Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[fusilier]

Wouldn't weight be an even bigger factor for armor than for weapons?

In terms of encumbrance, yes. But in terms of agility, the manner in which the armor is carried on the body may not make much of a difference. For a sword, being a little lighter, and maybe with a different balance, may give just enough of an advantage in agility to offset the "inferiority" of iron.

[Vinyadan]

Wouldn't weight be an even bigger factor for armor than for weapons?

There are two problems for answering this question. The first problem is that we don't really know what armour was used in Greece during the early iron age (1100-700 BC). The depictions we have can be interpreted as people fighting naked, except for a helmet, a shield, and a huge belt that covers the belly.

The second problem is why the passage took so long to happen. The Romans were still using bronze helmets during the civil wars. Instead, the Celts had been making iron helmets at least since the V century BC. Rome didn't have a local tradition in making helmets, so they used products made by Etruscans or Italics, who used bronze, or by Celts, who more frequently used iron. These groups lived all in Italy, and there it was possible to find the same helmet types made with both materials. However, even bronze helms often contained iron parts, with cheeckguards being made of two bronze sheets sandwiching an iron one, or simply for parts like rivets. Also, bronze helmets in this time were made with iron instruments. (in the IV century BC, the Celts already wore iron chain mail).

At the same time, we have an iron cuirass from the tomb of Phillip (d. 336 BC), the father of Alexander the Great. This must have been a highly valuable object, and it looks remarkably square, like an iron version of a linothorax. By contrast, the iron plate armour found in the tomb of Prodromi (dated from 400 to 250 BC), now in the museum of Igoumenitsa, has a shape just like bronze armour (its owner must also have been a well-off man, since he also had two iron helmets, one of which silvered, and probably was a cavalryman). I can't help but wonder if, at least in Greece, the technology to make iron armour was present, but the costs exorbitant. There is more information here: https://www.academia.edu/3487780/A_N...FROM_MACEDONIA

Anyway, the move towards linothorax suggests that people were conscious of the advantages of a lighter, more flexible armour. There also was mixed material armour, with metal over the shoulders and a corset for the rest of the torso.

[Pauly]

In terms of encumbrance, yes. But in terms of agility, the manner in which the armor is carried on the body may not make much of a difference. For a sword, being a little lighter, and maybe with a different balance, may give just enough of an advantage in agility to offset the "inferiority" of iron.

I’ll take a little disagreement over the use of the word “encumbrance” which is used in RPG circles as referring to how much a person can carry.

Professionally made armor generally hangs off the body and is supported by belts to evenly distribute the weight. People wearing properly made and designed armor are not particularly badly encumbered and are quite capable of performing almost all athletic activities.

What the weight of armor, along with the heat sink effect of armor, restricts is the ability to sustain activity over time. You can basically do in armor what you can do without armor, just for much shorter periods of time.

I’m not disagreeing with you in any way. The point is more about how RPGs can mangle perceptions of reality through their mangling of the language.

[Mike_G]

I’ll take a little disagreement over the use of the word “encumbrance” which is used in RPG circles as referring to how much a person can carry.

Professionally made armor generally hangs off the body and is supported by belts to evenly distribute the weight. People wearing properly made and designed armor are not particularly badly encumbered and are quite capable of performing almost all athletic activities.

What the weight of armor, along with the heat sink effect of armor, restricts is the ability to sustain activity over time. You can basically do in armor what you can do without armor, just for much shorter periods of time.

I’m not disagreeing with you in any way. The point is more about how RPGs can mangle perceptions of reality through their mangling of the language.

Agreed.

But a lighter sword is absolutely easier to use than a heavier sword. It doesn't just tire you out sooner, it moves slower and it's harder to be precise with. So a sword that is 10% lighter is going to be preferred by most people, even if the edge dulls quicker or the chance of breaking goes up a bit, because it's lighter on every swing, and the durability only comes into play after a lot of swings, which you may never reach.

[fusilier]

I’ll take a little disagreement over the use of the word “encumbrance” which is used in RPG circles as referring to how much a person can carry. . . .

Fair enough. What I was trying to convey is that heavier armor would be more fatiguing than light armor, all other things being equal -- badly fitted armor might be more fatiguing than heavier well fitted armor. Perhaps I should have used the term "fatiguing"? It's not that wearing well fitted armor isn't fatiguing at all, it's just that it's not as fatiguing as people think (you are after all carrying more weight).

[fusilier]

Agreed.

But a lighter sword is absolutely easier to use than a heavier sword. It doesn't just tire you out sooner, it moves slower and it's harder to be precise with. So a sword that is 10% lighter is going to be preferred by most people, even if the edge dulls quicker or the chance of breaking goes up a bit, because it's lighter on every swing, and the durability only comes into play after a lot of swings, which you may never reach.

Thanks for the response. It's the kind of informed opinion I was looking.

[Saint-Just]

Wouldn't weight be an even bigger factor for armor than for weapons?

In addition to all things said above: bronze armour has a benefit of allowing you to make large plates (like single-piece breastplate). In the early Iron age you cannot make large plates out of iron, and if you have tried to achieve the same level of protection by using scale or lamellar or small plates riveted together then the overlap between plates would be more than enough to negate any advantage in weight iron may have.

[Pauly]

Agreed.

But a lighter sword is absolutely easier to use than a heavier sword. It doesn't just tire you out sooner, it moves slower and it's harder to be precise with. So a sword that is 10% lighter is going to be preferred by most people, even if the edge dulls quicker or the chance of breaking goes up a bit, because it's lighter on every swing, and the durability only comes into play after a lot of swings, which you may never reach.

Swords have an optimum weight. Too light and they don’t transfer enough energy in the strike and become easier to deflect/parry; too heavy they run into the problems you’ve described. Depending on the environment and armor they are likely to face will change what that optimum size/weight distribution is, as can be seen through the evolution of sword types through history. Even a ‘static’ design like the katana shows a lot of variation on closer examination (katanas from warring periods that are expected to come across armored opponents tend to be narrower and less curved than katanas from peaceful times where unarmored opponents are the expected opponent).

Also what is the optimum size/weight for me will almost certainly not be the optimum size/weight for you. The optimum size/weight is heavily informed by your own physique, strength and endurance. The historical evidence of situations where we can match bespoke swords to their owners shows generally that larger, stronger more conditioned person will want a larger/heavier sword.

An average person might well want the same sword, only lighter. Other people chose the option of keeping the sword the same weight but making it bigger or stronger.

As for sword breakages they usually happened from an excess of stress applied to an area with an inclusion. Breakages happened when they hit the wrong spot on the blade with the wrong type of force. The standard pre 21st century way of preventing breakages due to inclusions in the iron was to increase mass (or wait for a breakthrough in smelting and/or foundry techniques).
I am unaware of an historical account of a sword breaking through fatigue or overuse. Although with non-tempered swords without spring steel could be bent, and possibly repeated bending and re-straightening might lead to metal fatigue failures.

[Mike_G]

Swords have an optimum weight. Too light and they don’t transfer enough energy in the strike and become easier to deflect/parry; too heavy they run into the problems you’ve described. Depending on the environment and armor they are likely to face will change what that optimum size/weight distribution is, as can be seen through the evolution of sword types through history. Even a ‘static’ design like the katana shows a lot of variation on closer examination (katanas from warring periods that are expected to come across armored opponents tend to be narrower and less curved than katanas from peaceful times where unarmored opponents are the expected opponent).

Also what is the optimum size/weight for me will almost certainly not be the optimum size/weight for you. The optimum size/weight is heavily informed by your own physique, strength and endurance. The historical evidence of situations where we can match bespoke swords to their owners shows generally that larger, stronger more conditioned person will want a larger/heavier sword.

An average person might well want the same sword, only lighter. Other people chose the option of keeping the sword the same weight but making it bigger or stronger.

As for sword breakages they usually happened from an excess of stress applied to an area with an inclusion. Breakages happened when they hit the wrong spot on the blade with the wrong type of force. The standard pre 21st century way of preventing breakages due to inclusions in the iron was to increase mass (or wait for a breakthrough in smelting and/or foundry techniques).
I am unaware of an historical account of a sword breaking through fatigue or overuse. Although with non-tempered swords without spring steel could be bent, and possibly repeated bending and re-straightening might lead to metal fatigue failures.

To a point.

But nobody in the history of swords has ever said "Iron/steel is just too damn light for my sword. Could you find something heavier to make it out of?"

For the same weight as bronze you could just make a steel sword longer and gain reach or broader and gain cutting ability. Heavier material than iron will never be a selling point.

[halfeye]

To a point.

But nobody in the history of swords has ever said "Iron/steel is just too damn light for my sword. Could you find something heavier to make it out of?"

For the same weight as bronze you could just make a steel sword longer and gain reach or broader and gain cutting ability. Heavier material than iron will never be a selling point.

Iron is a relatively heavy metal. Bronze may need to be thicker to have the same strength, but mass for mass it will have more volume.

[Saint-Just]

Iron is a relatively heavy metal.

I beg to differ. Of seven classical metals only tin is lighter than iron (and I mean pure iron, high-carbon cast iron could be lighter than pure tin). Of all metals known to science nowadays iron is closer to the midway in the list , but still is in the lighter half.

Iron is a relatively heavy thing, people have used a lot of organics and ceramics in the everyday life, nowadays we also have plastics. Compared to them iron is heavy. Compared to other metals - not really.

[Vinyadan]

Concerning the fast switch from bronze to iron swords in Greece: Greece was fairly close to the then-defunct Hittite Empire, which was the (or one?) homeland of iron- and steel*-making. The Hittites were already making steel in the XIII century BC (and at least one sword had its blade composed by different parts with different levels of carbon forged together); this era sees the value of iron drop and the production increase significantly. So it's possible that the Greeks actually only did the switch (1100-1000 BC) once superior iron/steel was available, compared to early iron, which cost more, was inferior for many applications, and was something of a status symbol.

Maybe this iron/steel could keep a better edge than contemporary bronze. Maybe it couldn't and people didn't care, because the sword was a back-up weapon, and so it was better if it was lighter and not too large (swords get increasingly smaller in Greece in later centuries, with the Spartans reaching 35 cm, so almost no one takes advantage of the lighter weight to make a longer weapon, which would have also needed more skill to produce).

It's also true that large metal objects still were made of bronze, except some of the largest ones, the tripod lebes. And there was some back-and-forth in the following centuries, with spear heads and butts reverting to bronze. There could be a reason for this, in that bronze could be cast and iron couldn't, so you could use moulds and make a lot of smaller items (arrow heads in particular). The tripod also was later more often found made of bronze.

Personally, I get the impression that, in addition to problematic trade routes, metallurgy was in a developmental stage (as it's always been, I guess) and that different materials would surpass and catch-up to each other as production techniques were discovered or imported.

*steel as in "not homogeneous iron-carbon alloy".

[halfeye]

I beg to differ. Of seven classical metals only tin is lighter than iron (and I mean pure iron, high-carbon cast iron could be lighter than pure tin). Of all metals known to science nowadays iron is closer to the midway in the list , but still is in the lighter half.

What seven classical metals are you talking about?

There certainly are heavier metals than iron (gold, lead, mercury, uranium, plutonium) of those only uranium is in any way suitable for sword and armour. Copper, zinc, aluminium, calcium, potassium, magnesium are all lighter than iron, and there are many more that are too.

[Brother Oni]

For the same weight as bronze you could just make a steel sword longer and gain reach or broader and gain cutting ability. Heavier material than iron will never be a selling point.

While I agree with you, I'd just be careful in extrapolating this for every weapon - bronze mace heads being more popular than steel ones for example.

Iron is a relatively heavy metal. Bronze may need to be thicker to have the same strength, but mass for mass it will have more volume.

When you say 'mass for mass, it will have more volume', do you mean iron or bronze? Bronze is denser than iron (~8.7 g/cm³, depending on the bronze alloy in question) while iron is about 7.9 g/cm³ depending on purity, thus mass for mass, iron will have more volume than bronze (~10% more).

[halfeye]

While I agree with you, I'd just be careful in extrapolating this for every weapon - bronze mace heads being more popular than steel ones for example.



When you say 'mass for mass, it will have more volume', do you mean iron or bronze? Bronze is denser than iron (~8.7 g/cm³, depending on the bronze alloy in question) while iron is about 7.9 g/cm³ depending on purity, thus mass for mass, iron will have more volume than bronze (~10% more).

I was just checking that on Wikipedia, it seems I was confused, I thought copper and tin were like potassium and calcium. Thanks for the heads up.

[Saint-Just]

What seven classical metals are you talking about?

Gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, iron, and mercury. The only metals which has been widely known during the classical era and the Early Medieval.

There certainly are heavier metals than iron (gold, lead, mercury, uranium, plutonium) of those only uranium is in any way suitable for sword and armour. Copper, zinc, aluminium, calcium, potassium, magnesium are all lighter than iron, and there are many more that are too.

And there many more that are heavier than iron. Look at this table, for example. Describing iron as "heavy" metal is hardly accurate.

[wilphe]

I think all of the lighter metals are unknown to classical science in their native forms, only as compounds and are sufficiently strongly bonded and reactive that you are not going to discover them by accident

Conversely the classical metals do show up as the pure metal and/or are easy to refine from ore

[wilphe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...nt_discoveries

[halfeye]

Gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, iron, and mercury. The only metals which has been widely known during the classical era and the Early Medieval.



And there many more that are heavier than iron. Look at this table, for example. Describing iron as "heavy" metal is hardly accurate.

Wikipedia does:

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

Iron is the midpoint of the nuclear reactions, fusion stops at iron going up, fission stops at iron (or typically before) going down.

[Max_Killjoy]

Wikipedia does:

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

Iron is the midpoint of the nuclear reactions, fusion stops at iron going up, fission stops at iron (or typically before) going down.

Important note there -- "The criteria used, and whether metalloids are included, vary depending on the author and context." Whether something is a "heavy metal", or even a "metal", varies a lot -- at one extreme, when talking about stellar makeup, astronomers will refer to anything heavier than hydrogen or helium as a "metal".

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

[Vinyadan]

Important note there -- "The criteria used, and whether metalloids are included, vary depending on the author and context." Whether something is a "heavy metal", or even a "metal", varies a lot -- at one extreme, when talking about stellar makeup, astronomers will refer to anything heavier than hydrogen or helium as a "metal".

Like new metal, melodic metal, power metal...

[Mike_G]

While I agree with you, I'd just be careful in extrapolating this for every weapon - bronze mace heads being more popular than steel ones for example.

I was specifically discussing swords. I don't dispute that heavier materials might have been useful in different weapons, but I can't see any good reason to make a sword out of heavier metal than iron.

[Vinyadan]

I was specifically discussing swords. I don't dispute that heavier materials might have been useful in different weapons, but I can't see any good reason to make a sword out of heavier metal than iron.

Well, there was that time when the Gauls sacked Rome and asked for a ransom to leave, so the Romans had to put the valuables on the scales, and, since he felt they weren't really into it, the Gaulish leader Brennus threw his sword on one of the plates to signal that the price had increased.

[Gnoman]

Swords have an optimum weight. Too light and they don’t transfer enough energy in the strike and become easier to deflect/parry; too heavy they run into the problems you’ve described. Depending on the environment and armor they are likely to face will change what that optimum size/weight distribution is, as can be seen through the evolution of sword types through history. Even a ‘static’ design like the katana shows a lot of variation on closer examination (katanas from warring periods that are expected to come across armored opponents tend to be narrower and less curved than katanas from peaceful times where unarmored opponents are the expected opponent).

Also what is the optimum size/weight for me will almost certainly not be the optimum size/weight for you. The optimum size/weight is heavily informed by your own physique, strength and endurance. The historical evidence of situations where we can match bespoke swords to their owners shows generally that larger, stronger more conditioned person will want a larger/heavier sword.

An average person might well want the same sword, only lighter. Other people chose the option of keeping the sword the same weight but making it bigger or stronger.

As for sword breakages they usually happened from an excess of stress applied to an area with an inclusion. Breakages happened when they hit the wrong spot on the blade with the wrong type of force. The standard pre 21st century way of preventing breakages due to inclusions in the iron was to increase mass (or wait for a breakthrough in smelting and/or foundry techniques).
I am unaware of an historical account of a sword breaking through fatigue or overuse. Although with non-tempered swords without spring steel could be bent, and possibly repeated bending and re-straightening might lead to metal fatigue failures.

Some of the most effective swords in history were as light as a loaf of bread. There's evidence that larger people wanted larger swords, but that doesn't mean that weight was desirable. Larger swords have more reach than shorter ones, which is a fairly important quality in individual combat (where sidearms such as swords were more likely to come into play). Larger swords are also inescapably heavier, but that could easily be a side effect rather than a design goal.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Like new metal, melodic metal, power metal...

But swords are best made of death metal.

Doom metal is reserved for nuclear weapons.

[Pauly]

Some of the most effective swords in history were as light as a loaf of bread. There's evidence that larger people wanted larger swords, but that doesn't mean that weight was desirable. Larger swords have more reach than shorter ones, which is a fairly important quality in individual combat (where sidearms such as swords were more likely to come into play). Larger swords are also inescapably heavier, but that could easily be a side effect rather than a design goal.

A typical loaf of bread weighs about 400g, just under one pound.

The only historical sword that regulalrly approached that weight is the 18th century small sword. This is a sword designed for ritualized semi-sporting unarmored duels and usually weighed in about 600g.

One handed swords designed for war fighting weighed 1 to 1.25kg although it is more common to find heavier examples than the usual rather than lighter examples
Some sources:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm#.Xm1tIi-RWhA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03HIYgLWGu0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MY5Sdwp5cU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy8rhlK3kNY

Here a 770g sword (i.e. 2 full loaves of bread) is described as ‘super light’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QDPU0itinU

[halfeye]

A typical loaf of bread weighs about 400g, just under one pound.

That's called a small loaf here, and sells relatively poorly, the normal loaf is 800gm.

[AnonCastillo]

How would you recommend statting out linothorax in D&D3.5? Take the chain shirt stats but make it medium armor with a bonus specifically against piercing damage or ranged attacks? Or was it light enough to remain in the light armor category?

[Brother Oni]

How would you recommend statting out linothorax in D&D3.5? Take the chain shirt stats but make it medium armor with a bonus specifically against piercing damage or ranged attacks? Or was it light enough to remain in the light armor category?

A replica linothrax affording full torso protection weighs about 10lbs, which comparing to the D20 SRD, puts it at the same weight as padded armour.

That said, a suit of mail is 40lbs under D20 SRD rules, which is is heavier than a full mail hauberk - the heaviest existing original is ~30lbs, with modern replicas coming at around the 22lb mark depending on weave and link size (22lbs for an European 4-in-1 weave with links consisting of 1.5mm gauge wire with a 10mm ID), so I'd advise using weight to gauge protection with a pinch of salt.

[Silver Swift]

I'm trying to figure out how many goons I can throw at a character before it becomes completely ridiculous. The scene is that there are a bunch of guys planning to beat up a character that they incorrectly assume is unarmed and handcuffed.

So three part question:

1) How many tough, but untrained and unarmed guys could one well trained guy with a modern combat knife realistically take on?

2) What kind of tactics would someone with a lot of training in hand to hand combat use in such a situation? Do you try to keep everyone at a distance or do you jump one enemy to try to take them out before the rest can intervene?

3) Are there any other weapons that you'd rather have in such a situation than a knife? Assuming that a) you need to be able to hide the weapon on your body and b) you can't bring anything containing gunpowder or other explosives. Would you prefer pepper spray over a knife? How about one of these?