cbcbcbcbcbcbcbcb Weapons & Armor history cbcbcbcbcbcbcbcb

  One can get lost in all the gizmos out there when looking at weapons, so I've tried here to get to the crucal weapons- when they started to have an effect on the course of our conflicts. Therefore try to keep this in mind when you don't find some item from some crucal battle that may have been important in your country's history.  I'm only concerned when these weapons were used and had a sea changing effect. This is just as likely to be in a losing cause as a winning one. This will make this history tend to be very beginning heavy, or concerned with the when the weapon were first used.  The pace of these weapons of death are surly speeding up. The point in this historical look is to see how we may gather steps in the process of invention that lead to their real effect on the course of events and our honorable nature.

    Men, strategy, tactics and leadership still make up the vast majority of what it takes to have a successful armed force. Weapons have increased in importance little by little so that they may one day come to dominate it like that of The Dr. Who TV series in the UK, though not resembling the machines used in them at all (exterminate, exterminate!).

   We start with the chariot, not for it being the first weapon, but for the affect it had in the recorded battles with Eygpt. Eygpt came under heavy pressure by the Hitties, who used chariots in large formations in the often open ground found in the region. The Hitties most probably didn't use chariots first for we know the Gauls, Celts and more used them to the north west too and originated from the east like other caucasians.

  The Eygptians quickly took up the chariot, in one of the first recorded arms race, though no one protested about the need to stop chariot Armageddon. 

  Here we have a Gaelic chariot with the second man, who would tend to rein the horse while the other lobbed javelins, shielded the driver from projectiles, shot arrows or simply directed the driver according to the events on the battlefield. This could be the first occasion for a kind of squire /lord team, that arises later in the knight period. Almost all Charioteers in battle used this tag-team approach. 

      I didn't place a chariot with the bladed wheels, that we all are familiar with in  Ben Hur, for they came later. The real threat was to be run down by the horses or flattened by the chariot car, more than the later cutting wheels. The Macadonians and Romans in battle were recorded to have eventually let the chariots threw their lines of infantry by opening a whole, and as the horses slow down to turn around, boarded them from the back, spooked or grabbed the horses from the front and killed  the riders who were isolated- if not unqualified- to fight hand-to-hand.

Hoplites & Phalanxes

The Greeks are said to be the inventors of the hosplite heavy infantry. With so many going with lighter and lighter fighters and horsemen at the time, it took some machismo to stand against horses with spear- for someone either saw a porcupine and said , "Hey I've got an idea!' Or had to show someone how it should be done.  Which probably had some major maximus Dickus Head who said, "That's fine in practice, but lets see if it works in a real battle." "You can try it out next battle by yourself Mr. Change the way things have always been done this way forever." 

We have no first clear users of the martial art, so will go with the best- the Spartans.  Through training that was unequal even compared with today's standards, and gave dread-locks their true meaning,  they dealt with their terrified enemies of the past. This is best summed up at the battle of Thermopile. All modern western armies trace themselves back to the methods and training employed by the Spartans. These ideas of training are just the same as weapons, though you can't hold them in your hand.

After some poor sod showed this porcupine style worked the next step was more everyone to join in it as a group-or be the quills. This is shown below. For a time in our history this style of fighting was lost until the Swiss Cantons  took it up with their pikemen much later. Showing everyone concerned that forgetting how or objecting to fighting, or its methods, just adds to many more deaths on your side from badly thought out ideas- wrongly named principles. 

The long spears did distance the face-to-face aspect of the conflict, but there was still a directness to this era that many have looked at with nostalga. Lion types like Achilles, Hercules and Ajax have gripped us even to today with their head on approach to battle. The study of the classics and of this period of history shows that there is something positively important to learn from this period. We debate the ideas, but not the characters that are past on to us. Revisionism seems unable to take root here in antiquity, like the fox-king was unable to destroy Hercules, no matter what trap he lead him into out of jealousy.  

Cavalry

I have broken down calvary into two types, for the purpose of both being noticably different for most military historians. For me the gulf is much wider than almost all- for I wrote a whole book on this subject of honor and therefore will try to catch myself from going on at too much length.

Heavy Horse

To look at heavy horse we turn to the great one who employed it. Alexander the Great owes a lot to his father Phillip. One might have gotten the impression from the movie of the latest Oliver Stone movie that Alexander was at odds to his father and had never raised a glove against his Greek country men. Alexander went with his father on campaigns as he won Greece for Macedonia. He road with the companion calvary on these battles, and had to play second fiddle for what a young man would consider eternity. This may have led to his wish to both out do his father and also to his satisfaction at finally being at the wheel-and not wanting to give it up. Hans Delbruck rightly argues that this was the key to the Macedonia army. The armor, the weapons and size of the men or horses are debated, but the the fact that they went head long into enemy infantry, calvary and even elephants is not. Heavy horse is as heavy horse does.

Later when we look at the European knights we unmistakenly see the same willingness to give it and take it on the chin in face-to-face war. These same men, when dismounted, went at it in the same way. This is why the armor in the west is so much more advanced, for you had both group pressure and a need to mix it up- and what better way to do this than to have thick armor at your back!

Light Horse

Now we come to light horse. How do we begin to name all the tribes from the east who came west as light cavalry. Cimmerians, Scythians, Amazons, Samartians, Parthians, Sassanians, Yueh-chih, Huns,  Bulgars, Alans,  Khazars, Avars, Iranians, Turks, Magyars, Cumans, Moslems, Berbers and Mongols. Have I missed any, probably? These men and women from the steppes all came from free-for-all regions, where there were no rules- if there were any in war in the past. Regions in the west if they had any rules they slowly or quickly abandon them or lost. Arrows and spears from a far, faining retreat and then turning on your enemy to win by ulisis type guile, were all par-for- the-course on the eastern steppes. Even when they come armored the tactics are still more of the same. Direct conflict came only at the end when the enemy is in retreat or disarray. Of course This is war, but man has the ability to shape the world, why not here too. Unfortunately as it has gotten worse at these no-hold-bars periods in our history we now find ourselves turning our noses up at the continuation of this fox and wolf style of war. So let's take a look at one of the earliest that was record in some detail due to the opponents. So let's move on to the Amazons.

When we hear of the cruelty of men we should remember the Amazons. When we hear peace is the only way we should remember them too. The Amazonian way was the way of the steppes. The Greeks went to great lengths  in describing the unmanly way of Amazonian style of war.  Keeping your opponents at arms length and shooting projectiles is the name of the game with aggressive effeminates- with words as well as conflicts. Medusa has been protrade as having a bow to deal with the men who would not look at her anymore. When wars or conflicts are too many or too few things go to the fox way. Either extreme brings indirect conflict in all forms- not just in nasty war-which leads to no rules and a race to the bottom (No Honor). 

It takes skill to ride a horse, shoot arrows from it and live on the harsh steppes. Men are there to be found. Unfortunately it also takes skill to make a bomb place it is a place with the best chance of killing the most innocent too, and or have the bravery to blow up with it too. Skill doesn't equal honor. So as we go on in relating the facts of life in the area of war let's not forget when and where it tends to go down hill- and how it must be unfortunately answered by the other side to avoid loss and destruction. Or remember too that the peace activists are followers of the fox, and want to wage dishonor indirect conflict too. By denouncing  war they denounce the ultimate form of directness. Enemies are saying to each other, 'We will fight both directly and indirectly in order to win, so be on your guard.' Thus they turn indirectness into directness, or turn effeminate behavor into masculine behaviour.

Below is a sight to be avoided for a light horseman. On the ground means no way to retreat and things tend to come to a head- or you might just lose yours.

With the Mongols we have the best of this style of warfare.  Most hordes would be almost seasonal, and the Mongols were the worst of winters. They learnt siege technics, including sending captured women and children in the first rank on a storming of a castle. If they won, which they often did, they would kill everyone in the city, so as to convince the next ones not to fight.  This really does works for the same reason terrorism does-  and can lead to less resistance from the effeminate. 

It is also all dishonorable in the extreme too. Men expect other men to resist, like the Iraq troops did when the Americans attacked, yet terrorism and Bath leadership isn't manly. It is a reflection of the no rules of all conflict.  When anything goes we need to answer it, keeping to the honorable course for as long as possible and if need be answer it. For big powerful nations this is unnecessary, as it is for strong honorable men. Yet if it means our destruction it must be answered in kind. The prodestants answered in Northern Ireland for they weren't strong and powerful (like the Irish catholics aren't- compared to the British).

Those who deny the option to answer dishonor with dishonor, or those who fain war unnecessary, effeminate fantasies await you and your fox-like ways that are the cause of it in the first place.

For the Americans and British, who die like the men in the Napoleonic wars for refusing to step out of the way of shot, or hide behind anything, honor is certainly all yours when compared to the terrorists. Men who refused to step aside are really refusing to step down lower and lower in war.  What will we do with one less honorable man in this fox-like world? 

The Mongols and the English were very good at shooting with their bows, and to them  many a battlefield they won (though their eneimes had them and crossbows too. 

Below on the left a Mongol bow-on the right an English long bow. I 'll spare you a less accurate and longer loading French cross bow.  

    Well if you thought I had it in for just Robin Hood enthusists, you'd be wrong. Slingers also lead me with something to be desired too. The Spartans had distaste for people who hid behind walls too. Placing things between you and your enemies, so as to hurl things at them from a far, isn't any better that using a bow and arrow from horseback. So as we depart this section into all the more dominating advanced forms indirect war we should be aware of where this will take us in the end.  David could have killed Goliath with a bow, stick dipped in poison or pit too(dug the night before). Should he be glorified? This may give heartburn to the meek that shall in herit the world crew, but it is still much better to go down fighting as directly as possible with someone else who holds to a code- than win by these Amazonian tactics of the more indirect the safer and better.  

Legionnaires

As we can see from above the legionnaire of the Roman world was man with a lot of stuff. He was the handy man extordinaire. One must admire this. The Romans also get credit from this writer for their direct approach to war with their enemies. They thought of ways to deal with them, at least in the beginning, that answered their attacks head on.

First let's look at their formations which was of  course call a legion for the number of men in it. This position and training of men was meant to be flexible so as to fill in gaps, and keep enough of the formation organized so as not to break down in all the chaos.

The deployment was set in a standard form as you see next  below.  With the older legionnaires towards the back, having proven their worth already and to allow them some well earned seniority benefits so as to have a better chance at retirement and the passing on of their skills and genes to another generation of warriors (something WWI didn't do).

The Calvary of the Romans was already much less Macedonian-like or companion-like, and therefore was always dealing with the others calvary on the wings or attacking the wings or rear of the enemy infantry.  

To understand the Roman army is to understand who they fought first, or lost to first. This is of course the Gauls. The Gauls like the Celts and Germans were all about individual glory and honor. Their men would all fight for the right to be in the front of a charge. The charge of these men was sometimes enough to scatter a army of cowards before the first hack or slash.  They all had long swords which were an extension of long arms, which would hopefully reach the opponent fresh before theirs hit you. The Scottish claymore being the end result of this idea, though one needs to weld it to make any use of it.

Daggers and pistols being the opposite, for at first the goal is to hide them (appear peaceful), only second attacking when the unsuspecting target has lowered their threat to you. Third is to hide, clean or dispose of the weapon again to appear a dove of peace again as before. This is called advancement to many! 

To meet this Gaulic charge was to slow it down. To slow it down the Romans thought of the javelin. Unfortunately later, in the early stages of a battle, the Gauls would just as soon pick up the Roman javelins and throw it at them back. It is better to send than to receive such gifts. So the Romans developed the bending front shaft javelin. This could be thrown once and not bend going in a straight line into a enemy, but if another tried to remove it from a victim or the ground it would bend at the front end- making it quiet useless until the black smith would hammer it back into place after a successful battle (to be thrown another day). If the javelin didn't hit an enemy it could hit his shield, dragging the sheild down with it- leaving them with only their long sword, axe or spear alone. This also made the legionnaires get rid of the javelin at the right time too, instead of trying to use it like the Hoplites to keep ones enemies at a distance. Here is a an example of one below.

The next important feature of the Roman army was the tall large curved shield- which was meant to deal with the long swords of the Gauls and their tall height.  If you kept in formation these big shields would give very little to a enemy, to nothing, to hack or slash at. The Romans also had a tortuous formation where they formed a defense of shields in all direction but from beneath so the formation could move in on say fortresses with little david-wantabes slingers pelting away.   

The final ingredient of this de-gauler machine was the sword which was short thick and used in a stabbing action. So once  a legionnaire saw a clear shot at the enemy, between their hopefully wall-to-wall shields,  he would put a heavy sharp blade tip in its direction and often cause death wounds to the enemy. As opposed to flesh would which would not kill- or allow the enemy to keep on fighting for hours until dying painfully. 

Below on the left we have Roman sword and on the left some long Gaulic like swords. The northern peoples were often bigger  and taller than the Romans and the style of fighting shows one doesn't have to be a weasel to beat bigger enemies.  The Gauls had javelins, horses and shields too- so their is nothing beyond the pale here in the honor department. The real amazing aspects of the Roman system was the discipline and work habits of the legionnaires who would build a fort at the end of every afternoon on the march in new territory. Once they won something they marked it with forts. Once they won a fight they demanded submission, or they put their foot on your throat. No getting up later after losing and yaking then. The Romans would deal harshly with others who rebelled against them at inconvenient times for them. Dishonor was dealt with brutally. An idea we need to teach all our young ones softly at a young age, and harshly when they get older and stay childish, effeminate or weaselly.  

Frankish Knights

When we look at issue of Europe everyone wants to point out subtle differences and drive a truck through them. The differences between the Gauls, Germans and Celts are played up with little pieces of art blown out of all proportion by modern culture officionotos with to much time own their hands. There are differences of course, but back then there was very little to separate them- thought the French, Germans and English would hate to to hear that now. The Franks are such a case in point.

The Franks were just outside the Roman sphere of influence in German lands, and then took over Gaul after the Romans abandoned it- as the empire fell into factions forever. The Franks tended to have lion-like fighting men to deal with the threats from outside. While the old Roman families tended to continue as merchants, priests, peasents or some other fox role.

The Romans claimed to be descendants of Troy , probably to cover up the fact they kept stealing everything from the Greeks. The Franks then claimed to the children of Troy too. This is probably where Paris the city got its name.  Why one would want to name their capital after a cowardly wife stealer, who kept running away at every turn from fights is beyond understanding?  Unfortunately Life now does imitates art as too many Parisians do as Paris, and claim we are unsophisticated for not doing as them- or at least admitting we do as them? 

What the German Franks could really do well was throw axes from horseback or foot. Here is an example of real realism in art. 

As armor was improved upon again and again it became less important how sharp a weapon was, as to how much power a weapon had. Or how well weapons got around shields to stun an enemy. Stunning was very popular for one could get ransoms for caoutred enemies that would set up a younger son, with no land, up for life . After stunning an enemy it made it much easier to slip a blade throw on of the kinks in the armor if need be. Down below we have a real collection of nastiness .

Swords Of Honor

Swords Of Honor

The next stage was the building of castles which a knight, or now lord, could wage his campaign of taking and defending the population's production. 

At around this time the rule of the king became weakened , and many knights built castles in another arms race. Chiviary developed due to all the lion-types that were around armed to the teeth with their impenetrable citadels. 

This allowed the Franks and their copiers to win a noticable empire and stop the moslems in the tracks twice from taking Europe from the now conquered Spanish. Unfortunately in the east  of Europe things weren't able to develop due to constant light horse men coming around, along with the seasons,  to force things to the lowest common denominator.

Later in the western Europe peasant armies started to hold their own with knights as the revolutionaries remembered. By blind luck, or by following the old slave owning Greeks, they brought back hoplites and called them pikemen. Along with pikes we have the halberd (seen below) which allowed a brave manly peasant to fend off a knight, hook him or his horse and then pull him down to be hack to pieces- with the axe part. All this is one weapon.  Bloody peasants!

Here below we have some example of the perfection of the armor fof the period , before the successful introduction of fire arms. Close quarter fighting warfare sure got specialized for such thick headed dolts that pacifists seem to make them out to be. I guess to make these kinds of weapons and armor one doesn't need a Harvard degree- so much as a real skill to make something than simple be a deconstructionist.

For Every Kind of Weapon & Armor Go to:   Swords Of Honor

Siege & Artillery

We have had many kinds of seige weapons from the time of the Greeks to now, though once again we lost many of them in the dark ages when we got closer to nature- and the Roman citizens wanted to talk about gossip and go to art shows too much. These weapons were effect in taking castles, but on the battlefield they had almost no effect.  Only in sea battles did they occasionally trump the men's spirit, strategy and tactics. Unfortunately sea success didn't necessarily lead to land success, unless you were lucky like the English and Japanese.

I have saved seige and artillery weapons to till now, for it took the fall of the uncapturable city of Constantinople (now Istanbul) by the Ottoman-Turk to show all how consistent and effective were the new siege cannons. Hiders behind walls had not seen the end of their ways by a long shot, but they were hearing the thump!

This slowly had an effect on the development of defensive structures. Cities with their guilds, which produced weapons and wealth, needed to be defended. So they were designed with bastions that extended the range and angles of the cannon. As one bastion was over run the cannons were quickly removed to the next newly defended one through easy direct escape routes where the attackers still hand to come under fire every foot of ground they were to take. This lead to the first trenches and underground caves (mines), and the men who would place bombs in them to take down walls or bastions. Here below is an example of a modal of one, yet you can go to europe and see them in the fresh for they are still modeled on the same designs. This is where the right of elites to plan everything in European lives probably originated. No houses allowed here! Where are your papers you shwinehood! This will not do at all, how can you get the carriages of the French bureaucrats through here!

Artillery change with Napoleon forever. Napoleon was good at many aspect of warfare, but he got his start and was best at the use of artillery. Sure he had passionate revolutionary types who would march better than any other army on foot, but put some grape shot into an enemy advance and that was enough to end a battle.

All armies built upon Napoleons revolutionary use of artillery. The English, due to the navy, were close on the heels in the development and had the money to keep it up. They excelled at the use of cannon on water, and would build an empire around the world- while others kicked the shit out of each other on the mainland. The English also had the discipline of the Romans on board ships that was a must in such close quarters. Unfortunately some Englishmen have mistakenly taken nanny rules about everything for discipline incarnate.

In the US civil war we see the devastating effects of cannons. Trenches hadn't become standard, but around certain southern besieged cities they became a honeycombed network of caves and trenches. Down below you see a real shot of a civil war horse cannon team or squad.

By the time of WWI the tag team killing machines of artillery and machines guns made the defensive war not only bloody, but also pointless in the pursuit of petty royal forms of losing face -masked as issues of national honor. Below we have new truck pulling squads and their howitzers, which allowed for out of sight gunnery to be more effective than the older forms, when called in correctly by the scout.  

Today with computer technology targets can be called in from multiple sources, distinguished from friends, and fired upon from batteries miles away with radiated tipped shells that allow more effective penetration of bunkers or armor. Below is a British artillery piece.

Fighting Ships

The Greeks where the first to be both dependent on their naval power and to be good at it.  From the Greeks through Republican Rome and the Dutch, naval superiority has arrived in its present resting place with the anglo-saxon states. We see democracies seemingly having what it takes to have excellent navies. Sinking into the deep blue is hard to do for tyrannical governments it seems. The Seaman's individual nature and skills can't be called upon with simple shouts of the fatherland or motherland. The seaman needs more. In lands where men can leave easily by boat to live some place better, governments need a better sales pitch.  Arab women's big problem is they can't or fear leaving, and our feminists aren't ready to do anything but tongue lash their male tormentors, the same as they do to their own men,  from a safe place behind their own men. Hey! Wait a minute that isn't fair.

Effective war at see was really at first carried out by the Vikings. Most had kept to the calmer Mediterranean for the big sea was a dangerous place. The Vikings had the guts and the long boats to make it all the way to the new world (Newfoundland). Their boats could be used in rivers and be portaged between them too-allowing whole armies to move little forts with moats everywhere they went. They could rest and strike when they chose, for their homes where protected by both the cold Baltic seas and the other boats that were an intelligence network on any one approaching by sea.

The British smartly learned that if they wanted to protect their Island they would have to control the seas around it . Being raided by Romans, Saxons, Vikings of many stripes- the last being the Normans- one could consider the English a little dull to the point in not coming to the conclusion earlier. Unfortunately smart posh talking Oxford educated fabianists, monks and ex-Roman citizens (who give up the sword) pay for their lack of backbone as much as their repartee gets points at their sheltered little forked tongue talkfest. History is the same now as many want to bend over in submission to the new hordes from arabia- while claiming Bush is the trouble maker for fighting back hard. It has always been thus, accuse the protector of being worse than the instigator. Sophists need new arguments, for they are really old-despite all their attempts to be hip.   

Below we have a British man-of-war, though England still needs many more of them now- than she needed in the past. Man-of-peace has always been more likely to be a good cover for foxes, weasels and sheltered little nannies- as they were for strong men who desire peace.

Go to the Middle East brave peace activist and protest their treatment of women and their tendency towards terrorism, and I'll send your cannon fodder to your kin. Of course there is no line up of such principled people- for their principles are for talkfests, their seriousness for their own keep and their loathing of better men just a weak attempt to rationalize the effeminate familiarity breeds comtempt attitude.

Fire Arms

Here I wouldn't like to get bogged down for there are more than enough sites to deal with all the different types of guns out there. From hand held mini-cannons through flint locks, the slow rise of guns has been a great equalizer. In the beginning the steps needed to train were long for a musketeer were long- and fraught with mishaps. Not at all like the movies. This tended to make its opponents question the muskets' overall military usefulness. Bow and arrows had never really wrestled away from the other more important positions in war in the past. They were on the wings, behind stakes in the ground or behind the meat and potatoes fighting men-at-arms. Then as the technology improved with muskets you also see a marked decline and need for heavy armour. By the English civil war the roundheads had their helmets and breast plates, but not much else. 

The pike had become standard for most armies of this period, but so was the musketeers. It would take the bayonet, which attached to the rifle's nozzle, to finally combine these armed parts of the army. Still the new soldiers still had to wait for a time when they could hold their ground against the more warlike hack & slash types.  

This tipping point for the transfer of the battlefield is best represented in Scotland at the battle of Cullonden, when the blue bonnet Scottish Jacobites met the English order of muskets and their Scottish allies. Here we have the old Celtic/Gaulic charge being decimated by the new master of the battlefield.

While in the new world the musket was taken up by the natives quickly- for it went along with their refined bowman skills of hunting. If disease and other factors hadn't cut the aboriginals down they on were on average much better warriors. Below on the left we have some blue bonnets and on the right some Iroquois. 

cbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcb