PDA

View Full Version : Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XIII



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Brother Oni
2013-10-11, 11:38 AM
Maybe we should start paying Thiel royalties...


This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

A few rules for this thread:

This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.

Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).

No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)

No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.


Previous Threads:
Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80863)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124683)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168432)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192911)
Thread IX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217159)
Thread X (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238042)
Thread XI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255453)
Thread XII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15188540)

snowblizz
2013-10-11, 01:23 PM
First post! Not funny? Not even a little? Ah well..

Regarding some of the topics of the end of last thread, gunpowder weapons and naval combat and pirates. Even the discussion of sources ties into this.

Love the Mythbusters. But have been bothered by their "proving" that splinters from cannon balls weren't the danger they are often perceived to be. In particular when they place a bunch of pigs in a tight file and shoot through them and it's all "see it went through all of them". So a couple of issues.
1. that's not really how packed a ship would be surely? well excepting a slave ship and then it's "cargo" really... a ship is tightly spaced yes but people wouldn't be lining up like that.
2. they finally used a real cannon, IIRC a 6 pounder, but that's pretty weak for a traditional naval gun innit? That's light field artillery. 24 pounds and up would surely be more in the range of a serious break the planks kind of naval gun? Would that be doing more damage and increasing splintering, but with no perceivable increase in direct "killingness" of a larger cannon ball. Anyone hit would be just as dead after all, more messed up, but that don't count if you die.
3. The traditional view of the matter with splinters, where then does that come from. Are there no sources, I'd think there was casualty reports, ship's surgeons statements, reports, memoirs? Did they just ignore that, or is there little to go on.

Boci
2013-10-11, 01:27 PM
Aesthetics of parry-less sword combat:

Okay, so my understanding of the sword combat is that parrying was not a common move outside fencing, but I am then having trouble imagining how it would in fact work, what would a realistic sword fight look in your typical fantasy setting, assuming magic wasn't playing any major roles?

I understand (or guess) that part of the problem is the popular fantasy model of a guy in light or no armour, wielding a sword in either both hands, or in one hand with his offhand empty. Either way, no shield. This does not having many real life counterparts. But if we stick to this fantasy archetype, how would a fight between between two such individuals work? My understanding if parrying wasn't used because it damaged the sword, but if someone swings at my head then a damaged sword could be considered a fair risk if it reduces the chance of me suffering a mortal wound. Can you help me out?

warty goblin
2013-10-11, 02:16 PM
Aesthetics of parry-less sword combat:

Okay, so my understanding of the sword combat is that parrying was not a common move outside fencing, but I am then having trouble imagining how it would in fact work, what would a realistic sword fight look in your typical fantasy setting, assuming magic wasn't playing any major roles?

I understand (or guess) that part of the problem is the popular fantasy model of a guy in light or no armour, wielding a sword in either both hands, or in one hand with his offhand empty. Either way, no shield. This does not having many real life counterparts. But if we stick to this fantasy archetype, how would a fight between between two such individuals work? My understanding if parrying wasn't used because it damaged the sword, but if someone swings at my head then a damaged sword could be considered a fair risk if it reduces the chance of me suffering a mortal wound. Can you help me out?

How does a fight between two lunkheads in loincloths with akimbo swords end? Dead lunkheads.

Whether or not a parrying was used I think depends mostly on how you define parrying. Simply slamming the edge of your blade into your enemy's blade probably wasn't such a common technique, since it's both hard on the equipment and also crappy swordsmanship. Using your blade to set aside another's strike however is good technique, since it protects you, gives you control of your enemy's weapon if you do it right, and therefore allows for your own attacks.



Otherwise

Rhynn
2013-10-11, 02:19 PM
Okay, so my understanding of the sword combat is that parrying was not a common move outside fencing, but I am then having trouble imagining how it would in fact work, what would a realistic sword fight look in your typical fantasy setting, assuming magic wasn't playing any major roles?

Where did you get this impression? Sword contact was absolutely a part of rapier fencing (granted, it wasn't double-action parrying, but simultaneously deflecting an attack and making your own) and longsword combat (where parries regularly lead to winding & binding or counters), the two best-documented Renaissance European forms of sword-fighting. In any sword combat, your order of business is going to be:
1. Negate an opponent's attack (either pre-emptively - voiding or controlling the sword - or by parrying)
2. Strike back

I can't really speak to kenjutsu, etc.; I did kendo years ago, but that's a sport very, very far removed from actual combat skills. AFAIK there are parry-counters even in kendo, though - you'd have to be crazy not to use a weapon you've got to defend yourself, really. (Blocking, which is distinct from parrying - more "passive" if you will - is generally frowned upon, though.)


My understanding if parrying wasn't used because it damaged the sword, but if someone swings at my head then a damaged sword could be considered a fair risk if it reduces the chance of me suffering a mortal wound. Can you help me out?

That's pretty much complete nonsense. If you know what you're doing, parrying isn't going to damage your sword appreciably - not enough to be a concern in a fight, anyway.

What sword-fights will look like is going to vary by weapon. Here's an awesme video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmLaZHStmI) of unarmored longsword combat (in costume) showing strikes, parries, counters, counter-counters, counter-counter-counters, and so on...

There's a lot of other videos available on YouTube, including stuff like Swordfish tournaments, etc. (Although anything with free play is going to look a bit "sporty" because nobody is actually in danger of injury or death.) Just start following related videos from the above one.

Edit:
JustSomeGuy asked about sailing with the wind...

A sailing ship had multiple sails on masts along its length. If the wind is coming from directly behind the ship, it only catches the first sail it hits (especially if they're square-rigged). If the wind is at an angle from behind the ship (say between 15 and 75 degrees, whatever), it's going to hit multiple sails - preferrably all of them. More sails getting the wind means more square footage getting pushed means faster travel.

Boci
2013-10-11, 02:37 PM
Where did you get this impression? Sword contact was absolutely a part of rapier fencing

I know that, I'm just not interested in rapier fencing for the purpose of this question. Just to clarify I am referring to European blades, just not the rapier.


That's pretty much complete nonsense. If you know what you're doing, parrying isn't going to damage your sword appreciably - not enough to be a concern in a fight, anyway.

Is there any film scene with shows parrying by people who know what they are doing?


What sword-fights will look like is going to vary by weapon. Here's an awesme video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmLaZHStmI) of unarmored longsword combat (in costume) showing strikes, parries, counters, counter-counters, counter-counter-counters, and so on...

Okay, and is that the normal speed and force you would normally strike with? Because some of those moves (the upward blocking ones) look like it will result banging swords together.

warty goblin
2013-10-11, 02:42 PM
Okay, and is that the normal speed and force you would normally strike with? Because some of those moves (the upward blocking ones) look like it will result banging swords together.
No. But where the blades make contact also matters; the section nearest the guard of a longsword is, I believe, generally not actually sharp and hence quite resistant to being damaged from hitting another blade.

Boci
2013-10-11, 02:44 PM
No. But where the blades make contact also matters; the section nearest the guard of a longsword is, I believe, generally not actually sharp and hence quite resistant to being damaged from hitting another blade.

Okay, is that also where they grab each other blades? Because that did seem like a dumb idea, but if its blunt then I can see how it work.

warty goblin
2013-10-11, 03:00 PM
Okay, is that also where they grab each other blades? Because that did seem like a dumb idea, but if its blunt then I can see how it work.

It takes an extremely sharp blade to cut flesh - particularly the calloused palm of somebody who uses their hands - through just static pressure*. It takes pressure and draw, the blade has to be pulled across the flesh. Just like cutting bread or steak, you don't just lean on knife and push it through, you pull the blade across, and it bites. Proper technique for grabbing an enemy's blade is about keeping them from being able to pull the thing out of your hands and lacerate your palms through multiple points of contact and/or flexing the blade.

Grabbing the enemy's sword is also not a tactic one executes for very long; just long enough to hopefully hit them a good one with your weapon.

*You can sharpen steel enough to do this. Swords are generally not this sharp, since there's little point to grinding away more of your blade for a small increase in cutting ability. I've tried pressing most of the knives in my collection into my palms with considerable force, and none of them do more than leave a small red mark that disappears after a few minutes. And I keep my knives plenty sharp for their purposes. But I wouldn't try it with a scalpel.

Boci
2013-10-11, 03:15 PM
*You can sharpen steel enough to do this. Swords are generally not this sharp, since there's little point to grinding away more of your blade for a small increase in cutting ability. I've tried pressing most of the knives in my collection into my palms with considerable force, and none of them do more than leave a small red mark that disappears after a few minutes. And I keep my knives plenty sharp for their purposes. But I wouldn't try it with a scalpel.

So aside from the katana (which I'm guessing would be sharp enough to do so. I may be wrong) was there any sword that was typically sharpened enough to make grabbing it by the blade, even in a controlled way for a short time, dangerous?

warty goblin
2013-10-11, 03:30 PM
So aside from the katana (which I'm guessing would be sharp enough to do so. I may be wrong) was there any sword that was typically sharpened enough to make grabbing it by the blade, even in a controlled way for a short time, dangerous?

I don't think the katana was that much sharper than any other sort of sword, really. How sharp you can get a blade is to some degree a function of the steel, but given decent steel the better question is how sharp you want it. Every time you sharpen a blade, you grind it down; I've got a kitchen knife of unknown age that's lost a good quarter of an inch from sharpening. And the sharper you keep it, the more sharpening it will require after every use, as you grind the bevels backwards into the body of the blade. So you've got to weigh the advantages of a sharper blade against the disadvantages of maintaining it with such an edge. For a sword, the advantages of being scalpel sharp are pretty minimal. They're already sharp enough to chop up meat plenty good when used with conviction.

And of course grabbing a sword by the blade is dangerous; you're grabbing a three foot long meat cleaver in the hands of a person who is trying to chop you up for dogmeat. The entire enterprise is fundamentally dangerous, the only question is whether grabbing the blade is worth the risk.

Rhynn
2013-10-11, 04:08 PM
Didn't somebody just link a YouTube demonstration video where they cut tatami or something with a longsword, then grab the blade from a swing with a bare hand, or something?

If you don't know what's being done and how, anything can look like magic - including swordsmanship. The grabs and sword-binding is pretty "standard" stuff from the manuals (although obviously it's even more standard in harnischfechten, but the video obviously shows unarmored techniques).

The video doesn't look quite "top-speed" to me, but like I said, watch more on YouTube. Swordfish longsword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLzdWVBovtg) for instance probably has a more "realistic" speed than a video that's meant to demonstrate moves. It's also less "clean," although like I said, it's going to look "sporty." You're never going to actually see real medieval/renaissance swordfights - nobody fights with real longswords to kill someone anymore. You can get a good approximate idea from watching free play/sport (like Swordfish) and technique demos, though.

Boci
2013-10-11, 04:17 PM
So to round up: parrying does work with long sword, just imagine:
Angled deflections rather than blade to blade interceptions
Use of the crossguard
Use of the base of the blade where it is strongest
And grabbing an opponents weapon, whilst dangerous, is not as stupid as it initially seems.

Is that about right?

What about other types of sword? Say two handed sword, cutlasses or samurai combat?

Mike_G
2013-10-11, 05:33 PM
Using the part of the blade near the hilt also give you an advantage in leverage over and above it being the thickest, sturdiest part of the blade. The part near the hilt was called the "strong" or "forte" where the part near the point was called the "weak" or "foible." If I put the strong of my blade against the weak of yours, I can move your blade where I want it very easily.

You can try this with rulers or dowels or even sticks. Have your buddy hold his out, and see how easy it is to control if you put your strong against he weak. Conversely, it's very hard to move his blade with your weak against his strong. So parrying, beating, binding etc with the strong of your blade against the weak of the enemy's works pretty well.

Add a crossguard or more complex quillons and it becomes very easy to trap his blade, keep it out of the way while you put your point in his body.

For most swords used alone, I would think this would be a big part of the technique. Maybe not so much for swords intended to be used with a shield. I'll be honest, I don't know much sword and shield technique.

warty goblin
2013-10-11, 05:44 PM
For most swords used alone, I would think this would be a big part of the technique. Maybe not so much for swords intended to be used with a shield. I'll be honest, I don't know much sword and shield technique.

My limited experience of the form is that it's a lot of smashing boards together, and then somebody gets stabbed in the ankle.

oudeis
2013-10-11, 06:07 PM
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Ms9RMH7IA)is a very informative video on one form of shield fighting. You can find the second part on the same page.

Re blade sharpness, there's a difference between a slicing edge and a cleaving edge. Against an unarmored or lightly-armored target you might be able to get away with the thinner slicing edge, but against a man in armor that's an excellent way to roll the edge or chip it.

As for grasping a live blade, I'd guess that in most combat situations you would be wearing heavy leather gloves at the very least, if not mail (depending on the era), so half-swording or trapping an opponent's sword would be fairly easy. I could see actual barehanded grabbing work if you were to quickly follow with a sword strike before your adversary could pull free.

I'm sure the more knowledgeable members of this forum can give more informed and experienced opinions on these matters, so I will defer in advance to their expertise in the likelihood that I am mistaken.

Hjolnai
2013-10-11, 06:19 PM
My understanding of the German longsword tradition is that you don't parry - you make a cut on a line which intercepts your opponent's cut. The difference is that, while blade contact is still made, your own cut creates a genuine threat, and the opponent can't back out of their attack before contact (or your cut will hit them). It has nothing to do with avoiding damaging the sword (and I don't see how you could "use the flat of the blade" as I've seen some people suggest, while still creating a threat).

Disclaimer: My knowledge is filtered from the training of someone else who has read the manuals in the Liechtenauer tradition, not my own readings - so no guarantees.

Galloglaich
2013-10-11, 08:14 PM
You do parry in the Liechtenauer tradition; but you dont "just" parry, ideally, the system emphasizes a lot of single -time counters (most of the Versetzen, the Absetzen and so on)

The idea is to sieze the momentum when you are attacked, turn the tables. The Liechtenauer system emphasizes offense more than some of the others but its not kamikaze.

I was the one who posted the video pf a guy cutting tatami and then grabbing the blade ... Its Roland Warzecha of Hammmabourg. I'll have to go find it again.

G

Rakaydos
2013-10-11, 08:31 PM
Just jumping back on the dragon race for a second, but wouldnt it be plausable to give the same "bare handed deflection" we've been discussing to the wings, with a proper "gauntlet" wingcap? for complete coverage you would probably lose flight as an option (being unable to open the wing) but woud effectively have 4 hands for fighting.

warty goblin
2013-10-11, 08:42 PM
Just jumping back on the dragon race for a second, but wouldnt it be plausable to give the same "bare handed deflection" we've been discussing to the wings, with a proper "gauntlet" wingcap? for complete coverage you would probably lose flight as an option (being unable to open the wing) but woud effectively have 4 hands for fighting.

I think the operative difference is that a person generally grabs a blade in a bind, that is to say when the two blades are actually touching and pretty much stationary. It's not really a deflection so much as it is a grab to force their blade aside so you can hit them. As I said before, my understanding is that this is also done with a very specific grip to prevent the other person from yanking the blade back and cutting your fingers off.

And with the wing thing, what happens when somebody does use a hooked weapon, snags it behind the elbow joint, and gives a good, hard yank? Or winds off of it with a longsword and thrusts to the neck? Is it worth running the risk of that sort of injury for an awkward, offline parry?

Rakaydos
2013-10-11, 08:53 PM
I think the operative difference is that a person generally grabs a blade in a bind, that is to say when the two blades are actually touching and pretty much stationary. It's not really a deflection so much as it is a grab to force their blade aside so you can hit them. As I said before, my understanding is that this is also done with a very specific grip to prevent the other person from yanking the blade back and cutting your fingers off.

And with the wing thing, what happens when somebody does use a hooked weapon, snags it behind the elbow joint, and gives a good, hard yank? Or winds off of it with a longsword and thrusts to the neck? Is it worth running the risk of that sort of injury for an awkward, offline parry?
The risk is there whether you are trying to parry or not- if you're trying to get a hooked weapon all the way behind the elbow (or do you mean wrist?) you're already well past the guard, and the creature's 2hander should already be breaking the haft. If it's bit slow, well, congratulations, you got in a powerful blow- if not, you've just lost your primary weapon.

warty goblin
2013-10-11, 09:07 PM
The risk is there whether you are trying to parry or not- if you're trying to get a hooked weapon all the way behind the elbow (or do you mean wrist?) you're already well past the guard, and the creature's 2hander should already be breaking the haft. If it's bit slow, well, congratulations, you got in a powerful blow- if not, you've just lost your primary weapon.

I'm not well past the guard if the drake is literally using the wing as its guard. Then all it takes is a flick forward maybe four inches, and a good, sharp, yank. Combine with a decent sidestep and a realignment of the haft and it's a pretty safe move, really. Say strike from the right, twitch the blade forwards, then step back with the left foot while raising the haft and pulling back. End in high guard, ready to thrust to the face. A human's already got the reach advantage given equal length weapons, and all but the most outsized swords are still shorter than most pole-arms.

Rakaydos
2013-10-11, 09:32 PM
Sounds like you're talking about the wrist, not the elbow. is that correct?

So youre swinging a halberd in from the side, baiting an upward deflection (elbow high, wrist low and extended to the side) from the wing (as opposed to a blade block, I suppose) then twisting to hook the wrist and yanking it toward you?

Meanwhile the dragon is dropping the elbow and raising the wrist to trap the polearm inside the wing's reach and pulling it inward (also, as part of the same motion, countering your efforts to lift your polearm to get a downward hook by angling the bones you're trying to hook) while the dragon;s blade comes across to break the haft, disarming you in exchange for a ripped membrane and possibly some bone damage to the wing.

Does this seem reasonable? It requires technical skill on the part of the dragon, which would be part of martial training, but seems well within the dragons range of motion. And bones can heal, whereas it is rather hard to heel from what the two-handed blade will do to the disarmed human.

EDIT: Or, for tht matter, simply stepping foreward with the hook, and running the polearm-user through with a greatsword. Advantage going to the person with multiple aveneues of attack.

warty goblin
2013-10-11, 10:13 PM
Sounds like you're talking about the wrist, not the elbow. is that correct?

Yeah, sorry my bad.


So youre swinging a halberd in from the side, baiting an upward deflection (elbow high, wrist low and extended to the side) from the wing (as opposed to a blade block, I suppose) then twisting to hook the wrist and yanking it toward you?
I'd figure I'm probably swinging the thing at the drake's head. The question is what I do in the event the blow does not connect. I could even be doing this through a bind, so the head of my weapon is in contact with the drake's blade.


Meanwhile the dragon is dropping the elbow and raising the wrist to trap the polearm inside the wing's reach and pulling it inward (also, as part of the same motion, countering your efforts to lift your polearm to get a downward hook by angling the bones you're trying to hook) while the dragon;s blade comes across to break the haft, disarming you in exchange for a ripped membrane and possibly some bone damage to the wing.
Halberd hafts are tough things. Decent hardwood shod in iron is very tough; hell even just decent hardwood can be mighty hard to break. You aren't going to shatter one with an offhand tap, it takes some legit force. Hence the step to the side, it takes the human effectively off the dragon's line of attack while keeping their weapon in line to threaten neck, head or other opening. Particularly since a human will be able to step to the side much faster than a long creature with its mass all spread out will be able to rotate to match.

The pull and the rotation in this move is also powered by the muscles of the back, shoulders and hips. All the big ones in other words. The haft realignment can effectively bind a sword as well.

And nobody in their right mind trades some bone damage for maybe breaking an enemy's weapon, particularly if that bone damage is to their primary locomotion system. Hell, I broke my collarbone a decade or so ago, and it's only in the last two years that my left shoulder has regained the same strength as the right. Again, nobody takes hits they can escape by other means.


Does this seem reasonable? It requires technical skill on the part of the dragon, which would be part of martial training, but seems well within the dragons range of motion. And bones can heal, whereas it is rather hard to heel from what the two-handed blade will do to the disarmed human.
Being disarmed is not the end of the world. Then it's just time to pull a dagger, get in close and go for the eyes.


EDIT: Or, for tht matter, simply stepping foreward with the hook, and running the polearm-user through with a greatsword. Advantage going to the person with multiple aveneues of attack.
That's why the sidestep. It's hard to attack effectively when one's weapon is not in line to do so.

And if the advantage went to the person with multiple avenues of attack, everybody would just run around with weapons in each hand. They don't, because aside from some very specific contexts, it's better to have one serious method of assault than a lot of piddly ones. I've fought people with akimbo swords using just one of my own. I've frequently beat them, because the second blade restricts almost as many options as it gives.

Rakaydos
2013-10-11, 10:27 PM
That's why the sidestep. It's hard to attack effectively when one's weapon is not in line to do so.

Quick point here- while any kind of gross rotation would be difficult to do quickly, minor reorentations can be managed by tail-shifts- that is, lashing sideways with the tail to pull the forebody into a new facing momentarlly, limited by the beast's ability to maintain balance.

For that matter, if the wing is folded at the wrist as tightly as most bats seem to be while walking, actually catching the fingers would take some doing- you are far more likely to "merely" tear the membrane (which would NOT be the primary movement for "Heavy knight armor" warriors) and possibly hook the forearm. Note that, while damaging, you are also giving the dragon a meassure of control over your weapon's head.

Perhaps I'm having problems with visualization, but I'm having a hard time imagining how you're binding both the blade and the wing with the same weapon head.

(though perhaps we should take this elsewhere- though interesting to me, it seems like few others are contributing to this discussion, and we are drowning out other conversations)

Raum
2013-10-11, 11:13 PM
<from the previous thread>
Is there something different between how sails work and how bird wings work? I would put it down to birds being fully in thte air vs. ships being in the water while using the wind for propulsion, but then agai nthat is why i bring it up - what is going on and why?The first difference which springs to mind is the direction of forces involved. Lift from a bird's wing will push it up where the equivalent "lift" from a sail pushes the ship forward.

A ship sailing down wind in a 5mph breeze has less relative wind speed as it approaches 5mph. If it ever hit exactly 5mph it would feel like you're in calm weather. (Notably this can make sailors underestimate wind speeds and potentially cause problems when turning.)

A ship sailing across the wind works in a state of tension between two fluid systems - the water supporting it while resisting hull movement and the air moving across the ship both pushing on the sail and creating a low pressure area in front of the sail to pull. Your speed across the wind doesn't affect the 'pushing' vector (relative wind speed is still 5mph) but increasing speed does increase the 'lift' factor (wind speed across the belled face of your sail is faster). If your hull had zero resistance to forward movement your forward speed would approach infinity - though other factors also apply (you will reach a point where air resistance in front of you presses your sail back in - at least for non-wing sails). In any case I'm oversimplifying.

Here are a couple of sites with the technical explanations:
- Points of Sail diagram (http://knotalotsailing.wordpress.com/sailing-101/points-of-sail/)
- Physics of Sailing (http://twodresslers.com/Fun/FunDocuments/APSSailing.pdf)
- Windsurf physics (http://joewindsurfer.blogspot.com/2008/04/jim-drakes-windsurf-physics.html)
- Sail flow analysis (http://syr.stanford.edu/SAILFLOW.HTM)


Love the Mythbusters. But have been bothered by their "proving" that splinters from cannon balls weren't the danger they are often perceived to be.Don't think I've seen that episode. However, wood is resilient. It's going to bend around the penetration point and most will snap back into place. This is part of why sinking from cannon fire alone (pre-explosive rounds) was relatively uncommon - the resulting holes simple weren't that big. As long as the splinters are small, they're not going to penetrate much.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-11, 11:22 PM
I'll bring up armour penetration.

If you had someone rigid, lying on the ground for example: How well could you puncture heavy mail or plate armours with an acute sword point, a spear, or the dague or queue of a poleaxe?

This is something exaggerated in fiction, but I don't truly know how much it is exaggerated.

Maeglin_Dubh
2013-10-11, 11:32 PM
Also remember that in longsword (especially armored longsword in the Meyer [and I believe also Lichtenauer and Talhoffer traditions]) the blade is not the only active part of the sword. Quillons and pommel are all considered fair play in terms of making your opponent non-viable.


I'll bring up armour penetration.

If you had someone rigid, lying on the ground for example: How well could you puncture heavy mail or plate armours with an acute sword point, a spear, or the dague or queue of a poleaxe?

This is something exaggerated in fiction, but I don't truly know how much it is exaggerated.

My understanding is that you tried, whenever possible, to go for gaps. And even in what D&D would call fullplate, there were gaps. And the acute points you're talking about could, in some cases, exploit them.

Rondel daggers are dandy for this, being basically a heavy icepick.

As a for instance, if I'm in plate, fighting a man in plate, and he's on the ground, and I'm not, I'm going to try to stab his visor, or his armpit, or his crotch, since these are all places where armor often has necessary gaps for articulation (also vision).

oudeis
2013-10-12, 01:59 AM
I'll bring up armour penetration.

If you had someone rigid, lying on the ground for example: How well could you puncture heavy mail or plate armours with an acute sword point, a spear, or the dague or queue of a poleaxe?

This is something exaggerated in fiction, but I don't truly know how much it is exaggerated.A helpless target wearing mail- I'm presuming you mean chain armor here- would be vulnerable to to a thrust, especially from a weapon designed to counter such armor like the ones you mentioned or an awl-pike. You can find lots of videos on youtube where the resistance of riveted mail to thrusting attacks is put to the test. From the ones that I've seen, it seems to take a two-handed attack at an advantageous angle with a narrow-pointed weapon to effect any meaningful penetration. One attack I saw with a longsword wielded in a half-sword grip penetrated several centimeters but the blade got caught in the links. While the thrust probably would have gone through a gambeson and inflicted a serious wound the attacker would have effectively disarmed himself.

As for plate armor, actually penetrating one of the pieces with a hand-held weapon was incredibly difficult. Even when dealing with an immobile target, you are striking against polished, precisely curved pieces of metal that are specifically designed to deflect or turn attacks. Even a weapon designed to penetrate armor like a poleaxe or a bec-de-corbin would have to strike at the right place and the correct angle to inflict a fatal wound.

Brother Oni
2013-10-12, 05:41 AM
One attack I saw with a longsword wielded in a half-sword grip penetrated several centimeters but the blade got caught in the links. While the thrust probably would have gone through a gambeson and inflicted a serious wound the attacker would have effectively disarmed himself.

Typically with a kill stroke like that, you'd twist to both widen the wound and to aid you in retrieving your weapon.

I agree that between the armour and a resisting victim, you'd probably be disarmed in combat.



Even when dealing with an immobile target, you are striking against polished, precisely curved pieces of metal that are specifically designed to deflect or turn attacks. Even a weapon designed to penetrate armor like a poleaxe or a bec-de-corbin would have to strike at the right place and the correct angle to inflict a fatal wound.

I think you're over-estimating the victim here. With a helpless target, setting the tip of your blade over a weak spot (like between the gorget and the helmet) and leaning down is just as effective.

Weapons don't have to hit with force to kill, just penetrate. Pushing a dagger into someone's neck may be slower and harder than stabbing them, but it doesn't it make them any less dead.

As Maeglin_Dubh also said, this is why soldiers carried thin stiletto-like daggers for killing/capturing floored armoured opponents.

Corenair
2013-10-12, 07:10 AM
Hello, all.

I have questions regarding scimitars that might requires some context.
Technologically speaking, my setting is about ancient middle-eastern civilizations that have somehow made it to a High Middle Age level or more: they have stirrups, crossbows, that sorts of things. The question is: what good would scimitars be in such a context ?

Maeglin_Dubh
2013-10-12, 08:59 AM
Hello, all.

I have questions regarding scimitars that might requires some context.
Technologically speaking, my setting is about ancient middle-eastern civilizations that have somehow made it to a High Middle Age level or more: they have stirrups, crossbows, that sorts of things. The question is: what good would scimitars be in such a context ?

They're fine. Why would there be a problem?
To elaborate we'd need to know a lot more about the setting, armor and metallurgy specifically. Armor that would give scimitars trouble was uncommon in the ANE, but might be common in your world (resource availability and climate tend to be limiting factors, but again,you might have found a way around that.)
Also, bronze and carbon steel are super-different in terms of properties and what you would be using them for in terms of weapon construction.

Brother Oni
2013-10-12, 09:58 AM
Armor that would give scimitars trouble was uncommon in the ANE, but might be common in your world (resource availability and climate tend to be limiting factors, but again,you might have found a way around that.)

As an addition to this, I'm fairly sure that the armour the crusaders typically wore didn't give the Saracens and their scimitars any issues, so if a scimitar can handle mail, it's probably good until the late Middle Ages when gothic plate and other heavy duty stuff started showing up (~15th century).

Edit: Actually, what type of armour would give scimitars trouble, full plate aside?

Rhynn
2013-10-12, 10:08 AM
As an addition to this, I'm fairly sure that the armour the crusaders typically wore didn't give the Saracens and their scimitars any issues, so if a scimitar can handle mail, it's probably good until the late Middle Ages when gothic plate and other heavy duty stuff started showing up (~15th century).

Well, I don't really imagine any sword of the period was going to easily ore regularly pierce/cut through mail - there's even an account of a duel from the Crusades (someone posted in one of the last few threads) where one participant just curled up, shielding the nape of his neck with his hands, and the other fighter hacked at him to no effect until he got up and fled. That didn't mean the swords weren't excellent weapons - most people in battle probably didn't have armor beyond a helmet, most who did didn't have full armor (hence all those cut shinbones...), and even an armored opponent could be defeated with a sword (get them in a position where they plain can't defend themselves, then get them in the face/neck).

FWIW, I'm quite sure that the Saracens had plenty of mail, too. Jazerants (mail sandwiched between cloth layers, rather similar to the surcoat-mail-gambeson arrangement but as a single piece) were apparently commonplace enough in the Middle East between the 11th and 14th centuries.

IW Judicator
2013-10-12, 10:13 AM
As a further add on, it would also be important to consider the local climate. Platemail is fine and dandy if you want to be well protected, but it's also going to get very hot very fast in a Middle-Eastern-esque setting, or really any place that has a great deal of heat. For example, while the Spanish may have had "Guns, Germs, and Steel", that heavy metal armor they wore didn't do them a lot of favors in the hot jungles of the New World and in the end a lot of them ended up favoring the Natives cloth armor over their expensive metal because the metal was too uncomfortable to be in, and the cloth still provided SOME protection (though really, there isn't a lot that is going to stop a serious attack with obsidian weaponry). In a desert setting, you're more likely to fine less heavy armor (probably capped at what would be considered "Medium") and more lighter armor simply due to the effects of climate. A warrior who collapses from heat exhaustion because of his armor isn't going to do you much good after all.

On an unrelated note: what sort of weaponry does everyone here think would be best suited to a very Dwarf-esque race, though a bit smaller (so small size class, but still very hardy and 'tanky').

Edit: Naturally they have access to plenty of metal, but not so much hard woods. My guess is that they would favor things that give them a bit more reach than their stature allows, but I still want to hear what everyone thinks.

Rhynn
2013-10-12, 10:23 AM
In a desert setting, you're more likely to fine less heavy armor (probably capped at what would be considered "Medium") and more lighter armor simply due to the effects of climate.

Yet the Arabs/Egyptians/Saracens wore mail, as did the Crusader knights. (Certainly they were unlikely to wear it until they had to get ready for battle but that goes for any climate, really.) A surcoat over the mail keeps it from being heated by the sun (which expains jazerants, in part).

Not that gambesons, etc. were going to be particularly comfortable in hot climates, either. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a thick gambeson is going to heat you a lot more than a mail hauberk covered with light cloth.


(though really, there isn't a lot that is going to stop a serious attack with obsidian weaponry)

I have serious trouble believing obsidian weapons could pierce iron/steel armor. Is this backed up by anything? My understanding is that obsidian is fairly fragile, and macahuitls would have needed their blades replaced even when used against unarmored or cloth-armored opponents.

IW Judicator
2013-10-12, 10:32 AM
Yet the Arabs/Egyptians/Saracens wore mail, as did the Crusader knights. (Certainly they were unlikely to wear it until they had to get ready for battle but that goes for any climate, really.) A surcoat over the mail keeps it from being heated by the sun (which expains jazerants, in part).

Not that gambesons, etc. were going to be particularly comfortable in hot climates, either. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a thick gambeson is going to heat you a lot more than a mail hauberk covered with light cloth.



I have serious trouble believing obsidian weapons could pierce iron/steel armor. Is this backed up by anything? My understanding is that obsidian is fairly fragile, and macahuitls would have needed their blades replaced even when used against unarmored or cloth-armored opponents.

After some quick research I'll concede the point on Obsidean, but I'll have to dig a bit more into Middle-Eastern armor before conceding my position on that.

EDIT: Having now completed my research on that I see that I was mistaken on both accounts, so its probably best to just ignore my mad ravings at this point.

Spiryt
2013-10-12, 10:45 AM
Damn, sorry guys, but this quickly turned into huge pile of old myths:

- "Saracens" during crusades generally didn't have anything resembling scimitars!

Turkish muslims, Seljuks and others, could have some sabers, I guess.

- Saracens heavy cavalry, and general feudal elite warriors, were usually just as, if not more heavily armored than their European counterparts.


And,



As an addition to this, I'm fairly sure that the armour the crusaders typically wore didn't give the Saracens and their scimitars any issues, so if a scimitar can handle mail, it's probably good until the late Middle Ages when gothic plate and other heavy duty stuff started showing up (~15th century).

Seriously? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

"Scimitar" whatever kind of sabre, I guess, we understand by this, is by no means possible particularly 'anti armour' weapon.

So yeah, mail will give 'scimitars' plenty of issues.

Obviously, "Saracens and their scimitars" happens mostly in 60's movies, in reality they obviously fought with spears, lances, axes etc.

oudeis
2013-10-12, 12:40 PM
I think you're over-estimating the victim here. With a helpless target, setting the tip of your blade over a weak spot (like between the gorget and the helmet) and leaning down is just as effective.

Weapons don't have to hit with force to kill, just penetrate. Pushing a dagger into someone's neck may be slower and harder than stabbing them, but it doesn't it make them any less dead.

As Maeglin_Dubh also said, this is why soldiers carried thin stiletto-like daggers for killing/capturing floored armoured opponents.Absolutely. I just wanted to address the matter of general penetrability, since Mr Mask had already touched on the correct approach.

...

Re Middle-Eastern armor, Persian Cataphractii wore knee-length coats of heavy scale-mail and so did their horses. Indian nobility wore extremely heavy suits of armor called 'Coats of a Thousand Nails'. A google image search will turn up lots of examples of both, some quite beautiful.

As for scimitars- or samshirs, to use the Persian name- and other slashing weapons like Turkish yatagan, they would be as ineffective against mail as European straight-bladed swords or the later sabers. Simply put, a slashing or cleaving weapon has virtually no chance to cut through metal armor like mail or scale and in a lot of cases wouldn't be able to breach hardened leather armors like lamellar or cuirboilli. (As a side note, scale armor could be made of leather and lamellar could have metal plates.) As addressed in previous points, you would strike for the gaps. A scimitar cut delivered from atop a moving horse would still have devastating effect against a lightly- or less-armored footsoldier, who will be the bulk of most armies in settings like this anyway, so it's still a useful weapon.

Brother Oni
2013-10-12, 12:45 PM
Seriously? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

"Scimitar" whatever kind of sabre, I guess, we understand by this, is by no means possible particularly 'anti armour' weapon.


May I make a clarification for everybody? I meant that Saracens still used their sabres (since Spiryt disapproves of the 'scimitar' terminology) against the crusaders, indicating that it was still an effective weapon.
While I agree that slashing weapons have issues penetrating mail (confirmed with personal experience), it doesn't mean that mail is invulnerable to damage - it's still taking the damage instead of you and sufficient punishment is going to open up gaps or rents where the links have failed.

A gambeson is also only so thick - taking a good blow is still going to hurt, regardless of whether the armour stops it penetrating.

I think I also need to clarify to Spiryt that I meant scimitar as in 'a curved bladed sword' rather than the typical Hollywood representation of a scimitar.

Looking up some more reliable sources, it indicates that they used a variety of curved and straight swords in that period:


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/ISAS/ISAS_27_1.jpg


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Weapons/Yucel_37_ISAS.jpg



http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Royal%20Armouries/turkish_bowcase_16th_C.jpg



Absolutely. I just wanted to address the matter of general penetrability, since Mr Mask had already touched on the correct approach.

I agree that trying to penetrate the armour of someone rolling on the ground trying to get to his feet would have significant issues, although smacking them around the head hard enough would probably stun them long enough for you to either capture or kill them.

Corenair
2013-10-12, 01:07 PM
So, basically, if I want scimitars to fit in the setting I can either:
- make heavy armour culturally unusual (which could be coherent with a fast-movement-as-small-a-bagage-train-as-possible style of warfare, a wide use of crossbows and a judicious use of magic)
- or make scimitars a duelling weapon rather than a tool for battle, or even a side arm like the katana actually was ..... ?

Brother Oni
2013-10-12, 01:10 PM
So, basically, if I want scimitars to fit in the setting I can either:
- make heavy armour culturally unusual (which could be coherent with a fast-movement-as-small-a-bagage-train-as-possible style of warfare, a wide use of crossbows and a judicious use of magic)
- or make scimitars a duelling weapon rather than a tool for battle, or even a side arm like the katana actually was ..... ?

Why not both?

I think culturally unusual will be better supported with other factors such environmental (too hot to wear heavy armour) or resource scarcity issues (not enough iron or it's of so poor quality, to make decent armour).

Edit: You could make the scimitar like a status symbol similar to the samurai katana/wakizashi.

Corenair
2013-10-12, 01:28 PM
Agreed on both points, although culturally unusual will be better supported with environmental conditions (too hot to wear heavy armour) or resource scarcity issues (not enough iron or it's of so poor quality, to make decent armour).

The problem with the first, as oudeis pointed out, is that Sassanid deghans would wear enormously heavy armour in the heat of the Mesopotamian desert. The second might work, but might harm the verisimilitude of a setting where I have purposefully depicted very large armies.

Brother Oni
2013-10-12, 01:40 PM
The problem with the first, as oudeis pointed out, is that Sassanid deghans would wear enormously heavy armour in the heat of the Mesopotamian desert. The second might work, but might harm the verisimilitude of a setting where I have purposefully depicted very large armies.

Not really - swords and armour were expensive and if you have limited metal resources, only the rich and elite would have metal armour and swords (consider how many spear heads you could make with the amount of metal in a sword).

With your very large armies, is it wrong to assume that a large chunk of them would probably be common foot soldiers (fabric armour, side arm and spear) or conscripts (spear or re-purposed farming implement and possibly the clothes on their back)?

oudeis
2013-10-12, 01:45 PM
Don't forget shields. :smallcool:

Corenair
2013-10-12, 02:20 PM
With your very large armies, is it wrong to assume that a large chunk of them would probably be common foot soldiers (fabric armour, side arm and spear) or conscripts (spear or re-purposed farming implement and possibly the clothes on their back)?

Oh, no, sure. By large armies, I mind the kind that only empires with a powerful administration could field. Still, what would be preferable, with regards to verisimilitude, between the two options ? I want armour and gear to matter, but I also want players to be able to come up with a viable swashbuckler/dervish/prince-of-persia-like kind of character. Of course, the two in the same setting might just not be possible ...

Spiryt
2013-10-12, 02:48 PM
May I make a clarification for everybody? I meant that Saracens still used their sabres (since Spiryt disapproves of the 'scimitar' terminology) against the crusaders, indicating that it was still an effective weapon.

.

The point is that Saracens generally used straight swords in 'Crusade' period, unless in most common understanding of it, co until the last quarter of 13th century.

The sabre came from the Steppe, generally, to tell very long story short, and it became widespread in the Middle East after the Crusades.

As for attacking mailed man with sabre - surely, most even well armored man would have some bare spots in that period.

And hacking or stabbing away to go trough mail would certainly sometimes work as well.

But it doesn't change the fact that if any weapon would have 'issues' with mail it would be sabre.



A gambeson is also only so thick - taking a good blow is still going to hurt, regardless of whether the armour stops it penetrating.

Entirely debatable - solid mail and felt can easily soak any significant sensation from one handed sidearm. And 'hurt' isn't exactly what someone in lethal combat worries about.

Galloglaich
2013-10-12, 03:21 PM
Some important concepts to get across here.

Swords don't cut through armor, they don't really damage armor in most cases. Contrary to what the SCA used to say, you can't bash somebody through armor enough to knock them out or stun then, or if you can, it's very rare, we can see this very clearly now in the Bohurt videos. Even light maces, two handed axes and polearms don't seem to do all that much (of course they take out the armor-piercing features like sharp back-spikes).

Nevertheless, swords are still very important. Mainly because most people can't wear full armor all the time, usually only a small percentage of any given military force wears full armor (on their legs and everything) though a lot of people wear partial armor. Even when cavalry is fully armored frequently their horses are not (this is what distinguishes light or medium vs. heavy cavalry in fact depending on the era and the place.

In close combat, perhaps surprisingly to many, most fighters had their faces exposed in most parts of the world. This is because otherwise it's hard to breathe and see around you. Very important to see around you in a close fight. For the most part, those big barrel helmets (heamues etc.) that people like so much and you see in Monty Python were for the cavalry charge. They wore another helmet, basically a skull cap, underneath to fight with in the melee. Later visors were developed and that let you open or close depending on the circumstances (a lot of arrows for example means it's a good idea to close your helmet.

There were two ways to deal with armor, go around it (by far the most common) and special armor-piercing weapons like a halberd with a back-spike, an ahlespiess, a war-pick and so on. A dagger (for once you get them don on the ground) This is the reason in fact why there are so many more armor piercing weapons in real medieval arsenals than ever appear in most RPG's and computer games or genre fiction. Because the designers, authors, directors etc., don't grasp the reality of armor. I guess modern people have a hard idea of grasping armor as anything other than 'works all the time' (in which case there is a perplexing dilemma that swords and other weapons don't work) or 'doesn't work at all'. The reality was armor worked most of the time..

Some swords could pierce some armor in a thrust but this was mostly special armor-piercing types of swords (made so, sometimes, in sacrificing cutting ability though there were also types which were very good at both types of attacks). Contrary to mythology, neither rapiers nor smallswords are meant to be armor-piercing, and were not good at piercing armor.

Sabers and 'Scimetars'
Sabers were pretty rare in general outside of Asia until what most people call the Renaissance or the later Medieval period.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Manchuguard.jpg/200px-Manchuguard.jpg

The original saber so to speak is the Chinese Dao, a very ancient weapon dating back to the Bronze Age. They come in various versions, the Ox Tail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niuweidao), the Willow Leaf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liuyedao), the Goose Quill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanmaodao) and so on.

http://sevenstarstrading.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/3703.LiuyeDao.jpg

The principle purpose of a saber is to cut somebody while riding by on a horse. More accurately, especially to slice somebody while riding by on a horse. Sabers are ideally suited to this, especially in the sense that they don't come out of your hand with a jarring impact like when you chop somebody. If you are crazy try this in a car, chop something with a machete while driving by at 40 mph. Dangerous! A slice is much nicer. With a curved sword (and a canted hilt is also helpful) you can make a lethal slice with almost no effort while riding by on a horse, as you can see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IDFPiF3xXCQ#t=67

...while still holding on to your weapon.

Slicing works against textile armor (sometimes) and exposed naked flesh almost all the time (including faces, hands, legs and so on of otherwise armored opponents). But not so much against metal armor especially mail. Sabers still 'work', quite well in fact especially for light cavalry and almost every army was adopting light cavalry by the end of the Medieval period, (as part of a combined arms force along with infantry, cannon, heavy cavalry etc.).

http://www.cowansauctions.com/itemImages/tee5893.jpg

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/18/002218/ph-0.jpg

But as Spyrit noted sabers were not common in the Middle East until the 15th and 16th Centuries, except in the hands of Seljuk turks and Ottomans who were originally using mostly the Chinese / Mongol types. By the 16th Century specific regional variants had become more clearly defined, the Indian / South Asian Tulwar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talwar), the Persian Shamshir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshir), the Arab Saif, the Ottoman Killij (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij) and so on.

http://www.tsarsarsenal.com/long_w/shashka_w_strap/shashka_w_strap_gal.jpg

http://www.muzeumwp.pl/dictionary/szabla-stefana-batorego,257,duzy.jpg

http://literat.ug.edu.pl/honor/bator.jpg

At the same time, European variants also emerged, the Cossack's Shashka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashka), the very popular and influential Hungarian (then Polish) Szabla (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szabla) (itself related to the Ottoman Killij) which then influenced a whole host of later 'modern' types all over Europe. European sabers (except for the Ukranian Shashka) tended to have more hand protection, and the introduction of complex hilt features like the knucklebow made sabers much more useful for close-in fencing as well.

Sabers turn out to be quite good personal protection weapons in fact, especially when of a certain size and with the extra hand protection they are very good at defense. They parry well, in other words. As a result they became popular personal sidearms and this influenced an entire dueling science of sabers which is part of sport fencing today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBTtq2Gzm6w

The military style saber fencing in particular is part of the HEMA revival going on right now and is very popular, mainly because it's pretty easy to learn and as I mentioned, they are good at defense making for longer and sometimes more dramatic fights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IhEKO3XAzg

(you'll notice the fights go on a bit longer than with longsword fencing)

Armor and Heat
This is a very good point, that was one of the deciding factor at the battle of Hattin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_hattin) for example. And it wasn't just an issue in the Middle East. It was apparently a factor at Towton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton) and they were fighting during snow-flurries. Heat may be the real reason plate armor wasn't widely adopted in the Middle East or Central Asia.

Nevertheless it's very important to note this was not a new problem introduced by European knights. Way back in the 1st and 2nd Century the Romans were calling heavy cavalry 'Clibinari' ("oven men") because of how hot their armor was. But in spite of the problem they were widely used in the Middle East, in fact armored heavy cavalry (including armored horses) was invented in Persia / Central Asia centuries before it was ever used in Europe. Some form of heavy cavalry was part of most Middle Eastern, Asian, and Arab armies from that time onward though the Europeans eventually took it to a new level.

G

oudeis
2013-10-12, 03:41 PM
On an unrelated note: what sort of weaponry does everyone here think would be best suited to a very Dwarf-esque race, though a bit smaller (so small size class, but still very hardy and 'tanky').

Edit: Naturally they have access to plenty of metal, but not so much hard woods. My guess is that they would favor things that give them a bit more reach than their stature allows, but I still want to hear what everyone thinks.Sorry, this got lost in the middle of your post.

I would submit that their armament is going to depend on what they are fighting. The Romans were significantly shorter on average than some of the Germanic tribes, but they never had to face ogres or trolls. Fighting someone four inches taller than you is a lot different from fighting some thing four feet taller than you (that's one decimeter/1.2 meters for you metricians) and will dictate what weapons, armor, and tactics you use. In most D20 systems, dwarves are almost two feet/60cm shorter than humans or orcs. Personally, if I was going into combat against an army of professional basketball players/wrestlers, I'd carry the biggest spear I can wield and hope like hell it works. And a great big shield, too.

Since your race is going to be significantly smaller than most of the world I would think they'd use missile weapons. Lots and lots of them. Every soldier would have a projectile weapon and be an expert with it. They might even have more than one: bows or crossbows for longer ranges and thrown weapons for when the enemy is closer. Infantry tactics would probably use some form of phalanx formation. Elite troops might carry the equivalent of zweihanders and try to hamstring their opponents. You could also argue that since dwarves don't incur any strength penalties their small size would allow their armor to weigh less while keeping its strength, or be made thicker and weigh the same as say human armor. In game terms, a 55lb/25kg suit of plate armor might give an AC bonus of +8 to a human but +9 or even +10 to a dwarf. I'm aware that D20 doesn't handle things that way, but you could make it a house rule.

/tuppence

AgentPaper
2013-10-12, 03:50 PM
On an unrelated note: what sort of weaponry does everyone here think would be best suited to a very Dwarf-esque race, though a bit smaller (so small size class, but still very hardy and 'tanky').

Edit: Naturally they have access to plenty of metal, but not so much hard woods. My guess is that they would favor things that give them a bit more reach than their stature allows, but I still want to hear what everyone thinks.

They might well also employ the tactics humans used when facing stuff larger them, such as bears and mammoths. Specifically, they would focus on teamwork and ways of fighting without getting too close to their opponent. Spears are good here for the extra reach they provide, allowing you to engage and keep the opponent at bay at the same time, using their own strength against them since if they try to move towards you, they'll likely just impale themselves on your spear. Ranged weapons are also good, especially ones that don't rely on user strength such as crossbows and guns. Primitive hunters also made extensive use of various traps such as pitfalls, which while impractical on the battlefield, would be extremely effective in the tight, controlled quarters of their homes. Think Tucker's Kobolds (http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/).

IW Judicator
2013-10-12, 04:39 PM
Alright, so from what I'm seeing, yes, my overall train of thought was in the right area, I just didn't take it far enough. So from what I'm seeing they would, for anything significantly larger than them, heavily utilize the following principles:

1) As a group, start with Ranged attacks launched long before size differences came to the point of being important

2) Prepare traps and obstacles to slow any approach and allow the continuation of the ranged bombardment

3) Have spears and similar weapons prepared to keep the bigger foes that have survived at bay while still engaging, with shields if possible to hold back retaliatory strikes, and, finally,

4) If push comes to shove, aim for anything that would disable/cripple an enemy quickly (like attacks on the hamstring) which, if they do not take someone out of the fight, bring them down to their level.

Thank you all for your insight!:smallsmile:

Galloglaich
2013-10-12, 04:44 PM
it is also interesting to note though, that for the heavy cavalry, strait swords also remained popular right up to the end of cavalry in the early 20th Century.

Once the (hand and a half) medieval longsword declined in use by the later 16th Century, the strait single-handed cavalry sword remained very common with the heavy cavalry even long after the very concept of 'heavy' cavalry had changed to the point that they sometimes didn't even have armor.

The Poles popularized one type, the Pallasz sword.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallasch

The Italian (Venetian) Scnhiavona was also extremely popular.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_schia.php

and the English backsword

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

G

Eladrinblade
2013-10-12, 05:16 PM
Was there ever a real-life metal tower-shield used in combat?

Spiryt
2013-10-12, 05:37 PM
Dwarfs fighting are kinda interesting thing to consider (even if completely non real world).

Very complicated too, so many things to consider.

In general, such short stature would be detrimental in about any kind of fighting, maneuvering (running, hoping around) trough battlefield, etc.

On the other hand, creature that's supposed to be roughly of human weight, but 4 feet tall, would be in most instances, ridiculously strong compared to human of same muscle/bones mass.

Assuming similar biology, without growing higher, maintaining the same weight, would mean being bigger in other two dimensions - broader, thicker chest, hips, joints, would mean huge leverage advantage for stout, powerful muscles too work.

Broader chest, shoulders, pelvis etc - more leverage for muscles.

On the other hand, short reach can greatly limits possibilities to actually exert large force in meaningful, practical manner when it matters - in grappling etc. So it's complicated.

Mike_G
2013-10-12, 05:44 PM
Was there ever a real-life metal tower-shield used in combat?

What D&D calls a tower shield is really more of a pavisse. Those were used all the time, by corssbowmen to hide behind while they reloaded.

But I don't thing anybody ever strapped the front door onto his arm and fought in melee with it. Even fairly big shields, like kite shields or roman scutum (scuta?) were much smaller than "tower" shields.

oudeis
2013-10-12, 05:56 PM
Also, I believe most shields were actually laminated wood strips similar to plywood covered with leather or rawhide. Galloglaich would probably be the one to know whether the leather was merely tanned or hardened by hot water treatment (according to this (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Medieval/Articles/Perfect_Armor_Improved.htm)source leather armor wasn't in fact boiled).

Eladrinblade
2013-10-12, 06:10 PM
So, metal tower shields are rather implausible?

Animastryfe
2013-10-12, 06:11 PM
How would sword and buckler be used against an enemy wearing plate armor? I know that using a longsword against plate armor (almost?) always involved half-swording to either thrust into gaps in the armor, or wrestling the enemy to the ground.

Edit: Galloglaich, in a previous version of this thread from about three years ago, you mentioned that heater shields were used once plate armor become common, and most large shields were gone. However, you were also talking about metal shields, such as rotellos and bucklers, which made me think that heater shields were also sometimes made out of metal. Where they?

Galloglaich
2013-10-12, 06:14 PM
yeah most 'heavy' shields historically, the Roman scutum, Norman kyte, the Viking roundshield and so forth, were made of pretty thin wood with some metal components (boss to protect the hand, some other pieces) possibly textile over them, and sometimes with rawhide on the rim.

Lighter shields could be made of just leather (I don't know if it's tanned or not) or wicker or other light materials.

The Greek hoplite shield was bronze over oak though I think, which I don't really understand the physics of. They also used lighter shields for their light infantry made of wicker and textile.

In the Renaissance as metalurgy got suffiicently sophisticated they started having some pretty large steel shields, the rotella being the classic example, but they never got up to pavise size I don't think.

Pavises were sometimes used as personal protection but I never heard of a metal one, I think we had a discussion not too long ago about the Lithuanian 'mini-pavise' type which became popular in the late Medieval period in Central and Eastern Europe. Those were laminated wood and textile, maybe something in how they were made caused them to be more than usually resistant to high velocity missiles, I don't know (yet).

G

oudeis
2013-10-12, 06:35 PM
Never heard of the rotella, though upon looking it up it seems like it would be classified as a medium shield in d20, especially in comparison to the hoplite shield. From what I've read the hoplon was dished enough that the rim could be rested upon the shoulder.

warty goblin
2013-10-12, 07:26 PM
The Greek hoplite shield was bronze over oak though I think, which I don't really understand the physics of. They also used lighter shields for their light infantry made of wicker and textile.

G
Apparently they really didn't want their shields to break?

There's some evidence of the use of very large, rectangular shields with domed tops faced with a bronze plate during the early Mycenaean period. These could be called tower shields, although they really shouldn't be. That leads to crazy things like people deciding that these must be what Homer meant when describing Ajax carrying his shield 'like a rampart.'

Hjolnai
2013-10-12, 08:54 PM
On the issue of extra-short dwarves:

I contest the assertion that spears are the ideal melee weapon for them. Simply put, a human (armspan ~1.6m) can apply much more leverage than someone half a meter shorter, so the dwarves would simply not be able to use the same length of spear. As such, trying to outreach humans in melee is not feasible. A similar problem limits the power of bows, although crossbows would still work nicely.

Instead, I would arm the dwarves with short weapons and large shields (which could completely cover them, with greater strength:height ratio). It's very difficult to throw or otherwise grapple someone with such a low centre of mass, so being grappled is not such an issue (though conversely, many techniques also don't work against opponents much taller). Get in close and hamstring your opponent, and their height is suddenly not such an advantage.

AgentPaper
2013-10-12, 09:22 PM
On the issue of extra-short dwarves:

I contest the assertion that spears are the ideal melee weapon for them. Simply put, a human (armspan ~1.6m) can apply much more leverage than someone half a meter shorter, so the dwarves would simply not be able to use the same length of spear. As such, trying to outreach humans in melee is not feasible. A similar problem limits the power of bows, although crossbows would still work nicely.

Instead, I would arm the dwarves with short weapons and large shields (which could completely cover them, with greater strength:height ratio). It's very difficult to throw or otherwise grapple someone with such a low centre of mass, so being grappled is not such an issue (though conversely, many techniques also don't work against opponents much taller). Get in close and hamstring your opponent, and their height is suddenly not such an advantage.

It seems to me that close quarters is exactly the situation you would want to avoid. It's simple geometry, the closer you are to someone taller than you, the more difference that height makes in your respective reach.

I'm not sure where leverage comes into play with spearwork, or where a height difference would affect it at all. You stab with spears, straight forwards, and when you're stabbing from 6+ feet away, it doesn't really matter much if one side is a foot or two higher than the other.

Since they are apparently also rougly equal in strength to humans, they shouldn't have any trouble wielding a spear the same size and length as a human as well, and as you noted they can carry large shields that protect them better than their large adversaries, making the spear+shield combo even more effective.

Of course, shields won't help one whit if you're fighting trolls or other large creatures that will simply smash them to bits, in which case you'd drop the shield entirely and just focus on stabbing them with long spears, probably in a looser formation so you can dodge effectively.

Edit: For a quick and simple experiment on close vs far, get a buddy. First, stand about 2 feet apart, one of you standing and the other on his knees. Put your hands against each other and push, and see how much advantage his height gives him. Then, do the same thing, but from 8 feet away with a long pole between you. Each of you grab a side of the pole, and push. You should notice that the difference in height makes much less of a difference than before. This is the basic principle that makes me think that a shorter race would prefer spears for combat.

Galloglaich
2013-10-12, 10:50 PM
Yeah the hoplite shield was pretty unique as shields go, it was designed for a very specific type of combat.

The nice thing about the steel rotella (not all were steel, or thick enough, but some were pretty thick tempered steel) was that they were bullet proof to some extent.

G

Maeglin_Dubh
2013-10-13, 12:00 AM
Man, now I really want to make a wicker shield with a glued linen fronting...

Now to figure out where to find wicker...

Hjolnai
2013-10-13, 01:15 AM
It seems to me that close quarters is exactly the situation you would want to avoid. It's simple geometry, the closer you are to someone taller than you, the more difference that height makes in your respective reach.

I'm not sure where leverage comes into play with spearwork, or where a height difference would affect it at all. You stab with spears, straight forwards, and when you're stabbing from 6+ feet away, it doesn't really matter much if one side is a foot or two higher than the other.

Since they are apparently also rougly equal in strength to humans, they shouldn't have any trouble wielding a spear the same size and length as a human as well, and as you noted they can carry large shields that protect them better than their large adversaries, making the spear+shield combo even more effective.

Of course, shields won't help one whit if you're fighting trolls or other large creatures that will simply smash them to bits, in which case you'd drop the shield entirely and just focus on stabbing them with long spears, probably in a looser formation so you can dodge effectively.

Edit: For a quick and simple experiment on close vs far, get a buddy. First, stand about 2 feet apart, one of you standing and the other on his knees. Put your hands against each other and push, and see how much advantage his height gives him. Then, do the same thing, but from 8 feet away with a long pole between you. Each of you grab a side of the pole, and push. You should notice that the difference in height makes much less of a difference than before. This is the basic principle that makes me think that a shorter race would prefer spears for combat.

Using spears is not just a matter of stabbing straight forwards. Even one-handed, you're manipulating the point with the edge of your shield, and shorter arms will reduce your ability to do that. If it was just a matter of a direct thrust, it would be near-trivial to negate a spear with a buckler, and you wouldn't see the huge shields used by the hoplites and so on.

Equal strength applied across a shorter leverage distance will not allow point movement to be as quick, unless the spear is shortened proportionally. The thrust itself is no different, but the point is too easy to move offline.

It's true that as you get in closer, the height difference makes downward pressure stronger. This is not actually particularly useful though - not only are we strong enough to lift another person of the same weight (if done right), but a downward push is all too easily redirected into falling if the shorter opponent just moves out of the way, and once you're on the ground you're at a large disadvantage.

AgentPaper
2013-10-13, 01:31 AM
Using spears is not just a matter of stabbing straight forwards. Even one-handed, you're manipulating the point with the edge of your shield, and shorter arms will reduce your ability to do that. If it was just a matter of a direct thrust, it would be near-trivial to negate a spear with a buckler, and you wouldn't see the huge shields used by the hoplites and so on.

Equal strength applied across a shorter leverage distance will not allow point movement to be as quick, unless the spear is shortened proportionally. The thrust itself is no different, but the point is too easy to move offline.

It's true that as you get in closer, the height difference makes downward pressure stronger. This is not actually particularly useful though - not only are we strong enough to lift another person of the same weight (if done right), but a downward push is all too easily redirected into falling if the shorter opponent just moves out of the way, and once you're on the ground you're at a large disadvantage.

Having a bit less leverage with your spear is certainly a disadvantage, but I don't see why it would be anything more than a minor one. Especially when you compare it to essentially fighting someone uphill.

Brother Oni
2013-10-13, 03:59 AM
Entirely debatable - solid mail and felt can easily soak any significant sensation from one handed sidearm. And 'hurt' isn't exactly what someone in lethal combat worries about.

I guess I should have worn a thicker gambeson then. :smalltongue:

I disagree on the 'hurt' part though. For example, being hit hard enough around the head can cause your brain to rock slightly against the skull, causing momentary lapses of concentration when your brain just 'switches off' due to the impact - there's plenty of literature about it with boxing.
While being hit on other parts of the body aren't as dramatic as momentary blackouts, being hit on the hand for example can cause damage to the wrist or hand bones, causing you to drop your weapon.

While a gambeson and mail/helmet increases the power required to score such a hit, I'm somewhat dubious to your claim that it would make such a hit impossible.


Contrary to what the SCA used to say, you can't bash somebody through armor enough to knock them out or stun then, or if you can, it's very rare, we can see this very clearly now in the Bohurt videos. Even light maces, two handed axes and polearms don't seem to do all that much (of course they take out the armor-piercing features like sharp back-spikes).

Presumably the weapons aren't sharp either.

Again, I'm somewhat dubious about this. By Bohurt videos, do you mean those full contact battles you see over in Eastern Europe/Russia?

Looking at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A4-TIvKCNw), I'd be very surprised if there were absolutely no injuries or people getting at least stunned by the blows involved (especially those charging shield rims to the head).

Mr. Mask
2013-10-13, 04:05 AM
Wouldn't dwarf war be composed mainly of tunnel fighting? You could have contingents trained for the pike, but time specializing with one is neglecting the other.


Since we're on the subject, are there any thoughts on the warfare of theoretical beastmen? Whether they're lizard people, cat people, hyena men, werewolves or rat people, beastmen are popular in fantasy. Obviously, the bigger and stronger varieties will have the advantage of being bigger and stronger. Other details require more consideration.

Wrestling with something which has teeth and claws is a terrible pain, unless you're covered in armour. If they're cat-like, their flexibility would also make it more difficult to pin them (though I can't say how much).

If they have fur, that could be a huge complication when giving them heavy armour, surely. You already get that with humans fighting in the snow.
And if they're cold-blooded reptilians... I'm not sure where to even begin with the list of differences big and small this would cause.

If they can see in the dark, you're soundly ****ed. That's an exaggeration, but I see this element as more of a problem than strength or size (sans extremes).

Elements like improved hearing, sense of smell, could give them excellent scouts.

Certain example like lizardfolk are written to have crocodile hides, which requires attention when picking your weapons and attacks. They're far from invincible, but killing them is certainly harder.


There might be other notable side-effects to the nature of animal-man hybrids. For now, these came to mind when broadly approaching the subject.

Brother Oni
2013-10-13, 04:46 AM
Since we're on the subject, are there any thoughts on the warfare of theoretical beastmen? Whether they're lizard people, cat people, hyena men, werewolves or rat people, beastmen are popular in fantasy.

It's a very broad topic simply because of the sheer variety of physiology.

Random musings:

Muzzles of reptilian/canine/murine, etc beastmen would be significantly harder to armour and if they have enhanced senses, covering those muzzles may not be a viable option.

Digitigrade legs may also be unable to support the additional weight of armour for the same time compared to the plantigrade legs of humans.
That said, most depictions have some advantages of mammalian physiology like opposable thumbs.

I agree on the potential overheating issue of fur.

I think warty covered a fair bit of alternate physiology in the earlier discussion on that winged draconian (tails, wings and body arrangement).

In Warhammer Fantasy, beastmen are mostly hircine and are limited in the armour they can wear (nothing heavier than mail usually) mostly due to physiology and personality (helmets are typically out of the question).

oudeis
2013-10-13, 05:59 AM
Wouldn't dwarf war be composed mainly of tunnel fighting? You could have contingents trained for the pike, but time specializing with one is neglecting the other.I have developed a real problem in the past few years with notion of of dwarves as tunnel-rats. Simply put, I don't think the economics of such a society bear out.

Think about how much time and energy it would take to excavate simple soil without earthmoving machines or power equipment. If you want anything deeper or larger than a shallow grave dug then you are going to need a team of workmen and several hours to do it. Something like the foundation of a house would take a lot of men several days. They may provide their own food but that has to be grown, gathered, or paid for too, so your economy still has to account for that.

Given all this, how much time, labor, food, water, materiel (tools, timber shoring, etc.) is it going to take to hollow out reasonable-sized dwelling under a typical rocky hill for the average Dwarven extended family? Stone is much harder and heavier than dirt, so it will take a lot more time and effort to excavate solid rock, not to mention that quarrying stone or digging underground is exhausting, dangerous, and bad for your health, which is why many civilizations historically used slaves and criminals to do their mining for them. Unless the hill is laced with deposits of valuable metals or precious/semi-precious stones you can trade to the local humans this isn't going to be an economical proposition. When you expand this to an underground arcology with hundreds of dwellings, shops, walkways, open spaces, fountains and such the numbers make even less sense. The Eisenhower Tunnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_70_in_Colorado#Eisenhower_Tunnel) took 10 years and over $900 million in adjusted dollars to create and they had heavy equipment, advanced metallurgy, and high explosives. I love Tolkien but Moria and Erebor just don't add up.

I'm going to end my argument here because frankly I don't know that much about economics and rather than spew out a lot of uninformed nonsense I'd rather just raise the topic and read what better-educated people had to say on the subject.


Since we're on the subject, are there any thoughts on the warfare of theoretical beastmen?...If they have fur, that could be a huge complication when giving them heavy armour, surely. You already get that with humans fighting in the snow...And if they're cold-blooded reptilians... Certain example like lizardfolk are written to have crocodile hides...This is another topic that I have trouble with. A race of beastmen or furry folk wouldn't be able to compete with humans because they would unable to sustain the kind of prolonged effort necessary to build cities, wear armor, or wage war. They simply don't have our capacity for thermoregulation. Smelting and forging metal or making pottery would be right out. Sweat is where it's at, man. Sweat, baby, sweat.

Spiryt
2013-10-13, 07:50 AM
I disagree on the 'hurt' part though. For example, being hit hard enough around the head can cause your brain to rock slightly against the skull, causing momentary lapses of concentration when your brain just 'switches off' due to the impact - there's plenty of literature about it with boxing.
While being hit on other parts of the body aren't as dramatic as momentary blackouts, being hit on the hand for example can cause damage to the wrist or hand bones, causing you to drop your weapon.
While a gambeson and mail/helmet increases the power required to score such a hit, I'm somewhat dubious to your claim that it would make such a hit impossible.


Yeah, and these being 'hurt' or 'rocked' in boxing terms pretty much involves violent head movements due to stiff, properly executed punch with a lot of momentum.

And sabre certainly is not the best choice there.

Punch actually has tons of mechanical advantages there, obviously, more momentum transferable, but punching mailled head is probably bad idea even if hand itself is mailled too.

So it's certainly not 'impossible' but I'm simply saying that sabre is not by any stretch very good weapon to try such a feats.





Those were laminated wood and textile, maybe something in how they were made caused them to be more than usually resistant to high velocity missiles, I don't know (yet).


Due to central ridge, hand of the wielder was further away from the outer surface of the shield...

So any missile would have to penetrate really far to have any chance of hurting holding hand.

Pretty simple, yet very practical 'trick'.

warty goblin
2013-10-13, 10:00 AM
It's a very broad topic simply because of the sheer variety of physiology.

Random musings:

Muzzles of reptilian/canine/murine, etc beastmen would be significantly harder to armour and if they have enhanced senses, covering those muzzles may not be a viable option.

They'd be significantly harder to armor if you wanted an articulated jaw piece that allowed for biting. However there's no reason why a fixed helm that covered the entire head would be that difficult, or indeed a fixed helm that covered the top of the snout, but left the lower mandible uncovered. Given how many people through history fought in helmets that covered the top of the skull, but left the entire face uncovered, this hardly seems a dealbreaker.

And looking at the parts of the body that people have managed to armor, even articulated jaws hardly seem out of the question.


Digitigrade legs may also be unable to support the additional weight of armour for the same time compared to the plantigrade legs of humans.
That said, most depictions have some advantages of mammalian physiology like opposable thumbs.

There's nothing inherently mammalian about opposable thumbs. Pretty much all vertibrate life has the bones, it's just a matter of how they get arranged.


I agree on the potential overheating issue of fur.
People have fought in multiple layer wool gambisons. I can't figure that's any better than a fur coat.



This is another topic that I have trouble with. A race of beastmen or furry folk wouldn't be able to compete with humans because they would unable to sustain the kind of prolonged effort necessary to build cities, wear armor, or wage war. They simply don't have our capacity for thermoregulation. Smelting and forging metal or making pottery would be right out. Sweat is where it's at, man. Sweat, baby, sweat.

Er what? There's no law that prevents hairy animals from sweating. Look at horses. And when working around anything hot enough to melt metal, sweat doesn't really help; you usually put on insulation.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-13, 10:25 AM
Oni: Japan had armoured dogs, for hunts and the like. Armoured muzzles were featured, I believe.

Have often wondered about their legs. I'm not sure how well that design works for bipedal movement, but it doesn't seem like they'd be good at carrying heavy gear for long periods. If they're bigger and stronger, what counts as light armour for them might be more formidable.


oudeis: If you assume dwarves are designed to live underground, you're basically good. Getting enough nutrition calories from underground sources is tricky, unless surface crops are important to dwarf life.

Fur-folk civilizations are possible with the right factors (when it doubt, get slaves to do it), but you certainly don't need a civilization to be a fearsome power. If they can match the Cherokee, that's enough to wipe out most civilizations given the numbers and will.


Goblin: You think fur would not necessarily hinder a beast race in human pursuits?

Galloglaich
2013-10-13, 10:48 AM
I keep tellin' y'all, for dwarves, war-wagons are the way to go! :)

For flying creatures, I think javelins and other missiles make the most sense. maybe repeating crossbows.

I think Tokein's dwarves were to some extent based on the Transylvanian Saxons, who lived in a very rough area, (menaced by Steppe nomads, Mongols, the Ottoman Empire and Hungarian warlords among others) but up in some rugged territory which was hard to get at. Very tough, very resourceful, kind of mean. They made their living by mining and were rich as a result. By the late Medieval period mines had gotten surprisingly deep and sophisticated. If you go to these places in Central Europe you can go down in there and see some rather amazing sights in them.

For example this famous salt mine in Poland is rather "Moria-esque" if you will, with all kinds of fantastical carvings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine

http://www.poland.travel/en/images/stories/polskatravel/Polska/Zabytki/wieliczka_-_sala.jpg

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/hy50f6071a.jpg

http://apetcher.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/salt-mines-01.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hwGYLsWzEaI/TkVQq9Oj4mI/AAAAAAAABf8/o8tZVk8Pp8s/s1600/wieliczka-salt-mine-tour.jpg

http://the-stenzels.com/photo/2005/ee/0604_poland/data/images1/20050604.00080.wielicka_salt_mine,_krakow,_poland. jpg

Obviously salt is easy to work with, but they could cut stone too...

This is a map of the mine

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wieliczka_map.jpg

And while wieliczka is particularly impressive it's by no means unique.

Also early Christians in Turkey lived in cave complexes back in the early part of the 1st millennium. There too, there are some amazing subterranean and semi-subterranean

http://travelingepic.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/img_6729.jpg?w=1280

http://www.idntourism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Sumela-Monastery-Area.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-VajsDP50Kpk/UFx_S6t1_uI/AAAAAAAAdew/I19n9l2mNV0/sumela-02.jpg?imgmax=800

http://www.thisfabtrek.com/journey/asia/turkey/20090928-sumela-monastery/sumela-monastery-turkey-rock-chapel-p-03-2.jpg

The general rule is that the real world pretty much blows away most fantasy arcehtypes. The best fantasy authors (or the best world inventors in the case of Tolkein, who had his limits as an author) derive most of their ideas directly from history and / or traditional mythology.

G

Rakaydos
2013-10-13, 10:55 AM
@re furfolk
Shedding is still a thing, I presume. While they will always have 1 extra layer of padding, the warmer the climate, the thinner it will be.

Concerning helmets, if the race thermoregulates by panting, or large exposed ears, that is going to affect helmet design. (and gods help their armor design if they had funtional wings- but we already covered that. :smallamused:) Imagine a jackal-man, helmeted jaws open, sounding like a hyperventalating Darth Vader as he pants and his ears dump heat into the breeze.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-13, 10:58 AM
G: Thank you for using the examples I was too lazy to.

warty goblin
2013-10-13, 11:09 AM
Oni: Japan had armoured dogs, for hunts and the like. Armoured muzzles were featured, I believe.

Europe too, I believe. Though I'm not as certain about the muzzle.


Have often wondered about their legs. I'm not sure how well that design works for bipedal movement, but it doesn't seem like they'd be good at carrying heavy gear for long periods. If they're bigger and stronger, what counts as light armour for them might be more formidable.
Given that most bipedal life in Earth's history is built like that, I think it works just fine.


Goblin: You think fur would not necessarily hinder a beast race in human pursuits?
Outside of the tropics most of the time most people have spent most of history wearing clothes, which amount to artificial fur. This doesn't seem to have hindered them at all.

I mean you aren't going to get a species with a polar bear's pelt living in the high Sahara sure. But within reason, no.

Raum
2013-10-13, 11:18 AM
Er what? There's no law that prevents hairy animals from sweating. Look at horses. And when working around anything hot enough to melt metal, sweat doesn't really help; you usually put on insulation.As you point out it will depend on the specific biology. Some sweat while others don't. If our hypothetical "mog" uses panting as a primary method of reducing heat it won't have much endurance in hot climates. Those with physiologies capable of managing heat more easily will do better. Of course that only applies to homeotherms, poikilotherms will have other advantages and disadvantages.

Rakaydos
2013-10-13, 11:22 AM
As you point out it will depend on the specific biology. Some sweat while others don't. If our hypothetical "mog" uses panting as a primary method of reducing heat it won't have much endurance in hot climates. Those with physiologies capable of managing heat more easily will do better. Of course that only applies to homeotherms, poikilotherms will have other advantages and disadvantages.

On the other hand, a passive cooling race (panting, ears) who evolved in a high temperature area, who migrates to a cooler climate would need to substitute insuation to compensate for their efficent systems. Then they can put armor atop the insulation.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-13, 12:16 PM
Warty: Thus far, haven't found any depitions of European dog armour, so I can't comment on whether muzzles were the thing. I remember one European noble (Italian?) who made armour for his cute little Persian housecats (as an amusement). Those featured armoured muzzles, which seemed to prevent the possibility of biting (it's joke armour, but might as well point that out for all cares).

I'm unsure how well legs like this would work for bipedal use: http://goo.gl/WTHa97

I see your point on clothes. My expertise is a bit stretched by this point to say whether the difference between technological and natural temperature control is more different than you describe. It still leaves concerns for over-heating in heavy armours.
Actually... they might just be able to shave if their fur was so much of a problem (would be something of a dilemma, if they're proud of their fur)?

Galloglaich
2013-10-13, 12:32 PM
re, Dog Armor

this is apparently 'real' dog armor used for a war dog, includes ('chain') mail and textile, and there is apparently a helmet that goes with it, not shown. German, 17th Century.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Dog_Armour.jpg

This is supposed to be Japaanese dog armor

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tjcey526jr6jpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

Spanish dog armor (this looks like a Victorian image, hard to say how real it is but one of the armors looks similar to one above)

http://www.arauconovel.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/IMG_51263-680x1024.jpg

There are a couple of examples of Medieval plate-harness ("platemail") made for a dog from the 15th and 16th Centuries, (which I couldn't find just now) but I believe those are journeyman's masterpieces, some armor made by a journeyman armorer at the end of his waltz, which is inspected in order for him to become a master. These harnesses are often intentionally made not to fit anyone (a lot of child's armor falls in this category as well) as they were used for the display in the window of the armorers shop once he or she did become a master.

G

warty goblin
2013-10-13, 12:32 PM
Warty: Thus far, haven't found any depitions of European dog armour, so I can't comment on whether muzzles were the thing. I remember one European noble (Italian?) who made armour for his cute little Persian housecats (as an amusement). Those featured armoured muzzles, which seemed to prevent the possibility of biting (it's joke armour, but might as well point that out for all cares).

I believe it was textile armor, for hunting boar.

I'm unsure how well legs like this would work for bipedal use: http://goo.gl/WTHa97
Probably not that well for walking upright. That's a very different thing than being bipedal though. A tyranosaur is bipedal, but it doesn't walk upright.


I see your point on clothes. My expertise is a bit stretched by this point to say whether the difference between technological and natural temperature control is more different than you describe. It still leaves concerns for over-heating in heavy armours.
I figure once you slap plate steel over it, the differences probably aren't that pronounced. Assuming something that sweats like a horse, the hair and thick hide could probably come off as a net thermal advantage for all but the most complete of body armors. They could potentially get some of the benefit of a textile or hide armor on the arms and legs, but without having to wear multiple layers of bulky, insulating quilting. For something like chainmail, which actually breathes, the advantage could really be non-trivial.


Actually... they might just be able to shave if their fur was so much of a problem (would be something of a dilemma, if they're proud of their fur)?
Nah, then wearing your hair short becomes the mark of being a warrior, and therefore a matter of pride.

Rakaydos
2013-10-13, 12:38 PM
I'm unsure how well legs like this would work for bipedal use: http://goo.gl/WTHa97

Oh, definately- those legs are far too slender to handle combat- he'd break an ankle if someone hit his shield wrong. But that's cause the proportions are ideal for a quadroped's leaping legs- little lateral motion, all pressure in a single controlled axis.

Something between this (http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5051225/) and this (http://www.furaffinity.net/view/11687713/) would probably suit better- more bone mass to support the weight, and more leverage to stabilize it.

The way I see it, some hypothetical race of "Anubian mercenaries" moves up to faux-europe, and gets tailored for the climate- their helmets are combination facemask and skullcap, with some guards to protect their mouth while they pant, and the cap has rabbitfur pockets they can tuck their ear into in the cold- but can pull out of in the heat of combat (or if they need to listen carefully). Gambeson over their short fur, whiplike tails either exposed or tucked down a leg, as the climate dictates.

Without swet, they should be more efficent with water on campain, if nothing else.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-13, 01:10 PM
G: Thank you for that. It's surprisingly difficult to find old art on the internet aside from famous pieces. You generally get a stream of pet armours from MMOs.


Goblin: Boar-hunting was the main use for the Japanese dog armours also, I believe.

Your comment makes me wonder how well a biped culture which leans forward like a Trex would manage. I've never considered the idea until now... so I have no clue without pondering it.

Your point seems reasonable. The idea that the difference mightn't be that great (does it matter if you have fur when you're being stuffed in an oven?) crossed my thoughts, but couldn't honestly say one or the other way.

My metal frame of reference was beastmen adopting a separate, more civilized culture's heavy armours, where they wouldn't have the benefit of convention. As you rightfully point out, convention would make it an honourable fashion (unless their culture is weird, like modern ones).


Rakaydos: Size is a secondary point I've been considering. Goblin's point as to the Trex makes me wonder if that type of legs is simply too inefficent for an upstanding* creature.


*: Literally.

Rakaydos
2013-10-13, 01:19 PM
Your comment makes me wonder how well a biped culture which leans forward like a Trex would manage. I've never considered the idea until now... so I have no clue without pondering it. Remove the discusssion on wing-parrying, and a lot of the stuff we discussed on the Drake would carry over- given an exposed head, they would prefer polearms or greatswords, and armor has to worry about balance as much as weight.



Rakaydos: Size is a secondary point I've been considering. Goblin's point as to the Trex makes me wonder if that type of legs is simply too inefficent for an upstanding* creature.
*: Literally.

It depends on the proportions, really. it's essentially like wearing an invisible high heel shoe that my or may not have a spring heel. (kangaroo)

warty goblin
2013-10-13, 02:11 PM
G: Thank you for that. It's surprisingly difficult to find old art on the internet aside from famous pieces. You generally get a stream of pet armours from MMOs.

MMO stuff is the bane of a successful google search.


Your comment makes me wonder how well a biped culture which leans forward like a Trex would manage. I've never considered the idea until now... so I have no clue without pondering it.
I'd figure if you took a theropod body plan, increased head size and brain volume, shortened up the neck to compensate for the increased weight, added humanesque intelligence, you'd have one scary piece of work. Particularly if the beast was the size of an allosauros or so.


Your point seems reasonable. The idea that the difference mightn't be that great (does it matter if you have fur when you're being stuffed in an oven?) crossed my thoughts, but couldn't honestly say one or the other way.
I used to work in a restaurant kitchen, which would, on occasion, get up to about 150. I don't think what I wore made a lick of difference what I wore; more than about forty minutes working in that was still bloody awful. Arguably in fact the long pants and longsleeved shirt made it more tolerable, since it kept the worst of the hot air off my skin.


My metal frame of reference was beastmen adopting a separate, more civilized culture's heavy armours, where they wouldn't have the benefit of convention. As you rightfully point out, convention would make it an honourable fashion (unless their culture is weird, like modern ones).

Or, because it was hard, it was seen as warriorly to maintain a full pelt nevertheless. Cultures are weird.


Rakaydos: Size is a secondary point I've been considering. Goblin's point as to the Trex makes me wonder if that type of legs is simply too inefficent for an upstanding* creature.
In terms of locomotion, I think the digigrade leg is actually more efficient than the plantigrade human stance. Just look at how well an ostrich runs; or a chicken for that matter. Little bastards are faster than I am.



Remove the discusssion on wing-parrying, and a lot of the stuff we discussed on the Drake would carry over- given an exposed head, they would prefer polearms or greatswords, and armor has to worry about balance as much as weight.

Also, make it bigger than a human, and the match-up starts to favor the scaly thing more and more. If its shoulders are actually at a level with a human's, a person loses a lot of the reach advantage, and won't be able to hammer down at the head with near the same effectiveness.

Galloglaich
2013-10-13, 02:14 PM
This is another cool mine in Poland with an 'underground town'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bochnia_Salt_Mine

G

Mr. Mask
2013-10-13, 03:54 PM
Rakaydos: Looked over it. The discussion made me wonder if you could attach long blades to the wings' "elbows(?)" just to give opponents another thing to think about.

Interesting example.



MMO stuff is the bane of a successful google search. Long and short of it.

Even without the hands and dexterity needed to work certain technologies, it would take humanity a long time to challenge those kinds of monstrosities.

Your example reminds me of some experiences of my own. The fur mightn't be an outstanding problem for battle and armour. There might be something else it would be a problem with, but shaving is still an interesting possibility if it comes to that point.

Cultures are indeed weird. A mesh of practices that resulted because they were practical and helped with the peoples' survival, on top of lunacy at a level associated with politicians.



All of that wondering caused me to wonder how many livers centaurs have...

Rakaydos
2013-10-13, 04:00 PM
Rakaydos: Looked over it. The discussion made me wonder if you could attach long blades to the wings' "elbows(?)" just to give opponents another thing to think about.

Interesting example.

I think you mean "Wrist", and yea, while I was focusing on discussing the defensive aspects, it's use as a natural weapon has always been part of the character design.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-13, 04:17 PM
Offence and defence are pretty tightly linked. If the wing-spikes work, they'll make your opponent nervous about getting close, and might even work for parries (even if they don't, might work for a desperate parry).

fusilier
2013-10-13, 10:36 PM
I was gone for the weekend, and there's been a bunch of posts. Getting caught up quickly, and I don't have much time so sorry if this sounds terse.

Galloglaich, nice post. For the most part, we seem to be in agreement about gunpowder weapons on land (and in coastal fortresses).

1. Battle of Barcelona (1359) -- the source for the bombard is a history written in 1862, so it hasn't been double checked by more recent work, but as it stands I'm inclined to believe that it's genuine. However, it fits with how bombards were used at sea during the War Chioggia. The battle took place in a coastal area, and the bombard was used by the defenders -- essentially it was used in port. The gun, and, significantly, the gunpowder didn't really "go to sea" for any significant length of time. So in that sense, it doesn't violate the thesis.

2. Breechloading swivel piece. Just because the piece itself dates to the 1380s, doesn't mean it was intended as a naval piece at that date. While the mounting could have been added later, similar mounts (pintal mounts) were also used on land. On the other hand, the thesis is that around 1400 there's a rapid uptick in the reliable references to naval artillery. Add to that (the other thesis) the diffusion of how to reliably create potassium nitrate, is unclear, and possibly could have been a bit slow, due to the makers keeping their processes secret. So a date of sometime in the 1380s, somewhere, is certainly congruent. It would be rare and not widespread until around 1400.

3. Rifling as early as 1400. I know that rifles existed by the end of the 15th century (I've seen examples from the 1490s or maybe even the 1480s), but thinking back on it, I think I've seen a reference to even earlier rifles, but I can't remember where. Can you point me in the direction of some? I would like to learn more about it.

Galloglaich
2013-10-14, 09:36 AM
I was gone for the weekend, and there's been a bunch of posts. Getting caught up quickly, and I don't have much time so sorry if this sounds terse.

Galloglaich, nice post. For the most part, we seem to be in agreement about gunpowder weapons on land (and in coastal fortresses).

1. Battle of Barcelona (1359) -- the source for the bombard is a history written in 1862, so it hasn't been double checked by more recent work, but as it stands I'm inclined to believe that it's genuine. However, it fits with how bombards were used at sea during the War Chioggia. The battle took place in a coastal area, and the bombard was used by the defenders -- essentially it was used in port. The gun, and, significantly, the gunpowder didn't really "go to sea" for any significant length of time. So in that sense, it doesn't violate the thesis.

I agree the really big guns (bombards) were not that commonly used at Sea in the 14thC, because they were mostly using smaller swivel guns, trestle guns and hook-guns in the 15-50mm range roughly, with a few larger culverins in the 70mm- 100mm ballpark. But these weapons could severely damage and sink vessels, which were in general smaller in the 14th Century than later, especially those of pirates which were often smaller rowed vessels (both in the far North and in the Med).



2. Breechloading swivel piece. Just because the piece itself dates to the 1380s, doesn't mean it was intended as a naval piece at that date. While the mounting could have been added later, similar mounts (pintal mounts) were also used on land. On the other hand, the thesis is that around 1400 there's a rapid uptick in the reliable references to naval artillery. Add to that (the other thesis) the diffusion of how to reliably create potassium nitrate, is unclear, and possibly could have been a bit slow, due to the makers keeping their processes secret. So a date of sometime in the 1380s, somewhere, is certainly congruent. It would be rare and not widespread until around 1400.

I think it's a long way from 'not widespread' to 'not universal', I have a lot of evidence that this was common in the Baltic, and Nrth Sea and I would be very surprised if the Venetians, at least, were not also using all these same kinds of weapons at that time. But we've been back and forth enough on this I'm happy to agree to disagree.



3. Rifling as early as 1400. I know that rifles existed by the end of the 15th century (I've seen examples from the 1490s or maybe even the 1480s), but thinking back on it, I think I've seen a reference to even earlier rifles, but I can't remember where. Can you point me in the direction of some? I would like to learn more about it.

Yes, professor Ann Tlusty shows records in Augsburg, Nordlingen, and 3 other towns banning rifling in gun barrels used in their local shooting contests (it was considered cheating). She published some of this in her 2011 book The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany and I think it's also in her other book of German records from a few years earlier.

http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Ethic-Early-Modern-Germany/dp/0230576567

In my opinion, in general, this follows the medieval pattern for many things, technologies, weapons, cultural changes: they are typically around for a generation or two before they become officially acknowledged or more widely adopted.

If you need a page number I can probably get that tonight when I get home.

G

Animastryfe
2013-10-14, 01:36 PM
Is it practical or useful to have a small shield strapped to a/both forearms while wielding a two-handed weapon, such as a longsword? I have no experience with weapons, but I am thinking no:
1. The wrists should be able to freely move, which means that shield should at most stop at the wrist. However, even such a small shield could get in the way.
2. The mass of the shield may be unbalancing.
3. From videos, I do not know how such a shield would offer protection in a melee fight while using a longsword, and such a shield would offer little protection against ranged weapons.

It seems that even if the shield were weightless, it would be a hindrance. Is this right?

Galloglaich
2013-10-14, 02:16 PM
It would be very awkward.

A complex hilt would help a lot more anyway (not against missiles of course)

G

Galloglaich
2013-10-14, 02:39 PM
(Complex hilts were pretty common on Longswords by the 16th century which made them much more effective for defense)

G

warty goblin
2013-10-14, 03:12 PM
Is it practical or useful to have a small shield strapped to a/both forearms while wielding a two-handed weapon, such as a longsword? I have no experience with weapons, but I am thinking no:
1. The wrists should be able to freely move, which means that shield should at most stop at the wrist. However, even such a small shield could get in the way.
2. The mass of the shield may be unbalancing.
3. From videos, I do not know how such a shield would offer protection in a melee fight while using a longsword, and such a shield would offer little protection against ranged weapons.

It seems that even if the shield were weightless, it would be a hindrance. Is this right?
Why is this a thing anybody would want? If you can make a longsword, you can make arm defenses at least as effective as a little biddy shield, and much more convenient.

Maeglin_Dubh
2013-10-14, 06:20 PM
Why is this a thing anybody would want? If you can make a longsword, you can make arm defenses at least as effective as a little biddy shield, and much more convenient.

Larps and combat games. Often weapons aren't allowed to be used to defend against arrows, for realism and safety purposes, so people using greatswords and glaives rely on small-medium shields strapped to the forearm or bicep.

Galloglaich
2013-10-14, 08:09 PM
The thing they dont usually put in the games (and larpers don't know how to real well) is you can protect yourself with your weapon. A longsword is pretty good protection if you know how to use it. Something like a staff or a spear can be even more so.

G

Animastryfe
2013-10-14, 08:15 PM
Thanks for the reply, Galloglaich.

fusilier
2013-10-14, 09:23 PM
I agree the really big guns (bombards) were not that commonly used at Sea in the 14thC, because they were mostly using smaller swivel guns, trestle guns and hook-guns in the 15-50mm range roughly, with a few larger culverins in the 70mm- 100mm ballpark. But these weapons could severely damage and sink vessels, which were in general smaller in the 14th Century than later, especially those of pirates which were often smaller rowed vessels (both in the far North and in the Med).

But, the term bombard could refer to a light cannon as well -- there wasn't any standardization of the language at that time, and the Spanish seem to have been fond of calling just about anything a bombarda, although they had a large selection of names to choose from as well.



Yes, professor Ann Tlusty shows records in Augsburg, Nordlingen, and 3 other towns banning rifling in gun barrels used in their local shooting contests (it was considered cheating). She published some of this in her 2011 book The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany and I think it's also in her other book of German records from a few years earlier.

http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Ethic-Early-Modern-Germany/dp/0230576567

In my opinion, in general, this follows the medieval pattern for many things, technologies, weapons, cultural changes: they are typically around for a generation or two before they become officially acknowledged or more widely adopted.

If you need a page number I can probably get that tonight when I get home.

G

I think I heard about rifled handgonnes somewhere else, but that's an interesting reference too.

Galloglaich
2013-10-14, 09:33 PM
But, the term bombard could refer to a light cannon as well -- there wasn't any standardization of the language at that time, and the Spanish seem to have been fond of calling just about anything a bombarda, although they had a large selection of names to choose from as well.

I think I heard about rifled handgonnes somewhere else, but that's an interesting reference too.

This dates from 1400

G

Spiryt
2013-10-15, 06:42 AM
I guess that Scots might have been trying something like that from time to time:

There are some sources from that time, like David Morier painting - roughly the same time as last Shcotland Charges (TM).

Obviously, whole topic, including weapons, clothes and so on is heavily romanticized, but I guess it may be some track:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/The_Battle_of_Culloden.jpg

snowblizz
2013-10-15, 07:06 AM
Don't think I've seen that episode. However, wood is resilient. It's going to bend around the penetration point and most will snap back into place. This is part of why sinking from cannon fire alone (pre-explosive rounds) was relatively uncommon - the resulting holes simple weren't that big. As long as the splinters are small, they're not going to penetrate much.

The episode is in season 5 episode 2, "Pirate Special" in case people have access. The closest I got on Youtube was this clip where they "prove" a cannon shot can kill 4 people... it's from the episode and what they use as a benchmark of lethality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dic-A-e8vY8

As for splinters they did get a whole lot, but in practice wasn't actually lethal by any stretch. However, as I wrote the "cannon" they used seemed way waaay underpowered for an actual meaningful ship cannon. So a bigger cannon and a bigger (thicker) piece of wood would produce more, bigger and potentially lethal splinters?
And if not where does this idea come from. I know I once saw it presented in some learning material on a CD-ROM. Would be interesting to know.

Galloglaich
2013-10-15, 09:49 AM
A lot of pirate attacks were done with smaller ships and boats, which can indeed be sunk by pretty small cannon, especially fast-firing (breach-loading) pintle-mounted cannon, which is why they remained in use from the mid 14th Century through the 18th, when the technology was finally improved-upon. In the Medieval Baltic it was very common for pirates to use skiffs and small Viking-style ships of 6 or 8 benches or smaller (including little faering boats) to try to swarm a becalmed vessel or to catch a vessel going through a narrow strait like the Oresund. This was also a tactic used 5 centuries later in the Caribbean aid in the South Pacific.

As for the size of the Bombard in the battle of Barcelona in 1359, it was apparently powerful enough to 'severely damage' the largest Nau (Carrack) in the battle, so whether that meant it was a big gun shooting a few large stones or a small gun shooting a lot of smaller bullets is moot - because it was effective enough to alter the course of the battle.

G

warty goblin
2013-10-15, 01:46 PM
The thing they dont usually put in the games (and larpers don't know how to real well) is you can protect yourself with your weapon. A longsword is pretty good protection if you know how to use it. Something like a staff or a spear can be even more so.

G

A lot of this I suspect has to do with the tremendously horrid balance of a lot of LARP weapons. Because of the padding rules everything has the dynamic handling characteristics of a 2x4, and it's next to impossible to execute a bind since weapons just bounce off each other. Since two handed weapons often have much higher padding requirements than singlehanders, they get particularly hard hit by this. This turns two-handed fighting into an exercise in delivering one really massive hit, then running like hell because it's basically impossible to actually defend with one of those suckers.

Wood, plus some common sense and a sparring partner you can trust, is a much better choice. I spent most of my youth beating on and being by beaten upon by my fellow youths using a variety of wooden armaments. Aside from the occasional split knuckle, it was really quite safe. Wood doesn't bounce nearly as bad as foam, and with a bit of work a wooden sword can have reasonably decent balance.

Galloglaich
2013-10-15, 03:47 PM
Personally I think wood can be a bit risky and not that realistic in a bind either, Shinai (the weapons they use in kendo) you can spar with pretty safely at least for striking (less for thrusts) and they are pretty cheap around $30 or $40 online.

These days there are places like this

http://www.woodenswords.com/default.asp

...which have good wooden swords, suitable for drills, but also excellent nylon swords which are very good for sparring (though you will want to use gloves and a fencing mask if you are doing much more than very light sparring... so probably not suitable for larp)

http://a248.e.akamai.net/origin-cdn.volusion.com/jkxpn.sognc/v/vspfiles/photos/TYPE-III-50-2T.jpg

http://www.woodenswords.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=TYPE%2DIII%2D50

It's also possible to make much thinner and more realistic looking sparring weapons. There are some latex covered ones made especially for LARP which at least look (more or less) right, at least compared to those big thick boffers they use in some of the LARPs though they tend to be very light. I think you should be able to parry with them though anyway, but you'd have to know how to parry..



i.e. there is a big difference from this
http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/images/Product/large/LOTR-04.png

to this...

http://www.calimacil.com/images/boffer.png

LARP isn't my thing and I'm not trying to judge, though some of this stuff is just wrong...

http://www.toplessrobot.com/larp11.jpg

That sort of thing really scares me
http://files.horrormegbandak.webnode.hu/200000092-1ac8a1bc38/horror-by-raynehaschel-animated-gif.gif


but on the other hand I've seen some kind of looks like fun I think these are European?

https://yeoldrenaissanceshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/larp-costumes.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc96d3k7iI1rrue9uo1_500.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01693/conquest-2010_1693320i.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/56b63001065bbdc51373901c0087d489/tumblr_mft76bWtfo1qgerv7o1_500.jpg

G

warty goblin
2013-10-15, 07:47 PM
Hey, some folks like to dress up as squirrels and hit each other with fake swords. Personally I prefer skipping straight to the bit where I get to hit people, but whatever floats their boats.

And while nylon is probably better than wood, I can't go out to the shop and make those. I can with wood.
http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/p770/Godivos/Wooden%20Swords/IMG_0198_zps26041083.jpg

Which is about half the fun. Though, since nobody else in my current social circle is interested in swordplay of any sort, it's about the sum total of the fun since none of my blades get to see use anymore. Back when I was a teenager though, it was a different story. Then the real question was whether I could make the swords fast enough to keep up with breakage.

And those DIY foam boffers are pretty wretched, really. The balance point tends to be about halfway up the blade, and I wasn't joking when I said they handle like a 2x4. Just a really light 2x4 that bounces. I've fought both Dagohir and Belegarth, and both of them mandate something like three inches of padding around the core for two handed 'red' weapons, which as I said makes them completely impossible to handle in a realistic fashion. They aren't foam swords, they're planks made of foam with a handle at one end. The only benefit is that you can hand them to anybody and they *probably* won't do anybody any harm.

fusilier
2013-10-15, 08:54 PM
A lot of pirate attacks were done with smaller ships and boats, which can indeed be sunk by pretty small cannon, especially fast-firing (breach-loading) pintle-mounted cannon, which is why they remained in use from the mid 14th Century through the 18th, when the technology was finally improved-upon. In the Medieval Baltic it was very common for pirates to use skiffs and small Viking-style ships of 6 or 8 benches or smaller (including little faering boats) to try to swarm a becalmed vessel or to catch a vessel going through a narrow strait like the Oresund. This was also a tactic used 5 centuries later in the Caribbean aid in the South Pacific.

As for the size of the Bombard in the battle of Barcelona in 1359, it was apparently powerful enough to 'severely damage' the largest Nau (Carrack) in the battle, so whether that meant it was a big gun shooting a few large stones or a small gun shooting a lot of smaller bullets is moot - because it was effective enough to alter the course of the battle.

G

As G said, pirates often preferred small boats, pretty much throughout the entire age of sail. Sloops, pinnances, etc., might only be armed with 6 or 9 pounder guns for their main battery, and potentially not many of them. So using such a gun in a test isn't necessarily unrealistic -- but I doubt they had access to anything approaching a 24 pounder. :-/

As for the bombard at Barcelona, I don't dispute that the source says it was effective. It probably wasn't too large, as the Spanish appears to state that it was located in the forecastle (too high to mount a heavy gun for purposes of stability). Also, nau, should probably not be translated as carrack in this case. Care should be taken, as carrack can mean different things in different languages, and in some contexts can be more specific -- in which case it means a warship, although the distinction between early sailing cargo ships and sailing warships is blurry.

Nau, Italian nave, means "vessel" or "ship" -- it's a very generic term. In this context it's probably best translated as "roundship" ("cog" may have been intended) to distinguish it from a "galley". I have seen references that make a distinction between the naus and the carracks in a fleet. If using a looser definition of carrack, then the term nau could be translated as carrack, but this is usually done to distinguish it from a galleon.

--EDIT-- The old Spanish word for carrack is carraca. I had to go check that up. Nau is actually considered Portuguese, and is usually rendered as nao in Spanish. To clarify, a carrack could be nao, but a nao isn't necessarily a carrack. --EDIT--

Brother Oni
2013-10-16, 06:51 AM
Personally I think wood can be a bit risky and not that realistic in a bind either, Shinai (the weapons they use in kendo) you can spar with pretty safely at least for striking (less for thrusts) and they are pretty cheap around $30 or $40 online.

The shinai I've encountered are normally made of bamboo, which gives them different characteristics compared to wood.

I agree that wood tends to be a bit bouncy compared to steel in my experience, but I've not used wooden bokken outside of drilling exercises.

Galloglaich
2013-10-16, 09:55 AM
Hey, some folks like to dress up as squirrels and hit each other with fake swords. Personally I prefer skipping straight to the bit where I get to hit people, but whatever floats their boats.

And while nylon is probably better than wood, I can't go out to the shop and make those. I can with wood.
http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/p770/Godivos/Wooden%20Swords/IMG_0198_zps26041083.jpg



Those are lovely, very nicely made.

You actually can make nylon with woodworking tools though, that is exactly how they make them (the good ones anyway, like the PHA III's I linked above - the Rawlings type which I really don't like are made differently). We used to make some ourselves. The material is pretty expensive, it's something called Nylon 6 or Nylon 6/6, you can buy a sheet of it sufficient to make 3 or 4 swords for about $60. Most of what comes next is done with woodworking tools. The only other tricky parts are the crossguard and the pommel, but you can buy pommels and make a crossbar out of a steel rod (that works better than using nylon for the pommel too like you would with wood but

They don't come out looking as beautiful as those wooden wasters you made but that material, if you make them properly (i.e. with a little distal taper) reacts surprisingly similar to steel. It's some kind of cast nylon and it's springy just like steel. It makes for really good sparring weapons, the only thing better are purpose made steel sparring swords, like the Regenyei or the Ensifer or the ones Darkwood makes.

The nlyons hurt a little but you can pretty much go all-out with them using little more than just gloves and a mask.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJibLf60L7c



Which is about half the fun. Though, since nobody else in my current social circle is interested in swordplay of any sort, it's about the sum total of the fun since none of my blades get to see use anymore. Back when I was a teenager though, it was a different story. Then the real question was whether I could make the swords fast enough to keep up with breakage.

Another nice thing about those nylon ones is that they almost never break.



And those DIY foam boffers are pretty wretched, really. The balance point tends to be about halfway up the blade, and I wasn't joking when I said they handle like a 2x4. Just a really light 2x4 that bounces.

Yeah I used to make padded weapons for HEMA back in the early days when we still used those. I was able to make them about 3/4" tapering to 1/2" thick in the cross-section, and overall about the same proportions as a wooden waster. They wouldn't break bones but they hit to hard for larp, at least for the US type larp.

@Fusilier you are right I agree with you about the Nau, 1358 is too early for a true carrack anyway I think. Probably a large cog.

@Brother Oni, Shinai are made from bamboo slats strung together, but you can strike each other with them with surprisingly little pain, you still need some kind of gloves and a facemask though, and thrusting is a bit problematic because (unlike the nylon or steel feders) they don't bend.

But people used Shinai for several years in HEMA, particularly in Europe where they were probably the most common sparring weapon from around 2005-2008 or thereabouts. The only thing you really need to add is a crossbar, and warty goblin can carve you a nice one out of hardwood ;)

G

warty goblin
2013-10-16, 11:10 AM
Those are lovely, very nicely made.

Wow thanks. I really appreciate that, coming from you.


You actually can make nylon with woodworking tools though, that is exactly how they make them (the good ones anyway, like the PHA III's I linked above - the Rawlings type which I really don't like are made differently). We used to make some ourselves. The material is pretty expensive, it's something called Nylon 6 or Nylon 6/6, you can buy a sheet of it sufficient to make 3 or 4 swords for about $60. Most of what comes next is done with woodworking tools. The only other tricky parts are the crossguard and the pommel, but you can buy pommels and make a crossbar out of a steel rod (that works better than using nylon for the pommel too like you would with wood but
Ooh, that's good to know. I'll have to look into doing that sometime. Do you remember what thickness you used? I figure a bit of time with the tablesaw and belt sander should be able to knock out a blade pretty quickly, and hilt components aren't a bother to fabricate.


They don't come out looking as beautiful as those wooden wasters you made but that material, if you make them properly (i.e. with a little distal taper) reacts surprisingly similar to steel. It's some kind of cast nylon and it's springy just like steel. It makes for really good sparring weapons, the only thing better are purpose made steel sparring swords, like the Regenyei or the Ensifer or the ones Darkwood makes.
Steel, alas, still remains well beyond what I have the equipment to work. I'm vaguely hopeful I can get some sort of bronze casting rig set up at some not too distant point, as those can be done fairly cheaply.


Another nice thing about those nylon ones is that they almost never break.
Back then I didn't put nearly the work into finishing that I do now. Of the three in the picture, only the shortest sword at the bottom ever saw use in sparring, and that was before I put a lot more effort into reshaping and finishing the blade. Though given it's the better part of an inch thick, I suspect it would have survived a lot of hard contact. The greatsword in the middle is probably the best of those three, in terms of balance and construction, though I could the fuller better now. I mostly use it for practicing guard transitions. The top longsword is actually kind of an accident. I had intended a much broader blade with a shorter hilt, but got a little carried away with the planer when I was roughing out the profile. It mostly ended up being a testbed for some more sophisticated hilt assemblies.



Yeah I used to make padded weapons for HEMA back in the early days when we still used those. I was able to make them about 3/4" tapering to 1/2" thick in the cross-section, and overall about the same proportions as a wooden waster. They wouldn't break bones but they hit to hard for larp, at least for the US type larp.
You mean the 'people with no idea what they're doing flailing wildly' type?

Brother Oni
2013-10-16, 12:24 PM
The only thing you really need to add is a crossbar, and warty goblin can carve you a nice one out of hardwood ;)

Alas shipping costs may make it impossible (or at least impossible to get past my wife).

Those are really nice swords warty - they're the same ones you showed earlier, right? Have you thought about taking commissions?



You mean the 'people with no idea what they're doing flailing wildly' type?

You encounter the type in any sort of contact sport.

What annoys me is when you meet them in martial arts light contact sparring where they obviously don't understand the concept.
Unfortunately turning it into an impromptu bare knuckles match is typically frowned upon when you're supposed to be the more senior (and hence responsible) club member. :smallsigh:

Galloglaich
2013-10-16, 01:06 PM
Wow thanks. I really appreciate that, coming from you.

I like (decently made) wooden swords, I think they look wonderful, I keep a few old "wasters" myself, plus one pretty nice bokken. Just like the form of it. No skill with woodworking myself but it makes me admire it all the more. I had a neighbor who was a joiner who used to make the most beautiful wooden furniture, fitted together with pegs. I appreciate craftsmanship and love wood.



Ooh, that's good to know. I'll have to look into doing that sometime. Do you remember what thickness you used? I figure a bit of time with the tablesaw and belt sander should be able to knock out a blade pretty quickly, and hilt components aren't a bother to fabricate.

For single-swords, gladius, messer, Viking sword, saber etc. you can use 1/2" sheets I think, for longswords, kriegsmesser or anything really long, you'll need 3/4" which is much more expensive.

G

warty goblin
2013-10-16, 02:23 PM
Alas shipping costs may make it impossible (or at least impossible to get past my wife).

Those are really nice swords warty - they're the same ones you showed earlier, right? Have you thought about taking commissions?

Those are the same ones I showed earlier, yes. I have another incomplete blade at home I'll finish up at Thanksgiving, which I'm cautiously optimistic will be better than any of those. I'm using a new method of attaching the pommel, which if it works well, will allow for a much greater variety of shapes than I've been able to execute with past methods.

Shipping costs for just the crossguard wouldn't be that bad; they aren't particularly large or heavy. The entire assembled sword would be a bit more though.

I'd happily take commissions, but I'm not sure my work is *that* good. There's quite a few small flaws on those pieces that don't show up in the picture. Also I only have access to a woodshop when I'm home on break, which is fairly infrequent. But if you (or anybody else) is interested, PM me and let's see if we can set something up; I'm always happy for an excuse to go out and reduce wood to shavings and dust.


I like (decently made) wooden swords, I think they look wonderful, I keep a few old "wasters" myself, plus one pretty nice bokken. Just like the form of it. No skill with woodworking myself but it makes me admire it all the more. I had a neighbor who was a joiner who used to make the most beautiful wooden furniture, fitted together with pegs. I appreciate craftsmanship and love wood.

Wood is beautiful stuff if you get a nice cut. I use mostly oak for my swords, although walnut makes for good hilt furniture. It just gets such a lovely lustre when sanded and oiled.




For single-swords, gladius, messer, Viking sword, saber etc. you can use 1/2" sheets I think, for longswords, kriegsmesser or anything really long, you'll need 3/4" which is much more expensive.

G
Good to know. Those would be the place to start anyway; no sense in trying a huge piece in a new material.

oudeis
2013-10-16, 02:30 PM
If you are making wooden weapons for impact training, you need to read this article if you haven't already:
http://arakiryu.org/wp/?page_id=544

This one covers much of the same topics and materials but might be a little better organized:
http://www.aikiweb.com/weapons/goedkoop1.html

Maeglin_Dubh
2013-10-16, 09:00 PM
I find a rattan singlestick to be great for most purposes. A heavy leather basket guard, a buckler, and a 3-weapon fencing mask is fun for the whole family.

I have a hickory longsword waster, but I would hesitate to use that against someone not in some form of truly protective armor.

Galloglaich
2013-10-17, 09:16 AM
Hey I thought people here might be interested in this, I ordered a copy of this book a while back and it got here this morning, so far just quickly scanning it, it seems full of interesting stuff I didn't know

http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Handgonnes-Powder-Infantry-Weapons/dp/1849081557

G

Mathis
2013-10-17, 10:25 AM
I am looking for information on the army composition of scandinavian armies of the 13th century. I haven't been able to find any free online sources and I'm starting to worry they might not exist. Tomorow I can visit the university library as well as the local county library and they will most likely have what I am looking for, but for now perhaps someone here can point me in the direction of something? I am not looking for anything in particular, just any and all information would be good at this point.

Galloglaich
2013-10-17, 11:09 AM
It's a primary source not a summary, but it's hard to beat this as a source for that, it's right in the middle of your period, full of interesting details

http://www.thortrains.com/getright/kingsmirror.html

There is also a pretty decent Osprey book.

then there are some good Viking sites which extend a bit beyond that era (the Viking Age really continued through the 13th Century in the Baltic)

If you have some more specific questions I might be able to help

G

Brother Oni
2013-10-17, 11:51 AM
Hey I thought people here might be interested in this, I ordered a copy of this book a while back and it got here this morning, so far just quickly scanning it, it seems full of interesting stuff I didn't know

http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Handgonnes-Powder-Infantry-Weapons/dp/1849081557

G

Ooo, nice. Any major myths or mis-conceptions dispelled yet?

On the subject of things that go bang (not intentionally trying to steal your thunder, Galloglaich, honest!), here's an interesting viewpoint of shotguns in modern combat: The Mossberg 590 in Combat (http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/1oko69/the_mossberg_590_in_combat_the_experiences_of_one/).

Interesting things from that are skip shots (bouncing pellets off a hard surface to hit a target under cover) and slamfiring while advancing - I didn't think the latter tactic was possible with a shotgun.

Mathis
2013-10-17, 12:11 PM
The Kings mirror is fantastic, I had it at home growing up, but not where I live currently. I remember feeling we never gave it enough attention in school. For those who haven't heard of it, it's a piece of literature written by a Norwegian king intending to educate his son who later became known as Magnus Lagabøte (one who makes laws). It is written in the style of a dialogue between a father and a son.

The reason I am asking is because I'm taking part in a roleplaying game where we are travellers in Europe, starting in the year 1254. I just thought I'd educate myself a bit more on the scandinavian part of this time in history in preparation of the game.

Knaight
2013-10-17, 12:45 PM
The thing they dont usually put in the games (and larpers don't know how to real well) is you can protect yourself with your weapon. A longsword is pretty good protection if you know how to use it. Something like a staff or a spear can be even more so.

Given that the context here is arrows - how well does this actually work? In the context of melee, protecting yourself with your weapon is obvious (particularly if you have something like a spear), and in the context of things being lobbed it is similarly obvious, but I can't say I've seen all that much involving reliably blocking arrows with anything other than a shield.

Galloglaich
2013-10-17, 01:26 PM
Given that the context here is arrows - how well does this actually work? In the context of melee, protecting yourself with your weapon is obvious (particularly if you have something like a spear), and in the context of things being lobbed it is similarly obvious, but I can't say I've seen all that much involving reliably blocking arrows with anything other than a shield.

I'm strictly talking about defense against other hand-weapons.

For arrows, crossbow bolts, or bullets I don't believe anything can help except maybe a really strong shield. Some people would disagree with me of course, I understand Ninjas can slice an arrow in twain but I've yet to see evidence of that ;). I'm ready to be proven otherwise.

For other missiles like rocks, javelins, darts and so on, maybe there are other remedies. You can catch javelins fairly easily right out of the air (and this was done in war) if they are sent one at a time and you see them coming, (which is one of the reasons they were usually sent in volleys.) But if you could catch them you could probably also parry them (with something like a krumphau perhaps) but a shield is better for that.

Personally I think the main purpose of most shields is protection from missiles, though here too, people would argue.

G

Galloglaich
2013-10-17, 01:45 PM
The Kings mirror is fantastic, I had it at home growing up, but not where I live currently. I remember feeling we never gave it enough attention in school. For those who haven't heard of it, it's a piece of literature written by a Norwegian king intending to educate his son who later became known as Magnus Lagabøte (one who makes laws). It is written in the style of a dialogue between a father and a son.

The reason I am asking is because I'm taking part in a roleplaying game where we are travellers in Europe, starting in the year 1254. I just thought I'd educate myself a bit more on the scandinavian part of this time in history in preparation of the game.

Well there is also this

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95459928/Osprey-Men-at-Arms-Medieval-Scandinavian-Armies-1100-1300

the reason I asked for more specifics is, Scandinavian armies were kind of facing different directions by the 1250 era, some internal, some toward England (especially the Norwegians and Danes) some south toward the Germans (Danes*), and some East (Swedes especially) toward the Baltic, Livonia, the Estonian Islands, Russia, Finland and so on.

And of course the remote outposts of Iceland and Greenland which are kind of a lower intensity, separate deal.

Then of course there were also the mixed Scando / Latin cultures, the Normans in France and well beyond down to Siciliy and the Levant; the Rus and the Druhzina from Russia all down into the Ukraine, the Crimea, and the Byzantine Empire (though by the 1220's they had been overrun by the Mongols), and from Novgorod far up into Finland and Siberia (and Novgorod was NOT overrun by the Mongols). The Galloglwass in Ireland and Scotland.

The Swedes and especially the Danes were also contending with pagan 'Vikings' from the Baltic (in many cases, their former allies who they no longer got along with after the Norse Conversion to Christianity) from the late 12th through the mid 13th Century, much of the Eastern part of what is now Denmark was depopulated in fact in the early 13th Century by Curonian "pirates" or "Vikings". This lead to the start of the Northern Crusades and that was still going on pretty rough and ready still in the middle of the Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Crusade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Crusade#War_against_Saaremaa_.281206.E2.8 0.931261.29

In each case they adapted to the local environment, used different types of equipment and so forth.

G

*or toward the rest of Scandinavia for conquest...

Galloglaich
2013-10-17, 01:47 PM
For a really amazing insight into warfare just slightly before the time period you are focused on (up to around 1230)

http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Livonia-Records-Western-Civilization/dp/0231128894

G

Knaight
2013-10-17, 03:06 PM
I'm strictly talking about defense against other hand-weapons.

For arrows, crossbow bolts, or bullets I don't believe anything can help except maybe a really strong shield. Some people would disagree with me of course, I understand Ninjas can slice an arrow in twain but I've yet to see evidence of that ;). I'm ready to be proven otherwise.

For other missiles like rocks, javelins, darts and so on, maybe there are other remedies. You can catch javelins fairly easily right out of the air (and this was done in war) if they are sent one at a time and you see them coming, (which is one of the reasons they were usually sent in volleys.) But if you could catch them you could probably also parry them (with something like a krumphau perhaps) but a shield is better for that.

Personally I think the main purpose of most shields is protection from missiles, though here too, people would argue.

G
This is along the lines of what I thought (and am familiar with from sparring). It's just that the original question clearly referred to arrows, and I've seen just enough regarding blocking arrows - at longer distances, in the context of an individual arrow coming at one, from a relatively weak bow - that it is conceivable that there's something that could be done with a sufficiently large weapon that would help (even if it is along the lines of standing sideways, sticking the weapon in front of your side in a profile maximum way, and hoping for the best).

I suspect the misunderstanding is also because I have done some dagorhir sparring, when I don't have better options. People use their weapons to protect themselves all the time, particularly polearms and such. The handling is very much wrong, particularly in how binding simply doesn't work, but people still understand the basics of parrying in my experience. If anything, the issue with the small strap shield idea is more that dag arrows move way below actual speed and as such can actually be pretty reliably blocked with a pretty tiny shield, and that in dag the shields have a tendency to be very light compared to the weapons, and handle so well that leaning more on them than one should is easy (plus, with the face and head as invalid target options shields are far better than they ought to be anyways).

snowblizz
2013-10-18, 07:29 AM
I'm strictly talking about defense against other hand-weapons.

For arrows, crossbow bolts, or bullets I don't believe anything can help except maybe a really strong shield. Some people would disagree with me of course, I understand Ninjas can slice an arrow in twain but I've yet to see evidence of that ;). I'm ready to be proven otherwise.

No the Mythbusters did that as well, and that time used a much more rigorous approach. Other than blind luck it's pretty much impossible. Same goes for swatting an arrow away or catching it. Which I think was what they were actually testing. The important point is that human reaction time isn't enough in anything approaching real conditions.

There are reports of dodging bullets, from colonial African period, but that's basically because the muskets were older ones with smoking gunpowder and the warriors learned to dodge when they saw the firing pan going off or the muzzle flash. They could to some extent tempt opponents into firing the volley and then charge while they reloaded.
Not so hot against the faster-firing rifles being introduced by European powers using smokeless gunpowder.

killem2
2013-10-18, 09:12 AM
Why is it that Shurikens in 3.5 break, but shurikens are usually depicted in movies, stories, and such as reusable?

Shurikens are not that fragile are they? :smallconfused:

Rhynn
2013-10-18, 09:43 AM
Why is it that Shurikens in 3.5 break, but shurikens are usually depicted in movies, stories, and such as reusable?

Shurikens are not that fragile are they? :smallconfused:

D&D 3.X is a game.

It's really that simple.

Spiryt
2013-10-18, 09:49 AM
Why is it that Shurikens in 3.5 break, but shurikens are usually depicted in movies, stories, and such as reusable?

Shurikens are not that fragile are they? :smallconfused:

Well, I'm pretty sure that that chance of loosing your ammunition includes it getting actually lost, as well, not only destroyed.

Obviously, every missile getting broken, lost, etc. would depend on many, many things, from missile itself to terrain.

Missiles being automatically destroyed after every successful hit doesn't make that much sense, I guess.

Galloglaich
2013-10-18, 09:58 AM
One thing I have noticed, crossbow bolts from a real (modern hunting grade) crossbow tend to get really messed up, I the 'survival rate' for the ones I've shot are like maybe 1 in 5. Which sucks because you go through them really fast. Obviously it depends what you are shooting at but the damn thing tends to go through everything (thus stripping off the fletchings) and get deeply embedded in the target which usually means the shaft itself is bent or broken, or the tip gets ripped off or can't be pulled out.

G

killem2
2013-10-18, 01:32 PM
D&D 3.X is a game.

It's really that simple.

Thankfully others have responded, otherwise I would have said, a lot of good this thread is, why bother having it around.

What a ridiculous response man.

Animastryfe
2013-10-18, 03:28 PM
This is along the lines of what I thought (and am familiar with from sparring). It's just that the original question clearly referred to arrows, and I've seen just enough regarding blocking arrows - at longer distances, in the context of an individual arrow coming at one, from a relatively weak bow - that it is conceivable that there's something that could be done with a sufficiently large weapon that would help (even if it is along the lines of standing sideways, sticking the weapon in front of your side in a profile maximum way, and hoping for the best).

I suspect the misunderstanding is also because I have done some dagorhir sparring, when I don't have better options. People use their weapons to protect themselves all the time, particularly polearms and such. The handling is very much wrong, particularly in how binding simply doesn't work, but people still understand the basics of parrying in my experience. If anything, the issue with the small strap shield idea is more that dag arrows move way below actual speed and as such can actually be pretty reliably blocked with a pretty tiny shield, and that in dag the shields have a tendency to be very light compared to the weapons, and handle so well that leaning more on them than one should is easy (plus, with the face and head as invalid target options shields are far better than they ought to be anyways).

If you are referring to my question, which is post 94, then I was not specifically asking about just protection from arrows. Galloglaich's post was a response to Maeglin_Dubh's post, which was a response to warty_goblin's post, which was a response to my post.

Edit: Speaking of crossbows, I understand from previous iterations of this thread that modern hunting crossbows have much lower draw weights than historical military crossbows. Are the reasons for this:
1. Hunting is done at much closer range than shooting in warfare.
2. Hunting crossbows do not have to worry about armor penetration.

Galloglaich
2013-10-18, 03:30 PM
Pretty good little blog on armor myths

http://imgur.com/gallery/3j1jA

G

Mathis
2013-10-18, 04:06 PM
Since I'm still stuck in the 1200s, I'm curious about this type of kite shield,
http://www.bueker-gmbh.de/pics/l/alias3/AH3967W-viking-norman-kite-shield-bayeux-tapestry-.jpg

I know it was used by cavalry because it offered better protection for legs of the rider, as well as the flank of the horse. But why isn't it larger? And why this specific shape? Wouldn't a wider shield, even one wider on the end that is closer to the horse offer better protection? Is the reason that it would be too heavy? If so, I thought weight wouldn't be as much of an issue for a rider since you can rest the shield on your feet?

rrgg
2013-10-18, 04:42 PM
@polearms
One thing that a lot of people tend to miss about defending with polearms is that it doesn't necessarily involve contact at all, it fact it usually involves avoiding your opponent's weapon completely. As long as your spear remains between you and your enemy, the swordsman can't attack.

@crossbows
Many modern hunting bows have much lower draw weights in part because they are far more efficient. One thing has always bugged me about many tests of replica medieval crossbows. Even when they have vastly greater draw weights, they often achieve no more range or power than regular bows due to short draw lengths. I will try to find some examples.

@kite shields
there seem to be a lot of unanwsered questions about these. Speaking of cavalry though, remember that you would need to be able to move the shield over the horse to defend on the left or the right. So a much larger shield isn't going to be too helpful.

Galloglaich
2013-10-18, 04:45 PM
I think the size and the shape are as big as it can be made to protect the legs and the horse (as you noted) without getting in the way too much - that explains the nice taper of it. The weight thing is a big issue, try carrying one around all day even with something to rest it on. Historical shields tend to be a lot lighter than re-enactment shields generally speaking. I think they were also made of some materials (like linden wood) which was a bit more efficient especially for stopping missiles, being light but fibrous so hard to penetrate.

They did some tests on shields on the Hurwistic site

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

Pretty good article on shields here too

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


G

rrgg
2013-10-18, 05:00 PM
Well, I'm pretty sure that that chance of loosing your ammunition includes it getting actually lost, as well, not only destroyed.

Obviously, every missile getting broken, lost, etc. would depend on many, many things, from missile itself to terrain.

Missiles being automatically destroyed after every successful hit doesn't make that much sense, I guess.

If any projectile isn't going to break on impact you'd think it'd be something like a surikin(sp, my phone does not know that one), far less mass than a javelin and far less speed than an arrow.

Maybe it would break if it was a super-thin hollywood style one.

Mathis
2013-10-18, 06:13 PM
Thanks everyone.

It does make sense that the shape of the shield would make it easier to pull up along the body of the horse to cover more of yourself, but I've come to understand that what makes sense often can be quite wrong compared to original intent or what we now know of how things were used. The articles were a fun read, specifically this part,
"In chapter 24 of Grettis saga, Gunnar held his shield with two hands against an attack by Grettir. The trick didn't work in this case, either. Grettir hacked with his sax between Gunnar's body and the shield, cutting off both of Gunnar's hands."

Terribly brutal account, if true.

Brother Oni
2013-10-18, 07:09 PM
Edit: Speaking of crossbows, I understand from previous iterations of this thread that modern hunting crossbows have much lower draw weights than historical military crossbows. Are the reasons for this:
1. Hunting is done at much closer range than shooting in warfare.
2. Hunting crossbows do not have to worry about armor penetration.

Further to rrgg's answer, hunting and warfare have very separate goals. In hunting, you often only get one shot at your target, so hunting crossbows tend to be slower to reload, but more accurate.

The main reason for the poundage differences is that some modern crossbows use a pulley system which are significantly more efficient than medieval designs (one pulley design only has a draw weight of 60-85lbs which gives the same performance as 150lb modern recurve crossbow).
The materials also have an effect - a fibreglass prod has significantly different properties to a steel one.


I think the size and the shape are as big as it can be made to protect the legs and the horse (as you noted) without getting in the way too much - that explains the nice taper of it.

The taper also makes it easier to handle. The human body is a very rough V-shape, so you need less coverage over your legs to achieve complete protection.

Simple mechanics does the rest - the more weight away from the pivot point (the straps of the shield), the heavier it feels when trying to shift it in combat.


If any projectile isn't going to break on impact you'd think it'd be something like a surikin(sp, my phone does not know that one), far less mass than a javelin and far less speed than an arrow.

Maybe it would break if it was a super-thin hollywood style one.

Having seen some apparently authentic shuriken in a ninja museum, I agree that they're not breaking any time soon. Bend, possibly, but that'd take some serious deliberate effort.


http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fv20130512a1d.jpg

rrgg
2013-10-19, 12:25 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/The_Martyrdom_of_St_Sebastian_%28detail%29.jpg/384px-The_Martyrdom_of_St_Sebastian_%28detail%29.jpg

Anyways, getting back to my issue with crossbows. What's the advantage of even a 1000 lb crossbow over an 80 lb longbow if the draw length is only 2 inches? It seems like it would sort of defeat the purpose of the mechanical advantages.

Brother Oni
2013-10-19, 04:04 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/The_Martyrdom_of_St_Sebastian_%28detail%29.jpg/384px-The_Martyrdom_of_St_Sebastian_%28detail%29.jpg

Anyways, getting back to my issue with crossbows. What's the advantage of even a 1000 lb crossbow over an 80 lb longbow if the draw length is only 2 inches? It seems like it would sort of defeat the purpose of the mechanical advantages.

Training time mostly. It's easier and quicker to teach a person how to shoot a crossbow than it is to get them shooting an 80lb draw longbow - estimates have ranged from a week for a crossbow compared to years for a longbow.

Doing some digging, it suggests that not all crossbows were made with short draw lengths: taking a look at this replica of a Qin era crossbow (3rd Century BC):


http://www.atarn.org/chinese/images/crossbow.jpg

Notice the nut is near the back of the stock. On a western crossbow, the nut is a great deal closer to the draw string.
That Qin crossbow is estimated to have a 387lb draw - on a western crossbow, that's comparatively weak but because the draw length is so much longer, the Chinese version would have a power stroke comparable to a 387lb bow.

As for why the draw lengths were so short, I can't find a source, but my experience suggests that making a crossbow that can withstand the stresses involved with long draw length (primarily the prod, string and trigger mechanism) is technically difficult and probably fairly high maintenance.

That said, given trade along the Silk Road, I can't really think of a reason why either long draw crossbows or the technology for them, wouldn't have migrated across to the western world.
I can't think of any differences in the climate that would prevent them from effective operation.

About the only reason I can suggest is that a long draw crossbow is more awkward to use than a short draw one, so the design never caught on.

Spiryt
2013-10-19, 04:48 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/The_Martyrdom_of_St_Sebastian_%28detail%29.jpg/384px-The_Martyrdom_of_St_Sebastian_%28detail%29.jpg

Anyways, getting back to my issue with crossbows. What's the advantage of even a 1000 lb crossbow over an 80 lb longbow if the draw length is only 2 inches? It seems like it would sort of defeat the purpose of the mechanical advantages.

Well, firstly - power stroke is not 2 inches.

Perspective and proportions are visibly borked in this picture, from our modern perspective, at least.


Generally, it seems that earlier crossbows had more significant draw lengths, and were more similar to 'bows on the stick' in fact. Sadly we have minimal amount of preserved antiques.

Somewhere in late medieval, particular after widespread adoption of steel prods, bows become more and more stiff, hard to span, but span over minimal distance as well.

It certainly could have a lot to do with practicality of aiming and shooting - shorter weapon, easily customizable arms/shoulders/eye arrangement.

Also, with material properties. Steel prod of particular thickness etc. will be limited in how far will it bend before failure.

Making longer prod, to reduce stress would be difficult, increase mass even more (steel is already heavy).

I've read something about in few pages of Egon Harmuth's "Armbrust" I've managed to take a look at once. :smallwink:

Wooden and composite prods could have easily been made with a bit longer draw still.

Here are some early crossbows, sadly only illustrations.

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=26214

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6fBhgi3n-0w/TnEbAaXGKbI/AAAAAAAAF_o/5jdcMJ_DJqw/s400/kusza%2011%20wiek.JPG

Animastryfe
2013-10-19, 05:26 PM
In the context of sword hilts, what is a half-wire wrap? Also, what is a 'gothic' wrap (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-munich-xviiib.htm), and why is it so expensive?

Spiryt
2013-10-19, 05:40 PM
In the context of sword hilts, what is a half-wire wrap? Also, what is a 'gothic' wrap (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-munich-xviiib.htm), and why is it so expensive?

It's a grip from..... wire, basically. :smallwink:

And "gothic" is Albion's patent for some more fancy grips - half wire, half elaborate leather work - risers, rivets.

It's more expensive, because both materials and construction is more costly than just piece of leather to wrap around the handle, I would guess.

Such constructions were obviously occurring in neater swords - different wires used in hilt etc.

Galloglaich
2013-10-20, 01:37 AM
Training time mostly. It's easier and quicker to teach a person how to shoot a crossbow than it is to get them shooting an 80lb draw longbow - estimates have ranged from a week for a crossbow compared to years for a longbow.

With all due respect, that is NOT true, that is a common cliche about medieval crossbows usually trotted out during documentaries about longbows.

The thing to keep in mind about crossbows is that although they all pretty much look the same to the modern eye, (to the extent that a lot of people can't even distinguish between the Medieval types and the modern types) there are MANY DIFFERENT TYPES of crossbows historically, and I'm just talking about in Europe where the crossbow was made far more sophisticated and effective than anywhere else.

Once you get that idea sorted out, the next point to make clear is that the crossbow you can learn how to use in a week and the crossbow with 1,000 lb draw ARE NOT THE SAME CROSSBOW. The Crossbow with 1,000, 1,200 or even 1,500 lb draw is not a simple or safe weapon to use, and in fact it took years for people to become competent in their use. The guys who did use them in combat were paid much more than ordinary infantry, in fact in one book I've seen mounted crossbowmen were paid 1/2 that of a knight (in Poland) and 3 or 4 times that of regular infantry, and in a letter by Matthias Corvinus, equal to the pay of an armored lancer.

Even after you subdivide them into the relatively weak, catergorized as 'knottlearmbrust' by the Teutonic Order, with all-wood prods; the medium power stirrup crossbows (stegelamrbrust or something like that) often with steel prods, which were also spanned with belt hooks and goats foot spanners (and other similar devices); and the real beasts, the halb rustung or the 'statchel' (stinger) of 1,000 lbs or more, which could have either composite or steel prods. The heavy ones are also subdivided into different subtypes, the big siege crossbows spanned by windlasses or winches, and the more compact ones spanned by the cranequin and used on horseback (which could be equally powerful). Some of these were also used for hunting, incidentally.

A lot of the medium grade hunting crossbows were made to shoot pellets or bullets, these were called 'slurbows' and they have a totally different shape.

I'll also tell you in advance, if you are looking for a good up-to-date book on all this, I haven't found one yet, the best out there really is Payne Gallways book from 1903. He's also the last person I know of to shoot one of the really beastly antique crossbows, and he reported it shot something like 450 feet if I remember correctly.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Crossbow-Military-Sporting-Construction/dp/160239010X/ref=pd_sim_b_1

There have been a lot of papers and studies though in recent years which do provide some data.

This paper for example is a pretty good introduction to the use of crossbows by the Teutonic Order

http://www.medievalists.net/2011/07/31/horses-and-crossbows-two-important-warfare-advantages-of-the-teutonic-order-in-prussia/

This crossbow, the medium and heavy grade ones especially, was the chosen go-to weapon for the troops on the knifes edge of Latin European Christendom, i.e. the people facing the Mongols and the Turks. They did also use the longbow, the recurve composite bow of the Steppe nomads, and firearms, but the crossbow was the most trusted and widely used weapon all the way until the 16th Cenury (and the most feared by the Mongols in records going back to their initial invasion in 1241)



That said, given trade along the Silk Road, I can't really think of a reason why either long draw crossbows or the technology for them, wouldn't have migrated across to the western world.
I can't think of any differences in the climate that would prevent them from effective operation.

About the only reason I can suggest is that a long draw crossbow is more awkward to use than a short draw one, so the design never caught on.

They knew of every weapon used in the Far East, that is where guns and gunpowder came from among other things. I think the short power stroke is because of how both the string and the prods were made, it also makes mechanical spanning easier, and when you have 1,200 lbs draw you want that to be as straitforward as possible.

G

Brother Oni
2013-10-20, 04:21 AM
With all due respect, that is NOT true, that is a common cliche about medieval crossbows usually trotted out during documentaries about longbows.

My apologies, I'll try and be more specific in my terminology next time.



They knew of every weapon used in the Far East, that is where guns and gunpowder came from among other things. I think the short power stroke is because of how both the string and the prods were made, it also makes mechanical spanning easier, and when you have 1,200 lbs draw you want that to be as straitforward as possible.


Rrgg's earlier point still stands though - why make a 1,200lb draw crossbow with such a short power stroke, when a 400lb crossbow with a much longer power stroke delivers a bolt at the same velocity?

I think your point of mechanical spanning is probably another piece of the reason and each iteration just pushed crossbow development in the circular direction of increasing power requiring a shorter power stroke.

GraaEminense
2013-10-20, 07:32 AM
I'll also tell you in advance, if you are looking for a good up-to-date book on all this, I haven't found one yet, the best out there really is Payne Gallways book from 1903. He's also the last person I know of to shoot one of the really beastly antique crossbows, and he reported it shot something like 450 feet if I remember correctly.
It's obviously not up to date, but is it worth having? I am always looking to expand my library, and I have nothing on crossbows.

Eulalios
2013-10-20, 07:54 AM
A ship sailing across the wind works in a state of tension between two fluid systems - the water supporting it while resisting hull movement and the air moving across the ship both pushing on the sail and creating a low pressure area in front of the sail to pull.

This is not entirely correct (http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html). It might be more accurate to say that the ship is pulled forward by the wind "wrapping around" the upwind edge of the sail and adhering to the downwind face. That is why it is so important to keep a sail properly trimmed & taut when crossing or reaching.

Raum
2013-10-20, 12:00 PM
This is not entirely correct (http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html). It might be more accurate to say that the ship is pulled forward by the wind "wrapping around" the upwind edge of the sail and adhering to the downwind face. That is why it is so important to keep a sail properly trimmed & taut when crossing or reaching.If you're saying the pressure explanation is incorrect, you may want to reread the page you linked. Here's an exerpt:
Note well: Newton and Bernoulli do not contradict each other. Explanations which are based on Newton's and on Bernoulli's principles are completely compatible. Air-deflection and Newton's Laws explain 100% of the lifting force. Air velocity and Bernoulli's equation also explains 100% of the lift. There is no 60% of one and 40% of the other. One looks at pressure forces, the other looks at F=mA accelerated mass. For the most part they're just two different ways of simplifying a single complicated subject.

That said, the wing alone isn't enough to describe the sail. A flexible sail isn't just a wing shape, you have both the "push" which shapes the sail and the lift effect of wind flow across the curve (or Newtonian deflection if you prefer). You also have the water resisting the downwind force which allows the sailor to move across the wind. Without the water's resistance you'd never sail into the wind.

fusilier
2013-10-20, 12:20 PM
My apologies, I'll try and be more specific in my terminology next time.



Rrgg's earlier point still stands though - why make a 1,200lb draw crossbow with such a short power stroke, when a 400lb crossbow with a much longer power stroke delivers a bolt at the same velocity?

I think your point of mechanical spanning is probably another piece of the reason and each iteration just pushed crossbow development in the circular direction of increasing power requiring a shorter power stroke.

I saw an interesting discussion on another forum a couple months ago that's related to this.

The question was how much force could the different spanning systems deliver. The answer that came out of the discussion was interesting. If I remember correctly, from a mechanical point of view the windlass delivered the most force multiplication, followed by the cranequin. But, it was pointed out that's only force multiplication -- not total force. Those systems relied upon the arms, but a belt hook relied upon the legs -- and the legs can deliver much more force than the arms. There is also a pulley system that can be used with a belt-hook to give a 2-to-1 force multiplication. In the course of the discussion, which touched upon modern tests of weight lifting, it was shown that if the range of motion is restricted to a short section that is particularly efficient (upper leg extension), people can lift a surprising amount with their legs (for men a thousand pounds is not uncommon). Perhaps that may have influenced a desire for more powerful bows with a shorter draw-length? Likewise, if you can get enough mechanical advantage with your arms, then it might be quicker to reset a bow with a short draw-length?

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.15581.html

I've read some scattered references on the internet that Italian crossbowmen preferred belt-hooks (and warfare in Italy was usually very well armored), and I did come across a mention of a Spanish knight, whose biographer, in a boast, stated something like "He could bend the strongest crossbows with use of his girdle alone." (I can't find that link right now . . .).

Galloglaich
2013-10-20, 01:14 PM
It's obviously not up to date, but is it worth having? I am always looking to expand my library, and I have nothing on crossbows.

I think so personally. Right now it's the best out there that I know of anyway. I think there is some movement on crossbows more recently though, interest is mounting. There have been a few tests and studies, right now though the academic people are having trouble figuring out how to make the more powerful type of medieval crossbows.


My apologies, I'll try and be more specific in my terminology next time.

No reason to apologise, the truth is the terminology isn't really out there and the TV gives us misinformation so it's hardly something you can expect people to know. I barely understand it and I'm trying to learn more myself.

G

rrgg
2013-10-20, 11:24 PM
Ok, I just found a really informative page that seems to shed a little bit of light on the crossbow issue. I was forgetting that a bow's force wouldn't be constant as it is being drawn. Thus bow poundage times power stroke is not even a precise indicator of a bow's stored energy.

http://crossbow.wikia.com/wiki/Bow_design

In medieval-style heavy crossbows the F/D curve is not nearly as relevant as in handbows because the final draw length is not a big issue due to mechanical cocking and release. Also, as a bow is made thicker (=more powerful), it's not generally made longer in proportion. This means that it's draw length has to be reduced or the bow will break. So, the shorter the crossbow's draw length gets, the flatter it's F/D curve will be, meaning it's energy storage characteristics approach the optimum. However, this comes at the cost of reducing the increase of dry-fire speed as discussed above. This phenomenom explains why even the very heavy steel crossbows of the medieval times had relatively limited maximum range, around 400 yards, regardless of their very high draw weight and energy storage (e.g. Payne-Gallway 1990: 21)

So maybe the issue does have more to do with reconstructions being shoddy or people mistakenly using bolts that are too light (bolts are much shorter than arrows).

Spiryt
2013-10-22, 11:40 AM
What's the 'issue' though?

I think it got lost somewhere on last pages.


This phenomenom explains why even the very heavy steel crossbows of the medieval times had relatively limited maximum range,

Well, heavy steel crossbows had limited maximum range because they were... heavy for starters.

I recall that Harmuth mentioned that steel profiles generally will have exit efficiency of around 45% at most, for example - motion of those bulky arms is going to consume a lot of energy.

Galloglaich
2013-10-23, 11:32 AM
Isn't 400+ meters actually really good range though?

I am no expert on bows, I've been trying to figure out about crossbows for a long time, and I still get confusing responses on this all the time.

Based on these records from the English warbow society, it seems like 400 meters is outstanding range. Am I missing something here?

http://74.209.214.7/~englishw/records2012_EN.html

Do longbows or recurve realistically do a lot better than that (I don't mean in legends, I mean in actual modern documented tests)



G

Galloglaich
2013-10-23, 11:36 AM
Actually I think Payne-Galways shot was 490 yards,

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/crossbow-history.html

G

Spiryt
2013-10-23, 12:31 PM
Well, bow can be not very efficient, in many ways, and still fast after all....

Following previous example - bow may be able to transfer just, say, 35% of stored energy to arrow.

But if it's very light arrow, it won't generally be able to consume more energy, and this 35% may be in fact decent result, and mean great velocity.

That's why it's not so obvious science. :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich
2013-10-23, 03:29 PM
Yep.

But I'm starting to come around to the idea now that, contrary to what I'd been told and have read for years in books on archery, the really have crossbows actually had better range than all the bows. I'm going to have to make some changes to some of my codex books to reflect this.

Also per the other thread post up above, I've seen some medieval crossbow prods which are quite large, surprisingly large compared to what I'd thought from seeing photos. This one for example at the Higgins, the prod is I think more than a meter wide, and almost as thick as my arm.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=51

G

rrgg
2013-10-23, 05:17 PM
What's the 'issue' though?

I think it got lost somewhere on last pages.



Well, heavy steel crossbows had limited maximum range because they were... heavy for starters.

I recall that Harmuth mentioned that steel profiles generally will have exit efficiency of around 45% at most, for example - motion of those bulky arms is going to consume a lot of energy.

I think he included a table of energy storage per mass somewhere on the page.

Anyways, what he seems to be pointing out is that, for straight bows at least, there appears to be a more efficient force/distance curve depending on how long the draw is compared to the bow. With the trade-off being dry fire speed.

So a crossbow with short bow length and short draw length acts is gaining efficiency energy-storage-wise just like a longbow that has long bow length and long draw length.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-24, 01:30 AM
Someone stated that vigorous exercise and/or stress can stop a woman from being able to become pregnant (temporarily). I was wondering how feasibly this state could be maintained within a military unit of women.

I don't know if I'll do anything with the information, but I'm very curious. Anyone know?

AgentPaper
2013-10-24, 01:56 AM
Someone stated that vigorous exercise and/or stress can stop a woman from being able to become pregnant (temporarily). I was wondering how feasibly this state could be maintained within a military unit of women.

I don't know if I'll do anything with the information, but I'm very curious. Anyone know?

A small amount of research tells me it's from a study done by Fertility and Sterility (http://www.fertstert.org/). It claims that excessive exercise can delay (not prevent) pregnancy. It defines this as 5 or more hours of vigorous exercise a week, such as running, aerobics, swimming, cycling, etc.

Anyone in any kind of serious military unit is sure to be doing at least that much, and quite likely more especially during training, but I wasn't able to find anything that would actually say that it will prevent pregnancy.

High stress also seems to be linked to infertility, but maintaining a level of stress significant enough to pull that off reliably seems like a terrible idea, because if it's that significant, you're certainly causing a host of other physical and mental issues as well.

It also seems to go against the whole point of reducing fertility, which would ostensibly be to allow women in the unit to have sex without getting pregnant, and the only sane reason I can think of wanting that would be to allow them to relieve the stress they've built up during training and combat.

Brother Oni
2013-10-24, 02:07 AM
Someone stated that vigorous exercise and/or stress can stop a woman from being able to become pregnant (temporarily). I was wondering how feasibly this state could be maintained within a military unit of women.

I don't know if I'll do anything with the information, but I'm very curious. Anyone know?

Not for very long as the body can adapt itself to the the stress to resume normal 'operation'. I suggest looking at women in close combat roles -the most famous mixed gender unit I know of is the Caracal regiment of the IDF.

Unfortunately my google-fu is failing me and I'm finding lots of reviewes of employing women in close combat roles, but nothing on rates of pregnancy.

To be honest, this sounds much like some of the sheer crap that comes out of US politics (there can't be many things more stressful than being raped) - do you have a source for your statement?

Mr. Mask
2013-10-24, 02:21 AM
Just something someone stated as a fact. My searches were also fruitless, so I asked here if anyone knew more about this subject. Since I've never heard this come up before, despite doing research into female soldiers, I figured it was exaggerated or wrong.


Thanks to Agent Paper for the link and info.

Mike_G
2013-10-24, 06:30 AM
Excessive stress does prevent ovulation. But I'm talking excessive, sustained stress. Not short term stress like being attacked.

Pregnancy takes a lot of resources, so if your body just barley has enough to get by, getting pregnant would probably kill you, so it makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint that in times of famine or catastrophe, the women who became pregnant were less likely to survive.

But that's because having kids during the Mongol invasion or the Potato Famine is usually a bad move. The body doesn't "shut down" Todd Akin style during a single stressful episode. If you want to make that happen, you have to go on a starvation diet or get chased by wolves on a daily basis.

I do know from talking to women in the military that most of them did not get their period during stressful training, like boot camp.

TheStranger
2013-10-24, 06:34 AM
I've heard several places that very low body fat levels in women can interfere with fertility. But it varies from woman to woman, and certainly couldn't be relied on as birth control. And I suspect that the diet and exercise needed to maintain that wouldn't really be conducive to combat performance - you don't want to start a war with your soldiers already on the verge of starvation. And, as Brother Oni said, the body adapts after a while.

Spiryt
2013-10-24, 07:25 AM
All this sounds truthful, really hard athletic exercises, stress, combat etc. will generally be harmful for woman fertility.

We're talking about very high levels of prolonged stress, and very hard and high level amount of athletic ability, that will raise the amount of testosterone and other 'male' hormones' of course, not running around the block from time to time.

The question of it's theoretical effects on military service is probably way too broad, and unanswerable... There are so many types of military services and things that can happen during them...

Most of 'common' types of service probably really won't produce all that visible physiological changes all in all.

Matthew
2013-10-24, 10:18 AM
But I'm starting to come around to the idea now that, contrary to what I'd been told and have read for years in books on archery, the really have crossbows actually had better range than all the bows. I'm going to have to make some changes to some of my codex books to reflect this.

And, of course, in AD&D and CM before it crossbows did have a better range than bows. Still, I am pretty sure it all comes down to what crossbow and what bow. Did you ever read the article "Crossbows for the King: The Crossbow during the Reigns of John and Henry III of England"? I forget where we are up to since we changed threads! Did I post this awesome picture already?

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s19/SirClarence/971805_10151542344886990_1304397108_n_zpsaad4d705. jpg

It is like War Hammer came to life and was still good. :smallbiggrin:

Storm Bringer
2013-10-24, 10:44 AM
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s19/SirClarence/971805_10151542344886990_1304397108_n_zpsaad4d705. jpg

It is like War Hammer came to life and was still good. :smallbiggrin:

What do you mean, that's NOT a priest of Sigmar? he is so perfect for the role he HAS to have been looking at a WFB book when he put that together.....

Galloglaich
2013-10-24, 12:33 PM
That is teh awesome. Clearly not all LARP is bad.

I also saw this one on facebook recently

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1391875_693019500717657_1992905541_n.jpg

A friend commented "she must be tough to do that much damage with a LARP sword! hahaha

G

Brother Oni
2013-10-24, 12:43 PM
A friend commented "she must be tough to do that much damage with a LARP sword! hahaha

I find that most women who do LARP or re-enactment tend to be rather enthusiastic about the hobby and throw themselves into it wholeheartedly (I've got the bruises to prove it!).

oudeis
2013-10-24, 12:56 PM
All this sounds truthful, really hard athletic exercises, stress, combat etc. will generally be harmful for woman fertility.

We're talking about very high levels of prolonged stress, and very hard and high level amount of athletic ability, that will raise the amount of testosterone and other 'male' hormones' of course, not running around the block from time to time.

The question of it's theoretical effects on military service is probably way too broad, and unanswerable... There are so many types of military services and things that can happen during them...

Most of 'common' types of service probably really won't produce all that visible physiological changes all in all.An article I read about life at West Point said that the entry and indoctrination phase was so physically and mentally stressful that female cadets would stop menstruating for several months. Combine what is essentially military basic training with the demands of a stringent college curriculum and you get what is colloquially referred to as 'Beast Barracks'.

Hjolnai
2013-10-25, 08:07 AM
How long would it take to make a breach in a castle wall with trebuchet bombardment? Could it be done at all, and if so would it take months?

Would it be comparable to the time for similar numbers of cannon, except for the time spent building trebuchets on the spot instead of bringing cannon on carts?

A "castle wall" isn't particularly well-defined, but I'm mostly thinking of what you might see in 14th-century battles.

snowblizz
2013-10-25, 08:33 AM
How long would it take to make a breach in a castle wall with trebuchet bombardment? Could it be done at all, and if so would it take months?

Would it be comparable to the time for similar numbers of cannon, except for the time spent building trebuchets on the spot instead of bringing cannon on carts?

A "castle wall" isn't particularly well-defined, but I'm mostly thinking of what you might see in 14th-century battles.

I guess the question is what cannon, what trebuchet. Cannons would be way faster most likely.
From Wikipedia.

The siege of Harfleur, Normandy, France began 18 August 1415 and ended on 22 September when Harfleur surrendered to the English.

Details of the siege are not well known but seem to have followed the standard pattern of siege warfare in the Late Middle Ages. After the walls had been seriously damaged by the twelve great guns and other traditional artillery of the English siege train,

It's absolutely doable, and the way it was done before cannons. I can't find anything saying how quickly but definitely not months at least. Since sieges are slow affairs and I can't really find any info on the bombardments themselves it's tough to say. But it does seem to be comparable to cannons which are more convenient (or something) as you bring them ready made.

Animastryfe
2013-10-25, 01:37 PM
How would sword and buckler fight against someone in full harness, or otherwise heavily armored? A person using a two-handed sword would use half-swording to stab and grapple, or use mordhau, correct? A person using a one-handed sword with a free hand could use that hand to help grapple. Would a person using sword and buckler drop the buckler? Since the sword and buckler was a popular battlefield weapon during the late middle ages and early renaissance, it seems that it should have some method of engaging plate armor.

fusilier
2013-10-25, 02:14 PM
How long would it take to make a breach in a castle wall with trebuchet bombardment? Could it be done at all, and if so would it take months?

Would it be comparable to the time for similar numbers of cannon, except for the time spent building trebuchets on the spot instead of bringing cannon on carts?

A "castle wall" isn't particularly well-defined, but I'm mostly thinking of what you might see in 14th-century battles.

You might find this webpage interesting.
http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/ant/S00/ANT154-01/vick/treb.html

The author claims that battering walls was not the primary function of the trebuchet, instead it was to harass the inside of the fortified place, and provide counter battery support.

Large cannon were difficult to transport, and could take some time to position, but once positioned they could made short work of a traditional fortification. Early gunpowder was also very expensive, so it was used pretty conservatively.

Galloglaich
2013-10-25, 02:55 PM
It made a big difference in knocking down walls once they started using lead shot instead of stone.

Essentially, I think there was a back and forth with walls and siege engines, as a major technology item appears on the offensive side, walls start falling down, these get improved (made thicker, stone instead of wood, trace italienne etc.) then siege engines improve more (taller towers, counterweight trebuchet, bombards over culverins, lead shot over stone)

As for sword and buckler vs. plate harness, I think that depends if the guy with the buckler has harness too or not.

but usually there are openings in the armor (so it would depend on that too) I would guess generally the buckler fighter would be using a lot of thrusts and going for openings (the face etc.)

I think most of the buckler manuals we have though are for light / partial or no armor

G

fusilier
2013-10-25, 04:40 PM
G. I think you meant "iron" not lead. There are certain trade offs between using stone over iron shot. Iron shot was generally considered better at piercing stone walls, but they could build a cannon to fire much more massive stone shot. The specific density of stone being less than iron, the amount of force needed to propel a stone ball of the same weight as an iron ball was significantly less. So they could build humongous stone firing bombards (like the Ottomans did in the 15th century), that were relatively safe to use. Practical to use is another question . . . :-)

Armoury99
2013-10-25, 04:48 PM
Question - hopefully an easy one for such knowledgeable folk:

I'm looking for a real world example/inspiration of a 'thrusting sword' (I just made that phrase up) - something like an early rapier (14-15th Century for preference) that's designed for stabbing over slashing. As much, err stabby over slashy as possible. Hopefully that makes sense :smallbiggrin:

Thanks in advance.

Mike_G
2013-10-25, 05:01 PM
How would sword and buckler fight against someone in full harness, or otherwise heavily armored? A person using a two-handed sword would use half-swording to stab and grapple, or use mordhau, correct? A person using a one-handed sword with a free hand could use that hand to help grapple. Would a person using sword and buckler drop the buckler? Since the sword and buckler was a popular battlefield weapon during the late middle ages and early renaissance, it seems that it should have some method of engaging plate armor.

I would guess that you would try to stab at the gaps, like the inner elbow, the armpit, the groin, back of the knee, that kind of thing. Or at an open visor. If he has a closed visor, I'd try to circle, stay in his obstructed area of view and try to get him behind the knee. Or trip him and get the point in. Being able to defend yourself with the buckler would make it less suicidal to try to close and get to a position where you could get your point in.

The nice thing about sword and shield is that you can defend yourself while you attack, or attack while you parry.

Spiryt
2013-10-25, 05:02 PM
Question - hopefully an easy one for such knowledgeable folk:

I'm looking for a real world example/inspiration of a 'thrusting sword' (I just made that phrase up) - something like an early rapier (14-15th Century for preference) that's designed for stabbing over slashing. As much, err stabby over slashy as possible. Hopefully that makes sense :smallbiggrin:

Thanks in advance.

http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/224165.html?mulR=2093742939|43

fusilier
2013-10-25, 06:19 PM
Question - hopefully an easy one for such knowledgeable folk:

I'm looking for a real world example/inspiration of a 'thrusting sword' (I just made that phrase up) - something like an early rapier (14-15th Century for preference) that's designed for stabbing over slashing. As much, err stabby over slashy as possible. Hopefully that makes sense :smallbiggrin:

Thanks in advance.

An "Estoc" may be what you are looking for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc

Rakaydos
2013-10-25, 07:27 PM
I ran across a good "culture" to use with Gnolls in another thread, comparing them to post-apocaliptic road warriors and scavangers.

The typical "gear description" for gnolls has them in improvised, hodgepodge gear that nevertheless is reasonably effective. I would like to hear what people think would be an effective improvisation for-

Fantasy: Assuming none of the stuff from civilized races fit them due to height and body form, how would they crudely modify and kit-bash effective armor from other races stuff? (assuming typical fantasy mix)

Modern: Magic returned (relatively recently) and the world fell apart. Mad Max it up here, please. (One idea I've heard is using car suspension springs for balista, cranked by the car's own jack)

warty goblin
2013-10-25, 08:07 PM
I ran across a good "culture" to use with Gnolls in another thread, comparing them to post-apocaliptic road warriors and scavangers.

The typical "gear description" for gnolls has them in improvised, hodgepodge gear that nevertheless is reasonably effective. I would like to hear what people think would be an effective improvisation for-

Fantasy: Assuming none of the stuff from civilized races fit them due to height and body form, how would they crudely modify and kit-bash effective armor from other races stuff? (assuming typical fantasy mix)

Chainmail. It's basically a big knit sweater made out of steel instead of wool*, so even without modification a hauberk will fit a range of bodytypes just fine. And unlike knitting, it's pretty easy to modify; just pop open a line of rings to open up a seem, and add or remove rings as needed. It's not a no-skill operation, but compared to most other sorts of armor-smithing it's pretty trivial, and doesn't take much in the way of super-specialized tools.


*Or wool from exceptionally badass sheep. It's fantasy, you never know...

Modern: Magic returned (relatively recently) and the world fell apart. Mad Max it up here, please. (One idea I've heard is using car suspension springs for balista, cranked by the car's own jack)

I don't think you can alter modern ballistic vests as easily as chainmail, so bullet-resistant vests sized for hyenaoids are probably going to be pretty scarce. There's always plates of reasonably thick steel attached to some sort of padded backing, but the sort of high quality steel you'd want isn't cheap, the thing would be very heavy, and they'd clank horribly.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-26, 01:16 AM
Or wool from exceptionally badass sheep. It's fantasy, you never know... Your brain is exemplary.

Other that plate harness, I think you can do that with most types of armour. Plate armour could also be cut into pieces and attached to your armour, but that might be difficult for a bunch of dogs.

Ballistic vests wouldn't be hard to work. If it's a single piece of kevlar, snip one or both sides of the vest, then sew it with other cloth to make a larger vest. If done wrong, the vest will snap in two upon taking a bullet. If done right, you have a vest which is part casual and part kevlar. With some practice, you could cut up kevlar vests and sew the pieces together.

With military and Swat vests, that's easier. They tend to be made up of separate components. You can take those pieces and attach them to your clothing/armour, or do the earlier described snipping the sides and sewing in more cloth. Admitted, combining several of those vests is a jigsaw.

snowblizz
2013-10-26, 04:24 PM
You might find this webpage interesting.
http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/ant/S00/ANT154-01/vick/treb.html

The author claims that battering walls was not the primary function of the trebuchet, instead it was to harass the inside of the fortified place, and provide counter battery support.

I remembered something like that and was going to mention it, but the descriptions of the siege of Acre seemed very definitive in the description of trebuchets being used to create breaches, several times over as the defenders would repair the damage when the crusaders were busy fending of Saladin's supporting attacks.

fusilier
2013-10-27, 01:22 AM
I remembered something like that and was going to mention it, but the descriptions of the siege of Acre seemed very definitive in the description of trebuchets being used to create breaches, several times over as the defenders would repair the damage when the crusaders were busy fending of Saladin's supporting attacks.

Yeah, I seem to remember watching modern tests on the effectiveness of trebuchets to make breaches. It's possible, if the siege train was small, that it was more effective to use trebuchets to suppress the battlements allowing sappers to approach the wall. And if the siege train was large and equipped with good, powerful trebuchets then maybe it was easier to use them to create the breaches? *shrug*

Hjolnai
2013-10-27, 03:32 AM
I suppose the effectiveness of trebuchets and similar siege engines would also depend on the nature of the walls. Tall, relatively thin walls of soft stone would be much more vulnerable than short walls faced with stronger stone types. The siege train would also be limited by the availability of suitable stones to throw.

warty goblin
2013-10-27, 04:13 PM
Your brain is exemplary.

Now just imagine the bonny shepherd lass or lad who sheers them. You can keep your heroes who do wussy stuff like hit dragons in the face with axes, Bretta Ingolsdotter the sheerer of the steel sheep makes 'em look like wimps, going out there every day, stepping over the confused wolves bleeding from their gums...

Mr. Mask
2013-10-27, 10:24 PM
HAHAH! What would the sheers be like? Surely the only sheers that have graced the hand of Bretta Ingolsdotter is a sword--the sword which slew Níðhöggr for gnawing on the root of Yggdrasil, able to split any number of men asunder! Or... wire-clippers (boy would that be a long and tedious process)!

Galloglaich
2013-10-28, 09:32 AM
http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/224165.html?mulR=2093742939|43

Beautiful sword, really lovely... only one odd thing stands out:

"Weight: 29 pounds 0.2 ounces (13.16 kg)"

Eh? I guess this was from Superman's planet perhaps? I'm guessing it's supposed to be 2.9 pounds :P somebody might want to contact the website they are spreading the old cliché's there...

To answer Armoury99's original question,


Question - hopefully an easy one for such knowledgeable folk:

I'm looking for a real world example/inspiration of a 'thrusting sword' (I just made that phrase up) - something like an early rapier (14-15th Century for preference) that's designed for stabbing over slashing. As much, err stabby over slashy as possible. Hopefully that makes sense

Thanks in advance.

There are a few different types of what you might call 'thrusting' swords so you would want to narrow down a little bit.

Rapiers as such don't show up in any widespread manner until fairly far along into the 16th Century, but we do know that the basic concept was around much earlier, as there are laws in German cities banning 'dueling' swords with too fine of a point as early as 1400.

There are a couple of families of swords however which do appear in the late 14th Century with sharp points, which can be subdivided into military and civilian weapons, and between cut-thrust vs. thrusting-only weapons.

One type of military sword has often a kind of triangular profile like the exquisite one Spyrit showed us, these are typically called 'cut-thrust' swords, in the case of single handed weapons, or as a subtype of longswords or bastard swords for the hand-and-a-half or two-handed versions.

You can see them in the basic typology of Ewart Oakeshott, which is a very good place to start for anything to do with Medieval swords

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakeshott_typology

The first really pointy ones are the XV, which you do see as early as the 14th Century. The XVa shows up around the same time and is the longsword version.

http://www.oakeshott.org/images/Typomaster.jpg

This is a basic type XV sword
http://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o673/AlaeSwords/14thcenturyswordii_zps20ffdec1.jpg

This is the type XVa
http://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o673/AlaeSwords/FrenchTypeXV3_zpsc7dc37f5.jpg

These swords are very pointy, typically have kind of hardened points and are good at thrusting, but they can be very good at cutting too.


The civilian dueling types which also probably existed at this time were rarer and I don't know of good surviving examples from before 1500, but there was a lighter sub-type of the cut-thrust sword which was more specialized for civilian use, sometimes called a 'spade da lato' (sword of the side) or spade ropera (sword of the clothes).

http://p2.la-img.com/566/9600/2024766_3_l.jpg http://p1.la-img.com/566/9600/2024778_2_l.jpg

These are believed to have been around in one form or another since about 1450, starting in Italy and Spain. You also start to see these weapons in Central Europe in the 16th Century.

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

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

These were considered precursors to the rapier, they tended (very generally) to be a little broader (cut as well as thrust) than the later rapiers, but I suspect some were very thin thrusting-only weapons. The proper rapiers looked like this incidentally,

http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/weapons/images/joomgallery/originals/europe_4/arms_and_armour_-_europe_20101126_2093234143.jpg

a fairly robust weapon and also quite long usually, almost 4 feet, whereas this thing which is called a smallsword, and is often confused for a rapier in rpg's, is typically less than 3 feet and much lighter and more fragile (also more nimble) than a rapier, but it doesn't show up 'on the radar' until the late 17th or 18th Century (illegal dueling swords from much earlier periods may have looked similar but I don't think there are any surviving examples)

http://www.olddominionforge.com/smallsword081.jpg

The third type is another military type which somebody also already mentioned upthread, called by various names, as the tuck, estoc, kanzer etc., which is for stabbing only but tend to be very solid, much more robust than a civilian rapier since it's meant for dealing with armored targets. These also exist from at least the 15th Century, maybe earlier.

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

This is supposed to be one from 1480

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Estoque_1480_dC..jpg/128px-Estoque_1480_dC..jpg

There were also some dueling versions of these made, some which had special hand-holds and even hooks, spikes or pointed hammer-like pommels. Somebody else has to google the images of that though since I've got to get back to work.

G

Animastryfe
2013-10-28, 09:44 AM
I have just emailed the museum about the sword's weight.

snowblizz
2013-10-28, 10:47 AM
I have just emailed the museum about the sword's weight.

Another strike for accuracy by the hobbyists.:smallwink:

Reminds of when I was in Peru at a private (gold) museum (of course had I known there was a huge collection of weapons upstairs..., well, I noticed it when arriving there, but that was not part of the tour :smallannoyed:) looking at what they had labelled "cudgels" or "bludgeon" (I forget which) and I burst out "but that's a flanged mace, and that there clearly a morningstar". And I tried to explain how the labels were technically correct but a bit too generic. I like to think they've update it since then, the guide did look rather thoughtful.

GraaEminense
2013-10-28, 11:33 AM
Reminds of when I was in Peru at a private (gold) museum (of course had I known there was a huge collection of weapons upstairs..., well, I noticed it when arriving there, but that was not part of the tour :smallannoyed:) looking at what they had labelled "cudgels" or "bludgeon" (I forget which) and I burst out "but that's a flanged mace, and that there clearly a morningstar". And I tried to explain how the labels were technically correct but a bit too generic. I like to think they've update it since then, the guide did look rather thoughtful.
Still better than the aquarium with all sorts of blades in a pile and the label "Swords, 10th-15th Century". That was just depressing.

Too many museums just rely on showing off cool stuff. The result is normally that you need to know quite a lot already to actually learn something, kind of counter-productive in my opinion. Italy is actually a pretty bad offender here, having so much awesome to show that they can afford to be lazy about it.

AgentPaper
2013-10-28, 11:58 AM
Still better than the aquarium with all sorts of blades in a pile and the label "Swords, 10th-15th Century". That was just depressing.

Too many museums just rely on showing off cool stuff. The result is normally that you need to know quite a lot already to actually learn something, kind of counter-productive in my opinion. Italy is actually a pretty bad offender here, having so much awesome to show that they can afford to be lazy about it.

Of course, the best way to combat this kind of laziness, is to go there and ask the staff about everything. Encourage your friends to do so, and their friends, and so on.

Because if everyone is constantly asking for more details on the bludgeons, spears, and swords, then they will quickly decide that it will be much easier if they simply label them as "Morningstar", "Pike", and "Rapier", and print out all the additional information to stick next to it so the kids will stop asking them all those damn questions. :smalltongue:

Animastryfe
2013-10-28, 01:51 PM
Why did the aquarium show weapons?

warty goblin
2013-10-28, 02:31 PM
Why did the aquarium show weapons?

Swordfish. It's right next to the maritime woodworking equipment.

GraaEminense
2013-10-28, 06:27 PM
Why did the aquarium show weapons?
My fault. Since it was a dry glass box, terrarium would be a better term. Or swordarium.

Galloglaich
2013-10-28, 08:50 PM
Swordfish. It's right next to the maritime woodworking equipment.

At first I thought you were talking about this!

http://fightswordfish.com/

http://fightswordfish.tumblr.com/

the big Swedish HEMA tournament, which is coming up this weekend. Then I got the joke!

G

Animastryfe
2013-10-28, 08:51 PM
My fault. Since it was a dry glass box, terrarium would be a better term. Or swordarium.

I was thinking of aquarium as 'a zoo for fish', rather than as 'a box where fish are enclosed'. I like swordarium.

Brother Oni
2013-10-29, 07:25 AM
I was thinking of aquarium as 'a zoo for fish', rather than as 'a box where fish are enclosed'. I like swordarium.

So if a scramasax and a dao had a child, it would be a katana? :smalltongue:

It does make the bastard sword all sad in the corner though...

Straybow
2013-10-30, 12:21 PM
The third type is another military type which somebody also already mentioned upthread, called by various names, as the tuck, estoc, kanzer etc., which is for stabbing only but tend to be very solid, much more robust than a civilian rapier since it's meant for dealing with armored targets. These also exist from at least the 15th Century, maybe earlier.

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

This is supposed to be one from 1480

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Estoque_1480_dC..jpg/128px-Estoque_1480_dC..jpg
Except for the diamond cross section, looks much like the Oakshott XVII:

"Long, tapering blade, hexagonal cross section, two-handed grip. Heavy swords, weighing more than 2 kg, used to pierce armour. In use ca. 1360–1420."

Galloglaich
2013-10-30, 01:06 PM
Yes there is some overlap. Most true estocs look much more clearly like spikes though.

There are a bunch of variants, like this one.. meant for judicial combat probably though it could also be a harnichfechten battlefield weapon. The cross and pommel are hard core deathmatch type weapons, we know the Teutonic Order had some like this (I think this is a replica though)

http://www.armor.com/images/custom913b.jpg

then you get ones like the Polish Kanzer / Koncerz which is sort of an indestructible short-range lance for cavalry

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3145/collectionkoncerz.jpg

G

Galloglaich
2013-10-30, 01:08 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz

G

xeo
2013-11-01, 05:34 AM
Re: women, combat and pregnancy

The Marine Corps Gazette recently published an interesting article by a female Marine officer called Katie Petronio about whether women should serve in combat. One of the details from Captain Petronio's own service was that:


At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Brother Oni
2013-11-01, 07:53 AM
Re: women, combat and pregnancy

The Marine Corps Gazette recently published an interesting article by a female Marine officer called Katie Petronio about whether women should serve in combat. One of the details from Captain Petronio's own service was that:

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Thanks for that, I found it very interesting, especially her opinion on the overall role of women in combat.

-----

On an unrelated note, here's interesting AskHistorians piece on warhammers, their role in armour penetration and how armour isn't 100% proof against force transferance: Popularity of warhammers (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pl35a/how_popular_were_war_hammers_during_the_medieval/cd3k8tw).

endoperez
2013-11-02, 05:18 AM
Were flintlock pistols and other early one-shot pistols really used as clubs or maces? I've heard it said many times. I don't know how much it's been exaggerated.

Mr. Mask
2013-11-02, 05:38 AM
Modern pistols can be used to club people. It's not especially effective, but the base of your magazine is harder than bone, and it means smacking them won't damage your hand.

Now, as for how much pistols are designed with this in mind, I'd have to stretch to give an answer.

Brother Oni
2013-11-02, 10:12 AM
Were flintlock pistols and other early one-shot pistols really used as clubs or maces? I've heard it said many times. I don't know how much it's been exaggerated.

Yes, as an emergency weapon and quite commonly too.

Taking a look at a 17th century flintlock:

http://www.royalarmouriesshop.org/images/detailed/1/Flintlock_Pistol_XVII_Century_Replica_312.01.jpg

You simply invert it, holding it by the barrel and hit them with the base of the stock.

It's more common on muskets, particularly English Civil War ones which may be reinforced with a metal strip on the base of the stock especially for the purpose of hitting people with it:


http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/matchlock2.jpg

Again, invert hold it by the barrel and use it like a club or spear. From an re-enactor I spoke to, apparently the weapon is more dangerous when used that way!
From what I've seen it's typically done to fend off cavalry when you don't have time or need to draw your sword.

Gunstock war clubs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunstock_war_club) were Native American weapons so named for their similarity to musket stocks and from the looks of them, they could probably do some real damage when used correctly.

What Mr Mask refers to with modern pistols is more commonly called pistol whipping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol-whipping) and is done by striking with a downwards motion using the magazine or grip base. Inverting your grip is a bad idea with modern weapons, due to the chance of accidental discharge into the wielder.

There's also modern close combat techniques called buttstrokes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttstroke), where the butt of a rifle is used in unarmed combat.

GraaEminense
2013-11-02, 10:50 AM
Related to this: I read somewhere (Kevin Keegan I think, but not sure) that on late 18th and early 19th century battlefields, there were more casualties from blunt trauma like musket butts than from bayonets. Anyone have any idea if that was actually the case?

Edit: The wikipedia article on buttstrokes reads a lot like a medieval polearm manual. Not surprising, but interesting.

Brother Oni
2013-11-02, 12:15 PM
Related to this: I read somewhere (Kevin Keegan I think, but not sure) that on late 18th and early 19th century battlefields, there were more casualties from blunt trauma like musket butts than from bayonets. Anyone have any idea if that was actually the case?

It's a bit out of my era, but some records indicate that soldiers don't like using the bayonet and often the defending side will flee rather than face a bayonet charge.
This would suggest that casualties from blunt force trauma are simply more common since soldiers that end up in melee often do so by accident and hence don't have time to fix bayonets.

I know that triangular and cross sectional bayonets are banned by the Geneva Conventions since the wounds they inflict don't close easily, thus are deemed inhumane.

Mike_G
2013-11-02, 01:47 PM
Soldiers armed with firearms generally don't want to fight hand to hand. There's a whole lot of instinct arguing to run away rather than mix it up in hand to hand. It takes a lot of aggression. That's a big reason modern armies still train for hand to hand.

It's easier to shoot at someone from far away. It's much scarier to stab or smash somebody to death up close. I don't think bashing an enemy with the gunstock was more common that stabbing with the bayonet.

Mr Beer
2013-11-02, 02:08 PM
I remember reading about WWI trench raids. So as to instill the correct attitude in both their own men and the enemy, they would sometimes organise small teams to creep over and murder some of the opposition during the night. They would use bayonets, knives, grenades etc., much like the house-to-house fighting teams in Stalingrad, minus the automatic weapons of course.

Brother Oni
2013-11-02, 02:51 PM
I remember reading about WWI trench raids. So as to instill the correct attitude in both their own men and the enemy, they would sometimes organise small teams to creep over and murder some of the opposition during the night. They would use bayonets, knives, grenades etc., much like the house-to-house fighting teams in Stalingrad, minus the automatic weapons of course.

I recently attended a talk on WW1 trench life and what surprised me is that the MoD initially issued a short sword, much like a gladius, to British soldiers and it was rapidly discarded as being too cumbersome.

Common hand to hand weapons, especially on trench raids, were things like punch daggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_dagger), trench knives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_trench_knife), makeshift maces (short stick with spiky metal bit on top) and sharpened entrenching tools (jam it into the enemy's face edge first).

Mr Beer
2013-11-02, 06:41 PM
I recently attended a talk on WW1 trench life and what surprised me is that the MoD initially issued a short sword, much like a gladius, to British soldiers and it was rapidly discarded as being too cumbersome.

Common hand to hand weapons, especially on trench raids, were things like punch daggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_dagger), trench knives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_trench_knife), makeshift maces (short stick with spiky metal bit on top) and sharpened entrenching tools (jam it into the enemy's face edge first).

Yep, entrenching tools were favoured by the Stalingrad teams too. Brutal stuff. There's something very Soviet about a bunch of Russians sneaking up to you and smashing your head in with a spade.

I remember small maces being mentioned but had forgotten until now. Had no idea they trialled a short sword, I guess if it was too cumbersome some of those trenches must have been pretty narrow.

snowblizz
2013-11-02, 06:46 PM
Yes, as an emergency weapon and quite commonly too.

Taking a look at a 17th century flintlock:

http://www.royalarmouriesshop.org/images/detailed/1/Flintlock_Pistol_XVII_Century_Replica_312.01.jpg

You simply invert it, holding it by the barrel and hit them with the base of the stock.

If you google flintlock pistol one finds a lot of them have metal buttplates. Eg a really purty 1790 naval issue. Presumably the military issues wouldn't have extra stuff unless they felt it was beneficial. Ie why waste government fund on metal butts unless you expect them to be used that way and therefore need reinforcing. I'm not sure it should be considered emergency but part of the expected use. You fire it and whack the closest guy with the butt before drawing another pistol or weapon. Quite effective as clubs too. When I was in high school I was at the local museum for a week as intern and got to handle some of the old pistols in the collections. Hefty as heck.

snowblizz
2013-11-02, 06:50 PM
Yep, entrenching tools were favoured by the Stalingrad teams too. Brutal stuff. There's something very Soviet about a bunch of Russians sneaking up to you and smashing your head in with a spade.

No no no. The proper way is to sharpen one (or both) of the edges. The soldiers quickly found out that stabbing a guy with a bayonet might get it stuck disarming you. Slashing at a guy with a spade with sharpened edges means you basically pack a hatchet. I think a lot of the modern multipurpose "spades" come with a preprepared edge. Also useful to chop wood of course.

Mr Beer
2013-11-02, 08:07 PM
No no no. The proper way is to sharpen one (or both) of the edges. The soldiers quickly found out that stabbing a guy with a bayonet might get it stuck disarming you. Slashing at a guy with a spade with sharpened edges means you basically pack a hatchet. I think a lot of the modern multipurpose "spades" come with a preprepared edge. Also useful to chop wood of course.

I understand that it's not literally a spade, I was being facetious.

Brother Oni
2013-11-02, 08:27 PM
I'm not sure it should be considered emergency but part of the expected use.

In ideal circumstances, if you have the space and time to draw your sword or better yet, reload the pistol, then you should be doing that rather than clubbing someone around the head with a freshly fired pistol with a hot barrel.

If using a pistol as a club is the only thing you have time to do, then I'd class that as an emergency.

Edit: Thinking about it, maybe emergency isn't quite the right word... opportunistic or secondary use maybe?


I remember small maces being mentioned but had forgotten until now. Had no idea they trialled a short sword, I guess if it was too cumbersome some of those trenches must have been pretty narrow.

I think it's less narrow trenches (which is ideal for stabbing weapons) and more crawling across no-man's land, with all the corpses, mud, barbed wire and other craters and detritus that put paid to such a comparatively long weapon

fusilier
2013-11-03, 02:33 AM
Related to this: I read somewhere (Kevin Keegan I think, but not sure) that on late 18th and early 19th century battlefields, there were more casualties from blunt trauma like musket butts than from bayonets. Anyone have any idea if that was actually the case?

Edit: The wikipedia article on buttstrokes reads a lot like a medieval polearm manual. Not surprising, but interesting.

I've heard of similar things related to the American Civil War -- specifically that American soldiers were reluctant to "stick" someone with their bayonets, and preferred to club each other. I'm not sure if that was true generally -- American soldiers at that time usually lacked bayonet training.

Also, I recently heard an argument that casualty rates by weapon/injury type (e.g. there were more casualties from buttstrokes than bayonets) aren't necessarily reliable, because that data is collected from field hospital reports and discounts those killed outright or who died of their wounds on the battlefield. I suspect that far more would have died of bayonet wounds, before receiving treatment at a field hospital, compared to those injured by buttstrokes.

fusilier
2013-11-03, 02:38 AM
Yep, entrenching tools were favoured by the Stalingrad teams too. Brutal stuff. There's something very Soviet about a bunch of Russians sneaking up to you and smashing your head in with a spade.

I remember small maces being mentioned but had forgotten until now. Had no idea they trialled a short sword, I guess if it was too cumbersome some of those trenches must have been pretty narrow.

During WW1, trenches were often too narrow for bayonet fighting, so the entrenching tool was often used -- as were clubs, maces, etc. However, bayonets weren't considered useless, and I recall reading that American soldiers felt disadvantaged by their shorter rifles and received bayonet training from the French.

Stephen_E
2013-11-03, 04:44 AM
Re: women, combat and pregnancy

The Marine Corps Gazette recently published an interesting article by a female Marine officer called Katie Petronio about whether women should serve in combat. One of the details from Captain Petronio's own service was that:



http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

While I think her articles were quite interesting her personal complaints of illness caused by her time in service should be taken with a large dose of salt in terms of what actually caused them. Her claim that it caused PCOS in her is not really supportable (not saying it's impossible it was caused by military service, but that it's not possible to say with any degree of likelyhood that it was the cause, given what is understood about the illness).

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

Indeed my impression was that a very capable women doing a career that was clearly important to her suffered significant medical problems which basically closed that career to her and she made some dubious untrained attributions as to what caused the medical problems. Namely that Women aren't physically able to do the job.

Brother Oni
2013-11-03, 05:59 AM
While I think her articles were quite interesting her personal complaints of illness caused by her time in service should be taken with a large dose of salt in terms of what actually caused them. Her claim that it caused PCOS in her is not really supportable (not saying it's impossible it was caused by military service, but that it's not possible to say with any degree of likelyhood that it was the cause, given what is understood about the illness).

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

Indeed my impression was that a very capable women doing a career that was clearly important to her suffered significant medical problems which basically closed that career to her and she made some dubious untrained attributions as to what caused the medical problems. Namely that Women aren't physically able to do the job.

With regard to PCOS, the direct cause is well understood - excessive testosterone in the system. The cause of the excess testosterone is the issue, although it's not too hard a stretch to consider that long periods of combat stress can potentially be a cause.

Even if we disagree on the cause of PCOS, it still remains that male soldiers simply cannot suffer from it as they don't have the biology.

Leaving PCOS alone, she mentions suffering from restless leg syndrome and increased muscular deterioration compared to her male counterparts.
Given that she's likely operating at the upper limits of her physical capabilities anyway, any deterioration, let alone apparently increased deterioration, is going to impact on her performance more.

I also think you're putting words in her mouth when you say 'woman can't do the job'. What she is saying that women shouldn't do the 0302 MOS role, which is Infantry Officer and is calling for a new MOS to be formed, 0305, which is Female Engagement Team Officer.

It's still infantry, but a specialised one, much like any of the other 03* roles. I've read articles that female soldiers are invaluable for HUMINT officers, particularly in cultures where women will not speak to men, but can be persuaded to speak to other women.
On the flip side, I've also read that enemy soldiers, particularly Muslims, will sometimes refuse to retreat or surrender to a force that includes female soldiers.

In the interests of transparency, my mind is still open on the subject of women in frontline engagement roles. I used to be against, but better placed and more experienced people than me are considering the possibilities and I'm more than willing to see what their studies and recommendations are.

AgentPaper
2013-11-03, 12:28 PM
With regard to PCOS, the direct cause is well understood - excessive testosterone in the system. The cause of the excess testosterone is the issue, although it's not too hard a stretch to consider that long periods of combat stress can potentially be a cause.

Even if we disagree on the cause of PCOS, it still remains that male soldiers simply cannot suffer from it as they don't have the biology.

It seems kind of silly to argue that women shouldn't serve because there is an injury they could get that men can't. I mean, this is war we're talking about here, right? As in, the thing where people shoot guns at each other? I would be much more worried about being shot in the face than maybe having to adopt my kids.

Spiryt
2013-11-03, 12:53 PM
It seems kind of silly to argue that women shouldn't serve because there is an injury they could get that men can't. I mean, this is war we're talking about here, right? As in, the thing where people shoot guns at each other? I would be much more worried about being shot in the face than maybe having to adopt my kids.

Well, yet people obviously prefer to have their own kids - so if some woman wants to serve by shooting stuff, she should be aware of risk and trade offs - so it's good that people are researching this stuff.

Brother Oni
2013-11-03, 02:39 PM
It seems kind of silly to argue that women shouldn't serve because there is an injury they could get that men can't. I mean, this is war we're talking about here, right? As in, the thing where people shoot guns at each other? I would be much more worried about being shot in the face than maybe having to adopt my kids.

I'd like to point out again that's not what she said. She said that women shouldn't serve in MOS 0302, the Infantry Officer role, due to significant physical demands of it.

If a woman wants to serve by shooting the enemy, then provided she meets the standards (which is an entirely separate argument), then go for it. That said, it's not good for morale or for the reputation of the military if they knowing let women into a role where their biology can cause them permanent damage.

It's like letting women into First in Man clinical trials, where a new drug with unknown human toxicity (and only very limited animal toxicology) is put into humans for first time.
Since women do not produce more eggs, exposing them to something that's potentially genotoxic or tetratogenic is totally irresponsible, since this sort of damage will permanently affect their lives.

Bear in mind that aside from gender specific diseases, there's also the mentioned increased muscle deterioration which will affect her ability to avoid being shot in the face.

Fortinbras
2013-11-03, 07:16 PM
Hey, I'm doing a research paper on the Battle of Salamis and I was wondering if any of you folks could recommend good books or articles.

I'm especially interested in stuff written by more military-minded historians as most of what I've turned up so far is much more focused on evaluating the ideological and political after affects of the battle.

Thanks

Straybow
2013-11-04, 03:41 AM
I recently attended a talk on WW1 trench life and what surprised me is that the MoD initially issued a short sword, much like a gladius, to British soldiers and it was rapidly discarded as being too cumbersome.

I remember small maces being mentioned but had forgotten until now. Had no idea they trialled a short sword, I guess if it was too cumbersome some of those trenches must have been pretty narrow. I suspect that the problem is twofold: while they issued shortswords I rather doubt they had any real training with them. The only sword-based combat training still around was cavalry saber, and we don't see records of that or any other basic sword instruction added to general infantry training. If it is too short an opponent with a bayonet or trenching tool will have a reach advantage on top of the training advantage, strike two.

Mr Beer
2013-11-04, 06:32 AM
I suspect that the problem is twofold: while they issued shortswords I rather doubt they had any real training with them. The only sword-based combat training still around was cavalry saber, and we don't see records of that or any other basic sword instruction added to general infantry training. If it is too short an opponent with a bayonet or trenching tool will have a reach advantage on top of the training advantage, strike two.

Makes you think that for a WWI trench raid, a squad of Roman soldiers or other pre-gunpowder troops with strong melee weapon skills might cause a lot more mayhem than the modern troops. At least until the flares went up and the rifles came out, or whatever used to happen once a lot of fuss had been created.

Brother Oni
2013-11-04, 08:09 AM
Makes you think that for a WWI trench raid, a squad of Roman soldiers or other pre-gunpowder troops with strong melee weapon skills might cause a lot more mayhem than the modern troops. At least until the flares went up and the rifles came out, or whatever used to happen once a lot of fuss had been created.

For the singular purpose of creeping around in the dark and stabbing/capturing people quietly, possibly, but I wouldn't under-estimate the tenacity of soldiers who've survived artillery bombardments during WW1.

Neon Knight
2013-11-04, 09:44 AM
Two materials related questions.

First, white phosphorous is a common component of military smoke and incendiary munitions. Could one substitute red phosphorous in place of white in these munitions, and what results would this change likely have on behavior and performance of these munitions?

Secondly, I've heard some reference to people making knife blades out of synthetic sapphire (without any real citation or source, I should note). I presume this is a novelty technique with little practical value, as from what little I understand of material science the stuff is supremely brittle, but I thought I'd double check with people who are more likely to know.

Galloglaich
2013-11-04, 10:26 AM
Hey, I'm doing a research paper on the Battle of Salamis and I was wondering if any of you folks could recommend good books or articles.

I'm especially interested in stuff written by more military-minded historians as most of what I've turned up so far is much more focused on evaluating the ideological and political after affects of the battle.

Thanks

Read Herodotus, it will change your life, and give you a good grounding on Salamis.

G

warty goblin
2013-11-04, 11:10 AM
Makes you think that for a WWI trench raid, a squad of Roman soldiers or other pre-gunpowder troops with strong melee weapon skills might cause a lot more mayhem than the modern troops. At least until the flares went up and the rifles came out, or whatever used to happen once a lot of fuss had been created.
I'd think one of the issues with using a short sword type weapon in a trench is that you wouldn't have a shield. I'd really hate to try to defend myself with only a gladius - that's just not how the weapon is supposed to be used.


For the singular purpose of creeping around in the dark and stabbing/capturing people quietly, possibly, but I wouldn't under-estimate the tenacity of soldiers who've survived artillery bombardments during WW1.
Also, there's a distinct difference between a set piece battle in formation, and sneaking around stabbing people. For the most part, organized pre-gunpowder European warfare seems to have been rather long on the former, and shorter on the later.


Read Herodotus, it will change your life, and give you a good grounding on Salamis.

G
Very true. On that note, try to grab a copy of the Landmark Herodotus. The translation is excellent apparently, and it's got a lot of maps and other useful information that makes it a lot easier for a modern audience unfamiliar with the place names of classical Greece to follow.

Brother Oni
2013-11-04, 12:38 PM
First, white phosphorous is a common component of military smoke and incendiary munitions. Could one substitute red phosphorous in place of white in these munitions, and what results would this change likely have on behavior and performance of these munitions?


A quick skim on wiki indicates that white phosphorus degrades to red phosphorus, so it suggests that red is less reactive.
This is confirmed by the auto-ignition point (260C for red, 32C for white) thus the red form doesn't spontaneously ignite in air.

With regards to incendiary munitions, I would think that substituting red would give the weapon very poor performance, if not make it outright inert.
The red form is also significantly less poisonous than white, so most of the nausea and poisoning effects will be missing (unless the red is contaminated with white).

Note that the difference between a WP smoke grenade and WP incendiary weapon is often only a matter of where you're standing and which way the wind is blowing.



Secondly, I've heard some reference to people making knife blades out of synthetic sapphire (without any real citation or source, I should note). I presume this is a novelty technique with little practical value, as from what little I understand of material science the stuff is supremely brittle, but I thought I'd double check with people who are more likely to know.

A quick google search gives me some links for lab use sapphire knives (http://www.ddk.com/sapphire-knives.php) intended for the preparation of light microscopy slides and at 40mm long by 12mm high, you're not going to be stabbing too many people with it.

It's apparently very practical for this use, since you can get clean cuts through tissue samples, making sections only 10 microns (1/100th of a millimetre) thick.

The only sapphire knife that I can find which might be for what you intend is this one: Sapphire knife (http://englishrussia.com/2007/01/18/sapphire-knife/).

Fortinbras
2013-11-04, 01:00 PM
Read Herodotus, it will change your life, and give you a good grounding on Salamis.

G

Thanks, I've actually read Herodotus several times, as well as Aeschylus' Persae, and Thucydides' references to the battle in his History of the Peloponnesian War.

I'm looking for a more modern analysis of the battle to supplement the ancient historians.

Animastryfe
2013-11-04, 07:56 PM
I recently realized that I only remember seeing spears and other stabbing polearms used by cavalry. Are there slashing polearms that were used by cavalry? Did knights in the appropriate times use pollaxes on horseback?

For people who are familiar with Albion Swords, why do some swords of the same Oakeshott type differ in price by as much as several hundred dollars? For example (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm#Hand-and-a-half), the Munich, Regent and Earl are type XVIIIb swords and have very similar dimensions, at least to my untrained understanding. However, the basic Munich costs $1650, while the basic Earl costs $1320.

Galloglaich
2013-11-04, 10:47 PM
Thanks, I've actually read Herodotus several times, as well as Aeschylus' Persae, and Thucydides' references to the battle in his History of the Peloponnesian War.

I'm looking for a more modern analysis of the battle to supplement the ancient historians.

I'm not sure you can improve on those, honestly, and he's not precisely modern but Hans Delbruck has a good overview of the battle in his History of the Art of War.

I found this book was a good modern treatment of many battles of the period including Salamis

http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Classical-World-Encyclopedia-Civilisations/dp/0806127945/ref=la_B000APBLHG_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383623200&sr=1-1

For a lighter read you could try one of the Osprey books.

G

Galloglaich
2013-11-04, 11:01 PM
I recently realized that I only remember seeing spears and other stabbing polearms used by cavalry. Are there slashing polearms that were used by cavalry? Did knights in the appropriate times use pollaxes on horseback?

For people who are familiar with Albion Swords, why do some swords of the same Oakeshott type differ in price by as much as several hundred dollars? For example (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm#Hand-and-a-half), the Munich, Regent and Earl are type XVIIIb swords and have very similar dimensions, at least to my untrained understanding. However, the basic Munich costs $1650, while the basic Earl costs $1320.

I think the Munich is one of those weapons which is based on exact centimeter by centimeter measurements of an antique by Peter Johnsson. These seem, generally, to perform better than the other ones which are more modern interpretations of the general idea, so to speak. And are also probably a little harder to make.

That said, I have an Albion, a constable, one of the simpler designs, and it is a fantastic weapon. Has held up to 6 years of cutting all sorts of things I now know I should never have risked cutting and it still cuts beautifully.

not quite as well though as a Brescia Spadona, another of the famous Peter Johnnson's carefully researched blades derived from an original, which seems to outcut all of the other replica swords available today (except for the top custom made-to-order ones which can cost more than an antique).


G

Rakaydos
2013-11-05, 02:12 AM
I recently realized that I only remember seeing spears and other stabbing polearms used by cavalry. Are there slashing polearms that were used by cavalry? Did knights in the appropriate times use pollaxes on horseback?

I remember looking up the Lochaber Axe after a protagonist in a fantasy novel used one- apparently a foot long blade on the end of a pole, used from horseback, tended to have rather gruesome results.

http://www.tierracelta.com.ar/hacha_lochaber.htm

Lochaber Pole Axe Polearm

snowblizz
2013-11-05, 09:54 AM
I recently realized that I only remember seeing spears and other stabbing polearms used by cavalry. Are there slashing polearms that were used by cavalry? Did knights in the appropriate times use pollaxes on horseback?
Polearms are usually two-handed (?) and therefore not as useful on horseback. Ie horse gets in the way of striking. A one-handed pollaxe would be some type of warhammer wouldn't it, which they most certainly used. One a horse you much of the benefits of two-handed weapons form being mounted.

Piercing/stabbing polearms, like the spear doesn't require as much control and...umm... arcs of movement?

The Lochaber axe was mainly an infantry weapon though? Scots not being that big on cavalry. In fact the hook on the back is there to pull English knights from their horse.

Galloglaich
2013-11-05, 11:40 AM
There is the famous story of Robert the Bruce slaying an English knight with a sparth axe from horseback.

The sparth axe is usually depicted as a two-handed weapon.

G

jaybird
2013-11-05, 12:22 PM
I recently realized that I only remember seeing spears and other stabbing polearms used by cavalry. Are there slashing polearms that were used by cavalry? Did knights in the appropriate times use pollaxes on horseback?

Not sure about the West, but in China, the ji, more or less a halberd, was used fairly commonly by cavalry.

Galloglaich
2013-11-05, 12:24 PM
Really good article on medieval swords just published here:

http://www.hroarr.com/longswords-and-their-data/#more-9256

G

warty goblin
2013-11-05, 01:14 PM
Really good article on medieval swords just published here:

http://www.hroarr.com/longswords-and-their-data/#more-9256

G

Ooh data. Crunchy, crunchy data. I can do a more robust statistical analysis than that though. Maybe over Thanksgiving, when I'm not neck deep in estimating land use statistics...

Animastryfe
2013-11-05, 08:59 PM
Thank you everyone for the replies.

Galloglaich, it seems that you are right about the Albion swords. The Munich webpage specifically states that it is based on a specific sword in a German museum, although it is not an exact replica. However, the other Albion type XVIIIb swords are only "inspired by the beautiful long swords favored in areas of Germanic influence during the mid to late 15th century".

fusilier
2013-11-05, 10:57 PM
Thanks, I've actually read Herodotus several times, as well as Aeschylus' Persae, and Thucydides' references to the battle in his History of the Peloponnesian War.

I'm looking for a more modern analysis of the battle to supplement the ancient historians.

In situations like this, you might want to look at other works' bibliographies. The wikipedia entry on the Battle of Salamis list several modern sources. Osprey books are typically hit or miss, and even when good are often too short, but sometimes their bibliographies are pretty good so you might want to check out the Osprey book about the battle.

--EDIT-- I haven't read the Osprey book, and can't recommend a book that I've read on the subject. It's just how I would approach the issue. --EDIT--

Matthew
2013-11-06, 05:03 AM
There is the famous story of Robert the Bruce slaying an English knight with a sparth axe from horseback.

The sparth axe is usually depicted as a two-handed weapon.

The Maciejowski Bible is also full of images of knights wielding two-handed axes from horseback, not to forget the big short handled glaive or whatever the heck it is.

Galloglaich
2013-11-06, 12:14 PM
Weapons like that show up all over the place in 13th and 14th Century art as well, or more specifically, the ones you see most are the ones which basically look like a bill-guisarme or a glaive with a haft cut down to a foot or two long, but also all kinds of other odd choppers. Kind of "hand and a half" weapons, maybe you could think of these as a special class of cavalry pole arm.

You don't see them in RPG's, including mine I'm ashamed to admit, mainly because I don't know of any antiques which are still around. Of course some may have been re-hafted as two-handed weapons so we wouldn't recognize them.

Anyone know of any surviving examples of these? Might be worth creating a thread on myarmoury.

G

Galloglaich
2013-11-06, 05:16 PM
Success! Check it out:

http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2894

G

Spiryt
2013-11-06, 05:21 PM
That first one looks interesting, though it still can be post-medieval and/or tool for all we know.

Wonder if there's any info about them.

Those later are obviously rather modern agricultural tools, that sadly made their way too Battle of the nations, for example.

And thus jokes about Knights with Beats Choppers emerged. :smalltongue: