Results 2,371 to 2,400 of 2635
-
2010-08-20, 01:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
In the spring I read a book called "Mercenaries and their Masters", by Michael Mallet. It's about Condottiere and is mostly focused on the 15th century. I remembered that I hadn't returned it to the library yet (for some reason the due date is December -- and I'm not even taking any courses this semester -- suckers!), so I gave it a quick glance to see what he had to say about projectile weapons during the period.
The book does not go into the technical details, but it was interesting. He notes that as late as the 1430s there were still some English longbowmen in service in Northern Italy. They were better paid than crossbowmen, but he points out this is because they were still mounted, not because their weapons were seen as more valuable. He also states that crossbows were pretty much ubiquitous in Italy at the time. Then he talks about hand guns, and there was something that I hadn't taken much notice of the first time I read it.
At the beginning of the 15th century hand guns are depicted in Italy, but almost always in conjunction with the defense of towns. By the middle of the century they are being used in open battles though, and they steadily replaced crossbows through the century. Part of this replacement may be due to hand guns being cheaper to produce than crossbows (and this source claims they are cheaper), but there is circumstantial evidence of their effectiveness. Captured hand gunners were typically executed on the spot, which he interprets as a testament to their effectiveness, and not simply abhorrence at the use of new technology. Also, in the middle of 15th century, when war threatened, Milan boasted that it could field 20,000 hand gunners. This was undoubtedly exaggeration for the purposes of propaganda. Nevertheless they boasted of their number of hand guns, and not their number of crossbows.
-
2010-08-20, 02:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I have no dog in this fight, but I did take a quick glance at that article (thanks for sharing by the way). While it's not obvious, according to that article butted mail was used historically:
The next innovation for mail armour was the development of the mail and plates (sometimes called combined mail) construction. . . . Butted mail was more often used in this construction than in regular mail, yet riveted mail was still the most common. . . .
So tests with butted mail aren't necessarily historically inaccurate, but they may not be good representations of what would be typical. Note that in addition to pointing out the use of poor rivets and butted mail in some tests, there are several other factors mentioned as to why those tests were poor. So exactly how period butted mail stacks up against period riveted mail isn't clear.
Galloglaich, this leads back to the question I asked about the ratios of cranequin or windlass bows to other kinds. A cranequin 1200lbs crossbow may have excellent performance, but can we take it as typical of a crossbow of the 1400s? Not that we shouldn't study it, but when thinking about battlefield effectiveness, we might want to consider more common weapons in our analyses. Rather than the best possible example we can find.
-
2010-08-20, 02:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Funny that you should mention this. I've done some preliminary research into reconstructions of traditional Chinese sword arts as well, and they've arrived at similar conclusions. This is also why there's been a fair amount of discussion about filling in the gaps (i.e. body mechanics etc that aren't explicitly stated in the treatises) by borrowing from other traditions.
In some treatises, it's pretty clear as to how you're supposed to hold a stance:
And no, they aren't just a bunch of pictures. Methinks you've been ignoring the captions.
The first art of your assertion is demonstrably false, and the second doesn't even make a significant difference. If you aren't going to manage to void a blow, a couple of milliseconds isn't going to make a difference.
The way I was taught to use the gathering step was to push off with the rear leg and land with the forward one without transferring weight to the rear foot. Jack Dempsey mentions the 'falling step' in his book and it appears to be a fairly similar concept, just without the violence of execution since a sword blow doesn't need the same kind of motive force from the body to lend power to it.Last edited by Brainfart; 2010-08-20 at 02:18 PM.
-
2010-08-20, 02:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
There is no doubt handgonnes and arquebusses were the hot new thing in the late 15th Century.
The problem with using them outside of fortifications was that they were slow to set up and 'delicate' to use (in the sense that you had to be careful not to screw up).
The use of firearms spread from Eastern Europe. Bohemian Hussites addressed this vulnerability problem in the 1420s by combining gunners (and crossbowmen) with wagons defended by heavy infantry. In the mid 15th Century the Hungarian "Black Army" was making widespread use of firearms, as many as 1/3 of their army were gunners. By this time gunners were being protected by halberds and pikes.
By the end of the 15th Century the matchlock arquebus was a somewhat standardized design, it was easier, safer, and quicker to use than the earlier handgonne, Czech pistala or hand-culverin types, and it began to be possible to train gunners systematically in a relatively short period of time. This made them very useful indeed, (and this did not seem to be the case with heavy crossbows or longbows, or early firearms, which tended to require users recruited from places with a culture of their use.)
Crossbows were still used on the front-line alongside arquebusses until the 1520s or thereabouts. as someone pointed out, Cortez had as many crossbows as arquebusses, for example (about a dozen of each in his original force). By then the first Muskets were coming online, and wheellocks were beccoming available which made the use (and therefore the training for) guns much easier.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-08-20 at 02:37 PM.
-
2010-08-20, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
He's talking about Russia there. Butted mail wasn't used in Western Europe (nor was mail and plate).
So tests with butted mail aren't necessarily historically inaccurate, but they may not be good representations of what would be typical. Note that in addition to pointing out the use of poor rivets and butted mail in some tests, there are several other factors mentioned as to why those tests were poor. So exactly how period butted mail stacks up against period riveted mail isn't clear.
Galloglaich, this leads back to the question I asked about the ratios of cranequin or windlass bows to other kinds. A cranequin 1200lbs crossbow may have excellent performance, but can we take it as typical of a crossbow of the 1400s? Not that we shouldn't study it, but when thinking about battlefield effectiveness, we might want to consider more common weapons in our analyses. Rather than the best possible example we can find.
If I have time later this weekend I'll scan some excerpts from my books at home on this and post them here. But there are a lot of records from armouries from many parts of Europe, from the Swiss Confederacy, from Italy, Bohemia, many parts of Germany, the Crusader states, and in France and England too I'm sure though I haven't read as much about those regions.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-08-20 at 02:34 PM.
-
2010-08-20, 02:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
They may well have been exaggerating for the reasons you state, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out either, Milan had the greatest capacity for making steel probably in the world at that time, I know after one battle in the early 16th Century they were able to re-arm something like 15,000 soldiers in a matter of weeks.
G.
-
2010-08-20, 02:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Field fortifications seem to have played an increasingly large part during the 15th century in Italian warfare. This may have made it a bit easier to field handgunners outside of fortified towns.
Crossbow training seems to have been widespread in the civic militias in Italy at this time. All Venetians were required to train with crossbows, and of course Genovese crossbowmen were well known throughout Europe.
I think Cortez had significantly more crossbows than arquebuses. While the Venetians had banned crossbows from their galleys by 1520, the Spanish were a little bit slower to replace them in their navy (especially those bound for the Indes). Resupply of powder would have been a serious problem in Mexico. Even then they did run low on crossbow bolts. If I remember the story correctly, they handed out a few examples of bolts to their indigenous allies, and asked if they could make copies of at least the shafts. Within a week they had something like 40,000 very well made bolts some with cast copper heads! (Don't quote me on that, without checking up on the details).
On the other hand, when Columbus was organizing one of his later expeditions, his troops were armed with equal numbers of arquebuses and crossbows.
Wheellocks were not used by common troops -- ever. During the 30 years' war (and probably a little bit earlier), they were used by specialist infantry, but that was still uncommon. Cavalry pistols on the other hand were made possible by the use of wheellocks. Cavalry is expensive anyway, and wheellocks were very expensive. The infantryman's firearm was typically a matchlock until about 1700.
However, what I was really remarking upon was the apparent effectiveness of the earlier hand guns, which seems to be out of proportion with the technical details of such weapons being discussed here. They being cheaper doesn't seem to be sufficient to explain the reputation that they developed.
-
2010-08-20, 03:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Yes that's true you seem to see a lot of field earthworks reinforced with sticks and those big bundles of straw etc. in period art from this time.
Crossbow training seems to have been widespread in the civic militias in Italy at this time. All Venetians were required to train with crossbows, and of course Genovese crossbowmen were well known throughout Europe.
The reality is that militias were the professional mercenaries in most cases and often defeated knights. Specifically regarding crossbows, it's another (more or less correct) cliche that many Crossbowmen were recruited from Genoa. Well, these were not trained in a professional mercenary school! They were the town militia. Same with the famous "Swiss mercenaries". They were all originally militia; very very good militia. It wasn't until Maximillian I invented the Landsknechts circa 1500, who were designed specifically to emulate the Swiss Reislauffer (militia) that you see something like professional mercenary schools.
I think Cortez had significantly more crossbows than arquebuses.
While the Venetians had banned crossbows from their galleys by 1520, the Spanish were a little bit slower to replace them in their navy (especially those bound for the Indes). Resupply of powder would have been a serious problem in Mexico. Even then they did run low on crossbow bolts. If I remember the story correctly, they handed out a few examples of bolts to their indigenous allies, and asked if they could make copies of at least the shafts. Within a week they had something like 40,000 very well made bolts some with cast copper heads! (Don't quote me on that, without checking up on the details).
On a related note, I just read a couple of days ago how an artisan captured by the Lithuanians in the Baltic saved his own life by promising to teach them how to make crossbows of the Central European type.
Wheellocks were not used by common troops -- ever. During the 30 years' war (and probably a little bit earlier), they were used by specialist infantry, but that was still uncommon. Cavalry pistols on the other hand were made possible by the use of wheellocks. Cavalry is expensive anyway, and wheellocks were very expensive. The infantryman's firearm was typically a matchlock until about 1700.
However, what I was really remarking upon was the apparent effectiveness of the earlier hand guns, which seems to be out of proportion with the technical details of such weapons being discussed here. They being cheaper doesn't seem to be sufficient to explain the reputation that they developed.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-08-20 at 03:13 PM.
-
2010-08-20, 03:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
It's not entirely clear from the context that he is referring only to Russia, although rereading it, it may indeed be the case. Also, at no point in the article does he say that butted mail was not used in Western Europe.
Note 59:
Butted mail is commonly used by modern re-enactors but historically it rarely had a place on the battlefield. It offered virtually no protection against the most common threats, i.e. arrows and spears. Even the earliest mail seems to have been made of riveted links
Exactly my point! I think it's interesting and useful to look at the technological extremes of these weapons -- but that we should not assume that such weapons were typical. [I'm not actually asking you for more detailed information, I was just linking back to a previous statement that had a similar line of reasoning]
-
2010-08-20, 03:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Yes, the truth is, so far we haven't found any butted mail that was historically used as armor in Europe (at least that I know of). But they could find some tomorrow, so Dan has to be careful making a public statement in an article. I'm more reckless But I think I'm on pretty safe ground.
Incidentally, Dan Howard, who wrote that article for Myarmoury, is a kind of a rival of mine, he is doing the GURPS lowtech combat system for GURPS 4, soon to be released (or so I gather). It will probably be pretty good.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-08-20 at 03:18 PM.
-
2010-08-20, 03:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
The fact that no butted mail was ever found in Europe is kind of his mantra too.
And they were making some really interesting stuff in Russia, like very light mails from about 2,5 cm wide links.
But it was of course almost only ceremonial, so I would guess that butted ones were too.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2010-08-20, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
No need to convince me, your arguments on these points are very good. With specific reference to Northern Italy, there was a distinction between mercenaries and the town militias, but they became increasingly blurred. With the mercenaries basically turning into standing armies (as it was generally easier and safer to renew their services), and being augmented by locally formed units.
I know his force was augmented by Navarez's troops but I don't what their dispositions were. The story about the manufacture of crossbow bolts was in a discussion about native production networks, and I think there was some skepticism about the numbers in the source that I read. Also I may have conflated them even more. Unfortunately I do not have my sources in front of me, and I don't think I will be able to track them down anytime soon.
Yes, I agree absolutely.
And yes I'm aware that I may have a bias, but others like the longbow, the recurve, and the crossbow, so I may not be the only one with a bias.
I was remarking that the circumstantial evidence seems to be that early firearms had a pretty fierce reputation -- also they started replacing other projectile weapons (which is a long transition of over a century, but still it's a transition). The transition may be explained by economic factors (although that doesn't rule out other factors), but the reputation cannot be explained by economic factors alone.
-
2010-08-20, 03:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
-
2010-08-20, 04:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Of course there was a difference between condotierri and militia, my point is most mercenaries got their training as militia. Just like most blackwater or executive outcomes operatives got their training in the US or UK Army.
And yes I'm aware that I may have a bias, but others like the longbow, the recurve, and the crossbow, so I may not be the only one with a bias.
I was remarking that the circumstantial evidence seems to be that early firearms had a pretty fierce reputation -- also they started replacing other projectile weapons (which is a long transition of over a century, but still it's a transition). The transition may be explained by economic factors (although that doesn't rule out other factors), but the reputation cannot be explained by economic factors alone.
My favorite (apologies if you've seen it before):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE
G.
-
2010-08-20, 04:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
-
2010-08-20, 06:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Yes -the very thought was occuring to me earlier. In an army already supplied with cannons for siege work etc, the cost and logistical advantage of sourcing perhaps one extra wagon of powder (and a few barrels of shot) , as to say three or four wagons of bolts begins to make economic sense, once you have a trained nucleus of troops capable of using the weapon. The trade off of effectiveness/cost/reliabilty has always had a place in warfare.
Last edited by Subotei; 2010-08-20 at 06:29 PM.
-
2010-08-20, 09:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Where ever trouble brews
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Western European Martial Arts. Which is the art I assume we've been discussing all this time. If you want specifics, I've been mostly Sword and Shield (Heater and Round and Buckler), Axe and Shield, or Two-Handed Sword focused, in a one-on-one arena style combat format. But for reference, Sword and Shield or Sword and Open Hand are kind of my specialties.
Prior to that, I've taken Kendo for about 2 years, Fencing (epee) for 3, Judo, Karate, Tai Kwon Do, and Boxing. I was a simultaneous orange belt in Karate and Judo at age 6.
Like I said to Psyx above, I'm not seeing how an equal weight distribution gets you what you want.
If I want to go forward, I need forward inertia. If the majority of my body weight is over my lead foot, then moving forward will take relatively less energy. Also, the muscles are primed for the 'push off' or spring forward. Going backwards however, my muscles and body mass is oriented the the wrong way.
Balanced stance gives you the option to go ANY direction quickly, without having to shift your body mass first.
Psyx:
That's an awful lot. That rings all kind of alarm bells with me.
There is no point planting that much weight on one foot, as it adds nothing.
Karate taught us to have that tough forward oriented stance. It was to prevent trips and to advance forward to strike. Judo was all about balancing your mass and avoiding or grappling with the guy trying to take you off your feet.
Fencing teaches a forward mass stance, because you aren't really taught to retreat. You are (mostly) taught to advance and strike faster than the other guy.
Different arts teach different things for different purposes. Thats the big thing you should take away from this.
Psyx:
It allows you to move in either direction. Fast.
Good footwork and weight distribution in martial arts - like dancing - is absolutely crucial. Moving forward is good in that it might allow you to get in a strike. But being able to quickly move back means that you are very likely to be able to void a blow.
Which to me means that I'd like to be able to do either, but I certainly want to be able to move back, because not getting killed is ultimately the primary objective - not killing the other guy.
Survival trumps killing someone else. Victory isn't victory if you don't live to drink a beer with your buds afterwards.
Speaking from experience, mobility has won me more fights than being planted.
REALLY GOOD mobility teaches you to defend yourself by simply voiding, or turning your target profile, turning your body into a blow to take advantage of armor hardpoints and how to take a blow but turn it to your advantage as well. This part I'm not so great at (comparitively), but one of my students uses his forearm bracer to greater effect defensively than some people use large shield.~~Courage is not the lack of fear~~
"In soviet dungeon, aboleth farms you!"
"Please consult your DM before administering Steve brand Aboleth Mucus.
Ask your DM if Aboleth Mucus is right for you.
Side effects include coughing, sneezing, and other flu like symptoms, cancer, breathing water like a fish, loss of dignity, loss of balance, loss of bowel and bladder control."
-
2010-08-21, 01:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
That's why kendo and European fencing aren't really combat arts: they train you and reward you for actions that would get you killed in a real fight. In a sporting match, you win if you hit the other guy first, even if it's by a split second. In a real fight, the guy who got stabbed second is just as dead as the guy who got stabbed first.
-
2010-08-21, 02:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
-
2010-08-21, 03:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
@ Spiryt & Galloglaich:
So (comparatively) widespread use of butted mail is a relatively new phenomenon, made possible mainly because people at Ren Fairs aren't actually trying to kill people, and some people backdated the use of butted mail?
If that is the case, couldn't you say that the Ren Fair people who believed butted mail to be widely used in the past were committing the same kind of mistake as Rennaissance artists depicting plate mail and steel breastplates in the Trojan War?
Seems oddly fitting, in a way.
-
2010-08-21, 04:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- kendal, england
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
-
2010-08-21, 04:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Maybe some knew, most definitely didn't.
Just take a look at any Internet boards, movies, or whatever and horribly absurd images of WWII tanks, weapons and uniforms...
And it was freaking 70 years ago, there are pictures, movies, documentation, manuals, technical plans and all from that period.
How was medieval or renaissance man supposed to know how exactly it all looked 1500 years before his life ?
I'm pretty sure Shakespeare wrote something about clock ticking in Julius Caesar ?Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2010-08-21, 07:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Thus, I doubt that it "shot flat" out to 150 yard. I just don't really believe that.
And no, they aren't just a bunch of pictures. Methinks you've been ignoring the captions.
The first art of your assertion is demonstrably false, and the second doesn't even make a significant difference.
As for the second point; The best way to get this home would be to try a tango/salsa class, and try moving your feet in the required manner without weight shifting. It makes a significant difference.
Additionally; what about the other points raised: ie balance on somewhere that's not a practice hall, et cetera?
-
2010-08-21, 10:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
To get back to a question I had before the crossbow week:
If you're a master of both armed and unarmed martial arts, and you have a dagger, a sword, a spear, and a staff at hand, and you're attacked by people who want to kill you, and you don't really care if any of them die: Is there any reason to face them unarmed instead of taking up a weapon?
As fun as kung fu movies are and how spectacular many demonstrations look, it just doesn't seem a good idea to fight unarmed, if you have any other options.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2010-08-21, 10:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Indianapolis
- Gender
-
2010-08-21, 12:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
-
2010-08-21, 01:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
-
2010-08-21, 03:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Originally Posted by Galloglaich
With more realistic numbers the angle will go up significantly. But I feel confident in saying that the bolt will drop at least 4 yards unless the bolt is supersonic. (In theory if the bolt could get significant lift and make this lower, but I feel that air resistance should be much larger than lift)There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--Will S.
-
2010-08-21, 03:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
65 m/s is pretty sensible velocity of ~80g bolt from decently heavy crossbow.
With lighter bolts, you could certainly get higher, but not 340 m/s, certainly.
And actually, the rate of velocity decrease would be very important here.
Bolts generally would loose it slower than arrows, but still pretty quickly compared to many other objects.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2010-08-21, 04:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I agree completely, 340 m/s is ridiculous, and air resistance is very important. I was trying to find an absolute lower limit and show that even that was fairly high. If I have time, I'll try to do a more accurate calculation.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--Will S.