Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Spiryt]

This question isn't really about weapons or armor, but it's still related to ancient militaries so please forgive me if I'm not allowed to ask this here. I just want to know when actual military training became standardized. This question has been haunting me for a while because standing armies weren't really "professional" until the age of Napoleon. For example, ancient Hoplites outside of Sparta were just rich citizens who could afford the equipment needed, as "normal" civillians I imagine they had little more than the most basic training of "pointy end goes into the enemy". So when did the hardcore training regiments we know today come into being? The ones where soldiers are drilled to their maximum extent to keep sure they stay in tiptop shape and have the morale a "real" soldier needs?

I think the problem here is assuming that modern training is required to keep morale and 'tiptop shape'. People who were warriors by they very purpose, from knights to steppe 'aristocracy' would posses some impressive skills and shape just because martial training would be their sole purpose, at least theoretically.

Modern training is about turning 'normal' people into capable soldiers and fitting them nicely and without problems into modern centrally organized war machine.

ancient Hoplites outside of Sparta were just rich citizens who could afford the equipment needed, as "normal" civillians I imagine they had little more than the most basic training of "pointy end goes into the enemy".

Actual 'rich' Hoplites would train and compete in all kinds of martial competition and be often really good at it - look how whole damn Olympics looked like, from javelin throwing to wrestling and pankration.

They would train and live to get better at those in many cases, and any significant success at Olympics was pretty much ultimate glory and fame for competitor and his city.

[Thiel]

a better magazine capacity than a target rifle (the one I learned to shoot on was single shot)

I realise this is a nit I'm picking at here, but there's more than a few companies who makes ridiculously high capacity magazines for .22LR.
Like Tactical Vantage's 70 round drum or American Tactical Imports' 110 round drum. Heck, I've even seen pictures of a 200 round casket magazine, though the link escapes me at the moment.
Exactly why you'd need so many rounds remains a mystery to me and judging by the manufacturer's rather fuzzy sales pitches they don't seem to know either.

[Brother Oni]

It is as heavy as I think; I don't think it weighs 250lbs or anything like that. I also know you can do all kinds of stuff in platemail, including some quite startling acrobatics. But it gets tiring to fight in, certainly much more tiring than no armour *.

No problem, just checking. Some people tend to have over-inflated ideas of how much armour weighs.

Heat exhaustion is certainly a major issue in hotter climes with armour though. That much padding is very insulating and with the large surface area of plate armour absorbing all the sun's heat, you'd probably get a very good idea of what a turkey has to look forward to at Christmas.

A sidenote:
Not that he is a real authoroty, but Jackie Chan has, when asked, said that the most deadly marial art in history was 19th century european fencing, at least against an non-armored opponent.

He actually demonstrates this in Shanghai Knights, where his character, Kung Fu master as he is, gets his behind handed to him over and over, with extreme ease, by the Big Bad who is an English aristrcrat and uses this tecnique.

A couple of caveats to that - Jackie Chan although very technically competent, isn't a competition fighter, particularly with weapons. I'd also be somewhat wary of using a film as a source, particularly when the villain is a nod towards Basil Rathbone, who was a very good fencer and often appeared to be holding back in duelling scenes to let the hero win as per the script.

I'd agree that in the unarmoured opponent category, fencing with its emphasis on speed and precision would probably be optimal. However I'd think that opening up the weapon variety would make things more complicated, (spear especially).

As an aside, while digging up some information, I found a story dating from 1625 about an English sailor called Richard Peeke who armed with a quarterstaff, apparently fought three Spaniards armed with rapier and dagger, killing one and disarming the other two, who are forced to run away.

Even George Silver claims that a man with a quarterstaff is worth two armed with rapiers, so that's something Vitruviansquid can use against his friends - a big stick is better than a rapier.

[Galloglaich]

But (and I know this is a tough concept for gamers) rapier has almost nothing to do with modern sport fencing.

Even real smallsword (which is what the foil and epee are based on) is only marginally related to modern sport fencing; Classical fencing which uses the smallsword, is essentially HEMA, it's unrestricted, dirty fighting where you can grab the blade, grapple, move all around, use inanimate objects like cloaks, candlesticks, chairs and etc.

The idea that a real weapon is so much slower than a smallsword or even a foil is also kind of absurd. To get a flick onto someone, literally a slap with a wire, a foil is fast yes, but to actually stab someone to where it would have any real effect, it's not any faster than a rapier or a lot of longswords or sideswords. If you look at actual fencing matches, they are real fast with blows that can actually kill.

The main advantage of most 'real' weapons over a foil or a smallsword is that they are longer and so can more easily hit first; and sturdy enough to strike another blade without snapping. Dealing with armor is a completely separate issue; longswords, rapiers, sideswords, arming swords, "Viking Swords" and so on were all used in a civilian context as well as military, and many were designed strictly for the civilian duel (and thus made lighter and faster for that purpose)

The majority of the surviving texts on German longsword fencing for example are all blossfechten, which is unarmored fencing, only a relatively small proportion of the surviving manuals deal with fencing in armor.

G

[warty goblin]

For example, ancient Hoplites outside of Sparta were just rich citizens who could afford the equipment needed, as "normal" civillians I imagine they had little more than the most basic training of "pointy end goes into the enemy". So when did the hardcore training regiments we know today come into being? The ones where soldiers are drilled to their maximum extent to keep sure they stay in tiptop shape and have the morale a "real" soldier needs?

It's interesting to note that contemporary sources don't actually rate Spartites as the be-all end-all of fighting men that popular culture do today. Theban/Boeotian hoplites were generally considered every bit as effective of soldiers. This they demonstrated at Leuctra, when a Theban force, spearheaded by the Sacred Band*, broke a Spartan phalanx.

*150 pairs of warrior-lovers trained to fight as an elite unit. Insert your 300 joke here.

[Avilan the Grey]

A couple of caveats to that - Jackie Chan although very technically competent, isn't a competition fighter, particularly with weapons. I'd also be somewhat wary of using a film as a source, particularly when the villain is a nod towards Basil Rathbone, who was a very good fencer and often appeared to be holding back in duelling scenes to let the hero win as per the script.

That was exactly what I pointed out; he is no real authoroty on the subject, but it was an interesting tidbit. It was his genuine estimate though.

It's interesting to note that contemporary sources don't actually rate Spartites as the be-all end-all of fighting men that popular culture do today. Theban/Boeotian hoplites were generally considered every bit as effective of soldiers. This they demonstrated at Leuctra, when a Theban force, spearheaded by the Sacred Band*, broke a Spartan phalanx.

*150 pairs of warrior-lovers trained to fight as an elite unit. Insert your 300 joke here.

I think what gave Spartans their reputation was not their SKILL, but their rumored refusal to ever surrender. From the sources I have seen the status of the Spartans in their enemies eyes was lowered very quickly once they started surrendering. When the Athenians could show a number of Spartan prisoners that surrendered willingly, their reputation basically went *pop* like a baloon.

[Mike_G]

At the risk of delving into matters I have only a little practical experience with, here is the best analogy I can think of for the foil vs HEMA issue.

A .22 long is great for target shooting. It's very light, it's quiet, and it has basically no recoil. It is an excellent caliber for hitting things with, if that is your only concern. Someone who knows little of combat but is aware that shooting your opponent is a desirable outcome for a firefight might consider a .22 to be a good rifle for combat: it is good for shooting things with and being shot at with one by someone who was a really talented marksman would be a terrifying experience that could very well end in serious injury or even death. However, you would be insane to choose a .22 over an M-16. The M-16 has vastly superior "stopping-power", a better magazine capacity than a target rifle (the one I learned to shoot on was single shot), is better suited to the rigors of campaign, etc. The M-16 is a much better choice for a solider or Marine who has all manner of concerns beyond simply hitting his opponent.

Likewise, a Norman arming sword is not going to be as quick as a foil. A foil is probably better at hitting things than an arming sword and if you didn't know much about sword fighting but you were aware that stabbing your opponent was generally a positive, you could be led to believe that a sharpened foil would outclass the slower arming sword. Certainly having a talented foilist try to stab you with a sharpened foil would be a terrifying experience that could easily end in serious injury or death (occasionally this happens even with blunted foils). However, a foil has less "stopping power" than an arming sword, it is more likely to get stuck, it is more likely to break, etc. The arming sword is a much better choice for a solider who has all manner of concerns beyond simply hitting his opponent.

I think a better analogy is that saying fencing is the best sword style is like saying boxing is the best unarmed style.

Both are sports, with rules and restrictions that make it artificial, make stuff that would be good in combat illegal and encourage things that wouldn't work on the street.

But a study of either would benefit a real world fighter by what he could take from it.

[Incanur]

The smallsword has Donald McBane in its favor, which really counts for a quite a bit. McBane claimed that smallsword wielder with coat wrapped around their arm and wet napkin under their hat has odds over the opponent with broadsword and target. He also asserted that thrusts kill while you can take forty cuts and still fight. McBane beat various men with broadswords himself, so he can't be easily dismissed. On the other hand, many in the period - including McBane at times - fought without the intent to kill for social and cultural reasons. (Killing people tends to really piss off their relations and/or the government.) Additionally, heavy garments would have protected against lighter cuts, especially to the body.

However, on the whole I think McBane was an extremely skilled swordsman but I suspect other masters (George Silver, Zach Wylde, etc) correctly attribute odds to the cutting sword over the smallsword.

[Dienekes]

It's interesting to note that contemporary sources don't actually rate Spartites as the be-all end-all of fighting men that popular culture do today. Theban/Boeotian hoplites were generally considered every bit as effective of soldiers. This they demonstrated at Leuctra, when a Theban force, spearheaded by the Sacred Band*, broke a Spartan phalanx.

*150 pairs of warrior-lovers trained to fight as an elite unit. Insert your 300 joke here.

Sort of. For awhile contemporary sources did consider them the best soldiers of Greece. Some even go so far as to call them the best in the world (in reference to a specific group of Spartan mercenaries who fought through Persia back to Greece anyway). But their time in the sun was limited to say the least. By the time of Leuctra the Sparitiate population had already dwindled beyond recognition, they had lost a large portion of their slave population that allowed their society to function, the agoge had been changed to make up for it, and the peltast was starting to be recognized for its tactical uses in other Greek poleis, and so forth. What really got rid of the Spartans was the cultures inability to change socially or tactically.

Leuctra was a defeat of the Spartans partially because the Sacred Band were amazing warriors in their own right. But also because of the weighted, curved phalanx that the Spartans had no idea how to deal with. Their stagnation was their undoing.

[warty goblin]

Sort of. For awhile contemporary sources did consider them the best soldiers of Greece. Some even go so far as to call them the best in the world (in reference to a specific group of Spartan mercenaries who fought through Persia back to Greece anyway). But their time in the sun was limited to say the least. By the time of Leuctra the Sparitiate population had already dwindled beyond recognition, they had lost a large portion of their slave population that allowed their society to function, the agoge had been changed to make up for it, and the peltast was starting to be recognized for its tactical uses in other Greek poleis, and so forth. What really got rid of the Spartans was the cultures inability to change socially or tactically.

Leuctra was a defeat of the Spartans partially because the Sacred Band were amazing warriors in their own right. But also because of the weighted, curved phalanx that the Spartans had no idea how to deal with. Their stagnation was their undoing.

All valid points. I seem to recall Thucydides claiming parity between Boeotian and Spartan soldiers even at the beginning of the Peloponnesian Wars. It's been for ever and a half since I read Thucydides though, so I could easily be misremembering.

[Dienekes]

All valid points. I seem to recall Thucydides claiming parity between Boeotian and Spartan soldiers even at the beginning of the Peloponnesian Wars. It's been for ever and a half since I read Thucydides though, so I could easily be misremembering.

He probably did, which unfortunately brings up another problem with piecing together how the Spartans were perceived. Spartans didn't write anything down (apparently their motto was important things should be memorized anyway) so that about all the information we get from them is by their enemies. Thucydides was a disgraced Athenian general who blamed the barbaric Spartans for ruining Athens. And he may be right about all of that, he does have some points definitely (though I personally point to the fact that Athens was the one who started the hostilities). But in any case he was a biased source who liked to paint the Spartans poorly (again though, he probably had a lot to go on in that regard. Spartans were hardly saints).

[Bug-a-Boo]

Hey guys, I read the discussion about rapiers and I thought I'd add something to it:


One reason the rapier isn't the end-all-be-all of swords is that thin piercing points aren't the best weapons to quickly end a fight with. The thrust is a powerful move that is quick to perform, hard to block and doesn't require much force to penetrate. A deep thrust is hard to treat and will probably kill a man in time the way a cut to the hand wouldn't. All good reason's that it got popular enough that a weapon was developed around maximizing it.

However, as dangerous as a thrust can be to deeper organs, it can easily miss vital areas or fail to cause enough shock to stop an opponent. This isn't a big problem in a street fight or a mugging - no one there wants to throw away his life in the end - but in a battle, you want your target to stop fighting Right Now and not after he's buried his axe in your face. A weapon that kills is great, but a weapon that incapacitates quickly is much more valuable against a determined foe.

The rapier just isn't very good for that. Modern sport rules are only about the touch of the blade. But in real combat, wounds count. A rapier fighter may be dextrous and precise enough to avoid an armoured foe's armour and stab into the joints... but if that stab doesn't have any appreciable effect, the rapier man will be in big trouble. And from what I hear from stage actors and the like who have been pierced through (or who have pierced someone through) by accident, such stab wounds can have surprisingly little effect on a person.

I also have an interesting article saved for people who're interested:
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php

[warty goblin]

He probably did, which unfortunately brings up another problem with piecing together how the Spartans were perceived. Spartans didn't write anything down (apparently their motto was important things should be memorized anyway) so that about all the information we get from them is by their enemies. Thucydides was a disgraced Athenian general who blamed the barbaric Spartans for ruining Athens. And he may be right about all of that, he does have some points definitely (though I personally point to the fact that Athens was the one who started the hostilities). But in any case he was a biased source who liked to paint the Spartans poorly (again though, he probably had a lot to go on in that regard. Spartans were hardly saints).

Your knowledge of the historiography of the period is clearly vastly in excess of mine, so I happily defer to your judgement. I hope you agree with my original assessment - possible source idiosyncrasies aside - that the modern 300 fueled dude-bro evaluation of the Spartans is somewhat out of line with both their historical rep and performance however, which was really the only point I wanted to get across.

[TheYell]

Short and sweet-- how lethal is, say, a hundred grams of explosive at close quarters?

Long and (hopefully not) sour: For a freeform Stargate RP, I'm considering creating a very small, flying drone that can fly near enemies under active camoflauge and detonate near their heads. It uses naquadah (substance that basically multiplies explosive effect, a 1 megaton nukes becomes a 1.2 gigaton nuke, etc) wrapped in advanced chemical explosives for its payload.

Well, 1 gm of TNT has 4484 Joules of energy and blows out at 6,900 meters per second. If that helps.

With naquadah 1gm of explosive would go off like 1.2kg so I don't think there's any question of somebody being 0.5 meter beyond the blast radius.

A stick of dynamite is 186 grams. So if you have .155 grams of dynamite wrapped in naquadah that's going off like a stick of dynamite. If your drone were a seed pod that blew 20 such matchhead charges over an area 10m in radius, that's like having 20 sticks of dynamite go off around you - the blast effect of simultaneous overlapping explosions is cumulative. That's why the military built the Rockeye bomb cluster.

if you don't want area effect but a sniper weapon, put the charge in the tail and have it be a kinetic weapon - launching itself into the target at 6900 m/second.

[Galloglaich]

The smallsword has Donald McBane in its favor, which really counts for a quite a bit. McBane claimed that smallsword wielder with coat wrapped around their arm and wet napkin under their hat has odds over the opponent with broadsword and target. He also asserted that thrusts kill while you can take forty cuts and still fight.

Well, that depends on the sword which cuts you. I certainly wouldn't want to second-guess McBane, who is justifiably famous and without a doubt both a pragmatic man of action and an expert fencer - but by his day, the quality of swords had declined sharply (pun intended), these were not very often hand made works of craftsmanship of the Medieval era, but more often (particularly in the English army) mass-produced, crude blades made for the cannon fodder. A well made, sharp sword, or for that matter, a kurkri knife, can deliver cuts you won't easily recover from, whereas a smallsword (particularly the stronger type of smallsword known as a Colishmarde or Konigsmark) can be pretty effective without being particularly well made or even sharp.

McBane beat various men with broadswords himself, so he can't be easily dismissed. On the other hand, many in the period - including McBane at times - fought without the intent to kill for social and cultural reasons. (Killing people tends to really piss off their relations and/or the government.)

This was definitely the case in earlier eras as well: people don't realize that even in informal duels such as McBane so often indulged in, it was common to still fight according to some rather vague rules of 'fair play' and / or, with moderate force to prevent actually killing one's opponent unless they had already escalated the fight past all moderation, for exactly the reasons you note.

Additionally, heavy garments would have protected against lighter cuts, especially to the body.

However, on the whole I think McBane was an extremely skilled swordsman but I suspect other masters (George Silver, Zach Wylde, etc) correctly attribute odds to the cutting sword over the smallsword.

In Silver's day he was really talking about rapiers and sideswords, smallswords came later.

G

[Galloglaich]

The rapier just isn't very good for that. Modern sport rules are only about the touch of the blade. But in real combat, wounds count. A rapier fighter may be dextrous and precise enough to avoid an armoured foe's armour and stab into the joints...

Keep in mind, a rapier and a foil and a smallsword are all different weapons.

Most rapiers are long, heavy, and can be quite formidable. There were battlefield versions and civilian dueling versions. Some almost exclusively for thrusting some which were really cut / thrust weapons.

A smallsword is more like a fencing foil but, it's stiff rather than flexible.

G

[Mike_G]

How technically difficult would it be to run your weapon through someone's eye or throat? What if they were say attacking you with a longsword and modestly competent but inferior to yourself in both skills and reflexes?

Eyes are small, and people naturally flinch when things come at their eyes, so an eye would be a very very difficult target. A throat would be relatively easy.

Now a very god sport fencer fighting a guy with, say, an arming sword, could probably land a thrust fairly easily. The lunge has a lot of range and is deceptively fast. Aim at his face, then when he moves to parry, disengage around the parry and put the point in his chest or his throat.

But, fencing attacks are fast because they can be. The rules protect you. In a bout, the action is over when I hit my enemy. Unless he has right of way, i don't need to worry if he hits me back. I get a point, and prove my style is better.

In real,life, I could probably put my point in you, but I wouldn't bet my life that you wouldn't live long enough to split my melon with that arming sword you just raised in an attempt to parry.

Fencing is a sport. Once I land an attack with right of way, the action is over. But a real smallsword isn't a disintegrator. A narrow blade in your chest or even you throat won't necessarily stop your counter attack. Plenty of smallsword duels ended in both parties being badly, maybe even fatally hurt.

Now, there are techniques to control the opponent's blade while you attack, so you don't get hit with the counter. Beats, binds, and so on. But these are designed to work against another smallsword. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to work on a different weapon. And a combination of weapons, like sword and shield, or sword and buckler or sword and dagger would allow you to attack and defend at the same time, which is hard with a single sword. Anything with reach present more challenges to the fencer. It's not impossible to defeat a spear or halberd or longsword, but it's not what the fencing techniques were designed for, and they don't work out of the box that way.

So, no, I would not bring a smallsword to a fight against most other weapons. And I'm pretty darn good with a foil.

But I'd advise any sword fighter to study fencing for the control and speed it gives you. Any new technique is one more arrow in your quiver, so don't sneer at other styles. Learn from them.

[Incanur]

This was definitely the case in earlier eras as well: people don't realize that even in informal duels such as McBane so often indulged in, it was common to still fight according to some rather vague rules of 'fair play' and / or, with moderate force to prevent actually killing one's opponent unless they had already escalated the fight past all moderation, for exactly the reasons you note.

Yes, though duels in Silver's day often ended in death or maiming for one or both parties. While Silver strongly counseled against dueling over trifles or being the aggressor, I don't recall anything in his manuals about fair play or restraint for reasons of honor or morality once in a fight. Silver advises powerful cuts to the head and thrust to the body as a matter of course. A bit earlier in the German context, however, Joachim Meyer wrote that when fighting with the longsword Germans didn't thrust against one another; thrusts were reserved for the common enemy in the field.

In Silver's day he was really talking about rapiers and sideswords, smallswords came later.

Sure, but we can confidently speculate that Silver would have given the odds to his short sword over the smallsword. He considered cutting ability and length key; under Silver's hierarchy of weapons, the smallsword is too short (usually 28-31 inches of blade vs. Silver's ideal of approximately 37) and can't cut. I suspect he'd rank the smallsword even lower than the rapiers he so despised. Amusing enough, Joseph Swetnam, who thought the long rapier too strong for the backsword/broadsword/Silver's short sword, likely would have scorned the smallsword as well as because it's just too short. He might have used one for a dagger in pinch. (Swetnam recommended a four-foot rapier and two-foot dagger.)

[Mr Beer]

No problem, just checking. Some people tend to have over-inflated ideas of how much armour weighs.

Yes indeed. Until quite recently a lot of fiction on the subject gives the impression that plate armour was like wearing a uranium straight jacket.

[fusilier]

I think what gave Spartans their reputation was not their SKILL, but their rumored refusal to ever surrender. From the sources I have seen the status of the Spartans in their enemies eyes was lowered very quickly once they started surrendering. When the Athenians could show a number of Spartan prisoners that surrendered willingly, their reputation basically went *pop* like a baloon.

My understanding was that Spartans were known for the martial skill, but in reality they retreated quite often. Surrender may have been rare and very embarrassing, but if they felt the odds were against them (or even just had some unlucky omens) they would give up the entire campaign. This issue became more pronounced as time went on, as the number of full Spartans declined (mostly due to loopholes in the laws) and they didn't want to risk loosing irreplaceable men. The Battle of Thermopoly, where a large number all fought to the death, was an exception not the rule. The old "come back with your shield or on it" phrase not withstanding -- which was actually somewhat ironic, as they apparently had straps to sling the shield over their back, so they could run away without dropping it. ;-) [Just to add some more understanding for those who don't know: Spartans also used their shields as stretchers for the dead -- so the phrase admonished someone to return with honor, or dead.]

I think there was a famous event during the Peloponnesian War, where a group of Spartans were trapped on a besieged island and they eventually surrendered -- which was considered a huge deal. I think they were put in cages and shown off in Athens?

After their victory of the Peloponnesian War, there was one Spartan king that like to beat up on Thebes a lot. As a result the Thebans gradually became better at fighting, and *eventually* hit upon a phalanx strategy that could defeat the Spartans: put veterans soldiers on one flank to hold the line (the left I think), and simply pile up the number of ranks on the other flank to aid in a break through. They used this technique successfully *twice* -- the Spartans being unable to learn from their mistakes, and the losses they were taking to the Spartan citizen population had a detrimental effect on the city as a whole.

[Galloglaich]

Yes, though duels in Silver's day often ended in death or maiming for one or both parties. While Silver strongly counseled against dueling over trifles or being the aggressor, I don't recall anything in his manuals about fair play or restraint for reasons of honor or morality once in a fight. Silver advises powerful cuts to the head and thrust to the body as a matter of course. A bit earlier in the German context, however, Joachim Meyer wrote that when fighting with the longsword Germans didn't thrust against one another; thrusts were reserved for the common enemy in the field.

Meyer isn't the only one by a long shot, and even Silver was complaining about how the new Italian style duels were too lethal. But in the German context it was different because you wouldn't automatically get in bad trouble for dueling, even if you killed the other guy, so long as you played 'by the rules', which meant among other things not stabbing and even striking with the flat, at least initially so long as the fight had not yet escalated.

There are a bunch of court records on this from the German towns, which get into a lot of detail (testimony about the fights from multiple witnesses, as well as the judgement and ultimate ruling). Someone even did some interesting analysis of remittance letters in a journal that came out back in May looking at the results of injuries in duels in Flanders and France. As you noted, instant death was apparently rare. Only severe injuries to the head or neck were ever instantly lethal (in the sample of I think about 700 remittance letters), even though most injuries to the chest or side (I think over 60%) were eventually lethal. One of the other interesting statistics to emerge was that daggers were pretty effective compared to other weapons, though the Halberd looks like the most lethal (though this was from a much smaller, statistically irrelevant sample of about 80 remittance letters where each person involved in the fight had a different weapon).

Sure, but we can confidently speculate that Silver would have given the odds to his short sword over the smallsword. He considered cutting ability and length key; under Silver's hierarchy of weapons, the smallsword is too short (usually 28-31 inches of blade vs. Silver's ideal of approximately 37) and can't cut. I suspect he'd rank the smallsword even lower than the rapiers he so despised. Amusing enough, Joseph Swetnam, who thought the long rapier too strong for the backsword/broadsword/Silver's short sword, likely would have scorned the smallsword as well as because it's just too short. He might have used one for a dagger in pinch. (Swetnam recommended a four-foot rapier and two-foot dagger.)

Silver preferred the cutting weapon, no doubt, but the smallsword has it's other advantages, though much shorter than a rapier, it is very fast and as I think someone mentioned upthread, can attack effectively at almost any range. Smallswords too were also used in battle, keep in mind, usually issued to officers (along with other things like those wretched spadroons...)

But then by the 18th 19th Century... swords just weren't the same any more in the West for the most part.

G

[Admiral Squish]

So, I have a number of questions about leather armor. Or, rather, unusual leather armors.

Does increasing the thickness of the leather significantly increase the protection it offers, or is thicker leather only marginally better? And can extremely thick hides be treated properly to make armor? For example, an elephant's hide is an inch thick in places, and a walrus' can be four inches thick, if you use the right parts. Can scaled hides be treated for armor, or do the scales fall out?

[Storm Bringer]

The old "come back with your shield or on it" phrase not withstanding -- which was actually somewhat ironic, as they apparently had straps to sling the shield over their back, so they could run away without dropping it. ;-) [Just to add some more understanding for those who don't know: Spartans also used their shields as stretchers for the dead -- so the phrase admonished someone to return with honor, or dead.]

my understanding was that while a man can run carrying the shield, fleeing troops would normally ditch their shields so that they could outrun their pursuers, in the same way gunpowder era troops have been known to drop their firearms and run.

[Yora]

Yes indeed. Until quite recently a lot of fiction on the subject gives the impression that plate armour was like wearing a uranium straight jacket.

There is also a difference in how the weight is carried on the body. From what I've heard, wearing armor is a lot less uncomfortable than carrying it in a large bag on your back. If some of the weight is on your arms and on your legs, it puts a small strain on every part of your body, instead of one big one on a relatively small part.

[Brother Oni]

Does increasing the thickness of the leather significantly increase the protection it offers, or is thicker leather only marginally better? And can extremely thick hides be treated properly to make armor? For example, an elephant's hide is an inch thick in places, and a walrus' can be four inches thick, if you use the right parts. Can scaled hides be treated for armor, or do the scales fall out?

Assuming the hide is uniformly thick and retains the same density throughout, then yes, thicker is better. That said, there's going to be a limit to thickness where the weight and restriction to mobility is going to out-weigh the protection it offers.

There's some examples of Native American Tlingit armour made out of walrus skin, reinforced with metal coins:

Spoiler

Show

I know that alligator scale purses and other accessories made out of reptile scale (not skin) are semi-popular, which indicates that properly treated scales don't fall out.

Bear in mind that due to the nature of leather armour, it can't be repaired easily once the integrity has been compromised.

There is also a difference in how the weight is carried on the body. From what I've heard, wearing armor is a lot less uncomfortable than carrying it in a large bag on your back. If some of the weight is on your arms and on your legs, it puts a small strain on every part of your body, instead of one big one on a relatively small part.

I can confirm this in the case of mail. One trick I was taught, is to wear a belt (over the mail) and get the mail to hang slightly over the belt.
Doing this significantly reduces the strain on your shoulders plus holds the mail to your body, otherwise it's going to hang straight down like a metal robe, resulting in mobility/agility issues (at least with my mail shirt and body shape it does).

[Avilan the Grey]

I can confirm this in the case of mail. One trick I was taught, is to wear a belt (over the mail) and get the mail to hang slightly over the belt.
Doing this significantly reduces the strain on your shoulders plus holds the mail to your body, otherwise it's going to hang straight down like a metal robe, resulting in mobility/agility issues (at least with my mail shirt and body shape it does).

Exactly; full chainmail is far heavier to wear than a full plate armor, because you get all the weight on your shoulders (and hips, as you describe) while a plate has every body part carry the weight of that part of the armor.

[warty goblin]

Exactly; full chainmail is far heavier to wear than a full plate armor, because you get all the weight on your shoulders (and hips, as you describe) while a plate has every body part carry the weight of that part of the armor.

The part of this equation that I never see mentioned is that having weight at the ends of your limbs makes for more work than having it over your core. I have a pair of heavy leather gloves backed with mail. They weigh maybe a pound each, and I have pretty much never worn them for an extended period of time, because they add so much drag to my arms*. My 24lbs hauberk is just fine; I can fight in it, hike in it, whatever.


*Also because I'm afraid I'd accidentally clonk somebody with them sparring, and break their face. They're sort of like wearing hammers.

[Galloglaich]

This same kind of thing may be the reason why infantry so rarely wore leg armor, especially on their lower legs.

G

[Admiral Squish]

Would the chemicals/heat required to treat leather for armor even work on leather that's four inches thick? Would it be able to penetrate all through? Does it even have to, or is the surface all it needs?

[Galloglaich]

The point is regarding leather, is if you make it that thick it's actually a lot heavier and much bulkier than more effective steel or even iron armor is. If you end up with leather half an inch (12-13mm) thick or more vs. 1.5 mm thick steel armor, I believe the steel armor is lighter AND considerably more effective. Maybe somebody can do the math for us on the weight. As far as I can tell, leather armor was just about never used in Medieval Europe, except as stiffeners under mail armor and possibly in certain cases as tournament armor. Textile was the poor mans armor, not leather, despite what 3 decades of RPG's tell us.

Elephant and Rhino hide armor was however used in India, and buffalo hide was used as lamellar armor in Central Asia and in China and Japan at various times, though it was considered secondary quality armor I believe for the most part.

I think lamellar is the only way to make leather armor somewhat functional

G