Results 511 to 540 of 1485
-
2013-01-02, 08:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Large (and hence thin) shields may not stop crossbow bolts or arquebus bullets, but they would certainly be slowed. Not enough for lorica, I would expect, but if the pseudo-Legions used updated equipment such as plate, that should be enough to stop the slowed missiles most of the time.
-
2013-01-03, 12:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
15th-16th century is actually a very broad period during which there was a lot of change among the infantry.
Circa 1400, infantry was still pretty static, and that may give a Roman legion some serious advantage. However, even at that date things were changing and infantry was being used more and more aggressively. John Hawkwood in the late 14th century was known to dismount his men at arms and have them wield their lances like pikes, and sometimes even attack with them. Pavises were carried by "shield-bearers", but again were very static and provided cover for the crossbowmen and pikemen.
By 1500, Swiss pikemen were known for their aggressive tactics. Pavises seem to have mostly fallen out of favor (except perhaps in sieges?), as the infantry was more mobile. One response to pikemen was the use of so called "Sword and Buckler" troops.* These were somewhat lightly armored swordsmen, as Galloglaich pointed out the use of a smaller shield would have made a Legionnaire very similar to a such a soldier. In theory they could attack pike formations by diving under the points of the pikes, and hacking away at the legs (which were less likely to be armored) . . . I'm not sure if that was actually the practice, however. The response, supposedly, was to mix some halberdiers in with the pikemen to deal with anybody who got pass the pike heads.
Legionnaires did fight against Phalanx style troops (early on), and the use of a sword and shield in those fights, may have indicated that they had a different tactic to use against such troops. There is a revision to what a Roman Legionnaire was. The traditional interpretation was a swordsmen, who used a couple of javelins to soften up his opponent. There is a more recent work (forget the name of the author), that attempts to turn that around -- they were primarily javelin throwers. There may be some truth to that, but I don't know if it's widely accepted.
By the middle of the 16th century, Sword and Buckler men seem to have disappeared. More firepower was probably a better way of dealing with pike blocks, and the proportion of firearms to pike increased during the century. The Osprey book on Imperial Armies during the Thirty Years War, claims that small bodies of Sword and Buckler troops were still be attached to pike formations, and leading charges, at that late date. However, I recently read in another forum some objections to that theory. Sword and Buckler troops were still be used in sieges at that late date, probably as a role for dismounted cavalry.
*Sword and Buckler troops actually predate the rise of the Swiss pikemen. They were a Spanish innovation, that I know was also adopted in Italy, primarily because they seemed to be better at handling field fortifications. So the use of them against pikemen may have been experimenting with an existing troop type, rather than an innovation.
-
2013-01-03, 03:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Cippa's River Meadow
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Depends on the shield really. A lot of shields are flat so they interlink together better, forming a shield wall (norman kite shields and viking round shields for example). Others are more curved to help deflect blows (Roman scutum and I remember a odd one, possibly celtic, which was effectively a 90 degree curve).
Shields generally aren't used statically though and can move to intercept or deflect blows, so it's not really just something for the opponent to practice his cutting/breaking skills on.
Generally shields have protrusions to reinforce their structure and stop weapons sliding around on the surface (the rim of the shield especially).
A seriously doubt a Roman scutum would be effective in protecting against a medieval era military crossbow. When I have more time, I'll look up some values and crunch some numbers to figure out how much of an effect less than an inch of wood would have on stopping a bolt.
To clarify, when I say 'wouldn't be slowed down', I mean the bolt would penetrate through the shield and still significantly injure or incapacitate the person on the other side, to the point where it would be more effective for the person not to be encumbered by the shield.
An updated pavise style shield would be effective though, but we're moving away from your legionary concept.Last edited by Brother Oni; 2013-01-03 at 03:15 AM.
-
2013-01-03, 06:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Quick question - how do 16thC pikemen fight in a siege? I presume they switch to hand and missile weapons but I'm unsure. I've been reading Spiteri's book on the Siege of Malta and am trying to work out exactly how the Tercios fought during the battles.
It seems that, considering the width and open nature of the ravelin (where they were initially deployed, until it fell) and the breached walls (where there appears to be room to deploy, whilst the barricades they built would have provided protection against skirmishers going under the pikes) it should have been possible for them to fight with the pike.
Any ideas? Or examples from other, similar, sieges?
-
2013-01-03, 06:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
I think on Malta they were alredy making extensive use of gunpowder on both sides. If a wall was breached, pikes would be very effective in keeping any attackers from rushing in, but I think most of the fighting was done with guns.
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2013-01-03, 07:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Spiteri talks about the defending Christians firing arquebuses (or perhaps muskets in the case of the Tercios) from the walls or, after these were breached, from behind barricades. Then when the Turks got close, they picked up swords and other hand to hand weapons that were stacked nearby. However there is relatively little mention of pikes (which the Tercios and mercenaries although probably not the Maltese militia were using) despite them being visible in illustrations:
Pikes on the right...but not seen in action (sorry for small size of image).
-
2013-01-03, 09:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Yeah, I was referring mainly to earlier crossbows.
But we have to remember that even deep in 15th/16th century belt hooks were still very popular, while things bent by windlasses etc. were very often mostly siege bows.
And with increases in draw weight, draw lenght was getting reduced as well, and massive, thicks bows were suffering from some quite harsh diminishing returns effect.
In addition, you also have arquebus, roughly equivalent to a 12 - 16 gua shotgun shooting a slug, and various intermediate level guns such as trestle guns, hook-guns, arquebus-a-croc in the 15-40 mm caliber range, plus fast-firing breach loading cannon, and by the late 15th, various precursors of the musket, all of which would be devastating to a Roman army which would really have nothing even nearly equivalent to answer with.
If you are talking about a Norman kyte shield or a Viking -Era shield, I agree with you.
And 'Heavier' may not have been the best word to use; it would be more accurate to say 'designed to deal with high-velocity missiles'. A steel or even iron rotella, which were ubiquitous by the late Medieval period (based on a design pioneered by the Ottomans) is vastly better protection against bullets, crossbow bolts, or recurve / longbow arrows than something like a scutum. I don't know about all the other types of late Medieval shields but I know that the 'Mini-Pavise' type pioneered by the Lithuanians and spread throughout Central Europe was developed specifically to cope with crossbows of the Teutonic Order and recurve bows of the Tartars. They were made with laminated construction of various materials (including textiles and even paper in some cases, apparently) which seemed to be a step above a regular shield in terms of protection against missiles. They were basically portable versions of the pavise which was designed the same way.
As far as I recall, nifty thing about early pavises was midrib, with handle being still 'normally' mounted on the rest of the shield - in that simple way any point that penetrated the shield had to go trough additional extra inches to injure the hand of the shield wielder. The steeper angle, the more penetration required as well.
My point is that heavy bows, javelins or powerful missiles in general weren't even anything new on battlefield, so shields of any era would be expected to face it.
Some of early bows splint found appear to be of serious size. Hedeby complete bow is estimated to be around 90 pounds.
https://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/...p?topic=8175.0
No javelin is going to punch through a steel shield (or steel breastplate), or if it will, I've yet to see it. But the real point (pun intended) is that while javelins do have good penetration at very short range (as the Almogavars proved in Greece with their all iron soliferrum type javelins) a crossbow or a gun has at least equal penetration from 200 meters or more in distance. Which is the problem the Romans had with the Parthian and Hun recurves.
Some heavier javelins would have way higher mass, sectional density, stiffness, and generally 'substance' than arrows or bolts, and could be thrown with a lot of energy - with some running and full body swing the transfer is pretty efficient. Sport javelins can achieve way more than 300 J, even though there's world class athlete and running start factors, those are less than 2 pounds, on the other hand.
http://dregowia.blogspot.com/2011/05...ci-pawezy.html
Guy here used 40 pound bow, light javelins, axes and a spear on his 16-20 mm pine, bone glue and linen canvas pavise.
One handed spear thrusts generally made the greatest impression out of point weapons, interestingly or not, though apparently it still wouldn't hurt the wielder.
Too bad he didn't throw the spear, as heavier javelin approximation.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2013-01-03, 02:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Windlasses yes, etc., no. For one thing, the cranequin spanned crossbows, which though smaller were just as powerful as the windlass spanned weapons, were frequently used from horseback in Central Europe both for hunting and warfare. They were the premiere missile weapon in the 13 Years War for example.
These weapons, which the Teutonic Order referred to as 'statchel' (stinger) or as german winders (to distinguish from the windlass spanned weapons, which were called 'english winders') were very expensive and required skilled users. But there were other spanning tools used for weapons in between the simple knottelarmbruste (wood prod) crossbows and the statchel or 'english winders'. As you can see Leo Todeschini of Todsstuff demonstrating here with a 300 lb draw weapon, a goats foot, also very popular in the 14th and 15th Centuries, allows him to span it with very little effort indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIkxyjVu9gc
From experience recently spanning a 200 lb draw modern hunting crossbow by hand using a foot stirrup, (which is easier than a period equivalent) I can tell you a 300 lb weapon would be beyond me, and I think I'm at least as strong as Leo. The goats foot makes it quite easy.
And with increases in draw weight, draw lenght was getting reduced as well, and massive, thicks bows were suffering from some quite harsh diminishing returns effect.
Yes, composite construction was getting big in whole Europe, not only in Prussia/Lithuania at the time.
My point is that heavy bows, javelins or powerful missiles in general weren't even anything new on battlefield, so shields of any era would be expected to face it.
Some of early bows splint found appear to be of serious size. Hedeby complete bow is estimated to be around 90 pounds.
Well, arrows or most bolts generally won't punch trough it either, scarcely mentioned in sources, and more serious experiments.
G
-
2013-01-03, 04:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
With some of the largest swords and weapons out there, which can actually and have actually been used in war: Would a supernatural level of strength be very beneficial in wielding them?
I've been trying to consider the effects of a character with unreal levels of strength, and how it'd play out in a manner of realistic science-fiction. At a certain level, no matter how strong you are, the weight of the weapon vs. your own, the leverage you have over it, and perhaps some other details will get in the way of wielding absurdly large weapons--and, I suppose, they would also get in the way of wielding a odachi with the speed and ease of a plastic toy.Last edited by Conners; 2013-01-03 at 06:00 PM.
My Happy Song : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcRj9lQDVGY
Credit goes to Lord_Herman for the fantastic Joseph avatar (and the also fantastic Kremle avatar which I can't use because I'm already using the Joseph one).
-
2013-01-03, 09:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Skill tends to trump strength when fighting with weapons. There is persistent sort of comic book (and manga) myth of someone being unnaturally strong enough to wield a sledge hammer as if it was a feather, or a 9 foot sword, but the strongest power-lifter in the world would be cut to pieces by an experienced fencer of average strength with any sword. It doesn't matter how hard you can swing if you telegraph your cut and the other guy just steps back a pace and cuts you as your sword goes by.
I think part of the myth is caused by role playing games like DnD (and frankly, most others) where it's hard to kill another fighter (or to be killed) with a single blow. So there is a need for 'more power'. In real life of course, with a weapon, it's pretty easy if you know what you are doing. Not too hard even if you don't.
G
-
2013-01-03, 09:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
yes being extra strong will be useful in a fight. it might not help you fence but being stronger will mean that the weapon wont tire you out as fast which on a battle field would be a great benefit it would allow you to break shields and armor but their will be a degree of limited return. After a certain point any extra strength will either be unnecessary or just break your weapon. Once you can consistently penetrate the heaviest armor the opposition has to offer anything more is unnecessary.
you could wield a bigger sword with more strength but i imagine (this is not my are of expertise) the added size and awkwardness would cancel out any advantage fairly quickly.Last edited by awa; 2013-01-03 at 09:38 PM.
-
2013-01-03, 09:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Cippa's River Meadow
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Generally yes, but it would also depend on the level of strength the character has and whether their own body can withstand the forces exerting that strength will inflict.
There's a good illustration of this by Masamune Shirow for the Ghost in the Shell manga, where a character has a cybernetic arm that can lift 200kg. Unfortunately, the arm's attachment to the body wasn't suitably reinforced, thus the first time the arm tried to lift such a weight, it ripped itself off the person's shoulder.
Actually looking at cyberpunk and similar sci fi would give you a fairly good answer to this and would also illustrate other effects of being supernaturally strong (increased jumping ability, almost ridiculous athletic capabilities, etc).
A strong enough person would have more issue in the environment and the material of his weapon being able to cope with what he's trying to do with it, than against un-augmented opponents.
Unless such a weapon is made out of some supernaturally strong material, the only way to reinforce a standard steel or other metal weapon is to make it bigger, which means additional weapon weight, resulting in inertia and leverage problems as you've noted.
You may also want to have a quick look at the manga Berserk, where the lead character, Guts, is supernaturally strong and uses a massive slab of metal that masquerades as a sword: link.
His attacks are relatively slow and ponderous, but pretty much unstoppable when they get going.
Guts would represent the lower end of the scale - he's strong enough to use his weapon, but not so strong that it's like a plastic toy.
At the other end of the scale, you have the Monkey King who wields a 8.1 metric tonne staff like a child's toy.
-
2013-01-03, 09:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
to be fair to guts he rarely fights humans most of his battles are against various flavors of giant monsters
-
2013-01-03, 11:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
@Galloglaich: That is very true. Still, I imagine there are some advantage you could gain, from high levels of strength. For example, being able to wear heavier armour without it exhausting you and weighing you down to ponderous movements.
Galloglaich, would you have any expertise on how large a sword can be, before the leverage and weight would make it impossible to wield effectively, even with unnatural strength? Someone who has handled many swords like yourself seems the best person to ask.
@Brother Oni: You make a very valid point. Humans are already capable of exerting so much strength that they damage their bodies, so it would be even more so with unnatural strength, if not matched by amazing resilience.
Berserk: Speaking of that, they released a movie focusing on the human-fighting part of Guts' life. The interesting part, is the director stated they were using real techniques from European medieval martial arts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgcHdTb8t4
The reason for this, is they expect Western audiences to cringe if they see obviously fake depictions of medieval European sword fighting and the like... sometimes ignorance reaps beautiful benefits.My Happy Song : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcRj9lQDVGY
Credit goes to Lord_Herman for the fantastic Joseph avatar (and the also fantastic Kremle avatar which I can't use because I'm already using the Joseph one).
-
2013-01-04, 02:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Cippa's River Meadow
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
While I perfectly agree with you, there is a limit. I wouldn't class having the same strength as the strongest power lifter as being supernaturally strong though.
Suppose there was the same physical disparity between our average strength fencer and the strongman as there was between a 12 year old and a MMA fighter at their peak - then it doesn't just start being an issue of strength, but speed as well and adding supernatural resilience so that the fighter can apply that strength with no issues just becomes unfair.
If we increased the size of this disparity even further then it stops being a contest and more a matter of how long the weaker person can survive or is forced to retreat.
I was thinking more of his Band of Hawks days, where he's running around with an oversized sword although not at the size of the Dragonslayer.
Edit: Thinking about Berserk some more, there's a perfect scene in the TV series that illustrates Galloglaich's and my points. When Griffith first meets and duels Guts, he's by far the superior swordsman and defeats Gats handily.
It's not until Gats does something completely off the wall that illustrates his strength and determination (not to mention absolutely bat-crap insane levels of aggression) that he even comes close to beating Griffith.
I've only seen the TV series - based on what you've said, I may have to get hold of the movie.Last edited by Brother Oni; 2013-01-04 at 07:16 AM.
-
2013-01-04, 03:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Kanagawa, Japan
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
The Battle of Carrhae is pretty controversial amongst Roman military enthusiasts, if I recall correctly. In particular, the quality of the Roman troops and commander are highly questionable. Still, overall it reminds me not a little of the disastrous encounters of similarly poorly led and organised crusade forces in Asia Minor. The "Roman Army" is a slippery beast, as what it was in Polybius time is different to what it was in that of Caesar, Augutus, Trajan, Julian, Vegetius and so on. However, I certainly agree that a disciplined force of heavy infantry armed and armoured after the manner of the Roman Imperial Legionary could have had an effective role in 15th century warfare. In general, though, and as we are all well aware, no particular type of soldier triumphs alone in every context (whether hoplite, legionary, Hun, Goth, Lombard, Frank, knight, mamluk, Mongol, or samurai).
Last edited by Matthew; 2013-01-04 at 11:06 AM.
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one’s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
– Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
-
2013-01-04, 08:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2013-01-04, 10:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
One area being super-strong might help significantly is in throwing things.
Like the spear or javelin Spyrit was talking about. They had a solid iron javelin called a 'soliferrum' which was apparently (one of the very rare weapons that was) fairly good at armor piercing and killing horses, but of course it had very limited range. If you were super strong, you could have say, a steel soliferrum which could reach out much further.
You could also throw other things. It was common to throw maces on the steppe, these tended to be rather light wooden handled maces but a super strong man could throw one of those all steel flanged maces, or any number of other weapons like some of those wikcked African Throwing knives
Rocks, actually, were vastly more important as weapons historically than anyone (or any RPG) seems to realize or acknowledge. Not just in sieges either. Both the Swiss and the Czechs used rock throwers in their field armies. Imagine someone like a baseball player throwing a piece of granite at you 90 mph. Now imagine some super strong guy throwing rocks. Could be trouble!
G
-
2013-01-04, 10:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Best javelin throwers probably aren't all that strong actually. Being tall and lengthy seems to be more important, as far as physicality goes.
But anyway, great physical strength would be hugely important in using pretty much any muscle powered weapon, obviously.
Just not in any way sufficient without skills, speed, courage, concentration and so on.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2013-01-04, 11:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Yeah but how many of them are throwing solid iron javelins? The effective range of a soliferrum was apparently about the length of a horse.
But anyway, great physical strength would be hugely important in using pretty much any muscle powered weapon, obviously.
Just not in any way sufficient without skills, speed, courage, concentration and so on.
This is why in the fencing world, you can see quite old guys doing very well against young and strong guys. Technique trumps strength to a large extent, and it takes a long time to get good at using a weapon like a rapier or a longsword. The best way I can explain it, is the scenario I mentioned upthread where the big, strong unskilled guy makes a stupendous swing at the old frail, experienced guy; if the former telegraphs his strike as almost all inexperienced people will do - the latter has no reason to even try to parry the swing - he can just take a step back and cut him after his weapon goes by. If you are talking about a weapon like a sword, this cut (or jab) can easily be fatal or disabling (blinding, hamstrinnging, severing a limb) without much strength.
Similarly, the inexperienced guy may step into range, preparing to strike, and not realize he is already in distance - he gets a quick poke in the throat, and he's instantly choking on frothy blood coming out of his windpipe. Game over.
An experienced fencer won't just let you hit them, and doesn't need to parry your strikes. Some systems (like most of the Japanese systems) don't even emphasize parrying at all. Most others prefer a slight misdirection of an attack - just enough to guide it away from it's target- to a cliche forte vs. forte parry. Those kinds of parries multiply the strength of the defender, I can teach a 90 lb girl to effectively displace full force strikes from 200 lbs guys easily enough - in fact we've seen this done in tournaments.
Now of course if you combine super strong with 'invulnerable' like most comic book heroes of this type, then you are talking about a different situation. Makes it a lot harder to cope with. But without that 'adamantine' skin, your Hulk armed with a parking meter mace would be mincemeat against a Musashi armed with his sword.
G
-
2013-01-04, 11:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
That does sound very probable though. Horse lenght is like 10 feet at the very best, at such distance it doesn't usually make sense to throw stuff, opponent will be like one, two steps from olde stabbing range...
Depending on the weapon, I don't really agree, I think the learning curve for fighting with weapons is vastly, vastly underestimated in genre literature, games, computer games, movies and so on. Now obviously it depends on the weapon. Unarmed fighting is largely dependent on strength, though we have all seen how good grappling technique or jujitsu skills can even the odds there as well somewhat. But with a weapon like a sword, the ratio between skill or training and strength is much more skewed.
This is why in the fencing world, you can see quite old guys doing very well against young and strong guys. Technique trumps strength to a large extent, and it takes a long time to get good at using a weapon like a rapier or a longsword. The best way I can explain it, is the scenario I mentioned upthread where the big, strong unskilled guy makes a stupendous swing at the old frail, experienced guy; if the former telegraphs his strike as almost all inexperienced people will do - the latter has no reason to even try to parry the swing - he can just take a step back and cut him after his weapon goes by. If you are talking about a weapon like a sword, this cut (or jab) can easily be fatal or disabling (blinding, hamstrinnging, severing a limb) without much strength.
Similarly, the inexperienced guy may step into range, preparing to strike, and not realize he is already in distance - he gets a quick poke in the throat, and he's instantly choking on frothy blood coming out of his windpipe. Game over.
An experienced fencer won't just let you hit them, and doesn't need to parry your strikes. Some systems (like most of the Japanese systems) don't even emphasize parrying at all. Most others prefer a slight misdirection of an attack - just enough to guide it away from it's target- to a cliche forte vs. forte parry. Those kinds of parries multiply the strength of the defender, I can teach a 90 lb girl to effectively displace full force strikes from 200 lbs guys easily enough - in fact we've seen this done in tournaments.
Now of course if you combine super strong with 'invulnerable' like most comic book heroes of this type, then you are talking about a different situation. Makes it a lot harder to cope with. But without that 'adamantine' skin, your Hulk armed with a parking meter mace would be mincemeat against a Musashi armed with his sword.
G
But with actual skill and experience, more strength will be always very appreciated. If said big guy actually knows how to swing in the way that can't just get avoided with one step, he has asset on his side.Last edited by Spiryt; 2013-01-04 at 11:19 AM.
Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2013-01-04, 11:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Tail of the Bellcurve
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Stopping them two steps from stabbing range is very handy, because it means they never get to stab you. Even if you hit their shield, you'll quite probably penetrate and wound them through the thing. Should that fail, the big heavy iron bar sticking out of the shield will render it too awkward for use. You, still in possession of a shield, now have a substantial advantage.
Either that, or you throw the thing from horseback, in which case against somebody with a sword, two steps from stabbing distance is really quite safe.Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
When they shot him down on the highway,
Down like a dog on the highway,And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.
Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.
-
2013-01-04, 11:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
in fencing strength is going to be less important but if your both wearing armor and you can only hurt him by striking at his vulnerable parts and he can kill you with even a glancing blow the odds are very much in his favor.
not to mention fencing has little to do with a battle there superhuman strength means hes not going to be fatigued by the constant combat which will give him a huge advantage.
-
2013-01-04, 01:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
That assumes that you can cut through armor if you are just real strong, which isn't necessarily the case.
not to mention fencing has little to do with a battle there superhuman strength means hes not going to be fatigued by the constant combat which will give him a huge advantage.
But even in battle, 'fencing' skill still matters very much. It's a myth that you just hit harder or the strongest guy wins. Maybe better for games or whatever genre context you want to stick to the fantasy though.
G
-
2013-01-04, 01:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
-
2013-01-04, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Regarding super-strong fighters:
Apart from all the obvious stuff (endurance most of all), the advantage that springs to mind is reach.
(edit: I assume super-strength comes with at least the added endurance to not rip one's own body apart any more than mere mortals, otherwise there's not much point.)
Most two-handed weapons (including swords but more importantly polearms) are too heavy to use effectively in one hand. Enough strength (probably superhuman) in the wrist, grip and arm would alleviate that: sure, you would still fight better with both hands on the weapon but you would have the ability to strike or thrust with a pollaxe as lesser beings would with a sword.
Using a weapon in one hand rather than two easily adds 2-3 feet of reach, with a weapon that is still short enough to be useful up close.
You would also have the strength and endurance to recover too fast to be an easy target.
Combine this flexibility with raw stopping power and the leverage of a two-handed weapon and Superman should do nicely among the Vikings.Last edited by GraaEminense; 2013-01-04 at 02:40 PM.
-
2013-01-04, 02:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
if you can run around in armor like its nothing you will have more endurance then the guy who is weaker and has to wear his armor like its you know armor the same with swinging a sword weapons are heavy swinging a sword non stop for half a hour would be incredible brutal swinging just your arm for half an hour would be much less difficult.
no one said anything about the strong guy being completely unskilled but if one guy is skilled and one guy is strong and skilled he has an advantage the heavier the armor the longer the fight the greater that advantage will be.
you seem to be the only one assuming someone cant be both strong and skilledLast edited by awa; 2013-01-04 at 02:55 PM.
-
2013-01-04, 04:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
I'm just saying strength alone wouldn't cut it as a short cut.
If you are 1) stronger than normally possible for a human, 2) have more stamina than is normally possible for a human, and 3) a trained martial artist, then yes of course you would have and advantage!
G
-
2013-01-04, 06:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Gender
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
Honestly, I would prefer a "glass-cannon" kind of configuration, for this story, where they have incredible strength, but you can still split them into two neat pieces with an odachi, if they aren't wearing armour. Of course, they need to be at least somewhat tougher, so as to not rupture their own bone and sinew with their incredible strength. However, even if they're so tough that punches and kicks aren't a problem say, I think a large sword could still carve them up without too much difficulty (considering some medieval weapons are sufficient for killing crocodiles and elephants in hunting)?
As for more stamina, it's hard to say. If you reckon that their extreme power exerts them of energy, then it could actually give them less stamina. Of course, even then, walking in their armour, swinging their weapon, their own weight and equipment's would seem much lesser--meaning they expend less energy marching and fighting.
So, either it balances out, so they fight about as long as anyone else on the field, or they don't exert themselves using their strength and (despite not being built for endurance) their strength allows them to fight longer than most.
I agree wholeheartedly that Musashi could kill the Hulk, if not for his invincibility. Of course, in a battle you will get some of that... someone who is very strong can wear a lot of armour and still move around normally. That's what Goliath was, a huge guy guy with huge armour, aka: A tank.My Happy Song : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcRj9lQDVGY
Credit goes to Lord_Herman for the fantastic Joseph avatar (and the also fantastic Kremle avatar which I can't use because I'm already using the Joseph one).
-
2013-01-04, 07:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI
In unarmed combat raw strength may confer a benefit (in some forms mass alone can confer an advantage, which is why there are weight categories). In such combat muscle can work kind of like armor, helping to absorb damage from punches and kicks. Still, some skill, or at least innate coordination, would be useful, but strength may help overcome a difference in skill. (I'm not saying that strength alone is a replacement for skill, however).
Could it be that people extrapolate from this to armed combat, erroneously?