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

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. Afterall we can make very fine jewelry chain, you are ofc at some point limited by how thin the material can be due to properties of eg the metal. Like I'd imagine gold can be made into finer thread than steel. For practical armour it's really more of a limit on how small links was efficient to make, the larger links are easier to work but smaller links give better protection I'd say. But at some point you get to good enough protection where cost in making it becomes inefficient.

Which incidentally works as a handy status marker, the smaller the links and less "chainy" your material is the more impressive. Say for giggles that the royalt has chain link so fine it looks like a lace or silk fabric (maybe magically assisted workmanship) yet is made of gold or silver.

When making mail, there's three measurements you need to bear in mind, the gauge (thickness) of the wire, the diameter of the links and the weave (4 in 1, etc).

The smallest practical gauge (thickness) wire for jewellery mail is 0.5mm.


Smaller links with thinner gauges would be possible but then you're running into issues of the tensile strength being sufficient to hold the shirt together.

Thanks. I assume that you'd want some form of padding/cloth on the underside (because that might pinch sensitive areas). Not as much as a full gambeson (since you don't need the impact resistance).

Since they have easy access to electricity-like things (being dragons and magic and all), they could probably do something akin to electroplating to add a decorative layer of gold/silver/etc to the surface pretty easily, even if the rings themselves are steel (for strength). Or you can use alloys. You can probably also use pieces of mail interspersed and held together with settings for gems if it's purely decorative.

I think that will be a fine look for the less-martial members of the elite. The actual military types will wear armor for formal occasions.

[Storm Bringer]

I'm thinking that the stationary clan spends its time farming grain and vegetables and storing it away for the winter. It's a symbiotic relationship. I picture vast underground caverns used as storage depots, using simple magic to preserve meat, grain, hay, and other staples.

Another strange question--

how fine can you make chain armor if you don't really care about the protective qualities? I have a different culture that's highly militaristic (they've been fighting for years for their lives against frost creatures, but the threat has diminished recently) and I'm thinking that the rich people will take the armor/martial motif as their main fashion thing. The ruling culture is dragonborn (anthropomorphic scaled humanoid dragons), so scales/scale analogues/shiny bits should be a part of their fashion.

So I'm thinking at least decorative chain. Is it plausible to make very tiny links? Probably very expensive, but these are only the very upper class.

other elements could be the use of waistcoats or vests that are cut to resemble breastplates, the use of Arming doublets, with or without chain gussets to cover the gaps in plate armour, which, as a practical garment, would emphasis their nature as a warrior (in the same way as modern soliders ware Under armour shirts

Swords, or other weapons, would be a part of everyday wear, as would swordbelts (maybe with a broad shoulder to waist cross-belt to support it, which could be richly decorated). one fashion form history was the use of a specific hairstyle, like the pudding-bowl cut used by English in the 100 years war, or the Japanese topknots

[PhoenixPhyre]

other elements could be the use of waistcoats or vests that are cut to resemble breastplates, the use of Arming doublets, with or without chain gussets to cover the gaps in plate armour, which, as a practical garment, would emphasis their nature as a warrior (in the same way as modern soliders ware Under armour shirts

Swords, or other weapons, would be a part of everyday wear, as would swordbelts (maybe with a broad shoulder to waist cross-belt to support it, which could be richly decorated). one fashion form history was the use of a specific hairstyle, like the pudding-bowl cut used by English in the 100 years war, or the Japanese topknots

Those are good ideas, especially the shirts/vests and visible weapons. I think I'll have basically all adults (including "non-combatants") armed with at least a visible dagger (like sikhs wear the kirpan, but without the religious obligation) and most wearing larger sidearms.

I'm thinking the orcs (population is orcs, dragonborn, and goblinoids) are most likely to take the hairstyle idea. Dragonborn don't really have hair. They could decorate their scales (like tattoos, except better). The goblins aren't too fashion sensitive and are involved basically on the production side, so they're not really in the elite. Their culture is a bit weird, so...

Mechanically, I think I'll give each culture a free proficiency. So a PC from this culture would get a free weapon proficiency (or a tool if they're already proficient in all weapons) of their choice. I'll have to think what would be appropriate for the other cultures...

[Max_Killjoy]

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single culture in either of my "fantasy genre" worlds wherein there wouldn't be at least a significant segment of the population going about their daily lives armed in some way.

And in several, no one goes out totally unarmed.

[Brother Oni]

Thanks. I assume that you'd want some form of padding/cloth on the underside (because that might pinch sensitive areas). Not as much as a full gambeson (since you don't need the impact resistance).

Since they have easy access to electricity-like things (being dragons and magic and all), they could probably do something akin to electroplating to add a decorative layer of gold/silver/etc to the surface pretty easily, even if the rings themselves are steel (for strength). Or you can use alloys. You can probably also use pieces of mail interspersed and held together with settings for gems if it's purely decorative.

It basically depends on whether the time and effort has been made to remove all the burrs as small pieces of thin gauge butted decorative mail doesn't have the weight to pinch, but will still catch hair. From experience, well made butted mail doesn't need more padding than light clothing and there's pictures available on the internet of attractive young lasses in nothing but chainmail bikinis with no padding (I can't say how well *cough* defoliated their more sensitive regions are).

As I presume stainless steel doesn't exist in your world, the links will need plating for corrosion resistance. Mail made for armour is typically cleaned by sticking it into a barrel half filled with sand and rolling down a hill a few time, which isn't conducive for a smooth shiny appearance desired by decorative mail.

You can certainly use mail with decorative plates or inserts: here's Alexander III's armour:

Spoiler: Alexander III of Imereti's decorative mail armour

Show

Spoiler: Japanese kusari dou (mail cuirass/breastplate)

Show

Note the Japanese 4 in 1 weave here.

[Kiero]

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single culture in either of my "fantasy genre" worlds wherein there wouldn't be at least a significant segment of the population going about their daily lives armed in some way.

And in several, no one goes out totally unarmed.

What do you mean by "armed"? Everyone having a belt knife doesn't really count, they're ubiquitous tools that might happen to also be suitable as weapons. Invariably a work knife isn't well-balanced to use as a fighting knife.

[Lemmy]

Isn't that basically what inuit peoples do? Oh an derp! The Sami peoples ofc who herd reindeer.

I have no idea. Are they nomads? How large are their communities?

[Galloglaich]

Yup, the Mongols were pastoral nomads and had a large variety of cattle they led around; in order of ubiquity, sheep and horses, goats, yaks and oxen then camels.

Mongol organisation pre-Genghis was tribal and while it was hierarchical, it wasn't as ordered as the later decimal system introduced by Genghis. The hierarchical nature was very useful though as it allowed him to disperse up any new tribes added to his empire to help break up the old tribal loyalties.

I can't find an English source for the amount of land required, but modern horse husbandry recommends as a minimum 1.5 acres for the first 2 horses (ie 3 acres for 2 horses), then an additional 1 acre for each extra horse; this amount of land will provide enough fodder without the need for additional feed under normal circumstances.

The amount of cattle a person has of course varies, but looking at a modern nomad, a matriarch of a family has 2 horses, 20 cows and 50 sheep.

I've found mention of another modern pastoral nomad with 500 sheep and goats; he moves 2-3 times during summer then once in autumn and once in winter. He needs 2 hectares a day for all that livestock, each pasture takes 20-30 days to be restored, so 40-50 hectares (minimum) will be enough pasture for the summer. In winter he requires 900 ha for his sheep plus the sheep eat last year's grass.

I've also found a booklet on pasture management, but it's written in Mongolian Cyrillic: link. I'll see if Google Translate is any help.

Great post!

I have a buddy who lives in Mongolia I've heard some interesting things about their language written and otherwise.

G

[Max_Killjoy]

What do you mean by "armed"? Everyone having a belt knife doesn't really count, they're ubiquitous tools that might happen to also be suitable as weapons. Invariably a work knife isn't well-balanced to use as a fighting knife.

In some cases, it's not anything that would be mistaken for a "work knife". There's the culture with the traumatic past, for whom being armed and ready to defend is considered a right and duty of being an adult. There's the culture where being armed is seen as a right of the "ruling class". The culture where being armed is a matter of accepting that they surrounded by dangerous animals and outlaw elements. Etc.

What would you consider a kukri, "bowie" knife, or the Euro-medieval equivalent thereof?

[Mr Beer]

What do you mean by "armed"? Everyone having a belt knife doesn't really count, they're ubiquitous tools that might happen to also be suitable as weapons. Invariably a work knife isn't well-balanced to use as a fighting knife.

Machetes might not be as good as any sword in a fight but they’re not penknives either.

[snowblizz]

other elements could be the use of waistcoats or vests that are cut to resemble breastplates,

The typical fashionable jacket or coat of Elisabethan (change as appropraite for your country ) times was cut to resemble the peascod type cuirass.

I have no idea. Are they nomads? How large are their communities?

Err see that's where my knowledge of the various Scandinavian (and/or Arctic) indigenous peoples run into a hard limit. Inuit I'm not sure are nomadic per se. Though living in the harsh Arctic they are unlikely to be as fully settled as farmers would be. Any peoples living of hunting are forced to be at least semi-nomadic I would say (though more correctly prepared to move if necessary maybe).

Sami were nomadic yes (or at least semi-nomadic). In the summer you bring reindeers to higher pastures. Or nomadic pastorialists, I see now there's some overlap in terms and definitions. As I understand it were more of hunter gatherers until start of historic record when they more or less were forced to turn to animal husbandry in part to satisfy the growing nationstates' wish for more defined borders and especially taxation.

I can't reallt say much about the size of sami communities eg since they today bear very little resemblance to anything connected to their pastoral past. Basically todays reindeer herding is down from snowmobiles and who is or isn't a saami is in part a contentious issue (not in the least since there's been a heavy assimilation into the general populace, voluntarily and involuntarily). It's only during my lifetime, about 40 years give or take that e.g. that it's even been legal to use their languages (of which there are many) in any capacity, let alone officially.

[gkathellar]

In some cases, it's not anything that would be mistaken for a "work knife". There's the culture with the traumatic past, for whom being armed and ready to defend is considered a right and duty of being an adult. There's the culture where being armed is seen as a right of the "ruling class". The culture where being armed is a matter of accepting that they surrounded by dangerous animals and outlaw elements. Etc.

What would you consider a kukri, "bowie" knife, or the Euro-medieval equivalent thereof?

Point of support: just about the only real-world culture I can think of where something like that wouldn't have been common is Edo-period Japan, and that society was weird, man.

[Galloglaich]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'coverage' as any full tatami gusoku armour set with all the secondary armours is pretty much full coverage.

If you're talking about coverage by solid plates, then not really, as it's only the sets with nanban dou (solid metal breastplate derived from western styles that's often sold with a dent as evidence of the pistol proofing) that starts to resemble western half plate and even then, only the breastplate.

I'm not sure if they were making their own ones by then but those solid breast plates were originally of Portuguese or Spanish origin - the Japanese bought thousands of them during the 100 year period when Portugal was basically in control of Nagasaki. I believe they called that type of armor "foreign" armor (I forget the exact term). Maybe something like "foreign pigeon breast armor" or something like that.

G

[wolflance]

I'm not sure if they were making their own ones by then but those solid breast plates were originally of Portuguese or Spanish origin - the Japanese bought thousands of them during the 100 year period when Portugal was basically in control of Nagasaki. I believe they called that type of armor "foreign" armor (I forget the exact term). Maybe something like "foreign pigeon breast armor" or something like that.

G

Yes, the imported European breastplate is called "Nanban-do" while the locally manufactured imitation is called "Hatomune-do" (which is indeed "pigeon breast"), I believe. There are also riveted horizontal lames armor (Yokohagi okegawa dou) that is somewhat similar to the so-called "anima" plate armor.

The hotoke-do is also a full plate breastplate, although it is less influenced by European peascond style. The "uchidashi-do" can be called plate armor (loosely), although it's close to the Persian char-aina than the solid European cuirass.

[Socratov]

In some cases, it's not anything that would be mistaken for a "work knife". There's the culture with the traumatic past, for whom being armed and ready to defend is considered a right and duty of being an adult. There's the culture where being armed is seen as a right of the "ruling class". The culture where being armed is a matter of accepting that they surrounded by dangerous animals and outlaw elements. Etc.

What would you consider a kukri, "bowie" knife, or the Euro-medieval equivalent thereof?

Funnily enough, such a culture, combined with rigorous tax laws are what lead to the creation of the Messer, as opposed to the Schwert, and associated fighting techniques.

Basically German law dictated what would be considered a knife and what would be considered a sword. Swords were beholden to a certain class (and they would be paying taxes) and knives (the literal translation of Messer) were for the people. Nevermind that some 'knives' would give Crocodile Dundee a run for his money. Just that the construction of said knife would dictate it to be a knife, and thus a tool.

[wolflance]

Recently I've been reading about the XV century England, particularly the later part of Hundred Years War as well as War of the Roses. It seems that the English army of the time can be very roughly divided into three categories: Longbowmen, billmen, and men-at-arms (Knights etc.)

So my questions being:

1) It's clear that men-at-arms had access to complete set of (plate) armor, but what about the other two? Was there something like a progression of protection-level from one troop type to another? i.e. something like longbowmen (lightly armored) > billmen (medium armored) > men-at-arms (heavy armored).

I am confused because I've seen some reenactors dressing up as essentially unarmored billmen (with only a helmet, a bill and a livery jacket, no armor), at the same time some longbowmen appear to be pretty decked (mail, plate cuirass, helmet, partial leg armors).

2) Given the war is relatively famous, was England the dominant military power of the time? How did English warfare differ from the rest of Europe that make it stood out?

[Vinyadan]

In general, I have always seen Edward III (king 1327-1377) and the Black Prince described as some of the greatest tacticians of their times.

Things however went very bad for England with the following king, Richard II, who ruled an unstable country. In 1383, he tried to fight off France in Flanders, in what was called "Despenser's Crusade", where nothing was achieved, because of an exceptionally bad performance by the Bishop of Norwich.

It would look good again for England as Charles VI, king of France, went insane in 1392. He kept the throne until 1422, while great nobles tore France apart, and England expanded her territories. Charles VI also signed a treaty with the English king Henry the V, a very good politician and commander, which made his son (Henry VI) the heir to France.

After the death of Charles VI, the civil wars that had started under his reign would protract into the 1430s, while England had occupied the whole of Northern France and Paris, where Henry VI, king of England, was considered king of France. Charles VII, son of Charles VI, spent the first part of his reign in a precarious position in Southern France, finding it hard to be recognized as king of France, and being generally known as Dauphine.

In 1429, Charles VII gave command of an army to Joan of Arc, who won the first of a string of victories against the English. In 1435, Burgundy, which had sided with the English, made peace with Charles and joined him against England, ending the internecine war in France. Charles VII would then develop French artillery, making it the best in the world, thanks to Jean Bureau. The war de facto ended in 1453, when only Calais was left to England in France.

It probably helped that the English king, Henry VI, was a descendent of Charles VI, and was mentally unstable, although this only manifested itself in 1453. A couple of years later, England sunk into the Wars of the Roses.

So I think that the definitive factors were (mostly) those at home, leadership in particular. France had a much larger population, but also found it hard to keep the country together. At the same time, the war was taking place in France, which meant that various mercenary companies ended up running free, pillaging the countryside. In addition, mercenary armies were mostly used by the French, and Machiavelli famously considered this a massive mistake. If the conditions at home allowed for raising an army, the skill and commitment of the commanders were the following necessary factor. So Edward the III pulled off his masterful battles, because he knew how to organise and use what he had in his command. The Bishop of Norwich, by comparison, simply wasn't interested in the war per se, which meant that he did not muster the men he was supposed to, took cheap commanders, had the war catalogued as a Crusade (which made the Church take some of the expense), and also filled the army with unpaid volunteers, which would only gain from the loot, and later became restless and undisciplined. His commanders also let themselves be bribed from the French. So, overall, a big feck up.

Anyway, no, I wouldn't say that England was the dominant military power, for the period you are asking about. It might have been, compared to France, from 1415 until 1429, but what followed was rather messed up, with a string of losses, wasted money, and an enemy being evidently more advanced, because of its use of artillery, the whole thing terminating in civil war. The next foreign quest by England would be an ultimately unsuccessful expedition to Brittany under Henry VII in the 1490s, after having been forced by the Hanseatic League to revert her sea trade policies in the 1470s.

Machiavelli notices how England achieved good results against an excellently armed France in 1513, when Henry VIII was already king (Battle of the Spurs). That same year, England defeated Scotland at Flodden, by using tactics that weren't just superior, but represented the passage from Medieval to Renaissance tactics, with the commander staying behind and directing the battle, instead of leading the charge of his unit. But, in this age, the Hapsburg already were about to become the dominant power, and France their main contender.

[Thorongil]

What sort of arms and armor did the earliest Spanish explorers/conquerors use in the Americas? What did the Spanish navy use? How common were guns/gunpowder in those armed forces?

[KarlMarx]

What sort of arms and armor did the earliest Spanish explorers/conquerors use in the Americas? What did the Spanish navy use? How common were guns/gunpowder in those armed forces?

The conquistadores, contrary to popular belief, did not actually make that great use of firearms. Arquebuses--the primary long gun of the time--could be relatively unreliable, particularly compared to the crossbow that many conquistadores did use. For their price, they were simply not effective weapons to bring through S. America; they were hard to repair and it could be hard to get more gunpowder if necessary during the long, low-supply campaigns that the Spanish carried out. That isn't to say that there were no guns, rather that they were relatively rare. The crossbow was, as previously mentioned, the primary ranged weapon.

Cannon, on the other hand, are a different story. Spanish vessels, especially galleons, certainly carried a good number, but more for defense against English and French privateers towards the later 1500s than for conquest per se. That being said, I believe that the conquistadores did occasionally bring cannons even deep into the Andes, IIRC Pizarro used one to great effect against Tawatinsuyu, managing to lure the Inca and his army into a trap and annihilate a large portion of it with cannon and small arms fire.

In addition to these ranged weapons, most Spaniards would carry a sword, generally a thrusting design; some also carried pikes, halberds, and other polearms. They would wear, at the heaviest, steel breastplate and helmets, many with a distinctive ridge along the top designed to bloc downward cuts. Horsemen would also wear greaves I believe, but horses themselves were rarely armored. Even so, the horse as both a strategic asset enhancing mobility and instrument of terror on the battlefield was a primary tactical factor in ensuring superiority.

It should be remembered, though, that in many cases a majority of those who fought for the Spanish were in fact native peoples who saw the Spaniards as a way to settle grudges or win freedom from Mexica or Quechua ethnic domination. Their warriors would have little to no modern weaponry (the Spaniards IIRC were much less open to sharing tech with native allies than the French or even the English), and instead would have bows/slings, clubs, and spears similar to their adversaries. War dogs also functioned in the latter role, and in some cases wore light armor.

And, of course, by far the most effective weapons the Spaniards deployed were ones that neither they nor their enemies knew they had: smallpox, plague, mumps, measles, and other diseases. In both Mexico and Peru, native populations were decimated by disease and the native empires were plunged into civil war by the premature death of their leaders as a result. It is not certain if the Spaniards would have been able to win without this advantage--their armies were miniscule relative to those of the natives--or whether the Excan Tlahtoloyan or Tawatinsuyu would have survived the upheaval even without Spanish intervention.

Edit: of course the Spanish and natives both knew about disease. However, they simply believed it to be divine intervention, rather than the result of pathogens endemic to Europe but unknown in the Americas.

[Brother Oni]

1) It's clear that men-at-arms had access to complete set of (plate) armor, but what about the other two? Was there something like a progression of protection-level from one troop type to another? i.e. something like longbowmen (lightly armored) > billmen (medium armored) > men-at-arms (heavy armored).

I am confused because I've seen some reenactors dressing up as essentially unarmored billmen (with only a helmet, a bill and a livery jacket, no armor), at the same time some longbowmen appear to be pretty decked (mail, plate cuirass, helmet, partial leg armors).

Unlike today, there wasn't a standardised list of equipment issued to medieval soldiers. Often they had the bare minimum for their role (freshly drafted archers typically just turned up with a bow and their regular travelling clothes) and scavenged/stole/bought their equipment during or between campaigns.

That said, this kit would be regarded as a fairly well equipped English archer:

Spoiler: Equipment for an English longbowman circa Battle of Agincourt 1415

Show

Richer archers would be able to afford better armour (eg mail to go over their padded jerkin), but in general anything that interferes with their effectiveness would be unlikely to be worn. I can't say how a cuirass would affect a longbowman bending his bow as I don't have a cuirass or a 90+lb draw bow to practice with.

Wealth dictating equipment is especially true for re-enactors - authentic looking equipment is neither cheap or quick to make and people turning up in variety of gear that meets the authenticity requirements for their role is actually encouraged to show visual diversity. As an example, here's the kit list for the various roles in my old re-enactment society, the Milites de Bec.

For the other end of the scale to an archer, this is the equipment of a Yorkist man at arms from the War of the Roses, about 70 years later:

Spoiler: Equipment for a Yorkist man at arms, circa War of the Roses 1485

Show

Long boots
Hat with a pewter badge for civilian wear
Sallet
Gorget
Pauldrons
Bevor
Pouch
Belt
Coist
Left arm armour
Black cloak – worn over civilian clothing
Hourglass gauntlet
Ring
Rosary beads
Money pouch
Sabatons
Tassets
Back plate (Duke of Norfolk’s colours)
Breast plate
Cuisse
Upper cannon, lower cannon and coulter, right hourglass gauntlet
Belt for sword scabbard
Hand and heart sword with a fishtail pummel – can use it with one or two hands; the sword would have a maker’s mark on the blade
Dagger
Scabbard for dagger
Arming jack with maille sleeves
Belt
Wooden comb
White linen shirt
Doublet with folds, indicated a high status; civilian wear. The black garment is hose with a codpiece
Pewter spoon, silver handled knife, pewter goblet, wooden bowl and plate
Knife case
Sword scabbard
Poleaxe for a footsoldier

[Xuc Xac]

Pewter spoon

The weapons and armor may change through the millennia, but soldiers have always had a spoon.

[Brother Oni]

The weapons and armor may change through the millennia, but soldiers have always had a spoon.

If you can find it amongst all the stuff that modern soldiers carry...

Spoiler: Equipment for Royal Engineers Close Support Sapper, Helmland Province, circa 2014

Show

[Vinyadan]

Spoiler: Found the Spoon

Show

Nice game, it's the yellow thing a few items left of the black gas mask, next to the Polo packet.

[rrgg]

Recently I've been reading about the XV century England, particularly the later part of Hundred Years War as well as War of the Roses. It seems that the English army of the time can be very roughly divided into three categories: Longbowmen, billmen, and men-at-arms (Knights etc.)

So my questions being:

1) It's clear that men-at-arms had access to complete set of (plate) armor, but what about the other two? Was there something like a progression of protection-level from one troop type to another? i.e. something like longbowmen (lightly armored) > billmen (medium armored) > men-at-arms (heavy armored).

I am confused because I've seen some reenactors dressing up as essentially unarmored billmen (with only a helmet, a bill and a livery jacket, no armor), at the same time some longbowmen appear to be pretty decked (mail, plate cuirass, helmet, partial leg armors).

2) Given the war is relatively famous, was England the dominant military power of the time? How did English warfare differ from the rest of Europe that make it stood out?

For the Wars of the Roses, though bills show up in artwork and inventories as, far as I know there aren't really specific references to a category of troops called "billmen" like there are in the 16th century. So it's a bit unclear if the billmen were technically archers who decided to fight with bills instead or if bills were just one of the polearms used by men at arms fighting on foot.

It's not even entirely clear what an english "bill" actually looked like in the late 15th-early 16th century. While many sources do just refer to english infantry armed with "bills", some like Thomas Digges (1579) claimed that the english custom in times past had been to arm the core of their infantry bodies with "halberdes, Billes, battleaxes, or such short weapons." George Silver described two different types of bills and thought each was best in certain situations: The "black bill" was 5-6 feet long with a wide, heavy head, while the "forest bill or welsh hook" was 8-9 feet long but lightweight. Sir John Smythe thought that the typical English bill should really be called a "battle axe" instead.

During the late 1500s weapons like this and the "common brown bill" especially were apparently very familiar to most of the population and seen as a very simple and natural weapon for any englishman to pick up and use effectively with little training. But this was in comparison to modern pikes and firearms, so someone living during the wars of the roses may not have seen it the same way.

In the 16th century English bow and bill levies seem to have almost always wore "jacks" of some sort, though they typically don't differentiate between "padded jacks", "jacks of mail", or "jacks of plate". So I think it's likely that many or even most of these jacks actually had strips of mail or small metal plates sewn inside them for added protection. Military treatises from this period if they mention jacks tend to put them into the same category as brigandine and coats of plates. During the Wars of the Roses period, jacks don't really get mentioned in inventories and instead the most popular armor by far seems to have brigandine or mail with a sallet of some sort.

What sort of arms and armor did the earliest Spanish explorers/conquerors use in the Americas? What did the Spanish navy use? How common were guns/gunpowder in those armed forces?

The arquebus was a pretty effective weapon at the time, but many of the early Spanish expeditions just didn't have very many of them available. Cortes' first expedition had only about a dozen arquebusiers and 30 crossbowmen out of 600 men total, and even those arquebuses (escopeteros) were a somewhat older style at the time.

For the most part the conquistadors were drawn from men who were already down on their luck and required to pay for all their equipment themselves, so only a few like cortes himself were actually well-equipped with state of the art plate armor. Most of the other soldiers generally used equipment that was cheap or outdated. Mail shirts were common along with sallets and kettle helmets (the iconic morion didn't become popular until later. When they arrived in mexico, many conquistadors were quick to adopt native-style armor made from thick layers of cotton.

[wolflance]

For the Wars of the Roses, though bills show up in artwork and inventories as, far as I know there aren't really specific references to a category of troops called "billmen" like there are in the 16th century. So it's a bit unclear if the billmen were technically archers who decided to fight with bills instead or if bills were just one of the polearms used by men at arms fighting on foot.

It's not even entirely clear what an english "bill" actually looked like in the late 15th-early 16th century. While many sources do just refer to english infantry armed with "bills", some like Thomas Digges (1579) claimed that the english custom in times past had been to arm the core of their infantry bodies with "halberdes, Billes, battleaxes, or such short weapons." George Silver described two different types of bills and thought each was best in certain situations: The "black bill" was 5-6 feet long with a wide, heavy head, while the "forest bill or welsh hook" was 8-9 feet long but lightweight. Sir John Smythe thought that the typical English bill should really be called a "battle axe" instead.

During the late 1500s weapons like this and the "common brown bill" especially were apparently very familiar to most of the population and seen as a very simple and natural weapon for any englishman to pick up and use effectively with little training. But this was in comparison to modern pikes and firearms, so someone living during the wars of the roses may not have seen it the same way.

In the 16th century English bow and bill levies seem to have almost always wore "jacks" of some sort, though they typically don't differentiate between "padded jacks", "jacks of mail", or "jacks of plate". So I think it's likely that many or even most of these jacks actually had strips of mail or small metal plates sewn inside them for added protection. Military treatises from this period if they mention jacks tend to put them into the same category as brigandine and coats of plates. During the Wars of the Roses period, jacks don't really get mentioned in inventories and instead the most popular armor by far seems to have brigandine or mail with a sallet of some sort.

Based on your description, sounds like the vast majority of non-knightly/non-nobility troops would dress like this plus a helmet:


A few relative well-off troops could maybe add some plate limb armors and possibly a mail shirt underneath that brigandine, although I have no idea now many "relative well-off troops" were there compared to the normal ones.

...something like this?


(I grabbed these pictures off the internet)

[Brother Oni]

Spoiler: Found the Spoon

Show

Nice game, it's the yellow thing a few items left of the black gas mask, next to the Polo packet.

It was less of a challenge and more of a rhetorical question on how much crap a modern soldier carries.

[Vinyadan]

They even have a codpiece

Are the two rolls on the left cloth-covered water tanks?

EDIT: I guess they could be sleeping bag and blanket, too, although they look much smaller than anything I have seen used by civilians.

[Galloglaich]

Recently I've been reading about the XV century England, particularly the later part of Hundred Years War as well as War of the Roses. It seems that the English army of the time can be very roughly divided into three categories: Longbowmen, billmen, and men-at-arms (Knights etc.)

2) Given the war is relatively famous, was England the dominant military power of the time? How did English warfare differ from the rest of Europe that make it stood out?

Allow me to play devil's advocate on that one.

England was the dominant military power in England, and in the English language historiography of the middle ages, thanks largely to Shakespeare.

in the reality, in Europe more broadly, it was not really the case.

In the time of the War of the Roses and the 100 Years War, i.e. the 14th into 15th Century, England was perceived as backward, underdeveloped, and barbaric. They spent most of that time bogged down in dynastic wars in England and France, where they owned vast estates (both conquered and inherited). Though the English victory at Agincourt was widely noted and respected, and English longbow troops were considered elite infantry, their general military performance was limited - they were essentially 'tuned' to fight each other and the French. Their systems had potential and their people were tough, but they were not experienced enough with the outside world to contend with the military realities of the day. They were learning fast though and by the time of the reign of Henry VIII and in particular, Elisabeth, they were a formidable military and economic powerhouse. In the 15th Century though, not so much.

English longbowmen were used against the Swiss by Charles the Bold of Burgundy, and against the Czechs in the Hussite Crusade and against the Lithuanians in the Baltic Crusades, in all three cases they failed to make any difference (and were rapidly defeated).

The English economy in this era consisted largely of the raising of sheep and manufacture of raw wool, which was their main export throughout the medieval period. Most of this English wool was processed in various Free Cities and City-States in Flanders (today part of Belgium), Holland, the Rhineland, and Italy, where the local economies were thriving in the wool trade and textile manufacture. This frustrated the English to no end and they actually at one point even launched a "Crusade" of their own into Flanders with the object of conquering the textile industry, but that failed to reap any benefit. The Flemish, notably in Bruges and Ghent, tried to maintain good relations with the volatile English but often faced threats and embargoes.

English trade (their own wool exports and all of their imports) was done mostly by the German merchants of the Hanseatic League who maintained a large, fortified district within London, Boston, York and several other coastal towns in England and Scotland. When the English objected to special trade privileges of Hanseatic merchants the Hanse responded by cutting off their access to foreign markets. In the 1470s the English King Edward IV decided to crack down on German merchants and had dozens of them tortured and executed in London, and had their merchant quarter in London, the Steelyard ransacked. The Hanseatic League invoked a conference and the cities of Danzig, Lubeck and Bremen elected to go to war with England. This was called the Anglo-Hanseatic War (that Wiki is a pretty good read which will give you some insight into the era). During this time the German cities captured the mayor of London, hung dozens of English sailors and paraded them hanging from the yard arms as they sailed up and down the Thames river, and captured or sunk scores of English ships. Eventually the English capitulated and restored the privileges of the Steelyard which were retained until the reign of Queen Elisabeth.

In the 15th Century the most powerful land armies were

The Kingdom of Castille and Aragon in what is now Spain
The Swiss Confederation
The Hungarian Black Army (professional mercenary army)
The Teutonic Knights
The Kingdom of Poland
The Zaparhozian Sich of the Cossacks
The Golden Horde (Mongols)
and the Ottoman Empire

At the same time the most powerful navies were:

The Republic of Venice
The Republic of Genoa
The Hanseatic League (a cartel of 70 mostly German cities in Northern Europe)
The Low Countries (today Belgium and Holland0
The Mamluks and Barbary Corsairs of Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia
The Knights Hospitaler of St. John
The Ottoman Empire

England during this period imported almost all of their higher quality finished goods including body armor.


France and England were relatively weak but were becoming stronger and learning combined arms strategy. They both came into their own much more in the 16th Century as power in Europe shifted rapidly West with the opening of the Atlantic, the conquest of the Caribbean and the Americas, and the route to the Pacific.

One irony is that in the 16th Century the English finally succeeded in developing their own domestic textile industry and were making nice quality woolen cloth, but they found it to be a poor trade good for commerce with locals in the South Pacific and Americas. Instead they had to buy glass beads and small mirrors from Venice.

G

[Xuc Xac]

If the Hundred Years War had been a footie match...

England : We totally made fools of the French!
France : What?
England : Their goalie tripped and fell on his face! Twice!
France: Yes, but...
England : We scored two perfect empty net goals!
France: Yes, we made some mistakes in the first half.
England : Empty net!
France : The final score was 20-3 and we won.
England : Empty net! God, their goalie sucks!
France : We won.
England : Woo! England rules!

[Vinyadan]

If the Hundred Years War had been a footie match...

England : We totally made fools of the French!
France : What?
England : Their goalie tripped and fell on his face! Twice!
France: Yes, but...
England : We scored two perfect empty net goals!
France: Yes, we made some mistakes in the first half.
England : Empty net!
France : The final score was 20-3 and we won.
England : Empty net! God, their goalie sucks!
France : We won.
England : Woo! England rules!

It gets even funnier, if you consider that this war was actually a rehash of one that England had lost much earlier. In 1214, with the Battle of Bouvines, France defeated England, the Holy Roman Empire, and their allies, and forced the English kings to give up all of their French possessions except Guyenne. What followed was civil war in England, a French invasion of Britain, and the Welf Emperor Otto IV being overthrown, with Frederick II taking his place.



The situation was ratified by a treaty in 1259.

While what Galloglaich says is true, I think that it's important to observe how France was the West's most important political and cultural power during the XIII century and the beginning of the XIV, surpassing even the power of Frederick II. During this time, it also gained Imperial territories, like Lyon, although it selectively granted independence to certain others, like Barcelona. It became a model for states, with the Crusader States building themselves after it, and exported Scholastics, literature in "langue d'oïl" (Northern French), and the Gothic Style.