Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Eorran]

I think I should have worded my question a bit better - what's the earliest siege weapon that would have rendered hill forts obsolete?
These days, almost any type of fixed fortification is vulnerable to artillery or airstrikes, but you don't really need to advance that far when simple gunpowder siege weapons triggered a massive change in fortifications.

Didn't the advent of powerful, mobile siege cannons bring fort design back towards a hill fort, in a way? The tall, vertical stone walls were generally replaced by sloped stone or earthen walls to protect against cannon fire. Granted, they were also built with towers to return fire and shoot down/across the slopes.

[Thiel]

Long time lurker, first time poster here. And the thing that strikes me about the ring forts. is how simaular thay resemble the western front of WWI. So to ancerar Brother Oni, O would say eather the pick, or aircraft

I realise I'm off on a bit of a tangent here, but aircraft did not make the trenches of WWI obsolete, this guy did.

It made it possible to move reinforcements and supplies forward fast enough that large scale entrenchments became untenable.

[Brother Oni]

Didn't the advent of powerful, mobile siege cannons bring fort design back towards a hill fort, in a way? The tall, vertical stone walls were generally replaced by sloped stone or earthen walls to protect against cannon fire. Granted, they were also built with towers to return fire and shoot down/across the slopes.

I know it significantly influenced the designs of towers (moving from flat to curved surfaces to help deflection) and made more use of overlapping fire arcs, particularly with enabling enfilade fire by the defenders on attackers gathered underneath the walls.

Spoilered for pictures:

Spoiler

Show

Deal castle is a great example of the effect of gunpowder on fortifications, designed to both take and deliver cannon shot - it was estimated to originally have 145 gun ports scattered over its five levels.



St Mawes was a coastal defence castle so was fairly squat (ship cannon tend to be bigger than their land counterparts). During the English Civil War, it was taken fairly easily by Parliamentarians from the Royalist defenders as it's fairly indefensible from land.

Your description sounds like they intentionally reduced the effective height of the castle's walls, which doesn't sound right to me.

St Mawes castle was built on a slope with additional earthworks on the sea side - could this be what you mean?

[hamishspence]

Your description sounds like they intentionally reduced the effective height of the castle's walls, which doesn't sound right to me.

St Mawes castle was built on a slope with additional earthworks on the sea side - could this be what you mean?

Ir may be polygonal forts that's being talked about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_fort

[Joran]

Ir may be polygonal forts that's being talked about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_fort

Maybe trace italienne AKA star forts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort

[fusilier]

I realise I'm off on a bit of a tangent here, but aircraft did not make the trenches of WWI obsolete, this guy did.
. . .
It made it possible to move reinforcements and supplies forward fast enough that large scale entrenchments became untenable.

I think that increased mobility did help prevent a repeat of WW1 style stalemate -- but I'm not sure I would argue that it made large scale entrenchments untenable. Trenches show up whenever you have stalemate (and I'm guessing insufficient "room" to maneuver), so you do see them used quite a bit in the Korean War. Some sectors in WW2 also involved them quite a bit.

Interestingly, one of the theories for the development of trench warfare on the Western Front in WW1, blames aircraft -- in the opening stages of the war the armies had such good knowledge of each other's positions, thanks to aerial reconnaissance, that they couldn't make any surprise moves -- leading to stalemate and trench warfare. I think it's more complicated than that, but aerial reconnaissance could have been a major contributor.

[Brother Oni]

Ir may be polygonal forts that's being talked about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_fort

That type of fortification seems a bit late for the design modification that Eorran seems to be talking about.

Maybe trace italienne AKA star forts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort

Thank you! I was looking for a picture of a castle that showed how the design enabled enfilade fire by the defenders.

Interestingly, one of the theories for the development of trench warfare on the Western Front in WW1, blames aircraft -- in the opening stages of the war the armies had such good knowledge of each other's positions, thanks to aerial reconnaissance, that they couldn't make any surprise moves -- leading to stalemate and trench warfare. I think it's more complicated than that, but aerial reconnaissance could have been a major contributor.

Even so, there were a couple of close shaves.

One story I heard during WW1 was during the race to the sea. There was heavy fighting around some woods between the British and Germans, with the British putting up an extremely spirited defence.

Eventually the attack was repulsed and since this was still in the comparatively friendly phase of the war, a captured German officer asked what was in the woods to warrant such a desperate defence. A British officer answered 'Regimental HQ', to which the German replied 'Mein Gott'.

For those who don't realise the significance, Regimental HQs are usually sited far away from enemy lines because of their importance: the Germans almost broke through the British lines entirely plus in the capture of a major command post, potentially undermined the entire BEF.

[Fortinbras]

There was some discussion a little while ago on this thread about what medieval "boot camp" was like, and it seems that conclusion was largely that it was non-existent. People seem to have learned to fight from their fathers, uncles, and in the local fencing hall, if they lived in a large enough community and had the time and money.

However, I have hard time believing that any of these sources of training are going to produce the kind of soldier who can march and fight in a disciplined schiltron or similar formation. Even a less disciplined shield-wall seems like it would require practice with lots of other guys with similar kit.

Does anyone have any ideas, or just educated guesses about the training environment for the Swiss and Scottish pikemen and halberdiers who fought in the schiltrons that stood against knightly attacks in the 13th and 14th centuries?

[Avilan the Grey]

I know it significantly influenced the designs of towers (moving from flat to curved surfaces to help deflection) and made more use of overlapping fire arcs, particularly with enabling enfilade fire by the defenders on attackers gathered underneath the walls.

Spoilered for pictures:

Spoiler

Show

Deal castle is a great example of the effect of gunpowder on fortifications, designed to both take and deliver cannon shot - it was estimated to originally have 145 gun ports scattered over its five levels.



St Mawes was a coastal defence castle so was fairly squat (ship cannon tend to be bigger than their land counterparts). During the English Civil War, it was taken fairly easily by Parliamentarians from the Royalist defenders as it's fairly indefensible from land.

Your description sounds like they intentionally reduced the effective height of the castle's walls, which doesn't sound right to me.

St Mawes castle was built on a slope with additional earthworks on the sea side - could this be what you mean?

These are some examples or 17th century advanced fortification designs, built to handle top of the line 17th century artillery as well as allowing protection against storming with artillery and troops:

Spoiler

Show

Note that the "walls" are lower, but especially so thick, that they look low. They also are angled, like modern tank armor on the strongest forts. Also, it might be wrong to call them walls at all, since they are more like bunkers with men in, and on top, not behind.

This was the last big push of fortification design btw, after the explosive grenade was invented, fortresses were more or less abandoned. The classical fort never became more modern than this, they were replaced by other kinds of "fortresses", aka underground bunkers and the like.

[Rhynn]

There was some discussion a little while ago on this thread about what medieval "boot camp" was like, and it seems that conclusion was largely that it was non-existent. People seem to have learned to fight from their fathers, uncles, and in the local fencing hall, if they lived in a large enough community and had the time and money.

However, I have hard time believing that any of these sources of training are going to produce the kind of soldier who can march and fight in a disciplined schiltron or similar formation. Even a less disciplined shield-wall seems like it would require practice with lots of other guys with similar kit.

Does anyone have any ideas, or just educated guesses about the training environment for the Swiss and Scottish pikemen and halberdiers who fought in the schiltrons that stood against knightly attacks in the 13th and 14th centuries?

You practiced those things, say, yearly at a moot or market, and probably as part of games (very popular for teaching military skills). There were usually laws and customs in place for regulating and mandating this sort of armed practice. No boot camp, just "reservist training," if you will.

It took my batch all of an afternoon or so to learn to march in formation, and re-enactors don't undergo bootcamp to learn to move in pike formations.

[Brother Oni]

It took my batch all of an afternoon or so to learn to march in formation, and re-enactors don't undergo bootcamp to learn to move in pike formations.

Indeed. On the shield wall front, it takes about 5 minutes to show how the shields interlock, then probably half an hour's practice of marching for everybody to get the hang of moving in this formation.

I admit that actually holding the shield wall in combat takes more training, but that's often solved by repeated commands of "STAND FIRM!" shouted at drill sergeant volume levels.

[Rhynn]

Also, professionals like Swiss mercenary pikemen probably did drill together while on the job but not marching or fighting. (Although, of course, such professionals were usually part-time professionals, signing up for a tour of duty of a year or a few years in length, AFAIK.) I have a hard time imagining them not doing this.

Also, it's not that such intensive training wouldn't have been useful: warrior elites probably did receive more formalized training. It's that it requires centralized infrastructures and control of the military. For most of the ancient and medieval period, a military force was not the state's military, it was composed of the militaries of separate nobles. And most nobles couldn't afford to take out peasants for several months straight to go train at some central camp; they could arrange a day of training every month or the like.

Also, I've read some indications that ancient/medieval Chinese armies did provide basic training; possibly because they did not have the decentralized militia training much of Europe did?

[Mr. Mask]

I don't guess anyone knows what Medieval Chinese Bootcamp was like...?


I recently found this gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-lDtCHFmvg

I'm guessing most of you know this one already. A video warning the police about knives from the 80s.

Was wondering if anyone else noticed the questionable elements of the video? Mainly the defences they recommend.

[Brother Oni]

Also, I've read some indications that ancient/medieval Chinese armies did provide basic training; possibly because they did not have the decentralized militia training much of Europe did?

Drawing on some rusty memories of the Three Kingdoms (~2nd Century), I would also possibly assign it to the fact that Chinese warfare revolved around tactics and army formations more. I remember two stratgeists were having a semi-friendly competition between their armies and were shifting the units of men around to adapt to the opposing army's formation.

The earlier Art of War (5th Century BC) has the phrase "Those skilled in doing battle do not raise troops twice, or transport provisions three times", which typically translates to "get it right the first time" or "don't hang around waiting for reinforcements", which may have influenced the decision for having well trained troops available initially, which is significantly better than having half trained troops, suffering greater casualties because they're not very good thus requiring a second round of conscription.

That said, it very much depends on the period - Song dynasty (10th -13th Century) training was reputed to be fairly poor despite having nearly a million soldiers at its height, while the later Ming Dynasty (14th - 17th Century) supposedly had units of soldiers whose training solely consisted of being able to stand in formation and shout war cries.

I don't guess anyone knows what Medieval Chinese Bootcamp was like...?

The Hollywood version has singing in it.

On a more serious note, a professional (full time) soldier's basic training (boot camps are for marines) would probably consist of PT, martial training, a bit of fieldcraft, equipment maintenance plus drill, so not much has changed.

[Rhynn]

The Hollywood version has singing in it.

The Chinese version made me cry.

[Brother Oni]

I recently found this gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-lDtCHFmvg

I'm guessing most of you know this one already. A video warning the police about knives from the 80s.

Was wondering if anyone else noticed the questionable elements of the video? Mainly the defences they recommend.

This video looks quite old and I suspect a lot of it has already been incorporated into police procedure.

The reactionary gap corroborates several sources on the subject: ~20' of space required to draw your weapon against someone charging you with a knife is something I heard before and making space by putting obstacles between you makes plain sense.

The control of troublesome subjects using wrist locks is very similar to aikido techniques, although British police don't use that type of handcuff anymore:

Spoiler

Show

These incorporate a bar for easy manipulation and applying pressure to uncooperative prisoners. From a friend who's been arrested, they're also very effective at it.

I'm not sure what else you find questionable about it.

[Rhynn]

That's a whopper to watch! 84m21s

Can you summarise what you find questionable about it Mr. Mask ?

Basically, any unarmed defenses against knives are going to be bad, because you're unarmed against a knife. There's a reason people use weapons. But you have to do something to defend yourself. You might die, and you're probably going to get at least cut, but you better fight as hard as you can.

Any time an instructor is showing you a theoretical defense against a knife, they're showing you a really ideal case. If they're any good, they started by telling you the best defense is to run. Of course, for the police, that may be less of an option.

[Galloglaich]

I thought this was covered pretty well before (you might want to go back and read that part of the thread again since it will provide a lot of good, well sourced details to add to this) but I'll try to paint a broader picture for you to compliment what was said earlier.

In a word, there is no "Medieval Boot Camp" because medieval armies were made up of people who knew how to fight. Boot Camp is for very quickly training people who have no idea how to fight - originally in fact it was for training conscripts, i.e. untrained civilians who are forced into the military and must be rapidly made to learn how to take orders, do simple things like march, and to use, maintain and carry their weapons.

In the middle ages in Europe, there were no true civilians. There were free people, protected people, and slaves. Free people by definition could fight. Free people owned and carried weapons, and by carrying them they were required to fight when necessary. Carrying a weapon in the middle ages was like wearing a Hells Angels vest or 18th Street Gang tattoo's today - if you are wearing it, you better be able to back it up. Today, most of us are not warriors like Hells Angels or 18th Street gangmembers have to be - the State has a monopoly of force, in the medieval world there was no State really, you had to be able to protect your own life and property- or at least participate in this protection. In towns for example, all citizens had to do duty as police (and firemen) every few weeks something like jury duty, because they couldn't trust anyone else to do it.

Protected people were people like Priests and Monks, and free women (among others), who were not required to carry weapons. If you were caught hurting one of these protected people, your punishment would be extremely harsh, usually meaning death.

Training was gradual and took place over a lifetime. It was not an individual thing where you were taught by an uncle or your father (though that was undoubtedly part of it) but it was usually a communal thing done in small and large groups. It's like, everyone was at least a little bit something like a gang banger or a Hells Angel. What that training consisted of varied by your estate. So knights an their buddies were horsemen. They would perform complicated hunts in large groups to practice many of the techniques of warfare. They were members of the tournament circuit which was the medieval equivalent of professional sports today, just as physically demanding (we can see the physiques of some of these guys are really impressive) and just as rough, actually a bit more rough since people routinely died and you could also get captured and lose a ton of money (though the rules varied a great deal from one tournament to the next). They also exercised and trained with weapons on a daily basis if possible. Finally they routinely participated in raids, small fights, and battles as part of their jobs administering an estate or acting as bodyguard to a rich noble.

Townsmen (burghers) fought as heavy infantry or (most often) marksmen. They practiced shooting regularly, nearly every town had a shooting range, initially for bows and crossbows, by the 14th century for guns as well increasingly. They participated in shooting contests which were expensive to enter (cost the equivalent of hundreds of dollars to enter) but had huge payouts (equivalent of 50 or 100 thousand dollars in some cases for the winners and runners up). They participated in fechtschuler, fencing tournaments, which also included staves, grappling, saber (dussack) fighting, pollaxe fighting and so on. And they all had to work in the town watch (municipal police) on a routine basis. The town watch operated as a small unit and carried halberds while inside the walls, pikes while outside, and basic drill was part of the job. They had to do this every few weeks. And some towns had formal drill training - Venice more than most.

Finally, like the knights, townsfolk had to pretty routinely get involved in skirmishes, raids and fights while keeping the peace (landfrieden) in their towns territory. It was very common for example for towns to destroy the castles of so called 'robber knights', and to capture outlaws, bandits, robbers and brigands to be judged by the town's magistrates. Burghers also participated in hunting in forests owned by the town. They protected these hunting preserves every bit as aggressively as the nobles did, for example the town of Greifswald in Pomerania went to war with their own Duke (captured his whole entourage and nearly killed him) when he went hunting in their forest without permission in the 1456

Free Peasants also participated in shooting and fighting contests (grappling, fencing, and staff fighting particularly) during events like kermesse festivals and we know that they also systematically did pike and halberd drill, we have evidence of the Swiss doing this but also in Bohemia, Saxony, in a place called the Dithmarschen, and others. It was the Swiss in particular who were the inspiration for the formally organized professional mercenaries called Landsknechts in the late 15th Century. They imported Swiss sergeants (feldweiebel) to train German peasants, mostly Swabians originally I think, who themselves were half-trained at least, but were taught specific Swiss fighting techniques. These Swiss were either burghers (from towns like Bern, Solothurn or Zurich) or peasants from the forest cantons like Uri, Schwyz, or Innerhoden. Condotierre companies in Italy and the Balkans also had systematic training regimens.


Slaves of course were serfs, who had lost the culture and tradition of fighting and usually made terrible soldiers, regardless of training or equipment, and actual chattel slaves, who were usually not allowed to fight (though there were exceptions - in a lot of Muslim countries the best troops in their army were slaves).

All this stuff started to change in the Early Modern (1500's - 1800's) era when pike drill was gradually systematized into something which could be trained to unskilled, non-warriors (i.e. serfs) and guns became simple enough to use and cheap enough to make that they could also be equipped to unskilled troops. Armies became much larger as a result, less individually skilled or effectively equipped, but often more effective simply due to the scale.

G

[Galloglaich]

I should add the caveat that as usual I'm referring to Northern and Central Europe here, (the regions of Germany, Saxony, Flanders, Holland, Scandinavia, Poland, Silesia, Bohemia, Hungary, and so on) Northern Italy was similar in most of the Middle Ages but changed by the late Medieval, you could say they went into the Early Modern period a bit quicker as professional mercenary companies took the role of security more and more. France was similar to Central Europe but had something more like a professional army earlier, the vassals of the King acted as national police to some extent, though you still did have town militias and armed peasants. Same for England, though they also had a huge, State sponsored training program for longbow archers (mostly designed around contests and so on like in Central Europe with the crossbows and guns). Scotland was a bit like Switzerland in certain respects (esp. the rural areas). Spain was in a more or less permanent war through most of the Middle Ages.

G

[warty goblin]

In the earlier parts of the middle ages, aren't there also some other oddities. I seem to recall the Knights Templar having some sort of fighting arm in addition to inventing banking and providing grist for conspiracy theorists. Do we know if they trained to fight in some sort of (regionally) centralized fashion?

In the pre-Christian Viking era, there were also the possibly only legendary Jomsvikings, who were some variety of sworn military brotherhood available for hire. If they existed, they seem to have had required significant demonstration of fighting talent for entry, and held to a very strict code of conduct. Since they supposedly lived all together in one location, and fighting was pretty much what they did*, it's reasonable to suspect they trained together.


*That and deadpan one-liners about people getting their hands chopped off.

[Mr. Mask]

That's a whopper to watch! 84m21s

Can you summarise what you find questionable about it Mr. Mask ?

Basically, any unarmed defenses against knives are going to be bad, because you're unarmed against a knife. There's a reason people use weapons. But you have to do something to defend yourself. You might die, and you're probably going to get at least cut, but you better fight as hard as you can.

Any time an instructor is showing you a theoretical defense against a knife, they're showing you a really ideal case. If they're any good, they started by telling you the best defense is to run. Of course, for the police, that may be less of an option.

That's actually a pretty good summary of what I found questionable.

It just seemed like they passed over some of the more dangerous aspects of knives. They mentioned a story where the knifer swapped his knife between hands, but didn't bring it up when recommending the wrist lock. They mentioned how knife attacks were sometimes lead with the empty hand, a few pictures and accounts describing that--but their recommended defence was only for a very telegraphed stab. They also skimmed over the fact you should hold the attacker's wrist rather than their arm, because they have more control with the blade--but I felt they should've elaborated more on how easy it is for a knifer to twist their wrist and cut a would-be disarmer if done incorrectly (admittedly, that might be a necessary bit of propaganda leaving that out, so police aren't scared of disarming people--most cases are just angry people fooling around with knives, rather than killers, after all).

The advice they gave, while showing off a sketch where someone runs screaming with a machete, was one of the main inconsistencies which bothered me. "Create a reactionary gap through verbal commands," was how they put it (they didn't even mention defence in that part). That works well for when you have the guy with the knife at a healthy distance, who seems a lot more bark than bite--a lot of them do seem to give up if you talk to/bark at them a bit.

There were some other details. They recommended slamming the assailant's hand against nearby walls... but I can't see how you can do that without getting your own fingers, if you're double-gripping someone's hand well enough to stop them from cutting you. The example they gave was holding onto the edge of their wrist with their fingertips, while gently touching the woman's wrist to the wall (I don't fault them on that last part--you don't want to hurt the actress). The best I could come up with is turning your body into them and thrusting your elbow into their arm, to try and smash their arm/elbow against the wall. There could be better possibilities, of course, like perhaps smashing them in the side of the head with your elbow, and hopefully get head-wall-contact as a result (that might still be inefficient, by a long way). They didn't mention the possibility that your opponent would use their free hand and legs to their advantage, either (still need to give them props for recommending knee strikes to the abdomen, though at least one in the groin is probably handy in case they're the type to go down from that).


Those are the elements I considered questionable. There might've been some other minor stuff as well, but my goal isn't to b picky and over-critical. This is, after all, a gem; probably the best video about knives I have seen.



G: I agree that the efforts you and others made sated my question quite thoroughly. Rather glad it got brought up again, though, since it brought to light the point of the Chinese possibly having boot-camps of a sort (with their own popular musical numbers). Your extension on the matter is also a benefit.


Goblin: The Templars had a truly impressive fighting arm. Banking was an accidental effect of the order's attempt to guarantee the well being of pilgrims, was the gist of it.

[fusilier]

To add a little bit to the "boot-camp" issue -- most of the time, you didn't have a huge influx of totally "raw" recruits. So a new member would be joining a formation that already had a fair amount of experience. New members would train with the rest of the formation, maybe getting a little extra one-on-one training from a more experienced comrade or drill sergeant. They would probably be placed in the rear ranks or something, until they gained more experience. This wouldn't be too much different from how a knight learned his skills, as a page then squire . . .

As a result, the training that a new recruit would receive was basically the same as the drill that all soldiers received. There wasn't really a separate school for new recruits. If you did have a lot of new soldiers, they would need *more* training, but their training wasn't really any different.

Read one of the manuals used by soldiers during the American Civil War. They expect a drill instructor to train ideally one, and at most three, soldier(s) in the basics (how to stand, face, march, handle his weapon), then throw him in with gradually larger units: platoons, companies, battalion, etc. Training individual soldiers was totally unrealistic during the war, but they didn't have any prescribed methods for training a large group of new soldiers; the manuals were written before the war for the professional army. Even at that time, there was no thought given to something like a boot camp. They would just spend more time drilling, until the officers felt confident or conditions forced them into action. They might set up "training camps", but these aren't quite the same as "boot camps".

[Brother Oni]

Those are the elements I considered questionable. There might've been some other minor stuff as well, but my goal isn't to b picky and over-critical. This is, after all, a gem; probably the best video about knives I have seen.

As Rhynn said, any knife defence techniques are going to be taught in optimal conditions for well telegraphed attacks. In an ideal situation, the officers watching the training video would then have practical knife defence lessons to follow up their classroom tuition.

From my own training, any open handed knife defence techniques are strictly a last resort - running and/or talking to defuse the situation takes priority.

For untrained attackers, telegraphing is actually quite common; with trained attacks intend on hurting you, the only real defence that works is a double tap, centre of mass.
I feel that even if verbal commands also don't stop the assailant, anything that buys time to draw your weapon is worthwhile. In the UK, shouting out "Stop! Armed police officer!" often makes people think twice, or at least buys valuable moments for the officer to draw his weapon.

As a final thing, I'm not sure how common it is in the US, but UK police officers these days typically patrol with body armour (stab proof vests primarily) so it gives them a bit of defence.

[Rhynn]

For untrained attackers, telegraphing is actually quite common; with trained attacks intend on hurting you, the only real defence that works is a double tap, centre of mass.

And in many real situations with such an attacker, you'll never have a chance to. You won't know it's an attack until the guy walking past you is suddenly stabbing you.

Knowing how to defend yourself is always better than not knowing, but the sad truth is, knife attacks are very, very hard to defend against for many, many reasons, a big one being surprise. Knives are very concealable; I remember a buddy of mine hiding a kitchen knife with his bare arm and giving everyone a nice surprise by suddenly screaming and stabbing it into the table we were sitting at... Smaller knives are still quite deadly. Your standard prison-yard-style shanking is pretty hard to defend against, if you don't know to expect it right then.

[Matthew]

Oh! That reminds me, there is an instance of untrained peasants showing up to a muster and having to be "shown how to use their weapons". As I recall, it was during the reign of King John (or maybe Henry I) when all men who were not "nothing" were called out in response to the threat of an invasion. Have to look it up! Must have been an impromptu boot camp.

[Mr. Mask]

As Rhynn said, any knife defence techniques are going to be taught in optimal conditions for well telegraphed attacks. In an ideal situation, the officers watching the training video would then have practical knife defence lessons to follow up their classroom tuition.

From my own training, any open handed knife defence techniques are strictly a last resort - running and/or talking to defuse the situation takes priority.

For untrained attackers, telegraphing is actually quite common; with trained attacks intend on hurting you, the only real defence that works is a double tap, centre of mass.
I feel that even if verbal commands also don't stop the assailant, anything that buys time to draw your weapon is worthwhile. In the UK, shouting out "Stop! Armed police officer!" often makes people think twice, or at least buys valuable moments for the officer to draw his weapon.

As a final thing, I'm not sure how common it is in the US, but UK police officers these days typically patrol with body armour (stab proof vests primarily) so it gives them a bit of defence.

That's the general idea of the video, yes. If someone believes this stuff without having those caveats you mention... they will unfortunately be destroyed.

And in many real situations with such an attacker, you'll never have a chance to. You won't know it's an attack until the guy walking past you is suddenly stabbing you.

Knowing how to defend yourself is always better than not knowing, but the sad truth is, knife attacks are very, very hard to defend against for many, many reasons, a big one being surprise. Knives are very concealable; I remember a buddy of mine hiding a kitchen knife with his bare arm and giving everyone a nice surprise by suddenly screaming and stabbing it into the table we were sitting at... Smaller knives are still quite deadly. Your standard prison-yard-style shanking is pretty hard to defend against, if you don't know to expect it right then.

Anyone who knows how to use a knife will be very good at surprise attack. Keeping alert of possible danger is the most important line of defence, since it allows you to evade dangerous encounters all together at times, and you're helpless regardless of your skill if you're killed before you realize there's danger.

As for concealing the kitchen knife, here's a funny example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfBRbKyzUCE
Not sure if he could actually walk with those.

Prison-yard shankings are difficult to defend against even if fully prepared and armed with a sword. The sword brings it from near impossible to quite feasible, at least.

[warty goblin]

Slight change of topic. My vague poking at all things bronze age continues, which naturally leads to a vague poking at the Iliad.

A frequent activity in Homer is throwing spears at enemies. These are apparently the same spears the heroes use in hand to hand combat, so presumably they're fairly large, fighting spears and not javelins. Is this a likely use for a larger spear, or is some sort of mix-up with smaller throwing spears?

[Brother Oni]

Is this a likely use for a larger spear, or is some sort of mix-up with smaller throwing spears?

Define 'larger' spear. I doubt even Achilles could throw a sarissa like a javelin.

A javelin is weighted towards the tip to help it being thrown. Melee spears are more balanced, so it makes them a bit 'light' to be thrown as effectively and personal experience with 6ft re-enactment spears seems to corroborate this.

The peltast's throwing javelin ranged from 1.25 - 2.25 m in length apparently, which places them in the one handed melee spear to a short two handed spear range.

I would think you could throw a melee spear in an emergency, although the lethal distance would be shorter than a javelin's (peltasts could reach 25m+ with a throwing strap).

[Fortinbras]

Slight change of topic. My vague poking at all things bronze age continues, which naturally leads to a vague poking at the Iliad.

A frequent activity in Homer is throwing spears at enemies. These are apparently the same spears the heroes use in hand to hand combat, so presumably they're fairly large, fighting spears and not javelins. Is this a likely use for a larger spear, or is some sort of mix-up with smaller throwing spears?

That's something that always bugged me. It gets even worse in the Aeneid when, depending on the translation, you might find the words spear, lance, javelin, and shaft used interchangeably.

Mathew, do you know if King John (or Henry) went to much expense to arm his peasants. More generally, does anyone know if kings or lords spending much on arming or upgrading the kit of their peasant militias ever happened much?

[Spiryt]

That's something that always bugged me. It gets even worse in the Aeneid when, depending on the translation, you might find the words spear, lance, javelin, and shaft used interchangeably.

Then, sadly, sources will bug you a lot.

Words like Lancea, hasta, spicaetc. for example, tend to be used pretty interchangeably, and it's pretty hard for us to know exactly what they describe.

A javelin is weighted towards the tip to help it being thrown. Melee spears are more balanced, so it makes them a bit 'light' to be thrown as effectively and personal experience with 6ft re-enactment spears seems to corroborate this.

Hmm, what javelin and what spear? Do you have sources?

We have really few actual hafts preserved from the period when javelins were actually widely used in Europe, so it's hard to say anything for sure.