Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Galloglaich]

So according to this

http://www.chapelsteel.com/weight-steel-plate.html

12" x 12" of 1.5mm steel plate (0.059 inches) = 2.04 lbs

I couldn't find anything to compute the weight of 12" x 12" x 1/2" leather but think it would be more than that

I don't think individual leather sheets even get that thick though of course, (since cow hide isn't that thick) so to get a 1/2" thick hide, let alone 4", you'd have to combine multiple leather sheets and bolt or rivet them together or something.

G

[Brother Oni]

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?

I've got no experience in treating leather for armour, so this is all speculation.

Looking up some sources, there's no surviving record of how leather was treated for armour, so there's only modern reconstructions and guesses of how cuir boulli (boiled leather) was made: link.

You need a fairly thick piece of leather to offer decent protection though: link.
Those are 92-110lb longbows at 15 yrds with bodkin points penetrating 6mm leather with ease. Even later on when they double the leather (so 12mm or 1/2"), some arrows still penetrate.

In comparison, anything greater than 1.5mm steel plate was virtually arrow proof.

12" x 12" of 1.5mm steel plate (0.059 inches) = 2.04 lbs

I couldn't find anything to compute the weight of 12" x 12" x 1/2" leather but think it would be more than that.

Unless I'm reading this chart wrong, 1/2" thick leather would weigh 32oz per square foot or 2lbs exactly.

That's untreated leather though - it could gain weight significantly once you've treated it, especially since most guesses of cuir boulli manufacture involves boiling in water.

[warty goblin]

Not purely leather, but leather caps stitched with rows of boar tusks were apparently quite popular in Mycenaean Greece.

Leather was also used as shields in bronze age Europe. The Conbrin shield from Ireland is the only extant example, but period artwork from the Aegean is rife with leather shields, and most of those used in the Iliad are described as multiple layers of leather fronted with sheet bronze. IIRC sheet bronze shields with what could have been leather backings have been discovered.

So far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for leather body armor during this period; all evidence points to solid, lamellar or scales armor of bronze and (much later) iron. Note that the scale armor may have been stitched to a leather backing, though I rather suspect cloth would have been a better choice in terms of comfort and durability. The Greeks, possibly starting in Mycenaean times, also seem to have used multiple layers of linen glued together for body armor.

I suspect one challenge with leather armor is that leather doesn't like being moist. Put on any sort of armor and step out into the summer sun, and you'll sweat like a waterfall. It's a poor sort of defense that degrades significantly just from wearing it.

[Dienekes]

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.

Oh agreed, and sorry if I came on a bit strong there. Sparta is basically my pet historical culture that I studied religiously years ago. And when questions about her come up I tend to get overexcited. I do the same thing when Machiavelli gets mentioned.

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.

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.

Both correct. Spartans were supposed (though it tended to happen more often as time went on), to never surrender and never be routed. However living to fight another day was a fine thing to do and encouraged. Only an idiot would fight to the death in a valley when they could win if they just made it over to that hill a mile away.

It's amusing to me when Thermopylae gets brought up so often yet no one looks at how the Spartans acted in the next major battle, Plataea, is far more in accordance with what they were trained to do. The Sparitiate moved out first showing their strength, overextended and were beaten back by the Persian forces, so they moved along the hilltops were the cavalry couldn't really chase after them well to regroup with the rest of the army and helped lead the way for the victory. Mind you that is the quicknotes version of the battle. But to me it shows both the strength and weakness of the Spartan military force, the idiotic arrogance in their own strength that caused them to push ahead of their army, yet the discipline that allowed them to make their way back, and the tactical savvy to figure out how best to actually do that.

The Peloponnesian surrender story is true (Battle of Sphacteria), and it was a huge deal at the time. I think it was the first time ever non-disgraced Sparitiates surrendered after they remodeled their society after the laws of Lycurgus. And while it did do a lot to lower the opinion of Spartan invincibility, it is worth mentioning that technically Spartas highest point of hegemonic dominance occurred after that debacle. Though it only lasted 33 years. Amusingly, one of the major points of conflict between Thebes and Sparta that lead to them coming to arms was that Thebes wanted to wipe Athens off the map after the Peloponnesian War and Sparta wanted to keep them alive in honor of their role during the Persian Wars. And of course also because the Spartans were getting their hands in everyone's business and were much worse at it than the Athenians were.

[Admiral Squish]

Okay, to clarify why I'm so interested in leather. I'm working on an alt-history america setting where the takeover isn't quite so sweeping. So, while european metal armor is available, it's very expensive, and the natives generally don't have the infrastructure (mines, forges) to repair it or make more. So, in a lot of cases, they instead use traditional armor, made of materials they CAN access. Leather, of various sorts, wood, bone, textiles.

So, yes, I know metal's a much superior material for armor than leather, but leather is better than nothing.

As for how you'd get 4" thick leather, as I mentioned earlier, walrus hide can be 4 inches thick in places. No bolting or fastening required, it just comes like that. I was considering the plausibility of armor made from the thickest parts of walrus hide. There might be magic involved to fuse the slabs together, so a lucky strike on the bindings doesn't make the whole suit fall apart.

[warty goblin]

Okay, to clarify why I'm so interested in leather. I'm working on an alt-history america setting where the takeover isn't quite so sweeping. So, while european metal armor is available, it's very expensive, and the natives generally don't have the infrastructure (mines, forges) to repair it or make more. So, in a lot of cases, they instead use traditional armor, made of materials they CAN access. Leather, of various sorts, wood, bone, textiles.

So, yes, I know metal's a much superior material for armor than leather, but leather is better than nothing.

As for how you'd get 4" thick leather, as I mentioned earlier, walrus hide can be 4 inches thick in places. No bolting or fastening required, it just comes like that. I was considering the plausibility of armor made from the thickest parts of walrus hide. There might be magic involved to fuse the slabs together, so a lucky strike on the bindings doesn't make the whole suit fall apart.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to fight in four inch thick anything. Even if the weight wasn't crazy high, my mobility would be shot pretty much anywhere I strapped the stuff to myself.

And given the paucity of evidence for the use or popularity of leather harness, it's actually arguable that nothing is better. The slight increase in survivability may just not be enough to offset the loss of mobility and endurance - to say nothing of expense - of the stuff. Skin may grow on animals, but the skins one wants aren't exactly easy to come by.

Many soldiers in antiquity for instance seem to have fought quite well without much in the way of armor. Hannibal's crack North African troops seem to have depended almost entirely on large shields, and the Celts were unholy terrors for a long time despite frequently going into battle without armor - and in some cases pants. Even the legionnaires of the early Roman republic quite frequently had nothing but a bronze or iron plate to protect the upper chest.

Personally I'd come up with a method for the natives to get decent textile armor, maybe reinforced with some higher density bone over critical areas. I'd imagine you could make a fairly good helmet using walrus tusks for instance. But bottom line is that you're going to have to add something to one side, or take it from the other. Or give North America all the really fun diseases, so a large proportion of European settlers develop pustules, keel over and die upon arrival.

[Brother Oni]

Okay, to clarify why I'm so interested in leather. I'm working on an alt-history america setting where the takeover isn't quite so sweeping. So, while european metal armor is available, it's very expensive, and the natives generally don't have the infrastructure (mines, forges) to repair it or make more. So, in a lot of cases, they instead use traditional armor, made of materials they CAN access. Leather, of various sorts, wood, bone, textiles.

So the Europeans invade the Americas, the native civilisations aren't crippled by smallpox first, plus metal armour is rare all round?

So, yes, I know metal's a much superior material for armor than leather, but leather is better than nothing.

Cloth armour would be superior in my opinion (until it gets wet) and has the added advantage of being historically accurate.

As for how you'd get 4" thick leather, as I mentioned earlier, walrus hide can be 4 inches thick in places. No bolting or fastening required, it just comes like that. I was considering the plausibility of armor made from the thickest parts of walrus hide. There might be magic involved to fuse the slabs together, so a lucky strike on the bindings doesn't make the whole suit fall apart.

You don't need to use exotic walrus hide to get 4" thick leather armour, just simply get eight layers of 1/2" cow hide and glue them together.

Of course, this very heavy and cumbersome - using this estimation of body surface area distribution and the average value of 1.9 m² for total body surface area, we get a rough value of 3.1 square feet for the front of the torso.

This means a 4" thick leather breastplate alone is 49lbs, which is simply ridiculous.

I'm also somewhat surprised that you think striking the bindings is a potential problem in combat - armour is usually designed so that the bindings are extremely difficult to damage. In the freak chance that they are, your armour integrity is typically so badly damaged it's no longer protecting anything anyway, or you're too busy bleeding to death.

Or give North America all the really fun diseases, so a large proportion of European settlers develop pustules, keel over and die upon arrival.

I've always wondered why Cortez and his mates never apparently caught something while they were running about in South America, especially with all the exotic disease the tropics tend to have.

My suggestion: mega fauna are still alive in the North Americas and the natives are experts in staying the hell away from them.
Sure, they may have magic boomsticks, but when a pack of 1 tonne Andrewsarchus turn up, or even worse, an Arctotherium (imagine a polar bear twice as big and twice as mean), my money's on the thing that can fit your entire head in its mouth.

[fusilier]

Okay, to clarify why I'm so interested in leather. I'm working on an alt-history america setting where the takeover isn't quite so sweeping. So, while european metal armor is available, it's very expensive, and the natives generally don't have the infrastructure (mines, forges) to repair it or make more. So, in a lot of cases, they instead use traditional armor, made of materials they CAN access. Leather, of various sorts, wood, bone, textiles.

So, yes, I know metal's a much superior material for armor than leather, but leather is better than nothing.

As for how you'd get 4" thick leather, as I mentioned earlier, walrus hide can be 4 inches thick in places. No bolting or fastening required, it just comes like that. I was considering the plausibility of armor made from the thickest parts of walrus hide. There might be magic involved to fuse the slabs together, so a lucky strike on the bindings doesn't make the whole suit fall apart.

You may want to study Spanish Colonial America. The Spanish fairly quickly adopted Meso-american armor (usually padded cotton, but there were also padded leather versions). They also continued to use chainmail at a time when it fell out of favor in Europe. Into the 19th century, the Spanish Presidio troops wore heavy "cueras" -- long coats made out of up to seven layers of thick hide, which could weigh quite a bit. There's evidence of barding being used in the late 17th century at the latest as well.

The treatment of leather for armor depends upon what you are intending to do with it. Most of the leather I just described needed to be flexible, so it was usually brain tanned (which was a standard treatment). Hardened leather -- leather that's designed to be stiff -- is made in various ways, which are greatly debated on the internet. When I needed some stiff leather, I took vegetable tanned leather and soaked it in water then let it dry. It works fine and stays stiff. This doesn't work with oil tanned leather!

Most leather's are maintained with the use of waxes and/or oils.

I don't really think there would be much you could do -- or would need to do for 4 inch thick leather -- to improve it's suitability as an armor. :-)

[Brother Oni]

I don't really think there would be much you could do -- or would need to do for 4 inch thick leather -- to improve it's suitability as an armor. :-)

Maybe make it lighter so that you don't need to have the build of a power weight lifter to wear a full suit of it?

[JustSomeGuy]

I think he would attain that build if he wore his new armour often enough! He could even start weak and incrementally increse his strength by adding layers, armour periodisation programming if you will.

[Mike_G]

gr6.jpg"].



I've always wondered why Cortez and his mates never apparently caught something while they were running about in South America, especially with all the exotic disease the tropics tend to have.

The Europeans were more resistant in general from having grown up in closer, more densely inhabited areas, with more travel and occasionally poor sanitation. They built up antibodies to more germs because they were habitually exposed to more. Especially soldiers, who would have travelled and drunk new exciting bacteria in different water across a continent, and lived in close camps and tightly packed ships trading germs freely

Many Native Americans died from disease caught by casual contact with Europeans. The South and Central American natives had bigger cities than the North American tribes, but I doubt the average Aztec had been exposed to as many germs and general filth as a European mercenary with a few years service and a sea voyage.

[Mr Beer]

I would not have anyone wearing 4" inch thick leather armour unless significant magics are involved; even then I don't see why they wouldn't wear something of normal thickness and magic that instead. It's something you might see on seige weapons or war elephants or something.

Now if I had to run something with 4" thick walrus leather armour, I would make it all enclosing and magically bio-mechanically enhanced. Yes, it would be a gruesomely fleshy sort of power armour. The elite native troops don it and acquire Walrus Power and run around knocking over lesser warriors like ninepins.

[AgentPaper]

I would not have anyone wearing 4" inch thick leather armour unless significant magics are involved; even then I don't see why they wouldn't wear something of normal thickness and magic that instead. It's something you might see on seige weapons or war elephants or something.

Now if I had to run something with 4" thick walrus leather armour, I would make it all enclosing and magically bio-mechanically enhanced. Yes, it would be a gruesomely fleshy sort of power armour. The elite native troops don it and acquire Walrus Power and run around knocking over lesser warriors like ninepins.

This is almost exactly what I thought as soon as he mentioned magic. This would be preeminently awesome, especially of different tribes had different suits. The northern natives could have the walrus super-thick armor that lets you shrug off blows, while others might have Buffalo armor that gives strength and endurance, or Jaguar armor that enhances your speed and agility, etc, etc.

Other than that, though, leather ends up just being a sort of "if you have to" armor that's out-classed in one way or another by everything else other than being really easy to figure out how to make.

[Mr Beer]

This is almost exactly what I thought as soon as he mentioned magic. This would be preeminently awesome, especially of different tribes had different suits. The northern natives could have the walrus super-thick armor that lets you shrug off blows, while others might have Buffalo armor that gives strength and endurance, or Jaguar armor that enhances your speed and agility, etc, etc.

It could make an interesting encounter when the party puts on their magical Plate +2 to intimidate the metal-less primitives - and then the tribe suits up into their animal-themed power armour and kicks the crap out of them.

[Brother Oni]

The South and Central American natives had bigger cities than the North American tribes, but I doubt the average Aztec had been exposed to as many germs and general filth as a European mercenary with a few years service and a sea voyage.

I'm fully aware of why the native civilisations were crippled by the diseases the Europeans brought over - I was just wondering why the same didn't happen to the Europeans by the native bugs.

Looking on a travel vaccination list, dengue fever and malaria are two diseases native to Central America that the Europeans of the time would have had very little exposure to. They're both mosquito borne, so it's highly likely that they would have been bitten and infected at some point.

I concede that those two are nowhere near as potent as the super bugs the Europeans brewed up with their close living and poor sanitary conditions, but I'm having trouble finding any records of problems the Europeans had.

It could make an interesting encounter when the party puts on their magical Plate +2 to intimidate the metal-less primitives - and then the tribe suits up into their animal-themed power armour and kicks the crap out of them.

So like a Meso-American version of Power Rangers, only with more human sacrifice?

[lsfreak]

The Europeans were more resistant in general from having grown up in closer, more densely inhabited areas, with more travel and occasionally poor sanitation. They built up antibodies to more germs because they were habitually exposed to more. Especially soldiers, who would have travelled and drunk new exciting bacteria in different water across a continent, and lived in close camps and tightly packed ships trading germs freely

In addition to this, my understanding is that, while the evidence isn't completely clear, it points to syphilis being a New World disease, so Europeans didn't escape completely unscathed.

[Brother Oni]

In addition to this, my understanding is that, while the evidence isn't completely clear, it points to syphilis being a New World disease, so Europeans didn't escape completely unscathed.

'Not completely unscathed' is somewhat of an understatement, given that syphilis was a major contributing factor for the formation of the Anglican Church.

Board rules instruct me to point you at Wikipedia for details unfortunately.

[Mr Beer]

ISo like a Meso-American version of Power Rangers, only with more human sacrifice?

Ha, yeah pretty much.

[fusilier]

I concede that those two are nowhere near as potent as the super bugs the Europeans brewed up with their close living and poor sanitary conditions, but I'm having trouble finding any records of problems the Europeans had.

It's been a while since I've studied this, but I seem to remember expeditions in South America, into the Amazon, etc., had greater mortality rates due to disease. I think that may have happened with the Guatemalan campaigns, and De Soto himself died of a "semi-tropical fever" in what is now the Deep South of the U.S.

Cortez in 1519-21 may have mostly avoided it by moving out of the coastal tropical regions where such diseases were more common; Central Mexico being a much dryer place.

[Galloglaich]

In addition to this, my understanding is that, while the evidence isn't completely clear, it points to syphilis being a New World disease, so Europeans didn't escape completely unscathed.

Yep. And it was much more virulent in the 16th Century than it is today, it was literally eating people alive.

Don't forget Typhus as well.

Also, if you look at the Black Death, it came from Asia into Europe (introduced by the Mongols, arguably on purpose) so it's not like the Europeans didn't experience the same kind of mass-extermination event due to international contact.

G

[eulmanis12]

one of the primary reasons for the European's not being wiped out by an American disease in the same way as the natives and smallpox comes from the lack of contact between various native cultures compared with contact between Eurasian cultures.

it works like this, on the Eurasian+african landmass, there is enough contact between the various parts that a major disease that begins in one area will eventually hit all of the major population centers, the textbook example being the black death, which orriginated in the far east, and eventually spread along trade routes to hit all parts of Europe. This phenomenon meant that the European populace would over time be exposed to a large number of diseases, which it would develop natural resistances to.

in contrast, in the Americas, there was very little contact between existing cultures, so a hypothetical disease that developed in the Incan empire, would not be able to spread to the Aztecs and vice versa, leading to a smaller pool of diseases, and less resistance buildup. In addition to this, outside of the Aztec and Incan empires, most of the natives were nomadic or semi-nomadic, a lifestyle which tends to cause the development of fewer diseases in general.

Additionaly, many (some say most) human diseases orrigionaly come from livestock, Europeans kept many types of livestock, and were thus exposed to many diseases, meanwhile, the natives tended to have little to no live stock. (the Incans had llamas and that was about it)

In reguards to the diseases that did exist in the Americas, many of them did affect the Europeans, but they simply did not spread by means that would allow them to decimate a population.

In addition, differences in medical practice also had an effect. not in that the doctors of either group could cure the diseases, but in how the practices limited spread of disease. European practice with diseases primarily involved quarrentine with both the patient and the "attending physician" (read, poor sap who drew the short straw) being kept separated from the rest of the group, which greatly limited the spread of disease, while native physicians/medicinemen/witchdoctors tended to continue to mingle with the rest of the population after tending to a diseased individual helping to spread the disease further. Additionaly, the Europeans did eventually make some real advances in medical practice around the time of the later stages of colonization, namely the discovery/invention of smallpox inoculation, which in addition to making them largely immune to their own diseases, made every inoculated person a carrier that could spread the disease to any natives they came into contact with.

[Brother Oni]

one of the primary reasons for the European's not being wiped out by an American disease in the same way as the natives and smallpox comes from the lack of contact between various native cultures compared with contact between Eurasian cultures.

While that's all true on a population scale, my question was on the much smaller scale of "Why weren't Cortez and his ~500 men decimated shortly after they landed in the Yucatan in 1519?".

Fusilier's explanation that Cortez went inland where it's significantly drier, thus less people and potential disease vectors, makes perfect sense to me, not to mention the later expeditions, which did stay in the hot wet areas, were badly affected by disease.

[AgentPaper]

While that's all true on a population scale, my question was on the much smaller scale of "Why weren't Cortez and his ~500 men decimated shortly after they landed in the Yucatan in 1519?".

Fusilier's explanation that Cortez went inland where it's significantly drier, thus less people and potential disease vectors, makes perfect sense to me, not to mention the later expeditions, which did stay in the hot wet areas, were badly affected by disease.

Because the natives didn't have nearly as many or as virulent diseases as the Europeans did. The natives only had what they could brew up between themselves and whatever random nomads passed through recently, while the Europeans had all the diseases of the Eurasian continent brewed in close quarters with animals and each other over thousands of years, which had just spent a few years in the pot-broiler incubators that the Spanish call ships.

Also, diseases have a tendency to prey on the very young, the old, and the weak, none of which is a good descriptor of the veteran, elite soldiers that Cortez brought over. They would need to have very strong immune systems to have lived through as much war as they did, which could have helped them shrug off any new diseases more easily than the natives, who had all the young, old, and weak of a civilian population.

[Brother Oni]

Also, diseases have a tendency to prey on the very young, the old, and the weak, none of which is a good descriptor of the veteran, elite soldiers that Cortez brought over. They would need to have very strong immune systems to have lived through as much war as they did, which could have helped them shrug off any new diseases more easily than the natives, who had all the young, old, and weak of a civilian population.

Without specific antibodies to a disease, you're reliant on the non-specific components of your immune system, which can be easily overwhelmed by things getting into places where they shouldn't (e.g. opportunistic injections by E.coli or S.aureus) let alone exposure to a novel organism.

The soldiers that came with Cortez are fit and healthy, which counts for far more than previous disease exposure when encountering a new organism (aforementioned syphilis, typhus and Black Death spreading rapidly throughout Europe, despite its optimal environment for breeding diseases).

The main reason for increased mortality in the very young, the old and weak, is due to secondary complications brought on by the disease, rather than the disease itself. A strong, healthy individual could potentially shrug off the fever caused by the body's reaction to kill the disease, while the same fever would kill a young child due to hyperpyrexia.
Likewise, a strong person could survive secondary infections of syphilis lesions that would kill a lesser person.

That all said, I do concede IgE from the adaptive part of the immune system may limit the effect of the malaria parasite though.

[Galloglaich]

A very high percentage of European sugar-cane workers and other colonists (many forcible, 'transported' prisoners, indentured servants and so on) in places like Jamaica, Cuba, Brazil and etc., simply died of Malaria, Yellow Fever and other Tropical diseases, to the extent that there is little trace of them now in some of those areas in spite of tens or hundreds of thousands of them being sent there.

G

[Incanur]

As you noted, instant death was apparently rare.

I noted this? While I think that's often true because of human physiology and weapon dynamics, English coroner's rolls from around Silver's time contains various examples of instant incapacitation. They should be taken with a grain of salt, given that the folks assessing the situation weren't witnesses and perhaps erroneously attributed instant death to serious wounds. But the number of deep cuts to the head suggests that swordplay similar to Silver's may have been common in the British Isles. Joseph Swetnam also wrote that Englishman favored cuts at the head, especially when angry.

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

That varied; a number of Brits in particular fought with cutting swords very much like Silver's in the second half of the nineteenth century. They even rediscovered Silver right before the start of the twentieth century. See Blades of the British Empire and D. A. Kinsley's other works for extensive primary-source collections. It's more than a little bizarre that British soldiers - especially officers - persisted in fighting with the sword, but they did so despite great risk to and sometimes loss of their lives. Arguably the most extreme example of this comes at the Battle of Omdurman. Amidst the overwhelming power of artillery and Maxim machine guns, the 21st Lancers charged into Sudanese infantry. Both sides fought primarily - though not exclusively, as some Lancers had automatic pistols - with lances, spears, and swords. Though successful, 28 out of 340 Lancers died in the charge, which accounted for more than half of British dead for the entire battle! Certain British soldiers valued the glory of close combat over their lives.

As far as leather armor in the Americas goes, it was actually quite important, especially in what's now the U.S. Southwest and Great Plains, into the nineteenth century. One of the reasons the gun could grant significant military advantage in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is because it penetrated leather and fabric armor that resisted arrows.

[JustSomeGuy]

I feel now would be a good time to point out the cap badge of the Queens Royal Lancers regt.



Their motto is 'death or glory'.

[Matthew]

Matthew, 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?

No (it was Henry I), the point was just that the levy was so unreliable that they had to be encouraged and shown how to use their weapons (summoning a general levy suggests that money was short). Mind you, scutage is well attested as a means by which English kings supported smaller and more professional armies. Indeed, it was far from unknown for the king to take the money men had brought for expenses and send them home, using the money to support the troops that were selected to remain.

[Galloglaich]

I'll post some stats later from a recent report on letters of remittance (similar to Coroners Rolls) from France and Burgundy which you may find enlightening on the 'instant death' issue as well as some others.

That varied; a number of Brits in particular fought with cutting swords very much like Silver's in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Maybe superficially in terms of shape or overall purpose, but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about quality. From the 18th Century onward, the quality of swords made for the military, particularly in England, declined precipitously. The English swords were usually copies of Continental designs at this time, and were typically crudely made of rather poor steel, poorly maintained and often not even sharpened.

For example, from the wiki on the English 1796 pattern officers sword (spadroon):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1796_P...word#Criticism

The 1796 Pattern Sword was not renowned as a great fighting sword. The blade was weak and the hilt gave very little protection to the hand.[1] General Cavalie Mercer of the Royal Artillery, who wore the same sword stated that:

"Nothing could be more useless or ridiculous than the old infantry regulation [sword]; it was good for neither cut nor thrust and was a perfect encumberance. In the Foot Artillery, when away from headquarters, we generally wore dirks instead of it".

It's more than a little bizarre that British soldiers - especially officers - persisted in fighting with the sword, but they did so despite great risk to and sometimes loss of their lives. Arguably the most extreme example of this comes at the Battle of Omdurman. Amidst the overwhelming power of artillery and Maxim machine guns, the 21st Lancers charged into Sudanese infantry. Both sides fought primarily - though not exclusively, as some Lancers had automatic pistols - with lances, spears, and swords. Though successful, 28 out of 340 Lancers died in the charge, which accounted for more than half of British dead for the entire battle! Certain British soldiers valued the glory of close combat over their lives.

I don't think this is anything particularly unusual about the British. This is just the persistence of the effective role of horse-cavalry in warfare, which persisted all the way through World War I and even into the early years of WW II, in which every nation still had a cavalry arm initially (including the Germans).


German cavalry, WW II


Rusian cavalry, WW II

Swords were used extensively as cavalry sidearms in the American Civil War, despite the use of revolvers and gattling guns, during the Franco-Prussian War, in WW I (where on the Eastern Front, cavalry was arguably the dominant force in play on both sides, in spite of Maxim machine guns and artillery and etc.) and in the smaller wars throughout the 1920's and 1930's leading up to WW II, including the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Winter War in Finland.

Cavalry had an important role as recon, screening, and light highly mobile infantry (dragoons) which remained necessary (especially in some areas) until automotive vehicles (including tanks, halftracks, motorcycles and so on) became sufficiently effective at off-road movement as to replace them, and aircraft began to effectively take over reconnaissance (which started in the American civil war with the military use of balloons, expanded greatly in WW I, but was really not complete until in the 1940's.)

The use of swords by officers also persisted in most armies well into WW I and in some cases WW II, the Japanese were issuing katanas as sidearms in WW II even to NCO's.

G

[Incanur]

Read Blades of the British Empire. While swords had some utility for personal defense, particularly in the era of unreliable, low-capacity pistols, no rational martial calculus explains the behavior of British swordsmen. The aforementioned book contains numerous accounts of officers and others showing off, explicitly fighting with cold steel because they wanted to. Sometimes when the swordplay turned sour for them, they resorted to a pistol - other times they suffered wounds or death. Certain British soldiers got in trouble for this behavior because it undermined the overall military effort by needlessly risking lives.

Lancers with lances and swords were pretty obsolete by 1898 - even though these weapons endured for years after - and that famous charge was waste of life and resources in practical terms. Winston Churchill survived the charge without injury in part because he carried an automatic pistol rather than a sword. Swords saw action in WWII - mainly in desperate circumstances and for execution - but they weren't important in that conflict.

As far sword quality goes, accounts differs. If properly sharpened, some regulation British swords did good service. I can't find it now, but I recall reading an account of I believe Sikh troops in India who favored British blades and cut masterfully with them. Also note that a number of swords made in the medieval and Renaissance periods had poor to mediocre metallurgical properties. One blade from the Mary Rose, while possessing a hard edge, was soft iron with a very thin outer layer of steel that would not survive many sharpenings. One Viking-era sword was miserably soft and would not have held a decent edge. See The Sword and the Crucible by Alan Williams for details.