|
Yep, Ireland operated under a "cattle economy" where wealth was measured by the number of cattle a lord kept, which were tended by groups of semi-nomadic herders. Together they were called called "creaghts". Being a semi-nomadic herder gives you have a whole load of time to practise your slingin' and javelin throwing. As for bows, there is evidence indicating that the bow had died out in Ireland some time in the early bronze age (seemingly due to the decline in the importance of hunting). I'd like to expand on this later but I should never have started replying to something while rushing out the door!
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Strabo about Balearic slingers: "And their training in the use of slings used to be such, from childhood up, that they would not so much as give bread to their children unless they first hit it with the sling." From here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/3E*.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
First off, amazing thread Railtus! I'm a huge medieval nerd and this thread makes me all warm n fuzzy inside! I've often had trouble pinning down what exactly a serjeant is in medieval military terms. In popular medieval settings they're usually depicted as heavy infantry. I've heard some describe them as sort of sub-knights, professional soldiers who hold land within a barony. I guess what my question really boils down to is, who are those mysterious heavy infantry in every medieval setting ever and how do they stack up to knights in terms of how they make their money, the equipment they use, and the military training and fitness they possess?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
It should be noted that knights often fought on foot as well. During sieges they wouldn't be on horseback anyway, and it was always common for knights to ride to the battlefield and then dismount to actually fight, more so in some parts of Europe than in others. This became even more commonplace in the late Medieval period. Keep in mind, though, that battles were rare, and that the vast majority of fighting took the form of sieges and raiding.
Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
OhGreatAGinger posted:First off, amazing thread Railtus! I'm a huge medieval nerd and this thread makes me all warm n fuzzy inside! As far as I'm aware, a serjeant was essentially a knight minus 'knighthood'. Still a professional soldier and all that jazz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What cultural traits are common to the regions that fielded a lot a of slingers? It won't surprise me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't archers tended to come from groups that either hunted or did a lot of sport shooting? So what advantages did the sling have over the bow aside from price? On slingers, I should pre-face this by saying most of the cultures I am familiar with do not use slingers to any significant degree, so this is outside my area. I am told there was Iberian/Spanish/Portugese sling use against the Moors, but I have no major verification of this. I’m going to talk more about bows because I can answer that part, and instead refer to some of these videos for slings. Intro on slings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=covH4voKukw Slings vs Archery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGSsbCPeocU Sling & Shield: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXiUDJRgiUc Making slings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivsfp9y9E6g Ammo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU87f5o8vMg Technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ3bBkRIJNU Archers do tend to come from groups that either hunted or did a lot of sport shooting, but I would say the groups do sport shooting because they value archery, rather than producing archers because of sport shooting. The primary area for archers was the British Isles, elsewhere the crossbow proved more popular. Scotland used longbows as well as England, though I would say England eventually adopted it more extensively. Another group that produced a lot of archers were the Maronites during the Crusades – an ethnic group in the Levant that I do not know much about, the main things I know about them is that they were (are) Christians in the East and admired by the Crusaders, both for their faith and for being fierce warriors. My view is the British citizen-militia custom contributed. Not that the rest of Europe lacked it, but England had it organised by the 1252 Assize of Arms and other royal decrees. Other places had their own militia traditions, but I do not think they were as royally sponsored the same way (please someone correct me if I’m wrong here) – instead they were more locally based, which tended towards more mixed forces rather than focusing on archers specifically. OhGreatAGinger posted:First off, amazing thread Railtus! I'm a huge medieval nerd and this thread makes me all warm n fuzzy inside! Thank you! And a serjeant essentially means one who serves. Sub-knight is a really good description of serjeants. These were career soldiers who held land similar to knights, although not as wealthy or as high status. In the English context they might be part-time farmers who essentially did military service as their labour obligation, almost like promising military service in place of taxes. The other context I see them in is the military orders (Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights) and I think those were full-time career soldiers. They probably were not quite as good as a knight, though were still some very good troops – not being a nobleman meant they probably did not have the same extensive training from early childhood, they probably could not afford as good gear. From Osprey’s Knight Templar 1120-1312, the armour of sergeant-brothers had less coverage, with no foot-coverings on their mail leggings and possibly no sleeves on their hauberks (I find leggings but no sleeves unlikely, no mittens perhaps), and a kettle helmet rather than a full great helm. The idea is so that they could function as crossbowmen or infantry by not having their hands, feet or vision impaired. However, sergeants also often fought mounted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:It should be noted that knights often fought on foot as well. During sieges they wouldn't be on horseback anyway, and it was always common for knights to ride to the battlefield and then dismount to actually fight, more so in some parts of Europe than in others. Two things: first, there are numerous accounts of knights fighting on horseback during sieges. It did not happen every time but it certainly did happen. Second, I would not say that it was always common for knights to dismount on the battlefield. This was quite rare in the 13th century in particular. If i was not posting from a phone I would elaborate but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I did come across this discussion - http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7175 – on the subject of minor penetration and how it might be possible. None of the sources I am familiar with mention the arrowhead getting past the shield when the arrow sticks in, but it could be because it was not important enough to mention in the descriptions rather than because it did not happen. The pilum or spiculum was said to be able to puncture shields (in De Re Militari, if you’re wondering about the reliability of the source) so it is not impossible for arrows or other weapons to puncture shields a little as well. There is a game that the Ottomans used to play. It's called darb, you shoot bodkin arrows like these  at metal or glass targets. I can take a few pictures of targets when I come home.  A bow like the one above is bad news for anyone in plate armor and chainmail. There is an account of a french knight getting his head riveted into his helmet by an ottoman arrow that pierced the front and exited at the back at the Battle of Nicopolis. Adam Karpowicz did some testing on the penetrative power of such weaponry, I think he also gives examples for the piercing of wooden items. I'll look that up when I get home. There is a catch though. Ottoman arrows are lighter and shorter than comparable european bodkin arrows, but much faster thanks to the high energy storage of that bow's design. The air drag affects lighter arrows more, so while they can reach out very far, the penetrative power to pierce just about any armor from plate downward will be only there in the first 40m or so. You're still completely hosed with chainmail. Here a few different types of ottoman arrows. The long one is a tartar arrow (also in use in the ottoman military)  e: "There are only a few referrences to war use. Hansard wrote about two-hole penetration of a metal helmet made to withstand pistol shots, together with the head. Shots through 2 inches of metal, as well as 1/2 inch plank at 100 yards have been recorded. A wooden mannequin clad in chainmail was completely shot through. Turkish arrows were known to penetrate plate armor of the Austrian Cuirassiers of the 17th c." [Karpowicz, Adam (2008): Ottoman Turkish bows, manufacture & design] I recall reading about Prince Eugene of Savoy talking about the cuirassiers in another source. 2" of metal might sound massive, but look at the bell on this picture and imagine how much power such an arrow must have so that the glass stays whole. The arrows are inserted for illustrative purposes.   Other composite designs do not differ so greatly in their performance. What sets the turkish bows apart is the use of relative light arrows. Parthian, Mongol and Magyar designs are for very heavy arrows Power Khan fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I did come across this discussion - http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7175 – on the subject of minor penetration and how it might be possible. None of the sources I am familiar with mention the arrowhead getting past the shield when the arrow sticks in, but it could be because it was not important enough to mention in the descriptions rather than because it did not happen. The pilum or spiculum was said to be able to puncture shields (in De Re Militari, if you’re wondering about the reliability of the source) so it is not impossible for arrows or other weapons to puncture shields a little as well. Well, the ability of the Parthian composite bows to achieve (limited) penetration of the Roman tower shields is known to be pivotal in their crushing victory at the Battle of Carrhae. quote:The battle of Carrhae has always been portrayed as a perfect example about how effective can archers be in battles, even against well-armoured soldiers. This example is still valid. It is just necessary to realise, that the effectiveness was not much in the penetrative power of the arrows and their ability to kill and wound men, but rather in sowing terror into their minds, demoralizing them and weakening their will to fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Those bows are awesome. They look and feel like a toy (really light and small, the garnish colors and decorations dont help), are a bitch and a half to string, and shoot like the devil.InspectorBloor posted:Other composite designs do not differ so greatly in their performance. What sets the turkish bows apart is the use of relative light arrows. Parthian, Mongol and Magyar designs are for very heavy arrows Normally there is a lower threshold for arrow weight that you cannot go under without risking damage to the bow. Lighter arrows require a smaller amount of energy to make them leave the bow, and all the stored energy that is NOT transferred to the arrow will crash into the bow itself/the string and especially the place where the string is attached to the bow. Are the turkish bows just better at handling that stress? Is it just that, or is there more behind the optimization for heavy/light arrows?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
That statement about the weight of the arrows is true. Turkish flight bows, made for sporty distance shooting cast extremely light arrows and are exceptionally fast at restoring their braced form. So that the bow doesn't get damaged, one needs a bow with very light siyahs and limbs and very high energy storage (they usually have a proportionally large ammount of sinew backing). The arrow will take energy that is stored in the bow upon drawing, the higher the weigth of the arrow, the more energy will be stored in it. Conversely, if you shoot an arrow that is too light, only a portion of the energy will be donated in the arrow - the remaining energy of the bow returning to the braced form will hit the bow's structure. It's kind of dry firing a bow. Sooner or later it will break. And you don't want to be anywhere near when a 120# bow breaks. Also, too light arrows will be felt as handshock (siyahs that are too large will also produce handshock) Turkish bows are very short. I have measurements of 40 different bows here in Kapowicz's book, and most are 103-110cm, drawweight ranging from 50-140# (there is even one with 240), most of them around 120#. The reason why they are able to shoot such short and light arrows effectively is, that they are of very low mass. Most are between 360 and 450g. That means they are very fast at restoring their original shape and therefore casting light arrows effectively. You could see it like the principle behind the calibre of modern assault rifles, heavier and slower projectiles, or faster and lighter projectiles. (I think the turks meant to wound enemies rather than kill them, so that they could collect ransom or make slaves. Also, you can carry more light arrows). Like I said before, heavier arrows will retain more energy over distance, but can also be used for larger arrowheads against unarmored targets. It is still possible to shoot such arrows with a turkish bow, but probably only to the max draw of 30" with a 106cm bow. There is also an overdraw device that's called "siper" which allows you to shoot very very short arrows safely (and also another one that allows the use of crossbow bolts). Other bows like the design that the Manchu or the Crimean Tartars used are made for very long and heavy arrows. They're almost like javelins. Those bows are alot longer and have larger siyahs and a reflexed handle. The underlying principle of construction is the same. Either 3 part or 5 part construction, but all with V-splices - just like the turkish ones. The configuration of the angles is different, but both bow types need string bridges. https://plus.google.com/photos/100344514090479456506/albums/5643756987087292545  I've read that such bows originated in areas where there is very dense vegetation (and loving large bears). The long arrows make it hard for the prey to escape. I've spent the last 1 1/2 years preparing to build a turkish target bow. I started on the project 3 months ago and am now close to glueing the wooden core together. It's awfully spergy and will probably take another 3 cores to make a halfway working bow. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:You could see it like the principle behind the calibre of modern assault rifles, heavier and slower projectiles, or faster and lighter projectiles. (I think the turks meant to wound enemies rather than kill them, so that they could collect ransom or make slaves. Also, you can carry more light arrows). Like I said before, heavier arrows will retain more energy over distance, but can also be used for larger arrowheads against unarmored targets. It is still possible to shoot such arrows with a turkish bow, but probably only to the max draw of 30" with a 106cm bow. There is also an overdraw device that's called "siper" which allows you to shoot very very short arrows safely (and also another one that allows the use of crossbow bolts). Speaking of which, what's the primary mechanical difference in firing mechanics between crossbows and regular/recurve/longbows? If crossbow bolts are so short, then why don't crossbows suffer the effects of dry firing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
dromer posted:Speaking of which, what's the primary mechanical difference in firing mechanics between crossbows and regular/recurve/longbows? If crossbow bolts are so short, then why don't crossbows suffer the effects of dry firing? They do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzdTUQuBY_g You might be able to dry fire your beginner crossbow, but higher drawweigths will explode in your face. The ones with solid steel bows will be more tolerant I guess, but the string will surely break. Crossbows are an ingenious idea. You can use higher drawweigths (more range & power), training your troops will be faster, the guys can carry more ammo and like with the turkish short arrows - it's hard to shoot them back at you. The mayor difficulty when trying to build larger numbers of them is the locking mechanism. The chinese came up with a very simple cast solution very early on. http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm From the perspective of drawing your crossbow, you'll use other muscle groups. When drawing a bow, you will do most work with your shoulder and back - this isn't optimal and needs long conditioning for you to be able to take such extreme drawweigths without the danger of hurting yourself. Cocking a crossbow will utilize your legs and hips. Those are far better for such a task.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:You're still completely hosed with chainmail. Thanks for the useful info. This is interesting, although I would be cautious about suggesting mail is essentially useless against them – you mention other composite bows being of similar performance, but in Crusaders fought against foes armed with composite bows and their mail armour seemed to defend them quite well – not that it is impossible to pierce mail or even plate with some arrows (Girard of Quiercy was killed by an arrow through both shield and armour, probably resolving the whole “is an arrow getting through a shield realistic” debate) but I’d hesitate when it’s portrayed as quite so easy or reliable. It makes me very suspicious of the mannequin test for the mail to fail quite so spectacularly; mostly it is the offhanded way he says chainmail that makes me wonder – is it wrought iron or steel? Is it fairly thick rings for mail used as primary armour or thinner rings of mail intended to be layered under something else? Heck, is it butted or riveted and if riveted what shape are the rivets?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:https://plus.google.com/photos/100344514090479456506/albums/5643756987087292545 That's some incredibly fine calligraphy there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:There is a game that the Ottomans used to play. It's called darb, you shoot bodkin arrows like these It makes indescribably happy to know that "Getting drunk and shooting beer cans off a fence post" is a tradition that goes back to medieval times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Thanks for the useful info. This is interesting, although I would be cautious about suggesting mail is essentially useless against them – you mention other composite bows being of similar performance, but in Crusaders fought against foes armed with composite bows and their mail armour seemed to defend them quite well – not that it is impossible to pierce mail or even plate with some arrows (Girard of Quiercy was killed by an arrow through both shield and armour, probably resolving the whole “is an arrow getting through a shield realistic” debate) but I’d hesitate when it’s portrayed as quite so easy or reliable. There is no exact reference what type was used. Quite recently I saw something about the combination of padding and chainmail and that it's supposed to be very effective at stopping bodkin tips. It's likely that a double layer of riveted chainmail and padding would stop such an arrow sufficiently. In fact I'd love to see such a test. I don't know what type of bow or arrowheads muslim troops would use against the crusaders. Do we know the quality of these troops? Elgood's Islamic arms and armour might give a better answer, but somebody else borrowed the last piece at the library. The men who were meant to operate these weapons were nothing short of olympic champions. Imagine a guy doing onehanded pullups by just hanging on the bar with his thumb. There is a manuscript by Taybugha that details the requirements for passing archery examinations of the mamluks (the ones for janissaries are surprisingly similar). The bar is set very high for modern standards, but these men were trained day in day out for warfare. Hitting a man sized target consecutively from 70m away. Holding the arrows in the hand, shooting 3 arrows within 12 seconds at the same target 70m away (with a warbow). Distance shooting is interesting too Swoboda (2012:166) gives an account of regular competitions of puta shooting at the Okmeydan from a distance of 300-400 gez (198-264m!).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:It makes indescribably happy to know that "Getting drunk and shooting beer cans off a fence post" is a tradition that goes back to medieval times. Ha, I didn't think of that! It's quite obvious, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:There is no exact reference what type was used. Quite recently I saw something about the combination of padding and chainmail and that it's supposed to be very effective at stopping bodkin tips. It's likely that a double layer of riveted chainmail and padding would stop such an arrow sufficiently. In fact I'd love to see such a test. I don't know what type of bow or arrowheads muslim troops would use against the crusaders. Do we know the quality of these troops? From what I know, the troop quality is not mentioned specifically, since it is just an observer account and only goes by what can be seen. Some like Walter of Chatillon is described as chasing after Turks who were shooting backwards (which may have reduced their power). Others, like Saladin’s biographer, would indicate Fatamid troops, and it commented on lots of arrows hitting their mark to no effect, so it would probably be just a general comment on the battle. I should note that the Crusaders certainly considered the Fatamids much less effective opponents in general than they did the Seljuks. If I may elaborate on the combination of mail and padding, part of the reason it works so well together is that the arrowhead suitable for one is very poor for the other. A broadhead arrow has edges to effectively slice its way through the padding, but those do nothing against the mail. The bodkin spike is more suited to mail, but it lacks the edges to slice through the padding. So if you use both together then between them they cover both kinds of arrowheads. Dan Howard in Mail: Unchained mentions “An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination during the 15th century) was proof against Mary Rose longbows.” However, it doesn’t provide a source for the experiment. The combination of mail & padding also seems to be leaps and bounds better than mail alone. The tests are far from perfect, but it hints at something very interesting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4bpb4eTI
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Thanks for the useful info. This is interesting, although I would be cautious about suggesting mail is essentially useless against them – you mention other composite bows being of similar performance, but in Crusaders fought against foes armed with composite bows and their mail armour seemed to defend them quite well – not that it is impossible to pierce mail or even plate with some arrows (Girard of Quiercy was killed by an arrow through both shield and armour, probably resolving the whole “is an arrow getting through a shield realistic” debate) but I’d hesitate when it’s portrayed as quite so easy or reliable. I am downright dismissive about treating mail as useless. We have explicit descriptions of men in mail being unharmed by Islamic bowfire, but even if we did not logical deduction could tell us of its use. Mail persisted as the normal metallic armour both in the Latin East (where composite bows were extremely common) and in Western Europe (where crossbows were extremely common) until the 15th century. As a rule, armour that does not perform a significant protective function does not remain in use for long. Those facts are, in my view, far more informative than reconstructive tests, which are usually fraught with inaccuracy. Your point about padding is an important one, however. Because iron does not have the elasticity of fabric, once the thickest part of the arrow (the head) penetrates it, the shaft can follow through unimpeded, whereas fabric provides more constant friction to the projectile, slowing it down much more effectively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:As a rule, armour that does not perform a significant protective function does not remain in use for long. Can y'all share some hilarious/interesting failures in the development of arms and armor? The weird ambitious stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
The argument about the armour also works in the other direction. Weapons that do not perform, will not stay in use for long. That is especially true for very labor and time intensive weapons like composite bows. Check em:  This is just a curiosity. It was used for mace tournaments. You and your opponent get a flag fixed on the top and the goal is to knock it down. Those guys knew how to have fun. This is a piece from the Höfische Jagd- und Rüstkammer in Vienna. There is a massive collection of weapons and plate armour. What I found surprising is the size of the men that used to fill those sets. Pretty tall, of course powerfully built. I also didn't know about the barroque ideal of beauty, there's suits that will make you look like a winebarrel, apparently that was considered super sexy back then. You can also learn what a "Schamkapsel" is: 
Power Khan fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Wouldn't there be more leeway in weapons, especially missile weapons? How well armored you can expect opponents to be varies a lot after all, and for missile weapons, what might stop an arrow at long range might not at closer ranges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Check out the catalogue of this smith. He's specialized on the reproduction of medieval arrow- and crossbow heads. You get an idea of what was used for which purpose. Archers carried a range of heads for different purposes. http://belza.iq.pl/index_eng.html I haven't seen larger collections of missle weapons in the local museums here. Some finely crafted crossbows and bolts for a noble here and there. Maybe there's more in the depots and it's just not flashy enough to be put on display. There's some turkish equipment on display, but the only larger collection is found here: http://esterhazy.at/en/forchtensteincastle/index.do Probably also useful to notice, it's the nobles who collected these things, so you'll see stuff that they owned or notable stuff that they looted. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:There are a lot of weird choices for this scene. Why are the Saxon (or Angle? are they in Northern England?) shields so TINY? Why is their formation so open? Why are their archers more heavily armoured than their foot-soldiers? Why are swordsmen at the front of the formation? I assume the Vikings are trying to get back to the ship. Why not just burn their boats? They aren't going to be carrying that huge cross if they try to swim. Hell, why not just burn their ship? Why the hell did a bunch of guys not pour through that opening in the shield wall when they spread it to let one man shoot an arrow? So much of this is really stupid. On the other hand, historical armies made mistakes all the time. Why didn't they just X is as valid a criticism of historical people's decisions as it is television.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
  Can someone give me any info on these bad boys? I'm a sucker for excessively elaborate and ambitious garbage like the Lantern Shield. I like to imagine some dude running into a fight with this thing and just being laughed off the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
What I want to know is how that guy gets on a horse without killing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 13:22
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Check out the catalogue of this smith. He's specialized on the reproduction of medieval arrow- and crossbow heads. You get an idea of what was used for which purpose. Archers carried a range of heads for different purposes. Did they carry multiple types of arrows/bolts in every quiver? How would they differentiate them in a pinch?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Does anyone else notice my longest replies are usually to the shortest questions?veekie posted:Wouldn't there be more leeway in weapons, especially missile weapons? Absolutely. A weapon that fail to penetrate the better armours of the day are still useful; they still those in less armour, and even if the armour holds they might have some effect on the guys inside. Armour that consistently fails to stop a weapon is just dead weight and wasted money. Babe Magnet posted:Can someone give me any info on these bad boys? I'm a sucker for excessively elaborate and ambitious garbage like the Lantern Shield. I like to imagine some dude running into a fight with this thing and just being laughed off the battlefield. Lantern shields are certainly inventive, though I am not sure how useful they are. I have heard a few suggested uses for them, though none of them are for the battlefield. One suggestion is that it was for watchmen, to carry both a shield and a lantern at night. Another is it was an urban self-defence device that served as quite the deterrent to a potential mugging. Another idea was to have a light to abruptly shine in someone’s eyes could be an advantage at a duel at dawn. They varied significantly. Some had a central spike; others had spiked rims to act like a sword catcher. The only things they really had in common were the lantern and the shield, so I imagine there was a lot of experimenting done. I have only really found one source impressed with the lantern shield, and it’s just a blog, but here we go - http://mrtalkstoomuch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/weapons-warriors-lantern-shield-of.html In a more general context, there are combination weapons in general; things like swords or polearms with a gun fitted on them or containing a hidden dagger. Some of them are quite ridiculous, others might even make sense. However, I should note that these combination weapons were relatively uncommon in a military context, implying that they were not all that cost-effective, and it was probably more practical to just carry the extra weapon rather than combine them. http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_combo.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:
And what the gently caress is that hole with the little lid for? Edit: one of railtus links already answered that... While I can see the general usefulness of a lantern shield, that particular exemplar in the photo has, uhm, much of everything. Do we have information whether the guy who ordered that actually used it? Or was it just some rich kid playing "Dude, you gotta see my new Nektu fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Nektu posted:ANd what the gently caress is that hole with the little lid for? It's what the light shines out of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:It's what the light shines out of. I thought it'd be for filling the lantern up. At least it looks just like a car's fuel cap 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
One thing you got to know about this type of shooting is, that you never take the eyes of your target. You learn to nock your arrow without looking. Even I can do that. This is a replica of a quiver from a museum here: http://www.sword-elgur.com/katalog/turkish-leather-quiver-from-heeresgeschichtliches-museum.html?cat=7&pn=34 You can see the different sections in the quiver that are separated by leather strings. Look at the picture with the arrows in the quiver. Other quivers have smaller pouches sewn a little lower.    The arrows don't need to be in very deep. You can google for pictures of korean horse archer quivers, those look like miniatures, but they work. I want to build a leather one like these up there, but there's also very interesting chinese quivers made from birch bark that have the feathers down and the arrowheads up. Apparently the Magyars used a very similar type too. Here is a reconstruction:  I can give you a good guess why they did that. The fletching was glued with hide or sinew glue, that stuff dissolves in water. Birchbark is very good at keeping water away (also a reason why composites are often covered in said bark.). It doesn't hurt the fletching to have it upside down like this. When you pull the arrow out, the fletching straightens to normal. It might also be more convenient to carry the arrows in this fashion, because it makes the movement to nock the arrow more direct. Of course it's possible to cut yourself, but waterproofing might be the main idea behind turning it upside down. This doesn't seem to be an idea that made it. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:it makes the movement to nock the arrow more direct. Can you explain this part please? In my mind its a lot more straight-forward to nock when you grab the arrow at the rear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Railtus posted:In a more general context, there are combination weapons in general; things like swords or polearms with a gun fitted on them or containing a hidden dagger. Some of them are quite ridiculous, others might even make sense. However, I should note that these combination weapons were relatively uncommon in a military context, implying that they were not all that cost-effective, and it was probably more practical to just carry the extra weapon rather than combine them. http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_combo.html I figure they might just be too damned fiddly and complicated to make that few ever trained specifically in their use. Every feature you add has it's cost in weight, structure and working angles after all. Something with too many offensive bits might actually limit the way you could attack because in half the possible arrangements you're pointing a spike or muzzle at yourself, or the added weight made it more cumbersome, or moving parts/hollow bits were introduced, resulting in a more fragile weapon. Sure, an expert in the combo weapon might kick all kinds of rear end with it, but it takes some serious training and experimentation to become an expert with the contraptions. Weren't there a few polearms which were successful implementations of the concept?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I thought it'd be for filling the lantern up. At least it looks just like a car's fuel cap Could be that too! I was just guessing based on where the lantern is placed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:The argument about the armour also works in the other direction. Weapons that do not perform, will not stay in use for long. That is especially true for very labor and time intensive weapons like composite bows. Yes and no. I would clarify the term 'performance'. Penetrating armour was not the only way for a weapon to be effective, and indeed we have evidence that the percussive force of arrow impacts could be 'stupefying', to use Galbert of Bruges' turn of phrase. Additionally, as Railtus has pointed out when discussing the longsword, going around the armour was often the best way to deal with it. We have plenty of record of aiming for the face being a common tactic in archery, and given that combatants would often lift their visors either to talk or to breathe, if they even had them, this could certainly be effective. Psychological effects could also be quite important, and indeed I would argue that the psychological impact of arrow showers was one of the chief reasons for the success of English longbowmen during the HYW. You were the one who said that mail was useless against Turkish arrows, and we know that was not the case. While we're at it, I'd like to address this: InspectorBloor posted:Shots through 2 inches of metal, as well as 1/2 inch plank at 100 yards have been recorded. A wooden mannequin clad in chainmail was completely shot through. Turkish arrows were known to penetrate plate armor of the Austrian Cuirassiers of the 17th c." [Karpowicz, Adam (2008): Ottoman Turkish bows, manufacture & design] Unless that 2" of metal is pure potassium, there is no way in hell an arrow penetrated even half the way through. FMJ .308 cannot even penetrate 3/4" of mild steel, and that carries more energy than a bow-fired arrow can ever dream to. While from that photo alone we have no real way of telling exactly how big the bell is, the presence of the shafts and glasses for comparison suggests that it is quite small, maybe 3" across. Bells of such size, as a rule, are not made of thick metal. We also do not know what the bell is made out of, but given the fondness of Turks for brass instruments that seems probable. The fact that an arrow penetrated such an instrument does not seem much of a surprise at all. Your implication that a more powerful shot will keep the glass whole is something I have never come across. Can you explain how that works, mechanically? Arglebargle III posted:On the other hand, historical armies made mistakes all the time. Why didn't they just X is as valid a criticism of historical people's decisions as it is television. For my tactical complaints regarding the boats, your point is well taken. However, most of the choices I highlight are all very atypical of warfare in the Anglo-Saxon realms at the time, and in the case of the men failing to rush through the breach, explicitly contradictory to the context we are presented with in the same scene. The English pressing forward against the Viking shields, and the press of bodies should have driven men through, yet the spearman is isolated and his comrades immediately behind him are simply standing there. If noticed, this breaks the suspension of disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
I still don't understand how shooting undersized arrows out of a high draw-weight bow becomes ok when the bow has very little mass. I don't really understand the physics behind it, how does that keep the bow from exploding?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Do we have information whether the guy who ordered that actually used it? Or was it just some rich kid playing "Dude, you gotta see my new I have no idea, sorry. veekie posted:I figure they might just be too damned fiddly and complicated to make that few ever trained specifically in their use. Every feature you add has it's cost in weight, structure and working angles after all. Something with too many offensive bits might actually limit the way you could attack because in half the possible arrangements you're pointing a spike or muzzle at yourself, or the added weight made it more cumbersome, or moving parts/hollow bits were introduced, resulting in a more fragile weapon. I agree there. It is very difficult to use the combination weapon both ways at once. For instance, a sword-pistol could point at someone and shoot, but if you place the trigger so that it does not interfere with holding the sword normally, then you will need to change grips to shoot with it – is it any better than just carrying a pistol and shooting with it before drawing your sword? On successful combination weapons, polearms certainly combine spear or staff with a striking head and often a hook. The most obvious example is the halberd, and the pollaxe gives a choice of two striking heads depending on your target (as well as a queue-spike so you can attack with both ends). A bill-hook in my mind is functionally similar to a halberd despite the different blade shape. A glaive has a less axe-like blade, but I would still use it in a similar fashion. In a way, the longsword (or arming sword) is a combination weapon. The edge can cut like a sword, the point can stab, the crossguard or pommel can act as a punching weapon, you can half-sword to use it like a short staff or spear and you can mordhau to use it like a mace or warhammer. Late muskets often included design features to make them more suitable as clubs, and then you get the bayonet (which I am actually surprised is such a late invention).
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:You were the one who said that mail was useless against Turkish arrows, and we know that was not the case. "We know that was not the case"? From where would you know that? A youtube video, where guys shoot a longbow and a corresponding war arrow with platecutter tip at mail with padding? Or can you give us literature to back that up, where they lay out the setup and material and test both types of equipment? It's documented that both types pierced even plate with bodkin tips. The turkish arrow is better at piercing it because it's faster and is less subjected to friction when entering the material, because of the barrel taper in front (with diameter of the shaft of around 6mm). I'm sure you have no problem googling the formula for kinetic energy and realizing why increased velocity is better than increased mass. Fyi, an arrow of 600grain, shot from am bow of 150# will provide 118J. I'm not sure that I'd want to be anywhere these things wearing mail or plate. If you still point to that experiment, you'll surely realize that the setup is not the same. What about the quote that just states "metal", and yea, it's most likely brass, as the example for wood would suggest? What of it? It's good at shooting holes in things and people. Are you so fussy that you don't enjoy a little theatrality? Sexgun Rasputin posted:I still don't understand how shooting undersized arrows out of a high draw-weight bow becomes ok when the bow has very little mass. I don't really understand the physics behind it, how does that keep the bow from exploding? If you look to the formula for kinetic energy, you will see that to increase the energy of a smaller arrow, you will have to make it faster. To impart the arrow with that energy stored in the bow, it's limbs need to move faster when restoring from full draw to the braced form. Light and short limbs move faster, therefore are able to impart more energy into a short and light arrow. In the link below you can see examples of the percentage of how much energy is transfered from the bow to the arrow. Flight bows are optimized for just that. http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performance/Performance_of_Turkish_bows.htm Power Khan fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 21:45
|
|