Author Topic: (Historic) Development and suggestions  (Read 77623 times)

Offline Merlkir

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5742
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantArt online Gallery
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2007, 04:52:55 AM »
Raz is very good with both models and animations, I think a sling shouldn't be a problem :)
Here's my gallery: http://merlkir.deviantart.com/

I'm now painting and drawing commissions. I'll paint portraits, pets, girlfriends, favourite characters..you name it. Send me a PM if interested ;)

Aqtai

  • Guest
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #31 on: February 14, 2007, 05:07:25 AM »
Yeah, we're on it.

Brigandines of various sorts have been used off-and-on for more than 6000 years.  A true brigandine - metal or hardened leather backed by cloth or soft leather - is different from a partial plate - which uses large trauma plates connected to other plates by more flexible armor (and were not really in use yet in Europe).

The Middle Eastern lamellars were basically the same thing they had been using since the Persian Empire - even older in some parts of that area.  Wearing both lamellar and maille would have certainly been overkill, and likely restricted to V.I.P.'s who they really wanted back in one piece.

These guys had good research before I volunteered to do the Combat Realism model for them.  I was quite impressed, actually (which is seldom easy - "depressed" is usually my reaction to most things like that).  Wait and see how the next release comes out ... it will save a lot of the "yeah, we knew that already" factor.



The earliest European mention of brigandine, i.e. armour constructed of iron plates riveted to the inside of a heavy fabric coat dates to 1368 (Edge & Paddock, Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight, 1988), there is no evidence of it being used before this date, and certainly NO evidence of it being used in the late 12th century. 

The predecessor of the brigandine was the scale armour, i.e. metal scales attached to the outside of a cloth garment. Armour of this type was first used in the 16th century BC and remained in use until the 17th century, but certainly not 6000 years. However scale is a relatively weak armour and was vulnerable to upward thrusts. Lamellar armour and mail both offered much better protection.

Offline Raz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #32 on: February 14, 2007, 05:18:46 AM »
Raz is very good with both models and animations, I think a sling shouldn't be a problem :)
I could replace the pistol with it. :) Before I start on such a thing though, I'd still like somebody familiar with the low-tier troops to give comments on how they were equipped.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #33 on: February 14, 2007, 05:46:36 AM »
Generally, armors are considered brigandines regardless if the armoring material (metal, hardened leather, whatever) is attached on the inside or out, or between two layers.  An armor is considered to be a lamellar if it is made of overlapping sheets or layers.  Therefore, all scale armors are, by definition, a lamellar brigandine.  The coat of plates, in its various forms, is also a brigandine.  So is the stuff the Hittites were wearing, back when they were fighting the Egyptians in 4000 BC.  And the armguards worn by the Japanese samurai, and some of what was used in China.  A lot of stuff qualifies as brigandine by definition.

The Asiatic and Byzantine lamellars, on the other hand, were not a brigandine.  Nor were the Japanese body armors.  The individual armor sections were laced to each other, rather than to a backing material - and any backing materials were purely for ease of use and maintenance and added little or no strength to the design of the armor.

Now, to get down to cases, yes most of the brigandine armors during the Crusades were lighter scale, of the type normally associated with Eastern Europe.  The coats of heavier plates, and heavy trauma plates in general, had really not been in style since the Macedonian Empire (who used two-piece brass torso armors, because they were cheaper than more complex designs).  They would not re-appear in any number in Europe until the 1300's or so.  The true partial plate armors would be later than that, and full plate later still (generally more as a product of tournaments than combat).  The reasons for this shift are complex, but the Roman Empire's preference for maille and banded lamellars over the Greek-style single-piece trauma plates probably had something to do with it.  On that point, I think everyone would agree.

So to be very specific, to avoid any more issues of definition:  This mod contains various types of maille, medium European scale (call it a brigandine, or a lamellar, or both), and the Asiatic lamellars, plus a few miscellaneous lighter armors.  All will stand up as being historically accurate.  The Byzantine lamellars have not been added, even though they would be in period, either by oversight or because the map does not go that far.

Again, the research was already done when I offered to help with the damage model.  It's good, and I will stand up for whoever did it.  If you haven't seen the latest version of the mod (currently in beta testing), wait until you do ... I think the historians will be happy.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2007, 05:48:56 AM »
Raz is very good with both models and animations, I think a sling shouldn't be a problem :)
I could replace the pistol with it. :) Before I start on such a thing though, I'd still like somebody familiar with the low-tier troops to give comments on how they were equipped.

We know the sling was used by Bedouins and peasants.  It's still used by rioting Palestinians today.  Go for it.

Aqtai

  • Guest
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2007, 10:18:30 AM »
I think me and you are working out of different dictionaries here Ron. :)

Lamellar armour is an armour made of small rectanglar plates ('lamellae') which are laced together without need for backing material. If it needs backing material, then it is scale armour, not lamellar. :)

I'm not at home now, so i 'll have to get back to you later for a better definition of brigandine. Howver i can say this, while brigandine may be similar in construction to a coat of plates, it is not the same. Brigandine uses lots of small plates whereas a coat-of-plates uses large plates. This makes a C-o-P much more rigid than a brigandine.

The next point is about chronology. Egypt as a kingdom was not formed until around 3100 BC when the semi-mythical king Narmer unified upper and Lower Egypt. At this point in its history Egypt was only just emerging from the  neolithic period and was still only using tools made of stone and copper. Bronze tools (and weapons) did not become common until the end of the 3rd millenium BC, i.e. circa 2100 BC.

The wars between the Egyptians and Hittites happened in the period from around 1400 to 1250 BC, with the greatest battle, the Battle of Qadesh, being fought around 1275 BC, the battle itself was a draw although the Egyptian king Ramses II claimed to have won. The Hittite Empire itself existed from around the late 18th century BC to about 1150 BC.

Once again AFAIK the earliest documented use of bronze scale armour is in the 16th century BC, it appears to have been used by Canaanite charioteers.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #36 on: February 14, 2007, 11:01:18 AM »

OK, I'm using general terms - not the specific terms that certain history books assign to certain things.

Any material made from overlapping segments is lamellar.  That applies to armor or roofing shingles.  The most common use of the term in armoring is for laced scale lamellar, like the Byzantine and central Asian armors.  However, by the general definition of the word, European scale and Japanese banded lamellar also qualify.  So do asphalt roofing shingles and fish scales.  That is a general term not limited to ancient armors.

Brigandine, in general, is any protective clothing that attaches rigid reinforcing materials to a cloth or soft leather garment.  This differentiates it from laced lamellars, where the reinforcing materials are laced to each other, and from partial plate armors where the sections are connected to other sections by more flexible armoring materials.  European scale armor is a brigandine, because it uses a cloth backing rather than lacing the scales to each other.  So are metal-reinforced brigandines like the "Visby Plate", and most of the common European hardened leather armors.  So are the metal or ceramic trauma plates that are added to modern military flak vests.

Those are the general definitions.  Beyond that, most history books will use these terms in ways unique to their particular study, to differentiate them from others.  Say, one book uses the term "brigandine" to refer only to brigandines that use larger trauma plates, and "scale" for anything that uses smaller or overlapping plates ... they just do that as a form of shorthand or jargon.  These differences in terminology vary from book to book, and it's a good idea to check carefully how each particular historian is using each term, to avoid confusion.  They can be quite different.


And no, I didn't look up the dates on the Egyptian dynasties - I just pulled a number from my head.  The point was that people have been building "brigandines" - armors by attaching reinforcing materials to clothing - for as long as they have been working metals or longer.  Particular styles and weights come and go, but the basic idea has been around forever.  36 centuries, by the number you came up with.  Anyway, the rise of heavier trauma plates in European armor around the 1200's A.D. and following was nothing new - just the cycle coming back around.  (The true full plate armors that appeared later were kind of a first, but that was later.)

Anyway, the armors in the mod are historical - no matter which historian's particular pet terms you favor.

Saber

  • Guest
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #37 on: February 14, 2007, 11:24:43 AM »
"OK, I'm using general terms - not the specific terms that certain history books assign to certain things."
well i wouldn't say Brigadine is a particular historian's pet term that Aqtai favours. It a general term for an armour which appeared mid-late 14th century. I don't really understand your argument. Brigadine did not appear during the late 12th century. I dont think Aqtai is trying to prove you wrong in anything, he's just stating a fact. Brigadine is a proper term for an armour which he has pictured. In the same way you dont call a leopard a lion, despite them both sharing a common ancestor.

Any congrats Raz on the mod, great job!

P.S Aqtai, do you own a library with history books? >:D I mean you have all possible military history books i have yet seen.

broodwarcd

  • Guest
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2007, 08:30:24 PM »


The heaviest armour would have been the mail worn by European knights, as it would have been a long sleeved hauberk with integral mail mufflers (mittens) and coif and mail chausses.  Some sources from the period refer to 'double mail'. We have no idea what this actually means, but one possiblity is that it could either be mail made from thicker rings (similar perhaps to 17th century Russian "Moscow mail") or two mail hauberks worn one over the other.  Arab historians sometimes refer to "Frankish mail" is if it somehow different to Turkish-Arab mail, maybe because it's made from thicker rings, but who knows?


i think "double mail" means the use of  a 6-1 pattern instead of a 4-1

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #39 on: February 14, 2007, 08:45:59 PM »


The heaviest armour would have been the mail worn by European knights, as it would have been a long sleeved hauberk with integral mail mufflers (mittens) and coif and mail chausses.  Some sources from the period refer to 'double mail'. We have no idea what this actually means, but one possiblity is that it could either be mail made from thicker rings (similar perhaps to 17th century Russian "Moscow mail") or two mail hauberks worn one over the other.  Arab historians sometimes refer to "Frankish mail" is if it somehow different to Turkish-Arab mail, maybe because it's made from thicker rings, but who knows?


i think "double mail" means the use of  a 6-1 pattern instead of a 4-1


Or two rings instead of one, as in 8-2.  There's a lot of debate on this, since historic examples tend to be dug out of the ground rather than properly labelled and documented.  That, and not a lot of maille from this period has survived, especially not in good condition.  Everybody has a favorite theory, but nobody can prove any of them.

Reality is that we have no idea exactly what the term meant, except that it was used to suggest a heavier or more durable form of chain armor.

There was also loose-weave chain, like Japanese Kusari - sometimes called "Norman Maille", or in mid-Renaissance, "Italian Maille".  We have no idea if any of these terms may have referred to that as well.  That design, using much larger lateral rings, was in one reference (that I can't find right at the moment) called "Persian ring maille".  It's quite possible that some of the Arabic chain armors were not even the same basic design as the European maille.  Evidence one way or the other is just not there.

Fortunately, this doesn't really hurt us on this mod.  We don't have to replicate the stuff for a real knife fight - they're just numbers on paper.  We can guess heavier or lighter by just changing the numbers by a point or two.


broodwarcd

  • Guest
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2007, 09:19:39 AM »
How are the town scenics gonna work? is it going to be a full fledged town with people walking around or is it going to be the five people in a line again?   also with castle sieges is it just the walls and courtyard or is the keep and gatehouse accessible?

btw, Messenger your avatar is creepin' me out. :shock:
« Last Edit: February 16, 2007, 09:29:40 AM by broodwarcd »

Jareck

  • Guest
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2007, 01:42:25 PM »
Damn Im waiting for this mod.  :P
Anyways if you need any reference pictures of anything. Ive got the Kingdom Of Heaven directors cut. The costumes I belive are historically correct.
What about the flags, are you going to model flags in to the game?

Offline Merlkir

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5742
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantArt online Gallery
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2007, 01:58:35 PM »
Damn Im waiting for this mod.  :P
Anyways if you need any reference pictures of anything. Ive got the Kingdom Of Heaven directors cut. The costumes I belive are historically correct.
What about the flags, are you going to model flags in to the game?

dude, check out the screenshots, you should find answers there to most of your questions.
Here's my gallery: http://merlkir.deviantart.com/

I'm now painting and drawing commissions. I'll paint portraits, pets, girlfriends, favourite characters..you name it. Send me a PM if interested ;)

Saber

  • Guest
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #43 on: February 17, 2007, 12:19:39 PM »
Hey!

I've heard that you guys are working at the moment on light missile infantry for the Crusaders. The Crusaders should have two types of light infantry warriors. The local ingenious Christians skilled in mountainous fighting should be included. There knowledge of the area, and their skill in guerilla warfare should be useful to any Crusader commander. They should be lightly armoured, and have javelins. Another light infantry unit might be the Cilician armenian warriors. They should appear as mercenaries or Cilician allies to the Crusaders.

If I could suggest another thing, it would be cool to have distinguishable arms and armour for the "New Comers" and "Local" Crusaders. Check out this picture: http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture025ee5.jpg . The mounted Templar has a a white cloth around his head, a common practice which protected the head from sun heat. Dunno i find such details really minor, but add flavour to the gameplay :)


Landsknecht

  • Guest
Re: (Historic) Development and suggestions
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2007, 05:27:56 PM »
Albeit I am talking from the perspective of a historian and not a programmer, but it seems that the model and animation for a sling would be rather simple. The model is simply a strip of leather or braided cloth about 120 centimeters and the animation simply the revolution of the sling above the head. If you are looking for something other than the sling however, I for one am not sure where you would turn. I do not have any of my books with me right now, as I am currently on vacation, (It is one of those "relax and do nothing vacations." the wife said it would be fun. However, the fact that I am writing this at the moment seems to disagree with that fact.) But I for one do not remember and ranged weapon other than the composite bow and the sling being used in the 12th-13th century by the Saracens or Bedouins. Really, most soldiers in the army, even the lowly footsoldier, would have a composite bow at his disposal. They were inexpensive to make, since the materials were plentiful, and the knowledge of how to successfully produce them would have been known by nearly every resident in the near east. The sling would be a viable light infantry model, since it was just as common as the composite bow, and more useful to your "average everyday" nomad/shepherd. I understand some respect to play balance must be made, but in reality, the Bedouins, if they could avoid it, would never meet the crusaders in open combat. Their armor was not as heavy, and their weapons and strategy most suited to the hit and run attacks they would have been used to over centuries of caravan raids. (obviously applying this more to the Bedouin, which seems to be used interchangeably with Saracen in this forum, even though the two are  separate entity.) However, the composite bow combined gave them a distinct advantage in the area of ranged combat.

Also somewhat of a sidenote, the Francisca checks out, since it was used by the Franks since at least the 8th century. I can't remember where I heard it, so thus it should be taken as simply the ramblings from one of the dark corners of my mind and not as gospel truth, but I once heard that the Franks took their name from this axe, as opposed as the axe taking the name of the people that used it. regardless of this fact, the Francisca would still have been a common throwing weapon among the European group. However, it did have a much shorter range than the javelins and other thrown weapons. Limited to probably 30 feet or so, max, because of its flight path and off balance nature. Trust me, until you have thrown an axe, you dont realize how much energy is wasted on the darn thing spinning 'round and 'round instead of straight forward.  :)