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

[Brother Oni]

That is a hilarious weapon! Imagine standing in a battleline, and seeing a bunch of pointy shaking bushes march towards you...

I'm not sure how much defense they would provide against arrows, and it looks like they block the visibility of the wielder as much as opponents. It is basically a mobile wall?

I think someone needs to do some tests!

It's funny until the barbs in the lang xian get hold of your clothing, drag you down and his spearman mate stabs you. It's a formation weapon used in conjunction with others; the mandarin duck formation had shields in front, langxian in second, then spears in the third:

Spoiler: Mandarin duck on the march

Show

Spoiler: Mandarin duck deployed

Show

The 2017 movie God of War has some very good examples of its use (although the spears aren't long enough) and depicts a not well known time in Chinese history - the 16th Century wako (Japanese pirates) raids on China.

[rrgg]

On the subject of pikes and Bayonets, Here's "Pallas Armata" written by military veteren Sir James Turner in the 1670s. In particular I'd look through the chapter on page 173 "Of the offensive Arms or Weapons, used by the Infantry of several Nations" and the chapter on page 178 "Master Lupton's Book against the use of the Pike examined":

https://books.google.com/books?id=0m...page&q&f=false

In particular note that he mentions that the plug bayonet is already a common weapon, and claims that it make for a more effective sidearm than a sword or musket butt. But he still doesn't even consider the possibility that it might allow a musketeer to stop horses or a charging pikeman, and it seems that no one else at the time thought it could either.

Master Lupton's new "invention" doesn't seem to have been any sort of bayonet either, but rather something like a swedish feather, or a musket rest with a long knife blade on one end so that the musketeers may quickly stick them in the ground and create a makeshift barricade of sharpened stakes if they get caught out in the open. However, Even Gustavus only experimented with this weapon for a very short period, and by the time Turner was writing musketeers were no longer using musket rests anyways, so there wasn't really a point.

[Mike_G]

In particular note that he mentions that the plug bayonet is already a common weapon, and claims that it make for a more effective sidearm than a sword or musket butt. But he still doesn't even consider the possibility that it might allow a musketeer to stop horses or a charging pikeman, and it seems that no one else at the time thought it could either.

Bayonets were very effective in discouraging cavalry. Once the pike more or less vanished, musketeers with bayonets, so long as they held firm, generally had little to fear from cavalry charges. If they broke, that was different, but I imagine pikemen out of formation wouldn't do much better.

Was a musket with a bayonet as good as a pike in melee? Maybe not, but who cares? If Napoleonic infantry in square with bayonets could hold off cavalry, it was plenty good enough, and the entire unit was able to fire, instead of just a portion, like a pike and shot army.

[Haighus]

I wonder if the difference comes from the changes in cavalry. When the pike was still prevalent, the kind of armoured heavy cavalry you see in the late medieval era is still on the battlefield, and much more capable of forcing open infantry formations than later, lighter cavalry that is mostly armed with swords. Units like the Polish Hussars are a considerably more formidable opponent for a formed infantry unit than a unit like the British Horse Guards of the Napoleonic wars, depsite both being "heavy" cavalry throughout most their respective eras (the Polish Hussars did start as medium cavalry). The Hussars were even known to break formed pike squares, so I feel they would be capable of breaking bayonet-armed squares much more easily.

However, such heavy cavalry is obviously a much greater investment of resources than the later kind, and I think this is why it fades away, and then concurrently the need for pikes declines. Even the French Curaissiers of later times, despite being the heaviest cavalry around, were not as well armoured and equipped as earlier cavalry. All the later cavalry was essentially medium-to-light cavalry by pike-and-shot standards, and I think truly heavy cavalry is a big reason bayonets were not adopted earlier.

[rrgg]

Bayonets were very effective in discouraging cavalry. Once the pike more or less vanished, musketeers with bayonets, so long as they held firm, generally had little to fear from cavalry charges. If they broke, that was different, but I imagine pikemen out of formation wouldn't do much better.

Was a musket with a bayonet as good as a pike in melee? Maybe not, but who cares? If Napoleonic infantry in square with bayonets could hold off cavalry, it was plenty good enough, and the entire unit was able to fire, instead of just a portion, like a pike and shot army.

"so long as they held firm" being the key phrase here. If you went back in time to the early 17th century how are you going to convince anyone that a thin line of unarmored infantry holding short muskets and bayonets would be enough against cavalry when they have many examples of even solid pike squares being broken up by cavalry charges? Even if you were somehow able to force people to put the theory into practice, if even a few of the soldiers still hold reservation about your claims and decide to throw down their weapons and run instead of standing firm then the rest of the formation is going to collapse anyways.

I just don't think that it's a very likely premise.

[wolflance]

It's funny until the barbs in the lang xian get hold of your clothing, drag you down and his spearman mate stabs you. It's a formation weapon used in conjunction with others; the mandarin duck formation had shields in front, langxian in second, then spears in the third:

Spoiler: Mandarin duck on the march

Show

Spoiler: Mandarin duck deployed

Show

The 2017 movie God of War has some very good examples of its use (although the spears aren't long enough) and depicts a not well known time in Chinese history - the 16th Century wako (Japanese pirates) raids on China.

I chuckled at the manga-style drawings at the start of that trailer. Seriously??

[Togath]

Possibly relevant to this thread... could anyone help me figure out some rough speeds for 1700s sailing ships?
I'm running a sea travel heavy campaign, and realizing my knowledge of how fast various sizes and types might go is... pretty dang limited. My only irl sailing experience was a 30ft modern sailboat in light winds.
I'm mostly trying to figure out transit times right now between islands in an archipelago(which range from about 9-19 miles apart from eachother), though areas of more wide open sea travel may come into play later.

[Brother Oni]

I chuckled at the manga-style drawings at the start of that trailer. Seriously??

Yeah, mainland Chinese movies are about 30 years behind in terms of presentation.

Take a look at Wolf Warrior, which broke mainland box office records - it's essentially an 80s action movie done in 2015, although unlike the Expendables, it's done seriously. If you haven't figured the plot of Wolf Warrior and who's going to die after 2 minutes of their introduction, you're not paying attention.
On a more serious note, there's a unpleasant theme of Chinese jingoism running throughout Wolf Warrior, but that's beyond the remit of these boards.

Possibly relevant to this thread... could anyone help me figure out some rough speeds for 1700s sailing ships?
I'm running a sea travel heavy campaign, and realizing my knowledge of how fast various sizes and types might go is... pretty dang limited. My only irl sailing experience was a 30ft modern sailboat in light winds.
I'm mostly trying to figure out transit times right now between islands in an archipelago(which range from about 9-19 miles apart from eachother), though areas of more wide open sea travel may come into play later.

Depends very much on the wind and the type of ship. For a rough rule of thumb, top speed is 15 knots for a packet (message carrying) ship, 5 for merchantman.

Early 1700s Royal Navy ships averaged between between 2 and 4 knots (gentle breeze (force 3) to strong breeze (force 6)), while late 1700s ships got between 3-7 knots at the same conditions due to the introduction of copper bottoms after 1780 (the ship's hull under the waterline was plated in copper) and other improvements (link). Dutch and Spanish ships never really improved from the 17th to the 19th Century.

The HMS Victory, a 104 gun, first rate ship of the line, went into the Battle of Trafalgar at about 3 knots, and the HMS Lowestoffe, a 32-gun fifth-rate frigate, averaged 4 knots between Plymouth in England to the West Indies and back (8076 miles).

Cargo ships would travel slower than packet ships, but be careful of the 'bigger = slower' equivalence as larger ships have more sail and can thus take more advantage of the wind - the extreme clipper Sovereign of the Seas had a displacement of 2421 tons and held the sailing ship record of 22 knots for a century, while the later clipper Cutty Sark was logged at 17.5 knots, with a displacement of 2100 tons.

With regard to your transit time between two islands, it depends on the route. Is it a straight line with minimal hazards, or are there shoals and shallow seas to worry about? A slower, but lighter displacement ship could navigate these shoals and be quicker by taking a shorter route that a faster but heavier ship can't follow through. Are there prevailing winds in a particular direction, so A to B is faster than B to A for a ship under sail? Are there oared ships which would do A to B more slowly, but B to A faster?
Depending on how tall the ship is, some of the islands may be out of sight of each other (the height of the Cutty Sark's main mast is 154ft, giving a distance to horizon of ~12.5 nautical miles, if the lookout climbed to the very top), so navigation may potentially be an issue, which is a vast and complex topic, although a ship of the Cutty Sark's height wouldn't have any problems as she will always be in sight of an island.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, mainland Chinese movies are about 30 years behind in terms of presentation.

Take a look at Wolf Warrior, which broke mainland box office records - it's essentially an 80s action movie done in 2015, although unlike the Expendables, it's done seriously. If you haven't figured the plot of Wolf Warrior and who's going to die after 2 minutes of their introduction, you're not paying attention.
On a more serious note, there's a unpleasant theme of Chinese jingoism running throughout Wolf Warrior, but that's beyond the remit of these boards.



Depends very much on the wind and the type of ship. For a rough rule of thumb, top speed is 15 knots for a packet (message carrying) ship, 5 for merchantman.

Early 1700s Royal Navy ships averaged between between 2 and 4 knots (gentle breeze (force 3) to strong breeze (force 6)), while late 1700s ships got between 3-7 knots at the same conditions due to the introduction of copper bottoms after 1780 (the ship's hull under the waterline was plated in copper) and other improvements (link). Dutch and Spanish ships never really improved from the 17th to the 19th Century.

The HMS Victory, a 104 gun, first rate ship of the line, went into the Battle of Trafalgar at about 3 knots, and the HMS Lowestoffe, a 32-gun fifth-rate frigate, averaged 4 knots between Plymouth in England to the West Indies and back (8076 miles).

Cargo ships would travel slower than packet ships, but be careful of the 'bigger = slower' equivalence as larger ships have more sail and can thus take more advantage of the wind - the extreme clipper Sovereign of the Seas had a displacement of 2421 tons and held the sailing ship record of 22 knots for a century, while the later clipper Cutty Sark was logged at 17.5 knots, with a displacement of 2100 tons.

With regard to your transit time between two islands, it depends on the route. Is it a straight line with minimal hazards, or are there shoals and shallow seas to worry about? A slower, but lighter displacement ship could navigate these shoals and be quicker by taking a shorter route that a faster but heavier ship can't follow through. Are there prevailing winds in a particular direction, so A to B is faster than B to A for a ship under sail? Are there oared ships which would do A to B more slowly, but B to A faster?
Depending on how tall the ship is, some of the islands may be out of sight of each other (the height of the Cutty Sark's main mast is 154ft, giving a distance to horizon of ~12.5 nautical miles, if the lookout climbed to the very top), so navigation may potentially be an issue, which is a vast and complex topic, although a ship of the Cutty Sark's height wouldn't have any problems as she will always be in sight of an island.

Wow great post Brother Oni, very interesting. Do you have stats for galleys and viking style ships as well?

G

[Galloglaich]

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.

Very interesting, hadn't seen this typology before thanks for posting!

That said, per whoever asked about a list of typologies, I have seen some quite complex messer and rapier typologies, I can't remember the names but I believe you can find them on Myarmoury somewhere. There is also the peterson typology for Viking / Frankish swords.

G

[Galloglaich]

What is the purpose of a two-handed sword (of the European variety, if it makes any difference)? I've seen videos of people sparring with them, and I get that the video game version of them cleaving through masses of people like a farmer reaping wheat isn't accurate, so what is the point of such a weapon? This thread can be a bit dismissive of swords, so I'm expecting a lot of "there is no point; it's merely prestige," but surely there must have been some tactical thought process behind the desire to make a two-handed sword.

I think it's a good question and we have already seen some good answers, here is my $0.02. This also pertains somewhat to the Macuhuitil question.

A European style (strait, two-edged, two handed, featuring a pommel of some kind and some kind of cross or other substantial hand protection) two handed sword serves different purposes depending on the specific sub-type, but I would break them down three ways:

1. The personal defense longsword, used both as a civilian and military sidearm (with many subvariants)
2. The cavalryman's longsword designed to be used from horseback
3. The true two-handed or infantry longsword, aka montante, zweihander, spadone, spada a due mani, claymore etc.

In all three cases, I agree to some extent with whoever (I lost track I'm sorry!) pointed out that a sword is a lever. What is unique about the European longsword in particular, in all three varieties listed above, is the combination of two edges with the hand protection, plus typically a sharp point as well.

The main difference between a longsword and any other kind of sword is it's utility for attacking with both edges. If you ever tried to use something shaped roughly like a two-handed sword in LARP, SCA, or some other non-historical based fighting sport or game, you probably figured out pretty quickly why most people prefer sword and shield or some kind of polearm; namely the bigger sword has the reach - if not as good as a spear- but it will get bound up on an enemy shield or weapon and then you don't know what to do.

In actual trained fencing systems, i.e. Liechtenauer, Fiore, your various Iberian traditions and so on, where you see the use of a longsword you also see extensive use of both edges. In the German / Liechtenauer system the obvious examples can be found in the master-cuts, the zwerchau and the shielhau for example, give you the ability to cut rapidly with the false edge or mutate an attack from a true edge cut to a false edge cut when it is intercepted. Many of these techniques take advantage of the cross guard and wouldn't work as reliably, due to risks to the hands, without it.

So they are taking advantage of the unique properties of a European sword. These (and only these) techniques are what really differentiate European fencing systems from say, Japanese, Chinese, Sikh or Filipino.

I agree with others who posted already in answering this query, that swords in general were very important weapons even though usually sidearms. People really tend to get stuck on this nuance. Yes the lance was the most important weapon for the knight, and yes the spear/pike/halberd/bow/crossbow/gun was the most important weapon for the infantryman. But lances broke, guns and crossbows weren't fast enough for close combat, pikes weren't good close in either, and so on.

You can see how masters like George Silver break down the roles of each weapon - many masters did that in fact if they were not always so definitive. The records of violence also tell us a tale. From reading hundreds of first-hand accounts, coroners reports, lawsuit details, city council interrogations and so on from the 15th and 16th Centuries as related to hand to hand combat, my conclusion is that in general, the main role or niche of the sword was for protection of the wielder. It was to protect you, i.e. by parrying, while threatening your enemy with a cut or a thrust. It gave you that all important fighting chance after your lance or halberd broke, or once the formation broke up, or when someone threatened you in a bar, or when robbers accosted you on the lonely forest road.

So while the dagger is (perhaps surprisingly to a modern mind) more likely, statistically to cause a persons death in a given incident of personal violence, and lances and pikes were more decisive on the battlefield, aside from wearing body armor or riding on a horse, carrying and knowing how to use a sword was your best insurance against getting cut, smashed or stabbed yourself. Swords are surprisingly effective at parrying attacks. Even relatively small ones. Sabers are also quite good for this incidentally. Most other weapons not quite as much - in part because they lack the hand protection.

What differentiates a longsword from another type of sword is a bit harder to define, but we can see certain things.

• We know from period records that it was harder to learn to fight with a longsword. Contracts between towns and fencing masters for example tell us that the latter charged more and took more time to train people in longsword than for other weapons. So whatever speculation we make about what the specific advantages were, we can presume there were some or why else would people bother to undergo the extra effort.
• We can also observe that elite warriors, both from the nobility and burghers or common mercenaries, used longswords as sidearms by preference to other types, during the heyday of it's use - roughly equivalent to the time plate armor was in use. So this reinforces the idea that it had 'extra' value.
• A longsword has more reach than most other type of swords, but not all. Some single-handed swords also had very good reach, rapiers obviously but also some single handed arming swords or backswords, and reaching out with a single hand in an attack can in and of itself give you a bit more stretch than you can get when gripping with two hands.
• However if you reach out to me to your fullest extent of reach with say, a backsword, and I parry with a longsword, I do have better leverage, I can work from the bind and stab you by plunging my point or winding; I can beat your sword aside and cut you; and I can cut with my false-edge.

Ultimately I would say that the longsword was more versatile and also usually had longer reach / range than most other swords; it also arguably conferred more of an advantage (or gave you more of a fighting chance) against weapons like spears, halberds, lances or pikes - though a shield is helpful against longer weapons too.

But shields are heavy and bulky. A sword, even a longsword can be carried on the hip.

The exceptions are the #2 and #3 from my list. The cavalry-specialist longsword (#2) is used for defense, but the balance of factors favors causing more damage - I suspect in part against horses. I.e. it's designed to give you a chance to parry spear or lance thrusts too, but mainly to cause serious wounds to your enemies. These swords tend to be heavier and more formidable than ordinary longswords.

The #2 longsword, the montante or true two-hander, has one specific role as stated by many of the fencing manuals, one which you can see in period art, as well as another one I am just guessing at. The first role you see mentioned ,for example in most of the Iberian montante manuals, is for "when few must contend with many". The montante can be used to fight off crowds of enemies -and they train extensively on how to do that which is one of the cool things about the Iberian manuals in particular- and conversely it can be used to attack VIP's.

We also do have some evidence that big two handed swords were used against pikes. Most recently I saw depictions of this in a 16th Century Scottish book I had the good fortune to be able to look at a bit while doing a lecture in Amherst last year.

The third type relates to the Macuhuitil discussion - namely the idea of horse-killing. A big zweihander is somewhat overlkill for attacking a person. No, it sill probably won't cut through armor, but it will hack through a hell of a lot of meat and bone. And spear hafts and shields and so on. But I suspect a single cut from a zweihander will probably disable a horse, cut off it's leg, hack half (or all) of it's head off etc.

And the equivalent weapons in China, Korea and Japan - the maio dao, nodachi / odachi, and zhanmadao etc. were closely associated with killing horses.

The Zhanmadao literally means "horse killing sword" if I understand correctly. And this makes sense to me.

Even a mortally wounded horse can still carry its rider to safety, but a horse with a decapitated leg or half it's head sheared off cannot.
Horses in Europe were usually at least in part protected by textile armor, I suspect that is also the case in many other parts of the world. A really big sword like a six foot zweihander can probably more easily shear through textile armor than a smaller weapon.

Now do I think a wood and obsidian macuhuitil or equivalent weapon could literally hack a horses head clean off? Probably not, but I can easily see how the Spanish, for whom their horses were a very rare and extremely valuable weapon, would be very concerned about any weapon which could quickly disable one of their horses and make immediate note of this potential once observed.

But this might also confer some extra 'authority' on a small forlorn hope of two-handed sword wielding dopllesoldners on some 15th Century battlefield in Europe - you may think twice about trying to ride them down if you know they can kill your horse with one stroke.

I think this is also incidentally one of the main roles of the heavier types of European crossbow.

G

[Knaight]

Now do I think a wood and obsidian macuhuitil or equivalent weapon could literally hack a horses head clean off? Probably not, but I can easily see how the Spanish, for whom their horses were a very rare and extremely valuable weapon, would be very concerned about any weapon which could quickly disable one of their horses and make immediate note of this potential once observed.

Hacking the head clean off is also pretty excessive - it's not like cutting all the way through just the lowest third of the neck isn't going to kill the horse pretty quickly.

[Galloglaich]

Hi Galloglaich,

I assure you that I'm not confused, I haven't been moving goalposts to win an argument, I haven't been over-relying on primary sources or modern testing, and I'm not the one who posted a youtube video about a suit of armor made at Greenwich, England in 1588 for Lord Compton (**** quality, according to Alan Williams), which features two overlapping breastplates designed specifically to improve protection against firearms rather than to increase flexibility, and then began implying that this test provides rock-solid proof for your assumptions about armor in the 15th century.

To be absolutely clear, I do not think you are dumb. I think you are an extremely reasonable and well-informed individual who I have learned a lot from over the years, which is why I've kept coming back to try to better explain some of my main points rather than giving up to do something else because I hate typing and it's just a stupid internet argument.

Rrgg - I appreciate your friendly gesture in this post, I still disagree with you about what we were discussing but I'll get back to that.

I haven't replied in a while simply because real life pulled me away from the computer for a few days. Does that sometimes! In fact whenever these conversations seem to heat up I am really in a bad position to keep up. This one started when I was in Italy and then continued through some busy weeks for me, so I just have to quit while I'm ahead (or think I am). Ultimately it's one of those "Half way wrong" vs. "Half way right" conversations that can go on forever.

My general point, aside from the specifics which I think we beat to death (at some point, nobody else is reading the argument any more right?) is that even though medieval history is much harder to understand than Early Modern, it's worth the effort. I do think you were letting some concepts from the modern era cloud your understanding of the earlier one, because the earlier just doesn't fit.

To understand the 14th or 15th Century you do have to ditch your modern perceptions on almost everything especially for Late Medieval, forget pretty much everything you learned in school, picked up from RPG's and video games, and saw on TV or in movies, and you have to move beyond England and France, but it's really rewarding to do so and even the Early Modern stuff will make a lot more sense since medieval culture, political and economic systems and military systems took decades, in some cases centuries to wind down.

For me, learning a bit about the Late medieval world was extremely humbling and awe inspiring but also very rewarding. It took me ten years to get even a basic, marginal toe-hold on it (I cannot honestly claim to be an expert) but I and others have made a lot of effort to make this process easier for others with similar interests. The internet is not purely a benign thing and I am no techno-utopian, but for research it has given us some really fantastic gifts. The time you spend reading turgid military manuals from the 1600's could lead you pretty deep into this (IMHO) much more rewarding and interesting world. And I would just like to recommend it, you clearly have the chops to find your way there.

G

[Galloglaich]

Hacking the head clean off is also pretty excessive - it's not like cutting all the way through just the lowest third of the neck isn't going to kill the horse pretty quickly.

Yes exactly. All you have to do is cause a horrible wound of the types which give ER physicians nightmares. A four foot longsword can do that pretty easily to a human; a six foot sword can (I suspect) easily do that to a horse.

I think maybe this is part of the reason for falchions too.

G

[Brother Oni]

Wow great post Brother Oni, very interesting. Do you have stats for galleys and viking style ships as well?

I know of a replica viking ship hitting 14 knots, although it wasn't the smoothest of voyages to say the least: link.
They go faster under sail than with oars, but if the wind isn't great they can either supplement or replace it entirely, keeping up their average speed. On average, they'd normally do 5-8 knots; the Viking Ship Museum in Denmark has recovered 6 ships that had been scuttled to block a port circa 1070:

• Skuldelev 1. Ocean-going trader, dated to ca. 1030. Crew: 6-8. Average speed: 5-7 kts. Top speed: 13 kts.
• Skuldelev 2. Great longship, 1042. Crew: 65-70. Avg speed: 6-8 kts. Top speed: 13-17 kts.
• Skuldelev 3. Coastal trader, ca. 1040. Crew: 5-8. Avg speed: 4-5 kts. Top speed: 8-10 kts.
• Skuldelev 5. Small longship, ca. 1030. Crew: 30. Avg speed: 6-7 kts. Top speed: 15 kts.
• Skuldelev 6. Fishing vessel, ca. 1030. Crew: 5-15. Avg speed: 4-5 kts. Top speed: 9-12 kts.

If a monk on the shore spotted the Skuldelev 2 at the horizon (~2.5 nautical miles), with its top speed and shallow draft, the vikings could have boots on the ground in as little as 9 minutes.
As the source I found said, not a good day to be a monk.

I wasn't entirely sure what you meant by galley (ancient or medieval), but from previous threads, I think you meant ancient as you're well versed in medieval ones. I found this link on ancient ships; the TL,DR is 1-3 knots average under unfavourable winds, 3-5 average under favourable ones. Bear in mind that these ships are intended for the Mediterranean so can't handle the stronger winds and rougher conditions you'd typically see out in the Atlantic, without hugging the coast for dear life.

[Vinyadan]

For something completely different: I was reading about the battle of Delium in 424, which saw Thebes vs Athens within the Peloponnesian War. There are a couple of interesting things. One is that an elite group fielded by the Thebans, possibly the Sacred Band or its precursor, was composed of "charioteers and footmen", the actual term for footmen meaning "those who run beside the chariot/accompany it". It probably was the retention of a name from times when chariots were still a thing in the military, and possibly "charioteers" referred to a social class of people who once could have afforded to fight on a chariot.

The more interesting fact is that the Thebans had a flamethrower.

Thuc. 4.100
Meanwhile the Boeotians at once sent for darters and slingers from the Malian gulf, and with two thousand Corinthian heavy infantry who had joined them after the battle, the Peloponnesian garrison which had evacuated Nisaea, and some Megarians with them, marched against Delium, and attacked the fort, and after divers efforts finally succeeded in taking it by an engine of the following description. [2] They sawed in two and scooped out a great beam from end to end, and fitting it nicely together again like a pipe, hung by chains a cauldron at one extremity, with which communicated an iron tube projecting from the beam, which was itself in great part plated with iron. [3] This they brought up from a distance upon carts to the part of the wall principally composed of vines and timber, and when it was near, inserted huge bellows into their end of the beam and blew with them. [4] The blast passing closely confined into the cauldron, which was filled with lighted coals, sulphur and pitch, made a great blaze, and set fire to the wall, which soon became untenable for its defenders, who left it and fled; and in this way the fort was taken. [5] Of the garrison some were killed and two hundred made prisoners; most of the rest got on board their ships and returned home.

[Haighus]

Very interesting, hadn't seen this typology before thanks for posting!

That said, per whoever asked about a list of typologies, I have seen some quite complex messer and rapier typologies, I can't remember the names but I believe you can find them on Myarmoury somewhere. There is also the peterson typology for Viking / Frankish swords.

G

It is the Elmslie typology for categorising falchions and messers, and is pretty recent on the scene, although James Elmslie has been compiling the research for years if I remember correctly. The pommel classifications for the falchions and the crossguards are drawn from the Oakeshotte typology I believe, as there is not really any difference.

The image above was produced by Shadiversity in partnership with Elmslie, as a nice image to promote the research and typology. I think the series of videos Shad produced on this were some of his very best, as it is based upon the work of an expert who has been working on this area for an extended period.

The take-home point is that falchions and messers are functionally the same weapon, the only real difference is how the blade is hilted (sword hilt or knife hilt). Almost all of the blade types above can be found on either a falchion or a messer hilt somewhere in actual examples or artwork. I think the type 1 blades are the exception, and some of those are only found depicted in artwork as falchions, with no surviving examples at all to date.

(at some point, nobody else is reading the argument any more right?)
G

Wrong ;) I actually find the arguments some of the most interesting discussions in this thread, because dissenting, scientific approaches to topics brings real progress and reasoning, which an observer reading can learn a lot from, and form their own opinions somewhere on the spectrum presented.

The fact a lot of primary and archaelogical sources are dredged up in such discussions is also very helpful.

Wow great post Brother Oni, very interesting. Do you have stats for galleys and viking style ships as well?

G

I agree, this is interesting data, and great for crafting realistic military campaigns.

Also interesting to note how much slower ancient galleys are than viking longships, which are essentially the same principle (lightweight rowed-and-sailed ship), although obviously different shapes, with different requirements and underlying tech levels. How fast are medieval galleys?

[Max_Killjoy]

For something completely different: I was reading about the battle of Delium in 424, which saw Thebes vs Athens within the Peloponnesian War. There are a couple of interesting things. One is that an elite group fielded by the Thebans, possibly the Sacred Band or its precursor, was composed of "charioteers and footmen", the actual term for footmen meaning "those who run beside the chariot/accompany it". It probably was the retention of a name from times when chariots were still a thing in the military, and possibly "charioteers" referred to a social class of people who once could have afforded to fight on a chariot.

The more interesting fact is that the Thebans had a flamethrower.

I've seen that tested on some show, I'll see if I can find the reference at least.

Spoiler

Show

[wolflance]

Yes exactly. All you have to do is cause a horrible wound of the types which give ER physicians nightmares. A four foot longsword can do that pretty easily to a human; a six foot sword can (I suspect) easily do that to a horse.

I think maybe this is part of the reason for falchions too.

G

Actually the best, sure-fire way to kill a horse is to cut its leg/legs. Took the cavalry immediately out of action, and leg wound is usually fatal to the horse.

[Gnoman]

Early 1700s Royal Navy ships averaged between between 2 and 4 knots (gentle breeze (force 3) to strong breeze (force 6)), while late 1700s ships got between 3-7 knots at the same conditions due to the introduction of copper bottoms after 1780 (the ship's hull under the waterline was plated in copper) and other improvements (link).

Note that this figures probably assume a clean bottom. The primary improvement caused by a coppered bottom is that copper is toxic to most forms of sea life, which prevents said sea life from growing on the ship and slowing it down.

[Deepbluediver]

Actually the best, sure-fire way to kill a horse is to cut its leg/legs. Took the cavalry immediately out of action, and leg wound is usually fatal to the horse.

Do you mean it was immediately fatal, or just that the horse was probably crippled for life so it was EFFECTIVELY fatal? I thought I read somewhere that horses, and lots of creatures in fact, don't heal the way humans do. We've got overactive scar-tissue, self-strengthening bones, and of course the ability to sit still for 6 weeks while someone else takes care of us.
So a horse breaking it's leg wasn't necessarily a death-sentence, it's just that if you spent months nursing it back to health, it MIGHT someday be able to walk again, but it would never run, and therefore it wasn't worth the effort.

I could be wrong, though.

Note that this figures probably assume a clean bottom. The primary improvement caused by a coppered bottom is that copper is toxic to most forms of sea life, which prevents said sea life from growing on the ship and slowing it down.

How often did it have to be replaced? I'm pretty sure that salt-water corrodes copper even faster than it does iron.
Also, how thick, approximately, was a copper-bottom? I'm picturing thin sheets almost like aluminum-foil but was it thick enough to add significantly to the weight of the vessel?

[Max_Killjoy]

How often did it have to be replaced? I'm pretty sure that salt-water corrodes copper even faster than it does iron.
Also, how thick, approximately, was a copper-bottom? I'm picturing thin sheets almost like aluminum-foil but was it thick enough to add significantly to the weight of the vessel?

Copper forms that green patina layer instead of a flaky rust, and that protects the metal from further corrosion instead of exposing more metal underneath.

The sheets were (apocryphally?) thick enough that they stopped the American revolutionaries' "Turtle" submarine from drilling into the wood to attach a bomb to the bottom of a British ship in NY harbor.

[wolflance]

Do you mean it was immediately fatal, or just that the horse was probably crippled for life so it was EFFECTIVELY fatal? I thought I read somewhere that horses, and lots of creatures in fact, don't heal the way humans do. We've got overactive scar-tissue, self-strengthening bones, and of course the ability to sit still for 6 weeks while someone else takes care of us.
So a horse breaking it's leg wasn't necessarily a death-sentence, it's just that if you spent months nursing it back to health, it MIGHT someday be able to walk again, but it would never run, and therefore it wasn't worth the effort.

I could be wrong, though.

It is not immediately fatal but the horse will likely die from it eventually (instead of crippled for life like a human with leg injuries). With modern medical technology, it is possible to heal *SOME* horse leg injuries, but most horses are still put to sleep after leg injuries even today (as the alternative might be a slow and agonizing death).

Pre-modern people/horses had no such luxury of modern medicals, and intentional injury caused by hostile humans would likely be the not-treatable kind (no horse can survive having one of its legs chopped off, for example).

So a horse might be able to remain combat-effective even after you shoot it with multiple arrows or even musket shots (even if it is fatally woulded in the process). But an injured leg? One less cavalry to worry about.

"so long as they held firm" being the key phrase here. If you went back in time to the early 17th century how are you going to convince anyone that a thin line of unarmored infantry holding short muskets and bayonets would be enough against cavalry when they have many examples of even solid pike squares being broken up by cavalry charges? Even if you were somehow able to force people to put the theory into practice, if even a few of the soldiers still hold reservation about your claims and decide to throw down their weapons and run instead of standing firm then the rest of the formation is going to collapse anyways.

I just don't think that it's a very likely premise.

Additionally, even if they DID held firm with utmost conviction, unarmored infantry with bayonets had a snowball's chance against the kind of charge performed by 16-17th century cavalry like winged hussars or demi-lancers. To begin with, a musket + bayonet is way too short compared to a cavalry lance, and the troops lacked (munition) breastplate to stop the lance strike.

(Well, if you shoot them with more advanced 19th century musketry/musket tactics until the cavalry broke before completing the charge, that'd be another story...)

[VoxRationis]

G

Thank you very much.

[Brother Oni]

How fast are medieval galleys?

From what I can find, it's 3-4 knots on average, but I can't verify that value. Galloglaich is our expert on medieval galleys operating in the Baltic.

Also, how thick, approximately, was a copper-bottom? I'm picturing thin sheets almost like aluminum-foil but was it thick enough to add significantly to the weight of the vessel?

As Max_Killjoy said, copper forms a protective layer of verdigris, so further corrosion can't happen to the metal underneath.

It took 14 tons of copper to sheathe a 74 gun third rate ship of the line, which isn't that much compared to a ship's displacement; the HMS Audacious displaced 1625 tons under load.

Using her as a guide and some very rough modelling of the hull as the arc of a chord, with her length of 168 feet, a beam of 46.8 feet and draught of 19.8 feet (51.21m, 14.26m, 6.04m), you have 1035m² to cover. Copper has a density of 8.96 g/cm³, so 14 tons (14.2247 tonnes) would cover that area to a depth of ~0.15cm, so thin, but still equivalent to 1mm plate harness. Note that it was probably a bit thicker than that as I based my measurements on the ship being a uniform half cylinder throughout, based on its widest point.

This image of the Cutty Sark demonstrates what a hull actually looks like although with Muntz metal (a copper/zinc alloy) for sheathing (note the visible dents in the metal).

Spoiler: Cutty sark

Show

The sheets were (apocryphally?) thick enough that they stopped the American revolutionaries' "Turtle" submarine from drilling into the wood to attach a bomb to the bottom of a British ship in NY harbor.

From reading up on the operation, it looks like the pilot accidentally tried to drill through a much thicker iron hinge for the ship's rudder, then fatigue and the rising CO₂ left him unable to complete the operation on a different spot on the hull.

[Kiero]

Going further back, the ancient trieres/trireme were faster than the galleys reported above at sprint speed. And that's just based on half-trained modern crews in the reconstruction, Olympias.

Experienced crews could probably manage faster, but the modern ones managed 9 knots at full output, and 2 knots at a more sustainable pace. They estimate that a trireme might be able to manage over 16 knots (!) at ramming speed.

Though I should add, an ancient galley was far less seaworthy than the medieval ones, being designed only for relatively gentle Mediterranean voyages.

[Haighus]

It is not immediately fatal but the horse will likely die from it eventually (instead of crippled for life like a human with leg injuries). With modern medical technology, it is possible to heal *SOME* horse leg injuries, but most horses are still put to sleep after leg injuries even today (as the alternative might be a slow and agonizing death).

Pre-modern people/horses had no such luxury of modern medicals, and intentional injury caused by hostile humans would likely be the not-treatable kind (no horse can survive having one of its legs chopped off, for example).

So a horse might be able to remain combat-effective even after you shoot it with multiple arrows or even musket shots (even if it is fatally woulded in the process). But an injured leg? One less cavalry to worry about.

I think a lot of horses are put down today because of economic reasons, rather than the leg fracture being untreatable. Nursing a horse back to health with a broken leg is expensive and requires specialist input, which is sadly not often affordable, desirable (for industries like racing), or even available. So euthanasia is the next best option :(

Like you say though, this was definitely not an option with pre-modern medicine. Horses legs are really vulnerable. A lot of modern horses are given "boots" (essentially lower leg guards) to stop them from laming themselves by kicking their own legs! This usually puts the horse out of action for a week or two.

Incidentally, I think a lot of people underestimate just how bad an injury breaking a leg is. Even for a human, fracturing a femur is bad news and can be lethal, and indeed does kill many elderly folk. Femurs especially are large, living structures with a massive blood supply, and also close to some major arteries that can be damaged by bone fragments, the femoral artery in particular. Breaking a fibula is comparatively ok, but a tibial fracture can be nasty too, being another large bone.

Additionally, even if they DID held firm with utmost conviction, unarmored infantry with bayonets had a snowball's chance against the kind of charge performed by 16-17th century cavalry like winged hussars or demi-lancers. To begin with, a musket + bayonet is way too short compared to a cavalry lance, and the troops lacked (munition) breastplate to stop the lance strike.

(Well, if you shoot them with more advanced 19th century musketry/musket tactics until the cavalry broke before completing the charge, that'd be another story...)

Yeah, I agree with this.

[Max_Killjoy]

From reading up on the operation, it looks like the pilot accidentally tried to drill through a much thicker iron hinge for the ship#s rudder, then fatigue and the rising CO₂ left him unable to complete the operation on a different spot on the hull.

Ah ah! That makes much more sense.

[Mike_G]

Additionally, even if they DID held firm with utmost conviction, unarmored infantry with bayonets had a snowball's chance against the kind of charge performed by 16-17th century cavalry like winged hussars or demi-lancers. To begin with, a musket + bayonet is way too short compared to a cavalry lance, and the troops lacked (munition) breastplate to stop the lance strike.

(Well, if you shoot them with more advanced 19th century musketry/musket tactics until the cavalry broke before completing the charge, that'd be another story...)

That's the thing. A bayonet on a musket isn't as good as a pike in melee, but the whole point of the bayonet is to allow you to have more shooters. Given 100 infantry, I'd rather have all 100 men able to fire and use the bayonet than 20 men able to fire protected by 80 pikemen.

I'm not convinced that a 16th century cavalry charge would break a Napoleonic square or even line if it held. Yeah, the lance has reach, but you're still asking a horse to run into three ranks of tightly packed men with pointy objects. That's not even taking into account the greater firepower of 18th century armies.

I haven't read many accounts of cavalry actually crashing into formed infantry and beating them in melee. Plenty of times the infantry broke and got run down, but mostly if they held, the cavalry broke off before contact.

[Kiero]

That's the thing. A bayonet on a musket isn't as good as a pike in melee, but the whole point of the bayonet is too allow you to have more shooters. Given 100 infantry, I'd rather have all 100 men able to fire and use the bayonet than 20 men able to fire protected by 80 pikemen.

Though I would say the standard 3-rank firing line most nations used meant that the rear rank probably couldn't fire.

I'm not convinced that a 16th century cavalry charge would break a Napoleonic square or even line if it held. Yeah, the lance has reach, but you're still asking a horse to run into three ranks of tightly packed men with pointy objects. That's not even taking into account the greater firepower of 18th century armies.

I haven't read many accounts of cavalry actually crashing into formed infantry and beating them in melee. Plenty of times the infantry broke and got run down, but mostly if they held, the cavalry broke off before contact.

Indeed, in the Napoleonic era, horses wouldn't charge into a wall of spikes, no matter how long they were. One of the few examples of a formed square being broken I've read about was at the battle of Garcia Hernandez.

The article lists the following reasons why formed infantry were beaten in the Napoleonic era (and it was rare):

• the infantry were of poor quality
• the infantry were tired, disorganized or discouraged
• it was raining, making it difficult for the infantry to fire effectively
• the infantry fired a poorly aimed volley
• the infantry waited too long to fire

The raining one was relevant to the battle of Albuera (where the general in command famously disarmed a Polish lancer bare-handed). The lancers came out of a squall of rain right into his command staff and Colborne's brigade, and it was too wet for them to be able to respond.