MerakSpielman
First Post
Enkhidu said:
Personally, I think I'd notice if my whole body was armored except my own, tender legs. Why didn't they work out some sort of leg protection? They couldn't have just not thought of it.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
[ot] What happens when a sword hits chainmail?
- Thread starter MerakSpielman
- Start date
Personally, I think I'd notice if my whole body was armored except my own, tender legs. Why didn't they work out some sort of leg protection? They couldn't have just not thought of it.
Thorvald Kviksverd
First Post
WRT the Battle of Visby, I remember reading about the wounds inflicted, but for the life of me, I can't dig it up right now.
Anyway, here's something interesting from John Keegan's A History of Warfare...
One of the most gruesome discoveries made at the disinterment of the mass grave on Gotland, containing 2000 bodies from the battle of Visby of 1361, was that many of the dead had been extensively mutilated--typically by repeated sword-cuts down their shins--and such cuts could only have been inflicted after they were disabled. (p121)
I wonder if this ritual mutilation skewed the data somewhat?
That's not to say that the legs weren't prime targets however.
The legs were especially vulnerable in the earlier Viking period (10th c. or so), when leg armour was non-existent (being foregone in the interest of mobility--amongst other reasons) and the round shield was used in preference to the even earlier oval shield, or the later kite.
The sagas are filled with stories of men's legs being sheared off, which is one reason they practiced the "salmon leap"--the best defense against a blow is to not get hit by it!
Anyway, here's something interesting from John Keegan's A History of Warfare...
One of the most gruesome discoveries made at the disinterment of the mass grave on Gotland, containing 2000 bodies from the battle of Visby of 1361, was that many of the dead had been extensively mutilated--typically by repeated sword-cuts down their shins--and such cuts could only have been inflicted after they were disabled. (p121)
I wonder if this ritual mutilation skewed the data somewhat?
That's not to say that the legs weren't prime targets however.
The legs were especially vulnerable in the earlier Viking period (10th c. or so), when leg armour was non-existent (being foregone in the interest of mobility--amongst other reasons) and the round shield was used in preference to the even earlier oval shield, or the later kite.
The sagas are filled with stories of men's legs being sheared off, which is one reason they practiced the "salmon leap"--the best defense against a blow is to not get hit by it!
Last edited:
alsih2o
First Post
here are tests with pictures for your entertainment 
http://www.thehaca.com/spotlight/TestCutting/TestCuttingEvent2.htm
these madmen got together and hacked up ham hocks (say that 10 times real fast) with different swords protecting the ham in different ways. one of those ways was some chainmail
http://www.thehaca.com/spotlight/TestCutting/TestCuttingEvent2.htm
these madmen got together and hacked up ham hocks (say that 10 times real fast) with different swords protecting the ham in different ways. one of those ways was some chainmail
Thorvald Kviksverd
First Post
NOTE: The above is the butted mail Zaruthustran was commenting on from the link I provided earlier. The riveted mail did much better, but bruises and broken bones would still be a distinct possibility.
Similar Threads
