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

[halfeye]

Blantantly copied from the previous thread:



Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XXIX

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

A few rules for this thread:


This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and tactics really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.
Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.
Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).
No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so politics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware and tactics). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis (These are arbitrary dates but any dates would be, and these are felt to be reasonable).
No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.
A few additional comments following the premature demise of thread XXVI: Words from Roland St. Jude (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23417769&postcount=794).

With that done, have at and enjoy yourselves!

Thread I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?24294-Got-A-Weapon-or-Armor-Question)
Thread III (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?21318-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-III)
Thread IV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18302-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IV)
Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80863-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-V)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124683-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VI)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?168432-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VII)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192911-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VIII)
Thread IX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217159-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IX)
Thread X (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238042-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-X)
Thread XI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255453-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XI)
Thread XII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?282471-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XII)
Thread XIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308462-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XIII)
Thread XIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?327994-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-XIV)
Thread XV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347806-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XV)
Thread XVI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371623-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVI)
Thread XVII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392804-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVII)
Thread XVIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?421723-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVIII)
Thread XIX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454083-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XIX)
Thread XX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480058-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XX)
Thread XXI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493127-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXI)
Thread XXII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503643-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXII)
Thread XXIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518251-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIII)
Thread XXIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?532903-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIV)
Thread XXV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?548448-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXV)
Thread XXVI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?564037-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVI)
Thread XXVII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?571567-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVII)
Thread XXVIII (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?589405-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXVIII)
Thread XXIX (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?619741-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIX)

I hope I didn't get too much wrong.

[halfeye]

The firing of a bow cannot be modeled in the same way as the firing of a gun. There are factors that are important to a bow’s ability to impart energy to an arrow that are not present with a gun. If your approximation does not account for that, it will give the wrong answer.

Additionally, I feel your claim that the firing of a gun can be modeled as an elastic collision needs support. By definition, an elastic collision preserves kinetic energy. When firing a gun, everything is stationary in the initial state, hence no kinetic energy. At the time the bullet exits the muzzle, it has nonzero velocity. Since the bullet also has nonzero mass, this means the system has nonzero kinetic energy. Going from zero kinetic energy to nonzero kinetic energy clearly is does not represent kinetic energy being conserved.

Bear in mind, kinetic energy is necessarily a non-negative value. It’s equal to mass times the square of velocity. Mass can’t be negative, and while velocity can be negative, squaring a negative number still results in a positive number. There’s just no way to get a negative kinetic energy, so there’s no cancelling out the kinetic energy of the bullet-in-motion.

You can use conservation of momentum if you want. That still applies. But momentum being conserved isn’t enough to call an interaction an elastic collision.

Additionally, the litmus test of the validity of any approximation is to compare the predicted results to actual experimental data. I can refer you to tests showing heavier arrows possessing greater kinetic energy even at point-blank range. (https://youtu.be/ghoVmc12vEs?t=543)


The reasons heavy arrows tend to have better energy retention is due to how
constant the rigidity the shafts/dynamic spine have when combined with heavy draw weights.

There is even a famous paradox covering it. It's very easy to "over power" light quarrels with powerful bows and sap energy, accuracy, and even structural integrity.


Well, no, almost nobody measures arrows velocity at long range, it's pretty challenging, to say at least. 99% measurements are from few meters at least, and mentioned Karpowicz test where made with window of chronograph about 1 yard away from the bow.... We're talking about very initial velocity.

KE energy being square of velocity obvisouly works both way, if you want to speed something up two times, you need to put in 4 times more energy. Increasing speed isn't easy.

Many very good composite bows are close to 95% efficient in ideal conditions (heavy arrows, perfect, instant release), so even if there were somehow more efficient with light arrows as with heavy ones, there wouldn't be any energy more to gain.

The fact that bows of all kind are visibly more efficient with heavier arrows really isn't disuptable.

Here are menioned Karpowicz tests:

https://www.atarn.org/islamic/akarpowicz/turkish_bow_tests.htm

Here's a ballistic for some modern crossbows by deer and deer hunting.

https://s22301.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Crossbow-Speed-by-Arrow-Weight.jpg

Heavier arrows yield more KE.




Generally, the opposite seems to be true, if anything.

For given caliber, amount of propeller, and barrel length, and shape, heavier bullet will tend to have bit more energy.


Note that having everything but bullet weight being identical is nigh-impossible for a large majority of firearms even if it were desirable, because anything except a single-loader has pretty major constraints on overall length (it will fit in the chamber just fine, but any kind of feeding system tends to have trouble if the bullet is much longer than expected). This means that usually to get a heavier bullet, you usually have to change the shape - a standard 115 grain FMG 9mm round comes to a smooth roundness, a 147 grain FMJ round has a massive flat tip, for example.

That said, the two rounds generally have pretty close to the same energy if the propellant and the barrel length is the same. The heavier bullet retains more velocity at range, though being slower it has just a bit worse ballistics and flight time. The heavier round having the same energy is often the reason to make it, in scenarios where a slower speed is valuable in and of itself (the most common such scenario being suppressors, where you want to drop the bullet below the speed of sound to eliminate the supersonic crack).
I admit I was assuming that light arrows were structurally capable of being fired with the bow's full power, if that's not the case then all my working was wrong, an arrow made of wet spaghetti is going nowhere.

[Vinyadan]

Wet spaghetti are pretty heavy though, it's uncooked spaghetti that would be too light.

[Maat Mons]

I'm saddened that no one else liked my suggestion of dedicating this new thread to classic cinema (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXX_(film_series)).

[halfeye]

I'm saddened that no one else liked my suggestion of dedicating this new thread to classic cinema (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXX_(film_series)).
I waited what felt like a week before restarting the thread, because nobody else did and I had something to say. I didn't remember that idea, as I usually don't remember things.

[Maat Mons]

I'm glad someone started the new thread. It had been quite a while. I briefly considered starting it myself, and putting the reference in. But I didn't want to force it if I was the only one amused by the notion. Nevertheless, I feel no qualms complaining about things it was fully in my power to avoid.

[Pauly]

I admit I was assuming that light arrows were structurally capable of being fired with the bow's full power, if that's not the case then all my working was wrong, an arrow made of wet spaghetti is going nowhere.

Not an archer or a physicist so I’m not sure if this helps the debate or not.
Historically speaking light arrows are often referred to as ‘target’ arrows, ‘flight’ (i.e. long range) arrows or ‘bird’ arrows. Heavier arrows are called ‘hunting’ or war’ depending more on the intended purpose than weight.

Exact nomenclature depends on time, location and culture.

[Spiryt]

I admit I was assuming that light arrows were structurally capable of being fired with the bow's full power, if that's not the case then all my working was wrong, an arrow made of wet spaghetti is going nowhere.


The reasons heavy arrows tend to have better energy retention is due to how
constant the rigidity the shafts/dynamic spine have when combined with heavy draw weights.

There is even a famous paradox covering it. It's very easy to "over power" light quarrels with powerful bows and sap energy, accuracy, and even structural integrity.

If it was all about arrow structure being able to "take" bow limbs energy, then two bows of similar energy storage wouldn't have such drastically different performances with light arrows.

100 pound 30 inches Korean flight bow will likely be few to something-teen % faster with 1300 grain arrow than well made 100 30 inch yew selfbow, but completely outclass it with 200 grain arrow.


It's about angles, internal friction in limbs, limbs weight, hysteresis and couple of other things I'm not sure about, but in any case heavier arrows will always have at least few % more KE.

[halfeye]

If it was all about arrow structure being able to "take" bow limbs energy, then two bow of similar energy storage wouldn't have such drastically different performances with light arrows.

100 pound 30 inches Korean flight bow will likely be few to something-teen % faster with 1300 grain arrow than well made 100 30 inch yew selfbow, but completely outclass it with 200 grain arrow.


It's about angles, internal friction in limbs, limbs weight, hysteresis and couple of other things I'm not sure about, but in any case heavier arrows will always have at least few % more KE.
In that case, the light arrows aren't holding up to the stress. The difference between the bows might be the length of the arms, longer would be kinder to light arrows.

[Spiryt]

In that case, the light arrows aren't holding up to the stress. The difference between the bows might be the length of the arms, longer would be kinder to light arrows.

Traditional flight bows tend to have shorter arms.... :smalltongue:

Korean flight bows in particular could apparently be as short as 45 inches tip to tip.

[stoutstien]

In that case, the light arrows aren't holding up to the stress. The difference between the bows might be the length of the arms, longer would be kinder to light arrows.

longer arms usually means a longer shaft which has a sharp diminishing return when you are trying to apply force to one end and a noticable amount of the weight is on the other unless you also make it more rigid which means more weight. They just can't absorb the energy like a heavier quarrel will. If you can't translate all that kinetic energy into something usable like penetration, momentum, and consistently it's wasted.
The only real advantage the lighter arrows have are needing less draw weights and a flat(er) trajectory/shorter flight time. Great for field shooting or other types of target based sports but for anything large enough to considered dangerous or is fighting back those are low priorities.

When you are looking at the lethality of arrows you want enough speed to get it there and puncture 'past' a vital area and the rest of the bows energy is preferably stored in a transferable form stored in the arrow.

Regarding bows meant for battle you also have a weird effect with heavier arrows needing weaker draw strengths for comparable results with lighter ones. (Well weird as unintuitive but that's just physics). This means for making multiple shots over a short period of time the light draw weight/heavy arrows combo wins on the practical side as well.

[Maat Mons]

Watching this video (https://youtu.be/TQ3Tb9BieZ8) (and then this one (https://youtu.be/27PG_noItfQ)) has me wondering, how well would a sword stand up to being used as a machete? Would that thinner, lighter blade be a major hindrance to chopping brush? Would your sword edge get too dull from trailblazing to serve adequately as a sword?

Also, where would you choose to wear a sword if you were trudging through dense vegetation? Traditionally, machetes are worn on the back, which isn't good for drawing quickly, and swords are worn at the hip, which would they'd be getting tangled in the underbrush.

[stoutstien]

Watching this video (https://youtu.be/TQ3Tb9BieZ8) (and then this one (https://youtu.be/27PG_noItfQ)) has me wondering, how well would a sword stand up to being used as a machete? Would that thinner, lighter blade be a major hindrance to chopping brush? Would your sword edge get too dull from trailblazing to serve adequately as a sword?

Also, where would you choose to wear a sword if you were trudging through dense vegetation? Traditionally, machetes are worn on the back, which isn't good for drawing quickly, and swords are worn at the hip, which would they'd be getting tangled in the underbrush.

Swords are a broad category. Historically they even had some that were made for chopping/sawing through vegetation like the pioneer sword and a machete is just a falchion with a different cutting edge.

For carrying location I'd go for over shoulder slung if I'm planning to be using it off and on all day but it would need to have flexibility on how it can be carried to be changed depending on terrain and need.

[Catullus64]

Got some questions about slings. First, what kinds of wounds do they inflict? Do the stones inflict blunt trauma, or are they likely to penetrate the body?

What are the characteristics of slings in comparison with other muscle-powered missile weapons, particularly bows? Do they enjoy advantages in accuracy, effective range, or ease of training?

How well are slings likely to perform against different kinds of armor?

[Gnoman]

The great virtue of slings is that a lot of pastoral cultures had lots of people with the skill to use them. They require no material except leather, and can use stones for ammunition (though cast-lead bullets were popular for ammunition), so any society that tended and killed animals could produce them cheaply. This more than offset the fact that they are a fairly difficult weapon to use - shepherds and the like often had plenty of time to practice, and regular need of a cheap and reliable ranged weapon to drive off animals that might prey upon their flock.

In terms of damage, the term "bullet" used for the purpose-made ammo is instructive. While significantly slower than a bullet from a gun, sling bullets were quite heavy, giving them quite impressive energies. I've seen some modern tests that suggested energies similar to modern pistol rounds, which is significant. Being rather larger and slower would affect the wounds - they aren't going to make the same kind of neat little hole, obviously - but that's still a very heavy hit. Many recovered sling bullets are heavily deformed from impact, and there are written sources suggesting that this was so common that the ancients believed that the rounds were actually melting in flight (this is impossible - modern experiments with firearms show melting only at extreme velocities far beyond the reach of any muscle-powered weapon).

In accuracy and range, there's sources to suggest that slings were comparable to bows as well. The real killer is that if you weren't recruiting men who'd used slings from boyhood, it took far longer to train a slinger than it did an archer.

[Maat Mons]

Actually, you can make a sling without leather. Leather was very popular for the "cradle" or "pouch," but you cold also form it by braiding the same maerial used for the chord (usually flax, hemp, or wool).

https://images2.imgbox.com/d5/1d/1trk8IlU_o.jpg

[Gnoman]

Good point. The key is that slings were fundamentally cheap - you don't need wood or horn to make a bowstave, you don't need metal for arrowpoints, or feathers for fletching. Just a few scraps of material and some rocks.

[stoutstien]

Even with natural stones and clay shot a sling can apply enough energy to kill someone in late period plate by completing caving it in. With lead shot I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a clean piercing blow at short range vs plate/mail. Plenty of records of the Spanish dealing with deaths at long range (up to 400 meters)from Aztec slings let alone point blank blows and the Romans has special tools for removing sling shot from the wounded.

The time it takes to master is was really the reason it fell out of favor as a weapon of war.

[Gnoman]

Plenty of records of the Spanish dealing with deaths at long range (up to 400 meters)from Aztec slings let alone point blank blows and the Romans has special tools for removing sling shot from the wounded.

Don't extrapolate too much from this. The Spanish abandoned a lot of their armor because the environment they were in was so hot and humid. This is well documented. There's also a lot of second-order reports from people who weren't there making assumptions on what happened that have been heavily conflated with the eyewitness reports. Not to mention, of course, that the vast bulk of the forces used by Spain against the Aztecs were locals - the relatively small number of Spaniards allied with many of the Aztec's long-term enemies, who never had late-era steel armor in the first place.

That the Spanish took casualties from slings is almost certainly true. That doesn't mean that the slings punched through armor meant to stop musket and pistol fire. There's a good chance that the casualties in question were unarmored entirely.

If slings could punch through a 16th century breastplate at all, no difficulty in learning the weapon would have stopped ancient empires from imposing sling training by force. Because if a Spanish breastplate won't stop it, absolutely nothing will. Guns probably would never have been adopted at all.

[Catullus64]

Don't extrapolate too much from this. The Spanish abandoned a lot of their armor because the environment they were in was so hot and humid. This is well documented. There's also a lot of second-order reports from people who weren't there making assumptions on what happened that have been heavily conflated with the eyewitness reports. Not to mention, of course, that the vast bulk of the forces used by Spain against the Aztecs were locals - the relatively small number of Spaniards allied with many of the Aztec's long-term enemies, who never had late-era steel armor in the first place.

That the Spanish took casualties from slings is almost certainly true. That doesn't mean that the slings punched through armor meant to stop musket and pistol fire. There's a good chance that the casualties in question were unarmored entirely.

If slings could punch through a 16th century breastplate at all, no difficulty in learning the weapon would have stopped ancient empires from imposing sling training by force. Because if a Spanish breastplate won't stop it, absolutely nothing will. Guns probably would never have been adopted at all.

I was also inclined to be skeptical of slings penetrating plate armor, but I do wonder if they could impact hard enough to injure someone in plate armor via concussive force, particularly if they struck a helmeted head. Thoughts?

[VonKaiserstein]

I don't have any firsthand knowledge- but my googlefu turned up this very detailed paper by Erik Skov. He presents quite a bit of data and evidence to support his conclusions.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=anthrotheses

[stoutstien]

Don't extrapolate too much from this. The Spanish abandoned a lot of their armor because the environment they were in was so hot and humid. This is well documented. There's also a lot of second-order reports from people who weren't there making assumptions on what happened that have been heavily conflated with the eyewitness reports. Not to mention, of course, that the vast bulk of the forces used by Spain against the Aztecs were locals - the relatively small number of Spaniards allied with many of the Aztec's long-term enemies, who never had late-era steel armor in the first place.

That the Spanish took casualties from slings is almost certainly true. That doesn't mean that the slings punched through armor meant to stop musket and pistol fire. There's a good chance that the casualties in question were unarmored entirely.

If slings could punch through a 16th century breastplate at all, no difficulty in learning the weapon would have stopped ancient empires from imposing sling training by force. Because if a Spanish breastplate won't stop it, absolutely nothing will. Guns probably would never have been adopted at all.

I said I wouldn't be surprised if one could do so not that it did so on any regular basis.

The fact a sling took a life time to master and has issues with precision compared to the ease of use and relative consistency of firearms shouldn't be overlooked but if you are talking about raw potential damage even someone like me (who is only an amateur with slings) can produce similar energy levels as a major league baseball bat swing. The fact it transfers energy without needing penetration is why is was used but that doesn't mean it was incapable of doing so.

I would say it would be extremely rare due to the lack of ability to have control of the angle of approach, pin point shot placement, and the relatively soft material used for shot but the number of times I've had armor failed "proofing" would lead to the conclusion that its possible.

[dspeyer]

A question about guns: What's the relationship between barrel width and weight?

I'm trying to write a system that allows for flexible gun customization. When I look at example real-world guns, it seems like barrel widths from 5mm (.22 cal) to 20mm (12 gauge) weight about the same, but as soon as you go to 25mm everything gets much, much heavier.

Is there some extreme nonlinearity? If so, why are 150mm guns mobile with small teams of oxen?

Is it that anyone who bothers to make a 25mm gun adds other heavy features? If so, what?

Thanks from a gun newb

[stoutstien]

A question about guns: What's the relationship between barrel width and weight?

I'm trying to write a system that allows for flexible gun customization. When I look at example real-world guns, it seems like barrel widths from 5mm (.22 cal) to 20mm (12 gauge) weight about the same, but as soon as you go to 25mm everything gets much, much heavier.

Is there some extreme nonlinearity? If so, why are 150mm guns mobile with small teams of oxen?

Is it that anyone who bothers to make a 25mm gun adds other heavy features? If so, what?

Thanks from a gun newb

Max chamber pressure and heat displacement is more important than caliber when you are looking at wall thickness. That's why shotguns can have thinner barrels. Even the punt guns which could have a 10+ ft barrel only clocked in at around 100 lbs even they they threw over a pound of lead in a shell because they had low pressures to deal with.

Lobbing gobs of material over great distances from a dead stop means you need a lot of pressure. Cast iron cannons were prone to failure due to both the heat and pressure making or finding weak points. modern artillery is meant for frequent use so it's built to eat it in strides. You don't get that without mass. Heat is also an issue if you don't sink it away. See cooking off and thin/light walled larger caliber option such as leather cannons.

[Gnoman]

I said I wouldn't be surprised if one could do so not that it did so on any regular basis.

The fact a sling took a life time to master and has issues with precision compared to the ease of use and relative consistency of firearms shouldn't be overlooked but if you are talking about raw potential damage even someone like me (who is only an amateur with slings) can produce similar energy levels as a major league baseball bat swing. The fact it transfers energy without needing penetration is why is was used but that doesn't mean it was incapable of doing so.

I would say it would be extremely rare due to the lack of ability to have control of the angle of approach, pin point shot placement, and the relatively soft material used for shot but the number of times I've had armor failed "proofing" would lead to the conclusion that its possible.

A sling bullet penetrating armor meant to resist muskets is not "extremely rare". It's "physically impossible". Can't happen.


A question about guns: What's the relationship between barrel width and weight?

I'm trying to write a system that allows for flexible gun customization. When I look at example real-world guns, it seems like barrel widths from 5mm (.22 cal) to 20mm (12 gauge) weight about the same, but as soon as you go to 25mm everything gets much, much heavier.

Is there some extreme nonlinearity? If so, why are 150mm guns mobile with small teams of oxen?

Is it that anyone who bothers to make a 25mm gun adds other heavy features? If so, what?

Thanks from a gun newb

Answering this question requires an understanding of how guns work. You're almost certainly aware of this, but some of the effects and consequences may not be immediately obvious, and starting from the basics is a good way to make sure that all the terms are defined.

A gun is fired by detonating a quantity of propellant behind a projectile. This propellant burns very rapidly (actually explodes, in the case of black powder), generating immense amounts of pressure in the confined space. The area in which this happens is called the chamber, and the amount of force present in this area is called the chamber pressure. This pressure pushes in all directions, forcing the unsecured projectile down the barrel. Pressure drops as the available volume expands, but the propellant is still burning and generating pressure, meaning that it doesn't drop to zero. This means that not only does the chamber have to withstand pressure, the barrel does as well. Additionally, the burning powder is dumping serious amounts of heat energy into the environment. In a cartridge-based firearm, a huge portion of this heat is contained within and removed with the metallic cartridge case (even a .22 casing that has just been fired is hot enough to cause burns - I have a small scar on the inside of my right elbow from just such an occurrence), but the rest (minus a portion that exits along with the projectile) gets dumped into the gun itself. Most of this (particularly since the portion dumped into the chamber is mostly absorbed by the cartridge as mentioned) is absorbed into the barrel. The barrel continues to confine the expanding burning propellant, keeping pressure up (and continuing to accelerate the projectile) until one of two things happen. Either the projectile will exit the gun, at which time the pressure will drop to zero and there will be no further acceleration, or else the propellant will be fully exhausted and the projectile will begin to decelerate due to friction from contacting the barrel.

Thus, the barrel of a firearm has two universal functions.

The first and most obvious is containing the pressure wave from the propellant. This requires it to be strong enough not to burst, and be of appropriate length for the standard propellant load - too short and you waste much of the powder, too long and you lose power from friction.
The second, less obvious function is that it serves as a heat sink. Firing a gun generates a lot of heat, and that heat has to go somewhere. If a barrel isn't built heavily enough, that heat can make Bad Things happen - from a shift in the point of aim to outright catastrophic failure.

Additionally, for hand-held firearms (pistols, rifles, and shotguns) and crew-served weapons fired over open sights, the barrel carries a third function - it mounts the iron sights. In general, a gun is more accurate the longer the distance between the front and rear sights - the sight radius - is. This is because the longer the sight radius is, the less margin of error, and thus chance of inaccuracy, you have in aligning the sights.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have a number of other design factors to consider.

1. Cost - a longer and heavier barrel costs more, because it has more material. Meanwhile, a barrel that's lighter but stronger due to advanced materials also costs more, because exotic materials cost more.
2. Weight. Depending on design role, how much a gun barrel weighs (and consequently how heavy the gun itself is) can be very important. A rifle that spends its entire life sleeping in a safe except for when it is being driven to a competition range, fired from a rest, and then driven back to the safe can be as heavy as you want it to be. A rifle of similar design that some private is going to be carrying through the desert for 16 hours a day? You don't want that to weigh an ounce more than it absolutely has to. This is true of bigger guns as well - the main gun of a destroyer is far heavier than the main gun of a battle tank, even though the caliber is usually very similar, because transporting a tank is a lot more involved than a boat just sailing around.
3. Bulk. This is a big one. Any gun that gets moved around a lot has to take this into account, because it factors into shipping (tanks and self-propelled artillery are extremely inconvenient to transport because of the gun even if you lock the turret into "travel position"), mobility in service (a full-sized rifle is not easy to move about in close quarters) and simple carriage (most concealed-carry pistols, for example, have very short barrels because a longer one is very awkward to shove into your pants).


This means that there's an enormous number of factors that go into the construction of a gun barrel. Two guns of the same basic model could have very different barrels depending on their intended use case - the barrel on my 10/22 is almost two pounds lighter than the one on my neighbor's gun, because mine's a general purpose model and his is configured as a dedicated target gun. This means you aren't going to GET a hard and fast rule, because there's no such thing.

[Pauly]

Re slings and the Spanish.
The Incas used slings heavily, the Aztecs more typically used darts launched from an atl-atl.
The Incas had access to high iron content stones (80%+ iron iirc), most famously used as hannerstones for their quarrying, and are documented as using these stones as shot in their war slings.

In Anabasis Xenophon describes Rhodian slingers with lead shot outranging Persian slingers and archers.


Re barrel thickness.
Some other factors to consider.
1) Metallurgy. Higher quality smelting and alloys allow barrels to be made thinner for the same strength.
2) Sustained fire. Only really a concern with automatic weapons, but thicker barrels are more resistant to deforming due to heat stress. It can be a concern with semi-autos with light barrels that are fired more rapidly and for longer than intended.

Edit to add:
Re gun weights.
Being engineered to be person fired also means compromises are made to keep the weight within an acceptable range for carrying by 1 person.
Once you get beyond shoulder fired weaponry you start getting into another realm of design choices.
Carriages.
The tl;dr version is that the more functionality you want to have in your carriage the heavier it will be. For example for MGs a tripod mount is more stable, more accurate and allows the firer to do more things than a bipod mount. However a tripod is much heavier, much harder to move, and much harder to hide than a bipod.
Similarly a Flak 37 and a PAK 43 have near enough to the same gun barrel and breech yet the FLAK 37 is a much bigger mount because of the AA functionality required.
Recoil. Carriage weight also depends on how much recoil is applied. Generally speaking true guns or cannons will have more substantial recoil than howitzers of the sane caliber. Carriage design, hydro-pneumatic recoil systems, semi-automatic systems that use energy from the recoil to reset the breech also can affect the amount of recoil the carriage needs to manage and thus overall carriage weight.
Recoilless rifles can be made with very light carriages because they don’t have to deal with recoil.
Transport/visibility. How the gun is intended to be moved will affect the design of the carriage. Generally speaking a weapon designed towed behind trucks on a road will require a more robust carriage than one designed to be a horse drawn or man pushed. Certain weapons are designed to be used in direct fire roles, the best example being ATGs. Weapons primarily designed for direct fire will have lighter carriages because of the need to reduce their visibility, and also the lack of need for high elevation firing.

[Sapphire Guard]

What would be the best way to cook food using fire while trying to hide your location if someone is looking for it? Would daytime or nighttime be better? What's easiest to spot from further away.

This is one person on foot, so there is a limit to how much they can carry and how far they can travel. She's living alone, hunting for food, but can't risk food poisoning because she's alone in the wilderness, trying to bring as little notice to her home as possible.

[tyckspoon]

What would be the best way to cook food using fire while trying to hide your location if someone is looking for it? Would daytime or nighttime be better? What's easiest to spot from further away.

This is one person on foot, so there is a limit to how much they can carry and how far they can travel. She's living alone, hunting for food, but can't risk food poisoning because she's alone in the wilderness, trying to bring as little notice to her home as possible.

So your main concerns are, of course, light and smoke. Light is much more visible at night, smoke is more visible during the day (caveat: smoke stands out less against a night sky than day, but a sufficiently think plume will still be quite visible against star or moonlight.) Your best method/time to try to cook will depend on which of those factors you are better able to control. Smoke is reduced primarily by having better quality fuel - the more readily and completely your fuel burns, the less it will smoke. That usually takes time and preparation - making charcoal, storing and drying out firewood, rendering flammable oils, whatever - which your character probably doesn't have the luxury of doing, nor the individual carrying capacity to try to lug around dozens of pounds worth of ready to use fuel.. so, assuming they are needing to rely largely on fallen/found wood (because cutting down live wood both produces very poor quality fuel and leaves really obvious signs that somebody is harvesting wood) then they can't do much about the smoke. That suggests they're probably doing what they can to cook at night, and will be doing their best to manage the amount of light they produce and the directions from which that light can be easily seen.

So.. make only the amount of fire you absolutely strictly need (this also reduces the amount of smoke you make and the trackable traces of where you were - ashes, spots where you burnt away grass/left burn marks on stones, etc, so this is probably the number one thing in general.) Make your fire in a place where visibility is reduced. If possible, construct or hang barriers to reduce the number of directions your firelight can be easily seen from. Helps if you know which direction(s) your possible pursuers may be searching from. After your fire is done do your best to remove signs of having had a fire there, in case your pursuers find one of your old campsites but not you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As for light, I'd assume doing some kind of buried pit (like is done in very windy areas) will be best. Slow, for sure. But easy to contain and dispose of in a way that leaves little trace.

[stoutstien]

If a fire for food is unavoidable (air curing/pasteurizing water isn't that hard if you are looking to minimize your foot print) then i would probably stick to the day time and used forced air feed fire methods to practically eliminate smoke and heat stuff quickly. Look up Dakota style pits.

Id quickly heat up some sort of sink like metal or stones and go from there.

[Pauly]

What would be the best way to cook food using fire while trying to hide your location if someone is looking for it? Would daytime or nighttime be better? What's easiest to spot from further away.

This is one person on foot, so there is a limit to how much they can carry and how far they can travel. She's living alone, hunting for food, but can't risk food poisoning because she's alone in the wilderness, trying to bring as little notice to her home as possible.

What tech level are we talking about?
In modern era gas canisters or compressed fuel such as hexamine burn without creating smoke.
In earlier tech levels dried wood or charcoal will both burn with no visible smoke, although starting the fire from kindling may create smoke. In most wooded areas you should be able to acquire sufficient fallen branches to create smokeless fire.

Generally speaking daytime is better unless there is some specific problem due to smoke such as a lack of dried wood. Firstly fires are very visible at night. Secondly preparing and cooking food just by campfire light/starlight is very inconvenient especially if you are shielding the light.

Another source of smoke to be aware of is smoke from the food being cooked and cooking utensils. The utensils will acquire a build up of food particles that will carbonize and smoke if they aren’t thoroughly cleaned. Food left unattended will burn and smoke. Roasting meat directly over the fire can lead to fat dripping into the fire and causing smome.

On food poisoning, storing food without refrigeration is a higher risk than eating freshly killed food raw. Certain parasites may be transferable if the food is uncooked, but as a general rule that is more common with domesticated animals than with wild animals.

[Sapphire Guard]

Fire pit was mostly what I was thinking, is there any disadvantage to it? (the obvious one being time and effort). If someone comes across it, it's going to be obvious what it is, but digging new ones regularly is just too much work.

It's a 'burn whatever you can find lying around relatively nearby' kind of situation. The process of making charcoal makes smoke in itself IIRC, and you have to sit around for three days watching it, she might stumble across a stash somewhere but she's not going to be able to make it. gas cannisters might exist but she's not likely to find one lying around. High quality fuels are not very likely, because whatever she uses she has to find or make herself.

If she's by the sea, is salt curing viable?

[Maat Mons]

Does she have access to a couple of old cans? (https://youtu.be/ENhwbQljpM8)

[Pauly]

Salt curing requires access to salt, which may be available from salt pans, but is generally a PITA to make from seawater IRL. One of my suppliers makes salt from seawater in Ishigaki Jima and their starting point is seawater from the calmest and clearest lagoons otherwise there are too many impurities,
Salt curing requires low humidity, which is why it is traditional to Scandinavia not Polynesia.
When I do salt curing in my restaurant with perfect ingredients and conditions it takes a minimum of 1 week to get a good effect. Maybe you could halve the time for survival consumption and you weren’t worried about the taste.

One alternative to a fire pit is a hibachi grill. They’re quite light and easy to carry and very fuel efficient.

[stoutstien]

Fire pit was mostly what I was thinking, is there any disadvantage to it? (the obvious one being time and effort). If someone comes across it, it's going to be obvious what it is, but digging new ones regularly is just too much work.

It's a 'burn whatever you can find lying around relatively nearby' kind of situation. The process of making charcoal makes smoke in itself IIRC, and you have to sit around for three days watching it, she might stumble across a stash somewhere but she's not going to be able to make it. gas cannisters might exist but she's not likely to find one lying around. High quality fuels are not very likely, because whatever she uses she has to find or make herself.

If she's by the sea, is salt curing viable?

If she can find ways to fish and they are lean air curing is very easy and can be done on the move. Oil heavy fish are harder but if you can get some way to pickle them that can work and could be a good way to store caches.

[Sapphire Guard]

As always, I remain impressed by the quality of the response in this thread. Thanks all.

[Maat Mons]

Alright, so glaives. I mean the polearms, not swords. I've seen glaives with projections for hooking, or for catching weapons. I've seen swords with S-shaped crossguards/quillions. It strikes me that, while a crossguard near the end of a polearm wouldn't be much use in protecting your hands, an S-shaped, crossguard-like projection just below the blade of a glaive could be used for hooking or catching weapons. Was this ever done, historically? So, for example, like this thing (http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s033_full.html), but with a polearm haft instead of a sword handle?

Edit: Nevermind, I found one (https://www.wulflund.com/weapons/axes-poleweapons/partisan-pole-weapon-exact-museum-replica.html/).

[stoutstien]

Alright, so glaives. I mean the polearms, not swords. I've seen glaives with projections for hooking, or for catching weapons. I've seen swords with S-shaped crossguards/quillions. It strikes me that, while a crossguard near the end of a polearm wouldn't be much use in protecting your hands, an S-shaped, crossguard-like projection just below the blade of a glaive could be used for hooking or catching weapons. Was this ever done, historically? So, for example, like this thing (http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s033_full.html), but with a polearm haft instead of a sword handle?

Edit: Nevermind, I found one (https://www.wulflund.com/weapons/axes-poleweapons/partisan-pole-weapon-exact-museum-replica.html/).

Look into bill or bill hooks. Little confusing as it's the same name as the agricultural tool it's based on.

There are so many different types of pole arm head variations real attempt to catalog them in totality. I have one book that has almost 9,000 variation of pole hammers alone.

[Frozenstep]

What kind of armors are there in the 20~40 pound (9-18 kg) range? Basically, I'm brainstorming ideas for "medium" armor, because in the setting I'm writing, some magics have their intensity scale inversely with the user's weight, particularly weight that is worn/carried rather then body weight. I've looked into stuff like "partial plate armor" setups, but could use more ideas. Looking for non-modern examples, I guess.

[Pauly]

What kind of armors are there in the 20~40 pound (9-18 kg) range? Basically, I'm brainstorming ideas for "medium" armor, because in the setting I'm writing, some magics have their intensity scale inversely with the user's weight, particularly weight that is worn/carried rather then body weight. I've looked into stuff like "partial plate armor" setups, but could use more ideas. Looking for non-modern examples, I guess.

Armor often was a sequence or continuum rather than a set of discrete distinguishable armors.
For example in the late medieval period an arming doublet was the minimum (cloth armor) a soldier would wear. Then over the top of the arming doublet he could wear mail. Then if he was especially well off be might wear a plate harness.
And the same man might on a quiet day go riding in his arming doublet. If he thought bandits were afoot he might wear his mail, then don his plate if it was a wartime campaign.
Then in addition to the torso you have similar issues with helmets, vambraces, greaves gauntlet, poldroons etc etc etc.

[tyckspoon]

What kind of armors are there in the 20~40 pound (9-18 kg) range? Basically, I'm brainstorming ideas for "medium" armor, because in the setting I'm writing, some magics have their intensity scale inversely with the user's weight, particularly weight that is worn/carried rather then body weight. I've looked into stuff like "partial plate armor" setups, but could use more ideas. Looking for non-modern examples, I guess.

It turns out this is roughly the amount of weight you can hang on the body of a person and expect them to be able to still consistently move and physically exert themselves for relatively long periods of time. If your armor is lighter than that, you probably start adding more of it for better protection. If it's heavier than that, the prospective wearers start ditching it because it starts seeming more worthwhile to risk being injured than to deal with transporting and wearing it. So.. in a very, very broad and probably useless sense.. the answer is 'all of them.' If you can make armor, the kit probably ends up being somewhere in that range. Maybe a bit heavier in total if you have good tech for distributing weight and are accounting for an entire suit of arms/hand/leg/foot pieces, less if you end up hanging it all off the shoulders or only have coverage on torso and maybe shoulders/upper arms/hips/thighs and are leaving the lower extremities uncovered or counting on a shield.

[Spiryt]

What kind of armors are there in the 20~40 pound (9-18 kg) range? Basically, I'm brainstorming ideas for "medium" armor, because in the setting I'm writing, some magics have their intensity scale inversely with the user's weight, particularly weight that is worn/carried rather then body weight. I've looked into stuff like "partial plate armor" setups, but could use more ideas. Looking for non-modern examples, I guess.

Generally you can have any armor in that weight, really.

Plate armor that's 3mm thick will be pretty much exactly 3 times heavier than the one that's 1mm thick.

There are some amazingly light suits of pretty complete plate harnesses out there, and there are also thick, monstrous ones weighing well over 80 pounds, made for jousting or trying to resists musket balls.


Mail armor could very extremely in weight depending on density, thickness of wire, rivets, overlap etc.

There are shirts of fine mail that weight well under 10 pounds, while fitting on decent size torso, with medium length sleeves.

https://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=DynamicAsset&sp=SU5mxm4Yx%2FVbhp94nksEmWhUPPCPARCxmRF3wZoiekBYI 9dLioBnZzXySIRTomizoxxT9oo9OlonT%0APnyO6EhNhqJhq4t %2F%2BLzvsfbLBbc2NAKqW677oPUO4p0M%2BWmrQdO5u7H1%2F Ik32Pc%3D&sp=Simage%2Fjpeg

https://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultListView/result.t1.collection_list.$TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=0&sp=2&sp=SdetailList&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=0

And then there are remains of Roman mail from Stari Jankovci with massive rings that would weight at least 40 pounds if they've formed shirt covering the same area.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV1a2tc-ieA&t=3s

Then linen jack made out of 30 layers of linen is going to be roughly 3 times heavier than the one made out of 10 layers. And when you add in the fact that density of linen fabric available with medieval technology could vary greatly, depending on technology, quality and intended function, difference can be even greater, in fact one linen fabric can easily be twice as dense as the other.



So D&D and similar systems with their classification of armors into light, medium etc. is rather misleading. Pretty much everything, no matter of construction and material can be made very heavy or very light, and it indeed was often being made so.

[Maat Mons]

I was wondering about late medieval armor for lower-class soldiers. I found the Wikipedia articles for Almain rivet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almain_rivet) and munition armour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munition_armour). Are the armors pictured there fairly typical? What was worn on the areas not covered by plate? (The legs for the “three-quarters armour,” or the arms and legs both for the “half-armour.”) Chainmail? Padded armor? Just regular clothing? (Also, are “half-armour” and “three-quarters armour” widely used terms?)

[Gnoman]

I was wondering about late medieval armor for lower-class soldiers. I found the Wikipedia articles for Almain rivet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almain_rivet) and munition armour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munition_armour). Are the armors pictured there fairly typical? What was worn on the areas not covered by plate? (The legs for the “three-quarters armour,” or the arms and legs both for the “half-armour.”) Chainmail? Padded armor? Just regular clothing? (Also, are “half-armour” and “three-quarters armour” widely used terms?)

This is generally "early modern" era, not "late medieval", as this sort of thing requires the increasingly global trade that is one of the markers of the transition. This might help further searches.


More directly relevant, it was very common for the missing elements of plate to be covered primarily by ordinary (but fabulous) clothing. This reduced weight significantly, and it was gradually beginning to be understood that various factors made hits to the legs (cavalrymen's legs get a lot of protection from the horse itself, and people fighting on foot will generally be swinging at their opponent's upper body) and arm (the arm gets a fair bit of protection from the weapon itself) far less likely than hits to the body and head. Reducing or eliminating armor there gave up little effective protection for most soldiers, while greatly reducing the cost and weight of the equipment. This lower cost allowed a lord or mercenary captain to deploy more armored soldiers for the same amount of coin.

[Spiryt]

Mail sleeves were very popular piece of kit in late 15th century and throughout the 16th, present in all kinds of arsenals, transactions with armorers or traders etc. They would however be somehow expensive, so it depends on how "munitions" it gets.

If the price of this almain rivet is 7 shillings and 6 pennies, then it would be worth roughly 43 grams of silver, if I didn't screw something up with math.

While in 1575, cheapest mail sleeves in Kraków would be worth about 180 grams of silver, so would be actually many times more expensive than the set above. Most expensive mail sleeves could be over two times as expensive as cheapest ones.

There was quite a lot of inflation going on between 1546 and 1575, but still.

[Maat Mons]

Were there ever any halberds with hammerheads on the back instead of spikes or hooks? Alternately, were there ever any poleaxes in the 6-foot-plus size range? Alternate-alternately, were there ever any lucerne hammers or becs de corbin with axeheads instead of spikes?

[tyckspoon]

Were there ever any halberds with hammerheads on the back instead of spikes or hooks? Alternately, were there ever any poleaxes in the 6-foot-plus size range? Alternate-alternately, were there ever any lucerne hammers or becs de corbin with axeheads instead of spikes?

If you can imagine an arrangement of striking surfaces, somebody has put it on the end of a stick at some point or decided to find out what happens if you made that stick longer or shorter. If you ask 'did anybody ever do this', the answer is almost certainly yes. If you're looking for a historical record of it or wanting to know if such an arrangement was commonly used, well, different issue and one I am not prepared to give a confident answer on. (If you're wanting to know in relation to setting up something for a game, tho, it would be very difficult to come up with a polearm that is blatantly a-historical, pretty much any assortment of 'bit you can strike people with' + 'bit you can stab people with' + 'and now it's on the end of a long stick' will be fairly close to known polearms.)

[stoutstien]

Were there ever any halberds with hammerheads on the back instead of spikes or hooks? Alternately, were there ever any poleaxes in the 6-foot-plus size range? Alternate-alternately, were there ever any lucerne hammers or becs de corbin with axeheads instead of spikes?

Yes
Yes
Yes

If there is one family of weapons that came close to what fantasy tropes have it's pole weapons. They tried everything.

[Spiryt]

I honestly can't recall any halberd with any kind of hammerhead instead of spike. There were halberds with saber blade instead of top spike, and other quite crazy things, but rear head was pretty much always spike.

Since halberds were pretty much one piece blade by definition, going from thin, flat axe blade to hammer would be quite challenging.

Does anyone have any examples?

[Maat Mons]

Did these amalgamations ever become popular enough to earn a name? Not just a description like “halberd with a hammerhead.” I mean something like “great poleaxe,” “Khazad-dûm hammer,” or “bec de axe beak.”

[stoutstien]

Did these amalgamations ever become popular enough to earn a name? Not just a description like “halberd with a hammerhead.” I mean something like “great poleaxe,” “Khazad-dûm hammer,” or “bec de axe beak.”

Unfortunately unlike swords there wasn't anyone like Ewart Oakeshott who spent a large portion of their life going around classifying polearms.

I have quite a few references book regarding polearms and halberds and they are chalked full of pictures and illustrations of them that might have a rough year or armory of origin but otherwise unnamed.

[Thane of Fife]

Cameron Stone's glossary has a picture (under Pole Arms) of what looks like basically a halberd with a hammer head on the other side (though it's hard to tell given the angle of the picture). He just describes it as "Axe, French, middle of the 14th century."

[stoutstien]

Cameron Stone's glossary has a picture (under Pole Arms) of what looks like basically a halberd with a hammer head on the other side (though it's hard to tell given the angle of the picture). He just describes it as "Axe, French, middle of the 14th century."

Yep. My favorite one from that book was on of the German ones that translated to "armor opening stick" or something like that.

[Maat Mons]

But really, what weapon name can compare to the goedendag?

[Pauly]

But really, what weapon name can compare to the goedendag?

The bollocks dagger?

[Grim Portent]

Yep. My favorite one from that book was on of the German ones that translated to "armor opening stick" or something like that.

You have to love literal naming conventions.

It gives the impression that the weapon was impromptly named by a really tired drill instructor. It's got 'the pointy end goes in the enemy you dolts,' energy.

[stoutstien]

You have to love literal naming conventions.

It gives the impression that the weapon was impromptly named by a really tired drill instructor. It's got 'the pointy end goes in the enemy you dolts,' energy.

I'm kind of a huge blacksmith nerd and one of my pet theories is that they named them based on the descriptions that were given in the request.

Making a bill for war vs agricultural is a few Hammer swings, a different heat treat, and a sturdier socket connection. Wasn't really much point and giving it a new name. Though there are a few examples of giving them a different name so they could charge more which I always found hilarious. It's basically the same thing that you see today when you have advertisements for "military grade".

[snowblizz]

I honestly can't recall any halberd with any kind of hammerhead instead of spike. There were halberds with saber blade instead of top spike, and other quite crazy things, but rear head was pretty much always spike.

Since halberds were pretty much one piece blade by definition, going from thin, flat axe blade to hammer would be quite challenging.

Does anyone have any examples?

The problem with various polearms is that a halberd with a back hammer could be indistinguishable from a pollaxe. Also saying "well halberd is... by definition" is a very dangerous position to take. There will be tons of halberds that do not particularly conform to your definition.

I've seen halberds that have such small axe parts one wonders how it's a halberd, like an early halberd might be almost a spade sized piece with a couple of points whereas a late halberd is a half-moon blade at the front with lots of spikes in all directions. And a late halberd might as well be a partizan as function goes.

The thing is for the people who used them it wasn't a huge deal exactly how the dimensions and features of a pole weapon made it categorically different from another, so they really didn't hugely make distinctions. Neither did they with swords, Oakeshotte is of course a modern scholar trying to fit everything into neat categories that none in the past had any thought to do because it would have been meaningless to them.

[Perch]

Planing a camping on a sieged city, any tips on how to make the logistics, situations and encounters realistic and interesting?

[stoutstien]

Planing a camping on a sieged city, any tips on how to make the logistics, situations and encounters realistic and interesting?

I think regardless of what period you're looking at you'd have to realize that sieges are impractical on both sides and neither one wants it to last longer than it needs to.

It's low intensity and has a high resource cost which is probably the worse combination. It's mostly psychological warfare so it's hard to make it interesting as encounters unless one is actively breaking a siege one way or the other.

[Perch]

I think regardless of what period you're looking at you'd have to realize that sieges are impractical on both sides and neither one wants it to last longer than it needs to.

It's low intensity and has a high resource cost which is probably the worse combination. It's mostly psychological warfare so it's hard to make it interesting as encounters unless one is actively breaking a siege one way or the other.

The city in question is self sufficient. They could go on forever.

But it's also a trade hub so they don't want to lose money.

[stoutstien]

The city in question is self sufficient. They could go on forever.

But it's also a trade hub so they don't want to lose money.

That's always been the long and short of it. Even if those who are under siege have the technological advantage as far as defense and resources it's still a losing proposition as long as the siege is occurring. It's attrition in every form. Hunger and weather broke more sieges than arrows or walls.

There's also the fact that usually when it comes to sieges the point is not to destroy everything because the tactical location is what's important. I'm not saying that it was not brutally violent but it's not nearly as vicious as what Hollywood put it up to be because the whole idea was to basically waiting out the other side. Bribes and planted agents in the inside would be the biggest risk.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A question about various armors and their benefits, drawbacks, and general tradeoffs. NB: Yes, mixing them is anachronistic. That's already known. Assume that normal underlayment is worn in each case.

Threat-model: hand-powered weapons, including longbows. Generally small-unit combat or street fights, not formation fighting.

First up, the brigandine. As I understand it, this is also called a coat-of-plates, this armor consists of heavy layered cloth with small plates riveted between the layers.

Second: a breastplate, worn conquistador style (ie without significant arm/leg armor).

Third: various forms of lamellar armor, specifically the heavier mongol style.
-- Sub-question: How much of a difference in practice was there between the roman lorica segmentata, the stereotypical Japanese lamellar samurai armor, and the mongol lamellar?
-- 2nd sub-question: Is "This armor is made of metal strips or plates held together by leather cords. It generally covers only the torso, although a skirt of similar plates is often worn to cover the thighs." a fair description of the general style?

Things I'd like more information on--

1. Are there significant differences in protection between these three?
2. Are there significant differences in the restrictiveness/exhaustion factor of wearing them?
3. If one wanted to move quietly, is there a large difference in the effect of the armor on that (assuming you've taken precautions such as not wearing super shiny armor or carrying torches, etc).

[stoutstien]

A question about various armors and their benefits, drawbacks, and general tradeoffs. NB: Yes, mixing them is anachronistic. That's already known. Assume that normal underlayment is worn in each case.

Threat-model: hand-powered weapons, including longbows. Generally small-unit combat or street fights, not formation fighting.

First up, the brigandine. As I understand it, this is also called a coat-of-plates, this armor consists of heavy layered cloth with small plates riveted between the layers.

Second: a breastplate, worn conquistador style (ie without significant arm/leg armor).

Third: various forms of lamellar armor, specifically the heavier mongol style.
-- Sub-question: How much of a difference in practice was there between the roman lorica segmentata, the stereotypical Japanese lamellar samurai armor, and the mongol lamellar?
-- 2nd sub-question: Is "This armor is made of metal strips or plates held together by leather cords. It generally covers only the torso, although a skirt of similar plates is often worn to cover the thighs." a fair description of the general style?

Things I'd like more information on--

1. Are there significant differences in protection between these three?
2. Are there significant differences in the restrictiveness/exhaustion factor of wearing them?
3. If one wanted to move quietly, is there a large difference in the effect of the armor on that (assuming you've taken precautions such as not wearing super shiny armor or carrying torches, etc).

From my experience making and breaking them:

Sub question 1: can't commit as I have very limited experience with Western armor tech.

Subquestion 2: for a catch all it's fine. Might add a note that the plates themselves could be made with different materials such as leather, bone, or even wood

1- I'd say in skirmishing the brigandine armor is probably the winner but not by a huge amount. Overall it's affected this is not that far below all but late period plate. I rate it above most chainmail pattern as far as actually preventing harm.
The breastplate is better in formations and lamellar has similar protection but at the cost of weight and range of motion. It would be better if you can keep your distance though.

2. Fof me personally the weight distribution of brigantine makes it easier to wear which leads to less energy and focus wasted on thinking about it. Have had others who reported differently so I think it be a a body shape and tactics issue rather than the gear itself. My war coat weights about 11 pounds and my buddies metal lam is almost double that. He also uses a much longer weapon and doesn't move as much as I do. I prefer working under defense so my ring guard dagger is only 9 inches from the hilt.

3. You can blacken armor with potatoes. Hard to say but I have to vote for the simple jack plate. Again it is weight and lack of movement restrictions wins. I could probably walk across my wood in mine and be as quite as I like.

[Maat Mons]

My understanding is that coat of plates refers to an earlier forerunner of brigandine. A coat of plate would have a smaller number of larger plates, while brigandine would have more numerous, smaller plates. Also, a coat of plates would sandwich the plates between two layers of cloth, while brigandine would just have the plates attached to a single layer of cloth, cloth on the outside, plates on the inside.

Roman lorica segmentata is laminar armor, not lamellar armor. The difference is plate size. In laminar armor, long plates are used, which typically go a quarter of the way around the body. In lamellar armor, small plates are used, with each row consisting of quite a few plates.

Lamellar armor would be held together by chords, potentially leather chords, but not necessarily. The chords periodically required tightening and even replacement. If they were allowed to become loose, it decreased the protective value of the armor. Sometimes lamellar was coated in layers of lacquer to give it some stiffness, and thus some protection against blunt trauma. I have no idea how this interacted with tightening and replacing the chords.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My understanding is that coat of plates refers to an earlier forerunner of brigandine. A coat of plate would have a smaller number of larger plates, while brigandine would have more numerous, smaller plates. Also, a coat of plates would sandwich the plates between two layers of cloth, while brigandine would just have the plates attached to a single layer of cloth, cloth on the outside, plates on the inside.

Roman lorica segmentata is laminar armor, not lamellar armor. The difference is plate size. In laminar armor, long plates are used, which typically go a quarter of the way around the body. In lamellar armor, small plates are used, with each row consisting of quite a few plates.

Lamellar armor would be held together by chords, potentially leather chords, but not necessarily. The chords periodically required tightening and even replacement. If they were allowed to become loose, it decreased the protective value of the armor. Sometimes lamellar was coated in layers of lacquer to give it some stiffness, and thus some protection against blunt trauma. I have no idea how this interacted with tightening and replacing the chords.

I'll admit that I'm lumping together some things (coat of plates vs brigandine and lamellar vs laminar). At the level of detail I'm working with, I'm not sure (rebuttable presumption if someone gives evidence) that it matters. But thanks!

FYI, in this context the word is "cord", not "chord". The latter is (mainly, it also has geometric uses) used for sets of musical notes played together. :smallsmile:

[Maat Mons]

Sorry, spelling has never been my strong suit, and spellcheck doesn’t help much with homophones.

The word for thigh protection that hangs down is tassets. If you’re going to mention them, you might also want to mention spaulders, which were essentially the same thing, except for the upper arms. Neither was by any means exclusive to lamellar armor. In fact, metal tassets, metal spaulders, and a metal cuirass collectively formed a what was called half armor, a popular item in some time periods. (A cuirass consists of a breastplate, an backplate, and maybe a gorget.)

[stoutstien]

My understanding is that coat of plates refers to an earlier forerunner of brigandine. A coat of plate would have a smaller number of larger plates, while brigandine would have more numerous, smaller plates. Also, a coat of plates would sandwich the plates between two layers of cloth, while brigandine would just have the plates attached to a single layer of cloth, cloth on the outside, plates on the inside.

Roman lorica segmentata is laminar armor, not lamellar armor. The difference is plate size. In laminar armor, long plates are used, which typically go a quarter of the way around the body. In lamellar armor, small plates are used, with each row consisting of quite a few plates.

Lamellar armor would be held together by chords, potentially leather chords, but not necessarily. The chords periodically required tightening and even replacement. If they were allowed to become loose, it decreased the protective value of the armor. Sometimes lamellar was coated in layers of lacquer to give it some stiffness, and thus some protection against blunt trauma. I have no idea how this interacted with tightening and replacing the chords.

All the forms of many plates held together by the is an absolute pain to repair due to this.

It's like trying to have a tight boot with a shoelace that had to be knotted together.

[Spiryt]

Roman segmentata wouldn't really be much alike the other two, different kind of construction.

Plates would be much larger, so keeping some kind of shape by their own, and thus require lacing and other connection only in few places.

Though apparently the weak point of such connection is that it's rather fragile, as well as all the fitting of the armor. After all, large parts of whole construction are being held in place by few cords and buckles. No under, or overlayer to hold al together, as well.

Might have been, perhaps, the reason why it fell out of use after some ~200, 300 years and never quite caught on outside of Rome.

Brigandine, seems to be roughly equivalent of plate armor in late medieval Europe and would have been used alongside it, by very wealthy people too, including princes and kings.

The reason of choosing it over plate cuirass and other palte elements are not exactly clear. Humprey Bardwick in his "A breefe discourse, concerning the force and effect of all manuall weapons of fire and the disability of the long bowe or archery, in respect of others of greater force now in vse (and so on....) " considers it strictly inferior to breastplate, but it doesn't seem to be that clear.

Statutes and Privileges of the Armourers and Scabbardmakers of the City of Angers give quite wonderfully specific mention that brigandine weighing about 12.5 to 13.5 kg should be proof against windlass crossbow, while ones weighing about 8.7kg to 9.7kg should be proof against hook crossbow or bow pulled by hand (" et traict d’archier").

Segmentata and lammellar would in general probably be much more prone to falling apart after significant portion of lacing had been destroyed (again, segmentata much more so). Heavy cloth or, more rarely, leather would hold everything together more effectively. On the other hand, that much cloth would be problem on its own, as far as water, dirt, sweat etc. go. Some Japanese source mentions that lammellar (presumably Japense kind, with LOTS of silk binding) would be vulnerable to elements and, apparently, vermin as well.

All of them would likely very noisy, all things considering. Lots of metal plates not fully connected, rubbing against each other and fabric or lacing.



The breastplate is better in formations

Not sure what do you mean by difference armor makes as far as formations go?

[tyckspoon]

If you're considering differences between the armors at a game-rule level, the differences are probably below the level of simulation you want to use. If you very roughly block out armors as 'not metal', 'flexible metal', and 'solid metal' then lamellar, brigandine, and plate pieces would all fall into 'solid metal' - they present a rigid metal surface to a strike, either because they just -are- that or because the way forces transfer causes the semi-flexible surface of a lamellar or brigandine to stiffen when you hit it. Lamellar would be more labor intensive to construct and maintain, and a plate cuirass could potentially benefit from contouring and shaping techniques to reduce the ability of foes to deliver a solid strike in ways you can't really do with multi-piece constructions (if you want it to be 'better', you could probably justify giving it the equivalent of +1 AC or something like a 'if the target number to hit you is met but not exceeded, suffer half damage' to represent the strike glancing off of a fluting or something.)

For encumbrance/stealthing purposes I would expect lamellar in general to be a bit worse than the others, because the way its constructed doesn't support its own structure as much - you'd need additional strapping/belts/attachment points to help keep all of the weight from being born on the wearer's shoulders and upper back, and because it's made of many individual pieces there's more points for things to catch on or the possibility that a dramatic movement will cause it to move against itself and sound out as individual lames clink or bounce against each other that you wouldn't get with the other armors. Certainly not impossible considerations to overcome, tho, and again they might be minor enough differences that you would not consider it worth the time to embed into game rules, but it's the kind of thing that lead people in real world to abandon lamellar as metallurgy and forging technology advanced to where large plates of quality steel were possible.

[stoutstien]

Breastplates worn without anything else besides maybe a helmet would give the lowest levels of protection of the three in skirmishing because the enemy you are looking at isn't likely going to be the one that hits you unless you well back from anyone who in swinging rang. In a formation that is a much lower risk as you have your lane so to speak.

If it was in addition to chain and piece armor it be different.

[Pauly]

Third: various forms of lamellar armor, specifically the heavier mongol style.
-- Sub-question: How much of a difference in practice was there between the roman lorica segmentata, the stereotypical Japanese lamellar samurai armor, and the mongol lamellar?
-- 2nd sub-question: Is "This armor is made of metal strips or plates held together by leather cords. It generally covers only the torso, although a skirt of similar plates is often worn to cover the thighs." a fair description of the general style?

Things I'd like more information on--

3. If one wanted to move quietly, is there a large difference in the effect of the armor on that (assuming you've taken precautions such as not wearing super shiny armor or carrying torches, etc).

Re different types of lamellar armor.
In Japanese history the plates got larger and the fittings tighter from the introduction of the armor through to the final forms before gunpowder made them irrelevant. The final forms of Japanese lamellar armor from the 1800s look to have similar protection to brigandine.
The main reasons to do so would either be ease of manufacture or an increase in protection. Having seen a lot of Japanese armor up close my conclusion is that it was done for increased protection. How much of a difference there was I can’t say, but it was sufficiently worthwhile to armorers to improve on previous generations.

The area of the body covered depends on the needs of the user. The most common lamellar armors from history were used by horse archers (eg Mongols, Samurai) who required higher degrees of movement and mobility than primarily melee fighters and thus had lower levels of protection. Roman/Byzantine cataphracts sometimes used lamellar armor instead of mail and those suits offered complete head to toe protection for the body.

Re movement. Movement in armor is not inherently loud or noisy. The problem is that added weight and bulk make it much harder to creep around without bumping into things or falling over. It’s the difference between creeping around the woods in your shirtsleeves and creeping around the woods with a 30kg backpack on. One is easy to be stealthy, the other is much harder.

[Spiryt]

The problem with various polearms is that a halberd with a back hammer could be indistinguishable from a pollaxe. Also saying "well halberd is... by definition" is a very dangerous position to take. There will be tons of halberds that do not particularly conform to your definition.

I've seen halberds that have such small axe parts one wonders how it's a halberd, like an early halberd might be almost a spade sized piece with a couple of points whereas a late halberd is a half-moon blade at the front with lots of spikes in all directions. And a late halberd might as well be a partizan as function goes.

The thing is for the people who used them it wasn't a huge deal exactly how the dimensions and features of a pole weapon made it categorically different from another, so they really didn't hugely make distinctions. Neither did they with swords, Oakeshotte is of course a modern scholar trying to fit everything into neat categories that none in the past had any thought to do because it would have been meaningless to them.

Well, of course it won't be fitting perfectly into categories, but it fits well enough. Just like Oaekeshott type XV swords almost never had any kind of fuller, since they were diamond sectioned, halberds were pretty universally one piece (earliest ones could be two piece - axe with spike and back pike), while poleaxes were universally composite weapons, with all striking or stabbing implements being separate things really. Halberds usually being visibly longer and also larger. Pollaxes being above ~2m meters even with long spike being very rare, while halbers could be close to 3m.

Later on ceremonial halbders in particular could indeed break this scheme, but for most part I don't think there are than many halberds preserved that break the mold.

This isn't even some modern take either, cause it doesn't seem like they were conflated that much in the period, especially that halberds were more of battlefield/plebeian weapons, while polleaxes were visibly nobleman's/dueling weapon. They are rarely seen in common soldiers hands in art in battlefield scenes etc.

Late period ceremonial/palace guard halberds indeed could skew the view quite a lot, but more "practical" ones from earlier period generally followed those "rules' pretty well.


The area of the body covered depends on the needs of the user. The most common lamellar armors from history were used by horse archers (eg Mongols, Samurai) who required higher degrees of movement and mobility than primarily melee fighters and thus had lower levels of protection. Roman/Byzantine cataphracts sometimes used lamellar armor instead of mail and those suits offered complete head to toe protection for the body.


I'm not really sure it's the right assumption.

In ideal scenario, horse archer only has one specific kind of motion he needs to perform to keep lobbing arrows at the enemy. Some movements may be theoretically completely shoot down without harm to archery.

While in melee, swinging spear, sword or something like that around against other melee weapons, maximal mobility would be generally desirable.

Weren't o yoroi, perhaps most distiintive Japanese armors, developed specifically for horse archery, and went out of use when they were deemed to hindering for everything else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8C-yoroi

With their huge shoulder guards, very rigid, box like cuirass and other quite overbuilt elements?

https://samurai-world.com/contents/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/o-yoroi2.jpg

Most horse archers in history weren't wearing much armor, or any heavier armor, because they simply couldn't afford any. Composite bow in itself was likely big expense for millions of horse nomads.

[stoutstien]

I does irk me that full plate is always considered "heavy armor" in games when (very dependent on coverage) it is only slightly heavier than brigandine with a lot more protection and better distribution of that weight. The plate in 5e must be like 8/10 mm thick.

Canvas is heavy yo.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I does irk me that full plate is always considered "heavy armor" in games when (very dependent on coverage) it is only slightly heavier than brigandine with a lot more protection and better distribution of that weight. The plate in 5e must be like 8/10 mm thick.

Canvas is heavy yo.

"Heavy" is a bad word choice, plus some lingering ideas about weight of plate (using late period tournament plate as the touch point).

Personally, the "categories" are more about how you act while wearing it. Heavy armor being the "Wade in there and use the armor to deflect blows" archetype rather than the "armor is a backup for when dodging/etc don't work" archetype. With medium being the catch-all middle ground.

Heavy generally always covers torso + upper arms + thighs, and often has full coverage. Medium rarely has full coverage but usually covers more than just torso. Light generally covers torso.

Any/all of them may have a helmet, boots, and gauntlets, but heavy tends to integrate them into a cohesive package more.

Again, that's my head canon for translation between real armor and game armor.

[stoutstien]

"Heavy" is a bad word choice, plus some lingering ideas about weight of plate (using late period tournament plate as the touch point).

Personally, the "categories" are more about how you act while wearing it. Heavy armor being the "Wade in there and use the armor to deflect blows" archetype rather than the "armor is a backup for when dodging/etc don't work" archetype. With medium being the catch-all middle ground.

Heavy generally always covers torso + upper arms + thighs, and often has full coverage. Medium rarely has full coverage but usually covers more than just torso. Light generally covers torso.

Any/all of them may have a helmet, boots, and gauntlets, but heavy tends to integrate them into a cohesive package more.

Again, that's my head canon for translation between real armor and game armor.

Aye. It's also really difficult to model different types of strikes besides "i hit harder but less often" which makes it hard to see that difference. I have a few plate pieces I've made that are super hard (~500 BHN) and with minimal padding you hardly feel a thing until the energy dumped into it can't be soaked then it really hurts. It's like getting into a slow/fast collision with one of the older heavy body style cars.

Freaking crazy kids still doing full contact jousting.

[Maat Mons]

If a dude in ancient Japan were going into battle with a naginata as his primary weapon, what if any secondary weapons would he likely carry?

[stoutstien]

If a dude in ancient Japan were going into battle with a naginata as his primary weapon, what if any secondary weapons would he likely carry?

Can you narrow it down to a period? It was in use for a very long time as most polearms tend to be.

[Maat Mons]

I intend to use this to inform how I equip NPCs for a Pathfinder 1e game. Pathfinder has stats for katana and wakizashi, but not tachi or kodachi. So, probably late-ish? I’m honestly not clear on which time period Pathfinder is aiming for with their Eastern stuff.

[tyckspoon]

I intend to use this to inform how I equip NPCs for a Pathfinder 1e game. Pathfinder has stats for katana and wakizashi, but not tachi or kodachi. So, probably late-ish? I’m honestly not clear on which time period Pathfinder is aiming for with their Eastern stuff.

I don't mean to discourage the question in general just for information sake, but at the level of detail the game actually goes into it's all pretty much the same - the katana stats can pretty much cover any longer sword and wakizashi for shorter blades (and honestly having a separate stat line for the katana and wakizashi is probably unnecessary already, you can just relabel the shortsword/longsword/greatsword and/or the 'curved swords crit better' line to get basically the same results.)

.. and the simple fact that you are -aware- there is a difference in what the swords/secondary arms would look like or be labeled as in different eras suggests you have already put much more thought into it than the setting itself does - the equipment lists for Pathfinder ensures the world is an anachronistic soup of everything anyways. The time period it's aiming at is 'all of them.'

[stoutstien]

I intend to use this to inform how I equip NPCs for a Pathfinder 1e game. Pathfinder has stats for katana and wakizashi, but not tachi or kodachi. So, probably late-ish? I’m honestly not clear on which time period Pathfinder is aiming for with their Eastern stuff.

I haven't played much PF but I'm guessing they picked the most commonly recognisable names and stick them on stuff with little concern to keeping it historical or even accurate. sunnobi isn't used because Tonto has stuck in pop culture more than anything else.

[Cyber]

3. If one wanted to move quietly, is there a large difference in the effect of the armor on that (assuming you've taken precautions such as not wearing super shiny armor or carrying torches, etc).
According to this video of person checking noise output of different types of armor (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fVCS_iatpXw&pp=ygUVUm9tYW4gc25lYWtpbmcgYXJtb3Ig&t=384), you can move quietly even in plate armor. Running? Not so much.

And if you want to stab someone in a back quietly, you going to need extra steps like covering vambraces and greaves in some sort of fabric... And maybe wear your dedicated sneaking boots instead of sollerets.

[Maat Mons]

I've been reading a little about star forts. Ravelins have me a bit confused. How do you send reinforcements to one mid battle? If you have to retreat from one, how do you rejoin the main force?

[GloatingSwine]

I've been reading a little about star forts. Ravelins have me a bit confused. How do you send reinforcements to one mid battle? If you have to retreat from one, how do you rejoin the main force?

Through the trenchworks around the fort, which are vulnerable from above and so hard to hold in force.

Remember that a star fort implies that your warfare is muskets and cannons (the point of a star fort is that it has fewer flat surfaces for cannons to strike).

[Maat Mons]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. I was interpreting the trenches I was seeing as dry moats. Well, I guess trenches and dry moats are kind of the same thing. I mean I was imagining them being used be solely to disrupt enemy movement, not to facility safe movement of your own forces.

I think some aspects of star fort design could have been useful even before the rise of firearms. Specifically, the avoidance of blind spots (https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35720/why-were-old-fortifications-shaped-like-stars-and-not-like-circles) seems like a good enough reason for the stellated outline, even with just archery on the table.

[Telok]

I think some aspects of star fort design could have been useful even before the rise of firearms. Specifically, the avoidance of blind spots seems like a good enough reason for the stellated outline, even with just archery on the table.

That's why the projecting towers on castles were invented, to fire across the curtain wall without leaning over.

At https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conwy_Castle#/media/File%3AConwy-Castle-0006.jpg
You can see each tower has a spot allowing someone to shoot parallel to the wall.

[Gnoman]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. I was interpreting the trenches I was seeing as dry moats. Well, I guess trenches and dry moats are kind of the same thing. I mean I was imagining them being used be solely to disrupt enemy movement, not to facility safe movement of your own forces.

I think some aspects of star fort design could have been useful even before the rise of firearms. Specifically, the avoidance of blind spots (https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35720/why-were-old-fortifications-shaped-like-stars-and-not-like-circles) seems like a good enough reason for the stellated outline, even with just archery on the table.

The big innovations of star forts is the composition of the walls. Against gunpowder weapons, tall walls of thick stone are incredibly vulnerable. Star forts evolved low walls with lots of packed earth to absorb cannonfire. However, against an opponent that lacks weapons of gunpowder, the older style of wall is superior. The height (and sheer sides) not only makes it far harder for people to get over the walls, but gives a commanding position for observation. Older castles were well designed to avoid excessive blind spots and pretty much every tactical factor conceivable to the designer - siege warfare is a brutally Darwinian process and it would not be uncommon to start remodeling if you heard about some other castle falling and looked into the vulnerability that allowed it.

[Maat Mons]

That doesn't quite eliminate the issue. You can use the curvature of one of the towers to shield yourself from the other towers.

https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/18/a4/Xhi0NM25_t.png

[GloatingSwine]

That doesn't quite eliminate the issue. You can use the curvature of one of the towers to shield yourself from the other towers.

https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/18/a4/Xhi0NM25_t.png

You do however have to be right at the base of the walls for that sort of protection, which is generally not a terribly helpful place to be otherwise*, because inconsiderate people on the tops of them are likely to drop things on you (heated sand, boiling water, or just rocks, I think even beehives were mentioned occasionally). Sometimes they had fighting platforms that extended over the sides of the walls and towers, and gaps (Machiculations) at the base of the crenellations to drop or shoot things downwards.

There is also likely to be some kind of earthwork making it difficult to just sort of hang out there (as you can see in the picture of Conwy Castle, standing at the base of the walls means standing on like a 60 degree slope).

*Even setting ladders for an assault if you were really really mad or desperate, you wouldn't try and put them right up to the wall, there's no stability in that, you want an angle of about 45-60 degrees to stop the enemy pushing them off quite as easily.

[Gnoman]

You do however have to be right at the base of the walls for that sort of protection, which is generally not a terribly helpful place to be otherwise*, because inconsiderate people on the tops of them are likely to drop things on you (heated sand, boiling water, or just rocks, I think even beehives were mentioned occasionally). Sometimes they had fighting platforms that extended over the sides of the walls and towers, and gaps (Machiculations) at the base of the crenellations to drop or shoot things downwards.

There is also likely to be some kind of earthwork making it difficult to just sort of hang out there (as you can see in the picture of Conwy Castle, standing at the base of the walls means standing on like a 60 degree slope).

*Even setting ladders for an assault if you were really really mad or desperate, you wouldn't try and put them right up to the wall, there's no stability in that, you want an angle of about 45-60 degrees to stop the enemy pushing them off quite as easily.

In a pre-gunpowder world, there's also nothing you can do there to affect the wall itself. A ram or bore needs space to operate and is extremely slow, mining operations are started much further away to allow for larger work crews, and those are the only personal-scale tools that can do anything at all to a castle. Even if you tuck in that close and successfully avoid attack, there's absolutely nothing you can do except wait for the cover of darkness to run away.

[snowblizz]

The big innovations of star forts is the composition of the walls. Against gunpowder weapons, tall walls of thick stone are incredibly vulnerable. Star forts evolved low walls with lots of packed earth to absorb cannonfire. However, against an opponent that lacks weapons of gunpowder, the older style of wall is superior. The height (and sheer sides) not only makes it far harder for people to get over the walls, but gives a commanding position for observation. Older castles were well designed to avoid excessive blind spots and pretty much every tactical factor conceivable to the designer - siege warfare is a brutally Darwinian process and it would not be uncommon to start remodeling if you heard about some other castle falling and looked into the vulnerability that allowed it. To be pedantic castles weren't necessarily built with solid stone throughout the thickness of the wall. You would normally have an inner core consisting of dirt, stone, gravel, sand or whatever detritus you had lying around. Also even in a starfort the walls are incredibly vulnerable to cannonfire. They can't withstand it either. That is why the trace d'italienne aka bastion style was transitionary. No wall at any thickness could resist the relentless pounding if iron cannonball that could be targeted with much greater precision than previous torsion artillery to continuously smash at the same small part. Eventually the only solution was to bury the entire fort underground, so you can't actually hit the walls directly. Since that isn't practicable if you want shot back you bury the fortress walls underground while they are still overground. The earth ramparts are not actually part of the walls themself. They are separate structures to protect the walls by creating a unyielding absorbing barrier that stops cannons form actually being able to hit the stone walls of as starfort.

One of the funnier things is when they started building coastal forts out of bricks, with really really thick brick walls. But still it's just bricks. The bricks would crumble under the pounding of cannonball, but they acted a lot like earthen ramparts did absorbing the impact energy. And just when everybody had upgraded their coastal forts this way someone invented reliable impact fuses and explosive shells making guns where the shell would bury into he brick work and explode it to bits. Decades of fortification work all useless.


That doesn't quite eliminate the issue. You can use the curvature of one of the towers to shield yourself from the other towers.

And the same problem exist in starforts, they are at their most vulnerable at the tip of each point. Which is also exactly where siege trenches aimed towards. The strongest part, the one most covered by gunfire is close to inner angles of the bastions, which isn't surprising as the biggest danger of one is that an enemy takes it in a escalade. Although it's a bit more complicated to do than I make it sound. A start fort in peculiar way could be said to apply the principle of the high wall in the horizontal plane instead. Diagrams of startforts (when showing a top-down view) seldom visualises the broken up nature of the slope with trenches, dugouts etc that breaks the "slope" from the walls down to ground level. This and other reasons is why there are no impregnable fortifications. And in the case of starforts, Vauban even claimed to mathematically be able to determine how long any fort could be expected to hold given the design, and troop complements involved. There was a certain degree of inevitableness in the digging of trench works and besieging of a starfort. But this wasn't a weakness per se, it was to a degree a feature. Forts were never expected to stand forever. They existed to bottle up an attacker for enough time that a response could be mustered further away to relieve the fort.


In a pre-gunpowder world, there's also nothing you can do there to affect the wall itself. A ram or bore needs space to operate and is extremely slow, mining operations are started much further away to allow for larger work crews, and those are the only personal-scale tools that can do anything at all to a castle. Even if you tuck in that close and successfully avoid attack, there's absolutely nothing you can do except wait for the cover of darkness to run away.
People actually did attack walls with person level items, crowbars, picks, etc. There was a famous siege during the crusades where the crusaders did so despite the relentless bombardment from above. But the diagram also misses the awnings castles would have had to support dropping stuff down on such people. Or various murder holes etc etc etc. Castles builders knew about these problems and would add measures, we only see the naked stone walls on castles nowadays, that is usually not how they looked as they lack the integral wooden structures added on top of walls to extend arcs of fire etc into blind spots. Trying to work at the base of the walls with tools, which did happen, is as you suggest very very difficult and will require a lot of time. It is also for such reasons you have sally ports allowing you to safely deploy a small team to take out such bold interlopers while the majority of the enemy are held back by the fire from the walls and the various features that make closing in to castle difficult for attackers..

[Sapphire Guard]

Is there any reason not to eat a stillborn sheep?

Commercial lamb meat usually starts from a month old, is there a reason for that beyond letting the lambs build up some meat?

[stoutstien]

Is there any reason not to eat a stillborn sheep?

Commercial lamb meat usually starts from a month old, is there a reason for that beyond letting the lambs build up some meat?

Depends on the cause but it's generally illegal from taboo rather than health reasons.

[halfeye]

Is there any reason not to eat a stillborn sheep?

Commercial lamb meat usually starts from a month old, is there a reason for that beyond letting the lambs build up some meat?
The most horrific disease I can think of that might cause that is CJD, and that survives cooking, but as said, mainly "Ew :smalleek: :smallyuk:".

[snowblizz]

I've seen an ancient Chinese Imperial menu that included Leopard fetus on it. Presumably the lamb version is just too prosaic to eat.

[VoxRationis]

Why is a pelte crescent-shaped? Is there a specific tactical reason to have a large section missing, or is it just to reduce weight, or is it some sort of byproduct of the way it's made? The explanation that came to my mind was that it might interfere less with the motion of the off-arm when throwing, but I'm not personally familiar with either javelin throwing or the ergonomics of shield use, so I might be imagining something.

[Pauly]

Why is a pelte crescent-shaped? Is there a specific tactical reason to have a large section missing, or is it just to reduce weight, or is it some sort of byproduct of the way it's made? The explanation that came to my mind was that it might interfere less with the motion of the off-arm when throwing, but I'm not personally familiar with either javelin throwing or the ergonomics of shield use, so I might be imagining something.

Not having used one, so many grains of salt required.
1) reduction in weight plus easier to handle in rough terrain. That only explains why its a smaller shield, not the exact shape.
2) Peltasts fought in melee with spears as their main weapon, and their main opponents were other spear armed foes. With a side on stance the pelta shield gives coverage to the most exposed left hand side of the body and allows the right arm to manipulated a spear freely. It also allows the person to their left to cover the right side of their body when fighting in formations.
My assumption has always been the shape was more designed for melee considerations than throwing javelins/defending against missiles generally.
I know some turkic cavalry shields were crescent shaped, but in that situation it has normally been explained as a consideration for holding the reins.

[Maat Mons]

I'd never heard of this type of shield before I read your post, so my speculation won't be very well informed, but some of the depictions make it look as if the cutout in the shield would roughly line up with the wielder's face when held in certain positions.

[GloatingSwine]

Is there any reason not to eat a stillborn sheep?

Yeah, you don't know why it was stillborn.

There's a reason that food restriction rules with pre-modern origins might include a stipulation that the animal is awake and alert when slaughtered, because that lets you reasonably judge its health and thereby the safety of its meat.

[Eladrinblade]

Were flails ever used to trip enemies irl?

[tyckspoon]

Were flails ever used to trip enemies irl?

You will probably need to specify what you have in mind by 'flail', as the word has been used to refer to a variety of different weapons that would lead to different techniques for usage.

Broadly speaking, if you ask 'did anybody ever do this thing', the answer is yes. Somebody, somewhen, tried to do that. Was it regularly done, taught, or practiced as something you were expected to do with these weapons? Probably not. Tripping, in particular, is not likely to be a recommended maneuver due to the positioning and body mechanics required to do so - if you want to trip somebody, you must strike at the lower leg. If you have a weapon of similar length to your opponent, in order to make that your target zone you will either have to sacrifice your reach to angle a very low strike, or you will need to perform a low lunging maneuver with your torso extended toward your opponent. Both methods mean you are striking toward a non-lethal point on your opponent while inviting a counter strike to your head or critical points on your torso, and one that will be difficult to defend against because your weapon, your concentration, and your body position are not in that area.. so most of the time it's a really bad idea. Maybe you take your opponent off his feet but you get concussed or just dead because you gave him a clear shot right into your helm while you did it.

The exceptions would be when you have a significantly longer weapon than your opponent(s), in which case you can strike at their shins without significantly yielding your own position (and doing so is a useful technique when your goal is to keep them from approaching you rather than being too concerned about killing them)... or if both you and your opponent are heavily armored enough that you cannot reasonably expect to actually harm each other, in which case controlling the opponent by putting them to the ground so that you can try to place a precise attack into a weak point is probably part of your plan for winning the fight. But you probably do that by approaching into a clinch and using grappling techniques or throws rather than attempting to trip with your weapon.

[GloatingSwine]

If by "flail" you mean the ball and chain thing that tends to show up in D&D, videogames, and medievalish movies that need a bad guy knight in a tourney, there's very little evidence that they ever existed as real weapons.

Now flails the threshing tool (basically a long stick and a short stick with a short chain as a hinge between them to seperate wheat and chaff or rice and husk depending on where you are by bashing it) were occasionally used as weapons, and you could probably sweep it low and trip people with it as it'll tangle the legs.

(If you want a regular battlefield weapon that's quite good at tripping, consider a halberd, the hooked spike on the back plus length of haft gives you an effective way to hook out a leg)

[Pauly]

The mechanical advantage a flail offers over other types of weapon is the hinge, which allows you to extend your attack past a blocking device (eg shield, parrying sword).
The hinge contacts the block then the head accelerates and swings over/around the block.
It's very good at attacking the head if people parry too close to their body and attacking the shield arm. The way it is meant to be used is not conducive to sneaky pulls or hooking.

As others have said at some point in history someone has used one at some time to trip an opponent. But it isn't what it's designed to do, nor is it mechanically suited to tripping.

Halberds and Bills and a bunch of other 'low status'* pole arms are specifically designed to be able to trip people and pull them off balance.

* 'low status' as in generally used by in formations by less than fully plate armored soldiers. Knights at men-at-arms in full plate would typically use a more aggressive weapon more suited to individual combat such as a poleaxe.**
** NB very broad brush strokes being used with lots of exceptions in the finer details.

[Maat Mons]

What exactly are the criteria for the terms half armor, three-quarters armor, and full armor? In my head, I’ve been applying the labels based on which pieces of armor are present, as follows.
Half Armor: Cuirass, Spaulders, Tassets (also helmet and gauntlets, but those go without saying)
Three-Quarters Armor: Cuirass, Pauldrons, Rebraces, Vambraces, Tassets (also helmet and gauntlets, but those go without saying)
Full Armor: Cuirass, Pauldrons, Rebraces, Vambraces, Cuisses, Greaves (also helmet and gauntlets, but those go without saying)
But I’m finding that doesn’t seem to match up with some descriptions of armor I see.

[Pauly]

Fully armored and half armored are the two main historical terms I'm familiar with. I can't recall 3/4 armor used in period texts, but it is a bit out of my normal research zone.

Historically 'fully armored' referred to having the best of what the current armor standard was, and 'half armored' had no strict definition, but was used to describe a soldier with some armor, but less than the ideal. 'Unarmored' was the other common category, and it also included soldiers who had a helmet and maybe a shield so not quite 'unarmored' from a technical perspective.

For example A soldier with full length mail and a helmet may be 'fully armored' '3/4 armored' or 'half armored' depending on the time period.

[snowblizz]

Fully armored and half armored are the two main historical terms I'm familiar with. I can't recall 3/4 armor used in period texts, but it is a bit out of my normal research zone.


3/4 armoured is probably more of a modern term. It's used for the early modern Cuirassier in the process of being disarmoured. Compared to a fully encased "knight" the ca. 30 Year War cuirassier had ditched the greaves and sabatons, replacing them with a stout horseman's boot instead. The upper legs were also only protected by tassets which only armoured the front of the thighs. The back part effectively being "protected" by sitting on the horse. Basically from head to knee. Half-armour in the period would have rescued tassets, or none at all. The armoured infantry actually followed the same disarmouring policy too. Lower legs first to aid mobility. Reducing "back" armour, arm armour, breastplate and finally helmet.
In period it looks to me like the sources would simply talk about cuirassier armour and the meaning of that itself slides form fully encased armour through 3/4 and half- to just breastplates and helmet backup by lighter protection for extremities like buffcoats. Letters about armour eg discussing armouring Swedish cavalry speak of "horseman's armour" (in the English author's translation of the original letters admittedly). Also later letters speak of "light horseman's armour" and "cuirassier armour" and everyone at the time just knows what that implies. And in 1635 a letter notes "no horsemen's or soldiers' harness need be sent". These are all ofc translations of the original letters form German or Swedish. But to me it suggests as you note that 3/4 isn't really mentioned, people just know what a "horseman's armour/harness" consists of from their context.

[Vahnavoi]

Were flails ever used to trip enemies irl?

I'll answer this from technical viewpoint of three "flail" -type weapons I've actually used, nunchaku, sansetsukon (three-piece-rod) and surujin (rock-and-rope).

For the first, it is too short to entangle someone's legs and its flexibility actually makes it so it cannot be used as a solid lever; for striking purposes, the weapon's appeal is in speed and being easy to conceal, and typical target areas are the head and the upper body. The techniques for controlling or entangling someone target hands, arms and the head, so the leverage does not come from attacking the legs.

For the second, it is much longer and can be swung in a wide arc to create tremendous force, but again, flexibility means it doesn't actually serve as a solid lever, so whether it has any advantage for tripping over a bo (staff) or other type of polearm is dubious. Long range low sweeps are hence basically just strikes, they aren't tripping any more than any other strike that could injure a leg.

For the third, it can be used in a manner similar to bolas - it's weight at the end of a long rope, it can definitely be thrown in such a way that it will wrap itself around someone's or something's limbs, legs included. This said, my personal opinion is that the rope mostly exists so you get your rock back and don't have to find a new one every time you throw it. :smalltongue:

[Eladrinblade]

Why use an estoc over a poleaxe or a mace? I know about the lance-replacement reason.

[Gnoman]

Why use an estoc over a poleaxe or a mace? I know about the lance-replacement reason.

Swords are fundamentally easier to carry than any polearm, and a long sword has advantages over a mace in terms of reach.

[Pauly]

An estoc (aka a tuck in England) is a sword. Swords are inherently easier to defend with than maces. In formations a polearm such as a halberd or bill probably has better defensive capacity, but in an open skirmish or solo fight the tuck is better defensively.

As said above it is easier to carry.

From a training perspective of the wielded already knows how to use a sword they know how to use an estoc. Learning mace or polearm combat techniques may take more time and effort.

Cost could be an issue. From a smithing perspective tucks would have to be simpler to make than things like a flanged mace or Bec de corvin so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think tucks could be cheaper for the same build quality.

[stoutstien]

An estoc (aka a tuck in England) is a sword. Swords are inherently easier to defend with than maces. In formations a polearm such as a halberd or bill probably has better defensive capacity, but in an open skirmish or solo fight the tuck is better defensively.

As said above it is easier to carry.

From a training perspective of the wielded already knows how to use a sword they know how to use an estoc. Learning mace or polearm combat techniques may take more time and effort.

Cost could be an issue. From a smithing perspective tucks would have to be simpler to make than things like a flanged mace or Bec de corvin so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think tucks could be cheaper for the same build quality.

As a Smith I agree with all but the last part.

All but the most intricate maces are much cheaper to forge out in material, time, and skill. They also have multiple styles of forging available based on the above mentioned factors. They are also usual made in such a way you can quickly repair them by simply stripping off the broken or bent flange and replace it. Flange maces look complex to make but because they are modular you can use a set fuller to make a pile of each part and then just assemble them via brazing which is very quick once you get a flow. You can get away with just about any halfway heat treat as well which is a major time sink for blades. Bar maces were something you could arm 10 men to one sword for the same investment. They aren't flashy but Maces don't need a lot of refinement to work and even less skill to use well. Anyone with a semi physical life can swing one with enough force to do what it needs to do.

Thrusting blades are finicky to make and if anything goes wrong then you have end up with a crappy mace. Most of the time you don't realize anything is wrong until it's far enough along that you have to write of the time and materials. Swords were and still are status symbols for a reason. Good news is failed blades make good donors for mace and other things you only need a small amount of heat treated edge with some mild weight to soak the energy.

*A well crafted and weilded tuck is a wonder to behold and could easily out perform any mace with similar dimensions. Although i could only name a handful of smiths who have that skill of the top of my head.

If I wanted to stay alive I'd take the mooks with maces.*

Take it with a grain of salt as I tend to make more armor than weapons and shy away from edged work. Id rather make 10 fitted gorgets than even consider making a simple chef's knife.

[Spiryt]

Plenty of different ways to make an estoc, or similar blade, but generally making 1m + long thin spike with edge that doesn't bend, sag warp, etc. too much but can stab things pretty hard definitely wasn't very easy.

Then there's something like that, 5 feet long and with cross section changing quite a lot throughout whole lenght.


https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz#/media/Plik:Koncerz_Muzeum_Zag%C5%82%C4%99bia_(croped).jp g (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz#/media/Plik:Koncerz_Muzeum_Zag%C5%82%C4%99bia_(croped).jp g)

[stoutstien]

Plenty of different ways to make an estoc, or similar blade, but generally making 1m + long thin spike with edge that doesn't bend, sag warp, etc. too much but can stab things pretty hard definitely wasn't very easy.

Then there's something like that, 5 feet long and with cross section changing quite a lot throughout whole lenght.


https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz#/media/Plik:Koncerz_Muzeum_Zag%C5%82%C4%99bia_(croped).jp g (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz#/media/Plik:Koncerz_Muzeum_Zag%C5%82%C4%99bia_(croped).jp g)

Aye. Fit and finish change but making a thrusting blade of any sizable length that was designed to make full force contact with metal/ other hardened forms of protection has to land on a narrow overlap of strength, hardness, wear resistance, and balance.

Even then if you're going against riveted chain or better I wouldn't even bother trying to get through it which is where a properly made tuck comes into play because they're very precise and you can land fast blows on unprotected areas but aren't instantly destroyed if it does happen to make contact with something hard.

*Ironically without gun power advancements and *shrinking* cannon scale (they are actually older than what most would consider heavy plate)I would wager that swords wouldn't have become the iconic weapon of choice for the era. The handgonne wasn't getting through without a volley but by the time the figured out that longer barrels ,shorter powder burn times, and some sort of control via a trigger meant more energy and better precision they forced the decision of moderate overall coverage or enhanced coverage for head and torso. The average person wasn't nearly strong enough to move in enough steel for full matchlock+ protection. *

Great now I'm curious how much energy I can get out of a handgonne and am going destroy some plate and cardboard.

[Maat Mons]

What do you call those extra bits of caste wall that stick out at right angles? No, not buttresses. I mean the ones that connect to towers that are out a ways from the walls. Like torre albarrana, except I think those were connected by bridges or arcades, and I'm looking for towers that are connected by full wall segments.

[Mike_G]

What do you call those extra bits of caste wall that stick out at right angles? No, not buttresses. I mean the ones that connect to towers that are out a ways from the walls. Like torre albarrana, except I think those were connected by bridges or arcades, and I'm looking for towers that are connected by full wall segments.

Bastions maybe?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I've been reading a little about star forts. Ravelins have me a bit confused. How do you send reinforcements to one mid battle? If you have to retreat from one, how do you rejoin the main force?


Through the trenchworks around the fort, which are vulnerable from above and so hard to hold in force.

Remember that a star fort implies that your warfare is muskets and cannons (the point of a star fort is that it has fewer flat surfaces for cannons to strike).

Also, under covering fire.

With the lines of fire the other posters talked about an enemy advancing on basically any part of a star fort is a prime target for other parts of the fort, one layer further in. And similar to how a medieval castle will often have a higher wall inside a lower wall, ones the enemy does take a ravelin, hornwork, crownwork, half moon or similar, there's no cover for them there either. The walls of the outer works only protect against attacks from the outside. So it kind of just doesn't pay to conquer any of those things, unless they're your fastest way to conquering the whole fort. The cover situation makes any forward position a lot easier to traverse for defenders than for attackers, even if they have to use small boats or wade with their matchlock above their head to reinforce a position.

[Maat Mons]

Not bastions, no, but serving the same function. Also serving the same function as flanking towers. It's hard to describe, so I made a picture.
https://images2.imgbox.com/f3/e1/mfuUmm6v_o.png



Also, sorry about the accidental optical illusion. It's even worse when I look at it in Image Viewer, because of the black background.

[snowblizz]

Not bastions, no, but serving the same function. Also serving the same function as flanking towers. It's hard to describe, so I made a picture.
https://images2.imgbox.com/f3/e1/mfuUmm6v_o.png



Also, sorry about the accidental optical illusion. It's even worse when I look at it in Image Viewer, because of the black background.

Could you give an actual example of castle, because even if I understand you are trying to explain a concept, there's no castle I've ever seen that looks like that.

[Raunchel]

Not bastions, no, but serving the same function. Also serving the same function as flanking towers. It's hard to describe, so I made a picture.
https://images2.imgbox.com/f3/e1/mfuUmm6v_o.png



Also, sorry about the accidental optical illusion. It's even worse when I look at it in Image Viewer, because of the black background.

There are a few problems I see with that design. It would be twice as expensive as a regular castle and not have twice the defensive strength. Before cannons, you wouldn't have huge numers of troops holed up in a fortress that could actually be taken by storm or the like. There's a reason why most sieges ended by other means. Storming a fully defended fortification was a bloodbath and medieval armies just didn't have the manpower and resources to do that sort of thing anyways.

Another flaw is that this design needs much more in the way of manpower to defend itself. That again makes it more expensive to maintain while not being much better at its job of being an obstacle.

Albarrana towers were used in the Iberian peninsula (and basically were completely unused in other parts of the medieval world). As far as I know there would only ever be a few (unlike in this image) but otherwise I don't know much about them.

[Maat Mons]

Unfortunately, I don’t have a real-world example to point to. I only have a vague remembrance of an image that I think briefly appeared in some YouTube video or another that I watched several years ago.

The image was a closeup of a wall segment, so I couldn’t get an idea of what the castle as a whole looked like. The image definitely had at least one tower out in front of the curtain wall, but connected to it. My hazy recollection says multiple towers, near to each other, but I suppose there’s a chance that’s my memory playing tricks on me.

My hazy recollection also says the tower was connected to the wall by another wall segment, not a bridge or arcade, but I suppose that could also be my memory playing tricks on me.

[GloatingSwine]

This may be one of those situations where people before the Victorians were really not all that interested in precisely defining and compartmentalising stuff, and the name for a bit of wall connecting to a lone tower is just "wall".

[fusilier]

Unfortunately, I donÂ’t have a real-world example to point to. I only have a vague remembrance of an image that I think briefly appeared in some YouTube video or another that I watched several years ago.

The image was a closeup of a wall segment, so I couldnÂ’t get an idea of what the castle as a whole looked like. The image definitely had at least one tower out in front of the curtain wall, but connected to it. My hazy recollection says multiple towers, near to each other, but I suppose thereÂ’s a chance thatÂ’s my memory playing tricks on me.

My hazy recollection also says the tower was connected to the wall by another wall segment, not a bridge or arcade, but I suppose that could also be my memory playing tricks on me.

Fortezza Firmafede in Sarzana Italy, has a single tower that's kind of set off from the others in a similar way. But it's just the one -- I don't know if there used to be a curtain wall that it was a part of (I think this is likely), or if it was set up this way to add extra protection to some feature.

Note: Don't confuse Fortezza Firmafede with Fortezza Sarzanello, also in Sarzana. They were built (or updated) around the same time and have similar construction. An online search for one will often bring up photos of both. Sarzanello is a triangular work with an early Ravelin added. Firmafede is a rectangular pattern with the one odd outlying tower.

EDIT -- image:

https://area.events/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Fortezza-Firmafede-image1.jpg

[gbaji]

Was the entire castle designed and built at the same time? I can think of just a couple of reasons for having that lone tower kinda hanging out there:

1. There's some other terrain in the area, and this tower allows visibility over/around that terrain. So basically, it's a look out location, and why not connect it to the rest of the fort, just to make it easier/safer to get folks to/from it if enemies are about. Could also make it more difficult for an attacking enemy to move around that portion of the fort (which again, is relevant based on terrain in the area). Though, to be fair, the same thing could be accomplished with just a wall jutting out there with no tower.

2. Maybe that one tower was built first. Similar concept to above. Single towers might be built as a point for visibility (overlook), in an area, and then a much larger fortification built later which incorporates it. It's not terribly uncommon for the later larger construction to be off a bit to the side or set back a bit, just due to the lay of the land in the area. Usually, you'd build up in a way that incorporates the entire thing into one larger structure, but maybe something made that a bit more difficult here.

So yeah. I'm leaning a bit in both cases on some interaction with the surrouding terrain making this something that just fit somehow. Absent that, it would just seem to be odd and/or superflous.

[Maat Mons]

When you're building ravelins around a star fort, is it important to block any shot an enemy might have at the curtain, or is it fine as long as the only shots the enemy will be able to get are at bad angles?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Was the entire castle designed and built at the same time? I can think of just a couple of reasons for having that lone tower kinda hanging out there:

It also looks like there's some synergy with the ravelins. The East ravelin in particular seems pretty horrible without a wall around its back, and the South ravelin appears to be the forts main entrance, which can always use more protection.

Of course, that just begs the question of why those ravelins had to be there is the first place.

[gbaji]

It also looks like there's some synergy with the ravelins. The East ravelin in particular seems pretty horrible without a wall around its back, and the South ravelin appears to be the forts main entrance, which can always use more protection.

Of course, that just begs the question of why those ravelins had to be there is the first place.

I guess we could speculate that, in addition to the main entrance being on the south wall, that maybe the southern approach in general is more accessable. So they wanted a ravelin on the south side to allow for movement outside the southern wall, but realized this left it really exposed (cause it would), so they built that wall to the east out a bit to shield it. But now they need a ravelin on the east side as well. And hey. Let's put a tower out at the end of that wall to provide a bit more protection as well. Maybe?

Would be interesting to see a topographical map of the area around this fort. My guess is that the southern approach (probably nearly an entire hemisphere's worth) is reasonably accessible. So they wanted to push the defensive works a bit farther out in that direction. And I guess this is what they came up with? A more complete defense would build another tower to the south west, and connect them via walls, and provide an additional outer defense to the main entrance. And heck. Maybe they would eventually have done that, and this just represnts a step in that direction. If there's one thing I've noticed about fortifications it's that they do tend to build and expand over time. Rarely are they designed and built in one go, and never change or expand later on (well, if they stand long enough, that is).


As a general comment on forts, it is interesting to see the vast difference between pre and post gunpowder designs (which has been mentioned). You look at old fortifications in Europe, and there's a lot of tall walls. Height is king. I semi-recently spent a day in Old San Juan (arrived two days before our cruise ship departed), and checked out the fort just a few blocks from our hotel (Castillo San Felipe del Morro). It's facinating to see the design and layers of forts designed with cannon bombardment and firearm assaults in mind. And in this particular case, it's also a harbor defense as well. When you are inside, it doesn't even look like a fort. The walls are short, and you're basically standing on large flat sections of land (grassy fields, with lots of large lizards roaming around as it happened). But around these are stepped sections of walls, as the fort gets higher and higher. And the walls are less designed to block access as to funnel people into kill zones. It doesn't look like much, until you actually envision the route attackers on foot would have to take to get inside, and how many layers of such defenses they'd have to fight their way through.

As someone mentioned earlier, defenses stop being about height, but rather depth. You keep the actual walls low (and in this case, built into the hillside, so hitting it with cannon shot doesn't really do much), but make the attackers traverse a large amount of horizontal distance, subjected to fire the entire time. Brutal. Yes. I took a ton of pictures.

[GloatingSwine]

Would be interesting to see a topographical map of the area around this fort. My guess is that the southern approach (probably nearly an entire hemisphere's worth) is reasonably accessible. So they wanted to push the defensive works a bit farther out in that direction. And I guess this is what they came up with? A more complete defense would build another tower to the south west, and connect them via walls, and provide an additional outer defense to the main entrance. And heck. Maybe they would eventually have done that, and this just represnts a step in that direction. If there's one thing I've noticed about fortifications it's that they do tend to build and expand over time. Rarely are they designed and built in one go, and never change or expand later on (well, if they stand long enough, that is).


Yeah, the southern approach is pretty much your only one really.

This is a topographical map of the region, the fort is about where the map label for Sarzana is (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1203904,9.9940945,12z/data=!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu)

So if you're coming at it in the 15th century you're coming from the south/southeast, because every other direction hits a mountain pretty fast (Northern Italy do be like that), and if you try and bypass it by going up the Magra it's going to be able to express opinions about that with cannons, big impressive ones like a fort might be able to have back then could get out to about 10km.

If you try and sneak into the mountains to the northeast of the fort like it looks like you can, guess what? Another fort!

Late edit: This is also something to think about when designing forts for your games. Location! Location! Location! A fort is there because it controls access to something.

[Grim Portent]

Looking at an aerial view I think I have an idea of its purpose.

The town its built to protect seems to have the densest part to the immediate west of the fort, with a church being there as well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is/was the town center, and the land to the east which is now built on might have been farmland or estates. The housing there now certainly looks less dense, and where I live at least that tends to indicate it being more modern with medieval towns being really packed in tight.

So if this fort is intended to protect the town, and Fortezza di Sarzanello on the hill a few hundred meters away is more tactically located, what if the purpose of the outlying wall is to provide additional protection for townsfolk and supplies being brought into Firmafede from the west against enemies approaching from the east?

The original was apparently built in 1249, and presumably looked quite different, the version that still stands dates to 1487. I can't read Italian or find convenient English sources, but Sarzanello already existed when Firmafede was built, being first mentioned in 963. I can't find anything about why the second fort was added, but I feel it's location and relative size hint at the older fort being inadequate for the purpose of protecting the town itself.

[snowblizz]

So if you're coming at it in the 15th century you're coming from the south/southeast, because every other direction hits a mountain pretty fast (Northern Italy do be like that), and if you try and bypass it by going up the Magra it's going to be able to express opinions about that with cannons, big impressive ones like a fort might be able to have back then could get out to about 10km.

The what now? There is no 15th century cannon that reaches 10km. There isn't one that with any accuracy reaches 1km. The whole period of starforts and trench-digging approaches comes from the need to fire at extreme short ranges.

[Gnoman]

The what now? There is no 15th century cannon that reaches 10km. There isn't one that with any accuracy reaches 1km. The whole period of starforts and trench-digging approaches comes from the need to fire at extreme short ranges.

Even the "long nine" naval gun of three centuries later, a weapon noted for long range, would be hard-pressed to reach 7km.

[fusilier]

Was the entire castle designed and built at the same time? I can think of just a couple of reasons for having that lone tower kinda hanging out there:

1. There's some other terrain in the area, and this tower allows visibility over/around that terrain. So basically, it's a look out location, and why not connect it to the rest of the fort, just to make it easier/safer to get folks to/from it if enemies are about. Could also make it more difficult for an attacking enemy to move around that portion of the fort (which again, is relevant based on terrain in the area). Though, to be fair, the same thing could be accomplished with just a wall jutting out there with no tower.

2. Maybe that one tower was built first. Similar concept to above. Single towers might be built as a point for visibility (overlook), in an area, and then a much larger fortification built later which incorporates it. It's not terribly uncommon for the later larger construction to be off a bit to the side or set back a bit, just due to the lay of the land in the area. Usually, you'd build up in a way that incorporates the entire thing into one larger structure, but maybe something made that a bit more difficult here.

So yeah. I'm leaning a bit in both cases on some interaction with the surrouding terrain making this something that just fit somehow. Absent that, it would just seem to be odd and/or superflous.

Sorry about the late reply. The outlying tower is of a similar but different design. I think it was added later.

As for the ravelins, I suspect they were added at a later date too. The construction of the main fort is typical of the early response to artillery -- thick round towers, shortened to the height of the walls. Photos don't really show the ravelins that are present in the plan very well.

[fusilier]

When you're building ravelins around a star fort, is it important to block any shot an enemy might have at the curtain, or is it fine as long as the only shots the enemy will be able to get are at bad angles?

The concept of a "trace italienne" (aka star fort) is that the walls can be "swept" by fire from some other part of the fortress. The concern here is an infantry attack, and not a bombardment. Even if a breach has been made in the walls, any attacking force will be subject to enfilade fire. Which is why counterbattery fire was the first step before making a breach. The ravelin (and all other outworks) should have all their walls swept as well.

A ravelin does force the enemy "back" one level. They now have to take the outwork, before they can make an attempt on the main works. I'm not sure how important it is that they physically block bombardment of a wall, as it is that they provide another difficult obstacle to take.

Fortezza Firmafede actually predates that style of "star fort" (aka "trace italienne").

*Star fort is a popular but somewhat imprecise term. Historically the term often referred to a simpler style of fort that lacks bastions. The trace of the fort is literally like drawing a six-pointed star (or four or five), like the Star of David. These small star forts were usually constructed as part of siege works and were temporary. However, it is now common to call the larger forts with proper bastions (and optional ravelins, crownworks, etc.) "star forts" as well. Just be aware that in some contexts the term may not be accurate.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Even the "long nine" naval gun of three centuries later, a weapon noted for long range, would be hard-pressed to reach 7km.

Interestingly enough the general point made in that post still mostly stands: it can be a very costly mistake to try and ignore and avoid a fort. A castle or fortress is a place that projects power. 10 kilometers is outside of the range of their cannons, but not their cavalry, if they have any handy. Even if you feel like your pike squares, the terrain or whatever protect you from serious damage by the cavalry, it can still try to pin you down while the infantry and/or field artillery get in position.

This is one of the reasons forts on a hill are so nice, any troops projecting power onto nearby places get to have the high ground.

[Raunchel]

Interestingly enough the general point made in that post still mostly stands: it can be a very costly mistake to try and ignore and avoid a fort. A castle or fortress is a place that projects power. 10 kilometers is outside of the range of their cannons, but not their cavalry, if they have any handy. Even if you feel like your pike squares, the terrain or whatever protect you from serious damage by the cavalry, it can still try to pin you down while the infantry and/or field artillery get in position.

This is one of the reasons forts on a hill are so nice, any troops projecting power onto nearby places get to have the high ground.

That, and they don't have to go after your main army. Even a few dozen cavalry can do a lot of damage to your foraging parties, supply lines, and things like that. And usually, there won't just be one fortification. There will be dozens all over the place, all capable of sending out raiders to make life very hard for an army that would typically be one step away from starvation anyways.

[Maat Mons]

Looking at images of Fort Bourtange, I see that the main “wall” wasn’t faced with anything, and instead was basically a steep hill. How common was that in star fort design? I’m specifically talking about the innermost defenses, the… scarp? I think it’s called? Not the outer defenses, the glacis, which I understand would not have had any facing on the outward side. I assume this was a cost-saving measure. How much would it reduce the cost of building and then maintaining the fortification? How tall and steep can an unfaced earthen structure be before mudslides become a real concern? How much defense does this sacrifice relative to a steeper, faced structure?

[fusilier]

Looking at images of Fort Bourtange, I see that the main “wall” wasn’t faced with anything, and instead was basically a steep hill. How common was that in star fort design? I’m specifically talking about the innermost defenses, the… scarp? I think it’s called? Not the outer defenses, the glacis, which I understand would not have had any facing on the outward side. I assume this was a cost-saving measure. How much would it reduce the cost of building and then maintaining the fortification? How tall and steep can an unfaced earthen structure be before mudslides become a real concern? How much defense does this sacrifice relative to a steeper, faced structure?

The scarp is the wall of the ditch on the inside edge (the outer edge of the wall would sit on this). However, some diagrams show this as one uninterrupted wall, so it's possible the scarp can refer to both? I'll need to check my sources.

Earthworks were very common. Often temporary, but if the earth was good, and you get sod to grow on it, then it would be relatively permanent. Cheaper to build and easier to repair than brick or masonry, but erosion is a potential issue.

The ability to absorb damage is just as good, and it doesn't tend to "spill out" like when the outer shell of masonry walls are breached. If I recall correctly, some military authorities actually thought earth was preferable, as it was harder to make a "practicable" breach in the walls. But that has to be balanced with maintenance over time for a permanent work, plus other factors.

[fusilier]

Looking at images of Fort Bourtange, I see that the main “wall” wasn’t faced with anything, and instead was basically a steep hill. How common was that in star fort design? I’m specifically talking about the innermost defenses, the… scarp? I think it’s called? Not the outer defenses, the glacis, which I understand would not have had any facing on the outward side. I assume this was a cost-saving measure. How much would it reduce the cost of building and then maintaining the fortification? How tall and steep can an unfaced earthen structure be before mudslides become a real concern? How much defense does this sacrifice relative to a steeper, faced structure?

I did find a nineteenth century manual, although its focus is on fieldworks, and not permanent works (I suspect many principles apply):

1. The exterior of the wall is often referred to as the "exterior slope". There is a "berm" that separates the exterior slope from the scarp. But once the work has had a few days to settle the berm can be cut away.

2. The exterior slope is 45 degrees as this is the angle that unpacked earth will naturally form. (I don't know if for a more permanent work they could pack it more steeply. I will look at other sources, but suspect 45 degrees was considered good).

3. As its cut out of live earth, the ditch could have steeper walls. Depending upon how deep, and the nature of the earth: the counterscarp, which doesn't have to support the weight of the wall, could be nearly vertical, otherwise a ratio of height to base of 4-to-1 to 1-to-1.

[oudeis]

How often have actual suicide missions happened in history? They are a staple of fantasy and pop sci-fi, but are there recorded instances where troops were knowingly ordered into an action that would result in their annihilation? I'm thinking particularly of a scenario like Hurin's Last Stand in The Silmarillion, when the entire army of the Men of Dor-Lomin died to allow the Elves of Gondolin to escape, or the end of Myth: The Fallen Lords where the Hero-King Alric sends his army to their death to draw the sorceror Balor into a trap. The Kamikaze attkcs on the US Navy in WW2 are an obvious example, but are there others?

[Thane of Fife]

How often have actual suicide missions happened in history?

Look up the Forlorn Hope page on Wikipedia, which is the name that was commonly given to especially dangerous military missions.

That said, stories tend to make battles more dangerous than they actually were. For example, the Maryland 400 were a small unit of men in the Battle of Long Island who launched repeated charges against much larger numbers of British in strong positions in order to serve as a rearguard, and the casualty rate appears to be "only" about 2/3, with most of the rest being captured. Of course, 2/3 is an incredibly high casualty rate for a real action.

So if your idea of a suicide mission is something where everyone was expected to actually die, that probably didn't happen much. If you would interpret it as a mission that was hideously dangerous, where the unit would probably be destroyed, that's probably not too uncommon.

[Grim Portent]

Would Thermopylae comes to mind. Rearguard delaying action, 1000-2500-ish on the Greek side against at least 120000 Persians, near total annihilation.

Rearguards covering retreats are probably a good place to start in general.

[Maat Mons]

I'm told the Russian military has a long tradition of "penal units," units formed specifically to take on only the most dangerous missions, and formed exclusively from soldiers who had committed some sort of major infraction. On the plus side, if a soldier survived a certain number of missions in the penal unit, they could apparently earn their way out of it and back into a regular unit.

[GeoffWatson]

Would Thermopylae comes to mind. Rearguard delaying action, 1000-2500-ish on the Greek side against at least 120000 Persians, near total annihilation.

Rearguards covering retreats are probably a good place to start in general.

They expected to win at Thermopylae - the narrow pass was suited to Greek phalanx battle style (there were more like 7000) and the Persians couldn't use their superior numbers (or cavalry) effectively.

[fusilier]

Would Thermopylae comes to mind. Rearguard delaying action, 1000-2500-ish on the Greek side against at least 120000 Persians, near total annihilation.

Rearguards covering retreats are probably a good place to start in general.

In that vain, would the charge of the 1st Minnesota at the Battle of Gettysburg qualify?

[Grim Portent]

They expected to win at Thermopylae - the narrow pass was suited to Greek phalanx battle style (there were more like 7000) and the Persians couldn't use their superior numbers (or cavalry) effectively.

Wasn't the 7000 the original plan, not the rearguard that got left behind when the bulk of the army decided to withdraw?

My understanding is that they went to Therompylae with the intent of fighting the decisive battle there, changed their minds, left a portion of their men behind to slow the Persians down and left to sort something else out.

[Maat Mons]

My impression, though I could easily be wrong, is that it wasn't so much an agreement by the city-states that the bulk of the force should retreat while some stayed behind to cover them, but rather a lack of agreement by the city-states on what they ought to do. The ones who left were the ones who felt it was ill-advised to remain, and the ones who remained either felt they could win, or were too prideful to retreat. I suspect those who remained took a rather negative view of those who left, instead of viewing a partial retreat with some men remaining as a sound military strategy.

[Gnoman]

How often have actual suicide missions happened in history? They are a staple of fantasy and pop sci-fi, but are there recorded instances where troops were knowingly ordered into an action that would result in their annihilation? I'm thinking particularly of a scenario like Hurin's Last Stand in The Silmarillion, when the entire army of the Men of Dor-Lomin died to allow the Elves of Gondolin to escape, or the end of Myth: The Fallen Lords where the Hero-King Alric sends his army to their death to draw the sorceror Balor into a trap. The Kamikaze attkcs on the US Navy in WW2 are an obvious example, but are there others?

The issue with this question is that it can cover a number of situations.

The most obvious is the last stand - choosing to stand and die rather than surrender or retreat. This is rarely done for no reason - sometimes you don't trust the enemy to take prisoners, sometimes you're trading lives for time, sometimes you're just too proud and stubborn to quit.

Examples of this are common in history, but all have the common denominator that nobody sat down and planned for it to happen. It is forced on the people involved because of a defeat, or a screwup, or bad luck. Examples of this in history are Thermopylae (not intended as a to-the-last-man stand, but things didn't work out as planned), Taffey 3 in the Battle Of Samar during WW2, the Papal Guard in the 1527 Sack of Rome, dozens of Medal of Honor winners, and forgotten rearguard actions since the dawn of war.


The second, also quite common, is the very risky operation that Has To Be Done. These are done deliberately in the knowledge that losses will (or might) be heavy, but the risk is judged to be worth the price. Easy examples of this are the Forlorn Hope already mentioned, the Confederate submarine Hunley, French Infiltrators and German Stormtroopers in WWI, the Gallipoli landings in that same war, and the Inchon invasion in Korea. Note that this is preferentially not suicidal, and commanders are delighted if they get an appreciable number of men back.

Much rarer are missions where the people involved set out to die. It happens from time to time that a weaker party is desperate for anything that can hurt the enemy - kamikazes/kaitens/"baka" bombs in WW2 and terrorist people bombs in the modern era are the obvious examples. More rarely, people who can't bear to admit they've lost for one reason or another will choose to charge out and die instead. The most famous example of this is the fate of the battleship Yamato - they had no chance of stopping the American advance, or even slowing it in the slightest. They knew this, beyond all doubt, and attacked anyway because they preferred to die fighting.

The absolute rarest of all, though a staple of fiction, is sending men to their near-certain deaths to decisively shift a war with a single stroke. This is extremely rare in real life because there are very few circumstances where such a suicide strike can work - real life doesn't have Load Bearing Bosses or other single points of failure. The closest I can think of is another WWII example - Operation CHASTISE. It was known that the dams in the Ruhr valley were incredibly well defended and that the attack profile necessitated by the bouncing bombs would leave the planes horrifically vulnerable, but they were sent in anyway because RAF planners hoped that taking out the dams would cripple German industry enough to either drastically shorten the war or outright win it in an evening. It didn't work.

[GloatingSwine]

Operation Chariot/the St. Nazaire raid is probably a better WW2 example.

It was an attack to disable the drydock at St. Nazaire (the only one big enough for the Tirpitz on the French coast) which was expected to be an extremely high risk operation (When you stuff a Destroyer full of enough high explosive to destroy a drydock there tend to be risks, as it was over half the men who set out were captured or killed).

There's also the French forces who stood and fought off the German advance so that the evacuations at Dunkirk could be completed.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Earthworks were very common. ... The ability to absorb damage is just as good,

Better even! Or, more accurately, stacking large enough amounts of earth together to stop cannonballs was a thing people can afford, producing a brick wall thick enough for that was not.

Bourtange and basically every other "vesting" (walled town to small city) in the Netherlands* are from a period/school where earth was the material of choice because stone walls just wouldn't work. Later forts in places like Italy would find a way to make stone work: just cut the entire fort out of solid bedrock. This style of polygonal forts made the walls nearly indestructible while also allowing for the walls to be steep and difficult to climb, giving them the best of both worlds. Cutting things from bedrock isn't an option in the Netherlands for a lack of bedrock**, so over here even our WW2 era defenses look largely like mounts if dirt. Places like Fort Vechten.

There are a few things you can do to make it not just earth:
1 Add a steep brick outer wall. This can be shot up, but as long as it isn't shot up it's a steep brick wall, so the enemy has a lot of shooting to do if they want to make every part of your fort just as climmable as regular earthworks. If they make just one or two breaches you just assign those places some extra defenders.
2 Add brick buildings like barracks and munition storage inside of the earth walls. Now your buildings are supremely protected by a thick earthen roof and walls, you need less space for buildings in your fort, allowing for it to be smaller, and you even need less earth to make a certain size wall.
3 If you're preparing for WW2, add some standard concrete bunkers on top of the existing fort. It doesn't provide protection to the whole fort, but at least you have some extra protection for active defenders and people on watch.

Permanent earth forts and defenses were very much a thing in Europe.

*There were and are lots of smaller forts in this style too, and larger lines made up of these forts and towns, for instance the water lines and the defenses around Amsterdam, but the vestingen make for the best example.

**The few places that have bedrock near the surface consist mostly of pretty soft rock types, so even those aren't great.

[Raunchel]

Operation Chariot/the St. Nazaire raid is probably a better WW2 example.

It was an attack to disable the drydock at St. Nazaire (the only one big enough for the Tirpitz on the French coast) which was expected to be an extremely high risk operation (When you stuff a Destroyer full of enough high explosive to destroy a drydock there tend to be risks, as it was over half the men who set out were captured or killed).

There's also the French forces who stood and fought off the German advance so that the evacuations at Dunkirk could be completed.

And even Chariot and Chastise (is there something about very dangerous missions using 'cha' is the first part of the name? Does that mean that if anyone ever suggest something like Operation Charmander I should run away screaming?) didn't suffer total casualties. In fact, they didn't even have have the involved soldiers killed which probably has them beat some front line units at Verdun or the like.

Generally speaking, if you take a group of people and tell them that they're going on some mission that will most likely see all of them die, they will say no. And the problem with a group of soldiers saying no is that that's the sort of thing that can very quickly end with dead generals and a whole army falling apart. So as a prepared mission, it just doesn't work. It can easily work as a spur of the moment thing (especially in naval warfare where most sailors have no clue of what's going on) or as a failure state (cut off by the enemy and not one you can really surrender to at that). You of course also have the situations where there are two possible outcomes. Something works and almost everyone survives to be given medals and the like or there are high casualties. But that's many military operations.

And then there is the difficulty that Gnoman also mentioned. There aren't many situations where a small group of soldiers can have a war-altering impact. The scale of things is just too great. Objectives that can be achieved by small groups tend to require pretty good intelligence (say, you want to kidnap the enemy head honcho while disguised as a group of nuns) but such critical people and installations tend to be pretty well-protected.

One example that might work was in the Cold War. NATO frontline troops were basically expected to face mass casualties as they faced the full force of the WP. So especially the first units would probably be annihilated. I however wouldn't count that because they weren't special raiders that were sent in or the like. They were just ordinary soldiers facing pretty steep odds. Perhaps the planned Spetznaz operations might have counted though because they were going to be parachuted in, behind enemy lines, and just hoping for relief. That said, they were still hoping for relief and not expecting to all die. And, of course, as soon as they found out about that relief not coming for them, many units might well have surrendered.

[halfeye]

In fact, they didn't even have have the involved soldiers killed which probably has them beat some front line units at Verdun or the like.

WW1 was exceptionally brutal, i can't understand how French and Haig got away with it.


Generally speaking, if you take a group of people and tell them that they're going on some mission that will most likely see all of them die, they will say no.

Decimation, loss of one tenth of the personnel in one day, is said to be the end of a military unit's fighting potential.


And then there is the difficulty that Gnoman also mentioned. There aren't many situations where a small group of soldiers can have a war-altering impact. The scale of things is just too great. Objectives that can be achieved by small groups tend to require pretty good intelligence (say, you want to kidnap the enemy head honcho while disguised as a group of nuns) but such critical people and installations tend to be pretty well-protected.

The assassination of Yamamoto in WW2 is one of the rare examples of that happening, I'm not at all sure that it advanced the allied war effort, and I don't think the Americans took heavy losses doing it.


One example that might work was in the Cold War. NATO frontline troops were basically expected to face mass casualties as they faced the full force of the WP. So especially the first units would probably be annihilated. I however wouldn't count that because they weren't special raiders that were sent in or the like. They were just ordinary soldiers facing pretty steep odds.

Defence seems likely to require less morale than attack.


Perhaps the planned Spetznaz operations might have counted though because they were going to be parachuted in, behind enemy lines, and just hoping for relief. That said, they were still hoping for relief and not expecting to all die. And, of course, as soon as they found out about that relief not coming for them, many units might well have surrendered.

Spetznaz from the NATO side? surely they'd be called commandos?

Market Garden sounds like one of these, the far bridge anyway.

[Gnoman]

WW1 was exceptionally brutal, i can't understand how French and Haig got away with it.

The common picture of WWI generals in general and Haig in particular as idiot butchers is outdated. They were constantly trying to find ways to break the stalemate, most of which looked really good on paper but wound up having unforeseen drawbacks. The incredible casualty rates were a function of the unprecedented scale of the conflict (nobody had ever thrown anywhere near as many men into a fight) and the breakneck advancement of killing technology since the last major war. They "got away with it" because the alternative was outright defeat - which risked consequences far worse than mere casualties.

[halfeye]

The common picture of WWI generals in general and Haig in particular as idiot butchers is outdated. They were constantly trying to find ways to break the stalemate, most of which looked really good on paper but wound up having unforeseen drawbacks. The incredible casualty rates were a function of the unprecedented scale of the conflict (nobody had ever thrown anywhere near as many men into a fight) and the breakneck advancement of killing technology since the last major war. They "got away with it" because the alternative was outright defeat - which risked consequences far worse than mere casualties.

What consequences could possibly be worse than multi-million deaths?

[fusilier]

Permanent earth forts and defenses were very much a thing in Europe.

I guess that depends a bit on the definition of permanent? I'm not sure how common it was to use unfaced earth in what was expected to be a permanent work (or in a work that was actually permanent).

I just checked the section on the Dutch Revolt in Christopher Duffy's Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World, 1494–1660, and he mentions that the Dutch were fond of making huge complicated earthwork fortifications. Cheap and easy to throw up, the problem was that they immediately began deteriorating. Even a few months after construction major fortresses needed significant manpower to repair them. Many (if not most) no longer exist for this reason. They were either replaced by brick/masonry, or simply left to "melt" into the landscape.

Making the wall (aka rampart) of earth with a masonry shell was a standard practice for a permanent "trace italienne" (I think even the old, tall medieval walls were filled with rubble?). But the masonry fortresses were expensive. Another option was to use earth to fortify an existing (old fashioned) city wall. Either by working the wall directly into the earthwork, or by placing an earthwork farther out (or some combination). These were temporary by nature, and in some cases helped preserve the old medieval walls. You can see an example of this in the painting of the siege of Florence 1529-30:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Florence_(1529–1530)

[gbaji]

The common picture of WWI generals in general and Haig in particular as idiot butchers is outdated. They were constantly trying to find ways to break the stalemate, most of which looked really good on paper but wound up having unforeseen drawbacks. The incredible casualty rates were a function of the unprecedented scale of the conflict (nobody had ever thrown anywhere near as many men into a fight) and the breakneck advancement of killing technology since the last major war. They "got away with it" because the alternative was outright defeat - which risked consequences far worse than mere casualties.

It was honestly worse than that IMO. WW1 was basically this absurdly perfect combination of specific technologies developing "just enough" to weigh things in particular ways that lead to stalemate, but "not enough" to end it. Air power was "just enough" advanced to allow a high degree of battlefield knowledge, but "not enough" to be used effectively on offense. This meant that both sides could see exactly where the other side was massing troops, well in advance of those troops actually getting where they were going. Telecommunications had developed "just enough" to send effective and fast communications (like say from the airdomes where the planes returned from scouting the front), but "not enough" to allow fully mobilized communication. This meant that you could react and block enemy movements very effectively as long as you were chained to a telegraph line or other source of communication. Units off "on their own" could be spotted and destroyed easily, so everyone just formed up into longer and longer lines of battle with neither side being able to "break though". And yeah, ground weaponry had advanced "just enough" to be ridiculously powerful when fixed in position, but "not enough" to be mobile (whether we're talking about machine guns, tanks (more or less a non-factor at this point), or artillery). Every single thing in that period leaned things heavily in the "guy standing his ground wins" direction.

Fast forward a couple decades and every one of those technologies developed further, creating (arguably requireing) a far more mobile use of military forces. So yeah, it's easy to look at the horrible decisions made in some of the WW1 battles, with the benefit of hindsight. But at the time, they didn't know just how futile some of these attempts would actually be. So you really can't blame them for trying. And yeah, I suppose there's also that truism that wars are fought with today's weapons, but using the tactics and assumptions developed in the last war. They were at least trying new things. Just didn't always work well.

[Mechalich]

Fast forward a couple decades and every one of those technologies developed further, creating (arguably requireing) a far more mobile use of military forces. So yeah, it's easy to look at the horrible decisions made in some of the WW1 battles, with the benefit of hindsight. But at the time, they didn't know just how futile some of these attempts would actually be. So you really can't blame them for trying. And yeah, I suppose there's also that truism that wars are fought with today's weapons, but using the tactics and assumptions developed in the last war. They were at least trying new things. Just didn't always work well.

Forces also just became more mobile in and of themselves. WWI land transport relied on railroads, which follow fixed routes that have to be laid in advance. WWII land transport utilized trucks and tracked vehicles which had much greater flexibility to either use extensive road networks or just off-road to wherever they wished. Airborne deployment and supply also became a functional option by the end of the war, at least for forces that had air superiority.

[snowblizz]

(I think even the old, tall medieval walls were filled with rubble?).

That was certainly done in some cases. It all depended on the materials available locally and how much time and money you were investing in the wall.

The Chinese built a lot of walls this way too. E.g. the oldest parts of what isn't actually just one wall system in the Great Wall of China was tamped down earth with various shrubbery (am sure nice ones) throw in to help bind it. Some of these out in the Taklamakan desert (or something like that, my memory on where isn't exactly pristine) still exists.

[Vinyadan]

Why is a pelte crescent-shaped? Is there a specific tactical reason to have a large section missing, or is it just to reduce weight, or is it some sort of byproduct of the way it's made? The explanation that came to my mind was that it might interfere less with the motion of the off-arm when throwing, but I'm not personally familiar with either javelin throwing or the ergonomics of shield use, so I might be imagining something.


Not having used one, so many grains of salt required.
1) reduction in weight plus easier to handle in rough terrain. That only explains why its a smaller shield, not the exact shape.
2) Peltasts fought in melee with spears as their main weapon, and their main opponents were other spear armed foes. With a side on stance the pelta shield gives coverage to the most exposed left hand side of the body and allows the right arm to manipulated a spear freely. It also allows the person to their left to cover the right side of their body when fighting in formations.
My assumption has always been the shape was more designed for melee considerations than throwing javelins/defending against missiles generally.
I know some turkic cavalry shields were crescent shaped, but in that situation it has normally been explained as a consideration for holding the reins.

I have seen the same question asked about a kind of Classical Greek shield (https://www.penn.museum/collections/object_images.php?irn=17148#image2), somewhat similar to the Mycenean figure-of-eight shield often seen on vases. The purpose of the empty spaces is far from clear there, too. Some have thought it could be to let the spear through, but it's far from certain. Some even tried to explain their presence in images as a more "heroic" defensive weapon that the round shield, but that also doesn't really hold when compared to evidence.

About the pelta, I have found some images of pelta-equipped Amazons on vases. (Photos not by me) What I find interesting is that the middle of the inner arc seems to develop in an outward spike. It's not very noticeable and even doubtful here (https://www.deviantart.com/svetbird1234/art/Amazon-in-Greek-Armour-Lekythos-III-Detail-988477193), but it's very clear here (https://www.deviantart.com/svetbird1234/art/HYDRIA-With-Amazonomachy-I-971390998). Amazons are generally depicted in Skythian clothing, which is why they often wear decorated, very tight pants. Skythian warriors (https://quatr.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/persianberlin.jpg) are generally depicted wearing similar clothes, a bow, a quiver hung at the waist, a sagaris, and a crescent-shaped pelta.

Both Skythians and Amazons were considered horse-riding nomads, with a famous description of a Persian emperor trying to subjugate the Skythians, only for them to avoid him by moving farther and farther away in their endless plains, until he had to go back.

Now, this is just my hypothesis, but I suspect that the moon-shaped pelta having something to do with reins might be the right answer. I didn't look up where it was produced, but Greeks occasionally adopting the shield because they bought it somewhere north or because they simply reproduced the construction technique seems possible. And there were a lot of foreigners moving around the Greek world, with the Ionian cities facing the Persians and the Cimmerians.

This brings me back to the eight-shaped-shield. As it turns out, the Persians, originally a nomadic people of horse-riders, also used them (https://www.livius.org/pictures/iran/persepolis/persepolis-apadana/persepolis-apadana-east-stairs/persepolis-apadana-east-stairs-central-frieze-1/). Maybe they simply were built the same way as the peltas, maybe they were a consideration for using reins, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Greeks imported them from the East. There was a whole era called the Orientalising Period about Eastern cultural motifs making their way into Greek art, and I wouldn't be surprised if some weapon models had also been imported.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I guess that depends a bit on the definition of permanent? I'm not sure how common it was to use unfaced earth in what was expected to be a permanent work (or in a work that was actually permanent).

I just checked the section on the Dutch Revolt in Christopher Duffy's Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World, 1494–1660, and he mentions that the Dutch were fond of making huge complicated earthwork fortifications. Cheap and easy to throw up, the problem was that they immediately began deteriorating. Even a few months after construction major fortresses needed significant manpower to repair them. Many (if not most) no longer exist for this reason. They were either replaced by brick/masonry, or simply left to "melt" into the landscape.

Making the wall (aka rampart) of earth with a masonry shell was a standard practice for a permanent "trace italienne" (I think even the old, tall medieval walls were filled with rubble?). But the masonry fortresses were expensive. Another option was to use earth to fortify an existing (old fashioned) city wall. Either by working the wall directly into the earthwork, or by placing an earthwork farther out (or some combination). These were temporary by nature, and in some cases helped preserve the old medieval walls. You can see an example of this in the painting of the siege of Florence 1529-30:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Florence_(1529–1530)

I was going to give loads of examples, but I figure we're actually in agreement here. Parts of these forts are often masonry. Can be a steep outer wall, a dam to keep the moat wet, barracks inside the earth walls, but most of the cannon ball stopping power is still provided by the tons of dirt. I counted that as permanent earthworks. Although it may or may not be the right term.

I mean, not a historian, but just looking at these things they're pretty green.

https://forten.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Luchtfoto-bewerkt.jpg

[fusilier]

I was going to give loads of examples, but I figure we're actually in agreement here. Parts of these forts are often masonry. Can be a steep outer wall, a dam to keep the moat wet, barracks inside the earth walls, but most of the cannon ball stopping power is still provided by the tons of dirt. I counted that as permanent earthworks. Although it may or may not be the right term.

I mean, not a historian, but just looking at these things they're pretty green.

https://forten.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Luchtfoto-bewerkt.jpg

Yeah, there may very well be more of these than I realized, I fully admit that. As I mentioned if you can get sod to take on them, that will do a lot to reduce erosion, and maybe many were retained as permanent that way. It looks like it's being well maintained as a park now.

As you say it's the earth that gives most of the resistance. Typically masonry versions of these forts have earth in between the walls, but all the surfaces are faced in stone or brick (which might make them look like they're solid stone, but they're not). Initial cost is a lot greater but maintenance is much lower (erosion is much less of a factor). Some seacoast fortresses may have been made out of solid stone or brick (like Fort Sumter perhaps) but with a different plan.

[fusilier]

.
[image]

By the way, the image is of Heusden. The earthwork was built in 1613, but by the early 19th century had fallen into disrepair and had been dismantled. It was "restored" (carefully rebuilt) beginning in 1968. Some of the walls in this photo from 1960 still look in decent shape (others appear to be gone completely), although nothing as pleasant as today. Most of the outworks are missing and the moat looks like it could use cleaning. I wonder if the old walls were maintained to serve as a kind of levy?

http://hvdol.nl/database/images/luchtfotoHeu1960B.jpg

From here:
http://hvdol.nl/database/product_info.php?products_id=17825&osCsid=4b70e92cb6d689f023657dd0a512e869

While the caption says it's before the restoration, I notice that one of the bastions has earth piled up in it. Maybe restoration work of some sort had already started?

[Maat Mons]

Parts of that 1960’s pre-restoration photo look pretty decent for being 350 years old. I’m not sure what’s going on with the moat. Either it’s been silted in quite badly, or it’s in the process of being drained in preparation for some work.

[fusilier]

Parts of that 1960’s pre-restoration photo look pretty decent for being 350 years old. I’m not sure what’s going on with the moat. Either it’s been silted in quite badly, or it’s in the process of being drained in preparation for some work.

Just to be clear, there must have been some maintenance and upkeep done. I can't believe that those walls were made in 1613, then just left to weather! But even if upkeep had been stopped in the early 1800s, they look pretty good, which made me wonder if some of them were being maintained for some other reason.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'll admit that I picked this image pretty randomly, or, well, I googled a bit to find a nice green looking example. From what I can find Heusden was still actively being used in warfare at least around 1800, the Napoleonic era.

It was part of the southern waterline. Elements of the western part of this line stayed in official use until 1953, google tells me, as a continuation of the new Holland waterline and part of "fort Holland", and some parts were even still upgraded around 1930. I don't know if Heusden was one of these elements, but it does sit around the most eastern point of this western section.

https://forten.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/liniekaart_NL-01-910x1024.jpg

The only thing I can find about its WW2 history is that retreating Germans eventually blew up the highest buildings to prevent them from being used as watchposts, but that wouldn't really have been a thing because of any fortifications. You can blow up a church tower anywhere for that reason. So... anywhere between 160 and 7 years of disrepair on that 1960 photo. Probably not 7.

Note about that image: it shows inundations, places that were flooded during wartime as giant muddy moats. But this many would never have been flooded at the same time. It for instance shows both the old and new Holland waterline, passing west and east of Utrecht (the city, not the province) respectively. The new one was a very deliberate replacement of the old one, a reaction to longer ranging artillery, they would not have been flooded together.

(Fun fact: the only tank the Netherlands procured before WW2 was one of the WW1 model Renault FT tanks. (Awesome design for its time, but very underpowered in every way by WW2 standards.) They bought it for training purposes, ending up driving it into some part of a waterline and concluding "it's very stuck in the mud now, we're safe". While that conclusion may not in fact have been too far off reality, a giant open plane of water and mud is not ideal tank territory, I still feel the limited scope of testing here shows an underestimation of the tank as a weapon system.)

Editorial note: this is a phone post. I already found and corrected several horribly mangled words, but there are bound to be more.

[Berenger]

What consequences could possibly be worse than multi-million deaths?

Please note that I try to avoid historical examples, so this isn't tied to any specific era, nation or conflict. I also try to answer from the perspective of wartime decision-makers and warring societies as a whole, rather than from an individualistic, humanitarian point of view.

Even if mass killings, displacement, torture, enslavement or the loss of indispensable human and civil rights are not to be expected after a surrender, complete military defeat (let alone occupation by a foreign power) equals near-total loss of control. This has a sudden and unpredictable impact on the political, military, legal and economic (and sometimes cultural and religious) order of a society. Such impacts can be more drastic and more permanent than even great loss of resources and human life, so these are sacrificed in an attempt to prevent the feared collapse of social norms and values as well as the loss of collective and individual identities.

[Raunchel]

What consequences could possibly be worse than multi-million deaths?

To know that, look at what happened to the losers of the war. You can see a pretty big impact on those societies. And that was with their enemies also exhausted. A more complete defeat would have seen them push harder. It's also important to know that generals and politicians are people and because of that, they look at their own positions. And no one is going to survive a major defeat like that. Definitely not in their positions and there even is a good chance of outright death and loss of wealth and property that would otherwise have gone to their children.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

One thing I only just noticed about Heusden, after remembering looking up some stuff (on the Dutch Wikipedia) I remembered having heard of: it is very much an "oud-Nederlands vestingstelsel" design. Around 1685 there was a rethink of how these fortifications should be done. In this new style you often see large bastions with an arrow shape, built-in firing slits/grooves/casemates for the cannons and often a steep stone finish as the outer wall. (So yes, I picked an old style example accidentally on purpose.) But the biggest difference might be the advice to limit the elements outside of the moat, typically having only a single "glacis" outside of the moat. These guidelines were never applied consistently across projects, every head engineer, mayor or officer probably had their own ideas, and you're still working with the local terrain. But I would still hazard a guess that Heusden hasn't seen a major refit after 1700. So while functional it wouldn't have been the flagship of the fortifications fleet around 1800.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Bastion_Coehoorn.svg/390px-Bastion_Coehoorn.svg.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Naarden_vesting-kazematten.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Glacis.png/330px-Glacis.png

It's not a foolproof method of identifying fortifications, Naarden for instance has been updated and is today seen as the best surviving example of the new system, but it still has a bunch of stuff in front of the main moat.

https://assets.citynavigator.nl/odp-ubase/image/gm-naarden-luchtfoto_1805403042.jpg

In later years more smaller forts were build rather than/in addition to these "vestingen", as part of (water) lines or as the defenses for cities too large to wall into a nice single vesting. Fort Ruigenhoek wasn't build until 1870. It still includes the earthen bullet stopper walls, although more stone is clearly visible here too.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Fort_Ruigenhoek_Informatiebord%281%29.jpg/1280px-Fort_Ruigenhoek_Informatiebord%281%29.jpg

[Martin Greywolf]

How often have actual suicide missions happened in history? They are a staple of fantasy and pop sci-fi, but are there recorded instances where troops were knowingly ordered into an action that would result in their annihilation? I'm thinking particularly of a scenario like Hurin's Last Stand in The Silmarillion, when the entire army of the Men of Dor-Lomin died to allow the Elves of Gondolin to escape, or the end of Myth: The Fallen Lords where the Hero-King Alric sends his army to their death to draw the sorceror Balor into a trap. The Kamikaze attkcs on the US Navy in WW2 are an obvious example, but are there others?

High and late medieval, you see a massive amount. The chivalric culture liked to hold up the people who did these things quite high up, and so did Islam. Ibn Battuta and Villani have very different chronicles, but one thing they have in common is praising courage in face of overwhelming odds, even if both of the authors aren't exactly keen to be the heroes in that regard.

These tend to be at a fairly low level, at most a wing of about a thousand strong attacking and being wiped out by a much stronger force, often when trying to break out of a bad position. You only rarely see kings and dukes do these but it does happen, the Crecy and the last charge of Czech king John the Blind (who was, well, blind at the time) comes to mind.


I guess that depends a bit on the definition of permanent? I'm not sure how common it was to use unfaced earth in what was expected to be a permanent work (or in a work that was actually permanent).

Universally applied over the entire continent, pretty much. You just need to think smaller: since we got rid of the oppidums of early medieval era, larger settlements and castles were made of stone or brick, but they were only a small portion of total fortified structures. Since about 1200s to early modern period, you get frequent mentions of woodwork or earthwork forts, from just a row of tree trunks serving as a pallisade to a village to wooden towers on small hills serving as lookouts.

https://c.pxhere.com/photos/7c/ec/bach_ritterburg_knight's_castle_castle_lower_needl e_middle_ages_wooden_castle_tower_kanzach-801038.jpg!d
Not sure about the varacity of this one, it looks about right when I compare it to the textual stuff I have, but the photo is... poorly described to say the least
Still, it does look right

https://slovenskycestovatel.sk/images/items/1799/stredoveka-dedina-paseka78108309.jpg

https://www.najkrajsikraj.sk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/vartovka.jpg

From textual sources, Carmen Miserabile describes Mongol invasion of Hungary and how every single one of the many settlements on Hungarian plain, protected by earthworks and only sometimes moats were exterminated. Villani's chronicles of Florence also frequently mention wood and earthworks being used to fortify mountain passes (sometimes permanently, or at least over several years), villages or temporary military camps. A whole slew of documents relating to municipal expenses of larger cities mention rebuilding their earthworks into proper stone walls.

And finally, many stone fortifications had one more ring made of wood or earthworks that was destroyed.

https://www.krasneslovensko.eu/imgtemp/b0efef90832.jpg

You tend not to see a lot of them because they were destroyed or decayed, and you don't hear about them in major chronicles because they aren't very exciting. You need to go fairly close to the ground, to accounts by people actually there, e.g. Villani and Rogerius, or to financial reports to hear about them.

[Sapphire Guard]

British WW1 casualties were not notably worse than anyone else, it's just that a generation of young people wrote about their experiences in English, so they're most well known.

[halfeye]

British WW1 casualties were not notably worse than anyone else, it's just that a generation of young people wrote about their experiences in English, so they're most well known.

Absolutely right, the losses overall were horrendous almost all around. "All quiet on the Western front" is a quote of a German headline on a particular, possibly fictitious but representative day, when 37,000 germans died on that front. Soldiers died all over of their commander's stupidity in that war.

[Mechalich]

Absolutely right, the losses overall were horrendous almost all around. "All quiet on the Western front" is a quote of a German headline on a particular, possibly fictitious but representative day, when 37,000 germans died on that front. Soldiers died all over of their commander's stupidity in that war.

That number is certainly fictitious. Germany was engaged in WWI for ~1500 days and suffered ~2,000,000 total deaths (twice that wounded). The average German daily death toll was ~1350. While this obviously did not occur evenly, any day that saw 37,000 deaths would represent a massive battle with hideous losses. For comparison, German casualties (killed and wounded) for July 1-10, 1916 - the initial ten days of the Somme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_day_on_the_Somme) - were only 46,319.

[fusilier]

One thing I only just noticed about Heusden, after remembering looking up some stuff (on the Dutch Wikipedia) I remembered having heard of: it is very much an "oud-Nederlands vestingstelsel" design. Around 1685 there was a rethink of how these fortifications should be done. In this new style you often see large bastions with an arrow shape, built-in firing slits/grooves/casemates for the cannons often a steep stone finish as the outer wall. (So yes, I picked an old style example accidentally on purpose.) But the biggest difference might be the advice to limit the elements outside of the moat, typically having only a single "glacis" outside of the moat. These guidelines were never applied consistently across projects, every head engineer, mayor or officer probably had their own ideas, and you're still working with the local terrain. But I would still hazard a guess that Heusden hasn't seen a major refit after 1700. So while functional it wouldn't have been the flagship of the fortifications fleet around 1800.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Bastion_Coehoorn.svg/390px-Bastion_Coehoorn.svg.png

That's called a "retired flank" (or "orillon"). Cannons mounted on the flanks of the bastion are critical for sweeping the moats, and therefore any assault against the walls. A besieger would usually target those cannons with their own artillery, to destroy them before any attack. The retired flank helped protect those cannons in the flank from enemy batteries. Retired flanks had been developed in the early 16th century (Forte Sangallo, built 1501-03, well before 1685*, may be the first?) -- but something has to be understood about the trace italienne system of fortification . . .

It consists of a large collection of features that interact with each other with a mathematical foundation: nobody used all of the features at the same time!! There's a fundamental structure the basic shape of the walls and bastions (aka their "trace", which results in what is nowadays often referred to as a "star fort" (but historically this was something different).

Outside of those basics, there quickly developed a bewildering array of outworks and modifications/variations. There are retired flanks, and even double retired flanks. Ravelins could be augmented by lunettes, and/or bonettes, or tanaillons; ravelins could be flanked or unflanked; a redoubt could be put into a ravelin; and that's not getting into the crownworks, hornworks, etc. (or should I say ad nauseam!) But there was still a mathematical design to how they worked and interacted with the main fortress walls.

The engineer had plenty of options to choose from, and may be influenced by local conditions, adding extra pieces to reinforce a particular vulnerable or important location. Or to allow the work to extend to cover some other important place that could not fit in the neat geometry of the basic design, which was, ideally, a regular polygon. (or would require a prohibitively large main work).

Retired flanks seem more common on masonry/brick works, than the pure earthwork style. And by the 19th century you can find plenty of works lacking them. The design of such forts in the American Civil War era, for example, generally just seem to follow the basics.

It's been a while since I've studied such fortresses and I'm sure there are details I've forgotten, but I did go through the exercise of the geometry of laying out a trace of a couple of different "bastioned forts", as they were called, on paper.

The aforementioned Siege Warfare, by Christopher Duffy, covers the development of the "trace italienne" in good detail.

Fortress, by Ian V. Hogg, is more of a general historical overview, but has an entire chapter dedicated to the "Drawing Board Approach", which explains this style very well.

Both works are a bit dated, but probably serve well for introductions, especially to the general development and approach of fortress construction.

*The date, 1685, makes me think it could be a reference to Vauban. Vauban's works on fortresses really just provide a synthesis of ideas that had been developed long before, but his systematic approach may have encouraged new works to use variants that had been overlooked in earlier fortifications. Although on further investigation, the illustration refers to Coehorn's second method, who seemed to have adopted a particularly deeply retired flank.

[halfeye]

That number is certainly fictitious. Germany was engaged in WWI for ~1500 days and suffered ~2,000,000 total deaths (twice that wounded). The average German daily death toll was ~1350. While this obviously did not occur evenly, any day that saw 37,000 deaths would represent a massive battle with hideous losses. For comparison, German casualties (killed and wounded) for July 1-10, 1916 - the initial ten days of the Somme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_day_on_the_Somme) - were only 46,319.

The German was apparently "Im Westen nichts Neues" it was a book, and that's all of it that I remember.

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

It was supposed to be late in the war, and maybe retreats weren't headlined, but anyway, it was a non-english anti-war book.

[Sapphire Guard]

Most likely that was casualties, which include dead, wounded, prisoners and missing. Casualty information is hard to collect, , reliable figures are never that precise.

There were alot of WW1 casualties, but that doesn't mean the commanders were necessarily awful, it's just that what they were trying to do was hard. There's kind of a meme that assumes the COs were General Melchett, but the truth is far more complicated.

[halfeye]

There were alot of WW1 casualties, but that doesn't mean the commanders were necessarily awful, it's just that what they were trying to do was hard. There's kind of a meme that assumes the COs were General Melchett, but the truth is far more complicated.

Haig was a cavalry man, and wanted a breakthrough that cavalry could exploit. With opposition of machine guns and artillery that wasn't going to happen.

Attrition was a policy of military despair, which meant throwing away allied lives, in the hope that they'd take enough lives from the Germans and their allies (what was the name for that side as a whole?) that the bigger population would win. That was stupid, and the politicians backed it, but how they thought that was right I can't imagine. Britain was not at serious risk of invasion at any point in WW1.

[Maat Mons]

I did go through the exercise of the geometry of laying out a trace of a couple of different "bastioned forts", as they were called, on paper.

Since you have some experience working through this, maybe you'd like to weigh in on a thought experiment of mine. I've been trying to design a good bastion fort using only angles that are integer multiples of 45°. How would you approach such a thing?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Since you have some experience working through this, maybe you'd like to weigh in on a thought experiment of mine. I've been trying to design a good bastion fort using only angles that are integer multiples of 45°. How would you approach such a thing?

8 sided star? Add some indentations between the points to make them look more like bastions. The ravelins in front of the indentations will look pretty funky though. If you're happy with just four points the ravelins will probably look a bit better,

Honestly I feel like the general design works best with 6 points though, so 45 degree angles is just kind of tough.

(I'll try a little sketch when I'm home later.)

[GeoffWatson]

The common picture of WWI generals in general and Haig in particular as idiot butchers is outdated. They were constantly trying to find ways to break the stalemate, most of which looked really good on paper but wound up having unforeseen drawbacks. The incredible casualty rates were a function of the unprecedented scale of the conflict (nobody had ever thrown anywhere near as many men into a fight) and the breakneck advancement of killing technology since the last major war. They "got away with it" because the alternative was outright defeat - which risked consequences far worse than mere casualties.

Here's a blog series on why the WWI trench stalemate was so awful.

https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/

[Grim Portent]

Attrition was a policy of military despair, which meant throwing away allied lives, in the hope that they'd take enough lives from the Germans and their allies (what was the name for that side as a whole?)

Britain/France/Russia were the Triple Entente in WWI. Germany/Austria-Hungary were the Triple Alliance.

The names originate from the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France, the Franco-Russian Alliance, and the Anglo-Russian Entente, which put the centuries old rivalry between the three countries to bed and created an informal political bloc opposed to central European powers.

Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary had a defensive alliance, making them formal allies. Italy skipped out on the war at first because they didn't consider it a defensive war, later joining the Entente powers, but the name Triple Alliance stuck.


While the Entente powers did wind up referring to their group as the Allies during and after the war, I don't think a name was ever attributed to the Triple Alliance in English, so it's better for clarity to refer to the 'the Allies' as 'the Entente' imo.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

8 sided star? Add some indentations between the points to make them look more like bastions. The ravelins in front of the indentations will look pretty funky though. If you're happy with just four points the ravelins will probably look a bit better,

Honestly I feel like the general design works best with 6 points though, so 45 degree angles is just kind of tough.

(I'll try a little sketch when I'm home later.)

https://i.postimg.cc/YqYmRyzs/star-forts-45-degrees.png

What I meant. On the 8 pointed star you're either working with very thin or very wide ravelins. The very thin ones look better, but not a lot of space there. On the four pointed star the firing lines look off, the stars need to be able to jut out more, maybe another 22.5 degree step in between, to make it work well. The ravelins are also maybe a little fat.

On the six sided design the ravelins look just about right, although you need to use lines in 12 directions rather than just six to add those nice pointy points that really make the firing lines work. Without it you've just got weird flat caps for bastions. So basically the same problem we saw on the 4 sided star, where you'd want to use 16 directions instead of 8.

The four sided version might work if you leave out the ravelins alltogether and make the flat sides of the bastions long enough, and keep the overall fort kind of small. Those sides cover the adjacent points kind of decently...

[Maat Mons]

Yes, an 8-pointed design seems the easiest starting point. But that still leaves so many design decisions up in the air. For reference, here are some of the ideas I was toying around with.

https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/cb/38/eHxjd5Aw_t.png (https://imgbox.com/eHxjd5Aw) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/ed/5a/BgtJJ1CD_t.png (https://imgbox.com/BgtJJ1CD) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/03/fd/LEowvhIE_t.png (https://imgbox.com/LEowvhIE) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/da/99/71vgQBat_t.png (https://imgbox.com/71vgQBat) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/ab/ef/NXbCsNhP_t.png (https://imgbox.com/NXbCsNhP) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/40/26/mGQM9rsE_t.png (https://imgbox.com/mGQM9rsE) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/8f/a6/PrHuoS13_t.png (https://imgbox.com/PrHuoS13) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/d0/24/VNAvnl1y_t.png (https://imgbox.com/VNAvnl1y) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/0c/78/72LCZV6Q_t.png (https://imgbox.com/72LCZV6Q) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/ed/20/vAQZUMC5_t.png (https://imgbox.com/vAQZUMC5) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/ad/6d/TYHCSrbs_t.png (https://imgbox.com/TYHCSrbs) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/9b/fb/IZmGUSrf_t.png (https://imgbox.com/IZmGUSrf) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/e1/b4/aPqLSdpI_t.png (https://imgbox.com/aPqLSdpI) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/c0/6a/hF7rYlwh_t.png (https://imgbox.com/hF7rYlwh) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/45/8c/82TGgSay_t.png (https://imgbox.com/82TGgSay)

Edit: Didn't see your most recent post. That's interesting. It looks like we started with our bastions at different locations. Rotated 12.5° from each other.

[snowblizz]

Britain/France/Russia were the Triple Entente in WWI. Germany/Austria-Hungary were the Triple Alliance.

The names originate from the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France, the Franco-Russian Alliance, and the Anglo-Russian Entente, which put the centuries old rivalry between the three countries to bed and created an informal political bloc opposed to central European powers.

Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary had a defensive alliance, making them formal allies. Italy skipped out on the war at first because they didn't consider it a defensive war, later joining the Entente powers, but the name Triple Alliance stuck.I wouldn't call it a matter of "consideration". It literally wasn't a defensive war, Austro-Hungary and Germany struck first. Italy was thus under no obligation to join the war on the side of it's treaty allies as they quite literally had taken an action that disqualified the alliance. Romania likewise decided not to join an offensive war. They also later joined the Entente powers.



While the Entente powers did wind up referring to their group as the Allies during and after the war, I don't think a name was ever attributed to the Triple Alliance in English, so it's better for clarity to refer to the 'the Allies' as 'the Entente' imo.The Central Powers of WW1, German Empire, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman empire and Bulgaria are in English usually named the "Central Powers", because well they were central geographically in Europe and sandwiched centrally between the members of the Entente. They are also apparently sometimes known a the Quadruple Alliance, since there were actually four of them by 1915.
I agree on the use of Entente, mostly because as soon as you say the Allies it brings up a picture of WW2 which tend sot overshadow WW1 in almost every way imaginable in the public consciousness.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Edit: Didn't see your most recent post. That's interesting. It looks like we started with our bastions at different locations. Rotated 12.5° from each other.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure how that happened, but it looks to be because I first drew an 8 sided star and then turned the points into bastions, while you started your designs by drawing an octagon and then drew bastions on the corners. So you're working from a flat side "pointing" straight up while in my attempt a bastion is pointing straight up.

[fusilier]

Since you have some experience working through this, maybe you'd like to weigh in on a thought experiment of mine. I've been trying to design a good bastion fort using only angles that are integer multiples of 45°. How would you approach such a thing?

The short answer is you can't. I mean, you can make a kind of bastioned fort that has 45 and 90 degree angles only, but the angles won't be right for the correct placement of defensive artillery.

The typical way to start such a sketch is to draw a polygon with the right number of points. For example, if you wanted a fortress with eight bastions, then you draw an octagon. The points of the octagon will be the points of the bastions, and the walls we drawn inward. Then it's a matter of old school compass and straight edge construction to get the walls.

I don't have time at the moment, but if you can find a copy of Ian V. Hogg's Fortress, I think it will walk you through the basic construction.

[Maat Mons]

Well shoot. There goes my hope of putting a realistic star fort into relatively primitive RPG mapmaking software. I might pick up that book. But I’d definitely choose CAD over compass and straightedge. That makes it much easier to define mathematical relations between certain measurements and then freely tweak the remaining measurements to see how you like the result.

https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/86/ab/txq2li2H_t.png (https://imgbox.com/txq2li2H) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/06/05/BxcjYOKf_t.png (https://imgbox.com/BxcjYOKf)

[fusilier]

Well shoot. There goes my hope of putting a realistic star fort into relatively primitive RPG mapmaking software. I might pick up that book. But IÂ’d definitely choose CAD over compass and straightedge. That makes it much easier to define mathematical relations between certain measurements and then freely tweak the remaining measurements to see how you like the result.

https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/86/ab/txq2li2H_t.png (https://imgbox.com/txq2li2H) https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/06/05/BxcjYOKf_t.png (https://imgbox.com/BxcjYOKf)

If you extend the outer lines of the bastion, they should intersect the main wall, at the point that the flank of the adjacent bastion connects to the main wall.

I apologize -- I need to take pictures from the books that I have then find some place to upload them so I can share. It's a lot easier to understand with pictures.

The compass/straight-edge construction means you don't concern yourself with angles -- the angles result from connecting points you draw. You might need to consider some ratios of lengths of walls (how large you want the bastions), but that's about it.

Having said that, some earlier works didn't necessarily follow these rules, so what you drew is not entirely unrealistic.

[Maat Mons]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's already one of the constraints I defined in that CAD file.

https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/82/9e/c3Voydam_t.png (https://imgbox.com/c3Voydam)

[fusilier]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's already one of the constraints I defined in that CAD file.

https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/82/9e/c3Voydam_t.png (https://imgbox.com/c3Voydam)

Ok cool, I couldn't tell from the other pictures. You're close. Let me see if I can find some way to upload files, and then I'll just write out the whole process.

[fusilier]

Vauban Fortress design, from Ian V. Hogg's Fortress, pg. 54

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cplcampisi/misc/main/vauban1.jpg

Text (same citation)https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cplcampisi/misc/main/vauban2.jpg

Let me know if that works.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Quick question about an armor piece:

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/62e09dfb-1007-40f7-9960-83193eb4cf8d/d6z6bid-16cc4d52-ac85-4d04-8ee1-0ff2f1adb13b.jpg/v1/fill/w_1600,h_478,q_75,strp/armour_evolution_by_levaleur_d6z6bid-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI 1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNh NWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMT g4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7 InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzYyZTA5ZGZiLTEwMDctNDBmNy05OTYwLT gzMTkzZWI0Y2Y4ZFwvZDZ6NmJpZC0xNmNjNGQ1Mi1hYzg1LTRk MDQtOGVlMS0wZmYyZjFhZGIxM2IuanBnIiwiaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD 00NzgiLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTYwMCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46 c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS53YXRlcm1hcmsiXSwid21rIjp7InBhdG giOiJcL3dtXC82MmUwOWRmYi0xMDA3LTQwZjctOTk2MC04MzE5 M2ViNGNmOGRcL2xldmFsZXVyLTQucG5nIiwib3BhY2l0eSI6OT UsInByb3BvcnRpb25zIjowLjQ1LCJncmF2aXR5IjoiY2VudGVy In19.RypISFm-GJyMwE4wCKDAbgmwFjWqO7xTLm_JkNZRNS8
What's the name of that square armor piece on his shoulder?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I would have called that a pauldron, but I looked it up and that's wrong. A pauldron is a later piece that covers the armpit as well as the shoulder. The pauldron developed from the spaulder, a version that only covers the top of the shoulder. So I guess what you see here could be considered an early spaulder, the most basic version, just a flat shoulder plate over the mail.

There's probably at least one even more specific term for it, it looks distinctive enough that someone would have made up a seperate word. But early spaulder is at least close.

The 1330-1450 knights seem to be using more typical examples of spaulders, with 1525 wearing pauldrons.

[Spiryt]

It was called ailette, at least in medieval French, and thus in English as result, and it's very debatable if it was even armor or more of a heraldic device.

Certainly the way it was, and where it was, mounted doesn't seem to be about protection. Clavicle certainly can be damaged if some powerful strike lands from above, but the way they were strapped, it seem they would mostly protect large deltoid muscle where there isnt' much bone exposed.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/06/86/8c06864dbee9e8a45a4bbb8fe36e2379.jpg

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Thank you!

[Catullus64]

It was called ailette, at least in medieval French, and thus in English as result, and it's very debatable if it was even armor or more of a heraldic device.

Certainly the way it was, and where it was, mounted doesn't seem to be about protection. Clavicle certainly can be damaged if some powerful strike lands from above, but the way they were strapped, it seem they would mostly protect large deltoid muscle where there isnt' much bone exposed.


Could you provide an attribution for the image? If there's one at the bottom, it's too small and blurry for me to read.

[Pauly]

The alleges remind me of Japanese sode (shoukder armor plates).

Sode, especially those extending away from the body, are more for protection from arrows than melee. You can think of them more akin to shields strapped to the shoulders than as traditional armor.

[Spiryt]

Could you provide an attribution for the image? If there's one at the bottom, it's too small and blurry for me to read.

I just found it on my Pinterest, and it doesn't seem like there's bigger resolution. Google image search yielded one though:

https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/273774899_10106829284556055_7048242242561290828_n. jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=K-SPdJMUuToAX98yxT-&_nc_ht=scontent-waw1-1.xx&oh=00_AfD7yes1w6i5H2ZxVIpSDZKoQjNl_6LpuImtaVxlOTgb hQ&oe=65699E3F


The alleges remind me of Japanese sode (shoukder armor plates).

Sode, especially those extending away from the body, are more for protection from arrows than melee. You can think of them more akin to shields strapped to the shoulders than as traditional armor.


Sode are large, properly fitted to arm, and made from iron lames exactly like the rest of the armor though.


Those were seemingly mostly small bits of leather, or even wool, losely strapped to mail. If those were for additional protecton, one would probably armor something other than shoulders.

[Maat Mons]

How often would the cloth layer of brigandine need to be repaired? It seems counterintuitive to me that the most easily damage part is on the outside.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

How often would the cloth layer of brigandine need to be repaired? It seems counterintuitive to me that the most easily damage part is on the outside.

My guess to the why of the brigandine:

1) A popular way to defeat armor was trying to get between the plates. That is near impossible to do reliably and on purpose when you can't see the plates and have to stab through a layer of cloth to even start probing.
2) Iron/steel exposed to the elements is vulnerable to rust, making the garment less durable in the long run, and it easily conducts heat and cold to the wearer, making it uncomfortable on everything but a nice spring day.

Although both of these could be fixed with just a cloth garment worn over the armor itself...

As for the repairing: probably quite often. The upside is that tailoring is a skill quite a few people had, making it less expensive than "proper" armoring.

So that in fact may be the main reason for the construction in the first place. It's easier to repair this way?

[snowblizz]

My guess to the why of the brigandine:

1) A popular way to defeat armor was trying to get between the plates. That is near impossible to do reliably and on purpose when you can't see the plates and have to stab through a layer of cloth to even start probing.
2) Iron/steel exposed to the elements is vulnerable to rust, making the garment less durable in the long run, and it easily conducts heat and cold to the wearer, making it uncomfortable on everything but a nice spring day.

Although both of these could be fixed with just a cloth garment worn over the armor itself...

As for the repairing: probably quite often. The upside is that tailoring is a skill quite a few people had, making it less expensive than "proper" armoring.

So that in fact may be the main reason for the construction in the first place. It's easier to repair this way?

If you look at many brigandines we find that the rivets on the outside are very fancy, fancier than need to be for armour really and the riveting tend to be nicely patterned. Because it is meant to be displayed. A brigandine is part fashion statement part armour.

[Maat Mons]

Speaking of rivets and style, would it be any kind of problem to make the rivets from brass or bronze? It's weaker than steel, but the rivets don't hold plates to other plates, they hold plates to cloth, and I feel like the cloth is always going to be the weakest link in terms of making sure the plates stay riveted to the cloth.

[Pauly]

Speaking of rivets and style, would it be any kind of problem to make the rivets from brass or bronze? It's weaker than steel, but the rivets don't hold plates to other plates, they hold plates to cloth, and I feel like the cloth is always going to be the weakest link in terms of making sure the plates stay riveted to the cloth.

This is a bit outside my expertise, so a few grains of salt required.. using brass rivets is commonly done in metalwork for decorative purposes. However when the metal is under heavy stress having fasteners of different properties to the pieces being joined has many more pathways to failure than having fasteners of similar qualities. Another consideration is corrosion where the different properties may lead to unequal corrosion.

[Spiryt]

There are plenty of brigandines with copper alloy rivets.

Don't think difference in strength would be all that great, seems that brasses in particular have pretty solid shear strength, comparable to mild steels.

Resistance to corrosion would probably be quite desirable there.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If you look at many brigandines we find that the rivets on the outside are very fancy, fancier than need to be for armour really and the riveting tend to be nicely patterned. Because it is meant to be displayed. A brigandine is part fashion statement part armour.

Tying into this: I think it's more of an "everyday armor", in the sense that yes, you could wear it as a fashion statement, or while traveling, or when marching towards battle, still a day out but half expecting to be ambushed. It's not as protective but also not as unfomfortable as say full plate, even masterfully fitted plate. Kind of an adventurer's armor. So that's maybe where my point 2 from earlier comes in. It makes a bit more sense to have the main cloth layer on the outside if you're expecting to be hit by harsh sunshine or freezing rain more than by enemy halberds. Yes, the cloth or the rivets could break, but at least you're not freezing your ass off and you don't have to replace a fully rusted set of armor.

[Maat Mons]

Funny you would mention it being a good armor choice for adventurers. I was thinking about brigandine in the first place because a YouTube channel I follow put out a video titled "What is the BEST ARMOR for fantasy ADVENTURERS?" where two of the three dudes gave brigandine as their answers.

[Lemmy]

Assuming weight and cost weren't issues, but size and practicality still were... What changes would someone make to a rapier? Maybe a wider blade to give it more cutting capacity?

And what about a short sword, considering the same limitations?

[Pauly]

Assuming weight and cost weren't issues, but size and practicality still were... What changes would someone make to a rapier? Maybe a wider blade to give it more cutting capacity?

And what about a short sword, considering the same limitations?

Do you mean like a backsword or a basket hilted broadsword? If you wanted something more curvy a yatagan or a Polish saber.

It's all there is the contemporary records. The real issue is what is the context that makes looking at a design other than a rapier desirable?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If weight is not an issue, but size and practicality are, then you probably want the largest size sword you still think is practical.

I think half the point of a rapier is that weight is an issue. The design gets a lot of reach out of a blade still light enough to be fast. I think if you want something with a bit more heft and swing to it in the same period you're probably going to look more towards a sabre or something.

What kind of application are you thinking of? You're looking to arm historic fencing master Arnold Schwarzenegger?

[Lemmy]

Well... It's basically a race of humanoids in a setting more or less similar to 1600's Europe. They are considerably stronger than humans and dueling is part of their culture.

[Maat Mons]

Swords intended for dueling will be shaped by the rules the society uses for duels. If both parties begin with their swords sheathed and standing close together, dueling will revolve largely around who can get their sword out the fastest. This will cause people to favor curved blades that aren't all that long. If duels begin with both parties already having weapons in hand and standing some distance apart, longer weapons with greater reach will be preferred. And then there's the issue of whether dueling is done with armor or without. That too will change weapon choice.

[Spiryt]

Assuming weight and cost weren't issues, but size and practicality still were... What changes would someone make to a rapier? Maybe a wider blade to give it more cutting capacity?

And what about a short sword, considering the same limitations?

What exactly is a "rapier" especially for something like a RPG, is kinda tricky question, but generally, if you make a rapier blade of significantly wide, you end up with something that's no longer a rapier....

So it depends what do you want to achieve, really.

[Satinavian]

Assuming weight and cost weren't issues, but size and practicality still were... What changes would someone make to a rapier? Maybe a wider blade to give it more cutting capacity?Yes. You would probably end up with something similar to its more battlefield worthy precursers. So like various 15th and 16th century Spanish swords of similar shape. Their main drawback in comparison is weight, so if that is not an issue...

[Spiryt]

Yes. You would probably end up with something similar to its more battlefield worthy precursers. So like various 15th and 16th century Spanish swords of similar shape. Their main drawback in comparison is weight, so if that is not an issue...

"Typical" rapiers of 16th and 17th century usually weren't really particularly light. They had narrow, but pretty stout and obviously long blades, so could easily end up well over 3 pounds, even close to 4.

Wider blade is generally going to be thinner, if you just take rapier blade and make it wider without changing profile much, it's not only going to be much heavier, it also probably won't do anything particularly well. Though it obviously depends on exact rapier blade in question.

[Satinavian]

"Typical" rapiers of 16th and 17th century usually weren't really particularly light. They had narrow, but pretty stout and obviously long blades, so could easily end up well over 3 pounds, even close to 4.

Wider blade is generally going to be thinner, if you just take rapier blade and make it wider without changing profile much, it's not only going to be much heavier, it also probably won't do anything particularly well. Though it obviously depends on exact rapier blade in question.I know, but the rapier still basically means "dress sword" and is meant to a sword for civillian everyday use and self defense that is a lighter variant of the contemporary military sword and more comfortable to walk around with. The lines are obviously quite blurry as the Spanish did not invent it as a new category but called the swords people used this way espada ropera which later evolved into rapier as the name for the more common designs.

Sure, they are heavy and unwieldy compared to many other weapons of similar purpose, especially later ones, but not compared to their military equivalents which tented to be better at cutting and thus more versatile.


Wider blade is generally going to be thinner, if you just take rapier blade and make it wider without changing profile much, it's not only going to be much heavier, it also probably won't do anything particularly well.Since the question contains "weight is not an issue" i treat it as "How could a rapier be improved if you had some super light fantasy material that is otherwise like steel".

[Lemmy]

Sorry, I guess i was a bit vague in my question (I do not know much about swords).

Well, in this case, it's a race that is about twice as strong as human, and they typically use "rapiers" (i.e.: long thing blades, with complex basket hand-guards, probably better for piercing than slashing) as their melee weapon of choice for both civilian and military use. Usually accompanied by a much shorter blade

They do have access to some fantastic materials just like most other races in the setting, but that tends to be the exception, and usually their weapons are made of high quality, but non-magical steel.

I figured that maybe having the blades be wider (they can't be much longer due to practicality) would allow for a smoother, more gradual profile taper, therefore making it better for slashing, while still keeping it really good at piercing (I assume you could also give it a smoother "pointification" - i'm not sure how to describe this)


Since the question contains "weight is not an issue" i treat it as "How could a rapier be improved if you had some super light fantasy material that is otherwise like steel".
I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, but it's more about the typical wielders being *really* strong, rather than the material being particularly light.

BTW, thank you all for all your replies. I really appreciate it!

[halfeye]

Sorry, I guess i was a bit vague in my question (I do not know much about swords).

Well, in this case, it's a race that is about twice as strong as human, and they typically use "rapiers" (i.e.: long thing blades, with complex basket hand-guards, probably better for piercing than slashing) as their melee weapon of choice for both civilian and military use. Usually accompanied by a much shorter blade

They do have access to some fantastic materials just like most other races in the setting, but that tends to be the exception, and usually their weapons are made of high quality, but non-magical steel.

I figured that maybe having the blades be wider (they can't be much longer due to practicality) would allow for a smoother, more gradual profile taper, therefore making it better for slashing, while still keeping it really good at piercing (I assume you could also give it a smoother transition into its point too - i'm not sure how to describe this)


I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, but it's more about the typical wielders being *really* strong, rather than the material being particularly light.

BTW, thank you all for all your replies. I really appreciate it!

If they are bigger and stronger, they might go for even longer rapiers?

[Lemmy]

If they are bigger and stronger, they might go for even longer rapiers?
I thought about that, but they aren't considerably larger than humans (a few inches taller, on average), and they still wield the weapon in civilian life, so making it even longer might be an issue for everyday practicality.

Of, course... It doesn't have to be 100% realistic. I'm just trying to make it make sense once people read about their culture.

[Sneak Dog]

Mind that weight is always a concern. Even if the wielders are stronger, using strength is tiring and combat is plenty tiring without swinging a bunch of steel about. So you want your weapons to be as light as possible. To use minimal effort for maximum effect. If every swing takes active exertion, you are unlikely to last beyond two enemies.
With increased strength they'll probably have more leeway, so they'd go as much heavier as gives them concrete advantages. Not adding weight for weight's sake or options that are unlikely to matter. There's already been excellent suggestions as to what those changes would be before me by people more familiar with rapiers.

[Spiryt]

I know, but the rapier still basically means "dress sword" and is meant to a sword for civillian everyday use and self defense that is a lighter variant of the contemporary military sword and more comfortable to walk around with. The lines are obviously quite blurry as the Spanish did not invent it as a new category but called the swords people used this way espada ropera which later evolved into rapier as the name for the more common designs.

My point is that rapiers weren't lighter than military swords (one handed ones at least). Both would fall between 2 and 3 pounds, while some were heavier. And not easier to carry either, since they were generally much longer. Military one handed/arming swords would generally be around 1 meter long, or even shorter, while rapier would quite often exceed 120cm

Rapiers were pretty much swords optimized for one on one duel while being still portable enough to carry on your belt.




Well, in this case, it's a race that is about twice as strong as human, and they typically use "rapiers" (i.e.: long thing blades, with complex basket hand-guards, probably better for piercing than slashing) as their melee weapon of choice for both civilian and military use. Usually accompanied by a much shorter blade

With roughly diamond shaped cross section, increasing thickness by 40% and width by 20% would increase cross-sectional area, and thus weigh by more than 60%.

So basically one idea would be to use heavy, but very stiff, and robust rapiers, which is always good thing, but rapiers usually had to compromise the stiffness to make long, thin blade light enough.

[Lemmy]

Mind that weight is always a concern. Even if the wielders are stronger, using strength is tiring and combat is plenty tiring without swinging a bunch of steel about. So you want your weapons to be as light as possible. To use minimal effort for maximum effect. If every swing takes active exertion, you are unlikely to last beyond two enemies.
With increased strength they'll probably have more leeway, so they'd go as much heavier as gives them concrete advantages. Not adding weight for weight's sake or options that are unlikely to matter. There's already been excellent suggestions as to what those changes would be before me by people more familiar with rapiers.
True. But I want to give them something unique and different, to emphasize that aspect of their culture (they're strong and like dueling)... I was planning to have a human character point out that the rapier these people are so heavy that most humanoid races can't use them effectively, unless they're exceptional individuals.



With roughly diamond shaped cross section, increasing thickness by 40% and width by 20% would increase cross-sectional area, and thus weigh by more than 60%.

So basically one idea would be to use heavy, but very stiff, and robust rapiers, which is always good thing, but rapiers usually had to compromise the stiffness to make long, thin blade light enough.
Ah, I see... That's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about. Thanks!

Would the extra width help a bit with slashing, since it could have a smoother taper of the edge?

[Mike_G]

True. But I want to give them something unique and different, to emphasize that aspect of their culture (they're strong and like dueling)... I was planning to have a human character point out that the rapier these people are so heavy that most humanoid races can't use them effectively, unless they're exceptional individuals.



Ah, I see... That's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about. Thanks!

Would the extra width help a bit with slashing, since it could have a smoother taper of the edge?

A blade that is thinner in one plane ( like flatter if you look at the edge) and broader if you look at the flat will cut better. A more acute angle of the edge and less drag, as well as more mass behind the edge, all help it cut better.

But, a flatter blade won't be as stiff, so it may bend when used in the thrust, especially against heavy clothing or any armor, or even against a rib or a belt or something. So making a better cutter usually makes a worse thruster.

The spadroon was an attempt to make the thrust- centric smallsword more able to cut, but it wound up being mediocre at both things, which is why many officers swapped it out for a saber.

All this said, many rapiers could cut. They were more optimized to thrust, but there is huge variation in historical blades. I think making one a bit broader and heavier might make sense for a strong user. maybe give it more cutting damage but have a penalty to use it if your strength isn't high. This is an RPG after all.

[Spiryt]

Ah, I see... That's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about. Thanks!

Would the extra width help a bit with slashing, since it could have a smoother taper of the edge?

Yeah, extra width makes more acute angle possible, adds stiffness/rigidity in the plane of the cut, adds more mass there, et cetera.

As mentioned though, it kinda depends what do you want to call a rapier.

Some people, both in period and today would probably call this a rapier:

https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/439663982353874746/visual-search/?x=157&y=16&w=143&h=641.0382293762575&cropSource=6&surfaceType=flashlight

While it's hard to tell just by such vague image, it looks like it would have decent enough cutting ability.


While other people would reserve word "rapier" for a sword with blade geometry, weight distribution, pivot point etc. that make it very unsuitable for any serious cutting. Wrong geometry, could be heavy, as mentioned above, but with weight concentrated towards the hilt and hand, etc.

Matt Easton had recently made some videos tackling this problem, among other things. Like when is something a "rapier".

Third video also touches on flexibility of the rapier, which is going to be pretty closely tied to weigh, and why and when would somebody want more rigid rapier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFw3dcMpJ9Q&t=248s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXE4HK-wk5w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qeZPNYVNJQ

[fusilier]

All this said, many rapiers could cut. They were more optimized to thrust, but there is huge variation in historical blades. I think making one a bit broader and heavier might make sense for a strong user. maybe give it more cutting damage but have a penalty to use it if your strength isn't high. This is an RPG after all.

There's a type of sword referred to as a "cut-and-thrust" sword, that's broader (but shorter) than a rapier. A contemporary of the early rapiers (16th-17th centuries), it was kind of the standard military sword of the time. Maybe a longer cut-and-thrust sword would serve the OP's requirements?

Sword nomenclature isn't always clear -- I think it's also referred to as a broad sword??

[fusilier]

. . .

As mentioned though, it kinda depends what do you want to call a rapier.

Some people, both in period and today would probably call this a rapier:

https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/439663982353874746/visual-search/?x=157&y=16&w=143&h=641.0382293762575&cropSource=6&surfaceType=flashlight

While it's hard to tell just by such vague image, it looks like it would have decent enough cutting ability.


. . . .

That's what I would call a cut-and-thrust sword, but sword nomenclature is a huge can of worms . . . :-(

[Lemmy]

Thank you for all the replies. I truly appreciate it. They really helped me with the world-building for my setting. :smallsmile:

[Maat Mons]

How wide a field of fire would a typical embrasure casemate provide? I'm especially interested in embrasures casemates built for artillery, but I wouldn't mind answers for other types of embrasures casemates too.

Edit: Used the wrong word.

[fusilier]

How wide a field of fire would a typical embrasure casemate provide? I'm especially interested in embrasures casemates built for artillery, but I wouldn't mind answers for other types of embrasures casemates too.

Edit: Used the wrong word.

A quick look at my mid-19th century manuals didn't bring up any hard numbers. For siege batteries the embrasure went from about two feet wide to 12 feet wide -- but that seems to have been standard regardless of the thickness of the parapet, which in fieldworks could be very thick (10-12 feet was considered appropriate when dealing with a 12-pounder field gun, for siege operations it could be even thicker).

The drawings themselves show something with a fairly narrow field of fire, by eyeball I would say maybe as much as 15 degrees traverse to either side (for a total of 30 deg.).

For masonry works, where the gun was located inside of a casemate (as in a seacoast fortress), it looks like it could be significantly wider, as the wall isn't as thick -- but I hesitate to make any hard claims based on drawings that might be more representational, rather than schematic. Also by the mid-nineteenth century there were a variety of embrasures used in such casemates.

Finally, I would note that in a work on field fortifications, in a discussion about the angles between walls, they state that angles of "reentry" should not be less than 90 degrees, nor much more than 100 degrees, as beyond 100 degrees it would be difficult to sweep the wall with fire. Which would imply that 10 or so degrees was the expected traverse (from normal). (Perhaps a little more to allow the embrasure to be some distance from the angle).

[Gnoman]

Note that making the field of fire better means making the hole in the wall bigger, and that can be a critical weakness in the fortification. For a couple of reasons, a single bigger hole is more vulnerable than two spaced-out smaller holes, even if the combined area of the smaller holes is larger.

[Pauly]

How wide a field of fire would a typical embrasure casemate provide? I'm especially interested in embrasures casemates built for artillery, but I wouldn't mind answers for other types of embrasures casemates too.

Edit: Used the wrong word.

It depends a bit on things like if it was a flat wall or a curves wall, the thickness of the wall and the size of the carriage.

For hand guns or bows 120 degrees is fairly standard.
For pre-Victorian artillery about 90 degrees was normal, although more was reasonably possible with skilled engineers making the fort. Improvised or hastily built places commonly had less.
With improved engineering and machinery Victorian era and later fortresses potentially could have much wider arcs of fire.

For a number of reasons pre-Victorian forts preferred to have a number of different firing positions to which the artillery could be moved to rather building firing positions for each cannon with very wide arcs of fire. It was very common for forts to have more firing positions than cannon.

[Maat Mons]

I see that mail sleeves were sometimes attached to a cloth garment. I also see that mail sleeves were sometimes used in conjunction with a mail skirt. Is anyone aware of instances of a mail skirt being directly attached to the same cloth garment as a pair of mail sleeves?

Are there disadvantages to attaching mail sleeves directly to a cloth garment? It seems that it could complicate maintenance. Also, mail sleeves joined only by buckles seem like they would offer easier adjustments, using a different notch on the strap versus doing a bit of sewing on the garment.

[Unoriginal]

I see that mail sleeves were sometimes attached to a cloth garment. I also see that mail sleeves were sometimes used in conjunction with a mail skirt. Is anyone aware of instances of a mail skirt being directly attached to the same cloth garment as a pair of mail sleeves?

Mail skirts weren't a thing. Even if they had just enough metal to make a skirt and no more, they'd cover a different place. Not getting your legs be slashed is nice, not letting your head, torso or belly be slashed is better.

Mail sleeves on a cloth garnment also weren't that much of a thing, either, because while mail prevents cuts you'd still get the strike's blunt force in your arm, and that would still be a big problem. So in the overwhelming majority of cases, it would be padded armor (like a gambeson) with mail on top of the arm padding.

You may also be thinking of someone wearing a mail haubert with a cloth vestment on the torso, on top of the haubert, which can give the impression of mail sleeves and skirt.



Are there disadvantages to attaching mail sleeves directly to a cloth garment?

The disadvantage is that you have the part of your shoulders the closest to your neck without mail to protect it.

Not a winning move.



It seems that it could complicate maintenance.

Nah, it wouldn't. If anything it'd be easier to maintain (even if you'd need to do it far more frequently than if it was all mail).


Also, mail sleeves joined only by buckles seem like they would offer easier adjustments, using a different notch on the strap versus doing a bit of sewing on the garment.

That really wouldn't be a concern. In any situation where adjusting mail is needed and possible, the tiny bit of extra work would more than make up for all the inconveniences of having buckles.

[Spiryt]

Mail skirts weren't a thing. Even if they had just enough metal to make a skirt and no more, they'd cover a different place. Not getting your legs be slashed is nice, not letting your head, torso or belly be slashed is better.

Mail sleeves on a cloth garnment also weren't that much of a thing, either, because while mail prevents cuts you'd still get the strike's blunt force in your arm, and that would still be a big problem. So in the overwhelming majority of cases, it would be padded armor (like a gambeson) with mail on top of the arm padding.

You may also be thinking of someone wearing a mail haubert with a cloth vestment on the torso, on top of the haubert, which can give the impression of mail sleeves and skirt.

Mail skirt were very much a thing, in fact very popular one.

While armoring only waist and upper legs may not "make sense", it's not how they were used though, - they were mainly used to supplement some kind of plate torso protection.

Even with very elaborate plate armor, it was pretty much impossible to fully protect the groin for example, so some kind of brayete was almost always used, if wearer had means, of course.

But full mail skirt was used even pretty late on, it could be probably heavy and protective, while allowing greater movement of legs, without lots of buckles and straps.

Tower of London inventory from 1338 alone mentions 208 pairs of mail sleeves and skirts! They were probably worn as limb protection, while torso was supposed to be protected by some kind of coat of plates.

As well as lots of "paunces" in most of the knows records. Probably the word meant some kind of skirt or trousers, or brayette like garment in this context.

https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919/1/Thom_Richardson_thesis_final.pdf


Here are depictions like it could look like:

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/14557/1000



https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/18623/1000

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/17350/1000

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.ironsk in.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F05%2FIronskin-Mail-Skirt.jpg%3Fssl%3D1&tbnid=lQzcx7RFlhNqnM&vet=12ahUKEwiYv9WF1-SDAxU5hv0HHXGmCtUQMygJegQIARBi..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ironskin.com%2Fchainma il-commissions%2F&docid=B6riEU_e24Zw4M&w=1080&h=1080&q=mail%20skirt%20museum&ved=2ahUKEwiYv9WF1-SDAxU5hv0HHXGmCtUQMygJegQIARBi





Generally we can see both "full skirts" and some front only apron like garments as well.




Mail sleeves on a cloth garnment also weren't that much of a thing,

Extremely popular in 16th century.






I see that mail sleeves were sometimes attached to a cloth garment. I also see that mail sleeves were sometimes used in conjunction with a mail skirt. Is anyone aware of instances of a mail skirt being directly attached to the same cloth garment as a pair of mail sleeves?

Are there disadvantages to attaching mail sleeves directly to a cloth garment? It seems that it could complicate maintenance. Also, mail sleeves joined only by buckles seem like they would offer easier adjustments, using a different notch on the strap versus doing a bit of sewing on the garment.


Generally we don't have nearly enough artifacts and depictions preserved to form lots of opinions, but there's no real reason why they shouldn't be.

Although a lot of skirt seem to be strapped to the belt or breastplate, in on way or another.

This gentleman has few good videos about the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qutBmwJCV4Q

This famous artwork seems to be showing mail voiders/sleeves in form of essentially very reduced shirt.

https://i.etsystatic.com/16150783/r/il/764053/2666705086/il_794xN.2666705086_6ry8.jpg

And skirt seems to be attached to the girdle/waist in some way.

[Unoriginal]

Mail skirt were very much a thing, in fact very popular one.

While armoring only waist and upper legs may not "make sense", it's not how they were used though, - they were mainly used to supplement some kind of plate torso protection.

Even with very elaborate plate armor, it was pretty much impossible to fully protect the groin for example, so some kind of brayete was almost always used, if wearer had means, of course.

But full mail skirt was used even pretty late on, it could be probably heavy and protective, while allowing greater movement of legs, without lots of buckles and straps.

Tower of London inventory from 1338 alone mentions 208 pairs of mail sleeves and skirts! They were probably worn as limb protection, while torso was supposed to be protected by some kind of coat of plates.

As well as lots of "paunces" in most of the knows records. Probably the word meant some kind of skirt or trousers, or brayette like garment in this context.

https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919/1/Thom_Richardson_thesis_final.pdf


Here are depictions like it could look like:

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/14557/1000



https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/18623/1000

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/17350/1000

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.ironsk in.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F05%2FIronskin-Mail-Skirt.jpg%3Fssl%3D1&tbnid=lQzcx7RFlhNqnM&vet=12ahUKEwiYv9WF1-SDAxU5hv0HHXGmCtUQMygJegQIARBi..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ironskin.com%2Fchainma il-commissions%2F&docid=B6riEU_e24Zw4M&w=1080&h=1080&q=mail%20skirt%20museum&ved=2ahUKEwiYv9WF1-SDAxU5hv0HHXGmCtUQMygJegQIARBi





Generally we can see both "full skirts" and some front only apron like garments as well.





Extremely popular in 16th century.


I admit saying mail skirts were never a thing was an overstatement (I also admit I've never seen those refered as skirts before today), but my point is that you don't have mail connected to regular cloth and call it a day.

The order of protection priority in combat armor is, pretty consistantly through humankind, as follow:

1.Torso (minimum upper torso)
2. Head
3. Arms
4. Legs

With some rare cases of prioritizing the head over the torso.

Furthermore, I reiterate that mail is worn above padded armor for a good reason. Several, in facts, including simple comfort.


So you wouldn't have mail sleeves or a mail skirt connected to just a cloth outfit.

The illustrations you've posted confirm that, as the metal is over padded armor, and connecting to a belt/girdle/plastron is not the same as "cloth".

But it is true I was not precise enough in my statement.

[Spiryt]

I admit saying mail skirts were never a thing was an overstatement (I also admit I've never seen those refered as skirts before today), but my point is that you don't have mail connected to regular cloth and call it a day.

The order of protection priority in combat armor is, pretty consistantly through humankind, as follow:

1.Torso (minimum upper torso)
2. Head
3. Arms
4. Legs



In late 13th century and 14th century Europe we can very often see leg armor being prioritized over the arms.

Pretty much only for mounted fighters, obviously, because it indeed makes way less sense for infantry - but throughout most of the history, in most places, full armor and mounted fighting usually went hand in hand.






Furthermore, I reiterate that mail is worn above padded armor for a good reason. Several, in facts, including simple comfort.


So you wouldn't have mail sleeves or a mail skirt connected to just a cloth outfit.

The illustrations you've posted confirm that, as the metal is over padded armor, and connecting to a belt/girdle/plastron is not the same as "cloth".

But it is true I was not precise enough in my statement.

In some places, times and context mail was indeed being worn over padding, but quite often it would be not.

We have plenty detailed mentions of arms being required, or provided, with no mentions of padding.

There's also plenty of works of art rather clearly depicting mail worn over quite ordinary clothing.

There's nothing about this picture that suggest that the garment is heavily padded really.

There are, fortunately, quite a few mail sleeves with extant cloth preserved too, and it's not really armor cloth.

There are written sources mentioning sewing mail to plain ol' doublets.

"How man shall be armed" from around 1460 rather clearly describes mail being sewn to plain fustian, lined with satin. No mention of padding.

Cloth and strings must be all "strong", but there's no mention of being padded of made into any sort of cloth armor in general.


He schal have no schirte up on him but a dowbelet of ffustean lyned with satene cutte ful of hoolis . the dowbelet muste be strongeli boūdē there the poyntis muste be seete aboute the greet of the arme . and the b ste (sic) before and behynde and the gussetis of mayle muste be sowed un to the dowbelet in the bought of the arme . and unndir the arme the armynge poyntis muste be made of fyne twyne such as men make stryngis for crossebowes and they [f. 123] muste be trussid small and poyntid as poyntis. Also they muste be wexid with cordeweneris coode . and than they woll neythir recche nor breke Also a payr' hosyn̄ of stamyn sengill and a peyre of shorte bulwerkis of thynne blanket to put aboute hus kneys for chawfynge of his lighernes Also a payre of shone of thikke cordewene and they muste be frette with smal whipcorde thre knottis up on a corde and thre coordis muste be faste sowid un to the hele of the shoo and fyne cordis in the mydill of the soole of the same shoo and that ther be betwene the frettis of the heele and the frettis of the myddill of the shoo the space of thre fyngris.

Nice period illustration of such garment too, and with source being translated into more modern English (https://www.lonniecolson.com/index.php/article-medieval-armingdoublet)


There's doublet of Eugene of Savoy, where mail sleeves are sewn to doublet that's just swede.


https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/7881368075708777/

Generally the idea that mail MUST be padded is very prevaling trope, but it seems very far from truth.

If someone was wearing some kind of plate armor in particular, then mail voiders, sleeves and skirts would be obviously used to defend the places that cannot be defended with plate while providing good mobility at the same time.

Adding thick padding at and around the armpits in particular isn't very realistic.

At the same time, those aren't spots likely to be hit with great blunt impacts, protection against points would be most important.

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/12953/1000

If we add the civilian context, where impact weapons are less likely to happen in general, and walking around in padding whole day is out of question, were' going to see even more mail sewn to normal clothing.


This whole thread has many convincing images, including, apparently, authentic period mail (http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168360&start=140)

https://i.postimg.cc/kgKQmCtC/1550by-MORONIGiovanni-Battista-Natgallery-London.jpg

[Unoriginal]

In late 13th century and 14th century Europe we can very often see leg armor being prioritized over the arms.

Pretty much only for mounted fighters, obviously

I'll grant you that point, but even then torso and head were prioritized.



There are written sources mentioning sewing mail to plain ol' doublets.

"How man shall be armed" from around 1460 rather clearly describes mail being sewn to plain fustian, lined with satin. No mention of padding.

Cloth and strings must be all "strong", but there's no mention of being padded of made into any sort of cloth armor in general.



Nice period illustration of such garment too, and with source being translated into more modern English (https://www.lonniecolson.com/index.php/article-medieval-armingdoublet)


"How man shall be armed" refers to a doublet, as in an armed doublet (https://web.archive.org/web/20111228020504/http://www.chronique.com/Library/Armour/armyd1.htm), or aketon, or arming coat, or gambeson (https://web.archive.org/web/20111227192144/http://www.chronique.com/Library/Glossaries/glossary-AA/arms_a.htm#aketon):


A kind of arming coat worn during the 13th - 15th century both as a complete armour unto itself and as padding for additional armour worn over the top. They were generally quilted, either sewn or stuffed with linen, tow or even grass. Most of the illustrations from the 14th century show many buttons or laces up the front, and there are a few examples that feature a high collar to assist in the defense of the neck. 14th century Aketons were generally cut wide around the arm holes in a manner that followed the line of the breastplate or cuirass. These extra-large arm-holes served to grant complete mobility for a full range of arm motion while providing a last-ditch defense of the area under the arm. I can find no evidence of Aketons ever being open under the arm, though this is a common SCA style. See also the pourpoint, a garment worn under the arming coat useful for attaching the laces for the attachment of a leg harness.

"A doublet made of fustian lined with satin" is literally the description of a padded armor.



Generally the idea that mail MUST be padded is very prevaling trope, but it seems very far from truth.

All armor needs padding to be effective/wearable.

Obviously it's not the same level of padding if you're wearing mail above it than if the layers of cloth are the only thing between you and death.



If someone was wearing some kind of plate armor in particular, then mail voiders, sleeves and skirts would be obviously used to defend the places that cannot be defended with plate while providing good mobility at the same time.

Adding thick padding at and around the armpits in particular isn't very realistic.

First, the bits of mail used to protect the articulations of plate armor is not the same as when mail is the main form of armor.

Second, plate armor was worn above padding.




If we add the civilian context, where impact weapons are less likely to happen in general, and walking around in padding whole day is out of question, were' going to see even more mail sewn to normal clothing.

I think you're greatly overestimating the kind of padding that is discussed here.

Also, if it's in civilian context and day-to-day wear, then it's not armor, it's fashion.

[Maat Mons]

The words I chose to describe my question may not have been the best. I was figuring on the mail in question being used in conjunction with some sort of cuirass. Most especially, this question came to my mind while looking at armor to be used in conjunction with brigandine.

I’m not actually 100% sure that mail made to be worn with brigandine actually would have omitted the parts of the mail that would also be covered by the brigandine. As far as I can tell, at least in certain time periods, it would in fact have been common to put on a full mail shirt (or whatever it was called) underneath brigandine. I gather though, that it eventually became common to omit parts of chainmail that would be covered by a breastplate and backplate combo, and the same principle would seem to apply equally well to brigandine.

When I mention the mail being attached to cloth garments, I was actually meaning to lump two different things together. One of those things was attaching the mail to a gambeson or arming doublet. Maybe “cloth garment” isn’t an accurate way to describe that. The other was attaching the mail to cloth that served strictly to keep it in place. Though there would be nothing stopping you from wearing a gambeson or arming doublet underneath that, like this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYbhzcgs70c&t=713s).

[Spiryt]

"A doublet made of fustian lined with satin" is literally the description of a padded armor.


If fustian lined with satin counts as "padded armor" then vast majority of stuff people were wearing everyday would count too. Some heavier cloth with more delcate lining would be extremely common everyday wear in 15th century and beyond.

So I'm bit confused about your statements now.

You claimed that you wouldn't have mail sleeves or a mail skirt connected to just a cloth outfit. And now that normal outfit can count as padding.


"How man shall be armed" refers to a doublet, as in an armed doublet, or aketon, or arming coat, or gambeson:

It's certainly not gambeson or aketon, because there's no mention of any padding or significant amount of layers. So it is an arming coat, yes, but not really armor in itself, or padding.


All armor needs padding to be effective/wearable.

Again, it doesn't seem that people actually wearing armor in the past would agree. Plenty of indications that they were often, indeed wearing just some cloth.

Padding would make it more comfortable and more effective, against some trauma, but armor won't magically stop workin


Also, if it's in civilian context and day-to-day wear, then it's not armor, it's fashion.

How is armor being worn not an armor :smallconfused:

Civilian life was often very violent, that's why people were wearing armor in civilian ones, even when it was usually frowned upon. Mail in particular could be worn openly or as hidden armor.

George Silver recommended making sure that your enemy doesn't discover your privy coat.


I’m not actually 100% sure that mail made to be worn with brigandine actually would have omitted the parts of the mail that would also be covered by the brigandine.

If they are made to be worn together, then it's absolutely no reason to omit anything.

The whole point of the mail voiders/sleeves was to cover the gaps.

If one was wearing some mismatched items, say, something that came from looting, it could definitely happen.

Most of mail sleeves seem to run pretty "deep" though, all the way to the neck and lower ribs sometimes. Probably precisely to give some margin of error, even if in effect armor was doubled in some areas.


It probably helped if someone immobilized you in some way and tried to pry some sword or dagger inside your breastplate, for example. Should mail end right at the border of other defense, one could be vulnerable to such trick.

https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/22993/1296400/main-image

https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/34851/1792695/main-image

[Unoriginal]

If fustian lined with satin counts as "padded armor" then vast majority of stuff people were wearing everyday would count too. Some heavier cloth with more delcate lining

There has been years of linguistic and cultural shifts, even without accounting for the translation in current English. What was considered "fustian lined with satin" back then is not what we would describe as "fustian lined with satin" in the year 2024.


You can read military historian Bret Devereaux's rather amazing blog (https://acoup.blog/), if you don't believe me.

In particular, in his Punching Through Some Armor Myths (https://acoup.blog/2019/06/21/collections-punching-through-some-armor-myths/) article, he directly states:


Alright, first, what do I mean by textile defense? A gambeson (also called a padded jack, arming doublet or aketon and possibly the same as the Roman subarmalis) formed the base layer of effectively all medieval armor.

He then develop the topic, before moving to the other layers of the armor.

[Maat Mons]

Some follow up questions.

It was mentioned that what I call mail skirts are also known by a different name. What would that name be?

I can find many examples of gambesons having what I’d call voiders directly attached to them. That is to say, mail that covers parts of the arm that would be left exposed by some styles of plate armor for the arms. Would it be unusual for a gambeson to have what I’d call mail sleeves directly attached? I mean, by mail sleeves, something that goes all the way around the arm, which could serve as reasonable protection for the arms by itself, without the need for any additional form of armoring on the arms.

When what I call mail skirts were used in conjunction with gambesons, what length of gambesons would be typical? Would the gambeson normally extend down approximately as far as the mail skirt? Would it have been uncommon to wear a mail skirt in conjunction with a gambeson that doesn’t extend below the waist?

For gambesons that extend significantly below the waist, would it have been unusual to attach mail directly to the lower portion of the gambeson? I’m imagining this would provide much of the same protection as wearing a mail skirt over the gambeson, though it would have a split running down the center of the front that the mail skirt wouldn’t.

Does the style of closure of a gambeson matter? It seems like buckles could get driven into the wearer in an uncomfortable fashion from the force of blows delivered to the cuirass worn over them. On the other hand, “uncomfortable” probably would be an accurate description of being hit by a solid attack regardless. Would this be a consideration when selecting a gambeson?

[Unoriginal]

I can find many examples of gambesons having what I’d call voiders directly attached to them. That is to say, mail that covers parts of the arm that would be left exposed by some styles of plate armor for the arms. Would it be unusual for a gambeson to have what I’d call mail sleeves directly attached?

Nope, that would be common.



When what I call mail skirts were used in conjunction with gambesons, what length of gambesons would be typical? Would the gambeson normally extend down approximately as far as the mail skirt?

Yes, it would be approximately as long as the mail. Sometime longer if the person couldn't afford much mail.



Would it have been uncommon to wear a mail skirt in conjunction with a gambeson that doesn’t extend below the waist?

It wouldn't have just been uncommon, it would have been *nightmarish*.

Wearing mail without padding is like paying a lot of money to get encased into a dull, flexible cheese grater.

And a skirt goes above the groin region.



For gambesons that extend significantly below the waist, would it have been unusual to attach mail directly to the lower portion of the gambeson?

Would have been far from unusual.



Does the style of closure of a gambeson matter? It seems like buckles could get driven into the wearer in an uncomfortable fashion from the force of blows delivered to the cuirass worn over them. On the other hand, “uncomfortable” probably would be an accurate description of being hit by a solid attack regardless. Would this be a consideration when selecting a gambeson?

Well the gambeson would have been built so that whatever the style of closure chosen, there would be the appropriate padding between the person and the closure system, be it buckles or anything else.

Buckles to close the gambeson and maintain it on the wearer is several order of magnitudes easier to manage than buckles on the shoulders to keep the sleeves attached.

Especially when there will be a cuirasse over said buckles, and buckles can be made pretty flat.

[Maat Mons]

It’s good to know that sewing mail to a gambeson wasn’t as limited as I thought it might be. It does seem much more convenient to just put on a gambeson and have all the bits of mail already in place, rather than put on the gambeson and still have to put on several bits of mail in addition.

[VonKaiserstein]

It's not precisely the same concept, but if you go looking for mirror armor or char aina examples, you'll find plates, often held to other plates by mail. Often the mail, particularly the gloves, is attached to fabric as well. Definitely worth looking into, if you're after blended mail and plate armors.

[Spiryt]

There has been years of linguistic and cultural shifts, even without accounting for the translation in current English. What was considered "fustian lined with satin" back then is not what we would describe as "fustian lined with satin" in the year 2024.


Sure, words can change meanings, often drastically.

But if you claim that it did in this case, you need to prove it. Nothing indicates that "dowbelet of ffustean lyned with satene" means something much different than today.

Semantics of "līnen/linen/lynen" are very similar to modern, and as we can see, it was predominately used to describe very much "normal" clothing.





https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED25659/track?counter=2&search_id=57073372



You can read military historian Bret Devereaux's rather amazing blog (https://acoup.blog/), if you don't believe me.

In particular, in his Punching Through Some Armor Myths (https://acoup.blog/2019/06/21/collections-punching-through-some-armor-myths/) article, he directly states:


I've read it before, and it's nice, but he doesn't show any real evidence, about this whole layers of armor thing.

Again, it's common trope, today, bit of reneactionsim, but it doesn't seem necessarily true.



Wearing mail without padding is like paying a lot of money to get encased into a dull, flexible cheese grater.


And yet, mail was being worn without "padding" probably trough gout most of it's history. It seems that in Europe it changed somewhat somewhere around 12th century.


We can read the capitularies of Frankish kingdom in particular, they list mail, helmets, swords, or, very rarely, some kind of greaves, and prices for them, but nothing about any padding. Men of sufficient wealth are ordered to go with bow spare strings (sometimes two) and carts filled with axes, augers, adzes, mills, etc. As well as clothing for half a year of more.

No mention any padded garments, stuffed, or sewed from multiple layers, which would in general be something much more complicated and specific than an auger.

It doesn't seem than any Latin word for such a garment even exist in this period.


Incidentally, as far as civilian use of mail goes, I stumbled upon autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini recently, and it metions it clearly in several places:

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4028/pg4028-images.html


then I made haste to pass an excellent coat of mail over my shirt, and above that some clothes which I caught up at random.

Basically few descriptions of bunch of guys roaming around Rome armed to teeth, including hidden coats of mail, and causing lots of trouble.



It was mentioned that what I call mail skirts are also known by a different name. What would that name be?



"Paunce" seems to refer to something like that at least in ~ 14th century French, that was still used in England very commonly.

[Maat Mons]

How common was it, historically, to use something other than oil to prevent rust in mail? I've encountered mention of Oriental mail being tinned. Are there other treatment options?

For fabric worn in contact with armor, is any color less likely than others to show discoloration due to contact with the oils on the armor? Are there any other options for keeping your gambeson looking snazzy?

[Yora]

Japanese armor was regularly coated in anti-rust paint. Which is why most of them are black as the base with most of the color being the cords that lace the different plates together. (Though you could of course apply colored paint over the anti-rust coating for further decoration.

[Maat Mons]

Do "blued steel," "blackened steel," and "gunmetal finish" all mean the same thing?

[halfeye]

Do "blued steel," "blackened steel," and "gunmetal finish" all mean the same thing?
Gunmetal is an actual alloy, but the finish might just look like that, so maybe? There are probably dozens of ways to put a particular colour on the surface of steel or any other metal.

Gunmetal is a bronze, so the colour is something else:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_gray#Off-grays


Gunmetal is a shade of gray that has a bluish purple tinge.[20] It describes the color of several metals used in industrial applications, such as tarnished gunmetal, or parkerized steel.

[snowblizz]

Do "blued steel," "blackened steel," and "gunmetal finish" all mean the same thing?

No they describe different results from differing processes aiming roughly towards the same end goal. Keeping armour surfaces rust free, and looking pretty.
There is also "russeted" armour. This would be a controlled rusting of the surface to stabilize it, it ends with a reddish surface.
Blackened can mean treating it with oils giving a smoky finish (I think it is heat treated, burning the oil in to the surface?) or possibly the covering the armour with black lacquer finish (the naming isn't always specific in old sources) which became the largely dominant method in the 1600s, I suspect from ease, durability (you don't change the properties of the forged steel like in heattreatments) and style purposes. The black lacquer can be strikingly inlaid with gold and quite a few surviving parade armours are of this type.
Blueing is also a heat treatment method for the steel that gives a blue tint to the armour.

[Maat Mons]

I hadn’t been aware that gunmetal was a material. I always thought it was a type of surface treatment. I guess my confusion stems from various manufacturers using the word to describe steel that’s undergone a particular surface treatment. And I guess those products were using the other definition of the word, which refers just to the color.

According to Wikipedia, blackening refers to any of several chemical processes for converting the outer surface of an iron-containing alloy into magnetite (Fe3O4). This is a form of rust that is black and doesn’t expand from the base metal as much as red rust (Fe2O3). The reduced expansion makes black rust less likely to flake off, and thus better at acting as a barrier to further rusting. Granted, the period usage of the word may not match up to the modern usage. I hadn’t heard of russeting. Is it purely cosmetic, or does it also offer some protection?

According to Wikipedia, bluing also refers to any of several chemical processes for converting the outer surface of an iron-containing alloy into magnetite (Fe3O4). Everything I’ve found says bluing can produce a range of colors, including black, depending on how long the reaction is allowed to progress. And I’ve personally seen “blued” metal that was black in color. Of course, this was in the context of firearms, and no firearm I’ve seen was striving to replicate any time period earlier than the 17th century. So there could, again, have been some alteration to the terminology in the intervening centuries.

Given that neither blackening nor bluing refer, at least in their modern usage, to and one specific chemical process, and both produce the same magnetite (black oxide) coating (which may actually be blue in color, at certain thicknesses), I’m struggling to grasp what the distinction between the two terms is.

I’m aware of other types of conversion coating, like Parkerizing, which creates an iron phosphate layer (or zinc phosphate, or manganese phosphate), or nitriding, which incorporates nitrogen (and maybe also carbon) into the outer layer. These two clearly seem different from each other, and from the other two, since they’re not only forming different compounds, but adding a completely different element to the metal.

[fusilier]

Gunmetal is an actual alloy, but the finish might just look like that, so maybe? There are probably dozens of ways to put a particular colour on the surface of steel or any other metal.

Gunmetal is a bronze, so the colour is something else:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_gray#Off-grays

This is one of those situations where the same word has different meanings --

Typically, when talking about a color, gunmetal refers to shiny black (dark gray) color, much like you would get with "blued" steel on a firearm.

In a different context, gunmetal might refer to a bronze alloy, which is used for casting bronze cannons. This alloy can vary a bit, and sometimes might have things in it which might technically make it not "bronze" (maybe). Also, people had a tendency to refer to these cannons as "brass" because they do look like brass when highly polished. The particular bronze alloy used, tends to not have the reddish color that a "bronze medal" might have, but instead is more yellow . . . more like brass (although if you're not confused enough already, another name for gunmetal is "red brass"). Some authorities writing about the alloy in the 18th century, gave up and just referred to the alloy as "gunmetal" rather than bothering with arguments about whether or not it was technically bronze or brass.

Clear as mud, eh?

Oh, also there's "browning" process that was used historically on some steel firearms.

[Yora]

Question: What kind of ammunition did pom-pom guns fire?

They are auto-cannons and were primarily used as anti-aircraft weapons in world war 2. And with their rate of fire I would assume that they weren't firing solid slugs.
But somehow none of the sources I found about the gun mention what it actually fired.

[Maat Mons]

Honestly, this is the first I’ve heard of pom pom guns, but I can’t find anything citing a fire rate faster than 300 rounds per minute, which isn’t actually that fast. The M61 Vulcan does over 6,000 rounds per minute.

Everything I can find about the construction of pom pom shells says they were filled with explosives that detonated on contact with the target. Does that count as “solid?”