Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? III

[Matthew]

Did they, though? It seems doubtful to me that swords were commissioned in this way; there are just so many variables other than the weight and height of the user or the weight and length of the blade. It's an interesting question, to be sure, but a very difficult one to answer. I suspect if this kind of conversation ever took place it only ever did in the upper echelons of society (i.e. the seriously wealthy).

On the other hand, I could imagine potential buyers testing blades from a selection after production and making their preferences known that way. However, a lot of what is 'preferential' depends on what is available.

I would love to hear any anecdotes anybody has regarding this; in the meantime, I'll try to find some myself.

The Gladius was not produced uniformly; there were many variants, just as with later swords, but there is a period where the legions made use of a blade that tended to be shorter than both previously and later. Very hard to explain...

[Sundog]

I've always thought that the differences between the Gladius and the Spatha were fairly clear; just as swords were altered to conform to the fencing styles of the 15th to 19th century inclusive, so, over a comparable period of time, did the use of blades change in Ancient Rome, with the developing style benefitting from the longer blade. It has nothing to do with the height of the wielder, but everything to do with how he wielded it.

Matthew, the reinforcement of the helmet is actually visible on the helmetted figures on Trajan's Column, and Plinius describes it in his work on the subject, written contemporarily with events. He also spoke of reinforced shoulder plates, but we don't have a good description of exactly what he meant. The arm brace is less certain, but is spoken of in a number of secondary sources, and would have made considerable sense (the reinforced shields, on the other hand, appear only in tertiary sources, and a number of re-creationists are on record as believing that such modifications would have made them unusably unwieldy).
I have no knowledgeof any additional leg protections used in the Dacian wars. To my knowledge they simply used the standard legionnaries' kit in this instance.

[Matthew]

Ah thanks. I knew about the visual evidence on the column, but not that Pliny mentioned the helmet reinforcement. The degree to which the increased arm and possibly leg protection was implemented and the motivation behind it is the bone of contention. In my opinion, any frontline soldier who could afford to get hold of this kind of armour probably did.


The Gladius / Spatha thing is, unfortunately, not very clear cut. In the late Republic the Gladius Hispanius appears to have been relatively long, ranging up to a blade length of 27". In the early Imperial period the sword used by the legions appears to become significantly shorter, on average. In the later Imperial period (Late Second Century onwards) the sword again becomes longer. During this period the Legionary and Auxillary Infantry become increasingly similar in appearance to one another, as well as to the Cavalry (perhaps a general standardisation).

Throughout all periods the sword used by the Cavalry was of the longer type (usually called the Spatha now), as was the sword generally used by Auxillaries. The nomenclature of the ancients (Gladius = sword, Spatha = sword, Semi Spatha = shorter than a Spatha, however long that might be, all used together and often interchangably) conspire with the, relatively sparse, archaeological record and the highly sylised visual record to make things annoyingly complicated.

During all periods both 'shorter' and 'longer' swords were in use, perhaps alongside 'daggers' (Pugio in the early period, perhaps Semi Spatha in the later), but the shorter weapons appear to have been most popular in the first and second centuries AD (there was, however, no 'standard' length or form, just broad similarities).

The explanation for these changes? There are none, only theories and speculation...

[Edmund]

Now that we've had some input, I'll toss in my own. Considering that the original statement was 'weighted it [the sword] to my exact height', there is little or no evidence to suggest that weight (or balance, for that matter) directly correlates with height, which is what the statement implies.

I suddenly realise my reference to Silver was taken out of context, and that he was in fact referring to the basket-hilted broadsword of his era, and not 'any sword in general'.

Given that Roy's sword is a two-handed cutting sword, this concept of ideal length becomes somewhat less credible given the context.

As a side note, I want to clear something up. It may just be my misinterpretation of posts, but the implication seems to be that the 'commoners' were not in possession of swords, or at least did not have swords in such quantities as did the nobility.

Well, this is true, sort of.

Up until the 13th century, I would be tempted to agree with this, excluding the various sergeants of Holy Orders and the mercenary companies.

However, beyond the first half of the 13th c swords began to propagate within the general population of W. Europe (as suggested by the I.33 manuscript, written by a priest, and various other pictorial sources).

By the 15th c. they were quite common in most stratae of society (perhaps even moreso if you consider the German grossemesser to be a sword).

[Matthew]

Swords would have likely been owned by anyone who needed one (just about any professional or part time warrior) and could afford it. The Bayeux tapestry is fairly revealing about their potential frequency in the eleventh century, as just about every combatant is wearing mail and carrying a sword (not the majority of archers though). The transportation scene is especially interesting, as arms and armour appear to be transported seperately from their owners (if indeed they own them!).
It's probably a perception thing, though; pretty much anyone carrying a sword was a 'knight' by definition (i.e. professional soldier) before the tenth century, but in later centuries, as the institution became more elitist, more non knightly folk (who in earlier periods would have been considered knights) were carrying swords. The development of feudalism and chivalry in conjunction probably coloured perceptions as to 'who should own a sword.'
The typical division of the Medieval world into three orders (those who pray, those who fight and those who toil) is the benchmark. There was the potential for a lot of fluidity between these three orders; when those who toiled and those who prayed became (for a period of varying length) those who fight, they would have done so with whatever they could afford.

[kits.dm]

I suddenly realise my reference to Silver was taken out of context, and that he was in fact referring to the basket-hilted broadsword of his era, and not 'any sword in general'.


Actually, isn't it Silver who states that the ideal length of the blade for a longsword (ie two handed sword) should be the same for the shortsword (basket hilt or simple arming sword of his time) Though you'd tend to get differences in weights and lengths of the entire sword due to the length of the hilt and the cross-guard arrangement. So you're probably not that far off. (and I'm fairly sure that Silver based his theory on ideal length to work not only with sword alone, but also sword and dagger/buckler.

But the weight proportionate to height for a greatsword/longsword (as they are historically known rather than the D&D standard) is probably better explained by those masters dealing with that particular weapon (Fiore would be my main source for that) I'd have do double-check the references for German weapons in this category as I've found they're generally longer (possibly because they're used in a slightly different manner - what with winden et al vs the whole redouble found in Fiore and Vadi)

Mind you, I'm less familiar with longsword techniques and true weights vs lengths compared to say... Elisabethan Rapier and Backswords.

[Liliedhe]

I have two questions:

1) I'm not familiar with any D&D3+, but in AD&D there was a weapon called Khopesh, it was supposed to be an Egyptian Sword. Did this really exist historically and what did it look like? I've never understood the description in the Players Handbook.

2) My second question concerns Celtic/Irish blades. I'm looking for a sword an Irish Shadowrun character could use, but I have no idea what kind of weapons existed there. The character is a very fast female elf, so the weapon shouldn't be too heavy or clumsy...

[Fhaolan]

I have two questions:

1) I'm not familiar with any D&D3+, but in AD&D there was a weapon called Khopesh, it was supposed to be an Egyptian Sword. Did this really exist historically and what did it look like? I've never understood the description in the Players Handbook.

2) My second question concerns Celtic/Irish blades. I'm looking for a sword an Irish Shadowrun character could use, but I have no idea what kind of weapons existed there. The character is a very fast female elf, so the weapon shouldn't be too heavy or clumsy...


1) Yep, the khopesh did in fact exist. It was a bronze Cannanite sickle-sword, originally used *against* the Egyptians until they adopted the weapon themselves. http://www.heru-ur.org/warfare/weapons.html#khopeshThe description is confusing, so don't feel bad about that. Think of it as a big sickle, and you'll be fairly close. There is some debate as to which edge was sharpened, the inner edge, making it really sickle-like, or the outer edge, making it more axe-like. Personally, I would not be surprised if *both* edges were sharpened. Some speculate that the khopesh was the ancestor of the Greek kopis, which has more than a passing resemblance to the kukri and falcata.

2) Given we're dealing with a Shadowrun campaign, we have the luxury of the whole range of Irish history to pull from. There's a lot of different, and distinctive Irish weaponry to pull from.

However, to be honest, if the person is to be fast and furious, I would recommend Irish fighting knives. The ones I've seen have total lengths from 18" to 24", only 4"-5" of that being hilt. Relatively narrow blades, double-edged, with no cross-piece on the hilt. The person I know who does Irish stick-fighting uses a matched set of these in demos. And, given that they're relatively small, they're relatively concealable, which is a bonus in Shadowrun. :)

[Liliedhe]

1) Yep, the khopesh did in fact exist. It was a bronze Cannanite sickle-sword, originally used *against* the Egyptians until they adopted the weapon themselves. http://www.heru-ur.org/warfare/weapons.html#khopeshThe description is confusing, so don't feel bad about that. Think of it as a big sickle, and you'll be fairly close. There is some debate as to which edge was sharpened, the inner edge, making it really sickle-like, or the outer edge, making it more axe-like. Personally, I would not be surprised if *both* edges were sharpened. Some speculate that the khopesh was the ancestor of the Greek kopis, which has more than a passing resemblance to the kukri and falcata.

Thank you very much. This looks really weird, I can't really imagine why somebody would invent such an awkward shape...


2) Given we're dealing with a Shadowrun campaign, we have the luxury of the whole range of Irish history to pull from. There's a lot of different, and distinctive Irish weaponry to pull from.

However, to be honest, if the person is to be fast and furious, I would recommend Irish fighting knives. The ones I've seen have total lengths from 18" to 24", only 4"-5" of that being hilt. Relatively narrow blades, double-edged, with no cross-piece on the hilt. The person I know who does Irish stick-fighting uses a matched set of these in demos. And, given that they're relatively small, they're relatively concealable, which is a bonus in Shadowrun. :)

The knives sound nice. Are they used only as pairs or is also possible to use only one? The character isn't ambidextrous. 24'' is around 60cm? That would seem very long for a knife. Or is just my math lacking?

[Fhaolan]

Thank you very much. This looks really weird, I can't really imagine why somebody would invent such an awkward shape...


It's not really that awkward if you think about it for a bit. If you fill in the concave curve mentally, it looks like an axe with a cross-guard. Which is what it is, in effect. They've just hollowed out the bit that isn't strictly necessary. :)



The knives sound nice. Are they used only as pairs or is also possible to use only one? The character isn't ambidextrous. 24'' is around 60cm? That would seem very long for a knife. Or is just my math lacking?

They *are* very long for knives (yep, 60 cm is approximately 24"). They're what my stage-combat instructor would call 'short-blades'. Too long to be a proper knife or dagger, but too light to be a proper short-sword. I'm under the impression that normally only one would be used. She just likes showing off with the matched pair. :) I'm also under the impression that she had hers specially made to be longer than normal, so the 18" long ones may be more 'normal'. (That would make it about 35cm blade, and 10cm handle. I'd prefer longer handles, myself. Like 13-14cm or so, but I have big hands.)

[Edmund]

Well, Lille, what you may want be some thing along the lines of a seax. Not as a basis of shape but rather as a basis of length.

A great smith that makes dark ages Irish blades is Jake Powning (http://www.powning.com/jake/home/j_homepg.shtml)

[Liliedhe]

@Edmund: Wow, that's a great site.

I think I found, what I was looking for - those La Tene Style swords look good to me.

[Pilum]

Well if we're swapping "Where to buy" websites... ;)

http://www.re-enact.com/TRow.htm

Sadly there's a few on there who have gone, Bailiff Forge for instance has jacked it in, which is a real shame - the 17th century style rapier I got from him is a real beauty, perfect weight, I can throw it around like it's just an extension of my arm. To tie this in with the present discussion about blades, it's certainly true that my friends' feels rather unwieldy to me, yet there's only I think 3 or 4 inches difference in the length. Funny thing is we're about the same size, you'd think we'd be comfortable with roughly the same length blade...

Anyway, back to the weapons...

[reorith]

where can i find a good source of information about balllistas?

[Matthew]

Wizards Boards fielded the question about Blade Length, Weight and such, as well:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=627901

(Did you post over there as well, Edmund?)

Along with yet another Katana thread, which appears to have branched out into all types of weaponry and misconceptions, as well as the discussion of bacon (which personally I feel is a bit odd)

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=626304&page=1&pp=30

There was a little bit of discussion earlier in this thread about Siege Machines, if that helps...

Here's a question:

Plate over Mail; what's the evidence?

[Fhaolan]

Here's a question:

Plate over Mail; what's the evidence?

I'm not sure how to answer this, because I'm thinking of several different things that might be described this way, each with their own evidence.

Do you mean integrated plate and maille, such as the Indian maille shirts that had strips of plate attached to the chest area? (not quite banded, as the plates didn't have full coverage like D&D banded is described as.) Or the Roman scale that was small metal plates woven onto a maille backing instead of the more common leather or cloth backing?

Do you mean partial plate, such as a maille shirt with plate spaulders and breastplate, like Churburg armor? (I have probably spelled Churburg wrong...)

Do you mean maille gussets and skirting for Gothic and Itallian plate armour? Or the maille aventail or coif that attaches to or goes under a helm? (I don't think it's likely this what you were asking for. I'm just allowing for a broad range of stuff. :) )

There might be more versions. Its a matter of time period and geographic location. I believe that it was a case of smaller metal plates were easier to manufacture, so attaching these smaller plates to maille would show up in a region while the armorers built up the tools, skills, and general economic levels necessary to create full plate.

[Hoggmaster]

even cheaper and and more easier than scales attached to maille would be the scales sewn to a leather jack or inside a quilted jack. chain is difficult to forge (as seen by the multitude of web sites for the making of maille). But plate does seem to be more common. Wasn't plate used by the various mounted groups up to the 16th - 17th century.

[Meat Shield]

I have a new character based on Scottish Highlanders. He uses a greatsword and warmace.

Now I know to call the greatsword a claymore, but was there an analogue to the warmace in use in Scotland? If so, what was it called?

(The warmace is from Complete Warrior, and is essentially a large two-hand mace)

EDIT: spelling

[Edmund]

(Did you post over there as well, Edmund?)
Nope. Edmund is usually my pseudonym. Unless you see an Edmund, you probably won't see me.

Also, the first link is to a discussion over Coup de Grace... I only read the first page, but it didn't get into weight and height. Maybe you meant to link to another page?


Here's a question:

Plate over Mail; what's the evidence?

In terms of protection or in terms of existence?

As far as existence, Fhaolan's hit it on the nose with a mallet... or something.

There are some excellent museum examples of (integrated) maille and plate armour out there, and as a matter of fact it's my favorite type. I hope to own a Russian Bakhterets one day... But enough about me.

As for 'Churburg' style armoury, here's one example from the Metropolitan Museum in NY. http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=36&pos=19 It's a bit blurry, and you have to be a member to access the full image.

Meatshield:

There is no unique Scottish name for the two-handed mace except, perhaps, the Scots Gaelic words for 'Two-Handed Mace', whatever that may be.

Stylistically speaking, a 'claymore' generally refers to a specific hilt rather than 'two-handed swords used by Scotsmen'.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any historical examples of two-handed maces even existing. Flails, yes, and morningstar-like polearms, but nothing like you describe... But someone probably knows something that I don't.

[Fhaolan]

even cheaper and and more easier than scales attached to maille would be the scales sewn to a leather jack or inside a quilted jack. chain is difficult to forge (as seen by the multitude of web sites for the making of maille). But plate does seem to be more common. Wasn't plate used by the various mounted groups up to the 16th - 17th century.

From a modern point of view, maille is 'difficult' because it takes so blasted long to do it. No individual step (Drawing wire, spinning rings, weaving maille, riveting rings, tempering the shirt) is that difficult if you know the techniques, it's just time consuming and tedious.

Plate armor (in it's various varieties) only came into existance when consistant good quality metal became available in sufficient quantities for a reasonable cost, at the same time that the smiths could afford forges large enough (and afford the forge fuel to run it) and assistants numerous enough to work larger plates of metal. To put it in modern terms; earlier than the plate periods, it just wasn't cost effective to make the large sheets of formed metal. It was more cost effective to use cheaper, less consistant quality metal make smaller plates, and to draw wire to make maille.

[Mr Croup]

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any historical examples of two-handed maces even existing. Flails, yes, and morningstar-like polearms, but nothing like you describe... But someone probably knows something that I don't.

One instance of the historical veracity of a two handed mace would be the tetsubo. It was not a widely used weapon, due to the weight and its unwieldy nature.

[Mike_G]

Now I know to call the greatsword a claymore, but was there an analogue to the warmace in use in Scotland? If so, what was it called?

EDIT: spelling

I'd call it a "Gurt Fooken Cloob," laddie. Or a "pocket caber."


Claymore is a name actually attributed to several swords. If I recall correctly, it's Gaelic for Great Sword (mhore is "great," that I know. Cleidh is apparently "sword")

It is sometimes used to refer to the basket hilted broadswords used by the 18th century Jacobite rebels, and subsequently by the Highland regiments. I assume you mean the two handed one that Mel Gibson used in Braveheart.

You should also carry a small, easily concealed knife, known as a sgian dubh ("skeen doo," roughly). Often stuck in the top of a boot or stocking, or in a sleeve, as a backup weapon. The large fighting knife is often referred to as a "dirk," and is basically a long dagger with a short to nonexistant crossguard, and is often sharpened all the way on one edge and partway down the other.

[Pilum]

There's also the references to Aurelian using "Palestinian clubmen" to smack the Palmyran cataphracts silly when he fought Zenobia.

I dimly remember from somewhere in my reading that an Indian wielding "a giant club" nearly did for Alexander at some point, too.

[Matthew]

Sorry Edmund, solved that; the link should work now.

On the subject of Plate over Mail, this was the thread that got me thinking about it:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=628065

I was pretty sure that there were 'transitional' examples of Plate over Mail (i.e. Breast Plate or Cuirass) being employed before the 'full harness' type, but wasn't certain... I'm afraid I don't know much about this later period armour; I assume the plates are padded in some way?

I think I'm going to stop reading posts on the Wizards Site...

Perhaps the 'Lohangi' would be a good example of a 'Two Handed Mace,' but I don't know much about it.
In Medieval Literature, Giants are often equipped with what appear to be two handed iron clad clubs (and at least on one occasion a huge scythes).

[Fhaolan]

On the subject of Plate over Mail, this was the thread that got me thinking about it:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=628065

I was pretty sure that there were 'transitional' examples of Plate over Mail (i.e. Breast Plate or Cuirass) being employed before the 'full harness' type, but wasn't certain... I'm afraid I don't know much about this later period armour; I assume the plates are padded in some way?

I think I'm going to stop reading posts on the Wizards Site...



You might be better off not reading the Wizards site. Only read OotS! ;D

With full harness the plates usually were not padded in and of themselves. You would be wearing a padded jack or gambleson. The gambleson would have tie-points so that leather thongs, cloth strips, or something sufficiently stringy could be used to tie various plates to you. Later period full harnesses might even strap to itself sufficiently so that you are completely enclosed and it is no longer necessary to use the tie-points. My 15th century Itallian white harness works this way.

The 'transition' period partial plate would work similiarly but instead of a padded jack, the tie points would be on the maille hauberk instead. There would be fewer plates though, and the plates wouldn't be fully enclosing at all. You might still wear a padded jack, under the maille, but how thick that jack would have been varied from region to region, culture to culture. Some regions it would be a simple shirt of some kind, not padded in any way.

I have heard that sometimes the plates would have cloth or thin leather glued or riveted to the underside of the plates. What this was *supposed* to achieve, i have no idea. My experience in RL leads me to think it made the armor quieter, and reduced the amount of rust generated inside the armor.

[Matthew]

People do seem so much more civil here...

Thanks Fhaolan; that's what I was thinking of (and what I supposed to be the case). I could imagine having some sort of padding between Mail and Plate would be beneficial, but it must have been something of a hassel to replace if it was riveted on.

[Edmund]

I have heard that sometimes the plates would have cloth or thin leather glued or riveted to the underside of the plates. What this was *supposed* to achieve, i have no idea. My experience in RL leads me to think it made the armor quieter, and reduced the amount of rust generated inside the armor.

Integral padding, apparently, was used on helms quite a bit. I know of a few folks who use it and actually recommend it quite fervently.

[Sundog]

On the subject of two-handed maces - such were technically called Mauls and were used throughout the medieval period, though they were never especially popular, probably due to their weight (twice to three times that of an equivalent length sword). They were most popular among the various orders of Foot Knights (Knightly orders dedicated to fighting on foot) due to their high armour defeating capability.

The entire class of weapons pretty much disappears after the introduction of gunpowder weapons, with the exception of the Grand Maul, which was more of a siege tool than a weapon.

[Matthew]

Interesting Edmund. Do you knw f they use glue, rivets or some other method?

Sun Dog; what's your source for the Maul? Do you have any pictures? I've heard that name used to describe a both hammers and mace like items outside of D&D, but all were principallly tools (i.e. designed for labour, but like all such tools, usable as a weapon).

[kits.dm]

Interesting Edmund. Do you knw f they use glue, rivets or some other method?


Sorry if I'm butting in here... I think the padding for helms would vary depending on the type of helm, and the time period said helm was used/made

Take your common great helm (circa 1200)
Instead of being independently supported by a leather or sheepskin liner, this was usually worn over a smaller helm (like a skull cap or a steel/cloth ring - I can't remember the actual term for it) which in turn was worn on top of the coif which had a padded arming cap underneath. (milage may vary on that one, as I'm certain that sources could probably differ on which was the generally accepted way to wear a great helm)

Whereas the gothic salets probably had a leather or sheepskin liner/suspension riveted to the inside of the helm. Or at least points where the liner could be attached

The armet on the other hand, you'd probably only have an arming cap as any sort of lining (considering those are quite close fitting and from memory they connected to the gorget with some kind of latch)

I'm sure there were other methods.
As to padding of plate armour? That's what a gambeson is for :) And again, the gambeson would have points where either straps connected to the plate could be tied off.

Mind you, I have seen some reproduction armour which has leather backing glued and riveted on (as extra padding)

[Meat Shield]

I'd call it a "Gurt Fooken Cloob," laddie. Or a "pocket caber."


Claymore is a name actually attributed to several swords. If I recall correctly, it's Gaelic for Great Sword (mhore is "great," that I know. Cleidh is apparently "sword")

It is sometimes used to refer to the basket hilted broadswords used by the 18th century Jacobite rebels, and subsequently by the Highland regiments. I assume you mean the two handed one that Mel Gibson used in Braveheart.

You should also carry a small, easily concealed knife, known as a sgian dubh ("skeen doo," roughly). Often stuck in the top of a boot or stocking, or in a sleeve, as a backup weapon. The large fighting knife is often referred to as a "dirk," and is basically a long dagger with a short to nonexistant crossguard, and is often sharpened all the way on one edge and partway down the other.
'Pocket Caber' for teh win!

And for clarification, yes I was going for a Braveheart influenced charater. And yes I know that about 2% of that movie was historicaly accurate. Its fantasy, so historical accuracy was not what I was shooting for.

If it helps, that character refers to his weapons as 'Smashy' and 'Slashy'. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

And yes, he has the dirk as well.

Thanks all for your help. I knew I would get the answers here.

[Fhaolan]

Whereas the gothic salets probably had a leather or sheepskin liner/suspension riveted to the inside of the helm. Or at least points where the liner could be attached


Spagenhelms (those viking helmets that are made of straps and plates riveted together, rather that one unbroken piece of metal) used a leather suspension rig as well. It actually works quite well. I don't know if anyone else used something similar. It really lends itself to helms with rivets all along the bottom edge.

[Sundog]

My information on the Grand Maul comes primarily from the Memoirs of Ernst von Papen, who actually fought in the 30 year's war; my copy is several decades old, I have no idea if it's still in print. It's the descriptions in that that got me interested in Mauls in general. I suspect that the term has been applied as a general one where it was once specific to a class or type of weapon.

Unfortunately, most of my library is print, not electronic, and I don't own a scanner. I have some rather nice pictures of Mauls that are on display Vienna Museum of Arms, but no way to upload them. Sorry.

[Liliedhe]

And again some questions ;)...

This time, about spears. I have seen some discussion of this topic in here, but either I didn't read it thoroughly enough, or this point hasn't been explained yet:

Have spears ever really been used in single combat? Not for throwing or for fighting in formation (like the Phalanx)?

And (still thinking about a weapon for my SR character) are there any special Celtic/Irish spears?

[Fhaolan]

And again some questions ;)...

This time, about spears. I have seen some discussion of this topic in here, but either I didn't read it thoroughly enough, or this point hasn't been explained yet:

Have spears ever really been used in single combat? Not for throwing or for fighting in formation (like the Phalanx)?

And (still thinking about a weapon for my SR character) are there any special Celtic/Irish spears?

Spear and shield was a popular fighting style for Celts, Norse, and the Greek. I honestly don't know if it showed up much elsewhere, outside of formation fighting. Spear-only shows up in a lot of Celtic and Norse mythology, but of course the description of the fighting style used in these are highly stylized and suspect from an archeological perspective.

Celtic/Irish spears had various basic blade shapes with a *lot* of variation in size and shape. Leaf shape, flame-blade, and... I have no idea how to one-word describe this one, really. It looks like a normal spearhead, with semi-circular cut outs on each side shaft socket. Spears were very important to the Celts, showing up as legendary items in several myths.

[Liliedhe]

Thank you very much... This helps me a lot.

As my character is a seeker on the Path of the Bard (that's a kind of Elven magical tradition in Shadowrun) maybe I'll take a spear for her. The Spear of Lugh is the Insignium of her order... And later on, she can take sword fighting too - after all, elves have a lot of time ;D

[Mr Croup]

Spear and shield combat was very common in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, as evidenced by the Zulu nation. Typically they used large wooden framed shields, covered in layers of treated cowhide that were often as tall as the wielder in conjunction with a short hafted broad head spear.

In Japan and China there are also several martial traditions that utilized long spears such as a yari.

[pincushionman]

And again some questions ;)...

This time, about spears. I have seen some discussion of this topic in here, but either I didn't read it thoroughly enough, or this point hasn't been explained yet:

Have spears ever really been used in single combat? Not for throwing or for fighting in formation (like the Phalanx)?

And (still thinking about a weapon for my SR character) are there any special Celtic/Irish spears?
keep in mind that spears are cheap (conceptually) compared to some other weapon types, like swords. It's just a pointy stick. That's it. Oh, it might have something on the end to make it extra pointy, but it's functionally no different from a sharpened pole. And since the end is sharp, it's clearly a weapon (whether it's use for hunting or fighting is irrelevant), unlike a staff or walking stick. Really, the only dedicated (one that's not intended for use as some kind of tool) weapon that is simpler or cheaper is a club.

I imagine spears have been used for combat, single or massed, for far longer than any axes, hammers, or swords have, all over the world.

[Mike_G]

Spear and shield was a popular fighting style for Celts, Norse, and the Greek. I honestly don't know if it showed up much elsewhere, outside of formation fighting.

The Zulu?

Or China and Japan. Maybe less spear and shield, but plenty of spear/polearm troops. And variations were used even by Samurai in single combat.

A lot of more "primitive" cultures used the spear, because it relies less on good metalurgy than a sword. It's an easy weapin to make, and it's effective. It's probably the oldest "military" weapon.

The combat manuals and Fechtbucher are filled with staff and polearm techniques.

I think the spear is underrepresented in popular fantasy. It is surely one of the most widely used weapons from prehistory through the Renaissance.

[reorith]

The Zulu?

Or China and Japan. Maybe less spear and shield, but plenty of spear/polearm troops. And variations were used even by Samurai in single combat.

A lot of more "primitive" cultures used the spear, because it relies less on good metalurgy than a sword. It's an easy weapin to make, and it's effective. It's probably the oldest "military" weapon.

The combat manuals and Fechtbucher are filled with staff and polearm techniques.

I think the spear is underrepresented in popular fantasy. It is surely one of the most widely used weapons from prehistory through the Renaissance.

yay for knowing about hans talhoffer

[Edmund]

Have spears ever really been used in single combat? Not for throwing or for fighting in formation (like the Phalanx)?

Absolutely.

From the various fighting manuals:
Vadi (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiNewImages/Untitled-jv4.jpg)
Liberi (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/getty/spear.html)
Even the obscure Gladiatoria (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Gladiatoria/Gladiatoria.htm)
Talhoffer, of course, has already been mentioned.

Edit: We've gone way beyond 35 pages. Where's Gorby to bring the hammer down?

[maneyan]

And to think that I once considered myself knowledgeable in these matters... how little I knew....

Tell me this: I'm currently running a WoDVtR (World of Darkness Vampire the Requiem) Campaign and the arch villain is an ancient vampire with ridicously much martial prowness.

In the final stage he plays around with the characters and demonstrates his collection of swords by burying them in the heroes.

If you could give me, say five examples on swords that are superior to all others in some aspect (like the damascus blades and the katana (okay gatana ;) )) and give a few sentences that describe why just they are the best it would be appriciated...

I know that you probably can't say "that sword is the best" but take some of the best.

[Bug-a-Boo]

If you could give me, say five examples on swords that are superior to all others in some aspect (like the damascus blades and the katana (okay gatana ;) )) and give a few sentences that describe why just they are the best it would be appriciated...


C'est ne pas possible! :)

It's just not like that. There are no 'superior' swords. Each sword (or any other weapon for that matter) is designed for it's appropriate role. Anything that doesn't work would not survive long to be used again anyways.

However, we could give you a list of swords 'most appropriate' for their targets. Tell us for example how his targets will be protected (what armor etc), then we could give you some iconic weapons designed for said intended target. (like for example, one target is wearing some light armor, your vampire could go all arrogant, explaining to the world at large "The falcata is a great weapon, designed to hack like and axe, chopping it's way raight through armour" while he happily buries the blade in his target etc)


On the subject of spears, one should keep in mind - a single warrior not fighting in a close formation is always best armed with a polearm. A spear is the second most simple polearm one can have (simplest being the staff). So you'll have to keep in mind that any culture that has been into warfare, will always have used the spear. Spears are not just stabby weapons - they are full blown polearms, superior to swords for both offensive and defensive combat.


On a related note - Ola everybody, me's back ;)

[Raum]

If you could give me, say five examples on swords that are superior to all others in some aspect (like the damascus blades and the katana (okay gatana ;) )) and give a few sentences that describe why just they are the best it would be appriciated...

I know that you probably can't say "that sword is the best" but take some of the best.
As Bug-a-Boo and others have said, there is no "best" sword. Only the sword which fits the situation required.

Swords evolved and changed according to the usage, technology, and custom of the times. Just as a fully armored knight might have laughed at someone carrying a smallsword, the duelist with the smallsword would have laughed at anyone encased in so much useless (because of effective firearms) armor.

Scenarios such as that make it difficult, and largely pointless, to compare weapons across the centuries. Each was the tool appropriate for the time.

[maneyan]

C'est ne pas possible! :)

It's just not like that. There are no 'superior' swords. Each sword (or any other weapon for that matter) is designed for it's appropriate role. Anything that doesn't work would not survive long to be used again anyways.

However, we could give you a list of swords 'most appropriate' for their targets. Tell us for example how his targets will be protected (what armor etc), then we could give you some iconic weapons designed for said intended target. (like for example, one target is wearing some light armor, your vampire could go all arrogant, explaining to the world at large "The falcata is a great weapon, designed to hack like and axe, chopping it's way raight through armour" while he happily buries the blade in his target etc)


On the subject of spears, one should keep in mind - a single warrior not fighting in a close formation is always best armed with a polearm. A spear is the second most simple polearm one can have (simplest being the staff). So you'll have to keep in mind that any culture that has been into warfare, will always have used the spear. Spears are not just stabby weapons - they are full blown polearms, superior to swords for both offensive and defensive combat.


On a related note - Ola everybody, me's back ;)

and yet again my ignorance is proven... ;)

perhaps I should explain more in detail.

This vampire is approx 800 years old and a pure killing machine. This skill is boosted by his vampiric powers, especially "celerity 8" (he can outrun Formula one cars) and when this guy goes into battle it is to humiliate and show off. the group is really mixed and at present there are two gangrel (animalistic killing machine vampires who fight with toughness and claws), one Mekhet (silent, stealthy and perceptive) and one Daeva (sensual, fast as quicksilver and strong as heck).


Now, I thought like this; the Gangrels are tough as nails and have enough resilience to shrug off a normal swordcut like nothing. This elder uses a big exterminator sword against them,(german zweihander or something like that) the kind of sword that hardly anyone can wield since it's so incredibly powerful. He "outpowers" them.

The Mekhet tries to use his stealth and perceptiveness but suddenly he realizes that he has been cut. And he didn't even see it coming. A blade that's sharp and with enough finesse to "cut without noticing" (yes it's impossible but you get the idea)

The Daeva goes in with speed and strength but is sent crashing into a wall with a grizly wound. A quick and balanced blade that "outruns" him.

the concept is that he uses a sword that even their powers doesn't help against

Hope that helps.

And in case you wonder. They aren't supposed to win. only delay him so that their nosferatu sorcerer ally can sneak up and destroy the artefact that gives the elder power beyond normal vampires...

[Pilum]

Well, you mentioned Damascene blades above - as I understand it, all that describes really is a forging process, not a sword type per se. I concede the technical differences, but when you get down to it a sword is a sword is a sword. Look at all the sword sites online, pick something that looks nice and have done with it :)

Mind you, reading the wiki entry for damascene steel has given me a scenario idea, or at least a speech idea. It says that for unclear reasons, the process was lost; well, make your Big Bad Guy the REASON it was lost. He discovered that a damascene-forged blade that was crafted [in a full moon in october, or on a silver plated anvil, or quenched in the blood of 4 10-y-o altar boys, you get the gist] could HURT vampires. Cheese it out, always causes at least X damage levels and the target is counted as being staked or something. Anyway, he commissions [Master Smith] to make such a blade (or collection of), then kills him, his apprentices and anyone who knows the technique.

Of course, this then gives you an uber-blade that (a) the players will lust over and (b) you sure as hell won't want them to have, but that's a problem for the GM's forum... ;)

[Edmund]

Spears are not just stabby weapons - they are full blown polearms, superior to swords for both offensive and defensive combat.
!!!!!! I disagree immensely.

First and foremost, the offensive potential of both weapons cannot be measured in one sweeping gesture of 'superiority', whether offensive or defensive.

Rather, the aspects of the individual weapons must be taken into account. Spears, for example, have a very *set* range of attack. They can be more easily grabbed than swords, and though they have the potential to cut, their blades often lack the consistent width to make a really powerful cleaving blow. (ergo the creation of the Glaive).
Hell, Talhoffer devotes a number of plates (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) to polearm wielders getting their butts kicked by swordsmen.

And when you combine shields or bucklers into the equation, you get the Spanish sword-and-buckler men, which opened up pike formations in the late 15th c.

Though this does not mean that the sword was superior to the spear, by any means. Rather, the spear was not invincible, and does not have inherently superior characteristics. Almost always it's an issue of the wielder rather than the weapon.

End rant.

And welcome back, by the way!

Maneyan:
The others are correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.

An Pilum, Damascus steel is a forging process, but in recent years it has been redsicovered.
It was lost some time in the 19th c.

[Pilum]

whoops. pressed the wrong button!

[maneyan]

Well, you mentioned Damascene blades above - as I understand it, all that describes really is a forging process, not a sword type per se. I concede the technical differences, but when you get down to it a sword is a sword is a sword. Look at all the sword sites online, pick something that looks nice and have done with it :)

Mind you, reading the wiki entry for damascene steel has given me a scenario idea, or at least a speech idea. It says that for unclear reasons, the process was lost; well, make your Big Bad Guy the REASON it was lost. He discovered that a damascene-forged blade that was crafted [in a full moon in october, or on a silver plated anvil, or quenched in the blood of 4 10-y-o altar boys, you get the gist] could HURT vampires. Cheese it out, always causes at least X damage levels and the target is counted as being staked or something. Anyway, he commissions [Master Smith] to make such a blade (or collection of), then kills him, his apprentices and anyone who knows the technique.

Of course, this then gives you an uber-blade that (a) the players will lust over and (b) you sure as hell won't want them to have, but that's a problem for the GM's forum... ;)

Nice... Thanks Pilum. I'll check that one out :D

[Bug-a-Boo]

!!!!!! I disagree immensely.

[all paragraphs in between]

Though this does not mean that the sword was superior to the spear, by any means. Rather, the spear was not invincible, and does not have inherently superior characteristics. Almost always it's an issue of the wielder rather than the weapon.

I slightly disagree!!!!! (five explanation marks, a sure sign of an insane mind - terry pratchett) ;)

Nah, I agree I used a blanket statement, but that was to make clear that spears have always been used everywhere.

I do have to say still, that polearms are superior weapons -> when you look at the basics. Longswords and greatswords are a bridge between the world of the polearm and the sword. When you go all the way down to the basics, a simple two handed sword will always be 'inferior' to a staff, if both combatants are identical. This because of the simple issue that a polearm has two ends to use. But these are the bare basics, and do not apply when you factor in such new parameters as shields, polearms too long/not designed to be wielded as personal weapons (like pikes) etc etc.

So while I probably shouldn't be using such blanket statements, in the intrest of not clouding up the information too much, I still stand by it :) In any combat situation where the combatants are evenly matched in combat prowess, those fighting with a staff will always outfight those fighting with a two handed sword of moderately lenght.

And thanks, it's good to be back :)


[edit] @maneyan - Gimme a little while (gotta do some other things first), and I'll be back with some things you might be able to use!

[maneyan]

[edit] @maneyan - Gimme a little while (gotta do some other things first), and I'll be back with some things you might be able to use!

I will be eagerly awaiting your answer great sage ;)

[Edmund]

In any combat situation where the combatants are evenly matched in combat prowess, those fighting with a staff will always outfight those fighting with a two handed sword of moderately lenght.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[Liliedhe]

So while I probably shouldn't be using such blanket statements, in the intrest of not clouding up the information too much, I still stand by it :) In any combat situation where the combatants are evenly matched in combat prowess, those fighting with a staff will always outfight those fighting with a two handed sword of moderately lenght.


Wouldn't the fighter with the spear have to worry about the sword fighter simply breaking the spear? I wonder, how well a wooden pole could hold out against a metall blade...

[Bug-a-Boo]

Now, I thought like this; the Gangrels are tough as nails and have enough resilience to shrug off a normal swordcut like nothing. This elder uses a big exterminator sword against them,(german zweihander or something like that) the kind of sword that hardly anyone can wield since it's so incredibly powerful. He "outpowers" them.

The Mekhet tries to use his stealth and perceptiveness but suddenly he realizes that he has been cut. And he didn't even see it coming. A blade that's sharp and with enough finesse to "cut without noticing" (yes it's impossible but you get the idea)

The Daeva goes in with speed and strength but is sent crashing into a wall with a grizly wound. A quick and balanced blade that "outruns" him.



Ok, lets see:

1) Gangrels - You want a big bad weapon... I would like to suggest either a huge renaissance two-hander (with a flame design blade) for style. It's a big weapon, and it looks badass. Or perhaps a chinese glaive, some designs were rather large, with a big choppy head, great for cutting into tough flesh.

2) There is no real weapon that cuts in that manner, but I think the closest you'll come to will have to be the chinese longsword (forgot the name, does anyone else here remember?) flexible, thin blades capable of making some mean cuts, and it's a very quick and agile weapon.

3) The daeva... Well, I think we can go for a classic with this one ;) it may be very cliche, but I think a gatana would do very nicely here. Quick and agile blade, but good at cutting and making grisly wounds. Or else a nice middle-eastern scimitar - same thing (quick, agile, great cutting), but one handed (and not as cliche).

I hope these ideas help. Need any pictures of examples (for descriptions)?




I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Well, we could, but if you like, I'm also up for a dicussion about it. :)



Wouldn't the fighter with the spear have to worry about the sword fighter simply breaking the spear? I wonder, how well a wooden pole could hold out against a metall blade...


When fighting at range, the spearman parries with the blade of the spear (if he parries at all). Good spears were usually tough enough to take some nice blows to the haft without breaking, and one should never block a full edge blow head on anyways. As with all combat, it's all about distance and timing - Stay out of reach, force the other to fear your reach, and strike when you have an opening.

[Fhaolan]

Wouldn't the fighter with the spear have to worry about the sword fighter simply breaking the spear? I wonder, how well a wooden pole could hold out against a metall blade...


Pretty well, actually. Think about it this way, the shaft of a melee-combat spear (as opposed to a throwing spear), is probably 1 1/4" to 1 1/2" diameter of extremely tough wood (not hard; tough being a slightly different concept). A sapling that size would take several blows from an hand axe/hatchet to sever. And this is a tool specifically for choping wood. A one-handed sword would take about the same effort, if not a bit more, to do the same task. The big greatswords like the zweihander or the slaughtersword have an easier time of it because of the increased leverage.

Also, a spear wouldn't be held 'hard' against a blow. It's not like it's stuck in a vise or anything. It's held by human arms that will flex and give with the blows, reducing the stress on the wooded shaft.

I have vague memories of some culture that used to wind iron wire around the shaft of their spears to make them harder to cut through. But that might have been a fantasy novel, because I can't put a name to it.

[Liliedhe]

Thanks a lot. I have to compliment you all on being so knowledgeable and helpful towards a newbie like me :).

[Spuddly]

Where did the sai come from, and is its name derivative of psi, the Greek letter that looks similar?

[Bug-a-Boo]

Where did the sai come from, and is its name derivative of psi, the Greek letter that looks similar?

http://aiur.us.es/~arashikiryu/shirotaka/juttes.jpg

The second weapon from the right is the kabutowari. I am not 100% certain (It's been a very long time since I've researched this), but it seems that the kabutowari was the oldest of such weapons in origin. It was used as a defensive weapon, made of softer iron to easily absorb blows and usefull for binding and trapping weapons. The exact origins are a source of legend and strong stories, so I can't say exactly who used it first and who developed it.

From the kabutowari came the jutte, which was the main tool for medieval japanese local samurai law enforcers. A simple defensive weapon for disarming and grappling an armed criminal, and aprehending him without killing.

From that later, came the sai.

And no, I don't believe the name has anything to do with the greek alphabet.

Again I say, why I've written here is what I believe to be the history of the sai in short. However, it might be flawed, and there are many more speculative ideas out there of how it may have been developed. So far, this line of development I found is the most plausible one to me.



[edit] edited for spelling :-[

[maneyan]

Bug-a-boo: yes please. Pictures would be nice

[Fhaolan]

The second weapon from the right is the kabutowari.

I've not heard of the kabutowari before. From the image on that web-page, it looks like it's flat, like it's a blade with a forward-facing hook. Was it sharpened in any way, or just a soft iron bar with no effective edges?

[Bug-a-Boo]

I've not heard of the kabutowari before. From the image on that web-page, it looks like it's flat, like it's a blade with a forward-facing hook. Was it sharpened in any way, or just a soft iron bar with no effective edges?


Only the tip was sharpened. It was relatively thick and strong, but soft to take blows. The sharp tip was more for emergencies, rather then to be used actively to poke into someone.



Pictures... lets see...

Renaissance two hander/landsknecht sword: http://www.mwart.com/images/pl/Swords_Landesknechte_Flamberge_Sword_2630_125.jpg

Chinese glaive: http://www.wuyikungfu.com/images/Henry%20with%20Kung%20Fu%20Sword.jpg

Chinese longsword: http://www.knivesandtools.com/productimages/cs/large/CS88G.jpg

Gatana: http://mimi6cu.free.fr/sabres/katana-masamune-mura21.jpg

Middle-eastern cimitar: http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5C500822_l.jpg

Hope it helps

[maneyan]

Bug-a-boo: *bows*

EDIT: Though I feel I should point out that the gatana picture is acctually a picture of a katana *runs away very fast*

[Belkarseviltwin]

Where did the sai come from, and is its name derivative of psi, the Greek letter that looks similar?
Interestingly, the word for "fish" in modern Greek is psari (written with a psi). Greek fishermen use tridents, which resemble the letter.

Edit: on closer inspection, there is no connection. The letter is simply a superimposition of pi and sigma, and the word comes from the Ancient Greek word for "speckled", and first appeared in the early 1st century AD- in the Gospel of John. Ancient Greek for fish is Ichthys.

[Hoggmaster]

Chinese glaive: http://www.wuyikungfu.com/images/Henry%20with%20Kung%20Fu%20Sword.jpg



This is what my mind pictures when I think of a falchion/tulwar.

[Orion-the-G]

that is what damn awesome looks like.

[Edmund]

This is what my mind pictures when I think of a falchion/tulwar.


Tulwars are closer to scimitars than to falchions.

Falchions are tip-heavy, single-handed chopping blades, tulwars are single-handed slicing swords.

The Chinese Glaive looks like a wide-bladed messer-on-a-stick.

Bug: I would continue the discussion, except we have reached a stalemate.

First of all, we would need to quantitatively analyse a qualitative concept. Most important is the concept of the 'degree of skill'. Now, unlike D&D, this cannot be quantitatively measured in the real world.

Second we would need to use real combatants. Unfortunately, I don't see how this would be possible.

So I think our argument is best left to the wind.

[Liliedhe]

Since you are discussing sais...

I've never seen one in real life, just in comic books ;) (Elektra and Ninja Turtles *hides*). Are there some forms that have real edges for cutting like normal daggers, or are they always blunt? And are sais used only to counter swords or also as 'normal' weapons against any opponent?

[Bug-a-Boo]

Bug-a-boo: *bows*

Thank you, thank you, it was no problem :)



EDIT: Though I feel I should point out that the gatana picture is acctually a picture of a katana *runs away very fast*

Oi! I calls it a gatana. ;)



I've never seen one in real life, just in comic books ;) (Elektra and Ninja Turtles *hides*). Are there some forms that have real edges for cutting like normal daggers, or are they always blunt? And are sais used only to counter swords or also as 'normal' weapons against any opponent?

They were always blunt - only the tip might be pointy and sharp. Sai's (jutte's actually, sai's came later) were used much like modern police uses batons - a way to take down criminals without killing them. Being made of softer metal and blunt, a sai can take blows from other weapons without breaking so easily, thus making it good for trapping blades (with which criminals could easily be armed most of the time).

[Liliedhe]

They were always blunt - only the tip might be pointy and sharp. Sai's (jutte's actually, sai's came later) were used much like modern police uses batons - a way to take down criminals without killing them. Being made of softer metal and blunt, a sai can take blows from other weapons without breaking so easily, thus making it good for trapping blades (with which criminals could easily be armed most of the time).

Thanks. So much for realism in comic books - shouldn't really be surprised, I suppose. ;) So it turns out the depiction of sais in Shadowrun is actually quite accurate (they are pretty much the crappiest weapon around, doing almost no damage, but making it a lot easier to disarm an opponent).

But on a sidenote... I've seen the Japanese police weapon called a jitte. But that's probably just a problem with the transcription or something.

[Bug-a-Boo]

But on a sidenote... I've seen the Japanese police weapon called a jitte. But that's probably just a problem with the transcription or something.


Yeah, jutte/jitte, it's the same thing. I myself am actually unsure when the actual sai's we currently know were developed. Jutte's have only one sideprong... I don't know when sai's we know with two sideprongs appeared - I have a suspicion they might not even be 'historical' at all... Anyone else have more info?

[Liliedhe]

Another question ;) (yeah, I'm ticking off the list accumulated in 20 years of gaming ;D. Thanks again for your patience...)

Illustrations in rulebooks often show people wearing swords in scabbards on their backs. Now, somebody told me, that this would be impossible - or at least unwise - in real life, because a) you wouldn't be able to draw the weapon due to the angle and b) you would probably cut your own head off. Is this true?

[Matthew]

The short answer is no. I particularly can't imagine there being any danger involved if you happen to be wearing any sort of armour (such as a Mail Coif or some such head protection). If the blade happens to be positioned in such a way that you will injure yourself, you should probably adjust the positioning...

Seriously, though. The vast majority of swords were worn on the 'belt', from where it is probably easier to draw the blade. The main reason to wear a sword on one's back (that I can think of) is if it becomes impractical to wear it at one's side (i.e. the sword is too long to be comfortably or effectively worn in that way). It would not be impossible to draw from that position.

[Raum]

While I don't know if it was done historicaly, I have seen a working back scabbard. Only the lower foot of the blade is completely covered by such a scabbard, the upper section of the blade merely rested on a leather backing. A snap loop held the top of the weapon just under the hilt.

The arrangement allowed the sword to be drawn with a relatively short arm motion while holding the sheathed sword securely.

[Edmund]

The biggest problem with this type of scabbard is how immensely exposed the armpit would be when drawing it, along with how slow the draw would be compared to a belt-slung scabbard.

Even the large swords of the Landsknechts were carried with the blade (or hilt) resting on the shoulder, sometimes in a scabbard and sometimes bare. That is if they were carried. For long hauls they were put in carts like the pikes.

This is primarily because they were swords of war, and so were not required to be within easy reach at all time, unlike the Katzbalger.

http://www.st-max.org/images/woodcuts/Landsknechts-Doppels.jpg Tada!

In any case, assuming one were to use such a scabbard, there is no danger posed by ones own sword. The shape of the scabbard alone would keep the edge aligned away from the head, unless someone shifted around alot while drawing it.

Edit: Two more pictures of individual doppelsoldners with their swords:
http://www.st-max.org/images/woodcuts/Doppelsoldner-5.jpg
http://www.st-max.org/images/woodcuts/Doppelsoldner-1.jpg

[Mr Croup]

Yeah, jutte/jitte, it's the same thing. I myself am actually unsure when the actual sai's we currently know were developed. Jutte's have only one sideprong... I don't know when sai's we know with two sideprongs appeared - I have a suspicion they might not even be 'historical' at all... Anyone else have more info?

The sai, which is distinguished by its three pronged shape, is actually of Okinawan origin. They have been in existence since at least the tail end of the feudal era of Japan. Traditionally, they were carried in sets of three, to provide one back up is disarmed, or if lost to throwing.

The sai is primarily a blocking/parrying weapon, though the weight and sturdiness of the center prong could also be used to punch through some armour. The main offensive techniques with a sai were bludgeoning strikes to the limbs, with the intent being to break arms or legs.

There are some schools of Okinawan martial arts that focus on the use of all three sai of a set. There are techniques centered on throwing the first weapon to either stun the opponent, or as a peasant weapon against samurai, to pin the hakama of the samurai to the ground. This would allow for a lead in running, or serve to simply hinder the samurai so they would lose mobility.

[Bug-a-Boo]

The sai, which is distinguished by its three pronged shape, is actually of Okinawan origin. They have been in existence since at least the tail end of the feudal era of Japan. Traditionally, they were carried in sets of three, to provide one back up is disarmed, or if lost to throwing.

The sai is primarily a blocking/parrying weapon, though the weight and sturdiness of the center prong could also be used to punch through some armour. The main offensive techniques with a sai were bludgeoning strikes to the limbs, with the intent being to break arms or legs.

There are some schools of Okinawan martial arts that focus on the use of all three sai of a set. There are techniques centered on throwing the first weapon to either stun the opponent, or as a peasant weapon against samurai, to pin the hakama of the samurai to the ground. This would allow for a lead in running, or serve to simply hinder the samurai so they would lose mobility.


Yeah, I read that on the internet too. I'm not convinced of it, considering that the kabutowari is the predecessor of the jutte, and the sai is just a jutte with an extra prong, and the jutte was already in use by samurai law-enforcement before the 12th century.

[Mr Croup]

Yeah, I read that on the internet too. I'm not convinced of it, considering that the kabutowari is the predecessor of the jutte, and the sai is just a jutte with an extra prong, and the jutte was already in use by samurai law-enforcement before the 12th century.

What are you not convinced of? I can vouchsafe for the techniques, as I've seen copies of texts containing woodblock prints of conscripts using sai in such manner, as well as having seen a number of current day martial artists using said techniques.

Sadly, I don't know when the first examples of sai were documented, but they were employed in Okinawa during the Warring States period, at the latest. I've read that the sai was developed from various farming implements, though I couldn't say what. It is probable that both the sai and the kabutowari developed from the same root.

[Leperflesh]

My faire sword has a 36 inch blade. When I bought it, I had a custom scabbard made (by Armordillo Leather), and the leatherworker put it on a simple D-ring hangar. This looked great but was totally inappropriate, because it meant the tip of the scabbard hung a bare inch above the ground... and, the sword flopped and banged against my leg with every motion. The position of the grip and pommel was also inconvenient for drawing... the sword either had to be drawn straight up (into my armpit), or, I had to grab the handle, tilt the sword forwards with pressure, and then draw it like that.

I investigated getting a frog, so it would hang at an angle... but decided even that was going to be very inconvenient.

So, I made a bandolier, which would attach to my belt at it's lowest point, and knotted it to the d-ring so that the sword hung down the right side of my back, the handle extending upwards behind my right shoulder.

I am able to draw like this, but not well. I can grab the handle with a hard backwards motion of my right hand, and then make a hard thust forwards, usually getting the tip free just when I get to my maximum forward reach. Sometimes I don't quite get it out, and I have to struggle with it a bit.

If I did this with an enemy within 15 or 20 feet of me, I'd be dead before my sword cleared the scabbard. It's not very smooth.

I'm sure I could use one of those half-scabbards to make it much easier... but, this would leave some part of the blade exposed to the elements, which would be very non-ideal. It might work if I knew I was going into battle that day, and the rest of the time kept the sword in a full sheath... but, if I knew I was going into battle, I'd probably dispense with the sheath entirely and just carry the sword bare.

I've also tinkered with the idea of a releasable bandolier. It would fasten at my belt with a slipknot, or perhaps a button or other quick-release fastener. When I flicked the release, the bandolier would be free, and the weight of the sword would draw it down my back, finishing at the left waist, ready to be drawn. This sounds great in my head but in practical usage, a bit of experimentation tells me it'd be very unreliable - so easy for the thing to get hung up, halfway down my back, tripping me up but leaving me defenseless (and looking awfully amateur anyway).

So, that's my experience. Probably with a shorter sword, or a taller man (I'm about 5'8"), a shoulder scabbard could work. Maybe a professional strap arrangement could make things a bit easier. No matter what, I cannot believe it's as optimal as a waist-level scabbard or simply carrying your drawn sword.

-Lep

-edit- oh, I should mention: my sword is sharpened, but I've never come close to nicking myself with it while drawing from the shoulder. The blade is parallel to my head, and it'd actually be kind of hard to allow it to swing close to my neck or head while drawing it. I suppose it's possible, but not likely.

[AMX]

Interesting... I'd have hung the thing on my left side, to get a couple inches more clearance.

*fiddles around with broom*

Yep, if it'd be me, I'd hang the thing on my left, and draw behind my head.
In front would give even more lenght, but definitely requires protection.

[Fhaolan]

Another question ;) (yeah, I'm ticking off the list accumulated in 20 years of gaming ;D. Thanks again for your patience...)

Illustrations in rulebooks often show people wearing swords in scabbards on their backs. Now, somebody told me, that this would be impossible - or at least unwise - in real life, because a) you wouldn't be able to draw the weapon due to the angle and b) you would probably cut your own head off. Is this true?

Oh, no problem with the questions. That's what the thread is for. Some of us just happen to have access to books, museums, and occasionally actual pieces of historically-accurate equipment to test out these kinds of things. Some of us even get paid to do it. :)

The back scabbard isn't 'impossible', but it is awkward and annoying enough that it wasn't done. There are many different variants for the back scabbard, and each one has it's own problems, usually boiling down to a lack of speed in drawing. Only in fiction and at Ren Faires do you have the burly 'heroes' wandering around with the big swords strapped to them. Swords that size had very specific purposes, and were not for general use. They were war-time-only weapons in RL and were carried or transported on carts, just like pikes and other similar things.

If you need a general use weapon with you at all times, you wear a more reasonably-sized sword that you can draw off your hip, or more likely a long knife either at your hip or across the small of your back (Norse seax knives were carried this way on occasion. Personally, I find it awkward, but that's just me.)

[Liliedhe]

Thanks to all of you. So I won't give any of my PC a sword in a back scabbard any more - not that I have to many of them... ;)

[Fhaolan]

Thanks to all of you. So I won't give any of my PC a sword in a back scabbard any more - not that I have to many of them... ;)

Actually, I'm going to amend myself. Apparantly kinjals (a short curved blade popular in southern russian/northern mongolia/turkey/etc.) was occasionally worn as a crossed pair on the back. I have nothing but someone's word on this, as I've found no reference in any book I have. However, I reasonably trust the source as he doesn't tend to pass on bad information. So, in this case back scabbards did exist, but it was for two short blades rather than one big sword.

[sniffles]

Just thought I'd pop back in and say, if anyone's interested, I found out where my friends got the idea of the "hakra" from: they made it up. It was inspired by a weapon from The Mummy.

I've enjoyed the discussion of using a baldrick with a scabbard. I always thought that looked impractical, but didn't have enough practical knowledge of swordsmanship to know. It does seem like it would work better with a short blade than a long one. Legolas' 'fighting knives' in the LOTR films, for example, show him wearing them on his back in a sheath attached to his quiver.

That just made me think of another question: I've seen illustrations of quivers worn from the belt, although most images of archers show the quiver on the back. Is the quiver on the back really the way it was done? It looks like it would generate the same problems as wearing a sword on your back. Why go through the extra motion of reaching over your shoulder to get another arrow when you could just reach down by your thigh, and not expose your armpit to someone else's arrows?

[Orion-the-G]

Well...I can't theorize about realism but there's no issue of 'exposing your armpit to your enemies arrows' Archers don't have duels with one another and I certainly don't imagine they'd be aiming for your armpit in the first place. If a person with a sword is close enough to strike at that vulnerability you shouldn't be nocking an arrow in the first place.

[Fhaolan]

That just made me think of another question: I've seen illustrations of quivers worn from the belt, although most images of archers show the quiver on the back. Is the quiver on the back really the way it was done? It looks like it would generate the same problems as wearing a sword on your back. Why go through the extra motion of reaching over your shoulder to get another arrow when you could just reach down by your thigh, and not expose your armpit to someone else's arrows?

I can't answer whether there were back quivers or not, as I honestly don't know. I know they exist now, but the ones I've seen are obviously modern or fantasy. I do know that in Medieval Europe, the leather hip quivers were actually hunting quivers, and were normally made only to hold 6-12 arrows. War quivers were completely different, basically cloth and wicker baskets that sat on the ground, and were made to hold somethiing like 50-100 arrows in an upright position so they are easily grabbed. The Mongol and Tartar horse-archers also had saddle-quivers, and I assume other horse-archer types did as well. (Note: These are the only one's I've seen that actually have space in them for the bow itself. Longbows, of course, won't fit in a quiver very well. :) )

[pincushionman]

Quivers are somewhat awkward in any case.

A quick look at how a bow is used. For a right-handed person, the bow is held in the left hand and drawn with the right, and the arrow is placed on the left side of the bow.

The hip quiver wouldn't lend itself well to rapid firing, as there will always be something in the way when you draw the arrow. If it's on your left hip, you need to bring the arrow around and over your wrist. If it's on the right, you have to bring it over and around your bow. The other option in both cases is to move your bow-arm out of the way.

A back quiver might be better for a mobile soldier, as the quiver wouldn't get in the way of arm or leg motion (the hip quiver would swing around quite a bit as you walked, or rode a horse). And once drawn you can pretty much flip the arrow down onto the bow and it's on the correct side. It'd the drawing motion itself that's awkward in this case. An arrow is longer than your arm, and you need to pull it out straight the whole way, so if the quiver is too high on your back, you need to pull it out partway, quickly grab it further down, then pull it the rest of the way out. Too low on the back, and you can't reach the arrow.

In order to pull the arrows out in one motion, you would need the arrows sticking out quite a ways, and grab the arrow by the shaft, which may or may not be easier (I haven't put a lot of thought into this) than pulling it out by the nock, like you can with a hip quiver. Plus, that would leave a good portion of the arrow shafts exposed, and more liable to break.

So there's going go be some awkwardness in drawing an arrow from any quiver, hip, back, or ground. But I have seen the hip version.

[Liliedhe]

On the topic of archery...

Have there ever been metal bows in real life? When I played a halfelf archer in 'Das schwarze Auge' (German medieval fantasy RPG), it was her proudest achievement to get a warbow, made of steel. But all things considered, that sounds somewhat awkward...

And concerning metall... In Fantasy literature one often reads of weapons made from meteoric iron. And in Highschool I heard in my history lessons that the first iron to be used in prehistoric times came from meteors, before people learned to mine the stuff. Is this a myth?

[Mike_G]

A back quiver isn't bad if the arrow sticks up high, but the lip of the quiver is low enough. You don't want the edge of the quiver to stcik up over your shoulder.

If you can reach the arrow easily, then draw it up half its length to clear the quiver, but still be low enough to easily move your arm, it's not bad.

And a back quiver is out of the way while walking. I dont' see how a belt quiver could be.

I've seen drawings where longbowmen had arrows through their belts. This seems like it would be good for rapid firing, but not practical for moving. I imagine it was done when action was imminent. Take a handful of arrows from the quiver and stick them in your belt for quick access.

[Fhaolan]

And a back quiver is out of the way while walking. I dont' see how a belt quiver could be.


It's no more in the way than a sword scabbard, really, providing it's relatively small. The D&D standard 20-arrow quiver seem a bit big to me, as the hip-quivers I've worked with in wandering around the local forests in period costumes as a paid performer are small 6-10 arrow ones.

Having a quiver *and* a reasonably large sword (Viking broadsword) is annoying. A quiver, a sword, a stiff-leather beltpouch, wetstone, flint&steel pouch, and saex knife, all on the same belt, is a pain. Given that I'm also dealing with a large round wooden shield on my back, a waterskin, maille shirt, spagenhelm, *and* the bow, I'm spending more time juggling equipment than anything else. :) And that's without the backpack, sleeping blanket, 50' rope and whatever other junk D&D adventurers normally have on them. Damn it, I need a donkey. ;)


Have there ever been metal bows in real life? When I played a halfelf archer in 'Das schwarze Auge' (German medieval fantasy RPG), it was her proudest achievement to get a warbow, made of steel. But all things considered, that sounds somewhat awkward...


Metal crossbow prods, I've heard of. Metal bows? I've never run into anything like that in my reference works, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that someone somewhere made one. Or, more likely, used it as one thin layer of a composite bow. But it would definately be rare, if it every happened.


And concerning metall... In Fantasy literature one often reads of weapons made from meteoric iron. And in Highschool I heard in my history lessons that the first iron to be used in prehistoric times came from meteors, before people learned to mine the stuff. Is this a myth?

Meteoric iron is interesting stuff. I'm under the impression that usually it's a nickle-iron alloy that would be relatively difficult to produce in primitive cultures without good metalurgical abilities. Basically, if you can find it, and can figure out how to work it, it's a shortcut to steel.

However, the first iron tools in Europe (I can't speak to other areas), were apparantly made from what is called 'bog iron'. Apparantly, if you delve into the peat bogs of northern Europe, you can pull up chunks of poor-quality iron. The stuff is pretty sad, by all accounts, but it's better than bronze which is the other option, and requires a much lower tech-level than mining normally does.

[Matthew]

With regard to the back Scabbard thing, I found this similar discussion over on the Wizards boards:

http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-304943.html

It had a nice picture:

http://www.medievalgallery.com/newitems/1038-ok2.jpg

Here's a question; how were Bows conventionally carried. I've read this and that on the subject and got the impression that it was generally in a protective case of some sort and probably carried slung over the back. Anybody have any more solid knowledge on the subject?

[Bug-a-Boo]

What are you not convinced of?

The problem is that it doesn't add up to legends and stories about said weapons. There are different accounts of the first use of a kabutowari, and although they are different, they all point to it's first use being military. The argument that a sai is derived from agricultural tools is another odd one. What tool? No-one has specified that. I've heard on this forum itself a suggestion that it was a tool to poke a hole into the ground to a pre measured depth in order to facilitate planting. This is plain rediculous, considering that a farmer would simply just use a stick with several notches on it for such a task.

So in short, I do not believe it was civilian born, nor that it originated in okinawa. It was probably used there, but that's just the extent of okinawan involvement.




Well...I can't theorize about realism but there's no issue of 'exposing your armpit to your enemies arrows' Archers don't have duels with one another and I certainly don't imagine they'd be aiming for your armpit

Actually, this was a valid issue, mainly in medieval japan. Mounted archery there had to be conducted from close ranged because the bows lacked power at range. Samurai fought on horseback, shooting arrows at close range attempting to pierce gaps and weak spots in the armour. To those trying to imagine it, think of aerial dogfights, with each plane trying to get on the tail of the other plane and let loose a few shots. Things like exposed armpits were highly dangerous.

What I know of them is that samurai carried hip quivers and notched the arrow by grabbing it by it's head, pulling it out of the quiver and laying it on the right side of the bow, then moving the hand back to actually notch, pull and release it.

I can't say much about the validity of back quivers (still trying to get my hands on some authentic examples to give all methods a try), but I can say this: During all my research, I still haven't come by a historical depiction, nor text describing a warrior in the field carrying a quiver on his back. Almost all such accounts mention or show hip side quivers. I have heard mentions of back-borne quivers being used when hunting, but these were mentions by modern authors, not authentic texts.

[Fhaolan]

Here's a question; how were Bows conventionally carried. I've read this and that on the subject and got the impression that it was generally in a protective case of some sort and probably carried slung over the back. Anybody have any more solid knowledge on the subject?

A sock.

No, I'm serious, that's what it's called. Basically it's a long cloth tube tied off at either end. Good ones for profesional archers would be made of oilskin or something similar. Several spare strings would be kept in lengths of catgut to keep them dry while preventing them from getting tangled.

War-time archers probably have the bows carried on the same cart the bundles of arrows are. Non-war-time archers are either hunting, in which case the bow is out and ready to be used, or travelling from point A to point B, where it would be put into the protective sock, and carried on the shoulder.

If you need your bow in a hurry, and the bow isn't already strung and in your hand with an arrow knocked, you're really in the wrong line of work. A bow takes time to string, and you only string a bow when you have a reasonably good chance of needing to use it. :)

[Mr Croup]

The problem is that it doesn't add up to legends and stories about said weapons. There are different accounts of the first use of a kabutowari, and although they are different, they all point to it's first use being military. The argument that a sai is derived from agricultural tools is another odd one. What tool? No-one has specified that. I've heard on this forum itself a suggestion that it was a tool to poke a hole into the ground to a pre measured depth in order to facilitate planting. This is plain rediculous, considering that a farmer would simply just use a stick with several notches on it for such a task.

So in short, I do not believe it was civilian born, nor that it originated in okinawa. It was probably used there, but that's just the extent of okinawan involvement.


As far as the origin goes, I'm not making a claim there, other than I have not seen anything to discount that they came into being, or at the very least, prevelance in Okinawa.

I've read suppositions that sai originated as a digging implement, as a seeding tool (as you have mentioned), as well as a couple even less likely sounding options.

The best evidence I have seen owes the origin of the sai to a larger version found in China, called the tsai. Truth be told, many Okinawan weapons can be seen to predated by Chinese weapons of an earlier date, such as surujin. In reality, there are a great number of things that found there way into Japan by way China, with Okinawa being a natural halfway point.

I personally don't believe that sai were farming implements turned weapons, but I don't think that we can write off Okinawa as the point of origin with in the Japanese archipelagio, and that this only speaks of an earlier origin in China. And that's saying something for me, as I'm a Japanese American, and can honestly say that the Japanese people don't like acknowledging outside historical influences.

[Wehrkind]

Speaking of Japan, something I never quite wrapped my head around is why they eschewed shields so much. I mean, it really is a fantastic defensive weapon, as well as having offensive properties. The image of the horse archers riding around at close range trying to pin point weak spots from the back of a galloping horse really made me think "A decent shield, a 8 foot spear and 10 buddies, and they are toast."

Was it mainly a metalurgical issue, large amounts of metal being put into a shield being seen as wasteful while wooden/leather composit shields were too weak against the pole arms popular then? Or is there some other factor that kept the shield from coming over from China? They don't seem to be really popular there either, but they used them to an extent.

[Raum]

As I understand it, the glaive and bow were the primary battle weapons in feudal Japan. Both of them require two hands and preclude usage of a shield. The katana was the close combat and dueling weapon of the samurai and typically also used two handed. When it wasn't used in two hands, the samurai probably had his short sword (wakizashi) in his off hand.

As for why the Japanese sword wasn't modified to be used with a shield, I don't realy know. My best guess is simply that it was more of a dueling weapon than a weapon of war.

It's also worth pointing out that most of the asian warrior styles rely more on agility than some of the western styles. While China did have spear and shield troops, I'm not sure they ever approached the disciplne of Greek hoplytes.

Hopefully someone who has studied eastern history more than I can add some detail. :)

EDIT: The eastern world was mostly conquered by the Mongols also, primarily light cavalry skirmishers. Whereas the western world was mostly conquered by Roman foot soldiers whose primary armament was sword and shield.

[Mike_G]

Why go through the extra motion of reaching over your shoulder to get another arrow when you could just reach down by your thigh, and not expose your armpit to someone else's arrows?


On the "exposed armpit" issue.

You stand with your left side (bow hand) toward your enemy. The right hand, which would be the one reaching for arrows, and might expose your armpit, is the side away from your target, and thus, you are not exposing that potential gap in your armor to someone you will be shooting at.

If you are a lefty, reverse the terms, but you still have the bow hand toward the enemy, and the arrow grabbing hand away from him.

[Spuddly]

I read that medieval europeans carried their arrows at their hip, American Indians carried theirs in quivers on their backs. Why this happened, I do not know.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Hopefully someone who has studied eastern history more than I can add some detail. :)

I can explain the lack of shields...

But hoooo boy is it going to take me a while to explain :)


Short answer is: It wasn't usefull to the style of warfare.
Additional answer is: It wasn't that usefull. Japanese archers had towershields to hide behind and to make fortifications with as a defense from mounted archers, and japanese armour was good enough to take all arrow hits from more then short range, hence the close ranged attacks. Keep in mind that in europe, as the quality of armour improves, the use of shields declined. Shields are cumbersome, while two-handed weapons have always been superior in combat (and for those wanting to disagree with this, just look at history).

But the main reason for the japanese was a socio-political one. I have to leave in a short while for a few days, but when I return (probably this weekend), I'll try to elaborate a little on japanese political climate and combat tactics.


But for the moment, I want to dispell the false notion that medieval samurai ever fought with their wakizashi drawn in the left hand (it was a late-period fad, and wasn't ever seen before the portugese came and said hallo, and hardly an effective way of fighting). I would also want to dispell the false notion that asian styles depended more on agility - this is simply not true. Western warriors and eastern warriors had very, very similar styles for close combat, and this is not an odd thing. Afterall, when you fight to survive, you fight as efficiently as possible. And when everybody has the same general physical make-up (nobody's an amorphous blob), the same methods of combat and termination are developed. This is why those that take a closer look at real western martial arts will note the similarities to asian martial arts.

Lets see... any more myths to dispell before I go...?

Ah yes, one more: Japanese swords were not "dueling swords". They were personal defense weapons. The reason they were not used with shields is threefold - 1) Armour was good enough for those having to fight in such a manner - 2) The sword is not desingned to be swung consecutively with one hand, and would thus be inefficient - 3) I've said it many times, I'll say it again, two handed weapons have always been superior.


I'll be back in a few days with a bigger story.

[Wehrkind]

I am glad you are going to be back in a few days, because I really want to hear your reasoning behind the assertion that two handed weapons are always superior.

In regards to armor, the somewhat pitiful ability of Japanese bows to puncture the armor of the time is not different from what we see in anchient Greece and in post-Marian Rome. Early western bows were not terribly exciting either, and I have read that the sling was considered a superior weapon for quite some time. When matched up against the quarter inch thich bronze of the hoplite panalopy, or the segmentata of Rome, there was little contest. Yet both used large shields to protect from melee as well as missile attacks.

Further, armor was just as rare and expensive in Japan as it was in Europe, and more so considering the state sponsored equipment of Rome, and yet you have Europeans producing shield toting infantry, while the Japanese prefered spearmen without shields. Armor just doesn't seem to be the case of it.

I think you come closest when you say that the "Eastern Way of War"TM supported more fluid combat involving archers, light cavalry and raiding more than disciplined columns of heavy infantry clashing on the field that was prevalent in the West. I would tend to agree that if speed and mobility on horse back are your main concerns, a shield isn't super.

I am going to be chomping at the bit to hear why two handed weapons are in all ways superior. The Romans conquered the known world with a large shield and short sword against all manner of people using long spears, large axes, and deadly falxes, not to mention any number of horse archers. Looking at Western history, it would seem that armor becoming nearly impenetrable to all blows is what led people to use larger weapons without a shield. Before such time as armor offered near immortality on the battlefield, such undefended infantry men were very rare, if fearsome.

[Mike_G]

I have to agree. From a militray standpoint, the one hand weapon and shield seems to be the norm from Europe to Africa to India to the Indians of North and South America.

I can't really accept the theory that "Two handed weapons have always been superior."

I think the Romans, Vikings, Franks, Ottoman Turks, Celts, Templars, Mamlukes, Hoplites, and Zulu would all disagree.

[CaptainSam]

Oooh, I can help with the quiver dicussion! Hooray, I'm useful.

I'm a LARP archer, and use a side quiver on a baldric, while many use back quivers. It's really down to personal taste and comfort. I find drawing an arrow from the back uncomfortable and awkward. They also tend to get hoiked out of the quiver when running through woods. So on that point, the idea of a side quiver for hunters works perfectly as you wouldn't want to be snagged on branches and the like when stalking prey.

There isn't much difference in the rate of fire when camparing the two "mounts", you're just bringing the nock to the string from a different angle.

I agree with Mike_G about walking. I tend to have my left hand supporting the quiver while I walk. But this is because LARP arrows have a large, non-killy, safe arrowhead. I suspect I wouldn't have to do this with bodkins.

Historically, archers in massed ranks would have had the arrows stuck into the ground in front of them (certainly at Agincourt). This served two purposes. The arrows would be close to hand and easy to reach, allowing the English archer to have an arrow nocked, one in the air and one ion the target area. Secondly, if the archer had to run, they would leave behind a forest of arrows which would hamper enemies, especially cavalry.

Archery is great fun, I only wish they would enforce the onld law.

[Raum]

...while two-handed weapons have always been superior in combat (and for those wanting to disagree with this, just look at history).
Which part of history? I hesitate to compare weapons across the ages particularly when dealing with different military technologies and customs, but western history is replete with examples of single handed weapons being superior. The Roman infanty, part of the Carthaginian infantry (Hannibal's army was a mixed force), vikings, crusaders, the cavalry lance and most cavalry weapons... The list goes on. In fact, the times two handed weapons are superior it is the spear or pike and not a large sword. Greek hoplytes, Macedonian syntagma, Swiss pikemen, etc. I can't think of any time where armies of two hand sword, axe, or mace wielders were effective against disciplined troops. One major problem with that type of combat is simply that it requires too much space leaving gaps in the ranks.


But the main reason for the japanese was a socio-political one. I have to leave in a short while for a few days, but when I return (probably this weekend), I'll try to elaborate a little on japanese political climate and combat tactics.
Culture and customs certainly play a part and Japan was isolated enough to hold on to cultural weapons in spite of potentially more effective weaponry being available.


But for the moment, I want to dispell the false notion that medieval samurai ever fought with their wakizashi drawn in the left hand (it was a late-period fad, and wasn't ever seen before the portugese came and said hallo, and hardly an effective way of fighting).
Since this is exactly the method of fighting advocated by Japan's sword-saint (Miyamoto Musashi) and taught in the schools he influenced I tend to think it was more common than you state.


I would also want to dispell the false notion that asian styles depended more on agility - this is simply not true. Western warriors and eastern warriors had very, very similar styles for close combat, and this is not an odd thing. Afterall, when you fight to survive, you fight as efficiently as possible. And when everybody has the same general physical make-up (nobody's an amorphous blob), the same methods of combat and termination are developed. This is why those that take a closer look at real western martial arts will note the similarities to asian martial arts.
The Japanese samurai were trained primarily for single combat. Even set battles often degenerated to a series of smaller duels. Conversely, western armies trained as a unit to fight together. They didn't have the space to circle opponents or move around relying instead on a combination or shield, armor, and shieldbrother for defense. Moving around and breaking up the formation was a Bad Thing. :)

You'll also notice spear/polearm styles differed significantly. Western styles emphasized a stabbing motion while the eastern glaive was built for slashing and required space to swing the weapon.


Ah yes, one more: Japanese swords were not "dueling swords". They were personal defense weapons.
I'm not sure I see the difference, but I'll concede the point. What I was attempting to point out was simply that the katana was not the primary choice of weapon for armies. It was the primary choice for samurai who often fought small engagements and duels.


The reason they were not used with shields is threefold - 1) Armour was good enough for those having to fight in such a manner - 2) The sword is not desingned to be swung consecutively with one hand, and would thus be inefficient -
Which came first, the sword design or the lack of shields? I'd say design follows function myself.


3) I've said it many times, I'll say it again, two handed weapons have always been superior.
For what? And what type of two handed weapon? I'll grant that spears and pikes have often proved superior in formation fighting. But two handed swords? Not in armies. Possibly in duels but the rapier could probably challenge it there.


I'll be back in a few days with a bigger story.
I'll look forward to reading what you have to say.

[sniffles]

Thanks to everyone who gave info regarding quivers! :)

It occurs to me that this discussion just highlights more of the unrealistic nature of RPG rules. D&D for example assumes that if you switch from a ranged weapon to a melee weapon in mid-combat, you just throw your bow on the ground and draw your melee weapon. I can't imagine that a good archer would really throw his bow on the ground. I always knew that you don't string a bow unless you intend to use it, so leaving it lying on the ground strung doesn't seem like a very good idea, not to mention it might get wet or be stepped on by other combatants.

Ah well, just another of those things you have to overlook when you play D&D. Don't even get me started on how unlikely it seems that someone could really rapidly reload a crossbow while in motion. ;)

[Darkie]

Hmm.... so historically, battles in the eastern world tended to have larger armies then the west - the Japanese arms aside for a moment, how were the Chinese armies equipped?

[Edmund]

Alright, I too disagree with Bug-a-Boo on certain parts, but I also agree with him on others, so I'll systematically go through each of his points and explain my opinion.


japanese armour was good enough to take all arrow hits from more then short range, hence the close ranged attacks. Well... Sorta. No armour is expected to take a large number of arrow hits from point-blank range and protect its wielder fully. Unless the bows used were weaker than those of their continental counterparts, I don't see how this was possible. I seriously doubt the idea of point-blank arrow-shooting except, perhaps, in strictly regulated duels.


Keep in mind that in europe, as the quality of armour improves, the use of shields declined. This is only true with the advent of really complete suits of plate armour, with gauntlets, vambraces, breastplate, couter and greaves. Even then, shields were not fully abandoned. The Gladiatoria fechtbuch I cited earlier shows full-plate armoured combatants with bucklers.


Shields are cumbersome, while two-handed weapons have always been superior in combat (and for those wanting to disagree with this, just look at history).
Any additional weight is cumbersome. The degree to which it inhibits its user can vary depending on how the weight is distributed and how heavy the object is.

As for two-handed weapons being superior, I agree... Sort of. This again depends entirely on the situation. How are the combatants armoured? For that matter, how are they armed? A man with a hammer or pick and a nice large shield, and perhaps a helm and greaves, will certainly be able to defeat a full-plate-armoured man with a longsword. I'm not saying he will, but rather that it's a toss up. Similarly, for street combat, a man with a longsword and no armour may very well triumph over a man with, say, a falchion. This falchion wielding man, however, has no shield, because it is street combat, and is therefore more easily defeated than the adversary with a buckler or a larger shield.

But what if the two-handed-weapon-wielder has, for reasons unknown, a halberd. Well, he could quite possibly be very dead, very fast. There is a reason, after all, that halberds were not street-weapons. They need a lot of room to operate, and that will not be gotten so easily.

As for history, whose history? In Roman Europe, sword-and-shield styles were by far favoured over two-handed axe/falx/whatever-the-hell styles. Similarly, two-handed weapons were favoured in 15th c. Europe for fighting plate armoured combatants
Even then this favoritism is slim. Maces, axes, hammers, flails were all used for mashing armour. And don't forget the misericorde dagger and, of course, the lance.

In Eastern Europe, despite the presence of plate armour in the later period, shields remained a rather vital part of Russian tactics until the widespread use of gunpowder made shields useless.

Regardless of this, the knight's weapons and armour should not be considered as individuals nearly so much as they should be considered as part of a system.


But for the moment, I want to dispell the false notion that medieval samurai ever fought with their wakizashi drawn in the left hand (it was a late-period fad, and wasn't ever seen before the portugese came and said hallo,
Correct, though I would call it a development (note: Not necessarily improvement) rather than a fad.


and hardly an effective way of fighting)
But it was, otherwise the Portuguese wouldn't have used it to begin with.


I would also want to dispell the false notion that asian styles depended more on agility - this is simply not true. Agreed.


Western warriors and eastern warriors had very, very similar styles for close combat, and this is not an odd thing. Not quite. They are very similar, yet they are also very, very different. Since this isn't really a major point of contention I won't elaborate.


Ah yes, one more: Japanese swords were not "dueling swords". They were personal defense weapons.
Yes.


The reason they were not used with shields is threefold - 1) Armour was good enough for those having to fight in such a manner
Errr... No. Since they are, as mentioned, personal defense weapons, the use of a buckler could be quite advantageous when one doesn't have any armour on.

2) The sword is not desingned to be swung consecutively with one hand, and would thus be inefficient
Agreed.


3) I've said it many times, I'll say it again, two handed weapons have always been superior.
Wrong. See above.

[Mr Croup]

...how were the Chinese armies equipped?

Well, the short answer is, in many varied ways.

In the history of Chinese militaria, armies took on many different forms, sometimes employing smaller skirmish based units; at others, massive bodies made up of several distinct units, divided into phases and weapon types.

Bows and crossbows were often employed at the onset of battle, as is logical, to help thin the ranks of the opposition before closing to melee range. Polearms and pikes were used, especially in the Qin dynasty. Close combat was often fought by soldiers armed with swords and shields, or simply swords.

As far as cavalry goes, the Chinese utilized traditional cavalry, at times employing tribes of Mongols and northern Chinese, as well as their own. Chariots were used in battle for several hundred years, though they fell into decline with the advent of crossbows, and as mounted archery tactics improved, proving more versatile.

[Spuddly]

In terms of units of trained fighters fighting other units of trained fighters, shield+one handed weapons would be superior to two handed weapons.

In close combat, one would be able to thrust easily without bumping neighbors with a shortsword (like a gladius). Shields not only defend oneself from enemy blows, but your comrades as well. Also, a shield can be used to actively stop arrows, while armor cannot.

Additionally, a full suit of armor would be quite expensive to equip an entire army with. It would be cheaper to armor half a soldier and give him a shield to defend his other half with, as well as his ally next to him.

In the middle ages, the ones who were armored were wealthy– both wealthy enough to afford a horse to carry their armored ass, and the armor itself.

[alec]

two-handed weapons have always been superior in combat (and for those wanting to disagree with this, just look at history).

The Falx wielding barbarians in Germania were beaten by the Romans with swords and shields. Harold the Saxons Housekarls with two handed axes were beaten by William the Conqueror, with swords and shields. As previous posters have said, in most battles the only really effective two-handed weapons were spears and pikes that could be used in formation.

[Ryujin]

The Falx wielding barbarians in Germania were beaten by the Romans with swords and shields. Harold the Saxons Housekarls with two handed axes were beaten by William the Conqueror, with swords and shields. As previous posters have said, in most battles the only really effective two-handed weapons were spears and pikes that could be used in formation.


For the sake of clarity in this ongoing discussion, we ought to differentiate between individual combat and massed combat, as tactics would tend to count for more than individual prowess/superiority in the latter case.

[Raum]

For the sake of clarity in this ongoing discussion, we ought to differentiate between individual combat and massed combat, as tactics would tend to count for more than individual prowess/superiority in the latter case.

My posts on the subject were referring to mass combat, specifically that of armies. While you are correct to point out that tactics and strategy make a big impact in clashes between armies, the weaponry used often limits the tactics and strategies available.

In a duel or small scale combat, individual skill will often make more of an impact than weaponry. In many ways I'd say the weaponry used by armies is the best indicator of what was considered "best". It's also far more common to see battles between groups of differently armed men than duels or small scale combat. The latter tends to happen primarily between members of the same culture or society.

[Matthew]

Hmmn; well this topic has certainly roused some passions. It is an interesting question and I have heard many answers over the years, but few (if any) are based on historical ‘facts’, most being a matter of speculation or a product of a romanticised view of the Samurai. My view is certainly little more than speculation, but here I go anyway...

First of all, it’s necessary to say that the Shield was not totally unknown to the Japanese; indeed, they probably made use of it in earlier periods (I’ve seen a few ceremonial shields in Museums that lend weight to this postulation).

The Shield has two very important main functions; it can be used to block incoming missiles at range and to fend off the blows of enemies in melee. With regard to the first, it’s worth noting that they weren’t the only ones who might be found without shields. The Macedonian Pike Phalanx and Heavy Cavalry seem to have operated with Spears that exceeded the length by which they could effectively be used in one hand. There is some dispute over this, but it seems probable that they made no use of the Shield within these formations. Polybius (here I go again citing this indispensable source) goes so far as to indicate that the density of the Pikes in some way protected them from missiles (I haven’t been able to imagine it, but I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about). Mounted and Dismounted Archers probably also made no use of the shield (though, as with the Phalanx and Cavalry, there is some dispute over whether they did or not. Vegetius seems to indicate that being an Archer precluded using a shield, but I’m using the translation, so I don’t know for sure). These types of units were not particular to Alexander and the Hellenistic Empire(s), but a type of troop used in conjunction with other types and mutually supportive.

Shield bearing troops could be used to support these types against archers. That, as Bug a Boo has rightly pointed out, seems to have happened in Japan as well as anywhere else, though these shields would not have been used for fighting, only for protecting against missiles.

Both “Weapon and Shield” and “Two Handed Weapon” styles were current in Ancient and Medieval Europe, as they were pretty much everywhere else. Japan, though, seems to have focused on “Two Handed Weapons.” Why is unknown for certain, but my guess would be that it has to do with the importance of the Bow as a weapon for the Warrior Caste. In the West, the Bow was despised by Knights (and others) as the weapon of the lower orders and they weren’t alone in this view; the Ancient Spartans were similarly disparaging of it, not because it was ineffective, but precisely because it was too effective. This prejudice does not seem to have existed in Japan (no idea why) and so the Bow remained a primary weapon of the Samurai. I suspect this, more than anything, explains why they didn’t bother much with hand held shields (i.e. they just weren't useful for a heavily armoured mounted Archer).

Another comparison might be the Persian Heavy Cavalry.

I don’t think it has a great deal to do with armour development, though an argument for that could certainly be constructed.

On the subject of Quivers and Bows, it's worth noting that the Bayeux Tapestry shows the quivers either in front of the Archers or at their sides (as far as I can tell).

http://hastings1066.com/bayeux32.shtml

http://hastings1066.com/bayeux33.shtml

[You know, as I side note, I've heard people say they can't see Round Shields on the Bayeux Tapestry; I'm sure I can, but maybe they're supposed to be another shape... Oval perhaps?]

However, i did find this image of an eighteenth century Chinese Warrior with a Quiver on his back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_%28sword%29

[Edit] Ohh, actually I've just noticed this:

http://hastings1066.com/bayeux28.shtml

The armoured Archer at the end and in the foreground appears to have his quiver at his side, but the one above him seems to have one on his back! How's that for clarity?!

It's also worth noting that the Dacians made use of more weapons than the Falx and almost certainly employed Shields, as did the Harold's Army. Weapon and Shield and Two Handed Fighting are roughly equivalently effective; the real benefit is in having something to block incoming missiles...

Here's some links to some really cool Medieval Battle scenes from the Maciejowski Bible (Circa 1250):

http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac10rA.jpg

http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac10vA.jpg

http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac11rA.jpg

http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac23vA.jpg

http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac24vB.jpg

http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac41rB.jpg

And some from the Codex Manesse:

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung2/werk/cpg848.xml?docname=cpg848&pageid=PAGE0029

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung2/werk/cpg848.xml?docname=cpg848&pageid=PAGE0079

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung2/werk/cpg848.xml?docname=cpg848&pageid=PAGE0082

[Edit] Sadly there are no Daggers evident in combination with swords, though the odd Dagger does seem to be individually represented, check out the first link and notice the mounted guy wielding a Dagger. Also these manuscripts provide good evidence for the use of the 'Long' Sword as both a Cutting and Thrusting Weapon, as well as the use of Wrestling in conjunction with Swords.

[Edit] Horray; finally an illustration of a Thirteenth Century Knight with a Dagger strapped on to his belt (on the right hand side); note his assailants use a mixture of Sword and Dagger (the one embedded in his head, to judge by the hilt design)

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung2/werk/cpg848.xml?docname=cpg848&pageid=PAGE0371

[Darkie]

With regards to the Romans... weren't they successful more for their battle tactics and discipline and the equipment developed for them, more than just their equipment alone?

[Reltzik]

Querry: What arms and equipment were in use in Ireland at the beginning of the 11th century CE? What about tactics, naval developement, strategy, and logistics? What military practices and mindsets were common?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Ditto Reltzik's question, except for Bulgaria at the same time period under Tsar Samuil.

New historical game in Play-by-Post ;D.

I assume they would be rather similarly equipped to their neighbors, the Byzantines, but I thought I'd ask since I know almost nothing of Balkan military history post-Alexander the Great.

[Jestir256]

Matthew, I can offer a tiny bit of enlightenment as to the apparent lack of use of the bow in the samurai and other far eastern cultures. My own studies have revealed to me that the technology behind the bow power-race that occured between the French and English in Europe never developed in the east. Most historians I've seen talk about the subject seem to think that it was due to a lack of available materials; some say that the cultures in question had totally different views as to the purpose of warfare.

As to the two-handedness question, I will say only this. I have boffered against guys with shields, and it really SUCKS. A heater shield needs to move inches in any direction to fend off any melee attack; because of their size and resulting reduced speed, two-handed weapons will not be able to overcome a skilled shield user.

[Darkie]

Wait a minute there, Jest... I was under the impression that the eastern armies fielded quite a lot of archers, and that Samuari were archers and horsemen first, and swordsmen second.

[Matthew]

As far as I know that is indeed true, Jeff. Jester does seem to be right about the pull on a Japanese Long Bow, though. Over on Wikipedia it seems to be felt that over 30 lbs is considered a fairly hefty pull for such a weapon, but I have to admit I have seen other sources that put the pull of the same Long Bow at at least 70 lbs.
It's a difficult question alround, as currently there is an argument that English Long Bows in the Sixteenth Century could have had a pull as great as 180 lbs; the problem is that nobody can pull that weight effectively and that the postulation is made on the information derived from reconstructions (which were presumably measured by machine?).

http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/quivers/chinese%20quivers.htm

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/making_chinese_bow/making_bow.htm

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

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

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

People love Long Bows and they hate to be told that they were not the Machine Gun of the Medieval Period. The fact is, though, that this metaphor, like all metaphors, can be misleading.
The Long Bow shot a maximum of twelve arrows per minute and was often employed against armoured opponents. if the Long Bow was the 'Machine Gun", then the Knight (or whatever) was the "Tank", both analogues are misleading. The Long Bow was the Long Bow of the Middle Ages, a more powerful version of the ordinary Bow. The Knight was the Knight of the Middle Ages, a better equipped and trained version of his inferiors (though not in all cases, I'm generalising...)

On the importance of the shield, Jester, as I have said before, I quite agree that it was a great piece of kit and very useful. However, it is also true that sometimes people chose not to use them; in the overwhelming majority of cases this seems to be in order to use weapons that require two hands (Bows and 'long' Spears), which were almost universally also the primary weapons of war.
In the case of the Bow, it is somewhat unwieldy (but not impossible) for the Archer to himself make use of a Shield. In the case of the Spear, it's a trade off against length. Some Military Historians find it so improbable that somebody would go into battle without a shield that they routinely assign Pike Men and "Long Speared" Cavalry small shields without any actual evidence. In some cases they're probably right, in others probably wrong. In all cases armour increases in importance.
Two Handed Swords, Axes, Maces, Picks, etc... are another story. The long and short of it is that they were often employed without Shields against enemies who had shields (indeed, just see the manuscript illustrations I posted, not to mention the Bayeux Tapestry).
However, this is not to say that Two Handed Weapons are better than Weapon and Shield combinations. Both are useful and have strengths and weaknesses, which is why they were used in combination.
However, the question remains, why were they not used in combination in Japan? I've already given my suggestion...

Here's a beautiful example of a Knight switching to two handed style to deliver a killing blow (all literary, rather than historical, but no less cool...)

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung2/werk/cpg848.xml?docname=cpg848&pageid=PAGE0638

[Thiel]

Two-Handed Weapons has, as far as I know, more stopping power but lack the stayingpower of the shield.
In short Two-Handed weapons are great for initial charges and breaking up formations but if you stay around to long you will eventually be carved up.
Of course this is just my speculations based on some rather suspect sources.

Feel free to sink my boat ;D

Edit: With tw-handed weapons i ment broadaxes and greatswords and such like not polearms.

[pincushionman]

I think that it's a mistake to discuss spears and pikes when comparing the potencies of one-handed/shield vs. two-handed. They are NOT "two-handed" weapons. They are polearms. Even when they are not used in formation (ala kung fu) they are used very differently than a two-handed sword, axe, or hammer, so they deserve to be discussed on their own. so you have

one-handed/shield vs. two handed
two-handed vs. polearm
one-handed/shield vs. polearm

[Matthew]

Well you could pretty much say that about any weapon; a Two Handed Sword isn't a Two Handed Axe and a Sword and Shield Fighter isn't an Axe and Buckler Fighter. Semantics, semantics and Pole Arms are the worst victim of this little game. Ask somebody what one is and you'll invariably get a slightly different answer from the last guy, especially with the good old Pollaxe / Pole Axe / PoleAxe confusing matters, just check out Wikipedia:

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

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

if you want to get down into the nitty gritty go ahead, but I suspect it will be even more confusing and fraught with disagreement...

[Fhaolan]

I think that it's a mistake to discuss spears and pikes when comparing the potencies of one-handed/shield vs. two-handed. They are NOT "two-handed" weapons. They are polearms. Even when they are not used in formation (ala kung fu) they are used very differently than a two-handed sword, axe, or hammer, so they deserve to be discussed on their own. so you have

one-handed/shield vs. two handed
two-handed vs. polearm
one-handed/shield vs. polearm

I think even this might be overgeneralizing. The problem is, every specific weapon has to be evaluated relative to the specific defences they were likely to encounter as well as the tactics used. For instance, a glaive is designed for a different type of combat than a pollaxe, which are both different from a spetum, despite all three being 'polearms'. If you compare each of those with a zweihander, you'll get a different analysis for each comparison.

It's not that you *can't* do comparisons, it's just that you have to be very clear and precise about what exactly you are comparing. :)

[maneyan]

This is probably WAY off forum rules.

I'm doing a scool project on the ww2 east front and the lives of the soldiers in it. I'm currently working on a soundclip for the project. A guy I know will read a russian propaganda letter and I planned on inserting some gun sounds in the background to evoke "battle feeling"

Anyone knows where you can find that sort of stuff?

[Edmund]

Querry: What arms and equipment were in use in Ireland at the beginning of the 11th century CE? What about tactics, naval developement, strategy, and logistics? What military practices and mindsets were common?

This is a very, very difficult question to answer because, quite frankly, there is a huge dearth on medieval Ireland, as far as commonly-available history books goes.

However, because they are Celts, and because they have a good deal of Viking influence, I'd expect a mix between the armies of Scotland at the time and the armies of Knut. The Irish were a bit backward because of their isolation, so I'd expect logistics to be more difficult.

Maybe Osprey (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/) will come out with something, but I don't really know for sure.

To answer a similar question:


Ditto Reltzik's question, except for Bulgaria at the same time period under Tsar Samuil.

Well, looking at Maurice's Strategikon, which was written four centuries earlier, he describes the Danubian Slavs as

armed with short javelins, two to each man. Some also have nice-looking but unwieldy shields. In addition, they use wooden bows with short arrows smeared with a poisonous drug which is very effective.
He goes on to advise procedures to work against the poison, then goes on to their mannerisms:

Owing to their lack of govenrnment and their feeling of ill will toward one another, they are not acquainted with an order of battle. They are also not prepared to fight a battle standing in close order, (that is, in any sort of tight formation) or to present themselves on open and level ground. If they do get up enough courage when the time comes to attack, they shout all together and move forward a short distance. If their opponents begin to give way at the noise, they attack violently; if not, they themselves turn around, not being anxious to experience the strength of the enemy at close range. They then run for the woods, where they have a great advantage because of their skill in fighting in such cramped quarters.
Within the parentheses is my own comment.

So, that gives you a more detailed look. Maurice sums up their weaknesses at the end.

In combat they are hurt by volleys of arrows, sudden attacks launched against them from different directions, hand-to-hand fighting with infantry, especially light-armed troops, and having to fight on open and unobstructed ground.

Keep in mind that this is four centuries earlier than Tsar Samuel, and so has some differences, most notably in the lack of rulership (though how great of an influence he had is, as far as I can tell, questionable) and in the lack of cavalry. (A plate from an 11th c. Psalter shows Samuel and his boyars bowing at the feet of Basil II, who defeated Samuel and conquered Bulgaria. Sadly, they are in normal clothes rather than armour.)

Osprey has a couple of books that may be of some help:
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php?title=P2242&ser=MAA
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php?title=Q8331&ser=MAA

[Matthew]

Also, Gerald of Wales' 'The Conquest of Ireland' is a handy source for Twelfth Century Ireland (not too far removed from Eleventh Century), if you keep in mind that he's writing from a very biast point of view:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1o.html

[Edmund]

As far as I know that is indeed true, Jeff. Jester does seem to be right about the pull on a Japanese Long Bow, though. Over on Wikipedia it seems to be felt that over 30 lbs is considered a fairly hefty pull for such a weapon, but I have to admit I have seen other sources that put the pull of the same Long Bow at at least 70 lbs.
It's a difficult question alround, as currently there is an argument that English Long Bows in the Sixteenth Century could have had a pull as great as 180 lbs; the problem is that nobody can pull that weight effectively and that the postulation is made on the information derived from reconstructions (which were presumably measured by machine?)

There are a great number of books that cite longbow draw being between 80 and 200 lbs (a big range, I know), along with similar draw weights for Turkic and Mongol recurve bows.

30 lbs is really wimpy by comparison, and would never shoot the 250 some metres of a longbow (this is not killing range, by the way, but rather potential firing range). In fact, you would probably only get off one kill-able volley before your enemy was upon you, and don't even think about piercing maille, even at white-of-the-eyes range. There are people who can fire these more powerful bows, but they train for it a lot.

This is actually one of the problems that lead to the abandonment of longbows is the good physical condition and heavy training to fire one, judging distance, trajectory, and accuracy. A sick child can kill a man with a musket, but a longbow requires much more effort and skill.

EDIT:
Oh crud! I didn't see the word Japanese in there at first. This whole post was in regard to the Welsh longbow.

[Sundog]

With regards to the Romans... weren't they successful more for their battle tactics and discipline and the equipment developed for them, more than just their equipment alone?


Well, this is of course true. But it is also true for all successfull military cultures. Any force that didn't use it's equipment in the most efficient manner and with corresponding and complementary tactics didn't win many battles.

What set the Roman's apart was their discipline and their use of what we would call combined arms doctrine.

German warriors, no slouches at combat themselves, found themselves facing walls of men that wouldn't break, while being torn to pieces by artillery, slings, thrown pila , then being gutted by the soldiers themselves, and flanked by swift, efficient cavalry.

The goths that actually finally took Rome did so as much by adopting Roman ways and styles of combat as they did due to Rome's own internal collapse.

Rome, as Macedonia and Sparta before it, produced soldiers, rather than warriors. Soldiers are more flexible, better disciplined and usually braver than warriors when it counts. So, in a very real way their success militarily was an outgrowth of their culture, rather than anything specifically about their military. Those effects can be considered almost a side-effect.

[Matthew]

EDIT:
Oh crud! I didn't see the word Japanese in there at first. This whole post was in regard to the Welsh longbow.

Never mind. I was all set to reply before I saw your Edit; heh, heh. I have to say I'm not convinced Japanese Long Bows had such poor Draw Weights; I'm sure Bug a Boo could tell us the answer...
Yup English Long Bow Draw Weights (not to mention Draw Weights in general and Armour Effectiveness ) are a much contested question; definitely good reason for me to introduce the 'Great Bow' into D&D, Lol.

Sundog,

Definitely an interesting point of view, distinguishing between Soldiers and Warriors. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm inclined not to agree, but I can see the sense in it. However, the Spartans strike me as a Warrior culture, rather than Soldiers, but a lot depends on interpretation... Similarly, the Macedonians were also something of a Warrior Culture. I guess I don't see the clear dividing Military line between Feudal organisation and City State / Imperial organisation.

On the one hand we're encouraged to think of the 'Barbarians' as Barbarians and the Romans as Civilised, so we think Warrior / Soldier. But was the distinction so easily made? Is it only a matter of regular pay and better discipline? Are we saying the Romans were more skilled than the 'Barbarians'? If so, why did they use so many of them? I'm not sure; I think somewhere we're definitely getting caught up in the Roman mythos and propaganda.

It's worth remembering that in the late Roman period the Barbarians and the Romans both started to look alike, it wasn't only a one way thing (though I think the barbarians got the better end of the deal). Also, there were plenty of Barbarians in Roman employ for most periods, sometimes Romanised, sometimes not (and to varying degrees). Roman discipline and technical knowhow were definitely a big deal.

I think you're right that the Roman Army was a product of it's culture and better organised than the 'Barbarians' (though, probably not the Persians). I think, though, that their military was a combination of Roman and Barbarian during the late republic and right through the Empire.

I guess, what I'm getting at really, is how do you define the difference between a Warrior and a Soldier; is it that one is part time and other full time? I could kind of get along with that, but it would make Knights soldiers rather than Warriors and it would be hard to suggest that a Warrior Caste was not a Full Time occupation...

[Edmund]

Also, there were plenty of Barbarians in Roman employ for most periods, sometimes Romanised, sometimes not (and to varying degrees). Roman discipline and technical knowhow were definitely a big deal.
I agree.

Varangian Guardsmen! Woo!

I mean, a warrior can be a superb combatant, but he may be defeated by less-skilled fighters working in consort. (A-la-D&D dragonslaying.)

In regards to discipline: This is very important, but at the same time it has its limits. If you become too disciplined, you reach a point where the soldier has none of his own initiative. He won't be able to think quite as well on his feet, and at times that can be very bad.

[Hoggmaster]

Soldiers are by definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldier) are professional combatants, i.e. they are paid for their service to their country. You are correct in the later Roman empire there is little to no distinction between the Roman legions and the barbarian hordes they were protecting the empire from, however earlier there was a greater distinction. What ever force (Huns, whatever) pushed the Barbarian groups westwards ended that distinction. The reliance on the 'barbarian' mercenaries is, in part, one of the causes of the downfall of the Empire (see below for why).
Soldier (usually) are better trained (note not skilled), disciplined (though that can break down) and equipped than a warrior. Warriors tend to be more reckless in their combative action than others, work in less coherent groups (refered to by soldiers as units), are led by the biggest / strongest guy with the biggest gang of stronger / better guys. This can be a disruption in discipline, as seen by the various emperor of Rome set up by their legion, and just as easily replaced by the same (Thanks Gaius says Galba on his death bed). It became common place the later the empire progresses, which coincides with the increased reliance on foreign mercs.
I would agree that the Spartans were warriors buy your definition but the level of organization would give them the term Soldiery (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldiery). But consider the time frame, the Hellens were a society of city state were all citizens fought. The richest, who could afford the best fought in the front, they had the most to lose, and tended to be healthier than the hoi polloi who toiled beneath them. The Spartans were undone by their over-reliance on the Helots and Perioikoi. The various wars they fought in cause a decline in true Spartans and the warrior caste was reluctant to commit them to battle, though individually they were superior, due to training, to the citizen warrior of the other city states.

The warrior cast is just that a section of society that trains to be combatants. The profession of soldiery died out with the fall of Rome (in western Europe). People were for the most part spread out following the local Dux, who with his gang (for the lack of a better term) ruled their little part of the land. That leader paid fealty (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fealty) to a stronger leader and so on (feudalism -- militarily )

[Belkarseviltwin]

This is probably WAY off forum rules.

I'm doing a scool project on the ww2 east front and the lives of the soldiers in it. I'm currently working on a soundclip for the project. A guy I know will read a russian propaganda letter and I planned on inserting some gun sounds in the background to evoke "battle feeling"

Anyone knows where you can find that sort of stuff?

Try and find a CD of sound effects. Some libraries have them.
Also, for the Eastern Front, some Soviet war songs are always good. Go to this site: http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/
And scroll down to "Great Patriotic War". Sviashchennaia Vojna is recommended- really fits with the atmosphere, as do the lyrics.

[Leperflesh]

I don't know how you feel about it, but, recent computer games based in WWII have made substantial efforts to create authentic sound effects. If you load up a recent WWII game (such as Battlefield 1942), turn off any music in the game, and record some combat, you may well wind up with a pretty decent, authentic-sounding battle soundrack.

Another source is the film 'Saving private Ryan'. For that film, the filmmakers actually got ahold of WWII-era rifles and such, and recorded their sounds. Vets reportedly claimed that being in the theatre during the normandy invasion scenes caused flashbacks, because the sounds were so authentic.

-Lep

[Sundog]

If I could define the exact dividing line between a warrior and a soldier, I suspect that I'd probably be able to get tenure at Harvard.

There are a number of rules of thumb. For instance, a soldier is a professional; warfare is his trade. Another good rule of thumb is training,as most (but sadly, not all) soldiers underwent formal training. Discipline has also been advanced as a dividing line, particularly the aspects of discipline that are synthesized today into what we call the "chain of command".

Unfortunately, for every such rule there are exceptions and grey areas. In the case of the professional rule, consider the cases of landed and landless knights; equally trained, equally equipped, for all intents and purposes identical - but one has as his primary duty the welfare of his tenants and duty to his liege, the other is a professional soldier. Likewise, Persian Dehgans and Byzantine Cataphractoi were functionally identical in battle - but one was professional, the other a feudal landholder.

As to Sparta, while I would agree with the description of a "Warrior Culture", the actual Spartans I would characterize as soldiers. These were formally trained, professional soldiers, Soldiers whose discipline and courage in the face of certain death shines down the millenia to us today. I do not believe that warriors could have made the stand at Thermopylae; having a way out, they would have taken it.

There may be exceptions, but when you see men stand and fight, without hope of survival, for a tactical or strategic advantage they will not live to see - generally, you see soldiers.

[Fhaolan]

I've always drawn the dividing line between warrior and soldier based on teamwork. A soldier is trained to fight within a team structure, be it a skirmish line or a formation. The warrior is self-reliant.

Warriors tend to be better fighters when on their own than soldiers, doing the 'king-of-the-hill' bit. Soldiers through teamwork do the whole 'more than the sum of it's parts' bit.

The Norse berserker or a Celt under warp-frenzy would be a warrior. The Roman infantry in a shield wall is a soldier.

Of course, this is taking the idea to the extremes. Most 'fighter-types' would be both soldier and warrior, in varying degrees, and can switch between the roles when necessary. Most modern special forces spend a lot of time balancing the warrior-ness and the soldier-ness of individual recruits.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Holy crap, gone just a few days, and four pages of replies to work through! :o (or was it three? me's a little blur today)

Wow, you guys want a lot of details. This means I'll have to break out the big guns (i.e. time to wipe the dust of my research). I won't do it today, I just got back, I'm filthy, smelly and tired and I've got a party to go to (and yes, I'll be getting myself a good long hot shower before that), but I'll rummage through my files tomorrow and try to answer all the points taken up one by one (notify me when I miss something).

I'll poke at one thing now tho since I've got a few minutes: Gatana and wakizashi fighting - Musashi... if there's one name in japanese history that annoys me, it's Musashi. He's well know, and suddenly everybody thinks all samurai were Musashi's. Stories get made up about him all over, and the lines between fiction and reality blurs.

Lets take a look at his two weapon style. Musashi developed his style for 33 years before he finally trusted it enough to use it.

This points out two things to us: 1) two weapon fighting must have been rare 2) it wasn't something easily learned nor done.

Now take a look at when musashi lived. We don't know his date of birth, but we do know he had an older brother who was born in 1578. Musashi was thus born pretty late in samurai history. One born so late in the period, still having to design a two weapon style of his own, tells us pretty much that two weapon fighting must have been almost non-existant prior to this period.

So we look at the rest of Japan, and note the fact that two-weapon combat had never even been spoken of until after the portugese landed in Japan. Many have speculated that many people saw the portugese method of combat (rapier and dagger) and thus wanted to copy it. I call it a fad, because it didn't turn out to be superior and we know that usage of the gatana and wakizashi in such a manner is an inefficient use of the design of the weapons (the laws of physics don't lie).

"But the portugese fought like that, so it is good!": Do not forget, the portugese fought with rapier and dagger. That's a whole different way of fighting. Parrying with a dagger is highly inadvisable if facing a foe with a cutting sword, axe or other such implement. The dagger is not be able to exert much counterforce, and has a very good chance of breaking. Parrying rapier thrusts however, is excellent for a dagger - no lateral forces and the ability to poke back.

So in my opinion, Japanese two weapon fighting was a fad inspired by these new barbarians and quickly taken up by a changing country in which the samurai were no-more the professional mercenaries of the past. Japan past the 1500's was a whole different country, and one where new social developments gave people the luxury to try out new things when they wanted, rather then sticking to what works to survive.


More on the rest tomorrow.

[Jestir256]

There is one other factor that plays heavily into the question of how many weapons you have, or whether a soldier or warrior carries a shield: Finance! Metal shields cost money, and so too do second weapons. Cost-benefit analysis is one RL facet that we rarely see in RPGs. The swords wielded by the samurai culture actually represented a painfully large portion of the income of that culture, although what precentage of it I am unable to guess... maybe someone else might know.

I think it's interesting that Bug-a-Boo brings up the subject of the Portugese preference for weapons; I believe they represent a certain an underlying cultural mindset. Rapiers and daggers, both alone and (somtimes) in concert, are preferred weapons in the naval conflicts of the age of exploration. Big heavy slashing weapons are next to useless on a ship, and they add to the net weight of the vessel. The Portugese relied heavily on their national naval exploits, so it seems to make sense to me that they would favor fighting styles useful in close, unstable quarters.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I almost forgot to mention the WWII idea. Leperflesh has the best notions, but... are you sure you WANT to recreate even the sounds of the battlefield? It might not be in the best taste. Some veterans who saw the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan were traumatized by greusome reality of it, and I have myself seen a veteran caught in a PTSD flashback. Use your own judgement.

[Mike_G]

Rapiers and daggers, both alone and (somtimes) in concert, are preferred weapons in the naval conflicts of the age of exploration. Big heavy slashing weapons are next to useless on a ship, and they add to the net weight of the vessel. The Portugese relied heavily on their national naval exploits, so it seems to make sense to me that they would favor fighting styles useful in close, unstable quarters.



Actually, rapiers are very bad weapons for naval combat.

In close, cluttered, boarding actions with little room for footwork, a long, point-only rapier is a bad choice.

A short, point and edge weapon, preferrably with a guard you can punch with is a far better choice. Hence the adoption of the cutlas.

A rapier was never, ever a miltary weapon. It was a weapon for civilian dueling and for use on city streets against unarmored opponents. It works nicely for what it's for, but I'd hate to try to use on on a picthing, crowded deck slick with blood and sea water, and cluttered with torn canvas and rope and debris.

And the difference in weight of a rapier versus a military sword is negligible as far as cargo on a ship. Most rapiers weigh about the same as a shorter, broader blade.

[Wehrkind]

Ahhh, back from a long day of fighting in the office... that means it is post time!

First, someone hit upon the issues using slashing pole arms/great weapons in tight formations. That reminds me of a line from Tacitus,(I am pretty certain) who pointed out that the Roman gladius can cut in addition to stabbing if needed, but the Gallic blades can only cut, and so are not useful for being used in a close formation. This is describing a one handed sword meant to be used with a shield. I think one could very accurately extrapolate that further to include all manner of larger chopping and slashing weapons. That causes a little bit of a problem where you can not concentrate combatants, thus giving a disadvantage.

Now, when it comes to the difference between a warrior and a soldier, I would say the difference is definitely discipline. I think that discipline gets underplayed a great deal when it comes to efficacy of armies. Even very brave warriors such as the Zulus only had the options to "win or run away". Discipline makes the difference between a retreat and regrouping and all out route. Most anchient battles in Greek and Roman times were relatively short, no more than an hour or two usually, with relatively few deaths before one side took to flight. Where one saw the giant death tolls were when the victor's light cavalry chased down and killed the retreating enemies. As such, discipline was what saved lives and won battles, as seen by the Greeks perception of people that kept track of kills being barbarians, while praising those who stayed in line and kept the unit together.

Further, discipline is also what makes troop formations such as shield walls, phalanxes and musket units effective. One of the major reasons the western countries picked up gun use so quickly, and much more effectively than the east, was that they already had the back ground for disciplined march and unit cohesion that lent itself to the fire control needed to make the most out of weapons that could only fire every 30-60 seconds or so.

[Edmund]

There is one other factor that plays heavily into the question of how many weapons you have, or whether a soldier or warrior carries a shield: Finance! Metal shields cost money, and so too do second weapons. Cost-benefit analysis is one RL facet that we rarely see in RPGs. The swords wielded by the samurai culture actually represented a painfully large portion of the income of that culture, although what precentage of it I am unable to guess... maybe someone else might know.

Perhaps, but at the same time the question comes up: If you have enough money to buy a horse, good armour, sword, and bow, why not buy a different sword and a shield, settling for average-rate armour?

Basically, the question is: Do you really need that extra lamellar?

Also: The cheapest shields were not metal, but wicker or wood, sometimes with a steel boss in the middle. Edit: Funnily, some of the most expensive shields were also wood.


I think it's interesting that Bug-a-Boo brings up the subject of the Portugese preference for weapons; I believe they represent a certain an underlying cultural mindset. Rapiers and daggers, both alone and (somtimes) in concert, are preferred weapons in the naval conflicts of the age of exploration.
No, no they aren't.

First and foremost, unless one is raiding enemy shipping or has some other reason to keep the ship intact, and even then, ranged battles or ship-destroying attacks are by-and-large more common than shipboard melee.

Rams, grapples, ballistae, and even shipboard catapults, along with arbalests and bows, were the preferred weapons of ship warfare in the Middle Ages.

Now, there is one semi-exception to this, and can be found in the 'Life of the Great Prince Alexander', in reference to Alexander Nevsky. It details his battle on the River Neva with the Swedes and Norwegians. The Latins had camped out on the bank of the river, their boats docked there. Alexander attacked, and during the battle a number of their boats were sunk by men on foot. The reason for this is twofold.

1) Less ships means their navy is overall less powerful.
2) Less ships means they cannot take away as many men-->more prisoners

It is important to note, though, that these ships were docked, with their landing planks down, and were therefore easily sinkable. In a true sea battle, on the other hand, the ships are much, much harder to board without significant damage to the ship (particularly the rigging or the oars, if a galley).


Big heavy slashing weapons are next to useless on a ship, and they add to the net weight of the vessel.
Mike touched on this.


The Portugese relied heavily on their national naval exploits, so it seems to make sense to me that they would favor fighting styles useful in close, unstable quarters.
See the first point.

[Raum]

Now, when it comes to the difference between a warrior and a soldier, I would say the difference is definitely discipline. I think that discipline gets underplayed a great deal when it comes to efficacy of armies. Even very brave warriors such as the Zulus only had the options to "win or run away". Discipline makes the difference between a retreat and regrouping and all out route. Most anchient battles in Greek and Roman times were relatively short, no more than an hour or two usually, with relatively few deaths before one side took to flight. Where one saw the giant death tolls were when the victor's light cavalry chased down and killed the retreating enemies. As such, discipline was what saved lives and won battles, as seen by the Greeks perception of people that kept track of kills being barbarians, while praising those who stayed in line and kept the unit together.
No time for long comments, I'm stealling a moment from vacation for this, but I think Wehrkind has hit on the difference between a warrior and a soldier. A soldier is someone who can carry off a fighting retreat without it turning into a rout. The soldier has the discipline, training, and knowledge to know he is better off staying in formation. He isn't there for glory or fame, but to get the job done.

A warrior on the other hand is best when he only needs to rely on himself. He doesn't always trust fellow warriors to watch his back and do their own job. He is, usually, more skilled at individual combat than soldiers.

I'll also add a third category for completeness...militia. While not always called militia, some combatants are simply neither skilled enough to be warriors or disciplined enough to be soldiers. This isn't always a bad thing, in a guerilla war this type of combatant may win over soldiers and warriors. Probably at a very high cost, but still a win.

[Fhaolan]

Edit: Funnily, some of the most expensive shields were also wood.


Could you elaborate on this? I'm curious.

[Jestir256]

Mike: I have SEEN manifests describing the number of rapiers handed out to a crew, although now that I think on it is very likely that there is a semantic difference between your rapiers and these. I think the weapon I have in mind might be better called a poignard, but I'm not sure.

As for net weight, I was referring to larger, sillier weapons; greadswords and such. Your analysis of the necessities of close-qaurters fighting is dead on; have you ever tried it?

[Edmund]

Could you elaborate on this? I'm curious.


Sure. I was actually referring to the cost of shaping the wood (ie bending it), with emphasis on shapes like the central ridge of the Pavise and the general curve in some heater shields.

That can be expensive.

Steel shields (aside from the buckler), on the other hand, came about during the Renaissance. Aside from parade shields (which were, granted, perhaps the most expensive) the other types were rather simplistic in design.

Of course, you have certian shields that are really a combination of metal and wood, and those ones probably cost a pretty penny as well.


Mike: I have SEEN manifests describing the number of rapiers handed out to a crew, although now that I think on it is very likely that there is a semantic difference between your rapiers and these. I think the weapon I have in mind might be better called a poignard, but I'm not sure.

'Rapier' is a very loose term. Some cut-and-thrust swords with complex hilts have been called rapiers, but that doesn't mean they were by our standards. It gets sort of silly at a certain point.

I can tell you, though, that a rapier like the one in Capo Fero's treatise or Salvatore Fabris's is different from the one depicted in most 16th c. treatises, with the possible exception of DiGrassi.

[Vorkosigan]

I have this nagging question. It concerns a topic that I have seen treated by numerous fictional authors, whose citations of historical events make me believe they have more of a clue about thhis subject than I do. Nevertheless, they disagree. I do not have the time to research this myself, so here goes:

Are bayoneted long firearms good melee weapons?

Here are the basic arguments I have heard:

YES

They combine the advantages of club, quarterstaff and spear. A trained soldier can use one to parry more classical melee weapons (especially reach weapons) and strike back at/get inside his foe very quickly. This is a great skill to have in a culture that hasn't yet mastered the art of the repeating rifle.

NO

They suck because once they've fired (again, we assume no repeating, or even breechloading, firearms) massed formations of pikes (which will be cheaper and thence more numerous than any given amount of long firearms) will charge through a formation of such unloaded firearms like tissue paper.

Note that I use the term "long firearms." I'm aware that answer to this question might vary greatly depending on whether such weapons are rifled or unrifled, what sort of ammunition has been invented, etc. Especially since with unrifled muskets, one would need to pack the formations more tightly versus rifles, and thus make one's formations more vulnerable to pikes.

So what do our experts think?

Modified to account for an argument below

Please, for the sake of argument, assume ring, not plug, bayonets. But thanks to those who pointed out I had omitted this distinction.

[Fhaolan]

I have this nagging question. It concerns a topic that I have seen treated by numerous fictional authors, whose citations of historical events make me believe they have more of a clue about thhis subject than I do. Nevertheless, they disagree. I do not have the time to research this myself, so here goes:

Are bayoneted long firearms good melee weapons?

Here are the basic arguments I have heard:

YES

They combine the advantages of club, quarterstaff and spear. A trained soldier can use one to parry more classical melee weapons (especially reach weapons) and strike back at/get inside his foe very quickly. This is a great skill to have in a culture that hasn't yet mastered the art of the repeating rifle.

NO

They suck because once they've fired (again, we assume no repeating, or even breechloading, firearms) massed formations of pikes (which will be cheaper and thence more numerous than any given amount of long firearms) will charge through a formation of such unloaded firearms like tissue paper.

Note that I use the term "long firearms." I'm aware that answer to this question might vary greatly depending on whether such weapons are rifled or unrifled, what sort of ammunition has been invented, etc. Especially since with unrifled muskets, one would need to pack the formations more tightly versus rifles, and thus make one's formations more vulnerable to pikes.

So what do our experts think?



Piece of data not necessarily relevant:

There are two basic types of bayonetes. Fixed and unfixed. Fixed bayonetes are 'permanently' mounted on the firearm so that you can actually fire the gun while the bayonete is in place. Unfixed bayonetes have to be attached *after* the gun has been fired. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that fixed bayonetes are relatively modern (i.e. after the repeating rifle was invented).

Okay, now that's out of the way, here's my answer, and my reasoning:

Short answer: No

Longer answer: Bayonetted guns, relative to spears of the same length are much bulkier and heavier. They are also not of consistant diameter that you can grasp easily in a spear position. There's that shoulder-butt to consider, you see. While you *can* use the long-gun as a spear, it's really not that efficient relative to a real spear.

The bayonette is a weapon of last resort. In most movies I've seen where the command 'fix bayonettes' is issued, you can see that the officer yelling that command is using a sabre. If he had a rifle in the first place (rare that the officer is also a rifleman, but it happens), he dropped it and pulled a real melee weapon. He's no fool.

[Mike_G]

I completely disagree on the bayonet issue.

I trained with them, and I like them.

The use of bayoneted rifles by the British in the Zulu and Sudan campaigns was praised both by Brit historians and by the writings of their enemies as being deadly to speamen and swordsmen. Bristish bayonets bested Scottish sword and targe tactics at Culloden.

The butt of the rifle is not an obstacle, but a positive boon, allowing a devastating smashing blow with the butt. A thrust that is parried is easily turned into a blow with the toe of the rifle, which can easily crack ribs or skulls.

The ability to present the bayonets in formation by the first rank often kept cavalry at bay so they could be shot down by the second rank, like the squares at Waterloo.

As far as officers, sabres were used more for signaling than as melee weapons by the age of rifles. The primary melee weapon of the officer was the pistol. Swords carried by American Civil War officers were much worse than those carried by mercenaries two hundred years earlier. They were the weapon of last resort.

The idea of a ring bayonet, where the rifle can still be fired was widespread throughout the 18th century, and was stabdard on most muzzle loading muskets used by the Birtsish, French, German and American armies. The old style "plug" bayonet was only a very ealry model used in the pike and musket period when the idea of giving the musketeer a melee weapon that could keep cavalry off first came about. It didn't take long to adapt it to the ring bayonet.

Even in modern combat, it is very useful. During the Black Hawk Down battle in Somalia, the commander of the strike force regretted, in writing, having ordered his men to leave their bayonets behind. Bayonets were used in Korea when the cold kept rifles from functioning, and in Vietnam when the evil M16 jammed.

I loves me some bayonet.

Oooh-rah.

[Fhaolan]

I completely disagree on the bayonet issue.

I trained with them, and I like them.


I bow to actual experience, and to the added knowledge that fixed bayonettes existed much earlier than I had thought. :)

[Edmund]

Even in modern combat, it is very useful. During the Black Hawk Down battle in Somalia, the commander of the strike force regretted, in writing, having ordered his men to leave their bayonets behind. Bayonets were used in Korea when the cold kept rifles from functioning, and in Vietnam when the evil M16 jammed.

I loves me some bayonet.

Oooh-rah.


Though not really relevant to the topic outside of including bayonets and modern warfare, here's another example...
http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/argyllnews.htm

The website, I know, is very unofficial-looking, but it's the only one I could find that gave good citation of sources regarding the incident.

[Wehrkind]

The bayonette/rifle issue has been knocking around in my head for a while now. I have played with Civil War era Enfields with bayonettes fixed and the scabbard on (for some reason it seemed "safe" at 17) with a buddy of mine with various things, inclusive of another similarly set rifle. It really wasn't too bad at all, with lots of tricks such as the butt for smashing which also balanced it to make it surprisingly easy to keep that bayonette tip on.

I am going to try and make a decent mock up of an old rifle/muskett out of rattan and other crap, and knock around with my dad a bit in some armor to see how they stack up (within a reasonable margin of error of course) with other random things. I suspect that they won't be too terrible at all, being mostly a small polearm, if oddly balanced. I do think that I would rather have a 6 foot spear or a sword and shield than a rifle with fixed bayonette, however, the former for reach and the latter for defense. I do love fighting two handed weapon users when I have a shield though, so it might not be a fair approximation.

[Liliedhe]

*ticks off list* ;)

When has the crossbow been invented? I remember that I learned in school that the story of Wilhelm Tell couldn't possibly be true, because crossbows didn't exist in this time (12th century I think).

Has a scythe ever been used as a weapon (besides the occasional peasant uprising maybe when they had got nothing better)? I've seen PCs use it as something like a hand held superweapon...

[Matthew]

Cross Bows long predate the twelfth century! it's a popular misconcepton that they were a Medieval invention. They were well known to the Ancient Romans (though only used for hunting) and were a battlefield weapon for the Ancient Chinese before them. Basically they have existed alongside conventional Bows for almost all of recorded history. On the other hand, they weren't very powerful or widely used in Western Europe until the Middle Ages.

This wikipedia article is not tto bad; be sure to read the discussion page, though (just general advice when using Wikipedia, not specific to this case):

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

Scythe blades were usually detached from the staff and remounted in times of war, when no better weapon was available to the peasant. The Dacian Falx is likely related to the Scythe; it certainly is etymologically. So, in a pinch a Scythe (or for that matter a Sickle) might be used as they are, but it would be preferable to remount the blade.

With regard to Bayonets, I mostly agree with Mike. In my view it is a very useful weapon, not as good as a Spear in melee, perhaps, but a close second and better than being restricted to using only the rifle...

Wikipedia has a reasonable entry:

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

[Fhaolan]

Scythe blades were usually detached from the staff and remounted in times of war, when no better weapon was available to the peasant. The Dacian Falx is likely related to the Scythe; it certainly is etymologically. So, in a pinch a Scythe (or for that matter a Sickle) might be used as they are, but it would be preferable to remount the blade.


Just an addendum: There was a polearm version of the falx, sometimes called a 'fauchard'. It wasn't a very successful polearm on it's own, but when extra spikes were added (fauchard-fork), it became more useful. It's very similar to a guisarme, but the guisarme is more hooked. The term fauchard is also applied to a variety of glaives that have curved back-spikes. Supposedly it's the curved back-spikes that are the 'fauchard' part, so technically you might call those 'glaive-fauchards'.

[Liliedhe]

Ouch *head explodes*

The names of polearmes drive me crazy, especially as English is not my first language... ;)

But thanks anyway. ;D

[Fhaolan]

Ouch *head explodes*

The names of polearmes drive me crazy, especially as English is not my first language... ;)

But thanks anyway. ;D

To make it even more fun, all those names are French, I think. :)

Basically I think of it this way:

A fauchard is a scythe-blade on a long pole.
A guisarme is a pruning hook on a long pole.
A glaive is a machete or sword blade on a long pole.
A spear is a dagger on a long pole.
A pollaxe is an axe on a long pole.
A beck is a small pick on a long pole.
A war fork is a hay-fork on a long pole.
There's also hammer-heads and mace-heads on a long pole, but I don't think they have an official funny name. Unofficially, I've heard 'seige maul'.
Oh, and I've never heard of sticking a flail on the end of a long pole. Too difficult to use, I guess.

Then you start welding them together to come up with the fauchard-fork, glaive-guisarme, halberd, etc. That's where the naming conventions break down and it's every scholar for his/herself. :)

[Liliedhe]

And where do the halberd and the pike fit in?

I have seen war flails in my second Fantasy RPG (Das schwarze Auge) which has a whole book devoted to weapons. I'm pretty sure they took pictures of real weapons for it. But of course, just because one museum has a piece of something, that doesn't mean it has to have been common.

On the subject of polearms... I've read of two men using one pike or longer weapon together, probably in a formation. Sounds weird to me. Or has this really been done?

[Murky_Pool]

I've got a lifestyle question about swords that's been bothering me for a while.

Can you sit down while wearing a sword (in scabbard, obviously) on your leg or do you have to take the belt assembly off?

I think you'd have to take it off, but a freind of mine swears that you can sit on a chair quite easily with one on.

Thanks

PS - An amusing story involving bayonets that my Dad used to tell me about one of the exercises he did when he was in the RAF.
The exercise was to disperse a riot (other RAF men, not actual rioters). The sergant ordered his men (loudly) to fix bayonets and then yelled "Charge!"
My dad said he'd never seen a group of soldiers break ranks so fast.

I'd always taken it with a pinch of salt, but reading the bayonet posts here it turns out to have been a better weapon than I thought. Nice one

[Ambrogino]

I've got a lifestyle question about swords that's been bothering me for a while.

Can you sit down while wearing a sword (in scabbard, obviously) on your leg or do you have to take the belt assembly off?



Whilst it can be limited depending on the type of scabbard and type of chair, you certainly can. Big soft armchairs (swing it over the front of your legs) are more or a problem than stools (just sit straight down) or benches (swing it round your back behind your bum).

[Edmund]

And where do the halberd and the pike fit in?

I have seen war flails in my second Fantasy RPG (Das schwarze Auge) which has a whole book devoted to weapons. I'm pretty sure they took pictures of real weapons for it. But of course, just because one museum has a piece of something, that doesn't mean it has to have been common.

On the subject of polearms... I've read of two men using one pike or longer weapon together, probably in a formation. Sounds weird to me. Or has this really been done?

Well, Fhaloan has gotten a little confused there in regard to pollaxes/halberds. Pollaxes are often shorter than halberds. Pollaxes always have a hammer end (ergo pollaxe) and will sometimes have a rondel on the shaft. They are usually under 6' in length. They have a spike.

Halberds, on the other hand, I have seen around 8' in length, and they always have a rather pronounced spike, which makes up a fair portion of the head's length. They also will always have the spike opposite the blade.

Then you have this big broad axes like the sparth and the berdysh that could be considered polearms yet aren't. Sadly, there has never been a unified form of classification for pole-weapons as there has for swords.

Pikes are just spears, but longer. Similarly, partisans and spontoons are just spears, but with wider blades.

There are two-handed flails, and their shafts can reach rather great lengths (in excess of 4') but never out to the length of a pike, glaive, or even a halberd.

I have never heard of two men using the same pike, and it makes no sense to my mind. Not only would it make the weapon more difficult to manoeuvre, but a formation containing such a pair would be more easily overwhelmed by an opposing pike formation because of the gap.

[Fhaolan]

And where do the halberd and the pike fit in?

A pike is a *really long* spear. :)

A halberd is what you get when you take a pollaxe, a spear, a fork, and a beck/pick and weld them together. Actually, a halberd is when you take that resulting monstrosity and redesign it with cleaner lines. :)



On the subject of polearms... I've read of two men using one pike or longer weapon together, probably in a formation. Sounds weird to me. Or has this really been done?

Depends on how you interpret that. I've done pike-drill in an English Civil War re-enactment group, using pike-drill manuals from the period. While a pike may be held by a single person in a formation, the person in front of them will have the pike resting on their shoulder. [simple version, used when the formation has to move about.]

[complex version, used when the formation gets to sit still and have the enemy come to them] In the drills I've done, the people in the front row are crouched down. The pike's butt-end is grounded and the wielder has one leg resting on the shaft of the pike. The other leg is bent, with your elbow from the arm on that side on it, the hand holding the pike. This allows you to sit in this position pretty much indefinately, and leaves one arm free for drawing a melee weapon. The second row are holding their pike at waist level, with the pike resting on the shoulders of the first row. The third row is holding their pike at shoulder height, with the pike resting on the shoulders of the second row. This gives three levels of points for the opposing force to get through before physically reaching the first row, who are able to use their melee weapons. And there may be more than three rows, depending on exactly how long the pike are.

That's for a pure pike formation. There are mixed formations, with shield men or zwiehanders and halberds in the front row. Shield men are for protection against archers, of course. If the opposing force is also a pike formation, that's when you want zwiehanders/halberds/whatever in your front row, to disrupt their formation by pushing their pikes out of the way, or breaking them.

Another one (and the one I specifically trained for) was called the 'double-armed man'. I had a pike with a hook on the shaft, and a bow. I was in the front line, using the bow and having the pike lying on the ground pointed towards the enemy. Once the opposing force got too close, I used the bow to 'hook' the pike and pull it up to my hand. Dropping the bow, I went into the first row position and drew my sword, while the rest of the formation went into their positions. Why it was called 'double-armed man' when I had three effective weapons, I don't know...

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Two-bladed swords: how does one stow them?

Sure, they're not real (at least not in the way they were drawn in ther PHB), but someone must have thought about this.

Similarly: spiked chains, morningstars, waraxes... how does one stow these "unsheathable" weapons?

[Fhaolan]

Well, Fhaloan has gotten a little confused there in regard to pollaxes/halberds. Pollaxes are often shorter than halberds. Pollaxes always have a hammer end (ergo pollaxe) and will sometimes have a rondel on the shaft. They are usually under 6' in length. They have a spike.

I was using the term 'pollaxe' a bit too freely, I admit. :) I haven't found a term for a axe-only weapon on a long pole, so I'm using the word incorrectly. As far as I can tell, whenever they put an axe-blade on a long pole, it was always combined with other blades such as spear, hammer, pick, etc. If someone could find the name for an axe-only poleweapon, I would appreciate it.

[Mike_G]

Two-bladed swords: how does one stow them?

Sure, they're not real (at least not in the way they were drawn in ther PHB), but someone must have thought about this.

Similarly: spiked chains, morningstars, waraxes... how does one stow these "unsheathable" weapons?


I would imagine you'd need two scabbards, perhaps with a strap and fastener to hold them together and on the weapon. Then you'd have to put the whole thing on your back. It would be too long for a belt scabbard.

Big axes, ect, would be carried. If you needed both hands, I think you'd have to sling it on your back, out of the way. A simple strap or ring that you could slide the hant through the would hold the head of the weapon should work.

In the real world, big weapons were transported on carts and issued before battle. They could be carried on the shoulder during marches. None of these were carried around streets or the counrtyside as a ready personal defense weapon. That was for one handed swords, staves and daggers.

[Thiel]

One handed axes goes into a belthoop.
Maces, morningstars and simmilar weapons would have somekind of ring at the end of the handle and a hook on the belt or they went into a belthoop in the same manner as axes.

[sniffles]

One handed axes goes into a belthoop.
Maces, morningstars and simmilar weapons would have somekind of ring at the end of the handle and a hook on the belt or they went into a belthoop in the same manner as axes.
I've seen depictions of morningstars and maces being carried that way, but it doesn't seem very comfortable to carry a morninstar like that. It seems to me that when walking it would swing and hit you in the leg with every step. Perhaps the illustrations I've seen have it wrong. I've usually seen a strap on the end of the haft that was attached to the belt, actually, instead of the hook-and-ring arrangement you describe.

Speaking of sheathing and carrying, I've always been of the (perhaps mistaken) understanding that a sword in a scabbard is carried on the opposite side of the body from the hand that will be wielding it, and is drawn by reaching across the body to grasp the hilt while using the off hand to hold the scabbard. First off I'd like to know if this is correct; I know it may vary dependent on the type of sword.

Second, if a person were to wield two weapons, such as a longsword (using the D&D term) and a shortsword, wouldn't that require the person to cross his arms in front of his body to draw both weapons? And then he has no way of holding the scabbard while he draws the blade, because his other hand would be busy drawing his off-hand weapon. How did this work in real life when one was wielding two weapons like a rapier and main gauche?

[Mike_G]

Speaking of sheathing and carrying, I've always been of the (perhaps mistaken) understanding that a sword in a scabbard is carried on the opposite side of the body from the hand that will be wielding it, and is drawn by reaching across the body to grasp the hilt while using the off hand to hold the scabbard. First off I'd like to know if this is correct; I know it may vary dependent on the type of sword.


That's mostly correct. Supposedly the Roman short sword was worn on the right side and drawn with the right hand. I suppose that's reasonable for a short enough blade.

A longsword (D&D term) or rapier would need to be drawn cross body. It's just too long to wear on the right hip and draw with the right hand.



Second, if a person were to wield two weapons, such as a longsword (using the D&D term) and a shortsword, wouldn't that require the person to cross his arms in front of his body to draw both weapons? And then he has no way of holding the scabbard while he draws the blade, because his other hand would be busy drawing his off-hand weapon. How did this work in real life when one was wielding two weapons like a rapier and main gauche?

I real life, you would probably draw one weapon at a time. You don't need to hold the scabbard if it is angled properly, which a frog or slings could do. And you don't really need to hold the sheath for a dagger.

I wouldn't try the crossed arms simultaneous draw myself, but a one handed draw isn't too tough.

[Fhaolan]

I've seen depictions of morningstars and maces being carried that way, but it doesn't seem very comfortable to carry a morninstar like that. It seems to me that when walking it would swing and hit you in the leg with every step. Perhaps the illustrations I've seen have it wrong. I've usually seen a strap on the end of the haft that was attached to the belt, actually, instead of the hook-and-ring arrangement you describe.

Unfortunately, this is what might start to sound like a broken record: People didn't carry greatswords, maces, morningstars, battleaxes, etc. around with them unless they were intending to use them right then and there. These are all military or para-military weapons. If you're not in the military, you were unlikely to even *own* one of these, let alone carry it around town on a regular basis. If you were in the military, the weapon was carried in your hands/arms, or if it was too cumbersome for that, on a cart with all the rest of the equipment nobody was carrying.

You may notice that all non-exclusively-military weapons, such as quarterstaves, bows, daggers, smaller-than-great swords, all have obvious ways of carrying them on a regular basis. This is because having an obvious way of carrying them was one of the prerequisites for being non-exclusively military. Only the military put up with weapons that were so difficult to carry. :)



Speaking of sheathing and carrying, I've always been of the (perhaps mistaken) understanding that a sword in a scabbard is carried on the opposite side of the body from the hand that will be wielding it, and is drawn by reaching across the body to grasp the hilt while using the off hand to hold the scabbard. First off I'd like to know if this is correct; I know it may vary dependent on the type of sword.


In many cases, yes, this is correct. There are variants. Sometimes shorter swords might be on the same hip as the drawing hand, and be drawn 'backwards' so that it is in what I've heard as described as 'ice-pick' position at first. Those same shorter blades might also be strapped on across the small of the back, so that you are reaching behind yourself to draw it, rather than in front.



Second, if a person were to wield two weapons, such as a longsword (using the D&D term) and a shortsword, wouldn't that require the person to cross his arms in front of his body to draw both weapons? And then he has no way of holding the scabbard while he draws the blade, because his other hand would be busy drawing his off-hand weapon. How did this work in real life when one was wielding two weapons like a rapier and main gauche?

See above for alternative scabbard positions for the secondary weapon, especially if that secondary weapon is relatively short.

Also note that all scabbards are not created equally. Scabbards can be made tight, or loose. Tight scabbards require two hands to draw from, of course. Loose scabbards don't. What I consider 'good' scabbards are tight for the first inch or so, and then loose beyond that. Which means that the weapon is held securely by the scabbard, unless pushed an inch or so out (such as by the thumb of one hand grasping the scabbard at the neck), at which point it is loose and the weapon can be drawn easily by one hand.

You see this trick in a lot of Japanese anime or movies. The katana/gatana/however you want to spell the stupid thing is pushed out an inch or so with one hand, and then drawn fast with the other. In fact, I'm under the impression that the action of pushing the sword and inch out is considered to be an immediate threat in that culture, meaning the weilder wants to be taken seriously.

There's a rapier-fighter in my stage combat group that has to do the same thing, he pushes the rapier and main-gauche out a bit with his thumbs, and then crosses his arms across his body to do the actual draws.

With loose scabbards, you don't need to do the push, but weapons rattle around in loose scabbards, tend to fall out if you have to tumble or bend over in just the wrong way, and are generally annoying. :)

[Bug-a-Boo]

Which means that the weapon is held securely by the scabbard, unless pushed an inch or so out (such as by the thumb of one hand grasping the scabbard at the neck), at which point it is loose and the weapon can be drawn easily by one hand.

You see this trick in a lot of Japanese anime or movies. The katana/gatana/however you want to spell the stupid thing is pushed out an inch or so with one hand, and then drawn fast with the other. In fact, I'm under the impression that the action of pushing the sword and inch out is considered to be an immediate threat in that culture, meaning the weilder wants to be taken seriously.


No sorry, this isn't true. Scabbards of gatana's that see regular use are not too loose (it doesn't rattle), but it's loose enough to just slide out if you bend over to pick up something. There is no such thing as "the tight first inch", and the idea that thumbing the gatana out an inch to threaten is a completely fictional thing.

When carrying a gatana, the threat comes when one had one hand on the scabbard, and the other hand goes to the right hip. If you were to do the before a trained japanese fighter, he'll immediatly bring his hands to his hips and slide back to a controllable distance. (made this mistake once, won't do it again)

And if you're going to say: "how to tumble then?"... you don't. I don't understand how people have gotten the idea that tumbling to avoid attacks works in real life. It's arguably one of the most foolish things you can try (unless you were to do it away from your attacker, in which case you won't get cut, but not towards your attacker, like everyone seems to think works). The only time tumbling would work is when tumbling into a pike line. This is because the lenght of the pikes give you something of a "safe zone" between the head of the pikes and your opponent with his back-up weapon.

If anyone disbelieves me on tumbling, take a look at discovery. There was a series of martial arts shows a while ago, presented by a host who had trained kung-fu. When he visited a ninjitsu dojo, he first had to undergo a test, where he was to avoid the blade of a nodachi held by the school master.

Those who saw that will remember how he started tumbling, and how the edge of the blade never left his neck, nomatter how he tumbled.

This is not because of some prenatural ability of the master, this is because tumbling does Not work. It's slow, obvious and easy to follow.


Next up, my replies on ancient samurai warfare, the superiority of two handed weapons and the weakness of early Japanese bows. Sorry, I know it was supposed to be up sunday, but I got seriously blindsided by some bad issues that needed to be resolved first. Thanks for you all's patience :)

[Mr Croup]

No sorry, this isn't true. Scabbards of gatana's that see regular use are not too loose (it doesn't rattle), but it's loose enough to just slide out if you bend over to pick up something. There is no such thing as "the tight first inch", and the idea that thumbing the gatana out an inch to threaten is a completely fictional thing.

When carrying a gatana, the threat comes when one had one hand on the scabbard, and the other hand goes to the right hip. I

First, a point of disagreement. I have inspected, and in one case been allowed to wield katana that required "thumbing out the first inch." These three swords were all forged prior to the 18th century, and had seen use. All three swords had a tanka, which serves to secure the sword in the sheath, as well as add stability to the position of the tsuba. I can't recall having ever examined a katana that did not have a tanka.

There is actually a Japanese term for thumbing out past the tanka, "tanka o kiru," and this is an extremely aggressive gesture, moving beyond the threat represented by the posture you have mentioned. That is the point on which I agree with you though. The simple act of placing hand on scabard and at the hip in a drawing position is aggressive, and indicative of the individual being ready for combat. Tanka o kiru is just another step, and one that shows more hostility and willingness to engage.

That being said, forward tumbling is useless against an armed opponent within range. On that we definitely agree.

[Bug-a-Boo]

First, a point of disagreement. I have inspected, and in one case been allowed to wield katana that required "thumbing out the first inch." These three swords were all forged prior to the 18th century, and had seen use. All three swords had a tanka, which serves to secure the sword in the sheath, as well as add stability to the position of the tsuba. I can't recall having ever examined a katana that did not have a tanka.

*quick reply* I agree with you, which is why I mentioned "Scabbards that see regular use". The tanka will provide a tight first inch when the scabbard is newly fitted (and remember, gatana's had multiple scabbards and would be refitted often by a rich owner). After a few times use however, the resistance provided by the tanka will have faded away.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Okay, here we go. First up to get it out of the way, early Japanese bows:

Early Japanese only had acces to wood from catalpa, zelkova, mulberry or sandalwood. They knew of composite bows made by laminating wood, animal tendon and horn, but these weren't adopted because the lacked ready acces to supplies of bone and horn. By the tirtheenth century, Japanese yumi were made by laminating bamboo strips to the inside and outside of the bow (sammai uchi yumi for those wondering). This method of bowmaking wasn't a strong one, because overflexing composites of woo and bamboo stresses the adhesive and causes the laminations to seperate.

This meant the bows had to be made Very long (some over 8 feet) to achieve sufficient power.

All in all, these early japanese bows were not as strong as say later european warbows, but Japanese samurai armor of the time was very protective (I'm talking about the Oyoroi. Not superior, just very protective. It wasn't armor you could properly fight in on foot, but on horseback, the boxy, loose fitting shape gave excellent protection), and required that an attacker shoot from very close range to penetrate it.

Later Japanese bows were constructed stronger, but these are of late period and past the point of the discussion.


Next up, Japanese politics.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Okay, on to early Japanese politics.

First thing I'd like to dispell is that Samurai society was one of unbending tradition which stood change in the way. This is not true. Samurai, just like any other society trying to make it through history were open to change and tried out new things brought in by other cultures whenever they found them. However, it's not always possible to stick to new developments, nor is it always neccesary, if the old was good enough.

All this is in reference to Japan pre-1400's, which were what shaped the traditions, weapons and mindsets of the later era's.

Okay, contrary to how the west was run, A warrior in Japan could Not go up to his neighbore's land, poke a flagstick in it and call it his until someone else kicked him of it. This wasn't how it worked - Japanese goverment officially owned every inch of Japanese soil. If someone were to claim a piece of land, he would be committing a crime vs the goverment.

"So if you can't conquer land like that, why didn't everybody rebel against it and start out conquering land on their own, you know, screw the goverment?" - Well, there Was a way to gain land, and that was to be appointed law-enforcer by the goverment to apprehend a "bandit", after which you'd be entitled to his lands as a gift from your goverment.

What does this mean? Effectively, it means there were never "war's of conquest" in ancient Japan. Rather, it was a massive game of cops and robbers, with the "robbers" trying to get on the good side of the goverment during the conflict, while the "cops" attempted to kill the robbers before they could do so. Political leverage might have the position of bandit and law-enforcer change multiple times during a single conflict. This system is also responsible for the stirct adherence to etiquette in Japanese society - If one were to anger one's neighbor to the extent of getting said neighbor to want revenge, one could then accuse the neighbor of breaking the law by starting a personal feud, and thus get appointed as law-enforcer, after which, once you've killed your neighbor, you can get his lands as a reward.

So, what else does this mean? Know the fabeled samurai codes of honour? Well, they didn't exist. What is called honour, was easily interchangeble with the word Reputation. For a samurai, reputation meant everything, because you didn't just get appointed law-enforcer on sight. No, samurai families were mercenary. A family with great reputation were far more likely to land an enforcement gig when it came to large things (like another samurai rebelling and claiming himself emperor, gaining a large following), and thus recieve great rewards after resolving the issue.


What else does this mean, and what does it mean to the weapons and armour discussion?

Now that you all understand more about Japanese politics, let me point out the last point - A samurai working thus for the court to apprehend a lawbreaker, would not be entitled to his lands until he was dead.

In europe, an army only had to occupy land, and a battle only had to last till the moral of one side was broken and one army fled. Important people could be ransomed for money. This meant that battlefield weapons and tactics need not be absolutely deadly, they just had to be enough to survive and drive of the enemy.

In Japan however, there was no such thing. In order to reap the rewards, your enemy had to be dead, dead and deader. Weapons, tactics and combat was all geared to be as deadly as possible. Routing the enemy was no option, they had to die. Routing an enemy was actually counterproductive, considering that you now had to hunt the fleeing forces down again to kill them all, and as we all know, an army fleeing is faster then an army chasing, since the army giving chase has to maintain cohesiveness and combat ability in case it overtakes it's prey.

This is why mounted archery was so important to japanese combat. It was both a way of reputation (afterall, mounted combat isn't easy, and a family capable of such is worthy of awe) and a way of mobile combat neccesary in a battle which requires you to kill your enemy, or stay out of your enemy's reach.

Early Japanese armies did not work with large formation tactics. Rather, it relied upon ambushing and surprising one's foe (nightambushes on an unwarned enemy's house were Very popular, preferably before said enemy was informed that he is now a criminal). Samurai fought as clouts of mounted archers, backed up by small clouts of armed troops on foot to give some additional support. This doesn't mean that fighting was chaotic however. Athough there was next to no coordination between samurai bands of the same army, each band was made up of men that had trained and fought together as a well oiled machine.


And with this, in my next reply, I will expand on why two-handed weapons are superior.

[Belkarseviltwin]

Another katana-related question:
L5R refers to katana being carried "blade down"- ie with the cutting edge down, so the saya rests on the blunt edge. When you think you're about to fight, you turn your sword "blade up" so it's facing the right way when you draw it. They're not kept this way normally to avoid dulling the blade.

Does this have any basis in fact?

[Bug-a-Boo]

Another katana-related question:
L5R refers to katana being carried "blade down"- ie with the cutting edge down, so the saya rests on the blunt edge. When you think you're about to fight, you turn your sword "blade up" so it's facing the right way when you draw it. They're not kept this way normally to avoid dulling the blade.

Does this have any basis in fact?




...

Before we look at reality, lets have a look at common sense:

Edge down so the scabbard is resting on the blunt side...



??? ??? ???



What on earth is the scabbard doing resting on the blade? It's the scabbard holding the blade, not the other way round! Edge down means that now the edge is resting into the scabbard, which kinda defeats the whole point of the idea in the first place.




Now if we look at reality, we see that blade dulling by the scabbard was never an issue, and tachi's were always carried edge down. Gatana's however, were never carried edge down.

[Mr Croup]

A samurai working thus for the court to apprehend a lawbreaker, would not be entitled to his lands until he was dead.

In europe, an army only had to occupy land, and a battle only had to last till the moral of one side was broken and one army fled. Important people could be ransomed for money. This meant that battlefield weapons and tactics need not be absolutely deadly, they just had to be enough to survive and drive of the enemy.

In Japan however, there was no such thing. In order to reap the rewards, your enemy had to be dead, dead and deader.

Incorrect sir. While certainly, the practice of an individual or group of individuals who had been made magistrate killing to ensure the gain of land was common, it was not the only method, and argueably not the most common. Land could be granted by the Imperial house, either directly or more frequently, indirectly through daimyo or other titled officials. These grants could be made for assistance given, "military" service, or by rite of attaining a place within the imperial bureaucracy. In the case of a magistrate, land of their enemy could be granted by a presiding lord upon apprehension, not death. In addition to various records noting the grants, exchanges, and seizures of land that exist that discredit your statement, my family was granted land a section of land in the 14th century for loyal service and their support. The land was taken from another family who had abstained from lending their aid to their local lord.


Early Japanese armies did not work with large formation tactics. Rather, it relied upon ambushing and surprising one's foe (nightambushes on an unwarned enemy's house were Very popular, preferably before said enemy was informed that he is now a criminal).
You are, however, dead on with this one. So much of the conflicts between various clans and families in feudal Japan, especially earlier periods, as you are indicating, was done in seemingly "underhanded" methods, which is so often overlooked.

While there were conventions for dueling, for open war, and what have you, combat in Japan was not solely categorized by these means of "high war." The use of stealth, surprise, and above all else, making use of any tactical advantages (such as raiding an enemies home while he slept) were fully utilized. It's another one of the myriad examples of the duplicitous nature of Japanese societal norms and practices in the feudal era.

[Mr Croup]

Another katana-related question:
L5R refers to katana being carried "blade down"- ie with the cutting edge down, so the saya rests on the blunt edge. When you think you're about to fight, you turn your sword "blade up" so it's facing the right way when you draw it. They're not kept this way normally to avoid dulling the blade.

Does this have any basis in fact?


The principle between an "live" and "dead" blade is rooted in truth. Having the cutting edge facing up, or "live" was the manner in which a katana would be carried at all times, to my knowledge. If the blades were displayed, they would sometimes be presented with cutting edge down to indicate that they were not be represented as an aggressive weapon, but as a piece of art. This practice, as far as I am aware did not come about until the samurai warrior culture began to decline. I've met individuals with different opinions on the matter of whether presenting a blade "dead' is ever acceptable.

A practice that of caring a katana over the right hip was a common one when meeting peacefully for negotiations, or when in the presence of your betters in a formal court like setting. This was to prevent easy drawing of the blade, thus lessening the threat of an attack, though the gesture was mainly symbolic.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Incorrect sir. While certainly, the practice of an individual or group of individuals who had been made magistrate killing to ensure the gain of land was common, it was not the only method, and argueably not the most common. Land could be granted by the Imperial house, either directly or more frequently, indirectly through daimyo or other titled officials. These grants could be made for assistance given, "military" service, or by rite of attaining a place within the imperial bureaucracy. In the case of a magistrate, land of their enemy could be granted by a presiding lord upon apprehension, not death. In addition to various records noting the grants, exchanges, and seizures of land that exist that discredit your statement, my family was granted land a section of land in the 14th century for loyal service and their support. The land was taken from another family who had abstained from lending their aid to their local lord.


I do not disagree with you. What you say, does not dispell my statements at all. You are completely correct that there were many other ways to gain land and property, I thought this was a given, and didn't touch on them since we were at the subject of combat and war.

So let me phrase myself more clearly: These were the only ways to Aggressively gain land.

All other methods of gaining lands through grants and politics still apply, like everywhere else.



My post on why two-handed weapons are superior will have to wait a little while longer I'm afriad. Life has barged through the door again, and needs to be dealth with before I can get to it. To all those waiting to read it (I hope there's at least one :P), it'll be here soon!

[sniffles]

Unfortunately, this is what might start to sound like a broken record: People didn't carry greatswords, maces, morningstars, battleaxes, etc. around with them unless they were intending to use them right then and there. These are all military or para-military weapons. If you're not in the military, you were unlikely to even *own* one of these, let alone carry it around town on a regular basis. If you were in the military, the weapon was carried in your hands/arms, or if it was too cumbersome for that, on a cart with all the rest of the equipment nobody was carrying.


Thanks, Fhaolan. I'm mostly thinking of things from a roleplaying perspective; if a character uses a mace as his primary weapon the assumption is that he's not part of an army and therefore has to carry all his own equipment on his person. But I do like to keep it as "real" as is ever possible in a RPG.

I guess I'd assume therefore that a character using something like a mace or morningstar would probably have a way to tuck it into his pack while walking, or perhaps thrust the haft through his belt, rather than walk around with his weapon banging into his leg every time he takes a step. :)



In many cases, yes, this is correct. There are variants. Sometimes shorter swords might be on the same hip as the drawing hand, and be drawn 'backwards' so that it is in what I've heard as described as 'ice-pick' position at first. Those same shorter blades might also be strapped on across the small of the back, so that you are reaching behind yourself to draw it, rather than in front.
I like this one! I run a two-weapon fighter in a D&D game and kept imagining him wearing his smaller weapon on the opposite side from the larger sword. This ended up giving me the rather silly image of him crossing his arms in order to simultaneously draw both weapons. If he had them both on the same side he could draw the longsword in the customary way, reaching across his body to grasp the hilt, while he could draw his shortsword in the "icepick" style you mention and then flip it into fighting grip with a twist of the wrist (which would probably look fairly cool in addition to being more reasonable). :)

[Fhaolan]

Thanks, Fhaolan. I'm mostly thinking of things from a roleplaying perspective; if a character uses a mace as his primary weapon the assumption is that he's not part of an army and therefore has to carry all his own equipment on his person. But I do like to keep it as "real" as is ever possible in a RPG.

I guess I'd assume therefore that a character using something like a mace or morningstar would probably have a way to tuck it into his pack while walking, or perhaps thrust the haft through his belt, rather than walk around with his weapon banging into his leg every time he takes a step. :)


Okay, this means we're thinking 'what would really work' instead of 'what was really done'. This is an area I'm far more familiar with. :)

Maces and one-handed axes are easy, realatively. The shaft is slipped through a ring on the belt, with the head of the mace/axe up against the belt. That leaves the shaft banging against your leg, as you say. This usually isn't that irritating if you're used to viking-type swords, because they hang this way as well, right along your leg. Some people are bothered by it, though. The solution I've seen the most is having a second ring on a set of stiff leather straps so that the mace shaft is canted, much like a rapier frog holds a rapier scabbard canted at an angle. This only works for certain maces and axes. Gothic maces have so many fiddly bits on the head that they might as well be spikes. I'll talk about spiked maces and morningstars later. :) If the head of the mace/axe is overly heavy compared to the weight of the shaft, it's going to keep trying to turn upside down. This is exteremely irritating, as I can tell you from experience. The only solution I've come up with for this is to tie weights to the butt-end of the mace/axe so that the head isn't that much heavier than the shaft.

Now, on to spiked maces and mornigstars. I haven't found any solution to this problem that doesn't involve spikes being uncomfortably close to your kidneys or knees. At least not in a way that doesn't involve a five minute time-out while you draw your weapon. :) i.e. a hard leather or wooden case that the spiked bit gets enclosed in.

[Belkarseviltwin]

Bug-a-Boo:
As for your common sense argument, I took a long time to make sense of it as well. Eventually, I figured it out as something like this:

The katana is worn through an obi (no comment on whether this is fact or not)
The saya is more of a "cover" for the katana, and doesn't actually bear its weight. Its weight is actually borne by the tanka (yay i learned a new word), which goes through the obi.
The purpose of the saya is not as a sword-carrier. It is possible (albeit unlikely, due to the fact that the edge will do nasty stuff to legs/clothes) to wear a katana with no saya.
The Tanka IS inside the saya, and is the ONLY point where the sword is supported by the saya. Elsewhere, the saya rests on the sword.

[Mr Croup]

Bug-a-Boo:
As for your common sense argument, I took a long time to make sense of it as well. Eventually, I figured it out as something like this:

The katana is worn through an obi (no comment on whether this is fact or not)
The saya is more of a "cover" for the katana, and doesn't actually bear its weight. Its weight is actually borne by the tanka (yay i learned a new word), which goes through the obi.
The purpose of the saya is not as a sword-carrier. It is possible (albeit unlikely, due to the fact that the edge will do nasty stuff to legs/clothes) to wear a katana with no saya.
The Tanka IS inside the saya, and is the ONLY point where the sword is supported by the saya. Elsewhere, the saya rests on the sword.

Point of correction, the tanka is part of the katana. It is on the blade side of the tsuba (guard), overlayed around the base of the blade, thus making it slightly wider than the blade. This is what keeps it in the saya.

[Bug-a-Boo]

The purpose of the saya is not as a sword-carrier. It is possible (albeit unlikely, due to the fact that the edge will do nasty stuff to legs/clothes) to wear a katana with no saya.
The Tanka IS inside the saya, and is the ONLY point where the sword is supported by the saya. Elsewhere, the saya rests on the sword.

Okay, lets take a moment here.

Physics. let's just say, this is the gatana:==========|==
This, is where the tanka is: ------------------------------^
This, is where is rests in the obi: -------------------^

I think you'll be able to figure it out on your own, but for clarity's sake, I'll just say it: The gatana rests fully in the saya, from tanka to tip. it's the flat side that rests in the saya, the edge faces up when sheathed. The tanka does not bear the weight of the sword. There are no problems with edge damage to the saya when a gatana is rested, nor is there with a tachi, if worn properly.

[SpiderBrigade]

Bug-a-Boo, obviouly I'll bow to your experience, but on the face of it I find it quite plausible that the tanka does indeed largely keep the gatana's blade from touching the saya. From what I understand the tanka is usually an inch or so long, and fits rather tightly into the saya.

xxx
xxx
XXXXXX XX= tsuba
[]IIIII[] xx=Grip
[]IIIII[] III=tanka
[] IIII [] IIII=blade
[] IIII []

That's a little exaggerated, scalewise (the tanka isn't that much thicker than the blade) but I think it gets the idea across. Obviously this isn't going to keep the gatana from EVER touching the saya, but I think the tanka/saya contact would hold most of the weight due to the tight fit.

Edit: dagol ascii characters. Another question I had about the quick-draw emphasis of the gatana: wouldn't that tend to drag the blade against the saya as it is drawn? Wouldn't that be bad for the blade over time?

[Bug-a-Boo]

That's a little exaggerated, scalewise (the tanka isn't that much thicker than the blade) but I think it gets the idea across. Obviously this isn't going to keep the gatana from EVER touching the saya, but I think the tanka/saya contact would hold most of the weight due to the tight fit.

Edit: dagol ascii characters. Another question I had about the quick-draw emphasis of the gatana: wouldn't that tend to drag the blade against the saya as it is drawn? Wouldn't that be bad for the blade over time?

1) Ahhh wait, I think I know what the problem is. I don't have a digicam, but if really neccesary, I can attemp to scan in one of my saya's. If you look properly into a saya, you'll notice that the inside tapers to fit the blade snugly. That aside, a gatana still can't rest purely on tanka alone. You're carrying a blade often held almost horizontal. You can't rest something like that on just one point. The tanka just becomes a pivot point. So in effect, the saya holds the entire blade snugly, and the position of the tanka doesn't allow it to just balance its weight on that point.

2) Yes it would, actually, bad for the saya that is, not the blade. The trick is to practice not pulling the blade up while you draw. Draw levely, and only exert upward force after the tip has cleared the saya. Not easy at first, but it comes with practice.

[sniffles]

Okay, this means we're thinking 'what would really work' instead of 'what was really done'. This is an area I'm far more familiar with. :)

Maces and one-handed axes are easy, realatively. The shaft is slipped through a ring on the belt, with the head of the mace/axe up against the belt. That leaves the shaft banging against your leg, as you say. This usually isn't that irritating if you're used to viking-type swords, because they hang this way as well, right along your leg.
Oh! This works much better! I was imagining the mace or morningstar dangling by its haft from the belt, so that the head was pointing toward the ground. Very bad for the legs. :)

[Leperflesh]

Now, on to spiked maces and mornigstars. I haven't found any solution to this problem that doesn't involve spikes being uncomfortably close to your kidneys or knees. At least not in a way that doesn't involve a five minute time-out while you draw your weapon. :) i.e. a hard leather or wooden case that the spiked bit gets enclosed in.

You can also make a custom 'cup' out of shaped, thick leather. A hole in the bottom of the cup is big enough to slide the handle of the mace through, and the cup is fitted to the shape of the base inch or so of the weapon's head. In this manner, even a weapon that is very head-heavy and handle-light can be held securly to the belt... and, the cup also helps to hold spikes and such away from the body.

That would only work for something with flanges or blunt spikes, though. If you have long, thin wicked spikes sticking out, there is just no way to put that against your body safely. You'll need some kind of 'sock' you can jam over the nasty-end of the weapon, and then keep it safely stowed somewhere where it doesn't bash the weapon up against things... because that would drive the pointed bits through the 'sock'. A wooden case is probably ideal for safety but least-convenient for access.

Realistically, though, putting long thin spikes on a mace defeats the purpose... it converts a blunt, bashing weapon into a pointed, piercing weapon, in which case you might as well be using a pick. Okay, yes, with a mace, you can put the spikes all around the head, and that may be easier to strike with because you don't have to exert axial control the way you have to with a pick to keep the striking point from deflecting. But, the shape of the weapon also limits the length and strength of the spikes, making them inferior to the spike of a pick (or the spike you put on the back of an axe, hammer, or pole-arm, for that matter).

The 'leather cup' method would not work for a flail, however. I can't figure out any way to carry a flail on the belt safely (at least, not the kind of flail with a heavy striking-head or heads. Some things called 'flails' are really more of a scourge, which would probably be OK to allow to flop against your leg, if you had on good thick leather clothing or perhaps armor between it and your flesh). So, I'm talking about a ball-and-chain type flail (which I've also seen called a 'morning star', even though I think of a morning star as being a macelike weapon with a round head and spikes, rather than a ball-and-chain weapon. Am I wrong?)

-Lep

[Renrik]

Or you could hang with the mace head just above the belt and the rest hanging down, as in:
___
____(||||)___
| |
| |
| |
| |
|_|

[Ryujin]

So, I'm talking about a ball-and-chain type flail (which I've also seen called a 'morning star', even though I think of a morning star as being a macelike weapon with a round head and spikes, rather than a ball-and-chain weapon. Am I wrong?)

-Lep

IIRC, the term 'morning star' was sometimes used to refer to the spiked ball alone, but not to the flail itself.

[Grey_kitsune]

Do you do theoretical weapons?
Like say an Orion drive


| <===pusher plate
|
| (nuke) [bullet>||
How well would this work with a flat pusher plate?
A parabolic one with the nuke at the focus?
An ellipsoid one with the nuke at the inner focus and the bullet at the outer focus when the majority of the blast hits?

Would the flat one provide good armor?
Would the parabolic one provide good trust?
Would the ellipsoid one provide good fire power?

[Bug-a-Boo]

Badabam, okay, why I say two-handed weapons are superior, and my justifications for that:

First thing, let me make one thing clear. I'm not talking about massed infantry formations. I'm not talking about set duels or one on one duelling. The reason I brought up the Samurai is to set the situation in which I will hold my reasoning, namely: Combat of a small group of warriors vs other small groups of warriors which feature both intimate personal combat as well as cooperative tactics, each side fighting to kill the other side rather then just routing them.

Recognise it? It's also the same situation in which adventurers usually find themselves in fantasy games. ;)

One more note: Bucklers are the exception that prove the fact. Consider that a buckler is well capable of being used offensively without the cumbersome size of a 'normal' shield. Bucklers work in the same way as many two-handed weapons, in the way that you have another side to attack with, rather then just the end of your weapon.


How does one fight? One fights with the tools he/she's got. A two handed weapon provides a combatant with more tools to combat, usually:

1) More power behind each blow: This becomes especially important when armour comes into play. Many weapons can't pierce armour, but a sufficiently hard blow can still hurt the crunchy underneath.

2) Multiple sides to attack with, and the ability to quickly switch between them: One argument I've always heard is that one handed weapons are supposedly faster and quicker when up close. People always seem to forget that you can smack someone around all over the place with both ends of the weapon. Three ends when it comes to longswords (real life ones, not DnD ones).

3) Reach: This one also always seems to be forgotten, or seriously underplayed. The first thing a fighter learns, is how to control distance. Personal combat is a game of controlling distance, and controlling your opponent. A long weapon makes distance control much easier.

4) More power behind a throw: One argument I've also heard pop up from time to time is "If I got throwing stars/daggers/other stuff, I can stay at a distance and keep throwing them at you". Aside from the fact that small thrown weapons in reality aren't that deadly, and were used as distractions rather then as weapons to kill, there's also the fact that two-handed weapons can be thrown as well. Surprisingly well at that. Apparently, greatswords were so deadly when thrown, that several recorded duels had the throwing of said greatswords specifically forbidden in the rules of combat.

5) Leverage: This is arguably the most critically important, but it is also the one thing that is almost always forgotten. A long weapon allows for powerful leverage in grappling maneuvres. Most seem to have forgotten, but in a fight (especially when armour is concerned) grappling is extremely important, and all weapons can and were used to grapple with. Two-handed weapons have been repeatedly demonstrated to be far more effective at this. The options to lock, trip or pin your opponent with a two-handed weapon are limitless, and have throughout history been proven to be extremely effective.

Funny thing about leverage is that when applied to shields, it makes the shield a liability to its wielder. A shieldwall is fearsome to face if each warrior is supporting the one beside him/her, but a shield wielder alone will find that the larger the shield is, the easier it is to use its weight and size to push, pull and lock him/her.


These are the reasons two-handed weapons are superior in personal combat. Only bucklers have the same degree of versatility, but lack a longer weapon's ability to apply leverage during grappling maneuvres. Shield were widely popular in battles that were fought more to drive the enemy off, rather then to outright kill them. Shields were also popular, because they provided the footman protection from the hail of arrows, bolts and stones the enemy would keep raining down on them. But this doesn't make them superior in personal combat, as the shield itself can be a liability to its wielder, despite the fact that it can be used offensively too.

Romans may have defeated the falxmen, but keep in mind, the Romans fought as an organised army and fought to drive of their foe, which means all they have to do is survive and seem impossible to defeat, causing the opposing army to lose their resolve and yield the field. The falx as a weapon however, cause enough havoc apparently to become a weapon of legend amongst even the roman legion, which in my opinion, is enough testimony to its deadliness.

In medieval Japan, battle were fought to kill the enemy completely, not drive them off. And in this case, we see that shields were relegated to use as mobile walls, rather then combat weapons. Even if experience with two-handed weapons isn't enough to convince someone of their superiority, I can think of no better example then this. The Samurai have shown us that when is comes to deadly combat between small groups of combatants, single-handed weapons aren't the weapons of choice.


So, to say it again, practice and history has shown us that when it comes to combat a la DnD, two handed weapons are the superior weapons of choice.

Now, I know I'm hardly to most eloquent when it comes to explaining things, so feel free to point out any unclearness or rambling in my post, and I'll do my best to elaborate. And those who still disagree with me, feel free to make your arguments as to why I'm wrong. When doing so, do not use the argument of "the more skilled fighter wins!". That statement may be true, but it is no basis for a comparison of weapons.

I apologise for the lateness of this post, considering that I wanted to put this up last week. Life has a way of butting into hobbies. Those who're reading, thanks for you patience :)

[Telonius]

Hello! First-time poster here. I have a couple questions about chariot warfare. From the research I've done, I'm under the impression that most of the time, charioteers were armed with bows or javelins. About how big and heavy were these javelins? Were they long-ish pole weapons like spears, or were they short and all metal? What sort of armor could a thrown javelin get through?

Last question - I've been looking all over to figure this one out, but can't seem to find the answer anywhere. About how far could an army of chariots go in a day?

[Orion-the-G]

Do you do theoretical weapons?
Like say an Orion drive



Well, the Orion drive has always been a favorite of mine (for obvious reasons).

However, I don't recall it ever being put forward as a weapon, it was a means of propulsion. Are you refering to it as some kind of interplanetery artillery? Because otherwise it seems like it would just be more sensible to launch all those nukes at whatever your target is.

[Grey_kitsune]

While I haven't heard of it being used as a weapon I’ve been exploring how proposed space technology can be used or easily modified to function as a weapon.

The nukes would be rather small so as not damage the pusher plate, though the plate would probably still provide very good armor.

The targets would be space stations, or other stationary objects as ships can easily dodge bullets especially ones with obvious muzzle flashes.

And yes they would be mounted on space ships, the atmosphere and gravity would keep it from working right on a planet.

[Belkarseviltwin]

Hello! First-time poster here. I have a couple questions about chariot warfare. From the research I've done, I'm under the impression that most of the time, charioteers were armed with bows or javelins. About how big and heavy were these javelins? Were they long-ish pole weapons like spears, or were they short and all metal? What sort of armor could a thrown javelin get through?

Homeric charioteers had long spears, made of ash with bronze heads. Homer says they were "eleven cubits long", but that's typical exaggeration. They seem equally likely to pierce or go through the armour of the day.

[Sundog]

While I haven't heard of it being used as a weapon I’ve been exploring how proposed space technology can be used or easily modified to function as a weapon.

The nukes would be rather small so as not damage the pusher plate, though the plate would probably still provide very good armor.

The targets would be space stations, or other stationary objects as ships can easily dodge bullets especially ones with obvious muzzle flashes.

And yes they would be mounted on space ships, the atmosphere and gravity would keep it from working right on a planet.


Actually, atmosphere and gravity have virtually no effect on an Orion Drive. The original proposal was to launch one from the Earth's surface (hey, it was the fifties...). Admittedly, you would have to take atmospheric friction into account regarding your proposed projectile.

I'm not a physicist, but every design I've seen has had a flat pusher plate. This is probably for ease of construction; when you're building something meters thick of solid metal, simplification=good.

[Telonius]

Homeric charioteers had long spears, made of ash with bronze heads. Homer says they were "eleven cubits long", but that's typical exaggeration. They seem equally likely to pierce or go through the armour of the day.
Thanks!

[Sundog]

Homeric charioteers had long spears, made of ash with bronze heads. Homer says they were "eleven cubits long", but that's typical exaggeration. They seem equally likely to pierce or go through the armour of the day.

Egyptian charioteers made use of javelins that were bronze-sheathed to about half their length (roughly a meter long). Some picture show them with a "quiver" of a good number of these.
They also used shortbows.

[a_humble_lich]

I'd be wary to using Homer as an example of chariot warfare, as Chariots were no longer in use when Homer was writing. In Homer chariots are mostly battle taxis anyways; the heroes usually dismount before fighting.

As for the Orion drive, in vacuum what is providing the actual thrust? I see no obvious reaction mass. Are the bombs vaporizing part of the pusher plate, and that is the reaction mass? Or is the ship just being propelled by the photon pressure of the bombs? Neither cases seem like you would get much thrust, even when using nukes. Also, how do you keep the pusher plate intact. To me it seems that with every bomb you will have a huge flux of gamma rays on the pusher plate which will vaporize the top layer of the plate. So with every bomb your plate will get thinner and thinner, which seems bad.

[Grey_kitsune]

Actually, atmosphere and gravity have virtually no effect on an Orion Drive. The original proposal was to launch one from the Earth's surface (hey, it was the fifties...). Admittedly, you would have to take atmospheric friction into account regarding your proposed projectile.

I'm not a physicist, but every design I've seen has had a flat pusher plate. This is probably for ease of construction; when you're building something meters thick of solid metal, simplification=good.

maybe i can make my self a bit clearer with my comment.
while the atmosphere wouldn't keep it from taking off, it might mess up the aim in weapon mode. it is kind of hard to balance a bullet on an explosion so that it will hit something over interplanetary distances. The atmosphere and gravity would only make it harder.

[Edmund]

First thing, let me make one thing clear. I'm not talking about massed infantry formations. I'm not talking about set duels or one on one duelling. The reason I brought up the Samurai is to set the situation in which I will hold my reasoning, namely: Combat of a small group of warriors vs other small groups of warriors which feature both intimate personal combat as well as cooperative tactics, each side fighting to kill the other side rather then just routing them.

Well, this is often what would happen anyway. I mean, you aren't aiming for total destruction, but you want to kill the fellow you're fighting. That's why swords were sharp.

The only time you get these situations where you're just routing the other side is in 15th c. Italy with the mercenary companies, but that is really anomalous.


1) More power behind each blow: This becomes especially important when armour comes into play. Many weapons can't pierce armour, but a sufficiently hard blow can still hurt the crunchy underneath.
This is true, but at a certain point it becomes irrelevant. If you wear a suit of, say, gothic plate, and wielding a single-handed thrusting sword, you're going to kick any fool with a katana's rear end any day of the week.

This is simply because the katana will be thwarted by the plate, as are all mainly-cutting swords. Even if your opponent himself is wearing similar armour, you have the upper hand because your weapon is more purpose-built for the situation.


2) Multiple sides to attack with, and the ability to quickly switch between them: One argument I've always heard is that one handed weapons are supposedly faster and quicker when up close. People always seem to forget that you can smack someone around all over the place with both ends of the weapon. Three ends when it comes to longswords (real life ones, not DnD ones).

You seem to forget that shields beyond bucklers can be used for attack and defence. Even the great Roman scutae were, on occasion, used in such a manner. And the great things about shields is that they nullify the effectiveness of all ends of the weapon equally.


3) Reach: This one also always seems to be forgotten, or seriously underplayed. The first thing a fighter learns, is how to control distance. Personal combat is a game of controlling distance, and controlling your opponent. A long weapon makes distance control much easier.

Funnily, you get a longer reach with a one-handed swing than a two handed one. Why?

Because with a two-handed swing you're limited by the fact that both of your hands maintain contact with the weapon. Ergo, if you swing, let's say, vertically in front of your chest, both hands must come together to form a triangle.

If you were to break the triangle, you would find that the distance between the tip of the triangle (where your hands meet on the weapon) and your shoulders is less than the distance between the now free arm, held straight out, and your shoulder. In other words:

^ < | |

This is why long one-handed weapons were much beloved on horseback. Reach.


4) More power behind a throw: One argument I've also heard pop up from time to time is "If I got throwing stars/daggers/other stuff, I can stay at a distance and keep throwing them at you". Aside from the fact that small thrown weapons in reality aren't that deadly, and were used as distractions rather then as weapons to kill, there's also the fact that two-handed weapons can be thrown as well. Surprisingly well at that. Apparently, greatswords were so deadly when thrown, that several recorded duels had the throwing of said greatswords specifically forbidden in the rules of combat.

First of all, I have never heard of anyone throwing a two-handed weapon. All of the thrown weapons I've ever heard of, from plumbatae to fransiscas, pila, darts, daggers, and the Middle Eastern throwing-mace, have all been single-handed weapons.

Though I've never heard of such accounts in recorded duels, I would imagine it had more to do with the concept of hurting the spectators in the wind-up for the throw (think the hammer throw in the Olympics) rather than the effectiveness of the throw itself. Or perhaps it is indicative of the ineffectiveness of the throw. It is just as likely to fly off and hit the judge rather than the opponent.


5) Leverage: This is arguably the most critically important, but it is also the one thing that is almost always forgotten. A long weapon allows for powerful leverage in grappling maneuvres.
And a short weapon is good for stabbing people. Also, I don't know what leverage you're talking about.


Most seem to have forgotten, but in a fight (especially when armour is concerned) grappling is extremely important, and all weapons can and were used to grapple with. Two-handed weapons have been repeatedly demonstrated to be far more effective at this. The options to lock, trip or pin your opponent with a two-handed weapon are limitless, and have throughout history been proven to be extremely effective. Actually, at grappling range two-handed weapons are no-more effective than their single-handed counterparts. The grappling manoeuvres I've seen rely on a few things: 1) a free hand. 2) a weapon long enough that you can grab two parts with it and (for example) choke someone with it. 3) an open area in which to throw them without tripping yourself.

A fellow with a messer and a buckler can fulfill all of these requisites. So can a fellow in plate armour with a lovely gothic mace.


Funny thing about leverage is that when applied to shields, it makes the shield a liability to its wielder. A shieldwall is fearsome to face if each warrior is supporting the one beside him/her, but a shield wielder alone will find that the larger the shield is, the easier it is to use its weight and size to push, pull and lock him/her.
Granted, but it's ridiculously difficult to grapple the shield in the first place without exposing yourself to a countercut. Especially with long, single-handed weapons like the Oakeshott type XI.

If you were to hook someone's shield with, say, a bill, then you've effectively thwarted yourself because they will now be able to slide their shield along the shaft and cut you down. By putting the point above them, you've effectively removed their primary obstacle in killing you.



Romans may have defeated the falxmen, but keep in mind, the Romans fought as an organised army and fought to drive of their foe, which means all they have to do is survive and seem impossible to defeat, causing the opposing army to lose their resolve and yield the field. The falx as a weapon however, cause enough havoc apparently to become a weapon of legend amongst even the roman legion, which in my opinion, is enough testimony to its deadliness.

I think calling it a weapon of legend is giving it way too much credit. Especially for something as simplistic as a converted scythe. The only reason it's gained popularity on the modern level is because of its pure strangeness. Similarly, it could have acquired notoriety in the Roman army for that very reason, rather than for its effectiveness. Indeed, given the absolutely pragmatic and logical nature of the Roman army, it's quite easy to see that if they had found the falx to be so effective, they would have adopted it themselves.


The Samurai have shown us that when is comes to deadly combat between small groups of combatants, single-handed weapons aren't the weapons of choice.
While the Mongols, Turks, Vikings, and who knows how many others have shown us that they are.

[AMX]

As for the Orion drive, in vacuum what is providing the actual thrust? I see no obvious reaction mass. Are the bombs vaporizing part of the pusher plate, and that is the reaction mass? Or is the ship just being propelled by the photon pressure of the bombs? Neither cases seem like you would get much thrust, even when using nukes. Also, how do you keep the pusher plate intact. To me it seems that with every bomb you will have a huge flux of gamma rays on the pusher plate which will vaporize the top layer of the plate. So with every bomb your plate will get thinner and thinner, which seems bad.
There was supposed to be a chunk of propellant mounted on the bomb, which would have been vaporized to produce pressure against the plate.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Well, this is often what would happen anyway. I mean, you aren't aiming for total destruction, but you want to kill the fellow you're fighting. That's why swords were sharp.

The only time you get these situations where you're just routing the other side is in 15th c. Italy with the mercenary companies, but that is really anomalous.

um... I guess you haven't been paying attention. Battles in europe were fought with the goal of controlling territory and routing the enemy army. Especially in medieval times, wealthy opponents were captured rather then killed for ransom money. There's much greater emphasis on holding the line, rather then killing every opponent outright. This is a big difference from an army fighting to annihilate another army, as was the case with the early samurai. Or adventurers in DnD.



This is true, but at a certain point it becomes irrelevant. If you wear a suit of, say, gothic plate, and wielding a single-handed thrusting sword, you're going to kick any fool with a katana's rear end any day of the week.

This is simply because the katana will be thwarted by the plate, as are all mainly-cutting swords. Even if your opponent himself is wearing similar armour, you have the upper hand because your weapon is more purpose-built for the situation.

...why are you comparing a guy with a gatana vs a guy in full plate? The gatana was never meant to fight full plate, so I hardly see the relevance. If you do insist on this point however, let me then point out that a dagger can easily be disarmed, and a gatana will still give a guy in full plate one hell of a bang if brought down on the helmet with both hands (and a full disregard for the survival of the blade).



You seem to forget that shields beyond bucklers can be used for attack and defence. Even the great Roman scutae were, on occasion, used in such a manner. And the great things about shields is that they nullify the effectiveness of all ends of the weapon equally.

Hardly. While the shield might be able to block incoming attacks, the force of the blow of two-handed weapons is greater, meaning more pain to the shield arm up to the point that the shield becomes hard to hold. Defensive shields can be weighed down by projectiles, and large shields block as much to the bearer as to the attacker. It goes both ways.



Funnily, you get a longer reach with a one-handed swing than a two handed one. Why?

Because with a two-handed swing you're limited by the fact that both of your hands maintain contact with the weapon. Ergo, if you swing, let's say, vertically in front of your chest, both hands must come together to form a triangle.

If you were to break the triangle, you would find that the distance between the tip of the triangle (where your hands meet on the weapon) and your shoulders is less than the distance between the now free arm, held straight out, and your shoulder. In other words:

^ < | |

...um... *points to the fact that one-handed weapons, especially swords, rarely exceded a lenght of more then 3-4 feet, while two-handed weapons often exceded a lenght of 5-6 feet. Then points out the fact that the difference in reach between one handed and two handed grip is only about two hand-breadths...*



This is why long one-handed weapons were much beloved on horseback. Reach.

And the fact that it's pretty hard to use weapons two-handed from horseback...

It's hardly relevant to the discussion.



First of all, I have never heard of anyone throwing a two-handed weapon. All of the thrown weapons I've ever heard of, from plumbatae to fransiscas, pila, darts, daggers, and the Middle Eastern throwing-mace, have all been single-handed weapons.

Though I've never heard of such accounts in recorded duels, I would imagine it had more to do with the concept of hurting the spectators in the wind-up for the throw (think the hammer throw in the Olympics) rather than the effectiveness of the throw itself. Or perhaps it is indicative of the ineffectiveness of the throw. It is just as likely to fly off and hit the judge rather than the opponent.

There are multiple recountings of the deadlyness of such thrown weapons. Mostly greatswords. I've tried it myself, and I've found that a greatsword is surprisingly easy to throw like a spear, and quite accurate at that. And are you trying to tell me a normal spear thrown is not deadlier then a dagger thrown?



And a short weapon is good for stabbing people. Also, I don't know what leverage you're talking about.

Okay, I'm going to use an analogy for this. Say you were standing with a shield and sword, and I were standing with a spear. If I were to attack your sword-side, you'd have to parry with the sword. This allows me to keep bind your sword arm, and step behind you, laying the polearm across your chest. Now the long spear means I can excert a Lot more force to twist you down to the ground.



Actually, at grappling range two-handed weapons are no-more effective than their single-handed counterparts. The grappling manoeuvres I've seen rely on a few things: 1) a free hand. 2) a weapon long enough that you can grab two parts with it and (for example) choke someone with it. 3) an open area in which to throw them without tripping yourself.

A fellow with a messer and a buckler can fulfill all of these requisites. So can a fellow in plate armour with a lovely gothic mace.

I've already pointed out that bucklers are a different case. And the fellow in plate armour with the mace is not exactly using it as a single-handed weapon is he? In any case, the guy with the longer weapon still has the advantage here.



Granted, but it's ridiculously difficult to grapple the shield in the first place without exposing yourself to a countercut. Especially with long, single-handed weapons like the Oakeshott type XI.

But it also exposes the shieldbearer to underhanded attacks by the grappler's own weapon, forcing the choice of risking getting hit in a sensitive spot (like the legs) or parrying, leaving the shield still open to be misused.



If you were to hook someone's shield with, say, a bill, then you've effectively thwarted yourself because they will now be able to slide their shield along the shaft and cut you down. By putting the point above them, you've effectively removed their primary obstacle in killing you.

...I'm going to assume you're tired and not thinking properly. Might I remind you that a bill has a pointy end aimed at your torso once it's hooked a shield? Unless you mean someone hooking a shield from high above with the point aimed at air... which makes me wonder why he/she's doing that in the first place.



I think calling it a weapon of legend is giving it way too much credit. Especially for something as simplistic as a converted scythe. The only reason it's gained popularity on the modern level is because of its pure strangeness. Similarly, it could have acquired notoriety in the Roman army for that very reason, rather than for its effectiveness. Indeed, given the absolutely pragmatic and logical nature of the Roman army, it's quite easy to see that if they had found the falx to be so effective, they would have adopted it themselves.

Strangeness or not, it was impressive enough to the romans to be featured in roman heraldry. As for the romans not adopting it, that would be quite elementry, considering that the falx is hardly suitable for close formation tactics.

Falxmen, Halbediers, Lombard berzerkers, Gallowglasses, English billmen. These names were all feared in medieval times. And with reason. These warriors were all small in number and unable to hold a defensive line, but when used offensively in the right spot, they would wreak havoc.



While the Mongols, Turks, Vikings, and who knows how many others have shown us that they are.

...what on earth are you talking about? None of these you've named fought battles aimed to kill the entire opposing army as a goal. There is no comparison. The mongols, turks, vikings all only had to rout their enemy to be victorious. The samurai didn't have this luxury, and could not afford to let the enemy rout.


With all due respect Edmund, I get the feeling that you're arguing just for the sake of argument.


[edit] Edited for frustration.

[Orion-the-G]

maybe i can make my self a bit clearer with my comment.
while the atmosphere wouldn't keep it from taking off, it might mess up the aim in weapon mode. it is kind of hard to balance a bullet on an explosion so that it will hit something over interplanetary distances. The atmosphere and gravity would only make it harder.


There are 2 problems I see with ever using the Orion drive as a weapon.

1) against any 'near space' targets (orbital spacecraft) it's overkill of the most massive kind. orbital spacestations or spacecraft could easily be destroyed with conventional rocket-propelled weaponry and it would be hundreds of times more economical. Using Orion Drive 'missiles' against a target like that would be like using a torpedo to blow up a rowboat.

2) The only case where Orion Drive ships would be economically feasible would be as 'planet-buster' weapons. Not targeted against enemy craft but against an entire enemy planet.
The main advantage of the Orion rocket is that it can accelerate a huge amount of mass at not-insignificant fractions of light speed. And it can do it fairly economically (relatively speaking). With enough nukes and enough time to accelerate (it can do away with a lot of features for a kamakazee mission) it will be able to impart a massive amount of kinetic energy to any planetary body it impacts. Orion rockets tend to measure in the thousands to the millions of tons. The impact of one of these rockets traveling at full velocity would make the impact of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs seem like a firecracker compared to a stick of dynamite. The atmosphere would likely be completely burned away, there would be an energy release equivalent to millions of nuclear bombs exploding at once. The planet could very well be ripped in half. Nothing would survive.

However, the problem is that you are launching an object vast distances and it is still traveling (relatively) slowly. An Orion Rocket launched at any nearby planet (in our solar system) would not likely be able to reach maximum velocity and the launch itself would likely be detected long before the rocket arrived. This would give the defending planet plenty of time to prepare countermeasures. This problem only grows if used in interstellar 'battles' since it would take years and years for the rocket to reach the destination the defenders could easily build and launch any countermeasures they wished.

[Ryujin]

There was supposed to be a chunk of propellant mounted on the bomb, which would have been vaporized to produce pressure against the plate.

Here's a useful, easy to understand site (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html) regarding rocket engines and other stuff, from the man who gave Steve Jackson's OGRE its appearance. Check under 'engine list'.

The novel Footfall, by Jerry Pournelle & Larry Niven, had a battleship powered by an Orion drive as a major plot point.

[Edmund]

um... I guess you haven't been paying attention. Battles in europe were fought with the goal of controlling territory and routing the enemy army. Especially in medieval times, wealthy opponents were captured rather then killed for ransom money.

And often battles were fought with the intent of annihilating the enemy. More on this below.


...why are you comparing a guy with a gatana vs a guy in full plate? The gatana was never meant to fight full plate, so I hardly see the relevance. If you do insist on this point however, let me then point out that a dagger can easily be disarmed, and a gatana will still give a guy in full plate one hell of a bang if brought down on the helmet with both hands (and a full disregard for the survival of the blade).

I'm simply saying that the katana is not superior in this situation by virtue of its two-handedness. And notice I said a sword, not a dagger. Furthermore, swords are not that easy to disarm.

Bringing the Katana down on the helm will not be pleasant for the armoured fighter, but it will by no means guarantee victory. Or anything approximating it.


Hardly. While the shield might be able to block incoming attacks, the force of the blow of two-handed weapons is greater, meaning more pain to the shield arm up to the point that the shield becomes hard to hold. Defensive shields can be weighed down by projectiles, and large shields block as much to the bearer as to the attacker. It goes both ways.

You fail to understand the mechanics of shield use. Shields are not static targets that one holds out or immobily hides behind, but rather are more mobile, and used to parry as well as to block. Also, arrows don't get stuck in shields nearly so much as you think.

Besides, if you're bringing arrows into the equation, you're just pointing out one of the main flaws of a two-handed weapon. The inability to block projectiles.



...um... *points to the fact that one-handed weapons, especially swords, rarely exceded a lenght of more then 3-4 feet, while two-handed weapons often exceded a lenght of 5-6 feet. Then points out the fact that the difference in reach between one handed and two handed grip is only about two hand-breadths...*

Which two handed weapons? It is all about specifics. A Katana is certainly not a good example of a particularly long two-handed weapon.


And the fact that it's pretty hard to use weapons two-handed from horseback...

It's hardly relevant to the discussion.

It's integral to the discussion. If two-handed weapons can't be used on horseback, then they are inherently inferior under those circumstances.


There are multiple recountings of the deadlyness of such thrown weapons. Mostly greatswords. I've tried it myself, and I've found that a greatsword is surprisingly easy to throw like a spear, and quite accurate at that. And are you trying to tell me a normal spear thrown is not deadlier then a dagger thrown?

No, but do you not throw it with one hand? This makes it a single-handed weapon. Tada!

Furthermore, a normal spear is usually a bad weapon to throw. Its neck is too thin.

It's also a bad weapon in particularly crampt quarters. Again, it's all about circumstances.


Okay, I'm going to use an analogy for this. Say you were standing with a shield and sword, and I were standing with a spear. If I were to attack your sword-side, you'd have to parry with the sword. This allows me to keep bind your sword arm, and step behind you, laying the polearm across your chest. Now the long spear means I can excert a Lot more force to twist you down to the ground.

First and foremost, what makes you so certain that I will have to parry with my sword? Why can't I just move my arm and, as Talhoffer shows with the longsword, hold it under my armpit? Or even better, simply move forward and below the range of the spear, to strike you with the sword?

Look at stances such as the Fourth Ward, Fifth Ward, and Sixth ward in the I.33. Granted, this is for buckler, but it translates very easily into the use of the regular shield.In none of these wards could you easily attack the sword arm, even with a buckler. So your point is nullified.


I've already pointed out that bucklers are a different case. And the fellow in plate armour with the mace is not exactly using it as a single-handed weapon is he?

Yes, he is. Gothic maces most often weren't two-handed.

Bucklers are still shields, and as I said above, much of it translates. Shields do not cover as much, and are not used quite as actively, but the principle stands.


But it also exposes the shieldbearer to underhanded attacks by the grappler's own weapon, forcing the choice of risking getting hit in a sensitive spot (like the legs) or parrying, leaving the shield still open to be misused.

I'm sorry, I can't envision this. I just don't understand how, at grappling (or 'bad breath') range, one could successfully use a two-handed weapon to strike the legs.



...I'm going to assume you're tired and not thinking properly. Might I remind you that a bill has a pointy end aimed at your torso once it's hooked a shield? Unless you mean someone hooking a shield from high above with the point aimed at air... which makes me wonder why he/she's doing that in the first place.

That is the only logical circumstance I can find for hooking a shield. It's far too difficult and time-consuming to hook the side of a shield, and it also puts you at an immense disadvantage because you're fighting gravity to keep the hook lateral, and the shield user can simply step to one side, keeping the shield on the shaft, move up the polearm, and attack. I also can't envision how a bill could be both hooking your shield and pointed down at you. Your shield will be too high above you for that to really be effective.

Also, the distant part of the bill or sword is the 'weak' part, so you have more leverage on them than they have on you.



Strangeness or not, it was impressive enough to the romans to be featured in roman heraldry. As for the romans not adopting it, that would be quite elementry, considering that the falx is hardly suitable for close formation tactics.

The Romans evolved over time. They were not always the same. They adopted new tactics, but were no less effective. And they still did not include that God-awful falx.


Falxmen, Halbediers, Lombard berzerkers, Gallowglasses, English billmen. These names were all feared in medieval times. And with reason. These warriors were all small in number and unable to hold a defensive line, but when used offensively in the right spot, they would wreak havoc.
I'm not arguing that these were ineffective. I'm simply saying that they are not unconditionally superior. Everything has its place.

In fact, I would argue that their comparatively limited supply would indicate their more specialised effectiveness.

Except Halberdiers. Those were actually quite widespread by the time that sort of warfare became preferred. Even they had their disadvantages, though, as all soldiers are.

Furthermore, berzerkers in general were not feared as much for their weapons as they were for their attitude, so I don't really consider the Lombards a valid example.

Similarly, Knights Templar, Klibanophoroi, Spanish Sword-and-Buckler men, Jannissaries, and Skutatoi are all one-handed-weapon users that earned a fearsome reputation.


...what on earth are you talking about? None of these you've named fought battles aimed to kill the entire opposing army as a goal. There is no comparison. The mongols, turks, vikings all only had to rout their enemy to be victorious. The samurai didn't have this luxury, and could not afford to let the enemy rout.

They could all afford to have the enemy rout, but they would just as often choose not to.

Hell, look at the battle of Manzikert. Granted, the right and left wings of the army fled, but the centre was, to quote Charles Oman, 'cut to pieces'. Now, a maneouvres, surrounding your enemy to slaughter them, is a bit excessive if all they needed to do was 'drive them off'.

Another example was a battle fought by Basil II against Tsar Samuel in the Kleidion pass on July 29, 1014.

To quote Dimitri Obolensky
'Samuel's army, which had blocked the pass, was surprised in the rear by a Byzantine force which the emperor had sent over the Belaŝica mountains, south of the pass. Though Samuel himself escaped, much of his army was butchered. Basil's savage reprisal has made this battle one of the most memorable in the history of the Balkans.'

The rest (around 14,000) were taken prisoner and blinded, one out of every hundred in one eye to lead the others back to Samuel.

I cite these examples not to show that they needed to do such massive butchery, but rather to show that they were able, and so were uninhibited by their weapons.

More importantly, though, I don't see why the desire to annihilate the enemy force makes your weapon any more dangerous. Rather, it should change the tactics of the unit, that is either rounding up and slaughtering as in Manzikert, or simply capturing, disabling, or in some other way keeping your enemy in one place before killing him that way, as was often the case in the later periods.


With all due respect Edmund, I get the feeling that you're arguing just for the sake of argument. Some of your points are badly thought out, and to be honest, I feel a little insulted at having to adress them.

Thank you for keeping your tone civil.

I am not arguing for the sake of argument. Rather, I believe that the statement 'two-handed weapons are superior' is fundamentally flawed because of the conditional nature of fighting in general.

Edit: Editted for clarity.

[a_humble_lich]

As for the Orion drive turned weapon, I disagree that it would be overkill against space stations. In fact I think it would be massive underkill.

I think the original question was to use the Orion drive as a giant nuclear gun instead of as a rocket. In this case I agree with Orion-the-G, you will be much better just launching the nukes at your target. Using them to fire projectiles is just wasting most of the energy. I might be able to see using some sort of interplanetary artillery like this to bombard planetary targets that you don't want to nuke, but I don't know how effective that would be. You would be limited to the kinetic energy of the projectile, which even though you are using a nuclear bomb as propellent, I think would be too small if you want to damage planetary installations.

[Orion-the-G]

Well, the 'overkill' was refering to the use of a full-size Orion drive system to attack these targets. A 1,000 ton or more ship. In that case it's definitely overkill.

If you were to scale the 'projectile' down to a scale more appropraite to the target you would be massively inneficient (which is what I think you're talking about), and simply be left in a situation where you have created a weapon that is unnecessary (because conventional or atomic weapons already fill the niche and function much better) and is massively inneficient (putting in a lot of effort for very little effect instead of putting in a lot of effort for far too much effect).

As for the use of a 'nuclear gun' as a planet-to-planet (or orbit to planet since you would want to avoid detonating nukes on-planet) weapon. It really wouldn't work well. The projectile couldn't acheive anywhere near the velocities of the Orion rocket, or even a conventional rocket because it is limited to the force of a single explosion. Where as conventional rockets and Orion systems can produce a continuous acceleration. Even if you increased the amount of explosives you are using as accelerant you'd eventually reach the point where the object you are propelling simply cannot withstand the amount of energy unleashed (not to mention the launching platform).

So, any reasonable use of an atomic gun would be rather pointless since it's very slow (thus making it extremely easy to counter even if it was launched from earth to mars) and probably wouldn't deliver enough energy on impact than a standard warhead.


EDIT: it's worth pointing out that there has been one 'weaponized' theory for the Orion drive. That is using it as a device to destroy asteriods that are incoming to the planet's surface. Since it has such good mass to energy ratios it would be the most effective solution for the cheapest budget. However, that is an 'attack' on a large rock with a known trajectory and no means of defending itself so it hardly counts as a real weapon.

[Wehrkind]

Ok... *stretch* *pop* let's get down to business. By which I mean typing on a forum at work...

Bug a Boo, you are a good guy. Please excuse me if I come across as high handed; it is not intentional. I do think that differing experience gets one to think always in one direction and sometimes over estimate. So let's hit some points.

The bit about routing the enemy vs. killing 100%. Firstly, I have to doubt a bit whether it is always possible to kill off everyone in an opposing army or even small group if some decide to run. I do not quite understand why the "criminal side" would necessarily benefit from fighting to the death. Also, I do not see your argument for why two handers of various sorts are necessarily better for this sort of engagement as opposed to say shields and a bowman or two. I can think of one time in particular being able to yell to my buddy "Kill that spear man" and have him do it by popping out behind my shield, firing, then ducking back before anyone could catch him with counter fire was lovely. Now, I know people flinch at firing into melee, but keep in mind that if I am at or outside range for my opponants 2hw, chances are you can put an arrow into him with little chance of hitting me, and if I am inside, well, that's good for me in my experience.
Further, remember that the only way to rout an enemy is to convince them that they are in immediate danger of dying, and by escaping they might live. Usually this is accomplished by killing a lot of them in a very sudden manner, the shock part of shock troops. Now, most troops that I have seen described as shock troops were generally more balanced towards killing power rather than staying power, for example cavalry and 2hw users.

1: I would not agree that one can put a lot more power into a two handed weapon than a single. This is why knights liked to use those large hammers in late era Europe to smash each other's bones and flesh beneath the armor (not necessarily the armor itself). That said, it doesn't take too much to cut through a person enough to kill them, but it is very difficult to go through a shield (in general, depends on the shield). One might make the point that if you can't cleave through the shield, you are forced to go around, and 2hw are a little more awkward for that than single due to the axis of rotation

2: Axis of rotation comes into play here, when you mention 3 parts to hit with. This is true, and I am a fan of the buttspike myself. (That sounds really bad, but I can't come up with a better clause.) However, it still doesn't solve the problem of getting around the shield, and it partially ignores the fact that 1hw also offer the ability to bash with the pommel.
The point with getting around the shield is the key at close range though. An aggressive shieldman should rush a 2hw user as soon as possible, and use their shield to pin the 2hw against the user's body, or at least make them come way out of line to strike. This is surprisingly easy, and requires the victim to do awkward things to try and bring their weapon to bear, often involving letting go with one hand. Now, sometimes the 2hw man can kill the shieldman on the way in, but infrequently, and it is pretty much over after he gets in.

3: See previous point about distance. While a few people working as a team can help keep distance, particularly spear men working in concert, that distance suffers the same issue from bows. Further, it is much easier to move forward on someone than it is to back pedal, and in my experience that extra reach is good for one, maybe two attacks before that shield man is right on top of you.

4: Don't know a thing about throwing weapons, except that shields stop them much better than 2hw. I can see their ease of throwing being cool, but so is a pilum, and you can chuck that with a shield very well. Neat to know though.

5: I can see two handed weapons being fun for snagging and grappling, especially the big hammers Talhoffer likes so much. Still, I am inclined to think that I could deal with that pretty well with a shield to keep you from hooking various parts of my body. It would be fun to try though, no doubt. :)
I would like the disagree with the bit about the large shield being easier to move around. The only way I can see it being easier is if the pusher is much bigger than the pushee, and thus has a larger target to shove consistantly. Plus, a scutum and gladius combo, for example, was used to get in close, strike with the shield to throw the opponant off a little, then get stabby in close. I suspect the short weapon/large shield works in most cases to the benefit of the wielder when it comes to grappling, particularly in armor since it is easier to align the point to hit a crease.

Now, historically there are plenty of small group combat examples that show the 2hw is not always superior. The Germans and Gauls used small raiding parties, perhaps larger than the Japanese, but hardly army sized, and rarely cohesive, but tended towards shields and clubs and swords. The great axe was present for centuries, as well as the falx, long spear and two handed sword, but rarely do you see a culture that uses small raids that does not have the sword and shield the mark of a warrior. The Dacians and Thracians come to mind, and until the late medieval period, that's just about it in the Western parts of the world. The Vikings used shield and axe more than great axe, the Zulu only became really effective after switching to a large shield and smaller spear, the Franks favored smaller axes and shield to larger weapons post Rome, the Greeks used long spears and shields in their phalanx, and Alexander did away with the shields, but only in the phalanx. His shield bearers (hypastitai with butchered spelling) were the elite of his infantry that guarded the phalanxes flanks.
If I were to hypothasize on the reasons a shield was more popular, it would be that it is fairly easy to kill someone who is not in crazy armor, so a giant weapon that cleaves people in half is literally overkill. Further, most people are a bit less worried about killing the enemy as compared to living themselves, and so a shield becomes a valuable defensive tool, particularly if the enemy is shooting or throwing things at you.

In fact, I am fairly confident to say that a 5 man team with a mix of shields and archers or crossbowmen would beat a 5 man team of 2hw every time.

Also, historically, at least in the west, light cavalry was used to run down and kill routing enemies, as well as to drive them far away into scattered groups. Killing the enemy has always been popular, with the exception of Greek hoplite battles pre-Peloponesian War being the only example I can think of to the contrary.

Further, the small squad combat of Japan taken into consideration, it still does not explain why the shield was not used in large scale battles out side of mobile walls. I know the Japanese often we able to mobilize huge armies by Western standards, and even if they fought more as individuals than cohesive units, the Gauls and German tribes did the same, and still the Japanese favored long spears and swords, while the Gauls prefered round shields and the occaisional big axe. Still strikes me as odd. Perhaps it carried over from day to day raiding practices, though I am not convinced a 2hw is better for that.


Now, a few things from a later post of yours...
Don't take this personally, but I am inclined to think you do not have much experience fighting shield fighters, or using one yourself. I say that because of this quote:

Okay, I'm going to use an analogy for this. Say you were standing with a shield and sword, and I were standing with a spear. If I were to attack your sword-side, you'd have to parry with the sword. This allows me to keep bind your sword arm, and step behind you, laying the polearm across your chest. Now the long spear means I can excert a Lot more force to twist you down to the ground.
Firstly, if you were in front of me, which I would assume to be the case in a 1v1 fight, it is a small thing to block thrusts with the shield no matter where you strike. One does not use a shield standing square with the opponant, but rather stands perpendicular to the shield, sort of how a fencer stands with foil. This allows for easy blocking of either side with the shield, and leaves little exposed.
Secondly, while I can imagine what you describe happening past the dubious sword binding, it relies on a very passive shieldman who does not rotate with you as you attempt to step past. Again, keep in mind the shield is held away from the body, so you have to step past the shield, then take a second step to get past the defender's feet. Chances are pretty good that is going to be a problem.

Now, when it comes to hooking shields, you have to remember that you do not have a point sticking at the man. Even in a multi pointed pole arm, the angles of the shaft relative to the shield mean you have to reach to the side of the shield to hook then pull back a good bit, opening the shield by pulling it towards you, before you can line up a thrust. A good shieldman simply pushes in a different direction while moving in, keeping your polearm head pointed away, all the while making the angle you are holding it relative to him more extreme. Not that shield hooking is not effective when it comes to teams of polearms and spears against a line of shields, just that it only works in teams where one man can force the shieldman to move his shield out of line a bit, while his buddy pokes him in an exposed spot.


Now, getting back to experience, most of my historical background is classical Greek and Roman to about the Hundred Years War (guns just don't do it for me), not so much Japan and late period Europe. Combat wise, I fight SCA, which is not the most perfect I know, but I am lucky enough to know guys who have trained extensively in kendo and a few other random things, and get to fight against them with let's say "expanded" rules. Particularly my buddy with the kendo background is amazing with a two handed sword. He does things that I would not have thought possible if someone merely described them to me. He does not have a great solution to fighting shieldmen, however, even after 10 years. He has some tricks, but there is not a consistant way for him to win, despite having incredible speed and accuracy. He even admits that he is at a severe disadvantage. Now, I have fought other guys who have beat me with two handed weapons, but typically they are giants who just blow away whatever defenses I have. I have yet to meet the 2hw who can beat me on a regular basis when we are of equal stature. It is very doable, but it is very difficult.
That said, I suspect that if shield breakage was an issue I would be a lot more concerned about men with big axes and the like, but again, if I am fighting intelligently, I don't let them get more than one or two shots at me before I get within heavy hit range, and one should deflect, not stop cold, hard swings.

At anyrate, I think one can pretty well see that two handed weapons are not always superior to single handed weapons, nor more practical, whether singly or enmasse. That said, the katana is a bit of a special case, since it is smaller than most 2hw, and thus more handy to carry around (8 foot halberds are a pain) as well as the fact that it was expected to be carried by those who could nearly all the time to my understanding. A shield does not lend itself to being carried except in times of war or raiding. Unless it is a little buckler.

I am getting off subject. [/book]

[Renrik]

Falxmen, Halbediers, Lombard berzerkers, Gallowglasses, English billmen. These names were all feared in medieval times. And with reason. These warriors were all small in number and unable to hold a defensive line, but when used offensively in the right spot, they would wreak havoc.


I do beleive that the pirate queen Grania Mhaol of Connaught made extensive use of the Gallowglass mercenaries when fighting against the english. Indeed, I have heard that she used them when returning from England back to Ireland after being imprisoned. Note, however, that this is just what I've heard, and, like any information that is essentially Bardic Knowledge, I am prone to being erronious from time to time. Still, does anyone know more about her?

[Wehrkind]

Forgot to mention something. I think that the shield really only went out of style with the advent of accurate and massed gunfire. It seems that for most of western history without good quality fire arms, if someone could afford a shield, they usually carried one to battle, unless they could afford armor that was by itself impervious, which was not really even available until nearly the Renaissance.

Also, I would like to appologize for my complete lack of spelling. Thanks :)

[Fhaolan]

um... I guess you haven't been paying attention. Battles in europe were fought with the goal of controlling territory and routing the enemy army. Especially in medieval times, wealthy opponents were captured rather then killed for ransom money. There's much greater emphasis on holding the line, rather then killing every opponent outright. This is a big difference from an army fighting to annihilate another army, as was the case with the early samurai. Or adventurers in DnD.


Wealthy people (i.e. nobility) were ransomed. Poor people (i.e. landless knights and everyone else) were slaughtered, no matter what the time period. You get a twisted view of medieval european war if you only pay attention to the nobility. Even then, ransoming was usually only performed by other high-ranking knights. If you get pulled down off your horse by a bunch of peasants with bill-hooks, you're pretty much guarenteed not to be ransomed...



There are multiple recountings of the deadlyness of such thrown weapons. Mostly greatswords. I've tried it myself, and I've found that a greatsword is surprisingly easy to throw like a spear, and quite accurate at that. And are you trying to tell me a normal spear thrown is not deadlier then a dagger thrown?


Throwing a greatsword like a spear is relatively easy. However, it's range sucks, relative to a spear because they are slightly heavier than a throwing spear (not a hewing spear, but why would you throw a hewing spear?) The only time I've heard of throwing spears is en-mass preluding the rush into melee. One-on-one combat, thrown spears seem kind of silly. It is absurdly easy to avoid a thrown spear, unless you are distracted and don't notice it or are unable to move due to terrain, other combatants, etc.

[Edmund]

Wealthy people (i.e. nobility) were ransomed. Poor people (i.e. landless knights and everyone else) were slaughtered, no matter what the time period. You get a twisted view of medieval european war if you only pay attention to the nobility. Even then, ransoming was usually only performed by other high-ranking knights. If you get pulled down off your horse by a bunch of peasants with bill-hooks, you're pretty much guarenteed not to be ransomed...

There are exceptions to the 'kill all the peasants' rule. They primarily come whn huge groups of commoners are captured, in which case they can be ransomed off in large groups. But even in this instance it is the exception rather than the rule.

As for knights getting killed by commoners, this is true unless the commoners are professional soldiers. The latter know quite well the value of a ransomed knight.

The Swiss were the exception. They were infamous for their lack of quarter to the point that, in 1444, a regulation was issued which forbid them from tearing out the hearts of their dead enemies.

[SpiderBrigade]

The Swiss were the exception. They were infamous for their lack of quarter to the point that, in 1444, a regulation was issued which forbid them from tearing out the hearts of their dead enemies.

Killing them was still okay though, eh? Just not the heart-ripping?

[Sundog]

Killing them was still okay though, eh? Just not the heart-ripping?


Sure. Killing was just killing; mutilating the body was against religious rules.

[Vorkosigan]

How well would this work with a flat pusher plate?
A parabolic one with the nuke at the focus?
An ellipsoid one with the nuke at the inner focus and the bullet at the outer focus when the majority of the blast hits?

Would the flat one provide good armor?
Would the parabolic one provide good trust?
Would the ellipsoid one provide good fire power?


I have to respond to this, because it's the first question anyone's asked that I can claim to know something about, even vaguely.

Unfortunately, what Orion already said was pretty much correct. Orion is a bad drive and a worse weapon. Now, I also agree with him, Orion is cooler than hell, but the only reason you'd consider wasting that much power is because it's the highest tech thing you can do (which, for us right now, it just about is, unless you want to go straight to laser cannon pushing lightsails, but I digress.)

To answer your question, though, yes, the parabolic pusher plate with the bomb at the focus would provide your best thrust, and the flat one woud provide the best armor for its mass, if by that you mean radiation shield for anything inside the Orion. But I'm uncertain if that's what you're asking. Are you actually looking to shoot miniature Orions at targets, like missiles? If so, anything short of the aforementioned interplanetary artillery would likely be a waste, though an Orion ramped up to cometary speeds would sure as hell be hard to stop.

Not sure what you mean by ellipsoid shield.

As far as a weapon, though, an Orion has the potential to fuel a LOT of parasite lasers. All you have to do is throw the lasing tubes out the side of the ship, aim them, and then hit the drive. And now that I've proven that I read Niven and Pournelle's Footfall, I'll continue with a refinement of my own. It occurs to me that if you build a really HUGE lasing element on top of the baseplate, mount it in a mirrored cylinder and expose that to the drive blasts, you might be able to have a fixed bow laser firing this way. Of course, you have to wrap the rest of the ship around it. Which might be fun to mount on any missiles as well.

[Leperflesh]

A fundamental problem with Orion remains, though. And that is that nuclear explosions primarily produce heat. Inside an atmosphere, the sudden and vast amounts of heat are devestating, because the superheated atmosphere expands and produces an explosion. In space, what you get is a whole lot of heat and not very much thrust at all... unless you use the heat to drive a reaction mass. The Orion ship design does not use any reaction mass besides the atmosphere. Its purpose is singular: to put an enormous amount of mass into orbit (or perhaps a parabolic trajectory which returns to earth).

A rocket is vastly superior for operation in vacuum, becuase a rocket's fuel is its own reaction mass. It burns, which converts the solid or liquid mass into a very energetic gaseous mass... and then the rapidly expanding gaseous mass is forced out of a small hole in the opposite direction to where you want to go. Force = mass x accelleration, so, the greater the mass of fuel ejected, and the greater it has been accellerated due to expansion as it heats and changes phase to gas, the more force is applied to the mass of the rocket.

For long distances, though (planet-to-planet) even a rocket is problematic. It produces prodigious accelleration, but only for a relatively short period of time... minutes, perhaps half an hour at best. A superior type of engine for long-distance accelleration is one which produces continuous, long-term thrust. Ion drives do this: a radioactive source produces energetic ions which are continously launched aft of the ship. A good decaying radioactive mass can provide a flow of ions for years and years. If you want to get a ship up to a good clip on its way to jupiter, this is not a bad way to go.

Another good method is to 'drive' the ship by shooting it with a laser... presumably since your laser is back at home, you can provide it with a continuous supply of energy. The ship has a sail which is pushed by the laser, so you can accellerate it continuously for as long as you can practically keep the laser focussed on the sail.

Orion is very poor for these uses. The nuclear explosions in-atmosphere are very jarring. It is a pulse engine, meaning each succesive bomb provides a sudden, hard shock of accelleration, followed by (essentially) freefall until the next bomb goes off. I would be somewhat in doubt of the practicalities of mounting large lasers to such a platform, just due to the extent to which you'd need to buffer and protect the lasers, as well as the difficulty in aiming them while the ship was under thrust. (Yeah, I read Footfall. Great book.) Moreover, Orion is used to get a huge amount of mass into orbit... but that's it. Orbital velocity is the entire goal. If you want to shoot down a passive target, okay, that'll work... but, you can get a rocket up to way, way above orbital velocity, meaning you can substitute the devestation of a large mass impact with the devestation of a small mass impacting much much harder. Plus, you can mount a warhead on your rocket, turning it into a missile... and you can use a nuclear warhead, for that matter.

Now, the idea of 'turning around' an orion, seems to be to use a nuclear explosion a bit like the explosion in the chamber of a gun, to drive a small mass at high velocity. However, there are very good practical reasons why we don't lauch sattellites, missiles, etc. from guns. The sudden accelleration at the very beginning is huge, so the projectile cannot be fragile. A solid bullet can handle the thrust - the more delicate inner workings of (say) a nuclear bomb cannot (or at least, cannot with any reasonable approximation to the cost of building a missile instead).

So yeah. I think it's not very likely or useful to use nukes as thrust for a weapon.

-Lep

[Orion-the-G]

Leperflesh, could you provide a link on some of the issues with the Orion drive that you were talking about?

I've read a lot of stuff about how awesome the Orion system is, but the attitude of the people posting the information also leads me to question their credibility. They seem a bit too enthusiastic to be trusted. And as a rule I try to avoid trusting wikipedia too much.

The only source I have seen that I would consider trustworthy was a discovery article I read a couple of years back on various types of theoretical interstellar drives (including the Orion as well as things like the earth-to-ship laser sail, and the various types of ramjets). However I only have vague half remembrances of it.

So a link to a reliable source would be appreciated.

[a_humble_lich]

As a Physicist (although I'm not a weapons scientist), I agree with leperflesh. Although I love the idea of the Orion drive, I don't see how it could ever be practical in a vacuum. When the bombs go off, there just isn't any matter in space for them to heat up to create the shock which pushes the ship. Even if you include reaction mass with the bombs, that seems like a horribly inefficient way of generating thrust in terms of reaction mass. You would only get thrust from the bits of reaction mass which actually hit your shield. Since the explosion is spherical, however, most of the mass will not hit the shield and be wasted. I could be wrong, there is a lot of energy in a nuclear explosionn. I would believe that somehow by including reaction mass you could actually get a worthwhile thrust in vacuum, but I would want to see some numbers first.

If you want to nuclear powered spacecraft in vacuum, a far better approach would be a nuclear rocket. In this case you have a conventional reactor which heats up reaction mass (such as water) and shoots the reaction mass out the back. Or an ion engine, where you have a conventional reactor which produces electricity, and then this electricity is used to accelerate ions at very high velocities. Ion engines generally don't have much thrust so they can't lift off a planet, but they use fuel at such a slow rate that they can eventually get to very high speeds. (I've never heard of the ion engine leperflesh which only uses ions from radioactive decays. I don't think this would produce much thrust. The ones I am more familiar with use the heat from a radioactive material to generate electricity, and this electricity is used to accelerate to ions. The ion drive itself is more similar to a small particle accelerator.)

[Leperflesh]

Don't have a link, off the top of my head.

What I do have:

I read at least two science fiction stories that talk about the Orion drive.

I took a number of astronomy courses in college, including an introductory astrophysics course. As part of my coursework in that class, I wrote a paper examining the potential methods for us to achieve interstellar travel, and the practical limitations imposed by each of them. I did not address Orion because it has never been put forth as an interstellar travel method, but I do have sufficient understanding of the main princple involved.

My criticisms and assessment however are borne from my own understanding of the method, combined with my own understanding of the principles of propulsion and of nuclear fission. You should take the word of any expert as being at least as worthwhile, if not moreso, than my lay opinion.

-Lep

[Leperflesh]

Or an ion engine, where you have a conventional reactor which produces electricity, and then this electricity is used to accelerate ions at very high velocities. Ion engines generally don't have much thrust so they can't lift off a planet, but they use fuel at such a slow rate that they can eventually get to very high speeds. (I've never heard of the ion engine leperflesh which only uses ions from radioactive decays. I don't think this would produce much thrust. The ones I am more familiar with use the heat from a radioactive material to generate electricity, and this electricity is used to accelerate to ions. The ion drive itself is more similar to a small particle accelerator.)

Hmm, I think you may be correct. I thought I remembered the radioactive pile being used as a particle source... but now you describe it, the system must be more like what you said. It has been 10 years since I wrote that paper...

-Lep

[Grey_kitsune]

The reason I asked is because I have a comp sci final and Im making a game set in space.

One of the factions is supposed to be low tech but crafty so I made their equipment multipurposed.

I was just looking for some benchmark to base game stats off of.

thanks.

[Orion-the-G]

If they're high enough tech to create starships then they are high enough tech to create normal rockets and missiles. No reason to use an Orion system as a weapon, although it might be acceptable to use one as a battleship.

[Raum]

Badabam, okay, why I say two-handed weapons are superior, and my justifications for that:

First thing, let me make one thing clear. I'm not talking about massed infantry formations. I'm not talking about set duels or one on one duelling. The reason I brought up the Samurai is to set the situation in which I will hold my reasoning, namely: Combat of a small group of warriors vs other small groups of warriors which feature both intimate personal combat as well as cooperative tactics, each side fighting to kill the other side rather then just routing them.
Ok, to clarify your assertion, two handed weapons aren’t necessarily always superior, but they are superior given the situation you’ve described above. If I understand it correctly, you’re stating two handed weapons are superior when used in small unit scenarios where the goal is killing the enemy and the members of the unit must be flexible enough to fight both as a unit and solo. I have a couple questions related to the scenario. How many people are we talking? Less than 5, 50, or 500? What type of unit coordination / cooperative tactics are being used? How fluid are the tactics? (Do they break into individuals and reform or merely continue combat as individuals after breaking formation?)

I'm not convinced yet but lets look at the individual arguments.


Recognise it? It's also the same situation in which adventurers usually find themselves in fantasy games.
Weapons in games are good or bad based purely on the game mechanics.


One more note: Bucklers are the exception that prove the fact. Consider that a buckler is well capable of being used offensively without the cumbersome size of a 'normal' shield. Bucklers work in the same way as many two-handed weapons, in the way that you have another side to attack with, rather then just the end of your weapon.
Not sure I understand what you are saying, I’d think a buckler would be too small to “have another side to attack with”. Can you expand on what you are trying to say? Also, how does this relate to our small unit scenario?


1) More power behind each blow: This becomes especially important when armour comes into play. Many weapons can't pierce armour, but a sufficiently hard blow can still hurt the crunchy underneath.
I’d say the type of weapon matters more. Specifically, a piercing weapon will apply more force to it’s target than a slashing or bludgeoning weapon will. And while a two handed spear is definitely a good example of applying force, a one handed pick will apply more than a two handed mace.

Remember, applied impact force is roughly the mass of the weapon times it’s acceleration divided by the area impacted. The last is what makes piercing weapons so powerful.


2) Multiple sides to attack with, and the ability to quickly switch between them: One argument I've always heard is that one handed weapons are supposedly faster and quicker when up close. People always seem to forget that you can smack someone around all over the place with both ends of the weapon. Three ends when it comes to longswords (real life ones, not DnD ones).
If I understand correctly, you’re saying you can strike with the butt or hilt as well as the blade. If so, I agree, but I don’t see how it differentiates two hand weapons from one hand. Both have hilts as well as blades.


3) Reach: This one also always seems to be forgotten, or seriously underplayed. The first thing a fighter learns, is how to control distance. Personal combat is a game of controlling distance, and controlling your opponent. A long weapon makes distance control much easier.
Yes, reach is very important and I agree with everything you’ve said. I’d also like to add that some one hand weapons have a longer reach than some two hand weapons. A rapier, for example, will out reach a katana. It’s shocking how far (and how quickly) a lunge will cover the distance. In general, piercing weapons will have a longer reach than equivalently sized slashing or bludgeoning weapons simply because of where and how the weapon side is used.


4) More power behind a throw: One argument I've also heard pop up from time to time is "If I got throwing stars/daggers/other stuff, I can stay at a distance and keep throwing them at you". Aside from the fact that small thrown weapons in reality aren't that deadly, and were used as distractions rather then as weapons to kill, there's also the fact that two-handed weapons can be thrown as well. Surprisingly well at that. Apparently, greatswords were so deadly when thrown, that several recorded duels had the throwing of said greatswords specifically forbidden in the rules of combat.
For the sake of discussion I’ll accept this at face value. How many two handed weapons are your warriors carrying? Or do they need to go back to the supply train for a replacement after throwing their weapon away? Realistically, any advantage gained by being able to throw a large weapon is lost by the inability to carry a sufficient supply of ammunition.


5) Leverage: This is arguably the most critically important, but it is also the one thing that is almost always forgotten. A long weapon allows for powerful leverage in grappling maneuvres. Most seem to have forgotten, but in a fight (especially when armour is concerned) grappling is extremely important, and all weapons can and were used to grapple with. Two-handed weapons have been repeatedly demonstrated to be far more effective at this. The options to lock, trip or pin your opponent with a two-handed weapon are limitless, and have throughout history been proven to be extremely effective.
Leverage depends on the length between the fulcrum and where the force is applied on the lever. So while I agree using the weapon as a lever in a grappling situation may be important, there is a point where more length is unusable because you cannot apply force (your arms can’t reach) that far from your fulcrum. Basically, I don’t think a 6’ weapon is significantly more useful than a 4’ weapon when grappling.

Additionally, a shorter weapon such as a knife or dagger will be even more useful, particularly in your situation where the aim is to kill rather than subdue.


Funny thing about leverage is that when applied to shields, it makes the shield a liability to its wielder. A shieldwall is fearsome to face if each warrior is supporting the one beside him/her, but a shield wielder alone will find that the larger the shield is, the easier it is to use its weight and size to push, pull and lock him/her.
That leverage can be use both ways. If the shield user in your example closes the distance to the halberdier, the halberdier will be unable to strike effectively around the shield.


The Samurai have shown us that when is comes to deadly combat between small groups of combatants, single-handed weapons aren't the weapons of choice.
More correctly, single handed weapons weren’t the samurai’s weapon of choice. You’ll have to show me more than one situation/culture before I’ll buy in to your assertion of two handed weapons being superior. Particularly when there are so many contrary examples.


So, to say it again, practice and history has shown us that when it comes to combat a la DnD, two handed weapons are the superior weapons of choice.
Again, game mechanics need to be kept separate from real life. I could also say that in Shadowrun, monofilament whips are the best weapon. It (and D&D) have no relation to how real weapons are used in combat.

As for real weapons in combat, there is no single best weapon or even type of weapon. As today’s special forces know, you pick the best weapon for the intended use. And yes, I can put parameters around a situation to make almost any weapon ‘the best’…for that situation.

[Fhaolan]

Yes, reach is very important and I agree with everything you’ve said. I’d also like to add that some one hand weapons have a longer reach than some two hand weapons. A rapier, for example, will out reach a katana. It’s shocking how far (and how quickly) a lunge will cover the distance. In general, piercing weapons will have a longer reach than equivalently sized slashing or bludgeoning weapons simply because of where and how the weapon side is used.


Silver (George Silver, a contraversial sixteeth-century fight master) goes on at great length about thrusting being *so* much better than slashing that he considered anyone that disagreed with him as insanely suicidal. Of course, he's dealing with rapier and smallsword against lightly armored opponents, due to what was popular during his time-period, but hey... :)

Basically, Silver's premise was that every single move you make must be an attempt to kill your opponent. If you are not trying to kill your opponent, you have no business fighting. Grappling, parrying, blocking, feints, etc. are all wastes of energy. While your opponent is taking the time and energy screwing around with all that fancy garbage, stab him through a vital point and be done with it. With the combat style Silver was advocating he who strikes first, wins. Meaning speed is everything, and the fastest attack available to those weapons is the thrust.

Supposedly the other fight-masters in Europe during that time-period were selling their 'secret dueling super-moves', many of them now seem reminiscent of the fancy-dancy oriental weapon-based martial arts. According to his rant... I mean his book 'Paradoxes of Defense' ... Silver thought it was the silliest thing ever, and wished people would stop dueling to impress the ladies and start trying to kill each other again.

[Raum]

Yeah, in general I tend to agree with Silver. There's a reason that long ago ancestor decided to sharpen his stick after all. :) And while I can conceive situations where it isn't true, in general a piercing weapon will be faster than other types of a similar size and it will do (in general again) more damage to moderately armored opponents.

It's faster simply because the primary attack is going to be a nearly straight line to the target. A weapon you have to swing will need to cover more distance to reach it's striking point.

It does more damage and penetrates armor simply because the force of the blow is focused in a very small area creating a high PSI and penetration.

Of course if your opponent is unarmored or lightly armored you'll probably do more damage with a slashing weapon. And given heavy enough armor you'll need a weapon with enough mass to pass the force of a concussion through the armor.

[Ryujin]

I took a number of astronomy courses in college, including an introductory astrophysics course. As part of my coursework in that class, I wrote a paper examining the potential methods for us to achieve interstellar travel, and the practical limitations imposed by each of them. I did not address Orion because it has never been put forth as an interstellar travel method, but I do have sufficient understanding of the main princple involved.

-Lep

You might want to google the term 'external pulsed plasma propulsion,' which is the current NASA term for the Orion Drive, for current developments on the subject (it conveniently avoids mention of 'nuclear bomb', for one thing).

[Wehrkind]

Of course if your opponent is unarmored or lightly armored you'll probably do more damage with a slashing weapon.

Depends on what you mean by "damage." If you mean "inflicting death," then peircing is always most efficient on light armor. If you mean "leaves a horribly mangled corpse," then yes, large slashing weapons are the way to go.

You only have to go ~2 inches into the chest cavity to kill someone, after all, while there are many places you can be baddly cut and continue to function.

Also consider that most light armor is strongest against slashing, for example chain mail or boiled leather, while rather weak against piercing type.



On a different note, I still have not had the assertion that two handed weapons are best for small combat groups explained to my satisfaction. They are not necessarily more deadly, nor do they necesarily work together better, and often work individually a lot less effectively than a shield and sword.

[Mike_G]

You only have to go ~2 inches into the chest cavity to kill someone, after all, while there are many places you can be baddly cut and continue to function.




OK, I need to address what I consider the myth of "piercing weapons are deadlier."

I am a paramedic, in a fairly crime infested urban community. I've seen my share of shootings, stabbings, beatings and the odd machete attack.

Puncture wounds are more likely to hit a vital oragn and be fatal. Eventually. I have seen a guy stabbed in the spleen fight off his attackers, then collapse, pulseless from blood loss. I've had to chase a guy who was stabbed in the side of the neck up three flights of stairs and force him down to treat him. He was easy to find, we just followed the blood trail to the door with the bloody knob.

Big bad slashes, however, while easier to stitch up, or just bandage, and survivable even with medieval medcine, tend to cause people to go white with shock and pain, and just feebly moan and let us do what we want to them. Cut somebody deep into muscle, down through the fat layer or expose a little bone, and they lose interest in fighting.

So, if you drive your rapier into a guy's aorta, he's dead. In about a minute and a half. During which time he will be very capable of hacking at you. Split his thigh open to the bone like a fillet, and he may well live a long happy, productive life, but will be much less dangerous for the next thirty seconds.

Gunshot wounds, while technically punctures, exert a lot of energy by simple velocity, so they are mor likely to stop a man than a knife wound to the same area.

I agree that a thrust is quicker to deliver, that it is better at peircing most armor, and that it will more likely reach a vital organ. But have your main gauche ready to parry his next move, because unless you hit his brain stem, a fatal thrust isn't instantly fatal. Burying an axe in his shoulder will likely remove his interest in hurting you.

I expect lots of experts to dipute this, but six years in emergency medicine has convinced me that thrusts may kill, but cuts disable quicker.

[Wehrkind]

Oh, I am not disputing that there are lots of bad places to stab someone. The elbow, from personal experience, is not particularly troublesome. That is why I specified the chest cavity. My medical terminology might be a little off, but I am referring mainly to the area inside the ribs, though a thicker sword into the belly is nice too.

Also keep in mind I am not talking rapiers exlusively, but rather all piercing weapons, from the gladius to the lance. I don't doubt that large slashing blows are pretty demoralizing, and removing a limb with a shot definitely ends a fight, but they are not as efficient in terms of effort and speed, not to mention difficulty.

So yes, you can slash someone to death, and you can also bludgeon them to death nicely too. Just that if you are going for efficiency, a stab into the chest is most efficient.

Also, I would question the usefulness of demoralizing wounds in a battle, particularly in the mix of it, when you do not really expect to come out alive if terribly wounded unless you live. Maybe, maybe not. Probably depends on the professionalism of the combatant. I would definitely agree that demoralization is great in bar and street fights though.

[Mike_G]

It's not being demoralized.

It's the body's normal pain response. We don't have a lot of pain receptors deep in our chest cavities. That's one reason people have "silent" heart attacks that get missed. They don't hurt.

Mashing your thumb with a hammer hurts way more than a heart attack, because of nerve distribution, and type of neurons.

If you get your arm slashed open to the bone, you swiftly beome useless from the rush of pain impulses and the consequent catacholamine release. Nothing to do with morale.

If you get your lung pierced, you're in trouble, but it takes a while for the body to catch up with that trouble. It doesn't hurt like a stubbed toe or a kick in the testicles or a cut finger, so the immediate chemical response is less. The bad, awful physiological issues are much worse, but these take a minute or two to matter.

Nobody tries for a "demoralizing wound." You try to drop you opponent, whether on the battlefield or a dark alley. I'm just saying, a tire iron to the kneecap will get him out of action sooner than a knife in the lung. Not more permanently, but quicker.

The guy hit with the machete wasn't critical, he wasn't likely to die, but he was in shock, and unable to defend himself. The guy stabbed in the neck was going to die, no question, but he was a feisty bugger until it started to catch up with him.

[Edmund]

You only have to go ~2 inches into the chest cavity to kill someone, after all, while there are many places you can be baddly cut and continue to function.

The same thing can be said of piercing. You can stab me in the arm and I will still fight. But if I cut your arm open, or severed it, I've mashed up and cut nerves, and your arm is going to wither or just plain not be there.

Also, as Silver put it "…A blow upon the hand, arme, or legge is maime incurable; but a thrust in the hand, arme, or legge is to be recovered."

The problem with thrusts is that they're most effective in the chest, whereas if you are given a solid cut anywhere on the body, you're more likely to be down for the count.

To elaborate, here is an ARMA article on leg wounds which addresses my point indirectly.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/LegWounds.htm

Edit: Dagnabbit, Mike beat me to it! The sneaky bugger.


Also consider that most light armor is strongest against slashing, for example chain mail or boiled leather, while rather weak against piercing type..

Maille, when of realistic construction and combined with padding, is an excellent form of armour against all sorts of attacks. It isn't as good as plate, but it is still by no means weak against piercing weapons, especially not arrows. Crossbow bolts, on the other hand, because of the tremendous power behind them, are the exception.

Luckily, if you're moving, the motion of the links in the maille will provide a glancing surface and protect you very well from some attacks that would otherwise be unpleasant.

Maille's main downfall is against top-weighted weapons like the hammer, mace, axe, and various polearms. Because of the limited padding on the head and legs, the impact is not sufficiently absorbed, and you get problems.

[Wehrkind]

Again, I am talking efficiency and ease of administering the stabbing blow to result in death. Sure, and axe buried in the shoulder sucks, and results in shock and death right quick. So does being stabbed in the chest with a 2x4. Neither is easy to land, however. Cuts to the bone really ruin a day, but are not optimal attacks. So sure, if a guy is just going to take it, or has no way of defending sufficiently, that kukri shot to the arm is going to really tear a hole to put him out of the fight. If he has something to get in the way, however, it is going to be relatively easy to slow that down, and the force needed to move the blade in an arc such that it gets that nice velocity for damage is significant. Now, if he is fighting back, and you thrust, the vector of acceleration is a nice line, resulting in less effort, and a more difficult parry.

That is the difference between power (say a great maul) and efficiency (rapier/cut and thrust sword.) That's the reason the latter was popular, while the former was just an occaisional weapon of a big scary guy.

Edmund: I was speaking relatively. Those types of armor are at their best against slashing, while thrusts are more effective. I left out bludgeoning damage since it is not the issue at hand. Mail isn't precisely light, but as opposed to plate. Perhaps on second thought "light armor" would best be reserved for leather and padded hauberks etc.

[Mike_G]

I am in no way disputing the efficiency of a quick thrust. Hell, I'm a fencer. Thrusts are what we do.

I am debating the oft repeated, but false, claim that thrusts quickly prove deadly.

Yes, the nice thing about the smallsword was the lightning quick thrust, and it was deadly. But you have time to deliver Mercutio's "'Tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door," speech before dying.

Bad cuts, and believe me, I know whereof I speak, incapacitate people far quicker than a puncture to the chest, neck or belly. A guy who runs two fingers across a table saw is usless in a fight, and probably can't drive himself to the hospital, or even call 911 or answer my questions when I get there in my ambulance, but he isn't going to die. A guy with a puncture wound to a vital area has a good thirty seconds before his body knows it's screwed.

That's all I'm saying.

[SpiderBrigade]

Mike, I don't think anyone's actually disagreeing with you, here. They're pointing out that in a fight with armor or even just shields, the quickly-incapacitating slash is simply harder to deliver - possibly too hard to risk trying. Instead, it's much easier to go for a thrust, which might take a few minutes to kill, but you can count on it. Sort of a cost/benefit thing, which I think only a person who's been in a fight like that, for real, can judge.

[Mike_G]

I don't think I'm being too agressive here.

I have heard, and it seemed repeated here, about the whole "thrusts are deadlier" argument. I was pointing out that there is advantage in a disabling cut, since disabling is what you really want in combat.

In the Marines, we learned that a good hit is one that makes the enemy lie down and forget about you. We really don't care if he lives or dies, honestly, so long as he is out of action.

I also dispute that a good, solid cut is hard to deliver. I've fenced with sabres, and done heavy weapon sparring, and while a quick thrust is very fast and can be hard to defeat, a smart cut can be delivered quickly, and even sneakily, feigning in one gaurd and cutting in another.

I just agree with Edmund and George Silver. Don't throw out the cut with overvalued reverrence for the thrust.

[Wehrkind]

Mike, I definitely agree that cuts are good. I get most of my wins from leg cuts in particular, because I am a sneaky bu99er. The problem with them is that most armor is pretty good at defeating them, and getting a good enough shot to really do damage is tricky.

This bit about fingers in a table saw: oddly I know of two instances, one direct family, where people did similar things. The one is questionable, being the story of a high school teach whose father all but removed his hand with a table saw and drove himself to the hospital. Can't vouch for that, but she was not the lying type. Directly, you gotta meet my uncle. He is missing more bits of hand than a drunk with a wood chipper. If memory serves there was a wood chopping incident, a chainsaw incident, and I believe one involving a horse who didn't want to be in a trailer. (A little fuzzy on the last one though.) In all instances he bound up his mangled paws and at the least made it the 200 yards from the barn to the house. This is as a young adolescent. I think that the shock of blows depends a great deal more on the person than the wound itself. Witness my girlfriend who loses her feet after a scraped palm. ("Fender Bender in Wal-Mart Parking Lot; One Dead") I suspect that for most injuries that do not remove limbs a person's mentality at the time has a lot more to do with their reaction than just "Wow that hurt."

For examples, I would point you to Edmund's linked article, which lists both plenty of fights were legs are removed, and one in particular with "bastard-swords" where a grevious wound was essentially ignored.

Also, a good solid cut is rarely sneakey. Any weapon heavy enough to do decent cutting damage through typical clothing (typical medieval clothing I should say) is not exceptionally sneaky. Yes, you can do it, but sneaky usually requires feints, not simply clever wrist work. Again, I would point you towards Edmund's article, particularly
In a duel with bastard-swords in the early 1500s, one Fendilles delivered a thrust to the thigh of the Barron DeGuerres that laid it completely open. Yet, despite such a terrible leg wound the Baron was still able to charge and wrestle his opponent before dying from blood loss. The mid 15th century English text on great-sword, MS 39564, also instructs leg blows, stating in its 22nd entry to "lyghtly pley a rabett at hys legge lowe by ye grownde", while in its 23rd entry it speaks of "smytng a full spryng at hys legge". Examining Medieval sources then, it appears only severely hacking or copping into a leg with a sturdy cutting blade would effect a combatant, and when it did, he would drop to the ground and no longer be capable of fighting.

As a side note, this article is less about how effective leg cuts are (citing both sides of "very" and "not at all") but more about how the kneeling rule of the SCA is teh weaksauce. I would like to point out that the early instances of "zomg he like totally removed his leg!!!!1111" were legends, and reference a time when, as I believe Tacitus noted, the swords were not designed for thrusts at all, but rather only slashing.

So I like slashes too, and they are important, but thrusting is at least as good, and probably a little more efficient. At least enough that I still don't see why two handed weapons are "teh killarz XtrEmE!!!!" :-P

[Bug-a-Boo]

On a different note, I still have not had the assertion that two handed weapons are best for small combat groups explained to my satisfaction.

Com on! Gimme some time here, I've practicallly got a new day-job just responding to you all!



At least enough that I still don't see why two handed weapons are "teh killarz XtrEmE!!!!" :-P

Since when were two handed weapons unable to poke? ;)

[Wehrkind]

Hehe I understad Bug a Boo. This takes up large tracts of my night job. Thank god for that...


I am not saying that 2hw can't poke, and in fact they are pretty handy for it in most cases. I just vaugly recall someone saying earlier that they were better because of the mighty gashes. Something to that effect. I dunno, at this point in the night I am pretty much out of it, so I might just be assuming that since they said something to that effect after I asked why 2hw are better, it was to that point.

I am out of Amp, with 2 hours to go. So sad.

[Raum]

I agree with Mike et al., on the relative damage between piercing and slashing weapons. When I stated piercing will do more damage through moderate armor it was simply because a piercing attack is more likely to penetrate the armor than a slashing attack. Most likely at a joint, but it's still a stabbing rather than cutting attack.

I have read some of the articles on how long a fighter is able to last after being stabbed. I think there was one posted here several pages ago which compiled anecdotes from historical duels and show how opponents were able to continue fighting after having been stabbed one or more times.

Where I agree with Silver is simply that a thrust can strike farther and faster than a slash (with equivalent weapons). And I'd add, because of the physics behind it, a thrust is more likely to penetrate armor to cause damage.

[Edmund]

Mike, I definitely agree that cuts are good. I get most of my wins from leg cuts in particular, because I am a sneaky bu99er. The problem with them is that most armor is pretty good at defeating them, and getting a good enough shot to really do damage is tricky.

This is where axes, maces, hammers, and other striking weapons shine. You club a guy in the leg. You dent his armour, and break his bone. Of course, these weapons also have major limitations, particularly in terms of reach (a two-handed axe would often be shorter than a single-handed sword) and striking area (you can only strike effectively with one small part of the weapon, the same issue which spears have)



I suspect that for most injuries that do not remove limbs a person's mentality at the time has a lot more to do with their reaction than just "Wow that hurt."

I think what Mike is trying to point out here is that the body has a programmed response to immense pain.

This has nothing to do with mentality, but rather to do with how crazy their nerves are going, to use a bad instance of personification.

Since adrenaline and the like numb the pain, the response may not be as severe.

But if, say, you're brushing your teeth, and I come in and split your hand with an axe, even though I haven't killed you, you're just llikely to pass out because the nerves have nothing to 'calm them down', as it were.


For examples, I would point you to Edmund's linked article, which lists both plenty of fights were legs are removed, and one in particular with "bastard-swords" where a grevious wound was essentially ignored.

This was a thrust, not a cut. It was also to the thigh. Mike is going to have to tell us about how high of a nerve concentration is there, because I sure as hell can't.


Also, a good solid cut is rarely sneakey. Any weapon heavy enough to do decent cutting damage through typical clothing (typical medieval clothing I should say) is not exceptionally sneaky.
I don't really know what you mean by 'sneaky'.


I would like to point out that the early instances of "zomg he like totally removed his leg!!!!1111" were legends
I find this hard to believe, given the amount of archaeological evidence that points to the contrary.


So I like slashes too, and they are important, but thrusting is at least as good, and probably a little more efficient. At least enough that I still don't see why two handed weapons are "teh killarz XtrEmE!!!!" :-P
Thrusting is great but I don't think it can be called 'efficient' unless it hits a certain area (specifically the chest, kidneys, or liver). It's fast and potentially deadly, but considering that armour tends to protect the torso first and the extremities second, it has even more problems given that issue.

[Mike_G]

I think what Mike is trying to point out here is that the body has a programmed response to immense pain.

This has nothing to do with mentality, but rather to do with how crazy their nerves are going, to use a bad instance of personification.


Exactly. It doesn't matter if you are an elite, highly trained soldier or a gang banging thug, physiology is physiology.

Yes, the adrenaline does counteract the pain response a bit, but that is no different in a guy fighting in an alley versus a hoplite defending Thermopylae.

Pain causes a sudden drop in blood pressure, the vasovagal response, which is why people sometimes pass out from pain. If you don't pass out, the shock still makes you pretty bad at fighting.






This was a thrust, not a cut. It was also to the thigh. Mike is going to have to tell us about how high of a nerve concentration is there, because I sure as hell can't.


We have more sensory nerves per sqare inch further from our core. The highest concentration is at the extremities, becuase that's what we use to feel stuff. And obviously, many more close to the skin surface than deep inside. We don't need sensory neurons in our lungs, heart and liver. Mashed fingers and toes hurt a lot.

When the skin is opened, and we expose these neurons to air, they hurt. If you cut off a big chunk of skin, it hurts a lot. Superficial burns hurt more than deep stabs, abrasions hurt a lot, etc. Trust me, the guy who gets stabbed isn't screaming for morphine, a guy with a minor burn all over the surface of his hand is.

A thrust in the thigh would hurt, but it would only affect a small area, and open a small number of neurons to the air. A long cut would be a lot worse, painwise.

In addition, a broken bone or severed tendon won't work, pain or not. The effect is immediate. A punctured lung, spleen or liver will kill you, but in a little while from blood loss or diminisihed breathing.

[Wehrkind]

In a duel with bastard-swords in the early 1500s, one Fendilles delivered a thrust to the thigh of the Barron DeGuerres that laid it completely open (Emphasis mine.)

Dictionary.com defines "lay open" as "Expose; also, make vulnerable to." I would take that to mean that it did not make a dainty hole, but rather a large gash. How exactly I am not certain, but since the next sentance describes it as a "terrible leg wound", I would imagine it was inserted then moved in some direction. I sort of imagine like a letter opener. For the record, the article's point is that leg wounds either put you down or don't stop you, regardless of the type of wound.


I think what Mike is trying to point out here is that the body has a programmed response to immense pain.

This has nothing to do with mentality, but rather to do with how crazy their nerves are going, to use a bad instance of personification.

It it true, our bodies do have responses. They are not however exactly the same in every situation. Mentality has everything to do with it. When we are excited and worked up, adrenaline is flying through our bodies, numbing pain and in general making us feel more invincible. When we are calm, we tend to feel things more keenly.
So, for example, people don't always notice broken bones when competing in sports, or fighting or what have you. People jump and yelp if you poke them in the rear with a pin while they are typing at their desks, however. This is the mentality I am talking about. When people are excited and expect to feel pain they have a better time getting through it than when they are surprised and not worked up. Anyone who has seen a football player in a huddle with his finger hanging with a bone sticking out of it, yet is completely oblivious to what is happening understands that what you are doing has a lot to do with how your mind and body respond.

No to mention that fact that people have hugh injuries happen to them all the time without passing out. Usually because it severs/damages the nerves. I suspect Mike would agree that a 1st or 2nd degree burn hurts far more than a 3rd degree, simply because there is nothing to feel the damage in a 3rd degree.


I don't really know what you mean by 'sneaky'

Ask Mike, he is the one who used the word initially. I was just saying that usually a weapon that can deliver grevious slashes (such as his oft mentioned machette) is not exactly sneaky, compared to say a rapier. Still, there are always semantic problems with anthropomorphizing weapons...



I find this hard to believe, given the amount of archaeological evidence that points to the contrary.

Viking Sagas are rich with accounts of leg blows and their effects.


I appologize, it wasn't the first few he mentioned, but rather the Viking Sagas, that I was referring to.

In all these examples, with a single heavy blow from a single-hand cutting blade the unarmored leg is hewn from the body and the victim is immediately incapacitated or killed.

I just don't see that as likely. Cutting meat with a one handed straight sword (as opposed to a falx or kukri) is quite difficult. I somewhat suspect that the Sagas were coloring the truth a bit to add to the excitement. I do not doubt there is a grain of truth to them, but they are not exactly the most accurate and sober sorts of things.


Thrusting is great but I don't think it can be called 'efficient' unless it hits a certain area (specifically the chest, kidneys, or liver). It's fast and potentially deadly, but considering that armour tends to protect the torso first and the extremities second, it has even more problems given that issue.
Armor covers the torso precisely because piercing works so well. Stabbing arms is quite tough, and legs are only a little easier to hit, and neither are too exciting as targets anyway. Stabbing someone in the torso works so well that it is the most important peice of armor. Slashing a torso is a good bit more difficult, particularly when a shield is used. This is also why helmets were important, your head being vulnerable to just about everything. Cuts and stabs on the arms and legs, however, were for a long time worth risking to preserve mobility. If slashing were so feared you would see more long sleeve mail hauberks, and pictures of Alexander with more than a breastplate and helmet. (Not to mention hopilites with armor besides their 1/4" brass helms and chest peices.)



Exactly. It doesn't matter if you are an elite, highly trained soldier or a gang banging thug, physiology is physiology.

Yes, the adrenaline does counteract the pain response a bit, but that is no different in a guy fighting in an alley versus a hoplite defending Thermopylae.


Yes, it does matter. There are levels of pain that some people can tolerate, and some can't. There just is. This has a great deal to do with training and state of mind. I don't disagree that there is a point of pain that no one can handle and knocks them on their rear, but every other point on the scale beneath that affects people differently. Perhaps you have a different explanation for why some people pass out from low blood pressure from getting a shot, and some are fine?

And Edmund, I agree that heavy, blunt impact weapons and axes are great vs armor, causing all sorts of trauma even if they do not dent the armor. It isn't because they cut though.

[Raum]

Yes, it does matter. There are levels of pain that some people can tolerate, and some can't. There just is. This has a great deal to do with training and state of mind. I don't disagree that there is a point of pain that no one can handle and knocks them on their rear, but every other point on the scale beneath that affects people differently. Perhaps you have a different explanation for why some people pass out from low blood pressure from getting a shot, and some are fine?
This is quite true though I'm not sure state of mind and training are the only variables. Years ago when I was still training, my sensei ran into one such person training the base SPs. The guy basically ignored locks, traps, and chokes. Sensei could choke him out, but he kept going the whole time...and sensei had to release the armbar for fear of actually breaking the guy's arm.

While that was an extreme, I have seen it to a lesser extent in sports as pointed out.

[Edmund]

I appologize, it wasn't the first few he mentioned, but rather the Viking Sagas, that I was referring to.
I just don't see that as likely. Cutting meat with a one handed straight sword (as opposed to a falx or kukri) is quite difficult. I somewhat suspect that the Sagas were coloring the truth a bit to add to the excitement. I do not doubt there is a grain of truth to them, but they are not exactly the most accurate and sober sorts of things.

As I said, I wasn't referring to literary evidence. I also think, then, that if the sagas are embellishing, could not the account of the duel also be embellished?

To quote the article, regarding the mass graves of Wisby:
'Bones were sheared through or cracked and shattered. Several victims even loss both legs completely.'

There's a book on the mass graves of Towton out there which I'm sure can shed further light on this debate. Now, if only someone would go out and buy it.


Armor covers the torso precisely because piercing works so well.
I thought it was because the torso is where all the squishy bits are, piercing or no.


Slashing a torso is a good bit more difficult, particularly when a shield is used.

Doing anything against a potential opponent is a good bit more difficult when they use a shield. Except hitting their shield, of course. Outside of stage fighting, though, that's not really the point.


If slashing were so feared you would see more long sleeve mail hauberks

More than..? Look at the Maciejowski Bible, the Bayeux Tapestry, or the period from around 1000 to around 1500 (when plate really took over) The vast majority of hauberks you find are long-sleeved (especially in the 'age of maille' which went from around 1000 to around 1300). The lack of full hauberks in the earlier period is due to a lack of material rather than a disdain for slashing attacks.




Yes, it does matter. There are levels of pain that some people can tolerate, and some can't. There just is. This has a great deal to do with training and state of mind. I don't disagree that there is a point of pain that no one can handle and knocks them on their rear, but every other point on the scale beneath that affects people differently.

Everything you claim has to do with physiology. Because of genetics, neurone concentration can change, however slightly. Because of outside influences, for example how folks who like to break boards with their hands, people destroy the neurons in various places.

There is a change due to adrenaline et al. but I don't know how tremendous that change is. I'm sure someone has done tests on this sort of thing.


And Edmund, I agree that heavy, blunt impact weapons and axes are great vs armor, causing all sorts of trauma even if they do not dent the armor. It isn't because they cut though.

Oh, I know. I'm just saying you don't use a slashing weapon against a foe who can't get slashed, so it's not really a valid point. Knights were pretty much the golfers of warfare, with a potential weapon for every potential situation. The only differences of course being that they had armour, they had more than just clubs, and their golf carts are a might scarier. Still tried to get a hole-in-one, though.

[Wehrkind]

I am not saying it is impossible, I am just saying it is very difficult with a straight sword. Axes on the other hand work nicely for this. I suspect there have been a vast number of people with broken limbs strewn across the battlefields of time, particularly when horsemen are there trampling the fallen. I am also comfortable that there have been limbs removed by pole arms, great swords, axes, all manner of things. I just dispute that more people die from having their legs severed in one shot than from being stabbed in the torso.


I thought it was because the torso is where all the squishy bits are, piercing or no.
Yes, the most dangerous things to have injured are in your torso. The torso is difficult to slash however due to the bone structure that protects it, as well as the presence of the arms at the sides that people tend to put in the way. The torso and head are the only parts where the bones are near the outside protecting what is inside, rather than in the center. This protects from cuts and bumps, but in the case of the torso, not very well from pierces.


Doing anything against a potential opponent is a good bit more difficult when they use a shield. Except hitting their shield, of course. Outside of stage fighting, though, that's not really the point.
I don't know why you said this.


More than..? Look at the Maciejowski Bible, the Bayeux Tapestry, or the period from around 1000 to around 1500 (when plate really took over) The vast majority of hauberks you find are long-sleeved (especially in the 'age of maille' which went from around 1000 to around 1300).
The entire late Roman empire employed mail shirts. Shortsleaved shirts to be precise. There was certainly no lack of materials, and over all adding sleeves is not a huge percentage of the total. Further you do not see the richest at the time on the battlefield in long chain sleeves. It is not for a good long time before people started thinking that it was worth it to add sleeves to armor. Suddenly people started protecting their arms, at least horsemen, but for many years they did not bother.


Everything you claim has to do with physiology.
I don't know what to tell you. If you believe that everything is genetics and aquired nerve death, fine. That does not explain why some people are sissies who black out at the tiniest trauma, and others do remarkable things while all chewed up.

Knights did have all sorts of different weapons. Most were either geared towards stabbing or crushing however. You didn't see many long curved sabres compared to lances, great swords (used often for half swording to pierce) and hammers/maces to crush. Slashing weapons, particularly swords, are more often seen in cultures where armor was not as popular.

[Mike_G]

I don't know what to tell you. If you believe that everything is genetics and aquired nerve death, fine. That does not explain why some people are sissies who black out at the tiniest trauma, and others do remarkable things while all chewed up.


Because of genetics.

I've seen tough Infantry Marines pass out giving blood. I've seen tiny little girls take pain like a champ. Short of adrenaline and it's mediating effects, I don't see how you can train for shock. It not like you practice severing fingers.

There is no direct correlation between tough guys and untrained data entry clerks with regard to physical response to pain, as far as shock.

Women handle it better than men. That's established fact. Beyond that, it's genetic luck of the draw and how much adrenaline you have pumping.

So I don't buy the whole argument that trained soldiers in battle can ignore a wound, where a guy in a gang fight wouldn't. Combat is still combat, as far as our instinctive fight or flight responses go. Your central nervous system has been evolving since we were protazoa. Twelve weeks in boot camp ain't gonna change that.

[Vistanibard]

Quick question. I have a Two Weapon Fighting Half-Vistani Ranger in a Ravenloft game who uses A silver Rapier and Light-mace with weapon finnese.

Our DM gives XP for writing descriptions of how our signiture moves look and for my char its a full attack with 2 swings each weapon. Supposing its possible to USE these two weapons together in RL...whats a general idea of what that would look like?

[SpiderBrigade]

Quick question. I have a Two Weapon Fighting Half-Vistani Ranger in a Ravenloft game who uses A silver Rapier and Light-mace with weapon finnese.

Our DM gives XP for writing descriptions of how our signiture moves look and for my char its a full attack with 2 swings each weapon. Supposing its possible to USE these two weapons together in RL...whats a general idea of what that would look like?

Rapier and a mace is one hella wierd combination as far as I know. Since the one is largely about keeping your enemy at decent range, where you can thrust at them, and the other needs you to get all close and personal...odd.

Edit: oh and a quick question while I'm at it. Someone in another thread mentioned offhand something called a "Diaclave," which I googled but all I can seem to find out is that it's something common in the game Exalted. What the heck is it? I'm presuming it's a pure fantasy weapon.

[Orion-the-G]

It's not just a pure fantasy weapon, it's a pure fantasy weapon in the spirit of FF7.

The 'standard' diaklave is 4' or so long and probably half a foot wide at it's largest width.

The 'grand' diaklave is a full 6 feet.

[Mike_G]

Quick question. I have a Two Weapon Fighting Half-Vistani Ranger in a Ravenloft game who uses A silver Rapier and Light-mace with weapon finnese.

Our DM gives XP for writing descriptions of how our signiture moves look and for my char its a full attack with 2 swings each weapon. Supposing its possible to USE these two weapons together in RL...whats a general idea of what that would look like?


It would be neat to try.

You have one distance, mostly thrusting weapon, and one up close stirking weapon. Of course, that may not be a bad thing, fight right foot forward, mostly rapier, using the light mace for blocking until someone closes, or binds your blade, then step in with a cross and paste them with the mace. Or feint high with the blade and swing the mace at his knee.

I've never tried somthing like this, but I think I might playt around at my next practice, just to see how it could work.

[Fhaolan]

Quick question. I have a Two Weapon Fighting Half-Vistani Ranger in a Ravenloft game who uses A silver Rapier and Light-mace with weapon finnese.

As SpiderBrigade says, these is a very odd weapon combination. The rapier is a weapon specifically designed for fast, finesse combat against similarly armed and lightly armored (if at all) opponents. The primary tactic is to keep the opponent at a distance where you can thrust against them effectively.

The mace was designed for crushing blows against heavily armored opponents. The primary tactic is to move in close, because the mace has limited reach.

The chances of these two weapons being used simultaneously is very low because they were made for polar opposite combat situations and techniques.

If I was to speculate as to how it would look, I would assume the mace would be in your off-hand, being used for hard blocks. I would also assume it would be a gothic-style mace, with all the tines and curly-queue bits that would increase it's parrying/blocking ability. Instead of a rapier, I would say a cut-and-thrust [military weapon contemporary to the rapier], such as the espadon. Look up some older Itallian and Spanish fencing terms and throw them out liberally; desvio, stromacione, trovar di spada, squalembrato, and so on. :)

[Old_el_Paso]

Would a mercurial weapon be possible in real life?