Could a Spartan Phalanx withstand the impact of the Lance Charge from plate armored knights on armored horse.
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/240553/112322750/stock-photo-knight-on-horseback-with-armor-and-lance-against-clouds-112322750.jpg)
(http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Pics/669505_phalanx.jpg)
Wouldn't matter, the knights would never get near them. The slingers would see to that.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 27, 2013, 08:23:43 AM
Wouldn't matter, the knights would never get near them. The slingers would see to that.
No Archers or Slingers on either side. Just the cavalry and the shield wall.
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 27, 2013, 01:46:29 PM
No Archers or Slingers on either side. Just the cavalry and the shield wall.
The cavalry would never charge straight into a formation that deep. Eventually the mass of bodies stops the horses. They would skirt around and hit a softer target.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 27, 2013, 08:23:43 AM
Wouldn't matter, the knights would never get near them. The slingers would see to that.
If it takes a close range shot , like 20 meters, from an english longbow to penetrate plate, I doubt slings would even annoy a plate covered knight.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 27, 2013, 05:32:48 PM
The cavalry would never charge straight into a formation that deep. Eventually the mass of bodies stops the horses. They would skirt around and hit a softer target.
Okay. But could it soften up the phalanx enough for other knights and man-at-arms to attack? I guess the front row would be devastated since they have a couple hundred pounds of muscle and steel galloping right at them. If lance points made contact with their faces then that could be fatal.
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 27, 2013, 06:58:11 PM
Okay. But could it soften up the phalanx enough for other knights and man-at-arms to attack?
Maybe? The cavalry would try to ride away as soon as possible, but I don't know if infantry would have enough time to get in.
QuoteI guess the front row would be devastated since they have a couple hundred pounds of muscle and steel galloping right at them. If lance points made contact with their faces then that could be fatal.
Most knights were wealthy landowners, so I doubt they would want to commit to a death sentence.
Well, if we are talking about bronze plate, I doubt it would provide much protection against hardened steel points.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 27, 2013, 08:12:14 PM
Maybe? The cavalry would try to ride away as soon as possible, but I don't know if infantry would have enough time to get in.Most knights were wealthy landowners, so I doubt they would want to commit to a death sentence.
Well, if we are talking about bronze plate, I doubt it would provide much protection against hardened steel points.
What other ways could the knights deal with spartan phalanx?
I think they could brake a phalanx apart if they use incendiary weapons. Some Kind flammable chemical in a burning flask for example ie Molotov.
Any others?
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 27, 2013, 08:19:20 PM
What other ways could the knights deal with spartan phalanx?
I think they could brake a phalanx apart if they use incendiary weapons. Some Kind flammable chemical in a burning flask for example ie Molotov.
Any others?
I would have knights and men at arms use halberds to hook shields and try to open up the line, while sending a force to hit the flanks, bottle them up so they can't move or turn. Sure, the Phalanx can stab at the guys with halberds, but even steel spears are kinda useless against plate.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 27, 2013, 08:28:26 PM
I would have knights and men at arms use halberds to hook shields and try to open up the line, while sending a force to hit the flanks, bottle them up so they can't move or turn. Sure, the Phalanx can stab at the guys with halberds, but even steel spears are kinda useless against plate.
Nice :) BTW what do you think of my molotov idea. I don't care how tough the Spartans, your not going to stand in a formation, when your on fire.
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 27, 2013, 09:10:09 PM
Nice :) BTW what do you think of my molotov idea. I don't care how tough the Spartans, your not going to stand in a formation, when your on fire.
What's your fuel?
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 27, 2013, 09:43:21 PM
What's your fuel?
I know I can't use gasoline or modern petroleum so I want to ask you.
I was thinking a mixture of flammable oils. They did have have those back in those days (I think)
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 27, 2013, 09:58:12 PM
I know I can't use gasoline or modern petroleum so I want to ask you.
I was thinking a mixture of flammable oils. They did have have those back in those days (I think)
I don't think Europeans had anything like that in that age, (that I can find) There were some but they were big and complicated.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 28, 2013, 12:37:44 AM
I don't think Europeans had anything like that in that age, (that I can find) There were some but they were big and complicated.
the Near East had "naffatun" (naphtha throwers). that's how the Ayyubid garrison destroyed the siege tower at Acre before Richard I captured the place (also how the Tulunians destroyed al-fustat prior to the fatimid conquest) :shrug:
(the grenades that the naffatun threw were smaller than a Molotov cocktail, and made of ceramic)
as to phalanx v. knight: well, spear armed, disciplined army v. heavy cavalry. you want to know the result? look up Bonnackburn...
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 27, 2013, 09:58:12 PM
I know I can't use gasoline or modern petroleum so I want to ask you.
I was thinking a mixture of flammable oils. They did have have those back in those days (I think)
That's what started the Great Fire of Rome.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on December 28, 2013, 12:50:04 AM
as to phalanx v. knight: well, spear armed, disciplined army v. heavy cavalry. you want to know the result? look up Bonnackburn...
I wouldn't exactly call that a phalanx, closer to pikemen.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 27, 2013, 05:36:48 PM
If it takes a close range shot , like 20 meters, from an english longbow to penetrate plate, I doubt slings would even annoy a plate covered knight.
Second point first, sling stones and bullets are concussion weapons. Most helms are of very little help against them.
Against both points, the HORSE isn't very well protected, since a horse can't gallop around in full plate barding, and outside of point-blank range ranged attacks are going to be made at the mount, not the man. Cut down the mount of a charging knight and he's on foot if he somehow managed to not get injured by the fall from a galloping horse in full armor (in a fall, armor works against you because it can't protect your from hitting the inside of the armor, and if you don't fall exactly right the armor will probably damage your limbs in the process). Worse, knights operate in groups too, and cutting down the mounts of the front rank breaks the charge (because anyone who doesn't break off will have their horse fall over the already fallen horses and men, and breaking off means the charge just fizzled).
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 27, 2013, 05:32:48 PM
The cavalry would never charge straight into a formation that deep. Eventually the mass of bodies stops the horses. They would skirt around and hit a softer target.
Don't forget hat Hoplites were spearmen who also carrier swords, not swordsman who also carried spears like the Roman Legionaries. They carried spears up to 15 feet long, which puts them into the low end of the range bracket of pikemen. The worst problem they would have is, because the stirrup wasn't available until well after the Spartans were gone, there was no such thing as cavalry in their period so they would have had to improvise on how to receive a cavalry charge. Even if they did it badly and didn't set their spears first, they'd still make a hell of a mess of the knights and their horses.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 28, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
Second point first, sling stones and bullets are concussion weapons. Most helms are of very little help against them.
The helmet is the thickest pieces of armor, so I don't think a stone or bullet will have that much of an effect.
Quote
Against both points, the HORSE isn't very well protected, since a horse can't gallop around in full plate barding, and outside of point-blank range ranged attacks are going to be made at the mount, not the man. Cut down the mount of a charging knight and he's on foot if he somehow managed to not get injured by the fall from a galloping horse in full armor (in a fall, armor works against you because it can't protect your from hitting the inside of the armor, and if you don't fall exactly right the armor will probably damage your limbs in the process). Worse, knights operate in groups too, and cutting down the mounts of the front rank breaks the charge (because anyone who doesn't break off will have their horse fall over the already fallen horses and men, and breaking off means the charge just fizzled).
.
Sure, archers could do it, but I don't think a sling would have much of an effect against an European warhorse. And I don't think the sling has the accuracy to be able to stop a charge in that manner.
QuoteDon't forget hat Hoplites were spearmen who also carrier swords, not swordsman who also carried spears like the Roman Legionaries. They carried spears up to 15 feet long, which puts them into the low end of the range bracket of pikemen. The worst problem they would have is, because the stirrup wasn't available until well after the Spartans were gone, there was no such thing as cavalry in their period so they would have had to improvise on how to receive a cavalry charge. Even if they did it badly and didn't set their spears first, they'd still make a hell of a mess of the knights and their horses
That's why they wouldn't charge straight on. Phalanx are terrible at turning. Kinda how the Romans beat the phalanx.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 28, 2013, 10:41:07 AM
I wouldn't exactly call that a phalanx, closer to pikemen.
no, but the idea is the same: guys in tight formation with lots of pointy things sticking out.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on December 28, 2013, 09:54:58 PM
no, but the idea is the same: guys in tight formation with lots of pointy things sticking out.
A phalanx is a lot denser formation than a pikemen. A row of pikemen can easily turn around to face cavalry coming from another direction than a phalanx can.
The phalanx is so tightly packed that is makes turning very difficult.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 28, 2013, 02:33:42 PM
The helmet is the thickest pieces of armor, so I don't think a stone or bullet will have that much of an effect.
Concussion weapons are not defeated by thick steel, but by the padding behind it. Helms are notoriously poorly padded. That's why the late-Medieval/early-Renaissance shift away from shields and to concussion weapon (like hammer or flange mace) in the main hand and a penetrating weapon in the off hand.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 28, 2013, 02:33:42 PM
Sure, archers could do it, but I don't think a sling would have much of an effect against an European warhorse. And I don't think the sling has the accuracy to be able to stop a charge in that manner.
They aim low and break the horse's legs. Very simple, and very effective. Slings are VERY accurate, and VERY fast in the hands of properly trained men.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 28, 2013, 02:33:42 PM
That's why they wouldn't charge straight on. Phalanx are terrible at turning. Kinda how the Romans beat the phalanx.
The Romans beat the phalanx by fielding swordsman who happened to carry spears (the pillum, which was specifically designed to impair the function of shields by sticking in them and being hard to remove), rather than the spearmen who happen to also carry swords that the phalanx was. Once you get in close, which happens quite quickly if you use your shields properly to keep the spears of the phalanx out, the better swords and swordsmanship of the Legionnaires gives them the edge. (Notably, the Spartans were among the best at closing and using their swords in Greece, and they used the shortest swords among the phalanxes specifically because they work better in close once you break formation due to shield walls collapsing, which tended to not happen with the Romans.)
Quote from: evensgrey on December 29, 2013, 12:01:41 PM
Concussion weapons are not defeated by thick steel, but by the padding behind it. Helms are notoriously poorly padded. That's why the late-Medieval/early-Renaissance shift away from shields and to concussion weapon (like hammer or flange mace) in the main hand and a penetrating weapon in the off hand.
They aim low and break the horse's legs. Very simple, and very effective. Slings are VERY accurate, and VERY fast in the hands of properly trained men.
The Romans beat the phalanx by fielding swordsman who happened to carry spears (the pillum, which was specifically designed to impair the function of shields by sticking in them and being hard to remove), rather than the spearmen who happen to also carry swords that the phalanx was. Once you get in close, which happens quite quickly if you use your shields properly to keep the spears of the phalanx out, the better swords and swordsmanship of the Legionnaires gives them the edge. (Notably, the Spartans were among the best at closing and using their swords in Greece, and they used the shortest swords among the phalanxes specifically because they work better in close once you break formation due to shield walls collapsing, which tended to not happen with the Romans.)
1. Can I get a source for that?
2. There's no way that a sling can break the leg of a european warhorse, Maybe scare them.
3. Plus, the romans were more mobile and could hit the flanks.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 29, 2013, 12:28:32 AM
A phalanx is a lot denser formation than a pikemen. A row of pikemen can easily turn around to face cavalry coming from another direction than a phalanx can.
The phalanx is so tightly packed that is makes turning very difficult.
I'm skeptical of this claim: a pike square typically had two intervals: a regular interval (3 feet a man), and tight interval (1.5 feet a man): this can be found in the manuals of the period when pike and shot predominated. 1.5 was the one typical for cavalry.
a phalanx (Greek or Macedonian--the latter's intervals are basically the same as the former), had three intervals: close, medium, and wide. the default (medium), was the main fighting and maneuvering formation, with an interval of 3 feet a man; tight was 1.5 feet a man, and wide was 6 feet a man (Polybius is a good source on the phalanx, as is Xenophon). So it's clear that it's the other way around: the Phalanx is the looser formation--at least conceptually.
Both formations can wheel and move quickly--be it a pike square or phalanx. It's a matter of training: the better trained the soldiers, the more maneuverable the phalanx. the cavalry could outflank a phalanx, but only if the Phalanx was already engaged fighting something to the front (e.g. Raphia): but this was the case with pike phalanxes too (e.g. Marston Moor, Naseby, Breitenfeld).
bear in mind, I'm assuming a head to head fight: so a "frontal charge".
QuoteBoth formations can wheel and move quickly--be it a pike square or phalanx. It's a matter of training: the better trained the soldiers, the more maneuverable the phalanx. the cavalry could outflank a phalanx, but only if the Phalanx was already engaged fighting something to the front (e.g. Raphia): but this was the case with pike phalanxes too (e.g. Marston Moor, Naseby, Breitenfeld).
I'm talking about comparisons, The Romans didn't lock their shields together allowing them to be able to turn a little quicker, pikemen have no shield to deal with at all, while a phalanx have heavy bronze shields that they have to clear to turn to turn face.
And its entirely possible that they could divide the cavalry in half, one to harass the front, charge, stop, turn around, while the other force hits the flank.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 29, 2013, 04:55:43 PM
1. Can I get a source for that?
2. There's no way that a sling can break the leg of a european warhorse, Maybe scare them.
3. Plus, the romans were more mobile and could hit the flanks.
Here's a good one:
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=the-sling-in-medieval-europe---chris-harrison (http://slinging.org/index.php?page=the-sling-in-medieval-europe---chris-harrison)
They point out that sling stones travel about 50% faster than arrows, while being about the same mass, which equates to about 125% more kinetic energy. Despite their larger cross section meaning they don't penetrate well, penetration is irrelevant when plate gets good enough to block arrows at range. He mentions lots of sources that mention how sling projectiles would kill without penetrating at all. There's also reports of Incan sling stones breaking swords and killing horses.
Charles C. Mann in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus also reports that Incan slingers could kill horses outright and break swords, and they weren't even all that good at the kind of warfare they were involved in against the Spanish.
Roman infantry was not especially mobile, they just almost always had more units they could throw at you, no matter when you were doing, although it might be next week.
QuoteThey point out that sling stones travel about 50% faster than arrows, while being about the same mass, which equates to about 125% more kinetic energy. Despite their larger cross section meaning they don't penetrate well, penetration is irrelevant when plate gets good enough to block arrows at range. He mentions lots of sources that mention how sling projectiles would kill without penetrating at all. There's also reports of Incan sling stones breaking swords and killing horses.
Maybe if you hit the horse in the head, But since the horse is charging you at 35 or more MPH, I find it highly unlikely. If this is true, then why did Europeans use them less and less? If they were so capable, why were they fazed out? Plus the guy misses the point of the pilum, The whole point was to hit the guys up front from that distance. To kill the guy up front or make his shield useless.
QuoteCharles C. Mann in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus also reports that Incan slingers could kill horses outright and break swords, and they weren't even all that good at the kind of warfare they were involved in against the Spanish.
See, I have some issues with New world weapons stories since I heard one that said that the dart thrower could pierce plate.
QuoteRoman infantry was not especially mobile, they just almost always had more units they could throw at you, no matter when you were doing, although it might be next week.
Actually, more often than not, the Roman army was outnumbered. They had to be mobile, usually the Roman army always moved forward, Its not like in the movies where the Romans picked a spot and stayed there, they tried to attack, even when being attacked, they would move forward trying to use the shields to walk through the enemy while stabbing with the gladius.
Then again, we're probably both wrong.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 30, 2013, 01:08:11 AM
Maybe if you hit the horse in the head, But since the horse is charging you at 35 or more MPH, I find it highly unlikely. If this is true, then why did Europeans use them less and less? If they were so capable, why were they fazed out? Plus the guy misses the point of the pilum, The whole point was to hit the guys up front from that distance. To kill the guy up front or make his shield useless.
Slings went out of military use for one of the two reasons bows did later on, and another problem of their own, even though at the time bows were still more lethal (both in terms of hitting power and rate of fire) than the guns that replaced them: It took too much time to train slingers compared to those using the weapons that replaced slings. If the commoners are allowed to hunt, they will prefer a bow to a sling in a forest because a sling, while lethal and with better range than small bows, takes a few feet of clear space to use, while a bow works just fine anywhere you can stand, and this extra space compared to bowman is the other problem. (You could get a much denser rain of projectiles since bowman can fire standing shoulder to shoulder.) This means that, in most of Europe, you're not going to find people who already know how to use a sling during the later periods. (Bows lose to guns because guns are easier to learn, and easier to source since longbows require exactly the right piece of timber to make, and composite bows require expensive materials and a long manufacturing process that typically takes a year.)
You seem to have a very strange idea of how tough horses are. A horse, particularly if galloping while carrying a heavy weight like a large, plate-armor man with large weapons, is very precarious. A light riding horse doesn't have 30% margin on each leg's long-term bearing strength just standing there (which is why a broken leg is almost invariably fatal: the horse cannot stand on the other three for the weeks even the simplest break will take to heal). If galloping under heavy load, anything that goes substantially wrong is likely to be fatal. Getting bone-breaking sling strikes (and a sling stone, or worse, a sling bullet, at medium range can easily break bones) is going to take down a galloping horse without difficulty. (Later on, archers routinely took down horses at extreme range with the 'arrow storm' effect: A block of prepared archers, and it only takes a few minutes for archers to prepare, can fire arrows fast enough to make a horse into a pincushion out at extreme range. That each strike is minor doesn't help when there are dozens of them.)
QuoteIt took too much time to train slingers compared to those using the weapons that replaced slings.
It takes years to train someone to use a bow in battle. Not only is their the marksmanship, but physical conditioning.
QuoteYou seem to have a very strange idea of how tough horses are.
No, I don't think slings are accurate enough to get the hits your talking about,
QuoteA light riding horse doesn't have 30% margin on each leg's long-term bearing strength just standing there (which is why a broken leg is almost invariably fatal: the horse cannot stand on the other three for the weeks even the simplest break will take to heal).
We are not talking about light riding horses. We are talking about big, beefy warhorse, Its not a riding horse that you travel in.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 30, 2013, 04:54:42 PM
It takes years to train someone to use a bow in battle. Not only is their the marksmanship, but physical conditioning.
Slingers are at least as hard to train, and they cannot operate nearly as close together either. If it wasn't for them being so very deadly and with even better range than the bowmen available in the ancient world, they wouldn't have been the feared forces they were.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 30, 2013, 04:54:42 PM
No, I don't think slings are accurate enough to get the hits your talking about,
Yes, I'm aware that you don't care about both the documented accuracy of slings (even in the hands of comparative novices they are documented to be reliably able to strike small targets with ease at substantial range) and their demonstrated killing power. This is not my problem.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 30, 2013, 04:54:42 PM
We are not talking about light riding horses. We are talking about big, beefy warhorse, Its not a riding horse that you travel in.
Yes, war horses are notoriously fragile things. You demonstrate ignorance of basic bio-mechanics: Scaling up an animal makes it WEAKER, not stronger. Strength goes as the square of the scaling factor, mass goes as the cube. If I make a horse twice as big, it doesn't gain any advantage in terms of resistance to injury because the proportionate strength of bones/muscles/tendons/etc. falls in half. While galloping, a horse is at the limit of what its' legs can handle. Any significant injury to a leg will cause it to fail catastrophically. A blow from a sling bullet, which is a football-shaped piece of lead of about 28 grams moving at about 90 m/s, is not insignificant. A trained slinger could manage 12 rounds a minute easily, so a group of 20 could manage 4 rounds per second with reasonable accuracy out to well over a hundred meters.
A kinght, or even a group of knights, is not going to be able to close the range fast enough to avoid taking a deadly pounding. Even if they do, they're still trying a lance charge against a thicket of heavy thrusting spears, which is precisely the thing that was used to butcher knights in medieval warfare. (Any knight who reaches the phalanx doesn't even need to be injured by the spears, he'll just get knocked off his horse if the horse isn't just speared out from under him. While he's taking a few seconds to get back on his feet, a couple of guys nip out and stab him in the groin/armpit/elbow/anywhere else that the armor has a protection gap that normally would be protected by knowing how to prevent blows from being made there.)
QuoteSlingers are at least as hard to train, and they cannot operate nearly as close together either.
So? You said, "It took too much time to train slingers compared to those using the weapons that replaced slings."
QuoteYes, I'm aware that you don't care about both the documented accuracy of slings (even in the hands of comparative novices they are documented to be reliably able to strike small targets with ease at substantial range) and their demonstrated killing power. This is not my problem.
I never said that. I'm saying that a small projectile hitting a leg of an animal charging you at 35 MPH is incredibly unlikely.
QuoteYes, war horses are notoriously fragile things. You demonstrate ignorance of basic bio-mechanics: Scaling up an animal makes it WEAKER, not stronger
And you seem to think bigger means taller. War horses were the same height as riding horses. There's a difference between height and musculature.
QuoteA trained slinger could manage 12 rounds a minute easily, so a group of 20 could manage 4 rounds per second with reasonable accuracy out to well over a hundred meters.
No, a small projectile hitting a leg of an animal charging you at 35 MPH is incredibly unlikely. There are just too many moving parts for that to have a reliable shot of that happening. Sure if it hits a leg it will do serious injury, but its highly unlikely. I think the most likely part of the body hit will be the chest. With a war horse's training it might continue charging if its nothing to serious.
QuoteEven if they do, they're still trying a lance charge against a thicket of heavy thrusting spears, which is precisely the thing that was used to butcher knights in medieval warfare. (Any knight who reaches the phalanx doesn't even need to be injured by the spears, he'll just get knocked off his horse if the horse isn't just speared out from under him.
Why do have to keep repeating this? That's why they wouldn't charge head on, the Heavy cavalry would try to outflank them. The knights are aware of how bad that would be.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 30, 2013, 11:55:45 PM
So? You said, "It took too much time to train slingers compared to those using the weapons that replaced slings."
I never said that. I'm saying that a small projectile hitting a leg of an animal charging you at 35 MPH is incredibly unlikely.And you seem to think bigger means taller. War horses were the same height as riding horses. There's a difference between height and musculature.No, a small projectile hitting a leg of an animal charging you at 35 MPH is incredibly unlikely. There are just too many moving parts for that to have a reliable shot of that happening. Sure if it hits a leg it will do serious injury, but its highly unlikely. I think the most likely part of the body hit will be the chest. With a war horse's training it might continue charging if its nothing to serious.Why do have to keep repeating this? That's why they wouldn't charge head on, the Heavy cavalry would try to outflank them. The knights are aware of how bad that would be.
OK, so you still won't learn anything about the subject, and knew nothing about it to begin with.
Since you've decided to pull a Meyers, you are incapable of being worth correcting any further.
So I guess the "molotov" ideas the best so far, eh?
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 31, 2013, 01:03:33 PM
So I guess the "molotov" ideas the best so far, eh?
Here's the really nasty thing about those (which would work pretty well, and Spartans would probably be able to do them with Greek Fire, the most horrific incendiary weapon of the ancient world): There's historical precedent for hurling various incendiary devices (including Greek Fire-based projectiles) from slings. (You sort of need to do that, since you don't want that crap landing anywhere near you.)
Quote from: evensgrey on December 31, 2013, 01:35:55 PM
Here's the really nasty thing about those (which would work pretty well, and Spartans would probably be able to do them with Greek Fire, the most horrific incendiary weapon of the ancient world): There's historical precedent for hurling various incendiary devices (including Greek Fire-based projectiles) from slings. (You sort of need to do that, since you don't want that crap landing anywhere near you.)
With sometimes disastrous results to the combatant, if it goes up early. Look up the origin of the phrase "hoist with your own petard."
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2013, 02:52:39 PM
With sometimes disastrous results to the combatant, if it goes up early. Look up the origin of the phrase "hoist with your own petard."
Well, that was with primitive explosives (more or less the black powder equivalent of a satchel charge) instead of incendiaries. Having your Greek Fire hit you might be worse than having your petard blow up before you get out of range.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 31, 2013, 04:26:33 PM
Well, that was with primitive explosives (more or less the black powder equivalent of a satchel charge) instead of incendiaries. Having your Greek Fire hit you might be worse than having your petard blow up before you get out of range.
are there ways to put out greek fire?
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 31, 2013, 04:57:59 PM
are there ways to put out greek fire?
I would think any Class B extinguisher would take care of it.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2013, 05:10:02 PM
I would think any Class B extinguisher would take care of it.
I meant using more ancient or medieval means.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 31, 2013, 11:03:36 AM
Since you've decided to pull a Meyers, you are incapable of being worth correcting any further.
Coming from the person not addressing my arguments.
And while I'm at it. The source you provide has no context of what the horses that were hit was doing at the time. Were they moving, were they standing still, were they charging? I don't know and neither do you.
Can slingers stop a Medieval cavalry charge? I don't know and neither do you. I personally find it unlikely, but I could be wrong.
Until we figure out time travel, we only think we know what we know about history.
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 31, 2013, 05:33:01 PM
I meant using more ancient or medieval means.
Maybe lots of water or dirt to kill the oxygen?
We don't even know the formula for Greek fire, so who knows?
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 31, 2013, 05:33:01 PM
I meant using more ancient or medieval means.
Some sources say you could smother it with sand, others say you could put it out with urine, all agree it ignited on contact with plain water (which made it something of a favorite in naval warfare). We know it was quite nasty (and quite dangerous) stuff.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 31, 2013, 05:38:04 PM
Coming from the person not addressing my arguments.
And while I'm at it. The source you provide has no context of what the horses that were hit was doing at the time. Were they moving, were they standing still, were they charging? I don't know and neither do you.
Can slingers stop a Medieval cavalry charge? I don't know and neither do you. I personally find it unlikely, but I could be wrong.
Until we figure out time travel, we only think we know what we know about history.
Your 'arguments' are limited to personal incredulity.
If you knew anything about slingers and how deadly they are, regardless of armor, you wouldn't keep insisting that they cannot hit the types of targets they hit with ease
Until you go learn something, stop your worthless jabbering.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 31, 2013, 05:59:18 PM
Some sources say you could smother it with sand, others say you could put it out with urine, all agree it ignited on contact with plain water (which made it something of a favorite in naval warfare). We know it was quite nasty (and quite dangerous) stuff.
Are you sure it was plain water or sea water?
Just asking.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 31, 2013, 06:03:33 PM
Are you sure it was plain water or sea water?
Just asking.
Both, aparently, since all sources agree that water (which would normally be fresh if oyu had a ready supply of it anywhere but a ship) was worthless at best, and the mention of ignition on contact with water include all the references to use in naval combat. (This stuff was apparently really popular for naval combat, probably due to the way it tended to burn down cities when used on them. The ancients tended to want to capture cities so they could loot them first.)
Quote
If you knew anything about slingers and how deadly they are, regardless of armor, you wouldn't keep insisting that they cannot hit the types of targets they hit with ease.
I'm not saying slings are inaccurate or not deadly. I'm saying there is an entire difference between hitting a target staying still and one moving at 35 miles per hour. I'm not saying slings can't take down a horse, I'm saying that a sling will have a hard time hitting a horses leg in a gallop.
But, I don't really know and neither do you. We are talking in hypotheticals here, we could both be wrong.
I'm not sure how accurate it may or may not be, but the advisor on Rome Total War says: "Do not attack a phalanx with a frontal assault, except with another phalanx. The best you can hope for is to halt their advance. Instead, try to pin them with artillery or break their formation with [incendiary] pigs; then flank them with heavy infantry."
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 07:13:13 PM
I'm not sure how accurate it may or may not be, but the advisor on Rome Total War says: "Do not attack a phalanx with a frontal assault, except with another phalanx. The best you can hope for is to halt their advance. Instead, try to pin them with artillery or break their formation with [incendiary] pigs; then flank them with heavy infantry."
Total Rome footage is used quite a bit for historical documentaries, so maybe its right.
Can anyone explain why anytime there's a western style sword in anime its always got a really fat tip? Is it because katanas have fat tips?
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 31, 2013, 10:29:15 PM
Can anyone explain why anytime there's a western style sword in anime its always got a really fat tip? Is it because katanas have fat tips?
If you look at some of the ancient greek and celtic swords you can see that they do have some pretty wide tips.
(http://www.army-guide.com/eng/images/xiphos1365744059.jpg)
Quote from: Skm1091 on December 31, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
If you look at some of the ancient greek and celtic swords you can see that they do have some pretty wide tips.
(http://www.army-guide.com/eng/images/xiphos1365744059.jpg)
Ya, but that was back when swords weren't very strong. I'm talking two handed longswords.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on December 31, 2013, 10:29:15 PM
Can anyone explain why anytime there's a western style sword in anime its always got a really fat tip? Is it because katanas have fat tips?
Apparently, not really. http://www.tarzanija.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/katana.jpg (http://www.tarzanija.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/katana.jpg)
Quote from: dallen68 on January 01, 2014, 04:58:13 AM
Apparently, not really. http://www.tarzanija.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/katana.jpg (http://www.tarzanija.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/katana.jpg)
Take a look at the back of the blade. Katanas are historically known to fat blade all the way though.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on January 01, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
Take a look at the back of the blade. Katanas are historically known to fat blade all the way though.
Sorry, I just don't see it. It seems a consistent width and thickness throughout the length of the blade, unless you're talking about the hilt.
Quote from: dallen68 on January 01, 2014, 02:03:58 PM
Sorry, I just don't see it. It seems a consistent width and thickness throughout the length of the blade, unless you're talking about the hilt.
ok look at the geometry of the blade of a katana.
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7485/katanalaminations.jpg)
vs a european swords
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Sword_cross_section.svg)
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on January 01, 2014, 02:15:05 PM
ok look at the geometry of the blade of a katana.
Oh, okay. I misunderstood. It would have helped if you had gotten both things from the same source, but anyway... how can you tell that in an anime?
Quote from: dallen68 on January 01, 2014, 03:11:12 PM
Oh, okay. I misunderstood. It would have helped if you had gotten both things from the same source, but anyway... how can you tell that in an anime?
Well, longswords in anime always have this really thick geometry.
(http://iblos3om.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/legend-of-the-legendary-heroes-13_11.jpg)
Like this.
While you can barely see the tip, see how thick it is
Or this has a really thick tip.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnL8iDaSbTUPeFS2Z_fvPUkwRY4vq8AjYNQNIPF2M1EvwcfLFD)
And here's the reality.
(http://www.sword-manufacturers-guide.com/images/my-experiences-with-the-tinker-longsword-21226318.jpg)
See the difference.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on January 01, 2014, 03:49:01 PM
Well, longswords in anime always have this really thick geometry.
See the difference.
Oh, yes. I hadn't noticed, but you're right.
Quote from: R.E.H.W.R. on January 01, 2014, 03:49:01 PM
Well, longswords in anime always have this really thick geometry.
(http://iblos3om.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/legend-of-the-legendary-heroes-13_11.jpg)
Like this.
While you can barely see the tip, see how thick it is
Or this has a really thick tip.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnL8iDaSbTUPeFS2Z_fvPUkwRY4vq8AjYNQNIPF2M1EvwcfLFD)
And here's the reality.
(http://www.sword-manufacturers-guide.com/images/my-experiences-with-the-tinker-longsword-21226318.jpg)
See the difference.
Reminds me of the sword that Cloud Strife uses in FFVII.
Quote from: T dog on January 01, 2014, 05:02:40 PM
Reminds me of the sword that Cloud Strife uses in FFVII.
[yt]xogheZdAO18[/yt]
[yt]rRd1b5AeOe0[/yt]
So glad, the knights did so well. I was worried the game would make them too slow.