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

[snowblizz]

Something I've been meaning to ask for a while. When White Harness was popular, how did people know who was who on the battlefield?

The problem is not particular to the period of "White Harness". It's a general problem which only really goes away (mostly) in modern times.

In the 1600s the accepted way to know friend and foe on the battlefield was a fieldsign (green sprig in hat, white armband, straw wreath, etc etc) and passwords. The guys shouting "Maria! Jesus!" were evil Papists, the guys shouting "Gott mit Uns" are your trusted allies. When both side shout "Jesus Hilf Uns" you've got a problem. :D

During the battle of Lützen when the Swedish army was being hard-pressed in the centre and the battleline essentially crumbling as the fog/smoke made it impossible to see far and units wavered since they thought they were alone, they started singing a psalm that no Catholic would ever deign to sign. Which helped units to reform and stragglers to form up since they could now tell they were not alone in a broken army.

Even in the late 1600s and 1700s when sort of uniforms were regular you had battles where there were Royal English troos, so decked out, on both sides, one supporting Stuarts and the French others being Willamites and on the Dutch/Allied side.

[Storm Bringer]

Something I've been meaning to ask for a while. When White Harness was popular, how did people know who was who on the battlefield?

traditionally, they would wear a surcoat, or a Tabard over their armour to identify them, but that would normally have their personal or family coat of arms (or the coat of arms of their employer, for retainers and men at arms), which meant you needed to know your heraldry to identify forces at a distance, and as snowblizz mentions, temporary ID marks like passwords, agreed fieldsigns, etc were used. you can find references to this in contemporary works, like Shakespeare, where Henry V gives us an example of a password ("The game's afoot; Follow your spirit: and upon this charge, Cry — God for Harry! England and Saint George! "), and the Wars of the Roses took their name form a scene in one of Shakespeare's plays, where nobles about to fight in a garden pluck roses form the bushes to show their allengence to a side.

[Haighus]

and the Wars of the Roses took their name form a scene in one of Shakespeare's plays, where nobles about to fight in a garden pluck roses form the bushes to show their allengence to a side.

Huh!? I always thought it was due to the House of Lancaster being represented by a red rose and the House of York having a white rose. Did this only become a thing after Shakespeare?

I spend a lot of time in York, and there are still white roses everywhere in logos and badges, such as in the York Roast company logo. Damn, now I want a roast pork bap.

[Storm Bringer]

Huh!? I always thought it was due to the House of Lancaster being represented by a red rose and the House of York having a white rose. Did this only become a thing after Shakespeare?

I spend a lot of time in York, and there are still white roses everywhere in logos and badges, such as in the York Roast company logo. Damn, now I want a roast pork bap.

yes, but no, but yes, butnobutyes......

the White Rose was an established symbol of the house of York in the wars, but the Red Rose seems to have come into use only at the end of wars. I'll quote the wiki

The name "Wars of the Roses" refers to the heraldic badges associated with the two royal houses, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. Wars of the Roses came into common use in the 19th century after the publication in 1829 of Anne of Geierstein by Sir Walter Scott.[6][7] Scott based the name on a scene in William Shakespeare's play Henry VI, Part 1, set in the gardens of the Temple Church, where a number of noblemen and a lawyer pick red or white roses to show their loyalty to the Lancastrian or Yorkist faction respectively.


The Yorkist faction used the symbol of the white rose from early in the conflict, but the Lancastrian red rose was apparently introduced only after the victory of Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth, when it was combined with the Yorkist white rose to form the Tudor rose, which symbolised the union of the two houses;[8] the origins of the Rose as a cognizance itself stem from Edward I's use of "a golden rose stalked proper." [9] Often, owing to nobles holding multiple titles, more than one badge was used: Edward IV, for example, used both his sun in splendour as Earl of March, but also his father's falcon and fetterlock as Duke of York. Badges were not always distinct; at the Battle of Barnet, Edward's 'sun' was very similar to the Earl of Oxford's Vere star, which caused fateful confusion.[10

[Haighus]

Ahhh, that clears it up, thanks. So it was a case of retrospective symbolism to create the Tudor rose.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

There are at least a couple of notable cases of militarys attacking themselves, though one of the most famous cases is apparently disputed. And I'm sure there are others that went unreported or have been forgotten to time.

Stop slaughtering yourself, why are you slaughtering yourself?

[Vinyadan]

Edward IV, for example, used both his sun in splendour as Earl of March, but also his father's falcon and fetterlock as Duke of York.

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that low'r'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

[Mabn]

So I have another question about Napoleonic warfare that came to me apropos of nothing. I read somewhere that infantry formations of that era only fired in 2 ranks because their guns were so long they had to load them standing up. I've also read that cavalry used shorter guns called carbines that could be more easily reloaded from horseback. So my question is, why not equip infantry with these carbines so they could kneel down while reloading and let the whole formation shoot?

[Haighus]

So I have another question about Napoleonic warfare that came to me apropos of nothing. I read somewhere that infantry formations of that era only fired in 2 ranks because their guns were so long they had to load them standing up. I've also read that cavalry used shorter guns called carbines that could be more easily reloaded from horseback. So my question is, why not equip infantry with these carbines so they could kneel down while reloading and let the whole formation shoot?

I thought the guns were so long so as to poke beyond the heads of the rank in front, and therefore avoid friendly fire. Two or three ranks are about the most ranks you can do this effectively in a dense formation. Also for extra reach when mounting a bayonet for an effective anti-cavalry deterrent.

Early bolt-action rifles were still long for this reason, such as the Lee-Enfield MLE, until it became clear firing in ranks was no longer effective. Then most nations went for a mid-length rifle, like the Lee-Enfield SMLE (short, magazine, Lee-Enfield) versions.

[Andor13]

So I have another question about Napoleonic warfare that came to me apropos of nothing. I read somewhere that infantry formations of that era only fired in 2 ranks because their guns were so long they had to load them standing up. I've also read that cavalry used shorter guns called carbines that could be more easily reloaded from horseback. So my question is, why not equip infantry with these carbines so they could kneel down while reloading and let the whole formation shoot?

Also with the slow burning powders of the day, the longer the barrel, the faster the bullet improving both accuracy and lethality. Once the breech loading rifle had been invented the length of the barrel became fairly immaterial to reloading. Breech loaders are tricky to manufacture en masse however and didn't see widespread use until about the time cartidges had been invented.

[Storm Bringer]

So I have another question about Napoleonic warfare that came to me apropos of nothing. I read somewhere that infantry formations of that era only fired in 2 ranks because their guns were so long they had to load them standing up. I've also read that cavalry used shorter guns called carbines that could be more easily reloaded from horseback. So my question is, why not equip infantry with these carbines so they could kneel down while reloading and let the whole formation shoot?

as Haighus mentioned, they needed the length, plus the shorter barrelled carbine type guns were even less accurate than the "shotgun with only one ball" spread of a regular musket.

also, the standard formation was only 3 ranks deep anyway, precisely to maximise the amount of shooters. 90% of the time, if you see a reference in a battle to a "column" of men that is 10-12 ranks deep and 30-40 men wide, normally, it is a column formed by three or four 3 deep lines "stacked" close to one another, which was supposed to deploy into a line before contact and thus bring every musket to bear.

[Mabn]

as Haighus mentioned, they needed the length, plus the shorter barrelled carbine type guns were even less accurate than the "shotgun with only one ball" spread of a regular musket.

also, the standard formation was only 3 ranks deep anyway, precisely to maximise the amount of shooters. 90% of the time, if you see a reference in a battle to a "column" of men that is 10-12 ranks deep and 30-40 men wide, normally, it is a column formed by three or four 3 deep lines "stacked" close to one another, which was supposed to deploy into a line before contact and thus bring every musket to bear.

If they moved in a column and then spread out when they got in range, didn't the time it took them to get into a line cause them to take a lot of fire from the enemy they were now in range of?

[Storm Bringer]

If they moved in a column and then spread out when they got in range, didn't the time it took them to get into a line cause them to take a lot of fire from the enemy they were now in range of?

again, yesbutnobutyes......

in theory, they would advance in column (which, having a smaller frontage, was easier to manoeuvre and quicker to get where you wanted) to just beyond range, then deploy, then advance into firing range and start shooting.


in practice, it didn't always work like that, for a number of reasons.

you might misjudge the enemies location, deploying too late and under fire

you might be caught by surprise, and have to try and deploy under fire

you might just not bother deploying, and go straight in with cold steel

etc.


bear in mind that rates of fire were only 2-3 rounds a minute, and given the exceedingly poor aim of formed troops of the time, it was quite possible to deploy into line, under fire, and with acceptable losses.

[Kiero]

as Haighus mentioned, they needed the length, plus the shorter barrelled carbine type guns were even less accurate than the "shotgun with only one ball" spread of a regular musket.

also, the standard formation was only 3 ranks deep anyway, precisely to maximise the amount of shooters. 90% of the time, if you see a reference in a battle to a "column" of men that is 10-12 ranks deep and 30-40 men wide, normally, it is a column formed by three or four 3 deep lines "stacked" close to one another, which was supposed to deploy into a line before contact and thus bring every musket to bear.

Indeed, 3 ranks was the standard "line" for most armies of the 18th and 19th century. The British were an exception in using only 2 ranks, and they also trained with live ammunition (which many other nations considered a waste of bullets), so usually had a higher rate of fire. The third rank was basically a reserve to fill out losses and thicken the line against cavalry surprise, they couldn't fire.

[Haighus]

So, I have been watching a series of videos by Matt Easton and Dr Tobias Capwell about a knightly effigy in Suffolk. In the videos, they talk about how this effigy is a great exemplar of a very English style of armour developed during the late 14th and 15th centuries for fighting on foot especially, in the manner favoured by English armies of the time. The effigy was of William Phelip, 6th Baron Bardolf, who was a favoured ally of Henry V and fabulously wealthy (annual income ~£400 apparently, 10 times the average income of an English knight). It can be assumed he could purchase whatever armour he desired.

My understanding of the armour industry of the period was that the best quality armour* in Europe was produced around Augsburg in South Germany and Milan in Northern Italy, which both had distinct styles of their own. Undoubtedly English knights at the time would want to wear the most protective armour they could afford.

Therefore my question is this:
Did England have it's own domestic armour production during the first half of the 15th century capable of creating high-quality tempered steel plate comparable to Augsburg and Milan, or did armourers in the latter two centres make armour to specifications, and in a style ordered by English knights?

To me the latter seems most likely, which would suggest that England had armourers who could design a harness, but couldn't manufacture the best quality plates to best utilise the design? Is a combination possible? That plates were ordered, but only assembled into a full harness once they arrived in England, similar to sword blades being fitted with a hilt on arrival at their destination.

Thanks in advance.



*By best quality, I mean best quality steel used in the armour plates providing optimum protection for the weight.

[wolflance]

A new, probaby stupid question:

How will the existence of "fantasy martial arts" - the kind that allows people to leap high, punch someone inside plate armor to pulp without damaging the armor, and cut through stone with ki-enhanced sword etc, affect pre-modern warfare, equipment, tactics and fortifications?

(for the sake of discussion, let's assume the pinnacle of this fantasy martial arts is roughly comparable to a low level naruto ninja without fancy ninjutsu - a young Rock Lee basically)

[Storm Bringer]

A new, probaby stupid question:

How will the existence of "fantasy martial arts" - the kind that allows people to leap high, punch someone inside plate armor to pulp without damaging the armor, and cut through stone with ki-enhanced sword etc, affect pre-modern warfare, equipment, tactics and fortifications?

(for the sake of discussion, let's assume the pinnacle of this fantasy martial arts is roughly comparable to a low level naruto ninja without fancy ninjutsu - a young Rock Lee basically)

depends on how easy these skills are to acquire.
IMHO, if these skills are limited to a very select few people, and it is possible for one very skilled warrior to take on dozens of lesser skilled regular fighters, then you end up with the Dynasty Warriors situation where it basically comes down to how many ninja types you have, as they will do all the heavy lifting and slice though regular joes like butter.

if so, then an "army" will basically just be the ninjas, plus a few helpers/scouts/etc, as their is no need to put 10,000 men in the field if only 5 of them actually matter. while their will still be regular guards and such for normal policing and such, warfare is still going to revolve solely around the ninjas and their employment.

[Haighus]

depends on how easy these skills are to acquire.
IMHO, if these skills are limited to a very select few people, and it is possible for one very skilled warrior to take on dozens of lesser skilled regular fighters, then you end up with the Dynasty Warriors situation where it basically comes down to how many ninja types you have, as they will do all the heavy lifting and slice though regular joes like butter.

if so, then an "army" will basically just be the ninjas, plus a few helpers/scouts/etc, as their is no need to put 10,000 men in the field if only 5 of them actually matter. while their will still be regular guards and such for normal policing and such, warfare is still going to revolve solely around the ninjas and their employment.

I think it also depends on just how many regular fighters they could defeat, and whether regular fighters are capable of providing meaningful support to the super fighters. If one of the super fighters could take on a hundred people individually, but you only had 5, regular troops would still be worth it as assembling more than 500 troops is not difficult in most eras. Especially if you can use your regular troops to pin down their supers, and take them out/prevent them from stopping your supers from acheiving their objectives.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think the important part might be finding thing they can do that others can't. As in: normal soldiers can kill other soldiers in battle, it's just harder for them. But they have a much harder time replicating the effect of running up the enemy's castle walls unseen at night, or sprinting out across the water to docked enemy ships, or bribing a lord to swear loyalty to the king by power-healing his oldest son who recently fell ill (possibly due to undetectable ninja-poison.

It's like imagining wars with magic users. It's not going to be the fireballs that really turn the tide of wars, because anyone with a bow can make ranged attacks, armies planned around that already.

[Vinyadan]

So, I have been watching a series of videos by Matt Easton and Dr Tobias Capwell about a knightly effigy in Suffolk. In the videos, they talk about how this effigy is a great exemplar of a very English style of armour developed during the late 14th and 15th centuries for fighting on foot especially, in the manner favoured by English armies of the time. The effigy was of William Phelip, 6th Baron Bardolf, who was a favoured ally of Henry V and fabulously wealthy (annual income ~£400 apparently, 10 times the average income of an English knight). It can be assumed he could purchase whatever armour he desired.

My understanding of the armour industry of the period was that the best quality armour* in Europe was produced around Augsburg in South Germany and Milan in Northern Italy, which both had distinct styles of their own. Undoubtedly English knights at the time would want to wear the most protective armour they could afford.

Therefore my question is this:
Did England have it's own domestic armour production during the first half of the 15th century capable of creating high-quality tempered steel plate comparable to Augsburg and Milan, or did armourers in the latter two centres make armour to specifications, and in a style ordered by English knights?

To me the latter seems most likely, which would suggest that England had armourers who could design a harness, but couldn't manufacture the best quality plates to best utilise the design? Is a combination possible? That plates were ordered, but only assembled into a full harness once they arrived in England, similar to sword blades being fitted with a hilt on arrival at their destination.

Thanks in advance.



*By best quality, I mean best quality steel used in the armour plates providing optimum protection for the weight.

I remember reading some inventory of armories in Milan, and the pieces were described by style, like "German" or "Italian". This must have been at the end of the XV century, when there was some crisis going on (to put it simply, armourers were struggling economically, and many of their qualified and underpaid workers ended up in debt, so they run away, or tried to, possibly because of the Duke defaulting on payment). Anyway, workshops producing amours in a style different from that named after their "country" is possible.

I'll see if I can find the source again.

[snowblizz]

My understanding of the armour industry of the period was that the best quality armour* in Europe was produced around Augsburg in South Germany and Milan in Northern Italy, which both had distinct styles of their own. Undoubtedly English knights at the time would want to wear the most protective armour they could afford.

Therefore my question is this:
Did England have it's own domestic armour production during the first half of the 15th century capable of creating high-quality tempered steel plate comparable to Augsburg and Milan, or did armourers in the latter two centres make armour to specifications, and in a style ordered by English knights?

To me the latter seems most likely, which would suggest that England had armourers who could design a harness, but couldn't manufacture the best quality plates to best utilise the design? Is a combination possible? That plates were ordered, but only assembled into a full harness once they arrived in England, similar to sword blades being fitted with a hilt on arrival at their destination.

All of the above. I think when they speak of an English style armour they mean the Grenwich made ones.

Greenwich (sp?) armours are a thing, though it only was founded in 1511. Yes Augsburg and Milan were the most famous centres but that doesn't preclude other places from making equally good or better armours. Augsburg and Milan made huge numbers though, to the best of quality the age would allow for (or the worst if that's how your fancy lay), which is why they are famous. Not because only they were capable of making the quality plates. Masters would be tempted away with lucrative contracts
all the time am sure, which is how Henry 8 started his armoury.

[Haighus]

All of the above. I think when they speak of an English style armour they mean the Grenwich made ones.

Greenwich (sp?) armours are a thing, though it only was founded in 1511. Yes Augsburg and Milan were the most famous centres but that doesn't preclude other places from making equally good or better armours. Augsburg and Milan made huge numbers though, to the best of quality the age would allow for (or the worst if that's how your fancy lay), which is why they are famous. Not because only they were capable of making the quality plates. Masters would be tempted away with lucrative contracts
all the time am sure, which is how Henry 8 started his armoury.

I am specifically referring to the 15th century, prior to the Greenwich armoury being founded. There was an English style before the Greenwich armoury which focussed on design elements for foot combat over mounted combat, and had some aesthetic differences to typical continental harnesses.

In the videos, Dr Capwell talks extensively about how distinctly English the armour portrayed in the effigy was, and I was basically wondering where this stuff was made.

Masters relocated to England would make sense, as would contracted specifications.

[Seharvepernfan]

I know it's fake, but what are these called?

[Haighus]

I know it's fake, but what are these called?

Spoiler

Show

Do you mean the type of sword represented, or the type of practice sword? The shape is of a falchion. I don't know what type of replica it is.

[Storm Bringer]

id call it a falchion, or messer. the image may be of a fake weapon, but the design is authentic enough. similar weapons were common enough, certainly.

[Haighus]

It appears to have a sword-style hilt, so I would say a falchion over a messer.

[Seharvepernfan]

I figured it would be too thin and light to be a falchion.

[Haighus]

I figured it would be too thin and light to be a falchion.

On average, falchions don't weigh more than any other single-handed sword of the same era. The typical falchion (type 1a, see below) has a very thin cross section to make up for the large width.

Here is the full range of falchion/messer blades (the difference is in the hilt). These all weigh about the same on average, single-handed sword weights are remarkable similar throughout the medieval period and beyond- generally between 1 and 3 pounds.

I'd say your sword above is a type 5a falchion with 0 curvature.

[Kiero]

In the story I'm reading at the moment, futuristic types are stranded on a lower-tech world, which is militarily at the level of the Age of Pike and Shot. One of their earliest actions when they gain the confidence of some local forces, is to basically upgrade them to Napoleonic levels (rifled muskets with ring-socket bayonets in place of the smoothbores with plug bayonets they had).

Are there any historical examples of a Napoleonic-style army coming up against one still using pikes?

[Vinyadan]

The Americans used pikes against the British, but that was before Napoleon

Otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

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

saw one side using large quantities of pikes.