New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 50 of 50 FirstFirst ... 254041424344454647484950
Results 1,471 to 1,485 of 1485
  1. - Top - End - #1471
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Couple of questions about medieval infantry.

    1. How much of a problem did infantry have with spears getting stuck in their opponents. I know that bayonets getting stuck was enough of a problem that soldiers and Marines were trained to fire their rifles to help dislodge them. A rifle is fairly short and gripped with both hands, unlike most infantry spears in Middle Ages.

    2. When did billmen and halberdiers really supplant spear-and-shield infantry? Did these men abandon shields in favor of two-handed weapons because they themselves were well armored enough to make a shield redundant or simply because the were facing men-at-arms who were to well armored to injure with a single-handed spear.

    3. Finally, when would you say the real "hay-day" of the sword as an infantry weapon was? When did it get the most battlefield use by medieval infantry?
    Last edited by Fortinbras; 2013-05-06 at 01:09 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #1472
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tail of the Bellcurve
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post

    So if you got someone like Petter Johnsson and gave him a ton of money and convinced him to try to make swords with some kind of super alloy and tasked him to make some 'super swords', maybe he could. Angus Trim has been trying to do this for a long time, but it's arguable if he succeeded in improving upon what was around before (I don't think he has but some people would disagree with me)

    G
    I'd be skeptical about modern swordsmiths making substantial improvements over their ancient predecessors, simply because people aren't routinely killing each other with swords anymore. Without that, any new design can't really be reasonably tested; nor can the maker observe what worked.
    Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
    When they shot him down on the highway,
    Down like a dog on the highway,
    And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.


    Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.

  3. - Top - End - #1473
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortinbras View Post
    Couple of questions about medieval infantry.

    1. How much of a problem did infantry have with spears getting stuck in their opponents. I know that bayonets getting stuck was enough of a problem that soldiers and Marines were trained to fire their rifles to help dislodge them. A rifle is fairly short and gripped with both hands, unlike most infantry spears in Middle Ages.
    It's a pretty good question. I'm not sure about how it was dealt with in all eras but in a late Migration era to Medieval context, spears often had crossbars, like the type you see on a boars -spear and somewhat for the same reason. But in general, I think spears getting stuck in opponents is just one of the many reasons why the sword was so important.

    Lances, similarly, often have tassels on them or little clumps of feathers or fur just under the stabbing point; this is mainly to prevent blood running down the lance but also I think the help make shallower thrusts that you can pull back out again.

    2. When did billmen and halberdiers really supplant spear-and-shield infantry? Did these men abandon shields in favor of two-handed weapons because they themselves were well armored enough to make a shield redundant or simply because the were facing men-at-arms who were to well armored to injure with a single-handed spear.
    The halberd, in an early version, was invented sometime around the late 13th Century, though some similar weapons as well as 'hewing spears' are mentioned in the Icelandic sagas and show up in the archeological record before that.

    There does seems to be a decline in use of shields, particularly by infantry, around that same time. Nobody is certain why. Armor was getting better. My personal theory is that it had to do with the more powerful long-range missile weapons such as longbows, crossbows, and firearms which were becomming much more common by that time. Early medieval (and earlier) shields were, with a few exceptions like the Hoplite shield, of quite light construction and I don't think sufficient to deal with something like a longbow, IMO. My 175 lb hunting crossbow will shoot a bolt all the way through a 1/2" plywood shield and it's not even nearly as powerful as say, a Mongol recurve.

    But all that said, neither spears nor shields ever really went away. You still see both in period art all the way through the medieval era. Their composition and shape changed, but they were definietely still around, especially during sieges. Matt Easton at Schola Gladiatoria collected dozens of paintings which prove this point. By the late medieval era a smaller version of the pavise appeared which started to become very common again, especially among infantry. It was derived from what was originally a Lithuanian design, and you see lots of them in period art in the 15th and 16th Centuries ... like the ones these guys are carrying in the Triumph of Maximillian below.



    or these Turks



    You tend to see a lot more smaller metal bucklers in the 13th-15th century, but by the end of that period you also see the larger steel shields, rotella et al, which seem to derived from some bullet proof Ottoman roundshields.

    Spear and shield as such is not something you see all that much in the art, let alone the fencing manuals, though we know it was practiced of course. Some of the best examples are in Greek art, on vases and so on.

    3. Finally, when would you say the real "hay-day" of the sword as an infantry weapon was? When did it get the most battlefield use by medieval infantry?
    Swords were sidearms, through most of history. The only real exception I can think of off-hand are the really big 'true' two handed swords (zweihander et al) of the 16th century, or the cavalry swords and sabers used by some troops in the 18th and 19th.

    But the sword was always a really valuable and crucial battlefield sidearm and as such, probably saw several peaks of use, among the Romans and their Gallic and Germanic opponents, and in the medieval era well into the Early - Modern period are just two examples.

    The sword was also a very important personal protection sidearm in several eras; Edo Japan of course with the katana. In Ming Dynasty China the Gim or Jian sword was the symbol of a scholar. But also Baroque Europe, and late Medieval Europe just to name a few. The sword was the symbol of a knight's status, along with his belt and spurs. In the free towns of late Medieval into Early Modern Germany the sword was such an important symbol of civic virtue you could actually be arrrested for not owning one. In Switzerland you had to bring a sword to vote, in some Cantons this continued well into the 20th Cenutry. The importance of swords to students in Germany continued into the infamous mensur era which continues today. And so on.

    In Spain and Italy, and later France, the rapier became the symbol of the right of self-defense for the aristocracy and the patrician classes during the Early Modern era, by the 18th Century, carrying a sword (usually a smallsword) was restricted to the nobility in most of Europe (except a few of those German towns) among whom it remained a crucial symbol of authority and rank. In all those cases, carrying a sword was associated with a culture of dueling of course, with everything good and bad that went with that.

    G
    Last edited by Galloglaich; 2013-05-06 at 03:47 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #1474
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Spiryt's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    I would say that the decline of shield among infantry indeed would have much to do with missile weapons, but in quite different way - simply, infantry would have more and more missile character.

    Particularly communal militia would eagerly consist of bands of crossbowmen.

    In 15th century Poland and Baltic, infantry 'squads' would tend to generally consists in like 75% of shooters, with some pavise and pikemen to shield them.

    My 175 lb hunting crossbow will shoot a bolt all the way through a 1/2" plywood shield and it's not even nearly as powerful as say, a Mongol recurve
    Well, what kind of plywood, and based on what shield?

    I once put a carpenters hammer trough quite solid plywood with a throw.

    This is obviously very exaggerated example, but it really usually makes all the difference in the world. Sadly, shields tend to be relatively un-researched, because they anyway are 'expendable' in all kinds of reenacting activities.

    Anyway, wooden shields I've seen seem perfectly able against arrow/spear heads.

    http://dagomearcheo.blogspot.com/200...a-wasciwa.html

    Apparently, missiles penetrated places that were previously destroyed by blunt axes and stuff, otherwise they were generally letting only head trough.
    Avatar by Kwarkpudding
    The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
    Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.

    Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.

  5. - Top - End - #1475
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    This was definitely a cheap, unhistorical low quality replica, Indian made, just commercial plywood with some linen on top, but it was quite thick, at least 15mm which is a lot thicker than most period types that have been found, and ... to my surprise (and annoyance, since it ruined the bolts) the bolts when all the way through the whole damn thing, and through some 3/4" press board under that and through some pine-straw 'hay bales' behind that.

    Later it still penetrated the same "shield" about 5" or 6" with 3mm leather on top, and with an oven mitt on top of the leather, and even with some (cheap, low quality) indian riveted mail I had on top of all that. It also put a pretty good hole in some 16 guage mild steel plate but it didn't go all the way through.

    I'll post some photos later when I can figure out how to get the images off my new phone.

    Anyway I just mentioned it because it was a bit surprising to me how good the pentration from the crossbow was (from about 20 meters, using very cheap target arrows), and how inadequate the (admittedly substandard) shield seemed to be as protection. I would love to test it with some limewood if I had any but it aint easy to come by around here.

    Nice video with the seax grab, just like the sagas :)

    G

  6. - Top - End - #1476
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    That said I would be honestly AMAZED if you could find an accurate replica of say, a Viking shield, or a Roman scutum, which would hold up against a 120 lb longbow, a 1000 crossbow, or a 110 lb composite recurve at that same distance, let alone a handgonne.

    G

  7. - Top - End - #1477
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Generally the shield isn't just wood though. A layer of thick rawhide can add a pretty surprising amount of protection.

    I don't really buy into the "missiles got too powerful" theory, partly because I doubt that the kind of power produced by a powerful crossbow or longbow would be something completely unheard of, even during the dark ages. A hefty spear, for example, thrown by strong individual might achieve up to 200-300 joules of KE. And vikings really did love throwing spears.

  8. - Top - End - #1478
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Granted, but in my little (totally nonscientific) experiment, about 3/8" of leather did absolutely nothing to help as far as I could tell.



    Here you can see the arrow (it's really an arrow not a bolt) which went through the mail, an oven mitt, and the leather, it also went about 4" through the shield on this shot. You can also see the holes from the other shots and another arrow which went into the leather and through the shield about 10", (it was too stuck for us to pull out).

    Regarding the mail, it wasn't really a good test since the arrows were narrow enough to fit inside the rings, I only ever broke one ring. But I don't think that mail would have held up.

    This is the crossbow I was using and the cheap aluminum arrows.




    G

  9. - Top - End - #1479
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
    Swords were sidearms, through most of history. The only real exception I can think of off-hand are the really big 'true' two handed swords (zweihander et al) of the 16th century, or the cavalry swords and sabers used by some troops in the 18th and 19th.
    G
    I guess what I meant was that there is a lot of talk about a decline in the use of swords as a knightly side-arm in favor of maces and hammers and similar weapons. Vikings also seem to have not made a whole lot of use of swords, due to cost. I was wondering at what point in the evolution of the medieval infantryman would the sword have had the greatest importance as part of his kit (in addition to an two-handed axe or polearm of some kind, of course.)

  10. - Top - End - #1480
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tail of the Bellcurve
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    I'd be surprised if lime did much better than plywood. At least the American varieties of Basswood are very, very soft. The real appeal of the stuff is that it is fairly light and does not tend to break along the grain , so you really do have to cut it. But plywood doesn't split particularly readily either - even the cheap crap - and is probably made out of a harder wood. It's difficult to find stuff significantly softer than Basswood.

    What probably would make more of a difference is really fixing the covering down onto the wood. I suspect the sort of leather used also makes a lot of difference. Rawhide for instance can be very hard; to the point of being brittle, so long as you keep it dry.
    Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
    When they shot him down on the highway,
    Down like a dog on the highway,
    And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.


    Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.

  11. - Top - End - #1481
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortinbras View Post
    I guess what I meant was that there is a lot of talk about a decline in the use of swords as a knightly side-arm in favor of maces and hammers and similar weapons. Vikings also seem to have not made a whole lot of use of swords, due to cost. I was wondering at what point in the evolution of the medieval infantryman would the sword have had the greatest importance as part of his kit (in addition to an two-handed axe or polearm of some kind, of course.)
    Hey, a chance to link to a lindybeige video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEWMlWuzuI

    Swords seem to have been pretty popular throughout history. I guess at least until the final decline of cavalry in the 1800s. At the very least a wealthy man would probably want a sword and be familiar with its use for personal defense when not on the battlefield.
    The vikings in particular seem to be known for trying carry as many weapons as they could into battle. So if you were poor then you might only have an axe, but if you could afford it you might be hauling around your axe, your sword, your dagger, a shield, a spear, more spears, etc.

  12. - Top - End - #1482
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    You got to remember, the Viking era lasts a pretty long time, in the early Viking era (circa 800 AD) you see probably a lot more axes as sidearms, and also very little body armor, by around 900 AD the Vikings are richer, due in part to Danegeld and a lot of plundering as well as expanded trade, and iron in general and swords in particular have gotten cheaper mainly due to Frankish manufacturing, so both swords and armor are a lot more common. I don't think a sword was that rare in a Viking army circa 1066.

    Swords similarly seem to retain a lot of importance all through the medieval period. If you look at knightly effigies they almost all have a sword, right on through the 16th Century. Swords show up in period artwork and in just about every county or parish muster list, feudal code of arms for vassals to bring, militia rosters and so forth.

    As I mentioned upthread, the sword at the same time became a symbol of personal honor - which extended to the fact that getting in a swordfight in Central Europe anyway, was something you could get away with sometimes so long as it was conducted in an honorable fashion - in some cases you could actually get in less trouble for killing someone with a sword than for injuring them by say breaking a beer mug over their head or stabbing them with a knitting needle.

    Knightly prisoners would even sometimes be allowed to retain their swords while captured, which seems crazy by today's standards.

    I think the sword remained a really important sidearm all through this period, even though it's efficacy against fully armored opponents was clearly limited. Hammers, maces, axes and various other weapons also clearly increased in popularity during the heyday of armor, (very roughly 1400-1520) and other weapons (lances, two handed poll hammers, poll axes and so on) were always the primary weapon for knights, just as (halberds, morgensterns, pikes, flails) were for infantry, but in both cases the sword never even went close to going away on the battlefield as far as I can tell.

    There is a pretty good thread here where you can see a ton of period artwork depicting longswords in particular still in use and being carried as sidearms on the battlefield all the way into the 17th Century

    http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/v...hp?f=20&t=2070

    by that time (17th C) the saber (for cavalry) and the rapier were in ascendance which had as much to do with social / political changes as anything else, but a saber or a rapier is still a sword, and it still obviously had an important role.

    G

  13. - Top - End - #1483
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Basically I think the sword continued to be really important for anybody above the status of cannon fodder until the primary weapon became a multi-use, high kill probablity / low failure rate weapon (i.e. rifle or carbine with cartridges) and the sidearm also became equally effective and reliable (revolver)

    G

  14. - Top - End - #1484
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    In terms of organization and training, how were High Medieval Scandinavian armies different from German armies of the same period. The Osprey books seem to imply that German armies were more "knight-heavy" while the Scandinavians relied more on militias made up of wealthy, well trained peasants who fought as infantry.

    That said, I know that German peasant communities had a very strong tradition of self-defense and often fielded well-equipped militias. At the same time, Scandinavians had a proud, professional (to the extent that anybody was a professional soldier in the middle ages) warrior tradition going back to Viking huskarls.

  15. - Top - End - #1485
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Brother Oni's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cippa's River Meadow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

    Whoops, page 50.

    New thread time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •