Mans posted:

What's the difference between the Knarr and a Cog? Mainly in architectural design.

Alhazred posted:

Pretty much:

Obdicut posted:

I've read that during the Mongol invasion of the 'Russian' states, the Mongols made their arrows in such a way that the Russians couldn't use them after they'd been fired, whereas the Mongols could re-use the Russian arrows fired at them.

So how's that work?

This is from multiple sources, most recently "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford.

Alhazred posted:

Pretty much: http://oglaf.com/sexmanual/

Phobophilia posted:

(I can't want to see what thinks of this discussion of the historicity of the Iliad.)

Nektu posted:

Asking a historic question again: did the vikings even use bows in warfare or were they only known as hunting weapons?

quote:

The institution known as leiđangr , was a public levy of free farmers typical for medieval Scandinavians. It was a form of conscription to organise coastal fleets for seasonal excursions and in defence of the realm...

The older laws regulating the leiđangr (the Norwegian "Older Law of the Gulating" dates to the 11th or 12th century) require every man to, as a minimum, arm himself with an axe or a sword in addition to spear and shield, and for every rowbench (typically of two men) to have a bow and 24 arrows.

tonberrytoby posted:

They shot some actual arrows at Toshio Mifune back in the days. And it looked really cool.

HEGEL CURES THESES posted:

Yeah, except that they take a shitton of practice to be able to use correctly. The way I've heard it, you can't just go from zero to "can fire the thing" in a day, which may have been one of the reasons that early firearms took off. Although I don't have personal experience with either bows/crossbows or the earliest firearms, so I might be wrong.

Railtus posted:

I read it and I’m still not sure how he comes to the 100m conclusion. The main test I see is mail piercing being unlikely past 50m even when using a very powerful bow. There are a few cases where he notes people claiming implausibly high numbers, but with the exception of the Williams test there is little indication of what the evidence is for the claims about mail.

Even accepting 50m as a figure, to me it raises the question what stops cavalry charges from just being routinely shot down by archers on the way in. I think there is definitely more going on than is being considered here.


The situation you describe sounds like a mix of Verneuil & Patay. In Verneuil the English archers were quickly scattered by French cavalry (though with not too many dead longbowmen and the English men-at-arms drove off the French) and at Patay a relatively small French cavalry force quickly crushed an English army. The HYW English would have a technological advantage, so it is possible that the Mongol heavy cavalry would not be as well armoured, although the general trend I see is the English did not do well against armoured cavalry unless they were fighting from a prepared defensive position.

However, things like this is what makes me lean towards armour on the armour vs arrows debate. If it was feasible or reliable to shoot down armoured cavalry during a charge then it would be less common for a cavalry charge to defeat archers.

At Mohi, the Mongols used fire weapons on the Hungarian camp rather than try to assault it directly, and just attacked the people escaping from the fire and smoke rather than fight them. I am not sure how well it would work on the English fields of stakes if at all, though.

If the English are dug in, as they preferred during the HYW, then the Mongols could not assault their camp directly. On the other hand, without their field fortifications the English are vulnerable. This raises the question of whether the Mongols need to launch an attack right now, or whether they can fall back and attack at another angle or cut off the English supply lines. My feeling is artillery would play an important role: either for the English as a way of provoking the Mongols into making an attack, or for the Mongols in disrupting the English defences.

The Mongol horse archers would probably not be that important for this scenario. If this specific Mongol army was overly dependent on the horse archers then I would give the advantage to the English, but I think it is important to note that Mongols had far more than horse archers in their toolbox.

PiratePing posted:

Today I've been reading medieval jokes instead of studying

Obdicut posted:

Europe in Medieval times, meanwhile, mostly attacked itself-- aside from the adventures in the Middle East. I think you make a good point that Europe was, say, more militarily dense than other areas, but I think the extreme political fragmentation, especially of the Holy Roman Empire, makes the idea of a coherent defense against the Mongols unlikely, and so victories investable. I also think that the crusading aspect would be limited because the Mongols allowed freedom of religion, which Friar John had reported on (if you haven't read his report, it's awesome: http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/carpini.html definitely not a guy who believed in Mongol invincibility) even after the "Prester John" myth got deflated. In other words, if you look at Mongol-Christian relations, you definitely don't see a 'crusading' aspect against them in general, more a bunch of shifting and confused attitudes that I don't think indicate either a real comprehension of the possible threat or an idea that unity was necessary to defeat it.

PiratePing posted:

The ones I quoted I grabbed from here, online/ebook versions of the Facetiae by Poggio here. The Art of Party Crashing is pretty good too.

medievalists.net is a really good website by the way. They have tons of cool resources and amazing articles.

handbanana125 posted:

I understand this may be more late-classical era / early Medieval than most of what goes on in this thread, but I'm curious as to how the Vikings were able to develop technology, navigation skills, and the idea of colonization so far ahead of the rest of Europe. I took a couple classes as a history undergrad, but aside from the "they sailed a lot" I never really got an in-depth answer. One of the things I point to is that the Mediterranean cultures had several instances of famous maritime traditions, but despite centuries of experience and advancement, relied heavily on land marks and tended to stick close to shore during their voyages.

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

The Greeks and Carthaginians were way into colonisation. You just have to like sailing and have a functional military to be able to poo poo out little cities in faraway lands.

I don't know how the Vikings actually navigated their way to Newfoundland, but you can be pretty sure it was possible because of their ships. Classical era ships aren't very seaworthy, and crossing the Atlantic is pretty rough. When the look at the Mediterranean, you see a lot of land and opportunity for people to settle. There's really no reason for anybody to wander out the gates of Gibraltar and keep going West, because there is plenty of poo poo to do already.

The Carthaginians did some incredible stuff with their trading though. I think they were definitely involved in the tin trade with Britain, and possibly gold and slaves from coastal West Africa. There's also that crazy idea that they managed to reach Brazil, but I don't think there's any evidence for that one.

poisonpill posted:

Whoa, what texts?

DandyLion posted:

Here is a really good hands-on test/review (that I believe is what RabidWeasel was referencing from earlier in the thread) of a variety of cloth armor thicknesses (along with some maille testing). Really fascinating how effective against cuts cloth armors were.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131

Cacotopic Stain posted:

For weapons like the kanabo and scythe were they ever used in battle or is that just the stuff of fiction and legends? Also what books are good for giving some of the more unique weapons like the khanda or the urumi the spotlight?

veekie posted:

Looks a bit more like a naginata than a scythe, but that makes sense too.

Kopijeger posted:

Probably with any absorbent material that was readily available, like straw, dried leaves, old rags and suchlike.

Squalid posted:

Lol.

How do you justify your absurd pomposity when you're literally reading children's books

BTW I can answer the question, with academic sources. I've held off so far because I wasn't familiar with specific circumstances on the border, but also in the hope you'd pull your head out of your rear end. It's obvious that's isn't going to happen now, you seem about as self aware as a pile of bricks. Still I think there's enough interest in the topic that I'd like to share anyway. Bell the Cat would you mind, uh, never posting here again, in exchange?

Railtus posted:

I think the difference between metal and non-metal armour can be overstated. There is a lot of variation within each category. The Conquistadors would, on occasion, favour Aztec cotton armour over their own breastplates.

For instance, the Ordinances of Louis XI of France, describes a padded jack with “For never have I seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting.” This is from the 15th century, but it shows that organic armours can still be very protective. This kind of armour would certainly be protective in a shield wall (although the bulk might be a factor).

Metal armour can cover a lot of ground as well. For instance, a Viking in metal armour could be just be wearing a waist-length byrnie with T-shirt length sleeves and a helmet, or he could be wearing more complete armour (byrnie down to the knees with elbow-length sleeves, avantail for the neck on his helmet, metal splint forearms as in the picture below).

http://weaponsandwarfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/dSreatrshyjhn.jpg

If the metal armour covers primarily the torso, then it might not give much protection that the shield wall does not already provide. Under some circumstances, a shield wall could help compensate for being at a disadvantage of armour.

Those are my thoughts, I hope they are helpful.

JaucheCharly posted:

A linothorax isn't exactly weak armor

Jabarto posted:

Since it's come up, I've been told that leather armor was rarely, if ever, used in Europe, and that mail or padded cloth were pretty much the only things used for armor until plate came along. Is that true?

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Also, shield size DID NOT decrease uniformly. Large shields like pavises were used into the 15th century by foot soldiers for fighting, not just as mobile cover for archers.

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

JaucheCharly posted:

bows and arrows

my dad posted:

Man, the bow posts are such a joy to read.

HEY GAL posted:

And even the kills aren't insta-kills.

Imagine being chased by that guy.

HEY GAL posted:

It makes sense that the witnesses and the guy he was chasing might have exaggerated though. You think you've dropped him, and then holy poo poo

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

I'm not surprised that longbows are more powerful than slings, although it seems unfair to compare slings with technology at least 2000 years more modern. I don't think the material has any effect on the impact, because I've never heard of arrows killing somebody without penetrating their armour, while bullets were widely known to be capable of doing so.


Nobody's army is really training slingers en-masse . The most skilled slingers in classical times came from Rhodes or the Balearics where they developed a mercenary industry, but everybody who picks up slinging is doing it because they need to guard their livestock. Whereas a steppe nomad can ride around on a horse and get somebody to make a fancy composite bow, a Balearic shepherd needs to trot up and down hills all day and doesn't know how to make a worthwhile bow. He'll throw rocks at other rocks, or wolves, maybe people, all day and get really good at it. Thing is, "lifestyle" weapons get isolated to specific groups of people, and over time demographic changes can make them less relevant. The middle ages see professional armies develop, and there isn't much place in those for shepherds from the booniest of boonies.

NyxBiker posted:

I bet the slings were very unprecise though, also why use a Sling instead of a Bow? Which is faster and way more precise in my opinion

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Since ranged weapons in general take more time to get acquainted with, I'm wondering if it's possible that a military might not have any ranged weapons due to a lack of recruits familiar with bows or whatnot. Does your average peasant own a bow?

Frostwerks posted:

I've heard that the M1A1 carbine would be stopped at range by sufficiently thick overcoats.