Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIV

[Knaight]

Question: Is there a difference in metallurgy requirement in different type/length of sword?

Yes, although a lot of that simplifies down pretty simpler to longer swords requiring better metallurgy to get working.

[Tobtor]

Question: Is there a difference in metallurgy requirement in different type/length of sword?

For example, we generally want our sword blade to have a hard edge and a softer spine, is dagger or gladius any different?

Since a dagger is much shorter, and I presume harder to break, can I increase its blade hardness to the level of...let's say the same hardness as katana's edge, and still expect it to hold?

"katanas" are not necessarily harder than European swords. Link to Shads "katana series" (note there are 5 episodes).

To answer the question: depends on period.

To give a longer answer. IF we assume iron age/pre-medieval technology (since gladius is mentioned): it is true that the simple way is doing a soft core, but many swords where made just like the katanas with multiple layers "folded" together. See this image of a roman era sword from Illerup bog:


Then what about shorter weapons? It is surely easier to make shorter weapons, as we do not need to keep a long straight edge (which needs to be hard to stay sharp and cut things), while adding the flexibility of the softer metal. However if the type of steel they made is hard it is still brittle (like glass but less so) and can still break, thus we still need to add some flexibility. Also we are likely using the knife less in "fencing" (metal against metal) and less at hitting shields etc, so the edge is likely put to less stress.

I have never read any good, large scale analysis of military knifes, daggers etc. Most seem to be softer than the swords, not harder. Possible due to lack of investment in them. I have seen some puggio types with some pattern welding (though also some without).

If spearheads are any indication (also relatively small metal parts), I would argue that a simpler method was generally used. Germanic spears seem to have been made in the opposite way of the swords; some have been shown to have a thin hard core embedded in softer metal. The hard part the forms one edge and the point (the most important part) while the softer metal forms the rest. We could imagine that singled edged knifes/daggers would benifit from similar construction (a hard edge/point, and soft back).

As metallurgy improves (medieval period) you would get more "single-steel" knives/daggers, as the issue of breaking is smaller and less stress is applied compared with swords (longswords for example are very flexible). So I would say its easier to get a decent strength knife-blade, but you still wouldnt want it to be hard and brittle as it would stilll get chipped or break. So its easier to get a good short blade, but it will not be "harder".

[Tobtor]

Also, I wanted to say Lars Andersen have uploaded a new video of trick shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8dBQVDROdA

Were he does some really cool tricks (like shooting around a person in front of him, hitting a thrown machete out of the air, hitting an arrow with his arrow while hanging upside down etc). Also he shows that its possible to dodge a full-strength longbow shot arrow.

While yes its trick shooting, it should be noted that many (also medieval Europeans) trained by doing trick shooting. It generally a really cool set of tricks.

(disclaimer: I have met Lars several times at larps, though I am do not as such "know" him)

[wolflance]

"katanas" are not necessarily harder than European swords. Link to Shads "katana series" (note there are 5 episodes).

I know, that's why I specifically mentioned EDGE of katana.

I believe the general idea stays the same (soft blade but hard edge) even if forging techniques are different? As in, even with folded steel sword/dagger, you still want a softer blade & harder edge? And if you forge the sword from a single piece of steel, you heat-treat the edge to make only that part harder?

So I would say its easier to get a decent strength knife-blade, but you still wouldnt want it to be hard and brittle as it would stilll get chipped or break. So its easier to get a good short blade, but it will not be "harder".

If I understand you correctly, then assuming one has the expertise to make dagger, short sword and arming sword, he will not purposely make shorter sword harder than the longer one?

As you said, this question spring to my mind because I came across some data on Roman gladius (see picture below). The blade hardness of Tiberius and Fulham gladius strike me as insanely hard.....to my knowledge 500 Vickers is harder than the EDGE of many medieval sword. Won't this hardness make the gladius brittle to the point of unusable?

(And then what's the deal with that two swords with softer edge than rest of the blade?)

[wolflance]

Also, I wanted to say Lars Andersen have uploaded a new video of trick shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8dBQVDROdA

Were he does some really cool tricks (like shooting around a person in front of him, hitting a thrown machete out of the air, hitting an arrow with his arrow while hanging upside down etc). Also he shows that its possible to dodge a full-strength longbow shot arrow.

While yes its trick shooting, it should be noted that many (also medieval Europeans) trained by doing trick shooting. It generally a really cool set of tricks.

(disclaimer: I have met Lars several times at larps, though I am do not as such "know" him)

Ho boy Lars is a legend!

[Max_Killjoy]

Matt Easton on "speed shooting" archery.


My personal opinion on Lars Anderson is that he sends a ton of signals that scream "this guy is full of it", and I can't tell if he really believes all that, or he's a huckster. The whole "lost secrets of our ancestors" shtick, and his repeated reference to Hollywood and fiction as if those were the state of current knowledge on ancient and historical archery... ugh.

[wolflance]

Matt Easton on "speed shooting" archery.


My personal opinion on Lars Anderson is that he sends a ton of signals that scream "this guy is full of it", and I can't tell if he really believes all that, or he's a huckster. The whole "lost secrets of our ancestors" shtick, and his repeated reference to Hollywood and fiction as if those were the state of current knowledge on ancient and historical archery... ugh.

In defense of Lars Andersen, I think he put up the videos to debunk the current level of LAYMAN's knowledge on historical archery. Also, instead of saying this and that is possible/impossible and invite disbelieves, he actually goes on to demonstrate the skill on what are possible, which put a lot more weight on his word.

As for the "lost knowledge" part, I think he does not meant to say that he has mastered some secret techniques to performed those insane feats, but the knowledge and perception of "what ancient archers could and ought to achieve" had been generally lost or at least heavily distorted.

(For one thing he has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve high accuracy at extreme range, even on quick moving small targets. Many people still think longbowmen shooting "into the crowd" of their enemies and war archery was purely a formation vs formation thing).

My only criticism on him is that he seems to treat “historical archery” as if it is universal, as different cultures had different approaches on their archery. It's unreasonable to believe that historical English longbowmen really ran around and shoot at small moving targets all the time, but archers from another culture (let's say Turkish) may found that all of his feats are just standard boring fare.

[Tobtor]

In defense of Lars Andersen, I think he put up the videos to debunk the current level of LAYMAN's knowledge on historical archery. Also, instead of saying this and that is possible/impossible and invite disbelieves, he actually goes on to demonstrate the skill on what are possible, which put a lot more weight on his word.

As for the "lost knowledge" part, I think he does not meant to say that he has mastered some secret techniques to performed those insane feats, but the knowledge and perception of "what ancient archers could and ought to achieve" had been generally lost or at least heavily distorted.

(For one thing he has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve high accuracy at extreme range, even on quick moving small targets. Many people still think longbowmen shooting "into the crowd" of their enemies and war archery was purely a formation vs formation thing).

My only criticism on him is that he seems to treat “historical archery” as if it is universal, as different cultures had different approaches on their archery. It's unreasonable to believe that historical English longbowmen really ran around and shoot at small moving targets all the time, but archers from another culture (let's say Turkish) may found that all of his feats are just standard boring fare.

I agree. Though not only laymans views, but also many historians. You can find many claims that stuff like doging arrows are purely made up etc. Now, I am sure he would agree that many other historically interedsted archers might now some of the things he says, but not (typical) historians and not typical sports archers.

A note about bout English archers: we have medieval European illustrations of archers using butterflys as "targets", these may be purely (medieval) fantasy, and most historians have claimed so, but watching Lars we a least should consider that it was perhaps not.

Yes, different cultures have different approaches, different draw weights, different tactics with the bow etc. What I find interesting is that he is exploring the things that can be done.

[jayem]

I could well imagine that there could well be uses for frequent/powerful/inaccurate, frequent/weak/accurate, infrequent/powerful/accurate vfreqent/weak/innacurate ... throughout the battle (of course if you can have everything that would be better).
Even in the line,v shield wall the variation could well be better than everyone being average. But if say the back ranks keep a constant rain of cheap* arrows (in the hope that some hit, and if not it keeps them from moving), while half the front rank fires at any exposed gap as soon as they can (on the basis even if it only irritates, it still might make them make a further mistake), and the other half get as it were 'sniper shots' in. Then it puts the defender covering a lot of basis.

*The logistics of supply might be an issue

[BayardSPSR]

Yes, different cultures have different approaches, different draw weights, different tactics with the bow etc. What I find interesting is that he is exploring the things that can be done.

Is he actually using a historically-accurate bow from any historical society? Historical archery traditions are alive and well, but I can't call to mind any that involve leaping through the air. Trick archery is fun, but it's not exactly experimental archaeology.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is he actually using a historically-accurate bow from any historical society? Historical archery traditions are alive and well, but I can't call to mind any that involve leaping through the air. Trick archery is fun, but it's not exactly experimental archaeology.

And with the light arrows and half-draw that he uses, he'd have trouble penetrating anything more than bare skin.

[Incanur]

I like that new video from Lars Andersen a lot. While it's wrong about volleys, which were used by various historical military archers and crossbowers, I consider the emphasis on how slow arrows are key for understanding archery and especially the question of bow vs. gun.

What we really need is to get folks to practice Andersen's techniques but with military-strength bows drawing 80-160+lbs.

Dodging and shooting at moving targets was obviously part of skirmishing with any style of bow. That's definitional. However, speed shooting was not the only way to use a bow in either skirmishing or a set battle. It wasn't necessarily the best way. The Manchu style, for example, focuses on making powerful and accurate shots rather than shooting lots of arrows quickly.

[wolflance]

I think trick archery has a long enough tradition that it too can be considered "historical archery", or a least an often overlooked facet of it. Many dismiss trick archery as being impractical/no value on the basis that it is nearly impossible to perform those tricks on stressful battlefield condition, but hey, so is target practice (in both traditional and modern context). In fact, EVEN MORE SO is target practice.

Is he actually using a historically-accurate bow from any historical society? Historical archery traditions are alive and well, but I can't call to mind any that involve leaping through the air. Trick archery is fun, but it's not exactly experimental archaeology.

I can't confirm, but he switched to a Yumi when performing the historical feat of a Japanese monk in the latest video, so I'd be inclined to say yes, or at least "somewhat accurate".


I agree that it is not experimental archaeology, as all of his leaping/wall jumping/upside down acrobatic stunts are likely just toned down version of what historical horse archers experienced. After all, he is in control of his own body while performing all that stunts, but horse archers can't control their horses as precisely (and horse is much faster, less stable, and more powerful than human). If his latest video is any indication, Lars is apparently a pretty dreadful rider.

The main points Lars is trying to confer (I think) are that:
1) Historical archers could (and often had to) shoot in various less-than-ideal conditions/body postures/constantly on the move (I think we can all agree on this one).
2) It is possible to maintain high level of accuracy, even at long range, during said less-than-ideal (that's putting it lightly) conditions.

And with the light arrows and half-draw that he uses, he'd have trouble penetrating anything more than bare skin.

As far as armor goes, tests conducted on reconstructed mail armor and plate armor demonstrated that these things stood up to even the strongest warbow (100# for mail and 150# for plate from the back of my head, regrettably no one has conducted test on a powerful Yumi or Manchu bow yet). Armor works fantastically and shield was a thing, so why bother?

After all, punching through armor was not the sole purpose of war archery.


Half-draw was a legitimate technique used in warfare and hunting though.

[Max_Killjoy]

As far as armor goes, tests conducted on reconstructed mail armor and plate armor demonstrated that these things stood up to even the strongest warbow (100# for mail and 150# for plate from the back of my head, regrettably no one has conducted test on a powerful Yumi or Manchu bow yet). Armor works fantastically and shield was a thing, so why bother?

After all, punching through armor was not the sole purpose of war archery.

It seems like half the "tests" come back with armor being useless against arrows even at long range, and half the "tests" come back with armor deflecting ballista bolts at 10 feet. Which tests are you referring to?


I'm going to be blunt here -- until this stuff starts coming from someone who does not have all the alarm signs of a total huckster and fraud (ie, not Lars and his videos... start with someone who doesn't begin his videos with "world-famous master Lars Anderson proves everyone else wrong and reveals The Truth"), I'm calling shenanigans and ignoring it. Seriously, Lars sets off every BS warning system I have.

[wolflance]

It seems like half the "tests" come back with armor being useless against arrows even at long range, and half the "tests" come back with armor deflecting ballista bolts at 10 feet. Which tests are you referring to?


I'm going to be blunt here -- until this stuff starts coming from someone who does not have all the alarm signs of a total huckster and fraud (ie, not Lars and his videos... start with someone who doesn't begin his videos with "world-famous master Lars Anderson proves everyone else wrong and reveals The Truth"), I'm calling shenanigans and ignoring it. Seriously, Lars sets off every BS warning system I have.

The 100# longbow test on mail come from ERIK D. SCHMID if I remember correctly, and I consider him the absolute best in the field of authentic mail reproduction, and thus also consider his test highly reliable.

Unfortunately I can't find the link of that test anymore (it's not a YouTubr video "test"), anyone here can help me out?

I agree with you on the part that Lars (the narrator to be precise) come off as quite braggy, although he sounds more like a "stating stuff that should be common knowledge/common sense as if it is some newly (re)discovered thing" to me. His demonstrations are impressive, but nothing exotic. They all boil down to "shoot fast, shoot accurate, shoot while moving, shoot moving targets, do all of them at the same time", hardly anything extraordinary (those are like the most basic requirements of horse archer). Even the trick archery-ish multishot had seen use on the battlefield.

Only things I don't already well aware in his new video are that people can dodge arrow, and arrow can fly around to bypass obstacle.

[Tobtor]

And with the light arrows and half-draw that he uses, he'd have trouble penetrating anything more than bare skin.

True, for a few of his shots (like the very rapid speed shooting). However, in his first video he did pierce mail/gambeson, while still shooting fast. Some have said its butted mail, they themselves say its riveted, and their success is due to close range and heavy arrows which are of good steel and very sharp etc. Anyway, even if it is butted mail, that is not the same as "bare skin", and there IS a gambeson underneath.

He uses different strength bows, but it is true none of them are 120 pound bows. I would like to note that we ALSO find weaker bows in historical context (iron age bows of 60 punds for example). Lars himself have admitted that he is not strong, but argues that what he is doing is a some years of training as a hobby, and that "historic" people would have had a better basic physique.

You loose accuracy over distance if your bow is too weak.

It seems like half the "tests" come back with armor being useless against arrows even at long range, and half the "tests" come back with armor deflecting ballista bolts at 10 feet. Which tests are you referring to?

I agree most tests are problematic. Part of the issue is that there is no such thing as "a mail" and "a 100pound bow".

-Mail would have come in a variety of qualities (quality of metal, thickness of rings, diameter of rings, are the rings pulled or punched, how is the rivets and rivetholes made, and are the rings flat or round just to mention the most important). (not to mention that some/most Japanese mail is not riveted etc)

-Also 100pound is the strength required to pull the bow, and its only partly reflecting how much resulting energy it delivers (it can vary from 65-90% of original force). So they should in reality give the resulting power, not the draw-weight for real scientific tests.

-Thirdly many test have similarly been done with sub-optimal arrows. Both in term of arrow tip quality (shooting basically iron arrows at steel mail will give a different result than steel arrows at iron mail etc)., but also in term of shaft quality. Some use straight machine cut shafts (which will break at much lower force than many historical shafts). Historical shafts follow the grain of the wood, and the arrow is sometimes thicker near the tip to prevent breaking.

So the test usually reflects whether the quality of the reconstructed weapons is successful or not. I have seen historical accounts of mail fail, and mail succeed at defending from arrows, but in these cases we have little information about bow-strength or mail quality.

I -think- that a GOOD mail WITH a heavy gambeson would withstand most 100pound bows with a decent quality arrow. However, most historical mails are not necessarily of the top quality (as discussed with swords, historical steel include a lot of slag, some mails are very low carbon steel, some have large rings etc). It is easier to get a good quality arrowhead than an entire mail-hauberk. Also the thick gambesons seem to have been worn alone, and it is indeed difficult to move arms/legs in too thick gamebsons, and I am (as we have discussed earlier) of the conviction that in the dark ages and early medieval did not have gambesons as such, at most a single layer of felt over the clothing (at least we havn't any evidence) . But again that is up for argument.

Anyway: IF armour is protecting from all arrows, then lighter arrows with greater accuracy should be better (in effect: doing like Lars and hitting the eye it will ALSO killer with a light bow). Then power becomes simply a matter of range. Then we also shouldnt see heavy arrows (as lighter arrows tend to go further).

[Tobtor]

They all boil down to "shoot fast, shoot accurate, shoot while moving, shoot moving targets, do all of them at the same time", hardly anything extraordinary (those are like the most basic requirements of horse archer). Even the trick archery-ish multishot had seen use on the battlefield.

I partly agree. It is also worthy of note that is EXACTLY what he is saying: that what he is doing is something that he found in books/illustrations (both arab/persian and european, asian etc), and that he tries to see if it can really be done. Alot people wouldnt belive it if you told them without someone doing it, and that ALSO goes for mainstream historians. So no he have not invented anything new. You might claim that others (in regions with closer affinity with horse-acher-culuture) knew about this stuff. But most people (laymen, moviemakers, sports archers, historeans etc) would deny that even some of the basic things he is doing is possible (at least before they saw the video).

Is the naration over the top? Possibly. Lars himself is in my experience (the little I have) a very down to earth guy.

I think people should watch the reply he made on the critism on his first video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA&t=2s

Where he clarifies some things, and reference other archers etc.

[Vinyadan]

Personally, I do believe to stories of people using butterflies as target practice. I have two reasons. The first is that you don't need to hit your target while practicing, but it's useful to have a small, moving target to aim for, so that you can better your technique and get increasingly close, to the point of occasionally hitting. The second is the fact that people used bows to hunt. I believe they used bows to hunt birds, too, which are remarkably small target, and can occasionally be very hard to hit, depending on how their species fly, plus the fact that they are high up. Then you have rabbits and hares, which are small, run in the grass, and zigzag a lot.

[wolflance]

Metatron's rebuttal of Lars Andersen's video.

He does get something wrong though, Mongol bow is not any weaker than English/other bow. Also, his point about speed shooter uses up their ammo faster also holds no water - sooner or later, an archer will spent all arrows and become useless, it doesn't matter how fast or slow you shoot, as long as your arrows hit and injure/kill, you've done a good job.

(It is also viable to collect enemy arrows and shoot back at them)


Metatron's response also expose the weakness of Lars Andersen's approach as treating all "historical archery" as if it is one unified system - you can always find counterexample to refute his points (back quiver, arrow at right side of the bow, holding arrow in bow hand, stationary archer etc).

Many however use these counterpoints to dismiss the points made by Lars Andersen in its entirely.

I partly agree.

I should have phrased it better...

I am in agreement with you, that these qualities are not well-known among the laymen/moviemakers/armchair historians, or thought simply as "trick shooting" or "impossible in realistic combat situation”...which is, to be honest, correct to an extend.

Truth to be told, even those that are familiar with horse-archery-culture will NOT consider "shooting arrows through eye slit“ realistically possible during actual combat. However, it IS possible to pull off against slightly larger target - instead of aiming at the eyes, aim at the head or face. If the arrow hits, it will kill the enemy just as dead (not everyone wears face-covering helmet after all). To rephrase, delivering eye-shot reliably may not be possible under realistic combat situation, but headshot is totally doable (Chinese soldiers found this out the hard way facing Manchu horse archers that SPECIFICALLY targeted their exposed face/cheeks. Keep in mind that the Manchus did this on galloping horses while being shot at).

Similarly, the ability to launch eleven arrows into the air before the first one landed/hitting a machete mid-flight has no use in actual warfare, but the ability to shoot fast, aim instinctively, while maintaining high level of accuracy, while on the move, against moving targets, is very important. On their own, these qualities sounds like a given. Lars just "(re)discovered" that it is possible to achieve several and/or all of them at the same time...which may sounds unbelievable to some, but hardly anything truly extraordinary (i.e. Parthian shot requires the archer to do all of them at the same time).

[gkathellar]

@Wolflance: So basically, your point (and his point, you assert) is that archery has gotten a bad rap and it can be demonstrably more versatile, complex, and more effective than we often describe it as being (i.e. strong back muscles and volleys). While Lars may not be practicing it as a traditional martial art, what his work shows is that archers could and probably did perform astounding feats of skill that modern scholars might dismiss as fantastical.

That sounds credible to me, if only because we go through this exact arc of discovery pretty often. 50 years ago, we thought European swordsmanship was either clumsy and slow or flimsy and shallow, but now we've got precise, powerful rapier on longsword matches almost too fast to see. Scholars still parade around the myth that knights in plate could barely move under the weight of their kit, but I've seen guys do high front kicks in more accurate reconstructions. "Karate is the Dane Cook of martial arts" - which is no doubt why we've got katas that, on examination, appear to simulate the kidnapping of an imperial soldier. In general, the study of historical arms and martial arts has tended towards realizing that things were more effective and practitioners were more skilled than we gave them credit for (once we get blatantly silly stuff out of the way). If Lars's point is just, "here's some cool things folks could and probably did do with bows," then I think the historical precedent would suggest he's at least on the right track.

[Mike_G]

I think the problem with Lars Anderson is one of presentation more than substance. It's like watching a bad infomercial where the "historical" guy drops his arrows is like the guy on QVC who can't pour milk without the new exciting Handi-Spout(tm).

He come across as more showman than scholar. I have a love/hate relationship with his videos. I'm impressed at some of the stuff he does, but I can't take the presentation seriously.

Quibbles aside, we are learning more stuff about historical warfare these days, especially since the internet has allowed us to share information more quickly, so a community of archers trying out different techniques and sharing what works and doesn't may well change our view of historical archery.

[Galloglaich]

To give a longer answer. IF we assume iron age/pre-medieval technology (since gladius is mentioned): it is true that the simple way is doing a soft core, but many swords where made just like the katanas with multiple layers "folded" together. See this image of a roman era sword from Illerup bog:

My god those swords, esp. the one on the left with the inlay. Illerup continues to amaze!

A few thoughts on recent conversations.

Latinized Europeans did generally prefer to use ungelded stallions as warhorses, not exclusively but I think you can say predominantly. I believe this was not due to any myths or tropes or misconceptions but due to the way chargers were used in war (and warlike games like jousts and hunting to some extent). They were very carefully and intensively trained and they had sophisticated breeding programs. Having the stallion 'intact' was also important - the Teutonic Order who considered their horses to be one of their strategic assets, created special sterilization processes for their very carefully bred stallions so that if captured they could not be used by their enemies or 'frenemies' to breed their own lines of warhorses. Teutonic Order warhorses were bred for aggression, discipline / trainability (including being trained for ambling gaits etc.) as well as increased resistance to cold weather and ability to survive on different types of fodder.

It's worth noting that it was not just the Knights themselves who considered their mounts to be Strategic assets but also some neutral, rival and 'frenemy' chroniclers, all of whom praised their horses. They have discovered a few military stables from the medieval period like this one and this one. Osteological analysis of the horses bones shed a lot of light.

This is a really good article which I've posted before in some different iterations of this thread over the years, which covers the use of horses by the Teutonic Order to some extent.

http://deremilitari.org/2014/03/hors...er-in-prussia/

While the Latinized Europeans did seem to depend on stallions for chargers, particularly mean ones apparently who could kill grooms or others that got too close to them, (in other words, who were a pain the ass) they did also use geldings and mares for a variety of purposes including for certain types of warhorse.


Arabs did also prefer mares in general for warhorses , and I think this too is a reflection of their style of warfare which was a bit more 'hit and run'. The stallions / mares dichotomy between Latinized and Arab / Turkish mounts was even blamed or proposed as one of the theories for the astonishing Crusader victory at the Battle of Antioch in the 11th Century. Also a good read and interesting story (spear of Longinus allegedly being involved plus that wonderful character Bohemond of Antioch)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antioch_(1098)


As for sword hardness, some interesting posts on that subject here. I think as a rule a shorter sword can get away with being harder and I'd include most gladii in that category, though as has been shown they too already had composite construction in many cases. By the middle ages various types of steel and iron / carbon composites end up in the blade with very different properties of hardness, ductility, springiness, and toughness (all different things), which they once thought was by accident (and a sign of ineptitude) but now know was by design and was an indication of their surprising sophistication. Albion's swordsmith Peter Johnsson has done some excellent videos on this subject which many of you have probably seen. This is just one of many

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyAc5HbUuqw

On Lars and the trick shooting...


I think it's both a gimmick and something very interesting. My thought is this. A lot of people from HEMA and more serious re-enacting circles get annoyed by guys like Lars who I think is a Larper, but who clearly comes at his expertise (and he obviously has considerable expertise) through basically play. As in, learning a skill more like a pro-skateboarder (I.e. through play) than like a soldier who goes through boot camp (and is taught things by rote, repeating actions as defined by a strict pedagogy) . The thing is, I think in the middle ages, 'warlike play' was actually a very important part of how they learned to fight. Play and specifically joyful and you can even say silly or absurd play (if also often somewhat rowdy and dangerous) was woven into the fabric of medieval life at almost every level. It was part of the leisure life of every estate and specifically thought of as preparation for war, which is something we find very hard to understand today and therefore usually dismiss as absurdity. But that is what the evidence tells us.

This is true in the middle ages and also in other warlike societies in Europe and well beyond. Ancient Greeks, Vikings (think Knattleikr, even board games like Hnefatafl ), Celts (hurling etc.), Slavs and proto-Slavs, Steppe nomads, Arabs, Iranians, people in Africa... all over the world as far as I can tell, warlike play and games was a key part of life and part of how boys became men and men became warriors.













So while I too, find Lars a little bit annoying mainly due to his wild claims and questionable conclusions, I think he also reflects something very real in the human condition which was also very important for understanding pre-industrial warfare. You can't argue (at least not definitively) with his results, he can do some neat things, and a stronger maybe more serious person could probably take it a lot further. What if we had 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000 obsessively playing around with bows in similar ways that Lars does, what kind of results would we see?

I do think he has a point that that is part of the definition of pre-industrial archery cultures. And many other martial traditions from wrestling to horsemanship to strategy games.

G

[Tobtor]

To both G, Mike and wolflance: I agree the narration is annoying. That is why I suggested to look at the video where he answers some of the critism of his first video, where he is more down to earth and acknowledge that what is said in the video is cut down to very basic (perhaps too basic) informations in order to get out with the main ideas.

And yes, I think he does train by playing, and yes I agree with G that this is a common way of acquiring skills in many historic societies (and in ethnographic examples today as well).

What if we had 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000 obsessively playing around with bows in similar ways that Lars does, what kind of results would we see?

And have done so since childhood. Lars was already "oldish" by medieval standards when he began shooting with a bow (in his 40'ies I think).

[2D8HP]

Probably old news to the learned ones who mostly post to this thread, but it was interesting to me:

Spirit of the 7th Sea: Interview with Samantha Swords

Spoiler: Interview with Samantha Swords

Show

Welcome to spirit of the 7th Sea, an interview series with experts and enthusiasts*who share a passion for early modern European history.

This month, we interviewed sword-fighter, performer, illustrator, and craftsperson Samantha Swords.

Originally from New Zealand, Samantha has traveled the world doing work in the film industry, as well as working with propmaking, armor construction, costume construction, large-scale sculpture, metalsmithing, and much, much more.

Samantha was kind enough to lend her time and expertise talking with us about historical sword fighting, pop culture myths, and favorite dueling maneuvers.

Hi Samantha! I’m thrilled to be able to talk with you about sword fighting. Thanks for lending your time and expertise!

Q: First, how did you get your start? What initially drew you to sword fighting and what attracted you to historical sword fighting over modern sport fencing?

Samantha: I have been passionate about medieval European swords since I was a child. I started training in historical fencing in 2008, but I did practice modern Olympic fencing for four years as a teenager. I don’t see much relationship between the two, as historically the art of defence was very practical and dangerous, and it’s much more interesting to me. Also the martial arts of medieval Europe are very beautiful, and the challenge of reviving them is unique and exciting!

Q: Like many people, my concept of historical sword fighting mostly comes from pop culture, and I know my knowledge is built on a lot of myths. What are the most common myths you’ve encountered?

Samantha:*The first is a strange myth that medieval swords weren’t actually sharpened much, or were mostly bludgeoning tools.

We know that medieval and Renaissance swords were very sharp, partly from surviving museum examples, through forensic evidence of damage to deceased fighters, and via documentation from the period. Also, feders—the sword-like tools that historical fencing schools used to train safely—are strangely-shaped so that they can simulate the weight, balance and other characteristics of a fully-sharpened sword. Essentially, there’s no sense in carrying around a 3 foot long blade if one isn’t going to use it as a blade!

Another myth many people love to hold onto is the idea that ‘swords were extremely heavy’. They weren’t. The average weight of any actively-used sword throughout the Middle Ages was a mere 1-3 pounds. Most single-handed arming swords were around 1 pound in weight, even Viking swords! In the case of Viking swords, they were secondary weapons, mainly used for cutting at exposed areas, not used for smashing into wooden shields (that’s what other shields and axes were for..!)

The later weapon, the longsword, averaged around 2-3 pounds in weight. The rapier was heavier than most people think and was around the same weight as a longsword, but the since it was a single-handed tool the weight was distributed more close to the hilt, allowing freer movement of its long, narrow blade.

Larger two-handed swords gained popularity in war and for ceremonial use from the 16th-17th centuries, and their size varied depending on different, specialised functions. Swords used in dueling tended to be smaller than those employed to hew through large groups of enemies at a time (such as the famousmontante, from the Iberian Peninsula). Two handed ‘schlachtschwert‘ (battle swords) were very large but still dynamic and well-balanced. Their great size made them well-suited for ceremonial use. Even ‘bearing’ swords, extremely large swords used only in parades to impress onlookers from great distance, were built to fighting-sword standards. Surviving examples of bearing swords are excellent examples of craftsmanship, and like battle swords, are only around 6-8 pounds. However a modern misunderstanding about the context of such weapons contribute to the myth of the oversized, overly-heavy medieval sword.

The good guide to debunking such myths is to remember that a tool is made to be useful, and in a fight, any excess weight will slow you down. Weapons and armour-makers intelligently designed their equipment to be as strong, lightweight and efficient as possible.

Q: Speaking of pop culture, let’s talk movie sword fights! I’ve always loved this fight scene from Princess Bride, between Inigo Montoya and the feared Dread Pirate Roberts. I’m ready to have my reality shattered. What do you see here that just wouldn’t fly in a real sword fight?

Samantha:*I love this scene. It perfectly captures the energy and character of Inigo and The Man in Black. The fighters’ use of the environment, their gymnastic feats and clear, disciplined attacks, the wit and wordplay the two engage in, the references to historical fencing masters and their strategies—everything is great for on-screen entertainment.

As with any stage combat, the strikes that both actors make are often wide, and won’t connect if the other performer misses with their block. This style of attack is done for the safety of the performers and usually hidden through camera angles, but in a real fight if an opponent makes an attack that won’t actually connect then there is no need to move and defend against it! Knowing when to move or not involves a mastery of distance— knowing how far you and your opponent can reach when the swords are extended in a thrust or cut.

The Man in Black and Inigo are fighting with rapiers, but not using them as rapiers were historically used according to the many sources that we have. Despite referencing four fencing masters, what they are doing in the scene doesn’t actually reflect the movements they are commenting on. This is unsurprising as the wonderful*sword choreographer Bob Anderson*was not well-versed in historical fencing so wasn’t able to bring in the complex techniques referenced as he created the fight.

The style that the two are fencing with more resembles the use of small-swords, which require a closer range to cause damage. Smallswords are also lighter than rapiers, which allow for soft, quick, flexible attacks, gymnastic behaviour like leaping and hopping, and antics like tossing the sword from hand to hand, as The Man in Black does towards the end, mid-defence. With a true rapier fight he wouldn’t be able to do this as the opponent, Inigo, would push through the centre the moment the Man in Black switched hands. As someone who ‘has studied his Agrippa’, this would be a simple matter for Inigo. Instead, the two constantly are swiping at one another with their swords, making contact and then breaking apart again.

Unlike what is often seen in movies, good historical fencing was based around being able to control the other fighter’s blade, not constantly knock it aside back and forth (most often seen with larger weapons such as longswords). The teeth of two sharp swords bite into one another and create a strong connection between both opponents. They are then ‘bound’ and able to feel the force and movements of the other, and a good fighter take can advantage of this feedback as they press one another for an opening.

It’s very realistic at the end of the fight that Inigo becomes erratic with his defence. A masterful swordsman would seek to defend with conservative motions, whilst still threatening and making their opponent move wider and wider until there is an undefended opening that the swordsman can take advantage of—just as The Man in Black does with Inigo. This kind of masterful control of a fight takes precision and patience, which is why Inigo realises that The Man in Black has bettered him, and he surrenders.

A masterful swordsman would seek to defend with conservative motions, whilst still threatening and making their opponent move wider and wider until there is an undefended opening that the swordsman can take advantage of.

Overall the duel at the Cliffs of Insanity is strictly linear in its motions, much like a modern fencing bout. One way to take such advantage would be to step offline, changing the angulation of the attack—such as using the strategies of Thibault. The linear fencing in the fight reads well on film, however, and has a beautiful flow to it that in no way detracts from the rest of the movie.

Despite the criticisms mentioned above, I feel that the style of combat in the scene was entirely appropriate. Having the two characters fight in any other way would detract from the lighthearted atmosphere of the encounter. Ultimately this is what good fight design should do—fit with the characters and story and feel like a seamless part of the world they are in. By this standard, the scene is perfect!

Q: My final pop culture question, and I hope this one doesn’t make you cringe. I love the trope of a blade so sharp it can cut another sword clear in half! I’m guessing that one’s … not very realistic. What would it take to make that happen?

Samantha:*Actually, this one isn’t so far fetched as other myths! It is possible for one sword to cut through another, but only if the sword that breaks is already weak; of poor quality. Steel is made up of crystals that form and weave together during forging, and once you fracture their structure (by heating or mistreating a blade) it is completely possible the sword can snap or yield to a forceful cut.

Two good steel swords that strike one another with a lot of power are going to be damaged, but if they are made well and flexible, their core should transfer the force along the length of the tang.

Blades cut when they are moving, and have thousands of microscopic teeth that bite into something, like a saw. Just pressing them hard against an object is not enough to cause a cut. There needs to be a sliding motion, just like with a saw cutting through wood.

When it comes to the trope of a sword slicing through armour, consider that armour is made to defend against swords and other weapons. That’s the purpose of its design. If swords were able to slice right through the layers then there would be absolutely no point to wearing a hot, heavy harness that takes a fair bit of time to put on. Armour worked, but like everything, it still had vulnerabilities. Many other tools were developed solely to damage a fighter in armour. If a sword were already able to do that then there would be no need for other weapons to exist like the war hammer, mace or flail.

If you were going to attack a well-armoured opponent with your sword, it would make sense to mainly thrust and only go for the gaps and weak places. Historically, fully-armoured knights fighting a sword-wielder would be targetted in areas like the armpits, the palms, the eye-sockets, inside the elbows, behind the knees, and other areas that armour wasn’t able to cover because it needed to still hinge and allow the fighter to move their body.

Although a sharp blade is dangerous and can cut easily, being able to make smooth, clean strikes that slice right through something requires a lot of practice. It takes very little pressure to cut through skin, but if you don’t follow through then an enemy may only be in pain, and able to strike you back! In historical swordsmanship, every cut should be an offensive blow. Even if it is a parry it should still be swung to still be a threat, and keep your opponent at bay.

Photo by Bruno Gallant.Q: While heroes get themselves into dire situations, sword fighting in 7th Sea often has a playful edge! In a real sword fight (or more casual swordplay), are there any maneuvers where you know someone is just messing with you? Like playful moves, or provoking moves?

Samantha:*Definitely! You can use your distance to trick an opponent, and bait them into attacking an opening that might be just out of range. You can switch your weapon from one hand to another, to confuse them, especially if they are not used to fighting a left-hander (although good fencing masters of the time would teach to defend against just that!).

You could play with them by making contact with their blade with the tip of yours, but not enough for them to control you—moving the fastest part of your sword around theirs. This can be very frustrating to experience because your opponent refuses to commit to an action.

You can lean away from your opponent when they strike, not even moving your feet. This can be annoying if the other person has put a lot of force into the blow… Another option when duelling at close range is to perform disarms. Many people don’t expect it, and it can be an amusing way to end a fight!

Q: In 7th Sea, the continent of Théah is made up of ten nations, each with its own distinct customs and personality. Can you talk about regional differences in bladed weapons? Are these differences largely aesthetic or will you find major differences in the shape, weight, and function of bladed weapons across 17th century Europe.

Samantha:*The 17th century saw dramatic changes in single handed swords, and how they were used. Following the Renaissance, several distinctive blade types developed in Europe. The iconic shape of the cruciform, double-edged medieval sword was largely replaced by blades that ranged in shape from wide and curved to straight and narrow. Civilian and military weapons were extremely diverse and developed both for fashion and for function.

As the blade styles evolved they were imitated universally, but decoration and other details varied depending on culture and region. Hand protection was added to many swords and classical-inspired styling, such as scalloped shapes and the chiselled likeness of animals were very fashionable features found on many swords. Italian and Spanish weapons tended to be elaborate and flamboyant, Germanic weapons were more simple and functional, and English and French swords fell somewhere in between.

Many sword types were effectively the same across Europe as their specialised parts would be made at certain workshops and manufacturing hubs, then shipped and assembled by local cutlers. Some of the reasons for this were to enable the best product quality and also practicality of transport. For example, sword blades packed tight and stored in a barrel are a lot easier to ship than a bundle of fully-finished swords.

Italian and Spanish weapons tended to be elaborate and flamboyant, Germanic weapons were more simple and functional, and English and French swords fell somewhere in between.

The lessening influence of the Church on nobility and increased trade with the East contributed to social acceptance of curved sabres, and also the increased skill of swordsmiths (combined with access to fine quality steel) allowed for the development of longer, finer weapons like the rapier and the smallsword.

As well as being a military weapon, the rapier became immensely popular during the 16th and 17th centuries due to its elegant appearance and lethal capabilities, and especially as it could be an ‘espada ropera’- a sword of the robes, or daily clothes. It could be worn anywhere, unlike the larger swords that were associated with the ‘work’ of war and considered provocative and inappropriate for civilian life. The rapier was discreet enough to still be worn for self defence and showed the wearer was both a swordsman and a gentleman. During the 17th century the preference changed in favour of the smallsword, and then by the end of the century, sadly the pistol replaced these as the duellist’s weapon of choice.

Other shorter bladed weapons were popular during this time too, such as the basket-hilted broadsword (with a wire cage that protected the user’s hand) and the messer, a sword-like knife worn by all classes of society. For the upper classes the rapier enjoyed the most use, and its extreme length (between 30-55 inches) was a great advantage in any duel. At the beginning of the 17th century rapier fencers would frequently use a left-handed dagger as well. This fell out of fashion in most areas, except in Italy and Spain where the weapon took on a highly-developed, specialised form.

The rapier was discreet enough to still be worn for self defence and showed the wearer was both a swordsman and a gentleman.

Some other blades were immensely successful in select regions, such as the stocky, powerful cinquedea of Italy, which was used extensively there and nowhere else. Another example is the katzbalger of the Landsknecht mercenaries, a short, brutal and effective weapon- an appropriate companion to the professional soldier.

In some cities the wearing of swords was restricted or banned outright, so other weapons were adopted, such as*falchions*orbaselards. Like their well-utilised cousin themesser, these might pass as swords at a distance but are actually constructed as knives with single edges and a different hilt, allowing them to defy legal restrictions through sheer technicality.

At sea, shorter weapons were also favoured due to their heft and manoeuvrability in close quarters. Firearms were becoming more efficient in the 17th century but were still limited with their reloading capacity and overall reliability, so many seamen opted to always fall back on wielding an axe, or a trusty blade.

Q: I’ve heard people refer to the katana as a superior bladed weapon. Do you think there’s a historic sword that’s a cut above the rest, or does it really come down to the skill of the bladesmith and the intended purpose of the sword?

Samantha:*Whilst the katana was produced by an extraordinary feat of engineering, it was still only suitable within the context that it was used—defeating other warriors in single combat. Different weapons develop for different purposes, and there are some exceptional weapons (especially from ancient Asian and Scandinavian cultures) so it is very difficult to decide on one ‘best sword of all’.

However, since the majority of medieval and Renaissance swords were designed to follow harmonic principles of geometry, the original objects are beautiful and extremely well-balanced, symmetrical tools. For me, this makes them superior to most other weapons. I’m also biased towards medieval swords!

Q: How customized is footwork when it comes to using different swords? For example, if you spent your life training with a rapier then picked up a longsword for the first time, would you really trip yourself up?

Samantha:*For later styles such as rapier or smallsword, footwork is very specialised, because the fencing style is based largely on thrusting and takes advantage of the minute differences in blade angles.

A rapier fighter could employ their footwork to wield a longsword and may still fight well, but there are major differences on how best to use your body to work with either weapon. A longsword requires both sides of the body to move together more wholistically, and to adjust your body structure for the powerful momentum of longsword cuts. The fencer would need to learn to wrestle as well, since the optimal sparring distance for longsword is much closer than rapier—just outside of grappling range—and the martial arts of the longsword largely incorporate switching between the two.

Samantha Swords fencing in Michigan.Q: Can you talk about little details a player or GM might add to their 7th Sea games to make dueling scenes or sword fights feel more realistic? Something that would take the scene from “awesome but impossible” to “awesome and plausible?”

Samantha:*I’ve thrown in some clues in my other answers, which I hope will help players build more realism into their game. The essence of creating believable combat in a role-play story is to understand the purpose of the fight, and the motivations of the people in it. Do they want to get away? Do they want vengeance? Are they impressing their peers, or surviving a brutal confrontation? Are they in or out of their comfort zone? How desperate are they? Are they tired? How far away is their backup?

I think of combat as falling into three different goals: for show (like a duel of honour or test of sportsmanship), for self defence (such as being ambushed and fighting to get away), or for survival (such as enduring a battle or a situation that you can’t just walk away from). Once you understand where a character falls into these important categories, you can then look at other smaller details and build them in.

The essence of creating believable combat in a role-play story is to understand the purpose of the fight, and the motivations of the people in it.

As well as understanding this breakdown of fighting goals, my best advice is to learn as much as you can about historical arms, armour and their limitations and advantages so you can exploit the details in your narrative. This will make it feel real and engaging to the other people involved in your story.

Q: Let’s talk scrappy fighting! In 7th Sea you’ll find trained nobles and naval officers with swords, but you’ll also find pirates. What are some of the notable differences you’d see in a fight between a trained swordswoman and a rough n’ tumble fighter? What bladed weapons might a wealthy person have access to that a pirate wouldn’t?

Samantha:*Did I hear you say, “Let’s talk about pirates”…?! Yarrr…!

‘Hit and run’ was the essential signature of a pirate attack. Historically, pirates worked through intimidation, relying on their reputation and superior strength to demoralise their victims, and the expectation was immediate surrender lest the hapless ship suffer fatal consequences. The majority of ships targeted by pirates were trade vessels that had never seen battle, so in most cases the terrified crew would comply after the pirates made a show of force and demanded a surrender. Many seamen could not swim, so even just the threat of fire and exploding devices such as early grenades thrown onto an oily wooden ship could be enough for a ship’s crew to be conquered without a drop of blood being spilled. On land, pirates would also employ raid techniques, sometimes banding together with other pirate crews so that their numbers overwhelmed the small towns they stormed.

Although pirates were thought of by their contemporaries as wild, cruel individuals that killed without hesitation, a great many were former merchant seamen; young men in their 20s who had willingly—or not—joined a pirate crew. Some would have been thugs and criminals, but the greatest fighting strengths that pirates possessed were their willingness to engage in violence, the firepower of their ship, and the reputation that preceded them.

Individually I can only speculate on how a pirate might fight. Brawling was common amongst both working men and academics in the 17th century, but a pirate’s intimacy with everyday violence would give them more comfort during a fight than a person living within the law might feel.

An experienced swordsman would have certainly studied rapier, military sabre or sidesword as a duelling weapon, as well as other ‘gentlemanly’ weapons such as dagger, cape and open hand/wrestling techniques. They would have been influenced by a calculated and mathematical approach to the defensive arts that grew during the Renaissance and was popularised by the writings of masters such as*Capo Ferro,Thibault*and*Fabris. With a better concept of physics and more conservative motions, the swordsman would have the upper hand in a civilised fight. However pirates worked outside the law, so ‘anything goes’ was probably the best approach to winning a one-on-one fight with such a person.

Reproduced illustration from Academy of the Sword by Girard Thibault (1628)

Public duels amongst 17th century swordsmen were often bloody affairs, though rarely lethal. Thus an experienced fencer could have won many duels, yet might struggle to keep their head during a scrap with a disreputable, ‘rough and tumble’ type. In this case I think having general military experience would serve a person much better in such a fight than having only studied 17th century martial arts.

A wealthy person had a great variety of weapons available to them. As well as pistols, rifles and muskets (which were very much in everyday use during the 17th century) bladed weapons that a person of means might carry include rapiers, broadswords, any type of long knife, basket-hilted swords, sabres, or in some cases pikes, warhammers and short spears.

Fighting seamen such as pirates would have fought with more simple weapons such as pistols, naval axes and hangers—thick, curved, single-edged swords. Essentially the same as messers, hangers were in use for hundreds of years as popular weapons but found special favour during the Age of Sail, where they evolved into the weapons known as cutlasses (derived from an Italian word for a ‘long knife’). The cutlass was the ideal close-combat weapon for ship use, but was not in widespread use until the very end of the naval era, despite being the most well-remembered weapon in our mythology and stories about that time. The earlier hanger and other broad-bladed swords were most often used by the military and were very useful in naval combat due to their short length, sturdy construction and terrific cutting power, which combined to make them excellent weapons within the tight quarters of a densely-rigged ship deck.

A 19th century French naval cutlassQ: Finally, if someone wanted to learn historical sword fighting today, where should they look? What do you recommend for beginners who can’t wait to jump in?

First I recommend watching ‘Back to the Source‘, an excellent documentary that was made recently about the historical European martial arts community. It covers a lot of what we do, is free to watch online and is very encouraging for folks just getting started!

There are many online resources, such as theWiktenauer*(a gigantic online library of historical European martial arts books) and terrific YouTube channels such as*Schola Gladiatoria, which will give you an abundance of historical martial arts knowledge.
You can also check out the*HEMA Alliance Club Finder*to search for local groups practicing near you.

Failing all that, should you wish to do library or internet research yourself, you can look for ‘Western Martial Arts’, ‘Historical European Martial Arts’, ‘Historical Swordsmanship’ or ‘Historical Fencing’.

I’d recommend buying some kind of starter sword (which can be made of wood or synthetic) and practice hitting a target. Don’t buy a steel sword until you know if it will suit regular training. HEMA-oriented websites should help you find*good, trustworthy brands of starter swords.

If you are training with a friend wear sturdy gloves and head protection at the very least! Many people buy fencing masks, which are good if you start sparring. If you do want to spar I’d also recommend wearing a mouthguard, some kind of joint, neck and torso protection, and groin protection for guys. Developing control is more important than having equipment, but safety gear needs to help keep you safe and confident while you learn. Personally, when I pick up a sword for practice I also put on safety glasses, which cost only a few dollars and are very good if your sword breaks or your friend slips and donks you in the eye!

HEMA is a growing movement and with the rich resources of the internet, it’s very possible to*start a club if there are none in your area. There are a great variety other medieval combat groups as well. For people who are less interested in historical martial arts and perhaps want to do armoured combat, there are many sports groups that specialise in this which aren’t associated with HEMA, but are also a lot of fun.

The ACL (Armored Combat League) and HMB (Heavy Medieval Battle) are two similar international organisations who do very competitive, highly-athletic medieval combat.

There’s also the SCA (Society of Creative Anachronism) who also train with medieval armour and host impressive, huge battles, and some SCA groups offer really good rapier training. If you’re not ready to get hit with steel or even wooden swords you might want to get some experience using foam swords with LARPing groups. There are many fighters from the groups above who cross-train in the relaxed, fun environment that LARPing offers, and I know HEMA groups that use foam to build up confidence and awareness with beginners, especially youth. It’s fine to use lots of training tools so long as you remember what they are simulating- a sharp steel sword used in the art of self-defence.

Whatever path you choose, if you get a sword, find someone to teach you, make time to practice, and keep at it, you will be well on the way to becoming a competent swordsperson!

This was fantastic, Samantha! Thank you again for sharing your time and enthusiasm in the name of 7th Sea.

[Galloglaich]

Probably old news to the learned ones who mostly post to this thread, but it was interesting to me:

Spirit of the 7th Sea: Interview with Samantha Swords

I met Samantha 'Swords' before at an event, IGX up near Boston. She was at the beginning of some kind of US HEMA tour. Very nice person, striking, she's very slight, almost elfin. She didn't fight in the event. I think at that time she was just getting into HEMA proper and had been doing some other kinds of (SCA type? but I'm not certain) medieval sword fighting stuff. She was already kind of a mini-celebrity then though and that was like 3 or 4 years ago I think.

She seemed pretty typically NZ (based on my very limited experience) in that she was very open and cheerful. Obviously had some skill too and she was eager to learn more. I think her instant fame on the internet had a lot to do with her role in inspiring female fencers and in spreading the idea that with a sword, size and bulk don't matter so much in a fight. Skill and training can carry the day. We also had other examples of this like Kristine Konsmo defeating a 6' 3" stick fighter in a steel sword and buckler match at Swordfish, I forget what year though the video has ben posted before.

To be honest though in HEMA there are a relatively small number of women who participate in the open longsword tournaments, but there are always some who do and a few who truly excel. Rapier and other lighter weapons are a bit more equal. They also have women's only tournaments as well of course (something which was controversial within the women's Historical fencing association 'Esfinges as some of them were for it and some against. It was a touchy subject for a while!)

The last open tournament I was in (back in May I think) had several competitive female fencers participating.

G

[spineyrequiem]

Has there ever been an even passably successful clockwork firearm? I'm writing something of roughly WW1 technology where I want one of the cultures to have a semi-automatic rifle as standard due to a very assault-oriented mindset and love of night attacks where lots of close-range firepower is seen as necessary. I've also considered something based on automatic revolvers like the Webley-Fosbery, but I'm not sure the action would work with a full-length rifle barrel. Horrible reliability, high weight or anything else that would make the weapon impractical are not a problem as I want it to be a bit rubbish compared to their submachine guns.

[KarlMarx]

Not really that I can think of, no. Delicate clockwork and violent explosions are a bad combo.

The closest thing I can think of is the Austrian windsbusche used during the Napoleonic wars, which was used as a silent, accurate sniper and assault rifle and excelled in this role due to its use of air pressure rather than gunpowder. However, it was terribly delicate and exceedingly hard to re-pressurize, especially during battle, and tended to lose power as shots were fired in a way that was extraordinarily close to compensate for.

[Gnoman]

Has there ever been an even passably successful clockwork firearm? I'm writing something of roughly WW1 technology where I want one of the cultures to have a semi-automatic rifle as standard due to a very assault-oriented mindset and love of night attacks where lots of close-range firepower is seen as necessary. I've also considered something based on automatic revolvers like the Webley-Fosbery, but I'm not sure the action would work with a full-length rifle barrel. Horrible reliability, high weight or anything else that would make the weapon impractical are not a problem as I want it to be a bit rubbish compared to their submachine guns.

There's nothing preventing a semi-auto rifle from being made with WWI tech. There were working German examples in 1885, and there were several Winchester and Remington models sold on the civilian market by 1908 - these were primarily chambered in pistol calibers, although a .300 Savage version of Remington's weapon was available. Mexico used semi-automatic rifles in the Mexican Civil War, chambered for the famous 7x57mm Spanish Mauser that so impressed Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill. France made several attempts to introduce semi-automatic rifles before and during WWI, the RSC M1917 in 8mm Lebel being one of the few to see service.

All of these early rifles had serious issues with reliability and wear when firing full-rifle ammunition, significantly slowing their adoption. Given that you're perfectly happy with such drawbacks, patterning your gun on one of these seems quite appropriate.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's nothing preventing a semi-auto rifle from being made with WWI tech. There were working German examples in 1885, and there were several Winchester and Remington models sold on the civilian market by 1908 - these were primarily chambered in pistol calibers, although a .300 Savage version of Remington's weapon was available. Mexico used semi-automatic rifles in the Mexican Civil War, chambered for the famous 7x57mm Spanish Mauser that so impressed Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill. France made several attempts to introduce semi-automatic rifles before and during WWI, the RSC M1917 in 8mm Lebel being one of the few to see service.

All of these early rifles had serious issues with reliability and wear when firing full-rifle ammunition, significantly slowing their adoption. Given that you're perfectly happy with such drawbacks, patterning your gun on one of these seems quite appropriate.

And I don't think there were any limits that would have stopped someone from inventing an intermediate cartridge in that time period, that an earlier semi-auto could have handled while delivering better performance than pistol ammo.

[Gnoman]

You're quite right - which is why Winchester developed an early example of such in 1907. The .351 Winchester Self-Loading cartridge designed for the Winchester Model 1907 was very close in performance to the modern 7.62x39mm intermediate cartridge. It failed due to an odd case design and the very unusual caliber (both of which made the cartridge relatively expensive due to lack of tooling), but was briefly quite popular among police forces, and the French were fairly happy with the small number of Model 1907 rifles (originally purchased for police forces) they took to the trenches, eventually ordering 2500 in 1917. These were converted in-country to full automatic and to accept larger magazines.