|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:Is that a durian helmet?
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:No, that would be a war crime. Besides, durian shells don't stand up to edged weapons. They're kinda spongy, but a good axe would treat it like it wasn't there. Also your soldier would either be revolted or hungry as a result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:No, that would be a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Were oubliettes really a thing used much? Some googling seemed to suggest they weren't exactly widespread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
This might be a little early for the timeframe of this thread, but what would the arms and armor of the British forces in the Early Middle Ages (5th-6th centuries specifically) have looked like? Was there much continuity in terms of Roman weapons, armor and tactics, or was there a resurgence of things like the Celtic longsword?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
brozozo posted:Can anyone recommend me a good history of the crusades? How highly regarded is Runciman's work these days? I'd recommend Christopher Tyerman's God's War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
While we're on the topic, can anybody recommend (A)good and (B)cheap translations of primary sources from the middle ages? Any year, any place, any subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
End Of Worlds posted:This might be a little early for the timeframe of this thread, but what would the arms and armor of the British forces in the Early Middle Ages (5th-6th centuries specifically) have looked like? Was there much continuity in terms of Roman weapons, armor and tactics, or was there a resurgence of things like the Celtic longsword? Even top quality armor won't last that long in an uncontrolled/field environment, so most of the high quality Roman stuff was on the scrap heap by the time you're talking about. The stuff during this era was made by mediocre craftsmen using mediocre metal, much worse in quality than what the Romans were fielding at their peak (though similar to what they fielded, in large part, towards the end of the empire). We're talking about Anglo-Saxons here I assume? Basically, for a relatively wealthy/powerful guy, he'd wear a mail shirt over a thick leather or hide jacket plus a banded metal or leather helmet. Legs might get a bit of metal but nothing like proper greaves, but more more likely it was just leather boots. Small round shield completed the ensemble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Even top quality armor won't last that long in an uncontrolled/field environment, so most of the high quality Roman stuff was on the scrap heap by the time you're talking about. The stuff during this era was made by mediocre craftsmen using mediocre metal, much worse in quality than what the Romans were fielding at their peak (though similar to what they fielded, in large part, towards the end of the empire). I'd like to dispute the point about equipment being much worse quality. There was certainly less equipment to go around since the Roman mass production systems collapsed, but that system of mass production relied on hundreds of slaves working at bloomery furnaces producing things to a standard pattern. No doubt the Romans had their master craftsmen too, but to say quality went down is absolutely false. You only have to look at the Sutton Hoo find to see that. Metalworking actually improved since the collapse of the Roman Empire with the discovery of new process of tempering and quenching, until you have the long medieval swords we're all familiar with. It wasn't possible to produce them in Romans times. The Celtic longsword is an interesting experiment in creating a long sword before the technology was fully there to enable it in it's most efficient form. These blades were just soft enough to bend in plane (by design), if they'd been made harder they would have shattered on impact instead of just bending. They were also easily bent back into shape without losing the edge. Needless to say, this leaves you at a disadvantage but still better than shattering all over the place!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I'd recommend Christopher Tyerman's God's War. Ah, I've read a bit of that one! I used it as a source for a paper I wrote years ago. I'll check it out again. Grand Prize Winner posted:While we're on the topic, can anybody recommend (A)good and (B)cheap translations of primary sources from the middle ages? Any year, any place, any subject. As far as I know, the only English translation of The Alexiad is published by Penguin. If you've never read it before, I would definitely recommend it. brozozo fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
I'm not sure how long this was the case, but the quality of equipment was definitely worse in the fourth century than the second. In the second century equipment was purchased on the money economy from craftsmen or the large slave "factories." However in the late third century when perpetual crisis caused the money economy to collapse, this system fell apart. With money worthless and the army broke anyway it became impossible for private industry to survive; their economic position was just too unreliable. Enter Diocletian, who circumvented the problem by creating new state factories to directly employ the manufacturers. The government might not have been able to pay them but it could at least keep them fed and safe. However these new circumstances led to a reduction in the quality of Roman equipment. For example the helmets of the early empire had a dome forged from one piece and the neck guard integrated, and hinged cheek guards. In the late empire the helmet construction was drastically simplified. Rather than a single piece domes are now two or more riveted together. cheek and neck guards are now held on only by laces or straps. Also it seems quality control decreased, a number of crudely made helmets have been found, possibly because the new state factories were under pressure to meet high production quotas. The Sutton Hoo helmet is actually more similar to Swedish designs than late Roman ones however, although it could have been influenced by Roman styles. Roman style helmet designs contemporaryish to Sutton Hoo have been found, and the rest of the equipment was pretty similar to that used in the Roman period. Mail shirts, thrusting spears, round shields and slashing swords all carried over from the Romans. I doubt Roman strategy would have had much relevance however, although I don't know enough to say for certain. Considering the tiny size of post Roman British states it'd doubt they could retain the kind of knowledge or infrastructure necessary. I think cavalry was gradually marginalized after the end of Roman rule, although full disclosure I'm basing that entirely off the little I know of Anglo-Saxon armies in 1066.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:Unmodified scythes make pretty terrible weapons. At the very least, there's no advantage to having the blade at a right angle to the haft, and thus no reason to do it. Thank you this always confused me because I saw videos of the kama in use and assumed that you could use a scythe in somewhat similar way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Cacotopic Stain posted:Thank you this always confused me because I saw videos of the kama in use and assumed that you could use a scythe in somewhat similar way. The kama isn't a weapon used in warfare, it's for martial arts demonstrations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
What's usable in unarmored 1:1 isn't necessarily usable at all when doing larger scales fights too. You could make just about anything work with training in 1:1 unarmored fighting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
veekie posted:What's usable in unarmored 1:1 isn't necessarily usable at all when doing larger scales fights too. You could make just about anything work with training in 1:1 unarmored fighting. Yeah 99.9% of people who try to use a rope dart or crescent spade or three section staff in a fight of any kind will just gently caress themselves up. When the Chinese went to war they used swords and spears and bows like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
I heard somewhere (this thread?) that bronze is better than iron for weapons but iron took over because it's a lot cheaper rather than better. Is that true?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
"Better" is pretty vague. Iron is more widespread than copper and tin, which means to make bronze you probably have to trade. Iron will rust, bronze won't...but iron will hold an edge longer. As far as hardness and durability, my understanding is it comes down to the level of metallurgy involved. An iron sword isn't going to just slice through a bronze one, but if it's well made and not chock full of impurities it can cause more damage than it takes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Iron will rust, bronze won't...but iron will hold an edge longer. It won't. Iron, which i distinguish here from steel (and especially from hardened steel) cannot hold an edge nearly as well as work-hardened bronze. Iron is really soft, and I would not make a knife out of it ever. It has no flex, either, so you can warp it very badly and permanently by knocking it against things (shields, other swords, humans) and really it's just not a very good weapon material. I know you're probably just using the terms loosely, but iron and steel are different materials, and steel has to be treated to get a lasting edge on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It has no flex, either... Edit: Cast iron; I guess in a wrought iron piece, the bands would split apart along the seams. Edit 2: Rodrigo Diaz posted:... and really it's just not a very good weapon material. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Has anyone ever tried to build a suit of armor with modern materials and techniques? Like, designing a suit of armor with CAD and building it out of modern steel? I was just wondering how it would compare to a medieval suit of armor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
We'd probably need to reacquire some of the refinements in design(particularly handling damage gracefully, dealing with varied attack types, comfort of wear tweaks), but we have better metallurgy and industry to back it up. Once we do that it'd probably be strictly superior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Has anyone ever tried to build a suit of armor with modern materials and techniques? Like, designing a suit of armor with CAD and building it out of modern steel? I was just wondering how it would compare to a medieval suit of armor. I brought this up a while ago, and what it really comes down to is that for the purposes intended, they pretty much mastered it. You could maybe improve a little bit, but the actual differences would be pretty small in practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I brought this up a while ago, and what it really comes down to is that for the purposes intended, they pretty much mastered it. You could maybe improve a little bit, but the actual differences would be pretty small in practice. Pretty much. We could make it more comfortable and more reliable with things like rubber seals and foam grips, but it wouldn't be appreciably safer. Pretty much the biggest improvement would be replacing the visor-slit with protective glass for improved visibility. Of course if we really went all Iron Man on it we could also do things like put in communication electronics, cooling systems, advanced light-weight materials, etc., and that would certainly increase overall fighting power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Or just build it out of one of DARPA's powered exoskeletons. You can put the powerpack on your robot horse. Then you can carry 300 pounds of armor and greatly exceed the previous best. And you could probably carry a light autocannon for a lance. 20 millimeters of chivalry. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Pretty much. We could make it more comfortable and more reliable with things like rubber seals and foam grips, but it wouldn't be appreciably safer. Pretty much the biggest improvement would be replacing the visor-slit with protective glass for improved visibility. Of course if we really went all Iron Man on it we could also do things like put in communication electronics, cooling systems, advanced light-weight materials, etc., and that would certainly increase overall fighting power. Yeah, basically, more strength for less weight(but not that much more strength, because however light you make it, thickness of material will start to encumber movement), greater comfort, smaller gaps. At least until you start motorizing the joints and it stops being just armor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Or just build it out of one of DARPA's powered exoskeletons. You can put the powerpack on your robot horse. Then you can carry 300 pounds of armor and greatly exceed the previous best. And you could probably carry a light autocannon for a lance. 20 millimeters of chivalry. If the rules of this challenge let you have an autocannon, I'm going to define "suit of armour" as "battle rifle with depleted uranium bullets" and win the medieval warfare contest. It's an interesting question to wonder what we can do about old designs with modern materials, but the main thing we do with modern materials is create weapons that are quite unlike previous ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Did improvement in manufacturing and material quality affect weapon design in the medieval era? Or was weapon design primarily determined by armor quality and design? For example, I heard somewhere that in the ancient era Gauls were able to use long swords because of superior ironworking techniques. Bronze and lower-quality iron were only practical to use in shorter swords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
I've been wondering, there's a lot of surviving material on the use of longswords, but what do we know about how earlier two-handed swords were used? I'm thinking of things like this - http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-duke-xiiia.htm Is there much (if any) crossover with the Renaissance traditions of longsword fighting? They look too broad for halfswording.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
What makes that an earlier two-handed sword as opposed to a longsword?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:What makes that an earlier two-handed sword as opposed to a longsword? Maybe earlier was the wrong word. I meant ones with broader blades that were more suited for cutting than thrusting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Longsword fighting is much more than just halfswording. You have to keep in mind that halfswording was something intended against opponents in full plate harness - not something a sword is very good at in the first place. Unarmoured techniques with both hands on the hilt are the core of any comprehensive longsword manual, and most of them should work just fine against an opponent armoured in mail and padding - the kind of opponents the Duke is designed to murder. It's interesting to note that the Duke is very close in size of the later longswords. Because of the broader blade profile, the center of balance is further out and the handling is different, but I'd wager swords like the Duke are the root of the fencing traditions that were later written down by the German and Italian masters of the longsword.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
For some reason the recent swordchat made me dig out my M1902 and try to narrow the date of manufacture a bit. I had it pegged between 1902 when the design was adopted and 1925, when the manufacturer (The MC Lilley & Co) changed names and logos. But on the back of the blade (which I never noticed somehow) is a stamp of "35" which I assume means 1935. So I guess I have a 1935-assembled sword that used a pre-1925 etched blade. I'm not going to disassemble it because it's actually peened together, not screwed. Not medieval, but inspired by the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Someone asked about Cloth armour and it got lost in the reply list: Cloth armour varied quite a bit in performance. Stopping sword slices - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8hGswaBWMk Mixed results against arrows - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMYv5wtNm8 Cutting through gambesons - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn1VmbtEum8 With a sword in less stellar condition - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLPZSQTyfyE Mail seemed to be more popular, but cloth armour was certainly worthwhile. Brozozo: Runciman’s work on Crusades: In my dissertation about the Crusader kingdoms, I was criticised for not using Runciman’s work; so it seems to still be regarded as a go-to piece. I personally did not find his work all that useful, even as historiography. It tells a nice narrative or story of the Crusades, but it is a little too heavily influenced by Runciman’s focus on the Byzantines. Anyone the Byzantines did not like is automatically assumed to be a jerk, and he ends his conclusion with basically judging the Crusades to be intolerance and bloodthirsty fanaticism – which I think is a little too heavily influenced by the Fourth Crusade. As for other sources, it depends what you want as good. John-Riley Smith is a popular Crusade historian, Thomas Madden gets quoted a lot though I know Obdicut has serious problems with him. If you want easy to digest stuff there’s a Youtube Channel, RealCrusadesHistory, that mentions lots of sources and it may be worthwhile to take a look even if you disagree with most of his points (I think the guy is a little too pro-Crusader or anti-Muslim, but still provides worthwhile information) - http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCrusadeHistory Sexgun Rasputin posted:Oh yeah Railtus did you ever watch that show Vikings? I did watch Vikings, it has enjoyable aspects, although I quickly got bored of the constant “look how badass they are!” going on in the story. For instance, the Saxons had better swords according to the show, and yet the Vikings were routinely overwhelming these better armed, better armoured (in-story at least) Saxons with their sheer Viking-ness. Honestly, it felt a little too Mary Sue to me. Also, the bilingual monk, who learned a second language for missionary work, seemed rather clueless about the people whose language he spoke. Flesnolk posted:Were oubliettes really a thing used much? Some googling seemed to suggest they weren't exactly widespread. I do not often find evidence of them. They just… don’t tend to come up most of the time. I think the role of dungeons as a whole is overstated by 18th-19th century stories. End Of Worlds posted:This might be a little early for the timeframe of this thread, but what would the arms and armor of the British forces in the Early Middle Ages (5th-6th centuries specifically) have looked like? Was there much continuity in terms of Roman weapons, armor and tactics, or was there a resurgence of things like the Celtic longsword? Yes, for all the wrong reasons. By the 4th century, the Roman army was already undergoing changes. Armies were less well-paid and relied more on conscription, lorica segmentata was disappearing (Adrian Goldsworthy suggests it chafes like a swine) and swords were getting longer. Vegetius suggests metal armour was less widely used. Essentially, there was arguably a resurgence of non-Roman weapons, armour and tactics, but the resurgence began in the Roman Empire. Grand Prize Winner posted:While we're on the topic, can anybody recommend (A)good and (B)cheap translations of primary sources from the middle ages? Any year, any place, any subject. Some medieval sources translated are here - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook2.asp I cannot speak to the quality, but it does give quite a few sources on a lot of things. It’s called the Internet Medieval Sourcebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I do not often find evidence of them. They just… don’t tend to come up most of the time. I think the role of dungeons as a whole is overstated by 18th-19th century stories. So basically famous people who get a lot written about them and have the misfortune to offend authority. veekie fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
How did mounted vs infantry play out? Obviously mounted soldiers demolished people on foot, but I've always thought the logistics of it would have to be a messy nightmare. I mean, you are forced to use a single-handed weapon, and your ability to twist and turn would have to be greatly reduced. The biggest thing I'm wondering about though is: Wouldn't horses basically be tripping and breaking legs left and right by stepping on people flailing their weapons around? In movies, mounted combat is almost always a guy on a horse chasing a woman or child who is running away and the result is an obviously clean and effortless kill. When you read about battles though, it seems like it has to be way different. Did mounted units break through a crowd like a wild bull would?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:How did mounted vs infantry play out? Obviously mounted soldiers demolished people on foot, but I've always thought the logistics of it would have to be a messy nightmare. I mean, you are forced to use a single-handed weapon, and your ability to twist and turn would have to be greatly reduced. The biggest thing I'm wondering about though is: Wouldn't horses basically be tripping and breaking legs left and right by stepping on people flailing their weapons around? Not a direct answer to your question but an example of a modern horse charge, I would presume to be similar to the time period can part crowds as seen in the video and could cause panic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qhUTF4hOp8
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Not a direct answer to your question but an example of a modern horse charge, I would presume to be similar to the time period can part crowds as seen in the video and could cause panic. Yeah, that really highlights both sides of it. The crowd definitely parts, but they also almost seem vulnerable up there. Of course it doesn't help that they don't want to hurt the crowd even though the crowd is throwing poo poo at them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:How did mounted vs infantry play out? Obviously mounted soldiers demolished people on foot, but I've always thought the logistics of it would have to be a messy nightmare. I mean, you are forced to use a single-handed weapon, and your ability to twist and turn would have to be greatly reduced. The biggest thing I'm wondering about though is: Wouldn't horses basically be tripping and breaking legs left and right by stepping on people flailing their weapons around? Losing horses was a regular part of mounted combat. William the Conqueror had three killed under him at the battle of Hastings, William Rufus lost a huge number of horses to missiles the siege of Chaumont, etc. Horses would sometimes be crippled by ditches, especially if they were disguised as at Loudon Hill, but in the absence of such traps they did not regularly break their legs, and it does not seem that this was a viable tactic. One of the ways used by the Byzantines to deal with heavily armored kataphraktoi, for example, was to disembowel the horses, not to break their legs, so you are overestimating the efficacy of such things. We do know horses trampled men to death in war. We also know that they could knock men over, though the exact circumstances of these types of collision are rarely clear. You are misusing the term "logistics", and I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to express with it. Chillyrabbit posted:Not a direct answer to your question but an example of a modern horse charge, I would presume to be similar to the time period can part crowds as seen in the video and could cause panic. This is a fine example of using horses to scatter a mob of protesters. It is not a good example of using horses in medieval warfare, and should not be treated as analogous to one. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is a fine example of using horses to scatter a mob of protesters. It is not a good example of using horses in medieval warfare, and should not be treated as analogous to one. It really isn't a very good example of police-work either. Even if using horses like this was good public policy (which it isn't) they did a poor job of supporting the salient. If the crowd hadn't already been so passive and peaceful the horsemen would have been immediately surrounded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Losing horses was a regular part of mounted combat. William the Conqueror had three killed under him at the battle of Hastings, William Rufus lost a huge number of horses to missiles the siege of Chaumont, etc. The idea of being on a horse in combat seems like an obvious and intuitive advantage, but it also seems like it would be very easy to lose your weapon, get thrown off of the horse, or be pulled down from it in direct combat. I wonder if a bigger part of the use of mounted units was to control the position of the enemy and break formation, rather than to just kill more people than if on foot. Couldn't a single foot-soldier with a spear easily do enough damage to a horse to make it un-ridable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:04
|
|