In my mind I have been building a set of plate armour, in the off chance I found a wormhole into the 14th century.
I think plate is awesome but I think it would be beneficial to have a layer of chainmaille underneath. Under that you'd want a leather jacket preferably a motorcycle one that has lightweight foam on the shoulders and around vulnerable parts of the body. Also a massive helmet would be needed to be able to survive. It'd need a strong plastic visor to be able to stop small knives from penetrating.
I know weight is a major issue but I think that with modern metallic alloys you can get a greater strength and less weight then the historic ones, while giving far better protection.
As for weapons I'd get a poleaxe/halberd with a sword and multiple knives as back up weapons. All built out of quality steel to ensure they don't break on me.
I don't know how to ride a horse though.
In my mind I have been building a set of plate armour, in the off chance I found a wormhole into the 14th century.
I think plate is awesome but I think it would be beneficial to have a layer of chainmaille underneath. Under that you'd want a leather jacket preferably a motorcycle one that has lightweight foam on the shoulders and around vulnerable parts of the body. Also a massive helmet would be needed to be able to survive. It'd need a strong plastic visor to be able to stop small knives from penetrating.
I know weight is a major issue but I think that with modern metallic alloys you can get a greater strength and less weight then the historic ones, while giving far better protection.
As for weapons I'd get a poleaxe/halberd with a sword and multiple knives as back up weapons. All built out of quality steel to ensure they don't break on me.
I don't know how to ride a horse though.
Just commenting to say I see great things in the future of this thread.
Also, graves vs chain-skirt. GO!
So, the Katana...
So, the Katana...
In it's area of expertise the Katana is superior to most other swords. It's an impressive weapon when it comes to sheer cutting power, but requires the user to be mobile. Without mobility the katana becomes useless after that first strike, because the technique is all about positioning and footwork.
In my mind I have been building a set of plate armour, in the off chance I found a wormhole into the 14th century.
I think plate is awesome but I think it would be beneficial to have a layer of chainmaille underneath. Under that you'd want a leather jacket preferably a motorcycle one that has lightweight foam on the shoulders and around vulnerable parts of the body. Also a massive helmet would be needed to be able to survive. It'd need a strong plastic visor to be able to stop small knives from penetrating.
I know weight is a major issue but I think that with modern metallic alloys you can get a greater strength and less weight then the historic ones, while giving far better protection.
As for weapons I'd get a poleaxe/halberd with a sword and multiple knives as back up weapons. All built out of quality steel to ensure they don't break on me.
I don't know how to ride a horse though.
Real talk: I know that no one on bay12 could handle that many layers of armor while still being able to fight. Plate isn't that heavy but it's not like a t-shirt either. Chainmail on the other hand is pretty heavy. With chainmail, a motorcycle jacket, and full plate on top of that, plus a big pile of weapons you don't know how to use, and we're talking not being able to move around well enough to fight.
So, the Katana...
In it's area of expertise the Katana is superior to most other swords. It's an impressive weapon when it comes to sheer cutting power, but requires the user to be mobile. Without mobility the katana becomes useless after that first strike, because the technique is all about positioning and footwork.
And European swordfighting isn't? Katanas are pretty cool, I guess. I won't deny that samurai duels are cool. People give them too much credit though. You can cut dudes with them, great. The thousand folds bullshit also makes them pretty brittle. They're very hard, yeah, but hard things break when you overstress them.
People nowadays are also taller, and less stocky than in middle ages. Which makes it harder to wear an armor. And they also don't start training since childhood.
Aaah, and let's not start the katan debate again. Some pretty good links had been posted, which concluded basically, that katana was good against unarmored people, while western swords were more oriented against armored enemies.
I remember seeing these roman re-enactors a while back who wore late republic style scale mail all day long. It wasn't supposed to be comfortable but it was supposed to be something that you could live around the clock in so that if the germans appeared suddenly you just need to grab your shield and it's go time.
As long as you can get it under 80 pounds I think it'd be manageable. Of course it'd be much easier if I was riding a horse. As for mobility I can see it hampering it but with enough protection all you needed to do was watch out for axes and maces and you'd be fine. Any slashing weapons wouldn't be able to penetrate it in most places so you'd be fine.That weight *is * going to wear you down pretty quick, unless you've been trained for years to fight and live in the stuff you're going to be fall down dead tired within the first couple of minutes of combat. Also, all armor has gaps, once you've been knocked over a guy with a dagger would be all that would be needed to do you in.
As for plastic not being able to stop a knife I'm thinking if you used that bullet proof glass it'd work if it was thick enough qnd properly reinforced.
Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.
Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.
I'm curious, how does modern day chainmail hold up to ye olde chainmail? I'm assuming it's better. In case you're wondering, I'm referring to the chainmail used by people who dive with sharks.The shark chainmail has become obsolete. The cutting edge thing now is lightweight titanium alloy plate armor. The shark can't bite through it and can only barely bend it, keeping you relatively safe. You might get slightly crushed, but that's better than being bitten.
I've always wondered why platemail armor leaves the neck relatively exposed, considering actual head mobility wasn't that big of a concern. If I were an armorer, I would make a single-piece head and torso set, like an old-fashioned diving suit, with a 'helmet' big enough to move your head around in. That way your precious neck is good and protected without going the trouble of gorgets and pauldrons and such.
I think 'jousting armor' worked that way, since it was basically assembled around the rider, but obviously people didn't fight in that.
I've always wondered why platemail armor leaves the neck relatively exposed, considering actual head mobility wasn't that big of a concern. If I were an armorer, I would make a single-piece head and torso set, like an old-fashioned diving suit, with a 'helmet' big enough to move your head around in. That way your precious neck is good and protected without going the trouble of gorgets and pauldrons and such.
I think 'jousting armor' worked that way, since it was basically assembled around the rider, but obviously people didn't fight in that.
i dunno about that, there was some stories on the french and english wars where longbowmen would kill the french horses knocking their knights to the ground and were basically sitting-ducks to infantry. When they started combining leather and chain and scale together did mobility came to mind. Plate didn't see much use for anyone other than a horseman, or until the beginning of the firearms.
Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.
This is absolutely untrue. Plate armor was designed with protection *and* mobility in mind. It's not as hard to move around in armor as hollywood has made it out to be.
As long as you can get it under 80 pounds I think it'd be manageable. Of course it'd be much easier if I was riding a horse. As for mobility I can see it hampering it but with enough protection all you needed to do was watch out for axes and maces and you'd be fine. Any slashing weapons wouldn't be able to penetrate it in most places so you'd be fine.That weight *is * going to wear you down pretty quick, unless you've been trained for years to fight and live in the stuff you're going to be fall down dead tired within the first couple of minutes of combat. Also, all armor has gaps, once you've been knocked over a guy with a dagger would be all that would be needed to do you in.
As for plastic not being able to stop a knife I'm thinking if you used that bullet proof glass it'd work if it was thick enough qnd properly reinforced.
Okay, yes, that would work. Good luck getting your hands on the stuff in real life, nevermind in the 14th century. But you said plastic, that's why i assumed you meant plastic.
All in all, the first men at arms to come your way would mean your death on the battlefield. Training is far more important than the equipment, and a whole crap ton of weapons strapped to your back is not going to make you a better warrior. In fact with all of those things getting in the way, it might make you a *worse* warrior.
i dunno about that, there was some stories on the french and english wars where longbowmen would kill the french horses knocking their knights to the ground and were basically sitting-ducks to infantry. When they started combining leather and chain and scale together did mobility came to mind. Plate didn't see much use for anyone other than a horseman, or until the beginning of the firearms.
Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.
This is absolutely untrue. Plate armor was designed with protection *and* mobility in mind. It's not as hard to move around in armor as hollywood has made it out to be.
i dunno about that, there was some stories on the french and english wars where longbowmen would kill the french horses knocking their knights to the ground and were basically sitting-ducks to infantry. When they started combining leather and chain and scale together did mobility came to mind. Plate didn't see much use for anyone other than a horseman, or until the beginning of the firearms.
Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.
This is absolutely untrue. Plate armor was designed with protection *and* mobility in mind. It's not as hard to move around in armor as hollywood has made it out to be.
You're talking about Agincourt, and nobody's quite sure how that went down. One story is that the arrows themselves killed the dudes, others say that bodkin arrows couldn't penetrate steel plate armor. But no, either way it isn't proof that plate armor was impossible to maneuver in. Agincourt was fought on a very muddy field after a big rain, which is not the same as a fight on firm ground. Horses got mired, dudes got mired, while people in light or no armor could maneuver more easily. It's an outlier, is what I'm saying, not something you should base a conclusion about plate armor on.
In it's area of expertise the Katana is superior to most other swords.I actually did a load of research into this; Katanas when not used in their very specialized role are very much inferior to Western swords. They weren't even used as the primary weapon of choice in feudal Japanese armies.
In it's area of expertise the Katana is superior to most other swords. It's an impressive weapon when it comes to sheer cutting power, but requires the user to be mobile. Without mobility the katana becomes useless after that first strike, because the technique is all about positioning and footwork.The whole first strike thing is accurate enough. There's a reason the Japanese adapted it to strike upon drawing: Draw in case of Mongolian horseman and spear is broken. European swords focused on adaptability or specialization. There were so many designs, changes, experiments in swords from a highly competitive continent whilst the Japanese kept the same design for 1400 years.
Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.One of the most effective ways to deal with the best enemy pikemen was for Knights to dismount, get beneath the pikes and begin hacking. The heavily armoured men at arms would heavily outclass the pikemen, providing they didn't get stabbed to pieces.
Fair enough, some people are overzealous about such things.PURGE THE KATANA
once you've been knocked over a guy with a dagger would be all that would be needed to do you in.Ah Agincourt. Fun times.
Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.More to do with falling off your horse generally killing you regardless. Momentum meets hard ground.
You're talking about Agincourt, and nobody's quite sure how that went down. One story is that the arrows themselves killed the dudes, others say that bodkin arrows couldn't penetrate steel plate armor. But no, either way it isn't proof that plate armor was impossible to maneuver in. Agincourt was fought on a very muddy field after a big rain, which is not the same as a fight on firm ground. Horses got mired, dudes got mired, while people in light or no armor could maneuver more easily. It's an outlier, is what I'm saying, not something you should base a conclusion about plate armor on.The French fought chivalrously. The English fought with peasants. They would drag the Knight down, fighting 3 to 1 and begin stabbing through visors and gaps.
and jumping directly into saddles in full plateWho broke mah hoerse D:
One of the most effective ways to deal with the best enemy pikemen was for Knights to dismount, get beneath the pikes and begin hacking. The heavily armoured men at arms would heavily outclass the pikemen, providing they didn't get stabbed to pieces.
even that is not too bad see here for falling off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg)Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.More to do with falling off your horse generally killing you regardless. Momentum meets hard ground.
In my mind I have been building a set of plate armour, in the off chance I found a wormhole into the 14th century.
I think plate is awesome but I think it would be beneficial to have a layer of chainmaille underneath. Under that you'd want a leather jacket preferably a motorcycle one that has lightweight foam on the shoulders and around vulnerable parts of the body. Also a massive helmet would be needed to be able to survive. It'd need a strong plastic visor to be able to stop small knives from penetrating.
I know weight is a major issue but I think that with modern metallic alloys you can get a greater strength and less weight then the historic ones, while giving far better protection.
As for weapons I'd get a poleaxe/halberd with a sword and multiple knives as back up weapons. All built out of quality steel to ensure they don't break on me.
I don't know how to ride a horse though.
Katana aren't brittle. Only the edge is hard, while the rest of the sword is flexible. The purpose of folding is to remove impurities in the iron. Japan has high levels of impurity in it's iron. When you hear about high fold counts, it is an indication that the materials were refined thoroughly. It has nothing to do with the blades' sharpness.I don't know jack about this... but... for clarification:
The role of the weapon directly correlates with the European arming sword. It was no more or less specialized. The weapon doesn't require mobility, regardless of what the traditional styles were. It's functionally very similar to a grosse messer.
Not all European swords are made to defeat armor. The ability and means of doing so varies with design and era. If you look at Oakeshott typology and armor by period, you can see the relationship of the two as they compete.
An exceptional katana can cut, (not just pierce) metal. That isn't even something a person should reasonably expect from a sword. It's the reason that the term 斬鉄剣 exists. While a European design might be made to do the same, the idea seems to be less popular.
.....
I'm glad to see the armor myths being dispelled. :3
Speaking of bodkin arrows, wern't those designed for better armor penetration? The flatheads were traditional but useless against armor, i was always under the impression that bodkin arrows were designed to better breach weakpoints.
Bodkins are better at piercing mail than flatheads, however, no bodkins found have had hardened heads, and only two have been used for armour piercing tests, which isn't exactly a representative number.
According to wikipedia, at least.
About the katanas: Last I checked, katanas fared just as well as the western swords, but they were designed for different fighting styles: The western swords tended to rely more on brute force, whilst katanas relied more on your agility and dexterity.Pretty much no.
Also, the roman helmets tended to cut the back of your neck if you wore it for extended periods.The legionarres were fully aware of that fact and often wore leather or cloth under them to prevent it.
yes, they usually suited up before battle. :POr didn't wear it until battle.Also, the roman helmets tended to cut the back of your neck if you wore it for extended periods.The legionarres were fully aware of that fact and often wore leather or cloth under them to prevent it.
Unlike the films, they tended not to walk around wearing the helmets everywhere.
... Now I'm imagining an armchair dressed as Clint Eastwood from "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."Arms, Armour and Armchair Westernization.
Auto-corrected that for you.
You're talking about Agincourt, and nobody's quite sure how that went down. One story is that the arrows themselves killed the dudes, others say that bodkin arrows couldn't penetrate steel plate armor. But no, either way it isn't proof that plate armor was impossible to maneuver in. Agincourt was fought on a very muddy field after a big rain, which is not the same as a fight on firm ground. Horses got mired, dudes got mired, while people in light or no armor could maneuver more easily. It's an outlier, is what I'm saying, not something you should base a conclusion about plate armor on.
Katana vs Zweihänder? Assuming both wielders are professional duellists. (two-hand styles/techniques)Different weapon types. The Zweihänder is a heavy sword that requires both arms to successfully operate, and is slow when compared to the nimble one-handed katana.. I believe Zweihänder VS. Nodachi would be more appropriate.
Katana vs Zweihänder? Assuming both wielders are professional duellists. (two-hand styles/techniques)
Katana vs Rapier? Same historical period and similar "noble" purpose. (one-hand stiles/techniques)
Any decent sword can cut low grade iron. The question is will it cut through, past padding and deal some damage? If plate armor is cut open but partially deflected the blow (and a trained armor wearer will make it very difficult for his opponent to execute perfect strike with full force) - it served its purpose. European arming sword was adapted to the fact that enemies frequently had iron armor and stabbing through it is easier than cutting.
E:"28 new replies". Sometimes I am slow to post.
Yes, but that was replaced by the Spatha, which had a bit longer reach (70 centimeters). :PKatana vs Zweihänder? Assuming both wielders are professional duellists. (two-hand styles/techniques)
Katana vs Rapier? Same historical period and similar "noble" purpose. (one-hand stiles/techniques)
Any decent sword can cut low grade iron. The question is will it cut through, past padding and deal some damage? If plate armor is cut open but partially deflected the blow (and a trained armor wearer will make it very difficult for his opponent to execute perfect strike with full force) - it served its purpose. European arming sword was adapted to the fact that enemies frequently had iron armor and stabbing through it is easier than cutting.
E:"28 new replies". Sometimes I am slow to post.
My dual-wield katanas can pretty much own anyone.
Speaking of battles, it's not braveheart. The melee gets pretty tight without discipline. There's a youtube vid of opposing russian football gangs with about a hundred supporters each going at each other. That is a real battle. Not this fake shit where people are spread out to look pretty for the cameras.
Footwork goes by the wayside in real battles, and big scary weapons lose much of the weight behind their cuts and thrusts. That's why the roman short sword, the gladius, was so effective in pitched battles.
Also, katanas were anything but nimble. There is a reason why they're called Masterwork Bastard Swords (and only MW because any katana that isn't MW is only a glorified beating stick).When compared to the Zweihänder, they are. :P
When compared to the Zweihänder, they are. :PFair point.
*sees a thread about 'arms and armor'*The thing is that there's so much myths surrounding Katanas that it elevates them beyond a mere weapon that was perfectly suited for the given battle tactics and enviromental scenarios into Mythical Überweapons that are capable of leveling entire buildings just by being drawn out of their sheaths. Now, some people think that leaving that particular image untouched is harmful for the general understanding of History in the most objective way possible. Thus, they explore historic backgrounds of the Katana and come up with reasons why they totally did suck, but instead of bringing enlightenment to the myth-consuming masses like they wanted to, they start zealous arguments that are kinda pointless and silly with neither side giving way, creating a stalemate that is doomed to last forever.
"Huh, wonder if they're silly enough to rehash the usual bosh about katanas."
*opens thread*
"Yup."
*closes thread*
Without their shields Roman swords would be of not much use.Yep, that's what the entire Roman Strategy was built as. the Shield Wall technique, with the pilum being used to thin out the charging enemy armies, then intercepting the mass of the people invading with your mighty shields and chopping your opponents up with your Gladius. The only bad thing about this strategy is its weakness to flanking attacks, but that was countered by using either Auxilia or more legionarries, and in later stages of the combat, if the situation was favourable, the legionarries stationed at the sides would move towards the mass of enemies in the middle, trapping them in a pincer movement.
Also the classical "throw a pilum at that dual wielding barbarian at point blank".
Since this seems to be an appropriate thread, what was the name of that long spear that hoplites used?
Since this seems to be an appropriate thread, what was the name of that long spear that hoplites used?
The Dory, according to Wikipedia. Or the Sarissa, but I think that's what the Macedonians used, not the ancient Greeks.
Phalanxes used sarissas, I'm not sure what the spear used by hoplites was called, though.*facepalm*
Again, IIRC, Phalanx was the formation, Hoplite was the soldier. Regardless, fortified in a fort on a mountain, they can even defeat a stealth bomber.But they can't defeat hunger. :P
Phalanxes used sarissas, I'm not sure what the spear used by hoplites was called, though.*facepalm*
The Hoplites were what made up a phalanx...
*double facepalm*Phalanxes used sarissas, I'm not sure what the spear used by hoplites was called, though.*facepalm*
The Hoplites were what made up a phalanx...
False. Hoplites fought in something akin to a shield wall with 15ft spears. Phalanxes fought in a phalanx/spearwall using 18ft pikes.
*double facepalm*Phalanxes used sarissas, I'm not sure what the spear used by hoplites was called, though.*facepalm*
The Hoplites were what made up a phalanx...
False. Hoplites fought in something akin to a shield wall with 15ft spears. Phalanxes fought in a phalanx/spearwall using 18ft pikes.
Hoplites fought in a phalanx. Phalanxes is the plural of Phalanx. Macedonian Hoplites fought in Phalanxes with their Sarissas. Greek Hoplites fought in Phalanxes with their Dorys.
Phalanxs is a tactic, not the name of a soldier.
Rhomphaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) [And the Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx)] > Every other Bladed Weaponry.ouch, that looks like a nasty piece of blade.
For note: The Romans had to change their entire strategy and upgrade their armor to deal with these weapons.
I guess hacked-off limbs made Trajan squeamish.
Rhomphaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) [And the Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx)] > Every other Bladed Weaponry.ouch, that looks like a nasty piece of blade.
For note: The Romans had to change their entire strategy and upgrade their armor to deal with these weapons.
I guess hacked-off limbs made Trajan squeamish.
*double facepalm*Phalanxes used sarissas, I'm not sure what the spear used by hoplites was called, though.*facepalm*
The Hoplites were what made up a phalanx...
False. Hoplites fought in something akin to a shield wall with 15ft spears. Phalanxes fought in a phalanx/spearwall using 18ft pikes.
Hoplites fought in a phalanx. Phalanxes is the plural of Phalanx. Macedonian Hoplites fought in Phalanxes with their Sarissas. Greek Hoplites fought in Phalanxes with their Dorys.
Phalanxs is a tactic, not the name of a soldier.
Without their shields Roman swords would be of not much use. Also the classical "throw a pilum at that dual wielding barbarian at point blank".Yep, that's what the entire Roman Strategy was built as. the Shield Wall technique, with the pilum being used to thin out the charging enemy armies, then intercepting the mass of the people invading with your mighty shields and chopping your opponents up with your Gladius. The only bad thing about this strategy is its weakness to flanking attacks, but that was countered by using either Auxilia or more legionarries, and in later stages of the combat, if the situation was favourable, the legionarries stationed at the sides would move towards the mass of enemies in the middle, trapping them in a pincer movement.
Chopped bits of the Germanic Tribes, anyone?
Side note: were the swords in the original for this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Chest_of_Courtrai_-_Falchion_w.jpg really painted blue, green and red (well - purple) or is it an anonimous prank?Rhomphaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) [And the Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx)] > Every other Bladed Weaponry.ouch, that looks like a nasty piece of blade.
For note: The Romans had to change their entire strategy and upgrade their armor to deal with these weapons.
I guess hacked-off limbs made Trajan squeamish.
I quite like the look of a Falchion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion)
Blade polearms like the Falx and Naginata are definitely awesome.^
I believe that the falchions were highlighted in the image for the purpose of showing what they look like and making them easy to see.Side note: were the swords in the original for this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Chest_of_Courtrai_-_Falchion_w.jpg really painted blue, green and red (well - purple) or is it an anonimous prank?Rhomphaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) [And the Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx)] > Every other Bladed Weaponry.ouch, that looks like a nasty piece of blade.
For note: The Romans had to change their entire strategy and upgrade their armor to deal with these weapons.
I guess hacked-off limbs made Trajan squeamish.
I quite like the look of a Falchion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion)
The Katana: It is capable of cutting european style armor, in the very least a basic breastlate, this has been demonstrated.Sauces please.
As i said, i don't know a whole lot about roman armor, so i'm curious about what you folks have to say about it.
The Katana: It is capable of cutting european style armor, in the very least a basic breastlate, this has been demonstrated.Sauces please.
Anti-stab vests would be almost ideal for time-travellers, if it weren't for the fact that they only cover one's torso.I didn't make it as obvious as I'd meant, but that was what the "and more" meant. Sleeves, gloves, trouser-legs, shoe-covers, abdominal/crotch cover, all stab-proof. Helmet is a given.
Hmmm... This sounds like a good plot for a schlock movie... A Police Officer who is for some reason clad in full riot gear is mysteriously transported back into the past...(This is the bit I spent ages on, this time summarising.)
I know that the Gladius's main use is stabbing, i just wrote the part about chopped germanic tribes for the sake of colourfulness.:PWithout their shields Roman swords would be of not much use. Also the classical "throw a pilum at that dual wielding barbarian at point blank".Yep, that's what the entire Roman Strategy was built as. the Shield Wall technique, with the pilum being used to thin out the charging enemy armies, then intercepting the mass of the people invading with your mighty shields and chopping your opponents up with your Gladius. The only bad thing about this strategy is its weakness to flanking attacks, but that was countered by using either Auxilia or more legionarries, and in later stages of the combat, if the situation was favourable, the legionarries stationed at the sides would move towards the mass of enemies in the middle, trapping them in a pincer movement.
Chopped bits of the Germanic Tribes, anyone?
Missed this before...
Actually, the Roman system, post-Marian, was far from a shield wall. The maniples were staggered for purposes of maneuverability. And gladii do not cut nor chop. They stab. As Vegetius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Flavius_Vegetius_Renatus) says,
"They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action." -- De Re Militaris (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/dere03.php#10)
Romans also used scale armour (Lorica Squamata) and mail (Lorica Hamata) extensivelly, especially during the later periods, when the Lorica Segmentata (the platemail armour) went out of use for some reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dKwHOfd2dkThe Katana: It is capable of cutting european style armor, in the very least a basic breastlate, this has been demonstrated.Sauces please.
eeeyup. And infantry was retired from being the primary military branch for about a millenium.Romans also used scale armour (Lorica Squamata) and mail (Lorica Hamata) extensivelly, especially during the later periods, when the Lorica Segmentata (the platemail armour) went out of use for some reason.
IIRC it went out of use because it was expensive, Rome was getting poor, and legionaries were starting to get outdated as horse-based warfare came to dominate the field of battle.
I wouldn't consider this a basis for a "blahblahblah, katanas are better" argument, but is this a sufficient demonstration? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo)This is sickening. This is the second time I've seen someone use this idiot as a supportive argument for Katanas.
I'm well aware of the fact this guy doesn't neccecarilly know what he's talking about, and what passes as leather armor for them is laughable.
Katana vs Zweihänder? Assuming both wielders are professional duellists. (two-hand styles/techniques)In #1, Katana. Zweihander too slow.
Katana vs Rapier? Same historical period and similar "noble" purpose. (one-hand stiles/techniques)
Blade polearms like the Falx and Naginata are definitely awesome.Definitely. I don't like how the katana overshadows the naginata, despite the one clearly being the weapon of choice.
The Katana: It is capable of cutting european style armor, in the very least a basic breastlate, this has been demonstrated.-Demonstrated to be crap.
The Katana taken all by itself is not a versatile weapon, this is why the style surrounding the katana is centered around footwork and positioning to allow fluid striking. It's not a very good defensive weapon, so it forces wielders to defend by being aggressive. Both of these strategies help to shore up the weaknesses of using the weapon, but it's most effective in short battles. Fortunatly, few of the kinds of battles samurai engaged in lasted very long.And they wouldn't have been used in battle at all. Unless you were a lone ronin or a police samurai hacking apart peasants. But guess what! Even in 1vs1 duels between ronin and the like, samurais using katanas were still getting smashed apart by people using farming tools and really big sticks, because they heavily overestimated their sword.
As i said, i don't know a whole lot about roman armor, so i'm curious about what you folks have to say about it.Sexy armour. Don't quite know why it stopped being used, I guess it just wasn't big and heavy enough for crazy European knights.
The role of the weapon directly correlates with the European arming sword. It was no more or less specialized. The weapon doesn't require mobility, regardless of what the traditional styles were. It's functionally very similar to a grosse messer.It was so specialized as to be completely useless outside its own field of expertise. That would be, cutting peasants and leather armour. Katanas couldn't cut through samurai armour. I doubt they would fare better against the heavier European armour.
An exceptional katana can cut, (not just pierce) metal.[CITATION_NEEDED]
The western swords tended to rely more on brute force, whilst katanas relied more on your agility and dexterity.What in the fuck dick nipples is fencing then?
Just had a look at Japanese swordsmithing. The folding process helped overcome the low quality of Japanese steel, so I highly doubt the quality will have had as much of an effect as people seem to believe it does.They were prone to breaking and shattering in combat. This was acknowledged by Japanese master smiths before they forgot how to make the things three times.
Bonobos are underpowered (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20)What in the fuck dick nipples is fencing then?Are you a Bonobo?
As i said, i don't know a whole lot about roman armor, so i'm curious about what you folks have to say about it.Sexy armour. Don't quite know why it stopped being used, I guess it just wasn't big and heavy enough for crazy European knights.
Well, I can't help but feel the reason that katanas were so bad wasn't so much due to the type of swordsmithing as the inferior iron, then.Basically, this.
How I read that.Bonobos are underpowdered (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20)What in the fuck dick nipples is fencing then?Are you a Bonobo?
It's more of a mix. 80% bad material and 20% mediocre smithing, since the actual good work was spend on making spears.Well, I can't help but feel the reason that katanas were so bad wasn't so much due to the type of swordsmithing as the inferior iron, then.Basically, this.
This is the reason why metal armor wasn't popular in Japan, because the metal was too hard to work with.
Steel with impurities is very brittle.
I don't think they are quite spears. They look more like a curved dagger on a long stick, to me.
Doru are less ridiculous spears used by hoplites in their phalanges, with a spike on the bottom for redundancy/ digging into the ground to maintain position
Katana aren't brittle. Only the edge is hard, while the rest of the sword is flexible. The purpose of folding is to remove impurities in the iron. Japan has high levels of impurity in it's iron. When you hear about high fold counts, it is an indication that the materials were refined thoroughly. It has nothing to do with the blades' sharpness.
The Katana: It is capable of cutting european style armor, in the very least a basic breastlate, this has been demonstrated.Sauces please.
I wouldn't consider this a basis for a "blahblahblah, katanas are better" argument, but is this a sufficient demonstration? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo)
I'm well aware of the fact this guy doesn't neccecarilly know what he's talking about, and what passes as leather armor for them is laughable.
I just had an argument with a coworker, he insisted that armor protects against weapons and stuff, but in a fall it would actually break your bones. He offered zero proof of this, except "well I have experience with skateboarding kneepads and stuff and they can make it worse" or something. And flexibility blah blah blah". I don't buy it - I think armor would protect against even mundane damage, not just blades and heavy weaponry. Any experts on the subject? Can falling from a horse or a second floor be worse with armor than with no armor, because you can't "roll with the fall" or some such nonsense?
I just had an argument with a coworker, he insisted that armor protects against weapons and stuff, but in a fall it would actually break your bones. He offered zero proof of this, except "well I have experience with skateboarding kneepads and stuff and they can make it worse" or something. And flexibility blah blah blah". I don't buy it - I think armor would protect against even mundane damage, not just blades and heavy weaponry. Any experts on the subject? Can falling from a horse or a second floor be worse with armor than with no armor, because you can't "roll with the fall" or some such nonsense?
From what I understand a square strike from a heavy weapon will still break bones even through armour. I wonder if the extra momentum would cause any problems when falling from height in armour.
Doru are less ridiculous spears used by hoplites in their phalanges, with a spike on the bottom for redundancy/ digging into the ground to maintain position
I heard that the extra spike at the end was also used for easily killing off wounded soldiers. Also, I've never heard about the digging into the ground to maintain position part. Unless they used the Dory as pikes to brace against the enemy, which is also something I've never heard hoplites doing.
Well yes, that steel tip is designed to protect you from falling objects, I think. There's no structure holding it in place in the shoe either, except leather. An entire boot made of steel may be different.That's precisely what it's for and even why there is a gap between the cap and my toes. It's arch-like shape deflects the force of falling objects into the ground and can hold shape against a heavy weight. If it was fitted some of the force would travel through my toes. This would be different for armour as the force of blows can't be distributed into the ground and armour would be close fitted and padded.
I think you guys are forgetting that the metal is the outer part of the armour. Knights and any soldier worth his salary is wearing leather and other padding underneath.I did mention this.
That's what I think too, the padding from the gambeson would absorb the impact, so the question is, the increase in mass would be enough to nullify said padding in the case of a fall?
I heard that the extra spike at the end was also used for easily killing off wounded soldiers.They had a shortsword for that. It was mainly for planting the spear and as redundancy in case the spear broke.
He offered zero proof of this, except "well I have experience with skateboarding kneepads and stuff and they can make it worse" or something. And flexibility blah blah blah". I don't buy it - I think armor would protect against even mundane damage, not just blades and heavy weaponry. Any experts on the subject? Can falling from a horse or a second floor be worse with armor than with no armor, because you can't "roll with the fall" or some such nonsense?Hmmm... Well, if you fall from a horse the way to minimize damage is to completely relax. If you're wearing crappy armour or you lock up it could be like a gymnast's perfect landing exploding all their joints.
Note: He also mentioned the widely debunked myth that wearing a motorcycle helmet increases the damage of your neck if you hit your head.
I read somewhere that in almost all cases, swords are curved when meant to be used from horseback. But it's just hearsay, I have no solid evidence.Khopesh, Falchion, Scimitar - anything the vikings or the Gauls used... No real correlation.
So which sort of two handed weapon do you guys like? My personal favorite is the halberd but I'm quite taken by the broadsword. I don't know why but I generally dislike curved weapons. Does anyone else feel the same way?i'd say my personal favourite would be the halberd, or a claymore.
So which sort of two handed weapon do you guys like? My personal favorite is the halberd but I'm quite taken by the broadsword. I don't know why but I generally dislike curved weapons. Does anyone else feel the same way?
Well, scimitars were used mainly on horseback. Curved blade on a sword might help for horseriding, but it isn't mandatory.I read somewhere that in almost all cases, swords are curved when meant to be used from horseback. But it's just hearsay, I have no solid evidence.Khopesh, Falchion, Scimitar - anything the vikings or the Gauls used... No real correlation.
So if curved weapons are ideal for slashing and slashing isn't very effective at going through proper metal armour would that be a reason for the absence of curved weapons in western culture?
I've always viewed it as an eastern type weapon is that because of the lack of quality armour and the heat or because of the movies and shows i've watched as being biased towards westerners?What does this mean? Some shows like to stay true to history as much as possible, others prefer historic license with magic plot device swords. This what you mean? Because slashy weapons aren't really unique to any one culture at any point in history. If you include macahuitl anyways...
I know curved weapons were around in Europe as well as their prevalence with calvary during the gunpowder age. But at the height of the gothic age if they fell out of style does that mean that curved weapons are inherently inferior to straight ones?
I've always viewed it as an eastern type weapon is that because of the lack of quality armour and the heat or because of the movies and shows i've watched as being biased towards westerners?What does this mean? Some shows like to stay true to history as much as possible, others prefer historic license with magic plot device swords. This what you mean? Because slashy weapons aren't really unique to any one culture at any point in history. If you include macahuitl anyways...
I know curved weapons were around in Europe as well as their prevalence with calvary during the gunpowder age. But at the height of the gothic age if they fell out of style does that mean that curved weapons are inherently inferior to straight ones?
"Best" is highly relevant to the situation at hand, and therefore you can't go making sweeping overgeneralizations about superiority of one weapon above the other.
"Best" is highly relevant to the situation at hand, and therefore you can't go making sweeping overgeneralizations about superiority of one weapon above the other.
Well, unless you're comparing tanks and spears or something along those lines.
Aesthetically speaking I find it odd. Not sure of its capabilities in combat though.I forget whether the blade is on the inside or the outside.
I've always thought of projectile weapons were much worse then melee weapons. Decent armour and a shield reduces casualties to a small percentage of total. This combined with the fact that archers and peltasts were incredibly vulnerable to horsemen or a sudden unexpected charge.
Were there actually any armies in ye olde days that used swords as the standard weapon? It's something that you seem to find everywhere in the modern media yet the only military I can think of are the Romans, though the gladius is mainly a thrusting sword anyway.And even then the primary weapons were the Hasta until thrown.
Aesthetically speaking I find it odd. Not sure of its capabilities in combat though.Yoinks ya shield and stabs ya face. Goes around shields and weapon guards too, which is rather nice.
Aesthetically speaking I find it odd. Not sure of its capabilities in combat though.Yoinks ya shield and stabs ya face. Goes around shields and weapon guards too, which is rather nice.
That's what I was saying. Minus the incapability to reach around a parrying weapon. Which a Khopesh would do delightfully.It's sharp on the outside. It's designed to pull away shields, but not to stab or reach around weapons.Aesthetically speaking I find it odd. Not sure of its capabilities in combat though.Yoinks ya shield and stabs ya face. Goes around shields and weapon guards too, which is rather nice.
I was agreeing on the shieldpull. But no, it's not supposed to reach around weapons. You can't do that with a khopesh any more than with an ordinary sword. It would leave a giant opening in your defence.It is a short sword. It is very hard to parry a short sword. That makes it very effective at getting past parrying weapons.
It's not that kind of short sword.Bah! Not a shortsword, a short sword!
Short swords are hard to block because they're easy and quick to stab with.Modern fencing swords evolved from dueling swords which evolved from short swords which replaced rapiers. All were characterized for being quick and stabby. They differed on length. More length means more time and room to parry against - as the parry is directed to the top of the sword. As such it becomes near impossible to parry a significantly shorter sword before they stab you.
You don't stab with a khopeshThis was a mis-use of terming from me, I meant in more of a thrusting fashion than a stabbing fashion, because the Khopesh was used to quite literally hit your face and your bones!
you slash (in fact the main difference between the khopesh and axes is that it slashes instead of cuts).Definition of slash
The hasta are thrusting spears. I think the term you're looking for is Pilum.Were there actually any armies in ye olde days that used swords as the standard weapon? It's something that you seem to find everywhere in the modern media yet the only military I can think of are the Romans, though the gladius is mainly a thrusting sword anyway.And even then the primary weapons were the Hasta until thrown.
Eeyup.The hasta are thrusting spears. I think the term you're looking for is Pilum.Were there actually any armies in ye olde days that used swords as the standard weapon? It's something that you seem to find everywhere in the modern media yet the only military I can think of are the Romans, though the gladius is mainly a thrusting sword anyway.And even then the primary weapons were the Hasta until thrown.
Although I remember Napoleon isntructed his cavalry to stab rather than slash. Which to me sound like a perfect way to break your wrist, but I guess the little guy knew more about early 19th century warfare than I do.
"Cuts often failed from the blade turning enough to make the blow one with the flat."
"There were numerous cases where cavalryman received many slashes or cuts and continued his fight."
"The cut was more instinctive blow than the thrust and in melees the men tended to cut even if their sabers were more suited to the thrust."Hastily googled source. (http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cavalry_tactics.html#cutslashthrust)
" - It was difficult to retrieve fast enough the blade from enemy's torso without having the hand twisted or even being thrown off the horse. To avoid these problems the thrust couldn't be too deep. Shallow thrust however was not deadly.
- To deliver an effective thrust one must lean forward. It exposes him to a cut ("he made a thrust at my groin I parried it off and cut him down through the head.") For this reason the heavy cavalryman was protected with helmet. Not every man was determined to allow the enemy to test his helmet"
It's not that kind of short sword.Bah! Not a shortsword, a short sword!Short swords are hard to block because they're easy and quick to stab with.Modern fencing swords evolved from dueling swords which evolved from short swords which replaced rapiers. All were characterized for being quick and stabby. They differed on length. More length means more time and room to parry against - as the parry is directed to the top of the sword. As such it becomes near impossible to parry a significantly shorter sword before they stab you.
You don't stab with a khopeshThis was a mis-use of terming from me, I meant in more of a thrusting fashion than a stabbing fashion, because the Khopesh was used to quite literally hit your face and your bones!
you slash (in fact the main difference between the khopesh and axes is that it slashes instead of cuts).Definition of slash
verb
[with object]
1. Cut with a wide, sweeping movement, typically using a knife or sword.
Semantics >_>
...And this has what to do with the topic at hand? Khopesh still arent stabby. They just weren't used that way. It doesn't automatically become a stabbing weapon because it's short.Scriver, I honestly don't even think we're talking about the same thing anymore. Unless it holds some sort of value as well, don't ascribe certain bits of information to hold allegiance to anyone. This is general discussion, not general argument.
I really don't see the difference between thrust and stab, but I don't think it is relevant anyway - neither would be effective with a khopesh, which needs a slashing motion to be effective, just like a curved sword.WOOSH WOOSH EUHGBLErUHREUH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRYM6B7CTs8)
You know what? I give up. You can believe the khopesh was used like that if you want to. It makes no sense, but sure. A guy on the tele did it.Yep. I must've been serious when I said it stabs ya face.
...but the Arakh isn't a Khupesh... It's just a weapon that looks like a Khupesh.
Khopesh looking sword
Stop having fun
Stop having fun? Never. :PStop having fun
(http://www.test.glyphgryph.com/Rotator/rotate.php)Adorable :D
I think tear gas canisters would baffle and scare the vikings into believing that the riot police were a band of mighty wizards.Vikings: GOOD FIGHT
In any case, how would a line of riot police fare against a charge of vikings?I know you've said line which implies just a load of guys on foot with helmets, shields, batons, and other armour, but riot police have more gear than that. Tasers, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, water cannons, horses, dogs, Armoured vehicles, sound based weapons, and even firearms at times. A lot of this would baffle the Vikings as has been said but the Vikings themselves would baffle the police too.
Things I have learned regarding a riot shield line:this reads like a script for a Monty Python sketch. :P
They fight a lot like Roman Legionaires. You will not break them by charging. You will not break them by shooting, unless you go big dakka.
One good way to break a line of tustedo would be to use Elephants. The modern and superior equivalent would be a Forklift truck.
A single Viking in a forklift truck could decimate the entire line and break the police kettle, leaving plenty of space for more Vikings to rush through. The fight would be over soon as the wall faltered and the cumbersome shields met axe and spear.
So the question is, did the Vikings historically use Forklifts in battle?
As the battle of Stamford Bridge shows, yes. It is why Harold Godwinson attacked the Vikings first instead of the Normans. He feared that would the Vikings successfully employ their Forklift trucks, all would be lost. So he rushed North to make sure they would not survive preparations. Attacking before the Vikings could employ their Forklift trucks was a brilliant strategical move, and knowing confusion defeat, Harold Hardrada ordered the Vikings to destroy the few surviving trucks; a devastating blow to Harold Godwinson who wished to use them against the Normans. Viking Forklift trucks would never be seen again as heavy infantry fell from the spotlight of conventional warfare.
Vikings: 1
Riot police: 0
Saxons: Sour
Normans: Stole their kill LOL
But the Extend-o-Batons aren't designed to kill. Only incapacitate.we can always replace them with horseman's picks if you want
Which is kind of cruel when you think about how every Viking dreams of an honourable death in combat.
But the Extend-o-Batons aren't designed to kill. Only incapacitate.Good gods. The only army in the world where not killing them demoralizes them!
Which is kind of cruel when you think about how every Viking dreams of an honourable death in combat.
That kind of reminds me of some of the crazier celtic battle strategies. Like taking off all your clothes and painting your naked body blue and going to battle that way. It's kind of the ultimate insult. "fuck you, i'm not afraid of you, and to prove it i'll leave my balls an open target for you."But the Extend-o-Batons aren't designed to kill. Only incapacitate.Good gods. The only army in the world where not killing them demoralizes them!
Which is kind of cruel when you think about how every Viking dreams of an honourable death in combat.
That kind of reminds me of some of the crazier celtic battle strategies. Like taking off all your clothes and painting your naked body blue and going to battle that way. It's kind of the ultimate insult. "fuck you, i'm not afraid of you, and to prove it i'll leave my balls an open target for you."It wasn't really a battle strategy so much as when Winter came around they would roll around being naked and such to prove how tough they were. Then battle shows up, and well, they're already naked, why bother? :P
Vikings had a comparable version to that only they added hallucinogenic mushrooms to the mix increasing the fun factor by 3 folds.That kind of reminds me of some of the crazier celtic battle strategies. Like taking off all your clothes and painting your naked body blue and going to battle that way. It's kind of the ultimate insult. "fuck you, i'm not afraid of you, and to prove it i'll leave my balls an open target for you."But the Extend-o-Batons aren't designed to kill. Only incapacitate.Good gods. The only army in the world where not killing them demoralizes them!
Which is kind of cruel when you think about how every Viking dreams of an honourable death in combat.
Barbarism is a relative term. Most of the people Roman Historians dubbed "barbarians"That kind of reminds me of some of the crazier celtic battle strategies. Like taking off all your clothes and painting your naked body blue and going to battle that way. It's kind of the ultimate insult. "fuck you, i'm not afraid of you, and to prove it i'll leave my balls an open target for you."It wasn't really a battle strategy so much as when Winter came around they would roll around being naked and such to prove how tough they were. Then battle shows up, and well, they're already naked, why bother? :P
The Celts were awesome. Don't listen to Roman Historians who say they were barbarians, the Romans didn't find all their torture and massacres barbaric - they found the fact that they did it in the names of their Gods to be barbaric!
Those flag things? I didnt realise they were functional - I thought that they were there as some kind of badge or standard identifying who they were fighting with/for.
Oh, and they are called Sashimono, though there are a few basic subtypes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sashimono)
More like a Horo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horo_(cloak))?
you're missing a bracket :P
Eh, barbarian literally meant "not a roman / greek".Even more literally, it meant someone whose language (non-Greek, at the origination of the term) just sounds like they're babbling "Bar bar bar bar barbar bar baaar bar!' when they talk. (Although later it also applied to badly-spoken Greek, usually as done by non-natives.) Or it could have been a reference to the beards of the barbarians, with the same linguistic root as "Barber" has, regarding beard, but unless there's a stylistic distinction from the barbarian kind, classicist (and contemporaneously classical!) depictions of Greeks often included beards on their elders, at least, so that explanation seems a stranger and less likely etymology to me.
It's interesting how some weapons were given attributes. Bows were seen as womanly for as far back as Ancient Greece[...]