Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. XIV

[Storm_Of_Snow]

So what would people at the time have called them? Would they in fact have called them longswords, broadswords, etc. and those just came to be applied to specific variants later? Or was everything just a "sword" and it's only in the modern period we've started giving specific names to these admittedly very similar types of weapon?

The Romans had different names for different lengths of swords IIRC, and names would likely have been adopted from both allies and enemies (Scimitar for the Crusaders, for example), but, given that until the invention of printing, histories were only really carried on by the church and educated nobility, there could well have been regional names for different lengths of weapon that have been lost to history.

Best bet? The peasantry might have mass-produced "swords" in order to fulfill their feudal obligations to their lord (and might simply refer to them as swords, or might refer to them by the name of the blacksmith if they've been produced by more than one, similar to how japanese swords are referred to by the name of the smith who made it), while the lord himself, thanks to his better diet making him taller and more muscular, the time to train and his wealth to afford a custom weapon, might have a sword that's longer and heavier.

Over time, references to it would subtly corrupt and it would eventually be referred to as "the lord's longsword". If the lord's cousin, who's of a similar build, turned up with a similar length weapon, then, to the peasantry, they would both have longswords, and the class name would stick.

[Lilapop]

A nomenclature question, since while I don't mind a bit of anachronism I like to be wrong deliberately rather than out of ignorance.

To my knowledge, the larger type XIIa and XIIIa were referred to as "great/big/large sword" in German and "sword of war" in french, while their onehanded counterparts were just called "sword" - maybe "sword for one/a single hand" if the distinction was important. I'm not aware of anything you could classify as a D&D shortsword in that period.
The germanic distinction between a "regular" sword and a sax was already mentioned, but I have seen references to a so-called "hip sword" (I think it was Beowulf who used his for the killing blow on the dragon), which might allude to the horizontal suspension of saxes we've seen on period artwork.

Just grabbed my book on norse sagas. Yep, Beowulf, german translation based on the Nowell Codex. After his main sword breaks, he draws his hip sword and "cuts the dragon right through".

[Matthew]

This is always a useful introduction: Sword Forms, but basically it is as Rhynn noted above in that the common name for sword at any given time is "sword" with adjectives like "long", "great" and such applied to distinguish unusual types. The Romans distinguished between the spatha and semi-spatha by the the time of Vegetius, but all that may mean is sword and dagger. More optimistically it means sword and short sword.

[Rhynn]

Descriptors were really vague, too; for instance, the "bastard sword" mentioned as a class of its own in some Renaissance tournament (I was surprised the term may have existed in English prior to Victorian historians) may have been "bastard" because it was shorter than your standard one-handed arming sword (which may have been called a "long sword" in English at the time, which is not the same at all as the German "langes schwert" we now call longsword), so it was "a bastard between a long sword and a short sword." But later on, the term as applied by historians meant a sword that was a bastard between a two-handed sword and a one-handed sword; a "hand-and-a-half sword"...

Basically a "short sword" was just shorter than whatever was being called "sword," and a "long sword" was just longer than that.

More confusingly, a "long bow" wasn't actually longer than a "standard bow," and there was no "short bow" as such (basically all self bows varied in length but the optimal for a bow used on foot was about the length of the user, unstrung); a "long bow" was long in comparison to a crossbow...

Names across different languages are problematic in general, because the translation isn't necessarily the same thing, as with the English v. German "long sword." A lot of the English names are just corruptions rather than translations, too - "scimitar" is a corruption of the Persian shamsher or shimshir, "sabre" is a corruption of the Polish szabla, and many of these words probably just meant "sword." Prominently, "rapier" is from the French espee rapiere ("rasping sword"), itself a corruption of the Spanish espada ropera ("dress sword"), which the later rapier evolved from; rapiers don't really rasp (any more than any other sword). Similarly, épée is just French for "sword," but now refers to a specific "sword" (really, it's a piece of sporting equipment, not a weapon in any sense).

[Spiryt]

We must also remember, that trough most of the medieval period, and certainly during (700-1300) swords would be refereed in Latin in really great amount of sources. It was THE language to write stuff in, after all.

So, "gladius/gladii", "ensis" and probably some other terms, I'm not sure.

Vast numbers of chroniclers, or even town/arsenal records are sadly very vague from our point of view, there are 'gladii' "loricae" etc. listed without much more.

Same things with common languages. Whoever was writing this apparently assumed that intended reader will have info they need, no thought about poor researchers 700 years later.

[Mr. Mask]

Anyone know much about when bucklers and shields fell out of use in war? They saw something of a resurgence as riot shields with Fairbairn, specifically for police work. But I don't know much about cases of personal shields being used in the world wars or any time into the 1700s or later. Just wondered if anyone knew more on the subject.

[Rhynn]

So, "gladius/gladii", "ensis" and probably some other terms, I'm not sure.

"Spatha" seems to have been popular, too; épée is apparently ultimately derived from "spatha" (possibly by way of Spanish espada).

Vast numbers of chroniclers, or even town/arsenal records are sadly very vague from our point of view, there are 'gladii' "loricae" etc. listed without much more.

Yeah, armor was described pretty vaguely a lot of the time, too. "Harness" or "mail," maybe "hauberk" or "habergeon" if we're lucky.

The same issues are prevalent here; we now call this a heaume, but the word just means "helmet," just like casque...

Similarly, terms like "kite shield" are historians' terms. Indeed, the "heater shield" is even named for being shaped like a clothes iron, apparently only developed somewhere around the 17th century.

[Spiryt]

Anyone know much about when bucklers and shields fell out of use in war? They saw something of a resurgence as riot shields with Fairbairn, specifically for police work. But I don't know much about cases of personal shields being used in the world wars or any time into the 1700s or later. Just wondered if anyone knew more on the subject.

I think that throughout the 16th century, polish infantry was somehow gradually discarding their pavises, from one reason or the other, until king's Istvan Batory reforms had officially sealed the deal by making general infantry uniformly armed with guns, and side arms (sabres, axes). At least in theory.

Similarly, hussars which were evolving to their most 'classical' form then, were discarding characteristic shields, or shields in general.

As far as I'm aware, similar process was seen in the Western Europe as well, all kinds of pavisemen, rodeleros, etc. were more or less quickly giving their place to uniform pikemen and shooters formations.

In Scotland, with specific kind of warfare and raiding that was going on, shield have survived in practical role for far longer time, at least as far as I understand. Other factors might have been in place, one would have to ask specialists.

[Incanur]

The Dutch used shields for both dedicated targetiers and pikers in the first quarter of the 17th century. I'm not sure how long this practice persisted. Some Scottish soldiers continued to use shields until at least 1746. That's probably as long as military shields lasted in Europe.

Outside of Europe, shields for war endured into the twentieth century.

[Aedilred]

The Romans had different names for different lengths of swords IIRC, and names would likely have been adopted from both allies and enemies (Scimitar for the Crusaders, for example), but, given that until the invention of printing, histories were only really carried on by the church and educated nobility, there could well have been regional names for different lengths of weapon that have been lost to history.

We must also remember, that trough most of the medieval period, and certainly during (700-1300) swords would be refereed in Latin in really great amount of sources. It was THE language to write stuff in, after all.

I guess this is the main problem with trying to find contemporary names: no matter how serious the martial culture of the Middle Ages (and it was pretty serious, to the extent I would have expected people to pay attention to the difference between members of the same weapon group) the overwhelming majority of what was being written was in a foreign language by people who didn't care. So the reason why different names start becoming more common in the late Middle Ages and early modern period was probably at least as much that people could now print their own information in their own languages than that weapons themselves underwent any sort of major shift in production and use.

But the information so far has been helpful, thanks everyone.

Descriptors were really vague, too; for instance, the "bastard sword" mentioned as a class of its own in some Renaissance tournament (I was surprised the term may have existed in English prior to Victorian historians).

To be fair, if Victorian historians had come up with it, it would be called a "sword of uncertain parentage" or similar </obviousjoke>

[fusilier]

I think that throughout the 16th century, polish infantry was somehow gradually discarding their pavises, from one reason or the other, until king's Istvan Batory reforms had officially sealed the deal by making general infantry uniformly armed with guns, and side arms (sabres, axes). At least in theory.

Similarly, hussars which were evolving to their most 'classical' form then, were discarding characteristic shields, or shields in general.

As far as I'm aware, similar process was seen in the Western Europe as well, all kinds of pavisemen, rodeleros, etc. were more or less quickly giving their place to uniform pikemen and shooters formations.

In Scotland, with specific kind of warfare and raiding that was going on, shield have survived in practical role for far longer time, at least as far as I understand. Other factors might have been in place, one would have to ask specialists.

In Western Europe, the pavise seems to have declined in use in the late 15th century, and disappeared pretty quickly in the early 16th century (although it was retained for use in sieges). Sword and "buckler" men were used throughout the 16th century, and into the early 17th century, but they too were a declining proportion of the infantry.

[No brains]

Does anyone know the first usage of the term 'blood groove'? It is a remarkably common term even though it misinterprets the function of a fuller and is even based on a physically suspect idea. I would guess that in olden sword-making, fullers were always made with the function to cut down on the mass of a blade and nobody ever made a fuller so it could function like a 'blood-groove'.

[Aedilred]

Does anyone know the first usage of the term 'blood groove'? It is a remarkably common term even though it misinterprets the function of a fuller and is even based on a physically suspect idea. I would guess that in olden sword-making, fullers were always made with the function to cut down on the mass of a blade and nobody ever made a fuller so it could function like a 'blood-groove'.

A lot of that sort of stuff is Victorian-era in origin. Whig historians were great. I don't know about the blood-groove specifically, although I do know it's a remarkably common misconception.

[Roxxy]

I'm doing some thinking on this gem. Specifically, the fact that homemade weapons are pretty common, and the average PC has little money to spend on materials. What homemade weapons can you guys think of that would be within the capabilities of a mid 19th century poor street gang member that would be extremely effective?

Personally, I'm wondering about taking some leather strips, and using them to make a foot long slapjack with a loop for a handle and half a brick for a weight. About how effective could that be expected to be in a fight with a cop wielding a wooden billy club, or in a fight against other gang members armed with a plethora of homemade and improvised weapons?

[Thiel]

Anything from weighted saps via spiked clubs to full blown swords are an option. Not to mention the kinds of improvised armour you could bash together.

[fusilier]

I'm doing some thinking on this gem. Specifically, the fact that homemade weapons are pretty common, and the average PC has little money to spend on materials. What homemade weapons can you guys think of that would be within the capabilities of a mid 19th century poor street gang member that would be extremely effective?

Personally, I'm wondering about taking some leather strips, and using them to make a foot long slapjack with a loop for a handle and half a brick for a weight. About how effective could that be expected to be in a fight with a cop wielding a wooden billy club, or in a fight against other gang members armed with a plethora of homemade and improvised weapons?

Clubs, saps, chains, bricks (thrown), brass knuckles, knives, axes, etc. If I remember the movie correctly there's plenty of inspiration there. Swords would be more like cutlasses or machetes, and probably pretty rare (I know that in England, police *could* be issued with pistols and cutlasses under certain conditions).

[No brains]

I'm doing some thinking on this gem. Specifically, the fact that homemade weapons are pretty common, and the average PC has little money to spend on materials. What homemade weapons can you guys think of that would be within the capabilities of a mid 19th century poor street gang member that would be extremely effective?

Personally, I'm wondering about taking some leather strips, and using them to make a foot long slapjack with a loop for a handle and half a brick for a weight. About how effective could that be expected to be in a fight with a cop wielding a wooden billy club, or in a fight against other gang members armed with a plethora of homemade and improvised weapons?

One thing that could work is a home-forged gun. In fact, a particularly brilliant character may be able to make an AK-47 out of a shovel with limited technology as seen here. I think gas operation in firearms may have been known by the 19th century.

Edit:
Of course, then you would find out how effective a weapon a flying book is.

[Thiel]

One thing that could work is a home-forged gun. In fact, a particularly brilliant character may be able to make an AK-47 out of a shovel with limited technology as seen here. I think gas operation in firearms may have been known by the 19th century.

I really doubt that. First of all, the guy "only" made the lower receiver and the stock, the rest of the gun came from a kit. Secondly, it took almost a century, several ground breaking advancements in machining and metallurgy and a ton of money to develop a reliable the assault rifle.

[Rhynn]

Personally, I'm wondering about taking some leather strips, and using them to make a foot long slapjack with a loop for a handle and half a brick for a weight. About how effective could that be expected to be in a fight with a cop wielding a wooden billy club, or in a fight against other gang members armed with a plethora of homemade and improvised weapons?

That sounds like a questionable idea at best. Just get a really good, solid piece of wood, of a length and weight that are comfortable for you, and put a bunch of nails through the end you swing at people.

For a backup, get a good knife (with something between the handle and the blade to keep your hand from slipping over the blade when you stick it hard into something hard).

In fact, a particularly brilliant character may be able to make an AK-47 out of a shovel with limited technology as seen here. I think gas operation in firearms may have been known by the 19th century.

No. As Thiel points out, he didn't make the entire gun. The important parts would require advanced machining. Just... not gonna happen.

With 20th-century tools, it is possible to make really serviceable simple submachineguns, like the Sten, with minimal machining using stamped metal, but you can bet that even then no one made all the parts in a one-man workshop. The precision of the machining required for barrels (to match the diameter of the rounds), the rifling, etc., isn't going to happen with some hand tools - certainly not tools available to a 19th century New York thug with no means.

For reference, check out what a lower receiver & stock is. That's basically all the parts of a modern firearm you could make yourself from crude parts. It's impressive, but it's not a firearm.

One thing that could work is a home-forged gun.

Now, in general, this idea is plausible. It could be possible to make a non-rifled barrel- or breech-loaded firearm (probably more a handgonne than a musket)... but, again, you'd need a bunch of tools, a forge, and so on.

It's easier - and probably less risky - to make a firearm from a brick by picking up a brick, walking up behind someone with a firearm, hitting them on the head with the brick, and taking the firearm. You'll get a better weapon, too.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Don't forget your improvised weapons - broken bottles and drinking glasses, lengths of wood etc.

The leader could have a firearm (anything from a cavalry service revolver to a Napoleonic era flintlock), but have very limited ammunition. Nearly everyone would have a blade of some kind, be it a pocket knife or an improvised shiv.

Anyone of that social class who's employed would probably be in manual trades, so they would have access to tools - butchers knives and cleavers, pickaxes, hammers, hatchets, screwdrivers and chisels, smaller saws (things like tenon saws would be scary looking and could make terrible wounds, although would be difficult to wield as weapons, and there might be small piercing saws that could be used as stabbing weapons), cargo loading hooks, crowbars and so on.

Someone might have a horseshoe on a length of rope, or in a small sack.

You could also potentially have slings (ammunition would be anything to hand, including the cobblestones they're walking on, the sling itself would be easily concealed in a pocket) and slingshots.

Armour would probably be limited to padding and maybe things like leather butchers aprons and the like - anything else would likely raise too much interest from rival gangs and the police.

Edit:

With 20th-century tools, it is possible to make really serviceable simple submachineguns, like the Sten, with minimal machining using stamped metal, but you can bet that even then no one made all the parts in a one-man workshop. The precision of the machining required for barrels (to match the diameter of the rounds), the rifling, etc., isn't going to happen with some hand tools - certainly not tools available to a 19th century New York thug with no means.

The early Sten guns as provided to SOE and dropped into the occupied countries had a nasty habit of jamming or misfiring, precisely because the weapons were designed in a rush, the components manufactured in improvised facilities to varying levels of quality, and weren't maintained that well in the field. The main benefit the Sten had was that it used the 9mm round common to the occupying forces, so ammunition wasn't as big an issue.

As for a victorian-era NY Thug making a gun - remember that pretty much all the schooling he'll have ever had will be enough to scratchily write his name, read a bible and not get ripped off by shopkeepers when he buys something, and that's if he's been educated. There'll still be some people who don't even have that much, and just make a cross when asked to sign their name on a piece of paper that has funny symbols that they don't understand.

To make a firearm from scratch and not have it take your arm off the first time you fire it, you'd need to start with an engineering degree. And then a chemistry one to make the propellant without blowing yourself up.

For our guy, he's going to be limited to anything he can procure (either through inheritance, theft or purchasing, probably from the black market), or lower tech projectile weapons like slingshot, slings, and potentially bows and crossbows. Or just throwing something.

[Thiel]

And lets not forget Rincewinds favourite, a half-brick in a sock. That'll ruin anyone's day.
A stevedores hook makes a pretty nasty weapon, especially the ones mounted on poles used by loggers.

[Raum]

It won't be an AK or even a Sten but improvised firearms are certainly possible. It's probably more effective to make a crude grenade though. Either is likely to be nearly as dangerous to the user as the intended target. Some form of club or blade will be more likely.

That said, if the country has fought a war relatively recently captured, surplus, and other excess weapons are going to be available. Ammunition may or may not be another story - depends on local laws.

[Mike_G]

Simple crude zip guns can be made with basic tools. Use a pistol round, so not a ton of power and improvise a barrel, trigger mechanism and firing pin and there you go.

A decent backyard mechanic could do it.

Now, the mechanism required for automatic fire, no. But a one shot gun would be doable.

[Mr Beer]

There's a reason that knives and clubs are still common hand weapons today, they are effective, cheap and concealable.

If hiding the weapon isn't an issue and you want something cheap and effective, I think something like a two-handed wooden club would be my choice. A simple handle intended for a pickaxe or mattock is an instant weapon. If you have time to refine it, add something for grip at one end and something metallic at the other, maybe a metal ring or wrap a layer of sheet lead around the end and nail it on. Not too heavy though.

Slingshots are decent with ball bearings or even marbles I believe and can be hidden easily. I have heard of people firing arrows with them, don't know if this is effective or not.

[Brother Oni]

Simple crude zip guns can be made with basic tools. Use a pistol round, so not a ton of power and improvise a barrel, trigger mechanism and firing pin and there you go.

A decent backyard mechanic could do it.

Now, the mechanism required for automatic fire, no. But a one shot gun would be doable.

The next trick would be getting hold of decent quality powder and a percussion cap since jacketed ammunition wasn't invented until the late 19th century.
Personally, I wouldn't want to try homemade synthesis of mercury fulminate with 19th century equipment and chemicals.

Going for a hand gonne/matchlock style muzzle loader zip gun as Rhynn suggested would significantly reduce the complexity required.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

The next trick would be getting hold of decent quality powder and a percussion cap since jacketed ammunition wasn't invented until the late 19th century.
Personally, I wouldn't want to try homemade synthesis of mercury fulminate with 19th century equipment and chemicals.

Going for a hand gonne/matchlock style muzzle loader zip gun as Rhynn suggested would significantly reduce the complexity required.

Not really - where do you get the precursor chemicals from, and how do you know what to mix together, and in what ratios, in the first place?

There's no internet to google it, no standard chemistry lessons to teach the basics, and that kind of knowledge is tied up in the armaments and munitions manufactuing companies, or at the absolute outside, chemists at a university - most of whom are probably more interested in the at the time higher reward fields of the properties of narcotics (the early Victorian era is pretty much the start of what was known as the Great Binge when the consumption of narcotics was socially acceptable - which also means you can't really blackmail people into making them for you via a drugs habit), metals for industrial applications (especially steam power, we're into the start of the massive amount of railway building that went on in Europe and the US), or the new fields like photography.

Your best bet might be using alcohol as a propellant, and frankly, apart from the low power it'll generate, in this era, most people would drink it rather than use it as a weapon (and equally, you can't have Molotov Cocktails, partly because they weren't known as such until the Soviet-Finnish conflict in WW2 ). Otherwise, you're into buying or stealing the propellant, but if either of those are options, then you could likely obtain proper guns the same way.

[Mike_G]

The next trick would be getting hold of decent quality powder and a percussion cap since jacketed ammunition wasn't invented until the late 19th century.
Personally, I wouldn't want to try homemade synthesis of mercury fulminate with 19th century equipment and chemicals.

Going for a hand gonne/matchlock style muzzle loader zip gun as Rhynn suggested would significantly reduce the complexity required.

Jacketed ammo was certainly available by mid 19th century. Percussion caps were introduce in 1820, and by mid century they were pretty standard, since they beat the heck out of flintlocks for ease of use and reliability. By the American Civil War metal cartridges were widely used, although most guns were percussion. Plenty of Henry and Sharps repeaters with metal cartridges were used, especially by cavalry, who really don't want to be handling powder and ramrods on horseback..

So I was assuming a metal cartridge. Yes, that means 'second half of the 19th Century" but surely not "late 19th Century."

The rise of the metal cartridge was swift, because it's such a leap forward. From the 1850s when everybody was using muzzle loaders to say 1875, everybody had switched.

Building a zip gun around a pinfire cartridge is totally believable with mid 19th Century tech.

[Rhynn]

Not really - where do you get the precursor chemicals from, and how do you know what to mix together, and in what ratios, in the first place?

... how about you just... buy some gunpowder? Or steal it? Why would you need to make it? From the setting this is referring to:

Pathfinder gun rules would work fairly well if no advanced guns were allowed. Guns are the weapon of the military, but poor urban denizens can’t really afford them, and they only have one shot anyway.

Again, best method is to hit a gunhaver over the head with a brick.

[Thiel]

Not really - where do you get the precursor chemicals from, and how do you know what to mix together, and in what ratios, in the first place?

There's no internet to google it, no standard chemistry lessons to teach the basics, and that kind of knowledge is tied up in the armaments and munitions manufactuing companies, or at the absolute outside, chemists at a university - most of whom are probably more interested in the at the time higher reward fields of the properties of narcotics (the early Victorian era is pretty much the start of what was known as the Great Binge when the consumption of narcotics was socially acceptable - which also means you can't really blackmail people into making them for you via a drugs habit), metals for industrial applications (especially steam power, we're into the start of the massive amount of railway building that went on in Europe and the US), or the new fields like photography.

Your best bet might be using alcohol as a propellant, and frankly, apart from the low power it'll generate, in this era, most people would drink it rather than use it as a weapon (and equally, you can't have Molotov Cocktails, partly because they weren't known as such until the Soviet-Finnish conflict in WW2 ). Otherwise, you're into buying or stealing the propellant, but if either of those are options, then you could likely obtain proper guns the same way.

Why go through all the trouble when you could just buy it at the grocery store? Gunpowder was completely unregulated at the time

[fusilier]

Why go through all the trouble when you could just buy it at the grocery store? Gunpowder was completely unregulated at the time

Also, by the 19th century, if someone in a large city wanted to make some small quantity of gunpowder I suspect the ingredients would be available, and there were books which described the processes and formulations for making gunpowder.

But, as Thiel points out, it would be pretty common to get your hands on at least small quantities of the stuff (for guns), and probably not too hard to get larger quantities (for mining, or even fire-fighting), although certain logistics would be needed, and it might look suspicious. In an American city at least.