Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Galloglaich]

Steel bows are a thing, see


http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi.../steelbow.html





http://www.nationalmuseumindia.gov.i...arms-big10.jpg

Hand-held ballistae, (manubalistae) are also a thing, see

http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/...nuballista.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuballista



Not that any of the above is probably relevant to your campaign world.


As far as carrying two handed swords in sheaths, this was normal for longswords, which are hand and a half swords about 4 feet long, which were used as sidearms both in a military and civilian capacity (especially by the Swiss) but very rare for the larger montante / spadone / spada a due mani etc. which are about 5' long and are basically a battlefield wapn, and unheard of for the 'true' two hander or zweihander which is about 6 feet or more and is a true battlefield weapon. The latter are not used with sheathes.

I've never seen any historical evidence of the sheath of a two handed sword worn on the back.


I don't know if this would be in any way relevant to your campaign but if you are unskilled at fighting a short sword and buckler is probably a pretty bad way to go.

G

[Brother Oni]

Steel bows are a thing, see

They were a thing up to the 1950s when they got replaced by modern materials like fibreglass: Apollo Merlin tubular steel bow.

Public service announcement - if you do ever find a steel bow dating back to this period, please don't shoot or even string it without getting it checked out. These bows are prone to metal fatigue and can cause severe injury if they snap or break when under tension.

[hamishspence]

Interestingly, in Tolkien's writings about Numenor (later published in Unfinished Tales) - steel bows are what they use.

[warty goblin]

As far as carrying two handed swords in sheaths, this was normal for longswords, which are hand and a half swords about 4 feet long, which were used as sidearms both in a military and civilian capacity (especially by the Swiss) but very rare for the larger montante / spadone / spada a due mani etc. which are about 5' long and are basically a battlefield wapn, and unheard of for the 'true' two hander or zweihander which is about 6 feet or more and is a true battlefield weapon. The latter are not used with sheathes.

Apropos of more or less nothing, wasn't the montante a reasonably popular civilian/dueling weapon? There's a surviving fight manual detailing their use that certainly seems written in a civilian context.

I don't know if this would be in any way relevant to your campaign but if you are unskilled at fighting a short sword and buckler is probably a pretty bad way to go.

G

Maces are nice and easy to use, relatively speaking.

[Incanur]

And Romans Empire at height of it's power didn't really bother with ranged combat, most pila were being lobed from extremely quick distance after all.

Artillery was employed a lot and often, though, I guess.

Armored infantry with javelin, sword, and shield constituted to the core the Roman military at its height - depending on you date that - but Roman armies commonly included archers and/or slingers as well. Period account mention the utility of their missile volleys.

As far as the montante and similar large two-handed swords go, they saw use in both civilian and military contexts. In the Iberian Peninsula, bodyguards in particular appear to have wielded these weapons. Di Grassi wrote they town guards favored two-handed swords because they often had to fight multiple opponents. In pike formations, soldiers with two-handed swords guarded the ensign, served in the melee, and/or attacked enemy pike blocs in loose formation.

[Autolykos]

Warfare is, when you boil it down, basically a problem of throwing rocks. Since the neolithic, we've just started using more complicated rocks and rock-throwers is all.

If you want to get really basic, it's about depositing a lot of energy in the other guy, since that's the most reliable way to make stuff break. Kinetic energy just tends to be the form that's most easily available and aimed at your foes.

[JustSomeGuy]

If you change the words 'guy', 'break' and 'foe' then it sounds to me an awful lot like sex

[Autolykos]

You'd have to replace energy too, though. And at that point there isn't much left of the original sentence except for the grammar.

[rrgg]

In general with medieval two-handed longswords the blade usually wasn't much longer than the blades of one-handed longswords, meaning that you would just carry them at your hip like normal. The really big great swords like zweihanders and claymores are the exceptions and if you really need to quickdraw, well, that's what your shortsword is for.

Spoiler

Show

With ranged weapons iirc if you are going for raw power then heavy throwing weapons such as spears, throwing axes, throwing maces, etc. are far more efficient than bows.

[JustSomeGuy]

You'd have to replace energy too, though. And at that point there isn't much left of the original sentence except for the grammar.

Oh, i don't know, i think air quotes would suffice!


On topic: why would dropping the sword in your hand and drawing a smallsword from a scabbard be quicker than putting your other hand on the hilt of the sword you're already holding? Or is it more about stance and getting ready to swing?

[warty goblin]

If you change the words 'guy', 'break' and 'foe' then it sounds to me an awful lot like sex

It reads like sex as it is. It's just a bit kinkier is all.

[Brother Oni]

I would like to think that in this day and age, the gender of the person receiving the energy is more a matter of personal preference than anything else.

On topic: why would dropping the sword in your hand and drawing a smallsword from a scabbard be quicker than putting your other hand on the hilt of the sword you're already holding? Or is it more about stance and getting ready to swing?

Range of the next opponent or your main sword is stuck/trapped in something and getting it free would take more time than you currently have.

[Galloglaich]

I gotta say, in fits and starts, this is getting to be a pretty hip forum. Better questions, better answers. Maybe we really are making a difference.



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

The short sidearm you see in that image is called a katzbalger, a very specific type of sword associated with the Landsknechts, the (mostly) German mercenaries who formed independent companies in the 16th Century and remained militarily important until the 17th.

They differed from a lot of other mercenaries, notably the Swiss, in preferring these special type of cutting swords with S shaped hand-guards, usually quite short, as sidearms instead of longswords, bastard swords or messers. The Swiss also used the baselard as a sidearm but in war (in period art and also in records) you see them using longswords as sidearms quite a bit.

The shorter katzbalger (some katzbalgers were quite long, even two-handed versions existed) is handier in a close-press, arguably, in the middle of a mob of people during a rout or a retreat, or in that so-called "bad war" situation that all the infantry companies dreaded. The katzbalgers usually had broad, fairly heavy blades so were good at hacking off limbs and so on while being unlikely to break, and yet balanced by a stout brass handle, pretty nimble too. Unlike a longsword or a rapier they didn't require a lot of training to use.

But the Swiss arguably had a better record in close-combat so they may have been on the winning side of the argument, at least when (Landsknechts fought Reislauffer)

G

[Brother Oni]

I gotta say, in fits and starts, this is getting to be a pretty hip forum. Better questions, better answers. Maybe we really are making a difference.

Are there any other forums you recommend? I find your posts very educational (except where the condittore are concerned, in which case I dive for cover until it blows over), so I'm interested in what you find useful.

[Galloglaich]

Are there any other forums you recommend? I find your posts very educational (except where the condittore are concerned, in which case I dive for cover until it blows over), so I'm interested in what you find useful.

Well, thanks !

This is probably the best rpg gamer forum I know of.

For other games, all empires which I think is associated with age of empires seems to often have good content.

Myarmoury is an excellent forum for anything to do with weapons and a lot of history stuff. One of my go-to places. I learned more about weapons there than anywhere else.

I'm a HEMA guy so I like HEMA forums, there are so many now I can't keep up with them all any more but the most useful I know of are the Schola Gladiatoria forum in the UK (which is a good place to find other Europeans), the HEMA Alliance forum in the US, which is a meeting house of dozens of US and international HEMA clubs Meyer Freifechter also based in the US, definitely the world experts on all things Joachim Meyer, HEMAC forum in Continental Europe but that is a private forum.

If English isn't your first language there are clubs in almost every part of the world now, I know there are quite a few good Spanish language, German, Swedish, Greek, Portuguese and even Turkish HEMA blogs. You can find these groups and their blogs using the HEMA Alliance club finder which is on their forum. There are also a lot of good non-English research sites out there as well. For example this web journal Gladius is the best single source I know of for all things Celtic, there are some English articles but it's mostly in Spanish.

http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius

There are also a ton of very good HEMA blogs now, the best one I know of is the HROARR blog out of Sweden which is excellent, and gets contributions from all over. The guy who runs it (Roger Norling) is an enviable combination of extremely well informed with extremely nice and level headed. This is probably my favorite HEMA website right now, I hope to get an article published there sooner or later.

There is a guy who calls himself Hans Talhoffer who often has some good stuff. He's German or Austrian I think and his English isn't superb but he's extremely active and comes up with some amazing primary source, archival stuff almost every day.

Luis Preto from Portugal, who is an expert at Jogo Do Pau, has a blog which often has interesting stuff both related to historical combat and modern self defense.

The Finnnish Fencer Ilkka Hartikainen has a great blog on Marozzo, as well as I-33, military saber fencing and many other matters. A very active, high-quality blog.

James Marwood out of the UK, an expert on the Victorian era English / Japanese martial art Bartitsu among other things, has an interesting blog which also combines modern combatives with historical material.

I'm not a re-enactor but I find that some re-enactor forums are good.
roman army talk is good for anything to do with the Romans, Gauls, Parthians and so forth. Hurstwtic is a great site for the Viking stuff, anything to do with Norse religion northvegr seems to be good.

Once I find the name of an interesting primary source on one of the above blogs, I find a lot of old books for free download on project gutenberg. That is an especially good place to find anything published in the 19th or early 20th century.

I should stipulate, that I don't know every one of these sites intimately and can only vouch for some of them, they are just places where I have found some good research information. If you don't like any of these sites, it is fusiliers fault.



Of course, for anything to do with real research you really need JSTOR access. One of the greatest myths sold to mankind today is that you can find everything on a google search. The truth is you can find almost nothing real on a google search (unless you are damn good at using google) except for partial fragments of books on google books. All the real research is on JSTOR or in even more obscure journals that aren't digitized (which you can find in local university libraries and archives).

I don't know y'all, did I miss anything else?

G

[fusilier]

The shorter katzbalger (some katzbalgers were quite long, even two-handed versions existed) is handier in a close-press, arguably, in the middle of a mob of people during a rout or a retreat, or in that so-called "bad war" situation that all the infantry companies dreaded.

To add a little bit more, I think a shorter sword was just plain easier to draw and use in those very compact situations that pikemen sometimes found themselves in (what is sometimes referred to as "bad war"). My understanding was that the Swiss Baselard was useful for similar situations as well. Even into the 17th century, you can read that shorter swords were the suggested sidearm for pikemen, although it's not clear how often they were issued such swords. [Also there's a particular pike stance to defend against cavalry, where the sword is partially or completely drawn, and at least from my experience a shorter sword is a lot easier to draw.]

I think the Swiss tended to get the better of the Landsknechts, primarily because they had a better discipline and training.

[Galloglaich]

I think the Swiss tended to get the better of the Landsknechts, primarily because they had a better discipline and training.

...because the Swiss were mostly militia ;)


But it's true the short sword is easier to use in closed-in spaces, easier to draw, and arguably requires a lot less training to use effectively than a longsword or a kriegsmesser. And sidesword / cut-thrust swords and / or rapiers seem to have gotten popular for pikemen in the era you are referring to where the pike is held with one hand on the sword blade.

And yet we do see a lot of evidence of longswords in use as sidearms including for pikemen and halberdiers in a great deal of period art.


Note the sidearms in the famous "bad war" image



the mercenary / burgher militia / artisan / artist Urs Graf, who fought in both Landsknecht and Swiss Reislauffer companies, seems to distinguish the former from the latter by their sidearm, such as in this painting of mercenaries and their recruiter. The mercenary on the left next to death, with the cut sleeves and the katzbalger, is a Landsknecht, the one in the middle with baselard dagger and the longsword, is a (Swiss) Reislauffer, the guy on the right (also with a longsword) is a French recruiting officer.

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

The Uri and Berne militia praying after a slaughter, with halberds (volgues) as their primary weapon but longswords as sidearms as well as an axe. Spiezer Chronik (circa 1485)

Spoiler

Show

Niklaus Manuel, Reißläufer und Künstler in 1553. Main weapon, Halberd, sidearm, longsword.

There are tons of others...


The longsword gradually faded in popularity in the 16th century but remained in use particularly with knights, burghers and elite infantry mercenaries into the 17th... the rapier was gradually kind of taking it's place most of this time, especially as the preferred 'elite' sidearm for gentlemen and so on, though the katzbalger remained popular with German mercenaries throughout the 16th century. But of course, many other weapons remained popular for infantry throughout the same period, including the kriegsmesser, the schwiesersabel (kind of a cross between a longsword, a messer, and a rapier), the estoc, the falchion, the sidesword, and the dagger, and various types of axes.

G

[fusilier]

The problem with relying upon pictorial evidence is determining the accuracy of the picture itself. Osprey is sometimes criticized for relying too much on pictorial evidence, without ensuring that the picture is an accurate representation. I've seen them do this WW2(!) era photographs -- just assume the caption is correct and go with it, even when other evidence, like quartermaster returns, disagree. Likewise, a lot of photographs of American Civil War soldiers were taken in studios, not in the field, so a photograph of the 9th Louisiana, dated to April 1862, may not be an accurate representation of what they looked like in a battle, only three months later. (Trust me, I've had this explained to me at great length!)

Paintings and drawings are potentially worse, as the artist may have depicted the soldiers to some ideal. This is not to say the work is total fantasy, as the depiction will most likely represent what *some* soldier of the time looked like, but it can't be relied upon to give an accurate depiction of the soldiers at that particular "event."

Most of the images I've seen of pikemen from the late 16th and early 17th centuries show them with relatively long swords (they certainly don't look like "short swords") -- but at the same time several commentators state that pikemen *should* be equipped with shorter swords. Which to believe? What military men claimed their soldiers should be equipped with? Or what artists decided to depict? I believe there was probably a bit of both. There are certainly some images that I would trust, but not all.

[Brother Oni]

Most of the images I've seen of pikemen from the late 16th and early 17th centuries show them with relatively long swords (they certainly don't look like "short swords") -- but at the same time several commentators state that pikemen *should* be equipped with shorter swords.

I suspect it may depend on the military in question. There's an English Civil War re-enactment going on near me this weekend - I'll see if I can ask somebody what the Royalists or the Roundheads did.

A couple things I remember from the last time I went: the pikemen drag their pikes when they march, holding it near the head, but I'm not sure whether that's due to safety reasons or it's historically accurate. I also don't remember them having sidearms, but again possible safety reasons or it's too expensive/unnecessary for them to be outfitted.

[fusilier]

I suspect it may depend on the military in question. There's an English Civil War re-enactment going on near me this weekend - I'll see if I can ask somebody what the Royalists or the Roundheads did.

A couple things I remember from the last time I went: the pikemen drag their pikes when they march, holding it near the head, but I'm not sure whether that's due to safety reasons or it's historically accurate. I also don't remember them having sidearms, but again possible safety reasons or it's too expensive/unnecessary for them to be outfitted.

It's absolutely historically correct -- it's called "trailing the pike", which was also a euphemism for serving as a soldier. It's a very convenient way to carry the pike, and makes an impressive amount of noise over certain terrain. :-)

[Mr. Mask]

Curious about weaponizing the human body. They had a piece on it with this program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHKPNbtSyHI

I'm not so sure about their dramatized example, but it is clear you can make your bones pretty hard and your muscles pretty strong, regardless. The question is: How much? How hard and strong can human bone become? Would you have had knights who could smash baseball bats with their bare limbs (based off that piece about what a knight is expected to do, I can imagine so)?

What does this mean for combat, in the end? As impressive as these bones and muscles seem for sport and civilian life, a sword swung by a weak man will still cut into the strongest man. At the same time, strength and endurance can be useful for war, allowing you to keep up the fight.

[Brother Oni]

It's absolutely historically correct -- it's called "trailing the pike", which was also a euphemism for serving as a soldier. It's a very convenient way to carry the pike, and makes an impressive amount of noise over certain terrain. :-)

Especially when several companies are walking over a wooden bridge.

I'm also a big fan of little historical anecdotes they have, like the soldiers' marching chants or ralling cry like the (obviously) Parliamentarian cry of "No king but King Jesus!".

Curious about weaponizing the human body. They had a piece on it with this program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHKPNbtSyHI

I'll have a watch when I get home as there's no sound on my work's computers.

That said, any augmentations to the human body will have to be carefully managed and co-ordinated. There's no point in upgrading your bones and muscles if you neglect the joints or the respiratory/immune system for example.

[Spiryt]

Curious about weaponizing the human body. They had a piece on it with this program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHKPNbtSyHI

I'm not so sure about their dramatized example, but it is clear you can make your bones pretty hard and your muscles pretty strong, regardless. The question is: How much? How hard and strong can human bone become? Would you have had knights who could smash baseball bats with their bare limbs (based off that piece about what a knight is expected to do, I can imagine so)?

What does this mean for combat, in the end? As impressive as these bones and muscles seem for sport and civilian life, a sword swung by a weak man will still cut into the strongest man. At the same time, strength and endurance can be useful for war, allowing you to keep up the fight.

This video has fair amount of 'bullshido' - a lot of stuff is over colored for the purposes of TV...

But yeah, muscles, tendons and bones of nak muay, so thai boxers of highest level are definitely ridiculously conditioned compared to 'Average dude'.

Same thing with any actual full contact striking style, generally. Although many actual Thai boxers take it to the extreme (often ending being wrecks in their 30-ies sadly).

Any impacts of limbs against bats and other stick are absolutely pointless and suicidal beside some demonstrations obviously.

Doesn't matter how rugged your bone and muscles are, if impact is so violent that bat brakes, your limb is going to be damaged as well.

[Matthew]

I don't know y'all, did I miss anything else?

Maybe http://deremilitari.org/

[Mr. Mask]

I'll have a watch when I get home as there's no sound on my work's computers.

That said, any augmentations to the human body will have to be carefully managed and co-ordinated. There's no point in upgrading your bones and muscles if you neglect the joints or the respiratory/immune system for example.

I always wondered how one could augment joints. I guess strengthening your muscle in general will help somewhat with keeping it together, but they'll also encounter more strain when you use that muscle.

This video has fair amount of 'bullshido' - a lot of stuff is over colored for the purposes of TV...

But yeah, muscles, tendons and bones of nak muay, so thai boxers of highest level are definitely ridiculously conditioned compared to 'Average dude'.

Same thing with any actual full contact striking style, generally. Although many actual Thai boxers take it to the extreme (often ending being wrecks in their 30-ies sadly).

Any impacts of limbs against bats and other stick are absolutely pointless and suicidal beside some demonstrations obviously.

Doesn't matter how rugged your bone and muscles are, if impact is so violent that bat brakes, your limb is going to be damaged as well.

Originally, I was going to get the full series of that show. But, after watching a couple of episodes... their technique in the art you describe turned me away (but I still look up some of the interesting cases on youtube). Made to try and make their content very impressive, while informing you as little as possible.

In the end, raw physical strength seems to mean little when edge weapons and war are involved. Though, I am curious how much the tougher bones, sinew and the like can help, when you are wearing armour.

[Galloglaich]

Maybe http://deremilitari.org/

Yeah that is a very good one!

G

[Brother Oni]

I always wondered how one could augment joints. I guess strengthening your muscle in general will help somewhat with keeping it together, but they'll also encounter more strain when you use that muscle.

Ok, the theory behind it is sound. During conditioning, you cause microfractures in the bone, which the body repairs, making the bone stronger overall. If you took a scan of his shin bone then you'd probably be able to see the increased density.

It's a similar principle with muscles - the ache you feel after lifting is all the microtears in the muscle fibres and the body fixing itself, laying down additional fibres to adapt for the next time.

I'm with Spiryt in that the show isn't that good scientifically and probably over exaggerating the fighter's abilities somewhat (I still wouldn't want to get into a ring with him!).

For example, the bat is rated as requiring 700lb worth of force to break - I'm fairly sure that value isn't for breaking it at the thinnest part of the bat. I'm not familiar with the physics required, but a baseball bat is typically made out of ash and is between 1" and 1 1/16" thick at the handle.

The artificial shin bone was a pile of [redacted] - human bone isn't hollow, not to mention it's supported and encased in flesh and muscle.


Away from the video, joint augmentation would be increasing the durability of the materials involved, probably by a prosthetic replacement.
Wandering into sci-fi a little, a lot of this is examined in the Shadowrun RPG - I believe there they enhanced muscles by interlacing it with artificial fibres like gortex and joints were improved by reinforcing the natural material (teflon coating on the end of the ball joint) and replacing/improving the lubrication.

Chimpanzee muscles are weight for weight more powerful than humans, and they're connected to the skeleton differently, giving them more power but less fine control.

I'll see if I can find my copy and see what else it suggested.

[Spiryt]

I always wondered how one could augment joints. I guess strengthening your muscle in general will help somewhat with keeping it together, but they'll also encounter more strain when you use that muscle.

I'm not sure what do you mean by 'augment'.

Tendons and joints get stronger when you lift weights, wrestle, play tennis, strike, chop down trees etc. and have good diet and all.

Originally, I was going to get the full series of that show. But, after watching a couple of episodes... their technique in the art you describe turned me away (but I still look up some of the interesting cases on youtube). Made to try and make their content very impressive, while informing you as little as possible.

In the end, raw physical strength seems to mean little when edge weapons and war are involved. Though, I am curious how much the tougher bones, sinew and the like can help, when you are wearing armour.

Uh... Raw physical strenght will mean a lot when edged weapons and war is involved, at least if we're talking about medieval9(ish) warfare.

Tougher bones sinew etc. will always help in strains that happen in combat, blocking, wrestling, falling down, standing up and so on.

Someone who had trained Muay Thai very seriously would without a doubt be way more effective, say, spearman than the other dude.

Conditioning, coordination, muscle endurance, explosiveness and general 'shape' is invaluable.

[Mr. Mask]

Oni: Good post. Now I have a basis for joints might be strengthened.


Spyrit: Yeah, that is handy (forgot about how it would be useful against strain). Meant that it is a secondary attribute to good training and tactics, as well as good equipment. Being able to endure and fight longer is, as I said, pretty useful.

I might've understated the usefulness of physical power, though... thinking too much of street ambush and crime.

[Brother Oni]

I'm not sure what do you mean by 'augment'.

Tendons and joints get stronger when you lift weights, wrestle, play tennis, strike, chop down trees etc. and have good diet and all.

I presume something along the lines of popping into a clinic, getting your muscles augmented, but forgetting to do your bones or joints.
The first time you try to apply your enhanced strength, you'll either tear the muscles at the tendons, break your bones from the strain, or damage your joints.

With traditional training, your tendons, joints and bones improve at the same rate as your muscles do, so there's significantly less chance of injury.

A better example would be in fiction where cybernetics are common - your new cyber-arm can lift 200kg, the arm's attachment to your still flesh and blood shoulder is rated for 100kg only. You try and lift 190kg one handed... ouch.

Uh... Raw physical strenght will mean a lot when edged weapons and war is involved, at least if we're talking about medieval9(ish) warfare.

Especially when armour gets involved.

In modern warfare though, fitness is far more important - once you're above the minimum strength requirement, there's diminishing returns on being significantly stronger. It's why most modern soldiers look like tri-athletes rather than power lifters.