A while back I ran into this screed by an old wargamer who
calls himself T. Shiels that used to be at this website (
http://www.thortrains.net/armymen/index.html)
but no longer seems to be extant. In spite of its apparent disappearance, I
feel compelled to address it, since it has often been cited particularly in conjunction
with so called “Old School” gaming forums as a basis for justifying not having
any differentiation between weapon types – a silly proposition but one that
gets traction from diatribes such as these:
"After my Army tour, I lived a bit
too wild and got involved in too many scary episodes. It seemed like wasted
talent, but when rewriting wargame rules it came to work for me. There is a way
people fight, and it should be reflected in games. My problem with re-enactors
is that their mock fights are bound by rules for safety and fairness. In a real
situation where bodily harm is likely and safety rules do not exist, it gets
very different...
Chainmail came up short. I figured that the writers had never been in so much
as a fistfight, never mind a brawl with polearms and axes. I had been in a
couple of brawls that involved bats, barstools and other "field
expedient" medieval weaponry....”
The first flaw in this writer’s reasoning that I would hasten to point out
is that “bats” and “barstools” are NOT medieval weapons! Unless that “bat” has
iron spikes radiating out of the end, it is NOT the same as a mace or
morningstar. So while it is no doubt true that Gygax, etc., had never been in a
“brawl with polearms and axes”, it is also equally true that the writer has
absolutely no relevant experience in this regard, either...
{Parenthetically
I will grant that Gygax’s research with regards to medieval armaments was quite
flawed, relying on woefully out of date and, in general, poor quality
scholarship; much of his “information” on poll arms was laughably wrong, and
“banded mail” was nothing more than a Victorian Era hallucination.}
Put another way, being in a few bar fights does not a master of medieval combat
make...
For the record, barroom brawls are really not the same as medieval battlefield
situations – and it is extraordinarily disingenuous to suggest otherwise. In
the former, folks are really generally only trying to beat the stuffing out of
one another,
not kill. There is a difference. Barring extreme intoxication
and rage, most people are at least dimly aware that actually killing (or even
seriously
trying) to kill outright someone can get you in very serious
trouble with the authorities, to include life imprisonment or even the death
penalty. Thus, there actually IS a fair amount of restraint being employed,
even if it is not obvious to the casual observer...
But there is something else: “field expedient” medieval weaponry as defined by
the Writer are in no way, shape, or form the same as
actual medieval weaponry,
for the simple reason that the latter are purposefully designed to
KILL AND MAIM, while the former are not. “Field expedient”
implements lack the balance, mass distribution, cutting edges, etc. that only
actual
weapons possess. To suggest that a bar stool is functionally the same as a poll
axe in a fight requires serious overuse and abuse of psychotropic substances to
even remotely take seriously...
“One thing we realized was that the
writers of "Chainmail" had gotten too interested in weapons. Their
rules gave certain implements a distinct advantage in hand-to-hand, man-to-man
combat. The morningstar, mace, two-handed axe and two-handed sword were
overwhelming, while the spear and sword came up short. In actual accounts of
medieval close combat, the spear was favored. Dismounted French knights
preferred to make spears of their lances than depend on maces or broad axes.
The favorite battlefield weapon of the Samurai was a spear. The sword only came
into play in situations where the spear was impractical. So why would
"Chainmal" [sic]
regard a
spear as a weak weapon? Obviously, the writers were impressed with their idea
of busting out armor. As with tanks, it is not armor penetration alone that
makes a kill. One thing I learned from jujitsu, the Army and some other arcane
studies (never mind!) was that weapon skill was personal. A warrior had his
preferences, so a man who was good with, say, a mace would be the equal of a
man who was skilled with the hand axe. The weapon was not as important as the
man behind it. We dropped the idea of adding or subtracting for each type of
weapon.”
For starters, if one actually reads and plays the
Chainmail rules
correctly, the spear is not really as marginal as it appears – plainly the
Writer was ignoring the weapon’s length, and should have spent some time
educating himself on the actual ruleset better. Following the rules the spear
actually performs better than they believe in
Chainmail.
It is true that the spear is a very prolific weapon on virtually all
battlefields, even into this century if one counts the bayonet mounted on the
end of a rifle. However, what works in mass combat is not necessarily the best
solution for one on one combat. Also, the Writer conveniently ignores the issue
of cost – a spear is much cheaper than a sword, which by itself could be a good
explanation as to why spears were common. His statement about the French
knights “preferring” their cut down lances is severely distorted, and not really
true – the use of cut down lances was a tactical expedient to deal with spear
or poll axe armed infantry. With regards to “preference” I’m quite sure the
French knights “preferred” to overrun hapless peasant levies with full length
lances and swords whilst on horseback...
I agree with Shiels that the man is more important than the weapon – however, one
cannot logically leap to the conclusion that the weapon is irrelevant! I also
agree that armor penetration alone does not make a “kill” but being unable to
penetrate it effectively sure limits your options, don’t you think? Look at it
this way, having an inferior weapon simply diminishes one’s opportunities to
score an effective “kill.” For a real world example, consider using a sword
against a fully plate armored foe. Most blows will be entirely ineffectual;
only very precise hits, as illustrated below from the cover of a book on
Medieval swordsmanship, are likely to cause a kill. Anything else will be
shrugged off altogether. Contrast this with say a halberd or poll axe, which
can perform precise stabbing blows as noted previous, but also have the mass to
damage armor, inflict blunt trauma, etc. even through the otherwise
impenetrable plate. Thus, the latter has more opportunities to be combat
effective, and is thus in this manner “superior.”
Another example: during WWII freshly trained American pilots, equipped with F4U
Corsair fighter planes, were able to achieve an overall favorable kill ratio
over more experienced Japanese piloting the A6M “Zero” during the Solomon
Islands campaign in 1943. Why? Not because our pilots came out of training as
Zen Masters, but rather because the Corsair was an objectively superior
aircraft in virtually all respects – significantly faster, better rate of
climb, better armed, and much better protected. While the Japanese (at this
stage of the war) were equal or even better pilots, they could not compete as
well given the deficiencies of their “weapon.” It was much easier for a Corsair
pilot to get a Zero into a favorable “kill” position, and much harder for the
Jap pilot to orchestrate the reverse
[i] –
and even when he did, our boys had an easy way out: open up the throttle and
push the nose down and power dive out of the situation.
As an aside, I am not really sure what to make of the author’s claims to
expertise. He states he was in the Army, but does not give his MOS. Simply
being in the Army does not make one a master at arms any more than being in the
Air Force automatically makes you an ace fighter pilot. For all I know, Shiels
was a cook. His claims of studying Jujitsu are more relevant, since this
martial art form focuses on unarmed combat against armed and armored
adversaries, and is derived from early Japanese battlefield close quarter
techniques (which, by the by, are very similar to European techniques, employed
in the same circumstances). Of course, simply “studying” jujitsu for a few
weeks does not convey mastery, either, and it is not clear how much effort was
actually placed into learning this martial art form. As for “arcane” studies, I
have no insight, nor do I understand the relevance. My point in bringing this
up is that, while I affirm that Shiels likely does have some basis for his
views, they are shallow and limited and should not be considered authoritative
by any means.
At this point the astute reader will no doubt want to know
what my
qualifications are. A fair enough question! Well, for starters I have taken Tae
Kwon Do (achieved green belt, which in my school was two notches above
beginning white belt), and have some minor experience in Western Martial Arts,
mostly in SCA and some drills I have done on my own following examples in
various period fighting manuals and modern distillations of such. When I was in
the Air Force I took Foreign Weapons Familiarization classes at Ft. Irwin (a
“Re-Blueing” exercise to remind us folks at LAAFB – a.k.a. “Hollywood Air
Force” that there was a real military out there that broke things and killed
people). Most of my knowledge, though, is either scholarly and/or based upon
personal reconstructions of the artifacts, ranging from helmets, to armour, to
swords and daggers, and even to flails and axes. In terms of research, I am not
only extremely well versed in very detailed knowledge about the artifacts
themselves, but also their use and effectiveness. For example, I have read
works such as “Blood Red Roses” which is a forensic study of injuries found on
skeletal remains from the Battle of Towton, and have also read a lot of
materials pertaining to firearm effectiveness, including military reports from
various wars (mostly WWII and Korea). I have also perused in great detail
original medieval and renaissance “Fechtbücher” (“fighting manuals”) that
clearly show the various martial techniques of the period, armed and unarmed. I
may not know everything, but I know quite a bit –certainly much more than Shiels
– and I consider myself to be vastly more qualified to speak to this matter,
even if I’ve never been in a bar room brawl or studied jujitsu…
Returning to Mr. Shiels pontifications:
“A man going into a fight will take the
weapon with which he is most secure. This goes for everything from bar room
brawling to Indian raids. A man who is good with a chain will take it. The
fellow who prefers a club won't want a chain. Though outsiders may view the
chain as more effective because of its appearance and weight, you can be sure
that a ghood [sic] club man will be
equally effective with his choice of weapon. All the "Chainmail"
weapon rule did was fuel the fires of those with a fascination for odd medieval
fighting instruments.”
So, according to Shiels weapons are simply a fancy security blanket, such as
what Linus carries? Not at all true, and I am not sure where such a distorted
viewpoint comes from. As I’ve already explained, bar room brawls are
emphatically NOT the same as any sort of actual warfare, whether Indian raids,
Medieval battles, or Special Forces skirmishes, and it is as stupid as it is
ridiculous to compare the two. And as an “outsider” I will let the laws of
physics decide whether a chain or club is objectively better for pounding
someone. Finally, regarding those “odd medieval fighting instruments” the
reason they seem odd is because they are precision tools, designed to deal
with specific battlefield threats. It is no different than when you build a
house – I use a hammer to pound nails, a screwdriver to drive screws, a saw to
cut boards, etc. I would *not* use a hammer to cut a board, or a saw to pound
nails – would you? Likewise, some circumstances call for a sword vs. a poll
axe, and the like. Anyone who thinks that weapon choice is a matter of
psychological “security” plainly does not comprehend the subject at all.
“Another thing about weapons was
environment. A chain is not very good when fighting in water or in thick brush.
You need room to swing it. A club is fine provided you have room to swing it.
In close quarters, a thrusting weapon would be better. Fighting in a tight
hallway, swinging weapons are at a disadvantage. “
This is a perfectly valid observation, but the correct way to handle this
is to provide a rule or two for these special circumstances, rather than leaping
irrationally to the conclusion that type of weapon does not matter at all.
“Hand-held weapons drop an enemy either
by impact / concussion or cutting. A concussive weapon tends to be more
effective in a very close fight. A sword, though it cuts, also acts as an iron
bar. An axe is like a sharp truncheon. Pole weapons give that extra second or
two to drop the enemy, hence most are for cutting. Though a cut is more likely
to be fatal, it is less likely to drop an enemy instantly. Cuts take a few
seconds more than impact...”
It is this statement by Shiels that makes me question his intelligence.
Certainly he proves his uttermost ignorance on the matter. Literally every
statement in the previous paragraph is wrong, either partially or completely.
Point by point:
(1) “Hand-held weapons drop an enemy
either by impact / concussion or cutting.” Obviously false on its face –
has he never heard of stabbing someone? But it is
clinically inaccurate as well. One “drops an enemy” by means of disrupting
internal organ function or blood loss, which is achieved by concussive,
cutting, or stabbing blows. I confess to being a bit pedantic, but if one is
going to make the sweeping sorts of generalizations that Shiels has, one might
at least try to be factually correct.
(2) “A concussive weapon tends to be more
effective in a very close fight.” Really? Who says? What is meant by the
terms “effective” or “close fight”? Actually, I would argue that in a very
close (within grappling distance fight, which is how I would interpret the term
“close fight”) I would submit that a dagger is most effective, not a club
or mace, because the latter requires more room to swing. Stabbing in close
quarters with a dagger is a devastating technique, documented quite well in
period sources, which Shiels has plainly never heard of, let alone studied.
(3) “A sword, though it cuts, also acts
as an iron bar.” Uhhhhh, no, swords do not act as iron bars. I am sorely
tempted to fetch one of my finer Albion long swords, and an actual iron bar out
of my workshop (sword blade raw material, actually) and demonstrate upon Mr.
Shiels person the distinct difference between the two, not just in handling
capability but wounding capacity as well… an iron bar is NOT going to cut
someone in half, or snip off a limb – but a good sword will do exactly that. It
should also be pointed out that most swords can stab/thrust as well, a rather
obvious thing to not understand.
(4) “An axe is like a sharp truncheon.”
All right, this is probably the least incorrect statement in this sorry bunch,
but it’s still quite inaccurate. Want to understand why? Get a baseball bat,
“sharpen” it to have some sort of edge, and then go ahead and try to chop down
a tree with it. Compare with using an axe for the same task. Let me know which
works better…
(5) “Pole weapons give that extra second
or two to drop the enemy, hence most are for cutting.” This statement is
barely comprehensible. An extra second or two? How does one know this? Did Mr.
Shiels time one being used in a fight? I hardly think so. I think the point he
is struggling to convey is that the length of the weapon allows you to strike at
a foe before they can get within range to strike at you. Technically, this is
happening in fractions of a second, not a “second or two”, but in outline is
kind- sorta-partially correct. Really it gives you a “first strike”
opportunity, nothing more. And poll arms are primarily for stabbing, not cutting,
though as a secondary attack capability most do indeed have an axe blade (an
exception would be the bec de corbin, which has a pronged hammer face backed
with a beak like spike).
(6) And finally, this gem: “Though a cut
is more likely to be fatal, it is less likely to drop an enemy instantly. Cuts
take a few seconds more than impact...” Utterly wrong. Stabs are more likely to
be (eventually) fatal, but less likely to drop someone instantly than a cut,
which in turn is more likely to be effective than concussive blow. While a stab
may eventually prove fatal, whether through exsanguination or infection, it is
unlikely to do so in a manner timely enough to suit the one doing the stabbing.
Even a stab to the heart means there is still enough blood pressure in the
brain to allow for volitional action on the part of the victim; what was termed
in the Old West as “A dead man’s 15 seconds.” It was not unheard of for
duelists using rapiers or small swords to mortally wound one another, with one
stabbing the other but then not getting out of range quick enough to avoid
being fatally stabbed in return. Hence why most swords (with the exception of
specialty anti-armour tools such as estocs) had cutting edges, which can deliver
a severe enough shearing cut that can take off a limb (or a head) and end the
fight on the spot – something a stab can only rarely do. Blunt weapons tend to
be least effective in this regard, but are very useful since their mass gives
them some effect against heavy armour, and they have the additional advantage
of not getting stuck in their targets – a problem with stabs and even
occasionally with cuts.
Bottom line: when one cuts through the layers of B.S. and examines the
statements logically, one finds that Shiels is really not all that knowledgeable.
The few very good points made do not support the sweeping conclusions he leaps
to, and are in any case overwhelmed by the sheer amount of ignorant nonsense
and garbage he puts out. In the end it is best to disregard Shiels’ screed, as
it is mostly wrong.
One tangential point that comes out from this discussion is that one can
sometimes make a game combat system both more realistic AND more streamlined by
understanding the factual reality that is being modeled. Knowing that most
folks do not instantly die when struck means that one need not obsess too much
with following a strict initiative order. The rules given in Melee and Advanced
Melee, with the fixation that “nothing happens simultaneously” are actually
wrong-headed; the simplification introduced in the “Fast Rules” section presented
in Advanced Melee (and also in Dragons of Underearth) that gets
rid of attacking in adjDX order is really a very good idea, that not only
speeds up play dramatically but is in fact more realistic. Such a deal!
[i]
Corsair ace
2nd Lieutenant
Kenneth Walsh explained why: “I learned
quickly that altitude was paramount. Whoever had altitude dictated the terms of
the battle, and there was nothing a Zero pilot could do to change that — we had
him [N.B.: because of the Corsair’s superior rate of climb]. The F4U could outperform a Zero in every
aspect except slow speed manoeuvrability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore
you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero. It took time but eventually we
developed tactics and deployed them very effectively... There were times,
however, that I tangled with a Zero at slow speed, one on one. In these
instances I considered myself fortunate to survive a battle.
