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

[Spiryt]

Of course, as always with those things, it's all pretty tangled - there's czeczuga(polish text, but pretty pictures ) pretty popular polish szabla that also had very minimal guard.

Although there are theories that it had Tatar/Caucasian origin just like typical shashka.

[Spiryt]

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.

Loosing your lance ineed was calculated, thus why other backup weapons were essential, and why "camp" was supposed to provide knights/hussars/whoever with additional lances.

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.

"Basic maille" would generally stop slashing effect from sword, axe or whatever as well. And when you smashed someone well, it always could be effective, (like most things) although definetly going trough metal armor wasn't the point of sabres. Or slashing/cutting swords in general.

And there are quite good theories that curved, swift blades are very good at slicing textile defences.

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

Many swords have no/minimal guards. Sabres like shashka or some early tatar sabres are good examples.

And while some form of guard was usually prefered in Europe, obviously design without guard allowed to make sword with some interesting dynamics.

Cavalary swords (see spatha) often offered no decisive protection. One could argue that in cavalary use typical "fencing" situation were rare. It was all rapid horse movement, shaking, changes of directions, slashing, riding around. So protection of hand might not be so essential - and simpler, less cumbersome, and potentialy with more interesting handling "guardless" variant was preffered.

I also read one opinion from a guy who visited some blacksmith in Caucasus - he was told that one of the prefered ways of parryig/deflecting with shashka was to let the enemy blade slip towards the point insted onto the guard - that way allowed to counterattack quickly.

Someone versed in fencing here can certainly tell what (s)he thinks about it.

EDIT: And of course, one must take such speculations with good grain of salt.

[Galloglaich]

I think Spiryts comments are accurate ... generally speaking originally a sword like a saber was not designed for fencing or defensive use per se, one would ride by and make a cut and ride away. Spathas were designed for use with a shield or a buckler which is what would defend with.

That said the type of parrying Spiryt described is what one would call a hangen or hanging guard defense in Lichtenauer school fencing, and I believe (someone can correct me on this) the hanging guard was one of the primary guards for saber fencing in 19th Century manuals. It would make a great deal of sense in a ride-by attack.

Later sabers were sometimes made straighter and with better hand protection, designed for more sustained fencing. I believe there were different types of cavalry who used different types of weapons in the 17th-19th Centuries. Cuirassers or ultra-heavy shock cavalry like a Polish Hussar would probably use a sword designed for a sustained fight, in fact I believe they preferred the strait Pallasch sword, or the lance-like kanzer (something like an estoc) and would sometimes actually carry two different swords on their saddle (including a saber).

For lighter unarmored cavalry a very quick saber like a shashka makes a lot of sense to me....

G.

[Galloglaich]

Spiryt covered most of this, just a few other points...

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)?

I believe initially all polearms (including spears*) were designed for mass formation tactics, later individual one on one fighting specialization was invented.

Some weapons such as the Pollaxe, Poll-hammer were heavily used in one on one combats including judicial combat and the Ahelespiess (awl-pike) were specifically developed for the one-on-one fight, and the Halberd most certainly could be. You can tell weapons intended for 'fencing' of this type, usually they have roundels for hand-protection and langets to reinforce the haft against being cut through... such as you can see clearly on this awl-pike

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...Ahlspiess2.jpg

(which is not a pike at all really so much as a special armor piercing spear)

Even pikes though could be used for individual fights, I believe there are some (English?) manuals extant which cover techniques for very long staves (12' or more) which would allow you to fight with one.



A weapon like a poll-axe was extremely versatile, very good for defense, capable of armor piercing, grappling from a distance with it's various hook-like features, and caused devastating wounds

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.

A saber would not be the ideal weapon to use against armored troops, but if you had to, I imagine you would aim for an unprotected place like the face, the neck, or the hands. Which is perhaps why cavalry helmets featured strange looking contraptions like this:



http://usera.imagecave.com/emmar/Cha...lmet_Front.jpg



The 'lobster tail' feature is to protect the neck from a ride by attack, perhaps delivered after a hanging parry in the manner Spyrit described. Many of the ridges and wings etc. are designed to mitigate the effects of a bonk on the head from a sword or a stouter weapon like a light mace which were also frequently carried by cavalry, particularly on the steppe.

In fact due to the various types of opponents and conditions one might meet on the steppe, everything from very dangerous Western European type heavy shock cavalry to Tartar archers armed with bows, sabers and lassos, Eastern European cavalry were some of the most heavily armed in the world, perhaps carrying a lance, a mace, a composite bow, a sword, and a saber.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:19-v_2h_Vasnetsov.jpg

Speaking of which, nobody is really certain what the purpose of the Wings were on 'winged hussars'...



I personally suspect it had something to do with stopping lassos which were a popular weapon for use against heavy cavalry... but it could have been to make a noise or somehow to improve the aerodynamic speed of the horse and rider.

G.

* At least since say the Bronze Age. Perhaps if you go really far back spears were for individual warriors or hunters

[Mike_G]

I think Spiryts comments are accurate ... generally speaking originally a sword like a saber was not designed for fencing or defensive use per se, one would ride by and make a cut and ride away. Spathas were designed for use with a shield or a buckler which is what would defend with.

That said the type of parrying Spiryt described is what one would call a hangen or hanging guard defense in Lichtenauer school fencing, and I believe (someone can correct me on this) the hanging guard was one of the primary guards for saber fencing in 19th Century manuals. It would make a great deal of sense in a ride-by attack.

It was one of the primary guards. It works very well for mounted combat, and I've used it (purely experimentally) in sport fencing, and it's not a terrible guard. It makes more sense with a heavier blade. With the light competition sabre, you don't get much advantage from it. It "feels" better and more natural with my 1860 ACW sabre.

The sabre was still the defensive weapon for the cavalryman, though, since most sabre armed troops didn't have shields, and usually weren't heavily armored. Yes, the "one cut on the pass" was the ideal, but if you bogged down in melee, your sabre was both attack and defense. Even on the ride by, the very forward angled hanging guard allowed you to deflect his blow and countercut on the pass.

I would feel better with some kind of hand protection, personally.

Later sabers were sometimes made straighter and with better hand protection, designed for more sustained fencing. I believe there were different types of cavalry who used different types of weapons in the 17th-19th Centuries. Cuirassers or ultra-heavy shock cavalry like a Polish Hussar would probably use a sword designed for a sustained fight, in fact I believe they preferred the strait Pallasch sword, or the lance-like kanzer (something like an estoc) and would sometimes actually carry two different swords on their saddle.

For lighter unarmored cavalry a very quick saber like a shashka makes a lot of sense to me....

G.

The simple three bar guard or single bar knuckle bow doesn't slow the sword down any. Even a Mamluke style short crossbar would be better than nothing. You see these on a lot of Hussar sabres.

You'd be shocked how much incidental abuse your knuckles take in swordplay. Even the mostly thrusting foil fending will leave you a lot of tron gloves. I'd hate to have to parry a blow with one of those steakknife style hilts.

[Galloglaich]

It was one of the primary guards. It works very well for mounted combat, and I've used it (purely experimentally) in sport fencing, and it's not a terrible guard. It makes more sense with a heavier blade. With the light competition sabre, you don't get much advantage from it. It "feels" better and more natural with my 1860 ACW sabre.

I'm not surprised it feels odd with a competition sabre, that is essentially a car-aerial :) It is certainly an effective guard with a single-sword, but if it's not at least partially point-forward your hand is exposed.

The sabre was still the defensive weapon for the cavalryman, though, since most sabre armed troops didn't have shields, and usually weren't heavily armored.

You are thinking of the 18th-19th Century though by which point the roles of cavalry had changed substantially due to firearms; and by which point most sabers had hand-guards. From the 17th Century on back to the Iron Age shields, helmets and armor would all be much more common.

Yes, the "one cut on the pass" was the ideal, but if you bogged down in melee, your sabre was both attack and defense. Even on the ride by, the very forward angled hanging guard allowed you to deflect his blow and countercut on the pass.

Agreed... forward angled leaves your hand less exposed and you less vulnerable to a thrust, this is how you do it with a long sword as well.

The simple three bar guard or single bar knuckle bow doesn't slow the sword down any. Even a Mamluke style short crossbar would be better than nothing. You see these on a lot of Hussar sabres.

Yes sabres with guards are still fast but the shashka may be faster still, subtle differences in just holding a weapon (like an inch or two of balance point or reach) can make a big difference in a fight.

You'd be shocked how much incidental abuse your knuckles take in swordplay. Even the mostly thrusting foil fending will leave you a lot of tron gloves. I'd hate to have to parry a blow with one of those steakknife style hilts.

I wouldn't be surprised, I'm at fencing every week with one weapon or another, including with messers which have a similar 'steak-knife' type grip though they have a sort of knuckleguard called a nagel.

Personally I prefer some hand protection as well but there are different weapons made for different purposess, katanas have very little hand protection but they are clearly effective within the martial arts system for which they were developed, I suspect the same is true for the shashka though I can't say for sure. Maybe some more people will chime in, perhaps some more folks from Eastern Europe or Turkey or somewhere they are more familiar with this weapon.

G.

[fusilier]

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

That's a very important question, period. A large force of cavalry will be just as restricted by their supplies, probably even more so, than a large force of infantry. How logistics are managed can make a big difference as to how quickly any force can move.

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.

Yes time and place must be considered. The Roman Legions marched everywhere on foot, and were often trained to carry their supplies on their own backs. Rome felt no need for cavalry as a strategic asset until that discipline disappeared. Also, as Dervag pointed out, the kinds of horses used could also make a difference. In New Mexico the US Army rejected the hardy little horses that local volunteers showed up with, because their regulations called for big horses, that are good only for a quick dash. Finally cavalry is expensive compared to infantry.

I'm not really keeping up with the conversations, so I'll try to catch up:

Lances
I don't really know much, but here's my understanding of their use. There are over-hand and under-hand ways of using lances on horse back. Over-handed is generally considered to be weaker, but provides more control(?), with less inherit risk of being thrown from the horse if the lancer hits something too solid with too much speed. Lances often have a pennant behind the spear point. Part of its function is to prevent the lance from sinking to deeply into a target. Reports of Mexican lancers in the 1846-48 war would indicate that they were more than capable of using lances in melee like situations, and not simply at the instant of charge impact. However, it should be recognized that many Mexican lancers would have been vaqueros who had grown up using lances all their lives for herding livestock or hunting.

Sabers
I'm just going to throw this out here. I've heard that technically a saber is sword designed for use on horseback. It does not need to be curved, and in fact there are such weapons as "straight" sabers (I think 19th century heavy dragoons might use them). A curved sword, however, is easier to wield on horseback?? I'm not sure I know why, my guess is that the rider is less like to hit himself or the horse when swinging it. Don't know about the veracity of that claim.

[Fhaolan]

Lances
I don't really know much, but here's my understanding of their use. There are over-hand and under-hand ways of using lances on horse back. Over-handed is generally considered to be weaker, but provides more control(?), with less inherit risk of being thrown from the horse if the lancer hits something too solid with too much speed.

Over-hand lances was an older style when the difference between lance and spear was imperceptable. Throwing the lance was considered to be still an option, and it made it easier to stab downwards when you were bogged down so you didn't have to change weapons. This style of lance came back into fashion during the much later periods such as the French Revolution and the American Old West, where the cavalry would switch between upper-handed and under-handed holds during a fight as the needs demanded.

When the style shifted to primarily under-hand lances they were pretty much purely charge weapons. They tended to be longer and heavier than the older lances (and the ones that came after this period). It's actually not that hard to abandon an under-hand held lance quickly. For example, you don't *have* to have a death-hold onto the lance; if it's about to take you out of the saddle, let go. Don't get obsessed about holding on to this glorified spear. Now if you're dealing with a sport lance with all the hand-guards and weird tapers and bulges and the like, then you have a problem, but those kinds of lances rarely if ever saw a battlefield. They were specifically designed and used for sport jousting where falling off the horse was part of the game.

[Mike_G]

Sabers
I'm just going to throw this out here. I've heard that technically a saber is sword designed for use on horseback. It does not need to be curved, and in fact there are such weapons as "straight" sabers (I think 19th century heavy dragoons might use them). A curved sword, however, is easier to wield on horseback?? I'm not sure I know why, my guess is that the rider is less like to hit himself or the horse when swinging it. Don't know about the veracity of that claim.

Terminolgy is, as always, highly controversial. There certainly were staright cavalry swords, but generally I have not heard them referred to as sabres. Most times I've heard the term "sabre" it has refered to curved blades.

The curve on a sword helps it to cut when drawn along a target. When swung, the curve helps to draw the edge along the target instead of just hitting it flat. The same principal applies to a katana, or other curved sword, for use on foot or mounted.

I don't think a fighter is less likely to hit himslef with a curved sword versus a straight one. But laying the edge along you enemy as you ride by, a curved blade should cut better. It's hard to use the point on a ride by, as you will likely gte you sword stuck in the enemy and have to let it go as you ride past. In bogged down, relatively stationary cavalry melee, the use of the point is well documented.

And despite what you may have been told, it is not hard to thrust with a curved balde.

[fusilier]

Some anecdotal evidence would imply that it's not quite as simple as letting go of the lance, especially if it's tucked under the arm. Now, I'm not sure if tucking the lance under the arm is the same as a proper underhand grip. In a story from the 1860s about hunting buffalo with lances, one of the hunters attempted to use his lance in an underhand fashion. He was lifted off of his horse and subsequently trampled to death. After that, the story goes, nobody used an underhand grip for hunting buffalo.

Do you think, perhaps, that the underhand style developed in conjunction with the enemy wearing armor? It would seem to make sense from the chronology presented.

[Galloglaich]

The curved shape of the saber is for draw-cutting (slicing) and to assist in weapon retention. Riding on a horse at 30 mph roughly doubles the speed of a sword cut making it harder to hold onto when you cut something. This is also the reason for the canted hilt and hooked pommel on many sabers*. A slice at that speed can be incredibly devastating to the person you cut - and wrenching to your cutting arm as well.

The couched lance was better for armour-piercing. It let you put the whole weight of your body into a thrust, instead of just your arm.

I have access to some anecdotes from European and Arab sources on this, but no time to dig them out right this moment.

G.

* it's also why the light-mace used on the steppe had a wrist-thong on it

[Galloglaich]

Yes time and place must be considered. The Roman Legions marched everywhere on foot, and were often trained to carry their supplies on their own backs.

Better than that, the Roman Legionnaires carried sickles with them to harvest the fields of the peoples in whose land they operated. They were an army which could forage for itself, as well as build it's own roads, fortifications, and even towns. Very hard to imagine in a modern context.

Rome felt no need for cavalry as a strategic asset until that discipline disappeared.

I'm not sure precisely when discipline disappeared, it waxed and waned in the Empire both in the East and the West several times, collapsing more than once and reviving again after various reforms and different leadership. The Romans were remarkably resilient that way.

Also, as Dervag pointed out, the kinds of horses used could also make a difference. In New Mexico the US Army rejected the hardy little horses that local volunteers showed up with, because their regulations called for big horses, that are good only for a quick dash. Finally cavalry is expensive compared to infantry. (snip) ...many Mexican lancers would have been vaqueros who had grown up using lances all their lives for herding livestock or hunting.

That is interesting, and it explains a lot... an industrial army trying to adapt to a horse-borne existence. Cowboys or Vaqueros or Gauchos would have made better cavalry... but the American military Bureaucracy was based in the Cities of the East Coast.

This is why in antiquity most cavalry was recruited from places where the people had a natural affinity for horses and for whom riding was part of their lifestyle. The Gauls, the Numidians, were great horsemen... as were the Sarmatians and Parthians they faced in battle on behalf of Rome. Huns and Mongols even more so, they almost literally lived in the saddle.

G.

[Fhaolan]

Some anecdotal evidence would imply that it's not quite as simple as letting go of the lance, especially if it's tucked under the arm. Now, I'm not sure if tucking the lance under the arm is the same as a proper underhand grip. In a story from the 1860s about hunting buffalo with lances, one of the hunters attempted to use his lance in an underhand fashion. He was lifted off of his horse and subsequently trampled to death. After that, the story goes, nobody used an underhand grip for hunting buffalo.

Do you think, perhaps, that the underhand style developed in conjunction with the enemy wearing armor? It would seem to make sense from the chronology presented.

There's a slight difference between under-hand grip and couching, but it's one of those tricks that gets glossed over fairly easily unless you're looking a lot deeper into lance-work than normal. Getting lifted off the saddle usually happens when you couch the lance (grip the lance tightly between your arm and your body). It's a very natural thing to do, so it gets done a lot. It's also very natural to get that death-grip this way, and refuse to let go. This was good for armour penetration, but there's the risk of getting unhorsed as everyone notes.

With the underhand grip, on the other hand, the lance is running under your upper arm. The lance presses against the underside of your upper arm by it's own weight. You have to have to have good wrist and arm strength to do this, but if you didn't, you wouldn't be up there in the first place. This is a lot 'safer' than couching, but you don't get the oomph in hitting. Also, it's difficult to do this with sport jousting lances, as all the bulges and whatnot intefere with this grip.

[Oslecamo]

Better than that, the Roman Legionnaires carried sickles with them to harvest the fields of the peoples in whose land they operated. They were an army which could forage for itself, as well as build it's own roads, fortifications, and even towns. Very hard to imagine in a modern context.

Actualy, easier than you may think. Any self respecting army nowadays has a force of engineers to build/destroy stuff on the spot, and there's still research on new ways to make a force as indepedent as possible.

For example, I recall the research of easily carrieable tools to purify water on the spot, from anything from mud to urine.

I'm not sure precisely when discipline disappeared, it waxed and waned in the Empire both in the East and the West several times, collapsing more than once and reviving again after various reforms and different leadership. The Romans were remarkably resilient that way.

The big problem there was actualy political.

Whenever good generals started to rise, the local emperor would become afraid and order his execution. Then the barbarian hordes would attack, and the emperor would call for good generals. Wich he would execute once the threat was over. The romans almost always had good generals, but the corrupt dudes in charge made it quite hard for them to do their job. This is, why would you want to do a good job if it meant a dagger(or a dozen of them, as poor Julius suffered) at your back?

[Crow]

The big problem there was actualy political.

Whenever good generals started to rise, the local emperor would become afraid and order his execution. Then the barbarian hordes would attack, and the emperor would call for good generals. Wich he would execute once the threat was over. The romans almost always had good generals, but the corrupt dudes in charge made it quite hard for them to do their job. This is, why would you want to do a good job if it meant a dagger(or a dozen of them, as poor Julius suffered) at your back?

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but the scene you describe was hardly the norm in the days of the empire, and is quite a bit more complicated. In fact, it was quite the opposite. More emperors were killed by the legions than I can care to count. The cases when the emperors ordered the execution of generals were often due to one emperor (At times, multiple generals would style themselves as the "rightful" emperor) getting the upper hand in a civil war (of which there were many), and wanting to eliminate his former rival's supporters. Sometimes this was done before a civil war could start, which I suspect is what you are referring to. Still, there was ample incentive to be as great a general as you could, so long as you were loyal. Unfortunately, many of the generals were not (More on that later when I mention the donatives). Furthermore, it is unfortunate that so many great and loyal generals are all but forgotten, due to the treachery of their disloyal comrades. Historians rarely find interest in the loyal general, but great interest in the motives and means behind the would-be usurpers.

Many Roman emperors themselves were actually generals who fought against "barbarians" and other foes earlier in their career as commanders in the army. Many times throughout the history of the empire, these generals would have ambitions to the throne. With their men, along with the promise of substantial donatives, they would sieze power. Usually killing the previous emperor. Often, their men would invest them with the Purple before the old emperor was even dead, leading of course to civil war.

In fact, the donatives which would be awarded upon a new emperor coming to power are one of the primary reasons for the breakdown in discipline in the Roman army. Why remain loyal and disciplined when you can enjoy all this gold (Also made worse by allowing soldiers of the Praetorian legions to garrison in the city itself)? Why remain loyal when treachery can gain you even more gold?

If you are interested in this further, I highly recommend reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon. It is exhaustive, clear, and accurate in many areas concerning the empire. You will find most Volume 1 deals with the issue above in the most detail.

...and let us not forget that "Poor Julius" was an usurper as well.

[fusilier]

I'm not sure precisely when discipline disappeared, it waxed and waned in the Empire both in the East and the West several times, collapsing more than once and reviving again after various reforms and different leadership. The Romans were remarkably resilient that way.

My recollection of undergrad Roman history basically said it was the Anarchy that destroyed Roman military discipline. After that there was no way that infantry would be willing to perform 20 mile a day marches, and cavalry came to the fore (they also switched to a defense in depth scheme). What is really impressive is that Rome managed to survive a couple centuries longer. Basically at this point, there was little to distinguish a Roman army from the barbarians they were fighting. The basic organizational elements and names were still there, but the discipline and tactics were essentially gone. Hollywood movies showing Huns defeating what are essentially 1st century AD Roman Legions, are, . . . well . . . hollywood. The East probably did better because they had more money to pay for mercenaries. There may have been small forces or guards that retained some of the older drill, but the massive, well disciplined legions were gone.

This is why in antiquity most cavalry was recruited from places where the people had a natural affinity for horses and for whom riding was part of their lifestyle. The Gauls, the Numidians, were great horsemen... as were the Sarmatians and Parthians they faced in battle on behalf of Rome. Huns and Mongols even more so, they almost literally lived in the saddle.

I've heard that France was a very horse-poor nation around the Napoleonic times -- many of their cavalry charges occurred no faster than a trot (if that), because the soldiers couldn't possibly maintain formation with anything faster.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Actually for that Napoleonic thing, the cause was simply training.

Early on the differences in training between some of the cavalry members was as great as between someone who had never ridden on a horse before and what conceivably could have been Olympic level dressage riders.

By the end their cavalry was actually pretty good but...by then the squares and other tactics made cavalry a lot less effective then before so they stay rather unremarkable.

This lack of training was also the cause of a lot of the French tactics in that period.
The use of columns for advancing on the enemy for instance...
Slow heavy step for advancing...
Etc...

Conscripts army with a small core of volunteers.

[Nanan]

To start this one off, I am aware that in medieval combat, taking enemy knights captive was a big part of the fight. I usually see references to people being pulled from their horses. So I am curious how one would force somebody in a suit of plate armor to surrender, and how pulling them from their horse would be so helpful (I assume that such prevents them from escaping).

Well seeing as the guy was wearing a good 80-100 lbs of plate armor just fell 5-6 foot to the ground hes already not feeling all that well and now a guy has a rapier point sticking in his throat/armpit at vitals, hes screwed.

[Karoht]

Also, even on the battlefield, if someone had bested you, they'd bested you and that was all. Among the non-nobility, it was to the death, to the last man. Among Knights and nobility, there were rules, even in war.

Being captured wasn't so bad. Sure, you lost all the possessions you had on your person and horse, and lost your horse. On the other hand, your host had to feed you, house you, cloth you, give you medical treatment, and this was not done in squalor but in opulance. Imagine if you were an american soldier in vietnam, and when captured, you were at the vietnam equivilant of the Ritz Carlton. No disrespect to any veterans intended.

Then a ransom price would be set, the Knight would pay it in one way or another, and be set free, possibly with all his belongings again.

Sir Bertrand, a rather clever little frenchman, drove up his own ransom price on purpose, so that when he captured other knights, he could charge more for their release.

There were only a handful of cases where these rules were broken. When Sir William Marshall was captured by Guy de Lusignan, Guy practically starved him and denied him medical treatment. Then again, Guy was pretty much a **** at all points of his career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Lusignan

The whole practice, and account of Guy's poor treatment of William, is well accounted here as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...rl_of_Pembroke

[MickJay]

If you are interested in this further, I highly recommend reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon. It is exhaustive, clear, and accurate in many areas concerning the empire. You will find most Volume 1 deals with the issue above in the most detail.

...and let us not forget that "Poor Julius" was an usurper as well.

...of course, Gibbon's Decline... is now worth reading primarily for its historiographical value and literary style rather than his objectivity or factual accuracy There's been quite a lot of good stuff on the subject written recently by, e.g., J. W. H. G. Liebeschuetz or J. Ward-Perkins.

Julius had it coming, though the Republic was already in too deep of a crisis to survive much longer anyway.

As for the plate armour, it would have been more in the range of 40-70lbs (rather than 80-100), but after a long day, it still would often be enough to hinder the knight, and on foot, he'd most likely be fighting opponents armed with longer weapons (spears, polearms) using his (backup) sword. And, like Nanan pointed out, it was easy enough to find weaker points in the armour to force the downed knight's surrender.

[Crow]

...of course, Gibbon's Decline... is now worth reading primarily for its historiographical value and literary style rather than his objectivity or factual accuracy

Even with more recent works available, his work is considered to be the standard by which subjects on the matter are compared. While his objectivity is as much in question as any other historian, modern or ancient, his accuracy is as good or better than the work of many authors. Decline... is certainly more thoroughly researched than many other works, and as accurate as could be expected considering it was written over 200 years ago. Even as modern techniques shed more light on the empire in an anthropological viewpoint, for the political, most still defer to Gibbon.

[fusilier]

Actually for that Napoleonic thing, the cause was simply training.

I agree with what you have to say. What I had hoped to imply was that because France was a horse-poor nation, there were few people in the country who were experienced horsemen. Thus many of her cavalry troopers didn't know how to ride a horse. More training would have helped, but at the same time, a nation that can draw its cavalry from people who have lived in the saddle their whole lives, doesn't have to worry so much about training.

[MickJay]

Even with more recent works available, his work is considered to be the standard by which subjects on the matter are compared. While his objectivity is as much in question as any other historian, modern or ancient, his accuracy is as good or better than the work of many authors. Decline... is certainly more thoroughly researched than many other works, and as accurate as could be expected considering it was written over 200 years ago. Even as modern techniques shed more light on the empire in an anthropological viewpoint, for the political, most still defer to Gibbon.

I disagree, while Gibbon did his research thoroughly, he lacked a lot of knowledge (private letters, inscriptions and other sources unknown at the time) that is available today. While his work was (and still remains) highly influential, many of Gibbon's conclusions can no longer be sustained. Few people would still recognize the rise of a major world religion as the chief cause of the empire's fall, for example.

This isn't really on the subject here, so we should probably move the discussion (if any) to PMs

[Galloglaich]

...of course, Gibbon's Decline... is now worth reading primarily for its historiographical value and literary style rather than his objectivity or factual accuracy There's been quite a lot of good stuff on the subject written recently by, e.g., J. W. H. G. Liebeschuetz or J. Ward-Perkins.

Julius had it coming, though the Republic was already in too deep of a crisis to survive much longer anyway.

As for the plate armour, it would have been more in the range of 40-70lbs (rather than 80-100), but after a long day, it still would often be enough to hinder the knight, and on foot, he'd most likely be fighting opponents armed with longer weapons (spears, polearms) using his (backup) sword. And, like Nanan pointed out, it was easy enough to find weaker points in the armour to force the downed knight's surrender.

Yes, 40-70 lbs is more like it... or less actuallly. Full cap-a-pied Milanese armor may be as much as 80 lbs, German Gothic harness couild be as little as 30 lbs., many three quarters or half harness even less. And yes falling off a horse can be fatal in and of itself, especially if you don't know what you are doing, but we tend to still cling to the myth of armor as completely immobilizing. Actually it's not true. Even a modern middle aged actor can intentionally fall off a horse in full plate harness and get right back up again with no problem.... with a little training and experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNX...om=PL&index=93

Now imagine a professional knight in condition like a top athlete, who had ridden horses since childhood and trained and fought in armor for decades. Something like a combination of an MMA fighter and a rodeo Cowboy and a top quality dressage rider. It's not some lumbering brute or an overweight re-enactor, or one of the cavemen we get on TV or film depictions of Medieval knights.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Actualy, easier than you may think. Any self respecting army nowadays has a force of engineers to build/destroy stuff on the spot, and there's still research on new ways to make a force as indepedent as possible.

Yes, seperate engineer units to build and destroy stuff... if they have a continuous supply train and contact with the rear. The difference is Roman Legions were engineers by modern standards, and could operate well beyond any supply lines. They, the combat arms troops, built their own fortifications, and siezed their own provisions from the ravaged local populace. We don't do that any more for a variety of reasons.

For example, I recall the research of easily carrieable tools to purify water on the spot, from anything from mud to urine.

I was a medic in the Army myself, trust me I know all about it, I was in charge of that. Most of the water purification available amounts to putting some idodine in the water or running it through the equivalent of a Brita filter. Something any civilian can do. It doesn't work on mud or urine but it can clean up ordinary (contaminated) pond water etc.

That is a far cry from a unit actually foraging for themselves. Modern armies don't have any front line combat units which can actually do that - small Special Ops groups to some extent though even they are usually dependant on supplies. The last time I know of where large units attempted to 'live off the land' in this way were the chindits and merylls marauders in WW II and they didn't exactly thrive in those conditions.

The big problem there was actualy political.

Whenever good generals started to rise, the local emperor would become afraid and order his execution. Then the barbarian hordes would attack, and the emperor would call for good generals. Wich he would execute once the threat was over. The romans almost always had good generals, but the corrupt dudes in charge made it quite hard for them to do their job. This is, why would you want to do a good job if it meant a dagger(or a dozen of them, as poor Julius suffered) at your back?

I think you are thinking of General Aëtius but at least as often it was the Generals killing the Emperors as the other way around, they were all snakes fighting over a snake pit. Given the short life expectancy of a top General or an Emperor during the waning centuries of the Roman Empire it's somewhat amazing that anyone sought either position... it was still better than being a serf or a slave toiling away in some Latifundia.

Ulimately the only safe place to be was among the Barbarians, which is why the Western Roman Empire was gradually replaced by Frankish, Visigothic and Lombard kingdoms. They had become more civilized in terms of your chances of survival and basic prosperity than Rome itself (or Ravenna).

G.

[Galloglaich]

Also, even on the battlefield, if someone had bested you, they'd bested you and that was all. Among the non-nobility, it was to the death, to the last man. Among Knights and nobility, there were rules, even in war.

No, there were no rules on the battlefield, just money and self interest. If you had money, it may have been worth more to ransom you. If you didn't, it was cheaper to kill you. Knights tended to ransom each other and kill common soliders, but it was by no means universal.

Being captured wasn't so bad.

That depended a great deal on who you were and who captured you. If you were a King or a very rich or well connected Aristocrat you may be kept in a "Ritz Calrton" setting. As often as not the prisoner would be kept in wretched conditions in a dungeon which could often prove fatal, where you may be kept for anywhere from a few months to years or decades.

Also conditions of ransom varied a great deal from place to place. The Swiss famously refused to ransom or parole any prisoners, they killed everybody they could catch who took up arms against them regardless of rank. During the Italian wars the Condottieri would typically slay French or Spanish troops regardless of rank, because the French and Spanish themselves would not ransom Italian common soldiers. As a result several French armies in particular were slaughtered almost to the last man after failed campaigns in Italy. By contrast Italian soldiers would typcially ransom Italian noblemen and often disarm and 'parole' (release) common Italian troops, many of whom may have been their own cousins.

During the high Middle Ages there was a culture of Chivalry which took place particularly in Tournaments, where capture and ransom would be carried out in a very 'gentlemanly' manner, and in certain battles such as during the 100 years war, where the ransom of knights and nobility became something of an industry, rather similar to the way the Somali pirates ransom hostages today. Many great fortunes in England were founded by common yeoman archers who captured French lords at battles like Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. But this was hardly universal, it depended very much on the 'theater' where the fighting was taking place and how bad the blood was etc. If you were captured by someone who didn't like you or your people you were just as likely to be killed as ransomed, regardless of your rank.

There were only a handful of cases where these rules were broken. When Sir William Marshall was captured by Guy de Lusignan, Guy practically starved him and denied him medical treatment. Then again, Guy was pretty much a **** at all points of his career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Lusignan

The whole practice, and account of Guy's poor treatment of William, is well accounted here as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...rl_of_Pembroke

I think this type of situation was far more common than the reverse, actually.

G.

[Fhaolan]

There's also the factor that while ransoms were asked for, they weren't always paid. There are several documented accounts of the family back home going 'We're better off without *him*' and ignoring the ransom request. The classic fictional example being the Robin Hood version of 'Bad King' John's response to King Richard's ransom (the actual historical version of these events are *wildly* different from the fictional version, but it's still a good example as most people will recognize it. ) Also, it doesn't take too many ransoms to begar someone, so if you're in the habit of getting captured...

[Mauril Everleaf]

I've got a question regarding the trident. Was it an effective weapon at disarming foes? One of my players is suggesting that we add the "disarm" quality to the weapon in our DnD games, but I wanted to make sure that the weapon was legitimately used for disarming. He cites a wiki article and the ranseur as precedent, but I wanted to check with people that knew.

[Galloglaich]

There's also the factor that while ransoms were asked for, they weren't always paid. There are several documented accounts of the family back home going 'We're better off without *him*' and ignoring the ransom request. The classic fictional example being the Robin Hood version of 'Bad King' John's response to King Richard's ransom (the actual historical version of these events are *wildly* different from the fictional version, but it's still a good example as most people will recognize it. ) Also, it doesn't take too many ransoms to begar someone, so if you're in the habit of getting captured...

Yeah, agreed 100%.

Here is a very amusing (to me) anecdote about being ransomed from Usamah Ib Munqidh, an Arab soldier and author who wrote in the 12th Century. ... I can't figure out where I put the book right now (I may have left it at work) so I'll have to paraphrase it*, but it was about an Arab nobleman who had been captured by the Franks with a ransom set at 2,000 dinars. After a year he was still languishing in the dungeon with no word from anyone.

Then one day they threw in a poor Bedouin nomad into his cell, with a ransom of 50 dinars. The Bedouin approached the nobleman and said "O Shaiyk, secure my release and I will see to your own", but at first he refused to speak with him, thinking he was just a con. Finally thinking he had nothing to lose, he asked to speak to his captor, a Frankish lord, who agreed to add the Bedouins ransom to his own and let the Bedouin go, on the theory that he would go to the noblemans father and get the ransom paid.

The Bedouin was released but not a word came of him for several months and the nobleman once more began to lose hope. Finally one day he heard a noise in the corner of his cell and saw the same Bedouin emerge from a cloud of collapsing dirt in the corner. He struck off the noblemans chains with a pick and cried "Come o' Sheyk, and take this passage to freedom. I have been digging these four months from an abandoned village on the plain!"

The story ends with the laconic comment that he didn't know whether to congratulate the Bedouin on his fidelity or on his precision on digging a tunnel that intersected with the dungeon.

G.

* I'll update this post with the actual passage when I find my book...

[Kurien]

I have a few questions on bows and helmets.

First, the helmet posted before by Galloglaich would be commonly called a lobster tail pot, correct? According to Wikipedia, a lobster tail pot design was used during the English Civil War.

I'm currently interested in face and head protection, so a search of helmets on Wikipedia has answered some basic questions. However...
Was there any historical use of armoured masks, or other face guards, as part of a helmet? Did anyone craft them to resemble a face, so as to inspire fear in their enemies?

Were hampered ventilation and visual obstruction major drawbacks to using full faced helms? What was a realistic balance between protection and the wearer's ability to see and breathe?

Vision is an important factor in a ranged weapon user's effectiveness, so I would guess that archers wore open faced helmets?

Would a lack of a helmet be a serious disadvantage in combat? The head is a very vulnerable part of the body, so I wonder why they seem to have diminished importance in roleplaying games. in 3.5 Edition, they don't even offer an armour bonus.

Were various projections on the helmets purely for decoration or did they help deflect blows? Were certain shapes such as conical shapes better for deflecting blows?

_______________

Does moisture have an effect on bows? I think it weakens wood and sinew, and the glue that binds composite bows together.

A composite bow consists of three layers, correct? Sinew on the back of the bow (side facing away from user), a hardwood in the middle, and animal horn or bone as the belly of the bow?

What woods were used in making bows?
The horns of what animals are used in making composite bows?