Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Fhaolan]

Some fighters prefer the side arm (designed for that range BTW) when such a situation occurs, VS working with a limited tool.

Depending on the speed of the close and the specific weapons involved, switching to a side-arm may not be feasable compared to working with the more limited tool.

I don't really have a point beyond that, I just thought I'd mention.

[fusilier]

So, I guess, technically most swords are "side-arms" because they are worn on the "side" of the body? Like modern pistols. Massive swords like the zweihanders were just carried rested on the shoulder -- there wasn't any place to put them, while you wielded some other weapon. However, the connotation of "side-arm" is that it's a kind of secondary, or back-up, weapon.

Speaking of pole-arms versus swords, I know that there are a lot of maneuvers in the ACW bayonet drill, that involve "shortening the stock," and striking with the butt. At least one of those is designed to push the enemy away when you pinned to close. I suspect that earlier spear drills had similar techniques.

There's something I like to remind people of often, and that's it takes a lot more training to become competent with a sword than with other weapons like crossbows and spears. To master those weapons might be another story.

[Galloglaich]

So, I guess, technically most swords are "side-arms" because they are worn on the "side" of the body? Like modern pistols. Massive swords like the zweihanders were just carried rested on the shoulder -- there wasn't any place to put them, while you wielded some other weapon. However, the connotation of "side-arm" is that it's a kind of secondary, or back-up, weapon.

That is an interesting point that I hadn't thought of. But I would guess that you are right. You know it's also the reason why riders mount of a horse from the left side, because one carried a sword on the left hip.

Speaking of pole-arms versus swords, I know that there are a lot of maneuvers in the ACW bayonet drill, that involve "shortening the stock," and striking with the butt. At least one of those is designed to push the enemy away when you pinned to close. I suspect that earlier spear drills had similar techniques.

Yes, well, certainly the surviving martial arts systems had such techniques. That is what I meant by 'half-staff', that is where you grab the weapon in the middle so you can attack from both ends. In some fencing manuals they show wielding a polearm like a bill, a partisan or a halberd, with the butt facing the enemy. Like in the lower left in this image,


also note the half-staff stance in the upper and lower right.


These manuals are mainly for judicial duels though, there is some question as to how much of these techniques would be known by ordinary soldiers.

There's something I like to remind people of often, and that's it takes a lot more training to become competent with a sword than with other weapons like crossbows and spears. To master those weapons might be another story.

Very good point, and that does dovetail with what I was trying to suggest; the techniques for fighting at close range with staff or partisan etc. did exist, but aren't necessary for training basic competency with a staff weapon. I guess whether or not an individual soldier or warrior would know such techniques boils down to how much they trained. That is probably why urban militias tended to be so good, they could afford to train more.

Clearly some professional soldiers were trained in such advanced techniques, as you can see here in this depiction of Emperor Maximillian on the cover of Sydney Anglos superb Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe :



G.

[fusilier]

I was in a hurry when writing the last entry. I was primarily speculating that later musket & bayonet techniques probably had some elements in common with earlier pole-arm forms. I should also clarify that "shortening the stock" is a technique where the musket is held near the muzzle so that close-range thrusts with the bayonet can still be made (I'm guessing that "half-staff" was similar). Whereas there are other techniques for striking with the butt. I would wholly expect earlier pole-arm drills to be even more sophisticated.

For a good chunk of history professional armies didn't exist. The monarch might have some guard units but that was usually about it. If war needed to be waged the armies had to be raised, and when the war ended those armies would be disbanded. So I would suspect that well trained soldiers (commoners) would be a rarity. Except maybe towards the Renaissance when you start to see more mercenaries like the Condotierri and Landsknechts. Then, I would imagine that you would see more "veterans" who know more of the nuances to pole-arm fighting, had more practice with swords, etc. But the majority of soldiers would probably still be some adventurers with no prior training that decided to join a mercenary company, if not levies or civic militias. While I'm sure the city militias were better trained than rural levies, I would be surprised if they had a significant amount of advance training in the more esoteric martial arts.

I think that when it really comes down to it, it's knowing the proper drills to fight in formation and being able to perform the "evolutions" as a unit that's going to make the difference in pitched battles. If the two sides are closely matched on that level, then knowing the finer details of hand-to-hand might give one side an edge. Of course, factors like morale/motivation can make a huge difference in such battles, and are often overlooked in our analyses because they are difficult to quantify.

[Kurien]

Why exactly does this thread belong in Roleplaying Games, anyway?

I've a few questions relating to horses:

Just how is fighting on horseback different from on foot? It seems the main advantages of riding horses are mobility, speed, weight, and greater elevation of the rider.

What conditions allowed cavalry to become effective? It seems to me that the rise of firearms made them useless in combat, as both the horse and rider could be shot from a distance.

What are some periods and cultures that cavalry was a dominant force on the battlefield?

What kind of anti-cavalry techniques were there before firearms and how did they affect the armour and strategies of cavalry? Did they use... polearms? Huge swords? Longbows? Slings? Javelins?

When did horses began to be bred large enough to carry a rider, instead of pulling, say, a chariot?

What weapons and strategies did cavalry use in warfare? Were... lances used? Archery?

Would a naginata work on horseback? This one in particular has caught my eye, but is purely a fantasy and not a goal to actually purchase it.

Spoiler

Show

How would a single rider, or small band of riders, fare (maybe attacked by bandits)?

Is a dark coloured steel indicative of high carbon content? What is a rough ideal percentage of carbon for edged weapons? What are some names of weapons grade steel?

Heh. Warfare is one of the most interesting parts of history.
And thanks alot everyone for answering questions.

[Fhaolan]

Why exactly does this thread belong in Roleplaying Games, anyway?

It doesn't really fit in any other of the categories either.

Just how is fighting on horseback different from on foot? It seems the main advantages of riding horses are mobility, speed, weight, and greater elevation of the rider.

It's quite different. Remember that you are astride of very large living creature that is considerably stronger than you are. You can guide it, if it's trained properly, but it's not like steering a motorcycle. It can change direction on it's own whim, it can strike out at people on it's own, or throw you off. You are not 100% in control.

The primary thing about cavalry was, and still is, mobility. The biggest army in the world doesn't do you any good a day late and fifty miles away.

What conditions allowed cavalry to become effective? It seems to me that the rise of firearms made them useless in combat, as both the horse and rider could be shot from a distance.

Given that horse cavalry was used as recently as WWI, the gun didn't make that big of a difference. It was reliable tanks, trucks, and jeeps that started to make the horse obsolete because it replaced horse cavalry with motorized cavalry. Cavalry's still around. It's just not with horses.

One of the big things with horses in later periods was pulling the cannons. It was these horses that were in peacetime sold to farmers as they were already trained for hauling, and eventually became the modern draft breeds.

As a note, horse breeds have changed *a lot* over the last 100-200 years. The huge draft breeds didn't exist in their current form way back when, and a lot of the racehorses are also highly... I hate to say the word refined as I personally think the highly focused breeding that's been going on since the 1900's is actually damaging the bloodlines of the horses in the same way that a lot of dog breeds have been.

What are some periods and cultures that cavalry was a dominant force on the battlefield?

If they had horses, they did cavalry. Cavalry only becomes dominant because of mobility, so if you fight a lot of wars where the enemy always comes to you in your fortress.... it's not so dominant.

What kind of anti-cavalry techniques were there before firearms and how did they affect the armour and strategies of cavalry? Did they use... polearms? Huge swords? Longbows? Slings? Javelins?

The primary anti-cavalry weapon was... terrain, to be honest. Cavalry is mobile, but if the terrain slows it down to the same pace as infantry, it's not much use. Pikes were always big anti-cavalry. Horses as a rule won't charge a bunch of spikes unless they're *really* motivated.

When did horses began to be bred large enough to carry a rider, instead of pulling, say, a chariot?

Horse domestication started about 4,000-3,500 BC. Evidence of them being ridden starts pretty much right then. Chariot and cart pulling horses were actually a bit later.

There was an odd period more recently when a lot of riding horse breeds died out... well, not exactly died out, but had carriage-pulling traits (trotting) introduced into a lot of different breeds so that pure riding horses became very, very rare. This was in and around the 18th century.

What weapons and strategies did cavalry use in warfare? Were... lances used? Archery?

Yep. War lances were basically spears, archery from horseback was always very popular, as is sabers, straight swords, axes, flails, etc.

Would a naginata work on horseback?

Yep.

How would a single rider, or small band of riders, fare (maybe attacked by bandits)?

Depends on terrain. The normal tactic is to ride away, and then if you're being particular bloody-minded, you circle around and pick them off as you can.

Is a dark coloured steel indicative of high carbon content? What is a rough ideal percentage of carbon for edged weapons? What are some names of weapons grade steel?

Dark coloured steel is usually indicative of dirty oil quenching. It's just a style, really, as the carbon deposit with that is very thin on the surface and doesn't change much of the properties of the steel deeper in. It's difficult to say what the ideal percentage of carbon is for edged weapons, as it's highly variable due to the exact form of the weapon, and because usually the idea is to have variable amounts of carbon in different parts of the blade.

Heh. Warfare is one of the most interesting parts of history.
And thanks alot everyone for answering questions.

No problem.

[Galloglaich]

Great answers Fhaolan! I learned a few things myself...

G.

[Crow]

Kurian, some good steels that modern smiths use for bladesmithing are pretty much anything in the 1050-1080 series. L6 tool steel has been used with great success as well. Do some research on these steels if you want to learn more. The carbon content in any of these is very very low (like less than 1%).

[lightningcat]

What conditions allowed cavalry to become effective? It seems to me that the rise of firearms made them useless in combat, as both the horse and rider could be shot from a distance.

The greatest invention that made the calvary effective was the stirrup. Before its introduction, the best method of using horses in battle was the chariot, or just riding the horse to the battle and getting off to fight. Without the stirrup, attacking with a melee weapon from horseback will most likely unhorse you.
Also the calvary was used into WWI. Where it met the machine gun, and lost horribly. *Shutter* But throughout history horses were quite valuable, so if possible it was preferable to capture the horse, but killing it was a very effective tactic, especially when dealing with heavily armored knights.

What kind of anti-cavalry techniques were there before firearms and how did they affect the armour and strategies of cavalry? Did they use... polearms? Huge swords? Longbows? Slings? Javelins?

The claymore was created as an anti-horse weapon, a great hit from one could decapitate a horse and still hit the rider, but more often it was used to cleave the horse's legs. Strangely, quarterstaves were also occasionally used to break a horse's legs or just to trip them.
The pikewall is a great static/slow moving method of dealing with shock calvary (such as knights), but nearly useless against skirmish calvary (such as horse archers) unless its more of a phalanx.
Ranged weapons work equally well against both humans and horses, in fact slings are especially effective if used right. They can be used to start a horse and cause it to rear or run off. Otherwise, as Fhaolan said: use terrain, reduce their mobility, and otherwise force them to fight on your terms.

What weapons and strategies did cavalry use in warfare? Were... lances used? Archery?

The two basic types where the heavily armored shock calvary and the lightly armored skirmish calvary.
The shock calvary is your basic knight concept. You ride in with your lance and hit the enemy at full speed. Depending on location, training, and time period, they either then traded the lance for a sword or other melee weapon or broke off and set up to do it again (this was sometimes considered dishonorable).
Skirmish calvary on the other hand used hit and run tactics, and often ranged weapons. They used their maneuverability to get into position, do a little bit of fighting and get out before reinforcements could arrive.
And just in case anyone cares, the old west US calvary (such as Custer's 7th Calvary) were not actually calvary, they were dragoons. Meaning they rode to the battlefield and got off to fight.

Heh. Warfare is one of the most interesting parts of history.

I totally agree with that.

[Fhaolan]

The greatest invention that made the calvary effective was the stirrup. Before its introduction, the best method of using horses in battle was the chariot, or just riding the horse to the battle and getting off to fight. Without the stirrup, attacking with a melee weapon from horseback will most likely unhorse you.

Actually, current research is starting to wear away at that one. The stirrup was an improvement, and enough of an improvement to be adopted pretty universally. However, the problem was that people who originally wrote those statements about how super-good stirrups were just took the stirrups off their saddles to test it. What they didn't think through was that those saddles were *designed* to use stirrups, so just taking them off was like taking the power steering mechanism off your car and then stating 'Well, cars couldn't steer before power steering was invented'.

What they're finding now is that pre-stirrup saddles were considerably different in design. The tended to have posts and other fiddly bits that held you into the saddle, for example the Roman and Celtic saddles. Stirrups are still *better* than those setups, and usually far more comfortable, but it's not impossible to use spears, clubs, and whatever from them.

[Dervag]

Why exactly does this thread belong in Roleplaying Games, anyway?

It doesn't really fit in any other of the categories either.

Plus a lot of the questions are inspired by things that crop up in role-playing games, I gather.

Just how is fighting on horseback different from on foot? It seems the main advantages of riding horses are mobility, speed, weight, and greater elevation of the rider.

As Fhaolan says, there aren't just advantages; there are disadvantages. Other disadvantages:
-You are on an inherently less stable platform, and one where falling off is likely to stun or injure you. If anything happens to the horse, you may wind up with crippling leg injuries if it falls on you. Stirrups, good saddles, and hellaciously well-conditioned leg muscles all help with that, but it's still a disadvantage.
-Elevation does not always work in your favor: defending your legs and the body of the horse can be difficult, because you have to reach way down to block strikes aimed at those areas and they're conveniently at eye to waist level for your enemy. Historically, cavalry who get stopped among a body of aggressive infantry in close combat tend to be cut down in short order, because they can't easily stop the infantry from circling around individual horsemen and disabling the horses.
-Raising horses takes a tremendous investment of labor, and they have to grow from infancy; you cannot just turn out more in the factory when they are killed. Cavalry tend to be very nervous in environments where their horses are likely to be killed or crippled, because they are difficult to replace.

What conditions allowed cavalry to become effective? It seems to me that the rise of firearms made them useless in combat, as both the horse and rider could be shot from a distance.

This requires that the gun be a stable, quick-firing weapon accurate to long range, which was not possible until the 19th century. Until that time, guns were only effective against cavalry when braced by large blocks of spearmen (or armed with bayonets that made the guns double as spears). Otherwise, the musketeers would get one volley that might stop the cavalry... before the cavalry ran all over them with swords, lances, and pistols. The musketeers knew this, and generally ran away if charged by cavalry without a good melee defense for backup.

Through the 19th century, cavalry became increasingly ineffective in close combat. However, cavalry still had a huge advantage of tactical and strategic speed; they could literally run circles around a marching army on foot accompanied by supply wagons. Therefore, they remained extremely useful as scouts, rapid reaction forces, and raiders against enemy supply lines and troops who were marching down roads in long straight lines and thus not prepared to defend against a sudden cavalry attack.

Also, remember that cavalry armed with long-range rifles of their own can dismount, keep the horses behind cover, and fight as infantry. And since they can move faster than marching infantry, they can reach defensive positions before the infantry get there and ambush them. Cavalry used in this way (as "dragoons") remained effective against modern infantry forces up through World War Two, when the Polish lancers used such tactics to good effect against the Germans- most of whose soldiers marched on foot. Didn't do them much good in the long haul, but they managed to win a few surprising battles.

What are some periods and cultures that cavalry was a dominant force on the battlefield?

Generally, anywhere big and flat. Central Asia produced armies of deadly horse archers from ~200 AD to 1500 AD that generally ran all over everyone who opposed them, and conquered virtually at will from China to the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Proto-cavalry in the form of chariots and stirrupless riders were prominent in the big, flat spaces of Mesopotamia back to the beginning of recorded history.

Cavalry were important in the wars between the US and the Plains Indians during the 19th century... for the same reasons. Again, big, flat country, as you might know if you've ever been there. Both sides fought mounted whenever possible, because distances were extremely long and speed counted for a lot. That's not a very important era or culture in the context of "world history of cavalry," but it's interesting because a fair amount of source material exists in English on it and it illustrates the way cavalry was used in the age of reasonably effective firearms.
__________

Also the calvary was used into WWI. Where it met the machine gun, and lost horribly. *Shutter*

This is an oversimplification. The key was to keep the horses out of the direct line of fire, and this was already known by most sane cavalry commanders before the war started. Unfortunately for cavalry, the war in Europe bogged down into massive linear sieges (trench warfare), which made cavalry's mobility completely useless. They managed to do somewhat better for themselves on the Eastern Front in a few places, and quite a bit better in the Middle East against the Ottoman Empire (where the ratio of firepower to space was lower and there was room to maneuver around strong fixed positions).

And just in case anyone cares, the old west US calvary (such as Custer's 7th Calvary) were not actually calvary, they were dragoons. Meaning they rode to the battlefield and got off to fight.

The distinction between "dragoons" and "cavalry" always struck me as a little academic. Cavalry have been fighting dismounted when appropriate for a long time: the English did it when they needed heavy infantry to brace their archer units in pitched battles during the Hundred Years' War, for instance.

The US Cavalry of the 19th century were trained to fight from horseback, and could certainly do so... but they were also trained to fight from the ground like infantry, and could do that, too.

[fusilier]

I have a some comments.

The primary thing about cavalry was, and still is, mobility. The biggest army in the world doesn't do you any good a day late and fifty miles away.

This is generally true but it tends to be overstated. Well motivated infantry will out march cavalry over long distances.

- The Romans only switched to cavalry for their patrols when infantry discipline fell apart after the Anarchy.

- When Kearny launched his invasion of New Mexico in 1846, he insisted on having some infantry. Two companies of Missouri Volunteers eventually agreed to dismount. During the long march down the Santa Fe Trail, these two companies regularly out marched the mounted units on a daily basis.

- Cavalrymen often walk along side their horses on long marches, and to my knowledge cavalry is rarely force-marched (the horses will be too worn out to be effective in battle). The Spanish border troops in New Spain (the Soldados de Cuera) were known to bring six horses per man while on campaign, and kept changing mounts to keep the horses fresh. The Apaches could see the dust clouds generated by such huge horse herds for miles. Likewise it was almost impossible to defend such a herd while in garrison.

I would say cavalry's main advantage is in it's tactical mobility. On the battlefield it can be rapidly deployed, scout (because they can get out of trouble fast), and exploit successful advances. As such the horses needed to be well rested before the battle. While at the strategic level, mounted troops were generally considered faster, exceptions will exist.

Given that horse cavalry was used as recently as WWI, the gun didn't make that big of a difference. It was reliable tanks, trucks, and jeeps that started to make the horse obsolete because it replaced horse cavalry with motorized cavalry. Cavalry's still around. It's just not with horses.

Actually there were cavalry charges during WW2 -- you just don't hear much about them. For example an Italian cavalry charge captured a battery of Russian artillery. It wasn't until 1942(?) that the US disbanded it's last horse mounted cavalry unit. With the exception of the British and American forces, horses were still the prime movers of supplies and artillery along roads during WW2.

As a note, horse breeds have changed *a lot* over the last 100-200 years. . . .

This is something that fascinates me. I don't really know too much about it though.

The primary anti-cavalry weapon was... terrain, to be honest. Cavalry is mobile, but if the terrain slows it down to the same pace as infantry, it's not much use. Pikes were always big anti-cavalry. Horses as a rule won't charge a bunch of spikes unless they're *really* motivated.

I have to disagree with the first part (totally agree about horses not charging spikes though). Yes, horses are limited by terrain -- the Incas figured that out during their "rebellion." However, throughout history whenever infantry has their act together, they have little to fear from cavalry. Cavalry was held in reserve until infantry formations were broken and scattered. Granted, when infantry is little more than a rabble, cavalry will typically have a field-day. *Organized*(edited) infantry is generally considered to have "staying-power." Infantry charging cavalry is rare. And infantry won't be able to chase down retreating cavalry and slaughter them to a man. But you don't have to do so to win a battle.

Horse domestication started about 4,000-3,500 BC. Evidence of them being ridden starts pretty much right then. Chariot and cart pulling horses were actually a bit later.

My ancient near east history professor describes a slightly different scenario. Early depictions of people riding horses shows them sitting near/on the back haunches of the horse. The belief is that at that time the horse wasn't quite big enough to be ridden effectively, especially in warfare. Thus chariots. It should be pointed out that to actually use chariots on the battlefield, you need a very large, flat plain, with next to no irregularities.

Depends on terrain. The normal tactic is to ride away, and then if you're being particular bloody-minded, you circle around and pick them off as you can.

Yup, tactical mobility. When you're ambushed just get the heck out of there!
If you're ambushed in a forest . . . watch out for your head!

P.S. I'm a long time Infantry reenactor. I don't mean to be too hard on the equestrian types. :-)

[Fhaolan]

<snipping things I don't disagree with, and I just have little to add.>

This is something that fascinates me. I don't really know too much about it though.

I can give you a couple of examples, but they may not make much sense unless you know current horse breeds. I'll try though.

There is a breed of draft horse known as the Percheron. In Shakespeare's day, it was favourably compared to the Arab in size and temperment... In modern days, Perch's average about 17 hands (68 inches) and the withers and 1,900 lbs, and some individuals are *considerably* bigger than that. Arabs, on the other hand, average 14 hands 2 inches (58 inches) and less than 900 lbs. The Perch's size increase is fairly typical for all the big draft breeds.

Let's also take the Arab. There is a trend in breeding Arabs over the last 60 years or so, to breed for what's called a 'dished' face because some old books metioned it being a breed purity indicator. In some bloodlines this has reached ridiculous levels, to the point that the poor things look like someone's stoved in their forehead with a sledge and their eyes are bugging out either side.

I have to disagree with the first part (totally agree about horses not charging spikes though). Yes, horses are limited by terrain -- the Incas figured that out during their "rebellion." However, throughout history whenever infantry has their act together, they have little to fear from cavalry. Cavalry was held in reserve until infantry formations were broken and scattered. Granted, when infantry is little more than a rabble, cavalry will typically have a field-day. *Organized*(edited) infantry is generally considered to have "staying-power." Infantry charging cavalry is rare. And infantry won't be able to chase down retreating cavalry and slaughter them to a man. But you don't have to do so to win a battle.

*grin* At a certain point, well-organized Infantry *is* the terrain. Not in a derogative way, but in a *good* way. If they can't be broken and scattered, then they are effectively a immovable and dangerous terrain feature that you don't go near as cavalry.

My ancient near east history professor describes a slightly different scenario. Early depictions of people riding horses shows them sitting near/on the back haunches of the horse. The belief is that at that time the horse wasn't quite big enough to be ridden effectively, especially in warfare. Thus chariots. It should be pointed out that to actually use chariots on the battlefield, you need a very large, flat plain, with next to no irregularities.

Possibly. It wouldn't surprise me at all, really. It's hard to tell sometimes as some of those same depictions have the people standing upright on the horse, which is really a non-recommended military maneuver on a battlefield. (It is, however, a good cavalry training exercise which is still around today. My wife is a coach of a horse vaulting team which does this kind of stuff, and that's where the sport came from, cavalry training exercises). It's also very probable that even if the horses were rideable, they weren't *militarily* rideable at first.

I've been in contact with an archeologist in a Welsh university that has been studying northern european chariots from gravesites, and he described to me something odd that they've been discovering about them. Chariots from other regions do indeed have considerably difficulty with rough and irregular terrain. However, northern tribes like the Celts and their predecesors also used chariots for a span of time, and they tended to live in much rougher terrain. The various sagas and similar poetics from these cultures metion strange feats like jumping logs, rocks, and streams, which would completely shred chariots as they were understood from other regions.

What has been discovered is that the tribes from northern Europe had come up with an innovation that nobody else had. Suspension. They had the platform of the chariot suspending by tightly twisted ropes and leather straps from the rest of the structure. This allowed them to do really odd tricks like when the horses jumped a log, that the charioteer could make the chariot actually bounce by jumping up and down at the right time and so clearing the log as well. He likened it to what people can do with skateboards now. He supposedly demoed this as part of a paper presentation (no video though, so I have no actual proof of this. Sounds cool though.)

It appears that this innovation, however, came near the end of the chariot-as-a-military-tool period and didn't get a chance to spread very far beyond those tribes.

[Dervag]

This is generally true but it tends to be overstated. Well motivated infantry will out march cavalry over long distances.

Usually, though a lot depends on the relative endurance training of horses and men, I think. The Mongols could probably outride any marching infantry in the world, however well motivated, because their horses were the equine equivalent of marathoners. Most other cavalry couldn't say the same.

I would say cavalry's main advantage is in it's tactical mobility. On the battlefield it can be rapidly deployed, scout (because they can get out of trouble fast), and exploit successful advances. As such the horses needed to be well rested before the battle. While at the strategic level, mounted troops were generally considered faster, exceptions will exist.

At the strategic level, infantry might be heavily encumbered by slow-moving wagons, which slowed them back down to speeds well below what they could march at. Of course, cavalry might be too... not sure how that works out.

[Narmy]

So, I've got a real world question. One that goes into realism.

It's not really about game mechanics, but just the realistic operation.

Question:

Which type of weapon proficiency system is more realistic; The standard/current Weapon Proficiency system, OR a Weapon Grouping System.

Just for an example, the weapon grouping system would be as such.

Weapon Group (Picks and Hammers)
You understand how to use picks and hammers.
Benefit

You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: light pick, heavy pick, light hammer, warhammer, scythe, and maulW (two handed use).
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special
If you use the Arms and Equipment Guide, this weapon group also includes the lucerne hammer.

Weapon Group (Polearms)
You understand how to use polearms.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: glaive, guisarme, halberd, and ranseur.
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.


Weapon Group (Heavy Blades)
You understand how to use large bladed weapons.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: longsword, greatsword, falchion, scimitar, and bastard sword (two-handed use).
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Weapon Group (Light Blades)
You understand how to use light bladed weapons.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: dagger, punching dagger, rapier, and short sword.
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

For a question perhaps for suited for this thread. Were nun-chucks a farming tool?

[Spiryt]

Definetly groups make more sense to me.

IMHO, the most sensible system in D&D was the profinenciesthing from BaldursGate, Icewind Dale and stuff.

I believe it was optional rule in AD&D?

[Narmy]

Does it make sense for a scythe to be listed among these weapons in proficiency, compared to that of pole-arms? Realism Wise

Weapon Group (Picks and Hammers)
You understand how to use picks and hammers.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: light pick, heavy pick, light hammer, warhammer, scythe, and maulW (two handed use).
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special
If you use the Arms and Equipment Guide, this weapon group also includes the lucerne hammer.

Weapon Group (Polearms)
You understand how to use polearms.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: glaive, guisarme, halberd, and ranseur.
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

If so, would it be reasonable to say that a farmer who is proficient in use with the scythe, could essentially if need be; use a warhammer, pick, or maul effectively and with proficiency enough to be a capable combatant?

[Spiryt]

Realism wise, scythe as portrayed in Core does not have much sense at all.

I would say that it would fit among polearms rather than hammers, although it's no so important.

[Narmy]

Tis very important to me, actually. Tis why I'd like to gather more opinions. I also believe/think currently that it would probably be more of a pole-arm.

[Spiryt]

If so, would it be reasonable to say that a farmer who is proficient in use with the scythe, could essentially if need be; use a warhammer, pick, or maul effectively and with proficiency enough to be a capable combatant?

Not really.

Ability to swing stuff around to cut grass and grain, certainly helps a bit in general*, but certainly doesn't make you able to fight effectively with mentioned stuff.

And obviously doesn't make you able to wield something else, like warhammer, well.

Golf players aren't really 'proficient' with mornigstars, even though those are somewhat similar things.

Tis very important to me, actually. Tis why I'd like to gather more opinions.

I meant that it isn't going to do so much difference if scythe is a "polearm" or a "pick".

* in sense that a peasant or worker who works with mauls or flails will be somehow more ready to fight with bill or glaive than a potter, for example.

[Narmy]

Thought so, and thank you.

[Fhaolan]

Re: Weapon grouping;

I find that hammers, maces, picks, and most axes all handle reasonably similarly. There's more difference between one-handed and two-handed versions of those weapons than there appears to be between the different shapes. The basic principle behind these weapons is that you have a mass on the end of a stick, and the mass is heavy enough for the shape of the mass to be less relevant with respect to handling.

However, all of them handle very differently than the tool versions. Meaning a battleaxe is almost nothing like a wood axe.

I beleive the reason they include the scythe in with that group is because tool-scythes are basically a very unbalanced pick with sharpened edges. I wouldn't personally include the scythe in that weapon group for the same reason I wouldn't include a wood axe or a proper maul. Tools are *very* different from weapons for handling.

There are, however, RL scythe weapons that are quite different from tool-scythes. Fauchards, falxes, etc. But even they are a bit weird to handle at first, so I'd put them in their own weapon group.

[Philistine]

For a question perhaps for suited for this thread. Were nun-chucks a farming tool?

Not to my knowledge, no; but I believe they were derived from flails, which were.

[Galloglaich]

This is generally true but it tends to be overstated. Well motivated infantry will out march cavalry over long distances.

I think that depends on how the infantry and cavalry in question are coping with supplies and logistics.

- Cavalrymen often walk along side their horses on long marches, and to my knowledge cavalry is rarely force-marched (the horses will be too worn out to be effective in battle). The Spanish border troops in New Spain (the Soldados de Cuera) were known to bring six horses per man while on campaign, and kept changing mounts to keep the horses fresh. The Apaches could see the dust clouds generated by such huge horse herds for miles. Likewise it was almost impossible to defend such a herd while in garrison.

I would say cavalry's main advantage is in it's tactical mobility. On the battlefield it can be rapidly deployed, scout (because they can get out of trouble fast), and exploit successful advances. As such the horses needed to be well rested before the battle. While at the strategic level, mounted troops were generally considered faster, exceptions will exist.

Interesting anecdotes, but I would suggest this type of limitation is not necessarily the rule. The Mongols and the Huns, among others, weare apparently able to achieve remarkable Strategic, Operational, and Tactical mobility ... and so did some of their opponents in Europe and other places. As with so many questions of military history, I think this is somewhat a matter of a given time and place.


G.

[Galloglaich]

Question:

Which type of weapon proficiency system is more realistic; The standard/current Weapon Proficiency system, OR a Weapon Grouping System.

I think the standard grouping system makes sense on the basis of who generally would be using a weapon, some types were common weapons known to most ordinary people, some known to militarily trained people, and soem require extra training. But it actually does make more sense to group weapons by functional type in my opinion... just that these types are rather more specific than most people want to deal with.

In your examples for instance:

Weapon Group (Picks and Hammers)
You understand how to use picks and hammers.
Benefit

You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: light pick, heavy pick, light hammer, warhammer, scythe, and maulW (two handed use).
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special
If you use the Arms and Equipment Guide, this weapon group also includes the lucerne hammer.

A few problems with this one. Nobody ever used a maul historically* in battle. A heavy pick in Role Playing game parlance probably means a mattock and that would not be used as a real weapon either. In both cases tools far too heavy for fighting with, you could obviously hurt someone with them but they are extremely tactically limited due to how slow they are.

Single-handed war-hammers and war-picks are somewhat specialized weapons, mostly used by cavalry. The two-handed versions (such as the lucerne hammer, which is a type of poll axe) are infantry versions and probably fall more into a polearm category.

Weapon Group (Polearms)
You understand how to use polearms.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: glaive, guisarme, halberd, and ranseur.
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

For polearms, you'd probably differentiate between proficiency in massed infantry tactics, which would be linked to the use of spears and pikes in the same manner; and proficiency in one-on-one tactics which share a lot in common with staff fighting techniques. Poll-axe, poll-hammer, partisan and staff are taught much the same way in the Medieval fencing manuals.

Weapon Group (Heavy Blades)
You understand how to use large bladed weapons.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: longsword, greatsword, falchion, scimitar, and bastard sword (two-handed use).
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Quite a few problems here. None of these blades, with the possible exception of the falchion, were heavy blades.

Greatsword, longsword, and bastard sword would be in a group of their own.
For some reason WOTC decided to rule these weapons as being able to cut only, but in real life they were all cut, thrust, slice weapons. These types of swords were used from the late Middle Ages through the Renaissance, and require a fair amount of training to use well.

"Scimetars" would be in a group of their own along with all types of sabers, (all of which could be classed as 'scimetars' for an RPG): the Hungarian szalba, Ukranian shashka, Indian tulwar, Persian shamshir, arabic Saif, burmese dha, and the Chinese / Mongolian yanmao dao, liuye dao, pian dao, and niuweidao. These are all cavalry sabers and would be used primarily by horsemen. Their use is comparatively simple, if you look at saber training in the 19th Century it's just a matter of 3 or 4 guards and 3 or 4 cuts... but using them on foot is more complex and training can be taken to high levels of sophistication (as one can see in todays Sikh Gatka traditions) (There were also two-handed infantry sabers such as the Katana / Tachi and their European equivalents like the grossabel and the langen messer, but these don't exist in most RPGs).

The falchion would be somewhat in it's own class, or possibly grouped with somewhat similar single edged chopping weapons such as cutlasses, grossemessers, and the Philipino Kampilan. These are fairly simple weapons to use, with the exception of the grossemesser which had a sophisticated martial arts system developed around it.

Weapon Group (Light Blades)
You understand how to use light bladed weapons.
Benefit
You make attack rolls with the following weapons normally: dagger, punching dagger, rapier, and short sword.
Normal
When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Daggers and some types of short swords can be used similarly, though this would split along the lines of slicing oriented, thrusting oriented and chopping oriented blades. Most daggers were thrusting oriented, most civilian knives were slicing oriented effectively, some others like the seax and the kurkri knife and the falcata were specialized for chopping. Each of these would be used differently IMO. I would make at least two separate groups, cutting knives and stabbing knives.

Just to complicate it further there were specialized daggers used for off-hand defense (the main gauche for example) but most RPG systems don't account for weapon defensive values so you can probably ignore that.

Rapier would definitely be in a group of it's own along with smallswords and sideswords. These weapons require more training than most, (more than the longsword family). These are primarily civilian dueling weapons but were also used by soldiers and prestige arms. They also overlap with the cut-thrust swords which would be a subtype of arming sword, more specialized for thrusting.

Just FYI rapiers are actually heavier than a lot of longswords (bastard sword or greatsword in most RPGs)

Just for an example, the weapon grouping system would be as such.
For a question perhaps for suited for this thread. Were nun-chucks a farming tool?

No but they were adapted from agricultural flails, just like the real military flails used in Bohemia and other parts of the world.



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

G.


* Possibly a slight exxageration I'm sure somebody tried to use one more than once, say, a sapper attacked while trying to undermine a wall or something, but it was not an effective weapon and never issued as such... it is about as much a weapon of opportunity as a chair, a rolling pin, a fireplace poker, a torch holder and etc.

[Galloglaich]

Re: Weapon grouping;

I find that hammers, maces, picks, and most axes all handle reasonably similarly. There's more difference between one-handed and two-handed versions of those weapons than there appears to be between the different shapes. The basic principle behind these weapons is that you have a mass on the end of a stick, and the mass is heavy enough for the shape of the mass to be less relevant with respect to handling.

A lot of games organize them that way, but I don't agree with this approach - I think blunt crushing weapons like maces are used differently than cutting weapons like axes, also axes, war hammers and picks have built-in to their shape the ability to hook, which is an important difference in how you actually use them. You can hook shield rims, weapons, hook peoples hands and knees and pull people off their feet etc. But this is left out of most RPG systems so it doesn't matter in most games.

However, all of them handle very differently than the tool versions. Meaning a battleaxe is almost nothing like a wood axe.

Agreed!

I beleive the reason they include the scythe in with that group is because tool-scythes are basically a very unbalanced pick with sharpened edges. I wouldn't personally include the scythe in that weapon group for the same reason I wouldn't include a wood axe or a proper maul. Tools are *very* different from weapons for handling.

Agreed!

There are, however, RL scythe weapons that are quite different from tool-scythes. Fauchards, falxes, etc. But even they are a bit weird to handle at first, so I'd put them in their own weapon group.

yep... along with Glaives, Bardiches, Sparth Axe, Najinata etc.

G.

[Spiryt]

I 2]I

the Hungarian szalba, Ukranian shashka, Indian tulwar, Persian shamshir, arabic Saif, burmese dha, and the Chinese / Mongolian yanmao dao, liuye dao, pian dao, and niuweidao.

Just for the small nitpick, "szabla" is polish word for generally saber stuff, hungarian is "szablya" (one letter, but changes it a bit AFIK)

And shashka is Caucasian/Russian - Ukrainian Cossacks were just some of users (as some Poles during WWI too).

[Galloglaich]

Does it make sense for a scythe to be listed among these weapons in proficiency, compared to that of pole-arms? Realism Wise



If so, would it be reasonable to say that a farmer who is proficient in use with the scythe, could essentially if need be; use a warhammer, pick, or maul effectively and with proficiency enough to be a capable combatant?

Most polearms were adapted from peasant farming tools, and proficiency with use as a tool would confer some ability to use it as a weapon, there is overlap but not precisely the same thing. The flail, the halberd, and various other similar weapons were invented by commoners to defeat heavy cavalry.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Just for the small nitpick, "szabla" is polish word for generally saber stuff, hungarian is "szablya" (one letter, but changes it a bit AFIK)

And shashka is Caucasian/Russian - Ukrainian Cossacks were just some of users (as some Poles during WWI too).

Thanks for the spelling correction! I get various versions of the history from my Ukranian, Hungarian, Czech, Bulgarian and Polish friends. Not surprisingly perhaps ;) And as with all things Eastern European there is almost nothing available in English.

I do rely on Polish sources a lot for the military history of the region esp. the Henryk Sienkiewicz (sp?) novels and the wonderful films which were made from them. I like them much better than some of the recent Russian films which have come out.

For the rest o the group, in case anyone is interested:

Shashka is a saber with no guard, like this




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

Szabla is a heavier cavalry saber with a cross and a partial false edge like the Turkish Killic, and later a full complex hilt like a modern military saber.

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



G.

[Kurien]

What polearms were purposefully made/designed to be used in individual combat? Which were used in formations (the first to come to mind is the pike)?

How are piercing weapons such as a war lance used on horseback? I would imagine that on a pass against a footsoldier, if you impaled them, the lance would be stuck and wrenched from the hand, thus losing it.

Are sabres and other curved swords, particularly used from horseback, even effective against armour? As the primary function would be a slicing attack, even your basic "maille", should stop most damage.

Why would the Shashka have no guard? Isn't one essential for protecting the hand?