Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Mike_G]

If George Silver is to be believed, nothing. I don't know much about rapiers myself, but Silver claimed that rapiers sucked at defense. And rapier duels tended to be a contest of who could make the first attack (which is also why rapiers got longer and longer).

Many RPGs apparently think that since the rapier is considered a fencing weapon (by modern sport fencers; others call longsword fighting also fencing), it must have been good at defense, but that was really the smallsword.

Silver's bias blinds him to the fact that the rapier was a useful weapon. He may have a point in preferring another weapon, and he may have been exposed to some bad rapier fencers, but it's a decent weapon.

Simultaneously running one another through is bad technique with any weapon. It's not the rapier's fault for being too offensive based. I've seen a lot of Kendo fencers who whack one another one the head simultaneously and nobody tried to say that Samurai couldn't parry. Just because bad practitioners don't doesn't mean you can't.

You can parry any thrusting weapon with a rapier without difficulty. Fencing guards are all about angle and leverage. You could parry a cut from a longsword or one handed cutting sword so long as you deflected it and didn't meet it with a straight "block." Not that you ever want to do that with any weapon.

Not sure how you'd parry a heavy impact weapon like a mace or poleaxe, but you have a big reach advantage on a mace, and the momentum of a heavy weapon would let you void and counterattack pretty well.

That said, a rapier is designed for unarmored civilian combat. Duels or street brawls. Heavy maces are designed for fighting armored men on the battlefield. Asking which is better is like asking if a submachine gun is better than a sniper rifle. It all depends on what you want to do with it.

[Autolykos]

a kanabo, jo, or hanbo could crush the armor of a knight.

I can see a kanabo seriously damaging armor, but a jo/hanbo is basically just a glorified broomstick. Chainmail plus padding would be more than enough to render it ineffective, and I doubt someone wearing plate would actually feel it. I'm not even sure a baseball bat would be enough.

[Galloglaich]

Silver's bias blinds him to the fact that the rapier was a useful weapon.

To build upon what Mike said, I would also add that the term "rapier" included a wide range of actual weapons. The rapier in Joachim Meyer or Marozzo was around 36" and designed as much for cutting as thrusting, it was really just an arming sword or cut-thrust sword with a more complex hilt, whereas the later Spanish and Bolognese dueling rapiers could be as almost a foot longer. There were also inbetween weapon some modern practitioners call a 'sidesword' known as spada da lato in some Italian documents or a sword of the robes (espada ropera) in both cases referring to a civiilian sidearm.

This gives you an idea of the range of sizes

Spoiler

Show

There were also rapiers designed as sidearms for the battlefield, and those designed strictly for civilian dueling. The weapons below are both rapiers, which one do you think is for the battlefield?



Rapiers on their own are decent if not great for defense, but almost every fencing manual trains for their use with a dagger, a shield, a buckler, or even a cloak in the off-hand. Rapier with dagger is a surprisingly effective defensive combintion, as you can see in one of the videos I already posted.



Regarding the Kanobo, I agree it would not necessarily be of any effect against an armored opponent. If you want an instant eye-opener on how effective armor is against blunt objects, watch some of those Battle of Nations videos from Poland. Guys run across the field and whack each other in the head with 7 foot halberds. I don't think anyone has died yet (though there have been some injuries). For a weapon to damage someone through plate or even mail and plate armor it has to be well shaped iron or steel, a wooden club isn't going to cut it (unless it really is 30 pounds like the Kanobo supposedly was on that stupid tv show, but in that case just step out of the way and cut them after that beast goes by..... they won't be able to swing it much!)

The Japanese were tough, they did fight off two Mongol invasions (albiet with a little divine help). The historical reality is that European fighters of the equivalent period were also pretty dangerous, though they tend to be underestimaed in the pop culture today for a variety of reasons.

G

[eulmanis12]

I can see a kanabo seriously damaging armor, but a jo/hanbo is basically just a glorified broomstick. Chainmail plus padding would be more than enough to render it ineffective, and I doubt someone wearing plate would actually feel it. I'm not even sure a baseball bat would be enough.

having seen a kanabo in use (against a reproduction target) I have no trouble believing that it could do some serious damage to an armored person.

Assuming a jo/hanbo impacts with the same amount of force give or take as a baseball bat, I can say from the experiance of being hit with a bat repeatedly while in a partial suit of plate that they would cause only minor discomfort and mild annoyance to an armored knight. Though a blow to the helmet may stun a knight temporarily (from the experiance of taking a bat to the head in a reproduction steel helmet I can say this is a possibility)

[Spiryt]

Many people watching Battle of nations get somehow offended, lol, saying expect that strikes with axes, voulges and similar hefty stuff must be pulled, or otherwise 'fake' because they tend to have minimal effect of wearer.

Of course, modern reenacting armors, particularly padded clothing and mail, tend to be often grossly 'panzer', lol. But still there must be the reason why great amount of sources depicts precise thrusts, or better yet, if possible, grappling or generally pinning down the target to place the dagger in face/joint, take his helmet off etc.

Trying to forcefully chop down well built man in solidly damping cloth and iron/steel blocking the way will often tend to be a way to seriously waste your gas for not so much effect.

[Yukitsu]

Plate armor was prevalent in Europe by the late 14th Century. The arquebus was not introduced into Japan (by the Portuguese) until the mid 16th Century.


G

I don't actually recall plate being well represented in anywhere other than Italy and some parts of Germany until the 1500s (and doubt that it was ever truly common even there.) I don't think I'd call something worn by 2 countries as explicitly prevalent. Was there something I'm missing regarding plate being fairly common throughout Europe during the 1400s across Europe?

As was mentioned by a poster above, the Samurai did have bullet proofed armour, though in quantities so low that saying a typical samurai would wear it is absurd. I think a similar thing can be said of a knight during the 1400s, and even much of the 1500s regarding plate. Was there any indication that your average knight could afford a full suit of plate during that time in say, England, Spain etc.?

I don't know what any of this is based on. By the 1600's most European knights carried wheellock or flintlock pistols and carbines on their horses with them, and matchlock muskets were ubiquitous among the infantry. The Dutch had invented volley fire in the 1500's and it was widespread by the end of the 16th Century.

As for the scale of battles, during the 30 years war in the first half of the 1600's over a million combattants fought.

Volley fire obviously doesn't have much to do with knights. A few guys pretty much jousting with a pistol don't have the same impact on an armoured formation than would a full on volley of shots. And European volley fire was very inconsistent with year and nationality. The volley fire formation up until you get to perhaps Frederick the great were fairly thick and integrated with spear armed troops to counter knights that would try to get mixed into them. The Japanese formation is much thinner, closer to the mid 1700s European system (and coincidentally, proved to be much more susceptible to cavalry charges during the battle of Mikatagahara.)

They were actually using an archaic form of matchlock, based on copies of firearms sold to them by the Portuguese in the 16th Century. The penetration of these weapons didn't match European or Ottoman muskets of the same period.

G

Is there a source on that for the European models? I do know the Japanese ordered and maintained a large number of heavy caliber guns with greatly superior stopping power (IIRC, 1 in 10 after demilitarization, likely similar ratios before) and in any event, you can't deny the Japanese were using iron sights either before or more prevalently than the Europeans.

I have seen Ottoman guns with .7+ calibers, but from what I can tell, these were considered superior to whatever the Europeans were making during that era.

[Spiryt]

I don't actually recall plate being well represented in anywhere other than Italy and some parts of Germany until the 1500s (and doubt that it was ever truly common even there.) I don't think I'd call something worn by 2 countries as explicitly prevalent. Was there something I'm missing regarding plate being fairly common throughout Europe during the 1400s across Europe?

Well, are you serious?

Plate is well represented in whole Europe since first quarter of 15th century.

With some elements of plates/transitional stuff here and there, but it doesn't really change much, trough the whole 15th century more and more people are being mostly armored in steel plates all over the body.

Whole page

Spoiler

Show

[Brother Oni]

Assuming a jo/hanbo impacts with the same amount of force give or take as a baseball bat, I can say from the experiance of being hit with a bat repeatedly while in a partial suit of plate that they would cause only minor discomfort and mild annoyance to an armored knight. Though a blow to the helmet may stun a knight temporarily (from the experiance of taking a bat to the head in a reproduction steel helmet I can say this is a possibility)

A jo won't hit with the same force as a baseball bat as it's a far lighter weapon, but that's fine as it's not intended to be a straight clubbing implement.

Against armoured opponents, you'd use the jo to control by tripping, joint locks, head thrusts, etc, then disarm and immobilise them.

I don't think it going to be too effective when you have a fully armoured knight with sword and shield bearing down on top of you, but when you have essentially a short stick to defend yourself with, of course things are going to be stacked against you.

[Yukitsu]

Well, are you serious?

Plate is well represented in whole Europe since first quarter of 15th century.

With some elements of plates/transitional stuff here and there, but it doesn't really change much, trough the whole 15th century more and more people are being mostly armored in steel plates all over the body.

Can't get that link to work properly. Can get to the site, but can't open the thumbs on the site. Those were knights that were wearing plate armour? If so, the handful of individuals there doesn't exactly mean plate is a strong representation of what people in practice would wear into a battle. Yes, more and more people wore it, and wanted to wear it, but would a typical knight have access to it during the era have what they wanted, or be forced to wear mail? I mean, from a quick wiki search, most of those guys on that page hold positions above knight. Ernst der Einster for example, is a Duke. That's well above the wealth a knight can command.

[Spiryt]

Can't get that link to work properly. Can get to the site, but can't open the thumbs on the site. Those were knights that were wearing plate armour? If so, the handful of individuals there doesn't exactly mean plate is a strong representation of what people in practice would wear into a battle. Yes, more and more people wore it, and wanted to wear it, but would a typical knight have access to it during the era have what they wanted, or be forced to wear mail? I mean, from a quick wiki search, most of those guys on that page hold positions above knight. Ernst der Einster for example, is a Duke. That's well above the wealth a knight can command.

By 15th century mail was sometimes getting more expensive than simple plate armor.... And not only knights, but 'humble' folk without much money were wearing some simple plate as well.

Spoiler

Show

Ernst der Einster for example, is a Duke. That's well above the wealth a knight can command

Wealth was in no way completely dependent on social status. You would have plenty of burgmaisters, mayors, Vogts, etc. with very good armor.


In 15th century, plate armor of different design and quality is common place, there's no really much else to say here.

Mail hauberks worn alone and covering much more than torso at best, generally disappear before the first half of the century.

[Yukitsu]

By 15th century mail was sometimes getting more expensive than simple plate armor.... And not only knights, but 'humble' folk without much money were wearing some simple plate as well.

Spoiler

Show

Noted, but having pieces of simple plate or parts of plate kind of misses the point. People from pretty much everywhere have incorporated simple plates in their armour for thousands of years. The full suit of plate armour that didn't share the weaknesses of those part plate sets were what distinguish European knights as better armoured, not that they were using plates to reinforce certain parts. I mean, were those humble folk as you call them wearing full suits of plate armour? Would you see a simple English man-at-arms wearing Maximillian armour? Because when saying "so and so is better armoured as a warrior class" you can't really say having some simple plate is the same as having a complete plate armour set.

A suit incorporating a breastplate is good and can be cheaper than mail, certainly, but when people compare that to other nations, you'll generally find it's essentially par for the course. It's that full plate that allowed a full range of motion that was superior, and I'd be very skeptical if I was told that a suit of full plate was less expensive than mail.

[Spiryt]

Noted, but having pieces of simple plate or parts of plate kind of misses the point. People from pretty much everywhere have incorporated simple plates in their armour for thousands of years. The full suit of plate armour that didn't share the weaknesses of those part plate sets were what distinguish European knights as better armoured, not that they were using plates to reinforce certain parts. I mean, were those humble folk as you call them wearing full suits of plate armour? Would you see a simple English man-at-arms wearing Maximillian armour? Because when saying "so and so is better armoured as a warrior class" you can't really say having some simple plate is the same as having a complete plate armour set.

A suit incorporating a breastplate is good and can be cheaper than mail, certainly, but when people compare that to other nations, you'll generally find it's essentially par for the course. It's that full plate that allowed a full range of motion that was superior, and I'd be very skeptical if I was told that a suit of full plate was less expensive than mail.

I think that bringin in 'superior', "better armored" "Maximilian" obscures it quite a lot...

People were wearing plate in different configurations, and styles, depending needs, wealth, fashion etc.

Who is 'better' armored is then a bit hard to define, just as 'full' plate can be.

But all in all, any knight or more professional or seasoned combatant would generally wear plate torso, arms, hips, - legs would probably depend on if he was mounted or not.

Sometimes there would be brigandines in place of breastplates, sometimes coat of plates as late as ~ 1430 - reason for choosing one over another aren't very clear to us.

Sometimes there was a lot of mail incorporated as well.

Bottom line is, that more of less full plate was 'standard' metal armor in 15th century. Other things were usually only supplementing.

Pretty nice reconstruction

[Straybow]

What if anything would a master of the rapier be able to parry and block? Could he (or she) deflect a longsword effectively? A katana? A claymore? A mace? A spiked chain?

If George Silver is to be believed, nothing. I don't know much about rapiers myself, but Silver claimed that rapiers sucked at defense. And rapier duels tended to be a contest of who could make the first attack (which is also why rapiers got longer and longer).

That is an incomplete answer. Parry? Yes, a rapier can parry any of those except a spiked chain (no flail type weapon can really be parried effectively). However, parrying most of those is not a sure defense. Rapier and German longsword fencing is all about sliding over, under, around the parries as counters, and counters of counters, ad infinitum. A sure defense requires blocking at something close to 90°, which the English called a stop. Once stopped the opponent has to make large, slow movements to get around the stop, which buys the defender time to act safely. The rapier can make a stop, if you're not using it as a rapier but instead as a thin, light, less effective broadsword. But it can't make a reliable, good stop.

Silver's bias blinds him to the fact that the rapier was a useful weapon. He may have a point in preferring another weapon, and he may have been exposed to some bad rapier fencers, but it's a decent weapon.

Silver was well versed in rapier, and challenged at least one self-promoting teacher to prove (with rapier, sword, staff, etc) the superiority he claimed to have over vulgar English fencers. The teacher declined to show up.

Simultaneously running one another through is bad technique with any weapon. It's not the rapier's fault for being too offensive based. I've seen a lot of Kendo fencers who whack one another one the head simultaneously and nobody tried to say that Samurai couldn't parry. Just because bad practitioners don't doesn't mean you can't.

That is part of Silver's complaint, that the rapier cannot make a sure defense. Kendo suffers a similar deficit, not being trained to block effectively. The other half is that it is ineffective at anything but thrusting, which doesn't have the "knock down power" needed. One could be pierced many times with little immediate effect. Whack off a hand and you have immediate results.

You can parry any thrusting weapon with a rapier without difficulty. Fencing guards are all about angle and leverage. You could parry a cut from a longsword or one handed cutting sword so long as you deflected it and didn't meet it with a straight "block." Not that you ever want to do that with any weapon.

Why not? We use a weapon to protect the wielder, not to protect the pristine edge of the blade from getting boo-boos.

Not sure how you'd parry a heavy impact weapon like a mace or poleaxe, but you have a big reach advantage on a mace, and the momentum of a heavy weapon would let you void and counterattack pretty well.

That said, a rapier is designed for unarmored civilian combat. Duels or street brawls. Heavy maces are designed for fighting armored men on the battlefield. Asking which is better is like asking if a submachine gun is better than a sniper rifle. It all depends on what you want to do with it.

The question arises because RPGs put rapier on equal terms with martial weapons for offense and defense, which it is not, and against armored opponents, which it definitely is not.

To build upon what Mike said, I would also add that the term "rapier" included a wide range of actual weapons. The rapier in Joachim Meyer or Marozzo was around 36" and designed as much for cutting as thrusting, it was really just an arming sword or cut-thrust sword with a more complex hilt, whereas the later Spanish and Bolognese dueling rapiers could be as almost a foot longer. There were also inbetween weapon some modern practitioners call a 'sidesword' known as spada da lato in some Italian documents or a sword of the robes (espada ropera) in both cases referring to a civiilian sidearm.

Silver explicitly wrote against the "long" rapier that dominated at the end of the 16th century. "(I)n all their actions appertaining to their defence, they are unable, in due time to perform, and continually in danger of every cross..." For a rapier of proper length (for average stature, even 36 inches is a few too long) he was critical of the lack of good defense with the "Italianated" methods, but at least it didn't have the problem of being too long to quickly uncross.

[Knaight]

About how resilient to damage were historical wooden shafts used in the early medieval period in Europe? Obviously the movie portrayal where one casually chops the end off of multiple spears/axes/whatever with a swing is patently absurd, but just how much abuse could they usually take, assuming minimal metal reinforcement.

[Spiryt]

About how resilient to damage were historical wooden shafts used in the early medieval period in Europe? Obviously the movie portrayal where one casually chops the end off of multiple spears/axes/whatever with a swing is patently absurd, but just how much abuse could they usually take, assuming minimal metal reinforcement.

This can be quite tricky, I guess, since we obviously don't have any of them really well preserved, but modern solid, well shaped ash or oak haft with even rings can take quite a lot of abuse, at least from blunt weapons.

So even with sharp ones, as long as one doesn't alow opponent to really bite into it, it should last a while.

Some merry Russians

[Beleriphon]

About how resilient to damage were historical wooden shafts used in the early medieval period in Europe? Obviously the movie portrayal where one casually chops the end off of multiple spears/axes/whatever with a swing is patently absurd, but just how much abuse could they usually take, assuming minimal metal reinforcement.

Depends, probably as much as good solid wooden axe handle these days. Some fireaxes still have a wooden shaft, so there's that as a comparison. Strength also depends on the type of wood, which way the grain is going, and how it is used.

Bamboo spears can be nasty given how tough it is, but at the same time its not that hard to hack apart using something as simple as a machete. I wouldn't want to try a similar feat with treated oak or yew.

[Mike_G]

Silver was well versed in rapier, and challenged at least one self-promoting teacher to prove (with rapier, sword, staff, etc) the superiority he claimed to have over vulgar English fencers. The teacher declined to show up.

The plural of "anecdote" is still not "data."

Rapiers can defend. A glancing parry may not stop a cut, but it will cause it to miss, and allow for a quicker counter. That's different than broadsword fighting, but different doesn't mean useless.

That is part of Silver's complaint, that the rapier cannot make a sure defense. Kendo suffers a similar deficit, not being trained to block effectively. The other half is that it is ineffective at anything but thrusting, which doesn't have the "knock down power" needed. One could be pierced many times with little immediate effect. Whack off a hand and you have immediate results.

But a decent rapier fencer will be taught to defend. As will a decent kendo fencer. If you don't learn to defend, you learn to bleed out in your first fight.

If you've read my posts at all, you know I am a believer in the idea that a cut is m,ore immediately disabling than a thrust, so there I agree with Silver.

And some rapiers did have an edge. At least enough to draw cut, if not hack through a limb.

Why not? We use a weapon to protect the wielder, not to protect the pristine edge of the blade from getting boo-boos.

I never said one tries to protect the edge from boo boos. If you try a flat 90 degree stop with a rapier against a heavier blade, you may not effectively parry at all. Better to meet the cut at a shallow angle, and deflect the cut enough so it misses, then put your point in his body as he finishes the cut.

Don't use it like a skinny broadsword. It's bad for that. Don't cut trees with a razor or shave with an axe. use the tool to its advantage.

The question arises because RPGs put rapier on equal terms with martial weapons for offense and defense, which it is not, and against armored opponents, which it definitely is not.

RPGs are limited in how they simulate combat, due to wanting to limit unnecessary complexity, and because they want to allow for archetypes like swashbucklers to play along side archetypes like knights and barbarians and ninja and pirates. You would never use a rapier in the same role as a heavy mace. But in an average D&D party, you may see both used against the giant lizard.

The question was what can a rapier parry, and the answer is most melee weapons, with varying degrees of difficulty. And the weapons it would be worst at parrying, it would be least likely to encounter.

[valadil]

Self defense question.

My wife has been accosted a couple times by a homeless guy while I'm at work. So far she's been able to run away and find a cop without too much difficulty. We were discussing if there was anything she could carry to defend herself. I figure y'all know more about this than anyone else I know.

Here's the hard part. We have a baby. He goes through purses. He has baby friends who also go through purses. Whatever self defense mechanism my wife picks up would likely live in her purse.

She's not comfortable with guns. I suppose a holstered one could work, but I think it's more than she wants to carry.

Mace and tasers are not legal around here. Well, that's what she told me. I haven't looked it up myself. They don't really pass the purse test though. I don't know enough about either a pepper spray or taser with enough juice to stop a man to know what that would do to a 20 pound baby. Not planning on offering up my own as a guinea pig.

That left us talking about lower tech things. She'd feel safer with a knife, but doesn't think it'd pass the purse inspection test. A club or police baton wouldn't be dangerous in the hands of a baby, but we're not sure it's enough. I feel like as soon as you pull out a weapon, the attacker is obliged to do so as well if he has something, and in a club vs knife fight I wouldn't want to be club.

That leaves us thinking that an air horn or rape whistle might be the best options. Or a good pair of running shoes. Do any of you with more exposure to this sort of thing have any suggestions we might not have thought of?

[Galloglaich]

Best thing under those circumstances is probably a cell phone with 911 on speed-dial, followed by your number on speed dial.

You could get her a baton but it's probably worse than useless if she doesn't have some significant training with it. That is really true for most weapons. Mace and pepper spray aren't by any means guaranteeed either.

G

[fusilier]

Yup, lots of variables here. According to A Devil of a Whipping, a modern person managed to hit a man-sized target at 80 yards with 5 out of 6 shots in a minute without using the ramrod. I think he held the bullets in his mouth and spit them down the barrel. So it is possible to get decently good accuracy out of the musket.

However, infantry tactics dictated that accuracy was not much of a concern, considering that the soldiers lined up into very large blocks. In that case, you'd more likely just fire into the big block of humanity opposing you than to try to aim your shot at a particular person. To aid this, smooth bore muskets were frequently loaded with buck and ball (1 large musket ball and three smaller .30 caliber balls) so that the musket was more like a mini-shotgun than a rifle.

I won't vouch for the accuracy of this web page, but I found this and it might be helpful:

http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonis..._tactics_2.htm

I've been out of the loop, but I'm trying to catch up:

In my ACW reenactment group, one of our members takes a smoothbore musket, without a rear sight, to competitions and consistently scores high marks, often coming in first or second against rifled weapons.

The reason for this apparent discrepancy is the military practice of using undersized ammo and basically no patch. Militaries did this for several reasons, speed of loading, poor tolerances, and the predominance of volley fire (which was predominant for a reason).

[Galloglaich]

Spyrit already covered this pretty well but I'll just add a few comments.

I don't actually recall plate being well represented in anywhere other than Italy and some parts of Germany until the 1500s (and doubt that it was ever truly common even there.) I don't think I'd call something worn by 2 countries as explicitly prevalent. Was there something I'm missing regarding plate being fairly common throughout Europe during the 1400s across Europe?

Yes it was extremely common throughout Europe during this period, I'm not sure what you are missing exactly but this isn't a big secret. Look at any of the Osprey military books during this period for a 'cliff notes' snapshot of the typical armor used by soldiers, militia, and knights in 15th Century Europe.

You seem to be confusing the production centers of plate armor for where it was used. Neither Italy nor Germany were countries in the 15th or 16th Centuries, but Milan and Brescia in what is today Italy and Augsburg and some other towns in Swabia in what is today Germany were the most important centers of plate armor production in Europe in this period. In other words, it is where they had the biggest export business.

But plate armor was made all over, and people were buying and using Milanese and Swabian armor as far away as Poland and Spain from the 1380's. In fact the Kingdoms of France and England were probably the biggest customers of the Italian and German armorers. We know from records of famous battles (like Agincourt in 1415) and excavations of battlefield graveyards like at Towton (1461) that literally thousands of combattants were armored with plate armor. We even know how much it cost relative to the pay of a typical soldier, but more on that in a minute.

I think a similar thing can be said of a knight during the 1400s, and even much of the 1500s regarding plate. Was there any indication that your average knight could afford a full suit of plate during that time in say, England, Spain etc.?

Yes, in fact, not only knights, but burghers, mercenaries, and even peasant militia could afford them, as we can see clearly in period art, and read from period records. In fact citizens of hundreds of towns in Europe were required as part of their obligation as a citizen to maintain plate harness as well as other weapons, horses and other kit depending on their specific estate. In towns under German town law in the 15th Century citizens were made to swear an annual oath not to lose, sell, or allow other people to use their armor.

We also incidentally have surviving records for the cost of different grades of armor, Milanese armor for example came in at least three grades: non proofed, proofed, and heavy-proofed.

Volley fire obviously doesn't have much to do with knights. A few guys pretty much jousting with a pistol don't have the same impact on an armoured formation than would a full on volley of shots.

Samurai weren't typically the ones shooting the arquebus in the greatest numbers either were they? So what is your point? Both Samurai and Knights typically (though not always) fought as cavalry, the volley of shots came from lines of infantry, which in Japan usually meant Ashigaru. My point was that I'm pretty sure knights were using firearms from horseback before Samurai were, simply because they had access to wheellock, snaphaunce and later flintlock firearms which were much easier to use from horseback, more than a Century before the Japanese did. The battlefield the Samurai fought on in the 16th Century were quickly dominated by arquebusiers and the equivalent of Pikemen. In Europe this had already been the case for 100 years.

The Japanese also for whatever reason largely eschewed the cannon, which was another major hazard the knight had to contend with (and for which armor really offered no protection).

Is there a source on that for the European models?

Yes, of course. Fusilier can probably provide better ones than I can, but the musket was a far heavier, and harder-hitting weapon than the arquebus.

I have seen Ottoman guns with .7+ calibers, but from what I can tell, these were considered superior to whatever the Europeans were making during that era.

The Ottomans were the first ones to start making Muskets, as far as I'm aware, and did have an edge with them for a few years, but they were quickly copied first by the Spanish and pretty quickly all over Europe. Originally the musket was used as as specialized armor-piercing weapon.

As for iron sights, they were not that significant with the arquebus because the weapon itself has such poor range. Crossbows had a longer effective range probably until the mid 1500's. That was the reason for inventing volley-fire.

Personally, I'm not trying to put down the Samurai or the Japanese military tradition, like I said before they were pretty tough. There are some records of enounters between the Japanese and various Europeans in the 16th Century and the fighting sometimes went both ways. In fact the Dutch used Ronin Samurai in very large numbers in Indonesia during this period. But I think sometimes in enthusiasm for a particular period or group sometimes one ends up downplaying another group. In the case of the European military context of the 15th and 16th Centuries, you are doing that a little bit here.

G

[Galloglaich]

About how resilient to damage were historical wooden shafts used in the early medieval period in Europe? Obviously the movie portrayal where one casually chops the end off of multiple spears/axes/whatever with a swing is patently absurd, but just how much abuse could they usually take, assuming minimal metal reinforcement.

One thing you'll notice on most actual antiques from the Meideval period is that they had langets near the business end, these being iron sheathes nailed onto the haft, precisely so that it didn't get cut.

The used to use pretty strong wood like ash but it can be cut. The langets make it it a whole lot harder though.

You can see a decent example of some langets in this antique 15th Century pollaxe from the Higgins armoury

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_higgins_pole.html

Or these 15th Century Swiss pikes

http://www.antiqueweaponstore.com/Sw...%20Century.htm

Smaller weapons like maces and axes were not infrequently made with 100% iron, bronze, or steel hafts so that they couldn't be cut through either. Like these:

http://auction-e.com/image/20/953/6007.jpg

http://www.hydroponicsonline.com/sto...0745756301.jpg

http://www.kunstpedia.com/images/gal.../391_album.jpg

http://www.ambroseantiques.com/image...alianmace1.jpg

G

[fusilier]

The Ottomans were the first ones to start making Muskets, as far as I'm aware, and did have an edge with them for a few years, but they were quickly copied first by the Spanish and pretty quickly all over Europe. Originally the musket was used as as specialized armor-piercing weapon.

I would not say that the Ottomans were the first ones to make a Musket, but that's because the terminology is very poor. They did use some early form of matchlock or handgonne, that I'm not too familiar with, that seems to have been on a larger caliber than contemporary arquebuses.

By the middle of the 16th century the Ottoman Tufenk (sp?) was something in between a Western European (Spanish) arquebus and a musket. The caliber a little bit bigger than arquebus, but the barrel much longer than an arquebus, approaching musket length. While Spanish heavy muskets would have had better penetration and range, that would have been significantly heavier -- muskets never really dominated the battlefield, until they started to become lighter in the 17th century. Until then they seem to have typically been a minority in the firearms, with most firearm equipped troops having an arquebus or caliver.

It's very hard to compare weapons of this time period -- there is a lot of variation, terminology was inconsistent at the time, and modern translations can be tricky. Many, many weapons are translated as "musket," when some other term should have been used.

[fusilier]

Is there a source on that for the European models? I do know the Japanese ordered and maintained a large number of heavy caliber guns with greatly superior stopping power (IIRC, 1 in 10 after demilitarization, likely similar ratios before) and in any event, you can't deny the Japanese were using iron sights either before or more prevalently than the Europeans.

I have seen Ottoman guns with .7+ calibers, but from what I can tell, these were considered superior to whatever the Europeans were making during that era.

I don't have time to research (I'm working very long hours), however off the top of my head:

Japanese firearms were considered superior to the Chinese ones at the time, as the Chinese had been introduced to Arquebuses a bit before the Japanese. Early 16th century arquebuses had rather short barrels, becoming longer towards the middle of the century. Not a huge difference in performance, but there would be some.

For the most part you can look at some details to get a relative idea of the penetrating power of firearms of that time period. As many of the other limiting factors were basically the same. So you look at the length of the barrel and the caliber. Those two typically are positively correlated (within the same time period), but not always. A longer barrel and larger caliber typically means greater penetration. A European musket could be .85-95 in caliber, and have a very long barrel. This came at a price and such guns typically were used by a minority of soldiers (although an increasingly large minority towards the end of the 16th century). Arquebuses ran somewhere in the .60-.70 range, and calivers about .75. Ottoman guns were a bit more like long arquebus. Most surviving ones I've seen online come from a later period 17th-18th century, although appear outwardly similar, I've never gotten a good handle on the details of 16th century Ottoman guns.

Returning to Japanese guns, as I recall they would be very similar in performance to a European arquebus of the mid 16th century. Repros of them use a "cheek stock" -- a kind of stock that doesn't reach the shoulder, and is simply held against the cheek. It's not quite as weird as it may sound, and some European hunting arms of the period can be found that way. But it's not good for controlling heavy recoil.

[Ashtagon]

Self defense question.

My wife has been accosted a couple times by a homeless guy while I'm at work. So far she's been able to run away and find a cop without too much difficulty. We were discussing if there was anything she could carry to defend herself. I figure y'all know more about this than anyone else I know.

Here's the hard part. We have a baby. He goes through purses. He has baby friends who also go through purses. Whatever self defense mechanism my wife picks up would likely live in her purse.

She's not comfortable with guns. I suppose a holstered one could work, but I think it's more than she wants to carry.

Mace and tasers are not legal around here. Well, that's what she told me. I haven't looked it up myself. They don't really pass the purse test though. I don't know enough about either a pepper spray or taser with enough juice to stop a man to know what that would do to a 20 pound baby. Not planning on offering up my own as a guinea pig.

That left us talking about lower tech things. She'd feel safer with a knife, but doesn't think it'd pass the purse inspection test. A club or police baton wouldn't be dangerous in the hands of a baby, but we're not sure it's enough. I feel like as soon as you pull out a weapon, the attacker is obliged to do so as well if he has something, and in a club vs knife fight I wouldn't want to be club.

That leaves us thinking that an air horn or rape whistle might be the best options. Or a good pair of running shoes. Do any of you with more exposure to this sort of thing have any suggestions we might not have thought of?

NEVER pull out a weapon you are not prepared to use in a fight you expect to walk away from.

Regarding guns, unless you've trained often and regularly, you are probably going to miss in a stress situation. After you shoot, you are now unarmed facing an angry guy who, in his mind, is ready to fight and knows you just tried to kill him. So don't carry a gun unless you're trained.

Anyone ready to mug you is ready to fight you if you challenge their manhood. And drawing a weapon is a direct challenge to that. Equally, don't threaten to dial 911; just do it if it's a live situation. They'll knock you flat long before you finish dialling if you merely threaten them with that.

Rape alarms and loud whistles are good. A mobile phone in your hand ready to dial is good. Let your local police know you have been threatened and that you have their number on speed dial, so they know to take a call seriously.

Any weapon you carry must be one that will disable them long enough to RUN. In practice that basically just means mace sprays, which are illegal.

A more practical approach is to walk like you can take care of yourself. That doesn't mean swinging shoulders like a wrestler. It means:

* Don't look like you are lost. Walk confidently.
* Look around all the time. Be aware of the people around you.
* Park your care near the building entrances. Never park in an alleyway or other secluded spot.
* Have your keys in hand for immediate use long before you reach the door.
* If you actually are lost, step inside a shop, or knock on a random stranger's door, all the while being aware of surroundings. Only then check your maps or ask for directions (and be aware that in some regions, giving bad directions is a sport).

[GraaEminense]

I think we're talking past each other. What I was saying is that you need some strength to use the center grip shields, but because of the options available* they become easier to use if you have it and as such better. That also appears to be your position.

Partially. I agree that you need more strength to use a center-grip shield effectively. However, I also contend that even with the necessary strength such shields need a higher level of training to be equal of strap-on shields: If you give a shield to an untrained (but strong enough) rookie he will most likely survive longer with a kite than a round shield. The trade-off is of course that -in my opinion- if you're actually good at what you're doing, center-grip shields give you more options to use that skill.

[Knaight]

Partially. I agree that you need more strength to use a center-grip shield effectively. However, I also contend that even with the necessary strength such shields need a higher level of training to be equal of strap-on shields: If you give a shield to an untrained (but strong enough) rookie he will most likely survive longer with a kite than a round shield. The trade-off is of course that -in my opinion- if you're actually good at what you're doing, center-grip shields give you more options to use that skill.

I was assuming some level of competence, largely because the completely untrained are terrible with shields regardless (with a few exceptions).

[Brother Oni]

Do any of you with more exposure to this sort of thing have any suggestions we might not have thought of?

Seconding the suggestions that your wife shouldn't be carrying a weapon that she doesn't know how to use and especially don't pull one out if you're not intending to use it to incapacitate or kill your opponent.

There are a number of improvised tools she can use to help fend off an attacker (Ashtagon mentions keys, but if you hold your keys with them protruding between the fingers and swing for the eyes if they get too close, it can buy enough time to run), but if she doesn't know how to defend herself, a pair of good running shoes and emergency services on speed dial would be her best bet.

Is she receptive to the idea of taking women's self defence classes? In my experience, they're much more focused on practical techniques than teaching any fighting ability or fitness capacity like a martial art, so are more likely to show more immediate benefit.

[Yukitsu]

It's very hard to compare weapons of this time period -- there is a lot of variation, terminology was inconsistent at the time, and modern translations can be tricky. Many, many weapons are translated as "musket," when some other term should have been used.

This is the problem I'm running into, correlating armour penetration and guns used. Doubly so across cultures, where a gun in Japan is translated as a matchlock no matter what the barrel length, caliber or stopping power, and the complete lack of evidence as to whether their bullet proofed armour stops both heavy and light matchlocks.

Samurai weren't typically the ones shooting the arquebus in the greatest numbers either were they? So what is your point? Both Samurai and Knights typically (though not always) fought as cavalry, the volley of shots came from lines of infantry, which in Japan usually meant Ashigaru.

Only thing I can answer with complete certainty at this time without my books and at 3 in the morning is that Japanese samurai that were using guns indeed weren't using them from horseback, but they also definitely did use firearms. The confusion I tend to run into is the sort of fuzzy categorization of "samurai" during the period, since certain retainers would be considered samurai, even if they weren't fighting from horseback with a bow and spear, though I more generically don't see any reason they would use them differently than the Ashigaru were, as as you said, they can't really be used effectively from horseback. Oda Nobunaga supposedly armed his samurai with Arquebus and had them fire in mass ranked volleys for example. I'm of the opinion that Tokugawa Ieyasu also did so. Other lords may have done differently (and Oda Nobunaga is notable for using his arquebusiers more effectively than other lords).

[mcv]

That left us talking about lower tech things. She'd feel safer with a knife, but doesn't think it'd pass the purse inspection test. A club or police baton wouldn't be dangerous in the hands of a baby, but we're not sure it's enough. I feel like as soon as you pull out a weapon, the attacker is obliged to do so as well if he has something, and in a club vs knife fight I wouldn't want to be club.

A club or knife isn't much use if you don't know how to use it. It might scare someone off, but if it doesn't, it helps a lot if you've actually had the training and know how to use it.

That leaves us thinking that an air horn or rape whistle might be the best options. Or a good pair of running shoes.

These all sound like excellent ideas.