Ask a question

Trying To Find Books On Armor And Combat Manuals From 14th Century Wallachia. Any Suggestions

Trying to find books on Armor and Combat Manuals from 14th Century Wallachia. Any suggestions?

Check Osprey's website, they do all kinds of military topics in all eras.

Trying to find books on Armor and Combat Manuals from 14th Century Wallachia. Any suggestions?

Check Osprey's website, they do all kinds of military topics in all eras.

What kinds of weapons were used in the 1500th century?

Medieval warriors used many kinds of weapons. For example, a knights favorite weapon was his sword. There were many kinds of swords, such as the great sword. Great swords were two handed swords. They were larger versions of the ordinary sword. They were swung with both hands to deliver a powerful blow. Large swords began to become popular in the 13th century. A knight would hang a sword in his saddle in addition to his regular sword.

The shining sword was also a sword used during the 1460's. This sword has a copper gilt crossguard. This was probably made for a rich knight.

Another weapon a knight or a Viking would use was a battle ax. This ax was developed in northern Europe. It was especially popular with the Vikings. It was used used by a well-trained infantry. It could prove lethal to horseman especially when mounted on a yard long haft (handle) and swung with both hands .

A more widely used ax was the pole ax. This weapon was very popular in battle and foot combat. It was used to strike the opponents head (the word "pole" meant head) and the solid hammer-head at the back could knock out a man in armor. There was another kind of ax called the short ax. Knights sometimes used two-handed axes, but the smaller, single-handed variety was easier to use on horseback.

One of the smallest weapons a warrior used was a dagger. Knights did not use daggers very much until the 14th century. Daggers were used as a back up sword; when the knights first sword was knocked out of his hand.

Knights used a weapon called a lance. Lances were long and came in many sizes. They were made of wood and were painted. Maces were also another wooden weapon used by knights. They were shaped like clubs with spikes stuck into them.

Archers used bow and arrows. One kind of bow and arrow is the longbow. This type of bow was usually made of stave or yew wood about the height of the archer himself. It was usually fitted with horn nocks at the top to take the hemp string. War bows probably needed a pull of at least 80lb. , and many have been far more powerful.

Crossbows were another kind of bow. They were introduced in the 11th century, they were made of wood or horn. After shooting, the string was drawn back by the archer placing his foot in the stirrup. He then attached the string to a hook in his belt and straightened his back until the string slipped over the retaining catch on the crossbar of the weapon

Does any ancient roman armor exist?

It is very, very, very rare to uncover armour from the Roman period and dark ages, finding swords, spear heads, shield bosses, knifes and other metal objects (buckles, broaches etc) in graves is pretty common, but armour very rare. (for example here in the UK many thousands of roman, celt, saxon and viking graves have been excavated over the years and in only a handful has any trace of armour been found and all were in ultra high status graves)
The suggestion why armour artifacts are seldom found, is that armour was too valuable to waste as a grave good, and was not buried but instead reused. certainly roman armour with its complex design and lengthy manufacturing process (and cost) would not have been discarded willingly.
The problem with roman armour was it was very good and if looked after would last for years, so it was looted, ending up encasing some barbarian warrior or melted down to make tools (you don't waste good metal)
A good example of 'possible' Roman armour is the 'sutton hoo' helmet in the british museum, it was found in the grave of an anglo-saxon king from the 5th century, but the helmet was possibly a roman cavalry helmet from 2 centuries earlier that had been passed down the generations as a high status object, until one day being buried in a boat with its last owner

There are a myriad of books that you can read about warfare, battles and strategy. But in the end you will get lost. You need to get down the basics of how an army on the move operates and thinks.First you should read the "FM 3–0, Operations" from the US Field manuals. It will give you a picture of how a war is conducted and how every part play its role.After you should learn about individual combat skills. Read "FM 3-21.75, The Warrior Ethos And Soldier Combat Skills" to understand what skills a soldier needs to know regardless of his position.Then read "FM 3-21.8 The Infantry Rifle Platoon And Squad" and "FM 3-21.10 The Infantry Rifle Company" to get an insight of the missions an infanty platoon or company undertakes. Since infantry is the main component of an army everything tends to revolve around it.At this point you will have an understanding of how war is conducted, from the single soldier to the general.A link with all these field manuals is this: Army Field ManualsAfter that, you can study any other training manual that pertains to warfare under special conditions (mountain, desert, amphibious, jungle, riverlines, airborne etc) because you will already know how an infantry company works in a normal enviroment and you will only need to see what must be done differently.Take notice though that there two kind of manuals: doctrine and technical skills. Doctrine dictates employment of units and technical skills apply to individual combat skills.Finally you should study the writings of famous generals on strategy and personal experiences. There is no better teacher than experience. I especially advise you to study books on military history and  learn military map symbols to understand how units were deployed during important battles. And to close, I give you one last word of wisdom. A soldier doesn't care how units will be deployed. He cares only about surviving the next mission. For him, marksmanship, small-unit-tactics, navigation, first-aid, radio procedures, survival skills become more important than playing "chess" with the enemy general.The general on the other hand cares about deployment of units and resources.  For him, units positions, supply lines, water and food procurement, knowledge of the terrain, intelligence reports of enemy movements are more important than his individual combat skills.So choose who you want to be.JK, 2014

When and why did medieval body armor become obsolete?

There were multiple kinds of medieval body armors. At first it was largely leathers and chains. The Romans used lamellar armor, and some scale. This became much more difficult to make due to the fall of the Western Roman Empire, leading to warriors using large amounts of chainmail, interlocking rings that would cover most of the body and gaps in larger armor even up until the use of firearms. This would greatly disperse the force of a slash, and helped greatly against a stab as well.

With the oncoming of the longbow in the 13th and 14th century, and increasingly powerful crossbows, this became much less useful. A longbow could puncture chain from a hundred yards or more like a hot knife through butter. This led to increased usage of plate armor, steel linked together with small bolts and leather straps (a knights armor). The curvature of the plate, and it being solid steel, would deflect or greatly weaken the power behind an arrow.

To combat this, weaponsmiths started making more blunt weapons and spiked weapons, to either crush the armor or piece it. The morning star, daggers like poignards and Scottish dirks became favorite tools for melee combat, as well as spiked axes, hammers and polearms, such as the bill. Slashing weapons fell largely out of style, becoming more about sheer force (bastard sword, zweihanders and the like) or about piercing the gaps around the shoulders, knee, neck or groin.

Finally, with the increased power of the firearm in the 15th century through the early 17th century, wearing full metal was often more cumbersome than the protection was worth. Ease of manufacturing guns led to the decline of body armor, until it was in almost no use in Europe by the end of the Thirty Years War, in 1648.

Body armor has be relatively unused since then, as most armors now are expensive to make and difficult to move in if wearing an entire suit.

Thanks for the question.21 Sikhs and the Battle of Saragarhi - 1897 - North West Frontier Province (NWFP).21 Sikh soldiers took on well over 6000 pathans. British India’s version to 300 Spartans.Details of the Battle of Saragarhi are considered fairly accurate, because Gurmukh Singh signalled events to Fort Lockhart by heliograph as they occurred.Around 09:00, approximately 6,000-10,000 Afghans reach the signalling post at Saragarhi.Sep. Gurmukh Singh signals to Col. Haughton, situated in Fort Lockhart, that they are under attack.Col. Haughton states he cannot send immediate help to Saragarhi.The soldiers in Saragarhi decide to fight to the last to prevent the enemy from reaching the forts.Sep. Bhagwan Singh is the first soldier to be killed and Nk. Lal Singh is seriously wounded.Nk. Lal Singh and Sep. Jiwa Singh reportedly carry the dead body of Bhagwan Singh back to the inner layer of the post.The enemy breaks a portion of the wall of the picket.Col. Haughton signals that he has estimated that there are between 10,000 and 14,000 Pashtuns attacking Saragarhi.The leaders of the Pashtun forces reportedly make promises to the soldiers to entice them to surrender. Reportedly two determined attempts are made to rush open the gate, but are unsuccessful. Later, the wall is breached.Thereafter, some of the fiercest hand-to-hand fighting occurs.In an act of outstanding bravery, Hav. Ishar Singh orders his men to fall back into the inner layer, whilst he remains to fight. However, this is breached and all but one of the defending soldiers are killed, along with many of the Pashtuns.Sep. Gurmukh Singh, who communicated the battle with Col. Haughton, was the last Sikh defender. He is stated to have killed 20 Afghans, the Pashtuns having to set fire to the post to kill him. As he was dying he was said to have yelled repeatedly the Sikh battle cry "Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal!" ("One will be blessed eternally, who says that God is the ultimate truth!").Reference:Battle of Saragarhi - WikipediaThe battle of Saragarhi: When 21 Sikh soldiers stood against 10,000 menArmed Forces commemorate the Battle of Saragarhi