Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[fusilier]

And also on the larger picture - the issue of whether pavises were still widely in use in the 15th Century (and that their use peaked in the 15th). If you look at that excellent Myarmoury thread linked upthread here, you'll note most of the dozens of pavises they depict there are from the 15th or early 16th Century. The reason I believe they were still in use generally in Europe is that the Bohemians who we know used the hell out of 'em, were widely deployed as mercenaries from Northern Poland to southern Hungary. They were the basis of the Hungarian Black Army which I mentioned (and linked to) before, that was one of the biggest military players in Europe at that time.

Well, my argument is that they declined in use in the second half of the 15th century.

Secondly, I've seen that forum before -- and I was disappointed by it. All the pavises were German or Bohemian, and all from about 1500. Not only that, how can we be certain that what is shown there is a representational sample of pavises? Furthermore, a collection of pavises from circa 1500, is precisely that -- it doesn't prove anything other than that pavises were still made at that time. It doesn't demonstrate that they were being used in more or less numbers than in previous decades.

Also, any study that looks at surviving historical arms has to address the issue of sample bias for it to be acceptable. I saw a study about firearm effectiveness (they actually performed destructive testing on 17th century breastplates), where they came to the erroneous conclusion that firearms became more powerful over the course of the 17th century. Why? Because they used data from a museum that had conducted tests on some surviving weapons that they owned. The owned no circa 1600 muskets, only pistols and light carbines and light hunting weapons from that time period. They did have some military muskets from circa 1700, however. So, without the heavy muskets from the late 16th / early 17th centuries, but with later, and actually weaker, muskets their results were skewed. (There are other reasons their results would be wrong as well).

G - I've got no problem if you want to quote sources at me! I'm interested in learning, and do have access to a half-way decent library, which has surprised me before. :-)

[Brother Oni]

By the way, it was apparently early on in the third book that this occurred, when Lord Berrick's men are fighting the brave companions.

Cool, thanks. Haven't reached that far yet in the novels (still part way through the first book) or in the TV series (third season is out later this year).

[Galloglaich]

Well, my argument is that they declined in use in the second half of the 15th century.

Right. And I think it actually peaked in the second half of the 15th Century.

Secondly, I've seen that forum before -- and I was disappointed by it. All the pavises were German or Bohemian, and all from about 1500. Not only that, how can we be certain that what is shown there is a representational sample of pavises? Furthermore, a collection of pavises from circa 1500, is precisely that -- it doesn't prove anything other than that pavises were still made at that time. It doesn't demonstrate that they were being used in more or less numbers than in previous decades.

Well, it represents all the pavises they could find, and it shows us that quite a few of them were still around in Europe, at least in the German and Slavic / Magyar speaking parts of Europe, which covers a pretty damn big chunk of it.



Something like this, not counting the German-speaking towns in Sweden, Norway and Finland; or Holland or Flanders which overlaps culturally with the German speaking world; or Mongol controlled parts of Russia.

Also, any study that looks at surviving historical arms has to address the issue of sample bias for it to be acceptable.

Yes, but this is not an academic study. And since your evidence apparently consists of one throwaway line in an Osprey book (and more on that in a second) I don't see why the 'burden of proof' in this case would be on me, (or on the Myarmoury thread).

It is very hard to prove anything about life 500-600 years ago, All we have is our best guess based on the available evidence. When it comes to things which are perishable and organic like a pavise (or clothes, textile armor, furniture of common people) all we have to go on are what we can find in the archeological record, what has been preserved by whatever historical accident in castles, churches, museums, and private collections, what we see in the artwork and what is mentioned or described in surviving documents. All of these can of course be subject to various types of bias. Somethings last long (bronze artifacts for example) than others. Some things (books for example) are more likely to be carefully preserved than others, like say, underwear.


Until they very recently found this 600 year old bra in an Austrian Castle, they didn't think people wore them back then.

But we use Occam's razor - whatever the preponderance of evidence shows is what we assume to be the case... until more evidence turns that upside down. As for example Ewart Oakeshott did in the 60's when he did a really systematic survey of Medieval swords, and proved that they were not clumsy crow bars.


Getting back to our little debate, I know that the Swiss French term for missile armed skirmishers such as crossbowmen and gunners was "Gens de Trait", so I did a google search for the term, I found this interesting image, from the 19th or 20th Century I'd guess, of a pretty convincing (to me) portrayal of some Swiss infantry with a pavise. Note how the crossbowman carries it on his back.



The cross on the back of the halberdier / billmans back is, I believe, Swiss. From his armor I think you will agree, it's 15th Century.

Regarding the Osprey books, here is another image from another one (I don't remember which one) depicting Swiss mercenaries in the 'mid 15th Century' hiding behind pavises.



So I would say Osprey leans both ways on that issue.


If you think they went away in the late 15th Century, the question should be why? What changed specifically between 1450-1500? Either that or of course, feel free to provide a study in detail of the existing evidence from across Europe of the decline of the use of the Pavise.

G - I've got no problem if you want to quote sources at me! I'm interested in learning, and do have access to a half-way decent library, which has surprised me before. :-)

Ok. My best sources for this period are as follows:

Academic
The Annals of Jan Dlugosz: A History of Eastern Europe from A.D. 965 to A.D. 1480 [Abridged], Maurice Michael (Translator), Jan Dlugosz, IM Publications LLP, (1997) ISBN: 978-1901019001
Teutonic Knights: A Military History , William L. Urban, Greenhill Books (2003) ISBN: 1853675350
The Northern Crusades: Second Edition, Eric Christiansen, Penguin, (1998) ISBN: 0140266534
The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, Henricus Lettus (Author), circa 1227 AD. James A. Brundage (Translator), Columbia
University Press (January 6, 2004), ISBN-10: 0231128894
Expeditions to Prussia and the Holy Land, Made by Henry Earl of Derby (afterwords King Henry IV) in the years 1390-1 and 1392-3 Being The Accounts kept by his Treasurer during two years Edited from the originals by Lucy Toulmin Smith, printed for the Royal Camden Society M.DCC.XCIV (1894) (English introduction and preface, the rest is Latin)
Arms and Armor in the Medieval Teutonic Order’s State in Prussia, Andrzej Nowakowski, Oficyna Naukowa MS, (Poland),
(1994), ISBN 83-85874-01-1
Cracow, the royal capital of ancient Poland: its history and antiquities, By Leonard Lepszy, 1912
A History of the Hussite Revolution by Howard Kaminsky Wipf & Stock Publishers (April 2004) ISBN: 1592446310
Saxo and the Baltic Region, a Symposium Edited by Tore Nyberg University Press of Southern Denmark; 1 edition (January 2004) ISBN: 8778389283
Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchaologie im Hanseraum, I: Stand, Aufgaben und Perspektiven Schmidt - Roemhild;
(1997) ISBN: 978-3-7950-1222-9
Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchaologie im Hanseraum, II: der Handel Schmidt - Roemhild; (1999) ISBN
103795012368
Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchaologie im Hanseraum IV: Die Infrastruktur Schmidt - Roemhild; (October 2004)
ISBN: 3795012651
Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795 (History of East Central Europe), Daniel Stone, University of Washington Press (May 29, 2001) ISBN 978-0295980935
Medieval Warfare: History of the Art of War, Volume III (History of the Art of War, Vol 3) , Hans Delbruck, University of Nebraska Press (1990) ISBN: 0803265859
European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution Ewart Oakeshott, Boydell Press (November 16, 2000), ISBN: 0851157890
The Armourer and his Craft, Ffoulkes, Charles, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1988 (original printing 1912)
Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor, National Institute of Justice, Law enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing Program, #0101.04, June 2001
Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, National Institute of Justice. Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing program, #0115.00, September 2000
The Journal of the Mail Research Society Schmid, Eric, Armour from the Battle of Wisby, Thordeman, Bengt, Almquist & Wiksells, Boktryckeri, 1939
A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times, George Cameron Stone
The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons, edited by Leonid Tarassuk and Claude Blair
Mary Rose, The Mary Rose Trust, Old Porstmouth 1985
Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Peroid Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani Legat Verlag (November 3, 2006) ISBN: 3932942221
The World of the Gallowglass: Kings, Warlords and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200-1600 Sean Duffy (Editor) Four Courts press, (October 10, 2007) ISBN: 1851829466
The Knight and the Blast Furnace, Alan Williams, Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN: 978-9004124981
The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Joseph Burkhardt
The Book of the Sword, Sir Richard Burton, Dover Publications (July 1, 1987) ISBN: 0486254348

Primary Sources
An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Munqidh, Usamah Ibn-Munqidh, ISBN:
0691022690
Il-Principe (“The Prince”) Niccolò Machiavelli, Create Space (2010), ISBN: 978-1441412898
The Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Various authors, Red and Black Publishers, ISBN: 978-1-934941-50-8
The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars, Friar Giovanni DiPlano Carpini, Brandon Publishing Company (1996), ISBN: 0-8283-2017-9
Chronicles of the Crusades, Jean de Joinville, Digireads.com publishing (2010), ISBN: 978-1-4209-3487-8
Medieval Russias Epics, Chronicles, and Tales (includes numerous excerpts from the Russian Primary Chronicle), Meridian Books, (1974) ISBN: 0-452-01086-1
Chinese Military Texts: The Art of War, Thirty-Six Stratagems, Huolongjing, Wujing Zongyao, Seven Military Classics, Ji Xiao Xin
Shu (Paperback), Books LLC (2010), ISBN: 978-1155663012
The Conquest of New Spain Bernal Diaz
The 1001 Nights, aka The Book of A Thousand Nights and a Night aka The Arabian Nights Sir Richard Burton (translator /
compiler)
Book of Five Rings, Miyamoto Musashi, Shambhala (1994) ISBN: 0877739986
Elbinger Rechtsbuch (13th Century)
Balthazar Behem Codex Picturatus (15th Century)
Elbing-Preusisches Worterbuch (14th Century)
The Chronicles of Novgorod BiblioBazaar (November 18, 2009) ISBN: 1117019462
Gesta Danorum Saxo Grammaticus
Mittelalterliches Hausbuch von_Schloss Wolfegg, 1480 AD (reprinted 1887)
Meester van het Hausbuch, 1485 AD
Chronicle of Henry of Livonia 1228 AD
Livonian Rhymed Chronicle 1340 AD
Chronicon Terrae Prussiae Peter of Dusburg, 1326 AD
Hypatian Codex (contains excerpts from the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle)
Saxonspiegel (various versions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenspiegel
Annales seu cronici in****i regni Poloniae (The Annals of Jan D.ugosz), 1480 AD (first printed 1701), by Jan D.ugosz (the
definitive Medieval history of the Baltic region)
Banderia Prutenorum, Jan D.ugosz, 1448 AD
Chronica Slavorum, Helmold, 1171 AD,
Deeds of bishops of the Hamburg Church, Adam von Bremen, 1080 AD
Chronica der Provinz Lyfflandt, Balthasar Russow, 1578 AD
A Journey Beyond the Three Seas, Afanasy Nikitin, 1475 AD
Tirant Lo Blanc, Joanot Martorell, 1490 AD
The Nuremberg Chronicle, 1493 AD
Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii ("Description of Cities and Lands North of the
Danube") the Bavarian Geographer, 850 AD
Book of Roads and Kingdoms, Abu Abdullah al-Bakri, 1068 AD, Cordoba, Al Andalus (contains excerpts from the
commentaries of Abraham ben Jacob aka Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub aka al-Tartushi from the 10th Century, including his
travels in Scandinavia, Poland and Bohemia.)
Gesta Principum Polonorum: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, Gallus Anonymous, Central European University Press (March 2003) ISBN-10: 9639241407

Popular Military History
Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight by David Edge and John Miles Paddock, ISBN: 978-0517103197
Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare in Western Christendom David Nicolle
Warfare in the Classical World, John Gibson Wary, University of Oklahoma Press, (October 1995) ISBN: 0806127945
Longbow- A Social and Military History Hardy, Robert, Patrick Stephens Limited, Great Britain, originally printed 1976
The Crooked Stick: A History of the Longbow* Hugh D. H. Soar, Westholme Publshing LLC, (2004) ISBN: 978-1-59416-090-5
The Great Warbow Matthew Strickland, The History Press (2005), ISBN: 978-0750931670

Osprey Military Books
The Swiss at War 1300-1500 (Men-At-Arms Series, 94) Douglas Miller, Osprey Press, (November 1979) ISBN: 0850453348
Landsknechts (Men-At-Arms Series, 58), Douglas Miller, Osprey Press, (March 31, 1994) ISBN: 0850452589
Viking Hersir 793-1066 AD, Mike Harrison, Osprey Press, (July 29, 1993), ISBN: 1855323184
The Hussite Wars 1419-36, Stephen Turnbull, Osprey Press, 2004, ISBN: 1 84176 665 8
Samurai 1550-1600*, Anthony J Byrant, Osprey Press 1994, ISBN: 978 1 85532 345 2
English Longbowman 1330-1515, Clive Bartlett, Osprey Press 1995, ISBN: 978 1 85532 491 6

Web resources:
Overview of Japanese Armor: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
World Atlatl organization: http://www.worldatlatl.org/
The English Warbow society: http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/
The Knight and the Blast Furnace on google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GpV... /> =&f=false
Charles Ffoulkes The Armorer and His Craft in online scan:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19025405/F...-in-Fullscreen

Academic Articles
Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia, (1996)
Jennifer Mills “The Hanseatic League in the Eastern Baltic”, (May 1998)
Christopher Nicholson, “Between Menace and Utility: Handguns in Early Sixteenth-Century Bohemia”, University College
London (Skepsi Vol 1, Kent University 2010)
Sven Ekdahl, “Horses and Crossbows: Two Important Warfare Advantages of the Teutonic Order in Prussia”, published
in The Military Orders, Volume 2: Welfare and Warfare (1998)
Riskin, Jessica, “Machines in the Garden.” Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the
Arts 1, no. 2 (April 3, 2010), http://rofl.stanford.edu/node/59
David Eltis “Towns and Defense in Later Medieval Germany”, Nottingham Medieval Studies v. 33. (1989)
Cliff Hubby “Violence and Local Society in Late Medieval Bavaria, a look at the evidence”
T.A. Brady, 'Patricians, nobles, merchants: internal tensions and solidarities in South German urban ruling classes at
the close of the Middle Ages', in Social Groups and Religious Ideas in the Sixteenth Century. Ed. M.U. Chrisman and O.
Gründler (1978)
Thomas A. Brady, “Ruling Class, Regime and Reformation in Strasbourg” 1520-1555 (Leiden: Brill, 1978)
F.L. Carsten, 'Medieval democracy in the Brandenburg towns and its defeat in the fifteenth century', Transactions of the
Royal Historical Society, 4th ser. 25 (1943), 73-91
F.R.H. Du Boulay, 'The German town chroniclers', in R.H.C. Davis and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill ed., The Writing of History in
the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to R.W. Southern (1981)
Christopher R. Friedrichs, 'The Swiss and German city-states', in The City-State in Five Cultures, ed. Robert Griffeth and
Carol G. Thomas (Santa Barbara, CA, London, 1981), 109-42
M. Groten, 'Civic record keeping in Cologne, 1250-1330', in R.H. Britnell ed., Pragmatic Literacy East and West, 1200-
1330 (1997)
Hans R. Guggisberg, Basel in the Sixteenth Century: Aspects of the City Republic before, during and after the
Reformation (St Louis, MO, 1982)
Peter Johanek, 'Imperial and free towns of the Holy Roman Empire – city states in pre-modern Germany?', in A
Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures, ed. Mogens Herman Hansen (Copenhagen, 2000), 295-319
D. Nicholas, The Later Medieval City 1300-1500 (1997)
M. North, 'The records of Lübeck and Hamburg, c. 1250-1330', in R.H. Britnell ed., Pragmatic Literacy East and West,
1200-1330 (1997)
F. Rörig, “The Medieval Town” (Eng. trans. from 1964 edn)
H.-C. Rublack, 'Political and social norms in urban communities in the Holy Roman Empire', in K. von Greyertz ed.,
Religion, Politics, and Social Protest (London, 1984), 24-60
J.C. Smith ed., Nuremberg: a Renaissance City, 1500-1618 (Huntington Art Gallery, Austin, Texas, 1983)
H. Stoob, ‘The role of the civic community in central European urban development during the twelfth to the fifteenth
centuries’, Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society, 23 (1978-9)
G. Strauss, “Nuremberg in the Sixteenth Century” (1966)
Dr. William Urban “The Sense of Humor Among the Teutonic Knights of the Thirteenth-Century”, illinois Quarterly
Michael Toch “Hauling Away in Late Medieval Bavaria: The Economics of Inland Transport in an Agrarian Market” The
Agricultural History Review Vol. 41, No. 2 (1993), pp. 111-123
John U. Nef ‘Mining and Metallurgy in Medieval Civilisation’, The Cambridge Economic History of Europe
Volume 2, Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages (1987)
Giles Constable, "Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages," Archiv für Diplomatik 29 (1983), pp. 1-41.
J. N. H. LAWRANCE “The Spread of Lay Literacy in Late Medieval Castile”, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, (Liverpool
University Press, 1985)
Roberto S. Lopez, “The Culture of the Medieval Merchant” Proceedings of the Southeastern Institute of Medieval and
Renaissance Studies, Vol. 8 (1979)
“Imperial and Free Towns of the Holy Roman Empire, City States in Pre-modern Germany?” Peter Johanek, A
comparative study of thirty city-state cultures: an investigation The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters,
(2000), ISBN 8778761778
“Women in Genoese commenda contracts”, 1155–1216, Mark Angelos, Journal of Medieval History, Volume 20, Issue
4, (December 1994), Pages 299-312, Epstein Stephan.

Specifically on the issue of Switzerland, your best bet would be to go to the Chronicles of Diebold Schilling (who did the Chronicles of Bern and Zurich in the 1480's, among others) and the other Swiss Chronicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold...ling_the_Elder

Also this book gets into some useful detail about the Burgundian Wars

http://www.amazon.com/Charles-Bold-V.../dp/0851159184

[fusilier]

I don't see why the 'burden of proof' in this case would be on me, (or on the Myarmoury thread).

Because you've made a counter claim, and I'm interested in the subject. I'm not asking you to conduct a detailed academic survey yourself, just to point me in the direction of some. With all due respect, most of your arguments seem to be "here's a picture". Which would be fine, if we were arguing over the shape of crossbow stocks or something like that, but hardly settles a question of tactical doctrine. A picture might demonstrate that a piece of equipment was used, but not the extent to which it was in use.

If you think they went away in the late 15th Century, the question should be why? What changed specifically between 1450-1500? Either that or of course, feel free to provide a study in detail of the existing evidence from across Europe of the decline of the use of the Pavise.

There are a couple of factors. 1. At least somebody writing an Osprey book developed the impression that the Swiss stopped using them in field battles. Unfortunately, there's no reference. 2. The use of shield-bearers in Italian armies declined during the second-half of the century. Perhaps this is related to something that seems to be going on in western European infantry -- and that is the division of infantry companies. Earlier, at least in Italy, it was common to have a single infantry company with multiple troop types in it, and apparently they just mixed everybody together on the battlefield. In the second half of the century, increasingly you see companies separating into "fire" companies, of crossbowmen and/or handgunners, and other types of infantry -- which would imply that a similar division was taking place on the battlefield. This is actually a development that I'm trying to find out more about.

In itself, that's no particular reason to abandon pavises, as crossbowmen could carry them themselves, although I'm not sure if that practice was universal, or even common. [Indeed, there's some confusion on that subject]. However, these changes seem to be related to a common reference to the increase in the effectiveness and mobility of the infantry. Increasing mobility of infantry and the abandonment of a big, bulky piece of equipment seem a logical correlation.

--EDIT-- There was also a rise in the use of field fortifications, I need more time to explore that angle, but if a crossbowman found himself behind ditches and breastworks more often, then a pavise looks less useful as well. --EDIT--

When it comes to things which are perishable and organic like a pavise (or clothes, textile armor, furniture of common people) all we have to go on are what we can find in the archeological record, what has been preserved by whatever historical accident in castles, churches, museums, and private collections, what we see in the artwork and what is mentioned or described in surviving documents. All of these can of course be subject to various types of bias.

Agreed.

Well, it represents all the pavises they could find, and it shows us that quite a few of them were still around in Europe, at least in the German and Slavic / Magyar speaking parts of Europe, which covers a pretty damn big chunk of it.

Which, unfortunately, only reinforces my view that they lagged behind Western Europe in tactical innovation. *I* don't think that implies a lack of effectiveness, but that's because I don't subscribe to such views. --EDIT-- In this aspect, at this time. I do not claim that Eastern Europeans were always lagging behind Western Europe. To the contrary they were early adopters of handguns, and many mercenary handgunners in the west were from Bohemia and Germany. --EDIT--

Ok. My best sources for this period are as follows:

Heh. Did somebody just copy and paste a bibliography they had lying around? ;-) I'll take a look through and see what's likely to discuss the equipment in question.

Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Peroid Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani Legat Verlag (November 3, 2006) ISBN: 3932942221

This one looks promising. I'm sure the use of pavises in Europe will be well covered. ;-)

[fusilier]

I know Gush is definitely a bit dated, and rather simplistic, but a little more fuel for the fire:

http://warfare.uphero.com/Renaissanc...ry_Weapons.htm

Large oblong 'pavises' propped up or held to shelter crossbowmen, especially in sieges, were probably still in use at the beginning of the period. Otherwise, shields were beginning to disappear from the infantry, probably because both pike and firearm required the use of both hands, and because a shield offered little protection against a bullet. They were officially abolished in Germany by the Emperor Maximilian when he carried out his reorganisation of German forces at the end of the 15th Century, and German shields of the type illustrated would probably be rare after this.

[Note: there's no illustration on the webpage ---CORRECTION--- the illustration of a pavise is on the webpage]

However, when talking about the polish army in the late 15th century:
http://greatestbattles.iblogger.org/.../13_Polish.htm

Infantry were similar to medieval Western types, with many crossbow and pavise-men

So, if your focus has been on Eastern European warfare, it may very well be the case that the use of pavises lasted longer, and use peaked later than it did in Western Europe.

[Galloglaich]

Because you've made a counter claim,

Ok, "no more pictures for you" fusilier! All kidding aside, I think I've countered the one line from the Osprey book. We both recognize that pavises remained in use by the Bohemians and the Germans through the end of the 15th Century. "here's a picture" demonstrated that there were plenty of surviving pavises from that period. If that doesn't impress you, I am ok with that. My evidence may not meet academic muster, but neither, frankly, does anything you have posted on this subject, and I've posted at least as much relevant content as you have. No offense, but I really don't care if you agree. I said already, I post here to provide information, and to learn myself, but not to argue into infinity. I don't think that is the purpose of the thread - I would like to try to keep the signal to noise ratio up. I think this is devolving into 'noise'.

If you have evidence about the pavise, post it. We both already know each others opinions.

The use of shield-bearers in Italian armies declined during the second-half of the century. Perhaps this is related to something that seems to be going on in western European infantry -- and that is the division of infantry companies.

As usual, this debate stems from my research on warfare in Central / Northern Europe vs. your research on Italian warfare - which you perceive as more modern or relevant to "Western" history or culture. I already demonstrated why I think the German / Slavic world is representative of a good chunk of Europe (see the map I posted upthread). I pointed out that the Hungarian Black army, which is considered by many military scholars to be the first really modern combined-arms army in post-Classical Europe, (i.e. at the very pinnacle of European tactical doctrine) was made up largely of Bohemian mercenaries who we both know were still using pavises very late, and King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary intentionally adopted the Bohemian (Czech) style of warfare because he found it more effective. (So, incidentally, did the Ruthenian Cossacks, the Muscovites, the Austrians, the Germans of the HRE, the Poles, and even the Turks, to varying degrees, mainly different types of war-wagon systems). The black army also included Swiss mercenaries, incidentally.

Note the Wiki shows a pavise shield in the images (I didn't put it there!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_A...ary#Weaponry_3

But this is all repetition at this point, signs of a stalemate in the discussion.

Earlier, at least in Italy,

See above.

Which, unfortunately, only reinforces my view that they lagged behind Western Europe in tactical innovation. *I* don't think that implies a lack of effectiveness, but that's because I don't subscribe to such views.

Considering that they basically invented the effective tactical use of guns, I think that is a ridiculous statement.

Heh. Did somebody just copy and paste a bibliography they had lying around? ;-) I'll take a look through and see what's likely to discuss the equipment in question.

Yep, it's the bibliography from my book and my last lecture, both of which deal with warfare in Central Europe.

This one looks promising. I'm sure the use of pavises in Europe will be well covered. ;-)

You might be surprised if you paused to think about it for a minute, maybe you could find the link. The Czechs, Germans, and Venetians had one thing in common: their most dangerous enemies were the Ottoman Empire and the other Steppe Nomads. The Ottomans adapted a lot of their military technology from the Persians. Including the steel shields they started using in the 15th Century which ended up in turn being adopted by the Spanish and the Italians as (one type of) rotella, and contributed to a major tactical breakthrough for the Spanish in particular toward the end of the 15th Century.

G

[fusilier]

If you have evidence about the pavise, post it. We both already know each others opinions.

This is actually what I'm asking you to do.

A "throw-away line" from an Osprey book, still trumps nothing from no book. (--EDIT-- I am seriously interested in finding out more about this, because the statements that I've found are mostly these simply throw away lines from respected works, but ones that are also recognized for not being terribly accurate. Or they tend to be narrow in scope, like referring only to the Swiss or the Italians. However, so far I've not been able to find anything else. --EDIT--)

Considering that they basically invented the effective tactical use of guns, I think that is a ridiculous statement.

Apparently, you missed my edit. That's not your fault, but I repeat it:
--EDIT-- In this aspect, at this time. I do not claim that Eastern Europeans were always lagging behind Western Europe. To the contrary they were early adopters of handguns, and many mercenary handgunners in the west were from Bohemia and Germany. --EDIT--

It is ridiculous and silly to claim that any one group of people were always on the cutting edge of military technology and tactical thinking. But, after having submitted my statement, I realized that if it's taken out of the context of late 15th century pavise use, that it might be misinterpreted -- so I clarified it.

[fusilier]

Ian Heath, in Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume 1: The Hundred years' War, the War of the Roses and the Burgundian Wars, 1300-1487 -- England, Burgundy, France, the Free Companies, Granada, Ireland, Italy, the Low Countries, Navarre, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland, has a couple of entries on the use of Pavises.

He states that the Swiss had abandoned pavises by the Burgundian Wars, but that the Burgundian crossbowmen still used them. Later in a description of a French crossbowman he states:

. . . the pavise described earlier having largely fallen out of use nearly everywhere by the late 15th-century (although it did not disappear entirely until the 16th century).

pg. 146.

Now I'm still looking through Volume 2 (which includes the Hungarians), but his comments about the Black Army are basically in agreement with the wikipedia article linked above -- in which pavises were standard in that army at least down to the end of the 15th century. The description of how they operated is very static -- basically forming a fortress on the battlefield, that the light infantry would sally out from to attack the enemy, then fall back to for cover.

At any rate, the quote above may have a distinctive Western European slant to it -- which is hardly surprising, given the sub-title. :-)

[kennyboyraven]

I'd like to ask how effective a crossbow (or any weapon based on the principle) was if the crossbow was actually pressed against the target? Would this would mean the bolt/string wouldn't have traveled far enough to impart all its force into the bolt, or does the bolt have full force immediately?

I would have thought the string would have to at least travel a minimum distance to impart enough force/momentum to the bolt?

[Brother Oni]

I'd like to ask how effective a crossbow (or any weapon based on the principle) was if the crossbow was actually pressed against the target? Would this would mean the bolt/string wouldn't have traveled far enough to impart all its force into the bolt, or does the bolt have full force immediately?

I would have thought the string would have to at least travel a minimum distance to impart enough force/momentum to the bolt?

I believe studies have indicated that bolts and arrows take a short distance to accelerate to top speed, but that's of limited importance at the range in question.

You have the bolt pressed against the target, but the power of the crossbow is still restrained by its internal mechanism. When you pull the trigger, instead of the crossbow mechanism restraining the energy, you have the target doing it instead.
This is where the draw power of the crossbow is important - if the target can stop the crossbow's pressure being transmitted through a sharp pointy metal tip, then they're safe. In all likelihood, you're going to end up with the bolt being pushed into the target.

There are number of pictures available on the internet of similar things happening with bows, where arrows have been of the wrong draw length or damaged arrows splintering on release, with the end effect of the arrow going through the archer's hand (I suspect board rules prohibit me from linking to them).

I've seen images of this happening with bows from 30 to 75lb draws - you can imagine what would happen with a more powerful crossbow (late medieval military crossbows start at about 350lbs, all the way up to 1200lbs for a siege crossbow).

[Spiryt]

I believe studies have indicated that bolts and arrows take a short distance to accelerate to top speed, but that's of limited importance at the range in question.

That's not really possible, I think. Once string stops to provide energy to the arrow, it cannot gain any more energy, obviously save gravity.

So while most arrows would take quite some time to stabilize in flight, from initial vibrations, it would mostly mean rapid reduction of deceleration, not actual acceleration.

I'd like to ask how effective a crossbow (or any weapon based on the principle) was if the crossbow was actually pressed against the target? Would this would mean the bolt/string wouldn't have traveled far enough to impart all its force into the bolt, or does the bolt have full force immediately?

It depends on the target, arrow, bow in the question, obviously, I agree with Brother Oni.

With shortish arrow, I've managed to overdraw my bow, and press arrow against bow, or even my hand quite few times. Wasn't exactly pleasant, but since bow is ~ 30 it wasn't really that harmful, neither to hand nor bow.

Mind you, I wasn't stupid enough to fully release the string, so while whole system was somehow static, my body was still providing significant force holding bow in tension, before I draw arrow back.

In case of actual release, bow would obviously start working against target, trough arrow and string. Something would probably got to give, in case of more significant energies, but it's impossible to tell.

In case of more massive bolts, with iron/similar string rest, bolt could probably avoid being snapped, so if target wouldn't give up either, bow itself would probably slowly lose it's tension.

And no, bolt obviously doesn't have full force imminently, just as energy is stored in bow during whole draw, it is released trough bow snapping back.

[Galloglaich]

Ian Heath,

Another Osprey book writer..

Now I'm still looking through Volume 2 (which includes the Hungarians), but his comments about the Black Army are basically in agreement with the wikipedia article linked above -- in which pavises were standard in that army at least down to the end of the 15th century.

So in other words, he's contradicting himself.

There are apparently some letters from Matthias Corvinus in which he describes in detail how his army worked in which he mentions the pavises, most of the English language summarized commentary on the Black Army derives from these.

The description of how they operated is very static -- basically forming a fortress on the battlefield, that the light infantry would sally out from to attack the enemy, then fall back to for cover.

And this would be completely innacurate. It would be almost excactly like saying that the Roman Legions only fought by forming testuodo. The Czech style infantry armies had the ability to turtle-up, if necessary, which was very important when fighting on the Steppe as a turn of fate on the battlefield could see the enemy cavalry suddenly gain an enormous advantage in local numerical superiority and / or morale which would (and did) lead to catastrophe for traditional 'Western' style Feudal armies (such as at Nicopolis); but they won at least as many battles by moving out in columns aggressively, and taking the enemy in the flank while they were pre-occupied with the cavalry or the cannons.

This was true of the original Bohemian Hussite armies, of the Czechs fighting for the Hungarians against the Turks (both under Matthias Corvinus and other warlords like Jan Jiskra) among the Poles and Prussians, the cossacks, and even the Russians. And it's something Anglo-American historians seem to have never been able to wrap their heads around, when they do discuss these events they tend to treat them as a one-off. But this technique was so successful against Steppe cavalry that it was widely adopted throughout the region of Central and Eastern Europe and into Central Asia.

At any rate, the quote above may have a distinctive Western European slant to it -- which is hardly surprising, given the sub-title. :-)

This is a fairly typical of Engligh language books on Medieval history, the point of view is basically English, plus some French through an English filter, Spanish through an English filter, and Italian through an English filter, with very little else. To get around that you need to get into hard core military history specialists, who tend to be a little better, and translations of foreign analysis (I like Hans Delbruck even though he is a little dated and his numbers are sometimes off - he has a vastly greater familiarity with all the Contintental European forces and how they fought in detail than any Anglo-American author I know) or better yet, primary sources from the period in question. I learned far more from reading Jan Dlugosz than from all the Opsrey books I have put together, even though he to has his biases which you have to remain aware of.


G

[fusilier]

Another Osprey book writer.

Irrelevant. Provide some evidence to the contrary!

And this would be completely innacurate.

It agrees with what Matthias himself states:
"We regard the heavy infantry as an immovable wall . . . " and "When the opportunity presents itself the light infantry make forays, but if their attack loses impetus of if they are hard pressed they fall back behind the heavy infantry."

Did you read the wikipedia article that you linked to? It also claims that crossbowmen had the disadvantage of being slow moving.

This is a fairly typical of Engligh language books on Medieval history,

So everything written in English, is suspect by default? *Sigh*

Yet you still haven't referenced a single passage from any work . . . in any language.

[Galloglaich]

So everything written in English, is suspect by default? *Sigh*

Not at all, just popular history stuff, history channel and so on. Osprey, quite often though they at least get in the ballpark.

Yet you still haven't referenced a single passage from any work . . . in any language.

On what issue exactly? Use of pavises in Central Europe in the 15th Cenut? I thought you already admitted you were wrong about that. I'm not sure what we are arguing about now. Mobile war-wagon columns in Central Europe?

G

[Spiryt]

Some pavises from mentioned Baltazar Behem's Codex, of very early 16th century, for those interested:

Spoiler

Show

[Galloglaich]

I hadn't seen the second version of that... does that come from the Balthasar Behem Codex too?

I have a few of the images, there are some here and I also have a few more (though only in black and white) but I wish I could get an English translation (or even a Polish transcription) of the text.

I'm not going to say I would kill for it but I might beat someone severely with a belt a few times...

G

[fusilier]

I hadn't seen the second version of that... does that come from the Balthasar Behem Codex too?

I have a few of the images, there are some here and I also have a few more (though only in black and white) but I wish I could get an English translation (or even a Polish transcription) of the text.

I'm not going to say I would kill for it but I might beat someone severely with a belt a few times...

G

Have you seen this?

DRW-Quellen Faksimile

I think this is a print copy of it from 1889, in German, but I'm not sure if it is complete (I think it is). The pictures (Tafel) are in black and white, interspersed with pages of printed text, that looks like it could be directly from the original. You won't be able to cut and paste it into a machine translator, and I'm not sure it would translate too well anyway, but if you are patient and can puzzle out the blackletter font you might be able to do it. At some point it goes into Latin, then Polish, I think (at S.69).

[Brother Oni]

So while most arrows would take quite some time to stabilize in flight, from initial vibrations, it would mostly mean rapid reduction of deceleration, not actual acceleration.

Possibly. I'll have to look up the studies again to be sure, but after the initial arrow flex clearing the bow I was under the impression it sped up as it could now fly straight.

Mind you, I wasn't stupid enough to fully release the string, so while whole system was somehow static, my body was still providing significant force holding bow in tension, before I draw arrow back.

Obviously there's a difference between easing it off gently and letting it go all at once. I've seen what happens when you do the latter.

[Hazzardevil]

In the 1700's and early 1800's rifles were rarely used due to the costs of adding rifling, so almsot everyone used smoothbore firearms.
What made rifling cheaper and easier to produce to the point that it was quite common by the 1860's?

As for the discussion of point blank crossbows, I think that it would probably work if you had a small gap between the tip and the intended target, but not if it was touching the target before the trigger was pulled. I think it's because the bolt would have needed a small amount of time to stabilize in the air so it didn't stick into the target at an odd angle where it would have to penetrate more armour and skin to get to the vitals.
Just to be clear I haven't studied any of the physics of projectile weaponry and this is just going on instinct.

[Brother Oni]

As for the discussion of point blank crossbows, I think that it would probably work if you had a small gap between the tip and the intended target, but not if it was touching the target before the trigger was pulled. I think it's because the bolt would have needed a small amount of time to stabilize in the air so it didn't stick into the target at an odd angle where it would have to penetrate more armour and skin to get to the vitals.

So what exactly is stopping the bow from snapping forwards when the trigger is pulled? To re-iterate, the bolt isn't flying anywhere, it's being pushed into the target.

Edit: As an example of the potential injury a bow can cause by pushing an arrow into a target, do a search for 'Texas Archery overdraw warnings' and look half way down the page.
Note that the bow in question looks like a compound bow, so the pressure is less at full draw than the bow's actual poundage (which I would estimate to be about 25-30lbs for a beginner as that poor bugger was).

Putting it another way, if you put your hand over the barrel of a pistol, could you stop the round from coming out?

[Spiryt]

Well, difference is that round hitting hand will already travel, it will have very noticeable momentum.

In case of arrow actually pressed against target, bow arms would have to work in probably significantly more static way - won't speed up anything much, just push the arrow trough object.

Pushing trough something with pretty much "0" velocity and KE, will be very different than impacting with it, with some KE, but no more force being applied by the string between you. It will have natural tendency to push more, certainly.

Against human flesh, effects with most bows and sharp arrows would be probably very harmful in any case.

Quick test with my bow and piece of pine board suggests that I would most certainly destroy arrow, for example. Even if let go in very controlled manner, it bends a lot, and string still pushes...

[Hazzardevil]

Putting it another way, if you put your hand over the barrel of a pistol, could you stop the round from coming out?

That's different because the pistols wounds come mostly from the force of the pistol, the crossbows wounds come from a pretty big chunk of wood and metal whacking you pretty hard in the chest. So there is a larger area to spread the force across so in my mind holding a crossbow bolt back seems feasible to me.

[Galloglaich]

Have you seen this?

DRW-Quellen Faksimile

I think this is a print copy of it from 1889, in German, but I'm not sure if it is complete (I think it is). The pictures (Tafel) are in black and white, interspersed with pages of printed text, that looks like it could be directly from the original. You won't be able to cut and paste it into a machine translator, and I'm not sure it would translate too well anyway, but if you are patient and can puzzle out the blackletter font you might be able to do it. At some point it goes into Latin, then Polish, I think (at S.69).

No I have not seen that, this is great, thanks! Now if only I can find a transcription. This gets me much closer though. And 1889 puts it firmly in the public domain so I can use all these images.

Really delighted with this thanks fusilier! I owe you one.

G

[Thiel]

In the 1700's and early 1800's rifles were rarely used due to the costs of adding rifling, so almsot everyone used smoothbore firearms.
What made rifling cheaper and easier to produce to the point that it was quite common by the 1860's?

The industrial revolution and the Minié ball.

[fusilier]

The industrial revolution and the Minié ball.

I agree. The minie ball allowed a rifled musket to be loaded about as fast as a smoothbore -- that made rifles acceptable for general issue. Prior that they were reserved for specialist units.

[Storm Bringer]

In the 1700's and early 1800's rifles were rarely used due to the costs of adding rifling, so almsot everyone used smoothbore firearms.
What made rifling cheaper and easier to produce to the point that it was quite common by the 1860's?

as others have pointed out, it was not the cost that prevented general issue, but the slow speed of loading.

most rilfes, like the english Baker Rifle, took around a minute to load, mainly becuase of the very tight fit for the bullet into the barrel, which often needed the firer to use a hammer on the ramrod to get it down the barrel. for hunting, this was a massive drawback (you only got one shot at a target anyway, and then it didn't matter how long it took to reload, as it was still longer than the time it took to find some more prey). However, agianst a normal flintlock musket, which took about 20-30 seconds to load in skilled hands, it was a big problem.

A rifleman facing mustkets may be able to shoot more accruatly, but not to the point where he could afford to take 3 incoming rounds for every round he shot. So, it;s use was limited to skirmishers, who could harass line infantry and fall back behind musket armed troops if they needed to.


then some bright spark invented the Minié ball, which was a rifle bullet designed so it would slide down a barrel just as easily as a normal smoothbore ball. this ment a rifleman could match the rate of fire of a musketman*, and so armies started arming all thier troops with rifles.

also, as others again point out, the industrial revolution led to manufacturing tolerances being tightened (which meant a increase in effective power of a gun, as less power was lost to "windage" around the ball), and a reduction in the need to skilled ladour to make rifles, which eased production costs.


so, in short, a 1860s rifle was faster firing, somewhat more powerful and accurate, and cheaper to make than a 1700s rifle was.

* i should say "roughly" match the rate of fire. I believe that the RoF did drop slightly. I am remember being told that 2 Rounds a minute was considered the stardard for troops in the American Civil War, whereas in napoleonic times the standard rate was 3 rounds a minute. however, the increased accuracy of the rifles made up for the loss of volume (or could with a 2:3 ratio, whereas it couldn't with a 1:3 ratio).

[Brother Oni]

Quick test with my bow and piece of pine board suggests that I would most certainly destroy arrow, for example. Even if let go in very controlled manner, it bends a lot, and string still pushes...

What type of arrows do you have? Carbon fibre, aluminium or wood?

That's different because the pistols wounds come mostly from the force of the pistol, the crossbows wounds come from a pretty big chunk of wood and metal whacking you pretty hard in the chest. So there is a larger area to spread the force across so in my mind holding a crossbow bolt back seems feasible to me.

I'll admit my pistol example is incorrect, but I think you're still under the misconception that a bolt has to fly for it to cause an injury. I would have thought the misdraw fault I suggested you look at would disabuse you of that notion.

I would ask whether you've actually seen a crossbow bolt - they're not as large as you seem to think. A typical one for a 740lb draw crossbow only weighs 1.25oz and a fairly small cross section - I suspect the massive ones you're thinking of are for siege crossbows.

Finally there's the weight - are you seriously suggesting that you can stop 300+lbs worth of pressure being transmitted through a sharp pointy bit of wood and metal? Suppose I had a knife* against your chest and I pushed forwards - how much pressure do you think I need to exert to cause a serious injury?

*Or other suitably pointy object designed to cause harm

[Spiryt]

What type of arrows do you have? Carbon fibre, aluminium or wood?

Carbon, which are obviously suspectible to bending.

But I don't think effect would be much different in case of other materials, save some really solid 'battle-grade' arrow.

Even with very soft and giving wood, arrow is definitely not designed to meat opposing force while it's still being pushed by the string.

That's different because the pistols wounds come mostly from the force of the pistol, the crossbows wounds come from a pretty big chunk of wood and metal whacking you pretty hard in the chest. So there is a larger area to spread the force across so in my mind holding a crossbow bolt back seems feasible to me.

Well, I'm not sure I get your point.

Pistol wounds come only from the "force of pistol", while arrow wounds come only from the "force of bow". There's nothing else, that gives energy to those projectiles, obviously.


And most arrows, being more sectionally dense, and pointy, actually concentrate energy way better than most bullets.

[Beleriphon]

Well, I'm not sure I get your point.

Pistol wounds come only from the "force of pistol", while arrow wounds come only from the "force of bow". There's nothing else, that gives energy to those projectiles, obviously.


And most arrows, being more sectionally dense, and pointy, actually concentrate energy way better than most bullets.

I think the point is that a bow, or even a crossbow, needs to fully release the energy of the bend limbs which releases the arrow at the end of their path. There is a mechanical process that takes a certain amount of physical space to complete. A bullet on the other hand is functionally at the height of its energy as it exits the barrel of a gun, its also traveling at a much higher velocity at that point.

So, if you leveled a crossbow at somebody's chest tip of the bolt to the skin Brother Oni seems to be under the impression that it would be survivable (I don't think it would be at all), versus planting a pistol barrel to the chest. In either case the victim is going to be dead, its just a matter of how much of a mess it will make.

I think part of the confusion comes from the amount of potential energy in the limbs of a bow/crossbow and the potential energy of chemical propellants (gunpowder, cordite, whatever).

[Brother Oni]

Carbon, which are obviously suspectible to bending.

But I don't think effect would be much different in case of other materials, save some really solid 'battle-grade' arrow.

Even with very soft and giving wood, arrow is definitely not designed to meat opposing force while it's still being pushed by the string.

True. The effectiveness of using an arrow as a stabbing implement (which is what's happening here) is probably heavily related to its spine.

So, if you leveled a crossbow at somebody's chest tip of the bolt to the skin Brother Oni seems to be under the impression that it would be survivable (I don't think it would be at all), versus planting a pistol barrel to the chest. In either case the victim is going to be dead, its just a matter of how much of a mess it will make.

Wrong person - Hazzardevil thinks it won't cause any injury, while I'm of the firm opinion that it will definitely cause injury, if not death.