Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Daosus]

Well, there are a couple important things to remember. First, even if the lance were not the best possible weapon for individual combat (that's probably some sort of infantry polearm) when traveling, it is what the knight trained with, and what he has on hand. Second, in small scale combat, lances are much less likely to be broken because you are not going to use them to charge with. More likely, you would use them as a spear to gain reach. Napoleonic lancers, for example, were feared by infantry because the lance could reach all the way down to the ground, so you could not save yourself by dropping low.

Also, combat lances are much lighter than tourney lances, and can be carried in one hand with no problem. For maintaining readiness for long periods of time, they can be rested against the right side stirrup.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah but the point is, (pun intended!) you still want to be able to get in that first attack ... first, if you can. You wouldn't want to run into a guy with a lance if all you had was a sword.. I mean Robert the Bruce killed a guy with an axe once who was charging him with his lance, but there is a reason that story is so famous!

G

[Maclav]

Some old beers were actually quite weak, more like "near beer", and might have served as a decent way to get necessary hydration. Stronger ones may have been mixed with water?

I'm not exactly sure how beer would be carried: once out of the barrel it would go flat, but I don't know how quickly it might spoil in a skin or flask. A "near beer" may hold up better.

most people prefered to drink a very weak beer or wine (often only 1% ABV), since the booze would kill most of the stuff livng in the water. I am under the impression that this weak beer was even given to children, form pretty much the point they stopped drinking milk, becuase it was safer than plain water was.

As both a history buff and a home brewer, I have done quite a bit of research into beer, particularly in the medieval time. Beer history is actually really interesting from 11-16th c. with massive changes in production and ingredients.

Starting around 11c, the term beer did not exist. Everything was called ale (which has a different meaning from the modern term - we now call this gruit or gruit ale.) Anyway, this ale was typically made by the women as part of her household duties. A mash of the local grains, malted and dried in a draft kiln over a fire of straw, peat or hardwood.

Commonly 3 beers were made from each mash. First a thick, dark ale would be drawn off the grist by lauttering the strike water and the mash out water into the kettle. This "first running" would be boiled with various herbs (Myrica gale, Yarrow and Marsh rosemary commonly) and would create an ale in and around 8% abv with heavy amounts of herbs, a strong smoke flavour and a great deal of bitterness. This ale would be inoculated with the frothy karuzen (yeast foam) of the previous batch, and cellared to be drunk on special occasional. It would age very well, and would last at cellar temperatures in barrels for a long period. Eventually it would pick up some wild yeasts (brett) from the barrel and over time develop a "hose blanket" flavour which at some point after the introduction of hops was to become known as a porter. It was served completely flat or sparkled with a hand pump at serving time.

A second addition of water would be added to the grist, called a sparge. This would be drawn off and added to the dregs in the kettle from the first running. This second running would create an ale of around 4% abv. This ale would be fermented in about a week and then casked with a small portion of new second running. This very light carbonation would last a few weeks until the cask was opened and would spoil in 4-5 weeks due to mould, lactic or acobacter infections. It would be drunk with meals by the men of the house.

A third running was then taken, boiled briefly and consumed immediately. It would undergo a lacto fermentation over the next few days resulting in a table ale/water drink that started off a "sweet wort" then would develop something in the nature of 1-2% abv and/or a tart/tangy taste. This table beer would be unpalatable due to mould after a week, two on the outside. This table beer would be consumed by everyone as if it were water.


Over the medieval period hops started to replace the gruit herb mixtures across Europe and the term beer was coined to mean "ale with hops". Eventually hops were forced though via laws such as the reinheitsgebot because hops are a superior preserving agent and allowed this "beer" to be stored, where housed and shipped. There is some evidence that this transition to hops was part of the Protestant movement (hops inhibit sexual function, lower sex drive and induce drowsiness where gruit herbs are largely narcotic in nature), joined by large merchant guilds to break the Catholic hold on the gruit herbs mixes, but that is fodder for another post.

[Autolykos]

Very interesting. But as far as I know, one of the main reasons for the Reinheitsgebot was only allowing barley for brewing, so that more valuable grains (wheat and rye) could be reserved for baking bread. Or is this just a rumor?

[Maclav]

Very interesting. But as far as I know, one of the main reasons for the Reinheitsgebot was only allowing barley for brewing, so that more valuable grains (wheat and rye) could be reserved for baking bread. Or is this just a rumor?

That particular law did prevent competition with bakers over wheat and rye which kept the price of bread down. There were other laws and royal edicts all over Europe in a similar vein which are more specific to the outlawing of gruit herbs without mention to the grains used. But this all has nothing to do with weapons or armour. :)

[Yora]

If you had advanced steel to work with, could you make a kopis with a narrower blade, more like a scimitar?
Or would that be too light to use effectively?

[Yukitsu]

I'd imagine that if you found the blade too light, you could always make the weapon longer. In general though, a slashing and thrusting weapon that isn't designed to puncture armour doesn't require much mass to effectively kill or maim an enemy.

[Spiryt]

If you had advanced steel to work with, could you make a kopis with a narrower blade, more like a scimitar?
Or would that be too light to use effectively?

Of course you can, and plenty of kopis/falcata apparently had pretty narrow blade compared to most of "typical" ones.

Making it more narrow also in no way forces it to be lighter, either, as there are still two more dimensions to work with.

Cross-section, and general thickness distribution, will be as always most important.

Most antique falcata I've seen anyway had pretty elaborate fuller/groove work near the spine or even up to the middle of the blade - which certainly reduced the weight quite a lot

[Yora]

I actually quite like these weapons and was wondering if they could make a good common secondary weapon to spears in an environment in which maile and lamellar is rare and plate nonexisting.

Spoiler

Show

A slim kopis appears to be the closest thing to this that was actually used effectively.

[Spiryt]

I'm pretty sure that those Legolas sticks were pretty much knives/ daggers?

At least funky little book of movie weaponry states them at 16 inches blades, which is kind of "in between".

Look more sica daggers or similar antic stuff.

Anyway, seaxes and all kind of other war knives of that size were most certainly used as secondary weapons, so something like that could be quite sensible, depending on construction.

I'm not sure if rapid rise of curvature on tip of pretty narrow blade makes much sense though.

Are they supposed to have two edges, or just one on convex side?

[Yora]

What I have in mind would be a weapon about 60 cm in full length, single edge, a slight s-curve on the edge, and a slightly upward pointing tip. To be used when two-handed spears, glaives, or halberds can no longer be used for some reason.

When it comes to size, I do like the proportions of these entirely not historically accurate blades:

Spoiler

Show

The first one is really quite close to the image I have in mind regarding proportions and blade shape.

To give polearms the attention they deserve, I want swords to move into the background. But apparently they were very common even quite early on, so instead of just making them rare, I want to make them backup weapons and sidearms. A gladius probably would do the job perfectly! But it just looks completely european to the untrained eye. A kopis looks more exotic (even though it really isn't), but most I've seen on pictures look really quite broad and heavy.
Basically I was wondering if drawing a kopis with a narrower and less curvy blade would still show a weapon that could have existed, or if the physics just can not work. For chopping you probably need the heavy tip to get a good swing. For slashing like a sabre, the double-curve might possibly be more of a hinderance. And for stabbing an upward or downward pointing tip might not work well.
Not sure if any of these are really actual problems, but if two or all three types of attack wouldn't really work with such a weapon, then it's highly unlikely that anyone would ever develop it, when other blade shapes are just plain better.

[Spiryt]

Well, this is all getting into 'fictional setting WorA", but:

Swords were anyway mostly backup weapons in larger scale combat.

While gladius, funnily enough, was not, it was pretty much primary weapon in close combat, actually, such was the Roman conception.

As mentioned, kopis, falcata and machairas weren't really usually heavy, they were pretty much conserving the 'normal' amount of metal for weapons that size, just put into broad and bold blade at the main striking part.
While this one part of the blade could be very broad indeed, it was also short and thin, so weight of ~ 2 pounds, like most Mediterranean swords of the period would be usual.

Here is pretty good thread about actual examples

As for 'working' is certainly would work, just differently than more 'standard' blade.

Daggers with curved tips were used quite often here and there, not sure what could be the reason for such curve.

Thrust would track and hit very differently, obviously.

[Yora]

Well, I'm mainly interested in the physics of existing s-curved swords to understand why there were made as they were made, so I can spot shapes that are obviously plain nonsense.

But I think so far it looks that my idea is reasonably close enough to actual examples that people considered to be worth taking into battle.
But it seems that what I assumed to be a typical falcata shape is really at the upper end of how broad and apparently bulky these weapons were made. Is there a special reason to make the blades this heavy in some swords while most examples of original are actually considerably more slender? Or is it just replica makers going for the most imposing size they can get away with?

[Yukitsu]

I think making a thin, light sword that's both tough and sharp is more expensive and difficult than just sharpening up a chunk of pig iron. Making a replica that's light and thin without the quality steel, you'll probably end up with something that's too fragile, and everyone swings around replicas a little even if they shouldn't.

Speaking from experience, a heavy blade is also easier to chop with, so perhaps some swords designed for utility in dense foliage in addition to combat may exist.

[Spiryt]

This 'replica' costs 60 E, is probably from stainless steel, we can rather safely assume that it doesn't have any authenticity to speak of.

Mostly some kind of sword that holds shape similar to the 'falcata'.

and apparently bulky these weapons were made. Is there a special reason to make the blades this heavy in some swords while most examples of original are actually considerably more slender

But how do you know they're heavy?? That shop doesn't leave any data...

But it's probably heavy indeed, overbuilt like most cheap reconstructions today.

I think making a thin, light sword that's both tough and sharp is more expensive and difficult than just sharpening up a chunk of pig iron.

I seriously doubt that anyone would ever make a sword out of pig iron, it's just doesn't have sense.... It's base product to make actual steel, and apparently wasn't even well known and used in Europe trough most of the medieval.

[Yukitsu]

I was more talking about making a replica out of it, not making a functional sword out of it. They aren't really going to go over all the high work, high difficulty parts of the process to get it to a high quality steel during the forging. Most replicas out there are brittle enough I could snap them on my knee.

[Spiryt]

Because they're mostly made from easily available commercially stainless steel, that's indeed prone to snap if formed in longer blades.

That aside from actual geometry and design issues, that those are also obviously incorrect.

[GraaEminense]

What I have in mind would be a weapon about 60 cm in full length, single edge, a slight s-curve on the edge, and a slightly upward pointing tip. To be used when two-handed spears, glaives, or halberds can no longer be used for some reason.

A warknife of 60-70 cm total length is pretty much the perfect back-up weapon for polearms.

They are long enough and heavy enough to be able to compete with "proper" swords at sword-range (though with some handicap), short enough to draw easily even when pressed (you don't want to have to reach across your body in that situation, you draw from a near-horizontal sheath across your back or lower belly, or straight up in the Roman style), short enough to work well in the close press of bodies and, in extremis, well enough for grappling and not least, the heavy stabby slashy blade gives a good choice of attack options.

The exact style is not important: gladius, kopis, long dagger, short sword -they do pretty much the same job. I do quite a bit of reenactment fighting focusing on polearms, and not quite coincidentially I carry one much like this:

[Galloglaich]

They did make longer, thinner versions of the kopis / falcata family in later centuries, notably in Central Asia, especially Ottoman Turkey and India, which were probably evolved from the original kopis family.

This is the yataghan, it's basically a slim kopis with a funny grip (which is due to using it on horseback). It was one of the primary weapons of the Ottoman Empire.

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





This is a Sosun Pata, an Indian weapon







Actually it's a whole family of kopis-like swords, some wonderfully slim, others more beefy.

The very elegant South-East Asian (Burmese and Thai) Dha family of swords also includes some inward-curving examples.



You can also go much further back in time to the falx / rhomphia family of weapons used by the Thracians and Illyrians, which are also kopis-like but are often two-handed.

As for the quality of the steel, the steel they were using back then (notably wootz) was generally superior to anything they can make swords out of today, so I wouldn't worry about that. But modern high carbon steel is also certainly plenty good enough to make these.


One quibble about the gladius; I still think it was a secondary weapon because the pilum (javelin) was the primary. This follows the typical pattern with swords. The primary may either be a long melee weapon (spear or polearm) or a missile (javelin, bow, crossbow, gun) the sword is the secondary. The critical importance of the secondary weapon is indicated by how ubiquitous it was... once the primary weapon became effective and / or dual purpose enough (i.e. a bayonetted musket) the sword becomes delegated to officers.


G

[Ashtagon]

One quibble about the gladius; I still think it was a secondary weapon because the pilum (javelin) was the primary. This follows the typical pattern with swords. The primary may either be a long melee weapon (spear or polearm) or a missile (javelin, bow, crossbow, gun) the sword is the secondary. The critical importance of the secondary weapon is indicated by how ubiquitous it was... once the primary weapon became effective and / or dual purpose enough (i.e. a bayonetted musket) the sword becomes delegated to officers.

I'm confused. Your argument seems to be saying the Roman gladius was a secondary weapon because a thousand years after the empire fell, bayonetted muskets were the weapon of choice by Europeans who were not Romans.

[Spiryt]

One quibble about the gladius; I still think it was a secondary weapon because the pilum (javelin) was the primary. This follows the typical pattern with swords. The primary may either be a long melee weapon (spear or polearm) or a missile (javelin, bow, crossbow, gun) the sword is the secondary. The critical importance of the secondary weapon is indicated by how ubiquitous it was... once the primary weapon became effective and / or dual purpose enough (i.e. a bayonetted musket) the sword becomes delegated to officers.

G

That's why I wrote "close combat".

Pilum was after all probably used in melee only in great emergency.

Primeness of pilum is interesting question anyway, I would guess that it would greatly depend on circumstances.
Facing phalanx, especially on hash terrain, continuous shower of pila would be very good, while skirmishers in loose group would be rather needed to engaged/driven away quickly.

[Storm Bringer]

I'm confused. Your argument seems to be saying the Roman gladius was a secondary weapon because a thousand years after the empire fell, bayonetted muskets were the weapon of choice by Europeans who were not Romans.

not quite. His arguement is that the "primary weapon+ sword" set up lasted until the introduction of bayonets, at which point the musket with bayonet made the secondary sword redundant, and it was dropped form most troops equipment.

[Yora]

But I think many armies used dagger-bayonets that had a grip to be used as a combat knife.

This is the yataghan, it's basically a slim kopis with a funny grip (which is due to using it on horseback). It was one of the primary weapons of the Ottoman Empire.

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

And we have a winner. This is exactly what I had in mind.

But well, it's the evolution of a very simple template. If I could imagine it, and thousands of swordsmiths and fighters will have imagined it many times through history, and some will have tried if it works.

[Spiryt]

In other news, great Peter Johnsson's lectures about swords

Other lectures may be great as well, haven't watched yet.

And some fairly recent 'crash test', not most scientific grade experiments for sure, but still way better than 95% of stuff out there.

Too bad they didn't gave more info about weapons in use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIw20z5p0c

[Yora]

The first link didn't work for me.

But the second one is really interesting. Almost all the major mistakes that you see in almost all the weapon test videos are avoided. Mounting the pig on a post is the only thing I think could have been done better.
But they are using padding and rivited maile, and maybe even more importantly did not make the absolute worst case optimal strikes. Those strikes look a lot more as if you could actually make them with only a split second to spot an opening and strike.

And dane axe to the head convinced me: Maile is incredible.

[Spiryt]

First link works for me, it's post with links to all the lectures, not to just PJ ones.


As far as padding goes, they actually use just some thick cloth, and just with butted rings, actual 'realish' maille is used Conan the Bodybuilder way, with no thrusts against it either. Dunno why, maybe they were out of time and stuff.

Actually I would also gladly see some cloth on that pig in general, because people would generally tend to be clothed.

Pig carcass was also already very dehydrated, and thus hard and leathery, as seen by the stats.

[Yora]

Sure, it wasn't perfect. But at least they tried the best with what they had.
Many TV productions with actual budget make much less of an effort.

I also noticed that the padding was inadequate. While the skin appears to be tougher than it should in a living person. And still you see a huge difference. And under optimal conditions, the difference would be even bigger.
If the result is less spectacular than it would probably have been under optimal conditions, I can live with the shortcommings.
It's when you make things appear more significant than they should that it's problematic.

[fusilier]

not quite. His arguement is that the "primary weapon+ sword" set up lasted until the introduction of bayonets, at which point the musket with bayonet made the secondary sword redundant, and it was dropped form most troops equipment.

Pilae: I view the Romans as using the sword (gladius) as a primary weapon. To the best of my knowledge, they were the only army to train in using the sword in formation. The Pilum is an integral part of their equipment, but more like grenades might be for modern infantrymen.

Sword: The sword was a symbol of being a soldier for a long time. Even after muskets and bayonets became standard, many armies continued to issue swords to their line infantry until the middle of the 19th century. Even though it must have been a nearly useless item in combat (perhaps around camp it was used as a machete -- if it was up to the task).

As for the sword as a primary weapon: so called "sword-and-buckler" men would have used the sword as a primary weapon, and they could be a significant component of some armies even if they were never the numerically dominant force. Troops armed with two handed swords (zweihander or doppelhander) at the same time would use such weapons as primary weapons. Various meso-american warriors could easily be considered as using a "sword," macuahuitl, as their primary weapon. Again typically mixed in with other armed troops. To date I know of no sheath for a macuahuitl that would allow the weapon to be carried as a secondary weapon.

--EDIT-- Pictorial evidence does show them occasionally placing the macuahuitl between the arm and shield (often this is where javelins/darts would be carried). So they did have some way to carry another weapon. It doesn't appear to be too common, but it was done.

[Matthew]

One quibble about the gladius; I still think it was a secondary weapon because the pilum (javelin) was the primary. This follows the typical pattern with swords. The primary may either be a long melee weapon (spear or polearm) or a missile (javelin, bow, crossbow, gun) the sword is the secondary. The critical importance of the secondary weapon is indicated by how ubiquitous it was... once the primary weapon became effective and / or dual purpose enough (i.e. a bayonetted musket) the sword becomes delegated to officers.

I agree with this, the pilum is a prelude to the close combat attack in the same way that the spear of the Greek Hoplite was the initial weapon used, giving way to a short blade in the press. The caveat would be that the period of combat during which the spear was "primary" was probably longer than the period during which the pilum was (though not necessarily, it depends on how many were thrown and if there was any rotation of the ranks).

[Conners]

Dumb question: Was the Katana any sharper than European swords? I'm just wondering, becuase there are various techniques (or so I'm told), where you grab the blade in European martial arts, but I'm not sure that's the case in Japanese ones.