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

[Vinyadan]

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.

What I meant was importance on a symbolic level: spears clearly were used as symbols by the various ancient incarnations of the Roman state, swords, however, not so much.

I think it's because spears were a symbol of war, and, therefore, of military might. In Herodotus there is a line by Leonidas who tells a subject of Xerxes, "If you knew freedom, you would fight for it not just with spears, but even with axes". Spears here are the military weapon of choice, while axes are civilian items used as improvised weapons in an imaginary desperate and underequipped revolt. Swords would have been less interesting to name, because they were somewhere in between the extremes: military weapons that weren't as apt or as important as spears. Spears vs swords is like rifle vs pistols, a state will more likely exalt a soldier's rifle than a pistol.

I would add another detail, which is the severe arms control in the republics of the ancient era: even when you were allowed to own weapons, you generally couldn't carry them in public places. What these places were varies by time and place; Rome had the pomerium, other places had the temple, the market, and the agora, or the whole of the city within its walls. So a sword couldn't become a status symbol like in later eras, because you didn't wear one when performing your public duties.

Instead, two civilian weapons gained special regard in Rome: sticks and axes, that represented the power of the magistrate to punish citizens with beatings and decapitations and were bundled in the fasces. The lictors carrying them weren't there just for show, but actual jailors, torturers, and executioners that accompanied the magistrate to enforce his decisions.

In medieval times, the Doge of Venice occasionally carried a bare sword for similar reasons while parading someone sentenced to death. Swords represented the might to punish evil deeds. For similar reasons, we see as Justice carrying a sword. In Greece, however, the goddess of justice (Dike) had many aspects and identifications, and so she could show a number of implements, among which the cornucopia and lighting (as Astraea), parts of a mouse trap or a mallet (to beat up Injustice), a sword (as an infernal deity), a box full of books and more.

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.

Just for clarity, not knowing if your "chuck" meant "cast aside" or "throw", I don't believe the Greeks in this age threw their spears before clashing with the enemy. There is a description in Herodotus where the Spartans have turned to swords because they have to, as they have been fighting for so long that most of their spears had been broken.

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.

Interesting; legionaries could be rewarded instead with the hasta pura, a spear without the iron tip (different authors give different occasions when it was bestowed; one was the retiring of centurions holding a particularly important position).

This sort of purely symbolic rewards (not much worth to them) was to be found in the panellenic games, too: a laurel wreath or branch in Olympia and Delphi, a celery one at the Nemean games, and a pine one at the Isthmic games.

Gladiatory games, suspended between battle and civilian life, do look like one of those places where a sword could gain a very special meaning.

[Martin Greywolf]

In medieval times, the Doge of Venice occasionally carried a bare sword for similar reasons while parading someone sentenced to death. Swords represented the might to punish evil deeds. For similar reasons, we see as Justice carrying a sword. In Greece, however, the goddess of justice (Dike) had many aspects and identifications, and so she could show a number of implements, among which the cornucopia and lighting (as Astraea), parts of a mouse trap or a mallet (to beat up Injustice), a sword (as an infernal deity), a box full of books and more.

This is where we need to be really, really careful not to put cart in front of the horse. Why did the Doge use the sword as a symbol of authority? Was it because it was associated with the judiciary duties, or was it because sword as such was associated with authority in the first place?

With most of the post-migration period medieval rituals, it's probably the latter. There is a wealth of sources from 900-1200 that have swords in positions symbolizing knighthood or some other sort of authority, and it holds fairly uiversally across Europe. Hungarian chronicles have kings being knighted by being belted with swords in rivers (probably a Slavic ritual), Arthurian myth prominently features sword as the object that chooses the king (French or Welsh in origin? there is no consensus) and so on.

But all of that is kind of... not applicable to the topic, in a way. There are different resons why sword became so entrenched with knights that to those for Samurai and katanas, but they do share common traits: both are swords, and both are considered to be the coolest melee weapon in their culture. With cultures that disparate arriving to a convergent mythology of weapons... the reason has to be somewhere other than mythology and region-specific developments.

Just for clarity, not knowing if your "chuck" meant "cast aside" or "throw", I don't believe the Greeks in this age threw their spears before clashing with the enemy. There is a description in Herodotus where the Spartans have turned to swords because they have to, as they have been fighting for so long that most of their spears had been broken.

Homer describes spears being thrown by heavy infantry, and even later hoplites did throw them, occassionally. It wasn't the Roman-style pre-charge pilum throw, Greeks seemed to prefer to charge in a phalanx with spears, what I was referring to was being in a situation where you know you will have to use your sword, so you opt to do something useful with the spear and throw it. There are definitely situations where it would be devastatingly effective - the one that comes to mind immediately is flanking. If you are about to clash into side of enemy formation already in a melee, the people on their sides will turn to face you, but people behind them will not.

The macedonian phalanxes with what were effectively pikes would only throw them very rarely. I don't know about Greeks specifically, but:

Spoiler: Alfieri on throwing pikes, emphasis mine

Show

On sliding the pike, and on the sword

Chapter XII

In this design we see the method for sliding the pike back, until it rests on your left hand near the head. The soldier finds his left flank forward, and wishing to avail himself of his arms, and not abandon them, flips over his left hand, which he must use to pass the pike over his head. With this motion he returns to his natural posture, holding the pike, and after can easily put his hand to his sword, without disordering himself by drawing it over his left arm, without moving his feet.

In this way he can easily employ both of them together, to better resist, and fight with the advantage of two weapons, which is obvious to those who know how important this is, and who dedicate themselves to the military arts. However, the prudent never have their fill of practising and learning: demonstrating their strength and agility by throwing the pike in different ways, letting it slide from the point down to the butt, and extracting a thousand new discoveries, all contributing to the completeness of this art.

It's the first rule of pragmatic polearms: if you can't use it any more, throw it at someone.

Gladiatory games, suspended between battle and civilian life, do look like one of those places where a sword could gain a very special meaning.

This may once again be putting things backwards. Gladiatorial games had very specific rulesets, and allowed weapons, and whether or not the prizes were associated iwth them more than any militarily significant weapons is... well, a pretty good topic for a thesis.

[Berenger]

Gladiatory games, suspended between battle and civilian life, do look like one of those places where a sword could gain a very special meaning.

Swords seem to have held some special meaning in this context because the symbol of a successful gladiator's manumission was shaped in the form of a rudis, a wooden training sword.

[Vinyadan]

About the meaning of swords in the gladiatory games, it just came to my mind a text by Artemidorus, a Greek diviner, who offered an interpretation of the meaning of different gladiators. The gladiators represented the kind of woman you were going to marry, based on his technique and equipment. For example, if you dreamt of a gladiator with two blades, well, tough luck: it meant that your wife was going to be duplicitous, ugly, or an outright poisoner.

It isn't strictly related, but it's something I find funny and interesting.

This is where we need to be really, really careful not to put cart in front of the horse. Why did the Doge use the sword as a symbol of authority? Was it because it was associated with the judiciary duties, or was it because sword as such was associated with authority in the first place?

There are multiple swords in the history of Venice, and the symbols of the Doge varied with time. The original ones came from Constantinople and where a sword, a sceptre, and a throne. The sword represented the dignity of spatharios, while the sceptre and the throne were probably derived by the late ancient-early medieval custom of bestowing them to Constantinople's consuls (other Italian dukes, like the duke of Naples, also used them). In a couple of centuries, both sword and throne disappeared from the ceremony of the doge's ascension, and he would only get a sceptre.
During the times of the comuni, the sceptre (that had become a judiciary symbol) also disappeared, and the doge would instead get a standard, possibly because it was closer to what had been happening in other cities (with roles such as "gonfaloniere", the city's standard-bearer, and, sometimes, its highest office). The standard is also visible on the sigils and the coins showing the doge (Enrico Dandolo receives the standard from St. Mark).
As the power of the doge lessens, the number of his regalia increases, until they comprise the 7 "triumphs". Among these there is a sword given by the Pope to the doge in 1177 as a defender of Christianity (= defender of of the Pope against the Emperor). This sword will become known as the "sword of justice"; Jacopo Bertaldo (a jurist, d. 1315) connects it to the power of vengeance (for the state) of the doge. It normally wasn't carried by the doge, but by some magistrates or judges who accompanied him. Its connection to the power to punish is generally attested in all secondary sources I read about it.

It's a pity that I cannot find the description of the parade I mentioned earlier; I read it years ago, and my memory is a bit hazy. The procession proceded by boat, and the doge was on the ducal barge; the sentenced man, whose hand was cut and hanged at his neck, also was on a barge. I don't remember if the doge exceptionally carried the sword personally in this case, or whether it was naked or sheated, and when exactly the hand was cut (before or after leaving the barge).

Homer describes spears being thrown by heavy infantry, and even later hoplites did throw them, occassionally. It wasn't the Roman-style pre-charge pilum throw, Greeks seemed to prefer to charge in a phalanx with spears, what I was referring to was being in a situation where you know you will have to use your sword, so you opt to do something useful with the spear and throw it. There are definitely situations where it would be devastatingly effective - the one that comes to mind immediately is flanking. If you are about to clash into side of enemy formation already in a melee, the people on their sides will turn to face you, but people behind them will not.

If you have some references on hoplites throwing their spears, I'd like to take a look. It's the sort of thing that gets barely mentioned. The one case I have in mind is a vase where hoplites carry two spears, one noticeably shorter than the other and probably meant to be thrown (although this is different from throwing the main spear).

[Martin Greywolf]

The original ones came from Constantinople and where a sword, a sceptre, and a throne. The sword represented the dignity of spatharios

So, in this specific case, the sowrd is there because it was the weapon of choice of imperial bodyguards whose name/title got used in political plays in the sense of "the emperor trusts you", and it's a sword because a sword and a shield are a really good weapon choice for a bodyguard. Kind of how we associate semiauto pistols and black suits with single headphone with modern bodyguards.

If you have some references on hoplites throwing their spears, I'd like to take a look. It's the sort of thing that gets barely mentioned. The one case I have in mind is a vase where hoplites carry two spears, one noticeably shorter than the other and probably meant to be thrown (although this is different from throwing the main spear).

For literary references,, I don't have a lot of Greek ones, being a medieval guy, but, there is all of Iliad, spears get thrown there quite a lot at targets of opportunity, or in duels where some opt to throw all the spears and go into sword and board fight rather than throw all but one spears.

For depictions, the situation is both simple and complicated. Complicated because overhand spear thrust is the same position as the one used to throw a spear (not that you can't throw underhand if pressed), but simple because of amentum. It's a rope thingy that functions as an atl atl.

Spoiler: It looks like this

Show

And amentum is seen used on hoplite spears, even if they are only holding one.

Spoiler: Heavy hoplites with amentum

Show

You could argue artistic license, but I don't like that argument much, especially since there are depictions of hoplites with two spears. It's equally, if not more, likely that we see some hoplites putting a light piece of string on their spears to be able to throw them better if they have the reason to. It's not like that string weights much or gets in the way.

[Vinyadan]

So, in this specific case, the sowrd is there because it was the weapon of choice of imperial bodyguards whose name/title got used in political plays in the sense of "the emperor trusts you", and it's a sword because a sword and a shield are a really good weapon choice for a bodyguard. Kind of how we associate semiauto pistols and black suits with single headphone with modern bodyguards.

In the very first instances, yep, that's the case. Then the sword seems to disappear from descriptions of the elevation of new Dogi. The sword that appears after 1177 is symbolically the one given that year by the Pope with the meaning of a defender (although an ideologically charged one, as the Doge isn't the defender of any lord, but of the Pope himself, and therefore fighting a just fight sanctioned by the highest moral authority). It then is closely associated to the judiciary; Justice itself, in Venice, bears the scales and a sword, but wears no blindfold. The phisical sword of the doge is then clearly associated to judiciary functions by the XIV century, as I mentioned in the previous post,as it must be carried by a judge or magistrate. Much later (1600s), we see coins showing on one side the Doge receiving the standard from St. Mark, and, on the other, receiving the sword from Justice herself.

Now, on one hand, I admit that it's a mistake to rely too much on contemporary allegorical understandings of the meaning of items, because the medieval man loved that stuff and would make up his own allegory, if one wasn't already available from the start (I say this in particular about the aforementioned Jacopo, a contemporary of Dante "Allegory" Alighieri himself). On the other hand, I wonder whether "I got this sword because I have iustitia" (the personal virtue) was separated from "I have this sword because I wield iustitia" (the justice of Venice).

It's notable however that, by the time of Jacopo, the Doge didn't judge or execute anyone. He was be present at judgement and execution, and the judge explicitly told him "I speak in your name" when pronouncing verdict, but he wasn't allowed to exercise such powers in person. Which is different from Roman magistrates, and might explain why judges would carry the sword instead of him.

For literary references,, I don't have a lot of Greek ones, being a medieval guy, but, there is all of Iliad, spears get thrown there quite a lot at targets of opportunity, or in duels where some opt to throw all the spears and go into sword and board fight rather than throw all but one spears.

For depictions, the situation is both simple and complicated. Complicated because overhand spear thrust is the same position as the one used to throw a spear (not that you can't throw underhand if pressed), but simple because of amentum. It's a rope thingy that functions as an atl atl.

Spoiler: It looks like this

Show

And amentum is seen used on hoplite spears, even if they are only holding one.

Spoiler: Heavy hoplites with amentum

Show

You could argue artistic license, but I don't like that argument much, especially since there are depictions of hoplites with two spears. It's equally, if not more, likely that we see some hoplites putting a light piece of string on their spears to be able to throw them better if they have the reason to. It's not like that string weights much or gets in the way.

The problem with that image in particular is that it doesn't represent an hoplite: instead, it represents Achilles fighting Memnon (n. 25). So it's possible that the artist depicted Achilles with a throwing spear or javelin, instead of a common melee spear, because Homeric heroes frequently threw their spear (the duel between Achilles and Hector being probably the best known case). To better explain what I mean, vases representing Achilles & Co. often show chariots, but we don't assume hoplites used them (although I admit that a detail on a spear is different from a whole chariot). On the other side of the vase, Memnon is dying, his own spear is broken (possibly a memory from the death of Patroclus in the Iliad) and he has another spear deep in his neck, suggesting that that wasn't Achilles' only spear.

You mentioned that you aren't an expert of ancient Greece. Homeric battles don't have much in common with those of the hoplitical age; they represent a different era (arguably, many different ages represented in fragments compiled in a coherent narrative, but not classical Greece). The Iliad has many kings, a focus on kings and nobles fighting in duels, the spear is frequently thrown, and horseriding is almost absent, while chariots are frequently described.
In the hoplitical era, there are almost no kings in Greek cities; they were substituted by nobles, who were then often joined by non-noble citizens in the government of the city (generally the rich ones, although how power was distributed varied from city to city). The spear is generally described as the prime melee weapon. The focus during the battles is on the community of citizen soldiers, united because they belong to the same city. They are only subjected to laws, and the rare kings are, too (e.g. the two Spartan kings were supervised by the ephors). Horses are frequently ridden (Athens even has horse archers) and chariots have left the battlefield.

There are some points of contact at the edges of these two eras. Homer once describes the Greeks orderly advancing together in a way that recalls the phalanx. The Lelantine war, assuming it even happened, apparently had chariots in it, and featured a great celebration for a slain hero.

[Brother Oni]

The world of weapons tech is still progressing slowly but surely; meet the ArcFlash Labs' GR-1 Anvil, the world's first commercially available gauss rifle.

While on paper, the specs aren't amazing (you've essentially got a 20lb weapon that has the same damage output as .22L), I'd argue we're essentially at the handgonne stage of the weapon's existence.
The video's also raised some interesting questions like sound and viability as a sniper system - theoretically speaking, the only emitted sound would be the bullet going supersonic.

The EMP pulse could also be a potential issue (if sensors were developed to detect it) or a defense mechanism (unhardened electronics get fried if they get too close, which could put paid to smaller drones or listening devices if they lack sufficient capacity to fit enough shielding).

[halfeye]

The world of weapons tech is still progressing slowly but surely; meet the ArcFlash Labs' GR-1 Anvil, the world's first commercially available gauss rifle.

While on paper, the specs aren't amazing (you've essentially got a 20lb weapon that has the same damage output as .22LR), I'd argue we're essentially at the handgonne stage of the weapon's existence.
The video's also raised some interesting questions like sound and viability as a sniper system - theoretically speaking, the only emitted sound would be the bullet going supersonic.

The EMP pulse could also be a potential issue (if sensors were developed to detect it) or a defense mechanism (unhardened electronics get fried if they get too close, which could put paid to smaller drones or listening devices if they lack sufficient capacity to fit enough shielding).

Interesting, even if it is very early days.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just ran into this Armour Versus Arrows test.
Interesting, Agincourt being the test case.

[Eladrinblade]

A few things about that “rinkydink little spear”. Talking broad strokes here and I’m sure more expert users in the forum can add more information/correct my errors.

1) It is a purpose built armor penetrator, not a traditional spearhead.
2) traditional spears are used with the front hand providing guidance and the backhand providing power. Poleaxes are built for both hands to deliver full power.
3) the spearhead can do more damage than the axe or hammer. Swings are delivered faster but with only the weight of the head delivering mass, thrusts are delivered with the full weight of the weapon, plus an additional 80+kg of user mass behind them.
4) Other polearms (spears, halberds, bills, glaives etc.) are designed to fight at distance. A lot of their use is prodding and poking to keep the enemy at range. Poleaxes are designed to be used in close (i.e. sword distance) and their use is predicated on using full force blows and relying on your armor to protect you.

It’s a long time since I ventured into 3.5 territory but here are a few things.
- it shouldn’t have reach like a spear or halberd, you should only attack adjacent.
- it should give the user Power Attack, which is always on and can’t be turned off, except for stepping up to Improved Power Attack.

Was going through the thread again and realized I never responded to this. This was very helpful.

[Pauly]

Was going through the thread again and realized I never responded to this. This was very helpful.

Well my first response was a little snarky and unhelpful, so I’m glad I made up for it.

[SleepyShadow]

I have a question I'm hoping you lovely geniuses can help me with. In a setting with technology roughly on par with the 1950's, what would be the best way to locate an enemy sniper?

[Khedrac]

I have a question I'm hoping you lovely geniuses can help me with. In a setting with technology roughly on par with the 1950's, what would be the best way to locate an enemy sniper?

That would depend on a lot of factors, for example:

1. What is the terrain? - some of the techniques for the city don't work in the jungle or the open plain etc. Different spaces call for different techniques.

2. Are you needing to react to a sniper, or can you pre-position knowing that if a sniper makes an attack it is likely to be in this location?

3. How populous the area is likely to be? (Dogs trained to find people are great where there are no people, less good in a crowded area.)

If you can pre-position then listening cones (as used in WW2 to detect incoming aircraft) could be used to greatly refine the area to be searched.

[Pauly]

I have a question I'm hoping you lovely geniuses can help me with. In a setting with technology roughly on par with the 1950's, what would be the best way to locate an enemy sniper?

Since the technology is essentially unchanged from WW2 you can access WW2 Field Manuals for the ‘according to the book’ answer.

Some comments based on my research into WW2 and WW1 sniping. Sniper rifle technology didn’t really improve much until the late ‘70s or early ‘80s, although improved practical range finding did commence in the mid ‘60s.

1) Maximum effective range for a sniper is 300m. This is based on the limits of scopes and range finding in the era, and the ability to acquire a camouflaged target that is actively hiding. On a range with well marked targets much longer ranges were possible
2) the FMs recommended a maximum of 3 shots from any one position, in practice sniper teams changed position after every shot if possible, and the only accounts I’ve read of snipers taking more than 2 shots from a position involve either sniper being unable to move or firing from an emplaced position such as an armored loophole. So snipers of the era considered that 2 shots from a position was sufficient for an enemy to locate a sniper.
3) High value targets like officers and specialists were targeted. A sniper might spend days in a position waiting for the right target. They didn’t waste rounds on regular soldiers. A designated marksman might, but not a proper sniper.
4) Snipers operated from ‘safe’ areas. i.e. areas where no random enemy was going to stumble into them.
5) Regular troops hated snipers operating from in or near their positions. The return hate from the enemy would often fall on the line soldiers holding a position, and generally snipers avoided taking up positions too close to other friendly troops.

[SleepyShadow]

That would depend on a lot of factors, for example:

1. What is the terrain? - some of the techniques for the city don't work in the jungle or the open plain etc. Different spaces call for different techniques.

2. Are you needing to react to a sniper, or can you pre-position knowing that if a sniper makes an attack it is likely to be in this location?

3. How populous the area is likely to be? (Dogs trained to find people are great where there are no people, less good in a crowded area.)

If you can pre-position then listening cones (as used in WW2 to detect incoming aircraft) could be used to greatly refine the area to be searched.

1) The terrain is a farming community. Lots of trees nearby, a small river runs through town, and most buildings are only one or two stories tall.

2) Somewhat reactionary. The players will know that they're going into hostile territory, but not necessarily know about the sniper.

3) Low population, but there are civilians in the combat zone.

Since the technology is essentially unchanged from WW2 you can access WW2 Field Manuals for the ‘according to the book’ answer.

Some comments based on my research into WW2 and WW1 sniping. Sniper rifle technology didn’t really improve much until the late ‘70s or early ‘80s, although improved practical range finding did commence in the mid ‘60s.

1) Maximum effective range for a sniper is 300m. This is based on the limits of scopes and range finding in the era, and the ability to acquire a camouflaged target that is actively hiding. On a range with well marked targets much longer ranges were possible
2) the FMs recommended a maximum of 3 shots from any one position, in practice sniper teams changed position after every shot if possible, and the only accounts I’ve read of snipers taking more than 2 shots from a position involve either sniper being unable to move or firing from an emplaced position such as an armored loophole. So snipers of the era considered that 2 shots from a position was sufficient for an enemy to locate a sniper.
3) High value targets like officers and specialists were targeted. A sniper might spend days in a position waiting for the right target. They didn’t waste rounds on regular soldiers. A designated marksman might, but not a proper sniper.
4) Snipers operated from ‘safe’ areas. i.e. areas where no random enemy was going to stumble into them.
5) Regular troops hated snipers operating from in or near their positions. The return hate from the enemy would often fall on the line soldiers holding a position, and generally snipers avoided taking up positions too close to other friendly troops.

This is great information. Thank you so much

[Gnoman]

One standby was to blanket the direction the sniper was firing from with artillery. Don't have to find the sniper if there is no sniper.



One of the biggest giveaways, traditionally, was light glinting off the scope - some of the most famous snipers in history used iron sights specifically to avoid that.


If you've got a significant number of low buildings, the possible firing angles are going to be a lot narrower than they'd be in an open field - 1950s-era cartridges are very flat-shooting within the limits of 1950s-era scopes. So if a round comes in, there's going to be a lot of masking that would make it clear what directions the round can be firing from. Especially if you can pick a rough direction via hearing the shot or observing the impact. This means your sniper is probably going to be sticking to single-shot shoot-and-scoot tactics, because he knows his position is revealed. That would give your players an opportunity to catch him moving, or advance in before he gets set up again.

Once they know he's around, there's also various baiting techniques that a clever player might come up with - the helmet on a stick is a classic. Make your sniper dumb enough to fall for them.

[Pauly]

Some more points.

- Sound, masking and observation of impact will give a rough idea of where the shot came from, and reasonably competent soldiers would then narrow down possible hiding spots from there.
- My reading is that muzzle flash was the big give away, which was why sniper would either relocate or wait for cover of darkness after their first shot if possible. Although glints from optics was another source of identifying the sniper team’s position.
[edit to add]
A lot of the advice the FMs give on choosing a position seems to be directly related to reducing perceived muzzle flash - don’t shoot from closed rooms, always extend the barrel of the rifle out of cover, shoot with the sun behind you if shooting at dawn/dusk, shooting from sunlight is better than shooting from shadow and so on.
- Snipers operated in 2 man teams, a spotter and a sniper, so it's not just reflection from the gun’s optics, but also binoculars or telescope of the spotter. 2 men are also much easier to spot than one man.
- Snipers can be given away by nature. There’s an example from an Australian FM where an enemy sniper was spotted because he set his position too close to a bird’s nest and the Australian sniper observing the bird’s strange behavior protecting it’s nest was able to deduce that something must be close to the bird, and through closer inspection of was able to locate the enemy sniper.
[edit to add]
It was not doctrine to use smoke to blind a sniper. In that era smoke rounds were expensive and uncommon, and using your precious smoke to take care of a single rifle was not allowed. Smoke was not fired speculatively on where the enemy might be, it was only used on acquired targets, and if you had acquired a sniper’s location then HE was the solution. Making smoke freely available and capable of firing at any place anytime is a very common mistake WW2/immediately post WW2 rulebooks make.

[Brother Oni]

Once they know he's around, there's also various baiting techniques that a clever player might come up with - the helmet on a stick is a classic. Make your sniper dumb enough to fall for them.

Or you can wind up the snipers to take shots by laughing at them: link.

[Incanur]

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.

In his 1590 manual, Sir John Smythe indicated that people valued swords because they were sidearms:

Swords of conuenient length, forme and substance, haue been in all ages esteemed by all warlike Nations, of al other sorts of weapons the last weapon of refuge both for horsemen, and footmen, by reason that when al their other weapons in fight haue failed them, either by breaking, losse, or otherwise, they then haue presentlie betaken themselues to their short arming Swords and Daggers, as to the last weapons, of great effect & execution for all Martiall actions

In a hard-fought battle, a man-at-arms would likely finish the fight with sword in hand rather than the heavy lance he started out with. Similarly, cavalry typically used swords to cut down fleeing foes. In this fashion, the sword can be seen as the weapon of victory: what many soldiers (particularly those who fought the hardest) had in their hands when they won the field.

[Pauly]

Or you can wind up the snipers to take shots by laughing at them: link.

In the Gallipoli campaign some ANZACs drew a target on a bed sheet, hoisted it over the parapet, then posted the Turkish sniper’s scores. That was until the brass spoiled their fun and made them stop.
On one hand you’re helping the enemy zero their equipment, but on the other it can help your snipers licate the enemy snipers.

[Vinyadan]

In the Gallipoli campaign some ANZACs drew a target on a bed sheet, hoisted it over the parapet, then posted the Turkish sniper’s scores. That was until the brass spoiled their fun and made them stop.
On one hand you’re helping the enemy zero their equipment, but on the other it can help your snipers licate the enemy snipers.

I guess that the officers were worried this could display the skill of the enemy and demoralise the men, or even lead them to fraternize with the enemy through the game.

[Eladrinblade]

Is padded armor a gambeson or is it more than that? Regardless, how warm is padded armor? Could it count as a "cold weather outfit"?

[Mike_G]

Is padded armor a gambeson or is it more than that? Regardless, how warm is padded armor? Could it count as a "cold weather outfit"?

Pretty sure it's a gambeson. People did wear gambeson as stand alone armor and it is somewhat protective.

And it's very warm. It would keep you as warm as a winter jacket. Not sure is a "cold weather outfit" is like "Find the South Pole" stuff, or "Go outside and shovel snow" stuff, but a gambeson is easily warm enough to be outside in the winter. Like normal "cold enough to snow, go skiing, play ice hockey, go sledding" winter. Not "top of Everest" cold.

[Eladrinblade]

Pretty sure it's a gambeson. People did wear gambeson as stand alone armor and it is somewhat protective.

And it's very warm. It would keep you as warm as a winter jacket. Not sure is a "cold weather outfit" is like "Find the South Pole" stuff, or "Go outside and shovel snow" stuff, but a gambeson is easily warm enough to be outside in the winter. Like normal "cold enough to snow, go skiing, play ice hockey, go sledding" winter. Not "top of Everest" cold.

"A wool coat, linen shirt, wool cap, heavy cloak, thick pants or skirt, and boots". So normal winter gear, sounds to me. Anyway, thank you, got the answers I wanted.

[Pauly]

Pretty sure it's a gambeson. People did wear gambeson as stand alone armor and it is somewhat protective.

And it's very warm. It would keep you as warm as a winter jacket. Not sure is a "cold weather outfit" is like "Find the South Pole" stuff, or "Go outside and shovel snow" stuff, but a gambeson is easily warm enough to be outside in the winter. Like normal "cold enough to snow, go skiing, play ice hockey, go sledding" winter. Not "top of Everest" cold.

Slightly different, but I’ve read of a modern attempt to re-create George Mallory’s attempted ascents of Everest using 1930s climbing equipment. The feedback from the climbers was that the wool clothing was just as warm as and less bulky than modern climbing clothes. It is heavier and harder to dry if it gets wet.

So maybe not, “South pole expedition” level of warm, but plenty warm enough for “inhabited parts of Russia in Winter”.

As an additional note when the conquistadors were doing their stuff in Mexico they went to gambesons and reduced their metal armor to breastplate and helmet, or helmet only. Being a natural fabric it breathes and is much less hot than metal in the tropics. They also reduced their armor in the Inca campaign. The altaplano isn’t as hot and humid as Mexico because of the altitude, but it’s still gets tropical sun that’s very strong.

[Thane of Fife]

Pretty sure it's a gambeson. People did wear gambeson as stand alone armor and it is somewhat protective.

My understanding is that a gambeson designed to be worn standalone is thicker than one intended to be worn under other armor. They're not the same thing.

[Mike_G]

My understanding is that a gambeson designed to be worn standalone is thicker than one intended to be worn under other armor. They're not the same thing.

Everything pre-modern varied a ton. There's no "standard" gambeson. Any gambeson would offer some protection. Probably it was common to wear a lighter padded garment under mail, but I'm sure that gambesons of all weights were worn as standalone armor at times.

And the OP question of "is a gambeson padded armor?" I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes."

[Martin Greywolf]

Repeat after me: medieval terminology was not prescriptive.

We can argue ourselves silly in circles about what gambeson or aketon or whateverton is supposed to be like, period sources use terms like these descriptively and interchangably. For some, gambeson may be a standalone padded armor, for others just a relatively thin layer under armor, and so can aketon. There is no consistency.

Modern usage, in some circles, uses gambeson to mean standalone thick padded armor, at least 15 layers and up to 30, while aketon is the thinner version for wearing under armor of 5-15 layers. Where the hell arming doublet, which is usually 5-10 at most, falls exactly is... not clear. Some use it to specifically denote padded garment meant to be used under plate armor, others use it as a subset of aketons to denote stylistic shape of it.

Most people use gambeson to mean any padded armor in existence, no matter where or when it is from. By that usage, gambeson is padded armor, because the definition of gambeson is padded armor.

If historical gambesons are meant to be DnD padded armor... probably? Who the hell knows, people making DnD consistently refuse to let anyone who knows what armor looks like near their rules.

As for warmth... it's an extremely thick coat. If you have a gambeson on you in winter, your biggest problem is going to be sweating into it and cold wind getting under it through the gaps in the armpits, if you have those. I didn't feel strong winds in -20 C in it, the issue you'd have is the bits not covered in it, like legs and face. You do have padded legs, but those are kinda rare, and probably not a part of your DnD standard issue padded armor.

If I'd let it work for cold resistance, no. Not unless it was specifically described beforehand as having padded coif, padded mittens and padded legs as well. The issue is twofold. First of all, the bits not covered by normal gambesons include neck, head and legs, and that's a lot of important bodyparts left out there for the elements. It's very possible to get frostbite on your hands if you don't have gloves.

Second problem is water. Cloaks are made the way they are for a reason, and that reason is to be able to redirect a lot of water should it rain, absorb most of it and be easy to take off and switch while one of them is drying. A cloak soaked in water clocks in at about 5-10 kilos, a gambeson soaked in water can be over 30, to say nothing of the hypothermia. You wear your cloak when travelling over armor, you just don't see it often in illuminations because the thing is meant to be discarded once the hostilities start for ease of movement.

Spoiler: Soldiers in armor wearing cloaks

Show

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Swords seem to have held some special meaning in this context because the symbol of a successful gladiator's manumission was shaped in the form of a rudis, a wooden training sword.

Late to the party, but replying to this discussion.

I think one of the reasons swords were important to gladiators might be the same as one of the reasons swords were important to knights: a sword is apparently a pretty hard weapon to master. When you have something to prove or want to show off but still want to end up being a good fighter, pick a sword.

I don't really know why swords in particular would be heard to learn to handle, but it may not even be entirely about the weapon, but about the context it's most suited for. Spears and pikes and pole arms and shields and such are excel on the battlefield. And when you're shoulder to shoulder with the next guy there's only so much you can do to fight super well. You could also end up getting stabbed at by several opponents at ones, and there's only so much you can do about that too. So a relative novice of a fighter can do pretty well in these circumstances, and there's only limited added value in a master of the weapon. Swords are good for when there's lots of open space and you can maneuver better. In this situation, having more options, mastery pays off. So if you want to practice to be good at fighting, a sword is a good choice of weapon. To gladiators it would not matter that a sword is an easy weapon to always bring along hanging at your side, which is probably what put it over the top compared to pole arms, which are good weapons for this more complex style of fighting in addition to being good battlefield weapons, for someone like a knight. But just the association of the weapon with skill might be enough?

[Martin Greywolf]

a sword is apparently a pretty hard weapon to master

No it isn't. Or rather, it is, but so is every other weapon, hence why mastering anything is a notable achievement.

Sword and shield are the most demanding on your physical conditioning, the hardest weaon technically is the spear. You need to use it like a spear, in one hand with a shield, overarm and underarm, then in two hands against lightly armored people and in two hands against heavy armor (like apollaxe, basically). That last bit means you also need to be good at grappling to really master it, and be able to switch to dagger, so add those two to the list.

I think one of the reasons swords were important to gladiators might be the same as one of the reasons swords were important to knights: a sword is apparently a pretty hard weapon to master. When you have something to prove or want to show off but still want to end up being a good fighter, pick a sword.

If you are a part of a social group that has to go into actual fights, this sort of thinking will get you killed. You use what is effective, or you die, simple as that.

Gladiators are a bit different, because the goal there was to make interesting but fair matches, but they still wanted to kind of stay close to what the actual soldiers were using because of the whole social context (i.e. they were warriors, and therefore should have something to do with wars at least a little bit, unlike e.g. modern MMA) surrounding them.

And when you're shoulder to shoulder with the next guy there's only so much you can do to fight super well. You could also end up getting stabbed at by several opponents at ones, and there's only so much you can do about that too. So a relative novice of a fighter can do pretty well in these circumstances, and there's only limited added value in a master of the weapon.

Not really. Skill in fighting duels, skill in fighting skirmishes and skill in fighting in a battle line are three different skills, so theoretically, a master of duelling may be absolute pants at formation fighting. And that is often true, I've seen very good HEMA fighters struggle at LARPs because they just didn't have the necessary observation skills to not get flanked and spanked. That said, there is overlap, and some of the basics are the same, so a good duellist will be able to train himself to be a good line fighter very quickly.

You stick poorly trained people in lines because it is the only place where they will not get immediately destroyed by anyone else, simple as that. There is still great value in having well trained soldiers in apike wall (see: Swiss pikemen), but if you have fresh recurits, that is where they will go.

Or, to put it another way, line fighting doesn't have lower skill ceiling than duelling, it has lower skill floor to be effective in.

Swords are good for when there's lots of open space and you can maneuver better. In this situation, having more options, mastery pays off.

Nah, take a spear every time someone grabs a sword and destroy them in open spaces. Only once you get into cramped conditions do the swords get an advantage.

So if you want to practice to be good at fighting, a sword is a good choice of weapon.

The only good choice of weapon is the weapon that will be effective. There is no weapon that will somehow magically make you be better at fighting with other weapons, there are just weapon types and the bare basics and skills in those overlap. You can use a longsword like a katana and be fine, you can't use a halberd like a longsword and except good things.