poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 So, did anyone in the book of mormon have siege tech or any other units besides infantry? Guessing they didn't have calvary.
volgadon Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Book of Mormon sieges and the investments of twons are primitive and rudimentary.
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Book of Mormon sieges and the investments of twons are primitive and rudimentary.Twons? So, guessing battering ram and ladders at best? No siege towers? Did they even have archers?
volgadon Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Towns, it was a typo. The armies would have had small projectiles (bows, slings, dart-throwers), but nothing indicates a siege engine of any sorts.
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Towns, it was a typo. The armies would have had small projectiles (bows, slings, dart-throwers), but nothing indicates a siege engine of any sorts.Oh wow, gee they must have been super primative.
Calm Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Larger engines usually involve wheels of some sort, don't they (my engineering classes were electrical, not mechanical)? They had small toys with wheels so the principal was known but making it work on a larger scale hadn't been done yet, in my understanding. Edited November 5, 2014 by calmoriah
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Larger engines usually involve wheels of some sort, don't they (my engineering classes were electrical, not mechanical)? They had small toys with wheels so the principal was known but making it work on a larger scale hadn't been done yet, in my understanding.thats my understanding, and I have no engineering background. I guess what I'm really curious about is if the people in the book of mormon had the same technology that the aztecs had when the conquistadors showed up. Numbers and diseases aside if they didn't progress at all technology no wonder the Spaniards and Portugese slaughtered them. Good Toledo swords, armor and of course the muskets they had were probably some of the best in Europe (if not the best, someone feel free to call me out on this if i'm wrong, more than willing to learn)
Coreyb Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 So, did anyone in the book of mormon have siege tech or any other units besides infantry? Guessing they didn't have calvary. Wine 1
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 WineHmmm, thought everyone had booze of some kind.
ERayR Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Oh wow, gee they must have been super primative. Depends on what measure you use to determine primitive.
Calm Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) The obsidian swords/clubs (wooden sticks with shards of obsidian rock) could take a horse's head off in one swing iirc and didn't need to be constantly sharpened, if a shard broke, it could easily be replaced with another.Armor has plus and minuses, a good long bow can pierce it and it cuts down on mobility and in heat can cause quick exhaustion in battle.I don't know that much, but I believe it was more political allies and divisions that made the conquests so successful than straight technology... Edited November 5, 2014 by calmoriah 1
Coreyb Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Hmmm, thought everyone had booze of some kind.You should see the ways they used it though, if you havent got that far already 1
ERayR Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Larger engines usually involve wheels of some sort, don't they (my engineering classes were electrical, not mechanical)? They had small toys with wheels so the principal was known but making it work on a larger scale hadn't been done yet, in my understanding. If one subscribes to a meso-american location the topographical conditions does not support that kind of war machinery.
Calm Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Just in case you are wondering, read here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/22?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/55.4?lang=eng#3 Edited November 5, 2014 by calmoriah
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Depends on what measure you use to determine primitive. Compared to say, high to late middle ages Western Europe. Lets have fun here, Spain. The obsidian swords/clubs (wooden sticks with shards of obsidian rock) could take a horse's head off in one swing iirc and didn't need to be constantly sharpened, if a shard broke, it could easily be replaced with another.Armor has plus and minuses, a good long bow can pierce it and it cuts down on mobility and in heat can cause quick exhaustion in battle.I don't know that much, but I believe it was more political allies and divisions that made the conquests so successful than straight technology...yeah, only thing with weapons that sharp, against decient mail forget it. Also, by the time plate came around slicing weapons were pretty much useless hence the emphasis on impact/bludgeon weapons as well as piercing weapons like the estoc and later on the rapier. The Long bow was awesome as we saw in the 100 years war. Only problem, not everyone was smart enough to make every free man practice for a few hours after church like the English were. Yeah thats my understanding too they used mostly politics, but when the Spaniards did fight the Aztecs they just tore them apart. Toledo was known for many things, among them making probably the best swords in the world due their excellent steel. They've been making things around that area since the Roman days. You should see the ways they used it though, if you havent got that far alreadygo on If one subscribes to a meso-american location the topographical conditions does not support that kind of war machinery.Now this I would believe, considering its hard to push a battering ram through a jungle.
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Just in case you are wondering, read here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/22?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/55.4?lang=eng#3LOL if all it took was a bunch of wine they were really lousy guards. Usually they had people on guard on the outside who stayed sober under penalty of death.
Calm Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) A lot depends on the type of leadership one has. If a leader can't command loyalty even out of fear, boredom will win out. Edited November 5, 2014 by calmoriah 1
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 A lot depends on the type of leadership one has. If a leader can't command loyalty even out of fear, boredom will win out.True, I was thinking of the leadership a lot of old leaders, particuarly from the middle and far east had. You mess up? Death to you and your family. Really had a good way of keeping the guards on their toes. Was just reading a bit on how Genghis Khan copied the siege tech the Chinese had before the mongols sacked them, wow they were good learners.
Calm Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 It is unfortunate that war seems to bring out great creativity and learning strides...though I suppose it might be necessary or mankind would have killed each other off long ago because sides were too evenly matched.
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 It is unfortunate that war seems to bring out great creativity and learning strides...though I suppose it might be necessary or mankind would have killed each other off long ago because sides were too evenly matched.Would be even better if we could all just get along, but no someone always has to be a meanie. Will say its better than it used to be in terms of death. Remember reading about the wars that happened around the time Troy, the hittites and all those ancient people and places existed, they all just killed eachother off. One constant bloddy war after another,
Calm Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) "Will say its better than it used to be in terms of death"Unfortunately there are still areas of the world where it seems they have more years of war than peace....And peace is just long enough for people to catch their breath and pick up the sword again figuratively speaking.We have been very, very lucky in the US to be the strongest among our neighbours for so long. Edited November 5, 2014 by calmoriah
Brant Gardner Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Gunpowder made an impression in the conquest of Mexico, but they didn't have an infinite supply. Without the alliance with the Tlaxcallans, the Spaniards would have been easily conquered. They just barely made it out of Mexico City. As for armor, the Spaniards typically ditched their armor in favor of the native thick cloth, which actually stopped the arrows better. Spanish swords were not noticeably more effective that native weaponry, and certainly wouldn't have been against overwhelming numbers. 4
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 "Will say its better than it used to be in terms of death"Unfortunately there are still areas of the world where it seems they have more years of war than peace....And peace is just long enough for people to catch their breath and pick up the sword again figuratively speaking.We have been very, very lucky in the US to be the strongest among our neighbours for so long.Thats changing, fast. I don't like how vets are treated nowadays, they look for anyway to give people a less than honorable discharge and they just treat people like garbage while in. Also, the jets the US makes. The f-35 is such an overpriced piece of junk.
poptart Posted November 5, 2014 Author Posted November 5, 2014 Gunpowder made an impression in the conquest of Mexico, but they didn't have an infinite supply. Without the alliance with the Tlaxcallans, the Spaniards would have been easily conquered. They just barely made it out of Mexico City. As for armor, the Spaniards typically ditched their armor in favor of the native thick cloth, which actually stopped the arrows better. Spanish swords were not noticeably more effective that native weaponry, and certainly wouldn't have been against overwhelming numbers.I did not know they ditched their armor. Didn't they have the partial curiass plate? Would think that would be superb against arrows. Also a rapier with a buckler vs clubs? Really now? Not bashing native weaponry here, but toledo swords especially were the best in the world at the time, and it was the Spaniards who created what later on became olympic fencing. (granted that was after the Italians and French modified it, but hey give credit where its due)
volgadon Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Most swords used by the Conquistadores were not high-quality Toledo steel. The typical sword did not hold an edge well and was little more use than a club.
Recommended Posts