PDA

View Full Version : Got A Weapon or Armor Question?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-24, 03:34 PM
OK, here's my offer. In a couple of threads, I've seen people arguing about weapons and their usage, with all parties making statements that fly completely in the face of reality...

"Reality?" you say, "What do you know about reality, Eric The Mad?" A good question. My answer is being a member of the Society of Creative Anachronism and a authorized fighter (admittedly off and on) since '88. I also have fought in Amtgard and sparred with people from various other LARP and Historical Re-inactment groups. I do NOT claim I am a great warrior in RL. In fact, I rather suck.

But what I do offer is that I have worn the armor, have swung weapons (or their various replacements, depending on the group) at other people who have been trying to do unto me at the same time. Plus, I am a History major.

If I haven't done it, I have sources and contacts who may have. If that doesn't answer your question, I will happily research the matter for you., cheerfully share my findings, as well as point you in the right direction to let you draw your own conclusions.

I do not claim to be infallible. I have little to zero experience with various oriental martial arts styles and techniques. But again, I have sources who may know the answer to your question. If you don't like or disagree with my findings and answers, I won't tell you are wrong to rule differently in your game.

Xick
2005-06-24, 03:43 PM
i must say that fighting in a larp and then fighting in a french/british war back in the day is quite differant.

people pretending to kill you and people actually trying to kill you. the very real life threating fear of death kill or be killed comes into play and i believe cahanges the whole way people fight.

however what armor and such was invited and used for is by far differant. and i would have such questions to ask.

one being the war hammer.

who weilded such a weapon? and when? and against who?

it obviously looks like it was made for horse back is this true?

MrNexx
2005-06-24, 05:16 PM
one being the war hammer.

who weilded such a weapon? and when? and against who?

it obviously looks like it was made for horse back is this true?

A great source for these things is the old Arms and Equipment, from 2nd edition; it actually discusses their origin. However, the hammer was used pretty much everywhere (except Japan) that armor became common. It was most popular in Europe, however, as heavier armors came to predominate. Some of them would start to blur the lines between hammers, axes, and picks, and a good number would have spikes on top and/or picks on the back. They were used on horseback, but longer versions were also used on foot.

(My source is George Stone's Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and In All Times; ISBN on request)

McMouse
2005-06-24, 06:30 PM
This thread gets the McMouse Gold Star Seal of Approval

Now, a question: When were glaives and halberds used in battle? What function did they serve? It seems to me that, as they are weapons which are swung in order to cause damage, that defeats the purpose of the pole-arm, I.E. being able to form a tight-knight group and skewer charging people. They seem awfully unwieldly to be used in such a situation, and indeed, anywhere.

Any enlightenment is appreciated.

Chris the Pontifex
2005-06-24, 06:41 PM
they make great guard decoration though :P

sktarq
2005-06-24, 06:44 PM
Hammers....as heavier armour become common on the field of europe the warhammer became the most common close range weapon for infantry. It is designed to break a human body through the armor..it is also a can opener...many had spikes on the top and back, like a claw hammer. There where longer lighter one handed models for cavalry and big heavy two handed models for infantry. Known to be in heavy use from 1400-s through introduction of firearms and the demise of plate mail....were often supplimentary weaons in shield and pike wall armies. Known to be in use by British, French, German, Lithuanian, and Russian troops (by my knowledge). Battle of Vichy, many of the german wars of the era, 100 years war at times.

sktarq
2005-06-24, 06:49 PM
Halberds. Halberd actually have a long spike out the top aswell and skewer things quite nicely. In the swiss groups they were often scattered with pike formations...often as the elite. Groups of them all swing vertically so they can still be bunched up close together (chop chop not swing swing) and were used that way to devestating effect-and still had the pokey bits. Halberd, Gailves, and Voulges were also popular as guard weapons because A looked good, B could be heavily decorated C work both alone and with groups. Also there were entire schools of fencing that delt with the halberd in Germany were it was considered a weapon of high repute. Glaives were also popular because they were easy to make and many were converted house tools that the peseantry already had when they were taken into the army to defend their homelands. (they also did this with cleavers and pitchforks)

Chris the Pontifex
2005-06-24, 06:57 PM
also see: sickle, scythe, trident & net, baseball bat

sktarq
2005-06-24, 07:10 PM
I was actually thinking ones they took off their normal handles and stuck on a pole but yes those too.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-06-24, 09:12 PM
Many polearms like halbards and bills were modified farm implements, used by peasent soldiers to try and deal with armored knights, as SKTarq suggests. Also, later on sergeants and officers of foot carried halbards and other such weapons less as implements of war than as tools for controlling their units. They'd hold the weapon horizontally and use it to push or hold troopers into place, especially when forming square. Thus, if one soldier in a unit is using a polearm (or a polearm different than those of the others), he's likely to be in charge.

sktarq
2005-06-24, 09:57 PM
This forming lines with the polearm also led to sargents and low level officers to carry polearms well into the era of firearms. In some nations the sargents would have halbards and who used them not only to form the line but to attack any conscript who tried to run from the battle.

Also see how german offciers would see how the Halbard would be an officer's and "weapon of repute" and that is how they led to dueling with it. The bill started as a farm implement but the British took it to a war implement completely and mass produced the famous "brown bill". The swiss where one of theonly groups who used it in the large block formation-they were the most famous for it though others did you it. Voulges are like a halberd except how the blade attaches to the pole and that the blade blends up into the point instead of being seperate.

The Demented One
2005-06-24, 10:32 PM
Here's one: What's the difference between a sickle, a scythe, and a kama?

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-06-24, 10:49 PM
Here's one: What's the difference between a sickle, a scythe, and a kama?
Size, and generally the curve if the blade, though they are all essentially the same type of farm implement (or, at least, based on similar farming tools). A sickle one handed with a small grip, and the blade is long and curved almost to the point of looking like a question mark, with the actual cutting surface on the inside of the curve (striking with it is actually sort of a pulling back motion). A scythe is two handed, with a curved haft with a pair of grips. The blade is long and thin with a slight, hooking curve - again, the curve is on the bottom of the blade, the inside of the curve. A kama is more like a small scythe with a straight handle with a shorter, thicker, and less curved blade.

Beyond that, only the kama is really a true martial implement with a developed fighting style (Eastern Asian styles). Sickles and scythes are generally simply farm tools pressed into service as weapons, though early sword designs (the khopesh) developed from modifications to the sickle design.

sktarq
2005-06-24, 10:51 PM
Sickle: hand holds handle which is about 30 cm long the blade sprouts from the end of the handle in line with it and then hooks in a c curve with the inside of the curve sharpened. Generally tanged. 1 handed tool
Hint it was on the Soviet Flag

Kama: hand holds handle that is 45cm or so the there is a blade that sticks out at roughly 90 degrees to the line of the handle, curves down somewhat (MUCH less than sickle...more like scythe). Blade often attached with ring and wege like an axe. 1 handed tool

Scythe: held in two hands. Pole connecting often has a complex curve to it that facilitates the body and the swinging motion by with the tool is best used. Blade is somewhat longer than the kama and straiter than a sickle and projects perpendicular from the handle. The Grim reaper uses a scythe... 2 handed tool


EDIT: DANG SIMU-POSTS
Also the major linking factors was they were all used for cutting grain and had the sharpened part of the blade on the inside curve.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-24, 11:03 PM
i must say that fighting in a larp and then fighting in a french/british war back in the day is quite differant.

people pretending to kill you and people actually trying to kill you. the very real life threating fear of death kill or be killed comes into play and i believe cahanges the whole way people fight.

however what armor and such was invited and used for is by far differant. and i would have such questions to ask.

one being the war hammer.

who weilded such a weapon? and when? and against who?

it obviously looks like it was made for horse back is this true?

Granted, pretend is pretend and fighting is fighting. But short of finding some way to interview a veteran of the 100 Year's War or one of Tokigawa's samurai, we have to rely on Best Guesses.

Warhammer? OK, I'm not sure where it originated. I suspect it just sort of "was". A classic example of a tool being turned into a weapon If you're seriously interested, I'll dig out my Tower of London books and see what they have to say.

A Hammer may or may not have had a spike on the end. Keep in mind, that actual weapons didn't follow one preset model. One weaponsmith might have given it a spike, another made it two-headed, and a third given it a axe blade or what have you.

Hammers killed by crushing (obviously). Unless they had a spiked part, most of the damage was by (for lack of better words_ concussive force. It didn't have to get through your helmet to crush your skull, just give you a concussion or bounce your noggin around on the inside. Same goes for damage for limbs and torsos.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-24, 11:12 PM
This thread gets the McMouse Gold Star Seal of Approval

Now, a question: When were glaives and halberds used in battle? What function did they serve? It seems to me that, as they are weapons which are swung in order to cause damage, that defeats the purpose of the pole-arm, I.E. being able to form a tight-knight group and skewer charging people. They seem awfully unwieldly to be used in such a situation, and indeed, anywhere.

Any enlightenment is appreciated.

Ah, polearms. A sadly underestimated weapon in gaming, but one which was quite useful in the hands of trained troops.

Glaives and halberds (and most pole arms) are classified (at least in my understanding) by the shape of the pointy metal thing on the end of the shaft. Again, I'm not comfortable making a blanket statement of when polearms were developed. Most theories I've heard is that they started out as pruning tools in the hands of peasant levies and some genius decided that if they were made especially for war, they'd be more effective.

The problem is that, to use a polearm like a glaive or a halberd effectively, you need a lot of them, being used by soldiers in a formation. So instead of facing one man, who you can rapidly close with and gut whle he's adjusting his grip on the weapon (or is backing up so he can get the business end at you), it's a entirely different thing to face a number of guys with one. Sure, you can block one with your shield, maybe parry another with your weapon, but the other 3 to 4 guys skewer you like a pig.

In gaming, the ideal use of the polearm weapons would be to have a front line of guys with shield and weapons, doing nothing but defending themselves, and the rank of guys behind them using the weapons to take you (or your enemy) out. That's why these weapons have Reach, people. (This is who polearms are used in the SCA, and to great effect. Anybody who tells you that the guy standing in front would interfere doesn't know what they are talking about.)

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-24, 11:21 PM
Here's one: What's the difference between a sickle, a scythe, and a kama?

The other respondents to your post did a admirable job of explaining the differences. But I do feel compelled to point out one thing about scythes... They need a LOT of room when they are used to harvest wheat, etc. I see no reason why using them in combat would be any different. I would, to be quite honest, be pleased to see somebody using a scythe come up against me. If I can avoid his first swing, it will take him time to bring it back up and into the ready position. I'd most likely step forward, using my body or shiled to block his attempt to return the scythe to the "ready" position and thrust at his torso while it's exposed. His only options would be to take it like a man, retreat backwards to free up his weapon, or drop the scythe and draw a backup weapon.

Important Fact To Keep In Mind: A lot of things sound cool as hell to turn into weapons, but the reality is that they just don't work. Just because you read it in a book or saw it in a movie... doesn't mean it's actually effective.

(Trust me on this. The story of a guy showing up at a SCA fight practice, and claiming or trying all sorts of funky martial arts things and getting his butt handed to them are so common, it's a cliche.)

sktarq
2005-06-24, 11:22 PM
Glaives and halberds (and most pole arms) are classified (at least in my understanding) by the shape of the pointy metal thing on the end of the shaft.

In large part...though the end piece may not be pointy (insert lucerne hammer-ouch!) Another factor is how the metal part is attached to the pole part...socket, tang, etc etc.. Also there is much confusion even in scholarly circles about certain types of polearms and what defines them...some polearms were used but would be called a half dozen different things by different scholars. Some of this is due to different items have the same name in different places.



Again, I'm not comfortable making a blanket statement of when polearms were developed. Most theories I've heard is that they started out as pruning tools in the hands of peasant levies and some genius decided that if they were made especially for war, they'd be more effective.
Many of martial types were actually various refinements on the ancient and ever popular spear-grandaddy of all polearms. Many of the specific weapons were actual attempts to turn anything at hand into a spear like object as quickly as possible.


Final word of Scythes....they can be used as weapons...very effective ones but they need tons of room and extreamly skilled users....an exotic weapon in DnD terms to say the least. Really it is more of a quarterstaff with a deadweight hanging from one side that cause horrible wounds if you find the exact right oppertunity.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-24, 11:38 PM
About armor...

Armor sucks to wear. It feels cool as hell when you first put it on, and you feel ever so studly. But after some exertion, ie running around, trying to connect a telling blow on a opponent while dodging their attempts to do the same to you, it stops being quite so fun to wear. The higher the AC, the more hot,sweaty and tired you'll most likely be, unless you have a enchantment on it. But, last time I checked, I didn't see any enchantments in the DMG like "air conditioned".

"What does this mean to me", the adoring crowds at the feet of the faux sage cry? It means that at the end of the day of hiking and riding hither and yon across the countryside, or a few hours crawling around in a dark, perhaps claustrophobic dungeon waiting for something to jump out at you... You are NOT going to be wearing that suit of armor to bed, unless you are simply too exhausted to take it off. And if you do try to sleep in it, you are going to wake up miserable. Stiff and sore, feeling yucky because you never had a chance to air off that dried sweat, didn't sleep well because of the way the gorget (the part of the armor that goes around your neck) was poking into your neck and collarbone...etc. Sleeping in a gambeson (equivalent of padded armor)...maybe. But not plate, etc.

The same goes true for "I've been on this ship for two weeks. Of course I've had my shiny metal armor on." Sea Air is, to some extent, CORROSIVE. As in, bad for shiny armor. If that doesn't do it, then keep in mind that refreshing salt air is going to leave salt on the skin of your hapless hero. Imagine how fun it's going to be if he starts sweating, and that salt gets into his sensitive parts.

And when they are in town... OK, you did insist sleeping in your armor when you camped. (Think about chopping or gathering wood for a fire, after a full day's travel, with 50 lbs of metal on your back... Yeah, right) You're probaly going to smell horrible, and be grimy and grungy as hell, even if you haven't developed some interesting skin disease. The last thing you are going to want to do is wear that damn suit around town. If nothing else, think of it this way... Your armor is part of your job. How many people wear their id tags or their uniforms on their day off? Plus, there's always the fact that it will scare the peasants (obviously expecting a fight...where?) raise the local guards curiosity (Why's he armored up?)
and the local aristocrats and gentry and other Folks We Want To Impress will just think you'er either insane or a idiot or both.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-24, 11:45 PM
Also there is much confusion even in scholarly circles about certain types of polearms and what defines them...some polearms were used but would be called a half dozen different things by different scholars. Some of this is due to different items have the same name in different places.



Well said, very well said, and a WONDERFUL point. In fact, that problem exists with MANY weapons. A good example is the "claymore". I've seen what would be longswords with basket hilts (a basket of metal which protects the hand holding the hilt) called claymores, but I've also seen what would be classified as two-handed swords called the same thing. Both parties will insist they are right, and have documentation to back them up. Whose right? *shrugs* I am simply knowledgable, I'm not a expert.

So keep in mind that when I refer to a weapon, and it doesn't match up with your idea, we may have encountered a difference in nomenclature.

sktarq
2005-06-24, 11:47 PM
About armor...
But, last time I checked, I didn't see any enchantments in the DMG like "air conditioned".


This does exist but it is in one of the supplements-FR ones first i believe...."cool" if memory serves. Originally invented for the Calim desert.



Well said, very well said, and a WONDERFUL point. In fact, that problem exists with MANY weapons. A good example is the "claymore". I've seen what would be longswords with basket hilts (a basket of metal which protects the hand holding the hilt) called claymores, but I've also seen what would be classified as two-handed swords called the same thing. Both parties will insist they are right, and have documentation to back them up.
I've seen that too....but it seems to do more with age...it seem most people agree what is and is not a claymore for most of its existance...as opposed to longsword and targe fighters...but towards the end of its popularity what is a claymore seemed to go to "whatever as longs is it is a largeish sword from scotland".


Cooling to be exact.
Thankyou...

As for sleeping in armour being silly even IN game:

Roughly 8th lvl, 5 players...we are currently in what amounts to Delft in the Neatherlands....

Just click on my name...

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-24, 11:53 PM
This does exist but it is in one of the supplements-FR ones first i believe...."cool" if memory serves. Originally invented for the Calim desert.

A most sensible modification, and kudos to whoever came up with it. Now, we just need ones to cause sweat to evaporate, keep the padding and the leather strapping from rotting,decaying or otherwise getting nasty, and maybe something to keep the rust and tarnish off.

Nasrudith
2005-06-24, 11:54 PM
Cooling to be exact.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-25, 12:19 AM
Thankyou...
As for sleeping in armour being silly even IN game:
Just click on my name...


Thank you for that opening... You keep setting 'em up and I'll keep knocking 'em out of the ballpark. Or vice versa.

The armor donning rules in 3rd Ed. are, if anything, pretty darn generous. Some of the later suits of plate were so involved and had so many pieces that it DID require help from a squire, etc to put them on. However, most of those sorts of armor were for jousting situations, and not for actual war. But still, it's been a common experience for me, a fighter armoring up to take the field to need somebody else to tighten a strap that they just can't reach.

Now imagine trying to find all the padding (to portect you from blows and sometimes from your own armor), the various bits of armor that cover things like your hands, knees and elbows, your helmet, etc in the dark, or by the light of a campfire or a torch. Imagine having to do it in a hurry, while there are things approaching who want to kill you.

Fighters are *professionals* They're trained and experienced in doing stuff like that. I don't think Fighters get enough credit in AD&D. Too often they're treated like dumb thugs, when in reality, I think the way the Giant depicts Roy would be more accurate. Respect your fighter. He's the one who stands between you and the onrushing hordes while you figure out what spell to cast. what song to sing, if to sneak attack or simply fade gracefully into the distance... If there wasn't a guy in armor, taking it on the chin to give you time to do your thing, how long a life expectancy would you have?

sktarq
2005-06-25, 12:42 AM
I think fighters would be better respected if int wasnt so often their dump stat. Though the easiest way i have found to cure the people who don't give the Fighter his due is to have a "No Magic" party....all fighters and skill based characters.

As for the donning of armour....while some just drop over the head and add gauntlets, helm and boots (chain haubrek) which i can see being put on before a battle comences i just don't see it with banded, half plate, or plate...too many little buckles and laces that have to be found and manipulated or tied..too many fiddly bits to work in the dark. HOwever it is one of those areas i gladdly give to game as it is a fantasy game....i will complain about HP long before i complain about armour donning times.....

Also in one of the stranger suppliments i saw there was an armor modification that had the cantrips clean and mend on it which would clean both the armor and the person underneath and keep the stuff in good condition. I think they cost +1000gp for the pair but it was a while ago so that number could be way off.

McMouse
2005-06-25, 01:43 AM
Another question:

According to the PHB, it's fully possible to use a heavy lance on foot. How on -earth- does that work?

Leperflesh
2005-06-25, 02:51 AM
Dunno if they changed it in 3.5, but in 3.0 some of the weapon weights are totally stupid.

Here are some examples:

Heavy Mace: 12 lbs
Falchion: 16 lbs
Greataxe: 20 lbs
Greatsword: 15 lbs
Sword, bastard: 10lbs
Sword, two-bladed: 30 lbs

I happen to have made swords. I've picked up dozens. I've seen perfect historical replicas.

You just can't effectively weild a weapon in one hand that weighs more than about 6 pounds. The PHB had the longsword at the high end, at 4 lbs. Yet we're supposed to believe that a two-bladed sword weighs THIRTY POUNDS??? It's beyond comprehension, or any kind of historical accuracy. I have a feeling the polearms are also over-weight, but I don't know enough to say so for certain.

Granted many of the above weapons are supposed to be two-handed... but even two handed, you'd be exhausted after just a few seconds trying to swing these things around. The biggest claymores and broadswords I've ever seen couldn't have exceeded 10 or 11 pounds, and they were basically parade weapons with little practical use.

A six pound mace is more than enough weight to crush through heavy plate armor, yet they provide us with the 'heavy' mace, and it's a monster, despite being a 'medium-size' simple weapon. By comparison, I made a sword using a 2.5-pound hammer... the biggest cross-peen they had at the shop. And it was an utterly exhausting experience, after just three or four heats (maybe 20 to 30 seconds of concentrated hurried hammering). Your typical house-hammer weighs less than a pound, including the shaft.

Want to test my theory? Go get a fifteen pound weight. Like a little bar bell. You can try this next time you're in a sporting-goods or fitness store.

Grip the weight in your fist, allowing your hand to rest down at your side. Now, raise the weight to shoulder-height, without bending the elbow, arm directly out away from your body.

If you manage that, do it ten more times. Try a few one-handed swings.

Okay, I can see an extremely strong person managing it... but there are no strength restrictions on these weapons in the PHB. We're to believe a cleric with a STR of 8 can use a 12-pound heavy mace effectively in battle... that's ludicrous.


Okay, on to my second gripe: the Type.

Many of the larger swords are listed as slashing-only weapons. That's garbage. These swords were rarely that sharp. To be sure, they'd easily hack off a limb if you caught it right... but even against an armored foe, there's enough force at the end of that three foot lever to crush armor and bone alike. If you swing your ludicrously-heavy 15 lb Greatsword at a skeleton, believe me, it's going to be flying apart in a shower of shattered bones.

In my game, I give several of these weapons classifications as Slashing AND bludgeoning. All of the war-axes fit in this way (you can use them in a swing to slice, or in a power-chop to crush, even moreso than you can do this with large swords).

There also clearly should be a hammer/pick type weapon that gives both piercing and bludgeoning damage, depending on whether you strike with the pointy or the flat end of the weapon's head.

The many or most of the pole-arms should be capable of both piercing and bludgeoning damage, and some of them slashing as well. The sheer weight and leverage afforded by swinging a hunk of metal at the end of 8 to 14 feet of pole will cause horrible crushing damage even to an opponent whose skin is utterly resistant to slicing.

I figure they picked a lot of these designations out of a desire to make various weapons 'balanced', in terms of price, reach, damage types, damage dice, and crits... but I think they did a historical disservice in doing so. I've made a number of house-rules to correct the issues in my home game.

Have they fixed any of this ludicrousness in 3.5?

-Lep

Shiyuan
2005-06-25, 05:56 AM
Well said, very well said, and a WONDERFUL point. In fact, that problem exists with MANY weapons. A good example is the "claymore". I've seen what would be longswords with basket hilts (a basket of metal which protects the hand holding the hilt) called claymores, but I've also seen what would be classified as two-handed swords called the same thing. Both parties will insist they are right, and have documentation to back them up. Whose right? *shrugs* I am simply knowledgable, I'm not a expert.

So keep in mind that when I refer to a weapon, and it doesn't match up with your idea, we may have encountered a difference in nomenclature.

Allow me to be of use to a fellow History major. The two-handed Scottish sword that everyone likes to call the claymore is NOT the claymore, but rather the "Claidheamh da laimh", or "two-handed sword" as it is called in Gaelic. The basket-hilted sword used later by Scots is actually the true claymore, which is named "Claidheamh-mor", which means "large sword", something that the basket-hilted claymore was for its time period.

I could give my own long spiel about my qualifications with weapons, but I'll spare you all the boredom, and only give explanation about my background when asked specifically. I shall join Eric the Mad, SKTarg, and Gorbash Kazdar in their efforts to ease your equipment woes.

Oh and btw, armor does suck to be in :P; but as a tangent of my own, I must say plate armor is actually not very restricting or clumsy at all. From personal experience with a full suit of plate and also lots of recent findings in historical research of plate armor, the new verdict is that plate is damn sexy and uninhibiting. If you've worn replica plate armor or something like it, and it severely or even moderately impedes your range of motion, don't trust the maker, it's likely being made incorrectly based on a popular myth and incomplete techniques from actual armorsmithing manuals. I had the wondrous opportunity of being allowed to strap on a suit of authentic (antique one could call it) German fluted plate when I visited a relative in Bayern (Bavaria for you English only types), Deutschland (Germany). Beautiful, absolutely beautiful.

Truespeak
2005-06-25, 08:46 AM
Okay, here's a few for you:

The Kukri; a neat weapon, but how was it used? I remember hearing / reading / seeing somewhere that kukri fighters are extremely dangerous and were used up through like WW2 o_O what are some of the techniques used when fighting with a kukri?

And another; were melee weapons ever used 'backwards' as a standard for fighting? e.g. holding a wakizashi / kunai / shortsword so that the blade faces away from your opponent. I've mentally tried to picture the effectiveness of this 'technique' and it seems to lack flow. I've seen it in movies and video games and while it looks cool, i've often wondered how practical it really is.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-06-25, 10:06 AM
Another question:

According to the PHB, it's fully possible to use a heavy lance on foot. How on -earth- does that work?
Pretty well, actually ;) The thing is that the well-known appearance of a lance is actually based on a tourney lance - designed specifically for use on horseback, to break on contact, and to cause minimal damage (at least, as minimal as possible). A proper fighting lance is much more like a longspear with an elongated head and special grips lower on the haft. A footman could simply use a lance like a longspear or pike (two-handed). Also, there was a common practice of cutting a riding lance down a few feet when a knight expected to fight on foot, to make it easier to wield (At Agincourt, Henry V specifically instructed his dismounted knights not to do this, and it turned out to be a key factor in his victory).


Okay, here's a few for you:

The Kukri; a neat weapon, but how was it used? I remember hearing / reading / seeing somewhere that kukri fighters are extremely dangerous and were used up through like WW2 o_O what are some of the techniques used when fighting with a kukri?
The kukri is a heavy machete-like knife, with a reverse curved blade. It is as much a tool as a weapon. The use of the weapon is fairly simple - hack and slash. Basically, any fighting technique for a big, slashing knife or short sword would work well. Its effectiveness stemmed as much from the wielders - the Gurkha, who were a warrior tribe that gave the British a real fight in Nepal - as from its inherent properties. In any case, in many wars soldiers find themselves in hand-to-hand combat, where a strong, heavy blade like a kukri is very effective. The curve of the blade is such that its more like swinging a small axe than a knife, but it can cut like a knife as well. The axe like property is because the blade curves in, then out, creating a moon-shaped curve at one portion, so only a small part of the blade makes contact - putting all the force in one small part. Also, the balance is out towards the end of the blade, making it very effective for big, slashing strikes, but its also lighter than a hand-axe and thus quicker. I own one myself, and it is by far my favorite knife.


And another; were melee weapons ever used 'backwards' as a standard for fighting? e.g. holding a wakizashi / kunai / shortsword so that the blade faces away from your opponent. I've mentally tried to picture the effectiveness of this 'technique' and it seems to lack flow. I've seen it in movies and video games and while it looks cool, i've often wondered how practical it really is.
I'm not entirely sure how you mean this - do you mean holding the weapon so the haft is presented to the foe, or so the blade is pointing down, or so the non-sharp portion of the blade is facing the opponent, or what?

For the first, that's actually a classic style for the lucerne hammer and other two-handed hammers and axes. You use the end of the haft like a staff to jab at and unbalance your foe (it can do some decent damage this way, even kill!) until you have an opening to bring the heavy striking surface into play. It was favored since the weapon was otherwise quite slow.

Holding a knife or short sword with the blade pointing down is, well, old school - as in middle ages. The idea is to stab down at the opponent, often at the neck or shoulders, where there was likely to be a chink [I meant hole or weak spot, you crazy word filter!] in the armor. Often a small blade would be held in the off hand in this case. Modern knife fighting techniques have the blade held up for slashing, since generally both fighters are not armored (but an downward stabbing blow to the neck is still a favored method of dispatching an opponent quickly).

Just occured to me - do you mean holding the blade so its behind you, rather than between yourself and your opponent? If so, the advantage there is that your get more power behind the blow, and in some weapons the natural arc of the swing lends itself well to such attacks - may actually even be easier to control in that method. The disadvantage is, of course, that the attacks are slower and more obvious, and the weapon is not in place for defense. However, some skilled fighters practice moving to defense from this kind of stance, so the difference there is not always as great as expected. Finally, having the blade behind your body makes it harder for your opponent to see, which can be a big advantage, since its harder for them to see where you're attacking from.

Otherwise, I need a bit more clarification of your question...

MisterRaziel
2005-06-25, 10:32 AM
Hi. New here, but I felt I had to throw my two cents' in.

Warhammer - It was designed in either France or Germany to combat the rising menace of heavy plate armour. In later designs, the hammerhead was actually comprised of four pegs, resembling the legs of the Eiffel Tower (as an example). The idea of this was to concentrate the force of the swing on the four small points, which would simply blow through armour.

The Kukri - The genius of the Kukri is the heavy, S-curved blade. The weight adds force to the swing, much like an axe or machete. The S-curve means that no matter where the blade strikes the target, it is angled so that it shears rather than chops. This makes more efficient use of the blade (and gives it its vicious 18-20/x2 crit range).

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-25, 11:40 AM
Another question:

According to the PHB, it's fully possible to use a heavy lance on foot. How on -earth- does that work?

In one of the major battles of the 100 Years War, (fought between England and France in the 14th and 15th century), the french knights were reported to have cut down their lances to a manageable length. (the source being Barbra Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror") I suspect they used them as one would use a spear.

In AD&D? If I was running, I would treat it as a oversized clumsy longspear. However, how far I would go with that depends on several factors, such as how "gritty" that campaign or game is, how much fight I'd get from the player, how strong the character was, etc.

As I said before, in the thread about centuars, lances (when held under the arm, and not used overhand like a stabbing/thrusting weapon, which was how many cultures did use them, paticularly before the advent of stirrups), the power behind the weapon comes from the velocity of the horse and it's mass. Basically you are concentrating all that power behind a relatively small area (the tip of the lance). Indeed, it's simple physics, really.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-25, 11:51 AM
Okay, here's a few for you:

The Kukri; a neat weapon, but how was it used? I remember hearing / reading / seeing somewhere that kukri fighters are extremely dangerous and were used up through like WW2 o_O what are some of the techniques used when fighting with a kukri?

And another; were melee weapons ever used 'backwards' as a standard for fighting? e.g. holding a wakizashi / kunai / shortsword so that the blade faces away from your opponent. I've mentally tried to picture the effectiveness of this 'technique' and it seems to lack flow. I've seen it in movies and video games and while it looks cool, i've often wondered how practical it really is.

1) Kukri: A Asian weapon, and thus my answers are tenative. The use in WWII was more cultural then any clear superiority. The Ghurkas used them, and other british soldiers adopted it because the Ghurkas are, and continue to be, hardcore.

The use of the kukri blade is indicated by simply examining it. The blade is along the inside of the curve. This suggests that while you could stab with it, a swing or chopping motion would be the common technique used. It "chops", rather then "stabs" (if that makes sense.) Another thing is that the kukri in the PHB is actually fairly small. I've seen pictures of kukris that were large enough to be considerd "swords".

2) I am not sure what you mean, but here is what I think you are asking... It's more a matter of technique and style. Different schools and theories of fighting teach different "moves" and ways of doing things. Is it better or worse? I don't know. I guess the acid test for any funky move in the chaotic and confused darwinian world of combat is "Did ya die? No? Then I guess it worked..."

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-25, 12:13 PM
I feel like stirring up some controversy, so I'm going to say something that will piss off all the ninja-wannabees and nipponophiles out there...

Katanas ain't all they are cracked up to be, and samurai weren't the lords of warfare.

Many nipponophiles make the mistake of confusing the weapons made today as being representitive of the weapons that existed in Japan's medieval period. They rave about the superior techniques of swordmaking and how a katana can slice a leaf which simply falls on the blade. Their mistake lies in the fact that Japan, today, treats their swordsmiths as national treasures and who maintain a link to their history. The smiths today are very few in number, serve incredibly long apprenticeships, and produce a arbitrarily limited number of blades. So it stands to reason that any blades they do produce will be exceptional quality. Another point to consider, is that the people who collect these blades (the real ones, not the junk blades you buy at RennFaires or from Museum Replicas) take extraordinary care of them.

Archeological digs and tests on the blades recovered have indicated that, yeah, period katanas were OK, but ran a range of quality. However, most would be about equal to a good western blade made out of damascene steel. Nice, respectable, but not some sort of uber-weapon which would cut through milan-made plate armor like a razor would cut through butter.

Disclaimer... I'm discussing katanas over a period of roughly 700 hundred years. As swordmaking techniques improved, yes, the katanas got better. But the same is true of western weaponry as well. I have no doubt that you could find specific examples to prove me wrong, but keep in mind I'm discussing things in general. and as a whole.

Another point about katanas. They were created in response to a certain theory of fighting. One where shields were not commonly used, and where parrying wasn't as large a factor as in the west. Consider this...Look at a Fencing Match and at a Iajitsu bout. The fencers assume the guard position, ready to parry if need be. The kendo/iajitsu practioners are looking for that one good fast killing stroke.

About samurai... Samurai were a warrior caste, whose job it was to fight. But one was (more or less, again romantic legend breaks down in the face of reality) born into the caste. If all you did was your daimyo's taxes, you could still wear the daisho and call yourself a samurai. I suspect that Shiyuan could elaborate much more on this point then I could. But this parallels the western chevalier/knightly classes. Both were herditary warrior aristocracies. Those who were serious about the trade of warrior practiced hours a day, while others didn't.

Who would win if a knight and samurai squared off? Depends on many factors. Are they on horseback? What are they armed with? What's the terrain? Assuming that else is equal, I would call it this way... The pair closes into melee. If the samurai didn't kill or otherwise disable his opponent with his first blow, then he'd be in trouble. On the other hand, I suspect the samurai would have the edge in mobility, due to differences in armor design, but he'd have a hard time getting through the good knight's defences, both shield and armor. In the end, it would come down to...skill, mixed with a little bit of luck on the part of the respective combatants.

amanodel
2005-06-25, 12:56 PM
I would have a question: I'm making a campaign setting for DnD right now. It takes place and time in a late roman era.
The question would be that in which type would fit the armour of roman legoinaires? As i racall they had bracers and other stuffs on the leg which dont interacts with movement. The body armour is around a leather or platemail "breastplate". I'm to fit them as in leather or studded leather armour, but i'm not so familiar with armours so an advice would do good.
I'm also interested in the caterory of greek armour (kinda bronze breastplate)

sktarq
2005-06-25, 03:19 PM
Kukri....They are tools. They are from Nepal. In fact they are one of the two national weapons of that mountain nation. The other is a slashing heavy shortsword that didn't survive the advent of firearms. The blade is gerenally 10-16 inches (25-40 cm) long. It has a leaf shaped outter part which is bent downward from the line of the handle. Towards the handward side the blade is very heavy and is used as a hatchet...the tip is light and mobile and can be easily used like a pocket knife, the back of the blade is wide and strong enough near the handle to be used as a hammer, The blade is also wide and flat enough to be useful as a spade.....This wonderful tool has basically had viciously effective martial art based around it. This one so impressed the invading Brits that they kept it....many of even their own officers go to nepal to learn it. They (the Gurkas who are the most famous users of this blade) were some of the most decorated fighters of WWII but these weapons are still issued to this day.....And yes i own one for camping reasons. BTW this is not a classic shearing weapon like the scimitar and falcion whose edges are on the outside of thier curved blades....it is more like a small Falaca (a powerful shortsword in use by Alpine and Celtic people in Rome's early history but most famously used by the Celt Iberians...they get their extra power by NOT sheering at all...in damage they much more resemble and Axe than sword)

Roman Legions had Scale mail, and a kind Chain Mail But were most famous for their Lorica Segmenta which was basically banded mail.

Remember "Breatplate" in DnD also includes shin guards, light arm protection and a helm which is almost exactly what the Greek Hoplites wore but in bronze

on lances....even heavy lances were generally big spears that were noted for having no side projecting bits and a priority given to the tip at expence of the slashing aspect of many spears. pikes were often called lances. a boar spear would not be confused. nor would a zulu spear (abazi sp?). Most eventually gained a kind of grip and used a flare instead of a metal counterweight but this was not as common until quite late though had been a staple of the tourny lance for some time as it made them look bigger and more impressive while useing less metal (metal was expensive and these were throw away items for the nobility).

AtomicKitKat
2005-06-25, 07:02 PM
Here's one: What's the difference between a sickle, a scythe, and a kama?

Here's my $0.02.

sickle (http://www.tldm.org/directives/sickle.gif)

scythe (http://www.ddc2000.com/products/samples/ss2kwebdemo/grade2/support/data/unit21/01know/21011043.htm)

kama (http://tkdtutor.com/15Weapons/Offensive/Kama.htm)

Note also that the Kama can be attached to a chain, producing the "Kusarigama"(I think it basically literally means "chained Kama"), or even chaining 2 kamas together(making it harder to be disarmed?) This allows it to be used as a throwing/reach weapon, and might also serve as a grappling hook(for a low wall).

Truespeak
2005-06-25, 07:31 PM
Gorbash Kazdar: Thank you for your indepth reply. I basically meant carrying the weapon as such: Hold you your right arm straight out in front of you, palm down. Now picture a sword in it. I meant fighting with the sword so the blade comes out of the right side of your hand. "Traditionally" it would be out the left.

To everyone else who added more info; thank you as well.

sktarq
2005-06-25, 07:38 PM
Gorbash Kazdar: Thank you for your indepth reply. I basically meant carrying the weapon as such: Hold you your right arm straight out in front of you, palm down. Now picture a sword in it. I meant fighting with the sword so the blade comes out of the right side of your hand. "Traditionally" it would be out the left.


Occionally known as the "Psycho" grip. Both for it's need to be very close to your opponent and that's the way the knife was held in the famous shower scene. I've heard of it for knife fighting and possibly finishing off wounded foes but otherwise i haven't heard of anything like this.

Kalothagh
2005-06-25, 08:56 PM
1) Kukri: A Asian weapon, and thus my answers are tenative. The use in WWII was more cultural then any clear superiority. The Ghurkas used them, and other british soldiers adopted it because the Ghurkas are, and continue to be, hardcore.

The use of the kukri blade is indicated by simply examining it. The blade is along the inside of the curve. This suggests that while you could stab with it, a swing or chopping motion would be the common technique used. It "chops", rather then "stabs" (if that makes sense.) Another thing is that the kukri in the PHB is actually fairly small. I've seen pictures of kukris that were large enough to be considerd "swords".

2) I am not sure what you mean, but here is what I think you are asking... It's more a matter of technique and style. Different schools and theories of fighting teach different "moves" and ways of doing things. Is it better or worse? I don't know. I guess the acid test for any funky move in the chaotic and confused darwinian world of combat is "Did ya die? No? Then I guess it worked..."





What you say about the Kukri, ccould be implemented in that you could create a 'new' type of sword. Yes I've also seen pictures of the Kukri as you have said, I think I've seen one too in the Nation History Museum in London, might have been a Kopesh though. ( Hey, it was a long time ago, I was a wee nipper back then ).
But yeah it should proove fairly east to adapt the weopon in such a fashion, look at the dagger, short sword, long sword etc. basically them same deal here.

sktarq
2005-06-25, 09:14 PM
About "New" kinds of swords from a kukri....
Khopeshs are nothing like kukris....except they both have a curved blade. Khopesh swords shaped like a question mark...kukri's are shaped like a banana.

Also the Kukri had a match.....I would have to go look up the name.But it is a kind of heavywieght blunt nosed macette with a slight inward curve. Again a chopping weapon. Still used in certain ceramonial ways i believe.

Kalothagh
2005-06-25, 09:20 PM
I was like 14 or something like that when I saw it, thats like 13 years ago, my memory is somewhat vague :'(

sktarq
2005-06-25, 09:27 PM
When you are 14 it might have seemed bigger.

Also there was a sword simmilar to a kukri in shape....the falacca (SP?) that i mentioned in regards to the Alpine and Celtic (most famously Celt Iberians) which you may have seen. Most of those were short sword sized.

Kalothagh
2005-06-25, 09:30 PM
Might have been one of those as it was a museum........ cool museum though ;D

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-06-25, 10:25 PM
The blunt-tipped weapon SKTarq mentions is a kora, a short sword with an blade on the inside of a curve.

The kukri itself could have developed from a Greek weapon known as the kopis, which looks very much like an oversized kukri. This form of short sword was used by some of Alexander's men in their invasion of India. The kopis may have developed from a variant of the khopesh that had the blade on the inside of its curve - khopesh can have sharpened insides, outsides, or both. The falcata is another example of this style of blade.

Shiyuan
2005-06-26, 03:56 AM
EDIT: Added extra bit about samurai families and their dispositions.
EDIT EDIT: Added response to the Romans question.



I feel like stirring up some controversy, so I'm going to say something that will piss off all the ninja-wannabees and nipponophiles out there...

Katanas ain't all they are cracked up to be, and samurai weren't the lords of warfare.... [snip]

You are very correct sir on almost all counts. Allow me to add my rather big fat chunk. First off, the katana is oddly enough not even originally a Japanese weapon. The original Asian invaders of the modern Japanese islands (who were closely related to Koreans) that devastated the indigenous Ainu tribes (Caucasians, YES... Caucasians are the true natives of Japan) and then forced them northwards, were in truth wielders of straight, double-edged swords known as tsugari, and had a strongly matriarchal and matrilineal society. Japanophiles, or Nipponophiles as Erid the Mad accurately calls them, usually don't even know this important piece of history of their supposed favorite culture. Want to know how the Japanese became the "Japanese" we all know and love/hate? They met the Chinese.

When first contact was made between the Chinese civilization and the proto-Japanese Goddess-worshipping tribes, the Chinese were quick to dismiss the Japanese islands as a not worth the conquest, and were content to leave the "dwarf people" (I sh*t you not, that was the way old Chinese texts refer to the Japanese) alone to their devices. The New Proto-Japanese, on a high after taking the islands by storm from the Ainu, decided to introduce themselves to the Chinese, by force. The very first serious contact between the Chinese and the proto-Japanese was during very early pirate raids by the war-like "dwarf people". While the Chinese actually never made a big deal about this violent period of culturalization, the proto-Japanese would draw a great deal of their future world view from their furious encounters with Chinese defenders and captured Chinese loot.

Eventually, one particular tribe of the proto-Japanese got a bright idea, and set about conquering and subjugating several other tribes. This unidentified leader of this unifier probably used religion to back his claim to power, and likely gave rise to the modern Japanese myth of their First Emperor Jimmu. A hint of the original female-centric religion managed to stay within the culture even to this day; ever notice how the Imperial Family draws both its family lineage and its heavenly mandate from the Sun Goddess Amaterasu?

Well, after a decently homogenized proto-Japanese culture came into being, with a nominal leader, the Chinese finally deigned it worth their time to open formal communications with these dwarf raiders of the islands. By this time, the proto-Japanese had already reconnected with their Korean cousins, and were already receiving a steady stream of advanced ideas from the Choson people, who were very closely catching up to China in sophistication. Male-dominated hierarchy also is reputed to have been passed from Korea to Japan. Chinese intervention also didn't help, with their own strong and oppressive partiarchal and patrilineal society. But let's not say that the Japanese were forced into patriarchy, no... they embraced it willingly and insidiously. You see, the reason for the unification of the early proto-Japanese was warfare, and even in their strongly female-led society, men did the fighting. It is extremely likely a particularly clever and ambitious warleader, who fought the wars of unification in the name of his matriarch, used this influx of new ideas regarding gender-roles to usurp power and maintain his control.

Now that we have Japanization (or should I say, Asianization?) of the proto-Japanese, we get the foundation of the imperial system and male-dominance, thanks to China and Korea. Want katanas? Well TOO BAD, cuz' you get tachis first. The tachi, and I am truly sorry for all of you Japanophiles out there, is a Chinese design. Yes, folks, it's an old Chinese weapon that didn't see prolonged service because it was deemed impractical for their style of warfare. While used with great skill and loved well by its few wielders in the Chinese Empire, the weapon simply did not carry the neccessity of use or level of fashion that other weapons did for the Chinese. The weapon that would become known as the tachi was actually simultanously put into use by both Korean warriors (Korea was a very vibrant trading partner with China in terms of culture and wealth) and Chinese warriors living on the southeastern Chinese coastline, who constantly engaged in battles with the still maruading Japanese pirates (or Wako), and through their entangled violence, passed the idea of the single-edged curved blade on to the Japanese. Indeed, the earliest known single-edged curved swords used by the Japanese were actually prototypes of the no-dachi, or "two-handed tachi", which were oddly (and humorously) enough almost exclusively used by the infamous Japanese "dwarf pirates". Chinese accounts are filled with equal parts dread and humor when describing these short, near-naked sea "barbarians" rushing across the deck at them wielding a sword at least a foot and a half taller than he was.

The tachi would eventually evolve into the katana, but that's slightly inaccurate, as it is known now that in periods of earlier Japanese feudal history, samurai still used the tachi in battle, and often did not draw their katanas at all. So some overlapping does occur. However, the nitty gritty of it is that katana's existence relies solely on another accidental gift from China, but this time, China alone. The Chinese invented the folding technique, or lamination as some call it these days. What happened was this, folding is very useful in creating a sharper edge than the material used could normally hold. However, historically, China had access to large stores of good ore and their metals were often of high quality naturally. Call it a boon of nature. Folding, when it was pioneered, did not catch on very well with the general Chinese weaponsmithing culture because of the extra time required to finish a weapon, and the more or less lack of a need for improving their already good metal (the Chinese were practical: the edge needs to cut through flesh and possibly light armor, anything more is just overkill and unneccessary). Chinese swords from the Tang and the other "Great" dynasties are still wonderfully sharp and functional, that being a testament to the quality of their metal and their conventional weaponsmithing techniques.

So why did the Japanese perfect the folding technique? Simple answer really. Their steel sucked... ALOT. Tamahagani (not sure if I spelled that right) is a piss poor steel, and rightfully earns its place as the most folded steel EVER (because it sucked, THAT BAD). Up to this point, the Japanese often treasured their Chinese or Korean weapons that they managed to loot or buy. Now, the burgeoning culture of Japan (drawing near to the Heian period) found a process that would make it worth their while to solely produce their own weapons for their own use. Folding technique applied to a tachi design... and voila, the first prototype for the katana. After this, the Japanese went on a orgy of developing their sword-smithing scene, and the katana gained great status in their culture, seeing as it is effectively the first truly advanced Japanese weapon to be produced.

Oh, and btw, folding tends to be exaggerated horribly by amatuers. It does not make the katana significantly better than any other well-made sword. I have wielded an English arming sword (thanks to a buddy of mine in a museum) and an old katana that belonged to my Japanese side of the family, and I cannot say either is better than the other in terms of its intended use. Also, European medieval swords in general are actually misrepresented by pop-historians and armchair metallurigsts as heavy, chopping tools. This is very far from the truth. A well-made European arming sword (long sword for you D&Ders) weighed NO MORE than four pounds. Gah, I can't begin to rant about the imbeciles who kept trying to tell me how their grandfather's sword weighed like 50 lbs and some such bunk. Also, in getting back to the original topic of this paragraph, the number of times a sword is folded does NOT exceed two hundred, EVER. And I'm saying two-hundred, because it's REMOTELY possible, but very much still in the realm of Japanophile's wet dream. A good katana only had to be folded around 50 to 100 times. Even at the lower range of 50, the blade was already more than sharp enough.

On sharpness, a very sharp sword of any make is one that could cut through a tough chunk of leather, or soft wood/bamboo. A katana is often erroneously attributed the destructive power of a small nuclear explosive. Very much bunk. Historical records show that Japanese swordsmen used their swords to strike at vital spots on a opponent where armor was usually thinner or non-existent. There are also many accounts of Japanese lamellar armor stopping a katana. Honestly, why bother designing an armor if your opponent's weapon supposedly can cut straight through it or a plate of steel for that matter? Granted, that might happen with a katana made by one our dear modern bladesmiths with the wonderfully "broken" global network of resources and machinery (Swedish Powder Steel is the best known steel in the world so far, imagine folding that stuff!). I do believe the Japanese are not very original, but stupid is not something I believe they are. As a swordsman myself, I have used a katana in a live (meaning the edge was sharp and there was a real chance of injuring or killing someone hit by it) exhibition once, and I can tell you, the beating my family gave me after I chipped that sucker on a thick piece of hardwood, proved to me personally the fallibity of the katana myth.


About samurai... Samurai were a warrior caste, whose job it was to fight. But one was (more or less, again romantic legend breaks down in the face of reality) born into the caste. If all you did was your daimyo's taxes, you could still wear the daisho and call yourself a samurai. I suspect that Shiyuan could elaborate much more on this point then I could.

I can, and I shall. ;D

First off, right you are again about the natures of both the samurai and the knight in terms of actual warriorhood. Many samurai, or bukei as they are referred to formally (meaning "military upper class"), were just courtiers and rather effeminate bureaucrats. The actual ratio of fighting ready family members in a bukei family depended heavily on that family's mantra. Classically, there are two major factions of Japanese bukei ettiquete, the courtier and the soldier.

A courtier family often encouraged its members to learn to read and write, recite poetry, engage in the arts and in general, observe very formal social interactions between people. Samurai belonging to courtier families sometimes didn't even know how to use their weapons, and more than one useless lord's son would idle away his entire life doing nothing but gambling, fooling around and being a general leech on his family's prestige.

A soldier family often more times than not, discouraged or outright banned the learning of reading and calligraphy, poetry was looked down upon as a emasculation of the warrior soul, and direct, almost blunt communication was the preferred social conveyance. Yet, despite a soldier family's best efforts, a samurai of that family may still end up being the very same wastrel I described above in the courtier family description. It's happened and been recorded in history enough times to make me groan in that same way I first groaned in disappointment after learning about what knighthood really entailed in history.

The above two types are rather extreme, but they very nicely organize the nature of the samurai class and its fluctuation in its roles throughout Japanese history. Most of the time, both courtier and soldier bukei families existed side by side in Japan, with a noticeable break in this pattern during the Sengoku Jidai, of the Warring Clans Period, where practically every family that survived and wasn't absorbed into another major clan was a unique blend of courtier and soldier values. The leaders of a clan and their heirs would be expected to observe the niceties of the courtier aspect alongside their martial training (Takeda Shingen, one of Oda Nobunaga's greatest rivals, actually came out of retirement as a Buddhist monk to lead his clan in war). The remainder of the clan, to emphasize the importance of the family heads and their heirs, was usually proscribed from learning calligraphy and other social arts.

That being said, on to the other big question!

Samurai vs. Knight? Oh crap, not this again... :P Alright, let me settle this with one sentence, and I'll back it up with my explanations: It's all a matter of circumstances and environment.

Styles of Combat

SAMURAI:

Samurai traditionally were horse-archers first, melee fighters second (also, daggers, or "tanto" were often used more often than the swords in close combat, historically). Swords were used first as cavalry weapons if drawn, and if brought to foot combat, the katana would be employed in low, angled draw-cutting attacks, reliant on footwork and application of body weight. This style of swordsmanship developed out of the battlefield environment. Japanese warfare was more loosely engaged on a battlefield, where Japanese generals favored mobility and embraced seperate, simultaneously engaged deployments to win the day. Multitasking different, independent strategies and tactics for a single army is a very Asian style of warfare. This allows a typical Japanese soldier more moving space while in the midst of a melee. While the ordered ranks of Japanese ashigaru might have prohibited such freedom anyway, the more individualistic samurai often took full advantage of the space to maximize their tactics and the chance for personal glory.

KNIGHTS:

Knights were very able horsemen, well... if they trained as cavalry, but in either case, preferred hand-to-hand to ranged combat (I'm going to ignore the English knight for this post, because I'll be damned if I start on the whole longbow-wielding English foot knight explanation). Contrary to popular belief, medieval knights on foot were extraordinarily spry and lethal combatants, as new findings have discovered the actual lack of movement limitation by plated armor. The medieval arming sword and broad sword, as depicted in most movies and fantasy worlds, was in real life often second to the mace or hammer, which was preferred by knights in its ability to bypass most armor protection. So, a knight facing off against a samurai would take one look at his opponent and ready his shield and heft his bludgeoning weapon. However, if drawn into sword-combat, a knight's sword was actually employed a very finesse-based manner, contrary to what D&D and fantasy in general has taught us. A medieval knight's sword was usually a thrusting weapon, as the European warrior was not an idiot. Trying to slash or chop at an opponent wearing heavy armor of any sort with ANY sword is more likely to break the sword than the armor, no matter how well made. No, a knight's best and most abused method of attack with his sword was a strong thrust at a joint or opening in his opponent's armor.

One can go to their local library and actually look up medieval sword-fighting manuals now to see this being brought to light. I have a copy of Hans Talhoffer's "Fechtbuch", which shows what warriors in the high middle ages were actually doing with their swords. I highly reccommend it to any person serious about their sword-fighting history. The shield is also a very finesse-based weapon/defense. Knight's were very adroit with their shields, trained to master subtle angles with which to most efficiently deflect incoming blows. A knight, as opposed to the samurai, is a warrior developed from centuries of thick, bloody warfare common to the European continent. Melees in Europe during the Middle Ages were intense, almost claustrophobic affairs, and the field knight's training and equipment is the result of those long cycles of brutally close-in combat. Armor is almost omnipresent on the heavy knight's body, this being the period's best effort to keep their prized warrior alive and relatively uninjured from battle to battle. Footwork and agility may avoid a blow in a duel, but on the field of gore and death, one is not fighing just one opponent, but the entire field. A stray arrow, a blow from behind, being flanked by enemies, these are all almost constant companions to a warrior wading through a battle in Europe. The knight's armor is the decision to take no chances. His armanents are also ideal to swiftly and directly do away with opposition, heavy maces or hammers for enemy armored warriors, swords, axes and daggers for the unarmored or lightly armored warriors that dart about the battlefield.

Circumstances

In the melee of a field battle:

In the thick of an ongoing battle, the outright superiority of melee technology and technique for the European knight gives him the edge over his less melee-focused opponent. Japanese swordsmanship, while dazzling to watch, easily falls prey to an equally skilled swordsman who recognizes the value of the universally practical thrust. I've seen it happen and learned it personally through experience myself.

On the same field of battle, but not fully engaged:

Where manuever is possible, the samurai and its preference for horse-archery would give it the edge over a knight. While the knight could engage the samurai in personal combat during such an encounter, the samurai still has the chance and ability to open fire with his powerful daikyu (Japanese composite longbow, or "yumi" to some) on the knight before melee is brought on. Also, if the samurai is free to move, he can lead the confrontation to a terrain more conducive to his style of sword-fighting.

In a personal duel:

This one is up in the air, really. The fight seriously can go either way, especially when dealing with the confrontation on a highly individual scale. A particular knight may not favor shields at all and use a two-handed weapon, and thus lose an important defense against a samurai's offense. Or a samurai may opt to use his tanto in an effort to grapple with the knight (actually, a very smart move, and one that historical samurai actually employed alot with one another; it's weird, there are more recorded kills attributed to the tanto than any other melee weapon in Japanese histories), and turn the duel into a wrestling match where the loser gets stabbed fatally. Mayhaps the knight did keep his shield, and the samurai, unsure as to how to handle this factor, strikes at it, only to find his blade caught in the wood of the shield (wooden shields are friggin' tough, and no, a katana can't cut through them), or even cry out in dismay when his katana chips or outright breaks upon hitting a metal shield. Lots of very small details can screw either combatant, and that's why there is no real superior warrior.

Bottom line, in my view, both are very much equal, and that because of the above examples and the fact that the Mongols whomped on both types of warriors with equal impunity in their respective invasions. ;D Hehe.


When you are 14 it might have seemed bigger.

Also there was a sword simmilar to a kukri in shape....the falacca (SP?) that i mentioned in regards to the Alpine and Celtic (most famously Celt Iberians) which you may have seen. Most of those were short sword sized.

I believe that weapon is known as the falcata (used by the Iberian Celts), or the rhompaia (similar but used by the Thracians).


I would have a question: I'm making a campaign setting for DnD right now. It takes place and time in a late roman era.
The question would be that in which type would fit the armour of roman legoinaires? As i racall they had bracers and other stuffs on the leg which dont interacts with movement. The body armour is around a leather or platemail "breastplate". I'm to fit them as in leather or studded leather armour, but i'm not so familiar with armours so an advice would do good.
I'm also interested in the caterory of greek armour (kinda bronze breastplate)

Depends my friend... are you asking about Post-Marian Reforms Legionnaires or Trajan's Legionnaires? They're both "late" Roman, but I suppose it doesn't matter much in terms of equipment. A late Roman Legionnaire typically wore lorica segmentata, which is essentially banded mail, and wore bracers and a helm called the galea, which by Trajan's time evolved to have neck and cheek guards. No leg armor was present during Trajan's time, as the scutum, or the legionnaire's large rectangular shield, was often large enough to provide adequate cover for the legs when neccessary. Not to mention, the scutum's grip, which was held much like a person gripping a door handle horizontally in a fist, was behind the embossment near the centre of the shield facing the enemy. A Roman legionnaire would and did punch with his scutum, often to disorient his opponent so he could deliver a low stabbing attack with his gladius, a rather heavy shortsword that was clumsy when used as a slashing weapon. A Roman soldier understood the clear advantage of delivering stabbity death to their opponents. Their backup weapon, the pugio (a broad-bladed dagger used to inflict horrendous gaping wounds), was used a method similar to the gladius. Of course before melee was ever engaged, the Roman would throw his two pila (plural for pilum), or javelins, at his foe at two distinct intervals.

The first pila, the lighter one, would be thrown at a further distance at an enemy as the Romans began their advance. The second pila, the heavier one, would be saved until the enemy committed to their charge (which usually resulted of their awkward introduction :P to the Romans' first pila barrage), and thrown at a short distance to create the most havoc and disarray to either break or weaken the momentum of their charge, so that the Romans could quickly rush in, following their last throw, and connect with their own shield-ramming charge.

A clever and very efficient method for dispatching their opponents was the Roman predilection to make first contact with their scutum (shield, remember?) and then proceed to shove upwards with the shield against their now crowded in opponent (the ranks behind you now are more an impediment to your panicky retreat than moral support), and savagely thrust from below with their gladius, hopefully disemboweling their foe before he gets a swing in.

To summarize what I've described to you, the Romans were excellent meat-grinders, and in Europe, that takes you very far. ;D

I hope that description helps with your Roman ideas.

laughingfuzzball
2005-06-26, 05:15 AM
On the finesse of European swordsmanship:

Part of the reason Eastern swordsmanship is assumed superior is the supposed lack of organized European school. Although they mostly no longer exist, in there time, schools of swordsmanship were widespread and successful. They were generally known by the name of the master of the school, and many were so successful that they survived for many generations, and some masters (or just as often their students) had their teachings printed in what are commonly reffered to as fencing manuals or fechtbuchs in the German schools. My favorite example is Johannes Liechtenauer, who, in the 14th century put down his teachings in verses that were just specific enough to remind his students of his teachings, but vague enough to not let outsiders know his secrets. Shortly after his death, however, some of his students published their own writings on what was meant by these verses, advancing his already great fame. His teachings saw common use at least through the 16th century with Joachim Meyer's fechtbuch, after which the English and French schools (the predecessors of modern sport fencing) seem to rise in popularity above their German and Italian counterparts. The manuals, other historical refferences, and historically accurate weapons are now being used to 'resurect' many of these schools in what is commonly reffered to as Historical European Swordsmanship, or Historical European Martial Arts.

apandapion
2005-06-26, 04:26 PM
Ah, polearms. A sadly underestimated weapon in gaming, but one which was quite useful in the hands of trained troops.


Reach weapons are yummy in 3.0 and higher. Reach weapons and quickdraw are quite powerful. Reach weapons and great cleave are enough to make one slightly ill.



In gaming, the ideal use of the polearm weapons would be to have a front line of guys with shield and weapons, doing nothing but defending themselves, and the rank of guys behind them using the weapons to take you (or your enemy) out. That's why these weapons have Reach, people. (This is who polearms are used in the SCA, and to great effect. Anybody who tells you that the guy standing in front would interfere doesn't know what they are talking about.)

Most people who only fight in LARPs have a blind spot regarding the head. The head is the most effective target in many situations, and I imagine this is one.

McMouse
2005-06-26, 05:28 PM
Boy, I'm just full of questions today.

Heres another: What weapons and fighting tactics did the Vikings employ when raiding?

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-06-26, 09:20 PM
Boy, I'm just full of questions today.

Heres another: What weapons and fighting tactics did the Vikings employ when raiding?

A myriad, depending on their target and the time period. Generally, they liked to hit rich, undefended towns on the coast or on navigable rivers - the classic longship could travel up a river quite easily due to its shallow draft. They once made it all the way to Paris. Ideally, they'd not even actually attack - just threaten to and demand ransom. If they did attack, it was hit-and-run, designed to grab loot and get away. Its more akin to robbery than battle, if all goes to plan.

Vikings used a wide variety of weapons, though they seemed to favor various forms of broad and short swords, axes (throwing, one handed, and two-handed), and especially spears. They also often employed large, round wooden shields. Viking swords tended to be fairly typical for the period, while the axes tend to have a distinctive "bearded" design. They also carried a specific type of large knife, the scramasax. They used whatever armor was available, generally chain or ring, though they favored lighter armors for obvious reasons. They also wore very disctinctive helms - no, not horned ones, but they had a sort of half-mask around the eyes and often a nose guard as well.

This is, of course, sea-borne raiders. Viking groups also maintained actual armies. The knight equiavalent, roughly, was the house-karl, who usually carried a two-handed axe, a longspear, a broadsword, a shield (sometimes a kite shield), and wore heavy chain. They often rode to battle, though they generally fought on foot. Viking armies also favored slingers over archers (or crossbowmen in later periods), and generally lacked cavalry. They tended to group together in shield walls (the front line locked their shield together in an overlapping pattern) when on the defensive (Harold's army at Hastings fought in the Viking style, for a good example).

AtomicKitKat
2005-06-27, 06:08 AM
Before anyone asks, a "bearded" axe is, I presume, one where the edge dangles beyond the main portion of the head, like below(compared to the "regular" axe).

"Regular" Axe (http://www.wealddown.co.uk/images%20shop/480%20Broad%20Axe.jpg)

Bearded Axe (http://www.wealddown.co.uk/images%20shop/4903LE%20axe.jpg)

McMouse
2005-06-27, 12:30 PM
What are the advantages of the beared axe over the regular axe? Looks like it would break more easily if anything.

AtomicKitKat
2005-06-27, 02:28 PM
What are the advantages of the beared axe over the regular axe? Looks like it would break more easily if anything.

Beats me. If I had to guess, I'd say it gave a longer cutting edge, and possibly you could use the pointy end to gouge(piercing damage) someone for extra damage? Maybe even as a can-opener.

laughingfuzzball
2005-06-27, 04:36 PM
It has a longer cutting edge without adding significantly to the weight.

Annarrkkii
2005-06-27, 05:45 PM
I can claim no credit compared with these others who are answering questions here, but I believe I know some things about some questions here.

1. I believe that the wrong-way pointing swoord may have been used with smaller Japanese weapons, such as the wakizashi, for Iajitsu-type attacks. The technique was infeasible for longer weapons, because the grip limited arm flexibility and made drawing them difficult. However, with the the smaller weapon it could be possible to swiftly draw the weapon, flexing the wrist to reach out with the blade, and slash a neck, underarm, or other exposed body part, and then immediately reverse the swing and stab downward with the blade, without changing your grib or posture.

2. I believe the bearded axe was mainly for the increase in cutting edge, without lengthenging the haft our adding much weight. It also was helpful with the throwing-axe techniques the Vikings and Franks implemented. The throwing axe was not always thrown to kill, as, if it impacted a shield, it would lodge there. As has been mentioned before by our accreditted scholars, the shield was largely finesse-oriented in its uses, and the unwieldy weight added by an axe could be a severe detriment. With the additional edge added by the bearded axe, with the axe could lodge firmly, but allow some of blade to stick around the edge of the shield. Do to the balance of an axe when thrown, with the weight in the head, the axe would often be angled when it logded in a target, as the head had the most force, driving in and downward, as it continued the circular motion generated by its balance. Thanks to this, the extra edge made it possible to lodge in the shield, and perha extend through, injuring the user or making it painful to wield, or it could end up suck on the top or bottom of the shield, with the top edge of the blade sticking over the edge of the shield, to make it potentially dangerous to hold the shield near your head, where the axe could protrude over.

it also stands to reason that a longer blade would make a longer and more damaging crack in a shield if it impacted one, increaseing its use as a throwing weapon even firther, for purposes of a ranged sunder of sorts.


Again, this is made up of my sporadic knowledge, my logical reasoning, an some guessing, feel free to tear it down.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-27, 08:45 PM
Another advantage of bearded axes is the ever popular "Shield hook". You slide the haft over the top of your opponent's shield, pull it back so that the bottom of the "beard" catches the inside, and you neutralize his shield while your partner takes advantage of the opening.

(I have no idea how feasible this was in real life. I've seen it done in both SCA and Amtgard though. YMMV. Management makes no guarantees and ponies up for no Ressurections.)

Spuddly
2005-06-27, 09:53 PM
I'm something of an armchair historian, and my experience using weapons is limited. Mostly, friends and I use sticks and wooden swords to fight with, without any kind of training or experience other than swinging away at each other.

While a great big slice works great to intimidate an opponent without armor, thrusts are always more lethal. A jab allows one to maximize their reach while minimalizing the available area for a parry. On top of that, that point delivers far more force than a blade ever could.

It is my hypothesis, then, in warfare, whoever optimizes the use of the point and range of their weapon will win.

Greek hoplites excelled against other melee forces because of tactics formed about using points at the end of long sticks.
Alexander the Great armed his men with ridiculously long spears.

Roman armies used javelins.

Genghis Khan and the English used archers to great efficacy.

In modern times, guns essentially move a lethal point (the bullet) a great distance.

Sundog
2005-06-27, 10:07 PM
The "Bearded" Axe was favoured by the Vikings, believe it or not, due to it's second purpose - as a climbing implement!

When a Noreseman went raiding, he usually left most of his heavy war-gear behind, including his armour and often his shield. On a raid, you wanted to A) be able to get as much loot as possible into the ship and B) avoid anything like a pitched battle. So, they'd fight with two weapons, often sword and axe, sometimes two swords or two axes. Against untrained militia, the warrior tactics of the Vikings were usually fatal - parry with the primary hand, go for the legs or any other exposed flesh with the off-hand.

The problem was, a lot of villages had palisades. To deal with that, the Bearded Axe could be used to aid in climbing - and since you were just digging the "chin" in instead of hammering the axe in, you could climb silently.

Imagine the poor guard on the wall, late at night, his throat cut from behind by the viking axeman who's climbed up the fence silently, and will now proceed to opn the gate...

Furanku_S
2005-06-27, 11:57 PM
This thread has both increased my happiness and depressed my "japanophile" friends (resulting in the former) IMMENSELY. Thank you VERY MUCH for increasing my knowledge of how things actually happened.

On a side note, several of said "japanophiles" also held Braveheart (AGH STAB) as a pinnacle of historical accuracy, 'cause, you know, the people were dirty and stuff.

Okay, my question. Flails. First off, a FLAIL is chained, while a MACE is barred, right? Secondly, were they actually used? The idea of taking extra time to make a chain (or some sort of rope thing, I guess, even though that sounds ridiculous) for the weapon you could've been finished with already exudes an aura of ludicrocrity.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-06-28, 12:01 AM
You're correct, basically - flails are the ones with chains. And, yes, they were actually used. The reach of the was quite impressive, and you could get a lot of impact for less energy on a swing. It also had a great advantage since it could reach around shields. However, recovery from a blow is quite slow, so most flails were used in combination with a shield, and often with someone to guard your back.

Shiyuan
2005-06-28, 01:31 AM
This thread has both increased my happiness and depressed my "japanophile" friends (resulting in the former) IMMENSELY. Thank you VERY MUCH for increasing my knowledge of how things actually happened.

On a side note, several of said "japanophiles" also held Braveheart (AGH STAB) as a pinnacle of historical accuracy, 'cause, you know, the people were dirty and stuff.


: P Braveheat was a fun and enjoyable movie. But yea, pretty shoddy in the accuracy deparment. The Scots, by the time of Robert the Bruce, were armed almost identically to their English foes, in mail byrnies (sorry, old term for chain coats), and armed with weapons of similar quality and make to the English warriors.

You want to talk about horribly inaccurate movies depicting historical periods? Let's talk "The Last Samurai". Yes, it was once again a fun and enjoyable movie... but yea... absolutely inaccurate of what actually happened.

First off, the samurai of the time of the Meiji Restoration were trained and skilled in the use of firearms. They even had their own artillery academy churning out samurai capable of employing and directing mortar fire. The samurai in their final hurrah were NOTHING like their storied ancestors. They fought with guns and mortars, losing battle after battle to the growing Imperial Meiji Army, why? Because a gun does not require special training and years to master. An army of 500 samurai armed to the teeth with guns, is JUST an army of 500 with guns. The guns were all that mattered in that conflict. The Imperial Army simply out-manuevered and out-numbered their former warrior elite, and in a series of horrifying revelations to the samurai, proved that a simple peasant armed properly and filled with a patriotic fervor could take down than any one of them.

Now, I sound unsympathetic to the samurai of this period, and I am. I don't respect what passed for the samurai in their final days. The samurai by this time had become nothing more than a landed class that had lost its mandate through technology, and was no longer neccessary to maintain Japan's national welfare. They fought the Meiji Restoration more to maintain their oppressive and selfish elitism than to protect any idea of honor or tradition. Granted, there were a few exceptional individuals of the period who still held to the old ways, but they were few and far between, and mattered little overall. Any one brings up Kenshin at this point, and I'm going to go on a murder spree.

In fact, the truly LAST BATTLE OF THE SAMURAI... was fought with a full compliment of mortars and riflemen... and that was just the samurai! Oh yea, and those same samurai were dressed in Western style military uniforms, not kimonos! For God sakes, that aspect of the Last Samurai had me in stitches, because no Japanese combatant in their right minds of that time period would wear a kimono into battle. Kimonos were useful when arrows were the projectile of the day, but to wear one in a field of battle where rifles and artillery are pounding at you from all directions, it's asking for someone to shoot your visually vibrant butt. I'm all fine with depicting the samurai as canny and honorable warriors, for the sake of movie fantasy, but having them fight like death-seeking, flamboyant morons in that movie when they're supposed to be the military elite (and thus, one would think: wiser in warfare) is simply outrageous.

Alright. Calm down Stephen... calm...

AtomicKitKat
2005-06-28, 02:47 AM
For some reason, I keep thinking of a flail as what most in D&D would call a scourge(Cat 'O Nine Tails). Basically, a three-headed weapon with chains attaching said heads to the handle.

For those curious about swords, and the fancy part-names:

Basket: This is the "extra" bit attached to the hilt, usually at the pommel and the haft. Its main function is to protect the fingers, indirectly strengthening one's grip(if you were to lose a finger during the fight, your grip would be weakened, allowing easier disarmament.) Also useful as a bludgeoning tool.
Haft: The (often)perpendicular piece near the base, where the hilt joins the blade. Sometimes called a "guard" I think. Its main purpose is to deflect the direct slice down the blade(if you ever parry two swords, you will notice that it's tempting to spoil your blade by sliding it down your opponent's, to cut his wrist/forearm. The haft kind of puts an end to that idea)
Hilt: The part you grip, the handle, if you will.
Pommel: The base of the hilt. Sometimes jewelled, it's basically a bludgeoning tool that you can use to knock people out(at least, in the movies. No idea how often that tactic was actually used in real history)

alec
2005-06-28, 06:16 AM
Boy, I'm just full of questions today.

Heres another: What weapons and fighting tactics did the Vikings employ when raiding?

In addition to everything previously mentioned, the viking longboats were really the secrets of their success. The shallow bottom allowed them to sail up rivers to attack inland settlements and monistarys, and also allowed them to sail right up onto the beach, and still easily get both horses and men out and in. The boats were also much faster and more manuverable than other boats of the time, due to the excelent design. The only major disadvantage of their ships was that they were not very strong, the keel only being about 1 inch thick.

Ogh_the_Second
2005-06-28, 07:34 AM
Okay, my question. Flails. First off, a FLAIL is chained, while a MACE is barred, right? Secondly, were they actually used? The idea of taking extra time to make a chain (or some sort of rope thing, I guess, even though that sounds ridiculous) for the weapon you could've been finished with already exudes an aura of ludicrocrity.

And - of course - the flail started out as a farming tool too, just as the scythe etc. - although I think in the original farming version the flail consisted of a long and a short wooden bar, connected with a piece of rope.

Sundog
2005-06-28, 07:38 AM
That's right. They're used to beat the grain, dislodging the light chaff from the heavy grain.

The Nunchaku and the Triple-Staff are Asian versions of the same thing.

Furanku_S
2005-06-28, 10:39 AM
Of course! How did I forget that! *punches self in face* I wrote a history paper on farm implements turned weapons, and somehow forgot that...

And yes, The Last Samurai had me in stitches too. This kind of leads me to my next question.

Everyone's seen The Vikings, right? It's an old movie from 1952-3 starring Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas as vikings who just do viking stuff and end up attacking an English fort. This movie isn't known for its historical accuracies; in one scene the vikings raid an English caravel, even though this is set in the freaking eighth to tenth century. There is one thing in it, however, that MIGHT actually have some historical basis.

Alright, at the end of the film, when the English fortress is being attacked, the defenders (of course) bar the doors to prevent entry. To get around this, the vikings all throw their axes into the doors, allowing Kirk Douglas to climb up them and eventually open the way.

WAIT, WHAT.

Is this even remotely possible? It seems sort of similar to the climbing method mentioned earlier in the thread, but I find it hard to believe that an axe embedded in a wall could support the weight of a full-grown man dangling from it.

Nerd-o-rama
2005-06-28, 11:44 AM
Shiyuan: my fantasies of Japan's cultural nobility are once again shattered. Ah well, at least I didn't make an ass of myself like these Japanophiles of which you speak. It's clear I have a lot of studying to do if I want to consider myself historically knowledgeable (and I do.)

malcolm
2005-06-28, 01:48 PM
Get a degree in history, it's what all the cool kids do! ;D

Shiyuan
2005-06-28, 06:39 PM
Shiyuan: my fantasies of Japan's cultural nobility are once again shattered. Ah well, at least I didn't make an ass of myself like these Japanophiles of which you speak. It's clear I have a lot of studying to do if I want to consider myself historically knowledgeable (and I do.)

:P Sorry if I made you feel bad about yourself, I'm not targeting guys like you, who usually just tend to be misinformed, but I am targetting those guys who are misinformed and then run with it as if they had inviolate truth in their grasp. I had alot of the same misconceptions about Japan earlier as a child, because sometimes my family would like to give me fantasies about our heritage. After making contact with the elders of my Japanese relatives in Kyoto, I was introduced to a whole new world of investigative research about history in general. I feel more lucky than knowledgeable, to have my favorite subject as both my major and hobby, so don't be so hard on yourself. The whole fun of learning is understanding you still don't know enough. ;D

Besides, not many folks have normal access to the books neccessary for some of the info I put up previously, like the Ainu and their ancestors the Emishi ("the barbarians" to the Japanese), from whom, interestingly enough, the title and rank of shogun draws its original purpose and title from, that being the Sei-i-tai Shogun, or the "barbarian-subduing generalissimo".


Get a degree in history, it's what all the cool kids do! ;D

Haha, indeed. :P ;D

bingo_bob
2005-06-28, 06:55 PM
Is this even remotely possible? It seems sort of similar to the climbing method mentioned earlier in the thread, but I find it hard to believe that an axe embedded in a wall could support the weight of a full-grown man dangling from it.

No, that is not possible, assuming they threw the axes. They'd have to cut about at least 2 inches deep, and perhaps deeper to get it to the point where a full grown man could climb them.

Alright, I have a question, though it's probably pretty stupid. I have always assumed that the spiked chain is a purely fantasy weapon, but recently, with all the different information I've gotten out of this thread, I'd like to know if the truth is otherwise. So in short, was the spiked chain ever a real weapon?

EDIT: Ah, well. Guess my relative inexperience in such matters has gotten my head handed to me on a silver platter.

Hzurr
2005-06-28, 06:58 PM
Alright, at the end of the film, when the English fortress is being attacked, the defenders (of course) bar the doors to prevent entry. To get around this, the vikings all throw their axes into the doors, allowing Kirk Douglas to climb up them and eventually open the way.

WAIT, WHAT.

Is this even remotely possible? It seems sort of similar to the climbing method mentioned earlier in the thread, but I find it hard to believe that an axe embedded in a wall could support the weight of a full-grown man dangling from it.

Aha, something in this thread I might be able to answer!

Ok, while I don't know if this tactic was ever actually used, an axe embedded in a wall could definately support the weight of a man. I do a decent amount of rock climbing (although I'm nothing spectacular, and living in Houston during the school year limits me mainly to the rockgyms and the rockwall at the university), and you would be amazed at what can hold a person's weight. Now, I have not seen the movie, so I can't go into a lot of detail, but an axe embedded into a wall could very easily hold a person's weight. (Sorry Bingo Bob)

Now, naturally, it depends on what the door is made out of, and how deep the axe is in the door, but if the door is a good, solid wood, and the axes were thrown fairly hard (and since these are freaking vikings, and have I would assume a lot of experience of throwing axes at things), it could definately work.

The big question that comes up is how far apart these axes are. If it's situated more or less like a ladder, no problem. If, however, they were spread apart, and he would have to reach above his head and grab an axe handle to pull himself up (like a pull up), that would be very hard to believe, and in that case, I'd be scratching my head. But if they aren't too far apart, and he's able to destribute his weight across multiple axes, then I can't see any problem with it.

Furanku_S
2005-06-28, 07:37 PM
Thanks for answering my question. I highly recommend the film to anyone who wants to see the most poorly thrown javelins in the history of film (or see Ernest Borgnine devoured by wild dogs!).

Another question...

About how long would it take to make a suit of what would constitute D&D "plate"? I know that a lot of measuring and custom fitting has to be done (picking a breastplate off of the wall...right), but how long would the actual manufacture work? I have no idea if this is listed in the modern rules, since I run the D&D that's almost 25 years old.

EDIT: Oh, and Kirk Douglas climbs up the axes like one would climb up the little plastic blobs on a climbing wall.

Shiyuan
2005-06-28, 08:47 PM
Another question...

About how long would it take to make a suit of what would constitute D&D "plate"? I know that a lot of measuring and custom fitting has to be done (picking a breastplate off of the wall...right), but how long would the actual manufacture work? I have no idea if this is listed in the modern rules, since I run the D&D that's almost 25 years old.

EDIT: Oh, and Kirk Douglas climbs up the axes like one would climb up the little plastic blobs on a climbing wall.

Hmmm... I haven't dabbled in armoursmithing myself, but I have a few friends that know of the trade. From what I remember, in the past, plated armor took a damn long time to complete, due to the amount of perfectionism sometimes required by the armoursmiths themselves. In one example, the Emperor Maximillian I of the Holy Roman Empire's full suit of fluted plate armor took a bit more than a year to make. As for hard numbers in manufacturing time, I am not sure of. My friends tell me with modern technology, one can complete (but not neccessarily finish) a piece of the plate armor (gorget, cuirass, etc.) in about 4 hours of work time. Full helms usually take far longer (around a day of off and on work), due to the intricacy of the design for such a helm to be effective.

Given that we have blowtorches and other modern amenities for speeding up the process, I'd estimate the actual work time for just shaping a piece of a suit of plate amor using the old techniques would require around atleast six hours, but most probably not finish it. When I say finish a piece, I mean, getting all the proportions right, the fluting (if wanted) properly done and other small details of the piece. For a good armorsmith to feel that the armor is up to their standards, the process of working, reworking (not done very often at all, since the process of reheating the metal and re-shaping a piece could weaken or damage it anyway), tossing an unacceptable piece, and starting over; the smith could be at work on a single piece for days, or even weeks. A full helm crafted in the Middle Ages possibly took more than a few weeks of dedicated work, particularly in the delicate shaping and angles of the helm.

So, by the estimates and data provided by my friends, I'd say even a shoddy job of plate armor in the Middle Ages would take at least 60 some odd hours of work time distributed over the course of a week or two, to complete, and that is barring all accuracy of fit and form (high likelihood of awkward fit and discomfort), and dealing purely with bare minimum functionalism of providing a suit of steel to impede blows.

If your dealing with a Medieval armorsmith completely devoid of stylistic leanings, and intent on just making a suit of armor that fits comfortably and protects its wearer properly, I'd say a rather plain suit of plate armor would take at least 200+ (likely alot more) hours of worktime distributed over the course of several weeks or a month or two.

But a true work of art from the Middle Ages... that'll take a year in the least, and be well worth it.

Furanku_S
2005-06-28, 11:33 PM
Whoa...

(Suffice it to say, oldschool players who favor halflings may get a BIT peeved.)

laughingfuzzball
2005-06-29, 12:23 AM
On flails:

The first flails used in combat were indeed a short wooden handle with a wooden weight connected with rope or ocasionally chain. It was one of those things where a conscript said to himself "Hmmm... I bet this would hurt". It was later found to be effective, and was improved by making the weight from iron or steel (not always spherical, many were more oblong like the original tool) and using chain instead of rope, and later by adding spikes (these were there more to ensure a solid bloiw than to actually pierce anything, and this style was ussually steel so the spikes wouldn't be bent as easily during use). The wooden ones are now usually called "peasent's flails" in medieval combat circles.

On armor production:

Highly skilled recreationists tend to take around 6-8 months to create a full harness of steel plate without decorations. This is usually significantly higher than munitions quality, though. A munitions breastplate, backplate, and headgear of some sort (not a full helm) could prbably be made in a matter of weeks using historical methods. This assumes, of course, that the smith doesn't have anyhting else that he needs to get done first. Maximillian's armor only took about a year because he was the Holy Roman Emperor. That level of blacking and gilting would have to take forever, not to mention all of the fluting and just general overall quality.

edit- Halfling-sized armor should take a little less time for most pieces, but anything articulated or requiring detail work (gauntlets, full helms, pauldrens on some styles, whatever kind of footgear they chose (assuming that was plate as well), and various other pieces depending on the style of harness) would take longer because of all of the small details.

sktarq
2005-06-29, 01:47 AM
Alright, I have a question, though it's probably pretty stupid. I have always assumed that the spiked chain is a purely fantasy weapon, but recently, with all the different information I've gotten out of this thread, I'd like to know if the truth is otherwise. So in short, was the spiked chain ever a real weapon?


I have never heard of it being used...I have seen refences to them in gladatorial combat of the romans but that could well be totaly fluff by the organizers of the event...a showy secondary weapon...etc
There was a real weapon that was like a cross between a chain and a multi-part nunchuck....chinesse...three kingdom period....and the name escapes me but i am sure our East asian experts would be glad to help. Basically a classic flail head -chain link- classic flair head the ending flair head was bigger heavier and the "intended" striking surface but again it strikes me a possibly a martial arts training weapon or a showpiece though i don't actually know. Also it had no spikes and relied on the mass of the spinning metal to crush things like helmets, bones etc.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-29, 11:05 AM
General Response to several posts...

1)Movies:
If it's in a movie, my general feeling is to automatically distrust it. Braveheart is a classic example. The historical details were mangled, although it does give a good impression of how screwed up scottish politics were in that period.

OK kids... Melee weapons do NOT easily slice through limbs. Lopping off arms and legs? Not bloody likely. I had the privilege of watching firsthand some experiements done by SCAdians using various cuts of cow. First, the meat will slow the blade down, and the bone will then, if there's still any force left, usually stop the blade/axehead/etc's momentum. Once again, I must disappoint the Nipponophiles, because even the vaunted katana wouldn't (and wasn't, even in the hands of a actually Keno/Kenjitsu belted practicioner) able to do it.

Executioners were A) using massive weapons like two-handed swords, sharpened and often specifically designed for the job, B) extremely strong men and trained for the job C) aiming at a stationary target and D) still as often as not took a couple of swings or more to finish the job.

2) Flails, Morningstars, Nunchucks, etc...
I... think that differentiating the weapons as done in the PHB is needlessly nitpicking. But I admit that's my personal predjudices and not based on anything else. One aspect of "Hinged" or "flexible" weapons like flails and morningstars is that they are hard to parry. If you try block the chain/rope, the head will keep swinging. However, since standard AD&D rules don't specify specific defence techniques, that's not really a issue. In fact, that's one reason why flails/morning stars/nunchucks are extremely verboten in SCA, because there's a distinct lack of control, ie: next to impossible to stop your blow if the marshalls cry "Hold!" The other reason is that, and this is due to physics (and I lack the background to adequately explain it), the head, swining like that, builds up a momentum/velocity above and beyond that of a "normal" weapon. A drawback of chained/flexible weapons is that, while hard-hitting and hard to parry...is that they are virtually impossible to parry with, and they are slow in use, because of the need to get some speed behind your swing, and "recock", re-ready the weapon after each swing.

LE4dGOLEM
2005-06-29, 11:20 AM
Swinging back a few pages to polearms... how would a glaive-glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaive work?

Peregrine
2005-06-29, 12:11 PM
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Fun/polearms.html

The most convincing discussion of polearms in games versus reality that I've found. (Admittedly, the game in question is Nethack, but whatever.) And it addresses compound names like "glaive-guisarme".

Xick
2005-06-29, 12:55 PM
ecutioners were A) using massive weapons like two-handed swords, sharpened and often specifically designed for the job, B) extremely strong men and trained for the job C) aiming at a stationary target and D) still as often as not took a couple of swings or more to finish the job.

actually they hardly ever lobbed off anything in a single hit. they have but hardly ever do it. the job was never "clean" and they would carry a side knife and saw off the pieces the axe didn't get...

many of these executioners (sp) commited suicide as well. due to the nature of their job.



2) Flails, Morningstars, Nunchucks, etc...
I... think that differentiating the weapons as done in the PHB is needlessly nitpicking. But I admit that's my personal predjudices and not based on anything else. One aspect of "Hinged" or "flexible" weapons like flails and morningstars is that they are hard to parry. If you try block the chain/rope, the head will keep swinging. However, since standard AD&D rules don't specify specific defence techniques, that's not really a issue. In fact, that's one reason why flails/morning stars/nunchucks are extremely verboten in SCA, because there's a distinct lack of control, ie: next to impossible to stop your blow if the marshalls cry "Hold!" The other reason is that, and this is due to physics (and I lack the background to adequately explain it), the head, swining like that, builds up a momentum/velocity above and beyond that of a "normal" weapon. A drawback of chained/flexible weapons is that, while hard-hitting and hard to parry...is that they are virtually impossible to parry with, and they are slow in use, because of the need to get some speed behind your swing, and "recock", re-ready the weapon after each swing.


as a practitioner of kung fu. i have sparred with the ol nunchuck and well most chinese weapons. the nunchuck because it is hinged is a hard weapon to control and many people to my entertainment rack themselves in the balls or head while learning (lord knowsi have) but with a hit to the head the wood gan actually "stick" to flesh and rip it off. it can be a very violent weapon in the right hands.

as a spiked chain goes i've never seen a "spiked" chain but i've been trained in manrikki (sp) its a long chain used in japan that has a large metal "nail" on each end of the chain. this is one of my fav weapons and is used defensivily.

if someone was to thrust at you straight on a flick of your wrist and the chain will roll around the blade or wrist of the attack and grapple it. now you can easily disarm or break an arm or throw or just stand and kick the guy into a deep slumber. this is my fav weapon i own. its used to entangle not to whip out and attack.

and they are NOT slow. haha. the nunchuck is the only one that you would keep moving around you.
and i could pop it from under my shoulder to between your eyes before you blink.

i have accedentally have done this to a friend of mine who walked in front of me as i was getting ready for a competition.

Gamebird
2005-06-29, 02:47 PM
Here's my question: How long can you leave a bow strung before it "goes bad"? I don't have any specific type of bow I'm asking about - I suppose the standard D&D longbow, composite longbow, and crossbows.

A related question: What happens to a bow that is dry fired? (that is, bow is bent back and string is released without an arrow) How does this harm the bow?

Dragon_Rider
2005-06-29, 02:55 PM
If a bow is dry fired, the shaft may shatter because the force of the releasing string is not channleed into the arrow, instead it is forced into the shaft and can cause it too shatter. As for you former question, I have no idea,.

Gordon
2005-06-29, 03:49 PM
actually they hardly ever lobbed off anything in a single hit. they have but hardly ever do it. the job was never "clean" and they would carry a side knife and saw off the pieces the axe didn't get...

Which is why the Guillotine was invented specifically as a merciful and humane device. :)

Dragon_Rider
2005-06-29, 03:55 PM
Although I can imagine that a used Guillotine that someone forgot to sharpen would get stuck rather easily.

Gom_Golagoog
2005-06-29, 04:00 PM
Alright, I have a question, though it's probably pretty stupid. I have always assumed that the spiked chain is a purely fantasy weapon, but recently, with all the different information I've gotten out of this thread, I'd like to know if the truth is otherwise. So in short, was the spiked chain ever a real weapon?
I've certainly heard of bicycle chains being used as weapons in "real life" (i.e. TV and movies). A chain large enough to get reach with sounds like it would be a little hard to control, though.

Gamebird
2005-06-29, 04:18 PM
If a bow is dry fired, the shaft may shatter because the force of the releasing string is not channleed into the arrow, instead it is forced into the shaft and can cause it too shatter. As for you former question, I have no idea,.

What is this "shaft" you speak of? Is it a part of the bow? I'd always heard "shaft" in respect to the arrow, being that the long straight part of the arrow was the shaft, topped by the head and at the bottom with fletching. The dry-firing I was referring to didn't involve an arrow at all. You pull back the string on the bow and then let it go. It goes "twang". Is this a bad thing to do to a bow?

Dragon_Rider
2005-06-29, 04:21 PM
I am not fully educated in the nomenclature of bow parts. What I was referring to as 'shaft' was the wooden (or fiberglass, nowadays) portion fo the bow that you hold in one hand and it bends when you pull back on the string.

And yes, pulling back on the string and letting go without an aroow in the bow is a bad thing to do, you could shatter your bow.

stainboy
2005-06-29, 05:26 PM
I've certainly heard of bicycle chains being used as weapons in "real life" (i.e. TV and movies). A chain large enough to get reach with sounds like it would be a little hard to control, though.

I've seen a smiley (heavy lock on the end of a chain) used in a fight, and they're pretty poor weapons unless you're sure you can get in the first shot and make it count. They're imprecise, and useless without some swinging room (which is dubious in a street fight). Plus they make a really distinctive sound when they're being drawn, which will alert everyone nearby that you're pulling out a weapon. The main advantages to the smiley are ease of concealment and the ability to claim to a cop that it's a bike lock.

I'm guessing the spiked chain came about because of dueling, just like many other silly weapons. If you get challenged to a duel, you get to choose the weapon. If you know how to use a really outlandish weapon, you can choose that and odds are your opponent won't have a clue how to use it.

Sundog
2005-06-30, 04:47 AM
Old style bowstrings were usually made of hemp fibre or horsehair, and in both cases dealt better with impact damage than with long-term stretching. In addition, while a single-wood bow such as a Welsh Longbow, if properly seasoned (a process that took over a year), would hold it's timbre (capacity to spring back to it's original shape) nearly forever, composite bows (those made of multiple materials) were much less forgiving of abuse, and would lose their timbre quite quickly if left strung. It was standard practice to string a bow only when combat or a target was imminant, to protect both the bow, and reduce the chance of a string breakage (which would pretty much guarantee a miss besides putting the bowman out of pocket to buy a new one).

laughingfuzzball
2005-06-30, 06:03 AM
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Fun/polearms.html

The most convincing discussion of polearms in games versus reality that I've found. (Admittedly, the game in question is Nethack, but whatever.) And it addresses compound names like "glaive-guisarme".

It's important to remeber, however, that polearms are notorious for non-standardized nomencature. The same weapon might have a half dozen different names in various regions and time periods, some of which are often shared with one or two completely different weapons.

Chris the Pontifex
2005-06-30, 08:51 AM
I have a question:
how believable are double headed weapons? I mean the double axe / sword, dire flail that kind

edit: oh and some time ago there was a discussion about wooden armor, any thoughts on that? i'd say it'd be rather cumbersome due to neccesary thickness

AtomicKitKat
2005-06-30, 09:16 AM
I have a question:
how believable are double headed weapons? I mean the double axe / sword, dire flail that kind

edit: oh and some time ago there was a discussion about wooden armor, any thoughts on that? i'd say it'd be rather cumbersome due to neccesary thickness

I would say anything "double" where the head wasn't swinging back and forth(ie, dire flail) was entirely possible, just think of them as quarterstaves with "options"(slashing, if axe/sword, and piercing, in the case of the sword. Dire mace is really just a quarterstaff with a bigger head)

Xick
2005-06-30, 09:25 AM
i own a double bladed sword and i actualy have training with it.

http://www.loveleaf.net/ts/image/UC1234.jpg

let me tell you it is harder to use this weapon than my nunchucks, when i first decided to learn this weapon, i treated it like a staff and you can't do that!! i would swing one end and the other would barely miss me and rip open my shirt....

this sucker is sharp to.

but this weapon is very feasible and workable, it is a nice weapon though alot hard to use.

double flails and such i have no idea. i'm pretty sure that is a DND only weapon.

AtomicKitKat
2005-06-30, 10:42 AM
i own a double bladed sword and i actualy have training with it.

http://www.loveleaf.net/ts/image/UC1234.jpg

let me tell you it is harder to use this weapon than my nunchucks, when i first decided to learn this weapon, i treated it like a staff and you can't do that!! i would swing one end and the other would barely miss me and rip open my shirt....

this sucker is sharp to.

but this weapon is very feasible and workable, it is a nice weapon though alot hard to use.

double flails and such i have no idea. i'm pretty sure that is a DND only weapon.

I think you need a wider grip on this(at least, your hands should be wider than shoulder-width apart) in order to use effectively. Personally, I would use a double sword like a spear, then swing the back end for an extra slice.

Priceless_Ming
2005-06-30, 11:06 AM
In seven pages, I didn't see this so here goes.

One last note on Kukris is the unique means of attack.

A right-handed ghurka (sp.) would carry the blade on his left hip. With the sharp edge facing forwards. To implement the weapon a soldier would reach across with the right hand and pull the weapon out in and arc describing a line from left knee to right shoulder. Ideally, a Nazi's jaw intersects with this line, and he'd never need a barber again.

The curved edge isn't so much the impetus for the enhanced critical as is its use as a one-stop head lopper.

Cheers.

Xick
2005-06-30, 11:42 AM
i don't get your post ming.

a curve in a blade is so when your slashing more surface of the cutting area hits and tears at the flesh.

making it a more effective slashing weapon.



I think you need a wider grip on this(at least, your hands should be wider than shoulder-width apart) in order to use effectively. Personally, I would use a double sword like a spear, then swing the back end for an extra slice.


its actually very odd this sword. like i said you can't really use it as a staff. its not something you can twirl around and make look pretty thats for sure.

the desgin allows for you to hide the reach you have with the weapon. and also allow for a qucik parry recover.


my fave sword of all time is the chinese straight sword. this is the one i spend most my time with at my kung fu school. its so light weight and sharp.

slashing swords (katana) can be easily parried and counted with a straight blade. and thrusts are hard to parry. IMO at least.

Premier
2005-06-30, 11:46 AM
but this weapon is very feasible and workable, it is a nice weapon though alot hard to use.

With all due respect to your practice and personal experience, I strongly doubt that this weapon would be very much feasible. In fact, I daresay that in a one-on-one situation against someone wielding a sword - assuming that the sword's blade is about as long as ONE of the blades of this thing, and that both combatants have a similar amount of expertise with their respective weapons - the ordinary sword-wielder would dominate the other in the strong majority of cases. The reason is that one of the two blades is practically wasted in a duel, since it's impossible to point BOTH at the enemy at the same time, while at the same time it DOES dramatically reduce the number of different types of movements you can perform with this weapon.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-06-30, 05:51 PM
as a practitioner of kung fu. i have sparred with the ol nunchuck and well most chinese weapons. the nunchuck because it is hinged is a hard weapon to control and many people to my entertainment rack themselves in the balls or head while learning (lord knowsi have) but with a hit to the head the wood gan actually "stick" to flesh and rip it off. it can be a very violent weapon in the right hands.

as a spiked chain goes i've never seen a "spiked" chain but i've been trained in manrikki (sp) its a long chain used in japan that has a large metal "nail" on each end of the chain. this is one of my fav weapons and is used defensivily.

if someone was to thrust at you straight on a flick of your wrist and the chain will roll around the blade or wrist of the attack and grapple it. now you can easily disarm or break an arm or throw or just stand and kick the guy into a deep slumber. this is my fav weapon i own. its used to entangle not to whip out and attack.

and they are NOT slow. haha. the nunchuck is the only one that you would keep moving around you.
and i could pop it from under my shoulder to between your eyes before you blink.

i.

Good points about the nun-chuk's speed, and I hadn't considerd that when I lumped it in with flails and morning stars. As to the disarm technique, I have heard different things about the ability of that, but I bow to your actually having trained with one.

I do feel, having experimented with various replicas of different sorts, that my claims about hinged/flexible weapons having issues with moving back to what I'll call "ready position" (for a lack of a better way to describe it) is accurate. Once the blow is sent, it's hard to control it if your opponent is fast enough to dodge or move. You can't exactly turn a "swing" into a "thrust" if they move back (I wish I could express this better, but I can't figure out how to wxpress it, save that the chain/rope doesn't work well if no tension speed is behind it).

AtomicKitKat
2005-06-30, 07:57 PM
I think the main idea behind the nunchukus are that they can build up a constant speed(IIRC, the modern designs use an "open" connection, for want of a better word, between the chain and head, whereby you can keep spinning the "free" head and the chain will not tighten to the point of stopping), allowing you to hit the opponent, then quickly resume whirling, whereas a flail/morningstar has to build the arc again.

sktarq
2005-06-30, 11:48 PM
i don't get your post ming.

a curve in a blade is so when your slashing more surface of the cutting area hits and tears at the flesh.

making it a more effective slashing weapon.


What you say here is true for ouside edge blades....the kukri and related weapons like the falcata, rhompia, kora, and kopis etc also mentioned were all blades that were sharped on the INSIDE edge of the curve....these blades use the curve of the blade to add power and force to the cut...they are in many ways more closely related to axes in terms of the way they harm the target.....These blades are primaraily "choppers" not "slashers".

As for other double headed weapons besides the double ended swords already covered.....i have seen description of a double mace but I think that one was purely to the enhance decor of someone's house. Other than that I do not know of any that were actually used.....many polearms did have a metal base to thier "stubby" ends that were used if everything went south and formations broke up....also useful in halberd duels and kept the weapon in both better repair and better balance.

Sundog
2005-07-01, 02:19 AM
The dual hammer was a weapon with some degree of popularity among the Welsh prior to the English-Welsh unification. It proved excellent for smashing a knight out of the saddle, destroying shields and punishing anyone wearing constricting armour. It was primarily used in a spinning motion, similar to french staff-fighting techniques.

Unfortunately, post-unification it fell out of favour, not being something a welshman could hide, after all...

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-01, 02:34 AM
In general, historically, double weapons were not considiered feasible both for the difficulty of their use, and for balance and reach issues.

I know there have been a few double-bladed Japanese swords, but these were made as temple offerings, not weapons. I have also heard of various Chinese martial arts using them, but with exersize, form, and sometimes philisophical concepts in mind, not combat.

There were a great deal of polearmes designed with multiple striking surfaces, but the ide was to give the fighter options, not allow him to strike with two of them simultaniously. The one most people are familiar with is a style of halbard with an axe-like head, a spike to the reverse, and another on the top. This allows it to be used similarly to a pollaxe, spear, or 'spiked hammer' depending on the circumstances, though adding to the weight of the head of the weapon.

Sir_Banjo
2005-07-01, 07:25 AM
Which unit was better, the later-era phalanx or the roman century.

From my own knowledge, it seems that the phalanx was a cav. killer but the roman century could kill infantry much better.

To keep it on topic I'll try to be more specific; was the pike a better weapon than the gladius/pilum and shield?

Sir_Banjo
2005-07-01, 07:29 AM
Oh, and how widespread was the use of the greatsword. Could it be used from horseback, I once had a character who did this and looking back on it, it seems pretty silly.

Sir_Banjo
2005-07-01, 08:10 AM
Oh, and what's the deal with Mercurial weapons in the Arms and Equipment guide. I think it's pretty clear that they have no historical basis, but could you make an effective weapon out of this concept?

Premier
2005-07-01, 09:28 AM
Which unit was better, the later-era phalanx or the roman century.

[...]

To keep it on topic I'll try to be more specific; was the pike a better weapon than the gladius/pilum and shield?

The answer to both your questions is: It depends. Weaponry and armor (on a personal scale), as well as formations and tactics (on a larger scale) were always developed to achieve a specific purpose in a specific historical, strategical and technological environment.

The phalanx was developed to be the best type of formation and armament against the enemies that the users of the phalanx would encounter in their time and place. Similarly, the Roman legion was developed to be optimal against the sorts of enemies the Romans would likely come up against.

You can't just take them out of their historical contexts and pretend that one of them could be objectively and generally 'better'. In one situation, the legion would be better, in another, the phalanx. And the same goes for weapons and armor - what works best depends on what you're up against.

It's just like asking whether a spade or a screwdriver is the better working tool. Depends on what you want to use 'em for.

Xick
2005-07-01, 09:55 AM
With all due respect to your practice and personal experience, I strongly doubt that this weapon would be very much feasible. In fact, I daresay that in a one-on-one situation against someone wielding a sword - assuming that the sword's blade is about as long as ONE of the blades of this thing, and that both combatants have a similar amount of expertise with their respective weapons - the ordinary sword-wielder would dominate the other in the strong majority of cases. The reason is that one of the two blades is practically wasted in a duel, since it's impossible to point BOTH at the enemy at the same time, while at the same time it DOES dramatically reduce the number of different types of movements you can perform with this weapon.


the only hard part other than any other sword is that it has a blade on the back end and it can cut you. thats the only thing.

i own alot of swords and my friends are constantly playing with them (most arent sharp i only own 3 sharp swords out of maybe 15)

once you have trained with the double sword when someone swings and you use an umbrella block with the DS it catchs your oppenets sword you can then step in parry and attack.

you only need one sharp end to stab someone.

you can also hide movements with it. it is feasible i've seen it used to good effect.

on another note there are some really weird chinese weapons out their that i don't know the history behind.

the flame rings, the whip and nail, three sectioned staff. and such.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-01, 10:26 AM
The answer to both your questions is: It depends. Weaponry and armor (on a personal scale), as well as formations and tactics (on a larger scale) were always developed to achieve a specific purpose in a specific historical, strategical and technological environment.

...

You can't just take them out of their historical contexts and pretend that one of them could be objectively and generally 'better'. In one situation, the legion would be better, in another, the phalanx. And the same goes for weapons and armor - what works best depends on what you're up against.

It's just like asking whether a spade or a screwdriver is the better working tool. Depends on what you want to use 'em for.
Here, here! ::Applauds:: For the most part, Premier is dead on. The only time I'd disagree is when you're looking at the development of a single type of weapon over time - a flintlock is pretty clearly objectively better than a matchlock, for example. But other than those few cases, he's dead on ;D

Comrade Gorby: Oh, and Sir Banjo - raather than post each new question in a seperate post, please hit Edit on the first post, k? ;)

Premier
2005-07-01, 10:58 AM
the only hard part other than any other sword is that it has a blade on the back end and it can cut you. thats the only thing.

Yup. And that means you can't use ANY position or movement that would involve pointing a normal sword straight away from you, because with this double-sword that would mean cutting yourself with the other blade. And that means a LOT of positions which your enemy wil be able to use while you won't.


you only need one sharp end to stab someone.
Exactly. Then why have a second, redundant one, which limits your free movement of the weapon?


you can also hide movements with it. it is feasible i've seen it used to good effect.

This might be useful between two untrained combatants. A TRAINED one, however, will have a very clear idea of what movements you might or might not be able to come up with next, nevertheless.


And perhaps the single most damning argument against these things:

If a double-bladed sword really WAS better than single-bladed ones, then why isn't the overwhelming majority of historical swords double-bladed? The entire human race from the beginning of metalworking up till the 20th century can't be all collectively wrong.


PS:
Here, here! ::Applauds::

Thanks for the appreciation, but it's "Hear, hear!" ;D
I hate it when people get that wrong.

Xick
2005-07-01, 11:06 AM
look i'm not saying its better than anything.

its obviously harder to get down.

its just that you can weild it and extend the reach of the swod and the extra long hilt helps parry thrusts. and thrusts are hard to parry acuratly cause the speed and angle.

i just have it for entertainment value, i prefer the straight sword over anything.

the second blade doesn't limit the the sword. its just a differant weapon. don't even consider it a sword then. it has its advantages and its disadvantages just like a normal sword.

again i'm not saying its better than anything i'm just saying its functional.

i have 4 gold medals in sword sparring i know what it takes to fight with a sword.


anyway moving on please. sorry i awnsered someones post about double balded weapons and awnsered with hey i own one and its sorta fun reply.

didn't mean to offend anyone.

Chris the Pontifex
2005-07-01, 01:14 PM
And perhaps the single most damning argument against these things:

If a double-bladed sword really WAS better than single-bladed ones, then why isn't the overwhelming majority of historical swords double-bladed? The entire human race from the beginning of metalworking up till the 20th century can't be all collectively wrong.


for the same reason fighting with two swords was not very common, though this was used occasionally: it takes a lot a practice and has a dex-requirement :D

new Q: how possible is it to have more then one attack with any non-light weapon in one round (6 seconds)?

AtomicKitKat
2005-07-01, 01:39 PM
Oh, and what's the deal with Mercurial weapons in the Arms and Equipment guide. I think it's pretty clear that they have no historical basis, but could you make an effective weapon out of this concept?

I have marbles, I have toy swords(might be broken, I could buy new ones for like US$0.50 a pair though. They're basically a daisho, hollow white plastic.), and a fake executioner's axe I bought from a joke/costume shop. I could probably make a reasonable fascimile of a mercurial weapon.

Premier
2005-07-01, 02:01 PM
for the same reason fighting with two swords was not very common, though this was used occasionally: it takes a lot a practice and has a dex-requirement :D

This theory falls flat for the following reason: If using two swords (and/or a two-bladed sword) was generally better than using an ordinary sword, then people who COULD do so would never go back to "weaker" ordinary swords. However, we have historical proof that it wasn't so, in the person of Japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi. Musashi has developed a technique for fighting with a katana and a wakizashi held one in each hand, but nevertheless, whenever he had to fight another swordsman with a similar degree of expertise, he would ALWAYS resort to the traditional style of one single katana. Why? Because the dual-wielding style, while it might have had some advantages in fighting a larger number of untrained rabble, was nevertheless inferior to a single sword in combat between two fighters of equal skill.

AtomicKitKat
2005-07-01, 02:27 PM
This theory falls flat for the following reason: If using two swords (and/or a two-bladed sword) was generally better than using an ordinary sword, then people who COULD do so would never go back to "weaker" ordinary swords. However, we have historical proof that it wasn't so, in the person of Japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi. Musashi has developed a technique for fighting with a katana and a wakizashi held one in each hand, but nevertheless, whenever he had to fight another swordsman with a similar degree of expertise, he would ALWAYS resort to the traditional style of one single katana. Why? Because the dual-wielding style, while it might have had some advantages in fighting a larger number of untrained rabble, was nevertheless inferior to a single sword in combat between two fighters of equal skill.


Personally, I think it's more because that was his "root" style, so he is much more familiar with it, and two-weapon fighting, while good for parrying, is incredibly difficult to execute offensively, because of the need to concentrate on both hands at the same time. A two-blade sword should not, as I have pointed out, be treated as two separate weapons, but rather as a more fluid "whole". To treat it as 2 weapons, is to fail before you even try.

Chris the Pontifex
2005-07-01, 02:52 PM
Personally, I think it's more because that was his "root" style, so he is much more familiar with it, and two-weapon fighting, while good for parrying, is incredibly difficult to execute offensively, because of the need to concentrate on both hands at the same time. A two-blade sword should not, as I have pointed out, be treated as two separate weapons, but rather as a more fluid "whole". To treat it as 2 weapons, is to fail before you even try.

all the arguments aside, i could image a quarterstaff wielder using both ends very well. so why not with two sharp ends?

ps: i'm not trying to make a point, just hearing everyone out

MrNexx
2005-07-01, 03:15 PM
Which unit was better, the later-era phalanx or the roman century.

The century, because it was going to be a lot bigger than most phalanx's could dream of being.

In a sense, this is an invalid question; the Roman footsoldier, while the primary component of Rome's army, was not the only part. The standard Roman soldier would've worked with cavalry, engineers, and auxillary units as effectively as their commander could use them. Very often, in places where the phalanx was the height of military tactics, that was their primary form of attack and defense; they didn't have the coordinated, semi-professional (depending on era) armies of the Romans, but citizen-soldiers.


To keep it on topic I'll try to be more specific; was the pike a better weapon than the gladius/pilum and shield?

For what purpose? The pike is very effective at what its designed to do... kill horses, and keep people away from the weilder, when the weilder has a bunch of friends around. The pilum/scutum/gladius combination was part of integrated tactics, not just one weapon out of an army.

AtomicKitKat
2005-07-01, 03:32 PM
all the arguments aside, i could image a quarterstaff wielder using both ends very well. so why not with two sharp ends?

ps: i'm not trying to make a point, just hearing everyone out

I think you're misunderstanding me. At the end of the day, no matter how many times you whack with either end of the quarterstaff, you can only ever hit once per "attack"(swing), while a person with 2 daggers can get off 2 hits per "attack"(simultaneous stabs) Same thing with the double-ended sword. You don't go swinging it around in an arc through your body. You clutch it like a spear, thrusting with one end, swinging the back-end out to the front for an unexpected flank shot when an opportunity presents itself, or keep the whole balanced in front, like a quarterstaff, prepared to slice an arm(or ear) off after turning the opponent's weapon aside. It does require some sophistication. Unlike Xick, I don't have any metal swords in my home, but I do have a clothes fork(it's like a miniature pitchfork about 5 feet in length, we use it to hang clothes on overhead rails), and more than once, I almost carved out my own kidneys trying to twirl it around. The two tactics I mentioned above have thus far been the most effective(in the sense of not cutting yourself with your own weapon) that I have found for using it. Trying to treat it as two weapons rather than a single one with many options(a "Swiss Army Knife" if you will), you will find it difficult to master(think Darth Maul, and what happened to him for all his fancy twirling)

Gamebird
2005-07-01, 04:01 PM
This theory falls flat for the following reason: If using two swords (and/or a two-bladed sword) was generally better ...

Well, yeah, but Xick didn't say it was better. He said it was feasible to use it as a weapon, which was the initial question. D&D doesn't grant the different weapons any bonuses for ease of use and general efficiency. A two-bladed weapon is perhaps a +5 DC weapon to use compared to a simple one-bladed sword, but it can still be used.

Shiyuan
2005-07-01, 04:13 PM
I think you're misunderstanding me. At the end of the day, no matter how many times you whack with either end of the quarterstaff, you can only ever hit once per "attack"(swing), while a person with 2 daggers can get off 2 hits per "attack"(simultaneous stabs) Same thing with the double-ended sword. You don't go swinging it around in an arc through your body. You clutch it like a spear, thrusting with one end, swinging the back-end out to the front for an unexpected flank shot when an opportunity presents itself, or keep the whole balanced in front, like a quarterstaff, prepared to slice an arm(or ear) off after turning the opponent's weapon aside. It does require some sophistication. Unlike Xick, I don't have any metal swords in my home, but I do have a clothes fork(it's like a miniature pitchfork about 5 feet in length, we use it to hang clothes on overhead rails), and more than once, I almost carved out my own kidneys trying to twirl it around. The two tactics I mentioned above have thus far been the most effective(in the sense of not cutting yourself with your own weapon) that I have found for using it. Trying to treat it as two weapons rather than a single one with many options(a "Swiss Army Knife" if you will), you will find it difficult to master(think Darth Maul, and what happened to him for all his fancy twirling)


Indeed. However let me make the following things clear:

1) Quarterstaves in European countries traditionally wielded it as a single-ended weapon, like a spear. Tripping and quick pool-cue like thrusts were the order of the day. Same goes for many Asian styles, it just so happens the double-ended style gets overkill in movies. Actually a small minority in actual martial arts.

2) Twirling is bad, but if you know how to do it, and your opponent is a novice, you can mess with him pretty bad. With a trained master or even journeyman fighter, the twirling doesn't do much at all.

3) Don't be so quick to damn Darth Maul because of his twirling. Obi-Wan also twirled his blade a bit in that fight, if you watch it again. Also, Darth Maul actually had Obi-Wan beat in terms of pure swordsmanship. It was Obi-Wan's perserverence and Darth Maul's arrogance and sadism in relishing in Obi-Wan's defeat both combined that led to Darth Maul's death.

@ Xick

Four gold medals? Interesting, what tourneys have you participated in? I'm rather curious, as I've never personally participated in a tourney myself, due to money and time issues, but my friends have. Are there many rules and restrictions as to what you can do? I remember my friend Rich, who won a shin-ken tournament, still got beat by our other friend, Josh when they went full speed with our custom padded-dull weapons. It seemed a severe lack of experience with "dirty-fighting" on the part of Rich, as he called it, had been his downfall. He still doesn't consider our "any hit is allowed" fighting methods fair, but to us, it's been part and parcel of our weapons training and sparring since childhood.

Also, I have a question later about your gong fu background. As of now we need more representatives of different styles. We currently have:

Rich is our jujutsu/boxing mixed fighter who specializes in Ten Ryu ("Heavenly Way") kenjutsu;

Josh is our Penjak Silat/Pekiti-Tirsia Kali/Wing Chun/Boxing (sounds like a god doesn't he? but we find nasty ways to deal with his antics) mixed fighter who prefers to using double escrima rattan fighting sticks;

Kevin, who is the closest thing to a pure fighter in the English tradition of boxing and Cornish Wrestling (no weapon, he doesn't participate in our weapons bouts);

Dave, our Army Airborne buddy with an obsession (and long training) with Liu Ho Ba Fa (thinks it can beat anything, HAH!) and uses the Three-section staff from that style (PAAAIN, SO MUCH PAAAIN);

Dez, our loveable bulldog of a Pancrase fighter (no weapons needed, he's scary enough without them);

Me, the extremely lackadaisical mixed Aikido/Boxing/Jujutsu/Greco-Roman Wrestling fighter with a hybrid sword style based off of Shinkage Ryu (essentially, no set stance or form, completely reactionary, fits my laziness) kenjutsu, English broad sword(I was young and enthuiastic, once...), Chinese jian, French fencing and Italian rapier.

Also, on your double-ended weapon defense, I'll agree it's "feasible" in terms of making it work, but for different reasons. A double-ended weapon is not to be treated as a "Swiss Army Knife" as AtomicKitkat put it. It is a weapon meant to give a fighting chance for its wielder against multiple opponents. In a one on one fight, the swing back and riposte speed of a double-ended weapon is no more useful than a single-ended weapon such as a rapier. However, in a fight where you may be flanked, not having to fully redirect your wrist can come in handy. ;D

Your parrying trick, as you have described it, would be very easily foiled by an experienced fencer or a Chinese jian stylist, who would simply disengage and time-thrust at either of your hands while your bringing the other end to bear. Very nasty wound that would be. You never want to give a fencer more than one open point of vulnerability, they'll capitalize on it. And two hands gripping a single weapon with the blades flaring out to the sides provides just one too many vulnerabilities. :P

Now, what school of gong fu (not kung fu, that's a mispronounciation that always strikes me as odd among some martial artists) are you speaking of? Liu Ho Ba Fa? (Please don't be, Dave is already annoying enough as is) Ba Gua? Shing Yi? Hung Ga? There are at least a hundred of different, unique and authentic Chinese "gong fu" styles. We Chinese only refer to gong fu as a measure of skill or talent, in ANYTHING (cooking even), rather than the erroneous catch-all term for Chinese martial arts that someone some how started. Gong Fu, or kung fu, is a pop-culture term these days. What school of swordsmanship do you learn from also?

You have gone and made me all hungry for info, and where do you live? Me and my buddies might want to do some full-speed spar with you. ;D You can try out our padded-dull blades! They don't hurt... that much... :-X :P Oh and yea, if you want padding or some sort of protective gear while we spar, you'd have to bring your own and some for us, cuz we don't use any... we're too cheap, and our skins have become rather thick. :P Waiting for your response!

Xick
2005-07-01, 04:17 PM
i compete locally as well as nationally in sparring sword sparring staff sparring ground fighting and forms.

i suck at forms :(

but yeah it depends on what my school is doing at the time and where i compete. i have a few trophies but mainly medals

i as soon as i get my camera phone back i will post pics of them .

i spar using the chinese straight sword (best sword ever IMO no flamming its just alot of fun and really...er...pretty to use : )

move on from the double sword comment. lol

Chris the Pontifex
2005-07-01, 04:31 PM
ohmy, bows to the display of swordsmanship present on this forum.

i only did some (about 5 years) french fencing floret, i really need to pick that up again think i'd do sabre then, the slashing brings so much more dimension.

anyway its very much bound to rules, in floret there's this rule that you can't score if you have been parryed during the attack. plus you can only strike at the torso
rapier doesnt have those rules and its just be-first strike-first, foot being a major weakness here.

then there is sabre which adds on the floret rules with striking on the head and neck and with the side of the weapon

anyway, it focusses mainly on speed, finesse and parrying. parade-ghostriposte-riposte would be my favorite move.

what i was getting at: how does this compare to the chinese styles? and does this resemble anything but sporting duels?

Xick
2005-07-01, 04:43 PM
fencing is awesome i've had only a year (took it for a PE class in school back in the day) but i have a good friend who competes alot and is in his 6th year. he is AMAZING to watch

the fencing sword is so light weight and ...pointy,

i love it, it was alot of fun back in the day.

Chris the Pontifex
2005-07-01, 04:56 PM
i spectated at a worldcup final ones, didnt even see the guys move; it was like *snap* and in the replay there where three parry's and a point.
this makes me believe multiple attacks are possible. with a rapier / floret / sabre or other finesse weapon.

but a greatsword?

Shiyuan
2005-07-01, 05:03 PM
ohmy, bows to the display of swordsmanship present on this forum.

i only did some (about 5 years) french fencing floret, i really need to pick that up again think i'd do sabre then, the slashing brings so much more dimension.

anyway its very much bound to rules, in floret there's this rule that you can't score if you have been parryed during the attack. plus you can only strike at the torso
rapier doesnt have those rules and its just be-first strike-first, foot being a major weakness here.

then there is sabre which adds on the floret rules with striking on the head and neck and with the side of the weapon

anyway, it focusses mainly on speed, finesse and parrying. parade-ghostriposte-riposte would be my favorite move.

what i was getting at: how does this compare to the chinese styles? and does this resemble anything but sporting duels?

Chinese jian styles (what Xick calls a Chinese straight sword), are similar depending on the time period.

Earlier (from around Tang Dynasty and back) jian styles were heavy on forward-movement, long slashes and power thrusts. Think of it as English broadsword fighting. (which is surprisingly spry and agile)

Later (After Tang Dynasty and onwards) jian styles became even more finessable. The best way to describe this period is comparing it to late Italian rapier schools, where quick, wrist powered cuts are employed alongside smooth, darting thrusts are the order of the day. However, with the Chinese, the emphasis was more on the cut and slash for the majority of the duel, relying on angles and lightning quick feints.

Generally, the thrust in Chinese jian was normally used as the finishing move, per se, where a Chinese jian stylist typically would start switching to thrusts on an opponent he thinks he has sufficiently wore down to end the fight. The logic behind this is: a fresh opponent can move back or away from a thrusting sword with greater ease than one who is bleeding and exhausted. Not to mention a tired fighter would probably try to parry the incoming blade (bad move with a finesse blade) first, to conserve energy, and also probably not be quick enough on the retreat or evade if his parry fails.

Shiyuan
2005-07-01, 05:20 PM
WHOOPS! DOUBLE-POSTED! SORRY!


i spectated at a worldcup final ones, didnt even see the guys move; it was like *snap* and in the replay there where three parry's and a point.
this makes me believe multiple attacks are possible. with a rapier / floret / sabre or other finesse weapon.

but a greatsword?

You keep giving me fun questions to answer!

Funny enough, European greatsword styles are actually few and far between: German zweihander styles, Irish gallowglass techniques, and Scottish claidheamh da laimh ("two handed sword", claymore, or "claidh mohr" is the wrong name) fighting.

And what makes it even more entertaining is the following fact:

Greatswords aren't slashing weapons.

YEAP, they aren't. They're thrusting weapons. I kid thee not. After researching medieval fighting manuals, and watching a documentary on the subject on the History Channel once, I've discovered that the greatsword was typically employed in two distinct methods:

1) Short spear method - where a fighter using the greatsword would have one hand grip the handle, and another grip the lower third of the sword blade, where tradtionally it is dulled. This manner of grip allowed a greatsword fighter to gain extraordinary leverage in blade binds (when two opponents' swords crossed or otherwise made continuous contact), and gave a greatsword fighter a versatility in strikes. He could thrust his sharpened portion of his sword quickly at his opponent like a spear, and then side-swipe with his same grip with equal proficiency, using the cutting edge of the upper two-thirds to ward away any other attackers. Also, it became rather easy to parry weapons when employed in this method, as the grip is very similar to how one holds a jo staff (Japanese short staff). In this manner of use, one can inflict many quick thrusts on an opponent (so, multiple attacks). But not so with the more popularly (and erroneously) depicted method of two-hander use, where the warrior swings his blade about.

2) Horse-killer method - where a particularly brutal warrior would actually swing his greatsword as a powerful cutting/bludgeoning (some Scottish claidheamh da laimh had dulled edges all the way up the blade) weapon against a horseman or just a horse. The Scots employed this method, as did the Irish Gallowglasses, the most against English cavalry. Very brutal and devastating in its purpose (killing the horse to unhorse the horsemen, killing the horseman by cutting him off his horse as he rode by, or just killing both of them outright if you're strong enough), but actually renders the greatswordsman almost helpless against another foot warrior armed with any weapon smaller or quicker than the two-hander. After one full swing, the two-hander warrior is left painfully open to any warrior quick enough to rush in and inflict stabbity death on him. The Highland Scots who wielded two-handers in this manner often would drop the sword after doing its necessary purpose and resort to axe and dagger. Highland Scots were an odd bunch, since they didn't rely on horses, they felt no compunction on using their ridiculously large swords to kill enemy horses, and then would drop the huge thing to pull out two rather smallish weapons... the extremes are amusing indeed. ;D

Fhaolan
2005-07-01, 06:36 PM
I've had a little personal experience with greatswords, although I would never describe myself as being a master.

The Short-Spear method described by Shiyuan is what my trainer called 'Half-Sword' fighting. The greatsword moves VERY fast using this technique, and you get a lot of leverage by having your hands that far apart on the weapon. According to historical fight-books, this was very common, even the prefered method.

The second method described by Shiyuan is also accurate, as far as I could discover, but not very common.

There is a third purpose for their use, however, in mass troup tactics. A pike formation might have serveral people armed with greatswords, bills, or halberds depending on the country of origin. They were used to disrupt opposing pike formations. Supposedly the greatswords were used to chop the heads off of pikes by lone lunatics running ahead of their own pike formation. I've tried this with a greatsword and a pike, and would be very surprised if this actually worked. The only way I was able to cleave the pike shaft left a very sharp point of wood, which I guess is better than having the iron point, but still. I can envision a different method, similar to what the bills and halberds would do. When two pike formations are pushing against each other, the greatsword wielders would go under the pikes (perhaps using the hilt or the secondary projecting spikes of a zweihander, to lever up the opposing pikes), and then using the not inconsiderable length of the greatsword to strike at the weilders of the pikes, breaking up the formation.

[EDITED BIT]

Oh, and backing up the thread a bit, I might as well put my 2 cents in about double weapons. I have a friend who has a double-ended bec du corbin. He uses it very well, but he's put a lot of effort into learning how to move it effectively. (In D&D terms, I would say he picked up an Exotic Weapon feat. :) )

Double-ended weapons can be effective, but they would be more expensive that the single weapons they are combining. And they take far more training to use effectively, because you *cannot* use them like you would the single weapons. They move completely differently, have different advantages and disadvantages. They are unique weapons in and of their own right.

Now, flail-combined weapons. Nobody I know has ever tried to build one of these things to experiment with their use. Theoretically, I can't see it working. You could use the flail end, maybe. And you could use the other end, maybe, if you held the flail end solid so it didn't actually... flail around. But as a combined weapon? You're just looking to hurt yourself. However, I have seen a martial-art weapon with a kama (sp?) with a weighted chain on the end. The chain is very long, however, allowing the chain to be used as a weapon in one hand, and the kama-end in the other hand. I think this is the only way this kind of weapon can actually work, but I'm willing to watch someone else try it. ;D

sktarq
2005-07-01, 10:35 PM
There is a third purpose for their use, however, in mass troup tactics. A pike formation might have serveral people armed with greatswords, bills, or halberds depending on the country of origin. They were used to disrupt opposing pike formations. Supposedly the greatswords were used to chop the heads off of pikes by lone lunatics running ahead of their own pike formation. I've tried this with a greatsword and a pike, and would be very surprised if this actually worked. The only way I was able to cleave the pike shaft left a very sharp point of wood, which I guess is better than having the iron point, but still. I can envision a different method, similar to what the bills and halberds would do. When two pike formations are pushing against each other, the greatsword wielders would go under the pikes (perhaps using the hilt or the secondary projecting spikes of a zweihander, to lever up the opposing pikes), and then using the not inconsiderable length of the greatsword to strike at the weilders of the pikes, breaking up the formation.


I have seen this working but not by breaking the pikes themselves but pushing them around allot and creating openings for the pikeman unit they were attached to.

Question....what were the forces that led to the sword+buckler armies which i can seem to find much actually on.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-01, 11:10 PM
The sword/buckler combination came about early in the days of firearms, IIRC. As guns got better, armor that actually protected you was so heavy it was essentially limited to your chest, so lighter weapons - like the sword - became popular again. However, melee weapons were still very common at this stage, so having access to some kind of protection for other body parts was good - hence the shield. It should be remembered that a proper buckler was actually a fairly large shield. With a buckler, you could put the armor in the best position for that moment, without weighing oneself down excessively. Moreover, the shield/sword combination was well liked because of its flexibility. One common tactic was to sweep the shield up and out when attacked, pushing the opposing weapon aside, and hopefully leaving the opponent open for a sword strike. Also, most shield/sword styles would use the shield as much to block the opponents view of what you were doing as to ward off his blow - a sword strike could come from anywhere behind a shield, and almost without warning.

Regardless, this particular outfitting style was favored mostly by small groups of soldiers that traveled light, and were supported by other weapons and troops.

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-01, 11:46 PM
The sword and buckler styles actually as a method of training in the use of larger shields, and saw use in tournaments. It wasn't, however, used much for full-bown combat.They saw limited use for self-defense off and on throughout their existance, iirc.

AtomicKitKat
2005-07-02, 12:39 AM
However, I have seen a martial-art weapon with a kama (sp?) with a weighted chain on the end. The chain is very long, however, allowing the chain to be used as a weapon in one hand, and the kama-end in the other hand. I think this is the only way this kind of weapon can actually work, but I'm willing to watch someone else try it. ;D

That, would be the kusari-gama.

Furanku_S
2005-07-02, 12:51 PM
A question that popped into my head while playing Final Fantasy...

What was the biggest sword ever made for actual use (IE not just some ritual thing, but for combat purposes)?

Drudwyn
2005-07-02, 05:45 PM
How about armor and weaponry in CA 15th century central Mexico? You'd have the Aztecs, smaller tribes like the Alcohuans, the Tarasco empire in the South along the Pacific coast, some remaining Mayan influence from the South east, and remnants of the Toltecs and Chichimecas.

As far as I can tell, most tribes used a combination of serrated sometimes hooked stone knives, spears, Atlatls, short bows, and especially a weapon, called the maquahuitl, which was essentially a large, flat club, something like an enlarged fraternity paddle, but with a row of sharpened stone blades on both sides--wielded one or two-handed. Armor consisted of cotton padding and a round wooden shield. I've been thinking of launching a campaign which catapults a group of reg. 1st-level adventurers into the political chaos of 15th/early 16th-century Mexico, just before Cortez, and I'm trying to figure out how to stack indegenous technology against a typical 1st-lvl party. I could especially use help with the Atlatl and Maquahuitl--I'm not sure what tactics would be used for them and what might be their equivalent.

Any suggestions? Anyone ever wielded some of these weaps? Is cotton padding analogous at all to leather armor?

Furanku_S
2005-07-02, 06:42 PM
Actually, I've seen some footage of tests done with the maquahuitl against a side of beef, and the maqua DEFINITELY won; one of those things could probably cut a person in half if they weren't stopped by the bone. However, another portion of these tests had a maquahuitl go up against a sword of the type used by the conquistadors. When the maquahuitl was parried by the sword, it was pretty badly jarred and some of the blades were knocked loose. When the sword was parried by the maquahuitl, the thing basically exploded into splinters.

Another important thing to note was that a lot of Aztec (I'm using that as a catch-all) weapons were designed to incapacitate the enemy, not kill them outright. They had plenty of uses for prisoners...

sktarq
2005-07-02, 08:35 PM
A question that popped into my head while playing Final Fantasy...

What was the biggest sword ever made for actual use (IE not just some ritual thing, but for combat purposes)?
I have not actually heard of the Fullblade being used in actuall combat so it would a toss up with claymore (length of blade above the quillions), Zwihander (total length), and the Japanesse greatsword (not my area and i believe called the No-Dachi and used for horse leg chopping-after which you dropped it and used a regual sword or yari)

Sundog
2005-07-02, 09:23 PM
The largest sword used in battle was that used by Northern Indian knights in the medieval period. It was between ten and twelve feet long, and was used as both sword and lance.

It seems almost unbelievable that this thing could actually be used on the ground, but some fairly reliable historical documents indicate that it was indeed so used. It must be remebered that the concept of heroic personal combat in battle remained for a long time in India, with battles often becoming a series of duels, so presumably this was between two similarly equipped people.

The heaviest hand weapon I know of is the Grand Maul, a sixty pound ball of steel on the end of a ten foot steel pole. However, this was as much a siege tool as a weapon, and probably not used much in open battle.

Sir_Banjo
2005-07-03, 11:25 PM
Hey guys, check this out:
It's a book called Paradoxes of Defence, by George Silver(1599).

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html

Found this book on the net awhile ago. I've read it, but not having any experience with weapons, I found it a little hard to read when combined with the antiquated language. From memory, this fellow describes the shortsword+buckler and poleaxe as the best weapons to use on the field or in a duel. He has a low opinion of the rapier his argument being that the fancy moves were equally likely to kill the user as the other guy, but that may just be that he doesn't seem to like Italians. Shiyuan said there were surprisingly few two-hander techniques in Europe. If this book is anything to go by, the single paragraph Silver devotes to these weapons confirms this.

So anyway, is this guy the real deal?

Death_McMuffin
2005-07-04, 12:07 AM
From memory, this fellow describes the shortsword+buckler and poleaxe as the best weapons to use on the field or in a duel. He has a low opinion of the rapier his argument being that the fancy moves were equally likely to kill the user as the other guy, but that may just be that he doesn't seem to like Italians. Shiyuan said there were surprisingly few two-hander techniques in Europe. If this book is anything to go by, the single paragraph Silver devotes to these weapons confirms this.

So anyway, is this guy the real deal?


Um, the rapier was not meant to be used in fancy ways. It was just meant to be swift and graceful, which is why they were so pupular in duels. Rapiers would not be overly common in that time period though. This writer is probably legit but would be considered an old diehard if it were published later.

Does Europe include England? Then we get the Scottish claymores!

sktarq
2005-07-04, 12:25 AM
Well there were three major european greatsword schools that i can think of (Irish, Scotish, and German) why would that be "surprizingly uncommon"?
And rapiers were also very popular in duels because with the advent of firearms armor had been largely dropped, and remember many duels were fought to first blood which means speed of attack is everything.
Finally the point of a rapier is a very dangerous thing, it is much easier to direct a rapier to a critical area and it has a habit of ripping up inards if it penetrates the body wall (this latter effect became the lethal basis for the foil, and epee of modern fencing which can be extremly dangerous if the point caps are removed)

Fhaolan
2005-07-04, 12:22 PM
Hey guys, check this out:
It's a book called Paradoxes of Defence, by George Silver(1599).

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html

So anyway, is this guy the real deal?

Silver is in fact 'real'. However, he is also one of the later-period masters and was writing to offset what was the trend of the time, which was emphasing fancy-dancy maneuvers, reposte and remise, dancing around to impress the ladies, etc. His techniques are brutal, straight-forward and have one purpose: Killing your opponent. From what I have experienced trying to learn from his manuals, he believed if a fight went beyond two blows, neither of the fighters are serious and should go back to playing with toys.

Also, remember that the term 'rapier' has a slightly different meaning now than way-back-when. There were rapiers six feet long or more (prior to Queen Elizabeth I making all her courtiers snap them off at a one and one quarter yard because she was fed up with tripping over the stupid things). Rapier meant any sword designed to be used by a civilian.

Chris the Pontifex
2005-07-04, 01:52 PM
Finally the point of a rapier is a very dangerous thing, it is much easier to direct a rapier to a critical area and it has a habit of ripping up inards if it penetrates the body wall(this latter effect became the lethal basis for the foil, and epee of modern fencing which can be extremly dangerous if the point caps are removed)
i dont believe the blades in modern fencing are sharpened underneath those caps.
and the blunt points used in electronically scored fencing (lol, "electrified fencing") (where a light goes up if you hit your opponent) are (if decent padding is worn) no more dangerous then an arrow without a head.



Also, remember that the term 'rapier' has a slightly different meaning now than way-back-when. There were rapiers six feet long or more (prior to Queen Elizabeth I making all her courtiers snap them off at a one and one quarter yard because she was fed up with tripping over the stupid things). Rapier meant any sword designed to be used by a civilian.

6 feet ??!?! how do you wield such a monstrousity?

Premier
2005-07-04, 02:48 PM
From memory, this fellow describes the shortsword+buckler and poleaxe as the best weapons to use on the field or in a duel.

That's strange. Going by MY memory, perhaps something I've read in an essay on A.R.M.A.'s homepage, Silver once said that the single most effective weapon for dueling was the quarterstaff.

sktarq
2005-07-04, 02:49 PM
i dont believe the blades in modern fencing are sharpened underneath those caps.

Yes but even the blunted ones can be deadly, and almost certainly will be if they are used towards that goal even with blunted tip

Chris the Pontifex
2005-07-04, 03:14 PM
Yes but even the blunted ones can be deadly, and almost certainly will be if they are used towards that goal even with blunted tip

well, as i said the electric blades dont use caps, their tips are switches about 5mm in diameter, not so very deadly

i just switched to super-geek mode and actually took apart the switch from my old blade. its one of the lighter florets, mostly used by women and childern. (its too light for me and has the horrible "pistol"-grip)

the tip measured about 2mm, with enough force behind it you could probably do some damage but i wouldnt say its lethal

sktarq
2005-07-04, 03:42 PM
It is the flexibility of the blade which is so deadly not the sharpness of the point....when the tip is trying to puncture the body wall the blade bends when the tip enters the body cavity the it "springs" and whipps around inside the body shredding the inards and causing massive internal bleeding. It turns the single motion of "thrust" into several "slashes" inside the body.

Chris the Pontifex
2005-07-04, 05:08 PM
It is the flexibility of the blade which is so deadly not the sharpness of the point....when the tip is trying to puncture the body wall the blade bends when the tip enters the body cavity the it "springs" and whipps around inside the body shredding the inards and causing massive internal bleeding. It turns the single motion of "thrust" into several "slashes" inside the body.

aarg, that ís bad
makes you wonder wether a blund (bends further before puncture) woulndt be worse then a sharp point

Annarrkkii
2005-07-04, 06:34 PM
I have a question.

Is the monk an at least semi-accurate class? I mean, obviously there were various martial arts techniqus being practiced and mastered long ago, but were there really peole who ran into a combat in a robe with no weapons and kicked people's posteriors in circles? If not, then what's the closest thing to a monk actually seen in historic warfare?

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-04, 07:39 PM
The Shaolin monks supposedly did exactly that, but generally speaking, no, most dedicated warrior societies wore armor, and even the Shaolin were said to use weapons - though some groups, such as the Highlanders of Scotland, supposedly went into battle naked in order to strike fear into the hearts of their foes. In some African tribes, male warriors go into battle wearing womens' clothing for the same reason - its believed in many of these tribes that someone with confused gender (whether hemaphroditic or transexual) has strange and deadly powers.

Additionally, most unarmed martial art styles were designed to be used by armored warriors in circumstances where they found themselves without a weapon in hand. However, a few were designed specifically to be used by people who could not afford to carry weapons or armor (either due to cost, or fear of getting caught violating certain laws banning commoners from carrying weapons, which were sometimes common in China and Japan, depending on the period). Other styles evolved in peaceful periods where it was considered gauche to walk around with a broadsword and clad in heavy armor, but the potential for certain groups - often the elite or scoundrels - to fight in some form of duel or street engagement still existed (somewhat similar in concept to rapier and small sword styles in Europe, and the late katana styles of feudal Japan, or the usual gang warfare that occured everywhere).

sktarq
2005-07-04, 09:04 PM
though some groups, such as the Highlanders of Scotland, supposedly went into battle naked in order to strike fear into the hearts of their foes.

Imagine you are a Roman legionairre...you are from medeterrainian and wonder why this cold, damp fogridden land that does nothing but go up and down should be included in the empire. Trudging allong in your sandals and armor your unit enters a foggy dale when the most unholy wailing noise starts up....it goes on and on, it is loud and you can't place whatever is making the wailing/droning/tooting racket. Wondering what foul spirits are afoot your attackers come streaming from the fog. These people? Spirits? Strange things wielding large swords and blue paint? by the time you finish thinking that thought one of said swords has been places quite handiliy betwween you eyes....good night

Nightmarenny
2005-07-04, 09:58 PM
I have just read this intire thread(a good read) and I must say I still love Japan. They make anime which I love. Now you have made it even better I like the history more when I hear about it. Its the same why I like Spider-man more than Superman. Perfection sucks.

Now I have a Question. Anyone watch rurouni kenshin? Is it at all Historicaly and phisicaly accurate. The obvies you need not mention(break ground by throwing your sword down). Specificaly the move in which you draw a Katana to increase its speed and make it more devistating. Everything involving history. Sano's group in the Meiji revolution for example.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-04, 10:21 PM
Rurouni Kenshin gets the basics right with history, but plays very fast and loose with the details. I'd take everything it presents with a big grain of salt.

As for the draw, the iaijutsu draw doesn't actually confer greater speed or power to a strike, despite what some modern practitioners may claim. Iaijutsu was designed to train samurai during certain periods to always be ready to defend themselves from sudden attack, and be able to go from, say, sitting in a restaurant and eating a bowl of rice directly to a sword strike in a few fluid motions.

Most modern sword techniques involving the katana, particularly kendo and iaijutsu, grew out of real swordfighting techniques, but have evolved into sports. Kendo has relatively little to do with actual swordfighting, much the same way modern fencing does. Iaijutsu has moved even further from it. Samurai would learn a variety of techniques, including draws, sword technique, and unarmed techniques, much the same way medieval knights did.

Sundog
2005-07-05, 05:44 AM
The funny thing is, Iajutsu training actually slowed down the draw of many Samurai.

Standard Samurai training was to draw the blade and assume the High Guard position (blade vertical, hilt beside the right shoulder) as quickly as possible. From that position, the Samurai could defend himself well from any attack.

Iajutsu trained the people to strike in the process of the draw. However, this required you to consider your target and move forward, rather than backward, in order to get that blow in, and this actually slowed the draw.

Which is why even Iajutsu trained Samurai often forwent the drawing stroke in favour of a better defensive posture.

Fhaolan
2005-07-05, 10:52 AM
6 feet ??!?! how do you wield such a monstrousity?

Heh. With both hands. It sounds stupid to people now, but two-handed rapiers existed, pre-Elizabeth I's proclomation.

have a vague memory of stories about people using rapiers in that time period. Stupid things, like people needing a page or squire just to draw their rapier for them, because it was too long for them to do it themselves. I don't have a source to reference though, just a vague memory. :)

One of the things that always bothers me a bit with movies, books, etc., is how everyone who carries a weapon knows instinctively how to use it. In the courts of Europe, during the rapier and small sword periods, everyone carried a sword. Only a subset of them bothered to train for combat, or dueling (which are two different disciplines), and there was another subset that actually had a sword capable of being used to fight with. The two subsets didn't necessarily overlap. The sword had become more ornament than weapon. Remember, these were the same people that needed to wear garters with chains on them to keep the points of their shoes up, and had bird-cages (with live songbirds) integrated into their hairdos. Style was everything, and the more extreme the style the better.

Nerd-o-rama
2005-07-05, 11:31 AM
though some groups, such as the Highlanders of Scotland, supposedly went into battle naked in order to strike fear into the hearts of their foes.
*Sigh* why couldn't they have put that bit of history in King Arthur?

Those who have seen the movie know why I ask.

Sundog
2005-07-05, 12:48 PM
Cause it wasn't exactly the scots who did it. The Picts were a kind of proto-scottish people, and much more primitive. They were the ones who went into battle nude, though there's some evidence it was a particular faction (possibly a religious order) who did this.

apandapion
2005-07-05, 06:09 PM
As for this one blade vs two blades issue.

Even if they were equally effective weapons, the two bladed sword wouldn't be in wide use. Why? Because it looks very impractical to *carry* *around*. Imagine trying to carry a two bladed sword around, 24 hours a day. You'd maim one person a week, at minimum. "Whoops, sorry about that. Let me help you stuff those organs back in." Pretty much any easy way to carry it, one of the blades is out of your sight, and who knows what damage it is getting up to.

A single sword, if it's not too big, fits in a sheathe and it is very easy to get used to carrying it around.

AtomicKitKat
2005-07-06, 01:21 AM
As for this one blade vs two blades issue.

Even if they were equally effective weapons, the two bladed sword wouldn't be in wide use. Why? Because it looks very impractical to *carry* *around*. Imagine trying to carry a two bladed sword around, 24 hours a day. You'd maim one person a week, at minimum. "Whoops, sorry about that. Let me help you stuff those organs back in." Pretty much any easy way to carry it, one of the blades is out of your sight, and who knows what damage it is getting up to.

A single sword, if it's not too big, fits in a sheathe and it is very easy to get used to carrying it around.

Make it fold at the middle, so you can sheathe it in a "shears" shape, or make the blades slide into the shaft unless locked.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-07-06, 03:30 AM
I waas fairly dubious about King Arthur when I first saw it. I was starting to think "Oh well, that was money wasted." Then came the final battle scene and I saw Kiera Knightly's character's costume.

And suddenly the movie wasn't that bad anymore...



*Sigh* why couldn't they have put that bit of history in King Arthur?

Those who have seen the movie know why I ask.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-07-06, 03:45 AM
Make it fold at the middle, so you can sheathe it in a "shears" shape, or make the blades slide into the shaft unless locked.

*sighs*
I blame Hollywood, I really do.

The problem is that for a double-edged sword to be useful, you need the hilt(?) (the handle area between the blades) to be solid enough to resist the impact when one of the blades slams into a body at combat speeds. Of all the different ways I've devised of allowing you to "bend" the blades, or even a simple system of disconnecting the blades, all of them have problems with standing up during combat.

Based on the picture of a two-bladed sword that was posted a bit back, I am assuming that blade simply has one long tang which connects the two blades. I will hazard a guess that would be the only workable design to make a two-bladed sword viable.

My .02 worth. I think that visually, two-bladed swords and their cousins, double-ended weapons of various sorts, are cool as hell. In real life, there exist all sorts of technical issues that exist that have kept them from being a interesting "gimmick" martial arts weapon. In gaming, the mechanics make it just as easy to wield a longsword/shortsword combo.

If you want a unique signature weapon, or just look cool as hell, I'd go with one. (In fact, I may, come to think about it, next time I generate a character). But if you're looking for some edge in combat, the double-ended weapons aren't the path.

apandapion
2005-07-06, 06:45 AM
Make it fold at the middle, so you can sheathe it in a "shears" shape, or make the blades slide into the shaft unless locked.

You're kidding, right? A folding weapon would be very slow to draw and unfold. You'd start unfolding it, and then you'd be dead.

A "blades slide out of handle" design isn't feasible at a period tech level. If you want to throw in magic or pseudo-magic materials (adamant, etc), sure, but I'd encourage you to skim the rest of the thread to see what we're talking about here.

Chris the Pontifex
2005-07-06, 07:22 AM
best thing is: with the two weapon defence feat you can use one end of the weapon to parry.

Gamebird
2005-07-06, 02:03 PM
On the subject of the King Arthur movie, I've been told that "wode" or "woad" means "nude" and that the people were said to be "in the woad" when they did things naked. I was told that some 15 years ago by a DM who generally knows his stuff. Then to hear the Picts? in King Arthur calling themselves Woads... LOL

Annarrkkii
2005-07-06, 03:36 PM
Ummm... Gamebird's post was probably a joke or something right over my head, but I just want to get straight:

We all know that 'woad' is actually a kind of blue berry, that the warriors would crush and use to make blue dye to decorate thenmselves in battle, right?

Laevus
2005-07-06, 04:35 PM
Pardon for the tardy reply on the greatsword issue, but a few points:


WHOOPS! DOUBLE-POSTED! SORRY!


You keep giving me fun questions to answer!

Funny enough, European greatsword styles are actually few and far between: German zweihander styles, Irish gallowglass techniques, and Scottish claidheamh da laimh ("two handed sword", claymore, or "claidh mohr" is the wrong name) fighting.

And what makes it even more entertaining is the following fact:

Greatswords aren't slashing weapons.

YEAP, they aren't. They're thrusting weapons. I kid thee not. After researching medieval fighting manuals, and watching a documentary on the subject on the History Channel once, I've discovered that the greatsword was typically employed in two distinct methods:

1) Short spear method - where a fighter using the greatsword would have one hand grip the handle, and another grip the lower third of the sword blade, where tradtionally it is dulled. This manner of grip allowed a greatsword fighter to gain extraordinary leverage in blade binds (when two opponents' swords crossed or otherwise made continuous contact), and gave a greatsword fighter a versatility in strikes. He could thrust his sharpened portion of his sword quickly at his opponent like a spear, and then side-swipe with his same grip with equal proficiency, using the cutting edge of the upper two-thirds to ward away any other attackers. Also, it became rather easy to parry weapons when employed in this method, as the grip is very similar to how one holds a jo staff (Japanese short staff). In this manner of use, one can inflict many quick thrusts on an opponent (so, multiple attacks). But not so with the more popularly (and erroneously) depicted method of two-hander use, where the warrior swings his blade about.

2) Horse-killer method - where a particularly brutal warrior would actually swing his greatsword as a powerful cutting/bludgeoning (some Scottish claidheamh da laimh had dulled edges all the way up the blade) weapon against a horseman or just a horse. The Scots employed this method, as did the Irish Gallowglasses, the most against English cavalry. Very brutal and devastating in its purpose (killing the horse to unhorse the horsemen, killing the horseman by cutting him off his horse as he rode by, or just killing both of them outright if you're strong enough), but actually renders the greatswordsman almost helpless against another foot warrior armed with any weapon smaller or quicker than the two-hander. After one full swing, the two-hander warrior is left painfully open to any warrior quick enough to rush in and inflict stabbity death on him.

The two handed sword was actually *not* primarily a thrusting weapon in a few contexts. Despite the Talhoffer manuals (which with the exception of a few plates, focus entirely on unarmored combat, thus the favored use of the thrust for decisive blow), when opposing a well armored opponent (duels being common.. minor note, Henry VIII was an enthusastic greatsword duelist before getting fat and Anglican) the thrust is limited at best. Plate, and even chain were quite good at not being pierced, but the shock of a slash (or chop, if you prefer) would still carry through.

My own focus of study is on the german Landknecht techniques, so I'll hold off my opinion of silly scotsmen...

Among the german mercenaries, the short spear grip described above was indeed a valid method, however, broad slashes were the chief approach. This did'nt open up the wielder to immediate 'stabbity death' from anyone with a faster or smaller weapon for one, very badly misunderstood fact:

Two handed swords are speed weapons.

Even the heftier weapons, weighing in at up to six pounds or so handled extremely quickly in the hands of an adept and strong user. Two hands, plus leverage= a lot of speed. My experience is not perfectly realistic I admit (SCA for several years, fighting exclusively with a zweihander scaled sword for four), but as realistic as I could safely survive. ^_^;

Up close, many of the fechtbuch style wrestling and grappling maneuvers remain quite feasible, even in full plate, and combined with the psychological impact of a capable warrior with a HUGE FRIKKIN SWORD ..Ahem.. Less experienced opponents were often rendered ineffective (Thus the popularity of the two handed sword as a bodyguard's weapon in the later middle ages)

The level of expertise necessary to use it to it's maximum effect, however, was so prohibitive that it was easier for a lord to simply pay ten men with pointy sticks to take his place.. Though they remained wildly popular as mercenaries well into the age of pike and powder.

My two bits.

P.S. While well intentioned, and good at giving the flavor and atmoshpere of it's subjects, the History channel is often woefully lacking in accurate details.

Loved the two bladed sword rebuttal btw ^_^

Gamebird
2005-07-06, 04:41 PM
No, I meant that seriously, though I might be wrong. And yes, people who were doing things in the woad were doing it while painted blue. I didn't know the paint was derived from a berry. From what I was told, "woad" was usually reserved for certain spiritual activities when they thought the presence of clothing would make "impure."

Various religions and faiths have done a lot of things equally weird (or more so), so it has never seemed too odd to be true.

This from:http://www.takeourword.com/Issue058.html

Berserkers were actually Norse warriors, originally. The Celtic warriors who fought naked and painted their bodies with a dye made from the woad plant (Isatis tinctoria) were the ancient Britons (and not the Scots, as depicted in Braveheart). Then there were the Picts, who tattooed their entire bodies and whose name comes from the same source as English picture, Latin pictura "painting".

And conflicting information from: http://www.answers.com/topic/picts

Linguists generally translate the Latin word vitrum as "woad". The Latin phrase “vitro inficiunt” could very well have meant “dye themselves with glazes” or “infect themselves with glass”. This could have described a scarification ritual which left dark blue scars, or formed a direct reference to tattooing. Subsequent commentators may have displaced the 1st century southern practices (of the Brittani, a tribe south of the Thames) to the northern peoples in an attempt to explain the name Picti, which came into use only in the 3rd century AD. Julius Caesar, commenting in his Gallic Wars on the tribes from the areas where Picts (later) lived, states that they have “designs carved into their faces by iron”. If they used woad, then it probably penetrated under the skin as a tattoo. More likely, the Celts used copper for blue tattoos (they had plenty of it) and soot-ash carbon for black. Further study of bog bodies may provide more information on the specific tattooing techniques (if any) used by the Picts.

Eh, that's all I find in a quick internet search that's worthy of reprint.

Shiyuan
2005-07-06, 04:50 PM
On the subject of the King Arthur movie, I've been told that "wode" or "woad" means "nude" and that the people were said to be "in the woad" when they did things naked. I was told that some 15 years ago by a DM who generally knows his stuff. Then to hear the Picts? in King Arthur calling themselves Woads... LOL

It is the name of the dye that is produced from the berry. It has certain psycho-euphoric (not sure if that spelled right) properties, that often would seep through the skin pores and inundate the warrior's blood stream, causing him to fall into a state of wild euphoria, rendering him fearless and more than a little crazy.

Tehnar
2005-07-06, 08:34 PM
For those of you who wore armor, how does it affect your movement? How heavy is it actually? CAn you wear it all day without serious side effects. Im particulary intested in a breastplate and/or chainmail armor. Is it better to defend yourself with a shield, or a shield + armor combination (not in a single fight but in a whole campaign, ie. if you went to war for 3 months and had to choose between heavy armor or light armor + shield what would it be?)

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-07, 01:18 AM
For those of you who wore armor, how does it affect your movement? How heavy is it actually? CAn you wear it all day without serious side effects. Im particulary intested in a breastplate and/or chainmail armor. Is it better to defend yourself with a shield, or a shield + armor combination (not in a single fight but in a whole campaign, ie. if you went to war for 3 months and had to choose between heavy armor or light armor + shield what would it be?)

I know you probably don't want to hear this, but it depends.

What weapons and techniques are in vogue? What styles of armor and shield are available? Do you plan on fighting on foot? Horseback? Both? Do you have someone to help you with your armor? Where do you plan on fighting?

Generally, if you had a free hand to carry one, you would generally want a shield and the best armor you could afford. Dieing is bad.

What armor is 'best' depends on the same questions listed above, as well as other variables.

McMouse
2005-07-07, 01:21 AM
Another question: I've heard tales of the Drunken Master style of fighting (mainly from DnD and video games), but I was wondering if there was any truth to them...

apandapion
2005-07-07, 02:18 AM
For those of you who wore armor, how does it affect your movement? How heavy is it actually? CAn you wear it all day without serious side effects. Im particulary intested in a breastplate and/or chainmail armor. Is it better to defend yourself with a shield, or a shield + armor combination (not in a single fight but in a whole campaign, ie. if you went to war for 3 months and had to choose between heavy armor or light armor + shield what would it be?)

My general experience from the SCA (which isn't much) is that gaming systems tend to overestimate the short term effects of armor. For instance, I've seen people in armor do various acrobatics that the D&D armor check would imply is impossible for a non-epic someone in armor. It really is not all that cumbersome if you are used to wearing it. I think the drop to 20 ft movement rate, regardless of strength, is bullhonky, but I gave up a long time ago trying to correct D&D for realism.

The long term effects tend to get neglected, beyond the simple "you can't sleep in armor". Accurately adding these effects to the game, however, would probably not do a lot for the fun factor.

Laevus
2005-07-07, 03:45 AM
For those of you who wore armor, how does it affect your movement? How heavy is it actually? CAn you wear it all day without serious side effects. Im particulary intested in a breastplate and/or chainmail armor. Is it better to defend yourself with a shield, or a shield + armor combination (not in a single fight but in a whole campaign, ie. if you went to war for 3 months and had to choose between heavy armor or light armor + shield what would it be?)

In what D&D would consider Half-plate (roughly sixty pounds or so), the effects are'nt really that bad, given a good fit, and time spent in order to get used to it. Mobility is limited, but again nothing that overly hampers the wearer given time to get used to moving with the armor. Never for three months at a stretch, but I've worn full armor for all the daylight hours of a day before without any undue fatigue (apart from that to be expected of fighting off and on, all day), so long as the helmet can be removed periodically.

As for a lengthy campaign? I'd still opt for heavier armor, given the choice, as the dangers in battle (again from an incompletely 'realistic base of experience') are usually the blows one *does'nt* see coming.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-07-07, 08:55 AM
As for a lengthy campaign? I'd still opt for heavier armor, given the choice, as the dangers in battle (again from an incompletely 'realistic base of experience') are usually the blows one *does'nt* see coming.



Hear Hear! "No sh*t, there I was..." A Bridge Battle where the three bridges were fairly close to each other. I was on the center bridge, and it was towards the end. Our side was losing, and the packed mass of fighters were starting to break up. I got thumped by a spear from the bridge on my left that I didn't even see. I was *pushed* torwards the right side of the bridge and a horking HUGE guy dings me on the helm with his polearm, even though I was already technically dead. I didn't even see the spearman...

Eric_The_Mad
2005-07-07, 09:07 AM
Another question: I've heard tales of the Drunken Master style of fighting (mainly from DnD and video games), but I was wondering if there was any truth to them...

Umm... I'll let Shiyuan-san field this one, as I'm not shy about admitting that I don't have enough knowledge to really comment on the truth or myth of the Drunken Master style. More to the point, I don't have the expertise to either confirm or slap down the "I t00k 3 classez and now I am A Black Belt Master Ninja!!!" types which appear magically when martial arts are being discussed on a forum.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-07, 02:59 PM
As far as I am aware, drunken boxing and a few other similar styles do actually exist. What is apocryphal, most likely, is the connection to actual drunken-ness and alcohol. Rather, someone using the style simply looks like they're drunk. The idea, I suspect, is that such movements are unpredictable and move along multiple "lines" of attack, making defending against them quite difficult. If an attack appears comepletely random, its hard to decide where, what, and when to block attacks, or where, what, and when to attack yourself.

Rykaj
2005-07-07, 05:05 PM
If anyone here occasionally watches K1 fighting, they should know Cyril Abidi. Gorbash's explanation of drunken boxing reminded me of his fighting style. He lunges and lurches back and forth in weird and unpredictable ways making his attacks harder to see coming. It makes for a very enjoyable fight to watch. I am pretty sure he isn't really drunk in the ring though :D

Fhaolan
2005-07-08, 01:28 AM
For those of you who wore armor, how does it affect your movement? How heavy is it actually? CAn you wear it all day without serious side effects. Im particulary intested in a breastplate and/or chainmail armor. Is it better to defend yourself with a shield, or a shield + armor combination (not in a single fight but in a whole campaign, ie. if you went to war for 3 months and had to choose between heavy armor or light armor + shield what would it be?)

Okay. Let's start at the beginning. I have a maille hauberk for when I have to perform as a Viking. It weighs approximately 30lbs. (I'm 6'2", and heavily built, though only slightly overweight at the moment.) However, a historical hauberk would have been much lighter, as the rings on my shirt are not tempered and so had to be of a heaver guage wire than the historical suits. I believe a tempered steel hauberk weighs around 15-20 lbs for someone my size. It doesn't slow me down in any noticable fashion, but I do get tired faster than I would without it. 'course, I'm also running around with a huge wooden shield, spear, helm, heavy cloak, etc. that all adds up to a lot more weight.

I also own a full Itallian White Harness. I'm torn as to whether it would be considered full or field plate, as the only exposed parts of my body are the back of my shins and knees (There's a mail skirt, and mail pieces cover the armpits.) Unfortunately, it's about as well made as I could afford, meaning not bad but it doesn't fit me as well as it should, and the steel is not tempered so again it's heavier than a real suit is. It's about 85-90lbs, depending whether I wear the full harness with all the additional jousting bits on it or not. This slows me down terribly, and I ache at the end of a ten-hour period of wearing it. Apparantly, the historical suit this was modeled off of weighs 65lbs or so. Big freaking difference. I've seen films of someone in that historical suit do cartwheels. I can't do cartwheels out of armour, so... *shrug*

So, in the case of full-, field-, and breast & back plate, how well it fits and how well it is constructed makes a massive difference in how much it slows you down. Oh, and I have two different helms for the plate, one for jousting and one for foot-fighting. I can't see a blasted thing in the jousting helm, and the air-flow is horrible. I tried fighting in it, which is why I got the foot-fighting helm which has a much larger eye-slit and holes for airflow, but wouldn't be safe enough for jousting. (No, I don't joust. My wife does though, and I want to be ready if she needs to practice knocking me off a horse. Yes, falling off a horse hurts but if you do it deliberately and are trained for it you can reduce the amount of pain.)

What would I prefer? Given the choice between using either of my current suits? (I'm making a suit of scale right now, but I don't have it done yet so I don't know how well it will work.) I'd choose the Viking outfit. If I had the choice of the historical versions of my current suits? I'd choose the Itallian suit, probably.

If I was in a mass melee, spear and shield would be my choice. If I was in single one-on-one combat; Two-handed axe. It's all a matter of tactics. I fight mass combat far more defensively, and fight far more aggresively during one-on-one. It's the 'I don't know where the next blow is coming from' versus 'I know exactly where my opponent is, and what s/he is doing.'

Shiyuan
2005-07-08, 02:33 AM
Umm... I'll let Shiyuan-san field this one, as I'm not shy about admitting that I don't have enough knowledge to really comment on the truth or myth of the Drunken Master style. More to the point, I don't have the expertise to either confirm or slap down the "I t00k 3 classez and now I am A Black Belt Master Ninja!!!" types which appear magically when martial arts are being discussed on a forum.



As far as I am aware, drunken boxing and a few other similar styles do actually exist. What is apocryphal, most likely, is the connection to actual drunken-ness and alcohol. Rather, someone using the style simply looks like they're drunk. The idea, I suspect, is that such movements are unpredictable and move along multiple "lines" of attack, making defending against them quite difficult. If an attack appears comepletely random, its hard to decide where, what, and when to block attacks, or where, what, and when to attack yourself.

I can field it, but Gorbash Kazdar has already gotten the gist of it. To confirm whether or not Drunken Boxing relies on actual imbibing of alcohol, no, it doesn't. Drunken Boxing is the attempt to recreate and simulate the movements of a drunk while fighting to disorient and baffle a foe. Being drunk just disorients and baffles yourself, and few unfortunate onlookers as you make an ass out of yourself. X D

AtomicKitKat
2005-07-08, 02:53 AM
I can field it, but Gorbash Kazdar has already gotten the gist of it. To confirm whether or not Drunken Boxing relies on actual imbibing of alcohol, no, it doesn't. Drunken Boxing is the attempt to recreate and simulate the movements of a drunk while fighting to disorient and baffle a foe. Being drunk just disorients and baffles yourself, and few unfortunate onlookers as you make an ass out of yourself. X D

More likely than not, they imbibe heavily diluted alcohol(just enough to "buzz", not enough to totally bust your judgement).

As for the actual fighting, from my observations, the idea behind it is similar to a boxer practicing his bobs and weaves. While "staggering" around, you basically maintain a relatively low CoG(centre of gravity), and your arms are hanging down(both to attack, possibly low, and for more balance. Note also that most of the time, their feet do not lift more than a certain distance off the ground(again, stability disguised as imbalance) Of course, the biggest advantage is catching your opponents off guard with an attack from someone they thought would not be able to fight back.

Shiyuan
2005-07-08, 03:07 AM
More likely than not, they imbibe heavily diluted alcohol(just enough to "buzz", not enough to totally bust your judgement).

As for the actual fighting, from my observations, the idea behind it is similar to a boxer practicing his bobs and weaves. While "staggering" around, you basically maintain a relatively low CoG(centre of gravity), and your arms are hanging down(both to attack, possibly low, and for more balance. Note also that most of the time, their feet do not lift more than a certain distance off the ground(again, stability disguised as imbalance) Of course, the biggest advantage is catching your opponents off guard with an attack from someone they thought would not be able to fight back.

The actual fighting you describe is very accurate. In fact, to add to your astute observations, the increased balance also allows for greater transfer of kinetic force from the shifting of body weight, which powers most of the attacks in Drunken Boxing. You strike with the weight of your entire body, rather than the contraction of a few arm muscles.

However, your description of the heavily diluted alcohol is half accurate. Diluted alcohol is used to train beginners and intermediary students, who need the buzz to loosen their minds and bodies enough to learn the motions and the feel of the style. A fully-learned Drunken Boxer does not and usually will not imbibe alcohol. They have mastered the art to the point that they no longer need the effects of alcohol to limber them up.

My father had known this style, and used to perform it for me as a child, as entertainment and comedy, one of the few cherishable memories I have of my father. He was quite adept at it, and once made the mistake of attempting it after drinking earlier in the evening, to fight off some street toughs that tried to mug us as we were heading home one night. He beat them, but got more bruises and cuts than he should've considering his skill in brawling. Quite a few times during this memorable fight, I remember seeing my father actually lose his footing and scrape himself on the concrete, alongside a few unplanned bumps of his head against the sidewalk. In truth, most of his injuries were self-inflicted during that fight. I remember him swearing foully in both Chinese and Japanese randomly as we finished our walk home, and then him taking me aside and telling me adamantly never to drink before getting into a serious brawl. Unfortunately, while I have followed his advice to this day, he has not... and has accumulated many injuries in the years since he parted with my family that continue to nag and annoy him to this day. However, he looked pretty reformed and sober the last time I saw him when he got out of prison in 2004... okay, that went on more personally than I had planned, but whatever, I shouldn't be ashamed of it. So yea.


Pardon for the tardy reply on the greatsword issue, but a few points:


The two handed sword was actually *not* primarily a thrusting weapon in a few contexts. Despite the Talhoffer manuals (which with the exception of a few plates, focus entirely on unarmored combat, thus the favored use of the thrust for decisive blow), when opposing a well armored opponent (duels being common.. minor note, Henry VIII was an enthusastic greatsword duelist before getting fat and Anglican) the thrust is limited at best. Plate, and even chain were quite good at not being pierced, but the shock of a slash (or chop, if you prefer) would still carry through.

My own focus of study is on the german Landknecht techniques, so I'll hold off my opinion of silly scotsmen...

Among the german mercenaries, the short spear grip described above was indeed a valid method, however, broad slashes were the chief approach. This did'nt open up the wielder to immediate 'stabbity death' from anyone with a faster or smaller weapon for one, very badly misunderstood fact:

Two handed swords are speed weapons.

Even the heftier weapons, weighing in at up to six pounds or so handled extremely quickly in the hands of an adept and strong user. Two hands, plus leverage= a lot of speed. My experience is not perfectly realistic I admit (SCA for several years, fighting exclusively with a zweihander scaled sword for four), but as realistic as I could safely survive. ^_^;

Up close, many of the fechtbuch style wrestling and grappling maneuvers remain quite feasible, even in full plate, and combined with the psychological impact of a capable warrior with a HUGE FRIKKIN SWORD ..Ahem.. Less experienced opponents were often rendered ineffective (Thus the popularity of the two handed sword as a bodyguard's weapon in the later middle ages)

The level of expertise necessary to use it to it's maximum effect, however, was so prohibitive that it was easier for a lord to simply pay ten men with pointy sticks to take his place.. Though they remained wildly popular as mercenaries well into the age of pike and powder.

My two bits.

P.S. While well intentioned, and good at giving the flavor and atmoshpere of it's subjects, the History channel is often woefully lacking in accurate details.

Loved the two bladed sword rebuttal btw ^_^

I'll concede to the person who has used the greatsword in one form or another. I personally don't like overly large weapons, unless they're a staff or spear of some kind. Those two I can handle rather well, others... are clumsy in my small hands. I have short fingers, and they don't allow me the full range of manipulation (or grip for that matter) that normal-sized hands afford while gripping larger weapons.

All I can say is, from my personal experience, while using fencing techniques with a foil (which I shall outright note is blazing fast compared to almost all other hand weapons), I found it extraordinarily easy to outmanuever my friend's attempt to use a greatsword-like weapon he designed (another one of our super padded-dull swords). Yet, in retrospect, I have to admit that might have just been because of the fact that I was using a foil, and my conception of the greatsword's speed most likely skewed because of the great advantage I was afforded by using fencing moves.

Thank you about the rebuttal, I also very much appreciated your rebuttal of my greatsword post, you've taught me more about a weapon I need to brush up on now. ^_^

apandapion
2005-07-08, 06:17 AM
All I can say is, from my personal experience, while using fencing techniques with a foil (which I shall outright note is blazing fast compared to almost all other hand weapons), I found it extraordinarily easy to outmanuever my friend's attempt to use a greatsword-like weapon he designed (another one of our super padded-dull swords). Yet, in retrospect, I have to admit that might have just been because of the fact that I was using a foil, and my conception of the greatsword's speed most likely skewed because of the great advantage I was afforded by using fencing moves.


Did you parry at all? A greatsword should smash through a foil in any realistic enviornment, but smashthroughs are illegal in many foam weapon enviornments. (I remember fighting with heavy foam weapons, where smashthroughs were allowed, and having a lot of my standard tricks from lighter foam fighting simply not work.)

Laevus
2005-07-08, 02:20 PM
Yet, in retrospect, I have to admit that might have just been because of the fact that I was using a foil, and my conception of the greatsword's speed most likely skewed because of the great advantage I was afforded by using fencing moves.


Despite the fact that both fencing weapons and the full zweihander style greatswords were in use at the same time, weighing the merits of one style against the other is rather like weighing samurai and chevalier.

They are rooted in two rather opposite schools of fighting. Most greatsword techniques are centered on the fact that one will be wearing, and opposing heavy armor, whereas fencing presumes that one will be wearing and opposing little to none.

Again, many period two handed sword manuals feature unarmored combat heavily(in which contexts, thrusts are supreme, and great sweeping cuts are overkill), though the weapon used in many of these is the long-sword (a roughly four foot, rather light and very well balanced hand and a half weapon), rather than the full sized five to six foot monstrosity that most people consider a 'greatsword'.

As you had supposed in your initial greatsword post, in an unarmored context facing fencing weapons, a greatsword would again be a primarily thrusting weapon, which if my own experience in a foam fighting club is any indication, people who design thier own 'greatsword like weapons' want to make Conan swings, and not refused guards, leading into extended two handed thrusts.

The greatsword is a facinating, and sophisticated weapon, which- like any other weapon, is only as effective as the wielder.

Though it helps that it's imposing, too. ^_^

P.S. on the subject of smash-through, and parrying that apandapion raised: If it comes to parrying the fencer has already lost. The strength of a fencing stance and blade is that it can strike (ideally) before the greatswordsman could finish rearing back for one of the aforementioned 'cleaving Conan swings'. The reach, and strength of guard offered by a two handed weapon would need to be maximized to survive unarmored against a fencer, and that meants using thrusts.

Shiyuan
2005-07-09, 02:15 AM
Did you parry at all? A greatsword should smash through a foil in any realistic enviornment, but smashthroughs are illegal in many foam weapon enviornments. (I remember fighting with heavy foam weapons, where smashthroughs were allowed, and having a lot of my standard tricks from lighter foam fighting simply not work.)


No, I didn't, which is why I won. : P He kept trying to make contact with my blade because it was always threatening him. I am not stupid enough to try to parry a heavy weapon, I merely dodge. I have feet for that reason. ;D Smashthroughs are allowed, but I simply did not allow them to occur during the bout using constant motion.

Btw, we allow any hits and full speed and full force blows... our super padded-dull weapons are usually metal or wood covered in a foam-like material. In this case, the "greatsword" was steel wrapped in our padding. So my response would be, don't use tricks and stick to actual techniques? For instance, I recall my fencing master always telling me to first retreat or dodge, so as to remove yourself from a threat before attempting to parry, which is what I did during our bout. Detail Addition: Also, my friend had started out using a "half-swording" stance (as someone here clarified the term for me), but the after the first few times he guarded against my thrusts, I started to disengage his forte (the strong part of his blade near the handguard) and began stabbing at one of his hands repeatedly. Considering we bouted with an honor system of wound simulations, he eventually had to let go of the sword with the hand that I had wounded badly (we believed three quick stabs at the soft flesh between your knuckles will put your hand out of commission), and he was forced to fight one-handed the rest of the fight, where I just kinda took my time in putting his various limbs out of commission before delivering the coup de grace under his arm in his armpit.

As Laevus put it, if you try to parry in such a situation, you lose. Also as Laevus mentioned, pre-emptive strikes during the greatsword's attacks also allowed me great control of the situation.

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-09, 11:55 PM
The problem in comparing large swords and rapiers is that great swords and zweihaenders were veiwed as a combat weapon, whereas the rapier was more commonly used for self defense, or as a sidearm.

Sundog
2005-07-10, 07:27 AM
Depends on the time period. Early gunners were often equipped with light blades like rapiers so that they could skirmish effectively after firing their guns (which took as long as 10 minutes to reload). They were expected to fight the enemy as well as be able to defend themselves.

Laevus
2005-07-10, 02:22 PM
Depends on the time period. Early gunners were often equipped with light blades like rapiers so that they could skirmish effectively after firing their guns (which took as long as 10 minutes to reload). They were expected to fight the enemy as well as be able to defend themselves.

While yes, rapiers were carried in many battles, the documented fact remains that they were weapons designed for use against opponents wearing minimal, if any, armor. Thus, if gunners were ever expected to fight hand to hand in anything other than as a brief prelude to a retreat (As in the Landsknecht companies, which used firearms rather extensively), they would be armed with shorter, heavier swords, as well as being guarded by the remainder of thier detachment (typically armed with pikes). In the german model I use above, the sidearm was a wide bladed shortsword, popularly called a katzbalger these days.

The rapier was a civilian weapon which when carried into a full battle either was intended to act as a status symbol (Nobles, etc, who wanted to show off thier pretty belt ornaments), or when carried by civilians, pressed into military service. City guards, and other soliders during peacetime would often carry them, again, because the liklihood of encountering heavily armored troublemakers was very low.

As armor became less and less important in warfare, the lighter the sword blades became. Though by the time when firearms and artillery became the rule of infantry warfare, swords were reduced to a status symbol, or badge of rank, anyway.

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-10, 06:33 PM
Depends on the time period. Early gunners were often equipped with light blades like rapiers so that they could skirmish effectively after firing their guns (which took as long as 10 minutes to reload). They were expected to fight the enemy as well as be able to defend themselves.


This type of use would fall under 'sidearms', which Imentioned in my post.

Also, nothing shy of true artillery would take a properly trained user more than a couple of minutes to load.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-07-11, 03:43 AM
*Growls at another topic and runs off to dig into his books, consult a knowledgable source and otherwise do research*

Expect a major diatribe about bows and arrows in the near future.

"Stick with apiece of string"...Gah...

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-11, 04:19 AM
*Growls at another topic and runs off to dig into his books, consult a knowledgable source and otherwise do research*

Expect a major diatribe about bows and arrows in the near future.

"Stick with apiece of string"...Gah...

...if by 'stick' they meant 'expertly carved and cured and carefully chosen piece of wood' and by 'string' they meant 'animal ligiment or catgut carefully dried, tied and cut'.

There's a reason why stick bows (even those were a great deal more complicated than the name suggests) were never held in high regard...

Sundog
2005-07-11, 06:35 AM
Once people knew what they were doing, you're right about how long it took to reload, Laughingfuzzball, but the earliest gunners - basically, handcannoneers - took much longer. Part of it was the time it took for the gun to cool, since they didn't swab out as they did with larger pieces, then they had to measure the charge, since the idea of preset quantities hadn't taken off yet, then either a ball or a spread of shot, wadding, put the gun on a balancing stick, aim, and apply the slowmatch to the hole.

It could take a full ten minutes. Such handgunners often got only one or two shots off in a battle, spending the rest of the time maneuvering or skirmishing with the other sides' light infantry.

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-11, 07:14 AM
PLease note that I said in my post that a "properly trained" gunner wouldn't take that long. Obviously, someone using a weapon before people (to quote your post) "knew what they were doing" would not be properly trained. The hand cannon, although great in theory, was somewhat poorly executed. It's not until the arquebus comes around that, imho, the infantry-scaled firearm trluy begins to take it's proper place on the battlefield.

MaN
2005-07-13, 08:42 PM
Back in 2nd ed days I was a little frustrated with the nit-picky weapon prof rules. I took the time to come up with my own rules. Third ed went the other way being overly generous with weapon prof feats. Both are (to this non-martial artist, armchair historian, and eminently logical person) completely unrealistic. I still use my weapon prof rules in 3e because they seem so much more realistic.

They seem more realistic to ME anyway. I divided weapons into families based on what I knew from reading books on their use and simply looking at their pictures. I figured if a person could use one weapon in the family, he could use the others in the same fashion. Here are some examples:
Bludgeon--club, mace et al, jo stick, hammer...
Long stabbing sword--long sword, rapier, foil...
Long slashing sword--scimitar, cav sabre, falchion...
Short axe--hatchet, tomahawk, machete...
Stabbing polearm--spear, trident, fork, partisan...

My question for those of you who have experience with weapons (and expert knowledge, I'm very impressed with the info presented in this thread) is whether or not my system actually does represent the reality of the skills you need to develop in order to wield a weapon proficiently. After all, if I can swing a baseball bat I can swing a cricket bat, a wiffle ball bat, an aluminum bat, a wooden bat, and a big stick all with the same chance to hit a ball thrown at me, can't I?

alec
2005-07-13, 09:54 PM
I would say, just using logic, I dont have any experience with weapons, that your system is unrealistic. Eg, a club is a big bit of wood, basicly. A mase is a long thin bit of wood with a big bit of metal at the end. They will be balanced differently, and while the tequniques may be similar, a club will be lighter, and a mace will have a heavyer end you hit people with. The training you need to adapt to the two different weapons would be different, because, while they are similar, they are still different.
To use your bat example, I can use a cricket bat with a fair degree of sucess, but I am absolutly useless with a base-ball bat, because they are very different bats.

MaN
2005-07-13, 10:58 PM
Probably a bad idea to talk about playing baseball with a cricket bat. Let me clarify.

A club is a long sturdy bashing thing with the heavy end being the end you strike with, a mace is simply a heavier version of the club (long sturdy bashing thing heavier at the striking end). They are both balanced to be swung held in one hand near the lighter end. The only real difference is overall weight.

Baseball bats come in a range of weights, but players do not need to learn a different technique to swing each different weight. That is simply a matter of strength. I can swing a wiffleball bat around with the same technique as a baseball bat, just much quicker and doing a lot less damage because of the incredibly light weight.

sktarq
2005-07-14, 12:26 AM
Well if you really wanted to get that pedantic about it you could also point out that their should be another damage type beyond Slash,Crush,and Poke...really S/B/P should also include a Chop...favored by axes and certain swords

A for say a Club and a mace i'd say they are rather different weapons to wield...not only are they different wieghts but the center of balence is significantly different, the striking area of a mace is more limited (though the "prefered" striking area of the club is the same part)...also many clubs are not cylindrical and have a front and back while a mace is generally without that distinction, though most later ones have flanges that should be maximized for proper use.

The Demented One
2005-07-14, 01:06 AM
How easy/hard would it be to trip someone with a chain, spiked or unspiked?

sktarq
2005-07-14, 01:11 AM
If by trip you mean "knock off balence and possibly cause to fall prone" not half bad (as long as the chian is weighted right and the heavier the better) but it wouldn't be the wrap around the leg and pull image and probably it would be allot easier with some like say - a quaterstaff.

Fhaolan
2005-07-14, 02:12 AM
Here are some examples:
Bludgeon--club, mace et al, jo stick, hammer...
Long stabbing sword--long sword, rapier, foil...
Long slashing sword--scimitar, cav sabre, falchion...
Short axe--hatchet, tomahawk, machete...
Stabbing polearm--spear, trident, fork, partisan...


Unfortunately, it's very, very difficult to translate 'realistic' proficiencies to D&D, in my experience. It's hard to draw the lines.

For example; a club is a club is a club, whether it is called a mace or a whatever. And in most ways if you can handle a club, you can handle an axe or a hammer. However, switching from a one-handed impact weapon (bludgioning or chopping) to a two-handed impact weapon can mess you up, because you have to learn when to let go with one hand, switch positions of your hands, and let the shaft of the weapon slide through your hands to get a good 'flow' going. Then a pole-arm version of an impact weapon (bec du corbin, footman's hammer, etc.) is slightly different yet again, but not quite as different as between one-handed and two-handed impact weapons.

Short sticks like jo-sticks, shillelieghs, belaying pins, etc. don't work like clubs. These are fast snapping weapons that rely on wrist movement, rather than arm strength. Long sticks like quarterstaves and bo-sticks are similar to short sticks, but are differenced just like one-handed clubs and two-handed clubs. And to make it even more tricky the fighting *style* of quarterstaves and bo-sticks are completely different, even though the weapons technically move in a similar fashion.

Curved swords are quite different to handle than straight swords. Their reach is different, you block different, etc. And swords that curve 'backwards', like falcattas and the falx act more like axes than swords.

Spears of different lengths and weights can be tricky. Short spears do not move like long spears. You can use a short spear like a quarterstaff, providing the spear is hefty enough. You can't do that with a long spear. Long spears and pikes are almost useless in anything other than mass combats when you have other long spears or pikes around you.

So, defining all the categories becomes a real pain. After a point, you just sort of give up and simplify it down.

One of the things that no game system I've ever seen takes into account was weapon familiarity. Not when you're using it, but when your opponent is. For example, you're a early European-type warrior. Center-punch shield and hewing spear. You come up against a Oriental-type warrior with long thin spear. You see the spear. You know how spears move. After all, you've got one in your hand. You attack, and suddenly that thin spear snaps out and bends around your shield like a stiff flail, stabbing you in the arm. You didn't expect that, you couldn't defend against it. Now you know, and won't be caught off guard again, but ouch. It's hard to defend against a weapon that moves in ways you're not familiar with.

That's why all those fencing schools were popular during the period where dueling was popular, the idea was that they could teach some odd 'trick' moves that would surprise and defeat opponents through their own unfamiliarity.

Ustauk
2005-07-14, 02:35 AM
How come the Roman's never used atlatls/woomeras/spear throwers with their pilums? I know bow and arrow supplanted the atlatl in Europe long ago, but I can see it being useful again when you have shield bearing infrantry throwing projectiles with one hand.

Most web sources I've read have said an atlatl doubles or better the throw range of a javelin. I know they'd have to be atlatl dart would have to be lighter the the pilums, but it would have allowed them to get off another volley.

The way I'd see it, you'd toss of an atlatl dart volley, drop the atlatl , and proceed with the two remaining pilum volleys as noted earlier in the thread.

I've also read references to Aztec atlatl darts piercing Spanish armour. Is this true?

AtomicKitKat
2005-07-14, 02:41 AM
Here's one that bugged me for the longest time.

I used to think morningstars and maces were the same thing. I called flails morningstars, and called scourges(cat-o-nine-tails) flails.

I have to admit though, that morningstars just don't seem that different from maces to me. Spiked ball on the end of a stick.

Fhaolan
2005-07-14, 03:07 AM
Here's one that bugged me for the longest time.

I used to think morningstars and maces were the same thing. I called flails morningstars, and called scourges(cat-o-nine-tails) flails.

I have to admit though, that morningstars just don't seem that different from maces to me. Spiked ball on the end of a stick.

;D This one confuses most people. Problem is, it has confused people long enough to have been 'officially' documented in archeology and weapon history books both ways. A 'mace' is supposedly a club with a metal head, if I remember correctly. It doesn't have to be completely metal, it can have a wooden handle. But the head must be metal. This head could be smooth, have flanges, studs, be round like a sphere or cylindrical.

Now, flails are a handle and a head that are attached together by some kind of hinge. The hinge is usually a chain or a rope, but I saw one in a musuem once with a literal hinge between them. The head could be metal or wood, but wood ones usually have metal banding of some kind, they can be spherical or cylindrical or rectangular. Some flails have many 'heads', some have only one. The hinge can be a long chain or rope, or just a single link.

Now comes the problem. Somewhere, somewhen, somebody official-like wrote down that a morningstar is a large mace with sharpened spikes. Somewhere, somewhen, somebody else official-like wrote down that a morningstar is a flail with sharpened spikes. There are also, just to make things fun, some other books that use the term 'mace' to mean the head part of a flail. So it could easily have been a simple statement like 'A morningstar is a flail with a spiked mace', that started all the confusion. Years ago I thought I had the answer, and the deeper I dug the more of a mess it turned into. So, when I'm discussing weapons with other people I always differenciate between a 'morningstar mace' and a 'morningstar flail'.

[Oh, and as for the post before that; I don't know why the Romans didn't come up with an atlalt equivalent. It's a good question. I honestly don't have an answer for it. I have a vague memory of some book mentioning some Europeans trying to use a length of rope to make their throwing spears spin in order to increase accuracy, but I can't remember the time-period or the area this happened in.]

sktarq
2005-07-15, 12:03 AM
Long spears and pikes are almost useless in anything other than mass combats when you have other long spears or pikes around you.

Not the case in the slightest....other long spears are not required...you just replace them with a horse...and I'm not saying you turn it into a lance overhand still works

Fhaolan
2005-07-15, 12:39 AM
Not the case in the slightest....other long spears are not required...you just replace them with a horse...and I'm not saying you turn it into a lance overhand still works

*laugh* Sorry. I get so wrapped up in foot combat I keep forgetting about mounted combat. That's my wife's specialty, so I tend to leave that kind of info up to her. According to her you're right, you can use long spears overhand, providing they're not too long. After a certain point they become to unweildy to aim properly without couching under the arm, unless you're willing to risk loosing control of the spear which can lead to all sorts of havoc when riding full tilt at an enemy.

sktarq
2005-07-15, 12:54 AM
If i remember correctly it was pretty much maxed out with the classic Germanic Boar spear for length....

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-15, 12:55 AM
I keep imagining some guy on a horse with a twenty-footer. I can't stop laughing.

Fhaolan
2005-07-15, 01:25 AM
I keep imagining some guy on a horse with a twenty-footer. I can't stop laughing.

I quote my wife's jousting instructor: 'I saw a guy use a 16' lance once. He was one of those huge arrogant footballer types on a clydesdale. He was showing off how he could control the biggest, heaviest lance because he was so 'mighty'. He missed the quintain, got the lance on the wrong side of the horse's head who zigged off in a random direction, dipped the point of the lance, caught it in a flag line that was going to be used for a later event, got the hollow bell of the lance caught on the lance rest on his armour, and came crashing down off the horse completely out of control in a facinating piorette. The horse raced up to where it's trainer was standing and gave her a look like "Please don't put that idiot pink monkey on my back again, pretty please?"'

sktarq
2005-07-15, 01:30 AM
*choke Laugh choke* oh that's good

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-15, 01:38 AM
That's about what I'm imagining, only in plate and barding. I can't get it out of my head.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-15, 03:24 AM
Most web sources I've read have said an atlatl doubles or better the throw range of a javelin. I know they'd have to be atlatl dart would have to be lighter the the pilums, but it would have allowed them to get off another volley.
I'd say doubles is pretty conservative. If you get the motion right, you can throw very, very far with an atlatl, with shocking accuracy and strength.


I've also read references to Aztec atlatl darts piercing Spanish armour. Is this true?
I could see it happening at very close ranges - as I said, the power of a javelin thrown using an atlatl is nothing short of amazing. However, I would suspect that 1) the armor was pierced where it was thin or weak, 2) that the armor in question was at best a basic breastplate, and perhaps not particularly thick (the conquistadores weren't, for the most part, stupid - if the enemy doesn't have guns, why lug a fully bullet "proof" breastplate around?), and 3) the thrower was at very close range, and was probably in a great deal of trouble after he tossed that javelin (one big reason the bow, and even the sling, supplanted atlatls was rate of fire).

As for holding a longspear overhand while mounted, the Normans used a variant of this grip when they invaded Britain under William, having not yet developed the classic couched lance (neither the weapon nor the technique). They either tossed the spears overhand, or held their hand out in front of them with the spear in it, with their hand on the outside and the shaft of the spear more or less up against their forearm.

The problem, of course, is that its really easy to lose control of the weapon this way, and difficult to land a good blow without losing the spear (or possibly breaking something in your arm), which is why the practice of couching a spear (and then a lance) came about.

Premier
2005-07-15, 08:53 AM
How come the Roman's never used atlatls/woomeras/spear throwers with their pilums? I know bow and arrow supplanted the atlatl in Europe long ago, but I can see it being useful again when you have shield bearing infrantry throwing projectiles with one hand.

I think there's a number of good reason why they didn't.

One, a Roman Legionnaire already carried around a considerable amount of equipment - a suit of armor, a BIG shield, a sword, 2 (IIRC) pilums, and miscellaneous gear like a water canteen etc. Carrying yet another piece of equipment was just not feasible, especially one that they wouldn't get to use all that often.

Two, they were carrying shields - as mentioned above -, and I can imagine the shield interfering with the loading of the atlatl, especially when you're trying to do it in a close formation.

Three, the pilums in themselves already did a good job at what they were supposed to do. Remember that Legionnaires were not dedicated archers, nor skirmisher units. Engaging the enemy from a range is simply not what they were designed to do. They were first and foremost heavy infantry designed to engage the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. Their pilums allowed them to launch a single volley at the enemy during the charge, just before the Legion's front lines reached the enemy's front lines, thus giving them the upper hand in the initial confrontation. For this purpose, however, the ordinary pilum was quite efficient both in terms of range and power. Trying to enhance it in any mechanical way would have meant trying to force the Legion into a role it was not designed to do. In other words, it would have meant to much investment for too little return.

Four, I have no experience with atlatls, but I don't know if they were ever used on the charge - and throwing on the charge is exactly what the Legionnaires did.

Gordon
2005-07-15, 12:38 PM
One of the things that no game system I've ever seen takes into account was weapon familiarity. Not when you're using it, but when your opponent is. For example, you're a early European-type warrior. Center-punch shield and hewing spear. You come up against a Oriental-type warrior with long thin spear. You see the spear. You know how spears move. After all, you've got one in your hand. You attack, and suddenly that thin spear snaps out and bends around your shield like a stiff flail, stabbing you in the arm. You didn't expect that, you couldn't defend against it. Now you know, and won't be caught off guard again, but ouch. It's hard to defend against a weapon that moves in ways you're not familiar with.

That's why all those fencing schools were popular during the period where dueling was popular, the idea was that they could teach some odd 'trick' moves that would surprise and defeat opponents through their own unfamiliarity.

I am happy to recommend to you a swashbuckling game called 7th Sea, from AEG. It isn't well-supported anymore, after their port to d20 and gutting of the original crew to ret-con the setting, but if you can find the old books, it's quite fun. It uses a system rather similar to L5R.

The Swordsman Schools of 7th Sea include a knack called Exploit Weakness (school), which allows a swordsman to gain bonus dice for both attacks and active defenses versus an opponent using the school in which he has the knack.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-07-15, 06:31 PM
[quote author=Ustauk link=board=gaming;num=1119641664;start=195#196 date=07/14/05 at 02:35:20]How come the Roman's never used atlatls/woomeras/spear throwers with their pilums? I know bow and arrow supplanted the atlatl in Europe long ago, but I can see it being useful again when you have shield bearing infrantry throwing projectiles with one hand.

Good question. I don't have a good answer. I guess it's similar to "Why did the Native Americans fail to invent the wheel?" Answer: They just failed.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-15, 07:52 PM
I wouldn't say they "failed to create" as much as "they never had a strong reason to do so," as Premier's post suggests. His point regarding the Roman shield and loading an atlatl is very good one - it takes two free hands to load an atlatl, and it's not really something you can leave loaded while you carry it.

Shiyuan
2005-07-15, 08:38 PM
Good question. I don't have a good answer. I guess it's similar to "Why did the Native Americans fail to invent the wheel?" Answer: They just failed.

That is a very simplistic and almost derogatory remark to make. The answer is very much like Gorbash Kazdar's explanation. They didn't need it. In places such as upper South America and Central America, evidence uncovered from their ancient civilizations there showed that the people had very much understood the concept of the wheel, and did "invent" (that is a ridiculous word, if you really study history and the nature of innovation, invention doesn't simply happen, it is always a progression of a previous idea or theory) the wheel, as shown in their children's toys, which made frequent use of wheeled depictions of animals. The reason why the wheel did not become the societal phenomenon as it was in Eurasia is simply due to the nature of the civilization's terrain. For the Inca and Maya, their lands were either too rugged or too swampy to sustain permanent roads, and thus unable support wheeled vehicles or devices.

I understand you probably didn't mean any offense Eric, as I have enjoyed you're efforts in this thread and appreciate you for starting the thread in the first place, but please, study up on a subject before so flippantly marking it off as a failure.

sktarq
2005-07-16, 12:39 AM
While both the Maya - whose original base of power was actually the guatamallan HIGHLANDS and Inca didn't have the terrain to make the wheel seem as nessessary as the old world groups in the American SW, the Aztec etc would seem to avoid this problem (the Sierra Nevada and S Rockies are no more rugged than Turkey or Yemen and they had wheels there) but here we run into a not so minor detail....Animals and Plants....Animals - the only "domesticated" animals avalible to these cultures were the Llama, (and its reletive the alpaca), the dog, and the Guinea Pig.....woo hoo....none of them strong enough to plow or pull much in the way of a vehicle. All the horses, bovines, elephants, LARGE camelids, etc died out at the end of the last ice age (coindently at the time humans showed up). And with plants because the Americas have a NS orientation vs a EW representation it is much harder to spred a culturae or advancment because new varieties of the food source have to be developed to expand into new climatic zones....this led to a problem in just "roaming" which was so important to both the devlopment of the horse and the spoked wheel (thank you Hittites)

alec
2005-07-16, 01:16 AM
The point of the pilum was not to throw it a long way. It was trown at the charging enemy, and did one of 4 things.
1) Missed. Due to training and the fact you were throwing at a big unit, this was uncommon.
2) Killed someone. This happened against 'barbarians' more than against anyone else.
3) Hit someones sheild. If this happened, the guy basicly had to drop his sheild, because the weight at the end made it to difficult to use effectivly, and when charging in a group you cant stop and pull it out.
4) Wounded someone. Also effective, because it is hard to fight with a javalin stuck in your shoulder.
The fact it made the fight easyer was why the Roman legions used pilums, not for prolonged skirmishes.

Umael
2005-07-16, 02:28 AM
*pant* *pant*

I read all of this thread in one setting. It is that good.

Question.

Western battles I know about, but how do Eastern battles differ (in particular, Japanese)?


Extraneous detail: I ask because I have a Rokugan game tomorrow... the Unicorn (cavalry) are on the field, the Crab in their shells (behind the fortifications). Due to an insult and breach of honor (PC attacked an NPC during a parley; PC is now quite dead), I figured the Crab would send out a small contingency to satisfy honor (is this realistic?). After that, return to the fortified camp, and rely on seige weapons to discourage attackers.

Shiyuan
2005-07-16, 05:23 AM
*pant* *pant*

I read all of this thread in one setting. It is that good.

Question.

Western battles I know about, but how do Eastern battles differ (in particular, Japanese)?


Extraneous detail: I ask because I have a Rokugan game tomorrow... the Unicorn (cavalry) are on the field, the Crab in their shells (behind the fortifications). Due to an insult and breach of honor (PC attacked an NPC during a parley; PC is now quite dead), I figured the Crab would send out a small contingency to satisfy honor (is this realistic?). After that, return to the fortified camp, and rely on seige weapons to discourage attackers.




Let me first provide you with a disclaimer. Japanese by the time of the feudal era, which L5R is loosely based on, use tactics dissimilar to most of the Asian continent, in the same manner of how Britain handled warfare different than the European continent.

Japanese warfare was a curious balancing act of posturing, maneuvering and pageantry in some periods, and outright brutality in others. As L5R has Rokugan existing as a empire suffering from internal intrigues and internercine disputes and skirmishes, I'll assume the warfare does not have the intent of outright butchery and destruction as the Sengoku Jida period of Japan.

The Unicorn Clan are essentially Mongols in both culture and approach to warfare. So I hope you have them constantly on the move, and their force almost entirely mounted, with heavy emphasis on the Shinjo horse-archers trying to herd or draw out Crab warriors to kill.

Crab Clan is possibly the perfect analogue of European knights and their men-at-arms in terms of combat, so emphasize their ability to stand their ground with fortifications, their discipline and their heavy armor. Trying to have the Crab match the Unicorn in manuevers is futile, and having the Crab attack is also near-suicidal. Also, the Crab are not idiots, they've fought horrible battles of attrition at the Kaiu Wall for generations upon generation, so sending a contingency to satisfy honor is not something they'd do. Doing so would doom that contigency to possibly being cut off and isolated by a swift cavalry screen on the part of the Unicorn. The only way to defeat the Unicorn in such an encounter would lie in the Crab's foresight in preparation for such an attack, if they had the time to prepare.

A smart Crab general would advantage of one of the Unicorn's greatest strengths, mobility and independent movements. This strength becomes a glaring weakness ripe for exploitation if properly manipulated. As a Crab commander, I'd first choose several key points of defense in the entire region I'm defending, based on the following paradigm: Can it avoid being surrounded? Does it have uneven ground favoring your force? And if lacking favorable ground, is it urbanized with much infrastructure?

Why use this paradigm? Because the first part is key in defending against a mobile enemy who specializes in herding and encircling their prey. The second part is also highly impeding to a cavalry based force, hilly terrain and the like work wonders for making infantry more than a match for horsemen. The third part, barring uneven terrain, relies on the general obstruction of city structures to horsemen and mass archery in general.

As overall Crab commander, I would first seek to clandestinely gather all available foods, supplies and wealth to these pre-determined points of defense under the veneer of typical infra-regional (domestic) trade. Troop numbers should also be moved about, with noticeably smaller concentrations in each of the major defense points. Have any remaining forces posted in other areas, but always close enough to a defense point so that when a war breaks out, it would be a simple matter of recalling all nearby forces into a defense point. With this set up, economics can continue as usual without impedence until the moment of the actual invasion.

Once the Unicorn invade, they'll try to take advantage of their opponent's comparable lack of mobility and strike simultaneously at key positions of symbolic and economic worth to their foes, in an attempt to paralyze the famous Crab will to attrition by denying them the means to feed their stalwart defenders. This will play into a conniving Crab general's hands.

Traditionally, cavalry-based armies are of lower overall population than a infantry-based army such as the Crab. The Unicorn invasion force would likely seperate into several moderately-sized contigents each assigned to a specific mission in the defending territory. Mongol, and in my opinion, Unicorn strategies involved keeping an enemy fractured in the field, so that they could be isolated from the main body, and annihalated in small chunks, until the main body is so diminished, the Mongols could encircle their enemy and slaughter them. They will expect determined Crab defenses, and probably fight with a slightly prejudiced conception of their Crab foes' definition of defense. Crabs are notoriously stubborn and unwilling to give ground, but all it takes is a clever Crab leader to change that into something more conducive to fighting Unicorns.

When the Unicorns move in, the Crabs carry out their premeditated procedures. Once the Unicorns designate their targets for raids or siege, (i.e. the defense points we discussed earlier as having a higher concentration of supplies but a lower concentration of soldiers) and make their moves, the outlying Crab positions (surrounding a defense point) first destroy ANY crops, foodstuffs, and supplies they cannot bring with them and rush to their respective defense points. By the time they reach their rallying points, the smaller concentration of soldiers already there should be utilizing guerrilla tactics if on uneven terrain and house-to-house fighting in the urban centers. This should bog the Unicorns down, who will likely avoid burning the defenders out for fear of losing the wealth known to be residing within. The sudden closing units of Crab warriors converging on a defense point will not catch Unicorns offguard, but it will definitely make them reconsider their current activities for that point.

If the Crab warriors involved are tactical enough, they might just be able to entrap a few Unicorn units in the hills or city streets and butcher them in close combat. Either way, the Unicorns will be forced to retreat or rout from these battles. If the plans were executed accordingly by the Crab warrriors, then the Unicorns will suddenly be faced with multiple and simultaneous setbacks and possible defeats. However, the true blow to the Unicorns would be their sudden recognition of the precariousness of their invasion. Rebuffed in their short-term goals of taking economic centers, they will be forced to fight a long-term war against the Crab, where the Crab will have the upper hand. If they do not have their own logistics supplying them with sufficient food and gear, the Unicorn will be forced to attempt to forage from an empty land. While their horses may do well, their men will not. Eventually, the economic strain of maintaining a military occupation of an un-productive land will eventually force the Unicorns to pull out and give up their endeavors.

Also, rather then allowing themselve to be herded into one mighty bastion of attrition, as the Unicorn would've liked, the Crabs are distributed throughout their land, with indepedent supply for each defense point, and in a position to capitalize on Unicorn unfamiliarity with their land. The Unicorn will not have that cozy security of knowing where their enemies are going to be coming from indefinitely, which they base their strategies on achieving, and they will be forced to patrol a land that may lurk with Crab insurgents and warbands sallying forth from their respective defense points. Either the Unicorn occupying forces will have to start homogenizing together, which will play into the Crab's favor by making it easier to surround them in turn, or to continue sending out multiple, independent contigents, that run the risk of running afoul a Crab ambush without sufficient back-up. Turning into a nightmare for the Unicorn? It should be.

I once used this strategy for this very purpose in a L5R game I played in. I called it the Crab Shell Game. X P

As much as I love Mongols historically, I have my soft spot for the Crab Clan, which share alot of traits with how my family seems to function. Stubbornness being one of the most evident. : P I've always thought the Crab got the short end of the stick when it came to characterization in the game. The books make mention of Crab tenacity frequently, and of their solid tactical and long-term strategic genius only in passing, so often I see people portray them as one-dimensional brutes with a big wall. They're Crabs, and Crabs have shells, but that shell doesn't have to be purely physical.

EDIT: Oh yes, I forgot the most important side detail to the Crab plan, maintaining communication between strongholds with magic and messenger birds (which can fly high enough to avoid being shot at by Unicorn archers).

EDIT: Also, messenger birds will play a key role in a scheme to destroy the Unicorn, but more on that later.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-07-16, 01:08 PM
I understand you probably didn't mean any offense Eric, as I have enjoyed you're efforts in this thread and appreciate you for starting the thread in the first place, but please, study up on a subject before so flippantly marking it off as a failure.

no, no... It's good you called me on it. I gave a flip answer without going into detail. I was trying point out that many times, different cultures never developed or used one item or another, for any number of reasons, whereas we, looking back, don't understand why they would fail to adopt something so useful and efficient. If I am not mistaken, at least one greek philosopher had doped out the basic ideas of a steam engine, but... the idea never went anywhere.

snow_cheetah
2005-07-16, 02:00 PM
hi hi

Thoughout history, invention has been driven by necessity. There are many instances where an invention whould have been entirely possible with the level of technology, yet was not created because there was no need for it. In the 19th century, the technology was available to create lasers, but there wouldn't have been a need for them.

An example of necessity, the Ohlone people of what is now california and why they did not develop agriculture: "With such a wealth of resources, the Ohlones did not depend upon a single staple. If the salmon failed to run, the people moved into the marshes to hunt ducks and geese. If the waterfowl population was diminished by a drought, the people could head for the coast where a beached whale or a run of smelts might help them through their troubles. And if all else failed, there were always shellfish: mussels, clams, and oysters high in nutrients and theirs for the collecting. ... All around the Ohlones were virtually inexhaustable resources; and for century after century the people went about their daily life secure in the knowledge that they lived in a generous land, a land that would always support them."

Europe is actually one of the least hospitable places to live, though its climate may be less extreme then North America's, finding food was much more difficult. When food and resources were scarce, there was little to do except starve or try to take it from others. Europeans developed faster because they lived in a more hostile environment, much the same way that the Mongols did.

That being said, Native Americans had a great deal of technical sophistication in places. Much more than is commonly known. In the 15th century, the Aztec metropolis Tenochtitlán was one of the largest cities on the planet with a conservative estimate at 350,000 people, or at least 5 times as many people as either london or seville and was vastly larger than any other european city. And it was clean... plumbing, canals, the works.

Also, in war up until the 20th century, disease always killed more people than people did. There's no real mechanism for simulating disease in war with dnd, but it wouldnt be impossible to come up with a rule.

Umael
2005-07-16, 02:07 PM
Japanese warfare was a curious balancing act of posturing, maneuvering and pageantry in some periods, and outright brutality in others. As L5R has Rokugan existing as a empire suffering from internal intrigues and internercine disputes and skirmishes, I'll assume the warfare does not have the intent of outright butchery and destruction as the Sengoku Jida period of Japan.

Emperor Hantei X (I believe it was X) forbade any out-and-out mass warfare between the Clans after the Crab-Crane war over the Yasuki family. This happened about 800 years ago and in canon literature, remained more or less true until the Great Clan Wars in which Fu Leng returned. My game has departed from canon and takes place about two or three years before the Scorpion Clan Coup (which probably will not happen).



The Unicorn Clan are essentially Mongols in both culture and approach to warfare. So I hope you have them constantly on the move, and their force almost entirely mounted, with heavy emphasis on the Shinjo horse-archers trying to herd or draw out Crab warriors to kill.

The entire army is on horseback, but most of the army consists of Moto warriors, rather than Shinjo (although there is nothing wrong with the Moto using horse-archers).



Crab Clan is possibly the perfect analogue of European knights and their men-at-arms in terms of combat, so emphasize their ability to stand their ground with fortifications, their discipline and their heavy armor. Trying to have the Crab match the Unicorn in manuevers is futile, and having the Crab attack is also near-suicidal. Also, the Crab are not idiots, they've fought horrible battles of attrition at the Kaiu Wall for generations upon generation, so sending a contingency to satisfy honor is not something they'd do. Doing so would doom that contigency to possibly being cut off and isolated by a swift cavalry screen on the part of the Unicorn. The only way to defeat the Unicorn in such an encounter would lie in the Crab's foresight in preparation for such an attack, if they had the time to prepare.


I need to go back a little and explain.

The Unicorn are in the Plains Above Evil because they are hunting Ratlings and have driven one particularly important Ratling here. Well, the Ratling itself isn't that important, but the Black Scroll it has is (long story how a Ratling has a Black Scroll, but needless to say, the Scorpion are highly active and interested).

The Crab have had conflicts with the Unicorns over the Ratlings recently (Unicorns loathe Ratlings, Ratlings don't like Unicorns, and the Crab are strong allies with the Ratings, but also good allies of the Unicorn, so this conflict is quite painful for the Crab). When news of this particular Ratling reached Crab ears, they sent a contingency of Hiruma to find said Ratling. Upon finding the Unicorn horsemen roaming the Plains Above Evil, the Hiruma sent word for help (Hiruma are excellent runners and scouts, but they lack the mobility of the Unicorn; the Hiruma have few horses available because of their training and because they are trying to find the Ratling - horses don't react well to Ratlings).

Most of the Hida are too busy manning the Wall, and since the Hiruma would get in a lot of trouble out in the open, they sent the Kaiu to build a hasty defense.

For a month, there were minor skirmishes as Hiruma scouts tried to leave the fortification to locate the Ratling, while the Unicorn mostly roamed the Plains in search of the Ratling and any Hiruma scouts out and about. The Hiruma, being more familiar with this territory, have also built some hasty traps here and there to slow the Unicorn search down (shovel + axe = shallow pit cover by small branches and sod with wooden spikes).

...

However, I must grant you the wisdom of pointing out that the Crab would not, indeed send out a contingency to meet the Unicorn. The Iuchi second-in-command demanded it after the Moto general was attacked and killed during the parley in the Crab general's tent, but the Hiruma general did not actually agree to it.



A smart Crab general would advantage of one of the Unicorn's greatest strengths, mobility and independent movements.

This might be a problem, since the Hiruma general had to commit seppuku to erase the dishonor of the assassination happening under his own tent. The PCs were given field promotions - one of the PCs is the Crab commander now, and the highest ranking officer there. I don't know if he is smart enough, but I am sure I can nudge him in the right direction.



This strength becomes a glaring weakness ripe for exploitation if properly manipulated. As a Crab commander, I'd first choose several key points of defense in the entire region I'm defending, based on the following paradigm: Can it avoid being surrounded? Does it have uneven ground favoring your force? And if lacking favorable ground, is it urbanized with much infrastructure?

Avoid being surrounded? The Unicorn control much of the area to the north and west of the fortification, the Twilight Mountains being relatively close to the east and south. Since the Unicorn could expect reinforcements of Crab originating from the Twilight Mountains, especially the south side, they are none too thrilled with the idea of getting caught between an advancing army and a fortification with Kaiu seige engines.

Uneven ground? Only to be found to the east and the south, as those are the foothills of the Twilight Mountains.

Infrastructure? None. It's the Plains Above Evil.



...so that when a war breaks out...


See, that's the point.

It isn't a war. The Unicorn aren't going to invade. They want a fight with the Crab, but they can't get them out of their shell. The Crab want to find the Ratling, but that means leaving the fortification. It is a stalemate, but time is against the Crab (not necessarily with the Unicorn though).



*much goodness, but ultimately, useless military advice for this situation snipped*

...If they do not have their own logistics supplying them with sufficient food and gear, the Unicorn will be forced to attempt to forage from an empty land. While their horses may do well, their men will not. Eventually, the economic strain of maintaining a military occupation of an un-productive land will eventually force the Unicorns to pull out and give up their endeavors.


Hmm... On realizing this, the "battle" just became a marital based game of "chicken." Longer the Crab wait, the more likely the Unicorn will capture the Ratling, or at least, the more likely the Ratling will disappear into parts unknown. But the longer the Unicorn stay, the more likely their supplies will dwindle (the Crab do not have this problem, since they are close enough to the Kaui Wall and reinforcements, that an arriving shipment of food would not be difficult).

(Again, I point out that the Crab have their back covered - any Unicorn contingency seeking to surround the Crab fortification to the south and west would have to deal with guerilla tactics, foothills, and the possibility of reinforcements arriving to pincer them... and let's not forget that the Kaui defenses have a long range.)



I once used this strategy for this very purpose in a L5R game I played in. I called it the Crab Shell Game. X P

As much as I love Mongols historically, I have my soft spot for the Crab Clan, which share alot of traits with how my family seems to function. Stubbornness being one of the most evident. : P I've always thought the Crab got the short end of the stick when it came to characterization in the game. The books make mention of Crab tenacity frequently, and of their solid tactical and long-term strategic genius only in passing, so often I see people portray them as one-dimensional brutes with a big wall. They're Crabs, and Crabs have shells, but that shell doesn't have to be purely physical.

Although you did not help me as much as I would have liked (my fault, I neglected a few key details), you did help me. While not complete, I think I have something more substantial for my game. Thank you.

And for the record - you rock!

snow_cheetah
2005-07-16, 03:26 PM
hi hi

Since there are people here with experience in weapon fighting, as opposed to myself who only has experience with wooden dowels and metal tubes, (no money, so sue me :P ) I was wondering if you could help me out with a question I have.

I'm trying to come up with a list of weapon categories, and while I don't expect anyone to come up with the lists for me, I was wondering if I could get some input on weapon similarity.

Could an expert with a katana weild a bastard sword with equal proficiency? Could a longswordsman wield a kali stick with similar proficiency? How much different is a halberd from a glave when used in combat? If you knew how to weild a heavy axe, would a similarly weighted hammer be similar or quite different?

Furanku_S
2005-07-16, 11:05 PM
If I am not mistaken, at least one greek philosopher had doped out the basic ideas of a steam engine, but... the idea never went anywhere.

Actually, if memory serves, it went BEYOND basic ideas... the guy actually built a device. A steam pipe would cause a blade to spin (similar to a portable fan) around on a vertical axis. Basically a glorified tea kettle, but still. It was displayed in Alexandria (or some other center of high learning), if I'm not mistaken.

sktarq
2005-07-17, 12:01 AM
One detail on the Mongols....and to give you an idea of the power of such a force when abley led....and if they avoid "mercy"

in the 13th century a single empire dominated what is today Afganistan, Iran, Pakistan, and much of what is today the southern ex-soviet -stans..... This was the Easten home of Islam and the emire could move 80,000 HEAVY horse cavalry to any point in the empire in a matter of a few days. It was certainly the most advanced empire of it's day with an economy that rivals the world percentage of the mid 20th centuries USA-and all but owned the silk road connecting China and Europe. This was the Superpower...the Leader burned off the beards of the representitives of a warlord to the east who wanted to be compentsated for the loss of a caravan that had been accused of spying. This leader was Ghingis Khan...who led his army to destroy the Empire...to talk control of (like he did China) but destroy....the greatest cities were levels with their populations methodically extermined (Sammara, and Bagram are in this list) 20,000 men and a top general were given the express duty to kill the leader that had insulted the Khan...that chase went to the south of india before it was finished....In the history of the world this war was more costly in terms of percentage of the world population killed, and percentage of the world's economy ruined than any conflict or attrocity before or since....It is in fact one of the only human caused actions to figure into the population of the world's across history....yes it caused the overall number of people on the planets to SLIDE for over a decade....and their direct attacks were nothing to be sniffed at...people remember that they would harry and snipe their opponent but once their opponent was disorganise a charge was something they were very good at.

Furanku_S
2005-07-17, 12:05 AM
...but I thought Kublai Khan was the one that finally conquered China?

*still a fan of Hulegu*

sktarq
2005-07-17, 12:12 AM
He did....Ghingis took a rather large chunck of the nation but not it's heart....that came later...the parts he did take over (including parts after the central Asian/Indian champigns) he "took over" more than the slash and burn that was the rule while the fool who had bburned his emisarries facial hair lived....after he died the Khan paid allot more attention to holding and controling the territory he gained....others continues to expand West...in two groups - one turned back in Egypt the other in the Hungarian Plains. But his attack into C asia coming via passes that were thought to be impossible for such a force was .... unmatched in his (and his decendents) later wars.

mastroyo
2005-07-17, 01:27 AM
So: Sir Eric The Mad, i have a question:

"I'm fairly new to 3rd edition, and the main problem i have with it (in comparison) is the Iniciative without Weapons Modifier. I can't understand, besides game simplification, why they took weapon speed out of the game. So, please enlighten me (i can't spell 'couse my native languaje isn't english, and i AM too lazy to pick up the dictonary... even to search enlighten in google.. ;D)

Thanks.

Shiyuan
2005-07-17, 01:40 AM
He did....Ghingis took a rather large chunck of the nation but not it's heart....that came later...the parts he did take over (including parts after the central Asian/Indian champigns) he "took over" more than the slash and burn that was the rule while the fool who had bburned his emisarries facial hair lived....after he died the Khan paid allot more attention to holding and controling the territory he gained....others continues to expand West...in two groups - one turned back in Egypt the other in the Hungarian Plains. But his attack into C asia coming via passes that were thought to be impossible for such a force was .... unmatched in his (and his decendents) later wars.

That would be more attributed to Chingis Khan's, or Temujin's as I prefer to call him, stellar ability to delegate command to his brilliant generals than any personal strategic accumen of his own. Temujin was very much the heart and soul of the Mongol Empire, motivating and inspiring his people, while his generals actually concocted and executed most of his grandest conquests in his name. This sort of charisma is what makes great conquerors, because they can attract the best followers and inspire the best from those men, like Temujin did with General Subadai Ba'adur (AKA Subodei, Subedei, Sabatai) and General Jebei Noyon, who were both legendary battle leaders who conquered their way into history and made their sworn liege lord a living legend in his own time.

I loves my Mongol history... so colorful and exciting. X D I've been hoping for a movie on the Mongols for ages now... I just want to see the Battle on the Plain of Mohi in a full theatrical release, and then I know I will die a happy man. ;D

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-17, 02:28 AM
hi hi

Since there are people here with experience in weapon fighting, as opposed to myself who only has experience with wooden dowels and metal tubes, (no money, so sue me :P ) I was wondering if you could help me out with a question I have.

I'm trying to come up with a list of weapon categories, and while I don't expect anyone to come up with the lists for me, I was wondering if I could get some input on weapon similarity.

Could an expert with a katana weild a bastard sword with equal proficiency? Could a longswordsman wield a kali stick with similar proficiency? How much different is a halberd from a glave when used in combat? If you knew how to weild a heavy axe, would a similarly weighted hammer be similar or quite different?

This is all from a historical study of European Martial arts and weaponry from an academic (not yet applied) standpoint:

The main things to consider when determining weapon simularity are, afaik imho, method of attack, mass distribution, handedness (1, 1 1/2, 2, or bastard), reach, and application.

A standard D&D bastard sword is roughly equivilant to a historical 'cut and thrust' bastard sword.. The historical katana could be either a bastard or hand and a half grip, and was generally designed for draw cutting. neither were overly specialized in application. The mass distributions are very different though, and using a draw cutting weapon to edge cut (or vice versa) is generally difficult, if it will work at all. I would say that the physical conditioning involved in using either weapon would transfer very well, the actual skill involved probably would not.

Longsword and kali stick is probably the simplest. A DnD lonsword is a one-handed (primarily) thrusting sword with the weight balanced much closer to the hilt than to the tip. A kali stick is rather shorter, much lighter, has a roughly even distribution, and is used for very quick blunt strinkes that depend on a small surface area rather than mass to cause trauma. The differences here are so significant that one would have to work practically from square one.

If you are using the halberd just for it's axe-like head, one experienced in using the glaive shouldn't have any trouble, as the vital points are all very similar, if not identical. One's experince with the glaive, however, wouldn't help one when trying to use the top point or the 'hook' (unless the glaive one had used was of a hybrid type and included these features).

The hammer and axe question is a little more difficult, as neither weapons existed in the form I belive your discussing *short-hafted, two-handed, and extremely heavy) in the ares and times I mostly study. The closest I can think of the either would be the poll axe, which incorperated both an axe-like head and either a flat hammer-like face, or a 'beak', ar a formation of spikes. I would think that the transfer between the two would be fairly simple (both are 'swung' with two hands, have most of their weight on the buissiness end and [assuming you're thinking of the DnD wepons I think you are] have a short reach). They wouldn't be identical in use, however, as the hammer is a little more specialized for use against armor (though they would both serve this purpoase), and the follow through after the stike would feel quite different, and the direction the weapon is facing in your hands is a bit more important for an axe than a hammer.

Generally questions on how well skill transfers between weapons is rather dificult, and the answer tends to be grey, rather than black or white. Shadowrun does a fair job of dealing with this by setting up categorys (for all skills, actually, but the weapons are what's pertenant) and applying a penalty dependant on how different the categorys are. I'm not sure how much of this will survive the transfer to 4th edition, though.

@ Mastroyo:
Simplification seems most likely. To incorporate it you would have to consider the mass of the weapon, distribution of that mass, as well as the strength of the weilder. There might be also be a balance issue (the only thing I can think of is that it would make the initiative gap between rogues and straight combat classes even wider).

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-17, 03:23 AM
I loves my Mongol history... so colorful and exciting. X D I've been hoping for a movie on the Mongols for ages now... I just want to see the Battle on the Plain of Mohi in a full theatrical release, and then I know I will die a happy man. ;D
I'm drooling at the thought of this, Shiyuan. Seriously.

Though, the History Channel actually had a surprisingly good docu-movie recently about Temujin that I enjoyed. I'd suggest checking it out.

As for more evidence of the power of the Mongols, don't forget that most of the major conquering tribes prior to them (such as the Huns) got driven out of Central Aisa either by the Mongol's forebears, or by people the Mongols later drove out themselves. Also, many major conquering/milirary/ruling tribes in Central, Southern, and Near East Asia (and some Far East ones) had ancestral connections to the Mongols, or were at least heavily influenced by their fighting style and exploits. Tamerlane (Temur the Lame, or Timur-i Lang) was supposedly descended from Temujin through the house of Chagatai (though this may be an illegitimate claim, but it's quite reasonable to believe he had some Mongol ancestry). Some of his descendents established the Moghal (or Mogul) empire in India; the word itself is possibly a version of "Mongol." Several emperors of China were either Mongols themselves, or claimed some degree of Mongol ancestry or other connection (ie. the Manchu).

Lastly, the Mongols were the only group to ever make a serious attempt to invade the main islands of Japan (not counting the original groups that went there from Korea). The US did have plans on the table for such an invasion, but figured using nuclear weapons would be a less devastating option, so it speaks highly of the Mongol's machismo that they actually tried to invade - and not once, but twice, and they almost won the first time, save for a lucky (for the Japanese) typhoon - which happened on both occasions. Moreover, the Mongols were horsemen, not marines. Many wouldn't have even seen a boat, let alone an ocean going one, prior to the invasion attempt, all of which just makes the attempt that much more impressive.

In short, the Mongols were the most badass of a series of badass tribes of horsemen that came pouring out of the steppes over the course of several millenia and conquered fairly large areas and wrecked (or at least threatened to wreck) some large and famous Western Empires (you know, Rome, Byzantium, and pretty much every native Slavic Russian culture that tried to get off the ground prior to the Muscovites).

It should also be noted that Temujin did seem to have some skill at military command himself, though Shiyuan is very much correct in stating that he relied heavily on his generals and was often more of a inspirational leader (say, like FDR or Churchill during WWII). Other conquerors are similar, though Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were both brilliant commanders in their own right. Some conquerors were more lucky than good - William the Conqueror falls into this category (he wasn't a bad commander - in fact, he was a pretty good one - but he wasn't a genious either). D&D players should know better than anyone, though, that being lucky is sometimes very much part of being good.

But I think I'm digressing even further at this point, so I'll just close with adding my wishes that someone realizes how cool a Temjin film would be, and manages to make one without totally bolloxing it up.

Sundog
2005-07-17, 10:38 AM
How come the Roman's never used atlatls/woomeras/spear throwers with their pilums? I know bow and arrow supplanted the atlatl in Europe long ago, but I can see it being useful again when you have shield bearing infrantry throwing projectiles with one hand.


The Pilum, being made largely of metal, is too heavy for an Atlatl (though not for the larger Woomera, though only the Australian Aborigines ever developed that). The soft iron shaft of a Pilum meant it would bend and distort during impact, making it useless to the enemy, and it's design was supposed to let it punch right through shields; even if it failed to go into the wielder, it would entangle the shield making it useless.
The primary purpose of the Pilum throw was to break up a charge, which could theoretically have broken the Legionnaires' line (with probably fatal results). So, an atlatl (which the Romans would have known of, given their contact with the civilizatons in North and Central Africa) was of little or no use to them.

In fact, arrow weapons were somewhat shunned by the Romans. They were seen as too inaccurate compared to the sling, and too weak compared to field artillery.

snow_cheetah
2005-07-17, 12:43 PM
hi hi

Thanks for the info, a lot of it confirms what I was already thinking, but there are still those few nagging questions. Shadowrun is pretty good about some of their skills, but in the expansion books, everything is pretty much in a category of its own.

If practice swords are clubs, how do you get skill in swords by using them? is the most common dilemma. I've been told that many types of clubs use the same technique as swords, and some are completely different.

Laevus
2005-07-17, 02:26 PM
(or at least threatened to wreck) some large and famous Western Empires (you know, Rome, Byzantium, and pretty much every native Slavic Russian culture that tried to get off the ground prior to the Muscovites).


In no way meaning to diminish the effectiveness of the Mongols, or of any similarly mobile, cavalry based militaries, there is a minor point I would wish to make: (a bit of a pet peeve of mine)

Rome? No longer Roman by the time of the Huns. It had been an empire in decline for a long period already, in fact it might be recalled that Aetius, the Roman general who defeated Atilla, was known as the 'Last Roman'. In instances wherein generals understood the advantages and goals of a cavalry based system, even the overwhelmingly infantry oriented roman legions were quite effective.

Point in case Scipio (the same one that defeated Hannibal) conducted a punitive campaign against the Parthians in the late Republican perios, after turning down kingship of Rome. Parthia, like much of the Mongolian territories (and the mongolians controlled a LOT of territory. Largest empire in the history of the world), was a pretty stark, and inhospitable terrain at this period. Refusing to be drawn into a skirmishing battle that would heavily favor his enemies, Scipio would simply remain on the defensive, absorb what losses were inevitable, poisoning wells and streams as necessary, and fortifying his men on top of the most necessary resources. A mobile siege.

In a fortified camp, garrisonned by veteran legions, too diciplined to be drawn out by cavalry hit and run, infantry prevailed. Scipio won the complete surrender of the Parthian tribes over a course of a year and a half with only a single pitched battle being fought.

So yes, while the mongols were incredably effective, ruthless, and yes, 'quite awesome', do bear in mind it was the closed mindedness, and inflexability of thier enemies in understanding and adapting to thier tactics that made them so wildly successful.

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-17, 02:37 PM
hi hi

Thanks for the info, a lot of it confirms what I was already thinking, but there are still those few nagging questions. Shadowrun is pretty good about some of their skills, but in the expansion books, everything is pretty much in a category of its own.

If practice swords are clubs, how do you get skill in swords by using them? is the most common dilemma. I've been told that many types of clubs use the same technique as swords, and some are completely different.
It all has to do with balance and shape. Wooden practice swords try to approximate the shape and balance of a sword, though they are usually lighter or heavier than an actual blade. I'm going to go with the well-known wooden practice katana, the shinai and the bokken, to illustrate what I mean.

A shinai, which is made from bound slats of bamboo, for example, is a very light practice sword for learning techniques for the katana - it's used for learning how to control motions of various techniques and learning where the sword goes in those motions, which are very important, especially for katana styles. Also, practicing and dueling with shinai is less likely to result in broken bones (as with a heavier practice blade, like a bokken) or lost limbs and death (like with a proper katana). This dueling option is especially useful - it helps you learn how to actually work in the fluid, everchanging situation that is an actual sword fight, instead of just learning static stances and strikes. Other light practice swords for Western blades do essentially the same thing; I'd treat them as dealing less damage than a club or sword, and non-lethal at that.

Bokken are closer to the weight of an actual sword and made from solid wood. They more closely approximate the actual feel of using a katana than a shinai does, so it helps the trainee get the endurance and strength needed to wield a real blade in actual combat. Katana are known for finesses and speed strikes rather than strength, but it still takes significant muscle power to 1) swing a couple foot long sharpened piece of metal around for several minutes, let alone hours as might happen in a battle and 2) to "snap off" blows with the sword, as most katana styles require. Dueling with bokken is also possible, but its a heavy piece of hard wood, so broken bones can easily result, or even death - one tale tells of Musashi decapitating an opponent with a bokken, for example, and it would be quite possible to cave in someone's skull with one. They are fully functional clubs, in other words. There, again, Western equivalents.

Of course, neither a shinai nor a bokken is exactly like a katana, and even an uninitiated wielder can feel the difference between the three just by holding them, but they provide much safer methods of stepping up training without putting a deadly weapon in the hands of a novice, and especially without having novices dual with those deadly weapons. Again, trainers in the West and in other areas used similar tools for similar reasons.

Someone trained with just those practice swords is not going to have really fully mastered the actual blade, and it will show in their fighting style. But it can help move someone from a rank novice to at least a decent swordfighter without putting them at risk of getting killed right off the bat. In other words, a PC who has trained with practice blades for several years but never seen an actual fight is more than likely a 1st level PC.

As for proper war-clubs, their balance is usually different from that of swords. They are more like axes or hammers, with significant weight out at the striking end. Maces, for example, are just war-clubs with metal striking heads. There are speed clubs, like police batons, tonfa, and jo sticks, that are more balanced and thus faster in attacks, but even those usually differ significantly from swords in balance and weight. There are similar techniques, of course, but that's often true of weapons with similar size and overall shape - quarterstaffs, for example, can be used to make a jab attack much the way a spear user would make one, and short, light spears can be wielded somewhat like quarterstaffs.

Hope that helps a bit :)

[hr]

In no way meaning to diminish the effectiveness of the Mongols, or of any similarly mobile, cavalry based militaries, there is a minor point I would wish to make: (a bit of a pet peeve of mine)

Rome? No longer Roman by the time of the Huns. It had been an empire in decline for a long period already, in fact it might be recalled that Aetius, the Roman general who defeated Atilla, was known as the 'Last Roman'.
No argument here on that point, though I was more referring to the tribes that preceded the Huns and did fight Rome-proper, which had been driven out of their homelands by tribes like the Huns, or were at least on a long chain of displacements that started off back in Central Asia with someone like the Huns kicking someone else off their land.


In instances wherein generals understood the advantages and goals of a cavalry based system, even the overwhelmingly infantry oriented roman legions were quite effective.

...

So yes, while the mongols were incredably effective, ruthless, and yes, 'quite awesome', do bear in mind it was the closed mindedness, and inflexability of thier enemies in understanding and adapting to thier tactics that made them so wildly successful.
Yes, of course. I probably got into a bit of an enthusiastic fan moment previously, but the Mongols, like every other fighting force in history, had their flaws, and benefitted from going up against foes who were unprepared for their tactics or their numbers and organization (the Chinese knew Mongol tactics, but had never seen them manage to unite so effectively). They were also a horse culture and fielded almost exclusively cavalary. That's why their empire more or less followed the paths of the steppes and plains of Eurasia - cavalry are much less effetive in mountainous terrain, so the mountains of Europe helped protect it. Also, the Mongols did rely on native allies in some cases, like most conquering armies.

So, basically, it wasn't that any individual Mongol solider was a superman - though they did have far more actual combat experience and were in better physical shape than many of their opponents - but they were better organized and better led than just about anyone else around at that time, and used innovative tactics more or less unknown outside of Mongol lands. And, of course, their empire did eventually come apart, as the Mongols were absorbed into the local cultures of their conquered lands.

I would also add that other large conquering forces - the the Persians, the Spartans, the Greeks under Alexander, the Romans, the French under Napoleon, and the Germans in WWII - had similar effects on the tactical, strategic, and organizational methods used by the militaries in the areas they held and the foes they fought (even the US and the USSR adopted many Wehrmacht techniques during and after WWII, for example). The Mongols just are notable for having a long standing impact over a vast area, making them one of the most influential of these groups, and certainly the most influential of the Central Asian tribes.

snow_cheetah
2005-07-17, 03:53 PM
hi hi

Thanks for the advice, it is actually quite helpful. I suppose I'll have to devise a system where the characters need to become more specific with their weapon skills as their skill increases. This skill category process just keeps getting more and more ambitious as time goes on. You've also given me a great inspiration, as I am now going to start making up stats for a wide range of subdual weapons. :)

I'll probably start out with size categories. tiny, small, medium, large, huge. Then move onto weight types: heavy, medium, light. balanced, end heavy, etc.
or speed types: fast, medium, slow. Then go into handling types: chopping, stabbing, jabbing etc. before finally require individual weapons to be selected.

It never quite made sense to me, upon converting to 3rd edition, why someone would be equally skilled at using every weapon they know how to use. (that and weapon speed, but thats something totally different)

laughingfuzzball
2005-07-17, 04:41 PM
Although that'd be fairly accurate, it's far to complicated (imho) unless you want it to be a detailed swordsmanship simulator. I also happen to be working on a system with a friend of mine, and I believe we've found a happy medium. Generally, you roll your skill for the group that the weapon beliongs to (or the approproate stat if you don't have this skill). You can instead roll you specialization in that particular type of weapon if you have the appropriate ones. If you want to get very specific, there is an optional bonus to represent wielding an exact weapon for a long period of time. There is a soft limit, though, on how much higher a skill can be than the stat, or a specialization than the skill, or a familiar weapon than it's specialization. This helps balance the game a bit, and prevents someone from being an absolute master with his glaive, but completely clueless if handed a bill.

snow_cheetah
2005-07-17, 06:56 PM
hi hi

Another idea would have been to make up a list of weapon styles, imaginary ones like fantasy worlds often do, and each one covers a variety of moves. Then each weapon would be capable of different moves, like how a katana slashes a certain way, but a bastard sword more frequently is a thrusting weapon. Then you would figure out which skills matched up between the style and the weapon and use those. That way you could have humorous situations where a club user picks up a sword and weilds it clumsily but at least isnt a danger to himself.

The trouble with that one is the tremendous amount of legwork involved, not only in developing the styles, but in setting up the weapons as "several tools in one" style that many of them are.

Yet another idea was to map out some sort of weapon grid or web, perhaps in 3 or more dimensions if necessary, and basically every link away from your chosen weapon you get, you lower the skill's rating by one level.

This system I think would work pretty well, the legwork involved wouldnt be too terrible. The trouble is that it is far too static, no modularity so to speak, and once setup cannot be altered easily. If someone invents a new weapon, everything gets thrown off.

Shiyuan
2005-07-17, 07:54 PM
In no way meaning to diminish the effectiveness of the Mongols, or of any similarly mobile, cavalry based militaries, there is a minor point I would wish to make: (a bit of a pet peeve of mine)

Rome? No longer Roman by the time of the Huns. It had been an empire in decline for a long period already, in fact it might be recalled that Aetius, the Roman general who defeated Atilla, was known as the 'Last Roman'. In instances wherein generals understood the advantages and goals of a cavalry based system, even the overwhelmingly infantry oriented roman legions were quite effective.

Point in case Scipio (the same one that defeated Hannibal) conducted a punitive campaign against the Parthians in the late Republican perios, after turning down kingship of Rome. Parthia, like much of the Mongolian territories (and the mongolians controlled a LOT of territory. Largest empire in the history of the world), was a pretty stark, and inhospitable terrain at this period. Refusing to be drawn into a skirmishing battle that would heavily favor his enemies, Scipio would simply remain on the defensive, absorb what losses were inevitable, poisoning wells and streams as necessary, and fortifying his men on top of the most necessary resources. A mobile siege.

In a fortified camp, garrisonned by veteran legions, too diciplined to be drawn out by cavalry hit and run, infantry prevailed. Scipio won the complete surrender of the Parthian tribes over a course of a year and a half with only a single pitched battle being fought.

So yes, while the mongols were incredably effective, ruthless, and yes, 'quite awesome', do bear in mind it was the closed mindedness, and inflexability of thier enemies in understanding and adapting to thier tactics that made them so wildly successful.

On Aetius: Remember, Flavius Aetius also had spent his youth among the Goths (under Alaric, a great leader) and the Huns (under Rugila) prior to his return to the Roman Empire. He had acquired in this way the knowledge which enabled him afterwards to defeat these nations. There is also a certain view that Aetius's upbringing among a vigorous and warlike people such as the Huns gave him a martial vigor lacking in Rome itself at that period. Certainly he learned every trick the Huns themselves utilized in battle, and he used that knowledge well in his conflicts with Attila.

Likewise the Huns were the products of the Hsiang Nu tribesmen who were driven out of Asia by the combined pressure of the Mongols and then the Chinese. These were the LOSERS of Asia, and they gave one of Rome's craftiest generals a run for his money under Attila. Imagine if Aetius had faced instead of the Huns - who managed to alienate the one "barbaric" nation that would haved shored up the Huns' weaknesses outside cavalry warfare, the Goths (who under Alaric were essentially Roman-trained) - he had faced the coalition empire of the Mongols.

On the Parthians and Scipio: You should not and cannot make the Parthians a comparable analogy for the Mongols against the Romans. Simply put, you are correct to state that the epitome of the Roman military was not present when faced with the Huns, but likewise, the argument is double-sided, for the Parthians, while sharing some superficial similarities to the Mongols, were NOT Mongols in any shape or form. The Parthians were mobile and cunning, but they simply did not morph and grow with the situation as the Mongols did. Also note that the Parthians of the time period where they engaged the Roman Empire in war, were never quite good at siege warfare, this being one of their major foils when confronting the Roman military machine.

Mongols, on the other hand, were extremely adaptable, VERY capable and innovative at siege warfare, willing to recruit warriors from conquered nations for auxilaries (as the Romans did, but in testament to the Mongols, their auxilaries were famously loyal), and also paid great attention to their losses (of the few they did lose) and the strategies of their enemies. In fact, Romans and Mongols share a startling commonality in their utter pragmatism in war. If you lost, figure out why, and then fix it.

Publius Cornelius Scipio (later Africanus) was a great general in his time, but he is not to be taken as the standard of Roman military quality (Rome existed long enough to have its equal share of incompetent officers). Just as Subadai Ba'adur was for the Mongols, (I don't recall the Mongols conquering the largest land empire in history before Temujin and his generals) Scipio was one of those honored men who made their nation the legend peope today speak of.

In fact, I would give my left nut to see the two square off in a campaign. Both were astoundingly astute observers of their opponents, constantly learning from their encounters. A single battle just wouldn't do, because both of these men thrived in the campaign environment, where they had room and time to absorb and process their enemies' moves. Yes, add that fantasy to my "So I can die a happy man" list...

Furanku_S
2005-07-17, 10:02 PM
Well, with a few donations for my time travel project, that could be arranged (although that was more to hear Socrates and Confucius duke it out verbally).

Okay, for my next question:

Just how lackluster was the Roman army (or armies, as it may be) at the time of the collapse? I've read things that suggested they were basically "barbarians" (yeah, as much as that really means) with shorter haircuts, but is that true?

alec
2005-07-17, 10:21 PM
At the time of the colapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Roman army was pathetic. They were hiring barbarians to keep other barbarians away from Rome, which was, in hindsight, a very silly thing to do. One of the hired tribes, the Visigoths, then proseded to sack Rome, while it was unprotected by any real force.

Furanku_S
2005-07-17, 11:57 PM
Meh, I was always more of an Ostrogoth fan myself.

EDIT: On a (somewhat) unrelated note, it was the Iberian celts that sacked Rome the first time, wasn't it?

Gordon
2005-07-18, 01:09 AM
At the time of the colapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Roman army was pathetic. They were hiring barbarians to keep other barbarians away from Rome, which was, in hindsight, a very silly thing to do. One of the hired tribes, the Visigoths, then proseded to sack Rome, while it was unprotected by any real force.

To be fair, much of those immigration and Romanization incentives followed in the wake of debilitating plagues that had stripped away much of the peasant base. It's like complaining that a 20th century multicultural nation of immigrants is opposing with military force people from countries from which they have a lot of immgrants now (say, the US in WW2 opposing Hitler despite having numerous German immigrants, if you like).

Also, you can revise that mental image that goes with the word. The "barbarians" weren't Conan with a Roman passport. They weren't cavemen with pila. They were Romans who hadn't been born in central Italy (and by the late 5th C AD that was true of most Romans).

Shiyuan
2005-07-18, 04:46 AM
Well, with a few donations for my time travel project, that could be arranged (although that was more to hear Socrates and Confucius duke it out verbally).



Confucius would lose. Being Chinese and being Chinese raised, I have witnessed the long-term effects of Confucius' arguments (traditional Chinese family structure and behavior), and must say that his ideas were just hypocritical or awkward at best. Socrates, now there was a philosopher worthy of remembrance. He was a genuine tinkerer of social consciousness, whereas Confucius was a lackluster self-aggrandizing minor official given way too much credit than he really deserved. The only reason why he became so popular was because his dogmatic premises allowed a Chinese authoritarian imperial system to continue dictating its people's lives with impunity. Sorry if I seem particularly anti-Confucius, but it's true, the people who live under a philosophy tend to know it best, its strengths and its weaknesses. I know only a few strengths of Confucian ethics, that being clear and decisive authority and loyalty, but the weaknesses and inhumanities produced by such an institution are legion.

I'd much rather watch Socrates take on Lao Tzu, whom I consider to be China's closest parallel to Socrates.

If want someone to debate with Confucius, choose Aristotle, if there ever was an equal to Confucius in pomposity and inflated prestige, it was that bastard who held back atomic theory for a thousand years by decrying Democritus as a fool, when Democritus hit the nail on the head.

Gordon
2005-07-18, 08:08 AM
Confucius would lose. Being Chinese and being Chinese raised, I have witnessed the long-term effects of Confucius' arguments (traditional Chinese family structure and behavior), and must say that his ideas were just hypocritical or awkward at best. Socrates, now there was a philosopher worthy of remembrance. He was a genuine tinkerer of social consciousness, whereas Confucius was a lackluster self-aggrandizing minor official given way too much credit than he really deserved. The only reason why he became so popular was because his dogmatic premises allowed a Chinese authoritarian imperial system to continue dictating its people's lives with impunity. Sorry if I seem particularly anti-Confucius, but it's true, the people who live under a philosophy tend to know it best, its strengths and its weaknesses. I know only a few strengths of Confucian ethics, that being clear and decisive authority and loyalty, but the weaknesses and inhumanities produced by such an institution are legion.

I'd much rather watch Socrates take on Lao Tzu, whom I consider to be China's closest parallel to Socrates.

If want someone to debate with Confucius, choose Aristotle, if there ever was an equal to Confucius in pomposity and inflated prestige, it was that bastard who held back atomic theory for a thousand years by decrying Democritus as a fool, when Democritus hit the nail on the head.

It's funny-- just as being Chinese and seeing history has soured you on Confucius, so being a Classics ABD has truly soured me on Socrates-- now there was a vile little man. Unjustly famous as he is, he has two big discoveries to his credit. He discovered that the world's biggest fool can ask a question that the wisest man can't satisfactorily answer, and he discovered the principle that having your supporters write the history is a good way to make you look good.

Executing him was the smartest thing Athens ever did. It tops the Parthenon or anything achieved in the development of government, easily.

Hzurr
2005-07-18, 11:55 AM
It's funny-- just as being Chinese and seeing history has soured you on Confucius, so being a Classics ABD has truly soured me on Socrates-- now there was a vile little man. Unjustly famous as he is, he has two big discoveries to his credit. He discovered that the world's biggest fool can ask a question that the wisest man can't satisfactorily answer, and he discovered the principle that having your supporters write the history is a good way to make you look good.

Executing him was the smartest thing Athens ever did. It tops the Parthenon or anything achieved in the development of government, easily.

Mmm....I'm going to have to disagree with you. Socrates' major contribution to society was (appropriately) the socratic method. The idea of how you ask questions, and what qualifies as a satisfactory answer, is something that is still taught in Law School. And if nothing else, Socrates must be given props for the influence he had on his students, and therefor the entire world. Had Socrates not asked the questions he did, and pressed people like he did, Aristotle and all that crew wouldn't have turned out like they did. Now, whether or not you like what they said is beside the question, You can't deny the influence. Had it not been for Socrates, the legal system (and dare I say government/society?) as we know it would not exist.

Two quick examples that come to mind.
Aristotle teaches Alexander the Great
Influence of Socrates/Aristotle/Plato on Locke & Hobbes

snow_cheetah
2005-07-18, 12:07 PM
hi hi

In a duel of wits I would venture that Socrates was indeed poorly armed. I don't think I can name a single ancient philosopher of the western world to parallel Lao Tzu, which isn't to say that none existed, but the closest I can think of (in both famousness and cleverness) would be Descartes, but he came much later.

Fhaolan
2005-07-18, 12:37 PM
Meh, I was always more of an Ostrogoth fan myself.

EDIT: On a (somewhat) unrelated note, it was the Iberian celts that sacked Rome the first time, wasn't it?

The Thracians/Dacians sacked Rome. Depending on where you draw the lines, they were not truely Celts unless you make Celts, Goths, and Thraco-Dacians all part of the same cultural grouping. There are simularities between all three cultures, but there are enough differences to keep them separate. For some reason, however, not very many people are aware of the Thraco-Dacian cultural grouping.

There was a lot of trade between the Thraco-Dacians, the Iberian Celts, and the Greeks, though. The falcatta was used by the Greeks and the Celts, and the Dacians had a two-handed version called a 'falx'. Eventually the weapon evolved into the falcion. I may be misremembering, but I think it was the sacking of Rome by the Dacians, who were using weapons like the falx at the time, that prompted the Romans to redesign their armor and fighting techniques. Up until then they hadn't actually come face-to-face with 'barbarian hordes' with chopping, slashing weapons. Up until then they had been fighting against other 'civilized' cultures, like the Greeks who were using similar weapons and equipment. As I said, I may be misremembering. I'm a bit twitchy with this period of history.

Umael
2005-07-18, 09:46 PM
Could I get a military critique here? Especially from all you Mongoliphiles out there (is that the right word?)...

(I know, this is more a warfare question than a weapon/armor question but it beats the "my philosopher can out-wit your philospher" competition)...


I mentioned my Unicorn (Mongolian cavalry) versus Crab (heavy fortification) battle pending. And well, it (the battle) happened.

At dawn, a challenger from the Unicorn came to call out the general for a duel. Said general was dead, the current commander (a PC) basically said "forget it," and that was the end of the last negiotations.

The Unicorns sent a wave of horse-archers south at the fortification. As they got close enough, they shot a volley of alchemist fire-arrows (Dragon alchemy + Unicorn ingenuity) over the walls of the well-made, but hastily built Crab walls. The inner wall, made of wood (and about thirty feet from the outer wall), and some of the seige engines started burning, but nothing serious. The horse-archers broke and rode off to the east, then rode back north, west, and back south to launch another volley. The defenders returned fire, but basically little damage was being done on either side.

This was, as a number of PCs correctly determined, a distraction. They moved to the northwest corner to see an emerging heavy cavalry from the woods to the west charging the wall. A line of horse-archers broke off from the main group from the north and rode south along-side the west wall.

See, during the night, with the snow falling (encouraged by an Iuchi shugenja (Iuchi are one of the Unicorn family, for those that do not know)), saboteurs crept up to the west wall and lined the spot where the wall and ground meet with gaijin pepper, aka gunpowder (explosives as weapons are frowned upon by the Emperor during this time, certainly not an honorable weapon, but not actually illegal, as cannons and rifles are).

The alchemist-fire arrows melted the snow and set off the explosives, destroying the west wall in time for the Unicorn charge into the Crab camp.

However, the Crab had three surprises for the Unicorn. The first was that there were several pits outside the west wall (shallow, with wooden spikes, covered by small branches and snow, covered, but too weak to support a warhorse in armor). The second was that there were several pits inside the Crab compound, each with a cover strong enough for a Crab warrior in armor, but not a Unicorn warhorse. The third was that the wooden inner wall and the western ends of the north and south walls still had Hiruma archers.

(I forgot that the Unicorn cavalry actually brought a second set of explosives with them, which they were going to use on the inner wall, west side. Not sure what I want to happen to them. Maybe all the Unicorns carrying the gaijin pepper were killed.)

General melee ensues with the PCs getting some time in the spotlight (I have a few good stories if anyone is interested), and then the Unicorns pull a retreat, having destroyed or heavily damaged most of the seige engines (using fire or just hacking with ono (battleaxes) (since I figured it would not be good to use a katana as a machine-wrecker).

I figured that about half of the Unicorn who were part of the raid were killed and somewhere between one-third to one-half of the Crab in the foritification were killed. The Unicorn army totalled 7,000, the Crab army totalled 8,000, and I figure at least 1,000 horse-archers had to be used for the distraction to work.

Now... comments? Did that sound reasonable? I can go back and retro-actively change some details (such as the second set of explosives, whether they would have used katana to destroy seige engines or not, and so forth).

Gorbash Kazdar
2005-07-18, 11:05 PM
It looks good, except for the casualty numbers, I'd say. I'd peg it at about 1/3 to 1/2 of the attacking force, with a bias towards the higher side, of which, say, 1/2 were killed and 1/2 wounded/captured (there'd be more wounded and captured, except I figure given the Rokugani culture some of the dead will have been wounded who comitted suicide to avoid capture). I'd also increase the attacking force a bit, to at least equal to the defending force, preferably larger.

For the defenders, I'd go with 1/4 to 1/3 casualties, with say 3/5 wounded and 2/5 dead. With a cavalry assault like this, it's unlikely that the Unicorn captured any Crab warriors, unless they managed to get ahold of someone very important.

These are pretty rough estimates, but your previous numbers seemed too high for casualties, especially for the defenders, and not all the casualties would be dead. Given the available types of arms and tactics, I'd give the defenders a pretty significant advantage, which accounts for the lower losses for the Crab, and why I suggest increasing the Unicorn attacking force.

The major issue now is what happens next. The Unicorns probably won't make another bid to destroy the Crab army while they stay behind the fortifications - they had a neat trick to try the first time, but it didn't succeed fully. They did shake up the Crab, and the loss of the siege engines makes it easier for the Unicorn to search the area without fearing bombardment from Crab bases. Therefore, the Unicorn will probably leave a force to keep an eye on the Crab, and to keep any Crab sortie busy while reinforcements move in to crush it (Unicorn mobility is a big advantage). After all, the Unicorn don't have to beat the Crab - they just need to find the Ratling.

Alternatively, if the Unicorn do need to destroy the Crab forces for some reason, they'll likely do the above, but instead of searching, will start burning and pillaging the land, hoping to draw the Crab out of their shell and out into the open, where the Unicorn cavalry will be able to fight to full effect.

As for the Crab, they're in a tough spot now. The one advantage they have is that their wounded were still in the fortifications, and thus with some judicious healing ad some time, can return to the fight, whereas some signficant portion of the Unicorn wounded likely were captured or committed suicide to avoid capture. However, the siege engines were likely their best tool for attacking the Unicorn, but now those have been destroyed. Also, leaving the fortifications is a Bad IdeaTM. But staying in them is bad, because if they don't go looking for the Ratling, either he's going to get grabbed up by the Unicorn, or he's going to disappear. The best option might be to send out a small elite team that can avoid the Unicorn's notice, but are capable of defending themselves if discovered *cough*PCs*cough* ;)

At least, that's my 2cp.

Gordon
2005-07-19, 08:12 AM
Mmm....I'm going to have to disagree with you. Socrates' major contribution to society was (appropriately) the socratic method. The idea of how you ask questions, and what qualifies as a satisfactory answer, is something that is still taught in Law School.

While that's true, it's also true that this method arises more out of his nachleben than out of his teaching. What you find instead when you read him is something like you would get if you "wrote" in dialogue form a philosophical/political "dialogue" with, say, William F. Buckley representing your side, and the Three Stooges representing the other. the Apologia isn't in dialgue form and is among his mopst laughable "productions" (given that he didn't actually produce any of his works, but had them presented later by Plato and Xenophon).


And if nothing else, Socrates must be given props for the influence he had on his students, and therefor the entire world. Had Socrates not asked the questions he did, and pressed people like he did, Aristotle and all that crew wouldn't have turned out like they did. Now, whether or not you like what they said is beside the question, You can't deny the influence. Had it not been for Socrates, the legal system (and dare I say government/society?) as we know it would not exist.

Two quick examples that come to mind.
Aristotle teaches Alexander the Great
Influence of Socrates/Aristotle/Plato on Locke & Hobbes

Oh, no question he had influence. that influence, howevere, was largely a pernicious one. Again, props to Athens for icing the little traitor whne they did. Izzy Stone's book on him, The Trial of Socrates is a surprisingly good one-- philosophers hate it, because Stone doesn't worhsip at his feet, and Classicicts tend to hate it because they didn't think of it first.

Bottom line: if you ever met Socrates, you'd have an overwhelming urge to punch him in the face.

Hzurr
2005-07-19, 08:56 AM
Bottom line: if you ever met Socrates, you'd have an overwhelming urge to punch him in the face.

Ah yes, that is a possibility. But it all depends on what circumstances you meet him in. But yeah, I can see how Socrates could get on someone's nerves.


What you find instead when you read him is something like you would get if you "wrote" in dialogue form a philosophical/political "dialogue" with, say, William F. Buckley representing your side, and the Three Stooges representing the other.

So I guess the real question is "How accurate was Plato when he wrote all of this?" I mean, it is possible that how it's written was exactly how it transpired. It's also possible that it was completely tampered with. There really isn't a sure-fire way to know.

Eric_The_Mad
2005-07-19, 09:59 AM
hi hi

Since there are people here with experience in weapon fighting, as opposed to myself who only has experience with wooden dowels and metal tubes, (no money, so sue me :P ) I was wondering if you could help me out with a question I have.

I'm trying to come up with a list of weapon categories, and while I don't expect anyone to come up with the lists for me, I was wondering if I could get some input on weapon similarity.

Could an expert with a katana weild a bastard sword with equal proficiency? Could a longswordsman wield a kali stick with similar proficiency? How much different is a halberd from a glave when used in combat? If you knew how to weild a heavy axe, would a similarly weighted hammer be similar or quite different?

Belated Response:

Based on my own experience, I would say "Yes, they could use the weapon, although without the same level of skill." But (if we were using the AD&D 3.0/3.5 rules), I'd only give them half the penalty. Depending on the situation (and rules engine), I'd also let them gain proficiency much quicker then if they were learning from scratch. Yes, there are some key differences, but there are also some strong similarities in how they are used.