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

[Maquise]

I will ask another, completely unrelated (to my last question) then.

I recently learned that during the Agincourt period, French knights were known to wear a padded surcoat-like garment called a jupon. Is that just another word for surcoat or something different, and if so how decorated could they be?

[Mike_G]

I will ask another, completely unrelated (to my last question) then.

I recently learned that during the Agincourt period, French knights were known to wear a padded surcoat-like garment called a jupon. Is that just another word for surcoat or something different, and if so how decorated could they be?

It's a specific type of surcoat. It was thickly padded and may have been designed to help defeat arrows.

They briefly discuss the jupon in the arrrows vs armor video I linked further up.

Here it is again if you don;t want to go digging. It's long-ish, but probably the most sound test I've seen, as far as attempts to get the details right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE

[Clistenes]

I have read about the jupon as a civilian piece of clothing similar to the doublet. It apparently had spanish origin, and it seems that it originally was worn by warriors under the hauberk, but it eventually became a fashionable piece of male clothing...

[Mr Beer]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

Whichever one provides most articulation. If you can just wave it around like a wand and slice through steel with a flicking gesture, then maybe stick it in a finger.

If you need to apply force, I wouldn't mount it into the body, I would have a concealed monoblade sword in my cyberarm.

[Brother Oni]

As an aside to the futuretech talk going on, here's a picture that might interest some people: Dutch Royal Army Pantserhouwitser (PZH 2000 155mm SPG) and crew with their loadout:

Spoiler: That's a lotta gun

Show

Of note is the amount of firepower the crew individually have - C8 (carbine version of the Canadian C7 AR), a FN Mag (7.62 GPMG), Minimi (5.56 SAW), plus Panzerfaust (AT weapon), they're as well equipped as any infantry squad.

If anything, they're not as well equipped as other artillery crews - the M109 Paladin has an additional commander hatch mounted .50 MG, which the Dutch PZH 2000 doesn't have.

[Max_Killjoy]

As an aside to the futuretech talk going on, here's a picture that might interest some people: Dutch Royal Army Pantserhouwitser (PZH 2000 155mm SPG) and crew with their loadout:

Spoiler: That's a lotta gun

Show

Of note is the amount of firepower the crew individually have - C8 (carbine version of the Canadian C7 AR), a FN Mag (7.62 GPMG), Minimi (5.56 SAW), plus Panzerfaust (AT weapon), they're as well equipped as any infantry squad.

If anything, they're not as well equipped as other artillery crews - the M109 Paladin has an additional commander hatch mounted .50 MG, which the Dutch PZH 2000 doesn't have.

Reminds me of playing the original Company of Heroes, and my US engineering team accidentally picking up an MG42 on the battlefield.

[Gnoman]

Of note is the amount of firepower the crew individually have - C8 (carbine version of the Canadian C7 AR), a FN Mag (7.62 GPMG), Minimi (5.56 SAW), plus Panzerfaust (AT weapon), they're as well equipped as any infantry squad.

If anything, they're not as well equipped as other artillery crews - the M109 Paladin has an additional commander hatch mounted .50 MG, which the Dutch PZH 2000 doesn't have.

Considering how badly wrong things have to go for this kind of unit to be in direct combat, ensuring that they are heavily armed strikes me as a good idea.

[KineticDiplomat]

Makes complete sense. Small arms are, on the state level, absurdly cheap. And on a self propelled artillery piece, it's not like the weight matters.

In return for this investment, you get artillery platoons and batteries that can self secure against low level rear area threats without having to detach additional line elements (and with the transport to keep up as the guns shoot and scoot) or MPs, both of which are always in demand. In western armies in particular, the prohibitively high cost of a soldier means that any chance you get to not have to spend any more guarding something that might be able to guard itself is going to be taken.

Will they likely survive an infantry company or tank platoon coming through? Nah. Might they be able to beat off a raid by special purpose forces or a squad that got bypassed in the fighting and happens to be in the area? Quite possibly.

[AdAstra]

As an aside to the futuretech talk going on, here's a picture that might interest some people: Dutch Royal Army Pantserhouwitser (PZH 2000 155mm SPG) and crew with their loadout:

Spoiler: That's a lotta gun

Show

Of note is the amount of firepower the crew individually have - C8 (carbine version of the Canadian C7 AR), a FN Mag (7.62 GPMG), Minimi (5.56 SAW), plus Panzerfaust (AT weapon), they're as well equipped as any infantry squad.

If anything, they're not as well equipped as other artillery crews - the M109 Paladin has an additional commander hatch mounted .50 MG, which the Dutch PZH 2000 doesn't have.

Very interesting. Wonder what those silver rods above the (presumably) Panzerfaust 3 ammo are. Look almost like aircraft rockets.

[Brother Oni]

Very interesting. Wonder what those silver rods above the (presumably) Panzerfaust 3 ammo are. Look almost like aircraft rockets.

They're extendable tent poles for the camo netting, which are the green bundles immediately to the right of the tent poles.

[AdAstra]

They're extendable tent poles for the camo netting, which are the green bundles immediately to the right of the tent poles.

Neat! I would assume that the things to the right of the backpacks are poles for the crew tents? Or something else?

[Brother Oni]

Neat! I would assume that the things to the right of the backpacks are poles for the crew tents? Or something else?

You mean the 4 poles above the two fire extinguishers? The crew are immediately to the right of the backpacks.

I'm not sure - they could be tent poles for the crew.

[AdAstra]

You mean the 4 poles above the two fire extinguishers? The crew are immediately to the right of the backpacks.

I'm not sure - they could be tent poles for the crew.

Er, left of the backpacks, sorry. The long green packages.

[Storm Bringer]

Neat! I would assume that the things to the right of the backpacks are poles for the crew tents? Or something else?

honestly? i'd have gone with more cam poles, myself, but im not sure. you wouldn't need that many poles for a crew tent, as most of those are designed in a lean-to fashion and to be supported by the vehicle itself.

my money is the bags to the left of the crew are the cam system poles, and the poles in the centre are something else entirely.

the poles above the fire extinguishers are radio antennas.

[Brother Oni]

honestly? i'd have gone with more cam poles, myself, but im not sure. you wouldn't need that many poles for a crew tent, as most of those are designed in a lean-to fashion and to be supported by the vehicle itself.

my money is the bags to the left of the crew are the cam system poles, and the poles in the centre are something else entirely.

The site I found the picture on suggested that the bags to the left of the crew could be holding the barrel rifling cleaning gear, including the mother of all pull-throughs - apparently 155mm shells really don't like fouling.

[KineticDiplomat]

Radio Antennas.

[Maquise]

A real quick question about bascinets: Is there an official name for "prow-face" bascinet visors, for lack of knowing the name myself, and are they actually historical? I've seen images of reproductions claiming to be historic, but my admittedly brief attempts to research has not found any references to them from the period (Of course, I don't know the name, so am not sure what to look for).

[Pauly]

A real quick question about bascinets: Is there an official name for "prow-face" bascinet visors, for lack of knowing the name myself, and are they actually historical? I've seen images of reproductions claiming to be historic, but my admittedly brief attempts to research has not found any references to them from the period (Of course, I don't know the name, so am not sure what to look for).

Firstly, most naming conventions are thevwork of 19th and 20th century scholars, and are not the words used by the original users of the objects.

That helmet looks a lot like some jousting helmets I have seen. Without going into my book there is nothing about it that screams ‘unhistorical’ to me. It may not be strictly be a replica of an existing historically documented helmet, but it seems to me to be generally correct.

[Brother Oni]

That helmet looks a lot like some jousting helmets I have seen. Without going into my book there is nothing about it that screams ‘unhistorical’ to me. It may not be strictly be a replica of an existing historically documented helmet, but it seems to me to be generally correct.

I would agree with Pauly here as the inscription would imply that the armour had a secondary decorative purpose. The lack of air holes on the left hand side of the face visor would also support jousting use, since that's the direction where the majority of exploding lance fragments would come from, thus additional coverage would be preferred over more ventilation.

[Martin Greywolf]

A real quick question about bascinets: Is there an official name for "prow-face" bascinet visors, for lack of knowing the name myself, and are they actually historical? I've seen images of reproductions claiming to be historic, but my admittedly brief attempts to research has not found any references to them from the period (Of course, I don't know the name, so am not sure what to look for).

There is no official name, but they did exist, one example I can think of comes from 1300-1350 period, so from the great helmet to bascinet switch.

Spoiler: Chronica Picta, battle of Rozhanovce/Rozgony, the guy wearing it is one of the six Aba brothers (probably Jhon or Ladislaus), fighting the king Charles Robert

Show

That means they are an early model of visored bascinets, and would be reffered to as such in period documentation. They were not tremendously popular, but you do see them cropping up throughout pretty much the entire lifecycle of bascinets.

That aside, your picture is at best a very poor reproduction. The major issue there is the large gap for the eyes - not only will it not stop much of anything, it's angled in such a way that a descending thrust or projectile will easily slide inside and impale squishy bits. The real examples do not have this, uh, "feature".

Spoiler: Some proper flat-faced bascinets, illuminations and reproductions

Show

Especially the last one gives you an iodea of how the upper eyehole rim has to be angled to make this style of visor effective.

That helmet looks a lot like some jousting helmets I have seen.

I mean, sort of, by this time a lot of jousting helmets are either thickened great helmets to invoke ye olde feel, or bascinets like this that kinda sorta look like them.

I would agree with Pauly here as the inscription would imply that the armour had a secondary decorative purpose.

You can't make assumptions like this on inscriptions alone, armor was by and large decorated quite a bit more than you see in modern re-enactment, an inscription like this would be par for the course for a field plate. Seeing as the image is most likely a reproduction, it's impossible to say what role if any the original had.

The lack of air holes on the left hand side of the face visor would also support jousting use, since that's the direction where the majority of exploding lance fragments would come from, thus additional coverage would be preferred over more ventilation.

It does not, lack of air holes on left side of face is standard for all visored helmets, because thet is where the guy with a pollaxe will smack you with his strongest blow. Now, if there was an additional steel plate riveted there, that would indicate jousting a bit more strongly, and made it a done deal if it restricted mobility or vision, but as is, it's a pretty standard helmet. Additionally, lance fragments aren't that much of an issue, only the small ones will get through the air holes and scratch you a bit at worst, jousters are more concerned about a direct or deflected lance hit there.

Edit: I had a moment and misidentified the king in first illumination

[Clistenes]

That aside, your picture is at best a very poor reproduction. The major issue there is the large gap for the eyes - not only will it not stop much of anything, it's angled in such a way that a descending thrust or projectile will easily slide inside and impale squishy bits. The real examples do not have this, uh, "feature".

I dunno... historically speaking, plenty of people have chosen to sacrifice some protection in exchange for a better field of vision... I can see some knight seeking a compromise somewhere in between an open faced helmet and a visor with two tiny slits...

[Martin Greywolf]

I dunno... historically speaking, plenty of people have chosen to sacrifice some protection in exchange for a better field of vision... I can see some knight seeking a compromise somewhere in between an open faced helmet and a visor with two tiny slits...

That alone isn't the issue. If you look at those images of actual helmets from the period, they universally have top of the visor angled into a brim that will stop any arrow falling from above from simply slipping into the visor. It's a very easy to make modification once you're hamering a helmet by hand, and it is demonstrably in, as far as I can find, universal use.

What's even worse for a protection-visibility compromise argument is that, well, the helmet is visored. If you want visibility, just raise a visor.

Still, the topic caught my interest and I did some further digging - though with great helmets only as they are my period of interest - into assymetrical airholes. Copnclusions to be made are:

• physical helmets are so few they are statistically insignificant
• many, many manuscripts don't bother with showing them in the first place
• most manuscripts show side picture only, and it's not really possible to tell if those airholes are just artistic license to make the picture more interesting
• there is not a single damned greatheml in the entire Maciejowski bible facing left

That all said, there is some evidence for assymetrical airholes even for greathelmets.

Spoiler: 3/4 profile, assyymetrical airholes, further supported by the left guy not having any visible on the left, 1350

Show

Spoiler: jousting at tournament from Codex Manesse, helmets have symmetrical airholes, so this was not just determined by jousting needs, 1330

Show

Spoiler: another symmetrical jouster, 1320

Show

Spoiler: and another one, 1340

Show

Spoiler: that said, we do have assymetrical jousters, 1360

Show

Spoiler: another assymetrical jouster, on the strength of they bothered to paint his painted helmet, but no airholes, 1315

Show

Spoiler: very, uh, clear artistic license in greathelm protrayal to show angry eyes, or just suicidal knights, other pictures in the same source have much more reasonable eye slits, 1250

Show

Spoiler: very weird one, maybe even author's mistake or digitally mirrored? airholes are assymetrical, but on the wrong sides, 1340

Show

Spoiler: another weird one, airholes are symmetrical, but on top of visor, 1411

Show

Spoiler: you'd be tempted to say, this isn't enough airholes on account of rough sketch, but wait until the next one, 1210

Show

Spoiler: helmet on right side, very few airholes on its left side, right side not visible, 1403

Show

Spoiler: arguably no airholes, the cross for chain that chains helmet to torso is visible, though that may be because the paint has faded or chipped, 1250

Show

Edit: fixed a broken image link

[Pauly]

Now ai have had time to consult my books, I would reaffirm what Martin Greywolf is saying about the vision slit. It is too large and it is of the wrong shape compared to historical versions.

I would also say that the breaths ins the helmet are either too many for that size breath or the breaths are too large for that many breaths.

The historical solutions to the vision slits being too small were:
- suck it up
- use an open faced helm
- use a visor and close or open it according to the situation.
Medieval closed face helmets universally had small well protected vision slits.

[Vinyadan]

Spoiler: Chronica Picta, battle of Rozhanovce/Rozgony, the guy wearing it is one of the six Aba brothers (probably Jhon or Ladislaus), fighting the king Charles Robert

Show

Not directly related, but I wanted to notice how good the colouring of that visor is. The 3d is made through colour, and you can tell the various surfaces even without contour lines.

[Kiero]

Now ai have had time to consult my books, I would reaffirm what Martin Greywolf is saying about the vision slit. It is too large and it is of the wrong shape compared to historical versions.

I would also say that the breaths ins the helmet are either too many for that size breath or the breaths are too large for that many breaths.

The historical solutions to the vision slits being too small were:
- suck it up
- use an open faced helm
- use a visor and close or open it according to the situation.
Medieval closed face helmets universally had small well protected vision slits.

There's a fourth one there, which is tip the helmet back on your head when the situation allows it, which was the standard for Corinthian helms in antiquity (at least according to re-enactors).

[DrewID]

Loosely inspired by an on-line essay that pointed out that the culture of classic D&D was far more like the Iron Age than that of the Middle Ages, I am taking a stab at a campaign set during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. In broad strokes, of course, since the world map will not be Earth and the history will have to take into account, if nothing else, the presence of Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins.

I'm looking for a guide to what equipment will be available. From what history I have picked up, not infrequently here (I'm more a medieval buff ordinarily), I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

DrewID

[Kiero]

Loosely inspired by an on-line essay that pointed out that the culture of classic D&D was far more like the Iron Age than that of the Middle Ages, I am taking a stab at a campaign set during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. In broad strokes, of course, since the world map will not be Earth and the history will have to take into account, if nothing else, the presence of Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins.

I'm looking for a guide to what equipment will be available. From what history I have picked up, not infrequently here (I'm more a medieval buff ordinarily), I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

DrewID

Bronze is easier to work into large pieces (like ship's rams), especially since it requires a lower temperature to work and can be cast into all sorts of shapes, or hammered even when cold. Damaged equipment is pretty easy to repair. Bronze is about 10% denser than an equivalent volume of steel, and well-worked stuff is much better than any kind of iron and even the lowest grades of steel. In the real world, the advantage iron had was that it was plentiful and occurred with coal/charcoal, making it cheap. Tin was harder to source, being the necessary other component besides copper to make bronze, and often didn't appear anywhere near each other. Though depending how early you are, there might be a lot of arsenical bronze around - that's where the stereotype of the lame smith comes from, working with arsenic is very bad for your health.

Start from armour, which will influence the sorts of weapons available. A hoplite-style panoply of bronze plates - helmet, cuirass, shin, thigh and forearm plates - is likely the heaviest armour available. There are textile armours available for something lighter than bronze. Flexible locations covered by leather or textile tassets, and the shield is the most significant piece overall. Unless you're going into late Iron Age, mail doesn't exist. Many warriors will fight with no more protection than helmet and shield.

There are few two-handed weapons because blades can't be made that long and they're not necessary. Two-handed axes are about it. Most swords are shorter than a medieval arming sword, some of them heavy choppers rather than cut-and-thrust. Spears are ubiquitous and the prime weapon used in war. Javelins are also common. If you're going with a European-style late Bronze/early Iron age, bows are weak and underpowered self bows, generally used for hunting rather than war (obviously if you have an eastern/steppe analogy then composite bows are around and much better than the western bows).

Contrary to the oft-perpetuated myth, cavalry could charge (stirrups are necessary for horse-archery, not shock cavalry). However, horses were small and might only be large enough to pull chariots rather than support genuine cavalry. As an example, the original Persians who founded the Achaemenid Empire were charioteers.

If you're considering the maritime stage of affairs (which you should be if it's at all inspired by antiquity), most trade is conducted by sea, with land trade being predominantly from the port to larger settlements that aren't coastal. Which will be rare, most major settlements will be on the coast to take advantage of trade. Most vessels would be oared galleys like the pentekonter, which is equally useful for trade and war. Their primary means of combat is ramming and boarding, with the oarsmen also acting as marines.

Are you going with Bronze age palace economies, where society revolves around the king? Or something less centralised from later? That'll impact stuff like whether there is even currency.

[HeadlessMermaid]

I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

Here's a nice resource: typology of Bronze Age Aegean swords and daggers.

[Vinyadan]

Loosely inspired by an on-line essay that pointed out that the culture of classic D&D was far more like the Iron Age than that of the Middle Ages, I am taking a stab at a campaign set during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. In broad strokes, of course, since the world map will not be Earth and the history will have to take into account, if nothing else, the presence of Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins.

I'm looking for a guide to what equipment will be available. From what history I have picked up, not infrequently here (I'm more a medieval buff ordinarily), I gather that bronze and iron swords will be shorter and/or a touch thicker than later medieval swords, that bronze weapons and armour will be slightly heavier and more expensive but stronger than their iron counterparts. Also I recall reading that bronze is easier to work into larger plates. Anything else I should take into account?

DrewID

I think that this is very problematic, simply because of what "iron age" and "bronze age" actually mean. For example, earlier I read a suggestion of hoplite-like armour. But the Bronze Age in Greece was over by 1000 BC, the Iron Age by 800 BC. The hoplite shield is attested around 700 BC, when both Bronze and Iron ages were over in Greece. Another culture that had hoplites, the Villanovan-Etruscans, also followed a similar timeline. On the other hand, you have the Nordic Iron Age, which lasted from the 5th century BC to the 8th century AD, and is followed directly by the Viking Age. Could an early iron-age Scandinavian have put his hands on hoplite armour? Maybe. I don't think it happened, but a PC would definitely find a way.

If you are interested in Greece, you can take a look at this article, there are some images of weapons found in graves. https://www.academia.edu/10436377/Gr...erranean_2014_

[Max_Killjoy]

I think that this is very problematic, simply because of what "iron age" and "bronze age" actually mean. For example, earlier I read a suggestion of hoplite-like armour. But the Bronze Age in Greece was over by 1000 BC, the Iron Age by 800 BC. The hoplite shield is attested around 700 BC, when both Bronze and Iron ages were over in Greece. Another culture that had hoplites, the Villanovan-Etruscans, also followed a similar timeline. On the other hand, you have the Nordic Iron Age, which lasted from the 5th century BC to the 8th century AD, and is followed directly by the Viking Age. Could an early iron-age Scandinavian have put his hands on hoplite armour? Maybe. I don't think it happened, but a PC would definitely find a way.

If you are interested in Greece, you can take a look at this article, there are some images of weapons found in graves. https://www.academia.edu/10436377/Gr...erranean_2014_

There's also simply the question of what someone means by "bronze age" or "iron age", I've noticed in the literature that quite often this has less to do with the metals being used and more to do with broader presumed/associated cultural elements.

More basically, bronze and iron were used side-by-side for a long time, long after the "bronze age" was nominally over in many places; and iron was the primary metal in use long after the "iron age" was over in many places.