Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Mike_G]

I've read that peltasts were so called because they supposedly had had crescent-shaped shields,

I thought it was because they pelt @** and take names.

[Wardog]

This isn't exactly an armour/weapon question, but this seemed like the best place to ask:

In a typical, northern-European-style medieval feudal realm, what proportion of the population would fill the various social/economic roles?

I.e. What proportion of the population would be ruling nobles?
What proportion would be knights in the service of nobles?
What proportion would be peasants? (And of those, how many farmers vs other trades).
What proportion would be urbanised?

Or, to put it another way, how many peasants do you need to support one knight? (To feed the knight and his horses, to make and maintain his equipment, to feed and clothe the people who do that, etc).


(I realise the initial question is a bit ambiguous, because "medieval Europe" covers about a 1000 years, and several thousand miles, so "typical" might be a bit of an oxymoron).


And as a related question, is Rohan a viable society/culture/economy? I can't think of any real-world culture that was that mounted without also being nomadic.

[Brother Oni]

And as a related question, is Rohan a viable society/culture/economy? I can't think of any real-world culture that was that mounted without also being nomadic.

Just because they primarily used the horse for combat doesn't necessarily mean they were nomadic - take a look at the Mongols after they started conquering.

Only thing I will mention, is that there doesn't seem to be anywhere as much farmland as there should be, at least in the film depictions. Even the vikings managed to eke out something from their homeland, although they did do a lot of fishing (and raiding) to supplement it.

[Mike_G]

IIRC they were originally a nomadic people who settled in that area after allying with Gondor in an earlier war.

While the nobles fought as cavalry, I assumed the bulk of the population were farmers.

At least the descriptions of the people chased out of their villages by the armies of Saruman tend to indicate they were farmers and herdsmen. Eomer's Riders were "men of my own household," so I assume the well armed, mounted warriors were retainers of the nobles, while the bulk of the population were freemen who would fight as militia of some sort.

The language was based on Anglo-Saxon. I felt Tolkien may have been thinking of Housekarls and Fyrdmen. More cavalry centric than the AS were, but I don't see Rohan as implausible.

[Telok]

In a typical, northern-European-style medieval feudal realm, what proportion of the population would fill the various social/economic roles?

Medieval Demographics Made Easy

[Matthew]

Or, to put it another way, how many peasants do you need to support one knight? (To feed the knight and his horses, to make and maintain his equipment, to feed and clothe the people who do that, etc).


(I realise the initial question is a bit ambiguous, because "medieval Europe" covers about a 1000 years, and several thousand miles, so "typical" might be a bit of an oxymoron).

It depends on the period, because the arms and equipment of a knight got more expensive over time (exactly why remains a subject of some interesting study). Basically 90% and more of the population in medieval Europe was rural at any given time. In the late eleventh century there were 5-6,000 knight's fees in England for an estimated population of 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 or so, depending on how you count. At best, then, you are looking at probably 0.5% of the population being knights. That is off the top of my head, mind, you will have to check my facts!

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, it does vary rather enormously, since while I think France had a similar ratio of knights (less than 1%) the ratio of knights (or at any rate, members of the nobility) to the overall population was actually 15-20% in Poland and Lithuania.

Also, some areas were much more urbanized than others. Very generally speaking, France and England were mostly agricultural, but Flanders (today Belgium), Northern Italy, parts of Germany (northern Saxony, parts of the Rhineland), Bohemia, and various other zones, were much more urbanized.

The "Medieval Demographics" page was pretty good, but their data on towns is slightly off. The ratio of say, butchers to general population would represent a 'Master Butcher', i.e. a full guild member. For every Master Butcher you would have 2 or 3 apprentices and 1 or 2 journeymen. I.e. these people also work as butchers, they just dont' get paid as much.

Also, I think the ratios are a bit too high. I know that for Master weavers and Master brewers it was about 20-1 to the overall town population. Augsburg for example had about 750 weavers for 15,000 people.

G

[Spiryt]

Yeah, it does vary rather enormously, since while I think France had a similar ratio of knights (less than 1%) the ratio of knights (or at any rate, members of the nobility) to the overall population was actually 15-20% in Poland and Lithuania.

G

I'm pretty sure it was about 10% at very most, actually, and that obviously involved women and children. Depending on period.

[Theodoric]

And as a related question, is Rohan a viable society/culture/economy? I can't think of any real-world culture that was that mounted without also being nomadic.

The Rohirrim are very strongly based on the Anglo-Saxons, except unlike our Anglo-Saxons they became more Saxon than Anglo instead of vice versa. The Saxons, who lived in current-day Northwestern Germany, were a prominent horse-riding people, who had a horse as their main symbol and had (probably mythological) leaders named Hengest and Horsa, both meaning 'horse'.

So, yeah, it was possible. Tolkien knew what he was doing.

[Knaight]

The "Medieval Demographics" page was pretty good, but their data on towns is slightly off. The ratio of say, butchers to general population would represent a 'Master Butcher', i.e. a full guild member. For every Master Butcher you would have 2 or 3 apprentices and 1 or 2 journeymen. I.e. these people also work as butchers, they just dont' get paid as much.

It also really only works for part of Europe. Trying to use its city numbers for Al-Andalus or similar would be a mistake, particularly as concerns the pre-crusades city and town data. I'd also note that some of the numbers regarding more intellectual trades really, really need to take into account the disproportionate clustering of monasteries and possibly colleges, depending on the period. Similarly, the extent to which fortifications are there lacks anything to account for Roman and Byzantine influence. Then there's the matter of when universities actually do get mentioned, as one simple number - despite the prevalence of universities by population changing drastically.

[fusilier]

Also, some areas were much more urbanized than others. Very generally speaking, France and England were mostly agricultural, but Flanders (today Belgium), Northern Italy, parts of Germany (northern Saxony, parts of the Rhineland), Bohemia, and various other zones, were much more urbanized.

I just recently read that Italy, in the Renaissance, was only about 75% rural.

The "Medieval Demographics" page was pretty good, but their data on towns is slightly off. The ratio of say, butchers to general population would represent a 'Master Butcher', i.e. a full guild member. For every Master Butcher you would have 2 or 3 apprentices and 1 or 2 journeymen. I.e. these people also work as butchers, they just dont' get paid as much.

Also, I think the ratios are a bit too high. I know that for Master weavers and Master brewers it was about 20-1 to the overall town population. Augsburg for example had about 750 weavers for 15,000 people.

G

Yeah, I wondered about the seemingly low number of bakers and butchers.

There's a calculator program here, that allows one to modify various stats:

http://qzil.com/kingdom/

You can easily add new occupations and set the ratios. NB: the number listed is a divisor, so the smaller the number the *more* of that particular profession.

I found it fun to play around with.

[Galloglaich]

It also really only works for part of Europe. Trying to use its city numbers for Al-Andalus or similar would be a mistake, particularly as concerns the pre-crusades city and town data. I'd also note that some of the numbers regarding more intellectual trades really, really need to take into account the disproportionate clustering of monasteries and possibly colleges, depending on the period. Similarly, the extent to which fortifications are there lacks anything to account for Roman and Byzantine influence. Then there's the matter of when universities actually do get mentioned, as one simple number - despite the prevalence of universities by population changing drastically.

Universities (Studium Generale) were pretty rare in Europe until the late Medieval period, and were heavily concentrated in certain areas. In the Early Medieval period the only two were Paris (mainly a theological school) and Bologna (mainly a civil law school). Most of the Universities which came later (including Oxford) were spinoffs of one of those two, very different types of Universities: the aristocratic oriented Paris, or the student run Bologna.

If you want to read a really comprehensive overview of every University in Europe, it's hard to beat this (especially since it's free) http://archive.org/details/universitieseur102rashuoft

There were quite a few schools which eventually became Universities later on, and some places which were licensed as Universities but never really became real ones.

That web page was pretty, broad, for a good sourcebook on 'generic' medieval stuff which is actually somewhat grounded in reality, I think this series is pretty good (and also free)

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...%3A-City-Guide

It's not academic level but as game products go it's head and shoulders above just about all of the others I've read. And it's an easy read.

G

[fusilier]

Universities (Studium Generale) were pretty rare in Europe until the late Medieval period, and were heavily concentrated in certain areas. In the Early Medieval period the only two were Paris (mainly a theological school) and Bologna (mainly a civil law school). Most of the Universities which came later (including Oxford) were spinoffs of one of those two, very different types of Universities: the aristocratic oriented Paris, or the student run Bologna.

Yeah, the Paris and Bologna universities came to define different systems. Paris was the "Master" run school, and Bologna, the "Student" run school. Quite an interesting dichotomy if you ever look at their regulations.

There was a medical school in Southern Italy, at Salerno, that predated the Bologna university, but it was organized differently and isn't considered a university by all sources.

The term "university" actually referred to the students and/or masters and meant guild. As a result, universities were mobile, and sometimes left a city that didn't grant their wishes as punishment. Studium Generale was a recognition by the pope [and Holy Roman Emperor], that all universities strove for. (A quick glance at wikipedia, however, claims that the term originally developed organically, and only later did the pope start to influence what counted as a Studium General and what didn't.)

[Telok]

Question. Is thermite still a part of modern military... I'm looking for a word somewhere between "equipment" and "tactics?" It's late at night here.

I ask because some fifteen or twenty years ago I semi-regularly ran across mention of it in militaria and fiction. But I haven't heard of it even once in the last five years or so. Has it been superseded or abandoned? Or have my reading habits changed and I'm just not in those circles much any more?

[Phaedrus2129]

Question. Is thermite still a part of modern military... I'm looking for a word somewhere between "equipment" and "tactics?" It's late at night here.

I ask because some fifteen or twenty years ago I semi-regularly ran across mention of it in militaria and fiction. But I haven't heard of it even once in the last five years or so. Has it been superseded or abandoned? Or have my reading habits changed and I'm just not in those circles much any more?

It's used, but it's niche. It's used in demolition of steel structure, decommissioning of artillery (thermite in the barrel will leave behind an iron "plug", as well as warp the barrel from heat) and it sees some limited use as an incendiary bomb. Problem with thermite is that the heat is very, very intense, but localized. Compare to napalm, gasoline, or white phosphorous, which don't get quite as hot, but tend to spread and affect a much larger area.

And thermite, of course, cannot blow things up. Melt things yes, explode them no. For that you want TNT, RDX, ANFO, or dynamite (the four materials that make the base of 90% of modern explosives, excluding propellants in firearms).

[Roxxy]

I'm wondering if a submarine troopship could be an effective type of naval vessel.

The idea comes form a modern(ish) tech world I'm working on where one of the countries I'm focusing on has a very large number of tropical islands as it's southernmost territory. The primary perceived military threats of this nation are to the south of these islands, so these islands boast a high degree of military readiness, as it is viewed that they are the most likely area of the nation to be attacked.

I'm thinking that, with so many garrisons scattered around these islands, perhaps submarines designed to carry, say, a company of soldiers or some supplies could be used in the event of a fight. These boats would make poor amphibious assault ships, but they could be used to sneak in close to a beleaguered garrison and slip in reinforcements or supplies, or to evacuate a garrison that is about to be overwhelmed or that is needed elsewhere. They would operate by getting as close to shore as possible, then making up the rest of the distance with motorized inflatable rubber boats.

I see this as something that could work in an island warfare situation, but my knowledge of the subject is limited, and I'd like a second opinion.

[awa]

im far from an expert. but I know submarines tend to be super cramped which implies they are not very efficient for use as transports.

I think a high altitude air drop is going to be more efficient for breaking a blockade

[Roxxy]

im far from an expert. but I know submarines tend to be super cramped which implies they are not very efficient for use as transports.

I think a high altitude air drop is going to be more efficient for breaking a blockade

I know it's not efficient. I'm looking more at vulnerability to attack. A high altitude drop can be opposed by fighters and naval SAMs and is easier to spot than a submarine, and is similarly limited in capacity.

[Raum]

A troop ship, no. It's extremely inefficient. However they have been used to deploy special forces.

[Roxxy]

I got linked to this on Alternate History: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87...ts_giants.html

It looks like the major issue was endurance, but I want them for local missions, so that should be manageable.

[Mike_G]

Small special forces teams were landed by submarine in WWII.

The Marine Raiders landed on Makin Island and destroyed a Japanese outpost that way. The sub didn't land as such. It surfaced, the Marines got into rubber boats and paddled ashore, then paddled back out to the sub after the mission.

They took two subs and landed 211 men, so yes, a sub landing a company of troops is not only plausible, it was done.

That said, it poses challenges, but it's a good way to sneakily land a small force.

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

[Roxxy]

During that raid, Argonaut was able to carry 120 troops, and it was converted to a troop transport hastily. With a submarine designed from day one to be a troop transport, and with modern technology available, what's the largest feasible number of troops that could be accommodated? It's probably rather higher than 120, and I want to see how big I can go now that I know my original figure of a company is less of a stretch than I thought.

[Starshade]

Hm, Id think dividing the cost on several subs, and make a fleet of diesel electric rather than atomic ones a good idea. Perhaps even add cannons on them like German ww2 subs sometime had, to support the infantry. An dedicated troop transport would not need the typical sub weapnries as torpedoes, or the endurance (less fuel) if it had supply ships/subs to fuel it. How many troops such a ship would carry I don't know.

[fusilier]

During that raid, Argonaut was able to carry 120 troops, and it was converted to a troop transport hastily. With a submarine designed from day one to be a troop transport, and with modern technology available, what's the largest feasible number of troops that could be accommodated? It's probably rather higher than 120, and I want to see how big I can go now that I know my original figure of a company is less of a stretch than I thought.

The wikipedia article isn't specific about when the troops boarded the submarines -- given how uncomfortable diesel electric submarines were, and how little free space they had, my guess the troops didn't spend more than a few hours on board.

During WW1 Germany produced transport U-boats that could run the blockade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ne_Deutschland

There were other "cargo submarines" made, although I'm not aware of them being used as troop transports -- at least not on a regular basis.

[Mike_G]

The wikipedia article isn't specific about when the troops boarded the submarines -- given how uncomfortable diesel electric submarines were, and how little free space they had, my guess the troops didn't spend more than a few hours on board.

During WW1 Germany produced transport U-boats that could run the blockade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ne_Deutschland

There were other "cargo submarines" made, although I'm not aware of them being used as troop transports -- at least not on a regular basis.

Well, if you look at the caption for the photo, they returned to Hawaii eight days after the raid, on the subs in question.

And here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Argonaut_%28SS-166%29

it says that the Argonaut departed August 8 with the landing force. The battle happened on then 17th-18, so the troops were 10 days en route, and about 8 days back.


Submarines aren't an idea troopship, but they are a serviceable one. You are trading space for secrecy. Using subs to move company sized forces past blockades in totally reasonable. They are pretty ideal for special operations, where you want to use a small force, and you want to get them in and out unnoticed.

[fusilier]

Well, if you look at the caption for the photo, they returned to Hawaii eight days after the raid, on the subs in question.

And here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Argonaut_%28SS-166%29

it says that the Argonaut departed August 8 with the landing force. The battle happened on then 17th-18, so the troops were 10 days en route, and about 8 days back.


Submarines aren't an idea troopship, but they are a serviceable one. You are trading space for secrecy. Using subs to move company sized forces past blockades in totally reasonable. They are pretty ideal for special operations, where you want to use a small force, and you want to get them in and out unnoticed.

I think the troops disembarked at 3:30 am on the 17th, so more like eight and a half days en route, but still . . . that must have been pretty terrible. Any idea if they ran with a skeleton crew, and cleared out the torpedos to make extra room?

Largish, merchant submarines were developed in the past, but I'm not aware of any operating on the size of a modern Nuclear submarine. I suppose that converting a ballistic missile sub wouldn't be a bad start . . . ok, looks like I'm not the first to think of this:

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

Historically the Army has packed lots of troops onto passenger vessels for transport -- the Queen Mary, designed for about 2200 passengers in civilian service, apparently transported as many as 16,000 soldiers at once during WW2.

Ah ha, some more poking around on wikipedia:
The Italians built some cargo transport submarines and actually used them during WW2, but during the cold war, the russians designed "amphibious assault submarines":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibi...ault_submarine

The Russians never completed any of the plans, but did design them, and came close to constructing Project 748, a submarine which would have carried about 20 tanks and APC's and 470 soldiers.

[Yora]

I got a question about knives and how to deal with them in RPGs.

I love knives (and also spears), because they are very small and simple, yet extremely lethal in the hands of even an entirely unskilled person. In the context of fiction, they are great because they enable helpless characters to overcome much stronger opponents simply because they make the descision to kill. Or as No-nonsense Self Defense phrased it, you don't fight with a knive, you use it to assassinate.

And I am wondering how to represent that in a d20-type RPG. Sneak Attack is made just for that, but it's a special ability of specific classes and not available to most characters. There's also a Coup de Grace that deals 2d4 damage and has the target make a DC 12 to DC 18 Fortitude save or die, but the damage is neglible for 3rd level characters and the save relatively easy to make for mid-level characters, and it also pretty much requires the target to be asleep or unconscious.

Now the first question is, how lethal should an unexpected attack with a knive be in the first place? Is a single stab in the back likely going to be fatal or does it take more than that to kill people in most cases? And how quick would it be? Baring cut muscles and tendons in the limbs, would it take seconds for a person to collapse or are we talking about several minutes or even hours? There is probably a very high random factor involved as in gunshots, but what are the general chances to die from one or two stabs to the chest or back?
However unlike shoting someone with a gun, people will still be very close to each other when one goes to the ground, and with the attacker still within easy reach of the wounded victim there is probably a much higher chance the attacker will make sure he's dead before stopping attacking.

Anything useful to add for coming up with a system for suprise attacks with small blades?

[Spiryt]

Or as No-nonsense Self Defense phrased it, you don't fight with a knive, you use it to assassinate.

That honestly sounds like actual nonsense. One obviously can fight with a knife, and it had happened, and is still happening countless times, even in full blown battles....

As far as the lethalitygoes, this is honestly unanswerable without defining "knife" as there were/are countless things that go under that name.

But generally even very small knifes are more than capable of producing terrible injures, including gut leaking out, if used 'right'.

[Storm Bringer]

with regard to how quickly a knife wound can kill someone, the answer is "variable, but a lot slower than on tv".

It is perfectly possible for a person to recieve a leathal wound that is not disabling, and visa versa. a knife in the chest can quite easily cause a wound that will kill a person, but leaves them prefectly capable of continued action for as much as 5 or 10 minutes, until blood loss kills you. conversely, a nasty leg wound that leaves a man unable to stand may not actually kill them, given quick treatment to stop blood loss.

histroy is littered with tales of duels in which one person suffers a wound that leads to their death, but not before they are able to inflict a simmilar wound to the person they are fighting.

One of the regular posters in this thread (i think it's Mike G?) was a paramedic at some point, and has reported in this thread previously stories of people getting potentially leathal wounds, but being able to wander off form the where they were stabbed and go several hundred meters in shearch of help.

also, a lot of "leathal" wounds are "wounds that are expectionally likey to become infected". in a pre-modern setting, the majority of "battle" deaths happened after the battle, when wounds became infected and people died of either the infection, or the surgury to save thier lives (no painkillers, so a amputation on someone already weakened by infections and such was very likey to be kill them by the shock of having a limb cut off).

even a disabling wound that leavea the stabbed person unable to do much more than sit there and bleed will still take a good 5 minutes to actually kill them.

That honestly sounds like actual nonsense. One obviously can fight with a knife, and it had happened, and is still happening countless times, even in full blown battles....

I think what was meant is that when you fight with any sort of weapon, you need to be prepared, mentally, to kill the person you are attacking. Guns, and Knifes, and swords and so on, are all designed to kill. if you are using one, you should be trying to kill the person you are attacking.

Because, rest assured, the person you are fighting is fighting for his life, becuase your holding a gun/knife/whatever. He can't know if you are planning to kill him, so he kind of has to assume you are.

In short, he is going to be fighting to try and kill you. Hence, if you are not prepared to kill him, you should not be carrying a leathal weapon, because by doing so, you are pushing the danger level to "life threatening".


hence, you don't "fight" with a kinfe like you fight with your fists. you use it to "assassinate". to kill. it's a misuse of the word, but it gets across the deadly intent, and willingness to kill someone, that you need to use it.

[Spiryt]

I think what was meant is that when you fight with any sort of weapon, you need to be prepared, mentally, to kill the person you are attacking. Guns, and Knifes, and swords and so on, are all designed to kill. if you are using one, you should be trying to kill the person you are attacking.

Because, rest assured, the person you are fighting is fighting for his life, becuase your holding a gun/knife/whatever. He can't know if you are planning to kill him, so he kind of has to assume you are.

In short, he is going to be fighting to try and kill you. Hence, if you are not prepared to kill him, you should not be carrying a leathal weapon, because by doing so, you are pushing the danger level to "life threatening".

hence, you don't "fight" with a kinfe like you fight with your fists. you use it to "assassinate". to kill. it's a misuse of the word, but it gets across the deadly intent, and willingness to kill someone, that you need to use it.

That's pretty much one pretty specific situation, that also generally looks like that in our time and culture - in pretty much any medieval town in say, 15th century, or Sudanese countryside today, you can expect people to carry around much bigger 'guns' than a knife.

Guns, and Knifes, and swords and so on, are all designed to kill.

And guns, at very least, are very often hoped to intimidate in the first place, so the killing won't be required. If some random thug is trying to mug person who draws the gun, he will pretty much always run away, not risking said life for cell phone he wanted to 'obtain'.

And assassinate is very bad choice of word indeed, anyway.