same reason Whether that is a strictly accurate translation is another question.

[Vinyadan]

In unrelated news, the fluffiest helms (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2019/10/11/TELEMMGLPICT000212711406_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpVlberW d9EgFPZtcLiMQfyf2A9a6I9YchsjMeADBa08.jpeg?imwidth= 1400) (fresco from a Pompeian tavern).

More info (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/11/archeologists-find-fresco-battling-bloodied-gladiators-2000/).

[Khedrac]

And, on a completely different topic, I have a lot of respect for the military historians that frequent this thread, so can anyone suggest a decent account of the Zeebrugge raid from WWI, my interest being the events relating to HMS Thetis, including her evacuation.

Thanks in advance.

[Pauly]

And, on a completely different topic, I have a lot of respect for the military historians that frequent this thread, so can anyone suggest a decent account of the Zeebrugge raid from WWI, my interest being the events relating to HMS Thetis, including her evacuation.

Thanks in advance.

Have you tried the Official History? The WW1 official histories (at least for the British Empire) are usually very well written and well detailed.

[Khedrac]

Have you tried the Official History? The WW1 official histories (at least for the British Empire) are usually very well written and well detailed.

Good first suggestion - looking around I am surprised to find that the text of the British Offical History of the war at sea is online, unfortunately because it is trying to cover the whole war it only skims the ssential details with very little detail, and nothing about what went on aboard. Considering that at least one of the medals handed out went to some of those on board the Thetis I know there is more to the story - and that is what I am after and why I think I need a detailed account.
(It's odd how the available citations for medal awards vary greatly in terms of what one can learn from them.)

Looking at google, Phillip Warner's account is the main one that comes up, but I wondered if people here would recommend for or against it.

[Beleriphon]

Looking at google, Phillip Warner's account is the main one that comes up, but I wondered if people here would recommend for or against it.

Have you tried Google Scholar to see if anything pops up in relation either crew, or the ship itself?

[Khedrac]

Have you tried Google Scholar to see if anything pops up in relation either crew, or the ship itself?

Not heard of Google Scholar - looking it up now - thank-you.

[Pauly]

Good first suggestion - looking around I am surprised to find that the text of the British Offical History of the war at sea is online, unfortunately because it is trying to cover the whole war it only skims the ssential details with very little detail, and nothing about what went on aboard. Considering that at least one of the medals handed out went to some of those on board the Thetis I know there is more to the story - and that is what I am after and why I think I need a detailed account.
(It's odd how the available citations for medal awards vary greatly in terms of what one can learn from them.)

Looking at google, Phillip Warner's account is the main one that comes up, but I wondered if people here would recommend for or against it.


I like to go to original war diaries/ship’s logs/after action reports when available when looking into this type of research. Not sure if HMS Thetis’ ship’s log will be available.
Some links I found doing some digging

https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Battle1804ZeebruggeOstend.htm

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30807/supplement/8596/data.pdf

https://www.firstworldwar.com/diaries/zeebrugge_carpenter.htm

http://www.victoriacross.co.uk/zeebrugge%20items.html

[Khedrac]

I like to go to original war diaries/ship’s logs/after action reports when available when looking into this type of research. Not sure if HMS Thetis’ ship’s log will be available.
Some links I found doing some digging

https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Battle1804ZeebruggeOstend.htm

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30807/supplement/8596/data.pdf

https://www.firstworldwar.com/diaries/zeebrugge_carpenter.htm

http://www.victoriacross.co.uk/zeebrugge%20items.html

Thank-you indeed - I was getting nowhere with Google Scholar.

[Pauly]

Thank-you indeed - I was getting nowhere with Google Scholar.

Some others that came up with some revised searches
https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/zeebrugge_admiralty1.htm

http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/271543.pdf

I much prefer the original contemporaneous reports over later scholarly works. The later works usually just rehash the original reports and then add a layer of their own analysis, which may or may not be valuable.

[Khedrac]

Some others that came up with some revised searches
https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/zeebrugge_admiralty1.htm

http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/271543.pdf

I much prefer the original contemporaneous reports over later scholarly works. The later works usually just rehash the original reports and then add a layer of their own analysis, which may or may not be valuable.

And thank-you again, the second of those two links looks worth reading fully (though it doesn't appear to have much of the details of the Thetis) so I think I know what my next book to read is!

Interestingly the first link has some clear errors! I know from multiple other sources that the crew of the Thetis abandoned ship onto the cutter, and were rescued from the cutter; but the Admiratly statement implies that they were picked up from the Thetis herself. The value of checking multiple sources becomes clear.

As she lay she signalled invaluable directions to the others, and here her commander blew the charges and sank her. A motor launch raced alongside and took off her crew. Her losses were five killed and five wounded.

[Yora]

When did we first see battles in which there is major fighting between main forces over multiple days, and what developments in technology and organization made this possible?

It seems to become a frequent occurrence in the American Civil War, but there was also the Battle of Leipzig some 70 years earlier.

[Pauly]

When did we first see battles in which there is major fighting between main forces over multiple days, and what developments in technology and organization made this possible?

It seems to become a frequent occurrence in the American Civil War, but there was also the Battle of Leipzig some 70 years earlier.

There have been battles over several days throughout history. In the pre gunpowder era they were more common in Asia than in Europe.

Some factors that make a multiple day battle more likely include.
- Very large armies.
- Both sides having favorable defensive ground.
- A reliance on missile weapons over melee.
- Evenly matched opponents (after taking into account technology differences and terrain advantages).

The two big factors that made 20th century warfare feature multiple day battles as standard
- dispersed formations due to machine guns, smokeless rifles and efficient artillery.
- the ability to command further, through field telegraphs, telephones and wireless. This allows further dispersion of troops and the co-ordination of reserves.

[Jeivar]

I just started wondering about something:

Why do Japanese swords have either those small, disc-shaped crossguards or small squares? Is there some benefit to smaller crossguards?

[AdAstra]

There have been battles over several days throughout history. In the pre gunpowder era they were more common in Asia than in Europe.

Some factors that make a multiple day battle more likely include.
- Very large armies.
- Both sides having favorable defensive ground.
- A reliance on missile weapons over melee.
- Evenly matched opponents (after taking into account technology differences and terrain advantages).

The two big factors that made 20th century warfare feature multiple day battles as standard
- dispersed formations due to machine guns, smokeless rifles and efficient artillery.
- the ability to command further, through field telegraphs, telephones and wireless. This allows further dispersion of troops and the co-ordination of reserves.

I wonder if the existence of more cohesive "frontlines" and supply chains might have also contributed. Retreating can become a lot less strategically sound due to potentially opening up the flanks of the units to your sides, and with continuous delivery of supplies and reinforcements (which also allow depleted units to rotate out, rest, and integrate replacement troops), a military force can sustain fighting for far longer.

[gkathellar]

I just started wondering about something:

Why do Japanese swords have either those small, disc-shaped crossguards or small squares? Is there some benefit to smaller crossguards?

No one really has a good answer. This is not unique to Japanese swords, either, since the Chinese dao and its various relatives have a similar disc guard. That's even more of a mystery, since the dao existed in the same times and places as straight swords with simple cross guards. It's possible that a more active style of parrying, avoiding static blocks, could mitigate the need for hand protection - but static blocks do get used in both Japanese and Chinese swordsmanship, so.

[Jeivar]

No one really has a good answer. This is not unique to Japanese swords, either, since the Chinese dao and its various relatives have a similar disc guard. That's even more of a mystery, since the dao existed in the same times and places as straight swords with simple cross guards. It's possible that a more active style of parrying, avoiding static blocks, could mitigate the need for hand protection - but static blocks do get used in both Japanese and Chinese swordsmanship, so.

So disc guards are demonstrably inferior?

[gkathellar]

So disc guards are demonstrably inferior?

Not necessarily. They were in use for a long time in both military and civilian settings, which suggests they were good for something - or were at least adequate in the context they were expected to perform. But to the best of my knowledge, we don't really know what advantage they provided.

One hypothetical advantage over a cross-guard is that a disc might provide more protection to the sides of the hand. Maybe.

[Corneel]

When did we first see battles in which there is major fighting between main forces over multiple days, and what developments in technology and organization made this possible?

It seems to become a frequent occurrence in the American Civil War, but there was also the Battle of Leipzig some 70 years earlier.
There were earlier occurrences of multi day battles, like the Battle of Thermopylae (which took three days), the Battle of Alesia (three days) and the Battle of Bannockburn (two days) to name some famous ones. In the first two it involves armies that have a position to defend which might be an explanation (they do not really have the option to retreat and regroup).

[Storm Bringer]

When did we first see battles in which there is major fighting between main forces over multiple days, and what developments in technology and organization made this possible?

It seems to become a frequent occurrence in the American Civil War, but there was also the Battle of Leipzig some 70 years earlier.


There have been battles over several days throughout history. In the pre gunpowder era they were more common in Asia than in Europe.

Some factors that make a multiple day battle more likely include.
- Very large armies.
- Both sides having favorable defensive ground.
- A reliance on missile weapons over melee.
- Evenly matched opponents (after taking into account technology differences and terrain advantages).

The two big factors that made 20th century warfare feature multiple day battles as standard
- dispersed formations due to machine guns, smokeless rifles and efficient artillery.
- the ability to command further, through field telegraphs, telephones and wireless. This allows further dispersion of troops and the co-ordination of reserves.

well, its worth noting that the descriptions of several ancient battles imply that it was semi common for the two armies to be in close-ish contact for several days or even weeks before the actual fight, with manouvering for position, shows of strength, minor skirmishes, etc. Often, one side was holding favourable ground, and unwilling to abandon it unless induced to by some external pressure (for example, lifting a siege, or getting home before harvest)

Also, ancient and pre modern armies took a long time to deploy into battle array, often many hours, even with articulated command structures and a clear plan (factors that were often lacking), and the difficulty in doing so would lead commanders to be wary of staying in combat range of an enemy if they had any choice in the matter. So, they'd have their camp some distance back, far enough away to be safe.

Arguably, the biggest reason battles took longer in the 19th and 20th century is switch to firepower as the primary means of combat over shock action. Because of this (relative) reluctance of troops to close into melee, combined the with the (relative) ease of keeping a flintlock in a ready to fire state, it made it practical for an army to sleep overnight only a few miles form the enemy without being suicidally vulnerable to a surprise night attack*, and by extension able to carry on the fight again the next day.

also, its party a matter of what you count as a battle. We split "Waterloo", "Quatre Bras" and "Ligny" into three separate battles, even though the latter two happened at the same time and not too far apart, and involved two wings of the same French army, and the Waterloo happened the next day, and involved the same armies moving directly form one battle to the other. Today, we'd count all three actions as part of the same battle.

It helps that modern combat doesn't really stop at night, so its easier to think of the battle continuing as the fighting doesn't stop.

*not saying that night attacks could not or did not happen, but only that a redcoat could go form sleeping to combat ready in minute or two, by grabbing his musket and cartridge belt and joining the fight in whatever he happened to be sleeping in, while a medieval knight caught asleep needed much longer to strap all his armour on and get ready for a fight.

[KineticDiplomat]

As many have mentioned, there were certainly multi-day battles throughout history. If you had to pick just one difference as to why they were so rare, it was that for a battle to actually occur (as opposed to skirmishing, patrolling, and so forth) for the overwhelming majority of history either both sides had to want to fight, or one side had to be physically trapped.

If either of those conditions didn’t exist, the army which didn’t want to fight simply withdrew, moved to a different position, didn’t come down off its hill, or - if defeated - routed away into an unmanageable mess. Pursuing an enemy doing any one of those was quite difficult, particularly because even if you did catch them it would take hours (days, in some cases) to actually deploy your forces to attack them.

It’s hard to say exactly what changed that and made it “the norm” in the 20th century and beyond. It’s a mix of vast increases in range for not just small arms but also artillery, aircraft, and later tanks which could all extend the depth of the tactical and operational battlefield to a point where there were no “safe” spots near the fighting. Communications, rapid transport and mechanization allowed forces to move quickly enough to force a battle on an unwilling party, and to attack from the March.

At the same time, the battlefield got dispersed and more small unit focused at the micro level, so the physical and mental impediments of assembling, moving over terrain at night, became less vital. They were replaced with massive organizational and logistical impediments, handled by ever growing staffs, but once you actually started fighting tactical units were a lot faster to act...

[Kiero]

There were earlier occurrences of multi day battles, like the Battle of Thermopylae (which took three days), the Battle of Alesia (three days) and the Battle of Bannockburn (two days) to name some famous ones. In the first two it involves armies that have a position to defend which might be an explanation (they do not really have the option to retreat and regroup).

The naval battle accompanying Thermopylae, at Artemisium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Artemisium) was a multi-day affair, too.

[Martin Greywolf]

When does shooting a guy become a skirmish become a battle become a campaign become a war? That's what we're dealing with here, in essence, and the line was never clear and always somewhat arbitrary. You could try to come up with hard definitions, but then you get a lot of weird battles that aren't really battles and so on.

I'm familiar with ancient history, but not all that well-versed in it, so I'll skip to medieval from the get go, and we'll look at examples of major battles in Hungary between Mongol invasion and start of Anjou dynasty. Because things like these are better with examples.

Mohi 1241

The annihilation of Hungarian army by Mongols, albeit not as one sided as people generally think. Still, Mongols won pretty decisively.

The action started on 12th march in Verecke pass when mongols busted through the fortifications and army of palatine Dennis Tomaj. What is called battle of Mohi doesn't start until a month later, but during this time, Tomaj retreats to Pesc where Hungarian armies are gathering, the king Bela IV orders not to engage mongols until the armies are gathered, his ally, Austrian Duke Friedrich II attacks them anyway and defeats a small detachment of them and then bows out, and mongols pillage all the while, laying siege to small towns on the Hungarian Plain. This is, effectively, a month of constant action for both sides.

Once the Hungarian army moves out of Pest, Mongols start to retreat, well aware of its power, and stop only after crossing river Sajo near Mohi. Hungarians reach it and erect a fortified camp on 10th april.

The battle itself happens, what with mongols buiulding improvised bridges, successful Hungarian counterattacks and close, but destructive defeat of Hungarian army. It took at least 12 hours, likely more, because of needed movement.

After this, the king retreats all the way to Dalmatia (think Croatian coast, if not well versed in European geography) under constant attacks from Mongol host that turns around and starts to pillage the country for two years. During those two years, there is near-constant fighting, as well-fortified towns in hilly terrain resist the invasion, and less well fortified towns don't. Mongols have significant trouble crossing the Danube, and only succeed after it freezes.

Leitha river 1246

We know bugger all about this battle - about the only info is that Friedrich II was killed in it and who fought it, nothing on how it went.

Kressenbrunn 1260

Two armies camped out for quite possibly several days on their side of the river and double-dog-dared the other one to cross. Battle itself happened when one side decided to let the other to cross so they can finally fight it out, and lasted for a few hours at the most.

Marchfeld 1278

Happened as response to siege on Laa an der Thaya by Ottokar II, which lasted for we have no idea how long. The chronicles mention that the response was rather quick, so probably no more than a few days.

Allied Hungarian and German forces opposing Ottokar arrived at Marchfeld at least a day in advance and started to scout out the terrain, and on 26th august, their nomad light cavalry started to harass Ottokar's army from dawn. The clash between the main bodies happened at midday, and lasted probably about an hour or so. CLeanup lasted several days, as the nomad troops pursued the running enemy.

Rozhanovce/Rozgony 1321

So, we have no clear timetable, but bear with me. Hungarian king Charles Robert is cleaning out the nobles that resist him, he besieges Saris castle. One of said nobles (Matthew Csak) moves against him, so Charles retreats to recruit more troops. The Abas, another noble family opposed to the king, hears of his retreat and besieges the town of Kosice. The king hears about this, turns around and tries to hit them before the Aba and Csak armies unite. Aba army hears of this, so it moves to advantageous position on the banks of Torysa river, near Rozhanovce, where the battle happens before Csak army arrives in full.

The battle itself lasts only about an hour or so, because Abas decide to do a massive charge along the entire front, and it almost works. Only quick flanking manuever by the elite Hospitaller forces saves the king. Csak army withdraws after hearing of the defeat.

Summary

So, that's five major battles that give us a pretty neat representative view of... major battles, I guess. We know nothing about one, so let's focus on the four. Two of them happened because of sieges being intercepted, one because of a ford being a chokepoint, and one because both sides were confident of their own victory.

All of them except Mohi have single day as official duration, Mohi has two. But, if we look at what is a battle with a WW1 mindset, then we can well call the initial phase of mongol invasion ending at Mohi a battle, the same way Operation Barbarossa is sometimes called a battle, so it takes a month.

Kressenbrunn takes several days in reality, it's just that most of thet time is sitting around the camp, probably skirmishing or trying to find another ford. Again, this entire period would probably be called a battle if it happened in WW1.

Marchfeld takes 12-18 hours, but you could arguably count siege of Laa as a part of it, and that extends it to several days.

Rozgony happen inside of a week or two if you count all the sieges and counter-sieges.

Conclusion

So, why is a battle so short? Well, it isn't, it's a question of what we consider a battle. Sure, Mohi happened inside of 24 hours, but there was significant fighting and skirmishing before and after, the main battle was a turning point. And what's more, we know a lot about it because it has been focus of research. Skirmishing like this may well have happened in other battles, and we simply don't know about it.

If you look at it this way, then even pre-modern battles usually lasted several days, and what we call the battle these days was merely a turning point.

Thing is, those turning points being the entire thing create neat narratives, and chroniclers at the time cared nothing for accurately representing events, they cared about pushing an agenda that was close enough to the truth to be accepted.

All that said, though, pre-modern battles are shorter still, taking only a few weeks, while battles like Verdun could take months. This is partly a function of soldiers available, and partly again what we consider a battle. After all, studying Verdun would be a tall order if it was represented as Battles of Verdun number 1 to 300.

[Maquise]

Are there any sources for Medieval Arming Sword and Shield/buckler other than I.33?

[Pauly]

Are there any sources for Medieval Arming Sword and Shield/buckler other than I.33?

Define what you mean by medieval.

[Maquise]

Define what you mean by medieval.

Basically, anything predating the Bolognese side sword sources.

[Martin Greywolf]

Are there any sources for Medieval Arming Sword and Shield/buckler other than I.33?

Sort of. Nothing as extensive or comprehensive as Bolognese or I.33, but there are some for sword or sword and buckler.

Herny de Sainct Didier is the weird one out, and little known, though he is more of a contemporary of Bolognese, rather than a precursor.

Fiore does show you some limited amount of plays with a single handed sword - it is mostly meant for a shorter, Italian-style longsword held in one hand and has no shield, but it is there.

The main source for this is messer techniques. Messers varied greatly in length, and some of them were basically arming swords with different furniture, so you can pretty much use any technique for them that doesn't explicitly require a nagel. Hans Talhoffer and Paulus Kal have them, as does Ms3227a/Dobringer.

As for sword and shield, well, Bolognese is pretty much the first source to talk about them at all, unless you count Vegetius.

[Maquise]

Is there a resource that compiles all of the various designs for hilts that existed in the Middle Ages/Renaissance? Something someone could refer to if they wanted to make a historical piece and see what all the options were?

[Martin Greywolf]

Is there a resource that compiles all of the various designs for hilts that existed in the Middle Ages/Renaissance? Something someone could refer to if they wanted to make a historical piece and see what all the options were?

First, straight answer to the question is, to my knowledge, no. You have Petersen and Oakeshott typologies which do include hilts, and Zakovsky for messers and dussacks, but that is only for medieval and early renaissance and leaves a lot of stuff out.

Second point is, this is a terrible way to make a historical replica. Thing is, swords were made for and by people who knew in what context they were used, with what gloves and what styles, and since they were all hand made, they were often tailored to the individual*. That means you can't make a Frankensword and call it historical - guard from Italy, blade from Germany and pommel from England do not a proper sword make. Even same time and place can produce two swords that were meant to be very different.

Granted, you will be hell of a lot closer to something real than a random bit of sword-like object from ebay, but still. If you are looking to get a sword for reenactment, realistic-ish fantasy or some such, this can be acceptable, but if you're looking to do academic-grade research with it, not so much.



* This also means that making any catalog like you want is basically an excercise in making a full database of all hilts found, ever, since even a single swordsmith would change particulars of his hilts as he went on.

[Lemmy]

So... I was wondering about the viking expansion...

What allowed vikings to be so successful conquering so much land?

By that, I mean... What was it that made them so difficult to deal with. What sort.of tactics or weapons?

And what did Alfred The Great (and whoever else succeed in defending against them) do to finally beat them (at least to the point where a treaty was possible)?

[Max_Killjoy]

So... I was wondering about the viking expansion...

What allowed vikings to be so successful conquering so much land?

By that, I mean... What was it that made them so difficult to deal with. What sort.of tactics or weapons?

And what did Alfred The Great (and whoever else succeed in defending against them) do to finally beat them (at least to the point where a treaty was possible)?


They did a less conquering than they did raiding. The short version is that they had a huge mobility advantage via ocean and river, and they were often attacking locations that weren't fortified or militarized. They could travel faster than word of their location might be able to.

The solution was quite often to build fortified locations where the locals could bring their valuable stuff and themselves and wait out the raids.

But raiding also declined because trade was often more lucrative, and places like Dublin weren't conquest as much as they were building trade outposts.

And there's the eventual adoption of common religion, which we can't get much into here.


OSP on "Vikings" (https://youtu.be/jjCcSQV1Epc?t=25)

[Khedrac]

A lot of what Alfred did was establish a network of towns as strong-poinbts across the country to enable a coordinated response. (Pre-Alfred settlemens were much more spread out, rather than concentrated in tows and villages.)

[Dienekes]

So... I was wondering about the viking expansion...

What allowed vikings to be so successful conquering so much land?

By that, I mean... What was it that made them so difficult to deal with. What sort.of tactics or weapons?

And what did Alfred The Great (and whoever else succeed in defending against them) do to finally beat them (at least to the point where a treaty was possible)?

Well, as far as I'm aware the vikings didn't really conquer all that much. They certainly explored a lot, and got into just about every corner of the globe they reasonably could. But their major attempts to actually conquer territory in France and Italy were beaten back. Now the Normans, which descended from viking raiders who were given territory in France (but didn't strictly speaking conquer it) did get footholds. But the actual lands the Scandinavian true vikings conquered are limited to the Rus (which is admittedly, impressively large), Greenland, Iceland, and parts of Scotland and Ireland, briefly England, and scattered settlements around the Europe's coast. But most notably with these lands that they conquered they faced down places that were less technologically adept and with a less unified government that could be overcome.

This is best seen and examined with the information we have on the invasion of England. The Scandinavians certainly gained a lot of territory fairly quickly. But a large part of that was because the Heptarchy were constantly fighting each other. It is not a surprise that when unifying figures like Alfred showed up, they were able to stop the viking expansion, and even push it back.

Mind you we can then get to actual successful conquerors like Cnut. Cnut was able to get warriors from all across the Scandinavian lands agree to fight for him (which is impressive in his own right). He basically landed in the south of England when no one thought he'd be (because of the superiority in ship based maneuverability as Max_Killjoy points out). Makes a B line to London before the English king can mount a real defense. Cnut fails to take the city (vikings weren't great at sieges). And when the king does get his army in order, Cnut and King Edmund have several indecisive battles, with Edmund winning a fair few. Before Cnut just gets one of the notable English lords to betray Edmund and switch sides mid battle. And that's how he won.

[KineticDiplomat]

As many above have pointed out, Viking success wasn’t really a weapons and tactics thing. Since people have already mentioned the whole “they succeeded most where governance was fractured and weak”, we can look at why they would be successful in the type of raids they fought - which likely has something to do with the game you’re portraying them in.

1st, it wasn’t uber weapons. Iron was not plentiful in Denmark or Scandinavia in general at the time - hence the iconic axe, the less iconic but exceedingly common spear, and massive shields. Axe and spear heads need less iron and less fine smithing than swords, and chain mail was hardly common. Against a local militia they might have some overmatch, but against an assembled host it is unlikely there would have been much difference between the weapons on either side.

What should be noted about weapons is this: the Vikings we’re famous in a period where missile weapons and cavalry were notably under-developed. Which meant that is mostly came down to a pair of shield walls ramming into each other.

Speaking of tactics, that’s it. That’s the tactic. You get your mass of men to form a line of overlapping shields, and you either pick a good piece of ground to stand on or you advance on the enemy. Then the battering begins, and if you have the numbers hopefully you can shove harder or extend your wall around theirs.

So then why the hell were the terrors of early England, parts of France, and so forth? Mostly overmatch against the forces they were fighting when raiding.

Imagine a few boatloads of Vikings meet the militia and a handful of the local lords retainers, who are all he could summon in time to respond. The Vikings may have a few more professionally equipped men, but they have a vital advantage beyond that: every one of them is at least familiar with the fight and is a volunteer of sorts. So a bunch of motivated men with some experience smash into a bunch of less-motivated militia with minimal experience. In a battle where there is no room for cleverness, just face-to-face butchery where whoever keeps the best wall and doesn’t run, he wins.

Then, assuming a success, a bunch of raiders flush on victory storm through a settlement where sporadic spots of individual resistance get swamped under by a weight of men as the area burns.

[Kaptin Keen]

I read once - in an actual book - that the vikings were almost as tall as people are today (actually, as tall as people at the time the book was printed, in the late 70's). I can't vouch for this, but it was a genuine text book at school, not some random internet source.

But if true, I'd say the viking quite simply were bigger and stronger, and that's where most of the succes comes from.

That's 100% opinion. No actual fact attached, except that book. But if you've ever been in a fight with a larger opponent, you know that counts for .... rather a great deal.

[Lemmy]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I know that vikings raided much more than they conquered, but I asked these questions because (I thought) they still conquered a lot of lands (wasn't there a bunch of dane kings in England at one point?) and were enough of a threat that even after winning a major battle, Alfred prefered to give them lands than to keep fighting them, from what I could find.

The bit about their mobility really makes sense. I made a little more research since, and apparently, one thing Alfred did was realize how important having a naval force was in fighting them, so he built one.

Anyway, thanks again for your replies. :)

[redwizard007]

I read once - in an actual book - that the vikings were almost as tall as people are today (actually, as tall as people at the time the book was printed, in the late 70's). I can't vouch for this, but it was a genuine text book at school, not some random internet source.

But if true, I'd say the viking quite simply were bigger and stronger, and that's where most of the succes comes from.

That's 100% opinion. No actual fact attached, except that book. But if you've ever been in a fight with a larger opponent, you know that counts for .... rather a great deal.

A quick google search reveals that a sample of 500 viking age burials reveals an average male height of 5'6". Modern Swedish men average just under 5'10. Not a huge difference, but notable.

I vaguely recall something from college that led me to believe that hunter-gatherers were generally taller than their farming neighbors. Wish I could recall the source.

[Brother Oni]

The bit about their mobility really makes sense. I made a little more research since, and apparently, one thing Alfred did was realize how importanty having a naval force was in fighting them, so he built one.

I did some research on this before and one recovered great longship of 60-70 crew had an estimated top speed of 17kts. Translated into practical terms, from it being visible on the horizon from the shore (~2.5 nautical miles), the vikings could have boots on the ground in about 9 minutes - not a good day to be a monk or a poorly defended village.

[Lemmy]

A quick google search reveals that a sample of 500 viking age burials reveals an average male height of 5'6". Modern Swedish men average just under 5'10. Not a huge difference, but notable.

I vaguely recall something from college that led me to believe that hunter-gatherers were generally taller than their farming neighbors. Wish I could recall the source. That's another good question. Was there ever a time where physical strength had a defining impact in a large battla? I mean specific cases, rather than a general statement.

It sounds like something that must have happened at some point in history, but for the life of me, I can't remember ever being taught of such an occurence... I'm guessing because advantage in human physical strength tends to be quickly dwarfed by advantage in tactics, coordination, resources, technology and numbers (and perhaps morale).


I did some research on this before and one recovered great longship of 60-70 crew had an estimated top speed of 17kts. Translated into practical terms, from it being visible on the horizon from the shore (~2.5 nautical miles), the vikings could have boots on the ground in about 9 minutes - not a good day to be a monk or a poorly defended village. That's impressive. Even st 1/3 that speed, that's not a lot of time to mount a defense (especially since monasteries and small villages probably didn't have someone watching the ocean for raiders 24/7).

[Max_Killjoy]

A quick google search reveals that a sample of 500 viking age burials reveals an average male height of 5'6". Modern Swedish men average just under 5'10. Not a huge difference, but notable.

I vaguely recall something from college that led me to believe that hunter-gatherers were generally taller than their farming neighbors. Wish I could recall the source.


I've read conflicting studies on how much the amount of protein and other nutrients in the diet of a population have a notable influence on average height, but in some populations it might be as much as 65% heritable and 35% environmental.

But, "common knowledge" about height, and thus nutrition and standards of living, might well be wrong -- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040902090552.htm

[Dienekes]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I know that vikings raided much more than they conquered, but I asked these questions because (I thought) they still conquered a lot of lands (wasn't there a bunch of dane kings in England at one point?) and were enough of a threat that even after winning a major battle, Alfred prefered to give them lands than to keep fighting them, from what I could find.

The bit about their mobility really makes sense. I made a little more research since, and apparently, one thing Alfred did was realize how important having a naval force was in fighting them, so he built one.

Anyway, thanks again for your replies. :)

The first Danish king of England would be the aforementioned Cnut. Now, one-hundred years prior there was land conquered during the Great Heathen Army's invasion that was stopped by Alfred. This created the Danelaw which basically split modern day England in two between those ruled by Danes and those who were ruled by the Anglo-Saxons. But even looking at the accounts of the Great Heathen Army, and the pattern is pretty clear. The vikings consolidated their forces and tried to fight individual kingdoms in the Heptarchy most of which were also at war with each other, or had been at war with each other previously. They attacked positions where the king's armies were not. They accepted bribes to go away, and then repeatedly ignored their own agreements to continue to raid and plunder. It seems to be the constant raiding and avoiding battle that did more for them in their conquest than anything else. After a year of raiding in which the Northumbrian king seemed unable to halt them or even meet them in battle, the Northumbrian king was deposed, not by vikings, but by other Northumbrians. The vikings then appointed puppet kings which set up even larger payments for the vikings. Mercia just continuously payed them off to leave, during which time the vikings again refused to engage in decisive battle but did capture several important cities. East Anglia, however, they straight up conquered. No question of that.

Anyway the army then split and tried to expand in two different directions. Which is when we get Alfred defeating Guthrum. As to why Guthrum was given a position of prominence even after defeat. That was kind of a thing at the time. Going back to the description of the brutality of shield wall warfare, it is hard to completely defeat an enemy to the point they have nothing left to throw at you. It is much easier to simply put them in a corner and then offer them terms they will agree to without fighting.

This happened with Cnut actually. When Cnut defeated Edmund, he didn't actually have him captured and killed. He just defeated Edmund's army in the battle in such a way that Edmund knew he did not have the force to really continue a successful defense of his lands. So they went to the negotiating table, Edmund remained king for the rest of his life and Cnut became his heir. It just so happened that Edmund died a week later, possibly from wounds in battle, possibly because someone. Not naming any names -Cnut- had him murdered.

[Lemmy]

I always found it kinda bizarre how so many kingdoms kept bribing the danes to leave when it clearly did nothing but encourage more danes to invade in hopes of getting the same deal.

[Brother Oni]

I always found it kinda bizarre how so many kingdoms kept bribing the danes to leave when it clearly did nothing but encourage more danes to invade in hopes of getting the same deal.

Once you've lived through the horrors of war, most people will do almost anything not to see war again, even if all you're doing is putting it off for a short time. Treading carefully because of board rules, see Appeasement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement).

[Lemmy]

Once you've lived through the horrors of war, most people will do almost anything not to see war again, even if all you're doing is putting it off for a short time. Treading carefully because of board rules, see Appeasement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement).
I suppose a temporary solution is better than no solution.

[Kaptin Keen]

Was there ever a time where physical strength had a defining impact in a large battla? I mean specific cases, rather than a general statement.

Mike Tyson vs .. anyone. I'm deliberately dodging the 'large battle' detail =)

Mike Tyson is actually not a perfect example, because .. while definitely strong, he wasn't tall, and that's the other big factor. But the fact remains that speaking generally, reach and power heavily impacts* any contact sport, and that has to mean it impacts any instance of 1v1 - also in larger confrontations.

Again: 100% opinion.

*Not discounting skill. And skill can beat both reach and power** - but reach and power is a much more common occurence than skill.
** Going out on a limb here, I'm going to guess skill outweighs reach and power in asian martial arts?! But the vikings met very few ninjas, so ... there's that.

[Dienekes]

I always found it kinda bizarre how so many kingdoms kept bribing the danes to leave when it clearly did nothing but encourage more danes to invade in hopes of getting the same deal.

Well here’s the thing. It actually worked at its intended purpose quite a few times. Alfred paid the Danegeld, to get them to go away. And they did. It was relatively rare that the payment did absolutely nothing, the only time I can think of where the Vikings ignored the agreement completely was the Great Heathen Army. Probably because that was supposed to be a conquering army and not just raids (though I’m certain there are other examples elsewhere). But usually, pay a raider to go away and they’ll likely say “yeah this money should last me a couple years. See you in three!”

The smart kings took that time to fortify and come up with tactics to defend against them. Alfred wasn’t the first to do that. He was just the most successful. Because most others thought in terms of “make this city better fortified” or “we need more elite fighters, quick, train them!”

Alfred was the one who realized that this wouldn’t do anything if the Vikings just maneuvered around the forts and avoided the army. So he instead created a network of reinforcing forts and a signaling system to create faster response times and a better navy to take away their advantages. And that’s why he gets called the Great while kings who were less successful in their preparations got nicknamed “the Unready” or “the Martyr.”

[Mr Beer]

I suspect that size and strength matters most in unarmed combat, reason being it's comparatively difficult to severely injure or incapacitate a much larger human being with your bare hands. Conversely a small man can still run a large man right through with a spear, fracture their skull with a mace or shiv their lungs with a dagger. Perhaps reach becomes more an issue than raw strength.

[Dienekes]

I suspect that size and strength matters most in unarmed combat, reason being it's comparatively difficult to severely injure or incapacitate a much larger human being with your bare hands. Conversely a small man can still run a large man right through with a spear, fracture their skull with a mace or shiv their lungs with a dagger. Perhaps reach becomes more an issue than raw strength.

So, I do swordsmanship. I’m not good. But the general rule of thumb in unarmored swordfighting, is skill is paramount. Skill trumps everything. But reach and strength are really useful. I am not an agile guy, but I am big and strong. I have completely blown through a fair few failed attempts to parry me. Now, if these attempts to parry me were performed slightly better this wouldn’t have happened. Which is part of the skill trumps everything statement. But given two swordsmen, both equal skill one stronger than the other, I’d bet on the stronger guy. One weapon master (I’m pretty sure Vadi but I need to check), just straight says stronger people have the advantage.

When you get wrapped in armor, if anything strength becomes more important as grappling becomes more useful.

Though honestly, I think in pitched combat the key attributes are more often endurance, discipline, and morale.

Oh and numbers. Numbers means a lot.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's also a lot of scholarly doubt as to the whole "line up and push" theory of ancient through medieval combat that's been brought up in response here. It's a very Victorian "everyone before us was dumber than us, except maybe the Romans" notion.

[Brother Oni]

I suspect that size and strength matters most in unarmed combat, reason being it's comparatively difficult to severely injure or incapacitate a much larger human being with your bare hands. Conversely a small man can still run a large man right through with a spear, fracture their skull with a mace or shiv their lungs with a dagger. Perhaps reach becomes more an issue than raw strength.

Most modern unarmed contact sports rules also emphasise size and strength; as an example, here's the quick list of prohibited techniques in MMA:


No groin attacks.
No knees to the head on a grounded opponent.
No strikes to the back of the head or the spine.
No head butts.
No eye gouging.
No fish hooking.
No fingers in an opponent’s orifices.
No biting.
No hair pulling.
No strikes or grabbing of the throat.
No manipulation of the fingers or toes.


In a street fight or one where their personal safety is at risk, you can bet any competent fighter would do any or all of the above to gain an advantage over their opponent.

Armed and unarmoured combat is very different - speed and skill are emphasised. Jackie Chan has mentioned that he regards Western fencing as the best combat style for this and a major reason why he included it in his film Shanghai Knights.

Armed and armoured combat shifts it more back the other way to unarmed, but skill is still significantly important (getting your weapon into a gap in your opponent's armour for example).

[Martin Greywolf]

There's also a lot of scholarly doubt as to the whole "line up and push" theory of ancient through medieval combat that's been brought up in response here. It's a very Victorian "everyone before us was dumber than us, except maybe the Romans" notion.

I wouldn't say there's a lot of doubt, it's been debunked where we have written sources, and only a few stubborn folks insist that it was done where we do not. I have a translation of three Eastern Roman military manuals from early medieval times, and they paint a very different picture.


Phalanxes are used to ward off enemy, not to attack
Archers are a part of a phalanx, used in a combined arms fashion
Cavalry reserves play a huge part, especially after defeat
Huge portions devoted to moving around in formation on battlefield
Western frontier (i.e. Balkans) is described in a very VIetnam-like tone, lots of ambushes
Enemy described as using the same tactics if disciplined


Especially the archery as a part of a shield wall bit is very telling, because it tells us that archery wasn't as undeveloped as you might think, you just need to imagine every shield wall with potentially two ranks of archers at the back. Sure, less developed than high and late medieval massed missile troops, but they still used the mixed arms approach when appropriate.

As for the Viking's supposed dominance, it's half myth, half a matter of perspective. They were no more or less successful than any nomadic raiding nation in early medieval times. They just happened to be aimed and England where the steppe nomads were definitely not, and most of history you see on the internet today is Anglocentric. Compare them with Magyars who managed to raid literally all of southern Europe in their prime, and they stop being so exceptional.

As for why, while the collapse of Rome didn't set back technology that much, only slowed its progress, the societal organization did regress considerably. Aforementioned Magyars were stopped by Svatopluk I in Great Moravia (basically at Transylvanian mountains), but after he died and his sons fought over his lands in a civil war, they were no longer capable of resisting them effectively. If you could either organize a large raiding force, or move quick enough to not be caught, you were basically set.


So, I do swordsmanship. I’m not good. But the general rule of thumb in unarmored swordfighting, is skill is paramount. Skill trumps everything. But reach and strength are really useful. I am not an agile guy, but I am big and strong. I have completely blown through a fair few failed attempts to parry me. Now, if these attempts to parry me were performed slightly better this wouldn’t have happened. Which is part of the skill trumps everything statement. But given two swordsmen, both equal skill one stronger than the other, I’d bet on the stronger guy. One weapon master (I’m pretty sure Vadi but I need to check), just straight says stronger people have the advantage.

Skill does not trump all. Lichtenauer tradition manuscripts repeat quite clearly that you should concentrate on physical conditioning, because it's better to be fit and unskilled than skilled and unfit.

Before you gain basic proficiency in using a melee weapon, anyone with skill can get you, regardless of his fitness, but after you have your basics down, the game changes. Knowing a technique does you no good if your opponent can parry and bind well and is faster than you.

Problem is, physical fitness has many forms - stamina in short bursts, lifting weight, quick hits with a stick, all use different kinds of strength. You don't need to hit tremendously hard with a sword, but you do need to have stamina for it, and the speed. In wrestling, you don't really need the speed that much, but lifting heavy weight comes in a lot more. Long term stamina does bugger all in a duel, but is tremendously important if you are in a battle after two hours of marching and it's sweltering hot.

Let's say we have a total fighting prowess T, relevant physical conditioning P and skill at sword S, and all are measured on a scale from 1 to 10. Well, first of all, gaining one point is easier the lower you are - and it goes logarithmic. Going from 1 to 2 can take a month, from 5 to 6 a year, and from 9 to 10 a decade. What's worse, you need to invest time to keep yourself at your current level and not slip down, and this time increases the higher you are.

And then, to get T, you don't just add P and S. Depending on where you are, one point of S early on can gain you 1 point of T, but if you move from 5 to 6, you only gain half a point. And it's not smooth and it is interdependent - 3P can give you half a point if you have 1S, but can get you two points if your S is, say, 4.

In the end you end up with a mess of a general system. It's better to just say that you should first focus on getting basic proficiency, then train up physically to where you want to be and then keep yourself there and focus on techniques.

[Max_Killjoy]

I wouldn't say there's a lot of doubt, it's been debunked where we have written sources, and only a few stubborn folks insist that it was done where we do not. I have a translation of three Eastern Roman military manuals from early medieval times, and they paint a very different picture.


Phalanxes are used to ward off enemy, not to attack
Archers are a part of a phalanx, used in a combined arms fashion
Cavalry reserves play a huge part, especially after defeat
Huge portions devoted to moving around in formation on battlefield
Western frontier (i.e. Balkans) is described in a very Vietnam-like tone, lots of ambushes
Enemy described as using the same tactics if disciplined


Especially the archery as a part of a shield wall bit is very telling, because it tells us that archery wasn't as undeveloped as you might think, you just need to imagine every shield wall with potentially two ranks of archers at the back. Sure, less developed than high and late medieval massed missile troops, but they still used the mixed arms approach when appropriate.


"A lot of doubt" was my way of trying to be polite about it -- "form up and shove" still gets repeated a lot online, but as far as I can tell it's just not supported either by the evidence or by actual common sense.

I was watching a thing on female Norse warriors last week (on Smithsonian Channel, I think), and based on skeletal evidence and grave goods in one burial, they think the woman was a mounted archer. A "viking horse archer", if you will.

[VonKaiserstein]

Average size of population is just that- average. You won't see a huge variation in strength and size- unless you're dealing with elite units, or handpicked crews. The Vikings also enjoyed that advantage because they brought their best against whoever happened to be in the village when they showed up.


There were also definitely units in history that selected specifically for size and fearsome nature in battle- the gallowglass, mercenaries of the 13th century, spring to mind-
A description from 1600, speaks of the Gallowglass as "...pycked and scelected men of great and mightie bodies, crewell without compassion. The greatest force of the battell consisteth in them, chosing rather to dye than to yeelde, so that when yt cometh to handy blowes they are quickly slayne or win the fielde.
Tracts relating to Ireland, Irish Archeological Society, vol. ii., Dublin, 1843

Being mercenaries, they'd travel much further than the population that supplied them. Because that's the only part of their population you would see in your life, in your mind the Scots-Normans would be a race of giant, fearful fighters. I'm sure they did nothing to damage that theory. "Oh no, I'm the runt! That's why I was sent out here to battle weak people on the continent. My older brother, now he's a head taller than me! Has to pick up the cow to milk it!"
So the size difference, while undoubtedly exaggerated, was probably present in elite troops of the time, kind of like how your impression would be if the only Americans you ever met were a professional football team.

[KineticDiplomat]

Re: Shieldwalls and Other Arms

It might not be "line up and shove" precisely, but the Viking era was mostly known for shieldwalls and wedges with close combat infantry, usually with other arms and tactics playing little part. For example, you never see significant cases of the following:

Skirmishers: Velites, Peltasts, Spanish Caetrati...you can find accounts of skirmishers preceding the battle for lots of antiquity. They even have a few famous wins, as the Spartans found out to their discontent at Sphacteria. You see virtually no reference to Vikings using them in any numbers.

Missile Troops: We're a long way from longbows and crossbows, to be sure, but there is also a conspicuous absence of other feared missile troops. After all, a look to antiquity would see slingers, Cretan and Illyrian archers, and other troops performing notable service on campaign and in various battles. Many middle eastern armies were bow centric. In contrast, the Vikings had some archers, but they never seem to get much mention. Towards the end of the Viking age, William the conqueror will neatly shoot arrows all day at Harold to little effect other than (possibly? probably? the debate rages) getting a one in a million shot that took Harold through the eye.

Heavy Horse: Neither companion nor cataphract, and certainly not the continental European knight. This one is right out the window.

Horse Archers: Yes, you can fire a bow from a horse, and presumably some smart Viking figured that out. But there are no accounts of it actually being used in a major battle. The Parthians, Eastern Roman Empire, and the Mongols will have to hold on to this one because it wasn't a common Viking - or for that matter, western European - tactic.

Light cavalry: Existed, but again there are no indicators it was used at the tactical level. Even the classic role of light cavalry, harassment and pursuing a defeated enemy, is consciously absent from Viking battles. Raiding monasteries and such, yes. Battles, no.

Which means, that when you got right down to it, you had blocks of infantry that had to fight other blocks of infantry. We should start with what we don't see - no indicators that formations were weighted on certain flanks or centers, a tactic which demonstrably is used in Greek warfare by Thucydides time and beyond. We don't see checkerboard deployments, or deliberate lines, ala the Roman republic. We don't see wings of an army working in conjunction with a center as you might at Cannae, or moving as deliberate tactical pieces. Though there are some cases where bands hared off after other foes, there is no indication that there was command and control like you might see in Alexander's divisions.

So, what's left? Men crashing in to men. It may not have all been Bad War (ok, I'm stealing that phrase from Pike & Shot times, but you get the idea), but basically it was lines of men going straight at it. Let's look at some battles:

Eddington: Alfred forms a shield wall and fights all day. Possibly by charging up and over a ditch.

Stamford Bridge: English surprise the Vikings! Slaughter! But then the vikings form a shield wall on the other side of the bridge. The English get across the bridge (after some Axeman stuff, possibly) and...form a shield wall and charge.

York: Alright, no shield wall here. Just guys going face to face in the street, murdering each other. Still, not exactly refined tactics.

Dyle: The Vikings build a hasty berm and anchor it's flank against a swamp. The French dismount their mounted troops, and attack head on in a mass of infantry, eventually winning.

There may have been space for ambush and deceit, cunning march and negotiated peace, but the actual fighting tactics are definitely in the vein of "the infantry gets up and at it." As for "people before us must be dumb", not so much as Viking England was a sideshow. At the same time, scholars happily note large scale campaigns being fought with combined arms and major operational maneuvers over in the Byzantine empire.

[Storm Bringer]

Well here’s the thing. It actually worked at its intended purpose quite a few times. Alfred paid the Danegeld, to get them to go away. And they did. It was relatively rare that the payment did absolutely nothing, the only time I can think of where the Vikings ignored the agreement completely was the Great Heathen Army. Probably because that was supposed to be a conquering army and not just raids (though I’m certain there are other examples elsewhere). But usually, pay a raider to go away and they’ll likely say “yeah this money should last me a couple years. See you in three!”

The smart kings took that time to fortify and come up with tactics to defend against them. Alfred wasn’t the first to do that. He was just the most successful. Because most others thought in terms of “make this city better fortified” or “we need more elite fighters, quick, train them!”

Alfred was the one who realized that this wouldn’t do anything if the Vikings just maneuvered around the forts and avoided the army. So he instead created a network of reinforcing forts and a signaling system to create faster response times and a better navy to take away their advantages. And that’s why he gets called the Great while kings who were less successful in their preparations got nicknamed “the Unready” or “the Martyr.”


minor point, but Æthelred, the king that was nicknamed "the Unready" wasn't famously caught off guard or anything: it's just a bad pun that got fomalised.

to quote Wikipedia:

" His epithet does not derive from the modern word "unready", but rather from the Old English unræd meaning "poorly advised"; it is a pun on his name, which means "well advised". "



sort of like calling giving a guy called "Swift" the nickname "the Slow".


I believe the infanty heavy armies of the Saxons and the Norse were more about making do with what you had. neither culture had the ability to produce and train large numbers of high quality warhorses, or significant numbers of archers able to use high power bows, so it was infantry only more or less by necessity.

[DrewID]

Armed and unarmoured combat is very different - speed and skill are emphasised. Jackie Chan has mentioned that he regards Western fencing as the best combat style for this and a major reason why he included it in his film Shanghai Knights.

Armed and armoured combat shifts it more back the other way to unarmed, but skill is still significantly important (getting your weapon into a gap in your opponent's armour for example).

Unarmed and armored combat is, of course, American football.

DrewID

[AdAstra]

I think each effectively multiplies the other. Physical prowess allows you to apply your skill and technique with greater force and speed. Skill and technique allow you to apply your physical prowess in ways that maximize effectiveness. A combination of the two will likely be a far more efficient use of training than focusing only on one, especially when you start running into diminishing returns on time invested. There eventually comes a point where you can't realistically get any stronger or more skilled with the time and resources available.

[Martin Greywolf]

Re: Shieldwalls and Other Arms

It might not be "line up and shove" precisely, but the Viking era was mostly known for shieldwalls and wedges with close combat infantry, usually with other arms and tactics playing little part.

Not true. We will see in more detail further, but first and most important point is that there is no such thing as viking era for areas that are not England. Early medieval period was dominated mostly by them there, but this was not the case in other areas.




Skirmishers: Velites, Peltasts, Spanish Caetrati...you can find accounts of skirmishers preceding the battle for lots of antiquity. They even have a few famous wins, as the Spartans found out to their discontent at Sphacteria. You see virtually no reference to Vikings using them in any numbers.


We have very few records of any kind, less so thorough ones. We do know, however, that infantry skirmishers were heavily used in this period by the Slavs at the least.



Missile Troops: We're a long way from longbows and crossbows, to be sure, but there is also a conspicuous absence of other feared missile troops. After all, a look to antiquity would see slingers, Cretan and Illyrian archers, and other troops performing notable service on campaign and in various battles. Many middle eastern armies were bow centric. In contrast, the Vikings had some archers, but they never seem to get much mention. Towards the end of the Viking age, William the conqueror will neatly shoot arrows all day at Harold to little effect other than (possibly? probably? the debate rages) getting a one in a million shot that took Harold through the eye.


Slavs, Magyars, Avars and Huns all made heavy use of the bow, either as skirmish weapon or as integral part of their shield wall, so did the Byzantines. Great Moravian graves have almost as many bows as spears in warrior burials.



Heavy Horse: Neither companion nor cataphract, and certainly not the continental European knight. This one is right out the window.


Again, no. Merovingian heavy cavalry was well known. We have woodcuts of them in mail and splint armor. Magyars and Avars did have heavy horsemen too, but the issue is their scarcity here, it seems to be limited to the chieftain levels of wealth.



Horse Archers: Yes, you can fire a bow from a horse, and presumably some smart Viking figured that out. But there are no accounts of it actually being used in a major battle. The Parthians, Eastern Roman Empire, and the Mongols will have to hold on to this one because it wasn't a common Viking - or for that matter, western European - tactic.


It was used pretty damn often in France, Italy and Spain during the Magyar raids, as well as by Huns and coutless others. Noin-nomadic cultures did also use this on occassion, trouble is you need to be nomadic to be able to do the shoot at full gallop thing, so most non-nomadic factions sued horse archers as mounted infantry.



Light cavalry: Existed, but again there are no indicators it was used at the tactical level. Even the classic role of light cavalry, harassment and pursuing a defeated enemy, is consciously absent from Viking battles. Raiding monasteries and such, yes. Battles, no.


Again, no. Light cavalry was used extensively by pretty much everyone, if only because it was often the only cavalry they were able to afford. Slavs, Byzantines, Magyars, Huns, all of them using it for harassing and scouting.



Which means, that when you got right down to it, you had blocks of infantry that had to fight other blocks of infantry. We should start with what we don't see - no indicators that formations were weighted on certain flanks or centers, a tactic which demonstrably is used in Greek warfare by Thucydides time and beyond. We don't see checkerboard deployments, or deliberate lines, ala the Roman republic. We don't see wings of an army working in conjunction with a center as you might at Cannae, or moving as deliberate tactical pieces. Though there are some cases where bands hared off after other foes, there is no indication that there was command and control like you might see in Alexander's divisions.


Except we do, when we have sources. Byzantine manuals give a very rigid structure of command, denote flanks and center and even mention the checkerboard pattern, although not as something to be used. The same sources also mentions ambsuhes and withdrawals of small units prior to a major battle, and so on and so forth.



So, what's left? Men crashing in to men. It may not have all been Bad War (ok, I'm stealing that phrase from Pike & Shot times, but you get the idea), but basically it was lines of men going straight at it. Let's look at some battles:


Yes, let's.

Lechfeld 955

German army has at least 9 contingents, with one being explicitly the center. Hungarian horse archers flank the army and are beaten back by counter attack. The main bodies clash, withdraw and a period of many smaller skirmishes follows, during which Hungarians attempt to retreat across a river, which is stopped by German leadership barring the fords.

Amount of Byzantines involved: zero

Western Franks vs. Great Moravia conflicts 8.-9. century

Armies are tentatively placed at at most 20 000 men, heavy cavalry is present and used, as well as light, there are also nomadic troops operating in their own units. We have evidence for a segmentation of army and chain of command in place, going down to groups of 100, possibly groups of 10. Light cavalry is used as scouts and harassers, and we have a lawbook that explicitly mentions reserves and camp guards as part of a battle.

Amount of Byzantines involved: some

Montfaucon 888

Vikings use cavalry.

Dover strait crossing 892

Vikings bring horses with them by ship to England, no mention if they were used as cavalry or mounted infantry.

Sulcoit 968

Not only do both Irish and Vikings fight as cavalry, Irish use skirmishers (javelins and darts, so both thrown and archers) as a prelude to main bodies clashing and make use of light cavalry. Viking army is explicitly lured away into a terrain that makes making a shield wall impossible, and Irish have to use two armies in tandem to make it happen.

[Kiero]

We have very few records of any kind, less so thorough ones. We do know, however, that infantry skirmishers were heavily used in this period by the Slavs at the least.

Showing your ignorance of antiquity here; skirmishers are mentioned countless times by many of the surviving sources for battles then. Not to mention pictographic evidence.

[Martin Greywolf]

Showing your ignorance of antiquity here; skirmishers are mentioned countless times by many of the surviving sources for battles then. Not to mention pictographic evidence.

We're talking about early medieval period. There are no Slavs in antiquity in the first place.

Just to reinforce the point of vikings using tactics more advanced than bash shield wall vs shield wall, here's an article on viking archery: https://www.judsonroberts.com/?page_id=1149

[KineticDiplomat]

Martin, I think we’re at a fundamental misunderstanding of intent here. The original post wanted to know about Viking tactics, not broader early medieval Europe. We all know that there are plenty of more sophisticated armies and battles going on throughout civilization at the time.

What the OP was asking about is what’s happening out in the primitive west, specifically what are the Vikings (more specifically, the Danish and Norse) are doing in the primitive west. And that is where we see the whole shield wall pre-eminence in battles that wouldn’t register as all that large down where the big boys are playing at the time. Which ends poorly when it meets the armies of civilization (what’s the one raid into Iberia that basically meets Moorish pre-knights and ends in a stiff defeat?)

I read the article you posted, and it leaves some questions: we already knew the Vikings used archers behind or around the shield wall (not that different from the Greeks, actually), but they are mostly accounted to be a secondary or tertiary arm to the clash of men.

If what he says is true, and the Vikings are all shooting proto-war bows, where are the early English Agincourts and Crecy’s? Why is it that bows that should be punching yard long shafts through chain mail - strong enough to pin a mans leg to his horse - only ever seem to kill someone when they hit the unarmored face or neck? I’m not convinced that finding sunken yew bows and some accounts that there were lots of projectiles being fired in any way changes the common vision of what’s going on.

[Jon_Dahl]

Some medieval armies, such as the Japanese and the many Muslim armies, had a custom that the best duelists fought each other before the actual battle. This tradition was not always followed.

Medieval Mongol armies almost never accepted duels before the actual combat. They simply did not see any point in having their best fighters fight single combats against enemy combatants.

Correct?

[Vinyadan]

I think that the reason for the success of the Vikings was, as other have noticed, that they came by surprise. It's similar to the Saracens (who appeared in a similar era, but continued their raids until the Barbary Wars). However, it was also pointed out to me that they could assemble large armies and strike a selected target, and could then carry on for longer campaigns, like they did at the time of the Siege of Paris. I do wonder, however, if their surprising mobility thanks to inland rivers was actually the reason of their boldness: if a larger army had come out, they would have been able to get away at great speed.

My favourite anti-viking tactic probably are the fortified bridges that were built to force them to halt their ships. Once the treasury was in trouble, however, the bridges would be left unmanned, and the Vikings would go there and destroy them and go back to raiding.


Not true. We will see in more detail further, but first and most important point is that there is no such thing as viking era for areas that are not England. Early medieval period was dominated mostly by them there, but this was not the case in other areas.

This was probably left out because of how obvious it was, but the Viking age is also part of the chronology of Scandinavia (793–1066).



There may have been space for ambush and deceit, cunning march and negotiated peace, but the actual fighting tactics are definitely in the vein of "the infantry gets up and at it." As for "people before us must be dumb", not so much as Viking England was a sideshow. At the same time, scholars happily note large scale campaigns being fought with combined arms and major operational maneuvers over in the Byzantine empire.

The Battle of Hastings also had combined arms (the Normans had archers, infantry and cavalry); but the English, as far as I can remember, simply had a shield wall.

[Kaptin Keen]

I suspect that size and strength matters most in unarmed combat, reason being it's comparatively difficult to severely injure or incapacitate a much larger human being with your bare hands. Conversely a small man can still run a large man right through with a spear, fracture their skull with a mace or shiv their lungs with a dagger. Perhaps reach becomes more an issue than raw strength.

I'd say reach is way more important in armed combat than unarmed (since most any wound will put you out of the fight). And ........... a larger man will still more easily wield a larger weapon, thus gaining an ever greater advantage over unarmed.

[Brother Oni]

Some medieval armies, such as the Japanese and the many Muslim armies, had a custom that the best duelists fought each other before the actual battle. This tradition was not always followed.

Medieval Mongol armies did not almost never accept duels before the actual combat. They simply did not see any point in having their best fighters fight single combats against enemy combatants.

Correct?

I can't speak for the Muslims, but the Japanese had a habit of boasting or proclaiming their exploits before a battle, so that their opponents would know who they were fighting and hopefully be intimidated. No actual dueling normally occurred at this stage (that happened later in the battle proper).

They stopped the boasting after the first Mongol invasion, since the Mongols didn't speak Japanese and just shot the lone targets that helpfully rode into bow range and stood still.

I'll have to look up whether the Mongols accepted duels - I'm fairly sure the early ones didn't, but I can't say about the later Mongol armies, after they had started going a bit native.


The Battle of Hastings also had combined arms (the Normans had archers, infantry and cavalry); but the English, as far as I can remember, simply had a shield wall.

Mostly because they had just completed a forced march of 200 miles up to Stamford Bridge to fight the Vikings then another 270 miled force march back down to Hastings to fight the Normans. They were primarily a shield wall, as conscripted infantry was all they could muster in time along the marches.

[Mike_G]

I'd say reach is way more important in armed combat than unarmed (since most any wound will put you out of the fight). And ........... a larger man will still more easily wield a larger weapon, thus gaining an ever greater advantage over unarmed.

Individual soldiers' reach matters a lot less than you think it does, especially on a battlefield. Your whole unit has to work together, so one tall guy can't fight to his advantage without screwing up the formation. And armor and shields help a shorter guy close distance safely. And the difference between a short guy with a spear and a tall guy with a spear becomes negligible.

The short Romans did OK. In WWII, the short Japanese and the short Ghurkhas were the troops who were most eager to come to close combat.

It matters more in a duel. This is why Epee fencing (the least combat like combat sport ever) is dominated by tall skinny people. The more rules you have, the better a tall, strong guy has it, since using your reach will never be against the rules, but sneaky underhanded small person stuff will be.

I am a tiny person at 5'3", and I was an infantry Marine, a nationally rated sabre fencer and now I'm competitive in SCA rapier and cut and thrust fencing. If you are short, you learn how to fight short. I KNOW my opponent will get the opportunity to take the first shot, all I have to do is stop the first attack and "grab him by the belt buckle" and win at infighting which most tall people are terrible at. I always have to fight short, they usually can rely on being tall. It's like how a lefty is always a lefty and learned how to use that. A righty can do all the same things to a lefty, but seldom practices against an opposite handed guy.

[Vinyadan]

If you are short, you learn how to fight short. I KNOW my opponent will get the opportunity to take the first shot, all I have to do is stop the first attack and "grab him by the belt buckle" and win at infighting which most tall people are terrible at. I always have to fight short, they usually can rely on being tall. It's like how a lefty is always a lefty and learned how to use that. A righty can do all the same things to a lefty, but seldom practices against an opposite handed guy.

It sounds vaguely like playing black in chess.

[Kaptin Keen]

Individual soldiers' reach matters a lot less than you think it does, especially on a battlefield. Your whole unit has to work together, so one tall guy can't fight to his advantage without screwing up the formation. And armor and shields help a shorter guy close distance safely. And the difference between a short guy with a spear and a tall guy with a spear becomes negligible.

The short Romans did OK. In WWII, the short Japanese and the short Ghurkhas were the troops who were most eager to come to close combat.

It matters more in a duel. This is why Epee fencing (the least combat like combat sport ever) is dominated by tall skinny people. The more rules you have, the better a tall, strong guy has it, since using your reach will never be against the rules, but sneaky underhanded small person stuff will be.

I am a tiny person at 5'3", and I was an infantry Marine, a nationally rated sabre fencer and now I'm competitive in SCA rapier and cut and thrust fencing. If you are short, you learn how to fight short. I KNOW my opponent will get the opportunity to take the first shot, all I have to do is stop the first attack and "grab him by the belt buckle" and win at infighting which most tall people are terrible at. I always have to fight short, they usually can rely on being tall. It's like how a lefty is always a lefty and learned how to use that. A righty can do all the same things to a lefty, but seldom practices against an opposite handed guy.

That .... that's nice.

If you have a general height advantage - or for any other reason, a reach advantage, then that beats - basically everything else. Pikes beat lances .... because they're longer.

I'm sure there's an equation - some sort of reach+power*skill sorta thing that let's you get pretty accurate odds for personal combat. Mike Tyson isn't tall, so power and skill must have have up the difference. But that doesn't mean dagger suddenly beats sword. Massed formations of men fielded longer and longer pikes - because killing the enemy before he kills you is how you win battles.

In the dear old shield wall + push, pushing works because it will break up the opposing line, and let you trample all over them. And it's easier to push over a smaller guy. Think of american football: There's a reason the .. what, line backers? .. are big boys.

But in the case of the romans, superior gear, tactics, discipline and training easily beat larger enemies (I have no idea if they were larger - all I've claimed was that, at one time, vikings were about as tall as people today - or so I read).

So it's not just the one thing. But even with my extremely limited knowledge of historical battles, it's fairly clear reach is not to be underestimated.

[redwizard007]

That .... that's nice.

If you have a general height advantage - or for any other reason, a reach advantage, then that beats - basically everything else. Pikes beat lances .... because they're longer.

I'm sure there's an equation - some sort of reach+power*skill sorta thing that let's you get pretty accurate odds for personal combat. Mike Tyson isn't tall, so power and skill must have have up the difference. But that doesn't mean dagger suddenly beats sword. Massed formations of men fielded longer and longer pikes - because killing the enemy before he kills you is how you win battles.

In the dear old shield wall + push, pushing works because it will break up the opposing line, and let you trample all over them. And it's easier to push over a smaller guy. Think of american football: There's a reason the .. what, line backers? .. are big boys.

But in the case of the romans, superior gear, tactics, discipline and training easily beat larger enemies (I have no idea if they were larger - all I've claimed was that, at one time, vikings were about as tall as people today - or so I read).

So it's not just the one thing. But even with my extremely limited knowledge of historical battles, it's fairly clear reach is not to be underestimated.

I'm 6'4" and I wouldn't last 10 seconds with the little leatherneck up thread, regardless of a 13" (assumed) reach advantage. At least with swords. Now give me a pike and him a spear and I'll take a shot. Reach matters when it is significant, not when its minimal, paired with training inequalities, made irrelevant with tactics, or otherwise negated.

BTW re Am football: you mean linemen. Line backers are rarely my size.

[Mike_G]

That .... that's nice.

If you have a general height advantage - or for any other reason, a reach advantage, then that beats - basically everything else. Pikes beat lances .... because they're longer.

I'm sure there's an equation - some sort of reach+power*skill sorta thing that let's you get pretty accurate odds for personal combat. Mike Tyson isn't tall, so power and skill must have have up the difference. But that doesn't mean dagger suddenly beats sword. Massed formations of men fielded longer and longer pikes - because killing the enemy before he kills you is how you win battles.

In the dear old shield wall + push, pushing works because it will break up the opposing line, and let you trample all over them. And it's easier to push over a smaller guy. Think of american football: There's a reason the .. what, line backers? .. are big boys.

But in the case of the romans, superior gear, tactics, discipline and training easily beat larger enemies (I have no idea if they were larger - all I've claimed was that, at one time, vikings were about as tall as people today - or so I read).

So it's not just the one thing. But even with my extremely limited knowledge of historical battles, it's fairly clear reach is not to be underestimated.

"Reach wins" with respect to taller soldiers is not "sword beats dagger."

If the taller soldiers were three times as tall, then, yes, that would be a useful analogy. If the solider is 10-15% taller, I don't think it's a significant factor on a battlefield.

Yes, a 12 foot pike will have an advantage over an 8 foot spear, but, again, that's a huge difference. I don't see any historical evidence of shorter soldiers fielding shorter weapons as a matter of doctrine, like Swedish pikes being longer than Spanish pikes because Swedes are taller or anything like that. The average French soldier in the Napoleonic era was shorter than the average British soldier, but French cavalry swords are longer. The Japanese carried the longest rifle and bayonet in WWII. Italians tended to be shorter than Germans, but Italian swords in the Renaissance are not markedly shorter than German ones.

I've agreed that reach matters a lot more with duels and formalized combat. You keep bringing up boxing. Reach matters a lot in boxing because the rules expressly forbid slipping past the first blow and taking your enemy to the ground. Of course a guy with an additional foot of reach will have an advantage in a game of punching. If you allow the short stocky guy with a low center of gravity rush him, then the game changes a lot.

I've done a lot of practical fighting, with different levels of seriousness, and while reach is never going to be a disadvantage per se, it's something I'd give up for more skill or more aggression or better gear. I've never had a reach advantage, and it's not something I've really missed.

Formalized sparring favors reach to such an extent that people really give it much more credit than it deserves. Again, I'm talking about the human factor in reach, not the spear versus sword factor in reach, because anything maters when it's an order of magnitude different.

[Lemmy]

I think what it comes down to is... Different factors have different impacts on different situations and skills...

And fighting in formation is very different from dueling. Put five amazing duelists together against 5 good-but-not-incredible skirmishers, and I'd still put my money on the skirmishers... Because they know what factors matter more for that situation and know how to better leverage them.

Personal reach is really important in single unarmed combat, but matters less in armed combat where a large percentage of the warrior's reach come from their weapons (so a 20% reach advantage becomes a 10% advantage, for example --- BTW, I'm just throwing random numbers to illustrate my point). And it matters even less in skirmishes, where there many other factors to consider (and also individual anything will matter less the more people you add to the equation).

I'm 6'4" in a region where the average male height is around 5'8". When I practiced Muay Thai, this gave a huge advantage, simply because I could get the first hit... And if I missed, it's not that much of a problem in unarmed combat, since rarely will a single small mistake cost life or limb. And of course, while I can't exactly keep the opponent out (since he can probably "tank" a hit or two to close the distance), it still made it harder for my opponents to use certain strikes. I actually had to specifically pick opponents of similar height so that I wouldn't become to reliant on my reach advantage.

All of that would change completely if the fights involved daggers... Nevermind swords and spears.

[Vinyadan]

I'm sure there's an equation - some sort of reach+power*skill sorta thing that let's you get pretty accurate odds for personal combat. Mike Tyson isn't tall, so power and skill must have have up the difference.

[...]

But in the case of the romans, superior gear, tactics, discipline and training easily beat larger enemies (I have no idea if they were larger - all I've claimed was that, at one time, vikings were about as tall as people today - or so I read).

So it's not just the one thing. But even with my extremely limited knowledge of historical battles, it's fairly clear reach is not to be underestimated.

You can watch the Tyson vs Buster Douglas fight to see a time when Tyson couldn't handle an opponent with longer reach. No one was expecting that, and there probably were strong psychological factors influencing the result (Buster's mother had died a couple of weeks earlier), as well as problems with Tyson's general preparation, since he had fired his trainer, who, watching him fight, thought that even his hydration levels were wrong.

Concerning the Romans, there actually was a description of a fight that saw the Romans as advantaged against the Germans because they were smaller and had huge shields, so they were very well covered, while the Germans were huge and made for better targets. Here is something similar by Tacitus (he's talking about a battlefield enclosed by mountains and mires, so that there wasn't any room for retreat):


In hardihood the Germans held their own; but they were handicapped by the nature of the struggle and the weapons. Their extraordinary numbers — unable in the restricted space to extend or recover their tremendous lances, or to make use of their rushing tactics and nimbleness of body — were compelled to a standing fight; while our own men, shields tight to the breast and hand on hilt, kept thrusting at the barbarians' great limbs and bare heads and opening a bloody passage through their antagonists

It's worth saying, however, that the Romans had an advantage in nutrition that they acquired early on when they gained control of the the Campus Salinarum near the end of the Tiber, from which they could always have as much salt as they needed. While it may not have made them taller, it did give them more strength and resilience.

[Kaptin Keen]

You can watch the Tyson vs Buster Douglas fight to see a time when Tyson couldn't handle an opponent with longer reach. No one was expecting that, and there probably were strong psychological factors influencing the result (Buster's mother had died a couple of weeks earlier), as well as problems with Tyson's general preparation, since he had fired his trainer, who, watching him fight, thought that even his hydration levels were wrong.

Concerning the Romans, there actually was a description of a fight that saw the Romans as advantaged against the Germans because they were smaller and had huge shields, so they were very well covered, while the Germans were huge and made for better targets. Here is something similar by Tacitus (he's talking about a battlefield enclosed by mountains and mires, so that there wasn't any room for retreat):

It's worth saying, however, that the Romans had an advantage in nutrition that they acquired early on when they gained control of the the Campus Salinarum near the end of the Tiber, from which they could always have as much salt as they needed. While it may not have made them taller, it did give them more strength and resilience.

What I've said is that it's a factor. Obviously, it's not the only one. I tried to make a little equation joke (power+reach*skill or some such) - but even if you had all the factors down, there's also sheer, blind luck, as well as numerous other factors: Reaction speed, physical readiness (including hydration, like you mention), and random stuff like how good is your eyesight, your balance, how high is your blood sugar ... everything counts.


"Reach wins" with respect to taller soldiers is not "sword beats dagger."

If the taller soldiers were three times as tall, then, yes, that would be a useful analogy. If the solider is 10-15% taller, I don't think it's a significant factor on a battlefield.

Yes, a 12 foot pike will have an advantage over an 8 foot spear, but, again, that's a huge difference. I don't see any historical evidence of shorter soldiers fielding shorter weapons as a matter of doctrine, like Swedish pikes being longer than Spanish pikes because Swedes are taller or anything like that. The average French soldier in the Napoleonic era was shorter than the average British soldier, but French cavalry swords are longer. The Japanese carried the longest rifle and bayonet in WWII. Italians tended to be shorter than Germans, but Italian swords in the Renaissance are not markedly shorter than German ones.

I've agreed that reach matters a lot more with duels and formalized combat. You keep bringing up boxing. Reach matters a lot in boxing because the rules expressly forbid slipping past the first blow and taking your enemy to the ground. Of course a guy with an additional foot of reach will have an advantage in a game of punching. If you allow the short stocky guy with a low center of gravity rush him, then the game changes a lot.

I've done a lot of practical fighting, with different levels of seriousness, and while reach is never going to be a disadvantage per se, it's something I'd give up for more skill or more aggression or better gear. I've never had a reach advantage, and it's not something I've really missed.

Formalized sparring favors reach to such an extent that people really give it much more credit than it deserves. Again, I'm talking about the human factor in reach, not the spear versus sword factor in reach, because anything maters when it's an order of magnitude different.

I never said ... most of that. And I'm sorry, but I refuse to get into a discussion of things ... I did not say. I never said dagger beats sword, I never said height was the only - or even the most significant - factor. What I did was give a few reasonably simple examples, which you chose to ignore in favor of things I did not say.

Sorry. Not playing that game.

[Corneel]

Re: Shieldwalls and Other Arms
Dyle: The Vikings build a hasty berm and anchor it's flank against a swamp. The French dismount their mounted troops, and attack head on in a mass of infantry, eventually winning.
Franks, not French. There's a difference (the Franks are Germanic, and gave rise to what would become the Dutch and Flemish, though they gave their name to France as the ruling elite there were originally Frankish).

[Vinyadan]

Franks, not French. There's a difference (the Franks are Germanic, and gave rise to what would become the Dutch and Flemish, though they gave their name to France as the ruling elite there were originally Frankish).

It surely is an interesting theme. You are right calling them Franks, and they definitely weren't French, since they were from East Francia; I personally would have been tempted to call them Germans, because the battle took place in 891, so after the Oaths of Strasbourg. The Oaths of Strasbourg (842) were agreements between the Charles the Bald, king of West Francia, and Louis the German, king of East Francia. The men of Charles swore in a Romance language, while the men of Louis swore in a Germanic language, so I see it as something of a watershed, although the passage from W/E Francia to France and Germany was nowhere near that immediate.

[jayem]

Not true. We will see in more detail further, but first and most important point is that there is no such thing as viking era for areas that are not England. Early medieval period was dominated mostly by them there, but this was not the case in other areas.
Except we do, when we have sources. Byzantine manuals give a very rigid structure of command, denote flanks and center and even mention the checkerboard pattern, although not as something to be used. The same sources also mentions ambsuhes and withdrawals of small units prior to a major battle, and so on and so forth.

And then the Byzatine's used Anglo Saxons to restock their Viking (Varangian) Guard.
(The Russians were also significantly viking affected, and the med (t)ra(i)ded. So they must have had some virtues, even if it were use of boats.

[Tobtor]

OK - I am a little late to the discussion (due to field work during weekdays), but wanted to give my opinion on several matters. I will not reference every point or post, but try to cover as much as possible

Vikings and tactics

I can see that some still argue for "shield and push"-tactics being dominant. I see for instance KineticDiplomat comparing to antiquity (for instance the use of skirmishers).

One problem is the that many of early medieval/viking era battles have no real description, mostly something like "two armies met on this date and this place and X defeated Y". This does no give any information on the use of troops. Sometimes you have a few notes applied "they fought long and hard" or "the battle ended when King of X broke the line of Y". If you only had similar very short accounts from the Roman-period, then you would have reached similar conclusions. So one problem is that we don't get descriptions of the battles, this we just see the end result (one army beats the other one)-

But let us examine the evidence. I separate between archaeological and historical sources
Archaeology:
We see stirrups in weapon graves from at least 800 AD (signs of cavalry or at least mounted infantry).

(semi strong) Bows had been a common feature in the army since the 200-400 AD weapon sacrifices I and we see "war" arrows in warrior graves from the viking era. Thus bows were "normal", and part of the army.

Javelins/throwing spears: again from around 200AD specialist "jevelins" appear in Scandinavian armies, along with larger "spear/lance" points. So we have both "skirmish" weapons and "line" spears.

We see large manoeuvrable shields, that can, yes be used "shield walls", but also as a skirmishers defence or used in other situations.

Thus from the archaeological sources there is nothing that point to a "one trick tactic" use.

Historical sources
As mentioned the contemporary sources are scant. But if we look at what we have of Frankish and English sources, and combine them with sligtly later fuller accounts (Dudos Norman chronicle, Icelandic sagas etc) we cant say that the period only had " line up and fight" tactics.

The Frankish sources mentioned that the Vikings often built fortified camps (dikes and/or palisades). This showing that deciding when and how to fight was important. Dudo (writing what was still the Viking era around 1000 AD, though he is partial to Rollo and thus not a neutral sources) describes several tactics employed; such as a feint retreat into a dike encircled fortress, luring the Frankish army into the camp and then closing them of in a trap, also pinching manoeuvres are described.

I fact many sources mentions "fake flight" tactics. The army fakes flight in order to get the enemy to follow (in effect trying to lure them of high grounds), and the when the pursuers have broken formation, turn around as attack them. This is of course a dangerous tactic, and requires that the soldiers troops trust their commanders, and that they are trained to fight and that there are various sub-commanders that can coordinate such a thing. But is very effective against less skilled armies.

As others have mentioned they did manage to siege Paris (several times, both in 845 and in 885-85 it was very large scale organisation work, requiring some skill). So sieges was also something they did.

Sagas descriptions of battle: while there is an emphasis on close combat fighting (seen in many cultures as we follow the "elite" fighting in close combat), we can see that there are many examples of skirmish tactics leading up to the final battle, such as ambushes etc. This is not much different from when you read Roman or Greeks sources: there is an emphasis on the "final battle", but this battle often first comes around after manoeuvring and many smaller skirmishes, and when one party is pressed to to do the battle (or is confident they will win).

There are is an example where htere have been a long day battle, and one of the kings reorganises his troops with all the archers in one part. He then uses the archers as a way of covering an attack, breaking the enemy. Thus use of "concentrated fire" to cover a assault.

Earlier sources
Here I shortly want to address earlier (ancient) sources. This is not directly relevant, but must be considered when discussing "barbarian" tactics of the north. I think Vinyadan already mentioned some sources (Tacitus). While we have examples of Roman sources point to a a tactic consisting of just attacking straight up, we also have other examples.

First up: attacking hard IS a tactics used, and definitely one used, by both Celtic and Germanic tribes and later Vikings. Some Roman authors also point to the fact that these are very hard to stand against, but some (like Tacitus and others) point to not only the Roman equipment bu also that it tires the attackers. So if that if you can survive the first encounter, highly drilled soldiers can brush it of. Think cavalry charges without horses. One reason why it might have worked very well against West-European armies of the early medieval is that large parts of the army wasn't professional like the Roman army was.

But secondly think of Teutoburger forest battle. Varus lost three legions, partly because he believed the barbarians could do tactics. Also Teutoburger forest might also qualify if discussing multi day battles in pre modern warfare, the battle seem to have been a series of ambushes over three days. Setting up an army of thousands of men for several ambushes, strong enough to almost completely destroy three Roman legions does not seem a feat you can do if all your men only knows how to form a single line and fight it out.

Conclusions
Viking era combat is more complex than it seem if you read very short entries in historical annals. Vikings fought naval battles, they erected fortified camps when moving around, they did sieges, skirmishes, pinching manoeuvres, applied various fake retreats, manoeuvred around in battles, and used concentrated archery to op enemy formations.

True, like the Romans, the core was foot troops, bot use of javelin throwers, archers and horsemen was also applied. And like the Romans did, using your infantry in multiple roles was also important (pilum attacks followed by close combat with sword and shield).

Size of soldiers
While 'big' isn't always better, many armies in history have have height requirements of their elite soldiers, thus we must assume it DID have an importance.
-Strength is one of them. While strong being hit doesn't save your from wounds or give you more "hit points" it offer you more strength to hit the opponent, using big shields and big weapons. Maybe its only a 5% improvement, but everything counts
-Reach is one of them. While I think Mike_G is right that it is more important in one-on-one. But in battles there might arise many situations where your are one-on-one or where extra react let you attack the guy to your right (or left). Again, mayne its just the little things
-Fear. Seeing a group of enemies larger than yourself is scary! Even in LARPS (where people don't die for real) it has an effect. I would imagine that it also do en real battles! It is also a thing the Romans note. If your army is really disciplined (like Romans legions) it might matter less. But otherwise, yes a huge advantage.

Now size have its costs as well. Large people consume more energy to move around, thus you need more food transported for each soldier. And then you need more transport animal, and then the draft animals need more food etc. But of course of you travel by ship the weight increase is unimportant, and anyway you can transport goods easier.

It is also noticeable that both Romans and later franks etc in the medieval period made notice of the size of the "northmen". They definitely thought it mattered, and while they might not always be correct we must assume they knew more than us of how it was to fight them.

A last little thing:

It's worth saying, however, that the Romans had an advantage in nutrition that they acquired early on when they gained control of the the Campus Salinarum near the end of the Tiber, from which they could always have as much salt as they needed. While it may not have made them taller, it did give them more strength and resilience.

I highly doubt this. There are plenty of central Eurpeopean slat sources for the celts, and in Scandinavia - if you eats plenty of seafood (oysters, fish etc) and meat, then salt is NOT a concerns in terms of nutrition (though it might be for conserving your food).
One important note on nutrition I dont think have been brought up enough: Milk. It is a steady source of protein AND it gives lots of calcium (for bones), and fatty so you get lots of energy. Milk drinking populations tend to be taller than their neighbours (not universally, but generally).

[AdAstra]

OK - I am a little late to the discussion (due to field work during weekdays), but wanted to give my opinion on several matters. I will not reference every point or post, but try to cover as much as possible

Vikings and tactics

I can see that some still argue for "shield and push"-tactics being dominant. I see for instance KineticDiplomat comparing to antiquity (for instance the use of skirmishers).

One problem is the that many of early medieval/viking era battles have no real description, mostly something like "two armies met on this date and this place and X defeated Y". This does no give any information on the use of troops. Sometimes you have a few notes applied "they fought long and hard" or "the battle ended when King of X broke the line of Y". If you only had similar very short accounts from the Roman-period, then you would have reached similar conclusions. So one problem is that we don't get descriptions of the battles, this we just see the end result (one army beats the other one)-

But let us examine the evidence. I separate between archaeological and historical sources
Archaeology:
We see stirrups in weapon graves from at least 800 AD (signs of cavalry or at least mounted infantry).

(semi strong) Bows had been a common feature in the army since the 200-400 AD weapon sacrifices I and we see "war" arrows in warrior graves from the viking era. Thus bows were "normal", and part of the army.

Javelins/throwing spears: again from around 200AD specialist "jevelins" appear in Scandinavian armies, along with larger "spear/lance" points. So we have both "skirmish" weapons and "line" spears.

We see large manoeuvrable shields, that can, yes be used "shield walls", but also as a skirmishers defence or used in other situations.

Thus from the archaeological sources there is nothing that point to a "one trick tactic" use.

Historical sources
As mentioned the contemporary sources are scant. But if we look at what we have of Frankish and English sources, and combine them with sligtly later fuller accounts (Dudos Norman chronicle, Icelandic sagas etc) we cant say that the period only had " line up and fight" tactics.

The Frankish sources mentioned that the Vikings often built fortified camps (dikes and/or palisades). This showing that deciding when and how to fight was important. Dudo (writing what was still the Viking era around 1000 AD, though he is partial to Rollo and thus not a neutral sources) describes several tactics employed; such as a feint retreat into a dike encircled fortress, luring the Frankish army into the camp and then closing them of in a trap, also pinching manoeuvres are described.

I fact many sources mentions "fake flight" tactics. The army fakes flight in order to get the enemy to follow (in effect trying to lure them of high grounds), and the when the pursuers have broken formation, turn around as attack them. This is of course a dangerous tactic, and requires that the soldiers troops trust their commanders, and that they are trained to fight and that there are various sub-commanders that can coordinate such a thing. But is very effective against less skilled armies.

As others have mentioned they did manage to siege Paris (several times, both in 845 and in 885-85 it was very large scale organisation work, requiring some skill). So sieges was also something they did.

Sagas descriptions of battle: while there is an emphasis on close combat fighting (seen in many cultures as we follow the "elite" fighting in close combat), we can see that there are many examples of skirmish tactics leading up to the final battle, such as ambushes etc. This is not much different from when you read Roman or Greeks sources: there is an emphasis on the "final battle", but this battle often first comes around after manoeuvring and many smaller skirmishes, and when one party is pressed to to do the battle (or is confident they will win).

There are is an example where htere have been a long day battle, and one of the kings reorganises his troops with all the archers in one part. He then uses the archers as a way of covering an attack, breaking the enemy. Thus use of "concentrated fire" to cover a assault.

Earlier sources
Here I shortly want to address earlier (ancient) sources. This is not directly relevant, but must be considered when discussing "barbarian" tactics of the north. I think Vinyadan already mentioned some sources (Tacitus). While we have examples of Roman sources point to a a tactic consisting of just attacking straight up, we also have other examples.

First up: attacking hard IS a tactics used, and definitely one used, by both Celtic and Germanic tribes and later Vikings. Some Roman authors also point to the fact that these are very hard to stand against, but some (like Tacitus and others) point to not only the Roman equipment bu also that it tires the attackers. So if that if you can survive the first encounter, highly drilled soldiers can brush it of. Think cavalry charges without horses. One reason why it might have worked very well against West-European armies of the early medieval is that large parts of the army wasn't professional like the Roman army was.

But secondly think of Teutoburger forest battle. Varus lost three legions, partly because he believed the barbarians could do tactics. Also Teutoburger forest might also qualify if discussing multi day battles in pre modern warfare, the battle seem to have been a series of ambushes over three days. Setting up an army of thousands of men for several ambushes, strong enough to almost completely destroy three Roman legions does not seem a feat you can do if all your men only knows how to form a single line and fight it out.

Conclusions
Viking era combat is more complex than it seem if you read very short entries in historical annals. Vikings fought naval battles, they erected fortified camps when moving around, they did sieges, skirmishes, pinching manoeuvres, applied various fake retreats, manoeuvred around in battles, and used concentrated archery to op enemy formations.

True, like the Romans, the core was foot troops, bot use of javelin throwers, archers and horsemen was also applied. And like the Romans did, using your infantry in multiple roles was also important (pilum attacks followed by close combat with sword and shield).

Size of soldiers
While 'big' isn't always better, many armies in history have have height requirements of their elite soldiers, thus we must assume it DID have an importance.
-Strength is one of them. While strong being hit doesn't save your from wounds or give you more "hit points" it offer you more strength to hit the opponent, using big shields and big weapons. Maybe its only a 5% improvement, but everything counts
-Reach is one of them. While I think Mike_G is right that it is more important in one-on-one. But in battles there might arise many situations where your are one-on-one or where extra react let you attack the guy to your right (or left). Again, mayne its just the little things
-Fear. Seeing a group of enemies larger than yourself is scary! Even in LARPS (where people don't die for real) it has an effect. I would imagine that it also do en real battles! It is also a thing the Romans note. If your army is really disciplined (like Romans legions) it might matter less. But otherwise, yes a huge advantage.

Now size have its costs as well. Large people consume more energy to move around, thus you need more food transported for each soldier. And then you need more transport animal, and then the draft animals need more food etc. But of course of you travel by ship the weight increase is unimportant, and anyway you can transport goods easier.

It is also noticeable that both Romans and later franks etc in the medieval period made notice of the size of the "northmen". They definitely thought it mattered, and while they might not always be correct we must assume they knew more than us of how it was to fight them.

A last little thing:


I highly doubt this. There are plenty of central Eurpeopean slat sources for the celts, and in Scandinavia - if you eats plenty of seafood (oysters, fish etc) and meat, then salt is NOT a concerns in terms of nutrition (though it might be for conserving your food).
One important note on nutrition I dont think have been brought up enough: Milk. It is a steady source of protein AND it gives lots of calcium (for bones), and fatty so you get lots of energy. Milk drinking populations tend to be taller than their neighbours (not universally, but generally).

You bring up a lot of good points here.

For the height thing, it might not matter much if you're one big guy alongside a bunch of smaller guys, but if you're forming a shield wall that's notably taller than average that might have more effect. Also a possibility is that tall people generally have a longer stride length. While other factors can kinda wash this out for running, a regular march is almost certainly going to be faster if the people involved are all tall (unless they have proportionally shorter legs). Not sure if it's enough to matter, but it's something.

[Tobtor]

You bring up a lot of good points here.

For the height thing, it might not matter much if you're one big guy alongside a bunch of smaller guys, but if you're forming a shield wall that's notably taller than average that might have more effect. Also a possibility is that tall people generally have a longer stride length. While other factors can kinda wash this out for running, a regular march is almost certainly going to be faster if the people involved are all tall (unless they have proportionally shorter legs). Not sure if it's enough to matter, but it's something.

Maybe for marching short distances, though there is also drawbacks. Tall/big people are likely to get "stressed" legs 8various injuries to joints and muscles), also going through mountains might also give you difficulties (balance etc). So context is important. Flat terrain and moving on ships are definitely good for big people.

[Kaptin Keen]

-Reach is one of them. While I think Mike_G is right that it is more important in one-on-one. But in battles there might arise many situations where your are one-on-one or where extra react let you attack the guy to your right (or left).

As I've stated before, I'm by no means any sort of expert - but I really seriously doubt this is true.

Sure, one tall guy in a line of men will make no difference what so ever. But if, in general, everyone of your guys is a head taller than everyone on the other side, that ENORMOUS. Pun kinda intended, sorry.

It may be the matter of inches and milliseconds, if you calculate how much taller is each guy, and how much faster is he to the punch - but then you multiply that by every instance of greater reach, and then you look at the numbers. If each side starts with 1000 guys, but the taller side is just that wee bit faster - just a fraction - in every instance ... then before the shorter side ever gets to draw blood, maybe they're outnumbered by 10%. Maybe more. It's how pikes work, that's literally the only thing a pike is good for. (no, not literally, pikes have other things beside length)

I'm just pulling numbers out of thin air. But there's quite simply no convincing me it isn't a factor.

Edit: Oh, and that's not even counting creater strength for punching through defences, and weight for pushing the enemy on his hindside - I'm sure the shieldwall+push wasn't ever the only thing that happened, but I'm equally sure when it did, having 10 punds extra for each guy in the line made - again - an ENORMOUS difference.

[Mike_G]

As I've stated before, I'm by no means any sort of expert - but I really seriously doubt this is true...

I'm just pulling numbers out of thin air. But there's quite simply no convincing me it isn't a factor.
.

And these statements, taken together, are why I'm so frustrated.

You admit to a lack of expertise, state your "belief," not experience, and say there is "no convincing you" that you're wrong

Plenty of things "feel" like they should obviously be right, until you test them, then we find out they're wrong.

I do claim some experience, like 30 years of combat training and sport and competition, and I don't believe, I have experienced, that reach is kind of nice, but not a huge factor, and becomes less and less of a factor the closer you get to a battlefield situation from a formalized one on one duel, and even more so the less rule bound the situation.

[Lemmy]

First off... Thank you all for yout replies to my previous questions. I really appreciate your commitment to sharing your knowledge with the rest of out community.

So... I've been researching other naval invasions besides the viking expansion.

I started looking into the Mongol invasion of Japan... I think I got the overall picture, but the finer points remain unclear to me.

What were the main factors for the Japanese victory? Kamikazes aside, from what I could gather the Mongols had access to better weapons and armor, but couldn't mount an effective naval force... Is that correct?

If so... Was that it? Was it something else? Multiple factors?

[Kaptin Keen]

And these statements, taken together, are why I'm so frustrated.

You admit to a lack of expertise, state your "belief," not experience, and say there is "no convincing you" that you're wrong

Plenty of things "feel" like they should obviously be right, until you test them, then we find out they're wrong.

I do claim some experience, like 30 years of combat training and sport and competition, and I don't believe, I have experienced, that reach is kind of nice, but not a huge factor, and becomes less and less of a factor the closer you get to a battlefield situation from a formalized one on one duel, and even more so the less rule bound the situation.

Well .. are we discussing your experience? Are we discussing 1 on 1 martial arts? No. We're not. I have been boxing for 15 years, I'm pretty good*, and I know for a damn fact that reach is paramount. But my 1 on 1 martial arts experience is precisely as irrelevant to this discussion as is your own.

I'm going to suggest we simply agree to disagree. Or, I welcome you to consider the argument won. If you know so much better, then why concern yourself with how wrong I am? Leave me to my misguided perceptions, and move on.

[Max_Killjoy]

First off... Thank you all for yout replies to my previous questions. I really appreciate your commitment to sharing your knowledge with the rest of out community.

So... I've been researching other naval invasions besides the viking expansion.

I started looking into the Mongol invasion of Japan... I think I got the overall picture, but the finer points remain unclear to me.

What were the main factors for the Japanese victory? Kamikazes aside, from what I could gather the Mongols had access to better weapons and armor, but couldn't mount an effective naval force... Is that correct?

If so... Was that it? Was it something else? Multiple factors?


Per a few different things I've read, there's some evidence that the Chinese and Korean ship-builders made some deliberate crucial errors (see, masts not affixed at the bottom to the hull, just where they passed through the deck, for one example) in the ships for the invasion fleet, and that some of the ships used were suited for river use but not ocean use, all of which made the ships more vulnerable to stormy seas.

[Mike_G]

Well .. are we discussing your experience? Are we discussing 1 on 1 martial arts? No. We're not. I have been boxing for 15 years, I'm pretty good*, and I know for a damn fact that reach is paramount. But my 1 on 1 martial arts experience is precisely as irrelevant to this discussion as is your own.


And this is where you are wrong.

I have done sword and shield combat, polearm combat and group combat. And I've done some training in small group combat where we weren't trying to win a game, we were learning and practicing how to kill people with knives or bayonets.

So you experience is in no way "precisely as irrelevant" as mine.




I'm going to suggest we simply agree to disagree. Or, I welcome you to consider the argument won. If you know so much better, then why concern yourself with how wrong I am? Leave me to my misguided perceptions, and move on.

I think you miss the point of a discussion board entirely.

[Vinyadan]

Size of soldiers
While 'big' isn't always better, many armies in history have have height requirements of their elite soldiers, thus we must assume it DID have an importance.
-Strength is one of them. While strong being hit doesn't save your from wounds or give you more "hit points" it offer you more strength to hit the opponent, using big shields and big weapons. Maybe its only a 5% improvement, but everything counts
-Reach is one of them. While I think Mike_G is right that it is more important in one-on-one. But in battles there might arise many situations where your are one-on-one or where extra react let you attack the guy to your right (or left). Again, mayne its just the little things
-Fear. Seeing a group of enemies larger than yourself is scary! Even in LARPS (where people don't die for real) it has an effect. I would imagine that it also do en real battles! It is also a thing the Romans note. If your army is really disciplined (like Romans legions) it might matter less. But otherwise, yes a huge advantage.

Now size have its costs as well. Large people consume more energy to move around, thus you need more food transported for each soldier. And then you need more transport animal, and then the draft animals need more food etc. But of course of you travel by ship the weight increase is unimportant, and anyway you can transport goods easier.

It is also noticeable that both Romans and later franks etc in the medieval period made notice of the size of the "northmen". They definitely thought it mattered, and while they might not always be correct we must assume they knew more than us of how it was to fight them.

There is a funny story about a German army in Medieval Apulia. The Apulians and the Germans were staring at each other across the battlefield, and the Apulians were terrified by their size, since they were a whole head taller. In the end, the Apulian commander had to ride alone up to the Germans, behead one of them, and then ride back screaming "See? They aren't that tall if you chop their head off!" The story is probably a legend, and I can't even recall where I read it.

On a more serious note, there was a provision in the Codex Theodosianus (7.13.3) which lowered the size of Roman recruits to 1.64 m (from 5 feet 10 inches to 5 feet 7 inches) for certain units. Vegetius would later say that a strong soldier was better than a tall soldier, and the same Codex Theodosianus recognised that some people were simply too weak or short to be soldiers (7.1.5).

There also is a pace in Polybius about how scary nude Gauls were to the Romans, since they were in their prime and physically impressive. (Histories 2.29)


I highly doubt this. There are plenty of central Eurpeopean slat sources for the celts, and in Scandinavia - if you eats plenty of seafood (oysters, fish etc) and meat, then salt is NOT a concerns in terms of nutrition (though it might be for conserving your food).


The advantage I referred to was early on, during the early expansion in central Italy. Having a steady source of salt when food sources could be disrupted by famine or disease wasn't a small thing; certain regions, like Sabinium, did suffer from lack of nutrients. There's also that, in theory, the Romans could block export of salt from the mouth of the Tiber, although I am not aware of them doing so.

[fusilier]

Maybe for marching short distances, though there is also drawbacks. Tall/big people are likely to get "stressed" legs 8various injuries to joints and muscles), also going through mountains might also give you difficulties (balance etc). So context is important. Flat terrain and moving on ships are definitely good for big people.

Frederick Engels did a series of articles in 1855 about European armies --

General Napier maintains that the British soldier is the heaviest laden fighting animal in the world; but he had never seen these French African campaigners carry, beside their arms and personal baggage, tents, firewood, provisions, heaped up on their backs to a height far overtowering their shakos, and thus march thirty or forty miles in a day, under a tropical sun. And then compare the big, clumsy British soldier, who, in time of peace, measures five feet six inches, at least, with the puny, short-legged, tailor-like Frenchman, of four feet ten! And still, the little Frenchman, under all his load, remains a capital light-infantry-man; skirmishes, trots, gallops, lies down, jumps up, all the while loading, firing, advancing, retiring, dispersing, rallying, re-forming, and displays not only twice as much agility, but also twice as much intelligence as his bony competitor from the island of "rosbif."

[Kaptin Keen]

I think you miss the point of a discussion board entirely.

Or maybe you do? My feeling is that one should engage in interesting discussion. I cannot for the life of me imagine why you'd feel this pointless bickering is worth pursuing. We don't agree. We never will. I've heard your argument - you've heard mine. We're not going anywhere.

I have friends who go to those big games in Poland, and actually fight in chain mail, with sword and shield, in massed formations. I'd dismiss their experience as handily as yours. It simply does not work that way. If you need a referee to tell you whether you're dead or not - you're not getting any real experience.

Now, I'm going to leave this thread.

[Vinyadan]

Frederick Engels did a series of articles in 1855 about European armies --

The way the French soldiers were loaded in Africa may have had something to do with how France generally kept the colonial budget as small as possible, especially compared to England.

[Brother Oni]

I started looking into the Mongol invasion of Japan... I think I got the overall picture, but the finer points remain unclear to me.

What were the main factors for the Japanese victory? Kamikazes aside, from what I could gather the Mongols had access to better weapons and armor, but couldn't mount an effective naval force... Is that correct?

If so... Was that it? Was it something else? Multiple factors?

As I understand it, the first Mongol invasion* simply ran out of men and then when they retreated back to their ships, they got caught in a storm and most drowned. It's hypothesised that the first invasion was primarily a 'reconnaissance in force' attempt and despite initial Mongol successes, once the Japanese had mobilised, the Mongols were defeated despite their superior experience (the Japanese hadn't been in a major engagement for over 50 years) and weaponry (catapult launched gunpowder shells among other things) due to numbers and superior knowledge of the terrain.

The second invasion ran into problems against the now prepared Japanese and the Mongols were unable to make landfall in force. Shortly thereafter, they were kamikaze'd and the few troops that were still on Japanese soil were mopped up.

There's a couple of differences between the First and Second invasions - the Second invasion had significant sea wall defences prepared, enabling the Japanese repel the Mongols. A second was the development of the shorter katana from the longer tachi blades - during the first invasion, the tachi had issued with the Mongol armour, often chipping and/or breaking.
Popular telling also has it that after the first invasion, the Japanese knew the importance of fighting for Japan, rather than themselves and their allies, but I suspect that to be national identity building folklore/propaganda.

I have head a possibly apocryphal tale that the thick shoulder armour of later Mongolian armour was developed in response to Japanese swordsmanship, primarily the downwards strike from a high guard (hasso no kamae, similar to right vom Tag in Liechtenauer).


*Really looking forward to Ghost of Tsushima, which is set on the island of Tsushima in the immediate aftermath of the Mongols conquest during the first invasion.

[Martin Greywolf]

A second was the development of the shorter katana from the longer tachi blades - during the first invasion, the tachi had issued with the Mongol armour, often chipping and/or breaking.

I have a host of problems with this claim. First of them being that Japanese did have heavy armor, and frankly, once you hit a hard object with a sword, the sword will eventually break, how well made the armor is doesn't matter that much. Furthemore, it requires Japanese to be idiots, since they are hitting a guy in armor with a sword - and we know they weren't, Japan has halfswording techniques to deal with armor.

More believable version of this claim is that they found out the tips on their swords broke off - possible when going against riveted chain mail with bad steel, but there's one problem bigger than any of these. Swords don't matter that much.

Japanese fought primarily with bows or polearms at pretty much any point in time - Musashi lists best weapons for battlefield, that being musket, bow and naginata. As long as your sword isn't of utterly appalling quality, faling apart after a few hits, it'll be good enough sidearm.

So, changes in sword design as a result of Mongols are possible, this being a major factor in any engagement is highly unlikely.




Popular telling also has it that after the first invasion, the Japanese knew the importance of fighting for Japan, rather than themselves and their allies, but I suspect that to be national identity building folklore/propaganda.

This is IMO more likely than you think - time and again we see enemies of Mongols thinking they are just another steppe horde and ignoring them while infighting - and then getting stomped. Khwarezmian and European invasions were both easier for the Mongols because of this, and Hungaruan is especially interesting as a parallel - Bela IV learned his lesson from the Mongols, started massive fortification effort in the kingdom, and thus made sure another invasion would have a much, much ahrder time.

In case of Hungary, second Mongol invasion did fail (or third if you count recon in force before the first as a separate thing), although it was definitely a smaller undertaking - for starters, it was against Hungary alone, not a aprt of two-pronged attack into eastern Europe.



I have head a possibly apocryphal tale that the thick shoulder armour of later Mongolian armour was developed in response to Japanese swordsmanship, primarily the downwards strike from a high guard (hasso no kamae, similar to right vom Tag in Liechtenauer).


This is just straight BS. That stance is literally everywhere:

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/065f0f_feb35c678f224134bb1bfcccea3dd1dc~mv2.gifhtt ps://static.wixstatic.com/media/065f0f_4b938299ae4348349496e79f34874b0c~mv2.gif

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RN2XNr6CWF8/RnVF1cKkapI/AAAAAAAAAN4/dENd98nGeWg/s320/Pers_Turkman_swords1388.jpg

https://worldhistory.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/aztec-jaguar-warrior-and-eagle-warrior-knights.jpg

And perhaps most damningly:

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/header-2.jpg

Mongols did meet people with two handed weapons using this stance, and likely used it themselves.



As for why Mongols failed, looking at Mongol invasions in wider context reveals why. Mongol armies were at their peak efficiency when they could use their speed to some advantage, usually by retreating at speed, often tricking their opponents into thinking they are routing. Hungarian invasion saw them retreat like this from Buda to Mohi, a distance of about 400 km, still keep cohesion, turn around, organize a major battle with three separete army groups and them immediately starting to pursue the fleeing defeated Hungarians.

If you decide to navally invade anything, you loose all of those advantages - there is nowhere to retreat to, especially not in a country that has castles the way Japan does. Besiege one and you get hit from two sides when relief comes, pass by and you get shot/harassed from them. Mountains don't help either, although Mongols were generally more adept at taking hilly terrain than you might think, they still had some trouble with it.

[Brother Oni]

Japanese fought primarily with bows or polearms at pretty much any point in time - Musashi lists best weapons for battlefield, that being musket, bow and naginata. As long as your sword isn't of utterly appalling quality, faling apart after a few hits, it'll be good enough sidearm.

While I don't have an issue with any of your counterpoints, I would bear in mind the date of the Mongol Invasions (late 13th Century) and be careful in using a much later source (Miyamoto was writing around in the early/mid 17th Century) to extrapolate influences.

[Martin Greywolf]

While I don't have an issue with any of your counterpoints, I would bear in mind the date of the Mongol Invasions (late 13th Century) and be careful in using a much later source (Miyamoto was writing around in the early/mid 17th Century) to extrapolate influences.

That makes them even less concentrated on swords, as Kamakura period primarily sees samurai serve as horse archers. I'd love to use sources that aren't Musashi for Japanese martial arts but, you know, I don't have any. Maybe there are some, but I haven't seen anything translated. The two periods that saw more significant sword use are Heian (straight sword and shield) and Edo (katana and wakizashi), and both are debatable even then because yari are a thing that exists.

[Squire Doodad]

I'm working on a character who has a sword slung behind his back. It's kind of a falchion-adjacent thing with a slightly curved blade.
I was wondering...is there a certain weight limit for the whole "weapon backpack" stereotype in real life, and what kind of weapons are a bit under that limit? It won't affect my character, but I was thinking about it and this occurred to me.

[DrewID]

I'm working on a character who has a sword slung behind his back. It's kind of a falchion-adjacent thing with a slightly curved blade.
I was wondering...is there a certain weight limit for the whole "weapon backpack" stereotype in real life, and what kind of weapons are a bit under that limit? It won't affect my character, but I was thinking about it and this occurred to me.
It's really more of a length limit. The blade cannot be longer, hilt to tip, than your arm. Because if you reach over your shoulder with your 80 cm arm and pull your 100 cm blade from its over-the-shoulder scabbard, when your arm is fully straightened, there's still about 20 cm of blade in the scabbard, and you can't pull any further. That's one benefit of a cross-body draw from a belt scabbard; you get to add the distance from your shoulder to the opposite hip to that 80 cm of arm, and that's how you can draw a 110 cm rapier.

As far as weight goes, properly distributed, you can carry as much weight on your back as you can carry period. I suspect that no single-handed weapon ever built weighed too much for a fit, adult human to carry on their back.

DrewID

[Lemmy]

I suppose he could have a slit on one side of the scabbard to make it possible to draw the weapon sideways after pulling it a certain distance...

e.g.: Using the example of the 80 cm arm pulling a 100 cm sword, the scabbard could have a 20 cm-long slit starting at its top. This way he could draw it sideways after pulling the blade 80 cm straight up. Could also make the slit longer so that you don't have to pull the blade the full extension of your arm before drawing sideways... But of course, the longer the slit, the more exposure to the elements it suffers (maybe add a fabric on top of the slit to give a little more protection). It'd still probably be slow to sheathe... But then again, if you're putting the weapon away, chances are you are not in a hurry anymore.

Probably still not good for quick draws, which can be deadly... But pretty good way to carry a longer weapon during travels and adventuring. Just keep a shorter one on yout belt for those moments when you need to draw immediately... That's pretty much what my last "wandering swordsman"-type character did.

IMHO, it's a good compromise between "historical accuracy" and "fantasy imagery".

[Vinyadan]

I'm working on a character who has a sword slung behind his back. It's kind of a falchion-adjacent thing with a slightly curved blade.
I was wondering...is there a certain weight limit for the whole "weapon backpack" stereotype in real life, and what kind of weapons are a bit under that limit? It won't affect my character, but I was thinking about it and this occurred to me.

I think the simple answer is that people didn't carry weapons on their back. Instead, they carried it on their shoulder. See the first one from the left (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Landsknechte.jpg) or the one here (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=74493&stc=1). Even today, marching soldiers either carry their rifle that way, or strapping it to their shoulder (or, in parades, sometimes holding it with both hands before their chest).

Practicality aside, I wouldn't worry about the weight. A Garand rifle weighs around 5 kg, which I believe is more than swords, longswords, or even most warhammers (the German Wikipedia lists some Lucerne Hammer at 14 kg, I have no idea if it's true). A beginner will huff and puff beneath a 10-20 kg backpack, but he still will be able to walk long distances (20-40 km).

[fusilier]

In later time periods I've heard soldiers would sling their "hangers" over their backs on long marches. During WW1, American doughboys attached their bayonets to the knapsack with the hilt sticking up over the left shoulder -- I've seen many reenactors struggle to reach it, and if they do get it out, somebody else has to return it to the scabbard! But it was the official way of carrying it (when the knapsack was worn).

Sword scabbards worn on the side are more convenient for drawing a sword quickly. At the same time they can be annoying: while running sometimes the scabbard can end up between the legs tripping the runner. Leather scabbards were supposedly preferred for infantry for this reason -- the idea being that they were flexible enough to not trip up the runner -- although if your sword is in the scabbard it doesn't matter (furthermore all modern leather scabbards I've seen are too stiff). Proper adjustment of the sword belt/frog can help, but if my off hand is free I usually keep it on the scabbard. They can also be a bit of a pain getting caught on things, and on long marches can bounce against the hip.

So the desire to carry a sword on the back is understandable. I can imagine that it would be useful if scrambling up a mountain or over boulders; freeing up the hands and keeping the sword well out of the way. That said, there's scant evidence that it was done historically, and there's probably good reason for that.

[KineticDiplomat]

A major consideration for a Geralt-esque sword on back is that precisely the situations it’d be most useful for - easily distributes weight and leaves hands and legs tangle free during long marches, climbing, etc. - are the situations you are most likely to be carrying a pack of your own. Which would then either sit over the sword (uncomfortable, inconvenient, and breaks the sacred mantra of keep the load close and high on your back), or under it (the sword now sticks out from behind at an angle and you have to avoid hitting your head with the hilt...preferable, but not exactly “rush in to battle”).

[Pauly]

From an historical perspective back scabbards were generally not a thing. The vast majority of sword users used a side scabbard.

When they did use back scabbards it was generally as place to carry the sword when it wasn’t in use. Examples being landschnects carry zweihanders and samurai carrying no-dachi, which are long swords that would be inconvenient/impractical to carry in a side scabbard. Other examples being engineers and artillerymen slinging their swords in their backs because they needed both hands free and their legs unimpeded while they did their main job. There are some examples of photos of Chinese soldiers wearing short falchion like blades on their backs in the 19th century, but I don’t the context of why they were carrying the sword in their back. Sailors would often carry their swords slung across their back, but in the age of sail you had plenty of time to move the sword from the back to the hand, so there was no quick draw from the back.

From a practical perspective shadiversity on you tube has constructed a practical back scabbard for European longswords and has some videos about how to construct and use it. If you want your character to be Geralt or Groo the Barbarian (the original Deadpool with dual katanas in a back scabbard ) then it is possible to build a functioning back scabbard.

From an historical perspective side scabbards were so useful and universal that no one went to the trouble of inventing a quick draw able to use the sword immediately back scabbard. As far as I can ascertain sword that were carried on the back historically were done so for the purpose of making it easier to carry while they did other things, not for the purpose of being able to wield the weapon quickly

[Martin Greywolf]

Historical aspect of back scabbards is easily determined, so I'll address the practical alone.

First off, if you have a backpack or anything else that takes up your back, like a cloak, forget about it, you have better things to carry on your back. Sure, you can sort of do it with a cloak - if you ingore that cloak is supposed to be a waterproof thing, so any slit in it is bad, and easily removable if you get into fighting, so any additional straps over it are bad. Most cloaks also have a separat hood that covers the top of your shoulders, so you have two things getting in the way.

One thing people ever so often forget and/or don't have experience with is moving around in unaltered terrain. I don't mean really hard stuff like alpine, just your ordinary forest full of shrubs and thorns when you aren't following a trail. That is the context in which you have to consider using a back scabbard - while army is likely to follow the roads most of the time, it will often stray from them, possibly to fan out its front shieldwall.

Yes, Shad's back scabbard works well in his backyard, or in modern forest without much undergrowth and with branches high up, but once you start to have low ceiling, problems start. Not only will your sword snag, unlike side scabbard, it will have a tendency to topple you if you move too quickly, and you will not be able to see where and how it is stuck, especially if wearing a helmet or hood. Side scabbards do snag, but because of how they are strapped to your hip, you pull the out of snaggage by moving forward vast majority of the time.

Just about the only viable way to do this is to use the scabbard as you would a rifle sling. Sometimes, you will have the sword across your back, sometimes only slung over one shoulder along the backpack, sometimes just carry it in your hand. You see this done historically in two cases. Either the sword is your main weapon and you will have it in hand long before action starts, so sidearm concern of being able to get to it quickly doesn't apply, and you are likely carrying it on the baggage train anyway - this is the samurai and Landsknecht case. Or the scabbard is not particularly well made, so you just do the easiest thing to make it work and attach string to two places and make do - this is the case in those famous Chinese photos.

Unfortunately, this means that Witchers are exactly the sort of people that would avoid back scabbards like the plague - they have to go into wilderness on foot to fight animals that can pounce at any second. Since they need two swords, something like a double scabbard for the hip would probably be best for them.

[Kaptin Keen]

My conclusion is that there is only one truly viable solution for scabbards - single, double, side, back .. it's all the same. The Golfer's Option is the only way to go.

That is, have a sword caddie carry your implements of death, and just ask for the one you need. As in:

Ah, another Manticore. May I propose your #3 sword, Sir?

No thank you Jeeves old sport, I think I'll try the #7, see if I can land it's head in yonder pond.

[Pauly]

My conclusion is that there is only one truly viable solution for scabbards - single, double, side, back .. it's all the same. The Golfer's Option is the only way to go.

That is, have a sword caddie carry your implements of death, and just ask for the one you need. As in:

Ah, another Manticore. May I propose your #3 sword, Sir?

No thank you Jeeves old sport, I think I'll try the #7, see if I can land it's head in yonder pond.

There is a Japanese samurai/comedy movie that does exactly this. I forget the name of it, but it was exactly as you described.

[Dienekes]

My conclusion is that there is only one truly viable solution for scabbards - single, double, side, back .. it's all the same. The Golfer's Option is the only way to go.

That is, have a sword caddie carry your implements of death, and just ask for the one you need. As in:

Ah, another Manticore. May I propose your #3 sword, Sir?

No thank you Jeeves old sport, I think I'll try the #7, see if I can land it's head in yonder pond.

For the record. Some medieval knights had a position called the armsbearer. This is pretty much what they did.

[DrewID]

My conclusion is that there is only one truly viable solution for scabbards - single, double, side, back .. it's all the same. The Golfer's Option is the only way to go.

That is, have a sword caddie carry your implements of death, and just ask for the one you need. As in:

Ah, another Manticore. May I propose your #3 sword, Sir?

No thank you Jeeves old sport, I think I'll try the #7, see if I can land it's head in yonder pond.

Dash it all! Sliced it!

A Manticore? Should have gone with the glaive, old bean.

DrewID

[Brother Oni]

For the record. Some medieval knights had a position called the armsbearer. This is pretty much what they did.

Wasn't this also one of a squire's duties for his knight?

I know a mounted samurai typically went around with anything up to 3 ashigaru and a non-combatant groom to hold the horse when the samurai dismounted to fight.

[Dienekes]

Wasn't this also one of a squire's duties for his knight?

I know a mounted samurai typically went around with anything up to 3 ashigaru and a non-combatant groom to hold the horse when the samurai dismounted to fight.

Sometimes. There really isn't a lot of consistency as far as I can tell. There were even knights that had several armsbearers and squires. I've seen theories that in such situations armsbearers carried weapons while squires were more concerned with armor and horses. Others have theorized that armsbearers were a more active combatant, meaning that the armsbearer was a fighting servant as opposed to someone who's job it was to hold weapons. But in the Gesta Tancredi there are several situations where the armsbearers just sort of stand back to let the knights fight, so I'm not particularly convinced by that one. Though it could of course just be a situation where the role changed over time.

[Storm Bringer]

Sometimes. There really isn't a lot of consistency as far as I can tell. There were even knights that had several armsbearers and squires. I've seen theories that in such situations armsbearers carried weapons while squires were more concerned with armor and horses. Others have theorized that armsbearers were a more active combatant, meaning that the armsbearer was a fighting servant as opposed to someone who's job it was to hold weapons. But in the Gesta Tancredi there are several situations where the armsbearers just sort of stand back to let the knights fight, so I'm not particularly convinced by that one. Though it could of course just be a situation where the role changed over time.

doubtless, this will be ANOTHER situation where everything is needlessly complicated by the subtle shifting of meanings in words over time and space, so where one writer uses it in one way and another in a second, different way, and both are "correct".

it could be that the difference between armbearers and squires is a social one, in that many squires were in theory "knights in training", and many thus of some social standing, as opposed to a "commoner" armsbearer.

just to muddy the waters a little more, the Wikipedia article on squires has this litte tidbit of etymology:


Squire is a shortened version of the word esquire, from the Old French escuier (modern French écuyer), itself derived from the Late Latin scutarius ("shield bearer"), in medieval or Old English a scutifer. The Classical Latin equivalent was armiger ("arms bearer").


so, it could very well be that "Squire" and "Arms Bearer" were Synonyms, at least in some times and places.

[Mike_G]

To further complicate things, does "bearing arms" mean just schlepping them for somebody else, or "bearing arms" as in being armed and using said arms in combat?

[Vinyadan]

so, it could very well be that "Squire" and "Arms Bearer" were Synonyms, at least in some times and places.

From the glorious Du Cange dictionary:

"Ut enim Scutiferi pro Armigeri, ita Armigerium loco Scutagium dici facile potest."

"Indeed, it's frequent that scutiferus is said instead of armiger, and armigerium (military service) instead of scutagium".

"Et armigeri illorum, qui vulgo Scutarii appellantur."

"And their armigeri, who are called scutarii by the folk".

So, yes.

There's also a meaning:

Faciet Scutarios, vel Imperatorum protectores.

"Scutarii, the protectors of Emperors". The mosaics in Ravenna do show Justinian surrounded by guards bearing a shield. And these guys were carrying them to use them, if need be. In this sense, it's synonimous with excubitor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excubitors).


To further complicate things, does "bearing arms" mean just schlepping them for somebody else, or "bearing arms" as in being armed and using said arms in combat?

Armiger could be used with the meaning of someone guarding a place, bearing arms which he didn't own to use them if need be.

[Willie the Duck]

doubtless, this will be ANOTHER situation where everything is needlessly complicated by the subtle shifting of meanings in words over time and space, so where one writer uses it in one way and another in a second, different way, and both are "correct".

To say nothing of the possibility that the individuals in question's roles might have changed on a situational basis (fighting alongside in one instance, merely schlepping the weapons in another).

[Vinyadan]

BTW, there also is the word "spatharius" which is pretty similar (sword-bearer). :smallbiggrin: And, as "scutarius" can mean "maker of shields", so can "spatharius" mean "maker of swords". The Spatharii also were imperial bodyguards in Constantinople, and later a title of honour.

And then you have "arcarius", which can mean bowman or the caretaker of the public arca = treasure. Apparently it wasn't used for "maker of bows", but it may have been used for "maker of boxes".

[Max_Killjoy]

To say nothing of the possibility that the individuals in question's roles might have changed on a situational basis (fighting alongside in one instance, merely schlepping the weapons in another).

It's also possible that certain written accounts from the time have different agendas.

An author may wish to aggrandize the role of the knight and his honor, and thus present the situation as "of course these other guys didn't fight, that's the role of the knight". Or something.

[Pauly]

To further complicate things, does "bearing arms" mean just schlepping them for somebody else, or "bearing arms" as in being armed and using said arms in combat?

Bearing arms, has from long historical legal precedent, meant carrying weapons that are capable of combat.
So things like a BB gun or a 5cm pocket knife are not considered “arms”.
Things get grey with things like large hunting knives, shotguns (aka fowling pieces), or low power rifles for small game

[Willie the Duck]

Bearing arms, has from long historical legal precedent, meant carrying weapons that are capable of combat.
So things like a BB gun or a 5cm pocket knife are not considered “arms”.
Things get grey with things like large hunting knives, shotguns (aka fowling pieces), or low power rifles for small game

What constitute an armament doesn't seem germane to Mike_G's point. He seemed to have been asking what you had to be doing with something that is defined as an arm to be 'bearing' it.

[Vinyadan]

It's also possible that certain written accounts from the time have different agendas.

An author may wish to aggrandize the role of the knight and his honor, and thus present the situation as "of course these other guys didn't fight, that's the role of the knight". Or something.

I wonder if it may have had something to do with two considerations. One is tactical: the helpers might simply not have been armed well enough to go against a knight with acceptable danger. No reason not to charge a bunch of peasants, though: if things go awry, you can just gallop away.
The other one could have been a social expectation knights fight knights, in a way vaguely similar to duels.

I am just speculating, I have no sources for these.

[Mike_G]

Interesting sparring video.

Four fighters with bayonets versus an ever increasing number of swordsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

Bayonets rock.

[AdAstra]

Interesting sparring video.

Four fighters with bayonets versus an ever increasing number of swordsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

Bayonets rock.

Blades on sticks, what more can you say?

[Vinyadan]

Blades on sticks, what more can you say?

After "Snakes on a Plane" , prepare to witness the new badassery sensation with "Stakes with a Blade!"

Cue Samuel Jackson in revolutionary uniform grumbling about the {Scrubbed} English.

[Brother Oni]

Interesting sparring video.

Four fighters with bayonets versus an ever increasing number of swordsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

Bayonets rock.

Given how the video was labelled, I can guess which side you were rooting for. :smalltongue:


Cue Samuel Jackson in revolutionary uniform grumbling about the {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} English.

{Scrubbed}. :smallbiggrin:

[Vinyadan]

This is what happened at Culloden, isn't it? The Scots had a fairly effective tactic of gearing themselves with targes, broadswords, and handguns, dropping to the ground when the English shot, and then charging the English while they were still trying to attach the bayonets, and the Jacobites (many of whom were Scots) tried it out against Governmental forces. These however had socket bayonets that didn't need to be removed for shooting, and won the battle, pretty much ending the uprising.

[Lemmy]

Blades on sticks, what more can you say?Pfff... Fools... All they needed to do was take a 5-ft step instead of charging. This way they wouldn't have provoked so many AoO!

[Vinyadan]

Given how the video was labelled, I can guess which side you were rooting for. :smalltongue:


About the title, I think it would be cool if they did something like this with objects here and there to simulate a boarding action. You know, some low walls the pirates have to get over, and then crates, stairs, and cramped space.

But I guess that it would increase the risk of injury by falling to unacceptable levels.

Also, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULQlg8RgkkA&feature=youtu.be).

[BlacKnight]

Why do the swordmen keep their blades in that position, on their right with the point down? It seems terrible to parry stabs.

[Dienekes]

Why do the swordmen keep their blades in that position, on their right with the point down? It seems terrible to parry stabs.

Now forewarning, I use longsword and am not all that great, so someone with better experience may come to correct me. But I’ve talked, fought against, and watched a fair few of the Sabre fighters at my guild. And it’s not as bad as you’d think. That’s a hanging guard, and from that position you get one very strong whip of a cut. And importantly, if you do it right a similar movement of moving the arm across your body while the wrist rotates to keep the blade in presence should cover the majority of your torso and head in one single action (with slight adjustments that a good swordsman should make fairly automatically).

It may be slightly slower than having the weapon forward, however, I suspect the strength gained from the movement may be much more important when trying to move aside a thrust made by a heavier, longer weapon held in two hands to your one.

[redwizard007]

Interesting sparring video.

Four fighters with bayonets versus an ever increasing number of swordsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

Bayonets rock.

It's almost like long thrusting weapons have some sort of inherent advantage against shorter slashing weapons.

More seriously, I'm surprised to see no strikes with the stock of the "rifles." That was a big deal when I went through Paris Island. Neat video over all

[fusilier]

Why do the swordmen keep their blades in that position, on their right with the point down? It seems terrible to parry stabs.

If I remember correctly, Angelo's manual shows that kind of a guard in saber vs. bayonet combat. The idea was to parry the bayonet towards the off hand, grab the gun at the muzzle, then step in and cut.

I've seen similar videos with these fencing muskets before, and I know I've mentioned it before -- those plastic muskets are lighter than the real thing! Probably quicker, but also probably easier to parry.

[fusilier]

It's almost like long thrusting weapons have some sort of inherent advantage against shorter slashing weapons.

More seriously, I'm surprised to see no strikes with the stock of the "rifles." That was a big deal when I went through Paris Island. Neat video over all

I'm familiar with American Civil War bayonet drill, which I don't think they are using, where strikes with the stock of the musket usually were used when you were pressed in close. I'm not sure if they were particularly useful in bayonet versus sword though, as the reach is a lot shorter.

[Brother Oni]

About the title, I think it would be cool if they did something like this with objects here and there to simulate a boarding action. You know, some low walls the pirates have to get over, and then crates, stairs, and cramped space.

But I guess that it would increase the risk of injury by falling to unacceptable levels.

You don't really want a risk of falling with sharp pointy implements around - far too much chance of people falling onto them.


Also, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULQlg8RgkkA&feature=youtu.be).

What did I ever to you to deserve this? :smallfrown:

[Mike_G]

It's almost like long thrusting weapons have some sort of inherent advantage against shorter slashing weapons.

More seriously, I'm surprised to see no strikes with the stock of the "rifles." That was a big deal when I went through Paris Island. Neat video over all

Part of that is probably reach, where your point has the advantage at distance, but the sword would have the advantage in close, where the buttstroke would be used, so you want to stab him before he gets there, and part may be safety, since the "bayonet" is flexible but the musket stock is a big heavy hunk of plastic and would hit with a lot of force. If you're fighting bayonet to bayonet, then once your point is past him, you use the butt. I love the tactic of thrusting at the face, then swinging the butt around to hit him in the side of the head when he parries the point.

The other point that I saw that nobody has brought up much is that a co-ordinated line of men with bayonets is tough to close with, since even if you deflect one and close, the guy's buddy can stab you on your way on. The same group has a series of one on one spadroon vs bayonet sparring and the result were much more even.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8

And, in respect to the Highland comments, here's some broadsword and targe vs bayonet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG3v_XZv7jQ

[Pauly]

This is what happened at Culloden, isn't it? The Scots had a fairly effective tactic of gearing themselves with targes, broadswords, and handguns, dropping to the ground when the English shot, and then charging the English while they were still trying to attach the bayonets, and the Jacobites (many of whom were Scots) tried it out against Governmental forces. These however had socket bayonets that didn't need to be removed for shooting, and won the battle, pretty much ending the uprising.

Butcher Cumberland changed the bayonet drill for the Scottish campaign. Instead of engaging the man in front of you, you engaged the man one to your right., and trusted your buddy to engage the man in front of you. Culloden was 1745.

You’re thinking of Killecrankie in 1690 (?)

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Butcher Cumberland changed the bayonet drill for the Scottish campaign. Instead of engaging the man in front of you, you engaged the man one to your right., and trusted your buddy to engage the man in front of you. Culloden was 1745.

You’re thinking of Killecrankie in 1690 (?)

Somewhere between 1690 and 1715 or so sounds like the most reasonable period for that anecdote (although 1745 is possible), I figure you're probably right.

[Mike_G]

Butcher Cumberland changed the bayonet drill for the Scottish campaign. Instead of engaging the man in front of you, you engaged the man one to your right., and trusted your buddy to engage the man in front of you. Culloden was 1745.


Which, again, works for unit tactics. That's fine. That's how most battles are fought. But today we tend to see a lot more one on one sparring and that often changes our ideas of how effective a weapon is.

[Vinyadan]

Butcher Cumberland changed the bayonet drill for the Scottish campaign. Instead of engaging the man in front of you, you engaged the man one to your right., and trusted your buddy to engage the man in front of you. Culloden was 1745.

You’re thinking of Killecrankie in 1690 (?)

My post was unclearly written. What I tried to say was that the Highland charge was effective against the plug bayonet, but didn't work against socket bayonets, and that's one of the reasons the Jacobites were defeated in Culloden.

[Pauly]

My post was unclearly written. What I tried to say was that the Highland charge was effective against the plug bayonet, but didn't work against socket bayonets, and that's one of the reasons the Jacobites were defeated in Culloden.

The highland charge was effective in earlier battles in 1745. For example at the battle of Prestonpans where the scots were able to use mist to cover their advance. The specific reason usually given for the highland charge getting stopped so decisively at Culloden is the change in bayonet drill. The English soldiers had become fearful of the highland charge so Cumberland introduced the new drill not just for tactical reasons, but also to give his soldiers confidence that they could beat the Highland charge in melee.

[Roxxy]

I'm going to ask something that requires a degree of speculation, because I know that a lot of the information to factually answer the question doesn't exist.

I'd like to know how the Roman Legions around the year 79AD might have learned how to fight. In particular, how one might train with the Pompeii pattern sword, and how much training a legionary might receive before combat. I'm also interested in exactly how recruitment worked, and how much training revolved around the use of javelins or daggers as opposed to the sword.

I'm interested in this topic partially because I own a replica of a gladius excavated from Pompeii, and my untrained arm has some thoughts. Logically, I know that the legionaries generally used the thrust as opposed to the cut. However, the sword feels like it would be a pretty effective chopper, and the point, while certainly looking like an effective stabbing point, doesn't look quite so good for splitting mail as other gladius blades do. Like, this image illustrates that:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/4_Types_of_Gladius.jpg

My sword has a longer tip than the picture shows, somewhere between the Pompeii and the Fulham, but it still has a stubbier point than any of the other shapes shown here. Which would seem to indicate a sword that's not quite as oriented towards thrusting as the other designs. Whereas when holding the sword, it feels like it would easily remove anything unarmored and exposed. Yea, I'd stab a barbarian with it, but I'm not really convinced that this is a sword meant predominantly for thrusting, especially with earlier gladius designs having points clearly better suited for that.

What say you guys?

[Pauly]

I'm going to ask something that requires a degree of speculation, because I know that a lot of the information to factually answer the question doesn't exist.

I'd like to know how the Roman Legions around the year 79AD might have learned how to fight. In particular, how one might train with the Pompeii pattern sword, and how much training a legionary might receive before combat. I'm also interested in exactly how recruitment worked, and how much training revolved around the use of javelins or daggers as opposed to the sword.

I'm interested in this topic partially because I own a replica of a gladius excavated from Pompeii, and my untrained arm has some thoughts. Logically, I know that the legionaries generally used the thrust as opposed to the cut. However, the sword feels like it would be a pretty effective chopper, and the point, while certainly looking like an effective stabbing point, doesn't look quite so good for splitting mail as other gladius blades do. Like, this image illustrates that:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/4_Types_of_Gladius.jpg

My sword has a longer tip than the picture shows, somewhere between the Pompeii and the Fulham, but it still has a stubbier point than any of the other shapes shown here. Which would seem to indicate a sword that's not quite as oriented towards thrusting as the other designs. Whereas when holding the sword, it feels like it would easily remove anything unarmored and exposed. Yea, I'd stab a barbarian with it, but I'm not really convinced that this is a sword meant predominantly for thrusting, especially with earlier gladius designs having points clearly better suited for that.

What say you guys?


I am not an expert on swords or sword drills. What I want to say is that while legionnaires were trained to thrust, the gladius sword is not exclusively a thrusting weapon. I suspect the sources emphasize the thrusting part of its use because that was the counter-intuitive part. Lots of people at the time carried big shields and use short ‘choppy’ swords, for example the Greek xiphos. So the ‘choppy’ part of its use would be expected and not worthy of comment.

Another issue is that it is designed to be used in formation with other guys carry big shields. Thrusting requires less space and is less disruptive to your cohorts than swinging cuts.

My gut feeling, which I am happy for the experts to prove me wrong on, is that thrusting was used more in formation fighting and cutting more when the formation had broken down.

[Roxxy]

I can definitely see an argument that cutting is just more intuitive, and needs less emphasis than thrusting. When I hold the sword, it really feels "choppy", for lack of a better word. Like, it feels like I'd swing it at someone, even though logically I know to thrust. Then again, if I do try thrusting with it, it's fast. Definitely faster than a cut, though I'll admit to not being properly trained to deliver a cut. I can jab with scary fast, and I don't even really know what I'm doing. So I don't want to oversell this as a cutting sword versus a thrusting sword. You could deliver a lot of rapid thrusts with it, and it's short length means it's lighter and a lot easier to aim than, say, my broadsword. If you're going for vulnerabilities in armor, I imagine that ease of aiming it is a pretty big deal. I'm just not sure about the shape of the point, though. It feels shallow.

Skallagrim has done a little speculation that perhaps cutting was a matter of opportunity? Like, let's say you're using this as a thrusting sword, because you're in a close formation with a large shield, but suddenly an opponent leaves their wrist wide open to you. You would, of course, want to lop his hand off, and the sword I have should absolutely be capable of that. Skal also referenced one Roman writer mentioning that legionaries would thrust, but if they couldn't find a vulnerability, they'd resort to slashing at the legs if an opportunity popped up. And getting back to the point about instinct, maybe legionaries are just assumed to be smart enough to know to take a swipe at exposed arms or legs if the opportunity presents itself.

Think is, even Skal mentions that there are very, very few sources mentioning cutting with a gladius, or even necessarily the use of a gladius, and we're talking about a 600 year period between the Marian Reforms and the fall of the Western Empire, in which the legions were reorganized many times, and the short stabbing sword was replaced with a longer cutting sword. Things naturally change depending on when we're talking about Roman soldiers. Which is why I ask about 79AD in particular, since that's when the sword my sword is a replica of was buried by a volcanic eruption.

I guess my issue is, looking at and handling this sword, it feels less optimized for the thrust than multiple gladius designs that came before it. Which would suggest that, while I doubt the thrust was being abandoned, perhaps the cut was becoming more important? This doesn't really feel like a thrusting blade or a cutting blade in particular, but more like something that needs to do both. And if the Roman soldier of 79AD is still thrusting the vast majority of the time, well, this sword does again feel like a step down from earlier designs the Romans used. Why change to a blade less optimized for the thrust, unless the thrust is becoming less dominant?

[Pauly]

The other issue is the armor levels of their opponents.

By 79 AD Romans were facing more opponents with low levels of armor, such as the Germanic tribes, the Thracians and Britons. The need for armor piercing tips would be less than when they were fighting more heavily armored opponents such as the Carthaginians and Macedonians. This is more true in the North and West of the Empire than the East, as there were still more heavily armored opponents in the Eastern borders of the Empire.
Forging a long pointed sword tip is more time consuming and difficult than a shorter less acute tip. If there is much less need for it then I can see the economics moving sword production to the shorter less acute blade tip designs.

[Max_Killjoy]

From a practical standpoint, if a sword has a point it will eventually be used to thrust, and if a sword has edge(s) it will eventually be used to cut, chop, or slice. Combat doesn't honor nice clean intentions of weapon use.

[Grim Portent]

Does anyone know of any records of armies bringing livestock with them as a more mobile form of food?

I'm certain I read about some instances of it in the past, but I'm having a hard time finding anything, my attempts to look it up just bring up the usage of animals as beasts of burden for armies or for more direct military functions. In particular I think I read about Henry VIII having livestock in the baggage train of some of his military endeavours to provide fresh meat.

[fusilier]

Does anyone know of any records of armies bringing livestock with them as a more mobile form of food?

I'm certain I read about some instances of it in the past, but I'm having a hard time finding anything, my attempts to look it up just bring up the usage of animals as beasts of burden for armies or for more direct military functions. In particular I think I read about Henry VIII having livestock in the baggage train of some of his military endeavours to provide fresh meat.

My understanding is that it was pretty common. Union plans outside of Petersburg were disrupted by a Confederate raid that ran off with their cattle herd. If you can remember the campaign of Henry VIII, it might be easier to find a specific reference.

[Martin Greywolf]

I'm going to ask something that requires a degree of speculation, because I know that a lot of the information to factually answer the question doesn't exist.

I'd like to know how the Roman Legions around the year 79AD might have learned how to fight. In particular, how one might train with the Pompeii pattern sword, and how much training a legionary might receive before combat. I'm also interested in exactly how recruitment worked, and how much training revolved around the use of javelins or daggers as opposed to the sword.

I'm interested in this topic partially because I own a replica of a gladius excavated from Pompeii, and my untrained arm has some thoughts. Logically, I know that the legionaries generally used the thrust as opposed to the cut. However, the sword feels like it would be a pretty effective chopper, and the point, while certainly looking like an effective stabbing point, doesn't look quite so good for splitting mail as other gladius blades do. Like, this image illustrates that:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/4_Types_of_Gladius.jpg

My sword has a longer tip than the picture shows, somewhere between the Pompeii and the Fulham, but it still has a stubbier point than any of the other shapes shown here. Which would seem to indicate a sword that's not quite as oriented towards thrusting as the other designs. Whereas when holding the sword, it feels like it would easily remove anything unarmored and exposed. Yea, I'd stab a barbarian with it, but I'm not really convinced that this is a sword meant predominantly for thrusting, especially with earlier gladius designs having points clearly better suited for that.

What say you guys?

Images illustrate nothing. Many a mistake has been made by looking at the side profile of a blade and making assumptions - the only way to be sure is to either have the original or a very, very accurate replica, and both of those are excessively hard to get. If you have a gladius, does the blade have the exact same dimensions as the original, with half a millimeter precision? If so, we are probably safe to make assumptions based off of it, if not, we can't. That Pompeii type can well be better for nible thrusts than any of the others by being nimbler or having better weight distribution.

As for cut versus thrust, if we assume trained soldier, only thing that matters is opportunity - do you have an opening you can safely strike with an attack? With longer swords, using it for parries is a thing (is parry with thrust in opposition better than a counter-cut?), but gladii clearly aren't meant to be defensive.

With that in mind, cardinal rule of sword and shield fighting, no matter what type, is to protect your hand with your shield, lest it be cut off. Look at Roman shields paired with that type of gladius, and look at what types of attacks you can make easily while the shield is protecting you nad your hand, and you'll get somewhere. Another thing to consider is that if your opponent is too close, you can't cut effectively and have to either use false edge cuts to back of the head/leg, or thrusts.

And finally, a good reason for a choppier sword in a shield wall may not be to hurt your opponent directly. There were several times where an ally of mine delivered a heavy enough blow on the shield of some hapless enemy to pull it aside momentarily, which I used to thrust a spear into a sensitive spot. I'd argue that first line of soldiers would be primarily be staying alive, and secondarily doing this, not necessarily attacking people, but take that with a grain of salt, as thrusts to the face are banned in events I frequent, on account of all of us wishing to stay alive.

[Grim Portent]

My understanding is that it was pretty common. Union plans outside of Petersburg were disrupted by a Confederate raid that ran off with their cattle herd. If you can remember the campaign of Henry VIII, it might be easier to find a specific reference.

I think it might have been during the Italian War, the English campaign in France specifically, but I'm not certain.

Regardless the Civil War raid you mention is sufficient for my purposes as I was able to track it down. :smallsmile:

[Vinyadan]

In Machiavelli's Art of War there are some hints at ancient armies being accompanied by herds of livestock. He also refers to using them as a way to lure the enemy by appearing to have left provisions undefended.

[Pauly]

It’s documented inMoari warfare in NZ that they took slaves to carry supplies, and when the supplies ran out the slaves were next on the menu.

[Tobtor]

It’s documented inMoari warfare in NZ that they took slaves to carry supplies, and when the supplies ran out the slaves were next on the menu.


Really? The few things I have read on it didn't seem to suggest this. There are some controversy over the whole cannibalism thing in general. Most documented cases seem more cultural cannibalism rather that a way of living, and many are outright false accusations to make "heathens" acceptable targets. For instance when enslaving indigenous people in the Americas was outlawed, the Spanisg made an excepmtion for people who where "cannibals", thus the Spanish then used Cannibalism as an excuse.

While there might be cases of genuine cannibalism, we have very few sources so document the traditions behind it (and maybe discussing it in itself a to controversial topic for this forum?)

[Pauly]

Really? The few things I have read on it didn't seem to suggest this. There are some controversy over the whole cannibalism thing in general. Most documented cases seem more cultural cannibalism rather that a way of living, and many are outright false accusations to make "heathens" acceptable targets. For instance when enslaving indigenous people in the Americas was outlawed, the Spanisg made an excepmtion for people who where "cannibals", thus the Spanish then used Cannibalism as an excuse.

While there might be cases of genuine cannibalism, we have very few sources so document the traditions behind it (and maybe discussing it in itself a to controversial topic for this forum?)

Read this for one example

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/moriori-people-genocide-history-chatham-islands

[AdAstra]

The concept of fair and humane treatment of prisoners is fairly recent, and to this day not really followed to the standards set out in law. Back before the colonial era, generally your best bet to even be taken prisoner in the first place was to be a noble important enough to ransom for a hefty price. Most of the time, at least in Europe, captured regular soldiers were just executed, since it was too much trouble to feed, house, transport, and guard them, especially for armies that typically moved frequently and relied on pillaging or demands to nearby settlements to gather supplies. There were other places where slavery was more common (Rome and many African states practiced this if I'm not mistaken), or in some cases, ritual sacrifice. The Mongols were known for using Chinese siege engineers to design and build weapons for them, but chances are those guys weren't captured on the field of battle. They were also known for using prisoners as the first wave of assaults, to soak up arrows and attention that would otherwise be used against the Mongols themselves.

[Vinyadan]

An interesting item recently unearthed in Pylos: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/12/17/science/17pylos-tombs05/17pylos-tombs05-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

It's an agatha stone carved around 1450 BC. It's quite incredible because of the level of craftsmanship it required. You can take a good look at the fallen sword in particular, and the oversized shield. The scene is present in other items, and it's possible that it was based on a famous wall painting that is now lost to us.

The anatomy is really, really good. I actually would have thought that it was from the Classical era, if it wasn't for a clearly different feeling of movement and the oddly-shaped weapons. But I would never have imagined that it was that early.

It was first described here (I haven't read the article): https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.86.4.0583?seq=1


The concept of fair and humane treatment of prisoners is fairly recent, and to this day not really followed to the standards set out in law. Back before the colonial era, generally your best bet to even be taken prisoner in the first place was to be a noble important enough to ransom for a hefty price. Most of the time, at least in Europe, captured regular soldiers were just executed, since it was too much trouble to feed, house, transport, and guard them, especially for armies that typically moved frequently and relied on pillaging or demands to nearby settlements to gather supplies. There were other places where slavery was more common (Rome and many African states practiced this if I'm not mistaken), or in some cases, ritual sacrifice. The Mongols were known for using Chinese siege engineers to design and build weapons for them, but chances are those guys weren't captured on the field of battle. They were also known for using prisoners as the first wave of assaults, to soak up arrows and attention that would otherwise be used against the Mongols themselves.

For what I remember, Classical Greece had a standard where you could kill the enemy soldiers immediately after the battle, but, once you made them prisoners, you were expected not to kill them.

E.g. Euripides, Heracleidae:


Alcmene
...For we should be killing you [960] several times over, since you caused us so many griefs.

Servant
It cannot be that you shall kill this man.

Alcmene
Is it for nothing that we have taken him prisoner?

<Servant>
<For nothing, if to kill him is your wish.>

Alcmene
But what law is it that prevents his being killed?

Servant
It is contrary to the will of those who rule this land.

Alcmene
[965] What is the meaning of this? Do men here not find it glorious to kill their enemies?

Servant
Not an enemy they have taken alive in battle.

Alcmene
And did Hyllus put up with this decision?

Servant
He ought, no doubt, to have disobeyed this land's orders.

Alcmene
Eurytheus ought not to be living, looking on the light of the sun.

<Servant>
<It would be an injustice to kill a man we spared.>

Alcmene
[970] The first injustice he suffered was not being killed then.

<Servant>
<What was done then cannot be undone.>

Alcmene
Is it not still a fine thing for him to pay the penalty?

Servant
There is no one who shall put him to death.

Alcmene
I shall. I claim to be someone.

Servant
You will be much dispraised if you do so.


This of course didn't necessarily mean that they would have a good time. There are two examples from the Peloponnesian War: the Athenians captured by Syracuse and turned into forced labour in terrible conditions in the Latomiae (subterranean mines), and the 292 Spartans captured at Sphacteria, who were humouristically described by contemporaries as the only Spartans interested into peace talks, and who were kept as leverage during the war.

[fusilier]

The concept of fair and humane treatment of prisoners is fairly recent, and to this day not really followed to the standards set out in law. Back before the colonial era, generally your best bet to even be taken prisoner in the first place was to be a noble important enough to ransom for a hefty price. Most of the time, at least in Europe, captured regular soldiers were just executed, since it was too much trouble to feed, house, transport, and guard them, especially for armies that typically moved frequently and relied on pillaging or demands to nearby settlements to gather supplies. There were other places where slavery was more common (Rome and many African states practiced this if I'm not mistaken), or in some cases, ritual sacrifice. The Mongols were known for using Chinese siege engineers to design and build weapons for them, but chances are those guys weren't captured on the field of battle. They were also known for using prisoners as the first wave of assaults, to soak up arrows and attention that would otherwise be used against the Mongols themselves.

With the rise of mercenary warfare in Italy during the late middle ages, it became commonplace to parole most soldiers taken prisoner after stripping them of their arms and horses. Nobles and officers were usually ransomed. This was basically a professional courtesy, which was not always extended, and invading foreign armies often received short-shrift.

[AdAstra]

With the rise of mercenary warfare in Italy during the late middle ages, it became commonplace to parole most soldiers taken prisoner after stripping them of their arms and horses. Nobles and officers were usually ransomed. This was basically a professional courtesy, which was not always extended, and invading foreign armies often received short-shrift.

That era of mercenary warfare was certainly unusual. There was simultaneously a certain chivalry to it in terms of how armies fought each other, and a certain lack of honor when it came to actually fighting for the nations that hired them.

[fusilier]

That era of mercenary warfare was certainly unusual. There was simultaneously a certain chivalry to it in terms of how armies fought each other, and a certain lack of honor when it came to actually fighting for the nations that hired them.

The condottieri commanders may have had a reluctance to risk their soldiers in battle, because they were paid by the head, and destroying an army, even in a successful battle, could ruin a career. This led often to complicated battle plans intended to entrap the enemy while reducing the risk to one's own soldiers. When successful it typically netted large groups of prisoners. The competing mercenary captains, often saw themselves as fellow professionals -- so the idea that prisoners were paroled made sense as good for the profession. It further encouraged a defeated army to surrender, rather than fight to the bitter end, as it saved soldiers on both sides.

However, this is kind of the ideal situation -- battles between mercenaries could also be very bloody, and the reluctance to fight has been exaggerated by writers like Machiavelli (it should be noted he was a Florentine, and Florence treated its mercenaries comparatively badly). Protecting an army from damage had to be balanced with failing to achieve the employer's goals -- an ineffectual commander could be replaced.

[Sapphire Guard]

Super open ended question that may not be answerable, but can anyone tell me what kind of costs are attached to running a low end attack helicopter?

Scenario:

Mercenary company is hunting someone with substantial price on their head, but not so substantial as to justify a helicopter attack. I need this conversation to happen.

Fugitive after surviving attack: Bounty on my head is X. Outfitting that helicopter costs nearly as much as X, therefore their motive for hunting me isn't money. (they have a fortified home, that wasn't prepared for air attack)

What kind of range does that bounty need to be for the conversation to make sense? Obviously the answer is 'it depends', but I'm looking for a ballpark figure that doesn't sound obviously wrong.

Said helicopter was found abandoned after a government fell, the mercenaries didn't need to buy it, just fuel and arm it. The model has to carry at least fifteen (crew and passengers) but be able to attack ground targets.

This may be impossible to answer given all the variables, but if anyone has any ideas I'd appreciate hearing them.

[AdAstra]

Super open ended question that may not be answerable, but can anyone tell me what kind of costs are attached to running a low end attack helicopter?

Scenario:

Mercenary company is hunting someone with substantial price on their head, but not so substantial as to justify a helicopter attack. I need this conversation to happen.

Fugitive after surviving attack: Bounty on my head is X. Outfitting that helicopter costs nearly as much as X, therefore their motive for hunting me isn't money.

What kind of range does that bounty need to be for the conversation to make sense? Obviously the answer is 'it depends', but I'm looking for a ballpark figure that doesn't sound obviously wrong.

Said helicopter was found abandoned after a government fell, the mercenaries didn't need to buy it, just fuel and arm it. The model has to carry at least fifteen (crew and passengers) but be able to attack ground targets.

This may be impossible to answer given all the variables, but if anyone has any ideas I'd appreciate hearing them.

Depends on what the attack helicopter is. An AH 64 Apache costs about 3850 USD per hour of flight, presumably not counting munitions. However, about 3400 of that is for repair and part replacement costs, only ~450 is for fuel. If spares are plentiful, you could conceivably discount much of the maintenance costs. However, an Apache can’t really carry troops. A Blackhawk will cost you (using 1996 figures, so definitely more nowadays) ~1600 USD, of which ~1250 is repairs. The weapons themselves will be an additional expense, however. A single hydra 70 rocket costs close to $3000, but again, cheap surplus changes things a lot. 7.62x51 mm ammo used in a minigun might cost 50-90 cents or so per round if you’re getting it reasonably cheap, so fired at 3000 rounds per minute you’re talking at least 25 dollars of ammunition per second of sustained fire.

Just as a note, 15 on one aircraft is a bit much for most helicopters that can typically be fitted for an attack role (as a reference, an Mi-24 Hind, one of the few purpose-built attack/transport helicopters, can carry eight soldiers. A UH-60 Blackhawk and UH-1Y Venom, transport helicopters that can be fitted with a decent amount of weaponry, can carry ten. Blackhawks fitted for a gunship role typically don’t carry passengers, instead putting extra fuel tanks in the space)

However, a cost I think you’re not taking into account is the mercenaries and the helo crew themselves, who probably don’t work for free, or at least want some meaningful cut. 15 guys, that bounty would probably have to be in the tens of thousands at minimum to be even slightly worth it.

$10,000 would definitely be too low to be pursued for profit by an outfit like that, for sure, unless they expected to catch him in like an hour.

[VoxRationis]

What do those figures look like for non-US (and preferably non-NATO) helicopters?

[AdAstra]

What do those figures look like for non-US (and preferably non-NATO) helicopters?

Unfortunately I have no idea where one would acquire that info, and any figures may be somewhat sketchy/variable due to, for example, discrepancies between export and domestic costs, and the variable cost of labor in different countries. A lot of arms manufacturers being wholly or partly state-owned might cut down the costs some as long as corruption's not too bad.

It doesn't help matters that the attack/transport helicopter could be anything from an MI-24, a purpose-built attack/transport, to a regular military or even civilian transport chopper outfitted with guns and maybe stub wings with ordnance attached. Such different aircraft are likely to have sufficiently different costs as to give a LOT of wiggle-room. I will say, cost per hour of flight is highly unlikely to be less than hundreds of dollars, even if you're getting spare parts and munitions for a pittance.

I should also point out that helicopters have pretty lackluster endurance. Only a few hours or so, which coupled with their fairly slow speed means you're talking about a combat radius of a few hundred miles. Just a note.

Luckily, as I stated earlier, the factor of mercenary pay could probably be enough to do the "scene" well enough. If it's 15 people, that means whatever left after operational costs is being split at least 15 ways (since those might not be the only members of the outfit).

[Brother Oni]

For what I remember, Classical Greece had a standard where you could kill the enemy soldiers immediately after the battle, but, once you made them prisoners, you were expected not to kill them.

Out of curiosity, did taking prisoners increase a warrior's kleos more than taking heads, or am I confusing the Greek eras again?

[Sapphire Guard]

Prices are always tricky because they vary so much, so thanks all. If I was to say $30,000, does that immediately strike anyone as weird?

[Vinyadan]

Out of curiosity, did taking prisoners increase a warrior's kleos more than taking heads, or am I confusing the Greek eras again?

Kleos from war is typically associated with the characters from Homeric poems, so it would be a time before Classical Greece (the Trojan war supposedly happened around 1200 BC, and Homer* probably lived around 750 BC). In the Iliad there are two examples I can make against sparing the enemies, however. One is that Achilles sacrifices a dozen Trojan prisoners on the pyre for Patroclus. The other one is in Book X, aka "Dolonia", after the character of Dolon, a Trojan who is found by Ulysses and Diomedes while they are out on a secret mission during the night. The whole book is very unusual for the Iliad (it just "feels" different), and it has been suggested that it's a piece from a different author that was inserted in the Iliad. It could be interesting for this thread because it describes in great detail pieces of armour that were chosen to be hard to see at night. Anyway, Dolon begs the two Greeks to spare him, and they don't:


And mighty Diomedes rushed upon him with his spear, and called: [370] “Stand, or I shall reach thee with the spear, and I deem thou shalt not long escape sheer destruction at my hand.” He spake, and hurled his spear, but of purpose he missed the man, and over his right shoulder passed the point of the polished spear, and fixed itself in the ground; and Dolon stood still, seized with terror, [375] stammering and pale with fear, and the teeth clattered in his mouth; and the twain panting for breath came upon him, and seized his hands; and he with a burst of tears spake to them, saying: “Take me alive, and I will ransom myself; for at home have I store of bronze and gold and iron, wrought with toil; [380] thereof would my father grant you ransom past counting, should he hear that I am alive at the ships of the Achaeans.” Then in answer to him spake Odysseus of many wiles: “Be of good cheer, and let not death be in thy thoughts. But come, tell me this, and declare it truly. [385] Whither dost thou fare thus alone to the ships from the host in the darkness of night, when other mortals are sleeping? Is it with intent to strip one or another of the corpses of the dead? Did Hector send thee forth to the hollow ships to spy out all, or did thine own heart bid thee?” [390] To him then Dolon made answer, and his limbs trembled beneath him: “With many infatuate hopes did Hector lead my wits astray, who pledged him to give me the single-hooved horses of the lordly son of Peleus, and his chariot richly dight with bronze; and he bade me go through the swift, black night close to the foemen, and spy out [395] whether the swift ships be guarded as of old, or whether by now our foes, subdued beneath our hands, are planning flight among themselves, and have no mind to watch the night through, being fordone with dread weariness.” [400] Then smiling upon him Odysseus of many wiles made answer: “Verily now on great rewards was thy heart set, even the horses of the wise-hearted son of Aeacus, but hard are they for mortal men to master or to drive, save only for Achilles whom an immortal mother bare. [405] But come tell me this, and declare it truly: where now, as thou camest hither, didst thou leave Hector, shepherd of the host? Where lies his battle-gear, and where his horses? And how are disposed the watches and the sleeping-places of the other Trojans? And what counsel devise they among themselves?—to abide [410] where they be by the ships afar, or to withdraw again to the city, seeing they have worsted the Achaeans?” Then made answer to him Dolon, son of Eumedes: “Verily now will I frankly tell thee all. Hector with all them that are counsellors [415] is holding council by the tomb of godlike Ilus, away from the turmoil; but as touching the guards whereof thou askest, O warrior, no special guard keepeth or watcheth the host. By all the watch-fires of the Trojans verily, they that needs must, lie awake and bid one another keep watch, [420] but the allies, summoned from many lands, are sleeping; for to the Trojans they leave it to keep watch, seeing their own children abide not nigh, neither their wives.” Then in answer to him spake Odysseus of many wiles: “How is it now, do they sleep mingled with the horse-taming Trojans, [425] or apart? tell me at large that I may know.” Then made answer to him Dolon, son of Eumedes: “Verily now this likewise will I frankly tell thee. Towards the sea lie the Carians and the Paeonians, with curved bows, and the Leleges and Caucones, and the goodly Pelasgi. [430] And towards Thymbre fell the lot of the Lycians and the lordly Mysians, and the Phrygians that fight from chariots and the Maeonians, lords of chariots. But why is it that ye question me closely regarding all these things? For if ye are fain to enter the throng of the Trojans, lo, here apart be the Thracians, new comers, the outermost of all, [435] and among them their king Rhesus, son of Eïoneus. His be verily the fairest horses that ever I saw, and the greatest, whiter than snow, and in speed like the winds. And his chariot is cunningly wrought with gold and silver, and armour of gold brought he with him, huge of size, a wonder to behold. [440] Such armour it beseemeth not that mortal men should wear, but immortal gods. But bring ye me now to the swift-faring ships, or bind me with a cruel bond and leave me here, that ye may go and make trial of me, [445] whether or no I have spoken to you according to right.” Then with an angry glance from beneath his brows, spake to him mighty Diomedes: “Nay, I bid thee, Dolon, put no thought of escape in thy heart, even though thou hast brought good tidings, seeing thou hast come into our hands. For if so be we release thee now or let thee go, [450] yet even hereafter wilt thou come to the swift ships of the Achaeans, either to spy upon us, or to fight in open combat; but if, subdued beneath my hands, thou lose thy life, never again wilt thou prove a bane to the Argives.” He spake, and the other was at point to touch his chin with his stout hand [455] and make entreaty, but Diomedes sprang upon him with his sword and smote him full upon the neck, and shore off both the sinews, and even while he was yet speaking his head was mingled with the dust.

It's interesting that Dolon points out the uncountable ransom. Agamemnon is also offered an uncountable ransom (same words) at the beginning of the Iliad (Book 1) to release Chryseis, which he refuses. And in Book 6:


But Menelaus took Adrastus, good at the warcry, alive; for his two horses, coursing in terror over the plain, became entangled in a tamarisk bough, and breaking the curved car at the end of the pole, [40] themselves went on toward the city whither the rest were fleeing in rout; but their master rolled from out the car beside the wheel headlong in the dust upon his face. And to his side came Menelaus, son of Atreus, bearing his far-shadowing spear. [45] Then Adrastus clasped him by the knees and besought him: “Take me alive, thou son of Atreus, and accept a worthy ransom; treasures full many lie stored in the palace of my wealthy father, bronze and gold and iron wrought with toil; thereof would my father grant thee ransom past counting, [50] should he hear that I am alive at the ships of the Achaeans.” So spake he, and sought to persuade the other's heart in his breast, and lo, Menelaus was about to give him to his squire to lead to the swift ships of the Achaeans, but Agamemnon came running to meet him, and spake a word of reproof, saying: [55] “Soft-hearted Menelaus, why carest thou thus for the men? Hath then so great kindness been done thee in thy house by Trojans? Of them let not one escape sheer destruction and the might of our hands, nay, not the man-child whom his mother bears in her womb; let not even him escape, [60] but let all perish together out of Ilios, unmourned and unmarked.” So spake the warrior, and turned his brother's mind, for he counselled aright; so Menelaus with his hand thrust from him the warrior Adrastus, and lord Agamemnon smote him on the flank, and he fell backward; and the son of Atreus [65] planted his heel on his chest, and drew forth the ashen spear. Then Nestor shouted aloud, and called to the Argives: “My friends, Danaan warriors, squires of Ares, let no man now abide behind in eager desire for spoil, that he may come to the ships bearing the greatest store; [70] nay, let us slay the men; thereafter in peace shall ye strip the armour from the corpses that lie dead over the plain.” So saying he aroused the strength and spirit of every man.

So it looks like they were aware that taking prisoners meant stopping the common fight for private interest, which was looked negatively upon. It's very different when it's about non-combatants. Apollo punishes the Greeks with the plague for not having given Chryseis back to his priest Chryses for ransom. Zeus sends Achilles a messenger, telling him that he is angry, because he won't take the ransom and give back Hector's body.

So literally taking heads was out of the equation. You could strip the body, but that was it. Alexander the Great, who came from a family that represented itself in the Homeric mould, was sent by his father to give back the ashes of the Greek dead after he had defeated them. If you read the Antigone by Sophocles, it's all about proper burial (and human vs sacred law). There is one episode in which Tydeus (the father of Diomedes) actually was thrown the head of an enemy he had just killed, and started eating its brain. Tydeus at that point was mortally wounded, and Athena was about to save him, but she stopped when he saw that and left him to die. The exception is with outright monsters, like the Gorgon.

But killing seemed to be held in higher regard than ransoming during battle. However, I think it's important to consider that this was a massive, exasperatingly long war (in a smaller conflict that didn't involve a siege, taking prisoners could have been reasonable) and that both Agamemnon and Ulysses weren't considered good role models in general (I mean, there isn't much black and white in the Iliad).

There also was a strong no-no about killing supplicants, which, again, normally were civilians, not soldiers. Dolon was about to touch the chin of Diomedes to become his supplicant.

*Homer is an open question. Some say scholars he lived, some say he didn't, some simply don't discuss the matter because they are aware that it's a question with no answer. I personally think that there was one person who composed most of the Iliad, because the story is too complex and tight to have appeared randomly. This author however definitely didn't spring out of nowhere fully equipped, and would have been part of an ancient tradition of oral performers.

[HeadlessMermaid]

For what I remember, Classical Greece had a standard where you could kill the enemy soldiers immediately after the battle, but, once you made them prisoners, you were expected not to kill them.
I think you were expected to enslave them, and possibly ransom them if they were rich/important.

I'm reading a book about slavery in Byzantium right now, and it says that exchanging prisoners of war after a truce or peace treaty was "an [8th century] innovation in the Mediterranean world and developed especially during the Arab-Byzantine wars. Exchanges of prisoners, whether soldiers or civilians, played a key role at that time. Simultaneously, however, sources continued to cite cases of prisoners of war who were not held for exchange but were sold as slaves."

Roman law found it perfectly legit to enslave captives of war (soldiers and non-combatants), and even Roman captives who were enslaved and then escaped or otherwise got back in the Empire didn't technically have a freeman status, and their owners could claim them back. Rome basically expected to keep winning forever, so hey, vae victis. Plus, the Senate was always more interested in protecting property than protecting people. So for centuries, no state seems to particularly care about its own people getting captured, or tries to get them back. It's just considered a natural outcome of war. (Grain of salt for this one, because the sources revolve around Rome. Maybe only Rome doesn't care and the others can't do anything about it, or maybe we don't know what was happening in wars where Rome wasn't involved. I'm not sure.)

With the Arab-Byzantine wars things are different, first because we're long past the age where the Romans kept winning. Second because we have a constant back-and-forth of borders, where regions keep passing from Empire to Caliphate and then back again. And third because religion as an identity starts to become significant enough to challenge the notion that property should be protected above all else. Somewhat independently, Christians, Muslims, and Jews begin to care about their co-religionists getting enslaved by The Other Guys, and occasionally attempt to buy them back or liberate them via exchange of prisoners. Getting enslaved by Their Own Guys (in war, for debt, or from inheritance) doesn't seem to upset them, and no one appears to challenge the institution of slavery itself. Jews have a (not too rigidly followed) rule that they can only enslave other Jews, and must manumit them after seven years. The others sometimes manumit their slaves in their will, but it's not obligatory and it usually involves only house-slaves.

So in the 11th century everyone still considers it normal to enslave captives of war, and to keep them for labour or sell them for money, except that now it's also acceptable to exchange them, if the two sides come to an agreement. I'm not sure when this mentality ended, but I think it persisted for quite a while...

All of the above focus on the [Eastern] Mediterranean, and come from a single source: Youval Rotman, Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World (Harvard University Press, 2009). I've just started researching this, it's fascinating and frightfully complicated, book suggestions are welcome btw.

[Vinyadan]

I think you were expected to enslave them, and possibly ransom them if they were rich/important.

I'm reading a book about slavery in Byzantium right now, and it says that exchanging prisoners of war after a truce or peace treaty was "an [8th century] innovation in the Mediterranean world and developed especially during the Arab-Byzantine wars. Exchanges of prisoners, whether soldiers or civilians, played a key role at that time. Simultaneously, however, sources continued to cite cases of prisoners of war who were not held for exchange but were sold as slaves."

Roman law found it perfectly legit to enslave captives of war (soldiers and non-combatants), and even Roman captives who were enslaved and then escaped or otherwise got back in the Empire didn't technically have a freeman status, and their owners could claim them back. Rome basically expected to keep winning forever, so hey, vae victis. Plus, the Senate was always more interested in protecting property than protecting people. So for centuries, no state seems to particularly care about its own people getting captured, or tries to get them back. It's just considered a natural outcome of war. (Grain of salt for this one, because the sources revolve around Rome. Maybe only Rome doesn't care and the others can't do anything about it, or maybe we don't know what was happening in wars where Rome wasn't involved. I'm not sure.)

With the Arab-Byzantine wars things are different, first because we're long past the age where the Romans kept winning. Second because we have a constant back-and-forth of borders, where regions keep passing from Empire to Caliphate and then back again. And third because religion as an identity starts to become significant enough to challenge the notion that property should be protected above all else. Somewhat independently, Christians, Muslims, and Jews begin to care about their co-religionists getting enslaved by The Other Guys, and occasionally attempt to buy them back or liberate them via exchange of prisoners. Getting enslaved by Their Own Guys (in war, for debt, or from inheritance) doesn't seem to upset them, and no one appears to challenge the institution of slavery itself. Jews have a (not too rigidly followed) rule that they can only enslave other Jews, and must manumit them after seven years. The others sometimes manumit their slaves in their will, but it's not obligatory and it usually involves only house-slaves.

So in the 11th century everyone still considers it normal to enslave captives of war, and to keep them for labour or sell them for money, except that now it's also acceptable to exchange them, if the two sides come to an agreement. I'm not sure when this mentality ended, but I think it persisted for quite a while...

All of the above focus on the [Eastern] Mediterranean, and come from a single source: Youval Rotman, Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World (Harvard University Press, 2009). I've just started researching this, it's fascinating and frightfully complicated, book suggestions are welcome btw.

A Roman citizen who was taken prisoner was indeed considered a slave by Rome. He lost all rights, from property to citizenship to patria potestas (capitis deminutio maxima), and his marriage was dissolved. However, Rome had a right called "postliminium", from "limina" (borders), which meant that the captured Roman soldier who got back inside the borders of Rome would gain back his rights as a free citizen (he still lost his possessions and marriage, however).
(Probably) Sulla later made a law that instituted what was called the "fictio legis Corneliae": once a Roman soldier was captured, his will and testament was read and applied as if he had died the day of his capture (earlier, even the testament of the captured soldier lost its validity). Other changes were present in Justinianean times; by then, the marriage wasn't considered annulled until five years had passed from the capture, and the captured didn't lose property, just his control over it.
A Roman taken by pirates instead wouldn't be considered a slave, and was in a much better legal situation. This famously happened to Caesar.

There were worries by Greek states. A polis would occasionally give citizenship to a foreigner who had paid the ransom of his enslaved/kidnapped citizens. Pirates in particular were a frequent menace, and they preferred to get the money for the ransom when possible. There also was a practice called syla (Attic syle, whose opposite is asyla), which meant that a private person (a foreigner) who considered himself damaged could or simply would kidnap and imprison the damager (or his goods, or commit piracy against his ship, especially among merchants) until he had been satisfied.

But these can be seen as private endeavours. Instead, there are a few treaties we know about.
One is by Herodotus:

Among the Peloponnesians there is a fixed ransom of two minae to be paid for every prisoner. (Hdt. 6.79.1)
We have a treaty between Miletus + Heraclea ad Latmum and Magnesia on the Meandros + Priene. Each of the sides were to look for prisoners from the other side who were now slaves in their territory, and ransom them. Flamininus ordered the Greek cities to ransom Roman prisoners sold in Greece by Hannibal.
We then have a written epigraph, the long Code of Gortyn. It said that those who had been ransomed would be indebted (subjected) to their ransomer until he had been given his money back. Athens had a similar law.

And we have another treaty between a variety of Greek cities (https://books.google.it/books?id=_frP_nixH9IC&lpg=PA159&ots=vizVO8gym1&dq=treaty%20gortyn%20miletus&hl=it&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false).

About the idea of us vs them, there was something similar developing in Greece, although it obviously was very limited and I doubt it saw any application. But some philosophers did think that Greeks should fight and enslave Barbarians, rather than other Greeks. I haven't really gone and look at the sources, but I think it's in Plato.

About slavery between different peoples, you can find something a bit earlier than the rise of Islam, especially in the Second Synod of Mâcon (582), which forbade Jews from owning Christian slaves. Even earlier, C.Th.3.1.5 in 384 AD forbade Jews from buying Christian slaves, and an earlier law (C.Th.16.9.2 in 339 AD) forbade Jews from buying any slave. However, they could own Christian slaves, as long as they didn't circumcise them, in which case they would lose all of their slaves, which were to be redeemed by other Christians. These laws would be confirmed in the Visigothic Kingdom, which would later become very antisemitic.

[KineticDiplomat]

Let’s define “attack helicopter” here. If we’re talking the pinnacle of the type, the tank killers of modern armies, the price of even owning one can be prohibitive to a mercenary company. Even older hinds are 8 digit prices per unit, and prices only go up from there. On top of that unit price, even the venerable Hind-D comes with expectations that you have a reasonably diverse array of technical maintenance support. Avionics, missile techs, ammo handlers, mechanics and so forth - plus the parts for fixing them are rarely uncontrolled sales.

So unless you live in a world of big budget mercs with significantly degraded weapons control, a bounty hunt with these is...unlikely.

That said, at the other end of the spectrum you have things like the MD-500, which has a sticker price like that of a nice house in a good neighborhood and has lots of civilian part comparability and a reasonably standard avionics package. You might not be spewing a dozen laser guided anti tank missiles from 5 miles away, but if you just need something to hook some machine guns, AGLs, or even mini-guns or reduced rocket pods to...well, it’ll do that just fine. You just kind of aim by pointing. Something like that? Mercs might have it, and you can keep it running cheap enough that it has a successful civilian market as well.

[AdAstra]

Prices are always tricky because they vary so much, so thanks all. If I was to say $30,000, does that immediately strike anyone as weird?

I think that would probably be considered worthwhile to pursue, even for an outfit like that. Maintenance and fuel for the helicopter's probably not more than $9,000, maybe as much as $15,000 if they expend a couple rockets. That would leave $1000 for each participant (assuming they aren't part of some larger organization that distributes pay instead), which is a very solid payout considering the engagement's liable to last less than a day.


If you wanted that kind of bounty to make sense, you'd probably have to see the mercs empty a hydra pod (7 or 19 rockets) into the guy's house, or something along those lines. In addition to being excessive enough to likely spur some suspicions of malice (that along with sending 15 guys in a transport loaded for bear), chances are those are tens of thousands in munitions.

[jayem]

I think that would probably be considered worthwhile to pursue, even for an outfit like that. Maintenance and fuel for the helicopter's probably not more than $9,000, maybe as much as $15,000 if they expend a couple rockets. That would leave $1000 for each participant (assuming they aren't part of some larger organization that distributes pay instead), which is a very solid payout considering the engagement's liable to last less than a day.



It probably depends how they are set up, if it's just another day they can crank out (or they are desperate) then that sounds pretty good.
If they had to spend a week in preparation, and there's reasonable risk of retaliation (or police involvement) then I think it's sounding less attractive.

[Vinyadan]

There are/have been some mercenary companies with helicopters. The company previously known as Blackwater owns an aviation company called EP Aviation, which operates transport helicopters.

Executive Outcomes used some helicopters by Ibis Air, which operated, among other aircraft, the Mi-24 Hind. However, it's possible that they were relying heavily on state support for the upkeep.

[Brother Oni]

Kleos from war is typically associated with the characters from Homeric poems, so it would be a time before Classical Greece (the Trojan war supposedly happened around 1200 BC, and Homer* probably lived around 750 BC).

Thank you very much for both detailed posts. That's pretty much answered every question that I had (and has shown I really need to brush up on my Greek history!). :smallbiggrin:

[AdAstra]

Let’s define “attack helicopter” here. If we’re talking the pinnacle of the type, the tank killers of modern armies, the price of even owning one can be prohibitive to a mercenary company. Even older hinds are 8 digit prices per unit, and prices only go up from there. On top of that unit price, even the venerable Hind-D comes with expectations that you have a reasonably diverse array of technical maintenance support. Avionics, missile techs, ammo handlers, mechanics and so forth - plus the parts for fixing them are rarely uncontrolled sales.

So unless you live in a world of big budget mercs with significantly degraded weapons control, a bounty hunt with these is...unlikely.

That said, at the other end of the spectrum you have things like the MD-500, which has a sticker price like that of a nice house in a good neighborhood and has lots of civilian part comparability and a reasonably standard avionics package. You might not be spewing a dozen laser guided anti tank missiles from 5 miles away, but if you just need something to hook some machine guns, AGLs, or even mini-guns or reduced rocket pods to...well, it’ll do that just fine. You just kind of aim by pointing. Something like that? Mercs might have it, and you can keep it running cheap enough that it has a successful civilian market as well.

It's been established that the mercs acquired the aircraft from a defunct government. With that we could also assume that spares are plentiful enough as well, and given that they're able to operate an attack helicopter at all, one can assume that whatever local government (if any exists), lacks the resources or willingness to stop them. If the story takes place in the country where the mercs acquired the helicopter, then chances are high they'll be able to get away with it, what with the fall of the government and all.

[KineticDiplomat]

I apologize; I answered on a phone and scrolled past the follow up about a defunct government thinking it part of the captive discussion. Having now read that:

You’re looking for an Mi-8 “Hip”. Passenger space for up to twenty six (but not the carry weight if you pack on weapons), comparatively cheap to operate prior to weapons (you can charter one, according to the internet, for $170/hr), mass produced in civil and military models allowing for easy access to parts except for the dedicated mil-suite stuff. Up to six hard points for rockets and guns (no specialized ATGMs). Long history of being used in developing world environments because it is simple and reliable - wouldn’t want to try it out against modern ADA, but for putting a bunch of supplies into a hilly landing area, or blowing the hell out of a tree line...it’ll do just fine.

Cheap and simple enough for a mercenary company to operate, but once you factor in risk premiums, fixed cost defrayal, and munitions costs, hard to believe you’d pull it out for an actual attack for only $30k.

[Lemmy]

Heh... Someone posted this in a D&D discord channel. I believe it's joke, so it's probably not meant to be taken seriously:

https://i.imgur.com/xpVQKK6.jpg"]https://i.imgur.com/xpVQKK6.jpg

In any case, I just saw the image and it reminded me of this thread. :smallbiggrin:

[AdAstra]

I apologize; I answered on a phone and scrolled past the follow up about a defunct government thinking it part of the captive discussion. Having now read that:

You’re looking for an Mi-8 “Hip”. Passenger space for up to twenty six (but not the carry weight if you pack on weapons), comparatively cheap to operate prior to weapons (you can charter one, according to the internet, for $170/hr), mass produced in civil and military models allowing for easy access to parts except for the dedicated mil-suite stuff. Up to six hard points for rockets and guns (no specialized ATGMs). Long history of being used in developing world environments because it is simple and reliable - wouldn’t want to try it out against modern ADA, but for putting a bunch of supplies into a hilly landing area, or blowing the hell out of a tree line...it’ll do just fine.

Cheap and simple enough for a mercenary company to operate, but once you factor in risk premiums, fixed cost defrayal, and munitions costs, hard to believe you’d pull it out for an actual attack for only $30k.

Seems like the perfect fit.

As for the financial viability of the attack, considering it’s one guy, and it seems like the mercs knew about the location and are likely close enough to be within a helicopter’s combat radius (doubt that the mercs are going to spring for in-flight refueling), they could reasonably expect the attack to be wrapped up in a couple hours with that kind of firepower. If the mercs don’t land and dismount they’ll HAVE to return to base pretty soon anyhow.

[Sapphire Guard]

You're all awesome, folks. I thought this would be unanswerable, but that's perfect. Thanks so much.

[Vinyadan]

You're all awesome, folks. I thought this would be unanswerable, but that's perfect. Thanks so much.

Also, don't forget the cheaper options (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaraTP38wd0) :smallwink:

[Kiero]

With the rise of mercenary warfare in Italy during the late middle ages, it became commonplace to parole most soldiers taken prisoner after stripping them of their arms and horses. Nobles and officers were usually ransomed. This was basically a professional courtesy, which was not always extended, and invading foreign armies often received short-shrift.

Ransom is much older than the medieval era, it was done in antiquity too. If you were an important person fighting another "civilised" peoples, chances were you'd be captured rather than killed, so your family/friends could buy you back.

Not just in a military context either, august personages taken by pirates were ransomed, too.

[fusilier]

Ransom is much older than the medieval era, it was done in antiquity too. If you were an important person fighting another "civilised" peoples, chances were you'd be captured rather than killed, so your family/friends could buy you back.

Not just in a military context either, august personages taken by pirates were ransomed, too.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't mean to imply that ransom was new to the condottieri -- instead I meant the whole system: of releasing common soldiers captured in battle (but still ransoming the "important" prisoners) was practiced in Italy. But it wasn't always done (they did sometime execute the common soldiers, or, rarely, hold them for some reason).

[Lemmy]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

[Storm Bringer]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.



In the Greek and Roman republics, the military was basically the entire Citizen population.

I must point out that Citizenship was a restricted category, forming a subset of the greater population. they were generally wealthier, and had certain rights and privileges in exchange for the requirement to serve in the military if called upon. They owned their own weapons and armour (indeed, wealth sufficient to own suitable weaponry was one of the primary requirements to citizenship). I don't have any hard data for the Greek cities, but Athens had between 10 and 20% of its population as voting citizens, so thats a rough idea. For solid numbers, Athens was getting maybe 30,000 voting citizens out of its total population of 250,000 (including slaves, foreigners etc), but she was by far the largest city state in Greece, with most having 1,000-2,000 citizens and populations of 25,000 ish.

However, by the end of the Roman republic (ie 1st century BCE, the time of Julius Caesar), The roman army had become professional, with long service volunteers being the norm. At the end of the Civil Wars that founded the Principate (the early empire), their were roughly 30 legions in service, with a paper strength of about 150,000 (actual strengths were much lower and variable), plus maybe the same again in Auxiliary units, and this was the rough strength going forward for many decades. roughly about 250,000-300,000 men strong. As to the civil population that supported this, its really hard to say. very few of the records of the Census have survived form this period, and the interpretation of those few records gives a quite divergent population figures. I cant find a figure for the end of the republic itself, so i'll give you some other numbers that help narrow it down. in 168BCE, the estimated population of the Italian peninsular is 8-12 million people, and the 14CE estimate is a much also around that size, with a total empire population of around 45 million.


for medieval kingdoms, its a bit more difficult, and I don't really know, so I'll leave that to someone else. hope what I have written helps.

[AdAstra]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

This one’s definitely complicated by the fact that militaries tend to increase and decrease in size depending on how much warring is going on. Especially for the Greeks, who for the most part fielded armies of wealthier citizens for relatively short periods of time, often not really having standing armies. Then there are things like temporary levies, the role of a Knight being both political and military (and the existence of men-at-arms separate from that), the role of nobles in general as military forces, etc. The Romans often did have standing armies and Auxillia, but even they would be regularly raising and demobilizing legions as needed at any given time.

[AdAstra]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

This one’s definitely complicated by the fact that militaries tend to increase and decrease in size depending on how much warring is going on. Especially for the Greeks, who for the most part fielded armies of wealthier citizens for relatively short periods of time, often not really having standing armies. Then there are things like temporary levies, the role of a Knight being both political and military (and the existence of men-at-arms separate from that), the role of nobles in general as military forces, etc. The Romans often did have standing armies and Auxillia, but even they would be regularly raising and demobilizing legions as needed at any given time. And even that system was only implemented by Marius in the 2nd century BCE. Before that you had a system somewhat similar to the Greeks, with wealthy men levied and expected to provide their own equipment, though you did still have a number of legions active at any given time.

[Pauly]

This one’s definitely complicated by the fact that militaries tend to increase and decrease in size depending on how much warring is going on. Especially for the Greeks, who for the most part fielded armies of wealthier citizens for relatively short periods of time, often not really having standing armies. Then there are things like temporary levies, the role of a Knight being both political and military (and the existence of men-at-arms separate from that), the role of nobles in general as military forces, etc. The Romans often did have standing armies and Auxillia, but even they would be regularly raising and demobilizing legions as needed at any given time.

Confusing the issue is also the fact that many men in those times were required to maintain some form of military training, in addition to their civilian roles. So up to 50% or higher of eligible men were potentially soldiers.

Soldiers are expensive to maintain and the tax revenue system available was not high by modern standards. Generally speaking kingdoms kept as few men as possible as soldiers.

In Ancient China and Medieval Europe when the king called for levees or militia service up to 10% of the available manpower was accepted as the maximum. More than that disrupted the civilian economy too much. You might call for more if the local city was under siege or for one season’s campaign in extremis.

[KineticDiplomat]

A couple answers from the 100 years war:

The English fielded about 10-12k men during their major forays, though by the time battle came about it was somewhat lower. Perhaps 6k at Agincourt for instance. In contrast, getting population estimates is hard...but probably between 2-3M.

The French army at Agincourt was about 20k, maybe more, in a population of at least 10M.

So in the age of the contract soldier, we’re talking less than one percent as an actively campaigning force.

———

From the Peloponnesian war, most of the numbers in battle are quite low. A few thousand on each side in many cases, with certain larger ones possibly breaking the ten thousand mark under higher estimates.
So
The high end estimate for Athens says 50k citizens, 100k non-citizens, 50k aliens/foreigners, and 100k slaves. The Spartans had maybe 8-10k spartiates and 100k others ranging from helots to mostly-free “friends and neighbors”.

So we have things like the Sicilian expedition bringing 5k Athenians to war...which represent possibly 10% (probably not; foreign mercenaries were popular) of the core Athenian “citizenry”, but maybe 2% of its population.

Or the Spartans marching 2,000 hoplites to Amphilous - though someone with more inclination to research or knowledge than me would be able to tell you how many were Spartans and how many were allies. Still, potentially up to a quarter of the Spartiates actually on campaign - which would only represent a little over 2% of the population.

———

A century later, the Macedonian army is supposedly 24k infantry and 3k cavalry under Phillip and over 45k under Alexander as it marches to glory. Unfortunately I don’t know what their population is at the time...

———
Long story short, producing a military beyond raiding bands and local garrisons in the age of muscle powered agriculture requires a LOT of population to support the excess. Then again, through most of human history, the average person generates a comparatively small amount of excess productivity once they’ve managed to account for their daily calories.

[Max_Killjoy]

Long story short, producing a military beyond raiding bands and local garrisons in the age of muscle powered agriculture requires a LOT of population to support the excess. Then again, through most of human history, the average person generates a comparatively small amount of excess productivity once they’ve managed to account for their daily calories.



And in much of "Greece proper", this is particularly true, as much of the soil and terrain aren't super-productive.

[jjordan]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.Years and years and years ago I got into an argument with an ROTC instructor and had to do an ad-hoc research project on this. The short answer is that the number ranges from 1% to 10% with 10% representing the sort of mobilization the United States undertook in WWII. Larger mobilizations are possible, but only for shorter periods of time. When you try to sustain larger mobilizations over longer periods of time you find that increasing amounts of your military are, effectively, working in sustainment operations that are important but aren't directly connected to combat; essentially you've got military forces doing civilian jobs.

The longer answer is a lot longer and takes many more factors into account. We could talk about the Roman Army and how it was enormous but actually represented a fairly small percentage of the population (less than 1%) but first we'd have to isolate a specific time period and reference several books. We could talk about the feudal model but, again, we'd have to isolate a time period AND a geographic area before we could bring the books into play. Broadly it all tends to boil down to how many troops of what quality you can sustain for how long. And those factors are influenced by the amount of consolidated political will and logistical capability the polity has.

[Lemmy]

Thank you all for your replies. I'm once again humbled by your dedication to this thread.

[Pauly]

One further issue about comparing pre-modern armies as a % of population against modern armies is the supply train.

Generally speaking in pre-modern times the supply train was made up of civilians. Consequently almost 100% of soldiers were combatants. In WW2, for example, around 25% of soldiers were combatants, with the exception of the Soviets who had notorious supply problems.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I have a bit of a silly question that proves pretty hard to google: why/since when is shooting called fire, with people yelling "fire!" and such? Is this a term that came up with cannons/firearms, or was firing a bow already a thing and is the fact that gunpowder/a match actually burns just a funny coincidence? And if so, why was shooting bows and such called firing?

[Max_Killjoy]

I have a bit of a silly question that proves pretty hard to google: why/since when is shooting called fire, with people yelling "fire!" and such? Is this a term that came up with cannons/firearms, or was firing a bow already a thing and is the fact that gunpowder/a match actually burns just a funny coincidence? And if so, why was shooting bows and such called firing?

I'm almost positive that it comes from "applying fire" to the gunpowder, or something along those lines.

There were other commands in whatever language the archers were speaking.

[Dienekes]

I have a bit of a silly question that proves pretty hard to google: why/since when is shooting called fire, with people yelling "fire!" and such? Is this a term that came up with cannons/firearms, or was firing a bow already a thing and is the fact that gunpowder/a match actually burns just a funny coincidence? And if so, why was shooting bows and such called firing?

One would "loose" an arrow.

According to Roger Ascham (who noticeably was born and working after the transition from bows to early guns, but I don't know of a better source) the medieval English army had the following orders:

"Ready bow"
"Nock"
"Mark"
"Draw"
"Loose"

[Mike_G]

Seeing the command "fire" for archers makes me nuts.

Maaaaaybe in a modern setting where the characters are used to saying "fire" I can see it, like in a post apocalyptic world where people have had to go back to using bows, but if you yelled "fire" to a bunch of pre-gunpowder era archers, they'd likely all look around startled and say "Where? Where?"

[Lvl 2 Expert]

One would "loose" an arrow.

According to Roger Ascham (who noticeably was born and working after the transition from bows to early guns, but I don't know of a better source) the medieval English army had the following orders:

"Ready bow"
"Nock"
"Mark"
"Draw"
"Loose"

Thanks. So it's the logical thing after all.

I now have one more thing to look out for in less serious time travel movies.

[rrgg]

One would "loose" an arrow.

According to Roger Ascham (who noticeably was born and working after the transition from bows to early guns, but I don't know of a better source) the medieval English army had the following orders:

"Ready bow"
"Nock"
"Mark"
"Draw"
"Loose"

I think Ascham's Toxophilus was focused more on sport archery or learning archery in general and that those were just steps for shooting a bow, not official orders.

I suspect a more common command would be just something like "Shoot!" for both bows and firearms, or there may have been a command delivered by drums or horns. The exact order probably varied though, even from company to company.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think Ascham's Toxophilus was focused more on sport archery or learning archery in general and that those were just steps for shooting a bow, not official orders.

I suspect a more common command would be just something like "Shoot!" for both bows and firearms, or there may have been a command delivered by drums or horns. The exact order probably varied though, even from company to company.

Makes sense I guess. Having separate commands for draw and loose makes for nice simultaneous volleys, which can be very useful, but it probably also wears out the arms a bit more than just trusting the archer with their own movement, especially with the heavy old school war bows. Both (as well as the third option, a general "shoot at will"-kind of order, which has the marked downside of part of your troops running out or arrows within two minutes) might have been used at different times/places/occasions.

[Willie the Duck]

Seeing the command "fire" for archers makes me nuts.

Maaaaaybe in a modern setting where the characters are used to saying "fire" I can see it, like in a post apocalyptic world where people have had to go back to using bows, but if you yelled "fire" to a bunch of pre-gunpowder era archers, they'd likely all look around startled and say "Where? Where?"

Regardless, we are usually projecting modern English vernacular onto people (if we are talking about pre-gunpowder era archers) who would be using either another language, or a version of English we'd barely recognize.

This just occurred to me-- when did the term 'shoot' come into parlance and does it have any connotations like 'fire' has?

[Vinyadan]

"sceotan" as "hurl or strike with missiles" is already present in Old English, and there are related words in other Germanic languages (schießen in German, skjota in Old Norse), and even the oldest reconstructed root (P.I.E. *skeud-) has the meaning of "shoot".

So it doesn't seem to have shifted its meaning.

[Max_Killjoy]

"sceotan" as "hurl or strike with missiles" is already present in Old English, and there are related words in other Germanic languages (schießen in German, skjota in Old Norse), and even the oldest reconstructed root (P.I.E. *skeud-) has the meaning of "shoot".

So it doesn't seem to have shifted its meaning.

Chucking stuff at targets as an attack or as a game is as old as or older than language for humans, so that makes a sort of sense that it's one of those really old words.

[Dienekes]

I think Ascham's Toxophilus was focused more on sport archery or learning archery in general and that those were just steps for shooting a bow, not official orders.

I suspect a more common command would be just something like "Shoot!" for both bows and firearms, or there may have been a command delivered by drums or horns. The exact order probably varied though, even from company to company.

Hmm, I remember it being a military discussion. But then I read it over a decade ago, and my memory has only gotten worse since then.

[Mike_G]

Regardless, we are usually projecting modern English vernacular onto people (if we are talking about pre-gunpowder era archers) who would be using either another language, or a version of English we'd barely recognize.


Yeah, kinda.

But "fire" is so obviously anachronistic, it would be like hearing a squad of crossbowmen being told "Lock and load." Just gets on my nerves.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, kinda.

But "fire" is so obviously anachronistic, it would be like hearing a squad of crossbowmen being told "Lock and load." Just gets on my nerves.

Oh, don't get me wrong, if it's an anachronism too far for you, it is an anachronism too far for you. There's no right answer to what crosses the line.

[fusilier]

I think Ascham's Toxophilus was focused more on sport archery or learning archery in general and that those were just steps for shooting a bow, not official orders.

I suspect a more common command would be just something like "Shoot!" for both bows and firearms, or there may have been a command delivered by drums or horns. The exact order probably varied though, even from company to company.

Somebody once sent me a list of Spanish commands for firearms dated to around 1700, and if I recall correctly, it used the term "tirad!" (shoot!).

[fusilier]

I'm almost positive that it comes from "applying fire" to the gunpowder, or something along those lines.

There were other commands in whatever language the archers were speaking.

I would need to check it up, but I recall the term "give fire" -- which makes sense when using a match-lock or more primitive weapon. Also fire can be used as a verb meaning "to set fire" to something. Military commanders might report that they "fired" their supplies before abandoning a post to the enemy. According to this etymology website, that meaning is attested to from the 14th century. So it's pretty old:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/fire#etymonline_v_33126

[Mike_G]

I would need to check it up, but I recall the term "give fire" -- which makes sense when using a match-lock or more primitive weapon. Also fire can be used as a verb meaning "to set fire" to something. Military commanders might report that they "fired" their supplies before abandoning a post to the enemy. According to this etymology website, that meaning is attested to from the 14th century. So it's pretty old:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/fire#etymonline_v_33126

I would love to see a movie where someone gave the archers the command "Fire bows!" and they shrugged and tossed them into the flames.

[fusilier]

I would love to see a movie where someone gave the archers the command "Fire bows!" and they shrugged and tossed them into the flames.

Hahahaha! +1

[fusilier]

I know this is a really broad question, so I apologize...

But generally speaking, how much of a kingdom or city's population were part of the military?

More specifically, I'd like to know about the ancient Greek city-states around 500~400 BC, Roman Republic near its end and about western European nations around 1400~1500 AC.

I apologize for being late to this conversation, but I wanted to check with my source before posting.

Michael Mallet, in Mercenaries and their Masters, spends some time describing the size of armies in Italy during the 15th century. There's many caveats, often times militia and auxiliary forces were only approximately described, and support personnel may not be listed at all, but there is some interesting information.

"By 1472 the administration of Galeazzo Maria Sforza in Milan was drawing up details for the mobilization of an army of nearly 43,000 men. This was an ambitious and optimistic assessment, and an army of this size certainly never took the field at this time; but it was based on a greater degree of reality than is sometimes thought. All the commanders were named and were divided into categories. First there were the senior condottieri who had long term contracts to maintain certain forces in readiness in peacetime and to increase those to war time levels when called upon. Some of these were condottiere princes who were not normally resident in Milan; others were more immediately available. . . .
These seven men were expected to produce 10,700 cavalry in war time; they were all under contract and were continuously paid for their peacetime forces. The next category were the condottiere 'ad discretionem' whose commitments were more nominal. . . . The war time strength of this group was about 6,500 cavalry. Then came the permanent ducal forces, the famiglia and the lanze spezzate which were maintained at a high degree of readiness and numbered a further 6,000 cavalry. Most of the infantry forces, which numbered around 18,000, were also permanent provisionati. Thus the Duke of Milan at this time was paying a permanent army of well over 20,000 men, and his hopes of increasing these to over 40,000 if needed were reasonably well founded."

(pp 118-19)

Milan was probably an exception during this period: "Venice was maintaining a much smaller army in the 1470's -- probably little more than 10,000 men -- but she was able to raise this quickly to about 20,000 for the War of Ferrara."
(pg. 119)

It should be noted that at the beginning of the century, Milan was reported as having 20,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry in the field, as it was often fighting a war on two fronts, this assessment is not impossible. (pg. 116)

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find an estimate for the population of the Duchy of Milan during the 15th century.

[rrgg]

Hmm, I remember it being a military discussion. But then I read it over a decade ago, and my memory has only gotten worse since then.

He does touch on the military aspect a bit but it doesn't really go into detail and definitely isn't meant to be like an official drill manual. Generally even military treatises from the 1500s don't go into that much detail about specific training and orders of that sort especially with warfare and firearms changing so rapidly at the time. They instead tend to be aimed at more captain and above level officers who would actually have money and be somewhat higher class. The idea was that when a new company was raised the captain would also hire on some former veterans to be his sergeants and that it would be the sergeants who were really responsible for 1 on 1 training and teaching each soldier to use his weapons in whatever manner they had seen seemed to work best in the field.

Regarding other possible verbs for shooting bows at the time another one might be "give volleys" which seems to show up quite a bit regarding archers. Also "discharge" seems to be more closely associated with firearms (to "charge" an arquebus means to load it) but I have run into the term being used with bows as well from time to time. I can't recall if I've ever come across bows being "fired" though.

[Brother Oni]

Confusing the issue is also the fact that many men in those times were required to maintain some form of military training, in addition to their civilian roles. So up to 50% or higher of eligible men were potentially soldiers.

During the time of Henry VIII, it was a legal requirement that all men owned a bow, at least 6 (I think) arrows and be able to shoot and hit a target at ~200 yds. I'll have to look up the exact wording of the statute.

Edit: There's a couple actually, the most recent being the Unlawful Games Act 1541 (not fully repealed until 1960!);


All Men under the Age of sixty Years "shall have Bows and Arrows for shooting. Men-Children between Seven Years and Seventeen shall have a Bow and 2 Shafts. Men about Seventeen Years of Age shall keep a Bow and 4 Arrows - Penalty 6s.8d

I suspect this was more of a 'Home Guard' defence and enable a good pool of available archers, rather than being able to militarily mobilise every male subject from the ages of 7 to 59.

I have a mention of an Act in 1542 setting the minimum distance for anybody over the age of 24 as 220 yards, but I can't find the name of the Act, nor any Act that looks likely in the list of Acts issued that year.

Speaking of bows...



"Ready bow"
"Nock"
"Mark"
"Draw"
"Loose"

It's worth noting that this is intended for English archers, so they aimed or picked their target ('Mark' being short for 'Mark your target') before drawing and loosing - there was normally a very short gap between these two commands.

I've also seen documents where the command 'Bend' has also been used instead of 'Draw' for English archers due to differing styles of 'drawing' your bow - the stereotypical pulling back of the bowstring while holding the bow steady is 'drawing', while records indicate a technique where they held the string close to its final position and instead pushed the bow out ('bending the bow'), while shifting the body weight and using the whole body. I'll see if I can find a video demonstrating this.

[Lemmy]

I've also seen documents where the command 'Bend' has also been used instead of 'Draw' for English archers due to differing styles of 'drawing' your bow - the stereotypical pulling back of the bowstring while holding the bow steady is 'drawing', while records indicate a technique where they held the string close to its final position and instead pushed the bow out ('bending the bow'), while shifting the body weight and using the whole body. I'll see if I can find a video demonstrating this.
Huh... Is there any advantage to this technique? It sounds a lot more awkward than "normal" shooting... And pushing the bow away or pulling the string requires the same amount of force so I don't see what would be the benefit.

I suppose it's possible that pushing the bow and simultaneously pulling the string with the other hand splits the effort between both arms, making it easier and/or less exhausting.

EDIT: Wait... I think I get what you mean now! If the archer leans back while pushing the bow away, then he could use his weight to draw the string... Although that means the arm doing the pushing has to withstand the archer's body weight, it might be able to allow for a deeper draw. I imagine it would probably tire the bow-pushing arm a lot more, but it could add more energy to the projectile.

[halfeye]

There's also "let fly", and there are probably dozens more (that aren't coming to the tip of my tongue at the moment).

[BlacKnight]

I apologize for being late to this conversation, but I wanted to check with my source before posting.

Michael Mallet, in Mercenaries and their Masters, spends some time describing the size of armies in Italy during the 15th century. There's many caveats, often times militia and auxiliary forces were only approximately described, and support personnel may not be listed at all, but there is some interesting information.

"By 1472 the administration of Galeazzo Maria Sforza in Milan was drawing up details for the mobilization of an army of nearly 43,000 men. This was an ambitious and optimistic assessment, and an army of this size certainly never took the field at this time; but it was based on a greater degree of reality than is sometimes thought. All the commanders were named and were divided into categories. First there were the senior condottieri who had long term contracts to maintain certain forces in readiness in peacetime and to increase those to war time levels when called upon. Some of these were condottiere princes who were not normally resident in Milan; others were more immediately available. . . .
These seven men were expected to produce 10,700 cavalry in war time; they were all under contract and were continuously paid for their peacetime forces. The next category were the condottiere 'ad discretionem' whose commitments were more nominal. . . . The war time strength of this group was about 6,500 cavalry. Then came the permanent ducal forces, the famiglia and the lanze spezzate which were maintained at a high degree of readiness and numbered a further 6,000 cavalry. Most of the infantry forces, which numbered around 18,000, were also permanent provisionati. Thus the Duke of Milan at this time was paying a permanent army of well over 20,000 men, and his hopes of increasing these to over 40,000 if needed were reasonably well founded."

(pp 118-19)

Milan was probably an exception during this period: "Venice was maintaining a much smaller army in the 1470's -- probably little more than 10,000 men -- but she was able to raise this quickly to about 20,000 for the War of Ferrara."
(pg. 119)

It should be noted that at the beginning of the century, Milan was reported as having 20,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry in the field, as it was often fighting a war on two fronts, this assessment is not impossible. (pg. 116)

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find an estimate for the population of the Duchy of Milan during the 15th century.

I'm skeptical about those numbers, considering that when Milan was conquered by the French at the end of the XV century, this huge armies failed to materialize.
Now if we were talking about the beginning of the XV century, when Milan controlled much of Northern Italy, it would be a different matter. The 40,000 men reported for the Visconti controlled Milan sounds reasonable.
But under the Sforza family in the second part of the century Milan controlled a much smaller area, so honestly I doubt they could have 40,000 men. I mean, France invaded Italy with 20,000 in 1494 and went straight though the peninsula.

[halfeye]

I've been thinking about the armour on pre-WW1 to WW2 battleships. There seems to have been something odd going on. The guns went up in size by a lot, and the armour didn't go up to match. Was this stupidity, or was something else going on?

[Max_Killjoy]

I've been thinking about the armour on pre-WW1 to WW2 battleships. There seems to have been something odd going on. The guns went up in size by a lot, and the armour didn't go up to match. Was this stupidity, or was something else going on?

Boats have to float.

You can only put so much armor on a ship so big before the weight exceeds the displacement, and it doesn't float.

[Brother Oni]

Huh... Is there any advantage to this technique? It sounds a lot more awkward than "normal" shooting... And pushing the bow away or pulling the string requires the same amount of force so I don't see what would be the benefit.

I suppose it's possible that pushing the bow and simultaneously pulling the string with the other hand splits the effort between both arms, making it easier and/or less exhausting.

EDIT: Wait... I think I get what you mean now! If the archer leans back while pushing the bow away, then he could use his weight to draw the string... Although that means the arm doing the pushing has to withstand the archer's body weight, it might be able to allow for a deeper draw. I imagine it would probably tire the bow-pushing arm a lot more, but it could add more energy to the projectile.

Yeah, I'm not explaining it very well - you do indeed use both arms, but again the main muscle group are the back.

Here's one video of the technique in action from 0.53 onwards (you'll have to imagine him loosing off as quickly as possible, to get the weight shifting I mentioned): link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY).
Here's a more detailed breakdown of the technique: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9d9kgQOJO0).

Note that there are variances in technique, depending on how you're taught and your natural body shape, but leaning forwards seems to be a common theme; the left handed blue surcoated English archer in the bottom right of Froissart's Chronicles has a very similar pose to both warbow archers in the above videos.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg


I've been thinking about the armour on pre-WW1 to WW2 battleships. There seems to have been something odd going on. The guns went up in size by a lot, and the armour didn't go up to match. Was this stupidity, or was something else going on?

Yep, the Washington Naval Treaty 1922 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty) and its subsequence treaties, which placed caps on the maximum tonnage of various ship classes. Since armour weighs more than guns, it was easier to get bigger guns on as cannon technology improved, than it was to get better armour designs, since there's only so much you can do before it simply boils down to 'slap more of it on'.

[jayem]

Yep, the Washington Naval Treaty 1922 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty) and its subsequence treaties, which placed caps on the maximum tonnage of various ship classes. Since armour weighs more than guns, it was easier to get bigger guns on as cannon technology improved, than it was to get better armour designs, since there's only so much you can do before it simply boils down to 'slap more of it on'.

At this period you would also be having range increase massively, to the point of heading out of sight. So it might be that would also shift the balance, if a shot misses it doesn't matter how thick the armour was.

[fusilier]

I'm skeptical about those numbers, considering that when Milan was conquered by the French at the end of the XV century, this huge armies failed to materialize.
Now if we were talking about the beginning of the XV century, when Milan controlled much of Northern Italy, it would be a different matter. The 40,000 men reported for the Visconti controlled Milan sounds reasonable.
But under the Sforza family in the second part of the century Milan controlled a much smaller area, so honestly I doubt they could have 40,000 men. I mean, France invaded Italy with 20,000 in 1494 and went straight though the peninsula.

I'm not sure what effect Ludovico Sforza had on the Milanese military, however, Milan *supported* the French invasion of 1494. Ludovico Sforza had actually *invited* the French in 1494, in hopes of offsetting Alfonso II's claim to the Duchy. The French had already passed through when Ludovico realized that Charles VIII also had a claim to the Duchy of Milan, and was ambitious enough to press it. He switched sides, and then invited Maximilian I (Holy Roman Emperor) to become involved -- by inviting these various foreign powers to Italy, he's basically responsible for the "Italian Wars" that followed. Ironically, while Ludovico was attempting to form alliances that would protect his title as Duke, the exact opposite happened, as basically everybody he invited to help him had a claim on Milan, and by 1500 he was ousted from power.

In my opinion they probably could have mobilized around 40,000 soldiers in 1472, if given time (note: some of the condottieri were not immediately available). However, I have more doubts about how long they could have supported such soldiers in the field, and probably couldn't have supported such a large army outside of their borders. It's also not clear how many of these soldiers were garrison troops (usually infantry), which would not be intended to be part of a "field" army. Milan had the best reputation for its treatment of condottieri -- the result was that they could actually pay less for their soldiers than other Italian states, and they do seem to have been investing in profitable industry at the time.

[BlacKnight]

I'm not sure what effect Ludovico Sforza had on the Milanese military, however, Milan *supported* the French invasion of 1494. Ludovico Sforza had actually *invited* the French in 1494, in hopes of offsetting Alfonso II's claim to the Duchy. The French had already passed through when Ludovico realized that Charles VIII also had a claim to the Duchy of Milan, and was ambitious enough to press it. He switched sides, and then invited Maximilian I (Holy Roman Emperor) to become involved -- by inviting these various foreign powers to Italy, he's basically responsible for the "Italian Wars" that followed. Ironically, while Ludovico was attempting to form alliances that would protect his title as Duke, the exact opposite happened, as basically everybody he invited to help him had a claim on Milan, and by 1500 he was ousted from power.

In my opinion they probably could have mobilized around 40,000 soldiers in 1472, if given time (note: some of the condottieri were not immediately available). However, I have more doubts about how long they could have supported such soldiers in the field, and probably couldn't have supported such a large army outside of their borders. It's also not clear how many of these soldiers were garrison troops (usually infantry), which would not be intended to be part of a "field" army. Milan had the best reputation for its treatment of condottieri -- the result was that they could actually pay less for their soldiers than other Italian states, and they do seem to have been investing in profitable industry at the time.

When talking about the conquest of Milan I was thinking of the 1498 campaign, not the first one. Sure Milan had political problems by then, but I doubt the French would have ever made the attempt if there was the possibility of facing a 40,000 strong army.
Regarding 1494 while it's true that Ludovico was initially on the side of France, but I still doubt he could have that many soldiers, if nothing else because then the other Italian states should have been able to muster similar amounts to not get conquered by Milan in the previous years. And Florence, Naples or the Papal States certainly didn't have 20,000+ strong armies.

Still you are right to point out all the matters to consider about these things: time to muster troops, time they could be kept under arms, garrisons vs field armies ect.
The fact is, what army a state can field depends a lot on the level of mobilization of said state.
One can just look at the World Wars to see how much of a difference there can be between peace time and war time.

[Brother Oni]

At this period you would also be having range increase massively, to the point of heading out of sight. So it might be that would also shift the balance, if a shot misses it doesn't matter how thick the armour was.

Or if the shell doesn't arm due to the armour not being thick enough to trigger the fuse, a belief that led to the development of the 'all or nothing' armour design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)) of WW1-WW2 battleships.

[halfeye]

Boats have to float.

You can only put so much armor on a ship so big before the weight exceeds the displacement, and it doesn't float.

However if you increase the size, then the thickness of the armour can increase. It probably can't increase enough to counter the probable increase in gun bores if you do that though.

When you increase the bore by *2, the mass of the shell goes up by *8, that's a huge increase. So when guns were going from 12 inches to 16 inches, armour should have been doubling or something like it, and it seems it didn't.

[Mike_G]

However if you increase the size, then the thickness of the armour can increase. It probably can't increase enough to counter the probable increase in gun bores if you do that though.

When you increase the bore by *2, the mass of the shell goes up by *8, that's a huge increase. So when guns were going from 12 inches to 16 inches, armour should have been doubling or something like it, and it seems it didn't.

But every pound you increase the mass of the ship makes it harder to move, so you either have a slower,. less maneuverable ship, or you increase the engines, which in turn further increases weigh, burns more fuel, etc. And all that stuff is really expensive.

It doesn't take long to get to a point of diminishing returns. The big battleships became less important and more vulnerable to air attack as the century dragged on. The Yamato was the biggest battleship in the world but accomplished exactly nothing in WWII except sinking. It was the Boba Fett of warships. Something with no victories but a lot of fanboys. I imagine the Japanese navy could have spent that money a lot better on different ships.

So, the "just keep makin' 'em bigger" argument really didn't pay dividends.

[Vinyadan]

About mobilisation, it's interesting to look at the costs. According to Machiavelli, Filippo Visconti († 1447) lamented having spent two million gold (I assume it means ducats) against Florence, and Florence ended the war in 1427 having spent three million and 500 thousand ducats. Emperor Maximillian managed to hire 5,000 Swiss mercenaries for six months for 120,000 ducats in 1507.

Something else I noticed in Machiavelli is that he observes how German cities used games on feast days so that the men would develop skills that were useful for war: he says that they trained with the hand cannon, the pike, and different weapons, as they went for the prizes.


Or if the shell doesn't arm due to the armour not being thick enough to trigger the fuse, a belief that led to the development of the 'all or nothing' armour design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)) of WW1-WW2 battleships.

This reminds me of a discussion I once read about whether a grenade (RPG or shot from a grenade launcher) would explode if it hit a person, or it would just perforate the body. I think there was such a scene in Black Hawk Down.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

This reminds me of a discussion I once read about whether a grenade (RPG or shot from a grenade launcher) would explode if it hit a person, or it would just perforate the body. I think there was such a scene in Black Hawk Down.

Might be a bit of a combination. An RPG (well, at least the I think most comon rounds for it) defeats armor with a shaped explosion. It's supposed to go off at the first sign of serious resistance, because that's what activates the armor piercing effect.

But kinetic energy wise, yeah, there's quite a bit of that in there.

[halfeye]

But every pound you increase the mass of the ship makes it harder to move, so you either have a slower,. less maneuverable ship, or you increase the engines, which in turn further increases weigh, burns more fuel, etc. And all that stuff is really expensive.

It doesn't take long to get to a point of diminishing returns. The big battleships became less important and more vulnerable to air attack as the century dragged on. The Yamato was the biggest battleship in the world but accomplished exactly nothing in WWII except sinking. It was the Boba Fett of warships. Something with no victories but a lot of fanboys. I imagine the Japanese navy could have spent that money a lot better on different ships.

So, the "just keep makin' 'em bigger" argument really didn't pay dividends.

Yeah, it's a puzzle. because they must have known that something was off before WW1, but they kept on making them.

Fisher's battlecruisers are especially odd. Under armoured and overgunned.

The Yamatos are odd too.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, it's a puzzle. because they must have known that something was off before WW1, but they kept on making them.

Fisher's battlecruisers are especially odd. Under armoured and overgunned.

The Yamatos are odd too.

What doomed the RN battlecruisers in the battles they did so poorly in was as much failures of procedure as failures of design. Safe ammo storage and handling practices were often ignored in favor of the RN's obsession with rate of fire, to such a degree that it directly worked against the systems designed to prevent catastrophic powder or ammo explosions inside the ships.

Plus Beatty's thirst for glory and arrogance lead him to make multiple critical errors at Jutland (that he would go on to spend years trying to blame on Jellicoe to the point of having maps and records falsified).

[DrewID]

The Yamato was the biggest battleship in the world but accomplished exactly nothing in WWII except sinking. It was the Boba Fett of warships. Something with no victories but a lot of fanboys.

I love these three sentences so much.

I wonder how many other warships are primarily famous for sinking?
The Bismark
The Maine
The Mary Rose (OK, famous for being found)
The Spanish Armada

DrewID

[Pauly]

I've been thinking about the armour on pre-WW1 to WW2 battleships. There seems to have been something odd going on. The guns went up in size by a lot, and the armour didn't go up to match. Was this stupidity, or was something else going on?

There are a number of factors.

1) Metallurgy improved, allowing thinner armor for the same level of protection. A very in depth discussion is here: http://navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php
As a rough rule of thumb post 1930 armor could be made 25% thinner and retain the same protection as WW1 era armor.

2) What you needed to armor changed. Pre WW1 gunnery assumed direct fire was going to be the standard combat. By WW2 plunging fire at extreme ranges and aerial bombs had to be countered. This lead to extensive armoring of the decks of ships, that was not considered so important to armor in pre WW1 designs. As the war progressed an radar controlled gunnery became standard plunging fire at extreme range became the norm for daylight engagements.
In addition torpedos became longer ranged, faster and carried heavier warheads. Anti-torpedo bulges were developed. Also the armor bel along the waterline was lengthened.

3) As previously mentioned the Washington treaty created a gun-tonnage-armor-speed tradeoff. Some navies, especially the French and Italians decided to sacrifice armor for speed. The Germans and Japanese cheated on the treaty, but in doing so created overweight top-heavy designs that had poor seakeeping, some of which were a serious danger to their crews in bad weather.
One of the German “cheats” was to leave non combat systems unprotected by armor. Which is great for wargames, but not so great when you actually have to sail your damaged ship home.

[Pauly]

Yeah, it's a puzzle. because they must have known that something was off before WW1, but they kept on making them.

Fisher's battlecruisers are especially odd. Under armoured and overgunned.

The Yamatos are odd too.

The battlecruisers weren’t designed to be battleline ships. They were designed to hunt down cruisers and protect your shipping lanes. For example the German pacific squadron, with the exception of the Emden, fled the Pacific because of the presence of HMAS Australia in their operating area.
A job the British BCs did so well they got pushed into the battleline because they had nothing else to do.

[Gnoman]

The battlecruisers weren’t designed to be battleline ships. They were designed to hunt down cruisers and protect your shipping lanes. For example the German pacific squadron, with the exception of the Emden, fled the Pacific because of the presence of HMAS Australia in their operating area.
A job the British BCs did so well they got pushed into the battleline because they had nothing else to do.

That's not really true, although it is often repeated. Had cruisers and commerce protection been the goal, mounting such heavy guns would have been pointless. Even the strongest CA didn't have armor that could stand up to 8" guns, while battlecruisers routinely mounted 12" or larger ones. The only reason to mount such large guns was to penetrate battleship-grade armor. The role of the Battlecruiser in the Royal Navy was to serve as a heavy scout and screen for the battle line (giving you advance warning of enemy maneuvers and preventing light forces from hitting the flank), and as a heavy flanking force (once the enemy line has engaged your line, the battlecruisers swing in and hit the line from another direction). Cruiser-hunting was a valuable secondary role, and one which the RN's BCs did very well in the early stages of WWI, but it wasn't the real purpose.


In this role, they were quite effective - the problem, as Max_Killjoy stated, was that the British had adopted several bad practices that turned "acceptable and repairable damage" into "kaboom-y damage", the most important of which was abominable ammunition handling practice. The ships of all navies were designed to have very little ammunition in the turret, and for the magazines to be blocked by heavy hatches except for when a shell or powder charge was actively being taken out of it (so, in combat, the procedure would be "open hatch, pass shell, pass charge, close hatch, repeat after the gun was fired"). In order to increase rate of fire (which analysis of the Russo-Japanese War and lesser naval actions led the British to believe was paramount), a large quantity of ammunition was staged in the turret, and the magazine hatches were left open. The result was that, when the turret was penetrated, not only did the shells loaded in the guns go off, so did the staged ones, which carried a chain reaction directly to the magazine. The Germans had, in fact, adopted the exact same practices before the war, but their experience with the drawbacks was, due to their BC's much heavier armor, less disastrous than the British one, and they were able to make changes before Jutland.

[fusilier]

When talking about the conquest of Milan I was thinking of the 1498 campaign, not the first one. Sure Milan had political problems by then, but I doubt the French would have ever made the attempt if there was the possibility of facing a 40,000 strong army.
Regarding 1494 while it's true that Ludovico was initially on the side of France, but I still doubt he could have that many soldiers, if nothing else because then the other Italian states should have been able to muster similar amounts to not get conquered by Milan in the previous years. And Florence, Naples or the Papal States certainly didn't have 20,000+ strong armies.

Still you are right to point out all the matters to consider about these things: time to muster troops, time they could be kept under arms, garrisons vs field armies ect.
The fact is, what army a state can field depends a lot on the level of mobilization of said state.
One can just look at the World Wars to see how much of a difference there can be between peace time and war time.

I think the important thing is that this tallying of troops, either in readiness or under obligation, seems to be a serious internal document, not something intended as a political boast. As such, it could be considered a representation of a "theoretical" maximum, not just an impractical fantasy.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not really true, although it is often repeated. Had cruisers and commerce protection been the goal, mounting such heavy guns would have been pointless. Even the strongest CA didn't have armor that could stand up to 8" guns, while battlecruisers routinely mounted 12" or larger ones. The only reason to mount such large guns was to penetrate battleship-grade armor. The role of the Battlecruiser in the Royal Navy was to serve as a heavy scout and screen for the battle line (giving you advance warning of enemy maneuvers and preventing light forces from hitting the flank), and as a heavy flanking force (once the enemy line has engaged your line, the battlecruisers swing in and hit the line from another direction). Cruiser-hunting was a valuable secondary role, and one which the RN's BCs did very well in the early stages of WWI, but it wasn't the real purpose.


In this role, they were quite effective - the problem, as Max_Killjoy stated, was that the British had adopted several bad practices that turned "acceptable and repairable damage" into "kaboom-y damage", the most important of which was abominable ammunition handling practice. The ships of all navies were designed to have very little ammunition in the turret, and for the magazines to be blocked by heavy hatches except for when a shell or powder charge was actively being taken out of it (so, in combat, the procedure would be "open hatch, pass shell, pass charge, close hatch, repeat after the gun was fired"). In order to increase rate of fire (which analysis of the Russo-Japanese War and lesser naval actions led the British to believe was paramount), a large quantity of ammunition was staged in the turret, and the magazine hatches were left open. The result was that, when the turret was penetrated, not only did the shells loaded in the guns go off, so did the staged ones, which carried a chain reaction directly to the magazine. The Germans had, in fact, adopted the exact same practices before the war, but their experience with the drawbacks was, due to their BC's much heavier armor, less disastrous than the British one, and they were able to make changes before Jutland.

With the benefit of hindsight (since it's 2020)... if I wanted to build a commerce raider / cruiser hunter, I think it would look more like a bigger, nastier, faster Deutschland, or a lighter Scharnhorst (WW2), than like the RN battlecruisers -- the latter are overkill and not optimized for those missions (and yes I realize I'm blurring WW1 and WW1 here).

Fast enough to avoid being easily overtaken by fast battleships, armor scheme focused on resisting fire from 8" and 6" guns, armed with a number of 9" to 11" guns to gain range and hitting power over the cruisers while not flinging overkill for merchant targets, with the Deutschland's wide-angle box torpedo tubes to dissuade pursuit, and resilient floatplane handling capacity for scouting.

[KineticDiplomat]

1) Concerning RPGs. This is one where pure theory deviates from reality. Pure theory says that on account of the contact warhead, it should always go off on, well, contact with a resisting solid surface. Which would be bad for the human.

In reality, the launchers and ammunition for the ubiquitous RPG 7 are made by literally dozens of countries, have been made for decades, and to top it off come with a wide variety of ammo types (the iconic image is the AT warhead, but the much smaller HE-Frag warhead is equally if not more prevalent.) The dud rate when you start talking third world usage is...variable. So theoretically, you should get a boom on hitting a human, but wildly different production standards, ammo age, launcher/round mismatch, etc. may very well say otherwise.

2) Armor and main guns. Basically it comes down to weight. As shells get larger and guns get better, the amount of armor they can penetrate directly or plunging grows faster than any reasonable attempt to protect against equivalent class.

Take the British 15” gun of WWII. At 20k yards, it could punch through nearly 17” of armor, or 33” at a theoretical point blank shot. Plunging fire could go through 7 inches of deck armor.

Now take the Yamamoto, with over 23,000 TONS of armor, the heaviest battleship ever made. Her belt armor was 16 inches, deck was 9”, and armor was nearly a third of her weight. You’ll notice that still wouldn’t have been enough to stop a 15” shell at 20k yards. There comes the point where it just isn’t practical to try to outpace the big guns, and you’re really proofing against improved guns on cruisers.

For a fun way to play with this, try Rule The Waves or RTW 2.