User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 1

working mostly on history articles.

Saracen crossbows

My source was a book called Encyclopedia of Arms and Armor. In general, it's certainly the case that the Arabs of this time used composite hand bows, so it seems very likely that if they used crossbows at all, they would have used the same composite construction for them. Still, it's possible my source is incorrect; I'll see if I can find some confirmation of that point. KarlBunker 13:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic technology" says it was used from fortifications and ships and nothing about the prod material. On ships it is wet and any of these composite bows gets unglued from water. That has always been a problem. For fortifications it is OK, but I was just thinking how expensive composite materials were. Layer after layer of horn had to dry and it took a year to finish a bow. Crossbow prods are much thicker than bows.

"... resulting in the Caracolla"

What is this Caracolla you mention in Crossbow? I tried looking it up on Google, but all I found was a type of snail, a German word, and a Roman Emperor (Caracalla). KarlBunker 03:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cavalry tactic where the heavy cavalry uses locally greater firepower in a deep formations, similar to infantry. It is a result of arming the knights with firepower such as crossbows and later pistols (with these it finally established). I looked up the article about Medieval warfare. They mention the heavily armored (more crossbow/pike resistant) in the front ranks of a triangular formation for local penetration. The next step was not to run into the pikes but use locally supreme firepower (crossbows, later pistols). But the development of this tactic to the caracole is not mentioned. Data about the caracole is a bit poor, but descriptions of this tactic can be found. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-53014

The Caracolla/caracole was abandoned by the Swedish during the 30 years war because of increased infantry firepower. The French, Prussians and Austrians still used it. But at this time crossbows were no longer a matter.

Wandalstouring 13:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wandalstouring, do you possibly have a date for when this tactic was adopted and by whom? Ashmoo 06:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had predecessors among the Medieval warfare tactics. These started by local penetration tactics. The next step was arming heavy cavalry with firepower (crossbows, pistols) against pikemen and moving them into deep formations, but with greater firepower on local spots of the battlefield. This resulted in the caracole, when firearms where avaiable. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-53014

Wandalstouring 13:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except German wiki this name of the tactic is not mentioned elsewhere. But it is not German. It is Spanish or Italian and an idiomatic expression like blitzkrieg. OK, mea culpa, in English it is called caracole.

In Medieval warfare I refer to this passage: Cavalry could be arranged in several ways, depending on the situation. While a clump of horsemen was no doubt effective, cavalry in tight formations wielding lances became devastating forces. The most common formation was the line or linear form. The horsemen would arrange themselves in a long line, commonly three or four ranks deep and then charge. However, a well-trained infantry force might be able to withstand such an attack so some forces employed a wedge formation. The horses would be arranged in a large triangle, with the most heavily armored cavalry at the front. When the wedge came into contact with the infantry line, more often than not it would cave in on itself, allowing an infantry charge to move in and scatter the remaining forces.

Wandalstouring 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbow and ballista

Hi,

You could have said exactly the same thing without adding don t write nonsense. It adds nothing to the discussion and upset people who feel insulted (whether or not this was intended)

Regarding ballista, you say:

the ballista was not only a giant sized siege crossbow.

I guess you meant

the ballista was not just a giant sized siege crossbow.

If not, I don't see what is wrong with my addition (out of a missing adverb).

By the way, here is the first sentence for ballista:

The ballista […] was a powerful ancient weapon, similar to a giant crossbow,

So?

Ballista and crossbows/arbalests use the same torsion system. The quantitative difference (bigger) allows a ballista some qualitative and facultative differences (wheels, ways of transporting it, possibility to throw boulder, all of this being facultative) but they all comes from the fact that this is a big crossbow (even though knowledge on ballista was lost during Late Antiquity and crossbows first originated in Far-East, before ballista were created) .
David Latapie (✒ | @) 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I did not intend to insult. The article on ballista is wrong. Ballista and onager used the same torsion system. It had nothing in common with Chinese and Medieval crossbows/arbalests. The European crossbow is often referred to as an independent development in ancient Greece 300 BC. Knowledge about constructing an onager did not come out uf use, while Roman military ballistas were no longer employed. Especially late Roman ballistas were small field weapons totally out of metall. Such a construction was too expensive and comparatively inefficient for field employment in the Late Antiquity. But as it is stated the name ballista remained for the crossbow, using a different tension system.Wandalstouring 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no (further) harm done :-) Could you explain me something I have big problem understanding. I cannot see how onagers are similiar to ballista. Onager throw projectiles in a elliptic curve like catapults, while crossbows throw them straight, like a ballista. Maybe the mechanics are fairly different (you are more knowledgeable than me here) but the result them similar : elliptic versus straight. Have I something wrong here? I begin to think of this being similar to hare/rabbit or rat/mouse. Does it make sense? Thank you.
P.-S.: please reply on my account, so that I can get notified of your answer.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citzen soldiers and Lorica segmentata

Wandalstouring, Regarding your comment at '02:01, 29 July 2006 Wandalstouring (Talk | contribs) (WHEN THE LORICA SEGMENTATA WAS USED THERE WAS NO ROMAN CITIZEN INFANTRY EXISTING)'.

FIRSTLY The sub-heading of the section you keep editing is called, 'What made the Romans effective versus so many skilled opponents?', not 'Equipment of the legions'. Of course, the legionary equipment had a role in the superiority of the Roman army but this is not what you are implying. If you have a view on the equipment of the legions then start a section called 'Equipment' and stop taking it off topic.

Also, The lorica segmentata was used from as early as 10ad onwards and was SLOWLY fazed out starting around the 240sAD. Citizenship was REQUIRED in order to serve in the legions as a legionary. Why do you insist this is not so? The other troops with their own uniforms and equipment were AUXILLIARIES and were not citizens, they would receive citizenship on completion of their service. Also, I have a right to edit you if i know you to be wrong.

The wiki entry for Legionary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionary

And Go look at these very knowledgable sites: http://www.redrampant.com/ http://www.roman-empire.net/ http://www.unrv.com/military.php

I never started to write so much about equipment. But it is hard to discuss with a guestwriter inserting wrong edits if you do not show him more info than he has himself.

Your statement about the use of the lorica segmentata is not quite right. Use in the reformed Roman Army started 5-10AD. It was known to the Roman citizen army earlier, but it was not very popular. The concept of landless citizens serving in the legion dates back to Marius reforms (full citizenship was granted after the Social War to all Latin and Italian communities). After the Marius reforms and the Social War it were Italians (including Romans) hiring as professionals. It is not the same as a Roman citizen army (Militia = citizen army)-> Roman citizen infantry is the infantry of the Roman cititzen army. Wandalstouring 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you forgot to login Wandalstouring 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

With regards to your comments on Talk:Mongols: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Latebird 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is no personal attack if I point out, that you did not read what you quote for your statements. By quoting your own sources I have shown that they contradict you. You DO not talk about content that is the point. If you talked about content, you would read the sources. I am very sure that I can express being sick of such an attitude.

Image:Teutonic order charge.jpg

The problem with this image is that it is copyrighted and we can only use it in Wikipedia under fair use. Since it's a piece of artwork, I've tagged it with {{Art}}, meaning that it can only be used in an article about the image itself (unlikely, since it's not a masterpiece or anything), or the artist (where it lives now). Hope that explains it. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. But honestly, wiki is running very poor on accurate historic depictions.

Nice Job on the Battle of Chalons Analysis

Wandalstouring I was impressed with your pithy, and very accurate, military analysis of the Battle of Chalons, and your dissection of the historical perspectives to show how the strategic result differed from the tactical reality. Recently the question has arisen about a uniform standard for presenting contrasting viewpoints of a Battle/War - do you have any thoughts on a uniform format we could use throughout the military history program for such issues? Any thoughts you have on this would have quite helpful. Thanks! old windy bear 10:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to read the discussion first (where can I find it?). Different viewpoints usually need a bit more explanation of each others perspective. I would prefer a more tactical interpretation of the battle in the summarybox. We could state more tuned besides victory, defeat, inconclusive, also advantage, repulsed, weakened, forced to retreat, annihilated, lost supplies, disabled to forage, etc.

A strategic analysis can be part of the aftermath or of an article on the whole war.

In the prelude we can point out why the battle happened and what were the different objectives. Usually pitched battles were accepted by both sides for different reasons on a chosen ground. War was mostly marching, foraging and sieges; battles were the highlights of a campaign.

For example at Chalons Attila had lots of troops, was low on supply and as long as the enemy army was next to him he could not forage effectively - he engaged them in battle. (lost units and went home with his intact baggage train)

In the section about the battle we simply state what happened for sure (movements, tactics, troops).

Tactical defeats and victories of single units in the course of the battle can be stated and how the battle ended (nightfall, retreat).

The interpretation of a battle is mostly part of the aftermath. There we can show the discussions whether it was a victory or a defeat, especially concerning it as a part of a larger theatre. :Especially we can refer to the prelude and discuss what happened to the objectives each side wanted to achieve. Wandalstouring 11:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! The discussion is taking place on the page where candidates are being nominated for the coordinator and assistant coordinator slots for the military history project. Currently this topic, of standardizing the issues, formatting, majority/minority viewpoints, victors, et al, is taking place in Nobanga's column, though you could raise them in mine, or your own if you ran. Your ideas are outstanding. The website to read what is being raised, and weigh in on it is [1] I am running for assistant coordinator, and had just commented in Nobanga's comments section on the majority/minority viewpoint issue, and formatting, prior to when you wrote the extremely impressive analysis of why I had failed to adequately and accurately assess the strategic versus tactical impact of the Battle of Chalons. I decided to ask you to weigh in yourself rather than stealing your ideas, (though they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!). I strongly encourage you to weigh in on these elections, because your vision of what format to use is the best I have seen, and I believe we should utilize it in a format for every article on a battle, campaign, or conflict. As I wrote another editor about your work, while I was quoting historians, you were analyzing their words in the context of military history, and doing so in a forthright and highly rational format. I would really like to see you involved in this, if you are not interested in the elections personally, I would certainly beg for your assistance if i was elected! One thing I have learned in my 56 years of studying history is that only fools don't take advantage of better minds trying to show them a better way! old windy bear 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told Nobanga about it. I do not want to run for any office. I tend to be considered rude sometimes and still train working with people here. Wandalstouring 20:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Well, all I can say - as to the rudeness issue - is that you were quite civil to me, and explained without being condescending what I was doing wrong. To me, our discussion was the perfect example of what a talk page is supposed to be used for, and because you took the time to explain the issue, it was easy to reach consensus. If you ever change your mind, let me know, I would nominate you. If I am elected, I hope you will at least advise me when you have time, because your ideas are both effective and powerful. old windy bear 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trirema/triera

In my opinion the article should be disambiguated into Greek trireme and Roman trireme because they were completely different warships. Pages like de:Triere would link to the first one and pages like de:Trireme to another one. What do you think about it? --Man pl 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on the discussion board of the military history project. [2] Wandalstouring 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators

Please let Karl know you've nominated him; if he doesn't accept the nomination by the deadline, there's not much we can do. Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be pointed out that he's not on the list of project members at this time. Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent him a note. Yes I know, but he has knowledge, sources on several historic topics and he does contribute. Wandalstouring 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a big deal per se, but he would presumably need to join the project formally before becoming a coordinator ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the nomination! I don't want to commit to anything that will cause me to spend (even) more time on Wikipedia right now, but I really appreciate you putting my name up anyway. KarlBunker 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longbows

Wandalstouring To change the subject, I know you are conversant with crossbows, but how much do you know about longbows, and the Battle of Agincourt? old windy bear 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Verbruggen next to me. ask. Wandalstouring 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, military longbow archers were trained to hold several (at least about 8) arrows in the air and shoot at least 12 accurate shots per minute. The time of a charge within effective range was too short to launch enough arrows directly. Every cavalry charge had to use a certain acceleration scheme to achieve optimum speed at the moment of impact (cavalry tactics). So archers created a hedge of arrows in the air to come down at the cavalry at the right spots during their charge. Timing and calculating the distances for the arrowfire were very important and the archers (mostly Welsh) were discipled and had a tight command structure. The vulnerable spots of heavy cavalry and knights were the chainmail at the thights and his horse (protected with armor).

The French army there is too big. France could at maximum mount 4000 heavy cavalry in battle. Divide the numbers and casualties with 5-10 and it makes sense. Any army with more than 10,000 men would have starved (reliable paylists of other campaigns provide this info).

In the crossbow article we pointed out the rate of fire, so calculate the crossbowmen divided by 3 and each team fires 8 shots per minute against 12 shots of a single archer. The crossbows are only skirmisher protecting the deployment of the heavy infantry. Heavy infantry was the French magic against the English longbow. They were better protected than the horses and withstood arrowfire while approaching slowly in closed formations.

Problem at Agincourt was the mud. The heavy cavalry charge failed because (slows down) and the heavy infantry approaching was handicapped in movement. So the Welsh light infantry used their secondary weapons, polearms and long warhammers to harrass the French infantry and using their quicker movement on muddy ground to attack and retreat at will. If you ever have the chance of watching a team of trained polearmfighters you will be impressed. Good night. Wandalstouring 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Thanks a great deal for the time and the explanation. You just answered the questions I needed answered before tackling that article, so thanks. I wonder how the English longbow compared to the Mongol compound bow? I know the Mongols believed it was a superior weapon, accurate at longer distances, but I don't know. Do you happen to know what the rate of fire was on a compound bow? I do know they used it to devastating effect at the Mohi against Hungarian Knights, and at Legnica against the Teutonic Knights and the Knights Templer, as you said, aiming mostly for the horses. You spurred my interest in watching a team of polearmfighters, that would be interesting. Again, thanks for the information, it was extremely interesting. (I will add before I go, I thought of you this evening, they had a retired general on TV talking about strategy versus tactics. He said that if you started a conflict with the right strategic goals, you could screw up your tactics, and you could still win, as you learned from your losses and your tactics adapted. But he said if your strategy was flawed, you would lose, even if your tactics were right, and you were winning from the gate. You would lose in the end, he said, because your strategy mandated long term success, while tactics determined means to strategy. I thought of your analysis of Chalons while listening). Thanks again and goodnight! old windy bear 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visit cavalry tactics, I wrote it. the Buryatian longbow used by the Mongols was stronger than the English longbow because they used the thumb(stronger finger, can pull stronger)(protected by a broad thumbring out of solid material) an index finger to draw it, while the Welsh and English used index and middle finger protected by a leather glove. If shooting with a thumbring you shoot on the inside and otherwise on the outside of the bow. I doubt there is a "difference" in the rate of fire between a compound bow or a longbow, all were for trained archers with maximum musclepower stored. 12 shots per minute were a good archer to 24 shots per minute the best marksman. But an archer only carried about 20-30 arrows around. Flawed strategy, look at Hannibal Barca in Italy.