Zweihänder on horseback?

[Kaeso]

Hello everybody,

As far as I know, there are no rules prohibiting you from using a two handed weapon or even a double weapon on horseback. This strikes me as kind of odd, wouldn't it be impossible to do that? Let's take the German Zweihänder as our example for what a DnD greatsword would be. It's roughly 1.80m long, which is about as long as the average German himself(!). Being able to use it on foot requires a heavy ammount of training, but using it from horseback would be simply unwieldy! You'd need a hand to hold the reins of your horse, and the weight of such a heavy weapon could risk you falling off your horse, right? I think it's quite odd that DnD allows you to wield a two handed weapon. What's the playgrounds take on this?

[Doughnut Master]

DC 5 ride check to guide the horse with your knees, leaving your hands free.

[Fiery Diamond]

My take is that must of D&D is built around fantasy and the rule of cool, not realism. With enough feats you can dual wield and have the equivalent of a greatsword in one hand and a bastard sword in the other. Wizards can fly and shoot lightning bolts out of their fingertips.

In other words, if it bugs you, make a ruling about it. Otherwise, let people have their fun. D&D has never really been about realism. (besides, with a sufficient ride check you don't need to use the reigns anyway)

[Ernir]

It's simple. D&D weapons work nothing like real weapons. They are an abstract ruleset designed to allow people who know nothing about weapons to play characters that do.

[Spiryt]

Quite simply IMO:

- Mixing real world combat into it doesn't really make sense, as obviously most stuff in D&D is unrealistic from the very beginning.

- There are really multiple images of horsemen wielding weapons in two hands from medieval period, and that certainly doesn't really strike as very improbable.

So on from any point of view, there's nothing really weird about two handed sword on horse.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Actually riding without using your hands to guide your horse isn't very hard at all, you guide it with your feet instead. In DnD terms, yes it would take a ride check obviously, but it's far from impossible.

But I still agree without, a zweihander would be unwieldy from the back of a horse due to it's size and design, at the very least you risk hurting your mount. (A weapon with a somewhat shorter blade however? nope, I don't see the issue.)

Also DnD (and most fantasy stories really) severely exaggerates the weight of such a weapon, a real, german zweihander would weigh around 3kg, or 6 lbs if it was heavy. (DnD claims it weighs twice as much.)

[stainboy]

Valenar elves wield double scimitars on horseback. Your SCA buddy cries himself to sleep every night.

[darksolitaire]

But then again, did samurai use tachi and uchigatana from horseback? It's just that the noobish german knights and their lot didn't understand a thing about warfare.

[Greenish]

Also DnD (and most fantasy stories really) severely exaggerates the weight of such a weapon, a real, german zweihander would weigh around 3kg, or 6 lbs if it was heavy. (DnD claims it weighs twice as much.)Well, 3.5 greatsword weighs "only" 8 lbs (3.6 kg), which is about right for a fancy parade sword not meant for actual fighting. Or so I am told.

Orc double axe is 15 lbs (almost 7 kg), but well, it's orc double axe. :smallamused:

[Edit]:
Valenar elves wield double scimitars on horseback.They're also probably the best TWFers in the game.

[Starbuck_II]

Also DnD (and most fantasy stories really) severely exaggerates the weight of such a weapon, a real, german zweihander would weigh around 3kg, or 6 lbs if it was heavy. (DnD claims it weighs twice as much.)

Actually the weight listed accounts for carrying capacity (how easy to carry) not just wieght. The actual weight is much less.

[Coidzor]

I seem to recall there being some kind of two-handed cavalry sword extant at one time, I think it might've been persian or something.

[Eldan]

Obviously, you'd be standing on your horse. That leaves your hands free.

[Kaeso]

I see then, it is possible to guide a horse with just your legs. I guess this discussion is kind of over then, sorry for wasting your time :smallsigh:


But then again, did samurai use tachi and uchigatana from horseback? It's just that the noobish german knights and their lot didn't understand a thing about warfare.

:smallconfused: German knights? Noobish?
Take a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing) and combine that with the fact that the Teutonic Order were some of the most feared and revered knights in Europe. I think it's more that samurai are overhyped than that German knights are noobish.


I seem to recall there being some kind of two-handed cavalry sword extant at one time, I think it might've been persian or something.

Hmmm, could you provide me with a name of the cavalry type?

[Greenish]

:smallconfused: German knights? Noobish?I think (hope) he was kidding.

[Kaeso]

I think (hope) he was kidding.

Somehow I doubt it, samurai are so overhyped in pop culture that one could actually believe that a samurai with a katana could pierce a well forged armor like a baker slices through bread.

I wonder if this (http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/samsyndrome.htm) would mean that the Portuguese were sword fighting gods that could catch bullets with their teeth and spit it right back at the enemy lines.

[Ravens_cry]

Both were excellent at their related yet highly different craft.
You don't refine a craft over half a millennium or more without becoming really, really, good at it. Nor is someone who has been trained since childhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight) "noobish"

[Greenish]

Somehow I doubt it, samurai are so overhyped in pop culture that one could actually believe that a samurai with a katana could pierce a well forged armor like a baker slices through bread.They're so overhyped it's more likely to be sarcasm. Or so I have been telling myself, maybe I'm just a victim of Poe's Law. :smalleek:

[Edit]:
I wonder if this (http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/samsyndrome.htm) would mean that the Portuguese were sword fighting gods that could catch bullets with their teeth and spit it right back at the enemy lines.Then again, there's this (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/katanas-are-underpowered-in-d20#.Tj8Kzou9EQs).

[Circle of Life]

Somehow I doubt it, samurai are so overhyped in pop culture that one could actually believe that a samurai with a katana could pierce a well forged armor like a baker slices through bread.

I wonder if this (http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/samsyndrome.htm) would mean that the Portuguese were sword fighting gods that could catch bullets with their teeth and spit it right back at the enemy lines.

You have no respect for the katana (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20), my good sir. It is capable of all of this and more! For shame.

[Greenish]

You have no respect for the katana (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20), my good sir. It is capable of all of this and more! For shame.Ninja'ed my edit, but then again, at least I didn't link 1d4chan wiki. :smalltongue:

[Kaeso]

Both were excellent at their related yet highly different craft.
You don't refine a craft over half a millennium or more without becoming really, really, good at it. Nor is someone who has been trained since childhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight) "noobish"

As a matter of fact, one could argue that knights were superior. The "samurai sword" or Katana was invented in 1100 AD, perfected in 1300 AD and never changed since, which basically put them at the same sword for roughly 900 years. In the 1000 years in which the medieval period lasted (if you count the Renaissance and classical period, even longer) European swords have been constantly adapted, improved, perfected. Even in a period of 50 years the way weapons were forged could change completely.


You have no respect for the katana (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20), my good sir. It is capable of all of this and more! For shame.

Well... Samurai are too anime and Portuguese are not anime enough

[Boci]

Somehow I doubt it, samurai are so overhyped in pop culture that one could actually believe that a samurai with a katana could pierce a well forged armor like a baker slices through bread.

I always understood that without their shield a knight would most likely die in combat with a samurai. The katana may not survive, but the samurai most likely would. With the shield it became more of an even match, unless the knight had flail, in which case he would win.

That's what I have gathered at least.

[Kaeso]

I always understood that without their shield a knight would most likely die in combat with a samurai. The katana may not survive, but the samurai most likely would. With the shield it became more of an even match, unless the knight had flail, in which case he would win.

That's what I have gathered at least.

I doubt it, many knights were adept at fighting with two handed weapons (which means they can't use a shield) and have superior armor. Katana's are quite good at cutting through unarmed peasants, but they wouldn't be able to pierce a sturdy suit of full plate, and they'd have difficulty piercing chain mail with proper padding (though it's not impossible, it's hard). Let's not forget that, unlike popular myth, the samurai's katana was actually a weapon of last resort. Most samurai were much more comfortable with using the bow or spear.

[Spiryt]

European swords have been constantly adapted, improved, perfected. Even in a period of 50 years the way weapons were forged could change completely.


There was not much to improve of perfect after some time, really, all about adaptation and customization indeed....

The better way to put it would be that in general after ~ 1300 European sword began to show immense variety, while Japanese stay fairly uniform.

[Flickerdart]

I always understood that without their shield a knight would most likely die in combat with a samurai. The katana may not survive, but the samurai most likely would. With the shield it became more of an even match, unless the knight had flail, in which case he would win.

That's what I have gathered at least.
The knight would probably be better armoured, since the Japanese had terrible terrible steel, which was in very short supply.

[Greenish]

Going firmly offtopic, ARMA (Association for Renaissance Martial Arts) had an article (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm) on the whole Knight vs. Samurai. It sounds fancier than, say, Deadliest Warriors, but I can't say if it's any more accurate.

A bit more on-topic, as a complete layman I assume knights occasionally used rather heavy weapons on horseback, even two-handing them, since you'd have to to hurt armoured opponents. Probably not swords, but eh.

[Zadhadras]

Its going to come down to the better fighter. Knights in plate will have a technological advantage, as plate is better armour. A longsword is also a good 8-10 inches longer than a typical Katana, but weighs just about the same which gives a reach advantage.

I'm sure this has likely been linked to before, but just to dispel the heavy, slow, cumbersome broadsword trope for any who may still believe it, these guys are using weapons that are fairly accurate in size, a little heavier than average, with historically correct 2 hand longsword technique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc&feature=related

[Spiryt]

The knight would probably be better armoured, since the Japanese had terrible terrible steel, which was in very short supply.

Unless he wouldn't be, or he had just a spoon beacuse he was eating.... :smalltongue:



I always understood that without their shield a knight would most likely die in combat with a samurai. The katana may not survive, but the samurai most likely would. With the shield it became more of an even match, unless the knight had flail, in which case he would win.

That's what I have gathered at least.

I've seen quite a lot of "samurai vs knight" discussions, and they never make sense...

Samurai and knights were social classes of people raging over hundreds of years, not some characters from Tekken. :smallannoyed:

There was no such thing as "their shield", nor would many knights of later part of 15th century use shields in general.

For such comparison to have any sense, one would have to specify information about both combatants equipment and situation.

And then conclusion would usually be that guy better at fighting would win.

[Boci]

I doubt it, many knights were adept at fighting with two handed weapons (which means they can't use a shield) and have superior armor. Katana's are quite good at cutting through unarmed peasants, but they wouldn't be able to pierce a sturdy suit of full plate, and they'd have difficulty piercing chain mail with proper padding (though it's not impossible, it's hard).

I'm pretty sure the samurai would be able to land one crippling blow through the armour. It would damage their sword just as much, but would still allow them to win the fight.


There was no such thing as "their shield", nor would many knights of later part of 15th century use shields in general.

Any shield larger than a buckler is a head ache for a samurai.

[Amnestic]

It sounds fancier than, say, Deadliest Warriors

Cat vomit is fancier than the Deadliest Warrior.

Probably more scientifically accurate too.

[Kenneth]

I read this http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20#Shovels_are_Underp owered_in_d20

it has given me something to think about.

shovels are scary.. :eek:

on a real note though. there has been real life tests of an actual katana ( i.e. one that has been in a certain family for over 600 years) vs a mievial knights plate mail. what happened was as one would guess the slashing of the katana barely dented the breast plate of said suit of armor. Now Katan vs chain mail or any other kind fo armor the katana WOULD have went through it easilty..


The Katana is basically a gigantic razor blade, you don't hack or thrust it, you draw the blade across the target.

but then again this is D&D where soemhow you have a higher dex modifer allowed for chain mail as opposed to platemail. so take whatever you want out of this.

[Spiryt]

I'm pretty sure the samurai would be able to land one crippling blow through the armour. It would damage their sword just as much, but would still allow them to win the fight.


Eh....

No, katanas, or any similar swords absolutely don't give good chance or dealing blow trough any serious metal armor, if that's what you mean.

Damaging themselves or not.

And even assuming that what you were saying was true, then "knight" would have pretty much the same chance to do the same thing....


Now Katan vs chain mail or any other kind fo armor the katana WOULD have went through it easilty..

No, it wouldn't. There is absolutely no reason to think so.

[Circle of Life]

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/14042015/images/1298688581937.jpg

[Spiryt]

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/14042015/images/1298688581937.jpg

http://chanarchive.org/content/63_x/5985279/1287609325339.jpg

:smalltongue:

[Boci]

Eh....

No, katanas, or any similar swords absolutely don't give good chance or dealing blow trough any serious metal armor, if that's what you mean.

That is what I meant. I assumed it could work is the samurai aimed for a weak point in the armour.


And even assuming that what you were saying was true, then "knight" would have pretty much the same chance to do the same thing....

Samurai's are faster and have less bulky armour. They would probably get first strike.

[Coidzor]

What of the weaponry of the samurai would be appropriate for fighting a heavily armored individual anyway?

Chain weapons and polearms seem the most appropriate due to increased ability to knock someone off balance or trip.

[Anderlith]

Oh no Knights can't exist! A lance in one hand & a shield in the other!

Seriously, it's not that be a deal, sure the horse limits your strokes but not anymore that it would limit a one handed sword.

[Boci]

What of their weaponry would be appropriate for fighting a heavily armored individual anyway?

Rapier? Any ranged weapon with a decent loading time?

[NNescio]

Hello everybody,

As far as I know, there are no rules prohibiting you from using a two handed weapon or even a double weapon on horseback. This strikes me as kind of odd, wouldn't it be impossible to do that? Let's take the German Zweihänder as our example for what a DnD greatsword would be. It's roughly 1.80m long, which is about as long as the average German himself(!). Being able to use it on foot requires a heavy ammount of training, but using it from horseback would be simply unwieldy! You'd need a hand to hold the reins of your horse, and the weight of such a heavy weapon could risk you falling off your horse, right? I think it's quite odd that DnD allows you to wield a two handed weapon. What's the playgrounds take on this?

Horseback Archery. Look Ma! I don't need my hands to ride!


But then again, did samurai use tachi and uchigatana from horseback? It's just that the noobish german knights and their lot didn't understand a thing about warfare.

Samurai prefer using spears and bows when mounted.

[Spiryt]

There is no evidence at all that Japanese people have any faster reflexes and muscles on average than say, Germans.

After specifying what armor we're talking about, there wouldn't be much difference in "bulk" anyway, especially if we take mail age knight.

I would generally prefer not to talk about some weird "fast deadly samuris" "hulking powerful knights" myths and stuff...


[QUOTE]Rapier?

Rapier is absolutely not a weapon for armored combat, nor was it used for such.


Samurai prefer using spears and bows when mounted.

When they used swords, I'm pretty sure that one handed use was more prevalent anyway.

[Coidzor]

Rapier? Any ranged weapon with a decent loading time?

Well, with a ranged weapon you'd need to either get through the armor or be able to aim for more vulnerable sections of the armor. How effective were bows against mail anyway?

From what I recall they were not very effective against plate armor & so were phased out in favor of crossbows & then firearms which could pierce the armor or its weak points more reliably.

[Boci]

There is no evidence at all that Japanese people have any faster reflexes and muscles on average than say, Germans.

But didn't a samurai focus on sp[eed more than a knight?


After specifying what armor we're talking about, there wouldn't be much difference in "bulk" anyway, especially if we take mail age knight.

Possibly, but a katana would faster than most weapons commonly used by a knight.


I would generally prefer not to talk about some weird "fast deadly samuris" "hulking powerful knights" myths and stuff...

I would as well, that's why I'm trying to support my argument and would apreciate not being insulted.


Rapier is absolutely not a weapon for armored combat, nor was it used for such.

Why would a knight be resistant to a rapier to the eye lunged from someone faster than them due to not wearing armour and wielding a lighter weapon? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just want to know why I am.

[Partysan]

That is what I meant. I assumed it could work is the samurai aimed for a weak point in the armour.



Samurai's are faster and have less bulky armour. They would probably get first strike.

Where do you get that Samurai are faster? And while their armor might indeed be lighter, attacking first is NOT hitting first, especially not against an opponent specialized in sword counters like a knight from the long sword period (the type that we call bastard sword and that's used twohanded).
Also, weak points in armor are hard to hit when you pretty much need to use thrusts to do so, but your weapon is curved AND shorter then that of the opponent.


Samurai prefer using spears and bows when mounted.

And Knights lances.

[Boci]

Where do you get that Samurai are faster?

Because their fighting style relied on it more than the knights?

[Spiryt]

But didn't a samurai focus on sp[eed more than a knight?

There's in pretty much nothing to support than notion...


Because their fighting style relied on it more than the knights?

Well, and we know that how?



Possibly, but a katana would faster than most weapons commonly used by a knight.


Why exactly? There were pretty fast and maneuverable in striking, moving around etc. if only from their short lenght, but then again, short and maneuverable weapons are nothing uncommon.


I would as well, that's why I'm trying to support my argument and would apreciate not being insulted.

I'm not insulting anybody, I'm simply stating that most stuff you're saying here are some weird myths indeed, similar to those generally popular images of samurais and stuff in modern popculture.

[Boci]

There's in pretty much nothing to support than notion...

There's nothing to support the notion that the people whose weapons included a three foot razor were quicker than people who wielder far bulkier weapons?


Why exactly?

Because its lighter.

[Zadhadras]

I'd like to add that a two handed Longsword and a Katana weighed nearly the same.

Hitting a weakspot in plate with conventional sword techniques is very hard, and wont be very useful because those weakspots are often covered in mail. While you are trying to do that the knight in question is going to close on you, shrug off your blows and kill you. An experienced Samurai will recognise this and try to get in close where he can grapple with the knight.

The men in good armour fought each other in a totally different way. They did not try and slice at each other, but grabbed their swords halfway up the blade and used it to stab into seams, or as a levering tool in grappling to break joints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv-Vut0xb9Y&feature=related

[Kaeso]

I read this http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20#Shovels_are_Underp owered_in_d20

it has given me something to think about.

shovels are scary.. :eek:

on a real note though. there has been real life tests of an actual katana ( i.e. one that has been in a certain family for over 600 years) vs a mievial knights plate mail. what happened was as one would guess the slashing of the katana barely dented the breast plate of said suit of armor. Now Katan vs chain mail or any other kind fo armor the katana WOULD have went through it easilty..


The Katana is basically a gigantic razor blade, you don't hack or thrust it, you draw the blade across the target.

but then again this is D&D where soemhow you have a higher dex modifer allowed for chain mail as opposed to platemail. so take whatever you want out of this.

It could get through chainmail easily as well? I'm not calling you a hack or anything, but as far as I know chainmail, despite being very light, is actually very sturdy, especially when it's padded (and every crusader worth half a damn had a chainmail with padding). I doubt katana's were much stronger than their European counterparts.

[Greenish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc&feature=relatedThose are beautiful, but look hurty. And glancing at the comments (I never learn), I noticed they have the katana vs. some other sword argument going on, as well.


That is what I meant. I assumed it could work is the samurai aimed for a weak point in the armour.For massive damage?


Why would a knight be resistant to a rapier to the eye lunged from someone faster than them due to not wearing armour and wielding a lighter weapon?I imagine hitting an eyehole on the helmet of the guy trying to kill you with a sword is somewhat more difficult than you make it sound. Besides, rapiers (according to wikipedia) aren't significantly, if at all lighter than longswords, and plate armour (according to that other thread) doesn't slow one down so much.

It turns out the D&D stats are not perfect representation of real world!

[Partysan]

There's nothing to support the notion that the people whose weapons included a three foot razor were quicker than people who wielder far bulkier weapons?



Because its lighter.

You DO know that a bastard sword weighs only about 3 pounds and is also longer than a katana? And that a katana weighs more than 2 pounds?

EDIT: And by the way, chainmail is pretty cut-resistant. Actually, that's the type of damage it protects best against.

[Greenish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv-Vut0xb9Y&feature=relatedWhere does he get those wonderful videos?

[Boci]

I imagine hitting an eyehole on the helmet of the guy trying to kill you with a sword is somewhat more difficult than you make it sound.

I assume the fancer had training at least somewhat comparable to the knight.


Besides, rapiers (according to wikipedia) aren't significantly, if at all lighter than longswords

I find that hard to believe having seen a rapier, but stranger things have happened and I'm no expert.



It turns out the D&D stats are not perfect representation of real world!

What about D&D stats makes a rapier good for handling full plate ?

[Spiryt]

There's nothing to support the notion that the people whose weapons included a three foot razor were quicker than people who wielder far bulkier weapons?



Because its lighter.

Yes, because katanas weren't significantly lighter than any sword of their dimensions.

Plenty of them were also relatively bulky, just like there relatively bulky longswords and pretty damn slim ones.

Although again, swords in Japan generally had shown smaller amount of variations compared to other places.



It could get through chainmail easily as well? I'm not calling you a hack or anything, but as far as I know chainmail, despite being very light, is actually very sturdy, especially when it's padded (and every crusader worth half a damn had a chainmail with padding). I doubt katana's were much stronger than their European counterparts.

Cutting trough maill is pretty damn impossible in any sort of sensible conditions.

One is striking thousands of rings, each of them is mobile and interlocked with others....

Combinations of it, and ratio or thickness/general dimensions of such piece of metal make it prone to doing pretty much everything rather than being cut trough.

Force of blow can break them open, but it's a bit different story.

[kardar233]

I've held and fought with both rapier and longsword. The rapier is not greatly lighter than the arming sword and due to the style its weight is distributed in a much more tiring fashion. Many people underestimate just how fast a longsword is until they see me drill with real iron.

[Partysan]

Where does he get those wonderful videos?
I tend to like those.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg&list=FLad6NYtqognA&index=77
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

[Greenish]

I assume the fancer had training at least somewhat comparable to the knight.Sure. But the knight had armour. It's actually quite nifty for staying alive.

I find that hard to believe having seen a rapier, but stranger things have happened and I'm no expert.Maybe you're thinking of modern fencing foil or something. Or maybe you're thinking that real swords had D&D weights.

[Edit]:
What about D&D stats makes a rapier good for handling full plate ?I meant, in D&D rapier is lighter than, say, longsword (which isn't actual longsword, but that's another matter) and armour slows you down significantly (move speed and max dex penalty).

[Coidzor]

An experienced Samurai will recognise this and try to get in close where he can grapple with the knight.

This raises a good point. Wasn't grappling taught as one of the disciplines of last resort as part of the samurai martial training, at least after a certain point, which is what gave rise to things like aikido?

I imagine both combatants would be hampered to some extent by their armor, though I must admit I'm curious as to whether mail, plate, or lamellar would be more restrictive...

And how much training in European wrestling knights would have had & its efficacy while armored & against an eastern grappling art...

[Zadhadras]

I assume the fancer had training at least somewhat comparable to the knight.

This would be nearly impossible.

Rapiers were specialised unarmored duelling and civilian self defense weapons. They were never used on the battlefield. They were quite heavy duty and very stiff though, and could weigh as much as three pounds. It would be a mistake to confuse a rapier with fencing foil.

[Kaeso]

I assume the fancer had training at least somewhat comparable to the knight.

Rapiers were hardly, if ever, used on the battlefield. They were the weapons of duelists, mostly used against unarmoured opponents to pierce their bodies and puncture their organs.

Also, don't forget how darned small the eyeholes of your average knights armor are. I don't care how good you've trained, it's hard enough to land a blow on such a tiny surface when your target is moving, let alone when that target is wielding a huge sword and wacking in your general direction. Let's not forget that while swords, axes and arrows cannot always pierce through armor, getting hit by one of the former will most likely throw you off balance due to the sheer force behind it, something a rapier cannot do due to it's light build.

[Boci]

Sure. But the knight had armour. It's actually quite nifty for staying alive.

If you're going to make such outrageous claims you can at least have the curtesy to link some evidence.


Maybe you're thinking of modern fencing foil or something. Or maybe you're thinking that real swords had D&D weights.

Or my mistake was more reasonable: as kardar233 said the weight distribution on a rapier is less optimal.


Rapiers were hardly, if ever, used on the battlefield.

I know. I was just answering what weapon could be useful against a heavily armoured opponent sans cotext.

[NNescio]

This raises a good point. Wasn't grappling taught as one of the disciplines of last resort as part of the samurai martial training, at least after a certain point, which is what gave rise to things like aikido?

I imagine both combatants would be hampered to some extent by their armor, though I must admit I'm curious as to whether mail, plate, or lamellar would be more restrictive...

And how much training in European wrestling knights would have had & its efficacy while armored & against an eastern grappling art...

European knights are also well-trained in grappling, and it is particularly important in armored combat, with a great degree of emphasis placed upon grappling in German swordmanship schools. They even had mounted grappling techniques.

Italian unarmored swordfighting techniques also feature grappling techniques, called "Gioco Stretto" (Close Game).

[Spiryt]

Why would a knight be resistant to a rapier to the eye lunged from someone faster than them due to not wearing armour and wielding a lighter weapon? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just want to know why I am.

Because being half competent, they can protect their "eye" from such an attack, as lunging someone to the eye is not nearly as easy as just avoiding such attack....

In the very same way how hitting bullseye is good stuff, but it's not easy to do.

Or why goalkeeper would save ~ 99% of the shots if only viable parts of goalpost were 5% of it's size too.


Also, don't forget how darned small the eyeholes of your average knights armor are

Actually, for many knights, even in 15th century open helmet was prefered option, especially for feet combat.

Kettlehats, open sallets...

Doesn't change your point much, but full cover helmets were mostly popular for mounted charges, obviously.

[Boci]

This raises a good point. Wasn't grappling taught as one of the disciplines of last resort as part of the samurai martial training, at least after a certain point, which is what gave rise to things like aikido?

I imagine both combatants would be hampered to some extent by their armor, though I must admit I'm curious as to whether mail, plate, or lamellar would be more restrictive...

And how much training in European wrestling knights would have had & its efficacy while armored & against an eastern grappling art...

In unarmed combat its pretty clear even to my friends who are samurai fans that the knights extra armour becomes too big an advantage for the samurai to complete with.

[Zadhadras]

This raises a good point. Wasn't grappling taught as one of the disciplines of last resort as part of the samurai martial training, at least after a certain point, which is what gave rise to things like aikido?

The old grappling arts were known as Kumiuchi. They were weaponised and designed to be used by men in armour against men in armour. They would later evolve in what we now call JuJutsu


I imagine both combatants would be hampered to some extent by their armor, though I must admit I'm curious as to whether mail, plate, or lamellar would be more restrictive...

It depends on the era. Lets assume plate, o yoroi and mail. Plate would be the least encumbering, then mail, then the o yoroi. Plate did not encumber gross motor movements much at all, and weighed about 65 pounds. The biggest problems with grappling in armour (besides the natural added weight) is the effect of all the little straps and projecting bits that can catch on one another.


And how much training in European wrestling knights would have had & its efficacy while armored & against an eastern grappling art...

The very first thing any fighting men would learn was grappling. Grappling was considered the basis of all fighting arts. The grappling arts of the era were known by names such as Abrazare (which means Embracing) and Kampfringen (Battle wrestling)

Here are some clips of various forms of kampfringen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm6P1boVkY0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJMKG9ru9U0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ge6l_bMLcs&feature=related

[Flickerdart]

A rapier doesn't have the range of a greatsword. Trying to get past the knight's reach and stab him in the face would end tragically.

[Boci]

A rapier doesn't have the range of a greatsword. Trying to get past the knight's reach and stab him in the face would end tragically.

If someone were trained in using a rapier from birth I could see it work.

[Zadhadras]

A rapier doesn't have the range of a greatsword. Trying to get past the knight's reach and stab him in the face would end tragically.

It actually has more range. Take a 4 foot stick and hold it in both arms in front of you..then take that stick stand sideways and hold it in one arm in front of you.

[Greenish]

Or my mistake was more reasonable: as kardar233 said the weight distribution on a rapier is less optimal.A typical rapier weights, say, 1 kg (2 lbs) according to wikipedia. My awesome copy/paste knowledge claims the following:
"the sword was, in fact, surprisingly light·.the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, while in the 16th century it was 0.9 kg. Even the heavier bastard swords which were used only by second-grade fighting men did not exceed 1.6 kg, while the horse swords known as 'hand-and-a-half' swords weighed 1.8 kg on average. When due allowances are made, these surprisingly low figures also hold good for the enormous two-hand sword, which was traditionally only wielded by 'true Hercules.' Yet it seldom weighed more than 3 kg." (Funcken, Arms, Part 3, p. 26).There's an essay (http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm) I stole it, of course.

So while rapier might be more unwieldy (less wieldy?), it's about the same weight as the average 16th century sword.

[Mando Knight]

I assume the fancer had training at least somewhat comparable to the knight.

Doesn't matter. Reliably hitting an opponent's head with a thrust is hard enough, targeting eyeholes with minimized surface area is not a practical move unless the opponent is otherwise immobilized.

[Spiryt]

In unarmed combat its pretty clear even to my friends who are samurai fans that the knights extra armour becomes too big an advantage for the samurai to complete with.

The whole thing is that, taking guys from ~ 1200 period, samurai would quite often end as a guy with "extra armor".

I know way not enough about Japanese military, but I know that a lot of bulky lammellar stuff appeared as soon as 10th century, while in Europe maille longer than knees and elbows wasn't very popular still at all.

As far as grappling goes:

Booom takedown

http://img.kb.dk/ha/manus/th290/kamp0270.jpg

Full mount, stabilize head, and proceed to stabbing. :smallwink:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/johnraptor/Talhoffer1459-2.jpg



A rapier doesn't have the range of a greatsword. Trying to get past the knight's reach and stab him in the face would end tragically.

Like mentioned above, range is the thing that proper rapier had.

Sometimes 110 cm long blade, with balance and whole way of use concentrated about being able to lunge forward from great distance.

[Boci]

The whole thing is that, taking guys from ~ 1200 period, samurai would quite often end as a guy with "extra armor".

Sorry, D&D language creaping in. I meant extra protection.


Doesn't matter. Reliably hitting an opponent's head with a thrust is hard enough, targeting eyeholes with minimized surface area is not a practical move unless the opponent is otherwise immobilized.

I not demanding you comply, and I know I certainly cannot offer evidence of my own, but is there a source that says "training an anti-knight type dueller was who wielded a rapier was impossibly" or is it just based off the oppinion of experts on the weapons in general?

[Spiryt]

I not demanding you comply, and I know I certainly cannot offer evidence of my own, but is there a source that says "training an anti-knight type dueller was who wielded a rapier was impossibly" or is it just based off the oppinion of experts on the weapons in general?

The lack of sources is the source itself....

Namely, there are really numerous manuals, fechtbuchs, illustrations, etc. about use of rapier, but any suggestion of rapier in armored duels/fights/trainings is rare, if there even is any.

The whole point of rapier is that it was civilian, everyday weapon, worn without armor, horse and food for next 3 weeks.

With your hat, pants and stuff instead, while you walk trough the streets.

[Kaeso]

The lack of sources is the source itself....

Namely, there are really numerous manuals, fechtbuchs, illustrations, etc. about use of rapier, but any suggestion of rapier in armored duels/fights/trainings is rare, if there even is any.

The whole point of rapier is that it was civilian, everyday weapon, worn without armor, horse and food for next 3 weeks.

With your hat, pants and stuff instead, while you walk trough the streets.

+1

Actually, if memory serves me right, even in those circumstances rapiers served more as decoration than as an actual weapon. Some were actually so richly decorated that it hampered their effectivity.

[Boci]

The lack of sources is the source itself....

Namely, there are really numerous manuals, fechtbuchs, illustrations, etc. about use of rapier, but any suggestion of rapier in armored duels/fights/trainings is rare, if there even is any.

Wouldn't that be because they assume both sides are armoured?

[Spiryt]

Wouldn't that be because they assume both sides are armoured?

Well, no - both are unarmoured, so they're unarmoured, hard to get around it:

Linky. (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/Alfieri/alfieri.htm)



A typical rapier weights, say, 1 kg (2 lbs) according to wikipedia. My awesome copy/paste knowledge claims the following:

Well, typical rapier weighted about 1kg or more indeed, but not 2 pounds, which is 900g.:smallwink:

Anyway, here some originals:

http://
www2.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/blades.html (http://www2.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/blades.html)

Generally, early rapiers were long sturdy pokers with elaborate hand protection, so they had to be heavy, compared to sword with much simpler guard, for example.

Only physics.

Later, they were becoming slimmer, and shorter, eventually giving birth to smallswords, too.

[Greenish]

In unarmed combat its pretty clear even to my friends who are samurai fans that the knights extra armour becomes too big an advantage for the samurai to complete with.I don't know, I don't think you're supposed to grapple without any weapons.


Actually, if memory serves me right, even in those circumstances rapiers served more as decoration than as an actual weapon.Depends on the period and the person, I imagine. Some did fight duels on the drop of a hat, most probably didn't.

[Edit]:
Well, typical rapier weighted about 1kg or more indeed, but not 2 pounds, which is 900g.:smallwink:It's not like I can convert in my head, the .2 dropped from it somewhere…

[NNescio]

The whole thing is that, taking guys from ~ 1200 period, samurai would quite often end as a guy with "extra armor".

I know way not enough about Japanese military, but I know that a lot of bulky lammellar stuff appeared as soon as 10th century, while in Europe maille longer than knees and elbows wasn't very popular still at all.

Japanese Oo-yoroi (Great Armour) weighted around 60 lbs, which is heavier than some types of Full Plate, while being articulated less well and having more holes in it. It's basically a giant box surrounding the samurai instead of form-fitting armour.

Yeah, those armours were actually less flexible and heavier than full-plate. To be fair, they protect from arrows better (despite covering less area) and allow the samurai to use his bow from horseback mostly unrestricted, 'though these benefits would be irrelevant in a grappling match.

[Boci]

Well, no - both are unarmoured, so they're unarmoured, hard to get around it:

Linky. (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/Alfieri/alfieri.htm)

So its never actually stated that an unarmoured rapier wielder could take on a knight, but knowledge of the weapons indicate that it would be true?

[Kaeso]

So its never actually stated that an unarmoured rapier wielder could take on a knight, but knowledge of the weapons indicate that it would be true?

It's never actually stated that a samurai could take on an 18th century musketeer, some things are just self explanatory.

[Spiryt]

I don't know, I don't think you're supposed to grapple without any weapons.


Dagger or stuff was always handy, most of other weapons could be generally unusable.



[Edit]: It's not like I can convert in my head, the .2 dropped from it somewhere…


I know, that was mostly my introduction to the point, that most rapiers, at least before 18th century, would generally weight more than 1kg Wiki gives them.

[Boci]

It's never actually stated that a samurai could take on an 18th century musketeer, some things are just self explanatory.

If they're adjacent the samurai could win. Still unlikely, but still...

[Greenish]

So its never actually stated that an unarmoured rapier wielder could take on a knight, but knowledge of the weapons indicate that it would be true?If by knight you mean one wearing plate (they still knight people*), the two probably never fought, so we can only guess. My money's on the guy who has steel between his innards and the sharp pointy instrument.


*Now I imagine a rapier-wielding rake ambushing Sir David Attenborough in the middle of a nature documentary.

[NNescio]

It's never actually stated that a samurai could take on an 18th century musketeer, some things are just self explanatory.

Or even 16th century arquebusiers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nagashino)

Nobunaga: Muhahahaha!

[Spiryt]

So its never actually stated that an unarmoured rapier wielder could take on a knight, but knowledge of the weapons indicate that it would be true?

I'm not sure if I follow....

Anyway, rapier is pretty much never portrayed in armored situation, as it's just not it's world, not the situation that would occur too frequently.

Unarmoured man taking on armored one would be always at huge disadvantage, (save him having M1 Garand, but that's not what we're talking about:smalltongue:).

And rapier would definitely not be helping his chances.

Guy in plate could have rapier and skewer him, obviously, on the other hand - not having to worry about his torso being skewered, trying to skewer the other guy freely.

[Boci]

If by knight you mean one wearing plate (they still knight people*), the two probably never fought, so we can only guess. My money's on the guy who has steel between his innards and the sharp pointy instrument.

That's what I though. Naturally I missed the "not" in the statement of mine you quoted so it seems like I meant the opposite.


I'm not sure if I follow....

Anyway, rapier is pretty much never portrayed in armored situation, as it's just not it's world, not the situation that would occur too frequently.

Unarmoured man taking on armored one would be always at huge disadvantage, (save him having M1 Garand, but that's not what we're talking about:smalltongue:).

And rapier would definitely not be helping his chances.

It doesn't matter. I was talking about a very hypothetical situation that never actually happened.

[Kaeso]

If they're adjacent the samurai could win. Still unlikely, but still...

Yes, in the same way that a duelist could pierce a knights eyeholes if he's sitting right on top of him. If the weaker party wants to win, all odds should be in his favour and even then there's no guarantee of victory.

[Zadhadras]

I would like to point out that many of those rapier users were knights. The Rapier was what they would carry when they went to the local pub or strutted about the town looking for a wench to tumble.

[Boci]

Yes, in the same way that a duelist could pierce a knights eyeholes if he's sitting right on top of him.

That's not a valid comparison.

[Kaeso]

I would liek to point out that many of those rapier users would be knights. The Rapier was what they would carry when they went to the local pub or strutted about the town looking for a wench to tumble.

:smallconfused: I always thought that required a perform (sex) check.


That's not a valid comparison.

How is it not? Both are ideal situations for the weaker party (close combat samurai as opposed to ranged musketeer, and the armoured knight in a situation where his armour is nigh useless).

[Anderlith]

Rapier? Any ranged weapon with a decent loading time?

Cavalry Saber

[Boci]

:smallconfused: I always thought that required a perform (sex) check.

A D&D representation of a European knight could easily have a bard level to represent their education.



How is it not? Both are ideal situations for the weaker party (close combat samurai as opposed to ranged musketeer, and the armoured knight in a situation where his armour is nigh useless).

Because in your one is deliberatly given a disadvantage. In mine it was 1 of two options, and I mentioned that one favoured the samurai (or reduced his disadvantage) they both start close. The other option, they both start at range naturally favours the musketeer. Unless the samurai has a bow and both weapon's start unloaded.

I'm listing conditions that apply equally to both sides yet favour one more than the other. Your listing a massive handicap for one side with no balancing factor.

[Spiryt]

Yes, in the same way that a duelist could pierce a knights eyeholes if he's sitting right on top of him. If the weaker party wants to win, all odds should be in his favour and even then there's no guarantee of victory.

With rapier it would actually be pretty hard then. :smallwink:



and the armoured knight in a situation where his armour is nigh useless).

Actually, then it's still pretty damn useful/

One took down and dismantled the armored opponent to be able to stab him violently and/or in unarmoured parts, which doesn't change the fact that he can't just stab him anywhere and be done with it.

[Greenish]

:smallconfused: I always thought that required a perform (sex) check.Yeah, but that's not Trained Only.


Cavalry SaberAgainst heavy armour? :smallconfused:

[Kaeso]

A D&D representation of a European knight could easily have a bard level to represent their education.

This gives me a great idea for a new build: a noble knight that doesn't slay, but lay his enemies.

[Boci]

Yeah, but that's not Trained Only.

Yeah but knights should be good at it. They had a chance of becoming land owners after all.

[Spiryt]

This gives me a great idea for a new build: a noble knight that doesn't slay, but lay his enemies.

Jon Fitch?



Anyway, what's up with generally sharp stuff oriented threads appearing at ~ 00:00 a.m. Greenwich + 2 every day?

Is that half moon of something? :smallwink:

[NNescio]

A D&D representation of a European knight could easily have a bard level to represent their education.
Naah. Aristocrat levels. :smallbiggrin:

(Especially for those who suck at combat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutage))

[SirDalyus]

A proper, unarmoured rapier weilding man against a knight would end badly for most cases. The duelist needs to get lucky everytime to harm the knight, the knight only needs to hurt the duelist once or twice.

[Greenish]

Naah. Aristocrat levels. :smallbiggrin:

(Especially for those who suck at combat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutage))Aristocrats have respectable medium BAB and all martial weapon proficiencies.

[Spiryt]

Just because derailment of this thread actually somehow reached some whole new rails, some stuff relevant to original question. :smallwink:

Quickly gathered some medieval illustrations of people apparently spanking their fellow men with something held in both hand while on horse.

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf40/otm40rc&d.gif

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf39/otm39ra&b.gif


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Bannockburn.jpg

[NikitaDarkstar]

Just because derailment of this thread actually somehow reached some whole new rails, some stuff relevant to original question. :smallwink:

Quickly gathered some medieval illustrations of people apparently spanking their fellow men with something held in both hand while on horse.

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf40/otm40rc&d.gif

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf39/otm39ra&b.gif


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Bannockburn.jpg


As far as I can tell the only one two-handing anything in there is a guy with an axe, the others are holdings swords or spears on one hand and reins in the shield hand with the shield attached to the arm. But meh, as has been pointed out, guiding a horse with your legs isn't hard, especially a horse trained to be guided that way.

Also this thread has reached some epic, yet totally expected levels of derailment.

[Kaeso]

As far as I can tell the only one two-handing anything in there is a guy with an axe, the others are holdings swords or spears on one hand and reins in the shield hand with the shield attached to the arm. But meh, as has been pointed out, guiding a horse with your legs isn't hard, especially a horse trained to be guided that way.

Also this thread has reached some epic, yet totally expected levels of derailment.

To get somewhat back on the rail before we inevitably de-rail a second time, wouldn't it be incredibly risky to guide a horse with your knees on the field of battle? Your horse could panic, knocking you out of the saddle if you don't have a sturdy grip.

[Starbuck_II]

To get somewhat back on the rail before we inevitably de-rail a second time, wouldn't it be incredibly risky to guide a horse with your knees on the field of battle? Your horse could panic, knocking you out of the saddle if you don't have a sturdy grip.

In D&D, that can only happen if horse is not combat trained. Since this is D&D, few players won't train their horses.

[NikitaDarkstar]

To get somewhat back on the rail before we inevitably de-rail a second time, wouldn't it be incredibly risky to guide a horse with your knees on the field of battle? Your horse could panic, knocking you out of the saddle if you don't have a sturdy grip.
Sturdy grip on what? The reins? The mane? The edge of the saddle? Reins will do you no good, mane at the bottom of the neck near the saddle will help some, edge of saddle, perhaps a tad bit more. (Only reason people move teir arms further up when galloping is to help with balance.)

If it was any old horse, yes the risk of panicking is rather high, but keep in mind that entire breeds of horses started out because of war and breeding warhorses, then add proper training to it and you can get a horse to not think twice about things that will send any regular horse into a panic.

Also guiding a horse with your legs doesn't compromise your ability to stay on the horse much, if any. You already use your legs to stay on the horse by gently pressing them inwards and by moving your center of balance to stay on the horse, if you're using your hands to stay on you or the horse is doing something terribly wrong, and quite frankly if the horse rears and attempts to throw you hands won't matter nearly as much as your ability to squeeze your legs even tighter while leaning forward to balance, grabbing with your hands is a last resort when it comes to helping you balance.

TL;DR A fully trained rider on a fully trained warhorse can manage just fine without using their hands to balance.

[Knaight]

To get somewhat back on the rail before we inevitably de-rail a second time, wouldn't it be incredibly risky to guide a horse with your knees on the field of battle? Your horse could panic, knocking you out of the saddle if you don't have a sturdy grip.

That whole panicking issue is a significant part of why war horses were so incredibly expensive in real life. You needed ones that wouldn't do that, but you also needed both hands to not be at a massive disadvantage. Said horses also had to be capable of charging very quickly, charging at scary pointy things without running off, being in combat for extended periods while carrying someone, and a whole host of other things.

[NNescio]

To get somewhat back on the rail before we inevitably de-rail a second time, wouldn't it be incredibly risky to guide a horse with your knees on the field of battle? Your horse could panic, knocking you out of the saddle if you don't have a sturdy grip.

...And to bring back my earlier point, Horseback Archery. Which some people can do while riding away in the opposite direction, at full gallop. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot)

[Flickerdart]

Like mentioned above, range is the thing that proper rapier had.

Sometimes 110 cm long blade, with balance and whole way of use concentrated about being able to lunge forward from great distance.
Didn't greatwords go over 2 metres in length? Unless my mathematics are off, 110cm is not as long as 200cm.

[Greenish]

I wonder if this (http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/samsyndrome.htm) would mean that the Portuguese were sword fighting gods that could catch bullets with their teeth and spit it right back at the enemy lines.Just got around reading the link, and I'll be damned if that isn't the most pretentious piece of poor writing I've read for quite some while.

And it should be noted that I occasionally even read what I've written on these forums. :smalltongue:

[NikitaDarkstar]

Didn't greatwords go over 2 metres in length? Unless my mathematics are off, 110cm is not as long as 200cm.
I have a vauge memory of seeing a sword that was actually meant to be swung by two people at once which was far longer. Sadly it was 10 years ago and while I can remember the museum I swa it at their website has horrible info about their collections and google is failing me. >.<

[Knaight]

Didn't greatwords go over 2 metres in length? Unless my mathematics are off, 110cm is not as long as 200cm.

They had longer handles, so 2 meters is deceptive. That said, 1.6 meters of blade -which isn't really that uncommon- is more than enough to have reach over a rapier, and given that the original hypothesis involved a pin point lunge, its not as if it matters anyways, as that is a very, very low probability scenario. There is a reason that one tried to get heavily armored people on the ground and pinned, and that has a lot to do with the utter lack of capability to make pin point lunges through small target areas.

In any case, the rapier only has incredibly impressive range from the perspective of a one handed weapon. If one wants to look at two handed weapons which one uses primarily to stab with where range is a big deal, there is something called a spear*. As it happens, one can also lunge with one of those, and a spear lunge can easily have 2.5 meters of reach, before including arm length and however much one would count leaning forward for. A rapier doesn't come close.

*Obviously, there are also one handed spears, but spears used in two hands have far more effective reach.

[Partysan]

*Obviously, there are also one handed spears, but spears used in two hands have far more effective reach.

Actually I don't think so - after all onehanded spears go up to 8 foot length and anything beyond that is pretty much pike territory.

[Knaight]

Actually I don't think so - after all onehanded spears go up to 8 foot length and anything beyond that is pretty much pike territory.

Its usually more in usage than in actual spear design. 8 feet (2.5 meters) is fairly typical for both one and two handed spears. However, in a one handed hold you only get about 2 meters of reach, period, because of how the spear is held. With 2 hands, you can vary the hold, using everything from quick, two handed thrusts that slide down the spear that get a .25 meters past effective one handed range, to the occasional full lunge, which gets even more. This is looking only at the effective longest range, in both case one can also fight at closer range -though with a two handed spear, one can choke up much further, and has many more options for leverage, which means the effective range is both longer at one extreme and shorter at the other. The big downside being that one won't have a shield, which is much less of a downside once one takes into account the kind of armor being looked at.

[darksolitaire]

I think (hope) he was kidding.

Let's just say I wondered for a long time if I should add smiley to the end of my post.

[faceroll]

Europeans were kinda noobs at war, especially the Germans and others with heavy cav/heavy infantry dependent armies.

Light archer cavalry is pretty much the best thing ever, especially with a general who knows how to use it. They're like blue flame hellions. Incidentally, Japanese armies were very dependent on light cav and archers. Same with korean & chinese armies. That's likely due to metal resources, but they also had a much more sophisticated philosophy of war.

Army wide tactics for european armies was mostly a-move towards the enemy. It's very easy to kite destriers with big teutons on them when you're a small, unarmored steppe-nomad on a swift mare.

The handful of times when east met west in the middle ages, east had such a better grasp of strategy and tactics than west, it was like a child fighting a grown man. The only way europeans could justify to themselves that they lost was by over-exaggerating the number of enemies by orders of magnitude. But I guess it makes sense when the extent of your battlefield strategy is "acquire knights; attack move at other guys stuff."

[Partysan]

Europeans were kinda noobs at war, especially the Germans and others with heavy cav/heavy infantry dependent armies.

Light archer cavalry is pretty much the best thing ever, especially with a general who knows how to use it. They're like blue flame hellions. Incidentally, Japanese armies were very dependent on light cav and archers. Same with korean & chinese armies. That's likely due to metal resources, but they also had a much more sophisticated philosophy of war.

Army wide tactics for european armies was mostly a-move towards the enemy. It's very easy to kite destriers with big teutons on them when you're a small, unarmored steppe-nomad on a swift mare.

The handful of times when east met west in the middle ages, east had such a better grasp of strategy and tactics than west, it was like a child fighting a grown man. The only way europeans could justify to themselves that they lost was by over-exaggerating the number of enemies by orders of magnitude. But I guess it makes sense when the extent of your battlefield strategy is "acquire knights; attack move at other guys stuff."

I call Poe's Law on that.

[Spiryt]

Didn't greatwords go over 2 metres in length? Unless my mathematics are off, 110cm is not as long as 200cm.

Well, over two meters was very uncommon at least....

Not a one of such lenght listed in Graz arsenal (laborately hilted piece, is no more than 13 pounds (at about 78 inches a long))

And two handed grip over long handle limits range in obvious way.

Not to say that rapier necessarily would have the same range, but it wouldn't be huge difference.

95 - 120 cm blade vs 120 - 150 cm one, while the two handed cannot be used to reach afar that easily. Different way of usage.

[Knaight]

95 - 120 cm blade vs 120 - 150 cm one, while the two handed cannot be used to reach afar that easily. Different way of usage.

One does lose a bit of effective reach using a weapon two handed, true, but without lunging there is still more than enough distance for the two handed sword to have a fairly big advantage most of the time. Lunges clearly even that up a bit, but if the point is just to try and get a reach advantage -which is what was stated when the rapier was brought up- the shorter blade here does a pretty bad job of it. Again, the best way to get a reach advantage involves a spear, reach is the one thing they do best.

[Zadhadras]

Europeans were kinda noobs at war, especially the Germans and others with heavy cav/heavy infantry dependent armies.

Light archer cavalry is pretty much the best thing ever, especially with a general who knows how to use it. They're like blue flame hellions. Incidentally, Japanese armies were very dependent on light cav and archers. Same with korean & chinese armies. That's likely due to metal resources, but they also had a much more sophisticated philosophy of war.

Army wide tactics for european armies was mostly a-move towards the enemy. It's very easy to kite destriers with big teutons on them when you're a small, unarmored steppe-nomad on a swift mare.

The handful of times when east met west in the middle ages, east had such a better grasp of strategy and tactics than west, it was like a child fighting a grown man. The only way europeans could justify to themselves that they lost was by over-exaggerating the number of enemies by orders of magnitude. But I guess it makes sense when the extent of your battlefield strategy is "acquire knights; attack move at other guys stuff."

Not really. This only really applies to the initial mongol invasions, which were lead by a military genius against an unsuspecting western Europe. Once the Mongols settled into their russian domains, they launched repeated invasions of Poland, which were repulsed. The poles were then able to actually drive the horse archers out of large amounts of steppeland and expand their domains.

European armies were also able to defeat Byzantine armies, Turkish armies, Arab armies and Magyar armies all of which used large numbers of light cavalry and archers. If European armies could not defeat the horse archer armies swarming in from the east, then Europe would have been conquered by them.

European armies at the time of the mongol invasions were far more organised and professional than the Japanese armies of the time.

[Boci]

Magyar armies all of which used large numbers of light cavalry and archers.

Wasn't that just down to blind luck though?

[Spiryt]

Are horse archer some kind of new bla katana? :smallwink:

Anyway, since union with Lithuania, from 50 to 70 % of polish army was mounted crossbowmen or similar shooting units.

Not that it's anything uncommon, because Teutonic Order was fighting in pretty much the same way, Grunwald/Tannenberg was clash of pretty identical armies, no matter what many novels and stuff suggest.

[Boci]

Are horse archer some kind of new bla katana? :smallwink

Its more worthy than the katana of such awe. It at least combines two significant tactical advantages that synergise well.

[Fouredged Sword]

Horse archery was untenable for long periods due to two competeing effects - bow construction and battle masses.

Bow construction developed the ability to have a small bow that fires an arrow capable of pierceing armor at medium ranges. This was a significant advantage. This required many deceptivly hard advances to technology and economy that was simply not developed for many many years. You needed steel or iron tiped arrows to punch through mail and laminate bow structures to increase the torque to compensate for the lack of leverage created by the shorter length of the bow.

Second it required skilled, specilised, and trained troops who did basicly one thing in combat. That took a very long time to develope. A knight was basicly a rich person with some basic training and a really expensive suit of armor and a really expensive horse. the actual training for a standard knight was limited. There are exceptions, but I am going with genralities.

To develope that takes a large body of troops and a significant expenditure of resorces that is simply to exorbently expensive for most cultures not developed around exactly that type of combat.

Finaly there is the issue of impact. You need enough of these highly advanced well trained troops with really expensive horses and you still need to have enough firepower to knock a dent in the oposeing army with a single pass, becuse if you don't cripple the oposeing foot archery you will not survive to get a second pass, becuse there are more of them and they have bigger, longer reaching bows fireing from stable positions.

Horse archery dominated the world for a time during the Khan invasion of the mongles beuse they had those things and nobody else did. The romans fought on foot with very few battle trained archers or horses. The roman idea of dominateing combat resolved aroung the greek concept of forceing a press of battle lines and forceing an oponent to buckle and route.

Later periods saw the rise of mounted armor and the rise of standing archers such as longbowmen, who used the batter archery technology to increase the strikeing range of arrows enough to render mobility much less of a desisive advantage. Massed combat increased the required horse archery needed to be desisive to such lerge numbers that skermish combat was no longer practical and the technology and practices of combat moved on.

[faceroll]

The Huns, in the mid 400s, absolutely pwnd Europeans with bow archers. The Romans were never able to expand through middle eastern steppe because the Scythians and Parthians absolutely obliterated their legions with bows, superior maneuverability, ambushes, tactical retreats, and feints.

The eastern steppe people, like cossacks, used bows, then gunpowder weapons, to great advantage all the way up until the modern era. The Poles used light cav to great effect against the Nazis in the early 20th century, though they didn't ride them into battle, instead using them to form rapid skirmisher units that could hit and retreat quickly.

[Fouredged Sword]

Exactly. Horsebows had thier time, and then better advancements in army tactics and weaponry took hold and they dynamic of war changed.

Really if you wanted to figgure out the best weapon for war, look at the latest period you allow to fit into your game. If you are stuck in the roman era then horse archery dominates, if you go to the renisance then the longbow or musket dominates. go later and rifeling redifines combat once again.

you have to draw an imaginary line somewhere, but the general rule is that civilisation gets better at things as time goes on, not worse. Go forward to the best technology avalable and that is likely your best bet for combat ability.

[Zadhadras]

Horse archery only dominated in broad steppelands where thier strategic mobility allowed them to cover vast distances. You need lots of pastureland. Europe never developed sophisticated horse archery because most of Europe lacked pastureland to support horses. Conversely, horse archers were never able to make significant and lasting inroads into europe beyond the eastern plains for the same reason. The only ones who succeeded for any length of time were the Huns, but the Huns were a vast tribal confederation of many peoples, most of whom fought on foot.

[Spiryt]

Horse archery only dominated in broad steppelands where thier strategic mobility allowed them to cover vast distances. You need lots of pastureland. Europe never developed sophisticated horse archery because most of Europe lacked pastureland to support horses. Conversely, horse archers were never able to make significant and lasting inroads into europe beyond the eastern plains for the same reason. The only ones who succeeded for any length of time were the Huns, but the Huns were a vast tribal confederation of many peoples, most of whom fought on foot.

Like I mentioned, Europe developed some quite sophisticated horse archery.

The whole thing is that isn't not any kind of "super weapon" it's made to be - with well drilled use on steppes with army that in fact has relatively low level of sophistication it can be very effective.

That means, with army that can perform quite large operation without much tabor and supply, so can indeed relatively easy harass enemy with "hit and run" tactics, until they run out of arrows.

On larger scale, it cannot obviously work, as running away to continue shooting will eventually mean that you completely give up the field and formation, enemy can take your camp or slaughter your troops that didn't run away completely.

Incidentally, most evidence supports theory, that the whole tactics of cavalry battles in Eastern Europe, like Grunwald orbited around maintaining columnar formation that could charge with lancers in the front wedge, maintain crossbow fire, and relatively easily maneuver to regroup, resupply ammunition, broken lances etc.

[Ichtos]

Below is an illustration from the Maciejowski Bible (ca. 1250), which is generally considered one of the most accurate depictions of medieval warfare.

http://home.tiscali.nl/~t401243/mac/mac10vA.jpg

Clearly, someone was using a two handed sword from horseback. Incidentally, there are also illustrations of using two handed lances overhead against infantry.

It is true that it is more difficult to train a horse to turn quickly without using the reigns, but most cavalry attacks were shoulder to shoulder, not one cavalrist against a bunch of melee fighters.

Also, medieval warhorses were trained for leg-control, just look at the amount of leg and foot commands you can give a Lipizzaner - it can kick any hind leg on command, it can stand on it's hind legs, turn on a dime, go straight from standing into a gallop, step sideways etc. - all using leg and foot commands.

[Major]

I must say I got really excited reading the thread when it went to talking about longswords, knight swords,etc vs Katanas and then Rapiers.

And then we got back on topic and I got sad -__-

I was hoping to get to discuss things I know from being a longsword instructor...


-----
On a side note, in regards to the comment of riding a horse with your legs and it being 'dangerous' because the 'horse might panic', that's why they had war horses and didn't just run around on ponies.

...Let me rephrase that, why the rich had war horses and didn't run around on ponies.