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

[Silver Swift]

You guys are amazing! I would have never considered things like getting your own pepper spray smeared all over you because you got into close combat with the guy you just hit or people not going down after getting stabbed in the chest.


How lethally is he willing to fight?

Pretty lethally, legal consequences are not a concern and morally he's only mildly interested in the fate of the bad guys.


How close is the kitchen and can he break through to it (and by extension, the knives)? What kind of improvised weapons are available (anything from ballpoint pens to mid-sized lamps to chairs)? How likely are the adversaries to use any of those things against him once they realize what's happening?

Is that just out of concern for the bad guys getting a hand on their own weapons? I don't imagine having a kitchen knife helps much if you already have a combat knife.

As for your question, I don't have a layout of the room drawn out, but they can probably get into the kitchen. Are random people likely to consider using improvised weapons in the heat of combat if they've never been in a life or death fight before?


It's like a regular collapsible baton, but the upper section is flexible (a big metal spring) and the head is a lead weight. They're illegal in a lot more places than regular collapsible batons are and have a reputation as a weapon of hardened criminals. The Dutch name is "ploertendoder", meaning something like ruffian killer.

*Googles* Wow, ok that thing looks absolutely miserable to get hit with. Don't you have problems overswinging if you miss, though?

[tyckspoon]

Is that just out of concern for the bad guys getting a hand on their own weapons? I don't imagine having a kitchen knife helps much if you already have a combat knife.

As for your question, I don't have a layout of the room drawn out, but they can probably get into the kitchen. Are random people likely to consider using improvised weapons in the heat of combat if they've never been in a life or death fight before?


Kitchen knives (and kitchens in general, they tend to be full of stuff you can potentially hit people with or throw at them. Consider the possibilities of a rack of pots hanging on a wall) gives your guy a lot of impromptu projectiles, which is handy when you're trying to break up a rush or threaten people enough to make them cautious about charging you. Might also give the attackers some ideas about throwing them back, tho, so that depends on how threatened you want your dude to be? Depend on the layout of the location your hero might want to avoid the kitchen, however, as they can be very confined and hard to escape from spaces - Galley-style kitchens in apartments or home floorplans where the kitchen only connects to one room, for example (good place for a last stand after your dude uses his superior training to take down a few of his opponents, maybe.)

As for grabbing improvised items.. I can't speak to that with any real authority, but I'm pretty sure if you're faced with a potentially lethal weapon then grabbing *something* to equalize that situation is a pretty natural response, especially if it's an item that seems kind of like a weapon itself (a nice sharp chef's knife) or might be able to block or parry the opponent's weapon (steel skillet?)

[Pauly]

When you say ‘goon’ I imagine someone with a fair amount of street brawling experience even if they’ve never been formally trained. In which case as soon as they realize the hero is armed they definitely will be looking to improvise weapons. Kitchen chairs, vases, anything they can get their hands on.

As far as the kitchen is concerned, let’s assume there is a convenient wood block of knives. If the house is from a relatively low socio-economic area then the knives will probably be cheap half tang knives that are pretty flimsy and will have difficulty getting through heavy clothes, such as denim. In a more well off area then you’d be be looking at hammer forged quality knives - Wusthof, Sabatier, Misono something like that. They’ll be better made than almost all combat knives, the lack of a hand-guard being the biggest combat impediment. It’s important to note that kitchen knives, with the exception of the boning knife, are designed for cutting, so while they can stab thet aren’t great at it.
However, speaking as a chef, if I had to grab something for combat out of a knife block, I’d grab the honing steel. It should be longer than the knives, is significantly heavier, it’s more robust and has a small handguard.

[Mr Beer]

An alternative weapon is a tomahawk, combining the cutting ability of a knife with the "smashing" effect of a club. I imagine that it would deliver more devastating blows than either, albeit at the expense of a stab option.

I have no idea which weapon a real hand-to-hand expert would prefer, likely the one they knew best, but I strongly suspect no-one is taking a collapsible baton or pepper spray into a fight to death if they have the option of a combat knife instead.

I also think if the hero is going to get a short window of surprise before the goons understand what is going on, a knife is ideal to deliver several rapid thrusts in succession.

A razor sharp knife with a 7 inch blade can be thrust into non-bony areas of a human with little more effort than a jab - consider how rapidly you could throw a couple of jabs each into a couple of unsuspecting men next to you. It's not unreasonable at all to imagine an expert fighter delivering soon-to-be-lethal stabs into two men in under two seconds in such circumstances. Then he breaks, retreats and circles while they distract the others with horrified screaming, sprays of blood etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

An alternative weapon is a tomahawk, combining the cutting ability of a knife with the "smashing" effect of a club. I imagine that it would deliver more devastating blows than either, albeit at the expense of a stab option.


As an aside, anyone have any thoughts on the modern combat tomahawks?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

As an aside, anyone have any thoughts on the modern combat tomahawks?

I figured those would be too big for this discussion, not concealable enough (you can easily hide something that size in a backpack or moderately loose coat, but I got more of a "palmed switch blade" feel from this, hence the club being collapsible.

But if our guy can have more power, more reach and enough sharpy-pointyness I'm sure he'll enjoy that.

Improvised weapon wise a broom handle/pool cue/walking stick is basically a staff, not very lethal maybe but great for creating distance. A coat or somesuch might be a decent flexible weapon, particularly an offhand weapon. It's like a light shield you can throw over your opponents eyes when switching to offense.

Trying to overthink this, there are some weapons made mostly of rope or chain, is any of those a good option?

[Max_Killjoy]

I just meant in general, not specific to that situation.

[Pauly]

I just meant in general, not specific to that situation.

From what I’ve read people engaged in serious fighting would have something in their off-hand for parrying when using a tomahawk, or a similar weapon like a kukri. This could be their rifle, a bowie knife or a buckler depending on the when and where.

[S@tanicoaldo]

So about my favorite fantasy weapon trope...

I just noticed that my favorite looking fantasy swords have this distinct design and I was wondering if it has a name or a utility or if it's just fantasy sword nonsense.

https://staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/110/images/thumbnails/7113-1-1327621257.png
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HpQBIxAoIL8/T7D77EIXmKI/AAAAAAAAEhA/nBNDNu5-OWY/s1600/Snap_003-2.jpg
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/d82fbd5c-3a5c-4dbe-b08a-ac2a4cab7f73/d57j7rj-bfc4323e-9d00-4865-b8be-ab00acf499f7.jpg/v1/fill/w_900,h_603,q_75,strp/shadow_of_the_colossus__sword_of_the_ancients_by_w avemstrelk_d57j7rj-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI 1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNh NWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMT g4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7 ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NjAzIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvZDgyZmJkNW MtM2E1Yy00ZGJlLWIwOGEtYWMyYTRjYWI3ZjczXC9kNTdqN3Jq LWJmYzQzMjNlLTlkMDAtNDg2NS1iOGJlLWFiMDBhY2Y0OTlmNy 5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9OTAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpz ZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.kv4L3AXBKASszq Z89QGM1ewI7KLdwaqJ-1CD_StUaOs
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/t__/images/8/89/AncientSword.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20130912155334&path-prefix=teamico
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/llr78o6uwn8mcjfnS2-pozxJnJWI8ExuNsfg1mqPo4S7TvAQx7Q7cTX9RYGWguUPxGiI-DiX757SMVkF9OWRSsqAFzv9O0KSIElJh9ZHksZBen0IhZKUWvb BjlDTpyAg9qL6qAI5rg=s1600

So does it have a name? Or a utility? It sure makes the sword look cool and distinct without making it look impossible or absurd in my opinion but it may compromise the integrity of the blade?

What you guys think?

[Pauly]

So about my favorite fantasy weapon trope...

I just noticed that my favorite looking fantasy swords have this distinct design and I was wondering if it has a name or a utility or if it's just fantasy sword nonsense.

https://staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/110/images/thumbnails/7113-1-1327621257.png
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HpQBIxAoIL8/T7D77EIXmKI/AAAAAAAAEhA/nBNDNu5-OWY/s1600/Snap_003-2.jpg
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/d82fbd5c-3a5c-4dbe-b08a-ac2a4cab7f73/d57j7rj-bfc4323e-9d00-4865-b8be-ab00acf499f7.jpg/v1/fill/w_900,h_603,q_75,strp/shadow_of_the_colossus__sword_of_the_ancients_by_w avemstrelk_d57j7rj-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI 1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNh NWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMT g4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7 ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NjAzIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvZDgyZmJkNW MtM2E1Yy00ZGJlLWIwOGEtYWMyYTRjYWI3ZjczXC9kNTdqN3Jq LWJmYzQzMjNlLTlkMDAtNDg2NS1iOGJlLWFiMDBhY2Y0OTlmNy 5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9OTAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpz ZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.kv4L3AXBKASszq Z89QGM1ewI7KLdwaqJ-1CD_StUaOs
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/t__/images/8/89/AncientSword.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20130912155334&path-prefix=teamico
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/llr78o6uwn8mcjfnS2-pozxJnJWI8ExuNsfg1mqPo4S7TvAQx7Q7cTX9RYGWguUPxGiI-DiX757SMVkF9OWRSsqAFzv9O0KSIElJh9ZHksZBen0IhZKUWvb BjlDTpyAg9qL6qAI5rg=s1600

So does it have a name? Or a utility? It sure makes the sword look cool and distinct without making it look impossible or absurd in my opinion but it may compromise the integrity of the blade?

What you guys think?

The closest historical examples are the “leaf type” blades. Common in bronze swords and in the early iron age. A famous example is the Greek Xiphos. The reason for the shape is generally to assist in cutting - it puts more mass towards the tip and curved blades assist in cutting.

For smaller parrying weapons you had “sword breaker” type daggers where the cutouts in the back of the blade were designed to trap an opponent’s blade.

Looking at the fantasy sword design
- The cutout is so small it will not save any noticeable weight.
- It does nothing to redistribute weight towards the tip to make the blade more “choppy”, Nor would it materially assist in moving the balance closer to the hand to make the blade more nimble and “stabby”.
- it reduces the blade’s cutting capacity for obvious reasons.
- it means stresses are not evenly distributed along the blade, thus making it more prone to breakage.
- it’s too far from the handle to assist with half swording,
- the cutout isn’t aggressive enough to act as a sword catcher to bind an opponent’s weapon.
- it might make the weapon a little longer, but you could achieve the same result much more easily and with a stronger blade simply by hammering the blade fractionally thinner.

In short it does nothing useful whilst significantly reducing the performance of the blade whilst increasing the difficulty of manufacture.

[Xuc Xac]

So about my favorite fantasy weapon trope...

I just noticed that my favorite looking fantasy swords have this distinct design and I was wondering if it has a name or a utility or if it's just fantasy sword nonsense.

It's just fantasy sword nonsense. There's no utility or benefit for that narrow bit near the point and it makes the tip weaker just to look cool. Some swords have a narrow unsharpened section like that near the hilt (called a ricasso), but the blade is thicker there and it's not a structural liability. The utility of an unsharpened ricasso is that it gives you a place where you can safely grab the blade when you need to shorten your grip on a very long sword (such as when you need to guide the point of a two-handed sword into a heavily-armored opponent's unarmored eye or armpit).

[KineticDiplomat]

Although you need to take anything the SEALs say with a heavy dose of salt, supposedly one killed three with a knife before being killed himself.

Regarding combat tomahawks, this is one of those areas where the practical application is as a B&E tool for house entry. If you are carrying a steel forged lightweight tomahawk, it's because you are presumably getting in a real fight in a prepared sort of way. You don't just carry it in your purse or whatever. Which means you proabbly have a rifle or SMG. And if you have a gun, contrary to Hollywood, your best close combat move is shooting the other guy unless you're in a tight grapple, in which case you best move is muzzle stuffing him and then shooting him. Or better yet, have a friend do it.

Frankly, close combat weapons of any type are mostly extreme back up, and so carrying anything larger than a knife is really wasting space and weight unless it has a real purpose.

[Vinyadan]

There's a pretty large book about the linothorax available for free on Project MUSE. I haven't read it, but I think the images have floated around here in the past.

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/22170

"Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor: Unraveling the Linothorax Mystery"

[Yora]

Frankly, close combat weapons of any type are mostly extreme back up, and so carrying anything larger than a knife is really wasting space and weight unless it has a real purpose.

Knife fights are never a pretty thing because it's almost impossible to defend against them. I somewhere heard it described as "winning meaning the other guy dies before you do".

[gkathellar]

Knife fights are never a pretty thing because it's almost impossible to defend against them. I somewhere heard it described as "winning meaning the other guy dies before you do".

You can't expect a protracted exchange of blows and ripostes without anybody getting a hit during a knife fight as one sometimes sees during a sword fight, but that's in part because the defensive techniques which can be made effective against knives - grappling and trapping - also usually serve to incapacitate or disarm the opponent when they work. And those techniques, while dangerous and difficult for sure, are not almost impossible.

The longer a knife fight goes on without someone ending it decisively, the more serious the injuries everybody involved are likely to suffer. But that decisive ending can come out of a successful defense.

[Pauly]

You can't expect a protracted exchange of blows and ripostes without anybody getting a hit during a knife fight as one sometimes sees during a sword fight, but that's in part because the defensive techniques which can be made effective against knives - grappling and trapping - also usually serve to incapacitate or disarm the opponent when they work. And those techniques, while dangerous and difficult for sure, are not almost impossible.

The longer a knife fight goes on without someone ending it decisively, the more serious the injuries everybody involved are likely to suffer. But that decisive ending can come out of a successful defense.

There’s a reason why ‘fighting’ knives are often big showy knives like a Bowie knife while knives designed for serious killing such as the Fairbairn-Sykes knife are often smaller and much less showy.

If you get involved in a knife fight a big showy knife is intimidating and may cause the other guy to flee. For example the “that’s not a knife” scene from Crocodile Dundee. Alternatively if people can see your big knife they may be much less willing to start any trouble with you. The best way to win any fight is to win before any blows are exchanged.

I’m not suggesting that a bowie knife is deficient as a combat weapon compared to other knives. More that it’s intimidating appearance is what drives a substantial part of its popularity.

[gkathellar]

There’s a reason why ‘fighting’ knives are often big showy knives like a Bowie knife while knives designed for serious killing such as the Fairbairn-Sykes knife are often smaller and much less showy.

If you get involved in a knife fight a big showy knife is intimidating and may cause the other guy to flee. For example the “that’s not a knife” scene from Crocodile Dundee. Alternatively if people can see your big knife they may be much less willing to start any trouble with you. The best way to win any fight is to win before any blows are exchanged.

I’m not suggesting that a bowie knife is deficient as a combat weapon compared to other knives. More that it’s intimidating appearance is what drives a substantial part of its popularity.

I mostly agree (I think with regards to its popularity the bowie knife also has a lengthy and storied history on its side), although I don't quite understand what this has to do with my assertion. Am I missing something, or did you mean to quote someone else, or ... ?

[Martin Greywolf]

So about my favorite fantasy weapon trope...

I just noticed that my favorite looking fantasy swords have this distinct design and I was wondering if it has a name or a utility or if it's just fantasy sword nonsense.

[snipped image]

So does it have a name? Or a utility? It sure makes the sword look cool and distinct without making it look impossible or absurd in my opinion but it may compromise the integrity of the blade?

What you guys think?

Aha! I can state with confidence that everyone else is wrong, and there is a real design like this that was used in medieval combat. Prepare to be underwhelmed!


https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/6/6d/MS_Ludwig_XV_13_35r-d.jpg/400px-MS_Ludwig_XV_13_35r-d.jpg

This other sword is fully sharpened from the hilt all the way to the point, except there is an unsharpened section in the middle about a hand’s width, big enough for a gloved hand to be able to hold it there. Just like the previous sword, this sword should be sharp with a fine point. And the hilt should be strong with a heavy pommel and a sharp well-tempered spike.


This is a sword that was made specifically to rules-lawyer around specifications of what is and is not a sword in judicial duels and other tournament-type one on one fighting in armor. It's not meant for battlefields.

[ExLibrisMortis]

This is a sword that was made specifically to rules-lawyer around specifications of what is and is not a sword in judicial duels and other tournament-type one on one fighting in armor. It's not meant for battlefields.
That's amazing. Can you elaborate on the rules and how that sword lawyers them?

[Pauly]

I mostly agree (I think with regards to its popularity the bowie knife also has a lengthy and storied history on its side), although I don't quite understand what this has to do with my assertion. Am I missing something, or did you mean to quote someone else, or ... ?

The connection is that with a ‘fighting knife’ you want a knife that discourages the exchange of blows in the first place. It’s not just the Bowie knife, historically there have been many knives for fighting that seem to be designed, at least in part, to look more intimidating than is functionally necessary. Which fits into the whole “you really don’t want to get into an exchange of blows” part of what you’re saying.

In addition to their size historical examples often had highly visible antler or bone handles with metal endcaps. Also the handguard was often made from brass or was silver plated adding to the highly visible intimidation factor. Stilettos on the other hand which were seen as a weapon of assassination often have plain black handles with an iron handguard.

A knife to be used in a ‘fair fight’ was often designed to be intimidating and I assume that was to discourage the other guy from getting into an exchange of blows. A knife that was to be used to stab someone in the back on the other hand was designed to avoid the exchange of blows because you stabbed the other guy before he realized you had a knife.

[Gnoman]

A knife to be used in a ‘fair fight’ was often designed to be intimidating and I assume that was to discourage the other guy from getting into an exchange of blows. A knife that was to be used to stab someone in the back on the other hand was designed to avoid the exchange of blows because you stabbed the other guy before he realized you had a knife.

There's another angle here - winning a fight where both sides have big, visible knives is much less likely to result in someone being labeled a back-stabber or dishonorable. There are many situations where that has a huge importance.

[gkathellar]

The connection is that with a ‘fighting knife’ you want a knife that discourages the exchange of blows in the first place. It’s not just the Bowie knife, historically there have been many knives for fighting that seem to be designed, at least in part, to look more intimidating than is functionally necessary. Which fits into the whole “you really don’t want to get into an exchange of blows” part of what you’re saying.

In addition to their size historical examples often had highly visible antler or bone handles with metal endcaps. Also the handguard was often made from brass or was silver plated adding to the highly visible intimidation factor. Stilettos on the other hand which were seen as a weapon of assassination often have plain black handles with an iron handguard.

A knife to be used in a ‘fair fight’ was often designed to be intimidating and I assume that was to discourage the other guy from getting into an exchange of blows. A knife that was to be used to stab someone in the back on the other hand was designed to avoid the exchange of blows because you stabbed the other guy before he realized you had a knife.

There is one other factor that comes to mind with respect to the "fair fight": the longer and sword-ier a knife or dagger becomes, the more plausible a sword-like defense becomes. Trying to parry with a bowie knife or the like isn't exactly a good idea, but with the long blade and relatively developed guard it's not as bad an idea as trying to do so with something smaller and less stylized. That's got some appeal in a dueling context.

[KineticDiplomat]

@ Yora:

While true that knife fights are a potentially bloody affair, that somewhat misses the point in relation to the modern tomahawk question. Because a tomahawk means you decided to bring your large-weapons-for-deliberately-killing-people which almost certainly means you brought a gun and think the other guy probably did too. At that point, there is no such thing as a "knife fight" where two men with close combat weapons fight each other blade to blade. There's only "shoot him", "oh crap, we're pressed so tight that is not practical, stab furiously while we clench" or "oh crap, my gun is jammed/out/broken/whatever, and none of my gun wielding friends are killing this guy so I need to desperately turn this into a wrestling match for stabbing." The relative merits of melee weapons versus each other become nigh irrelevant, it's melee vs gun. Hence there is a premium on a handy tool that fits on you easily, leaves room for all the other accoutrements of modern killing, and can be used for skill-less stabbing in the desperation wrestling match. Its not that the tomahawk isn't a better weapon to fight a knifeman with; its that by the time we're talking tomahawks, we're talking guns, which means you won't use the tomahawk.

The notable exception might be the trench shovel in WWI - though that is a bit overplayed, and even then, there's a large difference between early 20th bolt action rifles and what you'd be facing in close quarters today.

[Max_Killjoy]

@ Yora:

While true that knife fights are a potentially bloody affair, that somewhat misses the point in relation to the modern tomahawk question. Because a tomahawk means you decided to bring your large-weapons-for-deliberately-killing-people which almost certainly means you brought a gun and think the other guy probably did too. At that point, there is no such thing as a "knife fight" where two men with close combat weapons fight each other blade to blade. There's only "shoot him", "oh crap, we're pressed so tight that is not practical, stab furiously while we clench" or "oh crap, my gun is jammed/out/broken/whatever, and none of my gun wielding friends are killing this guy so I need to desperately turn this into a wrestling match for stabbing." The relative merits of melee weapons versus each other become nigh irrelevant, it's melee vs gun. Hence there is a premium on a handy tool that fits on you easily, leaves room for all the other accoutrements of modern killing, and can be used for skill-less stabbing in the desperation wrestling match. Its not that the tomahawk isn't a better weapon to fight a knifeman with; its that by the time we're talking tomahawks, we're talking guns, which means you won't use the tomahawk.

The notable exception might be the trench shovel in WWI - though that is a bit overplayed, and even then, there's a large difference between early 20th bolt action rifles and what you'd be facing in close quarters today.

The modern tomahawk strikes me as something like those shovels, in that they're a multi-use tool that will do serious damage to a person if used as a weapon, meaning you maybe don't have to carry a tool AND a melee weapon.

(I think someone already said similar.)

[Martin Greywolf]

That's amazing. Can you elaborate on the rules and how that sword lawyers them?

There was a limited amount fo stuff you could get away with, and like with most medieval things, this was based on custom and not written down anywhere. What is written down, usually in free cities privilege charter is something like "they will use swords and round shields, according to their ancient tradition".

This tradition was enforced by... well, it depends on time, place and nature of a duel, but very generally, two sides would both have their seconds, and these seconds would meet before the fight several times to hash out the rules. Even an inspection of weapons moments before a clash wasn't undheard of, and for a good reason. To quote Fiore again:


https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/9/9e/MS_Ludwig_XV_13_37v-b.jpg/400px-MS_Ludwig_XV_13_37v-b.jpg

This poleaxe of mine is filled with a powder and is hollow and perforated. And this powder is so strongly corrosive that the moment it touches your eye, you will no longer be able to open it, and you may be permanently blinded.

I am the poleaxe, heavy, vicious and deadly. I deliver blows more powerful than any other hand-held weapon. If my first strike misses, then my poleaxe becomes risky to hold on to and is no more of any use to me. But if my first blow is powerfully made on target, then I can stop any other hand-held weapon. And if I am accompanied with good protective armor, then I can defend myself with any of the powerful striking guards of the sword.

My most noble lord, my Marquis, there are some vicious things shown in this book that you would never do. I show you them purely to aid your knowledge.

https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/b/bd/Pisani-Dossi_MS_36a-b.png/400px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_36a-b.png

This is the powder that you use in the poleaxe drawn above. Take the sap of the spurge, and dry it in a warm oven to make a powder. Now take two ounces of this powder and one ounce of powder of fior d'preda, and mix them together. Now load this powder into the poleaxe shown above. You can do this with any good caustic powder, but you won’t find a better recipe than the one in this book.

The "My most noble lord, my Marquis, there are some vicious things shown in this book that you would never do" part is in there because that specific version of the book was comissioned as a diplomatic gift to Niccolò III d'Este, implying he would do some shady **** wasn't a good idea.

Clearly, any inspection would see you hanged if you showed up with the acid spray pollaxe, so alternatives were invented. This usually took a form of creating, for lack of a better term, sword-like object that looked like a sword, but certainly didn't handle as one. What it handled as varied, they were usually heavier, sometimes by a lot, the already mentioned one was a... tamer approach, merely adding some bits and bobs that made it especially good for fighting in armor.

For a... rather extreme approach, Fiore gives us an axe-sword:

https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/d/d3/MS_Ludwig_XV_13_35r-c.jpg/400px-MS_Ludwig_XV_13_35r-c.jpg

This sword can be used as a sword or a poleaxe, and should not be sharpened from the guard down to one hand’s-width from the point. The point should be sharp and the sharp edge should be about a hand’s-width in length. The roundel below the hilt should be able to slide down the blade to a hand’s-width from the point and no further. The hilt needs to be strongly made with a heavy pommel with well-tempered spikes. The spikes should be well-tempered and sharp. The front of the sword should be as heavy as the back, and the weight should be from three and a half to five and a half pounds, depending on how big and strong the man is and how he chooses to be armed.


The pounds in text don't correspond to modern ones, the modern weight would be 1.5-2.5 kg (3.3-5.5 lbs).

Some more examples:

https://wiktenauer.com/images/4/42/MS_Thott.290.2%C2%BA_107v.jpg
Varieties of specialised dueling longswords / bastard-swords:
For the harness

Yet also for any armoured dueling

And versus pavises.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Ms.Thott.290.2%C2%BA_108r.jpg

Some more varieties of specialised dueling longswords / bastard-swords:

Versus pavises

Twain “sword-horns” for armoured dueling

https://wiktenauer.com/images/9/95/MS_Thott.290.2%C2%BA_108v.jpg

The three daggers for dueling – dagger in sheath replete with throwing-blades and a spike.

Yup, not even daggers are safe.


https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0226/6487/2010/files/Wawel_Tuck_Reproduction_large.jpg?v=1583843943
Further reading here: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/apd.2013.1.issue-1/apd-2015-0007/apd-2015-0007.pdf


Of course, there are fakes out there too.


https://i.redd.it/usat7epglph41.jpg


Edit: Spelling and fixed year for Thott codex

[Vinyadan]

Would this belong to the category, assuming it's authentic? https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/c/c/7/cc7fd120-2086-43e7-98d0-bb4c950f3934.jpg https://www.catawiki.nl/l/16897555-longsword (old auction).

[ExLibrisMortis]

[brilliant stuff]
Thanks! It's amazing how tricky those duellists get. I mean, acid spray poleaxes are just nuts. I assume that most of these weapons are theoretical (as in: most of the time, the weapons agreed on are more standard), but there's a lot of potential to be screwed over if your second doesn't do their job properly...

Also, there's a hundred kinds of fantasy weapons that can now be justified as specialist duellists' weapons. I'm pretty sure D&D 3.5 has a holy water-dispensing morningstar somewhere...

[KineticDiplomat]

Well, maybe. But it'd be a rare situation you entered a room/trench/cave/bunker with a blade drawn. Because you're not suicidal. Unless you happen to run into some three feet away, you can't reach him. But he can shoot you. If you come in gun drawn and he's three feet away, you shoot him. If he's twelve feet away, you shoot him. If he tackles/knifes/whatevers you from a blind corner because he doesn't have a gun, you having a blade out isn't going to change the outcome. if it's not a blind corner, you shoot him. Plus chances are you have a semi-automatic/automatic weapon and a lot bullets in your magazine, which besides being useful tactically, is going to hang off a sling on your chest when you free your hands and generally get in the way of whatever kung-fu you were planning. As will the weight of other gear. So if you are using a melee weapon at all, it's going to involve drawing it in the moment in the vast majority of situations. A tomahawk does not draw easily, and requires you specifically stay an at least marginal hacking/slashing distance away to be useful. It is also, by dint of ergonomics, probably not in a super easy to reach place for this kind of situation.

Of course, you don't have to carry a melee weapon these days. While armies still issue bayonets, and you can find the odd anecdote about them being used, they spend most of their time banded in a single locked box with a one-time seal on it so that they can be inventoried easily. There are derogatory words for the type of person who carries around edged weapons thinking they are going to try to use them for killing.

[Mike_G]

Well, maybe. But it'd be a rare situation you entered a room/trench/cave/bunker with a blade drawn. Because you're not suicidal. Unless you happen to run into some three feet away, you can't reach him. But he can shoot you. If you come in gun drawn and he's three feet away, you shoot him. If he's twelve feet away, you shoot him. If he tackles/knifes/whatevers you from a blind corner because he doesn't have a gun, you having a blade out isn't going to change the outcome. if it's not a blind corner, you shoot him. Plus chances are you have a semi-automatic/automatic weapon and a lot bullets in your magazine, which besides being useful tactically, is going to hang off a sling on your chest when you free your hands and generally get in the way of whatever kung-fu you were planning. As will the weight of other gear. So if you are using a melee weapon at all, it's going to involve drawing it in the moment in the vast majority of situations. A tomahawk does not draw easily, and requires you specifically stay an at least marginal hacking/slashing distance away to be useful. It is also, by dint of ergonomics, probably not in a super easy to reach place for this kind of situation.

Of course, you don't have to carry a melee weapon these days. While armies still issue bayonets, and you can find the odd anecdote about them being used, they spend most of their time banded in a single locked box with a one-time seal on it so that they can be inventoried easily. There are derogatory words for the type of person who carries around edged weapons thinking they are going to try to use them for killing.

You are absolutely correct that melee weapons are very seldom used in modern combat. That said, there are some arguments for bayonets in urban warfare.

If you kick in a door, there's a chance you will meet an enemy right there, and while shooting him would be my first choice, weapons do malfunction, and you won't have time to clear a malfunction before he can ruin your day. If your weapon is already pointed at him, and you have a bayonet fixed, a quick jab is probably your fastest option. And if makes it less likely that somebody will try to grab your rifle by the barrel if you do come around a corner or through a doorway.

It's also intimidating. If you have a fixed bayonet, it may make people on the edge of attacking you decide not to. Like a crowd of civillians who might be annoyed at an occupying force, and might want the stuff in that convoy you're guarding.

[Vinyadan]

It's also intimidating. If you have a fixed bayonet, it may make people on the edge of attacking you decide not to. Like a crowd of civillians who might be annoyed at an occupying force, and might want the stuff in that convoy you're guarding.
That's something I have thought about the Queen's Guards. There are a lot of opinions about whether they are allowed to use the guns or even have the ammo to shoot, but they definitely have at least a knife, which I guess is also a way to protect the guards themselves. Which is good, since they are very visible and very symbolic.
I actually wonder if guards that use a sword (like in France or Italy) enjoy that kind of deterrence. Even if they were sharp, people aren't very aware of what they can do -- not to say anything about halberds!

[AdAstra]

You are absolutely correct that melee weapons are very seldom used in modern combat. That said, there are some arguments for bayonets in urban warfare.

If you kick in a door, there's a chance you will meet an enemy right there, and while shooting him would be my first choice, weapons do malfunction, and you won't have time to clear a malfunction before he can ruin your day. If your weapon is already pointed at him, and you have a bayonet fixed, a quick jab is probably your fastest option. And if makes it less likely that somebody will try to grab your rifle by the barrel if you do come around a corner or through a doorway.

It's also intimidating. If you have a fixed bayonet, it may make people on the edge of attacking you decide not to. Like a crowd of civillians who might be annoyed at an occupying force, and might want the stuff in that convoy you're guarding.

The bayonet also has value in that most military bayonets are also knives, which are good for all kinds of things besides turning people's insides into their outsides. Prying, poking, prodding, the works. Opening packages and cutting cables or fabric are things you'll have an easier time with if you have a sharp object. Some designs can even be paired with their scabbards to make some lackluster wire cutters. Of course, you could always carry a regular knife, but a modern bayonet is less of an attachment to your rifle as it is a regular knife you can put on your gun to poke things from further away.

[Martin Greywolf]

Would this belong to the category, assuming it's authentic? https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/c/c/7/cc7fd120-2086-43e7-98d0-bb4c950f3934.jpg https://www.catawiki.nl/l/16897555-longsword (old auction).

Almost certainly, it looks like the moveable rondel on the blade type from Fiore, wouldn't be surprised if rondel was lost due to rusting off. If you have any more info on that sword, please send it my way, these kinds of swords are seen pretty rarely.


but there's a lot of potential to be screwed over if your second doesn't do their job properly...

You're barely even scratching the surface of possible shenanigans there. Imagine a town where, according to law, your second can only be a citizen, if you yourself are a foreigner, well, maybe your second will not look at things too closely.

And then there's the most giving fruit of them all, sabotage. Your second can be bribed, blackmailed or threatened into keeping his mouth shut, especially by his social superiors.

Let's also not forget that not all judicial duels are necessarily to the death, so you could surviva and then sue (bring your grievances to a judge, there are usually no lawyers involved) your second for doing a bad job of it. Hell, you could do that even if you win, if you are displeased enough.

The possibilities for a gaming session are endless.

[jayem]

The bayonet also has value in that most military bayonets are also knives, which are good for all kinds of things besides turning people's insides into their outsides. ... is a regular knife you can put on your gun to poke things from further away.
And of course the people that need regular big knife work, are the people on the frontier and either part timing as robbers or fending them off.

Plus I'd imagine it's easier to defend with, not quite parry, but close approaches. In most cases their benefit to killing you is less than the injury they will get.
And even where things are to the death, the slash on the arm is also pushing their blade away and weakening them. Whereas going all in risks M.A.D.

[Clistenes]

Almost certainly, it looks like the moveable rondel on the blade type from Fiore, wouldn't be surprised if rondel was lost due to rusting off. If you have any more info on that sword, please send it my way, these kinds of swords are seen pretty rarely.



You're barely even scratching the surface of possible shenanigans there. Imagine a town where, according to law, your second can only be a citizen, if you yourself are a foreigner, well, maybe your second will not look at things too closely.

And then there's the most giving fruit of them all, sabotage. Your second can be bribed, blackmailed or threatened into keeping his mouth shut, especially by his social superiors.

Let's also not forget that not all judicial duels are necessarily to the death, so you could surviva and then sue (bring your grievances to a judge, there are usually no lawyers involved) your second for doing a bad job of it. Hell, you could do that even if you win, if you are displeased enough.

The possibilities for a gaming session are endless.

In medieval Spain you could hire a professional duelist to fight your judicial duels for you. Kings and lords kept mercenary duelists called barrāz who, in addition to fighting judicial duels as champions for their masters, would challenge enemy knights to singular duel before battle in order to raise the troop's moral and demoralize the enemy's.

[Thiel]

The bayonet also has value in that most military bayonets are also knives, which are good for all kinds of things besides turning people's insides into their outsides. Prying, poking, prodding, the works. Opening packages and cutting cables or fabric are things you'll have an easier time with if you have a sharp object. Some designs can even be paired with their scabbards to make some lackluster wire cutters. Of course, you could always carry a regular knife, but a modern bayonet is less of an attachment to your rifle as it is a regular knife you can put on your gun to poke things from further away.
Even so it's a very large knife, overly so for most jobs. Most of the soldiers I know carry their own folding knife or multitool instead

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The funniest thing about military knives is that they can be identified by a single, very important feature. Some of them can be mounted as bayonets, but not all. Some of them have a paint coating for stealth, but not all. But almost all military knives have some sort of feature designed to be used as a bottle opener. The logic here is that if it's easy to do with your knife, you won't use the metal parts of your gun for that job. And those parts are kind of important. So you see a large fixed blade (that is: non-folding) knife with a bottle opener on it (it might require close inspection to find, there are some weird designs), that's a military knife.

[Brother Oni]

You're barely even scratching the surface of possible shenanigans there. Imagine a town where, according to law, your second can only be a citizen, if you yourself are a foreigner, well, maybe your second will not look at things too closely.

And then there's the most giving fruit of them all, sabotage. Your second can be bribed, blackmailed or threatened into keeping his mouth shut, especially by his social superiors.

Let's also not forget that not all judicial duels are necessarily to the death, so you could surviva and then sue (bring your grievances to a judge, there are usually no lawyers involved) your second for doing a bad job of it. Hell, you could do that even if you win, if you are displeased enough.

The possibilities for a gaming session are endless.

I get the feeling that this where the weird techniques show up as well - I cannot think of any other reason how 'ending someone rightly' could have come about.

For those unaware, 'ending someone rightly' is a slight mis-translation of a description of a technique (should be 'quickly' rather than 'rightly') in the 15th Century Gladiatoria, where you unscrew the pommel of your sword, throw it at your opponent's head as a distraction, then charge in to finish him.

Talhoffer has something similar in his 1459 manuscript, in the scenario of a man armed with a dagger versus one with a spear. The dagger wielder should throw his hat at the spearman, then throw his dagger at the chest while the spearman is distracted/sight is obscured by the hat.

[Vinyadan]

Almost certainly, it looks like the moveable rondel on the blade type from Fiore, wouldn't be surprised if rondel was lost due to rusting off. If you have any more info on that sword, please send it my way, these kinds of swords are seen pretty rarely.

I don't really have more, it was the result of an exceptionally lucky Google search. I can deep-link the other images:
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/c/d/1/cd152e37-d95e-4ac8-8209-b7edbf69ed53.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/b/f/8/bf8471fc-9789-4040-aaa8-74d2140efe21.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/e/6/7/e676d802-cdc1-46d9-abb0-c2d956ae4d13.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/9/f/b/9fbf9ab1-5687-41f5-b110-da407d2a4a48.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/4/1/4/414531fe-ce2f-494e-adf8-2db804263e7e.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/6/d/d/6dd92d8e-4464-45ef-b107-0f0c68ebc1cf.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/b/1/7/b178d317-6e76-41ae-a5ca-a0976cc2b6ca.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/e/0/f/e0face62-77f2-4073-9c3f-278943f576dd.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/2/4/d/24d7de53-f9ff-4e89-8f51-78e44ce2b208.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/7/a/8/7a81afeb-fa71-4889-a2d0-9d4169c50020.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2018/2/16/d/3/d/d3d0ea61-dba2-4b3f-8fc8-3e3054e1e894.jpg

And here is the accompanying description:

Zwitsers-Duits tweehandig harnas stekend zwaard .140 cm lang. Periode 1380-1450

Land van herkomst:
Zwitserland


Type wapen:
Geweer (Meer kavels) (https://www.catawiki.nl/c/1129-wapens/958-type-wapen/63887-geweer)


Staat:
Goed


Periode:
Vóór 16e eeuw




Het ontbreken van een aanzienlijke bescherming van romp en ledematen leidt tot het gebruik van een grote hoeveelheid snij- en snijtechnieken naast stoten. Deze technieken kunnen bijna onmiddellijk fataal of invaliderend zijn, omdat een stuwkracht op de schedel, het hart of het grote bloedvat massaal trauma zou veroorzaken. Evenzo kunnen sterke aanvallen door huid en bot snijden en effectief ledematen amputeren. De handen en onderarmen zijn een frequente doelwit van een aantal bezuinigingen en plakjes in een defensieve of aanvalsmanoeuvre, die zowel dienen om een ​​tegenstander uit te schakelen en de zwaardvechter en zijn wapen op een lijn te brengen voor de volgende aanval. Gecertificeerde systemen van vechten met het langzwaard bestonden uit de latere 14e eeuw, met een verscheidenheid aan stijlen en docenten die elk een enigszins andere kijk op de kunst hebben. Hans Talhoffer, een Duitse vechtmeester uit het midden van de 15e eeuw, is waarschijnlijk de meest prominente, met behulp van een breed scala aan bewegingen, waarvan de meeste resulteren in worstelen. Het langzwaard was een snel, effectief en veelzijdig wapen dat in staat was tot dodelijke stoten, plakjes en bezuinigingen. Het lemmet werd over het algemeen met beide handen op het gevest gebruikt, een die dicht bij of op de pommel rust. Het wapen kan met één hand worden vastgehouden tijdens ontwapenings- of grijptechnieken. In een afbeelding van een duel, kunnen individuen gezien worden met scherp gepunteerde longswords in de ene hand, terwijl de andere hand open staat om het grote duellerende schild te manipuleren.
Voorbeeld van gebruik met twee handen versus halfzwaard, daterend van ca. 1418
Gecodificeerde systemen om met het langzwaard te vechten, bestonden uit de latere 14e eeuw, met een verscheidenheid aan stijlen en leraren die elk een iets andere kijk op de kunst gaven. Hans Talhoffer, een Duitse vechtmeester uit het midden van de 15e eeuw, is waarschijnlijk de meest prominente, met behulp van een breed scala aan bewegingen, waarvan de meeste resulteren in worstelen. Het langzwaard was een snel, effectief en veelzijdig wapen dat in staat was tot dodelijke stoten, plakjes en sneden. Het blad werd over het algemeen met beide handen op het gevest gebruikt, een die dicht bij of op de pommel rust. Het wapen kan met één hand worden vastgehouden tijdens ontwapenings- of grijptechnieken. In een afbeelding van een duel, kunnen individuen gezien worden met scherp gepunteerde longswords in de ene hand, terwijl de andere hand open staat om het grote duellerende schild te manipuleren.

De verkoop, aankoop en het bezit van wapens zijn onderworpen aan nationale wetten en voorschriften. Zorg ervoor dat je bekend bent met de wet- en regelgeving van je land VOORDAT je een bod uitbrengt. De verkoop van wapens aan personen onder de leeftijd van 18 is verboden. Door een bod te plaatsen, verklaar je dat je 18 jaar of ouder bent en dat je hebt geverifieerd dat je legaal dergelijke objecten in je land mag kopen.

[AdAstra]

Even so it's a very large knife, overly so for most jobs. Most of the soldiers I know carry their own folding knife or multitool instead

It's certainly no utility knife, but from a military logistics perspective it still serves the function while having other functions that are considered necessary (far less so now, but there are enough modern examples of successful bayonet charges to be worth making bucketloads of cutlery, not to mention ceremonial and guard duties). Probably cheaper than the average multitool to make and issue, too.

[MalsvirT]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but, are there historical or pre-historical examples of polearms made without wooden shafts? How effective would such weapons be?

[Brother Oni]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but, are there historical or pre-historical examples of polearms made without wooden shafts? How effective would such weapons be?

Pre-historic, the closest I can find are mentions of 'bone harpoons' made from mastodon rib bones, but it's unclear whether it's just the head, or the whole thing. These would be for hunting rather than warfare though.

In terms of later weapons, Mughal India liked their all metal weapons. They had a number of all steel spears of varying lengths, mostly used by infantry:

https://www.ashokaarts.com/img/product_images/image/detail/early-indian-lance-all-steel-form-sang-ashoka-arts--1-9592.jpg
Link (https://www.ashokaarts.com/shop/early-indian-lance-all-steel-form-sang)
https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/30762/1448836/restricted
Link (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/30762)

The NY Met sang is 92.25" (234.3 cm) long with a width of 0.75" (1.9 cm) and weighs 5.53 lbs (2508.9 g). In comparison, a wooden haft spear of the same approximately length should weigh about half that (1 - 2 kg), depending on wood type.

This would put the steel sang as heavier to use, but more durable. The weight might be a handling issue for such a short two-handed spear, since without a reach advantage, it needs to be quick.
Vibration may also be an issue, since the steel haft would transmit weapon-on-weapon impacts more easily to the user.

In comparison, a wooden spear of the same weight would both be longer (~9ft range) and significantly cheaper.

[Thiel]

It's certainly no utility knife, but from a military logistics perspective it still serves the function while having other functions that are considered necessary (far less so now, but there are enough modern examples of successful bayonet charges to be worth making bucketloads of cutlery, not to mention ceremonial and guard duties). Probably cheaper than the average multitool to make and issue, too.

Many militaries issue folding knives as well as bayonets. The Danish army issued a Swizz army knife

[Pauly]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but, are there historical or pre-historical examples of polearms made without wooden shafts? How effective would such weapons be?

As far as I’m aware bine (whale bone ans mammoth bone usually) was used for making spearheads, but not whole spears.

Leaving aside the practical aspects of making a weapon with a non-wood alternative, wood has a number of significant advantages:
- it is abundant - it literally grows on trees.
- it is cheap
- it is easy to work with
Even desert and mountain cultures with few trees had little difficulty in equipping entire armies with spears. So even if there was a practical alternate material there are manu economic/manufacturing issues pushing people to use wood.

[Martin Greywolf]

In medieval Spain you could hire a professional duelist to fight your judicial duels for you. Kings and lords kept mercenary duelists called barrāz who, in addition to fighting judicial duels as champions for their masters, would challenge enemy knights to singular duel before battle in order to raise the troop's moral and demoralize the enemy's.

This was more of a pan-European trend, with varied legality across time and place. HRE had it mostly banned, Hungary allowed it sometimes, according to custom, I have no idea about Italy.



For those unaware, 'ending someone rightly' is a slight mis-translation of a description of a technique (should be 'quickly' rather than 'rightly') in the 15th Century Gladiatoria, where you unscrew the pommel of your sword, throw it at your opponent's head as a distraction, then charge in to finish him.

Talhoffer has something similar in his 1459 manuscript, in the scenario of a man armed with a dagger versus one with a spear. The dagger wielder should throw his hat at the spearman, then throw his dagger at the chest while the spearman is distracted/sight is obscured by the hat.

I really don't understand why this whole pommel throw is so divisive. Sure, it's a neat meme, but that aside, it's clearly meant as a surprise move. You find some of them recorded over the time, as you mentioned. I recall some rapier treatise that told you to hold a handkerchief in your left hand, go into the stance and then jerk it around, and at the same time, when your opponents' eyes are tracking moving cloth, lunge.

And there is no shortage of depictions of judicial duels with discarded, probably thrown, weapons.


I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but, are there historical or pre-historical examples of polearms made without wooden shafts? How effective would such weapons be?

Not really, India has some with hollow or wood-filled metal poles, but aside from that, it's just not practical. At least not for conventional polearms - you have things like montante, zhanmadao and nagamaki, swords so large they are basically polearms.

One of the chief problems is that, unless you have personal experinece, you likely vastly underestimate just how heavy it would be if the pole was made of solid metal. I was unfortunate enough to wave around a bad reproduction of a flanged mace with solid steel pole, and wow, was that just not useable. Make it a meter long, and you'd have to be Monkey King to be able to use it.

[D&D_Fan]

Ceramics for use in Arms and Armor?
I have heard they can be used to line bulletproof vests, presumably because it absorbs shock when it shatters.

Since it it is also sharp, it can be used for weapons I assume. Probably not bludgeoning, since it would shatter do to its brittle nature. Since it can be sharp like glass, it should be good at piercing and slashing.

If any of these statements are wrong, and you know the truth please respond.

[tyckspoon]

Ceramics for use in Arms and Armor?
I have heard they can be used to line bulletproof vests, presumably because it absorbs shock when it shatters.

Since it it is also sharp, it can be used for weapons I assume. Probably not bludgeoning, since it would shatter do to its brittle nature. Since it can be sharp like glass, it should be good at piercing and slashing.

If any of these statements are wrong, and you know the truth please respond.

Extrapolating from ceramic kitchen knives, which do indeed take a lovely edge but can be chipped or broken from trying to force them through a decently solid bone.. you'd really only want to do this in a culture that had little to no usage of protective equipment or even other metal weapons. A ceramic blade edge will slice up flesh nicely, but any impact on something it can't immediately cut is liable to damage the edge, and you can't functionally repair, remake, or re-sharpen them without going to complete destruction and trying to reuse the base materials. Which may or may not even be a thing you can do, depending on what your ceramic is actually made of and what the production process entails.

[jayem]

Extrapolating from ceramic kitchen knives...
And it should be noted that these 'ceramics' aren't the same as wedgewood's ceramics or your flower pot.
They are crafted for specific features. The body armour ones are Silocon-Carbide

[Pauly]

Ceramic knives are banned in professional kitchens. If they drop they shatter and break you get a bunch of sharp ceramic shards flying around the kitchen which can easily end in someones food. And they are so brittle that the risk of breakage is too high to allow them into that environment.
Ceramic knives all have blunted points because a sharp pointed tip creates a focal point of stress. So if you made a ceramic knife with a pointy tip it would snap off almost immediately.

Even if you could fix their brittleness problem, they have another problem as a weapon. They are insanely light and have no mass to transfer energy in a blow

[DrewID]

Ceramics for use in Arms and Armor?
I have heard they can be used to line bulletproof vests, presumably because it absorbs shock when it shatters.

Since it it is also sharp, it can be used for weapons I assume. Probably not bludgeoning, since it would shatter do to its brittle nature. Since it can be sharp like glass, it should be good at piercing and slashing.

If any of these statements are wrong, and you know the truth please respond.


This is essentially what the Macuahuitl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl), an obsidian edged "sword" used in Mesoamerica, is an attempt to do on a larger scale. On a smaller scale, you have obsidian knives (not all that different from flint knives, except sharper and likely more brittle). The Macuahuitl was a wooden weapon, shaped not unlike a sword, with razor sharp pieces of obsidian (a volcanic glass) set along the edge: reports say that they could decapitate a man or even a horse with a single cut. However, "obsidian blades of the type used on the macuahuitl tended to shatter on impact with other obsidian blades, steel swords or plate armour. Obsidian blades also have difficulty penetrating European mail."

I would think any ceramic battle-blade would have much the same problems.

DrewID

[Vinyadan]

About obsidian, apparently early iron age Greece was still using it to make arrows. It's notable, because mainland Greece shouldn't have natural deposits of it, so it had to be imported.

Later on it was still used to make mirrors (there are obsidian mirrors from Anatolia dating around 6,000 BC).

[Gnoman]

Ceramics for use in Arms and Armor?
I have heard they can be used to line bulletproof vests, presumably because it absorbs shock when it shatters.

Since it it is also sharp, it can be used for weapons I assume. Probably not bludgeoning, since it would shatter do to its brittle nature. Since it can be sharp like glass, it should be good at piercing and slashing.

If any of these statements are wrong, and you know the truth please respond.

Ceramics are heavily used in both personal and vehicle armor. Most modern tanks use layers of ceramics, plastics, and metals to form a composite armor that is far stronger than simple hardened steel, while medium-rating body armor relies heavily on ceramic strike plates.

Ceramic has the advantage of being very strong and for a given level of weight, although they are also fairly bulky for said weight. The extreme hardness (significantly harder than hardened steel) can shatter or deflect an incoming bullet, which signficantly reduces the transfer of kinetic energy (because much of the KE goes back into the bullet and rips it apart, or is maintained by the bullet as it careens off into nowhere), which helps reduce concussive injuries from a stopped round.

The main disadvantage is that ceramics do tend to be more brittle, so they're only good for one or two hits at their rating, where a metal plate can shrug off hits below a certain threshold all day.

From what I understand, personal armor is generally too thin to benefit from composites, and single-material armor (with a spall liner, where appropriate) is best.

[AdAstra]

Ceramics are heavily used in both personal and vehicle armor. Most modern tanks use layers of ceramics, plastics, and metals to form a composite armor that is far stronger than simple hardened steel, while medium-rating body armor relies heavily on ceramic strike plates.

Ceramic has the advantage of being very strong and for a given level of weight, although they are also fairly bulky for said weight. The extreme hardness (significantly harder than hardened steel) can shatter or deflect an incoming bullet, which signficantly reduces the transfer of kinetic energy (because much of the KE goes back into the bullet and rips it apart, or is maintained by the bullet as it careens off into nowhere), which helps reduce concussive injuries from a stopped round.

The main disadvantage is that ceramics do tend to be more brittle, so they're only good for one or two hits at their rating, where a metal plate can shrug off hits below a certain threshold all day.

From what I understand, personal armor is generally too thin to benefit from composites, and single-material armor (with a spall liner, where appropriate) is best.

The multihit-resistance has been improving lately, as people develop more effective ceramic types and production techniques to allow for the damage to be more localized (ie, forming a pit rather than a crack in the plate). And with high-hardness penetrators becoming commonplace, the multihit protection of steel has also eroded somewhat (though it's still certainly very good in comparison, and overall everything previously said is true enough for these purposes)

[Brother Oni]

The main disadvantage is that ceramics do tend to be more brittle, so they're only good for one or two hits at their rating, where a metal plate can shrug off hits below a certain threshold all day.

While true for resistance against firearms, NATO ballistic plates are coated to help their durability and longevity outside of protection, so are surprisingly tough against melee strikes.

JustSomeGuy put up a video a while back where he had a go at some old NATO plates he had left over with his khukri. While his form wasn't great, he's a big lad and definitely put some welly behind his strikes - he just about managed to mark the plates, but didn't penetrate.


From what I understand, personal armor is generally too thin to benefit from composites, and single-material armor (with a spall liner, where appropriate) is best.

Surely a kevlar plate carrier is a composite armour? You've got the kevlar (a synthetic fibre), with the critical areas reinforced with steel or ceramic plates with an anti-spalling layer on the inside.


Looking around on youtube, here's a test of a Level IIA rated stab proof vest front panel (kevlar with a mail front layer) against various swords: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDwlBCcSWV8).

It seems to me that it would be fine for quite a few hits, although obviously not as durable as a steel cuirass.

[Saint-Just]

Surely a kevlar plate carrier is a composite armour? You've got the kevlar (a synthetic fibre), with the critical areas reinforced with steel or ceramic plates with an anti-spalling layer on the inside.


I am not familiar with the formal terminology, but for me "composite" implies that the plates itself are manufactured from the disparate materials. And AFAIK advanced vehicular armor indeed has better multi-hit resistance than ceramic plates used in ballistic vests. Ceramic + kevlar I would call layered armor, nort composite.

[Brother Oni]

I am not familiar with the formal terminology, but for me "composite" implies that the plates itself are manufactured from the disparate materials. And AFAIK advanced vehicular armor indeed has better multi-hit resistance than ceramic plates used in ballistic vests. Ceramic + kevlar I would call layered armor, nort composite.

True; I guess it depends on how you're introduced to the topic. For me, composite implies some sort of synthetic material, which means a multiple layered kevlar vest without plates counts.

I'm more than happy to defer to someone more experienced with the terminology.

[wilphe]

"Composite" in relation to armour, just means "made out of more than one thing", like a Composite Bow is

For a tank it distinguishes it from traditional armour which was steel all the way though.

The most famous Composite Armour, Chobham, has ceramic in it, but it's not necessary for there to be ceramic there for it to be composite

[Kaptin Keen]

So ... if you staple ablative armor to the outside of your tank, does it become layered, or composite?

[AdAstra]

So ... if you staple ablative armor to the outside of your tank, does it become layered, or composite?

Most of these sorts of definitions can be hazy (also ablative armor is not really a thing in modern times. Many types of armor are designed, or at least expected, to be destroyed or damaged in the process of stopping a threat, but none that I'm currently aware of directly utilize ablation as part of its protective mechanism, excluding of course ablation of the projectile. I am also ignoring ablative heat shields on spacecraft, since that's a different kind of armor). It could be described as add-on armor, or the outermost layer of a composite that's designed to be easily interchanged. It would always be layered, but whether it qualifies as a composite is largely down to how it was originally laid out by the designers and politicians, and how it was used in the field.

Basically all modern tanks have been designed from the ground up to use composite armor (typically some combination of ceramics, heavy metals, and good ol' steel in varying configurations and shapes). And it's almost always backed up by a kevlar or similar spall liner to catch fragments that punch through or are knocked off the inside face of the armor, which could be argued to be another layer to the composite. Then you've got add-on armor, which can be all kinds of things, from simple extra steel to spaced metal slats to explosive and non-explosive reactive tiles... It gets messy real quick to differentiate which parts are "part" of the vehicle and which aren't, especially when factoring in that most tanks are designed so that even the primary armor can be easily replaced.

As a general rule, if you're wondering what the exact scientific definition for any military term is, there isn't one.

[Kaptin Keen]

Most of these sorts of definitions can be hazy (also ablative armor is not really a thing in modern times. Many types of armor are designed, or at least expected, to be destroyed or damaged in the process of stopping a threat, but none that I'm currently aware of directly utilize ablation as part of its protective mechanism, excluding of course ablation of the projectile. I am also ignoring ablative heat shields on spacecraft, since that's a different kind of armor). It could be described as add-on armor, or the outermost layer of a composite that's designed to be easily interchanged. It would always be layered, but whether it qualifies as a composite is largely down to how it was originally laid out by the designers and politicians, and how it was used in the field.

Basically all modern tanks have been designed from the ground up to use composite armor (typically some combination of ceramics, heavy metals, and good ol' steel in varying configurations and shapes). And it's almost always backed up by a kevlar or similar spall liner to catch fragments that punch through or are knocked off the inside face of the armor, which could be argued to be another layer to the composite. Then you've got add-on armor, which can be all kinds of things, from simple extra steel to spaced metal slats to explosive and non-explosive reactive tiles... It gets messy real quick to differentiate which parts are "part" of the vehicle and which aren't, especially when factoring in that most tanks are designed so that even the primary armor can be easily replaced.

As a general rule, if you're wondering what the exact scientific definition for any military term is, there isn't one.

Really?

I seem to see ablative armor bolted on every single active service armored vehicle that's ever shown. Maybe it's decoration.

Reactive armor? Is that the term I'm looking for? That might be the term I'm looking for. Never mind, carry on =D

[wilphe]

As a general rule, if you're wondering what the exact scientific definition for any military term is, there isn't one.

Join us later when we argue about how Angels can fit on the barrel of a heavy machine gun

[HeadlessMermaid]

About obsidian, apparently early iron age Greece was still using it to make arrows. It's notable, because mainland Greece shouldn't have natural deposits of it, so it had to be imported.
From David Abulafia's The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean: "The obsidian quarries of Melos, which were exploited for about 12,000 years, reached their peak of popularity in the early Bronze Age, when one might expect metal tools to have become more fashionable. But obsidian was appreciated precisely because of its low value: in the early Bronze Age, metals were scarce and the technology to produce copper and bronze was not widely available, and difficult to set in place."

Melos (or Milos) didn't really have settlements before the Bronze Age, people just would sail over, hack pieces of obsidian off, grab them and leave. Mainland Greece and Crete and other islands were close enough. They could also get obsidian from Sicily, and maybe from Malta. (I'm not sure if we have evidence for Malta.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Things I've been watching while not going out:

Weights of swords and other weapons -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38q-Ts0A8Yw

Why are movie weapons so often wrong? -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF1VFlCnLQ4 (Don't always agree that the reasons are entirely valid, but worth a watch.)

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

Longbow vs Crossbow -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w8yHeF4KRk

[Saint-Just]

In the Danish 1864 TV series Danish line infantry seems to be armed with a musket, a socket bayonet and... a shortsword? Quick googling give a few contemporary pictures like this one

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/F%C3%B8rste_Infanteriregiment_i_Haandgem%C3%A6ng_m ed_Regimentet_Martini.png

showing that this is not some fevered fantasy of the filmmakers. And the blade definitely looks like a shortsword - any sort of utility blade should be either shorter or wider.

Do we have any other example where shooters/musketeers/riflemen/line infantry of the gunpowder era were issued two separate melee weapons?

And would anyone care to speculate about the thought process behind this loadout? It seems to run contrary to many of the military ideals of the time: economy (even in industrial era the blades are not cheap), neatness (two scabbards on the same hip are aesthetically displeasing), simplicity (some fool in the heat of the battle would inevitably try to attach the shortsword to the musket).

[Kaptin Keen]

I can find unbelievably detailed information on every aspect of uniform - but basically none on weaponry. Oh, one detail is mentioned: Only two people in the danish army were specialists without a rifle - the adjudant, and the hornblower.

Oh, found it: The gear includes a bullet pouch, a bayonet and a sabre. Also a seal skin 'backpack' (I'm not sure how to translate tornyster, but backpack will do).

Soldiers were expected to purchase their own snaps, on command.

[Saint-Just]

Oh, found it: The gear includes a bullet pouch, a bayonet and a sabre. Also a seal skin 'backpack' (I'm not sure how to translate tornyster, but backpack will do).

Soldiers were expected to purchase their own snaps, on command.

Thank you very much! Could you please provide the original word for "sabre" (no, I do not know Danish, but it still would make it possible to understand what they have meant)?

And even after getting the confirmation, I am still baffled. I can't imagine that a situation where a sabre would be preferable to a bayonet for infantryman would come more often than once in a century.

[Kaptin Keen]

Thank you very much! Could you please provide the original word for "sabre" (no, I do not know Danish, but it still would make it possible to understand what they have meant)?

And even after getting the confirmation, I am still baffled. I can't imagine that a situation where a sabre would be preferable to a bayonet for infantryman would come more often than once in a century.

Sabre, in danish, is sabel.

I too am somewhat surprised. I'm not a weapons buff, but ... well, it looks like a cavalry sabre to me =)

I've handled a few. My uncle was a collector, and had two, and I've carried one on parade once (I held the banner, and that comes with a sabre, even if it was just borrowed for the occasion).

[Berenger]

I'd guess that those are neither short swords nor sabers but fascine knifes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascine_knife). They were used to cut the large quantities of light wood needed to stabilize earthworks, fill ditches and to stockpile campfire fuel. The primary melee weapon of the soldiers in the picture is the bayonets, note that no one unsheathed the sword-like weapon for close combat.


(I'm not sure how to translate tornyster, but backpack will do).
In german, a Tornister is just a word for a distinct type of backback mostly used by the military (square, originally made from leather and covered in fur). According to wikipedia, it seems to be much the same in danish.

[Mike_G]

Infantry being officially issued a sword during gunpowder era is pretty common, but they weren't used very much.

French Napoleonic infantry were supposed to be issued a short sabre (and it looks just like a cavalry sabre, but shorter) but this eventually was changed to just certain units, and probably not carried just to save weight.

British infantry of the mid 18th century (Jacobite rebellion era, at least) in theory carried swords, but sources have called them hangers or sabres, so terminology is muddy.

I think (without any real research, just applied logic) that this is a holdover from pre-bayonet and maybe even plug bayonet days. Add to that some basic military bureaucratic resistance to change, and I can see why many armies officially retained the sword, even though it probably saw little use, and soldiers probably tended to leave them behind. We know that the US Cavalry troopers tended to leave their sabres behind during the Indian Wars, at laast once breechloaders and revolvers were standard for every man.

So I would guess the Danish troops were probably issued short sabres on the official TOE, but I doubt many were used in melee.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Swords are often a sidearm, they can be carried with a gun, but also with a lance or a pike. A bayonet is nice to have a melee option alongside your ranged musket, but it doesn't work if you lose or break your musket (depending on how you break it). By the 1600's a good battlefield sword only weights about a kilogram, that's manageable as a backup.

Modern soldiers who have a bayonet on their rifle will usually carry a pistol as well. The main point of a sidearm is to have a separate backup weapon, not a secondary usage mode for your primary weapon.

[Mike_G]

This is a Pinterst board, but you can see a lot of the regular infantry have what looks like a short sabre.

https://www.pinterest.com/zouave5newyork/french-line-infantry-uniforms/

[Kaptin Keen]

In german, a Tornister is just a word for a distinct type of backback mostly used by the military (square, originally made from leather and covered in fur). According to wikipedia, it seems to be much the same in danish.

Absolutely. I didn't know the word existed in german too - in all likelyhood we imported it from you guys.

[fusilier]

French Napoleonic infantry were supposed to be issued a short sabre (and it looks just like a cavalry sabre, but shorter) but this eventually was changed to just certain units, and probably not carried just to save weight.

I believe the sword is called a "briquet", and is basically the same as a "hanger". However, only the elite companies and regiments carried the sword, the line fusilier companies did not. Nevertheless, infantry carrying a short sword of some sort was pretty common well into the mid-19th century. In the 1840s the French started to issue the artillery short sword to all their infantry, you will see it in depictions of French infantry during the Crimean War (this sword is similar to the US heavy artillery short sword).

Is this the Danish infantry sword?
https://www.champagnesabling.dk/1864

[Saint-Just]

I believe the sword is called a "briquet", and is basically the same as a "hanger". However, only the elite companies and regiments carried the sword, the line fusilier companies did not. Nevertheless, infantry carrying a short sword of some sort was pretty common well into the mid-19th century. In the 1840s the French started to issue the artillery short sword to all their infantry, you will see it in depictions of French infantry during the Crimean War (this sword is similar to the US heavy artillery short sword).

Is this the Danish infantry sword?
https://www.champagnesabling.dk/1864

Well, that's exactly how sword handles looked in the series (I cannot say about the rest of the sword because they never unsheathed them)

What is interesting is that if IMFDB is to be believed they just used Springfield replicas instead of Danish percussion muskets, but the swords they replicated right.

[Berenger]

Is this the Danish infantry sword?
https://www.champagnesabling.dk/1864


This looks nearly identical to the french "Sabre de troupes a pied Mle 1831" displayed in the german Wiki. Only the sheath and the lowest part of the blade look a bit different. Is it possible that they come from the same manufacturer?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Faschinenmesser_1832.jpg

[Max_Killjoy]

This looks nearly identical to the french "Sabre de troupes a pied Mle 1831" displayed in the german Wiki. Only the sheath and the lowest part of the blade look a bit different. Is it possible that they come from the same manufacturer?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Faschinenmesser_1832.jpg


The US army issued a similar sword to infantry and foot artillery.

Reportedly it was junk for actual combat, but did a decent job as a brush clearing tool.

[Vinyadan]

I am almost sure that I once saw the photograph of an artillery sword that was much thinner and had notches and numbers on the blade to be used for measurement and calculation. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I saw it, or to what European army it would have belonged.

[Gnoman]

What is interesting is that if IMFDB is to be believed they just used Springfield replicas instead of Danish percussion muskets, but the swords they replicated right.

Hardly surprising. Anything used in the American Civil War is extremely popular with ACW re-enactors, which is by far the largest single re-enacting community. Looking things up, quality replica Springfields cost half what it would cost for a medocre Danish replica.

[fusilier]

The US army issued a similar sword to infantry and foot artillery.

Reportedly it was junk for actual combat, but did a decent job as a brush clearing tool.

Yeah, the US foot artillery sword was a copy of an earlier version: the French M1816 sword. The overall dimensions are similar to the M1831, but the 1816 had fullers on the blade, and different texture to the grip.

[fusilier]

This looks nearly identical to the french "Sabre de troupes a pied Mle 1831" displayed in the german Wiki. Only the sheath and the lowest part of the blade look a bit different. Is it possible that they come from the same manufacturer?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Faschinenmesser_1832.jpg

The handle is the same, but the blade on the Danish weapon looks more slender to me.

[fusilier]

Generally speaking, I don't think swords had much place in combat among the infantry at this time. The French Army in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars used them as a badge or mark of honor for the elite infantry units. In theory, bayonets can become stuck or be rendered impractical, and a sword may come in handy -- but as many armies dispensed with them, they probably weren't considered a necessity.

I have heard that in some cultures, a sword was the mark of a soldier, and therefore was a kind of status symbol. Certainly these swords don't seem to be very high quality, and the series of French short swords do seem to have a practical, machete-like, appearance, more suited for clearing brush than combat. Even infantry officer's swords were rarely used in combat by this time, although they often took the form of cavalry swords, and cavalry were more likely to use their swords in combat.

Keep in mind, during WW1, sharpened entrenching tools made useful and effective hand-to-hand weapons in the close confines of the trenches. So even a weapon, or tool, which seems to have low combat potential can be useful.

[Brother Oni]

Do we have any other example where shooters/musketeers/riflemen/line infantry of the gunpowder era were issued two separate melee weapons?

During the English Civil War, musketeers could carry their own sword, although plug bayonets were issued after that conflict.

https://spartacus-educational.com/00civil5.jpg

In Volume 12 of the Binglu (兵錄, Record of Military Arts), c1606, there's mention of a plug bayonet for a breech loaded musket.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/%E5%AD%90%E6%AF%8D%E9%B3%A5%E9%8A%83.png/398px-%E5%AD%90%E6%AF%8D%E9%B3%A5%E9%8A%83.png
Ming era musketeers were also issued with dao (sabres), judging from this page in a later manual.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/1639_Ming_musketry_volley_formation.jpg

[fusilier]

During the English Civil War, musketeers could carry their own sword, although plug bayonets were issued after that conflict.

https://spartacus-educational.com/00civil5.jpg

That image comes from De Gheyn's manual (circa 1610, perhaps drawn a little earlier), which covers pike, musketeers, and arquebusiers (shot). The pictures are very well drawn, and can serve as a costume manual. I think almost all soldiers are depicted with both a sword and a dagger. Daggers can also be useful outside of combat, so it's not too surprising that everyone would be carrying one. I imagine it is similar to modern soldiers carrying a pocket knife -- except that there was probably a greater chance that the dagger would be used in combat.

[Brother Oni]

That image comes from De Gheyn's manual (circa 1610, perhaps drawn a little earlier), which covers pike, musketeers, and arquebusiers (shot). The pictures are very well drawn, and can serve as a costume manual. I think almost all soldiers are depicted with both a sword and a dagger. Daggers can also be useful outside of combat, so it's not too surprising that everyone would be carrying one. I imagine it is similar to modern soldiers carrying a pocket knife -- except that there was probably a greater chance that the dagger would be used in combat.

I looked up his name and I see what you mean by the engravings being good enough for a costume manual:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Jacob_de_Gheyn_-_Wapenhandelinge_4.jpg

I think in that series of photographs which depicted soldiers' kit throughout the centuries, there was always a couple of constants; a small utility knife and eating utensils (typically a spoon and a bowl at the very least). A dagger or a fighting knife seems to have been issued separately (most notably with modern kit where the knife can also be mounted as a bayonet).

[rrgg]

At the other end of the spectrum there's this fun cartoon from the 17th century of an English soldier in Ireland.

https://i.imgur.com/jfP0vHT.jpg


I have heard that in some cultures, a sword was the mark of a soldier, and therefore was a kind of status symbol.

To be fair that seems to have included most europeans up through the 19th century or so as well. The claim that they just make soldiers look "more soldierly" seems to come up pretty often among those who kept pushing for soldiers to still carry a sword of some sort during the enlightenment period, even if the soldiers rarely actually used them and they might get in the way at times. I suppose there might be some situations where a short, light sword might come in handy like if you found yourself fighting in a tight, confined space where a musket and bayonet would be too long or if you ended up within wrestling range. In previous periods it was considered very important to have not only a sword as a backup to your polearm or primary weapon, but also to have a good dagger so that you have a backup for your backup. From the 1700s onwards though yeah they seem to have been considered less essential.

[Lilapop]

sword as a backup to your polearm or primary weapon, but also to have a good dagger so that you have a backup for your backup.
Bladed weapons seem to be significantly lighter than modern firearms - non-miniature pistols only really dropped below 1 kg (the average weight of most onehanded swords) with polymer frames like Glocks, and that is without ammo. So having a backup-backup dagger to your backup sword is, encumbrance-wise, a different kettle of fish than a backup-backup pistol to your backup rifle.

Considering that for most combat roles, the rifle is indeed a backup, the idea of giving every soldier a pistol that seems to surface from time to time doesn't strike me as all that smart.

[Gnoman]

Bladed weapons seem to be significantly lighter than modern firearms - non-miniature pistols only really dropped below 1 kg (the average weight of most onehanded swords) with polymer frames like Glocks, and that is without ammo. So having a backup-backup dagger to your backup sword is, encumbrance-wise, a different kettle of fish than a backup-backup pistol to your backup rifle.

Considering that for most combat roles, the rifle is indeed a backup, the idea of giving every soldier a pistol that seems to surface from time to time doesn't strike me as all that smart.

The empty weight (magazine but no ammo) of both the Browning Hi-Power and M1911A1 is almost right on 1kg. Those are turn-of-the-20th-century service pistols in solid calibers. The Makarov is .75kg, from 1948. Even the Beretta M9, infamous for being a very heavy design, clocks in only .9 unloaded.

[halfeye]

Considering that for most combat roles, the rifle is indeed a backup, the idea of giving every soldier a pistol that seems to surface from time to time doesn't strike me as all that smart.

The rifle is a backup? to what?

For a tank crew that sort of works, but not for infantry as I understand it.

[fusilier]

To be fair that seems to have included most europeans up through the 19th century or so as well.
Yeah, I did not mean to imply that European cultures were excluded from my statement. The United States seem to have been an exception, whereas in Mexico the tradition continued well into the 19th century.

[Thiel]

In the Danish 1864 TV series Danish line infantry seems to be armed with a musket, a socket bayonet and... a shortsword? Quick googling give a few contemporary pictures like this one

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/F%C3%B8rste_Infanteriregiment_i_Haandgem%C3%A6ng_m ed_Regimentet_Martini.png

showing that this is not some fevered fantasy of the filmmakers. And the blade definitely looks like a shortsword - any sort of utility blade should be either shorter or wider.

Do we have any other example where shooters/musketeers/riflemen/line infantry of the gunpowder era were issued two separate melee weapons?

And would anyone care to speculate about the thought process behind this loadout? It seems to run contrary to many of the military ideals of the time: economy (even in industrial era the blades are not cheap), neatness (two scabbards on the same hip are aesthetically displeasing), simplicity (some fool in the heat of the battle would inevitably try to attach the shortsword to the musket).

Those are Sidevåben for Fodfolk M1854 (https://www.arma-dania.dk/public/timeline/_AD_blankvaben_view.php?editid1=128) or Sidearm for Infantry M1854 in English. It's a copy of a Prussian model 1840 which in turn is patterned on a French model 1831. They were captured from Schleswig-Holstein rebels, refurbished and issued to the Danish infantry. The remained in inventory well into the 20th century

[AdAstra]

The rifle is a backup? to what?

For a tank crew that sort of works, but not for infantry as I understand it.
Depending on your definition of rifle, this is indeed quite common. Carbines and other light handy firearms, as well as sometimes full sized rifles, are commonly issued to people who’s primary job was NOT shooting that firearm at people. Artillery and vehicle crews, support troops, rear-line personnel, officers, or people who operate heavy weapons, like mortars. There are plenty of soldiers for whom personal small arms will be rarely used, but a pistol would be insufficient or require too much training to really be proficient.

[Mike_G]

Depending on your definition of rifle, this is indeed quite common. Carbines and other light handy firearms, as well as sometimes full sized rifles, are commonly issued to people who’s primary job was NOT shooting that firearm at people. Artillery and vehicle crews, support troops, rear-line personnel, officers, or people who operate heavy weapons, like mortars. There are plenty of soldiers for whom personal small arms will be rarely used, but a pistol would be insufficient or require too much training to really be proficient.

I can't agree enough, and I'm glad someone brought it up.

This was the whole purpose of the M1 Carbine, of which we made 6 million in WWII. It was half the weight of the rifle, but was useful out to 100 or 200 yards, which the M1911...isn't.

[wilphe]

Or why PDWs were invented, or why you used to give those guys SMGs

[Mike_G]

Or why PDWs were invented, or why you used to give those guys SMGs

Which are crap at 100 yards as well. And the early SMGs, like the Thompson weigh as much as the Garand anyway. Even before you figure ammo weight for an automatic weapon.

SMGs are useful in the assault and in close quarters and total crap at everything else.

[halfeye]

Depending on your definition of rifle, this is indeed quite common. Carbines and other light handy firearms, as well as sometimes full sized rifles, are commonly issued to people who’s primary job was NOT shooting that firearm at people. Artillery and vehicle crews, support troops, rear-line personnel, officers, or people who operate heavy weapons, like mortars. There are plenty of soldiers for whom personal small arms will be rarely used, but a pistol would be insufficient or require too much training to really be proficient.

If you're going to define "rifle" that way, then rifles are no longer used in war, except by snipers.

[AdAstra]

If you're going to define "rifle" that way, then rifles are no longer used in war, except by snipers.

? That doesn’t follow. The existence of lighter weapons that qualify as rifles does not suddenly make standard infantry arms NOT rifles. A carbine being a rifle doesn’t make a rifle something else.

[wilphe]

Which are crap at 100 yards as well. And the early SMGs, like the Thompson weigh as much as the Garand anyway. Even before you figure ammo weight for an automatic weapon.

SMGs are useful in the assault and in close quarters and total crap at everything else.

Not particularly disagreeing with you, but that still means a lot of SMGs got issued to anybody other than infantry for being better than a pistol but lighter and cheaper than a rifle, as well as having low overheads in training and maintenance.

Not Thompsons certainly, because they are big, heavy and expensive; but Sterlings, M3 Grease Guns, PPSh, Stens and the like

[wilphe]

? That doesn’t follow. The existence of lighter weapons that qualify as rifles does not suddenly make standard infantry arms NOT rifles. A carbine being a rifle doesn’t make a rifle something else.

We are arguing terminology here, but modern "rifles" are almost all "assault rifles" and the "assault" part tends to be dropped because they are the only game in town.

Rifles as the term was understood until 1944 are a different type of weapon such as Lee-Enfield or Gewehr 98
- Full power cartridge
- Bolt Action (Garand not included)
- Magazine Fed
- Long range potential

Militaries don't use those anymore, they either use an Assault (or Battle) rifle with a reduced cartridge with full auto capability and shorter range or they stick a scope on a "traditional" rifle and that becomes a DMR or Sniper weapon.

[fusilier]

Those are Sidevåben for Fodfolk M1854 (https://www.arma-dania.dk/public/timeline/_AD_blankvaben_view.php?editid1=128) or Sidearm for Infantry M1854 in English. It's a copy of a Prussian model 1840 which in turn is patterned on a French model 1831. They were captured from Schleswig-Holstein rebels, refurbished and issued to the Danish infantry. The remained in inventory well into the 20th century

Thank you Thiel for the detailed information.

[KineticDiplomat]

Re: rifles.

In many modern armies, the assignment of carbines and rifles is reversed from the WWII conception.

The US, for instance, transitioned to the M4 carbine as it’s primary “rifle”. The first people to be issued were infantry and some other line types, gradually working its way through armor, artillery, etc. and only equipping logistics and clerks types last. The farther to the rear a unit is/was, the more M16 rifles and less M4 carbines it will have.

The marines, by a mix of both their own culture and being second place in navy budgets, maintain more rifles in their frontline mix, but are also actively modernizing to mostly carbines.

If you look at Russian equipping, you are more likely to see carbine variant AKs in higher quality units - generally the higher the ration of “contract soldiers” (aka, not conscripts) the more carbinized AKs you’ll see.

[AdAstra]

We are arguing terminology here, but modern "rifles" are almost all "assault rifles" and the "assault" part tends to be dropped because they are the only game in town.

Rifles as the term was understood until 1944 are a different type of weapon such as Lee-Enfield or Gewehr 98
- Full power cartridge
- Bolt Action (Garand not included)
- Magazine Fed
- Long range potential

Militaries don't use those anymore, they either use an Assault (or Battle) rifle with a reduced cartridge with full auto capability and shorter range or they stick a scope on a "traditional" rifle and that becomes a DMR or Sniper weapon.

But assault rifles are still rifles? With carbine versions as well. It's not as if adding the "assault" part of the designation changes the "rifle" part. Full power manually operated rifles are not a thing, but the weapons that replaced them are still rifles.

[AdAstra]

Re: rifles.

In many modern armies, the assignment of carbines and rifles is reversed from the WWII conception.

The US, for instance, transitioned to the M4 carbine as it’s primary “rifle”. The first people to be issued were infantry and some other line types, gradually working its way through armor, artillery, etc. and only equipping logistics and clerks types last. The farther to the rear a unit is/was, the more M16 rifles and less M4 carbines it will have.

The marines, by a mix of both their own culture and being second place in navy budgets, maintain more rifles in their frontline mix, but are also actively modernizing to mostly carbines.

If you look at Russian equipping, you are more likely to see carbine variant AKs in higher quality units - generally the higher the ration of “contract soldiers” (aka, not conscripts) the more carbinized AKs you’ll see.

As for this one, you're quite right. As far as I can tell, the reasons are basically the following.

-Assault rifles are pretty light and handy to begin with. The AK-74 especially has a barrel length of 16.3 in, which is basically carbine length already, and many variants have folding stocks to minimize length when stowed. So in many cases you could just issue rifles and not have any real issues.

-The need for compact firearms in frontline use has grown, due to a variety of factors including increased house-to-house fighting (or at least a greater recognition of its relevance).

-Cost. With new carbines coming in, and old rifles being phased out of frontline use, the obvious solution to equipping rear-line units and lower-priority personnel is to give them the rifles, or let them keep using the rifles they were already issued.

[Pauly]

The rifle is a backup? to what?

For a tank crew that sort of works, but not for infantry as I understand it.

The squad MG, and the anti-tank rocket.

By the end of WWI most British infantry were carrying spare magazines for the Lewis gun, and in WWII all of them were carrying spare mags for the Bren, and often carried extra PIAT rounds. The Germans went even further regards turning the function of the squad into a support system for the MG34/MG42.

[KineticDiplomat]

To expand on Pauli’s point in a modern context:

In western armies, squads mostly consist of two four man teams and a squad leader. Even assuming these were ever actually filled to 100% (they’re not - even when they’re at 100% manning) you would see in each team:

-A LMG. Some armies call them automatic rifles, but they’re really LMGs.
-A Rifle w/grenade launcher
-The team leader, who has a rifle. In theory. He sometimes carries the GL because of the excellent properties it has for marking and signaling.
-A rifle. This is the first guy to either be loaded down with extra stuff or not have his position filled. Or be designated the SDM and given a different rifle.

If we expand that out to a squad, yes, you theoretically have 5/9 members carrying pure rifles. Generally, the firepower comes from the other weapons, and the close assault capability comes from the riflemen.

Take it out to a platoon and you’ll have three rifle squads and one weapons squad which has two medium machineguns and two anti-tank missile systems. It never fights as a pure squad, and the reality of how much men can carry means if you actually want all four crew served weapons fully fuunctional and carrying enough ammo, you need to take men from somewhere. Plus the weapon squads get filled first from limited manpower.

On top of which, casualty collection parties with the PSG, special teams, and unglamorous details need to come from somewhere.

So of a theoretical max of 15 men in a 40 man platoon who’s primary purpose is to wield a rifle for its own sake, rather than work a radio, carry missiles, set up tripods, call in fires, etc. you’ll almost never see that many.

This is largely because firefights, contrary to gaming culture, largely devolve into throwing vast quantities of ammunition in the general direction of an enemy you can’t see very well. Which is not optimal for a rifle.

And when you get into the 50 yard band where small arms killing really happens unless someone obligingly attacks in your firepower, all the other job descriptions go out the window and whoever had a rifle uses it.

[Durkoala]

This isn't exactly a tactics question, but I'm hoping it's close enough.

I'm writing something where an old castle has had a lake form around it and not been flooded thanks to magic. However, if the magic goes away thanks to adventurers and the outer walls start to leak and give way, how long would they have to get to safety and what would happen when the walls crumble?

For details, the castle is a concentric castle with an outer wall roughly about 10-15 metres high and 3-4 wide and an inner wall 15-20m and the same width, with an integrated keep. The body of the keep is the same height as the inner wall, but it has five towers that stand about 30m tall. After decades to a century of abandonment, some of the inner walls may be crumbling and one of the keep's towers has fallen, but the artefact in the castle has kept the outer wall mostly intact and grown a forest between the inner and outer walls. The adventurers are in the keep when the artefact is turned off.

(I haven't worked out how wide the castle as a whole is yet, hope that's not too much trouble)

[Kaptin Keen]

This isn't exactly a tactics question, but I'm hoping it's close enough.

I'm writing something where an old castle has had a lake form around it and not been flooded thanks to magic. However, if the magic goes away thanks to adventurers and the outer walls start to leak and give way, how long would they have to get to safety and what would happen when the walls crumble?

For details, the castle is a concentric castle with an outer wall roughly about 10-15 metres high and 3-4 wide and an inner wall 15-20m and the same width, with an integrated keep. The body of the keep is the same height as the inner wall, but it has five towers that stand about 30m tall. After decades to a century of abandonment, some of the inner walls may be crumbling and one of the keep's towers has fallen, but the artefact in the castle has kept the outer wall mostly intact and grown a forest between the inner and outer walls. The adventurers are in the keep when the artefact is turned off.

(I haven't worked out how wide the castle as a whole is yet, hope that's not too much trouble)

I'm not going to claim to know anything about this, but - it seems it would mostly depend on climate. Mortar can withstand water for a long time (dependent on quality, I guess?!), but if the water freezes each winter, it's not going to take long at all. I'd guess a castle built from cut stone rather than rough would last a lot longer. Finally, I suppose the level of the water would play a role. Castles have moats, and for that reason alone, it would make sense for their foundations to be built to withstand the water.

[Random Sanity]

Castle walls (especially in large castles like the one you're describing) tend to be built as thick as possible - both to facilitate men fighting from the top of said wall, and to withstand catapult fire. You're looking at anywhere from 10 to 20 feet of solid material, partly masonry and partly medieval concrete. Water won't breach that easily, unless the castle has sunk to the point that the water is at or near the top of the wall.

What's most likely to give way is any gates. Wooden doors leave cracks for water to seep through, and a portcullis is mostly empty space as far as water's concerned. So how many gates are there, and how solid are they? That's what will determine how much time your party has to escape the deluge.

[Durkoala]

Castle walls (especially in large castles like the one you're describing) tend to be built as thick as possible - both to facilitate men fighting from the top of said wall, and to withstand catapult fire. You're looking at anywhere from 10 to 20 feet of solid material, partly masonry and partly medieval concrete. Water won't breach that easily, unless the castle has sunk to the point that the water is at or near the top of the wall.

What's most likely to give way is any gates. Wooden doors leave cracks for water to seep through, and a portcullis is mostly empty space as far as water's concerned. So how many gates are there, and how solid are they? That's what will determine how much time your party has to escape the deluge.

Right, I forgot to mention that the water is no less than a metre from the top of the outside wall by the time the party will find it (and has probably been that way for decades). At first sight, the castle looks more like an island with towers on it.

[Khedrac]

Just to further confuse, stone walls can absorb a surprising amount of water without being weakened very much. What this does affect though is how fast flooding will be - as if the walls are already full of water they leakage will be faster.

So the question is, "how damaged are the foundation walls?" If they are very damaged, then the castle will collapse in minutes, if they are fairly intact, then it could remains tanding for months. Equally the flooding could be minutes or days, it all depends on the degree of damage they have received.

[wilphe]

This is largely because firefights, contrary to gaming culture, largely devolve into throwing vast quantities of ammunition in the general direction of an enemy you can’t see very well.


Ironically despite hit points lack of "realism"; they could model this fairly well.

Because what you are doing is supressing their will to fight until they decide to leave (or surrender, or take cover before your assault), rather than flat out killing them.

This would however required gamers to understand that it's not necessary to "hit" someone in order to "damage" them

+++++++++

I don't know any system where combat works like that, but it would be more realistic than assessing penalties for shooting people in the eyeballs whilst dual wielding .50cal desert eagles.

[Pauly]

Right, I forgot to mention that the water is no less than a metre from the top of the outside wall by the time the party will find it (and has probably been that way for decades). At first sight, the castle looks more like an island with towers on it.

https://www.rt.com/news/410630-castle-underwater-lake-turkey/

The castle, if made of stone, will not collapse. If made of baked bricks (post high medieval fantasy technology) it will not collapse.

The only chance of it collapsing is if it is made of adobe bricks. Adobe brick castles, as far as I’m aware, only existed in pre-inca south America, and they could exist only because of the extremely low rainfall in the areas they were made in. Even then it won’t collapse quickly because the water has to seep in and cause the bricks to fail one by one and the interior bricks will be kept dry until the exterior brick immediately in front of it falls away.

[Brother Oni]

Right, I forgot to mention that the water is no less than a metre from the top of the outside wall by the time the party will find it (and has probably been that way for decades). At first sight, the castle looks more like an island with towers on it.

Since the water is that high, don't forget arrow slits or murder holes as a means for water to bypass the outer wall. Once the water is inside, the keep will have windows that will also allow water in, but only above the first floor or so.

The castle's main gate is highly unlikely to be water tight, so even if the gate held, water would simply get in from underneath or the sides (flooding was a common way to attack fortified cities in ancient Chinese warfare).


For details, the castle is a concentric castle with an outer wall roughly about 10-15 metres high and 3-4 wide and an inner wall 15-20m and the same width, with an integrated keep. The body of the keep is the same height as the inner wall, but it has five towers that stand about 30m tall.

Could you clarify your castle's layout please? From the sounds of it, you have an outer wall, an outer courtyard of 15m distance, then an inner wall with an integrated keep that encloses an inner courtyard?

Since I don't know how big your inner courtyard is (this will significantly affect the internal volume of the castle and hence the rate at which it fills up), I'm going to model your castle as a more simplistic outer wall-courtyard-keep arrangement.

This sort of arrangement will have the keep's entrance on the first floor, so 2m up.

Let's say the main gate holds, but there's a 5 cm gap under the main gate. Assuming the main gate is 4 m wide, we have the equivalent of a pipe with (4 x 0.05) = 0.2 m2 cross-sectional area.

The equation that seems most relevant here is 'Flow rate from a vessel with a small lateral aperature' - using this online calculator (https://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/draining_tank.cfm#calc) gives me a flowrate value of 1.6m3/sec. I assume the lake is big enough for the displaced volume of the castle not to significantly affect it, and I'm using 10m tall walls - a 15m wall will significantly affect the flow rate due to the increased water depth increasing the pressure.

The internal volume of the castle using my simplified model above as annulus: (Inner keep of 4m radius, 15m radius courtyard)

A = pi (192﹣42)
A = π (192﹣42)
A = ~1084 m2

Dividing that by 1.6 gives ~678 seconds to kill up a meter of the inner courtyard. For easy of gameplay, assume that flowrate is constant (it's not, but I really don't want to to do iterative calculations), the keep would start flooding from its first floor entrance after ~1355 seconds (~22.6 minutes), with the entire castle being effectively flooded to the level of the outside lake after ~102 minutes.

Note that the battlements and the roof of the keep will be above the water, with the top floor of the keep flooded to about a depth of a metre.

I'm not modelling any water ingress from arrow slits as they would be insignificant to the gap under the main gate and I'm assuming the keep will flood at the same rate as the outer courtyard does (there will be a delay as once the water level hits the first floor entrance, as the castle's dungeons and ground floor will slowly fill up first, but I need the internal floor volumes to model that effectively).

[Martin Greywolf]

I'm writing something where an old castle has had a lake form around it and not been flooded thanks to magic. However, if the magic goes away thanks to adventurers and the outer walls start to leak and give way, how long would they have to get to safety and what would happen when the walls crumble?

Magic. Well, that is a problem.

In real life, most of the flood damage to castles comes in the fomr of eroding things the wall stands on top of. If you scour the news, you will be able to find several articles about a castle wall collapsing after it wasn't given proper maintenance.


https://mapio.net/images-p/6083561.jpg


If you are keeping water away with magic, the question is, does the magic stabilize the thing castle is standing on? If it does, what happens when magic goes away? Does the terrain suddenly turn into what it would be like without it, or does the erosion simply start at that point? If it's the latter, the castle will likely not collapse at all, if the former, outside walls will likely fail in several places, and possible make the whole thing unstable - it really depends on what exactly that castle is standing.


After decades to a century of abandonment, some of the inner walls may be crumbling and one of the keep's towers has fallen, but the artefact in the castle has kept the outer wall mostly intact and grown a forest between the inner and outer walls.

That forest complicates it even more, since the forest would act as a stabilizing factor for the ground, but the roots would likely weaken the stone walls, possibly even stone grouind under them - it's probably one of the towers collapsed. If magic is suddenly turned off, you could get a cool scene where outer walls collapse and trees hold what is left of the courtyard together.

[Gnoman]

We are arguing terminology here, but modern "rifles" are almost all "assault rifles" and the "assault" part tends to be dropped because they are the only game in town.

Rifles as the term was understood until 1944 are a different type of weapon such as Lee-Enfield or Gewehr 98
- Full power cartridge
- Bolt Action (Garand not included)
- Magazine Fed
- Long range potential

Militaries don't use those anymore, they either use an Assault (or Battle) rifle with a reduced cartridge with full auto capability and shorter range or they stick a scope on a "traditional" rifle and that becomes a DMR or Sniper weapon.

By this logic, nobody used rifles very much in WWI either, because almost everything was carbine-length instead of the man-long rifles used in previous wars.


An AR-15 derivative is every bit as much a rifle as a Mauser derivative which is every bit as much a rifle as Springfield 1855 derivative. The designs have been modified to suit the current tactical situations and technology (barrels got shorter after the invention of smokeless powder because smokeless burns faster, cartridges got smaller after WWII because shorter range fast-paced engagements were much more common than the leisurely long-range duels that were previously expected), but they're still rifles. An M4 is effective out to the limit of iron sights against an individual anyway - anything the cartridge can't reach is going to take an optic to hit reliably anyway.

[Max_Killjoy]

Anyone have any thoughts on, or any images of, knives like the one shown starting at 18:30 of this Scholagladatoria video:

https://youtu.be/NHpwITXxaT8?t=1110

[AdAstra]

Ironically despite hit points lack of "realism"; they could model this fairly well.

Because what you are doing is supressing their will to fight until they decide to leave (or surrender, or take cover before your assault), rather than flat out killing them.

This would however required gamers to understand that it's not necessary to "hit" someone in order to "damage" them

+++++++++

I don't know any system where combat works like that, but it would be more realistic than assessing penalties for shooting people in the eyeballs whilst dual wielding .50cal desert eagles.

A lot of games feature morale systems, which while usually relying on kills, does somewhat approximate the idea of a battle usually not being a matter of "kill everyone opposing you". Plus, even games like DnD, which don't have morale systems, very much allow for DMs to have enemies retreat or be "broken" in a way that is not physical.

I think in many cases, this is largely a DM and player mindset problem. Very few real forces would fight to the death in their entirety. Killing a significant number with no sign of stopping, or forcing the enemy into a very bad position should normally be enough to force most rational (and irrational) beings off the field.

The problem is multifarious. The players generally don't want enemies to get away, since they're liable to come back with reinforcements, perform ambushes later, or might not be worth any XP, depending on the system and DM. DMs don't want enemies to run away because it can feel anticlimactic or too short, and players are likely to either spend a lot of time chasing down fleeing foes or complain if the escape is fiated.

[Vinyadan]

Anyone have any thoughts on, or any images of, knives like the one shown starting at 18:30 of this Scholagladatoria video:

https://youtu.be/NHpwITXxaT8?t=1110
That looks like a machaira, a Greek chopping sword. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/257576

[Martin Greywolf]

I think in many cases, this is largely a DM and player mindset problem. Very few real forces would fight to the death in their entirety. Killing a significant number with no sign of stopping, or forcing the enemy into a very bad position should normally be enough to force most rational (and irrational) beings off the field.

It's more than just a mindset or fear of reinforcements, that would be easy enough to solve by making the routed forces run away from their friends, at least for a while, in most cases.

The best handling of military routs is IMO in Total War games, specifically Medieval 2 (more recent ones are... disappointing in this aspect). To have a short look on why this issue is more of a PITA than most, let's see what affects morale in M2TW:


relative numbers fighting, i.e. number of allied soldiers nearby/number of enemy soldiers nearby
unit base morale, in 5 steps
unit types, i.e. infantry fighting cavalry
losses taken recently
morale penalty for being in melee from the front, bigger from being flanked, bigger still from being hit in the rear, all of these stack
unusual attack type, all of these stack: fire, gunpowder, heads of frineds, BEEEES, rotting cow
morale penalty if a hidden unit is revealed nearby
special unit traits that stack with each other, e.g. Scares nearby enemy infantry, Scares horses
special unit abilities, e.g. Warcry
general's traits, a combination of Command, Chivalry or Dread and specific traits (e.g. +2 morale if fighting saracens)


This is a fairly lightweight and easy to use system, and provides absolutely no means of handling how well fed, well motivated or well paid they are, or if they visited a town with a nice red lights district recently. It would be a massive pain to use it in any tabletop that wants to have dynamic combat. So, it's not that DM/player mindset prevents us from this, it's that the system necessary for a detailed solution would be messy.

The best mechanical bet for handling this lives in FATE, as you can handle all of this by aspects, that explicitly don't cover all the factors, just narratively important ones. If you try to slap this narratively important mindset to DnD players, then we have a mindset problem.

What's even worse, are you willing to accept that these rules only apply to the opposition and not the players, as it would take away agency? Some are, some are not.

[Durkoala]

Since the water is that high, don't forget arrow slits or murder holes as a means for water to bypass the outer wall. Once the water is inside, the keep will have windows that will also allow water in, but only above the first floor or so.

The castle's main gate is highly unlikely to be water tight, so even if the gate held, water would simply get in from underneath or the sides (flooding was a common way to attack fortified cities in ancient Chinese warfare).

------------------------------------------

Could you clarify your castle's layout please? From the sounds of it, you have an outer wall, an outer courtyard of 15m distance, then an inner wall with an integrated keep that encloses an inner courtyard?

Since I don't know how big your inner courtyard is (this will significantly affect the internal volume of the castle and hence the rate at which it fills up), I'm going to model your castle as a more simplistic outer wall-courtyard-keep arrangement.

This sort of arrangement will have the keep's entrance on the first floor, so 2m up.

Let's say the main gate holds, but there's a 5 cm gap under the main gate. Assuming the main gate is 4 m wide, we have the equivalent of a pipe with (4 x 0.05) = 0.2 m2 cross-sectional area.

The equation that seems most relevant here is 'Flow rate from a vessel with a small lateral aperature' - using this online calculator (https://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/draining_tank.cfm#calc) gives me a flowrate value of 1.6m3/sec. I assume the lake is big enough for the displaced volume of the castle not to significantly affect it, and I'm using 10m tall walls - a 15m wall will significantly affect the flow rate due to the increased water depth increasing the pressure.

The internal volume of the castle using my simplified model above as annulus: (Inner keep of 4m radius, 15m radius courtyard)

A = pi (192﹣42)
A = π (192﹣42)
A = ~1084 m2

Dividing that by 1.6 gives ~678 seconds to kill up a meter of the inner courtyard. For easy of gameplay, assume that flowrate is constant (it's not, but I really don't want to to do iterative calculations), the keep would start flooding from its first floor entrance after ~1355 seconds (~22.6 minutes), with the entire castle being effectively flooded to the level of the outside lake after ~102 minutes.

Note that the battlements and the roof of the keep will be above the water, with the top floor of the keep flooded to about a depth of a metre.

I'm not modelling any water ingress from arrow slits as they would be insignificant to the gap under the main gate and I'm assuming the keep will flood at the same rate as the outer courtyard does (there will be a delay as once the water level hits the first floor entrance, as the castle's dungeons and ground floor will slowly fill up first, but I need the internal floor volumes to model that effectively).


The idea I'm going with is that the magic that created this situation is essentially nature magic. Most of the entrances in the outer wall were sealed by very fast-growing trees or other plant life and the gates have been buried in mounds of earth on the inside. When the artefact is turned off though, any magical reinforcing will vanish and parts of the outer wall may crumble.

As for the castle, it's the same basic layout (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Beaumaris_plan%2C_Cadw.jpg) as Beaumaris castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumaris_Castle): an outer wall and courtyard, then an inner wall and courtyard. I've not decided yet whether the keep is integrated or standing on its own in the inner courtyard: if it is, it's replacing one of the gatehouses.

For what it's worth, many of the basements have already filled up with water during the fifty to seventy years the castle has been abandoned.



Magic. Well, that is a problem.

In real life, most of the flood damage to castles comes in the fomr of eroding things the wall stands on top of. If you scour the news, you will be able to find several articles about a castle wall collapsing after it wasn't given proper maintenance.


https://mapio.net/images-p/6083561.jpg


If you are keeping water away with magic, the question is, does the magic stabilize the thing castle is standing on? If it does, what happens when magic goes away? Does the terrain suddenly turn into what it would be like without it, or does the erosion simply start at that point? If it's the latter, the castle will likely not collapse at all, if the former, outside walls will likely fail in several places, and possible make the whole thing unstable - it really depends on what exactly that castle is standing.



That forest complicates it even more, since the forest would act as a stabilizing factor for the ground, but the roots would likely weaken the stone walls, possibly even stone ground under them - it's probably one of the towers collapsed. If magic is suddenly turned off, you could get a cool scene where outer walls collapse and trees hold what is left of the courtyard together.

I know, magic is a problem. I'm sorry. Aside from what I said to Brother Oni, I imagine that some leaks have sprung in the walls over the years and created stream until they started to erode too much and were plugged up by soil or plants. I imagine the foundations of the walls are fairly sturdy, as the artefact actively reshapes the ground to resist the water damage.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's more than just a mindset or fear of reinforcements, that would be easy enough to solve by making the routed forces run away from their friends, at least for a while, in most cases.

The best handling of military routs is IMO in Total War games, specifically Medieval 2 (more recent ones are... disappointing in this aspect). To have a short look on why this issue is more of a PITA than most, let's see what affects morale in M2TW:


relative numbers fighting, i.e. number of allied soldiers nearby/number of enemy soldiers nearby
unit base morale, in 5 steps
unit types, i.e. infantry fighting cavalry
losses taken recently
morale penalty for being in melee from the front, bigger from being flanked, bigger still from being hit in the rear, all of these stack
unusual attack type, all of these stack: fire, gunpowder, heads of frineds, BEEEES, rotting cow
morale penalty if a hidden unit is revealed nearby
special unit traits that stack with each other, e.g. Scares nearby enemy infantry, Scares horses
special unit abilities, e.g. Warcry
general's traits, a combination of Command, Chivalry or Dread and specific traits (e.g. +2 morale if fighting saracens)


This is a fairly lightweight and easy to use system, and provides absolutely no means of handling how well fed, well motivated or well paid they are, or if they visited a town with a nice red lights district recently. It would be a massive pain to use it in any tabletop that wants to have dynamic combat. So, it's not that DM/player mindset prevents us from this, it's that the system necessary for a detailed solution would be messy.

The best mechanical bet for handling this lives in FATE, as you can handle all of this by aspects, that explicitly don't cover all the factors, just narratively important ones. If you try to slap this narratively important mindset to DnD players, then we have a mindset problem.

What's even worse, are you willing to accept that these rules only apply to the opposition and not the players, as it would take away agency? Some are, some are not.


And even if you do impose it on the PCs, in many gaming groups it's just going to become a "build tax" where most players will do what it takes to make their PCs at least reliably resistant against most morale threats.

[Grim Portent]

What did it actually look like when a cavalry charge hit a unit of infantry?

Modern media usually portrays the situation as the first few people in the formation getting trampled underfoot as the horses barrel though before slowing down and engaging those left standing or keeping up their speed as the formation crumbles and routs and continuing to trample people, but I'm curious if anyone knows how far into a formation a cavalry charge would actually go before it was forced to slow down or stop.

[Mike_G]

What did it actually look like when a cavalry charge hit a unit of infantry?

Modern media usually portrays the situation as the first few people in the formation getting trampled underfoot as the horses barrel though before slowing down and engaging those left standing or keeping up their speed as the formation crumbles and routs and continuing to trample people, but I'm curious if anyone knows how far into a formation a cavalry charge would actually go before it was forced to slow down or stop.

Very few charges actually collided with a formed unit of infantry. It was a big game of chicken, really. No man wants to be trampled, and no horse wants to ride straight into a wall of men.

If the infantry panicked and broke ranks and ran, the cavalry rode them down, if they held firm, generally the cavalry veered off as horses shied away, and waited for artillery or archery or gunfire to wear down the infantry and soften them up. It's not easy to get a horse to crash into a crowd of men armed with pointy sticks.

At Omdurman, the 21st Lancers charged what they thought were just a few enemy but wound up being a large formation concealed in a depression and in the ensuing melee lost 70 men out of 400, which is pretty ugly. Repeated French cavalry charges at Waterloo failed to break any of the British infantry squares. Further back at Bannockburn, the Scottish schiltrons held off charges by armored English knights.

So, if you're talking about a dense mass of infantry, like a pike block or a phalanx or a formed square, cavalry usually penetrated about zero yards into the formation if it held, or wiped it out if it broke.

It just looks cool on film as the Riders of Rohan sweep the host of Mordor before them. But for that to work in real life, the infantry morale usually has to fail.

[Kaptin Keen]

cavalry usually penetrated about zero yards into the formation

And this is why I've always recommended the armored rhino as the cavalry beast of choice - but will anyone listen?

[VoxRationis]

A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry wrote about this (https://acoup.blog/2019/05/31/collections-the-siege-of-gondor-part-iv-the-cavalry-arrives/), using the charge at Pelennor Fields as an example.

[Brother Oni]

The idea I'm going with is that the magic that created this situation is essentially nature magic. Most of the entrances in the outer wall were sealed by very fast-growing trees or other plant life and the gates have been buried in mounds of earth on the inside. When the artefact is turned off though, any magical reinforcing will vanish and parts of the outer wall may crumble.

As for the castle, it's the same basic layout (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Beaumaris_plan%2C_Cadw.jpg) as Beaumaris castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumaris_Castle): an outer wall and courtyard, then an inner wall and courtyard. I've not decided yet whether the keep is integrated or standing on its own in the inner courtyard: if it is, it's replacing one of the gatehouses.

For what it's worth, many of the basements have already filled up with water during the fifty to seventy years the castle has been abandoned.


If it's a derelict castle with earth, trees and other debris build up, the castle may well be water tight for a while, assuming the walls hold. Whether they do or not, is entirely up to you, as only you know the extend of the damage to the walls.

Looking at the castle plan, it's more accurately mapped as a 'box in a box', rather than an annulus.


I imagine the foundations of the walls are fairly sturdy, as the artefact actively reshapes the ground to resist the water damage.

Technically, it's not the foundations of the walls that's the issue - the issue is that the ground underneath the foundations is water-logged (since you've stated that the castle's belowground levels are already flooded), and has several thousand tons of stone sitting on top. Without the magic holding the castle up, the walls will likely sink into the earth. If this happens at an uneven rate, the walls will collapse.

I suspect it might be easier if you pick a narrative value for the time before the castle is effectively flooded - long enough that the players have some time to loot, short enough that they have to be selective about where they search.

[Clistenes]

Technically, it's not the foundations of the walls that's the issue - the issue is that the ground underneath the foundations is water-logged (since you've stated that the castle's belowground levels are already flooded), and has several thousand tons of stone sitting on top. Without the magic holding the castle up, the walls will likely sink into the earth. If this happens at an uneven rate, the walls will collapse.

If the castle is built on rock, the walls wouldn't sink, I think.

In medieval Spain such castles were called "castillos roqueros" ("rock castles"), and were considered stronger than other castles because their walls couldn't be undermined.

[Brother Oni]

If the castle is built on rock, the walls wouldn't sink, I think.

In medieval Spain such castles were called "castillos roqueros" ("rock castles"), and were considered stronger than other castles because their walls couldn't be undermined.

I agree, except the castle is in a lake, which implies that it's either in a valley or another bowl-like structure geographically speaking, where the river has become blocked, causing the formation of the lake around the castle.

I'm hard pressed to think of many low lying places where you'd site a castle that has the ground as primarily rock; searching for 'castillos roqueros' in google images, gives me plenty of castles on hills or other high up places.

Unless the water level shifted something along the level of what was seen when the Three Gorges Dam was completed, the castle is highly likely to be on soil.

[fusilier]

Very few charges actually collided with a formed unit of infantry. It was a big game of chicken, really. No man wants to be trampled, and no horse wants to ride straight into a wall of men.

If the infantry panicked and broke ranks and ran, the cavalry rode them down, if they held firm, generally the cavalry veered off as horses shied away, and waited for artillery or archery or gunfire to wear down the infantry and soften them up. It's not easy to get a horse to crash into a crowd of men armed with pointy sticks.

At Omdurman, the 21st Lancers charged what they thought were just a few enemy but wound up being a large formation concealed in a depression and in the ensuing melee lost 70 men out of 400, which is pretty ugly. Repeated French cavalry charges at Waterloo failed to break any of the British infantry squares. Further back at Bannockburn, the Scottish schiltrons held off charges by armored English knights.

So, if you're talking about a dense mass of infantry, like a pike block or a phalanx or a formed square, cavalry usually penetrated about zero yards into the formation if it held, or wiped it out if it broke.

It just looks cool on film as the Riders of Rohan sweep the host of Mordor before them. But for that to work in real life, the infantry morale usually has to fail.

I don't remember the details, somebody here probably does, but in the Napoleonic wars there's a story of an infantry square (a formation intended to defend against cavalry) being broken by cavalry charge. What happened was a horse was shot at close range and had enough momentum to roll into the infantry ranks, creating a large enough gap that the horsemen behind it were able to charge through the gap. The square being compromised it collapsed. If I remember correctly, the men from that square broke and ran to seek shelter inside a nearby square. But in doing so they disturbed the formation of that square enough that the cavalry were able to break it too!

But breaking a square with a cavalry charge was considered a rare and difficult event. One manual I have from the 1840s states that if cavalry is confronted by infantry formed in square, call up the artillery! If you have to charge an infantry square with cavalry, it was recommended that you charge the corners with successive lines. Each line is supposed to wheel away at close range. Probably the intention is to get the infantry to unload their muskets, and then they would be more nervous and more likely to break.

Movies often show cavalry just running down infantry. More realistically, assuming the cavalry do break the infantry, they're more likely to cause a gap in the infantry line, not break the entire formation at once. That gap doesn't have to be big, just enough for a few horsemen to get through, then it will be widened. If the infantry can't quickly close the gap, the cavalry will pour in at that point. The infantry, out flanked, with cavalry now on their rear, will then break. (I know there are cases where the rear rank turned around, and fought while surrounded, but those seem to be rare).

[stack]

Just how high are these castle walls? Flooding them to up near the top creates a fair bit of hydraulic pressure. A flat wall would be less equipped to withstand that. I don't think I have a reference for pressure ratings on medieval fortifications though.

[Random Sanity]

It just looks cool on film as the Riders of Rohan sweep the host of Mordor before them. But for that to work in real life, the infantry morale usually has to fail.

Which it did at Pelennor. You can see the orcs losing their nerve as the Rohirrim close in, causing the spearline to unravel. At Helm's Deep, the sun came up at exactly the right time to blind the uruks and wreck their formation. In both cases, the cavalry got their opening to dive through and mopped up.

[KineticDiplomat]

So - there are a ton of variables at play here for the cavalry

We know that the Norman method of charging (what we think of as the fantasy heavy cav charge) basically involved packing the knights as tight as possible, riding almost knee to knee.

They would start at a walk with lances up and gradually build up, reaching the final gallop with lances down only in the last portion of the charge. The point was to keep that formation as tight as possible for as long as possible, and give it minimal time to lose coherence during the charging part.

The idea was all those lances would smash in at once tearing open the hole that would let the cav flow through and slaughter men, but that only worked if the entire front arrived as a single hammer. This obviously requires lots of cohesion as training.

Now, this is where the variables really start. A lot of who got charged in such a manner were lighter infantry who had a reach disadvantage. They also probably weren’t as motivated, were less armored, and less able to affect an armored man on horse or foot. The line between troop quality and arming differences causing what part of a charge to succeed is a debate you could jump on either side of.

Still, we know that the threat of such charges forced major changes in how people fought them, so presumably it wasn’t always just an issue of morale.

On one side we have the English, who basically break up the charges with longbows. Besides butchering knights, this broke the knee to knee Conroi into a movie charge, which meant a failed charge even if it did reach the English lines.

The fact that no one managed to consistently do this with crossbows or early firearms probably points to a rate of fire requirement to break the charge that way. Those other nations came to the pike. While the Swiss made it famously offensive, it started as a simple way to make sure you couldn’t really be charged by cavalry. The fact that you needed to do that implies that the older medieval flat line of footmen was losing for legitimate tactical reasons beyond breaking and running.

[Mike_G]

So - there are a ton of variables at play here for the cavalry

We know that the Norman method of charging (what we think of as the fantasy heavy cav charge) basically involved packing the knights as tight as possible, riding almost knee to knee.

They would start at a walk with lances up and gradually build up, reaching the final gallop with lances down only in the last portion of the charge. The point was to keep that formation as tight as possible for as long as possible, and give it minimal time to lose coherence during the charging part.

The idea was all those lances would smash in at once tearing open the hole that would let the cav flow through and slaughter men, but that only worked if the entire front arrived as a single hammer. This obviously requires lots of cohesion as training.

Now, this is where the variables really start. A lot of who got charged in such a manner were lighter infantry who had a reach disadvantage. They also probably weren’t as motivated, were less armored, and less able to affect an armored man on horse or foot. The line between troop quality and arming differences causing what part of a charge to succeed is a debate you could jump on either side of.

Still, we know that the threat of such charges forced major changes in how people fought them, so presumably it wasn’t always just an issue of morale.

On one side we have the English, who basically break up the charges with longbows. Besides butchering knights, this broke the knee to knee Conroi into a movie charge, which meant a failed charge even if it did reach the English lines.

The fact that no one managed to consistently do this with crossbows or early firearms probably points to a rate of fire requirement to break the charge that way. Those other nations came to the pike. While the Swiss made it famously offensive, it started as a simple way to make sure you couldn’t really be charged by cavalry. The fact that you needed to do that implies that the older medieval flat line of footmen was losing for legitimate tactical reasons beyond breaking and running.

No longbows or pikes at Hastings, and the Saxon shield wall repelled the first few charges by Norman knights. Until they were depleted by a feigned retreat that drew a bunch of them out of formation, and a barrage of arrows.

Looking at many, many historical battles, the common factor is cohesion. If the infantry maintain it, in a fairly dense formation, they tend to hold and the charge fails before it even contacts the line. If the infantry are too dispersed, or if they break, they get massacred.

Other than the infamous horse falling on the bayonets of the infantry square, I don't recall any battles where a formed unit of infantry was charged into by a unit of cavalry and broken without either breaking formation first, or being ground down by artillery, arrows or gunfire.

Historically, cavalry alone cannot break steady infantry. If the infantry morale is steady, you need combined arms.

If you could name any, I'd be very interested to read about them.

[AdAstra]

No longbows or pikes at Hastings, and the Saxon shield wall repelled the first few charges by Norman knights. Until they were depleted by a feigned retreat that drew a bunch of them out of formation, and a barrage of arrows.

Looking at many, many historical battles, the common factor is cohesion. If the infantry maintain it, in a fairly dense formation, they tend to hold and the charge fails before it even contacts the line. If the infantry are too dispersed, or if they break, they get massacred.

Other than the infamous horse falling on the bayonets of the infantry square, I don't recall any battles where a formed unit of infantry was charged into by a unit of cavalry and broken without either breaking formation first, or being ground down by artillery, arrows or gunfire.

Historically, cavalry alone cannot break steady infantry. If the infantry morale is steady, you need combined arms.

If you could name any, I'd be very interested to read about them.

At least according to some accounts, the Roman Testudo (a classical example of an "unbreakable" shield wall by well-trained and disciplined troops) was easy prey for Persian Cataphracts at the battle of Carrhae. This was in combination with horse archers, and thus not a refutation of your point, but what I find interesting is that the Testudo was described as too dense to effectively ward off the cavalry. In protecting themselves against arrows, they were too packed together to effectively fight off the Cataphracts. An interesting reversal of the "dense formations vs cavalry, loose/shallow formations vs. ranged" dynamic.

[fusilier]

Looking at many, many historical battles, the common factor is cohesion. If the infantry maintain it, in a fairly dense formation, they tend to hold and the charge fails before it even contacts the line. If the infantry are too dispersed, or if they break, they get massacred.

+1 One way in which infantry cohesion might be weak is if they are caught on the move. If outflanked or some other serious disaster befell them, then cohesion could also collapse. As infantry became the dominant force, cavalry was often stationed on the flanks to prevent enemy cavalry from trying to turn a flank.

[KineticDiplomat]

Sure, the battle of Bouvines (1214) is actually a somewhat optimal example. French knights shatter the allied cavalry, but allied infantry is superior and breaks the urban militia serving as the French center. The French knights come and break the allied center in a series of charges, then carry on to break the right wing as it basically makes a last stand.

Manzikert sees one wing of the Byzantine army rout after an envelope
T, but a contingent of heavy infantry try to hold against Turkish cavalry. Apparently they are praised for their bravery. Anyhow, they lose.

Bosworth field might be unique in that we actually see a contingent of early pikemen try to hold a charge, but fail despite managing to slow it down.

At La Forbia, while the crusaders will eventually lose, they have a number of successful and failed head on charges against various contingents of otherwise well ordered and led infantry. In one case towards the end of the battle this works agains them, as they send the Mamelukes reeling, but their local wings are in good order and fall in behind the charging cavalry.

[Clistenes]

At least according to some accounts, the Roman Testudo (a classical example of an "unbreakable" shield wall by well-trained and disciplined troops) was easy prey for Persian Cataphracts at the battle of Carrhae. This was in combination with horse archers, and thus not a refutation of your point, but what I find interesting is that the Testudo was described as too dense to effectively ward off the cavalry. In protecting themselves against arrows, they were too packed together to effectively fight off the Cataphracts. An interesting reversal of the "dense formations vs cavalry, loose/shallow formations vs. ranged" dynamic.

Carrhae was basically a battle of attrition. The Romans formed a square on top of a hill. The Persians sent wave after wave of horse archers, and since the Roman formation was so dense and packed, arrows couldn't miss the target (experienced commanders recommended a less dense formation, but Crassus insisted on a dense square.

Their armor and shields made the Romans almost immune to Persian archery, and they were confident that they could weather the storm and made a counterattack once the Persian cavalry ran out of arrows and their horses got tired.

But the Persians were well prepared: They had brought thousands of camels packed with millions of arrows, and enough spare horses that their cavalry never got tired, so Roman legionnaires couldn't do a thing besides keeping their shields up to protect themselves, and eventually they got tired and started to lower their shields and take arrows...

Crassus got nervous and tried two clumsy attempts to counterattack that ended in disaster.

But the Romans weren't routed; they stood their ground and managed to escape after sunset to the town of Carrhae... Afterwars they retreated, hounded by the Persian cavalry, but around 25 % to 27 % of the Roman army managed to escape.

What I get from this is, the Roman infantry was unable to touch the Parthians, but they proved quite tough to crack; they couldn't be broken and routed despite doing nothing but defend for days...


At La Forbia, while the crusaders will eventually lose, they have a number of successful and failed head on charges against various contingents of otherwise well ordered and led infantry. In one case towards the end of the battle this works agains them, as they send the Mamelukes reeling, but their local wings are in good order and fall in behind the charging cavalry.

Muslim infantry was usually unable to endure a heavy cavalry charge during the time of the Crusades, but the eventually figured that, if they put several lines of their less valuable infantry in the first line (muhayidin recruits, drafted slaves...etc.) to absorb the momentum of the charge, the professional infantry behind them could withstand the charge, allowing their own cavalry to flank the Europeans.

[Vinyadan]

Anyone have any thoughts on, or any images of, knives like the one shown starting at 18:30 of this Scholagladatoria video:

https://youtu.be/NHpwITXxaT8?t=1110

Take a look at weapon 18 here: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/70/5d/69705dce2bdadfe8e4e060bfc6b195c7.jpg

I think it coul be what you are looking for, but I can't tell if it has a false edge, which I guess is the defining characteristic of the weapon.

For example: http://sirkukri.blogspot.com/2015_05_01_archive.html?view=sidebar&m=1

This is a collection of Kukri (or kookeries, as they were once called). One resembles the one you are interested in, and the names of blades and hilts are listed. However, there is no false edge I can see.

[KineticDiplomat]

It is also worth noting that there is, at times, a peculiar bias towards belief that disciplined line infantry trumps all, particularly in modern western history.

It doesn’t hurt that many of the western golden ages occurred in eras when this was true. Rome, the colonial period, etc.

If you ever have the experience of watching a military teach military history, this theme tends to be reinforced. Call it an institutional confirmation bias.

That said, it is good to remember that there were times in history when line infantry was not dominant, and that when this happened that it was probably for a reason beyond “No True Scotsman” views on cohesion.

[fusilier]

It is also worth noting that there is, at times, a peculiar bias towards belief that disciplined line infantry trumps all, particularly in modern western history.

It doesnÂ’t hurt that many of the western golden ages occurred in eras when this was true. Rome, the colonial period, etc.

If you ever have the experience of watching a military teach military history, this theme tends to be reinforced. Call it an institutional confirmation bias.

That said, it is good to remember that there were times in history when line infantry was not dominant, and that when this happened that it was probably for a reason beyond “No True Scotsman” views on cohesion.

The argument is that, at a tactical level, if infantry keeps it self together, it can handle a cavalry charge. MikeG was pointing out that if the infantry breaks and runs when charged by cavalry the cavalry will (most likely) win.* I believe that even well-ordered and competently led infantry can still lose their nerves. In fact that was usually the point of any charge, not just cavalry charges. But the point I was trying to make, is that it doesn't require the whole formation to break and run to compromise the formation, just a small group at the right spot. Additionally, there are other times when even competent infantry may find themselves in an unfavorable position.

There were historical periods when infantry weren't the dominant force, and they tended to be afforded a lower position in armies. They probably weren't as well trained or led as the cavalry. The ability to stand steady in the face of a cavalry charge, is something noted in the "horse and musket" age. And of course, there are always exceptions, we are mostly talking in generalities.

*At Pavia, infantry skirmishers avoided cavalry charges by rushing to the sides, and then they fired into the sides of the cavalry formation. Russian infantry during the Crimean War, after their formations were broken, were known to group together in small clumps, without leaders, and stubbornly fight in hand-to-hand with enemy cavalry sent to polish them off. They weren't really successful, but it proved so frustrating that the allies found it easier to shoot them down with infantry.

[Martin Greywolf]

I'm almost tempted to write out a how does cavalry charge look post into word and copypaste it every time there's a discussion like this, they tend to crop up like weeds.

The main problem is that always, and I mean always, the question is not specified enough to answer it. First off, what cavalry are we talking about?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6aRkRrmSWwg/WDsxIhIYvlI/AAAAAAAADqw/L9a3aATTm4sPEiNQZ1ArpbC0NrsIKvooQCEw/s1600/Hun_knights_09.JPG

https://hadrianswallcountry.co.uk/sites/default/files/field/image/Turma%21%20Hadrian%E2%80%99s%20Cavalry%20Charge%20 in%20Carlisle.jpg

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/age-of-civilisation/images/2/22/Cataphracts.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20181220182633&path-prefix=fr

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51urP6bPTGL._AC_.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/00/81/ae0081786b3e9d2bb749e17b0d6b1f6a.jpg

All of these can make and did do frontal charges, some more often than others. And let's not forget, this is only one part of the equation, because they are charging someone, is that someone a musket square, pike wall, phalanx, shield wall? What armor do they have, what weapons?

Then there is the issue of training, discipline and morale. Making a well-organized cavalry charge is not easy - we know because historical sources tell us so (and you can see the difficulties stuntmen have in this video, and that's not really combat conditions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po ). Crusader knightly orders were feared in paret because they could do a charge knee-to-knee and not have anyone pull ahead of the formation, which meant not only well trained men, but also horses.

Finally, our last issue is, what do we consider a charge? Sure, you can just sort of plow right into the enemy formation in a block, but what if you decide before impact that you do not wish to take a pike to the face and pull off? Does that count as resisting a charge?

So, before I give my answer, I'd like to address some of frequent BS that crops up.

Horses won't charge into men/pikes

Patently untrue, we know that they will, even if it kills them shortly thereafter. There are numerous accounts from British Empire era, if nothing else.

Horses will charge and then die

This is a perception that comes from 0 HP = immediately dead. As anyone who killed an animal knows, even if you take something as small as a chicken and slit its throat thoroughly, it will take a minute to die. Horses are much larger than that, and again, we have accounts of them surviving numerous stab wounds and dropping dead only minutes or hours later.

So yeah, horse will die, in an hour, but will continue to be problem for you.

Horses are easily scared

Sort of. They are also easily trained to not be scared or to be aggressive. Don't look at modern horses and ow they behave and assume a medieval warhorse would be the same.

Horses weren't killed because they were expensive

Not really. While some horses were, those were the Ferraris of the time, most knights used a Volkswagen, and those horses could be anything from slightly price-y to dirt cheap.

People loved their horses/Didn't care for them

Depends on the person, but usually, there would be at least some desire to protect your walking investment, and no matter how much you like the horse, you liked yourself better.

Cavalry charge was an unstoppable force

It wasn't, because we saw it be stopped numerous times.

Cavalry charge was easily repelled by infantry, to a point where they didn't take losses

There are far too many countermeasures that went into stopping the charge for that to be the case, be it English spikes at Agincourt, caltrops, dug pits or bayonet squares.

As for not taking losses, if you manage to discourage the cav from charging, then sure, but if it hits, first two rows of your infantry formation are mostly dead or out of action. That doesn't necessarily mean the formation is penetrated, but it sure does suck for the front row guys.



So how did it look

Ironically, Lord of the Rings got it right, both at Helm's Deep and Pellenor.

Helm's Deep saw what happens when a cavalry charge hits a formation that was recently disrupted by something - in this case, sun/Gnadlaf magic, in real life it could be archery. Very quickly after the charge hit, they lost momentum and fought a mounted melee, and were saved only by the enemy routing.

Pellenor is similar, only here, the enemy isn't very disciplined and has a loose formation as a result. Charge here penetrates, and penetrates deeply at that, routing and killing a pile of orcs. They are only stop by enemy cavalry counter-charging, which is all the merrier because enemy cavalry is mega-elephants.

That said, that is what it looks like if things go cavalry's way.

For a failed charge, take helm's Deep, and have Uruk Hai not break and promptly hack apart the now-stopped Rohirrim. Sure, Uruk hai took casulaties, but they won in the end.

Another good example, and I can't believe I'm saying that, is in Braveheart. Stupid costumes out of the way, Stirling cav charge almost shows you how it would end - almost. Thing is, the horses would just slide onto the pikes and likely crush the first row or two, and therefore create a wall of corpses that would slow or stop those behind them (movie just has one row charging, mostly because not even Mel Gibson is crazy enough to do two). The few horses that would get through would be taken down by either back rows spears or by front rows drawing swords - spears are kinda useless if there's an angry horse right next to your shoulder.

You are a commander now, how charge

There is more to deciding where and how to charge than X can beat Y. Economics, logistics and society all play a role.

To put it in simplest form, a cav charge can pay itself back with K/D ratio better than 1. Problem is, you have nowhere near as many cavalrymen as you have infantry, so trading them like this, by charging into braced spears, is probably not the best idea.

The classic solution is to pin with archers, move in to further pin with infantry, and then flank with cavalry - you may as well use that superior mobility.

There are times when that is not the best option for whatever reason - for one example, battle of Mohacs, where Hungarians needed to quickly defeat one Ottoman army before they set up cannons or before the second could come and reinforce it, so they decided to do a massive frontal charge. It didn't work, in the end, but the plan had some merit.

Another example is battle of Rozhanovce where Hungarian king decided to stomp on some rebellious nobles, and the nobles decided to charge him because they had the high ground, the king's forces being on the riverbank. The charge almost worked, and the king was saved only by a unit of knights Hospitaller that managed to not only resist and regroup, but also turn 90 degrees and flank the chargers.

[jayem]

There were historical periods when infantry weren't the dominant force, and they tended to be afforded a lower position in armies. They probably weren't as well trained or led as the cavalry. The ability to stand steady in the face of a cavalry charge, is something noted in the "horse and musket" age. And of course, there are always exceptions, we are mostly talking in generalities.

That's also going to be prone to (positive) feedback, If even a well drilled troop of musketeers net lose out to the horse (rate of fire, long weapons),why waste time training them to stand a bit firmer when you can put that effort into your horses. Sure they might kill five more before they break...

The other thing I can imagine being flexible is what counts as winning. Do you count in people or $£

[Mike_G]

My point was a reply to the very vague question of what a cavalry chareg vs infantry might look like.

And, statistically, it would either look like cavalry riding down disorganized or retreating infantry, or cavalry breaking off before contact.

Most charges are a big game of chicken. What you want, is for the enemy morale to break. And it often works. Horses are big and scary, add in noises and things like Winged Hussar armor and they are terrifying. But if your men blink fist and don't charge home, they lose men and horses to missiles or pikes for no real effect.

But it's a high risk for a possibly high reward. If the infantry run, you often win the battle, or that part of the battle, with low losses to you. But if they don't run, even if you charge home, and even if you manage to win the overall casualty ratio, you are spending your most highly trained and most expensive troops.

If 50 armored knights die to kill 200 common footmen, that's not really a win. Or the same with Cuirassiers vs redcoats.

Good infantry who stand their ground can make a cavalry charge suicidal, even in victory. So most commanders didn't want to waste their most expensive and elite and hard to replace troops in an "all or nothing" gambit. So a charge which was resisted would shy away, and you'd bring up the artillery, horse archers, etc to wear the formation down or try to disorganize it by a ruse like a feigned retreat.

In general (and I mean in general, so I'm sure there are exceptions) unsupported cavalry charging cohesive infantry usually failed, and usually failed before contact. And heavy cavalry charging disordered infantry usually rolled right over them.

So the answer to "How far does a charge penetrate?" is usually "No yards or all."

[fusilier]

That's also going to be prone to (positive) feedback, If even a well drilled troop of musketeers net lose out to the horse (rate of fire, long weapons),why waste time training them to stand a bit firmer when you can put that effort into your horses. Sure they might kill five more before they break...

The other thing I can imagine being flexible is what counts as winning. Do you count in people or $£

Tactically speaking, who controls the field at the end of the day is usually considered the victor. However, sometimes the reasons for fighting were more complicated, and there are many battles where both sides claim victory. Diversionary attacks are often a good example. An army that is conducting a strategic retreat, may consider a battle a victory if it leaves the field intact, etc. There are also Pyrrhic victories.

Something else to consider is the changing nature of infantry tactics. By the 1700s the soldiers were lining up shoulder-to-shoulder; literally they are in physical contact with the soldiers next to them. This was a change from the late renaissance when a foot or so between each soldier was considered a close formation. Although pikemen may have been expected to close in a little more during a charge. Musketeers often had a little more space to allow for certain firing techniques, but by the 1600s they could bunch up to deliver a concentrated volley. I suspect that the looser formation of older tactics probably had a lot to do with adding some space for melee fighting, but I'm not certain.

I wrote a long section about how defensive infantry tactics of 18th-19th century, simply wouldn't work if horses and riders were willing to impale themselves on dense formations of bayonets. And how medieval chronicles are not the most reliable sources for detailed battle descriptions (but are often the only sources we have), and they don't depict the infantry perspective in battle, etc. Dramatic flourish may lead to descriptions of charging horses being impaled on pikes/spears or the like, as opposed to a charging horse having been actively stabbed as it passed through looser infantry.

But then I reread Martin's detailed post and saw this:

Horses won't charge into men/pikes

Patently untrue, we know that they will, even if it kills them shortly thereafter. There are numerous accounts from British Empire era, if nothing else.

Alright, give us some examples, and explain how we know those examples are typical and not exceptional. (I'm not arguing it *never* happened)

[AdAstra]

But then I reread Martin's detailed post and saw this:


Alright, give us some examples, and explain how we know those examples are typical and not exceptional. (I'm not arguing it *never* happened)

At least as a general rule, animals very rarely die right away. And when that animal is right next to you, it doesn't have to stay dangerous very long to ruin your day. An "instant" kill almost always requires targeting specific points with very significant force (like a hunting rifle). Even a fallen horse is liable to be a flailing, wailing threat than can easily smash your face in rather than a pile of meat, which is a part of the reason why horse handlers are often equipped with firearms or other tools to put them down cleanly (the other reason being reducing suffering).

[fusilier]

At least as a general rule, animals very rarely die right away. And when that animal is right next to you, it doesn't have to stay dangerous very long to ruin your day. An "instant" kill almost always requires targeting specific points with very significant force (like a hunting rifle). Even a fallen horse is liable to be a flailing, wailing threat than can easily smash your face in rather than a pile of meat, which is a part of the reason why horse handlers are often equipped with firearms or other tools to put them down cleanly (the other reason being reducing suffering).

I know someone who had his horse gored by buffalo during a traditional hunt. It lifted horse and rider high into the air over the back of the buffalo (bison), while in the air the rider saw no bubbles in the wound (which meant the lung had not been pierced). The buffalo threw the horse back to the ground, the horse landed on all four hooves with the rider still on it. Horse and rider ran to a nearby friend who threw a rifle to the rider (to replace his lance), and then they preceded to chase down the buffalo and finish it off.

The horse survived, it had an arm sized hole in it, but the horns had missed any organs. It was out of action for a few months, but went on to live for many years after that.

So I have no doubt, that horses can take a lot of damage -- a shot to the heart or in a critical location will take it out quickly, but you can't always count on that happening in combat.

However, horses being tough, and willingly throwing themselves onto a wall of bayonets aren't the same thing. That's what I'm curious about -- if Martin has evidence that that was a regular occurrence.

[Pauly]

The Byzantine Cataphractii, an early form of very heavily armored riders on armored horses, put blinders on the horses. Theses blinders were arranged so the horse could see to the side, not the front. The horses were considered good for exactly one charge into enemy formations. After that charge the horses refused to wear those blinders ever again.

[Vinyadan]

A question: medieval images of war routinely depict people wrestling on the ground while they kill each others with daggers. e.g. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Vigiles_du_roi_Charles_VII_32.jpg) However, depictions of more recent eras (like the XVIII-XIX) don't seem to feature them. Is this just my impression, or is it an artistic choice, or does it really reflect how war had changed?

[Random Sanity]

A question: medieval images of war routinely depict people wrestling on the ground while they kill each others with daggers. e.g. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Vigiles_du_roi_Charles_VII_32.jpg) However, depictions of more recent eras (like the XVIII-XIX) don't seem to feature them. Is this just my impression, or is it an artistic choice, or does it really reflect how war had changed?

A little bit of each, really.

Art styles change over time just as everything else does, and what parts of battle the artist chooses to depict also changes, either because of the artist's own preferences or those of whoever they're working for.

The invention of gunpowder and firearms gave armies a lot more options for winning without getting up close and personal, but when push comes to shove a soldier in the heat of battle will do whatever it takes to kill the other guy.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

A little bit of each, really.

Art styles change over time just as everything else does, and what parts of battle the artist chooses to depict also changes, either because of the artist's own preferences or those of whoever they're working for.

The invention of gunpowder and firearms gave armies a lot more options for winning without getting up close and personal, but when push comes to shove a soldier in the heat of battle will do whatever it takes to kill the other guy.

There's also more of a focus on formation fighting.

In the medieval era we have the knights, with their idea of honor and combat as a means to individual glory. They train to fight with their own men, their sergeants and squires, but maybe not so much with other units in their lords army. And ones on the battlefield they act more independently. On top of that capturing a knight alive could get you quite a nice ransom sum from his family, so it could be worth it to try and wrestle someone's weapon away rather than going for the quickest possible kill yourself.

From roughly 1550 onwards (in Europe at least) there is a bigger emphasis on drills to improve the effectiveness of the whole, larger formations that stand or fall by every man covering their neighbor. If you fall down injured on that battlefield there will usually be several guys with pikes nearby who each have some very good reasons to stab you dead and be done with it before the guys still standing on your side stab them.

How did the Romans portray their battles? They were pretty formation focused. If this idea holds water the prediction is they should show relatively few people rolling over the ground with knives.

The gun thing furthermore might be pretty important for cavalry in this context. To properly finish off a downed opponent without a gun you might have to dismount, something you're not going to be doing in the heat of the battle. So this might lave relatively many survivors who can get into messy close fights and such ones the main formations have run off to pursue something worth attacking. If you have a pistol it's less work to stop for a moment and pick off someone who may or may not become a problem later.

[KineticDiplomat]

Also, it’s really hard to hurt someone through metal armor with an edged weapon. By the time we’re talking plate, with most hand weapons period. Blunt force trauma becomes the name of the game.

Which means that as opposed to a movie hero slicing through chain mail and then cutting straight down through a solid steel helmet after their flourishy footwork, fully armored combat mostly involved a lot being battered around as you tried to gain the position you would need for either a giant Paul Bunyan chop, or to drive a dagger through a week point. Much like schoolboys fighting who can’t knock each other out in one punch, that sort of thing has a high likelihood of becoming a wrestling match.

For reference: in a French history there’s a story of one tournament winner who, at the end of the melee, needed a blacksmith to bang out the dents in his helmet to get it off his head. It may be an exaggeration, but it clearly wasn’t such a one that it was inconceivably stupid.

In other words, you could literally be hit in the head hard enough to deform a helmet and not only live, but go on to win. You can see how that might lead to wrestling and weak point stabbing.

There are also German fencing (the bastard sword variety) manuals that differentiate distinctly between unarmored duels - very scary, very conservative, even a draw cut can maim you - and armored fighting where there is a lot of focus on the grapple.

[Vinyadan]

The idea of taking a look at Roman art is a good one, because medieval artists did look at what was left from that era (an example is the Bayeux Tapestry, which takes Trajan's Column as an example). In general, ancient art used the up-down divide to show who was winning and who was losing. So here (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Greek_-_Hydria_with_the_Fight_of_Achilles_and_Memnon_-_Walters_482230.jpg)is Achilles killing Memnon in a Greek vase. This (https://cdn.britannica.com/91/197791-050-5330B437/battle-scene-Greek-stela-soldiers-Metropolitan-Museum.jpg)is the funerary stela of a hoplite: while the man on the ground is holding a knife, he is being defeated by the hoplite. In these cases, the scene also is very different from medieval manuscripts, because it isn't really centered on a battle, but on a fight or duel between two warriors. But even in scenes depicting larger battles (like hoplite phalanges on vases), you still have the basic system: if you're down, you lost, or are losing.

The Romans took it over and made it larger. A type of item that would have been visible to medieval artists was the sarcophagus. I am not sure of when the Romans started creating them, but to say that they were richly decorated is something of an understatement (https://www.flickr.com/photos/69716881@N02/14459672256/in/photostream/). But even here it feels like the emphasis isn't really on the act of killing. If you look down right, there is a legionary holding an enemy, with his gladius readied. However, he isn't striking him. He is in a pose that implies his complete victory and superiority (and the dominance of Rome over other peoples). The enemy will become a slave, and possibly be paraded during a triumph. (250 AD; notice that this one in particular would probably not have been visible to medieval artists).

An example that gets closer to the feel of medieval depictions is this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portonaccio_sarcophagus) (180 AD). It shows the Romans essentially crushing the barbarians. One barbarian in particular is being bitten by a horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portonaccio_sarcophagus#/media/File:Sarcofago_dio_portonaccio,_17.JPG) while he falls and his neck is struck by a gladius.

And then there is this (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mharrsch/3537541060), which may be grappling or something pretty messed up: on Trajan's Column, we have a legionary biting a Dacian's hair. Has he put him in an armlock? Or is he holding on to a head he chopped? We are shown soldiers bringing important heads to Trajan. But this also is the only case of possible grappling I could find (I didn't search much, however).

This detail about the heads also brings me to a difference between ancient and medieval depictions of war: chopped limbs. In the Middle Ages, you have a good chance of finding chopped heads (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/08/4f/4b/084f4bd01a14433b915cdb0a086fd80b.jpg) and assorted parts (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/vyUAao97I7wWVcL5GheDBHdCelMg_vMFRrQgqH7Rk2Xlu4z7Jq nU6YjSOnNf0elZN5Uj83m2xPvVF7Xs5o1DcWgVibRIiqwrbEGd k_h6eVg4hFRs1I3qRsJzZL3X0CrGCCo7xV8gJgT6nIYmWFh5e1 ERwpEmkQ). These are very rare in ancient art, at least as far as I can remember.

Now, it's possible that the artists were simply trying to catch the eye in different ways (an interest for the scenery and gruesome detail in medieval art, vs interest for battles made up of 1v1 fights with a later emphasis on movement and pathos in ancient art). But it's stuff that I find interesting to think about.

[Martin Greywolf]

Alright, give us some examples

There is not enough space on the internet to pull up all of the accounts there are, and a lot of my sources are not in English in the first place. I'm taking most of these from Swordsmen of the British Empire, and these are direct period citations, so be prepared for some mild racism. I'm also including them, in their entirety, for added context. To make Matt Easton proud.

Horses charging into infantry blocks, suffering severe damage:


“In the Afghan campaign of 1879-80, the enemy threw themselves down when charged by cavalry and slashed up with their heavy knives as the cavalry passed over them, inflicting in numerous cases mortal wounds on our men [and horses]. Swordsmen were unable to reach them with their sabres; but our lancers gave such a good account of the enemy that they quickly learned to dread the lance, which is undoubtedly the ‘Queen of Weapons’ when employed against infantry.



The Afghans have a nasty habit of lying on the ground, feigning to be dead; as our cavalry passed over them, they suddenly sprung up, tulwar in hand, and hamstrung the horses; the Lancers lost many animals in this way during the charge.


Bayonet squares:


We attacked the Sikhs and gave them an awful licking. We attacked the only body of their cavalry that showed fight, and sent them flying; but we found we were surrounded by thousands of their infantry, who formed a square to prevent our getting back; and it would have done your eyes good to see how we dashed through them. I attacked one of the officers, and sent my sword clean through him; but before I could disengage my sword, he hit me over the left eye and gave me a slight wound, which I do not think will leave a scar.



“In proper square formation, they [the 1st Persian Regular Infantry] awaited the onset of the charge, the front rank kneeling with fixed bayonets, and those behind firing in volleys. Lieutenant Moore led his troop when the order was given to charge. As he neared the front rank of gleaming steel, Moore pulled his charger’s head straight, drove in his spurs, and leapt sheer onto the raised bayonets. The splendid animal fell dead within the square, pinning its rider beneath its body, but the lieutenant was up and on his feet in an instant; while through the gap he had made, the sowars [troopers] charged after him. In his fall, Moore had the misfortune to break his sword; and he was now called on to defend himself with but a few inches of steel and a revolver. Seeing his predicament, the Persians closed round him. Luckily for him, his brother officer, Lieutenant Malcolmson, saw his danger. Spurring his horse, he dashed through the throng of Persians to his comrade’s aid, laying a man low with each sweep of his long sword. Then, bidding Moore grip a stirrup, he clove a way free for both of them out of the press. What is certainly a remarkable fact is that neither of the two received so much as a scratch, and to Moore belongs the almost unique distinction of having broken a square.



Arrived at the square, the adjutant’s horse swerved; but, letting his sword dangle from the wrist, he seized the reins in both hands, pulled his head straight, and ramming in the spurs, took the first line of bayonets like a fence, leaping into the midst of the astonished serbaz [infantrymen]. Down went his charger, dead; snap! the sabre broke close to the hilt; and as the troopers rode through and out on the other side to re-form for a second charge, Moore was battling for life, with pistol in one hand and sword hilt in the other. A throng surrounded him; but Lieutenant Malcolmson saw his comrade’s danger, and rode up with a rush. He flashed among the Persians, his long sword red, his horse in a lather; and when he had broken the group, he gave the dismounted man a stirrup and dragged him out, his gigantic brother [Capt. R. B. Moore, “an eighteen-stone man {252 lbs.}, nearly six feet seven in height”] slashing his way clear on foot in another place. Of the 500 that composed the square, about twenty escaped. The feat was a rare one in history, the breaking of a square by horsemen.



The rebels formed into a rude square or gole, being composed of Bengal sepoys of the 36th Regiment and Vellaitees [Afghan irregulars]. An officer [Lt. Wood] of the [17th] Lancers, doing duty with the 3rd Bombay Cavalry, on seeing them, attacked them singly and alone, commencing with a Vellaitee, who chanced to be the corner man; while the others stood at the charge with musket and bayonet, unwilling to move from their formation, in which they seemed to feel security. The Vellaitee, having escaped the first blow aimed at him, drew a two-handed sword and made a furious onslaught; but as he in turn missed his aim, he fell beneath the officer’s charger, and was now in a fair way to be pinned to the earth, but rose again to the fight. At this crisis (and it was rather a serious one with the gallant young soldier who attacked them), a young trooper [Dhokul Singh] of the 3rd Bombay Cavalry charged to the rescue. The Vellaitee immediately turned his attention on him and aimed a blow which grazed his back, severed the horse’s crupper and part of the saddle, sinking deep into the spine of the animal. The trooper’s well-aimed blow clove the skull of the rebel. Three of the group now threw down their arms and shouted for forgiveness; but the next was for fighting, and the officer now engaged him. He clubbed his musket with the bayonet fixed; and as he raised it to deliver a ponderous blow, the point caught in the drapery of his waist, delayed the descent of the musket butt, and at the same time exposed his chest to a thrust which ran completely through him. By this time the troopers of the 3rd Light Cavalry had arrived and finished the work so well begun, and killed about one hundred and fifty in a pursuit over six miles, during which a sepoy who had turned to fight saw an officer [Wood?] approach to kill him and shouted, ‘Do not kill me; it is not a Sahib’s duty. I intend to fight and may kill you.’ The Sahib, however, lodged two pistol bullets in him, when he was surrounded by troopers and fought with great bravery until despatched.



Five times the enemy charged us, and as many times we poured in murderous volleys—no shots wasted. It was during one of these charges that Col. Burnaby pushed his horse through the ranks of the rear face [of the British square], and singling out an emir [chief] who was making himself disagreeably prominent, made a thrust at him, but was rather short. The emir thrust in return with his lance; but Burnaby, with a sneer on his face, parried easily. Two or three Arabs took a hand, but he disposed of them similarly. It was evident he now intended to astonish them by his magnificent swordsmanship, as he gathered up his reins and tightened his grip on his sabre. But at this juncture another rush was made; the Arabs surged around him; and before he could turn, an Arab thrust at him from behind, piercing his jugular vein. He reeled in his saddle and fell; but springing to his feet, dying though he was, he delivered one tremendous cut at some dismounted Arabs nearest him with such terrible effect as to sever the heads from the shoulders of two of them. As he dropped, the Arabs closed in to mutilate him; but a dozen men sprang from the square and tore his body from them. All this happened so quickly as to bewilder the spectators. It might be asked why it was that the men of the square did not shoot those to whom he was opposed. There are two answers: one is that, owing to the velocity of his movements, they were afraid of shooting him while aiming at his adversaries; the other is that those who knew him had such confidence in his ability that they did not like to rob him of his game, never thinking for a moment that the affair would terminate as it did.


It goes on and on like that. In this book, about helf the time a square is mentioned in any capacity, it gets charged by a cavalryman.

From a more medieval times, I have to translate an academic book into English, the period discussed is roughly 1200-1500, square brackets comments are added by me:


A great danger [to knight's warhorses] were the infantrymen, whose role was to kill the enemy cavalry's horses. Not even rare, extremely expensive stallions of the kings and high aristocracy were spared. Many knights lost their "excellent", "legendary" or "noble and strong" [terms in quotation marks denote translation of latin terms previously discussed as used to denote expensive horses] dextrarius.

A testament to this are dozens of documents, usually letters of gift, where the king rewarded and reimbursed the [financially] damaged knight. As one general example to stand for these, let us mention comes Paul, whose "many-colored royal horsehorse" was killed under him with arrows and spears.



et quidam equis regis famosus istii coloris sub eodem magistro Paolo per ictus sagitarum et lancearum extitit interemptus


So, not only was death by infantry spears common, we see here that comes Paul got his horse stabbed by multiple spears before he went down. Unfortunately, this being the medieval times, we have basically zero really detailed accounts, although there are many illuminations showing cavalry charging a braced infantry formation.


https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/battle-of-hastings-the-norman-cavalry-charge-the-english-infantry_u-l-p9oy8x2ff0i2.jpg?p=0



http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/73-10_large.jpg


Then and again, this can be a doubious source:


http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1-58_large.jpg


Then there is the case of Winged Hussars from Kirchholm in 1605. No, not the utter spanking Swedish pikes got after hussars charged them after they were disrupted by their own cavalry. The one charge one wing of the Hussars did into a prepared pike square (this would be the right half of the Polish center as the centers both clashed), that killed a third of their horses. While it didn't work (well, the swedes got promptly flanked after it, so it arguably bought time), the horses - and men - were willing to do it. Though there is a massive pile of misconceptions about the Winged Hussars, so maybe they aren't the best of examples.

We also have battle of Marignano (1515) where French king personally led repeated charges against swiss pikemen, and to a good efect at that. This was what we could call super-heavy cavalry, likely with plate armored horses, and it was able to stalemate swiss pikemen from dusk until dawn - the night was apparently quite well moonlit.


and explain how we know those examples are typical and not exceptional. (I'm not arguing it *never* happened)

Okay, first read what I claimed in the original post. I pointed out that the claim that horses are unwilling to charge into spears/pikes/bayonets is patently untrue and they will do so on prompting. I think there are maybe two or three cases out of a dozen in SotBE where a horse balks at charging in - and they are resolved by the cavalryman spurring the horse on to do it anyway. There are zero accounts of horses just deciding to not do it and refusing to charge.

This sort of charge can be and was used if it was appropriate - but it usually isn't, because pin-and-flanking, cannon fire or archers are a far more economical way do defeat these formations. You only do it if you absolutely have to.

BUT if you have to do it, you can, and provided you aren't ridiculously outnumbered, there is a pretty good chance of success. In general at least, success against a full, 6-meter pike square is a whole lot less likely that success vs a Napoleonic bayonet square.


The Byzantine Cataphractii, an early form of very heavily armored riders on armored horses, put blinders on the horses. Theses blinders were arranged so the horse could see to the side, not the front. The horses were considered good for exactly one charge into enemy formations. After that charge the horses refused to wear those blinders ever again.

Then they had especially wimpy horses. See above for examples of horses repeatedly charging pike blocks. I have also never seen a single account of a knight having to replace his dextrarius because the horse was scared of charging, but many that had to be replaced because they were killed in a charge.


On to toher topics



In the medieval era we have the knights, with their idea of honor and combat as a means to individual glory. They train to fight with their own men, their sergeants and squires, but maybe not so much with other units in their lords army. And ones on the battlefield they act more independently.

This is not because of any honor or glory related reasons, but rather dictated by logistics. When you have a system where armies are recruited piecemeal (ser A will bring 20 men, sir B will bring 5, repeat a few hunderd times), you have no way to gather these large formations to one unit for training.

Except, you do, kind of. Mercenary companies were exactly this sort of unit, and that's why they were pretty highly valued - it got to a point where there were some famous Italian condotierro captians that combined English and Hungarian tactics operating in Italy.

Cooperation in training on an army scale was pretty unheard of until the renaissance, though.

Edit: You always notice that one typo after you submit...

[Mike_G]

Yeah, but...





Bayonet squares:

... and to Moore belongs the almost unique distinction of having broken a square.

... The feat was a rare one in history, the breaking of a square by horsemen.




So even the reports of the men who did it tend to emphasize that this was the exception and not the rule. Something worthy of note and something to be remarked upon because of its rarity.

[Vinyadan]

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1-58_large.jpg


There's a part from the Alexiad where Tancred, a Norman crusader that had become the ruler of Antiochia, was asked to give it back to the Emperor Alexios of Constantinople. He didn't react well. It sounds pretty similar, and I wonder if he or Anna were quoting some version of the tale.


When the Emperor's ambassadors brought this message, that mad and demented barbarian would not listen, even with the tips of his ears, to the truth of their words and the free speech of the ambassadors, but acted like the men of his race and being puffed up with vanity boasted that he would place his throne above the stars and threatened to bore a hole through the walls of Babylon with the tip of his spear, and sang the praise of his power for being undaunted and irresistible in onslaught, and reiterated that, no matter what happened, he would never give up Antioch, not even if the soldiers set to fight against him had hands of fire.

[fusilier]

There is not enough space on the internet to pull up all of the accounts there are, and a lot of my sources are not in English in the first place. I'm taking most of these from Swordsmen of the British Empire, and these are direct period citations, so be prepared for some mild racism. I'm also including them, in their entirety, for added context. To make Matt Easton proud.

Thank you for providing sources, and taking the time to collect them as you did. However, we seem to be talking about *almost* completely different things. You list many examples of horses running over, or among men, and perhaps that's what you were originally referring to -- I've had horses bump into me plenty of times, I don't think they are particular shy about running up to, or into, people.

However, I had made a somewhat more specific claim, that there is little evidence that "horses and riders were willing to impale themselves on dense formations of bayonets":

As far as I can tell, only one of the sources you gave addresses that scenario:
Lieutenant Moore whose horse "leapt sheer onto the raised bayonets," also described as, "took the first line of bayonets like a fence, leaping into the midst of the astonished serbaz" (a different description of the same event?). The implication being that perhaps the horse was attempting to jump the line of infantry, not run into it.

Now, whether or not it's more an issue of the rider's trepidation at performing the action, being subconsciously communicated to the horse -- as that's the way some cavalrymen have described it to me -- I'll be willing to contend. But that doesn't change the fact that horses charging into lines of tightly packed infantry (not people lying on the ground, or loose formations, or fleeing), holding bayonets in a defensive posture, seems to be a rarely reported event. And as Mike_G pointed out, they considered the breaking of a square in such a manner to be almost unique.

[Note, I'm not talking about a ride-by attack either, I'm talking about a headlong rush.]

The other sources involving a square: William Morris doesn't give enough detail, he merely states that they "dashed through the square" (we don't know if the enemy broke at the sight of the charge, or if they fought their way through). The one from 1860 appears to describe a ride by attack (or attacks) on the corner man who fights with a sword -- certainly not a headlong rush into the infantry line (I think this one is actually quite interesting). Col Barnaby is exiting his own square, singling out the enemy's leader.

In my posts I did bring up the changing infantry tactics, and that they actually became *tighter* in the "horse and musket" era, and that this may have had an impact on the ability of cavalry to penetrate the infantry formation.

I know of no military manual of the 19th century, that even suggests that infantry squares can be dealt with by spurring the horses into the ranks. (If the enemy doesn't break, you're supposed to wheel away).

[Max_Killjoy]

Articles comparing GOT TV series to history:

https://acoup.blog/2019/05/28/new-acquisitions-not-how-it-was-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-i/
https://acoup.blog/2019/06/04/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-ii/
https://acoup.blog/2019/06/12/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-iii/

[fusilier]

Articles comparing GOT TV series to history:

https://acoup.blog/2019/05/28/new-acquisitions-not-how-it-was-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-i/
https://acoup.blog/2019/06/04/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-ii/
https://acoup.blog/2019/06/12/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-iii/

Thanks. Those are actually a pretty good read, giving a good synopses of certain aspects of Medieval history.

[Mike_G]

Medieval warfare question.

So, I'm having a tough time visualizing how this actually works.

Say I'm a vassal and my lord calls me to show up to fight. I gather my little retinue and join my lord's army. Say I show up as a heavily armored knight, with a couple of squires and spare horses, a few mounted sergeants, a pair of archers or crossbowmen and a handfull of spearmen or billmen. For simplicity's sake, lets say I have no vassals showing up with their own retinues.

Now, I get that I'm obligated to provide a certain number of men to fight, and I assume I have to supply and feed them. That much I get.

But on the day of the battle, when the lines are drawn up, where is my retinue? I'm a heavy horseman. I can see my squires and my mounted sergeants being with me, but it's not like one of my archers is gonna hang off my stirrup as I charge, right? It makes far more sense to mass all the armored cavalry together so they can charge, and all the spearmen together to hold ground and the archers together to provide massed archery, no? Because my archers are going to be crap at charging and I'm going to be less use in static defense unless I dismount, right?

Where do my footmen deploy? Do my archers go off and join all the other sections of archers and make up a combined unit on the flank of the army? Who commands them? Do they stay with my billmen?

I understand how a modern combined arms force works, but I don't see how this kind of thing works for a medieval battle.

[fusilier]

I have been trying to track down instances where infantry resisted cavalry, to give an indication of how it was done, but have actually found it difficult. In the time periods where we have detailed descriptions, formed infantry successfully defending itself from a cavalry charge seems to have been the norm -- so most descriptions talk about the exceptions.

I have been looking through a website about napoleonic tactics -- it's a bit of an odd collection of facts, but it does list several examples.
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm#_infantry_squares_against_c avalry

If the infantry, in square, stood fast, the cavalry were often at a disadvantage. The author mentions that horses wouldn't impale themselves on the bayonets. Then gives some examples of what did happen:

-One British officer recalled that at Waterloo "No actual dash was made
upon us [our square]. Now and then an individual more daring than
the rest would ride up to the bayonets, wave his sword about and bully;
but the mass held aloof, pulling up within 5 or 6 yards" (- Mark Adkin)

-At Leipzig in 1813 the French cuirassiers rode up to the bayonets of
Russian grenadiers formed in squares, waved their swords about,
fired pistols and rode away.

He then lists many examples of infantry squares holding off cavalry charges:

1.
Prussian colonel Muffling mentions that in 1814 three newly raised Russian battalions
were attacked by French cuirassiers. The Russians delivered volley at 60 paces killing
not a single man or horse. The young recruits however stood firm and the cuirassiers
turned back and retired.
. . .
3.
In 1806 at Prenzlow, a small Prussian square (approx. 400 men) repulsed 7 attacks
of 2,000 French dragoons, each time delivering a volley at 20-30 paces. The French
lost only 10-15 horses but the square held fast and it was enough to discourage
the cavalry.


These descriptions show that if the infantry didn't waver, the cavalry would have trouble engaging them in hand-to-hand (even if the musketry itself was ineffective). All they could do is *stop* at the line of infantry, and then try to engage. Here the infantry had a local advantage in numbers (around six to one, depending upon the formation). Sabers were too short, although lances would have the reach, they were still outnumbered. If the infantry formation was broken the situation was different -- they could ride around individual infantrymen, perform ride-by attacks with sabers, while the infantryman was no longer closely supported by his comrades.

The problem of a tight formation apparently occasionally affected cavalry versus cavalry engagements during the Napoleonic wars (http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cavalry_tactics.html):

"The shock chest to chest - le coup de poitrail - is a chimera, for the constitution of horses renders it impossible and the instinct of men and horses prevents it. In a charge one of the two sides either does not reach the enemy or does not wait for him. If the two sides meet, the horses pass in between one another and there is a melee." (Wilkinson, Spenser - "The French army before Napoleon; lectures delivered before the University of Oxford ..." p 64)

Wilhelm Balck:

There is no collision of two solid bodies. A horse will invariably try to evade an obstacle, and the better the cohesion of the unit advancing to the charge, the smaller is the chance of such evasion. Consequently, the denser wedges will turn instinctively against those parts of the hostile line where cohesion has been lost, and will penetrate them. The inrushing troops will then carry away with them the adjacent parts of the enemy's line.
The broken part of the line then either begins the melee, in which it will soon succumb, on account of its numerical inferiority, or, in view of that inevitable outcome, evacuates the battlefield, carrying with it, if the morale of the force is not good, parts of the line still intact.
Both opponents may have their line penetrated.

What happens if they couldn't find a gap, and neither side retired:

According to du Picq "There were frequent instances when 2 lines of cavalry would confront each other without budging, each waiting for the other to retire or to make mistake." It was the case where troops on both sides were not only of equal bravery, but there were no gaps between individual horsemen.

In 1831 [sic - 1813?] two Russian and two Polish regiments charged each other. When close enough to recognize faces they slackened their gait and after a while both turned their backs and retreated. Similar situation - according to Du Picq - can be observed between two dogs, or two lions, when the courage is equal.

The horses don't appear to be charging *directly* into a person (or obstacle) -- they will charge into the gaps though, and go right by someone. They will also go over them. And they will approach all the way up to a line. The example of Colonel Barnaby shows that horses will push against people, but it wasn't a charge, and those people were not brandishing bayonets at the horse's face.

The are a few points:
1. The infantry tactics are centered around a tight formation, which will give local numerical superiority in hand-to-hand, and presents no gaps.
2. That maintaining that formation is important to defeating cavalry -- if there are no gaps for the enemy horses to enter, the infantry should be fine.
3. The cavalry, therefore, wants to create a gap in the infantry. This can be done in multiple ways: ranged attacks, physical attack, and intimidation.

i. Ranged attacks. Firing pistols at close range may do this, but the best was to be supported by artillery. A few well placed rounds might just disorder the infantry for long enough that the cavalry can attack before they reform.

ii. Physical attack. As mentioned earlier simply riding up to the dense line of infantry can occur, but now you have to fight them in hand-to-hand, and there are problems with doing so. The infantry formation is designed to support itself, and they will typically have better reach, and even if they don't they will have local numerical superiority. (That's why I find the example from 1860 interesting, they attacked the corner of the square).

However, a horse is big and heavy, why not simply send the horse into the line of infantry, at full speed, don't stop. Examples of horses being shot at close range and having the momentum to smash a gap through the infantry formation are known to have occurred. And then there's Lieutenant Moore's leaping horse. You're going to lose some horses, but probably less than repeated charges against musket armed infantry. (Remember, you only have to form a gap, not sacrifice an entire rank of horses against the infantry). So why not just do that? The answer appears to be, that both horses and men can rarely perform that feat of self-sacrifice.

iii. Intimidation. Break the infantry's morale. Morale can be broken in different ways, but in a charge it's a matter of intimidation. Make them think your horses aren't going to stop, and will plow right into them. Getting the infantry to fire their muskets at long range, where it is less effectual was a recommended tactic. A soldier facing down a mass of charging horsemen, and with an empty musket, is going to be feeling some sort of intimidation. If the attacker keeps coming, even if the defensive volley was telling, that can also be intimidating. While I've been mostly talking about the Napoleonic period, in the middle ages, infantry were not as well trained or experienced as their mounted counterparts, and we could expect them to be more likely to break.

I believe that most (unsupported) charges that broke infantry did so through intimidation, and that physically forcing a gap was a rare event. Remember you just have to create *a* gap in the line, then you can enter the line and engage in hand-to-hand. It's not impossible for infantry to come back from this -- reserves can be thrown against that point and they can try to overwhelm the cavalry -- but once the formation is broken the cavalry will have an advantage.

[fusilier]

Medieval warfare question.

So, I'm having a tough time visualizing how this actually works.

Say I'm a vassal and my lord calls me to show up to fight. I gather my little retinue and join my lord's army. Say I show up as a heavily armored knight, with a couple of squires and spare horses, a few mounted sergeants, a pair of archers or crossbowmen and a handfull of spearmen or billmen. For simplicity's sake, lets say I have no vassals showing up with their own retinues.

Now, I get that I'm obligated to provide a certain number of men to fight, and I assume I have to supply and feed them. That much I get.

But on the day of the battle, when the lines are drawn up, where is my retinue? I'm a heavy horseman. I can see my squires and my mounted sergeants being with me, but it's not like one of my archers is gonna hang off my stirrup as I charge, right? It makes far more sense to mass all the armored cavalry together so they can charge, and all the spearmen together to hold ground and the archers together to provide massed archery, no? Because my archers are going to be crap at charging and I'm going to be less use in static defense unless I dismount, right?

Where do my footmen deploy? Do my archers go off and join all the other sections of archers and make up a combined unit on the flank of the army? Who commands them? Do they stay with my billmen?

I understand how a modern combined arms force works, but I don't see how this kind of thing works for a medieval battle.

I don't know specifically about the middle ages, but (close to that time), in the condottieri period a four person "lance" was usually organized like this: A well armored man-at-arms, a lightly armored sergeant, a page or squire, and maybe a mounted crossbowman. In battle they would be arranged into separate units. The lance formed a kind of administrative or logistical unit, not a tactical unit on the battlefield.

Similar concepts can be seen much later. A ten-company regiment in the American Civil War was usually understrength, and companies could be very unbalanced (having different numbers of men). When organized for combat the men would be reorganized into a smaller number of equal sized companies. So a ten-company regiment, may deploy as a six company battalion. The original ten-companies still existed as an administrative unit. Those administrative companies were identified by a letter, but when deployed for combat in a battalion the companies were "numbered" based on their position in line.

[Vinyadan]

I think that the question is whether you were supposed to actually go around with a little army, or you simply paid your duty to your lord by supplying him some men and yourself, which he would then use as he saw fit. I would expect the latter, and that the overlord would merge and organize the formations and choose commanders based on their relationship with him (the more important the vassal, the more likely he's a commander).

There are cases however in which a vassal's contingent would simply join the enemy (e.g. Raoul Taisson at the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes), so I assume that you didn't always have a well-mixed army, unless it happened before the men were facing in the field.

[Martin Greywolf]

Q: Will horses go through holes in a formation instead of over people if they can?
A: Yes, they aren't braindead.

Q: Will horses charge straight into a tight formation of men if prompted?
A: Yes they will, we have numerous accounts of this happening.

Q: Is it a good idea to try?
A: Not unless there are severe extenuating circumstances, since it is a waste of resources and very psychologically hard to do.

As for horses trying to jump over the formation instead of going through, I don't see much difference here, the animal goes through either way, and will die later because of numerous stab wounds.

Q: Provided this charge happens, do you want to be the first in line of impact?
A: Only if you particularly enjoy being slammed into by half a ton of horse.

If we are taking modern personal accounts into evidence, a stuntman acquaintance of mine once told me about a pretty nasty incident. He and his friend were two dudes with shields standing shoudler to shoulder, and the idea was that another guy on a horse would charge into them, and they would separate and pretend to be knocked apart and fall down apart. So far, so standard, as horse was merely at a run, not a full gallop.

All went well until it didn't, since about 15 meters before impact, the horse started to rapidly veer left-to-right and back, sort of making hops to the side - in retrospect, it was likely attempting to go around them, and was being stopped by the rider. That resulted in one of the shield guys not having enough space to jump away properly. The horse ended up hitting him mid-leap aside with its chest and throwing him for some distance. He ended up being fine after the shock wore off and he sat down for a while.

So, the horse, and this was a modern horse, not even trained for stuntwork - which was likely the problem - did in fact ram a guy directly. It wasn't happy about it, but it did do it in the end.



Say I'm a vassal and my lord calls me to show up to fight. I gather my little retinue and join my lord's army. Say I show up as a heavily armored knight, with a couple of squires and spare horses, a few mounted sergeants, a pair of archers or crossbowmen and a handfull of spearmen or billmen. For simplicity's sake, lets say I have no vassals showing up with their own retinues.


This, incidentally, is what most nobles would look like. Only one percent of one percent were barons capable of fielding small personal armies.



Now, I get that I'm obligated to provide a certain number of men to fight, and I assume I have to supply and feed them. That much I get.

Not quite. While you have to pay their upkeep in some way, you aren't actually responsible for all of it.

For food and water, that is organized on army level - where to stop, if the wells are good enough, sending scouting parties to acquire food and so on. You may be required to pay the army for the food, but more often, there is some sort of ration that is handed to everyone. This prevents hungry soldiers from going AWOL to loot.

For pay, a lot of the time, what you actually give your troops is rather nominal - but they are allowed to keep loot. Which serves as a motivation to fight well, and as a handy way to sprak off an internal conflict that will give you headaches for months.




But on the day of the battle, when the lines are drawn up, where is my retinue?

All over the place.


I'm a heavy horseman. I can see my squires and my mounted sergeants being with me,

Assuming we're talking high to late medieval, looking at Templar rule is a good way of getting a feel for how this was done. Your sqires with spare shields and lances follow behind you, so that you can wheel around after a charge and get new stuff - they aren't expected to fight at all, but it happens.

Light cavalry, not so much, they do their own thing, see later.


but it's not like one of my archers is gonna hang off my stirrup as I charge, right?

Only if his name is Lars Andersen and he trained in ancient true martial archery (tm).


It makes far more sense to mass all the armored cavalry together so they can charge, and all the spearmen together to hold ground and the archers together to provide massed archery, no? Because my archers are going to be crap at charging and I'm going to be less use in static defense unless I dismount, right?

Where do my footmen deploy? Do my archers go off and join all the other sections of archers and make up a combined unit on the flank of the army? Who commands them? Do they stay with my billmen?

I understand how a modern combined arms force works, but I don't see how this kind of thing works for a medieval battle.

Yeah, kinda sorta, not really.

What will happen once a field battle is joined, which will be extremely rare, is that everyone will be divided into sections, usually center, two flanks and miscellaneous which includes camp guard, vanguard, cavalry reserve to cover potential rout, horse archers to skirmish at start and so on.

So, say you are assigned to the center, under Lord Whatever - it is now up to lord Wahtever to utilize his soldiers in a manner that is conducive to main plan he agreed to with the king and other commanders - or to sabotage and/or bollocks it up because of petty rivalry. Either or.

Lord Whatever will then assign commanders to major elements, he himself takes command of heavy cav, gives lord Dontmatter light cav command (therefore pissing him off by denying him opportunity to gain fame in cav charge) and orders captain of mercenary company he hired, count Stabby, to take command of infantry section - this includes all foot elements, including archers and, especially before light field cannon, artillery if there is any present.

At this point, your men go to where they belong by equipment. If your retinue is large enough, your archers, spearmen and whatnot likely have a Hauptmann - a sort of sergeant guy who is in charge of them. He will keep being in charge, and instead of you report to either count Stabby directly, or more likely, to someone count Stabby appointed as a leader of a larger section, e.g. third section of the center.

Does this mean you will have relatively small cohesion with people who are suddenly to your left and right? You betcha. Better organized armies will attempt to do this sort of organizing beforehand, so that the Hauptmanns at least know each other, but it is a problem.

Many variations

If it is medieval, it has as many exceptions as English language. Sometimes, you do see more specialized subdivision, like dedicated archer blocks, sometimes you have large merc companies who have excellent cohesion and are feared and so on.

The most common front line, however, looks like shield and weapon (sword, spear, axe) guys mixed with billmen in rows 3-5, mixed with archers in the back rows. This results in any attack on the formation from the front having to defeat a shield wall bristling with bills and hooks, all the while being shot in the face from 10 meters. Been there, done that, decided to flank. This changes as we move on to pike and shot era.

Plundering

You have to plunder for supply. And sending your entire army to do it isn't practical, so smaller detachments are made. These are what I've written above, only in smaller scale, and in ideal situation, with everyone being at least mounted infantry. How organized they are varies, English going for Chevauchee during 100 years war were pretty well organized, for example.

This is where majority of fighting during any medieval war would take place, with second most common place being sieges. Field battles take distant last place.

[fusilier]

Q: Will horses charge straight into a tight formation of men if prompted?
A: Yes they will, we have numerous accounts of this happening.

I guess I don't see that. I mean so far I've seen one example, which was considered exceptional by the people who witnessed it, although I'm sure there are more. [Horses being wounded by bayonets or spears, is not really proof, as that could have happened if the infantry formation faltered, in the ensuing melee, not, necessarily, at "the moment of impact." EDIT -- it could also indicate melee fighting where the infantry formation did not falter, but I suspect that was rare too] More importantly, we appear to have many many many more examples of them not doing it. I suppose if we don't know whether or not the horse was prompted to do so, it can be hard to tell what a median warhorse would do.

At the very least, I think it would be safe to say that, statistically speaking, a tiny fraction of horses in a charge flung themselves onto the bayonets of infantry in formation holding their ground. Then perhaps we are arguing about why? (Could the horses not be encouraged to do so, or did the riders not want to force them?) But I'm not sure there is agreement on that premise.

If you think that two people with shields is an analog for six men, three ranks deep, flashing bayonets at the horse's eye level, part of a wall of people -- then I don't think we're on the same wavelength.

[Speaking of anecdotes: I was present when someone was thrown from their horse because they tried to force the horse to *walk* through a gap in a fence, that the horses before it had just passed through, and it responded by bucking the rider! . . . I'll grant that probably wasn't a trained stunt horse either ;-)]

Wilhelm Balck, quoted in my earlier post, was a late 19th century - early 20th century military theorist. That is late, but still a time when cavalry charges were still a thing (in Europe), and not far removed from the great charges of the Napoleonic Wars. He states that the horses do not bodily crash into each other in a charge. That's not to be *expected*. I'm sure there were exceptions. And I am aware of the difficulties of projecting descriptions from one time period onto another. But, I hoped such perspectives could at least give a starting point for a discussion. [Maybe there are other theorists who *did* expect that to happen?]

That some horses could be prompted to crash full speed into a solid formation of infantry (or even a solid formation of cavalry) -- I don't doubt. That it should be expected of a horse? That I question. The horsemen I've talked to, generally think not.

I do appreciate your period descriptions of cavalry vs. infantry, even if many of the anecdotes didn't address the issue (as I see it), I found many of them interesting.

[Martin Greywolf]

More importantly, we appear to have many many many more examples of them not doing it.

Do we? I have yet to see a substantial number of accounts of a horse straight up refusing to charge a bayonet square. They weren't made to do so often by the riders, but that is another matter.




At the very least, I think it would be safe to say that, statistically speaking, a tiny fraction of horses in a charge flung themselves onto the bayonets of infantry in formation holding their ground.

This, I don't agree with at all. The riders know what their horses are capable of - usually - if they know the horse will throw them off, why would they ever attempt to make them charge? Getting thrown off in front of enemy spearmen is a death sentence.

Assuming a commander who is not an idiot - which is a lot sometimes, I'll grant that - he will only ask for a charge if his men can do it. So etiher a direct charge will not happen at all, or it will be done by most horses, not just some.



Wilhelm Balck, quoted in my earlier post, was a late 19th century - early 20th century military theorist. That is late, but still a time when cavalry charges were still a thing (in Europe), and not far removed from the great charges of the Napoleonic Wars. He states that the horses do not bodily crash into each other in a charge. That's not to be *expected*.


Maybe he does somewhere, but the bit you posted talks about cavalry on cavalry charge, not hitting infantry.



I'm sure there were exceptions. And I am aware of the difficulties of projecting descriptions from one time period onto another.


Especially since we know from period accounts of Templar order that they were renowned and well regarded because they charged with their knees almost touching. There are questions here, of course - did they charge like this exclusively against infantry to avoid a clash of horse bodies, like Black seems to suggest? How was this not the norm - is it just that Templar cav could charge slightly tighter, or did others leave large gaps on purpose?



That some horses could be prompted to crash full speed into a solid formation of infantry (or even a solid formation of cavalry) -- I don't doubt. That it should be expected of a horse? That I question.


My verdict is that it was expected of the horses, but rarely requested.



The horsemen I've talked to, generally think not.


The ones I've talked to think that you could train a horse to do it without much difficulty. Indeed, they trained horses to charge straight through (fake but real-looking) walls on occassion. Sometimes while the walls were on fire.

See this video where horses run through tables - sure, they are foam, but the horses don't know that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l03eXGDsyI

A horse charges through shields at 0:29 and through a window at 2:00 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXDf2Iixc4U

For period accounts, let's not forget Crecy and Agincourt where French expected success from a frontal cavalry charge - even though it didn't work out for them, they apparently thought it would. We could argue that Franch were arrognat enough to expect Enlgish to rout before the charge hit, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me, even for the French.

[fusilier]

EDIT -- I felt my argument was too confused and more combative than I wanted it to be. As Mike_G says we are at an impasse.

However, I'm leaving this story here, I think it's a good one:

(full story can be found here: https://militaryimages.atavist.com/between-guadalupe-hidalgo-and-secession-autumn-2019)
A post-war anecdote offers insight to Mullins’ character. One day in Kansas, Mullins got into a debate with three cavalry officers and a surgeon about the relative merits of cavalry and infantry. As the story goes, “the cavalry officers declaring that one cavalryman could ride down and sabre any dozen infantry men in the army. At this Capt. Mullins dared the four to try to ride him down. The challenge was accepted, and taking an unloaded musket from one of his men, Capt. Mullins fixed the bayonet, and squared himself for the encounter.”

The four officers charged Mullins in echelon. In the fray that followed, a bayonet prick to one horse sent it galloping off with the first officer, and the second officer received the butt end of the musket and lost control of his mount. The third officer’s saber struck Mullins’ musket, and the captain responded with a bayonet lunge that drove the horse away. The fourth officer, the surgeon, advanced on Mullins, who responded with a loud yell that frightened the horse and caused the animal to rear up and down. “Here is an instance where one infantry soldier outfought four cavalrymen,” the story concluded.

I have little doubt that some alcohol may have been involved. ;-)

[Mike_G]

It looks like we are at an impasse. We know that in general, if the infantry held firm, cavalry charges tended to wheel away and try something else. We seem to disagree on why. Whether cavalrymen decided it wasn't worth it or the horses refused, we see repeated instanced where the infantry held firm and the cavalry charge veered away.

It seems to me that when cavalry did charge infantry, the hope was that the infantry would break and run before contact, and the they would get mauled. If they didn't break, the cavalry wheeled away and tried something different. This makes perfect sense, as you make the charge hoping to break their morale, but if you don't it isn't worth the loss of a very valuable and expensive unit, so you try Plan B.

This obviously only applies to formed units. Dispersed infantry can be ridden through and sabred or lanced or trampled easily. But a square with bayonets extended, or a pike block or a Scottish schiltron or even the shield wall could hold against several cavalry charges, so long as the men didn't break.

Waterloo and Bannockburn and Hastings bear this out. Now, we can't say whether the charges failed because they couldn't charge home, or because they chose not to charge home, but the result is the same. Unsupported cavalry seldom broke disciplined infantry in close order by the charge alone. When they did, it was considered an exceptional, "almost unique" accomplishment by the very account of the men who were there.

[fusilier]

It looks like we are at an impasse. We know that in general, if the infantry held firm, cavalry charges tended to wheel away and try something else. We seem to disagree on why. Whether cavalrymen decided it wasn't worth it or the horses refused, we see repeated instanced where the infantry held firm and the cavalry charge veered away.

It seems to me that when cavalry did charge infantry, the hope was that the infantry would break and run before contact, and the they would get mauled. If they didn't break, the cavalry wheeled away and tried something different. This makes perfect sense, as you make the charge hoping to break their morale, but if you don't it isn't worth the loss of a very valuable and expensive unit, so you try Plan B.

This obviously only applies to formed units. Dispersed infantry can be ridden through and sabred or lanced or trampled easily. But a square with bayonets extended, or a pike block or a Scottish schiltron or even the shield wall could hold against several cavalry charges, so long as the men didn't break.

Waterloo and Bannockburn and Hastings bear this out. Now, we can't say whether the charges failed because they couldn't charge home, or because they chose not to charge home, but the result is the same. Unsupported cavalry seldom broke disciplined infantry in close order by the charge alone. When they did, it was considered an exceptional, "almost unique" accomplishment by the very account of the men who were there.

I concur, and perhaps we should leave it here.

Personally I think that if horses could be expected to throw themselves bodily into infantry squares, it would have happened more often (because, the few examples we have seems to have worked). But maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks Mike_G.

[KineticDiplomat]

It is worth noting a couple points here:

1) There is a substantial difference between the likelihood of success of heavily armored, lance armed, lifelong warrior caste riders with stirrups conducting a frontal charge against footmen with shorter hand weapons and generally less armor - our classic fantasy/era-of-the-knight cav charge - and a series of cuirassiers with sabers and breastplates having to ride through cannon and musket fire to find every man also has a spear that can be used to shoot you.

The success rates are going to look different. Using napoleonics to decry it could never happen in medieval times, or vice versa, that’s a bit of a tangential argument.

2) The point of cohesion is a thin line. One might, (and French generals did) argue that no mere machine gun can stop a massed attack from good infantry who keep their morale. In a sense true, but it leads to tautological arguments where every example of men in baggy red trousers not carrying the charge becomes “well, I only said good infantry - clearly infantry with poor morale can’t beat a machinegun”.

We know that units in the middle age broke. And we know from records that in many cases they broke AFTER impact. So yes, they lost cohesion, but they lost cohesion because of the charge slamming home. Well ordered units, praised for their bravery in some cases. Not just rabble caught dispersed.

Which in turn implies that for the time, even good infantry, well ordered, had a chance to be broken by a charge’s impact, not just the psychology.

And moreover, we know that they knew that, because entire tactical evolutions occurred specifically to counter the mounted charge - the average infantryman didn’t suddenly become a hero in 1400 after spending 300 years a coward. He was differently armed, formed, and used.

And he had to be, because for three hundred years before that, mounted warriors had a good chance of thrashing him.

[fusilier]

It is worth noting a couple points here:
. . .
The success rates are going to look different. Using napoleonics to decry it could never happen in medieval times, or vice versa, that’s a bit of a tangential argument.

I was focusing on the Napoleonic period because we have much more information. We even have the first-person accounts of troopers, not just the officers. They tend to be detailed, and often quite honest. I thought it would be a good period to ground things in. Then we could talk about why/how we could expect things to be different in different eras. What concepts could we carry over and why?

[AdAstra]

I was focusing on the Napoleonic period because we have much more information. We even have the first-person accounts of troopers, not just the officers. They tend to be detailed, and often quite honest. I thought it would be a good period to ground things in. Then we could talk about why/how we could expect things to be different in different eras. What concepts could we carry over and why?

Well, at least some things could be significantly different.

-Equipment of the rider and horse- As stated earlier, the cuirassier of the Napoleanic period did not enjoy the same level of protection, in both relative and objective terms, as many of his counterparts in earlier ages. In addition, if the cavalry were not equipped with lances which was often the case, they would not enjoy the potential reach advantage that such weapons offer. As for the horse, barding shows up regularly on heavy cavalry and would provide much more protection in the initial charge and afterwards.

-Training of the cavalry- Both the horse and the rider could potentially falter, and thus both would benefit from whatever training and discipline that can be imparted. While training a horse to run headlong into a dense mass is hardly going to be easy, I would not be surprised if it was possible given sufficient effort.

-Training/equipment of the infantry- For all the talk about well-drilled and disciplined troops, many soldiers were anything but that, and even experienced, well-disciplined troops could falter. Moreover, many soldiers wouldn't be guaranteed to have the equipment (ie, weapons with sufficient reach that can preferably be braced) or training (quickly assembling into a dense formation in good order, especially in the heat of battle, takes practice) to take advantage of infantry square tactics. The infantry of the Napoleonic era effectively had pike and shot both, a tactic that in it's earlier incarnations (as separate soldiers carrying each) led to a decline in cavalry charges in favor of pistols, sabers, and carbines.

[fusilier]

Well, at least some things could be significantly different.

-Equipment of the rider and horse- As stated earlier, the cuirassier of the Napoleanic period did not enjoy the same level of protection, in both relative and objective terms, as many of his counterparts in earlier ages. In addition, if the cavalry were not equipped with lances which was often the case, they would not enjoy the potential reach advantage that such weapons offer. As for the horse, barding shows up regularly on heavy cavalry and would provide much more protection in the initial charge and afterwards.

-Training of the cavalry- Both the horse and the rider could potentially falter, and thus both would benefit from whatever training and discipline that can be imparted. While training a horse to run headlong into a dense mass is hardly going to be easy, I would not be surprised if it was possible given sufficient effort.

-Training/equipment of the infantry- For all the talk about well-drilled and disciplined troops, many soldiers were anything but that, and even experienced, well-disciplined troops could falter. Moreover, many soldiers wouldn't be guaranteed to have the equipment (ie, weapons with sufficient reach that can preferably be braced) or training (quickly assembling into a dense formation in good order, especially in the heat of battle, takes practice) to take advantage of infantry square tactics. The infantry of the Napoleonic era effectively had pike and shot both, a tactic that in it's earlier incarnations (as separate soldiers carrying each) led to a decline in cavalry charges in favor of pistols, sabers, and carbines.

Yup. Changing tactics and equipment, the level of training that could be expected, etc., would all be very interesting things to discuss -- but if the reason that cavalry couldn't defeat infantry that didn't falter is because the riders lacked the temerity to force their horses to charge into the ranks, then those changes are irrelevant to the discussion.

[KineticDiplomat]

As to the relevant discussion:

The OP wanted to know what a cavalry charge would really look like. While he didn’t specify an era, both the references to LOTR and the default RPG assumptions are that this was in a high Middle Ages type situation.

For that era, we know that it would look like-

Knights form as tight as their training and army cohesion allows, advancing at a walk to canter with lances up, trying to preserve formation.

At the last tactically feasible point, they lower lances and charge forward at a gallop or high canter, trying to arrive as a unified body.

They make impact. This is the matter in debate, but it was the intent of a medieval charge, and frequently mentioned as happening to troops both formed and unformed. We also know that given the comparatively short final gallop, the speed traveled, and the density of the formation, there was very little room to back out or go around once we talk on army scales. Looser post gunpowder formations allow a lot more individual movement space than a knee to knee charge.

We know that there was a chance the infantry broke before impact - scary charging horses syndrome - because it happened. We also know that sometimes impact did in fact break or maul a medieval infantry formation, because we have fairly common records of it.

There would be a moment of penetration and melee. We have record of infantry units being “pushed” hundreds of yards and not quitting the field during this phase, and we have records where the knights got butchered. The tendency in truly long battles to see continuous series of charges by the same riders versus the same infantry probably indicates that impact followed by a melee with some losses and then the horseman backing out after a gradual momentum started to tell is the story of a typical charge of the era if no one breaks.

[fusilier]

Looser post gunpowder formations allow a lot more individual movement space than a knee to knee charge.

What is the post gunpowder era? The adoption of smokeless powder circa 1890?

[Pauly]

What is the post gunpowder era? The adoption of smokeless powder circa 1890?

It starts with the introduction of breechloaders with metallic cartridges and ends with the Second Boer War. The introduction of reliable (bolt action) repeating rifles the major factor. The introduction of cordite allowed repeating rifles to be reliable as it meant less fouling of the rifles. This allowed for unsupported infantry to repel almost any attack from close formation troops.
Prior to the second Boer war shoulder to shoulder infantry formations were common, but afterwards they became much less common. Germany found out the hard way that those formations were untenable at Mons.

Other factors that ended the era were
- machine guns and hydro-pneumatic recoil action field guns. Reliable mass production versions of these were put into production in the 1890s.
- The introduction of battlefield telegraph and telephone allowed for the extension if command over much larger distances allowing more open formations.

[fusilier]

It starts with the introduction of breechloaders with metallic cartridges and ends with the Second Boer War. The introduction of reliable (bolt action) repeating rifles the major factor. The introduction of cordite allowed repeating rifles to be reliable as it meant less fouling of the rifles.
Prior to the second Boer war shoulder to shoulder infantry formations were common, but afterwards they became much less common. Germany found out the hard way that those formations were untenable at Mons.

Other factors that ended the era were
- machine guns and hydro-pneumatic recoil action field guns. Reliable mass production versions of these were put into production in the 1890s.
- The introduction of battlefield telegraph and telephone allowed for the extension if command over much larger distances allowing more open formations.

That makes sense to me, I just hadn't heard it defined before, and wanted to make sure I was on the same page. Thanks.

[KineticDiplomat]

So, I will confess that I did not mean it as a term of art - more as a way of delineating between the middle ages the more modern periods in discussion.

Anyhow, the medieval charge is what they French theorists would call "En Murial", or basically, the wall charge. A single long line. packed knee to knee with ranks a variable. This fell out of favor as the size of armies went up, the training and equipping of horsemen went down (relative), and the need for greater battlefield flexibility arose at the same time that firearms, pikes, and eventually the bayonet fitted musket made it harder and harder to simply slam a line of horse into a line of foot.

A French Napoleonic formation, by contrast would be organized into squadrons (~150 men on any given day), with the squadrons, by regulation at least, ten meters apart. On top of which they would be arrayed into two looser ranks - supposedly 6 meters deep. Even so, the new battlefield did not allow the grand spaced line to move around in a leisurely manner, so cavalry often traveled in columns of squadrons or echeloned squadrons for ease of control and to allow sub elements some ability to react. That spacing came at the expense of impact mass, which new weapons had lessened anyhow. So your average Napoleonic cavalry charge is far more fluid and opportunistic than a medieval one.

There are exceptions of course. There was some village in Spain where the French came down one end of the street and a British infantry company was formed on the other, with both sides hemmed in by the surrounding walls. The French in one long column slammed into the British, who initially held until the weight of all the horses behind the first ones crushed through the British ranks, causing them to break. The British sent a counter-charge of their own cavalry, which proceeded to lose all formation going through it's own infantry...it ended poorly.

[fusilier]

So, I will confess that I did not mean it as a term of art - more as a way of delineating between the middle ages the more modern periods in discussion.

Anyhow, the medieval charge is what they French theorists would call "En Murial", or basically, the wall charge. A single long line. packed knee to knee with ranks a variable. This fell out of favor as the size of armies went up, the training and equipping of horsemen went down (relative), and the need for greater battlefield flexibility arose at the same time that firearms, pikes, and eventually the bayonet fitted musket made it harder and harder to simply slam a line of horse into a line of foot.

A French Napoleonic formation, by contrast would be organized into squadrons (~150 men on any given day), with the squadrons, by regulation at least, ten meters apart. On top of which they would be arrayed into two looser ranks - supposedly 6 meters deep. Even so, the new battlefield did not allow the grand spaced line to move around in a leisurely manner, so cavalry often traveled in columns of squadrons or echeloned squadrons for ease of control and to allow sub elements some ability to react. That spacing came at the expense of impact mass, which new weapons had lessened anyhow. So your average Napoleonic cavalry charge is far more fluid and opportunistic than a medieval one.

There are exceptions of course. There was some village in Spain where the French came down one end of the street and a British infantry company was formed on the other, with both sides hemmed in by the surrounding walls. The French in one long column slammed into the British, who initially held until the weight of all the horses behind the first ones crushed through the British ranks, causing them to break. The British sent a counter-charge of their own cavalry, which proceeded to lose all formation going through it's own infantry...it ended poorly.

Napoleonic cavalry did, however, still form up knee-to-knee for charges, (except when charging artillery). But as you noted, they deployed in squadrons designed to support each other, which also allowed them some flexibility in redirecting the attack, if the first squadrons ran into trouble. Instead of one huge cavalry mass.

[gkathellar]

How was the wooden shaft of a historical pike constructed? It occurs to me that pikes were pretty long, and that if composed of a single piece of wood, that would've required an awful lot of awfully tall, awfully straight trees to produce even moderate numbers of the weapons. This makes me wonder if they might have been glued together or composed of multiple pieces of wood in some other way - is my intuition here worth anything? Is this even a question we know the answer to?

[Vinyadan]

How was the wooden shaft of a historical pike constructed? It occurs to me that pikes were pretty long, and that if composed of a single piece of wood, that would've required an awful lot of awfully tall, awfully straight trees to produce even moderate numbers of the weapons. This makes me wonder if they might have been glued together or composed of multiple pieces of wood in some other way - is my intuition here worth anything? Is this even a question we know the answer to?
While I don't know how pike shafts were made, or whether wood composites existed back then, it's worth noticing that trees were very important for many uses, like building homes, securing mines, producing heat, ships, furniture, and probably a lot of things I wouldn't think about. In a forest, I believe, you can find around 30,000 trees every km2. There used to be many more forests back then, and a lot of terrain wasn't going to be developed anyway. Plus, what you didn't use for a pike, you could employ for many other uses. Ash in particular, which was typically used for spears, burns very well and can be used for furniture, and I believe was also employed to make wheels for carriages.
To make a comparison, think of how many straight, tall trees you need for the beams to maintain a city in peace times.

However, I read that yews were made a lot rarer by their excessive use for bows. The European Ash is at risk of extinction now, but that's because of a fungus discovered in 2006.

[Riggdgames]

How was the wooden shaft of a historical pike constructed? It occurs to me that pikes were pretty long, and that if composed of a single piece of wood, that would've required an awful lot of awfully tall, awfully straight trees to produce even moderate numbers of the weapons. This makes me wonder if they might have been glued together or composed of multiple pieces of wood in some other way - is my intuition here worth anything? Is this even a question we know the answer to?

I'm not sure I can answer this fully. Going all the way back to Philip of Macedonia (~350 BC) who is credited with introducing pikes (called the sarissa) to gain a tactical advantage over the much shorter Greek hoplite spears, they joined two separate shafts together with a central bronze tube. I don't know if this had anything to do with availability of wood, but Wikipedia suggests that the sarissa would actually be dismantled between battles for ease of marching. I can't find any suggestion that the availability of wood was a factor, but pikes definitely have a history of being split into at least two shafts.

[Brother Oni]

How was the wooden shaft of a historical pike constructed? It occurs to me that pikes were pretty long, and that if composed of a single piece of wood, that would've required an awful lot of awfully tall, awfully straight trees to produce even moderate numbers of the weapons. This makes me wonder if they might have been glued together or composed of multiple pieces of wood in some other way - is my intuition here worth anything? Is this even a question we know the answer to?

For pikes, typically this was made from plank wood, ie a large tree was cut down and the wood cut into dowels before turning on a pole lathe. Since it's made from dowels, the trees don't have to be too straight, but you're right in that forests are typically managed; shorter shafts tend to be made from coppiced wood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing) for example.

There's quite a few types of lathes; by the medieval period, designs mostly favoured the springpole design where a flexible wooden shaft and rope was used to power the lathe, although I've seen pictures of an assistant using a large wheel.

https://bloodandsawdust.com/Blood_and_Sawdust/Lathes_Part_1__About_Medieval_and_Renaissance_Lath es_files/turner1.jpg
http://bodgerjohn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Polelathes.jpg

Other designs used various other powering tools, for example waterwheels, handcrank or a bow (length of wood with the ends attached by string, rather than an archer's weapon); Pliny records the invention of a pole lathe to Theodorus of Samos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodorus_of_Samos) (~6th Century BC), it's highly likely that this lathe was powered by means of a strap and two assistants.

Bows are an entirely different construction as different characteristics are needed; rather than a uniform tensile strength, the back of a bow (the side away from the archer) needs to have strong tensile strength while the belly (the side towards the archer) needs to have high compression strength. Typically this is solved by laminating a bow stave with two different woods before the bowyering process; yew was highly favoured for bows in the European medieval period as the heartwood and sapwood had different characteristics, so it was effectively self laminating.

[Saint-Just]

Military modus operandi question.

I have seen it claimed a few times that in cultures with strong taboos around dead bodies (Japan, some periods of ancient China) a victorious army usually did not try to collect war materiel from the bodies of fallen enemies and instead left the battlefield as is. I am not sure how it squares with presenting heads of the enemies, which undoubtedly happened in Japan, but if we focus on the armour and the weapons - is it true that they wasn't collected by the armies or it is some later invention of Edo period zaisu warriors and\or Victorian historians?

[Brother Oni]

Military modus operandi question.

I have seen it claimed a few times that in cultures with strong taboos around dead bodies (Japan, some periods of ancient China) a victorious army usually did not try to collect war materiel from the bodies of fallen enemies and instead left the battlefield as is. I am not sure how it squares with presenting heads of the enemies, which undoubtedly happened in Japan, but if we focus on the armour and the weapons - is it true that they wasn't collected by the armies or it is some later invention of Edo period zaisu warriors and\or Victorian historians?

As with all of these sort of behaviours, what they're supposed to do and what they actually did are two separate things.

A samurai would be unlikely to loot the dead (taking heads was something separate as this was how they got promoted/rewarded for their deeds on the battlefield from their lords); the same couldn't be said for conscripted ashigaru or other peasant conscripts, although being caught with a recognisable item of loot tended to be punished.
During the Sengoku Jidai, under Oda Nobunga, the ashigaru became more of a professional soldier class although not to the level of samurai. This would have also entailed an improvement in behaviour, but this very much depended on the individual and the likelihood of them getting caught.

Peasants were known to loot the battlefield afterwards; they also tended to finish off the injured and kill deserters or other lone soldiers who had gotten separated from their main force.

[Riggdgames]

As with all of these sort of behaviours, what they're supposed to do and what they actually did are two separate things.

A samurai would be unlikely to loot the dead (taking heads was something separate as this was how they got promoted/rewarded for their deeds on the battlefield from their lords); the same couldn't be said for conscripted ashigaru or other peasant conscripts, although being caught with a recognisable item of loot tended to be punished.
During the Sengoku Jidai, under Oda Nobunga, the ashigaru became more of a professional soldier class although not to the level of samurai. This would have also entailed an improvement in behaviour, but this very much depended on the individual and the likelihood of them getting caught.

Peasants were known to loot the battlefield afterwards; they also tended to finish off the injured and kill deserters or other lone soldiers who had gotten separated from their main force.

Speaking of ashigaru, was there any functional difference between a sword they might've carried and a katana carried by a samurai of the same period? I understand by and large they were armed with and primarily meant to use various pole weapons, bows, and later matchlocks, but I know I've seen images of ashigaru with swords on their hip. I imagine the quality of the weapon provided was significantly worse, but were they still essentially "katanas" and could an ashigaru have claimed the sword of a fallen samurai with any expectation of keeping it?

[Max_Killjoy]

Speaking of ashigaru, was there any functional difference between a sword they might've carried and a katana carried by a samurai of the same period? I understand by and large they were armed with and primarily meant to use various pole weapons, bows, and later matchlocks, but I know I've seen images of ashigaru with swords on their hip. I imagine the quality of the weapon provided was significantly worse, but were they still essentially "katanas" and could an ashigaru have claimed the sword of a fallen samurai with any expectation of keeping it?

Much of the mythology and exclusiveness of the "katana" comes in fairly late, at the end of the samurai in their role as warriors and deep into the their role as a social class, and then applied in reverse to eras long before it was really the case.

See also, the image of the "knight in shining armor" as part of the popular concept of the European medieval / middle ages... when full plate harness comes at the very very tail end of the period.

[Pauly]

Speaking of ashigaru, was there any functional difference between a sword they might've carried and a katana carried by a samurai of the same period? I understand by and large they were armed with and primarily meant to use various pole weapons, bows, and later matchlocks, but I know I've seen images of ashigaru with swords on their hip. I imagine the quality of the weapon provided was significantly worse, but were they still essentially "katanas" and could an ashigaru have claimed the sword of a fallen samurai with any expectation of keeping it?

Katanas came in a range of qualities and samurai had a range of wealth levels. There’s probably little to no difference between a cheap samurai katana and a well made ashigaru sword. However there is a vast difference between a cheap ashigaru sword and a master swordsmith’s best work for one of the wealthiest lords in Japan.

[Saint-Just]

Peasants were known to loot the battlefield afterwards; they also tended to finish off the injured and kill deserters or other lone soldiers who had gotten separated from their main force.

Can you please point out for me some scholary source? I do believe you (in fact I asked the question hoping to confirm my preconceptions) but I have a disagreement with my acquaintance not on this forum.



Speaking of ashigaru, was there any functional difference between a sword they might've carried and a katana carried by a samurai of the same period? I understand by and large they were armed with and primarily meant to use various pole weapons, bows, and later matchlocks, but I know I've seen images of ashigaru with swords on their hip. I imagine the quality of the weapon provided was significantly worse, but were they still essentially "katanas" and could an ashigaru have claimed the sword of a fallen samurai with any expectation of keeping it?

I can't find where I have read that (it was years ago) but I am sure it was a translation of a Japanese article, which in passion mentioned a phrase "bunched swords" used in Sengoku-age writings. It meant low-quality swords which smiths sold as a single lot of dozen or more identical blades. It was not quite mass production but it shows you that you can produce katanas economically.

[Brother Oni]

Speaking of ashigaru, was there any functional difference between a sword they might've carried and a katana carried by a samurai of the same period? I understand by and large they were armed with and primarily meant to use various pole weapons, bows, and later matchlocks, but I know I've seen images of ashigaru with swords on their hip. I imagine the quality of the weapon provided was significantly worse, but were they still essentially "katanas" and could an ashigaru have claimed the sword of a fallen samurai with any expectation of keeping it?

Kinda.

The first distinctly Japanese long swords were called tachi (太刀 or 'big big sword') and were the predecessor of both the katana (刀 or 'sword') and the uchigatana (打刀 or 'striking sword'). The first recorded mention of the katana as distinct from the tachi was from approximately the 12th Century and as samurai were primarily cavalrymen back then, the katana was primarily intended for that use. From around about the 14th Century, the uchigatana began being popularised, which was essentially a cheap knock off of the katana, intended for foot infantry like ashigaru (as opposed to the mounted infantry role that samurai cavalry also fought as in the Sengoku).

Aside from quality, it's very hard to tell the difference between a katana and an uchigatana; most modern sword collectors only distinguish between tachi and katana. This isn't helped by there being very few extant examples of uchigatana left (they were fighting weapons, rather than show pieces as katana sometimes were).

All three sword types (the longer tachi, the shorter katana and the shorter and inferior uchigatana) were around and in use up until about the Sengoku period, when the tachi was phased out in favour of the katana/uchigatana.

Due to the cheap construction, uchigatana tended to break often, so looting a sword off a dead opponent was common.

I would expect that the samurai gashira or kogashira (an ashigaru squad's 'sergeant' and 'corporal') would have turned a bit of a blind eye to their men getting spare weapons and upgrading their armour (if ashigaru were equipped, it would have been with the really cheap tatami do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatami_(Japanese_armour)) and they would have needed to source their own repairs or upgrades), unless they looted a high quality or very distinctive gear from a high ranking samurai.

Ashigaru early on in their careers would have been wearing fairly mismatched gear, while 'veteran' ashigaru would be pretty much as well equipped as samurai. I suppose you could consider them much like an early Mount and Blade character. :smalltongue:


Can you please point out for me some scholary source? I do believe you (in fact I asked the question hoping to confirm my preconceptions) but I have a disagreement with my acquaintance not on this forum.

I'm still trying to track down a reputable source for the battlefield looter peasants, but since you haven't specified the time period, there were ashigaru bands prior to the Sengoku, who were a low level menace. They typically lurked on the edges of civilisation, operating as brigands while waiting to be hired as mercenaries for a war between clans. They typically weren't paid directly and instead got their payment via spoils of war, normally by raiding the enemy territory, much like the 100 Years War chevauchees launched by the English.
During the Onin War (late 15th Century), ashigaru looted and burned down Kyoto, the then capital of Japan, during the fighting.

One source, Stephen Turnbull's 'Ashigaru 1467-1649' Ospreys Warrior Series #29



Would your acquaintance accept the various ikki or peasant rebellions during the 14th to 16th Centuries? They definitely would have looted anything they could from the samurai sent to quell them. The famous Ikko-Ikki started out as an ikki before they got so powerful that Oda Nobunaga was forced to destroy them as they were such a thorn in his side.


I can't find where I have read that (it was years ago) but I am sure it was a translation of a Japanese article, which in passion mentioned a phrase "bunched swords" used in Sengoku-age writings. It meant low-quality swords which smiths sold as a single lot of dozen or more identical blades. It was not quite mass production but it shows you that you can produce katanas economically.

Sounds like uchigatana - I've read that you could make one of those in a week or two, while a quality katana could take months.

[Saint-Just]

Kinda.
I'm still trying to track down a reputable source for the battlefield looter peasants, but since you haven't specified the time period, there were ashigaru bands prior to the Sengoku, who were a low level menace. They typically lurked on the edges of civilisation, operating as brigands while waiting to be hired as mercenaries for a war between clans. They typically weren't paid directly and instead got their payment via spoils of war, normally by raiding the enemy territory, much like the 100 Years War chevauchees launched by the English.
During the Onin War (late 15th Century), ashigaru looted and burned down Kyoto, the then capital of Japan, during the fighting.

One source, Stephen Turnbull's 'Ashigaru 1467-1649' Ospreys Warrior Series #29

Would your acquaintance accept the various ikki or peasant rebellions during the 14th to 16th Centuries? They definitely would have looted anything they could from the samurai sent to quell them. The famous Ikko-Ikki started out as an ikki before they got so powerful that Oda Nobunaga was forced to destroy them as they were such a thorn in his side.


Oh, I quoted wrong part of your first answer. I sought a source for "self-respecting samurai wouldn't touch the dead (except to hack off the head)". The idea that someone poor or desperate would ignore taboos seems obvious.

[Riggdgames]

I would expect that the samurai gashira or kogashira (an ashigaru squad's 'sergeant' and 'corporal') would have turned a bit of a blind eye to their men getting spare weapons and upgrading their armour (if ashigaru were equipped, it would have been with the really cheap tatami do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatami_(Japanese_armour)) and they would have needed to source their own repairs or upgrades), unless they looted a high quality or very distinctive gear from a high ranking samurai.

Ashigaru early on in their careers would have been wearing fairly mismatched gear, while 'veteran' ashigaru would be pretty much as well equipped as samurai. I suppose you could consider them much like an early Mount and Blade character. :smalltongue:


Thanks for the detailed replay Brother Oni, this is great. Now I'm curious if there are parallels to wildly different cultures. As far as I know, the only difference between the hastati and the principes of Ancient Rome was better quality gear and experience, though I think the gear was primarily purchased in their case rather than looted. Still, do you know if there was flexibility during campaigns to essentially promote a hastati up to fill out a principes unit using gear from the fallen?

When you talk about early vs veteran ashigaru, there wasn't the same kind of structural division between young, inexperienced units and veteran units right? Or were veteran units identified differently (other than visually by the quality of their gear)?

[Brother Oni]

Oh, I quoted wrong part of your first answer. I sought a source for "self-respecting samurai wouldn't touch the dead (except to hack off the head)". The idea that someone poor or desperate would ignore taboos seems obvious.

The 'no touching of the dead' involves a discussion of both Shinto and Buddhist beliefs, which I can't get into on this board.

Samurai taking the heads of their enemies is very well documented; here's a nice introductory video on the topic: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvlnpKxyn0).

During the battle, any captured heads are wrapped for safe keeping and protection, then either carried around by the samurai or his supporters (see below) or taken back to a rear area.
After the battle, the heads were cleaned up (washed, hair combed, sometimes even makeup was put on) and put on a display on a small table with the lord examining the heads in a 'head viewing' ceremony, sort of like a really gruesome 'show and tell'.*

The samurai would then state whatever information he would have about heads he was claiming; name, rank and place of origin were typical. The lord would then reward (or punish) the samurai depending on his performance.

As for how a samurai got the information; sometimes it was easy as being told - samurai infantry didn't fight as a single tight formation (ashigaru did however), but more like a loose formation with a samurai infantry 'squad' consisting of 14 samurai (not including the leadership) who had 1-3 supporting ashigaru each.
Each mini-team fought together, so when two lines clashed, they devolved rapidly into a massive free-for-all, with samurai declaring their names while they looked around for worthy opponents to fight.

Samurai cavalry were much the same; they typically fought as a mounted infantry, with a couple of ashigaru followers and a non-combatant groom to hold the reins of the horse when the dismounted to fight. This is also where the meaning of ashigaru or 'light feet' came from; they were expected to run after their samurai while he was riding.

The Heike Monogatari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_the_Heike) (平家物語 or 'The Tale of the Heike') is a 14th century transcription of oral tales about the 12th Century Genpei War, specifically the struggle between the Taira and the Minamoto and records that Taira no Atsumori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taira_no_Atsumori) (1169-1184) was killed by Kumagai Naozane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumagai_Naozane) at the Battle of Ichi-no-Tani on the 20 March 1184 with Taira no Atsumori's head taken for display by Kumagai (who was so remorseful at the act of killing a boy the same age as his own son, that he took Buddhist vows and became a monk afterwards).

Head hunting sources:
Samurai, the World of the Warrior, Stephen Turnbull, Osprey 2003
Heike Monogatari, attributed to Yukinaga, c14th Century.

Army organisation source:
Samurai Armies 1467-1649, Stephen Turnbull, Osprey 2008

I'm on my work computer at the moment, so my access to certain websites are blocked - I can update with more links later if needed.

*If you've watched Chambara or read period dramas, this is where the samurai insult of "wash your neck/head and prepare for my coming" comes from.


Thanks for the detailed replay Brother Oni, this is great. Now I'm curious if there are parallels to wildly different cultures. As far as I know, the only difference between the hastati and the principes of Ancient Rome was better quality gear and experience, though I think the gear was primarily purchased in their case rather than looted. Still, do you know if there was flexibility during campaigns to essentially promote a hastati up to fill out a principes unit using gear from the fallen?

When you talk about early vs veteran ashigaru, there wasn't the same kind of structural division between young, inexperienced units and veteran units right? Or were veteran units identified differently (other than visually by the quality of their gear)?

I can't speak for the Romans or any other Antiquity military in any great detail; I'll defer to others on this board for that.

Typically, ashigaru conscription was done on a local level so a freshly assembled unit would probably already know each other. Since clan armies have a limited recruiting geographically, losses were also typically replaced by other peasants recruited in the same village or region, so a 'veteran' squad could have a mix of experienced soldiers who had been on the campaign from the start (and hence had decent gear) and fresh blood who either had basic or no gear at all except for a large pointy stick.

I don't know the precise details of how the Oda replaced their ashigaru losses, but I understand that they had 'full time' ashigaru rather than the part time peasant levies of the other clan armies, so reinforcement could have been more similar to modern militaries.

During the Sengoku, veteran individual ashigaru were often recognised and rewarded for their prowess; the most famous of these is Toyotomi Hideyoshi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyotomi_Hideyoshi), who started out as an ashigaru soldier under Oda Nobunaga and eventually became the ruler of Japan.

[halfeye]

The 'no touching of the dead' involves a discussion of both Shinto and Buddhist beliefs, which I can't get into on this board.

Samurai taking the heads of their enemies is very well documented; here's a nice introductory video on the topic: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvlnpKxyn0).

During the battle, any captured heads are wrapped for safe keeping and protection, then either carried around by the samurai or his supporters (see below) or taken back to a rear area.
After the battle, the heads were cleaned up (washed, hair combed, sometimes even makeup was put on) and put on a display on a small table with the lord examining the heads in a 'head viewing' ceremony, sort of like a really gruesome 'show and tell'.*

The samurai would then state whatever information he would have about heads he was claiming; name, rank and place of origin were typical. The lord would then reward (or punish) the samurai depending on his performance.

As for how a samurai got the information; sometimes it was easy as being told - samurai infantry didn't fight as a single tight formation (ashigaru did however), but more like a loose formation with a samurai infantry 'squad' consisting of 14 samurai (not including the leadership) who had 1-3 supporting ashigaru each.
Each mini-team fought together, so when two lines clashed, they devolved rapidly into a massive free-for-all, with samurai declaring their names while they looked around for worthy opponents to fight.

Samurai cavalry were much the same; they typically fought as a mounted infantry, with a couple of ashigaru followers and a non-combatant groom to hold the reins of the horse when the dismounted to fight. This is also where the meaning of ashigaru or 'light feet' came from; they were expected to run after their samurai while he was riding.

The Heike Monogatari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_the_Heike) (平家物語 or 'The Tale of the Heike') is a 14th century transcription of oral tales about the 12th Century Genpei War, specifically the struggle between the Taira and the Minamoto and records that Taira no Atsumori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taira_no_Atsumori) (1169-1184) was killed by Kumagai Naozane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumagai_Naozane) at the Battle of Ichi-no-Tani on the 20 March 1184 with Taira no Atsumori's head taken for display by Kumagai (who was so remorseful at the act of killing a boy the same age as his own son, that he took Buddhist vows and became a monk afterwards).

Head hunting sources:
Samurai, the World of the Warrior, Stephen Turnbull, Osprey 2003
Heike Monogatari, attributed to Yukinaga, c14th Century.

Army organisation source:
Samurai Armies 1467-1649, Stephen Turnbull, Osprey 2008

I'm on my work computer at the moment, so my access to certain websites are blocked - I can update with more links later if needed.

*If you've watched Chambara or read period dramas, this is where the samurai insult of "wash your neck/head and prepare for my coming" comes from.



I can't speak for the Romans or any other Antiquity military in any great detail; I'll defer to others on this board for that.

Typically, ashigaru conscription was done on a local level so a freshly assembled unit would probably already know each other. Since clan armies have a limited recruiting geographically, losses were also typically replaced by other peasants recruited in the same village or region, so a 'veteran' squad could have a mix of experienced soldiers who had been on the campaign from the start (and hence had decent gear) and fresh blood who either had basic or no gear at all except for a large pointy stick.

I don't know the precise details of how the Oda replaced their ashigaru losses, but I understand that they had 'full time' ashigaru rather than the part time peasant levies of the other clan armies, so reinforcement could have been more similar to modern militaries.

During the Sengoku, veteran individual ashigaru were often recognised and rewarded for their prowess; the most famous of these is Toyotomi Hideyoshi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyotomi_Hideyoshi), who started out as an ashigaru soldier under Oda Nobunaga and eventually became the ruler of Japan.

I was once asked whether the Tycoon was the emperor or the shogun, and I didn't know, is that something that is board safe to explain?

[Brother Oni]

I was once asked whether the Tycoon was the emperor or the shogun, and I didn't know, is that something that is board safe to explain?

You're going to have to give me more context.

The closest I can find is the title 'taikun' (大君, lit 'Big prince'), meaning 'Great Prince' or 'Supreme Commander'.

Looking at the Wikipedia entry, it's derived from an archaic Chinese term for an independent ruler that didn't have royal heritage and was used by the Shogun in an attempt to emphasise his importance over the Emperor in diplomatic meetings; he certainly can't use Emperor (that position is already taken and has divine connotations in Japanese culture) and King (kokuo, 国王 lit 'Country King') is also inappropriate.

An anglicisation of taikun is the root of the English word tycoon.

[halfeye]

You're going to have to give me more context.

The closest I can find is the title 'taikun' (大君, lit 'Big prince'), meaning 'Great Prince' or 'Supreme Commander'.

Looking at the Wikipedia entry, it's derived from an archaic Chinese term for an independent ruler that didn't have royal heritage and was used by the Shogun in an attempt to emphasise his importance over the Emperor in diplomatic meetings; he certainly can't use Emperor (that position is already taken and has divine connotations in Japanese culture) and King (kokuo, 国王 lit 'Country King') is also inappropriate.

An anglicisation of taikun is the root of the English word tycoon.

That reads to me that the answer would be that the Shogun was the Tycoon/Taikun.

[Draconi Redfir]

Theoretically, could a Bastard-sword have a shape that kind of resembles a Cutlass, with a curved, one-edged blade? (not a sharp or extreme curve, but some kind of curve nonetheless, possibly with the depth of the blade changing with the curve)

Do all/most curved-blades like this have the over-the-fingers guards? or could they have the crossguards seen in longswords?

[Vinyadan]

Could the Kriegsmesser in the image be what you are looking for? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messer_(weapon)

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjoWAg1HJKw

[Mike_G]

Theoretically, could a Bastard-sword have a shape that kind of resembles a Cutlass, with a curved, one-edged blade? (not a sharp or extreme curve, but some kind of curve nonetheless, possibly with the depth of the blade changing with the curve)

Do all/most curved-blades like this have the over-the-fingers guards? or could they have the crossguards seen in longswords?

The Mameluke sword for North Africa, copied by the British army and the US Marine Corps is a curved sword with a simple crossguard.

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

And a katana is similar to a bastard sword with a simple guard and a curved single edges blade.

Later sabers and cutlasses tended to have more hand protection, probably because when they were at the height of their populartity, they generally weren't used with a shield, so you had to use them to parrty, which increased the odds of getting your sword hand cut.

[Draconi Redfir]

Could the Kriegsmesser in the image be what you are looking for? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messer_(weapon)

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjoWAg1HJKw


The Mameluke sword for North Africa, copied by the British army and the US Marine Corps is a curved sword with a simple crossguard.

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

And a katana is similar to a bastard sword with a simple guard and a curved single edges blade.

Later sabers and cutlasses tended to have more hand protection, probably because when they were at the height of their populartity, they generally weren't used with a shield, so you had to use them to parrty, which increased the odds of getting your sword hand cut.


Mainly i'm looking for justification for my old Paladin's Bastard sword, which he wielded one-handed with a shield. i always imagined it as a curved one-sided blade, and made a description of it having markings along a cross-guard. Just wanted to make sure that wouldn't make sword enthusiasts cringe as much as say, Cloud's Buster-sword or the like:smalltongue:

While not exactly what i'm looking for, these examples are pretty close, so i think i'm good in knowing that things like it did in fact exist. Thanks!:smallbiggrin:

[Martin Greywolf]

Theoretically, could a Bastard-sword have a shape that kind of resembles a Cutlass, with a curved, one-edged blade? (not a sharp or extreme curve, but some kind of curve nonetheless, possibly with the depth of the blade changing with the curve)

Do all/most curved-blades like this have the over-the-fingers guards? or could they have the crossguards seen in longswords?

My time has come! There was indeed a sabre/bastard sword hybrid in existence, reasonably popular in Hungary during 1250 - 1350 period, with some seen even later. We see it on a few illuminations and murals, and we even have a later model of it:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=92117&stc=1

Earlier models, as seen on those illuminations, have a simple crossguard rather than this sciavonna type. This sword seems to be pretty much entirely born out of a desire to combine sabers and longswords, as the former was seen as a quintessentially Magyar (not Hungarian, but let's not get into that discussion) weapon at the time, and the latter was a quintessentially knightly weapon. That said, they likely always had that short edge sharpened (short edge cuts are a lot easier to do with two handed weapon), as the one in the image does - look closely, you can just about see that it is raised slightly.

Also note how precisely the curve is shaped, it bulges out from the crossguard, so that the point is still more or less in line with the handle, which makes thrusts easier to do - a pretty important feature, as thrusting with a bastard sword and shield is a lot more practical.

[Draconi Redfir]

oohhh, nice!:smallbiggrin:

that one will almost definitely be used as a reference for this commission i'm hoping to get. blade will be a bit exaggerated of course since it's fantasy and all, but that definitely helps!

[VonKaiserstein]

Adding on to this super cool long sword thread, here are some artistic examples from the Maciejowski bible, from about 1250. Specifically, note the very interesting crossguards, and lack thereof on these 2 pieces.
The first is clearly 2 handed, single edged, and has a distinct curve to the blade- and no handguard.
https://i.imgur.com/GlXY7vi.png

The second is the much beloved Maciejowski chopper, a falchion with what looks like a bar guard big enough for both hands.

https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/romp06.jpg

So there is some more inspiration for you!

[Draconi Redfir]

Nah I've got everything i need for now. this was all to commission an image of the sword my Paladin used back in the day.

I'll post an image of it here for ya when it's done

[Martin Greywolf]

Adding on to this super cool long sword thread, here are some artistic examples from the Maciejowski bible, from about 1250. Specifically, note the very interesting crossguards, and lack thereof on these 2 pieces.
The first is clearly 2 handed, single edged, and has a distinct curve to the blade- and no handguard.
SPOILER

The second is the much beloved Maciejowski chopper, a falchion with what looks like a bar guard big enough for both hands.

SPOILER

So there is some more inspiration for you!

Okay, so. I have a theory about the whole maciejowski weird weapons thing.

You see, there is zero archaeological evidence of any of them existing anywhere, which is weird, because they are shown to be in knightly hands - you'd expect at least a few survivors. Let's also not forget that Maciejowski bible was made in France, despite the name, which is a region that is rather well researched (as opposed to, say, Poland or Asiatic steppes). So, are these early fantasy weapons?

What I think is that they both are and are not. I present to you, Hungarian saber:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=40611&stc=1

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8ff21d7534251a28ea45a44a59d672d

There is one more type, a sabre with essentially an arming sword point, more of a nimble fencing on foot thing than the hatchet point counterparts. It can be found in so-called sword of Attila:

https://pm1.narvii.com/5810/5a8786ab21bd5fd157e7cbf3b570ac8379d5f6d7_hq.jpg

Now, imagine you are a monk in France illustrating exotic east. The best you have are some Crusaders who have been to Outremer and Hungary, and they say that mostly, Outremer uses straight swords, that are not really that interesting, but they have nomad mercenaries who use weapons that are almost the same as Hungarian ones. And he describes them to you.

Consider this:

"It is a curved one-handed sword, kinda like a messer, short edge and all, but longer."

Is it describing Maciejowski cleaver or number 16 sabre on my image? Or is it that same saber, just flipped so that short edge is in the front? Because we found out it works really, really well in a shield wall...

For the two handed chopper:

"Oh, imagine a knife blade, they just have a long handle on it sometimes and use it two-handed, but it has no crossguard or pommel."

That two-handed part may well not be an actual bastard sword-like two handed use, just grabbing one handed hilt with both hands, it's useful sometimes if you just want to nail someone who can't properly fence back.

So, yeah, those aren't weapons that actually existed as shown - unless someone manages to find one, in which case this theory is blown out of the water - but they are real weapons, recreated by an artist from vague descriptions. It's a bit like badly drawing an AK47, with the result looking nothing like the real gun, and people do that today, with reference images all over google.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQdLMf5keNaIizH4s9jQDcrFGkHVkH rU6O2RI8BDMrEuvnrTdlX&usqp=CAU

https://i7.pngflow.com/pngimage/853/1020/png-hello-kitty-online-sanrio-ak-47-white-child-poster-cartoon-clipart.png

[Brother Oni]

https://i7.pngflow.com/pngimage/853/1020/png-hello-kitty-online-sanrio-ak-47-white-child-poster-cartoon-clipart.png

I thought I'd seen that decal before, although probably some sort of in-joke is going on:

https://www.gormogons.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/rifle.jpg

[Draconi Redfir]

the reason i started this whole conversation in the first place: My Paladin's sword.

https://i.imgur.com/J57OPgH.jpg

Please give it some liberties with it being a fantasy sword and all :smalltongue: i was just checking if the curved one-edged bastard sword with a crossguard was an actual thing or not. which seems to be the case.

[halfeye]

I thought I'd seen that decal before, although probably some sort of in-joke is going on:

There is a Hello Kitty branded AK47:

http://www.glamguns.com/hk47.jpg
I don't think it's a joke, but I could be wrong.

[Saint-Just]

There is a Hello Kitty branded AK47
I don't think it's a joke, but I could be wrong.

It's most likely a real product, but I strongly suspect it's not a licensed one.

[Gnoman]

It is very much unlicensed, but there's a huge aftermarket of "cute" parts to put on guns.

[Martin Greywolf]

the reason i started this whole conversation in the first place: My Paladin's sword.

https://i.imgur.com/J57OPgH.jpg

Please give it some liberties with it being a fantasy sword and all :smalltongue: i was just checking if the curved one-edged bastard sword with a crossguard was an actual thing or not. which seems to be the case.

So, let's tear this apart, because that's what we love to do.

Overall rating: 8/10, it has some problems, but would be useable, especially with magic material durability in the picture. Now, for the details.

Blade shape has more in common with a kilij rather than any sabre, and this sword would be very thin by necessity, kinda like a falchion, otherwise it would be far too heavy. IIRC you said it was supposed to be a bastard sword, in that case it misses the raised and sharpened back edge - or maybe it is sharpened, just not visible because the material is too black to spot it.

The teeth, I have to take issue with. You could argue for some utility in binds close to crossguard, but shaped like that, they are useless. You'd get better use out of them if you made them essentially be a bladecatcher type, like these:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQisLFGv3rzGaUEYxEhWon1l5VSSAa 3Bi6lPibOy-VkPwdQ-rHe&usqp=CAU

Obviously, this is a massive structural weakness on a real sword, but again - magic. Sword will not break because wizard. Or artificer.

Brass band near the crossguard is, again, something that is there because the person drawing it didn't know the details of how swords are made. You see them on some, mostly eastern (as in, Asian or rarely, Bulgarian) swords as means of attaching blade to the crossguard and hilt securely. Thing is, to really do that, you need a wide, usually circular, guard.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Sword_of_Varbitza%2C_Replica_Ratina.jpg/1920px-Sword_of_Varbitza%2C_Replica_Ratina.jpg?1588283144 795

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/fd/65/6afd653c6c62125c75f1e14104cbe161.jpg

https://www.panacomp.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/arhandjeli.jpg

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1qj7UaN_rK1RkHFqDq6yJAFXay/Tang-Dao-Chinese-Sword-Traditional-Long-Straight-Blade-Folded-Steel-Handmade-Full-Tang-Sharp-Edge-Ebony.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/dc/84/fadc842c76aeebc1eb32144ea1fcf017.jpg

European crossguards were usually a combination of too massive (and long, the leverage you get when catching a blow WILL deform brass) and too narrow to use this method. Regardless, it stands out from the blade too much.

Overall crossguard shape is fine, maybe some slightly rounded edges are in order, sharp bits like these like to snag on cloaks - good thing mine was made of heavy wool, or there would've been a tear after it happened with a low quality replica sword. Got rid of the sword, kept the cloak.

The problematic part is the circular bit in the middle - that just wasn't done, mostly because it would be a pain in the neck to forge out of a steel bit, but also because it interferes with sword handling. It juuust juts out where the corssguard meets the handle, and I can already tell it wouldn't be comfortable to hold.

Handle would be perfectly all right for a one handed sword, but for two hands, there isn't enough space. What's more, that handle shape would be awful to hold in two hands, your back hand would have a circular handle rather than elliptical, and loose track of edge alignment. Also, the valleys on it are horizontal, which they wouldn't be, handles are wrapped with a single, constant-width strip of leather, so these valleys are diagonal.

Pommel is slightly too small for the sword size, but you really have to look to notice that.

Quick fix I'd suggest is:


increase handle length by 50% and make it wider on the narrow end
increase pommel diameter by maybe 1/5
remove brass band entirely
remove centra circle on crossguard, instead encorporate that riangle into the shape of crossguard itself, see image below
change teeth into sword catcher type



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Byzantine_icon_St-Mercurius_1295.jpg
See that triangle bit? Put your triangle inside that.

[Draconi Redfir]

*Snip*

If it helps any, The Paladin in question wields the sword one-handed with a shield in the other hand.

In hindsight could probably have done with fewer teeth, maybe just the bottom four or somethin idk. The blade is black enough that i might be able to easily paint over em someday. definitely does look like a bit much.

Band doesn't necessarily need to be Brass. could be some other material that was just dyed right? *shrug*

not sure what you mean by raised and sharpened back edge, but if you mean like the cutting blade, then only the side with the teeth is actually sharp. the far side is more dull or flat or something, that's the reason i was asking about one-edged bastard swords rather then the traditional straight-line with both sides sharp.

i'll definitely keep your thoughts in mind if i ever get another image of this done. As it is though it's a finished piece that i think i'm alright with:smalltongue:

[Vinyadan]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/fd/65/6afd653c6c62125c75f1e14104cbe161.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/FwgZKym/dukool.png

Count Dooku approves this post

[VoxRationis]

What exactly is the point of a two-handed sword (the long sort, like a zweihander or its relatives elsewhere in Europe)? What does it offer on the personal level, and what use is it on the level of battlefield tactics?

Edit: I know that this has doubtless been asked before, but my attempts to find the answer through the search function were unsuccessful.

[Willie the Duck]

What exactly is the point of a two-handed sword (the long sort, like a zweihander or its relatives elsewhere in Europe)? What does it offer on the personal level, and what use is it on the level of battlefield tactics?

Edit: I know that this has doubtless been asked before, but my attempts to find the answer through the search function were unsuccessful.

The conventional wisdom is that it was often used to 'break up pike blocks' (probably whatever spear/polearm was actually used, rather than pikes specifically). Exactly how is unclear. I know some experiementers like Tod of Tod's Workshop and Matt Easton of the Scholagladiatoria YouTube network have done some experiments, and don't think it was from directly lopping off polearm heads, but maybe just by being a big, space-taking-up impediment.

You can also half-sword (or grab it by the blade and swing the big freaking handle as a Warhammer) and do a number on plate armor, but that seems like a secondary effect.

When I have more time I will try to find some of the pertinent videos and link them.

[VoxRationis]

The conventional wisdom is that it was often used to 'break up pike blocks' (probably whatever spear/polearm was actually used, rather than pikes specifically). Exactly how is unclear. I know some experiementers like Tod of Tod's Workshop and Matt Easton of the Scholagladiatoria YouTube network have done some experiments, and don't think it was from directly lopping off polearm heads, but maybe just by being a big, space-taking-up impediment.

You can also half-sword (or grab it by the blade and swing the big freaking handle as a Warhammer) and do a number on plate armor, but that seems like a secondary effect.

When I have more time I will try to find some of the pertinent videos and link them.

I had heard that it was anti-pike, but I was under the impression that that was Victorian-era wrongness of the sort that informed early D&D. I hadn't realized that was still considered plausible.

[Brother Oni]

What exactly is the point of a two-handed sword (the long sort, like a zweihander or its relatives elsewhere in Europe)? What does it offer on the personal level, and what use is it on the level of battlefield tactics?

Edit: I know that this has doubtless been asked before, but my attempts to find the answer through the search function were unsuccessful.

Aside from supposedly breaking up pike blocks, they were also theoretically used for anti-cavalry infantry, since you could cripple the horse's legs before the rider got too close. I don't know whether this use existed in European warfare; the anti-cavalry purposes is better documented in Chinese records with the zhanmadao (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhanmadao), which is also reputably the predecessor for the Japanese odachi and nagamaki.

Off the battlefield, it was used by bodyguards and the like, to enable them to fend off multiple attackers at once, since their weapon would presumably out-range the attackers' weapons. There's also the intimidation factor of a big sword, coupled with a big mean guy.

Back in China again, later periods reputedly used a long blade like the zhanmadao as an executioner's blade.

[Grim Portent]

I recall in some of the prior discussions of the use of two handed swords posters shared some material indicating they were frequently used by bodyguards and people who expected to face superior numbers in addition to their larger scale military use.

I don't recall all of the theorised reasons why they were used for this, but I think it boiled down to reach and being multi-purpose weapons compared to other weapons convenient to use in small fights, like shortswords and daggers. They are certainly much easier to carry around and use than a halberd or pike would be, and massively outreach most of the inconspicuous weapons someone might use to try and assault someone in the late medieval period, which would generally be knives or relatively short swords.

[Mike_G]

I've heard that it was for bodyguards, and more or less could be used as crowd control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp1Gsh5W4vs&list=PL1Y97cTDI0-kNQWilMvsooZZSPLC8p07s&index=10

I can easily see this kind of thing for keeping people back.

I can't find it now, but there was a good video where one man with a great big sword was acting as bodyguard for an unarmed man. the swordsman did the large, sweeping moves, while the unarmed man stayed right at his back, and even knelt so he could swing over his head. They moves as a team across a room. I can totally see this as a way to move your high value target to safety if he is menaced by a crowd.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I suspect, but no evidence here, that they could also be used in a similar role as halberds as part of a pike or pike and shot formation. Pikes are great weapons to use as an orderly formation, bracing against a cavalry charge or charging an opposing formation. But one of the counters to a pike square is trying to outmaneuver the formation. A bunch of musketeers or dragoons functioning as skirmishers can keep their distance. They still need to deal with the shot part of pike and shot, but they also get a lot of shots off themselves. Or cavalry could try riding around the formation, firing their guns, leaving the pikes hectically trying to keep facing their enemy. For situations like this it could be helpful to have a few guys with shorter polearms in the formation, not as useful for the main function of the block, although they could fill a hole in a pinch, but with an easier time functioning in more chaotic situations. And one of their jobs could be harassing enemy pikemen. Not as a straight up assault of an ordered pike square, that would be suicide, no matter how many pikes they can sweep aside. But as part of an harassment attack, maybe coming in from the flank while the formation is trying to brace against cavalry from the front, the pikemen aren't really sure which way they should be facing, small holes may appear and disappear just as quickly, zweihander wielders might be able to make use of that.

[rrgg]

defending against multiple attackers seems to have been di Grassi's take on it: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi#Two-Handed_Sword

The idea that they were specifically meant for breaking up pike squares is pretty doubtful. out of the military treatises I've read none of them mention or even speculate about using greatswords against pike formations. For comparison, sword-and-shield men probably weren't very good at taking on pikes head on either, but studying the ancient romans was really popular so you at least had Machiavelli and a lot of other writers who brought it up or at least suggested that maybe it would work. As far as I can tell the greatsword thing just comes from people today perhaps reading a bit too much into an Italian writer's second-hand description of the battle of fornovo.

Military treatises, i.e. the ones that talk more about battlefield tactics and strategy, when they do mention greatswords generally don't really ascribe anything particularly special about them and just lump them into the "short weapons" along with weapons like halberds, bills, partisans, even sword and shield men. In brief, the consensus was that on open ground a well-ordered formation of pikemen had a huge advantage over just about everything else. "Short weapons" on the other hand, being more flexible and more useful in close quarters gained the advantage over pikes if the formations lost cohesion, were fighting in confining/difficult terrain or during "pursuit and slaughter". Guarding the colors and officiers in the center of the pike square was frequently a task given to troops with halberds or partisans, or other short weapons as well, not unique to greatswords, with the idea being pretty much the same that if the pike square completely collapsed into disorder for whatever reason then the short weapons would be much more effective at fighting and defending the ensigns under those conditions until they could hopefully retreat to safety.

But again as for why you would pick a greatsword as your short weapon, or why you would specifically pick a halberd, a bill, a poleaxe, a glaive, or whatever, still don't really know beyond maybe culture or personal preference

[Lvl 2 Expert]

But again as for why you would pick a greatsword as your short weapon, or why you would specifically pick a halberd, a bill, a poleaxe, a glaive, or whatever, still don't really know beyond maybe culture or personal preference

Personal preference sounds about right. There are some differences in use between the weapons in this category. Comparing just the halberd and the zweihander the back spike of the halberd allows for hooking (shields, legs) and may on a good day punch through armor. The sword is slighly less useful for these options, one of which is pretty situational and the other involves luck, but in return might be a bit better in a very close fight. People pushing, people grabbing, you could end up using the middle of your weapon rather than the end, or even the butt. A sharp sword with a pommel probably works a bit better than. Something like a warhammer is different again, putting more eggs in the armor defeating basket in exchange for less sharp

But overall I agree that at least as far as a battle is concerned (different rules may apply to for instance one on one duels where you meet one specific opponent and have time to prepare) their roles are very similar.

[fusilier]

defending against multiple attackers seems to have been di Grassi's take on it: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi#Two-Handed_Sword

The idea that they were specifically meant for breaking up pike squares is pretty doubtful. out of the military treatises I've read none of them mention or even speculate about using greatswords against pike formations. For comparison, sword-and-shield men probably weren't very good at taking on pikes head on either, but studying the ancient romans was really popular so you at least had Machiavelli and a lot of other writers who brought it up or at least suggested that maybe it would work. As far as I can tell the greatsword thing just comes from people today perhaps reading a bit too much into an Italian writer's second-hand description of the battle of fornovo.

Military treatises, i.e. the ones that talk more about battlefield tactics and strategy, when they do mention greatswords generally don't really ascribe anything particularly special about them and just lump them into the "short weapons" along with weapons like halberds, bills, partisans, even sword and shield men. In brief, the consensus was that on open ground a well-ordered formation of pikemen had a huge advantage over just about everything else. "Short weapons" on the other hand, being more flexible and more useful in close quarters gained the advantage over pikes if the formations lost cohesion, were fighting in confining/difficult terrain or during "pursuit and slaughter". Guarding the colors and officiers in the center of the pike square was frequently a task given to troops with halberds or partisans, or other short weapons as well, not unique to greatswords, with the idea being pretty much the same that if the pike square completely collapsed into disorder for whatever reason then the short weapons would be much more effective at fighting and defending the ensigns under those conditions until they could hopefully retreat to safety.

But again as for why you would pick a greatsword as your short weapon, or why you would specifically pick a halberd, a bill, a poleaxe, a glaive, or whatever, still don't really know beyond maybe culture or personal preference

The impression that I have is that the two-handed swords enjoyed a certain amount of popularity in the early 1500s, as they show up in many illustrations of soldiers (typically German and Swiss?). After that, I think they become popular with bodyguards, for the reasons listed above, and perhaps they were intimidating.

Over the century, it seems like the variety of short weapons used alongside pikes gradually diminishes. By the early 1600s, even skirmishing with pikes was becoming common (a role that had previously been designated to halberds).

[Vinyadan]

defending against multiple attackers seems to have been di Grassi's take on it: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi#Two-Handed_Sword

[...]

But again as for why you would pick a greatsword as your short weapon, or why you would specifically pick a halberd, a bill, a poleaxe, a glaive, or whatever, still don't really know beyond maybe culture or personal preference

I think that some positions were needed and gave better gains. For example, in the page you linked di Grassi points out the fairly strict physical and psychological requirements for wielding a greatsword well: a tall body, strong limbs, and great courage. They also get positions of great responsibility, like protecting the banner on the battlefield, which I believe was the riskiest and most prestigious position you could have in the Middle Ages.

As a result, by wielding a greatsword you could become a Doppelsöldner, which is a good incentive, but other kinds could, too. So there could be some instructor nudging you towards the weapon that was the best fit to your body build, your character, and your backgound (I think about people working with artillery, who probably needed a lot of knowledge, compared to just strong arms) to grant you a good balance between life expectancy and military career.

I do wonder how long the Brothers of St. Mark needed to declare someone a master longswordsman, and where their students even came from. I mean, I can imagine the rich wealthy one who wants to be able to protect himself, but I assume that mercenaries didn't have a very stable financial situation to start with. Maybe they got loans from the Brotherhood while they studied? Or the generals paid the Brotherhood for the soldiers they provided?

[Max_Killjoy]

Really enjoying this site.

Examining Fictional Kit:
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/12/new-acquisitions-lannister-infantry-kit-review/
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/05/new-acquisitions-unsullied-kit-review/
https://acoup.blog/2020/01/10/collections-gondor-heavy-infantry-kit-review/

This wasn't Sparta -- myth and reality of the Spartan system and society:
https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-i-spartan-school/

And many other good articles.

[Max_Killjoy]

Way too much time spent on YouTube these days...

Shad on medieval literacy (etc):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-abyQLl8mPI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kISM2od3BJ0

[Martin Greywolf]

What exactly is the point of a two-handed sword (the long sort, like a zweihander or its relatives elsewhere in Europe)? What does it offer on the personal level, and what use is it on the level of battlefield tactics?

Edit: I know that this has doubtless been asked before, but my attempts to find the answer through the search function were unsuccessful.

One of the eternal debates is pike vs greatsword. Much like longbows vs armor, it is riddled with things that people keep repeating without looking to the original sources.

What we know

These swords existed, but very comparatively rare when you stack them up against other battlefield weapons. In the battlefield context, they were used by the Landsknechte (not a typo, that is the german plural), or more generally by the troops from what we now know as Germany - not Holy Roman Empire, these swords weren't really popular in, say, Italy. They did crop up in other armies, but again, it was pretty rare and in small numbers.

We know that making these was more difficult and more expensive than standard longswords, since these are longer and any impurity in metal will screw you over harder.

We know that they were mostly carried on the shoulder, much like a hlaberd would, sometimes but not always having a sheat covering the sharp parts.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/89/a6/8389a665e47e9bf6c3d52deeb54ba5a5.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/e4/50/62/e45062feaefbd11a9b9c1367a854553b.jpg

We know they were explicitly seen as good for bodyguards, used in a rather windmill-y fashion to keep people at bay, since there are several treatises that mention this.

We know it definitely wasn't used to chop off pike heads, as that is physically impossible to do, barring rare freak occurences.

We know they weren't used against pikes in frontal fashion very often, see this description of a standard Landsknecht formation, and this is from a region and group famous for using greatswords:


(Each rank is 13 files wide)
1-4th rank: "Doppelsöldner"
5th rank: halberdiers
6-7th rank: "Mittelsöldner"
8-10th rank: "gemeinen söldner"
11-13th rank: "Führern, Furirern, Waybeln und Schlachtschwerter" together with the two ensigns
14-18th rank: "gemeiner söldner"
19th rank: "knebelspeiss"
20-21st rank: Doppelsöldner
The Hauptmann stod in the middle of the 1st rank while the Leutnant stod in the last rank.
On each side of the men with pikes, halberds and other melee weapons stod 23 ranks of men with firearms, each rank was 5 files wide. The first 4 ranks were made up of "doppel-schützen" i.e men armed with heavier firearms such as the musket or even heavier doppelhaken.



Doppel and Mittleand Gemeinen söldner are armed with pikes, doppel means double because these guys were paid double for volunteering to be in the front rows. Also worth nothing, the higher up the chain you go, the better armor you have, toa point where doppelsoldner basically means armored pikeman in period accounts. That said, this refers to how much they are paid, and is not necessarily related to equipment. That said that said, if you don't have good armor, will YOU volunteer to be in front?

Führern, Furirern means leaders and quartermasters.

Waybeln - I have no idea. This is not a modern german word, that I do know.

Schlachtschwerter - these are our greatswords.

Knebelspeiss is basically your bog standard spear.

Also note that literally every single one of these soldiers could well have a pistol, and it seemed to be expected of a Doppelsoldner to have one.



https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/kk50/Dstaberg/Erhard%20Schon/SchlachtschwertundHelmparten.jpg


We know they can be hlaf-sworded, as can all swords. We also know, however, that it wasn't done terribly often, as some manuscripts don't mention it at all.


Therefore hold the arm outstretched, and give a round of three forehand cuts over the head, and the same is done with backhand cuts. You must at once spring forward without losing time. You will turn the hands together afterward, as seen in the demonstrated drawing. With the union of the right and left foot you will extend the strike, so forward as backward, having always regard for the exactness of the step so avoiding the disgrace which removes merit.


We also know that gratswords were pretty good when used to protect flanks of a pike formation - Scots did use them in this capacity at Flodden in 1513.

We do also have several images and woodcuts of greatswords in front of pike formations, but we also know that may or may not be artistic license.

Last item we know that is perhaps related is that ceremonial swords were made to be much larger than actual weapons from at least 1300s, to be visible to the crowds. Therefore, large sword === important person relationship may or may not have been established in minds of people.

Now for some speculation

Big swords are cool, and big swords used by bodyguards of important people are extra cool. This is why you see a lot more greatswords in art than you'd expect from how few there were on battlefields.

That said, they did have their place. Taking the Landsknecht examples above, they seemed to be mostly used as spec ops sort of soldiers, guarding flanks, standards and commanders, or going out there to flank and do damage to the same enemy assets.

They could also be used in frontal attack against pikes, but odds were they wouldn't succeed. They had a chance, they were after all something of an elite, but you'd be better served by hitting that pike block with gunfire. If the opposing pike block walked into heavy terrain, or was otherwise disrupted, however, these guys were in prime position to move forward between columns and exploit this opportunity, most likely alongside halberdiers.

Furthemore, if you have them guarding your command, then they also act as a sort of a bulwark against pursuit - should your pike block break, the enemy can't simply break apart their own pike block and pursue, because there are large dudes with large swords in the way. Seeing as you also have abck rows of pikemen and spearmen, you may well be able to use their presence to rally the fleeing troops into some semblance of order.

This battlefield use would also reinforce the idea that big sword === big deal, because they would be used in pivotal moments of the battle.

[Vinyadan]

Waybeln:
The Weibel today is a lower officer in a Swiss tribunal, but historically it also was the name of a lower officer in the army. The Gemeinwebel in particular was a lower officer among the Landsknechte. Today there is the military rank of Feldswe(i)bel.

[Vinyadan]

Here's a contemporary depiction of a Gemeinwebel; he looks well-armoured. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1952-0405-232

[Brother Oni]

I know that the Landsknecht were excused from sumptuary laws, but damn, those are some fancy hats. :smallbiggrin:

[Martin Greywolf]

Waybeln:
The Weibel today is a lower officer in a Swiss tribunal, but historically it also was the name of a lower officer in the army. The Gemeinwebel in particular was a lower officer among the Landsknechte. Today there is the military rank of Feldswe(i)bel.

Here's a contemporary depiction of a Gemeinwebel; he looks well-armoured. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collec..._1952-0405-232


Considering where the Weybel is in that list, we can probably safely conclude that that entire row means leaders, officers, quartermasters and their bodyguards. And yea, they would all be well armoured, as they would be the best paid people there, and armor has a neat side effect of allowing you to live long enough to spend that money.

[Vinyadan]

About the woodcut:

the text on it is (more or less, it's not my field):

Mit den Schlachtschwerten halt wir drauff
Ob wurdt geschlagen unnser hauff
Und die Feindt wolten unns beschemen
Einbrechen und das Fenlein nemen
Erst haben wir mit freuden drein
Das feinlein wir beschutzensein
Weyl unser leib und leben werdt
Umb Dopel solt drag wir Schlachschwerter

"With the Battleswords we hold to this,
if our people were defeated
and the enemies want to shame us
to break in and take the flag
Then we only hew with joy
The flag will be protected
Because our body and our life (are) worth
The doppelsold we wear Battleswords."

[Lilapop]

[snip]
The text on that page seems to be written from the perspective of the Schlachtschwert users, lauding their courage and prowess, ending in "and that is why we call ourselves Doppelsöldner". If there is no additional context on the surrounding pages, doesn't that refute your assessment that Doppelsöldner = pike user?

[Vinyadan]

The text on that page seems to be written from the perspective of the Schlachtschwert users, lauding their courage and prowess, ending in "and that is why we call ourselves Doppelsöldner". If there is no additional context on the surrounding pages, doesn't that refute your assessment that Doppelsöldner = pike user?
The question wasn't directed to me, but the text on that page is divided in two short poems, the first referring to the sword users, the second referring to the halbardiers, who are the ones who say that.

I think it's two different uses that coexisted, one being "better-paid soldier" and the other one being "pikeman in the front line". This engraving is part of a series that depicts all of the kinds of soldiers in a unit. Each kind gets a poem, and the poem's title is the soldier's name (here, for example, "Swordsmen and Halbardiers". There also is a page with a poem titled "Der Dopel Soldner". https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJuqf_IXsAAm5In?format=jpg&name=large

Die dopel Soldner man unns nennt
zü fordert in der Schlacht wir stent
In unnser Rustung die wir han
Bey unns stet manch güt Edelman
Und auch Ambtlewt alle sambt
Was im feldt regiment hat ambt
Der gleichen so auch unser hawffen
...

and so on. So these as far as I can see don't have any other name than Doppelsoldner, they stay in front, and wear armour. They also are depicted with a pike.

You can see the whole series here : https://twitter.com/celestialsenti1/status/1196738343654088704

You can see a similar figure here: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1952-0405-236 (assuming the link works; if it doesn't, you can look here https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG46732 , go in "related objects" and search for the card with the armoured pikeman). This one also doesn't have any other name.

[Martin Greywolf]

The text on that page seems to be written from the perspective of the Schlachtschwert users, lauding their courage and prowess, ending in "and that is why we call ourselves Doppelsöldner". If there is no additional context on the surrounding pages, doesn't that refute your assessment that Doppelsöldner = pike user?

The easy answer to this is that that pike formation outlined in the text I gave before the picture would have a decided lack of pikes. That's not the whole picture, though. Vinyadan already posted about the context of the specific picture, I'll try to answer more boradly.

If we really get into details, then Doppelsoldner, translated to Double soldier, means simply that the man denoted as such is given double the standard pay.

There, of course, needs to be a reason to give someone double pay, besides the "I really like that guy", and that's where the differences start. Thing is, while not medieval, this system does just predate modern military structure that is rigidly defined and on a national level. What is commonly understood to be a Doppelsoldner in one city in one decade isn't necessarily true once you move away in place and time.

There is a trend to this, however - you pay people double to do the really dangerous or really prestigious jobs. The really dangerous are already well established, we see Doppelsoldners in front and rear ranks. Note that this has absolutely no correlation to armor at first glance - but you really, really want to have armor when being in a Doppelsoldner position, since it is by definition dangerous.

From a commander's point of view, you also don't want to put someone who doesn't have armor there, no matter how much he volunteers, since he would weaken the whole formation that way. Therefore, to get more pay, you need to to dangerous jobs and to do those, you need armor. The thing to do, then, is to do not-so-dangerous jobs, save up money, buy armor and then decide whether it's worth it to go for the extra risk and extra pay.

Now, the Schlachtschwert guys are protecting the leadership. Leadership being leadership, they wouldn't let you do that unless you were the best they could find - and that means not only armor, but also being an experienced soldier. So, to get there, you need armor, and then you need to soldier on in that armor - and being a Doppelsoldner does help in that regard.

This is where we get to sort of a crossroads. Doppelsoldner was someone armored and getting double pay - so, if you were a pike or halberd doppelsoldner and you decided to switch to a bodyguard, would you accept a pay downgrade? Sometimes, the answer seems to be yes, but since we do see Doppelsoldner with a twohander, it seems that often, it was no.

You do see some accounting documents from cities where they use Doppelsoldner in a way that almost certainly means armored pikeman, you see doppelsodlner with zweihanders. The answer here is that there were many roles a Doppelsoldner could have, and the most common by far was an armored pikeman.

Do also note that a position analogous to a Doppelsoldner seems to have existed within the gunpowder section with the Doppelhakken - does that mean someone with a heavier model of a hook gun, or someone getting paid extra because he has a hookgun at the front? Or perhaps both? It's probably both.

Add to this the Victorian tendency to spice up the accounts with what experts refer to as bull****, and you can see how this complexity would be lost in popular retellings. Doppelsoldner ended up being the same as Schlachtschwerter because big sword is big awesome, and I have already seen some claims of them and Forlorn Hope being the same thing.

[rrgg]

The impression that I have is that the two-handed swords enjoyed a certain amount of popularity in the early 1500s, as they show up in many illustrations of soldiers (typically German and Swiss?). After that, I think they become popular with bodyguards, for the reasons listed above, and perhaps they were intimidating.

Over the century, it seems like the variety of short weapons used alongside pikes gradually diminishes. By the early 1600s, even skirmishing with pikes was becoming common (a role that had previously been designated to halberds).

Yeah, the growing popularity as well as social status of the pike during this period itself is a pretty interesting subject. Sir James Turner, who served during the 30yw and the english civil war, claimed that companies in France and the Low countries often had trouble recruiting sergeants in part, he says, because sergeants had to carry halberds and young gentlemen would insist on being pikemen, even though a sergeant would be paid 3 times as much and get to hit him on the head with his halberd a lot during training.

To touch on the current discussion about greatswords being used outside of pike squares, Humphrey Barwick in 1593 does mention that landsknecht sergeants were still carrying great "Slaugh swordes" in battle. As a quick note on early modern period officers, traditionally the sergents' role was to be assistants to the great officers, so the captain would be the one actually shouting orders and then it would be the sergents' job to make ensure those orders were carried out by running back and fourth around the outside of the formation, keeping troops in line, and making sure they were all doing what they were supposed to be doing. They sometimes might be put in command of detachments of shot if needed, serve as runners to deliver messages, act as barrier troops to execute deserters, and more, but yeah overall what i'm getting at is that their role was generally somewhere outside the formation and so the idea was to give them a halberd or some other flexibile weapon that would let them better defend themselves if caught out on their own, (though i suspect they would usually be expected to get out of the way if they had an entire enemy pike square bearing down on them). It also became handy for them to be easily identifiable by their halberds so for instance a practice you would still see even through the 1700s was to sometimes have sergeant stand near the corners where a formation needed to be so that the troops could more easily align themselves.

Evidently for the landsknechts a greatsword could potentially fill all those same purposes.

As for the other officers, the captains, ensigns and lieutenants, their position in the pike square could vary, often you'd just have them all clustered in the center although you could also frequently see schemes where the captains were at the front and the lieutenants at the back. Really they were free to use whatever type of weapon they wanted and though towards the end of the 16th century you tend to start seeing the full-length pike preferred as the "most honorable weapon" it remained common for these officers to have dedicated pages or lackies nearby carrying a target or extra weapons so if they really wanted to they could probably just switch back and forth between a pike, a greatsword, or some other weapon on the fly as needed. Even the ensign, though in theory his number 1 job was to carry the colors, i forget the name exactly but he would often have his own dedicated assistant that he could just hand the flag off to whenever he wanted. According to sir James Turner there were many captains he would see personally carrying no weapon at all except a wooden stick for commanding much of the time (Possibly like the one seen in Rembrandt's "the Night Watch) though he considered this very unprofessional.

[rrgg]

@Martin Greywolf

To add to your points, yeah the term "doppelsoldner" probably didn't remain a literal discription for very long even if it continued to be used now and then. Originally "double pay" probably would have only referred to the officers although as the kinks were most landsknecht companies seem to have quickly developed up to a dozen+ different pay grades depending on rank, experience, position, armament, etc.

[fusilier]

Yeah, the growing popularity as well as social status of the pike during this period itself is a pretty interesting subject. Sir James Turner, who served during the 30yw and the english civil war, claimed that companies in France and the Low countries often had trouble recruiting sergeants in part, he says, because sergeants had to carry halberds and young gentlemen would insist on being pikemen, even though a sergeant would be paid 3 times as much and get to hit him on the head with his halberd a lot during training.

I wonder if classical comparisons to the pike (as similar to the long spears used in Greek Phalanxes), gave it more "prestige"?

Sergeant's being armed with different weapons than the rank-and-file was a tradition that carried on as late as the early 19th century.

[fusilier]

@Martin Greywolf

To add to your points, yeah the term "doppelsoldner" probably didn't remain a literal discription for very long even if it continued to be used now and then. Originally "double pay" probably would have only referred to the officers although as the kinks were most landsknecht companies seem to have quickly developed up to a dozen+ different pay grades depending on rank, experience, position, armament, etc.

Somewhere, I have a table of Spanish army pay rates from the 1500s -- the "corseletes" (sp? armored pikemen) were paid more than the unarmored ones. I don't think it was "double" but it was a similar concept.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I wonder if classical comparisons to the pike (as similar to the long spears used in Greek Phalanxes), gave it more "prestige"?

That might have factored into it, but I think a big factor was just contemporary use and impact. The pike was known as the queen of the battlefield. It was an important factor in the tactics of the day and it was perhaps the important factor in breaking the dominance of cavalry that had lasted for about a thousand years. It might also help that it's easier to "bag a kill" using a pike. You might get to pierce a man on first contact between formations, while the sergeant with the halberd can basically only defend at that point.

The reason that halberds, spontoons and other shorter polearms were used by sergeants and/or officers throughout the pike and/or musket days might also play into it. It is not because the weapon is more expensive (I don't think it is) or effective (it can be in certain situations, but in the standard situation of an orderly pike block it is not) or that it requires more skill to use well (this one is arguably true, a halberd offers more options). The reason is that they can use it for pointing. Line up the men by pointing your halberd along the line where you want them and they'll line up. A pike is too cumbersome for that. So as a sergeant you're basically stuck with the weapon of an administrator, good for telling people what to do, while the other men all have a weapon good for killing.

Mix in a bit of a general dislike versus fancy people maybe, as nations at war tend to focus on "we're all in this together, don't try to be more than you are, just be the best you can be". In the Netherlands we still have a saying "Doe maar gewoon dan doe je al gek genoeg", just act normal, because that's pretty wacky already, that's basically the line we use to define ourselves as a people.)

I had never heard the thing about trouble recruiting sergeants by the way, I'm just reasoning why it could be true. I could see it to some degree.



Come to think about it, sergeants using halberds might actually figure into the use of zweihanders by bodyguards. You want it to be clear who the leaders are. Men in doubt start staring at the nearest sergeant for orders, you don't want them staring at someone with no intention to give said orders. You could give them a different hat or different stripes on their sleeves, but a different bigass weapon is much clearer.

[Martin Greywolf]

Somewhere, I have a table of Spanish army pay rates from the 1500s -- the "corseletes" (sp? armored pikemen) were paid more than the unarmored ones. I don't think it was "double" but it was a similar concept.

The important part is that this is still a period where you are supposed to bring your own gear to war. If they don't give you incentive in higher pay, you may well decide not to bother with expensive armor nad go int safer, back ranks. Which then promptly become front ranks because no one wants to be in front.


It is not because the weapon is more expensive (I don't think it is) or effective (it can be in certain situations, but in the standard situation of an orderly pike block it is not) or that it requires more skill to use well (this one is arguably true, a halberd offers more options). The reason is that they can use it for pointing.

That's not really a factor. You saw sargeant-equivalents happily using sword and shield or axe and shield during early and high medieval periods, you even see an officers pointing stick in Fiore, a bastoncello, and it's about the length of a forearm. The issue is that you physically can't run around with a pike (I've tried) - if it's pointing up, it'll fall, if it's horizontal, you'l clothesline people left and right. For someone who needs to regularly run amongst the ranks, that's a major no-no.

And pointing with a halberd isn't as easy as you think it is. Problem is, the head is pretty damn heavy, and it's on a long pole. If you arte using one hand only to point, you'll have to grab the halberd at half pole, if not further up, to get a decent control over it. You could flip it head down, but at that point, why not use a spear?

I'd say the real reason for using it is the versatility. It can cosplay as a pike if you brace it into the ground, it can be used as a spear in one on one, and it can be used to get through armor if you need to. As a consequence, it can't do any of these particularly well, a spear will always be better for 1v1, a polehammer for armored fight and a pike for braced formation. If you do go into the fight with expectation of having to potentially do all three, however...

[Vinyadan]

Many of the higher ranks in the cards by Nikolaus Solis (the ones I linked earlier from the British Museum) also seem to be holding a spontoon, like the one in The Night Watch (Wachmeister, Leutenant, Feltwebel, Edelmann*), in addition to those with the halberd (Gemeinwebel, Drawant)

*Edelmann: a different artist, Vergilius Solis, made a series based on the same captions with very similar figures (https://pictura-prints.com/product/solis-after-own-design-2/), but put a man with a greatsword here instead.

[Martin Greywolf]

Many of the higher ranks in the cards by Nikolaus Solis (the ones I linked earlier from the British Museum) also seem to be holding a spontoon, like the one in The Night Watch (Wachmeister, Leutenant, Feltwebel, Edelmann*), in addition to those with the halberd (Gemeinwebel, Drawant)

*Edelmann: a different artist, Vergilius Solis, made a series based on the same captions with very similar figures (https://pictura-prints.com/product/solis-after-own-design-2/), but put a man with a greatsword here instead.

That would be what Trewer Rath calls Knebelspeiss, they have an entire rank of those. Pre-standardization terminology being what it is, I wouldn't be surprised if that meant any type of 2-3 meter long spear-like weapon, but since it means Gag (as in, the one that goes in your mouth to silence you) spear, and is a word also used for winged spear, it likely means any spear with wing-like bits. Ranseur, septum, ahlspeiss and spontoon all qualify, as do many more. Hell, you could argue that guisarme and billhook qualify in their lighter versions.

[Berenger]

but since it means Gag (as in, the one that goes in your mouth to silence you) spear

Knebel has several meanings. In every sense it is a longish piece (of wood, metal etc.) that is used to block something, prevent movement or hold something tight in place. It is also used to describe the hand guard on a knife. You are right in that the "Knebel" in Knebelspiess is the pair of wings that prevent the weapon from penetrating too far and that keep the impaled victim away from from the wielder of the weapon (the Knebelspiess or Saufeder was originally used to hunt wild boar).

[Saint-Just]

Theoretical martial arts question.

If you are fighting with a single short-hilted sword (spatha, viking sword, arming sword) - whether because you were taking a stroll in a town, because you lost your shield, because you are a piker who dropped your pike to get up close and personal - is it realistic to place your non-dominant hand on top of your dominant hand to make stronger strikes and\or to increase stability, or it is so awkward that holding sword in one hand is always better?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

My first impression is that this might depend on the hilt. If you have a simple crossguard, maybe a slightly longer hilt or a big pommel using two hands could make a lot of sense, especially as you grow tired and start feeling your sword arm. If you have more of a basket hilt design, custom made to fit and protect one hand, and generally a very good thing, it becomes a lot trickier, and you should probably never try to use two hands.

Even in the first scenario you're probably better off drawing your dagger, but if the choice is a completely empty hand or using one weapon two handed I can see arguments for two handed. Though note that modern fencing clearly disagrees with this, their position is that provide a smaller target is more important than finding a use for that second hand. So with the likes of smallswords at least that's probably the best play.

[jayem]

Theoretical martial arts question.

If you are fighting with a single short-hilted sword (spatha, viking sword, arming sword) - whether because you were taking a stroll in a town, because you lost your shield, because you are a piker who dropped your pike to get up close and personal - is it realistic to place your non-dominant hand on top of your dominant hand to make stronger strikes and\or to increase stability, or it is so awkward that holding sword in one hand is always better?

My impression, is that you'd lose a lot of the strengths from movement, stabbing you more or less only have the shoulders contributing, swinging you have a bit more but still lose on all the wrist and elbow gives.
So literally based on arm waving, I'd say not usual for much of it.
If you have the other guy pinned so neither of you are moving I can see it, the climax of something like gladiator.

[Martin Greywolf]

Theoretical martial arts question.

If you are fighting with a single short-hilted sword (spatha, viking sword, arming sword) - whether because you were taking a stroll in a town, because you lost your shield, because you are a piker who dropped your pike to get up close and personal - is it realistic to place your non-dominant hand on top of your dominant hand to make stronger strikes and\or to increase stability, or it is so awkward that holding sword in one hand is always better?

It was done often enough to find its way into preiod art:

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/928-27_large.jpg

As for why you would do it, well, it's one of those situational things. What you are doing here is trading reach and nimbleness for power and speed, and that is usually a bad idea in actual combat with a resisting opponent.

Look at that illumination, though - sometimes your opponent isn't all that resisting, and you're just hacking them to death. Maybe you managed to throw your opponent to the ground and he has breath knocked out of him, maybe he has his back turned towards you (perhaps he is trying to stab your friend), or maybe you are not hitting a person at all, maybe you're trying to cut rope.

As for why do it in a fight, you could maybe argue it's for getting through gambeson or mail, by hacking it apart or bludgeoning person under it respectively. There are more effective ways of doing that, but maybe they aren't available to you - perhaps your tip broke off or got blunted on a rock and stabbing doesn't work, maybe the mailed guy is just about stab your friend and a good whack to the neck is the quickest option you have.

It could also be a panic thing, especially if you aren't a trained soldier, panicking and reverting to caveman smash mode is a thing that happens even today.

And sometimes, you lost your shield and are waiting behind shields of your friends to whack someone:

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/426-3_large.jpg


Though note that modern fencing clearly disagrees with this, their position is that provide a smaller target is more important than finding a use for that second hand. So with the likes of smallswords at least that's probably the best play.

Modern fencing has a point, especially with thrust-only weapons. Problem is, assuming you are facing one opponent only isn't something you can really do outside of a very specific context (sport, trial by combat), and in that case, more squared off stance allows you better lateral mobility. Still, smallsword or rapier in two hands will never work.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/928-27_large.jpg

No actual contribution to the discussion here, just wanted to say that painting looks like a warning to never bring a sword to a pillow fight.

[Vinyadan]

No actual contribution to the discussion here, just wanted to say that painting looks like a warning to never bring a sword to a pillow fight.
I think that's Samson, so it's probably more don't bring a sword to an ass-jawbone fight.

If I were in a battle and I lost my main weapon, I'd probably grab onto what I've left with both hands out of fear of losing it.

[fusilier]

The issue is that you physically can't run around with a pike (I've tried) - if it's pointing up, it'll fall, if it's horizontal, you'l clothesline people left and right. For someone who needs to regularly run amongst the ranks, that's a major no-no.

I've carried a pike many times, instructed people in the drills, etc. I don't think I've ever considered even attempting to run with a pike. Certainly keeping it vertical would be difficult -- it may not be impossible, if you have the upper body strength. But like I said, until now, I never contemplated it. :-)

[Yora]

Is there a common English term for potential recruits being examined for fitness for service before being conscripted?

[Willie the Duck]

Is there a common English term for potential recruits being examined for fitness for service before being conscripted?

Modern English-speaking forces tend to use terms like "Assessment of Recruit Motivation and Strength (ARMS)," "Occupational Physical Assessment," and "Preliminary Inventory," which leads me to believe that there is no historic fancy term.