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

[Galloglaich]

You're mistaken

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6215210AAbrVaZ

No I'm not, you have poor reading comprehension. I carefully wrote:

"a piece of paper "

meaning a single piece of paper. I didn't say paper plural. I've shot phonebooks myself, who hasn't?

G

[Incanur]

It's a bit of an old historical cliche at this point, but there's some truth that scale of butchery increased in the 15th century in Western Europe. Many battles 1100-1300 or so - again, in Western Europe - had lower casualties figures, more taking of captives, etc. It indeed depended on the circumstances. Of course people still took captives amidst even the Italian Wars, in which the Swiss and Lanceknetchts famously refused quarter to each other, and in which Florange writes of 99+% dead in the first rank of the Lanceknetchts he commanded.

I don't think helmet cleaving being common iconography represents the soldiery and warrior classes being obsessed with replicating it. If you have a sword against a well armoured opponent, the best you can do with it is strike at their head to try and stun them.

I think some of them were. What strikes me most about the account of the German knight against Moorish champion in the 15th century - posted earlier in this thread - is that they each apparently struck one or more blows at the other despite their armor. None of the blows had any effect, but both combatants tried cutting. This isn't what manuals for the armored judicial duel recommended, but it happened anyway.

[Spiryt]

try to strike a helmet with full force with measuring tools inside, and that could be a conclusion, but the lack of actual killing force, is clearly there. The fatalities of real war are innumerably higher than the BoN, it isn't real war, it isn't even close, and this argument that real information about the complexities of warfare can be derived from it is absurd.

There is no 'lack of actual killing force' here.

I think here lies base problem with your assumption.

They strike as hard as they can.

Your assumption is that they should be dead then, and since they're not, you conclude that there's no 'actual killing force' here, whatever could it be.

Even in those tournaments you discuss, the goal is still not to kill your opponent. Which is why it's STILL not analogous to actual combat.

- usually it's not one's goal in 'actual combat' either! At least unarmed one

- still the techniques are here, somebody crazy/unsettled could kill in such environment.

(S)he won' do such a thing, generally, because people around shall stop it.

The point is that some muddy, and impossible to define 'intent to kill' is not going to magically make attacks more incapacitating.

People strike/grapple with muscle memory and, some instinct, to attack hard and hopefully stop their opponent from resisting.

If they go hard, they go hard, and results, including potential death, are obviously never fully in their 'hands'.

Helmet vs no helmet is again, most obvious example.

Another simple example is terrain:



Something like this, on mat would be debilitating mostly/only to untrained people.

On moderately hard ground though, it can even be potentially deadly.

While nothing changes in actual technique or intent.

If someone can control himself, he can only perhaps resist from doing it, with cool head, if (s)he thinks potential legal consequences are not worth it.

[Mr. Mask]

Incanur: From memory, they weren't fully armoured. They had exposed faces, at least? When you try to cut someone's face and miss, you may end up hitting their chest or the like. You can also attack armoured places to set up attacks against unarmoured ones (you can still unbalance them, or drag your blade over to the unarmoured section). Panic is another possibility, where the one who was first to realize it was better to grab the other then thrust into his face was the victor.

[Spiryt]

- had lower casualties figures, more taking of captives, etc

Killing people is obviously very often easiest when the battle is already won, among other things.

So the mindset and goals possible to achieve, shall obviously determine what can happen with losing side, no matter of period.

AFAIR there's strong possibility that Polish/Lithuanian forces were carefully 'avoiding' taking prisoners among actual Teuton Brothers at Grunwald/Tannenber, even though they had taken plenty of other prisoners, and were very kind to them.

In any case, at least 203 out of 250 Brothers lost their lives then .

Simply, actual members of Order were to be eliminated, while being gracious to the prisoners served as great political/diplomatic tool.

[AMFV]

There is no 'lack of actual killing force' here.

I think here lies base problem with your assumption.

They strike as hard as they can.

Your assumption is that they should be dead then, and since they're not, you conclude that there's no 'actual killing force' here, whatever could it be.

My assumption is that if people were trying to kill each other, then there'd be people dead. Look I have actual real world experience in this kind of training, I've had hand to hand combat classes in the military, I've been able to compare the differences with combat shooting and non-combat shooting.

If people were trying to kill each other they'd have done so, since that sort of killing did happen in the real world, since people with swords have killed heavily armored opponents, maybe they got lucky, who knows. But that is not outside the realm of possibility.

If you are not trying to kill you restrain yourself, in the UFC they restrain themselves, even in no-holds barred fighting they restrain themselves, because they don't want to KILL their opponent. It's a different style of fighting, flat-out it is.

No I'm not, you have poor reading comprehension. I carefully wrote:

"a piece of paper "

meaning a single piece of paper. I didn't say paper plural. I've shot phonebooks myself, who hasn't?

G

I stand corrected, but I still hold that you can't determine the principles of striking from opponents who aren't trying to kill each other, I've presented what somebody could do as a scientific experiment in this regard, it wouldn't be that difficult to do that, they do that sort of work for cars all the time. So it's certainly feasible to do for armor, possibly not financially feasible though.

We just don't have real data, it's the dressing up of data that isn't realistic and calling it real data that bothers me, the BoN might be a good example, but it's just as likely it's not, as I've pointed they aren't trying to kill each other, and there are few fatalities (possibly even none) if they were trying to kill each other, there'd be fatalities, if that doesn't indicate that they are pull punches I don't know what would.

[Spiryt]

If people were trying to kill each other they'd have done so, since that sort of killing did happen in the real world, since people with swords have killed heavily armored opponents, maybe they got lucky, who knows. But that is not outside the realm of possibility.

That would be great if we could state this, but we in fact don't really have an idea:

-if people were killing heavily armored other with single to multiple sword strikes AT ALL

- how they did it, if at all.

So you are speculating.

And as mentioned numerous time already, there are simple and obvious reasons WHY they aren't killing each other.

Because they aren't strking when it actually could kill. On the ground, to exposed face etc.

If you are not trying to kill you restrain yourself, in the UFC they restrain themselves, even in no-holds barred fighting they restrain themselves, because they don't want to KILL their opponent. It's a different style of fighting, flat-out it is.

But you are absolutely and completely wrong, and unaware of reality of full contact fights.

Poor Nak Muay (Thai Boxers) in Thailand go absolutely 104% in their famous no step backwards style over peanuts.

Some guys in UFC, or other MMA organisations fight over thousands/millions of dollars, and would be absolutely out of their minds to 'restrain' themselves.

They are restrained by the rules, and by what one human being can physically do to another, if roughly as physically able, without tools.

And that's all.

Your 'restrain' claims have no basis in reality.

[Incanur]

The German struck his opponent by the shield, which doesn't sound as if he was aiming for the face. There's also no indication in the text of whether the German had his face exposed. I'm not complete sure why folks struck blows at armor with swords, but there's little question it happened. Various possibilities emerges: they were aiming somewhere else, they were trying to overwhelm their foe with force, they saw and opening and figured they might as well take it, they overestimated their strength, they wanted to test their opponent's armor, they thought it would be awesome, etc.

Also, on the subject of swords against helmet, a WWII U.S. soldier got knocked out by a stroke from a katana still in its scabbard that dented his helmet, though he had time to fire a killing shot before falling. Not a medieval- or Renaissance-era helmet, but still worth considering. If a katana in its scabbard can put that kind of a dent in a helmet, you can see how halberds might have been able to cleave lighter and/or lower quality helmets.

By the way, here is the street fight that involves a sword breaking on a helmet. The blow still sent the man hit "reeling backwards two or three steps."

[AMFV]

That would be great if we could state this, but we in fact don't really have an idea:

-if people were killing heavily armored other with single to multiple sword strikes AT ALL

- how they did it, if at all.

So you are speculating.

And as mentioned numerous time already, there are simple and obvious reasons WHY they aren't killing each other.

Because they aren't strking when it actually could kill. On the ground, to exposed face etc.



But you are absolutely and completely wrong, and unaware of reality of full contact fights.

Poor Nak Muay (Thai Boxers) in Thailand go absolutely 104% in their famous no step backwards style over peanuts.

Some guys in UFC, or other MMA organisations fight over thousands/millions of dollars, and would be absolutely out of their minds to 'restrain' themselves.

They are restrained by the rules, and by what one human being can physically do to another, if roughly as physically able, without tools.

And that's all.

Your 'restrain' claims have no basis in reality.

DO THEY KILL THEIR OPPONENTS?

If they don't they are not going full bore. PERIOD. You can kill a man with your bare hands, anything less and you are fighting at less than your
maximum capacity to fight.

Edit: Look I have actual experience I have been trained with nonviolent restrain and trying to kill people, I learned different things, and there were different principles. It's different, and for hand-to-hand combat I can DEFINITIVELY say that it is, because I have actual experience in that regard.

[Spiryt]

The German struck his opponent by the shield, which doesn't sound as if he was aiming for the face. There's also no indication in the text of whether the German had his face exposed. I'm not complete sure why folks struck blows at armor with swords, but there's little question it happened. Various possibilities emerges: they were aimed somewhere else, they were trying to overwhelm their foe with force, they saw and opening and figured they might as well take it, they overestimated their strength, they wanted to test their opponent's armor, they thought it'd look awesome, etc.

Dunno if we can really form such statement with 'statistically' high probability though, we sadly don't have that many accounts.

There are some accounts of swords being able to somehow combat armor, in right circumstances, but we don't know how reliably.

There's account, from diary of this guy - about polish nobleman attacking him with sabre, completely 'from behind'.

Google translate

Apparently sabre actually cut trough significant amount of mail, 'hand wide' and 'two rings stopped the head from falling".

But nevertheless, attack that had possibly as perfect conditions as it could get, apparently had failed.


And again, mention is sadly way to scanty so we don't know:

- if attacker knew mail was there, and actually hoped to defeat it
- if quality of mail was good or not, if it was actual 'battle grade' or indeed some hidden, very light one

And so on.

[Spiryt]

DO THEY KILL THEIR OPPONENTS?

If they don't they are not going full bore. PERIOD. You can kill a man with your bare hands, anything less and you are fighting at less than your maximum capacity to fight.

Obviously you can, as I mentioned many times. Needs defenceless opponent, most of the time, and fight is being stopped by then. Rules and purpose.

Your claims about man being killed with bare hands, 'just like that' need quotations, quotations, quotations.

[Incanur]

People can die from a simple punch to head or face, but this doesn't usually happen, at least not to healthy and fit folks. Humans are both shocking resilient and surprisingly fragile. It's definitely not easy to kill somebody with your bare hands if they're not cooperating. I suspect that's part of the reason people designed edged weapons in the first place! Unarmored combat with edged weapons stands out as ridiculously lethal compared with both armored combat and unarmed combat. It's no coincidence that in both bohurt and MMA fighting you see a lot of repeated walloping. (In bohurt of course much of that comes from the lack of thrusts.)

[Spiryt]

People can die from a simple punch to head or face, but this doesn't usually happen, at least not to healthy and fit folks. Humans are both shocking resilient and surprisingly fragile. It's definitely not easy to kill somebody with your bare hands if they're not cooperating. I suspect that's part of the reason people designed edged weapons in the first place! Unarmored combat with edged weapons stands out as ridiculously lethal compared with both armored combat and unarmed combat.

Well:

1. As far as I'm aware, peopl mostly die from single punch becuase they loose their balance/consciousness and hit the pavement in unlucky way, suffering bad head trauma

2. Single punch kill would probably require significant size difference and 'sucker' punching. To really twist defenceless neck...

Again, fall probably would have greater fatality potential.

[Incanur]

If I recall correctly there's an account of person apparently dying from a single punch to the head in the 14th-century London coroner's rolls. That's what contemporaries concluded anyway, but certainly the person may have had other health issues or who knows what.

All the modern accounts I know of do involve the fall on pavement or rocks, yes.

[Mr. Mask]

Incanur: Cleaving a helmet isn't impossible for a halberd, depending on the halberd and the helmet's quality.

At this point with the German knight discussion, I'll need to see the account again for reference. Anyone know where it was?

As pointed out by Spirit, you don't always know what armour your opponent. With surcoats, you would rarely know what they had until you chopped them. Not certain yet if that was the case in that particular struggle.


Killing with Barehands: It's not easy to do this, but it certainly can be done. Throw them on the ground and start stomping them, attack their spine, knee them in the sternum (MMA fighters seem resilient to this), smash their throat, cut off blood/oxygen to the brain. Combat conditions also have plenty of scenery you can use to your advantage, like smashing their head on the concrete. Uneven surfaces make for worse falls with more chances of something going wrong.

The existence or non-existence of deadly moves makes a difference even if they don't get used. Knowing they might gouge your eyes or kick your groin makes you behave differently (not to say these don't effect MMA fighters as well; it's an example).

[Spiryt]

Quick search about fatalities in AMateur MMA or boxing reveal brain haemorrhage as a main result.

Hard to say if haemorrhage was the result, or a cause, of course.

Another sad occurrences were guy in guillotine trying to slam out of it, and spiking his own spine. Awful.

Killing with Barehands: It's not easy to do this, but it certainly can be done. Throw them on the ground and start stomping them, attack their spine, knee them in the sternum (MMA fighters seem resilient to this), smash their throat, cut off blood/oxygen to the brain. Combat conditions also have plenty of scenery you can use to your advantage, like smashing their head on the concrete. Uneven surfaces make for worse falls with more chances of something going wrong.

That's pretty much my point all along.

You have to break your opponent, gain complete, or almost complete control of their body, to smash and maul it horribly.

Unless you have ridiculous physical advantage from the start, opponent must give up mentally -

either from loosing actual consciousness,

Or by subduing to very atavistic 'superiority' of opponent - so fear, shock, begging for mercy and all other horrible things - that can wrench your gut just reading about them, and in actual situation of violence are even more crushing.

(MMA fighters seem resilient to this)

They are not resilient.... They fall like any other human being (Although they are way better conditioned than average, of course)

But can't see how it should be imminently fatal.

[Incanur]

Jorg von Ehingen's account is here.

In Sir Kenelm Digby's street fight, it's additionally notable that Digby escapes the press of his enemies by thrusting into an opponent's armored torso and running him over. That's another example of how attacking armor could prove effective without armor penetration. I remember reading a tournament account where thrusting - in this case with a spear - allowed a knight to completely control his foe, push him over, etc.

[Spiryt]

Jorg von Ehingen's account is here.

There are many possibilities indeed, but simply as open helmet would be my guess.... Especially that they were kneeing it would perfectly clear why he couldn't really land good strike at his face.

Anyway, I suspect that original was in Middle German?

If so, it may be worth finding, and maybe someone with good grasp on all things Deutsch could figure out more. Original is always the best bet.

[Incanur]

I'm not sure on the original language; I'll check. I don't find anything too curious about the partially successful blow to the face - either von Ehingen's position or his opponent's helmet (even if open-faced as it presumably was) could have hindered the blow. It's the initial exchange of ineffectual blows that I wonder about. The text makes the initial blow seem like a test of the Moor's armor. The exchange of blows may also have been a culturally expected formulaic element; defeating a foe with blows might have looked cooler to observers. (This was a battlefield duel, so appearances mattered.) A later account of the duel telling claims von Ehingen cut the Moor in half or some such nonsense, which suggests many such accounts of cutting people in half should perhaps be read as simply meaning person supposedly cut in half lost a fight.

[Mr. Mask]

Spirit: As an example of one of the details that make things a bit different, with that gif. The fellow who is losing may desperately grab the groin of his opponent, since it's so close to his hands. This isn't to say you would win because of such tactics (nor that its the optimal tactic in that situation), but it does illustrate a difference. The winning fellow isn't concerned about that possibility, and so is doing something a bit different than someone in a bar brawl or fight to the death is likely to do.

That and other illegal moves build up until there gets to be something of a difference. The biggest difference is the lack of ambush, of multiple foes, objects and terrain, and of weapons being able to enter the equation (a concern in most combat situations).

This isn't to say its a negative point for MMA. Just, it's important for MMA fighters to understand these points and adapt to them. In a stressful situation, following your training and neglecting those details is a strong possibility, and a dangerous one.



Incanur: People in combat situations are not concerned about looking cool. Your concern for all things beyond survival leaves you when the danger starts.

As for striking the armour... it's a bit unclear about that. It seems to read that one struck the other's shield? Or with his shield? They mention blows not hurting the German knight, but they do not give any indication of his opponent's intention. They may have been aiming for unarmoured places.

[Spiryt]

Spirit: As an example of one of the details that make things a bit different, with that gif. The fellow who is losing may desperately grab the groin of his opponent, since it's so close to his hands. This isn't to say you would win because of such tactics (nor that its the optimal tactic in that situation), but it does illustrate a difference. The winning fellow isn't concerned about that possibility, and so is doing something a bit different than someone in a bar brawl or fight to the death is likely to do.
.

Urg, if we must go with the groin stuff, then in that particular situation Tito Ortiz getting powerfully kicked to the groin would be way more probable situation. Him grabbing in any case would be tricky with any sort of clothing involved....

Don't you think?

So every stick has two ends, and person with superior grappling position always tends to have way more options.

Anyway, that gif illustrated that powerful strike to the sternum is highly debilitating indeed, to any normal human being. Even heavily muscled.

[Galloglaich]

The point about BoTN is simple: if those guys weren't wearing good armor, they would all be dead (every one who was hit in the head with one of those swords, polearms or axes would be)

The armor is what makes the difference, in terms of cuts.

The only thing that "lethal intent" would change is that they would also be thrusting and using armor-piercing weapons (including back spikes etc.)

G

[Mr. Mask]

Spirit: Grabbing the groin would be a desperation tactic for the losing guy. For the guy who is winning, what he's doing in the gif is fine. Kick him to death, stomp him to death. He looks pretty tired, so you could take your time (get a weapon if any is available).

As you say, he has a lot of options.

[Spiryt]

Spirit: Grabbing the groin would be a desperation tactic for the losing guy. For the guy who is winning, what he's doing in the gif is fine. Kick him to death, stomp him to death. He looks pretty tired, so you could take your time (get a weapon if any is available).

As you say, he has a lot of options.

Instead of getting desperate, it would be better to break the head/neck and hand control, and roll away from that position, though. Always better to try getting to safe spot first.

He was a bit too tired, IIRC that fight correctly though.

The only thing that "lethal intent" would change is that they would also be thrusting and using armor-piercing weapons (including back spikes etc.)

Probably more wrestling and bashing them on the ground, or using teh daggers, like Talhoffer, among others seems to tell us.

[Incanur]

Incanur: People in combat situations are not concerned about looking cool. Your concern for all things beyond survival leaves you when the danger starts.

While this expresses a common position, I don't think it captures the mindset of at least some historical warriors, especially but not only aristocratic warriors. Yuval Harari argues that the aristocratic warrior's entire world view was built around doing great deeds. Note how many accounts of medieval and Renaissance warfare emphasize individual feats of arms. Both noble and common warriors sought to show their honor and worth on the battlefield, sometimes at their cost of their lives. You find historical examples of warriors choosing fight under less advantageous circumstances than they could in order to show off and win renown. For example, Garcilaso de la Vega recounts a large group of Amerindians choosing to attack a group of seven Spaniards with only seven of their number. He likewise records various duels between Amerindians and Spaniards - including one in which observing Spaniards intervened once their man starting getting the worst of it. Both notions of honor and practical survival concerns played a key role on the historical battlefield. Nor, given the importance of morale and the social nature of warfare, can the two be completely separated. Commanders often chose to fight and expose themselves to danger, risking themselves and the cohesion of their side but increasing morale while successful. Doing something awesome and stupid can have considerable rewards if the person taking the gambit succeeds. And getting killed or horribly wounded wasn't necessarily a bad thing according to the great-deeds mindset as long as you got remembered in the process.

As for striking the armour... it's a bit unclear about that. It seems to read that one struck the other's shield? Or with his shield?

Von Ehingen struck his opponent "by the shield."

As far as attacking the groin goes, consider this account.

[Spiryt]

Blind John of Bohemia charging to his glorious death at Crecy...

[Mr. Mask]

Spirit: Yes, I also thought of that as a better strategy. As tired as he looks, not sure if he could.


Incanur: Leading up to the conflict, and after the conflict? Sure, looking cool was a major concern. When it comes to the blow by blow, looking cool is not a concern.

[Incanur]

Gutierre Diaz de Gamez's account of the deeds of Don Pero Niño contains both lots of feats of arms - some almost unbelievable, including helmet splitting on page 15 - as well as what seem like sober descriptions of warfare between French and Spanish crossbowers and English archers. It's an example of how history and fiction blur together and/or are the same thing. I'm not sure I believe the split helmet down to the eyes, but I suspect knights of the period did hit each other on the head as described. (It's possible to speculate that accumulated damage from blows allowed Pero Niño to finally split Gomez Domao's helmet.) I recommend the read. Note that portrays the English as formidable but hardly unbeatable, which serves as a useful counter to some of mythology around the longbow.

[Mr. Mask]

Reality is far weirder and less plausible than fiction.

Will give that a read sometime. For now I need to work out how describe game rules.

[Incanur]

The part about Pero Niño fighting with crossbow bolt stuck in his nostrils (page 16) strikes me as too bizarre to be fake. I mean, who would make that up? It's not exactly a dashing mental image.

I bet the folks fighting crossbow-nose Pero Niño were really freaked out. "He's got a crossbow bolt in his face at he's still coming at us?"