Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VII

[Matthew]

In any case, I *believe*, but I can't find my references for it, that the long sword blades only became possible in and around the 13th century as metalurgy and swordsmithing got the point where such large blades were technically possible to make. Before that the skill and materials just wasn't there and big blades like that wouldn't survive combat, bending or shattering depending on the exact makeup of the blade.

Strange thing is that many "long swords" tend to be around 36/37" in blade length, and that was certainly possible before the thirteenth century. My guess is that "sword and shield" was the default proposition, with two-handed axes serving as the "shock" weapon of choice.

[Karoht]

btw thanks for not calling me a liar or anything and keeping it civil; I have a bit of an odd philosophy (actually the philosophy is well sounded, its the listeners that are odd) when it comes to MA. Its come up (not by me) on other boards and I'll weigh in, saying all martial arts are the teaching in which to maim and kill human beings. Or they wouldn't be in a martial art...I mean its in the name. We can certainly have fun while doing it, but their roots are soaked in blood.

It'd be like taking someone to the range that knows nothing about guns. If he or she lets me teach them, and they garner some truth, then they've just learned a bit of MA...in other words guns are (almost, there is hunting) meant to kill or maim, just like MA. I'll stop now before I start really rambling.

Right, and thats fine from the stand point of self-defence. But it isn't acceptable to say that after you've just punched a fellow student's face in. Or hit someone in a potentially lethal area with your SCA weapon, with a solid and hard blow. Also, just because YOU think that way doesn't mean everyone else does, and shouldn't give you license to harm others just because they step into a ring with you. I can't count the number of times I've heard people say the part I bolded above, right before or right after hurting someone.



Steel Combat, Safety, and You
To back up Maclav (great post IMO), we have our own techniques as well. We have a 3-part method for pulling. We expect people to be able to fight at full strength, and be able to stop perfectly every time, and if they CAN'T stop (which comes up) what to do from there. I should have some more videos up by the end of summer to show you how we do our non-choreographed fights and what they look like.
I should also explain that none of our major injuries have ever resulted from a goof up pulling. Our worst pulling error was bruise/cut impact damage on someone's forehead, and the worst of the damage was caused by a burr on the sword.

Lastly I should tell you what I tell every person who comes into the group. If you're fighting one of ours, and you wouldn't feel comfortable with the fight if you were just in jeans and a t-shirt, you should both stop. I fight just as hard at practice as I do on the field, and I never wear anything beyond gloves and head protection to practice unless we're doing a dress rehersal.

[randomhero00]

Don't worry man. I don't seek to purposefully hurt anyone. Just make those damn shielders pay. Sword and board is boring to most, but its the most effective combo in the SCA. I just want a weapon that will punish that particular stance. Not hurt, punish. Youre misunderstanding me.

Besides that, I'm simply interested in the physics of such a weapon.

[Karoht]

Don't worry man. I don't seek to purposefully hurt anyone. Just make those damn shielders pay. Sword and board is boring to most, but its the most effective combo in the SCA. I just want a weapon that will punish that particular stance. Not hurt, punish. Youre misunderstanding me.

Besides that, I'm simply interested in the physics of such a weapon.

Well, your original wording was very misleading then. What with the word hurt being used and all. And your further defense of hurting people or getting hurt. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and we'll move on.


If you want to PUNISH Sword and Board, I can tell you exactly how. Axe and board. Spear and Board. Greater teamwork in your formation. Hitting harder against a shield really doesn't punish a shield that much if the person is holding the shield properly and controls it properly. If a heavy hit causes the shield bearer trouble, then the combo of sword and shield shouldn't give you trouble.

[Fhaolan]

Don't worry man. I don't seek to purposefully hurt anyone. Just make those damn shielders pay. Sword and board is boring to most, but its the most effective combo in the SCA. I just want a weapon that will punish that particular stance. Not hurt, punish. Youre misunderstanding me.

Besides that, I'm simply interested in the physics of such a weapon.

Unfortunately, the SCA rules prevent you from using the techniques and equipment that are most effective against sword and board, at least according to the rules I am familiar with from 20-30 years ago. I admit to not being current, and the rules may have changed.

For one, you aren't allowed to trap, hook, grab or otherwise impede your opponent's shield for anything beyond an immediate duration. No grappling, tripping, or similar moves. You aren't allowed to use weapons that can wrap around the shield like flails or sickle-swords, and the shield is considered indestructable, so you can't pierce or render the shield unusable.

So you're left with two options. Moving fast enough to get behind the shield before they can move it, or powering right through it. And powering right through it is unlikely to work.

I recommend a halberd/polaxe or equivalent. The long shaft increases leverage and speed of the striking end, and for combat leverage is better than mass for increasing impact. Leverage effectively increases your own strength while retaining control while mass can overwhelm your strength and go out of control. To further increase the speed of the weapons, learn how to work the shaft as well, use the butt spike, and know the proper guards for a short polearm (including Swiss or German guard positions). You'll find a halberd just as fast if not faster than your longsword once you learn the techniques. Basic advice: The shaft has to be thin enough for you to be able to slide your hands up and down the shaft easily during combat. Fixing your hands in a single position on the shaft and keeping them there throughout the fight is as bad as rooting your feet. A lot of people build SCA-style halberds and thrusting spears with too thick of a shaft preventing them from being used in more agile ways.

[randomhero00]

Unfortunately, the SCA rules prevent you from using the techniques and equipment that are most effective against sword and board, at least according to the rules I am familiar with from 20-30 years ago. I admit to not being current, and the rules may have changed.

For one, you aren't allowed to trap, hook, grab or otherwise impede your opponent's shield for anything beyond an immediate duration. No grappling, tripping, or similar moves. You aren't allowed to use weapons that can wrap around the shield like flails or sickle-swords, and the shield is considered indestructable, so you can't pierce or render the shield unusable.
.

Actually that's not true (at least here). You are allowed to grab the shield with hand or weapon and pull it away. That's why me and a few select friends are known for our dagger rushes. You'd think a 5 inch dagger would be nothing...but since you have a hand free to pull their shield down you are basically punching them with the dagger (which is really really fast) and block with gauntlet.

But otherwise what you say is true. S&D is "overpowered" and politically oriented (if you want to become a knight or king you better have masters S&B).

Edit I've made a pick like weapon to grab shields with. It just doesn't work well enough for whatever reason. I'm thinking because the shield holder has more leverage.

[Fhaolan]

Actually that's not true (at least here). You are allowed to grab the shield with hand or weapon and pull it away. That's why me and a few select friends are known for our dagger rushes. You'd think a 5 inch dagger would be nothing...but since you have a hand free to pull their shield down you are basically punching them with the dagger.

Interesting. Grabbing the shield (or weapon) used to be considered the same as grappling and wasn't allowed. They must have let up on that one. Or they just stopped enforcing it. A lot of rules get changed that way.

EDIT: You need a really serious hook, like a bearded axe or the like, for it to work. A simple pick doesn't have enough grip. And the gap it would provide is fleeting so you'd need a backup weapon like your dagger (or a shield of your own to strike with) to take advantage when it did work.

[Spiryt]

How exactly do you have non scripted fights with steel swords and not have injuries? I mean pulling cuts is nice but that still sounds extremely dangerous.

As others mentioned, it depends on a fight.

In 15th century armor, or at least modern relatively honest copy of such, with anything that can pass as sword, and limited thrusts, you must try really, really hard to do any serious harm to an opponent.

Similarly for any earlier mail + padding, usually with a lot of completely non historical stuff looking like hockey gloves, just to avoid finger and hand injury.

So not having any injury is in fact relatively easy.

In any case, I *believe*, but I can't find my references for it, that the long sword blades only became possible in and around the 13th century as metalurgy and swordsmithing got the point where such large blades were technically possible to make. Before that the skill and materials just wasn't there and big blades like that wouldn't survive combat, bending or shattering depending on the exact makeup of the blade.

Seeing as many swords before age of the two handed ones often had blades longer than many early longswords, just still being balanced and designed for one handed use, I'm not inclined to buy it.

Hell, there even were very long seax blades, or stuff like famous Maciejowski Bible chopper.

So while making good, functional long blade certainly was harder, I don't think it was deciding factor in development of longsword.

My favorite theory is about horseman swords getting bigger and longer to the point when somebody wanted to use it better in two hands, on the feet especially.

It's pretty popular one too.

[Yora]

In any case, I *believe*, but I can't find my references for it, that the long sword blades only became possible in and around the 13th century as metalurgy and swordsmithing got the point where such large blades were technically possible to make. Before that the skill and materials just wasn't there and big blades like that wouldn't survive combat, bending or shattering depending on the exact makeup of the blade.

I see, I assumed the same.
So for an iron age setting, it would be best to leave the two-handed sword types out completely. Even if a few could be made in magical forges from rare metals, there'd be no opportunity for the devolopment of martial arts that make good use of them.
Not that much of a problem, as I wanted to push up the importance of spears anyway.

[Spiryt]

I still don't get it in the slightest.

Dacians in 1st century AD were perfectly capable of creating functional, often very long falx blades.

Naturally, the lack of any sort of two handed, large bladed implements among pretty much all other cultures of the time, doesn't mean that they couldn't make it as well.

Just as lack of the boomerangs among them doesn't mean they could make them.

For another very quick example - quite a lot of 34 - 36 inches long blades in mainly two handed XIIIa swords here.

Few obviously one handed Xa with similar blade lenght

And anyway, what exactly would be so different? Size of forges, fires, anvils?

Very rapid changes, with manufactures and water powered hammers were prevalent later, anyway.

Metallurgy over the centuries wasn't in any way "progressive" whatever it would mean- again, back to the antiquity - in the height of La Tenne or Roman culture, potential in terms of acquiring and processing large bits of steel wasn't in any way lower than in XIII century Norway for example.

Doesn't change the fact, that we have found two handed, XIII century scandinavian longswords, and no roman longswords.

[Yora]

But let's talk in the incredibly simple categories of the D&D weapon types.
At 90cm blades we're still pretty much in the category of "longsword" or possibly at the lower end of "bastard swords". While I assume that one could find explainations how "bastard swords", "greatswords", and "falchions" are possible to exist in an early iron age society, it's even easier to justify their complete absence in such a situation.

[Spiryt]

But let's talk in the incredibly simple categories of the D&D weapon types.
At 90cm blades we're still pretty much in the category of "longsword" or possibly at the lower end of "bastard swords". While I assume that one could find explainations how "bastard swords", "greatswords", and "falchions" are possible to exist in an early iron age society, it's even easier to justify their complete absence in such a situation.

I'm not sure I get it fully - anyway, yeah, the technological problems would certainly be some reason of absence.

No one bothered to make any sort of 'two handed' sword in Britain, while there was no real tradition, need, etc. as far as two handed weapons went.

Still, blades of pretty impressive dimensions were being made, most famous and obvious examples:

link

link 2

So 'greatsword' would be obviously possible to exist in some European early iron age society, assuming rich smithing customs and traditions.

So could metal stirrup, sledgehammer or kettle bell.

Did they exist back then?

No, at least as far as we know.

[Fhaolan]

I have erred. Found my references, and it was in reference to the smelting/refining processes to produce weapon and armour-grade steels. Each case the invention of a new smelting process mapping to a cost reduction in high quality steel. Unfortunately, this does not actually correlate with the gap in two-handed swords between the ancient falx/rhomphaia/etc. and the later medieval longsword/greatsword.

Never mind, ignore me.

[Yora]

But I think I've read something about maximum practical lengths of blades over which a blade would be too fragile and break under stress, which was given as the reason that generally orlder swords are shorter and really thin or long blades are usually more recent creations.

From what Spiryt says it sounds more that the only limit was the imagination of swordsmiths.

[Raum]

Weapon length is a functional trade. Longer is better (Hit the other guy while he can't hit you and hit harder with rotational force.) but often harder to control and potentially more exhausting to use. Also, if you allow it to get too long, you're helpless against someone able to get inside your weapon's threat zone.

So you're going to balance all those factors and choose the weapon you think best for the situations you envision encountering. Or, if you have a wagon and expect to have warning, you'll carry as many types of weapons as you can afford and use.

Metallurgy is a distant second to functionality. Cultures who wanted metal weapons longer than they could maintain usefully just put longer handles on them.

[WhiteHarness]

Actually that's not true (at least here). You are allowed to grab the shield with hand or weapon and pull it away. That's why me and a few select friends are known for our dagger rushes. You'd think a 5 inch dagger would be nothing...but since you have a hand free to pull their shield down you are basically punching them with the dagger (which is really really fast) and block with gauntlet.

In what kingdom are you? Is that a local rule? Because in the Society Marshal's handbook, Section III "Conventions of Combat", heading B "Behavior on the Field", number 12 states: "Grasping an opponent's person, shield, weapon's striking surface, or bow/crossbow is prohibited."

Unless your kingdom's marshal's handbook says otherwise, you're not supposed to grab your opponent's shield. I know of one kingdom whose rules allow "striking, pushing, or pressing" of an opponent's shield with a hand, but not grabbing. The rules of my own kingdom state: "The grasping of an opponent’s shield shall forfeit the use of the hand and arm that grasped the shield. Intentionally grasping the shield as a means of securing an advantage over an opponent may result in the forfeiture of the bout, and shall not result in the opponent's death."

[tordirycgoyust]

How effective would a bat'leth be IRL? I ask mostly because I seem to recall having read that Dan Curry specifically designed the bat'leth to be viable, in response to the highly impractical weapons making the rounds in sf/f at the time (and having seen triple bladed, rocket powered swords, I dare say I agree with the sentiment). However, I see some potential shortcomings in the design concerning weight, reach, and defense, and would like to see the Playgound's opinion on the subject.

[Raum]

How effective would a bat'leth be IRL?

Extremely ineffective. It has the disadvantages of a two handed weapon without the reach and it can't be used at sharp angles due to both the grip limitations and the back-curved blades outside the grips (hitting yourself is bad). So you're left with a short ranged axe blade without the additional force from rotational motion.

[Knaight]

Extremely ineffective. It has the disadvantages of a two handed weapon without the reach and it can't be used at sharp angles due to both the grip limitations and the back-curved blades outside the grips (hitting yourself is bad). So you're left with a short ranged axe blade without the additional force from rotational motion.

You won't injure yourself, at the downside to not injuring anyone else either.

[Incanur]

I've never played with one, but the bat'leth doesn't strike as completely useless. The middle grip by itself has a long martial tradition; see pollaxe material and Mair's short staff.

[endoperez]

I've never played with one, but the bat'leth doesn't strike as completely useless. The middle grip by itself has a long martial tradition; see pollaxe material and Mair's short staff.

However, they don't use JUST the middle grip. Most people slide their hands along the pole all the time, to vary their reach and the force and angles of their strikes. With a bat'leth, you can't do that.

For those interested in what that might look if it really existed, here's a custom weapon ordered by a Chinese martial artist and weapon enthusiast. I think that particular weapon has more to do with his enthusiasm about weapons, than actual martial applications.

[Maclav]

How effective would a bat'leth be IRL?

I think I could do most half swording techniques with the thing. But that's only good in armour when you can essentially ignore cutting attacks. With the points curving in like they do, it may be difficult to put the point into a weak spot with any level of force though. I wouldn't completely write it off, but there are much more efficient melee weapons out there. Spear, dagger, sword and polearm in assorted forms though history.

[Shademan]

I'm not sure I get it fully - anyway, yeah, the technological problems would certainly be some reason of absence.

No one bothered to make any sort of 'two handed' sword in Britain, while there was no real tradition, need, etc. as far as two handed weapons went.

Still, blades of pretty impressive dimensions were being made, most famous and obvious examples:

link

link 2

So 'greatsword' would be obviously possible to exist in some European early iron age society, assuming rich smithing customs and traditions.

So could metal stirrup, sledgehammer or kettle bell.

Did they exist back then?

No, at least as far as we know.

how come no one told me about those fabolus swords before?
they...they're...BEAUTIFUL!

[Ashtagon]

Shem sharru?

From Stone to Steel describes this weapon:

Slashing weapons did not see quite the same explosion of development as piercing weapons did in the period, although the shem sharru was the descendant of the sickle sword and precussor for the kopis, the scimitar, the shamsir, and the saber. Instead straight edges (longsword, shortsword) were more common, since a point can focus a great deal of pressure in a single location, often piercing heavy armors.

Aside from this one sentence, I can find no information on this "shem sharru". Was it in fact a real blade, or just a figment of the publisher?

[Yora]

Found this link. Though I can't figure out the grammer to understand what it's supposed to say. A different word for shamshir?

[Spiryt]

Found this link. Though I can't figure out the grammer to understand what it's supposed to say. A different word for shamshir?

That's interesting, although Wiki cites different origin of "shamshir", and it also has sources given, which is not given, so it sounds probable.

Also, seeing how shamshirs and general curved swords of the Middle East generally were brought there by proto Turkish tribes from Central Asia steppes, I would be, to say at least, sceptical about connections of Assyrian swords and "shamshirs" or whatever.

It just looks like Kopesh, or other similar sword of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age in Mediterranean, with blade on the convex side.

[Yora]

Evidence seems to suggest that it's some kind of mix up. No idea how that term got into circulation.

Also, I just noticed we're once again over the 50 page limit. Time for thread #8.

[Yora]

I opened a new thread here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...0#post10656150
Please use that thread for future posts.