Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[awa]

the handle on the spoilered version seemed awfully small to me.

[Brother Oni]

the handle on the spoilered version seemed awfully small to me.

It's probably intended for display rather than actual combat, but doing some quick measurements, the handle is ~25% of the weapon's length. Assuming the club is 48" in length, this makes the handle ~11" long.
A reverse google image search indicates that the man depicted is 6'5". He's got bloody big hands, so that's why the handle looks small.

As for oni wielding tetsubo, in most depictions they're wielding proportionally sized weapons single handed, hence the japanese proverb 'giving a tetsubo to an oni' meaning giving an additional advantage to someone who already has the upper hand.

Besides, we like breaking things with big sticks.

[Spiryt]

To be fair, it does generally seem that actual, antique versions of those were mostly chest to chin of Japanese man in length.

So they weren't exactly akin to morningstars/sprinklers we know of, which were pretty much full size polearms.

[Brother Oni]

So they weren't exactly akin to morningstars/sprinklers we know of, which were pretty much full size polearms.

The closest Japanese weapons in design I can think of, are the sodegarami type of weapons, although they were developed in the later Edo period for apprehension of suspects, rather than killing people on the battlefield.

[Wardog]

How colourful were army uniforms (or the equivilent) in ancient and medieval times?

Old movies from the 50s and 60s tend to make everyone wear bright, Techinicolor costumes that look too garish (and too clean) to seem realistic, whereas modern movies tend to go for a go for a "reality if brown" aesthetic that I find often makes it hard to tell which side is which (thereby failing the main point of a uniform).

So what would they have actually been like? (I know the Middle Ages were more colourful that people often imagine, so could the 50s-style Technicolor costumes actually authentic?)

[Matthew]

Nobody really knows for sure, but all those white statues that have come down to us were originally brightly painted, so maybe very.

[Autolykos]

How colourful were army uniforms (or the equivilent) in ancient and medieval times?

Well, the heraldic tincture rules (no 'color' on 'color', no 'metal' on 'metal') were all but explicitly designed in a way that maximized visibility (most modern warning signs still obey those rules). Rules like that would make little sense if the use of these colors wasn't wide-spread on shields, banners and uniforms. OTOH, these rules would be even more important once stuff got dirty and paint started to bleach out. I'd guess that at least full-time soldiers and mercenaries would have very "technicolor" uniforms at the beginning of the campaign. Later on, probably not so much.

[Spiryt]

How colourful were army uniforms (or the equivilent) in ancient and medieval times?

Old movies from the 50s and 60s tend to make everyone wear bright, Techinicolor costumes that look too garish (and too clean) to seem realistic, whereas modern movies tend to go for a go for a "reality if brown" aesthetic that I find often makes it hard to tell which side is which (thereby failing the main point of a uniform).

So what would they have actually been like? (I know the Middle Ages were more colourful that people often imagine, so could the 50s-style Technicolor costumes actually authentic?)

It depends on what you mean by 'colorful' honestly...

While medieval/ancient dyes didn't exactly have capabilities of modern chemistry, number of different dyes and it's application on different textiles in different ways etc. still allowed huge amount of colors.

Medieval knights obviously started to use colors in heraldry at least since 12th century - combinations of colours, shapes, symbols would be meaningful from several different reasons.

"Uniforms" generally start post medievally, obviously, but some things akin to 'uniforms' were very ancient of course.

[Straybow]

The ancients used red and indigo much of the time because those were the only bright, color-fast dyes. Black would fade quickly except when they used natural black wool or horsehair.

[warty goblin]

The ancients used red and indigo much of the time because those were the only bright, color-fast dyes. Black would fade quickly except when they used natural black wool or horsehair.

My Mom does a good amount of natural dying, so I have some secondhand knowledge.

Indigo is indeed an excellent blue, as is woad. Both are, I think, fairly fast when put on wool. I know less about other fibers since we have sheep, not a cotton plantation.

The hulls of the North American Black Walnut produces a remarkable, and very colorfast dark, almost chocolaty brown. I don't know if the same holds true for European walnuts though.

It turns out that a sort of sickly yellow is very easy to obtain, many tree barks produce this color.

Tragically it is impossible to dye with beets. They can make it look like you're peeing pure blood, but they don't stick to wool.

IIRC my Mom's preferred red dye is cochineal, which is a sort of scabrous insect that lives on cacti. I don't know if it's available in the old world, but it produces a hell of a nice red.


Black wool is not, to the modern eye, particularly black. Oh a lamb with a black fleece looks like midnight made into cuteness incarnate to be sure. But after a summer and winter in the sun and weather, there's some definite bleaching goes on. Still dark, but not the inky black we think of as black dyed cloth.

[Straybow]

Old world red came from a grub worm of some sort.

[Spiryt]

IIRC my Mom's preferred red dye is cochineal, which is a sort of scabrous insect that lives on cacti. I don't know if it's available in the old world, but it produces a hell of a nice red.

It was available, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cochineal.

But it wasn't by any way only solid red dye, of course.

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


And some other data about colours:

http://diebgasse.blogspot.com/2012/1...-medieval.html

[Galloglaich]

They used to use alum, among other things, to set the dye, and alum became a huge and very lucrative industry, fought over by the likes of Venice and the Vatican. By the late medieval period most of the colors we know today (including pure black, which was one of the most expensive) were available, if you could afford them.

G

[Straybow]

Oh, yes. I forgot that rose madder was ancient. Here is the NME red worm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermes_%28insect%29 called Kermes. It is the immature form rather than the adult scale bug.

Many dyes were set using ammonia from urine. Some makers preferred the urine of one particular animal. In some parts of northern Europe they used human urine and placed public chamberpots to collect it. Setting the dye just keeps it from washing out. Many colors would still fade in the sun fairly readily.

I just remembered something from my childhood visits to nearly every Revolution/ACW fort and battlefield from Virginia to Canada. The red of the British regular uniform was anything but uniform. Soldiers were responsible for their own clothing. The average trooper could afford only the cheapest, and they quickly (a year or so of wear) lighten to a red-pink. The color would also wash out, gradually, becoming fainter with time. You had to buy expensive cloth to be both color fast and unfading.

Confederate grey was also anything but uniform. Again, soldiers provided their own uniforms. Many were undyed brownish wool. Union uniforms were mostly manufactured in bulk and were a range of deep blue colors.

Where some form of livery was worn in medieval times there were probably parallels. A rich noble might desire his livery to be as bright and uniform as possible and supply tunics or cloaks, while others might require servants or soldiers to provide their own in acceptable colors.

[Galloglaich]

Yes I believe urine is still used to set dyes in some places, possibly Morrocco?

This is why dye workshops were located outside town walls, they tended to be stinky businesses, but it's also clear, very important ones. The improvement in dyes contributed to a boom in the textile industry in Europe in the late Medieval period.

For poor people, kermes, madder and woad remained important dyes which is why you saw a lot of lighter blues and red. But the average person was probably poorer in the 18th and 19th Century than in the late medieval period when many of this stuff was affordable, since from period artwork and records we know that all colors and numerous patterns were available to common people by the 14th Century, among other things they were constantly putting out new laws to prevent low-born commoners from wearing cloth of gold and damask silk fabrics and so on. In the 16th Century the Landsknecht mercenaries were famously free of all the sumptuary laws and flaunted it with every color in the rainbow and every pattern imaginable.

Spoiler

Show

Generally movies, TV shows and genre fiction depict people in any pre-industrial era as way too drab, either as medieval cavemen or as what I call "pastel peasants", and also way too dirty particularly for the medieval era, when people did bathe routinely, usually at least once a week.


I always wondered if Kermes dye had anything to do with Kermis festivals were a big deal in the rural areas of Europe from the medieval period into the late Early-Modern?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermesse_(festival)

G

[Galloglaich]

And some other data about colours:

http://diebgasse.blogspot.com/2012/1...-medieval.html

Very interesting blog post. I think it supports what I was saying about expensive dyed clothes being fairly widely available (since I believe black was one of the most expensive colors, short of royal purple anyway) obviously particularly so in the towns where people tended to be more well off, but as you know (I think) Polish peasants could be quite well off as well, with an income after expenses of up to around 30 zloty / gulden per year not being very unusual for wealthier yokels / boors.

G

[Beleriphon]

So what would they have actually been like? (I know the Middle Ages were more colourful that people often imagine, so could the 50s-style Technicolor costumes actually authentic?)

Possibly, but keep in mind of the reason that those movies looke like Technicolor is that the are Technicolor colouring which has super high colour saturation. The other thing that you might have seen is colourized black and white movies, which used Technicolor to add colour, but it is even more saturated and weird looking.

[Galloglaich]

I think the main issue with the Hollywood presentation was that the costumes tended to be really simplistic and crudely made regardless of the color, similar for US re-enactors compared to some of the better European ones.

The medieval world is just alien and strange for Hollywood, by contrast, they (at least sometimes) do costumes and kit for westerns, revolutionary war and civil-war era very well. I am not an expert on the era but from what I do know Last of the Mohekans for example looks excellent in terms of kit, costumes, and the details of the fighting scenes.

Some re-enactors, particularly in Europe but over here too now as well, do reenactment with an eye to style and fashion as personal comportment. In the US we tend to place more of an emphasis on casual attire maybe that is the cause of the problem, but we don't seem to get the idea of people dressing well before the advent of the industrial loom.

Spoiler

Show

G

[fusilier]

In the middle ages the Byzantines were often regarded as having especially colorful clothing. We should also remember that color is a matter of style -- just because they could make bright clothing, doesn't mean it was necessarily vogue, or appropriate for all situations; a bright red "fireman's shirt" might be acceptable work attire for a laborer in the mid-19th century, a bright red frock coat, on the other hand, would be especially garish (although a wine-red or brick red one would be acceptable for everyday use). Strangely, men's clothing actually became more conservative (less colorful) as the 19th century wore on, even though bright, artificial dyes were becoming widespread.

[Vortalism]

Hey guys, I have a question:

How do Roman-era equipment handle against (late) medieval (around 14th century) armour technologies and weapons? Because I have a campaign setting that has elements of both cultures I wanted to know how to balance these aspects or whether just to take the culture of the Roman Empire and the technology of the Late Middle Ages.

Edit: Actually I was looking at the time of the transition between the Republic into the Empire. (30 something BC - 2nd Century AD)

Many thanks.

[Brother Oni]

Hey guys, I have a question:

How do Roman-era equipment handle against medieval armour technologies and weapons? Because I have a campaign setting that has elements of both cultures I wanted to know how to balance these aspects or whether just to take the culture of the Roman Empire and the technology of the Late Middle Ages.

Many thanks.

I think this was asked before and the general concensus was 'not very well', although you may have to clarify what era of Rome you're interested in as things like the popular idea of roman armour (lorica segmentata) didn't come in until fairly late in Roman history.

Roman scutum traditionally had problems against bow/crossbows of their era, let alone late medieval versions or muskets.
Roman heavy cavalry wouldn't hold a candle to late medieval cavalry (checking their equipment, they look like they would be equivalent to late medieval light cavalry), so a heavy cavalry charge would be very hard for a legion to resist.

I'm out of time to address this more at the moment, but I'm sure others can fill in.

[Matthew]

Hey guys, I have a question:

How do Roman-era equipment handle against (late) medieval (around 14th century) armour technologies and weapons? Because I have a campaign setting that has elements of both cultures I wanted to know how to balance these aspects or whether just to take the culture of the Roman Empire and the technology of the Late Middle Ages.

Edit: Actually I was looking at the time of the transition between the Republic into the Empire. (30 something BC - 2nd Century AD)

Many thanks.

The metallurgy was less advanced, but the equipment itself is similar to 11th century medieval kit. 30 BC to 200 AD is a long time period, though the principate kit and up until around 100 AD is not too different. By the fourteenth century, though, you have various types of plate armour available, more complete mail, more powerful bows, crossbows, specialised lances and pole arms. It is fair to say that even after discounting advantages in metallurgy the available kit is overall better. No reason the Romans would not have adapted to that, but in simple terms they otherwise would be fielding "medium" infantry and cavalry against medieval "heavy" infantry and cavalry. Of course, the fourteenth century had its own medium and light troop types against which they would fare better.

[Galloglaich]

I agree with all of the above, but to play devils advocate:

1) the Romans had much bigger armies I think

2) the Romans were very good at all aspects of siege warfare which in the 14th Century was only just starting to get sophisticated again

3) Roman armies were arguably more disciplined than most Medieval armies (except medieval Roman armies, that is to say Byzantines)

4) the Romans had pretty sophisticated artillery, mostly of the torsion spring type, which may have counter-acted some of the guns and crossbows and so forth

5) (finally getting to kit) something similar to Roman style kit: mail and javelins and swords, was used by the Almogavar mercenaries in the early 14th Century with great tactical success (to the grief of many people throughout Greece and the Balkans) so in theory, you could make an army with that kind of equipment still work that late in the game.

All that said, I don't think a Roman Legion could have held up to a Swiss infantry column though.



G

[Grey Watcher]

So, I'm woefully ignorant of my own heritage, but my new PC has a sister who's a Paladin, and I've decided to dress them both up in Indian cultural drag. What would be appropriate gear for a knight-analogue in pre-gunpowder, pre-British India? And how similar/different are such weapons from default D&D/Pathfinder weapons like scimitars and longswords?

[Avilan the Grey]

How colourful were army uniforms (or the equivilent) in ancient and medieval times?

Old movies from the 50s and 60s tend to make everyone wear bright, Techinicolor costumes that look too garish (and too clean) to seem realistic, whereas modern movies tend to go for a go for a "reality if brown" aesthetic that I find often makes it hard to tell which side is which (thereby failing the main point of a uniform).

So what would they have actually been like? (I know the Middle Ages were more colourful that people often imagine, so could the 50s-style Technicolor costumes actually authentic?)

Define "uniforms".

According to my history books, drafted armies did not have them, at all, until way after the 30 year war. The soldiers were identified by war cry, being close to the banner and above all by improvised details. Swedish troops in the 30 year war had a green pine twig in their hats, for example.

The king and the officers did not have uniforms either, only the newest fashion and armor, until after the war.

Mercenary companies? I have no idea. The Croatian mercenary troops seems to also have been without uniform, but all had a scarf tied around their neck as way of recognition. Individual nobles (in medieval times, and of course this included the king and other royals) had armor and as garish clothing as they could get away with (to be noticed, and therefore honored, on the battlefield, and to show off their wealth, since colors were expensive.

Basically, after the fall of the Romans, the whole "uniform" concept in the western world took a HUGE step backwards.

[Berenger]

Basically, after the fall of the Romans, the whole "uniform" concept in the western world took a HUGE step backwards.

I was under the impression that romans did not have "uniforms" as such and that the depiction of legionnaires in matching red (or green, for Asterix comics) tunics was simply a misconception? Didn't the legionnaires generally buy clothing privately from merchants among their camp followers?

[Matthew]

I was under the impression that romans did not have "uniforms" as such and that the depiction of legionnaires in matching red (or green, for Asterix comics) tunics was simply a misconception? Didn't the legionnaires generally buy clothing privately from merchants among their camp followers?

You just stepped on a landmine.

That must be one of the most contentious, and also funny, issues on Roman military history websites. Short answer, nobody knows for sure. I can tell you that Caesar wore a red cloak on occasion in order to be more identifiable to his troops during the heat of battle (interestingly he also wore Alexander's breastplate, or so he recounts).

[Yora]

Generally movies, TV shows and genre fiction depict people in any pre-industrial era as way too drab, either as medieval cavemen or as what I call "pastel peasants", and also way too dirty particularly for the medieval era, when people did bathe routinely, usually at least once a week.

The professional term is "dirt farmer".

[Wardog]

Define "uniforms".

According to my history books, drafted armies did not have them, at all, until way after the 30 year war. The soldiers were identified by war cry, being close to the banner and above all by improvised details. Swedish troops in the 30 year war had a green pine twig in their hats, for example.

Maybe "uniforms" isn't the correct word in this case.

Basically, what I want to know is which of these is more realistic in terms of colour:

Henry V (1944 film)

Henry V (1989 film)

Or for a non-European example:
This documentary about Ghengis Khan

Or this movie about Ghengis Khan (the battle starts at about 4:30)

[Storm Bringer]

So, I'm woefully ignorant of my own heritage, but my new PC has a sister who's a Paladin, and I've decided to dress them both up in Indian cultural drag. What would be appropriate gear for a knight-analogue in pre-gunpowder, pre-British India? And how similar/different are such weapons from default D&D/Pathfinder weapons like scimitars and longswords?

weapons wise, swords, scimitars, maces, and axes (all of the one handed type) were common enough, plus a few exotic weapons like the Punching Dagger, most of which have DnD stats already,


Here and Here are some pictures of a style of full body armour form the per-colonial period. the latter link has a few images of other weapons form the era, though most stuff a quick search finds is form the 1700's (i.e. gunpowder era, when Indians were fighting with the Europeans and each other).

I'd rate most of those armours as Breastplate or other medium types in DnD terms. certainly, I can't see something that looks like European Full Harness/DnD Full Plate in protection.