Westeros warfare and armor glitches

[Light a wight tonight]

Really minor point, but with the trebuchets on the Wall Martin describes then as having "stops". In practice this is a really bad idea as there is a lot of energy left in the arm and counterweight after the sling releases and bringing all that motion to a sudden halt would shake the machine apart in short order. Mangonels have stops but they work on a different principle, have less energy stored in the arm, and are known to break arms anyhow.

Check out the videos of the trebuchet at Warwick Castle on YouTube to see that the arm swings through, back, forward again, gradually dissipating the excess energy.

[Light a wight tonight]

Optic glass production is a very complex process which involves chemistry. I am just pointing on glitches.

I doubt that the glass in Galilleo's telescope was especially complex, and that's an analogous period. Regarding gunpowder, Peter Vemming, a Danish medievalist theorized that firearms didn't gain traction until a ready source of saltpeter was found. Not enough could be dug out of dungheaps to supply the demand.

[Kozma]

I doubt that the glass in Galilleo's telescope was especially complex, and that's an analogous period.

Myrrish lens made maesters happy. Gallileo telescope produced quite blurry image. I do not know what glass quality they used in Myrr.

[TrueMetis]

GRRM is very attentive and meticulous to details. However some things are very inconsistent. It makes me wonder is that intentionally or just to make things more glorious and fancy.

What I can name just from the top of my head:

1. Dromonds and galleys. Dromonds are primitive type of Byzantine galleys. KL fleet before it was destroyed was stuffed with galleys. Why when they rebuilt it they started building dromonds.

Dromons are the type of Byzantine galley, but dromonds in Middle English use could be used for any large ship. And from the descriptions these things are big. You make it sound like they are building dromonds instead of galleys, but these are a type of galley.

2. Armor. A typical westorosy knight is clad with something that by description looks like a very sophisticated maximilian armor. That is XVI century armor developed as a response to spreading of firearm.

Actually to me it sounds like regular full plate not maximilian specifically. Full plate came around before the widespread use of firearms, and declined when firearms become widespread cause they couldn't stop it.

3. Battleaxes vs swords. Sword-fighter always won when he faces battleax (not hallebarde) no matter in the single combat or formation. Proven by numerous battles. Described in full details on the Bayeux Tapestry.

How many battleaxe wielders do we even see? Let alone see fight? Tyrion uses one, but him on the battlefield is just ridiculous in general, Areo Hotah uses a long axe, which by length has more in common with the halberd than a battle axe.

4. Arakh - it is a ridiculous weapon why he did not stick to standard sabre or yataghan?

I would have to see one used or use one myself before I could comment.

5. Longbows seem to be widespread. Historically it is weapon of choice of English freemen. It required very high skills to operate.

I don't remember very many mentions of longbows, and archers in general seem to have surprising little effect on the outcome of battles.

Also IIRC George has said he's not going to add guns and gunpowder.

[PrinceHenryris]

What advantage would therebe to having gunpowder when fighting dragons?

Maybe a modern marksman using modern guns could put a lethal round through a dragon's eye, but would anyone really want to store/carry gunpowder while a fire-breathing dragon is bearing down on you?

It would be like manning the ammunition depot when an A-10 has you in its sights.

Gunpowder could turn the tide against man, and maybe the others, but I think it would be a bad idea against dragons.

[Pallantides]

Not true. Japanese body armor was garbage compared to western armor. Their swords were amazing, but because of the lack of iron abundance even their basic mail was not nearly as dense or as good in quality as western armor from earlier periods.

Not quite. Japanese body armour was not garbage compared to western armour. They functioned in different ways for different purposes. Japanese armour for example, was quite resistant to blunt force trauma (even when compared to full plate), and slashing. Both Japanese armour, and European plate were still weak to piercing, and exploiting gaps (interesting that both Japan and Europe developed two similar weapons for piercing, and exploiting gaps in armour, independantly of one another. The sankaku yari for Japan, and the estoc for Europe. Both were made in either a diamond or triangle cross section, and lacked a cutting edge. They were simply very sturdy spikes, designed to punch right through the armour, or to wedge in between gaps and go through to penetrate the body.)

Interestingly, Japanese swords, are quite lackluster when compared to their armour making techniques. Japanese steel was very poor, and the reason they came up with their sword forging method was to get around the limitations of the steel (their armour was generally a composite of many different materials, and different variations of designs of the same materials. A sword can really only be made out of metal. Encorporating silk into a blade would do nothing for it. Encorporating it into armour on the other hand adds some very good protective qualities). You see much more similar, and eventually more sophisticted sword smithing techniques much earlier, in pre and post Roman Europe. Such as pattern welding swords (which the Japanese made), twisted into vortices, and then plaited together.

Prior to the blast furnace being developed in Europe in the period of 1150-1300, the only nation/civilization to posess such advanced iron/steel smithing techniques were the Chinese, who had used the blast furnace since the 5th century BC, and were making very high quality steel weapons as early as the 4th century AD. These swords were durability wise, as strong and of as high a quality, as mid-late medieval swords.

As a matter of fact, while the japanese imported both european guns and european pieces of armor, that happened just before the beginning of the Edo Period, and, since Japan was at peace during that period, weaponry and armor ceased to evolve, and they never built armors as good as the Renaissance european ones (plus they realized armor couldn´t stop musket bullets or cannonballs and didn´t bother trying to make better armor anymore).

Actually, late Sengoku style armour, was routinely made to stop musket balls, and they did so, all examples of that armour even have proof marks, of musket indentations in it, but the ball failed to penetrate. The man wearing the armour likely would be in a lot of pain still, but he would live. The Daimyo Date Masamune had his entire army outfitted with it. Most armour in Europe was not developed to such an extent. You generally saw most troops equipped with munitions grade plate, post-dating the Renaissance, which was not especially hardened, and could not stop arrows, never mind musket balls. Although there was very good quality armours being made at this time, but they were not especially common, and would not have been equipped by an entire army. In fact the only time you tend to see very high quality plate in Europe (specifically Milanese plate) in significantly large numbers, was on mercenary companies.

[seeyouintee]

*Stuff

Typical samurai armor from 12-1700s was garbage compared with western armor. The argument that it withstands blunt force better is also garbage. There were far less blunt weapons involved in Japanese warfare. Furthermore, you can look at Japanese chainmaille patterns and see they are far less dense and the inferior quality of their metals makes it painfully obvious that their armor is also inferior. Silk was also a bad example, as the primary inclusion was clay. This part also strikes me as ironic...

"

Interestingly, Japanese swords, are quite lackluster when compared to their armour making techniques. Japanese steel was very poor, and the reason they came up with their sword forging method was to get around the limitations of the steel (their armour was generally a composite of many different materials, and different variations of designs of the same materials. A sword can really only be made out of metal. Encorporating silk into a blade would do nothing for it."

Because they did actually use clay in the making of their swords.

[Black Crow]

GRRM is very attentive and meticulous to details. However some things are very inconsistent. It makes me wonder is that intentionally or just to make things more glorious and fancy.

What I can name just from the top of my head:

1. Dromonds and galleys. Dromonds are primitive type of Byzantine galleys. KL fleet before it was destroyed was stuffed with galleys. Why when they rebuilt it they started building dromonds.

2. Armor. A typical westorosy knight is clad with something that by description looks like a very sophisticated maximilian armor. That is XVI century armor developed as a response to spreading of firearm.

3. Battleaxes vs swords. Sword-fighter always won when he faces battleax (not hallebarde) no matter in the single combat or formation. Proven by numerous battles. Described in full details on the Bayeux Tapestry.

4. Arakh - it is a ridiculous weapon why he did not stick to standard sabre or yataghan?

5. Longbows seem to be widespread. Historically it is weapon of choice of English freemen. It required very high skills to operate.

Some of this has already be answered, but briefly:

2. Descriptions of armour are loosely consistent with the late 14th/early 15th century, reflecting an increasing use of plate armour by those who could afford it.

3. Battleaxes - the short answer is tell that to Humphrey de Bohun. Important point to bear in mind here is that swords at this period were not meant for fencing and an axe is better than most swords for dealing with armour. When fighting on foot in battle knights normally used pole-axes rather than swords. Robert Baratheon's war hammer will actually have been a pole axe - a vicious armour piercing weapon with a relatively small hammer-head mounted on a pole.

4. There is an exact ancient equivalent for the Arakh in the Romphia - also from out east.

5. Longbows were very widespread in mediaeval times. The English were unique in that they worked out the best way to use it, but the Scots, French and everybnody else had them as well

[Pallantides]

Typical samurai armor from 12-1700s was garbage compared with western armor. The argument that it withstands blunt force better is also garbage. There were far less blunt weapons involved in Japanese warfare. Furthermore, you can look at Japanese chainmaille patterns and see they are far less dense and the inferior quality of their metals makes it painfully obvious that their armor is also inferior. Silk was also a bad example, as the primary inclusion was clay. This part also strikes me as ironic...

1200 one could perhaps consider it garbage (but it performed its job well, and was painstakingly made for that reason). But later period samurai armour was not garbage at all, and if you wish to prove it, I suggest you offer some substantive proof. And all melee weapons deliver blunt force trauma. An arrow hitting you, a sword hitting you, an axe, etc. They all deliver blunt force trauma when hit. The primary damage is cutting or piercing, but the fact that they're hitting you with force will cause blunt force trauma. Striking someone in the head with a sword who is wearing a helmet, is not likely to cleave their head in two. But it will leave them concussed.

And if you're going to bring up kusari gusoku, most examples are not full suits (especially not prior to the Edo period), and are designed with materials as well. For example it was stitched to cloth backings. The cloth was typically brigandine style armour (plates inside of two pieces of cloth stitched togehter) other examples have the plates attached on the outside of the cloth to the chain, and then sewn to cloth. The Japanese also used many different patterns of Kusari, many of which were either as dense as European chain (though some were very thin and open, but these are not samurai armour, but ashigaru armour). Chain was invariably almost never part of a full suit of Japanese armour, but was used much in the same way that it became used in Europe once plate had been inveted. It was used to protect spots which could not be protected by the main armour, or to attach other pieces of armour together. Plate for Europe, lamellar for early Japan, and later larger segmented plates. The reason Japanese armour is more resistant to blunt force trauma (i.e. all strikes, regardless if it is a blunt weapon), is due to the lamellar construction. Designed to spread the load across each plate. The strike then becomes spread out and dissipated, rather than localized.

http://i831.photobuc...esomekusari.jpg

http://i831.photobuc...ri/100_9709.jpg

http://i831.photobuc...h6in1kusari.jpg

http://i831.photobuc.../kusaridou3.jpg (This one is an Edo period example. Most definitely not battlefield armour, but still nice though, and has a very tight and dense weave).

Look at these examples above of Kusari, and tell me they're not dense.

http://i831.photobuc...lletNamban6.jpg

http://i831.photobuc...ku/100_7201.jpg

This is an example of late period Sengoku armour (first image being a dou, the second being a kabuto), which was designed to stop bullets (and you can clearly see the bullet indentations on it). This armour was created in Japan well before 1700.

Also, from the Royal Armouries, is this quote, combined with a picture linked below it.

"Compared to European armour, a very limited amount of Japanese armour has been examined metallurgically. Documentary sources, such as the text of Sakikabara Kōzan published in 1800, suggest that, particularly with the introduction of firearms in the 16th-century, Japanese armourers went to considerable lengths to increase the protection offered by their armour.

Could metallographic examination of some stray plates donated for scientific analysis, tell us more about the metallurgical quality and effectiveness of Japanese armour?

Results of analysis

This section of armour is of composite construction, comprising an outer face of steel (shown as the dark-etching phase in the micrograph above) and an inner lining of pure iron (the bright phase, ferrite). The steel is distinctly harder and tougher which would help prevent the penetration of projectiles, whilst the softer iron behind is ideal for absorbing the energy of the impact.

The content of slag inclusions is exceedingly low compared with other traditionally produced ironwork and the ferrous plate is protected from corrosion by numerous coats of lacquer.

Significance

This armour has clearly been constructed from two different carefully chosen and skilfully worked materials, such that even with a thickness of about 1mm the armour would provide the best possible level of protection for the wearer.

A piece of cheaper armour, examined at the same time was constructed entirely of soft iron containing many slag inclusions so the quality of armour may be very variable.

Output

The results of this recent research were first made public in a series of talks that accompanied the Royal Armouries Shogun exhibition in 2005. A broader research project looking at the metallurgy of Japanese armour is now planned. "

http://www.royalarmo...5x150/plate.jpg

Also, silk was not a bad example, because I'm describing something that was not used in swords, but was used in armour, and has been described (especially in Chinese sources, who greatly influenced the Japanese), as a very effective armour. It prevents arrows from penetrating, and if they do, it makes them easier to remove, it offers excellent padding, and it also stops blood flow if there was a cut.

"

Interestingly, Japanese swords, are quite lackluster when compared to their armour making techniques. Japanese steel was very poor, and the reason they came up with their sword forging method was to get around the limitations of the steel (their armour was generally a composite of many different materials, and different variations of designs of the same materials. A sword can really only be made out of metal. Encorporating silk into a blade would do nothing for it."

Because they did actually use clay in the making of their swords.

No, there was no clay present in the forging of tachi, uchigatana, yari, katana, etc. Clay was coated to the blade for heat treating it, but the sword/weapon still remained metal. This technique for that matter isn't even unique to the Japanese, and was used by many different cultures, in order to produce differening hardness levels in different areas throughout the weapon. It has nothing to do with the quality of the metal, and everything to do in getting the properties of the blade to be heat treated/tempered the way the smith wants it to be.

The smithing of the sword however, is completely different. it is a form of pattern welding, done so that the impurities of the steel can be spread out through the entire weapon, making for a much more consistent and stronger blade, than if they left it the way it was, and have impurities concentrated in one area on the sword.

[Pallantides]

(disregard, got an error and thought the above post did not occur).

[Revan Baratheon]

You guys fans of deadliest warriors no?

[Arland]

Gunpowder would pretty much wreck the fantasy element; it would belong in ASOIAF just as much as putting King Arthur and Merlin in Star Trek.

Or in Babylon 5.... just saying... ;)

[Warhammer]

Victarion with a cannon would make a great bitter-sweet ending to the story.

I wish they would throw in a cannon as a way to off a dragon. Hell I would be overjoyed if Sam showed up in an F-22 and killed all the dragons, I just don't like them.

Being srs for a second I think it's perfectly believable that the citadel is working on a scientific method to defeat magic. I would also imagine that institutions such as the Iron Bank want magic gone, as it's too much of a wildcard.

I'd put my money on well funded scientists over a teenager with one boob showing riding a big lizard anyday.

[Pallantides]

You guys fans of deadliest warriors no?

Without going on a tangent and derailing the thread, I will simply say this. No, I am not a fan of it. It turns weapons, warfare, and fighting into a video game system, where one can number crunch things and falsely say _____ is superior to _____, which paints these things with a broad brush and is a gross generalization. It defeats the purpose of studying these sorts of things.

[The GRRumbler]

This thread is amazing, we should make stuff like this more often :drool:

[Defengar]

I want to know why there are no Valyrian steel leaf blades.

Seriously.

Leaf blades were popular in almost all RL cultures throughout the bronze age and early iron age. They were exelent stabbing and of course slashing weapons because they privided the reach of a straight blade with the added velocity one would get from a mace. These blades fell out of favor however as armor and iron began to become higher quality and the inward curves on either side of the weapon became more of a burnden than a boon, due to the blades often breaking in half when fighing an enemy wearing decent armor or weilding a non leaf bladed sword made out of good maerials.

However, Valyrian steel subtracts the negatives of a leaf blade in every way and leaves only the good. The stuff is damn near indestructable, unlike brittle iron or steel. Also, Valyrian steel is notoriously light, so it would make more sense to have a two handed leaf bladed made from the stuff than a two handed broadsword, due to the added mass at the end.

[Nukelavee]

Lepus - Wootz. Go read up on it. Seriously. It's the basis for those amazing blades your are refering to, ie, Damascus and Toledo.

I'm not implying you are 100% wrong, I'm saying wootz is the difference between those classic blades, and what modern Toledo and Damascus steels are.

The process of creating wootz, the metal, is akin to the process/art displayed by japanese swordsmiths. That is - it's nearly an art (or is), the process appears to have been as intuitive as systematic. Modern experimenters can not duplicate it. The exact process, and result, has been lost.

From what I've read on wootz, nobody actually knows what factor was teh crucial one - hence the theories about ore, charcoal, and...clay. Because wootz involved baking the "ingots" in small clay balls, resulting in, I've read, a unique internal structure for the metal, which seems to have been caused by the composition of teh clay itself. And, really, no two clay beds produce exactly the same clay.

Without true wootz as a raw material, blades made with it, the blades you refer to, cannot be replicated. A Toledo smith today, can perfectly replicate the forging process of a classic smith, but... he can't access the steel, the raw material, his forefather did.

[The Blue Bard]

Without wanting to wade into 'Samurai vs Knight', the nobles wear peak European armour because they use European weapons, and that is what it was designed to counter. Samurai armour evolved for a different style of fighter using different weapons.

Incidentally, Western medieval plate armour was never really designed to stop bullets, it was first and foremost designed to stop cutting weapons, leading to a change in European sword design and the predominance of blunt weapons on the late medieval battlefield.

To address other points of the OP, longbows were not unique to England. The word longbow is a Victorian invention, at the time it would simply have been called a warbow, and every Western European culture used tall bows made from a single piece of wood. England was lucky to have a set of circumstances that gave it large numbers of bowmen to fight the first half of the Hundred Years War. In the Scottish War of Independence, archers were not a decisive element, and nor were they in the Wars of the Roses, where battles were mostly fought between small numbers of men-at-arms on foot. Bernard Cornwell has speculated that laws making archery practice compulsory were probably the result of a decline of archery as a sport in England.

Also; regarding axes as ineffective. Simply put, no. Using the Bayeux Tapestry as evidence is also not helpful, as the elite core of King Harold's army at Hastings were his huskarls, who were armed with double-handed bearded axes, with which they were considered deadly effective, and held the Normans back until the English came off the ridge.

To point out an inconsistency I've noticed: Renly's army is described as having masses of pikemen. Any army so equipped would make mince-meat of knights on horseback, yet nowhere in Westeros have we seen pikes defeat cavalry charges

[Ser Lepus]

Actually, late Sengoku style armour, was routinely made to stop musket balls, and they did so, all examples of that armour even have proof marks, of musket indentations in it, but the ball failed to penetrate. The man wearing the armour likely would be in a lot of pain still, but he would live. The Daimyo Date Masamune had his entire army outfitted with it. Most armour in Europe was not developed to such an extent. You generally saw most troops equipped with munitions grade plate, post-dating the Renaissance, which was not especially hardened, and could not stop arrows, never mind musket balls. Although there was very good quality armours being made at this time, but they were not especially common, and would not have been equipped by an entire army. In fact the only time you tend to see very high quality plate in Europe (specifically Milanese plate) in significantly large numbers, was on mercenary companies.

During the second half of XVI and first half of XVII century the soldiers from the spanish tercios owned a bulletproof cuirass, helmet (morriones) and roundshield (rodela) each, able to stop pistol and arquebuss bullets; those cuirass and helmets are the pieces of armor the japanese bought and copied (the spanish ones were sturdier than the japanese models, though). The spaniards and other european nations ceased to use those pieces of armor because a) muskets were being made that were cheaper and lighter, until almost every foot soldier in every army was a musketeer instead of a pikeman or an arquabusseer, and since no armor can stop musket´s bullets, there was no point in using it (bulledproof meant just "able to stop pistol and arquebuss bullets"); and b ) european nations developed new military tactics based more on mobility and maneuverability, which made the ability to stand in a place taking damage less important that the ability to move aggresively against the enemy.

The japanese adopted european firearms and, to a much lesser extent, their armor, during the end of the Sengoku period, but that was a very small period: from first use of arquebuss en masse during the Nagashino (1575) battle to the closure of Japan and the beggining of the Edo period (1603), and afterwards they stopped improving their swords and armor (and eventually their guns too; they were still using muzzle-loaded muskets when Commodoro Perry arrived).

[Ser Lepus]

Lepus - Wootz. Go read up on it. Seriously. It's the basis for those amazing blades your are refering to, ie, Damascus and Toledo.

I'm not implying you are 100% wrong, I'm saying wootz is the difference between those classic blades, and what modern Toledo and Damascus steels are.

The process of creating wootz, the metal, is akin to the process/art displayed by japanese swordsmiths. That is - it's nearly an art (or is), the process appears to have been as intuitive as systematic. Modern experimenters can not duplicate it. The exact process, and result, has been lost.

From what I've read on wootz, nobody actually knows what factor was teh crucial one - hence the theories about ore, charcoal, and...clay. Because wootz involved baking the "ingots" in small clay balls, resulting in, I've read, a unique internal structure for the metal, which seems to have been caused by the composition of teh clay itself. And, really, no two clay beds produce exactly the same clay.

Without true wootz as a raw material, blades made with it, the blades you refer to, cannot be replicated. A Toledo smith today, can perfectly replicate the forging process of a classic smith, but... he can't access the steel, the raw material, his forefather did.

Wootz is an indian technique of making steel using special furnaces; it was a great develpment because it was the first time somebody managed to produce high-quality steel in large quantities, and for a long time the smiths from Damascus had to import it from India instead of making it themselves, but eventually they cracked the secret and stopped buying it from India. Later still, master swordsmiths moved from Syria and Iraq to the muslim spanish kingdom Al-Andalus (that was at that time one of the richest and the most culturally advanced country in all the muslim world) and teached their techniques to local disciples.

However, modern spanish swordsmiths do not use wootz because they have access to better steel; swordsmithing evolved ceasessly since the invention of wootz steel, and by the time swords stopped being useful on the battlefield many countries had the means of producing sword steel that was as good as wootz, and modern steel is even better than wootz.