Railtus posted:

I have never come across asymmetrical bows outside of Japan, my guess is the reason for it is that recurve bows accomplished more or less the same thing elsewhere. Why the recurve was more widespread than asymmetrical limbs is a question worth investigating, but I have no special insight into the subject.

Rabhadh posted:

veekie posted:

Seems that for the weirder chinese weapons, like the hook swords, their more complicated aspects and practicality problems would have been greatly diminished by being personal weapons rather than military. Odds are the wielder just isn't going to run into many people with his level of training at all, so it doesn't matter as much that he's using a whackjob weapon because he's facing people who aren't trained formally at all.

Also, for the hook swords at least, it seems that they would still make passable single edged swords/punching daggers if you ignore the hook.

EDIT: Though no way the korean dual wielding cavalry thing was at all practical, at least not if the demonstrator is any guide. He was basically juggling the weapons and control of his horse, then lost one weapon on the attack. Doesn't offer any advantage to just using one, and quite a few disadvantages besides.

Cream_Filling posted:

It also seems possible that stuff like hook swords are some sort of mutant offspring of specialized and now obsolete or obscure gardening implements or something. Sort of like the scythes, sickles, flails, and other weaponized peasant tools you see in various cultures. Though I stress this is pure speculation.

As for the two swords on a horse thing, it might just be a training thing to train you to be good at juggling weapons and controlling your horse at the same time, with the two swords thing being a sweetener to students because even back then people knew that having two swords makes you look twice as cool.

Not My Goodies posted:

This is the full list of the 24 military arts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyongdang

I wish I could find out more about this Jin An guy who supposedly dual wielded 7 foot long swords in combat. Google turns up nothing. While I like the idea that they included it in training because it looks cool, it's even better if they extended that commitment to actually riding into battle like a D&D character, a whirlwind of comically oversized blades.

You're probably right that having to worry about juggling swords would make you really good at controlling the horse with your knees.

quote:

Gyeokgu (ball game on horseback)
Gyeokgu is a game similar to polo. Contestants on horseback use long handled mallets to strike a small leather ball. It was used to train soldiers and horses for mounted combat and to test the skills of the riders. Gyeokgu games were often surrounded by a great deal of ceremony and attended by royalty.

Xiahou Dun posted:

because it's a training aid (looking at you, double-headed spear)

Poldarn posted:

A strange question popped into my head the other day while I was reading about sieges. After boiling oil gets poured on some poor bastards, what is the method used to clean up the...mess?

veekie posted:

Wouldn't you just kind of get a fried state? The body contains a lot of water to boil off before much else can happen, and the victim is long dead before that. No sense heating it up THAT much. Dead is dead.

Cream_Filling posted:

It also seems possible that stuff like hook swords are some sort of mutant offspring of specialized and now obsolete or obscure gardening implements or something. Sort of like the scythes, sickles, flails, and other weaponized peasant tools you see in various cultures. Though I stress this is pure speculation. Alternatively, the point might be to have a whackjob weapon that's confusing and unpredictable to even a trained person of average skill who's used to normal swords and stuff. Or to try and gain an advantage in competitions or something.

As for the two swords on a horse thing, it might just be a training thing to train you to be good at juggling weapons and controlling your horse at the same time, which seems like a useful skill, with the two swords thing being a sweetener to students and/or for demonstrations because even back then people knew that having two swords makes you look twice as cool.

veekie posted:

As mentioned above, boiling water or hot sand works just as well, and much more cheaply. Neither would present major footing difficulties either, or at least no more than the heaps of corpses are going to give you. You might use pitch if you wanted to set their siege equipment on fire though.

Not My Goodies posted:

To my knowledge there are two advantages to asymmetrical limbs - reduction of handshock and the ability to crouch while shooting. Longbows are already more "forgiving" to shoot than recurves since there are fewer variables affecting arrow flight upon release. Theoretically an asymmetrical longbow would stabilize the release even further since your bow hand would only vibrate a fraction as much since all the energy goes to the center of the bow. This is kind of incidental to a military bowyer's inspiration for the bow: making it the fastest, strongest, killingest bow in the land.

I think the problem is that centershot bows are much easier to tiller than asymmetrical bows, and the extra time and expense probably make the minor advantages seem less worthwhile. The big Yumi is ridiculously complex and to this day is much more expensive than an authentic reproduction of, for instance, an English longbow or Eastern composite recurve.

Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:

Wasn't Hot Sand the worst in regards to damage?

INTJ Mastermind posted:

Re: hook swords. Reminds me of the TFR goons with their modded AR-15s with a foregrip, bipod, laser sight, 4x scope, red dot sight, folding stock, flash suppressor, silencer, loudener, and those duct-taped double magazines. Probably the same mentality went into making a hook sword.

Not My Goodies posted:

Medieval history & combat question: Do you think any English archers ever lost an ear due to that 30+ inch behind-the-head snapdraw?

Genpei Turtle posted:

This is super-rote memory from my Japanese history classes 10+ years ago so I may be getting this wrong, but if I remember correctly one of the big reasons that the yumi is lopsided is because of its size and materials. Yumi are huge. Whereas longbows were (I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong) somewhere around 6 feet long, the yumi is well over two meters in length, averaging at something like 2.2 or 2.3 meters long. Drawing from the center of that would be extremely unwieldy, especially considering the short stature of the average Japanese warrior and the fact that a lot of archery was done from horseback. (though there are images of the asymmetrical bow since before horseback archery was widespread) The reason for the yumi's length was, IIRC, the fact that they were usually made at least partially from bamboo, without laminating techniques to increase tensile strength until relatively late in their development. Any shorter and it couldn't withstand the strength of draws required to make it an effective weapon. (and even with that they were far less effective bows than their European contemporaries)

Beeez posted:

Forgive me if this has already been asked as I haven't managed to read through all 30 pages yet, but I've been reading some historical fiction and accounts of ancient and medieval warfare lately and I've found I sometimes can't totally picture how large-scale warfare would look back in those days. Seeing the various videos demonstrating what's in the manuals on single combat has illuminated single combat for me, but I still don't always know how to picture authentic warfare. Are there any good visual representations of that kind of thing, be they videos or pictures? Any help is much appreciated.

Not My Goodies posted:

I'm pretty sure you're totally correct on all of this except the last part. Although even with a 7 foot bow you'd have to be really short before it became impossible to shoot from the center.

There are laminate Yumi dating back from the 5th century BC. To my knowledge there's no reason why a Yumi made with wood and bamboo laminate couldn't be in excess of 80 lbs.

Sorry to get all Deadliest Warrior on you here but if by European contemporaries you mean the English longbow, the full size war Yumi was a far superior weapon mechanically. Pound for pound they shot arrows faster and farther because of the heavy curves in the composite limbs storing more energy than an unbent yew stick. I don't think there ever was a more powerful bow than a high draw war Yumi, although I don't know much about Eastern composite recurves. My understanding is that they were more for flinging arrows from horseback so they didn't really utilize the 100+ lb draw weight the same way English and Japanese archers did with their big dramatic behind the head draw length.

Not My Goodies posted:

I'm pretty sure you're totally correct on all of this except the last part. Although even with a 7 foot bow you'd have to be really short before it became impossible to shoot from the center.

There are laminate Yumi dating back from the 5th century BC. To my knowledge there's no reason why a Yumi made with wood and bamboo laminate couldn't be in excess of 80 lbs.

Sorry to get all Deadliest Warrior on you here but if by European contemporaries you mean the English longbow, the full size war Yumi was a far superior weapon mechanically. Pound for pound they shot arrows faster and farther because of the heavy curves in the composite limbs storing more energy than an unbent yew stick. I don't think there ever was a more powerful bow than a high draw war Yumi, although I don't know much about Eastern composite recurves. My understanding is that they were more for flinging arrows from horseback so they didn't really utilize the 100+ lb draw weight the same way English and Japanese archers did with their big dramatic behind the head draw length.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

I believe the Mongols used bows that had up to 160lb draw weights, as well as plenty in the 120-140lb range, which is insane.

Rabhadh posted:

Are higher draw weight bows more or less reliable than lower draw weight bows? I was just wondering if a big 160 lb bow was put under much more stress than a smaller one, and might break sooner?

Beeez posted:

Forgive me if this has already been asked as I haven't managed to read through all 30 pages yet, but I've been reading some historical fiction and accounts of ancient and medieval warfare lately and I've found I sometimes can't totally picture how large-scale warfare would look back in those days. Seeing the various videos demonstrating what's in the manuals on single combat has illuminated single combat for me, but I still don't always know how to picture authentic warfare. Are there any good visual representations of that kind of thing, be they videos or pictures? Any help is much appreciated.

Beeez posted:

Thanks to those who have responded so far. So did shield walls involve very little dexterity in handling one's weapons? I watched the aforementioned Vikings battle scene and it seemed like the ones using swords in the shield wall were kind of just flailing their swords around. I know spears were the most common weapon for foot soldiers in a lot of time frames, but some of the stuff I've read mentions soldiers really cutting men up with a sword or dagger in a shield wall. I also don't quite understand how a shield wall with more columns was helpful, if it really was two sides pushing against each other with shields then how did anyone who wasn't in the first row manage to hit anything with any kind of accuracy or contribute much besides putting more force on the backs of the men in the front of a shield wall? I have some theories based on what I read and have seen so far but I'm trying to be sure.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

I believe the Mongols used bows that had up to 160lb draw weights, as well as plenty in the 120-140lb range, which is insane.

Not My Goodies posted:

I'm pretty sure you're totally correct on all of this except the last part. Although even with a 7 foot bow you'd have to be really short before it became impossible to shoot from the center.

There are laminate Yumi dating back from the 5th century BC. To my knowledge there's no reason why a Yumi made with wood and bamboo laminate couldn't be in excess of 80 lbs.

Sorry to get all Deadliest Warrior on you here but if by European contemporaries you mean the English longbow, the full size war Yumi was a far superior weapon mechanically. Pound for pound they shot arrows faster and farther because of the heavy curves in the composite limbs storing more energy than an unbent yew stick. I don't think there ever was a more powerful bow than a high draw war Yumi, although I don't know much about Eastern composite recurves. My understanding is that they were more for flinging arrows from horseback so they didn't really utilize the 100+ lb draw weight the same way English and Japanese archers did with their big dramatic behind the head draw length.

e: I can't find it but somewhere there's a video of Mike Loades shooting an English warbow next to a guy shooting a war Yumi and it goes into the specifics of why the Yumi were so baller.

Beeez posted:

Thanks to those who have responded so far. So did shield walls involve very little dexterity in handling one's weapons? I watched the aforementioned Vikings battle scene and it seemed like the ones using swords in the shield wall were kind of just flailing their swords around. I know spears were the most common weapon for foot soldiers in a lot of time frames, but some of the stuff I've read mentions soldiers really cutting men up with a sword or dagger in a shield wall. I also don't quite understand how a shield wall with more columns was helpful, if it really was two sides pushing against each other with shields then how did anyone who wasn't in the first row manage to hit anything with any kind of accuracy or contribute much besides putting more force on the backs of the men in the front of a shield wall? I have some theories based on what I read and have seen so far but I'm trying to be sure.

Beeez posted:

Forgive me if this has already been asked as I haven't managed to read through all 30 pages yet, but I've been reading some historical fiction and accounts of ancient and medieval warfare lately and I've found I sometimes can't totally picture how large-scale warfare would look back in those days. Seeing the various videos demonstrating what's in the manuals on single combat has illuminated single combat for me, but I still don't always know how to picture authentic warfare. Are there any good visual representations of that kind of thing, be they videos or pictures? Any help is much appreciated.

Squalid posted:

I've heard a few times that Mongols fired their bows from a sitting position when dismounted, is it possible they could shoot 160 pd bows by steadying the bow with their feet and drawing with both arms? It's possible such bows would only be fired from such a posture and only used in sieges and such.

Railtus posted:

I have heard very different versions of this. I suspect dexterity was important, since a sword would not be my first choice if I wanted something to flail around.

I have actually heard it suggested that shield walls did not tend to result in pushing matches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaYtNW_wR8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tf4ygCbWKk

There’s also the issue of helmets. You want to hit something vital over the shield wall. Flailing could stun someone on the helmet but in many ways you are trying to hit a face or neck.

Another factor is the centre-boss shield common among Vikings and I think Saxons. In some ways it is relatively easy to shove aside. I think the shield was probably not the best for pushing matches etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc

On the other hand, pushing could be appropriate in some circumstances. For instance, a boar’s snout formation could be used to drive a wedge through the enemy line. Obviously it depends on how thick the line is.

Beeez posted:

Yeah, these are some of the reasons I found it confusing to be sure how formations actually worked. I know ultimately the goal is to rout the enemy and it wasn't very likely for battles to be fought to the last man, but from some of the descriptions and pictures I've seen I don't understand how just pushing could work that well in a lot of instances. It seems like it'd limit mobility and dexterity too much if the formations are excessively rigid. But again, I could be way off, just trying to figure it out.