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

[Gnoman]

What I mean is, the soft guts and liquid probably would soak a lot of the force, so you would end with a blade stuck inside a dead pig instead of a pig carcass cleanly cut in two...

So these shows make the cuts more impressive than they really are because they are making you believe you could cut somebody in two with that sword, which isn't true (well, maybe somebody with a lot of strength and training could really do it, like these samurai who tested swords on dead bodies during the Edo period and before, but not the guys testing the swords in the modern shows...).

That's the reason I as if you know of somebody who has ever tested the swords on dead animals with all their innnards. I am not speaking of just TV shows, but about serious scientific studies, or even about sword fanatics trying it on their own...

I don't know so much about blades, but what I know of bullets suggets that the difference you envision isn't necessarily a thing. Penetration data in living tissue is very similar to that from carcasses.

[Vinyadan]

Yes absolutely. Not counting dedicated sights, the PVS-14 itself is capable of being rail mounted



If everything is properly attached/tightened the NVD will still in place even when running.

I'd course like anything mounts can loosen up over time when used enough.

Adding another pound or so to an already 3-4 lb helmet isn't fun but you get used to it.

Thanks a lot! There's something else I wondered about, do NVDs usually have magnification?

[Martin Greywolf]

I don't know so much about blades, but what I know of bullets suggets that the difference you envision isn't necessarily a thing. Penetration data in living tissue is very similar to that from carcasses.

So. I have experience in using live blades on living animals, since I did hang around on a farm. I'll spoiler my take on this since it involves killing of animals that didn't exactly happen safely in the past. It's not going to be graphic, but if you are twelve and like sheep...

Spoiler: You have been warned

Show

Okay, so for the most part, carcasses are more resistant to blades than the living animals. That is mostly due to bones, but we'll take it by the numbers.

Fur and skin are about the same, living or dead. If you take time to turn it into rawhide or tan it, that's a different story, but that's outside of this discussion. It probably bears mentioning that some animal skins are tougher than others, with boars being particularly infamous.

Meat/muscles are also about the same, unless your carcass was left alone in specific conditions to start to cure itself and get that leathery quality to its meat, then it is significantly tougher.

Organs don't accomplish much, except for splattering, living or dead.

The real culprit is the bones. The longer a bone is dead, the harder to cut it gets. Even bones in your average meat sold by butchers and supermarkets are already harder to cut through than living ones. Living bones have a (usually) pinkish color and have blood going through them, and are just a bit soft and squishy.

All of that means dead carcasses are much harder to cut.

As for why shows use them, rating is one thing, working with living animals is another. Any living animal is, in general, a massive pain to work with if you're shooting any kind of movie/show, and that's a hassle that you may well eschew if you're on a budget.

[Gnoman]

I'm not sure how long it takes for bones to get that effect, but this otherwise matches my expectations from reading ballistic tests. Only ,eat and bone really make much of a difference.

[Catullus64]

What are people's opinions about the occurrence of single combats in historical warfare (as distinct from judicial or civilian single combats)? My primary source base gives me a mixed impression. On the one hand you have poetic sources like the Cattle Raid of Cooley or the Iliad, that are at best dubious in terms of representing things that actually happened. In the Nordic world, most of the descriptions of single combats from sagas are in the context of civilian feuds and legal disputes, though the line between those arenas and open warfare often seems very thin indeed. Livy is probably the most reliable source I know of who frequently describes military single combats as an actual historical event, but even he's writing centuries after an already-mythologized past. One frequent thread seems to be that single combats are rarely used as a means of resolving a conflict, and more often are simply preludes to a wider-scale engagement.

More broadly, how do you think the idea of single combat can be handled intelligently in fiction? I feel like a great deal of modern historical and historical-fantasy fiction (A Song of Ice and Fire being probably the most widely-read example) treats the concept of resolving conflict by single combat with a certain amount of contempt, and a proposal of single combat is often used to display that a character is rash, naive, or has no other cards left to play. If a single combat is agreed to, one or both sides usually treats it cynically or seeks to cheat the outcome, such that a more conventional siege or battle has to be resorted to. The all-around-ok Netflix film Outlaw King also contains a prominent example of this, as does the not-so-good film Troy; it even happens in Narnia of all places.

In short, how would you envision single combat as a plausible military event, somewhere between the empty ceremony that modern authors seem to view it as, and the over-romanticized practice of the sagas?

[Sapphire Guard]

I can't throw up examples from history like some of our posters can, but I expect it could be useful as a way to avoid a wider war that has potential to be mutually destructive. They don't want to escalate, because a proper total war destroys both.

The way fiction sometimes handles it where a character has the brilliant idea to not play fair as though it's a revelation never sits well with me. Professional fighters have encountered the concept of cheating before, it's not some great revelation. Cheating in a formal contest has consequences.

Many of the rules of war are basically pragmatic. 'Don't fake surrenders'. If you fake a surrender, and then betray it, then the time you actually need to surrender the enemy thinks 'this is another trick' and massacres you.

'Don't poison wells' After the war, you'll need that well.

By the same principle, if you poison your weapons, and its discovered, then everyone poisons their weapons and all single combats end with both combatants dead. And so on.

[Kriegspiel]

Thanks a lot! There's something else I wondered about, do NVDs usually have magnification?

Devices meant to be worn don't, but magnified monoculars & binoculars with night vision capability are available.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Catullus64
What are people's opinions about the occurrence of single combats in historical warfare (as distinct from judicial or civilian single combats)?

I’m no expert, but I seem to recall reading that wars in medieval Japan often involved one-on-one duels with samurai from opposing sides—not simply one fight, but a whole series of individual duels.

Clearly this had changed by the time of Sekigahara, if not much earlier. But I'll rely on Brother Oni and others better-versed in Japanese history to follow up on this.

[Mechalich]

In short, how would you envision single combat as a plausible military event, somewhere between the empty ceremony that modern authors seem to view it as, and the over-romanticized practice of the sagas?

The viability of single combat has a lot to do with the cost-benefit analysis of war versus battle. If the cost of war - meaning all the logistical costs associating with mustering, fielding, and deploying an army among others - is high but the cost of battle is low - because the weapons systems involve result in low casualties, or because you have conscripts to spare, or because your warriors represent excess population your homeland can't sustain if you lose, among others - then there's a huge pressure to engage in battle so long as you appear to have any chance at all. By contrast if the cost of war is low - for example if all 'going to war' entails is having the men of the tribe grab their spears and walk a day over to the neighboring tribe's village - and the cost of battle is high - because you don't have any armor and a melee will kill tons of people even on the winning side - then there's a strong incentive to end a 'war' without battle.

In such situations single combat serves as a potential escape valve. Therefore single combat makes most sense in which war is frequent, localized, and highly deadly. This is particularly likely when you have lots of closely neighboring competing polities that can easily field forces against each other but lack the means to achieve a decisive victory (the balance of weaponry versus fortification technology also plays a role here).

[Martin Greywolf]

More broadly, how do you think the idea of single combat can be handled intelligently in fiction?

By doing actual research, something many, many authors seem to be pathologically opposed to.

I feel like a great deal of modern historical and historical-fantasy fiction (A Song of Ice and Fire being probably the most widely-read example)

Well, ASoIaF treats the concept of not exterminating your own farmers with contempt. It has more to do with what mood you're going for in the story than any semblance of reality.

If a single combat is agreed to, one or both sides usually treats it cynically or seeks to cheat the outcome, such that a more conventional siege or battle has to be resorted to. The all-around-ok Netflix film Outlaw King also contains a prominent example of this, as does the not-so-good film Troy; it even happens in Narnia of all places.

To be fair, this is usually what happened. We'll get to it.

What are people's opinions about the occurrence of single combats in historical warfare (as distinct from judicial or civilian single combats)?
[...]
In short, how would you envision single combat as a plausible military event, somewhere between the empty ceremony that modern authors seem to view it as, and the over-romanticized practice of the sagas?

Okay. So. First of all, medieval warfare is mostly not about battles, but rather about sieges and skirmishes while looking for supplies. Most of the fighting is therefore done between small bands of soldiers, about 12-50 per side (see Chevauchee of 100-years war as an example), because sieges are mostly resolved by one side giving up rather than storming of the walls.

This is... pretty damn important, because it shifts the most common engagement from 'regiments of soldiers fighting decisive battle' to 'small bands squabbling over some resources'. That means two commanders on the opposing sides may well decide to have a joust to decide their clash if they are so inclined, because the gain in prestige is great, loosing isn't that big a deal strategically and winning will be less costly than the alternative.

The obvious problem for your epic fantasy story is that, well, it isn't all that epic and can't be used as a climatic fight.

Second area of interest is seeking out specific people in a battle. This isn't all that hard with all the heraldry and it seems it happened very often. Mallory's Death of Arthur has too many examples to count of one knight spotting another and then riding to attack him, then defeating him and being stopped from finishing his opponent off by another. This isn't exactly single combat, but you can get a chain of one on one clashes this way if the fight isn't too cramped.

Finally, single combat before battles. Well, Illiad is kinda right. Probably.

If the battle you're in isn't in its 'main bodies advancing to engage' phase, and you're sitting in a shield wall and lobbing stones, a challenge may well be issued. If you're sitting in a castle being besieged, even more so.

When this happens and both sides accept (note that it doesn't have to be leaders of the sides doing it), then yeah, everyone can stop shooting at each other for a bit and look at two people fight it out. The result of this duel isn't going to decide the battle, but will get the participants quite some prestige and will impact the morale quite a bit. Sometimes these fights even evolve into tournaments of small groups, and they could get fancy, even erecting specific barriers to discourage one side from rushing into the open castle:

Spoiler: Fighting at the barriers, various sources

Show

As you can see, sometimes things... didn't go according to plan.

[snowblizz]

As for why shows use them, rating is one thing, working with living animals is another.

Frankly shows use carcasses because they are available. When the Mythbusters tried to get hold of whole pigs for a Jimmy Hoffa experiment, oh and dead body in car one, it was near impossible as you can't actually sell them like that, it's a biohazard. Same is true for other parts of intestines. Like sourcing the complete digestive tract of a pig was also very very tricky. The way factory farming and wholesale is set up is specifically to only get the right parts tot he market and keep the "other stuff" away from it. So you are kinda at the mercy of what a local meat-wholesaler can provide you with.

Oh and live animals... you get PETA or the Animal Human society or some thing like that on you so fast your production shuts down at a snap. Check the credits of any movie featuring an animal and you'll see the watch group listed...

[Vinyadan]

In short, how would you envision single combat as a plausible military event, somewhere between the empty ceremony that modern authors seem to view it as, and the over-romanticized practice of the sagas?

Machiavelli wrote something along these lines: if you have much to lose, you shouldn't put it all on balance on something small that won't let you bring your power to bear.

Champions fighting each other is something that happened. "Champion" as a word is related to "kampfen" -- to fight. However, I believe that those were mostly judicial duels; I saw the equivalent word on law codes from the high middle ages.

The Iliad is a very complex text (various historical eras were collapsed into it), but, as a narrative, it's quite coherent and offers an explanation for most of its events. There are two big duels that come to my mind as examples: Menelaus vs Paris and Achilles vs Hector. The first one is possible because it proposes to end the war there and then, as the war was due to Paris offending Menelaus. It's a set duel complete with a prize (Helen). The two characters aren't really champions, they are the primary parties in the dispute that devolved into the war.
The second one isn't a set duel, but becomes similar to one; Hector was left outside the walls when the Trojans retreated and Achilles ordered the Greeks not to kill him, because he wanted to do it himself (and the Greeks have learnt not to cross Achilles).
There also are cases where an exceptionally strong warrior challenges the heroes of the other army, like Hector challenging all of the Greeks to fight him in a duel. The prize in this case is the loser's armour, not the victory of the war.
About seeking people out, that certainly happened*, and glory and booty can explain why the heavily armed heroes of epos had a tendency to fight each other. However, I think that there could also have been a practical reason for that: a metal-clad noble warrior on a chariot was an extremely difficult target for anyone who wasn't similarly armed. When off his chariot, the hero was too heavily armored for lesser people to fight, and, if enough enemies joined forces against him, the hero could jump back on the chariot and get away. Someone with a similar armour had a better fighting chance, and the chariot helped get a hold of him.
That's how I understand the many nameless warriors that perish at the hands of named heroes: common folk that just weren't in the same league, as far as equipment was concerned.
Another aspect is that of leadership. The noble hero often was a chief or king; I don't know if his warriors would have remained, had he been killed (the choice would likely have gone to his heir or second in command).

In classical Greece, when push came to shove, personal duel wasn't seen in a positive light. We have a dialogue of Demaratus with Xerxes, where Demaratus (an exiled Spartan king) observes that he wouldn't fight one-on-one against some exceptionally skilled Persian warriors who would fight multiple opponents at once. Herodotus talks about a battle where Argos and Sparta chose their champions, but they were 300 for each side: in classical Greece, the citizen body and the community are the ones that matter, and one-on-one duels among nobles and kings just don't make sense (the battle still ended inconclusively).

The one personal duel among soldiers I can recall is one between a Macedonian soldier or mercenary and some Athenians. But it wasn't about war, it was about personal esteem. I think someone here mentioned it, and could give more precise info about it.

If you can access it, you can take a look at this article: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books...A8EE9D7A83EA4#

I don't have access to it, but it mentions the riepto. If I understand correctly, the riepto was a judgment that could contain a mix between the judicial duel and the duel between chiefs: two feuding nobles would fight each other before the king to determine who was right. https://www.academia.edu/2533245/El_..._Derecho_regio In a way, I guess, all judiciary duels among leaders could be seen as a substitute to a war inside the kingdom (law as a way to limit the conflict among families is something already present in Greece, and described in the Iliad as handled through weregild in one of the depictions on the shield of Achilles; the city must make it clear that the men aren't just the leaders of their house, but also part of the wider polity, so peace must be kept).

*at the battle of Cunaxa (401 BC), Cyrus the Younger died while leading the attack targeting his own brother, in the middle of the enemy army. An event in the same battle gives us an idea of the glory from killing in combat an enemy of renown: Cyrus reportedly was killed by a man called Mithridates, and the Great King later had Mithridates killed, because he wanted to be known as the man who had killed Cyrus.
There is one Roman example I can think of that isn't in Livy: in 29 BC the commander Licinius Crassus demanded spolia opima for having personally defeated the king of the Bastarnae. He was refused his request, because Augustus claimed to be the real commander of all military action, and instead he was given a triumph. However, his fight didn't decide the battle, which was won by the Roman army as a whole.

Devices meant to be worn don't, but magnified monoculars & binoculars with night vision capability are available.

OK, thanks a lot!

[Brother Oni]

I’m no expert, but I seem to recall reading that wars in medieval Japan often involved one-on-one duels with samurai from opposing sides—not simply one fight, but a whole series of individual duels.

Clearly this had changed by the time of Sekigahara, if not much earlier.

Kind of for both points.

Reputedly, samurai had a habit of riding out in front of the army lines and boasting of their name/lineage/achievement, as both psychological warfare against the enemy and to boost friendly morale. Sometimes they might pick up a duel as a bit prestige earning, much like Martin Greywolf mentioned, but these were uncommon. This habit had disappeared by the time of the first Mongol Invasion (late 13th Century) although whether it was because the samurai didn't feel the need for it, or the Mongols broke them of that habit, isn't clear.

Battle lines devolving into duels after the initial clash was not ideal and actively discouraged, but plans rarely survive first contact with the enemy and there's a couple of factors that influenced this: the way samurai were rewarded for their prowess in battle, how the samurai specifically (ie not ashigaru) were organised and the tactics that these two factors both led to.

• Samurai were rewarded for their prowess in battle - the easiest way of proving this was to display the heads of all your famous and important opponents you had taken after the battle in a head viewing ceremony. So samurai were encouraged to go out hunting for important leaders, despite maintaining formation being the best way of staying alive in combat.
  
• The next factor that lead to this was the way samurai were organised, as opposed to ashigaru. Taking the basic yari (spear) squad, they were 14 samurai strong, with each samurai having 1 or 2 ashigaru supporters or 'men at arms' not armed with spears. Each samurai/ashigaru team would fight together as close knit unit, but the whole samurai squad would be a much looser formation than an equivalent ashigaru spear squad.
  These men at arms would be responsible for collecting the head after the samurai had taken it from its former owner.
  
• These two factors often lead to samurai tactics and warfare focusing on decapitation strikes (pun intended), that is going after high value targets and leaders almost exclusively, sometimes to the exclusion of actually winning the battle.*

This hadn't changed by the time of Sekigahara - what had changed was the increased predominance of ashigaru, who weren't as well rewarded for head hunting, plus they weren't as well trained, equipped or organised to go after a samurai's head (in comparison to the elite, semi-independent samurai spear squads, an ashigaru spear squad was 25 ashigaru shoulder to shoulder in a line, one man deep with a squad commander right behind them).
*The daimyo, Imagawa Yoshimoto, took time out after conquering two Oda castles in 1560 for headviewing ceremonies and a celebration of their victories. This delay in his march allowed his forces to be ambushed by another Oda army, resulting in his death.


Moving away from Japanese combat, I found mentioned of the Combat of the Thirty in an earlier version of this thread, so it appears that organising such ritual combat might be an option to stalemated siege warfare throughout the rest of war.


Edit: On a separate note, i found this reference to a Shimadzu clan mobilisation order from 1578

• Holders of 1 cho: 2 men, master and follower; the master's service shall be personal;
• holders of 2 cho: 3 men, master and followers;
• holders of 3 cho: 4 men, master and followers;
• holders of 4 cho: 5 men, master and followers;
• holders of 5 cho: 6 men, master and followers;
• holders of 6 cho: 7 men, master and followers;
• holders of 7 cho: 8 men, master and followers;
• holders of 8 cho: 9 men, master and followers;
• holders of 9 cho: 10 men, master and followers;
• holders of 10 cho: 11 men, master and followers;

1 cho was ~2.94 acres back in 1578.

[Pauly]

As for the individual combat, there does appear to be a strong cultural element to it.
Cultures that had a strong history of boasting of individual prowess (Celts, Viking era Scandinavians, Japanese for example) had higher reported instances. Some of the reports come from epic poems/myths/sagas so there is a chance that it was seen more as an ideal than an actual practice. More organized/pragmatic cultures (eg Romans, Mongols) discouraged the practice.

Probably the most famous example of an individual combat of single combat is David and Goliath. Leaving aside whether or not it is a true account or not, the situation described leading up to the duel is fairly common. Both armies had taken up defensive positions and neither was prepared to come out and attack. The offer of single combat was part of the psychological warfare to get the other side’s morale to break. So as a way of breaking a stalemate, a duel of champions was useds. This seems to have been reasonably common at least in literature.

[Mechalich]

Probably the most famous example of an individual combat of single combat is David and Goliath. Leaving aside whether or not it is a true account or not, the situation described leading up to the duel is fairly common. Both armies had taken up defensive positions and neither was prepared to come out and attack. The offer of single combat was part of the psychological warfare to get the other side’s morale to break. So as a way of breaking a stalemate, a duel of champions was useds. This seems to have been reasonably common at least in literature.

Single combat as a psychological weapon of this nature also shows up extensively in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and there seems to be a fair amount of historical backing as the accounts reveal that many of the generals of the time were horrible jerks who couldn't lead an army out of a paper bag but whose personal combat prowess was exceedingly important, such as Lu Bu.

This seems to have a lot to do with the nature of the armies and the weapons systems available to them. The average Three Kingdoms army was comprised almost entirely of conscripted peasants with minimal training, only simple polearms as weapons and no armor to speak of. At the same time, however, those armies were huge, regularly throwing mid-five figure forces at each other. Additionally, due to the nature of the Chinese central plains and its heavy cultivation (of wheat, not rice), they often drew up against each other more or less in the open. Even further, because of environmental considerations and ongoing hostilities with the steppe tribes to the north, the Chinese state at the time had proportionally very few cavalry to break up infantry formations.

The result was a military situation that prioritized any method whatsoever to 'break the line' and cause infantry to scatter before assaults. A huge portion of Three Kingdoms involves seemingly endless stratagems to take the enemy unawares so as to avoid letting them draw up their formations, but when that failed, it seems the practice was to send out your champion to fight the other guys champion in the hopes that a decisive victory would break enemy morale and allow a massed infantry attack to succeed.

So this sort of duel-to-break-morale situation can exist, but it will only happen if the right military conditions emerge to support it. Large conscript armies seem to be a key part - because that's the kind of army that depends on this sort of morale-boost.

[Brother Oni]

Single combat as a psychological weapon of this nature also shows up extensively in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and there seems to be a fair amount of historical backing as the accounts reveal that many of the generals of the time were horrible jerks who couldn't lead an army out of a paper bag but whose personal combat prowess was exceedingly important, such as Lu Bu.

While true that a significant number of generals did end up being betrayed by their subordinates (Zhang Fei is mentioned multiple times to be a giant, drunken [redacted] bag which led to his assassination by two defecting subordinates and he's the sworn brother of the patron saint of loyalty and righteousness himself), take anything from Romance with a great pinch of salt as it's essentially historical fanfiction that was collated and written down by a Liu Bei fanboy, centuries after the Three Kingdoms era.

[Thane of Fife]

So this sort of duel-to-break-morale situation can exist, but it will only happen if the right military conditions emerge to support it. Large conscript armies seem to be a key part - because that's the kind of army that depends on this sort of morale-boost.

I suspect that these sorts of single combats were more common than that. I'm going mostly off secondary (or worse) sources here, but I can find references to similar single combats at (I'm just looking in Europe):

The Battle of Kulikovo (Russians vs Mongols). Both champions purportedly killed each other.
Battles of the Arab Conquests, even going so far as to claim that the Arab Mubarizun were a special unit devoted primarily to these kinds of single combats against the Byzantines.
At the Battle of Nineveh, Byzantine Emperor Heraclius purportedly fought a single combat before the battle.
Geoffrey le Baker apparently records a combat between an English and Scottish champion before the Battle of Halidon Hill, and other combats between the English and French before Poitiers.
At the Siege of Melun in 1429, the commander of the French garrison, Arnaud Guillaume, purportedly jousted with King Henry V underground during a counter-mining operation.

Likewise, we know that people fought duels and such outside of battles - there's the Combat of the Thirty mentioned just a few posts ago, for example. I also saw an interesting reference to a challenge made in 1398-ish by seven French knights against the English, with the losers giving diamonds or golden rods to the winners' ladies. These sorts of challenges seem to have been highly lauded at the time, win or lose.

---

My understanding of the current conception of pre-modern combat is that it was brief spasms of action between when lines met and when they broke apart again to regroup. These lulls, or the moments before the battle actually started, would seem like ideal moments for single or small group combats.

If people from these sorts of warrior cultures were willing to fight deadly duels for honor during comparative peacetime, I would think they would have been even more willing to do it during battle, when their blood was up and they were in front of all their peers, unless they had it sufficiently beaten into them that they were not supposed to do that.

That's all speculation on my part, though.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Thane of Fife
The Battle of Kulikovo (Russians vs Mongols). Both champions purportedly killed each other.

This is mentioned in Osprey’s book on Kulikovo:

“Although it is entirely possible this is simply a colourful apocryphal tale, the convention is that, in a clash evocative of older times, champions from each side met and duelled in the no man’s land between armies before the battle.” (p. 57)

The book adds the detail that after the first pass with spears, the Mongol champion’s body “was knocked clean off his horse," while the Russian champion’s body stayed in the saddle, which the Russians considered a good omen.

[Clistenes]

Speaking about duels during a war, I would like to mention the Challenge of Barletta (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge_of_Barletta).

It seems such duels were quite common during sieged in the Italian Wars.

About duels between samurai, it's important to remember that they originally weren't soldiers serving in the armies of independent countries, but bodyguards and enforcers of imperial governors. At the beginning, samurai wars looked more like small scale vendettas between aristocratic families... like, you killed the servant of my cousin, so I send some guys to burn one of your villages.

Samurai were mounted archers at that time. Their armies were small and fast, and their main goal was to kill other samurai.

Afterwards, fiefdoms became more and more like independent countries that conquered each other, and they created true armies.

At the beginning, ashigaru were seen as a poor man's weapon, a poor replacement for samurai that you resorted to when you lacked them.

But later they raised large armies of ashigaru footmen, with samurai being officers and cavalry.

So. I have experience in using live blades on living animals, since I did hang around on a farm. I'll spoiler my take on this since it involves killing of animals that didn't exactly happen safely in the past. It's not going to be graphic, but if you are twelve and like sheep...

Spoiler: You have been warned

Show

Okay, so for the most part, carcasses are more resistant to blades than the living animals. That is mostly due to bones, but we'll take it by the numbers.

Fur and skin are about the same, living or dead. If you take time to turn it into rawhide or tan it, that's a different story, but that's outside of this discussion. It probably bears mentioning that some animal skins are tougher than others, with boars being particularly infamous.

Meat/muscles are also about the same, unless your carcass was left alone in specific conditions to start to cure itself and get that leathery quality to its meat, then it is significantly tougher.

Organs don't accomplish much, except for splattering, living or dead.

The real culprit is the bones. The longer a bone is dead, the harder to cut it gets. Even bones in your average meat sold by butchers and supermarkets are already harder to cut through than living ones. Living bones have a (usually) pinkish color and have blood going through them, and are just a bit soft and squishy.

All of that means dead carcasses are much harder to cut.

As for why shows use them, rating is one thing, working with living animals is another. Any living animal is, in general, a massive pain to work with if you're shooting any kind of movie/show, and that's a hassle that you may well eschew if you're on a budget.

Thank you. I wasn't speaking of living animals, but of dead animals whose blood and organs haven't been removed, but your post answers my question.

I understand why carcasses are used in shows instead of whole dead bodies , of course. It would be too gruesome for TV. Scientific tests done in lab conditions are another matter...

As for living animals, it probably is illegal in most countries (and honestly, I wouldn't want to watch that show myself).

[fusilier]

Speaking about duels during a war, I would like to mention the Challenge of Barletta (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge_of_Barletta).

It seems such duels were quite common during sieged in the Italian Wars.

Ah the Challenge of Barletta, that's a fascinating event. I was thinking about it recently. I didn't realize such duels were common, although it makes sense as a good way to pass the time during sieges.

[Martin Greywolf]

Samurai were mounted archers at that time. Their armies were small and fast, and their main goal was to kill other samurai.

Afterwards, fiefdoms became more and more like independent countries that conquered each other, and they created true armies.

At the beginning, ashigaru were seen as a poor man's weapon, a poor replacement for samurai that you resorted to when you lacked them.

But later they raised large armies of ashigaru footmen, with samurai being officers and cavalry.

It's a pretty fascinating thing - Japan basically had middle ages on fast forward during the Sengoku Jidai. At the end of Muromachi period and start of Sengoku Jidai, the samurai armies were not unlike those of early medieval Hungary: centered around well-armored horse archer aristocracy. And then, during sengoku jidai, they discovered heavy cavalry massed charges and subsequently countered them with pike and shot formations, with all the organizational innovation you need to have those.

And then they stagnated for a few centuries, only to repeat the blisteringly quick modernization during the Meiji restoration.

[Catullus64]

Here's a thing on which I would be keen to gather people's speculations: why does the sword, in so many times and places, achieve its status as a poetic and cultural symbol of martial values, as opposed to other weapons.

There are, I am aware, countless exceptions to this rule, many times and places where spears, bows, shields, and battle rifles receive this romantic treatment as a metonym for warriors and warfare. But it seems fair to say that the sword receives this treatment more persistently, even in cultures that differ vastly in terms of how swords fit into their fighting practices. It's a sufficiently powerful cultural motif that every arms enthusiast or professional seems to feel the need to push back and emphasize the importance of other weapons.

As for my own speculations about the matter, they are always baffled by the diversity of the periods. The claim that swords represent specifically elite fighting has never rung true for me in the face of the Romans, whose most successful infantry system revolved around a sword in conjunction with a large shield, and who used the sword as a martial motif with aplomb. Curious to hear what people's takes are based on their own sources and periods of interest.

[Sapphire Guard]

Because they're more expensive and therefore worn by rich people. Either that or because they were used in formal duels.

You hear about duelling with pistols more than rifles or shotguns, even though they are not better combat weapons overall.

(All of this is guesswork)

[Vinyadan]

Here's a thing on which I would be keen to gather people's speculations: why does the sword, in so many times and places, achieve its status as a poetic and cultural symbol of martial values, as opposed to other weapons.

There are, I am aware, countless exceptions to this rule, many times and places where spears, bows, shields, and battle rifles receive this romantic treatment as a metonym for warriors and warfare. But it seems fair to say that the sword receives this treatment more persistently, even in cultures that differ vastly in terms of how swords fit into their fighting practices. It's a sufficiently powerful cultural motif that every arms enthusiast or professional seems to feel the need to push back and emphasize the importance of other weapons.

As for my own speculations about the matter, they are always baffled by the diversity of the periods. The claim that swords represent specifically elite fighting has never rung true for me in the face of the Romans, whose most successful infantry system revolved around a sword in conjunction with a large shield, and who used the sword as a martial motif with aplomb. Curious to hear what people's takes are based on their own sources and periods of interest.

I think the Greeks didn't really care about swords. For them, the symbolic weapon was the spear. Homer's heroes used a spear, poets describing military service mentioned it through the spear, Greece vs Persia was described as spear vs bow, and the land conquered by the Hellenistic kings was "conquered by the spear" (doryktetos).

About the Romans, I am not sure that the sword was that important for them. I haven't really searched, but, off the top of my head, I can't really recall any use of it as a symbolic, particularly meaningful weapon. Spears instead were used as a symbol of autority for commanders and emperors, and were themselves a symbol of war (an emperor pointing a spear downwards represented peace). Rome itself, personfied as the goddess Roma, bore a spear.
The one special use of the gladius I can think of is in episodes of violence (sometimes involving soldiers) outside the field of battle, like when Gaius Luscius was killed, or when the Emperors were done with someone, or someone was done with the Emperor (and, now that I think about it, the tyrannicides in Athens were also represented with swords).

[halfeye]

I think the Greeks didn't really care about swords. For them, the symbolic weapon was the spear. Homer's heroes used a spear, poets describing military service mentioned it through the spear, Greece vs Persia was described as spear vs bow, and the land conquered by the Hellenistic kings was "conquered by the spear" (doryktetos).

About the Romans, I am not sure that the sword was that important for them. I haven't really searched, but, off the top of my head, I can't really recall any use of it as a symbolic, particularly meaningful weapon. Spears instead were used as a symbol of autority for commanders and emperors, and were themselves a symbol of war (an emperor pointing a spear downwards represented peace). Rome itself, personfied as the goddess Roma, bore a spear.
The one special use of the gladius I can think of is in episodes of violence (sometimes involving soldiers) outside the field of battle, like when Gaius Luscius was killed, or when the Emperors were done with someone, or someone was done with the Emperor (and, now that I think about it, the tyrannicides in Athens were also represented with swords).

The way I heard it, the legions avanced with a shield wall and stuck their swords forward through gaps, while the celts were coming at them looking for single combat with longer swords and not getting it. This could easily be wrong, but I'd need citations before accepting another account.

[Mechalich]

Here's a thing on which I would be keen to gather people's speculations: why does the sword, in so many times and places, achieve its status as a poetic and cultural symbol of martial values, as opposed to other weapons.

Because 'martial values' are not necessarily the values of the battlefield, and may in fact be rather idealized or even opposed to them.

The sword was, until the development of pistols (and even for some time after that, depending on location) the predominant sidearm and the dominant weapon in non-battlefield combat such as urban brawls, duels, sporting contests, and indoor fighting. In times of relative limited open battle by high rates of commonplace violence - a common state in many eras of history when battles were rare but raiding and sieging were more frequent - the sword acquired prominence. Additionally, battlefield combat techniques tend to be simple and emphasize collective action - for example, phalanx fighting stresses unit cohesion over individual thrust technique - while dueling or sport techniques may be extremely complex and involved. The latter makes them much better for literary purposes which means they tended to get immortalized in art form at a comparatively higher rate. There was also an economic incentive behind this - a swordmaster has every reason to make his school as complex as possible in order to milk young nobles out of fees for years, even though the marginal utility of such teachings is rather low.

Consider The Book of Five Rings, possibly the most famous manual on swordsmanship ever written. Miyamoto Musashi wrote it for his students as a compilation of the teachings of his school. He had served in battle and briefly discusses the utility of the other major battlefield weapons of the time (bows, spears, slashing polearms, and guns), even conceding situational superiority in some cases - such as guns being unrivaled until melee commences - but he focuses overwhelming on the sword and uses swordsmanship as his central metaphor for tactics, strategy, and the philosophy of life as a whole. Musashi wasn't trying to teach ideal battlefield combat methods, he was trying to convey his idea of the warrior ideal, and he did so in a artistically compelling fashion. Actual military combat manuals, by contrast, simply can't compare in terms of cultural penetration.

[AdAstra]

I think it's less that swords are specifically a rich person's weapon (if anything, heavy armor for the period tends to be more associated with status) and more that swords are typically a weapon that is easy to carry, either in one's day to day life or on the battlefield, particularly when you have other weapons to lug around. In addition, unlike axes and knives, swords are almost solely martial implements (hunting swords being one of the few exceptions), while spears are a bit more subject to wear and tear even when used carefully while being more cumbersome outside of battle (and have more associations with hunting). For someone who wants to commission a fancy/custom/really excellent weapon, a martial badge of office, a weapon that's kinda akin to jewelry, a sword makes sense since it's feasible to take just about anywhere while still being impressive. So while swords were more than a status symbol, a lot of status symbols are going to end up being swords (though not all, you see dolled-up versions of just about anything).

As for Roman use of swords as symbols, you do see them in the form of wooden swords/Rudis given to retiring gladiators. Not a military association, but a martial one at least.

[Lacco]

I'd go for a baseless speculation: swords are weapons made for war. Other weapons were either hunting tools (e.g. bows, spears) or tools (axes, hammers) that were later turned into weapons.

But swords... they were made with only one purpose in mind. So if you owned one... you were a warrior. Not a hunter that also goes to war. Or lumberjack that goes to war.

Still: it's a baseless speculation on my side.

[Martin Greywolf]

Here's a thing on which I would be keen to gather people's speculations: why does the sword, in so many times and places, achieve its status as a poetic and cultural symbol of martial values, as opposed to other weapons.

Let's address some of the myths floating around.

Swords aren't significantly more expensive than other weapons. The good ones can be, but buying a basic sword was within the abilities of a common soldier in most of medieval era. They were sometimes prohibitively expensive in migration period Europe, but that's an exception that got blown out of proportion. You need about as much metal for one as you need for a helmet, so if swords are rare, helmets should be as well. Which is true for the more tribal areas of migration period Europe, but not for, say, ancient Egypt, Rome or Chinese dynasties.

Secondly, sword isn't necessarily a sidearm, albeit for most of the pre-gunpowder era, this is the case. Roman legions used heavy pilum as a spear, and fought much in the same way Greek phalanxes did - spear and shield, chuck spear once tight press is about to happen and switch to sword and shield. You can argue about which weapon was the primary one, and you'd be wrong with either, the primary 'weapon' in this case is clearly the shield. Once gunpowder era hits, some of the heavy cavalry has swords as primary weapons, and officers with pistol and sword have... two sidearms? It gets a bit wonky.

Third issue is that of hunting weapon. There is quite a lot of hunting swords around, for anything from stiucking the boars through to slitting the throat of incapacitated prey. They were worn and often used at hunts. You could argue they are associated with hunts less than bows, crossbows and spears - albeit I don't know how successfully and for what period - but that's about it.

Spoiler: Swords at hunt

Show

So, why the mythologizing? You can wear them at all times. That's pretty much it. It has... a lot of effects.

First of all, if you are a random commoner, you will see your local aristocrat a lot, since he has administrative duties. At those times you see him, he will not be in heavy armor and with a pollaxe/ji/naginata, because why the hell would he, he's there to make sure the taxes are paid. But, what he will have is, and this will build an association between swords and people in charge.

Spoiler: Sword at court, still in scabbard

Show

Spoiler: Felician Zah attempts to kill the king at mealtime

Show

Moreover, and this applies to societies without military aristocracy (e.g. China), if you have a heroic story, people in it will be doing a lot of plot things other than being in major battles. While they will definitely have their heavy fighting gear in battle, once they go to have a dinner or hold court and get jumped by ninjas, all they have left is a sword. Combine this with using a sword once their weapon breaks (and sometimes subsequently breaking the sword as well), and you have a sword that is at the side of your heroic characters at all times. I'm currently reading through Morte de Arthur, and this sort fo things happens quite a lot.

[VonKaiserstein]

As for the individual combat, there does appear to be a strong cultural element to it.
Cultures that had a strong history of boasting of individual prowess (Celts, Viking era Scandinavians, Japanese for example) had higher reported instances. Some of the reports come from epic poems/myths/sagas so there is a chance that it was seen more as an ideal than an actual practice. More organized/pragmatic cultures (eg Romans, Mongols) discouraged the practice.

Probably the most famous example of an individual combat of single combat is David and Goliath. Leaving aside whether or not it is a true account or not, the situation described leading up to the duel is fairly common. Both armies had taken up defensive positions and neither was prepared to come out and attack. The offer of single combat was part of the psychological warfare to get the other side’s morale to break. So as a way of breaking a stalemate, a duel of champions was useds. This seems to have been reasonably common at least in literature.

Absolutely this. You see individual duels in warrior societies, typically in routine warfare. The Cattle Raid of Cooley is an excellent example because you have many warlike political entities (Ireland was known as having a king on every hill) and very low stakes warfare. The loss of a duel might mean the loss of a cow, or a few sheep, or the village beauty- a very survivable experience for the tribe that lost. On the other hand, as you're surrounded by equally warlike warrior groups, if you throw all your warriors into battle against the raiding party even if you win the casualties might cause the end of your tiny kingdom.

It doesn't make sense if someone is trying to wipe you out. If they're trying to force you into some treaty, or steal a few resources, then it definitely does. It's one of the main differences between warrior culture, and a culture with a standing army. Ironically, a standing army or professional soldiery will fight harder because that's what they're for. Somebody already paid you to get very good at fighting- they want their money's worth! The warriors of a village will fight when required, sure... but typically they've got farms, fishing, or other regular jobs to tend to, so let's wrap this up and get back to the business of living.