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

[Vinyadan]

Not an area I'm extremely well versed in, beyond a general observation that (as often is the case) there is a tendency to create new rules based on the previous conflicts and not necessarily on the next one(s).

An example I heard from a conference with an American scholar (a household name that currently escapes me) was the way drone use was left unregulated for the longest time, and that the few early drone users didn't try to impose a standard of rules; a particularly fateful choice, he thought, and a missed chance, given that he expected that the low cost and relative simplicity of drones would quickly lead to their proliferation worldwide.

Silvio Scaroni (Italy's second highest scoring ace), reported in his diary that his ammo belts were loaded with: 3 ordinary bullets, 1 incendiary, 1 explosive. (Although I wonder if this is an error in translation, and the incendiary was a tracer). Using exploding bullets gets into a whole other issue with violating international norms . . .

If you can find the original, I should be able to translate it without much trouble.

[wilphe]

As a side note I’ve taught ESL to a Japanese JSDAF F-16 pilot who has attended the “Top Gun” school and set him Biiggles as reading assignment and his professional opinion as a fighter pilot was that the air combat descriptions in Biggles are very accurate. He took issue with one story where Johns was trying to describe a hammerhead turn which Johns described as a flat turn, not a climbing turn.

Biggles was originally written to help preserve the lessons of WW1 air combat for another generation

It did not however take long for it to get a younger fanbase that didn't want to hear about icky girls and got bowdlerised to the point that pilots would engage in balloon busting competitions for crates of lemonade rather than champagne or whisky. I forget which it is in the original.

[wilphe]

Fryatt was a civilian who allegedly dared to fight back. Experiences with partisan activity in the Franco-Prussian War made the Germans extremely paranoid about such things.

The Germans have historically taken wearing the uniform very seriously and accordingly taken a very dim view of those who fight against them whilst not wearing them.

[Pauly]

Biggles was originally written to help preserve the lessons of WW1 air combat for another generation

It did not however take long for it to get a younger fanbase that didn't want to hear about icky girls and got bowdlerised to the point that pilots would engage in balloon busting competitions for crates of lemonade rather than champagne or whisky. I forget which it is in the original.

You can get the original un-bowdlerized editions on iBooks. A lot more references to whisky, women, and the effects of combat stress than the books I read as a young chap.

But once you get to the first novels, Biggles flies East and Biggles and the Rescue Flight, the bowdlerization starts to kick in.

[Vinyadan]

So, how common is it for a general to wear a military-grade shower cap on his hat to avoid getting wet?

In a less facetious manner, I've seen stuff like that in everyday life, but mostly on the legs and shoes. Putting a hat on your hat isn't something I've ever considered.

[tyckspoon]

So, how common is it for a general to wear a military-grade shower cap on his hat to avoid getting wet?

In a less facetious manner, I've seen stuff like that in everyday life, but mostly on the legs and shoes. Putting a hat on your hat isn't something I've ever considered.

It's pretty common for military that is being required to be in inclement weather while still wearing full fancy dress or more formal versions of the uniform - you aren't allowed to NOT be in fancy dress when the ceremony/task you're doing says you have to be, but your hat also isn't designed to get wet and you'll get in trouble/have to pay for replacing it if you let it get wrecked by being rained on. So the compromise is to put a raincoat on your cap.

[snowblizz]

It's pretty common for military that is being required to be in inclement weather while still wearing full fancy dress or more formal versions of the uniform - you aren't allowed to NOT be in fancy dress when the ceremony/task you're doing says you have to be, but your hat also isn't designed to get wet and you'll get in trouble/have to pay for replacing it if you let it get wrecked by being rained on. So the compromise is to put a raincoat on your cap.

I swear I seen it on pics for things like police officers too.

[Pauly]

So, how common is it for a general to wear a military-grade shower cap on his hat to avoid getting wet?

In a less facetious manner, I've seen stuff like that in everyday life, but mostly on the legs and shoes. Putting a hat on your hat isn't something I've ever considered.

For a ceremonial dress uniform it’s fairly common.

In field the solution is something like a proper duffel coat, with an oversized hood to go over the field cap/beret.
Some examples here: http://tweedlandthegentlemansclub.bl...ffel-coat.html
Not sure it is was meant to be worn over a helmet though, but a quick google search doesn’t show me any photos of it being done.

[Vinyadan]

Thanks for the information about the hat cover. It sounds a bit counter-intuitive: one would assume that the cover negates the looks of the fancy uniform. Then again, so does using a non-fancy one... I guess the solution would be to make military-grade fancy uniforms, but then one would be all stuffy while dancing with the colonel's daughter at the officiers gala.

The Germans have historically taken wearing the uniform very seriously and accordingly taken a very dim view of those who fight against them whilst not wearing them.

I have been wondering about this. Apparently, violent acts by French civilians under German occupation were part of the formative experience of the German Reich (1871-1945) during the Franco-prussian War. There is some French literature (I mean "art prose" , not scientific works) about them, like Maupassant's La Mère Sauvage, where a woman suddenly burns down her own home (and the German soldiers bunked within it) after news of the death of her child reaches her. Other works of his are about a civilian who got hold of a German cavalry uniform and spent his nights on the roadside, pretending to be a wounded cavalryman to lure lone German patrols and kill them, or a man who finally kills a German soldiers with which he had had an apparently jovial (albeit not really friendly) relationship. Most of these stories end with the civilians being executed, although there isn't always a partisan action behind the verdict, as in the case of two men from Paris who somehow decide to go fishing while the city is under siege, are captured by the Germans and are sentenced to death.

Then again, it could be the result of Prussian militarism giving immense prestige to the uniform and trying to preserve it with a black/white distinction and severe penalties for violators, or old standards being kept while the rest of Europe had (if it had) moved on.

What I couldn't find is information about true German irregulars, as even the Volkssturm had its insignia, and I assume very few were left outside of it. There were some Arbeitskommando in the French-occupied Ruhr after ww1, but it's very hard to find info about them, as the name now mostly refers to forced labour in ww2.

I also wonder about German and Austrian behaviour in occupied Italian regions during ww1. It's very easy to find info about Austrian misbehaviour before Italian unification (otherwise it was hard to justify it), but I've never read anything about mistreatment of civilians in ww1 Italy, and certainly nothing comparable to what happened in Belgium.

[fusilier]

I also wonder about German and Austrian behaviour in occupied Italian regions during ww1. It's very easy to find info about Austrian misbehaviour before Italian unification (otherwise it was hard to justify it), but I've never read anything about mistreatment of civilians in ww1 Italy, and certainly nothing comparable to what happened in Belgium.

Mark Thompson's The White War, has a chapter about this. Unfortunately, my books are still packed up, but what I remember is that the occupation of Italian lands by the Austro-Hungarian Army was not too bad. The civilians suffered from the deteriorating logistical situation of the K.u.K., but I don't hear much about mistreatment. For most of the war it was the Italians occupying Austrian lands, and not until the last year was the situation reversed (although the Central Powers occupied considerable more territory than the Italians had).

I'll have to see if I can dig out that book . . . I'm sure there were some incidents, there always is, but I don't recall any serious troubles.

There was an infamous event where the Austrians executed Italian P.O.W.s, who had renounced their Austro-Hungarian citizenship and gone to fight for Italy (and were later captured). It was really badly handled.

http://worldwar1.com/itafront/battisti.htm

[fusilier]

I also wonder about German and Austrian behaviour in occupied Italian regions during ww1. It's very easy to find info about Austrian misbehaviour before Italian unification (otherwise it was hard to justify it), but I've never read anything about mistreatment of civilians in ww1 Italy, and certainly nothing comparable to what happened in Belgium.

I was able to put my hands on my copy of The White War.

The Austrians took control over most of the infrastructure (railways, post, telegraph). They applied the military penal code. "There are no statistics for sentences passed by the courts martial; an Italian commission, set up after the war to investigate abuses under the occupation, concluded that death sentences were seldom passed. Exceptions in cluded two civilians hanged for lighting lanterns at night. Their corpses were left on the gibbet for several days, to drive home the message that spies could expect no leniency." (pg. 348)

Nevertheless, the situation deteriorated. The Austro-Hungarian forces started stripping the populace of everything edible, and then started to requisition fabric, leather and other material. Boroevic realized that the situation was bad, and even opened up public kitchens, "but his administration lacked the resources and, at lower levels, the will to ensure that people did not starve." 10,000 civilians starved to death, 12,500 perished for lack of medical care.

A woman from Pordenone was caught by the censorship office with a letter that described the AH army as "a mass of famished barbarians who have come to Italy to steal everything." (pg. 349).

"The real scale of sexual crime during the occupation will never be known. The postwar royal commission found that rape was widespread in the first few weeks and continued to the end. . . . Occasional acts of sabotage led the administration to fear an uprising. Secret lists were prepared of people to seize as hostages. They were not needed . . . partly because people believed that time was on their side."

When the Italian troops arrived in November of 1918, they found land "completely cleaned out of food." (pgs 350-51).

Apparently, the Austrian occupation was mostly ignored by historians until the 1980s. I will end with this concluding comment by the author: "Brutal, arrogant and predatory, the occupation did Rome the favour of destroying any trace of nostalgia in north-eastern Italy for Habsburg law and order. In the empire's last year of existence, imperial rule finally became as bad as Italian nationalists said it had always been." (pg. 351)

[Frozenstep]

How "free" is the hand of a strapped shield arm?

I'm writing a story and trying to visualize if a warrior with a shield strapped to their arm could still do things like draw potions from a pouch. Based on pictures I've looked at, it seems like they should still be able to open their hand around the grip and pinch small objects, but I can't test it and just want to be sure I'm not missing anything. I know shield and strap design varies, but I'd like to be able to describe a design that does work (or multiple).

[gbaji]

How "free" is the hand of a strapped shield arm?

I'm writing a story and trying to visualize if a warrior with a shield strapped to their arm could still do things like draw potions from a pouch. Based on pictures I've looked at, it seems like they should still be able to open their hand around the grip and pinch small objects, but I can't test it and just want to be sure I'm not missing anything. I know shield and strap design varies, but I'd like to be able to describe a design that does work (or multiple).

It depends on the size and design of the shield. Obviously, it's possible to rig up some sort of method to do this with just about any shield. But assuming we're using standard "out of the box" shield types:

The smallest shields (bucklers) have to be gripped by the center handle, and typically were not strapped (you hooked it on your belt, hence the name). You'd have to set it down (or hook back on the belt). But equipping and unequipping bucklers is a quick thing to do (by design). I suppose for very simple tasks, you could maybe grip stuff with the same hand the buckler is held with. And it's light enough that you have full range of motion with that arm, so... maybe? I don't know if you could do something as complex as unstoppering a potion vial with that hand though.

Medium sized shields would probably work ok for this (rounds and heaters basically). You could basically let the shield handle go, and it's still attached to the arm. It'll dangle a bit, but you can do things like grab something on your belt, adjust your collar, etc. Total arm motion while doing this is limited though. These shields are generally "attached" at two points. A strap around the arm, and a handle for your hand. So you wouldn't need to totally unequip them to make some use of your shield hand, but it would still be a bit clumsy (you're basically holding the shield from the strap in the crook of your arm). So full range with the hand, but not so much with the arm. And you can't extend your arm straight down, or the shield will slip off.

Larger shields (tower, kite, hoplite) are a different beast. They're too heavy/large to allow to "dangle" really, but in most cases, you can just set them against the ground instead (they're designed to be tall enough for this exact purpose). You could certainly rest it against the ground, free up your hand and maybe grab something on your belt or front of your body. In this case though, you're somewhat limited based on the actual height of the shield relative to the crook of your arm in terms of how much mobility you'll have and how much you'd have to crouch maybe. Also, your still attached to the shield, which is now somewhat immobile, so you can't move while doing this. Remember that part of the whole point of these shields is to crouch behind them to maximize protection from missile weapons, so this is within the range of motion expected. Again though, could be a bit awkward depending on what you're trying to do. Additionally, with many of these larger shields, you can actually just plant them in/on the ground and let them go entirely. Er. But you're basically unequipping it at that point, which I'm assuming you were trying to avoid.

I'll also note that usually, one would just pass their weapon held in their main hand to their shield hand (gripping the hilt/shaft/whatever around the strap/handle being held by the shield hand), and just use their main hand to do stuff. In just about any case I can think of, that would be quicker than fiddling with the shield hand and you'll have a completely free hand to do whatever it is you're doing rather than one partialy hindered by a shield hanging off of the same arm/hand. But you asked about doing this with the shield hand, so there you go.

I'm probably missing a number of points as well. And since this is for a story, if you really want your hero to do something like this, there's certainly the possiblity of having some sort of custom rig for this purpose. There's a number of potential strap configurations for both mounted and foot shield stowing that could also double as a "keep the shield from slipping off my arm and/or falling to the ground, if I use my hand for something else" use. Unless you are setting your story in a very specific historical time period, with specific period gear and gear use, I think you can have a lot of latitude here. As long as something "could work", you should be able to justify it IMO.

[Frozenstep]

As long as something "could work", you should be able to justify it IMO.

Thanks for the insight! It's for a fantasy setting, so I do have the leeway, but it's a background detail for supporting characters, so I think a short and simple solution would be best (and take less page space to describe). It's really just about the ergonomics of warriors drinking potions/using simply magical items like glowsticks. I think passing the weapon to the shield hand makes plenty of sense, although I might find a use for the larger shields being able to stand on their own, so thanks for including that.

[Martin Greywolf]

How "free" is the hand of a strapped shield arm?

I'm writing a story and trying to visualize if a warrior with a shield strapped to their arm could still do things like draw potions from a pouch. Based on pictures I've looked at, it seems like they should still be able to open their hand around the grip and pinch small objects, but I can't test it and just want to be sure I'm not missing anything. I know shield and strap design varies, but I'd like to be able to describe a design that does work (or multiple).

I have extensive experience when it comes to marching with shields through all sorts of terrain, from forests through snow to faux-deserts (there was the sand, but the heat was only at 35 Celsius). And trying to operate things with them on, ranging from pouches on the belt, modern locks, car trunks, smartphones and the like.

And unfortunately, it's not really possible most of the time.

Let's take the usual "taking potion out of a pouch" scenario - if there is any sort of lacing or buckle that closes the darn thing, forget about it. Even a buckler will be really badly in the way, and something like a strapped heater shield or a round shield will often make it impossible to angle your hand properly. If there is no lacing (e.g. it's in a bandolier) it is much more viable, but the problem now is the handle of shield in your hand. Unless the shield has just straps as handle, you can't grab anything that has much girth on it.

Furthemore, assuming you managed to get the potion out, how are you gonna get it close enough to your face for uncorking and/or drinking it? There are some few shields that will let you do it, but not without risk of clonking yourself on the head. And all this time, you need to move slower and with more care because there is a lot of weight on your arm.

Another consideration that I run a lot into when slinging with a shield is this: are there enemy archers, because if so, doing weird moves with my shield means my shield isn't protecting me from the arrows in that time.

So, the answer to question as stated is: you can't do much with your shield arm that isn't fighting with a shield.

There's a major, huge but to it.

One thing you can absolutely do with 99% of shields is grab your weapon in your shield arm.

Spoiler: Here's a few examples

Show

This one doesn't have the shield hand grip illustrated, but it is mentioned in the text, see this video for an example around the 3:00 mark

This has some applications in a fight (I keep a long dagger in my shield hand from the get go in battles), but it also means that outside of it, or during a lull, you can grab whatever weapon you have in your dominant hand and put it into the shield hand. This frees up your dominant hand in the amount of time that is a minute fraction of what you need to take out something out of a pouch.

[Frozenstep]

-snip-

That's all good to know, and thanks for the picture examples! I'm glad I asked, it was pretty hard for me to picture how difficult it would be to pinch a potion from a pouch with a shield arm, but holding onto your weapon with it instead just makes a thousand times more sense.

[gbaji]

Furthemore, assuming you managed to get the potion out, how are you gonna get it close enough to your face for uncorking and/or drinking it? There are some few shields that will let you do it, but not without risk of clonking yourself on the head. And all this time, you need to move slower and with more care because there is a lot of weight on your arm.

Hah. I was so focused on the "what can you actually reach with your shield hand without completely unequipping it", that I didn't even think about something like trying to drink a potion. Yeah. Good point!

One thing you can absolutely do with 99% of shields is grab your weapon in your shield arm.

Yup. It's just so much easier.

It's also a practical matter. In pretty much any situation where you feel you have sufficient time to grab something with a "free hand", if you have a choice between "not able to use my shield" and "not able to use my weapon", you should always prefer not being able to use the weapon. This is usually only going to occur in a situation where you are not actively engaged with someone, so the weapon isn't needed. But you may still be under threat of ranged attack, so having that shield ready to use is still handy. And if someone suddenly charges you and you have to pick either your shield or your weapon to be at hand, you'll likely also always pick "shield". The shield allows you to survive long enough to draw/equip your weapon. Less so the other way around.

Exception, perhaps, for a more renaissance style rapier and buckler/main gaunche style of fighting. Then I'd keep my main weapon in hand and ready, stow my short weapon, and do whatever I need to do. I can fight far better with just the main weapon, both offensively and defensively, than any other configuration. Of course, we've also taken "defending against ranged atttack" pretty much off the table there. And the question did assume shield use (and "fantasy shield use" at that), so...

[Vinyadan]

On the other hand, I would assume a world with D&D-like potions would have knights with "beer helmets", hiding a wineskin inside their helmet's crests or have much taller metal helmets with a potion tank over their head. Or wear a wineskin on their back and keep a straw inside their mouth. Being able to heal wounds immediately or becoming far stronger seems too useful an ability not to have some dedicated technology for people who can afford it and go to battle prepared.

Apparently, the Austrian occupation was mostly ignored by historians until the 1980s. I will end with this concluding comment by the author: "Brutal, arrogant and predatory, the occupation did Rome the favour of destroying any trace of nostalgia in north-eastern Italy for Habsburg law and order. In the empire's last year of existence, imperial rule finally became as bad as Italian nationalists said it had always been." (pg. 351)

Thanks, I can think of many reasons for this long forgetfulness. Austria had no reason to revisit these events, especially since they were a brief season that also ended in defeat (my impression has been that the focus is far more on the internal breakup of the Empire and the difficult, ambiguous years that followed). The suffering of the population in a war that was by no means necessary* was also embarassing for Italy.

*I think the only explanation I've read to show Italy being forced to enter the war was that, in their war effort, France, Germany, Britain, Austria and Turkey were gobbling up all of the available coal on the market, strangling Italian industry, and the only way Italy could access that market again was to be on someone's side in the war, so that that side would let some coal flow to Italy to make it a useful ally. I don't remember such arguments being reported from the actual debate back then, however.

[Pauly]

*I think the only explanation I've read to show Italy being forced to enter the war was that, in their war effort, France, Germany, Britain, Austria and Turkey were gobbling up all of the available coal on the market, strangling Italian industry, and the only way Italy could access that market again was to be on someone's side in the war, so that that side would let some coal flow to Italy to make it a useful ally. I don't remember such arguments being reported from the actual debate back then, however.

People, including eminent historians, have a tendency to force the facts to fit their pet theories.

It’s always better to read what people said at the time as to why they were doing things than to rely on someone else’s later interpretation. There are many examples of widely held views of “why a war happened” that fall apart when you look at the original underlying documents and pre-war commentary.

[fusilier]

Thanks, I can think of many reasons for this long forgetfulness. Austria had no reason to revisit these events, especially since they were a brief season that also ended in defeat (my impression has been that the focus is far more on the internal breakup of the Empire and the difficult, ambiguous years that followed). The suffering of the population in a war that was by no means necessary* was also embarassing for Italy.

*I think the only explanation I've read to show Italy being forced to enter the war was that, in their war effort, France, Germany, Britain, Austria and Turkey were gobbling up all of the available coal on the market, strangling Italian industry, and the only way Italy could access that market again was to be on someone's side in the war, so that that side would let some coal flow to Italy to make it a useful ally. I don't remember such arguments being reported from the actual debate back then, however.

I certainly have not seen that in my readings about Italy's entry into the war. I did read a monograph about the development of Italian labor relations during the war which argued that the expansion of industry led to a kind of "fast-forward" through the various stages of labor strikes (from small, individual workshops going on strike in 1915, to city and sector wide strikes in 1918). In it, they did argue that Italy received a lot of coal from the Allies to fuel/expand its industry.

I supposed coal may have been a factor?* But it seems pretty clear that the Allies were more likely to support Italy's territorial ambitions (certainly more than Austria). San Giuliano argued for not joining the Central Powers for a series of reasons (from Thompson):
"the [Triple] Alliance was a defensive treaty and Austria was the aggressor against Serbia . . . Austria and Germany had violated the Alliance by excluding Italy from their discussions. . . . The government and industry feared the effects of a British naval blockade if Italy joined the Central Powers. Italy depended on Britain and France for raw materials and foodstuffs, and almost all of Italy's coal arrived with other imports through routes controlled by the British Navy."

(Thompson notes that the objections to Austria being the aggressor, and Austria/Germany ignoring Italy in their treaty discussion could have been finessed, if public opinion hadn't been decided anti-Austrian). However these are reasons for not joining the Central Powers -- but not reasons for joining the Allies. San Giuliano was one of the politicians who supported neutrality. Many Italian politicians at the time accurately predicted the problems with joining either side, and argued that Italy could get everything she wants if she sat out the war. Unfortunately for Italy, those politicians were out of power at the time.

*Politicians will say anything -- and everything -- to drum up support for their position, or mitigate the opposition. So it may have been said that Italy needs to join the war to keep its industry alive, but I don't recall this particular argument. If the argument was made I doubt it was persuasive on its own.

[Vinyadan]

I certainly have not seen that in my readings about Italy's entry into the war. I did read a monograph about the development of Italian labor relations during the war which argued that the expansion of industry led to a kind of "fast-forward" through the various stages of labor strikes (from small, individual workshops going on strike in 1915, to city and sector wide strikes in 1918). In it, they did argue that Italy received a lot of coal from the Allies to fuel/expand its industry.

Something interesting I read about this was an analysis of the workforce. The industrial working class changed a lot during the war, as men were sent to the front, and the more industrialised North sent by far the most soldiers (as its population almost equalled the aggregate Center, South, and Islands). The result was that women, old and very young men, and migrant workers from the agrarian regions substituted them in the factories during wartime and kept filling the workforce as it expanded to accomodate the massive increase in production. As a result, the "classical" industrial working class, mostly made by men in their prime and connected through decades of work and socialisation in the factory, union, and workers clubs, simply did not exist any more. Nevertheless, the new workforce quickly joined together and developed enough of a common culture to pull off some remarkable strikes and even revolt (Turin 1917), in spite of the lack of support from party representatives, who preferred to abstain from sabotage of the war effort. The fact that watchmen frequently threatened workers with sending them to the front had a role in creating this culture. But the October revolution also sent shockwaves and seemed to open the possibility of a new world, while workers and the general population were angry at the great industry owners, lovingly nicknamed "the Sharks", who were considered the only beneficiaries of the war.

After the war, this massive overproduction had to be stopped. This meant a flood of returning soldiers and dismissed workers, while an explosive confrontation between workers and owners continued for a few years, with factories being occupied by workers or preventively locked-out by the owners. As Italy hadn't really transitioned to industrialised and remained a mostly agrarian society, the role of women was happily rolled back, and they were once again expected to tend to the hearth in the traditional fashion.

In the end, almost no one was happy. Nationalists thought that Italy had been duped and offended at Versailles. Many others anxiously expected a Moscow-style revolution. Many had no job any more. Many had seen their relatives return home dead, crippled, or insane, if at all, and saw no advantage from the war. Most people simply did not trust the elites and ruling class any more: while this and universal suffrage led to partial successes for moderate working-class parties, it still was a dangerous situation, with thousands of Arditi (shock troops) looking for new fights, and less decorated thugs eyeing opportunities in instability, as members of the extreme sides of the political spectrum were already killing each other. There also was a strong anti-government and anti-owner sentiment in rural areas, which were frequently isolated from the rest of the world by lack of infrastructure and ailing from extreme levels of economic misery (this is particularly true for mountainous regions, which represent much of Italy, and Sicily and the South), or which, even before the war, had seen major contrasts between the three strata of owners, sharecroppers, and landless day labourers.

To make an example, in a fairly advanced area like Romagna threshing machines had been introduced around 1910. But threshing was, historically, the part of agricultural work that required the most energy and people. When sharecroppers and landowners got threshing machines, the day labourers that had historically worked at threshing found themselves without an important source of income, and started sabotaging them. The whole business became unusually violent and was resolved only when, IIRC, the various unions accepted that the threshing machines had to be owned by the cooperatives of the day labourers.

I've also been taking a look at the strengthening of the pro-war positions in Italy during 1914-1915. What impressed me the most is how unruly political discourse had become. The press had turned pro-war. Salvemini slapped De Bellis (!?). Other MPs were assaulted. A neutralist, Adriano Gadda, was killed in Milan. A contemporary, Paolo Valera, assumed that Giolitti, then out of power, wrote a famous public letter where he declared that Italy stood to gain much from neutrality on invitation of the king, so that the king could see the public reactions, understand where the wind was blowing, and choose the more convenient side. By then the secret Treaty of London with the Entente powers had actually already been signed, but the king could still have chosen a neutralist prime minister, who would have had the power to recuse the treaty. Apparently, after the letter Giolitti was burnt in effigy and turned into something of a punching bag during public discussions, and need a life guard to move safely. Even the pro-war government explained to the Central Powers that it would refuse Austria's territorial concessions as insufficient because the people were too riled up, and would have started a revolution if war wasn't declared or if Italy did not get more territories in exchange for neutrality. Von Buelow, a German ex-chancellor that was leading these dealings with Rome, got turned into a villain in public opinion (with Valera implying that part of the antipaty that he received from the aristocracy was from occupying a much coveted Roman villa). The Parliament, facing the pro-war king, government, and demonstration outside the palace, voted for war, but was mostly composed of Giolitti-aligned neutralists.
So I'm wondering if the pro-war faction finally won not because it had larger numbers (of people who partecipated to such debates; there were huge masses that didn't), but because it was louder and perceived as more dangerous.

*By the way, I have seen an article on an Austrian newspaper saying more or less the same thing about Skoda, although, not remembering its publication date, I suspect it was written before the war started, looking at it as a possibility that was becoming reality: I doubt it would have passed censorship during the war proper.

[Eladrinblade]

In 3.5, a lance is a two-handed weapon with reach. You don't have to use it mounted, but that's what it's for. It can be used one-handed while mounted. It deals double damage if your mount is charging, and up to triple damage if you have the spirited charge feat. If you are using it two-handed and are power-attacking, it can do ridiculous damage.

In real life, do you really use your own strength in the attack if you're using it while mounted? Could you even "power attack" with it? Did knights use them one-handed or two-handed in battle?

[Pauly]

In 3.5, a lance is a two-handed weapon with reach. You don't have to use it mounted, but that's what it's for. It can be used one-handed while mounted. It deals double damage if your mount is charging, and up to triple damage if you have the spirited charge feat. If you are using it two-handed and are power-attacking, it can do ridiculous damage.

In real life, do you really use your own strength in the attack if you're using it while mounted? Could you even "power attack" with it? Did knights use them one-handed or two-handed in battle?

It depends on what you mean by “lance”.
Lance can be a 2 handed spear, as often seen in Roman through dark ages Europe.
Lance can be a heavy couched spear more or less bolted to the wielder as in the classic medieval tournament jousting.
Lance can be a light one handed spear as used in 18th and 19th century Europe.

There were also a lot of transitory types and different types existed at the same time and place. Plus we aren’t even scratching the surface of what happened outside of Europe.
Generally speaking a lance designed to be used with two hands was longer than a lance designed to be used with one.
Traditionally the explanation has been that the invention of different types of horse furniture [Stirrups, bit, bridle, saddles, pommel, cantle] are given as reasons for changing how lances could be used. People who actually ride horses have taken issue with the archeology/history bookworms on those points, but I haven’t kept up with the debate.

[Berenger]

In 3.5, a lance is a two-handed weapon with reach. You don't have to use it mounted, but that's what it's for. It can be used one-handed while mounted. It deals double damage if your mount is charging, and up to triple damage if you have the spirited charge feat. If you are using it two-handed and are power-attacking, it can do ridiculous damage.

In real life, do you really use your own strength in the attack if you're using it while mounted? Could you even "power attack" with it? Did knights use them one-handed or two-handed in battle?

Using a lance or spear two-handed from a mount at least isn't a D&Dism. I see no compelling reason why this should impossible with a high medieval knight's lance, except that it forces the warrior to forgo a shield, which is kind of bad if the other guy also has a lance you need to deflect.

Obviously, you can't couch the lance and use it two-handed at the same time, so you should have to choose between double / triple damage for couching and extra strength-based damage for two-handed attacks. The latter would be generally only worthwile for warriors with superhuman strength or when charging is not possible (for example, because the enemy stands behind a cheval de frise and out of sword range).

Whether you should be able to use Power Attack with a couched lance depends on how you interpret the feat. If it means "hit extra hard with recklass abandon and your full body weight", it makes little sense. If you interpret it as "aim at a hard-to-hit weak point", it should work.

[Martin Greywolf]

Traditionally the explanation has been that the invention of different types of horse furniture [Stirrups, bit, bridle, saddles, pommel, cantle] are given as reasons for changing how lances could be used. People who actually ride horses have taken issue with the archeology/history bookworms on those points, but I haven’t kept up with the debate.

The really short gist of it is this: the good old "equipment X was vitally necessary for couched lance" argument has been empirically disproven by people using couched lance bareback.

What is true is that certain bits make using the lance easier (deep saddle and long stirrups that let you brace yourself), and some bits make it much easier to handle fighting after the lance is broken and you get into melee (stirrups). Other equipment still makes it easier to steer a horse (anything that goes on the horse's head), but this is while undoubtedly useful not really necessary - again, people today have trained horses to where they can be steered without any equipment.

There are then some combinations that aren't possible without more bits of equipment, e.g. if you have a high charging saddle with those stirrups that require you to keep your legs straight, your ability to steer a horse with legs is sharply limited, to say nothing of what a horse armor will do.

In the end it is a complex topic that can't be reduced to a simple truism, you have some combos that drastically improve couched lance charge that aren't possible without necessary gear, but couched lance itself is usable bareback, just less effective.

Spoiler: Kushan carving of couched lance with no visible stirrups. 100 AD-500 AD

Show

In 3.5, a lance is a two-handed weapon with reach. You don't have to use it mounted, but that's what it's for. It can be used one-handed while mounted. It deals double damage if your mount is charging, and up to triple damage if you have the spirited charge feat. If you are using it two-handed and are power-attacking, it can do ridiculous damage.

In real life, do you really use your own strength in the attack if you're using it while mounted? Could you even "power attack" with it? Did knights use them one-handed or two-handed in battle?

I'd rule any combination here plausible enough for a game/story/movie if somewhat impractical in real life.

DnD rules translate incredibly poorly into any kind of fighting, melee or ranged, so demanding too much realism will get us nowhere. Before we start to dig in, it bears mentioning that the mythical couched lance isn't so mythical, or limited to only needing lance for it or limited to horseback.

Spoiler: Couched lance on foot, ~1305

Show

I use this style of holding a spear on foot myself, but let's not get into that for reasons of brevity

Spoiler: Couched sword, ~1280

Show

That said, there is a whole world of how you use a given stabby stick on a horse.

People will tell you it isn't used in two hands.

Spoiler: Parthian relief, too lazy to track down which one, there are dozens of these

Show

Or that if you use them in two hands you can't have a shield...

Spoiler: Chronology of ancient Nations, 1307 AD

Show

Or that using a lance underhand and overhand wasn't done at the same time...

Spoiler: Illumination of Amazons, 1285 AD

Show

Or that the European knights never used lances in overhand...

Spoiler: Feudal customs of Aragon, ~1300 AD

Show

Or that lances designed for couched lance use were never used in any other way...

Spoiler: Guiron le Courtois, 1420 AD

Show

Basically, there is such a wide variety of using lances from horseback that you may as well ask "How was sword used?", and answer you get to that question will be either a vague "it depends" sort, a lengthy rant (see above) or not true in most cases.

In real life, do you really use your own strength in the attack if you're using it while mounted? Could you even "power attack" with it? Did knights use them one-handed or two-handed in battle?

Yes but actually no. The idea that more strength translates into more damage to a person on hit in a way DnD says it does is patently ridiculous. If you get ran through with a spear, you will be damaged by the same way as if you got run through with a spear that moved at twice the speed - at least at the speeds we're talking about here, once you get into bullet velocities, it changes drastically. Even blunt damage isn't really proportional and split into "can break a bone" and "can't break a bone", because organ bruising will take a good long while to incapacitate you, and while that is relevant in the long term, it doesn't really apply in the short term.

Then we get to how HP isn't really a measure of physical tankiness but some abstraction of luck, and it falls apart even more.

So, how do you use strength with a lance on horseback? It's actually pretty simple, the damn thing is long and heavy and the horse bounces, and keeping it on-target isn't an easy feat by any means. Aim that lance tip to the side and you will transfer your force into the opponent inefficiently or slide off of his armor outright. Strength here doesn't really make you stab harder, but makes those stabbings better aimed to places where they will actually hurt.

This was very much a problem historically because we see an introduction of lance rests once the lances get too long to use in one hand properly, and you very much could improvise and use lance in two hands to make up for lacking it, or even in addition to it. Jousting shields were made in a way that left your off hand free to use the reins, so using them for better lance aiming is possible, just not something you'd bother to do because you may as well let your gear do the work for you and have better defense with the mostly free shield arm.

Spoiler: Lance rest, you can't see them on period depictions most of the time since they're hidden

Show

Spoiler: Letting the gear work the way it's supposed to, ~1400 AD

Show

tl;dr A lance rest should let you use longer and more powerful lances, but DnD doesn't do feats granted by gear (mundane gear at that), so letting a player take a feat and say that's what's happening, or flavoring it as using both hands is realistic enough. What Spirited charge does is anybody's guess, maybe it is about better technique, maybe it should be granted by late medieval horse gear.

[Eladrinblade]

Obviously, you can't couch the lance and use it two-handed at the same time, so you should have to choose between double / triple damage for couching and extra strength-based damage for two-handed attacks.

This is what I suspected.

I'd rule any combination here plausible enough for a game/story/movie if somewhat impractical in real life.

I'm thinking I probably should leave it alone, realistic or not, because I do like the idea of mounted lancing for characters and nobody would do it if two-handing a greataxe is always a superior option.

Yes but actually no. The idea that more strength translates into more damage to a person on hit in a way DnD says it does is patently ridiculous. If you get ran through with a spear, you will be damaged by the same way as if you got run through with a spear that moved at twice the speed - at least at the speeds we're talking about here, once you get into bullet velocities, it changes drastically. Even blunt damage isn't really proportional and split into "can break a bone" and "can't break a bone", because organ bruising will take a good long while to incapacitate you, and while that is relevant in the long term, it doesn't really apply in the short term.

Well, I was asking because if you are couching then its the horses strength/mass/speed that matters, not so much yours, or so I would think.

Anyways, thank you, all of that was very informative and I had no idea about most of it.

[Pauly]

In 3.5, a lance is a two-handed weapon with reach. You don't have to use it mounted, but that's what it's for. It can be used one-handed while mounted. It deals double damage if your mount is charging, and up to triple damage if you have the spirited charge feat. If you are using it two-handed and are power-attacking, it can do ridiculous damage.

In real life, do you really use your own strength in the attack if you're using it while mounted? Could you even "power attack" with it? Did knights use them one-handed or two-handed in battle?

Addressing the extra damage/damage multipliers.

1) My comments are based on 18th/19th Century European warfare which is where most of my research into the use of the lance has been done.

2) Part of this is a D&D issue of higher level characters and monsters being HP sponges. IRL if you stabbed someone with 8” of lance head, then shoving 3 more feet of wooden pole into them doesn’t make them extra dead. They’re already dead or you didn’t hit anything vital.

3) Over penetration is a bad thing and your lance will get stuck in the target if you hit it too hard. This is how the sport of tent pegging was invented, it was a drill to teach troopers on how to avoid over penetration.

4) In this era the advantage of the lance was seen as reach, the ability to stab the other guy without getting slashed by a sword. The concept of lances doing more damage than swords doesn’t appear in the period texts as an issue as far as I can recall.
In fact saber slashes delivered from horseback were seen as the more terrifying to infantry. Since all the extra mass/speed/momentum that applies to a lance apply to any weapon wielded from horseback.

5) There were a host of minor difficulties such as reduced mobility in rough terrain [when light cavalry was being used as scouts], increased visibility of units, the need to tran the troopers in lance and sword not just sword, the need to drop your lance and pull your sword out anyway if the enemy got into sword distance.

6) On balance lances seem to have been held as being if roughly equal utility as equipping troopers with swords only. The lance had almost died out by the time of the 7 years war, was revived in the Napoleonic era and then continued through the 19th century. Roughly 20-25% of European light cavalry units in the 19th century were lance equipped, although that figure varied from country to country.

In D&D terms thus type of lance use would be better represented by reducing the targets AC (i.e. making it easier to get a damaging hit) than by increasing damage.

[gbaji]

I think the issue with lances in most RPGs is that usually it involves several additional skills/feats in order to use, so the thinking is that "well, when you do have a horse, and a lance, and have spent the skill points/whatever on being able to use them, there should be some benefit versus just putting those points into being better with your normal melee weapon".

The game system I use abstracts this by having the horses stats used to generate strength bonus damage instead of the wielder. Which in most cases is a bonus. Ironically, using magic (cause the system has magic), you can often increase your strength to the point where you'll do the same (or even more) damage bonus just whacking with your normal weapon anyway, so... (I suppose you could cast the strength spell on your mount maybe?). Er, and it also has impaling damage (can do double damage with penetrating weapons on a good hit), but, as correctly pointed out above, the freaking last thing you actually want to do is "run your enemy through" with a lance. At best, it sticks in the body of the person you hit and breaks, next level of worse is that it doesn't break and the lance flies out of your hand, with the next level of worse being that it sticks, doesn't break, doesn't (or cant', cause you got one of those handy holders attaching the thing to your breastplate, right?) fly free, and you go flying out of your saddle and/or get major compression fractures to your chest, broken arm, etc... And hey. Couldn't I just not bother with the horse, and use a long spear instead? Same benefits of damage (especially if I'm using the aformentioned magic boost), same impaling damage opportunities, and hey, I didn't have to learn a new weapon skill *and* learn how to ride a horse (or buy specialized equipment).

If you're actually trying to realistically present lance use from horseback, of course. Or you can just do what pretty much every game system does and handwave a lot of the relisim away in the pursuit of making the game system practical (and fun!) to use. Hence, giving characters who spend time/effort learning to do lance charges some tangible in-game benefit for actually doing so in the (frankly super rare) case that they find themselves in a position to do so. Heck. I have a character I play in one game who is a centaur, so she's already kinda got the "mounted" bit there all the time. And yeah, she's got an uber "sword of Doom(tm)" she uses most of the time that is more than capable of clefting folks in twain. But hey, I get a chance to use a lance for some reason? Why not? Sure. I could just run up to the opponents and whack at them, but it's fun to lance charge. So even though she's less skilled, and likely actually does less damage, I do it anyway. Like in the one out of a hundred combat situations in which there's a group of bad guys "over there", with flat terrain between us, and some space around them to run by them, and room behind them to slow down and turn around, I'm totally on it.

I think that actually brings up another point about lance charging (in games at least). A lot of the time (I think also mentioned above), it's not about doing tons of damage, but about avoiding taking damage yourself. We tend to have a view of lance charages involving a huge line of knights in armor, filed abreast, charging directly at/through a mass of enemy combatants (shades of Braveheart basically, setting aside the whole "that's not remotely how that battle went" bit). And while that was a tactic used by heavy horse in some time periods, most often (and absolutely if you're just a lone person doing this), you don't actually charge "at/through" the enemy. You charge by them. You basically run along one side near the enemy, outside of their weapon range, but inside your spear/lance range and strike at them as you go by. Which side you pass on depends on how you are rigging your weapon (which, as also mentioned above, has a lot of variation). But from a game mechanic perspective, another way to handle this is not to make it do tons of damage, but to allow you to basically do an attack concurrent to a movement past the opponent(s). Doing damage to them while not allowing them to do any damage to you, or get an attack of opportunity, etc. Basically, unless the opponent is set for such a thing, and has a long enough weapon (long spear at the least, or better yet a pike), you get to do free damage. An easy way to do this is to have specific weapons with specific AoO range. So if my lance has a range of 3, and your weapon has a range of 2, and there's room for me to run past you at range 3, I get to do so, move by you, and attack you at the same time, while you can't AoO me in return (cause I didn't move through your zone of control or whtever). But if you have, say a pike, with the same range, you get to attack back as long as you are prepared (set for charge basically).

Lots of ways to handle this.

[Pauly]

I
I think that actually brings up another point about lance charging (in games at least). A lot of the time (I think also mentioned above), it's not about doing tons of damage, but about avoiding taking damage yourself. We tend to have a view of lance charages involving a huge line of knights in armor, filed abreast, charging directly at/through a mass of enemy combatants (shades of Braveheart basically, setting aside the whole "that's not remotely how that battle went" bit). And while that was a tactic used by heavy horse in some time periods, most often (and absolutely if you're just a lone person doing this), you don't actually charge "at/through" the enemy. You charge by them. You basically run along one side near the enemy, outside of their weapon range, but inside your spear/lance range and strike at them as you go by. Which side you pass on depends on how you are rigging your weapon (which, as also mentioned above, has a lot of variation). But from a game mechanic perspective, another way to handle this is not to make it do tons of damage, but to allow you to basically do an attack concurrent to a movement past the opponent(s). Doing damage to them while not allowing them to do any damage to you, or get an attack of opportunity, etc. Basically, unless the opponent is set for such a thing, and has a long enough weapon (long spear at the least, or better yet a pike), you get to do free damage. An easy way to do this is to have specific weapons with specific AoO range. So if my lance has a range of 3, and your weapon has a range of 2, and there's room for me to run past you at range 3, I get to do so, move by you, and attack you at the same time, while you can't AoO me in return (cause I didn't move through your zone of control or whtever). But if you have, say a pike, with the same range, you get to attack back as long as you are prepared (set for charge basically).

Lots of ways to handle this.

Attacks of opportunity are a pure game mechanic to prevent players running past enemies to get to a high value target. If you’ve watched a boxing match or HEMA/SCA skirmishing it’s easy to see that AoOs don’t happen IRL in anything similar to the way D&D handles it. That’s a whole can of worms that I’ll stop opening at this point.

Close formations of spears were very effective at stopping cavalry because the horse, being a sensible animal, does not wish to impale itself. The horses would veer off at a distance that kept them safe from the pointy stabby things thank you very much. You don’t get close enough to exchange blows.
Loose formations and broken formations of spears were easily ridden down, even by cavalry equipped with swords only.

The cavalryman’s advantage against foot is that he has full control of when and where he will engage the target. It is a very simple task for the rider to alter the angle and pace of their attack as well as extend their range by leaning out or to reverse which side they are attacking from. And they can do so in a very short time, so that their on foot opponent has a very difficult time reacting. This advantage gets multiplied when there are several riders against several footmen.

[Martin Greywolf]

4) In this era the advantage of the lance was seen as reach, the ability to stab the other guy without getting slashed by a sword. The concept of lances doing more damage than swords doesn’t appear in the period texts as an issue as far as I can recall.

Plate armor era definitely has more punch as a feature of the lance mentioned. Mallory's L'Morte D'Arthur frequently praises the ability of knights to hit opponent hard enough to go through armor or knock them off of the saddle. Or hard enough to break the horse's back.

And while that was a tactic used by heavy horse in some time periods, most often (and absolutely if you're just a lone person doing this), you don't actually charge "at/through" the enemy. You charge by them.

There are several treatises that deal with fighting on horseback that tell you to do the exact opposite and run the horse directly through the enemy if dealing with infantry.

What we should take from this is that there are too many different ways to do a lance charge to make general statements and we really need to specify what era and what technique we're using. Even saying something like "most of the time" is dead wrong unless it is supported by some sort of proper statistical research.

Close formations of spears were very effective at stopping cavalry because the horse, being a sensible animal, does not wish to impale itself.

This myth needs to go die a fiery death already. There are frequent references of horses charging into massed infantry. There are mentions of horses charging into a braced musket square. We have horses today that can and will charge into a brick wall if told to by their rider. (sure, the brick wall is a movie prop, but it's not like the horse can infer that from context)

Untrained horses will maybe avoid doing this unless they're spooked and stampeding, but what are untrained horses doing on the battlefield?

The reason this happened only rarely is that the humans on top of horses don't want to make that charge for reasons of not wanting to die, because while they would probably take out first five people in their way, numbers six to ten would take an exception to that. However, if the infantry is not disciplined and sees a charge coming, there is a very real risk of them routing because no one wants to be the first five that get killed, and the whole thing turns into a giant game of chicken.

There is also the question of is exchanging one man-and-horse combo for five infantrymen a good value proposition for the commander. The answer is usually no unless there are some external factors involved (e.g. enemy is sitting on top of the water source we need to not die in this desert).