wielding a 2H melee weapon while mounted?

[Repairman_Jack]

Hi all.

A player in my campaign wants to use a Greatsword while mounted on horseback. I can't find a specific rule that disallows this, but it clearly seems to be unrealistic to me. Now, I fully realize that I can just make a ruling, but I would like some feedback to see if my gut reaction is off-base.

What do you all think... is this something that should be allowed? If so, would there be any penalties? If not, would there be some way to make it work (feat, skill-check, etc.)?

Thanks.

[Kudaku]

Personally I don't really have an issue with this - if a person can fire a composite longbow from horseback without specific training then I don't see a problem with swinging a really big sword.

Oh, I'm assuming you're either playing 3.5 or PF - it would be nice to know which one it is, since they handle mounted combat slightly differently.

[Piggy Knowles]

Look under the skill section for the ride skill. There is already a skill check for guiding your mount with your knees, which allows you to use both hands for combat. It is only a DC 5 skill check, so it should be pretty easy to pass, but there are already rules in place for this.

[Repairman_Jack]

It wasn't so much a question of what the rules allow. I already aknowledge that there is no rule against this.

It was more a question of what is realistic. I know of no example in all of military history of any type of 2H mounted weapon wielder (lance excepted - special case).

The issue, in my mind, is one of balance and leverage. Two properly wield a 2H weapon, you derive a lot of its power from the legs and hips. This just doesn't seem workable on horseback. I just don't see how you could get an effective swing?

Mounted bows and crossbows works fine... you don't have to swing it. But 2H weapons like Greatswords, Halberds, Greataxe, etc. really need good footing to use properly.

[killem2]

It wasn't so much a question of what the rules allow. I already aknowledge that there is no rule against this.

It was more a question of what is realistic. I know of no example in all of military history of any type of 2H mounted weapon wielder (lance excepted - special case).

The issue, in my mind, is one of balance and leverage. Two properly wield a 2H weapon, you derive a lot of its power from the legs and hips. This just doesn't seem workable on horseback. I just don't see how you could get an effective swing?

Mounted bows and crossbows works fine... you don't have to swing it. But 2H weapons like Greatswords, Halberds, Greataxe, etc. really need good footing to use properly.

I am the kind of DM that goes with, if it says you can do it, then I leave it alone. Why limit the players?

I mean, we have players starting with 20+ str, and they can lift a small car. You really think, it's not realistic for them to swing a 30lb sword mounted?

[Kudaku]

I'd have to agree with Em2.

I used to be quite particular about these little details, but then I considered a few other facts of life in a fantasy RPG.

In Pathfinder a decent-level gunslinger can reload and fire a musket seven or eight times in a 6-second round without breaking a sweat.

A low level wizard can literally summon monsters out of thin air.

Considering the other classes are meant to compete and keep up with character concepts that clearly don't bother listening to the laws of physics, I find that selectively applying "real-world logic" means the non-magic classes struggle that much harder to keep up.

[killem2]

I'd have to agree with Em2.

I used to be quite particular about these little details, but then I considered a few other facts of life in a fantasy RPG.

In Pathfinder a decent-level gunslinger can reload and fire a musket seven or eight times in a 6-second round without breaking a sweat.

A low level wizard can literally summon monsters out of thin air.

Considering the other classes are meant to compete and keep up with character concepts that clearly don't bother listening to the laws of physics, I find that selectively applying "real-world logic" means the non-magic classes struggle that much harder to keep up.


Unless you enjoy giving yourself headaches :P, applying logic to this game is pointless haha.

[bobthehero]

I am the kind of DM that goes with, if it says you can do it, then I leave it alone. Why limit the players?

I mean, we have players starting with 20+ str, and they can lift a small car. You really think, it's not realistic for them to swing a 30lb sword mounted?

Its 10 lbs at the very worst. Average is 5-6. Some go as low as 2.5 lbs.

A 30 lbs greatsword would be just a chunk of metal and absolutely useless.

[Matticussama]

When a Wizard or a Sorcerer can call forth balls of fire from the energy of the universe, applying the realistic physics of how fighting with a greatsword or a halberd from horseback works seems a bit unnecessary. If the player wants to fight with a greatsword on horseback, let them do so; it adds to the flair of their character without violating any rules or taking away from the story.

[Ashtagon]

Realistically, you can't get the leverage for 2h swung weapons.

As others have noted though, the power level of D&D is such that this level of realism falls before the might of "eh, fireballs. Whatever".

[TuggyNE]

Its 10 lbs at the very worst. Average is 5-6. Some go as low as 2.5 lbs.

A 30 lbs greatsword would be just a chunk of metal and absolutely useless.

I'm given to understand that the maximum for non-ornamental weapons is actually around 5-6lbs, and the average is 3-4; greatswords may weigh less than arming swords, in point of fact.

But yes, 30lb greatswords are purely fiction, and wouldn't even be useful for ceremonial purposes.

[Seerow]

I'm given to understand that the maximum for non-ornamental weapons is actually around 5-6lbs, and the average is 3-4; greatswords may weigh less than arming swords, in point of fact.

But yes, 30lb greatswords are purely fiction, and wouldn't even be useful for ceremonial purposes.

Pure fiction, sure. But for D&D? I can see it.

In a fantasy game where people have the capacity to carry around a couple tons all day every day without ever getting tired, I have no problem believing someone having even a several hundred pound weapon and using it.

Now using such a weapon without killing your poor horse on the other hand...

[bobthehero]

I'm given to understand that the maximum for non-ornamental weapons is actually around 5-6lbs, and the average is 3-4; greatswords may weigh less than arming swords, in point of fact.

But yes, 30lb greatswords are purely fiction, and wouldn't even be useful for ceremonial purposes.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html Here's where I got the numbers, about halfway in, the red rectangle is a pretty fun read that describes a 40 lbs sword.

The 2.48 lbs greatsword is infact lighter than my own arming sword (3 lbs).

I am not saying using a 30 lbs sword is impossible in DnD, just saying that the average sword's probably pretty light ;)

[Barsoom]

It wasn't so much a question of what the rules allow. I already aknowledge that there is no rule against this.

It was more a question of what is realistic. I know of no example in all of military history of any type of 2H mounted weapon wielder (lance excepted - special case).

The issue, in my mind, is one of balance and leverage. Two properly wield a 2H weapon, you derive a lot of its power from the legs and hips. This just doesn't seem workable on horseback. I just don't see how you could get an effective swing?

Mounted bows and crossbows works fine... you don't have to swing it. But 2H weapons like Greatswords, Halberds, Greataxe, etc. really need good footing to use properly.Not only there is no rule to disallow this, but there is a rule TO ALLOW this. Disallowing something the rules specifically allow for some nebulous "realistic" concerns of "balance and leverage" or is highly unfair to the player.

Also, did you notice that only martial characters ever suffer due to "realism"? A spellcaster can sling whatever spells he wants. Qucken Spell? Sure. Persist Spell? Go ahead, it's all magic, it doesn't have to be realistic. 9th level spells galore ... But if a Fighter does something moderately cool like wield a greatsword on horseback, the demon of realism at once rears its ugly head :smallfrown:

[killem2]

Its 10 lbs at the very worst. Average is 5-6. Some go as low as 2.5 lbs.

A 30 lbs greatsword would be just a chunk of metal and absolutely useless.

I was thinking of my Goliath when he's huge haha.

But yeah I get ya.

[jindra34]

The reason two handed weapons were 'never' (they actually were in rare cases) used from horseback historically is more of an issue of practicallity than ability. The lance (and to a lesser degree spears) allowed a mounted combatant to deliver powerful strikes while still using a shield by drawing on the strength of the horse they were riding, resulting in little need and probably less desire to actually try two handed weapons while mounted, which isn't really all that clunky (its about the same difficulty as swinging at across your mount).

[Marlowe]

I can't think of any specific Greatsword examples; but wielding 2-handed weapons on horseback most certainly can and has been done. The favoured weapon of the Korean cavalry during the Imjin war was the 2-handed flail (they were horribly defeated. But that's because they charged into a swamp under musket fire, not because of their choice of weapons.).

More recently (Russo-Japanese war), a unit of Cossacks routed an opposing unit of cavalry by wielding their lances as quarterstaves.

Realism is not a reason to block this.

[Rhynn]

I can't think of any specific Greatsword examples; but wielding 2-handed weapons on horseback most certainly can and has been done. The favoured weapon of the Korean cavalry during the Imjin war was the 2-handed flail (they were horribly defeated. But that's because they charged into a swamp under musket fire, not because of their choice of weapons.).

I take it it's the pyeongon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyeongon) ? That's a 6'2" stick chained to a 1'6" stick with spikes... definitely a two-handed flail.

Used mounted (http://masteryun.com.ne.kr/mainpic/22-masangpyeongon.gif) (collage! (http://muye24ki.com/horse/horse_korea_04.jpg)). Miniatures (http://www.perry-miniatures.com/images/kor/kor%2010.jpg) based on that.


Masang Pyeongon (flail method on horseback) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyongdang)
The Pyeongon used on horseback has a longer chain than that used by the infantry, allowing the mounted combatant to strike enemies on the ground. The stick at the end of the chain is studded with iron nails or other sharp protrusions to inflict fatal wounds on impact.

Unsourced, unfortunately, but this seems like something of a prevalence of evidence, at least for the purposes of an unrealistic RPG. (12 lbs. greataxes? lol) And that's definitely a swung weapon, and not exclusively for mounted use.

[Fouredged Sword]

When the Saxons invaded the Anglicans, in what would become England, one of the major advantages of the Saxons was that they had horse saddles with stirrups, allowing them to stand on their horses and swing down, rather than swing from a sitting position.

There was no armor that could survive a downward blow from a Saxon two handed ax at the time. No helm would save your skull, no shoulder guard would spare your collar bone, no shield would prevent your arm from being broken. Unless you could deflect the blow you ended up on the ground bleeding to death and crushed under horse hooves. It is hard to deflect a downward blow in the press of battle.

It was a crushingly powerful ability that allows the Saxons to set themselves up as the kings of England despite the larger population of Anglicans.

This is why we can English blood Anglo-Saxon and why the English royalty is blond with blue eyes (Saxon Blood) and everyone else has brown hair and eyes (Anglican).

[Ashtagon]

When the Saxons invaded the Anglicans, ....

I think you'll find they were Angles, or possibly Anglians, but certainly not Anglicans.

[Rhynn]

There was no armor that could survive a downward blow from a Saxon two handed ax at the time. No helm would save your skull, no shoulder guard would spare your collar bone, no shield would prevent your arm from being broken. Unless you could deflect the blow you ended up on the ground bleeding to death and crushed under horse hooves. It is hard to deflect a downward blow in the press of battle.

It was a crushingly powerful ability that allows the Saxons to set themselves up as the kings of England despite the larger population of Anglicans.

No offense, but that sounds like weapon fetishizing (like we get with katanas and, to a degree, longbows).

First, what period are you talking about? "Saxon" suggests you're talking about the 5th century, when armor wasn't going to be common outside of elite troops or professional warriors (especially among tribes like the Britons and Saxons) to begin with, but I'm confused by "Anglicans" - I'm quite sure that's a religion, and Britain was inhabited by Britons (and Romano-Britons, and Irish, etc.) ... the Angles were one of the invading tribes!

What are your sources? Aside from the awesomeness of the axe, I'm doubtful about the stirrup bit (5th century is maybe a bit early for common and good stirrups in Europe), about two-handed axes being commonly used from horseback by Saxons, and about Saxons using a lot of cavalry to begin with...

Also, I wasn't really aware the Saxons made regular use of two-handed axes. The Dane axe is probably from slightly later on... and I've never seen/heard/read of it being used from horseback. (Although at 3' to 4' long, I don't particularly doubt it's possible.)


This is why we can English blood Anglo-Saxon and why the English royalty is blond with blue eyes (Saxon Blood) and everyone else has brown hair and eyes (Anglican).

I, uh ... what? Seriously, what?

The first dynasty of "English Kings" were Normans (Vikings from France, basically). William the Conqueror and all that. The Norman Dynasty. They were followed by the Plantagenets, who were Angevin Franks (from Anjou, in southern France).

The current Queen of the United Kingdom is of House Windsor, which descends from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which descends from the House of Wettin... who are "Saxon" in the sense of Saxony, as in eastern Germany. (A linguistic relationship rather than one of lineage, there.) Certainly, Vikings were technically Germanic, but I think your genealogy might be a bit off there.

So English monarchs were originally French, and are more recently German, to be very simplistic and a bit inaccurate about it.

[Marlowe]

When the Saxons invaded the Anglicans, in what would become England, one of the major advantages of the Saxons was that they had horse saddles with stirrups, allowing them to stand on their horses and swing down, rather than swing from a sitting position.

There was no armor that could survive a downward blow from a Saxon two handed ax at the time. No helm would save your skull, no shoulder guard would spare your collar bone, no shield would prevent your arm from being broken. Unless you could deflect the blow you ended up on the ground bleeding to death and crushed under horse hooves. It is hard to deflect a downward blow in the press of battle.

It was a crushingly powerful ability that allows the Saxons to set themselves up as the kings of England despite the larger population of Anglicans.

This is why we can English blood Anglo-Saxon and why the English royalty is blond with blue eyes (Saxon Blood) and everyone else has brown hair and eyes (Anglican).

.....:smalleek: What?

Angles are FAMOUS for being blue-eyed and blond. There's a hoary old story about an early pope commenting "Not Angles, but Angels".

There's no record, literary or archeological, of Saxons in Britain being horsemen.

Nor was the Axe a Saxon weapon.

Saxons and Angles were allies. If not indistinguisable.The historical period isn't called "Anglo-Saxon" for nothing.

And there's too many other thing wrong with this to list.

Are you possibly confusing "Saxon" with German knights from the province of Saxony some hundred years later? Not that I've heard anything of them using Axes either.

[Spiryt]

There was no armor that could survive a downward blow from a Saxon two handed ax at the time. No helm would save your skull, no shoulder guard would spare your collar bone, no shield would prevent your arm from being broken. Unless you could deflect the blow you ended up on the ground bleeding to death and crushed under horse hooves. It is hard to deflect a downward blow in the press of battle.


And yet, reenactors happily bash their shields and helmets with reconstruction of early two handed axes and nothing gets crushed.

I guess they're descendants of Anglicans, not tr00 Saxons.

Although very first Anglican was kinda keen on using axes, although he had people for this job...

[Ramza00]

@Repairman_Jack the OP

So in sum if you still don't like the player to use a 2H melee weapon while mounted for it is unrealistic, you should just allow him to have a very cheap magic item (aka less than 2,000 gp) to allow him to do what the rules allow him to do already.

Call it magic stirups that hold the user in place even when he swings around his massive sword.

If magic allows the impossible, share a little of the magic with the fighter so that he can play in the big leagues.

[Rhynn]

And yet, reenactors happily bash their shields and helmets with reconstruction of early two handed axes and nothing gets crushed.

In case someone doubts this... behold, The Battle of the Nations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdzhEBWqcWo). Some fairly dang hard hitting goes on there. Easy to check out more videos. Some of it makes me wince... but it just goes to show how effective even repro plate armor is.

Granted, in the 5th century AD, even mail would have been relatively rare, and AFAIK helmets of that period were split even by sword blows (and often weren't made of solid iron, but of horn, etc.)?

[Spiryt]

It was more a question of what is realistic. I know of no example in all of military history of any type of 2H mounted weapon wielder (lance excepted - special case).

The issue, in my mind, is one of balance and leverage. Two properly wield a 2H weapon, you derive a lot of its power from the legs and hips. This just doesn't seem workable on horseback. I just don't see how you could get an effective swing?


There's plenty of examples of two handed weapon usage from horse, although most of them are pictures, so one can debate on how accurate they are.


I just don't see how you could get an effective swing?

Stand up in the stirrups, for example.

Then there's the fact that not all strikes really need to be full power and that the horse can add a lot of momentum anyway.


but it just goes to show how effective even repro plate armor is.

Dunno about 'even', a lot of those are somehow overbuilt, compared to originals. But still.



Granted, in the 5th century AD, even mail would have been relatively rare, and AFAIK helmets of that period were split even by sword blows (and often weren't made of solid iron, but of horn, etc.)?

Haven't heard about horn helmets.

And splitting helmets by sword is as disputable as always - a lot of images, tales etc. but hard to tell if it happened regularly.

But yeah, armor was less massive than in late medieval, but then, so were weapons generally.

[Fouredged Sword]

Ok, I post my non-professional history knowledge and everyone jumps on the inaccuracies.

The point of my statement was that a Stirrup allows for the rider to stand up and swing over the head of his mount. This allows for a much freer area to swing the weapon and the constant advantage of a higher position than your non-mounted target. This allowed for a significant advantage in both 1 and 2 handed weapons. Throughout history and across the world the invention allowed for a significant advantage to those on horseback over everyone else.

Armor of the period was uncommon and materials are very substandard by modern standards. Even metal armor (which was rare) would split and break at far lower forces than modern reproductions. Axes saw a period of heavy use because of this. An ax bears the moment of the strike along the wooden shaft, rather than a comparatively brittle metal blade. The weight of an ax head can cause significant damage on any clean hit regardless of any period armor. A shield could stop an edge, but a shield catching a blow solidly would risk splitting rather than deflecting the strike. A broken arm is as incapacitating of a wound in battle as a blade to the shoulder.

As for Saxon horse stirrups, they are a thing, and some of the earliest in the area.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:37_Saxon_stirrup_mount.jpg

I am getting two invasions mixed up though. The Saxons moved in very early in the period and melded with the Angles. The Normandy invasion is the invasion I was getting confused. That was the invasion that had stirruped mounted soldiers being the dominant force on the battlefield and crushing the non-mounted infantry.

Seriously though, I am posting on my lunch break. I do occasionally get things incorrect and I don't always have time to check my sources.

Though I reject the validity of the statement that reinactors who are NOT trying to kill one another with reproduction weapons are at all representative of the lethallity of a weapon. I would suspect that almost zero reinactors die. I suspect that the battles they are imitating are much more lethal.

[Spiryt]

That was the invasion that had stirruped mounted soldiers being the dominant force on the battlefield and crushing the non-mounted infantry.

That invasion consisted mostly of one battle, where Normans weren't crushing anyone at all, until they managed to split the Saxon lines.

And they most certainly didn't have many axes, in fact those were English troops who apparently used quite a lot of them.



Though I reject the validity of the statement that reinactors who are NOT trying to kill one another with reproduction weapons are at all representative of the lethallity of a weapon. I would suspect that almost zero reinactors die. I suspect that the battles they are imitating are much more lethal.

Battles were more lethal because they had sharp weapons that could hack/stab unprotected areas, were attacking downed fighters, most people didn't have full armor, and so on. One can write books about it.

Doesn't change the basic fact that straight up wailing at someone's helmet with an axe is not that likely to be immediately lethal.


Armor of the period was uncommon and materials are very substandard by modern standards. Even metal armor (which was rare) would split and break at far lower forces than modern reproductions

Citation needed.

Many modern reproductions are roughly armored trash cans/etc. and lack metallurgical refinement that originals had.

The fact that modern metallurgy could make way superior 'medieval helmet' possible, doesn't mean that most reproductions are better.

[Rhynn]

The point of my statement was that a Stirrup allows for the rider to stand up and swing over the head of his mount. This allows for a much freer area to swing the weapon and the constant advantage of a higher position than your non-mounted target. This allowed for a significant advantage in both 1 and 2 handed weapons. Throughout history and across the world the invention allowed for a significant advantage to those on horseback over everyone else.

Agreed!


Armor of the period was uncommon and materials are very substandard by modern standards. Even metal armor (which was rare) would split and break at far lower forces than modern reproductions.

Which period, 5th century or 11th century? I find the statement suspect even for the earlier (there was nothing wrong with Imperial Roman mail armor, for instance), although I do agree (as I said above) that armor would be for elite warriors in the 5th century, and it's definitely not true for the 11th century.


As for Saxon horse stirrups, they are a thing, and some of the earliest in the area.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:37_Saxon_stirrup_mount.jpg

That doesn't really give any information - what region, what period is that from, and what exactly is it? There's many kinds of stirrups - the Romans already had some type.


I am getting two invasions mixed up though. The Saxons moved in very early in the period and melded with the Angles. The Normandy invasion is the invasion I was getting confused. That was the invasion that had stirruped mounted soldiers being the dominant force on the battlefield and crushing the non-mounted infantry.

Early in which period? I'd really hesitate to classify the 5th through 11th centuries AD as one period.

You are possibly right about axes and the Normans, though - the Bayeux Tapestry even depicts longaxes (Dane axes). And you are correct about the Norman cavalry at Hastings - the English fought on foot.

Mind you, cavalry does not win against close-order infantry with shields. At Hastings, the Norman cavalry attacked the English infantry out of formation (pursuing the routing Normans).


Ok, I post my non-professional history knowledge and everyone jumps on the inaccuracies.

[...]

Seriously though, I am posting on my lunch break. I do occasionally get things incorrect and I don't always have time to check my sources.

I really meant no offense to you - that's why I asked about your sources - but your statements were way out there, and wrong on so many basic concepts (mixing up the 5th century Saxon and 11th century Norman invasions of Britain/England, Angles/Anglicans/English/Britons, the weird bit about royalty, etc.), you were bound to get some people (well, three) correcting you.

I'm not even saying you were unusually off. Many, many people post things about swords, armor, katanas, longbows, etc. that are much further from the mark. (Weirdly, similar statements about modern firearms etc. seem much rarer... far more people think medieval swords could cut medieval armor like paper than think martial arts masters can stop your heart with the Dim Mak. I suppose it's a matter of general cultural familiarity.)

[Fouredged Sword]

My point was reinactors are NOT trying to kill one another and thus don't normally even cause more than mild bruising is the point.

Splitting a helmet is very doable, even with modern materials. Armor is actually fairly fragile. Stopping a metal edge swung with force is hard. Even platemail is designed to deflect and slide a blow in a non-lethal direction, rather than to stop an edge cold.

But yes, I would suspect that a shoulder hit that breaks the collar bone without requiring penetration of armor was a common injury in battle, far more so than a blow to the head. Even in modern war, with our ridiculously dangerous weapons that blow nice big holes in people, wounds don't kill right away. Part of battle was going in after the fight to kill or rescues the wounded that still lived.

I also suspect you are not aware of the quality use in even trashcan steel nowadays. Back then they used IRON, not steel. There is a huge difference despite the fact that they are matters of 1 or 2% purity by volume.

If you want to get a feel for the material used back then you have to look at something cast iron. Go get a expensive cast iron garden gate. Smack that on a wall as hard as you can. It will crack easily, and break in a matter of 5-10 good overhead strikes if you are at all fit (or they used a steel bar with a surface coat, real cast iron is actually hard to find).

iron / carbon phase diagram - for reference. Iron is impure steel. Pure iron molecules would be referred to as very low carbon steel from a metallurgy perspective.
http://metallurgie.iehk.rwth-aachen.de/moodle/file.php/1/images/Diagramm_Fe-C.gif

Steel wasn't really a thing (around, but considered more valuable than gold in many areas) until forging really got going into the renascence. (yes there is an argument between historians and engineers about this. The engineering definition of steel changed during the industrial revolution, the historical one didn't. This leads to conflicts in terminology. I use the engineering definition) Even then purity was a tough issue (varriations would cause stress points and weak lines of grain barriers) and it wasn't anywhere as tough as modern stainless. Stainless steel is tougher than carbon steel. It holds a horrid edge and is softer, but the deformation energy is higher (with some exceptions, steel blends can be all over the place based on alloys and the money you choose to sink into something)

Iron shatters when steel bends. An iron ax had a heavy enough head that it did neither. A iron armor plate or reinforcement would crack and shatter.

[Rhynn]

Did I accidentally prophecise the "armor isn't good" thing or something?


Splitting a helmet is very doable, even with modern materials. Armor is actually fairly fragile. Stopping a metal edge swung with force is hard. Even platemail is designed to deflect and slide a blow in a non-lethal direction, rather than to stop an edge cold.

Obviously the curving is important, but this isn't quite right.

Mail with textile padding, for instance, pretty much protects you from any serious injury from cuts and bashing. Thrusts with sufficiently narrow blades might get in through a link (they're very unlikely to break a proper riveted or welded link) and even penetrate the textile, but it's probably not common (interestingly, mail actually bunches up around such a puncturing blow). Bruising is going to happen, and fractures might, but not constantly or grievously.

If armor had been "actually fairly fragile" it wouldn't have been used. People did not wear armor that was not absolutely critical - that's why greaves went in and out of fashion, for instance, why breastplates lasted much longer, and why helmets are still around. Armor is expensive, hot, and uncomfortable, and soldiers don't like wearing it, but will wear it to save their lives if it does it well enough.


But yes, I would suspect that a shoulder hit that breaks the collar bone without requiring penetration of armor was a common injury in battle.

I couldn't say, but the most common was an injury to an unprotected location: in the era of mail hauberks, to the lower legs.


I also suspect you are not aware of the quality use in even trashcan steel nowadays. Back then they used IRON, not steel. There is a huge difference despite the fact that they are matters of 1 or 2% purity by volume.

Back when?

Mail was usually made of iron, because it was sufficient. Steel was known, made, and used in Ancient Greece and Rome.


Steel wasn't really a thing (around, but considered more valuable than gold in many areas) until forging really got going into the renascence.

Steel armor easily predates the Renaissance.


Iron shatters when steel bends. An iron ax had a heavy enough head that it did neither. A iron armor plate or reinforcement would crack and shatter.

European plate armor was made of steel, not iron. Only munitions-grade plate armor (cheap, mass-produced armor) was iron.

[bobthehero]

Alternatively, you go the Mount and Blade way, he grabs the 2h sword with hand and swings slower.

Which is actually good in that game, eh.

[Fouredged Sword]

Ninjad my edit. - More precise explanation.

Back even 100 years and you see huge changes in "steel"

Steel has been around yes, but it isn't the same thing as modern steel. The term was a lot looser before the industrial revolution and the invention of modern chemistry. There is an argument between historians and engineers about the definition of steel (where historians ignore the engineers and the engineers cringe when the historians talk). The historians use a much more inclusive definition that is process driven. Modern engineering is a chemical definition that is independent of the process.

Even now there is a lot of slop in the use of the term steel and iron. This is a touchy point for all of us who like both history and have degrees that involve metallurgy.

Iron is a molecule. It tends in nature to have lots of carbon all over it due to the nature of the iron bond being partially permeable to carbon and chemically active with carbon.

One definition of steel is "iron that has been purified of some of the natural carbon". This process is not easy, but it has been done for long periods of history.

This isn't modern steel though. Modern steel has a set maximum carbon content. This quality statement is very rare in history and didn't really exist until we obtained the ability to refine oxygen into a gas and inject it into iron in a liquid state to purify it.

Before then we had "steel", but it wasn't modern steel 99% of the time. Sometimes people got really lucky with the ore and actually made steel, but not in any way that could be reproduced. Even then their metal was rife with enough other impurities that it would be hard pressed to be called steel in the modern sense.

When people hear the word "steel" in historical text they think modern steel, because that is what steel is in modern times. In reality the metal was a lot closer to cast iron than to modern steel.

Even going back as far as the titanic you find issues that metals just didn't have the purity and refinement quality of modern metal. (The titanic was steel in the modern sense, but still not up to the standards of modern structural steel)

What's worse is people think modern STAINLESS steel when they think steel. That stuff is gummy. It is hard to work with because it is soft and ductile (as far as iron goes) that it won't form an edge without significant work. Modern stainless steel has a high deformation energy (the energy required to deform it to structural change) even compared to modern high carbon steel.

So yeah, the engineer in me has to tell you, not all "steel" is steel and comparing metallurgical terms across era is sketch at best.

[Quorothorn]

Not only there is no rule to disallow this, but there is a rule TO ALLOW this. Disallowing something the rules specifically allow for some nebulous "realistic" concerns of "balance and leverage" or is highly unfair to the player.

Also, did you notice that only martial characters ever suffer due to "realism"? A spellcaster can sling whatever spells he wants. Qucken Spell? Sure. Persist Spell? Go ahead, it's all magic, it doesn't have to be realistic. 9th level spells galore ... But if a Fighter does something moderately cool like wield a greatsword on horseback, the demon of realism at once rears its ugly head :smallfrown:

Something I'd like to add to this post: Extraordinary abilities, though "nonmagical" and obviously not "Supernatural" either, are explicitly described as being capable of breaking the laws of physics as we understand them in our world. Case in point: a dragon's flight capability is marked (Ex) even though they are FAR too large to be capable of wing-based flight. A Human Barbarian or Monk with their Fast Movement (Ex) abilities can run far beyond the maximum possible human sprint speed, and keep it up for minutes at a time. You could replace the Monk's Slow Fall class feature with an ability to outright walk on air and have it be (Ex) with no real issue (this is, IIRC, already an Epic Usage of the Climb skill...). Etc.

This is not even addressing the point others seem to have already brought up that actually yes people could and did wield "two-handers" from horseback IRL.

[Spiryt]

One definition of steel is "iron that has been purified of some of the natural carbon". This process is not easy, but it has been done for long periods of history.

Most of actual historical steel was being obtained mainly by carburizing of iron.

Iron oxides were put in bloomery, and charcoal reduced it into iron, dissolving carbon in iron as well.

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




This isn't modern steel though. Modern steel has a set maximum carbon content. This quality statement is very rare in history and didn't really exist until we obtained the ability to refine oxygen into a gas and inject it into iron in a liquid state to purify it.

Before then we had "steel", but it wasn't modern steel 99% of the time. Sometimes people got really lucky with the ore and actually made steel, but not in any way that could be reproduced. Even then their metal was rife with enough other impurities that it would be hard pressed to be called steel in the modern sense.

It wasn't obtained by being "lucky". :smallconfused:

There's no way to obtain steels with different iron content and different hardness by being "lucky".



When people hear the word "steel" in historical text they think modern steel, because that is what steel is in modern times. In reality the metal was a lot closer to cast iron than to modern steel.


Metal had not much to do with cast iron, because it didn't really have enough carbon.

Steel would be alloy of iron and carbon with carbon being generally at least 0.2% but not more than 2 % (at absolutely heighest) - it's obviously more complicated like that, but still, all kind of alloys like that were used to make weapons and armors (much rarer) since very early antiquity.

And steel was usually heat treated then.

Here post by Peter Johnsson
about pretty 'ordinary' medium carbon steel (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2767&highlight=steel) for tools, in 7th century BC Scandinavia.


My point was reinactors are NOT trying to kill one another and thus don't normally even cause more than mild bruising is the point.

The point is that can't kill, or even bruise each other much, because, simply, harming anyone by direct attacking of his armor with heavy blows with edged weapons is rather hard.


Stopping a metal edge swung with force is hard. Even platemail is designed to deflect and slide a blow in a non-lethal direction, rather than to stop an edge cold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h0e0NSwYNg

It's not actually hard, as you can see.

Actually breaching serious thickness iron/steel plate with edged weapon is really hard.

[jindra34]

Actually breaching serious thickness iron/steel plate with edged weapon is really hard.
Well actually that depends on a lot of factors. Breaking through a breastplate of plate that is flush with a hard object? Not very hard. Breaking it when its backed with the full layering against a relatively soft object? Your going to need something pretty special to pull that off. And thats in part because the most important part of 'hard' armor isn't the shell of it but the stuff behind that allows it to move some to absorb the blow.

[Fouredged Sword]

Carburizing increases the strength of the metal, but not by purifying it into steel. Rather it takes already pure (or not) steel and adds carbon. It is useful to surface treat steel of all carbon contents for applications requiring shock loads (ie hitting things or getting hit)

Carburizing is a surface treatment that impregnates carbon into the surface of an iron alloy. This creates a hardened surface backed by a softer, but tougher center. It makes a composite structure that preforms better than ether of the two base materials would perform. The process is used today still.

It doesn't refine iron into steel though.

And for a very long time it was not possible for a smith to measure the carbon content of metal, so forging steel was a process of guesswork. Sometimes the carbon content was right on the money, other times not so much. There was no non-destructive test for strength, so once an object was made, there was no useful way to test the steel. Thus sometimes you got lucky when refining the ore, other times not and your sword breaks due to a flaw in the metallic structure.

Part of my point, though, is that steel back then did not preform like modern people expect steel to preform. It was far more brittle and prone to breaking catastrophically that modern steel. Steel has made significant advancements even in terms of the past hundred years.

Also, the backing issue is one of the reasons that horsemen are so dangerous. Striking down at a target traps the target between you and the ground. This means that you have a much more solid structure to strike. There is less natural give as the person leans back from the blow and follow through has a greater chance of compressing the backing material and penetrating the armor.

[Rhynn]

Part of my point, though, is that steel back then did not preform like modern people expect steel to preform. It was far more brittle and prone to breaking catastrophically that modern steel. Steel has made significant advancements even in terms of the past hundred years.

Do you have any references for, say, breastplates being shattered like you claim they would be?

[Daftendirekt]

Its 10 lbs at the very worst. Average is 5-6. Some go as low as 2.5 lbs.

A 30 lbs greatsword would be just a chunk of metal and absolutely useless.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows that medieval weapons are nowhere near as heavy as people seem to think. Even greatswords were rarely more than 4 pounds.

[Fouredged Sword]

I do not claim that brestplates would be shattered. I said that a downward blow to the head or shoulders is very dangerous, and no amount of armor will prevent injuries in the even of a solid hit.

Beyond that I do not have time to track down a reference, so ether agree or disagree as you choose.

[Ashtagon]

I do not claim that brestplates would be shattered. I said that a downward blow to the head or shoulders is very dangerous, and no amount of armor will prevent injuries in the even of a solid hit.

Beyond that I do not have time to track down a reference, so ether agree or disagree as you choose.

Give that you've been very obviously wrong on at least two points already in this thread, without cites I think I'll choose to respectfully disagree.

[Spiryt]

Carburizing increases the strength of the metal, but not by purifying it into steel. Rather it takes already pure (or not) steel and adds carbon. It is useful to surface treat steel of all carbon contents for applications requiring shock loads (ie hitting things or getting hit)

Carburizing is a surface treatment that impregnates carbon into the surface of an iron alloy. This creates a hardened surface backed by a softer, but tougher center. It makes a composite structure that preforms better than ether of the two base materials would perform. The process is used today still.

It doesn't refine iron into steel though.

And for a very long time it was not possible for a smith to measure the carbon content of metal, so forging steel was a process of guesswork. Sometimes the carbon content was right on the money, other times not so much. There was no non-destructive test for strength, so once an object was made, there was no useful way to test the steel. Thus sometimes you got lucky when refining the ore, other times not and your sword breaks due to a flaw in the metallic structure.
.

You are bringing some very weird definitions of steel, that frankly complicate things pointlessly.

Steel is iron with certain amount of carbon dissolved.

Purity, 'quality' doesn't really enter into it.

Depending on exact amount of carbon, structure of ferrite/austenite etc. heat treatment it will have many, many, possible qualities.

And that's it, and therefore there's plenty of steel since very deep antiquity, like linked specialist had mentioned.

The fact that it was 'guesswork' doesn't change the fact that it was steel guesswork.


Part of my point, though, is that steel back then did not preform like modern people expect steel to preform. It was far more brittle and prone to breaking catastrophically that modern steel. Steel has made significant advancements even in terms of the past hundred years.

And that's actually not specific enough.

Which modern steel, and which antique steels?

Some steel alloys WILL be brittle, because being tough isn't really needed for their purpose.

In other cases, being brittle will be considered terrible.


It was far more brittle and prone to breaking catastrophically that modern steel.

Some steel items certainly were, due to some structural problem, wrong heat treat, or hundreds of other possible problems.

Some were actually very tough and resilient.


Peter Connolly reckoned that he had personally seen a two thousand-year old sword dredged from Lake Neuchatel "bent almost double and then flex back" (Greece and Rome ar War , p.115). (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=27855)

[lightningcat]

Here (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-29324282/stock-photo-wuxi%2C-china-november-25%3A-knights-on-horseback-fight-out-an-ancient-war-in-an-outdoor-theatre-on-no) are (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-29324261/stock-photo-wuxi%2C-china-november-25%3A-knights-on-horseback-fight-out-an-ancient-war-in-an-outdoor-theatre-on-no) some pictures of some reenactors using two-handed weapons.
I also found (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101122171204AABlW87) a reference to crusaders using a two-handed sword as a secondary weapon on horseback, but I don't have any reputable sources for that. But I didn't look real long.

So can you use a two-handed weapon on horseback? Yes.
At least well enough for the purposes of a game.

[jindra34]

Fouredged Sword: You do realize its actually quite easy to control percents within the acceptable range by simply using consistent measures? Essentially yes people could reliably get results by doing pretty much what we do when we bake bread or otherwise cook: following a recipie.

[Gavinfoxx]

Byzantines used extra long two handed lances.

[Fouredged Sword]

The problem is that carbon is added to metal though the application of carbon monoxide. It's not hard to do, per say, you just cover the steel in burning coal and let the out gasses of oxygen deprived combustion flow over the steel. The issue is that you have a hard time controlling the mix of gas and immersion rate, and have only a vague idea of the starting point of your steel.

Once again, it's not that it couldn't be done. It's that it couldn't be done reliably, and the result was far from what you see today.

[jindra34]

The problem is that carbon is added to metal though the application of carbon monoxide. It's not hard to do, per say, you just cover the steel in burning coal and let the out gasses of oxygen deprived combustion flow over the steel. The issue is that you have a hard time controlling the mix of gas and immersion rate, and have only a vague idea of the starting point of your steel.


And why oh why, is using Carbon Monoxide the ONLY way to add carbon to iron? Seriously just because its what people nowadays have deemed best doesn't make it the only way.

[Duke of Urrel]

There is much that we do not know about the migrations of the Germanic tribes in Europe during the Fifth Century CE. However, it is known that they were in most cases not successful in spreading their native languages. Although they overran the territories of modern France, Spain, and Italy as well as eastern Britain, a Germanic language did not become permanently established in any of these places, except for England, whose people still speak English.

There are many theories about why language spread succeeded here and not anywhere else. One of them is that the Celtic Britons were weakened by a plague that afflicted them at the moment they were invaded. The legend of the sickness of King Arthur, purportedly caused by his heartache over the betrayal of Guinevere and Lancelot, may have had its origin in a plague that killed a British king.

[Marlowe]

A more likely intrpretation is simply that in Britain the ratio of "Aggressive Migrants" was to "Natives" higher than in other places. Certainly, the Ostrogoths with their 200,000 total population were just a drop in the bucket in well-populated Italy, and the Vandals in north africa had less than 80,000 at their peak. In any case, both these peoples were almost wiped out militarily in the 6th century.

Figures were almost certainly higher in Visigothic Spain...but then we have the Visigoths getting decimated by the Arabs in the 8th century, and for some time before Visigothic culture had become quite diluted (traditional Gothic dress died out in the 7th century)

The Franks, being west Germanic agriculturalists rather than Eastern Germanic herders like the Goths/Vandals; probably had more numbers, but they were occupying a large and well-developed set of provinces with a much more robust Latin culture than Britain. In any event it seems to have taken some centuries for Frankish to become Latinized into French (treaty of Verdun 843 is often listed as a pivotal point).

Romanic culture was not as strong in Britain as in Gaul, and the British themselves were fewer in number and at odds with each other. It doesn't seem strange that the Saxons should have been more successful at cultural propagation than some of their distant cousins.

And incidentally; William I? First King of England? Alfred the Great wants a word. And about ten other people as well.:smallamused:

[FleshrakerAbuse]

I think the important thing is to realize that D&D was created along the lines of believable, not realistic. Believable along the lines of supernaturality.

[Marlowe]

History and metallurgy discussion aside, wielding a Zweihander while mounted is no sillier than:

-dual-wielding light flails (had an adventure with a fighter like this).
-Dual-wielding daggers while mounted (same guy).
-spiked chains, and all the things they can do.
-Manyshot.
-Running around a dungeon with a polearm (I'm guilty of this all the time).

[TuggyNE]

History and metallurgy discussion aside, wielding a Zweihander while mounted is no sillier than:

-dual-wielding light flails (had an adventure with a fighter like this).
-Dual-wielding daggers while mounted (same guy).
-spiked chains, and all the things they can do.
-Manyshot.
-Running around a dungeon with a polearm (I'm guilty of this all the time).

Never mind Manyshot, Greater Manyshot. At level 6 you can be shooting two arrows simultaneously at two targets that are on opposite sides of you. :smalltongue:

Ex feats for the win!