Swords,swords,swords....and,you guessed it! more swords!!

[FacelessClock]

Cheetah is a moron.

Best sword unit is either Byz Inf or Vangarian Guards.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Protoman:
Slashing was almost useless against armored foes and tightly packed areas, leaving little opportunies for what is seen as traditional swordfighting.[/QUOTE]

Against plate mail a human can't generate enough power with a thrust... A thrust will almost definitely deflect off some curved/beveled surface. Slashing can achieve much higher weapon velocity and momentum which enables a sharp blade to overcome plate. Even if the cut doesn't penetrate mail underneath it can still crush bones.

Generally a thrust would only work against plate if you got your opponent momentarily disabled and could carefully place the point into a crevace somewhere.

Against plate, axes and hammers (with backspikes) would be the best kinds of weapons. I suppose spikey maces might be good too.

Thrusting swords didn't mutate into thrusting weapons until the heavy armor went away.

bif


[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-18-2002).]

[Lord Romulous]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Cheetah is a moron.

Best sword unit is either Byz Inf or Vangarian Guards.[/QUOTE]

i dont usually engage in this sort of behaviour

but i really object to you calling a moron one of the most hard working people here at the org.

they have to Pre archive threads otherwise the hosting company will get rid of the .org its already 2000 posts over the limit. in any case this thread is kept in the TC.

somebody ban this buffoon already.


[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 10-18-2002).]

[Hakonarson]

Actually thrusting swords as thrusting weapons (whatever that emans!! lol) existed in parallel to thte traditional long sword throughout most of medieval history.

At least one battle (in 1266) is recording as being won/lost because French knights with short swords were able to thrust into the armpits of German knights wearing coat of plates.

Slahing weapons have little or no chance of penetrating decent meta larmour because their force is typically disipated over a long strike zone, whether that armour is mail, solid plate or coat of plate.

The effect is almost always crushing, and that only against flexible armouir - which is one reason why they wore padding under mail!!

Penetrating heavy armour required high velocity, mass and minimal contact area - hence axes, maces, hammers and spikes.

I have an illustration of a pole axe in the hands of an English man at arms from the 100 yrs war - it LOOKS like something you'd use to commit murder

[AgentBif]

Short swords (gladius, etc) are dual mode weapons... both cut and thrust. But, of course, they have a much lower momentum capacity than something longer like a broadsword, so the stab attack is what will usually deliver the kill. I'm not aware of any pure thrust blades until things like rapiers, etc started showing up.

(Yes, rapiers have an edge, but it's more of a tool for annoyance rather than an actually lethal feature.)

bif


[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-18-2002).]

[Soapyfrog]

The only real difference between a short sword and a long sword when thrusting is reach.

Medieval broadswords typically wielded by knights were not very good thrusting weapons, though they could cut handedly through most armor types... with plate armor the key was to hack at a joint, crushing the armor or cutting straight through previously weakened areas.

Thrusting (at unarmored points like armpits) certainly existed as a tactic, however it's not so simple to accomplish such a maneuver since if you miss you may be quite screwed.

Pole-axes, hammers, maces, flails, and to a lesser degree hand axes were indeed the optimal anti-armor weapons becuase of their penetrating power, the only trouble being that these weapons were TERRIBLE in defence against a sword armed opponent.

The sword at can be employed as a defensive barrier, something that those other weapons are not well suited to, and the sword can disable those other weapons by hacking at the haft.

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Cheetah is a moron.

Best sword unit is either Byz Inf or Vangarian Guards.[/QUOTE]

Faceless Clock PAF means pre-archive forum.

It means that Cheetah will format the discussion so that the information gets archived.

So who is feeling a tad moronic now?

Being rude to patrons was never acceptable. I have been away for only two months to come back to see patrons such as yourself.

You can either change your ways or leave the Org.

[FacelessClock]

Woops. I Figured he was postcount ++ in all the threads.

I consider myself owned.

[Papewaio]

LOL

BTW

TLAs

&

ETLAs

can get the best of us.

[Cheetah]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Woops. I Figured he was postcount ++ in all the threads.

I consider myself owned.[/QUOTE]

lol, no problem. I should have explained what does "PAF" mean. Thx Pape doing it.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
Medieval broadswords typically wielded by knights were not very good thrusting weapons, though they could cut handedly through most armor types... with plate armor the key was to hack at a joint, crushing the armor or cutting straight through previously weakened areas.
[/QUOTE]

Against plate, a broadsword should work just fine against a limb. Hark's point about the long impact region on a sword blade impeding it from penetrating plate lethally is entirely valid; But if you catch your opponent in the arm correctly, penetration dynamics will be similar to that of an axe. That should be good for a disablement. An axe of similar mass to the sword would still have the advantage of better momentum though, since much of the weight is at the end.

BTW, I've seen lots of replicas of axes and hammers with either steel hafts or steel-reenforcement along the hafts. This should have dramatically improved the number of times they could be used to parry

bif


[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-18-2002).]

[FacelessClock]

A sword can be a good thrusting weapon, if built correctly. Swords evolved over time. They started out as a slashping weapon first and a thrusting weapon second. However, as both plate and mail became more popular, slashing with a sword became less effective, so swords became weapons that could do both, and perhaps even had a leaning towards thrusting.

Early swords were wide, later swords were thin and tapred to a very sharp point.

Neither was likely to be as effective against plate as a axe or hammer, although the pointed swords were far far superior at penatrating plate and were effective in their own right.The axe had great ability to cut do to the fact a axe often had a large chunck of metal behind the blade. Single edged, wedged swords were often considered better for slashing, and the axe is really just the same concept....the difference is, the axe often times has alot more force behind it, due to the way it is swung and the amount of metal behind the blade.

Hammers could just knock the enemy down if they didn't do actual bone crushing damage. Alot of hammers had a pointy end and a blunt end, the idea being to knock the enemy around and then penatrate the plate with the pointy end when the enemy was down.

I think M:TW does a good job of representing all this. Sword units that did not use a tapred, pointed sword do not get bonus to armour, while units which do use a a tapered sword do, like Gallowglasses.

[This message has been edited by FacelessClock (edited 10-18-2002).]

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
However, as both plate and mail became more popular, slashing with a sword became less effective, so swords became weapons that could do both, and perhaps even had a leaning towards thrusting.
[/QUOTE]

Just in front of this post you'd see that we've established that the heavy slashing swords were motivated by armor, not the other way around. As the armor went away, swords mutated into lighter, faster, thrusting weapons. Moreover, a thrusting attack will not likely be effective against plate, even with a pointed heavy blade. A human being just can't generate the kind of thrusting velocity necessary to overcome the plate deflection. Slashing attacks, OTH have lots of velocity...

Quote
the difference is, the axe often times has alot more force behind it, due to the way it is swung and the amount of metal behind the blade.
[/QUOTE]

What would give an axe it's armor defeating capabilities is the fact that the cutting edge is short, thereby achieving much higher pressure for a given amount of total momentum. Also, because the axe concentrates it's mass at the end, it can achieve a higher momentum for a given mass. The "way it is swung" and the total mass are not what make the axe advantageous over a sword for defeating armor. In fact, axe blades usually contain less steel than broadswords.

Quote
Hammers could just knock the enemy down if they didn't do actual bone crushing damage.
[/QUOTE]

A 3-5 pound hammer is not going to knock over a 200 pound man. Perhaps some kind of massive 2-handed maul could knock someone over if he pulled a Barry Bonds act, but that sort of impact will likely just kill the guy anyway. I'm personally not aware of any maul type weapons actually used in combat, though I imagine they existed... can someone elucidate? Anyway, like axes, hammers would defeat armor by focussing a lot of momentum on a small area. But according to others in this thread, underpadding was apparently sufficient to resist crushing damage.

Quote
Alot of hammers had a pointy end and a blunt end, the idea being to knock the enemy around and then penatrate the plate with the pointy end when the enemy was down.
[/QUOTE]

I suspect that anyone going up against a heavy armor opponent would prolly start with the spike to begin with and not bother risking his life "knocking him around" first... Although there is the issue of getting that spike lodged in one guy while his buddy get's pissed at you.

Now, in terms of hammers in general, I wonder who used them? I know that knights would often pack several weapons to serve in a variety of situations, so perhaps a hammer would be a popular choice if he expected to see combat against armored opponents. But I don't think your average merc or man-at-arms would have the luxury of being able to afford multiple weapons themselves. Perhaps, if infantry ever used hammers they were typically scavenged?

bif

[Hakonarson]

goody - lots more good historical stuff!!

Points I can answer -

Yes - hitting an arm helps, because of the smaller diameter of hte armour (means less area to be penetrated), and also because the armour is thinner.

Metal hafts -absolutely - one picture I have of a pole axe has it entirely metal, about 4-5 ft long, absolutely murderous lookign thing - it really sends a shiver down my spine!!

I think the spikes (either on the top or reverse of a hammer or axe) were "coup-de-grace" weapons - as someone pointed out the last thing you wanted was to get a spike caught in armour while your victims' comrades were still around!!

A 5 lb weapon is actually VERY heavy, and quite cap[able of knocking someone over if they're hit hard with it. 2 handed weapons like swords and axes only weighed in at similar amounts.

Lastly yes Mauls were used - famously by English archers to knock in stakes and then afterwards to knock out Frenchmen who were already partially immobilised buy the crush.

[Veiny Eyeball]

Guys, no such thing as a medieval broadsword sorry.

Broadswords were 17th century short cutlasses popular with the English nobility (with a variety of styles and forms of course, such as the 18th C Scottish claymore).

[Kraxis]

Yes there was no Broardsword, but there were broard swords and that is what you should think of when people use that term.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Veiny Eyeball]

I understand what you are saying but it is still misleading.
Medieval swords came in many forms but for the most part they were long and slender. Referring to them as 'broad' either in a generic sense for all medieval swords or when concentrating on a particular kind of medieval sword is a gross fallacy. You can use 'broad' as an adjective (as you could with long, sharp, etc) but that's not what most people are thinking when they use the term. The impression is that broadsword is a fine catagorical term for all medieval swords. It is not.

Trust me, this is something sword "experts" get extremely frustrated over! :0

[This message has been edited by Veiny Eyeball (edited 10-19-2002).]

[FacelessClock]

Quote Just in front of this post you'd see that we've established that the heavy slashing swords were motivated by armor, not the other way around. As the armor went away, swords mutated into lighter, faster, thrusting weapons. Moreover, a thrusting attack will not likely be effective against plate, even with a pointed heavy blade. A human being just can't generate the kind of thrusting velocity necessary to overcome the plate deflection. Slashing attacks, OTH have lots of velocity...[/QUOTE]

Heavy slashing swords were NOT used to go against plate and mail. That makes no sense at all. Look at http://www.historicalweapons.com/swordstypology.html You will notice that weapons became pointy and tapered in responce to plate reinforced mail. Clearly they, not heavy slashing swords, were the preferred and more effective.

Quote I suspect that anyone going up against a heavy armor opponent would prolly start with the spike to begin with and not bother risking his life "knocking him around" first... Although there is the issue of getting that spike lodged in one guy while his buddy get's pissed at you.[/QUOTE]
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer

Knocking a enemy around would be very useful. What do you think happens when you get a swing from 5 pounds of metal which has been focused into a small point? That is alot of force, in many cases, and if we're talking pole-arm hammer, yea, you're going to get knocked around. A enemy that just had his arm crushed or is trying to keep his balance from the last blow inflicted it going to have a hard time fighting.

[AgentBif]

Quote
Heavy slashing swords were NOT used to go against plate and mail. That makes no sense at all.
[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen anyone here advocating the use of swords against plate in particular. The issue here has not been that swords are a good choice against plate, but whether or not swords are feasible at all against plate or other heavy armors. Swords were used, and as armor became heavier (not just plate) and more prevalent, swords had to become heavier and longer to improve their ability to defeat the armor. Note that it doesn't take penetration for a sword to deliver damage... A high velocity slash will crush bones nicely against a chainmailed opponent, for example.

Quote
You will notice that weapons became pointy and tapered in responce to plate reinforced mail. Clearly they, not heavy slashing swords, were the preferred and more effective.
[/QUOTE]

Not so clearly, I'm afraid. The source you cite here does not attempt to delineate the evolution of swords.

The point on the end of the sword will not be handy in a dynamic fight against a platemailed opponent, IMO, because I don't believe a human CAN penetrate the armor with a thrust if the target doesn't want him to. Once you have your opponent immobilized somehow, you could carefully place the point in a seam or crack and finish him off by putting all your weight behind a two-hand thrust. This is how I think sword-armed MAA would defeat an unmounted knight... surround him, get him on the ground, then drive the sword in. But getting him on the ground would involve lots of vigorous cutting, not silly jabs.

BTW, just about all of the blades on this particular page that you mention are what I'd classify as good slashing weapons and if the wielder were unfortunate enough to have to face a plate-armored foe without a better weapon, I'm sure he'd be slashing away quite feverishly...

bif


[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-19-2002).]

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:

A 5 lb weapon is actually VERY heavy, and quite cap[able of knocking someone over if they're hit hard with it.
[/QUOTE]

I think it has been well observed that dead people often fall over...

But it's just not possible, in general, for a human to topple someone by force alone with a one-handed swing. Any force behind a 3-5lb weapon capable of knocking over a full sized adult would just kill the person first, I think. It's a simple matter of collision dynamics: 3 pounds vs 200 pounds. If the weapon doesn't penetrate, it will cause a severe dent and then bounce back.

Although people do fall over a lot in melee, it is usually their own damn fault for getting themselves in an off-balance position and not the fault of their opponent Traction would also be the more likely culprit.

bif

[FacelessClock]

http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001658.html
http://www.vikingsword.com/glossary.html
see the bit about "point"
http://www.vikingsword.com/vmframe.html http://www.vikingsword.com/vmuseum/index.html
see the bit about medieval swords.

The historical evolution of swords disagrees with you, bif. Pointed swords could penatrate plate better then slash, otherwise, I doubt everyone would be running around with them. There were even pointed swords that were virtually made entirely for piercing, just so they could get through plate. And in any case, even Plate was not immune to any type of damage.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
[B] http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001658.html
http://www.vikingsword.com/glossary.html
see the bit about "point"
http://www.vikingsword.com/vmframe.html http://www.vikingsword.com/vmuseum/index.html
see the bit about medieval swords.

The historical evolution of swords disagrees with you, bif.
[/QUOTE]

Posting a block of sites does not constitute a counter-argument. I don't think you are understanding what I have said thus far. If you want to post a rebuttal, use well formed arguments and make specific points adressing what I have posted.

bif



[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-19-2002).]