gamegrene.com

Mo, have you ever actually handled a Bat'leth? I have, and I've also done some staff work (both English historical and bojutsu). The center of mass for a Bat'leth is about 6" away from where you hold it, which means that no matter how you wield the thing, it's unbalanced. And unlike axes, maces, and other hafted weapons, it's not unbalanced in a way that helps (i.e. results in greater impact force). It's an ungainly, ill-conceived weapon more dangerous to its wielder than anyone else; it was designed to look cool and impress fanboys, not to be a useful close combat weapon.

As for your hypothetical situation, I'll bite: You have just described a combat style similar to Scottish highlanders and Iron Age Celtic warriors. On my side of the field I'll take the same number of Roman legionnaires. I believe, with good historical precedent, that the legionnaires would chop the Klingons to ground beef. Conan, Braveheart, and Star Trek chronology to the contrary, blind savagery is *not* a substitute for actually knowing what you're doing.

If you're concerned about the advantage the legionnaire's formation tactics would give them - well, *duh*. You cannot separate the tactics from the weapon. But okay - I'll take any _one_ legionnaire armed with gladius, pilum, scutum, and full lorica segmentata up against any one Klingon armed and armored as you describe above. Again, my money's on Sevinicus Britannicus here.

Klingons may be wildly popular with the Star Trek fanbase, but when considered as actual warriors, both in terms of their tactics and their weaponry, they fail the plausibility test.

Daniel

"I won't put celts versus romans legionaries."

Well, I wouldn't either - historically, the Romans chopped them into celtburgers. ;-) My point was just that the Klingons don't make much sense as a "warrior race" - They've been developed to look cool, not to look effective. Races like the Nietzcheans from Andromeda have handled the warrior race notion much more realistically.

As far as ideal armies - you really have to define your technology. If you give the Romans quality steel-forging technology, then a maniple in tortoise formation can advance on a contingent of longbowmen unharmed (contrary to popular history, longbows actually won't penetrate a steel breastplate, even at close range) and then run them down.

Daniel

^ stealth dork

He got you there Eater =) =) =)

The best thing you could say is :

'I withdraw my earlier remark'

Interestingly, Daniel and My Nerdy discussion, points out that two people can be expert in the same subject, and still disagree on plenty of details. Thats whats so good about experimental archeology, where archoelogists try to create the actual tools, weapons, devices of the time and try to reconcile the descriptions of how they were used, with practical experiments. This helps blow a lot of theory out of the water.

For example, a lot of Roman devices work exactly as described, but they had this large wooden caltrop which archeologists always thought was placed at the top of a ditch and rampart. However, when experimental archeologists actually tried using the device, they found it worked so much better placed just before the rampart, so that 3 points were braced against the rampart and 3 points stuck out straight at the enemy. score 1 for experimental archeology.

Similarly, Daniels comments on the tortoise being effective against longbows. I instinctively doubt his claims because I know that:

1) totrtoise was only used in seiges, not practical for moving about the battlefield.
2) Romans never encountered high powered bows.
3) Roman armor was no more than 30% even for the best armored troops, and many more were lightly armed auxillaries.
4) Roman shields were rugularly pierced by pilums, so a high powered longbow arrow should have some effect.
5) Most telling of all, Historically, and experimentally, Roman armies sufferred badly in encounters with horsearchers with relatively weak bows compared to longbows.

But the way to sort out our differences, would be to conduct a few practical experiments. Unfortunately, I suspect that neither of us is an experimental archeologist. =)

On March 20, 2004 06:05 PM, EaterOfTheDead said:

Oh and being half Celtic/half Roman (Scottish/Italian) I'd have to say that I'd put my money on the Celts. I know that historicaly the Roman whomped the crap out of the big, drunk galoots but I think they're cooler.

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Eater. The Celts are cooler (from an RPG perspective) just like the klingons. It doesn't matter if they win, what matters is that they are loud, proud, combative drunken galoots. And that makes them fun to play.

John

Hmm.... did you know that most firearms are illegal in Britain. Even when held securely in a shooting club. About the only way to shoot is to join a club using anachronistic weapons such as bows, crossbows, or black powder muzzle loading weapons.

If you live in britain, than there are lots of groups doing their own thing , in terms of dressing up, creating authentic weapons and recreating battles. I've never joined one, but I've talked to people who are members.

One guy I met was part of a quarter staff club. They did drills and semi-contact bouts. It looked pretty real and painfull.

Last year our local fair hosted a medieval troop who did hawking, and had mock bouts with real arms and armor. All the stuff was handmade by them. A great spectacle.

Last thing, for Daniel. The reasons western knights are vulnerable to longbows is because their horses were relatively poorly armored. So if you're a longbowman you shoot at the horse, not the knight. Its a bigger target anyway so most of your hits will be on the horse anyway. Once it is hit, it'll probably throw the rider or become uncontrollable, or fall. As Daniel says, full plate armor gave a large measure of protection to knights who could afford it, but its difficult to armor a horse to the same extent. First because its very expensive, second because you tire them out.

In all fairness, I believe accuracy was less of an issue for bowmen than RPGs make it seem. Arrows are deadly when fired _en masse_. The important part of a soldier's longbow training, if I recall correctly, was not how to shoot the bow accurately, but how to shoot it *far*. Obviously, it's a different case for hunting, which is why hunters have historically made some of the deadliest missile troops (e.g., the pinpoint accuracy of Crockett's Tennessee longrifle cadre at long range is often attributed to the fact that many of those riflemen grew up shooting squirrels for supper in the backwoods).

So, to redact Mo's assertion just a little, I'd say the archers did not so much target the horses over the riders as aim large volleys at the cavalry. The majority of the hits would be on horses, as he says, because they are the largest targets.

To Mo:

First off, I didn't mean you should seek out a gunpowder recreation group, nor any of the amateur historical recreation societies. In my (local) experience, both types of groups are loaded with people who either take the whole subject *way* too seriously, or else not seriously at all, and very few of them have any academic credentials. I'm suggesting you look up actual experimental archaeology projects being run by local universities. They're run by people with a vested interest in getting meaningful results rather than playing around.

In massed formation, archers didn't shoot directly at anything. They shot high into the air for a massed rain of arrows on enemy troops. This limits the arrows to their terminal velocity in air, which isn't that great. The kind of surface barding used by most knights' horses was sufficient to protect against this kind of fire.

To Captain Assassin: the myth that armored knights on the battlefield could not mount, dismount, or get to their feet while in armor is just that, a myth.

An interesting tidbit on anachronistic weapons technology: recent evidence unearthed at Carthage strongly suggests that the Carthaginians were manufacturing steel in export quantities long before they were razed by the Romans.

Oh, and yes, "redact" is a word. And he's using it correctly.

To Daniel:

I did not say that armored knights on the battlefield could not mount, dismount, or get to their feet while in armor. I simply said that they could not do the aforementioned
...quickly.