Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X [Archive] - Page 2

Maclav

2012-04-21, 10:59 PM

Please, oh gods, please no.. we shall not have the flat vs edge argument here! ;)

(I personally aim to parry my edge to your flat, often on an oblique angle (as in not 90deg) in such away as to gain an advantageous bind or beat.)

As to the book, its based off very old, limited translations of limited amounts of material. It makes broad, sweeping generalizations and distils all of the nuance found in the material away into a bland generic framework of assumptions. Then it builds a few fighting systems on those assumptions. So other than in a very high level view it's wrong it almost everything. There a few nuggets of us in there burred beneath a steaming pile of Mr Clements's special kind of "wisdom" and an a supper sized helping of ignorant diatribe about how much "better" his **** smells because he does it for realz and with "martial intent"! (And then continues on to instruct the reader how to make a padded weapon?!)

Anyway, there are dozens of other books out there that will showcase historical swordplay without all the arrogance and bull****. They just tend to focus on one thing, instead of trying to lump it all into one contrived pile.

Galloglaich

2012-04-21, 11:11 PM

Yeah the book in question is very out-dated, it's only marginally relevant at this point and that is being generous.

Please just skip the whole edge-flat thing it was done to death years ago.

Interpretation books don't usually last very long in terms of usefulness, because the understanding of the fencing systems is moving so fast right now. There are some halfway decent ones out there, and some pretty good training DvDs and so on, but the fact is that Historical Fening isn't that easily accessible without a lot of effort and there is nothing out there that can give it to you on a silver platter. Most people study translations of the original books, which are not easy to understand on your own. It's roughly the equivalent of studying Karate or Kung Fu.

That said, there are a lot of good translations out there and various other useful tools online (like the Wiketenauer and numerous how-to videos). We could reccomend some resources but you'd really need to narrow it down a little more. We have fencing manuals from the 13th Century through the 19th, from a German Language Tradition, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, English and French; for sword and buckler, longsword (hand-and-a-half, not the D&D longsword), montante (true two handed sword), transitional rapier (usually includes rapier with dagger, with buckler, with shield (rotella), with cloak and various other approaches) true rapier (see previous), smallsword, backsword, messer (sort of like a machete), dussack (sort of like a curved machete with a knucklebow), saber, staff, spear, pollaxe, dagger, and unarmed. And even some more exotic weapons like two-handed flail, sickle, and scythe.

There are some youtube videos which go through techniques. Here is an old youtube video with a progression of a few of the German Longsword techniques, done slow so you can see them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA&feature=relmfu

This one has some of the same techniques done at a higher speed and level of intensity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIKMPIFJkzk&feature=related

G

Kalaska'Agathas

2012-04-22, 12:24 AM

A rather broad question to everyone: if I wanted to read some swordfighting manuals and treatises, which ones would you suggest?

If I may propose a sort-of corollary to this: if I wanted to study HEMA, where should I look for instruction? If I cannot find an instructor/group in my area, what methods of study should I take?

endoperez

2012-04-22, 02:13 AM

2) Have cresent axes or pickaxes ever been used as a weapon by an army, a proper army, rather than just being used by a rable using anything they can get their hands on.
3)Sword canes. Slashing or stabbing and are they any good for parrying something like a long sword?

There existed axes made and used specifically as weapons instead of tools. The same is true for hammers or picks. They were different from the tools they're named after, but were used.

Persians seem to have used different axes, including one-handed sagaris (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/AchaemenidMilitaryEquip.htm).

Vikings seem to have used axes, but I don't know if you consider them a proper army.

Sailing ships in the 17th to 19th centuries could be boarded, or invaded by the sailors of the other ship, and it seems a boarding axe (http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/weapons/index.php/tour-by-region/oceania/europe/arms-and-armour-europe-154) was one of the melee weapons preferred for this task.

I've also seen beautiful, curved Indian and Persian war-axes. but I've got no idea what they were used for, or if they were ever issued for front-line soldiers of an army. Mughal infantry might have used axes, but I don't really know much about that. Some pretty axes below.

http://antiques-arms.com/image/cache/data/products/tep96-900x900.jpg

http://antiques-arms.com/sold-indo-persian-axe

edit: the images don't seem to work, but you can follow the link below.
http://www.antiqueswordsonline.com/indo-persian-18th-century-double-headed-war-axe

Here is a well-made page which seems to give a rather detailed explanation of various European medieval weapons. Most of the axes and picks are found under blunt weapons or polearms. There are several, although the page doesn't really tell how widely they were used.
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/weapons.htm

No brains

2012-04-22, 10:33 AM

Clements did seem to be a bit of an arrogant man, I rolled with it when I read the book but I guess he doesn't know enough to support the big head.

The label of being better at the broad than the specific made sense. The book never got into deep detail but the claims it made on the broad view of things seem pretty logical. I liked his argument on the logical fallacies used by people unwilling to cross train styles.

Spiryt

2012-04-22, 10:53 AM

I've also seen beautiful, curved Indian and Persian war-axes. but I've got no idea what they were used for, or if they were ever issued for front-line soldiers of an army. Mughal infantry might have used axes, but I don't really know much about that. Some pretty axes below.

http://antiques-arms.com/image/cache/data/products/tep96-900x900.jpg

http://antiques-arms.com/sold-indo-persian-axe

edit: the images don't seem to work, but you can follow the link below.
http://www.antiqueswordsonline.com/indo-persian-18th-century-double-headed-war-axe

Here is a well-made page which seems to give a rather detailed explanation of various European medieval weapons. Most of the axes and picks are found under blunt weapons or polearms. There are several, although the page doesn't really tell how widely they were used.
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/weapons.htm

Those persian axes would be mostly ornamental things - just alright for practical use, but not really with 'everyday use' in mind... With silver inlays and all.

Anyway, if question is "if crescent axes, like battle axes with crescent like blades were used by armies" - then answer is - naturally.

Axe in different dimensions and variations was very popular weapon trough the whole medieval in the hands of very different combatants.

Some examples of axes of 'crescent' shape.

1 (http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifact.pl?anum=1418)

2 (http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=35)

3 (http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=104)

Hawkfrost000

2012-04-22, 12:48 PM

Ah, i think i need to clarify what i said in my post above.

I meant that in my parry i would bring my (usually true) edge into contact with my opponents sword, this can be on the edge of the blade or on the side. I would rarely attempt to make an edge on edge parry, but i always bring my edge into contact with my opponents sword in a parry.

DM

Morty

2012-04-22, 01:20 PM

It is old, dated and wrong in a hundred ways. 14 years is an eternity from a HEMA perspective. I am surprised that thing is still in print.

And remember, flat of the strong...

Are you looking for interpretation or english translation of original manuscripts? Are you looking for single source, single family, or pan-european heresy? Time frame or geographical location? Pedagogical preference?
Pointy swords, cutty swords, short or long, one or two handed.. or not even swords but staff, spear, pole arm, dagger, wrestling, cane, pugalisim... In armour or out?

I could go on. Basically, you're question is entirely to broad to answer.

Yeah the book in question is very out-dated, it's only marginally relevant at this point and that is being generous.

Please just skip the whole edge-flat thing it was done to death years ago.

Interpretation books don't usually last very long in terms of usefulness, because the understanding of the fencing systems is moving so fast right now. There are some halfway decent ones out there, and some pretty good training DvDs and so on, but the fact is that Historical Fening isn't that easily accessible without a lot of effort and there is nothing out there that can give it to you on a silver platter. Most people study translations of the original books, which are not easy to understand on your own. It's roughly the equivalent of studying Karate or Kung Fu.

That said, there are a lot of good translations out there and various other useful tools online (like the Wiketenauer and numerous how-to videos). We could reccomend some resources but you'd really need to narrow it down a little more. We have fencing manuals from the 13th Century through the 19th, from a German Language Tradition, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, English and French; for sword and buckler, longsword (hand-and-a-half, not the D&D longsword), montante (true two handed sword), transitional rapier (usually includes rapier with dagger, with buckler, with shield (rotella), with cloak and various other approaches) true rapier (see previous), smallsword, backsword, messer (sort of like a machete), dussack (sort of like a curved machete with a knucklebow), saber, staff, spear, pollaxe, dagger, and unarmed. And even some more exotic weapons like two-handed flail, sickle, and scythe.

There are some youtube videos which go through techniques. Here is an old youtube video with a progression of a few of the German Longsword techniques, done slow so you can see them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA&feature=relmfu

This one has some of the same techniques done at a higher speed and level of intensity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIKMPIFJkzk&feature=related

G

Heh, yeah, I guess the question really was too broad. If that helps, I'm looking for information on longsword fencing and, if possible, I'd like it to be translations or interpretations of texts written in medieval or reneissance times.
The first link seems to be broken, but the other one works... and I think I've seen something by those guys once. It looks like it'll be useful too, so thanks. And as it happens, I'm looking for longsword techniques specifically.

mcv

2012-04-22, 05:59 PM

A rather broad question to everyone: if I wanted to read some swordfighting manuals and treatises, which ones would you suggest?
There are tons of good books (and even more bad ones), but one book that lots of people seem to recommend is Sigmund Ringeck's Knightly Art of Combat by Lindholm and Svard. There's also Sigmund Ringeck's Knightly Art of the Longsword, but I have no idea what the differences are.

As for the whole parrying on the flat thing, there are parries that, if executed well, will generally catch your opponent's edge on your flat. The hanging guard, for example. But others won't. And in some situations, even trying to catch his edge on your flat will waste your blade's energy. My instructor (Lopes) recently addressed this when handling the krumphau. While it's generally used to attack your opponent's wrists, it can also be used to knock his sword out of the center. He said some people claim you should use the flat to do that. He claimed that it's biomechanically wasteful; you'll throw away all your swords energy if you do that. Apparently a krumphau simply needs to be done with the edge.

Straybow

2012-04-22, 06:38 PM

"Flat of my strong" means using the flat (non-edge) part of the strong. The strong is the third of the blade near the hilt. It has nothing to do with right or left or inside or outside. Ah. He may even have 'splained that at the beginning. I don't recall, I only remember the incessant "fladda ma stroung... fladda ma stroung... fladda ma stroung."

Please, oh gods, please no.. we shall not have the flat vs edge argument here! ;)

(I personally aim to parry my edge to your flat, often on an oblique angle (as in not 90deg) in such away as to gain an advantageous bind or beat.) I can only say that the English prefer to block rather than parry, calling it a "stop." The intent is to completely stop the energy of the attack. You get your timing right, you take away a little of that energy to launch your counter. To do that you need edge on edge. You will wear down and break practice swords, even the best made ones. Since I moved away four years ago my buds say they've broken all the swords we were using, even a really solid Cold Steel basket hilt backsword we deemed indestructable.

Galloglaich

2012-04-23, 09:03 AM

Heh, yeah, I guess the question really was too broad. If that helps, I'm looking for information on longsword fencing and, if possible, I'd like it to be translations or interpretations of texts written in medieval or reneissance times.
The first link seems to be broken, but the other one works... and I think I've seen something by those guys once. It looks like it'll be useful too, so thanks. And as it happens, I'm looking for longsword techniques specifically.

This is the broken link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA&feature=relmfu

Assuming you want to go with Medieval longsword, you still have to further specify the Italian system (Fiore / Vadi) or the German-language system (Liechtenauer) and if the latter, 15th vs. 16th Century.

Mcv mentioned the Lindholm ringeck book which though old, is good because it has the original translation in addition to their (now petty dated) interpretation, side by side.

The best overall HEMA book to get if you want to understand what historical fencing is, is this overview by Sydney Anglo from 2000, luckily still available and in print

http://www.amazon.com/The-Martial-Arts-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0300083521/ref=lp_B001IXQ4HG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335189533&sr=1-1

There were a lot of translations of German manuals done but unfortunately many of the best are now out of print. They should be coming back, but they had a problem with some publishers which haven't been resolved.

This is a good translation of one of the 'folio' style German manuals

http://www.amazon.com/Codex-Wallerstein-Fifteenth-Longsword-Wrestling/dp/1581605854/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335189066&sr=1-1-spell

There is also a superb online resource for the German manuals, with translations of nearly all of them:

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page

Here is some Italian stuff.

Fiore (this is a partial translation I think of the Getty version of Fiore's Flos Duelletorum, but it's relatively cheap and very nice to look at. Fiore has superb illustrations.)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Knightly-Art-Battle-Mondschein/dp/1606060767/ref=pd_sim_b_7

This is a really good, practical guide to Medieval dagger techniques which derives largely from Fiore

http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-And-Renaissance-Dagger-Combat/dp/158160517X/ref=pd_sim_b_6

This is Vadi but it's an old translation, don't know much about it other than that.

http://www.amazon.com/Arte-Gladiatoria-Dimicandi-Century-Swordsmanship/dp/1891448161/ref=pd_sim_b_10

Hope that helps. beyond that, get connected to a group in your region

Maclav

2012-04-23, 10:03 AM

Guy Windsor has a couple of Fiore books due out in the next couple months as well as a new translation of Vadi which should prove to be useful.

If you are working from source material, Tom Leoni's translation of the Getty is probably the most important "book" to get.

No brains

2012-04-23, 01:42 PM

Knaight

2012-04-23, 02:06 PM

If a person tries to just do what feels natural, how successful would they be in sword fighting? Are there any maneuvers that are very effective but are not natural?

What "feels natural" is likely what they've been exposed to before. Do something a lot, and it will feel natural; as such there aren't really any "unnatural" movements in sword fighting. That said, there are instincts that have to be overcome, such as the instinct to dodge back when it is better to close and block.

With that said, the fundamental problem with what "feels natural" is that people imitate what they see. As such, you're liable to see people trying the absurd spins of Star Wars, or the overly wide and slow hacking in so many fantasy movies. These really don't work. Plus, a lot of ideas just won't occur to most people because of their backgrounds - half swording is the most obvious of these, but there are others.

It gets worse taken out of swords. Give someone a spear, and odds are they'll hold it just like they usually show up in films, which is often in the middle, or even forwards of the middle.

Spiryt

2012-04-23, 02:08 PM

I have a 'simple' question relating to learning swordplay.

If a person tries to just do what feels natural, how successful would they be in sword fighting? Are there any maneuvers that are very effective but are not natural?

Swords are obviously not 'natural' in any real way to human beings, so what's natural would definitely depend on person and their general ideas, athletic/motor capabilities/patterns and so on.

So it definitely depends on person. Someone coordinated, quick, strong, brave, cold blooded etc. will do better than someone without such knacks.

Galloglaich

2012-04-23, 04:16 PM

I have a 'simple' question relating to learning swordplay.

If a person tries to just do what feels natural, how successful would they be in sword fighting? Are there any maneuvers that are very effective but are not natural?

I think it depends a lot on the weapon. With a hand axe, a mace, a short sword or a saber*, against a similar sized weapon, a fast, strong, aggressive person can hold their own with simple cuts and by jumping in and out of distance to avoid being cut, and at least have a fighting chance. The main problem is going to be telegraphing attacks and an inability to effectively block. My experience with newbies is that they usually can't parry very well with almost any weapon, are surprised and discomfited when their opponent does parry, and are very easy to counter against after a parry. Newbies are also easy to feint against, though they can be unpredictable due to panic and adrenaline. The safest thing to do to an athletic 'newby' is to lure them into making a big mistake and then exploit it.

With something more challenging like a longsword or a katana, it's much harder to fight effectively without a fairly substantial level of training. You may be able to make a half-way decent cut, but you won't be able to see the distance properly, it will be very hard not to telegraph, (and a telegraph means you are likely to be met with an easy counter) parrying will be a major challenge, and what to do after a parry, or any other bind, is one of many things you will likely ponder while your opponents weapon enters your body or head.

With a really subtle weapon like a rapier, a beginner has almost no chance at all against even a half-trained opponent. The first overreaction you make means you'll be skewered a second or two later.

There are reasons why people with less training tended to be equipped with certain simpler to use weapons (or weapons for which a simple training regimen could be developed)

G

* a real saber as opposed to a sport fencing 'saber'

Morty

2012-04-23, 04:45 PM

This is the broken link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA&feature=relmfu

Assuming you want to go with Medieval longsword, you still have to further specify the Italian system (Fiore / Vadi) or the German-language system (Liechtenauer) and if the latter, 15th vs. 16th Century.

Mcv mentioned the Lindholm ringeck book which though old, is good because it has the original translation in addition to their (now petty dated) interpretation, side by side.

The best overall HEMA book to get if you want to understand what historical fencing is, is this overview by Sydney Anglo from 2000, luckily still available and in print

http://www.amazon.com/The-Martial-Arts-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0300083521/ref=lp_B001IXQ4HG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335189533&sr=1-1

There were a lot of translations of German manuals done but unfortunately many of the best are now out of print. They should be coming back, but they had a problem with some publishers which haven't been resolved.

This is a good translation of one of the 'folio' style German manuals

http://www.amazon.com/Codex-Wallerstein-Fifteenth-Longsword-Wrestling/dp/1581605854/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335189066&sr=1-1-spell

There is also a superb online resource for the German manuals, with translations of nearly all of them:

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page

Here is some Italian stuff.

Fiore (this is a partial translation I think of the Getty version of Fiore's Flos Duelletorum, but it's relatively cheap and very nice to look at. Fiore has superb illustrations.)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Knightly-Art-Battle-Mondschein/dp/1606060767/ref=pd_sim_b_7

This is a really good, practical guide to Medieval dagger techniques which derives largely from Fiore

http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-And-Renaissance-Dagger-Combat/dp/158160517X/ref=pd_sim_b_6

This is Vadi but it's an old translation, don't know much about it other than that.

http://www.amazon.com/Arte-Gladiatoria-Dimicandi-Century-Swordsmanship/dp/1891448161/ref=pd_sim_b_10

Hope that helps. beyond that, get connected to a group in your region

Thanks, that definetly helps. I'll see about looking for some groups where I lie... I've been meaning to do this for a while. As for futher narrowing it down - what I'm looking for is definetly German longsword from 15th century. I've already seen and heard a bit about Liechtenauer.

Straybow

2012-04-23, 06:04 PM

I have a 'simple' question relating to learning swordplay.

If a person tries to just do what feels natural, how successful would they be in sword fighting? Are there any maneuvers that are very effective but are not natural? Mainly depends on what you mean by a "sword fight." If you mean a battlefield with two sides crashing together the odds of survival are low for the first rank, but even lower at their skill level. After the initial bloodbath you wind up with a loose free-for-all melee. If they keep moving they might stay alive.

...The main problem is going to be telegraphing attacks and an inability to effectively block. My experience with newbies is that they usually can't parry very well with almost any weapon, are surprised and discomfited when their opponent does parry, and are very easy to counter against after a parry. I would echo that.

Knaight

2012-04-23, 06:10 PM

With a really subtle weapon like a rapier, a beginner has almost no chance at all against even a half-trained opponent. The first overreaction you make means you'll be skewered a second or two later.
I see that with thrusting weapons in general. Rapiers, smallswords, estocs, all of them are sloppy. It also shows up with two handed weapons in general. At the intersection of the two - most polearms - is where it just starts getting hopeless. As often as not, it takes all of one thrust on the newbies part, where they overextend, have their weapon knocked aside, then take a lunge to the chest.

Hades

2012-04-23, 08:00 PM

For those looking for manuals and manuscripts to study from, note that, despite the name, the Wiktenauer also has a fair amount of non-German non-longsword stuff: Capo Ferro (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ridolfo_Capo_Ferro_da_Cagli), di Grassi (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi), Marozzo (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Achille_Marozzo), and George Silver (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/George_Silver), for instance.

deuxhero

2012-04-23, 10:33 PM

Talakeal

2012-04-23, 10:50 PM

Incanur

2012-04-24, 12:46 AM

With a really subtle weapon like a rapier, a beginner has almost no chance at all against even a half-trained opponent.

Note that George Silver argued exactly the opposite, even going as far as to claim that the untrained man had odds against a opponent schooled in the false Italian fashion. While this relates to his overall polemic against Italian fencing instructors, it shouldn't be completely discounted. Lots rapier duels in this era ended with each party thrusting home. Furthermore, the idea of bad training being worse than no training makes obvious sense.

On the other hand, Silver did expect masters to defend themselves perfectly against any and all comers. He proposed a quite robust qualification exam for fencing instructors. I think experts did achieve this level of skill in some cases, but I suspect the inexperienced combatant still poses a significant threat to most martial artists. I've done rather well in sparring against newbies myself and I'm barely mediocre with a sword, but I think sparring tends to heighten the differences in skill.

There are reasons why people with less training tended to be equipped with certain simpler to use weapons (or weapons for which a simple training regimen could be developed)

Nearly every idiot and their brother had a rapier in much of Europe during the Renaissance, so there's little reason to believe that rapiers require some special level of skill to use.

Beleriphon

2012-04-24, 01:33 AM

Nearly every idiot and their brother had a rapier in much of Europe during the Renaissance, so there's little reason to believe that rapiers require some special level of skill to use.

I think that might speak more towards the social status associated with owning such a weapon rather than any real level of legitimate skill.

Spiryt

2012-04-24, 04:40 AM

Mount and Blade has a weapon called "shortened military scythe"
(Pic)
http://i39.tinypic.com/28tj2io.png

Does such a thing exist in reality? I can't find non-M&B references to the name (so I assume it would have a different name or no "real" name at all), but it seems plausible.

Well, quite simply, this weapon refers to all kind of 'choppers' 'short glaives' or whatever you call it, that appear in large amount of pictorial sources from 13th to 16th century, but no one had really found anything that could be actual genuine example. Or at least they're not known and researched.

So they're quite a bit of mystery.

Few most famous depictions.

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10va&b.gif

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10ra&b.gif

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7176

mcv

2012-04-24, 05:00 AM

I have a 'simple' question relating to learning swordplay.

If a person tries to just do what feels natural, how successful would they be in sword fighting? Are there any maneuvers that are very effective but are not natural?
They could be pretty successful. Some people just have a natural talent for it. I've seen someone without any sparring experience (though he did have some training) beat much more experienced fighters in a tournament. There are definitely very effective but counter-intuitive maneuvers in sword fighting, but as long as you're not fighting an expert, you can probably get by without them.

If you have that talent, that is. Without it, you're never going to master the complexities of combat on your own in the way that people with training do.

Galloglaich

2012-04-24, 08:33 AM

Note that George Silver argued exactly the opposite, even going as far as to claim that the untrained man had odds against a opponent schooled in the false Italian fashion. (snip)
Nearly every idiot and their brother had a rapier in much of Europe during the Renaissance, so there's little reason to believe that rapiers require some special level of skill to use.

While I think Silver is generally respected for his insights into fencing and his training approach, and while he makes an interesting and credible case for how to beat a rapier with a sword, his attacks against rapier fencing in general have a little less credibility. I think it's more to do with politics (and xenophobia) than fencing. Much like Swetnams rants against the female "species".

That said, certainly putting a rapier in your hand doesn't make you anything special as a fencer, if you are not trained or are badly trained, it's less than useless as many people learned the hard way. That was essentially my point: it is unwise to try to use a weapon like that unless you are fairly well trained, and unskilled rapier fencers did indeed frequently skewer one another in duels, coroners records bear this out.

Historical records do also however bear out the skill of Spanish and Italian rapier Masters, whatever you think of the weapon there is no doubt it was / is effective in the hands of a well-trained fencer and the most skilled Masters did indeed know what they were doing.

EDIT: as testament to the efficacy of Silvers system, I saw a female fencer, a New Zealand woman who lives in the UK who we call "Kit the Kiwi", defeat one of the strongest fighters in my group (who himself went on to get 3rd place in dussack in Sweden at Swordfish later that year) in a dussack match in Houston in 2010. She is very into Silver and uses his guards and techniques with the dussack, quite effectively.

G

Galloglaich

2012-04-24, 08:47 AM

They could be pretty successful. Some people just have a natural talent for it. I've seen someone without any sparring experience (though he did have some training) beat much more experienced fighters in a tournament.

I've seen naturally athletic people with a few months of training from very good instructors do well in tournaments, but in ten years I've yet to see anyone with zero training do well in international longsword tournaments or even informal sparring.

I think you can do ok right out the gate (i.e. no training) with Dusssack. I've seen people get 'up to speed' (basic competency) in saber in a few weeks, same with staff or spear. You can get up to speed in about 3-6 months with longsword if you have a very good instructor and training several times a week. More like a year or more if you are training on your own or with less skilled teachers. For some people it takes 2 or 3 years. With rapier I would generally double that in most cases, but I have seen some people who take to it much more quickly, again depending on the instructor and the individual student. Some people seem naturally more suited to one weapon than another, longsword and rapier are distinct personality types.

I learned longsword up to a basic level of competency in about a year, but it took me almost 4 years to get halfway decent at rapier and I'm still not that good.

There are also different plateaus you reach. I think a guy with 3 months of training in a longsword has a major edge against someone with no training, just from knowing the guards, false-edge cutting, Mastercuts and so on. Enough to ensure like a 3-1 victory margin. But it probably takes at least a year to get to the point where you have a similar advantage over almost any naturally athletic guy with 3 months of training, and something like 3 years before you have a major advantage over a strong guy with 1 years experience.... and that is if you have talent and drive sufficient to learn those advanced, counter-intuitive techniques.

The interesting thing is that training in the historical techniques can and does trump youth and strength, but it takes a lot of training. At Fechtschule America this March I saw a handful of fencers in their 40's and 50's who could still dominate aggressive young fighters in their mid 20's. But there aren't very many who can still hold their own at that age.

G

deuxhero

2012-04-24, 11:02 AM

Thank you Talakeal and Spiryt!

Incanur

2012-04-24, 01:37 PM

I think it's more to do with politics (and xenophobia) than fencing.

I think it's best to interprets Silver's rants as over-generalizations based on experience with bad rapier instructors. Lots of it comes from xenophobia and personal grudges, no doubt, but the idea some folks teaching dubious martial arts makes sense to me. You see that all the time in our contemporary moment. Rapiers fencers who only had experience defending against the thrust and never practiced rough sparring might well have had trouble against natural fighters.

That was essentially my point: it is unwise to try to use a weapon like that unless you are fairly well trained, and unskilled rapier fencers did indeed frequently skewer one another in duels, coroners records bear this out.

I just question the idea that semi-trained fencers - with any weapon - had little to fear from the inexperienced. I think self-defense is a harder problem than that. Also, double kills don't necessarily imply a complete lack of skill; they can result from aggression. Duelists sometimes acted with little regard for their own safety.

Galloglaich

2012-04-24, 02:32 PM

I think it's best to interprets Silver's rants as over-generalizations based on experience with bad rapier instructors. Lots of it comes from xenophobia and personal grudges, no doubt, but the idea some folks teaching dubious martial arts makes sense to me. You see that all the time in our contemporary moment. Rapiers fencers who only had experience defending against the thrust and never practiced rough sparring might well have had trouble against natural fighters.

I agree with all that.. no doubt there were some charlatans around and the more 'rough and ready' approach that some of the English fighters had could clearly trump more sophisticated but delicate specialists. I think there is a famous anecdote about a stranded English seaman fighting several rapierists in the Spanish court with a quarterstaff?

I just question the idea that semi-trained fencers - with any weapon - had little to fear from the inexperienced. I think self-defense is a harder problem than that.

I agree in theory it doesn't sound like it should make sense, but I'm just going by what I have observed. I should be clear, this is only reflective of my own experiences, I don't pretend that they are universal.

That said, by what I've seen, with certain weapons there just seems to be a few tricks and / or basic mistakes which can undo you, as soon as you learn to fix that you become dangerous. I think it's maybe because the weapon is more counter-intuitive to use or because there is too much to think about. A newby spear guy can make a fast thrust but usually doesn't recover effectively, and you can rush them after they thrust (they usually have no idea what to do when you get inside their range). A newby sword-and-shield guy often doesn't even use his shield at all, or if he does, leaves his lower legs exposed, and will react to a high feint, making it easy to get them. All new fighters tend to telegraph but this seems particularly exaggerated with the longsword; why, I'm not sure. A telegraphed oberhau (cut from above) can be easily dealt with by a single-time zwerch, or a double-time krumph-shiel, or even a simple hengen - counter... or by just a step back and a nachreisen. Often in fact it's against newbies that you can really execute these techniques most cleanly in sparring, I usually take the opportunity to try disarms and take-downs and so on.

From my own experience, the same guy I can just take out over and over and over again in their first couple of weeks of trying to spar, twenty times in a row, two or three months later I'm having much more trouble with and getting some double-kills if they are fast. But that is just anecdotal.

By the way, speaking of advanced techniques, here is a nice video from MEMAG in Maryland, demonstrating a wide range of technique progressions from various Liechtenauer manuscripts, done deliberate, slow and loose to be easy to see. I like :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLSn0JAQsFg&feature=youtu.be

One of the reasons I like it in particular is that you can see one or the other fighters telegraphing their intent in an obvious way and the other person reacting 'indes' and adjusting their counter or their attack. This looks a little goofy but it's illustrating the decision-points.

G

Knaight

2012-04-24, 02:33 PM

I just question the idea that semi-trained fencers - with any weapon - had little to fear from the inexperienced. I think self-defense is a harder problem than that. Also, double kills don't necessarily imply a complete lack of skill; they can result from aggression. Duelists sometimes acted with little regard for their own safety.

I'd also note that the assumption that there is "little to fear from the inexperienced" tends to assume a duel situation. Using myself as an example - I generally don't have issues dealing with one extremely inexperienced fencer. However, outside of duels there is nothing stopping that one fencer from bringing a few friends. Two against one is a problem. Three against one is a much bigger problem. Past that point, any victory of the one becomes some miraculous thing to be celebrated for years.

Galloglaich

2012-04-24, 02:36 PM

Knaight

2012-04-24, 02:46 PM

Yeah I agree with that. This tends to get underplayed in RPG's; numbers are dangerous. Two or three newbies and I'm probably done-in.

That said, there are systems like Jogo Do Pau and the Iberian Montante manuals which specifically deal with coping with multiple opponents in different types of terrain, in a hallway for example or on a ship. And from what I've seen, they look very effective.

G

True. There are different techniques for dealing with multiple people, and they can be learned. I've done some pitched battle stuff, and came from a duel background, and there are some gigantic weaknesses that a duel background leaves that tend to get exploited - the biggest of these is probably sheer focus. It's often pretty easy to rush a duelist from the back. Another relates to movement, where parrying inward is often a bad idea as it makes it easier to get surrounded, and you want all your enemies on one side of you.

With that said, eventually you'll get overwhelmed. The number of people it takes will vary - those who have no practice fighting multiple people are probably hosed against two, where it might often take three or even four against those significantly better. The best I've ever seen was someone taking down six people, and everyone involved knew full well that it was a fluke.

Tam_OConnor

2012-04-24, 06:12 PM

Storm Bringer

2012-04-24, 11:04 PM

I have a question: how would one carry deer-horn knives?

Picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Deerhornknives.JPG/800px-Deerhornknives.JPG
To clarify what I mean by 'carry': to leave hands free for other actions, but have the knives accessible if a combat situation arises.

Thanks!

in a bag, over the shoulder, with a more conventional weapon in a sheath if you need a weapon in a hurry.

IMO, weapons like that are "display" weapons, meant to let the user show mastery of a certian move or skill (eg disarming, trapping, etc), and were intended for "real" combat. this is not the same as them never being used for real combat, it's just i think that wasn;t the point of ther weapon.

mcv

2012-04-25, 06:34 AM

I've seen naturally athletic people with a few months of training from very good instructors do well in tournaments, but in ten years I've yet to see anyone with zero training do well in international longsword tournaments or even informal sparring.
Well, this wasn't an international tournament. It was an internal for AMEK only, and specifically aimed at people with no tournament experience. I believe there were one or two people with some international experience, but still, for one of the least experienced people to win, was not something I expected. He also doesn't look terribly athletic. Somewhat overweight, in fact. I forgot how much instruction he got. I think a year, but I could be way off there. No sparring experience at all, though. He was pretty clear about that.

I think you can do ok right out the gate (i.e. no training) with Dusssack.
I just can't seem to get the hang of it without some instruction. A few guards are different and I have no idea what to do with them. We use dussacks for some sparring games, but don't get any real instruction in them. And there's a dussack tournament (again internal) coming up.

Galloglaich

2012-04-25, 08:46 AM

Three words: provoker, taker, hitter.

G

No brains

2012-04-25, 10:00 AM

Maclav

2012-04-25, 10:51 AM

Speaking of unnatural moves and half-swording, is it true some knights would hold their swords by the blade and swing them like a hammer?

Are there any ways of making a sword better suited to this niche purpose? A stiffer blade perhaps?

Yes, and yes.

Spiked quilions and pommels as well as dull-handle like grips mid blade are mentioned in various manuscripts. I don't know of any actual historical weapons with these features other than the ricasso found on later period spadones/great swords. They were already quite stiff for half-swording and thrusting into mail. Blunt trainers are significantly more flexible than the real thing.

Storm Bringer

2012-04-25, 10:54 AM

Speaking of unnatural moves and half-swording, is it true some knights would hold their swords by the blade and swing them like a hammer?

Are there any ways of making a sword better suited to this niche purpose? A stiffer blade perhaps?

yes. its a real move. It's even made it onto the silver screen (Kingdom of Heaven, that training scene just before the baron gets shot)

as i understand it, it was a move to transitioned into when half swording (i.e. you already had a hand on the blade), to exploit an opening, and it was less "swing like a hammer" and more "punch with the pommel". think of it as "pommel strike, plus".

Spiryt

2012-04-25, 10:58 AM

Speaking of unnatural moves and half-swording, is it true some knights would hold their swords by the blade and swing them like a hammer?

Are there any ways of making a sword better suited to this niche purpose? A stiffer blade perhaps?

Depictions like this begin to show in 15th century, although AFAIR there's not that much of them showing such usage in battle.

I think that such use of the sword would be anyway somehow rare, when opportunity arises - when somebody would want to strike something with guard or pommel he still would probably usually use less 'committed' ways, like so:

http://www.swordschool.com/assets/images/tsc_revisions/image017.jpg

Maclav

2012-04-25, 11:26 AM

Much like half-swording, using murder-stroke like attacks are primarily for use against someone in armour. Situations where the regular stuff like one handed pommel strikes depicted above are ineffective. Fiore does explicitly talk about using a sword like it was a poleaxe, and I have opened fights like that much to the befuddlement of my opponents. It makes a highly effective opener from Posta di Donna against someone half-swording who is (almost) obligated to parry in true-cross it leaving you a few excellent second intention actions from the bind, much the same as they would if done with a poleaxe. :)

My favourite being pulling them down (pull the bind down into Denti di Cinghiale Mezza, pulling the crossing down with a Volta Stabile) and returning with with essential a pommel uppercut into their dropping torso, right into their visor... (return from with sotani back into a high guard)

Incanur

2012-04-25, 04:25 PM

The number of people it takes will vary - those who have no practice fighting multiple people are probably hosed against two, where it might often take three or even four against those significantly better. The best I've ever seen was someone taking down six people, and everyone involved knew full well that it was a fluke.

A period martial artist wrote the following:

There is no hurt or disgrace to run away from four or six. And when you turn and start to run away from him, then throw your sword across and run as fast as you can. Then as one who thinks that he has caught up with you and has closed with you, then leap to the side of the road and if he is running quickly after you, then he will be moving too fast to control himself and you can strike him down as you wish.

That's a tactic for facing as many as six foes, but it involves flight. Swetnam considered defense against two earnest opponents in the open simply impossible, though he noted a skilled player could at least hold off a gang in some narrow spot. The key is not getting surrounded. See this thread (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=199299) for additional information on the situation of one against many.

Ashtagon

2012-04-26, 02:31 AM

Knaight

2012-04-26, 02:58 AM

That's a tactic for facing as many as six foes, but it involves flight. Swetnam considered defense against two earnest opponents in the open simply impossible, though he noted a skilled player could at least hold off a gang in some narrow spot. The key is not getting surrounded. See this thread (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=199299) for additional information on the situation of one against many.

A tactic like that is basically necessary. Non-flight tactics get you surrounded, which is all sorts of hopeless. Even with that though, it's still a six on one.

Storm Bringer

2012-04-26, 11:07 AM

Beleriphon

2012-04-26, 02:36 PM

another question for you, firearms related:

why did the pump action never seem to spread beyond shotguns? I have never heard of a pump action rifle, but my knowledge of firearms doesn't include whatever problem would make them unworkable.

Remington makes a rifle that fires 270 Winchester rounds or 30.06 rounds that is a pump action:
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/pump-action-model-7600.aspx

I think part of the popularity of bolt action rifles is its a completely closed breach. That said a pump action isn't all that different than a lever action rifle, and there are still plenty of those.

No brains

2012-04-26, 04:38 PM

another question for you, firearms related:

why did the pump action never seem to spread beyond shotguns? I have never heard of a pump action rifle, but my knowledge of firearms doesn't include whatever problem would make them unworkable.

unless it the same reason bolt actions are preffered over lever actions (you can only stack rounfs end to end in a lever, and this means if your using centerfire cartidges that the point of one bullet is touching the primer of the next, e.g. is not safe. is that the reason?)

I'm not a major in anatomy or gun mechanisms, but it seems to me that the pump action isn't very ergonomic. Pumping a gun involves pulling down on the bottom tube (whatever) of the gun, which will wobble your aim more than an action that is at the back of the gun like a bolt or lever. With a shotgun, the shooter is generally not expected to shoot rapidly and accuracy is a LITTLE easier so that might be why it stuck with shotguns.

Mike_G

2012-04-26, 05:17 PM

There are a few pump action rifles. Not military ones, but a few commercial firearms are pump action.

I have to say, it's my least favorite firearm action, because, as No Brains says, it makes you move the gun too much to chamber a new round. With a bolt action, you can cycle the weapon without really throwing off your aim. Even lever action if you have a nice supported position, you can stay on target. Plus, if you are firing prone or kneeling supporting your forward elbow on you knee or some other support, you have to shift position and move your weight to pump the action.

Nothing beats semi auto for staying on target.

No brains

2012-04-26, 10:41 PM

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2012-04-27, 12:00 AM

Does anyone have any firm dates for when leather armour was actually invented?

The best I've found is evidence of soft leather (for clothing and slings) from 3000 BC, but nothing at all about boiled/hardened leather armour.

Same question for shields (by material type and size) and for bronze armours.

I believe that boiled/hardened leather armour as portrayed in DnD books and such-like never actually existed. The closest is the under-coats used under metal armour, and perhaps Linothrax.

Ashtagon

2012-04-27, 01:03 AM

I believe that boiled/hardened leather armour as portrayed in DnD books and such-like never actually existed. The closest is the under-coats used under metal armour, and perhaps Linothrax.

It certainly did exist. the traditional name for this material was cuir bouilli.

Spiryt

2012-04-27, 01:57 AM

It probably wasn't ever really used as armor in Medieval Europe, though used pretty extensively by nomadic people of Asia.

There were leather shields dated to around 1500 - 1000 B.C., in any case.

http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/Clonbrin_shield.htm

Ashtagon

2012-04-27, 02:50 AM

It probably wasn't ever really used as armor in Medieval Europe, though used pretty extensively by nomadic people of Asia.

That'll be why the traditional name for this armour material is not in French, yes?

Brother Oni

2012-04-27, 07:16 AM

I am currently imagining something like a one-handed dagger-axe (Chinese polearm) or halberd, but if anyone can think of anything stranger, I would be pleased.:smallsmile:

I've got what I believe to be an ornamental version of a pistol dagger that I picked up in Italy.

There's the emei piercers, hook sword and meteor hammer popular in Chinese martial arts. I believe somebody linked to deerhorn blades earlier in the thread.

The Indians made use of the chakram which is again fairly unusual.

On the western side of things, I believe there were multi-bladed swords (that is, swords with additional blades mounted in parallel), but I'm unsure as to the historical accuracy of such things.

I know they look common to us now, but boomerangs are really odd compared to most other thrown weapon.

No brains

2012-04-27, 12:58 PM

I've got what I believe to be an ornamental version of a pistol dagger that I picked up in Italy.

There's the emei piercers, hook sword and meteor hammer popular in Chinese martial arts. I believe somebody linked to deerhorn blades earlier in the thread.

The Indians made use of the chakram which is again fairly unusual.

On the western side of things, I believe there were multi-bladed swords (that is, swords with additional blades mounted in parallel), but I'm unsure as to the historical accuracy of such things.

I know they look common to us now, but boomerangs are really odd compared to most other thrown weapon.
Could I get a pic of that pistol dagger?

If possible I would like my obscure weapon to be more 'barbarian' than 'elegant'. While Eastern Martial arts weapons are sometimes intentionally odd, they have a bit too much of a 'civilized' touch to them.

No multi-bladed swords. Kadaj ruined them forever.

You point about boomerangs got me interested. Although their utility against humans is limited, it reminded me of some Southern Hemisphere throwing blades. I liked for this purpose the Zande Kpinga(s), and I believe there are some other African throwing knives as well. While throwing a weapon is a clever way to disarm yourself, Deadliest Warrior (forgive me for mentioning them) seemed to show the massive shuriken as a serviceable weapon.

Galloglaich

2012-04-27, 01:12 PM

Given that, you might like the 'hurlbat', sort of the European equivalent of those (highly effective) African throwing knives. Used from possibly as far back as the Migration era through the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance.

http://www.arizonacustomknives.com/images/products/19920.jpg

http://thedarkblade.com/wp-content/uploads/hurlbat-gothic.jpg

I also like the big two-handed flail used by the Czechs, also quite effective.

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n106/blfulton45/Arms%20and%20Armor/DSC00944.jpg

We've also discussed the various axe-gun combinations in the past

http://www.backpackingdave.com/euro0220.JPG

There are lot's of other exotic weapons in India.

G

Beleriphon

2012-04-27, 02:15 PM

I have to say, it's my least favorite firearm action, because, as No Brains says, it makes you move the gun too much to chamber a new round. With a bolt action, you can cycle the weapon without really throwing off your aim.

Most the pump action rifles I've found seem to be market for their rapid cycling while moving. Thus the target market is for hunting from an ATV, horseback or even a boat.

Mike_G

2012-04-27, 06:52 PM

Most the pump action rifles I've found seem to be market for their rapid cycling while moving. Thus the target market is for hunting from an ATV, horseback or even a boat.

I guess that makes sense. I've only ever shot military weapons or target shooting. Pump action isn't very conducive to either of those.

Beleriphon

2012-04-27, 08:49 PM

I guess that makes sense. I've only ever shot military weapons or target shooting. Pump action isn't very conducive to either of those.

Yeah, all of the marketing emphasizes that pump action rifles are best for rapidly cycling another round into to take another shot at a moving target. I'd imagine it would be handy if you're trying to take an elk on the run that you didn't kill with the first round.

Mike_G

2012-04-28, 07:23 AM

Yeah, all of the marketing emphasizes that pump action rifles are best for rapidly cycling another round into to take another shot at a moving target. I'd imagine it would be handy if you're trying to take an elk on the run that you didn't kill with the first round.

I guess that's great marketing for the company that wants to sell more ammo to the guy who already bought an ATV and a pump action rifle instead of a good bolt action and learning to stalk.

Yora

2012-04-28, 07:57 AM

Nothing beats semi auto for staying on target.
Why are there no (popular) semi automatic shotguns? Is the pump action mechanism just cheaper to manufacture, is the recoil not strong enough, or are there issues with non-brass cartridges?

Raum

2012-04-28, 09:38 AM

Why are there no (popular) semi automatic shotguns? Is the pump action mechanism just cheaper to manufacture, is the recoil not strong enough, or are there issues with non-brass cartridges?Not sure how you're using 'popular' but the Mossberg 930 SPX has some good reviews.

They're not cheap though - a good semi-auto shotgun is often at least twice the cost of an equivalent pump action. Historically, there have been reliability issues - but I think those have been solved. As long as you're willing to pay for it of course. ;)

Yora

2012-04-28, 09:50 AM

That pretty much answers it. :smallbiggrin:

Beleriphon

2012-04-28, 05:46 PM

Why are there no (popular) semi automatic shotguns? Is the pump action mechanism just cheaper to manufacture, is the recoil not strong enough, or are there issues with non-brass cartridges?

There are several, the Saiga being one of them. The primary issue, at least in the US, can be that most semi-auto shotguns actually have magazines that are too large to be legally used. Even pump action shotguns sometimes require plugs if they can hold too many rounds.

No brains

2012-04-28, 06:36 PM

I personally get a kick out of the Protecta, AA-12, and the Punt Gun.

If for whatever reason you need to make sure an entire biome dies, these are your weapons.

fusilier

2012-04-29, 02:48 AM

Hooray! I talked out of my mouth that time!:smalltongue:

Now I have a request for a hand weapon that could be considered' freakish'. I am looking for an historical weapon that looked or functioned in a bizarre or unorthodox manner, yet managed to flourish within its own niche. If it could be held in one hand, all the better.

I am currently imagining something like a one-handed dagger-axe (Chinese polearm) or halberd, but if anyone can think of anything stranger, I would be pleased.:smallsmile:

Hmmm. While there are a lot of freakish one handed weapons out there, I'm having trouble of thinking of any that really "flourished" even within their own niche.

The best I can think of right now is a "trench club". Used during WW1, they are freakish because they were usually made on an ad hoc basis, with nails driven through them at various angles and often wrapped in some barbed wire. They certainly flourished within a niche -- and their freakishness is probably enhanced by their widespread use in a war that included planes, high-explosive artillery shells, poison gas, and machine guns. I don't think that was exactly what you were looking for, however.

There were various pistol-something/something-pistol weapons. Some of the earliest known wheellocks are crossbow pistols -- a crossbow with a small wheellock gun built into the stock. I've seen replicas of a "cutlass pistol". The "duck's foot" pistol, with three barrels firing at different angles is a bizarre weapon which must have been awkward to use (not so much to hold and fire, but to have three targets in the right place).

I feel like I should be able to come up with something that was a bit more widespread than any of those bizarre combo pistols. I never got the feeling that such weapons really flourished, although a good number of them seem to have survived.

hamishspence

2012-04-29, 07:54 AM

That'll be why the traditional name for this armour material is not in French, yes?

Maybe they named it after being attacked by invaders who wore it- wasn't there a guy called Martel who thwarted a big invasion?

Storm Bringer

2012-04-29, 11:55 AM

how about African throwing knives?

they had blades coming off at crazy angles all over them, the logic being that ni matter which way the weapon was facing when it hit, at least one sharp edge or point was facing the right way.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=african+throwing+knives&FORM=BIFD

Straybow

2012-04-29, 12:05 PM

Well, cuir boulli has been tested and it doesn't make good armor. Because it is saturated with wax it does not resist arrows well at all. The wax actually lubricates the missile, reducing the friction of penetration. The effect on blades wasn't specifically tested that I recall, but it might have a similar problem. It does really well against impact.

Steaming the leather makes it contract and become more dense. With practice the craftsman learns the ratio of contraction and can make items that will be the correct size and shape after shrinking.

The Greeks discovered, probly by accident, that layers of leather and canvas glued together (the exact method is unclear, but I'd guess two layers of each) were proof of missiles of that era. The Romans dismissed it as "just leather" and never used it, and its secret was lost. We understand today that the interaction of dissimilar materials can magnify their strengths and negate their weaknesses.

A similar effect is seen in the "lime shield" of rawhide glued over linden wood. It doesn't work with cured leather, it has to be rawhide. It doesn't work with most oak, ash and other straight-splitting wood that are very tough but split too easily.

Ashtagon

2012-04-29, 12:28 PM

Well, cuir boulli has been tested and it doesn't make good armor. Because it is saturated with wax it does not resist arrows well at all. The wax actually lubricates the missile, reducing the friction of penetration. The effect on blades wasn't specifically tested that I recall, but it might have a similar problem. It does really well against impact.

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/leather/hl.html#cb17

Well, except that wax wasn't used in historical examples of cuir boulli armour.

It's more likely that actual armours were finished by lacquering them, not by waxing or oiling them. Waxes and oils would both give a decorative (if you like that sort of thing) finish and make it waterproof, but certainly reduce the armour potential.

There is another country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) that is known to have lacquered their armour. This is probably not a coincidence.

Spiryt

2012-04-29, 12:39 PM

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/leather/hl.html#cb17

Well, except that wax wasn't used in historical examples of cuir boulli armour.

Can you point to any references about those historical examples of cuir boulli armor?

The very problem is that we really don't have those, and people are left speculating about interpretation of few literal sources, like the very 'cuir boulli' phrase.

Like in link you've provided.

There's something like that:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=52277&stc=1

Probably arm/elbow protection, but of it was actually practical and used... no way to know.

Buff coats used later as 'light' standalone armor, or supplementation of breastplates etc. wasn't hardened leather in any way, just high quality, arduously and carefully stitched into mobile, yet protective coat.

Ashtagon

2012-04-29, 12:55 PM

Can you point to any references about those historical examples of cuir boulli armor?

The very problem is that we really don't have those, and people are left speculating about interpretation of few literal sources, like the very 'cuir boulli' phrase.

Like in link you've provided.

It was the bit where he said:

Please Note that there is NO Evidence that I know of that Waxed Leather was used for anything other than some Elizabethan era bottles, cups, knives scabbards, etc.

Given that the Elizabethans and Victorians were very guilty of assigning all kinds of idiocy to mediaeval warfare, it would not surprise me to learn that the waxed cuir bouilli armour belief originated with them.

mcv

2012-04-29, 03:35 PM

Now I have a request for a hand weapon that could be considered' freakish'. I am looking for an historical weapon that looked or functioned in a bizarre or unorthodox manner, yet managed to flourish within its own niche. If it could be held in one hand, all the better.
Weapons that flourish tend not to be considered freakish anymore because people get used to them. I mean, if they weren't known to be common weapons, flails and morningstars would definitely count as freakish, wouldn't they? And what about spears 3 times the size of a man? Or polearms with their weird heads? Military picks? Bolas?

If you want a weird looking polearm, you might consider a bec-de-corbin. It can have a really tiny looking head. Basically it's a halberd with the axe replaced by a warhammer, making it extra good at piercing plate.

Another interesting weapon I wasn't aware of until a few years ago, are Langes Messer. They're technically knives (because of their knife grip and single edge), but they're as big as swords, have an extra nail at a right angle with the crossguard, giving interesting parry and counter options, and they've got a really cool and subtle yet brutal looking fighting style. They were probably reasonably common, though.

Of course Okinawa weapons are a good place to look too.

Spiryt

2012-04-29, 03:49 PM

Weapons that flourish tend not to be considered freakish anymore because people get used to them. I mean, if they weren't known to be common weapons, flails and morningstars would definitely count as freakish, wouldn't they? And what about spears 3 times the size of a man? Or polearms with their weird heads? Military picks? Bolas?

If you want a weird looking polearm, you might consider a bec-de-corbin. It can have a really tiny looking head. Basically it's a halberd with the axe replaced by a warhammer, making it extra good at piercing plate.

.

Well, technically all kinds of bec de corbin/lucerne hammers are simply pollaxes with some kind of hammer or pronged protrudes instead of axes.

Halbers are generally one bit of metal on top of staff, formed into blade with hook and top spike... While poleaxes and co. generally are stick with different bits mounted around it.

Cannot really see it as really weird though.

Morningstar is a form of mace, making it rather 'obvious' too.

Personally I would probably end up designating kusari-gama as 'bizarre' weapon.

Seems very awkward, but supposedly was perfectly practical for it's purposes.

fusilier

2012-04-29, 11:21 PM

Beleriphon

2012-04-30, 01:05 AM

Cuir Boulli

Last year I needed to stiffen some leather to make a visor for a shako. I did a bunch of research online and found many references to Cuir Boulli, which was actually quite annoying because they primarily sent me down the wrong path. What I finally did was get a piece of vegetable (not oil) tanned rawhide, soak it in water, then let it dry out under some heavy books. Worked perfectly. Cooking it in the oven just burned it, and caused it to warp. Although the warping may have been fixed if I had used some kind of form.

You can use water but you do need some manner of form otherwise, as you noted, the leather warps. You really should be using at least some kind of form no matter what, even if its just some books to make it flat.

Anyway, many people seem to use wax to harden leather. I don't know why. When I got some boots from Italy for reenacting, the seller instructed me to always "wax them". Now something may have been lost in translation, but I assumed the wax he was referring to was something like a mink oil (which despite it's name is a waxy substance), or something that the English call "dubbin". The point was to protect and water-proof the boots, not to harden them. This would fit with the other waxed leather products that Ashtagon pointed out.

Using wax to harden leather is similar to the water method, except you use melted wax and kind of "paint" it onto hot leather. This can be extremely dangerous mind you so please be careful is you manage to get enough wax and want to give it a go.

I have a friend who has made reproduction "Ardagas", leather shields that the Spanish adopted from the Moors. One of his is even in a museum. I can double check, but I'm pretty sure that the outside is rawhide that has been soaked and stretched over a frame, making it very hard.

You'll want to take a look at this guy then: http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/Clonbrin_shield.htm

Its a reproduction of what is believed to be a 3000 year old solid leather shield from Ireland. It doesn't appear to have a frame, the reproduction was used in a series of tests with reproduction weapons (made by the same fellow) for an archaeological study.

Also this has some good tips on the process of making cuir boulli:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/leather/hl.html

eulmanis12

2012-04-30, 07:05 AM

Question about black powder weapons.

How accurate was a flintlock musket? Specificly, what are my odds of hitting a target at 10 yards?
What about 20?
30?

Kaeso

2012-04-30, 07:20 AM

Spiryt

2012-04-30, 07:35 AM

Question about black powder weapons.

How accurate was a flintlock musket? Specificly, what are my odds of hitting a target at 10 yards?
What about 20?
30?

That really depends on what 'target' is and then on musket and shooter familiarity and skill with it....

So it's impossible to give one answer, but at such small distance like 20 yards, hitting human target with decent musket and decently loaded powder charge, ball etc. shouldn't be difficult at all.

Mike_G

2012-04-30, 07:42 AM

Cuir Boulli

Anyway, many people seem to use wax to harden leather. I don't know why. When I got some boots from Italy for reenacting, the seller instructed me to always "wax them". Now something may have been lost in translation, but I assumed the wax he was referring to was something like a mink oil (which despite it's name is a waxy substance), or something that the English call "dubbin". The point was to protect and water-proof the boots, not to harden them.

Beeswax does a really good job of waterproofing boots. Put the boots in a 200 degree oven or let the sit on the hearth near a fire, then rub the beeswax on the warmed leather. It sinks in and protects very well. Doesn't harden the leather, but it darkens it and makes it shiny.

And keeps your feet dry, which is the whole point of the exercise.

Maclav

2012-04-30, 07:51 AM

Beeswax does a really good job of waterproofing boots. Put the boots in a 200 degree oven or let the sit on the hearth near a fire, then rub the beeswax on the warmed leather. It sinks in and protects very well. Doesn't harden the leather, but it darkens it and makes it shiny.

And keeps your feet dry, which is the whole point of the exercise.

Unless your boots are made of veg-tan leather, in which case they will become rock hard. I made a leather bottle last year with beeswax. It is hard like a rock. I can stand on it - hell, I think I could drive over it with my van.

Spiryt

2012-04-30, 08:00 AM

Could some of you please provide me with an objective comparison between knights, samurai and the ancient warriors of China (both in terms of equipment, training and effectiveness on the battlefield) and provide me with an answer on the age old question "Knights or Samurai"?

The problem with discussing with guys like your friend that it's hard to really seriously do something like that - comparison like that assumes some kind of Age of Empires or whatever 'warriors', "units" or whatever, which is obviously not the case in real world.

Actual people 'effectiveness' on the battlefield would depend on all them political, economical, cultural etc. situation, aside from the fact that "effectiveness on battlefield" is also very broad problem.

Long story short though, when 'less advanced' Europeans arrived to Japan, Japanese people very quickly and eagerly started to purchase/copy their military designs, like breastplates and muskets.

Kaeso

2012-04-30, 08:05 AM

The problem with discussing with guys like your friend that it's hard to really seriously do something like that - comparison like that assumes some kind of Age of Empires or whatever 'warriors', "units" or whatever, which is obviously not the case in real world.

Actual people 'effectiveness' on the battlefield would depend on all them political, economical, cultural etc. situation, aside from the fact that "effectiveness on battlefield" is also very broad problem.

Long story short though, when 'less advanced' Europeans arrived to Japan, Japanese people very quickly and eagerly started to purchase/copy their military designs, like breastplates and muskets.

That is true, but it is quite possible to compare the effectiveness of their armor (how good it is at deflecting/catching blows), weapons (which blades were of better quality) and intensity of their training (it's obvious that Spetznaz recruits are far heavier trained than the average US infantryman), isn't it?

Spiryt

2012-04-30, 08:16 AM

That is true, but it is quite possible to compare the effectiveness of their armor (how good it is at deflecting/catching blows), weapons (which blades were of better quality) and intensity of their training (it's obvious that Spetznaz recruits are far heavier trained than the average US infantryman), isn't it?

Talking about, say, 1000 - 1450 period, there's no such thing as "their armor" weapons, or universal 'training'. Medieval Europe and Japan were universalistic, but not to such degree.

Spetznaz can run around forest surviving with a knife and 3 matches, but US special forces can do similar stuff. Comparing special forces member to common infantryman is obviously invalid.

So there will be plenty of dirrerent blades and weapons, differing in design, purpose and sheer quality of craftsmanship, like almost everywhere everytime.

Even if katanas were roughly 'universal', Japanese complicated lammellar/scale laced armors were extremely varied.

Generally, one certain thing is that Japan was very isolated, compared to European countries, or Europe as a whole.

So everything was relatively 'static' and comparison/competition of military culture in different situations was not possible.

Kaeso

2012-04-30, 08:59 AM

Talking about, say, 1000 - 1450 period, there's no such thing as "their armor" weapons, or universal 'training'. Medieval Europe and Japan were universalistic, but not to such degree.

Spetznaz can run around forest surviving with a knife and 3 matches, but US special forces can do similar stuff. Comparing special forces member to common infantryman is obviously invalid.

So there will be plenty of dirrerent blades and weapons, differing in design, purpose and sheer quality of craftsmanship, like almost everywhere everytime.

Even if katanas were roughly 'universal', Japanese complicated lammellar/scale laced armors were extremely varied.

Generally, one certain thing is that Japan was very isolated, compared to European countries, or Europe as a whole.

So everything was relatively 'static' and comparison/competition of military culture in different situations was not possible.

Point in case. If we choose to limit ourselves to a single period within that time frame (let's say 12th century, at around the time of the crusades), would your answer be any different? This would mean we'd compare a templar or a hospitaler knight to a 12th century samurai.

Spiryt

2012-04-30, 09:20 AM

Point in case. If we choose to limit ourselves to a single period within that time frame (let's say 12th century, at around the time of the crusades), would your answer be any different? This would mean we'd compare a templar or a hospitaler knight to a 12th century samurai.

Well, Hospitalers and Templars, as military orders had their statutes etc. and at least during Crusades, they were involved in conflicts on a very large scale.

So they were in general somehow 'militarized' folk, so I guess they can indeed serve as pretty good 'sample'.

Creating some 'average samurai' sample would be bigger problem, at least to me.

Still both would be pretty much heavy, 'elite' cavalry in 'typical' field situation.

The difference would be that knights would typically be actually 'heavy' shock cavalry, charging with lances, while samurai would hold horse archery in great reverence.

Difference might have been partially caused by the fact, that AFAIU, Japanese medieval horses were pretty damn small beasties, compared to what Europeans were accustomed to, let alone modern horses.

Yora

2012-04-30, 09:46 AM

Storm Bringer

2012-04-30, 09:58 AM

Question about black powder weapons.

How accurate was a flintlock musket? Specificly, what are my odds of hitting a target at 10 yards?
What about 20?
30?

in "battlefield" conditions, anybody getting hit by musket fire at 100 yards or more was considered sheer blind luck.

however, a single, "sniper" shot might well be able to reach out that far, given careful loading and some skill. I know a rifleman shot a french general at 300+ yards, but that was with a rifle.

Spiryt

2012-04-30, 11:07 AM

Does anyone have information on the active troop strengths in Europe during the final months of World War II?

Also, I ocasionally read about treating both World Wars and the Cold War as a single continous conflict (or even including the Napoleonic Wars), but I just can't find any reference to it again. Any idea under what name this construct or hypothesis would be found?

That's makes quite a lot of sense, although you would have to define 'conflict'.

After WWII ended, literally millions of Russian and Allies soldiers were stationed in Germany and Eastern Europe, while powers where involved in struggle for control over those territories.

Sadly, Soviet Union generally had taken control over pretty much everything east of Berlin, and Austria wasn't that far away from becoming another socialistic satellite state either. AFAIR, partially due large amount of stationed american soldiers, communist weren't able to fully commit to murders of opposition, propaganda, falsification of the elections etc.

Yora

2012-04-30, 11:32 AM

In many parts of the world the conflict still isn't over. With Germany and Japan two major players were mostly out of the game and the Soviets and Nato didn't actually start shoting at each other on a large scale. But war in Afghanistan never ended afer the Soviet retreat, there are still occasional skirmishes in Korea, and the Chinese civil still is not completely figured out with the whole Taiwan thing. Chechnya would probably also count.

eulmanis12

2012-04-30, 12:10 PM

Mathis

2012-04-30, 12:20 PM

To clarify my earlier question about muskets.

I know that at 100 yards I will not hit anything, and that a 20 yards I will have a good chance of hitting a man sized target, What I'm trying to figure out is what a good approximation of those chances are.

Say at 30 yards, will I have a 50/50 chance of hitting a target, a 1/4 chance of hitting etc?

I'm working on a game that takes place in the 1800's and I'm trying to determine the what die rolls I should assign at different ranges.

I have no historical knowledge about the period, but if you are talking about a game system then I suggest this. You mentioned 1/4 chance of hitting. I don't know what system you are dealing with, but this is a good way of solving your problem: 1-25 feet is easy. 26-50 is medium. 51-75 is hard. 76-100 is very hard. Shouldn't be too hard converting that into your game system. Game rules are supposed to be simple, the more realism you add to them the more complex they usually get, and muddle up the gameplay.

Spiryt

2012-04-30, 12:38 PM

To clarify my earlier question about muskets.

I know that at 100 yards I will not hit anything, and that a 20 yards I will have a good chance of hitting a man sized target, What I'm trying to figure out is what a good approximation of those chances are.

Say at 30 yards, will I have a 50/50 chance of hitting a target, a 1/4 chance of hitting etc?

I'm working on a game that takes place in the 1800's and I'm trying to determine the what die rolls I should assign at different ranges.

This really depends on skills of shooter, precision his musket, familiarity with it, etc.

At the beginning of 19th century, with decently loaded musket, hitting stuff at 100 yards would certainly be very possible.

Depends on how much time/self control shooter has to properly load the musket with powder, fit the right sized ball tightly in the barrel, then aim properly...

So accuracy would vary quite a bit - there's quite a lot of videos, even on Youtube in the Internet, to give the idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trgZmM9fNS0

Knaight

2012-04-30, 01:38 PM

A friend of mine is pretty fascinated by Asian culture and claims that Asians have always been more advanced than Europeans. One thing she often claims is that the samurai and ancient chinese warriors were in every way superior to contemporary European knights. I'm pretty sceptical but I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. Could some of you please provide me with an objective comparison between knights, samurai and the ancient warriors of China (both in terms of equipment, training and effectiveness on the battlefield) and provide me with an answer on the age old question "Knights or Samurai"?

This is a very long time period, and during parts of it neither Japan nor China were anywhere near unified. With that said, "warriors" is a very broad category, and levies of minimally trained troops were common in China (an inevitable result of geography that can support incredibly large populations), and given that many knights were highly trained they would be better. Japan had a similar system, as did much of Europe, and any claim of general "warriors" from one of those places being better than top troops from the other two can basically be dismissed out of hand.

In any case, looking at individual warriors is misplaced. What made the various Chinese forces dangerous tended to be the completely ridiculous army sizes, which could be supported due to the sheer quantity of farm land, mines, so on and so forth.

As for general advancement, it depends on what is being looked at. Technologically, Europe caught up and surpassed both China and Japan, but it wasn't until the 1500s or so for China, looking at urbanized areas in both. As regards governance, China has had a near-modern semi-beaurocratic system on and off since the Qin Legalist Reforms, circa 240 CE, which could be called "more advanced" than feudalism. Japan really lagged behind China for the most part, only to be developed rapidly in the 1800s onwards*.

*Having huge amounts of opium pumped into a country by foreign merchants really isn't good for development. Or much of anything, for that matter.

Yora

2012-04-30, 01:51 PM

Two times two words: "Meiji Restauration" and "Opium Wars".

Yes, for the 10,000 years of human history, there was as much progress, invention, and innovation in Asia as there was in Europe. Probably even more, given that it's much larger area with much more people, and for long stretches of time, Europe was really quite backward.
But there just can't be any denial about the massive advances of the industrial revolution. Regardless of how the scales were tipped before that period, the industrial revolution catapulted Europe ahead temendously. And the two most important countries where it took place were also the ones with the gigantic colonies and there just wasn't anything the people of Asia could do about it. (Germany was also important, but as with pretty much everything, we were late to the party and entered the stage while the whole show was already running.) Japan manged to hop on on the train and look what they did to the entire region? They just conquered everything they could reach.
Now in the 21st century, it's shifting again, as many asian countries are catching up on the know how and admitedly that's about the only thing Europe really had for it. We don't have lots of resources and compared to China, India, and Indonesia we're tiny. So unless the EU unifies, Europe will probably be a backwater again in 100 years or so.

Joran

2012-04-30, 03:00 PM

This really depends on skills of shooter, precision his musket, familiarity with it, etc.

At the beginning of 19th century, with decently loaded musket, hitting stuff at 100 yards would certainly be very possible.

Depends on how much time/self control shooter has to properly load the musket with powder, fit the right sized ball tightly in the barrel, then aim properly...

So accuracy would vary quite a bit - there's quite a lot of videos, even on Youtube in the Internet, to give the idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trgZmM9fNS0

Yup, lots of variables here. According to A Devil of a Whipping, a modern person managed to hit a man-sized target at 80 yards with 5 out of 6 shots in a minute without using the ramrod. I think he held the bullets in his mouth and spit them down the barrel. So it is possible to get decently good accuracy out of the musket.

However, infantry tactics dictated that accuracy was not much of a concern, considering that the soldiers lined up into very large blocks. In that case, you'd more likely just fire into the big block of humanity opposing you than to try to aim your shot at a particular person. To aid this, smooth bore muskets were frequently loaded with buck and ball (1 large musket ball and three smaller .30 caliber balls) so that the musket was more like a mini-shotgun than a rifle.

I won't vouch for the accuracy of this web page, but I found this and it might be helpful:

http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm

mcv

2012-04-30, 03:34 PM

The Samurai versus Knight debate is impossible to settle. Some people truly believe that everything from Japan is imbued with some kind of magic (which gets worst when talking about ninja), which isn't all that odd, since the Japanese themselves are much more mythical and magical about their fighting. But that's really all there is to it. It's a pervasive superstition, but there's no real inherent superiority. (Other than the fact that for thousands of years China really was the most advanced nation in the world. But let's focus on Japan.)

That is true, but it is quite possible to compare the effectiveness of their armor (how good it is at deflecting/catching blows), weapons (which blades were of better quality) and intensity of their training (it's obvious that Spetznaz recruits are far heavier trained than the average US infantryman), isn't it?

In some ways it's comparing apples and oranges, in others there's no real difference. Samurai and knights were both professional warrior classes. Likely their training was of a similar level. The old belief that European knights were brutes bashing away with clumsy weapons is definitely false; there are plenty of highly detailed and very advanced fighting manuals (as discussed earlier in this thread). There's no reason to assume that knights who took their trade seriously were not among the best trained warrior in the world (together with samurai and similar classes in other cultures).

As for weapons and armour, there are some significant differences between Europe and Japan. In Europe, high quality iron was quite plentiful. In Japan, it was rare. The famous technique for making katanas by folding the iron lots of times was not unknown in Europe, but it was largely unnecessary. Good quality European swords were more common and cheaper than in Japan, simply because of the better iron. And at some point almost everybody had a sword, whereas in Japan they have always remained the weapons of the elite, as far as I'm aware. And the same thing goes for armour. When you've got lots of good iron, using lots of metal in armour is definitely an option. And so is putting common soldiers in heavy armour.

And the abundance of heavy armour, means that in Europe, weapons had to be designed with armour in mind. Swords got bigger and bigger, and eventually people had to use maces and polearms, because swords just aren't that good at punching through steel. By contrast, in Japan, the lack of armour and the mysticism and tradition surrounding the katana kept it the dominant weapon of the samurai for much longer. Which is why Japanese swordfighting has an uninterrupted tradition, while Europe doesn't.

The two most obvious differences between katanas and European swords are curved versus straight, and single edged versus double edged. Of course being curved pretty much means it has to be single edged. But Japan wasn't the only culture with curved swords: Arab scimitars are also curved. And they too tend to wear less armour than Europeans. And when firearms made steel armour obsolete in Europe, suddenly the saber replaced the sword as the blade of choice. So my theory is that curved swords are superior against lightly or unarmoured opponents, whereas straight swords are better against heavier armour. Curved swords definitely are better at slicing (which is useless against steel armour), while straight swords are good at cutting and thrusting.
Being straight and double edged also means there are a lot of attacks you can make with a European sword that would be completely alien to a samurai.

So which is better? They're both best for the situation they were developed for. Neither Japanese nor Europeans were idiots. They built the tools they needed for the job, and they worked with what they had.

Jay R

2012-04-30, 04:45 PM

My question is probably a classic, but I'll ask it anyway.
A friend of mine is pretty fascinated by Asian culture and claims that Asians have always been more advanced than Europeans. One thing she often claims is that the samurai and ancient chinese warriors were in every way superior to contemporary European knights. I'm pretty sceptical but I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. Could some of you please provide me with an objective comparison between knights, samurai and the ancient warriors of China (both in terms of equipment, training and effectiveness on the battlefield) and provide me with an answer on the age old question "Knights or Samurai"?

You're not making the assertion; it's not your job to provide the documentation. Ask her to provide documentation for her position.

If she recognizes that as a reasonable request and provides documentation, judge it by reading through it and seeing what actual tests or evidence it provides. Printed guesses are still just guesses; are there any metallurgical studies, citations of period battles, etc.?

If she won't provide citations for you to evaluate, give up. She is not thinking rationally on the subject and will not listen to anything you say.

Spiryt

2012-04-30, 05:41 PM

And the abundance of heavy armour, means that in Europe, weapons had to be designed with armour in mind. Swords got bigger and bigger, and eventually people had to use maces and polearms, because swords just aren't that good at punching through steel. By contrast, in Japan, the lack of armour and the mysticism and tradition surrounding the katana kept it the dominant weapon of the samurai for much longer. Which is why Japanese swordfighting has an uninterrupted tradition, while Europe doesn't.

I certainly wouldn't be willing to simplify it like this. Japan had a lot of armor, as well, even if it was different, and archery was often a way to 'defeat' it - very heavy arrows fired from short distance, to have a chance to ram trough the scales etc.

The perseverance of Japan swordsmanship is probably result of somehow random cultural and social occurrings, and it haven't really preserved in really 'clean' state.

The two most obvious differences between katanas and European swords are curved versus straight, and single edged versus double edged. Of course being curved pretty much means it has to be single edged. But Japan wasn't the only culture with curved swords: Arab scimitars are also curved. And they too tend to wear less armour than Europeans. And when firearms made steel armour obsolete in Europe, suddenly the saber replaced the sword as the blade of choice. So my theory is that curved swords are superior against lightly or unarmoured opponents, whereas straight swords are better against heavier armour. Curved swords definitely are better at slicing (which is useless against steel armour), while straight swords are good at cutting and thrusting

Scimitars are generally post medieval 'invention' - Arab swords were also generally straight, curved sabers were brought by the expansion of Turkish/Ottoman people in Islamic world.

Saracens also didn't really tend to wear less armor.... In fact most medieval depictions of rather heavy stuff like lammellar or scale comes from mameluks and faris - so pretty much Islamic heavy cavalry.

Straybow

2012-04-30, 06:32 PM

Does anyone have information on the active troop strengths in Europe during the final months of World War II?

Also, I ocasionally read about treating both World Wars and the Cold War as a single continous conflict (or even including the Napoleonic Wars), but I just can't find any reference to it again. Any idea under what name this construct or hypothesis would be found? Well, in this thread, that was my response to a historical survey that lumped "Mongol conquests" from 1200 to 1450 as one conflict. I compared that to lumping in everything from Napoleon on as "European conquests." The exchange is about 1/3rd of the way into this thread.

Off the top of my head, I recall that the peak of WW2 the US fielded 61 divisions in Europe, or about 1.6 million pairs of boots on the ground. The WW2 troop figures should be wikiable.

Joran

2012-04-30, 06:48 PM

For the bow people out there:

What are modern bow and crossbow strings made of? Also, is getting them wet as damaging as it was back in ye olden days?

Thanks.

Straybow

2012-04-30, 07:28 PM

Modern bowstrings are synthetic, dunno what it preferred.

In the old days bowstrings were gut, which would become soft and ruined when wet.

Beleriphon

2012-04-30, 07:44 PM

For the bow people out there:

What are modern bow and crossbow strings made of? Also, is getting them wet as damaging as it was back in ye olden days?

Thanks.

Modern ones? Usually some kind of high tensile polymer compound like Dacron, or even Kevlar (which barely stretches and thus tends to fail spectacularly all of sudden). Current high level competition uses a polymer called Fastflight S4.

Dacron seems to be most common for the typical shooter, since it has good stretch and is more "forgiving" on wooden bows than other string types.

Joran

2012-04-30, 08:44 PM

Modern ones? Usually some kind of high tensile polymer compound like Dacron, or even Kevlar (which barely stretches and thus tends to fail spectacularly all of sudden). Current high level competition uses a polymer called Fastflight S4.

Dacron seems to be most common for the typical shooter, since it has good stretch and is more "forgiving" on wooden bows than other string types.

Thank you kindly. Do they have performance problems if they get wet? Could you shoot a bow out in the rain?

Beleriphon

2012-04-30, 10:54 PM

Thank you kindly. Do they have performance problems if they get wet? Could you shoot a bow out in the rain?

They're functionally a type of plastic so getting polymer strings wet shouldn't be too much of a problem, that said they are still braided so having them coated is better than not. The only thing I wouldn't recommend is extreme cold, and that's only based on what little information I have about the strings since polymers can do weird things in the cold.

Even very old bow strings can be made quite water resistant using waxing methods. That said wax usually works best on things like hemp or linen, the sinew bow strings are the ones that had real issues with moisture no matter what was done.

Yora

2012-05-01, 04:38 AM

Well, in this thread, that was my response to a historical survey that lumped "Mongol conquests" from 1200 to 1450 as one conflict. I compared that to lumping in everything from Napoleon on as "European conquests." The exchange is about 1/3rd of the way into this thread.

Off the top of my head, I recall that the peak of WW2 the US fielded 61 divisions in Europe, or about 1.6 million pairs of boots on the ground. The WW2 troop figures should be wikiable.
I am mostly interested in German troop numbers. How much was actually left to surrender?

Spiryt

2012-05-01, 05:53 AM

Modern bowstrings are synthetic, dunno what it preferred.

In the old days bowstrings were gut, which would become soft and ruined when wet.

Gut was sometimes used for strings, I guess, but more 'usual' material was flax, or similar fiber, later hemp. In the general 'East' silk was very popular as well.

Generally, despite common opinions, string is not that a big problem when the weather is wet - especially that keeping few spare ones dry is pretty easy.

Bow itself can be bigger problem, even well seasoned selfbows don't really like humidity, and most natural composites don't like it at all....

Xuc Xac

2012-05-01, 09:22 AM

A few clarifications and additions...

As for weapons and armour, there are some significant differences between Europe and Japan. In Europe, high quality iron was quite plentiful. In Japan, it was rare. The famous technique for making katanas by folding the iron lots of times was not unknown in Europe, but it was largely unnecessary.

It was used in Europe in the 2nd century, one thousand years before it was used in Japan. They started doing it for the same reason that the Japanese would later use the technique: to make consistent pieces of steel that combined sharpness and toughness. By the 7th century, they were using it for purely decorative purposes (because it makes that cool "Damascus steel" pattern) by layering it on top of superior grades of steel that didn't need the pattern welding technique for structural reasons.

And the abundance of heavy armour, means that in Europe, weapons had to be designed with armour in mind. Swords got bigger and bigger, and eventually people had to use maces and polearms, because swords just aren't that good at punching through steel. By contrast, in Japan, the lack of armour and the mysticism and tradition surrounding the katana kept it the dominant weapon of the samurai for much longer.

The katana was never the dominant battlefield weapon of the samurai. The dominant weapon was the bow and the secondary weapon was the spear. For European knights, the spear was primary. For both classes, the sword was an important symbol but not their primary weapon. For the Europeans, the sword fell out of favor and became almost entirely symbolic as other weapons came to dominate. For the Japanese, the sword became a powerful symbol when they stopped fighting all the time and became bureaucrats more than warriors: they couldn't carry bows and spears around all the time when they were off the battlefield, but they could still carry their sidearms everywhere. The katana started to take on its mystique after the samurai stopped fighting as full time soldiers and started sitting around writing poetry about falling cherry blossoms being metaphors for cutting off heads for honor.

Which is why Japanese swordfighting has an uninterrupted tradition, while Europe doesn't.

Europe kept fighting and eventually replaced their swords with guns and other weapons. Then Victorian "historians" came along and made up all kinds of outright lies about how stupid and barbaric their ancestors were and how swords were dumb and ineffective weapons. In Japan, the samurai glorified the sword during their peaceful periods and continued holding it in high regard as a symbol of their honor and glory. It fell out of favor for a while but was resurrected as a potent piece of propaganda during WWII. While the Europeans were spreading lies about how horrible the swords of their feudal ancestors were, the Japanese were spreading lies about how awesome theirs were. In both cases, the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes. The feudal form of fencing survived in sport form in Japan, but the sport fencing in Europe was derived from much later forms (Late Renaissance to early Modern period).

The two most obvious differences between katanas and European swords are curved versus straight, and single edged versus double edged.

The katana is one type of Japanese sword. There were other types before the katana came to be the standard form, including straight double-edged designs. Likewise, "European swords" include a vast array of weapons: single-edged, double-edged, straight, and curved. Europe had curved and straight swords in both single- and double-edged types (and even some that were not edged at all, like the estoc or tuck, which were entirely for piercing).

And when firearms made steel armour obsolete in Europe, suddenly the saber replaced the sword as the blade of choice.

Firearms didn't make steel armor obsolete. Firearms came into prominence and steel armor became less and less common for related reasons, but it wasn't a direct cause-effect relationship. Some cavalry sabers were straight and others were curved. The debate about which was the better design actually continued right up until the saber was discontinued as a battlefield weapon in the 20th century. The question was never settled before it became entirely academic.

So my theory is that curved swords are superior against lightly or unarmoured opponents, whereas straight swords are better against heavier armour. Curved swords definitely are better at slicing (which is useless against steel armour), while straight swords are good at cutting and thrusting.
Being straight and double edged also means there are a lot of attacks you can make with a European sword that would be completely alien to a samurai.

Plenty of samurai were killed by thrusts to the throat or armpit with the point of a katana. Being better at slicing doesn't mean that thrusting is out of the question. Being double-edged means that a medieval western European arming sword can cut with a "backhanded" stroke while a single-edged katana can't but I think that the hilts would be the biggest difference. A katana doesn't really have the extra options offered by the cruciform hilt with a hefty pommel: the "murder stroke" with the quillons or a pommel strike for example. Using the hilt to strike wasn't really a serious option with a katana.

Joran

2012-05-01, 10:17 AM

Gut was sometimes used for strings, I guess, but more 'usual' material was flax, or similar fiber, later hemp. In the general 'East' silk was very popular as well.

Generally, despite common opinions, string is not that a big problem when the weather is wet - especially that keeping few spare ones dry is pretty easy.

Bow itself can be bigger problem, even well seasoned selfbows don't really like humidity, and most natural composites don't like it at all....

Ah, good stuff, thank you.

This question was sparked by the Hunger Games (which I haven't seen yet), but someone was remarking how the main character didn't seem to care much about keeping her bow dry or caring about weather conditions.

If she's using a modern bow with modern bowstring, then she should be good to go, but if she's using a wooden bow with natural bowstring, then she should probably take better care?

Spiryt

2012-05-01, 10:26 AM

It was used in Europe in the 2nd century, one thousand years before it was used in Japan. They started doing it for the same reason that the Japanese would later use the technique: to make consistent pieces of steel that combined sharpness and toughness. By the 7th century, they were using it for purely decorative purposes (because it makes that cool "Damascus steel" pattern) by layering it on top of superior grades of steel that didn't need the pattern welding technique for structural reasons.

To be exact, processes of tamahagane and most pattern welded blades used in Europe weren't really that similar - even though it looked a bit similar, Japanese process of folding steel many times was mostly process of purifying and refining the steel - to remove the impurities and 'unify' the steel.

So in result, layers of steel generally had the very same properties - although the very fact of existence of layers, their shape etc. most probably had it's effect on structural properties.

But generally layers had similar structures, carbon content etc.

Different steel were then usually used to make different parts of the blade - but that's another story.

Pattern welding, as the name suggests, consisted of welding together different bits of very differing metals, steels of various composition and purity, iron etc.

Partially because smith just didn't have enough homogeneous material, and partially to create blade of more interesting characteristics.

In any way, the very braided patterns in blade usually were indeed braids of slightly different metals.

Pattern welding is generally very broad topic, and were tonnes of different ways and combinations with tempering/annealing etc. but those are basic differences to best of my knowledge.

Spiryt

2012-05-01, 10:35 AM

Ah, good stuff, thank you.

This question was sparked by the Hunger Games (which I haven't seen yet), but someone was remarking how the main character didn't seem to care much about keeping her bow dry or caring about weather conditions.

If she's using a modern bow with modern bowstring, then she should be good to go, but if she's using a wooden bow with natural bowstring, then she should probably take better care?

I guess it depends on 'modern bow', I don't really know a lot about those materials, but generally yes....

My fiberglass bow has unoriginal, a bit too short string, so it doesn't work very optimally, and it's also stored 'like that' in the wardrobe...

And it's still pretty much good, fiberglass as artificial material is pretty damn stable, and it lasts.

While wood obviously still 'lives', so extreme temperatures, too much, or not enough humidity etc. will cause it to change it structure, moisture, internal stresses and so on - and screw our bow in results, generally by loss of dynamics, and eventually some more 'critical' failure.

Brother Oni

2012-05-01, 01:05 PM

Could I get a pic of that pistol dagger?

I don't have to hand at the moment, but it's not too far off this:

http://www.iloveswords.com/images/pirate/BKGPirDagger_102.jpg

The pommel and guard aren't as ornate, but the flintlock mechanism and bevelled blade are pretty much identical.

One point of note is that as far as I can tell, after firing its single shot, it would have been used primarily as an off hand stabbing weapon as its not very well weighted be used as a main weapon plus the pistol mechanism would get in the way of most slashing actions.

Being double-edged means that a medieval western European arming sword can cut with a "backhanded" stroke while a single-edged katana can't but I think that the hilts would be the biggest difference. A katana doesn't really have the extra options offered by the cruciform hilt with a hefty pommel: the "murder stroke" with the quillons or a pommel strike for example. Using the hilt to strike wasn't really a serious option with a katana.

From personal experience, it takes about 1/4 of a second to flick your wrist round so your single edged blade can cut with your backstroke. Obviously I can't say whether samurai actually used this technique, but that was what I was taught.

While you can't really strike with the hilt, since you're generally using it two handed, you can deflect a strike and smack someone in the face with the pommel, but that's probably equally possible for western swords.

If she's using a modern bow with modern bowstring, then she should be good to go, but if she's using a wooden bow with natural bowstring, then she should probably take better care?

Further to Spiryt's reply, with a modern recurve, assuming the string is decently waxed you could shoot all day in the pouring rain and have no issues.

Even off the shelf, modern strings are decently water proofed for a day's shooting, but as soon she starts banging her bow around, you'll increase wear and tear, particularly if the limbs get damaged or dirt gets into the string, performance will tail off and chance of a potentially spectacular malfunction rises.

Compound bows are an entirely different kettle of fish and in my experience, can't be battered around like a modern recurve.

With traditional bows, while the bow itself is fairly durable, a natural string can get ruined fairly easily from various historical records I've read. That said, it's not particularly easy to get an all natural string and from what I've heard about Hunger Games, I doubt they'd go to the effort to get one.

Straybow

2012-05-01, 01:09 PM

Plenty of samurai were killed by thrusts to the throat or armpit with the point of a katana. Being better at slicing doesn't mean that thrusting is out of the question. Being double-edged means that a medieval western European arming sword can cut with a "backhanded" stroke while a single-edged katana can't but I think that the hilts would be the biggest difference. A katana doesn't really have the extra options offered by the cruciform hilt with a hefty pommel: the "murder stroke" with the quillons or a pommel strike for example. Using the hilt to strike wasn't really a serious option with a katana. The raking cut with the back of the blade was not the real reason for having a double edge. I am certain that in almost any other situation you turn your wrist for proper biomechanical alignment anyway, otherwise if your blow is blocked the sword can easily be knocked from your hand.

Based on that, I'd say that after you've bashed your sword into the other guys' helmets, shields, weapons and armor for a while the blade is all dinged up. You can rotate it in your grip to use the edge that is still sharp.

I'm even more certain that quillons and pommels were not invented for the mordschlag... the way people talk about it you'd think knights routinely drew their swords and immediately gripped the blades to bash each other with the blunt end. I'd love to draw a mock version of some of the classic medieval illustrations with everybody holding their swords that way.

Half-swording was what your did when you had no other choice, hard pressed in the front lines of a pitched battle with no room for the footwork and proper measure that blade use requires. Or what you do when that is the style of fencing one does to defend one's honor.

But that does not void the point. European swords are made for actual engagement, whereas the samurai ideal is the single stroke that masterfully weaves through the opponents mental and physical defense to slice him in half. They don't expect to need protection for the hand should a poorly deflected attack slide down the blade. The tsuba is treated as almost magical protection instead of practical. Whatever magic they attributed to swords, Europeans maintained a very practical approach to use and design.

The crossguard lets you safely block an opponent's attack, in the heat of battle when adrenaline and fatigue erode precision.

Knaight

2012-05-01, 01:28 PM

Half-swording was what your did when you had no other choice, hard pressed in the front lines of a pitched battle with no room for the footwork and proper measure that blade use requires. Or what you do when that is the style of fencing one does to defend one's honor.
There are certain situations where half-swording is extremely useful, and is something one does when there are other options, which are just inferior. For instance, it has a lot of utility when it comes to dealing with polearms, and the only place no other choice comes in is in one using a sword to deal with polearms in the first place.

Spiryt

2012-05-01, 01:43 PM

Well, no matter how little time, or whatever 'flicking' wrist could take, plenty of manuals explicitly suggests usefulness of false edge strikes.

And huge amount of generally one egded weapons has false edge near the point, even if it's unavoidably has very steep beveled, obtuse edge, it was still apparently considered worth having.

The pommel and guard aren't as ornate, but the flintlock mechanism and bevelled blade are pretty much identical.

One point of note is that as far as I can tell, after firing its single shot, it would have been used primarily as an off hand stabbing weapon as its not very well weighted be used as a main weapon plus the pistol mechanism would get in the way of most slashing actions.

There's metric tonne of stuff like that around the world, although I would guess that even if it was considered practical from time to time, it wasn't any primarily preferred weapon - rather something for self defence in your chambers, or whatever.

In one of the polish museums, can't recall which one, there's fully functional key, that's also fully functional pistol, even though from this reason it's obviously rather flimsy pistol, and rather huge key.

eulmanis12

2012-05-01, 02:06 PM

I'd say it all comes down to the horse.

The knight and the samurai both traditionally fought mounted. Fights occurred on foot too, but generally if possible the two warriors preferred horseback.

If a knight were to fight a Samurai it would stand to reason that the fight would be a mounted one.

So here is the scenario.
(switches to announcer voice)

IN THIS CORNER! WEIGHING IN AT, WELL, A LOT ONE FULLY ARMORED KNIGHT.

IN THAT CORNER! WEIGHING IN AT, UH, SLIGHTLY LESS, ONE FULLY ARMORED SAMURAI!

DING DING!

The knight tends to fight hand to hand, as such will probably charge the Samurai, most likely using a lance as his weapon of choice. The Samurai, will also ride towards the knight, as Samurai tended to fire arrows from horses at full gallop towards the enemy.
A knight in full plate armor is nearly invulnerable to arrows. A horse is more vulnerable. If the Samurai is smart, he will aim for the knights horse, kill it, and watch as the knight and horse slam into the ground with an impact that will probably kill, or at least severely injure the knight.
If the Samurai fails to kill the horse, either by missing, or the horse being armored, the knight will most likely kill or unhorse him with the lance.

If neither succeeds in eliminating the other in the initial charge, the fight moves to close quarters hand to hand combat. If both sides wield swords, odds are niether will succeed in hurting the other seriously, unless you can wrestle your oponent to the ground and hold them still for a precision stab in a joint, swords just aren't the right tool for the job. This is where the Samurai runs into problems. Samurai use bows, several variations of sword, and spears on occassion. These are not the ideal weapons for fighting an opponent in place armor at close quarters. The knight on the other hand, could wield a sword, or a mace, or a flail, or any number of other medeval devices designed to punch through armor/ cause blunt force trama through armor, and probably has a shield (which the samurai does not have). I think that unless the Samurai kills the knight before he gets close, the knight has the advantage.

This is all assuming that by knight one means a classic plate armored medeval nobleman.

If by knight you are refering to someone who got a title because they did something fancy and non-military the fight would go like this.

Sir Isaac Newton pees self, gets beheaded by Samurai.

Beleriphon

2012-05-01, 02:08 PM

Further to Spiryt's reply, with a modern recurve, assuming the string is decently waxed you could shoot all day in the pouring rain and have no issues.

That assumes a fiberglass bow, one that is laminated using fiberglass, another material and then fiberglass can be affected by the weather, but that's more an issue of inconsistent temperature and moisture.

Even off the shelf, modern strings are decently water proofed for a day's shooting, but as soon she starts banging her bow around, you'll increase wear and tear, particularly if the limbs get damaged or dirt gets into the string, performance will tail off and chance of a potentially spectacular malfunction rises.

Compound bows are an entirely different kettle of fish and in my experience, can't be battered around like a modern recurve.

Given what a modern compound bow is made out of they can take a fair bit of abuse to the body and limbs but you need to be really careful with the cams. Those fail and you're taking a face full of high tension cable.

With traditional bows, while the bow itself is fairly durable, a natural string can get ruined fairly easily from various historical records I've read. That said, it's not particularly easy to get an all natural string and from what I've heard about Hunger Games, I doubt they'd go to the effort to get one.

Traditional bows can be affected by rain, but the big issue is non-plant based strings. Hunger Games it really shouldn't be a problem since I'm fairly certain the bow in the move is fiberglass to start with.

That said, composite bows (horn, wood and sinew laminated together) get nasty in wet weather. The belly of the bow (side facing the archer) needs to be able to store energy under compression which is why its typically made of horn, water buffalo for example, while the back (facing towards the thing getting shot) stores energy under tension and is usually made of some kind of wood. The Chinese bowyers like bamboo or mulberry, while the Turks seemed to like maple. In between the wood and horn you've got sinew for added elastic energy.

At any rate, since the bow is made of multiple organic compounds, some of them animal, rain can ruin them. You can shoot in the rain, but you really need to make sure the bow is dried and the proper shape before you use it too much more.

As an aside here, the Japanese yumi will actually deform during use, and from what I can tell this considered a good thing since it bends or flexes in the opposite direction from which it is drawn. I'm not sure about why this is good, but I'd imagine is has something to with the way the bow is traditionally used.

Knaight

2012-05-01, 02:15 PM

This is all assuming that by knight one means a classic plate armored medeval nobleman.

Why plate? Plate didn't really catch on until near the end of the medieval period, being particularly ubiquitous in the 15th and 16th centuries. Mail, on the other hand, was in use from the outset, with the mail hauberk being knight's equipment up until plate took over. Moreover, knights were significantly more important in the earlier era, as the emergence of professional standing armies, mercenary forces, so on and so forth in the later medieval period did a fairly good job displacing them. Mail seems like it has a significantly better claim as knight's armor as a result.

Ashtagon

2012-05-01, 03:21 PM

This is all assuming that by knight one means a classic plate armored medeval nobleman.

If by knight you are refering to someone who got a title because they did something fancy and non-military the fight would go like this.

Sir Isaac Newton pees self, gets beheaded by Samurai.

It also assumes we are talking about the martial samurai dudes. If by samurai you mean those big burly blokes who engage in haiku competitions, wear hakama (NOT skirts), and enjoy tea ceremony, then Isaac Newton probably stands a fair chance.

Autolykos

2012-05-01, 04:00 PM

From personal experience, it takes about 1/4 of a second to flick your wrist round so your single edged blade can cut with your backstroke. Obviously I can't say whether samurai actually used this technique, but that was what I was taught.If by "1/4 of a second" you mean "about 250ms" as opposed to "a very short time I don't care to measure", that's more than enough to get you killed or at least put out of the fight.
But IMHO the main advantage of a double-edged sword would be the ability to attack with the false edge while (or shortly after) pressing against the opponent's sword. If you need to turn the blade, you'll get either your hands or your body in a pretty awkward position for at least a short time, and will lack the strength to push the opponents blade away. Having blades stay in contact for some time seems to be more common with European swords than with Japanese ones though (as that's a very dangerous move without crossguards) which would explain why they never saw the need for a second edge.
There are a lot of people in this thread that have way more experience with European and/or Japanese swordfighting than I do (I have some martial arts experience, also with weapons, but don't know these styles), so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Brother Oni

2012-05-01, 06:32 PM

Given what a modern compound bow is made out of they can take a fair bit of abuse to the body and limbs but you need to be really careful with the cams. Those fail and you're taking a face full of high tension cable.

From Joran's description, it sounds like she's just rough handling her bow, something that a compound is less forgiving of compared to a modern recurve, for your given reasons of the cams.

As an aside here, the Japanese yumi will actually deform during use, and from what I can tell this considered a good thing since it bends or flexes in the opposite direction from which it is drawn. I'm not sure about why this is good, but I'd imagine is has something to with the way the bow is traditionally used.

About all I know of the yumi is the off centred use of it, but if it warps in the opposite direction, I assume it would gives more tension in the bow, much like the principle in a recurve bow.
That said, a variable poundage on a bow would really mess up your draw length, so either the bow deforms consistently, or it 'settles in; after a small period of adaptation to the user.

If by "1/4 of a second" you mean "about 250ms" as opposed to "a very short time I don't care to measure", that's more than enough to get you killed or at least put out of the fight.

The latter is more accurate as it's a bit hard to time yourself performing a very quick two handed technique. :smalltongue:

But IMHO the main advantage of a double-edged sword would be the ability to attack with the false edge while (or shortly after) pressing against the opponent's sword. If you need to turn the blade, you'll get either your hands or your body in a pretty awkward position for at least a short time, and will lack the strength to push the opponents blade away. Having blades stay in contact for some time seems to be more common with European swords than with Japanese ones though (as that's a very dangerous move without crossguards) which would explain why they never saw the need for a second edge.

I'm not saying any of this is incorrect as I'm not familiar with western sword techniques - all I'm saying is this was how I was taught.

The other point I'd like to mention is that I was taught to deflect strikes with the flat of the blade, rather than flat out stop it with a parry - presumably this is to retain the sharpness of the katana edge.
This would lead to your observation of blades not staying in contact for very long, particularly in samurai versus samurai duels, where they used the same weapon and styles of fighting.

It would have been interesting to see a mongol duelling a samurai since they have relatively different equipment and fighting techniques.

Dienekes

2012-05-01, 06:44 PM

It would have been interesting to see a mongol duelling a samurai since they have relatively different equipment and fighting techniques.

This happened once. Then the mongols realized this was dumb and just fired canons at them.
[note this was a story told to me by an old, slightly insane history professor and I have no idea of it's accuracy]

Dead_Jester

2012-05-01, 08:50 PM

This happened once. Then the mongols realized this was dumb and just fired canons at them.
[note this was a story told to me by an old, slightly insane history professor and I have no idea of it's accuracy]

If you are referring to the Mongol invasions of Japan during the 13th century (under Kublai Khan), than it probably went more like "Mongols land on Japenese beaches, fight more or less disorganized Japenese forces who haven't had a real fight in half a century, all the while probably bombarding them with early explosive or incendiary grenade-like clay bombs. Then a typhoon comes, and there is no more Mongol fleet."

Ellye

2012-05-01, 08:52 PM

Knaight

2012-05-01, 09:26 PM

How often were shields used as part of an offensive maneuver in a fight? I mean, the typical "shield bash" that is standard in pretty much every RPG nowadays. What type of shield would be more practical for this type of attack?

I'm assuming that by "part of an offensive manuever", you don't mean "blocking so as to open up an opportunity to strike with whatever weapon you have at the same time", as the latter is pretty much default operations. However, what constitutes an offensive maneuver? A shield bash does, but does jamming a shield up into an armpit so as to completely screw mobility? Does twisting the shield around when a weapon is caught in it to throw someone off balance count? So on and so forth. Also, what specific areas and periods should we be looking at?

As for the practicality of shield bashes, they're generally easier to pull off with lighter shields, which are held in a center grip without being strapped to the arm. That covers rather a lot.

Beleriphon

2012-05-02, 12:30 AM

As for the practicality of shield bashes, they're generally easier to pull off with lighter shields, which are held in a center grip without being strapped to the arm. That covers rather a lot.

I think the idea of the "shield bash" is a specific attempt at injury or even killing your opponent with the shield. I'd assume that using the edge would be the best way to go, probably a strike to the throat if you can manage it.

I don't think anybody would ever be taught to use a shield as a primary offensive weapon, but in a sword and board training regime I can see attacking with the shield when an opening comes up as a valid concept. I figure its more about forcing an opening to make a follow up strike with your actual weapon.

Brother Oni

2012-05-02, 01:55 AM

This happened once. Then the mongols realized this was dumb and just fired canons at them.
[note this was a story told to me by an old, slightly insane history professor and I have no idea of it's accuracy]

I know it happened - as Dead Jester said, the first Mongol invasion of Japan, hence why I said Mongol, rather than European knight.

As for the practicality of shield bashes, they're generally easier to pull off with lighter shields, which are held in a center grip without being strapped to the arm. That covers rather a lot.

Out of curiousity, how easy are those shields to use? The only shield I've used are kite or round ones, which are generally strapped to the arm or worn with a shoulder strap - I would have thought holding onto the shield would get tiring over time thus making it more likely for you to drop it when you block a sudden hit.

Knaight

2012-05-02, 02:15 AM

Out of curiousity, how easy are those shields to use? The only shield I've used are kite or round ones, which are generally strapped to the arm or worn with a shoulder strap - I would have thought holding onto the shield would get tiring over time thus making it more likely for you to drop it when you block a sudden hit.
It depends. I don't have the upper body strength needed to use them well (what is really needed for a spear, my primary weapon, is somewhat lower), and as such can't use them for very long, but I've heard that they are actually easier than strap shields if you have the strength for it. Certainly, the extra mobility is helpful.

Bouregard

2012-05-02, 05:38 AM

I am mostly interested in German troop numbers. How much was actually left to surrender?

Took me a while to find those, I can't say how accurate they are:

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

I'd say it all comes down to the horse.

The knight and the samurai both traditionally fought mounted. Fights occurred on foot too, but generally if possible the two warriors preferred horseback.

If a knight were to fight a Samurai it would stand to reason that the fight would be a mounted one.

Quite pointless to compare knights and samura because neither would manage to get to either to japan or europe for the fight.

However if they fight I would say knight wins. Samurais where too much about honor.

GraaEminense

2012-05-02, 05:39 AM

It depends. I don't have the upper body strength needed to use them well (what is really needed for a spear, my primary weapon, is somewhat lower), and as such can't use them for very long, but I've heard that they are actually easier than strap shields if you have the strength for it. Certainly, the extra mobility is helpful.
My experience is the opposite: strap-on shields are easier to use and certainly less tiring, but the increased mobility makes center-grip shields better if you have the skills and physical conditioning to use it properly. They are far less forgiving though, partially because the center grip gives you less 'presence' on your shield than the arm-strap and so the shield is easier for an opponent to manipulate -hook, push or simply strike through the block.

I don't know how much it was taught, but based on my experience the shield bash is an excellent if highly situational tactic if a fight comes to such close quarters. It's not so much about hurting your enemy as it is about upsetting his balance, though -if you can control his weapon for a moment but can't get a good strike in, you take a step forward and push with the shield. If his balance is poor or you have superior mass, he may end up on the ground. If you hit him in the nose, all the better of course.

Xuc Xac

2012-05-02, 06:19 AM

However if they fight I would say knight wins. Samurais where too much about honor.

Samurai cared as much about honor as the knights cared about chivalry.

Which is "not at all in actual practice, but they liked to write poems about it when they started spending more time off the battlefield than on it".

eulmanis12

2012-05-02, 06:42 AM

Samurai cared as much about honor as the knights cared about chivalry.

Which is "not at all in actual practice, but they liked to write poems about it when they started spending more time off the battlefield than on it".

I think you give them (the samurai) too little credit. When talking about honor they tended to put their money where their mouth was. Hara Kiri (Seppuku if you prefer) is hard to dismiss as "just poetry".

kugelblitz

2012-05-02, 06:59 AM

I would argue that the the French knights at Crecy and Agincourt may differ on the interpretation that mail and plate would stop a bodkin or in the case of a japanese arrow, a willow leaf point.

Also, a katana, despite being single edged can pierce or dent plate. A skilled swordsman would of course seek to attack perceived weak points, of course.

Ashtagon

2012-05-02, 07:06 AM

What does Deadliest Warriors say about this match-up?

Yora

2012-05-02, 07:17 AM

I think you give them (the samurai) too little credit. When talking about honor they tended to put their money where their mouth was. Hara Kiri (Seppuku if you prefer) is hard to dismiss as "just poetry".
Still, it's stories. I highly offended someone some years back when I commented that some US military honor code is as worthless as the chivalric code or the bushido. Sure, all warrior societies have their shining examples that a large portion aspires to and that almost every member would at least claim to honor. You can't just say "screw the code, I do what I want" and expect to advance in rank or gain comrades you can trust.
And on the other hand, all the exemplary soldiers and the well meaning soldiers will all want to propagate an image of their group that gets them all respect and praise. What about all the deserters, colaborateurs, and rogues? They are just never mentioned because it makes the other soldiers look bad.
Sure, I assume in every army all through history, there were numbers of soldiers who lived to the standards that were held high, but the stories of a few good examples doesn't tell you anything about what everyone else did.

And yes, soldiers are more likely do get killed, but their stories are pretty much the same as those of hunters and athletes. You remember it differently than it happened, and once nobody is left who does actually remember, all everyone cares about is making the story sound good and making the people who tell them also look good.

Also, the formal Bushido was written in 1899, a quarter of a century after the samurai class was abolished, by an agricultural expert and aspiring politician. Of course it was all revisionist propaganda.

kugelblitz

2012-05-02, 07:19 AM

What does Deadliest Warriors say about this match-up?

Dunno, I don't tend to use television shows as historical references since I don't watch TV. I do recall a youtube video somewhere showing some noob hitting things with a late period european style pointed sword and a katana. I have wielded both weapons for various reasons (disclaimer - I am a polearm/spear fan) and have witnessed actual real world results from their use and abuse (sadly). Nothing mounted though.

mcv

2012-05-02, 07:56 AM

From personal experience, it takes about 1/4 of a second to flick your wrist round so your single edged blade can cut with your backstroke.
If there's one thing I've learned recently, it's that 1/4 of a second is a very long time during an engagement. As far as I know, the main use of the false edge is to make a very quick counter after (or during) a parry. You can also counter with the long (or true) edge, but that takes slightly more time, which gives the opponent that much more time to parry you. Twisting your sword or doing something else also likely takes a bit of time which your opponent will gladly use to parry you.

But IMHO the main advantage of a double-edged sword would be the ability to attack with the false edge while (or shortly after) pressing against the opponent's sword. If you need to turn the blade, you'll get either your hands or your body in a pretty awkward position for at least a short time, and will lack the strength to push the opponents blade away. Having blades stay in contact for some time seems to be more common with European swords than with Japanese ones though (as that's a very dangerous move without crossguards) which would explain why they never saw the need for a second edge.
This is a good point. From what little I know about Japanese sword fighting (not much, but my sister and brother-in-law are quite good at it), they don't parry much and practically ignore binding. Their defense is: step out of the line of an attack, and counter. The European defense is: step out of line, parry, and counter.

It's quite possible that by ignoring parries and binds, they have no need for a second edge or a cross guard.

Dienekes

2012-05-02, 07:57 AM

I would argue that the the French knights at Crecy and Agincourt may differ on the interpretation that mail and plate would stop a bodkin or in the case of a japanese arrow, a willow leaf point.

Also, a katana, despite being single edged can pierce or dent plate. A skilled swordsman would of course seek to attack perceived weak points, of course.

Most knight deaths in those battles were within very close range to the archer lines. Of course, inevitably if you fire enough arrows eventually something will break through, but that says more about the absolutely terrible positioning of the French knights.

As to the second bit, proof please. I mean could it happen, yeah, but nowhere near reliably. Hell weapons designed to bash or pierce through plate still find it hard to do.

Hjolnai

2012-05-02, 08:07 AM

I would argue that the the French knights at Crecy and Agincourt may differ on the interpretation that mail and plate would stop a bodkin or in the case of a japanese arrow, a willow leaf point.

It may not be the best source, but the Wikipedia article on Agincourt suggests that the battle was shaped more by thick mud than by arrows piercing armour. It also mentions that advancing French men at arms would lower their visors and face downward, since the various holes at the front of a helmet are the most vulnerable points in the armour, and that the cavalry were turned back more by inability to charge the archers due to stakes planted there, and their horses were shot where unarmoured.

I'm not denying that arrows could pierce armour, but it wouldn't happen often except when hitting the most vulnerable areas - instead, heavy infantry were killed more easily by trying to fight in melee after marching some distance through mud already churned up by horses, in heavy armour and with their heads held such that breathing was difficult and vision poor.

The sting of repeated arrow impacts would certainly have proven demoralising on top of that, but lethal arrow hits were not the greatest killer of the field (But of course, my understanding is not backed up by extensive research, and I haven't seen numbers on the portion killed by arrows).

kugelblitz

2012-05-02, 08:50 AM

Most knight deaths in those battles were within very close range to the archer lines. Of course, inevitably if you fire enough arrows eventually something will break through, but that says more about the absolutely terrible positioning of the French knights.

As to the second bit, proof please. I mean could it happen, yeah, but nowhere near reliably. Hell weapons designed to bash or pierce through plate still find it hard to do.

Gah, my beautiful text was obliterated. Truncated Version.

So what? Close range is still resulting in bodkin points wrecking people in plate, or rendering them less effective for your follow up anti armor stuff (poleaxes, polearms, lochabers, hammers, stillettos and so on). Even the war of the roses had similar effects in battles with less congested terrain. A good general is supposed to make the outcome unfair for the other side.

I don't have anything reliable handy right now for the katana vs plate argument, aside from personal and therefore hearsay-ish stuff. Sooo, I will say that a poleaxe does a fine job of wrecking plate, if you get a good shot in and it is easier than you may think (although helms are really hard to hit square because of all the complex curves. Been there, done that.

Of course, in a battle you have a maneuvering target who really doesn't want to get hit, and h has his buddies along and so forth.

Roguenewb

2012-05-02, 09:32 AM

Matthew

2012-05-02, 09:51 AM

So what? Close range is still resulting in bodkin points wrecking people in plate, or rendering them less effective for your follow up anti armor stuff (poleaxes, polearms, lochabers, hammers, stillettos and so on). Even the war of the roses had similar effects in battles with less congested terrain. A good general is supposed to make the outcome unfair for the other side.

So penetrating armour is a matter of degree. Plate and mail protect to an extent, maybe 99%, I dunno. Sometimes the English long bowmen had a significant impact and in other battles they were overrun because armour protected sufficiently to get in amongst them and the other conditions (terrain, numbers, and such) did not conspire to make arrows decisive.

Kaeso

2012-05-02, 10:11 AM

I think you give them (the samurai) too little credit. When talking about honor they tended to put their money where their mouth was. Hara Kiri (Seppuku if you prefer) is hard to dismiss as "just poetry".

If I'm not mistaken, Hara Kiri was a common practice in Japan because the Bushido had no code about how you should treat prisoners. Chivalry did, and this (combined with the fact that suicide is a big nono in Christianity) explains why knights weren't into stabbing themselves to death when things went awry.

Yes, Richard the Lionheart did "break" this code during the Third Crusade, but that was mostly related to the fact that Saladin was purposely stalling the ransom negotiations to rob Richard of his momentum (and the fact that Saladin had made a habbit out of executing Templars and Hospitallers). The fact that Richard was willing to enter ransom negotiations at all indicates that he took this code seriously.

kugelblitz

2012-05-02, 10:16 AM

So penetrating armour is a matter of degree. Plate and mail protect to an extent, maybe 99%, I dunno. Sometimes the English long bowmen had a significant impact and in other battles they were overrun because armour protected sufficiently to get in amongst them and the other conditions (terrain, numbers, and such) did not conspire to make arrows decisive.

Ok, I would point out that I never argued about whether bows were a decisive arm. Only that plate was not arrow proof.

The original comment that caught my interest was that the hypothetical samurai vs knight would wind up with the samurai losing if he did not dismount the knight by slaying his horse. Also, knights were very skilled riders, they know how to dismount under a variety of conditions so that act is not a decisive one.

Regards,

Spiryt

2012-05-02, 10:18 AM

What if anything would a master of the rapier be able to parry and block? Could he (or she) deflect a longsword effectively? A katana? A claymore? A mace? A spiked chain?

'Cause in these games, Combat expertise plus rapiers and stuff can defect anything.

It certainly does depend on what one means by parrying and blocking...

Because trying to just 'block' the path of something more 'momentous' would probably cause damage to rapier, wrist, or perhaps just fail to block the attack...

But that's generally true to fighting in general, just setting some hard 'block' like movies tend to show generally doesn't have much sense as far as economy of movement and effective defense goes.

Displacing, deflecting at most 'non violent' possible angle, intercepting blade/handle closer to enemy's hands...

Only that plate was not arrow proof.

Hell knows really. But number of actual sources about arrows penetrating plate armour are scarse, and better modern experiments show that it's hard while plate can easily get damaged indeed with hard enough impact, actually injuring the wearer would be rather hard.

Of course there's always bigger bow, and some worse/thinner armor, so some plate/mail was probably pretty damn arrow proof, while others not.

Roguenewb

2012-05-02, 10:35 AM

It certainly does depend on what one means by parrying and blocking...

Because trying to just 'block' the path of something more 'momentous' would probably cause damage to rapier, wrist, or perhaps just fail to block the attack...

But that's generally true to fighting in general, just setting some hard 'block' like movies tend to show generally doesn't have much sense as far as economy of movement and effective defense goes.

Displacing, deflecting at most 'non violent' possible angle, intercepting blade/handle closer to enemy's hands...

Let me ask the more generic question then. Can fencing skill be used to effectively protect oneself with a rapier against the weapons I asked about? Can deliberate contact with the rapier blade (blocking/parrying/deflecting whatever) cause attacks that would otherwise hit you to miss? Or, as my common sense suggests, most of rapier-wielding defense against these weapons footwork and agility based?

eulmanis12

2012-05-02, 10:43 AM

I'm not saying that a samurai has no chance against a knight, and I wasn't saying that the only chance was unhorsing them, nor was a saying that plate is 100% arrow proof. The scenario I brought up was a one on one fight between two warriors that were A, unlikley to ever fight eachother, and B, if fighting eachother would probably be fighting as part of an army not one on one.

That being said. My points were:
A full suite of plate armor provides better protection than a full Suit of Samurai armor

A knight is more likely to carry a close combat weapon that is Ideally suited for fighting an armored opponent than a Samurai

Training would probably be a wash, both warriors would have trained since childhood with their respective weapons.

Arrows can be used to pierce armor but are not Ideally suited for the task, armor having been designed to stop things like arrows/swords etc.

Swords, especialy slashing swords, are not particuarly effective weapons for engaging a fully armored opponent

Shields are useful. Samurai do not carry shields while knights might.

My conclusion from this, and I admit that I am not an expert, is that if a knight were to fight a samurai, assuming equal skill, the knight has a roughly 60% chance of victory compared to the Samurai's roughly 40%

ForzaFiori

2012-05-02, 10:59 AM

A full suite of plate armor provides better protection than a full Suit of Samurai armor

A knight is more likely to carry a close combat weapon that is Ideally suited for fighting an armored opponent than a Samurai

Swords, especialy slashing swords, are not particuarly effective weapons for engaging a fully armored opponent

1) not sure about the armor thing. the Samurai armor was very good. I'm not saying that it would be better, but I think it might be close enough to nearly be a wash, especially against swords/arrows. The sharp angles in the armor tend to deflect blows.

2) Samurai carried more than just swords. A Yari could pierce, and a kanabo, jo, or hanbo could crush the armor of a knight.

3) see number two.

Your other points are good, but these three seemed off to me. Samurai used many more weapons than just the katana. It would be like a knight only ever training in the long sword. I can almost promise you that if a weapon was developed somewhere, a very similar one came up everywhere else. nearly culture needed a way to piece armor, attack at range and up close, unseat horsemen, etc. (I will admit that in places like mesoamerica, there weren't pole arms due to no horses, or armor piercing weapons due to no metal armor)

Spiryt

2012-05-02, 11:03 AM

Let me ask the more generic question then. Can fencing skill be used to effectively protect oneself with a rapier against the weapons I asked about? Can deliberate contact with the rapier blade (blocking/parrying/deflecting whatever) cause attacks that would otherwise hit you to miss?

It can be used to deflect etc. as mentioned. Maybe someone will localize some period illustrations later.

Or, as my common sense suggests, most of rapier-wielding defense against these weapons footwork and agility based?

Every defense is generally based on agility and footwork.... Even with rather large shield just statically receiving strikes onto it's surface is rather suboptimal.

Ideal options with rapier against some bardiche or claymore would most probably be biding and displacing, while attacking in really the same motion. To take advantage of lesser maneuverability of something with axe motion mechanics.

A full suite of plate armor provides better protection than a full Suit of Samurai armor

Well, anything to support it, in general?

Aside from the fact that both plate armor, and, especially, 'Samurai armor' is very broad term.

armor having been designed to stop things like arrows/swords etc.

Armor would have been designed to stop stuff like polearms, spear and lanes as well, or probably in particular, as those all kind of polearms would obviously be major threat on the battlefield.

kugelblitz

2012-05-02, 11:04 AM

That being said. My points were:
A full suite of plate armor provides better protection than a full Suit of Samurai armor

Debatable, but only up to the point where knights are wearing something like Milanese plate or some of the german armors. The transition harness is roughly equivalent and the samuai gear permits better movement.

A knight is more likely to carry a close combat weapon that is Ideally suited for fighting an armored opponent than a Samurai

There are warhammers and large axes but broadly speaking you are correct, a knight would have a sword and a pretty good dagger. Maybe a mace.

Training would probably be a wash, both warriors would have trained since childhood with their respective weapons.

Yes.

Arrows can be used to pierce armor but are not Ideally suited for the task, armor having been designed to stop things like arrows/swords etc.

Nah, this is a big arms race all the way through history. I would say that armor reduces the damage, or the chances of it happening. There was no perfect armor.

Swords, especialy slashing swords, are not particuarly effective weapons for engaging a fully armored opponent

Katanas can slash, but they have a very nice, stiff construction and thrust just fine. There are plenty of thrusts used in kenjutsu.

Shields are useful. Samurai do not carry shields while knights might.

Very true. Even your lancer type of mounted samurai did not carry shields.

My conclusion from this, and I admit that I am not an expert, is that if a knight were to fight a samurai, assuming equal skill, the knight has a roughly 60% chance of victory compared to the Samurai's roughly 40%

As an aside, the Mongols did pretty well fighting the europeans depending on which histories you like, and they were slasher and archer types. Also my comment wasn't directed at you it was at Eulman1s12, but this it fun to talk about.

Dienekes

2012-05-02, 11:34 AM

1) not sure about the armor thing. the Samurai armor was very good. I'm not saying that it would be better, but I think it might be close enough to nearly be a wash, especially against swords/arrows. The sharp angles in the armor tend to deflect blows.

I don't think anyone would say that samurai armor was bad, I personally think the overdesigned ones look a bit silly and I'm curious how odd feeling the more ornate helmets would be but that's something else. The one bit of evidence we have for how the armor really compares was that when European plate became available in Japan the wealthy immediately bought and used it.

Hades

2012-05-02, 11:57 AM

What if anything would a master of the rapier be able to parry and block? Could he (or she) deflect a longsword effectively? [...]

A data point for you: Rapier Parrying Longsword (http://www.salvatorfabris.org/RapierParryingLongsword.shtml).

Short version: with proper technique and skill, a rapier can indeed parry an attack with a longsword. Unfortunately no video.

kugelblitz

2012-05-02, 12:53 PM

I don't think anyone would say that samurai armor was bad, I personally think the overdesigned ones look a bit silly and I'm curious how odd feeling the more ornate helmets would be but that's something else. The one bit of evidence we have for how the armor really compares was that when European plate became available in Japan the wealthy immediately bought and used it.

To a point. The european smiths had ben able to craft bullet resistant breastplates which the japanese hadn't, since muskets were not in common usage. If you look at, umm, the movie Ran some of the nobles are wearing european breastplates and everything else is samurai style armor. Given time, and access to more metals the japanese were able to improve on certain imports. For instance, japanese muskets were arguably superior to the ones that the portuguese, dutch and so forth sold to them.

Joran

2012-05-02, 01:28 PM

Yukitsu

2012-05-02, 04:01 PM

To a point. The european smiths had ben able to craft bullet resistant breastplates which the japanese hadn't, since muskets were not in common usage. If you look at, umm, the movie Ran some of the nobles are wearing european breastplates and everything else is samurai style armor. Given time, and access to more metals the japanese were able to improve on certain imports. For instance, japanese muskets were arguably superior to the ones that the portuguese, dutch and so forth sold to them.

By the time plate armour was prevalent in Europe, Japanese armies began incorporating mass gun volleys (such as at Sekigahara and the Imjin war) and began reducing armour, instead relying on mass formations and counter volleys. (The formation used during the Imjin war looked practically like a gun line from the 1700s in Europe) The armour the Japanese used during the Genpei war in 1200, such as the O-yoroi armour were considerably heavier and probably closer to bullet resistant than the 1500s Japanese armour.

By contrast however, unlike European knights, Japanese samurai learned how to use matchlocks by the 1600s in mass formations and at the time, were using what was probably a superior firearm. (Old Japanese firearms from the era have iron sights and in some specific cases, thicker, larger barrels for larger charges of powder and thus superior penetration). They likely didn't bulletproof their armour for the same reason armour fell into disfavour by the 1700s, where the mass volley could defeat armour even where full plate could stop a few errant bullets here and there. Probably exacerbated by the sheer size of some of their armies (160,000 matchlocks were sent to Korea alone) and the lack of high quality easily formed iron, focusing on superior offense while stripping back on armour likely made sense at the time.

Mistral

2012-05-02, 04:08 PM

Back to a gun question. Why is a standing position also known as an "offhand" position?

I was watching Top Shot last night and was thoroughly confused when the shooters were standing and were shooting with their dominant hands. Only when I got to a computer did I realize that "offhand" meant the same as standing.

My etymology reference suggests that rather than just while standing, it also referred to firing without a rest or other support (whether or not this is still the case for shooting, unfortunately, is beyond my knowledge). The word itself refers to doing something freely or straightaway, usually without prep, as in an offhand comment or action.

Joran

2012-05-02, 04:23 PM

My etymology reference suggests that rather than just while standing, it also referred to firing without a rest or other support (whether or not this is still the case for shooting, unfortunately, is beyond my knowledge). The word itself refers to doing something freely or straightaway, usually without prep, as in an offhand comment or action.

That makes a ton of sense, thanks. My gamer mind kicked in and I parsed it as "off-hand", like main hand vs. off-hand in RPG systems.

Is "off-hand" an actual correct term, or do people tend to use terms like "non-dominant" or "weaker" instead.

Hawkfrost000

2012-05-02, 05:01 PM

Is "off-hand" an actual correct term, or do people tend to use terms like "non-dominant" or "weaker" instead.

When fencing i tend to use the term off-hand to describe the hand that is not holding my sword, but terms like "secondary", "shield hand", "weak hand" and "non-swordy-hand" are fairly common too.

Dm

mcv

2012-05-02, 05:45 PM

Raum

2012-05-02, 06:00 PM

Regarding the Westerner vs samurai issue (which comes up in almost every version of this thread), one of the previous two versions linked to documented cases of duels between Western visitors and local samurai. As I remember, the samurai got the worst of it and the city ended by banning Westerners from carrying swords. Check previous threads for more detail.

Knaight

2012-05-02, 11:34 PM

My experience is the opposite: strap-on shields are easier to use and certainly less tiring, but the increased mobility makes center-grip shields better if you have the skills and physical conditioning to use it properly. They are far less forgiving though, partially because the center grip gives you less 'presence' on your shield than the arm-strap and so the shield is easier for an opponent to manipulate -hook, push or simply strike through the block.
I think we're talking past each other. What I was saying is that you need some strength to use the center grip shields, but because of the options available* they become easier to use if you have it and as such better. That also appears to be your position.

If George Silver is to be believed, nothing. I don't know much about rapiers myself, but Silver claimed that rapiers sucked at defense. And rapier duels tended to be a contest of who could make the first attack (which is also why rapiers got longer and longer).
Silver probably holds the strongest anti-rapier position out of all the notable weapon masters, and I'd take anything he says regarding them with a mountain of salt.

*Actually being able to move your shield downwards, forwards movement to screw with an opponent's weapon's mobility, so on and so forth.

Brother Oni

2012-05-03, 02:11 AM

The armour the Japanese used during the Genpei war in 1200, such as the O-yoroi armour were considerably heavier and probably closer to bullet resistant than the 1500s Japanese armour.

Generally yes, but there was a vogue of rich samurai importing or comissioning European style metal armour in the late Sengoku, called tameshi gusoku, literally 'bullet tested' armour, so called because they were sold with a dent in it as proof that it could stop a musket shot (ie they actually fired a musket at it).

Wikipedia has a picture of a chestplate with a clear mark where the round impacted: link (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bullet_proof_dou.jpg).

Regarding the Westerner vs samurai issue (which comes up in almost every version of this thread), one of the previous two versions linked to documented cases of duels between Western visitors and local samurai. As I remember, the samurai got the worst of it and the city ended by banning Westerners from carrying swords. Check previous threads for more detail.

By that point (late Edo period), the samurai as a warrior caste had ossified due to extended peace so the (generally British) sailors with much more practical experience tended to beat the hell out of them.

The fact that the westerners also didn't fight in the way the samurai expected (due to having only practiced against each other) didn't help.

Galloglaich

2012-05-03, 05:04 AM

By contrast however, unlike European knights, Japanese samurai learned how to use matchlocks by the 1600s in mass formations and at the time, were using what was probably a superior firearm.

I don't know what any of this is based on. By the 1600's most European knights carried wheellock or flintlock pistols and carbines on their horses with them, and matchlock muskets were ubiquitous among the infantry. The Dutch had invented volley fire in the 1500's and it was widespread by the end of the 16th Century.

As for the scale of battles, during the 30 years war in the first half of the 1600's over a million combattants fought.

(Old Japanese firearms from the era have iron sights and in some specific cases, thicker, larger barrels for larger charges of powder and thus superior penetration). They likely didn't bulletproof their armour for the same reason armour fell into disfavour by the 1700s, where the mass volley could defeat armour even where full plate could stop a few errant bullets here and there. Probably exacerbated by the sheer size of some of their armies (160,000 matchlocks were sent to Korea alone) and the lack of high quality easily formed iron, focusing on superior offense while stripping back on armour likely made sense at the time.

They were actually using an archaic form of matchlock, based on copies of firearms sold to them by the Portuguese in the 16th Century. The penetration of these weapons didn't match European or Ottoman muskets of the same period.

G

Galloglaich

2012-05-03, 05:14 AM

A data point for you: Rapier Parrying Longsword (http://www.salvatorfabris.org/RapierParryingLongsword.shtml).

Short version: with proper technique and skill, a rapier can indeed parry an attack with a longsword. Unfortunately no video.

That can be remedied

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6r7VWIQCHvM#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKOrFns_ZT8

Also regarding another post:

By the time plate armour was prevalent in Europe, Japanese armies began incorporating mass gun volleys

Plate armor was prevalent in Europe by the late 14th Century. The arquebus was not introduced into Japan (by the Portuguese) until the mid 16th Century.

G

Mike_G

2012-05-03, 07:46 AM

If George Silver is to be believed, nothing. I don't know much about rapiers myself, but Silver claimed that rapiers sucked at defense. And rapier duels tended to be a contest of who could make the first attack (which is also why rapiers got longer and longer).

Many RPGs apparently think that since the rapier is considered a fencing weapon (by modern sport fencers; others call longsword fighting also fencing), it must have been good at defense, but that was really the smallsword.

Silver's bias blinds him to the fact that the rapier was a useful weapon. He may have a point in preferring another weapon, and he may have been exposed to some bad rapier fencers, but it's a decent weapon.

Simultaneously running one another through is bad technique with any weapon. It's not the rapier's fault for being too offensive based. I've seen a lot of Kendo fencers who whack one another one the head simultaneously and nobody tried to say that Samurai couldn't parry. Just because bad practitioners don't doesn't mean you can't.

You can parry any thrusting weapon with a rapier without difficulty. Fencing guards are all about angle and leverage. You could parry a cut from a longsword or one handed cutting sword so long as you deflected it and didn't meet it with a straight "block." Not that you ever want to do that with any weapon.

Not sure how you'd parry a heavy impact weapon like a mace or poleaxe, but you have a big reach advantage on a mace, and the momentum of a heavy weapon would let you void and counterattack pretty well.

That said, a rapier is designed for unarmored civilian combat. Duels or street brawls. Heavy maces are designed for fighting armored men on the battlefield. Asking which is better is like asking if a submachine gun is better than a sniper rifle. It all depends on what you want to do with it.

Autolykos

2012-05-03, 08:09 AM

a kanabo, jo, or hanbo could crush the armor of a knight.I can see a kanabo seriously damaging armor, but a jo/hanbo is basically just a glorified broomstick. Chainmail plus padding would be more than enough to render it ineffective, and I doubt someone wearing plate would actually feel it. I'm not even sure a baseball bat would be enough.

Galloglaich

2012-05-03, 11:31 AM

Silver's bias blinds him to the fact that the rapier was a useful weapon.

To build upon what Mike said, I would also add that the term "rapier" included a wide range of actual weapons. The rapier in Joachim Meyer or Marozzo was around 36" and designed as much for cutting as thrusting, it was really just an arming sword or cut-thrust sword with a more complex hilt, whereas the later Spanish and Bolognese dueling rapiers could be as almost a foot longer. There were also inbetween weapon some modern practitioners call a 'sidesword' known as spada da lato in some Italian documents or a sword of the robes (espada ropera) in both cases referring to a civiilian sidearm.

This gives you an idea of the range of sizes

http://www.rorysimka.com/images/Obj-Rapiers-Final.jpg

There were also rapiers designed as sidearms for the battlefield, and those designed strictly for civilian dueling. The weapons below are both rapiers, which one do you think is for the battlefield?

http://www.salvatorfabris.org/img/WhatIsRapier2.jpg

Rapiers on their own are decent if not great for defense, but almost every fencing manual trains for their use with a dagger, a shield, a buckler, or even a cloak in the off-hand. Rapier with dagger is a surprisingly effective defensive combintion, as you can see in one of the videos I already posted.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/Marozzo/p081.jpg

Regarding the Kanobo, I agree it would not necessarily be of any effect against an armored opponent. If you want an instant eye-opener on how effective armor is against blunt objects, watch some of those Battle of Nations videos from Poland. Guys run across the field and whack each other in the head with 7 foot halberds. I don't think anyone has died yet (though there have been some injuries). For a weapon to damage someone through plate or even mail and plate armor it has to be well shaped iron or steel, a wooden club isn't going to cut it (unless it really is 30 pounds like the Kanobo supposedly was on that stupid tv show, but in that case just step out of the way and cut them after that beast goes by..... they won't be able to swing it much!)

The Japanese were tough, they did fight off two Mongol invasions (albiet with a little divine help). The historical reality is that European fighters of the equivalent period were also pretty dangerous, though they tend to be underestimaed in the pop culture today for a variety of reasons.

G

eulmanis12

2012-05-03, 11:34 AM

I can see a kanabo seriously damaging armor, but a jo/hanbo is basically just a glorified broomstick. Chainmail plus padding would be more than enough to render it ineffective, and I doubt someone wearing plate would actually feel it. I'm not even sure a baseball bat would be enough.

having seen a kanabo in use (against a reproduction target) I have no trouble believing that it could do some serious damage to an armored person.

Assuming a jo/hanbo impacts with the same amount of force give or take as a baseball bat, I can say from the experiance of being hit with a bat repeatedly while in a partial suit of plate that they would cause only minor discomfort and mild annoyance to an armored knight. Though a blow to the helmet may stun a knight temporarily (from the experiance of taking a bat to the head in a reproduction steel helmet I can say this is a possibility)

Spiryt

2012-05-03, 11:48 AM

Many people watching Battle of nations get somehow offended, lol, saying expect that strikes with axes, voulges and similar hefty stuff must be pulled, or otherwise 'fake' because they tend to have minimal effect of wearer.

Of course, modern reenacting armors, particularly padded clothing and mail, tend to be often grossly 'panzer', lol. But still there must be the reason why great amount of sources depicts precise thrusts, or better yet, if possible, grappling or generally pinning down the target to place the dagger in face/joint, take his helmet off etc.

Trying to forcefully chop down well built man in solidly damping cloth and iron/steel blocking the way will often tend to be a way to seriously waste your gas for not so much effect.

Yukitsu

2012-05-03, 12:59 PM

Plate armor was prevalent in Europe by the late 14th Century. The arquebus was not introduced into Japan (by the Portuguese) until the mid 16th Century.

G

I don't actually recall plate being well represented in anywhere other than Italy and some parts of Germany until the 1500s (and doubt that it was ever truly common even there.) I don't think I'd call something worn by 2 countries as explicitly prevalent. Was there something I'm missing regarding plate being fairly common throughout Europe during the 1400s across Europe?

As was mentioned by a poster above, the Samurai did have bullet proofed armour, though in quantities so low that saying a typical samurai would wear it is absurd. I think a similar thing can be said of a knight during the 1400s, and even much of the 1500s regarding plate. Was there any indication that your average knight could afford a full suit of plate during that time in say, England, Spain etc.?

I don't know what any of this is based on. By the 1600's most European knights carried wheellock or flintlock pistols and carbines on their horses with them, and matchlock muskets were ubiquitous among the infantry. The Dutch had invented volley fire in the 1500's and it was widespread by the end of the 16th Century.

As for the scale of battles, during the 30 years war in the first half of the 1600's over a million combattants fought.

Volley fire obviously doesn't have much to do with knights. A few guys pretty much jousting with a pistol don't have the same impact on an armoured formation than would a full on volley of shots. And European volley fire was very inconsistent with year and nationality. The volley fire formation up until you get to perhaps Frederick the great were fairly thick and integrated with spear armed troops to counter knights that would try to get mixed into them. The Japanese formation is much thinner, closer to the mid 1700s European system (and coincidentally, proved to be much more susceptible to cavalry charges during the battle of Mikatagahara.)

They were actually using an archaic form of matchlock, based on copies of firearms sold to them by the Portuguese in the 16th Century. The penetration of these weapons didn't match European or Ottoman muskets of the same period.

G

Is there a source on that for the European models? I do know the Japanese ordered and maintained a large number of heavy caliber guns with greatly superior stopping power (IIRC, 1 in 10 after demilitarization, likely similar ratios before) and in any event, you can't deny the Japanese were using iron sights either before or more prevalently than the Europeans.

I have seen Ottoman guns with .7+ calibers, but from what I can tell, these were considered superior to whatever the Europeans were making during that era.

Spiryt

2012-05-03, 01:17 PM

I don't actually recall plate being well represented in anywhere other than Italy and some parts of Germany until the 1500s (and doubt that it was ever truly common even there.) I don't think I'd call something worn by 2 countries as explicitly prevalent. Was there something I'm missing regarding plate being fairly common throughout Europe during the 1400s across Europe?

Well, are you serious?

Plate is well represented in whole Europe since first quarter of 15th century.

With some elements of plates/transitional stuff here and there, but it doesn't really change much, trough the whole 15th century more and more people are being mostly armored in steel plates all over the body.

Whole page (http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/?name=&country=9&country=5&country=21&country=8&country=16&country=6&country=12&year=1400&year_end=1420&gender=M&costume=1&tags=&tag_mode=all&sort=year&per=50&view=list)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1D-WW65KY9k/S7_A0mLXbvI/AAAAAAAAARc/73Jxz-9vmxk/s1600/Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg

http://www.medievalrepro.com/Images/Churburg%20Armour%2001%20044%20copyedit.jpg

Brother Oni

2012-05-03, 01:28 PM

Assuming a jo/hanbo impacts with the same amount of force give or take as a baseball bat, I can say from the experiance of being hit with a bat repeatedly while in a partial suit of plate that they would cause only minor discomfort and mild annoyance to an armored knight. Though a blow to the helmet may stun a knight temporarily (from the experiance of taking a bat to the head in a reproduction steel helmet I can say this is a possibility)

A jo won't hit with the same force as a baseball bat as it's a far lighter weapon, but that's fine as it's not intended to be a straight clubbing implement.

Against armoured opponents, you'd use the jo to control by tripping, joint locks, head thrusts, etc, then disarm and immobilise them.

I don't think it going to be too effective when you have a fully armoured knight with sword and shield bearing down on top of you, but when you have essentially a short stick to defend yourself with, of course things are going to be stacked against you. :smalltongue:

Yukitsu

2012-05-03, 01:39 PM

Well, are you serious?

Plate is well represented in whole Europe since first quarter of 15th century.

With some elements of plates/transitional stuff here and there, but it doesn't really change much, trough the whole 15th century more and more people are being mostly armored in steel plates all over the body.

Can't get that link to work properly. Can get to the site, but can't open the thumbs on the site. Those were knights that were wearing plate armour? If so, the handful of individuals there doesn't exactly mean plate is a strong representation of what people in practice would wear into a battle. Yes, more and more people wore it, and wanted to wear it, but would a typical knight have access to it during the era have what they wanted, or be forced to wear mail? I mean, from a quick wiki search, most of those guys on that page hold positions above knight. Ernst der Einster for example, is a Duke. That's well above the wealth a knight can command.

Spiryt

2012-05-03, 01:59 PM

Can't get that link to work properly. Can get to the site, but can't open the thumbs on the site. Those were knights that were wearing plate armour? If so, the handful of individuals there doesn't exactly mean plate is a strong representation of what people in practice would wear into a battle. Yes, more and more people wore it, and wanted to wear it, but would a typical knight have access to it during the era have what they wanted, or be forced to wear mail? I mean, from a quick wiki search, most of those guys on that page hold positions above knight. Ernst der Einster for example, is a Duke. That's well above the wealth a knight can command.

By 15th century mail was sometimes getting more expensive than simple plate armor.... And not only knights, but 'humble' folk without much money were wearing some simple plate as well.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-488-488-90/60/6016/HL6B100Z/posters/froissart-s-chronicles-battle-of-najera-1340.jpg
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/340/zapisza.png/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/308-1.jpg

http://imageshack.us/f/822/84350170.jpg/

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=11908

Ernst der Einster for example, is a Duke. That's well above the wealth a knight can command

Wealth was in no way completely dependent on social status. You would have plenty of burgmaisters, mayors, Vogts, etc. with very good armor.

In 15th century, plate armor of different design and quality is common place, there's no really much else to say here.

Mail hauberks worn alone and covering much more than torso at best, generally disappear before the first half of the century.

Yukitsu

2012-05-03, 02:41 PM

By 15th century mail was sometimes getting more expensive than simple plate armor.... And not only knights, but 'humble' folk without much money were wearing some simple plate as well.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-488-488-90/60/6016/HL6B100Z/posters/froissart-s-chronicles-battle-of-najera-1340.jpg
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/340/zapisza.png/

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/308-1.jpg

http://imageshack.us/f/822/84350170.jpg/

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=11908

Noted, but having pieces of simple plate or parts of plate kind of misses the point. People from pretty much everywhere have incorporated simple plates in their armour for thousands of years. The full suit of plate armour that didn't share the weaknesses of those part plate sets were what distinguish European knights as better armoured, not that they were using plates to reinforce certain parts. I mean, were those humble folk as you call them wearing full suits of plate armour? Would you see a simple English man-at-arms wearing Maximillian armour? Because when saying "so and so is better armoured as a warrior class" you can't really say having some simple plate is the same as having a complete plate armour set.

A suit incorporating a breastplate is good and can be cheaper than mail, certainly, but when people compare that to other nations, you'll generally find it's essentially par for the course. It's that full plate that allowed a full range of motion that was superior, and I'd be very skeptical if I was told that a suit of full plate was less expensive than mail.

Spiryt

2012-05-03, 02:57 PM

Noted, but having pieces of simple plate or parts of plate kind of misses the point. People from pretty much everywhere have incorporated simple plates in their armour for thousands of years. The full suit of plate armour that didn't share the weaknesses of those part plate sets were what distinguish European knights as better armoured, not that they were using plates to reinforce certain parts. I mean, were those humble folk as you call them wearing full suits of plate armour? Would you see a simple English man-at-arms wearing Maximillian armour? Because when saying "so and so is better armoured as a warrior class" you can't really say having some simple plate is the same as having a complete plate armour set.

A suit incorporating a breastplate is good and can be cheaper than mail, certainly, but when people compare that to other nations, you'll generally find it's essentially par for the course. It's that full plate that allowed a full range of motion that was superior, and I'd be very skeptical if I was told that a suit of full plate was less expensive than mail.

I think that bringin in 'superior', "better armored" "Maximilian" obscures it quite a lot...

People were wearing plate in different configurations, and styles, depending needs, wealth, fashion etc.

Who is 'better' armored is then a bit hard to define, just as 'full' plate can be.

But all in all, any knight or more professional or seasoned combatant would generally wear plate torso, arms, hips, - legs would probably depend on if he was mounted or not.

Sometimes there would be brigandines in place of breastplates, sometimes coat of plates as late as ~ 1430 - reason for choosing one over another aren't very clear to us.

Sometimes there was a lot of mail incorporated as well.

Bottom line is, that more of less full plate was 'standard' metal armor in 15th century. Other things were usually only supplementing.

Pretty nice reconstruction (http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/draekter/1400soldat/index.html)

Straybow

2012-05-03, 04:40 PM

What if anything would a master of the rapier be able to parry and block? Could he (or she) deflect a longsword effectively? A katana? A claymore? A mace? A spiked chain? If George Silver is to be believed, nothing. I don't know much about rapiers myself, but Silver claimed that rapiers sucked at defense. And rapier duels tended to be a contest of who could make the first attack (which is also why rapiers got longer and longer). That is an incomplete answer. Parry? Yes, a rapier can parry any of those except a spiked chain (no flail type weapon can really be parried effectively). However, parrying most of those is not a sure defense. Rapier and German longsword fencing is all about sliding over, under, around the parries as counters, and counters of counters, ad infinitum. A sure defense requires blocking at something close to 90°, which the English called a stop. Once stopped the opponent has to make large, slow movements to get around the stop, which buys the defender time to act safely. The rapier can make a stop, if you're not using it as a rapier but instead as a thin, light, less effective broadsword. But it can't make a reliable, good stop.

Silver's bias blinds him to the fact that the rapier was a useful weapon. He may have a point in preferring another weapon, and he may have been exposed to some bad rapier fencers, but it's a decent weapon. Silver was well versed in rapier, and challenged at least one self-promoting teacher to prove (with rapier, sword, staff, etc) the superiority he claimed to have over vulgar English fencers. The teacher declined to show up.

Simultaneously running one another through is bad technique with any weapon. It's not the rapier's fault for being too offensive based. I've seen a lot of Kendo fencers who whack one another one the head simultaneously and nobody tried to say that Samurai couldn't parry. Just because bad practitioners don't doesn't mean you can't. That is part of Silver's complaint, that the rapier cannot make a sure defense. Kendo suffers a similar deficit, not being trained to block effectively. The other half is that it is ineffective at anything but thrusting, which doesn't have the "knock down power" needed. One could be pierced many times with little immediate effect. Whack off a hand and you have immediate results.

You can parry any thrusting weapon with a rapier without difficulty. Fencing guards are all about angle and leverage. You could parry a cut from a longsword or one handed cutting sword so long as you deflected it and didn't meet it with a straight "block." Not that you ever want to do that with any weapon. Why not? We use a weapon to protect the wielder, not to protect the pristine edge of the blade from getting boo-boos.

Not sure how you'd parry a heavy impact weapon like a mace or poleaxe, but you have a big reach advantage on a mace, and the momentum of a heavy weapon would let you void and counterattack pretty well.

That said, a rapier is designed for unarmored civilian combat. Duels or street brawls. Heavy maces are designed for fighting armored men on the battlefield. Asking which is better is like asking if a submachine gun is better than a sniper rifle. It all depends on what you want to do with it. The question arises because RPGs put rapier on equal terms with martial weapons for offense and defense, which it is not, and against armored opponents, which it definitely is not.

To build upon what Mike said, I would also add that the term "rapier" included a wide range of actual weapons. The rapier in Joachim Meyer or Marozzo was around 36" and designed as much for cutting as thrusting, it was really just an arming sword or cut-thrust sword with a more complex hilt, whereas the later Spanish and Bolognese dueling rapiers could be as almost a foot longer. There were also inbetween weapon some modern practitioners call a 'sidesword' known as spada da lato in some Italian documents or a sword of the robes (espada ropera) in both cases referring to a civiilian sidearm. Silver explicitly wrote against the "long" rapier that dominated at the end of the 16th century. "(I)n all their actions appertaining to their defence, they are unable, in due time to perform, and continually in danger of every cross..." For a rapier of proper length (for average stature, even 36 inches is a few too long) he was critical of the lack of good defense with the "Italianated" methods, but at least it didn't have the problem of being too long to quickly uncross.

Knaight

2012-05-03, 04:45 PM

Spiryt

2012-05-03, 05:08 PM

Beleriphon

2012-05-03, 05:31 PM

Mike_G

2012-05-03, 07:03 PM

Silver was well versed in rapier, and challenged at least one self-promoting teacher to prove (with rapier, sword, staff, etc) the superiority he claimed to have over vulgar English fencers. The teacher declined to show up.

The plural of "anecdote" is still not "data."

Rapiers can defend. A glancing parry may not stop a cut, but it will cause it to miss, and allow for a quicker counter. That's different than broadsword fighting, but different doesn't mean useless.

That is part of Silver's complaint, that the rapier cannot make a sure defense. Kendo suffers a similar deficit, not being trained to block effectively. The other half is that it is ineffective at anything but thrusting, which doesn't have the "knock down power" needed. One could be pierced many times with little immediate effect. Whack off a hand and you have immediate results.

But a decent rapier fencer will be taught to defend. As will a decent kendo fencer. If you don't learn to defend, you learn to bleed out in your first fight.

If you've read my posts at all, you know I am a believer in the idea that a cut is m,ore immediately disabling than a thrust, so there I agree with Silver.

And some rapiers did have an edge. At least enough to draw cut, if not hack through a limb.

Why not? We use a weapon to protect the wielder, not to protect the pristine edge of the blade from getting boo-boos.

I never said one tries to protect the edge from boo boos. If you try a flat 90 degree stop with a rapier against a heavier blade, you may not effectively parry at all. Better to meet the cut at a shallow angle, and deflect the cut enough so it misses, then put your point in his body as he finishes the cut.

Don't use it like a skinny broadsword. It's bad for that. Don't cut trees with a razor or shave with an axe. use the tool to its advantage.

The question arises because RPGs put rapier on equal terms with martial weapons for offense and defense, which it is not, and against armored opponents, which it definitely is not.

RPGs are limited in how they simulate combat, due to wanting to limit unnecessary complexity, and because they want to allow for archetypes like swashbucklers to play along side archetypes like knights and barbarians and ninja and pirates. You would never use a rapier in the same role as a heavy mace. But in an average D&D party, you may see both used against the giant lizard.

The question was what can a rapier parry, and the answer is most melee weapons, with varying degrees of difficulty. And the weapons it would be worst at parrying, it would be least likely to encounter.

valadil

2012-05-03, 08:04 PM

Galloglaich

2012-05-03, 09:07 PM

Best thing under those circumstances is probably a cell phone with 911 on speed-dial, followed by your number on speed dial.

You could get her a baton but it's probably worse than useless if she doesn't have some significant training with it. That is really true for most weapons. Mace and pepper spray aren't by any means guaranteeed either.

G

fusilier

2012-05-03, 11:28 PM

Yup, lots of variables here. According to A Devil of a Whipping, a modern person managed to hit a man-sized target at 80 yards with 5 out of 6 shots in a minute without using the ramrod. I think he held the bullets in his mouth and spit them down the barrel. So it is possible to get decently good accuracy out of the musket.

However, infantry tactics dictated that accuracy was not much of a concern, considering that the soldiers lined up into very large blocks. In that case, you'd more likely just fire into the big block of humanity opposing you than to try to aim your shot at a particular person. To aid this, smooth bore muskets were frequently loaded with buck and ball (1 large musket ball and three smaller .30 caliber balls) so that the musket was more like a mini-shotgun than a rifle.

I won't vouch for the accuracy of this web page, but I found this and it might be helpful:

http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm

I've been out of the loop, but I'm trying to catch up:

In my ACW reenactment group, one of our members takes a smoothbore musket, without a rear sight, to competitions and consistently scores high marks, often coming in first or second against rifled weapons.

The reason for this apparent discrepancy is the military practice of using undersized ammo and basically no patch. Militaries did this for several reasons, speed of loading, poor tolerances, and the predominance of volley fire (which was predominant for a reason).

Galloglaich

2012-05-03, 11:29 PM

Spyrit already covered this pretty well but I'll just add a few comments.

I don't actually recall plate being well represented in anywhere other than Italy and some parts of Germany until the 1500s (and doubt that it was ever truly common even there.) I don't think I'd call something worn by 2 countries as explicitly prevalent. Was there something I'm missing regarding plate being fairly common throughout Europe during the 1400s across Europe?

Yes it was extremely common throughout Europe during this period, I'm not sure what you are missing exactly but this isn't a big secret. Look at any of the Osprey military books during this period for a 'cliff notes' snapshot of the typical armor used by soldiers, militia, and knights in 15th Century Europe.

You seem to be confusing the production centers of plate armor for where it was used. Neither Italy nor Germany were countries in the 15th or 16th Centuries, but Milan and Brescia in what is today Italy and Augsburg and some other towns in Swabia in what is today Germany were the most important centers of plate armor production in Europe in this period. In other words, it is where they had the biggest export business.

But plate armor was made all over, and people were buying and using Milanese and Swabian armor as far away as Poland and Spain from the 1380's. In fact the Kingdoms of France and England were probably the biggest customers of the Italian and German armorers. We know from records of famous battles (like Agincourt in 1415) and excavations of battlefield graveyards like at Towton (1461) that literally thousands of combattants were armored with plate armor. We even know how much it cost relative to the pay of a typical soldier, but more on that in a minute.

I think a similar thing can be said of a knight during the 1400s, and even much of the 1500s regarding plate. Was there any indication that your average knight could afford a full suit of plate during that time in say, England, Spain etc.?

Yes, in fact, not only knights, but burghers, mercenaries, and even peasant militia could afford them, as we can see clearly in period art, and read from period records. In fact citizens of hundreds of towns in Europe were required as part of their obligation as a citizen to maintain plate harness as well as other weapons, horses and other kit depending on their specific estate. In towns under German town law in the 15th Century citizens were made to swear an annual oath not to lose, sell, or allow other people to use their armor.

We also incidentally have surviving records for the cost of different grades of armor, Milanese armor for example came in at least three grades: non proofed, proofed, and heavy-proofed.

Volley fire obviously doesn't have much to do with knights. A few guys pretty much jousting with a pistol don't have the same impact on an armoured formation than would a full on volley of shots.

Samurai weren't typically the ones shooting the arquebus in the greatest numbers either were they? So what is your point? Both Samurai and Knights typically (though not always) fought as cavalry, the volley of shots came from lines of infantry, which in Japan usually meant Ashigaru. My point was that I'm pretty sure knights were using firearms from horseback before Samurai were, simply because they had access to wheellock, snaphaunce and later flintlock firearms which were much easier to use from horseback, more than a Century before the Japanese did. The battlefield the Samurai fought on in the 16th Century were quickly dominated by arquebusiers and the equivalent of Pikemen. In Europe this had already been the case for 100 years.

The Japanese also for whatever reason largely eschewed the cannon, which was another major hazard the knight had to contend with (and for which armor really offered no protection).

Is there a source on that for the European models?

Yes, of course. Fusilier can probably provide better ones than I can, but the musket was a far heavier, and harder-hitting weapon than the arquebus.

I have seen Ottoman guns with .7+ calibers, but from what I can tell, these were considered superior to whatever the Europeans were making during that era.

The Ottomans were the first ones to start making Muskets, as far as I'm aware, and did have an edge with them for a few years, but they were quickly copied first by the Spanish and pretty quickly all over Europe. Originally the musket was used as as specialized armor-piercing weapon.

As for iron sights, they were not that significant with the arquebus because the weapon itself has such poor range. Crossbows had a longer effective range probably until the mid 1500's. That was the reason for inventing volley-fire.

Personally, I'm not trying to put down the Samurai or the Japanese military tradition, like I said before they were pretty tough. There are some records of enounters between the Japanese and various Europeans in the 16th Century and the fighting sometimes went both ways. In fact the Dutch used Ronin Samurai in very large numbers in Indonesia during this period. But I think sometimes in enthusiasm for a particular period or group sometimes one ends up downplaying another group. In the case of the European military context of the 15th and 16th Centuries, you are doing that a little bit here.

G

Galloglaich

2012-05-03, 11:41 PM

About how resilient to damage were historical wooden shafts used in the early medieval period in Europe? Obviously the movie portrayal where one casually chops the end off of multiple spears/axes/whatever with a swing is patently absurd, but just how much abuse could they usually take, assuming minimal metal reinforcement.

One thing you'll notice on most actual antiques from the Meideval period is that they had langets near the business end, these being iron sheathes nailed onto the haft, precisely so that it didn't get cut.

The used to use pretty strong wood like ash but it can be cut. The langets make it it a whole lot harder though.

You can see a decent example of some langets in this antique 15th Century pollaxe from the Higgins armoury

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_higgins_pole.html

Or these 15th Century Swiss pikes

http://www.antiqueweaponstore.com/Swiss%20Luzern%20Pikes,%2015th-16th%20Century.htm

Smaller weapons like maces and axes were not infrequently made with 100% iron, bronze, or steel hafts so that they couldn't be cut through either. Like these:

http://auction-e.com/image/20/953/6007.jpg

http://www.hydroponicsonline.com/store/img-hydroponics/persian-axe-mace-tulwar-shamshir-armour-sikh-shield_220745756301.jpg

http://www.kunstpedia.com/images/gallery/28/391_album.jpg

http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/armour/italianmace1.jpg

G

fusilier

2012-05-03, 11:44 PM

The Ottomans were the first ones to start making Muskets, as far as I'm aware, and did have an edge with them for a few years, but they were quickly copied first by the Spanish and pretty quickly all over Europe. Originally the musket was used as as specialized armor-piercing weapon.

I would not say that the Ottomans were the first ones to make a Musket, but that's because the terminology is very poor. They did use some early form of matchlock or handgonne, that I'm not too familiar with, that seems to have been on a larger caliber than contemporary arquebuses.

By the middle of the 16th century the Ottoman Tufenk (sp?) was something in between a Western European (Spanish) arquebus and a musket. The caliber a little bit bigger than arquebus, but the barrel much longer than an arquebus, approaching musket length. While Spanish heavy muskets would have had better penetration and range, that would have been significantly heavier -- muskets never really dominated the battlefield, until they started to become lighter in the 17th century. Until then they seem to have typically been a minority in the firearms, with most firearm equipped troops having an arquebus or caliver.

It's very hard to compare weapons of this time period -- there is a lot of variation, terminology was inconsistent at the time, and modern translations can be tricky. Many, many weapons are translated as "musket," when some other term should have been used.

fusilier

2012-05-04, 12:17 AM

Is there a source on that for the European models? I do know the Japanese ordered and maintained a large number of heavy caliber guns with greatly superior stopping power (IIRC, 1 in 10 after demilitarization, likely similar ratios before) and in any event, you can't deny the Japanese were using iron sights either before or more prevalently than the Europeans.

I have seen Ottoman guns with .7+ calibers, but from what I can tell, these were considered superior to whatever the Europeans were making during that era.

I don't have time to research (I'm working very long hours), however off the top of my head:

Japanese firearms were considered superior to the Chinese ones at the time, as the Chinese had been introduced to Arquebuses a bit before the Japanese. Early 16th century arquebuses had rather short barrels, becoming longer towards the middle of the century. Not a huge difference in performance, but there would be some.

For the most part you can look at some details to get a relative idea of the penetrating power of firearms of that time period. As many of the other limiting factors were basically the same. So you look at the length of the barrel and the caliber. Those two typically are positively correlated (within the same time period), but not always. A longer barrel and larger caliber typically means greater penetration. A European musket could be .85-95 in caliber, and have a very long barrel. This came at a price and such guns typically were used by a minority of soldiers (although an increasingly large minority towards the end of the 16th century). Arquebuses ran somewhere in the .60-.70 range, and calivers about .75. Ottoman guns were a bit more like long arquebus. Most surviving ones I've seen online come from a later period 17th-18th century, although appear outwardly similar, I've never gotten a good handle on the details of 16th century Ottoman guns.

Returning to Japanese guns, as I recall they would be very similar in performance to a European arquebus of the mid 16th century. Repros of them use a "cheek stock" -- a kind of stock that doesn't reach the shoulder, and is simply held against the cheek. It's not quite as weird as it may sound, and some European hunting arms of the period can be found that way. But it's not good for controlling heavy recoil.

Ashtagon

2012-05-04, 03:17 AM

Self defense question.

My wife has been accosted a couple times by a homeless guy while I'm at work. So far she's been able to run away and find a cop without too much difficulty. We were discussing if there was anything she could carry to defend herself. I figure y'all know more about this than anyone else I know.

Here's the hard part. We have a baby. He goes through purses. He has baby friends who also go through purses. Whatever self defense mechanism my wife picks up would likely live in her purse.

She's not comfortable with guns. I suppose a holstered one could work, but I think it's more than she wants to carry.

Mace and tasers are not legal around here. Well, that's what she told me. I haven't looked it up myself. They don't really pass the purse test though. I don't know enough about either a pepper spray or taser with enough juice to stop a man to know what that would do to a 20 pound baby. Not planning on offering up my own as a guinea pig.

That left us talking about lower tech things. She'd feel safer with a knife, but doesn't think it'd pass the purse inspection test. A club or police baton wouldn't be dangerous in the hands of a baby, but we're not sure it's enough. I feel like as soon as you pull out a weapon, the attacker is obliged to do so as well if he has something, and in a club vs knife fight I wouldn't want to be club.

That leaves us thinking that an air horn or rape whistle might be the best options. Or a good pair of running shoes. Do any of you with more exposure to this sort of thing have any suggestions we might not have thought of?

NEVER pull out a weapon you are not prepared to use in a fight you expect to walk away from.

Regarding guns, unless you've trained often and regularly, you are probably going to miss in a stress situation. After you shoot, you are now unarmed facing an angry guy who, in his mind, is ready to fight and knows you just tried to kill him. So don't carry a gun unless you're trained.

Anyone ready to mug you is ready to fight you if you challenge their manhood. And drawing a weapon is a direct challenge to that. Equally, don't threaten to dial 911; just do it if it's a live situation. They'll knock you flat long before you finish dialling if you merely threaten them with that.

Rape alarms and loud whistles are good. A mobile phone in your hand ready to dial is good. Let your local police know you have been threatened and that you have their number on speed dial, so they know to take a call seriously.

Any weapon you carry must be one that will disable them long enough to RUN. In practice that basically just means mace sprays, which are illegal.

A more practical approach is to walk like you can take care of yourself. That doesn't mean swinging shoulders like a wrestler. It means:

* Don't look like you are lost. Walk confidently.
* Look around all the time. Be aware of the people around you.
* Park your care near the building entrances. Never park in an alleyway or other secluded spot.
* Have your keys in hand for immediate use long before you reach the door.
* If you actually are lost, step inside a shop, or knock on a random stranger's door, all the while being aware of surroundings. Only then check your maps or ask for directions (and be aware that in some regions, giving bad directions is a sport).

GraaEminense

2012-05-04, 03:35 AM

I think we're talking past each other. What I was saying is that you need some strength to use the center grip shields, but because of the options available* they become easier to use if you have it and as such better. That also appears to be your position.
Partially. I agree that you need more strength to use a center-grip shield effectively. However, I also contend that even with the necessary strength such shields need a higher level of training to be equal of strap-on shields: If you give a shield to an untrained (but strong enough) rookie he will most likely survive longer with a kite than a round shield. The trade-off is of course that -in my opinion- if you're actually good at what you're doing, center-grip shields give you more options to use that skill.

Knaight

2012-05-04, 03:50 AM

Partially. I agree that you need more strength to use a center-grip shield effectively. However, I also contend that even with the necessary strength such shields need a higher level of training to be equal of strap-on shields: If you give a shield to an untrained (but strong enough) rookie he will most likely survive longer with a kite than a round shield. The trade-off is of course that -in my opinion- if you're actually good at what you're doing, center-grip shields give you more options to use that skill.

I was assuming some level of competence, largely because the completely untrained are terrible with shields regardless (with a few exceptions).

Brother Oni

2012-05-04, 04:23 AM

Do any of you with more exposure to this sort of thing have any suggestions we might not have thought of?

Seconding the suggestions that your wife shouldn't be carrying a weapon that she doesn't know how to use and especially don't pull one out if you're not intending to use it to incapacitate or kill your opponent.

There are a number of improvised tools she can use to help fend off an attacker (Ashtagon mentions keys, but if you hold your keys with them protruding between the fingers and swing for the eyes if they get too close, it can buy enough time to run), but if she doesn't know how to defend herself, a pair of good running shoes and emergency services on speed dial would be her best bet.

Is she receptive to the idea of taking women's self defence classes? In my experience, they're much more focused on practical techniques than teaching any fighting ability or fitness capacity like a martial art, so are more likely to show more immediate benefit.

Yukitsu

2012-05-04, 04:55 AM

It's very hard to compare weapons of this time period -- there is a lot of variation, terminology was inconsistent at the time, and modern translations can be tricky. Many, many weapons are translated as "musket," when some other term should have been used.

This is the problem I'm running into, correlating armour penetration and guns used. Doubly so across cultures, where a gun in Japan is translated as a matchlock no matter what the barrel length, caliber or stopping power, and the complete lack of evidence as to whether their bullet proofed armour stops both heavy and light matchlocks.

Samurai weren't typically the ones shooting the arquebus in the greatest numbers either were they? So what is your point? Both Samurai and Knights typically (though not always) fought as cavalry, the volley of shots came from lines of infantry, which in Japan usually meant Ashigaru.

Only thing I can answer with complete certainty at this time without my books and at 3 in the morning is that Japanese samurai that were using guns indeed weren't using them from horseback, but they also definitely did use firearms. The confusion I tend to run into is the sort of fuzzy categorization of "samurai" during the period, since certain retainers would be considered samurai, even if they weren't fighting from horseback with a bow and spear, though I more generically don't see any reason they would use them differently than the Ashigaru were, as as you said, they can't really be used effectively from horseback. Oda Nobunaga supposedly armed his samurai with Arquebus and had them fire in mass ranked volleys for example. I'm of the opinion that Tokugawa Ieyasu also did so. Other lords may have done differently (and Oda Nobunaga is notable for using his arquebusiers more effectively than other lords).

mcv

2012-05-04, 07:47 AM

That left us talking about lower tech things. She'd feel safer with a knife, but doesn't think it'd pass the purse inspection test. A club or police baton wouldn't be dangerous in the hands of a baby, but we're not sure it's enough. I feel like as soon as you pull out a weapon, the attacker is obliged to do so as well if he has something, and in a club vs knife fight I wouldn't want to be club.
A club or knife isn't much use if you don't know how to use it. It might scare someone off, but if it doesn't, it helps a lot if you've actually had the training and know how to use it.

That leaves us thinking that an air horn or rape whistle might be the best options. Or a good pair of running shoes.
These all sound like excellent ideas.

Ashtagon

2012-05-04, 08:11 AM

Don't carry a weapon, any weapon, for self-defence, unless you know how to use it.

If you don't know how to fight with a knife, don't bring one. The moment you show it, you just told him you're ready and willing to cut him up (even if you aren't). And if you don't know how to use it in a fight, it may turn out to be quite a simple matter for him to take it off you, in which case you are now unarmed against someone with a weapon who knows you had an intention to cut him up.

the results might make page 7 in the local gazette.

Matthew

2012-05-04, 08:58 AM

Raum

2012-05-04, 09:05 AM

Do any of you with more exposure to this sort of thing have any suggestions we might not have thought of?As long as she's in a fairly public area a screamer (http://www.2dsecurity.com/blue-screamer-%20alarm) or other personal security alarm (i.e. noisemaker) will help. The baby may scare himself with it at some point but isn't likely to hurt himself.

Strobe ("stun") lights are also sold for potential self defense. However, they're not all that effective in daylight.

Skunk or dye sprays are a pepper spray alternate - but will have the same baby-in-purse issues.

A kubotan is decent but requires more training to use effectively.

Anything used needs to be trained with to some degree. At minimum you don't want to fumble around getting it out and you want to be prepared for whatever effects it has. (Blinding yourself with your own strobe is a Bad Thing (TM). )

Maintaining good situational awareness is a must. Simply avoiding surprise is probably one of the more effective things you can do to prevent casual assault. (As opposed to targeted.)

Galloglaich

2012-05-04, 09:38 AM

Best define "samurai" as well, apparently even ashigaru were considered samurai in some periods (albeit the lowest sort). This was quite surprising to me, as I only read it recently in an Osprey book. In any case, leaving that extreme example behind, yeah in the knight versus samurai deal it is necessary to define terms, not that the result will be any clearer. :smallbiggrin:

For that matter, defining a 'knight' can be quite problematic as well. 'Knight' meant different things in different places through different time periods, and the lines got pretty blurred. There were urban knights called 'Konstafler', there were monk-knights of the religious orders, men-at-arms, German schwarze reiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiter), Russian druzhina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina), Polish hussars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_Hussars), and French gendarmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_%28historical%29), who fell somewhere in between knights and mere heavy cavalry. The Turks even had their own version, the Sipahi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipahi). There was even a class of serf-Knights called ministeriales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministeriales) who were on a socio-political level much closer to that of Samurai than most Knights, and were very common on the battlefields of Medieval Europe, particularly in Central and Northern Europe.

Then you also have bogatyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogatyr) and robber knights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_knight) or knights -errant, who were a little more like Ronin.

And from there it gets real complicated.

G

Matthew

2012-05-04, 09:43 AM

Exactly so. :smallbiggrin:

Spiryt

2012-05-04, 09:52 AM

Polish hussars are really 'evolved form' - from 16th century, that's how some polish nobles were fighting - most elite and expensive fighting force.

They postdate knights in any understanding.

Galloglaich

2012-05-04, 11:15 AM

And yet there were still also knights at that time, and the Hussars were mostly from the szlachta anyway so they were minor nobility for the most part. In fact the legal / social status of 'Knight' has continued up to the current day*. It's tricky to sort out precisely when and where the military concept of a knight and the more ephemeral other contexts separated out. Which was basically my point.

G

*Just as the status of samurai continued long past the point that samurai were doing much fighting, during the Edo period or Tokogawa Shogunate it was relatively peaceful in Japan.

valadil

2012-05-04, 11:27 AM

Strobe ("stun") lights are also sold for potential self defense. However, they're not all that effective in daylight.

Unfortunately this only happens by day when I'm at work. The homeless guy leaves us alone when I'm there too.

Anything used needs to be trained with to some degree. At minimum you don't want to fumble around getting it out and you want to be prepared for whatever effects it has. (Blinding yourself with your own strobe is a Bad Thing (TM). )

This seems like the general consensus. I feel like if she's going to train at all, it might as well be unarmed training so we don't have to worry about baby finding weapons. In lieu of training, running seems like the best option.

Spiryt

2012-05-04, 11:42 AM

Straybow

2012-05-04, 12:44 PM

The plural of "anecdote" is still not "data." :smallsigh: Too many people think Silver was simply "prejudiced" against rapier, and I suspect they've never studied his writings. According to people who know, he speaks very knowledgeably about rapier in his Brief Instructions. Forty years later about ten thousand rapier-trained Royalists found they had to trade in their toadstickers and train for real swords. But that's just a few thousand anecdotes, not historical data, right?

But a decent rapier fencer will be taught to defend. As will a decent kendo fencer. If you don't learn to defend, you learn to bleed out in your first fight. Rapier defense by parry against blows of a heavier weapon is uncertain; it can be done in training when you have an idea where and when the blow will fall, but combat is different. Do that with rebated replicas instead of light, floppy practice swords, but first make sure your insurance is paid and you have a good cell signal to call 911. :smalleek:

If you try a flat 90 degree stop with a rapier against a heavier blade, you may not effectively parry at all. Better to meet the cut at a shallow angle, and deflect the cut enough so it misses, then put your point in his body as he finishes the cut.

Don't use it like a skinny broadsword. It's bad for that. Don't cut trees with a razor or shave with an axe. use the tool to its advantage. Silver's other criticism of rapier is that putting the rapier in the opponent's body is usually insufficient defense, too. Though the rapier is deadly it is rarely immediately so. He may be hurt, but not hurt so bad that he can't hew at your head or leg before you've recovered your stance to make another parry, or even grab your hilt to make certain you'll lack defense against his next blow. He may be well enough to make many more swings that the rapier poorly defends until that defense fails.

A typical 16th cen rapier makes a poor broadsword because of length more than lightness of the blade. Most were no narrower near the hilt than 18th cen infantry swords and light cavalry sabers. (See G's pictures above; I've handled a 17th cen broadsword little wider or heavier than the third one in the upper pic, but a several inches shorter.) To move the rapier of excessive length from a point-forward stance to a full block against a cleaving blow is itself a bit clumsy, and then you can't uncross to answer before the attacker moves.

However, the bigger problem is that your rapier training doesn't tell you how to do it at all. It was intended to be a civilian weapon, and trying to make it a martial weapon is a disservice.

RPGs are limited in how they simulate combat... The question was what can a rapier parry, and the answer is most melee weapons, with varying degrees of difficulty. And the weapons it would be worst at parrying, it would be least likely to encounter. ...except in an RPG, where they can encounter flail-wielding minotaurs and hobgoblin axemen and... :smallwink:

Knaight

2012-05-04, 01:06 PM

...except in an RPG, where they can encounter flail-wielding minotaurs and hobgoblin axemen and... :smallwink:

Given that RPGs often feature people blocking swords wielded by 50 foot giants with a normal sized wooden shield (which is going to get sheared right through) or any number of smaller weapons (in which some get sheared through, and some just get pushed out of the way) rapiers blocking any real weapon seems downright plausible by comparison.

Galloglaich

2012-05-04, 01:53 PM

Well, they certainly could still mean something 'different' around the Europe, but in Poland world "rycerz", "cavalier" or "equitus" basically became synonymous with szlachta that were serving in conflicts in any way.

So calling hussars, as any other noble cavalryman would be very common. So basically 'rycerz' - 'szlachcic'.

And due to sheer cost of hussar horses and equipment, it in fact rarely was minor szlachta who were serving there. Although some very wealthy hussars were often equipping some ~ 2 other at least until they could afford their own stuff after some fighting.

Obviously true magnates were pretty rare, though not unheard of, usually in command of some kind.

spiryt I didn't quite parse that. Can you clarify?

What I meant by 'minor nobility' is that typical szlachta were minor nobility.

That is to say compared to other parts of Europe the nobility in Poland - Lithuania was huge in numbers (I think there were something like 500,000 in the 16th Century if I remember correctly?) and also tended to be relatively 'minor' in terms of wealth and land, in the sense that each one was not a major landowner with large entourages of henchmen, huge castles and so on... the szlachta had enormous power collectively in the Rzeczpospolita (nobles republic) but individually if I understand correctly weren't all that wealthy or powerful... at the same time that in much of the rest of Europe Kings and Princes were consolidating power at the expense of a disappearing minor nobility.

Among the szlachta obviously not all of them could afford to be Winged Hussaars. Is that what you were getting at?

G

Spiryt

2012-05-04, 02:00 PM

spiryt I didn't quite parse that. Can you clarify?

What I meant by 'minor nobility' is that typical szlachta were minor nobility.

That is to say compared to other parts of Europe the nobility in Poland - Lithuania was huge in numbers (I think there were something like 500,000 in the 16th Century if I remember correctly?) and also tended to be relatively 'minor' in terms of wealth and land, in the sense that each one was not a major landowner with huge castles and so on... the szlachta had enormous power collectively in the Rzeczpospolita (nobles republic) at the same time that in much of the rest of Europe Kings and Princes were consolidating power.. at the expense of a disappearing minor nobility.

Among the szlachta obviously not all of them could afford to be Winged Hussaars. Is that what you were saying?

G

Well that's probably right, I meant that they were not 'minor' compared to 'average' polish noble, because some really minor noble without at least some decent land and wealth wouldn't afford to be one.

Althhough I'm pretty sure that nobles all around the Europe also usually weren't really all that wealthy.

Depending on the period about 8-10% of society would be noble indeed. So that's a lot of people, though there was also a lot of land 'available'.

Galloglaich

2012-05-04, 02:06 PM

Yeah I think Poland had much more nobles than most of the rest of Europe though. I believe in France it's less than 1% if I am remembering correctly.

G

Galloglaich

2012-05-04, 02:34 PM

:smallsigh: Too many people think Silver was simply "prejudiced" against rapier, and I suspect they've never studied his writings

Silver is respected as a fencing Master and I think there is some daylight in between the two positions A) Silver is a maniac simply prejudiced against rapiers irrationally and B) Silver is correct and rapiers are worthless.

Silver's critique of rapiers, as he himself says, is both socio-political and technical. No doubt there were some fake rapier charlatans pretending to be masters in his time, and more to the point, he was justifiably concerned by the wholesale abandonment of the existing English martial arts tradition in favor of what he considered dubious foreign (Spanish and Italian, mostly) weapons and fighting systems. He makes a strong case for how to defeat a rapier using a variety of more 'traditinal' English weapons - a plausible case. I think most HEMA practitioners acknowledge that and his concepts of timing are influential... but there is more than one way to skin a cat and I don't think Silver negates the martial efficacy and historical impact of Rapiers.

For example, you describe dealing with a powerful overhand strike... you can deal with this 'aggresively' with a rapier using a method we also use with a longsword - in the KDF we call it an absetzen, but it's a single-time counter where you roll into a displacement with your strong while thrusting with your point to your opponents face, simultaneously. You are probably familiar with the technique, I'm not sure what it's called in Italian rapier systems but I've seen it done. Meyer just calls it an absetzen.

Using a rapier with a buckler or a rotella, obviously you would simply displace with the shield - while thrusting home with the rapier. With a dagger in the off hand you could either displace with the dagger or use the dagger and rapier together if necessary.

Or the most characteristic way to deal with that using a rapier would be to simply void and thrust.

I have seen some English and Scottish backswords, there is an exquisite 17th Century antique Scottish basket-hilt at a store downtown that I like to visit when I can. They aren't such beasts in terms of size and weight that you couldn't parry them.

I suspect the problem in the English Civil War was that most of the Royalists weren't well trained with the rapier. It's a weapon which, as we've discussed here upthread, requires a substantial amount of training to be effective. I suspect alot of the young nobles and soldiers who carried them didn't have much real training at all, some probably had none and were just carrying them for the prestige, out of the kind of empty fashion influence which made Silver so mad.

The backsword, by contrast, is a simpler weapon to learn, IMO. Each weapon has it's strengths and weaknesses.

G

Spiryt

2012-05-04, 02:47 PM

Mike_G

2012-05-04, 03:13 PM

Wouldn't the problem with rapiers in English Civil War be that rapier makes pretty lousy field weapon, and no one is trying to deny this fact?

It was definitely civilian and 'small scale' weapon, and excelled in such situations.

As Galloglaich says, there were battlefield rapiers, with a wider, shorter blade, but the long, thin, thrusting rapier would be badly suited to battlefield conditions. I've done quite a bit of historical rapier and a bit of cut and thrust sword work, and I'd prefer the rapier for defending myself on the streets of Florence, but a nice backsword for tangling with heathen Roundheads. (French, Scottish and Irish ancestry. I'm a bad Catholic, but Jacobite to the bone.)

Like I said earlier, apples and oranges.

The original question was "what can a rapier defend against?" And I still say the answer is "Most melee weapons, so long as you know what you're doing." I wouldn't want to face an armored minotaur wielding a poleaxe with only my trusty rapier, but the idea that it can't parry anything is rubbish.

Spiryt

2012-05-04, 03:40 PM

As Galloglaich says, there were battlefield rapiers, with a wider, shorter blade,

With all that mess in the terminology, I personally just don't call the stuff like those "rapier" - rapier will be of narrow, long blade and characteristic proportions - obviously a lot of those rapier hilted swords would be called rapier both by people in the past and today....

This thing is dubbed "battle rapier" (http://www.muzeumwp.pl/emwpaedia/rapier-bojowy-prawdopodobnie-niemcy-xvi-xvii-wiek.php) - but just by glance it's pretty much XX-something Oakeshott type with ricasso, knuckle and loop guard.

Straybow

2012-05-04, 04:19 PM

Silver is respected as a fencing Master and I think there is some daylight in between the two positions A) Silver is a maniac simply prejudiced against rapiers irrationally and B) Silver is correct and rapiers are worthless.

Silver's critique of rapiers, as he himself says, is both socio-political and technical. No doubt there were some fake rapier charlatans pretending to be masters in his time, and more to the point, he was justifiably concerned by the wholesale abandonment of the existing English martial arts tradition in favor of what he considered dubious foreign (Spanish and Italian, mostly) weapons and fighting systems. He makes a strong case for how to defeat a rapier using a variety of more 'traditinal' English weapons - a plausible case. I think most HEMA practitioners acknowledge that and his concepts of timing are influential... but there is more than one way to skin a cat and I don't think Silver negates the martial efficacy and historical impact of Rapiers.

...The backsword, by contrast, is a simpler weapon to learn, IMO. Each weapon has it's strengths and weaknesses. The sword is a short time to learn, the True Fight a lifetime to master, sir. I've not studied how to use rapiers, only how to oppose them. TLDR, haha.

Mike_G

2012-05-04, 05:11 PM

I've not studied how to use rapiers, only how to oppose them. TLDR, haha.

Well, thank God you're here to tell us how to defend with one.

Straybow

2012-05-05, 12:29 PM

Well, thank God you're here to tell us how to defend with one. Hah, knew that would get ya! :smallyuk:

So, if I were to study rapier, should I study the Italians? Capoferro, Agrippa? Rocco Bonetti (critically injured by a man using the traditional English fight)? His son Jeronimo Bonetti (killed by a man using traditional English fight)? Saviolo, who along with Jeronimo refused to demonstrate their claimed superiority over the English system on stage facing George and Toby Silver?

Ok, maybe I should study the Spanish school. Carranza's Destreza is supposed to be the shizznick, for all weapons from daggers to polearms.

Perhaps the French system? Or even the English system, Hope's "New Method?" That was basically an attempt to devise a rapier system that follows Silver and makes blocks with a true cross a bit less unwieldy, using the smallsword which is a proper length weapon by Silver's standard.

No, I don't need to perfect how to do the things they taught to understand by the wisdom of others more capable than I the flaws therein, and how to take advantage of them. That is study enough for me.

All these are interesting historical methods, and those who wish to study and master one or two, or spend a lifetime mastering them all, I bid well and godspeed.

Mike_G

2012-05-05, 04:21 PM

Hah, knew that would get ya! :smallyuk:

So, if I were to study rapier, should I study the Italians? Capoferro, Agrippa? Rocco Bonetti (critically injured by a man using the traditional English fight)? His son Jeronimo Bonetti (killed by a man using traditional English fight)? Saviolo, who along with Jeronimo refused to demonstrate their claimed superiority over the English system on stage facing George and Toby Silver?

Ok, maybe I should study the Spanish school. Carranza's Destreza is supposed to be the shizznick, for all weapons from daggers to polearms.

Perhaps the French system? Or even the English system, Hope's "New Method?" That was basically an attempt to devise a rapier system that follows Silver and makes blocks with a true cross a bit less unwieldy, using the smallsword which is a proper length weapon by Silver's standard.

No, I don't need to perfect how to do the things they taught to understand by the wisdom of others more capable than I the flaws therein, and how to take advantage of them. That is study enough for me.

All these are interesting historical methods, and those who wish to study and master one or two, or spend a lifetime mastering them all, I bid well and godspeed.

Well, when you complain that people who complain about Silver being biased probably haven't studied his writings, but then you complain about rapier being useless but admit you haven't studied it...

Well, you sound like a man posting from the depths of his colon.

Bhu

2012-05-05, 05:07 PM

Some of you may remember me from sometime back having some questions about japanese weaponry. I have finalized my list here:

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=772.0

and would like some feedback before i begin statting them out if possible. These should all for the most part be real world weapons, I jsut wanna make sure nothings slipped by me.

Straybow

2012-05-06, 02:11 AM

Well, when you complain that people who complain about Silver being biased probably haven't studied his writings, but then you complain about rapier being useless but admit you haven't studied it...

Well, you sound like a man posting from the depths of his colon. No, sir. I think you missed my point. If another (in this case, Silver) has already mastered the system, and identified the weaknesses of the system (the rapier as a sword of excessive length and deficient in cleaving power and reliant on slow footwork), and how to best that system, I can learn that. I don't need to know the eight parries, the stocata from the imbrocata, the myriad of footwork schemes. The details don't matter if they can be beat.

GraaEminense

2012-05-06, 11:25 AM

I was assuming some level of competence, largely because the completely untrained are terrible with shields regardless (with a few exceptions).
The completely untrained are terrible with everything, not significantly more so with shields in my experience. But, at this point we are picking nits -we do agree on most points it seems.

Mike_G

2012-05-06, 03:12 PM

No, sir. I think you missed my point. If another (in this case, Silver) has already mastered the system, and identified the weaknesses of the system (the rapier as a sword of excessive length and deficient in cleaving power and reliant on slow footwork), and how to best that system, I can learn that. I don't need to know the eight parries, the stocata from the imbrocata, the myriad of footwork schemes. The details don't matter if they can be beat.

Ah.

That's why the rapier was abandoned, England dominated Europe throughout the Renaissance, France and Spain faded into obscurity in the 17th century, English bill-fencing schools drove the local masters out of business in Italy, and smallsword dueling came directly from study of the quarterstaff.

Galloglaich and I aren't even saying the rapier was better than a backsword, just that it was a useful weapon that people used for a long damn time, and this is how and why.

People who have actually studied rapier, and some who have fenced rapier (not foil) against other rapiers and against other HEMA weapons have tried to engage in civilized discussion about how to defend with one, but you just want to quote from "Thoughts of Chairman Silver" and believe that an entire martial art that you haven't studied was used for centuries even though it was crap. Apparently because people are really stupid unless they adopted "English" fighting styles.

Like football hooliganism, I guess.

Autolykos

2012-05-06, 05:24 PM

@Self-defense stuff:
The people I trained JuJutsu and Escrima with usually had "palm sticks" and similar stuff in their pockets (or on their keyrings). Basically it's a metal or hardwood stick that extends about an inch out of your hand at the top and bottom (sometimes with a conical shape, but not actually pointy). You can easily pass them off as "massage sticks", and they can add quite a bit of power to a strike (bottom of the fist is better than a classic punch anyway, at least for untrained people). Don't know if it's a good choice for someone completely without training, as it requires you to get "up close and personal", and won't do wonders. It may turn a poor strike in an ok one, or a mediocre one into a good one, but it won't just let you take on an experienced fighter. Best use is to deliver a surprisingly hard hit to shock and buy some time and then getting away ASAP.
A sturdy (and pointy) umbrella is also nice, just don't use it like in the slapstick movies. Best way is a grip that looks like half-swording and using it to stab (IMHO).
If pepper spray is illegal in your place, you can always carry a small can of spraypaint (make sure it is the same color as your car, if people start asking questions). Will make it easier to identify the guy afterwards, but is not exactly "baby-safe". Salt dissolved in alcohol (or concentrated vinegar) is also quite painful in the eyes and a bit safer.

I would definitely advise against knives. They require a good deal of training, are likely to escalate the situation, are messy (and risky!) to use, and will make you look very bad in front of a judge.

Note that I (luckily) never was in a situation where I actually had to try it out, so I can't guarantee it will work.

Crow

2012-05-06, 05:39 PM

The kubaton. My wife carries one of those.

Straybow

2012-05-07, 01:05 AM

That's why the rapier was abandoned, England dominated Europe throughout the Renaissance, France and Spain faded into obscurity in the 17th century, English bill-fencing schools drove the local masters out of business in Italy, and smallsword dueling came directly from study of the quarterstaff.

Galloglaich and I aren't even saying the rapier was better than a backsword, just that it was a useful weapon that people used for a long damn time, and this is how and why. No, it was fashion that created the espada ropera instead of those big, vulgar swords of the battlefield. The social factors outweighed logic 3-400 years ago, just like millions of people bought pet rocks thirty years ago. Paid Money. For ordinary rocks.

When it came to direct contest, two of three great Italian masters who came to England were bested, and the third refused to answer a challenge. When it came to war, the sword was secondary to the spear through most of history, then to more advanced polearms, then to gunpowder. But for the troops that actually needed swords, heavy cavalry for example, did they use rapiers? No, they used sabers well into the 20th century (and not pretend sabers of sport fencing). Sailors and marines used cutlasses. While some aristocratic officers carried rapiers most infantry swords were backswords and sabers as well. I had a cheap ACW infantry sword that was no rapier.

Now, when it came to conquering with the rapier, Cortez conquered the stone age Aztecs. Pizarro conquered the Incas when their fabled Emperor and his elite troops sallied forth unarmed, convinced that the radiant glory of the Emperor's divinity would awe these strange metal-clad men to surrender. Not an impressive season schedule for Team Rapier. :smallwink:

People who have actually studied rapier, and some who have fenced rapier (not foil) against other rapiers and against other HEMA weapons have tried to engage in civilized discussion about how to defend with one, but you just want to quote from "Thoughts of Chairman Silver" and believe that an entire martial art that you haven't studied was used for centuries even though it was crap. Apparently because people are really stupid unless they adopted "English" fighting styles. I'm fairly sure that whippy metal longsword trainers, or nylon, are hardly a true test. Even the guys who battle in full armor use them. The one test of parrying a replica in a prearranged attack show it is possible, which I freely grant. But nobody is volunteering to test in unscripted sparring with replicas.

I'm also fairly sure they haven't studied Silver. Read it, yes. Studied, learned, applied, not so much (I don't think Gailloglaich is claiming that, for example). Nor would I commend 99% of what you see on youtube claiming to be Silver. As I said, the historical rapier methods are interesting and worthy of study. I'm also convinced, by everything I've tested and seen tested, that Silver was correct and his methods work.

Talakeal

2012-05-07, 01:46 AM

Ashtagon

2012-05-07, 02:03 AM

Back in middle school I watched a video about the crusades which states that European knights wore thick felt pads over their armor which made them virtually immune to arrow fire as the arrows would simply stick in the felt, however during the crusades the knights had to abandon this tactic because it was simply too hot in the middle east to wear both armor and felt, and thus they were at a big disadvantage to Muslim archers.

I have never heard anything about these felt pads since. Was this a real thing?

Sounds like someone with too much imagination. The only traditional cloth that protects against arrows is silk, and that's because it has a tight weave that allows the arrow to draw the cloth with it instead of piercing it.

Felt isn't a woven material, so there;'s no way it could have that property.

Knaight

2012-05-07, 02:31 AM

Sounds like someone with too much imagination. The only traditional cloth that protects against arrows is silk, and that's because it has a tight weave that allows the arrow to draw the cloth with it instead of piercing it.

Felt isn't a woven material, so there;'s no way it could have that property.

Felt works fairly well against arrows, precisely because it isn't a woven material. Woven materials tend to fare poorly, as the weave comes apart under the arrow - silk does well precisely because it has a very tight weave and doesn't do this as easily. Felt, however, is pounded, and there isn't a weave to come apart at all, so it just needs to be cut through.

I seem to remember this coming up in one of these threads - probably earlier in this or the last one. In any case, that felt can protect is fairly certain, and that it has been used also fairly certain. However, there was the detail of "over their armor" mentioned, which is where this gets much more dubious.

Thiel

2012-05-07, 04:21 AM

They may have misinterpreted the padding worn under the armour. Someone is bound to have used felt for that at some point.

Matthew

2012-05-07, 05:05 AM

Back in middle school I watched a video about the crusades which states that European knights wore thick felt pads over their armor which made them virtually immune to arrow fire as the arrows would simply stick in the felt, however during the crusades the knights had to abandon this tactic because it was simply too hot in the middle east to wear both armor and felt, and thus they were at a big disadvantage to Muslim archers.

I have never heard anything about these felt pads since. Was this a real thing?

It is mentioned in one Muslim source concerning the third crusade, but I am not sure how reliable "felt" is as a translation. Could be a padded surcoat or padded armour of a more usual sort worn over mail.

Xuc Xac

2012-05-07, 06:15 AM

GraaEminense

2012-05-07, 08:19 AM

There are references to padding over mail in period texts (King's Mirror, for example) as well as in illustrations. This was presumably meant to protect against arrows, many layers of tightly-woven linen should produce enough friction that an arrow would have trouble penetrating the mail beneath. I assume felt or horse-hair (and certainly silk) would give a similar effect.

Somewhat fanciful perhaps, but the idea that the more heavily-armoured Franks lost some of their advantage because of the higher temperatures in the Middle East is hardly ridiculous.

Gambeson under surcoat and over mail as evidenced by dead guy in the lower right of the picture:
http://home.tiscali.nl/~t401243/mac/mac10rA.jpg

Straybow

2012-05-07, 11:23 AM

A better comparison would be civilians buying small caliber pistols for concealed carry instead of a superior battlefield weapon like an assault rifle. Well, I use Pet Rocks to illustrate absurdity. People buy stuff to have the latest thing.

A sword is for show, otherwise who would care what kind of sword it was? An ornate hilt and some nice engraving would do if they just wanted a fancy sword. No, somebody said, "My sword is cool, because it's skinny. You can never be too rich or too skinny." And everyone else said, "Who doesn't want to be rich and skinny? This is the sword for me. Now we just have to spend a few decades figuring out how to use it."

(Giacomo di Grassi is supposedly the first writer to describe the parry in 1570, which is about 40 years after the earliest texts and about 60 years after the rapier began to appear.)

Spiryt

2012-05-07, 11:59 AM

No, it was fashion that created the espada ropera instead of those big, vulgar swords of the battlefield. The social factors outweighed logic 3-400 years ago, just like millions of people bought per rocks thirty years ago. Paid Money. For ordinary rocks.

?

"Espada ropera" from the very beginning wasn't really much lighter than other swords, including military. Somehow more slim blade, but also solid guard added weight.

Later, when rapiers were becoming a bit lighter, they were also developing to be really, really long for one handed swords. So in effect, rather big.

So I can't really see how other swords should be "big" in comparison to them.:smallconfused:

Somewhat fanciful perhaps, but the idea that the more heavily-armoured Franks lost some of their advantage because of the higher temperatures in the Middle East is hardly ridiculous.

Franks wouldn't be really in any way 'more heavily armored' in the Middle East though.

'Eastern 'traditions in medieval from Byzantium to India frequently involved wearing lamellar or scale over the mail, for example.

Hawkfrost000

2012-05-07, 01:10 PM

I'm fairly sure that whippy metal longsword trainers, or nylon, are hardly a true test. Even the guys who battle in full armor use them. The one test of parrying a replica in a prearranged attack show it is possible, which I freely grant. But nobody is volunteering to test in unscripted sparring with replicas.

I'm also fairly sure they haven't studied Silver. Read it, yes. Studied, learned, applied, not so much (I don't think Gailloglaich is claiming that, for example). Nor would I commend 99% of what you see on youtube claiming to be Silver. As I said, the historical rapier methods are interesting and worthy of study. I'm also convinced, by everything I've tested and seen tested, that Silver was correct and his methods work.

I have fought with sword and buckler, rapier and buckler as well as single rapier (In the style of Cappo Ferro) against a longsword. I use this (http://www.deltin.it/5166.htm) Del Tin cut and thrust rapier, which is a tad heavier than usual rapiers as my personal style is a composite of sidesword and rapier combat. My opponent used this (http://www.casiberia.com/prod_Detail.aspx?id=SH2106&name=Practical%20Hand-and-a-Half%20Sword) Cas-Hanwei longsword.

These are real swords, could put an edge on my rapier and use it on the battlefield. Likewise with his Longsword.

Using rapier and shield i can make a variety of hard and medium binds to a longsword. With rapier alone i cannot make a hard parry on a longsword but i can still defeat a powerful cut through gathering. That is, pointing the tip of your sword at the cut and allowing it to run down the true edge to the cross-guard, as this happens i thrust at my opponent.

In fact when facing a longsword with a rapier the swordsman is forced to keep his weapon on line to defend against the rapier and as soon as he removes it to prepare for a large cut i can strike him.

DM

Straybow

2012-05-07, 01:40 PM

"Espada ropera" from the very beginning wasn't really much lighter than other swords, including military. Somehow more slim blade, but also solid guard added weight.

Later, when rapiers were becoming a bit lighter, they were also developing to be really, really long for one handed swords. So in effect, rather big.

So I can't really see how other swords should be "big" in comparison to them.:smallconfused: True, some weren't much lighter than some military swords. That's like saying the largest jockey isn't much smaller than the shortest basketball player, therefore basketball players aren't tall and jockeys aren't small.

The point against rapier is that fashion dictated adoption, not utility. The effective use of the weapon followed the fashionable design, the design did not follow from a development in fighting method.

Obviously the smallsword did follow the refining of the method, when it was realized that the lengths had become excessive. But then smallsword often completely rebated the blade, no cutting edge, just the sharp tip. I've handled a 19th cen officer's dress sword that was basically a 28" letter opener with the last inch sharpened. This is clearly a fashion statement. Nobody (at least not Mike_G and Galloglaich) would claim that completely eliminating all possibility of slashing or cutting is an advantage in design.

Maclav

2012-05-07, 02:00 PM

These are real swords, could put an edge on (...) Likewise with his Longsword.

You jest, right? Hanwei piratical hand and a half makes a poor to mediocre training sword at best and is nothing like a sharp longsword. Putting an edge and point on it would require removing so much material as to render it unrecognisable.

Not that this is a fault, trying to turn my Albion Lichy into a sharp would be a disaster too.

Spiryt

2012-05-07, 02:00 PM

True, some weren't much lighter than some military swords. That's like saying the largest jockey isn't much smaller than the shortest basketball player, therefore basketball players aren't tall and jockeys aren't small.

That's not like saying it at all. In no way. Most true rapiers, before real advent of smallsword were pretty hefty swords with 'just' differently shaped blade, to serve it's purpose.

Taking a look at pretty much any antique rapiers reveals that they're 'on average' only slighlty, if at all lighter than 'typical' one hander.

http://www.palus.demon.co.uk/Sword_Stats.html

Range of 2 to 3-some pounds is completely typical.

would claim that completely eliminating all possibility of slashing or cutting is an advantage in design.

Smallswords were result of eliminating pretty much everything possible to create extremely agile and lightning quick weapon, that's also very probable, while retaining ability to harm, in this case skewering bodies with minimal pressure applied.

Result is a weapon, that wouldn't really cut or slash sensibly in any case with it's geometry, so there's no point of applying the edge.

Still, a lot of them were in fact sharpened, AFAIR.

Won't partake in discussion about superiority of Christmas over Easter, just pointing out those two things.

Straybow

2012-05-07, 02:32 PM

I have fought with sword and buckler, rapier and buckler as well as single rapier (In the style of Cappo Ferro) against a longsword. I use this (http://www.deltin.it/5166.htm) Del Tin cut and thrust rapier, which is a tad heavier than usual rapiers as my personal style is a composite of sidesword and rapier combat. My opponent used this (http://www.casiberia.com/prod_Detail.aspx?id=SH2106&name=Practical%20Hand-and-a-Half%20Sword) Cas-Hanwei longsword.

These are real swords, could put an edge on my rapier and use it on the battlefield. Likewise with his Longsword. Excellent! May I ask why you prefer the shorter, heavier sidesword? Perhaps because being entirely reliant on the thrust is not a tactical advantage?

Using rapier and shield i can make a variety of hard and medium binds to a longsword. With rapier alone i cannot make a hard parry on a longsword but i can still defeat a powerful cut through gathering. That is, pointing the tip of your sword at the cut and allowing it to run down the true edge to the cross-guard, as this happens i thrust at my opponent.

In fact when facing a longsword with a rapier the swordsman is forced to keep his weapon on line to defend against the rapier and as soon as he removes it to prepare for a large cut i can strike him.

DM Yes, rapier can be effective. Your training partner isn't using Silver, which is the other point. In the English method a two-handed longsword has an advantage over single weapons and weapon with dagger or buckler. My training group was just getting into double weapons when I moved, and four years later are well into longsword (Silver, a little Swetnam, some Harley 3542).

Silver's method works as advertised. I concede that nobody in my old group does rapier AFAIK. but the main Company in England does study and practice with some very proficient rapier and smallsword fellows.

Again, I caution that nothing I've seen from other training groups (training, sparring, and tournament videos) is anything approaching Silver. They rarely fight out of a guard, they don't use stops, or true times, etc. It is hard to find a good representation of Silver out there.

Galloglaich

2012-05-07, 03:11 PM

Don't forget also the Estoc / Stock / Tuck / Kanzer family of swords, which go way, way back and were used by heavy cavalry in warfare... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc

This is just a matter of specialization in the weapon. There are specialist and generalist weapons, both have their advantages. A dueling weapon is just a specialist weapon for certain social / civilian circumstances.

I'm as reluctant as Spiryt to delve into the Silver vs. Italian rapier Masters debate. I can see both sides of it. I'm pleased to see people so passionate about their particular favorite historical Master from 300 or 400 years ago that they rehash these centuries-old debates. Some of Silvers jingoism, which is being pretty well channeled here, can be a little off-putting, but maybe that is part of what made his system work for him. I think his analysis is impressive but not flawless. I don't see competition between to approaches to fencing to be a zero-sum game.

One question, Straybow, just out of curiosity, if you dismiss 99% of the Silver practitioners on youtube, do you have any youtube videos of yourself in action? Have you participated in any tournaments?

The only thing I can comment on in any rational way are the historical facts, to the extent that we are aware of them.

Cavalry did not exclusively use sabers. Sabers were a fairly late arrival in Europe, especially Western Europe. Though the dao family of sabers existed in China and Central Asia going back to the Bronze Age in various forms, the saber as such did not become ubiquitous in Central Europe, specifically Hungary, until the 15th Century, and didn't spread throughout Europe originally as the Slavic Szabla and Shashka family of weapons (or, incidentally, the Middle East in the form people call 'Scimetar' which is the Saif / Shamshir family of sabers) until the 16th Century.

The saber became very popular in Europe but it was by no means the only sword used by cavalry even that late in the game. Sabers were most popular in fact with light cavalry explicitly, the curved blade is there to assist weapon retention in making a ride-by draw-cut (same for the canted grip you see on most sabers). A slice in other words, usually done just once or twice before moving on (riding away at top speed). Heavy cavalry who were meant to duke it out by contrast typically used strait swords, even as late as the 19th Century, such as the Schiavona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiavona#Schiavona), the Pallasch, and the famous pattern 1796 English heavy cavalry sword (not to be confused with the English pattern 1796 saber, which was for light cavalry).

Until the 18th Century, the sword, any kind of sword, was almost always a sidearm. The Roman Gladius, the Vikings Sword, the Crusaders sword, were all sidearms. The thing is, sidearms were very very important. The Colt Revolver was just a sidearm in the American West, when it first appeared the musket was still the primary weapon.. but there is no doubt that the six gun was the critical factor in countless close-range engagements. They were sidearms, but I don't think anyone would call a Colt Dragoon an effeminate civilians toy..

If you were a fencing Master training people in a foreign country, in which a substantial number of the population resented your very presence, it would be a challenge to face all comers endlessly without eventually suffering some kind of setback, in my personal opinion. Imagine going to say, 17th Century Japan and teaching George Silvers methods. It could be a little daunting.

The sword of the robes had its military counterpart, the cut-thrust sword, which was probably only a couple ounces heavier if at all, (there was considerable overlap between the two types). I've already pointed out the military success of the Rodoleros, who excelled specifically with the sidesword.

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

I personally wouldn't discount the military prowess of the Spanish in the 16th Century, they probably had the best infantry in the world at that time. The English were no slouches either, and probably had an even better navy at that time, but the Spanish tercios were no joke, and love 'em or hate 'em, the Conquistadors were tough as nails and took over territory not just across South America and the Carribean, but as far away as the Philippines.

Finally, as strange as it may sound, rapiers, both heavy and light, short and long, and including the flimsiest looking dueling rapiers, WERE in fact used sometimes on the Battlefield. There is no survey of how well they ultimately faired, and perhaps argue into infinity.

G

Straybow

2012-05-07, 03:20 PM

That's not like saying it at all. In no way. Most true rapiers, before real advent of smallsword were pretty hefty swords with 'just' differently shaped blade, to serve it's purpose. Just comparing numbers doesn't tell the whole story. Silver's point is that the length makes the rapier slow to uncross and clumsy to use. The slimmer blade is less able to make a solid block or a solid strike. A sword should be able to make a disabling hit with ease.

When the zombie apocalypse comes, you need a weapon that can whack off a hand and split a skull. Silver knew this, of course. :smallyuk:

(@Maclav I think when DM says "put an edge on it" it is in the figurative sense, an edged version. But I agree, the CAS Hanwei is more like a Silver short sword than a good long sword. It's only 2" too long for my perfect length. It needs another 6" and a pound of steel.)

Straybow

2012-05-07, 03:57 PM

I'm as reluctant as Spiryt to delve into the Silver vs. Italian rapier Masters debate. I can see both sides of it. I'm pleased to see people so passionate about their particular favorite historical Master from 300 or 400 years ago that they rehash these centuries-old debates. Some of Silvers jingoism, which is being pretty well channeled here, can be a little off-putting, but maybe that is part of what made his system work for him. I think his analysis is impressive but not flawless. I don't see competition between to approaches to fencing to be a zero-sum game.

One question, Straybow, just out of curiosity, if you dismiss 99% of the Silver practitioners on youtube, do you have any youtube videos of yourself in action? Have you participated in any tournaments? I can appreciate that stance. No, my friends back east have some video of demonstrations we did at Colonial reenactment gigs. We have a few videos for privileged access.

The organization discourages open access videos for several reasons. First, in the learning stages not everybody executes very well, and that isn't what we want to have put forth as examples. Second, the prevalence of folks claiming Silver's methods but doing nothing identifiably so. Last and sadly, a few disloyal students have gone off on their own teaching a half-arsed version, with which we don't want to be associated.

We are also not supposed to issue personal challenges as unprofessional conduct. I've kinda skirted the issue here, and even being as bold to argue Silver is probably skirting too close in some eyes.

We do welcome fellowship and cross-training, as it were. I will be getting together with some rapier enthusiasts because that's all I've been able to find in my area. I'll shut up and learn what I can, and I'll share some of the critical basics, some of which apply to rapier as well as any other weapon.

...Shiavona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiavona), the Pallasch, and the famous pattern 1796 English heavy cavalry sword...

I personally wouldn't discount the military prowess of the Spanish in the 16th Century, they probably had the best infantry in the world at that time. The English were no slouches either, and probably had an even better navy at that time, but the Spanish tercios were no joke, and love 'em or hate 'em, the Conquistadors were tough as nails and took over territory not just across South America and the Carribean, but as far away as the Philippines. Yes, that's why I put a little winky face after the comment about Team Rapier.

Sure, cavalry also used backswords, but the point remains that the heavier cutting sword was paramount for the troopers who really needed swords. I'm fairly sure there is no heavy cavalry rapier. (Now watch some wiseacre fish up some goofy thing used by somebody's cavalry...) I've only personally handled a Napoleonic heavy saber, which is what sticks in my mind, naturally. But we had a practical Shiavona in our study group, which is too long by Silver and I found a bit tip-heavy. I didn't think of it as a cavalry weapon.

One could also note that in an odd irony, the British lancers were reduced, in WW1, to carrying what amounted to an 18" long edgeless smallsword instead of a real lance. Somebody in the War Department thought less is more...

Hawkfrost000

2012-05-08, 12:47 AM

You jest, right? Hanwei piratical hand and a half makes a poor to mediocre training sword at best and is nothing like a sharp longsword. Putting an edge and point on it would require removing so much material as to render it unrecognisable.

Not that this is a fault, trying to turn my Albion Lichy into a sharp would be a disaster too.

Yes that was a poor choice of words, the above is true for my Del-Tin (seriously i spent like an hour dulling it to the point i could actually cut with it and feel safe about not hurting my opponent) you make a good point about the Hanwei, what i meant was that it was a real sword and not a
whippy metal longsword trainers, or nylon

sorry if i was unclear.

Excellent! May I ask why you prefer the shorter, heavier sidesword? Perhaps because being entirely reliant on the thrust is not a tactical advantage?

Actually it was purely personal preference, i found my self often cutting with a rapier and trusting with a sidesword, and when sparring i found that i was slipping between styles. Both methods of attack are very useful with both weapon styles, so i made a compromise. A heavy rapier is very useful for making a cut and can do so far better than a regular rapier, but it is also about a hand shorter than a regular rapier and heavier. Those factors together mean that it has a larger Forte (or strong) and a smaller Debole (or weak), which means it has a different series of advantages and disadvantages than an "ordinary" rapier.

Yes, rapier can be effective. Your training partner isn't using Silver, which is the other point. In the English method a two-handed longsword has an advantage over single weapons and weapon with dagger or buckler. My training group was just getting into double weapons when I moved, and four years later are well into longsword (Silver, a little Swetnam, some Harley 3542).

True, nobody at my school (that i know of) has seriously studied Silver, though his ideas interest me. I have tried on several occasions to sit down and read Paradoxes of Defense but have never gotten very far.

We did a touch of Silver in a polearms course i took a while back, but that's about it.

Silver's method works as advertised. I concede that nobody in my old group does rapier AFAIK. but the main Company in England does study and practice with some very proficient rapier and smallsword fellows.

Again, I caution that nothing I've seen from other training groups (training, sparring, and tournament videos) is anything approaching Silver. They rarely fight out of a guard, they don't use stops, or true times, etc. It is hard to find a good representation of Silver out there.

I do not doubt that Silver was a very good fighter, though i do question the bias of his writings. I have no doubt that he presents a very useful style of fighting, that when used properly will often yield victory over other styles and weapons.

I do however question that the rapier is a less useful weapon compared to the longsword or the backsword simply because it is a rapier.

DM

Maclav

2012-05-08, 09:53 AM

Ywhat i meant was that it was a real sword and not a

whippy metal longsword trainers, or nylon
sorry if i was unclear.

Well, to be fair.. it is a whippy metal longsword trainer. Granted, its not as whippy bad as say an I-Beam or one of those horrid nylon noddles that you can bend around covers by hitting flat...

So are the much better tinker blunts and even my much less flexible Albion is STILL a whippy/bendy thing compared to a proper, stiff sharp. Pay near the tip or with the flat still results in distorted and diluted response.

eulmanis12

2012-05-08, 11:09 AM

I don't know much about Silver and so make no judgment on his work as a whole, but simply discounting the rapier because its a rapier seems illogical to me.

In (admittedly somewhat informal) training the first thing we were taught is that EVERYTHING is or can be an effective weapon if used properly. Since a rapier is designed to be lethal, dismissing it as useless when fighting an oponent armed with one is the easiest way to get yourself killed.

Never discount an opponent reguardless of what weapon they are carrying. Everything can be lethal, and reguardless of the advantages of one weapon over another, skill trumps a technological advantage.

On an unrelated note.

WW2 tanks
Which was a better tank the T34/85, the Panzer IV, or the Sherman 76?

Galloglaich

2012-05-08, 11:42 AM

Probably the T-34 / 85, though they all have different strengths.

The T-34 / 85 has a much more powerful gun than the other two, better for both AP penetration and HE for against infantry and guns. I think it may have the best range of the 3 though I'm not certain of that. It has by far the best off-road performance, a lower silhouette, and probably the best armor. I'm not sure what machine guns it has but I know it has a bow gun and usually a heavy (12-14mm) MG on the pintle mount. The T-34 carries the least amount of ammunition of the 3 tanks.

The M4/76, depending on the specific model, has the highest road speed and a gyrostabilizer, meaning it can shoot on the move (if the crew knows how to use the gyro). It also is the most mechanically reliable and probably best in terms of crew comfort, and communications equipment, and a faster turret traverse. Gun is almost as good as the T-34 for AP (especially when using the special HVAP ammunition), and more accurate than the 85mm, though not as good for HE. But the M4 also has the highest silhouette (meaning easier to hit) and questionable off-road performance in some kinds of terrain. Certain models like the M4A3E8 have arguably better armor than the T-34/85, they had a roughly equal record in combat when they fought each other in the Korean war. M4's have .50 cal machine guns for the pintle mount which is good. The others are just slow firing .30s, but it carries a lot of ammo and includes guns on both the coax and bow.

The Pz IV, again depending on the specific model, is the oldest of the 3 designs, slowest, and least protected in terms of armor, but it has a comparable gun in all the later variants, and is historically most likely of the 3 to have thee most effective types of special armor-piercing ammunition (APDS or equivalent) and it probably has the most accurate gun and optics (at least when not moving) which is real important especially at longer ranges. It also probably has the lowest silhouette of the 3 which is good (making it harder to hit). Engine reliability is fair, but probably the worst of the 3. Certain later variants have special anti-personnel mortars, spaced anti-HEAT armor applique, and other advanced features lacking in the other two designs. And generally, better trained crews. Pz IV has the excellent fast-firing MG-43 series machine guns on the pintle, coax, and bow.

G