Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVII

[Tobtor]

Smythe typically gave 160-220 yards the English bow's effective range (sometimes 180-240 yards). A few decades earlier, Raimond de Fourquevaux mentioned 100-200 paces (probably roughly yards, would have to check) as an effective range for crossbows and bows. Fourquevaux also noted the option of bringing crossbowers and archers as close as possible to their targets for increased effect.

I was not arguing whether or not firing at 350m (or yards) was a good strategy, merely that smaller groups or groups in loose formation would be shot at at a much closer range, since it is easier to hit a grouop/army of hundreds of soldiers in close formation with arched shooting, than 10 neolithic warriors in a hunting party.

158lbs was the desired draw weight according to that late-Ming source.

In the collection of quotes etc I found and posted, I see the same number (or a more average statement of 160pounds, but thats likely translation acuracy). However, the source seem to indicate it is some sort of test and that they also need to do a pole-arm test of 71kilo (roughly 140 pounds) which I do not understand, but more importantly they needed to lift 179kilos (360pounds)! So it seem more like a modern strongman competition than what they actually used in war. One thing is to pull 160pound or more for one shot, or three shots. But can you do it for 30 shots in a row? I doubt they could lift those 179kilos more than ones or twice at a time.


So the question remains what was actually done in war?
Some army statistics;
"A 1736 report found that of 3,200 troops at the Hangzhou garrison about 2,200 were able to draw bows of strengths six to ten [80-133], and 80 could handle bow strengths of eleven to thirteen [147-173 pounds]..."
Suggesting the majority USED bows in the range 80-130pounds, while only 80 out of 3.200 used one of 147-173pounds...

This is compared to:
"...In comparison, the 500 troops at the small Dezhou garrison acquitted themselves with honor, all of them being able to take a five-strength bow [67 pounds], 203 a six-strength [80 pounds], 137 a seven *strength [93 pounds], and 85 a ten-strength bow [133 pounds]."

Both from: Mark C. Elliott, professor of Chinese and Inner Asian History at Harvard University.
From: The Manchu Way, Stanford University Press, 2001, pages 179 & 180
According to the page I linked to above.

This second one have even lower numbers than the first.

But the same source say "The champion in a 1728 contest between the one hundred top bowmen in the empire won one hundred taels when he hit the bull's-eye using an eighteen-strength bow an estimated drawing weight of almost 240 pounds!".

Thus, we clearly need to separate contest bows and standard military equipment. From the quotes I linked to above it seemed that 80-110pound were standard, and the ones posted here that 80-133 pounds where the norm, while a minority actually (80:3.200) used the bows of 160pound or above.

To effectively use any bow the archer has to command the draw weight, yes. At least some people today can do this with 150+lbs. Historical infantry archers who shot 150+lbs presumably *could* draw more weight, but they couldn't completely command their weight at such weights.

As mentioned I think we need to assume that bows of strength from 80-130 where the norm as weapons, as that is what army statistics and standard equipment reports suggest, but sure it DOES seem that SOME used heavier bows, but that 160pounds where rare (1:40 or similar) as army equipment, but the ones used for competitions, where also weightlifting was part, where 160pounds.

Heavy armor was around in Europe and elsewhere well before 1400AD. And the 16th-century English generally thought archery had declined compared with 15th-century standards. That might have been nostalgia, but if nothing else a bunch of skilled archers surely perished in the War of the Roses.

I didn't say it wasn't around, but that it wasn't AS common. Plate was not of the quality in lets say mid 14th century as it was in the mid 15th century, and before that mail would have been used. It was also not as common as in the 15th and 16th century. But as I said, less than 20% of vikings likely used mail. Mail was for the king and his retainers and chieftains. The same goes for many early medieval armies; mainly the knigths and richer people wore heavy armours. This change toward the end of the 14th century and 15th century where it seem more common

[Spiryt]

Castles were undoubtedly still useful against all but most powerful cannons, but still with decent artillery they were pretty much guaranteed to get damaged badly.


Thus they generally had to be supplemented with forward, wooden based fortifications, much more resistant to cannon fire.

I remember that during Polish/Lithuanian war against Moscow in 1577-1582, stone walls of Pskov were falling surprisingly quickly compared to wooden/earth fortifications of Vielikiye Luki and Polock.

Most of the defense had to be thus continued from ruins and quickly raised inside-walls.

Of course, wooden and earth fortifications were in turn susceptible to fire, and no where as impenetrable for infantry, and generally harder to defend.

Thus sieges in general were changing quickly.

[Incanur]

I was not arguing whether or not firing at 350m (or yards) was a good strategy, merely that smaller groups or groups in loose formation would be shot at at a much closer range, since it is easier to hit a grouop/army of hundreds of soldiers in close formation with arched shooting, than 10 neolithic warriors in a hunting party.

Smythe did write about long-distance (200ish-yard) shooting when skirmishing in loose order in small bands, but I doubt such shots had a high hit percentage. Descriptions of Amerindian warfare in land now claimed by the United States include references to warriors dodging the majority of arrows when skirmishing. Hitting a moving individual would be difficult beyond about 60 yards.

In the collection of quotes etc I found and posted, I see the same number (or a more average statement of 160pounds, but thats likely translation acuracy). However, the source seem to indicate it is some sort of test and that they also need to do a pole-arm test of 71kilo (roughly 140 pounds) which I do not understand, but more importantly they needed to lift 179kilos (360pounds)! So it seem more like a modern strongman competition than what they actually used in war. One thing is to pull 160pound or more for one shot, or three shots. But can you do it for 30 shots in a row? I doubt they could lift those 179kilos more than ones or twice at a time.

You're comparing different sources. Qing military exams for officers required drawing extremely heavy bows, performing a drill with an all-steel polearm, and lifting a heavy stone. In that case, soldiers who could draw 160-180lbs probably didn't use such hard bows in the field and especially not from horseback. Much earlier examinations, however, did at least sometimes involve shooting multiple arrows (over 30 in one Tang-era case) from 150+lb bows on foot. Those were apparently for officers rather than all soldiers, but if you can shoot 30 arrows from a 168lb bow and hit the target then you can probably use a bow of around that weight in combat. See this thread for a discussion of the relevant sources. The late-Ming source (Sung Ying-Hsing or Yingxing Song, depending on transliteration scheme) specifies 158lb bows for the battlefield.

Some army statistics;
"A 1736 report found that of 3,200 troops at the Hangzhou garrison about 2,200 were able to draw bows of strengths six to ten [80-133], and 80 could handle bow strengths of eleven to thirteen [147-173 pounds]..."
Suggesting the majority USED bows in the range 80-130pounds, while only 80 out of 3.200 used one of 147-173pounds...

This is compared to:
"...In comparison, the 500 troops at the small Dezhou garrison acquitted themselves with honor, all of them being able to take a five-strength bow [67 pounds], 203 a six-strength [80 pounds], 137 a seven *strength [93 pounds], and 85 a ten-strength bow [133 pounds]."

These are both from southern garrisons that saw little if any actual combat at the time. Superior forces likely had higher average draw weights. These mass tests were conducted significantly because of concerns over declining martial skills. As far as I know no numbers exist from northern garrisons that fought more regularly, probably because authorities had more confidence in the prowess of soldiers there.

Like other military skills but arguably even more so, archery required constant practice to maintain a level of performance. On average, the better the force of archers in question, the higher the advantage draw weight. Of course in any case draw weights varied, and the evidence suggests at least a few infantry soldiers fought with bows as low as 80lbs (possibly lighter in earlier times). I find the case for higher average draw weights more convincing myself, but I acknowledge there's lots of uncertainty.

Note that according to The Great Warbow, even a 150lb yew warbow with a heavy arrow only delivers around 125 J at 50m. According to The Knight and the Blast Furnace, it takes 105 J to just pierce 2mm of wrought iron (the worst metal) at a slight angle (caused by the curvature of the armor). Add in padding and the wearer would likely be safe. A mere 1mm of hardened steel takes about the same amount of energy to defeat. By such numbers, mediocre armors would still handily protect against 150+lb yew bows. Yew bows really need high draw weights to be much of a threat.

[Tobtor]

You're comparing different sources. Qing military exams for officers required drawing extremely heavy bows, performing a drill with an all-steel polearm, and lifting a heavy stone. In that case, soldiers who could draw 160-180lbs probably didn't use such hard bows in the field and especially not from horseback. Much earlier examinations, however, did at least sometimes involve shooting multiple arrows (over 30 in one Tang-era case) from 150+lb bows on foot. Those were apparently for officers rather than all soldiers, but if you can shoot 30 arrows from a 168lb bow and hit the target then you can probably use a bow of around that weight in combat. See this thread for a discussion of the relevant sources. The late-Ming source (Sung Ying-Hsing or Yingxing Song, depending on transliteration scheme) specifies 158lb bows for the battlefield.

Sorry Incanur, I read the thread you posted completely different. Mainly; they are primarily talking about test/exams for officers.

"The Chinese military exams were for selection of officer candidates. The tests aren't meant to be something that every soldier can do; success in the exams is meant to show that the candidate is superior. The 70-75kg draw weights are for shooting on foot; the tests of horseback archery in the exams specify lower draw weights (usually 45-50kg). Then we have exams where lower draw weights could be used, to obtain an inferior pass (such as the Qing exams, where a 48kg bow was sufficient for the minimum pass, but 72kg was required for the top grade on this test). "

So the first grade exam is that: 159pound for foot soliders, less for archers. Second grade exams where less (in the Qing period). If 159pounds get you a first degree officer exam, and is comparable to lifting 350-400pound stones and doing a drill with an extremely heavy polearm, then I do not think we can assume it is standard military equipment.

Then they discuss ealier periods, where again 159pound are considered strong, and that most use less power (there are some translation discussion on how much lower). Again they poitn to "lower strength, and half (36kg/79lb), good enough for all", that means around 80pounds are acceptable. It is also clear that the high end bows where valued for armour piercing qualities.

But then (albeit later) sources say (from the page I linked):
“The Manchus had long emphasized mounted archery... ...when they first established their state their archery was as follows: they used bows of eight li draw weight [approx. 106 pounds]... ...whatever they hit, they pierced, and they could even transfix two men with some power to spare.”
Source: Quoted from Xu Ke, Qingbao Leichao (Categorized Anthology of Petty Matters from the Qing Period), 1917.
Translation by Stephen Selby in Chinese Archery, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, page 348.

You say:
"These are both from southern garrisons that saw little if any actual combat at the time. Superior forces likely had higher average draw weights. These mass tests were conducted significantly because of concerns over declining martial skills. As far as I know no numbers exist from northern garrisons that fought more regularly, probably because authorities had more confidence in the prowess of soldiers there."

It is suggested in the post you give, but no numbers are given, just that there might be more who could do stronger bow in the north.
And the quotes about standard military equipment still stands:
"The bows made for the army were made of four weights, 70, 80, 90, and 100 pounds pull."
Source:Jesuit missionary Jean Joseph Marie Amiot. From: Art Militaire Des Chinois, Didot L'Ainé, Paris, 1772. Page 387.

"Their bows ... require the power of from seventy to one hundred pounds in drawing them; the string is composed of silk threads closely wounded, and the arrows are well made and pointed with steel."
Source: William Alexander and George Henry Mason, accompanied the Macartney Embassy to China in 1792.
From: Views of Eighteenth Century China: Costumes, History, Customs, reprint, London: Studio Editions, 1988, 132.

“In archery the Chinese have long been experts, especially those of Manchuria and Szechuan. (…) Their bows are graded according to their pull, the standard being 100 catties, about 135 pounds."
Source: Hong Kong telegraph of August 17, 1893

Other sources do say: "The Chinese bows are large and powerful... Bows of 150 pounds are by no means rare in China."

I know these sources are later, but it is interesting that this is what is considered standard army equipment at the time.

But we need to consider what "not rare" means and how the standard was on the battlefield
Now different period might have had stronger averages, but the information from those periods are mainly exams/competitions, and they still regard 159pound as strong, and around 80 as sufficient.

Agian from the page I linked, my emphasis:
"We also have tangible evidence to confirm that the emperors indeed walked their talks. In the collection of the Palace Museum in Beijing are numerous bows that belonged to emperors that still have their original inventory tags. Among them a 100 and a 147 pound bow that both belonged to the Kangxi emperor and a 93 pound bow that had belonged to the Qianlong emperor (ruled 1736-1796). Apart from that, many Manchu bows I examined in various private and museum collections with dimensions that put them well in the 100 pound range. Some old bows that were strung up by bow maker Wen Chieh Huang turned out to be between 70 and 160 pounds."
Source:The Complete Collection of the Treasures of the Palace Museum. Volume 56: Armaments and Military Provisions.
Hong Kong, The Commercial Press, 2008

I am in no doubt that 159pounds or higher was valued, but I just question whether it was average/standard. That seem more likely to have been around 100 pounds (at most 70-130 span), for foot soldiers, and perhaps less for horse archers.

I also see in the discussion you linked that Ottomans had strengths of around 100pounds.

As the chinese say, my emphasis:
“If there are those who wish to learn how to use a hard bow, they should practice naturally, gradually increasing the strength of the bow. How can one go to such extremes as to take medicine? Unless one knows the nature of the drug there is the chance that people will be hurt. Besides, using a hard bow on horseback is difficult, so what is the advantage? A bow that is of strength six [80 pounds] or greater is enough.”
Edict from the Yongzheng Emperor, ruled 1722 - 1735. Mark C. Elliott, The Manchu Way, The eight banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford University Press, 2001. Page 180

Again both Manchu, as well as Mongols and English longbowmen are famous for their archers. Mary Rose was an "elite" equiped ship in the plate armour era, and there are wildly different estimate on the strength (modern estimates have averages from 105pound and up to almost 180pounds). Other countries and periods do exist and here bows can be lighter, as indeed iron age/viking age ones.

There are many problems regarding both penetration estimates and bow-draw-strength estimates, alot deppend on the arrow as well, as well as the arrow head: as Lars say in the comment on his film:

"Around 04:22 I penetrate chainmail. The arrows had bodkin tips, and the chainmail is riveted. However, while the gambeson is thick, it's not as thick as some I've seen elsewhere. But one reason the arrows penetrate is that I sharpen not only the tip itself, but also the edges of the bodkin tip."

I would like to note that the very heavy gambesons sometimes shown are not well documented (at least as far as I know), and that gambeson for viking age and early medieval is in itself undocumented (at least in northern Europe), but assumed, since it makes sense. So thickness and fabric is difficult to account for.

But clearly many different things factor in the penetration of armour: bowstrength (or rather release force), the arrows qualities (stiffness, weight etc), the arrowhead qualities, the armour quality. We simply have too little really high end research on the matter. Most people estimate one part of the equation and make that fit with what they assume (that is at least my interpretation of average draw weights at Mary Rose of 160-180pounds, which are just as wrong and biased as Popes much smaller estimates).

[goto124]

Is shooting more than 1 arrow at a time really a viable tactic IRL? I figured it made an interesting game mechanic, but nothing more.

[Galloglaich]

I didn't say it wasn't around, but that it wasn't AS common. Plate was not of the quality in lets say mid 14th century as it was in the mid 15th century, and before that mail would have been used. It was also not as common as in the 15th and 16th century. But as I said, less than 20% of vikings likely used mail. Mail was for the king and his retainers and chieftains. The same goes for many early medieval armies; mainly the knigths and richer people wore heavy armours. This change toward the end of the 14th century and 15th century where it seem more common

Actually that isn't true. The Viking Age covers a long period of time (late 8th to mid 11th Centuries) and a huge amount of space (Iceland to Russia). Mail was very rare in most Scandinavian armies circa 800 AD (Scandinavians were poor even swords were pretty rare), but it was ubiquitous in many Norse armies by the 10th - 11th Century. Centuries of Danegelds and plunder had made them rich by contemporaneous standards.

G

[Spiryt]

Is shooting more than 1 arrow at a time really a viable tactic IRL? I figured it made an interesting game mechanic, but nothing more.

Aside from problems with aiming at about anything at all, but arrows will obviously have about 50% of energy that one arrow would have.

If arrows are very light for the bow, they could have more, of course, but the fact remains that people were then shooting one heavier arrow instead of experimenting with Legolasing.

[Incanur]

Sorry Incanur, I read the thread you posted completely different. Mainly; they are primarily talking about test/exams for officers.

Sung Ying-Hsing/Yingxing Song wasn't.

Then they discuss ealier periods, where again 159pound are considered strong, and that most use less power (there are some translation discussion on how much lower). Again they poitn to "lower strength, and half (36kg/79lb), good enough for all", that means around 80pounds are acceptable. It is also clear that the high end bows where valued for armour piercing qualities.

The "good enough for all" is Timo's translation. The E-tu Zen Sun and Shiou-Chuan Sun translation describe such bows as "weak" - either way the effect is about the same - and notes how strong archers are needed on the battlefield.

But then (albeit later) sources say (from the page I linked):
“The Manchus had long emphasized mounted archery... ...when they first established their state their archery was as follows: they used bows of eight li draw weight [approx. 106 pounds]... ...whatever they hit, they pierced, and they could even transfix two men with some power to spare.”
Source: Quoted from Xu Ke, Qingbao Leichao (Categorized Anthology of Petty Matters from the Qing Period), 1917.
Translation by Stephen Selby in Chinese Archery, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, page 348.

Soldiers who draw 106lbs mounted can typically handle heavier bows on foot. 106lbs mounted translates to 140-160lbs on foot according to the ratios in the earlier officer exams.

And the quotes about standard military equipment still stands:
"The bows made for the army were made of four weights, 70, 80, 90, and 100 pounds pull."
Source:Jesuit missionary Jean Joseph Marie Amiot. From: Art Militaire Des Chinois, Didot L'Ainé, Paris, 1772. Page 387.

"Their bows ... require the power of from seventy to one hundred pounds in drawing them; the string is composed of silk threads closely wounded, and the arrows are well made and pointed with steel."
Source: William Alexander and George Henry Mason, accompanied the Macartney Embassy to China in 1792.
From: Views of Eighteenth Century China: Costumes, History, Customs, reprint, London: Studio Editions, 1988, 132.

If that was primarily for mounted use as it likely was, that's broadly consistent with the other data points.

I am in no doubt that 159pounds or higher was valued, but I just question whether it was average/standard. That seem more likely to have been around 100 pounds (at most 70-130 span), for foot soldiers, and perhaps less for horse archers.

The archaeological evidence indicates that 150-160lbs was the average on the Mary Rose. That's disputed, but I find Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy convincing in this regard.

I also see in the discussion you linked that Ottomans had strengths of around 100pounds.

The extant Turkish bows examined by Adam Karpowicz averaged 111lbs once he removed ones he considered either too hard (150lbs and above) or too soft (70lbs and below) for field use. Most of these were probably for mounted archery.

“If there are those who wish to learn how to use a hard bow, they should practice naturally, gradually increasing the strength of the bow. How can one go to such extremes as to take medicine? Unless one knows the nature of the drug there is the chance that people will be hurt. Besides, using a hard bow on horseback is difficult, so what is the advantage? A bow that is of strength six [80 pounds] or greater is enough.”
Edict from the Yongzheng Emperor, ruled 1722 - 1735. Mark C. Elliott, The Manchu Way, The eight banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford University Press, 2001. Page 180

This came in the context of folks taking drugs to improve their drawing strength. According to Elliott's text, strength six was the considered the minimum and soldiers couldn't draw six-strength bows got special training to get them up to speed.

[Tobtor]

Incanur: you bring up some very good points, and I am partially convinced.

Sung Ying-Hsing/Yingxing Song wasn't.

OK. True, but that was the text that still conisdered 159 pund as strong, and that most would use a lighter bow (10-20%, that is bows in the 125-145 range). And that half was the minimum. It is difficult to ascertain what "strong" is and how many "most" are, and how many would just have made the minimum. That minimum is encountered must be ssumed, otherwise there is no need to mention it. Would it be fair to assume some sort of normal distribution in the 100-160pound range? And that archers in the 80-100pound range is just as rare as those above 160? But it will in the end come down to interpretation of the words used.

I think I have come on as too critically about the top strengths, but it comes from a dissatisfaction of claims that 150-160pounds are the MINIMUM strength of warbows sometimes encountered. In the chinese examples the sources suggest that the 160 was for officer exams in the later part and considered "strong" in the earlier. Thus, elite archers in in an army focussed on this can likely handle 150-160pound on foot, but there would be plenty (most in the source mentioned), that used ligther bows, and as little as 80pounds was considered acceptable as a minimum.

Soldiers who draw 106lbs mounted can typically handle heavier bows on foot. 106lbs mounted translates to 140-160lbs on foot according to the ratios in the earlier officer exams.

Fair point, I acknowledge that. The Manchu was here celebrated for their archery, so it still seem that historically 110pounds on horse and 150-160 on foot is considered elite, rather than minimumstandards. Fits also with the Turkish example you gave.

The archaeological evidence indicates that 150-160lbs was the average on the Mary Rose. That's disputed, but I find Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy convincing in this regard.

I think I am more critical about their estimates, but I haven't looked into the details and what I have is some time ago.

I remember feeling that they whenever they could assumed high estimates and used this for their next estimates, rather than testing both high and low estimates on various points. Like using the draw weight based on the longer arrows (30inches), rather than shorter ones (28inches) and this will clearly affect the draw-strenght, pulling the same bow and bowstring 28 or 30 inches back (purely from memory, so I could be wrong). I was also unconvinced in their selection of bows and reconstructed diameters. There were other examples, but as I said; it was a short look and some time ago.

[Tobtor]

Actually that isn't true. The Viking Age covers a long period of time (late 8th to mid 11th Centuries) and a huge amount of space (Iceland to Russia). Mail was very rare in most Scandinavian armies circa 800 AD (Scandinavians were poor even swords were pretty rare), but it was ubiquitous in many Norse armies by the 10th - 11th Century. Centuries of Danegelds and plunder had made them rich by contemporaneous standards.

Really, wow.... I didn't know that.

What is this very certain claim that many norse armies, had widespread use of mail, come from?
The 1 (one) existing Scandinavian find of a complete mail? From an elite grave, no less. Or from the few (a few here means in the 8-12 range) fragments of mail from the period? I havn't seen many examples from Viking graves in England either.

In Scandinavia mail is much rare than swords in finds, both graves and otherwise (like ALOT rarer) long into the medieval period.

So perhaps it is from written sources, in that case they must be English, since I haven't seen any references backing that statementment up, in any Scandinavian ones both historically or the more literary ones such as the the Sagas (where mail is sometime mentioned, but mostly for chieftains, earls, kings and their sons, but also sometimes for high standing retainers - but even for the hero where the equipment and weapons, shield etc can be very detailed described in the "pre battle scene" mail is rarely mentioned).

It could also come from pictures, where mail is very rare in Scandinavia, but more widespread on the Bayeux tapestry, but even here we sometimes see people going battle without armour. And other scene where evryone wears what is likely mail (see top and bottom of this part:
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/lase...0214/21429.JPG

Why should they invest in amour when they where successful without? Vikings spend their money on land and prestige items (silk, silver, gold etc - they really liked this, also swords of course). Also mail and seafaring doesn't go together, which is why all the norman ones are packed away in the trip across the water to England:

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/lase...0214/21439.JPG

One a different note; where did you see that about 90pounds neolithic bows, I am very interested.

[Galloglaich]

Really, wow.... I didn't know that.

What is this very certain claim that many norse armies, had widespread use of mail, come from?
The 1 (one) existing Scandinavian find of a complete mail? From an elite grave, no less. Or from the few (a few here means in the 8-12 range) fragments of mail from the period? I havn't seen many examples from Viking graves in England either.

In Scandinavia mail is much rare than swords in finds, both graves and otherwise (like ALOT rarer) long into the medieval period.

Surviving mail is pretty rare from anywhere that far back in time, but you seem to be assuming several things which are questionable. First, archeologists and historians currently believe that customs for burying armor and helmets changed between the Viking and Vendel periods. Just because they had it doesn't mean they will necessarily bury it. Armor can be used over and over, and doesn't wear out the way swords for example do (though they would pass down swords generation to generation too in some cases, but that declined later in the Viking Age as iron became more ubiquitous)

Second and most important, you seem to assume that Vikings only existed in Scandinavia and England. There is indigenous Scandinavian literary (mostly but not limited to the famous Icelandic sagas, but also from English - Danelaw and Danish and Swedish sources) and archeological evidence, evidence from the Baltic, from France, from the Low Countries, from Ireland, from Russia, and from The Byzantine Empire, among other regions.

Here are some of the mail finds from a Viking context in Scandinavia

Four finds on the Island of Gotland, one in Uppland (early Viking age / late Vendel period)
http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/reso...mail/index.htm

The Gjermundbu mail shirt from (I think) Norway 10th Century
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti...iking_mail.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskil.../mailshrt.html
http://www.themailresearchsociety.er...mrs_pdf_14.pdf

Mail armor 'fragments' found in Birka, Sweden
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chris...birka_mail.htm
http://www.themailresearchsociety.er...mrs_pdf_19.pdf
There are records from the leiðangr, there are records in the Russian Primary Chronicle, Carolingian Frankish records, and records of Spanish Moors, Turkic nomads in Central Asia and Arab travelers (and not just Ibn Fadlan).

So perhaps it is from written sources, in that case they must be English, since I haven't seen any references backing that statementment up, in any Scandinavian ones both historically or the more literary ones such as the the Sagas (where mail is sometime mentioned, but mostly for chieftains, earls, kings and their sons, but also sometimes for high standing retainers - but even for the hero where the equipment and weapons, shield etc can be very detailed described in the "pre battle scene" mail is rarely mentioned).

One literary example is the Battle of Stamford Bridge, documented in the Heimskringla and numerous other sources, which is assumed to have been lost by the Norwegians partly because they elected to leave their mail armor on their ships in order to move faster.

It could also come from pictures, where mail is very rare in Scandinavia, but more widespread on the Bayeux tapestry, but even here we sometimes see people going battle without armour.

Yes but most of the warriors here are depicted in armor. I never said they all had it, that would be ridiculous.

Why should they invest in amour when they where successful without?

Because having armor keeps you alive, and there was a continuous arms race between the Vikings and their enemies who were increasingly equipped with armor. I don't have time to look for it but I know Carolingian feudal equipment rosters were requiring mail by the 10th Century. We also know that it became easier for the Norse to buy armor due to all that Danegeld and trading money they had accumulated, because we have records of the Frankish authorities trying to stop the sale of armor, among other contraband, to the "pagans" as early as the 9th Century.

Also mail and seafaring doesn't go together

That isn't necessarily the case. We know mail and plate armor were ubiquitous in naval warfare during the medieval period.



As for the Neolithic bows and other stuff (including expanding this debate), it will have to wait until I have more time.


G

[Tobtor]

Surviving mail is pretty rare from anywhere that far back in time, but you seem to be assuming several things which are questionable. First, archeologists and historians currently believe that customs for burying armor and helmets changed between the Viking and Vendel periods. Just because they had it doesn't mean they will necessarily bury it. Armor can be used over and over, and doesn't wear out the way swords for example do (though they would pass down swords generation to generation too in some cases, but that declined later in the Viking Age as iron became more ubiquitous)

Evidence? I could equally claim that mail is actually bad in preservation over time, compared to swords. Many small rings means it is much harder to keep free of rust etc. Actually one of the few sagas that mentions mail, mentions that Hákon Jarls (an earl in Norway, mentioned in Kings sagas) is worn out/battered and useless.

The passing down items (according to sagas also arrows pass down from generation to generation), seem mainly to be done with specific items. Archaeological it seem very rare (few weapons that are "too old" compared to the date of the find/grave). The same is true also for the Illerup find we have discussed earlier - weapons are up-to-date technology and not your grandfathers old spear (unless it is special, and can kill giants...).

Second and most important, you seem to assume that Vikings only existed in Scandinavia and England. There is indigenous Scandinavian literary (mostly but not limited to the famous Icelandic sagas, but also from English - Danelaw and Danish and Swedish sources) and archeological evidence, evidence from the Baltic, from France, from the Low Countries, from Ireland, from Russia, and from The Byzantine Empire, among other regions.

I assume no such thing. I am an archaeologist and have studied north European archaeology, including the Viking age. Thank you for assuming my ignorance.

Now, point me too the archaeological evidence that norse armies had alot of mail (your statement), from those area? I (and most other archaeologist) would be happy.

But sure, the Varangian guard would all have owned mail... (if we are to follow the Byzantine idea) - but that not the standard norse army.

Here are some of the mail finds from a Viking context in Scandinavia

You quote a series of early finds of chiefly/kingly graves to support that the army of the late period had more mail than the early period. Not convincing.

Sure it is possible that the tradition of giving mail as part of the warrior equipment as grave goods stopped, but that is made under the assumption that they of course had (more) mail in later periods. It is possible, and even likely, but not evidence for that they did have it more in the later periods. That would create a circular argument.

The Gjerbundbu mail was the one I referred to as the only example of a whole mail.

Then there are a series of finds of rings, that together make up less than another mail (yes, I do know they belong to different armours). Some of them are from Birka, mostly single rings, though. I said there where finds of fragments. If you count the sites where fragments of mail is found, I think you have most of them already. True if each individual ring in Birka is counted we have hundreds of mails...

One literary example is the Battle of Stamford Bridge, documented in the Heimskringla and numerous other sources, which is assumed to have been lost by the Norwegians partly because they elected to leave their mail armour on their ships in order to move faster.

I think the quote in Heimskringla might mainly refer to the chieftains and their retainers (the hird). It is mentioned about a specific man and the peple on his ship, that they where wearing armour. They also remove their mail again because it is too hot and they are too tired after moving fast. It continue to say that the ones that didn't, died of exertion/heat.

Heimskringla also have a reference to an early medieval fight where it points out that the chieftains 100 huscarls is wearing armour, if that was standard equipment it would likely not be mentioned.

The mention of mail in sagas about the Viking period is generally very rare (and they mainly belongs to Kings and heroes).

When Egil Skalagrimson and his brother Thorolf goes to war as soldiers/mercenaries for Æthelred, it says they do not have armour (but describes their weapons in detail) - and they lead a group/army of norsemen (however, Thorolf kills an enemy earl wearing armour).

According to the oldest city-law of Trondheim (written 13/14th century), the people was divided by standard and those with "6 mark", needed a shield, spear and sword or other sidearm, those with "12 mark" the same as well as a iron hat, and the ones of "18 marks" also an armour. Those with less than 6 marks only need a spear and shield. Now, it doesn't go into exact breakdown of population, but 18 marks is high, and not the majority. That is well into the medieval period.

Because having armour keeps you alive, and there was a continuous arms race between the Vikings and their enemies who were increasingly equipped with armor.

Because it works, is not a good proof. Many other factors are involved. The viking army is not a standing army the king equips. It is who is sent by the various districts , and the great army of Svend and Knud (Canute the Great and his farther), would have included many volunteers.

We also know that it became easier for the Norse to buy armor due to all that Danegeld and trading money they had accumulated, because we have records of the Frankish authorities trying to stop the sale of armor, among other contraband, to the "pagans" as early as the 9th Century.

Yes, some had armour and some had Frankish swords, does not imply that is was widespread. That would have required a "home-industry". What I say is armour is rarer than Swords, throughout the period. And swords are rare and not standard anywhere in the Viking world.

While Danegeld is of course an important source of income, many earlier raids (the first invasion of England, the Ireland campaign, the eastern ones would locally have created just as much wealth.

That isn't necessarily the case. We know mail and plate armour were ubiquitous in naval warfare during the medieval period.

Now, Viking ships has a lot less "indoors" (actual no indoors) than later ships. Storing armour takes room and needs to be kept away from salt water (even with the various rust protecting stuff you can do, salt water will kill your mail).

Being primarily raiders moving fast in and out, manoeuvrability is more important than armour. Yes, you can run in mail (I have done so frequently), but everybody is faster and lighter without. This is also mentioned in Sagas where people sometime remove an armour before battle.... crazy as it sounds.

[Brother Oni]

Evidence? I could equally claim that mail is actually bad in preservation over time, compared to swords. Many small rings means it is much harder to keep free of rust etc.

Actually mail is really easy to clean. The simplest method is to just wear it and the constant motion will cause the rings to rub against each other and scrape off all the rust.

Another common method is to seal it into a half filled barrel of sand and roll it down a hill a few times.

Once that's done, a quick oiling and it's pretty much sorted for a while.

[Incanur]

I think I have come on as too critically about the top strengths, but it comes from a dissatisfaction of claims that 150-160pounds are the MINIMUM strength of warbows sometimes encountered.

Who says this? Hardy's camp acknowledges that some of the Mary Rose bows were as a light as 95-100lbs.

The Manchu was here celebrated for their archery, so it still seem that historically 110pounds on horse and 150-160 on foot is considered elite, rather than minimumstandards. Fits also with the Turkish example you gave.

That's about my impression. I think the high standard was common in certain - you could say elite - units, and that some particularly strong archers drew 180+lbs on foot and 120+lbs mounted. As mentioned earlier, Sir John Smythe claimed many archers could send a flight arrow 400 yards, and tests from The Great Warbow and elsewhere suggest that would require a 170-180+lb yew bow. (It's also possible they had better flight arrows or more efficient bows.) And Smythe even gave 480 yards as a flight-shooting distance!

Even in elite infantry units, you might have folks who drew only 80-100lbs (or even a little less) but shot so accurately they still got the job done. Additionally, some folks may have chosen lighter bows than they could manage in order to shoot faster or more precisely. I bet the many historical mounted archers who used short bows shot about like Lars but with 70-90lb bows.

Likewise, low-quality infantry units might have contained only or primarily 70-100lbs bows, but below that really seems unlikely unless the group in question lacked the skills and/or resources needed to make strong bows - or maybe if they liked really fast shooting. Even without metal armor and without much armor of any kind, at least some Amerindian warriors in the land now known as the Eastern United States drew heavy bows according to English and Iberian accounts. Cabeza de Vaca's firsthand accounts cover how even good armor was useless against arrows and how arrows stuck deeply into trees, etc. One Portuguese account claims that arrows from Native bows penetrated as deeply as a crossbow bolt with striking an unarmed spot. And Garcilaso de la Vega's secondhand account treats English as Amerindian bows as interchangeable, describes countless amazing shots, and claims no Spaniards were able to draw a captured Amerindian bow.

I remember feeling that they whenever they could assumed high estimates and used this for their next estimates, rather than testing both high and low estimates on various points. Like using the draw weight based on the longer arrows (30inches), rather than shorter ones (28inches) and this will clearly affect the draw-strenght, pulling the same bow and bowstring 28 or 30 inches back (purely from memory, so I could be wrong). I was also unconvinced in their selection of bows and reconstructed diameters. There were other examples, but as I said; it was a short look and some time ago.

I recommend reading The Great Warbow closely if you ever get the chance. I don't have much respect for Robert Hardy, but Matthew Strickland is brilliant. They go into the draw-weight dispute in the book's introduction.

[Galloglaich]

Evidence? I could equally claim that mail is actually bad in preservation over time, compared to swords. Many small rings means it is much harder to keep free of rust etc. Actually one of the few sagas that mentions mail, mentions that Hákon Jarls (an earl in Norway, mentioned in Kings sagas) is worn out/battered and useless.

The passing down items (according to sagas also arrows pass down from generation to generation), seem mainly to be done with specific items.

Armor is more expensive and valuable than swords, and while it can get worn-out I'm sure, is much more durable than swords which I know from personal experience can be destroyed very quickly by heavy use. Mail armor in particular is more 'generic' than plate armor.

I assume no such thing. I am an archaeologist and have studied north European archaeology, including the Viking age. Thank you for assuming my ignorance.

I'm going simply by your statement, since that is all I had to go on, you only mentioned England and Scandinavia. The 'Viking World' covered a lot more ground than that.

You quote a series of early finds of chiefly/kingly graves to support that the army of the late period had more mail than the early period. Not convincing.

Sure it is possible that the tradition of giving mail as part of the warrior equipment as grave goods stopped, but that is made under the assumption that they of course had (more) mail in later periods. It is possible, and even likely, but not evidence for that they did have it more in the later periods. That would create a circular argument.




I think the quote in Heimskringla might mainly refer to the chieftains and their retainers (the hird). It is mentioned about a specific man and the peple on his ship, that they where wearing armour. They also remove their mail again because it is too hot and they are too tired after moving fast. It continue to say that the ones that didn't, died of exertion/heat.

Heimskringla also have a reference to an early medieval fight where it points out that the chieftains 100 huscarls is wearing armour, if that was standard equipment it would likely not be mentioned.

The mention of mail in sagas about the Viking period is generally very rare (and they mainly belongs to Kings and heroes).

We are looking at the same data and seeing it differently, maybe the academic tradition on this part of military history differs in Denmark from in the US, but what I've read supports the statement I made - by the late Viking era, mail wasn't uncommon, any more than it is on the Bayeaux Tapestry (the English and Norman armies both coming from a Viking historical legacy, Knute and Gange Hrólfr.

When Egil Skalagrimson and his brother Thorolf goes to war as soldiers/mercenaries for Æthelred, it says they do not have armour (but describes their weapons in detail) - and they lead a group/army of norsemen (however, Thorolf kills an enemy earl wearing armour).

According to the oldest city-law of Trondheim (written 13/14th century), the people was divided by standard and those with "6 mark", needed a shield, spear and sword or other sidearm, those with "12 mark" the same as well as a iron hat, and the ones of "18 marks" also an armour. Those with less than 6 marks only need a spear and shield. Now, it doesn't go into exact breakdown of population, but 18 marks is high, and not the majority. That is well into the medieval period.

I guess you know that is now the only such law which was published by that time, so we can delve into those a bit later.

Yes, some had armour and some had Frankish swords, does not imply that is was widespread. That would have required a "home-industry". What I say is armour is rarer than Swords, throughout the period. And swords are rare and not standard anywhere in the Viking world.

My understanding is that swords weren't rare either by the time of the Great Army let alone in the 10th Century. But we can (and I'm sure will) delve into that later.

While Danegeld is of course an important source of income, many earlier raids (the first invasion of England, the Ireland campaign, the eastern ones would locally have created just as much wealth.

As would have all the slave raids, mercenary service, and the trading voyages, especially in the East, which tend to get downplayed in the hype on Vikings.

Now, Viking ships has a lot less "indoors" (actual no indoors) than later ships. Storing armour takes room and needs to be kept away from salt water (even with the various rust protecting stuff you can do, salt water will kill your mail).

And yet we know that they lashed ships together into big fighting platforms for some battles, and salt water is terrible for any kind of metal armor, and yet we know for sure it was used in the medieval period. So that isn't proof either, it's just different interpretations of limited data.

Being primarily raiders moving fast in and out, manoeuvrability is more important than armour. Yes, you can run in mail (I have done so frequently), but everybody is faster and lighter without. This is also mentioned in Sagas where people sometime remove an armour before battle.... crazy as it sounds.

We do obviously have mentions of mail being removed, but that isn't something you'd necessarily assume happened in every case, it seems to have been pointed out for criticism in the Stamford Bridge battle. Keep in mind real historical mail isn't as heavy as butted mail at a Ren Faire.

Soldiers sometimes throw away helmets, water, ammunition and even their rifles in modern battles when hoping to run faster (especially run away faster) but it doesn't always work out to be a good decision, which it obviously wasn't at Stamford Bridge.

G

[Brother Oni]

According to the oldest city-law of Trondheim (written 13/14th century), the people was divided by standard and those with "6 mark", needed a shield, spear and sword or other sidearm, those with "12 mark" the same as well as a iron hat, and the ones of "18 marks" also an armour. Those with less than 6 marks only need a spear and shield. Now, it doesn't go into exact breakdown of population, but 18 marks is high, and not the majority. That is well into the medieval period.

Interestingly, the cut off points aren't too far off the English Assize of Arms of 1181:

1. Whoever possesses one knight's fee shall have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; and every knight shall have as many shirts of mail, helmets, shields, and lances as he possesses knight's fees in demesne.
2. Moreover, every free layman who possesses chattels or rents to the value of 16m. shall have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; and every free layman possessing chattels or rents to the value of 10m. shall have a hauberk, an iron cap, and a lance.
3. Item, all burgesses and the whole community of freemen shall have [each] a gambeson, an iron cap, and a lance.

Some digging indicates a mark was 13s 4d in old English money (link), but the only wage information I can find are from the 13th/14th Century where a labourer earned £2 (£1 = 20s = 240d) maximum a year, a thatcher earned 2d/day, master craftsmen like carpenters and masons earned 3-4d/day and infantry earned 8d/day (unless you were Welsh, in which case it was 2d).

The minimum cap of 10m averages to ~4.5d/day, so it suggests that mail is uncommon and mainly the preserve of the wealthy, but not especially rare.

[Gnoman]

The minimum cap of 10m averages to ~4.5d/day, so it suggests that mail is uncommon and mainly the preserve of the wealthy, but not especially rare.

From what I've read, it was very common in Continental Europe (after Charles the Great, anyway) for towns and other settlements to group together to purchase a mail byrnie for the use of whoever they sent to the levy, and many rulers set the upper (and lower) limit on the number of troops to be sent from a settlement as "the number of byrnies that the town can support." My sources on that are a bit slim, though.

[fusilier]

Castles were undoubtedly still useful against all but most powerful cannons, but still with decent artillery they were pretty much guaranteed to get damaged badly.


Thus they generally had to be supplemented with forward, wooden based fortifications, much more resistant to cannon fire.

I remember that during Polish/Lithuanian war against Moscow in 1577-1582, stone walls of Pskov were falling surprisingly quickly compared to wooden/earth fortifications of Vielikiye Luki and Polock.

Most of the defense had to be thus continued from ruins and quickly raised inside-walls.

Of course, wooden and earth fortifications were in turn susceptible to fire, and no where as impenetrable for infantry, and generally harder to defend.

Thus sieges in general were changing quickly.

Sometimes old castles would have temporary earthworks built outside of them -- as a result, sometimes the castle has survived, with no trace of the 16th or 17th century earthwork that defended them during that period.

Generally speaking, artillery often helped the defender more than the attacker in the earlier period, although cannons quickly became an important part of siege trains (however, until around 1500 they were only a "part" of the siege train). The first response to the threat of artillery (besides adding cannons to the defenses), was to make the walls thicker, extending the angled base to deflect cannonballs upwards, and to shorten the towers. This style developed around the middle of the 15th century. It can be seen in fortresses like Sarzanello-

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortezza_di_Sarzanello


(Sarzanello is also famous because it has an early ravellin)

However, the best example is probably the massive fortress at Salses completed in the early 1500s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_de_Salses


The trace italien style of fort (often called a star fort), developed in the early 1500s through a synthesis of various existing features. The problem with a lot of these early fortresses is that, by later standards, they weren't designed to mount many cannon. During the 16th and early 17th centuries, siege trains usually outnumbered the defending cannons -- a problem that was exacerbated by armies confiscating cannons from the fortresses to fill up their siege trains. The result was that sieges during those centuries could take a more direct assault. Picking a point to attack, suppressing the defending artillery at that point, then sapping directly forward to get a siege battery in place to batter the walls. The classic "Vauban" style of siege, where trenches had to be advanced in a series of "parallels" completely surrounding the target didn't develop until the late 17th century when defenses were mounting more cannon again. Note that this isn't to say that besiegers in the 16th century *didn't* surround their enemy with a set of trenches, it's just that it wasn't usually necessary to advance the entire surrounding network of trenches. Instead they could focus on a single section of wall to attack.

Although a bit dated, Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World 1494-1660 by Christopher Duffy is a good source for the development of fortresses.

[JustSomeGuy]

Watching the bbc mary rose documentary, it claimed that the arrows were made with copper to attatch the head and flights, and that copper causes serious infections if it gets in an open wound.

My immediate thought was that all NATO 5.56 rifle, 9mm pistol and 7.62mg rounds had copper jackets, plus i'm assuming many more - yet no mention of dangerous infections in those who've survived a shooting. Is this just modern medicine overcoming it, something happening during the firing to the copper jacket or something else?

[Brother Oni]

Watching the bbc mary rose documentary, it claimed that the arrows were made with copper to attatch the head and flights, and that copper causes serious infections if it gets in an open wound.

My immediate thought was that all NATO 5.56 rifle, 9mm pistol and 7.62mg rounds had copper jackets, plus i'm assuming many more - yet no mention of dangerous infections in those who've survived a shooting. Is this just modern medicine overcoming it, something happening during the firing to the copper jacket or something else?

It sounds somewhat fishy to me, given that the antimicrobial properties of copper was well known although poorly understood until the 19th Century (link).

While copper poisoning does occur, being shot with an arrow with copper fittings is not that type of copper poisoning, much in the same way that being shot with a modern round isn't lead poisoning.

It may be that the belief of the time was that copper caused poisoning, but I would have to watch the documentary to see what the actual claim was.

[snowblizz]

much in the same way that being shot with a modern round isn't lead poisoning.

I wonder what is worse, lead poisoning or nickel paralysis (which is what Finnish soldiers called it)?

On that topic, are there other euphemisms for this sort of thing?

[Brother Oni]

On that topic, are there other euphemisms for this sort of thing?

WW1 was responsible for a lot of euphemisms about dying, mainly because there was so much of it: 'pushing up daisies', 'gone west', 'snuffed it', 'been skittled', 'become a landowner' are some of them.

[Tobtor]

I'm going simply by your statement, since that is all I had to go on, you only mentioned England and Scandinavia. The 'Viking World' covered a lot more ground than that.

Hmm.. why did I only mention English sources in addition to Sacandinavian ones? You wrote:
"Centuries of Danegelds and plunder had made them rich by contemporaneous standards", this seemed a typical anglo-american way of putting it. Especially the focus on Danegeld. This is why I assumed a possible english source for your statements. That was before I thought there wasnt actually any source from it.

We are looking at the same data and seeing it differently, maybe the academic tradition on this part of military history differs in Denmark from in the US, but what I've read supports the statement I made - by the late Viking era, mail wasn't uncommon

Then give a reference. Please. What supports your statement?

I guess you know that is now the only such law which was published by that time, so we can delve into those a bit later.

I assume you mean "not the only". But yes, lets. Brother Oni posted some interesting contemporary early medieval example from England. It does not appear mail was standard equipment at that time either.

My understanding is that swords weren't rare either by the time of the Great Army let alone in the 10th Century. But we can (and I'm sure will) delve into that later.

Depend on the definition of "rare". Uncommon definitely. Meaning that the majority of late weapon graves do not contain swords.

And yet we know that they lashed ships together into big fighting platforms for some battles, and salt water is terrible for any kind of metal armor, and yet we know for sure it was used in the medieval period. So that isn't proof either, it's just different interpretations of limited data.

I am not desputing they where used, just that it was for the fighting elite (kings, earls, chieftains and the sons of these acting as retainers for the king), and that the majority of warriors in an army was not armed in armour. The Sagas are from Iceland (and the most famous about Icelanders, and then a series on Norwegian kings) and thus might be inadequate to evaluate Danish/Swedish traditions, but armour is very rare in the Sagas, and even the Icelandic elite (such as Egil Skalagrimson, leading mercenary armies abroad) was not wearing amour.

Soldiers sometimes throw away helmets, water, ammunition and even their rifles in modern battles when hoping to run faster (especially run away faster) but it doesn't always work out to be a good decision, which it obviously wasn't at Stamford Bridge.

The text says the ones removing the amour was killed, and the ones keeping it on died of heat (due to the armour).

Keep in mind real historical mail isn't as heavy as butted mail at a Ren Faire.

I wouldn't know. I have never been to an "Ren Faire". At least not anything resembling the thing I see from America. I have been at Medieval festivals (North European) and the level seem above that of the pictures I see from "Ren Faires".

However, my statement is not made on the many mails I have seen used by serious re-enacters - it is based on my own experience with my own around 12 kg of mail, made by a skilled armourer in correct materials and dimensions. But you continuously assume that everyone must have it wrong.

Armor is more expensive and valuable than swords, and while it can get worn-out I'm sure, is much more durable than swords which I know from personal experience can be destroyed very quickly by heavy use.

Now I spend a couple of days outside doing no fighting at all, having my mail along (sometimes in storage, sometimes wearing it) and it definitely showed signs of rust. It wasn't even all that wet for Scandinavian climate. And while Brother Oni is correct most of the rust disappeared when wearing it in dry conditions and that it is simple to clean and oil it, I would imagine much less so in a 3 month expedition at sea. The light rust I got, would have been much worse due to the constant salt water contact. While the mail can be stored, cleaned etc, I doubt that it would be fit to continue a life through the life of multiple Vikings. But we don't know how long they where used, of course - since there is NO evidence either way of this small detail, why your statement-:

"Armor can be used over and over, and doesn't wear out the way swords for example do (though they would pass down swords generation to generation too in some cases, but that declined later in the Viking Age as iron became more ubiquitous)"

- is wrong for several reasons: 1. You assume a tradition of handing down weapons and armour that is not seen in the material, but based on literary sources that is telling stores. And while some weapons likely did follow this pattern, the far majority didn't (few percent in most periods). This is true for any period in northern Europe after AD I have looked at. The Roman period, the followiing Germanic iron age, the early and late Viking age.

This makes your firm and absolute statement that it changed during the Viking age extremely strange to me. How do you know? You simply state "that declined later", what make you think that? The sources you have read are clearly not up to present day research.

Now, I would like you to present positive evidence that :
1. That some Viking armies had widespread use of mail. Especially I am interested in large armies such as the one invading England under Svend and Knud in the 11th century. Smaller elite groups, like a royal hird is a different matter.
2. Mail got more popular in the late period, due to the wealth acquired through Danegeld and plunder.

Otherwise I think the rare occurrences of finds (a few grave finds and some finds from a military quarter at Birka, the largets and most important trading site in Sweden), the rare mention of them in historic and literary sources outside the elite (kings, Earls and Chieftains and sometimes their sons and retainers), and even specific mentioning of them not using mail (as the Egil example), the later, medieval Norwegian (and English?) laws suggesting they where only required by a minority, should be taken as evidence that mail was not common in the Viking period.

You are welcome to add evidence from Russia and Byzans (as long as we agree that the household troops of the lords there was an elite guard - comparable to royal retainers), and from Frankish annals describing Vikings etc.

Your wealth argument has a flaw: While the Frankish population might have had to contribute armour, Danish, Norweaigean and Swedish had to contribute ships instead. It was the amount of ships, and not the amount of mail, that gave them an advantage (and a lot more to win for the common soldier, since land and plunder was readily given as part of the salary).

[Galloglaich]

Another example of the modifications to medieval walls for artillery is the Krakow Barbican, built in 1498 as an enhancement to their older medieval walls.

Spoiler: Krakow Barbican

Show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w_Barbican

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Florian%27s_Gate

G

[Galloglaich]

That was before I thought there wasnt actually any source from it.

For some reason, people seem to only pick these fights with me about such matters when I'm either on the road or under deadline for some big project. You'll have to wait amigo. But I will swing around back to this.

G

[Maquise]

I have a question: What constitutes a saber?

I have heard it said, from sources I respect, that a saber is a curved sword. However, I have seen several instances:

Spoiler: Images of straight sabres

Show

Of weapons called sabers that have straight blades. I don't mean only slightly curved, I mean straight blades.

[Spiryt]

Probably :

- needs to have one main edge, in other words asymmetrical cross section for blade only on one side, with additional 'false' edge towards the top at most.

- sabre grip, so similarly, grip visibly oriented in one direction, griping against it being tricky at best. With no/minimal pommel.


those would be my guess.


If you dig deep enough you probably could find some 'sabres' that break those above, of course.

[Kiero]

The one in the middle is the 1796 Pattern Heavy Cavalry Sabre of the British army. As Spiryt said, note the asymmetrical grip and single-edged blade.

[Gnoman]

Aren't a lot of sabers not sharpened? I know that most of the American Civil War sabres I've seen were not only quite dull (on the edges, they had sharp points for stabbing), but were clearly never sharpened. I was told that, in an age of unarmored soldiers, a blunt sword was better because -combined with the energy of the horse-, a light tapping motion by the cavalryman was more than adequate to smash the target's collarbone or skull, and a sharpened sword would be more likely to stick.

[rs2excelsior]

Aren't a lot of sabers not sharpened? I know that most of the American Civil War sabres I've seen were not only quite dull (on the edges, they had sharp points for stabbing), but were clearly never sharpened. I was told that, in an age of unarmored soldiers, a blunt sword was better because -combined with the energy of the horse-, a light tapping motion by the cavalryman was more than adequate to smash the target's collarbone or skull, and a sharpened sword would be more likely to stick.

It's my understanding that they were sharpened on one edge, but not very much, as a blade just barely sharp enough to cut made a more ragged wound than one that's razor-sharp. But that could be wrong.