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

[Mr Beer]

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

Seems to me that women would be much closer to equality in a sword fight than in an unarmed combat match, where size and strength confers an almost overwhelming advantage*. You don't need to be particularly strong to deliver a crippling injury with 3 foot of sharp steel and likewise being twice the size of your opponent doesn't help you shrug off a pierced lung.

Put it this way, I think I could win some fights against trained women in a full-on brawl just via brute strength and mass, whereas I'd have roughly zero chance if blades were involved.

* I hear people argue otherwise but there's like 18 weight classes in boxing for a reason.

[rs2excelsior]

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)

Any chance you could elaborate on this a bit more? It sounds like an interesting story, but the wikipedia article you link doesn't mention the theory regarding the different horses or the Spear of Longius. I did find a couple of links that mention the spear and a little more about Bohemond, but still nothing regarding the use of mares vs. stallions.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Sie...ioch-1097-1098

http://deremilitari.org/2013/11/the-...eter-tudebode/

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.

The closest thing I can think of is the Wheellock, although it's clockwork in the sense of using springs and windings in a similar manner to clocks, rather than clockwork in the sense of steampunk-esque fantasy. They were historically used because they were more reliable and weather resistant than matchlocks, but not widely accepted due to vastly increased complexity and cost. They had to be re-wound after shots, which doesn't lend itself well to a semi-automatic weapon, but could possibly be worked around.

A couple of other options to consider as well.

[DerKommissar]

I have a question on ‚shield bashing‘.

It’s a common trope in RPGs (D&D 3.5), Videogames (Diablo) and Television (300, Vikings) and is usually depicted as either punching the opponent with the whole shield, ramming into the enemy, or using it in a kind of ‘flaily’ movement, where you spin the whole body and hit with the rim. The effects in those media are that the opponent is pushed backwards or stunned.

So my question:

Is this really a thing? How would you do it (Ramming? Punching? Swinging?)? What parts of the body would you target? Is it something one can build a tactic on or would it be rather situational?

Please note that I’m not referring to using the shield to parry or hit the weapon, but to use the shield to attack the enemy’s body directly.

Thanks in advance! :)

[Kiero]

Yes it's actually a thing, one of the basic Roman drills is to slam your shield forward to knock your opponent off balance, then follow up with a stab to the groin.

However, "bashing" implies only the face of the shield can be used offensively, in fact the edge/rim is good for breaking jaws (slam it up in a press) or feet (slam down into the instep or onto the toes).

[Vinyadan]

I wonder if the shield slam was done with just the arm, or by putting the shield close to your body and throwing your whole weight forward, like charging to hit with your shoulder, but with added protection.

As for strength and weight categories, it's an interesting question. I think that weight is actually a shorthand for a combination of many things, like range, strength, the weight itself (which is important in sports like freestyle wrestling), and possibly the amount of protection the muscles are capable of giving.
However, skill can make up for a smaller size. But, at the same level of skill, the stronger athlete has the advantage.
I think that boxe actually allows you to fight in weight categories above yours, but not in those beneath. I guess it doesn't happen too often.

[DerKommissar]

I wonder if the shield slam was done with just the arm, or by putting the shield close to your body and throwing your whole weight forward, like charging to hit with your shoulder, but with added protection.

Thanks, thats what i meant by "ramming". Your wording makes it much clearer :)

[Brother Oni]

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.

Alternately, you could take the British route of the period and train your rifle men to shoot really well.

Put it this way, I think I could win some fights against trained women in a full-on brawl just via brute strength and mass, whereas I'd have roughly zero chance if blades were involved.

Very generally in unarmed combat, the more safety rules there are, the more of an advantage brute strength and mass gives. Despite what its enthusiasts say, MMA isn't that close to street level fighting (no eye gouges, fish hooking or small joint manipulation for example).

It doesn't take very much strength to grab hold of someone's little finger and bend it back until it snaps, but that sort of thing is prohibited in competitive fighting, thus all the different weight categories.

Is this really a thing? How would you do it (Ramming? Punching? Swinging?)? What parts of the body would you target? Is it something one can build a tactic on or would it be rather situational?

Depends primarily on how you're holding the shield. If it's strapped to your forearm without a hand grip or only have a sling, you're essentially limited to a shoulder charge and tagging your opponent either with the shield face or the tip of the rim to the face.

Strapped and a hand grip lets you use the edge more and can punch with the edge to a degree or hit them with a backfist style move. You can still charge them, you just have more options.

Just a hand grip gives you the freest range of movement, so you can punch with the boss or shift your grip to strike with the rim, charge them, etc. The issue with this grip is that you can lose the shield, plus fatigue is an issue.

Target areas would be the face or body with the shield face/boss and the face with the edge (toes as well if you have a big/long shield like a kite).

Aggressive shield use is most certainly part of a fighting style - against an unshielded opponent, you can effectively push them around, since you're more protected.

[gkathellar]

Even (hell, especially) with a buckler, shield bashing is quite practical - it is, after all, a variation of the oldest and most practical maneuver in armed combat: Hittin' 'em With A Thingy. That said, it's going to vary quite a bit in execution depending on the type of shield. With a buckler, for instance, it'll more closely resemble an unarmed strike.

Seems to me that women would be much closer to equality in a sword fight than in an unarmed combat match, where size and strength confers an almost overwhelming advantage*. You don't need to be particularly strong to deliver a crippling injury with 3 foot of sharp steel and likewise being twice the size of your opponent doesn't help you shrug off a pierced lung.

Probably depends somewhat on the specific weapons involved, and on the use of armor - but in general, this mirrors what I've heard and seen.

[fusilier]

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.

France had actually adopted a semi-automatic rifle before the outbreak of WW1 (the Meunier rifle). But the design was only just going into production, and they weren't tooled up to make the new ammo. So rather than introduce a new primary weapon on the eve of war they shelved the plans. Eventually they did introduce the RSC during the war -- although it was issued like a light machine gun or squad automatic weapon, and not to entire units.

Revolver rifles are a thing, they often weren't liked because of the danger of a chain fire -- but that danger would have been greatly reduced with the introduction of metallic cartridges. However, by that time other magazine rifle designs had been developed and were generally considered better.

[Incanur]

Seems to me that women would be much closer to equality in a sword fight than in an unarmed combat match, where size and strength confers an almost overwhelming advantage*. You don't need to be particularly strong to deliver a crippling injury with 3 foot of sharp steel and likewise being twice the size of your opponent doesn't help you shrug off a pierced lung.

This was basically Joseph Swetnam's position on height & strength differences: "a strong man hath greate oddes at the gripe, or in a close at any blunt weapon, but upon the point of a sharpe weapon, in a fight a strong man hath small or no oddes at all of the little or weake man." He was a famous misogynist, so he might not have applied this to women, but that's where the logic goes.

George Silver didn't address strength differences but did claim height & reach grants considerable odds. I consider Silver's commentary in this regard more sober. Swetnam seems to have been intensely interested in cheering up small/weak men and telling them they could do fine against tall/strong men. Silver was like, "Yeah, being tall is a big advantage, sorry."

I suspect Swetnam downplayed the advantage height provides but his point that strength matters more for grappling and with blunt weapons makes sense.

Put it this way, I think I could win some fights against trained women in a full-on brawl just via brute strength and mass, whereas I'd have roughly zero chance if blades were involved.

Note that some females are way stronger than some males. I'm biologically male by the common definition. Natalia Zabolotnaya is probably about four times as strong as I am.

The same goes for your average untrained male of Zabolotnaya's weight, according to this. (Power snatch = 80% of full snatch by the standard account.) Even a male in elite class can't quite match Zabolotnaya's world record 135kg (297lb) snatch. (I assume that's the bottom of elite class, and of course Zabolotnaya is much stronger than most female lifters.) I'm sure part of that is Zabolotnaya's specific genes (and maybe drugs), but it still indicates that it's not at all easy for males to match the strength of the strongest females.

TL;DR: I recommend not stepping into the ring with Gabi Garcia unless you're really big/strong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note that some females are way stronger than some males. I'm biologically male by the common definition. Natalia Zabolotnaya is probably about four times as strong as I am.

The same goes for your average untrained male of Zabolotnaya's weight, according to this. (Power snatch = 80% of full snatch by the standard account.) Even a male in elite class can't quite match Zabolotnaya's world record 135kg (297lb) snatch. (I assume that's the bottom of elite class, and of course Zabolotnaya is much stronger than most female lifters.) I'm sure part of that is Zabolotnaya's specific genes (and maybe drugs), but it still indicates that it's not at all easy for males to match the strength of the strongest females.

TL;DR: I recommend not stepping into the ring with Gabi Garcia unless you're really big/strong.

You're not comparing comparables with that first point. You'd need to compare to other olympic caliber powerlifters.

I once calculated the lift/weight ratios for world-class powerlifters (male and female). As it turns out, the weight classes for women end about half-way up on the weight classes for men, and the %-of-body-weight numbers were sharply lower for women than for men. In fact, the women at any given weight class were on-par or lower than the record-holders among high-school males. The gap was pretty big. When I'm at home I'll look and see if I still have that spreadsheet. The strongest men (as a % of weight) are vastly (40+%) stronger than the strongest women.

Of course, those are the ones at the very edge of the distribution. Down toward the middle (where I'm guessing most of us are), the curves overlap heavily so a stronger-than-average woman will beat an average man and there won't be tons of difference between average men and women. There is a big difference in height--several inches for the US: one source had it at 5'9" for men and 5'4" for women. That's a lot of reach in a boxing match (for example).

Another interesting fact--for both men and women the %-of-body-weight lifted was quite uneven as weight increased. Even discounting the super-heavyweight class (who start at about 310 lbs for men and about 185 for women), there were peaks and valleys within each individual type of lift.

[Knaight]

You're not comparing comparables with that first point. You'd need to compare to other olympic caliber powerlifters.

I once calculated the lift/weight ratios for world-class powerlifters (male and female). As it turns out, the weight classes for women end about half-way up on the weight classes for men, and the %-of-body-weight numbers were sharply lower for women than for men. In fact, the women at any given weight class were on-par or lower than the record-holders among high-school males. The gap was pretty big. When I'm at home I'll look and see if I still have that spreadsheet. The strongest men (as a % of weight) are vastly (40+%) stronger than the strongest women.

Not comparing comparables is the point. It's worth noting with just about any physical activity where there's a sex disparity that it almost always manifests in such a way that the gap between high level competitors is significantly smaller than the gap between any of those high level competitors and an average person. Power lifting is one example, as is extreme endurance running (where women generally start doing better once you hit 100+ miles, and the average person doesn't so much have a time it takes them to run 100+ miles so much as a measurement of what small fraction of that distance they made it at all). Fighting is just one more category where this holds, where an average fighter of some sort (including combat sports) has a very big edge over the average person with no training/experience.

[Incanur]

The strongest men (as a % of weight) are vastly (40+%) stronger than the strongest women.

I wouldn't call that "vastly," more like "significantly," but yeah, male records are about 135% of female records in Olympic weightlifting in any given weight category. Conversely, female records are about 74% of male records. I assume part of that is because male athletes tend to have a lower fat % and thus more lean tissue.

The point is that size and strength vary dramatically among individual males and individual females. The aforementioned Gabi Garcia could probably do pretty well in HEMA if she wanted to, but folks in genetic elite tend to have better thing to do with their time.

Skill/experience does make a big difference and can compensate for some differences in strength or reach. Back when I was sparring regularly with Lancelot's RSW in George Silver's style, I once sparred a person I knew to be stronger. They had no experience with single-handed sword sparring specifically but some with messing around with staves and whatever. Curiously, I didn't notice the strength difference while sparring, and did rather well against this person. Now, I think it would have been different in an earnest fight, as part of the issue was that they fought too timidly, but I was still impressed with how useful a little skill/experience can be. I was never remotely strong and never got that good, but I did it enough to have an edge against folks unfamiliar with such sparring.

[Mr Beer]

Note that some females are way stronger than some males. I'm biologically male by the common definition. Natalia Zabolotnaya is probably about four times as strong as I am.

The same goes for your average untrained male of Zabolotnaya's weight, according to this. (Power snatch = 80% of full snatch by the standard account.) Even a male in elite class can't quite match Zabolotnaya's world record 135kg (297lb) snatch. (I assume that's the bottom of elite class, and of course Zabolotnaya is much stronger than most female lifters.) I'm sure part of that is Zabolotnaya's specific genes (and maybe drugs), but it still indicates that it's not at all easy for males to match the strength of the strongest females.

TL;DR: I recommend not stepping into the ring with Gabi Garcia unless you're really big/strong.

Of course, there are lots of women in absolute terms who are stronger than me, just not many as a percentage of the general population. And there are plenty of women who could absolutely maim me in a fight, I don't imagine I'd beat any professional female fighter, ever. I'm just saying that a women could be a decent hobbyist fighter but still have half my upper body strength, so, you know, it could reasonably go either way in a brawl. In the same way that a 60kg guy who has done a lot of boxing could lose to a strong, aggressive 90kg man if they get into it outside a bar.

Then if you take a 60kg guy who has spent 2 years learning how to use a longsword and the 90kg guy has seen swords in movies, and they have a duel, the big guy is going to be 90kg of chopped meat.

EDIT

As far as trained weightlifters go, men are still greatly stronger than women. It's just that if you take the most genetically gifted women and train them to be as strong as possibly (and maybe chemically assist the process), then yeah those women will end up a lot stronger than the average man. But they'll still be a lot weaker than men who are as genetically gifted and go through the same process.

Likewise, you take an average woman and she trains fairly hard by normal standards, not like a professional athlete, chances are she'll end up about as strong or a bit stronger than the average untrained man. Probably have better lower body strength and she'll be fitter, her upper body strength will be about the same or even less.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not comparing comparables is the point. It's worth noting with just about any physical activity where there's a sex disparity that it almost always manifests in such a way that the gap between high level competitors is significantly smaller than the gap between any of those high level competitors and an average person. Power lifting is one example, as is extreme endurance running (where women generally start doing better once you hit 100+ miles, and the average person doesn't so much have a time it takes them to run 100+ miles so much as a measurement of what small fraction of that distance they made it at all). Fighting is just one more category where this holds, where an average fighter of some sort (including combat sports) has a very big edge over the average person with no training/experience.

I wouldn't call that "vastly," more like "significantly," but yeah, male records are about 135% of female records in Olympic weightlifting in any given weight category. Conversely, female records are about 74% of male records. I assume part of that is because male athletes tend to have a lower fat % and thus more lean tissue.

The point is that size and strength vary dramatically among individual males and individual females. The aforementioned Gabi Garcia could probably do pretty well in HEMA if she wanted to, but folks in genetic elite tend to have better thing to do with their time.

Skill/experience does make a big difference and can compensate for some differences in strength or reach. Back when I was sparring regularly with Lancelot's RSW in George Silver's style, I once sparred a person I knew to be stronger. They had no experience with single-handed sword sparring specifically but some with messing around with staves and whatever. Curiously, I didn't notice the strength difference while sparring, and did rather well against this person. Now, I think it would have been different in an earnest fight, as part of the issue was that they fought too timidly, but I was still impressed with how useful a little skill/experience can be. I was never remotely strong and never got that good, but I did it enough to have an edge against folks unfamiliar with such sparring.

Absolutely to both. Being at least moderately trained makes a big difference in combat. I (although I'm larger than average) would not be too good because I'm completely uncoordinated physically. My only point was that comparing the top of the top women to the average man is kinda useless--the vast majority of even elite women are on par (physically) with the above-average (but not elite) men. And there are very few women at those levels, much fewer than there are men. At equal levels of training, mass, height, and testosterone receptors make a large difference. Much more so in things like wrestling or sport fighting than in combat with bladed weapons or street fighting since some of the more effective, but "dirty, techniques are forbidden.

[DerKommissar]

Depends primarily on how you're holding the shield. If it's strapped to your forearm without a hand grip or only have a sling, you're essentially limited to a shoulder charge and tagging your opponent either with the shield face or the tip of the rim to the face.

Strapped and a hand grip lets you use the edge more and can punch with the edge to a degree or hit them with a backfist style move. You can still charge them, you just have more options.

Just a hand grip gives you the freest range of movement, so you can punch with the boss or shift your grip to strike with the rim, charge them, etc. The issue with this grip is that you can lose the shield, plus fatigue is an issue.

Target areas would be the face or body with the shield face/boss and the face with the edge (toes as well if you have a big/long shield like a kite).

Aggressive shield use is most certainly part of a fighting style - against an unshielded opponent, you can effectively push them around, since you're more protected.

But why was it not standard to add a spike to the boss? Would seem to make it more dangerous at little cost...

[Kiero]

But why was it not standard to add a spike to the boss? Would seem to make it more dangerous at little cost...

How are you going to get a cover on your shield if it has a spike on it? What impact is having that attached to the boss going to have on the overall structural integrity of the shield?

Doesn't seem greatly advantageous to me, it also increases the chances of your shield getting stuck in your opponent, which is the last thing you need.

[snowblizz]

Also, you've got friends behind you. Do you really want to risk them having a spike poking you in the back? Or sticking out to the side into your sword arm from your pal on the right.

Keep in mind the shield has to be carried around in other circumstances than the front line of a shieldwall. A spike would interfere with several of those, for not too much tangiable benefit. While you could do more of a bodypush with it the guy on the other side will take it on his shield and stab you as you mash yourself into your own shield restricting your movements.

Most aggressive use of the shield comes form using the edges, not the boss, which is going to be a bit more ofa committed move in a fight.

I think I've seen bucklers with more of a spike like boss (I know fantasy versions of it tend to)? Would make a bit more sense there.

[Vinyadan]

I think the big rectangular Roman shield from Dura Europos had a single horizontal handle in the middle, behind the boss. I wonder if they carried it in battle with the palm upwards or downwards. Upwards looks more natural, but also very tiresome.

[gkathellar]

I think the big rectangular Roman shield from Dura Europos had a single horizontal handle in the middle, behind the boss. I wonder if they carried it in battle with the palm upwards or downwards. Upwards looks more natural, but also very tiresome.

It might be easier, depending on how close to the shoulder they held it. The more you let a carried object's weight "hang" from your body, in my experience, the more it messes up your gait and stresses your legs. In the short-term, it's easier on your arms, but over a length of time, it's murder on your whole body. Palm upward might also let you shift the shield around to more easily, so you could periodically shoulder some of the weight.

That aside, Legionnaires in general were renowned for their ability to march and fight with a heavy load, though, weren't they? Seems like it'd be in keeping with their reputation for them to have painful-to-carry shields.

[KarlMarx]

I think the big rectangular Roman shield from Dura Europos had a single horizontal handle in the middle, behind the boss. I wonder if they carried it in battle with the palm upwards or downwards. Upwards looks more natural, but also very tiresome.

I believe that Vegetius answered that question somewhere, though I'm not familiar with what that answer was. If anyone is more familiar with him than I and can answer that definitively, great, but I'm not sure when I'd have time to dig through and find the relevant passage(s).

However, I would guess that they held the shield palm-down on marches at least, because that seems like the optimal way to rest its weight on the thigh as the legionaries were supposed to do without straining the arm or shoulder during long marches.

[Haighus]

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.

Nice interview, and counters many of the general myths about swords, twin-edged swords in particular. Unfortunately she then goes on to repeat some myths about single-edged medieval swords, such as messers becoming popular due to town laws restricting sword use (she also mixes up falchions and messers in the interview- falchions have sword hilts, messers knife hilts). If there is anything I've learnt from reading through 6 years of this thread (from the VII incarnation I think, missing a few of the more recent ones), it is that german towns where the messer was most popular generally mandated that people carried and owned swords. Thanks to Galloglaich and Spiryt in particular for improving my knowledge on this region.

On the plus side, she correctly points out that cutlasses were very late weapons, and not used during the golden age of pirates. I am still unsure personally as to what a hanger is though- it seems to originally just be a regional (English) term for a falchion in the 16th century, that remained in use as a term for similar weapons onboard ships until such weapons evolved into cutlasses.

I think a lot of research is lagging for single-edged swords. I myself have recently learned much more about them through finding out about the work of James Elmslie (through Shadiversity).

[Kiero]

A hangar is essentially a short sabre. Matt Easton shows many of them in his videos; in fact he's done one on pirate weapons where he shows a cutlass and hangar together.

[Haighus]

A hangar is essentially a short sabre. Matt Easton shows many of them in his videos; in fact he's done one on pirate weapons where he shows a cutlass and hangar together.

Yeah, I've watched a lot of those videos. It seems to descend from falchions, not sabers though, although there isn't a lot of difference between many later falchion blades and sabers (obviously not the earlier ones like the conyers falchion).

Edit: Does anyone know when hanger as a term first appeared? I have a vague feeling it was sometime around the 16th century, but if anyone has any sources, that would be great.

[wolflance]

Also, you've got friends behind you. Do you really want to risk them having a spike poking you in the back? Or sticking out to the side into your sword arm from your pal on the right.

Keep in mind the shield has to be carried around in other circumstances than the front line of a shieldwall. A spike would interfere with several of those, for not too much tangiable benefit. While you could do more of a bodypush with it the guy on the other side will take it on his shield and stab you as you mash yourself into your own shield restricting your movements.

Most aggressive use of the shield comes form using the edges, not the boss, which is going to be a bit more ofa committed move in a fight.

I think I've seen bucklers with more of a spike like boss (I know fantasy versions of it tend to)? Would make a bit more sense there.

I recall Scottish targe sometimes has a spike on the shield boss. Not all shield user fought in packed, shield locked formation, and even in tight formation, having only the front rank use shield is still viable.

[Kiero]

I recall Scottish targe sometimes has a spike on the shield boss. Not all shield user fought in packed, shield locked formation, and even in tight formation, having only the front rank use shield is still viable.

Having only the front rank with (body) shields isn't viable at all. There's no replacement for lost men if all those in the second and subsequent ranks are unshielded. You've got a temporary shield wall that shrinks with casualties.

[wolflance]

Having only the front rank with (body) shields isn't viable at all. There's no replacement for lost men if all those in the second and subsequent ranks are unshielded. You've got a temporary shield wall that shrinks with casualties.

It is, and it was used. The shieldmen's role is to deliver other troops into close combat in (relatively) one piece, keeping casualties from ranged weapon to a minimum, while at the same time still retain the deadliness of two-handed polearms (of the rest of the shieldless troops).

[Vitruviansquid]

Okay, question that probably straddles the border for this thread, but I figure let's throw it out there and see if anyone wants to contribute something:

In this RPG I am writing that is about 90% ready for "beta," I have a kingdom that recently experienced gross misrule and a revolution, leaving it carved up in the hands of multiple warlords, fragmenting its society along the lines of its four former provinces. The game's setting is themed around the post-revolution situation, the way that these societies controlled by warlords will go into the future, and the way they'll look at each other now that a kingdom with a few thousand years' history has fragmented.

One of these former provinces is called Urgens, and it was always something of a red-headed stepchild. Urgensians were an ethnic and cultural minority organized along tribal lines that had been subjugated in a past age. It had been technically under the suzerainty of the kingdom for an extremely long time. Centuries before the revolution that kicks off the setting when it ends, the Urgensians attempted to stage a separation rebellion that was ultimately crushed, and were punished with universal slavery that saw their tribal warrior society converted into a slave society in which individuals were treated like cogs in a machine. With the revolution, there has been an Urgensian movement to rediscover their cultural roots, resulting in a culture that is one third based on subsuming individuality for the greater good, one third based on notions of ancient warrior honor and religious mysticism, one third based on made up mumbo jumbo and misunderstandings/misinterpretations about a centuries-old culture.

The Urgensian way of war is this: When a threat appears, a chieftain (who was elected) can call upon his peers in the confederacy to form a council, which determines the scale of the threat and determines if a warband should be raised to deal with the threat. If yes, all chieftains are bound by law to make an equal contribution to this warband, though this contribution may take the form of warriors, equipment and supplies, or anything else deemed appropriate in the council. Once everybody's obligations are settled, the chieftains send messengers to inform his subchiefs at the local level of villages, towns, and cities, about the quota they have to meet. The subchiefs are responsible for summoning every able bodied man and a number of druids (the legal and religious leaders of Urgensian society) to a Mustering.

Participation in a Mustering is technically completely voluntary, but an able-bodied man of fighting age faces social censure for failing to show up. At the Mustering, the subchieftains handpick the men who will be allowed to join the warband, which is an honor. Subchieftains are responsible for the economic well-being of the settlement and choose based on ability as well as expendability - for example, a subchieftain is unlikely to allow all the men in charge of farming to go off to war, in case they don't come back and the village is out of experts to train more farmers. During this process, the druid(s) present may veto the subchieftain's picks and deny anyone permission to join the army if they are deemed inauspicious, or for any other reason the druid(s) see fit. To be thus vetoed is considered dishonorable.

Finally, all the picked men who were not vetoed are equipped from the village's/town's/city's armory, which is stocked with weapons and armor made by local manufacturing or procured by trade. This equipment is considered to be holy and imbued with local spirits. While it is considered honorable to die with them, it is considered extremely dishonorable to discard them, such as during a rout. All Urgensian men have some experience handling their holy weapons (which includes primitive firearms, bombs, and cannon in a setting where their rivals are mainly using swords and bows) due to drill and sparring being part of normal scheduled recreation.

The question is: Is this a realistic portrayal of a society and military, as far as you can understand? If not, what modifications would you think is necessary to make? Is there additional information that would be necessary or neat to include in this description?

[rs2excelsior]

The question is: Is this a realistic portrayal of a society and military, as far as you can understand? If not, what modifications would you think is necessary to make? Is there additional information that would be necessary or neat to include in this description?

Looks pretty interesting to me. A couple of points do jump out at me:

The Urgensian way of war is this: When a threat appears, a chieftain (who was elected) can call upon his peers in the confederacy to form a council, which determines the scale of the threat and determines if a warband should be raised to deal with the threat. If yes, all chieftains are bound by law to make an equal contribution to this warband, though this contribution may take the form of warriors, equipment and supplies, or anything else deemed appropriate in the council. Once everybody's obligations are settled, the chieftains send messengers to inform his subchiefs at the local level of villages, towns, and cities, about the quota they have to meet. The subchiefs are responsible for summoning every able bodied man and a number of druids (the legal and religious leaders of Urgensian society) to a Mustering.

It seems the calling of the council happens out of order. If a loose confederation of tribes exists, I'd think the council would de facto exist as well, especially if the council just consists of the chieftain of each tribe. I would think the council would be called, then upon determining that a warband was needed a head chief would be elected. Perhaps any chieftain has the authority to summon the others when faced with a military threat?

Also, if there is a major differentiation in power between the tribes, it doesn't make sense for each one to make an equal contribution (in absolute terms, which is how I was interpreting your statement--correct me if I'm misinterpreting). Either the smaller tribes are heavily overtaxed, or the stronger ones do not make full use of their strength. Perhaps a certain percentage of the tribe's population with a commensurate amount of supply and money, which could be rebalanced if needed (i.e. providing more warriors than required to make up for providing less supply, while a more agricultural tribe does the opposite).

Finally, all the picked men who were not vetoed are equipped from the village's/town's/city's armory, which is stocked with weapons and armor made by local manufacturing or procured by trade. This equipment is considered to be holy and imbued with local spirits. While it is considered honorable to die with them, it is considered extremely dishonorable to discard them, such as during a rout. All Urgensian men have some experience handling their holy weapons (which includes primitive firearms, bombs, and cannon in a setting where their rivals are mainly using swords and bows) due to drill and sparring being part of normal scheduled recreation.

Giving weapons/battle standards/etc. religious significance can definitely work, and has a historical precedent. The Eagle of a Roman legion had religious significance, and the legion was expected to die to the last man to prevent its capture. The Eagle being in danger prompted legions to acts of bravery (Julius Caesar's landing in Britain), and the three legions who lost their eagles in the Teutoberg forest were so dishonored as to be expunged from the records so thoroughly that we know almost nothing but their numbers today. So that's definitely plausible, though expect at times the warrior culture and religious significance and fear of dishonor won't be enough--they are human, after all.

The other thing is firearms. As a tribal society, I don't think they'd have as favorable a condition for coming up with the advanced metalworking and chemistry required for making firearms--it's probably possible (and maybe a lot more possible than I think it is) but it'd strike me as a little odd for firearm technology to begin here barring other circumstances.

Also, I assume these are weapons that are fairly new to all four areas? Historically when firearms arrived in Europe it took much less than on the order of a thousand years for them to become commonly accepted. Which means they wouldn't be a "traditional" weapon from when the area was previously independent. Would that have an effect on how these weapons would gain acceptance? Are they less "holy" because they aren't the weapons the tribe's ancestors fought with?

Just a couple of things that jumped out at me from the brief summary you gave.

[Vitruviansquid]

Wow, reply much sooner than I expected. Thanks!

About the council: I envisaged that the chieftains all have a spot on the council, and it is regularly convened to make non-emergency decisions. Perhaps rather than saying a council will be called, what I mean is the pre-existing council will have an emergency meeting. I forget to mention, during this meeting, a war chief is chosen to lead the war band. However, leaders under the war chief are elected by the men in a decimal scheme. Ten men have a headman, ten headmen have an overseer, ten overseers have a commander, and then every commander obeys the war chief (I am still re-considering the names of the Urgensian leaders, which should sound sort of industrial). In cases where military forces are needed but not on a scale that would require involving the entire confederacy, the sub-chiefs might convene a council with their chieftain, and basically do the entire process on a smaller scale.

About the tribes: I imagine there to be a bit of politicking and jockeying for power due to the law that each tribe contribute equal effort to a joint warband. Chieftains might attempt to argue that his tribe's providing some amount of food supplies is equivalent to another tribe's providing some amount of manpower, some tribe might attempt to claim they are having an emergency (drought ruined our crops, mine collapse reduced our industry, plague killed our people) that impedes their ability to contribute to the war effort and ask the confederation to waive their contribution or allow them to take a debt. Or maybe some tribes argue that contribution should be based on equal percentage of their total wealth and power while other tribes argue it should not. Which would be more compelling as a part of an RPG setting? It is, however, intended for this law to be awkward as a manifestation of the weirdness of this experimental society that is partially based on fragments of old legends.

About the sacredness of weaponry: I think pretty much any society that does war, which is pretty much any society, will have some rules of honor to prevent men from running from battle. This doesn't mean these rules always worked, and in fact, it would probably fail most of the time during military defeat, when people realize life is preferable to honor. Firearms are holy because they are imbued by local spirits, so in effect, because they were placed in the armory, which is itself holy ground.

About the production of weaponry: The ancient Urgensian tribes lived in a bountiful land of dense forests, lush fields and tall mountains. When they were enslaved, they were turned into an industrial society that had the ultimate goal of producing weapons and armor for the tyrant's limitless legions (which were literally grown in vast quantities from the blood of firstborn babies). Their advanced metalworking and chemistry knowledge comes from working in large-scale workshops and mines. After the revolution, the tribes that Urgensians attempted to reform mostly ended up based around major industrial bases, and so retain the facilities and expertise to produce things like gunpowder weapons. The civilian community structure of the Urgensians is somewhat of a hybrid between a Celtic tribe and a Communist... uhh... commune. Let's say there is an Urgensian community that is based on an old workshop that has been retrofitted during the revolution to provide the rebels with arquebus. You might have three extended families that specialize in work related to the foundry, and are responsible for running the foundry that makes the metal. An extended family in the community is responsible for the transport of metal ores from a separate mining community and sundries needed by the community from elsewhere and might be considered the equivalent of traders. Another extended family is responsible for the crafting of the founded metals into gun barrels. Another extended family might make some other part of the gun. There might be three extended families who farm or fish to sustain the community with food and plant/animal products. And so on and so forth. This is a tribe in the sense that an elected headman (I referred to them as subchieftains earlier on) can direct the families' efforts and do things like request the formation of a family to do a new kind of work (the headman cannot make force a job on people, though... yes, it is a paradoxical mix of freedom and slavery), or request that a family or set of families produce more or less of something or produce in a different way. Every village/town/city is also paired with a druid whose job it is to make sure the village's actions are in accordance with ancient law. Sometimes the druid's actions will be rooted in ancient ritual, like saying the village must cut open a goat and look at its liver before it can build a new watermill, but druids also do things like adjudicate in disputes.

On the spread of firearms (would be really good to get some reality-checking on this):Firearms are new to everybody. The Urgensian rebels' firearms were descended from explosives they used as slave miners, and while they were slave miners, they were not of course allowed to have any weapons. So they have not really existed at all until the last 100 years. Non-Urgensians really like to buy Urgensian cannon because of their utility against the dead tyrant's giant monsters, who are now loose and feral with their master dead. For the reason why nobody else extensively uses firearms besides cannons, Urgens is simply the only place equipped with the necessary facilities to produce gunpowder weapons and ammunition in a meaningful quantity, especially with cannon. Of the other major provinces...

...Lygistra in the west is far too politically divided and unstable for it to make sense for a warlord to build the necessary facilities. It is also rather agrarian and its population is sort of de-centralized.
... Plenoe in the north is dominated by three cities that have fairly extreme socio-economic disparity. They entered the revolution in its last days and so did not have the reason to produce firearms until way too recently to have a good home industry. Their potential for developing their own firearms is further spoiled by their strategy of offering amnesty for Witches (magic-wielding elites of the tyrant's former army) and hiring them on for military service.
... Thiber in the south I have simply not thought that deeply about yet. Thiber was the center of religion in the kingdom before the tyrant came into power, and is currently plagued by a large number of religious cults and movements that all have their own mystical philosophies that disagree with each other. Imagine if, out of every three towns, you had a Sodom, a Jonestown, and an Amish community.

But it would help to know - is it difficult for people using early firearms to produce gunpowder in sufficient quantities?
What is a good tech level for a firearm that did not do much to overshadow relatively low-tech armors and weapons? Some kind of firearm you might see alongside knights in mail wielding spears and shields?