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

[Kiero]

The Romans mass-produced mail; they had workshops doing nothing but in northern Italy, for example. If it doesn't need to be customised, and there are elements of the manufacture that don't require specialist skills, then it isn't as costly to produce as you might think. It's also an armour that can outlast it's owner and be passed down, with maintenance and minimal adjustment for the new owner.

[Mike_G]

Were these blades used one-handed? Also... If they have the same blade length as a rapier, but are curved, wouldn't they have lower reach?

Rapiers are pretty much the upper limit of length for one handed swords. Any blade better at cutting, like a sabre, will need to be wider, and therefore heavier for the same length. Rapiers are pretty heavy in themselves, but the weight is concentrated pretty far back, which makes them easier to use for a weapon of that weight, but bad a cutting. You don't want a sabre with all the weight back near the guard, because it will not cut as well.

That said, sabres aren't generally all that short. They are pretty similar in length to other one handed cut and thrust swords.

[Pauly]

So this is going to be a rough question to answer: does anyone have a good comparison of what production costs were for different armor types in the same economy? I ask this because I'm trying to do a rewrite of the d20 system and I'm on armor right now. I understand that plate armor is expensive (partially because it's custom-made, partly because of the large amount of metal required, partly because of the quality associated with the work), but it's my understanding that mail is in fact much harder to produce on account of the immense amount of effort it takes to make that much metal wire, form the rings out of the wire, and then individually attach them. The PHB model of having all the different armor types on different racks in the same store is unrealistic, since different cultures usually make different armor types according to technological and economic factors, but what if you could go into a store and buy all these armors? How would lamellar, scale, mail, and plate compare?

It depends entirely on the technological level of the society, as well as the relativelive abundance and quality of the iron they are working with.

Generally speaking it is harder to manufacture larger pieces of armor. It is harder to manufacture hardened/hugh qulaity steel. It requires more skill to manufacture acrticulated armor. But as the manufacturers become more proficient the price comes down, or the quality goes up.

[Galloglaich]

So this is going to be a rough question to answer: does anyone have a good comparison of what production costs were for different armor types in the same economy? I ask this because I'm trying to do a rewrite of the d20 system and I'm on armor right now. I understand that plate armor is expensive (partially because it's custom-made, partly because of the large amount of metal required, partly because of the quality associated with the work), but it's my understanding that mail is in fact much harder to produce on account of the immense amount of effort it takes to make that much metal wire, form the rings out of the wire, and then individually attach them. The PHB model of having all the different armor types on different racks in the same store is unrealistic, since different cultures usually make different armor types according to technological and economic factors, but what if you could go into a store and buy all these armors? How would lamellar, scale, mail, and plate compare?

it depends on the time and place. In the Roman era, their (very rough) equivalent of plate armor, (the lorica segmentata that you so often see as a kind of shorthand for Roman Legionaires in genre films and art), was actually cheaper than their mail (the lorica hamata) which was in use for a lot longer.

Due to the high degree of contracting and subcontracting in the guilds, and the large amount of automation, metal production in general and armor production specifically was much more efficient and therefore cheaper in the middle ages than for the Romans. The Romans basically relied on slave labor. The medieval people relied on power from water wheels (and to a lesser extent, wind mills and animals) to power complex machinery that did a lot of the work. For example water wheels ran the bellows in the bloomery forge that made the iron, and powered the trip hammer which allowed them to hammer the iron out into sheets etc., as well as lots of other tools like drills and fine saws and so on. Thanks to the machines, specialization and subcontracting systems, a single guild workshop in 15th Century Augsburg or Venice could produce more than 100 Roman slaves could.

There are several videos you can watch of a water powered trip-hammer in action. Here is one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFpLuJMYJdE

Mail couldn't be automated quite as much, though the medieval artisans did have the technology of the draw plate which was a big advantage over the Romans.

in the early to high medieval period, mail was gradually becoming cheaper mainly because of iron getting cheaper and then the draw plate. In the Late medieval period plate armor got much cheaper and much better, it went from an exotic luxury to almost commonplace work gear, peaking around 1520, whereas mail got cheaper too but much more slowly. In the Late Medieval era they also made new and more expensive types of mail, for example tempered steel mail and mail with links so fine you literally can't get a pin through them. The latter were for wearing under your street clothes in a civilian context, from what I gather. Mail like that was very expensive.

If you look at medieval economic data, mail looks to be generally more expensive than plate armor in the 1400's. As in, a single mail shirt can cost more than twice what an entire 'proofed' harness costs, though you also see cheaper mail.

Lamellar I suspect would be much cheaper than either plate or mail, since all you have to do is lace together those little lames, and you don't need skilled labor for that (just to make the lames which by the 1200's could be mass-produced with machine power).






As for all you people arguing about bomber hariss and the WW II terror bombing, you should really listen to Dan Carlin on that subject. If you are into history at all, particularly WW I, the Mongols, ancient Greece, or the Romans, run don't walk to download his stuff. I promise you, you will learn new things and be very entertained in the process. Trust me on this one if you ever learned anything from any of my posts.

G

[theasl]

Were Roman centurions and other officers armed the same way as the legionaries (post-Marian reforms)? From my admittedly cursory searches, I can only find that they had a gladius, but worn on the left instead of the right as a sign of rank, and that they used shields (presumably the standard scutum). Presumably they would have used the same armor as the normal legionaries, as well, but I can find no mention of any other weapons (javelins, for example) or armor.

[Storm Bringer]

Were Roman centurions and other officers armed the same way as the legionaries (post-Marian reforms)? From my admittedly cursory searches, I can only find that they had a gladius, but worn on the left instead of the right as a sign of rank, and that they used shields (presumably the standard scutum). Presumably they would have used the same armor as the normal legionaries, as well, but I can find no mention of any other weapons (javelins, for example) or armor.

they appear to have worn similar types of armour, with additional badges of rank (for example, centurions wore a helmet plume running left to right, rather then front to back like the troops). that stick the man in the photo is carrying is another badge of rank, similar to swagger sticks or the British armies pace stick.

Shields were used, but they might have used different types of shield, again as a badge of rank. Centurions would have javelins and such, but the higher ranked officers would not, as they would not be expected to lead charges and such (that's the centurions job), so they had a sword and shield for self defence.

[Martin Greywolf]

Armor prices strike once again.

1) Available iron

This wasn't that much of a problem, most of the time. Iron is one of the most abundant substances on this planet, even on the surface, and many, many places have it. It may not always be iron that's all that good for weapons or armor, but it's still servicable - take Japan as an example of such a situation.

Where you don't see iron armor is where people don't really have technology to make it - this could be for any number of reasons, and included, at times, steppe nomads. Once they reorganized themselves into societies that could make iron, they promptly did, as can be seen a lot in eastern Europe during migration era.

A place that has good iron ore, however, will swiftly become a centre of trade for arms and armor because of it.

2) How hard is it to make per unit of population

I think people answered how difficult mail and plate are to make per unit, but there's one detail people often forget. Mail is modular to a ridiculous degree. Plate has to be fitted to the individual most of the time, or has to be hampered in one area or another (weight, coverage, mobility, not creating blisters) to compensate. Mail fits all sizes, and can therefore be passed down the generations and down the ranks. If a local lord gets a new suit of mail, fitted to him, he may well give his old one to one of his less rich retainers as a reward.

That means that if you don't have a sudden zombie apocalypse, the total amount of available mail keeps growing, driving the price down.

Moreover, plate is harder to make on a metallurgical level, and if you mess up, you kinda have to toss out the entire component - with mail, you just toss out a few rings.

And lastly, mail is easier to repair if a massive damage was done to it.

The larger point here is that for the more modular types of armor (mail, lamellar, scale), they get cheaper over time if a culture keeps producing them.

3) Armor on racks

Not as silly as you think. As with all things, there were different grades of quality to armor, and while a Ferrari-grade mail has to be fitted, Lada-grade mail was often done by comission, or was stored and issued to militias without any of these concerns. If it fit really, really badly, local armourer/quartermaster/whatever would gladly adjust it or you... for a fee, of course.

So, best of its class armor, no racks, low quality armor yes racks. Especially with quartermasters having more freedom in general, they may well decide to sell you some from the local militia armory.

4) Lamellar and scale

These two types are not used all that much, and for a good reason.

For lamellar, it gives you almost no ability to bend over in it whatsoever, and has a pretty substantial gaps as a result. It was also made of leather reasonably often in case of steppe nomads (for rank and file, top dogs could afford metal lamellar or mail). You could perhaps consider coat-of-plates a direct evolution of lamellar vests, it solved a lot of the mobility and gap problems - mostly because it was worn over mail as an additional level of protection. That said, lamellar is very easy to make, you can do so at home with nothing but leather-sewing kit and some thick leather, or leather string and metal plates.

Scale is more flexible (not as flexible as mail), but has a problem of allowing thrusts from below to bypass a lot of the protection, and is fiddlier to make tham lamellar armor, because scales tend to be pretty small. It was fairly rare, and I'd say it was something of an experimentation of how to solve some problems of lamellar armor. Again, it was worn on top of mail as often as not, just like abovementioned coat-of-plates.

5) Final price

What will determine final price of armor is how used it is in an area. A suit of plate will probably cost a lot less than lamellar in, say, Paris, and high end stuff will cost hell of a lot more than the equipment available to common soldier.

[Kiero]

Were Roman centurions and other officers armed the same way as the legionaries (post-Marian reforms)? From my admittedly cursory searches, I can only find that they had a gladius, but worn on the left instead of the right as a sign of rank, and that they used shields (presumably the standard scutum). Presumably they would have used the same armor as the normal legionaries, as well, but I can find no mention of any other weapons (javelins, for example) or armor.

Centurions were the highest-ranked men expected to participate in the fighting line. Legates and other officers were only ever expected to direct from behind the line, thus armour (and a shield) were less functional in nature. As mentioned, some higher officers wore leather corselets (the sort you'd wear under a bronze cuirass) by itself.

Centurions might wear mail, or scale, or a cuirass. Their equipment wasn't necessarily standard issue like that of their men. They'd be more likely to have heirloom armour, rather than the state's mass-produced stuff (if we're talking late Republican/Principate).

Armor prices strike once again.

1) Available iron

This wasn't that much of a problem, most of the time. Iron is one of the most abundant substances on this planet, even on the surface, and many, many places have it. It may not always be iron that's all that good for weapons or armor, but it's still servicable - take Japan as an example of such a situation.

Where you don't see iron armor is where people don't really have technology to make it - this could be for any number of reasons, and included, at times, steppe nomads. Once they reorganized themselves into societies that could make iron, they promptly did, as can be seen a lot in eastern Europe during migration era.

A place that has good iron ore, however, will swiftly become a centre of trade for arms and armor because of it.

That's overly simplistic. Firstly, the only "technology" you need to work iron once you've got it out of the ground is the ability to make fires hot enough to work it. That means a source of coal or charcoal. Which in much of Europe, occur close to sources of iron, making it easy.

Secondly, nomads don't need to be able to make things themselves to enjoy the usage of them. They can trade, raid or tax/extort them out of settled communities under their "protection". Which is exactly how they equipped themselves, and their nobles had a lot of gold. Nomads don't live in isolation from the settled peoples under areas they ride through, they depend on them for their existence.

Iron is impractical if you're always on the move and frequently under the elements. It rusts. Bronze and other materials are much more durable, and thus preferable if you spend a lot of your life in the saddle.

[Galloglaich]

Ok the production of iron,

To some extent my perspective on this jibes with Greywolf, namely, production of iron is fairly easy -so long as you are just making small pieces of iron. Small pieces of iron lend themselves well to making mail or lamellar, or certain types of coats of plates / integrated metal / textile armor. Iron ore is indeed everywhere but quality varies a great deal. The quality of iron production centers seem to hinge on four factors:

1. Quality of local ore
2. Availability and quality of fuel
3. Quality of materials to make bloomeries / forges
4. Industrial capacity to make large forges

Higher quality ore means less work to 'clean' it up to make pure iron. And pure iron is kind of the starting point to make decent steel. You need very pure iron to make large metal plates. Fuel is a big demand and many areas were deforested to provide fuel for the metal industry. Local materials limited how large bloomeries could be made. More sophisticated societies could make big blast furnaces which were vastly more efficient.

So for example, in the earlier medieval period (migration era through late Carolingian or early High middle) in England a lot of iron was being produced in temporary bloomery forges in large forests. This led directly to the elimination of said forests due to the constant cutting and burning of trees to make charcoal. It also polluted streams which were often used for water-wheel power and / or for sluices to wash ore and various other purposes. Eventually England used up a lot of their forests and the local authorities clamped down on the people making the iron who were often of a kind of roaming outlaw / outcast estate. More permanent iron making industrial systems in the towns existed but weren't as well developed as on the continent until the Early Modern period, though England was also making use of peat and coal for fuel on a significant scale as early as the 12th Century (when we already see regulations being passed to control smog and smoke).

In Sweden, the iron forging was done in the forests as well but along a more systematic manner in rural estates. Their iron industry seems to have benefited a great deal from the presence of local clay that had asbestos in it, making it possible to make larger blomery forges and even blast furnaces. This is actually somewhat similar to Southern India, Sri Lanka and the Punjab region where they made the famous 'wootz' (i.e. "Damascus") steel billets that were exported all over the world, except they had even more special properties in the clay they used for their crucibles including probably trace elements of vanadium and other rare metals. There is also a tribe in Africa, the Haya, that was able to make true steel as early as 50 BCE partly because they were situated near some good clay.

In some towns in Germany (including Rhineland, Swiss, Austrian etc.), Flanders and some of the Slavic Central European polities (notably Czech and Slovak, but also Polish and Hungarian and others) you saw the early development of full scale blast furnaces. This is really key, because the difference between a bloomery forge and an actual blast furnace while mostly boiling down to scale, makes a big difference in both the size and quality of the iron being produced.



So for example here is a probably quite accurate model of a High medieval blast furnace. The tower on the left is the actual furnace. Bricks would be special fire bricks maybe with asbestos or other trace elements and manufacturing techniques to make them able to withstand high-heat. Fuel and ore come in on those small barges in the shallow canals. Medieval Central and Northern Europe had a lot of these canals which linked the various rivers. Though shallow (often as little as 16" - 24") they were sophisticated and had locks etc. The canals were almost like a medieval railroad.

A blast furnace like that could produce large billets of steel, known by various names such as 'osmunds', they were traded all over Europe and well beyond.


This, by contrast, is a simple bloomery forge. Most iron around the world was made in little chimney's like this. Or sometimes directly in the clay-ground by digging a hole. The process is pretty simple, you put fuel in the bottom, ore in the top, light it up and let it 'cook' all night'. The chimney provides air flow to help heat it up to very high level (you need around 2,000+ degrees). The slag melts off first, then you get a puddle of iron, as well as some higher-carbon steel depending on what you cook with it (migration era would put in wolf and bear teeth and bones, which added both carbon and some phosphorous).



Smaller bloomeries create smaller pieces of iron. Also 'dirtier' pieces depending on how good you are at it. There were also larger bloomeries which utilized mechanical air flow, but these again often depended on having the right kind of clay so you can make those really high temperature fire bricks.

This for example (from the 15th Century Schloss Wolfegg housebook) is basically a glorified bloomery, not a true blast furnace, but it can produce fairly large, high quality iron billets. Notice the bricks.



If you have large pieces of iron it's much easier to make large swords and large metal plates. If you have small and 'dirty' pieces of iron coming out of a small and crude bloomery the your smith has to spend hours 'fixing' the iron by hammering out the slag, and then laboriously forge-welding small pieces together to make larger pieces (or bolting them together the way you see on a lot of early migration-era helmets). This means an immensely larger amount of work, with much higher chance of failure, and as Greywolf noted, a mistake can mean having to start all over again.

Especially a pain in the arse if you are having to hammer this iron yourself (as most people would in Europe prior to circa 800 -1200 AD depending where) instead of using a big water-powered trip hammer like in the later medieval world.




So if you are a Scythian nomad or a Mongol, cranking out little bits of iron to distribute around the tribe for people to make into mail or lames isn't too hard. Your main problem is fuel. But if you can find fuel (even peat or dried out dung probably) you can make a simple bloomery forge wherever you camp out for a few weeks. You probably also know good places on your 'circuit' of roaming your territory where there are good places for example that have the right clay, wood for fuel, and a stream.


If you are a Carolingian to High medieval French Lord, you probably want to bring in a Cistercian abbey to set up a nice large scale bloomery where you can make iron, and you may have just the right spot to put it. If you are an Italian City-State or a Flemish, German or Czech Free City, you can maybe build a true blast furnace and make iron armor and weapons on a large scale, with fuel and ore and fire bricks imported from wherever you want them anywhere in the world (including wootz steel billets from India). Swedish peasant clans seem to have also been able to set up these kinds of operations.


On Armor on racks

This did definitely exist, and it was very cheap. often thinner and made of iron rather than steel but definitely affordable. I disagree that mail was exactly 'one size fits all' but it was probably easier than plate armor, yet 'off the rack' plate armor seemed to also exist, including proofed Milanese harnesses which show up in shop inventories as far away from Italy as Poland.

The most common type in Central Europe seems to be the 'platendist', some kind of coat of plates or brigandine.


Generally, the whole social structure and economy, as well as some peculiarities of locally available materials like clay or coal, contribute to the cost, quality and ubiquity of iron, steel, and all ferrous artifacts.

[Galloglaich]

Another Medieval bloomery operation (I think). Looks like a craft guild workshop.



This is a steel billet somewhat similar to the ones they traded in the middle ages, which I forgot to post in the previous post. I think this one is supposed to be wootz though.

[Galloglaich]

Centurions were the highest-ranked men expected to participate in the fighting line. Legates and other officers were only ever expected to direct from behind the line, thus armour (and a shield) were less functional in nature. As mentioned, some higher officers wore leather corselets (the sort you'd wear under a bronze cuirass) by itself.

Centurions might wear mail, or scale, or a cuirass. Their equipment wasn't necessarily standard issue like that of their men. They'd be more likely to have heirloom armour, rather than the state's mass-produced stuff (if we're talking late Republican/Principate).

IIRC there was two types of scale or scale armor, lorica squamata and lorica plumata ('fish scale' and 'bird feather' armor respectively). Not sure if that is what the Romans actually called them but these are the terms used by modern scholars or real deep enthusiasts.

I think this was worn by cavalry and some kind of elite soldiers like signifiers (standard bearers) and maybe Centurians depending on the exact period. I think this stuff was around post-Marian reforms. I can't remember all the details but the finer scale armor (I think that is the plumata but not certain) was a neat design in which tiny scales are bent 90 degrees and actually wired into the mail, so it's actually a combination of mail+scale armor.

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

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

This is plumata I believe, antique



Somebody trying to remake it




G

[BayardSPSR]

Ok the production of iron,

...

Generally, the whole social structure and economy, as well as some peculiarities.

Wow. It wasn't directed at me, but thanks for the fantastic post.

[Galloglaich]

Wow. It wasn't directed at me, but thanks for the fantastic post.

You are very welcome. It's really nice to know that people appreciate the effort.

G

[Martin Greywolf]

That's overly simplistic.

Of course it is. There are entire libraries written about the topic, and we're trying to summarize here.

Firstly, the only "technology" you need to work iron once you've got it out of the ground is the ability to make fires hot enough to work it. That means a source of coal or charcoal. Which in much of Europe, occur close to sources of iron, making it easy.

I think that Galloglaich already demonstrated that you do need certain tech levels to produce good quality iron and steel. Materials are, for the most part, already there, figuring out how to combine them to get arms and armor that work is the trick.

Secondly, nomads don't need to be able to make things themselves to enjoy the usage of them. They can trade, raid or tax/extort them out of settled communities under their "protection". Which is exactly how they equipped themselves, and their nobles had a lot of gold. Nomads don't live in isolation from the settled peoples under areas they ride through, they depend on them for their existence.

Sure, nomads can get steel armor, problem is that it will be much, much more expensive and rare there than in a city that produces it, and we're not talking a few percent either. And it will be of the lower quality and not fitted for the most part, since they can't exactly afford to hang around a city (they may well not be able to conquer the city). Mongols were the exception here rather than the rule, since they did conquer cities that could make good mail and lamellar armor.

Which is why nomadic Cuimans in 1300s still used leather lamellar armor, despite the fact they lived right next to mail-heavy (we're talking most of heavy cavalry has horses armored) Hungary.

Iron is impractical if you're always on the move and frequently under the elements. It rusts. Bronze and other materials are much more durable, and thus preferable if you spend a lot of your life in the saddle.

This is simply not true. It doesn't matter if you're a nomad or European noble, you're spending most of your time in the saddle, and it rains, snows, hails and whatnot on all of your equipment. You have to take care of it no matter what your culture happens to be. The differences between nomads and European soldiers on campaign aren't all that great when it comes to living conditions.

Making sure steel doesn't rust is simply something you have to deal with - the rich deal with it by throwing money at the problem (gold or silver plating), the less rich will have to use lard instead.

This did definitely exist, and it was very cheap. often thinner and made of iron rather than steel but definitely affordable. I disagree that mail was exactly 'one size fits all' but it was probably easier than plate armor, yet 'off the rack' plate armor seemed to also exist, including proofed Milanese harnesses which show up in shop inventories as far away from Italy as Poland.

Mail may not be literally one size fits all, but it's pretty damn close, especially for non-fitted mail. I'd say that it is more universal than modern shirt sizes (S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL). As for off the rack plate, well, depends on what you call plate, cuirasses and some other components are doable (and were done), but full plate needs to be fitted.

[Galloglaich]

This is simply not true. It doesn't matter if you're a nomad or European noble, you're spending most of your time in the saddle, and it rains, snows, hails and whatnot on all of your equipment. You have to take care of it no matter what your culture happens to be. The differences between nomads and European soldiers on campaign aren't all that great when it comes to living conditions.

Making sure steel doesn't rust is simply something you have to deal with - the rich deal with it by throwing money at the problem (gold or silver plating), the less rich will have to use lard instead.

yeah, having to live with your kit out in the elements was apparently a really significant problem. It is one of the reasons for gold or silver plated spurs too.

From the records it sounds like the unarmed servants / valets that accompanied knights or men at arms spent most of their time cleaning and maintaining armor, weapons and horse harness stuff that was getting messed up by weather.

Spoiler: Blackened armor 1470's

Show

I'm not an expert on the metallurgy, but I think what they did for weather proofing plate armor was to 'blacken' the armor or 'bronze' the armor. Blackened plate armor was very common among rank and file soldiers, mercenaries, militia etc. in the 15th Century. It's why the Hungarian 'black army' got it's name, and it was also the reason for the name of at least 10 other mercenary or condotierre or landsknecht companies I know of with names like "Black band" see also this other black band and this one, "black company" and so on. I think the true 'white' harness was only for dudes who were in the field on a more rare basis.

This explains how the process was done

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxzKNLuhxSg

Mail was also heat treated in some kind of (probably similar) way to prevent rust, and all kinds of armor also seems to have been painted. Then when mail got rusty anyway they used to put it in a barrel full of sand, roll it around a bit to scrub the rust off, then put oil on it and heat it a little, and voila, new shiny armor.

And as for textiles, that famous textile armor in the Hebrides and Scotland with doe skin and pitch covering seems to be some kind of weather proofing.

In Asia lacquering armor was common. I think they still had trouble with the threads rotting. I also remember I think Alexander's army had problems with their linothorax getting funky and rotting off their bodies.

G

[Clistenes]

yeah, having to live with your kit out in the elements was apparently a really significant problem. It is one of the reasons for gold or silver plated spurs too.

From the records it sounds like the unarmed servants / valets that accompanied knights or men at arms spent most of their time cleaning and maintaining armor, weapons and horse harness stuff that was getting messed up by weather.

Spoiler: Blackened armor 1470's

Show

I'm not an expert on the metallurgy, but I think what they did for weather proofing plate armor was to 'blacken' the armor or 'bronze' the armor. Blackened plate armor was very common among rank and file soldiers, mercenaries, militia etc. in the 15th Century. It's why the Hungarian 'black army' got it's name, and it was also the reason for the name of at least 10 other mercenary or condotierre or landsknecht companies I know of with names like "Black band" see also this other black band and this one, "black company" and so on. I think the true 'white' harness was only for dudes who were in the field on a more rare basis.

This explains how the process was done

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxzKNLuhxSg

Mail was also heat treated in some kind of (probably similar) way to prevent rust, and all kinds of armor also seems to have been painted. Then when mail got rusty anyway they used to put it in a barrel full of sand, roll it around a bit to scrub the rust off, then put oil on it and heat it a little, and voila, new shiny armor.

And as for textiles, that famous textile armor in the Hebrides and Scotland with doe skin and pitch covering seems to be some kind of weather proofing.

In Asia lacquering armor was common. I think they still had trouble with the threads rotting. I also remember I think Alexander's army had problems with their linothorax getting funky and rotting off their bodies.

G

The soldiers in the spanish Tercios often water-proofed their armor painting it black (probably with cheap pitch-based paint) rather than greasing it with lard, with allowed them to save time and money.

The high command wanted them to keep their armor silvery and shiny, and forbade them to paint their armor black and commanded them to keep it well greased instead, but since the Tercios often had to fight long, hard, deadly campaigns without pay (due to economic troubles) the officers avoided telling those unpaid soldiers to buy lard to grease their armor and turned a blind eye when they painted them black instead... I mean, telling a hungry, unpaid soldier to buy grease for his armor rather than bread for his stomach? yeah, sure way to start a revolt...

[Galloglaich]

The soldiers in the spanish Tercios often water-proofed their armor painting it black (probably with cheap pitch-based paint) rather than greasing it with lard, with allowed them to save time and money.

The high command wanted them to keep their armor silvery and shiny, and forbade them to paint their armor black and commanded them to keep it well greased instead, but since the Tercios often had to fight long, hard, deadly campaigns without pay (due to economic troubles) the officers avoided telling those unpaid soldiers to buy lard to grease their armor and turned a blind eye when they painted them black instead... I mean, telling a hungry, unpaid soldier to buy grease for his armor rather than bread for his stomach? yeah, sure way to start a revolt...

It's incredible how good the Spanish were at keeping troops going on the mere promise of pay (plus whatever loot they could snatch of course) but this seems to have contributed to the reputation of those same Spanish troops toward civilians and captives.

I wonder if they were actually painting them black or 'blackening' them by simply putting oil on them and putting them into the forge (or a camp fire). I've seen some hints of lacquered armor in Europe but I've been shouted down by academics when I have asked about it, according to them it was only done in Asia. There was enough back and forth between Europe and Asia though that it seems likely most technologies especially military related moved around quite a bit.

G

[Lemmy]

What crossbows had the loading/cocking mechanism that gave the biggest bang for your buck... i.e.: What (non-modern) crossbow could be used by someone relatively weak and still deal just as much damage as if it were used by someone stronger?

[Carl]

I would assume Cranquien, but any leverage system is going to be trading Rof for power so it's a tradeoff. ideally you want as much power as you need to hurt your enemies and no more.

[Galloglaich]

What crossbows had the loading/cocking mechanism that gave the biggest bang for your buck... i.e.: What (non-modern) crossbow could be used by someone relatively weak and still deal just as much damage as if it were used by someone stronger?

I would guess belt hook plus foot stirrup with a not-too-powerful crossbow, but that is just a guess. Cranequin seems to be relatively easy in terms of strength if it's a fairly weak crossbow, but from what Leo Tedeschini says it's not so easy with a powerful one. Cranequin's, being expensive, tended to mostly be used when they needed to be. Windlass is probably the easiest I think in terms of pure strength, but both cranequin and windlass require some significant skill / training to use effectively.

Goats foot / wipe type (lever based, so to speak) were used on horseback with weaker crossbows. Even a 150 lb crossbow can be pretty dangerous.

Personally, I've found nearly every method for spanning a crossbow (both replicas of old type ones and modern hunting weapons) that I've ever tried pretty hard, and I'm not a weak person. I suspect it just takes a lot of experience and building up the right (specific) muscle groups.


It's actually similar with fencing. Last weekend I was training a group of guys who came to our fencing practice from a bachelor party. They were all fit and most of them were experienced martial artists, but after a couple of hours of training when we cut them loose to spar with each other, they were having a hard time holding the swords up for fencing after a fairly short interval. Even with small sabers that didn't weigh a lot. It was reminder to me that you have specific muscles that you need to build up to do specific actions, and that takes a little while.

G

[Carl]

I thought the cranequin was the geared one, guessing i got that and windlass confused, lulz.

[Galloglaich]

I thought the cranequin was the geared one, guessing i got that and windlass confused, lulz.

it is the geared one, and i would have assumed it was the easiest but Leo mentioned that it was hard on the high poundage one. It might not have been big enough or made right, I don't know. A lot to learn about all this stuff. I wish I could answer more definitively.

[Carl]

Well it all depends on the gear ratio and diameter of the winding drum and the length of the crank arm. Geared can be inferiour to ungeared if you get enough of that wrong.

[Pauly]

The metallurgy with blackening is that you are creating Fe3O4 oxide (black tarnish) instead of Fe2O3 (active red rust). Fe2O3 flakes off from the underlying steel/iron causing more exposue to air and more rust.

The process is still used to season iron and steel frypans today. The process works better with salt in the oil, which is why its called seasoning.

[Mr Beer]

The metallurgy with blackening is that you are creating Fe3O4 oxide (black tarnish) instead of Fe2O3 (active red rust). Fe2O3 flakes off from the underlying steel/iron causing more exposue to air and more rust.

The process is still used to season iron and steel frypans today. The process works better with salt in the oil, which is why its called seasoning.

Every day is a school day.

[VoxRationis]

Quick question: In a fight between a fleet consisting of Qing-era war junks (of the sort we see Nemesis one-shotting in that one painting) armed with Mysore or Congreve rockets, and a fleet of galleys of no larger than quinquereme size, what sort of numerical advantage would the galleys reasonably need to win?

[Mr Beer]

Quick question: In a fight between a fleet consisting of Qing-era war junks (of the sort we see Nemesis one-shotting in that one painting) armed with Mysore or Congreve rockets, and a fleet of galleys of no larger than quinquereme size, what sort of numerical advantage would the galleys reasonably need to win?

What are the galleys armed with? Where is this engagement taking place? What are the weather and water conditions? Are the opposing fleets starting at maximum effective range for the longest range weapons or closer in? How many fighting crew are there on each vessel and what weapons are they armed with?

[Kiero]

Quick question: In a fight between a fleet consisting of Qing-era war junks (of the sort we see Nemesis one-shotting in that one painting) armed with Mysore or Congreve rockets, and a fleet of galleys of no larger than quinquereme size, what sort of numerical advantage would the galleys reasonably need to win?

They're relying on rockets as their primary weapon? They're almost as likely to hit each other with those as they are what they're aiming at.

Note that by the time fives became the primary warship, they routinely had artillery and often decent-sized marine complements as well (archers and hoplites/legionaries). So the junks are going to be dealing with a hail of iron bolts, then arrow volleys, before being rammed and/or boarded. What a five can't usually do (due to being decked) is empty their benches of oarsmen to act as boarders - that could be another 250 men.

The fives are faster (a galley under oars is faster than a sailing vessel over short distances in all but the most favourable winds for the sailor) and better able to fight. Unless their crews have never seen a rocket before, I think your answer is skewed the wrong way.

Even if you limited the galley fleet to smaller triremes (which often lacked artillery, and couldn't carry many marines), they'd still have archers and the ability to empty their benches to board an enemy vessel. Can a junk deal with each galley potentially disgorging two hundred men in a boarding action?

[VoxRationis]

What are the galleys armed with? Where is this engagement taking place? What are the weather and water conditions? Are the opposing fleets starting at maximum effective range for the longest range weapons or closer in? How many fighting crew are there on each vessel and what weapons are they armed with?

Sorry, that was a paucity of details. I'm basically suggesting a white-room scenario. Just off the coast, no adverse weather, a light steady breeze from the side of the engagement. Everyone starts beyond engagement range but within sight range. Team Galley gets composite bows, swords, spears, and slings. Team Junk gets the same, but also fire lances and fire arrows, and possibly grenades.

They're relying on rockets as their primary weapon? They're almost as likely to hit each other with those as they are what they're aiming at.

Note that by the time fives became the primary warship, they routinely had artillery and often decent-sized marine complements as well (archers and hoplites/legionaries). So the junks are going to be dealing with a hail of iron bolts, then arrow volleys, before being rammed and/or boarded. What a five can't usually do (due to being decked) is empty their benches of oarsmen to act as boarders - that could be another 250 men.

The fives are faster (a galley under oars is faster than a sailing vessel over short distances in all but the most favourable winds for the sailor) and better able to fight. Unless their crews have never seen a rocket before, I think your answer is skewed the wrong way.

Even if you limited the galley fleet to smaller triremes (which often lacked artillery, and couldn't carry many marines), they'd still have archers and the ability to empty their benches to board an enemy vessel. Can a junk deal with each galley potentially disgorging two hundred men in a boarding action?

I said no larger than fives. Dromons and liburnians, or ships like those, are more likely to be found in most cases.

Edit: What I'm really looking for is a good method by commanders would judge whether to commit to naval engagements in a war between these two parties, assuming normal conditions.

[Kiero]

Sorry, that was a paucity of details. I'm basically suggesting a white-room scenario. Just off the coast, no adverse weather, a light steady breeze from the side of the engagement. Everyone starts beyond engagement range but within sight range. Team Galley gets composite bows, swords, spears, and slings. Team Junk gets the same, but also fire lances and fire arrows, and possibly grenades.

A sling is not terribly useful on a ship, why wouldn't team galley have archers?

You know "fire arrows" are largely mythical, right?

I said no larger than fives. Dromons and liburnians, or ships like those, are more likely to be found in most cases.

Edit: What I'm really looking for is a good method by commanders would judge whether to commit to naval engagements in a war between these two parties, assuming normal conditions.

I haven't proposed anything larger than a five, and I said fives (quinquiremes) would probably massacre them. Even threes (triremes) would do well, especially if piloted by Rhodians or Arcanarnian pirates. A junk has nothing on the speed, acceleration and maneuverability of a Mediterranean galley.

Liburnians are smaller even than threes and carry tiny oarsmen complements, that's completely changing the rules of the game.