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

[Pauly]

Basket hilt broadswords were used with shields. No reason they would get in the way.

Just ask the Jacobites.

And steelworking was at its height in the period before complex handguards, so it wasn't that they couldn't do it.

Gauntlets would make them unnecessary, so that is probably a factor.

Developed hilts starting with the langmesser’s “Nagle” or nail seem to have come about mainly in a civilian context and unarmored combat in dueling/street skirmish situations.

The conjecture is that it started as a way of protecting the most exposed/forward part of the body.

[snowblizz]

Interestingly, greaves were really unpopular in the middle ages. In the mass graves from the battle of Visby you see absolutely staggering amounts of severe leg and foot injuries, which indicates that the attackers were specifically aiming at these weak points. Despite going for the feet being a common tactic and leg protection probably being not too expensive, it didn't become very popular. I very strongly belive that it was a deliberate decision not to use greaves, even though it should have been an available option.

Greaves can't exactly be called unpopular when every complete suit of armour incldues them. Plate greaves was one of the first things a knight's armour came with, along with armguards, both of which were solid plate before the cuirass was.

We shouldn't read too much into one case either. At the battle of Visby the Danish attacked with professional top-of-the line troops, whereas the peasantry would be armed more along the lines of "what was available". A century behind technologically is something I think I've read. Since the peasants weren't at the cutting edge militarily we can't really say that their equipment is a deliberate choice exactly. They really didn't have time to prepare, and I suspect, no inclination or ability to determine what optimal equipment would have been. Basically, no greaves were not an available option. It wasn't a matter of cost. The real world doesn't have a player's handbook where you can pick the equipment beforehand. That's a decision made well in advance. In this case decided by long standing tradition and the fact that people generally don't tend to waste resources on stuff they can't see a need for right now. The Gotland peasants did not live lives were they considered how to equip themselves to defend against modern professional soldiers and therefore didn't have greaves. They had a motley mix of older equipment that had been adequate in previous times and may still be good enough for second line defence. That's not what happened though. The peasants even expected to be fighting off the Danish inside the walls of Visby, not being stuck outside.

It's fallacious to draw the conclusion that feets and legs were specifically targeted(*), because the simple explanation is that the legs were simply more exposed and not protected based on the equipment the peasants had. So of course we see more damage there. Wounds to the legs will easily leave marks on the bones that are preserved. Soft tissue damage to the torso won't leave any marks. Basically, what I'm saying even without targeting legs speicfically, based on the equipment of the victims, that's where damage would be most pronounced as other parts of the body would be more protected.


(*) That said, professional soldiers would'ave been able to tell that these are poorly armed peasants and thus unlikely to be used to combat so they can take advantage of hitting exposed extremities like legs. However we cannot construct a chain of evidence of leg wounds -> specific targeting of legs -> greaves was the obvious important armour. I would posit the opposed chain of logic, the peasants equipment didn't include greaves because it wasn't part of the type of equipment they had access to and were used to, hence giving an exploitable vulnerabiltiy experts coudl see leading to lots of leg wounds. It also follows the pattern: shield, helmet, cuirass, rest, of armouring.

[Kiero]

This belief has sort of largely fallen out of favor in the past decade or so with plenty of evidence to suggest that ancient Greek warfare was as focused on raids, skirmishes, ambushes, etc. as pretty much anywhere else and that the greeks saw nothing dishonorable about it.

It's not really clear at all why greaves seem to have been popular in some periods but not others. I think one factor might just be that because hoplites were generally drawn from a leisure class of citizens, any one that could afford decent armor likely had at least one or two slaves as well and possibly even a horse or a chariot. So the overall weight of their equipment on long marches at least was probably less of a concern.

It could also be that some hoplites were able to sort of mix and match depending on the situation, for instance if they were expecting to fight in a pitched battle at the front of a phalanx then they might wear their greaves, but if they're expecting to just fight in a small skirmish and be running around a lot then they may have left much of their armor back at camp or fought from horseback.

When and by whom? The archetypical example is the Peloponnesian War, Greek-on-Greek, almost entirely comprising formalised, even ritualised set pieces.

In that instance, when you've got slaves to support you, there's no need to march about with all your equipment on, you get ready on the eve of battle.

By contrast in the later Hellenistic era, greaves are less common, and the fully-armoured hoplite panoply is rarer. Much more patrolling, raiding and skirmishing going on then.

[gkathellar]

ancient Greek warfare

Which ancient Greeks? Are we including both the classical era and the more nebulous time before it? Because this is one of those terms like "Medieval Europe" that frequently spans a period long enough that just about anything can be demonstrated as having been true at some point.

I mostly ask because my understanding of the Peloponnesian War was that experiments with land-skirmishing tactics were both extremely successful and not widely replicated.

[Yora]

Not sure which war that was, but it might have been the Peleponesian Wars, but when the Spartans were at war with the Athenians and had no capabilities to breach the walls of Athens or fight the Athenians navy at sea, while the Athenians didn't dare to face the Spartans in field battles,the war consisted almost entirely of Spartans raiding the Athenian countryside for year after year.

[Clistenes]

1: basket hilts and the like were a bad idea in periods prior to their introduction. Shields and gauntlets got in their way. It's only when armour/shields were out of favour that these style of hilts became popular.

Also, could be wrong but basket hilts would've been a nightmare to make for most of history. Steel not so good.

2 warfare has always mostly been raids and skirmishes rather than battles.

1-If you are using a shield and a basket hilt, you don't really need gauntlets; and even if you use a lance or spear as your main weapon and the sword as just a sidearm, gauntlets aren't as necessary when using lance and spear as when using a sword...

And many cultures didn"t use gauntlets at all, anyway...

And how would the basket hilt get in the way of a shield?

2-You could make similar handguards of bronze, brass or even thick leather...

[gkathellar]

Not sure which war that was, but it might have been the Peleponesian Wars, but when the Spartans were at war with the Athenians and had no capabilities to breach the walls of Athens or fight the Athenians navy at sea, while the Athenians didn't dare to face the Spartans in field battles,the war consisted almost entirely of Spartans raiding the Athenian countryside for year after year.

That lasted pretty much up until Pericles died, at which point the Athenian citizenry did a stupid and went out to fight land battles they couldn't possibly win (in fairness, this was also motivated by a plague in Athens). It's also worth noting that during much of this time, Athens and Sparta were both engaged in razing each others' vassal states.

[Vinyadan]

In that instance, when you've got slaves to support you, there's no need to march about with all your equipment on, you get ready on the eve of battle.

To add to this, when the Athenians have to leave the siege of Syracuse, Thucydides observes as an oddity and a sign of desperate times that the hoplites were carrying their own food and gear, because they didn't trust their servants. (Thuc. 7.75)

[Willie the Duck]

I dunno... maybe this is something a bit like cutlass-style cupped or basket handguards for one-handed swords... something that is so simple and useful you wonder how come it wasn't used by everybody since the invention of swords, but people at the time just didn't thought of it, until somebody finally did and then everybody eventually adopted it...

1: basket hilts and the like were a bad idea in periods prior to their introduction. Shields and gauntlets got in their way. It's only when armour/shields were out of favour that these style of hilts became popular.

Also, could be wrong but basket hilts would've been a nightmare to make for most of history. Steel not so good.

That said, large shields probably still made complex handguards less necessary.

Developed hilts starting with the langmesser’s “Nagle” or nail seem to have come about mainly in a civilian context and unarmored combat in dueling/street skirmish situations.

Everyone is circling around the same point -- it is not that basket hilts, gauntlets, and shields interfered with each other; shields simply make basket hilts less necessary. As to the suspenders+belt kind of 'but why not both?' arguments that might come up, I think that comes back to the whole swords as sidearm thing. You do not add unnecessary weight (and in the case of basket hilts, volume right next to your belt-line) to something you are going to have on your person at most every waking hour.

[Kiero]

Which ancient Greeks? Are we including both the classical era and the more nebulous time before it? Because this is one of those terms like "Medieval Europe" that frequently spans a period long enough that just about anything can be demonstrated as having been true at some point.

I mostly ask because my understanding of the Peloponnesian War was that experiments with land-skirmishing tactics were both extremely successful and not widely replicated.

If you're referring to the battle of Sphacteria, that was a one-off, with the general emptying his ships of rowers and turning them into skirmishers. Who massively outnumbered the cut-off Spartans.

[rrgg]

When and by whom? The archetypical example is the Peloponnesian War, Greek-on-Greek, almost entirely comprising formalised, even ritualised set pieces.

In that instance, when you've got slaves to support you, there's no need to march about with all your equipment on, you get ready on the eve of battle.

By contrast in the later Hellenistic era, greaves are less common, and the fully-armoured hoplite panoply is rarer. Much more patrolling, raiding and skirmishing going on then.

I'm mainly getting this from u/Iphikrates over on the AskHistorians subreddit. He's got a phd and has written a couple of books on the subject but here are some of the relevent posts he's made:

https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian...ft_in/cyaglzt/

https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian..._less/d0b4jjn/

https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian...ways_so_small/

https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian...les/iphikrates

[Clistenes]

Everyone is circling around the same point -- it is not that basket hilts, gauntlets, and shields interfered with each other; shields simply make basket hilts less necessary. As to the suspenders+belt kind of 'but why not both?' arguments that might come up, I think that comes back to the whole swords as sidearm thing. You do not add unnecessary weight (and in the case of basket hilts, volume right next to your belt-line) to something you are going to have on your person at most every waking hour.

How so? Your sword hand is most at risk when you hit, and you can't protect it with your shield while doing so...

And many cultures didn't develop gauntlets.

Think of a Marian period roman legionary... their gladius was their primary melee weapon, their large shield offered excellent protection, but they were most vulnerable when they struck their enemies, exposing their hand and arm... and they didn't use any protection at all for their sword hand and arm...

[The Jack]

More points to consider:

Basket hilts are heavier at your waist; One handed Swords aren't primary weapons on the battlefield (well, shields might make it so, but otherwise...) So when you're carrying a heavy spear or poleaxe or greatsword, a basket hilted sword is less convenient for you to carry (and harder to switch too). Gauntlets are better.


I'm not sure on this one, but Basket hilted swords are often more handle-heavy, which is good in later periods where armour's being abandoned (speed over power) , but not so good when armour was a big deal.

They would've driven up the expense and perhaps the maintenance of the sword. Also I kinda find more guarded hilts kinda gross? There's just more places for dirt to get into. More places to clean and more places that haven't been cleaned..


I don't think they'd be that great in formation. You want your weapon as close to your shield as possible, and you want your shield close to your mate's shield. A small chance of accidentally punching a shield out is not a good risk to take, even if it's but a small chance.

[Vinyadan]

Just a note: while I don't know how widespread they were, Roman legionaries used both manicae (arm guards) and greaves on the Tropaeum Traiani.

[Willie the Duck]

How so? Your sword hand is most at risk when you hit, and you can protect it with your shield while doing so...

And many cultures didn't develop gauntlets.

Think of a Marian period roman legionary... their gladius was their primary melee weapon, their large shield offered excellent protection, but they were most vulnerable when they struck their enemies, exposing their hand and arm... and they didn't use any protection at all for their sword hand and arm...

Matt Easton has a pretty good video on how well shields can function as hand-protection (albeit in a lecture on why axes and maces don't tend to have basket hilts or the like). He shows a pretty good way that it works at about the 1:50 mark, although I recommend the whole video.

[Max_Killjoy]

Matt Easton has a pretty good video on how well shields can function as hand-protection (albeit in a lecture on why axes and maces don't tend to have basket hilts or the like). He shows a pretty good way that it works at about the 1:50 mark, although I recommend the whole video.

Darn you for sending me into another scholagladiatoria binge.

[hymer]

Darn you for sending me into another scholagladiatoria binge.

Spoiler: There is no 1887 pattern sword

Show

[The Jack]

Darn you for sending me into another scholagladiatoria binge.

He's the one where, although his expertise is probably the highest for a youtuber and he seems like a really nice guy, he's a weaker presenter. I watch his videos when a better presenter can't cover the same (interesting) topic (or doesn't seem to be adequate).

[hymer]

He's the one where, although his expertise is probably the highest for a youtuber and he seems like a really nice guy, he's a weaker presenter. I watch his videos when a better presenter can't cover the same (interesting) topic (or doesn't seem to be adequate).

He's gotten better. His early videos can be pretty boring - he used to be a civil servant. But I'm finding myself listening to him talk about his beloved sabres (that I care little about) and enjoying myself.

[Max_Killjoy]

He's the one where, although his expertise is probably the highest for a youtuber and he seems like a really nice guy, he's a weaker presenter. I watch his videos when a better presenter can't cover the same (interesting) topic (or doesn't seem to be adequate).

I'll take him over a "better" presenter who gets things wrong to be edgy or cool or different.

At least I can count on him to never do a slick video asserting that boob plate is "realistic".

[Willie the Duck]

Darn you for sending me into another scholagladiatoria binge.

You're welcome.

I'll take him over a "better" presenter who gets things wrong to be edgy or cool or different.

At least I can count on him to never do a slick video asserting that boob plate is "realistic".

Or groping his wifespouse over the set of scale armor he's supposed to be reviewing, or suddenly getting into culture warriorific movie reviews, or oddball tiffs with American English/D&D's initiative system/the French, or... y'know, is it possible that people who love medieval weaponry to the point of making a side career/hobby out of producing lecture videos on the subject might be a slightly odd group?

[Blackhawk748]

Does anyone know what the "average" weight of a macehead is? I know it's not going to be the same, but what's a good ballpark estimate?

[hymer]

Does anyone know what the "average" weight of a macehead is? I know it's not going to be the same, but what's a good ballpark estimate?

I don't know, but I'll tell you anyway: From half a pound to two pounds.

Spoiler: Relatively light head type

Show

This head should come off relatively easily.

Spoiler: Bigger, albeit more complex, head

Show

Probably harder to separate head from shaft here. Not the nicest welds, there.

[Vinyadan]

A propos, did welding exist in the Middle Ages?

[hymer]

A propos, did welding exist in the Middle Ages?

Though no doubt the exact techniques have changed, welding existed at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. A fellow called Glaukos supposedly invented it.

[Clistenes]

Just a note: while I don't know how widespread they were, Roman legionaries used both manicae (arm guards) and greaves on the Tropaeum Traiani.

Yep. But these were from the Nerva-Antonine dinasty (AD 96–192); I was speaking about the late republican early imperial legionnaries, the most archetypical among the roman soldiers. When you read about the equipment and tactics of ancient Romans, they usually speak of the period in between the Marius reform (107 B.C.) and the Julio-Claudian dinasty (49 B.C.–A.D. 68).

Matt Easton has a pretty good video on how well shields can function as hand-protection (albeit in a lecture on why axes and maces don't tend to have basket hilts or the like). He shows a pretty good way that it works at about the 1:50 mark, although I recommend the whole video.

It looks like doing that would limit what manouvers you could do... not sure a Celtic or Roman or Norman warrior using a huge shield could do that easily...

[Kiero]

Just a note: while I don't know how widespread they were, Roman legionaries used both manicae (arm guards) and greaves on the Tropaeum Traiani.

A specific adaptation for the Dacian Wars, to counter the prevalence of sica and falx amongst their opponents. They also added a ridge to their helmets.

[Clistenes]

A specific adaptation for the Dacian Wars, to counter the prevalence of sica and falx amongst their opponents. They also added a ridge to their helmets.

That's the most common theory about the origin of that type of armor, but we don't really know much about it... we don't know if the legions adopted and occasionally used that kind of armor before the Dacian Wars and was just used more often by the legionnaries in that campaign (at the very least they knew about it; the Crupellarius of the Treveri used similar pieces of armor...), or if it became more popular afterwards or faded back into obscurity...

[Mendicant]

I'll take him over a "better" presenter who gets things wrong to be edgy or cool or different.

At least I can count on him to never do a slick video asserting that boob plate is "realistic".

Maybe I'm missing out, but most of the other YouTubers working in his space have presentation styles that make me feel like I'm trapped in an uncomfortable conversation with someone who can't read social cues.

[Willie the Duck]

It looks like doing that would limit what manouvers you could do... not sure a Celtic or Roman or Norman warrior using a huge shield could do that easily...

Okay.

Maybe I'm missing out, but most of the other YouTubers working in his space have presentation styles that make me feel like I'm trapped in an uncomfortable conversation with someone who can't read social cues.

Easton seems to have a nice middle-of-the-road 'teaching assistant who was trained in the subject matter, but has no courses in education ' kind of vibe. He's just a little verbally clumsy. Given the number of people who are ranty, overly intense, condescending or dismissive, or other such much less enjoyable traits, I'd take him any day.