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

[Vinyadan]

About leather, I can think of four cases of it used defensively in Europe. 1. Boiled leather. 2. Cover for shields (Iliad). 3. Little fringes at the borders of Greek and Roman cuirasses to protect shoulders and groin. 4. Used to protect siege machines from fire.

I don't know of any case in which simple leather was used to create full armours.

Also, the Roland thing was mostly a joke :P I just really like that work.

[rrgg]

David Jones in his 2012 article "Arrows against Linen and Leather Armor" came up with a couple accounts of leather being incorporated into armor:

Historical descriptions of linen and leather armour

The Táin Bó Cuailgne contains a description of linen and leather composite armour worn by the mythical Irish hero Cú Chulainn. O’Rahilly’s translation of the 10th or 11th century version is given by Halpin3 as:

‘Twenty-seven tunics [cneslenti] worn next to his skin, waxed, board-like, compact, which were bound with strings and ropes and thongs close to his fair skin… Over that outside he put on his hero’s battle-girdle [cathchriss] of hard leather, tough and tanned, made from the best part of seven ox-hides of yearlings, which covered him from the thin part of his side to the thick part of his arm-pit; he used to wear it to repel spears [gai], and points [rend] and darts [iaernn] and lances [sleg] and arrows [saiget], for they glanced from it as if they had struck against stone or rock or horn.’

If “the best part” means “the thickest part” this would be butt leather, the hide of the upper hindquarters of the ox, that is used for the soles of boots and shoes. Cú Chulainn was a son of the god Lug, and perhaps could bear a greater weight of oxhide than ordinary mortals.

Another description of linen and leather armour was given by the Scottish historian John Major in 1512. It was quoted and translated by Skene4 as:

‘In panno lineo multipliter intersuto et cocreato aut picato, *** cervinae pellis cooperatura vulgus sylvestrium Scotorum corpus tectum habens in praelium proslit.

The common people of the highland Scots rush into battle having their bodies clothed with a linen garment, manifoldly sewed and painted or daubed with pitch, with a covering of deer-skin.’

The most detailed instructions concerning the making of jacks are in a decree of Charles V of France (reg.1461-1483). It contains the following specification:

`Et premièrement leur faut des dits jacques trente toiles, ou de vingt-cinq, à un cuir de cerf a tout le moins: et si sont de trente-un cuirs de cerf ils sont de bons. Les toiles usees et déliées moyennement sont les meilleures; et doivent estre les jaques a quatre quartiers, et faut que manches soient fortes comme le corps, réservé le cuir.5

And firstly the said jacks should be of thirty layers of linen, or twenty-five, to one deerskin at the least: and if they are of thirty-one deerskins they will be good. Worn and moderately unravelled linen is the best; and the jacks must be in four quarters, and the sleeves must be as strong as the body, except for the leather.`6

The French “cerf” means specifically the red deer (Cervus elephas), and not the smaller fallow or roe deer. The requirement for 25 or 30 layers of linen was incorrectly given as 29 or 30 layers by ffoulkes5, and this mistake has been perpetuated by other authors. The option of 31 layers of deerskin was regarded by ffoulkes as a probable clerical error.

Curzon7 was of the opinion that mail armour was often worn over a leather cuirass, and in 1869 he wrote:

‘A solitary fragment of one of these is in the possession of Mr. Eastwood, which was found in a stone coffin with the chain armour of a knight of the thirteenth century; it is made of two or three thicknesses of leather like that used for the soles of shoes, sewed together with leather thongs.’

The location and archaeological details of the find are lacking.

From his testing he concluded that 28 layers of linen and a layer of tanned ox hide did protect against both bodkin and broadhead arrows much better than linen alone did.

[Pauly]

I agree with all of your points in yuor post except the mail-armour part. True you cant really cut through it (though Thegn Thrand manageds to cut two-three rings reliably, even though they are a good quality steel and welted together, and quite thick). But I have seen many thrusts through historical accurate mail, as long as its a good quality sword.

One example is John Clement doing it with an Ulfberh+t sword in this video (around 30-35 minutes in).

Thats with a steel mail. In the 800BC they mails are iron (and true the swords are as well, but it is much easier to harden the sword tip than the entire mail armour). Thus you can easily (ok maybe not easily, but reliably) thrust through mail with a sharp, well made sword.

Just to back this point up. Knights carried and used rondel daggers for hundreds of years. All the existing tratises show that the purpose of the rondel dagger is precisely to penetrate mail.

But even though swords can and did penetrate mail, we do have to remember that to do it reliably needed a special weapon (rondel dagger, estoc) or a specialized technique (halfswording)

[Galloglaich]

David Jones in his 2012 article "Arrows against Linen and Leather Armor" came up with a couple accounts of leather being incorporated into armor:



From his testing he concluded that 28 layers of linen and a layer of tanned ox hide did protect against both bodkin and broadhead arrows much better than linen alone did.

Very interesting post. The bit about the layer of deer skin with pitch over the gambeson in the British isle isn't new, it was also associated specifically with the 'Gallowglass' warriors I get my avatar name from in here. The doe hide definitely isn't leather or any kind of armor - pitch over doe-hide has been speculated to be some kind of weather proofing. The protection was in the textiles.

The ox hide mentioned associated with Cu Chulainn is more interesting to me, but again, that's an ox-hide over 28 layers of linen. Now ox-hide is definitely much more protective and generally durable than doe hide, but modern tests also tell us that 28 layers of linen is pretty good protection against early medieval weapons all by itself. Imagine wearing 20 shirts. No doubt the ox-hide would help too (Ox hide is indeed tough, and most 'leather' armor I have ever heard of anywhere in the world was actually made of some kind of Ox-hide, including the leather lamellar known in Steppe nomad and East Asian contexts) but the linen is I think providing the main protection here.

For that matter we have reason to believe that leather stiffeners were worn over or under mail in some cases as well in the 12th-14th Centuries, not necessarily to make it harder to pierce the mail precisely but to make it stiffer.

I also know of some hardened leather armor that was found in Italy and dated to the 16th Century, but it appears to have been tournament armor for some kind of combat sport, presumably with blunt weapons. It's definitely authentic and pretty cool looking though, like something right out of Mad Max. I wish I could remember the search terms but I can't off the top of my head.

Some brigandine and similar types of armor (textile or hide with metal plates attached to the inside) were made of leather as the covering. This one for example




This is supposed to be from Estonia, allegedly from the 13th Century but I haven't been able to verify the date.



So there is some evidence of the use of leather as armor in the medieval period, just not much. Compared to the mountains of evidence of mail and all the other types of metal armor the available sources with any hint of using leather are at almost lottery winning ratios.

You do see the buff coat in the 17th Century (I think it may have been some kind of buffalo hide too, now that I think about it) but that is a somewhat different type of warfare going on by then, arguably. Certainly metal armor has gotten much more expensive relative to income of the fighting people than in say 1200-1500.



In most cases though historically, with leather armor, the main actual protection seems to be coming from either textile or metal armor incorporated into the panoply. Reason being that leather just doesn't seem to stop cuts and stabs very well, at least that is how it appears from modern tests. It depends on the weapon of course but I think 10-15 layers of linen (let alone 28) is much more effective protection than 1/4" -3/8" of leather, and a lot easier to wear too. Leather was also expensive, and I think maybe the reason you do see it sometimes on the Steppe is that for a lot of those people, cattle was their main form of wealth and leather probably actually cheaper than a whole lot of textiles.

Medieval Europe (post Carolingian anyway) had almost the opposite situation. Textiles were plentiful whereas leather was, if not a luxury not exactly dirt cheap.

G

[Galloglaich]

Just to back this point up. Knights carried and used rondel daggers for hundreds of years. All the existing tratises show that the purpose of the rondel dagger is precisely to penetrate mail.

But even though swords can and did penetrate mail, we do have to remember that to do it reliably needed a special weapon (rondel dagger, estoc) or a specialized technique (halfswording)

Both you and Tobtor make reasonable points here - the vulnerability of mail to stabs is still debated but I think you are right weapons like the roundel dagger and swords with narrow, hardened points could pose much more of a threat than most other weapons. This may have been why they started wearing textile over mail so much in the 12th-14th Centuries.

I'm personally a little bit suspicious about the efficacy of more or less general purpose swords against mail, with all due respect to Mr. Clements, but I know that sort of thing gets debated and goes round and round. No doubt they had armor-piercing weapons going way back - the old Roman Pilum, adapted by the Franks as the Angon and used by them as both a thrown and thrusting weapon, was certainly ideal for punching though armor. As were other weapons like the soliferrum and various picks which can be found way back, daggers of all kinds, and I think maces too had some efficacy against mail clad bodies.

But I still think mail armor was considered good protection and a problem that needed solving, as opposed to the way it's portrayed in genre fiction all too many RPG's as just a kind of 'speed bump' uniform for villains and mooks which protects against 'glancing blows' as some folks in the SCA used to say.

The increasing ubiquity (and increasing coverage) of mail I think led to the development of more and better armor-piercing (or armor ignoring) weapons which in turn led to better armor as well, into the 16th Century.


G

[Galloglaich]

When it comes to sabers, they have a rather complicated history that's also hard to research, especially for people who don't speak any Eastern European language. First thing first, single edged blades aren't specific for any part of the world, they were used wherever there were swords, be it China, India, Japan.

Very interesting post Martin. Particularly the part about the Bohemian road. I agree the Dao was around for a long time in Central Asia, in fact I would disagree with your timeline, from what I understand it dates back to the earliest use of Iron in China at least. I think the Huns had dao as well as strait swords. But the Mongols I think re-introduced the concept in a big way and got everybody thinking about all of their weapons quite a bit in every part of the world they impacted, especially Eastern Europe, South Asia and the Middle East.

What I was saying though more specifically is that the specialized saber variants known in both Europe (szabla, shashka et al) and the Middle East / South Asia, such as the ones mentioned in the post I was replying to (saif, shamshir, talwar etc.) date from the late 15th - early 16th Century for the most part and don't become widespread until the 16th.

You definitely do see some kind of sabers around the battlefields in Europe in the 15th Century though, they show up in the Swiss art quite often, and not among troops meant to be Turks either. But they are kind of rare.

I also disagree about the origins of the messer. Some messers that you see which are curved (in places like Hungary and also Switzerland) are no doubt influenced by sabers. But the lineage of the messer goes through the bauernwehr and hauswehr to various hunting knives (rugger etc.) and all the way back to the seax if you want to go that far back. The innovation of the nagel and the long pommel-less grip which are kind of the identifying characteristics of the messer goes back to at least the 5th Century AD in Central Europe. Most of these blades were strait.

here is the German wiki on the bauernwehr, if you can read German

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauernwehr

You do also see some baurnwehr with curved blades, but I don't think it's the influence of sabers



most are strait like these



Some of them were thin and almost stiletto like



For LOTR fans by the way, when Tolkein is talking about the 'long knife' used by Legolas I think he's referring to something like a Bauernwehr or a messer.

I would love to get a good replica of a Bauernwehr they are a really cool variant on the whole seax / bowie knife type of weapon.



here is a baurnwehr with what looks to me like a hardened or reinforced point.

Spoiler: Big Baurnwehr pic

Show

G

[Tobtor]

Just to back this point up. Knights carried and used rondel daggers for hundreds of years. All the existing tratises show that the purpose of the rondel dagger is precisely to penetrate mail.

But even though swords can and did penetrate mail, we do have to remember that to do it reliably needed a special weapon (rondel dagger, estoc) or a specialized technique (halfswording)

I agree. Though it have to be mentioned that the rondel-dagger really did began to develop in the 14th century, a period where mail really began to be covered by another layer (such as a coat of plates). It is much easier to strike at (mail covered) armpits with a dagger than an arming sword. In the 9th-13th century most mail were worn alone (or from roughly 11/12th century with padding, though evidence for early padding is sparse. Most examples and descriptions is much later and refer to gambesons worn as the only armour - most mail parts cannot fit lets say gambesons with 20 layers of linen beneath it).

I'm personally a little bit suspicious about the efficacy of more or less general purpose swords against mail, with all due respect to Mr. Clements, but I know that sort of thing gets debated and goes round and round. No doubt they had armor-piercing weapons going way back - the old Roman Pilum, adapted by the Franks as the Angon and used by them as both a thrown and thrusting weapon, was certainly ideal for punching though armor. As were other weapons like the soliferrum and various picks which can be found way back, daggers of all kinds, and I think maces too had some efficacy against mail clad bodies.

The Clement video is just one example. There is plenty of examples of people getting through riveted or solid metal rings with a sword point. Even when the mail is of a higher quality (smaller rings with better metallurgy) than some historical mails.

Historical accounts (ALSO reliable ones) also have people dying to sword and spear thrusts through mail.

A very good evidence of mail not being weapons proof, is that Harald Hardradas personal mail (named Emma, yes he named his armour after a woman, so when donning his armour he was "inside" a woman - he loved good jokes like that), is famed for protecting against all blows/strikes. If all armour (mail in this context) did that, then it is not a noteworthy ability. It is very clear that if all mails were able to withstand all attacks, then a mail wouldnt be famous for being able to withstand all attacks....

At this time 99.99 of all battle field weapons where: Swords (double edged or saexes), spears, and axes (I am discounting arrows due to the terms used, it clearly refers to close combat weapons).

While maces, clubs etc, might be used from time to time, they were not used much in the height of the mail period (only guy on the bayeux tapestry with a club is Odo who does so not to spill Christian blood). Yes, you can find examples of groups with clubs/maces, but they are rare before the 13th century or so.

But I still think mail armor was considered good protection and a problem that needed solving, as opposed to the way it's portrayed in genre fiction all too many RPG's as just a kind of 'speed bump' uniform for villains and mooks which protects against 'glancing blows' as some folks in the SCA used to say.

Ohh.. I very much agree! Good mail will defend against 99% of all cuts/blows, and likely the majority of thrusts as well. Also even when penetrated, most penetrations are only about 1/2-1inch deep, giving superficial wounds at best (though I have seen historical accurate mails being penetrated 2-3inches, but that was "average" quality mails with a really good thrust). This fit historical accounts of people fighting on for hours with multiple bleeding wounds. If unarmoured parts where cut/thrusted into it could very well mean death or a loss of a limb etc, while wearing mail might protects from most injuries, and those it did not it would transform from deadly/serious into a minor injury.

The increasing ubiquity (and increasing coverage) of mail I think led to the development of more and better armor-piercing (or armor ignoring) weapons which in turn led to better armor as well, into the 16th Century.

It should be mentioned that many of the really specific armour piercing weapons (various poleaxes, ahlspiess spears, estocs) and going around armour weapons (rondel daggers) ass well as various hammers etc (which delivers shock through the armour to hamper/hurt the oponent rather than wounding through cutting up the skin), does not become popular/developed before the 14th or even 15th century, and must be an answer to early plate and coat of plates, rather than mail (which had been used for centuries without any shift from spear-axe-sword as the all dominant weapon systems).

[Tobtor]

For LOTR fans by the way, when Tolkein is talking about the 'long knife' used by Legolas I think he's referring to something like a Bauernwehr or a messer.

As he is an old Anglo-Saxon scholar, I would think he means a Sax/Seax. WHich of course as you indicate is basically the same concept as a messer. Seax/sax can be used about both working knives, long battle knives and shorter swords. In the old norse text you sometimes see modifications such as hand-sax, long-sax etc indicating their use. It should be noted that the old norse also have another word for knife, but that seem restricted to smaller eating knifes etc.

Similar in the bog finds from the 200 century we find that there are two sets of belts an inner (for personal things like a small knife and purse with a comb etc), and an outer (with a "sax" and strike a light). These are essentially like messers.

"combat knives" from Illerup


Short single edged sword from Vimose (as well as a few other weapons):


That one have a flat "tang" to fasten the grib, like many later messers.

A very similar sword from a grave (burnt grave) from Funen also late Roman period.

[Clistenes]

The act of carrying a personal weapon is irrelevant to the status of combatant.
An unarmed cook or musician who is part of the military is a legitimate target, even if you "bring" the battlefield to him by breaking into a rear area.

That is a very recent concept. For the longest time armies had a tail of non combatants who weren't considered soldiers, like cooks, servants, prostitutes and washerwomen. Yeah, those could be killed, raped or enslaved, but so could be any random peasant they found while looting and burning a village in enemy territory.

[Tiktakkat]

That is a very recent concept. For the longest time armies had a tail of non combatants who weren't considered soldiers, like cooks, servants, prostitutes and washerwomen. Yeah, those could be killed, raped or enslaved, but so could be any random peasant they found while looting and burning a village in enemy territory.

At that rate, the idea of not killing, torturing, or enslaving any enemy soldier you get ahold of is a very recent concept.
Since the question involved using a drone, the answer is clearly for that period when such concepts are active.

[Mike_G]

Kind of speculative/sci-fi: if there was a drone with a short control range that required the operator to be on the battlefield, would the operator be considered a combatant? As in could you shoot that person even if all they had on them was a drone control device?

Late to the party here, but if they are controlling a drone, how are they different from an artillery gunner, who may not have a useful weapon on him once you break through the lines and reach him?

I'd expect a drone operator would get even less mercy than an infantryman from the guys who have been getting hit by drone strikes that they can't defend against.

He's totally more of a target than a cook or medic or other non-shooter in uniform.

[snowblizz]

You do see the buff coat in the 17th Century (I think it may have been some kind of buffalo hide too, now that I think about it) but that is a somewhat different type of warfare going on by then,

In Scandinavia moose hide was used alot I understand. Unsurprisingly.

Reason being that leather just doesn't seem to stop cuts and stabs very well, at least that is how it appears from modern tests.
Medieval Europe (post Carolingian anyway) had almost the opposite situation. Textiles were plentiful whereas leather was, if not a luxury not exactly dirt cheap.

G

Well buffcoats do seem to have provide quite adequate protection against swords and pistols. Seeing that they ended up being fairly ubiqutous taking up the "slot" similarly to gambesons.

[Galloglaich]

At that rate, the idea of not killing, torturing, or enslaving any enemy soldier you get ahold of is a very recent concept.

That part anyway is definitely not true. Killing prisoners wasn't standard practice back in the medieval period, it was done sometimes and by some leaders / armies, but by no means all. Each approach had it's advantages but some of the strongest armies (like Poland) routinely spared their vanquished foes, and it paid dividends in future alliances.

G

[hencook]

Question:
How do I handle arrow volleying? So the player uses a spell to instantly communicate to a group of archers 500 feet away, 100 feet up. If the archers were prepared to fire as soon as the player gave the go ahead, in what time could I expect the arrow to arrive, and would there be a reduction in damage? How accurate could I expect the archer volley AOE to be, if the PC gave shined a flashlight at them? How long would it take for an archer to take aim?

[PersonMan]

I'll go ahead and ask some questions in response, because there are variables that are pretty big factors in questions like this I've seen / asked.

1. How well-trained are the archers in question?
2. What is the target like? Are they just firing at a lit-up point, or do they have a formation / big monster to shoot at?

---

My own question: Is there information on the cost of firearms, in the early 16th / late 15th century? Exact numbers aren't too important, I'm mostly looking for information relative to the price of other weapons / armor.

[hencook]

Expertly trained. Arbalests, the works. The scenario in question has our party with a bunch of archers at their disposal. Generally they're just going to "radio" in for a barrage, at no monster in particular.

[Kiero]

About leather, I can think of four cases of it used defensively in Europe. 1. Boiled leather. 2. Cover for shields (Iliad). 3. Little fringes at the borders of Greek and Roman cuirasses to protect shoulders and groin. 4. Used to protect siege machines from fire.

I don't know of any case in which simple leather was used to create full armours.

Also, the Roland thing was mostly a joke :P I just really like that work.

Your number 3 are called pteryges. Roman officers sometimes wore leather corselets, though I think it was more a fashion statement than a practical piece of armour, or else something worn under a bronze or iron cuirass.

[Tiktakkat]

That part anyway is definitely not true. Killing prisoners wasn't standard practice back in the medieval period, it was done sometimes and by some leaders / armies, but by no means all. Each approach had it's advantages but some of the strongest armies (like Poland) routinely spared their vanquished foes, and it paid dividends in future alliances.

G

So you acknowledge that it was done.
And without any hesitation or particular consideration when it was.
Particularly when one considers sieges, where a full sack and slaughter was the standard for all leaders and armies if a surrender was not made in a timely fashion.
As for advantage, when no ransoms were possible, then feeding and guarding prisoners became significantly less likely. Even when they were, conditions were generally so poor as to make immediate execution considerably more merciful.
And let us note that sometimes those that spared their vanquished foes reaped dividends of continued war - Caeser for example, precipitated a slaughter after their victory in Africa because they blamed previous mercy for making them fight the same foes again.

So as part of a group of options - killing, torturing, enslaving - it is absolutely true.
Just because it was not done all the time, by everyone, in every circumstance, does not make it false. Attitudes regarding prisoners of war were very low for the vast majority of known history.

[Berenger]

At that rate, the idea of not killing, torturing, or enslaving any enemy soldier you get ahold of is a very recent concept.

That's just plain not true. You'll have to backpedal very far to defend some remnants of that statement.

You can't tell us that the very concept of not killing / enslaving (or "torturing", but what do you think happened to the tortured persons after the torture?) every prisoner of war is "very recent" and prove this by the occurence of killings and enslavements in the aftermath of battles in certain circumstances. Instead, you would need to prove that there were no known and practiced alternatives to these options. If this was true, there would never have been ransoms. There would never have been exchanges of prisoners. There would never have been a defeated force that got conscripted into the winning side's army. There would never have been prisoners that got released due to swearing Urfehde (oath of truce).

Just because it was not done all the time, by everyone, in every circumstance, does not make it false.

It totally falsifies your claim that there was "no concept" of something else than the three options you named. How don't you see that?

[Kiero]

So as part of a group of options - killing, torturing, enslaving - it is absolutely true.
Just because it was not done all the time, by everyone, in every circumstance, does not make it false. Attitudes regarding prisoners of war were very low for the vast majority of known history.

That's absolute nonsense. Social conventions (simple reciprocity - they guy you capture today could be your captor of tomorrow), and more importantly the income you could receive from ransom made it rare that rich/noble prisoners were killed out of hand. That goes back to antiquity and guest friendship, never mind feudalism and the medieval era. Even pirates in antiquity preferred to capture and ransom, rather than murder people on ships they'd taken. Only those who couldn't pay were enslaved.

[Clistenes]

At that rate, the idea of not killing, torturing, or enslaving any enemy soldier you get ahold of is a very recent concept.
Since the question involved using a drone, the answer is clearly for that period when such concepts are active.

Yeah, but the post isn't about real-world drones, but about some alternate world where drones require an operator in the battlefield. The poster said it was SciFi but the technology sounds less advanced than our own, more like Steampunk Fantasy stuff...

It may be that in that alternate world cooks and musicias were legitimate military targets, or they may not...

Anyways, if the character is operating a war machine, then yes, he or she should be considered a soldier to all effects in every world and culture.

[Tiktakkat]

That's just plain not true. You'll have to backpedal very far to defend some remnants of that statement.

Not even close.

You can't tell us that the very concept of not killing / enslaving (or "torturing", but what do you think happened to the tortured persons after the torture?) every prisoner of war is "very recent" and prove this by the occurence of killings and enslavements in the aftermath of battles in certain circumstances. Instead, you would need to prove that there were no known and practiced alternatives to these options. If this was true, there would never have been ransoms. There would never have been exchanges of prisoners. There would never have been a defeated force that got conscripted into the winning side's army. There would never have been prisoners that got released due to swearing Urfehde (oath of truce).

Not even close.
All I would have to demonstrate is the preponderance of references to the mass killings of prisoners after battles, with a lack of condemnation for the practice beyond references to the loss of income or the usual denunciations of the cruelty of enemies.
And note, I said "any". Clearly exceptions can and were made.

It totally falsifies your claim that there was "no concept" of something else than the three options you named. How don't you see that?

Because you are projecting an absurd standard for both proof and attitude in relation to action in an attempt to invalidate the statement, even while resorting to desperate parsings of your own statements to somehow exclude your acknowledgment of what was clearly the default expected behavior.
And of course, I didn't say "no concept".

That's absolute nonsense. Social conventions (simple reciprocity - they guy you capture today could be your captor of tomorrow), and more importantly the income you could receive from ransom made it rare that rich/noble prisoners were killed out of hand. That goes back to antiquity and guest friendship, never mind feudalism and the medieval era. Even pirates in antiquity preferred to capture and ransom, rather than murder people on ships they'd taken. Only those who couldn't pay were enslaved.

Case in point of parsing:
Pirates preferred ransom to killing, and preferred enslavement to killing.
The second part outright acknowledges that what I said is correct. So right there you have invalidated your challenge without me having to do anything else.

Then of course you have "murder" rather than "kill", a neat bit of realignment trying to force the issue.

As for reciprocity and feudalism and all that, are you seriously suggesting that ancient history isn't chock full of betrayals? That the Middle Ages aren't defined more by fratricide, patricide, and general betrayal than they are by actual loyalty to the death? Uh huh.

But do tell, exactly when were those international treaties regarding prisoners actually signed?
Let's see the first one was . . . between the Romans and Parthians?
No wait, between the Western Franks and the Eastern Franks!
The Normans and the Scots then?
Maybe it was the Hapsburgs and Bourbons?
Gee, I'm not seeing any actual recognition in the history books of any of this before the 19th century.
I wonder why?
It is almost as if . . . why, it is almost as if people rather expected an ominous fate for prisoners!
Something becoming even more pronounced during the social upheavals of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, with those formerly ransomed nobles being butchered left and right.

So yes, certainly, if you redact what I wrote from:
"At that rate, the idea of not killing, torturing, or enslaving any enemy soldier you get ahold of is a very recent concept.
Since the question involved using a drone, the answer is clearly for that period when such concepts are active."
In response to:
"Originally Posted by Clistenes
That is a very recent concept. For the longest time armies had a tail of non combatants who weren't considered soldiers, like cooks, servants, prostitutes and washerwomen. Yeah, those could be killed, raped or enslaved, but so could be any random peasant they found while looting and burning a village in enemy territory."
Which in and of itself tacitly acknowledges precisely what I wrote by the way, into:
"At that rate, the very concept of not killing, torturing, or enslaving every enemy soldier you get ahold of is a completely recent idea, with absolutely no occurrences before the 19th century when the first Hague Convention was signed."
Well then, yes, I would go from a bit of hyperbole to pretty much completely inaccurate.

Of course without that convenient redaction, then well . . . it is your objections that are "plain not true" and "absolute nonsense".

[Storm Bringer]

Yeah, but the post isn't about real-world drones, but about some alternate world where drones require an operator in the battlefield. The poster said it was SciFi but the technology sounds less advanced than our own, more like Steampunk Fantasy stuff...

It may be that in that alternate world cooks and musicias were legitimate military targets, or they may not...

Anyways, if the character is operating a war machine, then yes, he or she should be considered a soldier to all effects in every world and culture.

bear in mind, in a sci-fi setting, you don't know what sort of sci-fi ECM/jamming might be in play that would mandate a Line of sight or other short ranged transmitter to ensure control of the drone. its been reported that the Russians and Iranians have been able to jam or otherwise interfere with UAV satellite control links, and I would assume the US also has that capability, but simply isn't admitting that it can do that.

Also, if the drone is organic* tactical asset for the infantry, rather than a robot plane, then having the operator on the ground with the infantry makes sense, as they would not only be on call and available whenever the grunts needed them, but they would have a better understanding of the grunts perception of the battlefield and thus could understand the limits of what they could see better (something that may be obvious to a drone op form 300 meters up may be hidden form a grunt at ground level, in ways the drone's POV might not make clear), and interpret their directions better ("1 want you to flatten that building right their" works a lot better when you can point out the building in question to the other guy face to face, rather than trying to describe which of the 70 identical brown mud huts you mean to a guy in Tennessee looking at a sat photo).

we already have drone operators who use small, man launch-able drones for recce work, controlled by short range radio links and a tablet and X box controller. that can and have gone out on foot patrols in Afgan, so the idea of a drone operator flying is drone while under fire is already a reality**.



* organic= integrated part of the unit, as opposed to a attachment from another unit. for example, a squads MG team is a organic asset, but a explosives search dog and handler would not be,


** that particular photo is of demonstration troops showing off RnD toys and testing how it works in a stateside training ex, but I know us brits have used these types of drones out in afgan, so the point stands.

[Mr Beer]

we already have drone operators who use small, man launch-able drones for recce work, controlled by short range radio links and a tablet and X box controller. that can and have gone out on foot patrols in Afgan, so the idea of a drone operator flying is drone while under fire is already a reality**.

Yeah, I was confused about this being called 'science fiction' hypothetical when battlefield drones are happening right now.

[Storm Bringer]

Yeah, I was confused about this being called 'science fiction' hypothetical when battlefield drones are happening right now.

its a fairly recent development, only really happened in the last few years, and its been somewhat overshadowed in the publics mind by the use of UAV's like Predator, which is much better known and tends to cause some people to conflate "drone" and "UAV" as synonymous terms.

plus, while the US and brits both admit to using drones, I don't know how much Is actually out in the public domain about them. most of what I know is form low level restricted briefs I got on RSOI.

in short, unless you knew where to look, and what to look for, its would be quite easy for a layman to miss their deployment entirely.

[Kiero]

Case in point of parsing:
Pirates preferred ransom to killing, and preferred enslavement to killing.
The second part outright acknowledges that what I said is correct. So right there you have invalidated your challenge without me having to do anything else.

Then of course you have "murder" rather than "kill", a neat bit of realignment trying to force the issue.

Pirates most definitely defaulted to enslavement, because that meant money. When Pompey was sent to deal with the pirate menace in the Mediterranean in the last century BC (instigated largely by Rome defeating the major naval powers of the age, and doing nothing to settle what their navies would do afterwards), they weren't killing senatorials. They were capturing them and extracting ransoms, which was costly and annoying, not terminal. Also noteworthy that he didn't kill most of the pirates he captured, either, but settled them on better lands than those they'd been living on, to try to give them an alternative livelihood.

It's not a "realignment", killing captives in cold blood is murder and much more difficult for most people than killing in battle. I'd suggest you read into the works of Dave Grossman on the topic of killing, it's some interesting stuff and not easy for the majority of us to do.

As for reciprocity and feudalism and all that, are you seriously suggesting that ancient history isn't chock full of betrayals? That the Middle Ages aren't defined more by fratricide, patricide, and general betrayal than they are by actual loyalty to the death? Uh huh.

I'm saying they were the notable exceptions, not the rule. Otherwise those customs wouldn't have survived - yet we have countless anecdotes of just those things happening. When Henry V tells his men "no prisoners" at Agincourt, they're annoyed, because they were counting on being able to make money from ransoms. They didn't relish killing for its own sake, nor do most warriors.

But do tell, exactly when were those international treaties regarding prisoners actually signed?
Let's see the first one was . . . between the Romans and Parthians?
No wait, between the Western Franks and the Eastern Franks!
The Normans and the Scots then?
Maybe it was the Hapsburgs and Bourbons?
Gee, I'm not seeing any actual recognition in the history books of any of this before the 19th century.
I wonder why?
It is almost as if . . . why, it is almost as if people rather expected an ominous fate for prisoners!
Something becoming even more pronounced during the social upheavals of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, with those formerly ransomed nobles being butchered left and right.

Do you understand what a social convention is? You know ancient cities had no police force or "town guard" or anything remotely like that, because convention maintained order. If you had a problem with someone, you went to your patron, to talk to their patron and sort things out. Guest friendship (first written about in the Iliad) and other such ties worked the same way.

In the wars between the Diadochi in the Hellenstic era, trained pikemen were hard to come by. You either controlled Makedonia and had them at source, or relied on settlers from Hellas who were trained to fight that way. Either way, they were precious and scarce, and the convention that arose was that you didn't kill surrendering pikemen, you offered them a job. It was hard to break a pike block, even after they'd lost a battle, so it was win-win for everyone. They signalled their surrender by raising their pikes vertically. However, the Romans weren't aware of this convention, and carried on killing even after surrendering pikemen had given the signal.

In Caesar's war against the Gauls, his armies killed tens of thousands in battle - but captured many times that to sell into slavery. Because that meant money for the victors. A good way for a commander to make themselves popular with their men. And the primary means a Roman senatorial expected to enrich themselves.

They didn't require international treaties, just elites raised in the same way understanding that was how people dealt with each other.

Again you seem to be stuck in a modern mindset where there has to be something written down somewhere, that everyone has signed up to, in order for a behaviour to be practised.

[Berenger]

@Tiktakkat:

Well, english isn't my first language, so let's get the possibility of a misunderstanding out of the way first: I read the sentence "At that rate, the idea of not killing, torturing, or enslaving any enemy soldier you get ahold of is a very recent concept." as fully equivalent to the sentence "Until very recently, no commander considered or employed other options than a) killing, b) torture or c) enslavement when deciding the fate of captured soldiers." If you feel that the meaning of your original statement differs from my paraphrasis, please try to point out how.

All I would have to demonstrate is the preponderance of references to the mass killings of prisoners after battles, with a lack of condemnation for the practice beyond references to the loss of income or the usual denunciations of the cruelty of enemies. And note, I said "any". Clearly exceptions can and were made.

I don't think that you did or could demonstrate this. Of course, "A Comprehensive Account of the Treatment of Prisoners of War in Human History" is a rather tall order for a discussion at the scope of this thread so none of us will be able to prove his point of view anytime soon. But I'm quite certain that mass executions of prisoners did come with contemporary condemnation, outrage and flattering monikers like "Slayer of X" that indicate that you did something that was considered out of ordinary behaviour.

Because you are projecting an absurd standard for both proof and attitude in relation to action in an attempt to invalidate the statement, even while resorting to desperate parsings of your own statements to somehow exclude your acknowledgment of what was clearly the default expected behavior.

I don't feel anywhere near desperation at this point. I also have no idea which portion of my post constitutes an a mention of a "default expected behaviour" let alone an acknowledgement that, in a further step, would need to be excluded from anything.

And of course, I didn't say "no concept".

Again, maybe I somehow missed some crucial point in translation, but: If a concept is very recent (these were your exact words), isn't the reasonable conclusion that said concept is unknown to people that lived before these very recent times? If this is a misrepresentation of your statement, how so?

As for reciprocity and feudalism and all that, are you seriously suggesting that ancient history isn't chock full of betrayals? That the Middle Ages aren't defined more by fratricide, patricide, and general betrayal than they are by actual loyalty to the death? Uh huh.

I'd say, in general terms, that ancient history (and medieval history and modern history) actually are more defined by adherence to laws and customs than by their denial. It's just that violations of any code of conduct are noted and remembered and normal behaviour is, well, normal. If betrayal were the norm and fidelity a rare exception, there could be no betrayal, since there won't be any trust to violate in the first place.

But do tell, exactly when were those international treaties regarding prisoners actually signed?
Let's see the first one was . . . between the Romans and Parthians?
No wait, between the Western Franks and the Eastern Franks!
The Normans and the Scots then?
Maybe it was the Hapsburgs and Bourbons?
Gee, I'm not seeing any actual recognition in the history books of any of this before the 19th century.
I wonder why?
It is almost as if . . . why, it is almost as if people rather expected an ominous fate for prisoners!
Something becoming even more pronounced during the social upheavals of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, with those formerly ransomed nobles being butchered left and right.

I don't really know how to answer to this. Either you don't know that international treaties just weren't a thing back then but people could still agree on things (In this case, I just don't know where to start to educate you.) or you do know that international treaties just weren't a thing back then but people could still agree on things (In this case, I just don't get why you are being dishonest in such an aggressive and obvious way). Seriously, this is like disbelieving the existence of gladiators in the roman empire because no one took a photography of one.

[Mr Beer]

its a fairly recent development, only really happened in the last few years, and its been somewhat overshadowed in the publics mind by the use of UAV's like Predator, which is much better known and tends to cause some people to conflate "drone" and "UAV" as synonymous terms.

plus, while the US and brits both admit to using drones, I don't know how much Is actually out in the public domain about them. most of what I know is form low level restricted briefs I got on RSOI.

in short, unless you knew where to look, and what to look for, its would be quite easy for a layman to miss their deployment entirely.

Makes sense, put like that it's easy to miss.

[Tiktakkat]

Pirates most definitely defaulted to enslavement, because that meant money. When Pompey was sent to deal with the pirate menace in the Mediterranean in the last century BC (instigated largely by Rome defeating the major naval powers of the age, and doing nothing to settle what their navies would do afterwards), they weren't killing senatorials. They were capturing them and extracting ransoms, which was costly and annoying, not terminal. Also noteworthy that he didn't kill most of the pirates he captured, either, but settled them on better lands than those they'd been living on, to try to give them an alternative livelihood.

Conversely, Caesar had the pirates who held him for ransom crucified.

It's not a "realignment", killing captives in cold blood is murder and much more difficult for most people than killing in battle. I'd suggest you read into the works of Dave Grossman on the topic of killing, it's some interesting stuff and not easy for the majority of us to do.

But it is not what I wrote.
Nor does it bear out given say, what Crassus did after the Third Servile War.
Or that 12,000 are said to have died when Pompey stormed the Temple in Jerusalem.

I'm saying they were the notable exceptions, not the rule. Otherwise those customs wouldn't have survived - yet we have countless anecdotes of just those things happening. When Henry V tells his men "no prisoners" at Agincourt, they're annoyed, because they were counting on being able to make money from ransoms. They didn't relish killing for its own sake, nor do most warriors.

"Notable exceptions" do not occur generation after generation, war after war.

Henry V killed the prisoners at Agincourt only when he feared defeat. However . . .
Did his troop refuse the order?
Was he condemned in the historical record?
Clearly it was less "You unspeakable monster!" and more "No ransoms? Sucks to be you!"

Do you understand what a social convention is? You know ancient cities had no police force or "town guard" or anything remotely like that, because convention maintained order. If you had a problem with someone, you went to your patron, to talk to their patron and sort things out. Guest friendship (first written about in the Iliad) and other such ties worked the same way.

I am well aware of what social convention is.
You know ancient cities had riots, right? And street gangs? General criminal activity?
You do know just how many stories there are about people violating Guest Right and getting thoroughly punished for it there are, right?

However, the Romans weren't aware of this convention, and carried on killing even after surrendering pikemen had given the signal.

So . . . another example proving I am right.
Ummm . . . thanks?

They didn't require international treaties, just elites raised in the same way understanding that was how people dealt with each other.

Which is all well and good - until you get out of your little social group.
And then the Romans are slaughtering your pikemen.

Again you seem to be stuck in a modern mindset where there has to be something written down somewhere, that everyone has signed up to, in order for a behaviour to be practised.

Not even close.
I simply recognize the difference between social conventions that are too often observed more in the breach and actual social structures that harshly condemn and preferably punish the actual actions.
Would you like me to start citing the death rate of ordinary soldiers while held as prisoners of war?
Should we consider the functional differences between enslavement or "surrender and be hired to keep fighting or else"?

Once again, what I wrote is fundamentally true.
It is not absolutely, graven in stone, utterly unalterable, performed by everyone, without the least hint of anything else.
Oddly, I never suggested such.
Instead it is others insisting that the exact opposite is true . . . even while giving one example after another that, oh yeah, it kinda, sorta, did happen all the time.

@Tiktakkat:

Well, english isn't my first language, so let's get the possibility of a misunderstanding out of the way first:

I read the sentence "At that rate, the idea of not killing, torturing, or enslaving any enemy soldier you get ahold of is a very recent concept." as fully equivalent to the sentence "Until very recently, no commander considered or employed other options than a) killing, b) torture or c) enslavement when deciding the fate of captured soldiers." If you feel that the meaning of your original statement differs from my paraphrasis, please try to point out how.

So then . . .
You misread my statement, projected a specific and absolute interpretation on to it, and insist that I must defend that.
And I actually explained that at length previously.

I don't think that you did or could demonstrate this. Of course, "A Comprehensive Account of the Treatment of Prisoners of War in Human History" is a rather tall order for a discussion at the scope of this thread so none of us will be able to prove his point of view anytime soon. But I'm quite certain that mass executions of prisoners did come with contemporary condemnation, outrage and flattering monikers like "Slayer of X" that indicate that you did something that was considered out of ordinary behaviour.

Okay then . . . demonstrate such to prove me wrong.
Even simpler, demonstrate that "Sayer of X" was not considered an honorific.
In fact:
"The early years of his long reign were dominated by civil war against powerful generals from the Anatolian aristocracy. Following their submission, Basil oversaw the stabilization and expansion of the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire, and above all, the final and complete subjugation of Bulgaria, the Empire's foremost European foe, after a prolonged struggle. For this he was nicknamed the Bulgar Slayer (Greek: Βουλγαροκτόνος, Boulgaroktonos), by which he is popularly known."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_II

That kinda, sorta, rather sounds like they were honoring him by calling him that, doesn't it?

I don't feel anywhere near desperation at this point. I also have no idea which portion of my post constitutes an a mention of a "default expected behaviour" let alone an acknowledgement that, in a further step, would need to be excluded from anything.

Why should I feel desperation? I haven't had to backtrack anything.
You, and others disagreeing with me, have repeatedly proven my point with "exceptions" that demonstrate precisely what I am saying, along with phrasings that endorse what I said.

Again, maybe I somehow missed some crucial point in translation, but: If a concept is very recent (these were your exact words), isn't the reasonable conclusion that said concept is unknown to people that lived before these very recent times? If this is a misrepresentation of your statement, how so?

The concept

as a default

.
"Hey, let's take prisoners and treat them well for the purpose of exchanging them unharmed at the end of the conflict for our equally unharmed and relatively well-treated prisoners" is a very recent concept.
This is in contrast to "Hey, let's take prisoners and use them for hard labor for the rest of their lives, however long that may be." Or, "Hey, let's take prisoners and use them for hard labor until the war ends, assuming they don't die before then." Or even, "Hey, let's take prisoners for the sole purpose of recruiting them under duress." Or even, "Hey, let's take prisoners and ransom them for serious cash." Those are very radically different concepts, and you are going to have to look long and hard to find any truly significant exceptions to them before the Hague Conventions. (Well, at least the discussions that led up to the Hague Conventions, say the Crimean War and American Civil War.)

I'd say, in general terms, that ancient history (and medieval history and modern history) actually are more defined by adherence to laws and customs than by their denial. It's just that violations of any code of conduct are noted and remembered and normal behaviour is, well, normal. If betrayal were the norm and fidelity a rare exception, there could be no betrayal, since there won't be any trust to violate in the first place.

And I would say the exact opposite for ancient and medieval history. Codes of conduct have a strong tendency to be ex post facto (chivalry coming after knights were being supplanted by mercenary armies, bushido coming after Tokugawa ended the pretty much constant civil war, and so on).
Does that mean John the Blind didn't charge nobly to his death at Crecy?
Not in the least.
Does it mean the brutal fratricide of the War of the Roses, or the depopulation of the Thirty Years' War happened before Crecy?
Not those either.
The fact is, acts of generosity and mercy feature so prominently precisely because they were so unusual in those times. It really astonished people when someone didn't slaughter

As for modern history . . . the Hague Conventions prohibited the bombing of cities from the air.
They had to add a supplement to the Hague and Geneva Conventions covering perfidy.

I don't really know how to answer to this. Either you don't know that international treaties just weren't a thing back then but people could still agree on things (In this case, I just don't know where to start to educate you.) or you do know that international treaties just weren't a thing back then but people could still agree on things (In this case, I just don't get why you are being dishonest in such an aggressive and obvious way). Seriously, this is like disbelieving the existence of gladiators in the roman empire because no one took a photography of one.

I am well aware that international treaties weren't a thing back then.
You seem to be unaware that, even when confessing it, that international standards of behavior weren't a thing either, and that people really didn't agree on all that much as opposed to recognizing their self-interest (in regards to ransoms) and acting accordingly.
I am however aware that, at least in Europe, you had things like Papal Proclamations, declaring to all and sundry that crossbows were an abominable weapon, fit only for use against the Saracens. Do tell, what year did everyone in Europe agree to stop using crossbows?
Or perhaps we should discuss the Papal proclamations regarding when combat was lawful, reducing the number of "lawful" days to fighting to what was it, less than 50? How many wars fit into those limits?
How about the inviolability of emissaries? Defenestrations of Prague ring a bell?
And then there were the bilateral treaties that actually survived to their expiration dates. I'm pretty sure I can keep my shoes on to tally those.

Perhaps the problem is you are challenging me in such an aggressive and obvious way that leaps wholesale into dishonesty when you repeatedly cite points that contradict your claims that prisoners were always treated with dignity and respect, and that massacres were barely known before international treaties outlawed them.
Perhaps if you say, said "Gee Sam, isn't that a bit too harsh? People were certainly less than pleasant, but they weren't that unrelentingly savage, even in ancient and medieval days. They even managed to develop a system of parole to go with ransoms that held surprisingly well across international lines", I might be inclined to say, "Well, maybe I am being a bit too cynical, but let's face it, being a POW was never a guarantee of survival at any time, nor has the treatment of captives and conquered civilians ever been particularly pleasant. Being a cook or armorer as a camp follower or being a cook or armorer in uniform has pretty much always been equally likely to get you killed if your side lost." (In case you have forgotten the actual context of the comment.)

[MrZJunior]

Why did grenades and mortars fall out of style in the 19th century?

I can see grenades becoming less useful as people switched from matchlocks to other methods of ignition, but my understanding is that grenades persisted after the changeover.

Mortars seem to become less common after the American Civil War before reappearing around the First World War.