The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Danger Dave · August 4, 2000, 06:42 AM

Like I said, great topic!

Thanks Skorzeny, I learned quite a bit on that one. I knew that the mounted archery skills of the Mongols gave them a big advantage, but I didn't know about the power of their bows! That's impressive! I wonder how it would compare in penetrating power vs. the longbow - a clothyard shaft would probably be heavier and pack more momentum and be better for punching through plate armor & shields, but I don't know for sure. But since most armored soldiers of the time were equipped with chain mail, the extra penetrating power may have been meaningless. If only I had a longbow, a Mongolian composite bow, and some sheet metal I'd find out for myself

Opinion of the assegai - it seems to me to be sort of a "gladius on a stick" and well suited to it's purpose of close quarters massed combat. Short weapons are infinitely more useful than pole arms (spears, lances, etc.) once the enemy is engaged at close range. While the assegai lacked the armour-cleaving power of a bastard sword or katana, I think it would be a very effective weapon against an unarmored foe, like say, another African tribal warrior. Another case of the weapon being built for its' environment.

I forgot about the shields the Japanese used! I was thinking about shields being used in mass close quarters warfare or single combat. The Japanese used shields much like the longbowmen/crossbowmen/musketeers of Europe did - stand up rectangular shields for cover while reloading/firing. I don't know of any shields that were used for Greek-style assaults or close quarters combat, though. Good point about European shields being used for identification! Fully armored knights often wore a cloth that looks like a poncho over their armor to identify which forces they were with (I can't think of the name of it - need more coffee!), but the shield identified the individual knight. I think the heraldry was built more around the shield, than the shield around the heraldry, though. Decoration was important, as long as it didn't interfere with function.

Oh yeah, Skorzeny mentioned one other thing in his post - a secret weapon that allowed the nomadic tribes of the Russian steppes & Mongolia to wreak havoc in the civilized world before other cultures understood it's power and adopted it - the stirrup.

[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited August 04, 2000).]

August 4, 2000, 06:42 AM	#27
Danger Dave Senior Member Join Date: April 21, 1999 Location: Dallas, GA, USA Posts: 791	Like I said, great topic! Thanks Skorzeny, I learned quite a bit on that one. I knew that the mounted archery skills of the Mongols gave them a big advantage, but I didn't know about the power of their bows! That's impressive! I wonder how it would compare in penetrating power vs. the longbow - a clothyard shaft would probably be heavier and pack more momentum and be better for punching through plate armor & shields, but I don't know for sure. But since most armored soldiers of the time were equipped with chain mail, the extra penetrating power may have been meaningless. If only I had a longbow, a Mongolian composite bow, and some sheet metal I'd find out for myself Opinion of the assegai - it seems to me to be sort of a "gladius on a stick" and well suited to it's purpose of close quarters massed combat. Short weapons are infinitely more useful than pole arms (spears, lances, etc.) once the enemy is engaged at close range. While the assegai lacked the armour-cleaving power of a bastard sword or katana, I think it would be a very effective weapon against an unarmored foe, like say, another African tribal warrior. Another case of the weapon being built for its' environment. I forgot about the shields the Japanese used! I was thinking about shields being used in mass close quarters warfare or single combat. The Japanese used shields much like the longbowmen/crossbowmen/musketeers of Europe did - stand up rectangular shields for cover while reloading/firing. I don't know of any shields that were used for Greek-style assaults or close quarters combat, though. Good point about European shields being used for identification! Fully armored knights often wore a cloth that looks like a poncho over their armor to identify which forces they were with (I can't think of the name of it - need more coffee!), but the shield identified the individual knight. I think the heraldry was built more around the shield, than the shield around the heraldry, though. Decoration was important, as long as it didn't interfere with function. Oh yeah, Skorzeny mentioned one other thing in his post - a secret weapon that allowed the nomadic tribes of the Russian steppes & Mongolia to wreak havoc in the civilized world before other cultures understood it's power and adopted it - the stirrup. [This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited August 04, 2000).]