Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VII

[Brainfart]

AFAIK lever actions mostly operated with tubular magazines, and it doesn't take a genius to see that stacking spitzer bullets in a tube might end in tears.

Bolt actions seem to be far more tolerant of misuse than lever-actions. Also, don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure that the locking mechanisms in the lever actions of the day weren't built to handle full power rifle loads.

[Daosus]

The reason that there are not many belt fed shotguns is that there is no reason to fire one more than a few times. Either your target's dead, disengaged so you can reload, or too close to use the shotgun. A machine gun is designed with the expectation that your target is fifty or more yards away, which means continuous fire isn't a bad idea if you can accept the trade-off. A shotgun isn't all that great at long range, so the additional bulk is not worth it.


Also, axes would be preferable to picks in combat because they kill or incapacitate quickly. An axe can knock down your opponent in 10 seconds. A pick will likely take longer to drop them, which means you have to keep fighting them for that period of time. A pick wound is more likely to get infected, of course, but you don't care about what happens to the guy 2-3 days from now so much as you care what happens to you within the next couple of minutes.

[Norsesmithy]

Hey guys, quick question on firearms, specifically shotguns. It recently came into my head to look into lever-action shotguns, and according to Wiki and a quick Google search, there is such a thing. They don't appear to be very popular and I'm curious why this is the case.

My theories are that either; A) the lever-action style is significantly/noticeably longer to reload than a pump, or B) the lever-action style is more complex than a pump mechanic, thereby being more easily damaged. However, either of these reasons beg the question of why lever-action rifles were created, as opposed to pump-action styles (which I am aware Remington has a new pump-action style .308).

Anyone know for certain?

Another minor question about shotguns, in the movie The Expendables one of the mercs uses a shotgun with a massive chain-style belt. Aside from the weight and potential for accumulated grime to gum up the feeding mechanisms, is there a reason why this is dumb?

Mostly the reason why a belt fed shotgun is dumb, aside from the fact that it won't feed super reliably, and it's excessively heavy is that a belt fed machinegun chambered in a rifle round will do most of the things that shotguns do well just as well, and will be able to do a whole host of things that Shotguns don't do well very well.

Shotguns have really two purposes in the modern battlefield, that is door breaching and less than lethal. A semi or fully automatic carbine is a more effective, easier to use, and lighter to carry for Close Quarters Battle, with the added advantage of being useful past 100-150 yards, and against targets with body armor. If you are in a situation where there is a need for Door breaching and less than lethal, it MIGHT be worth it to equip one squaddie with an underbarrel shotgun, or a dedicated shotgun, but for the most part, they are not worth the weight and complexity.

The question with regard to lever action vs slide action shotguns and rifles I think has more to do with use than mechanical suitability. A slide action firearm gives a terrifically fast rate of fire, great in a close fight or when going after multiple animals hunting (see Colt Lightning slide action rifle, and Winchester Slide action .22s respectively), and that when hunting birds, you were more likely be presented with a situation where a second fast follow-up was needed.

Whereas most lever action rifles were to be carried in a scabbard while on horseback, and used for hunting things like deer, and so the slimmer profile and smaller amount of movement when working the action would be more advantageous.

Mind you, traditional designs for both have weak actions only suited for low pressure cartridges, but later, less popular designs were created that could handle the power of a full pressure rifle cartridge.

Bolt action became popular because you can work the action while prone, an important consideration for militaries, and massive amounts of them were periodically surplused to the civilian market. They are also very strong and very accurate.

As far as loading goes, there are box magazine fed slide and lever actions made, as well as tube mag bolt action, so magazine type shouldn't really be a consideration.

I was talking with a classmate about why axes are a more useful weapon than a military pick, and why the spikes on hammers and axes are just back up, armor penetrating weapons. The conclusion was that axes produced wider wounds, making it easier to kill people with. It does seem an odd phenomena, what with the opposite being true for piercing rapiers and slashing broadswords... but then that's because of the difference. I suspect that there is either no speed difference between a pick and an axe, or that the axe gets a speed advantage. First, am I right? And second, am I missing anything?

The primary misapprehension you have here is that a person is more likely to survive a blow from a broadsword than a rapier thrust.

A broad blade is generally going to do more damage to a person, a thin blade is generally going to punch through protective coverings better, and perhaps be a little faster and more precise if it is heavier, though it is entirely possible to have a thin bladed sword heavier than a broader bladed sword.

Now, a broad blade that fails to reach a vital spot isn't going to do as well as a thin blade that does, but a big open wound will stop a person's fight a lot faster than a thin puncture that may steal his tomorrows.

[fusilier]

AFAIK lever actions mostly operated with tubular magazines, and it doesn't take a genius to see that stacking spitzer bullets in a tube might end in tears.

The M1886 Lebel did precisely that . . . although in all fairness the French Balle D (the original boat-tail "spitzer") appeared after the gun had been made. The 8x50 mm French round has considerable taper and the base of the shell was designed to trap the point of the bullet behind it, so that it wouldn't press on the primer.

[Norsesmithy]

The M1886 Lebel did precisely that . . . although in all fairness the French Balle D (the original boat-tail "spitzer") appeared after the gun had been made. The 8x50 mm French round has considerable taper and the base of the shell was designed to trap the point of the bullet behind it, so that it wouldn't press on the primer.

Actually, the M1886 has a blind magazine in the usual place, not a tube mag.

OOPS, it appears I was mistaken.

[fusilier]

Actually, the M1886 has a blind magazine in the usual place, not a tube mag.

I'm pretty certain the M1886 has a tube magazine . . . are you perhaps thinking of the later Berthier rifles, which used a 3 (in the M1916 version 5) round magazine loaded with an en bloc clip? It is confusing because the Berthiers are sometimes called Lebels as they used the same ammo (and possibly some other parts).

The M1886 had an 8 round tube magazine. Another round could be loaded into the carrier, and a final one in the chamber for a total of 10. There is a magazine cut off. The theory being that troops would fire and load one bullet at a time, at long ranges, and reserve the magazine for rapid fire.

I don't understand the term "blind magazine"?

The wikipedia article describes the tubular magazine in detail. I should also point out that 8x50mm Lebel is rimmed, so that, and the taper of the round, also helps keep the bullets from stacking up point to primer.

[Norsesmithy]

I'm pretty certain the M1886 has a tube magazine . . . are you perhaps thinking of the later Berthier rifles, which used a 3 (in the M1916 version 5) round magazine loaded with an en bloc clip? It is confusing because the Berthiers are sometimes called Lebels as they used the same ammo (and possibly some other parts).

The M1886 had an 8 round tube magazine. Another round could be loaded into the carrier, and a final one in the chamber for a total of 10. There is a magazine cut off. The theory being that troops would fire and load one bullet at a time, at long ranges, and reserve the magazine for rapid fire.

I don't understand the term "blind magazine"?

The wikipedia article describes the tubular magazine in detail. I should also point out that 8x50mm Lebel is rimmed, so that, and the taper of the round, also helps keep the bullets from stacking up point to primer.

It appears I was mistaken, the thumbnail of one of the pictures in the Lebel article on Wikipedia shows a rifle with a standard magazine, but on clicking on it, I see that the rifle is actually a Mauser, and the picture is comparing the feeding mechanisms of several period rifles.

And that it's a apparently a Russian illustration, since the writing is in Cyrillic.

A blind magazine is a fixed box magazine with no hinged or removable floorplate.

[Karoht]

Sorry, but no.... As hell.

Museum replicas and arms of valor seem to be selling cheap to not very cheap, poorly accurate to straight out fantasy stuff like Darksword and others.

Surely, one can find good stuff among it, but it's quite a search. If one doesn't know what he's searching for, he may find rubbish as well.

If there's any site to advise, there's always http://www.myarmoury.com/home.html, I guess - a lot of stuff, links to the museums and with reproductions, one usually has info about them and their level of sense.

Great site generally.

There are many good sites, but as topic is extremely broad, one will pretty much always treat about just one "piece" of it.

Such as Late roman armies of circa 400 AD.

My apologies, I was under the mistaken impression that the person was looking for stuff to buy. I read it way wrong.

Medieval Reproductions is run by a fellow here in Calgary named Peter Fuller. If you ever go into the Glenbow Museum, the entire medieval wing, anything that isn't covered in rust was probably made by him by hand.
The man was so picky about authenticity (he was the curator of the museum, so one would hope so) that he spent 2 years learning (re: perfecting) how to make his own buckles for straps and such.
Also, it should be noted that he refuses to use machines. He does all his armor by hand.
He now does contract work for museums and collectors, and he's getting into restoration work from what I last heard. Really cool fellow.

Contrast him with Rob Valentine (also from Calgary) who was pretty much the polar opposite. Authenticity? The guy was too lazy to at least sand off the word 'Rona' (name of a hardware store) from the hinges he bought for a piece of armor I saw. Ironically, it was being worn by a fellow who was bashing Fuller and extolling the virtues of Valentine, with the arguement being made that Valentine's work was more authentic. And then I pointed to the hinge. Fail.


Also, to whomever stated that it was poor quality, I have to somewhat disagree. While the quality of Windlass products has gone down sharply, which is pure tragedy seeing as Windlass and by extention Museum Replicas used to be the go-to for this sort of thing (collectors and reinactors). Hank Reinhardt put in countless hours of research, and personally tested just about all of the product lines prior to his passing away.

And the quality of anything made by Paul Chen has gone up drastically since Gen II. Cas Iberia has some of the most well made product lines out there, both for the collector and the reinactor. Peter Fuller, to state it again works with museums and private collectors and the like. I've seen and handled his work, I have a spear hand made by him which has lasted some 7 years of pure abuse.

So while I do respect your opinion that some of those works are poorly made and not entirely authentic, I don't think you can apply that to everything on any of the mentioned websites.




Though I was amiss to not mention Albion Swords in there as well.

[RationalGoblin]

What was the best Dark Age/Middle Ages counter to fast-moving light cavalry, specifically horse archers? The general opinion seems to be that they were the "win" button of the day and age, but I'd like to know the circumstances in which they were inconvenient, and even ineffective. I know sieges are one way that you (aka, an enemy) can render them useless, but if it comes down to a siege, I feel you've lost already, so I need more examples.

Also, I've heard that the Battle of Lechsfield was a prime example of the failings of horse archers, but reading the Wikipedia article just confused me more. Would some one sum up what happened to me?

Finally, and it's more of a feudal history question than a weapon or armor one, but what would be a good reason a ruler would want to cut down on the power of his horse archers/Mongol-like cavalry if he had them in his army? By this I mean, what factors would lead to a forced sedentary lifestyle of the horse archers by the ruling leader?

[Gavinfoxx]

Horse archers suck if you are in a really hilly, rocky, foresty, dense sort of place. They also suck if your supply chains for a whole ton of arrows aren't up to snuff. They also are worse than normal heavy infantry at siege warfare. Also, they take a while to wear someone down, they can't resolve it and get the enemy to break like lance cavalry with a lance charge does.

[Psyx]

but I'd like to know the circumstances in which they were inconvenient, and even ineffective

Tight obstructed terrain of any type. Heavy going. Broken ground, urban conflict, rain, sleet, snow, sieges, maritime warfare. Assaulting any fixed position defended by troops with ranged capabilities. When supplies for horses are running low. When you don't have enough arrows. When the horses are tired from long marches or rife with illness. When the enemy have faster horses than you do, and lances.

[Yora]

Also, cultures that used mounted archers are usually claimed to have put both archery and riding as the two most important skills any child has to learn. No idea if that's actually true, but today you'll find a great number of 5 year olds in Mongolia, whose skills would most other people put to shame.
So apparently to field large numbers of mounted archers who are really good at it, you need a culture that is based around them, you probably can't just pick any number of 16 year olds and put them on some horses you have, and expect them to become any good.

[Thane of Fife]

What was the best Dark Age/Middle Ages counter to fast-moving light cavalry, specifically horse archers? The general opinion seems to be that they were the "win" button of the day and age, but I'd like to know the circumstances in which they were inconvenient, and even ineffective. I know sieges are one way that you (aka, an enemy) can render them useless, but if it comes down to a siege, I feel you've lost already, so I need more examples.

Also, I've heard that the Battle of Lechsfield was a prime example of the failings of horse archers, but reading the Wikipedia article just confused me more. Would some one sum up what happened to me?

Finally, and it's more of a feudal history question than a weapon or armor one, but what would be a good reason a ruler would want to cut down on the power of his horse archers/Mongol-like cavalry if he had them in his army? By this I mean, what factors would lead to a forced sedentary lifestyle of the horse archers by the ruling leader?

Most armies that regularly fought horse archers rapidly adopted the use of such troops into their own armies - see the Byzantines, Spanish, and Russians, for example. Similarly, you'll note that their soldiers (or at least their heavy cavalry) tended to be either very heavily armored, to better withstand enemy fire, or lightly armored, to better catch the enemy.

As for the light cavalry itself, I believe most situations where horse archers were beaten by western knights (Lechfeld or Ascalon for example) were those where they were relatively unable to retreat. Horse archers who were actually brought into close combat were unlikely to win. So, at Lechfeld, the Magyars had a river behind them, and at Ascalon, the Fatimids were defending a city.

What happened at Lechfeld, essentially was that the Magyars crossed the river Lech to attack a German army. There was heavy fighting, when a second Magyar force arrived on the German flank. The Germans withdrew in disorder, but didn't panic, and were able to fight off the flanking force. They then proceeded to pin the Magyar army against the river and crush them.

And finally, I suppose a ruler might want to force nomadic peoples under his rule to settle to make them more productive. The nomadic life is not exactly rich as it is, and settled peoples will be both easier and more profitable to tax.

[Yora]

Also, being under siege doesn't mean that you've lost. Don't know the actual ratio, but many sieges lasted for month and with enough supplies you could hold out safely inside a castle much better than camping in the cold mud outside. I think even in World War 1 most soldiers died from the terrible conditions in the trenches and not from enemy fire.
"War season" was usually limited to a small time frame after harvest and before weather got too bad in fall. If you could hold that long, you didn't need to fight the troops outside the walls at all.

[Subotei]

Also, cultures that used mounted archers are usually claimed to have put both archery and riding as the two most important skills any child has to learn. No idea if that's actually true, but today you'll find a great number of 5 year olds in Mongolia, whose skills would most other people put to shame.
So apparently to field large numbers of mounted archers who are really good at it, you need a culture that is based around them, you probably can't just pick any number of 16 year olds and put them on some horses you have, and expect them to become any good.

I spent some time in Mongolia a few years ago. I remember talking to one of the nomads we were with (the english speaking guide) and his reply stuck with me.

Me: 'At what age do you teach your kids to ride?'

Mongolian: <shrugs> 'What age do you teach yours to walk?'

For the best ways to counter mounted archers, I think they've been stated - the mongols never made much headway into Europe due to the geography - wooded and hilly - and climate - generally wetter than the steppes. Equally their raids into the middle east failed due to lack of adequate grazing. Fortifications were a difficulty unless taken by surprise or with assisting siege engineers. Anything which foils hit and run tactics will be a major hindrance to them

I've no real knowledge of Lechsfield.

Nomadic people are nomadic because of geography - the grazing land they generally rely on is poor and seasonal - they move so their herds and flocks can find adequate grazing. To force a sedentary lifestyle on nomads would mean either a) offering them a better lifestyle than they have and hope they go for it or b) destroying their herds so they have no option.

[Karoht]

Nomadic people are nomadic because of geography - the grazing land they generally rely on is poor and seasonal - they move so their herds and flocks can find adequate grazing. To force a sedentary lifestyle on nomads would mean either 1) offering them a better lifestyle than they have and hope they go for it or b) destroying their herds so they have no option.

Or c) offering them excellent grazing land.

[AslanCross]

Was the dagger ever used together with the European longswords, or was it strictly a backup weapon?

[Spiryt]

Was the dagger ever used together with the European longswords, or was it strictly a backup weapon?

Well, that depends on what do you mean by "together" ?

If you're talking about "Two weapon fighting" then almost certainly not, as TWF was really occasional stuff.

Only real traces in Europe are few sagas and legends, which are mostly tall tales. There are also renaissance civilian systems, dealing with rapier and dagger - very specialized, and practical in civilian setting, where rapier and dagger was what one could most probably have to defend himself.

Two weapon fighting may look trendy, but it's really impractical and pointless for most purposes.

Secondly, 'longsword' would be mostly two handed sword, so....

[AslanCross]

What you mean by "together" ?

If you're talking about "Two weapon fighting" then almost certainly not, as TWF was really occasional stuff.

Only real traces in Europe are few sagas and legends, which are mostly tall tales. There are also renaissance civilian systems, dealing with rapier and dagger - very specialized, and practical in civilian setting, where rapier and dagger was what one could most probably have to defend himself.

Two weapon fighting may look trendy, but it's really impractical and pointless for most purposes.

Secondly, 'longsword' would be mostly two handed sword, so....

Yes, I meant TWF, and I'm aware of the longsword being two-handed. I actually meant hand-and-a-half swords, but since you mentioned that TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work, so I guess that answers the question.

[Spiryt]

Yes, I meant TWF, and I'm aware of the longsword being two-handed. I actually meant hand-and-a-half swords, but since you mentioned that TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work, so I guess that answers the question.

"Hand and half" use is believed to be : one handed from horse, and two handed on feet, in the beginning. In fact, it seems to be one of the main theories about development of longsword - bigger, and slightly more unwieldy swords for sweeping mounted strikes began to have handles for actual two handed use.

From later times, we know many descriptions of incorporating one handed techniques in fighting, along with "true" bastard swords, apparently created with an intent of being wielded more dexterously in one hand.

Don't really know anything about daggers.

And of course, many of situations where one handed grip seem to be advised, are situations where any form of grappling/grabbing is involved.

Example

[Mike_G]

TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work, so I guess that answers the question.

"Doesn't really work" is an overstatement.

Rapier and dagger was a well documented style, and worked well for its aim, which was civilian self defense, where you wouldn't be wearing armor or carrying a shield or polearm on the streets of Florence. Everyone carried a dagger, and it was accepted practice to carry a rapier, so learn to fight with the combo.

Having something in your off hand is a big advantage in rapier fighting, as a real rapier is pretty long and heavy, and not as easy to shift between parry and attack as fencing and movies would have us believe. You want to be able to parry or bind with something while you attack with something else. And if that something in your off hand can kill as well as defend, so much the better.

[lsfreak]

-good points-

Though unless I'm mistaken (I'm not one of the exerts here), one didn't tend to attack with both weapons at the same time, at least not in the same way as in most games. You don't set out thinking "I'm going to stab him with both weapons at once!" At any given moment, one of them will be primarily defensive (though it's combat, it might change very rapidly). Then given certain situations, both might be used offensively at the same time.

[AslanCross]

Ah, interesting. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, I meant TWF, and I'm aware of the longsword being two-handed. I actually meant hand-and-a-half swords, but since you mentioned that TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work, so I guess that answers the question.

I wouldn't go so far as to say extremely rare. There's a number of examples, so long as you're not stuck on both weapons being a sword.

However, there are a lot of practical considerations, starting with the fact that weapons were reasonably expensive in most cultures, with well crafted weapons often being passed down family lines. Even if TWF is just as effective as say, sword and board, it's going to be a lot less popular for that reason alone.

Then you've got the issue of proficiency. Using two weapons together, effectively, takes a certain degree of practice. A great many warriors throughout history have been relatively untrained, and frequently weapons were selected based on how easy it was to slap one in a fresh conscripts hand, and have him become useful with it.

Cost and ease of use are, IMO, why spears were so ridiculously popular throughout history, and things like TWF are not.

[Mike_G]

Though unless I'm mistaken (I'm not one of the exerts here), one didn't tend to attack with both weapons at the same time, at least not in the same way as in most games. You don't set out thinking "I'm going to stab him with both weapons at once!" At any given moment, one of them will be primarily defensive (though it's combat, it might change very rapidly). Then given certain situations, both might be used offensively at the same time.

Few games model two weapon fighting very well. The easy thing, which D&D does is allow you to use both, but with a penalty on the off hand. D&D really doesn't have a defensive use of weapons, other than a few feats, so that isn't on the map.

The off hand weapon, be it dagger, buckler or whatever, is usually used to defend while the primary attacks, or to assist the attack with a feint or a bind or a distraction. You can do very well with a buckler by keeping it between your opponent's eyes and your rapier, so he doesn't see the thrust until too late. But it's not a case of "I attack twice as often. Ha!"

The latest version of RuneQuest grants you an additional action per round, which can be an attack or parry or special combat maneuver if you have a second weapon or a shield. This is closer to realistic.

[Psyx]

since you mentioned that TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work

It works. It's just not really as good in many respects as any of the other options (two handed weapons or using a shield).

It exists in rapier styles because having something in your off-hand when using a single handed blade is better than having nothing. However, use of buckler or cloak seems to be more common.

[Galloglaich]

I think dagger is arguably the most common and popular off-hand weapon in the Italian and German fencinig manuals for a sidesword or a rapier, followed by the buckler and the cloak. Some masters had different opinions on this.

Sword and dagger was also common from the late Medieval period / Early Renaissance principally as a civilian weapon system. But as was pointed out already upthread, longsword no, not as far as I'm aware since it's really a two-handed weapon.

The reason sword and dagger wasn't as widespread on the battlefield (compared to civilian context) as sword and buckler is that the dagger as an offhand weapon doesn't provide any protection against missiles; but neither does a longsword, and a sword and cloak or a small buckler only offers marginal missile protection*

As far as TWF goes, there is also 'case of rapier' in Europe, (a specialized technique in which you use two-rapiers) and there are examples of two-weapon systems (usually two short weapons) in South Asia and Southeast Asia and in the Philippines.

as Mike G. said, most RPG systems don't model TWF well. The dagger is used mainly for defense (with rapier and dagger you actually do most of your blocking with the dagger) and to stab when at close range (it's much easier to use your dagger when you are corps a corps then your rapier)

So the traditional idea of "an extra attack" is a bit of an oversimplification, but if you get to close range your dagger is much faster than a rapier will be (that is how I model it in the Codex).



I'd also say the dagger is excellent defense against thrusts but not as much against cuts (the buckler is better against cuts) so you do see tendancies in one direction or another depending on the main weapon; i.e. messers, falchions and cutting swords often with a buckler, cut-thrust swords, sideswords, and rapiers often with a dagger.

What you do not see historically very much that I'm aware of is the "florentine" style ala SCA or LARP where a guy uses a short sword and an arming sword or a sword and an axe or a sword and a mace etc. I think that is basically just a fantasy creation.

G

* Bucklers can block javelins, rocks and darts but aren't very good protection against high velocity weapons like firearms, crossbows or longbows. Which is why larger shields like rotella, heater, or mini-pavise were used on the battlefield generally.

[Psyx]

Ooh... silly me. I can indeed think of a case where daggers were used off-hand to a weapon of war on the field of battle: Use of the dagger and targe off-hand by Highlanders.

We have been 'trained' by gaming, novels and films to think that fighting with two weapons at once is the 'best' way of fighting, when in reality, it's a rare case to do so.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah that is a good example, the targe (small shield) is on the forearm with the dirk (large dagger) held in the hand, with the claymore (basket hilt sword) in the right hand.



Another TWF fighting system I neglected to mention is Musashis Katana and Wakizashi system in Medieval Japan, which is probably as close as you get to the classic RPG paradigm of TWF. Rare, but historical.



G

[Britter]

Re: TWF in Japanese martial arts

Although Niten Ichi Ryu is the most well known of systems, several schools had techniques for fighting with both katana and wakizashi. There are different approaches and methods, just as in European swordsmanship. In my experience, the short weapon is normally used in a more defensive manner and not as another attack. However, there are a variety of approaches, and I can't speak authoritatively to all of them.

It is worth mentioning that out of ~50 kata, only 5 of the Niten Ichi Ryu kata deal with wielding two swords at the same time. This is interesting, given as how the system also contains 20 kata for use of a 4 foot staff against a sword, 7 kata for use of a short sword against a long sword, 5 kata for use of a jitte against a long sword, and 12 kata using longsword against long sword. It is very obvious that the focus of Niten Ichi Ryu is not solely on using two swords at once, but somehow it has become forever assoicated with that image.

This video shows the 5 ni-to (two sword) kata.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pkGJrp9HlI

The same kata as practiced by a different line of the ryu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVmuA...eature=related

As a sidenote, I should point out that there are several variations of pretty much every major ryu in Japan. There is no such thing as a monolithic "Niten Ichi Ryu" or "Itto Ryu" or "Jigen Ryu" etc. Different lines of transmision have popped up over the centuries and though they may share a lineage and an origin, they are not all practicing the exact same things.