Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Avilan the Grey]

Questions about long bowmen:

1) What is the evidence for significant visible physical deformities as a result of training with the war bow? The Mary Rose skeletons show signs of os acromiale, but that is not quite the same thing. I seem to recall late medieval battlefield depictions have been cited before as showing archers with one shoulder higher than the other, but that seems unlikely to me.

2) Is there any reason to suppose that the average long bowman was physically stronger than the average man-at-arms? Presumably he was better able to pull a long bow, but would that muscle training and development put him at an advantage over somebody who trained to fight hand-to-hand. It seems a spurious supposition to me, bound up with the myth of the war bow as a transformative weapon, but maybe I am wrong.

Deformities is a myth. VIsiblty thicker bones and muscles? Not so much. I can't find any specific data right now (am at work) but both skeletons found, and real life longbow men now, has, after several years of training, thicker bones AND bigger muscles on the side that draws the bow than on the other.

However it is not like a humpback; with normal clothing you cannot really see it. Bare-chested? Definitely visible.

As for strength? Different situations. A longbow man is definitely better at pulling heavily resisting things with one hand in one specific way, and to HOLD it in that position for quite a while. I doubt he would be stronger than a swordsman in arms wresting or a wood splitting contest.

[Brother Oni]

Sorry for stacking questions, but I need to ask about military trumpets.

I need a basic understanding of what the best, latest evolution of the trumpet/bugle is, and how it compares to ancient trumpets. I'm currently doing my own research, but am having difficulty comprehending (and I need to comprehend, in order to select the right trumpet for a military unit, to give them the impression of advanced understanding of audio devices).

Are you asking about signalling trumpets for battlefield communications?

I would think that material and design would be a good way of achieving your desired impression.
According to wikipedia, older trumpets would be made from hollowed out shells or animal horn, with the size of the instrument being forced to follow whatever source material they used.
More advanced instruments would have a smaller efficient shape and made out of a material that could be suitably shaped like bronze.

Another thing you could do is adapt them for the battlefield; they would be primarily small and durable, with simple mechanisms and the resultant calls also loud, short, highly repeatable and easily distinugishable: link.

Questions about long bowmen:

1) What is the evidence for significant visible physical deformities as a result of training with the war bow? The Mary Rose skeletons show signs of os acromiale, but that is not quite the same thing. I seem to recall late medieval battlefield depictions have been cited before as showing archers with one shoulder higher than the other, but that seems unlikely to me.

2) Is there any reason to suppose that the average long bowman was physically stronger than the average man-at-arms? Presumably he was better able to pull a long bow, but would that muscle training and development put him at an advantage over somebody who trained to fight hand-to-hand. It seems a spurious supposition to me, bound up with the myth of the war bow as a transformative weapon, but maybe I am wrong.

The main reason why one shoulder higher than the other is due to the technique they use to draw the bow. It's easiest to pull your shoulder back with the elbow elevated, particularly with heavy weights. This will cause an apparent 'hunch' in the shoulder particularly in comparison with the front arm which is 'just' holding the bow.
Try it for yourself in front of a mirror and you'll see what I mean, or I can get some pictures taken.

Further to Avilian's post, any repeated exercise will cause adaptation in the body to that particular exercise - it's why modern body builders vary their routine to promote overall muscle growth/tone.
For an archer, it's all going to be focused on the right arm, right shoulder, right half of the back and the left bicep (insert obligatory 'right arm is stronger than the left arm' joke here).

I agree with Avilan's comment on strength in that a swordsman would have better overall strength (the archer would be stronger than the average person though), although I disagree on the holding. Holding a bow at full draw, particularly a 70lb+ one, is very tiring and you're likely to suffer muscle fatigue and a resultant loss in accuracy after anything more than a few seconds, especially if you've been shooting for a while.

[Matthew]

Deformities is a myth. VIsiblty thicker bones and muscles? Not so much. I can't find any specific data right now (am at work) but both skeletons found, and real life longbow men now, has, after several years of training, thicker bones AND bigger muscles on the side that draws the bow than on the other.

However it is not like a humpback; with normal clothing you cannot really see it. Bare-chested? Definitely visible.

As for strength? Different situations. A longbow man is definitely better at pulling heavily resisting things with one hand in one specific way, and to HOLD it in that position for quite a while. I doubt he would be stronger than a swordsman in arms wresting or a wood splitting contest.

That sounds more or less in line with my expectations. If you have time later, I would be interested in specific data.

The main reason why one shoulder higher than the other is due to the technique they use to draw the bow. It's easiest to pull your shoulder back with the elbow elevated, particularly with heavy weights. This will cause an apparent 'hunch' in the shoulder particularly in comparison with the front arm which is 'just' holding the bow. Try it for yourself in front of a mirror and you'll see what I mean, or I can get some pictures taken.

Sure, that is what I was getting at, and even in the depictions it is not particularly pronounced.

[Autolykos]

I was trying to explain to my (now ex) players that clumping up in the middle of the board was a terrible tactic [...]

First, good riddance. I hope you'll find a better group soon (judging from your other horror stories about them).
Basically, clumping up without moving is pretty much the worst imaginable tactic (unless that's the only cover you have in a wide open plain). If it's a modern setting, they're just asking to get their behinds kicked by anyone who knows proper fire&motion. Any mook squad fresh out of basic training could probably do them in. I'd make a point out of doing just that and showing them the stats afterwards, offering them to play the other side in a rematch so they can demonstrate the superiority of their "stack of doom" while using the "OP" NPCs.
In D&D, this might not be that bad as ancient heavy infantry did use tight formations. Also, the superhuman characters of mid-high level D&D largely take tactics out of the physical space and move them to Tippyesque exploits and counter-exploits instead.

[Brother Oni]

Sure, that is what I was getting at, and even in the depictions it is not particularly pronounced.

Actually your first picture shows the differences quite clearly (if you know what you're looking for) - the left handed bowman in blue in the bottom right, has a high position draw compared to the right handed bowmen just in front of him, whose shoulder is virtually level.

An archer's references (where they draw the bow back to in order to achieve consistent power) are part of their technique and these are a signficant factor of where the shoulder and elbow ends up at full draw.

I remember reading a translated middle eastern archery manual from the late middle ages discussing various reference points and their merits: off the top of my head some of the places were the chin, corner of the beard, the tragus (hairless point in front of the ear), corner of the jawbone and edge of the eyebrow.
Even accounting for the draw technique (thumb versus three fingers), it's easy to see how the different references affect your body shape.

Edit: I've found some additional information regarding the possibly body adaptations of archers, but I don't want to steal Avilan's thunder plus I'm interested in his actual data as well.

[Mr. Mask]

Are you asking about signalling trumpets for battlefield communications?

I would think that material and design would be a good way of achieving your desired impression.
According to wikipedia, older trumpets would be made from hollowed out shells or animal horn, with the size of the instrument being forced to follow whatever source material they used.
More advanced instruments would have a smaller efficient shape and made out of a material that could be suitably shaped like bronze.

Another thing you could do is adapt them for the battlefield; they would be primarily small and durable, with simple mechanisms and the resultant calls also loud, short, highly repeatable and easily distinugishable: link.

Thanks, will look into that article.

[Brother Oni]

What is the lowest tech to highest tech versions of this weapon archetype? Or at least 'earliest to latest invented'?

Tomahawk? Scythian Axe? Boarding Axe? Sagaris? War Dolabra?

This post is from a couple of pages back, but I've just found something that might be of interest - the tactical tomahawk.

Apparently the owner was a blacksmith who made a small living making period accurate gun barrels, knives and hatchets. Recent events happened and it turns out that Special Forces guys really like their tomahawks as utility tools and emergency weapons, much like Gurkas and their khukri.

They've filtered through to the regular infantry and other law enforcement organisations and now he runs a nice business making them full time.

[Incanur]

Regarding the strength differences between archers and men-at-arms, remember that the two groups overlapped in various ways. An successful archer might go on to fight as a man-at-arms; at least some men-at-arms could shoot masterfully. English archers also effectively fought up close with polearms, swords, and daggers. I don't know of any evidence for overall strength differences between those fighting as men-at-arms and those fighting as archers at any given time. Both groups would contain a lot of brawn.

[Galloglaich]

I have couple of questions about hunting in the High Middle Ages.

1. Could anyone give me a rough run-down of forest law in Scandinavia and Germany? Did aristocrats in those areas have a monopoly on most of the big game hunting or were things more open to lower classes?

The short answer is that in Sweden while the Church and aristocrats owned many forests, commoners had hunting rights in a lot of the land too, probably the majority of the land area - the attempts to change this by the Danes under the Kalmar Union are part of what led to frequent wars (and 'civil wars') between Sweden and Denmark.

In Germany this varied enormously from region to region, but it was also mixed. In the majority of places within the Holy Roman Empire (more or less correlates with Germany plus some Slavic countries), a greater or lesser Lord owned hunting and fishing rights to the land, or it was owned by an abbey or a bishop. However it was also common to rent or lease these rights to hunters who were commoners, and as in Sweden, if not quite to the same extent, a lot of the land in the HRE was owned by commoners, either burghers or peasants. In some areas, like in the Tyrol or lower Saxony (see the Dithmarschen) peasants had control over the hunting over a pretty wide area. In regions within the territory of a large town or Free City, the towns had control over it. Sometimes this was contested, the town of Griefswald for example once attacked the entourage of the duke of Pomerania because he was hunting without permission in their forests. It was also the same for fishing rights. The towns of the Hanseatic League fought several wars with the kingdom of Denmark over fishing rights in a small stretch of southern Sweden in the 14th Century.

One thing you can be sure of, somebody officially owned pretty much all hunting and fishing rights in most parts of Europe. The only major exception I know of would be some mountain ranges such as the Riesageberge (aka 'giant mountains', believed to be inhabited by a giant or troll) mountains which were pretty inaccessible and remained unoccupied until they began to be colonized due to mining operations expanding in the 14th and 15th Centuries.

2. Did aristocrats do much "stalking" when they hunted, e.g. with bows and the like, or did they tend to just use the dog-and-horse combo that is better known.

I have read of Polish knights hunting bears on foot with spears (with a certain specific technique) and of special hunting techniques in the Tyrol and some other areas. Usually it's the whole shebang with beaters and dogs herding prey into an ambush zone.

3. Is hunting with a melee spear and no dogs very practical at all or will game just run away?

It's definitely practical people still do it today, with and without dogs.

(the above video links show boars being killed with spears and a knife so you may not want to watch these if you are sensitive about animals. If you aren't, it's also pretty instructive how effective a dagger probably should be in most rpgs even though they are usually treated as 'nuisance' weapons)

G

[warty goblin]

It's definitely practical people still do it today, with and without dogs.

(the above video links show boars being killed with spears and a knife so you may not want to watch these if you are sensitive about animals. If you aren't, it's also pretty instructive how effective a dagger probably should be in most rpgs even though they are usually treated as 'nuisance' weapons)

G

I would have figured the spear to be a lot more effective than that first video made it seem. Or was the guy not very good with it?

[Galloglaich]

I would have figured the spear to be a lot more effective than that first video made it seem. Or was the guy not very good with it?

I think the guys in the first video were very amateur, (it seemed like the guy doing all the stabbing was brand new to the whole experience, and his friend or guide was trying to coach him through it). I also think that is one of those cold steel boar hunting spears which, if it's anything like the one I have, have pretty crap blades, poorly shaped, kind of hollow on one side, it's hard to explain, but I don't think they have real good performance so to speak (even though a lot of people use them).

Plus, obviously the hide of that boar is pretty damn tough!

But I think if you had a really good spear, like a good replica, it would be much more effective. In the video though, the knife was the most scary weapon I think.

G

[Avilan the Grey]

I agree with Avilan's comment on strength in that a swordsman would have better overall strength (the archer would be stronger than the average person though), although I disagree on the holding. Holding a bow at full draw, particularly a 70lb+ one, is very tiring and you're likely to suffer muscle fatigue and a resultant loss in accuracy after anything more than a few seconds, especially if you've been shooting for a while.

Oh I am not saying he is some kind of superman. I am just saying that he is better at holding say a bow at full draw than the swordsman. Relative comparisons, that is all.

That sounds more or less in line with my expectations. If you have time later, I would be interested in specific data.

Well in the meantime, here's a skeleton from a 16th century bowman (the skeleton is not a reconstruction, it is recovered from a 16th century warship; real bones. The right shoulder is noticeable larger)

[Galloglaich]

That's a pretty tough looking lad...

G

[TheYell]

Does anyone know how tight a "formation" modern military infantry use?

I was trying to explain to my (now ex) players that clumping up in the middle of the board was a terrible tactic, and they all insisted that real life special forces squads are never more than five feet apart from one another when operating in the field.

I think this is really weird, as it would them to be easily surrounded and they easily taken out by a single automatic weapon or explosive, but I can't find any information one way or another.

I think the members of a fire team are probably that close (4 guys). Squads, I doubt it - they couldn't cover each other very well. Remember that fire from 3 separate fire teams from different directions will suppress a fire team, allowing the 4th or 5th to move as they like. Supposing the squads themselves occupy 20 feet, three squads would cover turf a mere 30 yards long - hardly dispersed enough to give suppressive fire. Which means they don't control anybody even if they all shoot at him at the same time.

On the other hand, I'm seeing photos coming out of Afghanistan that would strike our grandfathers as suicidal - because the Japanese were big on small mortars.

[warty goblin]

I think the guys in the first video were very amateur, (it seemed like the guy doing all the stabbing was brand new to the whole experience, and his friend or guide was trying to coach him through it). I also think that is one of those cold steel boar hunting spears which, if it's anything like the one I have, have pretty crap blades, poorly shaped, kind of hollow on one side, it's hard to explain, but I don't think they have real good performance so to speak (even though a lot of people use them).

Plus, obviously the hide of that boar is pretty damn tough!

Oh, yeah, looking at pictures of the Cold Steel one I see what you mean. That big central bulge seems like it would make it a real pain to get to bite deep. Between ribs and tough boar hide, no wonder the guy couldn't get it through to anything particularly vital. He was kinda tentative with it as well - and while I've never used a spear, I know the key to every sharp implement I've ever used is being able to picture it cutting deep, because otherwise I just fake myself out.

edit: Wow, I found a better picture of the way Cold Steel mounts their spear heads. I had thought they used a full, if abnormally large, socket, but it's just a bit of thick sheet steel cut out and bent into shape like a glorified shovel. That's really, really terrible.

But I think if you had a really good spear, like a good replica, it would be much more effective. In the video though, the knife was the most scary weapon I think.

G

He also seemed to know what he was about with that as well. The second thrust obviously hit something pretty vital given the amount of blood.


Damn. Now I have an urge to make a boar tusk helmet.

[Matthew]

Actually your first picture shows the differences quite clearly (if you know what you're looking for) - the left handed bowman in blue in the bottom right, has a high position draw compared to the right handed bowmen just in front of him, whose shoulder is virtually level.

Sure, but that is kind of the point. If you need to know what you are looking for to notice the difference it is not much of a difference.

Well in the meantime, here's a skeleton from a 16th century bowman (the skeleton is not a reconstruction, it is recovered from a 16th century warship; real bones. The right shoulder is noticeable larger)

Nice. As Galloglaich says, he is a big lad! Mind, something is a bit off about the angle with the photograph of the skeleton (it is not a direct facing shot), or else his hands are very disproportionate sizes!

[Avilan the Grey]

Sure, but that is kind of the point. If you need to know what you are looking for to notice the difference it is not much of a difference.


Nice. As Galloglaich says, he is a big lad! Mind, something is a bit off about the angle with the photograph of the skeleton (it is not a direct facing shot), or else his hands are very disproportionate sizes!

The skeloton IS holding it's right shoulder slightly higher. Not sure if it simply was the way the bones made best sense (wear and tear marks, muscle attachment points etc) or if they cater to public expectation.

As you can see, though, is that the upper fifth of the upper arm bone on the right side thickens noticably, and that the ball and joint socket is bigger and reinforced, period. It also looks like the right collarbone is beefier, too.

Not seen in the picture is that according to the description text, his finger bones on the right hand was "jagged" as if they had grown to accomodate a bow string held in the exact same position for years and years.

But as I said, when dressed, the difference is not really visible.

[Matthew]

The shoulder definitely looks bigger, which is what I would expect. However, the head and shoulders appear to be slightly turned to the right, which may be giving a false impression of the relative shoulder height, a differential not notable when dressed, as you say.

[Brother Oni]

That's a pretty tough looking lad...

It certainly puts paid to the common media misconception that archers are less physically able than men at arms. Slap him in some armour and you'd mistake him for a knight with no problems.

Sure, but that is kind of the point. If you need to know what you are looking for to notice the difference it is not much of a difference.

I think I mis-understood your expectations. If you're expecting archers to be basically an one armed Popeye with a hunchback, then no, they won't be that deformed.
If you're expecting them to be wide of chest with a fairly muscular build, then yes they will be.

I think it's the word 'deformity' that's throwing people off here. I suspect 'adaptation' would probably be a more accurate word, but it's less imagination grabbing.

But as I said, when dressed, the difference is not really visible.

Aside from being a big beefy lad and very broad in the chest.

The BBC did a small article on the Mary Rose (link) where it notes that a supposed archer had spine deformities common with other archer skeletons - whether its because archery deforms the spine or the deformities make them naturally suited to archery is not clear.

As for the 'jagged' finger bones, it would be the index, middle and ring fingers right about the first joint as that's where you hold the string.

Apparently the show Secrets of the Dead also an episode where they CAT scanned a modern archer who had been using high poundage bows from an early age and they found similar adaptations to recovered archer skeletons. Unfortunately I'm having trouble pinning down which episode it was.

As I said earlier to Matthew, the word 'deformity' implies a gross physical defect, which simply isn't true.

Edit: A bit more digging at the Mary Rose Trust indicates that a common feature of archers is os acromiale where a bone on top of the shoulder fails to fuse with the should blade. Again I doubt this would be visible to the naked eye but it would be classed as a 'deformity'.

[Fortinbras]

I have read of Polish knights hunting bears on foot with spears (with a certain specific technique) and of special hunting techniques in the Tyrol and some other areas. Usually it's the whole shebang with beaters and dogs herding prey into an ambush zone.
G

Cool. I don't suppose you know of any good English-language sources describing this, do you?

[Avilan the Grey]

Apparently the show Secrets of the Dead also an episode where they CAT scanned a modern archer who had been using high poundage bows from an early age and they found similar adaptations to recovered archer skeletons. Unfortunately I'm having trouble pinning down which episode it was.

Edit: A bit more digging at the Mary Rose Trust indicates that a common feature of archers is os acromiale where a bone on top of the shoulder fails to fuse with the should blade. Again I doubt this would be visible to the naked eye but it would be classed as a 'deformity'.

Is it a British show? I know that there is at least one other of those "investigating old stuff" shows that did the same thing, with an English guy who has been practicing the longbow since early teens. It was shown there too that he had exactly the same bone growth and muscle size differences as skeletons found on medieval battlefields.

I was just curious if it might have been the same guy.

And... interesting. Thanks.
Oh and I should have mentioned: This guy in the picture is, indeed, from the Mary Rose.

[Brother Oni]

Is it a British show? I know that there is at least one other of those "investigating old stuff" shows that did the same thing, with an English guy who has been practicing the longbow since early teens. It was shown there too that he had exactly the same bone growth and muscle size differences as skeletons found on medieval battlefields.

I was just curious if it might have been the same guy.

It was a British show on Channel 4, but it's been since bought and rebranded by the US PBS network.
It probably was the same bloke, if not the same show - given the cost of a CAT scan and the specialist nature of the investigation, I can't see many modern archers being scanned for comparison to medieval archers.

[Matthew]

I think I mis-understood your expectations. If you're expecting archers to be basically an one armed Popeye with a hunchback, then no, they won't be that deformed. If you're expecting them to be wide of chest with a fairly muscular build, then yes they will be. I think it's the word 'deformity' that's throwing people off here. I suspect 'adaptation' would probably be a more accurate word, but it's less imagination grabbing.

I refer you to my opening query: "significant visible physical deformities".

The BBC did a small article on the Mary Rose (link) where it notes that a supposed archer had spine deformities common with other archer skeletons - whether its because archery deforms the spine or the deformities make them naturally suited to archery is not clear.

I cannot seem to find that note in the article. Could you point me to it? [edit] Ah found it, have to click on the archer! That explains the archer skeleton maybe in that the spine has a "twist" to it. Not clear if this is a common feature of skeletons found with archery equipment on the ship or in general.

Edit: A bit more digging at the Mary Rose Trust indicates that a common feature of archers is os acromiale where a bone on top of the shoulder fails to fuse with the should blade. Again I doubt this would be visible to the naked eye but it would be classed as a 'deformity'.

Indeed, as I noted in my query.

[Galloglaich]

Cool. I don't suppose you know of any good English-language sources describing this, do you?

The English translation of Jan Dlugosz "Annales" mentions this, but it's a 700 page book so I'm not sure I'd be able to find you the exact page in a hurry.

It also shows up in Henryk Sienkiewicz novel Krzyżacy about the Teutonic Knights, they also depict the technique in the 1960's Polish film of the same name.

The technique was to stab the bear with a spear that had a stout cross-bar, and then "prop it" against the ground, so that the bear would wear itself out pushing into the spear.

This is a pretty well known thing in the region, so if you look hard I think you'll be able to find more about it. There is even a wiki on it (see below). If you try searching for some of the specific terms they mention (bärenspieß and /or rogatina) I bet you'll find some good stuff.

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

G

[Brother Oni]

I refer you to my opening query: "significant visible physical deformities".

D'oh. *Puts on dunce's hat and sits in the corner*

The technique was to stab the bear with a spear that had a stout cross-bar, and then "prop it" against the ground, so that the bear would wear itself out pushing into the spear.

Not to mention drive the spear head deeper into itself. It's a bit of clever design work - deep enough to cause critical injury, but not so deep the bear drives the spear through itself and can reach you.

I wonder if the 'prop against the ground and foot' technique observed in pike/spearmen formations derived from this? There can't be too many ways to deal with the probably comparable impact force from an angry bear and a horse with rider charging you.

[Incanur]

As far as hunting weapons go, Sasha Siemel killed around thirty jaguars with a seven-foot spear. Good luck trying that with a knife!

[Galloglaich]

That is a very interesting point. Quite possible, it would depend on the timeline but I bet bear hunting goes back a lot farther than fighting against cavalry does.


G

[Galloglaich]

As far as hunting weapons go, Sasha Siemel killed around thirty jaguars with a seven-foot spear. Good luck trying that with a knife!

Fascinating, it seems to be the same technique:

"The proper use of the spear turns the jaguars own fury against it. Bracing the butt-end of the spear in the ground, the hunter must meet the jaguar in mid-leap with the point of the weapon to impale the creature. Then as the cat writhes on the metal blade above the hunters head, he must flip the animal over and pin it to the ground."

I feel sorry for the jaguar, such a magnificent beast, but having seen some video footage of them in action, also great respect for the hunter. It takes cojones to face an angry jaguar with a spear...

G

[Mr. Mask]

Jaguars are among the more psychotic of the big cats, if it makes you feel better.


One thing I wonder about hunting, is if anyone knows much about those knights who, while in armour, apparently wrestled bears. I've seen a few illustrations of it, but haven't heard much (they generally are holding a dagger as they wrestle).

[Roxxy]

I wonder what a fight between two carrier battle groups would look like? Assuming both are very similar to what the US Navy has, what sort of tactics and results could be expected, and how would the battle appear to an observer?