Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VII [Archive] - Page 6

Matthew

2011-01-18, 09:17 AM

This is, in fact, complicating things a bit, as Xenophone, was after all, returning from wars in Persia, hired by Cyrus, so if Persian archers from various those regions were using six foot bows, sight of Karduchi, their bows, and stringing methods wouldn't be exactly so new to Xenophone...

On the other hand though, there seems to be nothing in description that suggests that Karduchi were doing something new too viewer...

Yeah, it is interesting. Anyway, the passages I was thinking of are found in Herodotus 7.60-100 (http://www.parstimes.com/history/herodotus/persian_wars/polymnia.html). Herodotus notes that the Persians use uncommonly large bows. The Arabians and Ethiopians at 7.69 have "long bows", the latter said to be not less than 4 cubits (6 feet here, I assume), but use "short arrows".

[7.69] The Arabians wore the zeira, or long cloak, fastened about them with a girdle; and carried at their right side long bows, which when unstrung bent backwards.

The Ethiopians were clothed in the skins of leopards and lions, and had long bows made of the stem of the palm-leaf, not less than four cubits in length. On these they laid short arrows made of reed, and armed at the tip, not with iron, but with a piece of stone, sharpened to a point, of the kind used in engraving seals. They carried likewise spears, the head of which was the sharpened horn of an antelope; and in addition they had knotted clubs. When they went into battle they painted their bodies, half with chalk, and half with vermilion. The Arabians, and the Ethiopians who came from the region above Egypt, were commanded by Arsames, the son of Darius and of Artystone daughter of Cyrus. This Artystone was the best-beloved of all the wives of Darius; and it was she whose statue he caused to be made of gold wrought with the hammer. Her son Arsames commanded these two nations.

Dienekes

2011-01-18, 09:38 AM

Kata's.
Or at least, thats the word used in asian martial arts.
Where one goes through a sequence of moves, for repetition and practice, more oriented towards form or flow.

I'm trying to find something similar for Western European, particularly swordfighting. I've made up a few of my own, one of which came in particularly handy for shooting a commercial a few weeks back. But again, these are Kata's I've made up. I've had others critique them, to tighten them up, tricks for increasing speed or improving flow or footwork. In the process of working on them, I've decided that I at least enjoy doing them, even if they are repetitious and possibly pattern inducing. I like them for winter training, as I can do this indoors for a half hour and still be working on my swing, my footwork, etc.

Can anyone point me to a few good ones? Kendo material would be fine as well, I can adapt some of it easily enough. And I wouldn't mind being able to demonstrate the differences between an asian style and a european style. I can find lots of youtube videos but nothing step by step.

PS-The studio informed me that they are almost done editing the commercial, I'll be linking that plus some of the raw takes as soon as I have access to it (and permission of course).

Well, I've been using this book (http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-German-Longsword-Christian-Tobler/dp/1891448242) to try and teach myself longsword (it's been slow, probably futile, going). It has a bunch of exercises to teach various combinations of techniques and stances. They're pretty short compared to the kata's I've seen but they can easily be looped together.

Also, can't wait to see the commercial.

Galloglaich

2011-01-18, 04:13 PM

Yeah those are drills, the book is a bit dated at this point but it's still probably the best single printed interpretation source for HEMA training right now. One of the cool things in there is a little decisoin tree. Once you are familiar with the basics in that book I reccomend using youtube videos from groups like GHFS Sweden, WMAC, HEMA Alliance etc. It will go a lot faster.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-01-18, 11:30 PM

Well, I saw that Talhoffer documentary and I hate to say it but I was a little bit disappointed.

G.

13_CBS

2011-01-20, 10:18 AM

I've always been wondering: why was maille developed among Celtic cultures? (I'm assuming, of course, that it was Celtic cultures that first invented maille--please correct me if I'm wrong.) That is, what made a Celtic smith sit down and think, "Huh, if I looped a bunch of metal rings together, that'd make for a pretty sweet piece of armor"? Was it stumbled upon by accident? Do we have any evidence for such explanations? If not, are there any popular theories on the matter?

Spiryt

2011-01-20, 10:38 AM

endoperez

2011-01-20, 12:11 PM

It was Celtic invention, although it was most probably invented independently somewhere in Asia too.

Hard to say what guy was thinking, but most probably he just found some use for little scraps of iron that could be most readily achieved back then, and didn't seemed like usable to connect them into a bit big enough to form some kind of scale.

And later, the art of connecting little rings in a way that caused them to disperse the force of blow efficiently.

Metal bits can be welded together. The little scraps could be hammered into bigger scraps, and that would be big enough to do real stuff with. I understand scrap metal in general has been a huge part of most blacksmiths' metal.

I'd think some sort of ornamentation would be a likely source.

HenryHankovitch

2011-01-20, 12:14 PM

It's probably a more understandable development when you bear in mind that back then, craftwork was an everyday, hands-on activity that literally happened in everyone's homes. Not something that happened in sweatshops on the other side of the ocean.

These are guys who probably saw their mothers and wives weave cloth in the home, who had seen people make gold chains and other jewelry, and so on. You can imagine someone thinking "what if I made some kind of metal cloth..."

Lapak

2011-01-20, 12:22 PM

Or there's the fact that chains have been around longer than chain-esque armor. Between the fact that they can flex away from impact and the overlapping metal and the basic toughness of the links, chains are difficult to cut - it's not hard to imagine a smart craftsman given the task of cutting a chain for one reason or another, getting annoyed, and saying "there's got to be a way to apply that to armor."

13_CBS

2011-01-20, 01:39 PM

Thanks for the answers!

Relatedly, is it known why the Roman army adopted maille shirts for their non-mercenary soldiers rather than, say, scale? (The obvious assumption here is that the most common body armor for the Roman armies after the adoption of maille was the lorica hamata--again, please correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm aware that scale armor existed in the Roman armies throughout history (lorica squamata, IIRC), but do we know why it was maille that was apparently the most common and longest-lasting form of armor? Imbedded in this question is, of course, another question--that is, is maille a preferable form of armor over scale, lamellar, etc.?

Spiryt

2011-01-20, 01:40 PM

Metal bits can be welded together. The little scraps could be hammered into bigger scraps, and that would be big enough to do real stuff with. I understand scrap metal in general has been a huge part of most blacksmiths' metal.

And one could receive amount of scales, that wouldn't even be sufficient for torso.

While mail, depending on size of the rings, would be much more economical.

Another matter is that bloomery iron with not very desirable structure and many impurities, could be still drawn into a wire, and serve as decent mail.

While the same material would be considered poor for anything else, certainly not for any kind of blade, not for very good armor, so I guess that somebody decided to try to make something else out of it.

These are guys who probably saw their mothers and wives weave cloth in the home, who had seen people make gold chains and other jewelry, and so on. You can imagine someone thinking "what if I made some kind of metal cloth..."

That actually sound probable.

Iron belt chains were characteristic element of middle La Tene culture, so there certainly could be some correlations between those ideas.

http://www.gallicobelgae.org/smLaTenePhasesIII.jpg

From this site (http://www.gallicobelgae.org/la_tene_chronology.htm)

Relatedly, is it known why the Roman army adopted maille shirts for their non-mercenary soldiers rather than, say, scale? (The obvious assumption here is that the most common body armor for the Roman armies after the adoption of maille was the lorica hamata--again, please correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm aware that scale armor existed in the Roman armies throughout history (lorica squamata, IIRC), but do we know why it was maille that was apparently the most common and longest-lasting form of armor? Imbedded in this question is, of course, another question--that is, is maille a preferable form of armor over scale, lamellar, etc.?

This is huge question, no one really can know full answer to, but the general answer is that mail is just damn good armor.

Especially for soldiers like Roman legionnaires.

Spiryt

2011-01-20, 01:49 PM

Continue in new post:

Mail can be made from material relatively unsuitable for other kinds of armor.

It's hard to damage in meaningful way, and damaging doesn't screw whole armor, but few links that can be relatively easily replaced. Such repair won't be obviously very good in most cases, but at very least it won't show the enemy " Here integrity of my armor had been broken, stab hard, and maybe you'll be lucky".

It's flexible, it's kind of "fabric" after all, and thus is, aside from generally providing more comfort when wearing it, easier to transport, roll, fit somewhere etc.

Above would be very meaningful for legionnaire that would carry his stuff day by day. And some more days.

It covers whole area it covers. To put it in proper english, there are no chinks, joints, etc. and yet it doesn't impede movement at human joints really that much.

And so on.

Here is article (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html) - by guy who researches mail from some time, and there's a lot of good info, and his opinions as well.

Force

2011-01-20, 02:03 PM

Galloglaich

2011-01-20, 02:21 PM

From what I understand it was the Haldstadt culture, 'Celts' as well as the Illyrians who are sort of a proto-slavic tribe which was intermixed with both the Celts and to a lesser extent, the Greeks.. It may have also been deveoped around the same time by the Scythians (who were also linked). But I think the first find-site was in Romania circa 4th Century BC.

One reason the Celts are a likely candidate to invent Mail is because they were pioneers in two key technologies: iron-working and weaving. They had Iron back to at least the 8th Century BC which is the earliest in Europe outside of Greece, and complex textile weaving maybe even earlier than that. They have found fragments of tartan like woven cloth in the Halstadt salt mine and also in the famous indo-European graves in Western China. So I think you mix iron + weaving and you get pretty close to mail, even though that may seem too simple.

Another reason is that they were clearly into shock warfare - close hand to hand fighting, as a prominent component of their fighting style. This also ties into why the Romans adopted it so extensively.

Mail is much better armor for shock warfare than lamellar or scale, or even arguably early plate armor like the Greeks used. as Spyrit said mail does not impede movement (especially in the torso-only coverage which is all they usually used in Antiquity), is relatively comfortable to wear, comparatively light (a byrnie weighed as little as 10 lbs) effective against missiles but also very effective, really almost invulnerable to most hand-weapons.

The main downside of mail is production, mail is more demanding to produce than lamellar or scale or textile armor in terms of time. This was a problem for the Celts, who never had very much of it, but not really a problem for the Romans, who had an infinity of slaves.

G.

Spiryt

2011-01-20, 02:29 PM

AFAIK, mail and other weapons for Roman army weren't really made by the slaves though....

I don't really think that slave made armor would be good idea most of the time too.

Aside from 'normal' commercial production in workshop all around the Empire, workshops and smiths were being organized in the legions themselves - so production by own effortless, by soldiers who were learning it.

Galloglaich

2011-01-20, 02:33 PM

AFAIK, mail and other weapons for Roman army weren't really made by the slaves though....

I don't really think that slave made armor would be good idea most of the time too.

Why not? They had slaves doing many other things, including running most of the Government.

Aside from 'normal' commercial production in workshop all around the Empire,

My understanding is that many workshops, particularly on the larger villas, "Latifundia" in the Imperial period, incorporated slave labor.

workshops and smiths were being organized in the legions themselves - so production by own effortless, by soldiers who were learning it.

That is interesting. Do you have any data on that? Which specific time-period are you referring to?

G

fusilier

2011-01-20, 02:38 PM

From someone who has woven maille before (one hauberk), another perk of maille is that comfortable. Wear some minimal padding (a sweatshirt and sweatpants) under it and you have full range of motion, you don't really feel the weight... It's neat.

Yeah, when you first put it on. By the end of the day you will feel all the weight of that chainmail on your shoulders -- that was my experience anyway! ;-)

Galloglaich

2011-01-20, 02:39 PM

Fusilier are you referring to butted or riveted mail? Realistic wedge-riveted mail is really pretty light. Butted is often quite heavy, up to double or triple the weight.

G.

Spiryt

2011-01-20, 02:41 PM

Do you have any data on that? Which specific time-period are you referring to?

G

Long time I read anything about it, but I'm referring to "classic" Roman Army period - from Marian Reforms to say, 3rd century AD.

I have very interesting discussion in polish in front of me, fortunately they also cite many sources :

The Military Fabrica and the Production of Arms in the Early Principate - M.C. Bishop

Bishop&Coulston "Roman Military Equipment: from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome"

My understanding is that many workshops, particularly on the larger villas, "Latifundia" in the Imperial period, incorporated slave labor.

Did they incorporated such precise works, that demanded knowledge, skill, and after all commitment, like making mail?

By "workshops" I meant production sites of free artisans and craftsmen.

If they were around Rome, they could have their slaves, obviously, treat them well enough so they would work with them on mail.

fusilier

2011-01-20, 02:46 PM

It was some time ago, but it was probably butted. When it was first donned I found it comfortable, and it didn't feel particularly heavy. 8 hours later, it was difficult to get off, and I had definitely felt it in my shoulders. As the mail is basic formless, all the weight of it hangs on the shoulders, unlike a breastplate (which can also be tiring to wear all day, I admit) which will transfer some weight to the hips.

I have no basis to compare it to other kinds of mail, and certainly I was not accustomed to wearing it. However, I was not the only one to have this experience (i.e. feels great at first, but wears down on the shoulders).

Spiryt

2011-01-20, 02:52 PM

Well it is "fabric" after all, so the dead weight on shoulders I obviously also felt...

But good belt and proper tailoring and wearing helps a lot, taking weight off the shoulders.

Of course, many reenactors often wear stuff in very unhealthy manner, from lack of proper stuff and knowledge.

Karoht

2011-01-20, 06:34 PM

I've worn chain maille for almost a decade now. After a few events, you get used to it. I wear a belt behind my surcoat/tabbard, specifically with the design of distributing the weight a bit. And a proper gambeson (or other appropriate padded garment) underneath really does help take the weight. I've been considering adding some extra padding into/under the shoulders of my gamb just for this purpose, but it's not so much weight on the shoulders as to cause damage or severe strain.
Then again, I'm used to fighting for 8 hours at a time at a given event. By about hour 4, I stop feeling the armor, but I really really feel the moisture absorbed by the gambeson, and the calorie burn does impact my blood sugar sharply around that mark.

I was quite proud of myself for making my own shirt, that is until I found out that butted maille is likely not authentic. Flat ring riveted is lighter (from my experience with the stuff, and as Galloglaich just pointed out) and protects better, so that is one upgrade I need to sink the cash into as soon as I can afford it.

Force

2011-01-20, 07:03 PM

Yeah, when you first put it on. By the end of the day you will feel all the weight of that chainmail on your shoulders -- that was my experience anyway! ;-)

True enough.... ahh well, once the butted suit is done, I can start work on the riveted suit, which should be much much lighter. :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich

2011-01-21, 10:42 AM

It's really amazing how much lighter it actually is. This Haubergeon weighs 13.5 lbs

http://historicenterprises.com/haubergeon-wedgeriveted-maille-9mm-p-685.html?cPath=101_141

I agree with spyrit about the taloring and the belt as well, though I'm only getting that second hand as I've never had any armor and never wore mail for more than a few minutes at a time.

I wish I could afford that haberk though I'd love to have it.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-01-21, 10:46 AM

Did they incorporated such precise works, that demanded knowledge, skill, and after all commitment, like making mail?

Of course, they had slaves at all levels of skill, like I said up to and including high level administrators of the Imperial government, accountants etc.

By "workshops" I meant production sites of free artisans and craftsmen.

There were some guild-like unions in Rome and some of the other larger cities, Ravenna, but I do not know specifically about the armor making industry. I know on the Latifundia estates where most of the Patrician class resided from the 1st Century AD they used slave labor for almost everything including high tech production. They also set up similar Colonia specifcially to support Roman Legions in places like Spain, North Africa, and Southern Italy.

If they were around Rome, they could have their slaves, obviously, treat them well enough so they would work with them on mail.

Rome was very good at getting mileage out of their slaves, from the salt mines to the Gladiator arenas to the bath-houses to the workshops of artisans and the counting-rooms of their merchants and bureaucrats.

G.

Yora

2011-01-21, 11:24 AM

Spiryt

2011-01-21, 01:42 PM

Since armor takes a lot of work, and the roman army always needed large numbers of (I assumed preferedly uniform) armor for the soldiers. That is exactly the kind of work that benefits the most from large proto-industrial complexes instead of having them produced by single smiths with their assistants spread all over the country.
There's one popular example in which the output of the production of pins could be increased by several hundred percent simply by distributing the different steps of the work among a number of specialists, instead of each worker going through the entire process by himself. And the manufacture of pins is trivial compared to the manufacture of full suits of armor.
So I say that establishing large centralzed manufactures to produce armor seems very plausible, and the roman administration system should have been able to handle such an advanced manufacturing proccess without problems.

Well, the hole in that theory is that, according to all citations from Bishop etc. I can remember, it didn't work like that. :smallwink:

Armor is not a pin after all, but very personal stuff, especially anything else than mail. It is something that soldier was purchasing for himself, especially since he was professional one and his life and money depended on it.

It's not mass product, and producing it en mass in ancient times wouldn't be profitable for producer.

Furthermore, armor is not something that would be really needed in large, constant quantities, when soldier leaves the Rome and stations, in say, Tracia.

Then it's only obvious that he needs to repair, and possibly eventually afford new suit, he must afford it where he is currently.

Not to mention that, especially in less urbanized parts of Empire, big bad manufacture of armor would have even less chance of being profitable business.

All in all, AFAIU, weapons, armors and general equipment manufacturers
were big part of Immunes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunes) among the legions.

AFAIK, there was episode of big manufactures producing some part of 'standardized' equipment for legions on the break of 3rd and 4th century AD, and as I understand such "centralized' efforts didn't really become very popular, from aforementioned reasons.

Galloglaich

2011-01-21, 02:31 PM

interesting... that immunes rank is like a warrant officer in the modern US Army, hadn't heard of that.

I can personally see both approaches. Certainly it's in keeping for the Roman army to do everything themselves, from harvesting food to building roads and fortifications. But on the other hand the Romans most certainly did mass produce armor, since during large periods of the late Republic and early Empire most if not of the frontline Legionaires were fully armored with mail and helmets, which is unprecedented in antiquity on that scale. Tens of thousands of armor panoplies were made at the very least, including not just mail but more complex armor like lorica plumata, plus shields and weapons, and other military gear. That was not just from a cottage industry (though it does not need to be particularly centralized either necessarily)

I suspect both mail and helmets were mass-produced, and probably textile armor too though we don't know much about that, both on Latifundia and Colonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_(Roman)) set up to support Legions in the Provinces. In urban centers they did have businesses run by citizens with free workers, but that did also decline in the later Imperial years from what I understand as more and more slaves were used for almost everything. And I'm sure the army also made their own armor in garrison but I dont think they brought the entire smelting / forging / wire pulling / assembley with them on the march. Possible but I kind of doubt it.

Might be worth looking into further, maybe ask on Roman Army Talk. I also wonder where their weapons were made.

G.

tpaivani

2011-01-22, 12:39 PM

How many arrows did an archer, say an English longbowman for example, typically bring to a battle? I ask because I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that the number was seemingly ridiculously low, like 12.

So do we really know, and whatever the number, what would be the limiting factor? Cost? Weight? The fact that you didn't actually have time or endurance to shoot all that many during a battle? Or perhaps runners would distribute more during a prolonged fight or something like that?

Autolykos

2011-01-22, 01:04 PM

Although I have no idea how many they carried, I'd like to point out that a regular-sized quiver is pretty much full with 12 arrows. And they probably wouldn't be able to fire much more anyway before the enemy has closed in to melee (at which point carrying a lot of arrows becomes a liability).
It's also common strategy to influence the soldier's behavior by the equipment choice - e.g. to force to retreat behind the heavy infantry after they fired their arrows.
And, there was probably a way to resupply the archers with new arrows once they retreated behind the infantry (should the need for this arise).

Storm Bringer

2011-01-22, 04:17 PM

I read somewhere that the arrows were held centrally, and that they were dished out as the battle went on, rather than held foreward with the archers skirmishing. makes more sense if the slow pace of battle is remebered (where the lines would be in archery range of each other for most of the day, often shooting at each other for an hour or more before closing, and in "contact" for hours on end, far more than one could keep up a hollywood melee for)

Matthew

2011-01-23, 10:57 AM

Twelve is plausible, as might be twenty or twenty-four, or in the case of Saracen archers in 1273 (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/saracen_archers.htm), twenty-five. Certainly additional reserves of arrows would have been held back from the main line, along with other replacement military equipment, as well as manufacturers, purveyors, and sellers of such weapons, assuming the army was well equipped. I cannot lay my hands on the data right now, but the Agincourt campaign is well documented for stuff like this. The limitations on arrow carrying are pretty much the same as for any encumbering items.

J.Gellert

2011-01-23, 08:41 PM

Crow

2011-01-23, 09:22 PM

Here's a fantasy-related topic: Silver swords.

So, I can't even find anything on Google, other than stories and games, so they probably wouldn't even work, but assuming you were rich enough to make a weapon out of silver... Would it be useable, even if inferior to the steel version?

Silver is way too soft by itself. The only half-way plausible method that I can think of off the top of my head would be some sort of copper-silver alloy similar to bronze in order to get the desired hardness.

I'm not sure if making the entire sword via this composition would be plausible, as you may need to laminate it with something slightly more pliable like proper bronze in order to allow it to handle stress.

Again, this is all crap off the top of my head, so I'm not entirely sure. Metallurgically, I believe what I have written is sound.

fusilier

2011-01-23, 09:31 PM

I've handled stilettos that were made from a silver alloy (I think nickel-silver, not sure). It gave a nice heft to a small weapon.

Knaight

2011-01-23, 09:38 PM

I've handled stilettos that were made from a silver alloy (I think nickel-silver, not sure). It gave a nice heft to a small weapon.

The blade or the handle?

Theoretically a small amount of silver in a blade would be functional, from a metallurgic perspective, and nickel-silver would be a bit stronger, but having more than a tiny amount of this in steel seems like a bad idea.

Raum

2011-01-23, 09:54 PM

If I needed a 'silver blade', I'd try electroplating or silver inlay on a quality steel weapon. Either should be fairly easy to accomplish.

fusilier

2011-01-23, 09:55 PM

The blade or the handle?

Theoretically a small amount of silver in a blade would be functional, from a metallurgic perspective, and nickel-silver would be a bit stronger, but having more than a tiny amount of this in steel seems like a bad idea.

The entire thing was cast from one material. They were small weapons, and as stilettos designed only for thrusting.

Crow

2011-01-23, 10:14 PM

If I needed a 'silver blade', I'd try electroplating or silver inlay on a quality steel weapon. Either should be fairly easy to accomplish.

I think with any flexible weapon, you are going to run into severe problems with that.

Raum

2011-01-23, 10:30 PM

Pattern welding might be another method of adding silver to a blade. Don't really see that working with more than a minimal silver content though.

I think with any flexible weapon, you are going to run into severe problems with that.It's been done (http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/burmese-dha-sword-silver-inlay-blade) more than once (http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/silver-burmese-sword-dha-knife-68869343). Silver plated flatware is even more common. Could probably find more examples with some searching.

Crow

2011-01-24, 12:28 AM

Pattern welding might be another method of adding silver to a blade. Don't really see that working with more than a minimal silver content though.
It's been done (http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/burmese-dha-sword-silver-inlay-blade) more than once (http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/silver-burmese-sword-dha-knife-68869343). Silver plated flatware is even more common. Could probably find more examples with some searching.

I'm not entirely convinced that those weapons were intended to be used primarily in combat, which is what I assume the poster asking the question was referring to.

Millions of swords are made with stainless steel too, but we know that to be a terrible material for swords, entirely unsuited to handling the forces that swords are expected to handle. I'm not saying your plated or inlayed sword will fall apart in your hands, just that with a flexible blade (Like a traditional western sword, as opposed to a blade meant to resist flexing, like a katana for instance) you may end up losing your silver over time.

Eldan

2011-01-24, 04:46 AM

D&D does refer specifically to "alchemical silver", as opposed to just "silver", so I'm assuming they are talking about alloys anyway.

J.Gellert

2011-01-24, 05:49 AM

Part of me asking the question was something that's written in Conan RPG; that silver slashing weapons are impossible, because they can't hold an edge (and silver piercing simply do less damage). It's supposed to be pure silver, too, not a generic "alchemical silver" like in D&D.

A search does bring up a bunch of silver weapons but they are for show... Silver is shiny after all. But as for articles on this, all I can find is about silver bullets which aren't relevant. And I can't decide for my own because I couldn't explain any hardness scale to save my life. :smalltongue:

I imagine that if a silver alloy works, then that's more or less enough for the purpose of a game.

Spiryt

2011-01-24, 05:53 AM

The entire thing was cast from one material. They were small weapons, and as stilettos designed only for thrusting.

If they were "cast" like, literally, then they probably weren't functional anyway, no matter what they were made from.

Anyway, I can't really recall any actual weapons made from silver.

Silver additions in guard or pommel, or even silver wire for handle was of course used for adornments and sign of status, but not really for blade, as silver in expensive, and obviously, it's rather terrible material for any sort of blade, or whatever.

I imagine that if a silver alloy works, then that's more or less enough for the purpose of a game.

Like mentioned before though - it would be still more "steel alloys" as there's no real reason to add more than very small amounts of silver into it.

Unless you want your blade to be bactericide, although I don't know if alloyed silver holds those properties still. :smallamused:

Xuc Xac

2011-01-24, 06:36 AM

If they were "cast" like, literally, then they probably weren't functional anyway, no matter what they were made from.

It depends on what you mean by "functional". If you mean "poking a fatal hole in a human body", then almost any metal spike which is solid above 40 degrees C would be a functional weapon. If you mean "not breaking when it's struck hard against a piece of tempered steel", then you might have a point.

People tend to lose sight of how deadly many weapons are when they compare them to each other. Let's say on a scale of 1 to 10 of deadly blades, a fine steel blade might be a 10, a bronze blade is only 9, iron is only 8, and copper is only 6-7. People (meaning we, gamer geek weapon nerds) look at that and say "Oh, those lesser weapons are crap", but if it only takes a 2 to kill someone then none of them are terrible or non-functional weapons. Humans slaughtered each other fairly well for thousands of years without steel weapons. I'm sure a silver letter opener dagger would be able to fatally stab someone even if the blade might break off in the body if it gets stuck between some ribs and twisted at an angle by some freak chance.

Eldan

2011-01-24, 07:46 AM

Heck, a rock is a deadly weapon if swung with some force or dropped from somewhere. You don't even need metal for that.

But in an environment where we are talking "swords" and "armour" of pretty much any kind, I'd rather have a steel weapon.

Galloglaich

2011-01-24, 08:22 AM

There are silver inlayed blades, for swords and also spears and axes, with words or symbols of silver (and also copper) inlayed into the blade via something like pattern welding. The silver is only decorative. They appeared from the Migration era through the 12th Century. This is an example of one from Scandinavia

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?pos=2&intObjectID=4204166&sid=

Here is a closeup of a sword with silver inlayed slogans on the blade

http://www.vikingsword.com/i2/m0064b2.jpg

This is an axe with Silver inlay on the blade
http://dlg-pa.com/School_Project/Images/Mammen_Axe.jpg

here is a thread on Myarmoury where a smith talks about how he made a reproduction of this effect

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=74693

I also think those Burmese and Thai Dha swords with silver inlay are suitable for combat.

But you really couldn't make a solid silver or silver alloy sword, you could make a small misericorde (thrusting only) type knife that way. A silver sword or even a dagger with a blade more than a few inches long simply won't hold it's shape under duress. Even wrought iron is too soft for a sword blade ... silver would never hold up, it would be useless the first time it hit a shield rim or another sword.

If you wanted to make a solid silver weapon like for killing a werewolf :) the best bet would probably be a light mace.

http://www.antiques.com/vendor_item_images/ori_399-34290-2238274-EXTREMELY-RARE-ANTIQUE-13TH-CENTURY-RUSSIAN-MACE-DOE96861803.jpg

You see a lot of these in Central Asia and Eastern Europe from the Migration era through the 17th Century. With that type of weapon it doesn't really matter how soft the metal is.

G.

Crow

2011-01-24, 08:29 AM

Thanks for clearing that up, Gallo. I always try to remain somewhat skeptical when I see something new. Though I am quite certain a copper/silver alloy would be nearly as suitable as a bronze blade. What say you?

Spiryt

2011-01-24, 08:51 AM

Though I am quite certain a copper/silver alloy would be nearly as suitable as a bronze blade. What say you?

Care to elaborate?

I can't find anything about application of silver to form alloy with copper, and there's no way in which I can theoretically assume properties of such alloy.
(Say, 90% copper/ 10% silver).

Dunno, maybe someone on the boards can try. :smallwink:

Knaight

2011-01-24, 09:21 AM

People tend to lose sight of how deadly many weapons are when they compare them to each other. Let's say on a scale of 1 to 10 of deadly blades, a fine steel blade might be a 10, a bronze blade is only 9, iron is only 8, and copper is only 6-7. People (meaning we, gamer geek weapon nerds) look at that and say "Oh, those lesser weapons are crap", but if it only takes a 2 to kill someone then none of them are terrible or non-functional weapons. Humans slaughtered each other fairly well for thousands of years without steel weapons. I'm sure a silver letter opener dagger would be able to fatally stab someone even if the blade might break off in the body if it gets stuck between some ribs and twisted at an angle by some freak chance.

There is also the whole matter of armor though. Given that we are discussing a battlefield situation, armor is a very real possibility, and while a silver weapons piddly 4 on that scale is enough to do damage to an unarmored person, thick linen is enough to make life difficult for the aspiring stabber. Mail or plate, whether bronze, iron, or even copper, pretty much ruin the whole idea of functional silver weapons.

Spiryt

2011-01-24, 10:10 AM

If they were "cast" like, literally, then they probably weren't functional anyway, no matter what they were made from.

Well, I just researched that bronze swords, were, indeed often made by casting, before edges were forged.

I try to research more, if really blades were being cast to "final shape" or was it some first step before shaping them finally using some forging or grinding.

But anyway it seems that casting indeed gives "good structure" to them, unlike steel/iron so material matters here.

Quite a change of an opinion during 4 hours. :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich

2011-01-24, 10:25 AM

Yeah almost all bronze weapons were cast, though they developed some fairly sophisticated composite techniques by the late Bronze Age particularly in China and in the Urnfield culture in Europe.

I've never heard of a copper-silver alloy, which I would imagine we would know about if it existed since silver is one of the earliest known metals, occuring naturally in it's pure state along with copper, lead and gold.

There were copper-tin alloys which are classic bronze, copper-arsenic alloys which were also considered early forms of bronze, and copper-zinc alloys made with calamide, since they did not know or suspect what zinc actually was (zinc does not occur naturally in it's pure form) and that was brass also known as latten in ancient times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latten

G.

Xuc Xac

2011-01-24, 10:49 AM

Care to elaborate?

I can't find anything about application of silver to form alloy with copper, and there's no way in which I can theoretically assume properties of such alloy.
(Say, 90% copper/ 10% silver).

90% silver /10% copper is called "coin silver". It's much harder than pure silver and it's used in industrial electrical components that need to have high conductivity but resist wear (like switches). 90% Copper / 10% silver is called Corinthian bronze or Hepatizon. It has a dark purple color and doesn't corrode as easily as other bronzes, so it was considered the most valuable metal by the classical Greeks and Romans.

Mail or plate, whether bronze, iron, or even copper, pretty much ruin the whole idea of functional silver weapons.

Mail or plate would ruin all metal weapons equally. Do you really believe a steel sword would slice through a bronze or iron breastplate?

Galloglaich

2011-01-24, 10:51 AM

Here is an essay I wrote for one of the Codex books on the metalurgy of weapons, in case anyone is interested. It covers Bronze, Iron, Steely Iron, Pattern Welded steel, Crucible Steel, and Tempered high-carbon steel.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=527&p=1893#p1893

G.

Maclav

2011-01-24, 10:58 AM

Mail or plate would ruin all metal weapons equally. Do you really believe a steel sword would slice through a bronze or iron breastplate?

No, it wouldn't cut though it. However, you would still have an effective sword with no or very little damage. If you did this with a silver sword, the sword would be bend and blunt and much less useful and require extensive repairs.

Galloglaich

2011-01-24, 11:02 AM

90% silver /10% copper is called "coin silver". It's much harder than pure silver and it's used in industrial electrical components that need to have high conductivity but resist wear (like switches). 90% Copper / 10% silver is called Corinthian bronze or Hepatizon. It has a dark purple color and doesn't corrode as easily as other bronzes, so it was considered the most valuable metal by the classical Greeks and Romans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_bronze

Interesting, I had never heard of that. Do you know of any evidence that it was every used in weapons?

Mail or plate would ruin all metal weapons equally. Do you really believe a steel sword would slice through a bronze or iron breastplate?

I don't think a steel sword would slice through an iron breastplate, but I'm certain that striking mail or a breastplate will not ruin a good quality steel sword, because I've struck mine against both mail and plate armor many times before doing test-cutting and it did not damage them at all. You can also see people doing that on youtube.

That is the key difference between steel and most other metals, it is not only strong but resiliant. That's why when steel became available they stopped using any other metal to make swords and have never replaced it. Nothing else even comes close, including modern miracle metals like titanium. A steel sword would hack right through a titanium sword.

G.

Xuc Xac

2011-01-24, 11:13 AM

Interesting, I had never heard of that. Do you know of any evidence that it was every used in weapons?

They considered it more valuable than gold, so such a weapon would likely be an extravagant showpiece owned by someone who wouldn't actually do any fighting himself (or maybe the classical era's version of Scaramanga, the Man with the Golden Gun). It wouldn't hold an edge as well as the cheaper bronzes, so it probably wasn't considered "weapons grade". That, combined with the high value, would probably mean no one would ever make a weapon out of it (except maybe as part of a statue bearing arms).

A steel sword would hack right through a titanium sword.

Titanium isn't really all that strong. It's just strong for its weight. It's a "super metal", if by "metal" you mean "aluminium".

Galloglaich

2011-01-24, 11:15 AM

Exactly... and those metals which are strong, like say, irridium, are too britle to use for swords since swords need to be springy. For that combination of hard and flexible only one thing works, at least that we know of so far: tempered steel.

G.

J.Gellert

2011-01-24, 02:49 PM

A light mace, you say... then that Conan RPG was in the right, advocating silver bludgeoning weapons.

Either way, it's not about fighting men in armor, but say, werewolves. It wouldn't have to be perfect. I am also tempted disregard comparing it to steel considering how rare it should be in a dark ages setting.

What about an iron weapon with thick silver coating? Would it peel off as soon as anything was hit?

Galloglaich

2011-01-24, 04:48 PM

I don't think that is feasible in anything close to the real world. Cutting / stabbing / slicing weapons simply weren't that thick. You could forge weld some silver inlay onto the outside of a blade, I think that is as close as you could realistically get there.

Iron-Age swords would not be pure iron, they would be pattern-welded steel or at the very least 'steely iron' with some kind of heat-treatment or case hardening. Even axe-heads usually had a hardened blade edge forge-weledd on. If you put a 'thick layer' of silver over them it would make them useless as weapons in real life, not that it matters very much in most game systems.

Realistically, you could have the silver inlay, or you could make silver mace heads, sling stones, I think that is about it.

You could put silver on spear tips or arrow-heads behind the point... or you might be able to get away with a silver tip on a crossbow bolt, it would make penetration much worse against armor but it would probably still be ok against flesh. They also had crossbows which shot bullets but I don't know how old those were, I think they were a Medieval invention. Crossbows weren't too widely used in the 'Dark Ages' though you did have Roman style siege engines still around some of which were stone throwers. How much silver do you have to put into the werewolf for it to 'count' anyway? I really don't get why the silver inlay isn't enough. In all the movies just a little silver seems to be very toxic for werewolves.

Interestingly in real life silver is a very strong anti-microbial. Maybe werewolves are essentially a type of fungus or bacteria.... :smallbiggrin:
G.

fusilier

2011-01-24, 05:21 PM

The daggers that I saw were small (the largest may have been about 8-9 inches over all), with triangular blades. They were cast out of a silver alloy, although I think one was bronze. They had a much better "heft" to them then the same sized steel daggers. At any rate, when I saw the price tag I had the urge to quickly and carefully put it down . . . :-) I'm quite surprised they let me handle so much merchandise. The maker has a reputation for functional weapons which they stand by with life-long guarantees.

@Spiryt. Concerning casting, I think it was common for bronze swords to be cast in a stone mold. Sometimes the sword would become stuck in the mold and prove very difficult to remove (sound familiar?).

Karoht

2011-01-24, 05:34 PM

@Silver Weaponry

Mythbusters did an episode regarding silver bullets on The Lone Ranger. Worth a mention.

In DnD, very few DM's really track weapon strength or wear and tear, same with armor. If you read the rules as written, players would be going through probably a weapon every session or two, and a silver weapon would likely last even less.

So for one, I'll say that because we're talking fantasy, I handwave it as fantasy. But if I absolutely had to provide someone with a Silvered weapon, because they have to fight werewolves (we'll say unarmored) tomorrow, I'd probably go with electroplating or a similar process. Because electoplating is actually pretty easy to reapply, same with anodization.

What I do in fantasy gaming situations is, I have the person attack with whichever weapon they want. If they're up against a non-werecreature, treat as normal. If it's a non-wearcreature, and they roll under the AC, the weapon takes damage rattling off the opponents armor, as though the opponent just made a sunder check. Against a silver weapon, this typically equates to a broken weapon. However, the party members typically carry several silver weapons on them, just in case, and are usually pretty savvy at figuring out if someone is a werecreature or not.
In other words, I use reality to make it useless against the non-werecreature to the point where it becomes a liability, and of acceptable use against the werecreatures. Party members tend to carry multiple silver weapons with them for this very contingency.

Galloglaich

2011-01-27, 03:22 PM

I think a can of tinactin works best against werweolves.

Eorran

2011-01-27, 03:52 PM

Yora

2011-01-27, 04:01 PM

Fighting to the death makes everything more brutal, but history has many examples of armies winning while being massively outnumbered, and many reports that are considered reasonably accurate.
The british were able to kill rediculous numbers of attackers and survive, but they had rifles while their enemies did not. And in one famous battle between the french and the english, one side won an impressive victory by being able to slaughter their enemies with ranged weapons. (Probably the english who won, then.)

So my guess would be: Make heavy use of ranged weapons and try to kill as many enemies you can before they get any chance to cause harm to your men. And if they do, try to confront them in choke points where only a small number of them can fight with an equal number of your men, negating their numerical superiority for the moment. If you can manage it that your archers can still shot the troops comming behind them, all the better.

Spiryt

2011-01-27, 04:04 PM

Many fantasy stories feature combat between "good guy" armies, well-trained and equipped but heavily outnumbered by the hordes of "bad guys". Often, the bad guys will simply wave-attack without regard to casualties.

My question is this: Assuming a competent commander on the "good guy" side, with an understanding of the enemy's (lack of) tactics, what sort of technology or TOE is necessary to defeat an enemy who fights to the last man?

Assuming the good guys have their choice of terrain from anywhere in France, and are outnumbered, say, 15 to 1. The bad guys have melee weapons, and crude piecemeal armor for the tougher among them. They are otherwise human in capability, but have no fear or injury or death.

Don't think it really belongs too 'real world' questions.

Anyway, IMO it's just way too broad, and would depend on way too many variables.

I would say that, pretty universally - 'good guys' have to achieve good defensive position, form tight, organized lines, with good observation of what's happening on the field.

And fight. If 'bad guys' are really attacking without much sense at all, 15:1 aren't going to help them much at all. Big odds were being overpowered in history, against enemy of mortal feelings, but with some basic survival instinct too.

Knaight

2011-01-27, 04:50 PM

If 'bad guys' are really attacking without much sense at all, 15:1 aren't going to help them much at all. Big odds were being overpowered in history, against enemy of mortal feelings, but with some basic survival instinct too.

Discarding the morality, there have actually been ocassions where large armies gave reckless attack orders against smaller armies, by virtue of being far bigger. They tend not to end well. If one looks at the Roman campaigns in northern Europe, this happened several times, to the point where one could simply expect them to win. The phalanx and its evolutions were really quite effective as force multipliers, as was armor, mail in particular for several hundred years.

Raum

2011-01-27, 05:40 PM

My question is this: Assuming a competent commander on the "good guy" side, with an understanding of the enemy's (lack of) tactics, what sort of technology or TOE is necessary to defeat an enemy who fights to the last man?

Assuming the good guys have their choice of terrain from anywhere in France, and are outnumbered, say, 15 to 1. The bad guys have melee weapons, and crude piecemeal armor for the tougher among them. They are otherwise human in capability, but have no fear or injury or death.You're looking for the same things any good tactician wants: Terrain that protects your flanks while limiting where your enemy can attack from.
Some amount of fortifications along your front (assuming you're planning defensive tactics).
Rough terrain (or traps) beyond your fortifications to break up enemy formations & unity and put them at a positional disadvantage (attacking uphill, into the sun, across mud, etc).
Weapons you can hit the enemy with before he hits you (anything from spears to missile weapons).
An unlimited supply of ammunition. (Every general's dream!) :)
And, if possible, a method of interfering with your opponent's logistics. You're almost always going to look for those when using defensive tactics. But so is the enemy...so it takes a rare general to pull it off. That's why we make such a big deal of the few that can. Leonidas being a very good example. (In spite of the lousy movie.)

Yora

2011-01-27, 06:05 PM

Leonidas being a very good example. (In spite of the lousy movie.)
But this generations proof, that he did become immortal. :smallbiggrin:

He's in the company of Alexander, Hanibal, and Sun Tzu as one of the few generals from more than 2000 years ago, that most people with at least a bit interest in history still remember from memory.

J.Gellert

2011-01-27, 06:29 PM

History is filled with battles where a powerful force destroys a weak one.

Except that power is rarely in numbers. Whether it's heavy infantry against light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_marathon), guns against arrows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Tenochtitlan), big warships against small (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Navarino), there's just too many battles where a large force gets wiped by a foe that's, really, just better.

More recently, this manifests as situations where 5 tanks with a high rate-of-fire can destroy 10 slower ones, or where 1 airplane with long-range missiles destroys 3 airplanes with short-range missiles :smalltongue:

The point is, that numbers really don't amount to that much... They just dictate the strategies that will be used.

fusilier

2011-01-28, 03:25 AM

Watch Zulu, and perhaps the 300 Spartans(? -- it's been a long time since I've seen that movie).

Exactly how numbers play out in a battle situation can vary a lot, and it's not always clear what the factors are.

I don't entirely agree with Firkraag, but that's probably because I've been studying WW1 a lot lately. A war in which technology is roughly the same, somewhat superior tactics and training (infiltration tactics), wasn't enough for the Germans to overcome the Allies in the long run. Attrition was the name of the game. Arguably in WW2 as well; what was it that the Germans said about the Sherman tanks: A German Panzer could take out 10 Shermans, the problem was there was always an 11th.

On the other hand, at a smaller level things can get quite bizarre. Issues of morale, supply, and bad/good judgement, or just bad/good luck can all play a role.

I've heard of instances in WW1 where a small group of soldiers held off wave after wave of determined attacks, only to be overcome by a weak half-hearted attempt the next day. I'm sure there are examples where large forces simply swept aside smaller ones, and then were stopped and held up by yet even smaller forces. If you read about sieges you will see similar events occur. Sometimes a fortified town with a large garrison will be taken quickly by a moderate sized army that simply storms the gates. Whereas other times a few hundred soldiers will hold out for months against a much larger army conducting a formal siege.

Superior technology and training is not always the key to success. While the British were successful at Rorke's Drift, a larger force had been destroyed at Isandlwana the day before. The same tactics that led to Custer's defeat at the Little Bighorn had been successful against larger* encampments (* I can't find the source for that at the moment).

Anyway, some general observations would probably favor technology over numbers, but there are plenty of counter examples. I think that the issue of morale has been overlooked too often by modern studies, probably because it is harder to understand and take into account, especially in wargames that look at potential future events. Generally speaking, the historical record looks very chaotic. This may be skewed by the fact that smaller forces defeating much larger ones are typically remembered and retold. There is probably something heroic and romantic about such events. Likewise when a belligerent who is outclassed in training, equipment, logistics, etc., beats the "superior" force.

Finally there is typically a tendency to exaggerate the events. Air combat is a great example of this. When you can find details of an aerial battle documented from both sides, it's amazing how wrong both sides typically got it, claiming considerably more successes than reality.

J.Gellert

2011-01-28, 05:31 AM

WWI is funny, as superior tactics didn't amount for that much; that's because no one really knew how to fight this war. Germans were better at trench warfare up to a certain point (excellent bunkers), but it doesn't mean that trench warfare was a good tactic to begin with.

And as for other tactics of the Germans, it is debateable whether they were really any good. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper)

So leaving tactics out of it, the British did have overall better aircraft, and the tank.

Besides, even in infatry battles, victory would come through a single well-targeted attack (defeat in detail, really) or by demoralizing the enemy, or by plague. Or better rifles. Or better supply lines.

Yora

2011-01-28, 07:20 AM

And as for other tactics of the Germans, it is debateable whether they were really any good. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper)
It beats walking slowly over open ground into machine gun fire in huge numbers. :smallamused:

Really, that's exactly the situation machine guns are made for. Why did people take so long to realize that?

J.Gellert

2011-01-28, 07:36 AM

It beats walking slowly over open ground into machine gun fire in huge numbers. :smallamused:

Really, that's exactly the situation machine guns are made for. Why did people take so long to realize that?

They figured that with huge enough numbers, it wouldn't matter. :smalltongue:

Yora

2011-01-28, 07:39 AM

After casualties of over 10 million in 4 years and barely any movement of the frontlines, they should have gotten the hint.

Autolykos

2011-01-28, 08:20 AM

My question is this: Assuming a competent commander on the "good guy" side, with an understanding of the enemy's (lack of) tactics, what sort of technology or TOE is necessary to defeat an enemy who fights to the last man?
I was just going to say "machine guns", but you guys kinda beat me to it. However, the Battle of Celaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_celaya) in the Mexican Civil War is a pretty good example for this (Gary Brecher's article linked at the bottom of the page makes for a pretty entertaining read btw).
Otherwise, using chokepoints is the way to go (guerilla warfare is usually not deemed practical anymore when outnumbered more than 10:1 - especially if the enemy has no qualms about using more ruthless CI tactics).

Knaight

2011-01-28, 10:24 AM

WWI is funny, as superior tactics didn't amount for that much; that's because no one really knew how to fight this war. Germans were better at trench warfare up to a certain point (excellent bunkers), but it doesn't mean that trench warfare was a good tactic to begin with.

Consider most of the successful generals of WWII. These were people who saw what was done in WWI, and realized that the way technology was employed was horribly inept, and everyone was constantly pinned in trenches.

Tanks and planes are a particularly good example of WWI failures. WWI aerospace technology had the capacity for making bomber planes, what actually happened was some recon and extremely flashy dogfights that were completely useless outside of morale boosters. Tanks were deployed haphazardly, without anybody actually realizing the potential of an armor division.

Tankadin

2011-01-28, 10:32 AM

Even something like Agincourt could be instructive--the French and their mercenaries were not very well organized but overconfident, the heavy rain had made the recently-plowed field of battle incredibly muddy (negating the French cavalry advantage), and the English flanks were "guarded" by forests. The wiki for Agincourt says that the mud was so nasty even the lightly armored English longbowmen were able to join in the hand to hand combat (as the French knights were so fatigued).

It wasn't exactly a "to the last man" situation, but if you give the defenders terrain and weather advantages they'll be able to do ranged combat much more effectively and negate a lot of the enemy's numerical superiority.

Galloglaich

2011-01-28, 11:37 AM

discipline, armor and unit cohesion can trump numbers, particularly on the defensive. As someone pointed out upthread the Romans demonstrated this many times, so did the Swiss.

A good migration era example is Charles Martels battle at Tours, 15,000 franks vs. 80,000 Moors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

Or the Czechs at Kutna Hora, 12,000 infantry vs. 75,000 German and Hungarian cavalry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kutna_Hora

I'm not sure if any massive victories on that scale with odds of 12 to 1 though unless there are fortifications involved. But in battles on the scale above, whether the odds are 1-1, 2-1, or even 5-1 or 6-1 etc., you do often see very small casualties on the victorious side during pre-industrial times, like in Agincourt, or in many of the battles of the Swiss Confederation.

It must have been terrifying being on the side which had made the big tactical mistake that you have no control over.

G.

Galloglaich

2011-01-28, 04:52 PM

Another good promo vid, not very high speed but a well done and a particulalry convincing demonstration of a lot of good unarmed techniques.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX-C-zlvypk

G

fusilier

2011-01-28, 06:55 PM

We are getting a bit off topic with WW1, but the basic idea was to smash the enemies front lines with massive artillery fire, destroying the machine guns in position, then rush in with infantry (early on, at battles like the Somme the British would walk the infantry in). As pointed out above, it was new situation and the generals didn't know how to adapt. The bizarreness of WW1 trench warfare, meant that it was often more like a gigantic siege. Various siege weapons came in to general issue - grenades and helmets, for example.

@Knaight, aircraft were used for bombing, although typically in a tactical support role and not a strategic bombing role. There were exceptions like the German Zeppelin and later Gotha raids, but the aircraft couldn't be employed in numbers approaching WW1 levels. Also there were some events that were a bit in between, like the bombing of factories near the front lines, supply depots, railroad junctions, etc. On the other hand, some of these targets could be hit with long range artillery as well.

I wouldn't say that the British had better aircraft than the Germans (or French for that matter), but the Allies had more of them, and specifically more pilots. By the end of the war, too many German pilots lacked proper training and experience.

The tank's role in WW1 is still debated. Some claim that the German High Command used it as a scape goat, to explain why they had lost the war. In reality the impact of the tank wasn't that great. All sides were innovating during the war, but even though the British and French invested in tanks, the basic thought at high command was: more artillery, more soldiers. The Italians developed Arditi units, but they stuck to the same mantra. In the end that mantra seems to have worked. Infiltration tactics could be countered, and those who paid attention to the disaster at Caporetto in 1917, were prepared for the Spring Offensive of 1918.

Trench warfare was not really intentional, it just happened. Long range rifle fire, machine-guns, and better reconnaissance, meant that armies typically dug in when confronted with an enemy in the area, and that surprise movements were harder to pull off. Units still dig in when taking up a defensive position, even if it is temporary.

--On Topic--
So a good defensive position helps with holding off much larger numbers. Technology, training, cohesion, are all important factors. But they will not *ensure* victory against a larger force. Morale is probably an even more important factor in such cases.

Any force with a "fight to the death" mentality is either desperate, or fanatical, maybe even both. Often times it's the defender who ends up with this mentality, because the attacker gives them no choice (in a siege situation, where surrender would mean death). The attacker can always cut his losses and leave. There is also a kind of "fatalistic" mentality that persisted in some cultures well into the industrial age. Mexican infantry during the Mexican-American War were seen to stand motionless for hours under artillery fire, then march off the field in good order with only a handful of men left. Broken Russian Infantry in the Crimean War, would cluster in small groups and fight cavalry sent in to mop them up -- the British found it easier to shoot down broken russian formations, rather than send cavalry after them. Italian Infantry in WW1 launched assault after assault, with less food, pay and support, draconian punishments, and against worse terrain than their Western Allies, yet they never suffered a mutiny like the French. I've noticed that most armies with a "fatalistic mentality" seem to have a strong "peasant" (for lack of a better word) element among the rank and file (and typically poor leadership).

Xuc Xac

2011-01-28, 11:41 PM

Any force with a "fight to the death" mentality is either desperate, or fanatical, maybe even both.

A good example of this is the French Foreign Legion, which strongly emphasizes esprit de corps during training. The legion is made up of men from so many radically different backgrounds that the esprit de corps component is really necessary to get them to work well together. This can lead to some rather impressive results, like the legendary Battle of Cameron in Mexico. 62 Legionnaires and 3 French officers were attacked while escorting a convoy. They were attacked by 1200 Mexican infantry and 800 cavalry. The legion holed up in Hacienda Cameron to make their defense. They fought until there were only 6 legionnaires left alive. They were out of ammo. Rather than surrender, they fixed their bayonets and charged the Mexican army. Three of them survived their charge and the Mexican general allowed them to return their captain's body to France. The still have Captain Danjou's wooden hand and bring it out for a parade every year on the anniversary of Cameron.

Another example is the US Army Rangers, who swear to "complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor." I'm not aware of any missions that were completed by a sole survivor, but they take the job with that possibility in mind.

deuxhero

2011-01-29, 01:48 PM

Does anyone know what kind of armor a sea-faring fighter (who fought at sea, not just getting shipped to land) would wear

Spiryt

2011-01-29, 02:01 PM

Does anyone know what kind of armor a sea-faring fighter (who fought at sea, not just getting shipped to land) would wear

Well sir, place, time and some details, would be needed.:smallwink:

Anyway, in Europe, for most time there weren't much really 'specialized' sea faring fighters, and sailors who spend their life on ships generally weren't people who would need/afford/use that much armor.

So soldiers/warriors who would happen to fight on the ship, would generally wear their usual armor.

http://home.gwu.edu/~jhsy/battle-sluys2.jpg

Knaight

2011-01-29, 02:03 PM

@Knaight, aircraft were used for bombing, although typically in a tactical support role and not a strategic bombing role. There were exceptions like the German Zeppelin and later Gotha raids, but the aircraft couldn't be employed in numbers approaching WW1 levels. Also there were some events that were a bit in between, like the bombing of factories near the front lines, supply depots, railroad junctions, etc. On the other hand, some of these targets could be hit with long range artillery as well.

...

The tank's role in WW1 is still debated. Some claim that the German High Command used it as a scape goat, to explain why they had lost the war. In reality the impact of the tank wasn't that great. All sides were innovating during the war, but even though the British and French invested in tanks, the basic thought at high command was: more artillery, more soldiers. The Italians developed Arditi units, but they stuck to the same mantra. In the end that mantra seems to have worked. Infiltration tactics could be countered, and those who paid attention to the disaster at Caporetto in 1917, were prepared for the Spring Offensive of 1918.
Aircraft were used for limited tactical bombing, however the design of the aircraft was never changed to make anything that could be called a bomber plane. It wasn't atypical for aircraft bombing to involve a pilot throwing small bombs by hand, at least in the earlier stages of the war, while everything needed for a dedicated bomber plane was already developed except for the idea that a dedicated bomber plane was a good idea. That's my point, not that bombs were never used, they were.

As far as Tanks, the tank had a lot of untapped potential. Tanks were simply used very poorly in WWI, if one looks to WWII tanks start getting used effectively, though part of that was continued development in tank technology.

J.Gellert

2011-01-29, 02:24 PM

So soldiers/warriors who would happen to fight on the ship, would generally wear their usual armor.

Notably true in ancient Greece, where marines would be carrying their standard hoplite gear. Made boarding ships... unbalanced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis).

Probably true for the Romans, too, though I am ready to be corrected on that. :smalltongue: They had ballistae on the ships, but wouldn't Roman navies "prefer" boarding action too?

Autolykos

2011-01-29, 02:30 PM

Does anyone know what kind of armor a sea-faring fighter (who fought at sea, not just getting shipped to land) would wearWhat Spiryt said. Not wearing armor won't help you very much when you fall in the water (they can't save you anyway) - so you might as well wear what you have. However, if those soldiers were also expected to sail the ship, excessive armor would certainly get in the way (so they would probably not be issued any). The same probably goes for ships that were not meant for boarding operations - armor is expensive, so why give it to someone who's not supposed to get in melee?

Spiryt

2011-01-29, 02:36 PM

What Spiryt said. Not wearing armor won't help you very much when you fall in the water (they can't save you anyway) - so you might as well wear what you have. However, if those soldiers were also expected to sail the ship, excessive armor would certainly get in the way (so they would probably not be issued any). The same probably goes for ships that were not meant for boarding operations - armor is expensive, so why give it to someone who's not supposed to get in melee?

Armor wasn't really 'given' to anyone most of the time, pretty much everywhere.

Equipment issued from "the top" was rare thing before rather modern times.

People who were sailing seas often wouldn't afford expensive armor, to wear it constantly, due to tiring. So people wouldn't take it to go sailing.

Armor also weights so taking it limits what you can take on ship.

But it all, hugely depends on exact "setting" - Norse people going Viking would probably take their mail with them if they had it.

J.Gellert

2011-01-29, 03:32 PM

But it all, hugely depends on exact "setting" - Norse people going Viking would probably take their mail with them if they had it.

But even they wouldn't be wearing it on the ship.

Though I don't think weight of carried armor would be a serious issue, considering how many men (and horses! and loot!) they could fit on a trireme/longboat/dromon/whatever.

Maclav

2011-01-29, 07:06 PM

But even they wouldn't be wearing it on the ship.

Unless he was expecting a fight.

deuxhero

2011-01-29, 07:31 PM

Thanks, that answered my question (I wasn't really looking for a time period specific thing).

Galloglaich

2011-01-30, 11:11 AM

But even they wouldn't be wearing it on the ship.

Though I don't think weight of carried armor would be a serious issue, considering how many men (and horses! and loot!) they could fit on a trireme/longboat/dromon/whatever.

I actually disagree with Spyrit on this one. Armor was worn by ship-board marines, at least during Medieval times and also quite famously by the Romans. That was how the Roman legions won all their battles against the Carthaginians, they even invented a special bridge called a corvus which was mounted on their quinquerimes to bring armored infantry to the enemy ship, since this was their only advantage in naval warfare.

http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~crorres/bbc_archive/quinquereme_4.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_navy#First_Punic_War

The bridge would fall down with the spike embedding on the enemy deck, and the Roman marines would pour through the gap.

Yes the Vikings did also actually wear armor during naval battles. In several well documented naval battles between Norse navies, they would more or less park all their ships next to each other and have a big infantry fight. The amount of armor used by the Norse changed a great deal across the Viking period, in the 9th Century armor was fairly rare, by the 10th Century it was ubiquitous. The Norse wore as much armor as they owned whenever they had to fight. Their principle tactic was to make deep penetration raids up rivers and then jump out and attack as heavy-infantry.

This was also practiced widely by the Norse / Slavic Rus along all the rivers in Russia, it was their principle advantage, shock attacks with heavy infantry who could be thought of as Marines.

In Medieval times they would use ships as siege engines, like this Venetian siege-vessel being used during the IVth Crusade

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mitchtanz/venetiantowers1.jpg

In fact one of the principle advantages the Venetians had was that they used paid rowers on their galleys who could fight, rather than chained up slaves who could not which is what everyone else used. I don't know for sure if they wore armor or not but fighting without armor in this period made you virtually useless so I suspect they did. The Athenians also had this same advantage (free, paid rowers instead of slaves on their galleys) though I have no idea if they wore armor in combat or not, during the Classical period unarmored light infantry (or protected only by a shield) were more common.

In the Medieval period we have several examples of artwork depicting large naval battles in which most of the fighters were armored.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Bataille_de_la_Rochelle.jpg/300px-Bataille_de_la_Rochelle.jpg

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p2/150203/15020313.jpg

http://www.maisonstclaire.org/common/mss_images/chronicles/Hague%20KB,%2072%20A%2025%20-%20froissarts_chronicle/Hague%20KB,%2072%20A%2025%20-%20Froissart's%20Chronicles%20-%20062r%20-%20Sea-battle%20between%20the%20English%20and%20the%20Fre nch.jpg

From what I have read, pirates operating in the North and Baltic seas in the 13th -15th Centuries fought armored.

I do agree with Spyrit however that there wasn't usually special armor specifically for marines. The only example I can think of is the leather collar worn by United States Marines as protection against saber cuts, which was the origin of their nickname 'leathernecks'. That was in the late 18th Century during the Revolutionary war if I recall correctly.

I also know that cuir bouilli floats, which could be relevant for a fantasy campaign, though leather doesn't endure sea-water all that well. But a cuir-boulli lamellar vest might be a good armor for a marine, it could double as a sort of life jacket...

G.

randomhero00

2011-01-30, 04:28 PM

Spiryt

2011-01-30, 04:40 PM

This question is in regards to the SCA. I'm looking for some armor that's very old, celtic, nordic, etc. Possibly druid armor if they ever actually fought? I want to be something unique in the SCA. I was thinking of getting leather and covering it with artificial leafs. But that'd probably be more DnD than historic armor. So what sort of armor fits that kind of odd description that was really old? The idea is to fight with a staff. But I could be persuaded to something else.

There's no trace of armored parts in shape of leafs ever, I'm afraid.

If druid would ever fought, he would probably arm himself in more "high end" equipment of La Tenne culture.

So moderately long mail, helmet - depending on place and time - as you probably know cultures we could describe as "Celtic" covered vast regions over hundreds of years.

Perhaps some arms and leg armor too, again, depending on place and time.

Here (http://celtowie-bydgoszcz.bloog.pl/?ticaid=6bb1f) you can see some nice reconstruction of generally speaking, continental Celts.

So if you want historical armor, some study about it would be needed.

But AFAIK, in SCA "less historical stuff" will fly as well, although it all probably depends on your group.

randomhero00

2011-01-30, 04:53 PM

There's no trace of armored parts in shape of leafs ever, I'm afraid.

If druid would ever fought, he would probably arm himself in more "high end" equipment of La Tenne culture.

So moderately long mail, helmet - depending on place and time - as you probably know cultures we could describe as "Celtic" covered vast regions over hundreds of years.

Perhaps some arms and leg armor too, again, depending on place and time.

Here (http://celtowie-bydgoszcz.bloog.pl/?ticaid=6bb1f) you can see some nice reconstruction of generally speaking, continental Celts.

So if you want historical armor, some study about it would be needed.

But AFAIK, in SCA "less historical stuff" will fly as well, although it all probably depends on your group.

or maybe ill just make armor and put a robe over it.

randomhero00

2011-01-30, 04:56 PM

also basically whats the craziest looking armor out there?

J.Gellert

2011-01-30, 06:36 PM

also basically whats the craziest looking armor out there?

I like the crocodile-skin parade armor (http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/c/crocodile-skin_suit_of_armour.aspx), but I'm certain someone can come up with something crazier.

Fhaolan

2011-01-30, 06:36 PM

This question is in regards to the SCA. I'm looking for some armor that's very old, celtic, nordic, etc. Possibly druid armor if they ever actually fought? I want to be something unique in the SCA. I was thinking of getting leather and covering it with artificial leafs. But that'd probably be more DnD than historic armor. So what sort of armor fits that kind of odd description that was really old? The idea is to fight with a staff. But I could be persuaded to something else.

For unusual Nordic armour (at least, unusual for Norsemen), look at the Varangian Guard. These are Anglo-Saxons that travelled all the way to the Byzantine Empire to act as mercenary guards. They picked up all sorts of odd equipment while there, such as scale body armour, splint bracers and greaves, etc.

Nobody did 'leaf' armour as a rule, but stamping out scales in the shapes of simple leaves isn't completely out of the question. It's just not something anyone would have bothered doing, as the leaf 'details' would have been lost fairly quickly with wear.

As for the question as the most unusual armour, that would have to be the late-period grotesques. This is where the armour, usually just the helm but sometimes more, is fashioned to look like an animal or demon. The one I remember seeing was one that was supposed to resemble a hawk or eagle, completely with talon-like sabatons on the feet, but really looked more like a chicken to me.

fusilier

2011-01-30, 07:21 PM

Aircraft were used for limited tactical bombing, however the design of the aircraft was never changed to make anything that could be called a bomber plane. It wasn't atypical for aircraft bombing to involve a pilot throwing small bombs by hand, at least in the earlier stages of the war, while everything needed for a dedicated bomber plane was already developed except for the idea that a dedicated bomber plane was a good idea. That's my point, not that bombs were never used, they were.

As far as Tanks, the tank had a lot of untapped potential. Tanks were simply used very poorly in WWI, if one looks to WWII tanks start getting used effectively, though part of that was continued development in tank technology.

I don't know where you are getting your information on WW1 aircraft. Purpose-built bombers, were made during the war. The Italians were a leader in this field, with a prototype of a multi-engine bomber being produced in 1913!!! The more well known bombers would be the English Handley-Page 0/400 and the German Gotha G.IV (or G.V). But the Italians had the Caproni line of bomber aircraft and were performing long range bombing raids into Austria, a year before either of those planes were operation. The Russians also entered the war with the only operational 4-engined heavier-than-air machine, the Sikorsky Ilya Mourometz, which was a very impressive bomber.

I would suggest looking up those aircraft. The Caproni line can be confusing, because different numbering systems were used. Nonetheless the Ca.3 was the most prolific of their bombers. The Ca.4 being the only operational triplane bomber that I am aware of.

As for tanks. There was a mass tank assault toward the end of the war. It achieved initial success but soon most of the tanks had broken down. There is also the famous Battle of Cambrai, where the breakthrough was unexpected, and failed to be supported. Nonetheless, tanks were not a war winning weapon. They were slow, cumbersome, prone to mechanical mishap, could get bogged down in the mud (a problem that was experienced by some Abrams during the Iraq invasion), had thin armor which barely protected them from machine gun fire, and they were terribly vulnerable to artillery. So many of them would get stuck that the Germans were able to field a decent number of captured tanks against the Allies. While they were a response to trench warfare, the nature of trench warfare meant that they could be easily countered. The Germans built larger, and larger anti-tank ditches, and introduced various anti-tank weapons. WW2, for the most part, avoided the static warfare of WW1, and with increases in tank technology (a big one being speed), tanks were able to play a rather different role in WW2, other than just infantry support.

Galloglaich

2011-01-31, 12:02 PM

I think the point of confusion is that while the Italians had several large bombers and the Germans had a few, the British and French didn't put as much of an emphasis on it so we have the usual Western European bias.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Caproni_Ca36_050309-F-1234P-003.jpg
The formidable Italian Caproni Bomber

Same reason Italian aircraft in WW II are generally discounted, even though they made a lot of excellent and historically important types.

Though I think the British did also have some relatively small bombers in WW I, but no large multi-engine types though right?

For tanks, I think they were quite important at the end of the war, in fact I think they shifted the balance to the side of the allies arguably as much as the arrival of the Americans did. They didn't know how to use them perfectly and hadn't completely worked out the ideal strategic role yet, they were mainly relied on to achieve breakthroughs. The idea of using faster tanks for breakout / exploitation came later with Christie and Guderian and Liddel-Hart. It's not easy to immediately figure out the ideal way to use a new technology with that much potential*.

And actually in fact in WW II it took a long time before tanks were used according to the more modern theory. Even the Germans weren't really using their Blitzkrieg tactics initially in the war, but rather were relying on tanks and dive-bombers to achieve shock break-throughs. It was really the Americans who first had enough motorized vehicles (particularly infantry carriers like halftracks) to use mechanized breakouts on a widespread basis.

G.

* the modern correlation is probably robots. We are using them in a limited way with robot bomb disposal units and predator drones, and a few other less well known and frankly scarier devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. But can anyone doubt this will explode into some new really important military paradigm? It's hard to imagine what that future will actually be at this point. Who among us today will be the Guderian of robots :) And what kind of figure will that bring us :smalleek:.

fusilier

2011-01-31, 12:28 PM

The British had the large Handley Page O/400

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Type_O

And the even bigger V/1500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_V/1500

And the Vickers Vimy (which was the first aircraft to fly non-stop across the Atlantic in 1919)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Vimy

The French had several multi-engined bombers, but there isn't much information on them. The Caudron G.4 and Farman F.50 are two examples.

Tanks. It is debated the impact that tanks actually had, and I certainly wouldn't go as far as saying their impact was as much as the Americans. Part of the issue, like I alluded to before, is that the German High Command tried to claim that it was tanks that caused them to lose the war -- the Allies had tanks, and the Germans didn't, or so the logic went. So that's biased the whole discussion. It is possible that tanks becoming more effective at the end of the war, is an illusion caused by the collapsing German army. Tanks at the Battle of Cambrai, achieving surprise, much like the first use of Chlorine gas at Ypres, but fairly quickly adapted to.

Karoht

2011-01-31, 12:29 PM

or maybe ill just make armor and put a robe over it.

Being in your shoes before, here's what I would recommend. However, the following would likely not pass SCA combat inspection, so you'll have to tweak it.

First, an inner tunic. Something made of something absorbant.
Second, an inner robe. Wool would be my recommendation.
Third, chain. As much as you can comfortably wear with the robe. If you're going with butted chain (as it will likely not be seen, and it is the SCA) make sure it's 5/16ths or the metric equivilant in ring size. Otherwise it won't flex properly with the cloth.
Fourth, outer robe. Thin material, something that breathes well.
Fifth, leather. Chest piece, bracers, greaves, helm. Plenty of celtic designs with leather are available which should stand up to SCA combat standard.

It sounds like a lot, but it actually pads really well, and it isn't so bad to wear once you get it all on and get used to it.

As for the leaves on the leather, my advice is get all of the above up and functional, then cut out the leaf pieces, and rivet them on. Not in an overlapping pattern though. Two rivets, one in each end, and treat that as purely decorative, so pattern it where ever you wish. You WILL replace leaves from time to time. My advice is to use 3 different leaf shapes.

Lastly, check out some of the LARP armor websites. Some do excellent work with patterned leather, some of it is built for SCA combat standard, and some of it might actually stand up to the beating it will take.

Best of luck.

Galloglaich

2011-01-31, 02:55 PM

The British had the large Handley Page O/400

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Type_O

And the even bigger V/1500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_V/1500

Wow that is a beast!

Tanks. It is debated the impact that tanks actually had, and I certainly wouldn't go as far as saying their impact was as much as the Americans. Part of the issue, like I alluded to before, is that the German High Command tried to claim that it was tanks that caused them to lose the war -- the Allies had tanks, and the Germans didn't, or so the logic went. So that's biased the whole discussion. It is possible that tanks becoming more effective at the end of the war, is an illusion caused by the collapsing German army. Tanks at the Battle of Cambrai, achieving surprise, much like the first use of Chlorine gas at Ypres, but fairly quickly adapted to.

I guess I'm more on the tanks were pretty important side (I think aircraft had become pretty important too by the end of the war)

The French made some pretty good tanks by the second half of the war, notably the fairly modern light tank FT-17, which played a major role in Cambrai. They built 3700 of them, not an insignificant number.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/FT-17-argonne-1918.gif

In layout it was basically a modern tank by early WW II standards, just a little slow and needed a bigger turret.

G

randomhero00

2011-01-31, 03:11 PM

For unusual Nordic armour (at least, unusual for Norsemen), look at the Varangian Guard. These are Anglo-Saxons that travelled all the way to the Byzantine Empire to act as mercenary guards. They picked up all sorts of odd equipment while there, such as scale body armour, splint bracers and greaves, etc.

Nobody did 'leaf' armour as a rule, but stamping out scales in the shapes of simple leaves isn't completely out of the question. It's just not something anyone would have bothered doing, as the leaf 'details' would have been lost fairly quickly with wear.

As for the question as the most unusual armour, that would have to be the late-period grotesques. This is where the armour, usually just the helm but sometimes more, is fashioned to look like an animal or demon. The one I remember seeing was one that was supposed to resemble a hawk or eagle, completely with talon-like sabatons on the feet, but really looked more like a chicken to me.

What time period is that? Cause SCA cuts off at 1599 IIRC.

Galloglaich

2011-01-31, 03:34 PM

Well, gee.... Druids weren't around in the UK past the Roman occupation for that matter were they... unless you count Shakespeare since they like to call him a 'Bard' :)

G.

Fhaolan

2011-01-31, 03:48 PM

What time period is that? Cause SCA cuts off at 1599 IIRC.

The Varangian Guard was approx 988 - 1200, I believe.

The Grotesques, however, were mostly in and about the 16th century, so within the SCA time frame. Here are some piccies:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/Dragon_helmet.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/HAotIR_46_F_S.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/HAotIR_23a.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/HAotIR_23a1.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/HAotIR_60_a_b.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/EGK_42_close-helm.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/Henry_VIII_horned_helmet.jpg

Galloglaich

2011-01-31, 04:24 PM

those are great man!

G.

fusilier

2011-01-31, 05:50 PM

The French made some pretty good tanks by the second half of the war, notably the fairly modern light tank FT-17, which played a major role in Cambrai. They built 3700 of them, not an insignificant number.

The FT-17 wasn't at Cambrai, that was mostly British Mk. IV medium tanks. I'm not aware of any French tanks participating at Cambrai.

The FT-17 was the first modern tank. Engine in back, driver in front, turret on top of tank. The only other possible contender could be the Fiat 2000, but if it entered combat in WW1 it would have been after the FT-17. The FT-17 could be armed with either a machine gun, or 37mm cannon. It was a good little tank for it's role: supporting the infantry and knocking out pillboxes. Trench crossing performance of such small tank was a serious problem though. However, I think they tended to be more useful than their larger brethren. Trench crossing became a more serious problem, and tanks got longer. Early attempts to modify existing British medium tanks resulted in the "tadpole" configuration (basically extended the rear of the tank). The Mk. VIII International Tank was very long and narrow, but appeared too late to take part in the war. The other idea was to have a bundle of sticks, or a special ditch crossing device carried on top of the tank that could be released into the ditch. Of course, multiple ditches were then a problem.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmarkv.jpg

The FT-17 was indeed a nice tank, some of them actually soldiered on into WW2!

Subotei

2011-01-31, 06:57 PM

Its debatable whether tanks actually had a decisive impact on the fighting - they certainly had shock value where used correctly, but so often the Allies through them in in small numbers or to reinforce failure. The Cambrai battle was well executed, but lacked reserves of infantry to consolidate the early gains made by the tanks (most available reserves having been thrown into the failed Third Ypres offensive to try to gain an advantage).

Through 1918 allied tank numbers deployed were never very high due to the massive rate of losses - usually in excess of 50% in any operation due to mechanical breakdown and enemy fire. In fact losses outstripped supply so numbers deployed actually fell over the decisive period.

More important was the quantitative superiority of allied weapons towards the end of the war - notably artillery, combined with a change of allied tactics, where limited offensives were broken off after early the initial gains (which were usual in well planned attacks) and the offensive effort switched to another line of attack, rather than the old approach of trying to force a decisive 'breakthrough' at one point. This maximised allied gains whilst minimizing losses from the inevitable hardening of resistance as German reserves were rushed to the point of the attack. The effect of the Allied blockade on Germany's war effort by 1918 is also hard to ignore.

Ravens_cry

2011-01-31, 07:25 PM

Dienekes

2011-01-31, 07:48 PM

Forgive me if this has been asked before, love the horned helmet with the glasses by the way, but how 'realistic' is the Manyshot feat, i.e. firing two arrows at once? How effective and accurate is it if done?
Thank you.

Now, I'm not an archer. I haven't handled a bow since I was a boyscout, but I would imagine the answer would be pretty ineffective and quite a bit less accurate.

You see the bow exerts the same amount of force no matter what it's firing, so any force it would exert on one arrow is not divided between two. In short they wouldn't be as strong as firing one arrow and probably would not fire in anywhere close to the same way they did before making them rather hard to aim.

Hopefully someone a lot smarter than me will come by to confirm or prove me wrong though.

Fhaolan

2011-01-31, 08:41 PM

Forgive me if this has been asked before, love the horned helmet with the glasses by the way, but how 'realistic' is the Manyshot feat, i.e. firing two arrows at once? How effective and accurate is it if done?
Thank you.

There are a lot of different 'trick shots' in archery. Double arrows, splitting the wand, rope cuts, rapid loose, etc. They are, however, all trick shots. Just like circus knife throwers and illusionists, the archer has to have pretty close to complete control over the equipment, range and timing of the trick.

The one you're interested in is Double Arrow, where two arrows are loosed from the same bow. Technically it's possible to get more, but it gets increasingly less impressive as the power behind the arrows becomes obviously lowered even to non-archers beyond two. As Dienekes says, the release force of the bow gets split amongst the arrows, so the arrows will loose very... loosely. :smallbiggrin:

I usually see this trick done 'legally' at about 10 yards range when outdoors. Anything beyond that and they've likely cheated. The normal cheat is to use thin thread that the audience can't see to tie the arrows together.

Oh, and most arrows have a slight spiral to their flights to increase accuracy and/or their flights are made of natural feathers (whcih have a slight curve to them). You have to avoid these kinds of arrows for trick shots and use dead straight non-feather flights (in period made of stiffened cloth or the like). In this specific trick the spin of the arrows would cause the flights to knock against each other. In other tricks spinning will make it more difficult for the blades to hit the target straight on (rope cut, splitting the wand, etc.)

Knaight

2011-01-31, 08:46 PM

There are a lot of different 'trick shots' in archery. Double arrows, splitting the wand, rope cuts, rapid loose, etc. They are, however, all trick shots. Just like circus knife throwers and illusionists, the archer has to have pretty close to complete control over the equipment, range and timing of the trick.
In short, shooting double arrows is a horrible idea in a combat situation.

Now, for questions. What were the metallurgical developments in Warring States China that allowed for the transition between dedicated sword smiths and mass production of swords in foundries?

Fhaolan

2011-01-31, 09:01 PM

In short, shooting double arrows is a horrible idea in a combat situation.

Now, for questions. What were the metallurgical developments in Warring States China that allowed for the transition between dedicated sword smiths and mass production of swords in foundries?

I may be a bit confused by the question, or my information may be seriously out of date. I was under the impression that during the Warring States period in China (475 BC to 221 BC), the major metallurgical change was moving from cast bronze blades to iron blades. As such, I thought it was opposite from what you asked, where it was moving from cast bronze from foundries to forged iron swords.

Of course there's always that weird period where they attempt to cast iron swords using the same molds as the older bronze swords. Those tend to be not very succes:smallbiggrin:sful.

Knaight

2011-01-31, 09:29 PM

I may be a bit confused by the question, or my information may be seriously out of date. I was under the impression that during the Warring States period in China (475 BC to 221 BC), the major metallurgical change was moving from cast bronze blades to iron blades. As such, I thought it was opposite from what you asked, where it was moving from cast bronze from foundries to forged iron swords.
In addition to that, there was a movement away from dedicated blade smiths to mass production. I've been trying to find out why, without much success. Source after source cites "metallurgical developments" with no additional details.

fusilier

2011-02-01, 06:39 PM

I do agree with Spyrit however that there wasn't usually special armor specifically for marines. The only example I can think of is the leather collar worn by United States Marines as protection against saber cuts, which was the origin of their nickname 'leathernecks'. That was in the late 18th Century during the Revolutionary war if I recall correctly.

The leather neck stock was official wear in the US Army as well for some time. Although most commanders didn't enforce it by the middle of the 19th century, and supplies were typically low (a bizarre example would be the California column during the Civil War, whose commander insisted that his men wear leather neck stocks, and was constantly ordering more). The Marines however stuck with them much longer than any of the other forces, and that's where their nickname comes from.

An interesting anecdote about neck stocks. In the post Civil War period, at a western fort, they would choose an orderly from among the NCOs each day. This was easy work, provided visibility, and gave the soldier a chance to interact with the women at the fort. So it was very desirable. Typically they would line up all the prospective enlisted men, and inspect their uniforms and equipment for good order and cleanliness. The one in the best condition got the job. One day, one of the soldiers showed up with a leather neck stock. The officers had no idea where he had found it, as none had been issued in many years! But they were impressed and picked him. The next day, the whole company turned out in neck stocks!!

Karoht

2011-02-04, 12:45 AM

I finally found out where the advertising company put the ad up on the net. No youtube for some reason.
http://scaryideas.com/content/21525/

They really kinda picked the worst take. I blink for almost an entire second while looking at the camera and goofed my introduction. But hey, whatever, I shouldn't complain, I'm on TV.

The T-Shirt was part of the ad BTW. I normally wear a proper surcoat.

Galloglaich

2011-02-04, 11:51 AM

Another cool vid from Anton, plays from the Zornhau (from Lichtenauer)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc

Galloglaich

2011-02-04, 11:54 AM

Galloglaich

2011-02-05, 07:42 PM

Shademan

2011-02-05, 08:18 PM

<varangian guard
<anglo-saxon
You mean norse, right?

fusilier

2011-02-06, 05:08 AM

Ok I have a question for you guys.

In 15th Century Central Europe, roughly how many men would fight under a Banneret?

I understand that heavy cavalry were organized as lances (or gleves or helms, all terms used to describe the same thing) consisting of one primary fighter (knight, Brother Knight, or Konstafler) and a servant or 'vassal' to carry his lances and other gear, plus 2 or 3 more cavalrymen who may be lancers or crossbowmen; for a total of 3-5 cavalry per 'lance', normally only one of whom is on an armored horse.

My understanding is that lances were organized into banners under a Knight banneret. How many typically would that be?

Also how were the lower ranking men at arms, demi-lancers and sergeants organized specifically in this period?

All the data I can find so far is for England or France in the 12th or 13th Century, I'm interested in Central Europe in the 15th. Any help would be appreciated.

G.

In Italy it was 3-5. If 3, two men were mounted fighters (although they could fight dismounted), and the third was a page. One of the mounted men had a lance. If a larger lance, the additional personnel typically fulfilled a support role like the page. Thus the fighting strength of a 5-man lance was basically the same as a 3-man lance. If fighting dismounted, the two fighters could wield a single lance like a pike. The designation of "lance" comes from the fact that the unit had only one lance.

Unfortunately, I can't give any more detail off the top of my head. Also, while Italy is *sometimes* considered part of Central Europe, I suspect you were looking more for information about Germany, or the Holy Roman Empire. If you are interested Italy, look for "Mercenaries and their Masters". I found Osprey's book about Condottiere to be very disappointing in comparison (still good for details of armor and weapons, and lots of pictures though).

Tyndmyr

2011-02-06, 10:03 AM

Forgive me if this has been asked before, love the horned helmet with the glasses by the way, but how 'realistic' is the Manyshot feat, i.e. firing two arrows at once? How effective and accurate is it if done?
Thank you.

I'm an archer, and there is, in practice, fairly little reason to do so. However, it does look cool. Fhaolin's info is correct.

There is a slight use for them in foam fighting where force of impact is not relevant to the value of the hit, but this is mostly an artifact of the rule systems used, and it's still not popular due to the difficulty of actually hitting two people with such a shot(generally, its just a waste of an arrow).

I have seen a person dual wield bows with pretty good accuracy, but it's mostly a trick thing again. The strength of the bow used has to drop pretty drastically to do so. If arrow spamming is your thing, look up the repeating crossbow.

Yora

2011-02-06, 10:24 AM

If Fhaolan looks into this thread again: Please put the images in a spoiler tag! This thread is insanely stretched for me since a week.

Galloglaich

2011-02-06, 11:28 AM

In Italy it was 3-5. If 3, two men were mounted fighters (although they could fight dismounted), and the third was a page. One of the mounted men had a lance. If a larger lance, the additional personnel typically fulfilled a support role like the page. Thus the fighting strength of a 5-man lance was basically the same as a 3-man lance. If fighting dismounted, the two fighters could wield a single lance like a pike. The designation of "lance" comes from the fact that the unit had only one lance.

Unfortunately, I can't give any more detail off the top of my head. Also, while Italy is *sometimes* considered part of Central Europe, I suspect you were looking more for information about Germany, or the Holy Roman Empire. If you are interested Italy, look for "Mercenaries and their Masters". I found Osprey's book about Condottiere to be very disappointing in comparison (still good for details of armor and weapons, and lots of pictures though).

Thanks fusilier, but I'm looking not into how many fighters are in a lance, but how many lances are in a banner.... if you will. Any idea?

G.

Zain

2011-02-06, 11:37 AM

Could someone please give me a breakdown of a Roman legion at the height of it's power? I need details like manpower, training, and equipment for a home-brew project.

Spiryt

2011-02-06, 11:56 AM

Could someone please give me a breakdown of a Roman legion at the height of it's power? I need details like manpower, training, and equipment for a home-brew project.

Taking legion ~ 100 AD, it would be 6000 soldiers in 10 cohorts.

That would be official, optimal number, during actual service of the legion, number of legionaries would be obviously much much smaller, due to illnesses, deaths, desertions, and many many random things, or even simply the fact that such number was never recruited in the first place.

Equipment would be Pompei style, or similar gladius (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-roman-trajan-pompeii.htm), with short blade characterized by tapering only at the very end, but very rapidly.

Scutum, legion shield would be generally of rectangular shape by that time, made out of numerous layers of plywood glued together.

Other main weapon would be at least 2 pilum, so heavy javelins, although one would be probably heavier than the other - one for general throwing, second for throwing almost at point blank.

Armor would be lorica hamata - so mail shirt, with alternative of l.segmentata - armor made out of segments of steel.

Those two armors would be most popular, exact proportions are generally unknown.

That's super quick summary, although generally there are many decent sites about it, I would recommend This one (http://www.legionsix.org/Equipment/Basic%20Gear/Helmet/helmet.htm) for example - here about helmets, as you see mainly Imperial Galic type.

Other widely used would be Coolus type (http://www.wulflund.com/images_items/galea---gallic-imperial-helmet_2.jpg).

Storm Bringer

2011-02-06, 01:37 PM

The classic legion of Augustus' time consisted of 10 cohorts, 9 with a "paper strength" of 480 men, and a double strength first cohort. these were formed of centuries, which, for those periods we have records for, were never 100 men strong. the classic roman century was 80 men strong, formed form 10 8 man sections.

I have a book on the subject that quotes returns for three mixed auxiallary cohorts. with a paper strength of 600 men (480 foot, 120 horse), as each having a actual strength of 400-500 men each (the nfo on the three units quoted were spread over all of the empire, and over a century apart (C. 100 AD, 156AD, and 213-216 AD. quoted strenght was 536, 477, 434 respectivly)

note that these returns included a large number of men on detached duty, so the number in any one location was somewhat less, unless their was a major campgain planned and the unit had time to gather. another scorce quoted in the same book shows returns form a unit c. 95 BC, where a unit with 752 men (nominal strenght 800) on the books, only 296 were actually at the nominal base camp, and only one of the six centurions.

note that a large part of the roman army was in the Auxilia, raised form the non-citizen population of the Empire (Roman Citizenship, as opposed to merely being a subject of roman, was a relativly limited franchise, restricted to the middle and upper classes.) These were formed into cohorts, but with no legion level formations (to limit the potentail for rebellions), which were often assigned to support specfic legions.

axilia cohorts were either quingaria, or Milliary, with either 6 or 10 80 man centurys (480 or 800 men). cavalry were formed into "ala" ("wing"), with the same names for different sizes, and strenghts of 512 and 768, formed into units of 30 men.

thier were also "mixed" cohorts, which were foot cohorts with 120 or 240 cavalry attached to them.

Yora

2011-02-07, 06:03 AM

Other main weapon would be at least 2 pilum, so heavy javelins, although one would be probably heavier than the other - one for general throwing, second for throwing almost at point blank.
Which one for which role?

Storm Bringer

2011-02-07, 11:28 AM

the heaiver one for point blank throws, the ide being to trade range for power.

Yora

2011-02-07, 05:10 PM

Kalaska'Agathas

2011-02-07, 05:14 PM

Would have been my guess, but I was unsure if you need the extra mass for effective penetration at long range.

But a completely different question: What's the advantage of gas operated reloading mechanism? Is it used just because modern rifles include more and heavier parts (or less powerful rounds)?

Gas operated as opposed to what sort of operation? A typical gas operated rifle will be cheaper than, say, a roller delayed blow-back operated rifle, due to the smaller amount of machining necessary.

Spiryt

2011-02-07, 05:15 PM

Would have been my guess, but I was unsure if you need the extra mass for effective penetration at long range.

Definitely more mass would mean more penetration, the trick is throwing it that far, if it's heavy. :smallwink:

But a completely different question: What's the advantage of gas operated reloading mechanism? Is it used just because modern rifles include more and heavier parts (or less powerful rounds)?

Well, because it does in the proverbial blink of eye what you would otherwise had to do manually?

Not that I really know much about guns, mind you.

fusilier

2011-02-07, 06:16 PM

Thanks fusilier, but I'm looking not into how many fighters are in a lance, but how many lances are in a banner.... if you will. Any idea?

G.

5 lances formed a post. 5 posts formed a squadron (25 lances). A band (bandiera) was between 50 and 100 lances. (From Osprey)

GURPS Hot Spots: Renaissance Florence: describes a squadron as being 20 to 25 lances, and implies that a post could be five or six lances strong. A formation of 8-10 squadrons would be commanded by a Colonello. This is late 15th century organization. GURPS Hot Spots: Renaissance Florence, relies on Mercenaries and their Masters. I do not have that book in front of me, but they seem to be in general agreement.

Norsesmithy

2011-02-07, 11:33 PM

Gas operated as opposed to what sort of operation? A typical gas operated rifle will be cheaper than, say, a roller delayed blow-back operated rifle, due to the smaller amount of machining necessary.

Not really. Roller Delayed blowback is only expensive when you do it like the Swiss did with the 510. G3s were WAY cheaper than FALs or M14s (both gas operated).

Actually G3s were basically disposable.

The reason why you pick Gas operated is that is is the most reliable and forgiving method of operation. Roller delayed blowback (and again, excluding the Sig 510, which was made to a whole different level of precision and individual tuning) is much weaker than gas operation, it requires a somewhat contradictory set of operating characteristics to function reliably, leading to a number of compromises and shortcuts in construction.

Which is why it's so hard, comparatively, to charge a G3, and the G3 needs a fluted chamber to function properly, and why the G3 tends to hurt a person much worse after a failure than a different weapon.

The principle advantage is a free floated barrel, but when you've got a system that starts to unlock before the bullet leaves the barrel, and a freaking terrible trigger, it doesn't do you much good.

Oh, and cheap, G3s are CHEAP.

fusilier

2011-02-08, 12:38 PM

Galloglaich-

Was the information what you were looking for? Unfortunately, there are serious caveats here, because the size and organization of a lance could vary considerably: French lances could be larger and include crossbowmen on foot. If I had to hazard a guess, an Italian "bandiera" would be the equivalent of a "banner" (given the similarity of the words), but I cannot say that the organization was actually the same.

Even within Italy, these numbers could vary considerably over short periods of time, and distance. Furthermore the condotta rarely specified the number of men, just the number of lances. Sometimes they did specify both, however, which helps give an idea of the size of a lance at least.

Grey Paladin

2011-02-08, 12:44 PM

Which weapon outranged the other: A german-style zweihander or a Dane Axe (AKA Hafted Axe/Long Axe)?

How about the much-shorter Claymore, as opposed to the Dane Axe?

Spiryt

2011-02-08, 01:02 PM

Which weapon outranged the other: A german-style zweihander or a Dane Axe (AKA Hafted Axe/Long Axe)?

How about the much-shorter Claymore, as opposed to the Dane Axe?

The answer to such question would be quite problematic.

Would depend on what one means "by outranged" (by what kind of strike, what amount of control, quickness and all), individual situation, and, obviously, individual weapons.

Bidenhänder, or "zweihanders" had huge variety of lenght and blade lenghts configurations, and as far as Dane Axes or general early medieval two handed axes go, we don't really know well how long they were, as most of the hafts were unavoidably perished.

But generally, sword will offer more range, especially with adequate wielding.

Hacking, slicing or batting anything with axe, lunging at very full range haft can offer will generally tend to be very awkward and hard - one generally would hold one hand closer to the middle of the shaft, at least at some point.

With sword you obviously generally can place hands close to the very pommel and attack from afar.

Kalaska'Agathas

2011-02-08, 01:20 PM

Not really. Roller Delayed blowback is only expensive when you do it like the Swiss did with the 510. G3s were WAY cheaper than FALs or M14s (both gas operated).

Actually G3s were basically disposable.

The reason why you pick Gas operated is that is is the most reliable and forgiving method of operation. Roller delayed blowback (and again, excluding the Sig 510, which was made to a whole different level of precision and individual tuning) is much weaker than gas operation, it requires a somewhat contradictory set of operating characteristics to function reliably, leading to a number of compromises and shortcuts in construction.

Which is why it's so hard, comparatively, to charge a G3, and the G3 needs a fluted chamber to function properly, and why the G3 tends to hurt a person much worse after a failure than a different weapon.

The principle advantage is a free floated barrel, but when you've got a system that starts to unlock before the bullet leaves the barrel, and a freaking terrible trigger, it doesn't do you much good.

Oh, and cheap, G3s are CHEAP.

Are you sure G3s are cheap? They easily out cost AR pattern rifles where I live (the United States), and those are clones - actual H&K manufactured G3s would be even more expensive!

That said, it may only be more expensive when you're not arming entire regiments with them, economics of scale being what it is.

If I could ask a somewhat related question - what functional differences are there between a tilting bolt versus a rotating bolt?

Grey Paladin

2011-02-08, 01:50 PM

Spiryt

2011-02-08, 02:24 PM

Thanks for the answer.
The Dane axe is half-way to a polearm in length according to some sources I've read, while the two-handed swords themselves were almost-always used while half-swording, further shortening the grip, hence the dilemma.

I don't think that there's anyone who can really claim how they were mostly handed. Either way has it's uses, and there's not too much info either.

http://images.vadis.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/orig/RVGheAoKCqEAACJ9Iac63/2.jpeg?et=nX5pjV5LhT1X1098RZQxCA

And, well "half way to polearm" is also very vague, as polearms came into many many different sizes. :smallwink:

Maclav

2011-02-08, 03:36 PM

It's all about context. As mentioned above.

Are we talking a duel? In harness? What kind and how much? When? Formations? Skirmish? What weapons, exactly? Why are you asking?

Just too many questions and, even once answered won't likely give you a definitive answer.

Which weapon outranged the other: A german-style zweihander or a Dane Axe (AKA Hafted Axe/Long Axe)?

How about the much-shorter Claymore, as opposed to the Dane Axe?

Norsesmithy

2011-02-08, 09:57 PM

Are you sure G3s are cheap? They easily out cost AR pattern rifles where I live (the United States), and those are clones - actual H&K manufactured G3s would be even more expensive!

That said, it may only be more expensive when you're not arming entire regiments with them, economics of scale being what it is.

If I could ask a somewhat related question - what functional differences are there between a tilting bolt versus a rotating bolt?

That's an economy of scale, there are really only three sources for G3 pattern rifles in the United states, used HKs (and HKs were always over priced, because they hate civilian sales), Century Arms(which are actually pretty cheap, cheaper than an AR, but Century employs drunken monkeys to assemble their stuff, so it doesn't always work), and PTR-91, which is a small volume manufacturer of several licensed HK designs. Compare than to the more than 30 companies that manufacture AR-15s and derivatives, and compare the total sales volume, and it's easy to see why the street price on an AR is cheaper than the street price on a G-3 clone.

A rotating bolt rotates along the bore axis to unlock, a tilting bolt tilts on an axis perpendicular to the bore to unlock. Tilt bolt can take up less room, rotating bolt is stronger. Some bolts rotate and then tilt as they retract, and these rifles will be called rotating bolt or tilt bolt depending on who you ask.

Autolykos

2011-02-09, 01:50 PM

Storm Bringer

2011-02-09, 02:03 PM

if someone made the custom cold loaded ammo, weapon and such, I can´t think of a reason why not. if hes firing any distance, might want to take the shot form the prone, and he´s going to have bruised shoulders firing that beast, but it might work,

I Am Not A Gunsmith, though.

Galloglaich

2011-02-09, 04:07 PM

Thanks for the answer.
The Dane axe is half-way to a polearm in length according to some sources I've read, while the two-handed swords themselves were almost-always used while half-swording, further shortening the grip, hence the dilemma.

Zweihanders were not only used while half-swording that is incorrect.

They don't know the length of Danish axes for sure because the hafts of weapons that old (1000 years +) have deteriorated but from period art they don't appear more than five feet long, typically more like four feet. A zweihander is closer to six feet or more.

But there were larger axes, the sparth axe of Scotland which was probably descended from the Danish axe, which was up to six feet or more, and the very similar Berdyche of Eastern Europe (also seen in Italy) which was a similar size.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Bardiche.jpg
Half-swording and very similar half-staff techniques used with polearms were for fighting at close range (when that became necessary by circumstances), but these weapons were initially used at long range. That is why they were made large, for the reach advantage.

While we don't have fencing manuals with zwiehanders per se, we do have a great deal of material on very similar five foot or so greatswords of the 16th Century in several fencing manuals.

G.

Norsesmithy

2011-02-09, 04:54 PM

If someone wanted to create a very high-powered silenced rifle (for when .510 Whisper is just not enough - like, say, shooting a rhino in the face), would it be feasible to use a subsonic load in a 4-bore (or even 2-bore)? Could this be efficiently silenced and fired from the shoulder by a well-trained person (physics says a slightly subsonic 250g projectile should have about half the kinetic energy and double the momentum of a .50 BMG bullet - is there anything I overlooked)?
If not, what would probably be the largest caliber to allow for this (and could it be done by a well-equipped gunsmith)?

Sure, it'd work. Germany actually has suppressors for their 155 mm Howitzers, in order to make nice with the people who moved next to their firing ranges.

BUT due to the diameter of the bore, you'd need a long suppressor, and due to the volume of gas produced by dangerous game cartridges you'd need a large suppressor.

So it'd be awfully big. Still probably something a person could port and use themselves.

if someone made the custom cold loaded ammo, weapon and such, I can´t think of a reason why not. if hes firing any distance, might want to take the shot form the prone, and he´s going to have bruised shoulders firing that beast, but it might work,

I Am Not A Gunsmith, though. Going prone with a dangerous game rifle is the last thing you want to do. Those big guns will push you back rather harshly, but so long as your body can move, they don't hurt that bad.

But if you went prone, you'd take all the "give" out of your stance, and break your collarbone.

Fortinbras

2011-02-09, 10:39 PM

Does anybody know if a warhammer with a sledge hammer shaped head was ever used in battle.

Knaight

2011-02-09, 11:13 PM

Does anybody know if a warhammer with a sledge hammer shaped head was ever used in battle.

One can safely assume that someone has, at some point, been forced to use something with a sledge hammer shaped head in self defense, I personally can state with near certianity that I have seen news reports of attacks performed with sledge hammers. However, it is a horrible* design in regards to practicality and usability, leading me to suspect it was never developed for deliberate battlefield use. I currently have no evidence to the contrary.

*The extent to which this is understatement cannot be overstated.

Fhaolan

2011-02-09, 11:27 PM

Does anybody know if a warhammer with a sledge hammer shaped head was ever used in battle.

No.

The only exception that I am aware of was wooden mallets used as improvised weapons by archers on enemy soldiers that had already fallen but weren't quite dead yet. It was not their intended use, and didn't work very well.

This is because the specific design of a sledge or mallet is meant to distribute force across a relatively wide area. Very good when used as a tool when the target doesn't move in any way. As a weapon, however, they don't work so well. They have poor penetration due to the force-spreading, and in order to have the mass to make up for it, the weapon becomes so slow to use as to be pointless.

Karoht

2011-02-10, 12:04 AM

We used to have a guy named Ian in our swordfighting group. He was tall, semi-lankey. Looked fiersome with pretty much any two-handed weapon you gave him.
Anyway, one of our crew had made a wooden sledge maul for driving tent pegs. Mostly to match the rest of the kit, rather than using a modern hammer. It was a rounded log on the end of a haft, and the log was wrapped in a thin slip of pigskin leather.
Well, Ian and I had a very messed up relationship. He liked to pretend hurt people with various throws, kicks, punches, and sword strikes. Me? I liked to act up these 'injuries' to the point where most people thought I was seriously and greviously injured. Somehow in all of this, I earned the nickname of Pell.

Then one day, Ian picks up 'the maul' as it had been named. And grins from ear to ear. All I heard was 'heeeeeeaar Pell pell pell.' Let me tell you, I was running. Everyone laughed. I'm not a tall person, not short either. But compaired to Ian, he was a giant pursuing a runt. For some stupid reason, I ran on stage with him hot on my heels, just as another fight ended. Crowd laughed a minute, then cheered.
I want to emphasize that we had rehearsed precisely nothing of what followed.
He ran at me, I'd dive roll out of the way, the maul smashing a divot into the ground where I'd just been. He'd swing head level, I'd duck and roll under it. Crowd loved it. We kept this going for a few minutes until finally I realised I had a dagger on my belt, so I drew it. The blade was all of 3 inches, if that. The crowd laughed. We made a few more passes, I made it look like I hit him or very close many times. Crowd is just eating this up. Finally, at the crowds insistance, instead of running away, I run towards him. Well, this is where it went bad for me. He basically did a golf-swing, when I was expecting a horizontal.

I was already down pretty low and I fully expected to get the maul in the face. I turned my shoulder away from the blow, he hit me square in the right pectoral, and managed to pull most of the blow. Now my feet were already planted from trying to dodge past him. So I leapt up with the blow. I flew back signifigantly farther than I expected that force to propel me, I'll tell you. We use a ring that is about 60 feet in diameter. I went from almost the edge of the ring on one side, to clear across the ring to the other side.
So I started getting up slowly, extra slow to make it look like I was hurt. He comes running up, plants a foot in my abdominal area, perfectly. I ragdoll, people think he seriously kicked my guts in. He give me a few of these as I try to get up. Finally, he just plants his foot on my back between my shoulders. Crowd cheers his victory.

What I heard next, gave me the biggest jolt of adrenaline I've ever experienced in my life. I heard the 'whoosh' sound of the maul, as he swung it back behind himself. I knew he was going to bring it down on me as a finishing blow. I think he expected me to roll away at the last second or something. I played dead, though at the same time wondering how well he'd be able to pull the blow. The answer was, not very well.

It hit me on my right side, just to the side of the spine. I felt the force hit me, I'm pretty sure my rib cage flexed. It actually sprung me about a good foot and a half into the air for a moment. Best part, we got this all on video.
Now, landing on the ground after the blow was actually the most painful part, because I did land face first. The impact to my back was actually not that big a deal. Not even a bruise.
They dragged me back to the med tent, I played dead.

The whole thing was so convincing, that people ran to get the medical staff at the event. They came over to ask about me. I was fine.

As for Ian? Utterly winded. It took everything he had to keep that thing going, just because it's so top heavy. Only 3-4 pounds.
As to it's effect as a weapon? Yeah, the force is very spread out. Great for sending someone flying off their feet, great for driving tent pegs, not actually that great for hurting someone. I'd like to point out that I was in nothing more than cloth kit, and sustained no injuries from any impact. Which, in and of itself was a miracle, because that was by and far the most unsafe thing our group had EVER done, and had EVER done since.

Still, the best Highland Games ever. It was the same year I discovered that Scotsmen are VERY good at throwing Cabers after a few belts of scotch. It was the same year that a caber very nearly hit my van after being thrown by an inebriated Scotsman.

Fortinbras

2011-02-11, 01:35 AM

couple of pole arms questions.

1. The Macedonians were famous for phalanxes made up of men with absurdly long pikes and shields, if they were able to do it, what didn't pole arm formations use shields latter on, it seems like they would be a big advantage for soldiers being attacked with missile weapons.

2. Did infantry with two handed pole arms have any real defense against archers?

3. What advantages did formations of shorter pole arms such as halberds have over pikes? Would a formation of halberdiers have any chance against pike-men?

4. Is there an record of a means of carrying extra javelins other that in the off hand?

Storm Bringer

2011-02-11, 02:32 AM

1. The Macedonians were famous for phalanxes made up of men with absurdly long pikes and shields, if they were able to do it, what didn't pole arm formations use shields latter on, it seems like they would be a big advantage for soldiers being attacked with missile weapons.

they were carrying small shields suitable for use in melee, when the enemy got past the point of the pike, not big arrow-blocking ones like the greek hoplite phalanx.

also, later pikemen had better access to arrow proof armour, which the macedonians didn't have (though the swiss were known to use units of pikemen completely without armour, and rely on their superior speed and endurance)

2. Did infantry with two handed pole arms have any real defense against archers?

good, steel armour and helmet. other than that, no, thiers not much you can do against archers in a formation like that.

3. What advantages did formations of shorter pole arms such as halberds have over pikes? Would a formation of halberdiers have any chance against pike-men?

the same advantage everyone else had over pikes: if you got past the points, the pikes were useless.

the advantage of a halberd was that it was long enough to keep a horseman out of swords reach, but short enough that you could use it one on one with someone and not worry too much about him getting inside your reach.

in an open feild battle, the halberdiers would need to get close, past the points (difficult, but doable), then once they are in, they can attack the pikemen with ease, as the pikemen could not strike, as you are inside the reach of his pike, but outside the reach of his sword (if he has one. based on the comments of other posters on this threads predecessors, the front rank would kneel, bace their pikes agianst their back foot, and draw swords when they were set to recieve a charge.)

4. Is there an record of a means of carrying extra javelins other that in the off hand?

not seen anything historical, but a case or quiver like object is not out of the question.

fusilier

2011-02-11, 04:44 AM

in an open feild battle, the halberdiers would need to get close, past the points (difficult, but doable), then once they are in, they can attack the pikemen with ease, as the pikemen could not strike, as you are inside the reach of his pike, but outside the reach of his sword (if he has one. based on the comments of other posters on this threads predecessors, the front rank would kneel, bace their pikes agianst their back foot, and draw swords when they were set to recieve a charge.)

That's a position to take against cavalry, not infantry. The point of the pike will be too high. Also, keep in mind that it's not just one rank of pikes you have to get by, typically at least three ranks would level their pikes. The Swiss appear to have different positions for different ranks.

I seem to recall that heavily armored pikemen in the early 16th century sometimes had a special round shield that strapped to the arm in such a way that their hands could still be used to hold their pikes. But I can't find any reference at the moment.

Fortinbras, you can get better reach if you use two hands with a pike. A Macedonian phalanx is depicted as holding their spears near the center of gravity. Whereas Renaissance pikemen hold them with the left hand close to the body, and the right hand on the butt of pike. The right arm is fully extended back.

Thane of Fife

2011-02-11, 08:56 AM

2. Did infantry with two handed pole arms have any real defense against archers?

I seem to recall reading somewhere, recently, that, say, a Macedonian Phalanx would point their rear pikes upwards tightly enough to deflect enemy arrows (not completely, but hopefully enough to improve the effectiveness of their armor)

I don't know how accurate that is, but there are a lot of references to it out there.

LordBlades

2011-02-11, 09:05 AM

I seem to recall reading somewhere, recently, that, say, a Macedonian Phalanx would point their rear pikes upwards tightly enough to deflect enemy arrows (not completely, but hopefully enough to improve the effectiveness of their armor)

I don't know how accurate that is, but there are a lot of references to it out there.

It's pretty accurate AFAIK. Only the first 5 ranks of the Macedonian phalanx were supposed to lower their pikes (the ones that could reach past the first rank) while the last ranks would keep them at a 45 degree angle upward, to provide some arrow deflection.

It seemed quite effective TBH (not necessarily the pikes thing, but the general equipment and formation) as I can't really recall of any instance of a phalanx being severely inconvenienced by missile fire from the front.

Spiryt

2011-02-11, 09:56 AM

2. Did infantry with two handed pole arms have any real defense against archers?

Quite often, best defense was attack. :smallwink:

During a lot of Burgundian Wars, Swiss pikemen, had taken battles by charges of their pike blocks in deep formations, accompanied by skirmishers and sounds of drums.

Usually well timed, when cavalry had moved away from the field...

fusilier

2011-02-11, 01:00 PM

Ok, so a friend of mine got sucked into a rather ugly argument on this subject, and I thought I would ask the knowledgeable people here about it.

Historical basis for test cutting?

Is there a historical basis for test cutting in the medieval/renaissance period? One person emphatically says no, that it was never part of any training, and I think his argument is based on manuals like Talhoffer and they don't mention it.

My initial response to this is: that's not surprising. What little I've seen of those manuals (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), they're primarily concerned with teaching a fighting style itself -- not other forms of training that soldiers must of performed. My initial thought about researching this was to go out of the box: look for observations on how soldiers trained from contemporaries outside of the martial establishment. As people inside such establishments often fail to mention things that are common place and routine. But the internet is so inundated with sword manuals that I don't really know how to go about such a search.

There's another side to his argument that has to do with Japan, and tameshigiri (his argument is that it is basically a post Meiji restoration practice and Samurai never did it as part of training). I think he has relied too much on one source and is simply dismissive of other authorities my friend has pointed out to him.

There seems to be some good arguments for practicing cutting, although there are also caveats, and I can certainly see where too much focus on cutting could lead to habits that are bad in a fight. But, I'm interested in the historical record, not current logical reasons for and against.

I did find a mention online to Arab/Middle Eastern sources that suggested practice cutting using melons and clay pots, but there was no reference given.

Thanks in advance (and I really hope I'm not opening up a large can of worms with this question).

Karoht

2011-02-11, 05:42 PM

I did find a mention online to Arab/Middle Eastern sources that suggested practice cutting using melons and clay pots, but there was no reference given.
Interesting. That means that my commercial could be considered a possibly authentic test cutting.
Also, I just got a call today from the advertising company, they'll be running my other commercial in late summer early fall. This is the one were I'm just doing the kata, though apparently the put it to some medieval music.

Now that aside, test cutting with a sword, as far as training goes, might not be authentic, or at least we might have extreme difficulty finding evidence.
Supposedly sword smiths used to test cut with their finished product. There are tales of the Japanese piling up corpses to test a sword. Though I personally have never seen a good source on this and therefore doubt the authenticity. This could also be derivative of certain tempering/quenching methods which then was misinterpreted as test cutting. I've heard of blood quenching a sword a few times, possibly even on this forum. Depending on the method, I could see that being misinterpreted.

I'm extremely curious to know the facts now.

Matthew

2011-02-16, 10:42 AM

Matthew

2011-02-16, 10:53 AM

They don't know the length of Danish axes for sure because the hafts of weapons that old (1000 years +) have deteriorated but from period art they don't appear more than five feet long, typically more like four feet. A zweihander is closer to six feet or more.

I think there is supposed to be some Byzantine art that shows a Varangian Guard with a Dane Axe that is as tall as he is, but yeah exceptional. Short hafted polearms/axes seem to run the range from 4 ft upwards, maybe as long as 7 ft, but that is a classification issue, I guess.

randomhero00

2011-02-19, 04:54 PM

Yora

2011-02-19, 05:17 PM

randomhero00

2011-02-19, 05:24 PM

Well, if you take away firearms, it really comes down to impalement, cuts, and blunt trauma. And blunt trauma protection is pretty much what riot gear is for. But I think knives would get very easily through the gaps if you can wrestle your opponent down, so such ways of fighting would soon become very popular again. Which brings us pretty much back to the same point as late plate armor. I think some people here know quite a bit what weapons where used to get through armor like that.

Hmm, you do realize a real sword will slice right through any riot protection? At least I'm almost positive of what I know of from police, and composite materials. But I mean a real sword, someone who actually knows how to make them. Not a factory model. A real sword can cut someone from the shoulder, diagonally to the waist.

Even if that's not true there's a ton of SCAers who know how to get around a shield, or a shield wall. I'd imagine they'd be hired as consultants pretty quick.

Edit: the more I think of this...the better the world seems don't you think? No more pushing a button and having no care for the casualties they cause. No more world ending nuclear holocaust hanging over our heads. No more kids with guns shooting up the schools. Sure they might get swords but they'd be stopped way sooner. Plus swords and shields are a lot bulkier. Almost no concealed carry concerns anymore except for really short range daggers. ...hmm a man can wish...

Autolykos

2011-02-19, 06:11 PM

Well, you should remember that the "world ending nuclear holocaust hanging over our heads" practically means the end of full-scale wars between major powers (since the only winning move is not to play...). We've had more than 50 years of peace in western Europe - which is more than unusual comapred to the last millenia...
Also, the losses in single battles tend to decrease, not increase, with technological advancement - mainly because less soldiers per kilometer of front line are needed.
EDIT: Another nitpick: Losing all firearms would be no more than a temporary setback - mankind has always been pretty creative in finding new ways to kill each other. You'd be surprised how soon we'd have practical railguns/coilguns (and perhaps portable chemical lasers) after that...

Eldan

2011-02-24, 09:43 PM

There's already railgun testing. So far, they just don't do much that's effective, but I'd assume they are still better than crossbows if you don't have firearms anymore.

Still. I'd assume that not much beats the classic setup of padding, chain, plate. We probably hvae better metal, and better cloth for padding, but the basic model is sound.

Fhaolan

2011-02-25, 02:22 AM

If we were to suddenly lose all modern offense/firearms (i.e. we'd be fighting vs maces and swords) what would the armor be made from? In other words, modern armor, but not for bullets.

I'd guess composite steal. Though it'd be pretty heavy, at least 50lbs (I've seen real suits). But there's a lot of stuff out there. Like titanium compounds. I forget why, but I think that makes very bad armor. like its too brittle or something.

Yes, late period full harness weighs about 40-50 lbs. Unfortunately, modern reproduction of full harness weighs about 70-80 lbs, because of cost. To keep costs down, modern armourers mostly use rolled steel which means the steel is a consistant thickness at all points. Hand-forged means plates can be of variant thickness, going thick at required points and thin where it isn't needed. Then you heat-treat and temper accordingly.

If you have the tech to do it right, currently ceramic composites are the best stuff for armour, even against blades and impact. Serious modern armour uses ceramic plates for reinforcement with a kevlar (or similar) base, basically making the equivalent to a coat-of-plates with modern materials.

Titanium is brittle, as you say. Titanium-steel alloys can be quite good, but there's a funny issue with Titanium, similar to Aluminum. Both are technically harder than steel by weight. However, both are also much less dense than steel. To get the same 'strength' with Titanium (or Aluminum) as Steel, it has to have quite a lot more volume. It will still be lighter, but it will take up a lot more room. That's okay when you're dealing with things as big as tanks, ships, etc., but smaller items like human armour or weapons it becomes *very* noticable.

Autolykos

2011-02-27, 04:40 PM

Well, I assume that the only situation in which you'd have to use medieval weapons and tactics while having access to modern technology is when you travel to another planet/universe (or time-travel) and don't want to give the guys you fight access to your nifty tech - it's certainly possible to rebuild a rifle once you've had the chance to study a working example, but replicating modern materials would require a huge industrial base which a medieval world would have no chance to build from scratch.
On a side note: Isn't (full-body) mail pretty much obsolete once you have good plate armor? It might be used to cover spots that need to be flexible, but sufficiently thick Kevlar should do that job better (both are somewhat vulnerable to stabbing, nearly invulnerable to cutting and offer some protection from blunt trauma when worn with sufficient padding).
All in all, I would not expect wonders from modern materials. It might be slightly lighter for the same strength and cheaper/easier to mass-produce, but it won't make you invulnerable to medieval weapons.

There's already railgun testing. So far, they just don't do much that's effective, but I'd assume they are still better than crossbows if you don't have firearms anymore.
I know about the testing, that's why I made this claim. However, as you hinted yourself, they are far from practical (compared to firearms/gunpowder artillery) and not very portable, but might do in a pinch.

Yora

2011-02-27, 04:43 PM

I think you need fairly high quality material to make large plates of steel and quite some experience and a good workshop to make them right.
With maile, you have much smaller individual pieces, which are much simpler to make, so I guess you can still make a pretty decent maile armor even if you don't have the skill and right material to make plate armor. And cheaper material and less skilled workers always mean lower prices.

Spamotron

2011-02-27, 04:56 PM

If you were to make a custom set of super heavy armor for say a mythic hero who could say "armor weight, what's that?" How thick could the armor get before said thickness made it impractical to move in?

Yora

2011-02-27, 04:59 PM

There's one rule of thumb that goes like "given the choice, soldiers will always take as much protection as they can".
So I'd look at the heaviest suits of armor known to actually been worn in battle, and take that weight. Armorsmiths will most likely have experimented with making heavier armor, but it would have been with the knights to say at what point it becomes more of a burden than a help.

Doing some googling brings up the number of about 30 kg. Heavier examples do exist, but they were not used in combat.

Spiryt

2011-02-27, 05:34 PM

With maile, you have much smaller individual pieces, which are much simpler to make, so I guess you can still make a pretty decent maile armor even if you don't have the skill and right material to make plate armor. And cheaper material and less skilled workers always mean lower prices.

Mail was actually getting very expensive in 15th century. Because of amount of individual work, while other stuff could be a bit more "automatized".

Anyway, mail was flexible, light, fitting and so many other goodness. :smallbiggrin:

Many riders wore it in Poland, let alone further east, up to the 18th century.

Of course, it cannot be considered "full amour" in this regard solid plates generally proved superior and dominated as long as complete suits of armor to battle and battle alone where even being worn.

Fortinbras

2011-03-07, 07:38 PM

From what I can tell, the initial Norman cavalry charge at hastings was beaten back by tightly massed saxon housekarls armed with Dane axes.

I was wondering how you would use an enormous axe like that if you were fighting in formation?

Maclav

2011-03-08, 08:21 AM

Most of the axes depicted in the Bayeux tapestry are 3-4 feet long. A far cry from the fantasied up 8-10 foot monstrosities conjured up in mental images. The tapestry also tends to show the axemen mixed with spear and shield men in formation. But the simple answer is we don't have much information to go on as to how they were used and any guesses are conjecture.

Incanur

2011-03-08, 08:44 AM

In the sixteenth century, Sir John Smythe wrote that halberds of five and half to six feet in length functioned flawlessly in formation with skilled operators. He suggested blow at the head and thrust at the face. Danes would have been used somewhat differently, of course, but that shows the ability to employ such weapons in close order.

Eldan

2011-03-08, 09:01 AM

There's old murals on buildings here of halberd formations, so that part at least seems to be true, given what the Swiss were famous for (halberdiers and pike formations).

Tyndmyr

2011-03-08, 11:25 AM

Vertical blows and/or stabs work pretty well in a formation even with a fairly lengthy weapon. Sure, the typical image of a barbarian type fellow is with a ridiculously giant axe, sweeping it in a massive semicircle around him, but I doubt that was actually something that saw significant use in formations. Just wouldn't work out well.

Axes are great for going around/through shields, though. I would guess that'd be their main role in a formation. Crack the shield wall asap.

Yora

2011-03-08, 05:31 PM

Not a fact, but an interesting observation:

Three weeks ago was the 100. anniversary of the Browning M1911 being registered for patent.
That's really impressive. Hundreds if not thousands of new handguns have been designed since then, but it seems to have aged extremely well and it's still in use with some police and military forces.

Okay, it's just a handgun, that's a relatively simple piece of equipment. But in 7 more years it will also be the 100. anniversary of the Browning M2. Which I believe is still one if not the most widely used heavy machine gun in the world.

That guy really knew what he was doing. :smallbiggrin:
Expert with Craft maxed out and Skill Focus.

fusilier

2011-03-09, 12:30 AM

I think the Browning M2 was introduced in 1921 (although it was designed in 1918)? So another ten years on that one. :-) The M1919 Browning is very similar in appearance but is .30-06.

M1911 Colt is a considerable success and a very long lived weapon.

Coidzor

2011-03-11, 11:13 AM

Spiryt

2011-03-12, 05:17 AM

What width are the shafts of boar spears generally? What about personal, non-reach spears, such as the kind that could be wielded along with a shield?

And are the spear tips typically about the same width as the shaft or wider?

I think you would have to bee more specific...

And "non-reach" is way to D&Dic.... Every spear has some reach, you can also change it by grabbing the wood in different parts. :smallwink:

And as far as width and proportion, it would obviously vary wildly, often even in one place at one time.

And if by 'tips' you mean whole spearheads, then it can be said than in most cases they would by way wider than the shafts at least at the beginning.

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_spear.htm

lesser_minion

2011-03-13, 07:37 PM

Spiryt

2011-03-14, 06:28 AM

If, while fighting with swords, your opponent is retreating carefully (i.e. giving up ground continuously while still paying attention to you and even trading blows occasionally), how hard does this make things? How might you deal with such an opponent?

And how does this change when using weapons and martial arts other than swords/fencing?

I'm pretty sure this kind of scenario is a staple of cinema, and I'm pretty sure that it actually is a pretty standard technique for not dying when fighting someone who's better than you, but I'd like to make sure.

It depends on thousands of things, from psychophysical traits of given humans to terrain.

Generally yes, obviously, engaging opponent who doesn't want to engage at all can be difficult. Can be see many times in MMA, Boxing, Kickboxing or generally any full contact combat sport. May search some examples later if needed. :smallwink:

However, as far as sword fighting goes, guys like Liechtenauer, or, for that matter, many fencing teachers, were pretty openly stating, that who has initiative and presses the attack, without allowing enemy to regain it, has great advantage.

It can be easily understood, even because if you are fighting without weapons or even some kind of staff or truncheons, even if you receive some blow, you can still try to continue and counterattack, which is hard to do while you are leaking.

When you introduce some armor to sword fight, what you describe can become more viable again - even if it's just torso armor, possibilities of one strike that can change everything become lower.

Autolykos

2011-03-14, 01:26 PM

Once you start retreating, you'll have a hard time regaining initiative again, especially against a superior opponent. So this tactic would only be viable when you expect help and try to distract your opponent or play for time (say, you just landed a lucky blow and wait for your opponent to collapse - which can take minutes even with potentially fatal hits).
Under most other circumstances, this tactic will make you harder to hit, but won't help you win the fight on your own.

Fhaolan

2011-03-14, 02:04 PM

Yeah, it helps you play for time, but that's about it. And even then, it's tricky to do in reality. Try backing up the stairs while someones hitting you with a pillow. No, better not, you can easily fall and hurt youself. Even backing around a room means you'll likely be tripping over things or bumping into stuff.

Raum

2011-03-14, 04:44 PM

Autolykos

2011-03-17, 11:52 AM

Another point: Musashi actually suggests a fighting retreat when faced with multiple opponents (so they have a harder time flanking/encircling). But then, being faced with multiple (competent) opponents is already a losing position, and playing for time and landing lucky blows is pretty much the best one could hope for.

Karoht

2011-03-17, 12:05 PM

What I do when ever I have multiple opponets to face is try to position myself so that they have to approach me one at a time. Then it's an equasion I can solve. 1 v 1 = dead. 1 v 2 = me dead. Etc.

Fhaolan

2011-03-18, 12:49 AM

Incanur

2011-03-18, 09:36 PM

The details of fighting multiple opponents depend on whom you believe and what weapons each combatant wields. Most pessimistically, seventh-century fencing master Joseph Swetnam dismissed the possibility one defeating two in the open. However, he acknowledged that a single skilled swordsmen could hold off many in a narrow place such as an alley. Other authors gave two-handed swords and staff weapons the ability to overcome the odds. George Silver, Swetnam's contemporary, wrote that the short staff (effectively an 8-9ft spear) had the odds against two men armed with swords and daggers. The Iberian montante (a two-handed sword) material focuses on facing multiple opponents. Italian masters Vadi and di Grassi suggest using the cut over the thrust for this fight. The German martial artist Doebringer has particularly amusing (http://216-139-212-3.aus.us.siteprotect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20312&sid=b8ed078a8090259c8bf598049b5025bf) comments on the matter.

Preventing the mob from surrounding you does emerge as key. This can be accomplish by movement, terrain, and/or weapon reach.

Knaight

2011-03-20, 08:14 PM

That's a standard multi-person combat technique in all 'systems', be it oriental martial arts, western fence, modern armed combat, or whatever. Use movement, terrain, and your opponents positioning to turn the combat into a series of 1-1 fights. Never, *ever* engage two or more opponents simultaneously, no matter what the movies say.

While this does convey the necessary information decently, a few finer points are of note. When fighting multiple people you are pretty much guaranteed to be involved with several at once, and if they are any good you won't be finishing one off before having any contact with the others. What you want to do is make sure that all of them are on one side of you (being surrounded is pretty much a death sentence unless you have a ridiculous advantage along the lines of being very heavily armored and up against unarmored people with weapons that aren't very good against armor. Even then, you are in trouble), and make sure that only one of them is within their striking distance at any time.

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 11:57 AM

Swinging force vs handle length. What's the deal with this? How did our ancient ancestors say, ok, for a 1handed sword the blade should be 'x' long. But for something heavier like a 2handed hammer, it should only be 'x' long.

Is there an ideal handle length for each weapon? I am particularly curious to the things that have crossed over. Like axes and sledgehammers. Did their length remain the same from war to construction?

Or are they a one size fits all? Like if someone was super strong, their handle length would be significantly larger? What about short dude, but strong, or tall dude, but weak?

See what I'm trying to get at? Not all those questions need an answer. I'm just curious how efficiency/power was figured out for handles and if they stayed the same for modern times and such.

Yora

2011-03-21, 12:05 PM

I think it depends a lot on how the lethal end of the weapon is shaped and what techniques you use to weild it, which depends on what kind of opponents you face. Fighting against an unarmored opponent with a sabre is very different from fighting an opponent in plate armor with a broadsword (or whatever kinds of swords they used).
Axes and hammers work differently, of course, but I assume there are still lots of different ways to handle such weapons, which should affect how long a handle you need.

The length of sword blades had for a very long time been limited by advances in metalurgy. You probably could make a zweihänder in the early iron age. But forging a zweihänder that would not shatter as soon as it hits something requires much more refined methods in metalworking that were not discovered until much later. Shorter blades are less likely to shatter (I think it has something to do with resonance and tensile strength, or any such things engineers could tell more about :smallbiggrin: ), so older swords are generally much shorter than later ones.

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 12:10 PM

Axes and hammers work differently, of course, but I assume there are still lots of different ways to handle such weapons, which should affect how long a handle you need.

Maybe. But one thing is for certain, sledgehammers and fireaxes are a one size fits all. Now is that because of swinging force? Or they're just too lazy to make different sized ones for different people?

Yora

2011-03-21, 12:12 PM

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 12:21 PM

They are not. Tried to chip off small branches from a log with a fireaxe or putting a nail into the wall with a sledgehammer?

Fireaxes and sledgehammers are that size because they are used for targets that don't move. And in the case of a sledgehammer, time is usually not a factor so you can take as long as you want to line up your swing. For combat, they are completely useless because you just wouldn't hit anything.

So for combat they use lighter versions? Are they longer or shorter for combat?

I'm asking not only out of curiosity, but also because I'm in the SCA and want to make a weapon that hits as hard as possible.

Sacrieur

2011-03-21, 12:34 PM

Swinging force vs handle length. What's the deal with this? How did our ancient ancestors say, ok, for a 1handed sword the blade should be 'x' long. But for something heavier like a 2handed hammer, it should only be 'x' long.

Is there an ideal handle length for each weapon? I am particularly curious to the things that have crossed over. Like axes and sledgehammers. Did their length remain the same from war to construction?

Or are they a one size fits all? Like if someone was super strong, their handle length would be significantly larger? What about short dude, but strong, or tall dude, but weak?

See what I'm trying to get at? Not all those questions need an answer. I'm just curious how efficiency/power was figured out for handles and if they stayed the same for modern times and such.

Back in the day they didn't have as much knowledge as physics as we do now. A weapon that you swing has a number of components that could very well alter the force.

It has to do with something called torque.

http://mdmetric.com/tech/torqueB.gif

Torque is rotational force, and is found by multiplying force times distance from the fulcrum. As you can see in the picture above, they produce equal torques, because 20 lbs. * 1 ft. = 10 lbs. * 2 ft. This is known as a lever advantage.

For something such as an axe, a longer handle tends to be more ideal from the perspective of a downward swing. Since where your arms connect to your body, the shoulders are the fulcrum, meaning distance d is the distance from your shoulders to the axe head. Gravity will pull on the axe head and generate torque. Additionally, muscles will pull on bones in your arm. The distance will be very small, but the acceleration generated by the
muscles will be very great.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2004.web.dir/kelsey_alexander/work.jpg

This, however, is very easily an oversimplification since in any real combat will recruit many different muscles dynamically over the period of one swing. Because of this there really isn't an easy mathematical way to find optimal length. It's all up to personal preference.

---

Maybe. But one thing is for certain, sledgehammers and fireaxes are a one size fits all. Now is that because of swinging force? Or they're just too lazy to make different sized ones for different people?

It is much easier to design a one-size-fits-all hammer with machinery and manufacturing techniques than design custom made hammers.

Xuc Xac

2011-03-21, 12:43 PM

Swinging force vs handle length. What's the deal with this? How did our ancient ancestors say, ok, for a 1handed sword the blade should be 'x' long. But for something heavier like a 2handed hammer, it should only be 'x' long.

For the vast majority of the time humans made one-handed swords, they had little choice in the matter. If they made them too long, they would bend or break from the stress of being swung. A longer piece of metal allows for more force to be applied with leverage. That force is also applied to the sword itself. Just look at a piece of rebar on a construction site for an example. If it's 5m long, it bends fairly severely under it's own weight if you lift it up by one point. If it's only 30cm long, it's pretty stiff. A longer sword has more reach and can apply more force, but it's also heavier and that extra weight puts stress on the weapon itself in addition to making its wielder tired. I'm sure they figured out the balance between "long enough" and "too long" through trial and error very quickly.

Is there an ideal handle length for each weapon?

Yes. It depends on how you intend to use the weapon. It needs to be long enough to give you the leverage you need for the way you plan to swing it. It also needs to be short enough that it doesn't get in the way when you use it. Look at historical katanas for example. In wartime, they had long hilts for good two-handed leverage. In peacetime, they had short hilts so they would be comfortable and unobtrusive to carry tucked in your belt all day.

The weight and length of a weapon's handle will also change the center of gravity of the weapon. There are examples of swords that D&D would call "longsword" and "rapier". If you hold them in your hand and try to swing them around, the rapier blade feels lighter. If you put them on a scale and weigh them, the longsword is actually lighter. The rapier only feels lighter because the heavy hilt makes the center of gravity very close to the wielder's hand so the blade takes less effort to turn.

For chopping weapons like axes and hammers, you want the handle to be long enough to provide the benefit of extra leverage but not so long that its difficult to control. Remember that you apply the leverage to swing the head of the weapon, but the head of the weapon also applies that leverage against you to resist moving. Also, the poor lever caught in the middle can break from the stress if it's too long and the wood isn't supple enough.

I am particularly curious to the things that have crossed over. Like axes and sledgehammers. Did their length remain the same from war to construction?

No one ever used a sledgehammer as a weapon of war. The head of a war hammer was actually more like the size of the hammer you would use to pound small nails rather than a heavy sledge. The giant sledgehammer weapon is just for cartoons and MMOs. Likewise, battle axes were a lot lighter than a woodsman's ax: trees don't dodge, but they're made of wood which is much tougher than flesh, so you need a hefty blade to chop them up. If you're expecting the big double-bladed cartoon battle axe that looks like a sharpened traffic sign, then a real battle ax would look disappointingly puny.

Or are they a one size fits all? Like if someone was super strong, their handle length would be significantly larger? What about short dude, but strong, or tall dude, but weak?

It depends on how you intend to swing it and what material it's made of. Historically, most armed humans came in a very narrow range of sizes. We haven't had any halfling, giant, or dwarven weapons in real life.

Yora

2011-03-21, 12:48 PM

While a longer lever translates to a greater impact force, it also means a decrease in accuracy. Again using the example of a hammer, when putting a nail into a wall, you'll usually not hold the hammer by the very end of the 30 cm-handle, but rather at the middle or even higher. When holding the handle at a lower point, it becomes much more difficult to hit the nail. When you hold it right next to the head, you'll hit all the time, but you'll get almost no force into it.
So it comes down to the question how much force and how much accuracy you need. Having more of one means having less of the other, but in the end you'll need both. And I think it depends on whom you're fighting against and what techniques you're going to use against him.
When people give lengths like "as long as your forearm", it's always with a specific fighting style in mind. Also, this doesn't have to be the perfect size, just a good rule of thumb that produces good results for most people when you don't know how to calculate an individually optimal size.

Maclav

2011-03-21, 01:28 PM

So for combat they use lighter versions? Are they longer or shorter for combat?

I'm asking not only out of curiosity, but also because I'm in the SCA and want to make a weapon that hits as hard as possible.

Lighter, and more mobile. Real weapons look delicate and are graceful. The first rule of sword fighting is don't get hit.

Since this is a real world weapons thread, hitting as hard as possible is not the goal. Hitting to cause the most damage in the least time with the greatest ease without being hit in return is the goal. Doing that means aim and skill to put the weapon on a weak or unarmored location from safety with sufficient force. Not crushing blows denting plates of steel of questionable effect to the man while sacrificing all form of defense. Every historic western martial art has simple and effective methods of dealing with these types of attacks.

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 02:15 PM

Lighter, and more mobile. Real weapons look delicate and are graceful. The first rule of sword fighting is don't get hit.

Since this is a real world weapons thread, hitting as hard as possible is not the goal. Hitting to cause the most damage in the least time with the greatest ease without being hit in return is the goal. Doing that means aim and skill to put the weapon on a weak or unarmored location from safety with sufficient force. Not crushing blows denting plates of steel of questionable effect to the man while sacrificing all form of defense. Every historic western martial art has simple and effective methods of dealing with these types of attacks.

Except when mounted of course, but that changes all the rules.

Anyway, as far as the SCA goes, I already have a light, katana-like, two handed sword. I'm very fast. Now I'm looking for something a bit less accurate but will hit so hard the my opponents call a hit even if there sword was there *"touching") but not truly blocking.

Fhaolan

2011-03-21, 03:17 PM

Except when mounted of course, but that changes all the rules.

Anyway, as far as the SCA goes, I already have a light, katana-like, two handed sword. I'm very fast. Now I'm looking for something a bit less accurate but will hit so hard the my opponents call a hit even if there sword was there *"touching") but not truly blocking.

Polaxe/Bec-du-corbin/Bardiche/Halberd or similar thing for a historically realistic weapon that would likely suit your needs. Basically a 5-7' shaft (depending on your own reach and height), with a a two-sided 'head' (each of the sides being a hammer, axe, pick, or hook, depending on your specific style), just below a spear head. Might as well put a spike (a minor spear head) on the other end as well, just in case.

However, the SCA has some very specific things in their rules that will aim you towards a non-realistic weapon. Because their boffer weapons are made of rattan, pvc, and foam, and they are specifically constructed to not injure the combatants, they very rarely conform in any way to the weight, dimensions, and balance that historical weapons really had. So you can have someone's 'greatsword' have the exact same balance and weight as someone else's 'maul'.

As such, just put a big ball of foam on the end of a 5'-6' shaft and call it a 'two-handed mace'.

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 03:33 PM

Polaxe/Bec-du-corbin/Bardiche/Halberd or similar thing for a historically realistic weapon that would likely suit your needs. Basically a 5-7' shaft (depending on your own reach and height), with a a two-sided 'head' (each of the sides being a hammer, axe, pick, or hook, depending on your specific style), just below a spear head. Might as well put a spike (a minor spear head) on the other end as well, just in case.

However, the SCA has some very specific things in their rules that will aim you towards a non-realistic weapon. Because their boffer weapons are made of rattan, pvc, and foam, and they are specifically constructed to not injure the combatants, they very rarely conform in any way to the weight, dimensions, and balance that historical weapons really had. So you can have someone's 'greatsword' have the exact same balance and weight as someone else's 'maul'.

As such, just put a big ball of foam on the end of a 5'-6' shaft and call it a 'two-handed mace'.

LoL. Have you ever done heavy armor fighting? My last war, highlands, one of my near knight mentors got his collarbone broke (was in a sling for months). And that was from a spear with "a foamy end."

Duh, we mod them, or we'd die every practice.

edit: that is to say they are in no way boffer (except for the kids, but they have their own stuff separate.)

Spiryt

2011-03-21, 03:54 PM

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 04:01 PM

I'm pretty sure that SCA is required to be rattan or similar stuff?

AFAIR from this thread, Fhaolan does steel reenact fighting from quite a long time.

It's pretty prevalent here too, while SCA didn't really reached here, and no one dies every practice.

They are all made of ratan, except spears which can be made of even tougher stuff (sorry I can't remember at the moment...I prefer the flexible ratan).

But if you don't think ratan hurts....I've seen people knocked out from a single blow wearing a 12 gauge steel helm.

I received bruises 8 inches long by about 3 inches wide. People break bones. sometimes. I can't possibly see how SCA is considered boffer.

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 04:03 PM

Fhaolan

2011-03-21, 04:19 PM

LoL. Have you ever done heavy armor fighting? My last war, highlands, one of my near knight mentors got his collarbone broke (was in a sling for months). And that was from a spear with "a foamy end."

Duh, we mod them, or we'd die every practice.

edit: that is to say they are in no way boffer (except for the kids, but they have their own stuff separate.)

Yes, actually, many (many!) years ago I earned SCA knighthood. I have done SCA Heavy, as well as Rapier, and I've been trained in Medieval Martial Arts with real live steel weapons, as well as several other things (EDIT: which yes, includes stage combat.) I know exactly what the difference is between a SCA weapon and a real weapon, having been on the receiving and delivery ends of both.

And my point still stands. SCA weapons do not handle or perform in any way like the historical weapons they are supposed to resemble. They can't because they *cannot* have the same dimensions, weight, and balance as those weapons by the rules of SCA Heavy Combat, as per pg 13 of the Marshal's Handbook. Add to that the SCA combat rules indicating valid targets and the culture of 'rhinohiding', and it deviates even further from what a non-sport swordfight would be like.

There's nothing wrong with SCA combat. It's a perfectly reasonable and effective sport given the restrictions you are under. However, those restrictions make it difficult to map RL weapons to SCA requirements.

Maclav

2011-03-21, 04:20 PM

Oh, and reenactment fighting is fake like wrestling. Its choreographed. SCA hard suite is sparring, but at least there's is a skill challenge involved (as in competing).

My kung-fu is better than yours!

Can we PLEASE not go down this path. There are other boards with thousands of my kung-fu is better posts for those interested in beating dead horses with ether rattan, steel, plastic, foam, wood, duct tape or lightsaber.

Spiryt

2011-03-21, 04:23 PM

Oh, and reenactment fighting is fake like wrestling. Its choreographed. SCA hard suite is sparring, but at least there's is a skill challenge involved (as in competing).

I'm sorry, but "lol"

is all I can write in response for this.

Please don't type stuff like that, because honestly, someone may get offended (if he/she does reenactment fighting, especially).

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 04:26 PM

I'm sorry, but

lol

is all I can write in response for this.

Please don't type stuff like that, because honestly someone may get offended (if he/she does reenactment fighting, especially).

Well they're actors or they suck. Because I could kill someone with a stick. If they are really fighting with steel, even blunt, then they are terrible at stopping their enemy.

If I went back in time I could still kill a lot of people with blunt steel. Especially in the bronze age.

Shademan

2011-03-21, 05:27 PM

Well they're actors or they suck. Because I could kill someone with a stick. If they are really fighting with steel, even blunt, then they are terrible at stopping their enemy.

If I went back in time I could still kill a lot of people with blunt steel. Especially in the bronze age.

ever heard of this wonderful technique called "pulling your punch"?

in any case, I'm having a difficult time trying to understand what your point here is...

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 05:36 PM

ever heard of this wonderful technique called "pulling your punch"?

in any case, I'm having a difficult time trying to understand what your point here is...

I know. that was to spyrt.

Suggesting such a big difference is laughable. Let me know when you break several bones and have bruises that last months.

Shademan

2011-03-21, 05:39 PM

I know. that was to spyrt.

Suggesting such a big difference is laughable. Let me know when you break several bones and have bruises that last months.

I have had an eye gouged out, thank you very much.
accidents happen, after all.

randomhero00

2011-03-21, 05:42 PM

I have had an eye gouged out, thank you very much.
accidents happen, after all.

Well yes technically you could always die doing either. I'm talking about what's common. It is not uncommon for me to come home with major bruises after learning from a Knight, in fact I get a bruise every time I practice just about (95%).
Edit: and that's not even war. AND I'm considered decent (for a non-knight).

Is that true for you? (honestly don't know).

Shademan

2011-03-21, 05:45 PM

Well yes technically you could always die doing either. I'm talking about what's common. It is not uncommon for me to come home with major bruises after learning from a Knight, in fact I get a bruise every time I practice just about (95%).
Edit: and that's not even war. AND I'm considered decent (for a non-knight).

Is that true for you? (honestly don't know).

I dont know of anyone in my society that is not carrying some bruise at all times. and we have safety as a top priority.

---
what I was gonna say anyways is that reenactment is not neccesarily about pre-decided battles. In my society we reenact a PERIOD, meaning that both sides have a fair chance at winning (well in theory. when your allies dont show up, looking at you scotland, you are likely to get trunched badly)

Maclav

2011-03-21, 06:16 PM

Well yes technically you could always die doing either. I'm talking about what's common. It is not uncommon for me to come home with major bruises after learning from a Knight, in fact I get a bruise every time I practice just about (95%).
Edit: and that's not even war. AND I'm considered decent (for a non-knight).

Is that true for you? (honestly don't know).

My kung-fu is better than yours. I say it long enough its true, right?

We use steel. Not choreographed and we don't reenact.

Since you asked; Broke a thumb ~2 months ago, cracked a rib and had my thumb nail peeled back last week someone else lost a fingernail. I am usually yellow, purple and green in numerous locations. I am sure why you think injury and pain is a good indicator of... well... whatever it is you're saying SCA does that no one else does.

WhiteHarness

2011-03-22, 09:40 AM

Wait, randomhero00, are you trying to compare SCA stick-tag to historical swordsmanship? I've played SCA for 21 years, with 15 of them as an authorized fighter; I continue to fight in SCA combat once or twice a week. It grants you no special insight into what combat with real swords was like.

It's not a question of how hard you can tag somebody with your rattan stick; SCA fighting lacks a number of crucial elements in order to make it an adequate simulation of the real thing, including (but not limited to): grappling, targeting of the lower legs and hands, actual blade-edge dynamics (throwing the occasional "flat" blow notwithstanding), and shields that aren't "indestructible."

It's not sword-fighting of any sort--it's baton-fighting with indestructible shields and a limited target area. It bears less resemblance to the real thing than kendo does to kenjutsu.

All that said, it's still fun...;)

Karoht

2011-03-22, 12:34 PM

Oh, and reenactment fighting is fake like wrestling. Its choreographed. SCA hard suite is sparring, but at least there's is a skill challenge involved (as in competing).
Not all reenactment is choreographed. Some use live combat. Like me. Our guys go into the fighting area, they know what weapons the other is using. Thats about it really. The rest is pure sparing, though the 'death blow' or finishing move might be worked out and rehearsed earlier, mostly to make it a bit more showy to the crowd.
And we do what we do in authentic (mostly, as someone recently indicated to me about butted mail) armor, we use authentic steel weapons. I guarantee you my entire group's injury list for the last decade is shorter than the injury list of most SCA groups I've ever heard of.

I want to ask, what other combat have you done besides the SCA? I won't be so ignorant as to just assume that is all you've done.

Well they're actors or they suck. Because I could kill someone with a stick. If they are really fighting with steel, even blunt, then they are terrible at stopping their enemy.
If I went back in time I could still kill a lot of people with blunt steel. Especially in the bronze age.Um, yeah, maybe take it easy on the posturing here. No one is calling anything your doing fake, nor are we calling you a bad fighter. Easy there fella.

I could kill someone with blunt steel, mostly because it still does things like break bones. The type of metal I'm up against doesn't even enter into it, I could kill with blunt copper. It's all technique. I could kill people with a stick just fine. I could do it without the stick. The weapon really isn't the big deal. Heck, I just filmed a commercial where I'm slicing watermelons cleanly. With a blunted sword. A Paul Chen Practical Hand and a Half to be precise.

Suggesting such a big difference is laughable. Let me know when you break several bones and have bruises that last months.Having any bone break, or even cuts, is a big deal in our group. We have guys who go play with the SCA, they don't walk away with injuries like you are talking, neither do their opponents. Again, not insulting your skill, but I think you're equating injuries with realism, which simply isn't true. Or you are equating someone's ability to inflict injuries with skill, which is both dangerous and untrue.

I won't say we're paranoid, but we've had 3 broken bones in the 12 year history of our group, which has had about 50 people come and go over the years. We busted people back to basic when we had so much as a cut occur, depending on the circumstances. We've also asked people to leave because they were dangerous, and this was prior to them actually inflicting an injury on someone. The Calgary chapter of the SCA has a pretty good injury record to my knowledge, but I know for a fact they've sent more people to hospital in one year than we have in 12. And we fight with steel, not rattan. Heck, I know LARP groups who fight with foam latex padded boffers who have sent more people to hospital than we have.

@Whiteharness
100% agree with your statement.

fusilier

2011-03-22, 01:08 PM

The term reenacting, or reenactment, or reenactor, can have different meanings according to who you talk to.

Some define it very narrowly: a reenactment is the recreation of a specific historical event. This distinguishes it from demonstrations of historical technique, actively practicing historical techniques, and what is known as "living history" which is an interpretative impression.

Personally, I consider all those things to fall under the category of reenacting, as they are closely related. Also, when I was introduced to reenacting, all those styles were presented to me without any clear distinctions. Even within the larger reenacting community there are disagreements about this, and some people who practice living history exclusively, will be upset if you call them a "reenactor." [They seem to prefer the term "living historian" which I find to be very annoying and stupid -- I prefer "historical interpreter"]

The reasons behind animosity between reenactors and SCA'ers isn't entirely clear to me. While they are fundamentally different, some people seem to have no problem passing between the two. I just consider reenacting and SCA as having different goals and intentions, with some areas of overlap.

Shademan

2011-03-22, 01:14 PM

Karoht

2011-03-22, 01:18 PM

The reasons behind animosity between reenactors and SCA'ers isn't entirely clear to me. While they are fundamentally different, some people seem to have no problem passing between the two. I just consider reenacting and SCA as having different goals and intentions, with some areas of overlap.
My issue, the big thing that kept me away from the SCA was the injury record. And a few funny stories that I thought were just stories until I saw them at an event (carpet armor, blue barrel armor). But again, we have some of our guys go and fight with the SCA, they don't walk away injured, and neither do their opponents. Mind you the SCA does differ greatly from chapter to chapter, area to area, from my own experience.

I like your term Historical Interpreter. I believe that is the term the local museum called us as well. The other term we hear commonly used is combat demonstrators or historical demonstrators.

As for the animosity, we don't allow our members to talk smack about other groups, and we take it very seriously when they talk smack about us. We were rather annoyed some 6 years ago when some individuals from the local SCA chapter (and I emphasize that they did not represent the chapter) was criticising the historical accuracy of our armor and weaponry and talking complete BS. Of course, it was all the funnier when they were doing so to the currator of the museum and head of the medieval wing, so we all got a history lesson that day while the currator informed them about the precise degree of their mis-information.

I also got to laugh my ass off at an SCA veteran of 15 years, who tried to explain what the Hamon line is on a Katana. Apparently, according to this fellow, the Samurai were avid carpenters. Yes, I'm sure this requires further context to make sense. Trust me, it was incredibly funny.

fusilier

2011-03-22, 01:29 PM

huh...my society is technically living history but we all call us reenactors.
oh and the animosity is becayse many reenactors feel that SCA cant make up its mind wether it wants to be proper reenactment or LARP

I might need to clarify: living history is basically standing around in period clothes and gear and talking to the public about it. It can include the odd demonstration, but doesn't have to. While reenactment can be narrowly defined, some of the other things "reenactors" do don't have an accepted standard term ("fantasy" or "what-if" battles, intended to represent tactics of the period, but don't actually recreate a specific battle). Also, there may not be enough reenactors to have a proper a battle, meaning some simple drill and demonstrations are all that can be done for the public. Finally, a person who does one of these will typically do more of them, and there will be considerable overlap. Although there are some "reenactors" who don't care to talk with the public at all, and after the battle, go back to their tents and drink beer. Just like there are some "historical interpreters" who will not participate in a battle.

There are also immersion-events (reenactor only), and hard-core units which strive for (or claim to have) greater authenticity at all times. Then there are "campaign" units (typically also prefaced with "hard-core") -- they tend to sleep under shelter halves and carry salt-pork with them. :-)

I would call your society "reenactors" too, but that's because I don't like to narrowly define reenacting.

Shademan

2011-03-22, 01:41 PM

snip

dunnp what to tell you, sarge.
We're a living history society that does reenactment.
we're having our pig carcass and eating it too

fusilier

2011-03-22, 01:45 PM

My issue, the big thing that kept me away from the SCA was the injury record. And a few funny stories that I thought were just stories until I saw them at an event (carpet armor, blue barrel armor). But again, we have some of our guys go and fight with the SCA, they don't walk away injured, and neither do their opponents. Mind you the SCA does differ greatly from chapter to chapter, area to area, from my own experience.

I like your term Historical Interpreter. I believe that is the term the local museum called us as well. The other term we hear commonly used is combat demonstrators or historical demonstrators.

As for the animosity, we don't allow our members to talk smack about other groups, and we take it very seriously when they talk smack about us. We were rather annoyed some 6 years ago when some individuals from the local SCA chapter (and I emphasize that they did not represent the chapter) was criticising the historical accuracy of our armor and weaponry and talking complete BS. Of course, it was all the funnier when they were doing so to the currator of the museum and head of the medieval wing, so we all got a history lesson that day while the currator informed them about the precise degree of their mis-information.

I also got to laugh my ass off at an SCA veteran of 15 years, who tried to explain what the Hamon line is on a Katana. Apparently, according to this fellow, the Samurai were avid carpenters. Yes, I'm sure this requires further context to make sense. Trust me, it was incredibly funny.

Yeah, I know of some people who started off in SCA, and just got tired of coming home every other weekend bruised.

I too have seen instances of people criticizing others who have actually researched their impressions. Unfortunately, they can occur within different reenactment groups themselves, where some groups criticize others' impressions, rightly or wrongly. Rather than simply talking to them about their impressions. :-(

fusilier

2011-03-22, 01:50 PM

dunnp what to tell you, sarge.
We're a living history society that does reenactment.
we're having our pig carcass and eating it too

LOL

Yup, in my experience the good groups are like yours -- they don't distinguish between all these details, and just call it all "reenacting."

I was just trying to point out that some people do make all these distinctions, so when one criticizes reenactors for choreographing their combat, they should be specific about who they are actually referring to.

Karoht

2011-03-22, 01:54 PM

Yeah, I know of some people who started off in SCA, and just got tired of coming home every other weekend bruised.

I too have seen instances of people criticizing others who have actually researched their impressions. Unfortunately, they can occur within different reenactment groups themselves, where some groups criticize others' impressions, rightly or wrongly. Rather than simply talking to them about their impressions. :-(I had a fellow trying to tell me that false edge cuts with a broadsword was "not real swordfighting" and I spent a solid hour showing him stuff from old school manuals, he still insisted I was wrong with no basis whatsoever to support this other than that I was wrong. Then he badmouthed our entire group for about a week until the head of the group towed the line. Mind you this guy was also kind of a sore loser when he lost to a guy wielding only a dagger when he himself had a 6 foot spear as well as a backup weapon.

Shademan

2011-03-22, 01:55 PM

I had a fellow trying to tell me that false edge cuts with a broadsword was "not real swordfighting" and I spent a solid hour showing him stuff from old school manuals, he still insisted I was wrong with no basis whatsoever to support this other than that I was wrong. Then he badmouthed our entire group for about a week until the head of the group towed the line. Mind you this guy was also kind of a sore loser when he lost to a guy wielding only a dagger when he himself had a 6 foot spear as well as a backup weapon.

ooh the times I've seen daggers win... nasty little critters they are

Yora

2011-03-22, 02:21 PM

I think considering all factor, daggers are probably the deadliest weapon of all. When people have the swords and axes out, done their armor, and stare the enemy in the eyes, the time for daggers is mostly over.
But in a conflict of violence, this stage is only one of the last in a long line of escalating events, and most conflicts never get that far. But up to that point, the dagger is extremely deadly, as it's easy to conceal, practical to carry around at all times, and can be put into action extremely well, all while the enemy is not expecting an escalation any time soon as is therefore unprotected.

Even without a source to back me up, I dare claiming that a lot more people get murdered or stabbed in a brawl with something the killer had at hand, than with actual weapons designed for warfare. And in those situations, the dagger is the perfect weapon.

Autolykos

2011-03-22, 02:30 PM

Well, unarmed defense against daggers/knives is right next to impossible. Like my JuJutsu Trainer said: "I can practice knife defense for ten years, and then I could show any newbie in half an hour how he could still kill me."
Getting hit unprepared (even with a weapon in hand) is pretty much the same. Once the guy with the dagger underruns your range and goes into grappling, you're pretty much done for. So you need the range *and* enough speed and power to reliably stop the guy when he's closing in.
In Escrima, the preferred way (when using stick against knife) is going for the hands (a broken hand makes wielding a knife ... tricky), or, if he goes "chinese monkey", backing off and going for head or knees (whatever comes in range first).

Fhaolan

2011-03-22, 02:59 PM

Yeah, in all the various training I've had, in each case the instructor held up a dagger-equivalent and said 'this is the second most dangerous weapon we deal with.' (The first being training or equivalent.)

Flails are usually put up as number three, mainly due to misuse of one being just as dangerous to the weilder as to the target. :smallbiggrin:

randomhero00

2011-03-22, 04:26 PM

Sounds like a bit of miscomunication. I didn't know there were different kinds of steal reinactors

I've done mostly stand up/striking MM, but have also learned from Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. Altogether a decade and counting.

And the SCA very much does prepare you for real fighting. The best thing learned from it are reflexes and a sense of awareness. You might think you're a pretty aware person, but then you go to war, and suddenly you're in the midst of a huge melee, can't tell where the line is anyway, can only make out a few friends, then suddenly two enemies charge you. What do you do? etc.

And of course it teaches the basics like any other: physical fitness, learning to take a hit and keep your concentration, strategy. etc.

Yora

2011-03-22, 04:39 PM

So you need the range *and* enough speed and power to reliably stop the guy when he's closing in.
Get the hell away from it really fast? :smallbiggrin:

Fhaolan

2011-03-22, 04:55 PM

but have also learned from Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. Altogether a decade and counting.

*blink* Okay, this tells me we've had a pretty severe communication gap somewhere. Or your instructor is so focused on the physical aspects of Danzan-Ryū Jūjutsu that they are failing to impart the whole of the teachings of Professor Okazaki.

I recommend picking up this book: https://www.createspace.com/3481487, if you haven't already of course. :smallsmile:

randomhero00

2011-03-22, 05:05 PM

*blink* Okay, this tells me we've had a pretty severe communication gap somewhere. Or your instructor is so focused on the physical aspects of Danzan-Ryū Jūjutsu that they are failing to impart the whole of the teachings of Professor Okazaki.

I recommend picking up this book: https://www.createspace.com/3481487, if you haven't already of course. :smallsmile:

There were several miscommunications. Which do you mean?

btw thanks for not calling me a liar or anything and keeping it civil; I have a bit of an odd philosophy (actually the philosophy is well sounded, its the listeners that are odd) when it comes to MA. Its come up (not by me) on other boards and I'll weigh in, saying all martial arts are the teaching in which to maim and kill human beings. Or they wouldn't be in a martial art...I mean its in the name. We can certainly have fun while doing it, but their roots are soaked in blood.

It'd be like taking someone to the range that knows nothing about guns. If he or she lets me teach them, and they garner some truth, then they've just learned a bit of MA...in other words guns are (almost, there is hunting) meant to kill or maim, just like MA. I'll stop now before I start really rambling.

Fhaolan

2011-03-22, 05:53 PM

There were several miscommunications. Which do you mean?

btw thanks for not calling me a liar or anything and keeping it civil;

I try. :smallsmile: I'm not going to point out specific posts of anyone, because it will splash fairly wide and right now I'm not in a good state of mind due to personal issues that are irrelevant to this thread.

I have a bit of an odd philosophy (actually the philosophy is well sounded, its the listeners that are odd) when it comes to MA. Its come up (not by me) on other boards and I'll weigh in, saying all martial arts are the teaching in which to maim and kill human beings. Or they wouldn't be in a martial art...I mean its in the name. We can certainly have fun while doing it, but their roots are soaked in blood.

It'd be like taking someone to the range that knows nothing about guns. If he or she lets me teach them, and they garner some truth, then they've just learned a bit of MA...in other words guns are (almost, there is hunting) meant to kill or maim, just like MA. I'll stop now before I start really rambling.

Absolutely correct about MA being about killing people... well okay, there are several forms of MA that are about *disabling* people without killing them, but they're not that far removed.

However, nearly all advanced Martial Arts is not just about the physicallity of hurting/killing people, but about the mentality. Being mentally prepared to hurt/kill people, without falling into it's various traps. Most soldiers can tell you about those traps and how they can devastate their lives if they don't have the mental and philosophical training to cope. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the form of Post-Combat Syndrome is very real. Like the physical aspects of combat, you can't just wish away that kind of damage. It's not easy to train for it, but it's a lot easier than trying to repair it afterwards.

In the case of Danzan-Ryū Jūjutsu, Professor Okazaki (the founder of that school) goes into great detail about the philosophies of Judo/Jujutsu and the related MAs. Those philosophies are there *specifically* to help the practitioner deal with the realities of combat. They should not be optional, they should not be skipped, they should not be ignored because the physical part is more 'fun'. They provide the moral and mental centers necessary for a practitioner to be truely effective, and continue to be effective over time.

And unfortunately, I have encountered many instructors of MA who do think that mental and philosophical preparedness is a waste of time. And I have had to deal with the results of their instruction far, far too often.

randomhero00

2011-03-22, 06:06 PM

Preaching to the quire man. Getting the act/motion down is the easy part. Preparing mentally and keeping sharp is the difficult part.

Incanur

2011-03-22, 11:51 PM

Well, unarmed defense against daggers/knives is right next to impossible.

That's an exaggeration; I even know folks who've done it successfully enough that they're still alive. Countless manuals wouldn't teach a useless art.

Kalaska'Agathas

2011-03-23, 12:03 AM

Well, unarmed defense against daggers/knives without getting yourself cut is right next to impossible.

Fixed that for you. And even then there are steps you can take to keep yourself from getting hurt, at least too badly.

Fortinbras

2011-03-23, 12:53 AM

Fhaolan

2011-03-23, 02:40 AM

How exactly do you have non scripted fights with steel swords and not have injuries? I mean pulling cuts is nice but that still sounds extremely dangerous.

Depends on the group. One of the ones I used to work with regularly had a set system of 14+ attacks (depending on your training level) that telegraphed the attacks before they were swung so that your partner could move to counter or 'take' the blow if it was time to end it. Training emphasized maintaining eye contact, throwing the energy of the blow 'past' the target instead of into it, moving first/blocking second, and recognizing when your sparring partner was losing it with special signals to indicate switching to a choreographed safety fight when things went south. With that group there was approximately a year of training before you were allowed to perform in front of an audience. After that point the training continued, but shifted to focus on different time periods and cultures.

But as I say, groups differ. Some other groups I worked with had radically different ways of dealing with it, including one group who's members were insanely proud of the fact they actually hurt each other regularly, counting lost teeth, hospital trips, and other serious injuries as 'points' towards their ranking within the group. I didn't stick around long with that one.

Shademan

2011-03-23, 06:36 AM

How exactly do you have non scripted fights with steel swords and not have injuries? I mean pulling cuts is nice but that still sounds extremely dangerous.

On a related note, does anybody have any advice on finding good groups (realistic techniques etc.) to train with?Are there any online directories people could recommend? I looking at colleges on the west coast, so does anybody know about good reenactment societies that have chapters in the area? Thanks in advance.

well basically we just try to stay within the hit zones (chest/stomach, back, thighs/hips, above the knee) and avoid the no-no zone such as crotch and face and then we just train alot. we're really rather good at pulling punches by now.
but yeah, our constant bruising goes to show that you'll naturally get a little roughed up, but thats half the fun.
and then there is always the odd accident that happens, but thats not very often at all.

west coast of england?

Maclav

2011-03-23, 07:29 AM

How exactly do you have non scripted fights with steel swords and not have injuries? I mean pulling cuts is nice but that still sounds extremely dangerous.

We do two, distinct, forms of combat. We don't do reenactment however, just train and fight.

Type 1: "Unarmored" fighting. Most historic fight books have a great number of techniques and instruction for fighting out of armour. In order to make this safe enough we wear padded coats, light masks, gauntlets and some light, modern hard armour to varying degrees. I personally cover my forearm, elbow, collar bone and ribs. The goal hear for us is to represent wearing clothing as much as safely possible and to attempt to treat all blows as if they had landed on clothing. Coupled to this is regular test cutting to get an idea of just how little force is required to cut bare flesh.

Obviously we cannot attack each other will full power under these conditions. But when you tie in the test cutting you realize you don't have to. A properly made sword wants to cut. Most of the time doing a good cut is you getting your mind out of the way and letting the sword do things. This isn't to say we don't hit hard, we do.. we just don't try and blast the other guy into next week. I get regular bruises, each a lesson.

Interestingly the grappling and throwing part of the sword fight is often the most dangerous. Being thrown to hard, modern floors with a pair of steel swords floating around and such.

Type 2: Armoured fighting. Here we put on a decent approximation of transitional harness. Mail included. We go full force. We do not hold back an inch, you cannot. The sheer pressure of the armour compels it. But, we attempt to use proper historic technique. There are few edge blows, much grappling and half swording. Armour works and we have only had one serious injury in 10 years.

Yora

2011-03-23, 09:38 AM

Fhaolan

2011-03-23, 10:19 AM

New question: Where there any two handed swords before the 12th century?
In fact, Longswords and nagamaki are the only two handed swords that come to my mind and they were rather late in the history of swords.

There weren't that many two-handed sword designs, even if you include the hand-an-a-half swords that are on the bigger size, and the truely big great swords and the in the list.

Longswords, claymores, zweihanders and their slaughtersword 'clones', odachi/nodachi, miao dao/zhanmadao, are the only ones I know off hand.

Nagamaki are often classed as glaives rather than swords, depending on who you talk to. There's some evidence of western 'glaives' built in a similar way to nagamaki, being a sword blade mounted on a 3-4' shaft and used in a polearm-like manner.

In any case, I *believe*, but I can't find my references for it, that the long sword blades only became possible in and around the 13th century as metalurgy and swordsmithing got the point where such large blades were technically possible to make. Before that the skill and materials just wasn't there and big blades like that wouldn't survive combat, bending or shattering depending on the exact makeup of the blade.