-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
History, Mythology, Art and RPGs
- Thread starter Galloglaich
- Start date
Galloglaich
First Post
I've read that the Egyptians did something similar, but can't find any record of it- nice to see someone else in the ancient world was that clever...which could also be the explanation for me not finding such data on the Egyptians.
Galloglaich
First Post
Just wanted to share this, regarding HEMA-istas not fighting hard, here is a video of a buddy from my fencing club Henry Rhodes, fighting in the steel longsword tournament at "Swordfish" in Sweden last week
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kJyRVtG4e0&feature=related]YouTube - Swordfish 2010 - Steel Robert vs Henry 2nd bout[/ame]
This also gives you an idea of how fast real fencing was, and also of the effect of armor on a sword... we fight in these bouts with a minimum of protective gear, a fencing mask, strong gloves, a gambeson just like they wore beneath mail in the old days, and a few light pads. And yet there were very few injuries at this event, one broken finger, a few minor gashes and a bunch of bruises. Nobody missed work the next week.
Now compare with this
YouTube - NYHFA's Channel
and this
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/Thrusts_on_Maille_Pt_I.mp4
Put that together and here is the conclusion I come to:
1) With correct technique, a longsword can easily cut a person to pieces without a huge effort (those tatami mats are designed to simulate human limbs, and there are plenty of nearly identical tests also on video done on animal carcasses and pork shoulders, sides of beef etc. I've done quite a bit of that myself)
2) Real historical type Mail armor will however completely neutralize the cutting effect of swords and will stop thrusts as well except to the extent that the point can get inside a link (which only works for very narrow point swords)
3) The sparring we do in little more than a gambeson indicates that the impact effect of cuts from a sword is a negligible factor compared to the horrific effects of a cut with a sharp edge or a thrust with a sharp point.
4) The solution to dealing with an armored opponent was to cut around the armor or to use specialized armor-piercing weapons. There is ample forensic evidence for the former and a preponderance of evidence for the latter which remained ubiquitous throughout European history.
5) Therefore the whole basis for the SCA heavy-combat philosophy about mail armor is obsolete and should be revised.
This does not however mean that swords were obsolete. Head to toe armor coverage was extremely rare historically and did not exist at all except for a tiny number of specialized troops until roughly the 1300s, when it became merely rare for a while in Europe until roughly 1520 AD when armor use began to decline due to cannon and the rapid increase of the scale of warfare with massed guns and pikes.
G.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kJyRVtG4e0&feature=related]YouTube - Swordfish 2010 - Steel Robert vs Henry 2nd bout[/ame]
This also gives you an idea of how fast real fencing was, and also of the effect of armor on a sword... we fight in these bouts with a minimum of protective gear, a fencing mask, strong gloves, a gambeson just like they wore beneath mail in the old days, and a few light pads. And yet there were very few injuries at this event, one broken finger, a few minor gashes and a bunch of bruises. Nobody missed work the next week.
Now compare with this
YouTube - NYHFA's Channel
and this
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/Thrusts_on_Maille_Pt_I.mp4
Put that together and here is the conclusion I come to:
1) With correct technique, a longsword can easily cut a person to pieces without a huge effort (those tatami mats are designed to simulate human limbs, and there are plenty of nearly identical tests also on video done on animal carcasses and pork shoulders, sides of beef etc. I've done quite a bit of that myself)
2) Real historical type Mail armor will however completely neutralize the cutting effect of swords and will stop thrusts as well except to the extent that the point can get inside a link (which only works for very narrow point swords)
3) The sparring we do in little more than a gambeson indicates that the impact effect of cuts from a sword is a negligible factor compared to the horrific effects of a cut with a sharp edge or a thrust with a sharp point.
4) The solution to dealing with an armored opponent was to cut around the armor or to use specialized armor-piercing weapons. There is ample forensic evidence for the former and a preponderance of evidence for the latter which remained ubiquitous throughout European history.
5) Therefore the whole basis for the SCA heavy-combat philosophy about mail armor is obsolete and should be revised.
This does not however mean that swords were obsolete. Head to toe armor coverage was extremely rare historically and did not exist at all except for a tiny number of specialized troops until roughly the 1300s, when it became merely rare for a while in Europe until roughly 1520 AD when armor use began to decline due to cannon and the rapid increase of the scale of warfare with massed guns and pikes.
G.
According to some tests I've seen, a well-placed blow from a sword, even against a foe in full armor, can deliver enough force to render a limb nerveless, opening the foe to more lethal blows, and in rare cases, could initiate a hydrostatic shock wave strong enough to disrupt cardio-pulmonary functions.
Sure, weapons like axes & maces could do that better, but swords tend to have a few more inches of reach, and can slip into exposed gaps. They're...more flexible, in a sense.
Galloglaich
First Post
I think if swords could stop your heart from impacts you would be seeing a lot of deaths in HEMA right now, there are something like 10 or 12 major tournaments per year currently and most people wear little more protection on the chest than maybe a bit of plastic and the gambeson traditionally worn under a mail coat, some heavy gloves and a fencing mask which is considerably inferior protection (especially on the sides and top of the head) to a real historical military helmet. Look at the tournament video I posted above, those guys are fighting with steel swords, if the video quality was better you could see the sparks (you can see them quite clearly in some others). Dozens of people fought over and over in that event, and as you can see they aren't holding back in their cuts. And yet all they get is a few very minor injuries, bruises and small cuts. If they were using sharp swords of course there would be arms and legs all over the floor, but the swords are blunts, but realistic like a real sword not some 6 pound re-enactor crow-bar (which I think may be the source of the legend about swords and hydrostatic shock).
When using a sword against a fully armored opponent, you use half-swording techniques to thrust-only. This is what you see in the judicial combat manuals from the era of Plate Armor, of which we have a few dozen surviving. I don't think any of those manuals depict a sword being used to cut somebody in armor.
I think the real advantage of a sword is in cutting unprotected flesh, first and foremost, it's better than an axe or a mace in an even fight because it's very dangerous / unpleasant to grab a sharp blade compared to a wooden haft, and you don't need momentum to cause injuries with a sword. And yes they are more nimble than other hand-weapons as well. People don't understand how quickly and easily a sword fight can turn into a wrestling match, the edge and point of a sword helps prevent that. Of course a blunt sword can break your hand or your forearm or even your skull, but not as easily as you would think.
Swords during the heydey of armor were often of the extremely pointy variety (Oakeshott XIV, XV, XVIIII etc.) and this was so you could pierce through gaps in armor with the point, and maybe pierce the armor itself with a half-sword thrust though I've yet to see that done in a test. But your principle weapon against an armored opponent would be a lance, a halberd, an ahlespeiss, a war-hammer, a mace, or a dagger.
A fully armored fighter would only face a certain amount of their peers (fully armored opponents), typically the biggest threat on the battlefield would be from being swarmed larger numbers of lower ranking warriors would would be protected with partial armor or no armor at all. This is where the sword becomes a truly excellent sidearm and quite literally a lifesaver.
But cutting through armor? Killing armored men with hydrostatic shock? I really don't think that is realistic.
G.
When using a sword against a fully armored opponent, you use half-swording techniques to thrust-only. This is what you see in the judicial combat manuals from the era of Plate Armor, of which we have a few dozen surviving. I don't think any of those manuals depict a sword being used to cut somebody in armor.
I think the real advantage of a sword is in cutting unprotected flesh, first and foremost, it's better than an axe or a mace in an even fight because it's very dangerous / unpleasant to grab a sharp blade compared to a wooden haft, and you don't need momentum to cause injuries with a sword. And yes they are more nimble than other hand-weapons as well. People don't understand how quickly and easily a sword fight can turn into a wrestling match, the edge and point of a sword helps prevent that. Of course a blunt sword can break your hand or your forearm or even your skull, but not as easily as you would think.
Swords during the heydey of armor were often of the extremely pointy variety (Oakeshott XIV, XV, XVIIII etc.) and this was so you could pierce through gaps in armor with the point, and maybe pierce the armor itself with a half-sword thrust though I've yet to see that done in a test. But your principle weapon against an armored opponent would be a lance, a halberd, an ahlespeiss, a war-hammer, a mace, or a dagger.
A fully armored fighter would only face a certain amount of their peers (fully armored opponents), typically the biggest threat on the battlefield would be from being swarmed larger numbers of lower ranking warriors would would be protected with partial armor or no armor at all. This is where the sword becomes a truly excellent sidearm and quite literally a lifesaver.
But cutting through armor? Killing armored men with hydrostatic shock? I really don't think that is realistic.
G.
Last edited:
Galloglaich
First Post
Also I don't think an axe will cut through mail any more than a sword will, unless it has a back-spike specifically made for armor-piercing.
G.
True, but even without a back-spike, the flared head & overall shape of an axe is a bit better at hooking limbs and the like.
And the fact that it's mass is concentrated at the head means it's center of mass is way out there too (as opposed to the hilt or uniform distribution in swords), meaning you deliver a lot of force at that curved point of impact...more than a sword of similar mass...and that translates into a better chance of inflicting damage via hydrostatic shock.
How would you suggest this being done? Strikes on the unarmored parts are lethal?
Galloglaich
First Post
Yes that's true, the 'grappling from a distance' factor is major, I also think the pointy parts of axes (the top and bottom of the blade) are significant. Axes used for combat seem to have either very small axe-heads (good for concentrating force) or very wide with long pointy ends which I think are for piercing.
G.
