Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[paddyfool]

NB on the Romans: one major innovation they'd have had to deal with in fighting a medieval army would be the fairly humble invention of stirrups (perhaps the key feature, although there were others, such as the cantled saddle, in making cavalry more effective after about the 6th century AD in Europe, although horse-breeding might also have steadily led to better and better warhorse stock once this started getting going as a major part of military action).

[Frozen_Feet]

I believe the origin of such phrases comes from original Colt revolver, the first greatly succesful revolver model. ("God made men, Colt made them equal.") I'm not well-learned on early revolver models, so that's all I can say.

EDIT: Bronze weapons were superior to early iron weapons, and continued to be at least equal throughout middle ages. The reason bronze was abandoned was not inferiority, it was cost and availability - specific countries had monopoly on tin, and eventually they started to run out, making costs prohibitive and necessitating moving to iron, which corroded more easily and was harder to melt and work.

[fusilier]

I believe the origin of such phrases comes from original Colt revolver, the first greatly succesful revolver model. ("God made men, Colt made them equal.") I'm not well-learned on early revolver models, so that's all I can say.

EDIT: Bronze weapons were superior to early iron weapons, and continued to be at least equal throughout middle ages. The reason bronze was abandoned was not inferiority, it was cost and availability - specific countries had monopoly on tin, and eventually they started to run out, making costs prohibitive and necessitating moving to iron, which corroded more easily and was harder to melt and work.

I think you are correct about the Colt revolver, the original being the Colt-paterson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_paterson

On the Iron vs. Bronze -- I know that was true of early artillery, but I didn't think bronze was superior to iron for edge weapons?

[Spiryt]

On the Iron vs. Bronze -- I know that was true of early artillery, but I didn't think bronze was superior to iron for edge weapons?

I don't know a thing about metalurgy in general, but I would think that as far as edge goes, it could indeed be easily superior - at least well made weapon grade 'bronze' alloy can be work hardened and shaped to pretty impressive edge, while iron not so much.

Steel edge would be different matter, obviously, but AFAIU, especially in the beginning of iron weapons history, effective carbonization of iron edge was a bit tricky.

[warty goblin]

I don't know a thing about metalurgy in general, but I would think that as far as edge goes, it could indeed be easily superior - at least well made weapon grade 'bronze' alloy can be work hardened and shaped to pretty impressive edge, while iron not so much.

Steel edge would be different matter, obviously, but AFAIU, especially in the beginning of iron weapons history, effective carbonization of iron edge was a bit tricky.

One thing that's interesting to note in bronze age weaponry is the amount of design effort that seems to have gone into making an effectively stiff blade, particularly on the bigger swords. It can be a little hard to pick out because of the mirror-finish on those blades, but many of them have very pronounced raised portions running down the central spine of the blade.

Interestingly this same thing can be seen in early iron weapons forged in the same designs. Whether this was later abandoned because iron-working progressed to the point where it was no longer necessary, or people found other ways of increasing their blades' stiffness that were easier to execute in iron I have no idea. I'd imagine forging a raised section into an iron blade would be extremely difficult however.

Another interesting detail is that the edges of many bronze swords are forged in by hamming the metal out thin. This apparently work-hardens the bronze enough to allow it to hold a better edge. It's visually incredibly striking.

I love the contrast in this photo. The gladius is just so much less elegant in proportion and construction than the bronze weapon. The bronze sword is so delicate and precise looking by comparison with the big, sloppy looking iron blade.

Also, an interesting page about Mycenian bronze armor. Of particular interest (at least to me) is the laminar cuirass a bit down the page. It's pretty much unlike any other armor I've ever seen, and certainly has the most impressive neck protection.


On a related note, I'd love a really good dedicated bronze age RPG.

[Rhynn]

I don't know a thing about metalurgy in general, but I would think that as far as edge goes, it could indeed be easily superior - at least well made weapon grade 'bronze' alloy can be work hardened and shaped to pretty impressive edge, while iron not so much.

Steel edge would be different matter, obviously, but AFAIU, especially in the beginning of iron weapons history, effective carbonization of iron edge was a bit tricky.

Yeah, my understanding was that iron replaced bronze for reasons of availability; but that only steel was actually superior to bronze. (Of course, what is "iron" and what is "steel" is a bit vague anyway, since AFAIK all smelted and forged iron is going to have carbon in it, and some "steels" have less carbon than some "irons," etc. ...)

There is, IIRC, a completely erroneous scene in Mika Waltari's novel The Egyptian (Sinuhe egyptiläinen) where an iron sword is demonstrated and cleaves right through a bronze sword. I seriously doubt that would work. Maybe you could cut gold or silver with an iron sword?

The differences in design between bronze, iron, and steel weapons are interesting. The metallurgy had a big effect on what shape of blade (and how long of a blade) you could have.

warty goblin: I just get a myArmoury.com banner on those direct image links. They don't allow direct linking of images.

And a Bronze Age RPG would be pretty cool. I guess there's Mazes & Minotaurs, but that may not be exactly what you're thinking. RuneQuest's world of Glorantha is kind of a mix of ancient cultures with bronze as the main metal, and lately even the West of Glorantha has gotten a new look to replace the overdone "medieval European knights" thing with something rarely seen in RPGs. I think any edition of RuneQuest would work well for a Bronze Age RPG.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, my understanding was that iron replaced bronze for reasons of availability; but that only steel was actually superior to bronze. (Of course, what is "iron" and what is "steel" is a bit vague anyway, since AFAIK all smelted and forged iron is going to have carbon in it, and some "steels" have less carbon than some "irons," etc. ...)

Another issue with iron that only recently came to my attention is getting the ore pure. Unless you can build a kiln capable of actually melting the iron and making crucible/Wootz steel, apparently you're likely to have a lot of slag in the metal. This is a bad thing, and makes it weak and brittle, since your sword/whatever is basically full of little bits of rock. Bronze, since it melts at a lower temperature, is, I assume, easier to get relatively free of contaminants.

Traditional crucible steel is also very hard to work with due to the micro-structure of the metal when it comes out of the kilm. Here's some cool videos about people trying to make and work with it. Eight hours of hammering just to get it into a bar? Roll those craft checks people!

(The guy from the second link also has some very interesting videos about pattern-welding Viking style blades that are well worth a watch. He goes into a lot of detail, and the level of craftsmenship that goes into such a weapon is staggering.)

There is, IIRC, a completely erroneous scene in Mika Waltari's novel The Egyptian (Sinuhe egyptiläinen) where an iron sword is demonstrated and cleaves right through a bronze sword. I seriously doubt that would work. Maybe you could cut gold or silver with an iron sword?

I very much doubt you could cleave a sword of just about any metal with another sword. Even soft metal isn't exactly easy to cut. Shatter it if the blade is excessively brittle, or else crumple and bend it out of all usefulness I could see, but straight up cut? Probably not.

(I've seen some pictures of copper swords, which I can't imagine worked all that well. Copper is either excessively soft, or if you work harden it to the point where it could maybe take an edge, very brittle. I'd have no trouble believing that a bronze or iron sword could wreck a copper blade in short order)

The differences in design between bronze, iron, and steel weapons are interesting. The metallurgy had a big effect on what shape of blade (and how long of a blade) you could have.

I had figured bronze would have forced much shorter blades at first, but apparently they go up to 90cm or so. While it certainly isn't a longsword, that's still a plenty big weapon, although Wikipedia claims its right at the limit of what you can do in bronze. Certainly it's about as long as most as most iron weapons reached for a long while.

I've also read that bronze swords tended to be as long as people could cast them, which is another limit. Since iron blades are forged you can keep hammering them longer, but with bronze you need to get it to fill the mold. This is apparently quite difficult.

warty goblin: I just get a myArmoury.com banner on those direct image links. They don't allow direct linking of images.

Sorry, they worked fine when I checked them. Here's the link to the thread, which also contains a lot of other photos that make me drool.

And a Bronze Age RPG would be pretty cool. I guess there's Mazes & Minotaurs, but that may not be exactly what you're thinking. RuneQuest's world of Glorantha is kind of a mix of ancient cultures with bronze as the main metal, and lately even the West of Glorantha has gotten a new look to replace the overdone "medieval European knights" thing with something rarely seen in RPGs. I think any edition of RuneQuest would work well for a Bronze Age RPG.

I'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but will take a look. Regardless, Mycenaean palace civilization would be a really cool setting, although I'd imagine it would be a bit of a head-screw for most people. If all people write are property lists, you can't have wizards and spell books.

[Rhynn]

Another issue with iron that only recently came to my attention is getting the ore pure. Unless you can build a kiln capable of actually melting the iron and making crucible/Wootz steel, apparently you're likely to have a lot of slag in the metal. This is a bad thing, and makes it weak and brittle, since your sword/whatever is basically full of little bits of rock. Bronze, since it melts at a lower temperature, is, I assume, easier to get relatively free of contaminants.

Yeah, my understanding was that early ironwork was very brittle, even in weapons and armor. Cast/wrought iron blades and armor (breastplates) would be pretty shoddy. Mail was less affected, as I understand - in fact, by what I've read, even medieval mail was rarely made from steel, because iron was sufficient.

I had figured bronze would have forced much shorter blades at first, but apparently they go up to 90cm or so. While it certainly isn't a longsword, that's still a plenty big weapon, although Wikipedia claims its right at the limit of what you can do in bronze. Certainly it's about as long as most as most iron weapons reached for a long while.

Huh, that is longer than I had thought. Not a long rapier or longsword (is that blade or blade + tang length?), but definitely a "full-sized" sword.

I'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but will take a look. Regardless, Mycenaean palace civilization would be a really cool setting, although I'd imagine it would be a bit of a head-screw for most people. If all people write are property lists, you can't have wizards and spell books.

RuneQuest 6 is the newest and best "new era" RuneQuest (Chaosium's RQ2 and Avalon Hill's RQ3 are classics but hard to come by, and RQ2 is very Glorantha-tied.) RQ6 is written very much in a "decide setting details for yourself." Mechanics are given, but how they interact with the world is up to you.

Incidentally, no spellbooks are needed - sorcerers learn their spells from somewhere, but this can be by contact with demons, from revelation or enlightenment, or from studying the 10' tall glyphs carved into a smoothed mountain-side... all up to the GM.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, my understanding was that early ironwork was very brittle, even in weapons and armor. Cast/wrought iron blades and armor (breastplates) would be pretty shoddy. Mail was less affected, as I understand - in fact, by what I've read, even medieval mail was rarely made from steel, because iron was sufficient.

One interesting angle to take with the development of metal weapons and armor is the challenge of obtaining large pieces of metal. Since bronze is cast, you can make very large ingots, which have been found in shipwrecks dating from the late bronze age. However it is apparently very hard to forge bronze, this paper suggests ~200 rounds of hammering and annealing to produce the disk for a Yethold shield for example. Casting bronze in sheets I suspect is quite difficult as well, since it would be challenging to get the metal to fill the mold evenly.

Iron apparently suffered from similar problems in terms of getting big enough chunks of it to make things. Thus chainmail, a substantially less obvious development than simply strapping metal plates to oneself. Also pattern welded blades, which, gorgeous aesthetics aside, are very much the long way 'round to making a sword.

There's an interesting comparison to be made I think between pattern welded swords and bronze swords. The first uses different types of metal to get a hard edge and soft, strong core. The second uses a homogeneous material, but hardens the edges through hammering to get the same effect.

Huh, that is longer than I had thought. Not a long rapier or longsword (is that blade or blade + tang length?), but definitely a "full-sized" sword.

Counting tang I suspect. There are bronze swords with hilts riveted on to a separately cast blade. My limited understanding is that these were earlier weapons, and the technique was abandoned when metalsmiths learned how to make reasonably long single-piece weapons. he larger weapons were cast in one piece, since the riveted design is fairly obviously structurally weaker than a single piece blade. There is indirect textual evidence for this from the Iliad. In Book III during their duel, Menelaus clonks Paris over the head with his 'silver studded' sword, only for the weapon to break at the hilt. At this point, like any good warrior king, Menelaus starts hauling Paris about by his helmet crest. I've always liked that, as not only does it make Paris look even more ridiculous, but suggests a very versatile approach to combat, employing multiple techniques.

RuneQuest 6 is the newest and best "new era" RuneQuest (Chaosium's RQ2 and Avalon Hill's RQ3 are classics but hard to come by, and RQ2 is very Glorantha-tied.) RQ6 is written very much in a "decide setting details for yourself." Mechanics are given, but how they interact with the world is up to you.

Incidentally, no spellbooks are needed - sorcerers learn their spells from somewhere, but this can be by contact with demons, from revelation or enlightenment, or from studying the 10' tall glyphs carved into a smoothed mountain-side... all up to the GM.

Interesting, I'll have to see if I can rustle up a copy.

[Matthew]

NB on the Romans: one major innovation they'd have had to deal with in fighting a medieval army would be the fairly humble invention of stirrups (perhaps the key feature, although there were others, such as the cantled saddle, in making cavalry more effective after about the 6th century AD in Europe, although horse-breeding might also have steadily led to better and better warhorse stock once this started getting going as a major part of military action).

The Great Stirrup Controversy is quite a fun read on this subject. It probably was not as big a gap in effectiveness as might be thought, but certainly was an improvement.

Discussing "the Romans" is always fraught with peril because of the very different way their armies were recruited, organised, trained and equipped over a thousand or so years of history. Probably organisation was the key feature for the success of the Roman army, and taking them out of time and place would be a big problem, since they would be cut off from their logistics. If we assume that is not a problem for whatever reasons and just concentrate on the battlefield tactical effectiveness of a Roman army versus, for example, the Anglo-Danes or the Normans in 1066 (ignoring also numerical superiority), the latter armies would probably have the edge in state of the art equipment, but probably had less of it than the Romans (this is totally arguable, of course, since we have no idea if the army was really fully equipped or if not in what proportion). If we take, for example, one of the famous Roman armies, such as that of Scipio Africanus, Marius, Pompey, Caesar, Augustus or Trajan, my money would be on the Romans, but it would be far from a whitewash.

On the subject of Roman equipment, in the early to middle Republican period (6th to 3rd centuries BC) they would have probably have been equipped similarly to the Greeks, which means largely iron weapons and bronze or linen armour.

[Galloglaich]

Some interesting activity here of late! I'll try to chime in with a few points.

Ok so we can start with the later Republic / early Imperial Roman Army. I say late Republic since the Marian Reform was in 100 BC which was still during the Republican period.



Equipment of Roman Armies from 100 BC
Front-line Legionnaires would have short sleeved iron mail shirts (lorica hamata), bronze or brass helmets, and shields, as well as probably some textile armor underneath. But basically armor protection only on their torso. They were armed with javelins (pilum) as their principle weapon backed up by the short cut and thrust sword (gladius). They would be supported by cavalry armored with scale or mail armor, also principally on the torso, and armed with javelins and light lances. These would be considered very light cavalry by Medieval standards. Further support would be supplied by light armed troops called velites who ran back and forth protected mainly by light wicker shields and threw darts and javelins, though these were largely phased out after the Marian reforms.

In addition the Marian era Roman army had excellent engineering capabilities and good torsion spring artillery ranging from man portable ballistas to much larger weapons used for sieges.


Equipment of 'Medieval' Armies 7th- 11th Century
This is an era still dominated by infantry in Europe, most armies were similar to the barbarian armies the Romans faced during the time of Marius. Javelins were the primary weapon, as well as other missiles like thrown axes. The spear and shield were the close-combat weapon, backed up by swords and more axes, as well as knives like the sax, and protected primarily by their shields. In the 7th and 8th Century personal body armor was still pretty rare in Barbarian Europe but toward the end of this period mail armor was becoming much more ubiquitous and most soldiers had it, as well as helmets. For example at Hastings and Clontarf and most of the principle battles of the 11th Century the current consensus is that many if not most of the fighters were armored..

Roman armies in this period used infantry which was 'lighter' in the sense that they were equipped much like the Visigoths, Franks and Lombards who they fought, with longer swords and sometimes less armor. Their cavalry however had become heavier in the Eastern (Parthian / Sassanid) style, wearing head to toe armor and riding armored horses which superficially resembled a 13th Century French knight (not without reason, the Franks included a lot of Iranian cavalry who settled as nobility in France). They also had cavalry archers though this was mostly in the East.


Note for example this 6th Century Sassanid fresco depicting one of their Kings. Hist kit could be right out of a monty python movie.

There is, incidentally, no reason to assume that the Byzantine Army was any weaker than the Western Roman army was in this period, in fact to the contrary since under Justinian they briefly reconquered and retook control over much of the Western Roman Empire



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justini...41.E2.80.93554



Equipment of Medieval Armies 12th - 14th Century
By this era, medieval armies were notably different from the 'early medieval' or migration era armies which the Romans were familiar with. The main difference was the dominance and power of the heavy cavalry. The invading Crusader armies entering Anatolia and the Middle East in the 11th Century were a shock to the Byzantines for several reasons. They had developed better armor, either due to advances in iron working technology, armor design, or to the textile component or for some other reason we don't know, but the Byzantines reported shock at the effectiveness of the 'Frankish' mail panoply.

The European barbarians had improved technology and tactics for heavy cavalry considerably. This may have hinged mainly on changes to saddle design as well as horse breeding. Or it may have been better stirrups or some other reason. Whatever the cause, the "Frankish" (i.e. European) heavy cavalry caused a major shock to the Byzantines, and more so to the Turks, both of whom noted that in spite of the first Crusade being often (though not always) a poorly organized rabble, small numbers of Frankish cavalry were routinely routing much larger cavalry forces of their enemies, even though at this point it seems that their horses were still mostly unarmored or lightly armored.

A classic example of this is the Siege of Antioch, which historians are still somewhat at a loss to explain (I've seen explanations from everything to the discovery of the 'holy lance' to the idea that the European stallions were excited by the Arab mares... but the truth is simpler. Good cavalry with good leadership - plus trouble on the other side)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...tle_of_Antioch

Infantry in this Crusade was also making a mark. The Genoese urban militia, armed with upgraded crossbows designed in their town workshops, proved to be very effective in several sieges in the 'Holy Land', leading to the creation of an instant new industry for the then small fishing town (soon to be major maritime republic) of Genoa - who began to rent out their militia as mercenaries.

Toward the end of this era, European plate armor was becoming increasingly widespread. The Cistercian monks had spread the overshot water wheel all over Europe and with the introduction of the Catalan forge and Barcelona hammer (automated bellows and trip-hammers, powered by water wheels) iron production was way up in both quantity and quality. European tactics and military organization were improving dramatically as well.

By the end of this period, both cavalry and infantry were wearing armor, usually at least partly plate armor. Whoever said that it was normal for most Medieval soldiers to fight without any armor is dead wrong. One of the biggest battlefields so far excavated, at Wisby in 1361, where an army of Swedish peasants was defeated by German mercenaries and due to the heat, were buried with their gear on in mass graves, shows that all of them had armor, mostly mail reinforced with brigandine or coat of plates armor (textile armor with iron plates inside of it) and the only vulnerable spot was their lower legs, which not coincidentally seems to be where most of them were hit.

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



Equipment of Medieval Armies 14th-15th Century
By this point, most both cavalry and infantry were wearing plate armor. Very good plate armor. In fact by the early 1400's the biggest armor supplier in Europe, the city of Milan, was specializing in making steel armor, which was much stronger than the earlier iron armor, and it was also much better fitted and designed, so that fully articulated harnesses could be worn.

Whoever mentioned that bronze isn't much worse than iron was correct, depending on the alloy bronze is a bit (about 5-10%) heavier than iron for the same volume, but not particularly weaker... which is why it was still being used for helmets so long after iron had been discovered. But steel is much better than bronze. And whats more, it was relatively cheap. A proofed Milanese harness was well within the financial means of most free peasants in Central Europe for example. By the mid 1400's the city of Augsburg in Germany was making even better tempered steel armor at a cheaper price.

Infantry was becoming much more dominant on the battlefield, the heyday of heavy cavalry was ending though it was still very effective.

Infantry weapons had vastly improved. The crossbow had reached power that rivaled much larger Roman artillery weapons of the Marian era, with a range of over 300 meters. The longbow had made it's battlefield debut, as had the Mongol and Ottoman composite recurves (more potent weapons of the same family as the Hunnish composite bow which gave the Roman armies so much trouble during the time of Atilla). Firearms were well established and had become primary battlefield weapons during the Hussite wars, organized around war-wagons equipped with guns and supported by cannons, which functioned a lot like tanks.

Spoiler

Show

Primary hand weapons ranged from the two-handed war flail, the two handed maces like the morgenstern and the godendag, the ahlespeiss, and the lethal halberd, as well as pikes to keep the cavalry away. Sidearms included four foot longswords and kriegmessers, as well as shorter swords, sabers and messers.

Shields were still used but larger ones mostly as static defense for archers, and as portable protection in siege warfare much the way SWAT teams use ballistic shields today (and for the same reason). For one on one combat, the smaller but tougher iron buckler was popular.

Late Medieval cavalry was even more formidable. Both rider and horse were protected. Riders carried very long heavy lances of up to 18' or even more. Their sidearms included longswords and axes, as well as specialized armor-piercing weapons like war-hammers and war-picks.

Advantages for the Romans
The main advantage of a Marian era Roman army would be size. At the time of Augustus there were 28 Roman legions, with an averge of about 4,500 fighting men in each legion. That's over 126,000 men. Which is a massive army by Medieval standards. Now of course that force was spread out all over the Empire, but even 4 or 5 legions massed together for a major emergency would be 20,000 soldiers, which is still very big by the standards of say, the 13th Century. Medieval armies tended to be made up of well equipped and well trained men, knights, urban and rural militias, and professional mercenaries. They were expensive and therefore small forces. The Roman army in the late Republic / Early Empire would be a major threat on this level alone.

Another Roman advantage would be engineering, especially as it relates to siege warfare. Most medieval battles were sieges. In the Early Medieval period siege warfare was crude, engines like trebuchets and torsion spring weapons were poorly developed, and tunneling and sapping wasn't very sophisticated. Roman legions were trained to build very good fortifications, as well as roads, bridges, and anything else they needed to get the job done. By the late Medieval period however this advantage would be less as the geniuses of the Renaissance had absorbed the lessons of Greek and Roman classical engineering and had in fact expanded and improved upon it significantly.

The third factor was discipline. Roman armies had very good discipline particularly after the Marian reform. They would not break and run under the stress of combat, they would not break ranks to loot. This was a major advantage particularly compared to the early medieval armies which were often (though not always) poorly disciplined.

Advantages of the Medieval army
The medieval army would have several advantages. Medieval armies would have much better armor, covering more of their bodies. Their missile weapons (longbows, crossbows, composite bows and guns) would vastly out-range the Roman javelins, and punch right through their scutum shields. This was a major problem for the Marian type Roman armies in Parthia, leading to several catastrophic defeats.

The primary hand weapons of Medieval infantry (flails, two handed maces, halberds) would similarly slice through or crush Roman shields easily (much like the Dacians did with their falces) and their secondary weapons would out-reach the gladius. As for discipline, the Swiss and the Czechs, to cite just two examples of many, clearly rivaled Roman discipline in terms of not breaking or surrendering, though they would sometimes attack without orders.

Medieval cavalry would have been a huge problem for Roman legions. They had a very hard time with Parthian cavalry (and archers) at Carrhae and of course with the Goths at Adrianople, and I suspect an encounter between a post Marian reform legion and a Medieval army would have had similar results.


There is no doubt that late medieval cavalry was more dangerous than 1st Century Parthian cavalry and I don't think a Roman legion could have held up to a major cavalry charge by good cavalry.

G

[Matthew]

Equipment of Medieval Armies 12th - 14th Century
By this era, medieval armies were notably different from the 'early medieval' or migration era armies which the Romans were familiar with. The main difference was the dominance and power of the heavy cavalry. The invading Crusader armies entering Anatolia and the Middle East in the 11th Century were a shock to the Byzantines for several reasons. They had developed better armor, either due to advances in iron working technology, armor design, or to the textile component or for some other reason we don't know, but the Byzantines reported shock at the effectiveness of the 'Frankish' mail panoply.

The European barbarians had improved technology and tactics for heavy cavalry considerably. This may have hinged mainly on changes to saddle design as well as horse breeding. Or it may have been better stirrups or some other reason. Whatever the cause, the "Frankish" (i.e. European) heavy cavalry caused a major shock to the Byzantines, and more so to the Turks, both of whom noted that in spite of the first Crusade being often (though not always) a poorly organized rabble, small numbers of Frankish cavalry were routinely routing much larger cavalry forces of their enemies, even though at this point it seems that their horses were still mostly unarmored or lightly armored.

A classic example of this is the Siege of Antioch, which historians are still somewhat at a loss to explain (I've seen explanations from everything to the discovery of the 'holy lance' to the idea that the European stallions were excited by the Arab mares... but the truth is simpler. Good cavalry with good leadership - plus trouble on the other side)

Some of this "shock" must have been over-exaggerated by the writers themselves, because the Byzantines were very familiar with the Normans and others prior to the crusades, both from employing them as mercenaries against the Turks and in their wars with Robert Guiscard. Either that, or there was a sudden technological revolution in the space of a few short years. Part of it may be the audience that they were writing for, who might perhaps not have been familiar with contemporary military matters at all, or else stylistic choices (Anna Komena for example was purposefully writing in a very archaic style, sort of neo-classical, which is why she chooses old terminology for describing the western Europeans).

At Antioch, there was a dearth of cavalry on the crusader side when they sallied out, so it is probably also a good example of their worth as foot soldiers.

[Galloglaich]

The whole edge vs. flat thing was a crazy, crazy crazy debate in HEMA circles, and I think the only person who felt really strong about it was John Clements who created some of the most epic flamewars in internet history over this subject back in the period 2002-2007 or thereabouts. Memes have been made about it, even videos.

I think most people adopt a more flexible position.

He had a point that sharps will bite into each other, but when the quillions are pointed in alignment with the edges, you really have no choice but to parry that way at least partially, and we do have direct evidence or this, namely the hundreds of illustrations in the surviving medieval fencing manuals. But of course, these images can be interpreted different ways.

Some rapier manuals explicitly say to parry with the edge, but of course a rapier is different than a longsword.

Suffice it to say it's an issue which is not easy to prove either way, a lot of energy was spent trying to do so without much benefit to anybody! But in the HEMA world outside of ARMA (which I think is most of the HEMA world at this point, as ARMA has gotten pretty small) it's uncommon to parry exclusively with the flat.

G

[rrgg]

One issue I have with the whole Rome vs medieval thing is deciding what exactly a proper comparison would be. If you take the Roman empire at its height sure you are talking about an army of up to 250,000 legionaries but compared to the population that boils down to only around one per 200 civilians. Compared to some medieval or dark age kingdoms that could mean the backbone of the Roman army outnumbered by housekarls or even knights alone.

As a general rule though I don't think that the Marian legions would have held many advantages over medieval, late-roman, or even dark age armies. History is generally not a case of "they dun got stupid" and whenever blank hits the fan usually the last thing to go is anything that helps someone defeat their enemies.

[Yora]

Does anyone know of a website where you can get decent quality sound samples of common guns? Movies and games seem to have a tendency to use sounds that are simply cool to completely random weapons, and I was wondering how they should actually sound.
Youtube has nothing.

[warty goblin]

Does anyone know of a website where you can get decent quality sound samples of common guns? Movies and games seem to have a tendency to use sounds that are simply cool to completely random weapons, and I was wondering how they should actually sound.
Youtube has nothing.

Guns as a rule don't record or play back particularly well. Sonic booms just don't translate to speakers, and so they always lack that distinctive *crack*.

[Rhynn]

Movies and games seem to have a tendency to use sounds that are simply cool to completely random weapons, and I was wondering how they should actually sound.

Well, it's more that they usually use completely fake, very very quiet sound effects for guns.

Strange Days was an odd movie to watch because the guns all used different, louder effects than basically every other movie ever (although still not very loud at all, but that's understandable - gunshots will cause hearing damage, especially indoors, so you're not going to want that volume of noise in your movie).

There's plenty of YouTube videos with real guns being really fired, but those are going to lack that crack and be low on volume, too.

[fusilier]

As a general rule though I don't think that the Marian legions would have held many advantages over medieval, late-roman, or even dark age armies. History is generally not a case of "they dun got stupid" and whenever blank hits the fan usually the last thing to go is anything that helps someone defeat their enemies.

One thing that we must keep in mind is that a roman legionnaire is not merely some guy with a gladius and pilae, just like a modern soldier isn't some guy with an assault rifle and grenades. Training, discipline, tactics, etc., are perhaps even more significant than the technological level of the equipment. While technology is, in my opinion, pretty robust (in the sense that it doesn't usually disappear, especially if it had widespread use and support), those other factors are much weaker and can degrade for any number of reasons. The training and discipline of a Roman Legion would have a lot to do with the institutions that the Roman government provided, and if those collapse even if you know what the tactics are supposed to be without the proper training they can't be effectively employed. Likewise, as rrpg points out, the Roman army was very big (compared to a medieval state) and standardized, this is because the Roman state could support such a big army. Effective tactics used by a big army might be very different than those employed by a much smaller force.

If you combine technological differences with institutional ones, then attempting to recreate roman legions may have been impractical/doomed to failure. Many of the Renaissance era commanders studied Roman tactics very closely, but none seem to have attempted to emulate them.

[fusilier]

Well, it's more that they usually use completely fake, very very quiet sound effects for guns.

Strange Days was an odd movie to watch because the guns all used different, louder effects than basically every other movie ever (although still not very loud at all, but that's understandable - gunshots will cause hearing damage, especially indoors, so you're not going to want that volume of noise in your movie).

There's plenty of YouTube videos with real guns being really fired, but those are going to lack that crack and be low on volume, too.

A fellow reenactor told me how his neighbor is a foley artist and one day she asked to borrow a variety of his guns -- she wanted to record the various sounds the guns made (cocking, clicking, etc., not firing!). Even though his guns weren't the ones being used in the movie! They don't care, they just want something that "sounds" good.

A common trope in movies and TV is to have the classic "cocking" sound of a gun when one person is threatening another. Recently I was watching a show where somebody turned a readied bolt action rifle toward the protagonist, and there was an inexplicable, loud "click"! :-)

[Wardog]

The Great Stirrup Controversy is quite a fun read on this subject. It probably was not as big a gap in effectiveness as might be thought, but certainly was an improvement.

According to Osprey's European Medieval Tactics (1), the stirrup was less tactically significant that commonly supposed. You could still have heavy shock cavalry without stirrups, with the appropriate saddle.

The main advantage of stirrups was apparently strategic/logistical, in that it reduced the strain and constriction on the legs, making riding more comfortable and hence increasing the distance an army could march. (Particularly in colder climates, where restricted blood circulation in the legs would be more debilitating).

[Ashtagon]

I think you are correct about the Colt revolver, the original being the Colt-paterson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_paterson

On the Iron vs. Bronze -- I know that was true of early artillery, but I didn't think bronze was superior to iron for edge weapons?

Bronze is far easier to smelt, which was the chief reason it was the first major metal to see industrial use - in the Bronze Age, it wasn't generally practical to forge iron due to the higher temperatures required.

The actual physical properties of bronze were quite varied. Bronze is of course an alloy, and the specific ratios of components had a huge impact on hardness. In addition, whether it was cold-wrought or cast would also affect hardness. Jewellery-quality bronze would typically be softer than iron (all the better to work fine detail into it), but weapons-grade bronze would usually be harder than iron, at least up until Damascus steel forging techniques were invented.


Further reading
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mo...ity-d_946.html
http://www.jewelry-secrets.com/Metal...or-Metals.html
http://www.allaboutgemstones.com/met...ry_bronze.html

[Rhynn]

A common trope in movies and TV is to have the classic "cocking" sound of a gun when one person is threatening another. Recently I was watching a show where somebody turned a readied bolt action rifle toward the protagonist, and there was an inexplicable, loud "click"! :-)

And, of course, you have to **** the hammer even with double-action handguns. Just like you have to pump a shotgun that's not been fired yet if you're threatening someone with it. (Or you rack the slide.) A bolt action rifle making the cocking sound is quite something, though...



It's even got a TVTropes page.

[Matthew]

According to Osprey's European Medieval Tactics (1), the stirrup was less tactically significant that commonly supposed. You could still have heavy shock cavalry without stirrups, with the appropriate saddle.

The main advantage of stirrups was apparently strategic/logistical, in that it reduced the strain and constriction on the legs, making riding more comfortable and hence increasing the distance an army could march. (Particularly in colder climates, where restricted blood circulation in the legs would be more debilitating).

Also, it allowed the rider to "rise" or "stand" in the saddle, which we see depicted from time to time with the couched lance or in close combat. Overall, stirrups were an improvement, but incremental rather than revolutionary. Gladly gone is the rather silly notion of the "pole-vaulting" knight through lack of stirrups, though it is still possible to read about it on Wikipedia.

[TuggyNE]

And, of course, you have to **** the hammer even with double-action handguns. Just like you have to pump a shotgun that's not been fired yet if you're threatening someone with it. (Or you rack the slide.) A bolt action rifle making the cocking sound is quite something, though...

Might I politely suggest you bypass the filter in the mod-approved style? (I.e., "cock the hammer", using black color tags.)

[Joran]

And, of course, you have to **** the hammer even with double-action handguns. Just like you have to pump a shotgun that's not been fired yet if you're threatening someone with it. (Or you rack the slide.) A bolt action rifle making the cocking sound is quite something, though...



It's even got a TVTropes page.

At least with some double action/single action revolvers, cocking back the hammer will lighten the trigger pull so the gun will be easier to fire. Hurray, Hollywood is right in an edge case!

Normal audio equipment also does a poor job of capturing the sound of explosions and Hollywood sure loves their fiery explosions. Thanks Mythbusters!

[Rhynn]

Might I politely suggest you bypass the filter in the mod-approved style? (I.e., "cock the hammer", using black color tags.)

If the powers that be want to filter out common words, I guess that's their prerogative... I didn't even remember the wordfilter existed, and I doubt I will next time, either.

[Galloglaich]

Also, it allowed the rider to "rise" or "stand" in the saddle, which we see depicted from time to time with the couched lance or in close combat. Overall, stirrups were an improvement, but incremental rather than revolutionary. Gladly gone is the rather silly notion of the "pole-vaulting" knight through lack of stirrups, though it is still possible to read about it on Wikipedia.

There does seem to have been some significant I agree incremental but substantially so, changes between the old Central Asian / Iranian style of heavy cavalry (clibinari / cataphract) and the "Frankish" type which emerged in the 10th-11th Century. One difference which has been suggested to me is that the earlier type of heavy cavalry didn't charge that fast in a canter or a gallop* the way the later did. Probably due to the saddles, stirrups and the breeding / training of the horse. But I think there must be more to it. The horse being the most expensive bit of kit for knights and men-at-arms I suspect that may be really important as well.

* I know that the full gallop wasn't quite as common as we are led to believe in European lance charges either..

My other theory is that whereas cataphracts were very well protected, it was at the expense of mobility, I think with the armor they wore (lamellar and extra plates over mail or yushman / mail and plate ala Byzantine klibanion) they would have a hard time fighting on the ground if they were dismounted, and maybe not that great fighting with shorter weapons from the saddle. By contrast, "Frankish" heavy cavalry of 11th century had a mail and textile panoply which wasn't nearly as encumbering, arguably, or as hot, and may have been more effective in the followup stage of a lance charge as well as during the initial charge.

It's also interesting that whereas 6th Century Sassanid cavalry seems to have used armored horses, in the early days of Feudal European cavalry (10th -11th Century), the horses seem to have often been mostly uprotected, or at any rate horse armor is rare in artwork and doesn't show up that much in equipment rosters and so on. It's only later in the 13th and 14th Century that horse armor seems to come back, peaking with the sophisticated plate barding of the 15th and early 16th, and then fading away again pretty quickly in the early musket / cannon era.

G

[Wardog]

It's also interesting that whereas 6th Century Sassanid cavalry seems to have used armored horses, in the early days of Feudal European cavalry (10th -11th Century), the horses seem to have often been mostly uprotected, or at any rate horse armor is rare in artwork and doesn't show up that much in equipment rosters and so on. It's only later in the 13th and 14th Century that horse armor seems to come back, peaking with the sophisticated plate barding of the 15th and early 16th, and then fading away again pretty quickly in the early musket / cannon era.

G

Could that simply be due to the Sassanid Empire being large and wealthy (and according to Wikipedia, "the peak of ancient Persian civilization"), whereas early feudal states were not?

[Galloglaich]

Could very well be, though arguably even by the 11th Century Europe was becomming one of the most successful production zones for iron, hence the ubiquity of the mail body armor for warriors and steel swords and so on. This was mainly due to the revolution of the overshot water wheel, as well as the windmill and some related technologies. Europe was also becomming a major zone for textile manufacturing (horse armor was often made of textiles)

So maybe there was some other tactical reason.

You might even argue that the 'messy' / decentralized state of affairs in Europe contributed to the spread of this type of technology in what came to be called the first Renaissance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaiss...e_12th_century

Which, like the more famous second Renaissance, seems to have been centered in the areas with the least effective political control (i.e. Northern Germany, Flanders, the Baltic and Northern Italy).

All that said though I really don't know much about the economy of Persia in the Classical to Medieval period and I think increasingly, I really should because they keep coming up again and again as really important influences on European culture and technology. As well as being kind of a trade and culture bridge to India and China via the Silk Road and maritime trade routes..

G

[Yora]

The dutch windmill was primarily used for draining fields and not so much for grinding grain. It would work for draining mines as well, if you have places with sufficient and reliable wind.

Also, it allowed the rider to "rise" or "stand" in the saddle, which we see depicted from time to time with the couched lance or in close combat. Overall, stirrups were an improvement, but incremental rather than revolutionary. Gladly gone is the rather silly notion of the "pole-vaulting" knight through lack of stirrups, though it is still possible to read about it on Wikipedia.

I know from experience that stirrups make it a lot easier to sit stable when the horse is galloping, because you can rest all your weight on your feet. A good rider can rest his full weight on his inner upper legs, but in full armor and with a lance and shield in hand, I would guess it becomes a lot harder to keep yourself from sliding down and having your whole weight supported by your crotch. Not only is it uncomfortable, you are also much more likely to slide over the ride or left side with all the shaking that's going on. A horse is basically barrel shaped and you either rest on smooth fur or leather. Sliding of the side is very easy, with stirrups it's almost impossible to happen.

Your lance digging into the ground is the least of your problems. Sideway motion is the real issue.