Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Straybow]

The stronger man doesn't swing the sword much faster, although his swing may reach a particular speed in a shorter time and motion (as the rapier example).

Actually, I've been crunching some numbers and as far as I can tell the longer weapon is faster.

I wasn't talking about length of weapon.

In combat a person is very rarely going to swing a weapon to "terminal velocity" (the fastest his limbs can move). It requires too much wind-up, it's a horribly slow maneuver. The only time you see it is when your opponent can't react, dispatching a foe you've knocked to the ground, for example.

If I'm holding my sword in a guard and a throw a blow, my weapon will reach a particular velocity. The strong man doesn't necessarily have a higher weapon velocity, but he can reach that velocity with a much shorter swing. His quick chop from an extended position could be equivalent to my roundhouse swing.

An extremely strong man, using an ordinary one-handed sword, could develop momentum and kinetic energy equivalent to the polearm of an "average" guy.

[Straybow]

Well... my point is that there is a 'sweet spot' when it comes to brute strength for fighting with weapons, and it's not power-lifter strength. Just like there is a 'sweet spot' for racing that requires agility as well as power; so to stick with our analogy, while a Monster Truck may have an engine in the 1400 - 2000 hp range, an F1 car has closer to 950 hp. Still powerful, but not quite in the same ballpark.

Not a valid comparison. The limitation with horsepower is the ability to transmit the power effectively to the ground. If you put street car wheels on the F1 the tires would spin, unable to grip the pavement. If you put racing slicks on the monster truck, those tires would spin, unable to grip the dirt.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime was sword fighting with that 80 year old guy from the Kendo video, the old guy would cut a tendon in his arm before he could land a blow, and it would be all over.

Yes, if Arnold were swinging his sword cinematic-style as in the Conan movie. But if I had Arnold/Conan's physique with my training, I would be better able to take the kendo guy than with my lesser physique.

[Brother Oni]

I wasn't talking about length of weapon.

I think you're missing the point of my post. Assuming unnatural strength permits them all to swing their weapon at the same speed, simple physics dictates that the tip of the longer weapon travels faster.

Even if a stronger man doesn't swing any faster, by virtue of having a longer weapon, the tip will travel faster assuming you're swinging it in an arc.

I fully understand the point you're trying to make - the stronger man has more explosive power, allowing him to achieve the same amount of energy as a weaker man in a shorter distance. The point I was trying to make was independent of that.

[Galloglaich]

But you don't have to punch through the steel to incapacitate. A heavy blow like that can stun the man and drop him to the ground. Another could knock him out cold.

How do you know? It doesn't seem to be the case in that video I posted (or in most of the Bohurt footage I've seen). Armor protects pretty well including against blunt impact, at least from an ordinary polearm. I think in most cases this idea of 'stunning blows' delivered by swords (which has been debated to death, as it's a standard assumption of the SCA) or even axes or halberd-blades, is not borne out by the facts.

The most significant difference comes much more from using a weapon designed to defeat the armor (war-pick, flanged mace, awl-pike, poll hammer, flail) than from extra force (running start, big two handed swing).

Also the European fencing techniques you are talking about are for harnischefechten, i.e. armored fighting. The scenario that guy described was 'glass' which I assumed he meant to mean, unarmoured, strongmen. I am suggesting that the power is of far less significance than the technique when it comes to striking with a polearm or a sword. Now with ringen (grappling, which all the throws etc. are part of) yes greater strength would help. It would also help you move around in armor.

When using an arming sword vs. a foil, the main difference is really the air resistance, arming swords aren't very heavy.

Very powerful bow won't improve the velocity, in fact it will generally tend to get slower - thicker, more 'lazy' arms are not good here, so very powerful war bows will be able to shoot even heavier arrow at the same distance, not the same at greater one.

On the website you posted, unless I'm missing something, all the longest ranges were achieved using flight arrows with the heaviest bows (120, 130, 140 lbs). 308, 314, 326, 336 yards all with 120-140 lb bows. 282, 289 yards with standard arrows.

Range will be generally lower too, anything around 300 meters is already more of a flight range.

I'm assuming that soldiers who have been shooting their entire lives as part of their profession, using bows made by experts who were making them for military use, would achieve a little bit better range than even todays most skilled and enthusiastic amateurs using well made reconstructions, though not necessarily a whole lot more. But obviously 289 yards isn't too shy of 300 meters, my estimate was pretty close. I'm happy with it :)

Recurves, I'm told (including my English longbow enthusiasts active in that scene) are a little more efficient and shoot farther for the same draw weight.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.c...ts2012_EN.html

Those guys have very solid data compared to most, including precise construction of arrows those records are attained with.

Agreed, it's a great resource. Bookmarked.

G

[Spiryt]

How do you know? It doesn't seem to be the case in that video I posted (or in most of the Bohurt footage I've seen). Armor protects pretty well including against blunt impact, at least from an ordinary polearm. I think in most cases this idea of 'stunning blows' delivered by swords (which has been debated to death, as it's a standard assumption of the SCA) or even axes or halberd-blades, is not borne out by the facts.

Blunt impact usually tends to injure fingers/forearms/thighs there, from what I keep hearing. Stunning via head blow should happen from time to time as well, I guess.

On the website you posted, unless I'm missing something, all the longest ranges were achieved using flight arrows with the heaviest bows (120, 130, 140 lbs). 308, 314, 326, 336 yards all with 120-140 lb bows. 282, 289 yards with standard arrows.

Yeah, 170 monsters aren't actually used to send flights.

Even if there's no actual decrease in flight performance between, say 110 pounder, and 160 one, there's no gain either, that's the point.

I'm assuming that soldiers who have been shooting their entire lives as part of their profession, using bows made by experts who were making them for military use, would achieve a little bit better range than even todays most skilled and enthusiastic amateurs using well made reconstructions, though not necessarily a whole lot more.

Well, the thing is though, that best of those guys are also training long years in doing this, eat well and sleep well (probably), shoot in very comfortable conditions, and record the very best shots.

Their bows are also very good ones, generally made for performance, not abused much, changed for "new model" a lot and so on...

Therefore, I would not mythologize this much - at least not about as hard physics as range.

Stout yeomen from 15th century would very obviously made way better stand in actual battle than those guys, but I wouldn't expect much better sheer range from such bows.

Recurves, I'm told (including my English longbow enthusiasts active in that scene) are a little more efficient and shoot farther for the same draw weight.

Recurve simply means very tip being bent away from the shooter, and longbow can easily be recurved, in fact there's quite a lot of period depictions of recurved longbows.

What he probably meant that Steppe composite (retro)reflexes with siyah, selectively working parts of the arms, and so on - those were generally at least a bit more efficient than the best selfbows - which is generally true, some of those bows were simply on higher level of design.

Really impressive, considering that their creators had no actual idea of leverage, mechanical advantage, elasticity and so on.

[Galloglaich]

Blunt impact usually tends to injure fingers/forearms/thighs there, from what I keep hearing. Stunning via head blow should happen from time to time as well, I guess.

Yes well, I've watched quite a few of these and it seems like people get hit over and over on the head and I have't seen to many get knocked out - any more than we do in HEMA events getting hit with steel swords with just fencing masks for protection (though I have seen people get their heads cut or abraded by the mesh of the mask)

Hand and thigh and forearm injuries I think are largely due to limitations to the gear, (especially hands which are hard to make sufficiently protected) and amount to broken bones and bad bruises.

Yeah, 170 monsters aren't actually used to send flights.

Even if there's no actual decrease in flight performance between, say 110 pounder, and 160 one, there's no gain either, that's the point.

Well, everyone seems to disagree as to what the actual range of draw strengths were historically, some people swear that every bow found on the Mary Rose was a 200 lb draw bow and so on, others say the typical was more like 80 lbs. I can only guess based on what I've read of primary sources, my own experiences and talking to friends involved in this activity but I think 'normal' for a longbow is 80-100 lbs and 'powerful' is 100 - 140 lbs. Same for recurves. Obviously there is some point of diminishing returns but the best range clearly comes from the more powerful weapons in the 110-140 lbs range. And not everybody can shoot a bow that powerful, I can't. You have to have training and serious strength in muscles most people don't normally use. I think 150+ lbs bows were a rarity.

Well, the thing is though, that best of those guys are also training long years in doing this, eat well and sleep well (probably), shoot in very comfortable conditions, and record the very best shots. ...

Their bows are also very good ones, generally made for performance, not abused much, changed for "new model" a lot and so on...

Therefore, I would not mythologize this much - at least not about as hard physics as range.

Well, this is another hot debate topic, internet fault line etc. I am of the school that people in period, and weapons in period, were / are better than equivalent re-enactors today. I believe the comments about malnourished people and so on are highly exxagerated, this does not seem to show up in forensic work so much when it comes to the warrior classes, quite to the contrary. As you probably know exhumed archers from this period have skeletal evidence of overdevelped arm muscles, and this even goes back to the Viking Age.

This guy from the 14th Century was fairly short at only 5' 7", but quite strongly built, with "with the physique of a professional rugby player"



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138060

The assumption is that because people in the 18th and 19th Century were often very malnourished and therefore weaker and smaller than modern people in the 20th and 21st Century, this must in turn extend backward into Medieval times, but that is actually false. People in Medieval Europe were very close to the same average height as today.

Here are some figures from the "Long Friday Battle" of 1520 outside of Uppsala, Sweden. The three columns represent different methods for measurement:

<165cm ______________0______4_______4
165-170cm___________11_____13______15
170-175cm___________20_____18______21
175-180cm___________20_____16______11
180-185cm____________5______5_______7
>185cm______________2______2_______0


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

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

http://historymedren.about.com/b/200...dieval-men.htm

Stout yeomen from 15th century would very obviously made way better stand in actual battle than those guys, but I wouldn't expect much better sheer range from such bows.

Again, I disagree, but I can't prove it. Since I've been actively interested in pre-industrial fighting and weapons over the last 12 years, I've seen period techniques and antiques win out over modern replicas and reconstructions time and time again. High end antique swords are in my opinion, still vastly superior in terms of balance and handling than anything I've seen produced by any modern replica maker, and I've seen some amazing ones.

There are only a tiny handful of people capable of making crossbows anything like the power of the period military grade weapons and they still haven't figured them out yet, - I know because I've been corresponding with these people for several years.

In the last 10 years groups like the Warbow society in the UK and folks like Grozer Csaba & Gruber Gyula in Hungary with recurves have made great strides in making much better performing and (not coincidentally, I think) historically accurate bows, but I suspect they will continue to improve both in terms of shooting technique and their weapons. I could be wrong of course.

Recurve simply means .

I think you know what I meant, recurve is commonly used to refer to 'steppe composite recurve or the Huns / Turks / Tartars / Ottomans' or whatever other longwinded technical designation you want to use.

G

[Spiryt]

There's no denying that a lot of those Medieval guys would be quite impressively hardy and healthy compared modern car driving, refined sugars eating folk.

The very fact that they were able to spank French army while apparently suffering from nasty diarrhea is crazy...

But we still have to be realistic about this, not too idealize to much - nothing about them suggest that they would be particularly adapt at cheesing out the natural limitation of selfbows as far as range goes.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, 170 monsters aren't actually used to send flights.

Even if there's no actual decrease in flight performance between, say 110 pounder, and 160 one, there's no gain either, that's the point.

Actually, there is an interesting correlation here with crossbows. With the very heavy crossbows, they have found in unofficial testing that they didn't increase the velocity that much. It increased, but only incrementally. So whereas during a test last year a 250 lb and a 500 lbs-draw replica crossbow can shoot a bolt of 50 grams at the same velocity (50 meters per second), the same maker made an 850 lbs crossbow to shoot 80 gram bolts at 49 meters per second, and 125 grams at 48.5 meters per second, which means a much heavier missile striking the target at nearly the same velocity.

This seems to correspond with the historical evidence of the bolts as well, they tended to be much heavier. So it's possible that the way the crossbows did more damage was due to having the 'muscle' to shoot much heavier bolts, as a recurve arrow was usually in the 40 gram range, a longbow arrow in the 60-80 gram range. All shooting around the same velocity, but the crossbow would have more energy in the above example (147 joules).

I'm waiting for the results of testing with a 1200 lbs crossbow with much heavier bolts which should be coming out any day now. Of course there are many other factors, the type of string used, the power stroke of the prod (bow), the width, characteristics of the prod itself. But it is an interesting outcome so far.

G

[Spiryt]

It's fairly 'normal', the same thing generally goes for selfbows. They cannot really speed arrows up above ~ 65 m/s at very best, and any gains here are very hard to achieve.

So to use energy further, more mass is required.

Huge amount of crossbows since ~ 1200 were composite, of course, so it probably changes performance quite a bit.


The thing with bow is that this velocity hugely depends on archer skills, perfect release will give such results, but just a bit worse one will bring the performance way down.

I have no real idea how it works for crossbows, with the way bow is bent, kept in bent state with string on the nut and so on.... Probably careful/symmetrical spanning would be crucial to high performance as well.

I wish someone would make some more detailed study about it.

[Galloglaich]

The main problem is how few people can make these things, takes quite a variety of skills. Composite bows lag way behind but most of the most powerful late medieval crossbows were steel. But in addition to making the prod properly (no mean feat) the whole rest of the thing has to be put together and in such a way that it won't say, accidentally misfire or break under the pressure of 1000 - 1200 lbs. Then you have to have people who trust the design sufficiently and are themselves competent enough to test it.

I was reading about one crossbow maker who described getting his cranequin stuck while spanning a halb rustung (half ton) crossbow, he had to carefully take the thing apart while still spanned, a part flew off and punched through his microwave.

Having recently played with a much less powerful (300 lb draw) crossbow I can testify, these things are not at all easy to use and for a neophyte like me, pretty scary!

Lots of fun though. We shot all the way through a replica Viking shield I had just using a 150 lb modern hunting crossbow, I'm going to do it again next time I go over there and take some video of it. It was 'eye opening'.

G

[Straybow]

I read somewhere that a study of market tax records in parts of Germany showed meat consumption rising dramatically in the medieval period, starting from a dark age 9th century low of 20kg/year to a peak 14th century 100kg/year, comparable to modern European consumption.

The end of Viking raids and advances in agriculture and husbandry lead to a much more prosperous Medieval life than our Victorian impressions gave us. The plague had economic effects that lasted for a couple generations after the event itself, and then agriculture and trade rebounded in the 15th century. During the Renaissance the trend reversed due to complex factors, to bottom out at about 20kg/yr.

[Straybow]

I think you're missing the point of my post. Assuming unnatural strength permits them all to swing their weapon at the same speed, simple physics dictates that the tip of the longer weapon travels faster.

Well, you quoted my post and your point is immaterial to mine... the question raised seemed to stem from game statistic Strength bonuses and do they make sense.

My point was that strength can enable the wielder to increase the momentum and energy of the attack without increasing the weapon size or speed, looking at the weapon-wielder system as a whole.

My arm strength only enables a certain fraction of my body momentum to count in the power of the blow, while a much stronger man could do better.

[Galloglaich]

It sort of depends what you mean by the Renaissance, from what I've seen the decline of general living conditions began in the late 16th Century and really got going in the 17th, notably during the 30 Years War. By the 18th Century of course most of Europe was under the control of powerful States and more and more of the common people were relegated to serfdom and poverty in ever-increasing numbers... which in turn led to revolutions breaking out and so forth.

The relative wealth in the Medieval period had to do with a lot more than agricultural improvements, trade was of huge importance. A lot of their animal protein came from fish, which was one of the first mass produced commodities (salted and / or dried cod, herring, salmon especially). The free cities of the Hanseatic League rose to importance originally over the Scania herring market, then spread to dozens of other commodities: fur, salt, wool, linen, fustian, beer, iron, pickles, dye, lumber, silver, silk, grain, potash, alum, glass, gunpowder, paper, iron and brass machines, weapons and so on. European commodities and 'value added' products were highly sought after in the Middle East and Central Asia - trade extended all the way to India and China via the Silk Road by the 13th Century. It was the same in the Mediterranean with the Italian Maritime republics (especially Genoa and Venice), the Byzantines, and other quasi-city-states like Barcelona.

Then of course the Atlantic opened up and it broke trade wide open with fresh opportunities for conquest and a myriad of exotic new goods, but that also shifted the power centers sharply westward from the city-states and Free Cities to the Atlantic facing Monarchies, with only Holland among all the old republics being able to carve out a slice of the new global maritime trade routes

G

[Brother Oni]

Well, you quoted my post and your point is immaterial to mine... the question raised seemed to stem from game statistic Strength bonuses and do they make sense.

The original question was regarding how would supernatural strength be beneficial in wielding oversized weaponry.

For this question, physics regarding increased weapon length does actually matter.

---

Anyway, back to the archer versus crossbowman cover question.

Full draw from kneeling is possible, however you can only half draw at best when the bow is horizontal, since your own body gets in the way (you also better hope that the string doesn't snag on your sleeve).

However I adjust my opinion on archers not being able to get full cover from a 3ft wall - on testing, you just expose your head and the top half of your bow when you fire (potentially less, since you can possibly arc your shot over the wall after a brief glance out of cover, but I need to go down the range to test this).

What does appear to be a weakness in my opinion is that the top half of your bow sticks up above the wall like a wooden dorsal fin, which may give forewarning or a potential target to the crossbowmen

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the author is familiar with bows only being shot from the traditional upright stance and this carried through into the scene in the book.

For reference, I'm 5'7" using a 68" olympic recurve and have a 28" draw length.

[Galloglaich]

I think he's just basing it on history. Outside of siege situations, longbow archers were often if not usually used in the open, whereas crossbows were usually if not always deployed behind pavises, war wagons, or other types of field fortifications.

George R.R. Martin pulled a lot of stuff from history, simplified it a bit and adjusted for his fantasy world. I mean, come on, Starks and Lannisters? York and Lancaster maybe?

G

[fusilier]

I think he's just basing it on history. Outside of siege situations, longbow archers were often if not usually used in the open, whereas crossbows were usually if not always deployed behind pavises, war wagons, or other types of field fortifications.

G

Initially crossbows were fielded behind pavises, etc. However, as the 15th century progressed, they seemed to be out more in the open, and pavises start to be used less in open warfare. This is probably related to the increase in mobility of infantry in general.

[fusilier]

Gunpowder:
The setting is somewhere between Renaissance and 30 Years´ War. I´m guessing wheellock and snaphaunce are most common, with matchlocks being somewhat primitive. I´m guessing pistol, arquebus and caliver cover the necessary bases. Some thoughts on how much rifling would add to the ranges of these things would also be appreciated.

Historically, matchlocks were very common for nearly two centuries after the introduction of the wheellock. The reason, was they were cheap and simple. Gradually, more and more wheellocks and snaphaunces began to be used in specialized contexts. "Firelocks" (general term for a lock which "makes it own fire", i.e. not a matchlock) made pistols practical, became popular with powder and artillery guards (so they didn't have to carry lit matches around the gunpowder), more and more special units, etc.

Not until nearly 1700 did matchlocks finally disappear from European militaries.

As for ranges -- Galloglaich's numbers are ok, but there are so many variables on such weapons that it's very difficult to state anything definitively. Even period reports can be wildly different. How much powder is used, is a patch being used, are loose balls being used to speed up loading, etc. All these factors will effect the performance of the weapon, both in terms of accuracy and armor penetration, and rate of fire.

For game purposes it's probably too complicated to try to model all that, but it does give you flexibility in picking different factors to try and balance the weapons. (Range, rate of fire, and damage).

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, totally disagree about the pavises. The only exceptions were mounted crossbowmen and war wagons, the first capable of eluding return fire, the second, with a superior type of 'moving pavise'. But pavises were used with (placed in between) the war wagons as well, rather as you see in this modern depiction here.




Other types of war wagons were basically mobile mantlets or pavises, like here from Bavaria in 1495



This continued through the end of the 16th Century in Central and Northern Europe, and also down into the Balkans. I'll stay out of Italy ;)

G


EDIT: I do agree about the firearms, wild variability there, I tried to give average numbers, plus some of the outliers. On top of everything else up to about 1550 guns were being made as trade secrets to a large extent in various places, so some were much more sophisticated and well made than others (same with powder) by the second half of the 16th Century the quality of both became gradually more uniform, though the skill of the typical gunner still varied a lot.

[Beleriphon]

I have a question regarding antique firearms. What order did primitive firearms occur?

I know there are wheel locks, flitlocks, match locks and even just touch arquebus but what came first, and how long did they get used for? Also, how did they work at least at a basic level.

[Galloglaich]

I think it's a good question. It took me a long time to figure this out, so in the interest of all that we love about the internet, (hopefully) I'll share what I understand about it:

The first were a class of proto-firearms in the 'fire lance' family which were set off by putting a fuze or a piece of red hot iron directly into the barrel. These correlate with the first appearance of flammable powders based on potassium - nitrate (known in Europe as salt of st. peter or saltpeter) which were similar and related to gunpowder but were not exactly gunpowder.

1100 AD - Fire Lance


This would be mounted on a pole

These early weapons worked by a combination of pyrotechnic (i.e. flame) effects and projectiles, usually in the form of small rocks. They were used in siege warfare. Weapons of this sort appear in Chinese books in the 12th Century, the earliest documented use in war was from 1132 AD in China but they appear in some paintings from as far back as the 9th or 10th Century.

For example the demon in this painting is using what looks like a fire lance in the upper right

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ryDunhuang.jpg

You can get an idea what they were like from this video (long but worth watching, good bits at 5:18, 8:08, )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMzZ3CPgMrg

These proto-gunpowders were alchemical substances developed while attempting to create longevity potions.

By the 13th Century something more like a firearm, using an improved type of power with all three ingredients of gunpowder (carbon, potassium nitrate, and sulfur) while also placing more of an emphasis on the projectile, began to be documented in sieges in several Chinese towns.

1250 AD - Hand Gonne

In the 1230's during the Mongol invasion of the Middle East fire-lances and primitive hand cannon were used by the Mongols and quickly figured out by their enemies, the Egyptian Mamelukes. During fighting between the Mongols and the Mamelukes the hand gonne or hand-cannon seems to have first appeared, first documented use was in 1260.



This website has a bunch of good replicas of hand gonnes or hand-cannons

http://www.redriverrenegades.com/BP%...&%20Canons.htm

At this same time the Mongols were also using firelances and / or hand gonnes in Eastern Europe as early as 1241, and they were reported as used by the Moors in Spain in the 1250's and 1260's. (Interestingly the Chinese continued to use the basic fire-lance well into the Ming Dynasty, for siege warfare)

The English Franciscan monk Roger Bacon probably got the gunpowder formula from Moors and Jews he was corresponding with in Spain and he first published it, in encrypted form as a 'recipe for a children's toy' (a firecracker) in 1267 in his Opus Majus. By 1300 some improved gunpowder formulas appeared in various European alchemical books such as the Liber Ignium.

1300 AD Hook -Gun

By this time European guns were starting to be made with hooks to steady them on ramparts (where guns were being used most often, in siege warfare) and these are called hook guns. These are still touch-hole firearms but more strongly made, designed to handle higher pressure from faster burning powder.




The German word for Hook gun was something like hacken - buschen, which the English and the Frisians called something like 'hack-butt' or harque- busche which evolved into 'arquebus' very gradually. The Czechs also came up with some very interesting variations on the original hand-gonne around this time:



see also http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/b...8588197927.jpg

1430 AD - Early Arquebus


Another good one made in Nuremberg here:

http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/b...8587424553.jpg

So you have these very early, handgonne / arquebus, some touch-hole, some with simple matchlocks, which were increasingly effective, started appearing around the 1430's when guns were kind of revolutionized by the Czechs, and remained in use alongside more sophisticated guns well into the 1500's. These have a longer barrel now than the original hook-guns, which improves power and accuracy, and they are a little easier to handle, more reliable (in terms of the barrel not cracking) and better made, generally.



The matchlock is basically just a little 'S' shaped piece of metal on a hinge, called a serpentine, which holds a slow match (a sort of little rope or cord that has been soaked in a saltpetre solution so it burns slowly). The serpentine is held back by a spring, and when you pull it, touches the match to your touch hole for you (so you could keep both hands on the gun when firing). The lock part comes from a little cover for the tiny 'pan' you have your priming powder in, which was an elaboration of the touch hole.

These things seem primitive but they are already pretty hard core, about the equivalent of a single-shot 12 or 20 gauge shotgun. For an idea of what they were like, I recommend this impressive video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE

1450 AD - Matchlock Arquebus



By the 1440's early match locks had appeared in the field, we see something which looks like the serpentine in some military / alchemical manuals as early as 1380 and again in 1410, but they aren't widely used on the battlefields until the Czechs start accelerating gun development in the Hussite wars. By the 1450's the idea is spreading fast to the most efficient military powers (like Venice, Bruges and Ghent in Flanders, Milan, the Ottomans, the German Hanseatic towns, the big southern German cities like Augsburg, Strasbourg and Nuremberg). In 1475 the matchlock appears in a printed book and then it's everywhere. The basic design of the matchlock changed, some had a catch so a spring would snap the trigger down when you pulled it and released the catch, others had the spring set the opposite way so that it provided resistance

Another big invention at this time was corned powder. Up until the 1400's powder had to be mixed in the field because it would separate out into it's components. Corned powder had just been moistened with alcohol and pushed through a sieve to make uniform 'corn' sized pieces, then allowed to dry in grains. This was a huge step for gunpowder weapons since it was 'ready to go' and much more powerful.

By the late 15th Century you start to see more developed arquebus starting to appear, some quite beautiful, with fairly long barrels like a modern firearm

Spoiler

Show

1500 AD - Wheellock

The next big invention was the wheellock, this was a complicated device which at it's most fundamental simply created sparks similar to the way a modern zippo lighter does, except it uses iron pirate to make the sparks instead of flint (flint came later). I think some wheellocks also had some features which opened the priming pan, though fuslier can correct me on that.


You can always tell a wheellock from a flintlock from the distinctive round wheel-shape in front of the trigger.

The wheellock was a huge improvement because you didn't have to keep a lit match - lit matches gave away your position due to smell and smoke, and were also vulnerable to rain or just humidity. But wheellocks were complicated, expensive, and initially not super reliable, so most infantry weapons (arquebus, musket etc.) remained matchlocks. So wheellocks were most commonly seen on expensive pistols used by cavalry or as personal weapons of nobility and wealthy burghers. They actually created a bit of a gun control crisis because they were so good for assassinations - it was a powerful and easily concealed weapon.

Later improved versions were called the snaplock, in the 1540's, the snaphaunce, came out in the 1560s used a flint instead of the iron pirate, and then the true flintlock came out around 1610.

1610- the Flintlock

This was the ultimate firing mechanism until the invention of the percussion cap. This was essentially a much simpler and more efficient version of the wheellock, which opened the priming pan right as it shot.



All these weapons are muzzle loaders, usually smooth bore though there were some rifled barrels as far back as medieval times, and they were also making small breach-loading cannon as early as the 14th Century.

G

[GraaEminense]

Lots of good stuff to work with, thanks a bunch guys.

Galloglaich, very nice guide on blackpowder guns. Bookmarked.

[fusilier]

Pavises

I would actually like to discuss more about this, as I've found very little explicit information on how much and when they were used. Often times we hear about how they were deployed during the 14th and early 15th centuries, but by the second-half of the 15th century, there are some events that are implying that they are beginning to decrease in use.

Two developments come to mind, both relating to warfare in Italy:
1. Starting around 1450 there was a gradual abandonment of the traditional three part infantry (foot lances, crossbowmen, and shield-bearers -- in roughly equal proportions), with a greater proportion of crossbowmen, and handgunners, being added. More "sword and buckler" men were also being introduced and the "shield-bearers" became less common.
2. Increasing use of mounted crossbowmen -- these troops could be used on horseback in light cavalry role, but more strategically (patrols, scouting, foraging, etc.), than tactically. In combat they functioned more like mounted infantry: i.e. they dismounted to fight.

At the same time there was an increase in the use of field fortifications and that may have also encouraged a tendency to dispense with the pavise. But the usual narrative states that there was a tendency to be use the infantry in a more offensive manner, and heavy pavises weren't well suited to such tactics.

Also the pavise was eventually abandoned; at least in open warfare (I'm pretty certain it carried on in siege warfare, and I think in fortified camps). An arquebus is no more mobile than a crossbow (and a musket, perhaps less so), but by the early 1500s there are fewer mentions of arquebusiers using pavises. The trend to discard them probably started in the 15th century, and completed sometime in the first quarter of the 16th.

Firearms
Wheellock -- the earliest wheellocks lacked automatic pan covers. The earliest I've seen date to about 1510, and are crossbow pistols. Automatic pan covers seem to have been introduced fairly quickly though.

Snaplock -- a snaplock, or snaphaunce (some authorities point out minor differences between the two), is the predecessor to the flintlock. The major functional difference being that the battery (part that the flint strikes to create sparks), is separate from the pan cover. In this way they are somewhat more complicated than a "true flintlock"; they typically had automatic pan covers like a wheellock.

The first lock to combine the battery and the pan cover is the miquelet lock -- traditionally known as the "Spanish Lock", invented around 1560, in Spain or Italy (a slight variation to this lock is called the "Italian" or "Roman" lock). While the fundamental operation is identical to a "true flintlock" it uses a different sear mechanism.

"Cannon-lock" -- the earliest of hand-guns are what are termed "cannon-lock", as they function like a small cannon.

At first, they seem to have been fired by thrusting a hot-wire through the vent-hole. This required fires to heat wire, and made the use of them outside of town and castle walls very difficult (although war wagons may have given them some mobility). Sometime in the 1300s matchcord was introduced, which provided hand-gunners with some mobility.

---EDIT---
Wheellocks use iron-pyrites because a flint will damage the wheel, on account of it's hardness. The operation of snaplock is more like a "true flintlock". Wheellocks remained popular in Germany for a very long time -- until the introduction of the percussion cap, the wheellock was technically the fastest form of ignition available.

All these "firelocks" (wheellocks, snaplocks, flintlocks), were expensive, and sometimes not too reliable. As a result they didn't really displace matchlocks, or each other. Rather they simple added another alternative ignition system. Typically a "better" one, but that came at more expense, and the greater likelihood of a break down. The flintlock, after a century or so of refinement, eventually won out and wheellocks and snaplocks were relegated to more of a niche market. Matchlocks were finally abandoned as too dangerous, but they lasted a surprisingly long time. (A matchlock would still be the standard arm during the Thirty Years War).

[fusilier]

Some more information on firearms, intended as an addendum to Galloglaich's post:

In the early 16th century there was a profusion of terms, which were rarely applied consistently. Eventually there started to be some standardization of the names, but it was never complete.

Arquebus

This was the basic firearm circa 1500. At that stage it had all the familiar pieces: a shoulder stock, a lock of some sort. The barrels were longer than on the earlier "hand gonnes", but still relatively short. Over the course of the 16th century the barrels got longer, and by the middle of the century a barrel length of around three-feet seems to have been common. Caliber was often .62, although expect some variation.

Sometime around the middle of the 1400s, the "serpentine" lock started to be used with arquebuses -- this was basically a holder for the matchcord and it facilitated aiming. Gravity would keep the matchcord from falling into the pan, until the "trigger" was pulled. (They were not held back by springs).

The sear lock developed sometime later, but still in the 1400s. This had a spring that "lifted" the match away from the pan. The spring force was light, and pulling the trigger would overcome the force and allow the matchcord to be introduced gently. It allowed more control of the matchcord than a serpentine, and would make it easier to shoot upwards.

The "snapping matchlock" was developed in the late 15th century. It was surprisingly popular for a while, but started to fall out of favor in the 1530s or 40s. With the sear-lock becoming the dominate form until the end of the matchlock era, circa 1700. It was "spring loaded": the weapon was c*cked, the match cord put into the jaws, and pulling a trigger (or pushing a button on earlier ones) would release the spring which would drive the match into the pan. It was fairly delicate. If the spring was too strong it could extinguish the match or knock it to the ground. Some troops may have used an expendable sprig of tinder fungus, rather than the matchcord. In that case, the match cord would be used to light the tinder fungus. (The photograph in Galloglaich's post of a man holding an arquebus above his head is of a snapping lock arquebus).

In the early part of the century there was a kind of "wall gun" also referred to as an arquebus, sometimes called an arquebus a croc. It looked like an oversized arquebus, and was used more like a light artillery piece and seems to have been a crewed served weapon. It retained the "hook" of the older heavy hand gonnes. Often it is shown as mounted on a kind of stout tripod, and presumably it could be rested over a wall. These don't seem to be used much in the field after the early 1500s -- probably being replaced by cannon on wheeled carriages.

Musket
Exactly when and where the musket appeared is somewhat hazy, again due to lack of a standard terminology. Generally it is accepted as having shown up in the 1520s or 1530s in the wars in Italy, but there's some evidence that it may have been in use before then.

The musket was essentially a bigger arquebus with a longer barrel. The increase in weight (many sources say 20lbs, but recently I've heard some say no more than 15lbs), meant the weapon was used with a "rest": a pole forked at one end to take the weight of the barrel while aiming. One man could wield it.

I know that by the 1580s the caliber of such weapons was .85-.95 and sometimes larger. This was a response to improvements in armor. At this time, they rarely made up a majority of the firearms in use by a unit. Instead Arquebuses and Muskets would be found together. The arquebus was better suited for skirmishing.

Caliver
This weapon first appeared in the 1570s(?). At that time they were an intermediate weapon, of about .74 caliber. Initially, they seem to have been a standard bore size, and is where our word for "caliber" comes from. This seems to have caused confusion. With some claiming that the "caliver" was a term applied to a group of arms that were of the same size (not that all calivers were the same, but that a specific order for several thousand of them might have the same dimensions). Others seem to think that they were an intermediate weapon, between musket and arquebus.

Historically there seems to have been confusion too. The intermediate size didn't seem to last very long. Some contemporary authorities considered the Caliver to be identical to the arquebus (maybe with a different style stock). Indeed, some nations never adopted the term caliver, and called such weapons arquebuses. Whereas others abandoned the term arquebus.

During the 17th century muskets started to get smaller and lighter. Many of them by the time of the Thirty Years War, were .75-80 caliber, and most Calivers were .60-.70. Armor was becoming less common, and less effective by that time, so muskets didn't need to be as big. They also started to lose the stock. Finally, by the end of the 17th century, we see musket calibers of .69-70. Some nations start referring to muskets as "fusils" -- although the English retain the word "fusil" for a kind of lighter musket.

Other weapons
The Arquebus, Musket, and Caliver are, in general, the weapons of the 16th and 17th centuries. To them were added any number of weapons. A petronel, was essentially an arquebus for use on horseback. Pistols came in many varieties. Belt pistols for personal use on foot, horse pistols with longer barrels for use on horseback. Some horse pistols could have very long barrels. There was also a weapon that was basically a refined short barreled arqeubus -- when arquebus barrels had reached a length of about three feet, these weapons had two-foot barrels. Often times they were fancy weapons, perhaps for hunting on horseback. They might be wheellock, and many of the ones I've seen have telescoping butt-stocks!

There were also non-European weapons that aren't easily categorized. The Ottoman Tufenk of the mid to late 16th century, was like a long barreled arquebus (barrel length of a musket, but the smaller caliber of an arquebus).

[GraaEminense]

Another question on guns:

As I understand it, by the early 19th Century it was common practise for line infantry to use ´buck & ball´with smoothbore weapons on shorter ranges, adding shot to the musket ball to do more damage to tight formations at the cost of accuracy/range (correct me if I´m wrong).

How early was this done?

How about dedicated ´shot´guns, like shotgun () and blunderbuss? When did they come into use?

[Galloglaich]

Good summary on the guns. Disagree with you on one point though

Pavises

I would actually like to discuss more about this, as I've found very little explicit information on how much and when they were used. Often times we hear about how they were deployed during the 14th and early 15th centuries, but by the second-half of the 15th century, there are some events that are implying that they are beginning to decrease in use.

Two developments come to mind, both relating to warfare in Italy:
(snip)
2. Increasing use of mounted crossbowmen -- these troops could be used on horseback in light cavalry role, but more strategically (patrols, scouting, foraging, etc.), than tactically. In combat they functioned more like mounted infantry: i.e. they dismounted to fight.

I'm not going to say definitively about Italy, but in Central Europe the mounted crossbowmen were definitely shooting from horseback.

Spoiler

Show

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=25005.135

In Northern and Central Europe by the 15th Century the tactical unit of a knight, the 'lance' ('gleve', 'helm') was typically made up of one lancer or knight, two mounted crossbowmen, one or more demi-lancers, and one or more valets. Even the lancer often carried a crossbow on his saddle. All this was to deal with steppe nomads, i.e. horse archers.

Spoiler

Show

It was also common for people to hunt with crossbows from horseback (shooting from horseback) like in the above depiction of Emperor Maximillian I. This remained fashionable into the 18th Century... a lot of the really nice 'halb rustung' (half ton, i.e. 1,000 lbs draw or more) cranequin arbalests we have still around are hunting weapons from the 17th or 18th Century.

I think regarding pavises you are maybe confusing the decline of the position of pavisieri as a specific rank in Italian urban militias, which didn't even mean necessarily just a guy holding a pavise for a crossbowman, with someone who did the latter. In Central Europe sometimes this was a highly paid expert (who helped load the crossbows) sometimes it was done by people described as servants or valets (valetti). I know Venice was still using pavises in their armies in Dalmatia (the Balkans / Croatia) both for gunners and crossbowmen into the end of the 15th Century, but beyond that I don't know enough definititvely to say.

G

[Galloglaich]

Re-enactors depicting crossbowmen from Matthias Corvinus 'Black Army', late 15th C



Hussite forces, 1504 (note the Chalice)



Good thread on the Bohemian use of Pavises here

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711

G

[Straybow]

The original question was regarding how would supernatural strength be beneficial in wielding oversized weaponry.

For this question, physics regarding increased weapon length does actually matter.

Didn't notice that post, I was addressing the follow-ups that didn't mention the uberweapons but real-ish weapons and armor... still not sure why you were quoting me...

Not that it matters. Carry on.

[Straybow]

Hmph. I would call those "large shields." I thought real pavises were more like door-sized.

[Galloglaich]

Most people would...

G

[fusilier]

I'm not going to say definitively about Italy, but in Central Europe the mounted crossbowmen were definitely shooting from horseback.

In Italy this is somewhat debated. Clearly the intent in mounting crossbowmen on horse back was originally to give them mobility, but some claim that they could use from horseback in battle. Given the Italian preference for belt-hooks for spanning crossbows, it sounds like it would be difficult to reload.

I think regarding pavises you are maybe confusing the decline of the position of pavisieri as a specific rank in Italian urban militias, which didn't even mean necessarily just a guy holding a pavise for a crossbowman, with someone who did the latter. In Central Europe sometimes this was a highly paid expert (who helped load the crossbows) sometimes it was done by people described as servants or valets (valetti). I know Venice was still using pavises in their armies in Dalmatia (the Balkans / Croatia) both for gunners and crossbowmen into the end of the 15th Century, but beyond that I don't know enough definititvely to say.

G

Actually a pavisieri didn't necessarily carry a pavise, and was usually a spearman with a shield of some sort. By the middle of the 15th century such shields were usually oval or round shaped. Still big but not a pavise (in the sense that it could not be planted on the ground).



Found here miniaturespage

In a painting from the 1460s (depicting a battle of the 1440s), you can see crossbowmen, but no pavises:
http://www.greatestbattles.iblogger....ine_Master.htm

And see here for a detail of an Italian crossbowmen and a description:
http://www.greatestbattles.iblogger...._Ages_1-79.htm

Pavises may have continued in use Central Europe for a bit longer. Here you can find the Bohemian's boasting about their pavises as late as 1519.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711

But I get the feeling that they were rather behind the times tactically speaking (not technologically speaking, however). But where are the Spanish and French pavises from that time period? By the early 1500s the Spanish were starting to show themselves to be a leading military power, and while an early adopter of arquebuses, they still employed crossbowmen. The use of a crossbow in Italy was widespread, but by the middle of the 15th century it gets hard to find a depiction of crossbowman with a pavise.

Pavises limited the infantry's mobility, and as tactics evolved they were increasingly discarded. It's not like there's a switch thrown, and suddenly everybody threw their pavises into furnaces -- but over time their use diminished. That diminishment may have occurred at different times in different places. But it's pretty clear it began in the 15th century and was complete, at least by 1550.