Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Azreal]

I'm just wondering if there's a realistic weapon that also acts as an instrument (barring a mace as drumsticks) like when used as a weapon also makes at least what could be considered music anyway

[warty goblin]

Wow that's really neat! Got any photo's?

G

Not of that one unfortunately. I meant to, but ended up getting side-tracked by a couple other woodworking projects - so many tools, so little time. Also it wasn't much to look at, since it didn't have the guard even cut yet, the pommel wasn't attached properly, and only the rough sanding was done on the blade.

Here's some photos of my older, less rigorously laid out blades. The greatsword is about 54 inches total length and by far the best of those three in terms of handling, the slender blade with the long grip is just over 41, and the short fat one is 35. I expect the new blade to be a significant improvement in aesthetics and handling.

[Brother Oni]

I get the impression that politeness in general and complex etiquette in particular go hand-in-hand with dangerous societies.

It also goes hand in hand with high population density. In places where there's very little personal space, etiquette developed to stop people stabbing each over over petty disputes that got blown up out of all proportion.

This is quite visible in Japan, where the population is mostly clustered on the few plains. Medieval Japan is renown for elaborate screens which work as room dividers and this is not to mention the shoji doors made out of paper and bamboo/wood (how much noise reduction do you think a wall of paper gives you?).
Your point of dangerous societies also is relevant due to the samurai right of being able to kill people of lower social status freely (when they could get away with it anyway - peasant lynch mobs were feared particularly when they could develop into full rebellions).

I'm just wondering if there's a realistic weapon that also acts as an instrument (barring a mace as drumsticks) like when used as a weapon also makes at least what could be considered music anyway

You mean aside from bagpipes?

On a more serious note, I've heard of shakuhachi (Japanese flute) being armoured with metal strips down the side as a hidden/emergency weapon, but nothing that actually functions as a weapon when used as an instrument.

There's also the famous battle bard picture that frequently pops up on RPG forums.

[Arkhosia]

Would ebony be a reasonable substance for making armor?

@Azreal: scourge with spiked bells at the ends of it's whips

[Brother Oni]

Would ebony be a reasonable substance for making armor?

Wood is used for shields, although ebony is a bit heavy compared to the pine/ash usually used.

There's some records of Native American cultures using wood for armour, but the hardwood species common to North America are all less dense than ebony.

Generally wood is a poor material for armour though as you need too much of it to provide similar protective qualities as metal, making it bulky and heavy.

[Arkhosia]

Wood is used for shields, although ebony is a bit heavy compared to the pine/ash usually used.

There's some records of Native American cultures using wood for armour, but the hardwood species common to North America are all less dense than ebony.

Generally wood is a poor material for armour though as you need too much of it to provide similar protective qualities as metal, making it bulky and heavy.

Thanks!
Also, what would be the merits of obsidian weapons?

[Brother Oni]

Thanks!
Also, what would be the merits of obsidian weapons?

Obsidian makes a very sharp edge, but it's also very fragile. This can be good (obsidian arrowheads shattering on impact, having the same effect as fletchette ammunition) or bad (melee weapons).

This makes it very good against unarmoured opponents but weak against armoured. The best example of this would be the various Spanish expeditions into South America, where the conquistadors with metal armour and swords (among other things) went up against unarmoured Aztecs with obsidian weapons.

[Avilan the Grey]

An experienced street fighter will more often have the basics -

Courage
In real life there is something like a 'morale check' experience whenever any kind of fight starts, (when the adrenaline hits). Not everybody can get through this at all, most people take some time to go through it and decide to commit to a fight. An experienced street fighter knows the drill so to speak and will adjust to this (accept the reality of the situation) much quicker.
G

Reminds me of the old ballad of the "Great streetfight in Stockholm 1912" where it turns out that all five street gangs just stood in an alleyway each yelling at each other across the square, and then going back home in the morning, nobody daring to start the fight...

[Galloglaich]

I think a lot of medieval confrontations were very much like that- you read about a lot of 'epic battles' in which only a handful of people were killed. Having the armor on meant that men could sometimes engage for substantial periods of time, striking each other, shooting and so on, without major casualties.

The big massacres happened when one side became physically exhausted, usually combined with overheating and dehydration (as at Hattin and apparently Towton, and probably Agincourt and Nikopolis too); when one side was vastly outnumbered or makes a big mistake (falls for a major trick, like a feigned retreat, or gets attacked by surprise in the flank for example); or when one side has a morale collapse, which could be caused by a misunderstanding, sometimes by the continued pressure and sinister plans of their enemy (such as at Sajo river). A trickle of people moving in the wrong direction can lead to a total rout in almost no time (like at the battle of Grandson).

The fact that these somewhat random factors could lead to utter catastrophe is what used to give medieval commanders, and the armies themselves, pause, and is why they often tended to avoid pitched field battles, preferring siege warfare and raids.

G

[Spiryt]

Also, what would be the merits of obsidian weapons?

Sharp as hell edge. Sharp as hell edges are brittle though, and since they basically glass, they're very brittle.

Size of obsidian "blade will be obviously" usually limited. Spear points at most.

Obsidian's also only 2.4 g/cm3, so with limited size of 'blade' obsidian weapons will be rather light.

Such low density's obviously not preferred as far striking/penetrating stuff goes, but against bare flesh/light clothes in doesn't matter that much anyway.

[warty goblin]

Wood is used for shields, although ebony is a bit heavy compared to the pine/ash usually used.

There's some records of Native American cultures using wood for armour, but the hardwood species common to North America are all less dense than ebony.

Generally wood is a poor material for armour though as you need too much of it to provide similar protective qualities as metal, making it bulky and heavy.

It's not just a question of density. Any time you work with wood that could be subjected to sharp forces, you need to make very sure the impacts won't be able to separate or split apart the fibers. A good quality hardwood that's been dried and oiled properly is very strong against blunt force, but if you can either cut the fibers apart, or else split them apart wood is much less durable.

Exactly how resistant to cutting and splitting has very little to do with its density, and far more to do with the arrangement of the long fibers of the grain. Cottonwood is a fairly light wood that cuts easily, but can be pretty hard to split. Elm has about the same density, is maybe a little harder, but can be the next best thing to impossible to split apart - I've hit elm crotches with a nine pound splitting maul, and had it literally bounce off. On the odd occasion where an elm log does fall prey to a few minutes pounding, the reason for this becomes abundantly clear: the wood fibers don't run nicely in parallel with each other, but tend to twist up around each other. Walnut is both denser and harder than both cottonwood or elm, but will fall apart under a comparative lovetap. Oak is hard enough it can be quite challenging to work when its well dried, and can be polished to an edge that's nearly sharp enough to cut things with, but tends to split fairly easily.


Personally if I were to use wood for armor, I'd use wicker. Quarter inch thick red oak is both hard and flexible enough it can be woven into a loose lattice with the careful application of steam and heat. Willow is flexible enough to be woven into the gaps to provide filler, though willow on its own is nowhere near hard or rigid enough to make effective protection. Though I've not done this, I suspect the result would be fairly heavy, reasonably uncomfortable, but would work well against most lighter weapons. A large war axe or similar isn't going to really notice it all that much, but it might turn an arrow from a hunting bow or a light javelin. Against draw cuts it would provide very good protection.

But really, I'd rather have a shield made out of the same stuff.

[Yora]

I am interested in seeing how fast people can reload revolvers without using speedloaders. Is there a special term for that, that would making an internet search a lot easier?

[Galloglaich]

I believe wicker has been used as armor, shields definitely have been made of wicker (perhaps most famously, the Pelta).

Bamboo fiber has also been used as armor historically, though apparently not as lamellar as people sometimes suggest, as has paper (in China) and rataan.

The main problem with solid wood armor is that in thicknesses and densities enough to provide protection is it's too heavy to wear. This is also, incidentally, somewhat true for solid wood shields; real wood shields are shockingly thin compared to what you see in a re-enactment context, and are made with special laminate construction to strengthen the thin planks.

Solid wooden weapons however have proven more successful, historically, (with and without obsidian and other sharp components)

G

[fusilier]

I am interested in seeing how fast people can reload revolvers without using speedloaders. Is there a special term for that, that would making an internet search a lot easier?

Depends upon the revolver. First you have to eject the spent brass -- many break-open revolvers will do this automatically, with a spring loaded system that ejects them all at once. Swing-open revolvers usually have to be pointed skyward and shaken to have the cases fall out. If the revolver is neither break open nor swing-open, then the cases have to be shaken or punched out one at a time through the loading gate. Then the revolver is ready for reloading. The bullets are loaded one at a time. If it's not a break/swing open, then they have to be loaded through the loading gate, and the cylinder rotated -- although that probably doesn't increase loading time very much. GURPS high-tech has rules for how long this all normally takes (I have the third edition, but I'm sure the fourth edition book has the same info).

[Yora]

Yeah, but I'd like to see it done in action by people who are really good at it. Everyone who is bragging on youtube seems to use speedloaders.

[fusilier]

Obsidian makes a very sharp edge, but it's also very fragile. This can be good (obsidian arrowheads shattering on impact, having the same effect as fletchette ammunition) or bad (melee weapons).

This makes it very good against unarmoured opponents but weak against armoured. The best example of this would be the various Spanish expeditions into South America, where the conquistadors with metal armour and swords (among other things) went up against unarmoured Aztecs with obsidian weapons.

Ahem . . . the Aztecs were in North America. Mexico isn't even considered part of Central America (although sometimes it's southern most provinces are). Meso-america is the term I usually use, it's appropriate for historical situations. [I don't mean to pick on you, but it's something of a pet-peeve of mine, and I've been seeing this mistake more and more lately.]

[fusilier]

Yeah, but I'd like to see it done in action by people who are really good at it. Everyone who is bragging on youtube seems to use speedloaders.

Yeah, it does seem difficult to find anybody reloading a revolver without speedloaders. :-/ You might want to try adding "loose rounds" or "loose cartridges" to your search, but even that didn't seem to bring up much.

[Berenger]

I'm just wondering if there's a realistic weapon that also acts as an instrument (barring a mace as drumsticks) like when used as a weapon also makes at least what could be considered music anyway

I'm not sure why anybody in his right mind would encumber his weapon or diminish the effort of fighting for his life by such unnecessary multitasking. I understand that music can help to bolster morale, give signals and facilitate a steady advance in large formations during battle, but the people providing it are not supposed to be personally fighting whilst they do so.

On the other hand - stranger things happened. If nothing else, it might startle or distract less skilled opponents. I know there are those asian swords (?) with nine rings in them. I'm sure some of the gentlemen in this thread can explain what their intended purpose is and what would happen of you replace them with little bells.



Also, there are Kabura-ya (whistling arrows), but I think you'd need a company or so of archers to combine the individual sounds in a melody and they are not really designed to kill people.

[warty goblin]

The main problem with solid wood armor is that in thicknesses and densities enough to provide protection is it's too heavy to wear. This is also, incidentally, somewhat true for solid wood shields; real wood shields are shockingly thin compared to what you see in a re-enactment context, and are made with special laminate construction to strengthen the thin planks.


G

Also a person can actively use a shield. Armor is rather more passive, it's there to keep a person alive if their active defense are bypassed. Which means a shield doesn't need to be as strong to be useful, since its user can prevent it from taking hard hits directly.

And if your shield breaks under a hit, you are in trouble. If your armor breaks under a hit, odds are good you are dead or wounded.

[Arkhosia]

I'm not sure why anybody in his right mind would encumber his weapon or diminish the effort of fighting for his life by such unnecessary multitasking. I understand that music can help to bolster morale, give signals and facilitate a steady advance in large formations during battle, but the people providing it are not supposed to be personally fighting whilst they do so.

On the other hand - stranger things happened. If nothing else, it might startle or distract less skilled opponents. I know there are those asian swords (?) with nine rings in them. I'm sure some of the gentlemen in this thread can explain what their intended purpose is and what would happen of you replace them with little bells.



Also, there are Kabura-ya (whistling arrows), but I think you'd need a company or so of archers to combine the individual sounds in a melody and they are not really designed to kill people.

the rings have several purposes the most obvious is it is loud and distracting.
They also protected the blade from being damaged and did so to the opponent's blade.
Bells could work therefore, but you would probably need new ones often.

[warty goblin]

I'm not sure why anybody in his right mind would encumber his weapon or diminish the effort of fighting for his life by such unnecessary multitasking. I understand that music can help to bolster morale, give signals and facilitate a steady advance in large formations during battle, but the people providing it are not supposed to be personally fighting whilst they do so.

There are three things to keep in mind about humanity:

1) For any object, if it is remotely possible to do so, somebody has tried to eat it. If not, somebody wished they could.

2) For any object, if it is remotely possible to do so, somebody has tried to have sex with it. If not, somebody wished they could.

3) For any object, if it is remotely possible to do so, somebody has tried to kill somebody with it. If not, somebody wished they could.

Pretty much everything else follows from these three principles.

[Arkhosia]

I'm not sure why anybody in his right mind would encumber his weapon or diminish the effort of fighting for his life by such unnecessary multitasking. I understand that music can help to bolster morale, give signals and facilitate a steady advance in large formations during battle, but the people providing it are not supposed to be personally fighting whilst they do so.

Maybe he's a bard who wants to cast spells in the thick of the fight?

[Gavinfoxx]

Maybe he's a bard who wants to cast spells in the thick of the fight?

Psstt. You are in the REAL WORLD weapons and armour thread, not one of the other threads...

[Arkhosia]

Psstt. You are in the REAL WORLD weapons and armour thread, not one of the other threads...

Well technically the thread is for asking questions about real world weapons and armor: I was merely speculating why he had asked.
but then again, technically it was the owlbear that ate you.

[Brother Oni]

I think a lot of medieval confrontations were very much like that- you read about a lot of 'epic battles' in which only a handful of people were killed. Having the armor on meant that men could sometimes engage for substantial periods of time, striking each other, shooting and so on, without major casualties.

This is not including the chivalry laws which encouraged the taking of noble prisoners so you could ransom them back afterwards.
Common men at arms were out of luck though.

Ahem . . . the Aztecs were in North America.

My apologies. My knowledge of New World history/geography is a bit flaky at times.

I'm sure some of the gentlemen in this thread can explain what their intended purpose is and what would happen of you replace them with little bells.

Spoiler

Show

It's a single edged sabre (dao) and the rings were supposedly to add weight to the weapon to increase its killing potential and to help blocking (movie depiction of this particular function - it's a blink and you miss it moment).

The rings and tassels also supposedly add a distracting element which is reported by people who have sparred against such weapons.

In my opinion, it's a kung fu or demonstration weapon rather than a battlefield one, with all the rings and tassels to give a better street demonstration. Compare: 9 ring dao demonstration to dao demonstration.
When the blade is moving at full speed (example), it tends to blur or disappear, so your eye is naturally drawn to the flashy parts.

I agree that last video is not very good quality, but they're not moving as fast as I've seen a sabre (they got tired as they were filming for 8 hours according to the comments and they changed to lighter demonstration sabres instead of combat ones).

The number 9 also has some significance in Chinese culture.

As for replacing them with bells, it would diminish the blocking capability, not to mention make the weapon very hard to stealth. The only historical person I know who wore bells into combat (and not as a signalling aid) was the 3rd century raider (and later general) Gan Ning.

[Galloglaich]

This is not including the chivalry laws which encouraged the taking of noble prisoners so you could ransom them back afterwards.
Common men at arms were out of luck though.

Well, that was the theory of 'chivalry' laws, but this didn't hold sway across Europe. It was practiced by the French aristocracy for the most part, but even among the French, it was not always practiced. In the 100 Years War it was apparently common for soldiers of both sides, down to the lowest ranks, to ransom one another. One guy claimed to have been ransomed 17 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21168437

As I mentioned before, among the Latinized people (i.e. Catholics) it was also common to parole (i.e., release, after a vow not to fight any more) common soldiers who had been captured. After the battle of Grunwald / Tannenberg for example the King of Poland 'paroled' 14,000 German and Czech prisoners.

Interestingly, this was actually still the practice as late as the early years of the American Civil War. The (nightmarish) POW camps were not created until each side started forcing paroled soldiers to go back into combat.

On the Orthodox side of the Slavic part of Europe, it was much more common for captives to be enslaved or made into serfs. Catholics enslaved Orthodox and vice versa, and the Tartars killed enslaved everyone they caught (generally killed men and enslaved women and children).

In Italy, fellow Italian soldiers were usually either ransomed or paroled while Spanish and French soldiers, who often killed captives unless they could afford a big ransom, were themselves killed if they were captured.

The Swiss as a strict policy took no prisoners in battle, noble or common, and killed everyone they caught right up to the Duke of Burgundy.

It's a single edged sabre (dao) and the rings were supposedly to add weight to the weapon to increase its killing potential and to help blocking (movie depiction of this particular function - it's a blink and you miss it moment).

The rings and tassels also supposedly add a distracting element which is reported by people who have sparred against such weapons.

In my opinion, it's a kung fu or demonstration weapon rather than a battlefield one, with all the rings and tassels to give a better street

Agree, that's a flashy show weapon, (you can tell by the enormous blade) but the tassel was a real thing and there were some large broad bladed dao.

There is also an interesting battlefield analogue on some dao, the so-called 'rolling pearls', little silver beads which would roll back and forth inside of a channel in the spine of some liu ye dao (willow leaf saber)

Spoiler

Show

G

[Galloglaich]

I would have to look into it, but I am pretty certain none of those three would rival the big crusades (first, second, third, seventh) in terms of men and resources marshalled, involving multiple armies of tens of thousands as they did, and in the latter cases occupying the revenues of multiple kingdoms. Even the fourth crusade was low on resources by comparison. Depends how you measure it, but even so for a hundred years and more money and men were poured into the Holy Land, and afterwards into naval expeditions around and about.

Yeah I think though that is the conventional wisdom, we simply have this impression due to the emphasis of the historical 'coverage' of the Crusades we get in high school, undergraduate University classes and in the popular media and genre fiction.

The reality is that the Christian vs. Christian Crusades and the European vs. European Crusades seem to at the very least rival the invasion of the 'Holy Land' in terms of numbers

For example, in the the Battle of Aussig, the Czechs are estimated to have had between 15,000 and 24,000 fighters, while the Crusader army is estimated at between 20,000 and 70,0000 (Wikipedia quotes the higher number)

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

This is on the same scale, or a little larger than, the Battle of Hattin

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

G

[Matthew]

Yeah I think though that is the conventional wisdom, we simply have this impression due to the emphasis of the historical 'coverage' of the Crusades we get in high school, undergraduate University classes and in the popular media and genre fiction.

The reality is that the Christian vs. Christian Crusades and the European vs. European Crusades seem to at the very least rival the invasion of the 'Holy Land' in terms of numbers

For example, in the the Battle of Aussig, the Czechs are estimated to have had between 15,000 and 24,000 fighters, while the Crusader army is estimated at between 20,000 and 70,0000 (Wikipedia quotes the higher number)

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

This is on the same scale, or a little larger than, the Battle of Hattin

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

All cards on the table, I studied the crusades as a postgraduate in considerable detail, so I am pretty familiar with the costs. The Battle of Hattin was big, but not actually a crusade. The response to the Battle of Hattin was a crusade, and it was utterly enormous, involving three separate armies under three separate monarchs, one of whom was the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa marching from the far side of Europe to the Middle East. I cannot think of any European crusade that could possibly have rivalled it in terms of ambition and size (or failure). The money Philip Augustus and Richard the Lionheart poured into the endeavour was similarly huge, the former practically building a new port to launch his fleet.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that European crusades were small affairs, but it is misleading to compare the the size of the battles and draw conclusions about the resources involved. Mind, that is not to marginalise the significance of crusades in the west. It is hard to measure these sorts of things without laying down some pretty arbitrary definitions, though. Certainly, the ongoing "crusades" in Iberia and Northern Europe must have commanded huge resources over time, but there is a big difference between the "reconquista" in the general sense and, for example, the First Crusade as a limited event proclaimed by the Pope.

In my opinion, that is what informs the conventional wisdom, which is to say enormous expenditure of resources in relatively short periods of time.

[warty goblin]

If anybody's interested in a lot more detail on Peter Johnsson's theory of geometrical sword layout, he's got a bunch of examples on his website. Very fun reading. Wish I'd have thought to check that before I did my layout, I just went from what he showed in the lecture.

[Galloglaich]

wow... epic post eaten by the browser.

Yikes.

I hate the internet.

G