What kind of medieval armour and weapons can you make using today's sciences?

[J-H]

That depends on your dogs and the size of the pigs. Around here (TX) feral hogs are hunted using small groups of mid-sized (80#?) dogs. Had one show up on our doorstep several months ago and eventually tracked down the owner. He had definitely seen a fight but was a very friendly dog.

Steam engines can be extremely powerful. The key problem is, they are inevitably bigger and heavier than internal combustion engines with the same power. The other problem is they are slow to start up and give a constant output that cannot be adjusted quickly.

Still, if there is no internal combustion engines, then you totally could make steam-powered wagons and in fact, people did this before. To be honest, I am surprised how long did people build those and how well did they work.

We did some reading on steam trains a few weeks ago (kids, homeschool) and it took 2-3 hours to get a steam engine from cold to ready to roll. There's also a LOT of cleaning and maintenance that has to happen.

[Aedilred]

Ideally the dragon won't even see you before you stab it in the vital organs or shoot it with a siege weapon. Nothing will save you from a direct physical hit, much like there's no real defence against a large crocodile, a fireproof padded jacket and helmet is more of a way to survive glancing blows and errant gouts of flame and shouldn't restrict movement much.

If you're trying to ambush the dragon, though, wouldn't you (again) want to minimise what you're wearing, since any armour will make you clumsier and therefore less stealthy?

I agree in principle with the choices, though: I could go for a helmet and a less flammable version of a linen cuirass to deal with incidental hits but I would still want both of them to be fairly lightweight, and for the helmet to restrict both my vision and hearing as little as possible (more like a modern soldier's helmet than a greathelm). But trying to add any more armour seems counterproductive. Unless you're

Siege weapons to fight a dragon... a modern one, maybe. But I can't see that a medieval siege weapon is going to be much use against a moving target. While stone throwers are capable of great accuracy, they take a while to range, they're not very good at changing target quickly, have a terrible rate of fire, and have a relatively low projectile speed. That's assuming that you somehow manage to get your massive siege weapon within range and line of sight of the dragon without its noticing (assuming that we've flatpacked it rather than having to build it on site).

Medieval cannon have all the same problems and arguably more.

It's going to be very difficult to hit a dragon with either a cannon or a stone thrower unless it's asleep and even then your crew would have to be both excellent and fairly lucky, since if they miss with their first shot, you're going to wake it up.

You might be better off with something like a Roman scorpion or a ribauldequin, because they have higher rates of fire in short bursts, meaning it's harder for the dragon to avoid just by moving about, but they always seemed to me to be more antipersonnel weapons than siege weapons, and they'd probably serve to wound rather than to kill.

Now, a cannon from about 1900 onwards, assuming we can build one, might be worth a try.


It probably wouldn't work on a dragon, but in battle against a giant, the obvious thing to do seems to be to sling Greek fire (or equivalent) at it. It's a medieval weapon, so we're allowed. The fire probably won't kill it, but it'll distract and possibly disable it, giving you an opportunity to find a more permanent solution while in less immediate danger.

[Kaptin Keen]

I often feel people think the age of steam ended when we stopped building steam trains. I believe 70% of all electrical power everywhere is still produced by steam engines. Hell, a nuclear power plant is nothing but a steam engine that uses nuclear fuel rods rather than coal.

Nevermind.

I feel if you want to fight a dragon, you'll want .. harpoons. Hundreds of scorpions firing nice, big, barbed spears trailing wires. Pin it, kill it, the end.

[gomipile]

I agree in principle with the choices, though: I could go for a helmet and a less flammable version of a linen cuirass to deal with incidental hits but I would still want both of them to be fairly lightweight, and for the helmet to restrict both my vision and hearing as little as possible (more like a modern soldier's helmet than a greathelm).

By "linen cuirass," I assume you mean something like "linen gambeson" or "linen padded jack?"

But trying to add any more armour seems counterproductive. Unless you're

Was something cut out here? Unless you're.... what?

Siege weapons to fight a dragon... a modern one, maybe. But I can't see that a medieval siege weapon is going to be much use against a moving target. While stone throwers are capable of great accuracy, they take a while to range, they're not very good at changing target quickly, have a terrible rate of fire, and have a relatively low projectile speed. That's assuming that you somehow manage to get your massive siege weapon within range and line of sight of the dragon without its noticing (assuming that we've flatpacked it rather than having to build it on site).

"Siege weapon" doens't automatically imply massive and slow. It does susually but not always mean crew-operated, though. Things like Oxybeles are siege weapons. If I were a dragon, I certainly wouldn't want to get hit in the eye with a bolt from any prod-based bow, crossbow, ballista, etc.



Actually, getting away from Aedilred's post, massed archery in general might be pretty useful depending on how vulnerable the eyes are. Or maybe slings and staff slings throwing small fragile clay pots full of some liquid which could obscure vision if it runs into the eyes.

[Knaight]

I often feel people think the age of steam ended when we stopped building steam trains. I believe 70% of all electrical power everywhere is still produced by steam engines. Hell, a nuclear power plant is nothing but a steam engine that uses nuclear fuel rods rather than coal.

Steam as something used in vehicles are pretty much not a thing anymore though, which is the key difference. In stationary buildings, sure, there's the vast majority of power generation, there's the vast majority of temperature control for larger buildings (hence boiler rooms), there's steam as a major component for temperature control in the vast majority of chemical processes somewhere (heat exhangers), etc. If you need to transfer heat directly and not electricity it's often the best option. Still, steam engines are all but gone.

[Kaptin Keen]

Steam as something used in vehicles are pretty much not a thing anymore though, which is the key difference. In stationary buildings, sure, there's the vast majority of power generation, there's the vast majority of temperature control for larger buildings (hence boiler rooms), there's steam as a major component for temperature control in the vast majority of chemical processes somewhere (heat exhangers), etc. If you need to transfer heat directly and not electricity it's often the best option. Still, steam engines are all but gone.

I agree we don't much use or see steam driven vehicles anymore. I still consider power plants and so on to be steam engines - but that may be a function of language. Maybe a better term in english would be steam ... plant?

[factotum]

Steam as something used in vehicles are pretty much not a thing anymore though

For road vehicles, yes, but a large number of ships still use steam turbines and boilers for propulsion.

[snowblizz]

I agree we don't much use or see steam driven vehicles anymore. I still consider power plants and so on to be steam engines - but that may be a function of language. Maybe a better term in english would be steam ... plant?

To be accurate the steam "engine" in a powerplant today is a steam turbine, not a steam engine per se in the classical sense (and they provide different types of mechanical output). There's steam in them but they do function rather differently. A hydroelctric plant uses turbines powered by water e.g., and probably has more in common with a steam turbine in the way it works than a steam turbine has to the classical reciprocal steam engine. The reciprocal steam engine provides mechanical energy in a way similar to a combustion engine.

Arguably it all will come down to you decide to split the hairs. Wiki does list steam turbines on the steam engine page. But if you ask me they are rather different things, i.e. focusing on the turbine and engine part in the names respectively gives a more accurate representation of them.

[hamishspence]

For road vehicles, yes, but a large number of ships still use steam turbines and boilers for propulsion.

Yup - though there's been a significant decline.

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

Since the 1980s, steam turbines have been replaced by gas turbines on fast ships and by diesel engines on other ships; exceptions are nuclear-powered ships and submarines and LNG carriers.[39] Some auxiliary ships continue to use steam propulsion.

...

Today, propulsion steam turbine cycle efficiencies have yet to break 50%, yet diesel engines routinely exceed 50%, especially in marine applications.[40][41][42] Diesel power plants also have lower operating costs since fewer operators are required. Thus, conventional steam power is used in very few new ships. An exception is LNG carriers which often find it more economical to use boil-off gas with a steam turbine than to re-liquify it.


Nuclear reactors use steam turbines though.

[Kaptin Keen]

To be accurate the steam "engine" in a powerplant today is a steam turbine, not a steam engine per se in the classical sense (and they provide different types of mechanical output). There's steam in them but they do function rather differently. A hydroelctric plant uses turbines powered by water e.g., and probably has more in common with a steam turbine in the way it works than a steam turbine has to the classical reciprocal steam engine. The reciprocal steam engine provides mechanical energy in a way similar to a combustion engine.

Arguably it all will come down to you decide to split the hairs. Wiki does list steam turbines on the steam engine page. But if you ask me they are rather different things, i.e. focusing on the turbine and engine part in the names respectively gives a more accurate representation of them.

I'd say it's evolution. But yes, a turbine and a piston engine are two different things. To me, it's a question of 'you heat water to get steam, then get steam to do stuff' - versus, if you will, 'you ignite fuel to get an tiny explosion, then get the explosion to do stuff'. But anyways, steam power to me very much includes steam turbines. And a turbine is an engine, but a different engine. A cleverer one, perhaps.

I've done some searches, out of curiosity, but found nothing really interesting - looking for more contemporary ideas for steam engines. I'm basically clueless, but still, what could one do with say a radioisotope generator for a heat source? Could you make a closed system, circulating water/steam like in a fridge? How radioactive would that get, and how bad an idea is it?

Presumably, it's a sufficiently bad idea that no one has done any experiments of the sort =D

But all of this is relevant to the discussion at hand, if A) it might work, and B) someone might be desperate enough to ignore the radiation.

[Aedilred]

By "linen cuirass," I assume you mean something like "linen gambeson" or "linen padded jack?"

I was thinking specifically of a linothorax as worn in classical antiquity, mainly because unlike the gambeson it doesn't interfere with your limbs. Of course it offers them no protection either, but I was mainly concerned with providing protection for the head and vital organs .

Was something cut out here? Unless you're.... what?

Yeah, I clearly edited that but I've forgotten what it was. I think I probably edited it because I thought I'd made the point elsewhere anyway.

"Siege weapon" doens't automatically imply massive and slow. It does susually but not always mean crew-operated, though. Things like Oxybeles are siege weapons. If I were a dragon, I certainly wouldn't want to get hit in the eye with a bolt from any prod-based bow, crossbow, ballista, etc.

Given the context, I was thinking this was something capable of killing or outright disabling the dragon with a single hit, which implies something used for smashing through walls. But yes, a static bow/ballista etc. would doubtless be useful if you can hit the thing. Depending on the precise size, I suspect that to hit a moving target that small at outside breath-weapon range even with a handheld bow, you'd have to be Bard, Robin Hood, or incredibly lucky.

Even on the biggest dragons the eye seems unlikely to be significantly bigger than a human torso. So to one-shot it at a safe range, even with modern technology, you'd probably be talking about a specialist sniper.

[gomipile]

Depending on the precise size, I suspect that to hit a moving target that small at outside breath-weapon range even with a handheld bow, you'd have to be Bard, Robin Hood, or incredibly lucky.

Or use massed archery, which I mentioned, but you didn't quote. Lots of archers, crossbow users, etc. can use their numbers to offset the fact that they're not master marksmen.

That's what happened to Smaug, after all. Lots of people were shooting, and one lucky shot happened to hit the right spot.

[Grim Portent]

My thought is that a demi-culverin cannon is probably more than enough to main or kill a dragon with one hit, is small enough that it's not immediately noticeable, can be concealed with paint and a simple hide and is relatively easy to move around with just one pack animal or even just the crew using ropes.

Getting a shot while the beast is asleep is the best thing of course, but is dependant on what the lair is like, blasting it while it drinks or is preparing to take off or has just landed would be much easier.

Leaving poisoned food out to make it lethargic or outright kill it would be even better though.

[factotum]

I'd say it's evolution. But yes, a turbine and a piston engine are two different things. To me, it's a question of 'you heat water to get steam, then get steam to do stuff' - versus, if you will, 'you ignite fuel to get an tiny explosion, then get the explosion to do stuff'. But anyways, steam power to me very much includes steam turbines. And a turbine is an engine, but a different engine. A cleverer one, perhaps.

Technically, one of the oldest steam engines in the world (Hero's "aeolipile") was a form of steam turbine...it definitely wasn't a piston engine!

[Kaptin Keen]

Technically, one of the oldest steam engines in the world (Hero's "aeolipile") was a form of steam turbine...it definitely wasn't a piston engine!

I'm sure that's true. I don't feel that invalidates what I said though. Steam engines went from providing motive power to providing electrical power, and that evolution led to turbines rather than pistons. That's not to say turbines didn't exist previously.

[Aeson]

That's what happened to Smaug, after all. Lots of people were shooting, and one lucky shot happened to hit the right spot.

Not as presented in the book, no. It's true that there were a number of disciplined archers still loosing arrows at Smaug from the blazing ruins of Lake Town, but Smaug was only downed when Bard, the leader of the defenses, was informed of, specifically targeted, and hit a weakness in Smaug's armored hide when down to one of his last arrows. Smaug wasn't downed by some random lucky shot, he was downed by a highly-skilled archer making a targeted attack on the one vulnerable spot on his hide.

[gomipile]

Not as presented in the book, no. It's true that there were a number of disciplined archers still loosing arrows at Smaug from the blazing ruins of Lake Town, but Smaug was only downed when Bard, the leader of the defenses, was informed of, specifically targeted, and hit a weakness in Smaug's armored hide when down to one of his last arrows. Smaug wasn't downed by some random lucky shot, he was downed by a highly-skilled archer making a targeted attack on the one vulnerable spot on his hide.

Ah. Oops, then. Also, the novel is the only source I'm familiar with, but it has been over a decade since I read it. I thought I remembered Bard not knowing the weak spot in Smaug's scales existed at all when he loosed the arrow.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Now, much of the above also applies to elephants, which have been successfully used in warfare. But even then, they were used successfully relatively rarely, and were at least as much status symbols as useful weapons of war. Even, indeed possibly especially, in antiquity, they couldn't resist the temptation of the rule of cool. But once the novelty of being attacked by elephants wore off, armies tended to develop strategies for dealing with them which made them as much of a liability as an asset. Also, and while Indian elephants have been used for war, the most famous uses were of north African elephants, a species which seems to have been both smaller and more docile than modern elephants, and is extinct (largely though over-exploitation).

Couple of points, if I may (I know I'm very late to the party). First, the nations of the Indian subcontinent and nearby regions used Indian elephants extensively in their own wars. Second, there is a very crucial function that made them more than just rule of cool - they provide as good a mobile observation post as you could get prior to the development of flying machines. It is really hard to know what on earth is going on in a major battle, and if you are stuck at ground level, or even on a horse, it can be an absolute nightmare for a general to properly deploy troops. But atop an elephant? That extra meter off the ground can make a world of difference to see above the fray.

(Also, don't look down on rule of cool. Shock and Awe works equally well with your own troops as it does with the enemy, but in the opposite direction. Battles, especially pre-gunpowder, where won and lost on morale. Being the side with the elephants was probably a good boost to that)

Grey Wolf

[Grim Portent]

The thrush had just told him about it.

He was also using his last arrow, the Black Arrow, a relic of the kingdom of Dale passed down in his family since Smaug destroyed the kingdom and which had always been fired last and retrieved by it's users. Killing Smaug with it was basically fate.

[warty goblin]

Why would a dragon bother fighting massed archers? It can fly, archer companies cannot. Anywhere they are, the dragon can simply choose to be elsewhere, engaging in such productive activities as munching peasants and incinerating crops. Play that game very long, and you're facing famine, and probably substantial outbreaks of disease, neither of which will bother the dragon in the slightest.

Siege weapons don't help here either. They're slow to move, can't be kept ready to shoot constantly, and again can't force the dragon to engage.

Basically you're trying to beat an airborne enemy using slow-firing, inaccurate weapons with an effective range of 200 yards on a good day. Worse, the enemy has no logistical infrastructure to defend, and can resupply by eating yours, up to and including literally every single person it can gets claws on. Including such useful people as, say, your bowyers, fletchers, smiths, cobblers, tanners, and literally every other profession neccessary for fielding a military force.

[Telok]

Checked the op again. Assuming modern metallurgy and engineering tolerances, not chemical knowledge though, and typical fantasy dark ages society otherwise.

Steam engines and cannon are doable, but weren't generally done due to RL issues and alternatives. However you could see a steam powered tank launching curae tipped spears. But its slow. Giant scorpions or general giants, depends on how big 'giant' is.

Simpler. We can totally get hardened steel razor edges and very strong springs. How about a really long really sharp spear with a strong spring loaded head. It's a one shot weapon but put a cable on the head to the pole and barbs on the head, should really hamper a fantasy megafauna. How long could you reasonably make those things?

We aren't dealing with war and formations so much as troublesome giant creatures, generally solitary. Although, can we recruit a few of the more civilized giants? A tamed giant tortise ballista platform?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Due to story and thematic constraints, there aren't any electronics. However, the metallurgy and engineering tolerances are basically equivalent to today's modern earth. The wearer is basically meant to fight against monsters, giant scorpions, and other **** you see in a DnD earth.

I'm right now thinking of spears and warhammers perfectly balanced with counterweights and specialised alloys to make them rust-proof. And then the armour would be rust-resistant, with padding underneath it, and with extra thickness with the usage of foaming agents to make them filled with air so they can be thicker than normal.

Thoughts?

Nothing in there one way or the other about chemistry, and gunpowder is not modern by any definition of the word. Cannon are a go.

[Blackhawk748]

Nice, thanks for saying that. Today I learned air rifles with a higher muzzle velocity than a musket were created and used by hunters and specialized military snipers as early as the late 16th century.

Gets even more fun when you realize that it had like 20 shots in the tube magazine and the stock/air tank holds shots for about 50 and on top of that it fired about as fast as a bolt action, if not a bit faster.

Really those things are amazing.

To answer the question, Air Rifles with much large tank capacity, Puckle Guns, possibly Steam Tanks, highly efficient crossbows, Joerg Sprave's Instant Legolas, and large steam-powered ships.

Seriously, how has no one mentioned steam-powered iron vessels?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Because people are fixated on fighting dragons instead of kraken.

[Aeson]

Regarding ships and fighting krakens or other sea monsters, it's worth mentioning that the construction of large wooden- and eventually steel-hulled ships was possible in large part because of preexisting shipbuilding traditions giving the builders at least some idea of what would work, but if the seas are sufficiently dangerous then those traditions may not exist. Granted, the same can be said of other sciences and traditions, but it's presumably a lot easier to deal with megafauna when you don't need specialized equipment just to reach them in the first place.

[Blackhawk748]

I wasn't even talking about Kracken, I mean you could use it to pummel the bejeesus out of things you don't like onshore. The best place to be when a T-Rex shows up is on a boat.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

In theory, most of our waterborne stuff should still be pretty viable. Steam ships were a thing until very recently, and a lot of things are still run by mechanical or hydraulic controls instead of electrical ones. With the exception of radar, sonar, radio, etc, ships should remain pretty similar to modern ones. Picture 1940's ships, with some additions and some things missing. The question is how much can actually develop. The issue with anything in water is that, at a certain point from the shore, if something goes wrong, you're dead. I could absolutely see a world like we've talked about where there's plenty of river travel and a Coast Guard that stays within ~1 mile of shore to keep any kaiju from coming up, but no one ever tries travelling off the continent or even going Florida-Yucatan except under severe duress, because everyone knows there's krakens out there and no one has ever successfully built a ship that can make the journey and return. Either the ship breaks apart or you get eaten, but either way, they never find a body and you don't get to try again with the mistakes corrected.

[Aedilred]

Couple of points, if I may (I know I'm very late to the party). First, the nations of the Indian subcontinent and nearby regions used Indian elephants extensively in their own wars. Second, there is a very crucial function that made them more than just rule of cool - they provide as good a mobile observation post as you could get prior to the development of flying machines. It is really hard to know what on earth is going on in a major battle, and if you are stuck at ground level, or even on a horse, it can be an absolute nightmare for a general to properly deploy troops. But atop an elephant? That extra meter off the ground can make a world of difference to see above the fray.

(Also, don't look down on rule of cool. Shock and Awe works equally well with your own troops as it does with the enemy, but in the opposite direction. Battles, especially pre-gunpowder, where won and lost on morale. Being the side with the elephants was probably a good boost to that)

Grey Wolf

I was aware of Indian use in warfare, but I'm also painfully aware that I know almost nothing about Indian history until the Mughal period, except for a very brief window during the period of Porus and Chandragupta. (Although I am aware that Indian elephants were also brought westward by the Seleucids, accounts of which and their interaction with Ptolemaic elephants being one of the primary

You make a good point about observation, and regarding morale, and they wouldn't have been used in warfare for so long if they didn't have some value. And Alexander was impressed by them, which is a pretty decent reference for the CV. But Alexander didn't have to train the things, and that's where they fall down: there seems to be a consensus that a badly or incompletely trained elephant is at least as much of a liability as an asset in warfare, and it's self-evident that rearing and training them is a massive resource sink, so they would have to be spectacularly effective to justify the investment.

Having said that, I do also realise that elephants' reputation in western warfare might be disproportionately skewed by Roman experience and attitudes, which probably inform the majority of the sources one way or another. Their experience seemed to suggest that elephants were ineffective against disciplined infantry. But two things are worth bearing in mind: firstly that the two most decisive Roman victories against elephants (Beneventum and Zama) came where at least some of the elephants on the opposing side were inexperienced or badly trained, so not a fair representation of their effectiveness.

Secondly that in general during the relevant period where they faced world-class opponents making extensive use of elephants (essentially, the 3rd century BC), the Romans had a very infantry-centric army, placing relatively little reliance on cavalry except for skirmishing, and it seems that their effect on cavalry was one of the major selling-points for elephants (indeed, they were still very effective under Pyrrhus at routing Roman and allied cavalry). By the time that the Romans started to reincorporate medium and heavy cavalry more extensively into their thinking during the 1st century BC, elephants had probably already been dismissed as a worthwhile enterprise. (Yes, Rome did occasionally use war elephants itself into the Imperial period, but not to anywhere near the same extent as the Macedonian successors or Carthage had).

[warty goblin]

In theory, most of our waterborne stuff should still be pretty viable. Steam ships were a thing until very recently, and a lot of things are still run by mechanical or hydraulic controls instead of electrical ones. With the exception of radar, sonar, radio, etc, ships should remain pretty similar to modern ones. Picture 1940's ships, with some additions and some things missing. The question is how much can actually develop. The issue with anything in water is that, at a certain point from the shore, if something goes wrong, you're dead. I could absolutely see a world like we've talked about where there's plenty of river travel and a Coast Guard that stays within ~1 mile of shore to keep any kaiju from coming up, but no one ever tries travelling off the continent or even going Florida-Yucatan except under severe duress, because everyone knows there's krakens out there and no one has ever successfully built a ship that can make the journey and return. Either the ship breaks apart or you get eaten, but either way, they never find a body and you don't get to try again with the mistakes corrected.

The weird part about ships is that, absent gunpowder, it seems entirely possible to build an essentially unsinkable warship. You wouldn't even need the ridiculous levels of belt armor seen on actual late 19th/early 20th century warships for this purpose; I have a hard time figuring you could use a torsion engine to shoot a projectile capable of punching through, say, 2 inches of Krupp cemented armor. Plus no explosives means no torpedoes, which is even more weight savings. So you could get a ship whose hull was completely resistant to literally every projectile weapon known to mankind.

It would be the Hampton Roads constantly, and you really would be forced to revert to ramming and boarding actions.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

there seems to be a consensus that a badly or incompletely trained elephant is at least as much of a liability as an asset in warfare, and it's self-evident that rearing and training them is a massive resource sink, so they would have to be spectacularly effective to justify the investment.

Agreed on all points, but this point specifically brought another possibility to mind: there was a comment in an early episode of the Revoutions podcast of the English civil war that their cannons were not just expensive and hardly reliable, it also slowed the armies way down - the things weight far more than the roads could take, so they frequently slowed down the army trains to a standstill while they dug them out of this or that mud puddle. And yet, they kept using the damn things, and dragging them everywhere regardless of how often they were more a liability than an asset.

The Revolutions podcaster didn't really offer an answer as to why, as far as I can remember (he's more interested in the politics than the tactics), but there was a heavy hint of "boys and their toys". Not saying he was right; I'd argue that, like with the elephants, it probably came down to "the army'd take a big hit to morale if they were the side without the big loud beast/cannon", but, well, I might be wrong and he might be right: it might be that the people in charge really were like "this is the shiniest toy, and we're taking it to battle, because how else are we going to prove our manhood otherwise?". I'd have dismissed that as unrealistic a few years ago but these days it looks a hell of a lot more plausible.

Grey Wolf