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

[Raum]

I would not be surprised if this is eventually overcome. UAVs, 24/7 on station aircraft, solar powered stuff...if you can eventually overcome the operational limitations, there's no reason the strategic role can't shift.

Mind you, this likely won't happen for a while, but the role of aircraft has dramatically expanded over it's history, and I would bet it'll continue to do so.

As I, and Mike G have said, that claim has been made many times. Conquerors will always need 'boots on the ground' or equivalent. And I hope we never have a 'Destroyer' with the power of one of today's major militaries.

If your aim is simply to destroy your enemy without taking too much casualties or even risking casualties, then air strikes are the way to go. Bomb his army, his bases, his cities, his population, his little dog and anything coming close to the border, this until they plea for mercy. And when they do, charge ridiculous war indemnities on them to cover your expenses...

Short of nukes, this doesn't work. Look at wars within the last 50 years for examples.

When I was a kid, we watched in awe the NATO campaign against Serbia. A whole nation was put on its knees with nothing but air strikes.
Sure, if we speak money, it was costly. A lot more than if we had simply massively given weapons and ammunitions to Albanians and Croatians and say "-Go !! Now is your chance !!". But NATO took very few casualties.

It wasn't effective at much beyond destroying infrastructure. Digging into the details, it was used to push a political decision. It didn't conquer the country.

Now, if your aim is to destroy your enemy at the lowest financial cost possible... well, ground troops ARE cheap. Especially infantry.

Not in modern armies! Training alone can run a hundred k or more...then start adding equipment....

And if your aim is to control a territory without butchering the locals into submission, then yes, you need ground forces to hold and police said territory.

But this means that your nation is either too poor to afford an air force or is a respectable democracy that can't afford to slaughter civilians. Or both of this.

Or there are simply other equivalent or greater powers who won't condone wholesale slaughter.

If it matters, I'm a USAF veteran. Even so, our generals (mostly) learned from Vietnam (and more recent wars) that air power alone isn't enough.

[Johel]

As I, and Mike G have said, that claim has been made many times. Conquerors will always need 'boots on the ground' or equivalent. And I hope we never have a 'Destroyer' with the power of one of today's major militaries.
...
Short of nukes, this doesn't work. Look at wars within the last 50 years for examples.
...
It wasn't effective at much beyond destroying infrastructure. Digging into the details, it was used to push a political decision. It didn't conquer the country.
...
Not in modern armies! Training alone can run a hundred k or more...then start adding equipment....
...
Or there are simply other equivalent or greater powers who won't condone wholesale slaughter.
...
If it matters, I'm a USAF veteran. Even so, our generals (mostly) learned from Vietnam (and more recent wars) that air power alone isn't enough.

@Past 50 years + "someone won't allow it" : Reread the post you are quoting please. The first thing I said was that, in the current context, ground troops are necessary because the modern nations got some ranks in Morality. If cost and technical know-how weren't issues, you can bet more than a few dictatorships would focus on Air Power rather than ground troops. Also, the allied didn't have nukes against Germany. Yet they DID destroyed whole cities. Same goes for Hanoi...

@Serbia : Where did I speak of conquering ? I said "destroy".
It was successful and took barely 3 months of operations.
1 year later, because the country was in ruins, the population overthrew Milosevic. No conquest was even necessary. Today, Serbia is a 6years-old democracy, is discussed as a potential member of the EU and foreign military presence is limited to Kosovo.

@Infantry cost in modern armies : Not going to discuss that in length, you are right. Just pointing that the training & equipment cost of 100 individual infantrymen is still lower than the price and maintenance cost of a single aircraft.

@Vietnam : the aim was to prevent a communist state to emerge. That's it, to prevent a cultural change. To fight it with weapons was bound to fail, especially in a former colony. The only way weapons can prevent a cultural change is if they kill everyone...which wouldn't have been accepted by the US population, with good reasons.

[Dervag]

I agree. Of France, Britain and Russia, Russia was in the weakest position - though thats not to belittle their efforts. The German game plan was to knock out France - when that didn't happen Russia was the obvious target, as there was no way to get at Britain at the time. It think its fair to say Russia was weak militarily - certainly in equipment terms - not manpower. And the events of August 1914 must've led the Germans to believe they were beatable.

They were. Russia was on the ropes by 1917, and would very probably have collapsed with or without Lenin. Whether that would have freed up enough German troops to matter in the west the way what happened in real life did... I'll ask my friend whose grandfather fought in the Russian Civil War, I guess.

You get my point : define why you fight the war, then you can estimate whether or not you really need ground troops.

If you have the power to project your forces across the planet and your own population doesn't worry too much about the welfare of other people, then you can control other countries simply by making clear you can bomb them to the stone age if necessary. Let them govern themselves but ask for tribute and forbid military infrastructure above what is necessary to police their own territory.

The problem is that there's no obvious objective for doing this except "conquering for the sake of conquering." The tribute you get out of the targets isn't going to outweigh the cost of the munitions you expend when someone calls your bluff.

[Johel]

The problem is that there's no obvious objective for doing this except "conquering for the sake of conquering."

The tribute you get out of the targets isn't going to outweigh the cost of the munitions you expend when someone calls your bluff.

I don't get what you mean in the first part.
The debate here was if Airforce could replace ground troops. The objectives behind wars are in fact the key to this debate.
If a nation wants to conquer territory, it needs ground troops.
If it wants to destroy or simply enforce its will on others, then air force is all you really need, unless you want to go the "humanitarian" way, which doesn't exactly fit well when talking about wars.

As for the second part, if you wage a war as a 2-years profitable venture, then yes, it won't. But over time, any cost is outweighted.

[Yora]

Question: Would a double-spear with a spear blade at both ends be a viable weapon?
It doesn't have the disadvantage of the double-sword or the double-axe of accidently cutting of your own limbs half the time, and let's not mention the dire flail. Also, displays of chinese spear techniques I've seen make it appear that you can use a spear in much more ways than a simple frontal stab.
Probably would still require a lot of skill to make effective use of both ends, but it's seems like it could be an actually practical double weapon (except for quarterstaffs).

[Dervag]

I don't get what you mean in the first part.
The debate here was if Airforce could replace ground troops. The objectives behind wars are in fact the key to this debate.
If a nation wants to conquer territory, it needs ground troops.
If it wants to destroy or simply enforce its will on others, then air force is all you really need, unless you want to go the "humanitarian" way, which doesn't exactly fit well when talking about wars.

Thing is, why would a nation want to destroy or enforce its will on others by the threat of destruction? Can you construct a logical chain of motives that begins in the real world and ends in that sort of war?

I submit that you will have trouble doing that: that in any situation where "kill 'em all" is a rational way of achieving the goal, someone must have decided that the goal was "kill 'em all" at some point.

As for the second part, if you wage a war as a 2-years profitable venture, then yes, it won't. But over time, any cost is outweighted.

Over time, any concession you can extract will be cancelled. Life isn't like a game of Civilization, where you can conquer a city and unfailingly extract taxes from it for thousands of years.

Question: Would a double-spear with a spear blade at both ends be a viable weapon?
It doesn't have the disadvantage of the double-sword or the double-axe of accidently cutting of your own limbs half the time, and let's not mention the dire flail. Also, displays of chinese spear techniques I've seen make it appear that you can use a spear in much more ways than a simple frontal stab.
Probably would still require a lot of skill to make effective use of both ends, but it's seems like it could be an actually practical double weapon (except for quarterstaffs).

The problem I see is that there's really not much point in the second spearhead. It might make more sense to simply clad the butt end of the spear in metal to make it sort of like a light mace. Because most ways I can imagine of bringing the other end of your spear into play will involve striking an opponent with that end, not stabbing them.

[Daosus]

There were a number of groups that used a spear with what amounts to two points. The most notable were the Greek and Makedonian hoplites. However, almost all of them used the much larger head as the main head, and used the smaller reserve spearhead as a backup if the front one broke off. The reserve head (also called a buttspike) could also be used to set against a charge when pushed into the ground.

The problem with any style using both spearheads at the same time is that it will take large amounts of room. Most of the time, when you can afford to train someone to fight independently of a large group, you can afford to give them a more versatile weapon than the spear. The spear was almost always used in large formations precisely because it doesn't need much room, except in one direction.

[Fhaolan]

Question: Would a double-spear with a spear blade at both ends be a viable weapon?
It doesn't have the disadvantage of the double-sword or the double-axe of accidently cutting of your own limbs half the time, and let's not mention the dire flail. Also, displays of chinese spear techniques I've seen make it appear that you can use a spear in much more ways than a simple frontal stab.
Probably would still require a lot of skill to make effective use of both ends, but it's seems like it could be an actually practical double weapon (except for quarterstaffs).

In India there is the Tschehouta which is a full double-spear. So it exists in RL. Not overly common, as that's the only instance I've seen with a full double-ended spear. Usually, it's only a pseudo-spearhead on one end, like a spike or something. The same kind of thing that is used on the butt-end of a pollaxe and similar weapons. Not really a spearhead as such.

[a_humble_lich]

Thing is, why would a nation want to destroy or enforce its will on others by the threat of destruction? Can you construct a logical chain of motives that begins in the real world and ends in that sort of war?

I might not be understanding you, but it seems that your chain of events has happened many times. Isn't that nearly exactly what the Nazis tried to do to the UK? To bomb the british until they surrendered? They failed, but was due to lack of (total) air superiority, or due to a fundamental weakness in airpower?

Going back further, there have been many historical wars where the only goal was destruction of the enemy: some of the crusades, the punic wars, some of the Indian Wars. And cases like the US-Barbary war, if the US had the airpower to bomb Tripoli would they have needed to send in the Marines? The US never wanted to take over Tripoli, just to get them to stop attacking American ships, and that goal could have been accomplished by the air.

I completely agree, that if you want to occupy a territory you need ground troops. But there have been many other wars with other "diplomatic" objectives, such as "stop attacking me". Here I think airpower alone could work--if you attack my ships, I'll bomb your towns, so stop attacking my ships. But even then I'm not sure if it would work. This sort of thinking has been repeatedly tried in several recent very politically charged events that I'm not sure we can talk about without much success.

[Johel]

Thing is, why would a nation want to destroy or enforce its will on others by the threat of destruction? Can you construct a logical chain of motives that begins in the real world and ends in that sort of war?

I submit that you will have trouble doing that: that in any situation where "kill 'em all" is a rational way of achieving the goal, someone must have decided that the goal was "kill 'em all" at some point.

Over time, any concession you can extract will be canceled. Life isn't like a game of Civilization, where you can conquer a city and unfailingly extract taxes from it for thousands of years.

@Why would a nation want to destroy or enforce its will on others :
...you're joking right ?
You want to destroy someone because he is a threat to your goals.
You want to subjugate someone because he can be useful but refuses to cooperate.
The rules of the forum forbid us to discuss real politic so, no more examples for you, sorry. But I'll just send you back at the examples I already gave. All of them involved a nation meddling through destruction with another nation's politics, economy and culture. The success and the motives themselves can be discussed but that's not the place for it. The fact is, in each of these examples, air force had more impact on the outcome than the other army forces.

@Concessions will be canceled over time :
Canceled by what ?

• You've destroy most of your target's military capacity, along with its capacity to rebuild it. If you're displeased with something, you can act and very few successful opposition will stand in your way.
• You'll make sure that, in the future, any attempt to rebuild this capacity is met with swift bombing. Because of this, the target will remain at your mercy.
• The target will still be allowed to develop its economy, if only to keep its population alive and to be able to pay the regular tribute you ask. They try to use that little freedom to build weapons ? They lose big time.
• You're not invading the territory, you are bombing it. Therefor, you deprive any potential goals to a guerrilla, beside a few symbolic ones. Any "resistance" from the locals will mainly hurt themselves.
• You will allow the target's government to openly defy you...with words. But the minute it fails to honor the trade agreements or it tries to build weapons, you'll bomb the country back to step one, letting the population so miserable it will destitute the government, either to better oppose you or to please you.
• Whatever the intention of the "new" government, they'll learn that, to stay in power, they have to please you. Maybe not officially but they must still pay their tribute.

The Civilization analogy is a poor one since, again, I don't pretend to conquer anything with Air force. I say don't bother with conquest, just force the guy to give what you want and make sure he stays harmless.

The only obstacle to this strategy is the will of the people. But for every citizen who will be ready to fight you with stones, you can be sure they'll be dozens who will just beg you to just let them live in peace. They will give a share of their work for that. That's what most individuals do when opposed to an invincible foe : they compromise and hope for a future opportunity.

[Mike_G]

[B
@Concessions will be canceled over time :
Canceled by what ?

• You've destroy most of your target's military capacity, along with its capacity to rebuild it. If you're displeased with something, you can act and very few successful opposition will stand in your way.
• You'll make sure that, in the future, any attempt to rebuild this capacity is met with swift bombing. Because of this, the target will remain at your mercy.
• The target will still be allowed to develop its economy, if only to keep its population alive and to be able to pay the regular tribute you ask. They try to use that little freedom to build weapons ? They lose big time.
• You're not invading the territory, you are bombing it. Therefor, you deprive any potential goals to a guerrilla, beside a few symbolic ones. Any "resistance" from the locals will mainly hurt themselves.
• You will allow the target's government to openly defy you...with words. But the minute it fails to honor the trade agreements or it tries to build weapons, you'll bomb the country back to step one, letting the population so miserable it will destitute the government, either to better oppose you or to please you.
• Whatever the intention of the "new" government, they'll learn that, to stay in power, they have to please you. Maybe not officially but they must still pay their tribute.

The Civilization analogy is a poor one since, again, I don't pretend to conquer anything with Air force. I say don't bother with conquest, just force the guy to give what you want and make sure he stays harmless.

The only obstacle to this strategy is the will of the people. But for every citizen who will be ready to fight you with stones, you can be sure they'll be dozens who will just beg you to just let them live in peace. They will give a share of their work for that. That's what most individuals do when opposed to an invincible foe : they compromise and hope for a future opportunity.

The people you have mercilessly bombed, who have no conventional military with which to fight you will wage asymetric warfare against you.

You can't both leave them with any resources and deprive them of the tools to build an explosive and a suitcase. Or a fishing boat.

Without treading too far into real world politics, the US has the most powerful air force in the world. We have been proven vulnerable to much less sophisticated enemies.

If you tried to bomb your way to getting what you want, as your scenario argues, I would expect an immigrant with a delivery truck full of fertilizer would shortly make a mess of your capital.

[Dervag]

I might not be understanding you, but it seems that your chain of events has happened many times. Isn't that nearly exactly what the Nazis tried to do to the UK? To bomb the british until they surrendered? They failed, but was due to lack of (total) air superiority, or due to a fundamental weakness in airpower?

Hard to prove one way or the other, I guess.

But there have been at least a dozen wars fought in the twentieth century where air power figured prominently; in no case did we see success flowing from air power alone without a ludicrously unbalanced expenditure of resources on the air campaign. Each time, you can make an excuse/explanation: "They weren't able to obtain air supremacy!" "They had an objective that could not be achieved by air power alone!" "Rules of engagement got in the way!"

The question is: how many times does this need to happen before we conclude that there's an underlying pattern? That air power alone really isn't enough to win the kinds of wars that real nations fight in real life, under the conditions those wars are actually fought?

@Why would a nation want to destroy or enforce its will on others :
...you're joking right ?

No, I'm not. However, I was unclear.

All an air force can do, even in principle, is bomb. The question will always be: how can you do well by bombing alone? No one has ever answered this question satisfactorily.

There are historical empires that worked the way you describe: the central authority had a powerful military and forced everyone around them to pay tribute. The Mongols combined "pay us tribute" with "build no defensive countermeasures;" they banned the cities they ruled from building walls to keep out their horse archer armies. The Aztecs combined "pay us with tribute" with "or be prepared to fight our punitive expedition," and took it to extremes, because periodic rounds of warfare with lots of captured enemy warriors were part of their culture.

But if we look at modern times, we see empires taking very different forms, held together by trade or by "soft power," and not by brute force. Air forces are the purest of all brute force; they'd work wonders for the Mongols. But all they are is force, and we've never seen a successful empire-by-force in the modern era.

It may be that the same technological and economic conditions that make it possible to build an air force make it impossible to rule over a large empire purely by fear of that air force.

@Concessions will be canceled over time :
Canceled by what ?

Drift.

You're the emperor, and your Flying Legions have just given you control of the continent. What happens in the long run? Empires don't last forever for a lot of reasons. Maybe your grandchildren will be fools who squander the empire's treasure and weaken the Flying Legions. Maybe the provinces will (somehow) stage a successful revolt. Maybe the loyalties of the Flying Legions become divided and you can't count on using them to bomb rebel provinces any more. Maybe a natural disaster or bad social policy weakens your ability to field Flying Legions, and the rebels take advantage of that.

Empires-by-force have not proven more stable than other kinds, historically. I don't see why an empire-by-air-force should be different.

The Civilization analogy is a poor one since, again, I don't pretend to conquer anything with Air force. I say don't bother with conquest, just force the guy to give what you want and make sure he stays harmless.

That is conquest; it's what the Mongols did, more or less. And their empires fell apart after a century or two, just like almost every other empire there's ever been. You don't get permanent profit from a subjugated province; you only get it for as long as your empire can last. Which may not be at all long in an age of guerilla warfare.

[Galloglaich]

In India there is the Tschehouta which is a full double-spear. So it exists in RL. Not overly common, as that's the only instance I've seen with a full double-ended spear. Usually, it's only a pseudo-spearhead on one end, like a spike or something. The same kind of thing that is used on the butt-end of a pollaxe and similar weapons. Not really a spearhead as such.

Fhaolan and Daouses have it right. There were 'double spears' but they are quite rare. Much more common was to have a proper spear head and a sharp pointed butt at the other end which you could still thrust with. This was true of most if not all polearms as well. Many of the old manuals teach you guards in which the butt leads first.



I suspect the reason not to have an actual blade on both ends is so you can more easily keep track of where the dangerous part is, since a spear-head will cut as well as a sword does. India has an exception to almost every rule of weapons but by and large, double weapons other than a staff are a fantasy RPG creation, IMO.

The persians had an interesting variation on this which was a sort of a small mace head on the butt of their spear. This was allegedly made of gold or silver in the shape of an apple or a pomegranate.



G.

[Matthew]

Fhaolan and Daouses have it right. There were 'double spears' but they are quite rare. Much more common was to have a proper spear head and a sharp pointed butt at the other end which you could still thrust with. This was true of most if not all polearms as well. Many of the old manuals teach you guards in which the butt leads first.

Polybius has an interesting comment on the Roman cavalry in this regard as well:

In like manner they divide the cavalry into ten squadrons (turmae) and from each they select three officers (decuriones), who themselves appoint three rear-rank officers optiones). The first commander chosen commands the whole squadron, and the two others have the rank of decuriones, all three bearing this title. If the first of them should not be present, the second takes command of the squadron. The cavalry are now armed like that of Greece, but in old times they had no cuirasses but fought in light undergarments, the result of which was that they were able to dismount and mount again at once with great dexterity and facility, but were exposed to great danger in close combat, as they were nearly naked. Their lances too were unserviceable in two respects. In the first place they made them so slender and pliant that it was impossible to take a steady aim, and before they could fix the head in anything, the shaking due to the mere motion of the horse caused most of them to break. Next, as they did not fit the butt-ends with spikes, they could only deliver the first stroke with the point and after this if they broke they were of no further service. Their buckler was made of ox-hide, somewhat similar in shape to the round bosse cakes used at sacrifices. They were not of any use for attacking, as they were not firm enough; and when the leather covering peeled off and rotted owing to the rain, unserviceable as they were before, they now became entirely so. Since therefore their arms did not stand the test of experience, they soon took to making them in the Greek fashion, which ensures that the first stroke of the lance-head shall be both well aimed and telling, since the lance is so constructed as to be steady and strong, and also that it may continue to be effectively used by reversing it and striking with the spike at the butt end. And the same applies to the Greek shields, which being of solid and firm texture do good service both in defence and attack. The Romans, when they noticed this, soon learnt to copy the Greek arms; for this too is one of their virtues, that no people are so ready to adopt new fashions and imitate what they see is better in others. [Book 6, Chapter 25]

[Johel]

The people you have mercilessly bombed, who have no conventional military with which to fight you will wage asymetric warfare against you.

You can't both leave them with any resources and deprive them of the tools to build an explosive and a suitcase. Or a fishing boat.

Without treading too far into real world politics, the US has the most powerful air force in the world. We have been proven vulnerable to much less sophisticated enemies.

If you tried to bomb your way to getting what you want, as your scenario argues, I would expect an immigrant with a delivery truck full of fertilizer would shortly make a mess of your capital.

That's true. Let's look at some maths, though.

Population of the US : around 300.000.000 people

Asymmetric warfare against the US territory : barely 3.000 deads over the last 10 years. An average 300 per year.
Murders in the US : around 5.400 every year.
Car accident in the US : around 40.000 deads every year.

None of these three have a noticeable impact on demography. You certainly don't even raise an eyebrow at the mention of a car crash. And a murder will barely catch your attention. Terrorist attack ? Now I get you but only because it's sudden, brutal and, above all, rare. Not because it's overall impact is big.

A terrorist attack creates a "panic" reaction but if you start to have them on a frequent basis, you just think of it as another form of criminality. It's still tragic. But it's nothing you'll lose sleep about. Also, once it becomes frequent, measures are taken to make it less likely, making the really juicy targets very difficult to hit.

Meanwhile, in the oppressed nation, a whole population is working, generating wealth that goes partly to the oppressing nation, funding the anti-terrorist plan AND the welfare of citizens.

Also, if you know that you playing kamikaze is going to make your family's house being bombed, you got a lot less incentive to do it. Those who do it will be cursed by their own parents, maybe by the whole nation if retaliation is undiscriminate.

But again, this out of topic.

Point is, you use Air Force to destroy so that your target is forced into submission OR is so badly hurt it is neither a threat nor an interesting partner. Most nation submits before being in ruins, making air raids cost-effective in the long run, unlike military occupation.
However, ground force are necessary if you don't want to bomb and let the local population in misery. As such, ground force are the "soft" tool of modern armies.
For less-than-modern armies with obsolete air force, ground force is still the "hard" tool but only because their manpower is a lot cheaper than equipment.

[Mike_G]

That's true. Let's look at some maths, though.

Population of the US : around 300.000.000 people

Asymmetric warfare against the US territory : barely 3.000 deads over the last 10 years. An average 300 per year.
Murders in the US : around 5.400 every year.
Car accident in the US : around 40.000 deads every year.

None of these three have a noticeable impact on demography. You certainly don't even raise an eyebrow at the mention of a car crash. And a murder will barely catch your attention. Terrorist attack ? Now I get you but only because it's sudden, brutal and, above all, rare. Not because it's overall impact is big.

A terrorist attack creates a "panic" reaction but if you start to have them on a frequent basis, you just think of it as another form of criminality. It's still tragic. But it's nothing you'll lose sleep about. Also, once it becomes frequent, measures are taken to make it less likely, making the really juicy targets very difficult to hit.

But a single terrorist attack did more to change our policies and laws than all the car crashes, murders and cancer deaths combined.

Meanwhile, in the oppressed nation, a whole population is working, generating wealth that goes partly to the oppressing nation, funding the anti-terrorist plan AND the welfare of citizens.

Also, if you know that you playing kamikaze is going to make your family's house being bombed, you got a lot less incentive to do it. Those who do it will be cursed by their own parents, maybe by the whole nation if retaliation is undiscriminate.

Lots of terrorists are not reviled by their countrymen. Many are cheered on, especially if the people feel they have no other way to hit back at their oppressors.

My forebears, the Irish, are some of history's most successful terrorists. We don't revile them. We name pubs after them in Boston.

Now, if, instead of just trying to bomb them into the stone age, you invade and set up a new government, and give them the option to peacefully participate and vote and so on, they may think martyrdom is a bad idea, but many cultures have embraced it.

Point is, you use Air Force to destroy so that your target is forced into submission OR is so badly hurt it is neither a threat nor an interesting partner. Most nation submits before being in ruins, making air raids cost-effective in the long run, unlike military occupation.
However, ground force are necessary if you don't want to bomb and let the local population in misery. As such, ground force are the "soft" tool of modern armies.
For less-than-modern armies with obsolete air force, ground force is still the "hard" tool but only because their manpower is a lot cheaper than equipment.

It would be cost effective, if it were effective.

It generally isn't. It has underperformed far more often than it has gotten results. If you have very modest expectations, and a very good air force, and a not very resilient enemy, ideally with a strong domestic opposition, then maybe, just maybe you can pull it off.

More likely, you fire up the enemy, unite them in opposition to you, and as the Japanese found when the attack on Pearl Harbor, while it did cripple our Pacific fleet, did more to ensure their eventual defeat than pretty much any other policy they could have come up with.

The London Blitz didn't work. Allied bombings of Germany didn't work. Bombing of Japan didn't work until Hiroshima, and that wouldn't have worked if we weren't already knocking on the door with an invasion force. We couldn't bomb North Korea or Vietnam into surrender, nor Iraq nor Afghanistan.

Air Power is nice to have in the toolbox, but it cannot win wars by itself, unless you are fighting an enemy so much weaker than you that we could just send the Coast Guard or the Boy Scouts and beat them.

[a_humble_lich]

In many ways it seems air power should be compared to navel power instead of ground forces. Many of the traditional roles of a navy can be filled with an air force: blockades, costal bombardment, transportation of material or ground forces. In some areas it is far more effective or efficient to use surface ships, such as transporting materials, but in others aircraft have an advantage. Modern navies have been transformed so that aircraft are now an integral part (except for submarine fleets).

Historically there have been very few wars that have been determined solely with navies. I'd argue that the type of conflicts that could have been determined with only naval forces now could also be determined with air power (or the threat of air power). However, the number of cases of conflicts fought solely at sea is quite small. Most of the examples I can think of are either defensive (use your navy or air force to destroy and invading fleet before they can land), or cases of gunboat diplomacy (like the second Barbary war or Admiral Perry opening Japan) which I'm not sure could happen in the modern world.

[Dervag]

The other case was trade wars, where the fleet's integral ground troops (marines and naval infantry) were enough to secure the islands that were of interest. See Mahan for reference.

[Galloglaich]

Polybius has an interesting comment on the Roman cavalry in this regard as well:

Very interesting. It sounds like Polybius is describing the shift from light cavalry to medium cavalry. I think this may have happened in stages more than once. In the Republican period when Polybius was alive, the "Greeks" (Macedonians) had their companion cavalry, which would be kitted out more or less as he described, but the really heavy cavalry with armored horses came from further East. The origins of the knight, in fact. Imperial Roman Legions and their Cavalry screening forces were decimated several times by Sarmatian and Parthian Cataphracts who were able to charge into the Legions with relative impunity, then go back to regroup while archers softened them up. This cost at least one Emperor his life in the East. The Visi-Goths adopted this tactic (and kit) at Adrianople which saw the grizly end of yet another Roman Emperor. Later the Romans adopted their own version of this 'super' heavy cavalry which they called Clibinarii.

G.

[Dervag]

Did these guys evolve into the Byzantine cataphract?

[Matthew]

Very interesting. It sounds like Polybius is describing the shift from light cavalry to medium cavalry. I think this may have happened in stages more than once. In the Republican period when Polybius was alive, the "Greeks" (Macedonians) had their companion cavalry, which would be kitted out more or less as he described, but the really heavy cavalry with armoured horses came from further East. The origins of the knight, in fact. Imperial Roman Legions and their Cavalry screening forces were decimated several times by Sarmatian and Parthian Cataphracts who were able to charge into the Legions with relative impunity, then go back to regroup while archers softened them up. This cost at least one Emperor his life in the East. The Visi-Goths adopted this tactic (and kit) at Adrianople which saw the grizly end of yet another Roman Emperor. Later the Romans adopted their own version of this 'super' heavy cavalry which they called Clibinarii.

Indeed; and it is interesting to note his reference to Greek cavalry using shields, which we must suppose means they are not likely of the kontos sort. Interesting suggestion about the repeat development of heavy horse, as it obviously requires a good deal of specialisation that can easily be lost. Definitely something to think about.

Did these guys evolve into the Byzantine cataphract?

Exactly what the relationship between the Byzantine cataphracts and their eastern counterparts was is not completely clear, but it is probably safe to say that the Byzantines borrowed from the Persian/Parthian set up. Some articles on the subject (if I recall correctly):

John W. Eadie, The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2. (1967), pp. 161-173.

A. D. H. Bivar, Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 26. (1972), pp. 271-291.

A. Lewin, Kastron Mefaa, The Equites Promoti Indienae and the Creation of a Late Roman Frontier, (2001)

[Dervag]

I mean, did the clibinarii evolve into the cataphracts?

[HenryHankovitch]

I suspect the reason not to have an actual blade on both ends is so you can more easily keep track of where the dangerous part is, since a spear-head will cut as well as a sword does. India has an exception to almost every rule of weapons but by and large, double weapons other than a staff are a fantasy RPG creation, IMO.

For that matter, isn't the "staff as a double weapon" concept unique to fantasy RPGs also? As far as I know most staff-fighting systems focus mainly on gripping the staff asymmetrically, rather like a spear, and thrusting and bashing with the "long end." Which is, after all, just using the reach that the weapon gives you to its full advantage, as you would with any melee weapon.

I suspect that the double-weapon meme comes from Robin Hood and wuxia movies, rather than any basis in fact.

Back to the spearpoints...having a metal cap or spike on the reverse tip of your spear is desirable to serve as a (partial) counterweight for the spearhead. It also probably has functional use in terms of helping to keep the shaft from splintering or rotting at the end; especially in terms of a military weapon that soldiers are going to be carrying around for days on end, dragging, dropping, stacking, etc. Having a spike instead of a cap on the reverse end seems to me to be more a functional implement, for jabbing into the ground to "set" the spear, or even just to stand it upright when not in use. It seems improbable that any spear or pike user, in formation, would actually try to flip his weapon end-for-end if the spearhead was somehow blunted or broken. He'd be better off either continuing to use the blunted end, protecting his comrades with it, or dropping it and switching to whatever backup weapon he would be carrying.

[Matthew]

I mean, did the clibinarii evolve into the cataphracts?

That would be a terminology issue. Here is what John W. Eadie has to say:

The word clibanarius occurs for the first time in SHA, vita Alexandri Severi 56, 5 (purportedly from a speech delivered by Alexander Severus on 25 September, 233) : 'centum et viginti milia equitum eorum (i.e. Sassanian) fudimus, cataphractarios, quos illi clibanarios vocant, decem milia in be110 interemimus, eorum armis nostros armavimus '. This passage has been often cited as proof that clibanarius is the 'Roman name for the Persian cavalryman armed like the Roman cataphractarius '.47 Admittedly clibanarius and cataphractarius are interchanged indiscriminately by some fourth-century writers, especially Ammianus Marcellinus, but the two units were differentiated by their armour and were organized separately during the fourth century. M. Rostovtzeff, one of the few scholars to appreciate the distinction, explained the simultaneous use of cataphractarii and clibanarii as an effort ' to distinguish the cataphractarii of the Roman auxiliary forces from the real clibanarii of the Persian and later Roman army . . . there was a certain difference between them . . . the cataphractarii wearing no helmets and using horses not protected by armour as a rule '.45

The best description of the Sassanian clibanarius is provided by Heliodorus, Aethiopica 9, 15. The rider is almost completely encased in bronze or iron : a one-piece mask-helmet covers his head entirely with the exception of eye-slits ; his body, from shoulders to knees, is protected by a mail suit constructed of small, overlapping bronze or iron plates, which are sufficiently pliant to permit freedom of movement ; attached to the mail coat are
greaves to protect his legs and feet. The horse is similarly armoured : head covered by a metal plate ([Greek word]) back and flanks protected by a ' blanket ' of thin iron plates ([Greek Word]) legs fitted with metal greaves (Greek Word) the horse's belly and presumably his eyes and tail are unprotected.

Heliodorus' description has been corroborated by the discovery of the ' charging clibanarius' graffito and contemporary horse-armour at Dura Europus. The armour worn by the horseman of the graffito is strikingly similar to it (see pl. XI,2) : lorica squamata coat from shoulders to knees ; arms, legs and feet protected by parallel metal rings (lorica segmentata). Heliodorus' mask-helmet, however, does not appear ; the graffito horseman wears a conical helmet with a mesh veil attached to protect the face. The horse is outfitted in the manner described by Heliodorus-only the hoofs, tail and eyes are visible. That such armour is not merely the product of literary or artistic imagination was proved by the discovery, in 1932 at Dura-Europus, of several ' blankets ', constructed of iron plates stitched to a cloth backing, which were designed to protect the horse's back and flanks. The literary descriptions and artistic representations also detail the relatively simple weapons of the third century clibanarius : the long pike (contus) and a sword or dagger worn at the side. It should be noted that these are also the weapons of the Roman contarius and cataphractarius (i.e. mailed contarius) ; evidently few, if any, of these cavalrymen carried a bow.

Sorry about any formatting issues, the pdf copy and paste function was not too good.

[Galloglaich]

For that matter, isn't the "staff as a double weapon" concept unique to fantasy RPGs also? As far as I know most staff-fighting systems focus mainly on gripping the staff asymmetrically, rather like a spear, and thrusting and bashing with the "long end." Which is, after all, just using the reach that the weapon gives you to its full advantage, as you would with any melee weapon.

I suspect that the double-weapon meme comes from Robin Hood and wuxia movies, rather than any basis in fact.

Yes and know. "Quarter staff" is the normal guard you are talking about (where you hold the weapon from the rear quarter) used with staves and spears and polearms of all types, but a "Half Staff" guard is also used typically at close range. This is all over poleaxe manuals and staff manuals.






You are correct in that it's a common myth in movies and cartooons and rpgs and computer games to see people starting a fight in half-staff, but it is a place you can and will get to if the fight goes to close range, it is arguably the best way you can still handle a weapon like that in close range, but of course with a long weapon you normally try to use a staff weapon of any kind at range, to take advantage of the reach.

However to me for the record the way DnD handles "double weapons" including the staff as a "double weapon" is absurd and juvenile, and clumsy. Don't even get me started on all the dire flails and special ork weapons and the like. For a while I saw two bladed swords on ebay, sharp metal ones... really scary (for all the wrong reasons)

Back to the spearpoints...having a metal cap or spike on the reverse tip of your spear is desirable to serve as a (partial) counterweight for the spearhead. It also probably has functional use in terms of helping to keep the shaft from splintering or rotting at the end; especially in terms of a military weapon that soldiers are going to be carrying around for days on end, dragging, dropping, stacking, etc. Having a spike instead of a cap on the reverse end seems to me to be more a functional implement, for jabbing into the ground to "set" the spear, or even just to stand it upright when not in use. It seems improbable that any spear or pike user, in formation, would actually try to flip his weapon end-for-end if the spearhead was somehow blunted or broken. He'd be better off either continuing to use the blunted end, protecting his comrades with it, or dropping it and switching to whatever backup weapon he would be carrying.

Spear butts were used tthe way you described, but also as weapons and a 'butt-forward' guard is common in the manuals. There are many references in various period documens from Classical times through the 19th Century of spermen or lancers or billmen or spearmen etc. using the butt to attack after the point or blade breaks.

G.

[Mike_G]

Bayonet fighting is similar.

You want to put the blade in the other guy, but if he is too close, the butt of the rifle is a nice heavy thing to bash with. Plus, if he deflects your point, you can "punch" your right hand forward and pull pack with the left, bringing the stock whipping around to hit him. It works nicely.

Polearms in formation were likely used point forward, so as not to foul the other weapons, but in individual melee, the haft and back end of the weapon are perfectly good for smacking people.

[Galloglaich]

Agreed... I think bayonett drill evolved from staff or bill weapons, pikes are not very likely to be used at 'half staff' although there is some written material (from England, IIRC) about fighting with "long staves" up to 12 feet long in individual combat. That is kind of a freaky specialty thing.

G>

[Galloglaich]

That would be a terminology issue. Here is what John W. Eadie has to say:


Sorry about any formatting issues, the pdf copy and paste function was not too good.

Thats wierd! I never heard of cavalry (or any troops) fighting with body armor and no helmet. I thought that only happened on TV shows and movies :) Goes to show you (and re-emphasize) that it's dangerous to make assumptions about life a thousand or more years ago. Things were a lot different than we realize.

I just finished Procopius very amusing "Secret History" and I'm going to read his history of Emperor Justinians conquests next, that is supposed to be one of the best sources for early Byzantine warfare.

One of the wierdest things I already read in "Secret History" which is apparently explained a bit more in the other book, was reference to a 'whale' which was at war with the Roman Empire, harassing shipping and attacking docks and port facilities in the Bosporous, allegedly for 50 years!!!! Sounds like something from a bad Sci Fi Channel film.

Who knows maybe they are more historical than I realized all along :)

G.

[Matthew]

That's weird! I never heard of cavalry (or any troops) fighting with body armour and no helmet. I thought that only happened on TV shows and movies :) Goes to show you (and re-emphasize) that it's dangerous to make assumptions about life a thousand or more years ago. Things were a lot different than we realize.

Yes, I was surprised to read that as well. It could just be a misunderstanding of the iconographic evidence, where "heroic" figures (much like in modern movies and comic books) are being depicted without helmets to emphasise their identity. Something I plan to be looking out for in the future, certainly.

I just finished Procopius very amusing "Secret History" and I'm going to read his history of Emperor Justinian's conquests next, that is supposed to be one of the best sources for early Byzantine warfare.

One of the weirdest things I already read in "Secret History" which is apparently explained a bit more in the other book, was reference to a 'whale' which was at war with the Roman Empire, harassing shipping and attacking docks and port facilities in the Bosporous, allegedly for 50 years!!!! Sounds like something from a bad Sci Fi Channel film.

Who knows maybe they are more historical than I realized all along :)

Ha! I have never heard that anecdote before; very amusing.

[fusilier]

I agree. Of France, Britain and Russia, Russia was in the weakest position - though thats not to belittle their efforts. The German game plan was to knock out France - when that didn't happen Russia was the obvious target, as there was no way to get at Britain at the time. It think its fair to say Russia was weak militarily - certainly in equipment terms - not manpower. And the events of August 1914 must've led the Germans to believe they were beatable.

There's actually a line of thinking now, that the German military command egged on Austria to start the war with Russia (by invading Serbia). The Russians were in the middle of reforming their army, and this was expected to be completed by 1917. The German High Command felt that if they completed their reforms, they wouldn't be able to defeat them, and didn't know if they would get another chance at war.

Also, the leading ally in WW1 was France. If France could be knocked out of the war, then Britain could at least be isolated, even if not induced to peace talks. Britain suing for peace after the fall of France, seems more plausible in WW1 than in WW2. The German attack at Verdun in 1916 took away a lot of material from the Russian Front (and possibly botched an opportunity to knock Italy out of the war), but was totally aimed at bleeding the French.

As for opening up other fronts in WW1, many high commanders like Haig were totally against these actions. They felt that the war would be fought and won on the Western Front (or in Cadorna's case the Italian Front). While Gallipoli was a failure, the Macedonia front was more successful . . . eventually. However, most other fronts tended to turn into a similar kind of stalemate, even if they weren't as intense as the Western Front.