Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Matthew]

Galloglaich, have you read the 2011 article "The development of the longbow in late medieval England and 'technological determinism'" by Clifford J. Rogers? It is a good read; shoot me an email if not.

[fusilier]

In stage 3, and also possibly going back to stage 2, the Burgundians were using some kind of variant of these weapons, possibly some French, Italians and others were also using them... and this is what I'm hoping someone here can help me find sources for.

G

English longbowmen were employed as mercenaries during the 14th century in Italy, and into the mid 15th century . . . by which time they may have been "naturalized" Italians, but they were very few in number. I'm not aware that the use of long bows in Italy ever resulted in attempts to emulate it among the native populations. "Saracen" style re-curve(?) bows, on the other hand, had influence in Southern Italy and Sicily, and the Venetians were impressed enough that they trained local militia in it for a while in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Although, I think that was primarily a feudal thing in the overseas territories. Intended primarily for shipboard use, they did find their way into battles on the terrafirma during that period. Saracen influences on southern Italy are often reported, but rarely described in detail, prior to the hiring of Turkish troops after the siege of Otranto. Venice's use of them is well known, but stradiots were also used pretty heavily by the Kingdom of Naples beginning in the late 15th century.

Despite the prevalence of crossbows, bows may have been popular for hunting among the nobility, but not much is seen in the way of long bows.

On this webpage you can see some late 15th century images of Italian bowmen (towards, the bottom although they are from religious scenes):
http://www.greatestbattles.iblogger....5thCentury.htm

[Spiryt]

2) There were simultaneously some rarer, stronger 'longbows' made out of special wood like heart of yew which had a heavier draw in the 80-120 lbs draw range, which were considered 'special' compared to other bows, and had a greater range and velocity than 'ordinary' bows. This may include the Nydam bows and other weapons from the Bronze Age back to the Neolithic which were found both in the British Isles and Scandinavia, among other places, and also includes the Welsh bows which made an impression on the English during their 12th -13th Century anexation of Wales.

Most hedeby bows are yew, so are Thorsberg and nydam ones, most pieces of bows found in Poland are yew as well.

Pretty much everybody was making bows out of yew if he could only find decent one it seems, because it's very good and 'easy' wood for bow - in the sense that due to natural composite structure etc. 'D' cross-sectioned bow is very foolproof - even if someone doesn't know what he's doing that well, it's hard to get completely useless bow.


Elm, another popular bow material, has some problems with resisting compression, for example, that's why elm bow bellies need some more careful designs.

So there's nothing really that special about yew wood, in fact it had gone endangered in most of Europe because of it's mass use.

It's really hard to tell anything for sure these days, but I generally hold opinion that any 'impression' made on some people was generally matter of bow culture, so strong skilled archers, capable of using very heavy bows accurately.

Although it's also entirely possible that there was some strong bowyer culture as well - so art of sculpting particularly dynamic bows out of available wood.

Then, theoretically, bows of the Welsh could have been really good, despite Wales being low and humid - which conditions don't produce good bow wood.

[Straybow]

no, its the part where you shout

Please don't, you're breaking the frame :(

[Deepbluediver]

QUESTION(s)
sorry, wanted to make sure this got seen


What benefit does adding studs to armor confer? In D&D, studded leather armor is listed as a whole seperate type, with better AC, lower max Dex, and a higher armor check penalty.

What would the real world implications of studded leather armor (D&D style) be, besides making it heavier?


Also, Hide armor is listed seperately as well, as medium instead of light armor. If I managed to make armor out of some animal with thicker skin (rhino or elephant, maybe...or dragon I guess) or stacked multiple layers of regular leather together, would it be more effective? Would it even be possible?


Bonus question- in D&D/gaming terms, what would you classify Far-east asian style armor, made from wood and leather, as?


Additional Explanation

Spoiler

Show

Core D&D lists 12 different varieties of armor. See them here.
I'm aware that in real-life, armor comes in near-infinite number of styles and combinations, but I'm brainstorming ways to simplify and pare down this list somewhat, and I'd like to know what sort of things I can dispose of, replace, or combine and not leave out major real-world categories.

Thanks for your help!

[warty goblin]

QUESTION(s)
sorry, wanted to make sure this got seen


What benefit does adding studs to armor confer? In D&D, studded leather armor is listed as a whole seperate type, with better AC, lower max Dex, and a higher armor check penalty.

Studded leather armor really wasn't a thing anybody wore. I'm not even clear whether people used leather armor all that much. I've seen claims that hoplite panalopy was heavy leather, but also that it was multiple layers of linen glued together. So far as I can tell, neither side seems to have much in the way of physical or period textual evidence.

What would the real world implications of studded leather armor (D&D style) be, besides making it heavier?

You could get cute little rivet shaped punctures when somebody thwonked you with a hammer?

Also, Hide armor is listed seperately as well, as medium instead of light armor. If I managed to make armor out of some animal with thicker skin (rhino or elephant, maybe...or dragon I guess) or stacked multiple layers of regular leather together, would it be more effective? Would it even be possible?

I suppose it could be referencing untanned animal hide, which is distinct from leather, which has been tanned. Rawhide because it's uncured, has a tendency to rot when it gets wet, but can be pretty strong and hard. If you wet your rawhide and form it up, it dries in shape and can be used to produce extremely tight bindings. I've seen thick rawhide referenced as the material for cuir boilli, but again am not 100% certain of that.

[Spiryt]

What benefit does adding studs to armor confer? In D&D, studded leather armor is listed as a whole seperate type, with better AC, lower max Dex, and a higher armor check penalty.

What would the real world implications of studded leather armor (D&D style) be, besides making it heavier?

Adding a lot of studs would make everything stiffer, heavier and probably generally harder to get trough, but to have any effect, studs would have to be very close to each other, and any sort of 'piercing' threat would still get
trough.

That's why such armor doesn't really have sense, and there's little evidence of any people wasting more or less precious metal for such things.

Also, Hide armor is listed seperately as well, as medium instead of light armor. If I managed to make armor out of some animal with thicker skin (rhino or elephant, maybe...or dragon I guess) or stacked multiple layers of regular leather together, would it be more effective? Would it even be possible?

Armor made of multiple layers of leather is definitely possible, that's the whole point of buff coat, for example.

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=at...=post&id=17635

It would be more effective, obviously. Single layer of even thick buffalo leather isn't really much of protection.

Bonus question- in D&D/gaming terms, what would you classify Far-east asian style armor, made from wood and leather, as?

Japanese armor was Lamellar, and usually made from iron plates, like most lamellars, actually.

It would be any medium/heavy armor, depending on degree of coverage, I guess, in 3.5 terms.

Additional Explanation

Spoiler

Show

Core D&D lists 12 different varieties of armor. See them here.
I'm aware that in real-life, armor comes in near-infinite number of styles and combinations, but I'm brainstorming ways to simplify and pare down this list somewhat, and I'd like to know what sort of things I can dispose of, replace, or combine and not leave out major real-world categories.

As far as 'D&D terms' go, I'm really not sure, they're a mess and not really realistic in any way, so for purposes of real armors it would be best to ditch the system altogether.

[Galloglaich]

Most hedeby bows are yew, so are Thorsberg and nydam ones, most pieces of bows found in Poland are yew as well.

Pretty much everybody was making bows out of yew if he could only find decent one it seems, because it's very good and 'easy' wood for bow - in the sense that due to natural composite structure etc. 'D' cross-sectioned bow is very foolproof - even if someone doesn't know what he's doing that well, it's hard to get completely useless bow.


Elm, another popular bow material, has some problems with resisting compression, for example, that's why elm bow bellies need some more careful designs.

So there's nothing really that special about yew wood, in fact it had gone endangered in most of Europe because of it's mass use.

It's really hard to tell anything for sure these days, but I generally hold opinion that any 'impression' made on some people was generally matter of bow culture, so strong skilled archers, capable of using very heavy bows accurately.

Although it's also entirely possible that there was some strong bowyer culture as well - so art of sculpting particularly dynamic bows out of available wood.

Then, theoretically, bows of the Welsh could have been really good, despite Wales being low and humid - which conditions don't produce good bow wood.

Very well put. In the case of England it was clearly the culture of the archer which was key, since shooting these bows required some buildup of strength and a lot of practice for effective battlefield use. Though that was also true of other weapons (like the battlefield grade crossbow, contrary to what you hear on just about every History Channel or BBC show on Agincourt)

My friend in Bruges gave me some good leads on the Burgundians but I fear I may have to buy a book, my sagging bookshelf will suffer further. If I do find useful tidbits I'll post them here as a followup.

G

[AgentPaper]

This may be stretching the bounds of "real world" a bit, but bear with me.

Say that there was a race of small humanoids, roughly 3-4 feet in height on average, with a slim build. In DnD terms, I think this roughly corresponds to a gnome. However, unlike gnomes, they also have wings, allowing them to fly. Their wing strength allows them to fly carrying roughly half their body weight in equipment for a period of roughly ten minutes.

Basically, my question is, what effects would this slim build have on combat tactics for the race, assuming it normally fought human-sized opponents, and a roughly medieval technology level (ie: no guns). Additionally, we're talking about massed combat here, at least 1000 people fighting, and usually much more.

My assumption would be that they would generally prefer to use bows and pikes. Bows because they allow them to stay away from enemies and pepper them with arrows, and pikes because a massed pike formation relies (relatively) less on body strength compared to, say, a sword and shield. Is this true? Or would both tactics be just as ineffective as any other tactic? Or is there some other tactic that might work better?

[fusilier]

Adding a lot of studs would make everything stiffer, heavier and probably generally harder to get trough, but to have any effect, studs would have to be very close to each other, and any sort of 'piercing' threat would still get trough.

I tend to assume that the studs are the rivets on a coat of plates. :-)

[Matthew]

Studded leather armor really wasn't a thing anybody wore. I'm not even clear whether people used leather armor all that much. I've seen claims that hoplite panalopy was heavy leather, but also that it was multiple layers of linen glued together. So far as I can tell, neither side seems to have much in the way of physical or period textual evidence.

I thought it was pretty cut and dried (pun intended) that linothorax was linen, and not leather. The early hoplite panoply was obviously bronze, but certainly before that leather was used for shields and even helmets, as attested in the Illiiad.

[Raum]

What benefit does adding studs to armor confer?

It looks 'pretty'. We still do it today, if not to armor. Though, as others have mentioned, I'm not sure there's any evidence of historical studded armors.

[Galloglaich]

This may be stretching the bounds of "real world" a bit, but bear with me.

Say that there was a race of small humanoids, roughly 3-4 feet in height on average, with a slim build. In DnD terms, I think this roughly corresponds to a gnome. However, unlike gnomes, they also have wings, allowing them to fly. Their wing strength allows them to fly carrying roughly half their body weight in equipment for a period of roughly ten minutes.

Basically, my question is, what effects would this slim build have on combat tactics for the race, assuming it normally fought human-sized opponents, and a roughly medieval technology level (ie: no guns). Additionally, we're talking about massed combat here, at least 1000 people fighting, and usually much more.

My assumption would be that they would generally prefer to use bows and pikes. Bows because they allow them to stay away from enemies and pepper them with arrows, and pikes because a massed pike formation relies (relatively) less on body strength compared to, say, a sword and shield. Is this true? Or would both tactics be just as ineffective as any other tactic? Or is there some other tactic that might work better?

I would say javelins. Not well represented in RPG's or genre literature, but very effective and WIDELY used in real life. Why bother with mechanical power (and encumberance) of a bow when you can use the momentum of swooping down to add to the power of your javelin throw. No reason to stand and fight with pikes either if you can just inflict damage with javelins and darts, though a light lance might be useful in the manner of light cavalry.

G

[AgentPaper]

I would say javelins. Not well represented in RPG's or genre literature, but very effective and WIDELY used in real life. Why bother with mechanical power (and encumberance) of a bow when you can use the momentum of swooping down to add to the power of your javelin throw. No reason to stand and fight with pikes either if you can just inflict damage with javelins and darts, though a light lance might be useful in the manner of light cavalry.

G

Interesting. So basically like a thousand tiny Stukas raining pointy death on the enemy. I like it, and I think it can be represented fairly well in the game I'm using this for (Crusader Kings 2). I was also already planning on giving them Light Cavalry. Not sure if I'm going to give them actual flying mounts, though having them ride giant eagles would be pretty sweet...

Regardless, they still (I assume) need some kind of dedicated melee unit, since they can't just fly forever. Am I correct in my assumption that they would fare better as Pikemen than otherwise?

[cucchulainnn]

i would imagine rodeleros would also be very useful. they where armoured soldiers with steel shields who would slip under the opposing pikes and break up their formations by fighting inside the pikemens guard.

Ooo wait you said with wings, never mind, just have them dive bomb em with javelins or some thing.

[Octopusapult]

How would you guys scale relatively realistic armor ranging from Light to Heavy then? Since Studded Leather is essentially heavier leather armor with less effectiveness, what other armors are actually useless?

[Hjolnai]

In terms of medieval equipment, you could probably set a scale up like this:
Thin cloth (10 layers)
Thicker cloth (20 layers)
Partial steel armour + cloth (a helmet of some sort, often a few other pieces)
Mail over cloth or under cloth (both happened)
Coat of plates/brigandine/similar over cloth
Coat of plates over mail over cloth
Plate harness over mail over cloth
Plate over coat of plates over mail over cloth (Yes, this happened)
High-quality plate ("proofed") over mail.

The last five don't apply until late 13th century or so, with the better plate not until later than that.

Of course, any system is going to be a simplification, and you could drop several of these categories easily enough.

[Spiryt]

How would you guys scale relatively realistic armor ranging from Light to Heavy then? Since Studded Leather is essentially heavier leather armor with less effectiveness, what other armors are actually useless?

The problem here is that, generally, scaling armors from 'light' to 'heavy' isn't very feasible.

"Cloth armor" is frequently and ubiquitously set as very light armor, while cloth jacks from later medieval we know about, could easily be some ~ 25 layers of heavy linen fabric, often backed with some leather/hide on outermost layers.

Something like that is obviously actually going to be rather heavy.

In general, weight obviously cannot depend entirely, or even mostly on 'type'.

Mail, plate, coat of plates, scale etc. is just 'material' - while scale shall be pretty much always generally heavier than mail, there will be naturally huge difference between scale out of say:

- 3mm thick plates about 3x1.5 cm in size.

and

- 2mm thick plates about 5x2 cm in size.

The former will, obviously be substantially, potentially even by multiplicity.

Same thing with plate - we have some early Renaissance and 17th century plate suits covering quite a lot of body that were pretty magnificently light.

Polish hussar armors consisting out of breastplate, backplate, helmet, vambrance and some thigh protection frequently weighted just ~ 28 pounds.

On the other hand, 16th century heavy cavalry 3/4 armors, would have a bit greater coverage, but could weight as much as 90 pounds... - those were really thick, massive and interlacing pieces, made in attempt to protect against long firearms bullets.

Spoiler

Show

So while some 'weight hierarchy' can be probably established as roughly :

- cloth
-mail
-plate/coat of plates
-lammellars/brigandines etc.
-scales

It will ultimately depend on particular piece.

[Deepbluediver]

Thanks for all your feedback everyone! I'm not usually much for realism in games, but if I can avoid making people cry with my inaccuracies, I think it makes for a better situation.
I've also been reading up on wikipedia to better understand the minute differences in armor-styles.

In terms of medieval equipment, you could probably set a scale up like this:

Spoiler

Show

Thin cloth (10 layers)
Thicker cloth (20 layers)
Partial steel armour + cloth (a helmet of some sort, often a few other pieces)
Mail over cloth or under cloth (both happened)
Coat of plates/brigandine/similar over cloth
Coat of plates over mail over cloth
Plate harness over mail over cloth
Plate over coat of plates over mail over cloth (Yes, this happened)
High-quality plate ("proofed") over mail.

The last five don't apply until late 13th century or so, with the better plate not until later than that. Of course, any system is going to be a simplification, and you could drop several of these categories easily enough.

The problem here is that, generally, scaling armors from 'light' to 'heavy' isn't very feasible.

I'm aware that armor was made and worn in a huge number of styles and combinations, depending on the era, level of technology, culture, resources available and the goal of the wearer. Representing every single possibility in a tabletop RPG might be possible, but is it really necessary? What I was thinking about was would be the smallest number of categories I could use and have a good representation of real-world styles. Because it's not just about weight (though the light-heavy thing might be misleading) but also about how restrictive armor is, since D&D tends to give an armor penalty to dexterity-based skills and things like swimming.


So if I wanted to do something like this, how far off would I be?

Lightweight armors
-Primarily Cloth and thin leather armor- not too heavy, not to restrictive, but minimal overall protection
-Reinforced/multi-layered leather armor-better protection than cloth, still not too restrictive

Medium Armors
-Scale Mail and Lamellar armors- better protection than leather, more weight and restrictiveness though.
-Chainmail- same similar level of protection as Scale mail, but less weight and less restrictive (or should it be vice versa with scalemail?)
-possibly something like "Reinforced leather" or multilayered leather, or should it have the same stats as chainmail, and just be listed as an alternate variety?

Heavy Armors
-Splint Mail/Banded Mail/Half Plate- better protection tha scale and chain mail, etc etc etc
-Full Plate- best protection in terms of armor and/or damage reduction, but most expensive & restrictive, & weighs the most



For the sake of simplicity, it's assumed that various cloth or leather under-armor/padding are worn with the various types and are included.

I'm also aware that how restricting armor is can be a relative thing. I've seen the youtube videos of people doing cartwheels in full-plate, but there's also a reason track-&-field athletes and gymnasts tend to run around just-shy of nekkid.


Edits: crossed out things that I want to change

[Spiryt]

Leather armor that weren't multi-layered or 'reinforced' by having a form of many, very thick scales, for example, wasn't really worth much, and we have little evidence of it's use as actual armor.

RPG players are hell bent on their leather though, so some leather could have to stay, I guess.

[Deepbluediver]

Leather armor that weren't multi-layered or 'reinforced' by having a form of many, very thick scales, for example, wasn't really worth much, and we have little evidence of it's use as actual armor.

RPG players are hell bent on their leather though, so some leather could have to stay, I guess.

I think it's because, in D&D, druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor, so people like some alternatives in non-light categories. But when I think about it, once a druid learns their shapeshifting, armor is kind of pointless anyway.

So yeah, I got no problems with taking it out.

[Octopusapult]

Leather armor that weren't multi-layered or 'reinforced' by having a form of many, very thick scales, for example, wasn't really worth much, and we have little evidence of it's use as actual armor.

RPG players are hell bent on their leather though, so some leather could have to stay, I guess.

It has applications in the modern world. Leather jackets keep you from taking road rash when you fall off your motorcycle.

[AgentPaper]

I'd point out that armor doesn't need to be able to stop a sword to be useful, either. If it can be the difference between a 1 inch deep cut and a tear in your fancy leather jacket, that's still pretty damn useful.

[Octopusapult]

I'd point out that armor doesn't need to be able to stop a sword to be useful, either. If it can be the difference between a 1 inch deep cut and a tear in your fancy leather jacket, that's still pretty damn useful.

Truth. The goalie masks of old didn't do much but stop the cuts when a puck would hit them in the face. The bruises and breaks were still very much real. But you'd believe they'd still rather wear those than nothing...

[Straybow]

What benefit does adding studs to armor confer? In D&D, studded leather armor is listed as a whole seperate type, with better AC, lower max Dex, and a higher armor check penalty.

What would the real world implications of studded leather armor (D&D style) be, besides making it heavier?

I searched but couldn't find it... there have been other references in this or previous threads about some coat-of-plates that look like leather with "studs" that are actually rivets for holding mid-sized plates on the inside. Gygax and Arneson probably looked at pictures in a book or encyclopedia that didn't explain what it was.

Also, Hide armor is listed seperately as well, as medium instead of light armor. If I managed to make armor out of some animal with thicker skin (rhino or elephant, maybe...or dragon I guess) or stacked multiple layers of regular leather together, would it be more effective? Would it even be possible?

Spiryt mentioned buffalo, but that isn't much thicker than cowhide. Rhino and elephant skin on the animal is thick enough that it can stop pistol bullets and shotgun pellets, but neither stops a sharp arrow or spear head. If you want thickness, leather glues well and there is little reason to think that a single thickness is somehow better.

Historically, the major use of animal skin is rawhide covered wooden shields. The rawhide glued to the wood acts compositely to prevent splits in the wood from propagating and holds the split pieces together. A shield less than ½" thick was proof of almost all spears, javelins, arrows, and bolts. However, shields of this sort were expendable. A few minutes of heavy blows from swords and axes is all they could stand. A warrier would actually have a companion who carried spare shields and spears.

Bonus question- in D&D/gaming terms, what would you classify Far-east asian style armor, made from wood and leather, as?

Wood with glued rawhide is effective but not lasting protection. If you carried around a sack full of spare parts to replace pieces damaged after every encounter its effective encumbrance goes way up. =)

There is some debate about Greeks using laminated leather armor. We don't really have surviving examples. It is possible that cured leather, heavy linen, and rawhide could be made into an effective composite.

For game purposes we need to posit a waterproof glue to make it feasible as a lasting piece of equipment that doesn't fall apart in the rain or sea spray. But even then "lasting" just means you can wear it for days or weeks of travel. It can only stop a few hand weapon hits before it becomes significantly weakened, so unless used sword-and-board style it will only last a few encounters. This is complicated by the poor combat mechanics in D&D, in that you don't know if the character is actually hit, if the armor absorbs damage, etc.

The main things that leather armor could do is allow a wearer to do cinematic stuntwork. It doesn't stop a sword, it allows the character to drop and tumble, bounce off walls, rolls with blows, etc without bruising and scraping themselves to bits.

Now, back to studded leather. If a cured leather cuirass could be covered with lightweight iron or bronze discs it could turn an edge or arrow just enough to add an increment of protection. It would look a bit like scale or lamellar armor but the metal is lighter. Again, this would be "ablative" armor in that when a disc takes a heavy blow it has to be replaced, but spares would be relatively light and the bent and broken ones can be reworked by a smith.

[Straybow]

This may be stretching the bounds of "real world" a bit, but bear with me.

Say that there was a race of small humanoids, roughly 3-4 feet in height on average, with a slim build. In DnD terms, I think this roughly corresponds to a gnome. However, unlike gnomes, they also have wings, allowing them to fly. Their wing strength allows them to fly carrying roughly half their body weight in equipment for a period of roughly ten minutes.

Basically, my question is, what effects would this slim build have on combat tactics for the race, assuming it normally fought human-sized opponents, and a roughly medieval technology level (ie: no guns). Additionally, we're talking about massed combat here, at least 1000 people fighting, and usually much more.

My assumption would be that they would generally prefer to use bows and pikes. Bows because they allow them to stay away from enemies and pepper them with arrows, and pikes because a massed pike formation relies (relatively) less on body strength compared to, say, a sword and shield. Is this true? Or would both tactics be just as ineffective as any other tactic? Or is there some other tactic that might work better?

Their strength is in movement. They don't engage, they rely on bows to attack from the air. They use light bows that are only effective for about thirty yards, shooting "indian style" half-draw to the center of mass, and arrows with poison when it comes to a real fight.

Pikes are slow and only of use in formation and in standing ground. This is not what they'd ever want to do. If they need armor penetration they have larger individuals carry a couple of javelins that can be dropped from above. They can also carry sacks of caltrops which they can drop on troops already in movement.

They wear a bleastplate without a back to save weight, and since they only anticipate ranged combat it could be wood with rawhide covering. It isn't much lighter than metal but it is cheaper and can be ditched when escape is called for since their endurance isn't great.

In "real world" terms, the biggest issue is that they'd need a wingspan of about 15 feet. A thirty-pound Andean condor has a 10-foot wingspan, and these guys are bigger and able to carry 50% of their weight...

[AgentPaper]

In "real world" terms, the biggest issue is that they'd need a wingspan of about 15 feet. A thirty-pound Andean condor has a 10-foot wingspan, and these guys are bigger and able to carry 50% of their weight...

Yeah, the wings and flying bit isn't realistic, but in this case it isn't really meant to be, simply because a realistic model isn't feasible or especially interesting.

Anyways, thanks for all the help. I think I'll have their army composition be something like this:

1) Light Infantry: Carries Javelins, which it uses as the start of battles to deal as much damage as possible. When they run out of ammo, or if they're forced to fight hand to hand somehow, they also carry a small sword. Ideally this is used only as a backup weapon, and their preferred tactic is to retreat and resume skirmishing if at all possible. As far as armor goes, they wear a light breastplate made of thin wood plates held together with leather, a metal cap, and a light wooden buckler used more to block enemy arrows than in actual blocking in melee.

2) Archers: Carries a small bow, which they use throughout battle to pepper the enemy with arrows. Their arrows are exceptionally thin, almost needlelike, and are used mainly to deliver a deadly poison, rather than causing bodily wounds. They aren't issued melee weapons by standard issue, but most carry some sort of knife, dagger, or other small blade to defend themselves in desperate circumstances. They wear metal caps similar to the Light Infantry, but no other armor other than their standard uniforms.

3) Pikemen: Carry Pikes about 3-4 meters long, and have light metal armor, including a metal cap, breastplate, and shoulder guards. The weight of their spears and armor means they can't fly above the enemy for sustained periods like others, but they are able to "sprint", using their wings to effectively take very large strides, allowing them to move much faster for a short time.

These are the professional soldiers of the army, and while they like to brag about how how their superior skill allows them to fight larger opponents, in truth they serve mostly to fend off enemy cavalry (the only troops fast enough to catch them reliably), or as at best a delaying force against enemy troops to allow the rest of the army to regroup and resupply before resuming skirmish tactics.

4) Light Cavalry: Ride War Eagles, and are equipped similarly to Pikemen (and in fact most start out as pikemen before earning their 'wings'), using a slightly shorter and lighter Lance, but the same light metal armor. In battle, they are mostly held in reserve until enemy morale and formations are broken down, at which point they charge in to bravely pursue the enemy as they run away. Occasionally, they will attack targets of opportunity during the main battle, but being made up mostly of nobility, they tend to see themselves as too valuable to risk attacking head-on, with some notable exceptions of varying success.


Edit: Now that I've gotten them figured out, I feel like I should also expand on some of the other races more. I've already got plans for the Minotaur to act sort of like hoplites/macedon, and Centaur are pretty easy to pin down as the equivalent of Mongols. Any other historical or theoretical army tactics/compositions that I could riff off of for other races?


Edit: Edit: Further, does anyone have any recommendations on books to read that would discuss medieval warfare, especially during the High Middle Age? Partly to be able to provide a more detailed and realistic depiction of that kind of warfare, but also to serve as inspiration for less realistic things, like how armies of ogres and minotaurs and so on might operate.

[Matthew]

I searched but couldn't find it... there have been other references in this or previous threads about some coat-of-plates that look like leather with "studs" that are actually rivets for holding mid-sized plates on the inside. Gygax and Arneson probably looked at pictures in a book or encyclopedia that didn't explain what it was.

"Studded" armour first appears in Chain Mail, is ignored for D&D, and then reappears for AD&D. The context in which it first appears is apparently complex because the table is imported from an early zine, so may not have anything to do with Gygax, certainly not with Arneson. However, Gygax provides two descriptions in the DMG for "studded leather":

"Studded Leather is leather armor to which have been fastened metal studding as additional protection, usually including an outer coat of fairly close-set studs (small plates)." (DMG, p. 27)

"LEATHER ARMOUR is cuir bouli, consisting of coat, leggings, boots, and gauntlets. STUDDED LEATHER adds protective plates set in the leather and an extra layer of protection at shoulder area." (DMG, p. 165)

The latter is preceded by reference to the text he was probably using:

"Note: If you are unfamiliar with medieval armour types, you might find Charles Ffoulkes' ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford 1909) a short and useful text. The armour types I have selected are fitted into a game system."

... which of course does feature "trelliced" and "ringed" armour types.

[Straybow]

Yeah, haven't had the manuals for decades now. What I got along the way was that the conjecture wasn't supported. Whether from Ffoulkes or Gygax. We don't even really know that cuir bouli was used that way, and tests have shown that it is completely ineffective against arrows. The wax is a lubricant and it aids penetration of the leather.

"Ring mail" is another thing that seems to have no historical basis. I've speculated privately that Japanese style mail, with the loose grid structure rather than tight interlocking structure, could be positioned as "ring mail."

In a way, 3.5e did well to introduce mail shirt. It's good to recognize that physical coverage ought to be part of the "formula," and changing coverage changes the "armor class." If I were to still use that horrible system I'd allow a significant number of add-ons and doubles that improve the defense of a given type of armor.

For example, banded as the traditional lorica segmentata covers only the torso and shoulders. Add faulds and codpiece for an increment. Arm protection for another. Upper leg and knee cops for another. For mail add chausses. Replace the coif with a mantle to double the shoulders.

[kardar233]

I've got a character set in a campaign that's Iron Kingdoms with Full Metal Alchemist magic (also looking for help in this thread), who is a primarily martial character. However, as she uses a massive multitude of weapon styles, I'm taking advantage of the magic system to be able to use whatever weapon set seems right for the task.

Basically, I've decided that she wears a pair of cestus/bracer combinations that she reshapes into shields and weaponry. Now, I'm not expecting to use anything significantly out there like double shields, but she needs to be able to use nearly much any weapon style.

So, the cestus/bracers need to be made up of enough of whatever materials are necessary to make a huge range of prospective weapons and shields. The issue I'm having is figuring out how much of what materials she'd need. I'm guessing she could make just about any pair of weapons or weapon and shield out of a combination of steel, wood and some leather, but I feel like she'd need plenty else.

I'm guessing that the outer limit of how much steel she'd need is when making a pair of hand-and-a-half swords, which based on the numbers I've seen should need about four pounds of steel each. I imagine that the top end of the amount of wood she'd use is with a large shield and a polearm or spear of some sort, but I'm getting conflicting numbers as to the weight of a large shield like an aspis or scutum (or those big Norse round shields I don't know the name of) so that's also a problem, as I'd need to figure out how much and what kind of wood I'd need. I also don't know what other materials might be necessary.

Luckily, she's extremely strong so carting around a pair of fifteen-plus pound cestus isn't going to be too much of a problem.

Can you give me a hand here?