Got a Real-World Weapon or Armour Question? Mk. XV

[Rhynn]

Were shortswords an actual classification of swords, or are they an arbitrary title given to arming swords?

It's a really vague classification of sword that varies by context and time and location.

Generally, "short sword" refers to a sword that's longer than a dagger but not as long as whatever is considered a "normal sword," which is completely arbitrary and often makes no sense (e.g. the gladius is a "short sword," but it was pretty much the norm and the spatha was - at least until later on - the exception).

Some people assign some specific length to it - like, I don't know, more than 18 inches and less than 30 or whatever? - but that's really vague and arbitrary, too.

I'm not sure it's ever been a period term, but it may have. I think I read something about some late Medieval or early Renaissance English tournaments with categories for "long sword," "bastard sword," and "short sword," with the last meaning one-handed arming swords around 30" long, and "bastard sword" meaning a sword between the long and the short in size... but don't take that as actual information unless someone can source it.

Period sword terminology is uselessly vague, and later sword terminology is largely incorrect up until very recent categories. Much of it goes back to useless Victorian antiquarians who just made things up from whole cloth, and much of the rest is the same stuff recycled by Gygax through AD&D 1E and spread by every RPG and video game and fantasy writer for ever after taking it as gospel.

From the Oakeshott Typology, I wouldn't even term be comfortable calling the X, Xa, XIa, XIV, XV, XVI, XXI, and XXII (all averaging 30 or 31 inches in length) "short swords," because they're obviously more like the normal/standard swords (and many swords with long, two-handed grips might only be 30").

And don't be quick to call the gladius a short sword, either. They were relatively heavy (apparently 2½ to 3½ pounds, which is definitely upper range for one-handed swords) and could be over 30" long.

As you go further back into Iron Age and Bronze Age swords, you get more shorter swords, but even then, they vary in length a lot and aren't uniformly under 30" or anything - Bronze Age swords could be over 3' in length.

Ultimately, "short sword" is kind of useless as a classification outside of RPGs, and the "short" is just an adjective. If the sword looks short, maybe in comparison to another commonly-used sword, call it a short sword, I guess. So if a culture uses two swords, one two-handed and about 36" long, and the other one-handed and 30" long, then that's the long(er) and the short(er) sword, respectively.

[Matthew]

Neither, really. Here is a useful article: Sword Forms. Vegetius refers to the "semi-spatha" and the "spatha", the Japanese have the "shōtō" and "daitō", but it is all just basic adjective use to describe a sword more specifically than "sword". By the same token "William Longsword" lived long before the appearance of the "long sword" as weapon enthusiasts now understand it. In other words, there is plenty of evidence to show that people used "short" and "long" (or something similar) as adjectives to describe relative blade lengths, but it is only in later days that this becomes a formal classification system.

[Incanur]

If you use the spear two handed, only the length in front of your leading hand counts for reach. If half the spear is behind your lead hand, that's no better than a 3 foot sword blade, and if you just hold the last foot of spear to gain a reach advantage, it will be pretty easy to bat aside.

An important thing about staff weapons is that you can easily shift your grip as you please during combat. Even if you start with your front hand three feet from the head, you can slide the shaft through your front hand as you thrust and end up with reach almost equal to your rear hand's distance from the head. In Joseph Swetnam's system, you actually often remove your front hand entirely during a thrust. This gives tremendous reach, though it's more for staff-vs.-staff fights and not necessarily a good idea against an opponent with a sword. Swetnam recommended not using this technique against a foe armed with rapier and dagger or sword and dagger. But simply holding a six-foot spear as Swetnam instructed, with the rear hand at the butt and the front hand a foot and half up, gives over four feet of reach.

Parrying a staff/spear with sword isn't so easy based on my own sparring experience, accounts from other present-day folks who practice WMA, and historical masters like Swetnam and George Silver.

I'm not sure it's ever been a period term, but it may have.

Silver used it for a sword with a 37-inch blade because he wrote in the days of rapiers with blades 42 inches and over.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Were shortswords an actual classification of swords, or are they an arbitrary title given to arming swords?

The latter. Even swords stereotypically called "shortswords" like the Gladius were, iirc, hardly actually shorter than the "longswords" wielded by the Gauls.

[Rhynn]

Silver used it for a sword with a 37-inch blade because he wrote in the days of rapiers with blades 42 inches and over.

Hah! Yeah, there you go. Now that you've mentioned it, I remember being a bit puzzled by the term in Paradoxes of Defence.

"Your really long swords are too long!"
"Your really long swords aren't too long enough!"

So yeah, it really just means "shorter than this other sword." If there's two common kinds of sword, you get either "long sword" and "sword," or "long sword" and "short sword," or "sword" and "short sword" ... if you have three common kinds of swords, you get all three. Maybe. Or maybe they'll corrupt a foreign word that might mean just about anything (but usually just means "sword").

[Mr. Mask]

Here's any interesting question: In games you can get away with some pretty interesting stuff. Such as having an army composed entirely of tanks with no air support (and even no infantry support). Let's say someone actually tried this kind of dissimilarity. How terribly would it go for them?

[Rhynn]

The tanks would all be taken out from blind angles, cover, and ambush with infantry AT once they entered terrain that wasn't a flat featureless plain. Or with air strikes no matter what they do. (AAMGs can only help you so much.)

[Mr. Mask]

Even if they kept to the flat whenever possible and were ready with plenty of AA guns, I'm not sure they'd last long. Assuming they could last past a single battle, you could easily kill them through attrition.

[Broken Crown]

The tanks would all be taken out from blind angles, cover, and ambush with infantry AT once they entered terrain that wasn't a flat featureless plain. Or with air strikes no matter what they do. (AAMGs can only help you so much.)

This reminds me of a thought which occurred to me a while ago: Just how much use are the anti-aircraft machine guns on tanks? I would think that any ground-attack aircraft from WWII onwards would be too fast and/or too well-armoured for a single machine gun, aimed by eye, to be able to bring it down. How many instances have there been of aircraft being shot down by tanks (as opposed to tracked anti-aircraft platforms)? The (very few) examples I've been able to find with a cursory search seem to have involved the tanks' main guns, rather than machine guns.

Not that a machine gun is a very big investment relative to an entire tank, and it's still useful to defend against infantry at close range. It just seems strange to call it an anti-aircraft weapon if it can't fulfill that role effectively.

[Brother Oni]

Even if they kept to the flat whenever possible and were ready with plenty of AA guns, I'm not sure they'd last long. Assuming they could last past a single battle, you could easily kill them through attrition.

The other issue is logistics. Tanks are thirsty things and drink fuel, plus have a comparatively limited amount of ammunition (a Challenger 2 carries 52 shells for its main armament) - as an excellent example of how important and convoluted logistics can get, the Red Ball Express during WW2 shifted 12.5 kilotonnes of supplies a day at its height.

How many instances have there been of aircraft being shot down by tanks (as opposed to tracked anti-aircraft platforms)?

The problem is that tracked AA guns (SPAAGs) are often re-purposed tank chassis, so the line is a bit fuzzy. These days they're more specialised, but there are still some bolt on anti-air systems on other vehicles (the M6 Linebacker is a Bradley IFV with a Stinger AA system).

I had heard the Russians had a similar bolt on AA system for their MBTs (primarily against choppers) but I can't find what it is. Looking at the design document for their new T-99 indicates it will have anti tank guided missile capability, which could potentially be converted to an anti air system.

[Matthew]

The latter. Even swords stereotypically called "shortswords" like the Gladius were, iirc, hardly actually shorter than the "longswords" wielded by the Gauls.

Depends on the period. The Roman "gladius" could be very short at about 15" in the early participate or rather long at around 27" in the mid to late republic, and since the latter was the "Spanish-type" (gladius hispanicus) it was little different from Gallic blades. During the imperial period there was a divide between the "gladius" and the "spatha" (the latter being viewed as a cavalry blade), but eventually it was all about the spatha, as we see from Vegetius' use of "spatha" and "semi-spatha".

[Dienekes]

Hello, weapon enthusiasts. I have a question, though it's a bit different than the normal one around here.

Without getting into details, for the next month or two I physically won't be able to do much outside of watching tv, and reading. I have a nice long list of books I need to get through, but I was wondering if anyone knew any good shows or documentaries on warfare to spend my time.

Mostly I'm interested in Greco-Roman through Renaissance weapons, swordsmanship, tactics, and politics. But if you know a really good documentary on any other martial history I probably would enjoy it and have the time to get to it.

Anyway, if you have something that comes to mind, please post it. I'll probably be going through the old threads to scavenger for links as well. Thanks in advance.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Hello, weapon enthusiasts. I have a question, though it's a bit different than the normal one around here.

Without getting into details, for the next month or two I physically won't be able to do much outside of watching tv, and reading. I have a nice long list of books I need to get through, but I was wondering if anyone knew any good shows or documentaries on warfare to spend my time.

Mostly I'm interested in Greco-Roman through Renaissance weapons, swordsmanship, tactics, and politics. But if you know a really good documentary on any other martial history I probably would enjoy it and have the time to get to it.

Anyway, if you have something that comes to mind, please post it. I'll probably be going through the old threads to scavenger for links as well. Thanks in advance.

To be honest, just lurking this thread, following links, and following arguments can be fascinating, especially as it gets heated and people start to bring out and criticize various secondary and primary sources.

[Dienekes]

To be honest, just lurking this thread, following links, and following arguments can be fascinating, especially as it gets heated and people start to bring out and criticize various secondary and primary sources.

Oh I will undoubtedly do that as well, have been since I joined this site (though admittedly, I've fallen behind, need to read the second half of the last thread). But eventually I'll catch up, or I can't read anymore for the day, and I'd like to watch something instead.

I don't particularly trust history channel anymore, and I know the guys on this thread are particularly intelligent, more so than most sites I lurk on. So I'd like to hear all your opinions.

I think I'm going to start with Weapons that made Britain, as I vaguely remember hearing good things about it, as well as the myths on armor youtube clip on the second page. Any more would be much appreciated.

[No brains]

Isn't it true that another thing complicating what makes a "short sword" is whether or not it is held by a "short man"?

I've read that the average height for a Roman would have been around 5' 2". Depending on where one lives, that can be considered very short.

[Rhynn]

I've read that the average height for a Roman would have been around 5' 2". Depending on where one lives, that can be considered very short.

The idea that people have steadily gotten taller over history is inaccurate. People are taller when they eat well growing up (and stay healthy growing up), and shorter when they don't. Average heights in Europe plummeted around and after the industrial revolution because so many people flocked into cities and lived in absolutely miserable conditions and ate poorly. People out in the country were generally taller. Since then, average heights in the first world have risen (along with our life expectancy and infant survival) because we eat better and are healthier. Less densely populated areas ("barbarians") would produce taller people because they'd have more food to go around (not having to squeeze every scrap of poor farmland for it).

Similarly, nobles in almost any setting and period would be taller (which helps when you're the warrior elite; this was sometimes exacerbated by e.g. the Japanese buke having some exceptions from not eating red meat).

Anyway, Vegetius (4th C AD) wrote that the ideal height for a soldier was 5'10" or so. While I imagine that, given the above, actual inhabitants of Rome and other large cities in the Roman Empire may have been shorter on average than e.g. Gauls, the difference can't have been that drastic if they could set the ideal that high. I really doubt that conditions were so different in the earlier Empire that heights would have varied enormously, and I think it's pretty unlikely that the average soldier would have been 5'2" at any point during the Roman Empire.

Also, legionaires were frequently drawn from the less urbanized provinces outside Italy.

Isn't it true that another thing complicating what makes a "short sword" is whether or not it is held by a "short man"?

I suppose in the sense that you need to use a weapon that's the right length for you, but the differences aren't going to be that drastic, I think; a few inches.

Ultimately, it really just means "shorter sword than..."

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Here's any interesting question: In games you can get away with some pretty interesting stuff. Such as having an army composed entirely of tanks with no air support (and even no infantry support). Let's say someone actually tried this kind of dissimilarity. How terribly would it go for them?

The Ardennes campaign in late-1944 (aka the Battle of the Bulge) - when the Luftwaffe was basically finished. There were initial successes because the weather was foul, the allied commanders were mostly on leave or back in the UK for the winter, and allied aircraft couldn't fly, but the tanks ran out of fuel (the campaign was basically a last gasp attempt to force an armistice, and used pretty much the last of the Wehrmacht's fuel reserves), and when the weather cleared after a few days, the allied aircraft caused a lot of damage.

Another example would be Desert Storm, when the Iraqi air force either didn't fly, were destroyed on the ground or had their airfields denied to them, or fled to un-involved countries like Iran.

[Storm Bringer]

This reminds me of a thought which occurred to me a while ago: Just how much use are the anti-aircraft machine guns on tanks? I would think that any ground-attack aircraft from WWII onwards would be too fast and/or too well-armoured for a single machine gun, aimed by eye, to be able to bring it down. How many instances have there been of aircraft being shot down by tanks (as opposed to tracked anti-aircraft platforms)? The (very few) examples I've been able to find with a cursory search seem to have involved the tanks' main guns, rather than machine guns.

Not that a machine gun is a very big investment relative to an entire tank, and it's still useful to defend against infantry at close range. It just seems strange to call it an anti-aircraft weapon if it can't fulfill that role effectively.

as far as I know, the pintle mounted MGs on most modern armoured vehicles are for ground use only, and most don't really have the elevation to aim at a high flying target. they could be of use against helos, but again it depends on how high they can aim (mounting them so they have room to aim up normally means either having a more expensive and complex mount, or raising the mount up relative to the tank roof, which would put more of the gunner at risk)

[Broken Crown]

as far as I know, the pintle mounted MGs on most modern armoured vehicles are for ground use only, and most don't really have the elevation to aim at a high flying target. they could be of use against helos, but again it depends on how high they can aim (mounting them so they have room to aim up normally means either having a more expensive and complex mount, or raising the mount up relative to the tank roof, which would put more of the gunner at risk)

That certainly makes sense. However, various websites consistently refer to the 12.7 mm machine gun on various Soviet/Russian tanks (T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80) as an "anti-aircraft machine gun," and, based on some photos, these seem to have a fairly high maximum angle of elevation. So, is this a bad design decision, or would such a weapon actually be useful in an anti-aircraft role?

(I actually hadn't thought of helicopters, for some reason. I expect they'd be much easier targets than modern fixed-wing airplanes.)

[Storm Bringer]

against something like a A-10, SU-25 or F-16? not really.

Against a Mi-24 or an AH-64? maybe.

Against a Mi-8 or a UH-60? very much effective.


bear in mind helicopters are also called "rotary wing aircraft", so calling a weapon mounted to be able to shoot them an "anti aircraft" weapon is understandable.

Plus, if you know a fixed wing aircraft Is coming to attack you, and you can get the gun in line, thiers no real reason not to try and hit your attacker. your fire might unnerve him or force him to break off early. when the Argentine Air Force was attacking the british fleet in the Falklands, the ships fired on them with everything they could get to point at them, right down to blokes on the deck with SLRs, just to make the pilots job that little bit harder.

[Broken Crown]

That makes sense. You don't really need to bring down the attacking aircraft; you just have to keep it from killing you.

Thanks!

[Galloglaich]

against something like a A-10, SU-25 or F-16? not really.

Against a Mi-24 or an AH-64? maybe.

Against a Mi-8 or a UH-60? very much effective.


bear in mind helicopters are also called "rotary wing aircraft", so calling a weapon mounted to be able to shoot them an "anti aircraft" weapon is understandable.

Plus, if you know a fixed wing aircraft Is coming to attack you, and you can get the gun in line, thiers no real reason not to try and hit your attacker. your fire might unnerve him or force him to break off early. when the Argentine Air Force was attacking the british fleet in the Falklands, the ships fired on them with everything they could get to point at them, right down to blokes on the deck with SLRs, just to make the pilots job that little bit harder.

To add to the above, which I think is well put, two other things...

In Iraq, apparently they had problems with the AH-64 being messed up by heavy machineguns, and even apparently small arms, it's one of the reasons why the A-10 won kind of a reprieve at that time, since it proved to be both harder to hit and a bit tougher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala

http://www.americanvalor.net/heroes/332

Also, keep in mind tanks and other armored vehicles rarely travel alone. In the WW II era, a fighter-bomber trying to attack a platoon of tanks might face a real chance of being shot down by 5 heavy machine guns; at the very least the gunfire could dissuade the kind of close, sustained attention that could be tragic for the AFV's. If it's a larger unit, Company or closer to Battalion sized, the amount of gunfire can be truly formidable.

G

[Garimeth]

Hello, weapon enthusiasts. I have a question, though it's a bit different than the normal one around here.

Without getting into details, for the next month or two I physically won't be able to do much outside of watching tv, and reading. I have a nice long list of books I need to get through, but I was wondering if anyone knew any good shows or documentaries on warfare to spend my time.

Mostly I'm interested in Greco-Roman through Renaissance weapons, swordsmanship, tactics, and politics. But if you know a really good documentary on any other martial history I probably would enjoy it and have the time to get to it.

Anyway, if you have something that comes to mind, please post it. I'll probably be going through the old threads to scavenger for links as well. Thanks in advance.

Well my usual recommendation you appear to have read based on your username...

That said Pressfield has a book on the Athenian Navy, called Tides of War - which while I have not yet read it, I have been told is very good. I bought it just based off of how good Gates of Fire was, and just have yet to get around to reading it.

[Lilapop]

Here's any interesting question: In games you can get away with some pretty interesting stuff. Such as having an army composed entirely of tanks with no air support (and even no infantry support). Let's say someone actually tried this kind of dissimilarity. How terribly would it go for them?

Guilty as charged. While I don't know all that much about the specific example of tanks, I can think of some advantages of homogenous armies.

- Production of equipment & resupply* (see: standardized NATO calibers), and partly training of new personnel (might be more of a computer gaming thing, but I only need to build one building for a pure cavalry army, while an infantry+archers army tends to need two - English archery laws are comparable) becomes easier and more streamlined.
- Completely cutting slowly moving unit types increases your strategical and tactical movement speed, as more often than not your faster units have to wait for the slower ones. However, that only works when disregarding baggage trains and such.
- Stacking of geometrically scaling units like archers, especially against an enemy focussing on linearly scaling stuff, could possibly have better gains than combined arms.

*This can have economical drawbacks, like the English longbow focus draining on the yew population.

[Rhynn]

- Stacking of geometrically scaling units like archers, especially against an enemy focussing on linearly scaling stuff, could possibly have better gains than combined arms.

Can you give a single example where it has worked on the level of a doctrine? Combined arms is just superior.

If you're all archers, you're screwed: enemy cavalry will ruin you, and actually the infantry will get to you eventually, too, with nobody to stop them.

If you're all cavalry, you're screwed: cavalry can't beat formed-up infantry that holds its ground, and will be demolished by pikes. Heavy cavalry is supposed to charge at flanks (there's no flanks if you don't have infantry to tie down their front) or rears (same thing) or where the enemy is weak or wavering. Light cavalry is supposed to harry, attack archers/artillery, and run down fleeing enemy.

If you're all pre-modern infantry, you're screwed: enemy archers will pepper you with arrows before enemy infantry closes with you, tying you down so the enemy cavalry can hit your flank or rear.

If you're all modern infantry, you're screwed: the enemy has force multipliers, and you don't; you'll be bombarded by artillery without any ability to respond to reduce their effectiveness, and crushed by air strikes and gunships. Enemy AFV will ruin your cars when you're trying to get anywhere, and enemy infantry supported by AFVs will wreck you.

If you're all AFVs, you're screwed: enemy airstrikes, artillery, and IAT ambushes will destroy you because you don't have air defense, counter-artillery, or infantry screening.

If you're all artillery or airplanes/helicopters, what are you even trying to do? You can't put boots on the ground, and the enemy can just hit back.

I suppose skilled horse archers might be versatile enough to win ancient/medieval field battles on their own (their advantage is negated in sieges), but even the Mongols didn't just have light cavalry: they had infantry, heavy cavalry, etc.

[Lilapop]

Cavalry archers are actually what I had in mind, as they are the unit type I usually gravitate to. Regarding those, you have to keep in mind that the lines between heavy vs light cavalry, and melee vs archer cavalry, are rather blurry. To my knowledge, Byzantine cataphracts were carrying bows, and even the lightest horse archers could probably charge the rear of some lighter foot units successfully, if those are pursuing one of the Mongol feigned routs.

For foot archers against heavy cavalry, there is always a point of critical mass where you can decimate them before even the first charge hits home - and if scrapping all your infantry allows you to grab those few archers you need to reach that point, you suddenly end up without casualties (the actual numbers for this are probably astronomic, but it works in some computer games). Also, once again foot archers could wear gear comparable to heavy infantry. Or use terrain as a substitute for pike formations.

Well, thats what I "learned" from strategy games... and I know that in almost every historical situation, it won't (or didn't) work out.

[Mr. Mask]

Rhynn: The Hussars had a reputation for taking out Swiss pike formations with cavalry. Involved repeated charges from multiple sides, to simplify.


I thought about the tank thing some more, and I probably should mention that Patton did fight for a while without air support (they still had artillery and infantry as well as their tanks). They were meant to have air support, but the Allies weren't very successful in arranging it. They still did pretty well under the circumstances.

Without infantry you can also do reasonably well. The tank commanders of Germany in WW2 had a habit of pushing well ahead of the infantry and needing orders to stop. Leaving unoccupied territory was probably the crux of the issue, since recapturing it could be annoying. Aside from chasing the enemy onto a beachhead, you really need the killing power of your infantry and artillery to finish the job.


With all horse archers, the Mongols and other nations were pretty heavy on those. The soldiers themselves are combined arms, able to take infantry roles if need be. That being said, it's not to say they were entirely horse archers, even ignoring foreign auxiliary troops or camp followers.

The thing with strategy games, is they often focus on open battle and ignore other problems, while having systems that favour specialization (as I mentioned before). Thus, it's usually more effective to mass up a strong unit type, or flood the enemy with a cheap unit type, rather than worry about tactics and combined arms.


More on that last point... The fact that as soon as you built the Level 5 spear makers, you can immediately build a level 6 one is part of the problem. Level 6 spears are better than level 1 swords, probably. You can also build only one thing at a time in games like Civ and Total War (Total War changed that in Empire), which forces you to deeply focus your expansion.

[Brother Oni]

For foot archers against heavy cavalry, there is always a point of critical mass were you can decimate them before even the first charge hits home - and if scrapping all your infantry allows you to grab those few archers you need to reach that point, you suddenly end up without casualties (the actual numbers for this are probably astronomic, but it works in some computer games).

This is because in most games there is inaccurate modelling of armour (Company of Heroes being an exception and tabletop games often make a decent attempt). In most games heavily armoured units are just represented by units with more hit points whereas in reality, heavily armoured troops are virtually impervious to missile fire - I remember an armour test (which I can look up if need be), which came back with >2mm plate was impenetrable (effective thickness so 1mm at a >= 45 degree angle was equally good).

I believe somebody in the this thread (Galloglaich?) linked some accounts from the Crusades where a padded coat (I think, I can't remember the exact details) over mail was also fairly arrow proof.

Stretching the definitions of foot archer and heavy cavalry a bit with a Company of Heroes example, try taking a Volksgrenadier squad up against a M4 Sherman. Without use of a panzerfaust, the Volks are merely scratching paintwork.

I thought about the tank thing some more, and I probably should mention that Patton did fight for a while without air support (they still had artillery and infantry as well as their tanks). They were meant to have air support, but the Allies weren't very successful in arranging it. They still did pretty well under the circumstances.

You do realise that was because the Allies had achieved air superiority about 2 months before D-Day? If the Luftwaffe were still in any shape to fight, combined with the absolute mess that was getting through the bocage countryside, things might have gone very differently.

With all horse archers, the Mongols and other nations were pretty heavy on those. The soldiers themselves are combined arms, able to take infantry roles if need be. That being said, it's not to say they were entirely horse archers, even ignoring foreign auxiliary troops or camp followers.

Even with purely horse archers, the Mongols realised their shortcomings, which was why one of their first conquests was China, for the knowledge of Chinese siegecraft (well kinda - they just conscripted all the Chinese engineers).

[Mr. Mask]

You do realise that was because the Allies had achieved air superiority about 2 months before D-Day? If the Luftwaffe were still in any shape to fight, combined with the absolute mess that was getting through the bocage countryside, things might have gone very differently.

That's the context of the situation, yes. It doesn't have much to do with the point, that Patton was successful despite a disadvantage in the air.

Even with purely horse archers, the Mongols realised their shortcomings, which was why one of their first conquests was China, for the knowledge of Chinese siegecraft (well kinda - they just conscripted all the Chinese engineers).

I don't think their reasons were largely to do with that. I'll look into it.

[Mr Beer]

I don't think their reasons were largely to do with that. I'll look into it.

Yeah, I thought their reasons were more along the lines of "Well, that's where they keep all of the phat loot, soooo..."