Did hunter historically wear some kind of armor?

[Vinyadan]

A modern hunter wears important protective gear. Specifically, he or she wears a bright red or yellow jacket, so other hunters won't shoot him or her.

That probably depends on conditions and place. I have only seen them used when hunting a boar with a team.

[warty goblin]

That probably depends on conditions and place. I have only seen them used when hunting a boar with a team.

Also the prey. You can get away with it hunting deer for instance, because deer are colorblind. Turkeys however can see color (and are wary as hell) so turkey hunters wear very substantial camo.

[No brains]

There's a video that goes into some detail about this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZQWS5BpR-o

It's been forever since I watched it, but IIRC, hunting was important as a way of preparing for the mindset of being on campaign. Both hunting and warfare put fighters in kill-or-be-killed situations where they are removed from the comfort of home. They might not have worn armor for every hunt, but they did recognize hunting and wearing armor as useful things to to together.

[darkrose50]

During a famines wolves would hunt humans. We kill anything that preys on us. I am picturing a single-minded drive to see every wolf dead. Hunt them down, if able, or place a bounty on them if able. Lords, militia, city guards, hunters would all be hunting them down. A group of armored and armed humans would be terrifying, even in the 800's. Not to mention we humans can just out walk pretty much any damned-fool thing being endurance hunters.

Wolf packs that attacked humans were wiped out. Wolf packs that did not attack humans were wiped out. With canine DNA being easy to manipulate and/or adapt super crazy ludicrously fast. The wolves must have adapted to not hunt humans . . . as much . . . I would wager death by wolf-pack is an anomaly. We must have decimated the heck out of the aggression genes in wolves. That is likely a huge reason as to why we have dogs. We ruthlessly killed all the mean-ness right out of them.

I bet wolves were once the living embodiment of nightmares. I would wear thick protective clothing to hunt the living embodiment of nightmares. If they grabbed onto my leg or arm I would want something as near to fang-proof as possible to slow them down while my companions killed the offending wolf, or until I stabbed it with my knife.

I imagine the confusion of the wolves. Kill one human, and every pack of humans around kills all of your kind . . . without witnessing the killing first-hand.

[Keltest]

During a famines wolves would hunt humans. We kill anything that preys on us. I am picturing a single-minded drive to see every wolf dead. Hunt them down, if able, or place a bounty on them if able. Lords, militia, city guards, hunters would all be hunting them down. A group of armored and armed humans would be terrifying, even in the 800's. Not to mention we humans can just out walk pretty much any damned-fool thing being endurance hunters.

Wolf packs that attacked humans were wiped out. Wolf packs that did not attack humans were wiped out. With canine DNA being easy to manipulate and/or adapt super crazy ludicrously fast. The wolves must have adapted to not hunt humans . . . as much . . . I would wager death by wolf-pack is an anomaly. We must have bread the heck out of the aggression genes in wolves. That is likely a huge reason as to why we have dogs. We ruthlessly killed all the mean-ness right out of them.

I imagine the confusion of the wolves. Kill one human, and every pack of humans around kills all of your kind . . . without witnessing the killing first-hand.

As a rule of thumb, if the wolves aren't able to get food, the humans are about as bad off. Wolves are scavengers more than hunters, and generally try to avoid attacking a large group, especially a large group of predators, if they have any other options. So if theres nothing for the wolves to eat besides people, chances are the humans also have bigger problems than proactively hunting down wolf packs. Like not starving themselves.

[darkrose50]

Yes, but if a wolf killed my child, then I would hunt and kill wolves for the rest of my life with as a near of a single-minded devotion as possible. I would teach my children how to hunt them. I would take pot-shots at them when hunting for food, or even give up and chase them down. My family would eat a lot of wolf meat. I would set traps. I would talk about my dead child at the inn while drinking away my sorrow, and get others to hate the wolves. I would talk to the local priest and see what the church could do to protect the villages children. The local lord would hear of the attack. The wolves would be in deep trouble during good times and bad times.

[Keltest]

Yes, but if a wolf killed my child, then I would hunt and kill wolves for the rest of my life with as a near of a single-minded devotion as possible. I would teach my children how to hunt them. I would take pot-shots at them when hunting for food, or even give up and chase them down. My family would eat a lot of wolf meat. I would set traps. I would talk about my dead child at the inn and get others to hate the wolves. I would talk to the local priest and see what the church could do to protect the villages children. The local lord would hear of the attack. The wolves would be in deep trouble during good times and bad times.

Then you would die young and miserable because you starved to death, having neglected your responsibilities to go hunting for an animal far more adept at hunting and evading you than you were for it.

People didn't get to just drop everything to go form an angry mob roaming around in the woods hunting wolves for years, that just not a thing that happened, or could happen. Assuming the lord didn't tell you to get lost for trying to give him any kind of orders, he would probably send his huntsman out to investigate the specific wolf pack (since wolves attacking humans was unusual behavior) and call it a day when the pack was eliminated or moved on.

[darkrose50]

But humans did not leave the wolves alone, and move on. We hobo-murdered them, and we non-hobo-murdered them. If there was a bounty on wolves, then likely some hunters could feed their family better with a dead wolf, then a rabbit. Skin the wolf, turn the pelt in for a bounty, eat the wolf, buy some rabbit, and eat that rabbit too. Perhaps make a sausage mixing the meats to make it more palatable.

[Keltest]

But humans did not leave the wolves alone, and move on. We hobo-murdered them, and we non-hobo-murdered them. If there was a bounty on wolves, then likely some hunters could feed their family better with a dead wolf, then a rabbit. Skin the wolf, turn the pelt in for a bounty, eat the wolf, buy some rabbit, and eat that rabbit too. Perhaps make a sausage mixing the meats to make it more palatable.

If your son got killed by a wolf, then youre almost certainly a farmer, or something similar. A farmer isn't going to be putting a bounty on wolves.

[Themrys]

But humans did not leave the wolves alone, and move on. We hobo-murdered them, and we non-hobo-murdered them.

That was likely not because they murdered children, but for the same reasons humans hunt them now: They kill livestock.

But, as I mentioned before, wolves were poisoned. Perhaps some people with nothing better to do hunted them, but if I was a farmer in a village surrounded by woods, and the winter was long and cold and the wolves were coming into the village to eat livestock ... or children ... then I'd put some poisoned meat out there for them to find, a task which would take me one hour, tops. And if my hypothetical husband was stupid enough to go want hunt wolves, I'd remind him that we're farmers and don't have spears and it would be much more productive to shovel a really deep hole for the wolves to fall into, because we do have shovels.

Just saying. From the point of view of a person who just wants to survive, it is stupid to hunt something that fights back. Especially if the most advanced weapon you have access to is a bow and arrow - one miss and you're dead. More than one wolf, you're also dead.
Build a wall to keep it out, dig a hole to trap it, train a dog to bite it, those are all methods employed in the past. Apparently, they worked well enough.

[Vinyadan]

I don't know about the British Isles, where isolation made it so that large predators could be completely extirpated, but in continental Europe these things were a problem for times much more recent than mentions of spears hint at. There still were bounties on wolves in Napoleonic times, and that's when they disappeared from much of the Alps. Some 50 years earlier, King Louis XV took a personal interest in having an exceptionally aggressive and dangerous wolf, the Beast of Gévaudan, killed.

More recently, there was a wave of attacks in European Russia during WWII, when all men and weapons had been sent to the front. The wolves must have noticed something, and began attacking people at the edge of settlements. However, this went on for ten years after the war was over. In that case, local hunters who habitually killed wolves received help from other hunters sent from the Soviet Union.

I think that the idea of exterminating wolves was too difficult before 1800s, however. I think that there simply weren't enough humans to do that -- which meant both not enough hunters, and too many areas that weren't anthropised and would be generally avoided, not making it worth the effort to remove a pest from there.

I think that high infant mortality also taught people to handle it better than we would. People already hated wolves. He would have hated them more, and taken more satisfaction at killing them if it were to happen, but his problem would have been to remove a danger to himself and his possessions. I think it's probable that the local lord would have taken interest in the problem. In truth, people higher up were aware of its importance: Charlemagne appointed two wolf hunters for each district of his empire, and wanted to be informed of the number of wolves killed each year. Wolves were a communal problem, and higher authorities ordered towns and villages to place nets and hunt wolves at fixed intervals. In some places, people could be fined for not going to the hunt.

[veti]

I don't know about the British Isles, where isolation made it so that large predators could be completely extirpated, but in continental Europe these things were a problem for times much more recent than mentions of spears hint at. There still were bounties on wolves in Napoleonic times, and that's when they disappeared from much of the Alps. Some 50 years earlier, King Louis XV took a personal interest in having an exceptionally aggressive and dangerous wolf, the Beast of Gévaudan, killed.

Interesting. But by then the hunters would have had access to guns, and almost no one would have had armour anyway since it was obsolete.

[HandofShadows]

IIRC on the Indian Sub-Continent "beaters" can wear armor that has spikes to protect the neck when hunting tigers. Now I saw this a long time ago and might be in error as I couldn't find an info in a quick search.

[Xuc Xac]

Interesting. But by then the hunters would have had access to guns, and almost no one would have had armour anyway since it was obsolete.

Cavalry were still using armor a century later. People still used armor because it was effective. It just wasn't issued as part of the infantry uniform, because the people paying the bills preferred to have 10 unarmored guys with guns instead of 1 armored guy with a gun.

[Brother Oni]

Not to mention we humans can just out walk pretty much any damned-fool thing being endurance hunters.

Only in hot conditions due to our superior thermoregulation. We can persistence hunt antelope in Africa, we can't chase down a deer on foot in Northern Europe (outside of a heatwave).

[veti]

Cavalry were still using armor a century later. People still used armor because it was effective. It just wasn't issued as part of the infantry uniform, because the people paying the bills preferred to have 10 unarmored guys with guns instead of 1 armored guy with a gun.

A small minority of heavy cavalry were still using cuirasses, because they were expected to do a lot of their work in melee, but they were very much the minority. Most armour had been discarded because it was an expensive encumbrance on a battlefield where artillery was the biggest danger.

[Brother Oni]

A small minority of heavy cavalry were still using cuirasses, because they were expected to do a lot of their work in melee, but they were very much the minority. Most armour had been discarded because it was an expensive encumbrance on a battlefield where artillery was the biggest danger.

As amply demonstrated by Carabinier Antoine Favreau at the Battle of Waterloo, 18 June 1815:

Spoiler: Messer Favreau's cuirass

Show

Spoiler: Better angle

Show

[Vinyadan]

I'm not sure that artillery was the biggest danger. It definitely must have been the weapon with the biggest chance to kill you if it hit you, but, generally, most wound-related deaths in war come from small arms.

[DeTess]

I'm not sure that artillery was the biggest danger. It definitely must have been the weapon with the biggest chance to kill you if it hit you, but, generally, most wound-related deaths in war come from small arms.

I suspect that grapeshot fired from cannons was a pretty good counter to a cavalry charge.

[darkrose50]

Only in hot conditions due to our superior thermoregulation. We can persistence hunt antelope in Africa, we can't chase down a deer on foot in Northern Europe (outside of a heatwave).

It is my understanding that part of being an endurance hunter is to wound the animal with an arrow, spear, or now bullet, and track it until it stopped to rest.

[Keltest]

It is my understanding that part of being an endurance hunter is to wound the animal with an arrow, spear, or now bullet, and track it until it stopped to rest.

Not from an evolutionary standpoint. In that context, it means we have superior endurance and good tracking skills. We aren't necessarily able to catch an animal in a footrace, but we can just keep following it, preventing it from resting, until its too exhausted to continue to run or it gets backed into a corner.

Tools and wounding the prey help expedite the process but are not, strictly speaking, required for it.

[Honest Tiefling]

If your son got killed by a wolf, then youre almost certainly a farmer, or something similar. A farmer isn't going to be putting a bounty on wolves.

Not to mention, for a great deal of human history, if you were a farmer you neither had access to legal weaponry or the legal ability to actually leave your land. Getting into legal troubles and spending your money getting banned weaponry (unless you want to hunt a wolf with a scythe) was probably not a great idea for your wife, your children or the rest of your family. Who sometimes would be legally liable for you so if you went and became an outlaw, well, they aren't in the best position. So I'm agreeing with Keltest.

I have no source, but I bet a lot of people are going have many questions as to how a serf got a hold of a wolf pelt. Not to mention, a serf isn't going to have rabbit unless they are raising them, or are poaching on the side. Meat wasn't a huge part of the peasant diet in many regions of the world.

Not from an evolutionary standpoint. In that context, it means we have superior endurance and good tracking skills.

I was under the impression that our tracking skills were actually kinda crap, since our hearing and sense of smell are terrible for mammals.

[Rogar Demonblud]

We make up for it with stereoscopic vision and excellent pattern recognition.

[Honest Tiefling]

We make up for it with stereoscopic vision and excellent pattern recognition.

So we have a better chance of seeing through the leopard's camouflage and fur patterns that confuse the shape of the animal...But we have no idea what direction it went in, since our noses are practically broken as far as other mammals go and we might as well be deaf.

And I'm a little confused as to what you mean by the former, since well...Most mammalian predators have that feature.

[Keltest]

So we have a better chance of seeing through the leopard's camouflage and fur patterns that confuse the shape of the animal...But we have no idea what direction it went in, since our noses are practically broken as far as other mammals go and we might as well be deaf.

And I'm a little confused as to what you mean by the former, since well...Most mammalian predators have that feature.

Basically, most predators specialize in a single sense, maybe two, and don't really have much for anything else. Cats, for example, have pretty poor eyesight. However, humans can combine our middle of the road senses to track things effectively, and our superior intelligence to interpret things better, for example following tracks entirely by sight, and knowing which way the animal was going, and then using our other senses when we get in close range.

[Honest Tiefling]

Basically, most predators specialize in a single sense, maybe two, and don't really have much for anything else. Cats, for example, have pretty poor eyesight. However, humans can combine our middle of the road senses to track things effectively, and our superior intelligence to interpret things better, for example following tracks entirely by sight, and knowing which way the animal was going, and then using our other senses when we get in close range.

I'm not unconvinced that we didn't domesticate Fido to get around our problems, through the intelligence would be a big factor. And human senses aren't middle of the road, we have Fs in everything except specialized uses of sight.

[Xuc Xac]

So we have a better chance of seeing through the leopard's camouflage and fur patterns that confuse the shape of the animal...But we have no idea what direction it went in, since our noses are practically broken as far as other mammals go and we might as well be deaf.

We can't smell which direction it went, but we can see it. Human sight and intelligence can look at 65 million year old dinosaur tracks and see which way they went, but they just smell like rocks to a wolf.

Smell can tell you which way something went very recently. Sight can tell you direction, number, size, weight, speed, or even things like "walking with a limp favoring the left leg".

A human can look at the dirt and see the difference between "two horses--one with a rider and one without--and a mule carrying a heavy load" and "a mare and a foal running scared". To a wolf, they both "smell like horses went this way".

[hamishspence]

A wolf can smell a lot more than just "This was a horse":


https://www.paulawild.ca/how-keen-is...ense-of-smell/

Imagine simply inhaling and being able to tell who has passed by and how long ago, what sex they are and what their general health is, where they’ve been, what they’ve eaten and what mood they’re in.

[Honest Tiefling]

A wolf can smell a lot more than just "This was a horse"...

The phrase is 'Release the hounds!' not 'Release...Ourselves! I guess."

[snowblizz]

The phrase is 'Release the hounds!' not 'Release...Ourselves! I guess."

Let slip the Humans of War!

Actually.... that one works.