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

[Spiryt]

EDIT: For unarmed fighting, Kurash is a traditional Turkic style of unarmed combat.

Interesting.

Wiki when did it orginated.

It's not that important obviously, since some kind of wrestling etc. is given for any kind of martial culture.

Rules look somehow like Greco Roman wrestling but with clothes to grab.

[Galloglaich]

I pretty much agree with everything Spiryt said as usual on the weapons and history stuff.

For your Turkish Vampires in 800 AD, I reccommend Khazars. The Khazars are perfect for your needs and fit perfectly with the time period and are some of the most interesting people amost anyone has never heard of.


This is the only artistic depiction of Khazars I could find on short notice, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The Khazars were people from a sophisticated but by the 8th Century decadent and somewhat declining Central Asian Empire. They are a Turkic people though the Khazar empire is decidedly multi-ethnic and includes Slavs, people related to Finns, Caucasas mountains people like Armenians, Georgians, plus various Turkic and Asiatic tribes, Persians and so on. Interestingly many of their Aristocracy converted to Judaism in the 8th Century partly as a conscious decision to position themselves between the Christian Europeans and the Muslim Arabs. The rest would be pagan, shamanistic religion.

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

The Khazars had close dealings with the Slavic / Norse Rus Khaganate, who were sometimes their allies against the Stepp nomads, sometimes their enemies. Rus was expanding while the Khazars, once mighty, were declining, but they had powerful sophisticated cities at this time particularly around the Crimea and the Northern shore of the Black Sea. Trade links to basiclaly everywhere of interest, Persia, China, the Carolingians, the Arabs, the Rus of couse, the other Slavs. Also they did have more 'rough' Turkic tribes in their confederation in case that is what you were looking for.

As Spirit said the Killic or yataghan were not really inveted at this point, the only saber really in use at this time would be the basic Chinese Dao and it's variants, like these



But it's actually more likely they would carry daggers and / or swords like this

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...rd_ISAS_pl.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...ISAS_pl_80.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...AS/ISAS_70.jpg

for some reason it's really important culturally for us to associate curved sabers with the Middle East or anywhere in Asia, so who am I to argue?

Spears or bows are the main weapons anyway.

Khazars could easily be in "Germany" (Germany as a State didn't exist then but the Holy Roman Empire was just forming) either as an emissary from the Khazar Empire or the Rus, or as mercenaries, or merchants. There were also other Central Asian tribes integrated with the Franks (such as the Iranian Alans and Taifals, who were cavalry and settled as Aristocrats in Frankish territory) in case you want to pick out a different tribe. A lot of people think the Franks were a tribe but they were really a Tribal Federation, just like the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, and most of the others you've heard of from the Migration era.

I wrote a litttle article about that you can read here if you want to read more

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general...ml#post5345843

G

[Spiryt]

for some reason it's really important culturally for us to associated curved sabers with the Middle East or anywhere in Asia, so who am I to argue?

Well, curved blades most 'popular' came from Asia in one way or another....

It probably appeared in Europe at earliest due to Huns, Magyars, Avars and other people from the steppes.

Byzantines probably had encountered it similarly too, although I'm no expert.

'Purely' European experiments with curved blades generally were pretty limited, or took a form of blades with concave edge, obviously.

But yeah, as far as Islamic world pre ~ 1250 goes, straight swords would be prevalent as well.

[Galloglaich]

Well, curved blades most 'popular' came from Asia in one way or another....

It probably appeared in Europe at earliest due to Huns, Magyars, Avars and other people from the steppes.

Byzantines probably had encountered it similarly too, although I'm no expert.

'Purely' European experiments with curved blades generally were pretty limited, or took a form of blades with concave edge, obviously.

But yeah, as far as Islamic world pre ~ 1250 goes, straight swords would be prevalent as well.

Actually I think curved swords got really popular in Europe around the same time and for much of the same reasons as in the Middle East. They existed (in various forms of the Dao) in Central Asia from China going back to the early Iron Age, and were popular with cavalry, but strait swords were at least as popular. The saif, shamshir, tulwar etc. were not widespread until the 16th Century from my understanding. Most of the strait muslim swords i linked to above are actually 15th or 16th century weapons from the arsenal at Alexandria. But they remained basically the same for 1,000 years.

Conversely convex curved European blades go way back, I've seen curved small sabers similar to dussack which go back to the La Tene culture in Central Europe, Falchions have a similar very old pedigree and the curved type of messers also go way back. Single edged swords at least as curved as a typical Dao appear in Norway more or less contuniously from the 6th century to the 12th.



I think the conflation is basically one of propaganda: cruciform arming sword looks like a cross, curved shamshir looks like a crescent.


G

[Spiryt]

Fascinating stuff.

I'm aware of different a bit curved seaxes, messers and similar knife like weapons, and they were most probably used trough whole Iron Age.
Have seen mostly straight one though.

http://forums.dfoggknives.com/index.php?showtopic=14821

Fabulous reconstruction of such weapon here with some info



I dig the look of it.

Never heard about curved swords in Norway though.

Any quick reference?

[Galloglaich]

You see a lot of single-edged swords like this in Norway, not exactly curved but at least as much as a lot of Dao were

Here is a modern reconstruction



Here are some antiques
http://www.sportsfiske.nu/foto/arkiv/34890/87141_s.jpg
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=28692
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=28691

In Central Europe you see curved knives and short swords like this in the Hallstatt context quite a bit. I think this one is from Bohemia



You also see a long tradition of curved machete like weapons in your neck of the woods, from Bohemia into Masvoia

http://fencingclassics.files.wordpre...2/391b_3-1.jpg

You also have the Dacian / Thracian Falx - Rhomphaia family of weapons

http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/ra...ages/falx2.jpg

Which were sometimes sharpened on the inner-edge like a falcata and sometimes on the outer-edge like a saber

Messers of course got pretty curvy sometimes


And you see a lot of Medieval hunting knives like this one



and of course, falchions

[Galloglaich]

You see a lot of this type of knife (from the site you linked) in auctions and stuff from the iron age into the Medieval period.



Some short like that some as large as a dussack, with a lot of the playing round with the tang sometimes folded over like the one on a dusack, sometimes made into rings you could only fit one finger in. I think that is actually the origin of the knucklebow though.

G

[Yora]

That particular knife probably was ceremonial or a scraping tool. With that handle it would be reallyakward to use as a knife.

[Galloglaich]

And yet you see a clear line of development from tools like that (vaguely - that is a rather rough copy of some antiques you see around) to weapons like this





in exactly the same area in Central Europe.

G

[GungHo]

If I were a budding Assamite, I'd probably go the knife/dagger/jambiya route. No one's going to really look at you funny if you have knife. Everyone has a knife. A sword is kind of "high profile" unless you're a nobleman or mercenary. A jambiya is more Yemeni and might not be invented yet, but the concept of "a man's man always has a knife" is pretty general at that time, all the way from the HRE to the Punjab.

[Matthew]

Another interesting thing about the curved sword to Middle East relationship is that the perception is not all one way. Indeed, the scimitar appears on various "eastern" flags, such as that of the Pakistani Army. Sometimes I wonder if the cross/crescent dichotomy has had a subconscious post facto influence on national perceptions.

[Conners]

Was watching an interesting documentary about cybernetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IshL18Lh64I


Got me wondering... which would be better? Mechanical/robotic cybernetic enhancements, or genetically engineered cloned body parts?

Robot arms are probably too heavy for a human to reasonably carry, if you were going to make them extra-strong and so forth. Whereas, a genetically engineered arm might let you punch like a boxer, while still not being too heavy, clunky, or limited in use.


What are your insights on bio-technology versus robo-cybernetics? Wondering which we'd be more likely to see being used on soldiers in the future.

[Pheehelm]

Steve Dutch says:

Prosthetics are getting better and better, and I have no doubt they'll eventually be fully functional, even superior to natural body parts.

The problem is that when you mix bionic and natural tissue, the result will only be as strong as the natural tissue. So Jaws in the James Bond flicks, despite his steel dentures, will only be able to bite as hard as his jaws and jaw muscles will allow. He might rival a good bolt cutter, but he won't be able to bite through thick cables. Spider Man may have incredibly strong spider adhesion, but when he hangs from a bridge and holds a cable car in his grip, the part in between is only as strong as Peter Parker's muscles and bones.

It doesn't matter how strong the bionic parts are. If they're connected to normal bone or muscle, the result is only as strong as the weakest component. So when the bionically altered villain in Spider Man 2 stands on his human legs and uses his bionic arms to rip a bank vault door off its hinges, I wonder what steroids he used to beef up his leg muscles, and what's anchoring the bionic parts to his body.

[Traab]

All that being said, bionic parts could still be superior in some aspects to the real thing. As an example, if your forearm and hand are fake, you could have a grip capable of crushing steel without straining your body. Most of the exertion is done by the hand and forearm to clench your fist. So your real muscles would have a minimal effect on your upper limit of grabbing things. LIFTING would still not be greatly boosted, the only benefit is less likelyhood of losing your grip. :p You could probably throw harder, since you can snap your wrist and forearm down harder and faster if they are fakes. Im not talking supersonic speeds or anything, but I bet it would be a damn sight faster than your unaugmented throws.

[Eldan]

Currently, the problem with bionics, as far as I'm aware, is immune rejection.

That said, our real life body parts are pretty amazingly engineered things. We could probably build parts that are better in some ways, but the strength of say our hands is versatility. (And a bit of self-healing, compared to machines)

[Pheehelm]

Don't forget tactile feedback. Even if they manage those other things, it'll probably be awhile before they can make bionic fingertips that can feel the sharpness of an edge, or the heat of an object, or the textures of a significant other's hair/skin/etc. I think that's the part I'd really miss with a prosthetic hand, and come to think of it, it'd probably make simple tasks like typing incredibly difficult if you can't feel what you're doing and always have to look to make sure you're doing it right.

[Joran]

Currently, the problem with bionics, as far as I'm aware, is immune rejection.

That said, our real life body parts are pretty amazingly engineered things. We could probably build parts that are better in some ways, but the strength of say our hands is versatility. (And a bit of self-healing, compared to machines)

With genetic engineering, ideally we'd be able to clone someone's arm to replace one that they lost.

I'm not a doctor, but I know we can reattached severed arms and hands. There was news recently about a hand transplant. With cloned body parts, we wouldn't have to deal with such things as mind/machine interfaces or immune rejection.

So, it seems to me that cloned body parts is only one step (construct a cloned body part, albeit difficult), while cybernetics would require at least two (construct body part, attach it to body such that brain can operate it).

[Eldan]

I didn't mean that there would be rejection of the clone parts. There is rejection of the cybernetics (no idea why I said bionics instead of cybernetics). It's already a problem with things like pacemakers.

[Joran]

I didn't mean that there would be rejection of the clone parts. There is rejection of the cybernetics (no idea why I said bionics instead of cybernetics). It's already a problem with things like pacemakers.

Right. Plus, Nature already builds working hands all the time...

I suddenly have a very disturbing image of cloned bodies in vats missing hands.

[Eldan]

I didn't mean that there would be rejection of the clone parts. There is rejection of the cybernetics (no idea why I said bionics instead of cybernetics). It's already a problem with things like pacemakers.

[Norsesmithy]

Right. Plus, Nature already builds working hands all the time...

I suddenly have a very disturbing image of cloned bodies in vats missing hands.

A misconception. New hands (or any other part) of your own tissue won't be harvested from some bank of adult clones kept in some island facility, they will be made with rejuvenated adult stem cells harvested from your body fat, and used to refill the intercellular matrix of a cadaver part that has been washed of all its cells.

Eventually, it will probably be a synthetic cellular matrix, printed with some complicated device capable of turning chemical soup into collgen and similar, but for the next 20-50 years, they'll be washed cadaver parts.

[Joran]

A misconception. New hands (or any other part) of your own tissue won't be harvested from some bank of adult clones kept in some island facility, they will be made with rejuvenated adult stem cells harvested from your body fat, and used to refill the intercellular matrix of a cadaver part that has been washed of all its cells.

Eventually, it will probably be a synthetic cellular matrix, printed with some complicated device capable of turning chemical soup into collgen and similar, but for the next 20-50 years, they'll be washed cadaver parts.

Who cares about your reality and "facts" when I'm writing my dystopian, science fiction novel? Adult clones missing parts is such a juicy metaphor for many of societal ills.

Agreed though on not needing actual cloned people to make surplus parts. Also, is this the same process that's used to make artificial meat?

[Pheehelm]

It's the same process used to make artificial organs.

[Norsesmithy]

AFAIK that depends on who's making the artificial meat. I know that one university has made a steak from a pork chop using cow stem cells, and I know that several other places have created undifferentiated lumps of muscle tissue from various animals, but as you can imagine, they're less than appetizing.

No one is currently producing in-vitro meat commercially, but I understand its been offered (to select persons) at several scientific conferences.

[Beleriphon]

Eventually, it will probably be a synthetic cellular matrix, printed with some complicated device capable of turning chemical soup into collgen and similar, but for the next 20-50 years, they'll be washed cadaver parts.

A Virginian university has done this for organs using, get this, a bubble jet printer that was modified to print cellular membrane one layer at a time. Its a 3D printer that makes organs!

I heard an interview on the CBC's White Coat/Black Art where they already made bladders and other relatively simple organs, and the next one they want to see if they can produce is a human heart. Total time frame for this is between three and nine weeks.

If you want to see the effects of cybernetic enhancements for legitimate use I expect bone reinforcements or chemical filters instead of gas masks, as opposed to entirely replacement limbs. Full replacement limbs for damage or loss that are as functional as an original limb are becoming more and more or a reality.

[Conners]

How far is it, till we can start making improved cloned limbs? Example: Your genetics effect how capable you are of being a professional boxer--some people can just naturally punch harder than others.
Would it be possible to clones arms then make them better for boxing, weight lifting, or just generally stronger than most normal arms?

[Aux-Ash]

How far is it, till we can start making improved cloned limbs? Example: Your genetics effect how capable you are of being a professional boxer--some people can just naturally punch harder than others.
Would it be possible to clones arms then make them better for boxing, weight lifting, or just generally stronger than most normal arms?

Somewhere between never, very far off and We're there already.

To elaborate:

The principal problem is that boxing isn't a inherent trait. It's a trained ability. Which is beyond the scope of genetical manipulation. You would be able to create the hands he'd have if he was never a boxer, hypothetically, but not be able to create the hands he as sculped with extensive training.
So even if you can create his hands, you won't be able to duplicate what experience has made to them. Moreover, he probably started very young. Which means that you have to give these arms to someone of the same age as he was when he started to be able to duplicate them in full. Once the body is fully grown, the ability to significantly alter them is lost.

The second problem lie in altering the nucleic acids (the DNA). We have a very large DNA but comparatively few genes. Many of whom are reused for a number of proteins. However, this means that altering a few genes for a benefit risks altering more than you knew. What this means is that there is a chance you alter the structure of the surface proteins on some cells. If this happens prior to the development of the immunesystem, then these cells will be flagged as invaders and the body will reject them.
Moreover, growing them outside the body is doable. But if they have a distinct genetic material. Then once they're in the body there's no knowing what will happen. Our bodies are very regulated by hundreds if not thousands of factors. Far beyond the scope of our laboratories today. A single mistake and that grafted arm could essentially be told by the body to start undergoing hyperduplication (ie. become tumors).
So in this area we need lots more research.

But if you're talking gene therapy, the altering of the genetic material of a fetus. We're there already. It's already being used to treat people with rare and deadly metabolic disorders to allow them to live a normal life. It's still in it's early stages, but certainly works. However, they more or less only work on treating disorders with a mendelic (mono-genetic) inheritance.

[Eldan]

Who cares about your reality and "facts" when I'm writing my dystopian, science fiction novel? Adult clones missing parts is such a juicy metaphor for many of societal ills.

I know at least three books with that premise, so yeah

[Spiryt]

How far is it, till we can start making improved cloned limbs? Example: Your genetics effect how capable you are of being a professional boxer--some people can just naturally punch harder than others.
Would it be possible to clones arms then make them better for boxing, weight lifting, or just generally stronger than most normal arms?

No, not in any way I can imagine.

Some people naturally punch harder, because their muscles naturally move differently, in more violent way, their skeleton is adapted to it, their brain just covers it all better etc.

Arm alone won't change much at all.

If you just "paste" more 'boxing' arm, with bigger bones, wrist, more resilient hand, more explosive muscles etc. it will most certainly just cause a lot of problems, being different from the rest of the body....

Not to mention than arm alone won't make very strong punch, no matter how big and powerful it is.

[Conners]

I can see the problem inherent, unless one wants to change the entire body...


OK, let's try this one: Let's say ten years from now, some bio-technology scientists get a human, whom they're allowed to edit how they please (they can replace anything they want). How much could they improve said human's performance, through bio-technology?
Could they make a regular sort of guy into an athlete?