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

[Eldan]

I'm no expert, but I'm given to understand that there's more historical relationship between the Ancient Israelites and the Ancient Greeks than is widely known. Look into the Greek Kopis and Xiphos.

Depends on what you still call "Greek" today and what time period, but the Seleucids had conquered significant parts of Asia, after all. Pretty much all of Asia Minor, and then over eastwards up to what is Afghanistan today. And the Ptolemies owned a good part of the Arabian penninsula. So, yes, from at least Alexander's time on, they would have met the Israelites.

[a_humble_lich]

Also, I have seen people argue that the Philistines that the Israelites fought with were Mycenaean Greeks. Also, at the end of the Greek Dark Ages there was a tendency for a while for people in Greece, especially nobility, to look to Asia, i.e. the Middle East. At this time the Greeks adapted their alphabet from the Phoenicians. So there was clearly some contact.

[Spiryt]

Now if someone who does not practise daily can hit a tin can, which keep in mind is smaller then the face, then I fail to see how someone who is a professional with a sling would not be able to do better.
Heck, if you claim that a swing from above your face cannot be accurate check out some of the ways people pitch for baseball or cricket.

Well, from 20 meters I can hit a tin can with a thrown pillow though, I assumed, from the way it was stated, that ancient records talk about targeting "specific parts of the face" from few hundred paces.

Which is obvious nonsense, now, from small distance there's naturally nothing weird about it at all.

anyway he uses a fullblade: giant two handed sword that has a high crit value as it properties. I was going to fluff it as a huge ceramic Kopesh, but was wondering if anyone had other ideas of what a Jewish warrior might use sword wise. I've decided on the fullblade because of its ingame stats, but i am open to how it should look.

Depends on the specific period, generally if you're thinking about times before 1st millennium BC (when majority of weaponry would be still bronze, for example) or more like in times of Rome rule.

But generally they would use straight, shortish swords that were ubiquitous in Mediterranean Sea world at the time.

Plus, like mentioned, Canaanite, Egyptian and similar khopesh, kopis and so on.

Anything resembling two handed sword is pretty much out for the period and place, so you have to kind of improvise anyway.

[Matthew]

For other equipment: bronze scale armour leaps to mind from the bible, I think it turns up in the David versus Goliath episode. Also, some sort of metal fronted shield that can be polished to blind your enemies (I am recalling that from a biblical film, not sure if it happens in the bible off hand). As with most cultures, spears and bows would feature, and of course if he happens to be a shepherd, a sling.

[Partysan]

Pick a weapon, or at the least a weapon TYPE to narrow it down.

That would defeat the purpose of my question. Let me show you my thinking process that lead up to me posting my question:
- You can in a very simple approach divide weapon attacks into swing and thrust
- I myself use a bastard sword
- to penetrate heavy armor with it I need to thrust rather than chop
- this also goes for many other weapons
- so are thrusts better at penetrating armor than swings?
- wait, there are weapons like picks that penetrate on swing and aren't really suited for thrusting
- and they penetrate really well, too
- all penetrating atacks have in common, that they attrack with a pointy end of the weapon
- well, it's rather logical that concentrating the force* on a small point will be better suited to pierce armor
- all weapons that use thrusts to penetrate are built in a way so you only can use the pointy end when thrusting
- so maybe it doesn't matter at all whether you swing or thrust, the weapon just needs to be pointy and have some minimum force
- so does the type of movement matter at all?
- let's ask the experts in the Real Weapons and Armor thread on Giantitp

*"force" being used in a universal sense not limited to the physical definition.

[Yora]

I think it's a lot easier to put a lot of energy into a swing than into a thrust. It's also easier to swing a pick and almost all ways to thrust with a two handed sword, especially when you want to penetrate something hard, seem a bit akward to me, as you have both hands close together at the end of the weapon, very far away from the tip. Correctly aligning the tip and putting all your strength into the thrust seems quite tricky to me, and then you also have to account for the blade glancing off the armor.
On the other hand with a pick or warhammer, you just have to swing the head to the point you want to hit, which I imagine being a lot easier to do.

[gkathellar]

- so maybe it doesn't matter at all whether you swing or thrust, the weapon just needs to be pointy and have some minimum force
- so does the type of movement matter at all?

Well, if the last two pages tell you anything, they tell you it's difficult to come to a conclusion on the subject. Anecdotal experience is anecdotal, and scientific research may or may not accurately represent the mechanics and reality of the subject.

I think it's fair to say that thrusts present certain advantages in generating and targeting power to a specific point, and therefore in armor penetration. Most armor-piercing weapons that are meant to be swung, however, are designed with a relatively heavy "head" meant to enhance their ability to gather momentum.

Perhaps a fair way to put it would to say: thrusting in general presents a simple physiological advantage for placing force in one direction towards a single point, while armor-piercing weapons like picks and hammers are designed to replicate this physiological advantage with the addition of momentum through mechanical design.

I know that's a little ambiguous still, but it seems like a fair summary of what we've been discussing.

[gkathellar]

It's also easier to swing a pick and almost all ways to thrust with a two handed sword, especially when you want to penetrate something hard, seem a bit awkward to me, as you have both hands close together at the end of the weapon, very far away from the tip. Correctly aligning the tip and putting all your strength into the thrust seems quite tricky to me, and then you also have to account for the blade glancing off the armor.

Thrusting with a two-handed weapon where the hands are just a foot or so away from each other isn't nearly as awkward as you think, having done plenty of it (EDIT: nor is it especially difficult with the hands even closer together, if you know what you're doing). Aim can be tricky, but that's what practice is for.

Keep in mind that the best evaluation of a weapon's potential is rarely "what the average person could do with it," and more along the lines of "what a master could do with it.*"

*Which I'm not by any means claiming to be, in case that came out wrong and I can't see it..

[The Reverend]

No armor made of metal either. All exotic hides, stone, and bone. Plus my character isn't proficient in any armor...though I might pick some up.

[Spiryt]

Keep in mind that the best evaluation of a weapon's potential is rarely "what the average person could do with it," and more along the lines of "what a master could do with it.*"

I would say that "master" is not best evaluation either - someone in the lines of "adept" or "old hand" is the best - not exactly exceptional guy, but someone who knows what he's doing well.

I think it's a lot easier to put a lot of energy into a swing than into a thrust. It's also easier to swing a pick and almost all ways to thrust with a two handed sword, especially when you want to penetrate something hard, seem a bit akward to me, as you have both hands close together at the end of the weapon, very far away from the tip. Correctly aligning the tip and putting all your strength into the thrust seems quite tricky to me, and then you also have to account for the blade glancing off the armor.
On the other hand with a pick or warhammer, you just have to swing the head to the point you want to hit, which I imagine being a lot easier to do.

Like discussed on previous pages - certainly easier, but not necessarily optimal.

I would point again, that, again, biggest limitation with really hard impact can be the amount of impact that can be handled by the wrist when one smashed something hard, instead of jabbing something hard.

Unless someone has George Foreman, or whatever caliber wrists, and doesn't really care as long as relatively humanly possible impacts come into play.

[Yora]

Keep in mind that the best evaluation of a weapon's potential is rarely "what the average person could do with it," and more along the lines of "what a master could do with it.*"

*Which I'm not by any means claiming to be, in case that came out wrong and I can't see it..

When it comes to potential, yes.

I'm more of the "mass produced for the average soldier" paradigm guy when it comes to evaluating equipment, since conflicts are not decided by a handful of "heroes" and you probably have more barfights with accidental fatalities than duels.

The best possible combination of equipment and individual skill is a rather different question, I admit.

[Spiryt]

When it comes to potential, yes.

I'm more of the "mass produced for the average soldier" paradigm guy when it comes to evaluating equipment, since conflicts are not decided by a handful of "heroes" and you probably have more barfights with accidental fatalities than duels.

The best possible combination of equipment and individual skill is a rather different question, I admit.

Battles through the a whole lot of medieval period and even well into the Renaissance and beyond were in fact being decided by a handful of "heroes" or maybe rather guys that had good idea what to do with their weapons.

From Huscarls of Germano Saxonic rulers, trough knights and heavy infantry, tercios, Swiss pike squads and landsknechts, Hussars and so on, battles were more often than decided by relatively small, at least on the bigger scale, group of professional or semi professional fighters.

Masses of levies, pages, peasants, camp followers and other guys with spear or some other stuff were in majority of cases filling up the field providing necessary numbers of opposing steel.

The best possible combination of equipment and individual skill is a rather different question, I admit

That's easy - best possible combination is best skills and best equipment.

[fusilier]

Battles through the a whole lot of medieval period and even well into the Renaissance and beyond were in fact being decided by a handful of "heroes" or maybe rather guys that had good idea what to do with their weapons.

From Huscarls of Germano Saxonic rulers, trough knights and heavy infantry, tercios, Swiss pike squads and landsknechts, Hussars and so on, battles were more often than decided by relatively small, at least on the bigger scale, group of professional or semi professional fighters.

Masses of levies, pages, peasants, camp followers and other guys with spear or some other stuff were in majority of cases filling up the field providing necessary numbers of opposing steel.

I'm cautious when presented with these sorts of claims. It's really hard to know what would have happened if one piece of an army wasn't present at a battle. I think it's natural to focus on elite forces or leaders when describing the events of a battle, and that can lead to a belief that common forces were irrelevant. Even though the battles are not as big as later ones, the armies are large enough to be considered complex systems interacting with each other, and pieces of systems in such interactions cannot be totally separated from the rest of the system.

[Yora]

Also, history is written by the victors. And quite often, the author is also the protagonist.

[Knaight]

Battles through the a whole lot of medieval period and even well into the Renaissance and beyond were in fact being decided by a handful of "heroes" or maybe rather guys that had good idea what to do with their weapons.

From Huscarls of Germano Saxonic rulers, trough knights and heavy infantry, tercios, Swiss pike squads and landsknechts, Hussars and so on, battles were more often than decided by relatively small, at least on the bigger scale, group of professional or semi professional fighters. ]

Actually, the Swiss pike squads are a bit of a different story. Its not necessarily that they used pikes particularly well, as they probably weren't all that impressive. Its that military discipline was incredible, and in the pike and shot era that's all that was really needed. Two pike groups contacting each other is basically just a massacre, its everything phalanx combat would be if it didn't have the shields. As such, pike combat consisted of breaking and running much more often, and when your opponent is marching towards you in a perfectly organized mass as if they don't care about your block of pikes in the way they are much scarier than some cumbersome, slowly trained block that clearly doesn't want anything to do with you.

Then there are the other cases. If pikes get close to muskets, the pikemen don't need to be good, its not even remotely fair in close range. Same thing with artillery, though at long range artillery has the capacity to devastate pikes.

[Spiryt]

I'm cautious when presented with these sorts of claims. It's really hard to know what would have happened if one piece of an army wasn't present at a battle. I think it's natural to focus on elite forces or leaders when describing the events of a battle, and that can lead to a belief that common forces were irrelevant. Even though the battles are not as big as later ones, the armies are large enough to be considered complex systems interacting with each other, and pieces of systems in such interactions cannot be totally separated from the rest of the system.

There are some examples where "professionals" were pretty much only important part, such as battle of Montgisard, and many armies in which "levy" element was pretty much non exist ant (polish and teutonic forces at Grunwald/Tannenberg).

I'm not saying that those guys could be "removed" just like that, because otherwise no one would be telling them to pick up their spears and shields and join the conflict.

I'm saying that even in later periods, where significance of levy troops was bigger, no one really hoped or demanded important feats from them.

It's pretty much, or even more obvious today.

Likewise, I'm not really talking about 'elite' either, just about more serious armament, not some poor guy with a spear.

Actually, the Swiss pike squads are a bit of a different story. Its not necessarily that they used pikes particularly well, as they probably weren't all that impressive. Its that military discipline was incredible, and in the pike and shot era that's all that was really needed. Two pike groups contacting each other is basically just a massacre, its everything phalanx combat would be if it didn't have the shields. As such, pike combat consisted of breaking and running much more often, and when your opponent is marching towards you in a perfectly organized mass as if they don't care about your block of pikes in the way they are much scarier than some cumbersome, slowly trained block that clearly doesn't want anything to do with you.

Then there are the other cases. If pikes get close to muskets, the pikemen don't need to be good, its not even remotely fair in close range. Same thing with artillery, though at long range artillery has the capacity to devastate pikes.

I'm not really talking about pike and shoot era, I'm talking about many impressive victories of the Swiss in the 15th century, for example.

[GungHo]

There's really no risk of getting your fingers cut off?

No. The blades aren't that sharp, but even with a sharp knife, as Spiryt notes, you don't get cut by pressure alone. You get cut by shearing. A glove would help you prevent from getting a laceration if the blade hit resistance when puncturing armor and you lost your grip, but even then, it's going to be a minor cut at most. It may still hurt, but you're not going to lose a finger unless your hand gets infected.

[gkathellar]

When it comes to potential, yes.

I'm more of the "mass produced for the average soldier" paradigm guy when it comes to evaluating equipment, since conflicts are not decided by a handful of "heroes" and you probably have more barfights with accidental fatalities than duels.

The best possible combination of equipment and individual skill is a rather different question, I admit.

Absolutely, but no one has mentioned equipping armies or winning large-scale military conflicts up to this point. The question has been limited to which mechanical action (thrusting or chopping) is more effective at generating force/penetrating armor — and superior execution would be more representative of such an action's actual nature.

[Mike_G]

Another important point is that it is easier to aim a thrust at the joints or gaps in armor than to aim a cut at them. Hard to swing a sword edge under the armpit of your enemy to go around his breastplate.

Weapons like warhammers or maces that were designed to break or dent or just deliver force through armor without aiming at the gaps were generally swung to generate more brute force. A thrust at the face through the openings in the helm needs to be more precise, but doesn't need to be very forceful at all.

[Incanur]

From what I can tell, historical sources from the age of the white harness recommend either thrusting where the armor isn't - though sometimes through mail - or striking the head. Strikes to other parts of the armored body seem unlikely to accomplish anything.

[Knaight]

Another important point is that it is easier to aim a thrust at the joints or gaps in armor than to aim a cut at them. Hard to swing a sword edge under the armpit of your enemy to go around his breastplate.

That is pretty major. After all, who cares if you do have far less energy, force, so on and so forth when the only thing in your way is flesh and bone?

[Anderlith]

I would like to ask a question. Is there any such weapon that has a blade like a sword but has a three foot or longer shaft? Particularly a double edged blade.

[Deadmeat.GW]

[QUOTE=Spiryt;11984621]Well, from 20 meters I can hit a tin can with a thrown pillow though, I assumed, from the way it was stated, that ancient records talk about targeting "specific parts of the face" from few hundred paces.

Which is obvious nonsense, now, from small distance there's naturally nothing weird about it at all.

QUOTE]

Actually, the claims were that they train to hit people in the head or upper torso at 250 meters but there is a quote that some of them were so good at aiming that they could hit specific parts of the face.
There was however no distance specified with that quote as it comes from a different text.

Heck, bows would be more accurate at over twice the range when used by completely beginners if slings would be as inaccurate and short ranged as you hint at, composite bows and longbows at even greater ranges and slings would quickly disappear from any active armies who encountered archery (like the Isrealites and the people around that region, slings would have gone extinct as a military weapon about the time the neighbouring great powers would start expanding towards them since they used bows and were famous for being GOOD with bows but I guess that the same historical text that speaks about the archery and the slings can only be accurate when it is not talking about slings...and those texts are talking about both slings and recurve bows used at similar ranges...).

NO weapon will remain in use if it is inaccurate and outperformed by every single similar purposed weapon.
Soldiers do not keep useless weapons that they cannot get into combat without getting badly mauled before they get anywhere with it.
Matchlock rifles did not stay in usage when you got other better alternatives, like substantial better range and reliability, far superior rate of fire, etc...

How good are any of the fellow forumites with handguns here?
Do you think any of you could hit a tincan at 20 meters from the hip all the time?
And how often would you train or did you train to get that accurate?
With less then 15 hours training how likely is it someone would be able to hit a tincan at 20 meters from a firing position like a hipshot all the time?

I trained for about 10 to 15 hours about 7 years ago with slings, what is the minimum training time people get with handguns in a modern security force?
I am not even talking minimum in the military...

You throwing a pillow that hits over 25% of the time (probably far more since I am not imagining that a pillow is less the a foot wide) or lands within a foot or two at most on every throw at a tincan at 20 meters is pretty good going.
If YOU trained for a week you would hit over half, if not more often, that tincan with a sling.

Remember your quotes:

yet it still would be prone to rather great randomness due to the very way of aiming

Prone: 1

: having a tendency or inclination : being likely <prone to forget names> <accident-prone>

Great:

5.
being such in an extreme or notable degree

So likely to be of an extreme or notable degree of randomness...

Why would any combatant use this?


For comparison - target in sling competition is such large stuff from just 30 meters.

In case of pretty equally hobbyist archery, targets can be way smaller even at 100 yards.

Large targets at 30 meters, versus 'small' targets at 100 yards...

122 cm (70 m and 90m FITA), i.e. the size of the 'small' target at LESS then 100 yards AND for Olympic archery, so I am assuming that your hobbyists are all better then Olympic level archers since if I go of your description they shoot at much smaller targets at longer ranges...

The sling target was 120cm by 120 cm and therefore much 'larger' ... hum?

You sure you are looking at 'hobbyists'?

Official target sizes are indeed much smaller at lower ranges but at 100 yards...

40 cm (18 m FITA Indoor)
60 cm (25 m FITA Indoor)
80 cm (30 m and 50m FITA)
122 cm (70 m and 90m FITA)


All official target ranges used by the World Archery Federation, formerly called the Federation Internationale de Tir a l'Arc.

As for my sling experience, it was 2 days in one week and 2 days on the second week since were also doing other things at the time.
Just in case you were wondering where the 10 to 15 hours came from.
We could not be slinging all the time, a bit of it was sitting and listening to the instructor.

[endoperez]

I would like to ask a question. Is there any such weapon that has a blade like a sword but has a three foot or longer shaft? Particularly a double edged blade.

I don't know about double-edged blade, but single-edged ones exist for sure.




Chinese dadao is a saber-like cutting implement. "Dao", a saber, has a normal handle, but the blades have been installed into all sorts of handles and shaft ranging from few foot (dadao) to a full-fledged polearm (kwan dao / guan dao), similar to European glaive but often called a halberd because people don't know their polearms these days. That includes me, btw, so I hope the glaive comparison works.

Some weapons called "dadao" are just bigger sabers with handles that aren't very long, in comparison. Some "pudao" / "podao" have these longer handles, while other "pudao" have short handles and curved, elegant blade. Most images you find searching for "pudao" look like "kwan dao", and are full-fledged polearms.




Edit: if the above image doesn't show up, it's a weapon with a long handle and a blade somewhat similar to this one which has a "false eddge" or a sharpened section on the "blunt" side, near the tip. So while you might not find two-edged, symmetrical blade, some one these weapons might have a false edge near the tip, which might be enough for your purposes.


The words probably mean something like knife, big knife, huge knife, long knife and so on, and have probably been used interchangeably about any weapon with a long or heavy blade, long or heavy handle/shaft, or both. Whatever the reason, it's really hard to find images of only one of these weapons.


The Japanese have nagamaki, which is almost straight but otherwise of similar design.

[gkathellar]

IThat includes me, btw, so I hope the glaive comparison works.

It generally does. The naginata, guan/kwan/kuan dao and glaive all do pretty much the same thing.

Some weapons called "dadao" are just bigger sabers with handles that aren't very long, in comparison.

Also note that a typical feature of the dadao is the oversized and oddly shaped blade. Many were extremely specialized for slashing, with very little thrusting ability in the design. Of course, modern examples are probably exaggerated, and it's easy to confuse the "dadao" with the "baguadao," which is a regular one-handed dao that is abnormally big and heavy.

So while you might not find two-edged, symmetrical blade, some one these weapons might have a false edge near the tip, which might be enough for your purposes.

This is a reasonably common feature of all types of dao, intended to increase their thrusting potential (which is normally a bit lackluster, especially on broader examples).

[comicshorse]

I'm currently reading a novel set in the late 18th century about a midshipman in the british navy. It describes the sword he carries as a 'hanger' a term I've never heard before. I wonder what the weapon was like.
Also a friend claims the weapon was called this because it was carried without a scabbard on the belt as leather scabbards would rot awayat sea. Is this true ?

[Yora]

I am pretty sure sailors also wore boots and gloves, and had belts made from leather. Maybe it would rot, but not at such a speed that it was more practical to have a bare blade tucked into your belt.

[comicshorse]

I am pretty sure sailors also wore boots and gloves, and had belts made from leather. Maybe it would rot, but not at such a speed that it was more practical to have a bare blade tucked into your belt.

Well he also claims that sailors of that period didn't wear shoes for that very reason prefering to tar their bare feet and I don't recall any reference to sailors wearing gloves. I certainly remember references to sailors using rope as belts and even wearing rope sandals.

[Traab]

I am pretty sure sailors also wore boots and gloves, and had belts made from leather. Maybe it would rot, but not at such a speed that it was more practical to have a bare blade tucked into your belt.

I may be wrong, but I recall reading about people would would wax their boots to prevent rotting. It was mentioned as an aside when doing some cold tracking, looking for traces of people who vanished in the forest ten years ago, that even after that much time, its possible to find scraps remaining of their footgear if they had died, along with bones and such.

[Yora]

Probably swamps. Bog water can preserve almost anything organic for very long time. A few years ago, there was a body found in Sweden that was at first believed to be a homeless man that hadn't been seen for two months, but turned out to be several thousands of years old. Under such conditions, special treatment for leather won't make much of a difference for how well it's preserved.

But there is of course the possibility that there are some treatments that prevent rotting even under normal conditions.